Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum. ]

[00:00:14]

I'D LIKE TO BRING ORDER TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. REGULAR AGENDA.

CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THE PLANNING AND 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 THE CITY STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT THE COMMISSION

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

CANNOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA.

MOVING ON 002. STAFF REVIEW OF THE CASES THAT WERE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL IN THE LAST 60 DAYS.

>> GOOD EVENING, ALL RIGHT, I'LL RUN DOWN OUR CASES THAT WERE REVIEWED BY COUNCIL. THERE WAS ONLY ONE COUNCIL MEETING, THAT WAS THE DECEMBER 13TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO START WITH TOM TO BOTTOM, I'M GO DOWN.

SO THE FIRST ONE, HOLMES OWN DEVELOPMENT GOING TO BE INDUSTRIAL FOR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, THAT WAS APPROVED 4-0 BY COUNCIL. A LOT OF THESE WERE 4-0 OR SOME VERSION OF 3-1, THERE WERE ONLY FOUR MEMBERS AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. APPROVED THAT 4-0, ACTUALLY DENIED 2-2 BY COUNCIL BUT HOWEVER THAT WAS APPROVED 7-0 BY P ANDZ. SO FYI THAT APPLICANT IS PROBABLY GOING TO RESUBMIT AFTER TALKING TO STAFF SO WE'LL PROBABLY SEE THAT AGAIN HERE. THIRD, 1387, THAT WAS APPROVED 4-0 BY COUNCIL, THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED 7-0 BY P AND IS Z.

THREE CASES, ONE ZONING CHANGE, ONE WAS REZONING FROM R-3 ZONING TO COMMERCIAL AND THEN ALSO, THE SUP WAS TO ALLOW FOR THE INDOOR STORM USE. THAT WAS DENIED BY P AND Z 6-1 FOR BOTH BUT COUNCIL VOTED 4-0 TO APPROVE BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS, ZONE AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. GOING OVER TO THE NEXT PAGE HERE, 3831 PLANVIEW ROAD. AS YOU REMEMBER THE APPLICANT HAD HIS FATHER-IN-LAW ALONG WITH HIM TO REQUEST THE ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SF 1 AND SF 2 AND ALSO AT THE P AND Z MEETING WE DISCUSSED THE USES. COUNCIL VOTED 4-0 TO APPROVE.

THE BATTERY STORAGE, P AND Z VOTED TO PROVE AND COUNCIL VOTED 4-0 TO APPROVE. AND LASTLY MANY ADVANTAGE PD, THAT WAS THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THE MAIN TOPIC OF CONCERN WAS ACCESS AT THAT POINT.

THAT WAS DIDN'T BY P AND Z 7-0 AND ACTUALLY GOING INTO THAT COUNCIL MEETING, THEY WERE ABLE TO WORK OUT AN ACCESS ROTE WITH TEX D.O.T, HOWEVER, THEY DID DENY THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO WAIT THE REQUIRED SIX MONTHS TO COME BACK TO WE MAY SKI THEM IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO COMING BACK TO YOU GUYS. SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF CITY

COUNCIL RECAP THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> SHOULD I READ THROUGH ALL CONSENT AGENDAS?

>> YOU CAN IF YOU WANT. THERE IS FIVE.

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO PULL FROM

THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AND GOT A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 51.544± 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. (Z51-2022-198) REQUEST TO CONTINUE ]

MOVING ON TO ITEM 008. AND THE CONTINUED ONE I READ THE

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Subdivision Ordinance by amending Section 5.10 “Inspections”, Section 4.11 “Plat Submittals’ and Section 4.17 “Expiration of Plats”. Case No. (OZ06-2022-199). ]

WHOLE THING? 008 HAS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED SO WE WILL BE MOVING ON TO ITEM 009.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER TO ACT UPON AN ORIENTS

[00:05:02]

AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 5.10, INSPECTIONS, SECTION 4.11 PLAT SUBMITTALS AND SECTION 4.17 EXPIRATION OF PLATS. CASE NUMBER 0 Z 06-2022-199.

>> ALL RIGHT SO AGAIN OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR CASE NUMBER -- OR NUMBER 9 FOR CASE NUMBER OZ 06-2022-199 AND THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. SO ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE A FEW TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, AND THAT IS MORE SO TO HELP OUR PROCESS EFFICIENCY AND JUST TO CLEAR UP A FEW AREAS IF YOU WILL WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

SO THREE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AS YOU SEE GOING DOWN SECTION 4.11 FOR PLAT SUBMITTAL SECTION 4.17 FOR EXPIRATION OF PLATS AND 4.17 AND 5.10, WE REQUIRE PHYSICAL PAPER SUBMITTALS FOR NEW SUBMITTAL CYCLES.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING TO AMEND THE TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMITTALS INSTEAD OF PAPER DISMISSALS.

JUST TRYING TO STAY CURRENT WITH THE TIMES, THAT'S IT.

SECTION 4.17 EXPIRATION OF PLAT, LISTED AS 120 DAYS SO EVERYWHERE WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SAYS 90 DAYS.

HOWEVER WE CAUGHT THAT ONE ERROR AND SO WE WANT TO UPDATE THAT 20 DAYS -- I MEAN UPDATE FROM 1-20-90, FINAL PLAT, AMENDED PLAT OR MINOR PLAT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE COUNTY PLAT RECORDS SHALL EXPIRE WITHIN 90 DAYS, TO CORRECT THAT 120 FROM THE DAY OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND OR CITY COUNCIL. LASTLY WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN ONES WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, SECTION 5 MUCH 10 AND 4.14.

ALLOWS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAT BUTTER NOT RECORDING OF SAID FLAT. WE'RE REQUESTING TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO SAY REQUEST TO STATE A FINAL PLAT APPLICATION CAN ONLY BE SUBMITTED ONCE SISTLES ARE EITHER COMPLETED OR BONDED THROUGH CITY. SO AGAIN THIS IS JUST NEXT PAGE IS CONTINUING WHAT I JUST READ. SO STAFF ANALYSIS HERE, SO TYPICALLY IN THIS PROCESS, WHAT BROUGHT US HERE, SEE STAFF WOULD TYPICALLY BE FORCED TO HOLD A PLAN COMPLETED, IF THE PROCESS IS NOT COMPLETE OR BONDED. THIS USUALLY CAUSES DELAYS BETWEEN STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER AND IT WOULD CAUSE THE DEVELOPER TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AGAIN IF NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THAT 90 DAY PERIOD. SO IF APPROVED STAFF BELIEVES THIS WOULD HELP CAUSE MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS W BETWEEN STAF AND DEVELOPERS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ALL PROPOSED AMENDMENT. I DO WANT TO NOTE ONE THING, HONOLULU 866, TO BE REVIEWED, IF THIS ULTIMATELY GETS APPROVED BY THE HOUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD ESSENTIALLY WIPE AWAY EVERYTHING WE'RE PRESENTING BEFORE YOU GUYS TONIGHT BECAUSE WHILE EACH ACTION ITEM THAT WE LISTED IS HELPING GIVE STAFF REASONS TO HELP OUR PROCESS EFFICIENCY IF YOU WILL, HOUSE BILL 866 JUST OVERALL STATES THAT A MUNICIPALITY OR LOCALITY GOVERNMENT CAN'T HOLD A PLAT FOR ANY REASON, CAN'T MAKE ANYONE ABIDE BY SOMETHING FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER REASON.

SO PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING I JUST STATED CAN GO AWAY.

I DO WANT TO GIVE ANOTHER CAVEAT IF YOU WILL.

THIS WAS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED LAST YEAR I BELIEVE AND IT DIDN'T PASS. SO EVEN THOUGH STILL BEING CONSIDERED NOW, WE'RE STILL TAKING IT BEFORE YOU GUYS AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL AND IF 34 MONTHS LATER IT CHANGES AND GETS APPROVED, THEN HOPEFULLY WE HAVE A GREAT THREE AND FOUR MONTHS EFFICIENCY, IF NOT SO BE IT, SORRY, KEVIN.

>> I NEED TO, BACK UP A LITTLE BIT ON YOUR SUMMARY.

WHAT YOU'VE READ IN YOUR SUMMARY YOU SAID THAT ONCE CIVIL IS ALREADY COMPLETED OR BONDED, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE READS.

THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY READS, ALL THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED HAVE TO BE COMPLETED.

