May 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum]

[00:00:06]

>> OKAY, IT IS 6 O'CLOCK, SO AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. GIVE ME A SECOND HERE, WE HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE TURN IN FORMS AT THE LAST MINUTE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE EVERYBODY LINED UP.

I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WHO IS SPEAKING JUST UNDER CITIZENS TO BE HEARD, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, SO IF WE HAVE NOBODY TO SPEAK UNDER CITIZENS TO BE HEARD, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE

[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days.]

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. HOPE EVERYBODY IS DOING WELL TONIGHT. I WILL GO THROUGH THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASES THAT CAME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 26. THERE WERE TWO, ONE WAS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING FOR PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 1. THAT WAS WITHDRAWN PERMANENTLY FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO Z20-2022-076, THIS IS HOME ZONE THAT WENT IN OFF OLD FORT WORTH ROAD APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL%-Ú. AND THEN THE ONCOR ELECTRICAL STATION.

THAT WAS APPROVED. THE BODY ARTS STUDIO THAT MOVED FROM ONE SUITE TO ANOTHER, THAT WAS APPROVED.

AND THEN THERE WAS A NONRESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY BUILDING STANDARDS RELATED TO -- WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM? CONTAINERS, SHIPPING CONTAINERS, STORAGE CONTAINERS.

THAT WAS APPROVED. YOU CAN HAVE SHIPPING CONTAINERS ON YOUR MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL LAND IF YOU ARE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES PER LAND WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

THAT IS IT FOR PAST CASES. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM, 003 IS THE CONSENT

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR AYE. OPPOSED?

UNANIMOUS. >> UNDER THE REGULAR AGENDA AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, ITEM 004 HAS BEEN CONTINUED BY REQUEST.

ITEM 005 ALSO HAS BEEN REQUESTED CONCONTINUANCE.

DO WE NEED READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD?

>> DO THEE NEED TO BE READ INTO THE PUBLIC MEETING?

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SUGGEST ON BOTH OF THOSE THAT WE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, IMMEDIATELY TAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT REGULAR

MEETING. >> OKAY.

[004 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance in regards to +/-108.357 acres out of the J. Smith Survey, Abstract No. 971, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to a Planned Development District to allow for single-family residential uses. The property is located at the northeast corner of Walnut Grove Road and Mockingbird Lane.) (Z23-2022-91) CONTINUANCE REQUESTED]

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

[005 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District and Single-Family One (SF-1) District to a Planned Development District to allow for single-family residential uses and community retail uses. The property is located west of FM 663, between Autumn Run Road and Byrd Ranch Road (2451 FM 663) (Z33-2022-114) CONTINUANCE REQUESTED]

005, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY 1 DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND COMMUNITY RETAIL USES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF THE FM663 BETWEEN AUTUMN RUN ROAD AND BYRD RANCH. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[006 Consider and act upon a request for a special exception to Section 4.5604 (Minimum Landscaping Requirements) to the required landscaping within off-street parking areas, for an existing building on 18.3147± acres situated in the WM Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 465. The property is located at 505 E Avenue E (Case No. M13-2022-89).]

[00:05:01]

ABABSTRACT 465. >> TONIGHT WE ARE BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT.

THIS IS A MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.

MAKING IMPROVEMENTS OF THE BUS BARN AND SUPPORT CENTER AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS JUST SOUTH OF MID TECH'S PARK.

THEY ARE IMPROVING AND PUTTING IN ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THIS SUBJECT AREA HERE. WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO BE THE IS THEY WERE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO PLACE IN AT THIS POINT DUE TO UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL ON THIS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADHERE TO OUR LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.

BUT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER.

I CAN DO THAT. OR I CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP AND ANNIVERSARY ADDITIONAL ONE.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> OKAY.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? I DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. JIM, IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND

IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> THANK.

I'M THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF MIDLOTHIAN ISD.

WHAT WE ARE TRYING DO WITH THIS PROJECT, COMMISSIONERS, IS THAT'S THE OLD LAURA JENKINS SCHOOL.

BEFORE THAT, IT WAS BOOKER T. WASHINGTON.

WE HAVE A NICE LOOKING BUS BARN OVER THERE.

OUR GOAL IS TO GET ALL OUR MAINTENANCE, CUSTODIAL, FOOD SERVICE EVERYBODY IN ONE LOCATION.

TO DO THAT, WE HAVE REDONE WHAT WE CALL NOW THE C RANDALL HILL SUPPORT CENTER. WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT BACK IS THREE, FOUR ACRES, WHATEVER IT IS, PUT A PARKING LOT. WE ARE PARK ALL OUR MAINTENANCE VEHICLES OVER THERE. IT IS ACTUALLY IN CONJUNCTION TO THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA, WE ARE TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE OLD BUS BARN, BUILT IN THE 30S OR 40S.

IT IS REALLY FALLING DOWN. EYESORE, WE WANT TO GET RID OF THAT BUILDING AND CREATE SOME PARKING, OVERFLOW PARKING FOR THE MILE. THE BUILDING WE HAVE DONE A COUPLE YEARS AGO. SO THESE TWO PROJECTS KIND OF GO TOGETHER. REASON WE WANT DO THIS, THIS IS BEHIND -- WE DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO LANDSCAPE.

IT IS A PARKING GARAGE FOR MAINTENANCE VEHICLES.

IF WE DON'T HAVE TO LANDSCAPE IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO ARROGATE IT OR PUT ANYTHING IN THERE LIKE THAT.

SO THAT'S OUR REQUEST TONIGHT. >> OKAY.

QUESTIONS? >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, TO STAFF, I APOLOGIZE. WHAT DID YOU SAY STAFF'S

POSITION IS ON THIS? >> WE WERE RECOMMENDING DENIAL BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO GO AGAINST THOSE STANDARDS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A BIG ISSUE WITH THIS.

WE HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

BUT BASED ON OUR POLICY AND BASED ON POLICY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, WE DO HAVE STANDARDS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE BASING OUR

RECOMMENDATION ON. >> IS THIS A PUBLIC MEETING IS THIS ARE WE CLOSING THIS IN A MINUTE.

>> PUBLIC HEARING. >> IT IS NOT.

>> SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IT OBVIOUSLY SITS BEHIND AN EXISTING BUILDING THEY OWN. IT SITS BETWEEN THAT AND PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN BEHIND IT FOR THE -- AND YOU HAVE GOT.

>> -- >> RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> THAT IS NOT GOING TO SELL. >> MY QUESTION IS, TO GET MY MINDSET ON WHAT YOU ARE DENYING, WHAT CAN'T BE SEEN OTHER THAN TO

FOLLOW THE RULES? >> WE ARE NOT DENYING ANYTHING.

WE ARE BASING OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE GIVEN POLICY THAT YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE ADOPTED. THAT'S ALL THE STAFF DOES, CARRY OUT THE POLICY. I DON'T SEE THERE IS ANY ISSUE.

>> OTHER THAN THAT, THAT IS OUR ORDINANCE.

>> YES, SIR, THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

>> JIM, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO. >> OKAY.

PHILIP BERGESE. IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME.

>> WITH 5237 NORTH RIVERSIDE, I'M JUST HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WE ARE THE CIVIL ENGINEERS THAT DID THE

PROJECT. >> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ONLY TWO THAT I HAVE. DID STAFF HAVE ANYTHING ELSE AT

[00:10:01]

AND/OR ACTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

>> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[007 Consider and act upon a request for a special exception to Section 4.5604 (Minimum Landscaping Requirements) to the required landscaping within off-street parking areas, for an existing building on .8453± acres situated in part of lot 6;7 part of 4;5, Block 38, Original Town of Midlothian. The property is located at the intersection of South 5th Street and West Avenue I (Case No. M14-2022-90).]

AND WEST AVENUE I. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSION.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS THE MIDLOTHIAN IND SPENT SCHOOL INDL DISTRICT. THEY ARE IMPROVING THE PART, ENLARGING THE PARKING DESPERATELY NEEDED OVER FROM THE MILE. ONCE AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDED DENIAL BASED ON THE POLICY THAT'S ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL.

BUT IN THE END, THIS IS BETTERING THE PROPERTY AND STAFF SEES NO ISSUE WITH THIS WHATSOEVER.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

I KNOW, JIM, YOU AND THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE WERE LINED UP TO SPEAK ON BOTH THESE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK AGAIN?

>> JUST THIS IS -- WE ARE TRYING TO GET THAT OLD FIXED UP.

IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR LOTS OF YEARS.

THE BETTER BUILDING WE ARE KEEPING, THE OLD METAL BUILDING WE ARE TEARING DOWN. PUT ABOUT 20 PARKING SPACES THERE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT COME TO THE MILE, CATTY-CORNER TO THAT AREA. IT IS AN EYESORE HONESTLY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET IT DONE AND REPLACE IT WITH

A PARKING LOT. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> CLYDE, IF THEY DID MAKE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, ARE WE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TREE

ISLANDS AND WHATNOT? >> I DOUBT IT.

THAT WOULD BE PART OF IT. PROBABLY ALSO NEED TO BE

SCREENING ALONG FOURTH STREET. >> STREET TREES, POSSIBLY, OUT THERE? I'M THINKING I'M SEEING TREES

ALONG THE ROADWAY THERE ALREADY. >> OH -- YEAH, THERE'S PLENTY OF HACKBERRIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE NOT DONE A TREE SERVICE. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. >> OTHERS QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION?

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY OTHER QUESTION OR QUESTIONS. IF NOT ALL IN FAVOR AYE,

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit for building wall signs exceeding the maximum permitted signage located on Lot 2, Block 1, Hawkins Meadows Commercial (commonly known as 2410 FM 663, Suite 200), and presently zoned Planned Development District No. 68 (PD-68). (SUP12-2022-94)]

ITEM 008, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMANENT FOR BUILDING WALL SIGNS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM SIGN, HAWKINS MEADOWS, COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS 2410 FM 663 SUITE 200.

PRESENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 68.

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS IS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM, CASE NUMBER SUP12-2022.

THIS IS FOR TWO SIGNS LOCATED AT THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY Y URGENT CARE THERE. THIS IS LOCATED AT 2410 FM 663, BEING SUITE 200 AND THERE'S AN EXISTING STRIP RETAIL BUILDING THAT IS SEE IN THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT HERE.

AGAIN, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SUP TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING WALL SIGNAGE PERMITTED.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO WALL SIGNS, ONE LOCATED ALONG FM 663 WHICH IS THE FRONT HERE.

AND ONE LOCATED ALONG HAWKINS RUN ROAD.

FOR THE ONE WE SEE ON THE SLIDE, FM 663, TOTAL OF 32 SQUARE FEET.

HERE'S WHAT IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE HERE AT THE BOTTOM, WHAT THE PROPOSAL LOOKS LIKE THERE. ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

HAWKINS RUN ROAD. THE TOP OF THE SCREEN, AND THE -- HERE'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS LIKE IN PUBLIC SQUARE FOOTAGE, 43 SQUARE FEET. PER THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE, SIGNS THAT FACE TWO SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO GET A SUP, WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING THIS CASE BEFORE YOU HERE TONIGHT.

[00:15:03]

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR AYE? UNANIMOUS.

NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PROVIDED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR AYE? OPPOSED?

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a residential subdivision sign, on the south side of US Highway 287, Westside Preserve. The property is currently zoned Planned Development District No. 146 (PD-146) (SUP13-2022-109)]

PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.

146. >> THIS IS FOR A DEVELOPMENT SIGN ALONG HIGHWAY 287. FOR WEST SIDE PRESERVE.

IT WILL BE GOING ALONG 287 ON THE LARGE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A SIGN THAT WOULD BE 128 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WOULD NOT EXSEAT 15 FEET IN HEIGHT.

THIS IS WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS JUST BASICALLY A PROMOTIONAL SIGN FOR WEST SIDE PRESERVE IN THIS AREA. IT DOES MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT, WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, COME AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

>> GOOD EVENING. JONATHAN JOB, 320 HAWKINS RUN ROAD, MIDLOTHIAN. WE ARE TRYING TO -- BASICALLY TRYING TO SHOWCASE THE DEVELOPMENT, HIGHLIGHT SOME OF OUR BUILDERS AND GENERATE SOME EXCITEMENT FOR THE RETAIL, COMMERCIAL PAD SITES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE OF THE SIGN UP THERE.

WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE, SIZES ALL THAT NATURE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON IT, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR AYE? OPPOSED? OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

[010 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance changing the zoning of 2.015± acres in the 459 H.F. Hinkley Survey, Abstract No. 459, and on Lot 1, Block 1, Lighthouse Addition; amending the development and use regulations of Planned Development District No. 46 (PD-46) in reference to signage. The property is located east of North 9th Street, between East Ridgeway Drive and Sunset Drive (commonly known as 1400 and 1408 North 9th Street) (Z26-2022-104)]

IT IS UNANIMOUS. 010, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON CHANGING THE ORDINANCE OF 2.15 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES IN THE 459 JEFF HIMPGLY SURVEY.

ABSTRACT NO. 459. LOT ONE, BLOCK ONE, LIGHTHOUSE EDITION AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 46 IN REFERENCE TO SIGNAGE.

PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF NORTH NINTH STREET WE KNOW EAST RIDGEWAY DRIVE AND SUNSET DRIVE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1400 AND 1408

NORTH EIGHTH. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING AGENDA ITEM 10, Z26-2022-104.

THIS IS FOR PD AMENDMENT LOCATED AT 1400 NORTH NINTH STREET AND THIS IS AT LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH AND AGAIN, TOTAL SITE IS JUST OVER TWO ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PD TO PD TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL WALL I KNOW SAIJ.

