Jul 18, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum]

[00:00:10]

THIS REGULAR SESSION OF THE MIDLOTHIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

WE WILL NOTE WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. WITH THAT IN HAND WE WILL

[001 Citizens to be heard-The Planning & Zoning Commission invites citizens to address the Commission on any topic not already scheduled for a Public Hearing. Citizens wishing to speak should complete a “Citizen Participation Form” and present it to City Staff prior to the meeting. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Commission cannot act on items not listed on the agenda.]

MA'AM IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND IF YOU LIVE IN THE CITY ARE NOT AND PROCEED.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. THERE YOU ARE. >> MISTY VENTURA 9406 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD DALLAS TEXAS 75218. I AM NOT A MEMBER OR CITIZEN OF THE MIDLOTHIAN.

I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER RELATED TO THE 18 Ã2023 Ã061.

AS A TEXAN BORN AND RAISED IN THIS GREAT STATE I HAVE A FONDNESS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CANDOR. I APPRECIATE THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND I AM GRATEFUL THAT NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEM 10 BECAUSE NO PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN POSTED FOR THAT ITEM. WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY RIGHTS I WILL REMIND THIS COMMISSION I WAS HERE BEFORE YOU WHEN YOU APPROVED A PLAT ON THE PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ZONING CASE IN THIS PROJECT HAS VESTED RIGHTS PURSUANT TO A PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT.

I HAVE RECIRCULATED A COPY OF THAT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CITY, COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL AS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. COURTESY COPY WAS PROVIDED TONIGHT FOR EACH OF YOU. WOULD ASK THAT YOU REVIEW THAT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AS YOU CONSIDER THE LIBERATION ZONING CASE THE 1820 2306 ONE AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU ZONING THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THOSE VESTED RIGHTS. TO THE EXTENT THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS I KNOW IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION TO ENGAGE BUT WE ARE AVAILABLE AND WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT THIS

PROJECT WE ARE VERY PROUD OF. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days; and brief overview of proposed work session for August 15, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission.]

>> ITEM HEARD ON JULY 11 Z DECEMBER 20, 2020 345 A JP ADVANTAGE SIGNAGE.

LOCATED 975 SOUTH HIGHWAY 67. THE REQUEST WAS TO AMEND THE EXISTING PD TO ALLOW BUILDING SIGNAGE ON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. DOES COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL SEVEN ÃAND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT SEVEN ÃERO THE NEXT ITEM SPECIFIC USE SUB SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 44 HEALTH RETREAT IGNAGE AT 4470 EAST HIGHWAY 287 THIS WAS REQUEST TO ALLOW BUILDING SIGNAGE ON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS AND PNC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SEVEN ÃZERO AND COUNSEL ALSO APPROVED IT.

THE NEXT ITEM IS SEP 2023 ZERO 36 FOR HIDDEN HILLS MULTIFAMILY ON HIGHWAY 287 AND OLD FORT WORTH RD. . THIS WAS REQUEST MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS WITHIN THE WESTSIDE PRESERVE PLAN . THE SITE PLAN IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. THE APPLICANT REVISED THE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DETACHED

[00:05:04]

WILL YOU REVIEW A CASE YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE IT, DENY T, CONTINUE IT FOR MORE INFORMATION. THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE IT FORWARD WHEN THERE'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. COUNSEL CAN APPROVE IT WITH MINOR CHANGES IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT FOR INSTANCE WOULD CHANGE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

THEY WOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. IN THIS CASE THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE WERE AMENABLE TO THE COUNCIL. THE NEXT ITEM IS JULY 2, 2023 24 TAX AMENDMENT FOR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. PNC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SEVEN ÃZERO AND COUNSEL APPROVED IT AS L. THE FORMAL CASE WAS MISCELLANEOUS CASE 20 2347 AS A RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT. IT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO PNC AND NEEDED COUNCIL APPROVAL BECAUSE IT WAS AN AGREEMENT FOR ENCOURAGEMENT FOR SIX PARKING SPACES ALONG AVENUE B. BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WE RECEIVED AN INVITATION FOR JOINT WORK SESSION WITH COUNSEL ON AUGUST 22 THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER FOR THE COMPANY HAS A PLAN AND WE HOPE YOU CAN MAKE IT.

IT IS GOING TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT CHAPTER. ALSO WE HAVE TO HAVE A WORK SESSION EITHER AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER MEETING TO TALK ABOUT RECENT LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT WERE PASSED AND HOW THEY COULD IMPACT OUR ORDINANCES. IT IS GOING TO DEPEND ON THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING THIS MONTH WHETHER WE CAN GET EVERYTHING READY FOR YOU IN

AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER. >> WHAT TIME ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT STARTING THE WORKSHOP?

>> IF POSSIBLE MAYBE 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING. I BELIEVE YOU CAN EAT AT YOUR PLACES IF THAT IS USUALLY WHEN YOU ARRIVE AND YOU WANT TO NOT HAVE TO COME TO MUCH EARLIER.

>> COMMISSIONERS CAN YOU MAKE IT AT 5:30 P.M.? 30 MINUTES EARLY?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU.

[003 Update on Park Dedication Ordinance Research and Recommendations.]

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH A QUICK, NOT THAT QUICK BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD I GO TOO FAST. A SLIGHTLY QUICK UPDATE OF THE PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE.

CITY COUNCIL AND THE PERKS COMMISSION ADOPTED A BRAND-NEW PARK VISION AND PARK MASTER PLAN THIS PAST JANUARY. IT WENT THROUGH PRACTICE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS.

DOCUMENTATION AND ADOPTION WILL HAPPEN FOR THE PARK DEDICATION IF EVERYBODY SEES FIT FOR THAT COMING UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE. WHAT WE SAW THROUGH THE ANALYSIS WE HAD DESIGN WORKSHOP DO A ANALYSIS OF WHERE WE ARE AT TIMMY EXISTING NEEDS FOR THE BENCHMARK LEVEL SERVICE AND WE USE THE STATE OF TEXAS AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PARKS.

