Jun 20, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:08]

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN WILL BEGIN.

I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE WILL CONTINUE AND MOVE

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance changing the zoning regulations applicable to the development and use of approximately 1,150± acres within the City of Midlothian, Texas, from Agricultural (A) Zoning District to Single Family Two (SF-2) Zoning District, said property being located within the following boundaries: Beginning at the southeast corner of the intersection of Farm to Market Road 875 (FM 875) and Singleton Road, southerly along the eastern boundary of Singleton Road to its intersection with the City Limits of the City of Midlothian as described and depicted in City of Midlothian, Texas, Ordinance No. 2004-10 (Ord. No. 2004-10); then easterly along said City Limits, passing Baucum Road and continuing northeasterly along said City Limits as described and depicted in Ord. No. 2004-10 to the intersection of said City Limits with the western right of way of FM 875 at the point in the easterly curve of FM 875 east of the southern intersection of FM 875 and Dunn Road as described and depicted in Ord. 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 FM 875 to its intersection at the southeast corner of the intersection of FM 875 and Singleton Road, being the point of beginning of the above described boundary. For purposes of clarity, the property contained within the above bounded area are those properties, and portions of properties to the extent located within the corporate limits of the City of Midlothian, Texas, identified by the Ellis Appraisal District by the following Property Identification Numbers: 138485, 244793, 244794, 244795, 244796, 265615, 273163, and 294703. (Case No. Z14-2023-051). WITHDRAWN]

001 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD-THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A B AND PRESENT IT TO CITY STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IN CCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. ANY CITIZENS? NOBODY ELSE IS STANDING UP.

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

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? AT THE JUNE 13 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEP 2023 28 FOR SECONDARY COOLING UNIT AT 5420 CRIPPLE CREEK WAS APPROVED. AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

THERE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL FOR THE SAME CASE. SEP FOR THE T-MOBILE SIGN, TWO SIGNS WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AT 3320 HARVEST HILL DOCTOR.

THAT IS PD 109. Z08 2023 UV PD FOR 508 NORTH BRANDT FOR 20 FAMILY OMES WITH UV PD 168 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

Z09 2023 35 FOR KDC NUTRITION CENTER AND OUTSIDE STORAGE WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THIS WAS FOR 60.7 ACRES FROM ACTIVE PD 169.

DO YOU WANT ME TO EXPAND ON THAT AS FAR AS WHY THEY MOVED IT SEVEN ÃZERO.

THERE WAS A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF JONES ROAD AND EVERYTHING WAS CLEARED UP IN TERMS OF IT CURRENTLY IS A MDA PROJECT BUT THERE'S NEGOTIATIONS FOR KP C2 CONSTRUCTED. IT IS IN OGRESS.

Z OCTOBER 20, 0, 2023 39 3846 SHILOH RD. .

ZONE FOUR AS OF TWO. EXISTING HOME ON 1.728 ACRES. P0Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SEVEN ÃZERO AND COUNCIL APPROVED IT SEVEN ÃZERO. THE JULY 20, 2023 31 PD AMENDMENT FOR THE SHILOH WAS TO INCORPORATE TWO LOTS INTO THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT 140.

THAT'S 1.74 ACRES. ADJACENT TO THE PREVIOUS CASE. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT SEVEN ÃZERO AND PNC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SEVEN ÃZERO. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CASES THAT WENT TO COUNSEL? A COUPLE OF REMINDERS. HE IS A COMMISSIONER TRAINING IS JUNE 29 AT 6:00 P.M.. THERE WILL BE PROVIDED, DINNER AND IT WILL BE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE ADVISORY GROUP WILL MEET JULY 12 ADAM WILL BE A

COMMUNITYWIDE EVENT IN JULY AS WE HAVEN'T SET THE DATE FOR THAT WHEN EN YOU THAT'S >>

[CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:05:04]

>> I SECOND. >> VOTE TO APPROVE THE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. MOVING INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA AND PUBLIC HEARINGS. ITEM 006 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO SECTION 4.5602 (OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS) TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING OVER THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED, FOR AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (J.A. VITOVSKY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) ON 15B1 ACRES SITUATED IN THE H. F. HINKLEY SURVEY,

[007 Consider and act upon an approval of a detailed site plan for a development of 3.109 acres out of the Benjamin F. Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 464, being in Planned Development- 42 (PD-42). The property is generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Dylan Way and South 9th Street. (SP02-2023-021). ]

MOVING FORWARD. ITEM NUMBER 007 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN APPROVAL OF A DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF 3.109 ACRES OUT OF THE BENJAMIN F. HAWKINS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 464, BEING IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- 42 (PD-42). THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DYLAN WAY AND SOUTH 9TH STREET. (SP02-2023-021).

>> GOOD EVENING. WITH THIS REQUEST THE MAIN IDEA HERE IS WE HAVE PD 42 AND THEY HAD A CONCEPT PLAN AND THE CONCEPT PLAN THEY CREATED MODULES.

MOST RECENTLY AMENDED A YEAR AGO TO CREATE THESE MODULES AND THE CONCEPT PLAN.

PROCEDURALLY WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO DEVELOP PLAN SUCH AS THIS MODULE E FOR THE SPECIFIC REQUEST THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS THE FINAL DECIDER OF THAT REQUEST.

IT DOESN'T GO TO COUNSEL BUT GOES TO YOU. SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE AS OPPOSED BETWEEN A STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL AND COUNSEL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE THE FINAL DECIDER ON THIS. ALSO FOR CLARITY FOR THE SITE PLAN REQUEST THE MEETING AND EXCEEDING THE REQUIREMENTS AND ARE NOT APPROVING OR CHANGING ANY USES OR VARIANCES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. WITH THAT SAID, HERE'S THE SITE LOCATION NORTHEAST CORNER OF S.

9TH ST. AND DILLON WAY. THIS IS PART OF A PROJECT AREA GENERALLY KNOWN AS MIDTOWN.

