[00:00:26]
>> THIS IS A TEST FOR CAPTIONS. STANDING BY FOR MIDLOTHIAN CITY
COUNCIL MEETING. >> STANDING BY FOUR MIDLOTHIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING. MIDLOTHIAN.
>> TEST TEST TEST THIS IS A TEST.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
[2023-089]
[00:08:34]
>> SO, AGAIN, JUST TO GIVE YOU THE SENSE OF THE SPACES AND DEPTH AND SCALE: THE MATTER EX EXCEEDED THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE TENANT SIGN AND THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER ONE. AGAIN, THE OVERVIEW OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR MINOR SITE PLAN CHANGES AND A CHANGE FROM THREE BUILDINGS TO TWO BUILDINGS.
AND, UM, THE ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGN. THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THE PD WAS APPROVED BEFORE THE LAST AMENDMENT WAS IN 2018. SO, IT'S STILL ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE PLAN OF THE NEW TOWN MO MO MODULE ALLOWING FOR A VARIETY OF USES. AND WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING BACK. THE RECOMMENDATION STAFF, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, MEANING, THOUGH, THE ARCHITECTURE BEING RESIDENTIAL WITH THE GABLEED ROOF. IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM PACKET, THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE, THOUGH, REFLECTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FORB THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING
[00:10:04]
WITH THE FLAT ROOF. SO, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO KEEP WE WERE FINE WITH GOING TO TWO BUILDINGS AND THE MINOR SITE PLAN CHANGES BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO STICK TO THE IDEA OF THE TRANSITION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL, BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREA AS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM CASE FILE HISTORY THAT HAD BEEN EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED WHEN THE ALDI'S CAME IN AND WHEN PLANNING AND ZONING VOTED 4-1 FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RESIDENTIALLY STYLED ARCHITECTURE WITH GABLEED ROOF. SO, AGAIN, WHAT WAS IN YOUR DRAFT ORDINANCE IS SHOWING THE SPECIAL BUILDING WITH THE FLAT ROOF, THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT'S ASKING FOR. WHAT STAFF AND YOUR P & Z SPORTED WAS TO STICK WITH THE RESIDENTIAL STYLE, BUT, EVERYTHING ELSE IS FINE. TWO BUILDINGS INSTEAD OF THREE. THE MONUMENT SIGN, THE LANDSCAPING, THE PARKING, THE D DUMPSTER, WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHANGES, THE ONLY THING WAS THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND THE ROOF OF THE TWO BUILDINGS. SO, I GUESS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS Y'ALL MULL THINGS OVER IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WAS GOING TO GO ALONG WITH WHAT P & Z AND STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING, THE BASIC IDEA THERE MIGHT BE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAY THE ARCHITECTURE ELEVATION ITSELF OUGHT TO GO BACK TO P & Z AND WE WORK IT OUT AND BRING IT BACK TO Y'ALL AT COUNCIL. SO, AGAIN, THIS IS AN IDEA, I'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY LATER, IF IT COMES UP, WORDSMITH IT. BUT, IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. WE HAVE A SPEAKER, CHRI CHRISTINE COHEN.>> PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> SHE'S SPEAKING ON A
DIFFERENT ITEM. >> WHICH ITEM?
>> 091. >> CHAIR: OKAY. SORRY. WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS
>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS PAUL MOSS AND I LIVE IN WEST LAKE, TEXAS. THANK YOU FOREHEARING US TONIGHT AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. SO, YOU HAVE A GOOD OVERVIEW OF OUR REQUEST. AND I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE DEFINITELY IMPROVED THE SITE. WE GOT RID OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS GOING TO BE BEHIND THE BUILDING THAT WOULD AFFECTED THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROBABLY MORE SO THAN THE ROOF WOULD HAVE. AND WE ADDED EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING TO ENHANCE THE PROPERTY AS WELL. SO, WE WOULD LOVE TO COME INTO MIDLOTHIAN, BUILD THE BUILDINGS, AND BE A GOOD PARTNER WITH THE CITY. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M GLAD TO ANSWER, THE BUILDING ITSELF, AS BRIAN SAID WAS 41 FEET FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. WE COULD HAVE PUSHED OUR PROPERTY ALL THE WAY BACK TO 20 FEET AWAY. SO, WE WERE TRYING TO BE COURTEOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU HAVE IT'S NOR CONDUCIVE TO BRINGING IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES. UNDERSTOOD THE PD, WE'RE ALLOWED OFFICE, MEDICAL, AND SOME RETAIL. AND IF YOU GO WITH A STRAIGHT RESIDENTIAL STYLE, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE THAT RETAIL WHICH IN TURN BRINGS IN TAX DOLLARS TO THE CITY. SO, IT BENEFITS US, AS WELL AS THE CITY TO GO WITH THIS STYLE BUILDING.
WE. THE MAX HEIGHT WENT UP WITH YOUR FLAT ROOF?
[00:15:06]
>> WELL, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS TALLER, THE BACK OF THE BUILDING IS THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL PEAK LINE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STYLE. THE CEILING LINE WAS 9.5 OR 10 FEET, THE CEILING LINE, BY DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE ABLE TO RAISE THAT A COUPLE OF FEET WHICH IS CONDUCIVE TO THE MEDICAL OFFICE STYLE AND RETAIL THAT YOU ARE SEEING BUILT RIGHT NOW.
>> AND THERE'S TWO MONUMENT SIGNS?
>> TWO MONUMENT SIGNS. WE DON'T NEED TWO. BUT, THERE IS AN OPTION FOR TWO. WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR THE SIGN ONON REINDR
DRIVE. >> AND WHERE'S THE OTHER SIGN
AT? >> IT WOULD BE ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE PROPERTY. AND ONE OTHER THING, WE DID MOVE THE TRASH CONTAINER LOCATION INTO A MUCH BETTER AREA THAN IT WAS BEFORE. SO, TAKING THAT DRIVEWAY FROM BEHIND, MOVING THE TRASH CONTAINER AND CONDENSING THE BUILDINGS FROM THREE TO TWO, I THINK, REALLY IMPROVES THIS SI
>> I LIKE THE MOVE, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. AND, I'M STILL WRESTLING WITH THE STYLE OF THE ROOF, THOUGH. THE COMMERCIAL VERSUS THE RESIDENTIAL, CAPPED ROOF. I'M STILL THINKING ABOUT THAT. WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL STYLE APPROVED?
>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS THERE ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL, GABLE
STYLE ROVE ALONG THAT AREA? >> NO, SIR. THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE JUST COMPLETED BEHIND THE ALDI AND THE NEW BUILDINGS ARE TALLER ROOFS THAN WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. AND THEY BACK UP TO THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD SO THERE'S EXPOSURE FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE EXPOSED TO.
>> UNDERSTOOD. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> IT YOUR LIGHT ON? >> YES, BUT, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR THAT. IT'S FOR STAFF.
>> CHAIR: COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE
APPLICANT OR STAFF? >> I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE
THE OPEN HEARING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE
>> CHAIR: MOTION TO CLOSE, SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.
>> THE OPEN HEARING IS CLOSED, 6-0. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: CONVERSATION
COUNCIL? COMMENTS? >> MY QUESTION FOR STAFF WAS, I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT TWICE NOW, BUT, I WANT TO CONFIRM BECAUSE ON THE PACKET, ON THE MONUMENT SIGN IT SAYS NOT SHOWN AND HERE IT SAYS TWO. SO, DO THEY HAVE PERMISSION FOR ONE SIGN ALREADY AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL OR ARE THEY ASKING FOR TWO SIGNS AND THEY NEVER HAD A MONUMENT SIGN?
>> I GUESS, I MADE UP. >> WELL, THERE'S AN APPROVED MULTI-TENANT MONUMENT SIGN ALREADY IN THE PD AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR ONE MORE. THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR ONE MORE. SO, THERE'S ONE ALREADY APPROVED ON THE PD TODAY. AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR ONE MORE MONUMENT SIGN, GIVING US THE TWO.
>> IS THE LOCATION, THE ORIGINAL SIGN SPECIFIED NOT ON
YOUR DOCUMENT, SIR. >> BUT, WHAT WAS APPROVED, IS
THE LOCATION FIXED? >> YES. YES.
>> AND WHERE IS THAT LOCATION. >> THAT WOULD BE, LET'S SEE...
>> IS THAT REINDEER? . >> IT SAYS ONE MONUMENT SIGN MAY BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.
