Sep 20, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum. ]

[001 Citizens to be heard]

[00:02:18]

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD SLOW DOWN THESE URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, EVEN JUST THE NAME ITSELF IS CONCERNING TO ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY ELSE UP HERE. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT

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

OKAY. MOVE ITEM 2, STAFF REVIEW.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION.

REAL QUICK, I DO WANT TO INTRODUCE ONE PERSON, BRIAN, SENIOR PLANNER HERE. HE HAS BEEN WITH US JUST UNDER A MONTH. HE IS COMING FROM WITH EXPERIENCE FROM RED OAK, WITH THE UTA, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS ARLINGTON. AND HE IS BRINGING HIS GREAT EXPERIENCE, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM.

JUST WANTED TO VERBAL BY INTRODUCE HIM TO THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TRANSITION OVER TO OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FUP.

WE DO JUST HAVE ONE CASE TO COVER FROM THE SEPTEMBER 13TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE WALMART CASE.

P&Z, AS YOU REMEMBER, VOTED TO APPROVE 6-0.

COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE 4-3. WHEN WE PRESENTED TO P&Z, WE VOTED TO APPROVE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT -- FROM THE EARLIEST OF SEPTEMBER 14, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE TO DECEMBER 31ST, THE MAIN CHANGE WITH THAT IS COUNCIL APPROVED IT WITH THE STIPULATION OF OCTOBER 1 BEING THE EARLIEST THEY CAN START TO DECEMBER 31ST BEING THE LATEST. SO IT WAS APPROVED AGAIN 4-3 BY COUNCIL BUT THAT WAS A PRIMARY CHANGE FROM P&Z TO COUNCIL.

THANK YOU, WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO THE CONCEPT AGENDA.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, ABOUT OF WE MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING FOR THE SPEAKER UNDER CITIZENS, THERE IS SECTION 5.103 OF THE CITY ZONING REGULATIONS THAT ADDRESSED Y URBAN VILLAGE PLANND DEVELOPMENT.

I WANTED TO LET THAT BE KNOWN. THANK YOU, SIR.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> WE WILL MOVE NOW TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WHICH IS ITEM 003, 004, 005, 0006.

WE WILL HAVE ONE MOTION TO APPROVE ALL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS SOMEONE WISHES TO HAVE ONE REMOVED.

ANYBODY WANT ANYTHING REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA?

[00:05:02]

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

I WILL SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> MOWING AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WIE WE MOVE TO ITEM 007,

[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to change the zoning of .33 acres situation in the Robert Horton Survey, Abstract 508 (commonly known as 403 South 6th Street) and presently located in a Residential Three (R3) Zoning District by rezoning said property to REGULAR AGENDA AND PUBLIC HEARINGS Urban Village Planned Development District No. 160 (UVPD-160) for medium density/duplex uses]

160 FOR MEDIUM DENSITY/DUPLEX USES.

WE WILL CONSIDER OURSELVES IN PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM NO. 7, CASE NO. Z37-2022-145.

AGAIN, THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM R-3 TO UVPD AT 403 SOUTH SIXTH STREET TO ALLOW DUPLEXES.

IT IS LOCATED AT 403 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

THE SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND THE ZONING, AGAIN, IS RESIDENTIAL 3 FOR THE PROPERTY, R-3 FOR SHORT.

AS YOU SEE ON THIS NEXT SLIDE, AGAIN, TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS THE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT, FLOR R PLAN LAYOUT.

TWO UNITS TOTALING TO 3704 SQUARE FEET WITH THE UNIT A, ALONG THIS LEFT-HAND SIDE HERE, BEING 1,220 SQUARE FEET AND UNIT B ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE BEING 1,282 SQUARE FEET.

WITHIN EACH UNIT IS GOING TO BE TWO BED, TWO BATH, KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM AREA AS WELL AS TWO-CAR GARAGE.

THIS NEXT SLIDE IS THE ELEVATION FACADE PLAN.

GROUND TO THE HIGHEST POINT, 25 FEET TALL WITH THE PRIMARY MATERIALS BEING BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL.

THE NEXT TWO TO THREE SLIDES DEPICT THE CONCEPT ELEVATION PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR THE FINAL PRODUCT TO LOOK LIKE. SO LAST SIDE FRONT VIEW, NEXT SLIDE IS CORNER VIEW. SORRY.

ALL RIGHT, SO THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE SURROUNDING LOT LAYOUT. PRIMARILY, IN ORANGE HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PRIMARILY SURROUNDING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT IN PINK, EXISTING DUPLEXES IN THE AREA. IT WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER. HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE PRIMARY SURROUNDING AREA IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

OUR STAFF ANALYSIS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS YOU GUYS SAW IN OUR STAFF REPORT. HOWEVER, OUR PRIMARY REASONING FOR THAT IS CONSISTENCY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN BEING ORIGINAL TOWN MODULE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER AND THE FUTURE PLAN AND COMP PLAN ENCOURAGES INFILL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS SOMETHING THIS WILL FULFILL.

THE LOCATION GOING BACK -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING TONIGHT. I APOLOGIZE.

LET'S TURN THIS OFF. CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE FOR ME. GOING BACK TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED, IT IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD, IT IS NOT LOCATED IN BETWEEN HOMES WHERE IT WOULD NECESSARILY AFFECT THE PATTERN IN A NEGATIVE WAY BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ALSO NEIGHBOR SUPPORT.

WE GOT A LOTS OF NEIGHBOR SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL.

IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE, AGAIN, PER THE STAFF REPORTS WE RECEIVED FOUR LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED DOCUMENT SHOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AS YOU SEE TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, AND I KIND OF -- WE KIND OF PROVIDED A BREAKDOWN IN THIS LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER IN GRAY BOX. SO WE RECEIVED TOTAL 11 LETTERS OF SUPPORT. 2, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN PURPLE WERE SUBMITTED BY E-MAIL, TWO IN RED WERE SUBMITTED BY E-MAIL AND THEY ALSO SIGNED THE LETTER TO THE LEFT HERE.

6 JUST SIGNED A LETTER WHICH IS OUTLINED IN GREEN.

AND ONE IS NOT SHOWN BECAUSE IT WAS FURTHER UP THE STREET THERE

[00:10:02]

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.

>> FIRST, I WANT TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR SERVING OUR COMMUNITY, BEING A PART OF PLANNING THE FUTURE OF OUR GREAT CITY. KATHY AND I HAVE LIVED IN MIDLOTHIAN FOR 27 YEARS. LIVED OUT AT JORDAN RANCH FOR A WHILE, MOVED TO MIDTOWN ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

WE DO A LOT OF WALKING AROUND THE CITY AND WALKED BY THIS LOT FOR COUPLE OF YEARS PROBABLY AND HAD AN OLD HOUSE ON IT THAT WAS IN DECAY AND DISREPAIR. BEEN VACANT FOR TEN YEARS.

PRETTY -- I DON'T KNOW, UGLY TO LOOK AT.

SO WE JUST THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, HOW BEAUTIFUL.

THERE'S TWO BEAUTIFUL LIVE OAK TREES AT LEAST 150 YEARS OLD.

IT IS A REALLY PRETTY LOT. IF WE COULD DO SOMETHING THERE THAT WOULD JUST MAKE IT A NICE VISUAL AND JUST AN ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE ARE WANTING TO DO.

BUT MAYBE MAKE IT WHERE WE CAN PAY FOR IT.

WE DESIGNED IT WHERE IT DOESN'T REALLY LOOK LIKE A DUPLEX AT ALL. ENTRANCE ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE FACES THE RAILROAD AND ANOTHER ENTRANCE THAT FACES AVENUE I.

SO WE JUST APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

WE HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD RENDERING THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU. IT WAS ON THE SCREEN.

IT WILL BE THE OLD TOWN LOOK. WE ARE PROUD OF IT.

WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE YOU AGREE WITH US ON THAT.

>> SIR, IF YOU WOULD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR WIFE FOR THE

REPORT. >> JAY AND KATHY ROBERTS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> PETER LEWISTON, ARE YOU PRESENT? IF NOT, HE SUBMITTED A FORM IN SUPPORT. DENISE ROSS, IN SUPPORT.

GEORGE BRYANT? IN SUPPORT.

KENNETH LUNDBURG IN SUPPORT. AND THEN WE HAVE THE LIST SUBMITTED SHOWN ON THE SCREEN WILL BE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD. ANYONE ELSE THAT WE ARE MISSING? IF NOT, THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION.

>> MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR AYE, OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

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

IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR AYE, OPPOSED, UNANIMOUS.

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a water well, relating to the use and development of 30.9± acre of land located in R. Hosford Survey, Abstract 533, J Liok Survey, Abstract 620 and J. Powers Survey, Abstract 838, located in Agricultural (A) Zoning District ]

POWERS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 838, LOCATED IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING

DISTRICT. >> THANK YOU, AGAIN, OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 FOR CASE NO. SUP20-2022-156. FOR PROPOSED WATER WELL LOCATED AT 850 SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD PER THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, SUP IS REQUIRED FOR WATER WELL WITHIN AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT. OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES WATER PUMP FROM THE WELL SHALL BE USED FOR IRRIGATION.

THE PROPOSED CONNECTION AND ASSOCIATED PIPING ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPPED WITH TESTED BACKFLOW PREVENTER APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. AT NO TIME SHALL THE WATER WELL BE CONNECTED TO OR BE OPERATED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM AND PRAIRIE LANDS, CONSERVATION DISTRICT WILL NEED

[00:15:03]

>> OKAY. QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? OKAY.

I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK OR ANY LETTERS.

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

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. ALL IN ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? >> OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION APPROVED. S

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit on Lot 1, Block A, Windridge Phase 1 to allow for a residential subdivision sign located facing Mockingbird Lane, near the entrance of Windridge Phase 1 subdivision ]

REMOVE TO 009, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ON LOT 1, BLOCK A, WINDRIDGE PHASE 1 TO ALLOW FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SIGN LOCATED FACING MOCKINGBIRD LANE, NEAR THE ENTRANCE OF WINDRIDGE PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION.

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 FOR CASE NO. SUP21-2022-163.

010 >> ORDINANCE, HOME BUILDERS SIGN WHICH FACES ON TO RIGHT-OF-WAY GREATER THAN 80 FEET REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. GOING UP TO THE TOP HERE, SIGNAGE PROPOSED IS 96 SQUARE FEET TOTAL BEING 8 FEET TALL, POLES WITH THE SIGN. AGAIN, A A SUP IS REQUIRED FOR Y PROPOSAL PUBLIC STREET GREATER THAN 80 FEET.

MOCKINGBIRD LANE IS 90 FEET WIDE.

THIS IS A LARGER VERSION OF THE PROPOSED SIGN.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MOTION.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

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

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

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

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to rezone Lot 1 and Lot 2 and the South 30’ of Lot 3, Block 34, Original Town City of Midlothian Section 3 (commonly known as 501 W Avenue F) from Residential Three (R3) District to Urban Village Planned Development District No. 160 (UVPD-160) for general professional uses.]

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 FOR CASE NO. Z43-2022-168.

FOR 501 WEST AVENUE F FOR ZONING TRACK FROM R-3 TO UVPD.

LOCATED AT 501 WEST AVENUE F. THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, THE EXISTING GRACE CHURCH. JUST UNDER HALF ACRE.

AND AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-3 TO UVPD TO ALLOW FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES AT THE SITE. SO AGAIN, THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE SITE LAYOUT PLAN. AGAIN, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE AT THE SITE.

AND 17 NEW PARKING SPACES WILL BRING THE TOTAL TO 36 SPACES ARE BEING PROPOSED. EVERYTHING OUTLINED IN WHITE IS ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE PROPOSAL WILL BE ASPHALT PAYMENT. NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO KEEP THE EXISTING AND PROPOSING NEW ELM TREES.

PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS THE SAME. BUILDING TWO TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NEW STONE AND WINDOWS AND BUILDING 2 IS AT THE TOP PART HERE. AGAIN, NEW STONE, NEW WINDOWS PROPOSED FOR THAT. NOTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED OR RELATED TO THE BUILDING WILL BE AFFECTED.

STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS

PRESENTED. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> YES, SIR.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK, SIR. COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> SURE. I'M JUSTIN CROCKER, MIDLOTHIAN.

[00:20:07]

I THINK THIS ONE, SIMPLE AND EASY THAN SOME OF THE OTHER ONES I HAVE BROUGHT THROUGH. I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS IF

YA'LL HAVE ANY. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

THAT WAS EASY ENOUGH. >> I WILL TAKE IT.

>> WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP OR SUBMITTED.

JAMES KAUFMAN, ARE YOU HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK.

>> YEAH. >> COME AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF,

SIR. >> MY NAME IS JAMES KAUFMAN, I LIVE LIVE HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN. I'M THE PASTOR OF GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH, WE ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU.

