Aug 15, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]

[00:00:06]

THIS TIME I WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLOTHIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A FULL COMMISSION HERE TONIGHT.

WE WILL MOVE TO THE FIRST ITEM 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. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO

[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 September 19, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission.]

>> CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS AT THE AUGUST 8 THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING THERE WERE TWO ITEMS THEY ACTED UPON Z 1720 2357 THE DAYCARE AND MULTITENANT COMMUNITY RETAIL AND THEY WERE AMENDING PD 100 TO ALLOW THE DAYCARE. IT WAS DENIED SIX ÃZERO WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHICH MEANS APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT SIX MONTHS TO APPLY AGAIN.

THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL FIVE ÃZERO. THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION WAS FOCUSED ON THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

THE NEXT ITEM IS M NOVEMBER 20, 2023 63. SPECIAL EXCEPTION WAIVER REQUEST TO ALLOW OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ING. IT WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF FIVE ÃO P P NZ APPROVED IT FIVE ÃZERO AS WELL. THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WE TALKED VERY VERY BRIEFLY.

CAN WE FORWARD IT TO THE NEXT SLIDE OR DO I HAVE THAT ABILITY? I DO NEVERMIND. WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THE LAST TIME AND IF WE HAVE A WORKSHOP IT WILL BE THE NEXT MEETING. HOWEVER I BRIEFLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. 88 LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

OVER 8000 BILLS THAT WERE FILED. TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TRACT ABOUT 2000 CITY RELATED BILLS. ABOUT 230 OF THE BILLS WERE PASSED.

APA TRACT THAT 300 PLANNING RELATED BILLS OUT OF THOSE BILLS AND 32 WERE PASSED.

NOT ALL THE BILLS IMPACTED MIDLOTHIAN. THERE WERE BRACKETED BILLS THAT WOULD SAFER CITIES LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR GREATER THAN 800,000 POPULATION ARE ALSO BILLS THAT RELATED TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE THAT DID NOT DIRECTLY IMPACT THE CITY. THEY ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON THE ONES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE PALSY OR ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS O. THEY HAD DIFFERENT T CATEGORIES FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BILLS AND MOST OF THE BILLS RELATED TO ING UNDER THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MENT CATEGORY. THERE WERE A FEW RELATED TO UTILITIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT. HOUSE BILL 3526 DISCUSSED THIS IN THIS ONE WE MAY COME BACK WITH A ORDINANCE. IT TALKS ABOUT BUILDING CODES BUT IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T ZOO ZONING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ERGOLAS. THE NEXT ONE TALKS ABOUT THE STATE JURISDICTION OVER CLIMATE RELATED MATTERS AND CLEARLY DEFINING STATE CITY ROLES IN

[00:05:02]

HOUSE BILL 14 THIRD-PARTY INSPECTIONS AND REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF ANY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS, PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS HOWEVER IF THE CITY FAILED TO TAKE ACTION WITHIN THE TIME IN A STATE LAW. FOR EXAMPLE SECTION 212 IS THIRTY-DAY SHOT CLOCK WHICH STILL SAYS THAT CITY MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN 30 DAYS. SO THE HOUSE BILL ALLOWS SOMEONE TO ENLIST A THIRD-PARTY REVIEWER 15 DAYS AFTER THAT. HOUSE BILL 1750 LIMITS OF THE CITIES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS INCLUDING VETERINARY SERVICES.

THIS IS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES SO WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT VETERINARY SERVICES FOR DOMESTIC ANIMALS LIKE CATS AND DOGS BUT TALKING ABOUT LARGE ANIMALS LIKE CATTLE. THIS IS THE BILL THAT TALKED ABOUT WHERE WE CAN ASK FOR THEM TO MOVE LARGE AREAS OF PRODUCING HATE AND CULTIVATING HEY.