OR A BOND SUBMITTED. SO IT'S NOT MERELY JUST THE

[00:10:05]

COMPLETION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

IT IS BEFORE THEY COULD -- THE WAY IT WOULD BE READED AS STAFF'S PROPOSING IS, ALL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE ACTUALLY COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY.

OR A PAYMENT OF PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT OR CASH ESCROW IN THE AMOUNT COMPLETED NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS HAS BEEN POSTED WITH THE CITY BEFORE AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAT CAN EVEN BE SUBMITTED.

SO FOR FINAL -- >> IT IS NOT A BOND IN ADDITION TO THE BONDS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE ANYWAY RIGHT?

>> WELL, NO, SEE THEY DON'T -- CURRENTLY, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT -- AND KEEP IN MIND, THESE ARE THE DEVELOPER FINANCED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY DOES NOT, UNLESS THERE'S A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WHERE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATING IN THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, THERE IS NO BOND THAT'S PUT UP AT THE TIME THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BIDDING IT. AT THAT POINT IT IS STILL NOT ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY SO THERE'S NO REASON UNDER STATE LAW TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF PERFORMANCE BOND UNLESS THERE IS A CITY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IN WHICH A PERFORMANCE BOND IS REQUIRED.

THE BOND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OR LETTER OF CREDIT OSH OR CASH ESW IS FOR PURPOSES OF GUARANTEEING THAT THE COST FOR COMPLETION OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE AND PAID FOR, IF THE PLAT GOES FORWARD AS APPROVED AND RECORDED.

BECAUSE WE DON'T ALLOW A RECORDED PLAT UNTIL EITHER THE -- CURRENTLY THEY DON'T ALLOW THAT TO BE RECORDED.

IT CAN BE APPROVED BUT CAN'T BE RECORDED.

AND THEN THAT A RECORDING TIME, THERE'S ALSO NOTE THERE'S PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE EXTENSION OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME FOR RECORDING TO BE EXTENDED, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME EITHER BY STAFF FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME OR CITY COUNCIL BY DEVELOPER AGREEMENT OR OTHER PRIOR APPROVAL WHICH IS A PROVISION THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT BEING AMENDED ALTHOUGH I'VE SUGGESTED IT. BECAUSE THE TIMING -- WELL I'VE SUGGESTED AN AMENDMENT, STAFF CONSIDERED IT AAMENDMENT, IN THE MANNER FOR THE EXTENSION FOR THE SOMETIME TO RECORD THE FLAT CAN

BE EXTENDED -- >> IF THERE IS STUFF NEEDED?

>> IF THERE'S STUFF THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THAT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED YET. BECAUSE OCCASIONALLY WE'D GET

DEVELOPERS -- >> WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM AN EXTENSION, AN OPTION OR AT LEAST AN EXTENSION REQUEST

FOR APPROVAL? >> WELL, I'M SORRY.

I DON'T MEAN TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

THAT'S NOT BEFORE US TONIGHT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE FOR A DIFFERENT DAY. BUT IT IS TIED TO THIS 90 DAY DEADLINE ON SECTION 417. THAT THAT PERIOD OF TIME CAN BE EXTENDED BY APPROVAL OF COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OF X AMOUNT AND THEN COUNCIL BEYOND THAT.

>> I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE TO VERIFY IN SOMETHING I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH TODAY, IS WHEN A DEVELOPER HAS REQUESTED REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN A FINAL PLAT, WHICH MIGHT INCLUDE GREEN SPACE, PARKS, AMENITIES, I GUESS YOU COULD ALMOST CALL THEM, A SITUATION WHERE ENGINEERING'S TELLING THEM ONE THING FROM THE CIVIL SIDE, STAFF IS ANOTHER THING FROM A PLANNING SIDE. THE WAY THIS IS SET UP NOW, IS GOING TO PLACE A REQUEST AND A REQUIREMENT UPON THAT DEVELOPER TO HAVE ALL OF THE GREEN SPACE, ALL OF THE PARK SPACE, SO THAT HE DOESN'T GET TO THE END, FINAL AND SOMEHOW FIND HOW YOU'RE SHORT ON GREEN SPACE AND YOUR PARK'S NOT BIG ENOUGH AND THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION IS BUILT OUT, HE'S GOT LOTS, COMMITMENT ON THEM, HE IS WAITING ON A FINAL, THEY'RE TELLING ME I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GREEN SPACE NOW. THIS IS GOING TO PROTECT AGAINST

THAT? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

BECAUSE ACTUALLY, WHAT YOU WON'T HAVE, YOU WON'T EVEN HAVE A FINAL PLAT APPLICATION BEFORE YOU WITH ALL OF THOSE OTHER THINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. ALL THE DEVELOPER WILL BE

[00:15:02]

WORKING OFF OF AT BEST WOULD BE A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

SO AND/OR THE SKEPTIC AND SITE PLAN WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, THE WAY THIS AMENDMENT WOULD WORK IS THEY COULDN'T EVEN MAKE APPLICATION FOR THE FINAL PLAT UNTIL ALL THE OTHER STUFF'S BUILT.

WHICH THEN -- >> I'M FINE WITH THAT AS LONG A-

>> WELL, IT -- OF COURSE THE PLAT, WHAT I'M SAYING, THEY CAN'T EVEN -- THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION FOR THAT FINAL FLAT. IF THIS IS APPROVED.

WITH THIS AMENDMENT. SO BASICALLY WHAT WOULD END UP HATHAPPENING IS IF THEY BUILT EVERYTHING OUT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM THEIR PLAT, OR CHANGE EVERYTHING ON THE GROUND IF THE

PLAT CHANGES. >> AS YOU DO KNOW THE PLAT DOES CHANGE. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A CHECKLIST OR A CHECKS AND BALANCE THAT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET TO THE END AND SAY OOPS, YOU'RE SHORT.

AND YOU'RE DONE. >> WELL, AND THAT'S SOMETHING

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE -- >> SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN THE -- THIS IS GOING TO HELP, THIS MIGHT NOT

CURE IT, OKAY. >> WE'RE WORKING IN THE RIGHT

DIRECTION. >> BUT IS IT COMPLETED OR IS IT COMPLETED AND/OR PERFORMANCE BOND PUT IN PLACE?

>> COMPLETED AND/OR PERFORMANCE BOND PUT IN PLACE.

IT BASICALLY MEANS YOUR PLANS STILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED.

>> SURE. >> YEAH, AND OF COURSE OCCASIONALLY AS WE ALL KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT GETS -- WHAT GETS DRAWN IN THE PLANS IS NOT ALWAYS CAPABLE, BECAUSE THINGS DO

HAPPEN IN THE FIELD. >> SURE.

>> COLBY -- >> WHICH MAY IMPACT THINGS LIKE UTILITY LOCATIONS, BOUNDARIES OF A GROWN FACE AREA OR --

>> FLOOD PLAIN AREA ALSO. >> FLOOD PLAIN AREAS YOU MIGHT DISCOVER IN THE FIELD AS YOU'RE DOING YOUR SURVEYINGS.

>> FLOOD PLAINS CAN BE ASSOCIATED IN, FLOOD PLAIN YOU DON'T, HOW DO -- OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE FIXED

TONIGHT IN THIS. >> NO.

>> I'M THROWING THIS ALL IN YOUR MIND SO THAT --

>> ALL THAT STUFF SHOULD BE SORTED OUT WITH CIVIL PLANS BEING APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEERING STAFF BEFORE YOU CAN

EVEN SUBMIT FINAL PLAT. >> COLBY WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PREVENT? I MEAN WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THAT? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE

CURRENT ONE? >> SO AGAIN ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WE WERE RUNNING INTO, AS KEVIN MENTIONED A LOT OF THIS WAS ACTUALLY LAID OUT ON A SITE. SO WE RAN INTO PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T -- WE RAN INTO A LOT OF DELAYS.

SO PEOPLE WHO MAYBE DIDN'T HAVE EVERYTHING DONE AND THEREFORE IF THAT 90 DAYS RAN OUT, THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN.

WHICH CALLS -- I'M LOOKING FOR A BETTER WORD -- PUT A DELAY ON THEIR TIME LINE, USE OUR RESOURCES TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN. SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY REPEATING A PROCESS FOR SOMETHING THAT -- YEAH.

I'M TRYING TO FIND A BETTER WORD FOR THAT, SORRY.

>> IT'S RESULTING IN PART OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, BECAUSE OF THE WAY DEVELOPERS ARE DELAYING THE TIMING ON WHICH THEY'RE COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, THEY'RE GETTING THEIR PLATS APPROVED. BUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A PLET -- CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED THEY'RE NOT GETTING RECORDED.