TWO THINGS, I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN SOME MAYBE UPSET FOLKS WITH THE DEMOLITION THAT TOOK PLACE HERE JUST WITH THE OLD FIRE STATION AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THERE.

THEY ARE PLANNING TO, AS YOU HEARD, KEEP THE MAIN BUILDING THE SAME AND THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO MORE WITH IT THAN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO. WE ALSO -- I HAVE HAD SOME PEOPLE ASK ME ABOUT THIS, WE AS CONGREGATION ARE JUST RELOCATING. WE ARE NOT LEAVING MIDLOTHIAN.

SO I JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT THAT IS THE PLAN.

MIDLOTHIAN IS NOT LOSING GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH.

WE ARE JUST RELOCATING TO A DIFFERENT AREA.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. THE OTHER ONE IS JIMMY MITCHELL.

JIMMY, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK OR ENTER THIS INTO THE RECORD FOR

YOU? >> ENTER IT IN.

>> OKAY. SINCE IT IS IN FAVOR CONDITIONAL, I THINK I WOULD BE MORE PROPER IF I JUST READ THIS INTO THE RECORD. SO IT IS RELATIVELY SHORT.

ADDRESSED TO THE MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND P&Z IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTIFICATION LETTER DATED 9/2/22 CASE NO.

CASE NO. Z43-2022-168. PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 WEST AVENUE F, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT MY RESPONSE. MY RESIDENCE IS ACROSS AVENUE F AT 516 WEST AVENUE F AND WELL WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE HOME HAS BEEN IN OUR FAMILY FOR OVER A CENTURY. WE HAVE SEEN AND GENERALLY SUPPORT PROGRESS IN OUR FAIR CITY AND FOR GENERATIONS HAVE BEEN PROUD RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN.

OUR HOPES IS THAT THIS HOMESTEAD STAYS IN OUR FAMILY FOR DECADES TO COME. AFTER DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS WITH SIMILAR INTERESTS AND WITHOUT SEEING FURTHER DETAILS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WE OFFER CONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION.

WE DESIRE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY IN WHAT IS THE OLDEST NEIGHBORHOOD IN MIDLOTHIAN IS PRESERVE OFFED.

ED. THE REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGES THAT WILL BY RIGHT WILL ALLOW OFFICE USES.

WE OFFER OUR SUPPORT SO LONG AS THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT EXPLICITLY ALLOWS OFFICE USES AND COMMERCIALLY RESTRICTS ALTERNATIVE USES THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING.

HEAVY TRAFFIC, CROWDS, ACTIVITY BEYOND NORMAL DAYTIME BUSINESS HOURS, ACTIVITY THAT WOULD PRODUCE EXCESSIVE NOISE ESPECIALLY AFTER HOURS, ACTIVITY THAT WOULD PRODUCE UNPLEASANT ODORS SUCH AS DUMPSTER, RESTAURANT, FOOD PREP, BARS AND THE LIKE AND ARCHITECT NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SUBMITTED BY JIMMY MITCHELL.

THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. HAVE I MISSED ANYBODY? OKAY, IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC FAVOR.

ALL IN FAVOR. IT IS UNANIMOUS.

FLOOR OPEN DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

>> I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THIS, PROBABLY MORE THAN A NORMAL. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THOSE LISTENING, I THINK MR. MITCHELL DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB, VERY GOOD JOB, AS A MATTER OF FACT, OF CLARIFYING HIS CONCERNS.

THOSE WERE THE CONCERNS THAT I RECEIVED.

I THINK I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT TO CLARIFY IT FOR THE AUDIENCE. THE -- WHAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR FROM PERMIT BASIS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL BE FOR OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE, EVEN IF IT SHOULD CHANGE OWNERSHIP. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN CHANGE WILL BE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN SHOULD THAT CHANGE BE DESIRED. CORRECT? THIS WOULD BE OFFICE USE ONLY WITHIN THE TYPE OF BUSINESS HOURS MR. MITCHELL ASKED FOR. NO RESTAURANTS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ACTIVITY. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IT FOR THE AUDIENCE IN CASE ANYBODY WAS WONDERING.

>> CORRECT. ONLY OFFICE USE AS APPROVED AND THEN ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE OF THAT WILL HAVE TO COME BACK.

[00:25:03]

YES, SIR. >> SO TO REITERATE.

THE ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED ON HERE, THERE'S NOTHING CONTRADICTORY WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR TO ANY OF THOSE ITEMS, IS

THAT CORRECT? >> NO, SIR.

>> CAN I ALSO RESPOND TO THAT? >> YES, SIR.

>> I JUST WANT TO COME UP HERE AND SAY IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY, WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE THINK THAT IS A REALLY AMAZING BUILDING, IT IS IN GREAT SHAPE CONSIDERING IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 101 YEARS. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO -- THAT MAIN BUILDING ON THE CORNER, WE DON'T WANT TO ALTER IT.

WE LOVE THE HISTORY OF IT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES, WE WEREN'T ALTERING THAT ONE OF THE TO BE HONEST, THE ONE BEHIND IT BUILT LATER, IT IS UGLY, WE WILL TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE BIT NICER. WE WILL DO SOME COSMETIC WORK TO THAT ONE. WE DOESN'T WANT TO CHANGE THE BUILDING. IT HAS LASTED THIS LONG, REALLY GOOD SHAPE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALTER IT.

AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE USE, EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, C COLBY AND I TALKED ABT IT, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND CHANGE IT TO ANY OF THOSE ITEMS THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT.

THANK YOU. >> DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO SPI? SPEAK? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

>> MA'AM, I WILL ALLOW IT IF YOU WILL COMMIT TO FILL OUT A FORM ONCE YOU HAVE SPOKEN SINCE WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Y■OU HAVE A QUESTION, CORRECT? >> OKAY, YOU NEED TO COME TO THE PODIUM, MA'AM. IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME

AND WHERE YOU ARE FROM. >> THANK YOU.

CHERYL LUNDLY, I LIVE IN MIDLOTHIAN, NORTH 5TH STREET, AVENUE F AND THE CHURCH. AND YOU GUYS WILL BE GREAT NEIGHBORS FOR THE 20 ODD YEARS WE HAVE BEEN HERE.

WE HOPE AND WISH YOU THE BEST AS YOU TRANSFER TO THE OTHER PLACE.

WITH THAT, I JUST HAVE SOME QUICK QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE ALREADY GET A LOT OF TRAFFIC, WE CALL IT THE ROAD TO WALMART.

SO THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S LOTS OF KIDS BECAUSE THERE'S A PARK THERE. I GET CONCERNED ABOUT THE 36 PARKING SPOTS COMING AND GOING AND SQUEEZING IN.

HOW MANY OFFICES IS EXPECTED IN THAT BUILDING? IT IS DIFFERENT. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, HOW MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE -- YOU KNOW, IS IT GOING TO BE ONE COMPANY? OR IS IT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR FOUR, FIVE DIFFERENT COMPANIES.

EACH HAVE TWO ROOMS, TWO THIS, TWO THAT.

THAT IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE COMINGS AND GOINGS WITH SCHOOLS, WITH THE PARK, AND, YOU KNOW, KIDS.

SO -- BECAUSE 36 IS A LOT OF PARKING SPOTS RIGHT AROUND THAT AREA. AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CHURCH. SO WE UNDERSTAND THEM HUNDRED PERCENT, THAT'S WHY I JUST WANT TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION.

URBAN IS URBAN, BUT WE ARE STILL RESIDENTIAL.

SO, YOU KNOW. >> OKAY.

APPLICANT WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT?

>> SURE. I'D BE HAPPY TO.

>> IT IS ALWAYS TOUGH THAT BALANCE, BECAUSE THERE ARE -- THERE'S A MINIMAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS REQUIRED.

IT IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE. DO YOU HAVE NOT ENOUGH OR TOO MANY. I THINK WE ONLY EXCEEDED REQUIRED PARKS SPOTS BY FOUR SPOTS.

WE TRIED TO GET A FEW MORE IN BECAUSE TYPICALLY, AT LEAST THE PROJECTS I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN, WE ARE ALWAYS A LITTLE SHORT ON PARKING. THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY WAY TO PUT MORE THAN THAT. WE ARE OVER THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY A FEW. THE MINIMUM IS BASED MORE ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING. UNFORTUNATELY, EARLY ON IT IS KIND OF TOUGH TO KNOW WHAT THE MARKET IS GOING TO ASK FOR AS FAR AS EXACTLY WHAT TENANT WILL TAKE THAT SPACE.

SO AS FAR AS EXACT NUMBER OF OFFICES IN THERE, HONEST ANSWER IS I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT ANSWER BUT BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE CAPACITY THE BUILDING COULD HOLD, WE MET AND THEN ADDED I THINK FOUR -- FOUR EXTRA SPOTS? SO FOUR SPOTS ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS WHAT WE DID

THERE. >> OKAY.

SO WHAT I AM HEARING YOU SAY, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A NUMBER FOR THAT AT THIS POINT. ONE TENANT TO TAKE X SQUARE

FEET. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

EXAMPLE WOULD BE ON 14TH, THE BUILDING TED VEN VENTURES IS IN, THEY CAME IN AND WANTED ALL THREE SUITES.

THE BUSINESS SIDE OF IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARD.

WE DON'T HAVE THEM PRELEASED. IT IS HARD FOR ME TO SIT HERE

AND COMMIT TO AN EXACT NUMBER. >> ALL RIGHT.

[00:30:02]

>> I GUESS WHAT I THINK THE LADY WHO WAS ASKING THE QUESTIONS WOULD BE, WHAT HER THOUGHT PROCESS I ASSUME, THIS KIND OF RELATES OVER TO STAFF. WHAT DOES THE NUMBER OF PARKIE M AMOUNT OF OCCUPANCY. I THINK WHAT SHE IS LOOKING FOR IS -- IN OTHER WORDS, FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE OFFICE SPEASESSPACES OVER BY JIMMY'S SD PIZZA, THEY HAVE MULTIPLE OFFICES. 18, 20 PEOPLE UP THERE.

SO MANY CARS COMING AND GOING. ARE YOU OPEN TO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO OVER THERE, YOU ARE GOING TO DO.

OR ARE YOU THINKING, WE MIGHT HAVE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT OFFICE SPACES. I KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE -- YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU TALK WITH FOLKS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN BUILDING THE INTERIOR OF THAT OUT, I WOULD ASSUME.

STAFF WOULD BE, QUICK ANSWER TO THAT, HE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH WITH THE ALLOWABLE PARKING SPACES ON INTERIOR VOLUME, YES

OR NO? >> RIGHT.

SO WHAT JUSTIN WAS SAYING, HE IS STILL WITHIN THE PARKING SPACES, EXCEEDING BY FOUR SPACES. THE MAXIMUM WAS 8 ADDITIONAL SPACES. WE AS STAFF STILL BELIEVE THAT THE OFFICE USE IS GOING TO BE BETTER IN REGARD TO TRAFFIC OPPOSED TO THE RESTAURANT OR ANYTHING.

>> I GUESS I GET ALL THAT. >> SORRY.

>> DO WE KNOW HOW MANY PARKING SPACES HE HAS TOTAL?

>> 36. >> SO DOES THAT ALLOW FOR 36 SINGLE OFFICES, SHOULD HE PUT THEM IN THERE? DOES THAT ALLOW FOR 222? I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO GET A GRIP ON WHAT'S THE OCCUPANCY -- IS THE OCCUPANCY VOLUME AFTER 36

SPACES, 36 UNITS? >> RIGHT, SO OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE PARKING RATIO IS ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET.

SO THAT'S WHERE THAT IS COMING FROM.

>> I GOT YOU. SO THAT MAKES MORE SENSE.

I THINK THAT IS KIND OF WHAT SHE WAS ALLUDING TO.

>> SOSORRY I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR A MOTION?

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

>> SECOND. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 13.974± acres in the of land being out of the JD Enlow Survey, Abstract 346 and the Amasa Howell Survey, Abstract 525, commonly known as 5880 FM 663, by changing the zoning from Single Family One (SF-1) District and Agricultural (A) District to an Urban Village Planned Development District for residential and non-residential uses. ]

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM 11, CASE NO. Z39-2022-155.

THIS IS FOR ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AT 5880 FM663.

SO AGAIN AS YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE HERE, TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, SHOWS OUTLINED IN THIS GREEN STRIPED COLOR IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE TOTAL SITE IS JUST UNDER 14 ACRES AT 13.974 ACRES. THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE TO UVPD. AGAIN, CURRENTLY ZONED SF1 AND AGRICULTURAL. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS CONCEPT PLAN AS YOU SEE TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, TOTE AT ACREAGE 13.97 ACRES, THEY ARE PROPOSING SPLIT IT UP IN TWO LOTS WITH LOT 1 BEING AT THE FRONT AND LOT 2 BEING AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND/OR CHURCH USE BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THE PD. WE WILL EXPLAIN IN A SECOND.