WE CAN HOWEVER ASK FOR STRIPS SO THAT WILL BE MODIFIED, MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING EPARTMENT BUT MODIFIED BY OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT ROUP. HOUSE BILL 1922 REQUIRES PERIODIC REAUTHORIZATION WILL THEN PERMIT FEES AND EXPIRE AFTER 10 YEARS.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL RE-AUTHORIZES THEM. WE ARE REVIEWING OUR FEES HOWEVER PLANNING IS OKAY WITH THAT. WE PRIMARILY ARE LOOKING CLOSELY AT CONSTRUCTION FEES BECAUSE THOSE ARE VALUE BASED FEES WHICH WE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO DO. HOUSE BILL 3699 PERTAINS TO THE SUBDIVISION AND SUBCHAPTER CHAPTER 212. ELIMINATES THE TERM PLAN FROM THE CHAPTER WHICH CAUSED THE CONFUSION WITH THE LAST GO AROUND. ALLOW CITIES TO ESTABLISH SUBMITTAL CALENDARS AND THE GOVERNING BODY MAY NOTICE IT ADOPT REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DRAINAGE FOR STREETS AND ROADS. A PLAT THAT IS FILED IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE WHEN THE APPLICATION AND ALL THE FEES AND REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. COMPLETENESS MUST BE BASED UPON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBCHAPTER BY JANUARY 1 2024. CITIES MUST ADOPT A CHECKLIST FOR PLAT APPLICATIONS AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE WORKING ON ADVISING THIS WRITTEN LIST HAS TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ADOPTION. THE STATUTORY TIMEFRAME MAY BE EXTENDED FOR 30 DAY PERIODS WITH CAVEATS SO IN OTHER WORDS THE APPLICANT IS TO CONCUR. BE RELATED TO CONDITIONAL APPROVAL SO THERE'S ALWAYS CAVEATS THEY PUT ON THAT. IT DOES HAVE TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT?> RIGHT AND MAYOR LET ME MENTION ONE THING ABOUT THAT WHEN CURRENT LAW ASICALLY LIMITED TO ONE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION THAT BE MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

THE LAW AS I READ IT NOW IS HANGE THE APPLICANT CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A SERIES OF ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE MANY TIMES THE APPLICANT IS NOT READY.

FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS AND IT WAS FORCING APPLICANT INTO PREMATURE HAVING TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION KNOWING THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES WERE NOT READY.

LEGISLATURE LOOSENED UP A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. APPLICANTS WANTED THE 30 DAY

PERIOD. >> RIGHT. I THINK LARGELY CHANGES IN THE BILL ACTUALLY REFLECT MORE OF THE PROCESSES CITIES ACTUALLY DO.

[00:10:07]

THE PERSON USING THE PROPERTY FOR NONCONFORMING USES MAY CONTINUE UNLESS REQUIRED TO STOP BY THE CITY AT CITIES MUST TAKE FORMAL ACTION IN MAKING DETERMINATION OF ADVERSE EFFECT OR OTHER NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS. I THINK I TYPE THAT WRONG IF THEY USED TO CEASE OR I DID PUT A RIGHT. IF THE CITY SEIZES THE OPERATION THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR DAMAGES OR CITY MAY ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THEM TO USE THE NONCONFORMING USE PRIOR TO SEIZING.

>> THIS IS THE OTHER ONE WE WILL ADD A LITTLE TO THIS ONE.

BASICALLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THIS CAME OUT OF THE CASE OF THE CITY OF ALLSTON RELATED TO THE SITUATION WHERE CHANGES WERE BEING MADE TO THE USE OF TABLES.

ONE OF THE THINGS IS REQUIRED CITIES IS WHENEVER YOU'RE CHANGING YOUR USE TABLE WITH RESPECT TO A BASE ZONING DISTRICT, MORE ALONG THE LINES NOT SO MUCH ADDING USES BUT IF YOU ARE DELETING USES OR CHANGING USES THAT ARE PERMITTED TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR CONDITION USE PERMIT IT WILL REQUIRE YOU, THE CITY TO TAKE INVENTORY OF THE USES WITHIN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS AFFECTED. WHETHER STRAIGHT ZONING OR PLANNING AND ZONING DISTRICTS AND HAVE A SPECIAL NOTICE TO THOSE OWNERS WHO ARE IN THE USE NOW THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED CHANGING TO A PROHIBITED USE OR USE REQUIRING SUB.

