Jun 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]

[00:00:04]

>> IT IS 6 O'CLOCK, SO AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLOTHIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. FIRST ITEM.

[001 Citizens to be heard-The Planning & Zoning Commission invites citizens to address the Commission on any topic not already scheduled for a Public Hearing. Citizens wishing to speak should complete a “Citizen Participation Form” and present it to City Staff prior to the meeting. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Commission cannot act on items not listed on the agenda.]

EVERYBODY ELSE THAT SIGNED UP IS UNDER A SPECIFIC TOPIC OR ITEM ON THE AGENDA. SO WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE TO

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

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, WE WILL GO OVER THE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL AND REVIEWED BY P&Z OVER THE LAST 60 DAYS. STARTING WITH THE MAY 24TH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, YA'LL SEE ALONG THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THE CHASE BANK, THAT WAS APROPOSED BY P&Z7-0 BUT DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL. THEY WERE REQUESTING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. LIGHTHOUSE CHURCH, ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, THAT WAS APPROVED BY P&Z AND APPROVED BY CITY COU COUNCIL. LOVANO APARTMENTS, THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. YOU VOTED TO DENY 5-2.

ACROSS FROM STONE GATE CHURCH. A WEEK AGO, THEY WERE IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION, THEY REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW, JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO COME TOGETHER ON AN AGREEMENT OF HOW THEY WANT TO PROGRESS FORWARD WITH THAT. THAT WILL NOT COME BACK TO YOU GUYS. THE HIGHLANDS WAS APPROVED BY P&Z7-0, AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 5-1.

ONE COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAINED FROM VOTING.

SOUTH POINT WAS DENIED BY P&Z6-1, HOWEVER, IT WAS APPROVED 5-2 BY CITY COUNCIL. WNG DENTAL, ACROSS FROM -- CROSS CONNECTION WITH BURGER KING, THEY WERE APPROVED BY P&Z7-0 AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 6-1. MAY 24TH CONTINUED, SO AGAIN, WE HAVE 803 WEST MA MAIN STREET, TT WAS CONTINUED AT THE LAST P&Z MEETING. HIDDEN LAKES AT MOCKINGBIRD, WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO.

THAT IS NOT COMING BACK TO YOU GUYS OR CITY COUNCIL.

MIDTOWNE, THAT'S ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, THAT WAS CONTINUED AT THE LAST P&Z MEETING. MISD BUS BORN, APPROVED 7-0 BY P&Z AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

MISD MILE, BOTH REQUESTS FOR LANDSCAPE VARIANCES, P&Z APPROVED. HOWEVER, THAT WAS DENIED 4-2 WITH ONE VOTE ABSTAINED AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

AND LASTLY, OUR JUNE 14TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WEST SIDE PRESERVE HOME BUILDERS SIGN, APPROVED BY P&Z7-0, AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL 6-0. THE CABINET BOX SIGNAGE THAT WAS DENIED BY P&Z AND DENIED, AND LASTLY, SIGNAGE FOR COMMENT URGENT MED ALONG FM 663, THAT WAS APPROVED BY P&Z 7-0 AND

APPROVED BY COUNCIL 6-0. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THE

PRESENTATION. >> TO CLARIFY THOSE MISD THINGS

I OB ABSTAINED FROM. >> YES, SIR.

>> ANYONE ELSE IN THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE

[CONSENT AGENDA]

UNLESS SOMEONE ON THE COMMISSION WISHES ONE SET ASIDE.

OKAY, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION APPROVED. SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE. IN FAVOR AYE, UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO THE REGULAR

[009 Consider and act upon a request for a special exception to Section 3.5501 of the Midlothian Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a building with a roof pitch less than the minimum requirement of 8:12 and to Section 3.51 “Residential Accessory Structures”. The property consists of 2.882± acres of land, commonly known as 4621 Plainview Road. (Case No. M16-2022-125).]

[00:05:02]

ROAD. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING, CASE NO. M16-2022-125.

THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 9. THIS IS FOR, AGAIN, ROOF PITCH VARIANCE REQUEST AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUEST LOCATED AT 4621 PLAINVIEW ROAD.

THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST, JUST OVER TWO AND A HALF ACRES AT 2.68 ACRES. AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE ROOF PITCH VARIANCE AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

AND THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURE FOR THE SITE. SO AS YOU GO TO THIS NEXT SLIDE, YOU WILL SEE OUTLINED IN RED, THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. THAT'S GOING TO BE ROUGHLY AROUND 6,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEN IN THE PURPLE HERE, THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE/BARN STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT IS WISHING TO KEEP THAT ON SITE AT THE PROPERTY.

THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT.

AS YOU SEE ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE, SHOWS LEVEL ONE AND LEVEL TWO. AGAIN, TWO-STORY BUILDING AND SO, AGAIN, AS WE MENTIONED IN THE LAST SLIDE, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE PRIMARY BUILDING IS GOING TO BE AROUND 6,000 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, HALF OF THAT PORTION, ROUGHLY 3,000, IS GOING TO BE CONSISTING OF GARAGE AND STORAGE ROOM SPACE AND AS YOU SEE ALONG THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, BREAKDOWN.

THE KITCHEN LOCATED ON LEVEL ONE, 800 SQUARE FEET.

THE BEDROOM AROUND ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHICH IS ON LEVEL TWO. AND GARAGE SHOWROOM AREA ON LEVEL ONE IS GOING TO BE 3,200 SQUARE FEET ROUGHLY.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS ELEVATION.

LARGELY CONSTRUCTED OUT OF BRICK BY THE APPLICANT.

THE NEXT SLIDE HERE GIVES A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, COLOR RENDERING OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL WILL LOOK LIKE.

AS WE MENTIONED, THOUGH IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DUE TO IT HAVING A BEDROOM, KITCHEN AREA, A LOT OF THINGS WE CONSIDER UNDER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, PRIMARILY USED FOR STORAGE AND SHOWROOM OF CARS FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO THIS NEXT SLIDE KIND OF DEPICTS A RENDERING OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE STRUCTURE TO LOOK LIKE ON THE INSIDE. AGAIN, TWO VARIANTS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR. THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES 8:12 ROOF PITCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FLAT ROOF AS YOU SEE HERE. AND, AGAIN, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CAN'T BE LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHICH IT WILL BE HERE. THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST SINCE THE '70S, MAYBE EVEN PRIORITY THAT. SO DUE TO THE APPLICANT WANTING TO KEEP THAT ON THE LOT, HE DOES HAVE THE REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THAT AS WELL. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PER STAFF COMMENTS THE APPLICANT MUST GET A PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND CONCRETE PATH WILL BE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY LEADING TO THE PRIMARY

STRUCTURE AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP.

SO WE WILL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION -- -- >> I'M SORRY, WE DIDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY.

FLOOR IS OPEN P FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

>> WHAT IS THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY?

>> IT DROPS -- >> ROUGHLY 28, 30 FEET FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPERTY. HERE'S A COLOR RENDERING OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. AGAIN, 28 TO 30 FEET.

>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I THINK THE PROPERTY DROPS FROM THE STREET TO THE BACK. OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER, IF YOU NOTICED IT WASN'T THERE, I ASKED WHETHER OR NOT NOTICES WERE REQUIRED TO BE SENT OUT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND STAFF ADVISED ME THAT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE.

[00:10:09]

>> THIS IS A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE IN STYLE AND AESTHETICS FROM ANYONE IN THE AREA. IT IS VERY NICE LOOKING.

THESE ARE ONE TO TWO-ACRE HOME LOTS.

SO THE CITY DOESN'T GET INVOLVED IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION WITHIN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR ALLOWANCES, SO FORTH.

THAT'S NOT ANY OF OUR PROBLEM, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

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

CAN YOU ADD THAT TO YOUR MOTION. >> AS PRESENTED, YES.

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

OPPOSED. IT'S UNANIMOUS.

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for an Oncor Electric Substation relating to the use and development of 5± acres of land located in the James E Haddon Survey, Abstract No. 501 William T Baxter Survey, Abstract 178 and the Allen Reeves Survey, Abstract 939, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas (“the Property”), which is located within the Single Family One (SF-1) District. The property is located on the north side of Gifco Road, east of Quarry Road. (Case No. SUP15-2022-120)]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GIFCO ROAD, EAST

OF QUARRY ROAD. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING, AGENDA ITEM 10, CASE NO. SUP15-2022-120. THIS IS FOR PROPOSAL ONCOR SUBSTATION. ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO, WE REVIEWED AN EXPANSION LOCATED NEAR THE WATER TOWER ALONG FM 663. AND SO, AGAIN, DUE TO CONTINUOUS GROWTH WITHIN THE CITY, THE APPLICANT ONCOR IS PROPOSING ANOTHER SUBSTATION HERE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AROUND 5 ACRES, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY ONE. AGAIN, THE SUP IS REQUIRED WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY ONE ZONING WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT IT IS GOING TO CONSIST OF CONTROL CENTERS AND TRANSFORMERS.

EIGHT-FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL.

THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU WILL SEE ROUGHLY A RENDERING OF WHAT THE WALL WILL LOOK LIKE. AGAIN, WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS GOING TO CONSIST OF TRANSFORMERS AND CONTROL CENTERS. THE NEXT TWO SLIDES DEPICT WHAT THE CONTROL CENTERS WILL LOOK LIKE, LARGELY CONSTRUCTED OUT OF METAL. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR VARIANCE IN REGARDS TO THE LANDSCAPING AND SO ANY TIME SOMETHING THAT IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING, WE REQUIRE CERTAIN TYPE OF SCREENING, WHETHER IT BE WROUGHT IRON OR MASONRY SCREENING WITH LANDSCAPING.

HOWEVER, DUE TO NO WA WATER LIN, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY LANDSCAPING OR SHRUBS. STAFF IS UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, WE ARE STILL SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICANT REQUEST FOR THE SUBSTATION AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? YES, SIR, IF YOU COULD COME

IDENTIFY YOURSELF, YOUR ADDRESS. >> ROB MYERS, 61 WARREN PARKWAY IN FRISCO. DUE TO THE GROWING DEMAND OF EXISTING AND FUTURE MIDLOTHIAN CUSTOMERS, ONCOR IS EXPANDING THEIR SERVICES IN THE AREA. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM

ANYBODY. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I BELIEVE THERE ARE NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.

WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK. SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> MOTION, SECOND, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR AYE, ANY OPPOSED? FLOOR IS OPEN FOR ACTION AND/OR DISCUSSION.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

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

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR AYE? OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a communication tower, located on Lot 2RA, Blk 1 of Walnut Grove Center South or commonly known as 4470 East Highway 287. The property is currently zoned Commercial (C). (Case No. SUP16-2022-123)]

[00:15:02]

COMMERCIAL. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM NO. 11, CASE NO. SUP16-2022-123. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER AT THE ADDRESS OF 4470 EAST HIGHWAY 287. AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS JUST AROUND TWO AND A HALF ACRES.

IT IS GOING TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR HERE BEHIND EXISTING STRIP RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW 150-FOOT TALL COMMUNICATION TOWER.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL.

THE COMMUNICATION TOWER WILL BE UTILIZED FOR CARRIER CUSTOMER COVERAGE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, EMERGENCY SERVICES.

IN ADDITION, THE TOWER WILL BE PARTIALLY USED BY CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REMOTE WATER METERING AS WELL. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A MORE DETAILED LAYOUT OF WHAT THE TOWER -- WHAT WAS SURROUND THE TOWER. OUTLINED IN GREEN HERE WILL BE THREE-FOOT SHRUBS AROUNDING THEE MASONRY WALL.

THE 150-FOOT PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER.

IN YELLOW, A METAL ACCESS GATE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE ACCESS TO THE TOWER. THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS SITE RENDERING OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE IF APPROVED AND ONCE CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPLICANT. AND AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING

APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COLBY, IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT CORRECTLY, THAT IS IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDINGS. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOWER IS THE CREEK AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT, WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY.

WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED UP FOR THIS.

SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

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

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

>> I WILL SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

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

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a “secondary dwelling”, presently zoned Agricultural (A) District. The property is located on ±7.881 acres on the east side of McAlpin Road, north of FM 875. (commonly known as or near 3071 McAlpin Road). (Case No. SUP18-2022-127)]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON +7.881 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF MCALPIN ROAD, NORTH OF FM 875, COMMONLY KNOWN AS OR NEAR

3071 MCALPIN ROAD. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 12, CASE NO. SUP18-2022-127. THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED SECONDARY DWELLING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A SECONDARY STRUCTURE AT THE SAME TIME.

THE SECONDARY DWELLING IS GOING TO BE USED AS MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE. SO INSTEAD OF CONSTRUCTING THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FIRST AND THEN HAVING THE MOTHER LIVE THERE AND THEN CONSTRUCT THE SECONDARY, THEY WANT TO KIND OF KILL TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE, IF YOU WILL.

SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 7.88 ACRES.

CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS AGRICULTURE.

SO THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS SITE LAYOUT PLAN WHERE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WILL BE AND SECONDARY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.

THIS IS CONCEPTUAL. NO EXACT MEASUREMENTS.

HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY DWELLING WILL BE ROUGHLY AROUND 3,313 SQUARE FEET, CONSTRUCTED OF BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL, USED AS ACCESSORY DWELLING AS MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE.

HER CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE, WE HAVE AROUND 11 STANDARDS TO MEET WITH SECONDARY DWELLINGS.

THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MEET ALL OF THOSE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO. ONE IN PARTICULAR IS THE FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE AIR CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA.

AS YOU GO DOWN HERE IN BOLD, WE PROVIDED A BREAKDOWN.

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, AC FLOOR AREA IS AROUND 3,499 SQUARE FEET. 50% OF THAT WILL BRING YOU AROUND 1,749 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL STRUCTURE IS 3,313 SQUARE FEET. SO THE APPLICANT IS ROUGHLY EXCEEDING THAT 58% SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE BY 1500 SQUARE

[00:20:03]

HOWEVER, THAT LARGELY DEALS WITH THE ACRES ON THE SITE.

SO SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ROUGHLY AROUND 8 ACRES AND SO DUE TO THAT, AS YOU KNOW HERE, IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL ONLY BE AROUND 20% OF THE 40% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE ELEVATION FACADE PLAN.

CONSTRUCTED OUT OF BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS RENDERING OF WHAT -- COLOR RENDERING OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE.

AGAIN, VARIANCE REQUESTS, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 50%.

THE APPLICANT IS EXCEEDING THAT BY ROUGHLY 1500 SQUARE FEET.

AND THEN ANOTHER REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING NOT TO MEET IS THE -- IS THAT THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT HAVE ITS OWN METER AS WELL. WITHIN OUR STANDARDS WE SUGGEST BOTH UNITS SHARE THE SAME METER. HOWEVER, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. SO THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THE COMMENTS. SO LET ME EXPLAIN.

ITEMS HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD ARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

I WILL GO THROUGH EACH ONE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PENDING THAT THE APPLICANT RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE BUILDING AND INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT.

THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET SETBACKS PER THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING, 50 FEET FROM THE FRONT.

THE ACCESSORY DWELLING SHALL NOT BE USED TO RENT TO OUTSIDE TENANTS. APPROVED SURFACE SHOULD BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU SEE OUTLINED IN RED, CROSSED OUT, THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT COMMENTS. HOWEVER, THE PERCENTAGE WAS OFF.

FORGIVE ME, MATH WAS NOT MY BEST SUBJECT.

I WILL UPDATE THAT GOING INTO CITY COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, AS I MENTIONED, FEW SLIDES AGO, THE APPLICANT IS EXCEEDING IT BY ROUGHLY 1500 SQUARE FEET OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE. LASTLY, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE NOTICE IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS REGARDING THAT ANY SALE OF ANY PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY BE PROHIBITED UNTIL IT IS REPLATED. SO NO. 6 AND NOT 3 KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND AND WE ARE TRYING TO JUST DOUBLE DOWN AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS NOT USED FOR ANY RENT TO OUTSIDE FAMILY MEMBERS

OR ANYTHING. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> I BELIEVE THIS IS THE PRIMARY. SECONDARY.

SORRY, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. THEY ARE BOTH LARGELY GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL.

THEY WILL LOOK PRETTY SIMILAR THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> THE LAST SLIDE YOU HAD UP.

SO STAFF IS SAYING IT IS OKAY TO HAVE TWO ELECTRICAL SERVICES?

>> WE ARE. SO THE TWO VARIANCES THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR AGAIN IS EXCEEDING THE 50%, WHICH WE MENTIONED THEY EXCEED BY 1500 SQUARE FEET.

THAT'S LARGELY DUE TO THE ACREAGE ON THE SITE, BEING 8 ACRES. THE LOT COVERAGE IS STILL HALF OF THE 40% MAXIMUM ALLOWED. THEN THE TWO ELECTRIC METERS, TO YOUR POINT, WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT AS WELL.

THAT GOES TO COMMENT NO. 3 AND NO. 6.

WE DOUBLED DOWN TO MAKE SURE SPECIFICALLY NO. 6 THAT THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE NOTICE IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS REGARDING ANY SALE, ANY PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY BEING PROHIBITED UNTIL REPLATED. WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT.

>> WITH A THERE ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT OTHER UTILITY SERVICES? WATER, SEPTIC? ARE THEY TWO SEPARATE SEPTIC

FIELDS? >> NO.

>> DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, COLBY, BUT IN THE PAST I KNOW STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL.

WE HAVE DENIED TWO METERS LIKE THIS.

SO WHAT IS THE EXCEPTION HERE? WHY WOULD WE GRANT IT IN THIS

CASE? >> AGAIN, IN THIS SITUATION, FORGIVE ME I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE LAST ONES, I CAN'T RECALL IF I WAS HERE OR NOT AT THAT POINT. I'M NOT SURE OF THE ACREAGE.

IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, DUE TO THE SITE BEING ROUGHLY 8 ACRES, WE ARE OKAY WITH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND ALLOWING FOR TWO SEPARATE METERS ON THE SITE.

WE WANT TO -- GOING BACK TO THOSE TWO COMMENTS THAT I MENTIONED, TAKE ADDITIONAL MEASURE IN REGARD TO THE APPLICANT DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS REPLATED.

THAT'S WHY WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT, LARGELY DUE TO THE

ACREAGE ON THE SITE. >> OKAY.

AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS ON ITEM 3, IS THAT NORMALLY THE LANGUAGE

WE USE FOR THAT. >> IT IS NOT.

[00:25:04]

WE MODIFIED THAT AFTER SPEAKING WITH OUR ATTORNEY CERC KEVIN, AD THIS WAS THE LANGUAGE HE FELT COMFORTABLE.

NO. 3 WAS SOMETHING WE ADDED ORIGINALLY PRIORITY, MORE OF A

LAYMAN'S TERM OF NO. 6. >> THE REASON I'M ASKING, IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE LANGUAGE I REMEMBER IN MOST CASES FOR IS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT ACCESSORY DWELLING SHALL NOT BE USED AS RENTAL PROPERTY. PERIOD.

>> WE CAN UPDATE THAT. WE CAN UPDATE THAT TO SAY THAT IF YOU GUYS CHOOSE TO APPROVE IT BUT MAKE THAT MODIFICATION, TO SAY THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, COMMISSION AGREES, WE CAN UPDATE

THAT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUICK QUESTION, COINCIDES WITH WHAT THE CHAIRMAN HAD MENTIONED. ON THE PREVIOUS CASES THAT WE HAVE DISMISSED ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER OF AN EXTRA BUILDING, WERE THOSE IN SOME CASES A SMALLER FOOTPRINT? AND DUE THAT THIS IS A LARGE -- DID YOU SAY SOMETHING A MOMENT AGO ABOUT PLATTING? ARE THESE GOING TO BE --

>> SO REGARDS TO THE PLATTING, ONLY THING WE MENTIONED WAS NO.

6, APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE NOTICE IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS REGARDING SALE OF ANY PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY.

>> UNTIL REPLAT. >> THAT HELPS COINCIDE WITH NO.

3. TO ANSWER THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, THEY VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN SMALLER FOOTPRINTS.

WHETHER IT BEEN LOT SIZE, WHETHER IT BEEN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SIZE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

COULD HAVE BEEN ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE FACTORS.

HOWEVER, WITH THIS PARTICULAR LAY OUT, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE

LARGELY DUE TO THE ACREAGE. >> I WOULD AGREE.

I KNOW ONE OF OUR MAJOR CONCERNS WAS THAT NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE PRESENT PROPERTY OWNER, WE KNOW THEY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS.

BUT WHEN OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TAKE ON THE PROPERTY, WE NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO. WE DO WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THESE SAME PROPERTY RENTALS GOING ON.

>> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR COMMENTS? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, COME.

IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE, MA'AM.

>> MY NAME IS KINKAID. I'M SORRY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE, I'M THE MOTHER.

AND MY DAUGHTER AND MY SON-IN-LAW ARE BUILDING THE MAIN STRUCTURE. WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY TOGETHER AND WE JUST WANT A SMALLER HOME.

WE JUST SOLD OUR OTHER HOME IN MIDLOTHIAN.

IT IS ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF WHAT OUR PREVIOUS HOME WAS.

REGARDING THE METERS, HONESTLY, THAT IS ONLY TO KEEP OUR EXPENSES KIND OF STRAIGHT. SO IF THAT'S A PROBLEM, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM WITH US. IF IT NEEDS TO BE THE SAME METER. SO IT WAS BASICALLY TO JUST TRY TO KEEP SOME EXPENSES SEPARATE. THAT WAS THE MAIN THING.

AND AS FAR AS US WANTING A VARIANCE, WE WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SECOND FLOOR SINCE THE MAIN PROPERTY HAD A SECOND FLOOR. WE ARE JUST BASICALLY REQUESTING THAT WE BE ABLE TO FINISH OUT THE SECOND FLOOR.

JUST ONE BIG ROOM. SO THAT WAS OUR ONLY REASONS FOR BOTH OF THOSE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE

WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU, MA'AM. WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.

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

OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

>> SECOND. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> IS THAT AGREED WITH YOU, MARK, THAT WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO NOT BE USED AS RENTAL PROPERTY.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. ITEM 013, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING

[013 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for shipping containers, in the JE Kelly Survey, Abstract 610, on the north side of Mockingbird Lane, commonly known as 1851 Mockingbird Lane. The property is currently zoned Planned Development District No. 51 (PD-51). (Case No. SUP17-2022-126)]

[00:30:05]

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.

51. WITH THAT, LET THE RECORD SHOW

THAT -- >> REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER BLAND IS RECUSING HIMSELF. NEXT AGENDA ITEM, ITEM NO. 13, CASE NO. SUP17-2022-126. THIS IS FOR PROPOSED SHIPPING CONTAINERS FOR THE MISD AG BARN SITE.

SO AGAIN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS JUST OVER 30 ACRES AT 30.16 ACRES. AGAIN, EXISTING MISD AG BARN AT THAT LOCATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SUP AT THE EXISTING PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR THE STORAGE CONTAIN DR SHIPPING CONTAINERS AT THE SITE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 51. ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO, WE DID A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SHIPPING CONTAINERS.

WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT INFORMATION HERE.

FOR THE PLIK, THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS WILL BE USED FOR OVERFLOW STORAGE. STILL NO MORE THAN FIVE CONTAINERS AT ANY GIVEN TIME ON THE PROPERTY.

IT IS GOING TO BE SET BACK 950 FEET FROM MOCKINGBIRD LANE.

SO AT THE MAY 10TH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SHIPPING CONTAINERS WERE REVIED AS TEXT AMENDMENT AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

AND BELOW WERE CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT WERE INCLUDED WITHIN THAT TEXT AMENDMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO REQUEST THE SUP IF ALL THE CRITERIA IS NOT MET, WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICANT IS COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

YOU SEE THE FOUR NOTABLE STANDARDS THERE.

HOWEVER, WANT YOU GUYS TO PAY ATTENTION PARTICULARLY TO THE ONES IN BOLD, NO. 1 AND NO. 4. NO MORE THAN ONE SHIPPING CONTAINER IS PERMITTED TO BE LOCATED ON A LOT OR PARCEL.

AS WE MENTIONED, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FIVE SHIPPING CONTAINERS. THAT, A, TRIGGERS IT.

NO. 4, SHIPPING CONTAINERS SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS NOW, IT IS VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT -- I WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THIS. THEY DID SAY THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO MOVE THOSE SHIP CONTAINERS FROM THE SIDE WHERE IT IS LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT IS NOT VISIBLE. SO REALLY, IF THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO THAT. THE MAIN ONE WE ARE LOOKING AT IS NO. 1 HERE. SO AGAIN, NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE SAY THE LAYOUT. THE AG BARN TO THE RIGHT, FIVE EXISTING SHIPPING CONTAINERS ON THE SITE.

AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MOVE FROM THE RIGHT HERE OVER TO THE BACK TO MAKE IT NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS EXISTING SHIPPING CONTAINERS ON THE SITE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MOVE THOSE SHIPPING CONTAINERS FROM THE RIGHT SIDE TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT IS NOT

VISIBLE. >> SO WOULD THAT -- IF THEY MOVE THEM TO THE BACK, WOULD IT NOT STILL BE VISIBLE FROM MIDLOTHIAN

PARKWAY? >> IT WOULD STILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE SIDE HERE? WELL, IT WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM MOCKINGBIRD LANE BECAUSE IT IS BEHIND THE BUILDING.

I GUESS TECHNICALLY, YOU CAN SEE IT IS VISIBLE HERE.

HOWEVER, THIS BUILDING STRETCHES OUT A LITTLE BIT BUT IF IT IS THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO SCREEN THAT, THAT'S FINE AS WELL. HOWEVER, AS STAFF WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPLICANT MOVING THOSE TO THE BACK OF THE

PROPERTY. >> ARE YOU FINISHED?

I APOLOGIZE. >> GO AHEAD.

>> DUE TO IT HAS -- I GUESS I'M ASSUMING ACTUALLY AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS, THE MOCKINGBIRD PARK WOULD BE TO THE EAST.

THAT LOOKS NORTH ON OUR MAP. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE EAST.

IF THEY WERE TO LEAVE THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS WHERE THEY ARE, DID WE GIVE THEM AN OPTION. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT, TO PUT UP PERHAPS SOMETHING DECENT BUT A COUPLE 8-FOOT FENCE PANELS IN FRONT OF IT.

ARE YOU NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE PARK, NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHOLESOME. THE BUILDING WOULD BE BLOCKING IT FROM MAIN THOROUGHFARE. DID WE OFFER THEM AN OPTION OF A

SCREENING? >> WE DIDN'T GET THAT DETAIL, BECAUSE WE MENTIONED IT, THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO MOVE IT. HOWEVER, IF THE APPLICANT COMES

UP HERE -- >> I'M THINKING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL COST TO HAVE THEM MOVED.

IT WAS JUST A THOUGHT. WITH THE CHAIRMAN HERE, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE SEEN FROM MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY, WHICH I DON'T HAVE A HUGE CONTAINER PROBLEM HERE ON THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU.

[00:35:05]

>> OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR STAFF? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? SO, SIR, IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY

YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> MY ?AIM DARREN CASPER, I'M THE NEW DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT MIDLOTHIAN ISD.

AS YOU KNOW, MR. MIDLOTHIAN, JIM NORRIS, IS RETIRING.

I EVER BIG SHOES TO FILL. YOU WILL BE SEEING OUR FACES, ONE OR THE OTHER WHEN WE NEED TO MAKE A REQUEST OR ANSWER QUESTIONS. ALSO, WITH ME IS OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, JOSÉ MARTINEZ.

SO AT THIS TIME, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> ARE YOU REQUESTING -- IT SAYS UP TO FIVE.

ARE YOU ANTICIPATING HAVING FIVE?

>> WE HAVE FIVE THERE CURRENTLY. >> YOU HAVE THEM THERE NOW?

>> YEAH. >> SO REAL QUICK, THOSE ARE EXISTING ROUGHLY RIGHT HERE IN THIS AREA.

>> SO HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN THERE?

>> I'M NOT SURE, HONESTLY . >> IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR. COME ON UP TO THE MIC.

>> JOSÉ MARTINEZ, EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS FOR MIDLOTHIAN.

YEAH, SO THESE USED TO BE AT THE NEW BUS BARN BEHIND THE RANDALL HILL SCHOOL, THEY WERE BACK THERE.

AND THEN WITH THE NEW LAW OR ORDINANCE, WE HAD TO ASK FOR THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE REQUEST WAS TO MOVE IT OUT TO THE AG CENTER. WE DROPPED THEM OFF HERE, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD TO. WITH HAVING TO COME AND ASK FOR PERMISSION TO MOVE THEM BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT SCREENING ON THEM TO BLOCK IT FROM MOCKINGBIRD LANE.

SO MARCOS SAID, HEY, LET'S JUST MOVE THEM TO THE BACK SO THEY ARE ALREADY SCREENED, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD ANYTHING.

SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT. >> SO DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SCREENING THOSE, WHERE THEY ARE AT?

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE CHEAPER TO MOVE THEM TO THE BACK JUST TO APPEASE VERSUS BUILDING CONCRETE TO SCREEN THEM IN.

>> I DON'T KNOW, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE UP NEXT TO THE ROAD, BUT I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE -- WHEN YOU MOVE THEM TO THE BACK, THEY WILL BE VISIBLE FROM MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY WHICH IS A MAJOR

THOROUGHFARE. >> WE HAVE TO SCREEN THEM EITHER WAY, IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO LEAVE THEM IN THAT AREA.

>> AND SCREEN THEM. >> WITH SCREENING, I DON'T KNOW HOW STAFF WOULD FEEL ABOUT THIS, BUT IF IT WERE BE MINE, I WOULD BE MOUNTING TWO-BY-FOURS AND PICKETS TO THAT AND STAIN THEM.

THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS PUTTING A FENCE ONE FOOT IN FRONT OF IT. I WOULD THINK SCREENING IS A WHOLE LOT CHEAPER THAN SOMEBODY TO MOVE FIVE BUILDINGS AROUND THE CORNER. THAT'S KIND OF UP TO YOU GUYS.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S TWO OF YA'LL FILLING MR. NORRIS' SHOES.

>> WE EACH GET ONE SHOE. >> GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS.

WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU.

THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS OF OF THE

APPLICANT? >> THANK YOU YA'LL.

I HAVE NO ONE ELIMINATION TO ELSE TO SPEAK.I ENTERTAIN A MOTE

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION.

>> WE HAVE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION. I GUESS, COLBY, ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, LOOKING AT THE STIPULATIONS, SHIPPING CONTAINERS WILL BE ONE COLOR, EARTH TONE SHADE AND NONREFLECTING. I NOTICE WE HAVE A VARIETY OF COLORS THERE. DO THEY INTEND TO LEAVE THOSE

LIKE THAT? >> I GUESS WE DIDN'T SPECIFY THAT. EACH STORAGE SHOULD BE ONE PARTICULAR COLOR. SO AS IT STANDS NOW, THESE ARE FINE BECAUSE THIS ONE IS BROWN, THIS ONE IS GRAY, RED.

>> SO AN INDIVIDUAL ONE COULDN'T BE RED, WHITE AND BLUE.

>> YES, SIR. >> ALL RIGHT.

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION?

[00:40:14]

>> I THINK, TO ME, AN APPROPRIATE MOTION WOULD BE TO LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE AND HAVE THEM SCREENED FROM MOCKINGBIRD. AND IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE WHAT COMMISSIONER RODGERS SC SUGGESTD TO THEM.

>> I THINK WHAT THE CHAIRMAN IS GETTING AT, I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE THEM POSSIBLY MORE FROM MOCKINGBIRD VERSUS FROM WHERE THEY ARE AT. ONCE YOU GET THAT SHORT SCREEN UP THERE, THEY ARE GOING -- THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BLOCK THEM FROM MOCKINGBIRD. PARK IS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

WHOLESOME. YOU WOULDN'T SEE THEM ONCE YOU

SCREEN THEM WHERE THEY ARE AT. >> THE BUILDING WILL BLOCK THEM FROM MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. IF NOT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO LEAVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE AND HAVE THEM APPROPRIATELY

SCREENED FROM MOCKINGBIRD LANE. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN, OR COMMISSION, DO YOU GUYS MIND, DO YOU MIND SPECIFYING HOW YOU GUYS WANT THAT SCREENED?

>> YOU GO AHEAD. >> THAT'S THE REASON I THREW THE WORD APPROPRIATE IN THERE. I THOUGHT THAT GAVE YOU LEEWAY TO REQUIRE WHAT THEY PUT IN THERE.

>> AND THAT'S FINE AS WELL. WE CAN TAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. IF YOU WANT IT THERE AND SCREENED, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A PREFERENCE.

>> I THINK I FOLLOW WHATTER WHAT HE ISSAYING, CHAIRMAN, TO Y WHAT SCREENING MEANS. TO ME IT MEANS THE FORM OF THE APPEARANCE OF A WOOD FENCE VERSUS -- IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE BRICK OR A WALL OR BASEBALL OUTFIELD METAL.

I DON'T KNOW. >> SO WHAT IF I CHANGE THE MOTION TO MOVE TO APPROVE THEM WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED WITH STAFF DIRECTING THEM WITH APPROPRIATE SCREENING.

>> WOULD THAT BE, COLBY? >> YES, THAT'S FINE.

WE CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THAT.

>> I WILL AMEND MY MOTION TO THAT.

DO YOU STILL SECOND THAT IN, COMMISSIONER.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO

[014 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the city of Midlothian Subdivision Ordinance by amending Section 6.14.3 “Lots” in reference to drive access. (Case No. OZ05-2022-118)]

ACCESS. >> AGAIN, THANK YOU, SIR, NEXT CASE IS AGENDA ITEM NO. 14. IN REGARDS TO CASE NO. OZ05-2022-118. THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED DRIVE ACCESS AMENDMENT. SO I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR, AT LEAST IN THE SIX MONTHS I HAVE BEEN HERE, I'M SURE YOU GUYS BEFORE ME, HAVE REVIEWED NUMEROUS DRIVE ACCESS DRIVEWAY ACCESS CASES. SO PER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, IT CREEDS, SECTION 6.14.3 PROHIBITS DRIVEWAY ACCESS THROUGH RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS OR LOTS INTENDED TO A FREEWAY, HIGHWAY, FARM TO MARKET ROAD WHICH IS THE MOST COMMON ONE WE REVIEW, FRONTAGE, HIGHWAY, MAJOR OR MINOR ARTERIALS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING REVIEW OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. SO ULTIMATELY WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TONIGHT THAT WE AMEND SIX 6.14.3 TO R ALLOW THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER TO MAKE THAT DECISION ADMINISTRATORLY AS OPPOSED TO BRING THOSE TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.

IT STILL MUST MEET REQUIREMENTS OF OUR DRIVEWAY SPACING STANDARDS AND IF IT DEVIATES IN ANY WAY AND WE FEEL IT NEEDS TO COME BACK FOR REVIEW AND DECISION BY COUNCIL, THEN WE WILL BRING IT BACK. BUT ULTIMATELY, WE ARE REQUESTING TO AMEND THIS TO ALLOW FOR IT TO BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND CITY ENGINEER.

[00:45:03]

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> GO AHEAD.

>> THE WAY I'M READING THIS, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE, WHAT IS THE REMEDY FOR THE APPLICANT? LET'S SAY THAT, FROM WHAT I AM READING HERE, IF I OWN TEN ACRES OUT ON 875 AND ENGINEERING DECIDES THAT I DON'T GET ACCESS, AM I READING THIS WRONG?

