Jun 13, 2023 City Council

[Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance]

[00:00:11]

>>> GOOD EVENING, IT IS 6:00 ON TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023.

I CALL THIS MIDLOTHIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER.

BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE PASTOR CLINT ROADS OF CREEKSIDE CHURCH TO LEAD US IN INVOCATION.

THEN WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER MIKE ROGERS TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

>>> BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR PATIENCE WITH ME. THANK YOU TO THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND THOSE IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL.

WITH THAT WE WILL OPEN UP AGENDA ITEM 2023-197 AND THAT IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THE CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC THAT IS NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. CITIZENS P WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A CITIZENS PARTICIPATION FORM AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY NO LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING AND CITIZENS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. WITH THAT, WE HAVE NONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK. ON THAT SAME TOPIC, WE ARE GOING TO SHIFT THE WAY THAT WE DO THINGS A LITTLE BIT.

AND THAT IS SIMPLY THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE TURN IN A FORM BEFORE THAT AGENDA ITEM IS OPENED. ONCE WE OPEN THE AGENDA ITEM, THEN CLOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

SO IF THERE'S A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IN TONIGHT'S MEETING, YOU HAVE TIME TO FILL OUT A FORM AND PLEASE TURN IT IN TO ONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS THAT'S IN THE BACK CORNER BACK THERE BY THE DOUBLE DOORS BY THE RAMP.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY ITEMS THAT

YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND MULTIPLE SECONDS.

AND WITH THAT WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. CONSENT AGENDA DOES PASS 7-0.

[2023-203]

CRIPPLE CREEK. >> AT 5420 CRIPPLE CREEK.

PER SECTION 3.57, APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET 11 DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING UNIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. THE APPLICANT DOES INTEND TO MEET ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE TWO THAT YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED HERE ON THE SCREEN.

THE FIRST ONE BEING A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA NOT TO EXCEED 50% OF THE AIR CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING.

AND THE SECOND ONE BEING THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR A SEPARATE SEPTIC SYSTEM. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST REQUEST. THE PRIMARY HOME ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS 3,139 SQUARE FEET 2,055 -- THE

[00:05:09]

THE APPLICANT WILL REMAIN ON ALL OF THE OTHER SAME UTILITIES AS THE PRIMARY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH JUST A FEW CONDITIONS. THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THEY WOULD OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT OF COURSE FOR THE SECONDARY LINE. AND AS WELL AS THE TCEQ FERMENT FOR THAT SEPTIC SYSTEM. THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT CANNOT EXCEED THE 2,054 SQUARE FEET THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.

AS WELL AS THIS AREA RIGHT HERE IS WHERE THE SECONDARY SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE. THIS AREA RIGHT OUTSIDE THE GARAGE, WE ARE REQUESTING THEY PUT A 20 BY THAT FOOT CONCRETE PAD FOR PARKING AS THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIRING FOR SECONDARY DWELLING. THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS UNANIMOUSLY AND STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS WELL. I'LL STAY FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT? WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING DOES PASS 7-0.

AT THIS POINT WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FOR LESLIE OR THE

APPLICANT. >> ON THE 1500 SQUARE FEET, IS THAT BASED OFF AIR-CONDITIONING SPACE?

>> YES, IT'S 50% OF THE AIR CONDITIONED SPACE OF THE PRIMARY, BUT WE COMPARE THAT TO THE TOTAL SPACE, AIR CONDITIONED

AND NOT OF THE SECONDARY. >> AND OUR REQUIREMENT FOR SEPTIC IS ONE UNIT PER ACRE. SO THAT'S THE VARIANCE FOR THE

OTHER ONE IS 1.9 ACRES? >> YES, SO WE DO ALLOW THEM TO, WE CAN GO DOWN TO HALF ACRE, TCEQ DOES AS WELL AND THEY INTEND TO DO THAT TO OBTAIN THAT PERMIT.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> A SECOND FROM MS. HAMMONDS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0.

[2023-204]

ADDITION. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO INSTALL SIGNAGE ON TWO LOCATIONS OF THEIR BUILDING. THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING TO USE THEIR CORPORATE COLOR FOR THE BACK PLATE AS WELL AS THE MONUMENT SIGN FOR THEIR SIGNAGE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 320 HARVEST HILL DRIVE. IT'S LOT 2, BLOCK 1.

THEY'RE IN SUITE 250 WHICH IS IN THE CORNER SPACE OF THE BUILDING. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR WALL SIGNAGE ON MORE THAN ONE ELEVATION, ON MORE THAN ONE FACADE OF THE BUILDING IF IT HAS PUBLIC ENTRANCES FACING 2 PUBLIC STREETS WITH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE SIGNS TO BE ON THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING EVEN WITH THE SECOND SIGNAGE, THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IN SIGNAGE FOR THE BUILDING IN TOTAL. THE SECOND REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR IS TO ALLOW THIS PINK MAGENTA COLOR ON THE BUILDING AS WELL AS THE MONUMENT SIGN.

I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN THIS COLOR ON MANY T-MOBILE SIGNS IN THE AREA. THIS IS THEIR CORPORATE FRANCHISE COLOR. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY.

AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT? WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

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

PLEASE VOTE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED

[00:10:05]

OR THE APPLICANT? >> HOW MUCH OVER THE SQUARE

FOOTAGE ARE THEY OVER? >> THEY'RE NOT OVER ANY.

WE WORKED WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE UNDER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE

ALLOWED. >> SO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS

NOW JUST FOR THE COLOR? >> IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

IT'S NEVER TO BE OVER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN TO JUST HAVE SECOND SIGNAGE ON THE SECOND

FACADE. >> OKAY.

>> FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

A MOTION TO APPROVE. A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM DOES PASS 6-1.

LET THE RECORD SHOW IT DID PASS 7-0.

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THIS EASY ON ME, CLARK.

WITH THAT, WE WILL OPEN AGENDA 2023-206 -- DID I MISS ONE,

[2023-205]

2023-205, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING ON LOT 13 AND LOT 14

BLOCK 2 OF THE BRYANT ADDITION. >> THE REQUEST FOR THIS IS TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 508 BRYANT AVENUE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN FROM RESIDENTIAL 3 TO AN URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. AGAIN THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL THREE AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A UVPD WITH A BASE ZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY FOUR.

THE RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONING IS AN INACTIVE ZONING DISTRICT CURRENTLY. I DO WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING THAT'S IN MY STAFF REPORT WHEN THE STAFF REPORT WAS WRITTEN, THERE WAS CURRENTLY A CHURCH ON THE LOT.

THAT HAS SINCE BEEN DEMOED. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS WHAT A SINGLE FAMILY FOUR FACE LOOKS LIKE VERSUS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSE IN THE URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THE TWO DIFFERENCES, THE TWO DEVIATIONS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR, IS THE MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE IN SINGLE FAMILY FLOOR IS -- AND THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR 1200 FEET.

THERE ARE NO FRONT ENTRY ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY FOUR.

AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT BOTH OF THESE HOMES BE FRONT ENTRY. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE IS AN EXHIBIT OF THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, ALL OF THE HOUSES, 100% OF THE HOUSES ON THIS STREET ARE FRONT FACING.

AND 81% OF THEM ARE UNDER THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DWELLING UNIT.

SO THAT'S ABOUT 18 OUT OF 20. THEY RANGE FROM 912 SQUARE FEET TO 2700, BUT MOST OF THOSE ARE ON THE LOW END OF THAT.

THEY WILL DO SOME CHANGES TO BUILDING MATERIAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A FRONT PORCH AREA TO MINIMIZE THE FRONTAGE TO THE GARAGE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY.

I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

DID WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS CASE? WOULD THE DEVELOPER OR APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> A MOTION FROM MR. SIBLEY, A SECOND FROM MS. HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED 7-0. COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION FROM MS. HAMMONDS, A SECOND FROM MR. HARTSON.

PLEASE PLACE YOUR VOTE. AND THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0.

[2023-206 ]

[00:15:02]

PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF

FORBES ROAD AND VV JONES. >> SO WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT WHICH IS REPRESENTING ONCOR IS ASKING TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT. ONCOR IS REQUESTING TO HAVE AN OFFICE AND DISTRIBUTION SITE FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, TRANSFORMERS, TRAILERS, ET CETERA.

THE SITE IS ABOUT 60 ACRES. FOR THE OUTDOOR AREA THERE WOULD BE A MAX LIMIT PER THIS PD FOR A MAXIMUM PLAN OF 16 FEET OF ANYTHING BEING STACKED OR STORED OUTSIDE.

ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS NORMALLY WE WOULD REQUIRE DECKER'S METAL FENCING, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR CHAIN LINK.