(INDISCERNIBLE) >> SO, WELL, THE EXISTING ONE, I BELIEVE, IS UP HERE ON HARVEST HILL, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR ONE DOWN HERE ON REINDEER TOWN. THIS ONE'S ALREADY APPROVED IN THE PD, THEY'RE ASKING TO HAVE THAT SECOND SIGN HERE, IF I'M
SAYING THAT ANY BETTER. >> SO, KIND OF.
>> PUTTING IN MULTI-TENANT SIGN ALREADY EXISTS, IT'S THERE IF I
[00:20:01]
>> IS THIS A MULTI-TENANT SIGN OR IS THIS PURELY FOR THEIR
BUSINESS? >> IT'S A MULTI-TENANT SIGN, SO, IT WILL BE TWO OF THE BUILDINGS.
>> IT'S 7 X 8? >> 7.5-8, I BELIEVE.
>> AND IS THEM HAVING TWO AND THE SIZES OF THE CURRENT SIGNS WITHIN OUR ORDINANCES THAT WE ALLOW ANYWHERE ELSE IN OUR CITY OR ARE THEY EXCEEDING THAT BECAUSE OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE?
>> THEY WOULDN'T BE EXCEEDING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE RULE IS ON THE NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS OR
MULTI-TENANT SIGNS. >> WELL, OBVIOUSLY, YOU COULD ASK FOR THE PD, BUT, AS FAR AS THE STANDARD, I DON'T RECALL
THAT EXACTLY. >> I'M JUST CONFIRMING, WE ALREADY HAVE A MONUMENT SIGN AT THE CORNER OF REIREINDEER AND HARVEST HILL WITH ALDI ON IT. THAT'S MONUMENT SIGN ONE AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A SECOND ONE DOWN THE STREET ON REINDEER WERE
YOUR POINTING? IS THAT CORRECT? >> SO, THERE'S A THIRD ONE?
>> THERE'S A THIRD ONE HERE. >> OKAY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>> WE'RE GETTING ON THAT. SO, IF PD ALLOWS TWO, AND IF WE APPROVE THIS ONE, THERE'LL BE THREE.
>> APOLOGIES. >> THAT'S OKAY. I JUST WANT US
ALL TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE. >> THERE'S ONE TOP RIGHT, AND ONE ON REINDEER, WHERE'S THE THIRD ONE?
>> ONE, TWO, THREE. >> CHAIR: COUNCIL,
DISCUSSION? >> UM, WHAT STAFF PROPOSED IS THE ORIGINAL GABLEED ROOF. THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, THAT'S WHAT STAFF AND P SEND& Z RECOMMENDED.
>> WALTER? >> MY ONLY COMMENT IS IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE, A DRASTIC CHANGE, I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGE IN THE PRODUCT STYLE, IT FITS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S DEVELOPED AROUND THERE. AND, UM, IT IS A SEMI-BUSY AREA WHICH IS GETTING BUSIER, SO, THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, IT'S, LOW IMPACT MONUMENT SIGN IT'S NOT VERY TALL. PEOPLE LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING. I DON'T SEE THIS AS A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE AS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING OR REQUESTING.
>> I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ANY OF IT. OTHER THAN THE ROOF.
BECAUSE, ALL THE OTHER ONE ARE FLAT ROOFS BUT ALL THE OTHER ONES DON'T BACK UP TO THESE HOUSES, LIKE, ACTUALLY BACK UP TO THESE HOUSES, THEY'RE ALL A PRETTY GOOD DISTANCE.
>> EXCEPT FOR THE NEW ONES. WHICH IS NOT GOOGLE EARTH.
>> THAT'S TRUE. >> THAT'S THE THING THAT I'LL ADD, MY INITIAL, GUT REACTION IS I'M NOT A FAN OF STAFF AND P & Z BOTH SAYING, HEY, WE WANT A GABLEED ROOF AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FLAT ROOF. CONSIDERING EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS FLAT AND THE NEW ONE COMING IN WHICH BACKS UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS
ALSO FLAT, IT FEELS CONSISTENT. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO THAT, JUST TO KIND OF SUPPORT WHAT ANNA JUST SAID, UM, THE HOUSES THAT BACK UP TO THAT ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE SINGLE STORY OR
TWO-STORY? >> I THINK SOME OF THOSE --
>> JUST ALONG THESE PARTICULAR BUILDINGS, SINCE THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> WHAT SIZED LOTS ARE THOSE?
>> LET'S SEE. SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
>> THE REASON I'M ASKING THE QUESTION IS THAT'S A MASONRY
WALL THAT SEPARATING THAT? >> YES, SIR.
>> AND HOW LONG IS THAT? 6-8 FEET.
>> AND THE BACK SIDE OF THAT BUILDING IS 21 FEET, AND IT'S 40 FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO, IT'S A GOOD DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE HEIGHT, SO, IF YOU WERE TO BACK A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, LET'S JUST SAY, INSTEAD OF A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, RESIDENTS AGAINST RESIDENTS ON THAT BACK FENCE,
[00:25:04]
THIS IS ACTUALLY A LOWER IMPACT ROOF LINE FOR A VISUAL IMPACT.>> AND, UM, MONTHS AGO, WHEN I WAS LAST LOOKING AT IT, I DID TRY TO DO A STREET VIEW OF IT. MY MEMORY, WHICH APPARENTLY IS NOT GOOD BASED ON THE SIGNAGE, WAS THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY AT LEAST WON DIDN'T HAVE WINDOWS ON THE BACK SIDE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN A TWO-STORY, BUT, IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THEY HAD A BUNCH OF WINDOWS. FROM WHAT I COULD TELL.
>> I JUST CHECKED GOOGLE EARTH. AND THERE'S ONE STORY AND TWO
STORY. >> THERE'S NOTHING BUILT ON
THIS SITE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.
>> YOU SAY THE NEW ONES, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE TWO THERE, BECAUSE, THAT'S A WOOD ROOF I'M ASSUMING BEING BUILT. WHICH MEANS THEY'RE STILL OFF OF THAT PROPERTY LEAN BY WHATEVER SIZE THAT EASEMENT IS, I WOULD SAY 20-40 FEET, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN. IT'S THE SAME SIZE OF THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT. BUT, I STAND BY WHAT I SAID, THIS WAS IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE OTHER ONES HAVE THAT GAP
BECAUSE OF THAT EASEMENT? >> YES.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE TO THAT, AND IT WILL BE MY FINAL COMMENT IS WE ALREADY, UM, HAVE ON OUR ORDINANCES, THE, MASONRY WALL REQUIREMENT WHEN WE'RE MIXING USAGES, USES, FROM ONE LAND USE TO ANOTHER. DO WE WANT TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL DESIGN FEATURE ON TOP OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS? SO, I HATE TO SAY WE WANT YOU TO HAVE A GABLED JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT IT IS NEXT TO WHEN WE'VE ALREADY COMPLIED WITH THE STANDARD OF THE MASONRY WALL BETWEEN THE TWO USES. SO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE ALREADY HAVE THE BRICK WALL BETWEEN THE TWO LAND USES, BUT, THEN, TO IMPOSE ON THE COMMERCIAL, PROPERTY TO, ADD AN ADDITIONAL DESIGN ELEMENT INTO THEIR GABLED ROOF BECAUSE
OF WHERE IT IS. >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> THAT, TO ME, SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE STACKING DOMINOS.
>> SO, I'M JUST, I GUESS, WE'RE BOTH IN AGREEMENT ON EVERYTHING
>> I LIKE THE GABLED. >> YOU GO FROM THE TALLER ROOF TO A FLAT ROOF AND THE TRANSITION, THERE WAS LOTS OF THAT IN THE PAST. SO, I BELIEVE, I THINK WE SHOULD, UM, GO WITH STAFF AND P & Z ON THIS ONE.
>> SO, THE QUESTION IS, DOES YOU HAD MENTIONED THE ARCHITECTURE, AND THIS MAY BE A JOE QUESTION. DOES THE ARCHITECTURE HINGE ON THE ENTIRE POSITION.
>> SO, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO, WE MET THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CASE. YOU HAVE EXHIBIT B AND EXHIBIT D IN HERE, AND EXHIBIT D IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, IF COUNCIL DESIRES TO GO WITH THE GABLED STYLE ROOF WE HAVE TO HAVE EXHIBIT D AMENDED IN THIS ORDINANCE. SO, IF THAT IS YOUR DESIRE, I WOULD RECOMMEND A MOTION THAT WOULD TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDER TO THE MARCH 28TH MEETING SO THAT EXHIBIT D IS AMENDED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
>> OKAY. AND, I GUESS WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW ON THE DATE OF THE
APPLICATION. >> WHAT WOULD INFORM D WAS THE
ATTACH IN D GO BEFORE P & Z? >> YES.