THE OTHER THING TO KNOW ABOUT THE DISTRICT OF COURSE IS IT EMPHASIZES FORUM MORE SO THAN USES AND ALSO TRYING TO HAVE A NEW TRADITIONAL CHARACTER, BASICALLY REWIND THE CLOCK 80 TO 100 YEARS OF TYPE STYLE WHEN THINGS WERE MORE WALKABLE AND AUTO ORIENTED.

OF COURSE MIXED-USE AND WALK ABILITY. FOR THE SITE PLAN AND THE MODULE E 20,000 640 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL EA, I'M SORRY SQUARE FEET WAS PROVED AND THE MODULE ALONG WITH 11 TOWNHOMES. UNDER THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THEY ARE USING 18,640 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE LEAVING 2000 SQUARE FEET ON THE TABLE.

I DID WANT TO NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN I CROSSED OUT WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE FUTURE SITES BECAUSE THEY ONLY GOT 2000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AREA UNDER THE MODULE APPROVED.

IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE PD.

TO EVEN DEVELOP IT THEY STILL NEED TO GIVE YOU THE REST OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR THAT AREA SUCH AS THE ELEVATIONS. AGAIN WE ARE CONSIDERING AND APPROVING THE REST OF THIS AREA. AND THE MODULE E CONCEPT PLAN FROM THE PD APPROVED ON THE LEFT AND HERE ON THE RIGHT AND USING THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN EASIER

[00:10:02]

THEY SHOW 11 TOWNHOMES HERE SO NOW THEY ARE OVER HERE. THIS WAS A CONCEPT PLAN.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LITERALLY MATCH IT. THE GRAY REPRESENTS THE COMMERCIAL AREA. SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY ARE SHOWING HERE WOULD BE FIRST RETAIL WITH OFFICE ABOVE. YOU CAN STILL DO OFFICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS WELL.

IT IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. HERE IS WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE MULTITENANT BUILDING, ALSO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. WHILE YOU'RE AT IT I WILL NOTE THE DUMPSTER IS HERE AND IT IS MASONRY WALL AND LANDSCAPING. THE CONNECTION TO THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY TO THE NORTH IS GOING TO BE GATED AND HAVE A KNOX BOX. IT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, NOT FOR GENERAL SITE CIRCULATION OF TRAFFIC.

I'VE KIND OF COVERED SOME OF WHAT I SAID. THERE ARE TWO MONUMENT SIGNS IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE BUILDINGS. YOU WOULD SEE THESE RECTANGLES. 10 FOOT TALL MONUMENT SIGNS.

SIX-FOOT EIGHT INCHES WIDE BASICALLY IT'S A MONUMENT BRICK AND HAS INDEPENDENT BLADES FOR EACH BUSINESS THAT MIGHT BE THERE. LANDSCAPE PLAN WITHOUT LABORING IT TOO MUCH, THERE'S 35 LIVE OAK AND 17 RED OAKS. LOTS OF SHRUBS HEAVILY LANDSCAPED. THE ELEVATIONS FOR REFERENCE HERE I KEPT A VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN. THE MULTITENANT IS RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THE ELEVATION FOR THE MULTITENANT BUILDING. OFFICE BUILDING IS UP HERE BY DILLON WAY.

SOMETHING I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION WAS WE DID HAVE LAST-MINUTE IDEAS.

WITH WHAT WAS IN YOUR REPORT YOU DID NOT SEE THESE IDEAS. THE IDEAS ARE REALLY SIMPLE THINGS BUT WE WOULD WANT YOU TO CONSIDER APPROVING THEM JUST SO IF THE APPLICANT WHO IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT, IF HE GOES BACK TO THE MARK BECAUSE THE MARK HAD TO APPROVE AND THEY DID APPROVE THE SITE PLAN BY THE WAY FOUR ÃZERO. IF YOU ALL WERE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SITE PLAN WITH THESE OPTIONS YOU CAN PICK AND CHOOSE FROM THE MARK AND WHATEVER THEY ULTIMATELY DECIDE AND THEN IT'S DONE. THESE WERE JUST SOME OPTIONS AND WHAT IT MEANS IS ADDING SOME OF THESE METAL AWNINGS HERE ABOVE THE WINDOWS.

ORIGINALLY IT WAS SHOWN OVER THE ONE DOOR. WE ADD THEM HERE OVER THESE WINDOWS. PROPOSING THE IDEA OF SOME KIND OF BANDING APPEAR.

IT CAN BE A COLOR CHANGE, A MATERIAL CHANGE, OR BRICK COURSE DIRECTION CHANGE OR NONE AT ALL. IT IS JUST AN IDEA. THEN ELEVATION FOR TOWNHOMES.

THE TOWNHOMES ARE LOCATED HERE. HVAC MATERIALS ARE UP ON THE ROOF AND SCREEN BEHIND THIS.

THIS WOULD BE THE FRONT ELEVATION FACING DILLON WAY. THEN WE HAD A FEW SUGGESTIONS AS WELL. ONE BEING THE AWNING OVER THE GARAGE DOORS.

JUST TO BREAK UP THE MONOTONY OF THE BACK WALL. AND THE SIDEWALLS, AGAIN THE IDEA CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH COLOR AND MATERIAL OR BRICK COURSE DIRECTION CHANGE? I WOULD NOTE THAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER.

YOU WOULD ONLY BE NOTICING ON THE DRIVEWAY SIDES COULD BUY APPROVING OPTIONS YOU WOULD GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK . ALL THAT AID WITH PD 42 THERE WAS A TIA PPROVED WITH THE BROADER BATON DEVELOPMENT BACK IN 2007. TALKING WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN WE GET CLOSER TO DEVELOPMENT WE MAY NEED TO SEE A REVISED TIA.

WE TALKED WITH APPLICANT ABOUT POSSIBLY THE NEED FOR A NORTHBOUND DIESEL LANE ON S.