>> IN WHAT SPECIFICALLY? >> PARDON ME?

>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE LOOKING --

>> PUT BACK UP THERE, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT EVEN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH. IT IS PRETTY CUT AND DRY CURRENTLY. IT PROHIBITS DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS, LOTS INTENDED.

SO WITHIN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE, I REALIZE THAT WE HEAR A LOT OF THESE, WHAT I GET CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE ARE NOT TAKING AWAY THE ABILITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO REMEDY IF THEY DISAGREE WITH STAFF THAT THEY CAN STILL BRING IT BEFORE US.

YES OR NO? >> I'M WITH YOU ON THAT.

>> THE WAY YOU GOT IT WROTE UP YES OR NO?

>> YES. >> YES, THEY CAN?

>> NO, I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. SORRY.

>> SO I WILL NOT APPROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE'S TIMES -- I DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE THIS WRONG.

BUT THERE'S TIMES YOU ARE WRONG. AND YOU NEED TO HAVE A CHECKS AND BALANCES SYSTEM IN PLACE. THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE ARE HERE FOR. YOU ARE NOT WRONG VERY OFTEN THOUGH. BUT AS I READ THAT, I FEEL AS THOUGH -- AND I WANT TO MAKE IT IN SOME WAY CLEAR TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY HAVE THIS REMEDY IF THEY WANT TO STILL TAKE IT, JUST LIKE IN A LOT OF CASES THAT WE EVEN HEAR AS P&Z, WE HAVE WORKED HARD WITH THIS THROUGH CITY, THEY STILL HAVE A REMEDY AS AN APPLICANT TO CONTINUE ON TO COUNCIL IN JUST ABOUT ALL CASES IF WE DISAGREE WITH THEM.

I WANT TO SEE THAT WORKS ITS WAY ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM -- I BELIEVE I SEE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO WHICH IS GOING TO CUT DOWN ON A LOT OF CASES TO WHERE IF YA'LL COULD MAKE THE DECISION ON SOME OF THESE, THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS, WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO HEAR.

BUT IF THEY CAN'T GET ACCESS AND THEY STILL WANT US TO HEAR WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET DONE, I WANT TO HEAR THAT.

>> NOW THAT I HAVE HEARD YOU EXPLAIN YOUR REASON WITH THAT, THAT STILL IS THE CASE. THE MAIN INTENT OF THIS WAS YOUR FIRST REASON, IN REGARD TO WE JUST WANT TO ELIMINATE ANYTHING THAT IS AS SIMPLE AS, YES, THEY CAN GET ACCESS OFF THIS.

YES, IT MEETS THAT, IT MEETS THIS.

WE WANT TO REVIEW THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY AS OPPOSED TO MAKING THE APPLICANT WAIT TWO MONTHS.

IN THE CASE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT IS A SLIGHT DEVIATION OR IF THERE'S ANY SLIGHT CONFUSION AND IT IS NOT JUST SIMPLE, THEN I BELIEVE OUR INTENT IS TO BRING TO P&Z TO REVIEW AND CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY STATE THAT.

>> AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A CLEAR REMEDY AS AN APPLICANT IF THEY

DISAGREE WITH YA'LL. >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE

STATED IN THERE THAT WAY. >> DOESN'T D, UNDER RECOMMENDATIONS, COVER THAT, IN WHAT YOU PROVIDED US?

FOURTH IN THE APPEAL PROCESS? >> I WILL READ IT FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE AUDIENCE. IF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND/OR CITY ENGINEER DO NOT AUTHORIZE, THE REQUESTING PARTY MAY SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TO SUCH APPEAL TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR NOT LATER THAN TEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE WRITTEN. THAT TRIGGERS WHAT MR. RODGERS WAS SAYING. IT ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO STILL STATE THEIR CASE OF WHETHER THEY DISAGREE WITH STAFF.

SO I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T READ THROUGH.

>> THIS ALSO GOES FURTHER THAN THAT.

IF AN APPEAL IS TIMELY FILED, THE QUESTION SHALL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AT FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCCURRING AFTER THE 15TH DAYS.

DOES THAT ANSWER, COMMISSIONER? >> IT DOES.

I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A WAY THEY ARE AWARE OF SECTION D. THERE HAS BEEN SITUATIONS WHERE FOLKS HAVE CALLED ME ON OTHER CASES AND THEY SAY, WE ARE IN A

[00:50:02]

I FEEL LIKE FOLKS NEED THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR REMEDIES ARE IN THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THIS ON PAPER SO WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY BET IT. BGET IT.

BUT WITHIN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THEY ARE AWARE THAT THE FINAL STEP, BUT A STEP THAT THEY

HAVE. >> RIGHT.

AND, AGAIN, WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT, IF THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION.

WHETHER MODIFY THE APPLICATION TO SAY THAT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. AND COUNCIL AGREES, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, OUR MAIN INTENT IS TO ELIMINATE MOST OF THESE TO LOWER THE CASELOAD OF WHAT WE CAN GET RID OF ON OUR AGENDAS.

HOWEVER, AS THE CHAIRMAN STATED. SECTION D STATES THAT.

IF YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER IT IS PUTTING IT ON OUR APPLICATION, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT AS

WELL. >> THE ONLY REASON I BRING THIS UP, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH THIS.

BEFORE, UP UNTIL THIS -- THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING NOW, IF I CAME IN AND APPLIED, IT IS GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY COME TO US, RIGHT? IT IS GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY GO TO COUNCIL.

>> CORRECT. >> WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS

PULLING THE AUTOMATIC OUT. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO IF WE ARE GOING TO PULL THE AUTOMATIC OUT, IT IS SIMPLE.

I WANT THEM TO HAVE A VISIBLE REMEDY THAT THEY CAN ACCESS IF THEY WANT IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOST THE AUTOMATIC ABILITY.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY SUGGEST, IF THE DISCRIMINATION S TO APPROVE THIS, WE CAN MOVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6.14.3 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE INCLUDING SECTION D OF SECTION 6.14 IS PART OF THE

APPLICATION PROCESS. >> YES.

THEY ARE AWARE OF THEIR REMEDY. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT

MOTION? >> THE MOTION THE CHAIRMAN MADE.

I AGREE WITH THAT. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 6.14.3 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE INCLUDING SECTION D OF SECTION 6.14 AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

DID WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT? WE DID NOT, DID WE. SO WE NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MAKE A MOTION WE CLOSE THE

[015 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the city of Midlothian Subdivision Ordinance by amending Section 4.11 “Plats” and Appendix E and by adding Section 6.20, in reference to Traffic Impact Analysis. (Case No. OZ03-2022-95)]

PUBLIC HEARING. >> OKAY.

ITEM 15, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 4.11 “PLAT”" AND APPENDIX E AND BY ADDING SECTION 6.20, IN REFERENCE TO

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. >> ALL RIGHT, I WILL GO THROUGH EACH SLIDE ON THIS ONE. THERE IS ANOTHER TEXT AMENDMENT.

CASE NO. OZ03-2022-95. THIS IS FOR OR TIA TEXT AMENDMENT. THE LAST TEXT AMENDMENT IS FOR OUR DRIVE ACCESS, SECTION 6. GOING OVER TO THIS ONE, WE ARE GOING TO TOUCH ON OUR TIA. TO GIVE A FULL SUMMARY, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS ON OUR APPLICATION RIGHT NOW, WE ALLOW FOR TIAS TO BE REQUESTED AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. SO THIS TEXT AMEND MANY GOES AMO FURTHER DETAIL OF REQUESTING THAT AS OPPOSED TO THE STANDARD BLANKET STATEMENT, IF YOU WILL. REAL QUICK, GENERIC INFORMATION.

WHAT IS A TIA. REPORT TO HELP BETTER UNDERSTAND AND ACCESS AND MITIGATE ANY IDENTIFIED TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. WE SEE THESE WITH OUR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WHY, BECAUSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS TYPICALLY GENERATE ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE A PRIMARY TR TRIGGER OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

OUR APPLICATION CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE CITY ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF A TI AN IS NEEDED. NEXT FEW SLIDES GO INTO MORE DETAIL WHAT DETERMINES -- WHAT WOULD HELP THE CITY ENGINEER MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A

[00:55:01]

SO THIS WORK SHEET IN PARTICULAR LOOKS AT PEAK TIMES, DIFFERENT INTENSITIES THAT A DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING TO THE ROADWAY.

SO BY BEING ABLE TO FILL THIS OUT, THIS WILL HELP PAINT A BETTER PICTURE TO THE CITY ENGINEER OF WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED OUT OF THAT TIA. A FEW PROPOSALS, APPLICANT SUBMITTING A SITE PLAN ZONING OR REZONING APPLICATION MUST SUBMIT A TRIP GENERATION THRESHOLD ANALYSIS WORK SHEET, WHICH IS THE WORK SHEET WE JUST LOOKED AT, THAT WILL HELP THE CITY ENGINEER MAKE THAT DETERMINING RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER A TIA IS NEEDED OR NOT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A TIA BE REQUIRED IF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED BY A PROJECT EXCEEDS 500 OR MORE PER DAY OR 500 OR MORE VEHICLE TRIPS IN A PEAK DIRECTION DURING THE SITE PEAK TRAFFIC HOURS.

CITY ENGINEER OR DESIGNEE MAY REQUIRE TIA WHETHER IT MEETS CRITERIA OR NOT IF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, FOLLOWING ANY SAFETY RELATED ISSUES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

STUDY SHALL SHOW FREEWAY RAMPS AND DRIVEWAYS SERVING THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE OF THE SITE.

HOWEVER, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO EXTEND THE STUDY AREA BEYOND THE ONE-MILE BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE CRITICAL LOCATIONS THAT IMPACT THE SPECIFIC SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA OF ANY SAFETY CONCERNS. SO AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. WE FEEL THE TEXT AMENDMENTS HELP BETTER EXPLAIN TO APPLICANTS, THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AND TO PUBLIC JUST IN GENERAL OUR REASONING FOR WHY WE ARE REQUESTING TIAS FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I E GUESS I'M A LITTLE SLOW.

WHAWHAT IS THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND

WHAT YOU PROPOSE TO DO. >> THIS PROVIDES IN DETAIL WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING. BEFORE WE WERE SAYING AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. THAT WOULD LEAD ONE TO SAY, DID THIS ONE HAVE IT OVER ME AND OR WHY DID THIS PERSON HAVE DO IT AND DIDN'T HAVE TO DO AND I HAD TO DO IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WHILE THIS WAS THE INFORMATION THAT THE CITY ENGINEER WAS TYPICALLY USING, WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE IT ON OUR APPLICATION, SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE WERE USING.

SO THIS INFORMATION BRINGING IT INTO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP SO I WILL 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. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

AND/OR ACTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AYE.

OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[016 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to rezone Lot 1 and the South half of Lot 2, Block 60, Original Town City of Midlothian Section 3 (commonly known as 803 West Main Street) from Residential Three (R3) District to Urban Village Planned Development District No. 155 (UVPD-155) for residential or general professional uses (Case No. Z18-2022- 064).]

OR GENERAL PROFESSIONAL USES. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS FOR AGENDA ITEM 16, THIS IS FOR CASE NO. Z18-2022-064.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO AN UVPD TO ALLOW FOR BASE USES OF EITHER OFFICE OR MAINTAIN IT AS A RESIDENTIAL USE.

CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL 3 OR R-3.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE IT TO UVPD, LARGELY TO IT BEING UNDER THREE ACHE IRS.

ACRES. THE HOUSE AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS BUILT BACK IN 1903. QUEEN ANN STYLE ARCHITECTURE, APPROXIMATELY 4562 SQUARE FEET MAIN AREA WITHIN THE SECOND FLOOR AREA OF THE HOME AND IT IS AN HISTORICAL LANDMARK WITHIN THE CITY. THIS SHOWS THE SITE LAY OUT PLAN AND OUTLINED IN RED SHOWS PROPOSED PARKING SPACES FOR EITHER OFFICE SPACE OR RESIDENTIAL.

SO, AGAIN, THE TOTAL STRUCTURE IS 4,562 SQUARE FEET.

SO IF THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO DO OFFICE SPACE, ONE SPACE PER 3300 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT. BRING THE TOTAL TO MINIMUM OF 15 STALLS. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 7 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AND 7 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES WILL

[01:00:05]

THE CITY'S PARKING REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT ANY PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS BE ON IMPROVED CONCRETE SURFACE.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT A GRAVEL ROCK OR STONE, DECOMPOSED CRUSH GRANITE DRIVEWAY BE FOR THE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES. AND THE ON STREET TO BE CONCRETE MATERIAL. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING WILL REMAIN EXISTING ON THE SITE. THE APPLICANT DOESN'T INTEND TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT. AND AGAIN THE VARIANCE REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT ALL PARKING LOTS AND DRIVEWAYS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE SAME CONCRETE REBAR REQUIREMENTS AS LOCAL STREETS.

AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO KEEP THAT DRIVEWAY AREA AS DECOMPOSED GRANITE AREA AND ANY ON STREET PARKING, HE WANTS TO HAVE AS CONCRETE. AGAIN, THE PARKING RATIO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, ADMINISTRATIVE USE REQUIRES ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET, 15 MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENT.

AS I MENTIONED, THEY ARE ONLY PROVIDING 14 SPACES.

SO AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS LONG AS IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S LARGELY STATING THAT THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE DECOMPOSED GRANITE ON THE DRIVEWAY AREA.

THE OFF STREET PARKING -- THE ON-STREET PARKING SHALL BE CONCRETED SPACES, WHICH I BELIEVE THE P APPLICANT HAS AGRD TO. I WILL LET THEM SPEAK TO THAT.

IN ADDITION, STAFF IS OKAY WITH THE PARKING VARIANCE AS WELL.

SO MINIMUM 15 SPACE REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 14 SPACES FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

WE FEEL THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT, WISH TO SPEAK? DARRELL, IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

>> DARRELL [INAUDIBLE] IS IT NOT ON? YOU PROBABLY GOT IT, I'M LOUD ENOUGH, RIGHT? SO I'M BASICALLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE OFF-SITE PARKING BEING CONCRETE.

I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ORDINANCE FOR O TOWN TO USE SOME OF THE OLDER MATERIALS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COLBY AND MARCOS AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT. EVERYBODY THAT HAS LIVED HERE, KNOWS THE HISTORY OF THE WEBB HOME.

COMPLETED IN 1903 OR SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

BUT WITH THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE IS PEA GRAVEL RIGHT NOW.

SO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO PUT UP A BERM, IF YOU WILL, OF CONCRETE OR SOMETHING TO HOLD THAT TOGETHER. I JUST HAVEN'T DECIDED IF I WANT TO LEAVE IT PEA GRAVEL OR ASPHALT TO STAY WITH THE ERA OF THE HOME. OUTSIDE THE FENCE, WHERE WE ARE ADDING 7 ADDITIONAL SLOTS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CONCRETE.

AS YA'LL WELL KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN IN THE FAMILY FOR A LONG TIME. IT IS A HARD DECISION ON WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE HOUSE. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAYS PART OF MIDLOTHIAN. WE DON'T WANT TO SELL IT OR GET RID OF IT OR ANYTHING ELSE. WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST USE. THAT'S THE REASON WE HAVE ASKED FOR BEING ABLE TO TURN IT INTO AN OFFICE SPACE.

BUT ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY THAT IF ONE OF THE GRANDKIDS OR GREAT GRANDKIDS DOWN THE LINE DECIDES THAT, HEY, I WANT TO MOVE IN THERE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO LET SOMEBODY IN THE FAMILY TO LIVE IN THE HOME. SO THAT'S THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR THE UVPD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

YOU MAY KNOW, SINCE YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE HOUSE.

THE HOUSE IS STATE HISTORICAL MARKER?

>> YES, SIR. >> ARE YOU BOUND BY CERTAIN REGULATIONS THROUGH THAT, NOT BEING ABLE TO ALTER THE HOUSE

INSIDE AND OUT? >> ACTUALLY, YOU CAN DO SOME ALTERATIONS INSIDE. NOT SUPPOSED TO ALTER ANYTHING

OUTSIDE. >> I KNEW THERE WAS SOME STIPULATIONS, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT.

>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, KEVIN LUCIA AND HAVE HAD GOOD CONVERSATIONS. THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WANTING -- WE DO NOT INTEND TO ADD ANY WALLS, TAKE ANY WALLS OUT, PERIOD. OUR DEAL IS WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY TO LEASE IT.

ONE OF THE LAW FIRMS LOOKED AT IT, THEY WANT -- THE ROOMS WERE

[01:05:03]

WE SAID NOT HAPPENING. TAKE IT AS IS, CURRENT CONDITION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE, KEVIN AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE USAGE, WE ARE UNDER 6 HOW SQUARE FEET, CERTAIN USES STILL REQUIRE SPRINKLING. I SAID, I DON'T WANT TO DO IT.

REASON BEING, THE WALLS, THE CEILING, ALL THE TRIM WORK YOU SEE YOU THINK IS MASSIVE WOOD TRIM IS ACTUALLY PLASTER.

IT IS ORIGINAL TO THE HOME. IT IS PART OF HOW THEY INSULATE THE HOUSE AND KEEP THE HOUSE COOL.

ALSO, ALL THE DECORATIVE ON THE INSIDE.

THE 15-INCH BASEBOARDS, PLASTER. LOOKS LIKE WOOD.

BUT IT IS NOT. SO THAT'S THE REASON WE ARE NOT UP FOR DOING CHANGES ON THE INSIDE, EVEN THOUGH LEGALLY WE

COULD. >> SO THE INSIDE WELL STILL

THERE? >> YES, IT IS.

>> WOW. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS.

I ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

AND/OR ACTION. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED DRAFT ORDINANCE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO THAT EFFECT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[017 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 2.526± acres in the of land being Lot 3, Block 1 of Wofford Addition, by changing the zoning from Commercial (C) District to an Urban Village Planned Development District for general professional and restaurant uses. The property is generally located on Highlander Road, east of Silken Crossing Road. (Case No. Z34-2022-133)]

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING, AGENDA ITEM NO. 17, CASE NO. Z34-2022-133.

THIS IS FOR THE PROPOSED HILL DEVELOPMENT ON HILANDER ROAD.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS, AS YOU SEE HERE, ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, AN AERIAL OUTLINED IN RED, JUST AROUND TWO AND A HALF ACRES AT 2.528 ACRES. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND JUST TO HELP YOU GUYS AT, THIS IS WHERE THE PIZZA HUT IS ALONG HERE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GO WITHIN THE RED OUTLINED AREA. SO AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL ZONING TO AN UVPD, URBAN VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW USES SUCH AS RESTAURANT, PERSONAL SERVICES USES ON TO 25 ACRES.

THE COMMERCIAL ZONING -- THE ZONING IS COMMERCIAL AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. SO NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS CONCEPT PLAN. TOTAL ACRES IS 2.588 ACRES, THREE TOTAL LOTS. FOUR SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

IT WILL CONSIST OF RESTAURANT, PERSONAL SERVICES USES.

I WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THE LAST BULLET POINT, A BRIDGE CONNECTION POINT TO UNION 28 AREA.

THERE IS A PROPOSED SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES AS WELL. KIND OF GOING DOWN A LITTLE BIT, OUTLINED BLUE AREA. AGAIN, THERE IS THREE SEPARATE LOTS. LOT ONE, WE WILL GO THROUGH A BREAKDOWN ON EACH SLIDE, CONSIST OF RESTAURANT AREA, LOT 2 CONSISTS OF A RESTAURANT AREA AND LOT 3, ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE, WILL CONSIST OF OFFICE AND PERSONAL SERVICE USES. SO GOING DOWN, BREAKING DOWN EACH LOT. LOT ONE, OUTLINED IN BLUE HERE, WILL BE A PROPOSED RESTAURANT JUST OVER ONE ACRE BEING 3,500 SQUARE FEET WITH THE PROPOSED PATIO AREA FOR THE RESTAURANT AS WELL. 35 PARKING SPACES.

LOT 2, OUTLINED IN ORANGE HERE AT THE BOTTOM IS A PROPOSED RESTAURANT, JUST UNDER HALF ACRE, 4,500 SQUARE FEET BUILDING THAT WOULD ALSO HAS A PROPOSED PATIO AREA, 45 PROPOSED PARKING

[01:10:01]

THAT IS JUST UNDER AN ACRE. 0.93 ACRES.

PROPOSED 5,000 SQUARE FEET BUILDING.

LOT 3, BUILDING TWO, OUTLINED IN PURPLE HERE IS A PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE AND THAT WILL BE 4,500 SQUARE FEET BUILDING, BEING 15 SPACES. SO, AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS AN UVPD. HOWEVER, WE WANT TO NOTE OUT, PARTICULAR THE LOT WIDTH, THE AREAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS. SO LOT WIDTH IS 125 FEET.

THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 10 FEET INTERIOR, 15 ON CORNER WHICH I BELIEVE THEY ARE OKAY WITH THAT SIDE YARD SETBACK, DISREGARD THAT. MASONRY COVERAGE, PROPOSING MINIMUM 30% MASONRY. AND THE MINIMUM ALLOWED REQUIREMENT IS 90%. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS CONCEPT PLAN AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING FOR THE SITE, CONSIST OF LIVE OAK, DIFFERENT SHRUBS.

SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS MASONRY PERCENTAGE AND I DO WANT TO NOTE, THOUGH I POINTED THAT OUT, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REGULATE.

I DID WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT. CERTAIN MATERIALS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THIS DEPICTS A COLOR RENDERING, BRICK, STONE, METAL. SO THAT WILL BE BLENDED IN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THERE. I BELIEVE EACH BUILDING WOULD HAVE THE SAME LOOK. AGAIN, I WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT. BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS MORE SO WHAT THE AREA IS INTENDED TO LOOK LIKE.

STAFF CONCERNS, WE HAVE ONE CONCERN.

THERE IS A DUMPSTER LOCATED RIGHT HERE.

I KNOW THAT IS HARD TO TELL. HOWEVER, IN THE PAST, I HAVE KNOWN THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE DUMPSTERS NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC VIEW. A DUMPSTER IS NEEDED.

WE SUGGEST TO RELOCATE TO A DIFFERENT PORTION OF THE SITE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PER STAFF COMMENTS.

STAFF SUGGEST THAT THE APPLICANT RELOCATE THE DUMPSTER ON LOT 2 AND IF THE ZONING REQUEST IS APPROVED, STAFF SUGGEST THAT DETAILED SITE PLAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.

>> QESEQUESTIONS OF STAFF? SO COLBY, WOULD YOU COVER ONCE MORE THE COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT MASONRY.

>> SO I DID WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, DUE TO THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WE CAN'T TECHNICALLY REGULATE MASONRY MATERIALS ANYMORE. THAT CHART WAS JUST MORE SO TO GIVE YOU GUYS A BETTER PERSPECTIVE, HEY, WHAT IN COMPARISON, WHAT AREN'T THEY CONSISTENT WITH.

SORRY FOR ANY CONFUSION. >> NO PROBLEM.

OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT, WISH TO SPEAK? WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> SHANE HEMESTER, THANKS FOR HEARING THIS CASE TONIGHT. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL CURRENTLY. THE COMMERCIAL IS WHAT WE INTEND TO DEVELOP THERE. THE ONLY REASON WHY WE ARE COMING BACK FOR THE UVPD IS IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, WE DO WANT RESTAURANT USES ALLOWED WHICH IS WOULD BE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE IF WE WA WE WANTEDE RESTAURANT TO GO IN.

THE BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS TO DO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NOW TO OPEN UP THE USES TO ALLOW RESTAURANT.

THE SURROUNDING USES TO THE EAST, ELLIS COUNTY BARBECUE, NOVA GYM, SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT.

TO THE WEST, EARTH TONES, THE UNION 28 PROJECT WE GOT APPROVED A COUPLE MONTHS CURRENTLY UNDER SITE CONSTRUCTION AN ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. SO THE USES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE FIT OVERALL WITH THE AREA AND THE SCHEME.

I AM GOING TO INTRODUCE THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER.

WOULD HE LIKE TO COME UP AND ALSO SPEAK WITH YOU GUYS.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ONE THING I DID WANT TO CLEAR UP ON THE LOT WIDTHS, SO TWO OF THE LOT WIDTHS -- HERE IT IS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE NOTE.

TWO OF THE -- I GUESS WE CAN USE THIS ONE.

[01:15:02]

THE ONLY ONE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IS THIS LOT ONE WHICH KIND OF HAS THIS FLAG SHAPE.

ONLY 50-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT. EACH LOT HAS TO FRONT A RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT'S THE ONLY LOT THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR THE 50-FOOT MINIMUM ON.

THE OTHER TWO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WITH THAT, I CAN COME BACK UP AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER MIKE HILL WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF SHANE RIGHT NOW? NOPE. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> DID YOU FILL OUT A FORM, SIR?

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MIKE HILL, 802 SUMMER GROVE, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. THIS MAY BE MORE FOR CITY COUNCIL. I CAN GO BACK ON THE SLIDE.

I WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL THE VISION.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THERE IS NOT ANY CHAIN RESTAURANTS.

PARTNER WITH JUSTIN ON UNION 28 BUILDING, WE OWN THE LAND TO THE LEFT THAT IS NOT UNION 28. IT IS A LOCAL RESTAURANT THAT WANTS TO EXPAND THAT HAS REACHED OUT TO ME, MIKE, IF YOU EVER DO THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU.

ON THE CORNER YOU HAVE A CREEK. OUR PLAN IT TO CLEAR OUT THAT CREEK, HANG LIGHTS AND MAKE IT TO WHERE YOU CAN SEE INTO THE EARTH TONES AREA THAT IS THERE. REAL NICE VIEW.

THAT'S WHY THEY LIKED IT. SO OUR LONG-TERM VISION IS TO PUT A BRIDGE ACROSS THE CREEK. JUSTIN IS BUSY WITH OTHER PROJECTS. LONG-TERM VISION IS TO HAVE THE WHOLE CORRIDOR BE A WALKING AREA, SHOPS, ET CETERA.

YOU HAVE RESTAURANTS HERE, MAYBE AN OFFICE.

BUT THE WHOLE AREA GOING INTO UNION CREEK ALONG H HILANDER IS THE ARTS FEEL. I WANTED TO GET THAT ACROSS.

THE ARCHITECTURE, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT NOW, WE ARE REAL PROUD LIKE THIS. LOOK MORE LIKE TED VENTURES.

MY BUILDING, SPORT AND SPINE, THAT KIND OF LOOK.

>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. HILL?

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK, COMMISSIONERS.

I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP.

WITH THAT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS OPEN P FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION. I MIGHT ADD IF IT IS THE DISCRIMCOMMISSION'S DESIRE TO A, WE HAVE TWO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THAT. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF.

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

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

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. ITEM 018, THIS HAS BEEN

[018 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) (Case No. Z33-2022-91) CONTINUANCE REQUESTED]

AT THIS POINT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING.

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

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

[019 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 51.801± acres in the Coleman Jenkins Survey, Abstract No. 555 and the Joseph H. Witherspoon Survey, Abstract 1136, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District and the Commercial (C) District to a Planned Development (PD) District for mixed use. The property is generally located on East Highway 287, east of Shady Grove Road. (Case No. Z30-2022-111)]

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 19, CASE NO. Z30-2022-111.

THIS IS FOR SHADE GROVE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT.

OVERALL, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

THE CURRENT PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT IS UNDEVELOPED.

[01:20:02]

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS REGIONAL MODULE FOR THE AREA.

BEFORE WE GET INTO TALKING ABOUT EACH TRACT, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT. WHAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKET IS THIS LAYOUT HERE. SO YOU WILL SEE COMMERCIAL.

YOU WILL SEE COMMUNITY RETAIL. YOU WILL SEE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL. YOU WILL SEE IN THIS GREEN AREA HERE, AGRICULTURAL. SO AS OF YESTERDAY, WE RECEIVED AN UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT IS ESSENTIALLY -- THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED -- WELL, I WILL SHOW THE TRACT BREAKDOWN IN A SECOND.

THE GREEN AREA RIGHT HERE, AGRICULTURAL, THEY TOOK THAT ZONING AWAY. SO FORGIVE US FOR ANY CONFUSION ON THAT. BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT WILL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT. WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT WAS DIFFERENT IN YOUR PACKET VERSUS WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS TONIGHT.

SO THE UPDATED PLAN IS, AGAIN, SITE LAYOUT THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. ACREAGE IS THE SAME.

7 TRACTS. THE COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS YELLOW COLOR, TRACT ONE, TRACT FIVE AND TRACT SEVEN COMMUNITY RETAIL WHICH IS THE RED PORTION HERE IS GOING TO BE TRACT TWO.

GENERAL PROFESSIONAL WHICH IS THE ORANGE AREA WILL BE TRACT 3, TRACT 4, AND TRACT 6. ALL OF THOSE COMMERCIAL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY RETAIL, THOSE ARE ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST LAYOUT. HOWEVER, ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS THE AG ZONING BEING REMOVED FROM THE AREA.

SO WE WILL SHOW THE BREAKDOWN. THE BRIGHT YELLOW, SORRY.

THAT IS THE COMMERCIAL TRACT. CONSISTENT OF TRACT 1, 5, AND 7.

TRACT 1 BEING 5.81 ACRES, TRACT 5 BEING 11.4 ACRES AND TRACT 7 BEING 7.16 ACRES. THOSE WILL ALL BE COMMERCIAL.

OUTLINED IN RED IS COMMUNITY RETAIL TRACTS, TRACT 2 AND THAT CONSISTS OF 4.39 ACRES. AND LASTLY GENERAL PROFESSIONAL TRACTS, OUTLINED IN ORANGE HERE. CONSISTENT OF TRACTS 3, 4 AND 6.

TRACT 3 BEING 4.85 ACRES. TRACT 4, 5.76 ACRES.

TRACT 8 BEING 8.86 ACRES. AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT USES ARE PROPOSED TO GO INTO THOSE AREAS.

WWE KNOW THE ZONINGS. CERTAIN PROHIBIT THE USES, THIS ISN'T LIMITED TO THESE USES, BUT THE ONES WE N FOR SURE PAWN SHA, BODY ART STUDIO, RETAIL TOBACCO STORE, VAPING STORE, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT, WRECKER SERVICE, MOTOR VEHICLE RENTAL, MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR, MINOR OR MAJOR, MOBILE MANUFACTURING HOME SALES, BUS TRUCK STORAGE, COMMERCIAL TOOL TRAILER, TRUCK RENTAL, PETROLEUM DRILLING, GAS WELL DRILLING SITE INGRESS AND EGRESS RELATING TO MINING, DRILLING, CEMETERY.

THERE CAN BE ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES, AT THIS TIME THESE ARE THE ONES WE KNOW FOR SURE.

TRANSPORTATION PLAN, ALONG TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, TRANSPORTATION LAYOUT. SO THIS WILL BE ACCESSIBLE VIA U.S. HIGHWAY 287 AND SHADY GROVE ROAD.

REMOVING THE DRIVE CUT AND ADDING TWO NEW DRIVE CUTS ALONG HERE. THE CONFLICT SHALL CONSTRUCT DECELERATION LANE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS GOING TO BE WITHIN THIS AREA HERE.

AND FULL TRAFFIC STUDY SHALL BE REQUIRED AS THE SITE DEVELOPS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT DUE TO THIS BEING A VERY HIGH LEVEL BIRD EYE VIEW AND NOT HAVING ANY FULL DETAILS REGARDING THIS, REGARDING USES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE SUGGESTING ANY SITE PLAN OR ALL DETAILED SITE PLANS BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AFTER THE PACKET WAS POSTED. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PER STAFF COMMENTS. THE APPLICANT SHALL MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBMITTED ORDINANCE.

AGAIN, AS I RECENTLY STATED, ANY ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS IN REGARDS TO DETAIL SITE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

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

>> ANDREW GARRETT, 1007 FAIRIS AVENUE, WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS.

[01:25:01]

I'M A BROKER AND OWNER OF HY-VEE REAL ESTATE.

OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS I HAVHADTHE PLEASURE OF GETTING TW CHAD, IF HE WALKS IN, SOMEBODY CAN WAVE AT ME.

HE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE SOME STUFF AS WELL.

SO I GOT MY -- I GOT THROWN HERE JUST A FEW HOURS AGO.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU GUYS, STAFF AND P&Z.

THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROJECT. IT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. STAFF HAS BEEN SUPER ACCOMMODATING. WE HAVE HAD I WILL SAY SIX DRC MEETINGS, NUMEROUS, ME, CHAD, MARCOS, JEFF, MARCOS AND COLBY, NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS TO TRY TO GET SOMEWHERE WITH THIS PROPERTY. SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND THE ONE AERIAL BACK UP. WE WILL GO BACK TO THAT FIRST.

THANK YOU. SO WE ARE 51 ACRES ON 287 FOR THE AUDIENCE AND FOR YOU GUYS. THAT IS, I THINK, THE BEST WAY TO FIND IT IS JUST SOUTH OF THE SPLASH POOLS SIGN AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET FROM STONE GATE CHURCH.

KIND OF A GOOD GENERIC AREA. NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH IS A SHEET METAL FENCE AND SOME SORT OF A JOJUNKYARD.

WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES THERE WHICH I WILL GET TO SHORTLY.

JUST WANTED TO REAL QUICK -- PERFECT, RIGHT THERE.

SO THE PROPERTY IS AG EXEMPT. THERE IS A -- WE HAVE A TOPO ALREADY ON THE SITE. COUPLE THINGS TO NOTE.

WE HAVE UNDER CONTRACT THE ENTIRE SITE IN OUTLINED IN RED.

THERE'S ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT WE DON'T CONTROL OR HAVE UNDER CONTRACT AT THIS TIME.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY TRIED YET BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOAL FOR US TO ADD TO THE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE CURRENTLY HAVE CROPS.

CROPS OUT THERE, TREES, CREEKS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY I THINK ABOUT 3,000 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND SHADY GROVE AND 1200 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON HIGHWAY 287 THERE. SO JUST SOME BENEFITS THAT WE SEE FOR THIS SITE. NO. 1, I GREW UP, DRIVING FROM MIDLOTHIAN TO WAXAHACHIE AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER.

OR SOMEONE HAS BEEN DRIVING ME. AND THROUGHOUT THE WALNUT GROVE 287 EXPANSION, WE UNDERSTAND HOW BIG OF AN EMPHASIS IS ON THIS CORRIDOR AND THIS PARCEL OF PROPERTY, WALNUT GROVE IN GENERAL. WE HAVE AN OVERPASS SPED UP AND PUT IN IN PROBABLY RECORD TIME, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

I AM A MEMBER OF STONE GATE CHURCH AND I REMEMBER SOME DISCUSSIONS THERE ABOUT TRAFFIC AND WHEN ROSS WEAVER WAS CHAIR, I THINK, SO I HAVE A VERY LONG HISTORY WITH 287 AND REAL ESTATE IN GENERAL. I HAVE BEEN DOING IT ALL MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE. SO WE UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS SITE IS AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A BIG CHUNK.

AND SO WE HAVE BEEN PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION ALONG THE WAY.

SO THIS IS A RAPIDLY GROWING SECTION OF TOWN.