>> CORRECT. >> THE APPLICANT DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO PUSH IT FORWARD WITH THE FLAT ROOF. SO, IF YOU DENY IT, IT GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE GABLED LANDSCAPE AND APPROVE THAT MONUMENT SIGN. THE THREE BUILDINGS AND THEY WOULD GET THEIR MONUMENT SIGN.
>> SO, COUNCIL, THE ONLY OBJECTION IS THE ROOF?
>> FOR ME, CORRECT, IT IS THE ROOF.
>> AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE TURN AROUND.
>> BECAUSE, WE'LL PUT OUT A PACKET ON FRIDAY, SO, IF YOU'RE
[00:30:04]
SAYING -- >> I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION, I IT CAN BE OUT.
>> DOES THE APPLICANT WANT TO COME BACK UP?
>> CHAIR: PLEASE, YOU'VE BEEN THERE IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM TO MAKE ALL COMMENTS.
>> CHAIR: SO, JOE, WOULD YOU RESTATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO
COUNCIL? >> I DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL. BUT, IF YOU'RE, BUT, IF IT'S THE COUNSEL'S DESIRE THEY WANT. THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR A VOTE.
WHAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU NOW IS AN ORDINANCE WITH FLAT ROOFS.
SO, MY RECOMMENDATION IS IF YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THAT, LET'S MOVE
FORWARD AND VOTE ON THAT. >> IS THE APPLICANT AWARE THAT IF IT'S A NO VOTE IT'S A SIX MONTH DELAY.
>> IT GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING.
>> BUT, IF HE WANTS TO COME BACK, HE HAS TO WAIT SIX MONTHS
TO AMEND IT. (INAUDIBLE) >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
>> DOES THIS NEED TO GO BACK TO P & Z, IF I CHANGE IT BACK TO
THE GABLED? >> DOES IT OR DOES IT NOT GO
BACK TO P & Z? >> IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO BACK TO P & Z IF THE -- WELL, P & Z MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE IT WITH THE GABLED, THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. IT'S ODD BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WANT GABLED, AND P & Z IS RECOMMENDING GABLED. AND WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE BEFORE US FOR A FLAT ROOF. SO, WE CAN'T APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TONIGHT WITH GABLED BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE CORRECT EXHIBIT.
>> THIS IS A, THIS IS A RECURRING THEME, I REALLY WANT TO VOTE ON THE SAME PROPOSAL THAT WAS MADE TO P & Z. CAN I
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? >> YES, SIR.
>> MOTION? >> A MOTION, I'M SORRY.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, NOT APPROVE WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR IS IT WITH? I'M SORRY. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AS PRESENTED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. YEAH. >> CHAIR: IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE. THE
MOTION PASSES 5-1. THANK YOU. >> OPEN ITEM 2023-090. CONDUCT
[2023-090]
A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TOWN HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO 146, THE PROPERTY'S GENERALLY LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 287 AND OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. AND WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER FOR THIS. BRIAN.>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THE APPLICANT TURNS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT HAS REQUESTED A PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR 97 TOWN HOMES WITHIN PD 146. WITHIN THE CORRIDOR OF OLD FORT WORTH AND STATE HIGHWAY 287. THE 16-ACRE SITE. AS A SIDE NOTE, ALSO, WHEN THE PD 146 WAS APPROVED IN 2021, THIS AREA THERE WAS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN LAID OUT FOR TOWN HOMES. SO, THE SUP IN THE FUNCTION REALLY KIND OF ADDRESSES THE IDEA OF GETTING THE DISCRETION TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS OF IT, DO YOU LIKE THE ARCHITECTURE, THE LANDSCAPING? THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT, THE, OTHERWISE, THE TOWNHOMES ARE PRETTY WELL UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE INTENDED USE WITH THE MAXIMUM OF 97. JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW, SO, AGAIN, THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE HERE OUTLINED IN RED. NEXTDOOR TO IT, IS A MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS WHICH ARE GOING VERTICAL. THIS BEIGE AREA, THAT IS A GAS WELL SITE AS
[00:35:05]
IS DOWN HERE, AND THEN, THIS IS FUTURE COMMERCIAL, DON'T KNOW ANYTHING SPECIAL JUST YET. AND THEN, RESIDENTIAL HERE TO THE WEST. THE APPLICANT MET AND EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PD 146 TO MEET. THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1600 SQUARE FEET AND HIS UNITS RANGE BETWEEN 200 AND 20 SQUARE FEET IN ADDITION TO THE 400 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE WHICH IS PART OF IT. A SIZEABLE STRUCTURE, AND THE PARKING, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WAS THE TWO-CAR GARAGE PER UNIT. HE'S ALSO PROVIDING 20 ADDITIONAL SPACES WHICH YOU'LL SEE IN THE SITE PLAN IN A MOMENT WHICH ARE TO SERVE THE PARK. AND THIS PARK WOULD BE HOA MAINTAINED, THIS IS NOT A CITY PARK BUT IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, NONETHELESS. FOR THE SITE PLAN, THE PD REQUIRED A 1.5-ACRE PARK, HE'S PUTTING IN 2.25 ACRES. THERE'S AN INGRESS, A TRAIL CONNECTER HERE, THE ONE MONUMENT SIGN IN THE ENTRY, I PROMISE JUST ONE. THERE'S A MAILBOX CENTER HERE, THIS IS POSITIONED IN THE PARK AS WELL AS ADJACENT TO THE PARKING, THE IDEA HERE BEING THAT MAY BE FOR NOT EVERYONE WHOSE COMFORTABLE WALKING COULD AT LEAST EASILY PARK AND GRAB THEIR MAIL AND THE MAIL BOX CENTER IS JUST OFF THE SIDEWALK SO IF ANYBODY'S WALKING BY, THEY'RE NOT BUMPING INTO PEOPLE OUT HERE. NO ADDITIONAL PARKING BUT A SIMILAR IDEA, KEEPING IT JUST OFF THE SIDEWALK. THIS MAROONISH COLOR, AT LEAST TO MY EYE, REPRESENTS THE STAMPED CONCRETE TO LOOK LIKE BRICK. THERE'S, TO, OF COURSE, GET THE TEXTURE AND SITE TO CARS AS THEY MAY BE DRIVING TO THE AREA TO GIVE THEM THE CLUE TO WATCH OUT, THERE MIGHT BE PEOPLE NEARBY. IN THE PARK THERE'S A PLAYGROUND, THERE'S TWO, ABOUT 12-FOOT TALL INTERIOR LAMP POSTS THAT PROVIDE NIGHTTIME ILLUMINATION. THERE'S A PATHWAY LIGHT AT EACH END OF THE TRAIL THAT PASSES THROUGH. BUT, WHERE IT CONNECTS THE SIDEWALK, AGAIN, FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AT NIGHT. THE MACESONRY WALL, THERE'S A 6-FEET MASONRY WALL FOR ALL SIDES.TALKING TO THEM TO SEE IF THAT'S AN OPTION TO COMPLETE THE FULL AESTHETIC OF A MASONRY WALL. THAT'S JUST A NOTE, THERE'S NO ACTION TAKEN ON THAT PART. AGAIN, THIS IS THE MAIL BOX CENTER AND THESE ARE ZOOMED IN SHOTS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA THAT THERE'LL BE A LANDSCAPE ON IT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL, THESE PAD SITES HERE IS FOR TRASH SERVICE, WE DID COORDINATE WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND TRASH SERVICE PEOPLE TO BE SURE THAT ALL THE WIDTH OF THE ALLEYS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR ALLOWING THE TRASH PICKUP SERVICE, WHETHER IT'S BAGS OR
RECEPTACLES IN THE FUTURE. >> MAY I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT
>> SO, I ONLY KNOW THIS BECAUSE MY FAMILY PUT IN A SUBDIVISION FOR ALLEYWAYS, I MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRASH PICK UPS AND AS SOON AS WE WERE FINISHED, THE TRASH COLLECTORS SAID, I'M NOT GOING DOWN THAT ALLEYWAY. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE TRASH SERVICE PICKUP SAYS WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE OUR TRUCKS TO
THE ALLEYWAY. >> YOU SAID YOUTHAT YOU CONSUL
WITH THE TRASH PICKUP SERVICE? >> YES.
>> UNLESS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY CHANGES ABOUT THE GARBAGE TRUCKS IN THE FUTURE, I SUPPOSE.
[00:40:03]
>> I DON'T WANT TO SEE 97 TRASH CANS IN THE STREET WHEN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE BACK ALLEY.