CHANGES IN USE OF TABLES WERE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YOU JUST DID IT AND YOU HAD A NONCONFORMING USE NO BIG DEAL THEN I HAVE TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC NOTICE GOING OUT TO THESE PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAVE THOSE USES IN EFFECT. THE COMPOSITION PART ONLY COMES IN WHEN YOU'RE TERMINATING USES. EFFECTIVELY THAT'S BEEN THE LAW FOR YEARS ANYWAY. IT GENERALLY COSTS IF YOU STOP NONCONFORMING USE AND ITS USE BEFORE THEY SEATED THEMSELVES VOLUNTARILY. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO A LAND OWNER THAT ACTUALLY TERMINATES THE USE. THE NONCONFORMING USE ON THEIR OWN. THERE IS STILL THE PRESUMPTION OF THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD TO STOP USE. IT IS GONE AND YOU WAVED IT AND DON'T GET COMPENSATED FOR IT.

THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING IT BACK. WHEN YOU CEASE A NONCONFORMING USE AND TRY TO BRING IT BACK BEYOND SIX MONTHS THAT LAW HAS NOT CHANGED EITHER.

REALLY THE TEXT AMENDMENTS AFFECTING USED TABLES IS WHAT WILL BE THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON STAFF WHENEVER WE ARE CONSIDERING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

>> THE LAST THING I WANT TO POINT OUT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS IT ESTABLISHES A PROCESS TO APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NONCONFORMING USES.

SO THAT PROBABLY WILL NEED TO BE A ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. ON THE AGENDA THERE ARE THREE ITEMS AND TWO CONTINUED AND ONE THAT WILL BE WITHDRAWN. ITEM NUMBER SIX WHICH IS Z 2120 2368 IS GOING TO BE CONTINUED. ITEM 8 WHICH IS Z 1620 2356 WILL BE CONTINUED.

ITEM 9 WHICH IS Z 2220 2369 WILL BE WITHDRAWN. WE WILL RENOTICE THOSE AS A

[00:15:12]

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES OR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? >> THANK YOU MARY.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THAT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?LL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE INTO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION 06, 008 AND 009 WILL NOT BE HERE TONIGHT.

[005 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending and restating the development and use regulations of Planned Development District No. 78 (PD-78) as set forth in ordinance No. 2015-15 to allow for an electronic message center on a pole sign. The property is located at approximately 1630 North U.S. Highway 67. (Z20-2023-66)]

APPROXIMATELY 1630 NORTH U.S. HIGHWAY 67. (Z20-2023-66) >> GOOD EVENING.

WITH THIS REQUEST 1630 NORTH HIGHWAY U.S. 67 AND THIS IS FOR A VISUAL BILLBOARD THAT MAY SEEM FAMILIAR. THIS WAS BEFORE THIS PAST DECEMBER.

THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN BEFORE THE P&G AND CITY COUNCIL COUPLE TIMES BEFORE THAT.

WITH THAT SAID THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.

FOR THE USE OF A BILLBOARD THAT EXCEEDS SEVERAL STANDARDS WE HAVE.

ONE WE CURRENTLY PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST THING THEY ARE ASKING TO DEVIATE FROM IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE BILLBOARD.

THE SECOND WOULD BE THAT WHILE IN THE ORDINANCE TECHNICALLY IT DOES SAY THE BILLBOARD IS NOT A POOL SIGN BUT FOR REFERENCE A POLE SIGN YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW A ORDINANCE TO BE GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT OF 25 FEET. HERE THEY ARE ASKING FOR A HEIGHT OF 40 EET.