9TH ST. FOR SERVING THE SITE. THAT'S YET TO BE DETERMINED BUT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT WHAT IMPACT ANYTHING ABOUT THE SITE YOU MAY CONSIDER APPROVING TODAY.

THAT WILL NOT CHANGE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS BECAUSE THAT IS GENERALLY DIVIDED ANYWAYS.

AS I SAID THE FUTURE PET SITES I ASKED OUT YOU ARE NOT APPROVING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT TODAY. THIS WAS HING THAT WAS NOTICED ON THE E AGENDA.

IN TERMS OF RECEIVING PUBLIC FEEDBACK THERE WASN'T ANY. AS FAR AS THE RECOMMENDATION,

[00:15:09]

ALSO HERE. >> LET ME DOUBLE CHECK ONE HING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOWNHOMES BY THE COMMERCIAL DO THEY FACE DILLON OR THE OTHER TOWNHOMES?

>> THE TOWNHOMES ON DILLON? THEY FACE DILLON. THE FRONT ELEVATION WILL FACE

DILLON. >> THE OTHER TOWNHOMES WILL FACE THE BACK?

>> YES. >> WITH A MIX OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE COMMERCIAL

AND OFFICE WE ARE GOOD ON ALL THE PARKING: >> YES HE IS PROVIDING 71 SPACES FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND DEPENDING ON HOW YOU BREAKUP THE USE HE MAY HAVE TO FLEX A LITTLE BIT BETWEEN THE USES BECAUSE THEY VERY THIS IS MEANT TO BE A WALKABLE DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T EMPHASIZE. HE IS SATISFYING WHAT WOULD BE 71 SPACES BASED ON THE PRESUMPTIVE OFFICE AND THE REST BEING PRESUMPTIVELY RETAIL THAT WOULD GET YOU 71 SPACES AND HE HAS THAT INCLUDING THE NUMBER ON DILLON WAY THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED.

>> EACH RESIDENTIAL SPOT HAS A TWO-CAR GARAGE? >> YES THEY HAVE THEIR OWN

PARKING. >> +2 DRIVEWAY SPACES? >> YES.

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

>> GOOD EVENING. SHANE MORE THAN ANYONE MCALPINE WROTE MIDLOTHIAN.

BRIAN AND STEPH HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO IT UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. JUST ECHO WHAT BRIAN SAID IT DOESN'T MEET THE RECENTLY APPROVED NEW CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND ALL THE PARKING REGULATIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HERE. >> QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU SIR. STAFF ANYTHING ELSE? >> IT IS UNANIMOUS.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF WITH OPTIONS.

>> SECOND. >> FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS A UNANIMOUS. EXCUSE ME.

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit for building wall signs that require exceptions to Section 4.6017 of the City of Midlothian Zoning Ordinance, located on Lot 2RA, Block 1, Walnut Grove Center South (commonly known as 4470 East Highway 287, Suite 500), and presently zoned Commercial (C) (Case No. SUP09-2023-044). ]

(C) (CASE NUMBER BER SUP09-2023-044). >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.

AS YOU MENTIONED THIS IS LOCATED AT 4470 EAST HIGHWAY 287 AND SUITE 500 AS SHOWN ON THE LOCATION MAP ON THE SCREEN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO INSTALL BUILDING WALL SIGNAGE THE REQUIRES EXCEPTIONS TO THE CURRENT SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL.

PER OUR REGULATION COMMERCIAL ZONING THE SIGNAGE SHALL CONSIST OF CHANNEL LETTERS OR REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CUSTOM-MADE SIGN WITH INDIVIDUAL METAL FLAT PANEL LETTERS. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS BOARD.

THE APPLICANT IS EXPANDING FROM ONE SUITE TO TWO SUITES. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THIS NEW SIGNAGE. THE SIGNAGE WILL MEET ALL OTHER REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, MAXIMUM ALLOWED. IT WILL NOT BE INTERNALLY LIT BUT THEY WILL USE THE EXISTING LIGHTING ON THE BUILDING LIKE THE SIGN.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I CAN STAND FOR ANY OF QUESTIONS. ONE LAST THING.

[00:20:05]

IT MAY VERY DEPENDING ON HOW IT TURNS OUT AND THE WEATHER. WHAT THEY ARE SHOOTING FOR THE FIRST TWO ON THE SLIDE OR WHERE YOU CAN SEE 34 AND FIVE ON THE SLIDE.

>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO TO SPEAK? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING?

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

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION FOR A SECOND TO APPROVE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.. LET THE RECORD SHOW LSO I SHOULD PUT THIS IN THE PUBLIC BOARD WE HAD ONE FORM TURNED IN RETAIL IN FAVOR. LET'S GO BACK AND PICK UP ITEM

[006 Consider and act upon a request for a special exception to Section 4.5602 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) to allow for additional parking over the maximum permitted, for an existing Elementary School (J.A. Vitovsky Elementary School) on 15± acres situated in the H. F. Hinkley Survey, Abstract No. 459. The property is located at 333 Church Street. (Case No. M08-2023-42). ]

>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN APPLICANT WHO IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MIDLOTHIAN INDEPENDENT DISTRICT IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL 30 PARKING SPACES ABOVE WHAT THE CURRENT PARKING REGULATIONS WOULD ALLOW. AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS MENTIONED LOCATED AT 333 CHURCH ST. AS SHOWN HERE. CURRENTLY SECTION 4.5602 PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD ALLOW A TOTAL OF 203 SPACES. KEEP IN MIND THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED PLUS 25 PERCENT OVERLAP. THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.

CURRENTLY THIS PROPERTY HAS 96 EXISTING SPACES AND APPLICANT HAS A CURRENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 101 ADDITIONAL SPACES. WHICH WOULD BE BELOW THE ALLOWED MAXIMUM. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ADDITIONAL 36 SPACES THAT ARE SHOWN HERE UP. IN THE RED BUBBLE. AND THESE AS WELL.