SO THEY'RE HAVING TO COME IN AND EITHER ASK FOR THE EXTENSION, OR GET IT RECORDED AND BONDED. AND THEN BOND THEIR -- BOND OR OTHERWISE SECURE THEIR COST OF THE REMAINING PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS. >> BUT IN THE DEFENSE OF THE DEVELOPER THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SUPPLY SIDE ISSUES ON INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH HAS BEEN THE MAIN PROBLEM.

>> WHICH HAS BEEN THE MAIN PROBLEM NATIONWIDE FOR THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF. THAT'S TRUE.

>> THE USERS RIGHT NOW IS NOT TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS UNTIL

EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED? >> WELL, THAT'S AFTER -- YOU CAN'T ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS UNTIL FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN

RECORDED ANYWAY. >> RIGHT.

>> WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, YOU'VE GOT A DELAY, YOU'VE GOT A DELAY IN, YOU KNOW, THAISH COMING TO P AND Z TO GET THE FLAT APPROVED.

NOW, DURING THAT PROCESS THEY MAY BE -- YOU KNOW DEVELOPERS MAY BE WORKING ON THEIR CIVIL PLANS, AND/OR MAY ALREADY BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IF THEY'VE GOT THEIR CIVIL PLANS ALREADY APPROVED BY ENGINEERING. BUT BECAUSE OF A VARIETY OF DELAYS, WHR WHETHER IT BE FINAN, WHETHER IT BE FLOOD PLAIN STUFF

[00:20:08]

THINGS THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE AND DIDN'T DO, THERE'S A DELAY BETWEEN THAT TIME, THAT PLAT APPROVAL AND THAT RECORDING TIME BECAUSE THEY HADN'T FINISHED ALL THE STUFF.

WHICH THEN LIKE I SAID, WE ARE STARTING TO SEE MORE AND MORE PAYMENT PERFORMANCE BONDS AND/OR LETTERS OF CREDITS AND/OR ESCROW SCREENS BEING REQUESTED TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT PERIOD OF TIME. THE COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THE EXTENSION THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING. AND SO WE'RE JUST SEEING MORE AND MORE OF THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE -- BUT AGAIN THIS WOULD END UP HAVING THE IMPACT OF EVERYTHING HAS TO BE FINISHED, BEFORE YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL APPROVED FINAL PLAT. BEFORE YOU EVEN APPLY FOR AN

APPROVED -- >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL PHYSICAL SO THEY'RE TRACKABLE.

WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS A SITUATION WHERE CIVILES ARE OFFERED, IN WHICH BEGINNING TO WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED HERE.

CIVILES ARE GIVEN, ENGINEERING APPROVES PROGRESS.

THEY MOVE ON IT FAST ENOUGH TO WHERE -- AND THEY'RE ALREADY MOVING ON GREEN SPACE -- THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, THEY HAVE ALREADY MOVED ON A PARK, THEY ARE ALREADY GOING ON DEVELOPMENT SITE, CUTTING STREETS AND LANDED AND EVERYTHING, THEY'VE DONE FAST ENOUGH BEFORE THE FLOOD STUDY IS DONE. AM I RIGHT OR AM I WRONG?

>> WHICH THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING.

>> AT THEIR OWN RISK. >> THAT'S THEIR GAMBLE.

>> WELL BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE ALLOWING THEM TO EVEN PROCEED WITHOUT A FLOOD -- WITHOUT THAT DONE.

>> THEY SHOULDN'T BE. >> THAT'S GOT TO MAKE ME WONDER.

WE'LL MOVE ALONG. I THINK I'VE GT A BETTER IDEA BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE NEGATIVES OF THIS, WHY WOULD IT DEVELOP BECAUSE OF -- ARE THEY GOING TO -- WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO? DO WE NOT HAVE THE SAME BONDING REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY THAT WE

ARE FIXING TO PLACE ON THEM? >> YOU LOW PRESSURE DO THAT.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THE POINT IN TIME IN WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR PLAT CAN BE ALLOWED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT A MATTER OF -- BECAUSE A DEVELOPER CAN CURRENTLY GO AHEAD AND MAKE

AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAT. >> APPROVING THIS WOULD --

>> BEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION. WHAT HAPPENS IS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A STATUTORY TIME LINE ON WHICH TO APPROVE THOSE PLATS, AND DELAYS, THEN WE SAY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T EVEN WHAT HAPPENS IS WE GO THROUGH ANT GET THE PLAT APPROVED, THE STATUTE DOESN'T REQUIRE, SO WE APPROVE, BUT THEN WE HAVE THIS DELAY ON RECORDING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO VIEW THIS.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.

MY COMMENTS BACK TO STAFF ON THIS ORDINANCE INCLUDED REFERENCE, KIND OF I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT 866, BUT ANTICIPATED -- I KNEW ABOUT THE BILL LAST SESSION.

BASICALLY LEGISLATURE IS GETTING READY TO SET IT UP SO WE HAVE TO APPROVE VIRTUALLY ANYTHING OR DENY IT COMPLETELY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE GOT SISTLES DONE, START OF CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS OR ANYTHING.

-- CIVILES DONE, START OF CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS OR THINKING. I'LL WITHHOLD MY COMMENTS, BECAUSE WE'RE ON TV I'LL LIKELY GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE ABOUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE GETTING ITSELF INVOLVED IN LAND USE MATTERS OTHER THAN IT ALREADY HAS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS PROCESS. BUT ANYWAY, BUT BASICALLY, I THINK MAYBE ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS, A CONDITION OF AN APPLICATION GOING FORWARD OR BEING PART OF AN APPLICATION WOULD BE THE COMPLETION OF THE NECESSARY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A PLAT. BUT WHAT THAT'S GOING TO MEAN IS, TO MAKE SURE THE DEVELOPER KNOWS WHERE EVERYTHING'S GOT TO BE LOCATED AT THE FRONT END. THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME OTHER PLAN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY THAT SHOWS THAT'S SIGNED OFF ON. WHICH IS GOING TO PRETTY MUCH -- VERY SMALL MINOR PLAT WITH THREE OR FOUR LOTS IS GOING TO REQUIRE

[00:25:02]

A PRELIMINARY PLAT ON DARN NEAR EVERYTHING.

IN ORDER TO ENSURE -- IN ORDER FOR DEVELOPERS TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE STICKING STUFF IN THE GROUND IS WHERE IT'S GOING TO END UP BEING APPROVED WHEN THEY MAKE AN

APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAT. >> SO GOING TO 90 DAYS ON EVERYTHING, THEY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY OF AN EXTENSION REQUEST

OR NOT? >> THROUGH YES, THROUGH SECURING THE BONDS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH BONDING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS,

YES. >> OKAY.

>> GOT -- THAT EXISTS NOW. >> OKAY.

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSION ON ANY DEVELOPERS ABOUT ANY OF

THIS? >> WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH ANY DEVELOPERS. NO, SIR.

>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEIR SIDE. I DON'T -- SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT JUST MIGHT MUDDY IT UP MORE TO BE HONEST.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE 120 TO 90 TO CREATE UNITY, AND EVERYTHING'S ON THE SAME PAGE. I'VE DEALT WITH THIS SEVERAL TIMES SEEMS LIKE OVER THE YEARS. AND THESE BONDS SEEM TO ALWAYS GET EVERYBODY KIND OF FIDGETY. AM I RIGHT?

>> WE HAVE THAT NOW. (INAUDIBLE).

>> LIKE EDNA SAID, THE MAIN CHANGE IS -- SORRY --

>> I THINK THEIR BIGGEST COMPLAINT IS GOING TO BE THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE ONWARD WITH THE -- THE ABILITY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO BE FLUID. AND IF THEY GET HELD UP BY ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERRERS ARE NOT COMING IN BY THREE MONTHS, THAT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM, THEY CAN'T KEEP COMING BACK HERE -- IT COST THEM MONEY TOO TO RUN THE ARCHITECTS, AND ALL THAT STUFF, I'M GUESSING THAT IS GOING TO BE THEIR BIG -- THEY WANT THE ABILITY TO STAY FLUID WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WHOA PROCESS AGAIN. AS LONG AS IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. AND I'M WORRIED THAT I'M NOT SEEING THAT -- THIS IS A LITTLE MORE RIGID THAN THAT I THINK, AM

I RIGHT OR AM I WRONG? >> AS LONG AS THEY PUT A PERFORMANCE BOND IN PLACE THAT GOES OUT THE WINDOW, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THAT CAN BE APPROVED AND RECORDED AT THAT POINT, AS LONG AS THEIR PERFORMANCE BOND IS

ALREADY IN PLACE. >> IT EXTENDS THE DATE BUT IT IS

NOT INFINITE. >> FAIR ENOUGH.

