[00:00:07]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. IT IS 2 PM.
[Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance]
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18. I CALLED THE SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.COUNCILMAN WAYNE SIBLEY WILL LEAD US TO THE INVOCATION AND PLEDGES.
>> LET'S PRAY. HEAVENLY FATHER WE THANK YOU FOR THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY TODAY AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER AND WORK ON THE PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR THIS COMMUNITY. WE LOOK OUT FOR OUR CITIZENS AND EVERYTHING WE DO WE ASK YOU GUIDE US AND DIRECT US AS YOU WOULD HAVE US DO THE RIGHT THING.
FORGIVE US FOR OUR SINS IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.
>> AGENDA ITEM 2021 - 532. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD AT THIS
[2021-532]
TIME THE COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC ON THE AGENDA. YOU'LL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. I WILL GIVE YOU 32ND MORNING.I NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP.
>> I LIVE IN HILLCREST AND MIDLOTHIAN OF COURSE.
YOU KNOW WHO I AM BUT I WANT TO SAY I'M A VERY THANKFUL FOR THE TRANSPARENT, YOU ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY. I EMAILED CLARK AND I JUST WANT TO IT WAS GOOD HE WAS ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE.
THESE WERE THE AGENDA ITEMS AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING AND IT WAS A HEARING THE MEETING AROUND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM IN THE PUBLIC OTHER COMMENTS HEARD.
THEY CLOSED THE PUBLIC INTO FURTHER DEBATE THERE WERE MANY CHANGES THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS A RATING ORDINANCE ON A PIECE PAPER, POOR GUY. I SAID THAT, NOT CLARK.
AS THE REST OF THE ATTORNEY IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS CHANGED.
HE SAID HE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SO I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD TOLD THE CITY MANAGER THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO TABLE THE ITEM AFTER TALKING TO EVERYONE.
WE AGREED ON THURSDAY AND MADE IT A DAY MEETING BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTED ALREADY BEEN CLOSED AND ARE UPDATING LANGUAGE THE MAYOR MADE THE MOTION ETC. TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 2 PM. THAT IS WHY IT IS AT 2 PM.
TO ENSURE WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING ON A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL THE BOXES ARE CHECKED AND THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES ANY PERSON HAS IT RIGHT TO ASK ABOUT THE INCENTIVE IT. IT'S UP TO COUNSEL TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO, ALL THEY DID WAS ASK, ETC. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING TRANSPARENT WITH ME ABOUT EVERYTHING. I WHAT WE LEARNED, I RECEIVE CLARIFICATION AND I'M VERY THINK OVER THAT.
MY BRAIN WAS SURGICALLY REMOVED SO I SOUND FLAT BUT I'M VERY KIND, I ENJOY YOU ALL, NOTHING WAS WRONG AND YOU ALL HAD A NO PROBLEM IT REALLY THE TRUTH SO I THINK OF THAT.
I WILL SAY THOUGH I DON'T LIKE THE CITY MEETINGS BEING HELD DURING THE DAY. JUST FOR TRANSPARENCIES SAKE, IT DOES NOT LOOK SUPER GOOD. BUT THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR BEING WILLING TO EDUCATE AND TRANSPARENT.
[2021-533]
[00:05:08]
>> ITEM 2021 - 533. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF APPROXIMATELY 356 ACRES IN THE CHAMBLEE SURVEY ABSTRACT 192.
THE HAVEN SURVEY ABSTRACT 9327 SURVEY 1015 AND THE NEWTON SURVEY ABSTRACT 792. BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY ONE DISTRICT, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN TWO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 147 FOUR COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 67 AND EAST OF WARD ROAD.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. WE'RE TEST LAST THURSDAY TO GO BACK THROUGH THE MOTIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE.
VARIOUS CONCERNS WE HAD WITH THE APPLICANT.
REGARDING CERTAIN LANGUAGE. I WILL GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS. ONE WAS WYNWOOD AND NEW T8 WOULD BE REQUIRED. WITH HIS LANGUAGE WE DID THE MOST RECENT PACKET TO THIS HAS BEEN A NONSTOP PROCESS SINCE LAST THURSDAY. EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON WE EMAILED YOU THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCE.
UNDER SUBSECTION K, SUBSECTION 2 IT SAYS IF A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUESTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY WILL RESULT IN ONE OR MORE CERTIFICATES FOR USES OTHER THAN WAREHOUSING AND ANY IT MANUAL WHICH IS THE ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION MANUAL CODE 150 OR THE USE OF A BUILDING PRODUCING CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY USE . PERCENTAGE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A WAREHOUSE USE IS 150 AS COMPARED TO ANOTHER USE THE NEW TIA SHOULD BE REQUIRED. THE SORENESS WE ALSO ADDRESS MANY OTHER THINGS SUCH AS WHEN IS THE PUBLIC INSTRUCTION REQUIRED, UPON WHAT PHASE OF THE PROJECT, HERE ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE AMAZING PLANS OF DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
ALSO YOU'LL NOTICE ON HIS EXHIBIT IS THE NEW FLOW OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS COUNSEL HAD MENTIONED ON THE LAST THURSDAY MEETING WORKING WITH THEM. A LOT OF THIS IS CONTINGENT UPON THE CFOS BEEN ISSUED. CERTAIN PUBLIC INSTRUCTORS HAVE TO BE IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO USE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT. ALSO, ON YOUR BEHALF WE HAVE, IT'S NOT PLAINTIFF, I APOLOGIZE.
IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL, YOU WILL SEE ON PAGE 31 THROUGH 34.
YOU WILL SEE THE REVISED LAYOUT FOR THE SITE.
SHOWING THE CROSS AXIS WHERE WAS ON WHITE ROAD WHEN DOES THE TRANSITION OCCURRED FROM A WHY IT TO WARD ROAD.
THAT INCLUDED THE ORDINANCE BRAND-NEW EXHIBIT SHOWING WHERE THAT WILL BE LAID OUT. WE INCLUDED THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS THROUGHOUT THE ORDINANCE THE RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY SLOPE HAS BEEN INCLUDED.
IF THERE ARE ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED OR BEEN USED RESIDENTIAL THE BUILDING CAN ONLY BE SO HIGH.
AND WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF CERTAIN SLOPE CONFIGURATION.
THAT WILL IMPACT FROM THE NORTH AND TO THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. BASICALLY, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
>> I HAVE ONE QUICK WHEN CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE? YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A PHASING THAT HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT BUT YOU DID NOT SPECIFY THE COLOR CODE.
I HAD A GREEN, RED AND BLUE. I CAN'T READ WHAT THAT SAYS.
>> EVERYTHING GREEN IS THE FIRST PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
WHICH BUILDINGS WILL BE BUILT FIRST.
THE RED IS INFRASTRUCTURE PHAS .
AND THE BLUE IS THE LAST PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
[00:10:07]
THAT IS HOW IT IS BROKEN DOWN INTO PHASES.>> TO BE CLEAR, ONE OF OUR BIG CONCERNS FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS THE COMPLETION OF INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST SEO, IS THAT STILL THE CASE?
>> DOES EVERYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE SENT EARLIER THIS MORNING, LATE THIS MORNING?
>> I THINK IT WOULD HELP IF YOU HAD A COPY OF THAT.
WE EMAILED OUT, GRANTED IT WAS A COUPLE HOURS AGO, WE REALIZE IT WAS KIND OF LATE BUT WE HAVE LITERALLY BEEN WORKING VIRTUALLY TO THE LAST MINUTE SO WE WOULD HAVE TO VISIT IT AGAIN. THE WAY WE STRUCTURED, THERE IS A NEW SECTION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO CERTAIN ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. THAT SECTION CALLS OUT PRETTY MUCH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ARTERIAL ROADS, THE INTERIOR ROADS WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE AS PART OF THAT PLATTING ANYWAY.
SO THE MAIN THING HAS BEEN THE BOUNDARY ROADS, FORT WORTH ROAD. THE WAY WE HAVE IT SET UP RIGHT NOW IS THAT THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST EVERYTHING WITHIN WARD ROAD WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DONE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CO BOTH ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND ENTER THE PROPERTY AS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. THE SECTION ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. I NEED TO SCROLL DOWN TO THIS SECTION SO I'VE GOT IT. SO BASICALLY, WE HAVE GOT THE SEGMENT OF OLD FORT WORTH ROAD ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND ALL OF IT WARD ROAD NEEDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED IF WE GET UNDER SECTION P. IT'S ON PAGE 20, STARTS ON PAGE 20. WE HAVE GOT A SERIES OF A SET OF DEFINITIONS. ALONG THE 67 SERVICE ROAD.