SIGNAGE. THIS IS LIGHTHOUSE CAFE HERE AND, AS YOU SEE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SIGNS WITH SIGN ONE BEING LOCATED HERE. AND TO THE BOTTOM SIGN TO BEING LOCATED THERE. SO NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS SIGN 1 BEING TOTAL 64 SQUARE FEET. THIS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS HARD TO TELL HERE.

BUT HERE'S THE EXISTING SIGN LOCATED.

[00:20:06]

HOWEVER, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED USE AND, AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IF NOT, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WISH TO SPEAK? IF NOT, I DO HAVE ONE FORM SUBMITTED IN FAVOR, DAVID SHROTE. THAT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. HAVING NOTHING ELSE, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> MOWMOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR

DISCUSSION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? MANY IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit for building wall signs that are not meeting signage regulations for the City of Midlothian, located on Lot 2R-A Block 1, Walnut Grove Center South (commonly known as 4470 FM 663, Suite 1000), and presently zoned Commercial (C). (SUP14-2022-110)]

ZONED COMMERCIAL. >>> AGENDA ITEM NO. 11, SUP14-2022-110. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR SIGNAGE THAT INCLUDES THE CABINET BOX AT THE SITE AND AGAIN THIS IS LOCATED AT 4470 U.S. 287 BEING SUITE ONE THOUSAND.

AS YOU SEE IN THE PHOTO HERE, HERE IS THE SIGN CURRENTLY EXISTING ON THE SUITE ONE THOUSAND BUILDING.

THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS SITE LAYOUT PLAN WHERE SUITE ONE THOUSAND IS LOCATED ON THE SITE. WE HAVE PROPOSED SIGN BUT THE EXISTING SIGN BEING 18 SQUARE FEET WHICH AGAIN CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY AND TO THE RIGHT IS WHAT THE PROPOSED SIGN OR EXISTING SIGN LOOKS LIKE.

SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL BUT BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THAT, WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THAT -- LET ME BACKTRACK. CABINET BOX FOR SIGNAGE IS NOT ALLOWED. SO THAT'S WHAT CURRENT LEEXISTLY EXISTS.THEY ARE STATIT BOX SIGN WAS ALREADY THERE AND THEY JUST DID A SIGN REFACE TO HAVE THEIR BUSINESS ON THERE.

HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF THAT THROUGH OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

SO THEREFORE WE COULDN'T SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THAT REASON. AGAIN, DUE TO STAFF CONCERNS, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS DENIAL FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE.

THINK QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY, IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HERE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS. FLOOR OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR

ACTION. >> YOU ARE SAYING WHEN THEY MOVED IN AND ACQUIRED THE SPACE, THEY PUT A SIGN UP OVER THE EXISTING SIGN, DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE CITY.

AND THEN NOW THEY ARE LOOKING TO CHANGE THE SIGN, REALIZE THAT THEY HADN'T TALKED TO THE CITY, CAME IN --

>> SO THEY WANT TO KEEP THE SIGN HERE, WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE SCREEN THERE. WHAT WE CALL A CABINET BOX SIGN WHICH ISN'T ALLOWED PER THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS WAS -- I FORGET WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.

THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS HAD THAT CABINET BOX SIGN AND THEY HAD

[00:25:03]

SO, THEREFORE, THAT'S OUR PRIMARY REASON WHY WE CAN'T

SPOCK THE APPLSUPPORT THE APPLI. >> ARE THEY WANTING TO PUT A

BIGGER SIGN? >> THEY WANT TO KEEP THIS SIGN HERE. THEY WANT TO THE SIGN HERE, CABINET BOX SIGN AND THEN THERE'S A MULTITENANT MONUMENT SIGN ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAS OTHER TENANTS.

THEY WANT TO INCLUDE THAT SIGN. WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE. IN REGARDS TO THIS SIGN, THAT'S

-- >> YOU ARE REQUESTING THAT THEY

TAKE THAT DOWN? >> YES.

WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THEY TAKE THAT DOWN.

WE DON'T HAVE PROBLEM WITH THE WORDING.

AS YOU SEE ALONG HERE AND ALONG THE REST OF THAT STRIP, RETAIL BUILDING, EVERYONE ELSE HAS STANDARD.

THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WITH A CABINET BOX SIGN.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK PREVIOUSLY IT WAS A BAKERY IN THERE. CUPCAKE SHOP OR SOMETHING.

>> THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> OTHER QUESTIONS? WHAT'S THE PLEASURE THE

COMMISSION? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SUP.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND IT. >> OKAY.

WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED?

>> NO, NO. >> LET'S DO IT BY RAISING HANDS.

THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND? OPPOSED? SO THE MOTION FAILS. ALL RIGHT.

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 2.05± acres in the of land situated in the William W. Rawls Survey, Abstract 915 by changing the zoning from Single Family One (SF-1) District to an Urban Village Planned Development District for general professional uses. The property is generally located directly north of FM 663 and Autumn Run Drive. (Z32-2022-113)]

MINUS ACRES -- >> MAYOR, CHAIRMAN.

AS I SIT HERE AND THINK ABOUT IT, I THINK WE DO NEED AN ACTUAL APPROVE THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. >> I HAD TO RETHINK THAT.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO DENY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, A ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT DOES PASS. SO WE WILL GO BACK TO 12.

CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 2.05 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES, ABSTRACT 915, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY ONE DISTRICT TO AN URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR GENERAL PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES.

THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH OF FM 663

AND AUTUMN RUN. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 12, Z32-2022-113. AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES FROM SINGLE FAMILY ONE TO UVPD, THE TOTAL SITE IS JUST OVER 2.05 ACRES, REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE USE OF A DENTAL OFFICE ON 2.05 ACRES.

NEXT SLIDE JUST DEPICTS THE LOCATION.

OUTLINED IN RED. A CROSS CONNECTION ACCESS FROM WHERE BURGER KING IS LOCATED THERE.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DENSITY DIMENSIONAL CHART, OUR GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. IN THE SECOND COLUMN, SHOWS CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARDS FOR GENERAL PROFESSIONAL.

THIRD COLUMN SHOWS PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN IS OUR MEETS COLUMN SHOWING WHERE THE APPLICANT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE STANDARDS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PARKING. AND SO FOR OUR PARKING STANDARD FOR DENTAL OFFICE OR CLINIC IS ONE SPACE HER 400 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS 11 SPACES, IF YOU INCLUDE THAT 25% MAXIMUM THAT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO HAVE 14 SPACES.

AS YOU SEE IN THE THIRD COLUMN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF 40 SPACES.

[00:30:01]

TO THE RIGHT, PROPOSED DENTAL OFFICE BEING 4200 SQUARE FEET.

YOU SEE THE TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES THERE.

NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING FOR THE SITE. THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES DEPICT THE ELEVATION FACADE PLAN. STONE AND STUCCO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TOTAL PARKING SPACES NOT EXCEED 26 SPACES OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED 40 SPACES BY THE APPLICANT.

ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE.

>> HI, MY NAME IS LINDSEY DECUM BRER.

DECUMBER FOR THE PROJECT. WE FEEL THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS FITTING GIVEN THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALSO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. WE AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REZONING, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> SO WHY SO MANY PARKS SPACE?

>> SO WE WERE REQUESTING THAT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THIS SPECIFIC DENTAL OFFICE HAS THREE DENTISTS WITHIN THE OFFICE AND THEN TOTAL OF ABOUT 15 HYGIENISTS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT WORK THERE AT A GIVEN TIME. ABOUT 12 CHAIRS FOR PATIENTS.

SO AT ANY GIVEN TIME THERE COULD BE UPWARDS OF 30 PEOPLE AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDING PEOPLE THAT ARE CIRCULATING THROUGH TO WAIT FOR THEIR APPOINTMENTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE SHOWING MORE THAN WHAT WE -- THE MAXIMUM ALLOWS.

WE DO APPRECIATE THE STAFF RECOMMENDING MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM WHICH WAS 14. BUT WE DO FEEL THAT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 35 WOULD PROBABLY BE THE MINIMUM THAT WE FEEL WOULD BE COMFORTABLE. THE LAST THING WE WANT IS FOR PATIENTS TO COME TO THE SITE AND NOT HAVE ANYWHERE TO PARK.

SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE FOR THAT REQUEST.

>> SO IS THAT BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION OR DID YOU GET THAT

FROM ANOTHER LOCATION, STUDY? >> YES.

THE SPECIFIC LAYOUT FOR THIS DENTAL OFFICE, WE HAVE DONE IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, HEARTLAND DENTAL IS ONE OF THE LARGEST DENTAL CORPORATIONS IN AMERICA. AND THIS IS THE STANDARD THAT WE TYPICALLY GO BY. SO WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE THREE DENTISTS. THERE WILL BE 15 HYGIENISTS AT A GIVEN TIME AND THERE WILL BE UPWARDS OF 12 PATIENTS BEING

TREATED AT ONE TIME. >>> OKAY, SO YOU HAVE OTHER -- THEY HAVE OTHER LOCATIONS AND WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE AVERAGE

PARKING AT THOSE LOCATIONS IS? >> TYPICALLY, OUR AVERAGE PARKING IS AROUND 40. SO REALLY THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE IDEAL BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE CITY WITH THE MAXIMUM.

SO IF WE GET 35, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

BUT IDEALLY, MOST WE CAN GET IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

>> SO THE INTENT IS FOR THE ONE BUILDING AND ONE BUSINESS.

IS THERE ANY INTENT FOR AN ADDITFOR AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THIS EXACT -- THIS IS OUR CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT.

BUT LIKE SAID, SINCE WE HAVE DONE THESE MORE THAN TEN TIMES, WE HAVE DONE IT A TON, WE DO KNOW WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THE

STAND-ALONE BUILDING. >> SO ALL THIS IS GOING THROUGH ON ONE LOT, NOT BEING SUBD SUBDIVIDED.

>> I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME ONE WROR TIME PLEASE.

>> YES, LINDSEY DECUMBER. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> I DO HAVE ONE FORM SUBM SUBMITTED -- I'M SORRY, I CAN'T READ THE FIRST NAME.

IS IT DEMS AND JAMES DAVIS, 2226, AUTUMN GLENN ROAD, THEY ARE IN SUPPORT. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I HAVE.

HAVING NONE OTHERS, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED?

[00:35:01]

>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IN REFERENCE TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, I GUESS EXCEEDS THE BUILDING STANDARD ALLOWANCES THAT WE HAVE ON FILE.

SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND WHAT IS THE BIG ISSUE WITH GIVING THEM ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IF YOU ARE NOT AFFECTING GREEN SURFACE OR WATER RUN-OFF, WHAT'S THE BIG

DEAL? >> SO WE ARE LARGELY JUST TRYING TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE PAST AND PAST CASES, WHETHER IT BE GENERAL OFFICE OR CLINICS OF THIS SIZE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. AGAIN, WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS WOULD BE 11 SPACES WITH 25% MAXIMUM BEING 14.

WE FELT THAT ADD DIG AL 12 ADDITIONAL 12SPACES.

YOU GUYS AS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, IF YOU GUYS FEEL THAT THAT WILL BE THE BEST WAY TO GO, IN REGARDS OF RECOMMENDING MORE SPACES TO THE SITE, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT AS STAFF, WE FEEL THE 26 SPACES IS SUFFICIENT FOR THAT USE.

>> SO AFTER HEARING AT LEAST THE ENGINEERING SIDE, WHICH I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY ARE A NATIONWIDE USAGE, THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF DETAIL WORK ON DECIDING WHAT KIND OF SPACES THEY NEED TO HANDLE THEIR VOLUME, WOULDN'T IF WE ALLOW THESE EXTRA SPACES, A LATER USE FOR THE BUILDING COULD BE USED THAT DOESN'T MEET WHAT -- I'M HAVING A TOUGH TIME WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND WHERE

THE ISSUE IS AT? >> I THINK IT IS 200% THE NORMAL CODE. WHEN IT IS OVER 25%, WE BRING IT TO YOU. THIS IS 200%.

>> THE REQUEST OF STAFF IN THE WAY THAT STAFF WOULD VIEW THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POTENTIAL OF THE BUILDING EXCEEDED USAGE LIMITS WITHIN FIRE CODE OR WHAT HAVE YOU? IT IS JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE BASE THAT FOLKS DECIDED BEFORE. THANK YOU.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISC DISCUSSION?

>> I DON'T MIND THE EXTRA SPACES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING, INSTEAD OF IN BETWEEN

THE ROAD AND MAIN ROADWAY. >> WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT HAVING THAT OPEN CORRIDOR 663, THAT WOULD CONTINUE THAT WITHOUT HAVING THOSE CARS PARKED HEAD IN RIGHT ON TRAFFIC.

>> ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD, DOES STAFF HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT THE TRAFFIC FLOW MIGHT BE INTO THIS FACILITY IN A DAY'S TIME? IS IT REALLY THAT MUCH OF A LOAD? THREE DENTISTS? BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION WITHIN

THE ROADWAY THERE ALSO. >> I CAN'T SEE THAT THE TRAFFIC LOAD WOULD BE HIGH. AS LINDSEY MENTIONED, THEY HAVE ROUGHLY 15 TO 20 STAFF MEMBERS. CUSTOMERS THAT FLOW IN AND OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY. I CAN'T SEE THAT WOULD BE

ACTUALLY THAT HIGH. >> SO WHAT LANDSCAPING IS GOING FACING 663? TO GO ALONG WITH YOUR QUESTION OR STATEMENT ABOUT NOT HAVING CARS PARKED DIRECTLY ON THE R

ROADWAY. >> SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSINE SECOND. LIVE OAKS, CEDAR ELM, BURR OAK AS WELL. THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY --

>> IS THERE ANY LOW VEGETATION GOING IN FRONT.

>> SHRUBS INCLUDED AS WELL. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO TRAFFIC, IF I LOOK AT THAT PROPERLY, THE TRAFFIC COME OUT

THROUGH BURGER KING? >> YES, SIR.