>> RIGHT NOW IT CAN BE EXTENDED -- THE CITY ENGINEER CAN GRANT A SIX MONTHS EXTENSION TO THAT DATE, SIX MONTHS IN DATE OF RECORDING OF THE PLAT THE WAY IT CURRENTLY READS.

THE CITY COUNCIL CAN AUTHORIZE A LONGER PERIOD THAN THAT WHICH WE'VE DONE RECENTLY IN THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS GRANTED, WHERE THE CITY PARTICIPATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE THE COUNCIL INCLUDED A -- WE INCLUDED IN THAT AGREEMENT AN ABILITY TO EXTEND THAT COMPLETION TO ONE YEAR FROM THE RECORDING OF THE PLAT.

SO BUT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG --

>> ARE WE ONLY HERE TONIGHT TO VOTE ON WHAT'S PRESENTED, OR CAN WE VOTE ON WHAT'S PRESENTED ON THE INCLUSION OF AN EXTENSION

PROCESS? >> WE'RE PRETTY MUCH STUCK WITH WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT.

>> I'LL LIKE IT, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT IT WITHOUT A VIVID, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH OF AN EXTENSION SO THEY CAN STAY FLUID. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> KEVIN, IS IT A -- CAN THEY POSSIBLY APPROVE THE -- IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY IS GOOD WITH THE FIRST TWO THAT WE MENTIONED AND THE LAST ONE IS WHAT'S CAUSING CONVERSATION.

CAN THEY POSSIBLY APPROVE THOSE FIRST TWO AROUND, YOU KNOW, HAVE STAFF GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD?

>> YES, WE CAN APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS OF 4.11 AND 4.17 IF YOU LIKE AND NOT RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF 5.10 AND 4.14.

>> CAN YOU HAVE 4.17 WITHOUT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OF EXTENSION

PROCESS? >> I GUESS WE COULD, IF THERE'S

NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON IT. >> ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? THAT DIDN'T SIGN UP EARLIER?

THANK YOU. >> I'D LIKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.

[00:30:07]

>> SECOND. >> GOT A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED?

MOTION PASSES. >> LET'S SEE.

SO YOU'RE LIKE 4.17 TO INCLUDE --

>> WELL, IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS, AND THERE'S NO MENTION.

IT'S JUST YOU GOT 90 DAYS IS HOW I'M READING IT.

>> UNLESS THEY PUT THE BOND IN PLACE AND THEY GET AN EXTRA SIX

MONTHS. >> AND THAT PROCESS ALREADY

EXISTS. >> OKAY.

>> AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU FOR 30-SOMETHING PLUS YEARS DOING THIS I'VE ALREADY BEEN IN CITIES THAT HAD THAT APPROVAL, THAT HAD THAT BOND PROCESS EITHER LIKE I SAID, SOME CITY, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS ARE USED TO PUTTING UP LETTERS OF CREDIT.

OTHERS IT'S PAYMENT PERFORMANCE BONDS.

OTHERS WILL JUST PUT UP CASH ESCROW AND IT'S A COMBINATION.

WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR ALL THREE OPTIONS TO DEVELOPERS.

AND IT'S ONLY RELATED TO THE COST OF WHAT'S LEFT TO BE BUILT.

SO IF THEY'RE ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THEY JUST HAVEN'T QUITE FINISHED IT AND THEY NEED TO GET MOVING TO GET IT RECORDED, IT'S -- THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND BOND JUST WHAT'S LEFT TO BE BUILT. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BOND THE

WHOLE THING. >> I JUST FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD QUANTIFY AN AMOUNT FOR WORK THAT IS IN

PROGRESS. >> IT'S -- WELL, IT INVOLVES THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY ENGINEER REVIEWS WHAT'S LEFT IN THE PLANS TO BE BUILT AND THEY GET TOGETHER AND QUANTIFY BASED ON -- BECAUSE THAT TIME THEY GOT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN HAND.

SO USUALLY THE END PROCESS FOR DIFFERENT STUFF.

SO THEY CAN -- MOST OF THE STUFF THEY CAN QUANTIFY BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT EXISTING CONTRACTS IN PLACE.

>> TYPICALLY AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION WE HAVE TO SUPPLY A VALUE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AFTER THE STUFF'S IN PLACE TOO.

SO IT'S ALL THERE. FROM WHAT I SEE THIS IS VERY TYPICAL. VERY TYPICAL.

>> MAKE YOUR MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO

APPROVE AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. >> THE ENTIRE EVERYTHING, AMENDMENT? IS THERE A SECOND? NO SECOND. CAN WE GET ANOTHER MOTION?

>> WE'VE DONE 4.WHAT? >> 4.17.

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE SECTION 4.11 AND 4.17 WITH THE EXCLUSION OF 5.10 AND SO FORTH UNTIL FURTHER LANGUAGE IS

PROVIDED. >> SECOND.

>> WEE GOT A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE, OPPOSED, MOTION PASSES. ITEM 010, CONDUCT A PLUK HEARING

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the Urban Village Planned Development zoning of +/-.309 acres being all of Lot 3R, Block 37, Original Town Midlothian, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas in reference to amendments to the site plan. The property is generally located at 209 S. 5th Street. (Z50-2022-197) ]

AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING OF PLUS OR MINUS.309 ACRES BEING ALL OF LOT 3R, BLOCK 37, ORIGINAL TOWN MIDLOTHIAN, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY.

TEXAS IN REFERENCE TO AMENDMENTS TO THE SITE PLAN, THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 209 SOUTH 5TH STREET.

>> SOUTH OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN AVENUE H AVENUE I OFF OF SOUTH 5TH STREET, THE ESCALANTE REALTY GROUP HAS A REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITION OF THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND SITE PLAN CHANGES. SO THE TOTAL SITE IS ABOUT UNDER A THIRD OF AN ACRE. THE ADDITION WOULD BASICALLY DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. THE ADDITION WOULD BE ABOUT 1500 SQUARE FEET. THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A TOTAL WITH THE ADDITION AND THE EXISTING TO ABOUT 2800 SQUARE FEET.

THEY'RE PROPOSING EIGHT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES WHICH GIVES YOU 13, TEN WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON THEIR USE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. THIS IS STILL UNDER THE 25% MAX CAP, SO MY REPORT WAS NOTING 14, BUT WE'VE WORKED WITH THE

[00:35:02]

APPLICANT, HE HAS BEEN VERY WILLING TO COLLABORATE WITH STAFF SO WE ADJUSTED IT TO KEEP IT UNDER THAT MAX CAP OF 13.

AND THIS IS A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.

SO HERE'S THE NEW ADDITION. IT'S ON THE BACK SIDE.

SO WHILE I'LL GET TO AN ELEVATION IN A SECOND, ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND SO WITH OUR ORIGINAL TOWN MODULE AND OUR DOWNTOWN PLAN WE DO TALK ABOUT TRYING TO KEEP SOME ORIGINAL TOWN CHARACTER, THAT IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN.

EACH THOUGH THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL EDITION IT IS ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE PLAN. FROM THAT ASPECT, WHAT HE'S PROPOSING TO CHANGE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE AN OBVIOUS CHANGE. WHAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE OBVIOUS IS THE PARKING OVER HERE BUT AGAIN IT'S ALSO ON THE BACK SIDE. I MEAN THIS IS NOT PARKING UP IN THE FRONT. THIS IS PARKING IN THE BACK.

AND SO THE SPECKLED RED AREA THAT'S THE ADDITIONAL CONCRETE.

AND FOR THE MOST PART, THE LANDSCAPING IS TO REMAIN, THE TREES OR THE REMAIN, THEY MAY NEED TO AUGUST A AUGMENT A LIT, ESPECIALLY WITH CONSTRUCTION, NOT EVERYTHING MAKES IT.

AND THE CARPORT WOULD BE RELOCATED.

THERE'S CURRENTLY A CARPORT APPROXIMATELY HERE AND IT'S GOING TO BE MOVED FURTHER BACK OVER HERE.