GO AHEAD AND SCROLL DOWN MORE. WE FIND THERE IS AN OFF-SITE SEGMENT AS WELL AS OLD FORT WORTH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE DEFINED. THE WARD ROAD EXTENSION IS A DEFINED AND SO KEEPS GROWING DOWN A LITTLE MORE.
SCROLL DOWN AT SUMMIT MORE. ALL RIGHT, SO BASICALLY, THE DEFINITION OF A ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING BOARD ROAD EXTENSION, T CELL LANES AND THE OLD FORT WORTH ROAD ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE OFF-SITE SECTION THIS WAS THE PART I THINK WAS DISCUSSED AGAIN, JOE HAD THE BENEFIT OF BEING HERE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, I WAS NOT, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THERE WAS A CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD ALLOW BASICALLY PROVIDE FOR THE OLD FORT WORTH ROAD SEGMENT OFF-SITE AS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE THEY CAN GET A CO FOR ONE OF TWO THINGS.
ANYTHING NORTH OF THE EAST-WEST ROAD EXCEPT BUILDING FOR WHICH WAS A GREEN BOX WHICH IS ON THE PHASING PLAN OR ANYTHING MORE THAN 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER,
>> ISN'T THAT ONE AND THE SAME?
>> UNLESS THEY CHANGE THE SITE PLAN I WILL THINK ANYTHING SOUTH OF THE EAST-WEST ROAD IS OF THAT SIZE.
>> NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT COLLECTIVELY.
>> HOWEVER, AS WAYNE POINTED OUT IN THE PRIOR COUNCIL MEETING THE DEVELOPER DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST WHERE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR OLD FORT WORTH ROAD FROM THAT
[00:15:02]
SEGMENT FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WE NEED TO BE REQUIRED. ACQUIRED.SO IF THEY WANTED TO GET A CO FOR ANYTHING NORTH EXCEPT BUILDING NUMBER FOUR OR ANYTHING NORTH OF 1.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO POST A BOND OR WE HAVE GONE AHEAD AND HAVE AN OPTION FOR A LETTER OF CREDIT AS WELL INSTEAD OF JUST A BOND. BASED ON ENTERING COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT OFF-SITE SEGMENT.
BASICALLY, THEY WOULD PUT BOND FOR THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTING IT. THE CITY WOULD NEED TO ACQUIRE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. NOW, THROUGH ANY MEANS.
ANY OR ALL MEANS IF THE CITY DESIRES.
>> SO THEY WILL PAY FOR IT BUT WE HAVE TO BUY THE DIRT?
>> WELL, WE MAY NOT HAVE TO BUY THE CHURCH.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO DEVELOP THEN THAT PROPERTY WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONVEYED TO THE CITY AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. PURSUANT TO OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES.
A LOT OF IT DEPENDS ON THEM AND ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN FOUR YEARS. BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. THAT IS THE CONDITION.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS BECAUSE IT'S AN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION, LEGALLY, TO FORCE THEM TO BUILD THAT. BUT THEY HAVE AGREED TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IN AN EFFORT, OF COURSE THAT IS ALSO POTENTIALLY INELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE IMPACT FEE PROJECT AS WELL BECAUSE IT IS OFF-SITE. SO EVEN IF THEY PAY FOR IT UPFRONT THEY MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE UNDER STATE LAW AS AN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT FOR AN IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE PROJECT WE WOULD HAVE TO REIMBURSE THEM IF THEY PAY FOR IT. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS GOING TO BE CITY FUNDS BUT IT'LL BE IMPACT FEE FUNDS THAT WE WOULD COLLECT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> ARE WE GETTING COPIES? WHAT IS THE GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT IMPACT FEES?
>> AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT AGREED TO ANYTHING ON IMPACT ONE OF THE THINGS, AS A STAFF, WE TALKED EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE ISSUE AND WENT SAYING WE WERE ON THE TRAIL TO MAYBE TRY TO DEVELOP A DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WOULD ADDRESS IMPACT FEES BUT AT THIS POINT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, WE HAVE GOT ZONING AND SITE PLANS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ACTUAL CIVIL DRAWINGS OR OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE KNOW WHAT IS ACTUALLY AND FINALLY GOING TO BE BUILT.
SO WE DON'T AT THIS POINT EVEN KNOW WHAT IS FULLY IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE. WE CAN GUESS.
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY HAS MADE NO COMMITMENT OR STAFF IS ASKING THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A COMMITMENT ON IMPACT FEES.
WE ANTICIPATE BECAUSE NOT ONLY THE ROADWAY ISSUES ON IMPACT FEES AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES WE NEED SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, MIKE HAS ADVISED WE MAY EVEN BE LOOKING AT SOME OVERSIZING ON SOME OF WATERLINES GOING TO THIS PROPERTY THAT THE CITY WOULD BE NEEDING TO CONTRIBUTE.WE ANTICIPATE WE ARE GOING TO NEED A NEW DEPONENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THE PLAT IS DONE.
AS WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THIS DRAWING, CIVIL DRAWING REVIEW.
AT THIS POINT THERE IS NO COMMITMENT ON IMPACT FEES.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE OR CAN COMMIT.
>> SO FROM A WORST-CASE PERSPECTIVE IF WE DON'T REACH AN AGREEMENT WHAT IS THE DEFAULT?
>> STATE LAW. AND EXISTING ORDINANCES.
THERE ARE PROVISIONS AND ORDINANCES AS WELL AS STATE LAW REGARDING WHEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE CREDITS WHEN YOU TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES.
>> WHAT WOULD COMPEL NOT ONLY THIS APPLICANT BUT ANY APPLICANT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO MORE THAN WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES IF NOT GETTING IT ON THE FRONT END, WOULD RATE THEY EVEN COME TO THE TABLE?
>> OUTSIDE THE NEED TO MARKET THE PROPERTY FOR FOLKS WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE EGRESS TO THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE
[00:20:02]
CONSULTING WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.AND THAT CERTAINLY HAS A COMMERCIAL MARKET IMPACT ON THE TYPE OF FACILITIES WE ARE LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTING.I THINK THERE IS SOME SELF INTEREST IN DOING THAT.
PLUS, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THEY MAY WANT FROM THE CITY AT SOME POINT THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE IN A WAY OF SERVICES.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE DECELERATION LANES ARE THEY GOING IN AS PART OF THE INITIAL INFRASTRUCTURE?
>> YES, THAT IS PART OF THE COLLECTIVE DEFINITION OF ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
>> CHRIS, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THE FEES?
>> IT IS A MENTIONED RIGHT NOW WE KNOW WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES. I THINK THE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, THE HARD PART, REMEMBER IMPACT FEES ARE NOT PAID UNTIL THE BILLING DEPARTMENT IS PULLED.
VICIOUS WAREHOUSING, IF IT SWITCHES TO MANUFACTURING IT'S DIFFERENT. SO WE LOOKING AT 2 MILLION, WHO KNOWS 6 MILLION OR 7 MILLION. THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF WHAT THE IMPACT FEES CAN ACTUALLY BE IN A PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS.
TYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THE ENGINEERS ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION WE SAY WE WILL REIMBURSE THE IMPACT FEES UP TO THE ACTUAL COST OR THE AMOUNT WE COLLECT WHICHEVER IS LESS. SO WE LIMIT WHAT WE ARE SENDING BACK. THE PROBLEM WITH IT AT THIS POINT IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS GOING TO COST.
>> SO YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IS PASSING THE WAY THE IMPACT FEE SITUATION IS RIGHT NOW?
>> LET ME BE CLEAR, THE ONLY THING IS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW STATE LAW. AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE ARE NOT GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STATE LAW.
WE MIGHT WHEN WE GET INTO THE DEVELOPING AGREEMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR AGENDA WE HAD THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WE WERE TRYING TO GET THAT DONE. IT JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. I CAN TELL YOU THE DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE TO GET ALL THE IMPACT FEES PAID BUT AGAIN WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IMPACT FEES TO PAY AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THE COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE.
>> FOR CLARIFICATION THERE'S NOTHING MENTIONED IN THE ORDINANCE.