>> IN A JOINT SERVICE. OR THEY COULD GO BACK THROUGH

ALDI AND THROUGH THE RED LIGHT? >> NO ACCESS IS GOING THROUGH FM 663, ALL GOING TO BE THROUGH THE BURGER KING.

>> AND BURGER KING IS RIGHT TURN ONLY?

>> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[00:40:10]

I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE

PROPOSED 40 SPACES. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[013 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending Planned Development District No. 32 (PD-32), by changing the development regulations and standards to allow for additional parking and amending landscaping. The property is located at the northeast corner of West Main and US Highway 67. (Z25-2022-101)]

AND HIGHWAY 67. >> THIS IS CHASE BANK PROPERTY DOWN OFF MAIN STREET AND CLOSE TO HIGHWAY 67.

THEY ARE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL PARKING.

CURRENTLY, THEY HAVE -- I THINK THEY HAVE 42 STALLS FOR A 4,146 SQUARE FEET BUILDING. AS PARK PER CODE, 4,000 SQUARE FOOT BANK WOULD REQUIRE 12 PARKING STALS.

LIKE I SAID, THEY HAVE 42 STALLS EXISTING.

SO THAT IS GOING ABOVE THE 25% AND THEY ARE REQUESTING 7 ADDITIONAL STALLS WHICH WOULD GO BETWEEN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT I EVER PARKING LOT. THIS IS CURRENTLY A LANDSCAPING -- I GUESS IT IS AN ISLAND.

LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING TO THE NORTH OF THAT. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO PUT THOSE STALLS THERE. THEY WILL -- THEY DO HAVE 11 EMPLOYEES DURING BUSINESS HOURS. AND THEY WILL HAVE 35 OR MORE CUSTOMERS DURING PEAK TIME. SO THAT WOULD LEND ITSELF TO THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING. BUT THEY ARE REQUESTING 49 SPOTS. THEY WILL REPLACE -- THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REPLACE DEAD VEGETATION AND ALSO THE SPLIT RAIL FENCE ALONG MAIN STREET AS WELL.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE IS THIS IS WHERE THEY WOULD ADD VEGETATION. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS IS NEW VEGETATION. THIS IS ALL EXISTING AND THEN WHAT HAS -- IS DEAD WILL BE REPLACED.

SO WITH THAT SAID, WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS BASED ON THE PARKING RATIOS. AND BASED ON THE 25% CAP THAT WE TYPICALLY HAVE. BUT WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN. I'M NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE OR NOT. THEY ARE.

THEY CAN CORRECT ME WHERE I WENT ASTRAY.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, SIR, PLEASE

IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> THEY ARE GOING TO ADD A TREE,

I APOLOGIZE. >> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL.

MASON LEEPAK, THE CIVIL ENGINEER REPRESENTING CHASE.

BIG PART OF THE REASON THAT THESE PARKING SPOTS ARE NECESSARY IS DUE TO THE STARBUCKS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH AND THE DRIVE-THROUGH LINE THAT STACKS UP RIGHT ABOVE THESE PROPOSED PARKING SPACES THAT BLOCKS NINE OF THEIR PARKING SPOTS. THEY HAVE VERY LIMITED PARKING ACCESSIBILITY WHEN THEIR DRIVE-THROUGH LINE IS BACKED UP.

THAT CREATES A LOT OF OVERFLOW PARKING COMING INTO THE CHASE BANK AND TAKES AWAY FROM THE EXISTING 42 SPACES.

>> OKAY. QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW I HAVE ONE FORM SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION FROM LEE LEWIS REPRESENTED STARBUCKS. ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD.

>> I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> OKAY, IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? >> IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[014 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone .563 acres of land, out of the Robert Horton Survey, Abstract 508 from Residential Three (R-3) District to an Urban Village Planned Development District to allow for use for a single-family residential dwelling combined with a non-residential use. The property is on the northwest corner of North 2nd Street and West Main. (commonly known as 803 W. Main Street) (Z18-2022-64)]

>> YOU ARE CORRECTED. BUT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> IT HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE DAYS.

THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE QUESTION.

[00:45:02]

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY OTHER QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

NOW, 14 HAS BEEN PULLED, RIGHT, CLYDE?

[015 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 104.38± acres in the of land situated in the L.W. Stewart Survey, Abstract 997, C.R. Werely Survey, Abstract. 1187, and the J.J. Grimes Survey, Abstract 1327 by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to a Planned Development (PD) District for mixed uses. The property is generally located south of Hayes Crossing. (Z29-2022-108)]

>> YES, SIR. >> 015, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING, RELIED T RELATED TO USD SITUATED AT THE LW ABSTRACT 997, 1187, AND ABSTRACT 1327 BY CHANGING ZONING FROM AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MIXED USES.

PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF HAYES CROSSING.

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING, AGENDA ITEM NO. 15, CASE NO. C-2022-08. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

TOTAL SITE IS BEING 104 ACRES CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR USES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE USES. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSAL IS CORPORATE MODULE AND WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER. GRANTED, THIS IS THE HIGHLANDS, SEPARATE CASE FROM LAGO VISTA, I'M SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. THIS IS WHERE THE PROPOSED ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT OF LAGO VISTA PLANNED DEVELOP MANY WAS GOING. DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING. WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT.

JUST FOR REFRESHER, WE DID WANT TO POINT OUT LAGO VISTA 273 ACRES WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BEING 212 ACRES AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE BEING 60 ACRES. AT THE MARCH 8TH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CITY COUNCIL VOTED 4-3 TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED LAGO VISTA DEVELOPMENT. 311 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE TRACT. AGAIN, TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS. WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT THE CHANGES FROM THE MARCH 8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO THE TOTAL ACHERAGE FROM LAGO VISTA REDUCED TO 5 LOT TYPES TO 3 LOT TYPES. TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LOT COUNT REDICED FROM 311 TO 112 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

OFFICE WAREHOUSE ACREAGE REDUCED FROM 60.5 ACRES TO 28.6 ACRES, AND THEY REVISED THE CONCEPT PLAN TO INCLUDE ROUGHLY TWO ACRES OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, WE KNOW THAT THESE ARE LARGE DECREASES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, THAT'S LARGELY DUE TO THE ACREAGE REDUCTION.

WE WILL BRAW BREAK DOWN DEVELOPT BY LOT TYPES.

104 ACRES WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BEING 74 ACRES.

COMMERCIAL RETAIL BEING TWO ACRES.

AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE BEING 28.6 ACRES.

THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 74 ACRES BEING CONSISTING OF THREE LOT TYPES, TYPE A, TYPE B, AND TYPE C.

AND FOR FURTHER BREAKDOWN, TYPE A LOTS BEING HALF ACRE.

90 FEET WIDE AND 3,000 DWELLING UNIT SIZE.

WE DO WANT TO NOTE, TYPE A AND TYPE C LOTS WERE ACTUALLY ACCIDENTALLY REVERSED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN.

IT IS REFLECTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ORDINANCE IS FOR TYPE A HAVING 2200 DWELLING UNITS SIZE AND TYPE C HAVING 3,000.

SO THEY WERE JUST REVERSED. I WILL MENTION THAT ON BOTH.

TYPE A, AGAIN, HALF ACRE LOTS, 3,000 UNIT DWELLING SIZE.

TYPE B LOTS, 57 LOTS, 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, 80 FEET WIDE, THOSE ARE 2600 DWELLING UNIT USE MINIMUM.

AND TYPE C, 52 LOTS, 80 FEET WOOD, 2200 DWELLING UNIT SIZE.

IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN THE ORDINANCE, IT REFLECTED 3,000 BUT IT IS 2200. NEXT SLIDE, DIMENSIONAL CHART.

THESE LARGELY REPRESENT OUR RESIDENTIAL LOT TYPES WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE S4 ZONING.

WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS PD. FOR FURTHER UNDERSTANDING FOR THE P&Z WHERE IT DEVIATES, WE OUTLINED THOSE ITEMS IN BLUE.

AS YOU SEE HERE, ALL THE ITEMS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOUR

[00:50:04]

LOT TYPE C, MINIMUM 12,600. AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IS 15,000. NEXT SLIDE IS THE CONCEPT PLAN, ONE OF THE MAIN AMENITIES FOR THE SITE, THERE'S A LARGE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER, 25-FOOT BUFFER OF LANDSCAPING ALONG HAYES ROAD.

ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE A CONCRETE CIRCLE AND OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPE BUFFER. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING. GRANTED, IT IS A CONCEPT PLAN, THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY AMENITIES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THERE.

WE CAN SPEAK MORE TO THE ELEVATION CONCEPTS.

THESE FEW SLIDES WE ARE GOING THROUGH HERE ARE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT APPLICANT TENDS TO HAVE WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE HIGHLANDS PD.

AGAIN, OPEN SPACE, PLAYGROUND, BENCHES FOR FAMILIES THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPING AND TRAILS.

HOWEVER, DUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT NOT BEING SUBSEQUENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF ST STAFF?

>> WHAT IS THE CURRENT PLAN CALL FOR?

>> CORPORATE MODULE WHICH TYPICALLY FALLS UNDER THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE. THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THAT.

THEY ARE NOT FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH IT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVIDING THE OFFICE AND OFFICE WAREHOUSE RETAIL USES BUT THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS THE REASON THAT IT IS INSUBSEQUENT

WITINCONSISTENTWITH THE FUTURE . >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WISH TO SPEAK?

>> PLEASE. >> TERRY, IDENTIFY YOURSELF,

SIR. >> TERRY WEAVER, STERLING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.

815 WEST MAINE STREET, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.

I KNOW IT PROBABLY FEELS LIKE DEJA VU.

WE CAME IN TRYING TO COMBINE THIS WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH THAT YA'LL -- THE CITY HAD ALREADY GIVEN US ZONING ON CALLED LAGO VISTA. THAT ZONING STILL EXISTS.

IT IS STILL THERE FOR 168 ACRES. THERE WILL BE 133 LOTS IN THAT AS YA'LL GAVE US ZONING BEFORE. THERE WILL BE 30 ACRES OF OFFICE WAREHOUSE THERE THAT YA'LL PROVIDED BEFORE.

THIS IS 104 ACRES THAT WE NOW CALL THE HIGHLANDS.

IT IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE APPLICATION FROM WHAT WAS DENIED BEFORE. YA'LL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE LARGER PLAN BEFORE. AT THAT TIME, STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSE OF THE CORPORATE MODULE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WE UNDERSTAND THE CORPORATE MODULE. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO IGNORE IT OR BE.WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL BUILDO THE NORTH.

WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING APPROVAL BELOW IT.

WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FILL IN A HOLE HERE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WE ONLY LOST BY ONE VOTE AT CITY COUNCIL. WE WERE TRYING, IF YA'LL REMEMBER, TO DO SOME SMALLER LOTS, ALLEY LOTS AND THAT SORT OF THING. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY WE LOST AT COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW.

WE HAVE TAKEN ALL THOSE OUT. WE DROPPED OUR LOT COUNT FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRACT FROM 148 LOTS TO 112 LOTS.

SMALLEST LOT IS 12,060 SQUARE FEET.

EVEN THOUGH WE ARE SAYING MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE OF 80, MOST OF THESE LOTS WILL BE 90-FOOT LOTS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALLOWING ANY J SWINGS OR ANY REAR OR FRONT ENTRY.

IT ALL HAS TO BE SIDE ENTRY. UNLESS SOMEONE DOES ELECT TO DO A REAR ENTRY BY WRAPPED THEIR DRIVEWAY ALL THE WAY AROUND THEIR HOUSE. WE WOULD ALLOW THAT, OF COURSE.

BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY ALLEY LOADS TO THIS.

NOT ONLY ARE WE PUTTING IN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE HAYES ROAD COLLECTOR, WHICH WE WILL BUILD TWO LANES FROM ALL THE WAY FROM HAYES CROSS HE IS DOWN TO HAMMOND AT SEVERAL

[00:55:02]

YOU WILL SEE A WONDERFUL LOOKING TREED, GREEN BELT ALONG THIS.

THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE HAMMOND PART OF IT, PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOW LAGO VISTA, IT STILL HAS THAT NATURAL TREE CANOPY AREA THAT WE BUILT UP THERE TO BUFFER.

THERE WILL BE A GREEN BELT BUFFER, WIDE BUFFER ALONG THE COLLECTOR BETWEEN THE FUTURE OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND THE RESIDENTIAL THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR.

I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

BUT I HOPE THAT KIND OF SOMEWHAT CLARIFIES IT.

, WHY I AM BACK IN HERE AGAIN AFTER I HAVE BEEN TURNED ON CITY COUNCIL ON THE PREVIOUS PLAN TO COMBINE THIS

WITH LAGO VISTA. >> OKAY.

QUESTIONS? >> TERRY, DOES THIS CONNECT TO

HAYES CROSSING? >> YES.

WE WILL PICK UP, COMMISSIONER, YES, WE WILL PICK UP WITH TWO LANES THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD, WE WILL BRING IT TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAGO VISTA WHICH IS ALONG STRETCH.

UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S SOUTH OF US TO CONTINUE TO PICK THAT UP BUT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THOROUGHFARE PLAN, THIS IS IN THE CIP. AND IT WILL BE FOUR LABELED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE ACCESS POINT TO THE AIRPORT EVENTUALLY.

BUT WE WILL BE BUILDING OUR PORTION AS WE PHASE DEVELOP.

WE WILL ALSO TIE IN WITH LAGO VISTA OVER INTO THE WESTERN SIDE OF HAYES CROSSING ALSO. SOME CIRCULATION THAT WAY, THEN THIS WHOLE THINGS CIRCULATES TOGETHER.

BUT SINCE WE DIDN'T GET OUR APPROVALS BEFORE.

WE HAVE TWO FREESTANDING COMMUNITIES NOW.