SO AGAIN WE JUST WANT TO GIVE A BREAKDOWN.

THIS IS A PD. HOWEVER, THIS CHART SHOWS COMPARISON FOR LOT ONE, IN THE SECOND COLUMN WILL BE LIMITED TO A CHURCH OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UTES.

USE. LOT 2 TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO.

ONE BEING LOT WH WH WH WH WIDTH. THERE'S NOT ESTIMA CONSISTENT WE

[00:35:07]

AND THEN LOT 1 IN REFERENCE TO THE HEIGHT, 55 FEET, IF IT IS A CHURCH, IS WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS. THAT EXCEEDS THE 35-FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT. HOWEVER, IF IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME ON THAT LOT, THEY WILL MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, THIS IS A PROPOSED CHURCH THEY ARE REQUESTING 55 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, LOT 1 OUTLINED IN RED HERE TO THE RIGHT. AGAIN, GOING TO BE A PROPOSED CHURCH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.

THERE IS AN EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE MOVED TO LOT 2 OF THIS PORTION WHICH WE WILL TOUCH ON HERE IN A SECOND.

THIS OUTLINE REPRESENTS 9 ACRES OF THAT ROUGHLY 14 ACRES.

IT IS GOING TO BE LIMITED TO ONE LOT SO IF IT IS A CHURCH, AGAIN, THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT 55-FOOT WILL BE ALLOWED IF A PD IS APPROVED.

AND IF A CHURCH IS PROPOSED TO GO THERE, IT SHALL COME BACK TO P&Z AND COUNCIL JUST REVIEW IF IT CONFORMS WITH THE PD AS APPROVED PER P&Z AND COUNCIL. ALSO, IF IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, ALL STANDARDS WILL BE MET PERB THE APPLICANT.

NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS SLIGHT 2, THIS REAR LOT OUTLINED IN ORANGE HERE. STRICTLY LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 4.98 ACRES. AGAIN, PROPOSED LOT WIDTHS OF 4G ACCESS TO THIS LOT HERE. AGAIN, HERE'S ELEVATION FACADE RENDERING OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

SHOWS MATERIALS WHICH IS PRIMARILY -- AGAIN, THIS IS RENDERING, INSPIRATION PHOTOS. BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL, BRICK BRICK. PROPOSED LOT WIDTH OF 40 FEET HERE, ALLOWING DRIVEWAY TO THE REAR LOT.

TO ACCOMMODATE THE DRIVEWAY GOING TO THE FUTURE HOME ON THE LOT AND DRIVEWAY WILL BE LIMITED TO RIGHT IN AND RIGHT OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY FOR THAT LOT.

STAFF DID RECEIVE, IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, YOU WILL NOTICE WE SAID FOUR LETTERS OF OPPOSITION WERE RECEIVED.

SINCE THEN, WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, 11 TOTAL LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.

I THINK WE MAY HAVE GOTTEN ONE MORE VIA E-MAIL.

BUT I KNOW 11 TOTAL FOR SURE WHICH MEANS 7 WERE ADDED SINCE THE PACKETS HAVE GONE OUT. WE DO WANT TO NOTE ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WE SAW FOR OPPOSITION WAS THAT A LOT OF THOSE RESIDENTS IN THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION DIDN'T WANT HIGH TRAFFIC USES, WHETHER IT BE GAS STATION OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE SPECIFIED THAT LOT ONE OR THAT WHOLE PD IS LIMITED TO EITHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE OR A CHURCH SPECIFICALLY ON LOT ONE.

SO WE AS STAFF, GRANTED WE RECEIVED 11 LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, THOSE ARE THE REASON THAT WE FEEL OUR REASON FOR SUPPORT IS VALID IN THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

DUE TO THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS

PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> WILL YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE.

BOTH PROPERTIES WILL GO OUT ON TO 663?

>> YES, SIR. >> WHERE IS 14TH STREET? IT

OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT? >> YES, SIR.

THIS IS 663 AND COVENTRY. >> IF THEY WANTED ACCESS OUT TO

14, THEY CAN'T DO THAT. >> YES, SIR, JUST 663.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?

>> YES, SIR. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> JAY CHILDS. I LIVE AT RANCH CEDAR ROAD IN MIDLOTHIAN. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER

QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

>> ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE, I BELIEVE I FULLY UNDERSTAND, THE PROPOSAL IS THERE WOULD BE A CHURCH AT THE FRONT AND THERE WOULD BE A RESIDENCE AT THE REAR WITH AN EASEMENT THERE.

EYOU ARE HERE REPRESENTING THIS PROPERTY.

>> I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE HAMMONDS.

>> AND I AM CORRECT ON MY ASSUMPTION.

>> WE WANTED TO RESERVE THE FRONTAGE ON 663 FOR THE CHURCH USE. BUT ALSO ACCOMPLISH A DRIVEWAY FOR THE HAMMONDS HOMESTEAD IN THE BACK.

>> ARE YOU ALSO STATING THAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE ZONED FOR AN ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IF SO CHOSE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OR A CHURCH, OR A BINGES OF

THAT? >> I SPOKE.

I DON'T KNOW PARSONAGE. >> WHAT YOU HAVE APPLIED, CHURCH

[00:40:10]

AND RESIDENTIAL. >> YES, SIR.

>> MY QUESTION ON LOT 2, INITIALLY THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EXIST HOME AND A SECONDARY HOME.

INITIALLY. ARE THEY GOING TO MOVE THE EXISTING HOUSE TO THE LOT 2 AND THEN STILL LOOK AT A SECOND

RESIDENCE NOTICE BACK? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE RENDERING THAT COLBY SHOWED WILL BE THE NEW HOME.

THE END USER, THE CHURCH, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, WILL -- THEY WILL EITHER INCORPORATE THE OLD HOUSE OR DEMOLISH IT.

WE ARE NOT SURE RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT WAS WHERE I WAS HEADED. THE EXISTING HOUSE IN ONE IS NOT

BEING MOVED. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IT IS GOING TO STAY WHERE IT IS AT.

>> STAY WHERE IT IS AT. >> AND NEW ONE WILL GO ON LOT

TWO. >> YES, SIR.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I WILL LET YOU KNOW, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT'S IN THE PACKET WITH RESPECT TO LOT ONE DOES SAY PLACE OF WORSHIP OR SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

IT CAN'T BE BOTH. AND AND THE OTHER LOT IS JUST ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. BUT THEY CAN ONLY PUT -- IF THEY DON'T PUT THE CHURCH THERE, THEY CAN ONLY PUT ONE HOME ON THAT

LOT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I ASKED A COUPLE WAYS. AND IT IS REALLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR, SO THAT'S HOW I WROTE IT.

>> OKAY. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

OKAY. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, LISA HEELY, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF

AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> HI, LISA HEELLY, THANK YOU FOR HAVING MORE TIME TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

IN THE ORDINANCES FOR URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT REQUIRES SPECIFICITY AND THE DETAILS OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT. AND IN THE PRESENTATION BY THE CITY STAFF, THEY SAID IF SEVERAL TEAMS. SO IF TO ME IN SPECIFICITY. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT THE CURRENT OWNER, AND, LISTEN, THE OWNER, I GET YOU GUYS HAVE TO BALANCE OWNERSHIP VERSUS THE IMPACT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING AROUND IT, SO I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.

PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS WHEN THEY OWN PROPERTY TO DO WHAT THEY WANT.

BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF IFS AND THAT LOT ONE IS BEING SOLD AND ONCE IT IS SOLD AND IT HAS THAT URBAN PLANNED DEVELOP MANY, WHAT DEVELOPMENT, WHATIF THEY DECIDEN

TOWNHOMES, HOW IS THAT? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN TO REZONE. THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW ONE HOUSE OR ONE CHURCH.

>> THAT'S WHAT IT WILL BE. IT WON'T BE ANYTHING --

>> UNLESS THEY COME BACK TO SEEK AMENDMENT.

>> BUT THEY COULD DO THAT. >> THEY COULD DO THAT.

IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AS IS

OCCURRING TODAY. >> SO STILL A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY. I FEEL LIKE -- I JUST AM CURIOUS, TOO, IT SHOWS THAT COVENTRY CROSSING THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IS AN URBAN LOW DENSITY AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP AND IT IS REALLY CONFUSING IN THE FLUP.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE SUBURBAN AND THEN WITHIN THE SUBURBAN, YOU HAVE THIS URBAN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DESIGNATION. BECAUSE IT IS BEING DESIGNATED THAT WAY, IT JUST SEEMS VERY CONFUSING TO ME THAT YOU CAN HAVE URBAN WITHIN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBURBAN AREA.

>> PART OF YOUR CONFUSION IS YOU ARE CONFUSING AND MIXING UP THE DESIGNATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN VERSUS ZONING DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE ZONING ARRESTED NANS.

ORDINANCE. >> BUT THEY USE THE TERMS FROM

[00:45:01]

>> I WILL LET HER FINISH HER STATEMENTS AND IF THERE IS ANY OTHER EXPLANATION, I WILL MAKE IT AFTERWARD.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT OPENING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT THE AREA.

YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.

SO IF THEY SELL -- I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T TRUST PEOPLE THESE DAYS AND I DON'T TRUST THAT IT IS GOING TO PLAY OUT THE WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. I'M SORRY, I'M VERY CYNICAL.

JUST THE WAY THE WORLD HAS BEEN GOING.

I REALLY HOPE YOU CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THIS. I THINK EVERYONE IS A LITTLE CONCERNED BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES AND THEN ALL THE SUDDEN WE ARE GETTING THIS URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING. EVEN THOUGH THE ORDINANCE IS SPECIFIC, THERE'S STILL TOO MANY OPEN FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.

THANK YOU. >> LISA, FOUR THE RECORD, YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION. IT IS NOT MARKED ON YOUR FORM.

>> OH, YES, OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.

>> MA'AM, COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE ZONED AT?

>> I THINK TWO HOMES WOULD BE GREAT.

>> SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. >> THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN DO NOW.

>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. >> NO, NO, LIKE --

>> IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP, ALL OF THIS PROPERTY IS ALL VACANT.

HUGE BLOB. WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE A CHURCH WHICH IS PROBABLY PRETTY LOW IMPACT OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE 50 TO 60-FOOT LOTS, ALL HOUSES AS FAR AS IMPACT?

>> I UNDERSTAND. YES.

I WOULD PREFER A CHURCH. WE ALREADY HAVE 30 HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN. SO -- I GUESS WHAT'S ANOTHER.

>> IF IT DOES MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER.

BECAUSE THE CHURCH THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, THAT'S IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M OUT OF THE ZONE BUT I GET

WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM. >> NOT NECESSARILY THE CHURCH -- THE CHURCH OR THE HOUSE, I'M TOTALLY GOOD WITH.

IT IS MORE OF -- >> WHAT COULD IT BECOME?

>> RIGHT. IF IT IS SOLD, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ORDINANCE, THEN WE ARE COMING BACK TO THIS AGAIN.

I JUST -- YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY, IS IT A HOUSE OR IS IT A CHURCH .

>> BUT EITHER WAY, IT IS GOING TO BE FAR WAY LESS IMPACT THAN THE LIKELIHOOD, IF THIS SITS THERE MUCH LONGER, IT IS GOING TO GET BOUGHT UP WITH THE OTHER HUGE BLOCKS THAT ARE ABOVE IT AND IT IS ALL GOING TO BE HOUSES.

IN MY VIEW. JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. IF THERE WERE MORE SPECIFICITY, I WOULD HAVE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. SANDY RICHY, DID YOU WANT TO SUBMIT OR WANT YOUR FORM SUBMITTED? OKAY. IN OPPOSITION.

MARIE SHAW IN OPPOSITION. DUSTIN HOPKINS, IN OPPOSITION.

I'M SORRY, YEAH. JOSH TABOKA, OPPOSITION.

LORI MUMERLIN, IN OPPOSITION. JOHN MCDERMOT IN OPPOSITION.

LINDSEY MATTHEWS IN OPPOSITION. TRAVIS AND KATHY VICK IN OPPOSITION, AND ISADORA BRIGO, IN OPPOSITION.

LINDSEY MATTHEWS IN OPPOSITION. SERGIO GERAZO IN OPPOSITION.

JEREMY KUNTZ IN OPPOSITION. DID I MISS ANYBODY? OKAY. IF THERE IS NOE NO OTHER, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OAR AND/OR ACTION.

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

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

[00:50:04]

IT IS ZONED NOW FOR TWO HOUSES, CORRECT?