>> DOES STAFF FEEL THIS REFLECTS THE DISCUSSION WE HAD A TUESDAY NIGHT? AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
>> I BELIEVE IT DOES. KEVIN HAS ALREADY ALLUDED THE MOST DIFFICULT WE WERE TALKING UNTIL 2 O'CLOCK THIS AFTERNOON WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS OLD FORT WORTH ROAD.ECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION.
WE ALL KNOW, HOW A RIGHT-OF-WAY CAN BE SOMETIMES.
IF IT WASN'T FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUE I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE MUCH CONCERNS AT ALL.
>> DID WE FIGURE OUT, TWO THINGS, IT'S PROBABLY PAGE 1 OF THIS ORDINANCE I JUST GOT. BUILDING HEIGHT AT 55 FOOT.
CAN WE DIVE INTO THAT? MY NEXT QUESTION.
>> WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS ON PAGE FIVE BOTTOM OF PAGE 5 THE RED LINE AND THEN ONTO THE TOP OF PAGE 6.
>> I GUESS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION TO CONSUMMATE THIS IS WE WENT FROM BUILDING NOT TO EXCEED 70 FEET TO ME BE SIMPLE IT SHOULD NOT EXCEED 55 FEET BUT SOMEONE THOUGHT THE SLOPE SAYS AS DRAWN BY A STRAIGHT LINE CAN YOU, IS THAT WORK FOR US?
>> THEY SIMPLY SENT AS A DRAFT, JOE AND I THE PLUG IN AND I GOT TO DO MY HIGH SCHOOL WORK PROBLEM DRAFTING TO MAKE IT TO AT LEAST PUT IN THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE I HAD A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT HOW THAT WORKED UNTIL HE EXPLAINED IT TO ME.
>> ONE OF HER CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD FROM COUNSEL AND THE
[00:25:01]
PROPERTY OWNERS WAS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST. WHEN WE DID A RESEARCH WE DID RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPES. IT'S IF YOU MEASURE AN IMAGINARY LINE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE OR PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEIR PROPERTY LINE TO THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IT WAS WITHIN IT SO MANY FEET THERE HAS TO BE SLOPE OF EITHER 18 DEGREES, 45 DEGREES DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ZONING IS. SINGLE FAMILY HAS A MORE INTENSE SLOPE. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY, FOR 500 FEET OR LESS, IT HAS TO BE 18 DEGREES SLOPE.THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE TO WHATEVER INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE. AND THAT HEIGHT CANNOT EXCEED THAT SLOPE OR 55 FEET WHICHEVER IS LESS.
>> OUT OF CURIOSITY DID ANYONE DO ANY POTENTIAL GEOMETRY ON THIS SITE PLAN? ARE WE REDUCING ANY OF THE HEIGHTS ON ANY OF THE EDGES?
>> IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT THERE IS A PART OF THIS PROPERTY DOES DROP DOWN.
IT WON'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN IMPACT WE WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT HOPEFULLY GIVE EVERYONE AROUND HER SOME ADDITIONAL EAS . THE DEVELOPER I'M TALKING TO THEM AND THEY'RE FINE WITH IT.
>> THE GROUND GOES DOWN, THE BUILDINGS IS AT THE ABSOLUTE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OR RELATIVE HEIGHT?
>> IF THAT SLOPE LET'S SAY IT'S A LOT LOWER AND FROM THE GROUND LEVEL WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS UPON IF THAT IS 55 FEET AND STILL BELOW THE SLOPE FOR SOME REASON IT WAS TO BE MAXED AT 55 FEET. IT IS WHATEVER IS LESS.
>> OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE ANGLE?
>> IS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE.
>> RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE AT GRADE IS YOUR STARTING POINT.
>> IS A SEMI-DEVELOPER THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD YET SO THIS IS THEIR COVER-UP TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO TOPOGRAPHY MAP DONE YET THERE IS NOTHING.
WE ARE ON A ZONING CASE THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A 15 FOOT TALLER UP TO THAT LIMIT SO THAT SETS THE LIMIT FOR THEM SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN BUILD ONCE THEY GET THE TOPOGRAPHY MUST GET EVERYTHING FIGURED OUT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE SHOOTING DARTS AT A BOARD THAT IS THE RULES RATE THERE THAT'S GOOD TO HAVE THEM IN THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY THERE IS MS. COMMUNICATION OF THAT 55 FEET WHEN YOU HAVE A HOUSE THREE FEET AWAY.
>> I WILL GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE IF YOU GO TO THE NEW STORAGE FACILITY AT 663 MCALPINE YOU WILL SEE WHERE WE WERE REQUIRING THAT ZONING ORDINANCE A SIX FOOT SIX FOOT MASONRY FENCE. BUT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE WAS THAT THE PATH WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER 2 AND A HALF FEET ABOVE SO THESE UNITS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING ARE QUITE VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHICH I DON'T THINK WE AS A STAFF AND INCLUDING MYSELF AS THE DRAFTER OF THE ORDINANCE ANTICIPATED THAT HAPPENING. GIVEN THE FACT THAT I DRIVE BY THAT LOCATION ABOUT FIVE OR SIX TIMES A DAY IN THE FUTURE ORDINANCES I'M GOING TO ENSURE THAT THAT KIND OF THING DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
>> GREAT, MY LAST QUESTION, THE INTERIOR ROADS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INTERIOR ROADS AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC OFF THE ROADS. I NOTICED THE PICTURE THAT YOU SCROLLED BY QUICKLY YOU SAID A ROUNDABOUT SORT OF SET UP THERE. IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING WITH?
>> THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS. WE KNOW THAT COUNSEL AND STAFF WHAT WOULD BE THE INTERSECTION OF WYATT ROAD SO WE ARE WORKING.
>> THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT ADMINISTRATIVELY?
>> WE WILL PROBABLY BRING BACK, WE'VE HAD ORDINANCE IN THE PAST WHERE THEY CALL THAT NO TRUCKS AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR THAT SEGMENT.
>> UP ON THE SCREEN IS THAT REVISED.
I APOLOGIZE I DID NOT HAVE THAT UP EARLY.
>> CHRIS, I HAVE A QUESTION BUT IDENTIFIES THE TIME TO ASK IT.
I NEED CLARIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE, MONEY, AND THEN THE IMPACT FEES IN THE BILLING OUT OF THOSE FUNDS AND
[00:30:03]
HOW THEY WERE CALCULATED. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONCERN LAST WEEK, IS NOW INAPPROPRIATE TIME?>> WE HAVE THE OTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA BUT THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND READ SPECIFIC IN ESSENCE THEY WILL GET THEIR MONEY WHEN ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS PUT INTO PLACE. SO THAT 5 MILLION IS JUST FOR ANYTHING THAT'S NOT RELATED TO IMPACT FEES.
THEY'RE PUTTING IN ECZEMA AND INFRASTRUCTURE THEY WOULD GET THAT INCENTIVE. THE INSECT IMPACT FEES IS GOING TO BE ON FACILITIES THAT ARE ON THE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE.
WHICH CURRENTLY IS WARD ROAD AND OLD FORT WORTH ROAD AND 67 I BELIEVENTLY, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE EAST-WEST ROAD.
NOW, IT'S ON OUR THOROUGHFARE BUT IS NOT ON THE CIP PLAN THAT MAY BE ONE OF THINGS WE LOOK TO BRING BACK IN THE FUTURE.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT TO THE CIP PLAN TO MAKE AN IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE. CURRENTLY, IT IS NOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY BUT THAT IS RIGHT NOW THE TWO ARE SEPARATED IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS SITTING RIGHT THERE, WHY WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED THE EAST-WEST ROA , IS INTEGRAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THEIR DEVELOPER.
WHY WOULD I PAY YOU TO DO WHAT YOU ARE ALREADY GOING TO DO?
>> THAT'S A QUESTION THAT HAS TO COME UP IN THE FUTURE IF IT GETS ADDED TO THE PLAN. ONE THING THEY CAN DO IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE IMPACT FEE STANDPOINT YOU BUILD IT TO LANES TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.
THEY BUILT FOR SO DO YOU WANT IT GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR THAT OR NOT? AND THAT'S WHAT IMPACT FEES ARE DESIGNED TO DO IS INCREASE CAPACITY.
AGAIN, THAT'S A FUTURE QUESTIO .