LAGO VISTA, ALREADY APPROVED FOR ZONING, AND THEN HIGHLANDS WHICH WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT FOR THIS RESIDENTIAL AND THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE. THERE IS A TWO ACRE FUTURE COMMERCIAL RETAIL THERE. WE FEEL WITH ALL THE HOMES AND ALL THAT AND THE FUTURE OFFICE WEAR HWAREHOUSE, THERE WILL BE E LOCAL RETAIL NEEDS IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL FRONT THE HAYES

COLLECTOR. >> IF YOU WILL REFRESH MY MEMORY, THIS WHOLE AREA IS PART OF THE ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND THE AIRPORT.

>> YEAH, IT WAS DONE WHEN -- BACK WHEN TWIN CREEK WAS DONE AND HAYES CROSSING GOT APPROVED, THEN WE CAME IN AND HAD A GROUP THAT BOUGHT THE WHAT IS LAGO VISTA, THE HAMMOND TRACT, WHICH WRAPS AROUND THIS. ANOTHER GROUP CAME IN AND BOUGHT THIS. I'M REPRESENTING BOTH OF THEM FOR DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO FILL IN

THE HOLE HERE. >> YOU HAVE ALREADY GOT ZONING APPROVED TO THE SOUTH OF THIS, ANYWAY.

>> YES. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.

>> ALL APPROVED IT AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> THEN YA'LL APPROVED -- WE WERE GOING TO COMBINE THEM TOGETHER AND YA'LL APPROVED THAT UNANIMOUSLY, THEN I GOT WITHIN ONE VOTE AT COUNCIL.

WE DROPPED THE SMALLER LOTS OUT. THIS REALLY NEEDS TO BE -- I KNOW IT DOESN'T FIT THE CORPORATE MODULE.

DOESN'T FIT THE LONG USE PLAN. BUT THIS IS A TRANSITION AREA.

IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE RESIDENTIAL.

THANK YA'LL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK.

I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR IS OPEN. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

IF THERE IS APPROVAL FOR ZONING TO THE SOUTH.

AND THIS WAS -- I CAN REMEMBER FROM WAY BACK THAT THIS WAS A BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE AIRPORT. OF COURSE, IT IS MOVING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION NOW. HOW COULD WE EVEN KEEP IT AS A CORPORATE MODULE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH. WOULDN'T IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE ALL THIS RESIDENTIAL FOR IT TO FLOW

THROUGH PROPERLY? >> THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE.

WE JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO CHANGING THE FUTURE.

WHEN YOU APPROVED, YOU AND COUNCIL APPROVED THE SOUTHERN

[01:00:01]

NEXT TIME WE UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT, WILL BECOME RESIDENTIAL. THTO TERRY'S POINT, THERE IS A BUFFER THERE HE IS PROVIDING BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND AIRPORT. 800 FEET.

>> FOUR-LANE ROAD. >> FOR THAT CORPORATE MODULE.

THERE IS A BUFFER. BUT IT IS NOT MEETING TYPICAL

CORPORATE MODULE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION?

IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE WOULD

APPROVE AS IT IS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[016 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 32.286± acres in the John Early Survey, Abstract No. 343 by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to a Planned Development (PD) District for multifamily use. The property is generally located +/-625 feet north of Highway 287 on South Walnut Grove Rd. (Z28-2022-106)]

ITEM 016, CONDUCT PUBLIC HERE, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE USE AND RELY DEVELOPMENT IN THIBABSTRACT 343, FOR FAMILY -- MULTIFAMILY USE, PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 625 FEET NORTH OF HIGHWAY 387 ON SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD.

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE THIS EVENING, AGENDA ITEM NO.

16, CASE NO. Z28-2022-106. THIS IS FOR PROPOSED MUTT IF I M INFLAMMATORY SYNDROME IN MULTIFY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED.

PARTIALLY OR LARGELY CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THERE IS A RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE FRONT HERE.

HOWEVER, THAT IS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO IF IT AT THIS HYPOTHETICALLT RESIDENCE WOULD GO AWAY.

APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT ON 32 ACRES. CURRENT ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL.

FUTURE LAND PLAN IS MEDIUM URBAN DENSITY MODULE.

EXCUSE THE COLORFUL SITE PLAN. THESE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PICTURE BETTER.

OVERALL SITE PLAN, 322 TOTAL UNITS.

33 TOTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS. 11 THREE-STORY BUILDINGS, AND 22 TWO-STORY BUILDINGS. JUST APARTMENT UNIT BREAKDOWN, ONE BEDROOM AND BATH, 130 UNITS. TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH, 130 UNITS. THREE BEDROOM THREE BATH BEING 30 UNITS, AND CARRIAGE HOUSE, ONE BATH, 32 UNITS.

TOTAL COMES OUT TO 322 TOTAL UNITS.

NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE AMENITIES.

THIS IS NOT ALL THE AMENITIES, JUST PRIMARY ONES.

SO WE HAVE GOT THEM COLOR CODED HERE FOR YOU.

AMENITY CLUBHOUSE IN ORANGE, FITNESS CENTER OUTLINED IN RED.

THEY WILL HAVE TWO POOLS ON THE SITE.

ONE HERE, ONE IN THE BACK. THREE SPORTS COURTS, ONE HERE, ONE HERE. I THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO HERE. I JUST COVERED IT WITH ONE LARGE PURPLE SQUARE. THEN COMMON AREA, COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE OUTLINED IN GREEN. WE JUST WANTED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL NOTABLE AMENITIES. APPLICANT, TO THEIR CREDIT, DID GO ABOVE OUR STANDARD REQUIREMENT IN THE ORDINANCE.

AGAIN, INCLUDE A PET CENTER ON THE DEVELOPMENT, EFFICIENCY WINDOWS ON RESIDENTIAL AND COMMON BUILDINGS, WI-FI INTERNET PROVIDED IN THE COMMON AMENITIES, WALK-IN CLOSETS, MAJOR UPGRADED APPLIANCES. THEY ALL PRETTY MUCH LOOK THE SAME, SOME HAVING ATTACHED GARAGES.

TYPE 1, NO ATTACHED GARAGES. TYPE 2 IN ORANGE HERE, FOUR BUILDINGS, TWO STORY. THOSE DO INCLUDE TUCK-UNDER GARAGES. AS YOU SEE HERE, SEE THE ATTACHED TUCK-UNDER GARAGES LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM.

TYPE 4, OUTLINED IN YELLOW WILL BE SIX BUILDINGS, THOSE WILL BE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS, INCLUDES ATTACHED OR TUCK UNDER GARAGES.

HERE'S THE CONCEPT ELEVATION PLAN FOR HERE AND YOU SEE THAT ATTACHED TUCK UNDER GARAGES. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THE MATERIALS ARE STUCCO, STONE, FIBER CEMENT SIDING.

[01:05:03]

WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, REPRESENTS THE MEETS COLUMN. IN THE FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HEIGHT. OUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWS TWO STORIES FOR MULTIFAMILY. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE STORIES. FOR THE PARKING, THE DETACHED AND TUCK UNDER REQUIREMENTS, THE APPLICANT IS NOT MEETING THE ATTACHED REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING 64 OF THE 161 PROVIDED. THEY DO PROVIDE A REASON FOR THAT. WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT AND LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THAT AS WELL.

THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING FOR THE SITE.

WE DO WANT TO BREAK DOWN THE COLOR CODE HERE IN BLACK AND PURPLE ALONG THE FRONT AND BOTTOM HERE, IT WILL BE SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON. ALONG THE BACK, EIGHT FOOT WROUGHT IRON. PRIMARY DIFFERENCE, 8 FEET ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING. PARKING LAYOUT, SO, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE DETACHED REQUIREMENT FOR 100 OF THE 181. TUCK UNDER, PROVIDING 90 OF THE 181. AND 239 SURFACE SPACES.

SO OF THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE NOT MEETING IT IS THE ATTACHED GARAGES WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDED 64 OF THE 161 REQUIRED.

SO THE REASONING FOR THAT IS LARGELY DUE TO THE APPLICANT STATED IT DOESN'T FIT THE STYLE TO PROVIDE THAT MANY ATTACHED GARAGES. THEY ARE GOING FOR MORE OF A GARDEN STYLE DEVELOP MANY. DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST, THE PARKING, TOUCHED ON IN PREVIOUS SLIDES, BUILDING HEIGHT, MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS TWO STORIES, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE STORIES FOR TWO BUILDING TYPES.

STAFF CONCERNS, THRESHOLD, WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IN THE PAST, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, CITY WIDE? A. , WE DON'T WANT TO HE CAN SEED 10 PERCENT FOR MULTIFAMILY. ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST OVER THAT 10%. WITH THAT INNER LOOP AREA, IT WAS 5% TO 10% RATIO. THAT IS SOMETHING WE DID WANT TO NOTE TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.

COMMUNITY CASHING, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT CHAPTER 4 OF OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN LISTS OUT LIMITS CONSISTENT WITH, IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR, MAKE SURE THAT HISTORIC PRECEDENT, MATERIALS OR JUST STYLE BE CONSIDERED OR INCLUDED IF YOU GUYS OR COUNCIL CHOOSES TO APPROVE THIS DEVELOPMENT.

ALSO, PROVIDING VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL AND QUALITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. ALSO, THIS LAST CONCERN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. HOWEVER, WE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NOTE TO YOU GUYS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 52, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2008, WHICH WAS -- IS NORTH OF KEEPSAKE STORAGE IN STONE GATE CHURCH. INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY ELEMENT THAT IS CONSIDERED RETIREMENT VILLAGE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS STANDARD APARTMENTS, THAT WOULD BE TARGETED MORE TOWARD POSSIBLY 55 PLUS.

HOWEVER, WE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MADE NOTE OF THAT.

AGAIN, THAT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, NORTH OF STONE GATE. AGAIN, DUE TO STAFF CONCERNS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AGAIN LARGELY DUE TO OUR STAFF CONCERNS TO THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, THE THRESHOLD LARGELY AND THE LAST CONCERN WE MENTIONED WITH THE OTHER PD. OUTSIDE OF THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE GOT ONE. SO JUST A MOMENT AGO YOU

[01:10:05]

>> SO FOR APPROVED ZONING, WE DON'T THAT NUMBER.

FORGIVE ME ON THAT. FOR ON THE GROUND, WE BELIEVE WE

ARE AT 12% RIGHT NOW. >> SO THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION, I KNOW FROM A LITTLE CHECK I DID A YEAR OR TWO AGO, INNER LOOP, WE HAD 250 UNITS APPROVED INNER LOOP ALONE.

WE ONLY HAD AT THAT TIME, I'M SURE IT HAS COME UP SOME, AROUND 1800. I THINK WE ARE UP 2700 INNER LOOP NOW. I GUESS WE COULD BE WAY ABOVE WHERE WE EVEN THINK WE ARE WHEN YOU COMBINE ZONING AND ON THE GROUND. I WISH WE COULD GET THAT NUMBER

IN THE NEAR FUTURE. >> I D[INAUDIBLE].

>> THAT'S A LOT OF REAL ESTATE. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW.

>> FORGIVE US FOR NOT HAVING THIS ON SCREEN, BUT WE DID TAKE SOME NUMBERS AND THIS WAS TOWARD MAYBE NOVEMBER, DECEMBER LAST YEAR. SO IT IS FAIRLY STILL ACCURATE TODAY DUE TO US NOT HAVING ANY MULTIFAMILY CHANGES.

FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE MULTIFAMILY CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, IT IS 2,278 UNITS. FORM SUBMITTED PLANNED DEVELOP MANY THAT IS ZONED AND CONSTRUCTED, IT IS 977 UNITS.

FOR STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY ZONE THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, THAT'S 136 UNITS. , CONSTRUCTED IS 471 UNITS.

FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ALL MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTED, STRAIGHT ZONE, I THINK CITY WIDE, ROUGHLY 1400 PLUS UNITS,

SOMETHING AROUND THAT NUMBER. >> THAT'S ON THE GROUND.

>> THAT'S ON THE GROUND FOR PD CONSTRUCTED FOR STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY ZONE CONSTRUCTED, ROUGHLY 1400.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS 12%.

HOW MANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS DO WE HAVE?

>> WE WERE LOOKING INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? TIF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

>> [INAUDIBLE] THANKS FOR PROVIDING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND MEET AND SPEAK IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP IN MIDLOTHIAN IS SOMETHING WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT AND HOPE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.

I DID WANT TO PRESENT, PLAY UP THE FACT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE NOT OFF THE SHELF DEVELOPER.

WE HAVE NOT TAKEN A PROJECT WE DEVELOPED SOMEWHERE ELSE, WE FOUND A SITE IN MIDLOTHIAN, WE WILL DEVELOP IT THERE.

WE DEVELOPED IT ACCORDING TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CA CALLS FR MEDIUM USE RESIDENTIAL WITH NO MORE THAN 12 UNITS PER ACRE.

322 ACRES, 10 UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY.

WE HAVE DESIGNED THIS PROJECT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THE AREA.

I KNOW THAT THE HANOVER IS DELIVERING 2145 NEW UNITS THEMSELVES STARTING THIS FALL AND GOING FORWARD.

WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE DEVELOPERS OF THAT PROJECT AS WELL.

OBVIOUSLY, AS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPER, I GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS EVERY TIME WE GO INTO MUNICIPALITY TO DEVELOP, WHAT TYPE OF PRODUCT WE DEVELOP. WHO OUR RENTERS ARE.

WE BUILD A TRUE CLASS A PROJECT. RENTS ON THE HIGHER END OF THE MARKET. WE LIKE OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP NEAR MASTER PLAN COMMUNITIES LIKE THE BRIDGEWATER PROJECT.