WHAT YOU LIKE TO SEE IS A PARK FOR EVERY 2700 RESIDENTS AND FIVE ACRES OF PARK FOR EVERY THOUSAND RESIDENTS TIMMY EXISTING NEEDS WE WOULD NEED TO ADD SIX MORE PARKS AND TURN 15 ACRES TODAY TO MEET OUR CURRENT POPULATION. THIS WAS NE ABOUT 38,000 WE SURPASSED 40,000 000 PEOPLE. THE NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND.

IN 2040 WE NEED 24 MORE PARKS AND 684 MORE ACRES. THIS STACK CONFUSED ME AT THE BEGINNING. TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT SIX MORE PARKS GEOGRAPHICALLY SPATIALLY LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN TO MEET NEEDS SO WE DON'T HAVE ONE AREA THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE LACK OF PARK AND WE HAVE ANOTHER AREA THAT HAS TOO MANY PARKS WE WANT THEM SPACED OUT RESIDENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE ACREAGE IS REALLY HOW MANY ACRES WE NEED PER RESIDENCE LIKE I SAID APPEAR. WE ALSO HAVE, SINCE 2018 WE PROCESSED 2500 PERMITS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OF COURSE YOU ALL KNOW WE HAVE THE PD AND

[00:10:03]

WITH THAT ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS WE SEE IS A PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE.

HALF OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES COME IF HALF OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WERE SUBJECT TO PARK DEDICATION WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN 50 ADDITIONAL PARKS OR ACRES FOR PARKS.

WE LOOKED AT SURROUNDING SISTER CITIES AND THIS IS IN THE METROPLEX.

I KNOW WE LOOKED AT CEDAR HILL AND ROCKWALL, MANSFIELD, COLLEYVILLE AND LOUISVILLE.

THEY ARE NOT ALL OVER THE PLACE AS FAR AS WHAT THEY NEED DEDICATED.

ALL THE DEDICATION SERVES THEIR NEEDS. THE HIGHEST ONE WAS COLLEYVILLE YOU WILL KNOW COLLEYVILLE. IT IS BUILT OUT. IT IS SURROUNDED BY LAND OR SURROUNDED BY OTHER CITIES EXCUSE ME. THEY HAVE A VERY HIGH DEDICATION THRESHOLD. LOXAHATCHEE, DESOTO WERE SOME OF THE SMALLER ONES.

THAT'S SPATIALLY WHERE WE ARE LOCATED IN RELATION TO SOME OF THESE COMPARISONS CITIES.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE WAY OF PARK DEDICATION WORKS IS WE WOULD ADOPT WHATEVER IT IS, AND ACRE PER 100 UNITS. SOMEBODY COMES IN AND DEVELOPS 100 UNITS AND THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE AN ACRE OF LAND TO THE CITIES PARK SYSTEM. THE ACRE OF LAND WHAT HAPPENED AT FINAL PLAT. GO THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DRC WILL WE BRING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO YOU WE LOOK AT WHERE THAT IS LOCATED. THE ACRE OF PARK LAND DEDICATION WE GET WITH OUR PARKS DIRECTOR AND FIGURE OUT A GOOD PLACE FOR THAT.

WHEN THE FINAL PLAT HAPPENS THAT SOME OF DEDICATION HAPPENS.

YOU SEE YOUR WE HAVE A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS. WE OF THE POPULATION AND LAND DEDICATION IS WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED. AN ACRE PER HUNDRED DWELLING UNITS AND YOU ALWAYS HAVE SEE IN LIEU OF SAY IT'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH 100 UNITS. THE FEE IN LIEU OF COULD BE 500 OR $100 PER DWELLING UNIT.

THAT'S THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD GO INTO THE PARK SYSTEM TO IMPROVE THE PARK SYSTEM.LAYGROUND AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS TO HELP DEVELOP THE PARKS.

THEN YOU HAVE A PARK FEE AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I TALKED TO OUR ATTORNEYS ABOUT.

I DON'T KNOW, I'VE BEEN TOLD YOU CAN HAVE A PARK DEDICATION AS WELL IS A PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE. WE ARE STILL KIND OF DEBATING WITH OUR PARKS CONSULTANTS AND ATTORNEYS ABOUT THAT. BASICALLY WHAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU ALL IS WE WENT THROUGH WITH MEMBERS OF THE PARK BOARD AND MR. HILL WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND KIND OF CAME UP AND LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND YOU CAN SEE CEDAR HILL HAS ONE ACRE PER 50 DWELLING UNITS COLLEYVILLE IS PRETTY HIGH ONE ACRE PER 25 DWELLING UNITS THREE ACRES PER 100 DWELLING UNITS AND LOUISVILLE MANSFIELD HAS ONE PER 100 DWELLING UNITS.

ROCKWALL HAS A VERY COMPLICATED SYSTEM. AS TO HOW THEY DEDICATE THAT.

DESOTO IS 202 ACRES PER 100 DWELLING UNITS AS IS LOXAHATCHEE THAT THE FEE IN LIEU OF. JUST LIKE I EXPLAINED. IF THERE'S NOT BIG G LAND AND IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO DEDICATE A A PARK CAN PROVIDE A FEE IN LIEU OF AND THAT HELPS THE PARK SYSTEM AS WELL. THERE'S A PARK DEDICATION OF THE.

I GOT AN UPDATE AND I KNOW MANSFIELD UPDATED ERE'S AND THAT IS $750 PER DRAWING G UNIT. THEY WENT UP ON THERE'S CONSIDERABLY I KNOW THEY MORE THAN DOUBLED THEIRS LAST YEAR. LOUISVILLE HAVE THERE'S. BASICALLY YOU CAN GO OUT AND APPRAISE LAND AND FROM THAT EACH YEAR YOU DEVELOP THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE CEDAR HILL HAS A $700 PER DWELLING UNIT AND THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE 50 DWELLING UNITS AND PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE. WE WILL BE HAVING ADDITIONAL WORKSHOPS ON THIS.