>> WE TOUCHED ON IT SEVERAL TIMES AND LEFT ME TOUCHED ON IT QUITE A BIT, WHAT HAS CHANGED FROM LAST MEETING TO THIS MEETING THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THE TRUCKS FROM EXITING ON THE NORTH ONTO FORT WORTH ROAD? WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE?
>> YOU ARE TALK ABOUT EXITING 287 AND GOING AND OLD FORT WORTH?
>> WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM DOING THEIR BUSINESS AND EXITING AND GOING THAT WE ARE GOING NORTH ON WARD ROAD AND EXITING THAT WAY?
>> I WILL TRY TO ANSWER THAT, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ON THE NORTH WARD ROAD SECTION IS HAVING THAT LABELED AS NO TRUCKS. WE WOULD HAVE TO ENFORCE IT.
OLD FORT WORTH, WE ARE NOT, THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE A ROUTE ESPECIALLY ONCE IT GETS DEVELOPED THAT WOULD BE A ROUTE FOR TRUCKS TO TAKE.
>> THERE IS AN INTEREST RATE HERE AS WELL?
>> YES, SIR. NEXT WAS TO STOP THE TRUCKS FROM GOING NORTH ON THE EXIT?
>> THE PUDDLES AND EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THERE NOW.
>> YOU WERE COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT HERE OR HERE.
>> CONSIDERING THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A SCHOOL RIGHT HERE. WAS IT FURTHER WEST WASN'T AT THE SLOPE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THERE ENGINEER MENTION IS THE SLOPE AND WHETHER THEY WANT TO GO THAT WAY OTHER THAN THAT IF THEY WANTED TO GO THAT WAY THEY COULD.
THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO AT THAT POINT IS WE WOULD HAVE TO LIST IT AS NO TRUCKS BUT STILL AND I'M GETTING ABOVE MY HEAD ON IT LEGALITIES HERE EVEN A NO TRUCK IF IT'S POSTED NO TRUCK STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AND MAKE DELIVERIES ETC. YOU HAVE A TRACKING FACILITY RIGHT HERE. YOU CAN'T STOP THEM FROM GOING DOWN THAT ROAD EVEN IF IT'S NO TRUCK BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO THEIR FACILITY. SO I WOULD PRESUME THAT NOTHING IS GOING TO REALLY STOP TRUCKS FROM GOING DOWN THAT SEGMENT OF OLD FORT WORTH.
>> I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE DISCUSSION WAS AROUND WARD ROAD. TRUCKS GOING ALONG THESE RESIDENTS.
>> WE WOULD SAY NO TRUCK FROM HERE TO HEAR AND IT WOULD BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> I LIKE THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT I DON'T LIKE THAT ANSWER.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AT THE LAST MEETING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOW TO PREVENT TRUCKS FROM THAT INTERSECTION TOO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE IS NOT WHAT I'M GOING TO APPROVE. NEXT
>> KEEP IN MIND WE DON'T HAVE THE FINAL ENGINEERING DONE.
[00:35:02]
WE CAN DO SOME THINGS FROM THE ENGINEERING STANDPOINT TO TRY TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR TRUCKS TO GO THERE.I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO IT 100 PERCENT.
>> 120 DEGREE RIGHT-HAND TURN.
>> AUSTIN REYNOLDS, 3000 TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.
COULD YOU PUT THE OTHER DEAL ON, PLEASE? COUNCILMAN, THE CITY MANAGER WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IS THIS IS NOT BEEN FINALIZED BUT THE INTENT IS TO SHOW OPTIONS FOR THAT SOLUTION. THANK YOU.
THAT IS THE INTENT OF THESE INTERSECTIONS.
THIS ONE YOU CAN SEE THIS IS TO LANES THAT NARROWS IT DOWN TO ONE LANE AND FORCES A LEFT TURN.
THIS ONE, TO LANES, NARROWS DOWN TO ONE LANE SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO AROUND THIS CURVE TO GO STRAIGHT.
YEAH, SORRY, I SAID THAT WRONG. T FORCES YOU TO GO RIGHT SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO AROUND, IT'S AN OBSTACLE TO DO, IS THE POINT. THIS SAME INTERSECTION AND A WHILE THIS LOOKS KIND OF SILLY THE INTENT OF IT IS THAT 18 WILL TRAILERS CANNOT GO AROUND THIS.O APPROACHING THIS END AND THEY ARE LOOKING RIGHT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GO UP AND AROUND THIS THING. THE INTENT OF THESE OPTIONS CLEARLY IS TO KEEP TRUCKS OFF OF WARD ROAD AND THIS WILL EVEN FURTHER TO POINT GO STRAIGHT DOWN THEN UP AND THEN HAS THIS OBSTACLE.
>> I THINK THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS IT THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE WORKS.
>> WE JUST HAVE NOT DESIGNED IT YET.
WE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT KEEPS TRUCKS OFF.
THEY WILL DRAG BOULDERS WITH THEM DOWN THE ROAD EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS ALL DESIGNED TO KEEP THEM OUT.
IF A TRUCK REALLY WANTS TO GET SOMEWHERE THEY MAKE IT THERE IS ALL I'M SAYING.
>> THE KEY IS TO KEEP TRAFFIC OFF OF WARD ROAD.
>> BETWEEN ENGINEERING, NO TRUCK SIGNAGE, ETC. WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO KEEP THEM OFF OF THAT SEGMENT OF WARD ROAD.
I CANNOT SIT AND GUARANTEE ONE OF THE PERCENT YOU WILL NEVER SEE A TRUCK. OLD FORT WORTH ROAD THAT'S A DIFFERENT VIEW. THAT IS WHERE THE DESIGN IS.
THAT'S WHY WE GOT THAT IMPROVEMENT AS PART OF THE ZONING TO IMPROVE THAT SEGMENT SO THAT IT CAN HANDLE THAT TYPE OF TRAFFIC.
>> IS DESIGNED IT TO GO FOR LANES.
>> THE TRUCK STOP IS THERE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS THERE, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A TWO LANE ROAD.
>> IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FOUR-LANE.
>> IS THERE CURRENTLY ANY CITY ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING WE CAN DO THAT IF THESE LINES WERE DICK YOU UNDER FORT WORTH ROAD THEY CAN TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION?
>> IF THE TRUCK IS COMING INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT WERE TO Q AND A LINE UP AND BACK OUT ONTO FORT WORTH ROAD.
>> I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN CUEING ONTO ROADWAYS IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. I THINK IT IS ENFORCEABLE.
>> THE ONLY THING I WORRY ABOUT IN ORDER TO GET CLARIFICATION IF THERE SITTING IN THE TRUCK AND NOT JUST PARKED ON THE SIDE THEY ARE SITTING WAITING BECAUSE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE CAN DO.
>> THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE EAST ESCAPE DEVELOPMENT THEY START ENFORCING THAT.
>> THEY MADE SOME CHANGES INTERNAL TO TRY TO GET THEM OFF THE ROAD. THEY PARKED ON THE SHOULDER.
[00:40:11]
>> AS FAR AS OVERNIGHT PARKING?
>> YOU ALL WANT TO GO TO THE REST OF THIS? THERE ARE OTHER REDLINED STUFF I THINK THE NEXT MAJOR SECOND SECTION IS PAGE 18. THERE'S QUITE A FEW OTHER CHANGES IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> THIS IS LIKE TRENT WHEN WE WENT TO THE TIA WITH TRENT AND HE PRESENTED IT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TI .
>> KEVIN BROUGHT US THROUGH 21 WITH THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT IS WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE THING.
AND THEN THE LAST REDLINE WAS THE EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> WHAT WE WILL TRY TO DO THERE IS KEEP IN MIND THERE IS AN ASSEMBLAGE OF FIVE OR SIX PROPERTY OWNERS SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IF THE ZONING GOES THROUGH BUT THEY DON'T CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY THEN COME MARCH FIRST, 2022 THIS IS NO LONGER VALID. BASICALLY, WE DON'T WANT TO STICK THE SIX CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS IF THEY DON'T CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY.
>> IT ACTUALLY DOES NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY IS PRESENTED WITH COPIES OF THE RECORDED DEEDS OF THE ASSEMBLAGE OF SIX PROPERTIES.
>> EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL CHANGE THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE REDLINE THAT I RECEIVED DISCUSSIONS FROM THE DEVELOPERS ATTORNEY OR AN EMAIL LITERALLY ABOUT AN HOUR AND AND A HALF AGO. AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS I WANTED TO GET TO IT AND IT DEALS WITH THE BONDS ON THE FOR THE OFF-SITE ROAD. ONE THING THEY REQUESTED AND I THINK WE THINK IT'S REASONABLE AS WE HAD STATED THAT AS A REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT ON THE BONDS AS WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE CITY ENGINEER, MANAGER GO AHEAD AND EFFECTIVELY TELL THE BONDING COMPANY THAT WE NOW HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO NOW IT IS TIME TO START BUILDING.
THE DEVELOPERS ATTORNEY REQUESTED THAT ALSO A PART OF THAT CONDITION BEFORE WE CAN PULL THE BONDS WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM A 30 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE THE DEVELOPER A 30 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE THAT WE REQUIRED ACQUIRED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO START CONSTRUCTION AND IF THEY FAILED TO DO THAT WE CAN DRAW ON THE BONDS. I KIND OF NOTICE WE THOUGHT THAT WAS REASONABLE SO WE WOULD BE ADDING THAT LANGUAGE AND LET ME READ IT AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU THE ATTORNEY HAS NOT EVEN SEEN THIS YET. SO BASICALLY, WE ADD A B TO SECTION P4B THREE. IT'S ON PAGE 22.
PROBABLY 23, 22 IS THE CLEAN VERSION.
BASICALLY, IT SAYS I WILL READ THE WHOLE THING.
FUNDS BE PAID UNDER THE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE PAYABLE TO THE CITY SOLELY UPON DELIVERY TO THE SURETY OR THE ISSUER OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE OF AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CITY MANAGER OR CITY ENGINEER THAT THE CITY HAS ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE OFF-SITE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR SUCH PORTION OF THE OFF-SITE RIGHT-OF-WAY THE CITY ENGINEER IS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE OFF-SITE OH FW ARE WHICH IS OLD FORT WORTH ROAD SEGMENT AND B OWNER HAS FAILED TO CAUSE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFF-SITE OLD FORT WORTH
[00:45:05]
ROAD SEGMENT ON OR BEFORE THE 30TH DAY AFTER THE CITY PROVIDED A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OWNER THE CITY HAS ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. A LOT OF WORDS.ASSUMING THE MOTION THAT'S ABOUT TO BE MADE IS TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE VERSION TODAY THAT WHATEVER THIS IS CITY ATTORNEY HAS ADDED BE PART OF YOUR MOTION.
>> OKAY, I AM SLOW. WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION FOR THIS CLAUSE?
>> BASICALLY, TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO START BUILDING IT THEMSELVES RATHER THAN THE CITY BUILDING IT.
>> THEY MAY WANT TO BUILD IT THEMSELVES.
>> IN MY LINE OF WORK IT SOUNDS REASONABLE.
BUT WE DO BUILD THINGS. WITHOUT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
>> MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS WITH THE LAWYERS STIPULATION AT THE END. HOW DOES THAT SOUND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.
THE ITEM PASSES 620 SIX TWO ZERO.
IT'S A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU ALL AND I LOOK FORWARD TO BUILD A RELATIONSHIP. NEXT ITEM.
I WILL BE STEPPING DOWN FOR A LITTLE BIT.
>> ITEM NUMBER 2021 - 534 CONSIDER AN ACT UPON OTHERS IN
[2021-534]
THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE.>> WE WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THIS ITEM.
[2021-535]
>> MOVING RIGHT ALONG. 2021 - 535 ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT ONE? CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL VI PRICES LLC AND TO PROVIDE POSSIBLE SET OF UP TO 5 MILLION FOR A PROJECT RELATED TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEW OR EXPANDED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.
>> GOOD EVENING AT MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNSEL.
SO THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE HAD PREPARED TO BRING FORWARD AT THE LAST MEETING THAT GOT POSTPONED ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREVIOUS ZONING APPROVAL. BEFORE GOING THROUGH ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE TAIPEI ECONOMIC CORPORATION WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE WITH PRODUCT CHECKS. THE SPECIFIC PRODUCTS THE STATE HAS AUTHORIZED THE PROJECT TYPE WE ARE MOVING FORWARD HERE IS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT IF THE BOARD MIX A FINDING THAT BY THEIR PARTICIPATION WILL HELP TO ATTRACT NEW OR EXPANDED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. THE KEY ITEM THERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COUNCIL IS AWARE IS THE BENEFITS THAT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD SEES IN THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. ONE FROM AN EMPLOYMENT PERSPECTIVE BUT ALSO THE MULTIPLIER.
SO OFTEN IN THE PROJECTS WE BRING FORWARD WE ONLY LOOK AT THE DIRECT BENEFITS THAT COME FROM THESE PROJECTS.
WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WE KNOW THAT THE COMPANIES WILL COME BUT ALSO THE SPINOFF ECONOMIC IMPACT THEY HAVE IT WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY SO WHEN WE LOOK AT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, IN PARTICULAR, THAT IS MORE OFTEN WE LOOK AT MULTIPLIER AND THOSE IN NONDIRECT BENEFITS THAT ALSO COME TO THE COMMUNITY AS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT THAT WE ARE REVIEWING.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE AGREEMENT, FIRST ONE, IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ITEM THAT WAS BARELY APPROVED.
ONE THING THE AGREEMENT CALLS OUT IS VERY SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE BOTH ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPER IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECEIPT OF THEIR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE.
ULTIMATELY, THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELPMENTS PROVES UP TO $5 MILLION THAT'S PAID UPON THE COMPLETION OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE JUST OUTLINED BY YOU AS A COUNSEL.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC MONEY THAT IS CONTRIBUTED ONLY UNTIL AFTER ALL OF THOSE OFF-SITE AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
[00:50:02]
COMPLETED. AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPER, A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE THAT MEET STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND OTHERS THAT WE'VE ELECTED TO INCLUDE.THE FIRST ONE IS THE COMPLETION OF THE CLOSING OF THE LAND.
SO IT ENSURES THAT THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD VERY QUICKLY.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO AGAIN START THE INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITS AND SO IT'S PROJECT THAT WE SEE MOVES VERY QUICKLY THAT GIVES OUR COMMUNITY ADDITIONAL PRODUCT TO ATTRACT THOSE FUTURE BUSINESSES. THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE HAVE ADDED WHICH WAS A CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED IN AT THE INITIAL BOARD PACKET DEALS WITH A COMPLETION OF 700,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE BY A DEFINED TIME AND THAT TIME WE BUILD IN A BUFFER TO ACCOUNT FOR CHALLENGES THAT MAY ARISE. MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOP AND CORPORATION AS IS SEEN HERE THEY APPROVED THE RESOLUTION WITH THREE DIFFERENT CHANGES SO THE FIRST ONE WAS TO REPLACE THE SITE PLAN WITH WHAT IS APPROVED THAT IDENTIFIES WHAT IS ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
THE SECOND ONE WAS THE ADDITION OF THE 700,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETE FOR THE PAYMENT, BEFORE THE PAYMENT IS DONE. SO NOT ONLY ARE THEY REQUIRED IT TO COMPETE THE INFRASTRUCTURE BUT WE ALSO GET PRODUCTS FROM THAT AS WELL BEFORE MONEY IS CONTRIBUTED TO THE OVERALL PROJECT. AND THEN AS A RESULT OF THAT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT WE EXTENDED AND ADDED ADDITIONAL YEAR JUST TO GIVE THEM TIME TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND THE COMPLETION OF A SHELL FINAL RECEIPT.
SO HERE ARE THE REDLINES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT ADDRESSED THESE ITEMS. AND WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS I MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER?
>> SHELL FINAL BEEN A BUILDING BUT NOT NECESSARILY A TENANT?
>> CORRECT. EVERYTHING THEY COMMITTED ON THE PLANS THAT IS ALL COMPLETED.
>> WE GIVE THEM 5 MILLION BUCK ?
>> THE IMMEDIATE WE GET, WE GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE SO THAT IS THERE FOR THOSE FUTURE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES TO COME LOCATE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. THE OTHER THING THAT WAS ADDED WE GET THAT 700,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE.
THOSE ARE THE GUARANTEES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE AGREEMENT.
>> CASH VALUE OF THAT? IS THERE A MINIMUM?