>> WE DO NOT EITHER, YES, SIR. >> OKAY. UM, SO, DEFINITELY HAVING LOTS OF TREES, A MIX OF ASH, ELM, AND, LIVE OAK. THIS IS TO PROVIDE SOME, OF COURSE, SOME BEAUTIFICATION ALONG THE ROAD. WE HAVE TREES ON THE SITE, I WOULD NOTE, I GUESS OF INTEREST, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUR-PLEX BACK HERE FACE THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO, THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, HAS PUT IN ADDITIONAL TREES AND LANDSCAPING SO THEIR VIEW ISN'T JUST TO SAY, VERY NICE BUILDING BUT TO SOFTEN WITH LANDSCAPING AND TREES.
ALSO, ADDITIONAL FUTURE PAINTED, NOT PAINTED, BUT, PLACED ON THE SIDES HERE, AGAIN, THIS WAS TO PROVIDE SORT OF SOME SOFTENING IF YOU WERE DRIVING BY OR ENTERING. AND ALSO, DEPENDING ON THE EXACT LOCATION OF HVAC MECHANICALS ON THE GROUND. TO DISTRACT BY HAVING THE TREE. AGAIN, ALL THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, 152 TREES, MAKES IT, ASH AND LIVE OAK. 36 ORNAMENTAL TREES. THEY'RE NOT TO BE TOPPED. AND OVER 1,000 BEDS. SO, PRETTY EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING. EXAMPLE OF, UM, THE PARK LIGHTING THAT WOULD BE LOCATED HERE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAY LOOK LIKE. AGAIN, BRICK WALL.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE ENTRY SIGN. THIS IS A SIMILAR PRODUCT, THESE ARE IMAGES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO GIVE STAFF KIND OF AS WELL AS Y'ALL, A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THE FINAL PRODUCT MAY LOOK LIKE. SO, THIS IS A SIMILAR PRODUCT.
I BELIEVE IN FARMER'S BRANCH. >> THE ELEVATION, FACADE WILL BE A FIX OF 3 AND 4 AND 5 PLEXS, INDIVIDUALLY LOTTED. TWO TO THREE STORIES AND VERY GROOVE PITCHED FOR 8, 16, AND 12, FRONT ELEVATION OF A 5-PLEX, AGAIN, YOU COULD SEE THERE'S LOT OF ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'VE GOT A HERRING BONE PATTERN, SO, THEY HAVE REALLY BROKE THINGS UP AND PUT IN THE EFFORT THERE. AND ALSO, WE DID TALK TO THEM ABOUT, SO, ON THAT FIVE-PLEX THAT BACKS UP TO OLD FORT WORTH ROAD WE ASKED AND THEY AGREED AND IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY DO A SOLDIER COURSE, ROUGHLY ALONG HERE, JUST TO KIND OF BREAK THAT UP. I REALIZE THERE'LL BE A 6-FOOT WALL AND TREES, BUT, IT WILL BE AWHILE BEFORE THE TREES GET BIG SO THIS PROVIDES ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST FOR THE BACKSIDE.
AGAIN, ON A SITE LIKE THIS, WHERE THOSE OTHER UNITS MAY BE FACING IT, THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST TWO TREES TO KIND OF HELP BREAK THAT UP AND SOFTEN IT AS WELL AS SHRUBS DOWN HERE. SO, WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS, IT MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PD 146, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 4-0, AS PRESENTED. AND, STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION, BUT IT WAS NOT SPECIFIC, IT JUST CHECKED THE BOX THAT THEY WERE OPPOSED, SO, I DON'T KNOW WHY. UM, AND, I BELIEVE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, BUT, IF NOT, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT AND DRIVEWAY SPACING WAS ALL ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF THE PD SINCE IT LAID OUT THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. OUR ONE SPEAKER
IT THE APPLICANT. MR. JOBE. >> TERRANC JOBE, 2014, SUMMERFIELD IN MIDLOTHIAN. THANKS FOR HAVING US HERE TONIGHT. AND I THINK AFTER BRIAN'S COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION, I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS OR I CAN ANSWER
ANYTHING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND AS YOU NORMALLY DO WITH THE PARK AND THE SIZE OF THE PARK. AND THE CENTER OF IT
[00:45:03]
AND THE FEW OTHER THINGS THAT YOU DID, I APPRECIATE THAT.>> JUST, TWO POINTS, YOU AND I GO BACK AND FORTH ON DEVELOPMENTS ALL THE TIME. I WILL SAY I'M SURPRISED THAT EVERYTHING IS ABOVE AND BEYOND, I THINK THAT'S GREAT WHEN A PRODUCT COMES FORWARD AND WE'VE MET EVERYTHING SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE, ARE THESE GOING TO BE ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED? NON-RENTAL UNITS?
>> YEAH, THEY'RE NOT RENTAL UNITS, OUR BUILDERS ARE BOTH UM, RESIDENTIAL HOME BUILDERS, THAT ARE BUILDING THEM FOR SALE.
SOMEONE, I GUESS COULD BUY ONE AND RENT IT OUT. BUT, THAT'S
>> BUT, THE BUILDER, IS IT HARD TO SELL THEM OR HE CAN RENT
THEM? >> I GUESS HE COULD. I HAVE A 35-YEAR-OLD RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE OF THEM AND I DON'T KNOW THAT HE'S EVER RENTED HIS PRODUCTS.
>> BUT, THE INTENT IS TO SELL THEM?
>> THANK YOU. >> UM, LANDSCAPE PLAN LOOKS GREAT. MY ONLY QUESTION, IS IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE BACK, PEOPLE CAN SIT OUT ON A PATIO, IS THAT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT? IS
>> YES. >> SO, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE ONES ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. IT'S THE RIGHT, I'M DIRECTIONALLY NOT CALLING IT WHAT IT IS.
>> BACK ON THE ENDS? >> ON THE SIDE WHERE THE APARTMENTS ARE. SO, THAT'S THE ONE I'M WONDERING ABOUT, SOMEONE HANGING OUT ON THEIR PATIO AND LOOKING OVER A 6-FOOT WALL ONTO APARTMENTS, BECAUSE, THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING THERE, RIGHT?
>> ACTUALLY, WE'RE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FENCE AND THE APARTMENTS WILL BE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING ON THEIR SIDE AS WELL. SO, IT'S PRETTY HEAVILY LANDSCAPED. HOWEVER, SITTING UP
THERE, YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE -- >> I KNOW THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY SEE -- BUT, I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THE LANDSCAPE LING
ELEMENTS OF THIS. >> I KNOW THAT THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS REQUIRED TO LANDSCAPE THAT ENTIRE LENGTH OF THAT SIDE.
THAT'S WHY THEY WERE PUTTING IN AN ORNAMENTAL FENCE, I'VE GONE TO THE OWNER AND SAID, HEY, WE'LL PAY THE DIFFERENCE OR CONSTRUCT IT FOR YOU IF YOU WANTED TO DO A BRICK FENCE AND HE'S CONSIDERING IT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAKES THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT, HE'S GOING TO LANDSCAPE IT HEAVILY, AND IT'S IN HIS ORDINANCE.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT EFFORT, TOO.
>> CLARK? >> UM, JOE, YOU MAY HAVE TO HELP ME OUT HERE, SINCE THIS IS A SUP, THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT
IS TIED TO THIS PD? >> CORRECT.
>> MY QUESTION IS WHEN THE PD WAS PASSED WAS THERE AN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ON OLD FORT WORTH ROAD PRIOR TO THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IT CONSTRUCTED? >> WE HAVE MET WITH STAFF FOR OLD FORT WORTH ROAD IT'S TIED TO THE OVERALL SUBDIVISION. SO, 500 ACRES, SO, WE'RE LIMITED TO 250 PERMITS. IN FACT, WE'VE BEEN, I DON'T WANT TO GET IT WRONG ON THIS, BUT, HILLWOOD IS BUILDING TWO LANES RIGHT NOW. WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM BUILDING OUR SIDE UNLESS WE SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE ROAD. SO, AT THIS TIME THEY'RE AHEAD OF US ON THAT SECTION FROM THE ROAD TO HIGHWAY 67. SO, IF OUR PLANS ARE APPROVED OR CLOSE TO BEING APPROVED, MIKE ADAMS CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK, BUT, WE'RE WAITING FOR UTILITIES TO BE MOVED. BUT, WE INTENDED TO START, AND THEY'RE AHEAD OF US. BUT, WE'VE TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT GOING FROM WWARD ROAD WEST TO THE END OF OUR PROPERTY WITH TWO LANES AT THE PRESENT TIME. IF WE GET NEAR TO OUR LIMIT ON PERMITS BEFORE WE GET TO THOSE OTHER TWO LANES, WE MIGHT BE BEFORE YOU ASKING FOR A FEW MORE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL, WE'RE LIMITED TO TWO 50 PERMITS AT THIS POINT. DID YOU THINK HILLWOOD WILL BE OUT OF THERE IN 10 MONTHS. AND WE INTEND TO GET OUT THERE BEHIND THEM.