A LOT OF OUR RENTERS IN THOSE INSTANCES SEEM TO BE PEOPLE, THIS IS THEIR LAST APARTMENT BEFORE AS THEY SAVE UP A DOWN PAYMENT TO GO BUY HOUSES IN THESE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITIES OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COMMUNITY AMENITIES.

THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY VERY APPEALING TO US.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW HIGH SCHOOL WAS ALSO VERY APPEALING TO US AS WE HAVE SEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITHIN THE AREA.

PROJECTED BUDGET FOR THIS PROJECT IS $92 MILLION.

[01:15:02]

THAT IS NOT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPER WE ARE.

AS IT RELATES TO THE GARAGE REQUIREMENTS, WE ARE BUILDING -- WE ARE IN EXCESS OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THE GARAGE REQUIREMENTS, BUT OUR BREAKDOWN WAS DIFFERENT.

WE ARE NOT MAKING AN ATTEMPT NOT TO PROVIDE ENOUGH ENCLOSED PARKING, WE DID MORE STAND-ALONE GARAGES BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING TYPES WE ARE CONSTRUCTING, SUBURBSUBURBAN AND LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL. TUCK UNDER GETS INTO THREE OR FOUR-STORY CONSTRUCTION WHICH NOBODY IN THIS AREA IS A FAN OF.

AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS.

THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BE HERE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

SPEAK IN FRONT OF YOU. >> QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. BRIAN KERNS.

IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

>> RYAN KERNS, STONE GATE CHURCH, EXECUTIVE PASTOR.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU AND SPEAK TONIGHT. WE LOVE THAT AREA.

WE ARE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO IT OVER THE COMING YEARS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CORNER AND OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF US, WE LOVE THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE RIGHT UP THE ROAD.

WE THINK HERITAGE HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDLOTHIAN HIGH SCHOOL, WE SO MANY YOUNG FAMILIES MOVING INTO THE AREA AND EVEN AS A CHURCH, WE ARE SEEING SO MANY PEOPLE MOVE HERE AND PARTICULARLY JUST LOOK FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

OUR CITY HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB BUILDING PARKS AND AMENITIES AND RESOURCES TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ONE AREA WE JUST LOOK AROUND AND SEE PAIN POINT IS JUST AFFORDABILITY.

AND LAST MONTH ALONE THE AVERAGE LIST PRICE IN MIDLOTHIAN WAS $440,000. SO US TAKING A STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF SAYING, WHAT WOULD IT LOOKS LIKE FOR US TO CREATE SPACE FOR AFFORDABILITY, WE THINK ABOUT THE FOLKS ON OUR STAFF, EVEN AT OUR CHURCH THAT ARE ENTERING INTO THE WORKFORCE, HOW DO THEY GET A FOOTHOLD INTO THE COMMUNITY.

FIRST RESPONDERS, TEACHERS, NURSES, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE ALL SO VALUE INSIDE OF OUR COMMUNITY AND SAYING, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE AND ALSO WORK HERE AS THEY LABOR SO HARD TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY A GREAT PLACE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

DAVID HANSON. >> IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY

YOURSELF, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, DAVID HANSON, ALSO A PASTOR AT STONE GATE CHURCH.

I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR TO THE CONVERSATION THAT RYAN REITERATED ALL OF OUR POSITIONS, AS FAR AS LIKING TO SEE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE MERE. A COUPLE POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE, STONE GATE OWNS THAT 33 ACRES ACROSS THE STREET THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW, CREATES NO TAX REVENUE WHATSOEVER FOR THE CITY.

SO AS JASON JUST MENTIONED, 92 MILLION-DOLLAR PROJECT GOING IN ACROSS THE STREET WHICH I THINK WOULD BE SUPER BENEFICIAL.

THE SECOND THING, I DON'T HAVE I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHICH NUMBER THAT WAS, YOU MENTIONED THE FUTURE MULTIFAMILY PD, THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING AWAY. THAT'S ON THE 75 ACRES WHICH WAS 140 ACRES WHICH JOHN HOUSTON IS NOW BUILDING ON.

THAT PD THAT WAS THERE IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY. THAT'S GONE AWAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THE THIRD THING I WOULD WANT TO MENTION IS STONE GATE ITSELF, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PUT THE PLANS TOGETHER FOR THAT CHURCH, WE HAVE NINE RETAIL PADS AROUND THE CHURCH. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CHURCH, YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT SITS WAY TO THE BACK.

WE OWN THE 75 ACRES TO THE WEST OF THAT THAT WRAPS UP, COMES BACK EAST NORTH OF THE STORAGE CENTER THERE.

ULTIMATELY WE WOULD THINK ALL THAT WOULD BE RETAIL OR OFFICE, SOMETHING OF THAT TYPE. PROBABLY ANOTHER 9 TO 12 PADS.

THERE IS A LOT OF RETAIL THAT WILL ULTIMATELY COME INTO THAT AREA I WOULD THINK. ADDITIONALLY, ONE LAST THING TO ADD WITH THIS PROJECT, QUITE OFTEN THAT THREE-STORY BUILDING IS A PROBLEM AS WE THINK THROUGH IT, ABOUT YOU IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY, IT ACTUALLY SWELLS WAY DOWN INTO THE BACK, COMES TO AN RIDGE. THREE STORIES WILL LOOK CLOSER TO A TWO-STORY NOT THREE-STORY. YOU DO AWAY WITH THE VISUAL COMPLEXITY. WE STAND REALLY BEHIND THE PROJECT. AS RYAN MENTIONED, WE HAVE PEOPLE IN OUR CHURCH COMING IN AND SAYING THEY CANNOT FIND HOUSING. THE AVERAGE PRICE, $440,000 IS NOW THE AVERAGE HOUSE IN MIDLOTHIAN.

IF YOU TAKE SOMEBODY MAKING 40, 50, 60 THOUSAND A YEAR, POLICE OFFICER, TEACHER, THEY CAN'T AFFORD THIS ANYMORE.

[01:20:02]

I WILL END ON THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I.I SHOW NO MORE SPEAKERS. I HAVE A FORM FOR MIKE VALRICO.

>> I'M HERE TO SUPPORT IT. >> 1321 DAN BERRY, MAN FIELD.

MANSFIELD.DID WE MISS ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT, SIR, COME ON UP.

>> I'M ALSO STONE GATE AND THESE GUYS HAVE SAID MOST OF THE

THINGS THAT I -- >> SIR, IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> RODNEY HOBS, STONE GATE CHURCH.

THANK YOU, GUYS, I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS YOU COULD BE DOING ON TUESDAY NIGHT, THANKS FOR SERVING AND GIVING YOUR TIME AND ENERGY AND EFFORT FOR THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

THEY MENTIONED THE P PASTORAL. CONCERN.

MOST PEOPLE WE HIRE HAVE TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF MIDLOTHIAN.

WHICH WE HATE. BUT ANOTHER COMMUNAL PERSPECTIVE, ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF MOVING MULTIFAMILY IN THIS AREA, IT DECENTRALIZES IT AND GETS IT OUT OF THE REGION THAT MULTIFAMILY IS IN NOW. WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME IN THAT SIDE OF THE TOWN AS WELL. WITH THAT -- AND WE HAVE TALKED ALMOST EVERY NEIGHBOR IN OUR AREA AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE HAVE NOTHING BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE WOULD BE PROPONENTS OF THAT ALL

IN THIS AREA. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT I HAVE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE FORMS. >> ONE MORE.

>> DID YOU DO A FORM, SIR? >> I DID NOT DO A FORM.

I WILL DO ONE NOW. >> QUESTION, IF YOU WILL COME UP. WHEN WE ARE THROUGH, IF YOU WILL BE SURE TO FILL OUT A FORM BEFORE YOU LEAVE.

>> ID.I HAVE YOURSELF, SIR. >> JOE RODGERS, CURRENT RESIDENT ON WALNUT GROVE ROAD, HAVE BEEN FOR 30 YEARS.

AND SEEING A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT. CURRENTLY MEMBER OF STONE GATE CHURCH AND I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED FOR THE REASONS STATED.

>>> OKAY. JOE, THEY HAVE A FORM RIGHT THERE FOR YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY, I THINK IT IS A GREAT PROJECT.

I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA. THE PROBLEM THAT WE RUN INTO, AS WE REVIEW CASES LIKE THIS, IS THIS IS ONE AMONGST AMONG A NUMBER OF CASES WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE YEARS.

AS I SEE IT, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF A DIRECTION I'M COMPELLED TO GO.

WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WITHIN THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY HAVE COME TOGETHER AND TRIED, AS A COMMUNITY WAY OF LOOKING AT HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY BUILT OUT. THEY COME UP WITH MODULES AND COMPLEXITIES OF HOW THEY WOULD LIKE THAT BUILD OUT TO GO.

THEY COME WITH PERCENTILES OF MULTIFAMILY AND SUCH.

WHILE I DON'T DISREGARD WHAT YOU ARE MENTIONING WITH COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRYING TO MOVE INTO MIDLOTHIAN.

IT IS PE EXPENSIVE AND IT IS NOT EASY.

I HAVE A BUSINESS HERE AND I WORK EMPLOYEES IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR. THEY CAPTHEY CAN'T LIVE HERE.

I GET IT. THE THING THAT I CAN'T DO IS GO AGAINST WHAT THE RESIDENTS DESIRE TO SEE THE CITY GROW.

WHEN THEY DECIDE TO CHANGE THAT, I WILL BE WILLING TO CHANGE.

WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF NEW MULTIFAMILY.

I NEED TO TAKE THE TIME TO TRY TO CHECK ON WHAT THE -- FOR ALL I KNOW, ALL OF THE MULTIFAMILY THAT WE HAVE APPROVED ARE ALL

[01:25:02]

BUT I NEED TO CHECK THAT OUT. BUT THAT'S WHERE I RUN NO A ROAD BLOCK ON HOW I PURSUE THESE, TWO WAYS.

HOW DOES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN READ, NO. IS.

1. VERY SELDOM WILL I GO AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SECT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PERCENTAGES AND GROWTH PERSPECTIVES OF HOW THE COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTS, I THINK, 24, 26 DIFFERENT RESIDENTS HAVE COME TOGETHER ON HOW THEY WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE CITY BUILD OUT. WAS THAT -- HAS THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEEN UPDATED WITHIN THE LAST -- BUT IT WAS DONE AGAIN RECENTLY, WASN'T IT? OKAY.

BUT ARE WE COMING UP ON A RENEWAL SOON? SO IT IS COMING UP NOW. SO WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RESIDENTS TO CHANGE MY MIND ON WHAT DIRECTION THEY WANT TO SEE OUR CITY GROW, BUT WHERE I HAVE A TOUGH -- TOUGH FOR ME TO CHEW ON IS THIS PROJECT WOULD THROW US 10% OVER THE THRESHOLD THEY PUT IN PLACE OF WHAT'S JUST ON THE GROUND.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE IT RUNS INTO AN ISSUE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO THAT I THINK YOU FELLOWS OR ANY OF YOU FOLKS HAVE A BAD PROCESS OF DECISION THERE ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. BUT IT IS WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT. THE GENTLEMAN WANTS TO MENTION

SOMETHING? >> SOMETHING TO ADD.

>> I DEFINITELY HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I THINK I HEARD THE NUMBER EARLIER, 14,000 UNITS ON THE

GROUND. >> IF YOU WOULD, SIR, SINCE WE

ARE -- >> DAVID HANSON, STONE GATE

CHURCH. >> I THINK I HEARD THE NUMBER EARLIER 14,000 HOUSING UNITS ON THE GROUND.

1500 APARTMENTS ON THE GROUND. SO IF WE LOOK AT JUST WHAT IS HAPPENING ON WALNUT GROVE PRESENTLY, HANOVER PROJECT, 2100 HOMES. JOHN HOUSTON, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, 300, 400 HOUSES. THERE'S 2400 HOUSES.

THIS GENTLEMAN HAS SEVERAL HUNDRED HOUSES HE IS BUILDING ALMOST ADJACENT TO THAT. YOU HAVE MOVER DEVELOPMENTS GOING ON. SO MY GUESSTIMATE, I DON'T THINK IT IS OFF, IS 303,500 HOUSES LANDING RIGHT NOW APPROVED THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE 14,000 HOMES.

IF YOU ADD THOSE INTO THE 14,000, WE ARE NOW AT ROUGHLY 18,000 HOMES AND YOU HAVE 1500 ON THE GROUND, THAT'S SUB 10%.

SO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

AND THAT PART OF TOWN REALLY HAS VERY LITTLE MULTIFAMILY OR THAT TYPE OF HOUSING AT ALL AS WE GO EAST.

NOW, INSIDE THE LOOP, THERE IS MORE OF IT.

YOU HAVE A BIG FACTION THAT WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN THAT PART OF TOWN. WITH THOSE HOUSES COMING ON.

>> KEEP IN MIND, I AGREE WITH YOU WITH WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.

THERE IS A RESPONSIBLE NUMBER THAT ARE ZONED THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME. THAT IS WHAT I ALSO HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND. I DO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THE POTENTIAL IS THERE. I NEED TO SEE SOME MORE OF THE POTENTIAL HIT THE GROUND AND I NEED TO GET ANOTHER BETTER GRASP. I THOUGHT I HAD A PRETTY GOOD GRASP ON WHAT OUR ON THE GROUND AND ZONED TOGETHER.

I THOUGHT IT WAS CLOSE TO 5,000 UNITS CITY WIDE.

BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I NEED TO GET -- BUT YOU ARE CORRECT ON WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY BUT THERE'S ZONED PROPERTIES THAT CAN BUILD OUT ALSO, TOP THAT.

>> YEAH, YEAH, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THAT NUMBER.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE SOMETHING NOT REPETITIVE.

>> GOOD MORNING. I WOULD RAISE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU, I GUESS. I RESPECT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

PLEASE TAKE THIS RESPECTFULLY AS IT IS INTENDED.