>> IF IT IS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL ON LOT ONE, ZONED FOR ONE HOUSE AND THEN LOT TWO IS LIMITED TO ONE RESIDENTIAL.

>> DEPARTMENT THEY COME IN ADIDK FOR TWO HOUSES ON THAT?

>> YOU ARE CORRECT ON THAT. THEY CAME BACK SEVERAL MONTHS BACK, THEY WERE TRYING TO PLACE THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE IN FRONT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WHICH IS THE REASON THEY CAME BEFORE US. EVENTUALLY THAT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND SO NOW THEY ARE COMING BACK WITH THE WHOLE

NEW PD. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> BUT WE DID APPROVE IT THAT WAY INITIALLY BEFORE IT WENT TO

COUNCIL. >> YES, SIR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

>> SECOND. >> WE DO HAVE A SECOND.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.

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

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the use and development regulations of Planned Development No. 106 to allow for the construction of a new data center building. The property is generally located at Lot 1, Block 1, Sharka MDN Addition. Located off of U.S. Highway 67, between Railport Parkway and V.V. Jones Road.]

LOCATED OFF OF U.S. HIGHWAY 67, BETWEEN RAILPORT PARKWAY AND V.V. JONES ROAD. 012.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, NEXT CASE IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 FOR CASE NO. Z40-2022-157.

FOR RAILPORT PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR BY NOW.

PD 106 WHICH IS WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN REQUIRES ANY ADDITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE TO BE REINVOLVED BY P&Z AND COUNCIL WHICH IS WHY YOU GUYS ARE SEEING ONE AGAIN.

WE JUST REVIEWED ONE ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE SEEING ONE THIS EVENING AGAIN.

SO AGAIN WITHIN RAILPORT PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT, TOTAL SITE IS 375 ACRES. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT SITE IN QUESTION TONIGHT IS 30 ACRES. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AMENDMENT TO PD 106 TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL DATA CENTER. SO THIS IS JUST THE AERIAL VIEW OF EVERYTHING THAT IS ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE AREA. SO PHASE 3, BEING PROPOSED, IS GOING TO BE RIGHT HERE. PHASE 2, FACES ONE AND TWO FOR THE DATA CENTER, EXISTING DATA CENTER IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE.

PHASE ONE, CENTRAL UTILITY BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM THERE. AGAIN, HERE'S ANOTHER AERIALVIEW POINT FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. SO AGAIN, AS STATED, PD 106, TO EVERY ADDITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES AMENDMENT BY P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS A PROPOSED EXPANSION, OUTLINED IN THE RED SQUARE IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

ONE STORY, WILL INCLUDE SUV EXPANSION WHICH INCLUDES COOLING TOWERS, PREENGINEERED CHEMICAL TREATMENT BUILDING, ADDITIONAL GENERATORS ADDED IN THE GENERATOR YARD TO SUPPORT PHASE THREE AND FUTURE SUBSTATION IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR THE PHASE 3.

EXCUSE THE RAINBOW COLORS, TRYING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR. OUTLINED IN BLUE IS GOING TO BE THE CENTRAL UTILITY BUILDING. ROUGHLY CONSIST OF 29,000 SQUARE FEET. OUTLINED IN ORANGE HERE IS GOING TO BE THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER, 288,000 SQUARE FEET.

OUTLINED IN GREEN, THE ELECTRIC BUILDING, 14,000 EACH.

RIGHT HERE IS GOING TO BE 2800 SQUARE FEET.

OUTLINED IN PURPLE IS GOING TO BE WHERE THE GENERATORS ARE PROPOSED AND OUTLINED IN RED WHERE THE FUTURE SUBSTATION WILL BE. NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS ELEVATION IF FACADE PLAN. I WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THAT. HOWEVER, CONSIST OF BEING SAME MATERIAL, CONCRETE MATERIAL. TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE

PROPOSAL. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> WE ARE NOT THE NAMED APPLICANT, ASSOCIATES THEREOF. WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE NO FORMS TO BE SUBMITTED, NO ONE TO SPEAK. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN

[00:55:02]

DISCUSSION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR AYE, OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. NEXT ITEM IS 103 -- 013.

>> CHAIRMAN, JUST ONE MOMENT. THE NEXT ITEM WILL TAKE LONGER THAN THE LAST ITEM, COULD WE HEAR 14 FIRST.

[014 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit for an existing mini-warehouse (self-storage) facility and construction of a new building on the subject property. The property is currently zoned Commercial (C) District. The property is located at 200 E Ridgeway]

>> SURE, WE CAN DO THAT. WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO 014, 014 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING MINI-WAREHOUSE, SELF-STORAGE, FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 200 E RIDGEWAY.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 FOR CASE SUP22-2022-171 THIS IS FOR THE STORAGE PLACEMENT MIDLOTHIAN. THIS IS ALONG RIDGEWAY, 4-POINTT OVER 4 ACRES. THERE IS A SO STORAGE FACILITY N THE SITE. REAL QUICK, HISTORY, THERE IS AN EXISTING STORAGE ON THE SITE. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, GOT THE PROPERTY IN OCTOBER OF '21.

SO HERE'S WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY EXISTING.

APPLICANT REMOVED 21 ROLL-OFF STORAGE CONTAINERS AND 20 ADDITIONAL VEHICLES THAT YOU SEE ALONG HERE.

EXCUSE THE BLACK AND WHITE PICTURE, LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE AREA THAT WE ARE LOOKING ALONG HENDERSON STREET HERE TO ADD ADDITIONAL STORAGE UNIT. CURRENTLY, NO SUP ON THE PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPMENT PREDATES ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH PLAYS A PART IN WHY THERE IS NO SUP CURRENTLY.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING FOR THAT TONIGHT.

IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED 16,200 SQUARE FEET SELF-CONTROLLED STORAGE UNIT IS GOING TO BE PROPOSED HERE AGAIN LOCATED ALONG HENDERSON STREET, CONSTRUCTED OF METAL.

IF APPROVED, IT WOULD BE THE 11TH STORAGE BUILDING ON THE SITE. HOWEVER, THIS ONE DIFFERS AGAIN BECAUSE THIS IS SELF-CONTROLLED, CLIMATE CONTROLLED AS OPPOSED TO STANDARD STORAGE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS PER COMMERCIAL ZONING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LOT COVERAGE.

MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE PER ORDINANCE IS 80%.

WITH THIS ADDITION, IT WILL TAKE UP TO 98%, 97%.

SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT MEETING THAT.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS SCREENED LAYOUT VIEW FROM HENDERSON STREET. THERE ARE EXISTING SCREENING, WROUGHT IRON FENCING. THE APPLICANT DOES INTEND TO KEEP THAT ALONG THE PROPERTY THERE.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT COVERAGE, DUE TO THE BUILDING BEING STRAIGHT STANDARD FLAT BUILDING, THE APPLICANT IS NOT MEETING THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE LOT COVERAGE THAT WE JUST MENTIONED THERE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ADDITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.

ALSO, WITH THE LOT COVERAGE GRANTED, IT IS EXCEEDING BY NEARLY 20% THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.

HOWEVER, DUE TO WHAT WAS THERE EXISTING FOR A WHILE, WE THINK THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY NEGATIVE EFFECT TO THE AREA AND LOOK AESTHETICLY MORE PLEASING THAN PREVIOUSLY WHAT WAS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> CAN YOU BACK TO YOUR BLACK

AND WHITE PICTURE. >> YES, SIR.

SO WHERE THE WHITE SQUARE IS IS WHERE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO

GO. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND WHAT IS THERE NOW? IS THAT A BUILDING?

>> THIS IS ALL BEEN REMOVED. THIS IS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY

THERE. >> THAT'S GONE.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT. IF YOU WOULD, COME AND IDENTIFY

YOURSELF, SIR. >> CARL MCAVEE, REPRESENTING GIBSON PRODUCTS. I HAVE GOT MY GRANDPARENTS AND MY UNCLE IN ATTENDANCE, OUR FAMILY PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN IN FORMATION FOR OVER 50 YEARS IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE.

THIS IS OUR 13TH SELF-STORAGE FACILITY.

WE PURCHASED IT LAST YEAR. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH A LOT OF THE CITY OFFICIALS TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND WE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROPOSED CLIMATE CONTROLLED BUILDING. I THINK IT IS REALLY GOING TO IMPROVE THE LOOK IN THAT AREA A LOT.

WE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

[01:00:02]

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.

I HAVE NO LETTERS OR NO ONE TO SPEAK.

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

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

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

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? FLOOR OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR

ACTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[013 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of +/-167.3 acres out of the A. Reeves Survey, Abstract No. 939; and the H. Woodward Survey, Abstract No. 1131 from Agricultural (A) District to a new Planned Development District for Heavy Industrial (HI) uses including warehouse/office distribution uses. The property is generally located on the southeast corner of Quarry Road and Gifco Road intersection, and directly west of the Fort Worth and N.O. Railroad line. ]

RAILROAD LINE. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. LAST CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM 13 FOR CASE NO. Z42-2022-161.

IT IS FOR HILLWOOD NORTH. AS YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME TO US EARLIER IN THE YEAR, TOWARD THE END OF LAST YEAR LEADING INTO THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR AND WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT CASE HISTORY HERE IN A SECOND. HOWEVER, AGAIN, JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS A REFRESHER, AND FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, THIS IS A REQUESTED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PARK, TOTAL SITE 167 ACRES, LAND BEING UNDEVELOPED.

APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES ON 16. CREPT ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS AGRICULTURAL AND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS LISTED AS MODULE.

THOUGH IT IS NOT FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AND QUARRY MODULE FOR REFERENCE IS MORE RELATED TO INDUSTRIAL MINING. HOWEVER, WITH THIS BEING AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE, WE THINK THIS IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WE MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

THIS NEXT SLIDE, CASE HISTORY, GOING BACK TO NOVEMBER OF '21 LAST YEAR, NOVEMBER 16, 2021 PLANNING & ZONING MEETING, VOTING 7-0 TO CONTINUE THE CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 15TH 2022 PLANNING & ZONING MEETING. THROUGH THAT TIME, WHICH LED TO THE FEBRUARY 1ST JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING, THAT ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STAFF AND THEN ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH THE P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL TO PRESENT THE LATEST AND GREATEST AT THAT TIME, IF YOU WILL, AND GATHER ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR CONCERNS BEFORE GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMTION. COMMISSION.

FROM THAT JOINT WORKSHOP, TO FEBRUARY 15TH, PLANNING & ZONING MEETING, THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 600 TO DENY.

THERE WERE VARIOUS CONCERNS, MORE SO RELATED TO TRAFFIC AND GIFCO ROAD. APRIL 6TH, COUNCIL REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.

WE ARE ASKING A FEW DATES. ESSENTIALLY, THAT WAS THE PRIMARY SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER TO THAT APRIL DATE.

SO LEADING BACK TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, THREE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS CONSISTENT TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.

BUILDING 1 BEING THE SECOND LARGEST BUILDING, 1,043,820 SQUARE FEET. BUILDING 3, 352,140 SQUARE FEET.

WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT OUTSIDE STORAGE AND DISPLAY AND COLD STORAGE TO FACILITY ARE PROPOSED BY RIGHT AS OPPOSED TO SUP.

KEY APPLICANT REQUEST FOR THIS HILLWOOD USE REQUIRING SUP IN THE MIDLOTHIAN SOUTH ORDINANCE ARE PERMITTED USING BY RIGHT WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 85 FEET WITH EXCEPTION OF COLD STORAGE AND DATA CENTER USES ARE GOING TO BE AT 110 FEET. SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS -- THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE LAST GO AROUND AS WELL. COLD SPHOR STORAGE IS PERMITTEDY RIGHT. DATA CENTER IS PERMITTED PER SUP WHICH WE WILL TOUCH ON. PD147, HILLWOOD SOUTH AND HILLWOOD NORTH. EVERYTHING LISTED WAS REQUIRED

[01:05:03]

WE DO NOTE THAT ALL OF THESE ARE CONSISTENT WITH HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES PER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND ALL OF THOSE ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. BUT THAT IS ANOTHER ZIRCHES THERE. DIFFERENCE.

EVERYTHING PROHIBITED IN HILLWOOD SOUTH IS P PROHIBITED N HILLWOOD NORTH. SAME PROPOSED MATERIAL, PRIMARILY CON STREET FOR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

NEXT FEW SLIDES SHOW DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS THROUGH ANGLES WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

SO THIS IS A VIEWPOINT FROM 287 LAKE SIDE FACING TOWARD THE SITE. I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO READ, IF YOU SEE THE GREEN LINE,VIEW POINT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS WE GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE SLIDES, PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS IS TO SEE THE DISTANCE AT THE HIGHEST POINT BEING 110 FEET TO SEE HOW HIGH IT IS.