I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY MORE AWARE THAN ANYBODY, THERE'S A COUPLE STORAGE, MINI STORAGE BUYERS THAT PURCHASED LAND TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. SO I HIGHLIGHT THAT ONLY TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT AT LEAST IF THEY DO WHAT THEIR NAMES SAY, THAT ISN'T RETAIL OR ANY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OR ANYTHING. ANYTHING THAT'S -- IT DOES FILL A NEED BUT IT IS JUST NOT WHAT OUR VISION IS FOR OUR SITE.

SO OBVIOUSLY, TAX BASE CONTINUES TO GROW FOR THIS REGION AND THEN SALES TAX ON THE USERS THAT COME FORWARD TO OUR SITE.

SO JUST A COUPLE OF DEFICIENCIES AND CONCERNS ON THE SITE, JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT WE ARE WORKING WITH.

NO. 1, JEFF, I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FEMA FLOODPLAIN IN

[01:30:03]

THE WATERS OF THE U.S. >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS JEFF LENDER WITH BANISTER ENGINENGINEERING.

THERE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF POSSIBLE FLOODPLAIN THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE AT ALL. WATERS OF THE U.S.

ALONG THE CREEK THERE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THERE, KIND OF A DEFINING AREA. I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE WAS

TALKING ABOUT. >> RIGHT THERE, THAT CREEK IS WATERS OF THE U.S. I WILL ASK REAL QUICK, YOU GUYS HAVE A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT THAT IS? IT IS A PAIN. BUT WE ARE TAKING IT HEAD ON WITH JEFF'S EXPERIENCE. TOUGH TO CROSS.

GOT TO BE -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW.

THEY WANT TO KNOW DRAINAGE WORK OUT WELL.

WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT. THAT'S OUR INTENT AS WELL.

WE HAVE SOMEWHAT LIMITED FRONTAGE ON 287 BUT WE ARE BACK END LOADED ON SHADY GROVE. WE HAVE AN INTERESTING NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH THAT WE WILL HIDE A LITTLE BIT.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ARE AWARE OF TIA AND TEXT DOT TXDOT.

THE YOU ARE TURNS ARE GOING AWAY ON 287 OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS, IT IS IN THE WORKS.

WE UNDERSTAND THIS SITE PRETTY WELL, WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF A DECEL LANES. AND TIA STUDIES WILL TELL US WHAT TO DO THERE. WE HAVE -- WE WILL MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. I HAVE SOME PICTURES I WILL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE FROM ONE PROJECT THAT I HAVE BEEN A PART OF SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT IS STILL CHURNING USERS.

BUT OBVIOUSLY PER THE ZONING, WE ENVISION GOOD BIT OF RETAIL AND GENERAL PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE ON THE 287 SIDE.

WE HAVE AN IDEAL SPOT FOR A HOTEL.

I FORGET TO MENTION ONE THING. WE HAVE AN OIL AND GAS PIPELINE.

THAT IS RIGHT THERE. AND IT BISECTS THE PROPERTY.

IT IS 120-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT. THAT IS PROBABLY MORE CRITICAL THAN THE WATERS OF THE U.S. AT THE MOMENT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO GET SO MANY CROSSINGS AND YOU HAVE TO BE CROSSING THEM CLOSE TO 90-DEGREE ANGLE.

SO IF YOU SEE THE WAY THE ROAD IS SHAPED RIGHT THERE, WE ARE NOT QUITE AT 90 BUT REAL CLOSE AND HAVE SOME PERMISSION TO MAKE THAT WORK. THAT IS MAGELLAN PIPELINE, AND THAT IS DICKIE DICKIE, AND WE HD CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM ALREADY.

COUPLE LITTLE THINGS, THIS CORNER WE RECENTLY BROUGHT IN TO TRACT 7 BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF CROSSING THE PIPELINE.

WE DIDN'T THINK THAT FIT. WE HAVE BEEN TWEAKING THIS THING TO TRY TO MAKE IT THE BEST VERSION OF ITSELF.

THAT'S WHY A COUPLE THINGS DID COME IN IN THE 24TH HOUR.

WE DIDN'T INTEND TO SURPRISE STAFF OR PLANNING & ZONING STAFF. WE HAVE A COUPLE TO ADDRESS.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION IN OUR FUTURE FOR THIS SITE. IF YOU GUYS REALLY WANT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS, WE HAVE A DRAINAGE PLAN.

THERE'S A SURVEY, WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF.

I WOULD PASS THAT BATON TO JEFF IF WE GET TO THAT POINT.

BUT IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE, SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST. WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN TALKING TO PEOPLE WE KNOW WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SOME OF THESE SITES. HOTEL CHAIN, RESTAURANT.

SOME OF IT WOULD BE QSR. THAT'S STILL A NEED FOR THIS AREA. BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT OBVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT THE RETAIL CONNECTION AND IT IS FAIR TO ASK WHAT THESE USERS -- WHO THESE USERS WOULD BE AND SO IF WE CAN CHANGE NOW, I MAY GO BACK TO SOME PICTURES.

SO ONE YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH IN WAXAHACHIE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN BY THE RETAIL CONNECTION AND IS STILL SEEKING USERS FOR A FEW OF THE PAD SITES, SHOW BIZ CINEMA.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF MIXED USE.

BANK ON THE CORNER, WHATABURGER AND SHOW BIZ.

IF WE GET TO THE PICTURES, THAT'S GREAT.

BUT THE ONE THAT I WAS A PART OF AND THE ONE THAT KIND OF JUST -- IT WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT COIM CAMETO MIND IS THE NORTH GROVE

[01:35:06]

TWO PROPERTY OWNER. ME AND ANOTHER BROKER SOLD THOSE SITES TO WHO ENDED UP BEING DEVELOPERS.

SO WE HAVE ATWOOD'S IN THE BACK. SINCE THE END OF THIS, THEY HAVE HIRED ANOTHER BROKER TO SELL SOME OF THESE PAD SITES.

BUT IN THE BEGINNING, AND IN SEVERAL PAD SITES DEEP, I BROUGHT CANCUN'S TO THAT SITE AS WELL.

MR. PENDRY, DID THE ATWOODS. THEY ARE DOING THE -- THEY ARE DID THE BRANDENBURGER RETAIL EXPRESS.

AND THEN WE HAVE -- THERE IS ACTUALLY A MINI STORAGE SITE.

AND THEN WILSON APPLIANCE, FISH CITY GRILL GOING IN RIGHT NOW.

THAT PICTURE TAKEN TODAY. AND THEN THAT IS CA WILSON, USED TO BE IN DOWNTOWN WAXAHACHIE ON COLLEGE STREET.

THEY ARE MOVING THEIR LOCATION UP NORTH INTO A MORE RETAIL ENVIRONMENT WITH GOOD ACCESS TO INDUSTRIAL PARKWAY.

SO IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO SAY, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF SUPPORTING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THREE ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AND HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON AND POTENTIALLY ASK FOR ADDING THOSE INTO THE APPROVAL AS WELL, OR APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS OR HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO DESCRIBE THEM.

NO. 1, WE WOULD LIKE ZONING TRACT 5 TO BE COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN AG. I STUDY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THERE'S REALLY ONLY A FEW USERS IT COULD BE THAT DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

BUT I THINK WE GOT THIS PD OPEN RIGHT NOW, AND FOR US, I JUST THINK IT GETS US OVER THE HUMP OF ANY NEIGHBORS OR THE STAFF OR THE CITY OF BEING CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THAT TRACT MIGHT BE.

PARKING IT IN COMMERCIAL MIGHT BE A SAFE BET FOR ALL INVOLVED.

SO I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT POINT.

AND NO. 2, WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT ANY DETAILED SITE PLANS WHICH MEET OR EXCEED THE BASE ZONING FOR EACH TRACT IN THE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE REVIEWED AT STAFF LEVEL.

BUT IF A ZONING CHANGE OR SUP IS REQUIRED, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD BE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN COMING BACK THROUGH P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL. THE MAIN REASON IS, IT IS TIMING. YOU CAN LOOK BACK AT THAT ZONING EXHIBIT AND YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT, DEPENDING ON HOW SMALL SOME OF THESE LOTS SELL. IT COULD BE 50 USERS, 20, 30.

I DIDN'T GET INTO UTILITIES, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE STUDIED THAT.

WE HAVE SEWER AND WATER TO THE SITE.

SO THEY CAN GET TO BE PRETTY SMALL SITES AND SO OBVIOUSLY I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY TEDIOUS AND OBVIOUSLY WITH YOU GUYS, I BELIEVE, STAFF TO BE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF ASSURING US THAT THE DETAILED SITE PLAN MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL THE CRITERIA.

WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. AND THEN LASTLY, SOMEHOW IN THE MIX OF ALL THIS, IT WAS ONLY BROUGHT UP ONE TIME, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. FOR SOME REASON THE BALL WAS DROPPED. I WILL TAKE THE BLAME.

WE DON'T HAVE SIGNAGE ANYWHERE IN THE PD ORDINANCE.

WE ARE TALKING TO NATIONAL BRAND NAMES.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD INTO THIS PD THAT WE ARE APPROVED FOR A PYLON SIGN. I DIDN'T HAVE A DHA CHANCE A GEA LASER MEASURE TO MEASURE KROGER. THAT IS A MASSIVE.

BUT WE WOULD LISTEN TO THE HEIGHT YOU WOULD ALLOW AND MAKE IT STONE, BOARDED IN MASONRY OR BRICK AND MEET ALL CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARDS FOR SI SIGNAGE.

JUST WITH THE ACTIVITY THAT WE ARE GETTING, I'M AFRAID AFTER ALL THE GOOD WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE, THAT SIGNAGE COULD BE A STRUGGLE FOR US WITH SOME OF THESE SITES GETTING PUSHED FURTHER TO THE BACK. TOPO IS SUPER HEAVY IN THE MIDDLE. IT FALLS OFF TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH. OTHER THAN THE HOTEL, POTENTIAL HOE SELL SITE, THIS SIGNAGE WOULD BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND I THINK IT WOULD PAY DIVIDENDS FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN IN THE LONG RUN FROM A TAX SALES PERSPECTIVE IF WE CAN LAND A NATIONAL BRAND ON THE PROPERTY AND ON THE SIGN.

[01:40:12]

>> ZONING TRACT 5 COMMERCIAL, DETAILED ONLY COME BACK AND P&Z IF THEY DO NOT MEET ZONING OF THE CURRENT TRACTS, AND THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSSION THE HEIGHT OF A PYLON SIR SIGN AT TE MAIN ENTRANCE. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? >> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT SIGNS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT A PYLON SIGN? WHAT'S YOUR HEIGHT?

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT AS HIGH AS YOU WOULD ALLOW IT.

DOES ANYBODY NO KROGERS? I'M GOING TO SAY KROGERS IS 45.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS AT LEAST 40 FEET.

>> I DO KNOW THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE GOTTEN INTO AND RESTRICTIONS WE PLACED UPON SIGNAGE IS WE START GETTING QUIRK Y IN THE 35-FOOT. THE WAFFLE HOUSE AREA IS 25 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I GUESS BACK TO YOU, WHAT'S

YOUR PYLON HEIGHT? >> WE WOULD ACCEPT 25 FEET.

>> I DON'T THINK WAFFLE HOUSE IS THAT TALL.

>> LIKE 25, ISN'T IT? >> I WANT TO SAY IT IS LOWER, I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT. FORGIVE ME FOR NOT KNOWING OFF

THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> WHEN I SAID WAFFLE HOUSE, WHAT I MEANT WAS, THAT BUSINESS DISTRICT, MULTISTACK.

I USED THE WAFFLE HOUSE AS THE LOCATION.

>> IT IS AROUND THAT RANGE. AND I THINK IT IS REALLY JUST KIND OF ANSWERING ANDREW'S REQUESTS, IT IS DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE ABOUT THAT. SOMETIMES THE ORDINANCE IS REALLY QUOTE/UNQUOTE EASY FIX. WE CAN PUT INTO THAT LANGUAGE THAT IT MIGHT BE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING

ORDINANCE. >> SO WHAT ARE OUR REQUIREMENTS?

>> SO WELL, DEPENDING. SO ONCE YOU GET INTO THOSE QUOTE/UNQUOTE SPECIAL PYLON SIGNS, KROGER OR SOMETHING, THEY

BECAME PART OF THE PD AMENDMENT. >> I BELIEVE THAT SIGNAGE WAS BASED UPON A TAXABLE -- IT WAS KIND OF AN ATTACHMENT TO AN EXPECTATION OF A TAXABLE BASE STUDY.

I THINK WE RECEIVED SOME TYPE OF INFORMATION ON GL GROSS SALES STATUS. WE WENT A LITTLE BIT OUT OF OUR WAY TO MEET THAT HEIGHT. SO THAT'S -- I GUESS THE REASON I BROUGHT ALL THIS UP, YOU ARE CORRECT FROM WHAT I SEE, SIGNAGE IS MAKE OR BREAK ON SOME OF THESE DEALS.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION WILL FEEL ON APPROVING SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SIGNAGE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION FEELS ON JUST RELEASING IT.

I DON'T KNOW -- DUE TO THAT IS SUCH A PIVOTAL SUBJECT, IF YOU WANT TO EXTEND THIS FORWARD TO THE NEXT MEETING TO GET THAT IN ORDER AND TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO LEAVE THIS OPEN.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M BRINGING ALL THIS UP.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

COULD WE SHIFT AND TALK REQUEST ONE AND TWO AND THEN SEE WHERE WE LAND ON THREE AS FAR AS WHETHER WE DO A CONTINUANCE OR NOT? FOR A REMINDER, I THINK THAT WAY ISSUES WITH THAT LARGE TRACT IN THE BOTTOM, SOUTHEASTERN CORNER, BEING COMMERCIAL ZONING? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THAT?

>> SO AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PACKET.

AG ZONING BEING THERE. WITH THE UPDATE, THEY UPDATED TO

COMMERCIAL ZONING. >> WHY DID YOU INITIALLY HAVE IT

AS AG? >> I THINK OUR INITIAL THINKING WAS, JEFF CAN ANSWER, TOO, IF I AM OFF, I THINK OUR INITIAL THINKING WAS WE HAVE GOT SOME PRETTY GOOD IDEAS AND PRETTY GOOD NETWORKING FOR -- 12 ACRES, FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE.

THAT ONE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNKNOWN FOR US.

AND THEN AS OF LAST WEEK OR SO, IT HAS BECOME MORE EVIDENT THAT

[01:45:03]

IT DIDN'T SEEM -- SEEMED LIKE WE WERE LEFT UNDONE TO BE HONEST.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON. WE FELT LIKE IT WAS THE ONLY SITE FOR SORE EYES, AG, AND DIDN'T HAVE A PURPOSE.

I DIDN'T LOVE IT. MR. ADAMS DIDN'T LOVE IT.

THANKFULLY MARCOS AND COLBY AND HELPED US, YOU HAVE TO TALK TO P&Z ABOUT THAT. I THINK WE JUST WANTED IT TO LOOK COMPLETE AND EVERYTHING TO HAVE A ZONING THAT WAS USEFUL

AND PURPOSEFUL. >> AND YOUR SECOND ITEM WAS

WHAT? >> SO IT WAS REFERENCE IN CASE 17, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN.

THEY HAVE THREE OR FOUR TRACTS. THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, EVERY TIME WE SELL A PARCEL, THE SITE PLAN WILL COME BACK TO YOU GUYS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE DONE. THERE ARE A FEW CURB CUTS ON SHADY GROVE, FOUR IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN.

SO MY THINKING THERE IS, THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY -- THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT A SALE COULD OCCUR ON ONE OF THESE SITES BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE MAIN ENTRANCE SITE WOULD GO FIRST AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT.

AND WE UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF AND WILL, I'M SURE, HIT ON IT AT CITY COUNCIL AND HERE AS WELL, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THIS SITE, WE HAVE GOT TO GET TRAFFIC IN AND OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

SO THIS RED OR THIS SITE HERE, THIS SITE YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH JUST THE DECEL AND CURB CUT ENTRANCE THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED BECAUSE THE CREEK, WE ARE NOT GOING TO CROSS THE CREEK WITH A DRIVE. SO THIS SITE COULD POSSIBLY SELL WITHOUT THE MAJOR BOULEVARD. BUT THE REST OF THEM HAVE THE MAJOR BOULEVARD GOES IN AT STEP ONE.

SO ALL THAT IS TO SAY, WE JUST FELT LIKE IT MADE THE MOST SENSE IN ORDER TO SHOW IT LIKE THAT. BUT IF WE DON'T, THEN IF WE LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS, EVERY TIME, IF WE SELL TWO ACRES RIGHT HERE TO EDWARD JONES AND THEY WANT TO DO A STAND-ALONE STRIP AND THEY ARE THE ANCHOR FACING SHADY GROVE, THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE ABOVE BASE ZONING COMMERCIAL AND THAT SITE PLAN COULD BE APPROVED AT STAFF LEVEL.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE EVERY TIME AN ACRE GETS SOLD OR SMALLER THAN AN ACRE, DEPENDING ON THE SITE, THEN WE WILL.

WE WILL BRING THOSE BACK TO P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL EVERY TIME.

BUT THOSE CONTRACTUAL, FROM MY SHOES AS BROKER, THOSE CONTRACTUAL PROCESSES ARE LONG, LENGTHY, TEDIOUS.

THEY REQUIRE A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY AND I THINK YOU GUYS MEET ONCE A MONTH AT P&Z, CORRECT? SO IF YOU MISS ONE, IF YOU CONTINUED, IT DRAGS A LITTLE BIT.

THAT WAS THE REASON FOR NO. IT, W2,IF WE MEET OR EXCEED THE ZON, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO BRING THE SITE PLAN.

ALL IT IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS MEET STAFF'S APPROVAL AND THE ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, IS THERE REALLY A NEED TO BRING THE SITE PLAN BACK EVERY SINGLE TIME, UNLESS IT NEEDS A VARIANCE. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR NO. 2.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

>> HIGH QUES MY QUESTION ON YOUR ENTRANCES, DO YOU ALREADY HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE STATE TO DO THAT?

>> WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH TXDOT.

VERY FAR UP THE ROAD, WE HAVE A TIA DEPENDING ON THE FIRST

COUPLE OF USES. >> I GUESS HIGH QUESTION WOULD , IF YOU GET THRUST INTO A POSITION THAT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR TRAFFIC HAS TO COME DOWN SHADY GROVE TO MAKE ACCESS, HOW HAS STAFF APPROACHED THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN PLACED ON THE ROADWAY AND WHAT AMOUNT OF OBLIGATION WOULD BE PLACED UPON YOU. STAFF, WHAT ARE OUR SUBJECTS ON SHADY GROVE, AS FAR AS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THEY CAN POTENTIALLY PUT ON IT? WILL HAVE THEY TO MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON CERTAIN CRITERIA IN THERE'S, OF COURSE,

[01:50:01]

HOW DOES ALL THAT STAND? >> RIGHT, AGAIN, DUE TO THIS BEING AT VERY HIGH LEVEL VIEWERW POINT, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THE WOODS. BUT TO WHAT ANDREW SAID AND STAFF SAID, THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO PLAY A PART IN INTO IT. THE LAST BULLET POINT, A FULL TRAFFIC STUDY SHALL BE REARED AS THE SITE DEVELOPS.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONCRETE ANSWER FOR YOU.

WE WILL KNOW AS THE APPLICANT STATED AS THE PROPERTY STARTED

TO DEVELOP. >> IT WON'T REALLY MATTER, SO TO SPEAK, JUST IF WE REZONE IT, THEY WILL HAVE TO ENITTER INTO A PD. IT WILL COME BACK BEFORE US IS

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. >> YES, SIR.

>> COMMISSIONER RODGERS, I WANT TO SAY THAT AS PART OF THIS BEING PLAYED, MIKE ADAMS ASKED FOR US TO DO THE TRIP GENERATION. WE HAVE GOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THEY PULLED THAT TOGETHER, SENT THAT TO MIKE.

HE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE NUMBERS BASED ON THIS PLAN THAT YOU HAVE SEEN HERE TONIGHT. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF KNOW WE HAVE ADDED IN THE COMMERCIAL, SO THAT IS GOING TO CREATE SOME MORE. WE WILL GET THAT UPDATED.

BUT HE FELT THAT THAT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR HIS LEVEL OF COMFORT FOR RIGHT NOW. BUT WAS CLEAR WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE TOWARD WITH A TIA. WE ARE WORKING ON SOME OF THAT NOW, UNTIL WE FINALIZE A FEW THINGS.

TO DO A FINAL TIA. >> SO WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT WHICH ZONE, SHOWN AS AG ZONING HERE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL. AND HE WAS INQUIRING ABOUT OUR POTENTIAL -- HOW WE FELT ABOUT THAT.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CONCERNS IN YOUR MIND? AS I LOOK AT IT, THIS PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER LITERALLY CORNERS OUT AT ABOUT THE MOUNT ZION HOOKUP ON OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET THERE, CORRECT IN.

>> I SEE THE CORNER TALKING. >> THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER -- SO THERE'S NOTHING ACROSS THE ROAD? SO WE DO HAVE ONE RESIDENCE THERE. THERE'S A BUFFER THROUGH THE AG.

SO WHAT WOULD YOU -- I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE YOUR THOUGHTS

OF -- WHAT'S THE CONCERN? >> I'M NOT I UNDERSTAND THE

QUESTION. >> I THOUGHT WHEN YOU PRESENTED IT TO US IN THE BEGINNING, YOU WERE GOING DOWN THROUGH YOUR ITEMS ONE AND TWO AND SO FORTH, I THOUGHT THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS ADDITION -- I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD, THIS ADDITION ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, HOW WE FELT ABOUT THAT BEING COMMERCIAL. WAS THAT ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED, HOW WE FELT ABOUT THAT BEING COMMERCIAL?

>> YEAH. WE ARE OPEN TO HEARING FEEDBACK.

>> SO WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN? >> WE HAVE NO CONCERN.

WE ARE HAPPY TO HEAR FEEDBACK ON THAT.

WHETHER THERE IS TOO MUCH COMMERCIAL OR NOT ENOUGH.

THE MOUNT ZION IS STRAIGHT EAST. IN REALITY, IT SHAPES UP WELL FOR SOME SHADY GROVE ACCESS. THERE IS F FLOODPLAIN CREEK AND FEW RESIDENCES. SOME TO THE EAST HAVE SOLD TO

COMMERCIAL INVESTORS. >> WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TARGET,

YOU FEEL, ON THAT? >> REALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT YOU CAN GO AFTER IS WHOLESALE -- I'M SORRY, IS SHOWROOM WHOLESALE WITH LIKE A RETAIL FRONT. THAT'S REALLY --

>> SO IT WOULD BE RETAIL FRONT. COMMERCIAL HAS THREE USES THAT HAVE A P FOR PERMITTED. IT IS PRETTY TIGHT.

SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IF THAT DOESN'T GO THERE, I WOULD SAY THERE'S A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT SITE WOULD COME BACK FOR REZONING AT SOME POINT. FOR US, WE JUST THOUGHT THERE IS A LITTLE MORE VALUE AS COMMERCIAL THAN G AGRICULTURAL.

>> I WAS CURIOUS WAS YOUR THOUGHT WAS.

>> THAT'S IT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE KIND OF LEFT THE SIGN THING HANGING, BECAUSE HE WENT BACK AND WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER TWO.

I'M ONE OF SEVEN ON THIS COMMISSION, I WILL RESPOND TO

[01:55:03]

FIRST OF ALL, ON THE COMMERCIAL PIECE, I PERSONALLY SPEAKING I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. SECOND, ON THE SITE PLANS, SO FORTH, NOT HAVING TO COME BACK, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

TO ME, IF WE REQUIRE OF ONE, WE REQUIRE IT OF EVERYBODY OR REQUIRE OF IT OF NOBODY, SO I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT PERSONALLY. SIGNS, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

AT THIS POINT, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE JUST NOT THAT FAR ALONG THE LINE FOR YOU TO COME TELL US OR GIVE US INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO PUT. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE A CARTE BLANCHE TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE LAST THING WOULD BE, WHICH IS NOT ON YOUR LIST, BUT IS A CONCERN TO ME IS ALREADY BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS IS THE TRAFFIC ON SHADY GROVE ROAD. THAT'S A BLACKTOP ROAD.

>> JUST TO ADDRESS THAT, WE KNOW THERE IS MAJOR RESEARCH AND TIA COMING. WE HAVE TO DO WHATEVER IS REQUIRED BY THE TIA OR THE SITE DOESN'T DEVELOP.

THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR ME. IF WE HAVE TO BUILD A DECEL LANE OUT OF CONCRETES, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

THAT GETS CLEARED UP ONCE WE HAVE THE RESULTS OF THE TIA.

WOULD YOU AGREE? IT COULD BE AN ISSUE.

WHATEVER THE TIA, CARS ARE GOING TO STACK HERE, WE TAKE THE ASPHALT OUT, WIDEN IT, PUT IN A TURN LANE.

THE SITE DOESN'T DEVELOP IF WE DOESN'T FOLLOW THOSE RULES.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THAT, FOR THAT CONCERN.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. ANY OF THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO HE CAN EXPRESSANYTHING AT THIS POINT O.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE CHAIRMAN HAS MENTIONED. THOSE ARE MY SAME CONCERNS.

OF COURSE, THESE WILL BE ANSWERED AS WE PROCEED FORWARD.

I GUESS THE MAIN CONCERN I HAVE FOR YOU AS AN APPLICANT IS THE SIGN SITUATION COULD BE A PROBLEM.

TO GET A 45-FOOT TALL SIGN REQUIRES A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF TAX BASE. KROGERS IS THE BIG KAHUNA.

>> WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR 45 FEET.

I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS MR. ADAMS ON ITEMS 1 AND 2.

>> APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE. HAD ANOTHER P&Z TO GO TO.

I JUST WANT TO HE CAN PRESS, WE HAVE BEEN --

>> CHAD, IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME.

>> CHADADAMS, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. LIVED HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN, GOING ALMOST 30 YEARS. SO I'M CLEARLY AN OLD TIMER, RIGHT? WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT IS COMPLICATED PIECE OF PROPERTY. QUITE A FEW ITEMS GOING THROUGH IT THAT WE ARE WORKING AROUND. GETTING YA'LL'S FEEDBACK ON IT IS REALLY HELPFUL AND US BEING ABLE TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT BOTH YOU AS THE P&Z BOARD APPROVE AND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SELL. SO WE ARE OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION ON IT AND TO LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING SOMETHING CLASSY HERE.

IT IS KIND OF A -- NEXT TO THE RECYCLING YARD, I GUESS IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL THAT. WE ARE TRYING TO BRING SOME NEW LIFE IN THAT AREA. WHATEVER SIGN WE COME TO, IT IS GOING TO BE A NICE SIGN. NOT JUST A BILLBOARD.

SOMETHING THAT HAS A MONUMENT LOOK TO IT.

BUT, AGAIN, WE ARE OPEN TO WHATEVER YA'LL WOULD LIKE TO

DISCUSS. >> MR. ADAMS, THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS MENTIONED THAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE YOU CAME IN WAS OUR CONCERN THAT IF YA'LL SPECIFICALLY SIGNAGE AND THAT YOU ARE TALKING WITH SOME NATIONAL BRANDS, THAT PERHAPS COULD WANT SOME MORE VISIBILITY THAT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO BE ALLOWED. BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND MIDLOTHIAN AND DEALT WITH NOT STAFF, OUR ORDINANCE SPACE, BUILDING STANDARDS AND WHAT WE HAVE SET UP, IT FOCUSED MORE ON MONUMENT SYSTEM WHICH IS LOWER THRESHOLD VERSUS BIG TALL POLE SIGNS OR ANYTHING WAY UP IN THE SKY.

SO THE ONLY CONCERN WE HAD WAS IF YOUR DEALS THAT YOU HAVE WORKING OR PIVOTAL ON THAT VISIBILITY, IF YA'LL WANTED A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THE SIGNAGE ASPECT OF IT AND EVEN MAYBE THE TRAFFIC STUDU WANTED TO BUMP IT FORWARD A MONTH OR IF YOU SAID, WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME.

THAT WAS THE ONLY THING MENTIONED BEFORE YOU CAME IN.

>> TIMING IS AN ISSUE FOR US, TO LET YOU KNOW.

COULD WE CONFER? >> I'M SCOTTY RIGSB, I'M ON

[02:00:26]

OF COURSE, I'M INTERESTED BECAUSE I'M RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. I'M WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE AS WELL. SO THEY ARE INTERESTED IN WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE AT THIS LOCATION.

SHADY GROVE IS SCHEDULED, IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, A MAP IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, TO BE 80-FOOT WIDE CONNECTOR AND MAJOR INTERCHANGE SOMEWHERE, LOOKS LIKE, WHERE SHADY GROVE MEETS 287. PROBABLY SIMILAR TO THE WALNUT GROVE INTERSECTION, I THINK. SO ONE THING THAT I AM A BIG PRO PROPONENT OF, THAT I DON'T THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN, THE WAXAHACHIE MIDLOTHIAN REGIONAL TRAIL.

SO TXDOT, AGAIN, IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, HEATHER DALLAS IS THE LEAD ON THIS, TXDOT HAS BEEN PRESENTED AN APPLICATION TO DO THE FIRST MILE AND A HALF OF THE TRAIL FROM HAWKINS TO PL PLAINV.

SO IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE BISHOP ARTS KIND OF FEEL.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE ENVISIONED FOR SHADY GROVE SINCE I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THAT I HAVE. I HAVE RIGSBY'S GARDEN CENTER, LANDSCAPE BUSINESS. WE HAVE A MUSIC STAGE WE BUILT.

WE HAVE VISIONS OF DOING SOME FUN STUFF IN THAT AREA, THAT THAT BISHOP ARTS VICE PRESIDENT. VIBE.

SO IT IS ENCOURAGING THESE GUYS WANT TO DO BIG STUFF WITH THIS PROPERTY. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST. WE WERE JUST INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING IN THAT LOCATION.

SO THANKS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. >> YES, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> JANIC ICE TREMBLE.

NOT HERE, BUT IN FAVOR. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT.

>> I'M SORRY, MA'AM, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I'M CHERYL HORNAAN I LIVE AT 245 WHITE TAIL LANE.

WE ARE THE -- I AM ONE OF THE SITTING MEMBERS OF THE LLC THAT HAS THIS PROPERTY UP FOR SALE. AND WE JUST WANTED TO COME AND LISTEN TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE PUT ON THIS FAMILY PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN IN OUR FAMILY FOR GENERATIONS.

AND JANICE TRAMMEL IS MY MOM'S SISTER.

SHE LIVES IN GRANBERRY, NOT ABLE TO BE HERE.

MY MOM AND I, MY MOM, SHE IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE LLC.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

IF YOU DON'T MIND AT THE END, IF YOU WOULD SEE THE YOUNG LADY AND FILL OUT A FORM. APPRECIATE IT.

>> I SURE CAN. >> JEFF NEWMAN? IN OPPOSITION, LET THAT BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

WAYNE JONES, NOT HERE, IN OPPOSITION.

STEPHEN AND MARY BOYD, AND IT IS IN FAVOR.

I WENT ONE TOO FAR. SO THAT? OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SO THAT'S ALL THE FORMS THAT I HAVE.

CHAD, DID YOU WANT TO COME BACK? >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK COLBY, IF WE DROP TWO AND THREE, MY REQUEST TWO AND THREE, KEEP ONE, ZONING TRACT BEING COMMERCIAL, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL AND HOPEFULLY SEEK APPROVAL AND THEN COME BACK AT A LATER DATE FOR A SPECIFIC USE

PERMIT FOR THE SIGNAGE. >> YES, SIR.

[02:05:06]

YOU WANT TO BRING THE SIGNAGE BACK AT A LATER DATE AND REQUEST P&Z APPROVE THE DETAILED SITE PLAN REVIEWS OR DROP THAT ONE?

>> WE WOULD DROP 2 AS WELL. THEY WANT TO SEE THE DETAILS

PLANS. >> YOU ARE REQUESTING APPROVE THIS AS IS WITH THE COMMERCIAL AND THEN BRING THE SIGNAGE BACK

AT A LATER DATE. >> YES, SIR.

>> WE ARE FINE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? >> WAS THE SIGNAGE REQUEST ALREADY IN THE -- OKAY, THAT WAS AN ADD AFTER THE FACT.

>> I HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK. SO WITH THAT, 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 AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

AND/OR ACTION. >> I THINK THE FILLING IN THAT WITH COMMERCIAL USE, IT MAKES SENSE.

IT MAKES IT CLEAN. IT SHOWS THE VISION ALL THE WAY THROUGH. IT DOESN'T LEAVE AN OPEN SPOT.

IF IT IS CORRECT AND SHADY GROVE IS PART OF THE FUTURE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, IT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BE -- WHATEVER DEVELOPS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO UPDATE THE ROAD TO THE THOROUGHFARE. I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. I'M GOOD WITH IT AS IT IS.

>> OTHER COMMENTS? WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE

COMMISSION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE REVISED CONCEPT, WITH IT BEING

COMMERCIAL OVER AG. >> AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNS WILL COME BACK AT A LATER DATE.

>> THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN THE PROPOSAL.

>> SITE LA PLANS TO FOLLOW ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> WE HAVE A SECOND AND MOTION.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR DISCUSS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. ITEM 20.

[020 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a proposed amendment to the Midtown Master Plan relating to +/-67.098 acres within Planned Development 42 (PD-42). (Case No. Z22-2022-88)]

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, OUR LAST CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 20 FOR C CASE NO. Z22-2022-88.

MIDTOWNE MASTER PLAN PD AMENDMENT.

DUE TO THE SIZE OF THIS, IF YOU REMEMBER WE BROUGHT THIS BACK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO.

IT WAS INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION BROUGHT TO YOU GUYS BEFORE THE APPLICANT. I WILL JUST GIVE A QUICK SUMMARY, AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT.

HE WILL GET BACK INTO THE DETAIL.

SO REAL QUICK, AGAIN, MIDTOWNE MASTER PLAN IS MIXED USE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IT SURROUNDS SOUTH NINTH STREET, SOUTH 14TH STREET AND GEORGE TOPPER ROAD.

THE TOTAL ACREAGE WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, 67 ACRES.

AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY SIX MODULES BEING A, C, C, D, E, AND F WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT TO MAINTAIN GROWTH WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT. THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 42. AS WE GO THROUGH THIS NEXT SLIDE HERE, THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVED BACK IN 2007, OVER HERE TO THE LEFT, AND THE PROPOSAL IS OVER TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

THE SCOPE THAT YOU SEE TO THE TOP LEFT-HAND PORTION OF THIS SLIDE, AGAIN, 67 ACRES AFFECTED, 7 ACRES BEING USED MIX.

48 AND A HALF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND ROUGHLY 11 AND A HALF ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PARKS AS WELL AS 11 ACRES OF GREEN SPACE AS AND PARKS PROPOSED.

SO THOSE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIOUS CHANGES THROUGH THE SIX DIFFERENT MODULES.

STAFF DOES BELIEVE IT IS STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE NEWTOWN MODULE WITH THE FEW FEWER LAND FUTURE LAND USEPLAN.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. WE HAVE THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.

ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE PACKET WENT OUT. OUTSIDE OF THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS A

[02:10:03]

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> I'M CURIOUS, IF YOU CAN WORKING ON THIS, OR HAVE ACCESS, MY QUESTION IN A MOMENT, IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL DENSITY PERCENTILE OF THE ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL PLAN? AND THE DENSITIES PROPOSED TONIGHT.