WE WILL BE HAVING, MOST LIKELY BRING THIS UPDATE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BECAUSE FROM MY EYES AND WHAT I'VE SEEN THIS ORDINANCE RESIDES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION

[00:15:05]

IT WILL COME BACK TO YOU ALL WITH THAT I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ROM ME OR ANYBODY BEHIND ME. ASK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> THANK YOU IR. >> NO QUESTIONS? I'M TRYING TO GIVE EVERYBODY

THE OPPORTUNITY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE THE IMPACT FEES DESIGNED TO OFFSET PORTIONS OF COST OR IS THE FEE IN LIEU OF DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT PARK PROJECTS?

>> IT WOULD JUST BE A PORTION. I DON'T KNOW THE FEE IN LIEU OF WITH THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

SOME OF THESE PROJECTS ARE ASTRONOMICAL. FOR TYPICAL PLAYGROUND YOU HAVE A BRIDGEVIEW, EVERYONE IS FAMILIAR IS $400,000 FOR JUST THAT PLAY STRUCTURE.

I DON'T SEE IF WE DO THE FEE IN LIEU OF THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS AN ENTIRE PARK UNLESS IT'S A MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT BRIDGEWATER DOESN'T GO THROUGH A PIT OR ANY OF THAT STUFF THAT'S OVER 2000 LOTS. THAT COULD DO A PRETTY BIG CHUNK OF A PROJECT BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT WILL BE HARD TO MASTER THAT MUCH CAPITAL FOR ONE DEVELOPMENT.

>> IS THE FEE USAGE GEOGRAPHICALLY ZONED? >> NO SIR IT IS A PARK SYSTEM IT'S LIKE WATER AND UTILITIES. THEY VIEW THE SYSTEM AS A SYSTEM.

HE'S REFERENCING ROADWAY IMPACT FEES. WHENEVER YOU TAKE A ROADWAY IMPACT FEE FROM ONE AREA YOU BASICALLY HAVE A SERVICE AREA AND HAVE TO SPEND THE MONEY WITHIN ROUGHLY 6 MILES WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHERE THAT IS COLLECTED.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO PULL FIVE AND SIX FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

>> FIVE AND SIX? OKAY ANYBODY ELSE? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

APPROVE 004 AND 007? >> AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 004 AND 007.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY

[005 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of Westside Commons, being ±15.955 acres out of the John Chamblee Survey, Abstract 192. The property is generally located on Highway 287 and Old Fort Worth Road. (Case No. PP04-2023-057).]

NUMBER PP04-2023-057). >> DO YOU GUYS WANT ME TO PRESENT THIS CANNOT.

>> I HAVE TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REA LOT WHICH IS THE NORTH AND WEST CORNER THERE'S A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THAT IS DESCRIBED BUT IT ENDS BEFORE CONNECTING WITH THE EASEMENT THAT LIES WITHIN THE ALLEY BEHIND THE HOMES.

I WAS CURIOUS IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY AND DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE SANITARY SEWER

OR NOT? >> REAL QUICK YOU SAID NORTH. >> TOP LEFT CORNER BELOW THE THREE LINES SEPARATED BY THAT SERIES WHERE IT ENDS. BEFORE IT LOOPS INTO THE ALLEYWAY. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE IF WE NEED TO REENGINEER SOMETHING WITH THE WAY THE SEWER FLOWS AND THERE IS NO

EASEMENT CONNECTIVITY. >> IT MAKES SENSE I BELIEVE IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY

ESSENTIALLY. >> I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

I WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT. >> SIR IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME.

>> BILL FISHER NOCATEE ENGINEERING, EXPRESSWAY. THAT'S NOT INTENTIONAL THE SEWER LINE IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO CONNECT TO THE NORTHEAST TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THE SEWER LINE HERE IS GOING TO BE EXTENDED IN FRONT OF THOSE LOTS.

>> THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN IT AND THE ALLEY ABSOLUTELY. THERE WAS ONE OTHER LOT I SAW WHICH WAS 11 X WHICH I THINK IS ON THE FAR RIGHT IN THE LOWER QUADRANT.

[00:20:09]

>> SAME. >> THOSE ARE MY ONLY QUESTIONS. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE. 005.

>> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? 006 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A

[006 Consider and act upon a request for a Final Plat for Midlothian 287 Business Park, Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block A, being +/-7 acres out of the Joseph Witherspoon Survey, Abstract 1136. The property is located south of US Highway 287, north of Shady Grove Road and +/-1,000 ft. west of Plainview Road (Case No. FP12-2023-058).]

FP12-2023-58). 23-58). WE HAVE THE SAME THING. >> A VERY TECHNICAL QUESTION ON THE PLAN. DO YOU HAVE THE MATCH LINE SHEETS OR JUST THAT ONE? IT'S THE NORTHERN SECTION WHERE IT TIES INTO 287. THERE IS A WATER LINE EASEMENT WE HAVE LABELED AS A 10 FOOT EASEMENT BUT IT FLARES OUT AS IT DOES THE S-CURVE.

I THINK THAT IS BE LABELED AS A WITH EASEMENT OTHERWISE YOUR DRAWING AND TEXT WILL BE IN

CONCURRENT WITH EACH OTHER. >> WHAT WE CAN DO IS GO TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THE UPDATE

AND GO FROM THERE. BEFORE THE PLOT IS FINALIZED. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> I WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT. >> SIR IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR

NAME. >> GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS DAVID UPTON WITH KINLEY HORN.

OUR ADDRESS IS 6160 WARREN PARKWAY 75034. IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY IT WAS THE EASEMENT THAT FOLLOWS THE DRIVE AISLE TO HIGHWAY 287? YOU ARE SAYING THAT AFTER HE PASSES THE FIRST BEEN GOING NORTHBOUND WORKERS TO THE WEST THE EASEMENT FLARES OUT WIDER THAN TWO FEET OR IT APPEARS TO ON THE PLAT. THE LINE IS WRONG OR THE LABEL

IS WRONG. >> WE WILL DEFINITELY GET THAT FIXED.