KEEP IN MIND THAT SIX OF THOSE CAN BE CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH OUR PARKING REGULATIONS. STAFF IS AWARE THAT THE SCHOOL APPROXIMATELY HOLDS 10 EVENTS OR FUNCTIONS PER YEAR AND DURING THESE FUNCTIONS OFTEN TIMES PARKING HAPPENS ALONG THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES OR UNIMPROVED AREAS SO THIS IS THE PROBLEM FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. IN ORDER TO SERVE PARENTS, VISITORS AND STAFF THAT ARE THEY ARE MAKING THIS REQUEST FOR THESE ADDITIONAL WORKING SPACES.

THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING THE LANDSCAPING AND STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAIL FOR ALL THE PARKING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I

WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK SIR? YOU CAN COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> HELLO AND WITH PERKINS REPRESENTING MIDLOTHIAN AND JOSC) MARTINEZ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS. GOOD EXPLANATION ABOUT WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING AND I'M HERE TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> THANK YOU SIR.

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

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED?

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Planned Development-4 (PD-4) to allow for signage that requires exceptions from Section 4.6000 of the Zoning Ordinance for signage, within an existing Planned development on +/- 31.17 acres, being in the L. Newton Survey, Abstract 792 and the JT Rawls Survey, Abstract 933. The property is generally located at 975 S. Highway 67. (Z12-2023-45) ]

[00:25:09]

(Z12-2023-45). >> THANK YOU THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 CASE NUMBER Z 12 Ã20 ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. Ã45 AND THIS IS PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR A JP ADVANTAGE AS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN THIS IS SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR LOCATION EXHIBIT OUTLINING IN GREEN THE PROPERTY TOTAL SITE IS AROUND 31 ACRES EXISTING USES ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY CONSIST OF STORAGE AND DISPLAY TRUCK GROUP THERE. THE PROPERTY IS ON PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 WITH ORIGINAL ODULE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A LARGER VERSION OF LOCATION EXHIBITED WITH HIGHWAY 287 AMAKA 67 ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE.

JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS A FEW CASE DETAILS OR BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY THE PROPERTY IS ON PLAN DEVELOPMENT FORMAT AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN.

THIS IS AN OLDER PD EXHIBIT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CIRCLED IN RED IS FROM THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 652. 1984.

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A COLOR-CODED PLAN IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT.

WE WANT TO FOCUS ON OUTLINE AND WHITE FOR THE LEGEND IS SINGLE-FAMILY.

WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA OUTLINED IN WHITE REPRESENTS SINGLE-FAMILY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WE WANT TO FOCUS ON HERE UP. ORDINANCE NUMBER 652 WAS APPROVED 1984 WHICH WAS 40 YEARS AGO AT THIS POINT. PER THE CONCEPT PLAN THE AREA IS DESIGNATED AS SINGLE-FAMILY WHICH PER OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE BUILDING SIGNAGE IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICANT IS COMING BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. THERE WERE PREVIOUS COMMERCIAL USES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO PD COMING INTO THE PLACE WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE REASONING AS HOW COMMERCIAL EXISTED WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING. ALSO WE WANT TO NOTE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR BUILDING SIGNAGE ON THE EXISTING BUILDING AND NOWHERE ELSE WITHIN THE PD BUT THE EXISTING BUILDING. WE WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

THE NEXT SLIDE GIVES YOU A VISUAL OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO TENETS OF PDP TRACKING ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE AND TRUCK AND REPAIR ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

PDP TRACKING AROUND 36 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE. TRUCKING REPAIR AROUND 48 SQUARE FEET. THIS WILL FACE FORWARD IN THE DIRECTION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 67.

THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE NEEDS COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND AGAIN WE WANT TO KNOW IF YOU GUYS APPROVE THIS OR ULTIMATELY COUNSEL THIS WILL BE LIMITED TO THIS EXACT BUILDING AND EXACT LOCATION AND NOWHERE ELSE WITHIN THE PD.

WE WANTED TO KNOW THAT. WE DO WANT TO SAY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED AGAIN WITH THE SIGNAGE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AS YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. AND NOWHERE ELSE WITHIN THE PD. STAFF WILL STAND FOR ANY

QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DID HAVE A QUESTION COUNSEL.

BY ALLOWING THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR PD WE ARE NOT SETTING PRECEDENT AGAINST ORDINANCES ARE WE? WHAT I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THE USE THEY'RE NOT IS A NONCONFORMING USE. STAFF RESENTED COME THE USE PREEXIST IN THE PD I HAVE NO ISSUE FROM A LEGAL DPOINT. AS FAR AS PROVIDING THAT COME THE ORDINANCES IT'S BEEN LIMITING THE SIGN TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE LOCATION OF.

>> ANY OF THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND

WISH TO SPEAK TO MARK SIR, AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> I'M PRESENTING KOBE DID A GREAT JOB SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

[00:30:02]

MOTION SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR ACTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.. SCOTT DID YOU COVER ZERO 12 THAT'S BEEN ITHDRAWN?

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a multi-family residential development within Planned Development 146 (PD-146). The property is generally located on Highway 287 and Old Fort Worth Road. (SUP08-2023-36)]

ON HIGHWAY 287 AND OLD FORT WORTH ROAD. (SUP08-2023-36). >> THANK YOU IR.

BEAR WITH ME ON THIS ONE WE HAVE A FEW SLIDES ON THIS ONE BUT WE WANT TO TELL THE WHOLE STORY. THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 FOR CASE NUMBER SUP08-2023-36SPECIFIC USE MULTIFAMILY WITHIN WESTSIDE PRESERVE.