HE IS GOING TO LET ME KNOW WHAT IT IS.

HE'S GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY YES ANYWAYS.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY, JOHN, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP? WE NEED YOU TO IDENTIFY YOU YOURSELF. .

>> SHANE HEMESTER, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.

YOU HAVE SAVED THE BEST FOR LAST OR HARDEST FOR LAST.

BUT I THANK YA'LL FOR HAVING ME BACK AGAIN.

LIKE COLBY MENTIONED, WE DID THIS ON THE APRIL 19TH HEARING.

I RAN THROUGH THIS SAME PRESENTATION.

BECAUSE OF SOME ISSUES, WE HAD TO POSTPONE THE ACTUAL VOTE UNTIL TONIGHT. BUT WE ARE HERE AND WE ARE EXCITED AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW MASTER PLAN NOT ONLY IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN, BUT ALSO ENHANCES IT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO START FIRST WITH JUST RUNNING THROUGH THE CURRENT STATE OF MIDTOWNE, JUST TO BRING US ALL UP TO SPEED ON WHAT'S CURRENTLY GOING ON, WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED, AND THEN WE WILL JUMP INTO THE RESCISSIONS TO THE MASTER PLAN.

CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WE HAVE PHASE 8 AND PHASE 9.

BOTH PHASES FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN.

PHASE 8 IN THE VICINITY MAP IS UP TO THE NORTH OF THE ORIGINAL PHASE OF MIDTOWNE. THERE'S NINE LOTS IN PHASE 8.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED EARLIER TONIGHT, THE FINAL PLAT.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN, THE PAVING IS IN.

FINAL PLAT WAS APPROVED IN THE FIRST CASE TONIGHT.

WE WILL START BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THAT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. SO BUT ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, PAVING IS IN. PHASE 9 IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

PHASE 9 CONSISTS OF THE REST OF DIDILLON WAY OVER TO 14TH.

THERE'S 38 LOTS CURRENTLY THERE. STORM INFRASTRUCTURE, RETENTION PONDS ARE IN. WE ARE RUNNING SANITARY IN.

WE WILL START PAVING THE PHASE 9 ROADS IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO, AND THEN START BUILDING ON THOSE LOTS.

IT IS PROGRESSING PRETTY QUICK ON BOTH OF THOSE PHASES.

PHASE 9 JUST, AS REFERENCE, THIS IS DILLON.

CAN'T REALLY SEE IT. BUT 9TH TO 14TH.

SO THIS IS THE FREEMAN CPA, THIS IS PHASE 7 CURRENTLY BUILT OUT.

THE SKILLED NURSING SITE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, YOU WILL SEE IT IN FRONT OF MHS OFF OF DILLON.

THIS IS AN OLDER PICTURE. THIS SECTION OF DILLON IS NOW COMPLETE AND PAVED. THIS SITE WAS APPROVED SIX, EIGHT MONTHS AGO UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

WE ARE DUE TO TURN THAT OVER IN OCTOBER.

I BELIEVE THE FACILITY IS GOING TO OPEN NOVEMBER.

BUT CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE IN OCTOBER.

AND AGAIN, DILLON WAY, THIS SECTION IS ALREADY COMPLETE.

ABOUT 500 FEET OFF THE NINTH ST9THSTREET.

THE ROUGH GRADING IS DONE, STORM SEWER IS IN.

PAVING WILL START ON THAT FAIRLY QUICKLY.

THE GROWING IN GRACE DAY CARE, I WAS BEFORE YOU THREE, FOUR MONTHS AGO. YOU AND COUNCIL APPROVED THE DAY CARE. WE ARE CURRENTLY IN PLANNED PRODUCTION. SUBMITTING AT THE END OF THE MONTH FOR PERMIT REVIEW ON SITE AND BUILDING AND PLAN TO BREAK GROUND ON IT IN AUGUST. IT IS PART OF THE DAY CARE FACILITY, THIS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS HERE, WHICH ALLIAN ALIGNS WITH THE MHS PARKING LOT ENTRANCE.

THREE-FOOT SHRUBS FIRST PHASE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE DAY CARE FACILITY AND TO GIVE SOUTHERN ACCESS TO THE SKILLED NURSING. CURRENTLY THAT ROAD WHICH WE JUST NAMED TODAY IS GOING TO BE AMA LANE, ABIGAIL WILL CONTINUE DOWN. THE SANITARY LINE WILL BE RUN

[02:15:04]

SO THIS IS THE ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL APPROVED PLAN FROM 2007. MIDTOWNE CONSISTS OF TOTAL 131 ACRES, LITTLE OVER. 64 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS HAVE BEEN CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WHICH LEAVES REMAINING BALANCE OF THE 67 ACRES, SO WE ARE RIGHT AT HALFWAY DEVELOPED OUT.

IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVED LOT DENSITY, COMMISSIONER RODGERS, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE HAVE 449 TOTAL APPROVED RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THOSE WERE SINGLE FAMILY, INCLUDING BROWN STONES. AND THEN WORK-LIVE AND FLATS OVER RETAIL. THESE ARE THE BREAKDOWNS IN THE ORIGINAL PD WITH THE TOTAL OF 449 LOTS APPROVED.

CURRENTLY, BUILT OUT WITH ALL THE PHASES, INCLUDING 8 AND 9 THAT I JUST REFERENCED, THESE ARE THE LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED 157 LOTS THAT HAVE CURRENTLY BEEN BUILT OR ALLOCATED FOR IN PHASE 8 AND 9. WHICH LEAVES US REMAINING TOTAL BUILDABLE LOTS OF 292 IN THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN.

THIS IS THAT COLBY SHOWED, SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN VERSUS THE PROPOSAL THAT WE WILL GO THROUGH THIS EVENING. IT IS A LARGE SCALE PROJECT OF 131 ACRES. TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, I BROKE IT OUT INTO DIFFERENT MODULES. MODULES A THROUGH F.

AND I WILL DO A SITE BY SITE COMPARISON OF THE MODULE.

YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT.

THERE ARE SOME FEW MINOR TWEAKS. OVERALL, WE FEEL LIKE IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN.

SO ON THE 67 ACRES THAT'S REMAINING, WE ARE PROPOSING 7 ACRES OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

WHICH I WILL GO THROUGH WHERE THAT IS LOCATED.

48.5 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THEN 11 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USE.

I WANT TO KIND OF QUANTIFY THAT 11 ACRES.

IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WE HAD AN 8-ACRE SCHOOL SITE WHICH IS LOCATED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MIDTOWNE RIGHT HERE.

WE ARE KEEPING 8 ACRES THAT'S ACTUALLY BILLEDDABLE BUT IT IS PARTS OF OUR DEAL WITH THE 48.3L EXOPERABLE LATER, WE HAVE TO BUILD SOME OF THE ROADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S GOING TO BE KEPT OUT INTO SOME MIDTOWNE PROPERTIES.

THAT'S WHERE THE 11 ACRES, ALMOST 11.5 COMES INTO PLAY.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO PUT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKS IN, I WILL SHOW YOU WHERE THOSE ARE LOBING. LOCATED.IN THE ORIGINAL PD PD, D 11 ACRES OF GREEN SPACE. BUT WE HAVE INCREASED THAT TO 1.

A REQUEST FROM CITY STAFF, WALKABLE AREA, SIDEWALKS, ET CETERA. IN THE ORIGINAL, AGAIN, JUST TO RECAP, IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WE HAD 292 REMAINING LOTS.

IN THE NEW PROPOSED PLAN, WE ARE PROPOSING 247 LOTS.

WE ARE DECREASING THE DENSITY BY 45 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SO WE WILL START WITH MODULE A, WHICH IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND 14TH STREET. THIS IS WHERE FUZZY'S AND THE DOUGHNUT SHOP CURRENTLY EXIST. IN THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN, WE HAD RETAIL AND OFFICE. OFFICE ALONG 14TH.

AND THEN BROWNSTONES ALONG THE BACKS SECTION OF THAT PROPERTY.

FUZZY'S AND THE DOUGHNUT SHOP ARE CURRENTLY BUILT HERE.

RETAIL. WE HAVE THE TWO WORK-LIVE BUILDINGS WITH RETAIL AND OFFICE BELOW.

RESIDENTIAL LOFTS ABOVE RIGHT HERE.

THAT SHOWS IT HERE ON THE PROPOSED PLAN.

WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS TAKE THESE BROWNSTONES, THERE WAS 8 IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVED MASTER PLAN, WE ARE DOING 5 RESIDENTIAL WORK-LIVE UNITS. THOSE ARE OFFICE IN THE FRONT, ABOUT THREE TO FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.

[02:20:04]

SO WE ARE DOING FIVE OF THOSE INSTEAD OF EIGHT BROWNSTONES.

THESE ARE ALSO WORK-LIVE UNITS. FOUR OF THEM HERE.

TOTAL OF NINE WORK-LIVE. AND THEN WE ARE PROPOSING SOME PERSONAL SERVICE ALONG 14TH. WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT RECEIPT HERE ON THE HARD CORNER AS PART OF THIS. IN THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN, SKY LANE, WHICH IS HERE, WAS CONNECTED INTO 14TH.

AND WE WERE NOT GOING TO DO THAT BUT WE HAVE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CONNECTION. IN TALKING WITH STAFF AND WITH MIKE AND SCOTT, WE THINK THAT IT IS GOING TO HELP US ADD MORE ADDITIONAL PARKING AND GIVE US BETTER ACCESS.

THAT WAS ALSO A CONCERN. I HAVE HAD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH THE RESIDENTS IN DEVELOPING THIS MASTER PLAN.

THAT WAS WIN OF THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS.

THE TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT YOU RECEIVED BOTH CONCERNED PARKING, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS AREA.

SO WE ARE GOING TO CROSS DRY CREEK WITH THE BRIDGE, CONNECT IT INTO 14TH. WE MEET THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS PER ENGINEERING FROM GEORGE HOPPER TO THIS NEW APPROACH. WE WILL PUT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IN. WITH THAT, WE DO EXCEED THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER THE CITY ORDINANCE.

SO WITH ALL OF THESE ADDITIONAL USES, WE ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE 56 ADDITIONAL SPACES VERSUS WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE AND WE ARE PROPOSING 60. SO WE FEEL LIKE THAT THAT ADDRESSES AND HOPEFULLY ALLEVIATES SOME OF THE RESIDENTS' CONCERNS WITH TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE PARKING ISSUES ON THIS MODULE A. AGAIN, TO POINT OUT, THAT THE USES WE FEEL LIKE IS A DECREASE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING THE BROWNSTONES. WE ARE DOING THE WORK-LIVE AND ADDING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING. MODE DMODULES B AND C, SAME INTERSECTION, IN THE ORIGINAL 2007 CONCEPT PLAN, THIS IS WHERE THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WAS PROPOSED.

I WILL SHOW YOU IN THE NEXT SLIDE, WE MOVED THIS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FROM 14TH OVER TO THE 9TH STREET SIDE.

THERE WAS RETAIL PROPOSED THERE AND WE MOVED IT TO THE 14TH.

WE BASICALLY JUST SWITCHED THEM. SO ON THE HARD CORNER, THIS WILL BE MICRO RETAIL. ABOUT 3400 SQUARE FEET OF MICRO RETAIL. ALL SELF-PARKED.

THIS DRIVE AISLE, THIS IS THE PHARMACY COMING TO THE BACK OF THE PHARMACY, ALL THIS PARKING IS ALL EXISTING.

THIS DRIVE AISLE CURRENTLY IS CURBED OUT.

SO WE ARE JUST EXTENDING IT AND CREATING THIS NEW PARKING LOT.

AGAIN, SELF-PARKED. SO IT MEETS ALL THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN THIS PROPERTY HERE WE HAVE SOLD. MIDTOWN NO LONGER OWNS THAT PROPERTY BUT I AM REPRESENTING THE OWNER AS WELL.

WE ARE PROPOSING MI MIXED USE. SIMILAR TO THE BUILDINGS ACROSS THE STREET. IT WILL BE 3,000 SQUARE FEET PERSONAL SERVICE. 5400 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.

THE SECOND FLOOR WILL BE FLATS OVER RETAIL, SIMILAR TO THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO FUZZIES. TEN OF THOSE UNITS.

THE REASON WHY WE HAVE MORE OFFICE THAN PERSONAL SERVICE THERE IS, A, IT IS A LIGHTER USE THAN PERSONAL SERVICE, FROM A PARKING STANDPOINT. AND IT IS OFF THE HARD CORNER.

IT IS NOT REALLY EFFECTIVE FOR RETAIL.

PERSONAL SERVICE MAY BE A BARBER OR A MEDI SPA, USE SIMILAR TO THAT. SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS BASICALLY WHERE WE SWITCHED. THE AE-CIGARETTESSING LIVING ASY BUILT. THIS IS THE PUMPKIN PATCH PARKING. ASSISTED LIVING IS RIGHT HERE.

WE TOOK THIS RETAIL BUILDING, MOVED IT TO THIS HARD CORNER.

THE ASSISTED LIVING, MOVED IT HERE, WHICH, AGAIN, IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. THE DAY CARE SITE, I WILL POINT IT OUT, THE DAY CARE ON THE ORIGINAL 2007 PLAN WAS HERE.

AND WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY APPROVED, THE DAY CARE SITE IS NOW HERE. WE TOOK IT FROM THE 14TH STREET SIDE TO THE 9TH STREET SIDE. MMODULES D AND E.

[02:25:14]

D IS LEFT OUT OF IT. AND THE REASON FOR THAT, WE HAD A DEAL WORKING WITH THE CHURCH THAT IS ON THIS HARD CORNER AND WE WERE GOING TO ACTUALLY TRADE SOME PLANNED FOR THE PUMPKIN PATCH AREA THAT THE CHURCH CURRENTLY OWNS, GIVE THEM THIS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO EXPAND AND IN THE 11TH HOUR IT FELL THROUGH, CHURCH BACKED OUT OF THE DEAL.

SO IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, IT DOES NOT ALLOCATE A USE FOR THAT SITE, EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY IT IS STILL PART OF THE MIDTOWN PROPERTY. SO I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH CLYDE AND MARCOS OF HOW WE ADDRESS THAT.

BUT WE STILL OWN THAT PROPERTY AND IT HAS BEEN BUILT.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY HERE. THIS IS RIVER RANCH DENTAL AND THIS IS THE ORTHODONTIST. WE HAVE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY.

THE BACK SIDE OF THAT IS STILL VACANT.

SO WE WILL NEED TO UPDATE THE MASTER PLAN JUST TO INCLUDE THAT MODULE IN IT. I DON'T KNOW, COLBY, THERE MIGHT BE PLATTING. WE MIGHT HAVE TO REPLAT IT.

FOR THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE, THE ONLY THING WE ARE TALK BEING IS THIS BACK AND IT IS NOT QUITE AN ACRE.

IT IS ABOUT .7 ACRES, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

AND IF YOU REMEMBER ABOUT A YEAR OR SO AGO, I CAME BEFORE YOU WITH TOWNHOMES, BROWNSTONES HERE.

AND DID NOT GO OVER WELL. SO WE ARE NOT PROPOSING BROWNSTONES THERE ANY LONGER. BUT THERE WILL BE TWO 4,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE SUITES. WE MEET PARKING.

IN TALKING WITH THE TENANTS ON THESE FRONT BUILDINGS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PARKED HER CODE, THEY DO PLAI COMPLAIN THAT PEOPE COMING INTO THE DENTAL OFFICE, THEY RUN OUT OF PARKING.

A LOT OF THAT HEAVY USE IS CANON CREEK WHICH IS HERE.

WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR STAFF MEETINGS, THE SUPERINTENDENTS COME IN, THEY ARE PARKING IN THAT FIELD.

WE GAVE TEN EXTRA SPACES BACK THERE TO HELP ALLEVIATE THE PARKING CONCERNS. THIS IS ALSO A PROPERTY THAT WE DID SELL. CANON CREEK BOUGHT THIS FROM US.

I'M DEVELOPING IT FOR THEM. BUT THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH GIVING THE TEN EXTRA SPACES JUST TO HELP THE PARKING CONSTRAINTS.

MODULE E, WHICH IS ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN HERE.

MODULE E FACES DILLON. THIS IS DILLON ROAD.

FIRST 500 FEET STOPS HERE IS ALREADY INSTALLED.

IT WILL ACCESS THIS PROPERTY AND THE SKILLED NURSING.

AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT WE SOLD AND I'M DEVELOPING THIS ONE FOR HIM. ADAM ROPE IS THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY. WE ARE PROPOSING 11 BROWNSTONES BACK HERE IN THE BACK. THESE ARE THE TRI-PLEXES, SO THIS IS ALL SENIOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING HERE.

WE WANTED TO KEEP THE BROWNSTONES AND RESIDENTIAL AGAINST THE RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT'S WHY WE PUT THEM BACK HERE IN THIS BACK CORNER. THEN ALL OF THIS WILL BE COMMERCIAL USES. OFFICE RETAIL.

AGAIN, ON THIS SITE, PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER CODE.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE 125 STALLS AND WE ARE INSTALLING 142. JUST TO POINT OUT AGAIN IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, THESE WERE BROWNSTONES RIGHT HERE.

SO ALL WE REALLY DID IS TAKE THESE AND ACTUALLY THERE'S TEN OR ELEVEN, WE TOOK THESE BROWNSTONES AND MOVED THEM DOWN INTO THIS AREA. SO THEY ARE IN THE SAME GENERAL LOCATION, THEY ARE JUST SHIFTING LITTLE BIT TO THE SOUTH.

AND THEN THAT BRINGS US TO MODULE F, THE 48.5 ACRES PLUS

[02:30:03]

SO HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SCHOOL SITE.