THANK YOU. >> ANOTHER QUESTION? >> I DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE MOTION. I MOVE THAT IS JUST THE MOTION READ THIS BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED SUBJECT TO CORRECTION ON THAT LINE WITH RESPECT TO THE WATERLINE EASEMENT.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE LINE OR LABEL THE CORRECTED ON THE LINE

THAT FLOWS NORTHBOUND 287. >> SECOND. >> A MOTION TO SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. 008 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

[008 Consider and act upon a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Midlothian, Texas, approving a request for a Waiver from section 13.03.003 “Utilities” of the Code of Ordinances from having to connect to the sanity sewer system and a Special Exception from Section 6.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow for an alternative paving standard same as that of the standard for the access roads as approved in the Specific Use Permit by Ordinance 2020-21, on land for the O&M building site as shown in Exhibit “B”, allowing for the development of a 15.4+ acres site out of Lot 1 Block 1 Gerdau 315 + acres (Case No. M11-2023-063).]

NUMBER 11-2023-63). >> THANK YOU FOR READING ALL OF THAT.

GOOD EVENING. FOR THIS REQUEST I THINK WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE SOLAR FARM OFF THE WEST SIDE OF 67. YOU MAY REMEMBER A COUPLE YEARS AGO THIS CAME THROUGH AND WAS APPROVED AS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. FOR THE USE OF THE SOLAR FARM.

[00:25:01]

WHAT HAS COME UP NOW IS WITH THE 800 SQUARE-FOOT O AND M BUILDING OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT BUILDING THAT WOULD BE HERE IN THIS BLUE AREA, THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK BY WAIVER THE REQUEST TO NOT HAVE TO CONNECT TO OUR CITY SEWER SYSTEM. THEY WOULD INSTEAD PROVIDE A SEPTIC SYSTEM SO THEY ARE WITHIN THE 2000 FOOT RULE TO CONNECT THE CITY SEWER.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONING IS THIS EXPENSIVE BORING UNDERNEATH THE HIGHWAY 67 THAT CONNECTS AND THEY POSSIBLY MAY NEED MOLESTATION.

FOR A SMALL 800 SQUARE-FOOT UILDING THERE WOULD BE A LOT. FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT STANDARD AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT THE ACCESS ROAD WHICH FUNCTIONS LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES WERE APPROVED WITH BASICALLY WHAT AMOUNTS TO COMPACTED AGGREGATE.

WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR THE SITE FOR THE SITE ITSELF IS ABOUT 5000 SQUARE FEET WITH ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET OF THAT THING FOR THE BUILDING. THEY WOULD ALSO ASK FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE SAME PAVEMENT STANDARD THAT WAS PERMITTED FOR THE ACCESS ROAD AND THE SUV TO ALSO BE PERMITTED FOR THE SITE. I'M BLOWING PAST SOME OF THIS I SUPPOSE. THE CURRENT ZONING ON ENOUGH SINGLE-FAMILY ONE.

THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPROVED WAS UP FOR THE SOLAR FARM AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE. FOR THE ACCESS ROAD STANDARD IN THE SUB WOULD BE THE SAME FOR THEIR ITE. 12 INCH SUB GRADE OMPACTED WITH 4 TO 6 INCH, I'M NOT SURE THE TECHNICAL TURN AND BECAUSE I'M A PLANNER AND THE ENGINEER AT THE TOP OF THAT IS 4 TO 6 INCHES OF COMPACTED TXDOT NUMBER 247 BASIC COMPACT AGGREGATE.

IF THIS WAS EASIER TO SEE HIGHWAY 67 IS WHERE THE SITE GENERALLY WOULD BE RIGHT THERE.

THE SEWER LINE IS THIS GREENLINE RUNNING ALONG HERE. THEREAFTER MORE UNDER THE HIGHWAY TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER LINE AND POSSIBLY . THE PINK AREA IDENTIFIED TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL AND SORRY THIS DOESN'T SHOW UP WELL. FOR MATCHING ACCESS ROAD FOR THE PAVEMENT IN THE SHADE OF PINK THAT IS GENERALLY WHERE THAT WOULD BE THE DRIVER OFF THE ACCESS ROAD AS WELL AS THE MANEUVERING AND PARKING AREA. THIS SQUARE HERE IS SOME ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WILL NOT BE ON THE SOME GREAT MATERIAL.

THAT'S EXISTING ALREADY. WE ARE NOT ADDING ANY USES AND NOT CHANGING USERS OR AMENDING THE SUP THIS IS THE REQUEST FOR THE WAIVER FOR THE SEPTIC AND REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE PAVEMENT. YOU'RE DOING THIS BY RESOLUTION AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF BOTH REQUESTS. YOU ALL ARE FREE TO APPROVE BOTH REQUESTS OR APPROVE ON REQUEST IS OBVIOUSLY YOUR CALL. IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON BOTH.

QUICK NOTE IN HIS APPROVAL IF YOU GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION YOU ARE NOT WAIVING SO THE ENGINEER STANDARD IS SUPPORTING THE 80 OR 90,000 SQUARE FEET PSI THAT MUST BE MET FOR THIS AS WELL. WHAT THAT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND AGAIN THE

APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. >> QUESTIONS FOR TAFF: >> IF WE DO THE SEPTICWAIVER AND THE SERVER BECOMES S AVAILABLE ON THEIR SIDE OF 67 WHEN THEY REQUIRED TO CONNECT

OR IS THIS WAIVER FOR THAT? >> FOR THAT SITE UNTIL THERE'S A REASON TO CHANGE, MAYBE NEW DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A REASON WHY THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL CONNECT BUT WE COULDN'T RETROACTIVELY MAKE THEM CONNECT MR. CITY ATTORNEY UNLESS YOU DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE PLANNER

SAID. >> USED TO BE SOMETHING WRITTEN IN TWO SEPTIC APPROVALS IS THEY ARE GOOD UNTIL SEPTIC IS AVAILABLE ON SITE AND THEY ARE VOID I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS STILL THE CASE OR NOT. NOT.

[00:30:06]

[INAUDIBLE] >> 300 FEET. >> BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE

HIGHWAY. >> WHICH I AGREE COMPLETELY IT IS EGREGIOUS TO ASK THEM TO DO IT BUT IF IN THE FUTURE THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OR PROJECTS DOWN THE STREET THROUGH THEIR

PROPERTY. >> I BELIEVE WE COULD CONDITION THE WAIVER ON THAT.