AND AS YOU'LL SEE IN A FEW SLIDES, THERE'S A FAIRLY HEAVY LANDSCAPING SO A LOT OF THAT CHAIN LINK WOULD BE OBSCURED BY MATURE GROWTH LANDSCAPING. SO AN OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST, AGAIN THE SITE IS 60 ACRES FOR SITE CONDITIONS I MEANT TO SAY.

SO THERE'S SOME INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT THINGS TO NOTE.

SO ALONG THE FRONTAGE ALONG FORBES ROAD, THERE ARE MULTIPLE MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES. WE ALSO HAVE A GAS COMPRESSOR STATION LOCATED HERE THAT IS SURROUNDED BY SOME WHAT I WOULD CALL EARTH AND BERMS THAT ARE EIGHT FEET TALL FROM WHAT I CAN ESTIMATE. THEN ALSO ON THE TOPOGRAPHY WITH ITS SLOPE, THIS AREA HERE I WOULD GENERALLY CALL IT THE HIGH GROUND AND I'LL HAVE A VISUAL FOR YOU IN A MOMENT.

BUT THE FUTURE LINE THROUGH HERE, THIS GROUND HERE IS ABOUT TEN FEET HIGHER THAN THIS GROUND CURRENTLY.

WE ESTIMATED IT SHORTEN TO AN 8-FOOT ELEVATION DIFFERENCE.

BUT THAT WILL BE IN A FEW SLIDES.

THEY'RE ESTIMATING 100 EMPLOYEES WHEN FULLY STAFFED.

THEY WOULD DO TWO STAFFS BETWEEN 5:30 A.M. AND 10:30 P.M. AND THEIR TIA SHOWED 974 TRIPS PER DAY.

FOR ALIGNMENT WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THAT AREA DOES ENVISION INDUSTRIAL ZONING AS THE MODULE AND THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING MODULE DOES ENVISION THINGS LIKE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL. THIS PART OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR WOULD GENERALLY BE COMPLIANT.

THE ONE THING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE COMP PLAN IS WHAT WAS ENVISIONED WAS ENCLOSED OR SEMI-ENCLOSED.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN THAT WAS ENVISIONED IN OUR COMP PLAN BY THE EXTRA LANDSCAPING.

IN THE AREA ACROSS THE STREET TO THE SOUTH LARGELY RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S ETJ. THIS WAS MY UNSCIENTIFIC ESTIMATE OF THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL OF WHERE WOULD THAT VV JONES ALIGNMENT CROSS. BEAR WITH ME.

MENTALLY ROTATE 90 DEGREES COUNTER CLOCKWISE, KIND OF CHANGE THE SITE PLAN ORIENTATION ON YOU HERE.

I APOLOGIZE. I'LL SHOW YOU A FULL SITE PLAN IN A MINUTE. I WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT ALONG VV JONES ROAD HERE THIS WOULD BE THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT, THEY WOULD PROVIDE A DECEL LANE, I DON'T BELIEVE THEIR TIA SHOWED IT BUT STAFF IS REQUIRING THIS.

THIS WOULD BE PART OF THE PD, THAT THE DECEL LANE BE PLACED HERE FOR THIS DRIVEWAY. THIS WOULD BE IN THE FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY, EVENTUALLY WHEN THAT ROAD IS FULLY BUILT OUT YOU'LL JUST HAVE LANES. BUT UNTIL IT'S FULLY BUILT OUT, THEY WOULD REQUIRE A DECEL LANE. THEN ON FORBES ROAD/POWER WAY, POWER WAY IS FOUR LANES. AND THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRANSITION FROM 4 TO 2 AND THAT WOULD ROUGHLY TAKE PLACE AT THIS DRIVEWAY LOCATION THERE. NOW WE'RE FLIPPING BACK, ROTATING BACK. SO THIS IS THE FULL SITE PLAN.

[00:20:03]

ALSO REMEMBER AROUND THIS COMPRESSOR SITE THERE'S EARTH AND BERMS HERE THAT BASICALLY PROVIDES SOME SCREENING.

THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, THEY'RE MEETING THAT BUT THE 225 ORDINANCE ALLOWS ABOUT 30% OF THE PARKING TO BE COMPACT PARKING, SO THEY'RE PROVIDING 67 COMPACT PARKING SPACES AND IN ADDITION TO THAT 40 TRAILER PARKING SPACES.

AND THE DUMPSTER OF COURSE WOULD MEET OUR SCREENING STANDARDS.

FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, SO REAL QUICK THE BLUE HERE IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHERE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS.

THE GRAY IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHERE THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA WOULD TAKE PLACE. AND THE GREEN IS TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHERE THE LANDSCAPING IS.

AGAIN THE MAJOR PIPELINES RUN THROUGH HERE GIVING YOU A PRETTY DEEP SETBACK OF GREENERY. ALONG THE EDGES HERE, ALL OF THE TREES ARE A MIX OF OAK AND ASH, THEN UP HERE IS THE IDEA THERE IS IF YOU'RE COMING DOWN VV JONES AND SINCE THE COMP PLAN DIDN'T ENVISION THE OPEN OUTDOOR STORAGE, IT SHOULD GROW SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 15 AND 25 FEET TALL.

AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS THE HIGH GROUND.

SO THIS ELEVATION IN THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA IS GOING TO BE TEN FEET ABOVE WHERE VV JONES WOULD BE OR EIGHT FEET ONCE IT'S BUILT. SO YOU'VE GOT THAT ADVANTAGE SORT OF OF THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION.

FOR THE FACADE PLAN, NORMALLY WE DON'T REQUIRE ARTICULATIONS, BUT THEY'RE FOLLOWING OUR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL STANDARD FOR ARTICULATIONS FOR ARCHITECTURE BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL.

THEY'VE PROVIDED SOME VISUAL INTEREST IN THEIR ARCHITECTURE.

AND HERE'S A SNAPSHOT OF ELEVATIONS.

THIS IS THE VIEW FROM FORBES ROAD, SO IF YOU WERE STANDING AT FORBES ROAD LOOKING AT THE BUILDING, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AGAIN WITH ALL OF THESE PIPELINES RUNNING THROUGH HERE, THAT'S WHY THIS IS A BIG OPEN GRASS AREA.

WITH THIS VANTAGE POINT, THIS WOULD BE VV JONES.

THIS WAY WOULD BE FORBES ROAD. NOW WE'RE HEADING MORE IN A SOUTH DIRECTION, BUT YOU'RE NOT SEEING IN THIS RENDERING WHERE IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY HERE, AND THIS AREA WOULD BE GENERALLY THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA. SO JUST TO POINT THAT OUT.

THE LIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE, THERE'S REQUIREMENTS ABOUT KEEPING THAT HEIGHT OF ANYTHING SORTED OR STACKED BELOW A HEIGHT OF 16 FEET. WE'VE GOT THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SCREENING TO CONSTRUCT THE VIEW OF IT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AN EXISTING BERM AROUND THE COMPRESSOR SITE. THEN THE MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL, THIS WOULD BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE.

PER PUBLIC NOTICE RESPONSES, WE RECEIVED THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM RESIDENCES WHO LIVE IN THE ETJ ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FORBES ROAD. THEY'VE EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT TO SUMMARIZE IT'S GENERALLY BEING CONCERNS FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY, NOISE, TRAFFIC, ROAD CONDITIONS, SAFETY OF THEIR CHILDREN. THERE MAY BE MORE, BUT I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH CAPTURES IT. THERE WAS ONE CALL ASKING FOR QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION THAT NO ONE WAS ACTUALLY BUILDING ON THE PIPELINE. SO FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD NO ONE IS ACTUALLY BUILDING ON THE PIPELINES.

AND WE DID JUST TODAY GOT A LETTER FROM DISTRICT COURT, THEY'VE LET US KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR, THEY'RE JUST GIVING US INFORMATION THAT CURRENTLY WITH THEIR PIPELINE, THEY HAVE EVERY TEN YEARS FOR PEOPLE WITHIN 600 FEET, THEY'LL NEED TO DO MAINTENANCE AND PEOPLE WILL NEED TO VACATE FOR A PERIOD OF 48 HOURS. AND THAT'S ON THE BOOKS FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN EVERY TEN YEARS.

THEY TOLD US THAT IF THIS ZONING WERE TO BE APPROVED I GUESS BY

[00:25:04]

BUT THAT WAS THE INFORMATION WE GOT FROM VISTRA CORP. TODAY.

OTHER THAN THAT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND P&Z ON MAY 16TH DID VOTE TO APPROVE 4-3.

BUT THERE WAS EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ON ISSUES OF TRAFFIC, ROAD CONDITIONS, TIMING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF VV JONES ROAD, AND CONCERN FOR THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE IN THE AREA.

WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT AND HIS TEAM IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. TAMMY, DO WE HAVE ANY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND IF YOU LIVE INSIDE OR OUT OF THE

CITY LIMIT? >> I LIVE OUTSIDE OF MIDLOTHIAN.

