May 16, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:05]

>> 80 6:00. AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMISSION AND ZONING TO ORDER. WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS WHICH IS 001 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD-. WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK GENERALLY ON AN ISSUE? IF NOT WE WILL MOVE ON. 002 STAFF REVIEW OF THE CASES

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

THAT WERE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL IN THE LAST SIXTY (60) DAYS. S. >> AT THE MAIN NINTH CITY COUNCIL MEETING CASE NUMBER 2023 167 CAN WE MOVE THE SLIDE FORWARD? YES THAT'S THE RIGHT ONE. WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL SIX ÃZERO AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONERS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO HERE IS PULL ITEM 004 AND 005 OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA TO BE HEARD.

I NEED A MOTION TO SECOND TO REMOVE THOSE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.>> MOTION TO REMOVE

004 005 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

[004 Consider and act upon the extension for the recording of the final plat for Canvas, being ±26.861 acres being a portion of a tract described as Fulson Midlothian Partners I, LP, Volume 2220, Page 194, John Chamblee Survey, Abstract No. 19. The property is generally located on Padera Lake Boulevard, north of U.S. Highway 287. (M07-2023-41) ]

004 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE EXTENSION FOR THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR CANVAS, BEING B126.861 ACRES BEING A PORTION OF A TRACT DESCRIBED AS FULSON MIDLOTHIAN PARTNERS I, LP, VOLUME 2220, PAGE 194, JOHN CHAMBLEE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 19. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON PADERA LAKE BOULEVARD, NORTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287. (M07-2023-41) I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. IT IS UNANIMOUS.

SCOTT IF YOU WILL COME BACK? I WILL GIVE HIM JUST A MINUTE. IF YOU WILL TAKE THREE AND I

WILL COME BACK. >> ITEM NUMBER 005 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A FINAL

[005 Consider and act upon a request for a Final Plat of the Redden Farms, Phase One A (1A), being +/- 83.194 acres out of the FE Witherspoon Survey, Abstract 1188, the Benjamin Monroe, Survey, Abstract 700, the WJ Ely Survey, Abstract 1333 and the Coleman Jenkins Survey, Abstract 556. The property is generally located south of FM 1387, and west of Walnut Grove Road. (Case No. FP09-2023-029)]

THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FM 1387, AND WEST OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD.

(CASE NO.FP09-2023-029). >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> CAN I GET A SECOND?

>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL BACK UP TO THE ITEM 003 CONSIDER THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATED:

B" APRIL 18, 2023. ANY DISCUSSION? >> MOTION APPROVED.

>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

[006 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Agriculture (A) to Planned Development No. 169 (PD-169) zoning to allow for a Distribution Center an Center and d Outside Storage and Display uses on +/- 60.7 acres, being Abstract 42, R. Berry Survey, City of City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is generally located near the northwest corner of Forbes Rd. and VV Jones Rd. (Z09 2023-35)]

[00:05:02]

(Z09-2023-35). >> GOOD EVENING. FOR THIS REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS ON COURT AND REPRESENTED BY KB SEE ENCORES INTENT WITH THE USE OF THE LAND WOULD BE TOO PROVIDE FOR ICE, WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION AND OUTDOOR STORAGE.

PRIMARILY WHAT THEY WOULD BE STORING WOULD BE TRANSFORMERS OR OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF EQUIPMENT THAT HELPS MAKE OUR GRID WORK. ALSO THEY WOULD HAVE NEED OF TRAILERS TO BE STORED AND THERE WOULD BE SEPARATE TRAILER PARKING FOR THAT AREA AS WELL AND THIS WOULD TAKE ON 60 ON 60 ACRES. THIS SHOWS YOU THE SITE AREA.

TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE SITE CONDITIONS THERE'S PIPELINES THAT RUN THROUGH HERE AND THAT'S A DEPTH OF PROBABLY 125 TO 500 FEET A MAJOR DISTRIBUTION LINES. THIS CORNER IS SURROUNDED BY A THIN TALL EARTHEN BERM AS WELL AS A SIX FOOT CHAIN-LINK FENCE. THE TOPOGRAPHY, ONE THING I WANT TO KNOW IS GENERALLY SPEAKING THE LAND IS UNDEVELOPED AND NOT GRADED. IT IS ROUGHLY 10 FEET HIGHER THAN THIS AREA HERE WHERE WE WILL HAVE BEBE JONES REALIGNED. WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE MIGHT SHORTEN TO MAKE IT EIGHT FEET ONCE BEBE JONES IS CONSTRUCTED THE HEIGHT OF THE ROAD. IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY LEVEL AND GREAT WHAT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY END UP BEING. THE OPERATIONS I'M TOLD WOULD BE UP TO ABOUT 100 EMPLOYEES ON SITE AND THEY WOULD OPERATE IN TWO SHIFTS. GENERALLY FROM 5:30 A.M. TO 10:30 P.M. ACCORDING TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WE WERE PROVIDED IT SHOWS 974 TRIPS A DAY TOTAL. FOR THE SURROUNDING ZONING IT IS GENERALLY ALL ZONE OR ET .

THE AREA ABOVE THE REDLINE WOULD BE ET J IN THE AREA HERE IS ET J.

SURROUNDING IT IS OTHERWISE ZONED AGATE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA IN THE ET J ENVISIONS BEING IN THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE.

THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE ENVISIONS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AS WELL AS MEDIUM NDUSTRIAL.

THE BASE ZONING REQUEST FOR THIS PD IS MEDIUM NDUSTRIAL. THE ONE THING OUR CALL GRANTS OF LAND PLANT DID NOT ENVISION WAS PURE OUTDOOR STORAGE. DIMENSION IT WOULD BE IN CLOSE OR SEMI-ENCLOSED. I WILL GET MORE INTO THE SITE LATER IN THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS. THEY HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN. THIS YELLOW LINE IS MY ESTIMATE OF ROUGHLY WHERE THE BEBE JONES WILL BE REALIGNED. I DIDN'T HAVE A GIS LAYER SO I HAD TO EYEBALL IT. DON'T HOLD ME TO IT. I THINK THAT IS REASONABLY ACCURATE OF HOW THAT'S GOING TO ALIGN. IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHY THE SITE IS SHAPED FUNNY THAT'S WHY PLANNING AND DEVELOPING THEIR SITE BASED ON THE CITIES BUILDING OF DB JONES ROAD. IF YOU DID NOT ALREADY KNOW THE MDA, MIDLOTHIAN COMMITTED TO SEEING THIS THROUGH AND FUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BEBE JONES ROAD.

THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE FROM POWER AWAY TO 67. PROBABLY AHEAD OF THE GAME HERE SINCE I HAVEN'T SHOWN YOU THE SITE PLAN BUT BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DB JONES AND THE REALIGNMENT, I DID WANT TO SHOW YOU HERE AND THIS MAKES MORE SENSE WHEN YOU SEE THE FULL SITE PLAN THIS IS THE POWER AWAY AND BEBE JONES RUNNING THIS WAY IN THE FUTURE.

BASED ON THE TA CONVERSATIONS WITH ENGINEERING THEY WOULD PROVIDE A DIESEL LANE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST ONE IS GENERATING.

THE DIESEL LANE WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT DO A FULL

[00:10:01]

THE TRANSITION TO 2 TAKES PLACE ROUGHLY AROUND THE FIRST DRIVEWAY.

I APOLOGIZE FOR JUMPING AHEAD BUT I WANTED TO GET THIS IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE WHEN WE SEE THE SITE PLAN LATER I WANTED YOU TO HAVE THIS ALREADY IN YOUR HEAD.

THE SITE PLAN FOR REFERENCE BEBE JONES ROAD RUNNING THROUGH HERE.

THIS IS WHERE THE DIESEL LANE WOULD NEED TO OCCUR. AGAIN THIS IS POWER AWAY FORBES ROAD AND THIS IS THE FIRST DRIVEWAY WITH THE TRANSITION FROM FORTITUDE WOULD GENERALLY TAKE PLACE. WITH THE SITE PLAN AGAIN 60 ACRES WE HAVE ABOUT 420,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE BUILDING. FOOTPRINT OF WHICH 28,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE OFFICE AND TO 90,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE FOR INDOOR EHOUSE. THERE'S ALSO ABOUT 27 ACRES ON SITE FOR THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. I WILL SHOW YOU THAT ARE IN THE LANDSCAPING BUT IT IS GENERALLY THIS L-SHAPED AREA HERE IS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE. THE BED IF YOU CAN SEE THESE RED LINES IS INDICATING WHERE SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL WOULD BE PROVIDED AND THAT WOULD BE WITH LANDSCAPING AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS.

FOR THE REMAINDER IT WOULD BE CHAIN-LINK AND PROVIDING LANDSCAPING.

NORMALLY WE MIGHT REQUIRE THE DECORATIVE METAL, SAY IF YOU WERE HERE.

THIS IS BASICALLY DRIVEWAY AND THE GASKET WHICH HAS EARTHEN MOUNDS AS WELL AS THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE. THAT'S EFFECTIVELY SCREENING THIS AREA.

WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE THEY DO HERE YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO SEE IT AT THE SITE. THEN UP HERE THIS PROPERTY LINE DOESN'T ACTUALLY TOUCH ADJACENCY TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING AS WELL BUT I DID WANT YOU TO SEE THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE WOULD BE GENERALLY HERE WHEREVER YOU DON'T SEE THE RED.

THE RED WOULD BE THE MASONRY WALL. WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING THEIR MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND OUR CODE DOES ALLOW FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER TO BE COMPACT PARKING SPACES. THEY'VE ALSO ASKED FOR THAT BUT AGAIN, I SHOULD NOT ASK BUT IT ALLOWED FOR STANDARD PARKING POOL ORDINANCE. THE DUMPSTERS WILL BE TIVELY SCREENED BY THE MASONRY WALLS AND LANDSCAPING. EVERYWHERE YOU SAY THIS KIND OF SHADE OF GREEN, THIS IS YOUR LANDSCAPED AREA. YOU'VE GOT TREES AND SHRUBS.

EFFECTIVELY SCREENING. THE GRAY BOX REPRESENTS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA.

AND THE PD, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD BE NO GREATER THAN 16 FEET OF HEIGHT OF ANYTHING CAN BE STORED OUT THERE. THE BLUE AREA HERE IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AS A VISUAL CONTRAST HERE.

WHAT IS LEFT IS GOING TO BE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING SPACES AND FIRE LANES.

ON THE ELEVATION FAC'ADE THEY ARE GOING FOR A MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL BASE WHICH DOESN'T TECHNICALLY HAVE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE PROVIDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF ARTICULATION, PRIMARILY OF THE FRONT OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL, THE REMAINING SIDES AND REAR WOULD BE VERTICAL. YOU DO HAVE COLOR AND SOME BREAKUP WINDOWS TO THE FRONT. THEY PROVIDED SOME RENDERS WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE SO THIS WOULD BE THE VIEW FROM FORBES ROAD. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM BEBE JONES AND FORBES ROAD. THIS WOULD BE, THE ORIENTATION IS A PERFECT 45 DEGREES ANGLE WE WILL CALL IT NORTHWEST IF YOU'RE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DB JONES AND FORBES ROAD THAT'S IN THAT DIRECTION. THEY SHOULD BE BEBE JONES AND THAT WAY SHOULD BE FORBES ROAD.

SORRY IF I GOT YOU IN THE EYE WITH A LASER. THIS IS A VIEW FROM BEBE JONES SOUTHBOUND. WITH THIS DOESN'T SHOW YOU THE IS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY OVER HERE ON THE WALL. THE CHAIN-LINK COULD AGAIN STEVENS ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND THIS IS ADJACENT TO RIGHT-OF-WAY SOMEONE ELSE WILL DEVELOP BETWEEN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE PROPERTY LINE EVENTUALLY.

WITH THE STEVENS THEY GROW 20 TO 25 FEET TALL AND BEYOND SIX FOOT CENTERS.

[00:15:03]

AS FAR AS THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS IS GENERALLY COMPLIANT WITH YOUR MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL CHAIN-LINK BEING ONE OF THE NOTABLE DIFFERENCES. AGAIN THE COMPENSATE WITH THE ADDITIONAL STEVENS. THE TWO USES, THE DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND THE OUTDOOR STORAGE WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED BY SEP AND MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL SO BY APPROVING THIS PDE WOULD BE APPROVING THOSE BY RIGHT IN THE PD. OF COURSE IN THE PD IT IS SPECIFYING THE SPECIFIC EXHIBITS THAT WERE ATTACHED IN THE ORDINANCE AND A QUICK NOTE ON THE ORDINANCE. I REALIZED I MISTAKENLY AND I APOLOGIZE GIVE YOU AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE I WOULD SAY BETWEEN THE ONE THAT WAS IN YOUR POCKET AND THE ONE YOU ARE HEADED HERE TONIGHT.