IF YOU THINK OF THE DIGITAL BILLBOARD AS SOMETHING LIKE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER WE WOULD LIMIT THAT TO 32 SQUARE FEET. THE DIGITAL BILLBOARD WOULD BE 129 SQUARE FEET TO GIVE YOU SOME REFERENCE POINTS IN YOUR SIGN ORDINANCE AS TO WHAT THE DEVIATIONS WOULD BE. THIS IS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF ACCESS OF THE STORAGE.

THERE IS THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET. YOU'VE GOT THE AUTO STORAGE WILL YARD OPERATION BEHIND IT. IT IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE AND A LOT OF ZONING IN THE AREA IS INDUSTRIAL OR USES ARE OF INDUSTRIAL NATURE. ON THE SITE PLAN THE GENERAL SIGN WILL BE LOCATED HERE. IT WOULD NOT BE ENCROACHING INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET FROM THE EDGE OF SIGN. APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS IS A RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE SIGN AND IS CURRENTLY ASKING FOR THE HEIGHT OF 40 FEET. HE HAD COME IN LAST TIME ASKING FOR 45 AND COUNSEL SUGGESTED HE WOULD GO AS LOW AS 35. THIS TIME HE'S COME BEFORE YOU ASKING FOR 40. HE IS PROVIDING THE IDEA IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE HIS REQUEST IT WOULD BE HAVING A MASONRY WRAP AT THE BASE A MASONRY COVER ON THE EXTERIOR AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. THE HISTORY WITH THE CASE, WENT TO GET INTO WOULD BE ON WHITE ARE THERE POLLS THERE NOW. PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A BILLBOARD SIGN THAT WAS NOT DIGITAL AND IT WOULD BE A MONOPOLE BASED ON A ONE POLE STRUCTURE.

2015 MY UNDERSTANDING WAS MR. HUNT TOOK IT DOWN FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE.

AND THEN 2016 APPARENTLY TWO POLES APPEARED ONE DAY. NO PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS HAD TAKEN PLACE. STAFF WAS INFORMED AND THIS WAS IN 2016.

THAT HE INTENDED TO INSTALL A DIGITAL BILLBOARD SIGN. AGAIN WE DO HAVE TWO EXISTING POLES THE CITY HAS NOT FORCED HIM TO TAKE THOSE DOWN AT THIS TIME.

[00:20:01]

DECEMBER 2021 IT WAS DENIED THREE ÃTWO. THIS PAST DECEMBER THAT COUNSEL IT WAS DENIED FOUR ÃTHREE. JUST TO REITERATE WHEN IT COMES TO COMPARING TO YOUR ORDINANCE DIGITAL BILLBOARDS ARE PROHIBITED IN THE RDINANCE. WE WOULD NOT NORMALLY ALLOW THE BY ANY OTHER NAME AS A POLE SIGN OR BILLBOARD SIGN TO BE GREATER THAN 25 FEET IN HEIGHT AND WE WOULD NOT ALLOW 13 TIMES THAT MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A DIGITAL OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER SIGN SO THOSE ARE THE DEVIATIONS I'VE HEARD IN THE PAST P&G AND COUNSEL AND SOME MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PRESIDENTS THEY MAY BE SETTING I'M HIGHLIGHTING THOSE FOR YOU.

ALSO COUNSEL THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT REGULATING CONTENT.

SHORT ANSWER IS NO YOU CAN'T. THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL SAY MORE IF HE WANTS TO ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S THE CITY PLANNER AND I WILL SIT YOU SHOULD NOT BE REGULATING CONTENT.

MR. HUNT HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT GRACIOUS, NICE AND PATIENT. YOU ALSO TO NDERSTAND THE ZONING RUNS WITH THE NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. WHEN YOU APPROVE, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST OR IF COUNSEL WERE TO IT GOES WITH THE LAND.