58 I 8 ACRES, WE INCLUDED THE RS WHICH BUMPED IT UP TO THE 11.

IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, BROWNSTONES, SCHOOL SITE, DON FLOYD CONNECTOR ROAD. THAT IS A REQUIREMENT PER THE PD. I WILL STOP HERE AND ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT OF THE TRAFFIC. WE DID A TIA IN 2020, AND SCOTT AND MIKE HAVE THAT REPORT. WE DID A 5, 10, 20-YEAR STUDY ON THIS PROPERTY, COMPLETELY 100 PERCENT BUILT OUT.

WITH THAT 9TH STREET DID NOT -- THE WHIC WH WH WH WH WH WH WIDT.

WITH THE INSTALLATION OF DILLON, IT ALSO CAME BACK THAT DON FLOYD, EVEN IN THE 20-YEAR STUDY, WAS NOT A REQUIRED BIEWLTD. BOULEVARD.

DID I HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERING A COUPLE YEARS AGO ABOUT THAT. THEY DID GIVE ME PUSHBACK.

WE DECIDED TO INSTALL IT. IT IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PD AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

SO EVEN THOUGH THE TIA DOES NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY, WE ARE PUTTING IT IN. IT IS A LARGE ROAD.

90-FOOT BOULEVARD. GEORGE HOPPER, DILLON AND THE NEW DON FLOYD. ANY CONCERNS OF TRAFFIC PATTERNS OR CAN THIS HANDLE IT, WE ARE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT THE TIA SUGGESTED. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IN THE NEW PROPOSED PLAN, WE ARE KEEPING THE SLIP ROADS, WHICH I KNOW WAS A DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME WE MET.

SO WE HAVE A SLIP ROAD HERE ON 9TH AND SLIP ROAD ON 14TH.

ACCESS POINTS LINING UP WITH THE EXISTING CURB CUTS.

ACCESS POINT, NEW AMA LANE THAT WE ARE INSTALLING WITH THE DIE CARE CONSTRUCTION. IT LINES UP WITH THE MHS WHICH WAS A DISCUSSION AND REQUIREMENT WITH CITY STAFF.

THEN OBVIOUSLY DON FLOYD CONNECTS HERE OVER TO THE HOSPITAL AND THEN INTO 9TH. WE ARE PUTTING IN THE TWO PARKS, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT PER THE ORIGINAL PD.

ONE IS HERE. THE OTHER ONE IS DOWN CLOSER TO THE COMMERCIAL USE WITH THE BIG GREEN BELT IN THE MIDDLE.

WE DO HAVE, WHICH HE IS HERE TONIGHT, I WILL INTRODUCE HIM IN A MINUTE, WE DO HAVE THIS 48 ACRES, WHICH IS ALL SINGLE FAMILY UNDER CONTRACT WITH A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY DILLON AND THEN CARVE OUT THIS COMMERCIAL PIECE. ALL THIS RESIDENTIAL PIECE HERE WOULD BE PURCHASED AND BUILT OUT BY THEM.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, ALL OF THE DESIGN CRI CRITERIAS, ALL PD STN PLACE. ANY BUILDERS HAVE TO COMPLY.

THE ARCHITECTURE, THE LOT PATTERNS, ALL OF THAT THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE PD42 CANNOT CHANGE.

THEY HAVE TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE LOT BREAKDOWN IN THIS 48 ACRES, THIS CHART HERE SHOWS WHAT IS REMAINING PER THE ORIGINAL PD. THIS 275 ONLY APPLIES TO THIS 48.5 ACRES. SO THE OTHER WORK-LIVE UNITS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER. THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THAT 292 THAT I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER. BUT ON THIS 48.5 ACRES, THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY REMAINING, THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED PER THE ORIGINAL PD TO BE BUILT.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING AND WE DO HAVE A CHANGE TO THIS TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE MADE LAST MINUTE THAT I THINK YOU MIGHT BE HAPPY ABOUT BUT CURRENTLY IN THIS CHART, WE HAVE FOUR ESTATE LOTS. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THE BROWNSTONES, WE HAVE GOT 56 CURRENTLY APPROVED THAT WE CAN

[02:35:02]

WE ARE ONLY DOING 55. I KNOW THAT WAS A POINT OF DISCUSSION THE LAST TIME WE MET TOGETHER.

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

THERE WAS A FEW OTHER MINOR CHANGES WE CAN GET INTO.

THE PROPOSED SETBACKS, WE DID CHANGE FROM THE ESTATE LOTS HAS AN EIGHT-FOOT SETBACK. WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE SEVEN AND A HALF. IT HELPS NORMALIZE THE PAD SIZE.

ON THE TOWNSHIP, THE CURRENT PD GIVES EIGHT-FOOT SITE SETBACK, WE ARE ASKING FOR FIVE. ALL THE OTHERS REMAIN THE SAME.

FEW CLERICAL NOTES FOR ROOF PITCHES, TYPOS, 5:15 ROOF PITCH.

ORIGINAL WAS 5:12. WE ASKED FOR THAT TO BE UPDATED.

WE ASKED FOR SLIDING GLASS WALLS, WHICH ARE REALLY POPULAR NOW ON THE REAR OF THE BUILDING OPENING UP INTO THE BACKYARD TO CONNECT OUTDOOR AND INDOOR LIVING SPACES.

THAT WASN'T ADDRESSED IN THE ORIGINAL PD, SO WE ASKED FOR THAT TO BE ADDED IN. THAT WOULD BE PHASE 8, PHASE 9, AND 48.5 ACRES. THAT'S IT.

IN A NUTSHELL. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

GO THROUGH DETAILS. WHATEVER YOU HAVE.

IF YA'LL WOULD ALLOW ME, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE JEFF WITH HINES DEVELOPMENT. HIS GROUP HAS THE 48 ACRES UNDER CONTRACT. HE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL OR ADDRESS IT, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> SURE. >> IF YOU WOULD, SIR, STATE YOUR

NAME AND ADDRESS. >> JEFF KENIMER, 4 4005 CALLOWAY DRIVE IN MANSFIELD. WE ARE WORKING ON A LARGE PROJECT IN MIDLOTHIAN, WE ARE VERY ACTIVE IN VFW.

WE HAVE ABOUT 12,000 LOTS UNDER VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOP MANY DEVELOPMENTCOMMUNITY AROUND DFW. HINES IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR BRAND AND IMAGE.

WE DO QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND I WILL INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING AT DFW.

THIS PROJECT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION.

IT WAS INTERESTING. WE ARE ALREADY IN MIDLOTHIAN.

WE THOUGHT, YEAH, WE WOULD LOVE TO COME DO THIS.

I TALKED TO THESE GUYS A LITTLE BIT.

WE MADE SOME MINOR TWEAKS. WE ARE GOING TO TRY AND SORT OF ESCALATE THE VOLUME OF SALES AND SO FORTH, BRING IN LITTLE LARGER BUBUILDERS AND SO FORTH. THAT'S WHO WE ARE AND THAT'S OUR PLAN. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT.

WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE IT CONSTRUCTED AND SOLD OUT IN ABOUT FOUR YEARS. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR PLANS OR HINES OR NICK ANYTHING LIKE THAU

MIGHT HAVE. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> I'M ASSUMING, IN WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AS FAR AS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE BUILDING IS GOING TO FALL WITHIN THE SAME ORIGINAL CRITERIA OF THE HOME STYLES. I KNOW WE HAD AN ORIGINAL BOOK.

>> YES. WE'RE GOING TO MEET THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. WE ARE.

WE ASKED SHANE TO TWEAK SOME OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS JUST A LITTLE BECAUSE THESE BUILDERS, THEY HAVE TRADITIONAL PAD SIZES, RIGHT? WE TRIED TO BRING IT IN A LITTLE MORE CONFORMITY WITH WHAT THE BUILDERS PLANS ALREADY GENERALLY

ARE SET FOR. >> ARE YOU FOLKS LOOKING AT PURCHASING THIS ZONES OF BUILDING OUT.

OR TRY TO BUY THE WHOLE PIECE OF PROFITER AND GET IT DONE.

>> WE ARE BUYING THE WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WE WILL GET GOING AS FAST AS WE CAN.

>> THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION, I CAN'T REMEMBER -- I KNOW THAT I SAID ON PLANNING & ZONING BEFORE, I WANT TO SAY THAT WAS BACK IN '07, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE CHANGES, ALTERATIONS, ALWAYS FOR GOOD REASON.

BUT I AM RATHER ANXIOUS TO GET THIS COMPLETED.

>> SURE. >> I GUESS MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS, IF FOR SOME REASON IT DOESN'T GET COMPLETED, FIVE OR EIGHT YEARS, WE ARE TRYING TO REDUCE THE LOT SIZES.

[02:40:01]

WE HAVE ALWAYS KIND OF FOCUSED OURSELVES AND BEING AROUND A SMALL TOWN MENTALITY THAT'S NOT BIG CITY, CRAMMED ON TOP OF EACH

OTHER. >> I TOTALLY GET THAT.

THIS IS REALLY A UNIQUE DESIGN, THOUGH.

IT IS MORE OF AN URBAN INFILL KIND OF DESIGN.

WALKABLE. RETAIL.

IT IS NEXT TO THE SENIOR LIVING. IT IS NEXT TO --

>> IT WAS ALWAYS PROPOSED TO US, IT WILL ALMOST BE A SMALL

SELF-SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY. >> SURE.

>> BECAUSE IT HAD THE LOFT BUSINESSES.

THE SCHOOL WAS THERE. WHAT I ALWAYS LIKED ABOUT THE SLIP STREETS, WHICH I HAVE BEEN SO KEY ON THE SLIP STREETS, IS THAT PROVIDES FOR THAT SUBDIVISION TO FEED ITSELF INTERIORLY. THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET OUT ON THE MAIN STREETS AND TRAVEL. SO IT HAS A LOT TO OFFER.

>> WE WILL BUILD PRETTY PARKS. WE WILL BUILD A NICE WINDING TRAIL THAT COMES THROUGH THE PARK.

WE WANT IT TO FEEL GOOD, TO BE WALKABLE.

I LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE AND WE WILL HOLD TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PARTS OF THE VISIONING.

>> WUB LASTONE LAST QUESTION, TE 45-FOOT LOTS CONCERN ME.

I'M A FENCE GUY. I GET LOT WIDTH, THIS ROOM IS RIGHT AT 30-FOOT WIDE. IT IS NOT MUCH WIDER THAN THIS ROOM. SO I GET THE L LOT WIDTH THING QUICK. ONE THING I HAVE NOTICED ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE FOLKS ARE DOING WITH THE HOMES AND HOW EVERYTHING IS KEPT UP, I'M ASSUMING THAT WILL BE HANDLED -- I KNOW THAT'S TYPICALLY DONE RIGHT NOW IN AN ARC, STAYS ON TOP OF THAT. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS ON REAL SMALL LOTS, IS YOU GET 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, IT IS NOT AS CRISP LOOKING AS IT USED TO BE. BUT I WILL SAY FOR YOU GUYS OVER THERE, EVERYTHING IS KEPT, IT IS VERY NICE.

SO LONG-TERM, 10, 15, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, IS IT GOING TO BE UP TO HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OR WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF KEEPING UP WITH THAT? HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK?

>> SO RIGHT NOW -- >> OR IS THAT UP TO THE NEW

BUILDER. >> ALL OF MAINTENANCE, THE INDIVIDUAL HOME MAINTENANCE IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER.

THE COMMON AREAS, THE PARKS, GREEN SPACE IS ALL IN A PID.

THE PID MAINTAINS THAT. THE CITY CONTROLS THE MONEY THAT

COMES OUT OF THAT PID. >> YOU GUYS HAVE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION. >> WE DO NOT.

BUT IT IS CONTROLLED BY THE MARK, MID TOWN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THEY HAVE TO GET PLANS APPROVED, AND THEN THROUGH THE CITY. IN THE FUTURE, ANY HOMEOWNER THAT REPAINTS, BUILDS A NEW FENCE, DOES ANYTHING TO THEIR PROPERTY HAS TO GO THREW THE MARC.

SO THE MARC STILL HAS ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL OVER ANY FUTURE REPAINTING, FENCE CONSTRUCTION, ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER.

>> I'M KIND OF GOING OFF OF WHAT THE ARC HAS DONE, KEPT GOOD CONTROL OF THAT. I GUESS WHERE I AM GOING WITH THIS, EVEN WHEN YOU GO OUTSIDE OF TOWN, LONG BRANCH IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, IT IS A RELATIVELY NICE LITTLE SUBDIVISION, BUT THEY HAVE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT LITERALLY, THEY STAY RIGHT ON TOP OF IT. YOUR FENCES ARE KEPT UP, PAINT IS KEPT UP, TREES ARE KEPT. THAT STUFF IS NOT ON THE MARC, MARK,THEY ARE WRITING THEM UP. THE DENSER I FIND FOLKS, THE MORE CONCERN I HAVE FOR THAT SAME CRISPNESS OF QUALITY TO EXIST LONG-TERM. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ASSURES

THERE? >> THERE IS CURRENTLY NOT A HOA.

THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS NOT TO HAVE A HOA.

THAT'S WHY THE PID. >> THE PID WILL RUN OUT WHEN IT

IS FULLY BUILT. >> THE PID WILL MAINTAIN.

>> I GUESS WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR, WHEN THIS IS BILL OUT, LET'S JUST SAY IN SIX YEARS, WHO IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE

[02:45:06]

WHO IS GOING TO DO THAT? >> WELL, THERE'S SOME CLAUSES IN THE ORIGINAL PD THAT ONCE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE PERCENTAGE.

70%, 75% BUILT OVER, THEN THE RESIDENTS THEMSELVES TAKE IT

OVER. >> EXACTLY.

SO IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE AGREEMENTS THERE, WHATNOT, ON WHAT IS THE GUIDELINE FOR HOW THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER?

>> THEY STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE MARC.

THE MARC IS THE DEVELOPER, STAFF MEMBER, TOWN ARCHITECT.

THERE'S ONLY ONE RESIDENCE ON THE MARC.

ONCE IT GETS TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, THE RESIDENTS

THEMSELVES. >> TAKE OVER THE SEATS.

>> I GOT YA. >> THE RESIDENTS WILL TAKE OVER

THE FIVE SEATS. >> I'M WITH YOU.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, WO WE DO HAVE SOME FORMS. CLARIFY THE RECORD. JEFF NEWMAN, NONSPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. WAYNE JONES IN OPPOSITION.

STEPHEN AND MARY BOYD IN FAVOR. EVERET ANN SPENCER, NONCOMMITAL.

THEY EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS. DANIEL AND CARRIE BRANDT, SAME THING. THEY ARE NOT EITHER WAY, JUST HE CAN PRESSED SOME CONCERNS. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES I HAVE. HAVE I MISSED ANYBODY?

ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK ONE THING. SHANE, YOU'RE KEEPING THE

COMMERCIAL AT THE BOTTOM, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY, IS IT -- AND I GUESS THE COMMERCIAL AND THE DON FLOYD, ARE YOU PLANNING ON COMPLETING THAT IN FOUR,

FIVE-YEAR TIME FRAME AS WELL? >> WE ARE.

PART OF OUR AGREEMENT WITH HINES, IT EXTENDS TO DILLON, DON FLOYD, SOME OF THESE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS HERE, IN THE ORIGINAL PD, DON FLOYD, THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE TO PAY FOR HALF OF DON FLOYD. SO THE DEVELOPER PAYS HALF, THE CITY PAYS HALF. IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH HINES, SINCE WE HAVE THIS PORTION HERE, HINES OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO HAVE THIS PORTION, THEN WOULD HE HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN OUR HINES CONTRACT, WE ARE PAYING FOR PART OF THAT, THE BALANCE IS THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. SAME FOR DILLON.

HINES IS PAYING FOR PART OF THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, THE INFILL. I COULDN'T, DON FLOYD IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE INSTALLED AS THEY ARE DEVELOPING THESE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AS WE ARE DEVELOPING THE COMMERCIAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO -- COLBY AND I WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS.

IN THE ORIGINAL PD, THE SCHOOL SITE HERE HAD LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES. SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SET ASIDE IN 2007 FOR MISD TO PURCHASE IT. THIS HE DECIDED NOT TO PURCHASE IT AND TO GO OVER TO WHERE THE BASEBALL FIELDS AND NEW GR IRVING IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. SO THE PD LAYS OUT A MAP, NISD D CHOOSES NOT TO BUILD, WHAT ARE WE GOING DO WITH THAT LAND.

THERE WAS A TIME EXPIRATION WHICH EXPIRED MANY YEARS AGO.

THERE WAS LIKE FIVE APPROVED USES.

CHURCH, PRIVATE SCHOOL, INSTITUTIONAL USE, CORPORATE STYLE OFFICE CAMPUS. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IN THIS PD AMENDMENT, WE ARE KEEPING THE SAME EYES BUT WE ARE PROPOSING TO OPEN UP THAT COMMERCIAL USE TO ALLOW WHATEVER YOU WOULD PUT IN A COMMERCIAL USE PLUS A RESTAURANT.

SO WE WOULD HAVE, LIKE, AN ONE PROPOSED RESTAURANT.

MOST OF THIS, WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF CALLS FOR MEDICAL OFFICES, SINCE THE HOSPITAL IS COMPLETE AND BUILT OUT AND IT IS ACROSS THE STREET. THERE IS A BIG NEED FOR DOCTOR, PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OFFICES. SO I THINK A LOT OF THIS USE IS GOING TO ENDS UP BEING THAT AROUND THIS.

WE DO HAVE LARGER BUILDING HERE THAT WE DO HAVE SOME CHURCH USES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN IT, WHICH IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PD. WE ARE ASKING INSTEAD OF LIMITED

[02:50:07]

>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU, SHANE. ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE NO OTHER FORMS SUBMITTED. WITH THAT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

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

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

FLOOR IS OPEN P FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

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

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY, STAFF, HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS OR ANYTHING TO DISCUSS? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOWING TO ADJOURN.

>> MOTION TO ADJOURN AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.