AS YOU SEE ON THE LIDE THE LOCATION EXHIBIT IS ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN PINK. TOTAL SITE WITHIN THE PD IS AROUND 17.35 ACRES AND CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE SEP FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF THE EXISTING PD TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE ZONING IS PLAN DEVELOPMENT 146 AND THE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA IS URBAN DENSITY MODULE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A LARGER VERSION OF THE LOCATION EXHIBITED IN QUESTION. JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS CASE HISTORY BACK IN DECEMBER 14, 2021 CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE THE PD 146. TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOMES AND MULTIFAMILY TRACK COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE PD. SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THIS SITE. LET ME BACKTRACK. WITHIN THE PD THERE WAS ONE SITE OUTLINED IN THIS PURPLE COLOR OF THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE SCREEN.

MULTIFAMILY OUTRIGHT. THE SITE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS IN QUESTION OUTLINED IN RED HERE WAS LABELED AS CR ÃMF QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL ALDI FAMILY WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO DO COMMUNITY RETAIL USE AND MULTIFAMILY USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

WE DO WANT TO NOTE MULTIFAMILY WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE IDANCE OF STP WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY PNC AND CITY TY COUNCIL AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS WERE ABOUT UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 302 UNITS PER PD. THIS IS THE LARGER VERSION OF WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

SUBJECT PROPERTY IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS OUTLINED IN RED. THIS OTHER PROPERTY OUT WHITE AND PURPLE HERE IS MULTIFAMILY THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED AS WE SPEAK.

MORE CASE HISTORY. OCTOBER 18 OF LAST YEAR 2022 PNC VOTED FOUR Ã12 APPROVE SEP 25.22 THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CASE NUMBER FOR THE CASE BROUGHT TO LAST YEAR.

NOVEMBER 8 OF 2022 CITY COUNCIL VOTED SEVEN ÃZERO TO DENY THE CASE SO AS YOU SEE OUTLINED CITY COUNCIL PRIMARY CONCERNS WAS THE PARKING AND GARAGES AND THE APPLICANT MIGHT NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING HEIGHT. THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL TOUCH ON AS WE GO INTO THIS PRESENTATION. BEFORE I FULLY GET INTO THE PRESENTATION NOTABLE CHANGES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING BACK ON NOVEMBER 8 THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE BUILDING COUNT WITHIN THE SITE LAYOUT FROM THE BUILDINGS TO SIX BUILDINGS. THE APPLICANT UPDATED THE EXTERIOR COLOR OF THE BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE A MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING INTO THE ENTRYWAY OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ALONG 287 THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT AND THE LEFT-HAND SIDE WHICH IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO GUYS LAST YEAR IN OCTOBER. THIS IS THE BUILDING COUNT OF EIGHT BUILDINGS AND ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS THE SITE LAYOUT IS WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

EIGHT BUILDINGS PRESENTED LAST YEAR AND SIX BUILDINGS ALONG HERE.

PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS AS YOU SEE AMONG HEAR THE BUILDINGS WERE NOT SEPARATED AND IN THE MIDDLE THE BUILDINGS ARE CONNECTED YES THEY DID REDUCE THE BUILDINGS FROM 8 TO 6 BUT THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. THE NEXT SLIDE GIVES YOU A CLOSER VISUAL ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IS WHAT YOU GUYS ALL LAST YEAR.

ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS CURRENTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING WITH THE CONNECTED

[00:35:03]

GOING INTO MORE DETAIL ON THE OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN TO EARN 94 TOTAL UNITS BEING PROPOSED SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR SIX TOTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND MAXIMUM OF THREE STORY BUILDINGS NOT TO EXCEED 45 FEET IN T. GOING TO BE LIMITED TO ONE BEDROOM ONE BATH AND TWO BEDROOM AND TWO BATH WITH ONE BEDROOM 176 UNITS AT 60 RCENT IN TWO BEDROOM BEEN ONE OR 18 NITS BEING AROUND 40 PERCENT. SITE AMENITIES REAL QUICK MINI CLUBHOUSE, FITNESS CENTER, POOL, SPORTS AND WALKING TRAIL AND COMMON AREAS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE AMENITIES THAT WILL BE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT OR PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOULD SAY FROM THE INTERIOR STANDPOINT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING UNITS THAT CONSISTS OF HIGH CEILINGS AND GRANITE COUNTERTOPS AND WALK-IN CLOSETS.

THIS ISN'T LIMITED TO THIS THEY WILL HAVE MORE AMENITIES WE WILL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK MORE TO THAT. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN RELATIONS TO MULTIFAMILY. I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE HARD TO READ DUE TO THE INFORMATION HOWEVER ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IT TAKES THE STANDARD UNIT COUNTS ETC..

IN THE SECOND COLUMN IS THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN REQUIREMENTS IN RELATION TO MULTIFAMILY ZONING OR THE PD STATES. THIRD: DOES WITH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AT THE FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS MEETING REQUIREMENT OR NOT.

AS YOU SEE ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT WHICH IS WHAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.

THE REQUIREMENT IS TO STORES AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE STORIES FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT. LASTLY WITH THE PARKING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IN PARTICULAR WE WERE REQUIRED TO HER 64 GARAGES 132 DETACHED GARAGES AND 132 TOTAL GARAGES THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 70 CARPORT SPACES COME 78 DETACHED GARAGES AND REMAINING SPACES TO BE UNCOVERED AROUND 374 SPACES. WE WILL TOUCH ON THIS MORE AS THE PRESENTATION GOES ALONG.

THE APPLICANT GOT HIS NUMBER PRIMARILY FROM THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY TRACK WITHIN THE PD AND OTHER WHAT WE MENTIONED ON THE RIGHT-HAND CORNER WITHIN THE PRESERVE HAD A SIMILAR LAYOUT REGARDING PARKING WHERE THERE 70 CARPORT, 78 DETACHED GARAGES AND REMAINING BEING UNCOVERED SPACES THEY ARE TRYING TO ALIGN THE PARKING WITH THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY OR CURRENT MULTIFAMILY BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PD TOUCHES ON LANDSCAPING AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING LANDSCAPING FOR THE SITE. IT IS HARD TO TELL BUT THE AREA OUTLINED IN BLUE HERE DEPICTS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITH MASONRY COLUMN SPACED EVERY 50 FEET.