>> I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE THE EXISTING SYSTEM FAILED THEY CANNOT REPLACE IT BUT HAD

TO CONNECT IT. >> THAT IS TYPICALLY TRUE OF RESIDENTIAL YOU HAVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUT A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S THE E POLICY WITH GOOD AND ACTIVE SEPTIC THIS WILL NOT ALLOW TO REPLACE IT. IF THE SEWER LINE CAME IN AFTER THE FACT.

>> THAT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR A 1900 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING. NOT USING A LOT OF SEWER CAPACITY IN MY MIND. IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT AS A CLAUSE I WOULD SAY IF THE

SYSTEM FAILS. >> YES OKAY. BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO EDIT CONDITIONS. ONE IS IF THE SEWER IS AVAILABLE WHEN AND IF THE

SYSTEM FAILS. >> WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THIS IS A 15.4 ACRE SITE CORRECT? THERE'S ONE BUILDING BEING PROPOSED ON IT?

>> THE SITE ITSELF IS 5000 SQUARE FEET. IT IS WITHIN THE 15 ACRE TRACT.

I RETURNED TO FOCUS AND NARROW IT DOWN SINCE IT'S SUCH A LARGE AREA.

>> WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLY ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS AND THE SAME AREA?

>> NO. FOR THE SPECIFIC AREA THERE HAD BEEN TALK BUT THE IDEA WAS TO CONSOLIDATE AND NOT HAVE ANY CONNEX BOXES. ASK IF YOU DECIDE TO BUILD

ANOTHER BUILDING IN THIS AREA TO COME BACK AGAIN: >> YES THEY WOULD NEED FOR THE WAIVER FOR THE SEWER. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ASK. IF IT IS SUMMER OFF THE 5000 SQUARE-FOOT SITE WHICH HE MOST LIKELY WOULD BE THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND ASK YOU FOR

THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE PAVEMENT AS WELL. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT CONTINUING TO ADD ON TO THE SYSTEM IF IT IS AGREED UPON.

>> THIS IS VERY LOCALIZED TO THE 5000 SQUARE-FOOT SITE. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> STAFF HAS A QUESTION. FOR MY CLARIFICATION TO MAKE SURE I FOLLOW CORRECTLY I KNOW YOU HAVE NOT MADE A MOTION AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING.

YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A CONDITION WHERE THE SEWER IS AVAILABLE AND THE SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILS SO BOTH CLAUSES HAVE TO BE TRUE TO CONNECT, IT IS NOT ONE OR THE OTHER.

BOTH HAVE TO BE TRUE STATEMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> OKAY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? NO.

OKAY. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION IF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS TO FAIL IN THE SEWER LINES WERE NOT RUN ON THE SIDE OF THE FREEWAY YET IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO REPLACE

THEIR SEPTIC SYSTEM? >> YES. >> OKAY THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR

DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION ON THE SEPTIC WAIVER THAT IF SEWER BECOMES AVAILABLE ON SITE THAT OSF NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REPLACED OR REPAIRED THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO CONNECT THE SEWER AT THAT TIME.

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

ANY DISCUSSION? >> REAL QUICK AND OTHER QUESTION.

I'M GOING TO ANNOY HIM TONIGHT I THINK. WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL?

>> 50 PERCENT. >> THANK YOU. I DIDN'T WANT TO BE ARGUING

WITH SOMEONE ABOUT THAT IN FIVE OR 10 YEARS FROM NOW. >> OKAY.

[00:35:05]

>> SECOND. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE.

ANYONE NDERSTAND VOTING ON BOTH ISSUES? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Planned Development No.100 (PD-100) to allow for development of a daycare and Community Retail type uses. The property is Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block A of FM 663 Addition and contains +/-2.16 acres and is generally located on FM 663, south of Brandi Ridge Drive approximately 967 feet. (Case No. Z17-2023-057).]

(CASE NUMBER R Z17-2023-057). >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION.

OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM 9 FOR CASE NUMBER Z17-2023-057FOUR DAY CARE AND COMMUNITY RETAIL USE. AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN ALONG THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OUTLINE IS BLUE IS OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH PROPOSED DAYCARE BEING NORTH HERE AND THE MULTITENANT BUILDING TO THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A PROPOSED PD AMENDMENT REQUEST. THE TOTAL SITE IS OVER TWO ACRES, 2.16 ACRES AND CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND EXISTING PD TO ALLOW FOR THESE TWO USES WITH THE DAYCARE AND COMMUNITY RETAIL USES. THE FUTURE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA SUBURBAN LOW-DENSITY MODULES SO WE MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT THOUGH THE APPLICANT IS MEETING CERTAIN GOALS OF FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SECTION WITHIN THE PLAN, THE PROPOSED USES ARE NOT FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE PLAN SO WE WANT TO KNOW THAT THIS NEXT SLIDE IS THE LARGER DEPICTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE NEXT LIGHT OVERALL SITE LAYOUT. WE CAN START WITH THE FUTURE MULTITENANT UILDING. AT THIS POINT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE BUILDING WILL LOOK LIKE BUT KNOWS IT WILL BE A LOT TENANT COMMUNITY RETAIL BUILDING THING HING AROUND 10,500 SQUARE FEET. HE DOES UNDERSTAND THIS OVERALL CASE IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL HE WILL BRING THIS CASE BACK FOR THE FUTURE MULTITENANT BUILDING TO REVIEW.

GOING BACK TO THE TOP WITH THE DAYCARE, A DIFFERENT FACILITY IS AROUND 11,000 TURNED SEVEN SQUARE FEET. THE NEXT SLIDE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TOP OUTLINED IN 11,237 SQUARE FEET THING AROUND 1.3 ACRES OF THE TOTAL SITE. IN DITION TO THE DAYCARE FACILITY THE DAYCARE WILL HAVE OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND AREA AS WELL AS/PATH ALONG THE RIVER OF THE PROPERTY RE. THE DAYCARE WILL INCLUDE AGES TO FROM 12 WITH AROUND 25 EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND OR WEEK. OPERATIONAL HOURS ARE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 6:30 A.M. TO 6:30 P.M.. THE NEXT SLIDE IS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHART FOR COMMERCIAL STANDARDS. CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL IS THE SECOND COLUMN HERO AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS IN THE THIRD COLUMN. IN THE FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OR NOT IN THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL STANDARDS WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING FOR THE SITE AS WELL.