AGAIN, EXCUSE THE GREEN LINE. WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, FEW KEYNOTES TO MENTION, WE HAVE SECTION WITHIN ORDINANCE SECTION 0 WHICH STATES CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN ORDINANCE, FOR THIS PARTICULAR SECTION, THIS REFERENCE GIFCO ROAD. A, ABOUT, A ADJACENT OF GIFCO RD IN IMLIE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT. B, REALIGN PORTIONS OF GIFCO ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE REALIGNED GIFCO ROAD TO COMPLY WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT.

C, THE DEVELOPER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING AN IMPROVED FOUR-LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY MAJOR COLLECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S ADOPTED THOROUGHFARE PLAN OF GIFCO ROAD. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO. APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.

THEY WILL STATE THEIR REASONING AS TO WHY THEY DON'T AGREE TO THAT. HOWEVER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF FEELS IS NEEDED. WE WILL LET THEIR REASONING -- WE WILL LET THEM EXPLAIN THEIR REASONING.

NEXT SLIDE, KEY POINTS, CHANGE RECOMMENDATION.

SO GOING TO THE LAST GO ROUND, AS YOU GUYS REMEMBER, RECOMMENDING DIDN'T. RECOMMENDING DENIAL.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. SO WHAT ARE SOME KEY THINGS THAT LED TO THAT DATA CENTER. ORIGINALLY, IT WAS A SUP THEY WERE TRYING TO PUSH. SO BY RIGHT, IN THE APPLICANT, NOW IS AGREEABLE TO ALLOW PER SUP.

TIA, THEY INCREASED TIA. SO IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS AGREEABLE TO AND ALSO THE APPLICANT WILL BUILD RIGHT TURN LANE TO GIFCO ROAD. WE WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THIS EVENING. WE AGREED THAT -- WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY THOUSAND FEET TO THE WEST FOR GIFCO ROAD WAS GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, NOW THE APPLICANT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO THAT. THAT PLAYED A PART, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL HOWEVER THOSE ITEMS THAT WE OUTLINED THIS BOLD, FOUR-LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY PLAYS A MAJOR PART IN OUR RECOMMENDATION. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PROVIDING THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO THAT.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> COLBY, IF IT IS GOING A THOUSAND FEET, HOW FAR IS THAT FROM THE PROPERTY? IS THAT GOING TO BE THE MAJOR -- DOES THAT GO FROM 67 TO THEIR PROPERTY? OR WHERE DOES IT GO?

>> AT THE START OF GIFCO ROAD. >> IT GOES TO THEIR PROPERTY.

>> NOT ALL THE WAY, BUT A THOUSAND FEET.

THERE IT IS. >> SORRY.

>> SO A TENTH OF THE WAY. >> YEAH, EXCUSE ME FOR THAT.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?

[01:10:05]

>> I AM. >> IF YOU WOULD, COME AND

IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MATT WALKER, I'M WITH HILLWOOD. THE ONE ITEM THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON REAL QUICK, COLBY MENTIONED IT, IT IS THAT THOUSAND FEET FOUR-LANE REQUIREMENT THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. WE LEARNED OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FRIDAY AT 4 O'CLOCK. SO A BIT, TWO BUSINESS DAY, BUSINESS DAY AND A HALF AGO. AND THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY MIKE ADAMS, CITY ENGINEER, IN A TIA MEMO A WHILE BACK.

AND WE HAD RESPONDED TO THAT WEEKS AGO WITH THIS RESPONSE.

THERE'S NOTHING SHOWN IN THE TIA THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THIS REQUIREMENT. IT DOES NOT SEEM APPROPRIATE FOR THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT TO BE ASSESSED THE BURDEN OF IMPROVING CITY INFRASTRUCTURE OFF SITE WHEN NO ADVERSE IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON RECORD. IT HAS BEEN A WHILE NOW THAT WE HAVE NOT AGREED TO THIS REQUIREMENT.

AND KIND OF A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT TO THIS, AS OF FRIDAY, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT -- WELL, REALLY, KNOWING THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS WITH YOU GUYS BEFORE, WE UNDERSTAND THE CONDITION OF GIFCO ROAD WAS A CONCERN, NOT NECESSARILY THE QUANTITY OF LANES.

SO WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH STAFF ABOUT IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF THAT ROAD ARE NOT STAFF -- IT WAS OUR -- WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT STAFF, THE CITY, WERE GOING TO HELP FUND THE ENTIRETY, THAT TEN THOUSAND LINEAR FEET WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, TWO LANES OF CONCRETE, DEMOING EXISTING TWO LANES AND IMPROVING TWO LANES OF CONCRETE.

THAT IS AS OF THIS MORNING, THAT IS NOT THE CASE WE ARE UNDERSTANDING. AND THE CITY IS NOT ONLY -- THE CITY IS NOT ONLY NOT HELPING UNTIL THE FUNDING OF THAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION, THEY ALSO, OF COURSE, ADDED THIS DEVELOPMENT CONDITION INTO THE PD ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO.

IN ALL, IT IS LIKE AN 8 MILLION-DOLLAR SWING.

IT IS ROUGHLY $6 MILLION FOR A TEN THOUSAND LINEAR FOOT ROAD AND TWO MILLION DOLLAR ADD FOR THIS FOUR LANE THOUSAND FOOT SECTION OF ROAD ALL OFF OUR PROPERTY AND IT IS JUST -- SIMILAR THING HAPPENED TO US IN THE SOUTH PROJECT WHERE $7 MILLION OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES WERE ADDED TO THE PROJECT THAT WE HAD TO COME UP WITH THE FUNDS TO SUPPORT. IT ENDED UP BEING A 25 MILLION-DOLLAR PROJECT JUST FOR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THAT HERE.

AND SO I WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW HOW WE FELT ABOUT THAT.

I THINK LAST PIECE IS THAT THAT ONE THOUSAND LINEAR FOOT SECTION, I LEARNED THIS MORNING THAT THERE IS IMPACT FEES AVAILABLE FOR CREDITING THERE. I, AGAIN, I JUST ASK HOW DOES THIS ONE THOUSAND LINEAR FOOT SECTION BENEFIT OUR DEVELOPMENT? WE DON'T BELIEVE IT DOES. AND WE THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO -- IF THERE IS IMPACT CREDITS AVAILABLE, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO QUOTE/UNQUOTE SPEND THAT MONEY KNOWING THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE LAST GO AROUND AT P&Z, THE CONDITION OF GIFCO ROAD WAS THE CONCERN NOT NECESSARILY THE QUANTITY OF LANES.

I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >> THE IMPROVED TIA, CAN YOU GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC OUT OF THIS FACILITY?

>> YEAH. SO LAST TIME YOU GUYS LOOKED INTO THIS, WE CAME TO YOU GUYS WITH A TIA THAT WAS BASED ON A WAREHOUSING USE. WHICH IS WHAT WE DID ON THE SOUTH PROJECT. OF COURSE, IN THIS CASE, WE REALLY SAT DOWN WITH STAFF AND WERE ON THE SAME PAGE, HEY, YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING USES HERE THAT OUR TIA DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR. MANUFACTURING HAS MORE TRAFFIC.

ALTHOUGH IT IS BETTER TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUCK TRAFFIC, IT IS EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC.

WE DID AGREE THAT THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC HERE THAT'S GENERATED BY MANUFACTURING USE AND BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE ESSENTIALLY RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT BASED ON APPROVING ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING USES, WE THOUGHT IT WAS BESS AND REALLY IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST TO REALLY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF

[01:15:04]

COLBY MENTIONED -- THIS IS -- I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON TIA.

I LIS ALSO WANTED TO, BEFORE I FORGET, THERE WAS A -- ON THAT ITEM O CONSTRUCTION CERTAIN ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, COLBY HAD A SUBSECTION UP HERE TALKING ABOUT REALIGNED PORTIONS OF GIFCO ROAD LOCATED ON AND CROSSING THE PROPERTY. I WANT TO MAKE A POINT THAT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IF WE WERE TO BUILD A BRIDGE, THAT BRIDGE IS EXEMPT FROM COMPLIANCE AND

THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. >> OKAY.

NUMBERS, FROM THE TIA, I WAS MORE INTERESTED, DID YOU COME

WITH HIGHER NUMBERS YOU SAID? >> DEFINITELY HIGHER NUMBERS.

>> AND WHAT WERE THEY? >> I CAN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. STAFF HAS THAT TIA.

WHAT WAS WARRANTED IS THE RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE, WHICH WE

ARE AGREEABLE TO CONSTRUCTING. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND STAYING UP

HERE. >> YES, SIR, BASED ON THE UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS DONE AND PRESENTED

BEFORE THIS P&Z, UPDATED ONE. >> IT IS NOT NOT NEW.

>> IT IS NOT. ROUGHLY TEN THOUSAND VEHICLES A

DAY. >> TEN THOUSAND.

ON THE RIGHT TURN LANE, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE OFF OF THE SERVICE ROAD ON TO GIFCO ROAD? JUST OFF THE GIFCO ROAD ONTO THE SERVICE ROAD?

>> RIGHT. NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE PEAK TURNING MOVEMENTS, TXDOT HAS 50 VEHICLE THRESHOLD.

I DIDN'T GO TO TXDOT, STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING THAT THERE WAS A RIGHT TURN DECEL LANE. 67 ALONG WITH AN ACCELERATION LANE ON TO 67, ACCESS ROAD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE PLACED WITHIN THE STAFF MEMO BASED ON

LOOKING AT THE TIA. >> OKAY.

>> JUST REAL QUICK, TO LOOK AT, THE ISSUE YOU HAVE WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THIS TYPE OF USE, REALLY ANY TYPE OF USE, THE ROAD ITSELF TYPICALLY CAN HANDLE -- TWO LANE ROAD CAN CARRY QUITE A BIT OF TRAFFIC.

INTERSECTIONS IS WHERE YOU START GETTING YOUR SAFETY, MOBILITY.

THAT'S WHY STAFF HAD LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, TRUCKS ON GIFCO ROAD, FORGET THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD, FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT, SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE UNTIL YOU GET TO 67 WHERE YOU HAVE A CONTROLLED INTERSECTION AND YOU HAVE THE CROSS TRAFFIC AS WELL. THAT'S WHY STAFF WAS LOOKING AT THAT THOUSAND FOOT. SO YOU CAN'T GO STRAIGHT OR YOU CAN'T GO RIGHT OR VEHICLES COMING IN HAVE THE ABILITY, THAT VEHICLES THAT ARE COMING SOUTHBOUND OR COMING THROUGH ACROSS THE BRIDGE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THOSE TWO LANES AND THEN THEY WILL TRANSITION INTO A SINGLE LANE GOING FARTHER AWAY FROM THAT INTERSECTION. SO THAT WAS STAFF'S LOGIC IN REGARDS TO WHY THAT THOUSAND FOOT WAS BEING RECOMMENDED.

>> SO CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WAS THERE NOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR A RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE OFF OF GIFCO ROAD ON TO SERVICE LANE?

>> YES, 325-FOOT. >> SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT

WIDENING THE ROAD AT THAT POINT. >> AT THAT INTERSECTION, YES,

SIR. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE CLYDE, IF YOU CAN BE MAKING YOUR WAY UP HERE, I'M AFRAID I WILL HAVE TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. MIKE, WHILE I HAVE GOT YOU HERE, JUST SO I'M GETTING MY BRAIN WRAPPED AROUND THIS, IS THIS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD A THOROUGHFARE COMING IN THE BACK SIDE OF IT OR DEAD HEADED INTO IT.

>> YOU HAVE GIFCO ROAD WHICH IS ON THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS A MAJOR COLLECTOR, SO 80-FOOT RIGHT AWAY BUT ALSO QUARRY ROAD, MAJOR

ARTERIAL. >> BUT THAT ROAD FLOWS OUT OF THE BACK SIDE OF RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT?

[01:20:03]

>> DLTHERE'S SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

I'M STILL WRAPPING -- >> LITTLE BIT FARTHER BACK TO

THE WEST, SOUTHWEST. >> I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND THIS. BECAUSE OF WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS COULD BECOME. THIS COULD BECOME AN ORDER OF A SECOND WARD ROAD IN A WAY, AND IT IS HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION I BELIEVE NOW. WHY WE WOULD EVER WANT TO INTERJECT RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC INTO THIS TYPE OF ZONE? THAT IS IN ESSENCE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR AM I WRONG.

>> YOU WILL HAVE THAT ABILITY. >> SO WOULD WE INTERJECT RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC ON TO WARD ROAD? THIS IS ALMOST AS BAD. IT IS NOT BAD, BUT IT IS HIGH

IMPACT, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. >> AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE -- LET'S GO BACK TO THE WARD ROAD QUESTION, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC, BOTH DIRECTIONS.

THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAD TALKED ABOUT FROM A CONCERN WITH THAT USE BACK IN THE DAY. YOU HAVE TRUCK TRAFFIC MIXING ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL NOW IN MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.

>> OKAY. I GUESS MY QUESTION, I WILL TELL YOU A QUICK STORY ABOUT ME AND MY BUSINESS.

I REMEMBER WHEN I TRIED TO BUY A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY AROUND TOWN HERE, THEY HAD AN ORDINANCE THAT SAID IF I BOUGHT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY I WOULD HAVE TO BRING WATER TO IT.

I DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING OF IT. SO WHEN I GOT TO DIGGING -- THIS WAS BACK IN THE LATE '80S, I GOT TO DIGGING INTO IT, IT WAS GOING TO COST ME $78,000 TO GET THE WATER LINE TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY I WAS TRYING TO BUY. AND I KIND OF IN A WAY FEEL LIKE I'M LISTENING TO THE SAME THING IN A WAY.

HOW LONG -- WE TOOK NORTH TEXAS CEMENT INTO THE CITY A WHILE BACK. 20 YEARS.

TAX VALUE, ABOUT 11 MILLION THIS YEAR.

SO THIS ISN'T REALLY PRODDED AT YOU, BUT I FEEL LIKE THESE FOLKS ARE LIKE I WAS, COMING IN AFTER THE GAME.

THE CEMENT PLANT HAS BEEN ROLLING UP THAT ROAD FOR DECADES. THEY HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE '50S. WE HAVEN'T, OF COURSE, INTERNALIZED THEM INTO THE CITY. SO AS A FELLOW BUSINESS OWNER THAT GOT SLAPPED UP SIDE THE HEAD WITH ONE OF THESE LEFT CURVE BALLS, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT IT IS LIKE HAVING AN 8 MILLION-DOLLAR UPPER HOOK THROWN AT YOU IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE DEAL. WHAT HAVE WE DONE WITH THE MONEY COMING INTO THE CITY AND WHY -- I WILL TAKE UP FOR THEM A LITTLE

BIT. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> WHY WOULD THEY BE PAYING FOR -- I UNDERSTAND THERE'S AN ADDED IMPACT THAT -- I GET ALL THAT.

BUT 8 MILLION-DOLLAR INJECTION WHEN WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING MONEY FROM YEARS FROM GIFCO, THEY ARE THE MAIN INTRUDER THERE CAUSING ALL THOSE ISSUES OF THE BREAKDOWN AND THE NEEDS.

THEY ARE GOING TO BE USING THIS AS MUCH OR MORE THAN THEY WILL.

I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE REASONING BEHIND WHY THEY ARE GETTING HIT

WITH ALL THIS. >> GOOD POINTS, VERY GOOD POINTS. I DO WANT TO SAY AT THE LAST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT, TO I IMPROVE GIFO ROAD. TO GET THOSE FORELANES.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING, RATHER THAN THEM REDO THE ENTIRE GIFCO ROAD, REALLY IMPROVE THAT INTER INTERSECTION.

THEY ARE PUTTING MORE TRAFFIC ON THERE.

>> IS THAT AN 8 MILLION-DOLLAR QUESTION?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE COST. >> HERE'S WHERE I AM AT.

I JUST WANT TO STRESS BACK, I'M GOING INTO THE MID 2000S, WHAT WE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT WAS OUR TAX BASE, A WONDERFUL BENEFIT, OUR INDUSTRIAL BASE. WE ALMOST LOST OUR AAA RATING BECAUSE OF THAT. AND I HAVE ALWAYS HOPED WE COULD GET TO A POINT TO WHERE THAT THIS INDUSTRIAL BASE, WHICH IS THIS IS JUST MORE OF IT, THEY COULD BE ABSORBING THE MAJORITY OF OUR TAX NEEDS AND ME, THE PROPERTY OWNER, MY TAX RATES GO

DOWN. >> THAT IS GREAT.

ABOUT YOU WE ARE LOOKING AT USE HERE.

SO THE OVERALL TAX IMPLICATIONS I THINK LENDS THEMSELF MORE TO

COUNCIL. >> I'M BRINGING THAT INTO THE SUBJECT MATTER, I GET CONCERNED IF I FEEL LIKE I MADE IT HARD

[01:25:01]

WHEN WE DO THAT, IT JUST CONTINUES TO MAKE MY LIFE HARDER AND MY TAXES HIGHER. THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THAT UP.

>> IS THERE ANY -- I MEAN, ANYTHING YOU NEED FROM ME?

IS THERE A QUESTION IN. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT -- I GUESS I HAVE BEEN A -- I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AS FAR AS WIDENING BUT I JUST WANTED UP HERE SO THAT I COULD KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHERE ALL THOSE TAX DOLLARS COME FROM WE HAVE BEEN

TAKING IN FROM GIFCO. >> RIGHT.

>> WE HAVE NEVER -- THE REASON I KNOW, I HAVE LEASE LAND OUT THERE. I HAVE BEEN BOUNCING DOWN THAT ROAD FOR 20 YEARS. WE HAVE DONE LITTLE OF NOTHING OUT THERE. SO MY MAIN QUESTION WAS, WHERE

HAS ALL THAT MONEY GONE? >> WHAT WE DO, WE LOOK AT THE SYSTEM WIDE. MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY, GOOD EXAMPLE THAT MIKE WAS TALKING ABOUT, WE HAVE IMPROVED THAT.

WE BUILT THAT. THAT HELPS THE CEMENT FACTORY UP THERE. UP IT WILL HELP THIS GROUP.

>> THAT'S THE REASON I ASKED, THE CITY IS FIXING TO MAKE GOOD IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ANNEXED FOR DRAINAGE.

OOSUSUALLY WHEN YA'LL GO TO TAKE SOMEBODY IN LIKE THAT, YOU PROVIDE SOME SERVICE. THE ONLY TRUE SERVICE YOU COULD GIVE TO GIFCO WOULD BE A ROAD. I'M WONDERING, NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED SO WHERE HAVE ALL THOSE DOLLARS GOING? IF WE START THROWING IT ON THESE GUYS, WHERE ARE ALL THOSE

DOLLARS GOING? >> THAT WAS SLATED TO BE REDONE THIS YEAR, GIFCO WAS, WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT COMING, WE DECIDED IT WASN'T A GOOD TIME TO TOTALLY REDO THAT ROAD.

NOT MAKING EXCUSES. THAT IS ON OUR SCHEDULE TO BE REPAIRED AND REDONE. SO IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

BUT WITH THIS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMING IN, WE DON'T WANT TO IMPROVE THE ROAD, THEN HAVE IT TORN OUT BY THE

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. >> I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN USE SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS TO HELP THEM A LITTLE BIT SO I CAN GET MY HANDS ON THEIR TAX DOLLARS TO HELP ME.

>> YOU BET. REALLY WHAT MATT SAID, THERE ARE IMPACT FEES BUT A LIMIT TO THOSE IMPACT FEES.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO LEVERAGE THOSE IMPACT FEES, THE ONES THEY WOULD PROVIDE WITH US WITH THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS.

>> GO BACK ON THEIR TAX ABATEMENT, I CAN GET THEIR TAX

DOLLARS. >> YOU CAN TALK TO YOUR COUNCIL

MEMBER ABOUT THAT. >> FOR CLYDE, WHAT WERE THE PROTECTED IMPROVEMENTS FOR GIFCO.

JUST REDO MILL IT AND OVERLAY IT.

NO ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. I THINK SO, THE MAJORITY OF THE ROAD IS OKAY FOR ASH GROVE. ROAD.A LOT IS OKAY TO AN EXTENTT THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL TIAS TO COME IN WITH DIFFERENT KIND OF LAND USES.

TTION TIT IS THE CONCERN OF INTERSECTION 67 AND GIFCO.

>> REFRESH MY MEMORY, WHEN GIFCO GETS DOWN TO THE PROPERTY, DID IT CUT THROUGH THE CORNER OF THAT OR GO AROUND?

>> RIGHT NOW, GOES AROUND BUT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, THEY ARE PROPOSING A BRIDGE TO GO OVER THE RAILROAD TRACK INTO THEIR DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER LARGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON PROVIDING FOR THEIR

PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

YOU ARE STATING THAT THE ROAD IS IN GOOD ENOUGH CONDITION, IS THAT AFTER THE OVERLAY OR CURRENTLY GOING TO WORK THE WAY

IT IS TODAY? >> THAT'S -- I CAN'T ANSWER

THAT. >> THE ONLY REASON I AM ASKING

-- >> I THINK IT IS WORKING FINE FOR GIFCO. YOU DO BOUNCE UP AND DOWN.

BUT THEY HAVE IMPROVED UP IN FRONT OF THEIR SITE, GIFCO.

THE CONDITION IS NOT FANTASTIC. >> I'M THINKING IN MY MIND, IF WE PUT THAT MUCH MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD, IT IS NOT JUST A LITTLE -- THAT ROAD IS IN BAD SHAPE.

>> YEAH. TALKING TO MIKE, IT HAS A REALLY GOOD BASE AND VERY COMPACT. WE HAVE TO FURTHER STUDY THAT.

NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL PUT A TWO-INCH OVERLAY ON ASPHALT ON AND WALK AWAY FROM IT. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE FURTHER STUDIES. WE THOUGHT IT WISE, IF THEY IMPROVE THE TOP THOUSAND FEET, EASTERN THOUSAND FEET OF GIFCO CLOSE TO 67. THEN US LOOK AT THE REST OF THAT

ROO.D. >> I'M TRYING TO SEE IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TAX DOLLARS FIXING BETWEEN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND

GIFCO. >> I BELIEVE SO.

AND, I MEAN, LIKE MATT SAID, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR IMPACT FEES ARE GOING TO BE FOR THE BUILDINGS OUT THERE.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THAT WILL HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THE MAINTENANCE. WE CAN'T USE IMPACT FEES FOR

[01:30:02]

>> YES. >> SO I JUST -- I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY THIS DEVELOPMENT MADE STAFF NOT WANT TO SERVICE THIS ROAD NOW? I W THINK THAT IF A NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES UP, THEY WOULD WANT TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE, NOT WAIT UNTIL -- I MEAN, AGAINST DEVELOPERS GET STUCK WITH THE

BILL. >> IF ANYBODY LOOKS AT WHAT HILLWOOD IS DOING DOWN SOUTH TO THE VARIOUS ROADS, WE HAVE SEEN WHAT O OLD FORT WORTH. REALLY, IT IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITIES OUT THERE, CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE, CONSTRUCTION OF ALL THE CON TREAT TCONCRETE.

WE DON'T WANT TO PUT IT DOWN THERE BEFORE THEY CONSTRUCT IT.

I'M NOT SAYING AFTER THEY ARE THERE, WE WILL NOT DO IT.

IT IS THE IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD, WE DO ALL THE TIME. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL THE CORNER OF MOCKINGBIRD AND MOCKINGBIRD, FAR EAST MOCKINGBIRD, WE WILL DO THAT.

BUT THEN WIND RIDGE CAME IN, ANOTHER SUBDIVISION, JK EXCAVATION NORTH ON MOCKINGBIRD. WE THOUGHTS IT WAS A BAD TIME TO REDO MOCKINGBIRD BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION.

WHEN WE KNOW A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS COMING IN, WE DON'T

PUT A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION DOWN. >> THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

IT LEAVES ME TO THINKING ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT THE PROPOSAL WAS FROM THE CITY OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS UNTIL THIS MORNING.

WAS THAT WE WOULD CONSTRUCT GIFCO ROAD, TEN THOUSAND LINEAR FEET AND THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE US FOR THOSE COSTS.

>> THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THOSE ARE FUNDS BEING SPENT BEYOND IMPACT FEES.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL.

WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT AT THIS POINT.

>> SO ONE LAST POINT THERE. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF STAFF. IT HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF STAFF FOR THREE WEEKS. AND IT WOULD BE IN A CONDITION THAT WOULD BE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL WITH THIS ZONING CASE NEXT MONTH THAT ADDRESSES THAT GIFCO ROAD WHICH I MISTAKENLY

THOUGHT WAS THE GOAL HERE. >> THANK YOU.

>> COLBY, COULD YOU COME BACK UP.

>> CAN YOU REFRESH US ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY, WHERE THAT STANDS.

IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR, NEXT FOUR YEARS? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? I KNOW WE DISCUSSED RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST OF THAT.

>> ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT WINDSOR HILLS POSSIBLY?

>> JUST TO THE WEST. WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE.

IT WAS TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE BECAUSE WE WERE DISCUSSING RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC COMING BACK PAST THAT.

>> YES, SIR. I BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE REFERENCING IS WINDSOR HILLS. THAT'S A LARGE SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT GOES -- IT IS WEST OF HERE -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A LOCATION MAP. WEST OF HERE.

IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO PIDERA LAKE.

UP CLOSE, WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THIS WESTERN AGE.

ANYBODY DISPUTE THAT? SO ABOUT A THOUSAND FEET TO THE

WESTERN EDGE. >> AND THE TRAFFIC FROM THAT

WILL COME OUT. >> ON THOROUGHFARE PLAN, MIKE, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, GIFCO IS A THOROUGHFARE THAT WRAPS AROUND AND CONNECTS TO 287 AROUND THE PIDERA LAKE AREA.

ALMOST -- I CALL IT THE WESTERN LOOP OF MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.

KIND OF KEEPS ON GOING AROUND. IT WILL PROVIDE JUST ACCESS

BETWEEN 67 AND HIGHWAY 287. >> IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE TRAFFIC WAS GOING TO COME OUT GIFCO ROAD. THE ROAD WOULD GO ON OUT TO 287 EVENTUALLY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE REMEMBER THAT.

>> THE RESIDENTIAL, I BELIEVE, RIGHT NOW, THE PREMISE IS THAT IT STARTS AT 287 AND GOES IN. NOT THE OPPOSITE.

I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, STARTS AT GIFCO AND GOES TO THE WEST. I THINK THE WAY THEY ARE PROPOSING IS IT BEGINS AT 287 AND MOVES TO THE NORTHEAST.

>> SO THE INITIAL TRAFFIC IS GOING TO GO ON TO 287 AND NOT

GIFCO ROAD. >> CORRECT.

>> FROM WHAT -- WE HAVE TO PLAT. WE HAVE JUST DISCUSSIONS WITH DEVELOPERS AT THIS POINT. BUT THAT'S THE LAST DISCUSSION

WE HAVE HAD. >> DO WOULD HE HAVE THAT ROAD ON

[01:35:03]

>> I THINK WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING IS GOING NORTH.

WINDSOR HELLS, HILLS, WAY TO TH. >> DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT ROAD, THAT THOROUGHFARE THAT IS DUMPING OUT TO GIFCO?

>> WINDSOR HILLS? I'M NOT SURE.

I KNOW THAT IS ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT.

THAT IS THE MODE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT SECTOR.

>> THAT WAS A MAJOR CONCERN LAST TIME, ALL THAT TRAFFIC COMING BACK IN FROM GRAND PRAIRIE TO 67.

>> THIS BOTTOM, ONCE THE ROAD WILL GET FIXED, THIS COULD LITERALLY TURN INTO YOUR WARD ROAD.

ALL THAT WHOLE -- YOU HAVE GOT THE ROCK PLANT ON THE BOTTOM.

IF THE BRIDGE IS DONE TO GET OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS, THAT WHOLE THING CAN BUST OPEN TO ALL THIS.

>> SO IF YOU SEE -- HERE'S GIFCO ROAD.

CAN EVERYBODY SEE THAT OR UNDERSTAND IT.

SCOTT, YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT.

YOU CAN SEE -- IT COMES OUT HERE.

SO THERE WILL BE A BRIDGE HERE. EVENTUALLY IT WILL LINE UP AND CONNECT INTO THIS AREA. WINDSOR HILLS IS GOING TO BE OVER HERE. SO YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER CONNECTOR, MIKE, WHENEVER THAT IS BUILT AS WELL.

>> I SEE MORE OF THE REASONING BEHIND IT NOW BECAUSE IT HAS GOO

GIFCO AND STOPPING. >> KNOWS.

>> IT HAS LOOP. MAKES MORE SENSE.

>> SORRY, IF I COULDN'T EXPLAIN THAT.

>> I HAVE GIFCO BEING THE GREEN. WHERE DOES IT GO BACK TO GET NORTH WHERE IT CROSSES AND CONNECTED BACK IN? IF YOU FOLLOW IT ALL THE WAY TO THE LEFT.

>> GREEN BEING GIFCO, NOW GO UP. >> UP HERE IS -- THAT'S KIND OF A PRIVATE ROAD OR QUASI PRIVATE. THAT IS GIFCO ROAD.

THERE'S A GATE OUT HERE, I THINK, SOMEWHERE, THAT BLOCKS IT

OFF. >> I THOUGHT ALL THAT WAS GOING

TO BE TURNED INTO RESIDENTIAL. >> THAT IS GR GRAND PRAIRIE.

ON FUTURE LAND USE, THAT IS RESIDENTIAL.

>> THAT WOULD BE A DIRECT ACCESS INTO GIFCO AT THAT POINT.

>> AND ACTUALLY, I THINK THEY WOULD HEAD NORTH PRETTY QUICK.

THAT'S OFF THE MAP. >> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER

MAP. >> IS THIS THE MAP YOU ARE

THINKING ABOUT? >> YES, QUARRY ROAD IS A GRAVEL

ROAD, CURRENTLY. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND FIRM, THEY WERE GOING TO IMPROVE THE LEN LENGTH OF THEIR

PROPERTY. >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> CARRYING TRAFFIC OUT QUARRY ROAD TO PROBABLY REQUIRE A TOTAL REBUILD OF THAT ROAD PLUS GOING OUT TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

>> IT WOULD BE GOING TO RESIDENTIAL AREA, YES.

>> THAT IS NOT A VIABILITY SOLUTION TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC OFF

GIFCO ROAD. >> IT WOULD BE FOR EMERGENCY

VEHICLES. >> IT IS GATED?

>> IT IS GATED BUT FIRE DOES HAVE ACCESS RIGHT NOW.

>> SO THERE WON'T BE ANY WAY THAT HEAVY TRUCKS CAN MAKE IT.

>> I WOULD SAY NO BUT EVERYBODY DISPUTES WHAT I SAY BECAUSE OF THE -- WHAT GOES ON DOWN THERE IS THE GAS WELLS TRUCKS THAT ARE

MAINTAINING IT. >> I MEAN, THE ACTIVITY WITHIN ALL THE SUDDEN CEMENT TRUCKERS LEARN THAT --

>> NO, SIR, I WOULDN'T THINK SO. >> ANYBODY STAND UP WHENEVER.

>> I GUESS THE SAME THING BOTHERS ME THAT BOTHERED ME BEFORE, WE ADDING TEN THOUSAND VEHICLES TO THIS.

WE HAVE GIFCO THERE, HANSON WHICH IS TRUCK TRAFFIC ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD. NOW WE ARE ADDING TEN THOUSAND VEHICLES. BRIDGE GOING OVER 67 IS A TWO-LANE BRIDGE. IT WILL HOLD THREE TRUCKS.

I HAVE BEEN UP THERE AND WATCHED.

IT WILL HOLD THREE TRUCKS AT WONETIME.

THAT IS GOING TO DIVERT TRUCKS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SIT THERE FOR 30 MINUTES TRYING TO GET ACROSS THAT BRIDGE.

THEY WILL COME DOWN SOUTH TO THE NEXT DOVE LANE AND GO UNDER AND

[01:40:06]

YOU HAVE THE INTERSECTION, CREATING A HUGE PROBLEM IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. THE OTHER THING IS, I AGREE WITH A MIKE, GIFCO ROAD IS AN ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE SHAPE AND YOU START ADDING TEN THOUSAND MORE VEHICLES ON THAT THING, I DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO LAST VERY LONG UNTIL SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. I THINK WE ARE CREATING SOME

REAL ISSUES HERE. >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I BROUGHT UP TAX BASE. MY CONCERN IS IF WE DON'T MAKE A POSITIVE MOVE AS A CITY -- THIS IS REALLY NONE OF THIS PERSON'S PROBLEM, IT WORRIES ME IF WE DON'T GET SOMETHING DONE WITH THAT ROAD, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CONTINUE TO ENTERTAIN ADDITIONAL TACK BASE WHICH I DEFINITELY LIKE SEEING COME INTO THIS CITY.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT MANY VEHICLES.

AND WE DID ENTERTAIN THIS BEFORE BUT WE WERE WAITING ON THE TIA THEN, WEREN'T WE? SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THE TIA.

>> I THINK YOU HAD IT AT THAT POINT.

>> I WASN'T UNDER THAT IMPRESSION.

>> I JUST HAD IN MY MIND THAT WE HAD SOME PRELIMINARY NUMBERS BUT

WE WERE WAITING ON A FINAL TIA. >> SO THEY DID A TIA IN FEB FEBRUARY. THIS CAME OUT IN MARCH.

>> I GUESS IT REALLY -- >> FEBRUARY 9TH, 2002, THEY DID THE UPDATED TIA AND THE MEETING WAS AFTER THAT.

WE DID AN UPDATED MEMO, SHOW THAT BASED ON THAT THE NUMBERS CHANGED. HERE'S WHAT MANUFACTURING DID.

>> I BELIEVE YOU ARE RIGHT BUT I THINK A MEMO CAME AFTER THE P&Z.

STAFF HAD PROCESSED THE TIA UNTIL AFTER.

>> YOU GOT IT. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FINISHED

PRODUCT. >> YOU GUYS HADN'T SEEN IT YET.

STAFF PROCESSED IT AFTER THE YOU MADE A DECISION LAST TIME.

>> WHAT HAS ME CONCERNED, I CAN'T -- I DRIVE THE ROAD.

THAT ROAD CAN'T SUPPORT TEN THOUSAND MORE VEHICLES.

I DON'T KNOW, UNLESS WE HAVE A PLAN THAT THAT ROAD IS GOING TO GET IMPROVED, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ADVANCE ANY MORE INDUSTRIAL TAX BASE DOWN IN THAT BOTTOM. I HAVE GOT A FEELING THAT WHEN THIS ONE HAPPENS, AND ESPECIALLI BROUGHT UP THE BRIDGE GOES IN, THERE'S MORE STUFF TO GO ON DOWN IN THERE.

GIFCO OWNS THIS CERTAIN SIDE OF GIFCO ROAD MOST OF THE WAY UP.

I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A NEED FOR MORE OF THAT

DOWN IN THERE. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND ME SAYING ONE THING, WE LOOK AT YOU GUYS HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR LAND LIKE YOU GUYS, IT IS A NATURAL BUFFER BETWEEN WHATEVER STAFF HAS PLANNED SOUTHWEST OF US IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT ASH GROVE DOES. IT IS QUARRY, THAT'S WHAT THIS LAND USE CALLS FOR. I HOPE WE ARE LAND USE YOU LIKE MORE THAN ANOTHER QUARRY. WE THINK -- BECAUSE THERE IS A ZONING CASE, IT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE LAND.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE THAT REALLY CAN REFUTE THAT.

>> I THINK, AS MIKE SAID, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYBODY SITTING UP HERE THAT WOULDN'T WELCOME YOU GUYS TO THIS COMMUNITY. BUT I'M JUST AN OLD COUNTRY BOY BUT, TO ME, THE LOGICAL WAY TO MOVE FORWARD, IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS, YOU FIX THE PROBLEMS FIRST.

AND THEN YOU DO YOUR PROJECT. NOT DO THE PROJECT AND FIX THE PROBLEMS. AND THAT'S WHERE MY CONCERN LIES. WE LOVE YOU GUYS.

LOVE TO HAVE YOU HERE. I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES

THAT HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. >> SO OUR BUSINESS WORKS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. WE WON'T HAVE TENANTS IF TENANTS COME INTO THE CITY AND THINK THIS ROAD IS NOT IN GOOD CONDITION. WE ARE BETTING ON TENANTS WILL COME INTO THE CITY AND MAYBE THEN, THERE WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS OF SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE. WE CAN'T MAKE THAT AS A

[01:45:02]

>> I GUESS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE DEALT WITH BUFFALO HILLS OVER HERE AND WE APPROVED THE FURNITURE WAREHOUSE, BUT WE KNEW THAT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NEW SUBDIVISION IS, IS THAT WINDSOR HILLS? WEST SIDE VILLAGE, WE KNEW THAT THE ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE WAS ALREADY IN PLACE TO HAPPEN THAT COINCIDED WITH THAT BUILDING.

THE PROBLEM IS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR AND I DON'T KNOW -- I MEAN, GIFCO OWNS BOTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. SO GIFCO IS NOT GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING TAX DOLLARS.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GET THIS DONE UNLESS THE CITY -- I GET SOME SORT OF -- SOME TYPE OF BOND PACKAGE OR SOMETHING MOVING

FORWARD. >> AUSTIN REYNOLDS, ALSO WITH HILLWOOD, DALLAS, TEXAS. MY QUESTION IS, MAYBE ADDING A LITTLE MORE COLOR, THE QUARRY GUYS ARE IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT. WE MET WITH THE ATTORNEY THAT OWNS THE RANCH TO THE WEST OF US.

HE SEEMS TO BE IN SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT.