>> I APPRECIATE IT, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT YOU KNOW, 90-SOMETHING TOWN HOMES IN HILLWOOD, AND A WILL THE OF TRAFFIC ON FORT WORTH ROAD THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> I'M WITH YOU, HERE, I'M PLEASED WITH IT.
[00:50:08]
(INDISCERNIBLE) >> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT CLARK IS SAYING, SO, WE'RE SAYING OLD FORT WORTH ROAD BETWEEN ALL THE VARIOUS PROJECTS GOING ON IN THAT AREA, BY THE TIME WE'RE DONE, OLD FORT WORTH ROAD WILL BE FOUR LANES?
>> FOUR LANES FROM WARD ROAD FROM 287,/67, YES, AND TWO LANES FROM WARD ROAD TO THE END OF OUR PROPERTY.
>> AND YOU'RE HAVING TO WAIT FOR HILLWOOD TO GET THEIR SITE
DONE? >> WERE WARD ROAD ON EAST, BUT, GOING WEST, I MEAN, IT'S STILL MILES, SO, WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING THAT, IT'S A PRETTY BIG PROJECT.
>> CHAIR: CLARK? >> THE CITY CAN'T ISSUE MORE THAN 250 PERMITS UNTIL X-AMOUNT OF THAT ROAD IS BUILT?
>> CORRECT. >> THEN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE
TOWNHOMES, CLARK? >> WOULD TOWNHOMES NOT BE
(INDISCERNIBLE) >> I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE ON OLD FORT WORTH
ROAD. >> I THINK TWO LANES WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE WE COULD COMPLETE THE SUBDIVISION.
>> DO WE HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE
>> A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED 6-0. COMMENTS? COUNCIL? NO ONE HAS A COMMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
[2023-091]
>> CHAIR: OPEN ITEM 2023-091. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES BEING LOT 3A 1, BLOCK 3 OF RAILPORT BUSINESS PARK OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. BY CHANGING THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO VEHICLE SALE AND RECONDITIONING USES. COLBY?
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND COUNCIL, OUR LAST PLANNING CASE
FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR -- >> CHAIR: WE HAVE TWO
SPEAKERS. >> YES, SIR. OUR LAST PLANNING CASE THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM 2023-091 FOR CASE NUMBER Z 5 -- 2023-002. THIS IS CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. THE TOTAL SITE IS 66 ACRES, HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE OF THAT SR. 40 ACRES AND WE'LL GET INTO MORE OF THAT IN A SECOND.
THE LAND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND THE LAND IS CURRENTLY ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WITH THE PLAN BEING ZONED INDUSTRIAL MODULE, THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A LARGER VIEW OF THAT EXHIBIT WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN GREEN HERE.
SO, EXCUSE ALL OF THE COLORS, HOWEVER, WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS IS A GOOD BREAKDOWN OF EACH OF THE ENTIRE SITE. SO, BEAR WITH US HERE, STARTING IN GREEN AT THE BOTTOM AND STARTING AT THE TOP ALONG THE LEFT SIDE AS STATED, IT'S 66 ACRES, HOWEVER, ONLY 40 ACRES ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE APPLICANT. 26 ACRES IN GREEN HERE WILL BE UNDEVELOPED BY THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, IT IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO DO SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, A PD AMENDMENT WILL BE BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. THE RED AREA CONSISTS OF PRIMARILY 443 PARKING SPACES WHICH WILL BE A COMBINATION USE OF CUSTOMER, EMPLOYEE, AND AUCTION SPACES. ALSO T WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON HERE IN THE COMING SLIDES, THERE'LL BE AN OUTSIDE STORAGE OF CARS AN AREA HERE FOR CARMAX AND THIS ENTIRE AREA WILL BE PAVEMENT. IN THE ORANGE, THIS IS THE 11,307-SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THIS WILL BE PRIMARILY USED FOR AUCTION SPACE. IT DOES NOT MEET CARMAXS
[00:55:02]
STANDARD FOR SALE TO RETAIL. THEY ARE MOVING THESE FUNCTIONS OFF-SITE AS YOU SEE IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HERE.ALSO, PROPOSED TO BE, THE AUCTIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE TWICE A WEEK, THE DATES UNDETERMINED, BUT, PROBABLY BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 10:00 A.M. GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS BOX, OUTLINED IN PURPLE WILL BE A 70,646-SQUARE FOOT SERVICE AREA, AND THIS IS WHERE ALL MAINTENANCE OF ALL CARS ON SITE WILL TAKE PLACE. AND LASTLY, OUTLINES IN BLUE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN WILL BE A CAR WASH, 936-SQUARE FEET, PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY, THIS IS GOING TO BE USED TO HELP WASH ALL THE CARS AND TO KEEP THE CARS ON SITE CLEAN. THE NEXT SLIDE IS A FENCING EXHIBIT. I KNOW THAT IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE HERE BUT OUTLINED IN BLUE, WILL BE A SIX-LINK CHAIN LINK FENCE HERE, OUTLINED IN BLACK, THIS IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT MATERIAL. USUALLY WHEN YOU HEAR SLAT MATERIAL, YOU THINK OF A WAVY TYPE OF SLAT, BUT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF IS PROPOSING AND ONCE WE SAW IT, WE WERE ON BOARD WITH THAT MATERIAL. THIS IS PROPOSED ON THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN BLUE. THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING TREE WISE CONSISTING OF OUR CEDAR ELM, LIVE OAK, AND SHERMAN RED OAK TREES. AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES DEPICTS THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS, SERVICE AREA AND THE CAR WASH ON THE SITE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE CAR WASH AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ALL THE BUILDINGS ARE MADE WITH THE SAME MATERIAL AND THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE AUCTION AREA AND THE LAST SLIDE IS THE SERVICE AREA. WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION. AND PLANNING AND ZONING VOTED 4-0 AT THE FEBRUARY 21ST, P & Z MEETING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT STAFF IS
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS, FIRST
ONE IS CHRISTINE COHEN. >> GIVE US OUR NAME AND ADDRESS
AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I'M KRISTEN CALENN WITH LAKEWOOD SOLUTIONS IN COLORADO, WE'RE A NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNER FOR CAR MAX AUTO SUPER STORES, ADDRESS IS 1626 COLE BOULEVARD, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80401. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE, CARMAX IS PROVIDING THIS PRESENTATION.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE OUTSIDE OF COLBY'S PRESENTATION, SO, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CARMAX OPERATIONS OR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
>> CHAIR: CLARK? >> HOW MANY TRUCK TRIPS A DAY
DOES THIS GENERATE? >> SO, I WANT TO SAY THIS WOULD BE 16-18. UM, FROM OUR LET'S SEE. OUR NARRATIVE. LET ME CONFIRM. SO, HERE WE GO. SO, WHOLESALE VEHICLE DELIVERS WILL AVERAGE 15-20 PER DAY. PRIMARILY ON WEEKDAYS DURING BUSINESS HOURS AND A FEW ON THE WEEKENDS.
>> CHAIR: WALTER? >> SO, AUCTIONS TWICE A WEEK WITH THE INTENTION ON SELLING HOW MANY VEHICLES AT EACH
AUCTION? >> LET'S, SEE, THE NUMBER OF AUCTION SALES. SO, I KNOW, LET'S SEE.
[01:00:10]
>> IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN OUR NARRATIVE, BUT, I WANT TO SAY THIS WAS A 400 CAR AUCTION A WEEK FOR THE SIZE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT. >> SO, THAT MATT TO ME, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. I THINK THE PREVIOUS QUESTION OR THE ANSWER TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION WAS, A MAXIMUM OF APPROXIMATELY 140 RETAIL VEHICLES PER WEEK WOULD BE TRUCKED IN. BUT, YOU GUYS WANT TO HAVE TWO AUCTIONS THAT WOULD SELL 4 VEHICLES A WEEK. SO, WE'RE EITHER SELLING MORE THAN WE HAVE, OR BRINGING IN MORE THAN WE'RE SAYING. SO...
>> I THINK IN PLANNING AND ZONING, WAS --
>> WELL, A THOUSAND WAS MENTIONED IN P & Z MEETING.