IN THE NEXT TWO SLIDES IS THE FAC'ADE PLAN FOR WHAT THE PROPOSING FOR THE DAYCARE AND WHAT PRIMARILY MATERIALS ARE STUCCO, STONE AND WOOD MATERIAL.

WITHIN OUR STAFF REPORT WE MENTIONED UNDER OUR STOCK ANALYSIS SECTIONS CERTAIN CONCERNS WE HAD IN RELATION TO TRAFFIC AND IT CAME TO THIS DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE DAYCARE. DUE TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE THE SURROUNDING AREA WE REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO HAVE PROVIDED FOR STAFF TO REVIEW.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THE LTI AND WITH THAT STUFF PROVIDED A DETAILED TIA MEMO WHICH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FROM OUR CITY ENGINEER. WITHIN THAT REPORT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN LOS FOR SHORT WHICH TRANSFER LEVELS OF SERVICE. FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STANDPOINT THEY HAVE LOCAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO TRAFFIC RANGING FROM LEVEL OF SERVICE A BEING THE BEST AND LEVEL SERVICE F BEING THE WORST. AS YOU SEE IN THIS IMAGE LOCAL SERVICE A IS MORE SO FREE FLOW WITH SERVICE F IS FULL ON TRAFFIC.

[00:40:05]

STARTING WITH THE FIRST ONE FM 663 AND TOWER ROAD WHICH IS OUTLINED IN RED AND TO GET YOUR BEARINGS THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERO. BE CHARGED TO THE NORTH AND NOT PEAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE LEFT INSIDE HERE. CURRENTLY FM 663 AND THE INTERSECTION OPERATES A LEVEL SERVICE D IN THE AM AND PM PEAK HOUR.

THE PM PEAK OUR VEHICLES ALONG TOWER ROAD ALONG HERE WILL BE REDUCED FROM LEVEL OF SERVICE OF C TO D. GOING OVER TO FM 623 AND MOUNTAIN PEAK ELEMENTARY WHICH IS ALONG HERE FOR AM AND PM PEAK HOURS THIS IS USUALLY A POLICE PRESENCE AT THE SITE HELPING CONTROL TRAFFIC FLOW. PER THE TIA AROUND THESE PEAK TIMES TRAFFIC IS ROUGHLY 460 FEET SOUTH OF FM 663. WE BELIEVE THAT DUE TO THE CONCERN THAT WILL CAUSE TRAFFIC FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL SUBJECT PROPERTY OR THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PEAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OR CHURCH OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. CURRENTLY THIS LEVEL OF SERVICE IS LEVEL SERVICE C FOR AM AND PM HOURS AND THE FULL BUILDOUT WHICH IS PROPOSED AROUND 24 WE THINK THAT WILL REDUCE FROM SEAT TO D FOR LEVEL OF SERVICE. THE NEXT INTERSECTION FM 6023 AND MOUNTAIN PEAK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE BUS ENTRANCE RIGHT HERO FOR THE BUS BUT HAVE A ENTRYWAY AND EXIT POINT WITH ENTRYWAY HERE AND EXIT BEING SOUTH HERE.

BUT THE FULL BUILDOUT WE BELIEVE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE REDUCED FROM A D TO A E.OR THE EXIT POINT WE BELIEVE WE CURRENTLY OPERATE AS A LITERACY AND IT WILL BE REDUCED FROM A C TO A D. LASTLY FOR FM 63 AND CALHOUN ROAD GOING ALONG HERE SOUTH THE DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY DOESN'T HAVE A FULL IMPACT ON MCALPINE ER THE CITY CONTINUES TO GROW IN THIS AREA IT WILL REDUCE ULTIMATELY A LEVEL OF SERVICE B TO A LEVEL OF SERVICE C. THOSE WERE THE PRIMARY CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND WITH THE DAYCARE. STAFF RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED BUILD. HOWEVER DUE TO THOSE CONCERNS WE MENTIONED REGARDING TRAFFIC

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR BOTH. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> YOU SET IT IS NOT CONCURRENT WITH THE OTHER MODULE? >> IT IS NOT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN LOW-DENSITY MODULE HAS 20,000 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND HONESTLY THIS WILL BE MORE OF A DAYCARE AND COMMUNITY RETAIL USE. THAT CERTAIN GOALS WITHIN OUR STAFF REPORT HOWEVER IT DID NOT MEET THE OVERALL COMPATIBILITY OF FUTURE LAND PLAN.

>> AND THAT COMPLEMENT UNDER LAND USE IT S WITH LIMITED SMALL-SCALE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE TYPE DEVELOPMENTS SECONDARY COMPONENTS PROVIDING CONVENIENT ACCESS TO DAILY GOODS AND SERVICES WHILE PRESERVING THE SMALL TOWN N FEEL AND DEVELOPMENT.

A CHILDCARE CENTER TO ME IS A CONVENIENT SERVICE THAT IS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SETTINGS. I FEEL LIKE SAYING IT IS NOT CONCURRENT WITH FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT IS ONLY AS OF TWO LOTS. WE ARE PICKING PART OF THE BUT NOT LOOKING AT THE HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE INTENT OF THE DOCUMENT.

FOLKS UNDERSTOOD. IN RESPONSE TO THAT I WOULD SAY WHILE IT MAY ADD ON CERTAIN THINGS YOU MENTIONED WE GO OFF THE PRIMARY INTENT OF IT. I WILL READ IT FOR A RECORD SUBURBAN MODULES IS CHARACTERIZED BY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING WITH AMPLE SPACE BETWEEN NEIGHBORING HOUSING UNITS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE SHOULD BE 20,000 SQUARE FEET. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU MENTIONED DOESN'T MATTER PER SE. BUT THAT'S THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THE FUTURE USE PLAN AND

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING OFF OF. >> WE ARE INTERPRETING THAT LOT SIZE TO MAIN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. BOOKS RESIDENTIAL.