THE NUMBER IS THE SAME 16 FOOT MAX HEIGHT. THE PAVEMENT REQUIREMENTS IS THE SAME IT IS JUST MOVED. I THINK IT IS ABOVE THE PARKING SECTION BUT IT DID NOT OTHERWISE CHANGE. I WOULD DESCRIBE IT LARGELY AS A DIFFERENCE OF HOW THE PLANNER MAY DRAFTED AND HOW THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY LEGALLY. NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE FOR PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSES PROPERTY OWNER NOTICE AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE SIGN ON THE ROPERTY. WE DID YIELD A PHONE CALL WITH THE PERSON HAD QUESTIONS.

WE ARE NOT OPPOSED WE HAVE THREE LETTERS THAT WE HAVE NOT TALKED TO THEM BUT WE HAVE WHAT THEY TOLD US IN THE LETTERS WE HAVE ONE WHO IS EXPRESSLY CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING ON THE PIPELINES. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING AND THEY ARE NOT BUILDING ON THE PIPELINES. AS YOU SAW IN THE SITE PLAN THEY ARE SET FAR BACK PAST THE PIPELINES THE OTHER TWO ARE CONCERNED GENERALLY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND CURRENT ROAD CONDITIONS AND ROAD CONDITIONS GETTING WORSE. NOISE.

ENJOY THE QUIET OF THEIR PROPERTY AND SAFETY FOR THEIR CHILDREN WITH ADDITIONAL TRACKING. I THINK THAT SUMMARIZES THE OPPOSITION AND THAT WOULD BE 3/11 PROPERTY OWNERS. THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISTAKE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE BUT IT DID NOT MATERIALLY CHANGE.

WHAT I PRESENTED IS THE SAME AS THE OTHER VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AS

WELL. >> I UNDERSTAND THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE. IN THE ONE THAT WAS CHANGED? JUST LEGAL TERMINOLOGY AND NOT ANY CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE? I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT IS THE TIMETABLE FOR BEBE

JONES BEING BUILT AS OPPOSED TO THIS FACILITY BEING BUILT? >> I DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER?

>> ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF. >> I NEED MORE DATA ON THAT I ASKED ABOUT BEBE JONES ROAD AT LEAST SIX MONTHS AGO. I WAS PROVIDED THE DISPLEASURE OF DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.

IT IS PATHETIC. I CAN'T IMAGINE, I'M ASSUMING IT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED THIS ROAD AND I GUESS I WOULD LIKE A DEFINITION OF WHAT IS REDONE. WAX IS NOT GOING TO BE REDONE BUT BUILT TWO LANES CONCRETE. MDA IS FUNDING THAT IS TAKING US ABOUT SIX YEARS TO GET THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM MARIETTA. WHEN WE SECURED THAT WITHIN THE PAST MONTH WE'VE GOT THAT GOING. THE DESIGN IS UNDERWAY. CASEY IS HOT ON HER HEELS TO

GET THAT DONE IT WILL BE RUNNING CONCURRENTLY. >> THAT WILL BE DONE BEFORE

THIS FACILITY IS IN USAGE? >> I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT COULD I JUST CAN'T.

I'M DEALING WITH A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS RIGHT AND I'M NOT ONE TO STICK MY NECK OUT AND GUARANTEE ANYTHING AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION GOES RIGHT NOW.

WE WILL TRY TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ON THE BUILDING ITSELF IS PROBABLY 14 TO 15 MONTHS. I WOULD THINK THE ROADWAY WOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE. LOOKS HAS ANY OF THE STAFF DROVE DOWN BEBE JONES ROAD?

[00:20:03]

>> I DROVE DOWN NOT TOO LONG AGO. IT IS BAD.

>> I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I'M GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME SUPPORTING THIS UNLESS THE ROAD CAN BE DONE BEFORE THEIR INHABITING THE BUILDING. IT IS JUST NOT FAIR TO THE FOLKS THAT HAVE TO TRAVEL UP AND DOWN THE ROAD. BEFORE THIS CAME UPON US.

I REALIZE MOST OF THOSE FOLKS ARE IN THE COUNTY. I'M GOING TO AFFORD THEM THAT

LATITUDE THAT I'M CONSIDERING. >> MR. ROGERS IF YOU LOOK YOU CAN SEE THAT ONE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS ONE THIS IS BEBE JONES NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BEBE JONES. THEY COULD BE COMING OFF OF

FORBES. >> I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE OF WITHIN ALL OF THIS IS THE ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE IMPROVED FROM 67 ALL THE WAY TO THIS FACILITY IN

ORDER TO HANDLE 900 TRIPS A DAY? >> YES.

THE ONE THING I CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU IS IT'S GOING TO BE DONE ON DAY ONE.

IT IS JUST CONSTRUCTION. WE FINALLY HAVE THE RIGHT AWAY. THE FRANCHISE UTILITIES ARE AWARE ENCORE IS MOVING THEIR LINES OUT OF THE WAY. I THINK WATER LINES ARE BEING MOVED, NOT AS WE SPEAK BUT A MINUTE. ALL THE BARRIERS WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS TO GET BEBE JONES CONSTRUCTED HAVE BEEN REMOVED AS FAR AS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT IS FUNDED BY MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES FOR ALL

INTENSIVE PURPOSES OF THIS PROJECT IS READY TO GO. >> WE MAKE THESE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER DEVELOPERS TO WAIT? ROADWAY STRUCTURE BEEN DONE EFORE THEY WOULD START THE

SERVICE DON'T WE? >> YES FOR THE MOST PART. THE ONLY REASON I'M HESITATING MR. ROGERS IS THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE IN THE INNER LAND YOU HAVE ONE OFF USES THAT ARE MORE INDUSTRIAL AND I'M TRYING TO THINK A PERFECT EXAMPLE WOULD BE WALNUT AND THIS IS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WALNUT GROVE AND BRIDGEWATER.

RICH WATER PUT IN ALL THE GREAT STRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING. IF YOU TRIED WALNUT GROVE TO GET THE IS LESS THAN PERFECT. IT'S GOING TO BE LESS THAN PERFECT BEFORE WE GET IT REBUILT WE ARE STARTING THE PROJECT NOW. NOTICE WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF CLEARING ON ALL THE FRANCHISE UTILITIES FOR 95 PERCENT OF UTILITIES ARE OUT OF THE WAY. BUT STILL WE ARE JUST STARTING THAT PROJECT, THE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER.

>> I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ONE BECAUSE 900 TRIPS A DAY.

I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE EXACT PERCENTAGES. I'M GUESSING THAT IS 60 PERCENT

PLUS OF HEAVY TRUCKS? >> IT SEEMS TO BE ROUGHLY SOMEWHERE AROUND 60.