I'M THE LISTING AGENT FOR MARK MARIETTA ON THE SALE OF SIGHTS IN RAIL PORT BUSINESS PARK. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MARK MARIETTA TO STATE THAT HE ENDORSES THIS PROJECT, ENDORSES THE USE AND THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE THAT GOES WITH IT TO MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL. THIS PROJECT WILL ALSO BE GOOD BY EXPEDITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF VV JONES.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WITH THAT, THE DEVELOPER OR THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION YOU CAN NOW OR WE CAN JUST Q&A AFTER IF YOU PREFER? COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER SIBLEY, SECOND FROM M MS. HAMMONDS.

PLEASE VOTE. THE PUBLIC HEARING DOES CLOSE WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT, NOW IS A GOOD

TIME. >> I ACTUALLY HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE WAS ON THE 900 PLUS TRIPS A DAY THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, I WONDER WHAT THE PERCENTAGE OF HEAVY PASSENGER VEHICLES IS, WHAT THE

BREAKDOWN ON THAT IS. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING

YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> YES, SIR.

MY NAME IS IGNACIO HERRERA. THE ACTUAL COUNTS FOR THE OPERATION PROJECTED IS THE DELIVERY OF MATERIALS WITH AN AVERAGE OF 65 TRUCKS PER DAY. AND THE OCCUPANCY OF EMPLOYEES ABOUT 100 PEOPLE. SO IN REALITY THE TIA PRESENTED A MONTH AGO REPRESENTED THE AVERAGE CALCULATION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING. BUT THE ACTUAL TRIPS WERE ESTIMATED TO BE 380 WHICH IS THE 100 OCCUPANTS TWICE, THE 65 TRUCKS IN AND OUT. THAT DOUBLED PLUS 30% WHICH IS A

CONSERVATIVE APPROACH. >> THANK YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL BE THE ONE TO ANSWER MY NEXT QUESTION.

BUT THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD WAS ON THE STORAGE LOT ITSELF AND WHAT THE SURFACE WOULD BE ON THAT? IS THAT A PAVED SURFACE OR IS THAT GOING TO BE A CRUSHED GRANITE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD PRODUCE DUST?

>> APOLOGIES, I SKIPPED THAT PART.

NOT GRAVEL. IT NEEDS TO EITHER BE CONCRETE OR ASPHALT AND THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED BY A GEO TECH REPORT AS TO WHICH SURFACE HOLDS UP THE BEST.

>> THEN I HAD ONE LAST QUESTION ON THE INCREASE IN THE PIPELINE INSPECTION SCHEDULE. IS THAT ALSO GOING TO IMPACT THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE LIVING THERE AS WELL? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO VACATE MORE OFTEN NOW THAN THEY WOULD

HAVE PREVIOUSLY? >> BASED ON THE LETTER THEY PROVIDED, THEY HAVE TO DO IT EVERY TEN YEARS NOW, AND THEY WOULD DO IT EVERY FIVE YEARS BASED ON WHAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REZONING IS.

WE'RE CURIOUS TO KNOW MORE OURSELVES.

>> DO WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GET AN ANSWER ON THAT?

[00:30:05]

DO WE HAVE AN IDEA? >> I DO NOT KNOW.

I GOT IT SO LATE TODAY, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CONTACT THEM. SO I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER

BEYOND I INTEND TO CONTACT THEM. >> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE TIMELINE OF THE ROAD REALIGNMENT.

IS THAT GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT.

>> THE MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS FUNDING THE VV JONES ROAD PROJECT. AND WE HAD ALWAYS PLANNED TO BUILD THE ROAD. WE ARE IN DISCUSSION NOW, THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUILD THE ROAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ONCOR FACILITY IF IT GETS APPROVED TONIGHT SO THEY CAN BETTER MANAGE THE TIMELINE SO THAT THEY CAN TRY TO GET VV JONES OPEN PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF THE ONCOR FACILITY.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF THIS DOES NOT GET APPROVED THEN THEY'LL PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE BUILDING OF VV JONES.

IT'S GOING TO GET BUILT ONE WAY OR THE ANOTHER, BUT WE'RE WORKING TO FACILITATE THAT PROJECT.

>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT FORBES ROAD ON TWO ACCESSES TO FORBES.

I DON'T SEE ON THE SLIDE, ARE THEY GIVING ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR

THE EXPANSION OF FORBES ROAD? >> SO FOR THE PLAT THAT WILL COME FORWARD, THEY WILL HAVE TO -- THE BEST VISUAL IS THE ONE I'VE GOT. SO TO CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD GENERALLY SPEAKING ON FORBES ROAD, THEY'LL HAVE TO DEDICATE THAT MUCH RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THE ROAD WOULD BE BUILT WITH THAT 4 TO 2 TRANSITION AND SIDEWALK AS WELL WOULD BE IN THE

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> IS THE PLAN TO LEAVE FORBES ROAD AN ASPHALT ROAD FOR NOW? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THEM OR US, BUT AS FAR AS IMPACT FEES GO, ANY TYPE OF SURFACE OF THE ROAD? BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING VV JONES IS EXPANDING MOST OF THE ACCESS OFF OF FORBES ROAD.

>> I THINK DURING CONSTRUCTION THEY'LL BE COMING IN ON FORBES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T ASSESS AN IMPACT FEE, THIS IS SERVICE AREA FIVE, AND THEIR PART OF THE IMPACT FEE IS PAID

IN THIS AREA. >> BECAUSE IT'S IN THE RAILPORT?

OKAY. >> THEY ARE WORKING WITH US ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, JUST FYI. BUT VV JONES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY HAS BEEN DEDICATED BY MARK MARIETTA.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR QUITE A WHILE.

WE HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY NECESSARY FOR VV JONES AS WELL AS THE UTILITIES THAT TO OCCUR FOR ELECTRIC AND WATER LINES SO

WE HAVE THOSE IN PLACE NOW. >> ON FORBES ROAD, IT WILL GET RECONSTRUCTED FROM THE INTERSECTION OF VV JONES TO THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARY. SO IT'S GOING TO START OFF AT FOUR LANES. IT'S AN 80-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY SO IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE A 4 LANE ROAD.

THEN IT WILL TRANSITION TO TWO. SO THERE WILL BE 2 NEW LANES BEING BUILT ALONG THEIR FRONTAGE AND TRANSITION BACK TO THE EXISTING ROAD WHICH I GUESS WOULD BE THEIR WESTERN PROPERTY.

>> A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS THE STREET, THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE FRONT ELEVATION WHICH YOU SHOWED US EARLIER. SO IDEALLY THEY'RE NOT SEEING

ANY OF THE OUTDOOR STORAGE? >> CORRECT.

WE HAVE THE MASONRY WALL HERE. SO MAYBE A GATE THERE, A GATE THERE. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM FORBES

ROAD. >> OKAY, AND THEN WE'RE ASSUMING, SO AGRICULTURE IS ON ALL OF THE OTHER THREE SIDES.

FORBES ROAD IS OUR MAIN -- I'M SORRY VV JONES, THAT'S THE MAIN ROAD THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE INTO THE OUTDOOR STORAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> RIGHT. >> AND ONE OF THE QUIRKS WITH

[00:35:03]

BUT THIS PART IS NOT REALLY ADJACENT LITERALLY TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THEY'RE SETBACKS SO IN SOME CASES THEY'RE GETTING

SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> SO YOU SAID IT WAS HIGHER UP, WE'VE GOT THE TREES, BUT THEY CAN GO UP TO 16 FEET?

>> RIGHT, SO YES THEY COULD STORE AND STACK STUFF IN THAT OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA TO MAX HEIGHT OF 16 FEET.

SO ASSUMING IT REACHES ITS MATURE HEIGHT OF 15 FEET, IT TOPS OUT AT 25 FEET, WE'RE COMING CLOSE --

>> IS THAT LIKE TEN YEARS OR --? >> REALISTICALLY 5 TO 10

DEPENDING. >> MY ONLY OTHER, MIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE BEST. I WATCHED P&Z, BUT I WANT JUST A VERY HIGH LEVEL WHAT THE DEALS WITH 3-4 SPLIT WAS ON P&Z, OR

STAFF IF Y'ALL CAN REVIEW THAT? >> LIKE WHAT THE DISCUSSION

TOPICS? >> YEAH.

>> SO AS I RECALL THE MAIN ISSUES I FELT I WAS HEARING AT THIS WAS CERTAINLY TRAFFIC, ROAD CONDITIONS, TIMING OF VV JONES TO THE OPERATION OF THE SITE AS WELL AS AGAIN CONCERN ON THE IMPACT OF THOSE RESIDENCES IN OUR ETJ.

>> THIS ISN'T THE ONLY INDUSTRIAL SITE, WE APPROVED TWO OTHER PROJECTS THAT FACED FORBES JUST WEST OF HERE?