WE DID WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT AS WELL.

AS THE ELEVATION FAC'ADE PLAN. THREE STORIES MAXIMUM HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 45 FEET.

LIBRARY MATERIALS USED WILL CONSIST OF STUCCO INSTALLMENTS MATERIAL.

GIVES YOU A BETTER COLOR VERSION OF THE RENDERING OF WHAT THE ELEVATION FAC'ADE PLAN WILL LOOK LIKE. COMING BACK TO THE PARKING ALONG THIS BLUE CHART HERE.

SHOWS A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT IS REQUIRED AND THE SECOND COLUMN FOR CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARDS. ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

ATTACHED GARAGE IS 264 AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ZERO FOR DETACHED GARAGES OUTLINED IN PINK 132 IT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 78 FOR UNDER GARAGES REQUIREMENT IS 132 AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ZERO FOUR CARPORTS WHICH IS OUTLINED IN GREEN.

EXHIBIT TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE WE DO INCLUDE THAT FOR THE PARKING STANDARDS HOWEVER THAT IS REQUESTING 70 CARPORT SPACES WITH REMAINING BEING SURFACE AREA SPACES.

AGAIN WE WILL SPEAK TO THIS IN A SECOND AS WELL. THE APPLICANT PRIMARILY IS WANTING TO STICK WITH THE PARKING LAYOUT IS CONSISTENT WITH A MULTI- FAMILY BILLS APPROVED BACK IN 2021 PER THE PD. THIS PARKING LAYOUT WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT. VARIOUS REQUESTS PULLED IN HEIGHT AND GARAGES AS WE

[00:40:01]

264 ATTACHED, 132 DETACHED COME 132 TUCKED UNDER THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 70 CARPORT AND 78 DETACHED GARAGES. NEXT BUILDING HIGH PERFORMANCE ISN'T ALLOWED TO EXCEED TWO STORIES OF THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE. THE STAFF REPORT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THIS. OUR MAIN REASON WITH AND THAT WE WILL TOUCH ON SO WE TOUCHED ON THE PLAN TIA AND SITE LAYOUT A MULTIFAMILY PERCENTAGE. FOR THE FUTURE PLAN AREAS DESIGNATED AS URBAN HIGH-DENSITY MODULE WHICH ALLOWS APPLICANT NOT TO EXCEED 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THE APPLICANT IS BELOW THE END THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COMPTIA REPORT BACK IN 2021.

WHICH COVERED THE ENTIRE PD FOR WESTSIDE PRESERVE. THREE AREAS THE REPORT FOCUSED ON SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOW AT A SHOPPING CENTER WHICH ALIGNS WITH RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES. MULTIFAMILY IS THE LOWEST BETWEEN THE THREE. AND ALSO WITH AM AND PM PEAK HOURS FOR THE MOST PART ALL THE FAMILY IS THE LOWEST ONE BETWEEN THE THREE SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS USE ON THE PROPERTY SITE LAYOUT AND PARKING.

AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE THE APPLICANT IS NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED GARAGE REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER WE BELIEVE THE PROPOSED LAYOUT AND ELEVATION FAC'ADE WILL BE THE MOST AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AS A ENTRYWAY INTO THE CITY. WE WANT TO KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH US FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS AT THIS POINT OR PROBABLY THREE MONTHS.

WITH THE NEW LAYOUT. ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY FIRST CAME THEY WERE TRYING TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PARKING HOWEVER AS YOU SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE THIS ON THE LEFT SIDE WAS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS IS WITH THE TWO-STORY APARTMENTS ALONG WITH THE GARAGE REQUIREMENTS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE AS YOU ARE AWARE IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. JUST FROM A ATHLETIC STANDPOINT WE THOUGHT THAT THE PREVIOUS WAS GOING TO LOOK TO CONGESTED. WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WE HAVE OUR STANDARDS WE WANT TO MEET THOSE AND HAVE A RIGHT TO PRESENT THE BEST CASE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL. BETWEEN THE TO AND AS YOU GUYS CAN TELL ONE APPEARS LESS CONGESTED THAN THE OTHER. ONE ALLOWS A LITTLE BIT MORE LANDSCAPING IN BETWEEN.

THIS IS WHY WE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CURRENT SUBMITTAL OPPOSED TO THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL TODAY WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. WE SENT OUT 27 NOTICES AND WE DO WANT TO NOTE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE THEY ARE WORKING ON NOW IS THAT TWO

STORIES OR THREE STORIES? >> THE CURRENT PROPOSING IS A THREE-STORY.

>> THE ONE THEY ARE BUILDING RIGHT NOW. >> THE ONE THEY ARE BUILDING

RIGHT NOW IS THREE-STORY. >> DID YOU SEE ANY RENDERINGS OR ANYTHING OF THE CARPORTS?

>> WE DID NOT HAVE THE RENDERING AND ELEVATION. IT WAS A BLACK AND WHITE ELEVATION BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN THE PRESENTATION FOR YOU.

>> REFRESH MY MEMORY THE APARTMENTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW WILL COME OUT ON THE

HIGHWAY AND COME DOWN TO 287? >> YES THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHERE IS THE TRAFFIC COMING

OUT OF? >> THIS WILL GO A LONG U.S. 287 SERVICE RD.

. >> ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO FOURTH HIGHWAY I ASSUME?

>> YES. I WAS GOING TO TOUCH ON THAT. I CAN REFER TO THE APPLICANT AS

WELL ON THAT. >> IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR PRESENTATION COUNCIL VOTED SEVEN ÃZERO TURN THIS DOWN BECAUSE OF TWO ISSUES. HEIGHT AND PARKING.