>> SHE SAID 15-20 RETAIL UNITS PER DAY. TIMES.
>> CAR CARRIERS. >> CAR CARRIERS CAN HAVE UP TO
NINE VEHICLES ON A TRUCK. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> THAT WAS MY CLARIFICATION. >> YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS, BUT, HOW MANY TOTAL VEHICLES WILL THIS PROPERTY HAVE?
>> SO, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE AT ANY ONE TIME. SO, DEPENDING ON VOLUME, UM, LET'S SEE, ON THE PARKING, WE HAVE SPACE AND THE SO, THERE'S TWO, UM, AREAS WITHIN THE CLOSED AREA FOR VEHICLE STAGING AND SO, WITH A WE CALL THE WORK IN PROGRESS, OR WIP LOT, THE WORK IN PROGRESS, PRODUCTION, WHICH IS THE SERVICING OF THE VEHICLES THAT EVENTUALLY GO TO RETAIL STORES AND THE WORK IN PROGRESS FOR AUCTION, WE HAVE SPACE, UM, THIS ISN'T THE TYPICAL 10 X 20 VEHICLE SPACES. BUT, WE HAVE ROOM FOR 4,000 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES TOTAL. UM, THEY WOULD NEVER, EVER BE, THERE WOULD NEVER BE 4,000 CARS ON SITE, BUT, THOSE AREAS ARE GOING TO BE MOVING AROUND. SO, VEHICLES WILL COME IN, BE INSPECTED, THEN GO THROUGH THE RECONDITIONING PROCESS OR THE AUCTION PROCESS, SO, THEY WON'T STAY ON SITE FOR
MORE THAN A FEW DAYS AT A TIME. >>
>> IF YOU DO SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE THE APPLICANT, YOU HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED.
>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIR: COUNCIL, ANY
QUESTIONS? >> CAN I GET CLARIFICATION, MAYBE I MISSED A NUMBER. 15-20 TRUCKS A WEEK, CORRECT?
>> PER DAY? >> PER DAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS PER WEEK. SO, PER DAY. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. >> AND WOULD DELIVERS BE 5-7
DAY AS WEEK OR WHAT? >> TYPICALLY, USUALLY, TYPICALLY, DURING MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, DELIVERS COULD HAPPEN ON THE WEEKENDS, BUT, NORMALLY DURING WORK DAYS.
>> CHAIR: CLARK? >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> CHAIR: OKAY.
>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: MOTION SO MADE.
I'LL CONSIDER THAT A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.
>> PASSES 6-0. UM, COUNCIL? DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE, THE PROJECT, I THINK IS GREAT. I'M CONCERNED FOR WHAT IT'S BEING ASKED FOR. THAT IN RAILPORT?
>> YES, SIR. >> DO THAT QUALIFY FOR WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN RAILPORT?
>> SO, WE ADDRESSED THIS WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEY WERE ABLE TO GIVE SITE-SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THEIR CCNRS, AND SO, THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING FOR THIS SITE. WHICH, KEEP IN MIND, THEY'VE ALSO DONE THAT FOR GOOGLE, AND THEY'VE DONE IT FOR THE POWER PLANT AND THE L AND G PLANT AND EVEN SOME THAT WE WERE TOLD TODAY. SO, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO DO SITE-SPECIFIC CCNR AMENDMENTS.
>> CHAIR: WALTER? >> UM, ACCESS TO AND FROM THIS SITE WOULD GO DIRECTLY THROUGH RAILPORT, CORRECT?
>> SO, ALL OF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC HAULING VEHICLES IN WOULD BE
[01:05:05]
RIGHT THROUGH SINOPTA AND ALL OF THE WHOLESALE BUYERS OF THIS AUCTION, ALL THE PARTICIPANTS OF THIS AUCTION WOULD GO THROUGH RAILPORT AS WELL. DO WE HAVE A GUESSTIMATE ON WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE TRIP COUNT INTO THE BACK OF RAILPORT?>> IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT HAD BIG ENOUGH IMPACT TO DO A FULL TIA TRUCKING STUDY OP THAT AREA, SO, I KNOW THAT DOESN'T EXACTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT, THERE WAS A DETAILED STUDY BY A LICENSED ENGINEER REGARDING A TRAFFIC IMPACT TO THE AREA.
>> OKAY. SO, AGAIN, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY VEHICLES
IS THE AIM SALE PER WEEK? >> I WOULD REFER TO THE
>> HOW MANY AUCTIONS DO YOU HAVE PER WEEK?
>> TWO AT THE MOMENT IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. YES.
>> AT THE MOMENT? >> WELL, SO, AS A BACKGROUND, THE AUCTIONS TRADITIONALLY AT THE PRESENT TIME OCCUR AT CARMAX FACILITIES. WE'RE TRY TO GO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY, THIS IS THE FIRST OF IT'S KIND IN TERMS OF REHABILITATION ON THIS SITE INSTEAD OF AT THE RETAIL CENTERS. SO, YES, AT THIS TIME, WE'RE PROPOSING TWO A WEEK, AND AS MARKET DEMANDS CHANGE, THAT
MAY CHANGE AS WELL. >> SO, 400 AT EACH AUCTION TIMES TWO A WEEK, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>> YES, I BELIEVE SO. >> COME FORWARD, PLEASE.
>> I THINK THAT THE AUCTION ESTIMATE WAS ABOUT 400 VEHICLES AUCTIONED PER WEEK, ONE TO TWO AUCTION DATES PER WEEK. SO, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE INVENTORY IS AND WHETHER THE LICENSED DEALERS YOU KNOW, WANT TO, PURCHASE ON THOSE DAYS.
>> SO, THEN, THE ALL THE LOADING AND UNLOADING BOTH, FOR DELIVERY TO THE AUCTION SITE AND RETREFOIL FROM THE AUCTION SITE
>> YES, ARPD WOULD HAVE TO ENFORCE THAT IF THEY WERE LOADING AND UNLOADING ON THE ROADWAYS.
>> THERE'S ANOTHER ACCESS POINT REQUIRED BY FIRE JUST ALONG THE DRIVE SO THAT THEY COULD COME IN EITHER DIRECTION AND LEAVE FROM
EITHER DIRECTION. >> COLBY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. THE NUMBER OF AUCTIONS AND THE HOURS OF THE AUCTIONS, IS THAT PART OF WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, OR IS THAT AT THEIR
DISCRETION? >> IT'S REALLY AT THEIR DISCRETION, IT'S MORE OF AN FYI, IF YOU WILL, BUT, THEY'RE PROPOSING TWICE A WEEK RIGHT NOW AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT TWO
DAYS THEY WILL BE. >> BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS?
>> RIGHT. >> I'M SORRY, FOR CLARIFICATION, CAN YOU POINT OUT THE DRIVE OFF OF BROOK HALLOW, AND WHAT I ASSUME IS, HERE'S THE THERE IS A DRIVE OFF OF BROOK HALLOW AND I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE WHERE THE TRUCKS WOULD LOAD
>> SO, THERE ARE TWO WAYS IN AND OUT IF YOU WOULD?
>> YEAH. >> PRIMARY PORT B AND THEN
(INDISCERNIBLE) >> I'M JUST TRYING TO DECIDE HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS. AT P & Z, IT WAS PRESENTED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES, I'M SURE BY ACCIDENT, BUT, THAT THIS WAS OUTSIDE OF THE REPORT. AND THEN, NOW, IT'S INSIDE OF RAILPORT, I'M PRETTY SURE THE NUMBER USED AT P & Z WAS 1,000, AM I MAKING THAT UP? CAN ANYONE CORRECT ME?
>> SO, NOW WE'RE TALKING 400. >> PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM IF
YOU'RE GOING TO TALK. >> SO, WE'RE HAMMERING ON MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME INFORMATION, THAT'S PRESENTED TO P & Z WHILE ALSO TRYING TO TIGHTEN UP OUR RELATIONSHIP, YOU KNOW, WITH P & Z AND COUNCIL. SO, I SAY ALL OF THAT TO SAY, I, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL AND I WOULD
[01:10:05]
LIKE TO PITCH IT TO Y'ALL TO DETERMINE HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THAT. BUT, I THINK IT JUST FEELS WEIRD.>> (INAUDIBLE) >> I DON'T HAVE IT IN MY SPECIFIC PACKET, THE NUMBER OF AUCTIONED VEHICLES PER WEEK.
SO, IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING PACKET WAS 1,000, I APOLOGIZE, IT WAS MY COLLEAGUE, BRADLOCK WHO PRESENTED AT PLANNING AND ZONING, AND I WAS NOT HERE. BUT, AYE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT WITH HIM. SO, IF IT WAS A THOUSAND ARES AT PLANNING AND ZONING AND THAT'S IN THE PACKET, THEN, THAT IS CORRECT.