>> AS A COMMUNITY WE LOOKED AT THIS BOTH AS THE DIRECT BENEFITS OF IT THAT 700,000 SQUARE FEET COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE SO LOOKING AT THE LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITIES WE WOULD BREAK EVEN IN ABOUT FIVE YEARS. IF WE LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL AS FAR AS WHAT IS PROJECTED WHEN THEY COMPLETE THE FULL 3.6 MILLION ULTIMATELY IT IS SEVERAL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT COMES DIRECTLY TO THE CITY THROUGH TAX COLLECTION.
IT ALSO GOES TO OUR COUNTY, IT ALSO GOES TO OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE KEY THING IS THIS IS BEING DONE WITH SALES TAX DOLLARSTHIS IS NOT A TAX ABATEMENT .
THE PUBLIC ENTITIES RECEIVE THE FULL BENEFIT OF THESE PROJECTS.
>> LASTLY, IS THERE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OR CAPITAL INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT ATTACHED TO OUR MONEY?
>> IT IS. IT REALLY WAS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD DO 20 MILLION DOLLARS TO COMPLETE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO.
THEY WILL SPEND MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS A $20 MILLION.
>> THEY PUT IN AT LEAST $20 MILLION AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT YOU'RE GETTING A GRANT OF $5 MILLION?
>> PLUS THE COMPLETION OF ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE 700,000 SQUARE FEET.
[00:55:02]
> SECOND.>> MOTION TO APPROVE AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.
IT PASSES SIX ZERO. ITEM 2021 - 536 REVIEW AND
[2021-536]
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROPOSAL TO CLOSE EXISTING MEETING OPENINGS ALONG US HIGHWAY 287.>> THINKER MAYOR AND COUNCIL. LAST MONTH WE HAD A MEETING WITH TEXAS. WITH A PROGRAM THEY HAD THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT HAVING PROJECTS THAT ARE BOTH ON ITS SYSTEM AND OFF SYSTEM AS PART OF THEIR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS. WITH A CHANCE TO MEET WITH THEM AND THEY REALLY OUR INITIAL REQUEST WE WERE LOOKING AT SAFETY LIGHTING ALONG 287 AND 67 LOOKING AT ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION LANES IN REGARDS TO 287 IN A 67.
THE LOCAL REPS FROM THE AREA OFFICE PRESENTED TO STAFF THEIR INTEREST IN CLOSING EXISTING THE MEETING ALONG 287 WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE GREAT SEPARATION AT WALNUT GROVE ROAD A BREAK IN TRAFFIC DUE TO THE SIGNALS THERE.
THE AREA OFFICE HAS INDICATED THEIR DESIRE TO INCLUDE THESE FOUR MEETINGS AS PART OF THAT SAFETY PROGRAM THAT GOES INTO THE DISTRICT. AND THESE FOUR WOULD BE THE ONES JUST TO THE EAST OF MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY SO IT WOULD BE CLINTON LANE, PRIMROSE, ROBINSON AND EASTGATE.
THESE ARE WHAT TEXAS DOT PROPOSING THEY WANT TO CLOSE THEY ASKED ON THE STAFF SIDE OF THE CITY WOULD SUPPORT DISCLOSURES OR WHAT THE CITY POSITION WAS WITH THOSE CLOSURES. THAT IS THE REASON WE ARE HERE THIS AFTERNOON IS TO GET INPUT FROM COUNSEL.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE THEY HAVE, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR LOCAL SUPPORT ON SOME OR ALL OR A NONE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. THE OTHER AREA THAT CAME ABOUT WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING WITH THEM IS THE NEW APARTMENT NEAR LAKE BOULEVARD HERE AND SO WE HAVE GOT SOME CALLS FROM A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN PARTICULAR AND CONCERN WHEN THE SCHOOL BUSES OUT IN QU?BEC OUT OF THIS AREA ACROSS BACK OVER THE CONCERN WAS BEEN ABLE TO BRING THAT SCHOOL WAS OUT SAFELY.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH TEXAS DOT IS THE POTENTIAL THESE MEDIAN OPENING AND CLOSING AND THE LOGIC IS WHAT WE END UP DOING IS PARTLY LET ME CLOSE TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO HAVE ACCELERATION LANES ALONG THE INSIGHT HERE BUT THEN WHEN YOU COME AROUND WHAT YOU DO IS YOU FORCE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO GET OVER AND BE ABLE TO DO A TURNAROUND HERE BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCELERATION LANES ON THE INSIGHT HERE, AS WELL. SO THERE WOULD BE IMPROVEMENTS IT TO GO ALONG WITH THE CLOSURES SO YOU CAN DO THESE MANEUVERS SAFELY. THIS WAS REQUESTED, THE CITY LOOKED AND SAID WE ARE GETTING CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS AND THIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND GROW TO BE OF THE ACCESS ROADS OR FRONTAGE ROADS ALONG 287 WITH THE CONTINUANCE OF ELEMENT ALONG THESE AREAS THERE IS CONCERN FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT STAFF HAD GOT TO TEXAS DOT AND SAID ASK ABOUT THIS AS WELL BUT THIS WAS A REQUEST FROM A TEXAS DOT INITIALLY AND THIS IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS?
>> DOES TEXAS DOT PLAN TO DO THE SAME THING HERE OR WITH THE ACCELERATION DUE TO ACCELERATION LANES? LEX BASICALLY, THIS IS CONSIDERED NORTHBOUND
>> THIS IS CONSIDERED NORTHBOUND EVEN THOUGH IT'S WESTBOUND. YOU'D COME OVER THE BRIDGE QU?BEC AROUND THE RAMP HERE. I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS ONE HAD IDENTIFIED TO CLOSE AS WELL.
THEY SAID I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ACCELERATION LANE AND DECELERATION LANES HERE. THE OTHER THOUGHT WAS NOW GET THE TEXAS TURNAROUND AT WALNUT GROVE ROAD YOU CAN COME DOWN AND MAKE THIS TERM AND COME BACK AROUND AS WELL.
I AM NOT SURE ON THAT THIS ONE THEY TALKED ABOUT THE REASON THEY'RE LOOKING AT THESE FOUR IS BECAUSE ARE LINED UP WITH ROADS ANY MORE TRIPS COMING IN AND OUT AND TURNING THERE.
WE CAN INQUIRE ABOUT THAT AS WELL IF THAT'S AN INTEREST IF YOU DON'T DO THAT YOU MIZE INCLUDE THIS ONE AND SEND EVERYONE DOWN TO THE TEXAS TURNAROUND AND LOOK THEM BACK AROUND.
>> I WENT DOWN THERE THIS MORNING IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT AN ENTRANCE RAMP TO THE SERVICE ROAD RIGHT THERE, ALSO. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY WANT TO CUT ACROSS SO YOU CAN GO GET ON THAT SERVICE ROAD, I'M NOT GUESSING I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.
>> YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. BEGINNING OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD THEY CAN STOP RIGHT THERE.
[01:00:02]
>> I HAVE OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE, TOO.
I TRAVEL A LOT TO EASTGATE AND IT IS FLAT-OUT DANGEROUS.
YOU HAVE TO PLAY LEAPFROG TO GET ACROSS THERE.
I HAD THAT SORT OF MINDSET GOING IN IT SO I REACHED OUT TO A FRIEND OF MINE WHO LIVES ON CLINTON LANE THEREBY THE ENTRANCE AND HE ACTUALLY HAD SOMETHING WITH THE HOA AND HE WENT DOOR-TO-DOOR ASKING THE NEIGHBORS WITH HER OPINION WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED MORE INPUT. HE SAID TO A T EVERYTHING A PERSON YOU TALK TO SUPPORTED IT WHICH SHOCKED ME BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WOULD HATE THE INCONVENIENCE.
THERE IS REAL CONCERN ABOUT TEENAGE DRIVERS.
THERE'S A CONCERN FOR SCHOOL BUSES AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. ALL THAT SAID, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE INCONVENIENCE IT PUTS ON EASTGATE MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE EXTREME FOR THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS BUT WHENEVER WE ARE TALK ABOUT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MANY OF THEM CAME IN AND VOICED THAT THEY WERE DOING THE TEXAS TURNAROUND ANYWAY ALREADY.
SO I THINK THAT MIGHT NEGATE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
>> ON THE STAFF SIDE WE WERE SURPRISED THEY LOOKED AT IT AND THEY ARE SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THAT'S COMING FROM THE AREA OFFICE SURPRISE THEY WERE CLOSING ALL FOUR OF THEM.