WE THINK WE WILL HAVE LETTERS OF APPROVAL FROM BOTH OF THEM BEFORE WE GO TO CITY COUNCIL, IF WE MAKE IT THAT FAR.

BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, TO FIX THE PROBLEM, HOW DO YOU GUYS ENVISION THAT FIXING THAT MAKES YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD? IS IT JUST THE IMPROVEMENT OF GIFCO ROAD? MEANING, IMPROVING THOSE TWO LANES? WHERE WE ARE MOST ANCHORED TO IS THE IMPROVED OF FOUR LANES, A THOUSAND FEET.

RIGHT HERE. SO BASICALLY, A THOUSAND FEET IS FROM HERE TO, CALL IT, THERE. MAYBE HERE.

SO FOUR LANES HERE AND THEN IT GOES DOWN TO TWO LANES FROM HERE ALL THE WAY TO THE BRIDGE. THERE IS A LIGHT, TRAFFIC LIGHT HERE AND HERE THAT GOVERNS THAT TRAFFIC GOING NORTH AND SOUTH ON TO HIGHWAY 67. AND SO I GUESS IN OUR MIND, WE ARE THINKING OF THIS FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT AND FROM A FUNCTIONALITY STANDPOINT, DON'T SEE HOW FOUR LANES FUNNELING DOWN TO TWO OR TWO BECOMING FOUR DOES ANYTHING TO THIS INTERSECTION BECAUSE IF I RECALL FROM THE LAST MEETING, THE REASON CONCERN WAS THE COMMUTERS COMING FROM HERE NORTH UP.

WHERE THE TRAFFIC IF THERE IS ANY IS BACKED UP ON GIFCO ROAD UNAFFECTED BY THESE FOLKS. SO I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING, IF WE ARE WILLING TO IMPROVE GIFCO ROAD TWO LANES, DOES THAT FIX

ANYTHING? >> A COMBO PROBLEM THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN, AND I'M IN AGREEMENT, IT IS NOT ONLY THE QUALITY OF GIFCO ROAD. BECAUSE WE ARE ADDING ALL THESE VEHICLES, IT IS ALSO THE BIGGER PROBLEM IS WHEN THEY GET TO THE LIGHT, HOW DO WE GET THEM ALL OUT OF THERE? THAT'S THE BIG -- THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

THE ROAD IS DEFINITELY RIGHT UNDER IT.

>> THIS MAP IS GREAT. LIKE I SAID, WITH THAT KIND OF VALUE, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO -- TRUCKS ARE NOT -- THEY ARE GOING TO STACK UP WAY WAY DOWN THE ROAD IF THEY WAIT TO GET ACROSS. IF THEY WAIT TO GET ACROSS THE BRIDGE. THEY WILL COME DOWN TO DOVE LANE, UNDER THE BRING -- NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC, UNDER THE BRIDGE, BACK UP THE SERVICE ROAD WHICH IS GOING TO PICK UP THE TRAFFIC OFF THE MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY TO GET ON THE SERVICE ROAD TO GO NORTH ON 67. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT INTERSECTION AS WELL.

AT MINIMUM, RED LIGHTS. THERE IS NO WAY THAT IS GOING TO FUNCTION WITH STOP SIGNS. BUT THAT TO ME IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS MORE THAN THE ROAD. THE ROAD IS A PROBLEM.

BUT THAT BOTTLENECK AND WHAT THAT IS GOING TO CREATE IS GOING

TO BE A MESS. >> I DO THINK THAT THE TRAFFIC CAMPING OUT HERE SHOULD NOT BE PROBLEMATIC TO THE PEOPLE COMING UP THIS WAY. YOUR CONCERN IS THEY GO

ALTERNATE ROUTE HERE. >> THAT ROAD IS CLOSED .

>> THIS IS SHUT OFF. >> TURN LANE COMING OFF

[01:50:01]

>> RIGHT HERE. >> THAT TAKES THAT OFF.

NOW, THE PROBLEM IS THE NORTHBOUND SIDE, RIGHT? YOU HAVE A LIGHT THERE THAT IS GOING TO HANG UP TRAFFIC GOING NORTH TO TURN ONTO IT. SO THAT AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO LIGHTS AT MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.

THE TURN LANES HELP, IT ALLEVIATES SOME TRAFFIC.

BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF IT. >> I THINK THE TURN LANES HERE AND HERE ARE HUGELY IMPACTFUL, RIGHT, BECAUSE IT IMPACTS COMING DOWN HERE AND DOWN HERE. I JUST THINK -- AND I AM GOING TO BE A SLOW LEARNER, ASK MY WIFE, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE TRAFFIC BACKING UP HERE IS OUR OWN PROBLEM.

IT DOESN'T CAUSE AN IMPACT PROBLEM FOR ANYBODY ELSE.

YOU THINK SO? >>

>> RIGHT, BUT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF US.

>> MOST AFFECTED SEEM TO BE AMENABLE TO IT.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY AREN'T AFFECTED.

>> I DON'T KNOW THE EFFECT YET. ONCE THE BRIDGE IS STACKED UP, HOW MANY DRIVERS WILL CATCH ON TO HANG A RIGHT AND GO DOWN TO THE STOP THE A DOVE LANE. YOU START CREATING IT GOING ACROSS AND COMING DOWN AND LOOPING AND ALL THAT GOING ON TO GET BACK INTO THE NORTHBOUND PHASE TOGETHER.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IMPACT IS GOING TO BE ON ALL THE OTHER STUFF ESPECIALLY AT THE FOUR-WAY STOP AT DOVE LANE.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION. BEFORE WEERL WE WERE DEALING MY WITH TRUCK TRAFFIC. DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE, NOW THAT WE HAVE DONE THE MANUFACTURING, IS THAT MAINLY CARS? IS THAT HALF AND HALF?

>> NOT A PERCENTAGE BREAKOUT. THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAD, WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION ON MORE TRUCKS, CARS, 95% CARS, 95% TRUCKS. WE DON'T KNOW.

THE THING GOING BACK TO THE FOUR-LANE SECTION, SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOING A FOUR-LANE SECTION HERE, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE YOUR FREE RIGHT TURN LANE. SOUTHERN LANE, 325 FEET THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD, YOU BUILD ANOTHER 675 FEET.

YOU DO GET CAPACITY. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT IS DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW. THE OTHER THING IS, THEY HAVE NOT AGREED TO DOING A SOUTHBOUND DECEL LANE, YOU HAD A FREE RATE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY FOR TRUCKS COMING THROUGH STUCK ON THE BRIDGE, THEY GET A GREEN, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY FOR VEHICLES TO POSSIBLE FULLY FREE FLOW HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO LANES, ONE LANE PICKS UP FREE RIGHT, THAT GIVES YOU A THOUSAND FEET TO MANEUVER AND TRANSITION BACK.

AGAIN, TWO LANES CAN CARRY A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

WHEN YOU START GETTING TO THE INTERSECTIONS IS WHEN YOU WANT TO START LOOKING AT DOING YOUR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDING LANES. THAT'S THE LOGIC.

>> I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH. BUT THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THEM

AGREEING TO PAY FOR IT. >> CORRECT.

>> I THINK AGAIN WHEN WE ORIGINALLY -- AND SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS I WASN'T ABLE TO BE PART OF.

I HAD SOME OTHER COMMITMENTS. BUT IN REGARDS TO DOING THE IMPROVEMENTS ON GIFCO ROAD, I THINK THE THOUGHT WAS THAT HILLWOOD HAD SAID, WE WILL DO THE IMPROVEMENTS BUT THE CITY WILL PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. SO AGAIN, THAT'S A TOUGH THING WHEN YOU HAVE 9,000, 10,000 FEET OF NEW ROADWAY TO BUILD WHEN YOU ALSO HAVE BOND PROJECTS, OTHER PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AS WELL. THAT BECAME, CITY CAN'T PAY A

HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THAT. >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DISAGREES THAT WE WANT THEM HERE.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY TONIGHT THAT DISAGREES WITH THAT.

I THINK OUR CONCERN, CERTAINLY ANYBODY CAN SPEAK UP, IS THERE'S SHORT OF THEM PAYING FOR IT, THERE'S NO PLAN IN FRONT OF US

TO ADDRESS IT ANY OTHER WAY. >> THERE'S NOBODY ELSE TO FOOT THE BILL BECAUSE GIFCO IS BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD ALL THE WAY UP WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SMALL QUADRANT.

>> THEY HAVE THAT, TOO. >> SO BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKE, HEY, WE HAVE BEEN PAYING TAXES FOR YEARS.

IT THROWS THE WHOLE BALL AND KETTLE ON THE FOLKS, KIND OF LIKE MY EXPLANATION OF THE WATER LINE FROM THE BEGINNING.

THAT'S WHY I USED THAT. THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT IF SOMEHOW WE DON'T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THIS

[01:55:02]

DOLLARS. >> GOING BACK, THERE'S SOME IMPROVED CONCRETE IN FRONT OF ASH GROVE.

WHEN HANSON CAME IN, THEY BUILT IT FROM THAT FACILITY.

YOU HAVE SOME SECTION THAT IS THERE.

AS CLYDE INDICATED, FOR THE CITY TO COME IN, AND YOU COULD DO AN OVERLAY THAT IF YOU ARE HAVING BASICALLY STRAIGHT TRAFFIC ON IT FOR THE MOST PART, THAT SHOULD HOLD UP.

BUT COMING IN AND DOING OVERLAY ON TOP OF THAT WITH A BASE MATERIAL THAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT HAS HAD HEAVY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT RUNNING ON IT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, SO IT IS PRETTY COMPACT. AGAIN, I THINK ON THAT, AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT HAVING HEAVY, HARD TURN MOVEMENTS, STRAIGHT SHOT, FOR THE MOST PART, THEY TYPICALLY SEEM TO HOLD UP PRETTY

WELL. >> WHEN IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO, WE ARE HERE TO VOTE ON WHETHER THIS WILL FIT.

AND COUNCIL CAN ONLY MAKE THESE DECISIONS ON HOW BONDS ARE GOING TO BE SPENT. WE HAVE VOICED OUR OPINION.

BUT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON. >> I THINK WE HAVE REHASHED EVERYTHING ABOUT FOUR, FIVE TIMES.

UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR COMMENTS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.

>> OKAY. >> IS THERE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR AYE.

PLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

>> THE COMMENT I MAKE TO THE APPLICANT IS AWARE, I'M SURE THEY ARE, WE ARE ADVISORY. SO IF SOMETHING WERE TO GO IN THE NO VOTE, THEN THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU STILL CAN'T GO TO COUNCIL. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IT IS FIXING TO GO. I DIDN'T WANT THEM THINKING -- I

WANTED THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK. COLBY, YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CERTAIN STIPULATIONS. CAN YOU REMIND ME.

>> YEAH. YES, SIR.

WE WERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL MANY ORIGINALLY IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING, WE KNOW THAT THAT MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN APPLICANT AND STAFF, BUT WE WERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PRIMARILY DUE TO THE DATA CENTER BEING SUP, KEY CHANGE.

THE TIA. BUT WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS AGREEMENT BETWEEN STAFF AND APPLICANT WITH THE FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.

SO HOWEVER OUR RECOMMENDATION IS PRIMARILY BASED ON INCLUDING THAT IN THERE AND, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT ISN'T WANTING ARE WILLING TO MEET THAT, THAT AFFECTS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

>> THAT'S THE FOUR-LANE THOUSAND FEET?

>> YES, SIR. >> AND THE RIGHT TURN LANE TO GIFCO, THAT'S ON THE SERVICE ROAD?

RIGHT ABOVE THAT? >> YES, SIR.

>> ONE SIDE THOUGH. THAT'S THE ACCELERATION LANE, RIGHT? DECEL LANE.

SO WE ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT, WE NEED AN ACCELERATION LANE ON THE OTHER SIDE. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? MOTION? NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION SINCE NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED SINCE LAST TIME, AND WE SEEM TO BE IN CONTENTION ABOUT WHO WANTS TO DO WHAT.

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

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION?

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

>> IT IS TOO LATE, BUT SINCE COUNCIL A LOT OF TIMES LIKES RECOMMENDATION ON DENIAL, DO WE OFFER ANY -- IT IS TOO LATE FOR THAT, CORRECT. WHAT IF WE DID THAT WITHIN THE INITIAL PROCEEDS OF THE DENIAL? THIS IS A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.

>> WHAT YOU ARE -- IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU CORRECTLY, WHICH BASICALLY ASKING FOR IS DO WE DO IT A DENIAL WITH SOME CONDITIONS THAT IF THEY MET, WE ARE APPROVAL.

NO. YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DENIAL. IT IS KIND OF -- IT IS WAY TOO CONFUSING AS FAR AS FINALITY OF THE REPORT.

>> OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON. STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY? ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A

MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT, ALL IN FAVOR

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.