>>> I APOLOGIZE, I'VE WORKING ON BETWEEN FIVE AND 10 SITES AT ONE TIME AND THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT SIZES.
>> AT THIS POINT, I'M FEELING LIKE IT SHOULD GO BACK TO P & Z.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> SO, UM, TWO THINGS HERE, I FEEL ONE OF MY CRITICAL ROLES AS A COUNCILMAN IS TO, REALLY, JUDGE HOW THINGS FIT AND WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSED TO GO. AND I KNOW THAT RAILPORT HAS BEEN A DEVELOPING SOURCE OF JOY FOR THIS COMMUNITY. I THINK IT STARTED OUT BACK MANY YEARS AGO, PEOPLE USED TO QUESTION WHY WE BOUGHT IT AND SPENT SO MUCH MONEY OUT THERE. AND THEN THE FIRST TENANT CAME AND THE NEXT TENANT CAME AND THE APPLICANTS TO THAT AREA GREW IN SIZE AND CALIPER AND QUALITY. AND NOW, WE HAVE PROPERTIES WORTH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CONTINUE IN THAT AREA, ALTHOUGH, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH AN ON SITE AUTO AUCTION, I THINK THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH AUTOS SITTING AROUND THE COMMUNITY. AND I CAN'T SEE THIS AS THE BEST AND HIGHEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> COUNCILMAN, DID YOU WANT ME
TO ANSWER WHAT YOU SAID? >> WHAT DID I SAY?
>> IT DON'T MATTER, I GUESS. >> BUT, REPRESENTING P & Z, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE (INDISCERNIBLE) APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT DID ALLUDE TO THIS IS THE EXACT PRESENTATION THAT P & Z SAW. YOU ARE CORRECT, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD AT THAT TIME WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS OUTSIDE OF THE RAILPORT AREA. HOWEVER, WE FOUND OUT THAT WAS THE CASE, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PRESENTATION, BECAUSE, EVEN IF IT WERE TO GO TO P & Z, WE WOULD BE PRESENTING THE EXACT SAME THING, HOWEVER, TO WHAT CHRIS MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO WITH THE SITE SPECIFIC COVENANT, EVEN WITH THEM BEING WITHIN THE CCNR, THAT SITE'S SPECIFIC COVENANT ALLOWS THE OWNER SAYING, HEY, I'M OKAY WITH THE APPLICANT DOING THIS IN THIS LOCATION.
>> CLARK? >> UM, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I AGREED WITH WALTER'S COMMENTS EARLIER. I JUST DON'T MIND THIS DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER, I DO THINK LOOKING AT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT FIT THE SITE AND I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT, THERE'S LIGHTS ON.
>> LANE? >> HOLD THE MOTIONS UNTIL WE HAVE OUR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OUT.
>> I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW I WANT TO SAY THIS. I THINK IT'S A GREAT PROJECT, I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT RAILPORT'S THE PLACE FOR IT. IS THIS ON THE EDGE OF RAILPORT, OR IS IT DEEP INTO IT?
>> IT'S DEEP INTO IT. RAILPORT IS HERE, HIGHWAY 67, AND THIS IS
THE PROJECT HERE. >> WHAT'S DOWN THIS WAY FROM
>> IS THIS STILL RAILPORT? >> THIS IS STILL RAILPORT.
>> AND ALL OF THAT BELOW THAT IS RAILPORT, TOO?
>> NO. >> IT STOPS AT THE BORDER.
>> IT'S AT THE EDGE OF RAILPORT?
>> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
>> CHAIR: CLARK? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
>> CAN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> YES, SIR. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO
DENY AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. >> WE HAVE A 3-3 TIE, THE
[01:15:01]
MOTION DOES NOT PASS. >> CHAIR: DO WE HAVE A SECOND
MOTION? >> CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AS PRESENTED AND CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, ON WHICH WAS A YES AND WHICH WAS A NO, I SAW CONFUSED LOOKS ACROSS THE BOARD.
>> CHAIR: WELL, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND I'LL TRY TO CLARIFY IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE. BUT, YES, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A
MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE QUESTION AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO
DENY AS PRESENTED. >> JOE, DOESN'T IT HAVE TO BE, IT HAS TO BE A DIFFERENT MOTION THAN THE FIRST TIME, I BELIEVE.
>> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? >> WELL, HE'S CLARIFYING THAT.
>> BUT, IS THE MOTION VALID, THOUGH? BECAUSE, IF YOU REMEMBER BACK IN THE BUDGET TIME, WE HAD THE SAME MOTION A COUPLE OF TIMES BACK-TO-BACK. BUT, JOE CAN MAKE THE SAME MOTION OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT?
>> I'M ASKING WHAT IS THE DISTINCTION IN THE MOTION TO DENY, YOUR'S IS A MOTION TO DENY AS PRESENTED.
>> WELL, WALTER'S POINT, IF I MIGHT, HE SAID HE THOUGHT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE CONFUSED ON WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR.
THEREFORE, WHICH BUTTON TO PUSH. IF I UNDERSTOOD WALTER'S COMMENT
CORRECTLY. >> THAT WAS THE FEELING THAT I GOT. I JUST KIND OF BRIEFLY LOOKED ACROSS THE BOARD AND THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION.
>> WELL, THE MOTION IS OUT, IT FAILED. SO, IT'S BEEN DENIED AT THIS POINT, SO, THERE IS NO NEED FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE MOTION
IS DENIED. (INAUDIBLE) >> IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A
RECONSIDERATION. >> AND, COUNCIL?
>> I THINK THAT I HAVE A RESOLUTION TO THIS. JOE, I CAN
MAKE A MOTION -- (INAUDIBLE) >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
RECONSIDER IT? >> CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNTIL WE GET THE 7TH CITY COUNCILMAN BACK
>> NO? OKAY. >> UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO
MAKE A DIFFERENT MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION TO DENY. >> OR A MOTION TO APPROVE. OR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS MADE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: THAT'S THE ONE, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. DO WE HAVE A
>> CHAIR: WE HAVE A SECOND. SO, A YES VOTE, YOU WILL APPROVE THE PRESENTATION FROM CARMAX AND WHOEVER WE WISH TO CALL THEM, AND A NO VOTE WOULD BE TO DENY. SO, PLEASE VOTE.
>> CHAIR: AND WE HAVE A 3-3, SAME RESULTS SO THE MOTION DIES.
>> JOE? >> THAT'S REQUESTING FOR THE
TABLE. >> JOE CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THE
WORDING ON THAT? >> THE FIRST IS A MOTION
(INAUDIBLE). >> TABLED IT TO THE NEXT
MEETING. >> YOU WANT TO RECONSIDER, NUMBER ONE, IS YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC
>> OKAY. >> THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THIS UNTIL THE 28TH, THAT
IS MY MOTION. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> CHAIR: SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL MARCH 28TH. SECONDED, SO, PLEASE VOTE.
>> AND REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> CHAIR: WELL, IT WILL, YEAH, WE WILL. THE MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL MARCH 28TH, AND WE WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IT WILL COME BACK TO US, THE QUESTION, NOT TO P & Z, IT COMES BACK TO US DIRECTLY. SO, THE MOTION IS TO TABLE.
>> CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
>> CHAIR: YES. >> I GUESS, UM, AND, IT'S FINE, BUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF IT'S NOT GOING BACK TO P & Z, WHY -- WHAT IS THE HOPE IN THE TABLING? WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE TABLING? IS THE APPLICANT GOING TO DO SOMETHING? ARE WE ASKING
[01:20:02]
FOR A MODIFICATION? OR -- >> SINCE IT WAS A 3-3 AND WE'RE MISSING A COUNCIL MEMBER, THAT'S ONE OF MY ANGLES.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE, JOE DID JUST SAY WE COULDN'T DO THAT, RIGHT?
>> COULDN'T DO WHAT? >> THAT WE COULDN'T TABLE IT
AND WAIT. >> HE MEANT A MOTION JUST TO RECONSIDER THE CASE TO BE TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
>> WHICH IS VALID. >> AND THAT'S VALID, IT'S A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. THAT'S WHAT IT'S VOTED ON AND IF IT'S DENIED, WE GO BACK TO THE LAST MOTION WHICH WAS 3-3.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE TO THE NEXT SESSION WHICH IS MARC MARCH 28TH, AND WE'LL RESUME THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, PLEASE VOTE.