>> WILL NOT GROWTH AND THUS ARE TWO DIFFERENT IMPACT STUDIES. I'M JUST TRYING TO BE UNDERSTANDING. D TO BE BACK BEHIND EHIND THIS UNLESS THEY MADE SOME MAJOR

IMPROVEMENTS OUT THERE IT WAS REALLY BAD. >> THE COUNTY HAS COME IN AND

REDONE THE ROAD. IT IS STILL DEPLORABLE. >> THIS IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

THE REASON I'M BEING HONEST ABOUT IT. >> I CAN TELL YOU YES IT WILL

BE DONE IN 15 MONTHS WE WIND UP GOING OH SORRY IT IS NOT DONE. >> DOES THE APPLICANT HOLD ANY

BEARING ON INPUT TO THESE IMPROVEMENTS? >> THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN FOR THEMSELVES. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ICANT AS FAR AS MANAGING THE BEBE JONES PROJECT BUT I DON'T ON'T THINK ANY SOLID DECISION HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT

THAT. THEY CAN SPEAK BETTER TO THAT. >> VERY GOOD.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK?

IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> AND BILL GUTHRIE WITH CASEY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE FORTUNATE AND HELPFUL DEVELOPER FOR ENCORE.

ENCORE IS PRESENT AS WELL AS IS OUR ARCHITECT ALLIANCE ARCHITECT AND KILLING BORN THE ENGINEER I KNOW JUST ENOUGH I THINK THE ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.

I WOULD TELL YOU WE ARE HYPERSENSITIVE TO GETTING AN OPERATIONAL.

WE KNOW THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS OF FORBES LAND SQUARELY IN OUR LAB AND OUR EXPENSE SO WE ARE SPENDING $1.3 MILLION FOR THE FRONT DOOR AND ACCESS OFF OF POWER AWAY.

THE EXTENSION OF FORBES. IT IS OUR DESIRE THAT BEBE JONES IS COMPLETED BY THE TIME WE ARE COMPLETE. AS WELL. WE KNOW WE CAN OPERATE IF NEED

[00:25:03]

GOING INTO IT EYES WIDE OPEN WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ASSIST AND THAT BEING FULLY FUNCTIONAL BY THE TIME WE OPEN. YOU HAVE A STRETCH OF BEBE JONES ON HER PROPERTY WE WON'T TOUCH DURING STRUCTION. TO MAINTAIN N ACCESS AND AND DO ALL THAT COORDINATION OF THE FUTURE OF BEBE JONES RIGHT-OF-WAY AND INSTALLATION OF ALL THE PAVING.

I WOULD ASK ALLIANCE ARCHITECTS WERE KIM LANGHORNE IF I MISSED HING?

>> QUESTIONS FOR THE E APPLICANT? >> I HAVE A COUPLE.

WHAT IS BEING STORED OUTSIDE? >> IT IS GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT.

TRANSFORMERS. WE ARE CALLING IT THE ENCORE FACILITY.

IT IS CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THE MATERIALS THAT THEY USE IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND REPAIRS THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX. IT IS PERFECTLY LOCATED TO SERVE THE METROPLEX AS WE KNOW IT AND ADAM IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING IN TERMS OF WHAT ELSE IS BEING STORED.

PICTURE ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT MONEY TO GO OUT INTO THE FIELD FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE.

>> ENCORE CURRENTLY HAS A FACILITY ON 67, IS THAT CORRECT?

DO YOU ALL HAVE A FACILITY ON 67 AND SHILOH? >> WHAT DO THEY CALL THOSE OFF 67? THE OTHER SITE WE WERE LOOKING AT? TRANSMISSION REPAIR CENTER. BOOKS MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?

FUNCTIONALLY? >> THERE ARE SEVERAL OF THOSE SMALLER FOOTPRINTS IN METAL BUILDINGS OUTSIDE GRAVEL STORAGE PEPPERED THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX AS WE KNOW IT.

THIS WILL BE A LOCATION THAT COULD DISPATCH TO THOSE INDEPENDENT YARDS THROUGHOUT THE METROPLEX. THIS IS THE HUB FACILITY PRESERVING A LOT OF THOSE FIELD

LOCATIONS. >> YOU HAVE VEHICLE STORED OUT THERE LIKE TRUCKS OR TRAILERS

AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL? >> WE WILL HAVE SOME TRAILERS THAT WOULD BE IN THE TRUCK COURT AREA AND THERE COULD BE SOME TRAILERS OUT IN THE STORAGE YARD.

IT IS MOSTLY EQUIPMENT ON A CONCRETE STORAGE YARD. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I NEED YOU TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND I HEARD YOU MENTION WHAT I SPOKE TO STEPH ABOUT AND I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THIS. I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. I DO HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ON LEMONS BUT THIS WILL GREATLY CAUSE IMPACT ON THEM POSSIBLY.

I'M TRYING TO MAKE THAT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. I KNOW THEY WILL NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS VOLUME OF TRUCKS TRAVELING DOWN THE ROAD AND THE LAST THING I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN IS WE HAVE GOOD INTENT BUT SOMEHOW WE DON'T GET THE ROAD DONE AND IT'S PEELING UP IN A YEAR AND IT'S A REAL MESS. WHEN YOU SPEAK OF BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HELP MANAGE THIS ROAD

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TAKING ON THE CONSTRUCTION ASSIGNMENT. ANOTHER HAS BEEN HELD WITH MDA AS WELL AS COUNSEL.

IN TERMS OF THE PATH FORWARD IT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED. >> IT IS VERY HARD FOR ME, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE TO VOTE POSITIVELY ON THIS BECAUSE THE VERY MOST IMPORTANT POSITION ON THIS IS YOU HAVE PROPER EGRESS WITH THIS VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.

IT IS GOING TO BE HIGHLY IMPACTFUL ON THE ROAD WHICH IS VERY SUBSTANDARD AT THE MOMENT.

I'M NOT HEARING A PLAN THAT MAKES ME FEEL CONFIDENT IN THAT.

>> WE'VE GOT A GENTLEMAN WITH KIM LANGHORNE WHO DID THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND IS A TRAFFIC EXPERT. I MIGHT ASK HIM TO COME UP AND YOU CAN SHARE SOME DETAILS IN

TERMS OF SOME OF THIS COULD. >> IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

[00:30:03]

>> WE LOOKED AT THE SITE BASED ON 392,000 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE USE AND 28,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USE. TRIPS TO THE STUDY AND WE'VE SHOWN ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS OF THE STUDY INTERSECTION AREAS ASSUMING OUR SITE AND EXISTING VOLUME IS OUT THERE TODAY.

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW MANY TRUCKS I DON'T HAVE THE DATA ON HAND BUT IT'S ACTUALLY LESS THAN 100 PER DAY YOU'RE LOOKING AT. THIS IS NOT AS HIGH AS A TYPICAL WAREHOUSE USE YOU WOULD SEE. IT IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER,

SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN YOU TYPICALLY SAY. >> YOU ARE FAMILIAR THIS IS

NOTHING BUT A ROAD? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT.