>> TO THE WEST, YEAH. AND I THINK THEY WERE ALL WAREHOUSING DISTRIBUTION TYPE STYLE BUSINESSES.

>> YES, SIR. >> AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.

>> THE PRIMARY FOCUS AND CONCERN AS I SAW AT P&Z WAS DEFINITELY AROUND VV JONES ROAD. AND SADLY FOR THE APPLICANT, THEY WERE SUFFERING FROM A LACK OF GETTING SOME FORM OF ASSURANCE WITHOUT DOUBT FROM THE CITY THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE AT THE TIME THAT THAT BUILDING WAS OCCUPIED.

THAT WAS THE PRIMARY CONCERN. I DO KNOW SINCE THEN FROM BEING ABLE TO TALK WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY HAVE GONE LITERALLY 110% OUT OF THEIR WAY TO TRY TO EVEN BE ABLE TO TAKE THAT PROJECT AND HEAD THAT UP. I DID TAKE THE TIME TO GO DOWN AND DRIVE VV JONES, IT IS IN EXCELLENT, REALLY GREAT SHAPE RIGHT NOW. OUR PRIMARY CONCERN ON P&Z OF COURSE WAS ALSO THE PROTECTION SOMEWHAT FOR THE CITIZENS THAT AREN'T A PART OF OUR CITY THAT HAVE TO USE THAT AS INGRESS AND EGRESS POINTS FOR THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY.

AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES BACK THERE.

I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I'VE DRIVEN THE STREET, IT'S IN GOOD SHAPE NOW. THE ONLY OTHER REQUEST THAT I WOULD MAKE, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, I LIKE WHAT I SEE, I AM STILL CONCERNED THAT IF YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ROLL DOWN THAT ROAD ESPECIALLY CONCRETE TRUCKS, THAT ROAD CAN GET PEELED UP PRETTY QUICK. SO MY HOPE IS I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN PLACE ANY TYPE OF A RESTRICTIVE RIGHT ON TELLING YOU HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET IN AND OUT OF YOUR JOB, BUT I'M HOPING THROUGH YOUR GC YOU CAN PERHAPS BRING THROUGH THE RAILPORT WHERE THOSE ROADS ARE MADE FOR THOSE CONCRETE TRUCKS AND I'M HOPING THAT WE'LL GET THAT VV JONES ROAD DONE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. SO I CAN HELP FROM THAT STANDPOINT IF WE GET THAT AND TRY TO INFLUENCE YOUR TRUCK TRAFFIC UNTIL THAT PROJECT IS DONE AND VV JONES IS DONE.

>> COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I'LL TAKE A MOTION IF THERE IS ONE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MR. SIBLEY.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. WICKLIFFE.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? THEN I WOULD CALL IT TO VOTE. PLACE YOUR VOTE.

THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0. WITH THAT, WE'RE MOVING ON TO

[Items 2023-207 & 2023-208]

[00:40:04]

THIS PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3846 SHILOH ROAD.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU AND COUNCIL, THESE LAST TWO AGENDA ITEMS GO HAND IN HAND WITH EACH OTHER. IF IT'S OKAY, DO YOU MIND IF I

PRESENT THEM TOGETHER -- >> YOU CAN PRESENT THEM, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE SEPARATE ACTION.

I WILL ALSO OPEN ITEM 2023-208 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 140 TO ALLOW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS AGAIN THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT

3846 SHILOH ROAD. >> AGAIN THIS IS FOR CASE NUMBER Z10-2023-039, THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE ON SHILOH ROAD FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SF-TWO.

ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THIS SLIDE IS THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONE FOR A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY TWO. AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS COUNTRY MODULE.

THIS DEPICTS A LARGER DEPICTION OF THAT AREA WE MENTIONED.

THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

SO PER THAT EXHIBIT IT'S LABELED AS TRACT B.

TRACT B AGAIN AROUND 1.7 ACRES, THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SF-TWO.

AND THE PURPOSE IS TO HELP THE LOT ALIGN MORE TO SF-TWO STANDARDS ALONG THE CURRENT ZONING OF AGRICULTURAL.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS AN CHART IN THE MIDDLE AG ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND SINGLE FAMILY-2 ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

AGRICULTURAL IS THE CURRENT ZONING.

WHAT THEY'RE CAWING IS THAT COLUMN OF SING -- REQUESTING IS THAT COLUMN OF SINGLE FAMILY-2 ZONING.

TO THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FOR THE REQUEST. WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT P&Z VOTE OF 7-0 IS WHAT APPROVED THIS AT THE MAY 10TH MEETING.

I CAN STOP HERE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, IF NOT WE'LL KEEP

GOING TO THE NEXT CASE. >> KEEP GOING AND WE'LL ASK

QUESTIONS AFTER. >> NEXT AGENDA ITEM 2023-208 CONDUCT THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED PD AMENDMENT.

AS YOU CAN SEE ALONG THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OUTLINED IN PINK, THE APPLICANT HAS INTENTIONALLY REQUESTED TO INCLUDE THIS LOT WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AG INTO THE EXISTING PD FOR THOSE AT SHILOH. AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA AS COUNTRY MODULE.

THIS IS A LARGE EXHIBIT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

JUST REAL QUICK, WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME CASE HISTORY.

SO BACK IN MARCH AT THE MARCH 14, 2021, MEETING, P&Z VOTED 5-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE PD.

AT THE MARCH 9, 2021, MEETING CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE 5-0. AND MOST RECENTLY PLANNING AND ZONING VOTED 7-0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND COME BEFORE YOU GUYS THIS EVENING. SO AGAIN AT THIS LOT OUTLINED IN BLUE, THE APPLICANT AGAIN IS JUST LOOKING TO INCORPORATE THIS PORTION OF THE LOT INTO THE EXISTING OAKS AT SHILOH PD FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS NEXT SLIDE, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS EVERYTHING FROM SETBACKS, LOT DEPTH, WIDTH COVERAGE, AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN ADDITION TO THESE STANDARDS, THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO ADD TWO MORE AMENDMENTS, THAT INCLUDES SIGNAGE. CURRENTLY THE ROOF PITCH REQUIREMENT IS 8:12. THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 4:12. THIS IS LARGELY DUE TO THE STYLE OF HOMES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

SO IT'S MORE OF A MODERN STYLE SO MORE OF THESE HOMES THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW ARE ASKING FOR 4:12 ROOF PITCH OR EVEN BELOW THAT. SO THAT IS THE REASONING FOR THAT AND I CAN ALSO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THAT.

ALSO SIGNAGE, THERE'S CURRENTLY NOT AN ENTRYWAY SIGNAGE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWING FOR ONE ENTRYWAY SIGN INTO THE PD THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS IN THIS BLUE CHART TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

AROUND 75 SQUARE FEET, MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET AND TO THE

[00:45:03]

THESE AREN'T CHANGING, WE JUST WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL A REFRESHER AS TO THE TYPES OF HOMES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THIS PD. AGAIN WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE FOR THIS REQUEST. P&Z APPROVED 7-0, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THIS MOST RECENT CASE WAS FOR PD AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THIS PROPERTY INTO THE OAKS AT SHILOH

PD. >> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON EITHER OF THESE CASES? NO PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON 207 OR 208.

WITH THAT, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING ON 207? >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 207 AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. IT DOES PASS 7-0.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 208 AS

WELL. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM DOES CLOSE 7-0.

WITH THAT, COUNCIL, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS REGARDING BOTH AGENDA ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME IF YOU HAVE ANY AND THEN WE WILL TAKE ACTION INDIVIDUALLY.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON EITHER CASE 207 OR 208, NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK. NO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE ZONING REQUEST REGARDING ITEM

NUMBER 2023-207. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MR. SIBLEY.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. HARTSON.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM DOES PASS 7-0.

WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO 2023-208.

WILL THERE BY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 208? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE MR. SIBLEY.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDED FROM MS. HAMMONDS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? HEARING NONE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE. AND THAT ITEM DOES PASS AS WELL 7-0. THANK YOU.

[2023-209]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA PORTION OF OUR MEETING TONIGHT BY OPENING UP ITEM NUMBER 2023-209.

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CITIZENS ADVOCATING FOR ROADWAY SAFETY.

AND I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. BUT BEFORE THEY DO, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE DAN ALTMAN WHO'S THE CHAIR OF THE CITIZEN-LED COMMITTEE AND ANY OF THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK AS WELL IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A QUICK PRESENTATION AND WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THEY OR THE COUNCIL HAVE.

>>> IT'S ALSO BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY AND A CHALLENGE.

WE HAVE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM MUNDANE TRAFFIC SLOW DOWNS TO ACCIDENTS WITH FATALITIES THAT HAVE AFFECTED PEOPLE WE KNOW.