>> NONRESIDENTIAL USE PROVIDED FOR THE WHERE IT SAYS IT CAN HAVE SOME OF THESE COMMUNITY RETAIL TYPE SERVICES.

AT THAT POINT WE ARE TAKING RESIDENTIAL METRIC AND APPLYING T TO THE SUBSIDING SECTION THAT

[00:45:04]

>> AGAIN IT DOES MENTION THAT AND WE ARE GOING OFF THE PRIMARY INTENT HOWEVER REGARDLESS EVEN IF WE ARE GOING OFF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WE HAVE THESE PRIMARY TRAFFIC CONCERNS.

>> AGREED TO SEPARATE ISSUES BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY MAYBE IT DOESN'T MEET THE PRIMARY INTENT OF THIS METRIC BUT FALLS UNDER THE POTENTIAL EXILER USES WE ARE CONTEMPLATING.

EVERY ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS HAS MORE THAN ONE USAGE. SUBURBAN LOW-DENSITY DOESN'T MEAN IT IS ONLY SUBURBAN LOW-DENSITY. USED TO BE AND I CAN'T FIND IT BUT THERE'S A CHARGE THAT GIVE YOU A LOOSE GRADIENT ATIO OF ITS MOSTLY THIS BUT CAN BE A LITTLE OF HAT AND PROBABLY NEEDS S THAT IT IS FAIR WE DON'T JUST SAY HARD YES AND

HARD NOTE WHEN IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT IS FULL F GRADIENTS. >> OKAY.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. BOOKS ANDY PATEL 2944 GRAND PRIX TEXAS. I AM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND CHILDREN'S LIGHTHOUSE LEARNING SCHOOL FRANCHISEE. WE CHOSE MIDLOTHIAN BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE A HUGE NEED FOR CARE.

WE CHOSE THIS LOCATION N BECAUSE HIS AND A PORTABLE LOCATION SURROUNDED BY HOMES AND MORE HOMES COMING TO THE SOUTH. THE TIA THAT WE PROVIDED DOES NOT HAVE ANY TRAFFIC CONCERNS. SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY CITY STAFF THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY APPLY. THIS IS A DAYCARE THAT OPENS AT 6:30 A.M. AND WE HAVE KIDS THAT SHOW UP FROM 6:30 A.M. TO 9:30 A.M.. WE HAVE KIDS THAT GET PICKED UP 12 NOON OR 6:00 P.M.. NOT A HARD 30 MINUTES IN THE MORNING AND 30 MINUTES IN THE AFTERNOON I DON'T SEE THAT CAUSE OF CONCERN BECAUSE IT IS SPREAD OUT THROUGH THE DAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU SIR. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE.

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

I GUESS A CONCERN I HAVE IS CERTAINLY IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF.

ON THE NORTH OF THAT AND DURING SCHOOL THAT IS HARD THROUGH THERE I UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE LATER BEFORE IT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ANY IMPACT ON THE INTERSECTION WILL BE TOO MUCH. WE ARE HAVING SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTS IN THAT LOCATION.

PLACING THIS RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE SCHOOLS AND IMPACTS THE ENTIRE ROAD.

DURING THE DAY YOU DON'T SIT THERE FOR FIVE, SIX OR SEVEN MINUTES TO GET OUT ON 663.

I DID HAVE A CONCERN. I GUESS THE OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS WE HAVE A DAYCARE NORTH OF THERE AND ALSO HAVE A DAYCARE SOUTH. I'M SURE IT IS WORTH PUTTING ANOTHER ONE THERE AND SACRIFICING PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE DAYCARE NORTH WHICH IS ON THE S-CURVE THAT HAS THE BIBLE CHURCH ON THE SIDE OF IT. WAS THERE ANY OUTSIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL FEATURES REQUIRED FOR

THAT DEVELOPMENT? >> SORRY I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT ONE.

THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME HERE. I DON'T HAVE THE ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK TO THAT

EITHER. >> IT SUFFERS FROM SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS.

IF I REMEMBER WAY BACK THEN COUNSEL HAD THE FEELING WE HAD A CHILDCARE FACILITY IN TOWN SO I THINK THAT OVERRODE THE POTENTIAL FOR SAFETY CONCERNS AT THE TIME.

GRANTED THAT WAS YEARS BACK AND IT'S GOTTEN PROGRESSIVELY WORSE.

UNLIKE STAFF'S IDEA ABOUT SAYING WE WILL MAKE ONE SIDE AND X ONLY SO THERE'S TWO LANES

[00:50:03]

I DON'T REALLY KNOW IN MY OPINION AND ACCELERATION LANE, IT BECOMES A TURN LANE AT THAT POINT. WITH THE LIVE EYE GUESS IF YOU HIT IT GREEN COMING FROM A 75 YOU CAN'T GO THERE AT 70 BUT I'VE SEEN IT DONE. I'M NEVER DONE IT MYSELF FOR THE RECORD. COMING FROM THE NORTHBOUND SIDE THERE IS HIGHER VELOCITY BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE QUESTION OF IS THE LIGHT GOING TO TURN RED SO THERE'S A CONTROL FEATURE NEARBY THAT COMES TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW WE CALL ACCELERATION. IT IS PROBABLY FAIR IN THAT SENSE.

>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT LOOKING AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. I CAN TELL YOU LIVING OUT THERE AND DURING SCHOOL THEY DO CONGREGATE ALONG THE ROAD WHICH WOULD BE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM EITHER ENTRANCE OF THAT LOCATION. TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD

BE VERY UNSAFE. >> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU THE TRAFFIC OUT THERE DURING SCHOOL HOURS IN THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON IS DIFFICULT TO GET IN AND OUT.

LOTS OF REQS HAVE BEEN OCCURRING. WE'VE ALL SEEN .

THAT'S A MAJOR JOR CONCERN MOVING FORWARD IN THE E MATTER. >> STAFF WHAT IS THE CURRENT

EXISTING PYRITE USE FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PD 100? >> FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IT

IS INTENDED FOR OFFICE USE. >> IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO COME IN TODAY AND PULL A PERMIT TO BUILD AN OFFICE THAT MEETS WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT'S APPROVED THEY JUST PULL A PERMIT?