THE HEIGHT IS STILL THE SAME CORRECT? >> THE HEIGHT IN THE PARKING IS

THE SAME. >> THE ASCETICS CHANGED BUT THE HEIGHT IS THE SAME.

>> CORRECT. WHAT'S THE PARKING DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS.

>> RECT. TO ADD ON THAT REAL . I WAS HALF THE REASON WHY WE WE EXTENDED THE INFORMATION INTO THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THE APPLICANT WAITED SIX MONTHS AND CAME BACK WITH THE EXACT SAME THING.

THERE WAS SO MUCH MORE THAT WENT IN BETWEEN. THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO TOUCH

[00:45:05]

ASK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? IDENTIFY YOURSELF. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT SHE TURNED IN A FORM OF SUPPORT OF THIS. ASK TERRENCE JOE MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOPMENT 2415 SUMMERFIELD MIDLOTHIAN TEXAS WE ARE THE MANAGING PARTNER WESTSIDE RVE.

KOBE DID A GREAT AT JOB OF EXPLAINING EVERYTHING. I APOLOGIZE IF I REITERATE SOME THINGS. I DO WANT TO GO BACK AND DO THAT.

I THINK EVERYTHING IS CLEAR. AS COMMISSIONER JUST ASKED THE QUESTION, WHY DO WE COME BACK AGAIN WITH THE SAME HEIGHT AND THE SAME GARAGES? WE DIDN'T THE ONE ON THE LEFT, WE DID NOT BRING THAT BACK. WE BROUGHT IT BACK AS A REAL SUBMISSION.

HE WORKED ON A VERY HARD. WE HAVE ELEVATIONS AND THE WHOLE WORKS.

WE WERE MEETING ALL OF THE ORDINANCES WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS WE WERE NOT COMING IN. IT WAS TWO-STORY AT ALL TUCKED UNDER GARAGES WE WERE ABLE TO GET IT UNDER. IT IS CRAMMED ON THEIR. WE WERE NOT DOING THAT TO SAY GIVE US WHAT WE WANT WE ARE DOING THIS WE OWN THE PROPERTY AND WE ARE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING NICE. THE STAFF DID NOT LIKE IT. THEY ASKED ME WHAT WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT DO. I SAID LET US TALK TO SOME OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS SO WE DID VISIT WITH SEVERAL OF THEM THAT HAD SAID WE ARE TURNING THIS DOWN.

BECAUSE OF HEIGHT AND GARAGES. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN ANYONE'S MOUTH BUT LET ME SAY AFTER SPEAKING WITH QUITE A FEW OF THEM THIS IS AN SUV. THERE'S NO WAY TO TURN IT DOWN UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITE THAT DOESN'T MEET THE ORDINANCE.

THAT'S MY OPINION. NOT TRYING TO PUT IT IN THEIR MOUTHS.

THEY CHOSE THOSE VARIANCES. WE WERE MAKING VARIANCES AND THEY DID NOT LIKE THE PROJECT.

WE DID SHOW THEM SOME IDEAS. WE'VE DONE A PARTNERSHIP WITH JPA IN GRAND PRAIRIE AND GRAND PRAIRIE WAS ANTI-MULTI FAMILY LET'S SAY. WE WERE ABLE TO GET PAST PRETTY MUCH CLOSE TO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TODAY. IT'S A VERY SOFT LOOK AND THERE'S A PROJECT IN MANSO CALLED L THAT LOOKS LIKE THAT TOO.

AS WE KEPT TALKING WITH STAFF AND SOME OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS WE SAID WHAT IF WE BROUGHT IT BACK AND IT LOOKED LIKE THIS WITH LESS BUILDINGS AND MORE GREEN SPACES? THE BIG BUILDING THAT'S A U-SHAPED LOOKS LIKE A WRAP. IT DOESN'T LOOK GARDEN STYLE BUT GIVES A WHOLE DIFFERENT LOOK AND FEEL TO THE PROJECT. EVERYONE WE TALKED TO SO FAR LIKES IT. I CAN'T SAY I'M NOT STRONG POLLING.

WE MAY GO BACK AND THERE AND SAY WE THROUGHOUT LAST YEAR AND WE WILL THROW YOU OUT AGAIN.

WE ARE VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND WE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH STAFF AND ARCHITECTS FOR THE LAST THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. WE BUILT IT IS A MUCH BETTER LOOKING PROJECT THAN THE ONE ON THE LEFT. IT IS A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE PROJECT. FROM A PURIFYING NATURAL POINT OF VIEW.

I'M NOT SURE IT IS BETTER BECAUSE IT'S A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE. IS THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY AND WE'VE HEARD THIS FROM EVERY SINGLE STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBER. THEY SAID IF WE DRIVE TO A SEVEN AND LOOK AT THAT ON A HILL WE WANT TO SAY SOMETHING SUPER GOOD. WE FEEL LIKE IT IS SUPER GOOD AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE BACK HERE SEEING WHAT YOU GUYS THINK. THANK YOU AND IF YOU HAVE

QUESTIONS FOR ME I WOULD LOVE TO HELP. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANYONE? THANK YOU SIR. I HAVE NO ONE ELSE.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED?

[00:50:06]

>> I THINK IT'S GORGEOUS. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RESOURCE BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM

WITH THE PARKING. >> QUICK QUESTION THE ONE THAT CAME BACK THAT WAS CONFORMING

DID THAT MEET SITE COVERAGE? WHAT WAS THE DENSITY? >> SORRY.

THEY WERE STILL MEETING THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT, IT IS THE OVERALL LOOK.

IT LOOKS CONGESTED WE DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST THING AS YOU COME TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. YES TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THEY STILL WERE.