AND IN MY TIME ON THE 4A BOARD, WE WRESTLED WITH ISSUES OF HOW DO WE DEVELOP IN THIS COMMUNITY ALONG THAT MAJOR ROAD WHERE IDEALLY MOST OF OUR DENSITY SHOULD LIKE.

THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN I REMEMBER WE HAD THE STONE BRIDGE CHURCH, HOW ARE PEOPLE GOING TO TURN INTO THIS CHURCH AND AVOID ACCIDENTS ON SUNDAY MORNING. ONE OF THE THINGS IS BY THAT POINT IN TIME, WE HAD THE PLANS FROM TXDOT, THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THE OVERPASS AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE CITIZENS WERE INVOLVED, THERE HAD BEEN SOME FATALITIES THERE AND PEOPLE GOT INVOLVED.

BACK IN FEBRUARY, ROSS WEAVER AND I GOT INVOLVED, WE SAW THIS PROBLEM AND WE SAID LET'S FORM A CITIZEN'S GROUP TO ADVOCATE.

LET'S GET INVOLVED AND DO THIS. WE LOOKED AROUND THE COMMUNITY AND STARTED REACHING OUT TO PEOPLE AND SAID DO YOU SEE THE NEED? WE BROUGHT ON BOARD LAST MAYOR

[00:50:06]

WE BROUGHT ON DEVELOPERS KIM WEINS, TERRY JOBE THAT UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS WE HAVE THE ACCESS ROADS AND STREAMLINE 287 TO MAKE IT A TRUE FREEWAY.

WE BROUGHT ON ADVOCATES IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND THE IDEA IS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE TO MAKE 287 BETTER. WE WANT A ROAD THAT HAS GOOD ACCESS THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD SAFELY, GET ON THE ROAD SAFELY. WE WANT PEOPLE GOING THROUGH TO BE SAFE. AND WE WANT OUR RESIDENTS TO BE SAFE. AND SO WE FORMED A GROUP, WE STARTED MEETING IN MARCH. AND WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS EVERY WEEK SINCE. MEMBERS MET WITH CITY STAFF ONCE. WE MEET ONLINE, WE HAVE A CONFERENCE, WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO.

SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET WITH AND GAIN THE EAR OF OUR CURRENT COUNTY JUDGE, TODD LITTLE, THE CITY STAFF, NORTH TEXAS TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR MICHAEL MORRIS, CONGRESSMAN JAKE ELSEY, AND OUR ELLIS COUNTY REP, LANE GRAYSON COMMISSIONER, AND STILL TO DO WE NEED TO HAVE A FORMER SIT DOWN WITH REPRESENTATIVE BIRDWELL, EXCUSE ME STATE SENATOR BIRDWELL AND REPRESENTATIVE HARRISON TO TALK WITH THEM ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. AND THE GOAL THAT WE HOPE TO DO GOING FORWARD IS TO BE A VOICE FOR THE CITIZENS TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS TO OCCUR TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN, TXDOT THAT CAN PLAN IT, CITY STAFF, AND CONNECT IT WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN GET THE FUNDING FOR IT WHICH WOULD BE COBMAN -- CONGRESSMAN ELSEY, IT'S A STATE HIGHWAY.

A LOT OF THE TIME THESE PROJECTS GET TALKED ABOUT AND THEY DON'T OCCUR. AND WE WANT TO BE AN AVENUE FOR THE CITY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE A ADVOCATING WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENTS COME FORWARD, TXDOT TWO WEEKS AGO HAD AN OPEN HOUSE OVER AT THE CONFERENCE CENTER. THEY HAVE THE PLANS FOR THIS ROAD. WHAT'S LEFT IS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES IS A BIG PART, AND THEN GETTING THE FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT. AND IF WE HAVE, BEGINNING WITH THE CITY, THIS IS THE FIRST ASK, WE WANT A FORMAL RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT TO SAY THAT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN IS BEYOND EXPANDING 287 TO A PROPER FREEWAY.

WE WANT CITIZENS TO BE A PART OF IT.

WE'D ASK YOU TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION.

WE'D ALSO ASK GOING FORWARD WHETHER YOU THINK NEW DEVELOPMENTS WILL AFFECT RIGHT-OF-WAY DECISIONS SO WE'RE BLOCKING THIS HIGHWAY. AND MAKE SURE AS WE THINK ABOUT ALL OF YOU I KNOW ON CITY COUNCIL OF WHAT MAKES MIDLOTHIAN SPECIAL, AND I'LL TELL YOU A STORY, WHEN ARLINGTON HAD THIS ISSUE ON 30, THEIR CITY COUNCIL LOOKED AT IT AND THEY SAID LOOK, WE CAN DO JUST A HIGHWAY, A VALLEY THROUGH THE TOWN, BUT THEY LOOKED AT IT AND THEY HAD THE VISION TO SAY THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO TO MAKE OUR PASSAGE THROUGH 30 AND THEY DID THINGS, THEY MADE THE ACCESS ROADS WERE GOOD.

THEY THOUGHT AHEAD, THEY BUILT THOSE MURALS IN THE CONCRETE EMBOSSED MURALS AND SCULPTURES ALONG THE ROAD TO GIVE THEIR CITY CHARACTER. I KNOW WHEN I WAS ON 4B WITH ALLEN, WE WORKED ON A MONUMENT PROJECT FOR MONUMENT SIGNS.

THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THE CITY HAS TO BE A PARTNER WITH THIS GOING FORWARD WITH TXDOT AND MAKE MIDLOTHIAN'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 287 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENT TRULY UNIQUE AND REFLECT OUR COMMUNITY.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE OR

ANY CONCERNS. >> YEAH, THANK YOU, DAN.

COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ALTMAN? OR SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

WE HAVE 1 OR 2 REGISTERED? WE HAVE ONE.

LISA, IF YOU WANT TO COME ON UP. STAY CLOSE, DAN, IN CASE THERE'S FURTHER QUESTIONS. LISA, IF YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THEN

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> HI, MY NAME IS LISA HEELEY, I LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL TONIGHT. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO REALLY THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS RESOLUTION.

[00:55:08]

I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN THAT YOU ARE GIVING THEM THE CITY'S SUPPORT TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY AND THEY'RE NOT ELECTED INDIVIDUALS. THEY'RE NOT PAID BY THE CITY.

AND THOSE ARE SOME CONCERNS FOR ME.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION TO HAVING THIS CARS GROUP.

I THINK THEY'RE DOING GREAT WORK.

AND I THINK THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT GREAT WORK WITHOUT THIS RESOLUTION. I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS.

FOR EXAMPLE THE ELLIS COUNTY CITIZENS AGAINST MUDS, THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE COUNTY, THE CITIES, AND ASK FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE CITIES THROUGH RESOLUTION.

THEY ASKED FOR THE CITY COUNCILS TO DO RESOLUTIONS AGAINST MUDS.

AND THEY DID THEIR ADVOCACY WORK.

SO I THINK THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

I ALSO REQUEST THAT MIKE ROGERS ABSTAINS OR RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THIS VOTE AS HE HAS AN INTEREST IN THIS ORGANIZATION.

HE RAN HIS CAMPAIGN, PART OF HIS PLATFORM WAS IN REGARDS TO CARS.

I THINK IT'S GREAT WORK, MAKE IT A PET PROJECT OF YOURS AS A COUNCIL PERSON. BUT I REALLY DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AS A FULL BODY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. DAN, DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP? COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DAN OR ANYONE ELSE ON THE GROUP OR DAN, IF YOU WANT TO EXPRESS ANY OF THE CONCERNS ARE

EXPRESSED? >> I WOULD PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION. WE'VE WORKED ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER ADVOCATING FOR ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE CITY SUPPORT FOR HIGHWAY 287 IMPROVEMENTS. CARS IS NOT HERE TO GET CREDIT OR TO DO ANYTHING OR ASK FOR MONEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE ARE CITIZENS CONCERNED AND WE ADVOCATE.

AND WE'VE ALL ADVOCATED, EVERYBODY IN THIS GROUP ON VARIOUS ISSUES OVER THE DECADES THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE IN THE CITY. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FROM THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN SUPPORTS CARS AND ITS EFFORTS TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN SUPPORTS EFFORTS TO ADD ADVOCATE.

WE CAN ADD A LINE THAT SAYS HIGHWAY PROJECTS FOR CITIZENS TO GET INVOLVED. I DON'T THINK CARS NEEDS CREDIT, THEY'RE NOT SEEKING TO BE THE SOLE VEHICLE IF THIS ADVOCACY OCCURS. I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL AS PRIVATE CITIZENS AND AS YOUR PRIVATE AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES TO ADVOCATE

FOR THIS TO OCCUR. >> I'LL JUST MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT THAT COMING OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND I'M SURE THOSE THAT WERE ON IT AS WELL CAN RELATE THAT VEHICULAR AND ROADWAY SAFETY WAS A TOP CONCERN AND ROADWAY QUALITY AND REHAB WAS A TOP CONCERN. SO FOR ME PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE THE MORE COMMUNITY GROUPS WE HAVE ADVOCATING FOR THESE POSITIVE SORT OF COMMUNITY-WIDE THINGS IS A HEALTHY THING.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY SORT OF ISSUE WITH ISSUING A LETTER OR RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORTS OF THIS GROUP.