IT IS NOT 900 TRIPS A DAY BUT 100 TRIPS? >> OF TRUCKS YES.

>> I GUESS THE BASICS, YOU ARE INCLUDING FOR LACK OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND WHEN I'M USED TO SEEING THESE TRANSFORMER YARDS A LOT OF TIMES YOU WILL HAVE INSTALLATION TRUCKS COMING BACK AND FORTH USING TRANSFORMERS THEY WILL INSTALL. IS THIS A MAJOR TRANSFORMER DISTRIBUTION CENTER? WHAT IS IT EXACTLY WE ARE DISTRIBUTING? IS IT MAINLY BIG TRUCKS, 40 FOOT TRUCKERS? I'VE GOT HILL COAT FACILITY DOWN THE ROAD FROM ME. THEY HAVE TRUCKS COME IN BUT THEY HAVE THEIR ARMED TRUCKS COME AND AND THERE PICKING UP 2 TO 4 TRANSFORMERS WHAT ALL IS GOING TO GO ON AT THIS

FACILITY? >> I'M ADAM WITH ENCORE YOU ASKED ABOUT THE OTHER LOCATION ON 67 SO THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE SERVICE CENTER AND BASICALLY THAT'S WHERE THE TRUCKS, WE SAY TRUCKS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE EXPLAINING IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU ALL. WE TALK ABOUT TRUCKS WERE THINKING ABOUT OUR BUCKET TRUCKS OUT DOING LINE MAINTENANCE. THOSE TRUCKS WILL NOT BE AT THIS LOCATION. THOSE ARE TRUCKS STATIONED AT SERVICE CENTERS THAT DO REPAIRS AND REPAIR STORMS AND SERVICE NEEDED FOR THE CITIES AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

THIS LOCATION IS A CENTRAL HUB FOR ALL OF THEM THE BULK OF OUR MATERIALS WE HAVE OTHER LOCATIONS IN WEST TEXAS BUT THE TRUCKS THEY WILL COME HERE WILL BE GENERALLY SPEAKING 18 WHEELERS OR TRUCKS WITH TRAILERS FOR UNLOADING AND FORGETTING AND LOANING IT TO GET BACK OUT TO OUR SERVICE CENTERS THE TRANSFORMERS SPECIFICALLY NOT A LOT OF TRANSFORMERS HERE. MOST OF THEM ARE DOWN AND THE LANCASTER LOCATION IF YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH. WE HAVE PROPERTY OF THE DALLAS HIGHWAY AND THAT'S OUR PRIMARY TRANSFORMER YARD. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES BUT IT'S A VERY LARGE AREA WITH POLYMER DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION TRANSFORMERS. THIS LOCATION, I CAN'T SAY IT WON'T HAVE ANY TRANSFORMERS BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING THIS IS MORE OF THE POLES AND WIRES YOU SEE IN THE STRUCTURES ABOVE THE GROUND. WE WILL HAVE BREAKERS AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF AND EQUIPMENT YOU WILL SEE IN THE SUBSTATIONS, POLES AND WIRES IS MOSTLY THE STUFF THAT IS STORED THERE OUTSIDE IN THE YARD. I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT A PICTURE OF TO SHOW WHAT WE HAVE NOW. I HOPE THAT HELPS. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> DEFINITELY I WANT TO MAKE SURE AND ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION.

DO WE HAVE A PLAN TO GET COME I'VE HEARD FROM CDC AND YOU ALL MIGHT BUT IS THERE A PLAN AS OF

TODAY? >> I'M GOING TO REFER TO KB SEE ON THAT THE INTENT AGAIN.

>> I KNOW IT'S AN INTENT BUT I NEED A N IS THERE A PLAN TODAY? >> I'M JAMES WILLIAMS WITH KB MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE MDA AND KB SEE THAT HAS NOT BEEN WORKED WE LOOKED AT THE SITE INITIALLY AND IT CAME HERE THERE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE ASKED FOR. MDA WHEN THIS ROAD COULD BE DONE. IT WAS A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A LONG TIME.

THEY HAVE AGREED TO FUND IT. THERE WAS A BIG CONTINGENT IN THE BEGINNING.

AT ENCORE MIGHT NOT WANT TO GO TO THIS SITE WITHOUT HAT. THROUGH ALL OF THAT LIKE BILL LL SAID, WE DID GET SOME INPUT FROM THE CONTRACTOR COMMUNITY AND THEY FELT LIKE IT COULD BE DONE BUT THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE. THERE IS DESIGN WORK HAS TO BE DONE AND CONTRACTS HAVE TO BE LED AND BONDS HAVE TO BE PUT IN PLACE AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. WHEN WE CAME HERE WE KNEW IT WASN'T GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED DAY ONE AND IN PLACE. WE COULD START WORKING.

THE IDEA HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME EVER SINCE WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED HERE THAT IT BE

[00:35:01]

FINISHED AT OR NEAR THE END OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. >> THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR SO I UNDERSTAND. NOT THAT IT WOULD BE DONE THEY WANT WHEN YOU STARTED DRAWINGS.

BUT WHEN YOU ARE READY TO ROLL THE FIRST BIG TRUCK TO START UNLOADING EQUIPMENT ON SITE.

I'M HEARING IT IS OUR DESIRE. >> ENCORE, KB SEE AND YOU ARE ALIGNED.NFORTUNATELY WE DON'T HOLD ALL THE MARBLES ON THAT. MDA IS IN CONTROL OF.

>> I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> ANY OTHER UESTIONS? >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE E TRAFFIC BECAUSE I SHARE THE SAME CONCERN AS COMMISSIONER ROGERS ABOUT BEBE JONES.

YOU MENTIONED ROUGHLY 100 TRUCKS. I HEARD A NUMBER OF 900

SOMETHING INITIALLY COULD. >> 900 IS DAILY FOR TRUCKS AND PASSENGER CAR ES.

FOLKS THAT WOULD BE COMMUTING TO AND FROM WORK. >> TRAFFIC IS 900 A DAY.

100 ARE TRUCKS. >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU SIR.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR APPLICANT? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MAKE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR

DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION. >> AND MAKE A MOTION TO PROVE. >> I SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. 1234. OPPOSED? TWO. IT PASSED FOUR ÃTHREE. DID I MISS YOU? FOUR ÃTHREE IT PASSES. WE WILL MOVE TO 007 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND

[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit for building wall signs exceeding the maximum permitted signage located on Lot 2, Block 1, Harvest Hill Addition (commonly known as 320 Harvest Hill Drive, Suite 250), and presently zoned Planned Development District No. 109 (PD-109) (Case No. SUP07 2023-310).]