THERE WILL BE STILL A HANDICAPPED SPACE UP HERE IN THE FRONT. SO WE MAINTAIN THE HANDICAPPED ACCESS. ONE THING TO NOTE, IF THERE WAS -- I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A BIG ISSUE BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S A BIT MORE DIFFERENT THAN SOME OTHERS, WOULD BE UNDER VEGETATION IT IS 28%. THAT MEANS 72% LOT COVERAGE.

IN OUR OLD TOWN AREA IT'S KIND OF BEEN ALL OVER THE PLACE REALLY. THERE'S SOME TOWN HOMES WHAT, ACROSS THE STREET FROM LEMON PEPPER, THERE'S HARDLY ANY YARD.

I DIDN'T MEASURE IT BUT IF SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT'S 90% LOT COVERAGE I'D BELIEVE THEM. SO I MEAN WE'VE GOT A HUGE RANGE KIND OF EYEBALLING AROUND SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN OLD TOWN AREA ON LOT COVERAGE. SO EVEN IF THIS IS AT 72%, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S OUT OF BOUNDS OF THAT RANGE.

BUT IT'S SAY MORE THAN 50%. SO IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL LOT COVERAGE. SO I DID AT LEAST WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND NOT GLOSS OVER IT.

THE STAFF IS NOT NECESSARILY CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

LET'S SEE SOME THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN.

I KNOW PARKING IS OUTSIDE. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THE RED LINE IS SHOW YOU WHAT THEY'RE DOING DIFFERENT, THIS IS THE EXISTING HOUSE AREA AND THE ADDITION, THEY'RE ADDING A CONFERENCE ROOM AND FOUR OFFICES. THIS IS THE IMAGE OF WHERE IT IS TODAY. SO AGAIN IN TERMS OF TRONT ELEVATION, IF YOU ARE AT THE STREET, HOW WILL THIS CHANGE? THIS CARPORT IS GOING TO GO AWAY AND QUILL BE LOCATED FURTHER BACK AND THEN THE ADDITION IS GOING TO BE ON THE BACK SIDE BUT AGAIN IT'S BEHIND THE HOUSE. AND OF COURSE THERE WILL BE PARKING FURTHER BACK BUT AT LEAST IT'S NOT WAY UP FRONT.

THIS IS ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE SO THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT. THIS WOULD BE THE STREET VIEW.

AGAIN THIS IS WHERE THE CARPORT WOULD BE ATTACHED.

THE NEW CARPORT. THIS KIND OF BACK SIDE VIEW GIVES YOU THE IDEA OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THE NEW ADDITION. AND AGAIN KIND OF THE MAIN THING IS THE ADDITION AND THE CHANGE IN THE PARKING.

AS I MENTIONED EERMD ON SOME OF THE GOALS WITH OUR COMP PLAN AND YOU OUR DOWNTOWN PLAN IT IS ABOUT KEEPING THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER, KEEPING A MIX OF USES AND TO THE POINT IT BUFFERS, WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING FENCE THAT WOULD REMAIN SOLID WOOD FENCE ALTHOUGH IT'S GOT COLUMNS ON THIS SIDE.

AND WITH THE TREES AND THE SHRUBS TO SOFTEN IT.

THERE IS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OVER AT THIS SIDE, SO THERE ISN'T TOO MUCH CONCERN THERE. I BELIEVE THERE IS SOMEONE MAYBE LIVING RESIDENTIALLY HERE, IF THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE. AND WE'VE NOT RECEIVED TO MY KNOWLEDGE AT THIS TIME ANY SUPPORT, FEEDBACK OR OPPOSITION AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. SO WITH THAT I WILL STOP TALKING. SO MORE THAN TWO MINUTES I KNOW.

OKAY. >> WE'VE GOT ONE SIGNED UP

[00:40:07]

SPEAKER THIS EVENING. BOBBY WORLEY.

PLEASE APPROACH AND NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.

>> GOOD EVENING, GENTLEMEN MY NAME IS BOB WORLEY, I LIVE AT 217 SOUTH 5TH. WE'RE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. WE'VE LIVED HERE FOR 17 YEARS, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT THIS 1920. WE PUT A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS INTO RESTORING AND MAINTAINING IT.

STILL HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO. OUR PLAN IS TO RETIRE HERE.

I LIVE AND WORK THERE, I'M THERE ALMOST ALL DAY EVERY DAY.

MY CONCERNS ARE, ONE, THERE ARE DAYS WHEN THAT PARKING LOT IS FULL OF 15 OR 20 CARS THAT ARE PARKED BUMPER TO BUMPER ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET WITH SOME CARS PARKED IN THE STREET WHERE THERE'S NO SHOULDER OR EASEMENT. SAFETY HAZARD, WE ONLY LEARNED ABOUT THE PLANS, WE GOT THE LETTER BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENT WAS, UNTIL IT WAS PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE A FEW DAYS AGO. SO THIS IS THE FIRST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING TO SEE IT. ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE IS WITH THE LOT COVERAGE. WITH THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND THE CONCRETE WITH IT BEING 72% COVERED.

WE HAVE A VERY MATURE OAK TREE IN THE BACK CORNER THERE, THAT'S RIGHT UP NEAR THEIR FENCE. WITH IT BEING IMPEDED UPON, WOULD ITS ROOTS BE STARVED OR DRIED UP? WHAT WOULD IF RUNOFF SITUATION BE WITH THE EXTRA CONCRETE? IF THE BUSINESS NEEDS THAT MUCH MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THEY'RE ALREADY OVERFLOWING THEIR EXISTING PARKING, BY THAT MUCH, MAYBE THEY SHOULD CONSIDER BUILDING SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE -- OUR HOUSE WHICH IS LIKE I SAID JUST TO THE SOUTH, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE SITTING ON OUR BACK PORCH ENJOYING OUR BREAKFAST ON THE WEEKENDS, WE LOOK DIRECTLY AT IT, YOU KNOW. IT MAY LOOK THE SAME FROM THE FRONT OF THE STREET BUT WHAT WE SEE EVERY DAY WILL BE THAT VERY LARGE NEW ADDITION. BUILT ONTO IT.

SO NORMALITY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS.

I DON'T HEAR A PEEP OUT OF THEM NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS THEY'RE NEVER THERE. SO I'M NOT SURE WRITE STOOD BEFORE BUT SEEING THIS PLAN NOW AS MASSIVE AS IT IS, TAKING UP THE ENTIRE LOT IT SEEMS TO BE VERY EXCESSIVE NOR A PROPERTY THAT'S IN A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY TAKE ON IT. >> THANK YOU.

DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO APPLICANT? OKAY, MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, AYE, OPPOSED,

MOTION PASSES. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT CATCH THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME WHO SPOKE BUT I DO APPRECIATE HIS COMMENTS. BOB.

THANK YOU. I LIVE ON NORTH 5TH STREET TWO HOUSES PAST MAYBE. THIS THAT WE'RE WITNESSING HAS BEEN ONE OF MY BIGGEST FEARS OVER THE YEARS THAT I HAVE LISTENED TO THE REQUEST, OF WHAT I WOULD CALL THE INTRUSION OF COMMERCIAL UPON RESIDENTIAL. THE CITY AS YOU WELL KNOW HAS MADE A LOT OF STRIDES TOWARDS COMMERCIAL WITHIN RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION HOMES ALL ALONG MAIN STREET.

THAT I STARTED WATCHING THIS INTRUDE ON DOWN 663 ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO AND MOST RECENTLY WITHIN THE LAST EIGHT OR TEN -- EIGHT YEARS OR SO HAVE WATCHED THIS MOVING DOWN SOUTH 5TH, AND NORTH 5 NOW, AT AVENUE I THINK IT'S F ALONG THE CHURCH AND THERE'S A COMPUTER PLACE OVER THERE.

[00:45:02]

ALL FOR GOOD REASON. AND I'VE HEARD ALL THE PROS ABOUT HOW THESE BUSINESSES AREN'T DOING ANYTHING AT NIGHT AND THEY KEEP THEIR PROPERTY UP BETTER AND ALL.

I DID DRIVE THROUGH -- I'VE JUST NOTICED LET'S JUST SAY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS BRING SURPRISE, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE PHYSICAL STREET PICTURE VIEW, THAT ONE.

THAT PARKING LOT WAS CONSUMED. I WITNESSED IT 20S.

I'M NOT TALKING THE SPOTS WERE FULL.