>> IS A MUCH BETTER LOOKING CONCEPT NOW AND WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BUT I'M STILL

CONCERNED WITH THE PARKING AS WELL. >> REAL QUICK WHEN YOU GUYS ARE SAYING YOUR CONCERN YOU SAY YOU WOULD RATHER THE APPLICANT MAKE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PARKING? IS IT YOU WOULD RATHER HIM INCREASE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE?

SORRY I'M JUST CURIOUS. >> I WOULD RATHER NOT SEE AS MUCH SURFACE PARKING AND MORE COVERED PARKING AND MORE GARAGE SPACES. ESPECIALLY GOING UP TO A THIRD STORY. YOU CAN HAVE ROOM FOR TUCKED UNDER HIS ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF

A THREE-STORY BUILDING. >> I THINK IF THERE WAS MORE COVERED PARKING IT WOULD BE AN

EASIER SELL FROM A GARAGE STANDPOINT. >> ANY FURTHER SCUSSION? IF T I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO DENY.

ANY OTHER QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY 011 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Subdivision Regulations, Section 3.12 “Application Process” by amending Subsection 6 “Time for Making Determination” regarding the time for determining completeness of certain applications and repealing Subsection 8, “Time for Completing Application:; Amending Section 3.15 “Vacation Instrument, Replatting, Amended Plats, and Minor Plats” Subsection 1 “Vacation of a Plat” relating to the procedures for vacating a plat; amending Section 4.12 “Site Plans” regulating submission content, and approval of certain site plans; amending Section 4.13 “Preliminary Plats” by amending paragraph t) of Subsection 4 regarding phasing plans; and paragraph c) of Subsection 9 relating to the extension of the expiration of preliminary plats; and amending Subsection 1 of Section 4.14 “Final Plats” to provide for filing plats within Johnson County when applicable. (Case No. OZ02- 2023-24). ]

NUMBER OZ02- 2023-24). >> THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CLARIFYING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND BRINGING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 212 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. SECTION 3.12 APPLICATION PROCESS WE ARE PROVIDING MORE DEFINITIVE TIMEFRAME. FOR THE APPLICATION COMPLETENESS THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT SAID WE WOULD HOLD ONTO AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION FOR 45 DAYS AND WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. WE STRUCK OUT THAT PROVISION.

SECTION 3.15 VACATION INSTRUMENT REPLANNING AND MINOR PLOTS.

[00:55:02]

BUILDING A SITE PLAN. SECTION 4.13 CLEARING PLOTS. ALLOWS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES USING A PHASING PLAN THERE WERE TWO REFERENCES TO MASTER PLOT AND THAT IS NOT A TERM DEFINED ANYWHERE IN THE ORDINANCE. WE MADE SURE WE ARE CONSISTENT USING THE PHASING PLAN TERMINOLOGY. IN SECTION 4.14 FINAL PLOT.

CITY COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR APPROVED A TJ INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY SO INCLUDED JOHNSON COUNTY AS A COUNT AND RECORD.

330 ACRES THAT FALL WITHIN JOHNSON COUNTY AND THE CITIES Z TJ.

WE CLARIFIED LANGUAGE THE FINAL PLOT MUST BE STUDENTS ACTUALLY ONFORM TO GET LEXIBILITY AND INSTEAD MUST CONFORM. THE CURRENT PROCESS IS ONE APPLICANT SUBMITS A FINAL PLOT THEY PROVIDE A LIST OF CHANGES FROM THE PRELIMINARY PLOT AND STAFF REVIEWS OF CHANGES.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I WILL MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ON FUTURE STUFF REGARDING THIS. LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED BILLS FOR GOOD, BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT AFFECTS CITIES. THEY PASSED ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 212 THAT WILL FURTHER MODIFY THE PLOT REQUIREMENTS. SOME OF THE PHASES ARE FAVORABLE TO CITIES. WE WILL PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT SEPTEMBER 1 SOME ADDITIONAL.

BOOKS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HOUSE BILL 14? THEY CREATED A SEPARATE SECTION

FOR THE 257 THEY ARE NOT PUTTING IT INTO 12. >> REGARDLESS EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THESE ORDINANCES. RELATING TO THE SAME TOPICS BETWEEN NOW AND 1 SEPTEMBER THERE'S ADDITIONAL CHANGES. I THINK SOME OF THOSE CHANGES ARE FAVORABLE TO CITIES AND THE CLARIFIED ISSUES WE ARE HAVING FROM THE ORIGINAL PLOT STATUTE.

THIS IS THE INITIAL START. GETTING CLOSER TO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE KEEPS DOING TO US.

>> MORE OF A GENERAL UMBRELLA OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP AND NO FORMS TURNED IN SO I

WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I TURN IN PAPERWORK TO SPEAK

TONIGHT. >> WHAT IS YOUR NAME SIR? I DO NOT HAVE A FORM.

OKAY. YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON 12 SIR? THE ONE ON PAGE 75.

>> IT IS LISTED IN 12. THE INFORMATION I HAVE IS ZERO 51.

>> THAT CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. WE ARE NOT HEARING IT.

I CAN ONLY TELL YOU SIR THE INFORMATION I WAS GIVEN HIS CASE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

[01:00:06]

>> WHO WITHDREW IT? >> THE CITY DID DO YOU WANT TO COME SPEAK TO THAT?

>> A MOTION TO CLOSE? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED?

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

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY, DO YOU

WANT TO COME UP? >> THAT'S A ZONING CASE THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THIS MEETING AND POSTED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. IN JULY.

THE NOTIFICATION THAT WENT OUT WAS INCORRECT. WE WITHDREW THE CASE AND RE-NOTIFYING EVERYBODY AND THEY WILL GET THE EXACT SAME NOTICE THEY GOT BEFORE BASICALLY BUT WITH WORDING CHANGED. WE GOT A DIFFERENT LEGAL OPINION AFTER WE SENT IT OUT.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA. COMMISSIONERS DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? IF NOT ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.