>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. AS MENTIONED THIS IS THE AGENDA ITEM 007.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR SIGNAGE ON TWO SEPARATE ELEVATIONS ON THE SAME BUILDING. USING THEIR CORPORATE COLOR. THE FIRST PART OF THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 320 HARVEST HILL DR. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE. THE FIRST PART OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A SIGN ON EACH OF THEIR ELEVATIONS AS YOU CAN SEE HERE THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE SUITE ON THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING. OUR SIGN ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR STRUCTURES TO HAVE SIGNS ON BOTH ELEVATIONS AS LONG AS THE BUSINESS HAS PUBLIC ENTRANCES THAT ARE ON BOTH ELEVATIONS AS WELL. THIS BUSINESS DOES MEET THAT CRITERIA.

EVEN WITH PUTTING THE TWO SIGNS ON WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO STAY UNDER THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED. THE SECOND PART OF THIS REQUEST IS FOR THEM TO USE THE MAGENTA COLOR OR THE PINK COLOR YOU CAN SEE ON THIS FOR THE WALL SIGNAGE AS WELL AS THE PANEL THEY WILL BE PLACING IN THE MONUMENT SIGN. THIS IS THE CORPORATE COLOR.

MOST OF THE TIME OUR DESIGN REGULATIONS WOULD REQUIRE THAT MOUNTING BACKPLATE TO BE THE SAME COLOR AS THE BUILDING TO BLEND IN THEIR STILL GOING TO USE THE CHANNEL LETTERS THAT ARE WHITE THEY ARE REQUESTING THE PACKER PLATE TO BE THE CORPORATE COLOR IT WAS ALREADY

QUESTIONS AS WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. >> QUESTIONS?

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE. >> IN THE ANALYSIS IT SAYS TO

PUBLIC STREETS. IS THE INDUSTRY ON THE WEBSITE? >> BOTH PUBLIC ENTRANCES BASE THE STREET. THEY BOTH FACE HARVEST HILL DRIVE.

THEY BOTH FACE THE SAME STREET AND HAVE PUBLIC ENTRANCES ON BOTH SIDES.

>> ARE WE TALKING ONE OR TWO SIGNS? >> THIS SAYS TO PUBLIC STREETS.

>> THEY HAVE TWO ENTRANCES FACING PUBLIC STREETS. IT IS ONE STREET AS IT CURVES AROUND. HARVEST HILL DRIVE AS IT CURVES AROUND.

THIS IS ONE STREET BUT FACING BOTH ENTRANCES FACING THE STREET.

[00:40:01]

>> I GET THE BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE PERMIT. >> I THINK WHAT WE WOULD DO IS INTERPRET BECAUSE THE ROAD CURVES AROUND BOTH ENTRANCES THAT BOTH ENTRANCES ARE FACING

A PUBLIC STREET. >> AGAIN I APPARENTLY MISSED IT.

ARE WE TALKING ONE OR TWO SIGNS? >> THERE ARE TWO SIGNS ONE ON

EACH ELEVATION. >> THEY BOTH FACE THE SAME STREET GYM.

>> YES AS IT CURVES AROUND THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT IS ON THE CORNER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> IS AT THEEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY OR THE WEST E?

>> LET ME GO BACK TO THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE. THIS BUILDING HERE IS ON THIS

FAR CORNER RIGHT HERE. >> I WAS THINKING IT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> AS THE ROAD CURVES AROUND AND FACES THE STREET. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? I SHOW NOBODY WISHING TO SPEAK. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

DISCUSSION OR ACTION. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO APPROVE. ANYMORE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ALL

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a “secondary dwelling”, presently zoned Agricultural (A) District. The property is located on ±1.91 acres at 5420 Cripple Creek. (Case No. SUP05-2023-28)]

SUP05-2023-28). >> THANK YOU. AS MENTIONED THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5420 CRIPPLE CREEK. HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO BUILD A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT.HE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE APPLICANT'S SON. THIS WOULD BE A SON FATHER SITUATION.

AS YOU KNOW SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT AS LONG AS WE ARE MEETING ALL OF THESE REGULATIONS. THERE ARE TWO DEVIATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING.

WHICH IS WHY HE IS BEFORE YOU REQUESTING A SOUPY THE FIRST ONE IS THE MAXIMUM FLOOR .

WE HAVE A RULE THAT SAYS IT CANNOT T EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING.

THE SECOND REGULATION IS THAT HE WILL BE ASKING FOR A SEPARATE SEPTIC UNIT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FIRST. THE PRIMARY HOME IS 3139 SQUARE FEET WHICH WOULD ALLOW A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE SIZE OF 1569 SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT OF 2055 SQUARE FEET.

THAT REQUEST IS ABOUT 485 SQUARE FEET OVER WHAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS KEEP IN MIND THE 2055 SQUARE FEET DOES INCLUDE THE GARAGE AND THAT'S ABOUT WHAT HE IS OVER.

IN SIZE. THERE IS A RENDERING OF THE SECONDARY DWELLING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD. MOVING ON TO THE SECOND REQUEST.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A SECONDARY SEPTIC SYSTEM DUE TO THE PRIMARY HOME SYSTEM NOT BEING CAPABLE OF PROVIDING FOR BOTH HOMES. THIS LOCATION HERE IS CURRENTLY WHERE THE SEPTIC SYSTEM IS THAT SERVE THE PRIMARY HOME. THIS UP HERE, I'M SORRY MY HAND IS SHAKING. IT IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE SECONDARY SEPTIC SYSTEM THE APPLICANT WILL REMAIN ON ALL OTHER UTILITIES, WATER, ELECTRIC AS THE PRIMARY HOME BUT DUE TO THE FUR SYSTEM NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE ON BOTH HOUSES THEY ARE REQUESTING THE SECONDARY SEPTIC. WE ARE A STAFF RECOMMENDING G APPROVAL WHICH IS A COUPLE CONDITIONS. THE FIRST CONDITION BEING THAT THE PERMIT ABSOLUTELY CANNOT COME IN WITH ANY MORE THAN 2055 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT.ND ALSO THAT HE WOULD OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT AND HIS PC Q PERMIT. AS YOU KNOW THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN REQUIRES ONE ACRE FOR SEPTIC. ALTHOUGH IN THIS INSTANCE TC Q COULD GO DOWN TO HAVE ACRE AS LONG AS THEY ARE MEETING THE EQUIREMENTS.