>> 4-2. WE HAVE MADE A DECISION. SO, UM, FOR OUR OUT OF TOWN VISITORS, WELCOME TO MIDLOTHIAN. SO. REGULAR AGENDA
[2023-092]
ITEM 2023-092. CONSIDER AN ACT UPON THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH 8TH STREETAND WEST AVENUE F. >> MAYOR, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN THE PAST 5 YEARS, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION ON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN, BASICALLY PUTTING IN A FOUR-WAY STOP CONDITION AT THE INTERSECTION OF 8TH AND F. I THINK IT'S BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO A HEAD, BASICALLY, BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION, THERE'S VISIBILITY ISSUES AND LUCKILY ENOUGH, MIKE REACHED OUT TO FREEMAN OVER THE WEEKEND AND THEY RECTIFIED THAT WELL, IF I REMEMBER THE SCREEN AT THE INTERSECTION, SO YOU COULD SEE MORE OF THAT. BEYOND THAT THERE WERE PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THAT. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS, MIKE AND ADAM. I THINK MIKE AND I CAN COVER IT. AND, FIRE AND
POLICE, SO. >> CHAIR: COUNCIL? COMMENTS?
(INAUDIBLE) >> ON THE CORNER, THAT ONE PANEL OF THE STREET LIKE F AND 8TH STREET.
>> YES, SIR. >> AND THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO
PULL THEM BACK. >> OKAY. AND I SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, IT'S PRETTY DANGEROUS RIGHT NOW. SO, IF
THERE'S NOBODY -- CLARK? >> I DID HAVE SOMEONE ASK WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE BETWEEN A FOUR-WAY STOP AND ADDING YIELD SIGNS, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF STAFF HAS A PREFERENCE?
>> WELL, AND I'LL LET SOMEBODY ELSE. I DON'T THINK YOU COULD HAVE STOP AND YIELD SIGNS. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD
HAVE THAT. YOU'LL WANT. >> WE'RE TALKING MORE ABOUT
CONSTRUCTION? >> I THINK IT WOULD BE
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT. >> THIS IS NOT A SET ITEM?
>> NO, IT'S JUST A CONSIDERATION.
>> I THINK IF YOU APPROVED IT WITH ONLY THE STOP SIGNS UNTIL Y'ALL COME BACK AND SAY, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. WE NEED TO REMOVE
THEM. >> I THINK THEY WILL BE IN THERE UNTIL SOMEBODY ACTED TO REMOVE THEM.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, IF I MAY, WALTER, YES?
>> AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS WOULD BE DIRECTED TO, SO, WAS THERE A DESIGN ELEMENT TO NARROW DOWN 8TH STREET IN FREFRONT OF Y HALL TO NATURALLY SLOW THE TRAFFIC?
>> YES. IT WILL BE NARROWED DOWN. I'M NOT SURE, MIKE, IS IT
FOUR FEET, GOING FROM 32 TO 28? >> YES.
>> AND WHERE WAS THE CHOKE DOWN BUT ALSO A RISE?
>> YES, SIR AND THERE'LL BE A RISE IN THE MIDDLE. (INDISTINCT
CHATTER). >> I REMEMBER IT BEING A LOT
NARROWER. >> THAT WAS A FIRE LANE WHICH
WAS 24 FEET. >> OKAY. AND CLAY POINTED IT OUT TO THE GROUP THAT HAD A GREAT AFFECT?
>> YES. >> AND THAT HAD A SLIDE
>> WE DID LIKE THAT DESIGN ELEMENT. CAN I PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE THIS A TEMPORARY FOUR-WAY STOP JUST SO IT FORCES US TO
[01:25:02]
BRING IT BACK UP WHEN THE BUILDING IS DONE?>> MAY I SUGGEST YOU SUBSET IT WITH THE OPENING OF CITY HALL?
>> YES. >> AND WE CAN REEVALUATE AT
THAT TIME? >> AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STOP
>> SO, WAYNE? >> I HAVE A, LITTLE CONCERN PUTTING STOP SIGNS THERE, DOWNTOWN ON EVERY BLOCK THERE'LL BE A STOP SIGN. I'M NOT, I GUESS, WE HAVE, TWO STOP SIGNS AND THEN WE HAVE A RED LIGHT ON EACH END. WE HAVE A RED LIGHT ON EACH END AND A STOP SIGN IN THE MIDDLE OF THREE BLOCKS?
>> YES, SIR. >> THAT SOUNDS OVERDONE TO ME.
AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT. >> RESPECTFULLY, MR. SIBLEY, I THINK TWO OF US ON COUNCIL ARE IN TOWN, MORE THAN THE REST DAILY, AND THAT ENTER SECTION IS TERRIBLE. ESPECIALLY NOW WITH THE FENCE, YOUR TRUCK OR VEHICLE HAS TO BE A QUARTER OF A WAY AROUND 8TH UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY SEE AROUND THE FENCE TO KEEP FROM GETTING HIT. IT AND THE STOP LIGHT BY JIMMYS, TO THE STOP LIGHT ON MAIN IS LIKE A SPEEDWAY. WHEN THAT LIGHT TURNS GREEN, THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO THAT. THAT INTERSECTION HAS BEEN DANGEROUS FOR YEARS. I THINK BECAUSE THE FENCE STICKS SO FAR OUT ON THE 8TH, WE NEED TO DO A FOUR-WAY STOP.
>> AND THE PORTION THERE FOR THE TWISTED SISTER, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PARKING SPACES AWAY TO GIVE REASONABLE VISIBILITY.
SO, UM, IT IS PROBLEMATIC. >> I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP, UM, THE IDEA OF THE SIGNS WITH THE LIGHTS AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT, UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DECIDING
OR? >> I THINK THAT WE JUST PUT THOSE UP BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO BRING VISIBILITY TO THOSE SIGNS BECAUSE OF THE PARKING, THE FENCE, ET CETERA, I THINK THERE'LL NEED TO BE SOME REAL
ATTENTION DRAWN TO THOSE. >> ESPECIALLY IN THE BEGINNING.
>> THEY WILL COME WITH THAT? >> SO, I THINK WE JUST PUT IN THE LED LIT STOP SIGNS IF THAT'S WHAT IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
>> CHAIR: CAN I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE?
>> I WOULD LIKE IT MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
OH, WAIT, Y'ALL WANTED THE TIMELINE? IS I APOLOGIZE. DO
YOU WANT ME TO SAY 18 MONTHS? >> WE'LL JUST BRING IT BACK IN
18 MONTHS. >> WELL, THE OPENING OF CITY
HALL. >> IT WILL BE A BUSY DAY.
>> (INDISTINCT CHATTER) >> CAN I MAKE THE MOTION?
>> SURE, GO AHEAD. >> I MOVE THAT WE MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY STOP SIGNS WITH A SUNSET WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE GRAND OPENING OF CITY HALL THAT WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF THE REDUCTION AND WIDTH OF THE ROAD AND THE APPLICATION OF THE STOP SIGNS WITH CITY HALL BACK IN FULL OPERATION.
>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: WHEN YOU SAY WITHIN
SIX MONTHS, AFTER? >> SIX MONTHS AFTER. YES, THAT
IS CORRECT. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONTROL FOUR-WAY STOP SIGNS AT 8TH AND F WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE GRAND OPENING OF ST. HALL SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
>> THE ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> CHAIR: AT THIS TIME, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWS THE PURSUANT SECTIONS OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071, LEGAL, CONSULTATIONS WITH CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE PETITION FILED FOR CREATION OF A PROPOSED HIGHLAND LAKES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE OF ELLIS COUNTY AND SECTION 551.074 PERSON MATTERS TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, OR DUTIES OF PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEES IRRIGATION TECHNICIAN. AT
>> CHAIR: 8:21 THE COUNSEL'S BACK IN SESSION. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION, PLEASE? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY
[01:30:02]
THE OUTLINE OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO LAND IN HIGHLAND LAKES MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, FM 875, MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT IN THE HIGHLAND LAKES, 1, IN THECHARGE PERMIT. >> CHAIR: AND A SECOND,
>> CHAIR: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. LANE'S
NOT HERE. >> LANE. HERE WE GO. WE HAVE
A MOTION TO DENY THE -- >> GO AHEAD.
>> CHAIR: THE MOTION PASSES 6-0.
>> I HAVE A SECOND MOTION FOR ITEM 3.
>> CHAIR: IRRIGATION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE GOING ABOVE MID POINT ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF IRRIGATION TECHNICIAN, ABOVE MID POINT OF THE SALARY RANGE ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF IRRIGATION TECHNICIAN.
>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 6-0.
>> CHAIR: IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED? >>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.