DON'T THEY RUN OFF OF ACCIDENT NUMBERS SO THAT'S A RED FLAG IN ITSELF.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK? YOU ARE THE ENGINEER.
>> FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT I DEFINITELY AGREE.
FROM A CONVENIENCE AND MOBILITY STANDPOINT IT DOES CREATE SOME ISSUES. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS CLOSE OF THE MEDIANS BUT NO ACTION TAKING PLACE FOR FRONTAGE ROADS. I'M HOPING IS THAT IF THERE IS SUPPORT TO DO THAT WE ARE STILL TRYING TO PUSH AND WHAT WERE TALKING WITH THE STATE THAT THAT STILL A PRIORITY BECAUSE REALLY THE KEY IS TO GET THE FRONTAGE ROADS IN PLACE.
SEPARATE INTERCHANGES AND PROVIDE FOR THAT SAFETY AND STILL PROVIDE FOR EASE OF ACCESS TO EXISTING FACILITIES.
>> CAN ASK THE TWO JUDGMENT IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM WE WOULD LOVE TO DISCUSS IS FOR TWO SECONDS.
>> I AM A JOE PALLAS I'VE PROPERTY AND EASTGATE WE WILL PROBABLY DISAGREE ON THIS BUT WE WILL STILL BE FRIENDS.
APART FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT YES IT IS LEAPFROG AT TIMES BUT IS NOT A 24 HOUR A DAY PROBLEM. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BE BETTER PREPARED I JUST HEARD ABOUT THIS MEETING AT 130.
I THINK IF YOU WILL STUDY THE TRAFFIC ON 27TH IS PROBABLY MORE ACCIDENT ON 27 COMING UP THE HILL THEN THERE ARE AT THE INTERSECTION WITH EASTGATE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SHUT DOWN 287 COMING UP THE HILL BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL ACCIDENTS THERE. I THINK A GOOD THING WE NEED TO LEAVE SOMETHING UP THERE. THE STATE IS GOING TO FORCE ALL THE TRAFFIC ON YOUR CITY STREET.
LEAVING EASTGATE, EVERYTHING FROM WALNUT GROVE TO MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY IS GOING TO COME UP TO YOUR STREET AND TURN AROUND AND IF YOU THINK THIS IT WILL BE A PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE HOW MANY TRUCKS COME OUT OF EASTGATE.
TRUCKS PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE A RIGHT-HAND TURN FOR SAFETY ISSUES. THEY NEED TO GO INTO THE UTERINE. YOU TURN.
IF IT'S ROUGH OUR TRAFFIC BE CORRECT IF IT'S NOT TO BE GO ACROSS. WE HAVE SERVICE INDUSTRY BECOME A GOAT FOR US TO MAKE A LOOP BACK AND FORTH IT'S AN EFFECT.
I THINK OF NOTHING ELSE I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF EASTGATE SHOULD BE AWARDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. THANKS.
>> SEAN, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, THE FOREMAN.
>> I OWN A TRUCKING COMPANY AT EASTGATE INDUSTRIAL PARK.
I DO DISAGREE WITH JOE WE HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT VIEWS.
THAT INTERSECTION IT'S COMPLETELY UNSAFE.
AS A COMPANY POLICY I DON'T ALLOW MY TRUCKS TO MAKE LEFT TURNS THERE ANYMORE. IT HAS BEEN A REAL FAST-CHANGING PROBLEM. THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC TODAY IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS A MONTH AGO, TWO MONTHS AGO, THEY WENT TO GO IT IS JUST TREMENDOUS. THE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS WITH A VEHICLE LONGER THAN ABOUT 35 FEET YOU CANNOT OBEY THE LAW THERE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.
[01:05:01]
THEY THERE ARE NOT YIELD SIGNS OR STOP SIGNS.IF I FOLLOW THE LAW AS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND PULL OUT INTO THE INTERSECTION AND STOP I AM ALSO VIOLATING THE LAW BY HAVING MY VEHICLE IN AN OPEN LANE OF TRAFFIC.
SO IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY TO FOLLOW THAT RULE.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE, MY COMPANY HAS HAD ACCIDENTS THERE.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE BUT IT'S A REAL DANGER.
SO I HOPE WE CAN PULL IT THROUGH.
>> DO YOU SEE TRUCKS AND PASSENGER CARS.
>> A CAR CAN GET ACROSS THERE PROBABLY NOT AT RUSH HOUR SAFELY. THE PROBLEM I SEE WITH CARS IS EVERYBODY IS IMPATIENT AND THEY STACK IN THERE.
WHEN CARPOOLING OUT THERE AND STOPPING AND WAITING FOR TIME TO TURN TO GET TO THE SOUTHBOUND 287 IS SAFE BUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IS FOR CARS STACK UP SIDE-BY-SIDE IN PARALLEL.
>> YOU ALMOST HAVE TO OVERLAP WHEN YOU'RE STAFFING.
YOU LOOK AT A REVIEW MIRROR WHILE YOU'RE WAITING BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOMEONE IS GONNA COME IN.
>> THE ACCIDENT RECENTLY THAT WE HAD AT ONE OF THOSE CROSSOVERS WAS BEFORE 6 AM.
>> THE ONE TO GO STRAIGHT TO YOUR SHOP IF WE TOOK THAT OUT IN THE WHEN NICK WAS AT AN ANGLE AND IF WE LEFT WENT.
>> I WOULD VOTE TODAY BOTH OF THEM OUT.
IT'S LIKE CHRIS WAS SAYING EARLIER A TRUCK DRIVER THEY SEEM TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE A TURN THEY WANT TO MAKE REGARDLESS.
>> I MEAN NO DISRESPECT BUT I HAVE TO ASK BECAUSE AT YOUR TRUCKS. IS THERE CONCERNED MORE FOR SAFETY, FOR THE DRIVERS AND THE PEOPLE AFFECTED BY YOUR TRUCKS OR IS OR EQUAL OR GREATER CONCERN FOR THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF YOUR TRUCK DRIVERS NOT FOLLOWING YOUR PROCEDURES?
>> I HAVE CONCERNS BOTH WAYS BUT PRIMARILY IT IS SAFETY.
THIS HAS BEEN 10 YEARS AGO MY MOTHER WAS IN AN ACCIDENT THERE AT THAT CROSSOVER. SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR OVER SIX MONTHS SO I HAVE PERSONAL CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY THERE. INSIGHT ACCELERATION LANES IS AN OPTION TO MAKE IT SAFE. IF YOU LEFT ROBINSON OPEN AND HAD ITS SOUTHBOUND INSIGHT ACCELERATION LINK YOU CAN PROVIDE SPACE TO MAKE THAT LEFT-HAND TURN.
>> I HAD A QUICK COMMENT AND THIS IS NOT A POSITION I WOULD DIE ON BUT I AM A LITTLE BIT MORE, FORGIVE ME, THE FIRST GENTLEMEN'S NAME, JOE, A LITTLE MORE WITH THE JOE IN THE SENSE THAT I AM A VERY CONCERNED ABOUT RUNNING EVERY BIT OF TRAFFIC FROM A WALNUT GROVE UP TO MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.
THAT DOES CONCERNING BECAUSE I SEE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT COMES SOUTH THAT YOU GET 4663 AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE LOOKING AT TAKING ON THE COST TO PUT HER OWN EXIT RAMP FOR 14TH STREET. SO ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SAFETY ASPECT HERE AND THERE IS VALUE ADDED TO POTENTIALLY REMOVE THESE DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. SO WHAT IF WE CLOSE THE MEETINGS AND WE HOPE TEXAS DOT PAYS FOR SOME OTHER EGRESS?
>> AGAIN THIS IS ALL FUTURE AN EXTENSIVE ONE THING WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIS TEXAS TURNAROUND AT MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET ON THE LINE BUT AGAIN THAT'S EXPANSION OF A BRIDGE, THAT TAKES TIME.
>> THAT IS KIND OF MY POINT, EXACTLY.
WE ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY ANNA PROBABLY IMMEDIATELY EXACERBATE THE ISSUE AT MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY ISSUE HERE.
BUT EVERY OTHER MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT THE ENTRYWAYS TO OUR CITY AND THAT IS GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE.
IT IS CONVEYED OTHER INTERSECTION THAT WE IGNORE.