BUT I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT OPPOSING IDEAS OR EVEN MAKE COMMENTS. YES, DISCUSSION IS OVER.

>> FIRST QUESTION IS FOR JOE IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS COUNCILMAN

RODGERS UP HERE. >> THERE'S NO LEGAL CONFLICT IN

VOTING ON THIS RESOLUTION. >> OKAY.

SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS EVERYTHING Y'ALL ARE DOING I'M 100% FOR. MY ONLY WONDER IS WHEN DOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS TURN INTO A COMMITTEE OR A BOARD FOR THE CITY? MY ONLY CONCERN IS ANY GROUP SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE GOVERNANCE POLICY IS NOT PROTECTED, THE THE OVERSIGHT IS NOT THERE.

I'M SURE EVERYONE THAT WAS LISTED I TRUST.

BUT THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE IS NOT IN PLACE, SO I'M JUST OPENING THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION ON WHAT Y'ALLS THOUGHTS ARE, WHEN DOES THAT HAPPEN COMMITTEE VERSUS A GROUP OUT IN THE CITY?

[01:00:06]

>> ED, GO AHEAD. >> SO TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT ANNA SAID, I THINK THAT THE RESOLUTION HAS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY DAN ALTMAN WOULD CHANGE IT TO REMOVE CARS.

I THINK THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE AND FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT ANNA JUST SAID, BUT THE ALTERNATE OPPORTUNITY HERE IS THAT WE COULD DRAFT A LETTER AS INDIVIDUALS, COUNCILMEN, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ORGANIZATION. AND EACH COUNCILMAN WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN THAT LETTER INDEPENDENTLY AND ISSUE THEIR SUPPORT TO THE GROUP IF THEY WANTED TO DO SO, BUT NOT AS AN OFFICIAL FUNCTION OF THE CITY.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HELP BEEF UP THEIR EFFORT, ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO. DID Y'ALL HAVE ANY --

>> I WANT TO INVITE DAN TO COME BACK UP AND ENGAGE IN THE CONVERSATION IF YOU CHOOSE TO OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT

ARISE. >> MY ONLY QUESTION IS THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PUT TOGETHER AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR AN AD HOC GROUP RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OR ADVISORY GROUP, WHAT IF YOU APPOINTED ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ON THE CARS COMMITTEE TO A COMMITTEE. MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THAT COMMITTEE WOULD CARRY THE SAME AMOUNT OF AUTHORITY, I ASSUME, THAT THIS GROUP WOULD WHICH WOULD BE VERY SLIM BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST A GROUP THAT IS ADVOCATING FOR A SPECIFIC FUNCTION OF THE CITY.

>> YOU'RE ASKING WHAT THE DIFFERENCE --

>> IF JUSTIN APPOINTED EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CARS TO AN AD HOC OR ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

>> I WOULD THINK THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE WOULD BE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THEM COMING BACK AND REPORTING TO US, ALTHOUGH THEY PROBABLY ALREADY WILL ANYWAY WITH THE OTHER COMMITTEE THAT THEY'LL COME BACK AND I FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE

BIT MORE OF A FORMAL PROCESS. >> MY ONLY THING IS EVEN THE COMMITTEES DON'T FALL UNDER OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GUIDELINES SO THEY'RE JUST AS LOOSE AS THIS GROUP WOULD BE.

I MEAN I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY ON HOW IT'S FORMED.

WHETHER IT'S THEIR GROUP OR A MAYOR-APPOINTED COMMITTEE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

>> DO WE VOTE ON ANYTHING TXDOT DOES? NO, WE DON'T. SO THE WHOLE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND ALL OF THIS IS WE ALWAYS APPEAR TO GET MORE DONE AS WE DID WITHIN THE BYPASS COMMITTEE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A BYPASS FOREVER. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL WE HAD AN ASSIGNED COMMUNITY AND LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER THAT WE WERE ABLE TO AS DAN PUT ALL OF THIS TOGETHER.

IT'S NOT A COMMITTEE THAT'S SIGNING THE DOTTED LINE FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN OR MAKING ANY STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF MIDLOTHIAN. IT IS A GROUP OF LEADERS THAT ON THEIR OWN FREE TIME ARE PUTTING ACQUAINTANCES AND RELATIONSHIPS TOGETHER ON THE LOCAL, COUNTY, AND STATE LEVEL TO SEE THAT THIS HAPPENS IN A MORE EXPEDIENT RATE.

AND ORGANIZED IN A WAY THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL OF OUR CITIZENS. WE CAN PUT ALL OF THE COMMITTEES TOGETHER. MY FEAR IS THAT I STRONGLY FEEL AS THOUGH TXDOT ESPECIALLY, WHAT'S THE WORD I WANT TO CHOOSE, MAKES MOVEMENT ON THE LOCAL CITIZENRY ON THE ACTION VERSUS MUNICIPALITIES TRYING TO GET ACTION.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY STAY SEPARATE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO LISTEN TO WHAT WE THINK WILL ACCOMPLISH BY APPOINTING AN AD

HOC COMMITTEE. >> EXACTLY BECAUSE WHAT THIS GROUP COULD DO IS THE ADVOCATES, WE SHARE THE SAME GOAL.

THE GOAL IS GETTING 287 APPROVED.

THE GOAL IS NOT TO GET THE CITY'S BLESSING FOR CARS OR TO FORCE THE CITY TO ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBLE.

I'VE BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR A LOT OF ISSUES OVER THE YEARS IN THE CITY. AND ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT BEING WHAT THEY CALL AN ACTIVIST OR AN ADVOCATE IS IT'S A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. WE CAN SAY WHAT WE NEED SO SAY, WE CAN GO WHERE WE WANT. IF I'M NOT TAKING MONEY FROM

[01:05:01]

AND AS WE'VE MET WITH THESE FOLKS AT TXDOT AND WE'VE MET WITH THE PEOPLE, THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS ON BOARD WITH THESE IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

IN SOME PLACES THERE'S CITIES THAT DON'T WANT A BIGGER HIGHWAY OR DON'T WANT THESE THINGS. WITH ENEED ALL LEVELS.

OUR CONGRESSMAN NEEDS TO KNOW THIS.

OUR STATE REP NEEDS TO KNOW THIS.

OUR STATE SENATOR. THEY DON'T NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CARS OR THIS ORGANIZATION, WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU AS THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT.

>> WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS POINT, MAYOR?

>> YEP, I WOULD. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION WITH THE TWO, WAS IT TWO SLIGHT CHANGES THAT YOU MADE

IN THE WORDING? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY YOU COULD SUBMIT ONE THAT'S BEEN

CORRECTED. >> SO COUNCIL IN YOUR PACKET, THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN EDITED AND YOU HAVE A NEW COPY ON YOUR DESK. THE NEW COPY REFLECTS THE

CHANGES. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> IT'S A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CITIZENS -- WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT. AND ALSO CHANGE THAT FIRST WORD AS FOLLOWS. HUD, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION MAKING THOSE CHANGES OUR

ATTORNEYS SUGGESTED? >> YES, SIR.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. SIBLEY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? THEN I WILL CALL THE VOTE. PLEASE VOTE.

YOU HAD A QUESTION -- SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. AND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION YOU ASKED FOR FURTHER CLARITY INTO THE SPECIFIC WORDING BEFORE WE

CALL THE VOTE. >>> I'LL TRY TO TAKE A STAB AT THIS. BASICALLY ON THE RESOLUTION, WE'RE LOOKING TO REMOVE THE CARS, CITIZENS ADVOCATING, AND BASICALLY IN ITS PLACE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF US HIGHWAY 287 IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING IN SAFER --

>> I TELL YOU WHAT -- >> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE RETITLE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CITIZENS ADVOCATING FOR SAFER HIGHWAYS. MAKE IT A RESOLUTION ADVOCATING FOR SAFER MAJOR HIGHWAYS IF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.

THIS IS JUST ADVOCATING FOR SAFER HIGHWAYS.

AND WHEREAS CITIZENS HAVE ADVOCATED ON THE NEED FOR IMPROVED SAFETY. AND THEN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN DESIRES TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THESE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND

THEN STRIKE THE CARS GROUP. >> MAYOR, THAT WOULD BE MY

MOTION. >> LET ME READ.