WE WOULD JUST REQUIRE THAT HE OBTAIN HIS TC Q PERMIT FOR THE SUBJECT AND MEET OTHER

REGULATIONS. I WILL STAND FOR ANY UESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

[00:45:02]

>> WHERE IS THE SECONDARY BUILDING? >> THE SECONDARY BUILDING IS

THIS BUILDING RIGHT ERE. >> THAT IS NOT ON OUR MAP. WHAT IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT?

>> THIS IS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. THIS IS AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING AND THIS IS THE EXISTING MAIN DWELLING. THIS IS THE PROPOSED NEW SECONDARY DWELLING THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM

OR IF HE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AS WELL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THE SECONDARY THING IS NOT ON THEIR. >> CAN WE PUT THAT SIDE WHERE

WE CAN SEE MORE DETAIL? >> WHERE IS THE STORAGE BUILDING? IS IT NOT ON THERE? SIR IF YOU WOULD COME AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WE WILL

LET YOU SPEAK SIR. >> MY NAME IS RANDY I'M THE OWNER OF THE PRIMARY HOUSE.

THIS IS MY DATA ROBERT. >> TO MY QUESTION WHERE IS THE STORAGE FACILITY OR STORAGE

BUILDING? OR IS IT NOT IN IS ? >> IT IS RIGHT HERE.

>> OKAY THE SECONDARY DWELLING IS GOING WHERE? >> IT IS GOING BEHIND THE

PRIMARY DWELLING. >> OKAY AND THE SEPTIC YOU ARE REQUESTING WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING AND NOT HOOKED UP TO THE STORAGE BUILDING OR PRIMARY RESIDENCE? IS THAT CORRECT? STRICTLY FOR THE SECONDARY. OKAY.

>> THE PRIMARY IS RIGHT BEHIND THE HOUSE HERE. THE GROUND-LEVEL SLOPES DOWN.

IN THIS DIRECTION RIGHT HERE. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RUN AN F LINE TO

GET TO THAT WHERE IT WOULD FALL PROPERLY. >> DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU

WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OR WERE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? >> DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU SIR. WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT UNLESS I MISSED SOMEONE. WITH THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO APPROVE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I.

ALL OPPOSED? THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR ACTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> ARE MOVED TO ROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. 009 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to change the zoning on Lot 13 and Lot 14, Block 2, Bryant Addition (commonly known as 508 Bryant Avenue) and presently located in a Residential Three (R3) Zoning District by rezoning said property to Urban Village Planned Development District No. 168 (UVPD-168) for single family residential uses (Case No. Z08-2023-33)]

>> THANK YOU. THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL

[00:50:04]

AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS CHART THE TWO MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN SINGLE-FAMILY FOR DOES NOT ALLOW A FRONT ENTRY GARAGE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FRONT ENTRY AND ALSO THE MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY FOR IS A 200 SQUARE FEET AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 1200 SQUARE FEET. I KNOW YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL FROM THIS MAP HERE BUT THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO LOTS IN THIS AREA HERE. TO PLOTTED LOTS.

THIS IS AN EXHIBIT SHOWING YOU THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT'S OUT THERE NOW.

CURRENTLY ALL OF THE LOTS ON BRIAN AVENUE ARE FRONT FACING AS YOU CAN SEE HERE AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THESE NUMBERS AND BLACK, THEY ARE HARD TO SEE, 81 PERCENT OF THE LOTS WHICH IS 18 OUT OF THE 22 THAT ARE DEVELOPED ARE UNDER THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DWELLING SIZE. WITH THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE 1200 SQUARE FEET HE'S REALLY CONSISTED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS OUT THERE CURRENTLY.

THIS IS THE RENDERING THAT IS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT ONE ON EACH LOT.

THIS WILL JUST BE THE BASE RENDERING. THE APPLICANT IS SUGGESTING HE WILL DO DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS AS WELL AS ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES SO THE HOUSE SITS RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. THE APPLICANT ALSO PROVIDED A FRONT PORCH AREA TO MINIMIZE THE PRESENCE OF THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGE.

VERY SIMILAR TO THE UV PD THAT'S ACROSS FROM LEMON PEPPER WE PROVIDED THE RENDERINGS TO THE HOUSE AND ARE CONCEPTUALLY THE SAME WITH COLORS DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS AS WELL AS ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THE HOUSES WILL NOT BE THE SAME CAN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

OF THE UV PD AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> IS THE REASON THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF HOUSES IS UNDER REQUIREMENT IS BECAUSE OF THE HOMES ARE OLDER AND HE OVERLAID A HIGHER SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS THEN WAS EXISTING?

>> NO. THIS IS A INACTIVE ZONING WE KNOW LONGER REZONE THINGS R3 SO THIS IS IT OLDER ZONING MOST OF THE HOUSES OUT THERE WILL PROBABLY BUILD PRIOR TO THE ZONING LIKE I SAID THERE'S ACTUALLY 24 LOTS OUT THERE AND TWO LOTS HAVE STILL NOT BEEN DEVELOPED BESIDES THESE TWO. 18 OF THE OTHERS, OF THE 22 ARE UNDER.

YOU CAN SEE I THINK THE LOWEST ONE IS 912 SQUARE FEET. THE VERY HIGHEST ONE BEING 2678. IN 1947 ARE THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE MEETING THE MINIMUM

REQUIREMENT. >> YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS. DID YOU GET ANY LETTERS FROM

NEIGHBORS? >> I HAVE ZERO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION.

>> THIS LOOKS LIKE A CUL-DE-SAC? >> IT IS.

YES OR. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? DAVID BACK. IS HE PRESENT? IF NOT LET THE RECORD SHOW HE TURNED AND FORM IN OPPOSITION. EXCESS 9.

HANG ON A ECOND. IT SAYS S 09. >> I THINK THAT WAS THE KDC

FORM. THAT WAS THE VERY FIRST CASE. >> MR. BECK WAS IN OPPOSITION AND BAILEY IN OPPOSITION? WERE THOSE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AS BEING RECEIVED? THEY ARE ALREADY IN THE RECORD? OKAY GOOD MY BAD. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE IN THE ECORD. I SHOW NO OTHERS. WITH THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> A MOTION TO CLOSE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY

[00:55:03]

Z10-2023-039). I'M SORRY. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SUBMITTED BY STAFF.

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Agricultural (A) to Single Family-2 (SF2) zoning to allow for residential use on +/- 1.782 acres, being Abstract 246, J. Crane Survey, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is generally located at 3846 Shiloh Rd. (Case No. Z10-2023-039).]

SHILOH RD. (CASE NUMBER Z10-2023-039). >> GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU THE LAST TWO CASES GO HAND-IN-HAND WITH ONE ANOTHER.

IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU AND THE COMMISSION CAN PRESENT THE LAST AGENDA ITEMS TOGETHER AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN VOTE INDIVIDUALLY IF THAT'S OKAY. STARTING WITH THE FIRST ITEM THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 10 CASE NUMBER Z 10. THIS IS A PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY. AS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN EXHIBIT OUTLINE GREEN FOR TOTAL PROPERTY AROUND THREE AND HALF ACRES. AGAIN THE TOTAL E TOTAL SITE FOR WHAT WE ARE REFERENCING IS GOING TO BE SPLIT INTO SEPARATE TRACKS. TRACK EIGHT IS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE AND TRACK B IS TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. YOU HAVE AN EXHIBIT IN A SECOND THAT SHOWS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL PT. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON FOR THIS CASE IS TRACK B WHICH IS LOCATED HERE. THIS IS AROUND 1.782 ACRES AND HAS EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. AGAIN APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY T.

AND FUTURE PLANS AS NECESSARY Y AS COUNTRY MODULE AND AGAIN THE NEXT SLIDE IS A LARGER IMAGE OF THIS LOCATION WE ARE DISCUSSING. AGAIN THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE SPLIT UP INTO SEPARATE TRACKS AS YOU SEE TRACK EIGH IS TO LEFT-HANDSIDE WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED ON THE NEXT CASE AND TRACK B IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW WHICH IS OUTLINED IN D. TRACK B IS GOING TO BE AROUND 1.782 ACRES AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY NUMBER TWO THERE IS EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THE Y AND WE DO WANT TO KNOW BOTH THESE TRACKS WILL BE USED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE COMPARISON CHART FOR AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND STANDARDS SO ACT BEING IN THE CENTER SINGLE-FAMILY ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. BAG IS WHAT THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AND SINGLE-FAMILY TO IS WHAT E APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SINGLE-FAMILY TO STANDARDS BECAUSE THE CURRENT PROPERTY WOULD ALIGN WITH SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT OPPOSED TO THE CULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. STAFF IS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE ZONING REQUEST AND STEP IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND IF IT'S OKAY CHAIRMAN AGAITRANSITI ITEM NUMBER 11 IS FOR CASE NO. Z07-2023-031PD AMENDMENT TRACK EIGHT OF THE TWO TRACKS THAT WE ARE ISCUSSING. THE SITE IS 1.740 ACRES AND CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCORPORATE TRACK EIGHT INTO THE EXISTING PD 140 WITCHES THE PD AND USE SEPARATE INTO TWO LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES THE FUTURE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS COUNTRY MODULE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A LARGER LOCATION EXHIBIT FOR THE PROPERTY WE ARE DISCUSSING. MARCH 4, 2021 PNC VOTED FIVE Ã ZERO TO APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR SHILOH WITCHES PD 140 ON MARCH 9 COUNCIL VOTED 7 TO 0 TO APPROVE THE CASE AS WELL AGAIN SAME IMAGE AS THE LAST CASE.

WE ARE LOOKING AT TRACK A OUTLINED IN BLUE AND IS GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE LOTS WHICH WILL BE, ONE TRUCK SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS WHICH WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING PD. PD 140 IS GOING TO BE USED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE PD. PD 140 AND EVERYTHING FROM LOT SIZE, SETBACKS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT THE APPLICANT IS INTENDING TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.

IN ADDITION TO THIS APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO ADD TWO MORE AMENDMENTS TO THE PD WHICH WILL

[01:00:05]

LASTLY SIGNAGE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE ENTRYWAY SIGNAGE INTO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SIGNAGE THERE RENDERING OF THAT PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS RIGHT HERE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE SCREEN WHICH IS PRIMARILY CONSTRUCTED OF STONE MATERIAL AND THE DIMENSIONS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE HERE.

THE NEXT TWO SLIDES DEPICT THE CONCEPT ELEVATIONS AND SO NOTHING CHANGED WITH THIS THIS IS FOR REFERENCE FOR THE PLANNING ZONE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT IT.

THESE IMAGES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL PD APPROVED IN 2022.

THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH THESE RENDERINGS AS WELL.

THE APPLICANT DID NOT RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SO AGAIN STEP PRESENTED TWO CASES TO YOU GUYS THE FIRST CASE WAS A ZONING CHANGE FOR THE TRACK B OF THE PROPERTY TO REZONE FROM AG TO SINGLE-FAMILY NUMBER TWO AND LAST ONE INCLUDES TRACK A WHICH WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO PD 140 THAT CONCLUDES THE

PRESENTATION AND APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. >> CAN WE GO BACK?

WHAT IS THE STREET ON THE LEFT AT THE END OF THE LOT? >> RIGHT HERE?

>> THE LOT CIRCLED IN BLUE TO YOUR LEFT. WHAT IS THAT STREET? THAT LAW IS GOING TO EXIT ONTO THAT? WHERE IS THE EXIT FOR THE

PROPERTY? >> BOTH PROPERTIES WILL HAVE EXIT POINT FACING CHESTNUT

DRIVE CORRECT? >> THEY ARE SHOWING SHILOH ROAD.

>> SHILOH ROAD IS RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY HOWEVER THEY ARE LOOKING INTO SEPARATE DAYS INTO TWO TRACKS TRACK B WILL HAVE ACCESS ONTO SHILOH ROAD AS IT CURRENTLY DOES FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. TRACK A WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PD WHICH IS THESE LOTS HERE THOSE WILL FACE ONTO CHESTNUT DRIVE.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> WHY 412 INSTEAD OF A 12? >> MOST OF THE HOMES WERE REQUIRED TO MEET THE A 12 HOWEVER YOU GUYS AS WELL AS COUNSEL I'VE SEEN ROOF PITCH CASES THAT COME BEFORE YOU GUYS A LOT OF THE MODERN STYLE HOMES ARE BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU AND LOOKING FOR A LOWER ROOF PITCH. THAT IS SOMETHING THE APPLICANT

IS LOOKING FOR AND I CAN LET HIM SPEAK MORE TO THAT AS WELL. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR ACTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> IF NOT A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION AT THE SECOND TO IMPROVE.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. I'M GOING TO

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Planned Development-140 (PD-140) to allow for two (2) additional residential lots consisting of 1.740 acres within an existing single-family development, being Abstract 246, J. Crane Survey, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is generally located at 3846 Shiloh Rd. (Case No. Z07-2023-031).]

Z07-2023-031) LET THE RECORD SHOW PUBLIC HEARING WAS WITH ITEM 110 IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK FOR THIS I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION TO SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED?

THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS DO YOU HAVE

[01:05:01]