>> YES. >> I GET THE CONCERNS OF TRAFFIC.

WHETHER IT'S A DAYCARE OR OFFICE OR GENERAL PROFESSIONAL TYPE BUILDING.

THAT WILL ADD TRIPS. THIS WAS CONTEMPLATED WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED TO HAVE THE OUTLINES THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A TRAFFIC GENERATION USE ON THIS PROPERTY. DO WE HAVE STANDARD METRICS BETWEEN TRIPS PER DAY ON A DAYCARE CENTER AND A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING OF EQUIVALENT SIZE?

BOOKS UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION FOR >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN HE HE TIA MEMO THAT OUR CITY ENGINEER GENERATED THAT HE IS NOT HERE.

ONE THING I WILL SAY IF IT WERE OFFICE USE THE TIMES COULD BE DIFFERENT.

THE DAYCARE WOULD OVERLAP AND MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THE SAME DROP-OFF TIMES BUT OVERLAP FOR SURE. OFFICE THEY COULD ADJUST THEIR TIMES AS THEY NEEDED TO.

>> I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD HAVE MORE DROP-OFF AND VEHICLES INVOLVED IN A DAYCARE AND A SHORTER TIMEFRAME THAN IN AN OFFICE SPACE. OFFICE SPACE WILL START AT EIGHT OR 9:00. OR 7:00. COMPARED TO THE DAYCARE WHICH IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE DURING SCHOOL TIME. I AGREE COMMISSIONER SKINNER AND THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MIGRATE AS TO IF OUR CONCERN IS GENERALLY TRAFFIC TO AND FROM THE SITE I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A NONSTARTER. IF OUR CONCERN IS INTENSITY OF USE FOR DAYCARE AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE DIRECTLY CORRELATED THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING TO SAY IT IS THE DAYCARE AND TRAFFIC PATTERNS THE PROBLEM NOT JUST THE TRAFFIC THAT'S A

PROBLEM. THE TRAFFIC IS THE TRAFFIC. >> WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION A YEAR AGO. MAYBE LONGER THERE WAS A DAYCARE PROPOSAL THAT CAME THROUGH HERE ACROSS FROM MIDLOTHIAN HIGH SCHOOL. DIRECTLY ACROSS IT.

ALMOST THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO AS THIS. SAME TRAFFIC PATTERNS.

WE DID APPROVE IT. I FEEL LIKE I APPROVED BASED ON THE FACT IT HAD CIRCULATION THAT WAS GOING TO FLOW THROUGH THE COMMUNITY BEHIND THE DAYCARE, NOT JUST TO 663.

YES WE WENT THROUGH ALL THIS CONTEMPLATION JUST LIKE THAT FOR THAT.

THAT BEING SAID, I DO STILL THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR CHILDCARE IN MIDLOTHIAN EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE ONE NORTH AND SOUTH. EVERYONE IS FULL.

[00:55:03]

>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WE NEED MORE CHILDCARE. THAT IS A FACT.

I'M NOT SURE IT NEEDS TO GO RIGHT THERE. >> I THINK THAT'S A FAIR POINT COMMISSIONER. THUS THE UNDERPINNING PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS ARE WE PUTTING USES NEXT TO EACH OTHER. I HAVE ONE OTHER CONCERN STEPPING AWAY FROM RAFFIC. THE ADDITIONAL RACK THAT'S 'S NOT THE POST FOR DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW WAS FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE. ARE WE SAYING WE ARE GIVING THE SAME PYRITE CLASSIFICATION AS HEAVY C COMMERCIAL ZONING WERE USING THAT TERM INTERCHANGEABLY

FOR THE OFFICE USE THAT'S APPROVED THERE? >> NO THE APPLICANT'S INTENT WAS TO HAVE IT UNDER USES FOR COMMERCIAL USES. ZONING ORDINANCE.

HIS WAS MORE SO AND TENDED TOWARD OFFICE RELATED TO ABUSES AND I CAN LET THE APPLICANTS BECOME MORE IF HE WANTS TO. IT WAS ABUSES UNDER THE COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THERE WAS POTENTIAL INTENDED S NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE GENERAL RAL PROFESSIONAL?

>> CORRECT. >> WE HAVE GPC AIR AND HEAVY C. >> CORRECT.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE AMENDMENT OVERALL WHEN HE CAME BACK THE SECOND TIME IF THE DAYCARE WERE TO GET APPROVED FOR THE MULTITENANT BUILDING HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTING WHATEVER USES IF NOT ALLOWED BY COMMERCIAL IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

> IS THE DAYCARE FACILITY C COMMERCIAL? >> I BELIEVE SO YES OR.

>> WE COULD BE APPROVING TONIGHT IS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF DAYCARE FACILITY IF IT DOES

WELL? >> CORRECT. >> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

>> QUESTIONS FROM THE LICANT? WHAT IS THE PRODUCTION OF KITS FOR THIS S FACILITY? HOW MANY WILL IT ACCOMMODATE? COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE IF YOU ILL.

>> IT DEPENDS. IT IS SEASONAL BUT AVERAGE 150 TO 175.

>> HOW MUCH STAFF? >> 25 TEACHERS AND THEY VERY. >> CLOSE TO 100 PEOPLE OR

BETTER? >> 200. >> 200 I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?

>> I WOULD JUST SAY I'M IN FAVOR OF MORE CHILDCARE FACILITIES IN MIDLOTHIAN.

NOT IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ONE THAT CAN DOUBLE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS I WOULD SAY I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THE ONE WITH STAFFS CONDITIONS AND HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET THE SECOND LEAVING THE OTHER TRACK AS A SOFTWARE USE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW A DAYCARE BY RIGHT SO WE CAN SEE THE IMPACT BEFORE WE DOUBLE DOWN SO TO

SPEAK. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS?

CAN I HEAR A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. MOVE DOWN TO MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION.

STAFF DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS? ANYBODY? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.