BASICALLY IT'S A RESOLUTION ADVOCATING FOR SAFER MAJOR HIGHWAYS IN MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS, WHEREAS THE CITIZENS HAVE ADVOCATED ON NEEDS FOR IMPROVED SAFETY AND TRAFFIC FLOW OF STATE HIGHWAYS IN AND AROUND MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS SPECIFICALLY HIGHWAY 287 AND INCREASED TRAFFIC ALONG THESE ROADWAYS HAS LED TO CONGESTION AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND WHEREAS SERVICE ROADS ON HIGHWAY 287 HAVE MUCH NEEDED IMPROVEMENT AND WOULD SUPPLY BETTER ACCESS TO BUSINESSES IN THE AREA AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN DESIRES TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THESE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS, WITH SECTION 1 AND 2 REMAINING THE SAME.

[01:10:07]

A RESOLUTION ADVOCATING FOR SAFER MAJOR HIGHWAYS IN

MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. >> OKAY.

>> IF I'M NOT ALIGNED I WANT TO KNOW.

-- I GUESS I'M MISSING THAT PART.

>> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF ENDORSING A GROUP?

>> WE DO RESOLUTIONS FOR THE BOYS SCOUTS, THE DAUGHTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THAN ANY RESOLUTION WE EVER DID? ARE WE GOING TO START PICKING AND CHOOSING -- BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OUR SUPPORT BEHIND A

GROUP? >> BOY SCOUTS ARE A FORMALIZED ORGANIZATION WHEREAS THIS IS JUST A LOOSE CONGLOMERATION OF CITIZENS THAT HAVE A COMMON GOAL.

SO GIVING OFFICIAL SUPPORT FOR A NON-ORGANIZED GROUP VERSUS AN ORGANIZED GROUP IS THE DISTINCTION.

>> AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. THE SCOUTS IS VERY FORMALIZED, THERE'S A CORPORATE STRUCTURE, THERE IS BYLAWS AND AN ORGANIZATION AND THERE'S MONEY INVOLVED.

OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SUMS OF MONEY, THERE ARE DUES, THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS GROUP IS TRYING TO DO OR CREATE A FORMAL GROUP.

OUR GOAL IS TO WORK WITH GOVERNMENT BODIES AND AGENCIES TO GET THIS DONE. IT'S NOT TO GET FORMAL RECOGNITION OR DO ANYTHING FOR CARS.

OUR GOAL IS TO GET THIS HIGHWAY PROJECT DONE.

>> OKAY, COUNCIL. WHERE I SEE THAT WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS BEFORE US TONIGHT, ONE IS TO APPROVE THIS AMENDED RESOLUTION, THE SECOND WOULD BE TO DENY THIS RESOLUTION, THE THIRD ONE WOULD BE TO TABLE. AND I WANT TO GIVE -- DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD? GOOD, I LIKE THAT APPROACH.

I'LL GIVE COUNCILMEMBER HARTSON SINCE HE HAD HIS MICROPHONE ON THE ABILITY TO MAKE A MOTION IF HE SO CHOOSES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDED WORDING.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. GARDNER.

WITH THAT, WE WILL VOTE. IT'S THE AMENDED THAT YOU READ INTO THE RECORD. PLEASE VOTE.

AND IT DOES PASS 7-0. THANK YOU, DAN.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL. ITEM NUMBER 2023-210 HAS BEEN

[2023-211 ]

CHIEF. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING.

THE AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND AUTHORIZE A FIREFIGHTER LATERAL PAY POLICY. WE'VE KIND OF BEEN DOING THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE YEARS PAST WHERE WE HAVE ALLOWED FOR SOME LATERAL ENTRY OPTIONS BELOW THE MIDPOINT.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAME TO Y'ALL SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND ASKED TO DO SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THIS BECAUSE THERE WERE SITUATIONS WHERE THEY HAD SENIOR STAFF THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ATTRACT AND BRING IN AND ALLOW FOR A LATERAL PAY POLICY TO BE OFFERED THAT WOULD GO ABOVE THE MIDPOINT.

WE'RE OBVIOUSLY HAVING MORE AND MORE DIFFICULTIES TRYING TO ATTRACT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THIS OPTION AVAILABLE TO US IS THAT IT CAN SAVE US ON FUNDS UP FRONTED WHEN IT REQUIRES US TO SEND SOMEBODY TO TRAIN, THE COST OF THAT TRAINING. WE LOSE PEOPLE FOR MONTHS ON END WHEN THEY ARE IN TRAINING WHICH IS A FUNCTIONAL EFFECT ON OUR ABILITY TO DELIVER THAT SERVICE. AND THEN THE OVERTIME THAT IS REQUIRED TO FILL THOSE VACANCIES WHILE THEY'RE IN TRAINING.

SO TO BE ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON SOMEBODY THAT WORKS IN ANOTHER

[01:15:03]

THEY HAVE AN EIGHT STEP, WE HAVE A SEVEN STEP.

SO I DELETED HIS 20 YEAR MARK THERE.

REALLY THAT SHOULD JUST SAY 15 YEARS AND MORE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO OFFER UP TO STEP SEVEN WHICH IS THE TOP OF OUR STEP PLAN. WHEN RUNNING NUMBERS TODAY, SOMETIMES YOU JUST KIND OF DON'T REALIZE IT, BUT THE AVERAGE YEARS OF SERVICE FOR THE 72 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL IN OUR ORGANIZATION IS 8.7 YEARS. SO THAT'S THE AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. SO BEING ABLE TO ATTRACT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WITH THOSE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE CAN ENHANCE OUR ABILITY TO DELIVER SERVICE. SO I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>> TAMMY, DID ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE?

COUNCIL, QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF? >> I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT

IDEA. >> THANK YOU.

>> I AGREE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO FORMULATE THAT

IN THE FORM OF A MOTION? >> SECOND.

>> IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET YOU TO SAY MOVE TO APPROVE.

I WAS HOPING FOR THAT A LITTLE EARLIER.

>> PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0.

>> THANK Y'ALL. >> THANK YOU, CHIEF.

[2023-212]

>> THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS BASICALLY THE ENVELOPE TESTING FOR THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURSE BUILDING.

THEY WILL BE DOING ROOFING COMPOSITE, MOCK UP TESTING WHEN WE DO THE MOCK UP, THE SITE INSPECTIONS, THEY'LL BE VERIFYING THOSE ITEMS ALSO WITHIN THE DESIGN, THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT REVIEW.

THIS IS A COST OF $87,115. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE THAT WAS APPROVED.

BUT THIS IS WITHIN THE OVERALL BUDGET OF THE SCOPE OF THE WORK FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURSE BUILDING JUST LIKE THE ONE FOR THE CITY HALL AND LIBRARY BUILDING.

WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> DID ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION FROM MR. SIBLEY, SECOND FROM MR. WICKLIFFE. PLEASE VOTE.

[2023-213]

THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0. >> THANK YOU.

>> ITEM 2023-213, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KSA ENGINEERS FOR THE PREPARATION OF MID-WAY REGIONAL AIRPORT'S BUSINESS PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $153,620 TO BE SHARED EQUALLY WITH THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE AT $76,810 EACH AND AUTHORIZE AIRPORT MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT FOR THE MID-WAY REGIONAL AIRPORT BUSINESS PLAN.

EARLIER IN THE MEETING YOU DID ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.

IN MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT MANAGER, SEVERAL AIRPORT LIAISONS AS WELL AS MAYORS FROM BOTH CITIES, IT WAS DETERMINED THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PATH FORWARD ONCE YOU GET THE MASTER PLAN GOING. AND THEN THE BUSINESS PLAN WOULD SOON FOLLOW. THIS IS REALLY CONDUCTING AN AIRPORT MARKET ASSESSMENT ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, POTENTIAL FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, BETTER CREATE FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE MASTER PLAN.

THEY'LL ALSO GIVE US A STRATEGY TO TARGET NEW INDUSTRIES TO THE AIRPORT AS WELL AS UPDATE MINIMUM STANDARDS, REPORTS, REGULATIONS, AND CHARGES AS WELL AS LEASE AGREEMENT POLICIES AND BUSINESS OPERATION PROCESSES. LIKE THE MAYOR SAID EARLIER THIS IS SPLIT 50/50 WITH THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE JUST LIKE THE AIRPORT

[01:20:02]

WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? I WILL MAKE A COMMENT HAVING ATTENDED SOME RECENT AIRPORT BOARD MEETINGS, I THINK THIS DOCUMENT IS MUCH NEEDED, THE MASTER PLAN TO GIVE THE BOARD AND THE CITIES DIRECTION TO COME INTO AGREEMENT ON HOW THIS AIRPORT SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. SO LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE RESULTS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO ENGAGE AT WHATEVER LEVEL IS REQUESTED OF YOU IN THIS PROCESS. WE CAN GET THE CONSENSUS OF BOTH CITY COUNCILS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE M MR. WICKLIFFE, SECONDED BY MR. SIBLEY. PLEASE VOTE.