I'M TALKING EVERY SINGLE NOOK AND CRANNY YOU COULD SQUEEZE A CAR IN AND A BUMPER HANGING ON IN THE STREET WAS CONSUMED THAT BAD. AND I THOUGHT WOW! THEY'RE REALLY BUSY! ABOUT THREE DAYS LATER I WITNESSED THE SAME THING AND I THOUGHT WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

IT IS SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, WHAT CAN WE DO, I WANT TO ASK SEVERAL QUESTIONS IF I AS A RESIDENT FEEL LIKE THIS BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS INTRUDING UPON MY RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT, AM I ABLE TO CALL THE POLICE AND HAVE CARS THAT DECIDE THEY WANT TO START -- THAT'S NOT JUST LIKE A SIDE STREET.

THAT'S A SPUR. THAT'S A MAJOR CORRIDOR GOING OUTSIDE, TRUCKS USE IT, BIG BIG TRUBZ, THAT COME TO TOWN AND DELIVER AND GO OUT. THIS HAS BEEN MY CONCERN SINCE ALL THIS GOT STARTED IS THE DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO CAPITALIZE OFTEN WHAT I FELT LIKE OUR CITY'S DONE TO LET SOME FOLKS TAKE SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND BE ABILITY TO CAPITALIZE ON GETTING IN ON A COMMERCIAL APPLICATION AT A CHEAP INTRODUCTORY PRICE BUT IT ENDS UP INTRUDING UPON THE RESIDENTIAL FOLKS THAT WANT TO LIVE IN AND AROUND IT.

SO WHAT MY QUESTIONS WOULD BE DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING ORIGINAL RESIDENCES NOW? WHAT'S THAT PRESENT PORTION, WHAT IS THAT SQUARE FOOTAGES?

>> SO -- >> DO WE KNOW?

>> THAT WOULD BE, I MEAN ROUGHLY 1300 SQUARE FEET.

>> SO HERE'S WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT OKAY? YOU GOT 1300 SQUARE FEET. RIGHT? AND WE CAN SEE AT A THREE FOURTHS OF THE AVAILABLE PARKING AREA IS BEING USED FOR THAT 1300 SQUARE FEET AND THEY CAN'T AT THIS TIME THE CARS IN THERE. WE'RE WANTING TO ADD ANOTHER 1576. AND ONLY ADD ABOUT 30% MORE PARKING. HOW YOU GOING TO GET ALL THEM PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THERE? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

>> I WISH THE APPLICANT WERE HERE TO ANSWER IT.

>> NOW I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THESE CALCULATIONS WE USE, I THINK IT'S A PARKING SPOT EVERY 300 SQUARE FEET, IS THAT RIGHT?

SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YEAH.

>> BUT FROM WHAT I'M WITNESSING RIGHT NOW, I DON'T -- I DON'T FORESEE THIS WORKING AND I WILL ADMIT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THAT I'VE SAT AND LISTENED TO OTHER APPLICANTS, WHO STARTED GOING OVER THE ALLOWANCE OF GROUND COVERAGE, THAT WE CAME DOWN ON THEM PRETTY HARD BUT I'M LOOKING AT AN ENTIRE, PRACTICALLY AN ENTIRE LOT THAT'S GOING TO BE ROOFTOP AND CONCRETE. AND I WANT TO -- I'M TRYING TO AVOID BEING NEGATIVE BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'VE MADE SOME ALLOWANCES FOR THEM TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN A RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION AREA AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH -- I KNOW I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT VOLUME OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY THEY CAN GET ALL THOSE PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THERE.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DOING IT NOW.

DO WE KNOW WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW?

IS IT A HAIR SALON OR SOMETHING? >> IT IS A REALTY OFFICE AS I

UNDERSTAND IT. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

ARE WE ABLE TO -- SO WOULD CARS THAT WOULD PARK ON THE STREET,

WOULD THEY GET A TICKET? >> SOMEONE THAT'S BEEN THERE LONGER MAY KNOW THE ANSWER. I KNOW THAT I SEE A LOT OF

PARKING AND RIDE-AWAY. >> SO LEGAL IS TELLING US NO.

>> OKAY. >> AND I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME WAS BOB HAS SAID.

THAT IS THE THOUGHT OF MY MIND, THIS CAR'S BUMPER IS HAPPENING

[00:50:01]

OUT IN THE STREET ABOUT A FOOT. I THOUGHT MAN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PARKING ALONGSIDE THE ROAD AND THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE WHEN YOU START MAKING THESE ALLOWANCES.

FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL THAT'S NOT CURB AND GUTTER. OUR ATTITUDE MIGHT BE WELL YOU NEED TO PAVE THE ALLEY TO GET YOUR CARS IN AND OUT THE BACK SIDE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS.

SO THAT'S -- I'M CONCERNED. >> WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS IS IN

HERE? >> A REALTY GROUP, ESCALANTE

REALTOR. >> WE'RE NO LONGER IN PUBLIC.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

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

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, ALL OPPOSED, MOTION PASSES.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the Planned Development zoning of +/-2.509 acres situated in the John B. Garvin Survey, Abstract No. 402, Ellis County, Texas, and being all of Lot 3, Block 1, Harvest Hill Addition, an addition to the City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas in reference to amendments to the site plan. The property is generally located on Reindeer Drive west of Harvest Hill Drive. (Z49-2022-193) ]

>> ITEM 011, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING OF PLUS OR MINUS 2.509 ACRES SITUATED IN THE JOHN B. GARVIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 402, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF LOT 3 BLOCK 1, HARVEST HILT ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, IN REFERENCE TO AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON REINDEER DRIVE WEST OF HARVEST HILL DRIVE.

>> IF ANYONE KNOWS WHERE THE ALDE EVERYTHINGS, THE PROPERTY IS BEHIND THE ALDEES. THE REQUEST IN SORT OF A NUTSHELL IS WITH THIS PD WHICH WAS APPROVED SEVERALTY YEARS AGO, IT WAS APPROVED TO HAVE THREE BUILDINGS BACK HERE.

AND SO THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO DO TWO, INSTEAD OF THREE BUILDINGS. SO IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THIS IS GOING TO BE IN TWO BUILDINGS INSTEAD OF THREE. NOW, THE OTHER TWIST TO IT ALSO IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WITH THE ORIGINAL THREE BUILDINGS, THEY HAVE MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL ESTHETIC AND A GABLED ROOF.

AND THERE APPARENTLY HAD BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT TAKING THAT APPROACH, AS KIND OF A TRANSITION BETWEEN THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE COMMERCIAL.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING WITH THE TWO BUILDINGS TO HAVE A BIT MORE OF A CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL ESTHETIC WITH A FLAT PARAPET ROOF, OVERALL THREE FEET TALLER.

MY UNDERSTANDING AND CAN TELL YOU A BIT MORE LIKE THE DETAILS.

THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL GIVE THEM A GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN ATTRACTING THEIR RETAIL OFFICE TENANT.

THE -- THERE WOULD BE -- FAST WORD HERE, TO DEFINITIVE YOU THAT AERIAL VIEW, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED, AGAIN RESIDENTIAL HERE, THERE'S A LITTLE OPEN SPACE IN THE SUBDIVISION. ALDEES IS HERE AS TROP CAM SMOOTHIE CAFE AND THEN A RETAIL CENTER.

DUMPSTER AREA IS HERE. THIS WILL BE THE GREEN SPACE, IT WILL HAVE MORE GREEN AREA, THERE IS ALSO ASKING NOR A MONUMENT SIENL ABOUT 8 BY 8 FEET AT THIS LOCATION.

THIS IS THE ESTHETIC THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

AGAIN THIS IS KIND OF -- YOU KNOW IF YOU'VE DRIVEN AROUND THE METRO PLEX YOU'VE SEEN IT. THAT'S NOT A DIG ON THE APPLICANT'S PART BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT IS PRETTY CONVENTIONAL, NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY, STANDARD COMMERCIAL PARAPET TYPE ARCHITECTURE. FTC BUT IBUT I DID WANT TO GIVEN IDEA ABOUT WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AND WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR TONIGHT. WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR TONIGHT IS DO TWO LARGER BUILDINGS, BEFORE IT WAS THREE SMALLER BUILDINGS AND AGAIN THE ARCHITECTURAL ESTHETIC OF THIS BEING MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL STYLE WITH THE GABLED ROOF AND THIS IS BEING MORE CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL STYLE.