MY OTHER COMMENT IS IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE TURNING
[01:10:07]
LEFT CROSSING OVER THE HIGHWAY WHY IS IT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE EVERYBODY'S ABILITY TO TURN LEFT? JUST TURN RIGHT. THAT IS WHERE I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT IN MY APOLOGIES BUT I DON'T.I'M NOT GOING TO STAND ON IT BUT THAT IS WHERE I STAND.
>> I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMPANY POLICY THAT FORCES YOUR TRUCKS TO DOTHE TEXAS TURNAROUND, MOST DON'T .
AND I SEE ALL THE TIME I SEE THOSE TRUCKS LEAPFROGGING AND IS DANGEROUS AND IT'S A PROBLEM WE PARTIALLY CREATED THIS COUNCIL AND PAST COUNCILS BECAUSE WE APPROVE AS YOU PLEASE EXECUTE PIECE FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE TRULY INDUSTRIAL. THEY HAVE LITTLE OLD LADIES GOING OUT THERE TO PICK UP FOOD WE ARE PEOPLE GOING OUT THERE TO GET HAIRCUTS WE HAVE PEOPLE GOING INTO THE GYM THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT IS GENERATED BECAUSE OF THAT WHICH IS OKAY. I WON'T GET INTO THAT BECAUSE I VOTED FOR IT, TOO. BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THE TRAFFIC LEVEL HAS INCREASED TO DRAMATICALLY SO I FOR ONE WOULD BE FORECLOSING THEM ALL OFF.
>> WELL, I WOULD EXPECT A LOT MORE TRUCKS WOULD COME OUT OF THEIR WITHOUT THAT BECAUSE A WHOLE LOT MORE CARS THAN THERE ARE TRUCKS. EITHER WAY, WHEN YOU GO ACROSS YOU ARE TAKING A CHANCE. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD OF COURSE I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A TEXAS TURN AT MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.
>> THAT'S ONE THING WE WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH TEXAS DOT IS WHAT THE PLAN AND IF THEY ARE TO CLOSE THESE FOR WHAT IS THEIR PLAN LIKE WHAT THEY COMMITTED POSSIBLY DO A TEXAS TURNAROUND.FOR A WHILE WE HAD THIS TEXAS TURNAROUND PLAN ON THE FRONTAGE ROADS. OTHER FRONTAGE ROADS ARE NOT SCHEDULED OR PLANNED THEY ARE GOING THROUGH CONCEPT PLANS BUT THERE'S NOTHING DEFINITIVE WE CAN SAY BUT BY THE YEAR 2025 DEBBIE FRONTAGE ROADS. THAT'S JUST NOT HAPPENING.
SO COUNSEL KNOWS SEVERAL YEARS BACK WE ACTUALLY DID ON THE CITY SIDE COUNCIL AUTHORIZED US TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DO A STUDY ON EASTGATE AND SEE WHEN THE SIGNAL GOES AWAY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND THERE WERE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IT WAS NOT CLOSING THESE TWO BUT BASICALLY CLOSING ONE AND LEAVING ONE OPEN AND IT MAY HAVE JUST BEEN ACCELERATION OR DECELERATION AS WELL BUT AGAIN THIS EXIT CAME FROM THE STATE.
LOOKING FOR SUPPORT I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY SAYS WE DON'T SUPPORT IT THEY STILL ENCLOSE IT WHICH THEY CAN, I THINK THEY WERE LOOKING FOR SOME KIND OF SUPPORT FROM COUNSEL.
>> IF YOU LEFT ONE OPEN WOULD THAT AGGRAVATE THE SITUATION IN YOUR OPINION OR ALLEVIATE IT?
>> DEFINITELY THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SOME IMPROVEMENTS THERE AGAIN MAKING SURE YOU HAD ACCELERATION LANES.
I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE IT NOW YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE MORE GOING TO THAT ONE INTERSECTION TRYING TO GO OUT IF THEY'RE TRYING TO GO LEFT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR CONNECTIONS THEY ARE! BOWS TO GO RIGHT, AS WELL.
THE COUNTY HAD INDICATED THEY GO RIGHT.
I KNOW I SEE THE TRUCKS GOING LEFT BUT IF YOU TALK TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HE WANT HIS TRUCKS GOING RIGHT.UT THERE'S THE TWO READY MIX PLANS OUT THERE A LOT OF READY MIX TRUCKS GOING OUT THAT ARE GOING LEFT THEY ARE COMING IN AND GOING LEFT, AS WELL. THERE IS A FAIR MIX SOME ARE GOING RIGHT AND DOING IT WITH THE TRUCKS AND SOME ARE CONTINUING TO TAKE IT AND USE IT AS A FULL INTERSECTION.
>> SO EVERYTHING YOU WANTED AT THE ONE OPEN WITH THAT AGGRAVATE OR ALLEVIATE THE SITUATION? IN YOUR OPINION.
>> FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY MORE SAFE.
>> WOULD MAKE IT MORE DANGEROUS?
>> THE WAY IT IS NOW IF YOU GOING LEFT YOU GOING TO THE LEFT YOU JUST HAVE MORE STACKED UP THAT ARE TRYING TO GO LEFT.
IT MAY MAKE IT WORSE FOR VEHICLES BEING ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT. YOU WOULD HAVE THE TWO THAT ARE THERE.
>> NOBODY IS ARGUING ABOUT BY THE APARTMENTS.
LET'S CALL THEM GONE BECAUSE NOBODY CARES ABOUT THOSE TWO RIGHT THERE. LET'S CALL THEM GONE.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT CLINTON?
>> I WAS ELIMINATED ONE THING TO WORK OUR WAY TO THE NEXT.
>> I WILL AGREE WITH HIM IN HIS LAST POINT.
[01:15:06]
>> I WAS SHOCKED WHEN I HEARD THE FEEDBACK THAT I GOT FROM SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORS WAS TO SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE I FIGURED THE INCONVENIENCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP HERE AND DRIVE DOWN HERE I WAS REALLY SURPRISED BY THE OUTCOME. OBVIOUSLY, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM AND THAT WAS AN UNOFFICIAL POLE I WANT TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT BUT THE FEW I TALKED TO ADAMANTLY SUPPORTED CLOSING DOWN THAT ONE.
>> THE AMOUNT OF REQUESTS WE HAD FROM POLICE OFFICERS FOR SPEEDING TRUCKS AND RUNNING THE STOP SIGN THERE IS A LOT OF CUT THROUGH.
>> I AM WITH YOU I HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT CALLED AND THEY HAD A LIST OF PEOPLE IN THEIR ALREADY SIGNED UP SAYING LET'S GET RID OF THE CROSSOVER. IT'S TOO DANGEROUS.
>> WE HAVE GOT A TOTAL OF FOUR RIGHT THERE.
DO WANT TO THE TO ANOTHER SITE IF WE CUT THE TWO ON THE OTHER SIDE YOU WANT TO CUT TWO HERE FOR NOW AND SEE HOW IT WORKS? IF WE CUT THE TWO CLINTON THE 2000 WAS.
>> YOU HAVE FOR SIXES AND TO FORCE FOURS.
>> YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE THAT SO.
>> TEXAS DOT IS PROBABLY WATCHING THIS MEETING.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
>> AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO BREAK FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
O COVER ITEMS UNDER THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.
SECTION 551 POINT 071 LEGAL CONSULTATION.
551.072 REAL ESTATE. PROPERTY AT 211 AND 301 W. MAIN STREET. AND AT 211 AVENUE F AND 207 NORTH EIGHTH STREET. SO AT 3:18 P.
>> I MOVE THAT THE CITY MANAGER APPROVED THE SALE OF 211 AND 31 W. MAIN. I MOVED TO THE CITY MANAGER BE AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE SIDE CONTRACTS AND OTHER SUCH DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TO SELL MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSE OF RESALE TO SHANE AND JUSTIN AND CHRISTINA PROPER AND OR ASSIGNEES PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 15 BLOCK 16, LOT 1 TO 10 BLACK 21 ORIGINAL TOWN OF MIDLOTHIAN LOCATED AT 211 AND 301 WEST MAIN FOR THE SALE PRICE OF NOT LESS THAN $3 MILLION WITH THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY TO BE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION AGREEMENT ON THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE BUYERS REQUIRED IT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING AND 148 ZONING DISTRICT SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE BUYERS DEVELOPED PROPOSAL DATED JUNE 2021.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.
THE ITEM PASSES 60. I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO
[01:20:05]
ADJOURN.>> AYE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.