WE TALK ABOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF MULTIF THAT MAY BE ZONED BUT NOT BUILT.

TAKING THAT INTO THE EQAILINGS. EQUATION.

HOW MANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE ZONED AND NOT BUILT.

THE RATIO IS PROBABLY SIMILAR. NO. 2, I HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING THAT SHOULD BE COUNTED AGAINST ME BECAUSE I WHOOSHING IN THIS S BUSINESS, I HAVE SEEN ZONE SITES FOR YEARS AND YEARS, THEY ARE NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. TOPO ISSUES.

I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WHEN WE WORK ON A SITE, WE GO FROM NOW APPROVAL, CLOSE, AND I -- I CAN'T GUARANTY YOU, I WOULD BET

[01:30:02]

ALSO, I HAVE BATTLED WITH THIS WITH THIS PROJECT, THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING THAT THERE'S THIS QUANTITY, 10% NUMBER OVERALL WITH THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, WHICH I RESPECT. BUT I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT'S SPECIFICALLY IN THE LAND USE PLAN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOT TO EXCEED 12 UNITS PER ACRE, THIS FITS THAT MODULE AND IS SUB 12 UNITS, 10 UNITS.

I WON'T GO INTO A DRY TRIBE AND START REPEATING WHAT I HAVE SAID BUT ALL THOSE POINTS ARE WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. WHAT DO YOUR RENTS RENT FOR.

A HIGH END, EXPENSIVE BUILD. I'M SURE IT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE PIECE OF PROPERTY. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TURN.

>> THESE GUYS ARE NOT GIVING IT TO ME FOR FREE, THAT'S FOR SURE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO FIND THAT BALANCE BETWEEN DELIVERING A HIGH END PROJECT THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD, WE ARE TRYING TO FILL A VOID.

WE CAN'T COMPETE WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY STUFF.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAKE A POINT AN ATTRACTING A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WE WOULD WANT IN OUR APARTMENTS.

THE AVERAGE RENT PER SQUARE FEET IN THE PROJECT IS ABOUT $1.65 TO $1.70. RENTS, TYPICALLY UNITS 850-FOOT RANGE AND THEN THE CARRIAGE HOUSES WHICH WE HAVE INTENTIONALLY LOOPED THE SITE TO ADD A STEP FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY AROUND IT BEFORE IT GOES TO THE THREE-STORY, AND THOSE GET UP CLOSER TO 2500 UNITS. WE ANTICIPATE PUTTING A FAMILY THERE THAT IS THERE WAITING UNTIL THEY CAN PUT TOGETHER THE DOWN PAYMENT MONEY. HOME PRICES STARTING AT HALF MILLION DOLLARS, THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BE HERE.

WE TRY TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES ON ONE SITE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. >> CLIE,CLYDE, TELL ME THE NEW .

I'M OBVIOUSLY NEW HERE. WE DON'T LIKE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS? IS IT A FIRE ISSUE?

>> THAT IS NEWS TO ME. TO THIS POINT, HE BRINGS UP MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE AS VISIBLE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE NECESSARILY WITH THREE STORIES, WHEN THEY ARE GIVEN APPROPRIATE SITES.

>> SO IT IS NOT THE HEIGHT. >> NO.

>> THERE'S TOWNHOMES. 98 UNITS.

>> I KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH, JOHN HOUSTON IS DEVELOPING, I THOUGHT THEY ONLY BOUGHT HALF OF THAT PD AND SECOND HALF IS STILL AVAILABLE WHICH HAS THE COMMERCIAL AND

MULTIFAMILY. >> THEY OWN IT.

>> YOU OWN THAT NOW? OKAY.

>> WE BOUGHT THAT. JOHN HOUSTON BOUGHT 70.

WHEN I I SAID MULTIFAMILY RETIREMENT HOME, THAT HAS GONE AWAY. IN THE 75 ACRES WILL BE USED FOR EXPANSION OF OUR CHURCH AND OFFICE RETAIL, THAT TYPE OF

THING. >> CLYDE, HOW MANY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PERMITS DO WE HAVE WAITING CONSTRUCTION?

>> EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PERMITS AWAITING CONSTRUCTION? PROBABLY ABOUT 3,000. THOSE AREN'T WAITING FOR PERMITS. THOSE ARE ALMOST VACANT DEVELOPABLE LOTS. THAT'S BRIDGEWATER, NOT READY TO GO. THEY WILL BE SOON.

WEST SIDE PRESERVE. >> WITHIN NEXT 12 MONTHS.

>> ROUGHLY, YEAH, YEAH. IF THEY CAN GET TRANSFORMERS, ELECTRICITY. WHAT WE DO HAVE -- TO MIKE

[01:35:03]

>> BRENTON HOMES. >> AGE RESTRICTED BUT NOT APARTMENTS. I DON'T THINK THEY ARE ATTACHED

PRODUCT AT ALL. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISC DISCUSSION? OKAY, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE

COMMISSION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.

MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OR FURTHER ACTION.

>> NOBODY ELSE, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.

ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? TWO NOS.

SO 5-2. IT IS DENIED.

[017 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending Planned Development District No. 120 (PD-120), by changing the development regulations and standards. The property is located at the northeast corner of FM 663 and FM 875. (Z27-2022-105)]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THIS IS PROPERTY LOCATED AS YOU SAID 663 AND 875, THIS DID COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, 2021.

THIS IS AN EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 43.28 ACRES. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED WITH ONE ACRE LOTS AND THEY DO WANT TO PROVIDE THOSE LOTS -- I'M SORRY.

THEY WANT TO DEVELOP 55 ADDITIO5 LOTS AT 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

THERE WILL BE A RETAIL COMPONENT AT THE CORNER.

THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF THOSE TWO ROADS.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

JUST NORTH OF THAT, YOU HAVE COVENTRY, HILL CREST OVER HERE IN THE CORNER. THAT IS GENERAL LOCATION.

SO THIS IS SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THAT DOES CALL FOR 20,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS.

THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

IT DOES HAVE -- IT ALSO HAS RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS LIMITED SMALL SCALED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE TYPE DEVELOPMENT AS SECONDARY COMPONENTS. THEY DO HAVE THAT IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL ONE, 35 ACRES, ALL ONE ACRE LOTS. ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, TRAIL SYSTEM. AND SMALL LAKE IN THAT AREA.

THIS IS WHAT IS PROPOSED. THESE ARE THE 20,000 SQUARE FEET LOTS. ALL THE LOTS ARE 20,000 SQUARE FEET. IF YOU SEE AT THE CORNER HERE, THIS IS JUST LIKE -- OR SIMILAR WHAT WAS PROPOSED EARLIER, SIX MONTHS AGO, THIS IS A COMMUNITY RETAIL AREA.

THEY HAVE ACCESS ON THE MARKET 875, ACCESS ON TO THE INTERNAL STREET HERE. IT IS A CONNECTED TO CITY SEWER.

THERE WILL BE A PLAYGROUND, SIDEWALKS AND TRAIL COMMUNITY, TRAIL SYSTEM. FIVE COMMUNITY RETAIL LOTS AND THEN THERE IS COMPARISON TABLE BETWEEN THE TWO ITEMS. OF COURSE, ONE ACRE TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THEN MULTIPLE AMENITIES WITHIN THIS DISTRICT.

OF COURSE, ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL -- WILL HAVE SIDE ENTRY, NO J SWING OR FRONT ENTRY. PLAYGROUND, CONCRETE TRAIL.

SO THIS IS THE LAYOUT, HEAVILY LANDSCAPED, 875, RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THERE IS A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY RETAIL AND THE RESIDENTIAL. THEREFORE, PROVIDING A BUFFER BETWEEN THOSE TWO USES HERE. SO PEOPLE WHO WALK OR SOMETHING

[01:40:05]

STREET TREES BUFFERING ALONG 875, ARCHITECTURAL STREEL, MASONRY, LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THEN YOU HAVE ENTRY SIGNS ON 663, 875, AND THE ENTRY FEE. HERE ARE THE COMMUNITY RETAIL LOTS. 8-FOOT MASONRY WALL SEPARATING THE TWO USES HERE. THIS IS SIX FOOT WIDE TRAIL THAT RUNS ALONG THE BUFFER BETWEEN THESE TWO USES HERE.

AND THEN THIS WILL, WITHIN THIS AREA, IT WILL ALLOW ALL COMMUNITY RETAIL USES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS UP TO THIS POINT? IN THIS AREA, UP HERE ON THE NORTH SIDE, SO YOU HAVE COVENTRY HERE.

DRAINAGE SWALE THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS, WITHIN THOSE LOTS, CREATE A DRAINAGE SWALE SO IN THE FRONT PART LOTS, PRETTY OPEN.

MORE OF A RURAL FEEL. THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THROUGH HERE. YOU CAN SEE THE TOPOGRAPHY.

THE DRAINAGE IS VERY WELL DELINEATED.

THEY WOULD HAVE DRIVEWAYS BUT THEY WOULD KEEP THE DRAINAGE DITCH OPEN. AND THEY WOULD -- STAFF DOES RECOMMEND AVOIDING THIS. THEY RECOMMEND COVERING THAT UP OR, IF NOT, LEAVING THOSE OPEN AS OPEN SPACE AND ALLOW THAT TO BE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH THAT AREA.

WE DID RECEIVE TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MR. OSBORN, YOU PROBABLY HAVE THOSE. AND WITH THAT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS WITH OPEN CHANNEL CONCEPT BE AVOIDED, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. ONE OPTION WAS TAKING IT DOWN AND BURYING THE WHOLE THING WITH BOX CHANNEL.

ANOTHER WOULD BE TO LEAVE THOSE OPEN AS OPEN SPACE AND ALLOW THAT TO BE AN AMENITY AS WELL. WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> SO IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY,

THIS WAS DENIED BY P&Z BEFORE. >> YES, SIR.

>> IT WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL BEFORE?

>> YES. >> SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT IS DIFFERENT OTHER THAN MAYBE LOT SIZE, WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN THIS PROPOSAL THAN THE ONE THAT GOT TURNED DOWN?

>> THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS AREA.

THIS STREET DOESN'T GO THROUGH. I THINK IT IS BUFFERED FROM THOSE COMMUNITY RETAILS BETTER IN THIS ONE.

OTHER THAN THAT, APPLICANT CAN EXPLAIN.

>> OKAY. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> JUSTIN CROCKER, 3441 PLAIN VIEW ROAD, HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN.

WE DID TWEAK QUITE A FEW THINGS TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK.

I OWN A CUSTOM HOME BUILDING COMPANY, CANYON CREEK.

WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING OUT OF MIDLOTHIAN, EVERYTHING APPROVED IS TYPICALLY SMALLER PRODUCTION HOME LOTS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DEMAND FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT HALF ACRE LOTS, BUILD HIGHER END PRODUCT LIKE WE WOULD DO.

WE JUST SIMPLY CAN'T GET THE INVENTORY.

I'M A MIDLOTHIAN GUY, I'M TRYING HARD TO BRING THE LOTS THAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR IN THIS AREA.

NOT EVERYONE WANTS AN ACRE AND SEPTIC FIELD IN THE BACK.

TAX WISE FOR THE CITY AS WELL. THIS DENSITY IS DEFINITELY BETTER FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. BUT STILL GIVES US AT THE SMALLEST LOTS, 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM TO PUT MORE CUSTOM PRODUCT ON THE GROUND. THAT COMBINED WITH OVER THE TOP LANDSCAPING, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS VERY DESIRABLE FOR THE TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT WE WANT TO BUILD.

ALSO, THERE IS NO SEWER TO THE SITE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO RUNOFF SITE. HUGE EXPENSE THERE.

COMMUNITY RETAIL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE WITHOUT IT. WE DON'T FEEL THAT PEOPLE NECESSARILY WANT TO LIVE ON THAT CORNER.

SO TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT, WE WENT AND RELO RELOOKED. WORKED WITH A TRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY, LOOKED AT OFFSETS. ONE OF THE THINGS BROUGHT UP WAS CROWDING THAT INTERSECTION. SO WE REALLY BROUGHT THE ENTRYWAY INTO THE COMMUNITY RETAIL BACK FURTHER OFF OF 663

[01:45:02]

THEN THE OTHER ONE, THIS WAS ACTUALLY MORE CITY STAFF, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT, WHAT IS LABELED AS LOT 2, WE PULLED IT EVEN OFF THAT INTERSECTION WITH OF 663. WE WANTED IT CLOSER, WE DID REDO THAT TO GET OUT HOW THE STAFF WANTED.

ORIGINALLY, WHOLE CONFIGURATION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

WE REDID THAT TO HAVE A WALKING TRAIL.

DENSE LANDSCAPING. WE WENT WITH AN EIGHT-FOOT MASONRY WALL FOR THAT AREA. SO THERE IS SEVERAL LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK THE LOT SIZES ADJUSTED A LITTLE BIT IN THAT AREA. THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES FOR BUILDINGS. ONE THING BROUGHT UP, THE SIZE THAT IT LOOKED TOO SMALL. THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF HOW THE TYPE STUFF YOU SEE IN THESE AREAS WOULD FIT.

YOU PROVE THE CONCEPT THEY WILL FIT ON THAT SPACE.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD WANT TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT IS, THERE'S DISCUSSION LAST TIME OF THAT JUST BEING OUTER EDGE OF TOWN AND IT BEING FAR OUT FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL. SO I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY CHALLENGE YOU GUYS ON THAT AND JUST OPEN THE CONVERSATION.

I KNOW THAT WAS THE CASE AT ONE TIME.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS NOW. I'M VERY AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON JUST SOUTH OF THERE. IN FACT, SOME OF WHAT WE HAVE GOT GOING IN MAY PEARL THAT HAS A LOT OF LOTS, MAY PEARL SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUT NOT THAT FOR DOWN SINGLETON.