[00:55:02]

THIS IS WHEN I SAY CURRENT LANDSCAPE PLAN I SHOULD MAYBE REPHRASE. SO UNDER THE CURRENT PD, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, NOT WHAT HE'S ASKING BUT AS IT EXISTS TODAY, THIS IS CURRENT LANDSCAPE PLAN TO TRY TO HELP SHOW YOU WHAT'S CHANGING IN THE LANDSCAPING, JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE ILLUSTRATION. SO THIS GREEN AREA, THIS WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE AREA GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE, THIS BLUE AREA IS KIND OF SHOWING WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE A LIMB LA LITTLE LANDSCAPEA AND THERE THERE WOULD BE ONE ADDITIONAL TREE AT THIS LOCATION.

THAT'S THE MAIN PART OF THE LAND SCAPING THAT'S CHANGING.

SO ALSO, WE DID ASK FOR A DETAIL.

SO THIS IS SHOWING YOU IF THIS IS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, AND THIS IS THAT MASONRY WALL BY THE RESIDENTIAL, THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA WHERE THE SHRUBS WOULD LINE UP AN THE TREES WOULD LINE UP BEING EQUIDISTANCE HERE. LOT OF CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THAT OVERWHELM TRANSITION FROM THIS COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THERE APPARENTLY HAD BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOW TO BUFFER AND SOFTEN.

THE OTHER THING IS ORIGINALLY, THE DUMPSTER LOCATION WAS GOING TO BE OVER HERE WHICH WOULD THEN WHILE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SCREENED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER BY THE STREET.

NOW THE DUMPSTER IS MORE HIDDEN FROM THE STREET VIEW BY BEING LOCATED HERE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WITH AGAIN IT WILL HAVE THE MASONRY SCREENING, METAL DOORS AROUND SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. -- AND SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. THIS AGAIN SHOWS YOU THE LOCATION OF THE MONUMENT SIGN, OFFERING YOUR DRIVE AND AGAIN IT'S ABOUT AN AID YOU FOOT BY EIGHT FOOT SIGN MASONRY, THE SOLID JUST TO HELP LET TRAFFIC KNOW WHAT BUSINESSES ARE OVER THERE IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. AND AGAIN, IT'S ASKING FOR TWO COMMERCIAL INSTEAD OF THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, BASICALLY WITH THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE SITE OR THE LANDSCAPING, PARKING, MAKING THOSE ADJUSTMENTS, THE DUMPSTER LOCATION. AND AGAIN THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT'S IN THE NEW TOWN MODULE. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PROPERTY ORE NOTICES FEEDBACK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND WE DO GENERALLY REX SUPPORT. RECOMMEND SUPPORT.

ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, DISABLED ROOFS, IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT IN A TWO-BUILDING VERSION STAFF HAS NO ISSUE WITH THAT, JUST GIVING ALL THAT CONSIDERATION BEFORE STAFF WOULD STICK TO SUPPORTING THAT BUT ALL OTHER CHANGES STAFF DOES SUPPORT.

WITH THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND APPLICANT IS

HERE AS WELL. >> HOW DOES THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE NEW ELEVATION COMPARED TO THE BUILDING OF THE

NORTH OF IT THAT'S GS GOING IN? >> DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME BUT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SO THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT --

>> YES. >> I JUST DON'T REMEMBER IT WELL ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU A SOLID ANSWER.

I THINK YOUR -- >> SIMILAR ELEVATION TO WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO PUT IN OR DOES IT HAVE A GABLED ROOF?

>> NO IT'S GOT A FLAT ROOF. >> WHATFROM WHAT I'VE SEEN.

>> FLAT ROOF SO IN THAT SENSE IT'S SIMILAR.

>> WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> SURE, YEAH. >> MY NAME IS PAUL MOSS, I LIVE AT WEST LAKE TEXAS, 1444 FOREST NKNOLL DRIVE.

I'VE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS FOR ABOUT FRO YEARS.

SO WHEN WE CAME PHENOMENON THIS SITE WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A PERFECT SITE OR THE OFFICE, MEDICAL, AND THE PD ALLOWS FOR SOME RETAIL USES. SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD TRY TO -- WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE SITE MORE HARMONIOUS WITH THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS THAT ARE -- JUST BEEN CONSTRUCTED OVER THE LAST YEAR. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE ON THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, AND FLAT ROOF.

I THINK WE'VE REALLY IMPROVED THE SITE FROM TAKING IT FROM THREE BUILDINGS DOWN TO TWO. AND THE PREVIOUS APPROVED PLAT HAD A DRIVEWAY BEHIND THE BUILDING, WE REMOVED THAT, INCREASED THE LANDSCAPE, WHICH WE ARE VERY -- I'VE DONE A LOT

[01:00:01]

OF PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS AND I UNDERSTAND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO COMMERCIALITY SCOMMERCIALSHOPPING OR WHATEVER.

THEY WANT ALL THE PROTECTS THEY CAN GET AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE INCREASED THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE HID THE DUMPSTER.

THE ARTICULATION ON THE BUILDING IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL. SO THAT'S REALLY OUR REASONING BEHIND THE CHANGE HERE. AND HAVING THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING AS WE'RE PROPOSING IT, IT ALLOWS US TO BRING IN A -- SOME MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT MAY BE IN THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS, IN THE RETAIL. ANY QUESTIONS I'LL BE GLAD TO

ANSWER. >> I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO HELP YOU A LITTLE BIT. I UNFORTUNATELY SAT ON COUNCIL AND APPROVED ON THIS PROJECT. I'LL TELL YOU WHY THOSE BUILDINGS ARE SET UP THE WAY THEY ARE.

THE FOLKS THAT LIVE ON THE HOMES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE ARE HIGHLY CONCERNED ABOUT BEING OVERSHADOWED BY COMMERCIAL FLAT ROOF BUILDINGS. I BELIEVE SOME ALLOWANCES WERE MADE ON SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WERE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER UP, BUT ESPECIALLY WHERE THAT DROPS BACK IN THAT POCKET AND THAT WAS ALSO A REASON IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY WHY THERE WAS A SLIP-ROAD TO GET THOSE BUILDINGS OFF OF THAT BACK FENCE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. BUT MAINLY, THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT THAT WE HAD WAS TWO THINGS.

THE FENCE HEIGHT, AND LANDSCAPING IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, OR WAYS TO GUARD AGAINST THOSE FOLKS LOOKING OUT THE BACK OF THEIR HOME INTO A WALL.

SO WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AT THE TIME, AND OF COURSE THE DEVELOPER AT THAT POINT IN TIME TRYING TO GET THE PROJECT DONE ASSURED THOSE FOLKS THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO PUT UP THE TYPE OF BUILDINGS YOU'RE MENTIONING. BECAUSE WHAT THOSE FOLKS WANTED TO SEE IS SOME THAT RESEMBLED A ROOFTOP ON THE TOP OF THE FENCE.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S THAT WAY. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS BUT CAN I ONLY SPEAK FOR WHAT I ASSURED THOSE FOLKS ON THAT DAY NOT VERY LONG AGO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN UNDER MY WATCH AND THAT WOULD BE THAT WE STUCK WITH A MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL ESTHETIC ROOF LINE. WHICH IS WHY THAT'S IN THE -- I GUESS IT'S IN THE PD THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S THAT WAY.

IT WAS AN ASSURANCE TO THOSE HOMEOWNERS THAT IN A WAY WE WOULD -- I WOULDN'T CALL IT INTRUDING BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL BUT THAT'S HOW IT WORKED OUT, IF THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

>> I WASN'T HERE BACK THEN. >> YES, SIR.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON IT AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WENT INTO THAT. SO.

>> WOULD THE INTENTION BE TO PUT IN TREES OF HEIGHT TO COVER THE

ROOF? >> CORRECT, YES, SIR.

ALONG THE FENCE LINE WE WERE GOING TO BE DOING SIX FOOT, THE FENCE IS SIX FOOT RIGHT NOW SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN MATURE HOLLY TREES WHICH ARE SIX FOOT TALL TO BEGIN WITH WHICH GROW TO 16 TO 20 FOOT TALL. THAT'S RIGHT AGAINST THE FENCE.

THEN WE'LL HAVE LARGER RED OAKS AND LIVE OAKS, BETWEEN THAT FENCE AND THE BUILDING TO SCREEN AS WELL.

AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE PRETTY FAST-GROWING TREES, PROBABLY IN THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS THEY WOULD BE 20 TO 25 FOOT TALL. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE AS FAR AS TRYING TO GIVE YOU MORE SCREENING.