[2023-215]

THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, I'M GOING TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 215 UP ONE SPOT AND HIT THAT ONE REAL QUICKLY.

SO I'M GOING TO OPEN UP ITEM NUMBER 2023-215, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON NOMINATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS BOARD, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND UTILITY ADVISORY BOARD.

I WILL TAKE LEAD ON THIS ONE. RECENTLY HAD THE PLEASURE TO MEET WITH COUNCILMEMBER HARTSON, COUNCILMEMBER GARDNER, AND INTERVIEW SEVERAL HIGHLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES TO INTERVIEW FOR SEVERAL OPEN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

I THINK I SPEAK FOR THE BOARD WHEN I SAY WE WERE IMPRESSED BY ALL WE INTERVIEWED, AND WE WERE IMPRESSED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEERED THEIR PERSONAL TIME IN ORDER TO MAKE MIDLOTHIAN A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.

OUR DECISION WAS VERY TOUGH TO MAKE.

BUT WITH THAT, WE HAD FOUR POSITIONS THAT ARE OPEN AND AVAILABLE TO FILL. TWO ON THE UAB BOARD, ONE ON THE PARKS BOARD, AND ONE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND SO OUR GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL TO FILL THESE SPOTS ON THE FIRST SPOT ON OUR UAB BOARD OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS MS. ANDREA HALLINGSWORTH. ALSO ON THE UAB BOARD ON THE SECOND SPOT OUR CHOICE WAS KEVIN PRUITT.

ON THE PARKS BOARD OUR CHOICE WAS MR. MARK TEPPER.

AND ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING MR. ROSS WEAVER.

SO WITH THAT, HAPPY TO OPEN UP DIALOGUE WITH THE COUNCIL AND TRY TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THESE CHOICES. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION FROM MR. WICKLIFFE.

SECONDED BY MR. SIBLEY, PLEASE VOTE.

THESE RECOMMENDATIONS DO PASS 7-0.

I THANK ALL OF THESE FOLKS FOR THEIR SERVICE AND ALL OF THOSE THAT HAVE APPLIED. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOUR APPLICATION WILL REMAIN ON FILE FOR ONE YEAR.

SO IF YOU'RE NOT CHOSEN OR SELECTED IN THIS ROUND, YOUR APPLICATION IS STILL ON FILE FOR ONE CALENDAR YEAR.

[2023-214]

AND FORGIVE ME IT'S A LENGTHY ONE AND I'M GOING TO READ IT.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER INITIATING THE REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY-2 ZONING DISTRICT APPROXIMATELY 1,150 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING BOUNDARIES: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF FARM TO MARKET ROAD 875 AND SINGLETON ROAD, SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SINGLETON ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION OF THE CITY LIMITS AS DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN THE ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10, THEN EASTERLY ALONG CITY LIMITS PASSING BAUCUM ROAD AND CONTINUING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CITY LIMITS AS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10 TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE CITY LIMITS WITHIN THE WESTERN RIGHT OF WAY OF FM 875 AT THE POINT OF THE EASTERLY CURVE OF FM 875 EAST OF THE SOUTHERN INTERSECTION OF FM 875 AND DUNN ROAD AS DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 2004-10, THEN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE EASTBOUND LANE OF FM 875 AND CONTINUING ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO SAID EASTBOUND LANE OF FM875 TO ITS INTERSECTION AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF FM 875 AND SINGLETON ROAD TO THE

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

[01:25:01]

>>> IT IS 7:41 AND THE COUNCIL IS BACK IN OPEN SESSION FROM EXECUTIVE. I'VE ALREADY OPENED THE ITEM 2023-214, I'M GOING TO SPARE YOU ALL READING IT AGAIN.

IT IS LENGTHY. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO INVITE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO COME UP AND MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THAT WILL GO AFTER CLYDE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 1150 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MIDLOTHIAN, CLOSE TO BAUCUM ROAD, 875 AND SINGLETON ROAD. THIS IS A CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGE. AND AS PER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 1.43 IT DOES SAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY IN ITS OWN MOTION PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THE AMENDMENT FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND THAT IS WHAT WE RECOMMEND.

>> OKAY. WITH THAT, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WOULD YOU COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS.

>> PAUL MCCRACKEN, I DO NOT. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER OF ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE INITIATION. I DO HAVE A PREPARED STATEMENT TO MAKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD AND IT MIGHT TAKE JUST A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN IT TOOK YOU TO READ THAT, BUT PROBABLY NOT TOO MUCH LONGER. BEAR WITH ME, I'LL GO THROUGH THAT EFFICIENTLY UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU'RE FREE TO ASK ME. WE REPRESENT HIGHLAND LAKES MIDLOTHIAN 1 LLC, THE OWNER OF 750 ACRES OF THE 1150 ACRE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 2023-214.

ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED INITIATION OF A REZONING AT THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SF-TWO. THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY AND NEVER HAS BEEN ZONED BY THE CITY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CITY'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THIS MATTER AS A REZONING.

FOLLOWING ANNEXATION, THE CITY NEVER TOOK STEPS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

STATE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AUTOMATIC ZONING OF PROPERTY WITH ANNEXATION. THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE PROCESS MUST BE FOLLOWED TO ZONE AND REZONE PROPERTY AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. THE PROPERTY OWNER OBJECTS TO ANY ZONING OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNERS FILED WITH THE CITY TODAY PURSUANT TO WHICH VESTED RIGHTS ACCRUED FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.

COPIES OF THE PLAN, I BROUGHT THOSE TODAY, THEY WERE HALL PASSED TO THE CITY SECRETARY. SHE CAN DISTRIBUTE THEM IF YOU'D LIKE. THE PROJECT IS ALSO BASED ON THE PHASE 1, 71.5 ACRE PLAT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 17, 2023. IN THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITH THAT PLAT APPLICATION.

THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS ONE PERMIT IN A SERIES OF PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT AND IS VESTED UNDER THE STATE'S VESTED RIGHTS STATUTES. REFLECTED IN THE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PLAT APPLICATION AND FREEZES IT IN TIME THAT THE PLAT APPLICATION WAS FILED WITH THE CITY.

THERE WAS NO ZONING ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THE PLAT APPLICATION WAS FILED AND RULES WERE FROZEN SO THE AMENITY CENTER USE DESCRIBED IN THE PLAT MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED.

THE PROPOSED SF-TWO ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT'S VESTED RIGHTS. IF THE CITY OPTS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY, IT SHOULD BE ZONED AS A PD CONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECTS VESTED RIGHTS INCLUDING THE PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT.

UNDER STATE LAW, THE PROJECT CAN BE DEVELOPED.

THE MEETING NOTICED JUNE 2, 2023, REFERENCING CASE NUMBER Z142023-051 THAT WAS MAILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING WHICH NOTIFIES OWNERS THE JUNE 2023 6:00 P.M. PLANNING AND

[01:30:06]

THE CITY STAFF INITIATED ZONING CASE NUMBER Z14-2023-051 AND NOTIFIED OWNERS OF A PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT FOLLOWING SECTION 1.43 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THEREFORE IF THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO INITIATE THE ZONING PROCESS TONIGHT, THE PROCESS MUST START OVER, AND NEW -- MUST BE MAILED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE LAWS IN THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS. THAT'S IT.

>> ON THOSE COMMENTS JUST SO THERE'S CLARIFICATION FOR THE VIEWERS -- THIS IS JUST A PROPOSAL TO INITIATE ZONING.

SO THIS COUNCIL IS JUST MAKING THE PROPOSAL TO INITIATE THE ZONING TO THE P&Z. AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE NOTICE PROCESS WILL TAKE PLACE. THERE WAS A STAFF-INITIATED ZONING WHICH ESSENTIALLY WAS A MISTAKE.

AND STAFF CANNOT INITIATE THIS TYPE OF REZONING.

NOTICES WERE SENT FOR THAT STAFF-INITIATED REZONING, AND THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT WAS DETERMINED COUNCIL ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO DO THIS. SO THIS IS JUST RECOMMENDING BACK TO THE P&Z TO INITIATE THE ZONING, THE NOTICES WILL COME FROM THAT IF THAT IS YOUR MOTION TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> WOULD YOU COME BACK UP AND STAND FOR QUESTIONS SHOULD THERE BE ANY.

COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CLYDE OR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 2023-214 PURSUANT TO SECTION 1.43 OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO INSTITUTE A PROPOSAL FOR A ZONING CHANGE ON THE STATED PROPERTY FROM AG TO

SF-TWO. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR COFFMAN, A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER HARTSON. PLEASE VOTE.

THE ITEM DOES PASS 7-0. THANK YOU, CLYDE.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR YOUR PATIENCE THIS EVENING.

I FEEL LIKE WE WERE VERY EFFICIENT AND HAD A GOOD MEETING AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.