PEOPLE BUYING ARE FILLING BACK INTO MIDLOTHIAN.

AWARE, ACROSS THE STREET, THAT DEVELOPER HAS THOUSANDS OF HOMES. I KNOW IT COULD TAKE TIME.

BUT THEY ARE EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE THERE.

SO MIDLOTHIAN IS GROWING. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE OTHER THING I WOULD ASK EVERYONE TO CONSIDER IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SOMETHING THAT MIKE BROUGHT UP EARLIER.

WE ARE NOT -- IT DOES SHOW AT THAT INTERSECTION THIS TYPE USE.

SO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO GO AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ALSO, IT DOES SHOW THAT TO BE SUBURBAN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT WHICH SAY 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER LOTS, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANTED. SO WE DID MEET THAT WITH OUR LOTS, 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER.

THOSE THINGS BEING SAID, I'M HAPPY TO STAND HERE FOR

QUESTIONS FROM YOU GUYS. >> QUESTIONS?

>> I WILL JUST MENTION, JUSTIN, I HAVE ZERO DOUBT OF YOUR CAPABILITIES. WE HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR QUITE A PERIOD OF TIME AND I LIKE YOU.

THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I WILL ALSO BE VERY HONEST WITH YOU ABOUT HOW THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITHIN THIS PORTION OF OUR CITY HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME.

GOING BACK IN TIME, EVEN TO THE MID EARLY 2000S, KNOWING WHAT THE ORIGINAL VISION FOR MIDLOTHIAN WOULD BE, WHICH I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF, IT WOULD BRANCH OUT AND LOTS WOULD GET LARGE E TLARGER, THE FURTHER OU. THIS IS OUR BOUNDARY.

THE 875 IS THE BOUNDARY LINE. I'M NOT STATING THAT THE ORIGINAL VIEWPOINT AND HOPE IS RIGHT OR WRONG, I THINK IT IS NOT RIGHT ANYMORE. BUT THE ORIGINAL WAS FOUR ACRE LOTS OUT THERE. WHAT JIMMIED THIS WHOLE DEAL UP, I VOTED AGAINST, IS COVENTRY RIGHT TO THE NORTH.

WHEN THEY DID THAT, THREW 50-FOOT WIDE LOTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBDIVISION, YOU CAN'T DO THAT THAT FAR OUT.

COUNCIL MADE A DECISION TO CHANGE THINGS.

WHEN THEY DID, IT KIND OF TOOK THAT WHOLE VISION OF MIDLOTHIAN BEING SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT, THERE'S MEN AT THIS OF TOWNS THAT OFFER SMALLER LOTS, WHICH BY ALL MEANS THESE ARE HALF ACRE LOTS. VISION OF A SIZABLE LOT IS WHAT I VIEW AND SEE IS WHAT THIS REPRESENTS NOW WHICH, FROM A PAST DECISION, CHANGED EVERYTHING IN THE END.

IT IS ALMOST LIKE HAVING ZERO LOT LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN.

BUT WHEN YOU GET THIS FAR OUT FROM THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT HOW THIS FITS IN THE COMP PLAN ANYMORE BECAUSE THAT'S COUNCIL'S DECISION AND THEIR ABILITY TO STATE WHETHER THIS IS FITS THE PLAN OR NOT.

IT OBVIOUSLY FITS THE PLAN. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

SO I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, I DO AGREE WITH YOU IT FITS THE PLAN. BUT HOW THIS ALL HAS EVOLVED.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE GOT HERE THAT WORRIES ME THE MOST IS THE RETAIL. I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE,

[01:50:01]

>> YES, SIR. >> A TURNING LANE THERE TO COME

INTO THAT RETAIL OFF 875? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> THAT WILL BE PER THE STUDY,

WHAT TXDOT REQUIRES. >> THE ONLY THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT EVEN A TURNING LANE EXISTING, 875, AND THERE'S NO REASON TO BE, 875 DOES NOT HAVE A TURNING -- CENTER TURNING LANE YET THROUGH THAT AREA. GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I HAVE NOTICED WITH TURN LANES, I'M SEEING THIS WAY UP BY KROGER. I DEAL WITH IT ON TOWER ROAD, I HAVE LEASED PROPERTY ON TOWER ROAD.

WHEN THERE'S A CENTER TURN LANE, CARS HAVE A NERVOUS REACTION.

SOMETIMES CARS DON'T GET ALL THE WAY OVER IN THE TURNING LANE, THEY EASE INTO IT. AND PEOPLE GET I AM IMPATIENT O AROUND. WHEN THERE IS A CENTER TURN LANE, A BUFFER ZONE FOR WHEN THEY TRY THIS LITTLE TRICK.

WHEN THERE IS NO TURN LANE, NOT THERE ISN'T CENTER YET, I WORRY ABOUT TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS RIGHT THERE.

I ALSO WORRY A LITTLE BIT, DEPENDING ON WHAT WENT IN THERE WITH FIVE POTENTIAL PAD SITES, THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT COULD BE DUMPING IN AND DUMPING OUT OF THE NORTHWEST ENTRANCE, WHICH I REALIZE DUE TO ITS DISTANCE AWAY, DOES NOT CAUSE NEAR THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SOUTH ENTRANCE COULD PROPOSE.

I ALSO WORRY A LITTLE BIT WOULD THE SOUTH ENTRANCE BE ONE-WAY OR COULD FOLKS TURN ACROSS 875 TRAFFIC ALSO TO LEAVE?

. >> ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE INVOLVING TXDOT. IT IS TXDOT.

I'M REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO WITH THE ENGINEERS AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO TXDOT.

I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR ANSWER ON THAT UNTIL I FINISH THAT

PROCESS. >> I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN ACROSS TRAFFIC? I LOOK AT THE NORTHWEST ENTRANCE TO BE A PRETTY DARN SAFE -- THERE IS A TURNING LANE AT THE NORTHWEST ENTRANCE, RIGHT, CLYDE?

>> YES. >> ALL THOSE COME BACK TO P&Z.

ANY RETAIL THAT HAPPENS ON THAT WOULD COME BACK THROUGH.

AND TO JUSTIN'S POINT, NO TELLING WHAT TXDOT WANTS DOWN THERE. IT MIGHT WARRANT THAT YOU HAVE A TURN LANE FROM 663 INTERSECTION ALL THE WAY TO THAT.

>> I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW, BECAUSE WE KNOW EACH OTHER.

I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT BUILD OR THE AMENITIES OF YOUR SUBDIVISION OR THE QUALITY OF HOMES.

WE KNOW THAT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT CORNER.

>> I CAN ECHO WHAT HE IS SAYING. I REMEMBER THIS CASE.

THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAD WAS THE RETAIL.

IF IT WAS PURELY RESIDENTIAL, IT WOULD BE A SLAM DUNK.

THE RETAIL CONCERNS ME BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC OUT THERE AND, MAN, IF YOU HAD A DOUGHNUT SHOP OR SOMETHING, I COULD SEE THAT BEING A NIGHTMARE IN THE MORNINGS.

THAT WAS THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAD. >> IN MANY WAYS, TOO, YOU HAVE TO THINK, ANY CORNER THAT YOU PUT RETAIL ON IS GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC. THIS ACTUALLY DOES HAVE HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC THAT DOES PILE UP.

663 IS ALREADY A TRAFFIC PROBLEM.

I HAVE HAD HUGE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND IT BECAUSE THEY ARE DESIRING SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN.

I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT AND DO UNDERSTAND IT.

THERE IS WAYS THIS HELPS SPREAD OUT SOME OF THE TRAFFIC THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH UP AND DOWN THAT CORRIDOR.

>> I CERTAINLY -- IF IT WAS ALL RESIDENTIAL, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. MY CONCERN LAST TIME AND STILL IS THE COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS END OF THAT.

AND THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TXDOT IS GOING TO REQUIRE OR PUT IN ON 875, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE ME TO VOTE AGAINST IT STILL.

[01:55:02]

>> REFRESH MY MEMORY, I CAN'T REMEMBER, SAME AMOUNT OF LOTS OR

LESS LOTS? >> I THINK THIS ONE -- THE SAME.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY.

>> YA'LL CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON DRIVEWAYS, ROADWAYS, THAT HOLDS OVER TXDOT. MAKE THOSE RIGHT IN OR RIGHT OUT, DECEL LANES. LBJ635 ON THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE CAN AFFORD IT OR DO IT.

IF YOU DO WANT TO LIMIT THOSE, THAT'S UP TO YOU.

>> WHAT ABOUT, IS THERE ANOTHER -- I'M ASSUMING THERE'S

TWO RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCES? >> YES.

>> ONE ON 875 ALSO? >> YES, SIR.

>> THEY ARE ALREADY COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE.

>> THAT WOULD BE MY MAIN ISSUE IS THAT ENTRANCE AT THE SOUTHERN

RETAIL, JUSTIN. >> IF THEY CAN'T CUT ACROSS 875, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I DRIVE THAT ROAD ALMOST EVERY DAY. IF YOU COULDN'T GO ACROSS, I WOULD RECONSIDER AT THAT POINT. .

>> JUSTIN, FOR ME, MY PROBLEM LAST TIME WAS YOU HAD BACK OF HOUSE SHOWING TO ALL THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA.

AND YOU KIND OF -- YOU HAVE SOLVED THAT HERE NOW.

>> THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WE TWEAKED PER THE CITY'S STAFF

HELP. >> TAFTHAT WAS MY WHOLE ISSUE.

TXDOT -- I LIKE WHAT YOU DID WITH THE PLAN.

I THINK YOU CLEANED IT UP WELL. >> JUSTIN, SHOW ME AGAIN WHERE ENTRY ON 663 IS. I CAN'T SEE IT THAT WELL FROM

HERE. >> BACK HERE.

>> FROM RETAIL? >> SO WHAT THE CITY STAFF HAD REQUESTED, TRYING TO PULL UP TRAFFIC BACK UP OFF THIS CORNER, THE ENTRY COMES IN RIGHT OVER HERE.

>> OKAY. SO THERE'S NOT AN ENTRY FROM THE RETAIL OUT ON TO 663 DOWN WHERE THE RETAIL IS AT? YOU MOVED IT UP TO THE MAIN MAIN STREET.

>> JUST PULLS THE TRAFFIC OFF THE ROAD.

>> WHAT KIND OF PROBLEM WOULD IT POSE TO YOU IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE THIS WITH NO DRIVE ACCESS ON TO 875?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. >> CAN I GET AN ANSWER?

>> I APOLOGIZE, GO AHEAD. >> TALKING ABOUT HERE OR HERE?

THIS IS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> RIGHT.

IF WE DENIED THAT, BUT APPROVED THE REST OF IT, WHAT WOULD THAT DID. ONLY ENTRANCE OF THE RETAIL WAS

663 UP AT THE STREET? >> I DON'T PERSONALLY LIKE THE TRAFFIC FLOW OF THAT, THROUGH THIS AREA.

I THINK IT SPREADS OUT TRAFFIC WITH TWO ENTRANCE.

>> I DON'T THINK FIRE IS GOING TO ALLOW ONE ENTRANCE.

IF THERE IS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A T TURN AROUND.

>> YOU CAN BUILD A T TURN AROUND ANYWHERE.

>> BUT NOT P&Z. >> FIRE WILL BE ABLE TO FIGURE

IT OUT. >> I SHARE THE SAME CONCERN WITH YOU GUYS, THE TRAFFIC THING IS A REAL PROBLEM.

>> LOOKING AT IT ON THE BIG MAP, JUSTIN, WE HAVE GOT TO GET SOME LASER POINTERS UP HERE AND SOONER AND LATER.

IT'S OKAY. BUT THAT ENTRANCE COMBINED WITH THE OTHER ENTRANCE GOING INTO THE SUBDIVISION AND CARS COMING OUT AND CARS GOING INTO 663, PEOPLE COMING ACROSS LANE TO GET ON AND THERE'S NO CENTER LANE TO GET IN.

>> THAT'S A LOT FURTHER THAN YOU THINK.

IT WAY EXCEEDS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN AND TXDOT FOR THE DISTANCES FOR THOSE IT WOULD BE

SPREAD APART. >> THAT IS AT LEAST 1700.

>> IT IS A LONG PROPERTY ON 875. A LOT OF ROAD FRONTAGE.

SOMETIMES THAT IS HEART TO TELL ON MEES MAPS.

THAT IS ONE POINT, IS THAT THEY DO FAR EXCEED FROM THE DISTANCE FROM THE CORNER AND HOW FAR APART THEY WERE, ANY

[02:00:02]

LITTLE BIT BETTER SPACE THAN IT LOOKS LIKE ON HERE.

>> ANY CONSIDERATION TO HAVE ENTRANCE OFF THE CUL-DE-SAC.

>> YOU WILL RETAIL TRAFFIC ON TO THERE.

>> THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING UP THE BIG PICTURE.

>> I WAS TRYING TO KEEP THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC SEPARATE THAN

THE RESIDENTIAL. >> IT WOULD BE BEST.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THESE HOMEOWNERS, TO ELIMINATE AND DO ALL THE LANDSCAPING WALL AND EVERYTHING TO GIVE THEM THAT BARRIER AND BUFFER, IS MY OPINION.

>> YOU ARE GOING TO GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, GETTING ALL THAT TRAFFIC.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, MIKE. >> WHAT IF YOU HAD AN ENTRANCE

ONLY ON THE SOUTH END. >> HE DOESN'T KNOW IF TXDOT --

>> IF WE REQUIRED IT. >> IF YA'LL SAY, WE ONLY ONE ENTRANCE ONLY, THAT'S UP TO YA'LL.

RIGHT IN, RIGHT IN. >> RIGHT IN, FOLLOW TRAFFIC

NORTH. >> I WOULD LET OUR ENGINEER AND HIS ENGINEER. IF YOU DON'T WANT ACCESS 875, IF YA'LL ARE LEANING TOWARD APPROVE, APPROVE WITH NO ACCESS ON 875. OR BETTER ACCESS.