AND TAKING THAT DRIVEWAY OUT FROM BEHIND THE BUILDINGS, IS GOING TO REDUCE ANY NOISE LIKE MOTORIZED NOISE THAT WOULD COME IN AND OUT OF THERE AND LIKE TRASH TRUCKS THAT WOULD BE PICKING UP THE TRASH THE WAY IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED.

SO WE THINK THAT IS A PLUS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

>> AND THEN YOU'RE KEEPING THE SAME AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE --

>> A LITTLE BIT LESS. >> A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THE

THREE? >> YES.

>> CAN WE BRING UP THAT OTHER -- THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN PLEASE?

>> YES. THEN THE PREVIOUS PLAN, IT WAS LITERALLY JUST A SLIP ROAD BACK THERE, THERE WAS NO PARKING.

[01:05:02]

IS THE REAR OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE SAME POSITION JUST MINUS THE ROADWAY NOW, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING?

>> THIS WILL BE THE ROAD YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> CORRECT. >> COVERED UP THERE.

>> AND THE BUILDINGS SIT PRETTY MUCH ON THAT SAME BACK WALL FROM

THE FIRST ONE TO THIS ONE? >> PRETTY CLOSE, YES.

>> CAN YOU FLIP TO THAT NEXT ONE REALLY QUICK?

SORRY. >> WHICH ONE?

>> THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. >> SO WE'VE MOVED -- THE BUILDINGS BOTH MOVED IN FROM LET'S JUST CALL IT AN EAST WEST PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PAGE SO WE'VE MOVED FURTHER AWAY FROM

LOT 13 AND 12. >> CORRECT.

>> AND FURTHER AWAY FROM REINDEER DRIVE.

AND WE'RE EXTENDED THE GREEN SPACE BETWEEN THE OTHER ONES.

>> YOU'RE PUTTING IN MORE FOLIAGE, MORE TREES AND

SHRUBBERY? >> YES, SIR, QUITE A BIT MORE.

>> WHEYS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BACK WALL HEIGHTS?

>> SAME. >> CONVENTIONAL VERSUS FLAT ROOF? IN OTHER WORDS WHAT WOULD THE EVE EAVE HEIGHT BE, VERSUS THE E OF THE BACK WALL OF THE BUILDING

AS A FLAT ROOF? >> I KNOW TOP OF PARAPET WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED IS 23 FEET. I DON'T KNOW THE HEIGHT THAT THE

EAVE OF THE RESIDENTIAL -- >> I'M GUESSING THAT TO BE ABOUT

TEN? >> I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW.

BUT THE TOTAL HEIGHT WAS GOING TO BE 20 ON THE RESIDENTIAL,

JUST ASSUMING MUCH LOWER. >> I'M TALKING IN OTHER WORDS, I'M THINKING OF A WALL VERSUS A ROOF LINE.

WHICH IS WHAT THE FOLKS ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR.

I'M THICK LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING

ALMOST TWICE THE HEIGHT ALMOST. >> ONE THING I DIDN'T POINT OUT WE'RE TAKING ANY HVAC EQUIPMENT AND PUTTING THEM ON THE ROOF WHERE THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> NO LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR -- >> OR OPPOSITION, EITHER WAY.

>> SHOCKING. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO -- THAT WAS MY QUESTION TOO AND THEN WHEN YOU SAID IT --

>> THAT WAS HERE FOR PRIOR CASE ALSO.

>> RIGHT. >> WHAT DO THE BACK OF THE

BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE? >> SO THAT WOULD BE THIS VIEW?

>> DO WE HAVE THE BACK OF THE BUILDING ON THE --

>> RESIDENTIAL? >> TRADITIONAL? IT WOULD BASICALLY LOOK LIKE THE FRONT WITH NO WINDOWS? IT'S STANDING THE SAME ROOF ALSO IS THAT CORRECT, WHAT'S IN THE

PD? >> YES.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT?

NO, THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE IT.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I WOULD JUST BE CURIOUS FOR STAFF, ARE YOU MAYA ANGELOU MAINLY SUPPORTING THE TRADITIONAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE PD, OR WHAT WOULD BE YOUR REASONS FOR SUPPORTING TRADITIONAL VERSUS FLAT ROOF?

>> WELL, ONE IS, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED, AT LEAST AT THAT TIME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS OF CONCERN FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.

THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOGIC TO THE IDEA THAT IF YOU'VE GOT TRUE RESIDENTIAL HERE AND TRUE COMMERCIAL THERE, YOU MAY WANT TO TRANSITION, AND EVERY PLACE IS DIFFERENT AND EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. AND SO TO HAVE THAT SIX FOOT

[01:10:03]

FENCE AND LOTS OF LANDSCAPING AND A BUFFER AND TO USE A ROOF STYLE THAT IS GABLED, I MEAN, FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S A LOGIC TO IT. IT MAKES SENSE.

NOT SOME PEOPLE LIKE IT, SOME PEOPLE DON'T.

BUT THAT HISTORY, I MEAN I THINK IT WAS HARD FOR STAFF JUST TO IGNORE THAT ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO THERE HAD BEEN AS I UNDERSTAND

IT A PRETTY BIG OUTPOURING. >> THERE WAS A BIG ONE.

>> AND JUST SO THE DEVELOPER KNOWS I THINK YOU HAVE A FINE PRODUCT THERE AND I THINK YOU HAVE A GREAT APPLICATION AND A GREAT IDEA. MY PROBLEM IS, I CAN'T GO BACK ON -- IF I WAS LIVING THERE, I WOULD BE LET DOWN, IF I SVELTE LIKE MY CITY HAD GONE BACK ON WHAT THEY TOLD ME WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT'S -- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT AS I SEE IT. IN MANY CITIES THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. BUT GOING OFF THE HISTORY MYSELF THAT'S WHERE I'M RUNNING INTO A PROBLEM.

NOT WITH YOUR PRODUCT. >> WE'RE STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU WANT TO CLOSE PUBLIC

HEARING? >> MOVE TO CLOSE.

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

>> AND JUST ONE REAL QUICK POINT ALSO.

SO LIKE I SAY THERE'S THE STAFF MOTION, WE GENERALLY SUPPORT EVERYTHING, JUST THE ISSUE OF THAT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.

NOW THE DRAFT ORDINANCE DOES SHOW THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. SO SHOULD YOU FIND Y'ALLSELVES COMING TO A MOTION JUST BE ADVISED THAT WHAT'S IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT STAFF HAS SAID.

JUST SOMETHING TO BE AWARE OF. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION A THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED UNDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND INCLUSIONS

ONLY. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? AYE.

>> MOTION FA PASSES 4-1. >> SO A CLEAR CASE TO THE APPLICANT WHAT THAT MOTION MEANS IS P AND Z HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BUT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN WITH THE GABLED ROOF STYLE FOR BUILDING.

SO WHICH IS SOMETHING Y'ALL HAVE NOT SEEN YET IF THAT GOES FORWARD TO COUNCIL. SO THAT WILL BE WHAT COUNCIL WILL BE FACED WITH AS FAR AS A RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY. YES.

[MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ]

>> ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS OR DISCUSSIONS?

>> I HAVE A REQUEST. CAN WE GET THE PACKETS BEFORE MONDAY? I GOT MY MONDAY, I KNOW IT'S ON THE WEBSITE ON THURSDAY. JUST SAYING.

IN A NORMAL MONTH IF I GET IT ON MONDAY I HAVE A BOARD MEETING MONDAY NIGHT, I MEAN I CAN'T -- I'M WORTHLESS.

>> YES, WE CAN DEFINITELY WORK ON GETTING YOU GUYS PACKETS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE, YEAH. WE'LL DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> YEAH, THEY USED TO COME OUT

FRIDAYS. >> YES, THAT'S USUALLY FRIDAY IS USUALLY A DAY FOR P AND Z AND COUNCIL PACKETS.

SOME CITIES WHAT THEY'LL DO IS THEY'LL SEND OUT THE LINK TO THE WHOLE PACKET BY E-MAIL ON FRIDAYS.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE USUALLY DO. >> SLORNTION THE PACKET'SAS LONN THE WEBSITE, THE LINK IS MUCH QUICKER.

>> I'LL BE REAL QUICK. I KNOW THE PROBLEM WITH BEING OUT OF HERE, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU GUYS, I KNOW WE REVIEWED A LOT OF CASES HAD A LOT OF THINGS THROUGH THAT WE REVIEWED AS A COMMISSION AS STAFF AND SO JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU GUYS, LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE GOING INTO

2023. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> JUST DID.

YOU DID A FINE JOB.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.