>> AND WE HAVE HAD -- EVEN THE SECOND TIME AROUND, WE HAD SEVERAL DRC MEETINGS TO, JUST SO YA'LL KNOW, CITY STAFF HAD A LOT OF OPINION ON HOW FAR APART THOSE WERE AND BRINGING THAT ONE FURTHER UP THE CORNER. SO I DO WANT YOU GUYS TO KNOW, AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS, A LOT OF EFFORT ON OUR END WENT INTO MEETING THE CITY STAFF'S REQUEST ON THESE ENTRIES ON 875.

>> I GUESS THE ONLY -- I MEAN, I JUST HAVE A WHOLE RASH OF CONCERNS WITH THE COMMERCIAL RIGHT THERE EVEN FROM A COMPLEXITY OF, AS YOU ARE APPROACHING THAT INTERSECTION WHICH IS SO DANGEROUS, WITH STORE FRONTS THERE, AND THINGS PULLING FROM YOUR ATTENTION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS A 45 MILE-PER-HOUR ZONE. IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

THAT'S WHY I'M GETTING -- I'M ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL RIGHT THERE. IT IS KIND OF RIDICULOUS WHEN I THINK ABOUT IT, BUT I HAVE DRIVEN IT.

AND I KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE NEARLY T BONED SOMEBODY THERE BECAUSE MY MIND GETS REFOCUSED ON SOMETHING ELSE, I'M THINKING, IF THERE IS STORE FRONTS AND SIGNS AND LIGHTS AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER STUFF, THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN.

>> I THINK THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, TOO, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES GROWING ON THAT REALLY CLOSE TO THE ROAD THAT ACTUALLY WOULD -- WHEN WE CLEAR THOSE, HELP OPEN UP THAT VIEW.

>> YOU DO HAVE A SLIP STREET, YOU KNOW HOW I LIKE SLIP

STREETS. >> I HAVE HEARD THAT IN THE MIDTOWNE DEAL BEFORE. I THINK THE COMPLEXITY ON THESE RODS IS -- I RESPECT YOU GUYS HAVE SOME IDEAS AND THEY ARE GOOD ONES AND SOME OPINIONS. THEN I HAVE HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM FROM CITY STAFF OVER TIME. THEN TXDOT IS GOING TO COME IN WITH THEIRS. IT LEAVES ME A LITTLE LOST, TRYING TO COMOA ACCOMMODATE ANDP SAFETY IN MIND.

A LOT OF BACK AND FOR THE ALREADY HAPPENED TO GET US HERE.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT SOME POTENTIAL OTHER IDEAS.

IT IS JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY TO STAND HERE TO COMMIT TO GO RIGHT NOW AS WE STAND HERE. THIS WAS THE BEST OPTION THAT OUR ENGINEER AND THE CITY COULD COME UP WITH.

CITY STAFF THAT IS. >> MY ENTIRE HANGUP IS THE ENTRY OFF 875 INTO THE COMMERCIAL. I DON'T LIKE THE COMMERCIAL ON THE CORNER BUT I CAN BARELY GET BY WITH IT WITH THE NORTHWEST ENTRY FEEDING. SOMEHOW GETTING THE TRAFFIC BACK TO THE SECOND ENTRANCE. IT IS GOING TO BE GOING IN AND OUT ANYWAY. I REALIZE THAT IS NOT EASY TO THE SOUTH. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK FOR YOU. DO YOU NEED THE RETAIL TO MAKE

THE DEVELOPMENT WORK? >> YES, SO I HAVE TO RUN A PRIG AMOUNT OF OFF SITE SEWER TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT WORK.

IT RUNS OFF THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND GOES THROUGH AN ENTIRE OTHER PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE BUILDING BACK THERE. THEY JUST STARTED.

A PUMP STATION OR SOMETHING. I WAS TOLD FROM THE BEGINNING

THAT -- >> GOING ON DOWN.

[02:05:01]

>> WE CAN'T DO THIS UNTIL THAT GOES IN, AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO AND CONNECT TO IT. IT IS PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.

SO ECONOMICALLY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT WE LOOKED AT, DEFINITELY, WHEN WE LOOKED AT WHAT THIS WOULD COST TO PUT IN, DOING ONLY RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT ACTUALLY, AT SOME POINT, ECONOMICS COME INTO PLAY AND WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT WORK AND THAT WAS A BIG FACTOR. IF SEWERS PROVIDED OUT TO THE SITE, 663, I THINK THEY TOLD ME, WE EVEN DID A STUDY, WASN'T ENOUGH CAPACITY IF WE DID GO THAT WAY, IT BECAME AN EXPENSIVE

PROJECT TO GET SEWER. >> CLYDE, HAVE WE EVER MAD A CHANGE TO OUR AEROBICS REQUIREMENTS BELOW AN ACRE?

>> YES. >> WHERE ARE THEY AT NOW?

>> NOT IN GENERAL, BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF PD.

LOW DOSE, LOW PRESSURE, SUB ACRE.

>> I'M THROWING THIS OUT THERE, YOU ARE THE DEVELOPER, BUT CAN YOU MAKE -- GO FROM HALF TO SIX TENTHS OF AN ACRE AND DUMP THE SEWER AND GO WITH THE PURGE SYSTEM AND MANIPULATE THINGS AROUND TO MAKE IT WORK? JUST AN IDEA.

>> HONEST ANSWER IS I HAVE NO IDEA.

I REALLY DON'T. I HAVE NEVER EXPLORED THAT.

IT USED TO BE AN ACRE. >> I ONLY REASONABLY LEARNED THAT WAS A MIDLOTHIAN TO GO BELOW AN ACRE.

I HAVE NEVER LOOKED INTO IT ENOUGH TO EVEN UNDERSTAND FOR SURE THE TYPE AND SIZE HOUSE WE WOULD PUT ON THESE, 20,000-ACRE LOT, CAN YOU STILL FIT A POOL AND EVERYTHING.

THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN JUST FROM MY GUT.

BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> THE REASON WHY WE KIND OF PUSH FOR THAT WAS TO GET SOME

RELIEF FROM WHAT YOU ARE DOING. >> I LIKE IT OVERALL.

>> EXTRA, SUPER BIG COST. >> OKAY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

IF NOT? >> THANK YOU. A SPEAKER.

>> JESSE KITCHENS, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

>> JESSE KITCHENS, I LIVE AT 214 IRIS DRIVE IN COVENTRY CROSSING.

SO I HAVE A CONCERN, JUST LIKE YOU, WITH YOUR TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY WITH RESIDENTIAL. PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT ANY RESIDENTIAL BEHIND MY HOUSE LIKE THAT.

AND THE GOOD THING I WOULD LIKE IS THE WAY THE DRAINAGE CONCERN, IF THEY WOULD LEAVE THOSE LOTS OPEN, I WOULD LIKE THAT.

BUT MOST LIKELY END UP PUTTING A HOUSE BEHIND MY HOUSE.

SO LAST TIME I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T SEE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE FROM LAST TIME TO THIS TIME.

I AGREE WITH THE TRAFFIC. WITH FIVE COMMERCIAL SITES, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AND IT IS ALREADY BUSY. THERE IS TURNING LANE ON 663.

875 DOESN'T HAVE ONE. IT IS NOT ALL THAT WIDE.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS PLANNING TO CHANGE ANYTHING BUT IT IS BAD ENOUGH JUST MAKING A TURN THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YA'LL -- ANYWAY. SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.

THERE WAS A MENTION THAT NOBODY WOULD REALLY WANT TO LIVE ON THOSE CORNERS. BUT THERE'S ALREADY PEOPLE LIVING ON 663 ANYWAY. SO IF THAT WAS RESIDENTIAL, I WOULD HAVE LESS CONCERN. I LIKE IT OPEN BACK THERE, BUT OBVIOUSLY, FINANCIALLY SOMEBODY HAS TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THERE'S OTHER RESIDENTS ON MY BLOCK.

NONE OF THEM SHOWED UP. >> I DO HAVE ONE OR FORM, KENNETH WATSON, 2 234 IRIS DRIVE IN OPPOSITION.

I HAVE QUESTION OF STAFF OR APPLICANT, HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE ENTRANCE ON TO 663 UP TO THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT? COVENTRY.

>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HALF BLOCK,

[02:10:05]

BLOCK, TWO BLOCKS? >> A RURAL BLOCK.

I WOULD SAY IT IS ABOUT I WOULD SAY AT LEAST 800 FEET.

>> BETWEEN. >> AND I THINK IT IS PROBABLY

MORE. >> TO DEAL WITH CITY STAFF, I THINK IT IS LINING UP WITH THE -- ACROSS THE STREET.

>> THERE'S A DAY CARE ACROSS THE STREET AND CHURCH.

>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND.

I JUST -- WITH THOSE TWO PROPERTIES BEING TOGETHER, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THAT FAR UP TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.

IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WITH 875 DEFINITELY FOR THAT.

AND UNLESS THERE'S AN OPTION THAT HAS TO OFFER, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT AS IT SITS. MAYBE SOMEONE CAN COME UP WITH A

SUGGESTION. >> SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A RIGHT TURN ONLY IN OFF OF 875.

875 INTO THE COMMERCIAL SECTION.

>> JUST FOR RIGHT IN. >> JUST RIGHT IN.

ALL TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE TO GO NORTH FROM THERE.

GO OUT THE NORTH. >> SO NO RIGHT OUT?

>> NOPE. >> ONE WAY.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR FURTHER

DISCUSSION OR MOTION. >> IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP THE APPLICANT SO HE CAN HAVE MORE TIME TO WORK SOMETHING OUT? SINCE WE ARE ADVISORY, THIS NEEDS TO ROLL ON TO COUNCIL, Y YES?

>> IT WILL UNLESS, AGAIN, UNLESS YOU THINK THERE'S A DIRECTION THE COMMISSION CAN PROVIDE TO THE APPLICANT THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THAT WOULD CHANGE IT.

YOU CAN ALWAYS CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MONTH, SEE IF THERE IS ANY

CHANGES. >> MAYBE FOR US TO MOVE AND COUNCIL BETTER BETTER ENHANCE A DIRECTION TO GO, AND IT IS

APPROVED. >> IS THAT A MOTION?

>> I DON'T KNOW -- I CAN'T SUPPORT IT AS IT IS -- AS THE

CHAIRMAN SAID. >> FOR ME, AS FAR AS ACCESS ON 875. I THINK TXDOT IS GOING TO DO THEIR JOB AND WITH HAVING RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE, PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOME FORCED TURNING TYPE MOVEMENTS NECESSARY TO GET IN ON THAT RESIDENTIAL ACCESS POINT.

>> SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY A LOT MORE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO USE WITH THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

WE KNOW FOR SURE THEY ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT.

I DEALT WITH THEM WITH TWO PROJECTS, THEY ARE PRETTY GOOD ON RUNNING THE BILL UP. IT IS HARD FOR ME TODAY AND PULL THE TRIGGER ON MY $20,000 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, NOT KNOWING IF THE PROJECT WOULD GET APPROVED. TXDOT, THEY ARE GOING TO BE

[02:15:04]

>> I AGREE. I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ASKED TO DO EVERYTHING WE HAVE ASKED HIM FOR.

NO COMMERCIAL ON THAT CORNER, WHICH THE PLAN CALLS FOR IT.

>> THE STATE WILL MAKE ALL DECISIONS ON CENTER TURN LANE IN

THAT AREA OR ANYTHING GOING ON. >> FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.

>> BUT MEANING, THERE'S NO PLAN FOR CENTER TURN LANE ON PROPORTIONALITY 875 IN THAT AREA.

>> REQUIRE THREE PERMITS ON THAT PROPERTY.

ONE FROM EACH OF THE ENTRANCES. >> BUT THERE WON'T BE A CENTER

LANE, WON'T BE A THREE-LANER. >> THAT COULD BE PART OF HIS

ENTRANCE REQUIREMENT. >> MY PROBLEM IS, IF THAT WAS THERE AND THAT WAS THERE AND THAT WAS RIGHT TURN, I COULD GET ON BOARD WITH THAT PRETTY QUICK. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE. THAT'S MY ISSUE.

WE CAN DO RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT. AS A REQUEST, LACK OF A BETTER

WORD. >> I DON'T EVEN LIKE RIGHT IN

RIGHT OUT WITHOUT A CENTER LANE. >> IF IT IS UTILIZED LIKE THE ONE IN FRONT OF KROGER. PEOPLE WILL CIRCLE IT AND COME BACK IN. PEOPLE I GO MORE IT.

I KNOW WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT EVERYBODY DOES, BUT IT IS PARTIALLY OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE IT IS SAFE AS WE CAN MAKE IT.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SE

SECOND. >> MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AND HE CAN TAKE IT TO COUNCIL AND TRY AGAIN, I GUESS.

DENY AS PROPOSED. >> MOTION IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ONLY OTHER DISCUSSION IS TO LEGAL, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE DENYING, CAN WE SEND DENIAL WITH ADVICE? HOW WOULD I PUT THIS?

>> TYPICALLY, I MEAN, IF YOU RECOMMEND DENIAL AS PRESENTED,

NO. >> I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT

DENY AS PRESENTED. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED.

6-1, IT IS DENIED. WE WILL MOVE TO 018, CONDUCT

[018 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a proposed amendment to the MidTowne Master Plan relating to +/-67.098 acres within Planned Development 42 (PD-42). (Z22-2022-88). CONTINUANCE REQUESTED]

CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

CONTINUE. >> SECOND.

>> HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.

OKAY, MISCELLANEOUS, STAFF, ANYTHING?

>> NO, SIR. >> COMMISSIONERS? ANYBODY HAVING, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED? WE ARE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.