THERE WAS TALK THAT COUNSEL ABOUT RESTRICTIONS. WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BEING A THIRD-PARTY ENFORCER OF THE DEED RESTRICTION REGULATED CONTENT WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REGULATING CONTENT AS I UNDERSTAND. MY SUGGESTION TO YOU WOULD BE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS IGN IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THINK ABOUT IT WITH UNDERSTANDING OF TO THE DEGREE AND YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH ME, YOU WOULD NOT REGULATE THE CONTENT. WITH THAT THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A VIDEO HE WOULD LIKE US TO PLAY. I WILL DEFER TO THE CHAIRMAN AS TO WHEN HE WOULD LIKE THE VIDEO TO BE PLAYED BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AND AGAIN AT SOME POINT HE WOULD LIKE TO

HAVE THE VIDEO PLAYED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

>> WITH THE EXISTING BILLBOARD IN TOWN IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO CONVERT IT FROM A BOARD TO DIGITAL BOARD THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONES ON

THE 287 CORRIDOR THAT CURRENTLY EXIST. >> THAT IS CORRECT YOU CAN'T CHANGE FROM ONE NON-LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE TO ANOTHER OR DIFFERENT USE ALTOGETHER.

>> IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY TO DO A PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP WITH THE APPLICANT?

>> I GUESS YOU HAVE TO TELL ME MORE DETAILS. >> ONE OF THE THINGS IS THERE WAS A PLAN FOR MONUMENT SIGNS THAT WOULD BE FOR MIDLOTHIAN. THE IDEA WAS TO BE A GATEWAY AND ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS BY CHANCE I BUMPED INTO MR. HUNT IS IF WE COULD TAILOR THE SIGN TO MATCH THE MONUMENT SIGNS AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT FAIR TO ASK A PRIVATE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COST BECAUSE THESE ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND VERY QUALITY ON A SCULPTURAL LEVEL.

IF WE COULD SHARE THE COST WITH THE APPLICANT AND CREATE A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION FOR THE PARTIES TO SHARE THE USE WITH THE APPLICANT IF HE WAS WILLING TO DO IT.

THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A SAY IN THE CONTENT. CORRECT? AT THAT POINT IF THE CITY IS INVOLVED DIRECTLY WITH FUNDING THE PROJECT THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE CONTENT NO LONGER BE A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.

>> KEVIN? >> THAT IS A POLICY DRIVEN QUESTION.

I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I GUESS IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO MAKE THE CITY PARK OWNER OF THE SIGN, WE HAD NOT THOUGHT THAT ONE THROUGH. THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT. AGAIN THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENTS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO LOOK AT WITH RESPECT TO HOW YOU WILL USE CITY FUNDS. AGAIN IT IS A POLICY QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'M PREPARED TO REVIEW ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE TONIGHT

[00:25:07]

BECAUSE I JUST WRITE THEM, I DON'T MAKE THEM. >> ONE OF THE POLICY DISCUSSIONS WITH PAT IN DOWNTOWN ALL THE TIME I'VE BEEN ON ZBA I'VE BEEN GOING OVER SIGN ORDINANCES AND THAT'S IMPORTANT. THERE'S A REASON WE HAVE THE ORDINANCES OF THE PUSHBACK HAS BEEN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR ADVERTISING AND ENOUGH TRAFFIC THAT PEOPLE RUN INTO IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A TRADE-OFF WITH ANY BUSINESS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE DRIVE-BY TRAFFIC SO PEOPLE KNOW YOU ARE THERE. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR A DIGITAL SOUND LIKE THIS IS IT ALLOWS ADVERTISING FOR PEOPLE THAT CAN'T OTHERWISE GET ADVERTISING.

I'M NOT SAYING THIS DESIGN IS THE ONE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OR THE SIZE BUT THERE IS A POLICY REASON THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT CONTEXTS ABOUT THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? >> TALKING ABOUT NONCONFORMING USE SO YOU SAID IN 2015 THE OLD SIGN WAS REMOVED I THINK THEY SAID IT WAS DECEMBER.

THEN THE UPGRADES WE WILL CALL THEM TO THE NONCONFORMING USE WERE EVIDENCE IN APRIL RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SIX MONTH TIMEFRAME WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER NONCONFORMING USE ISSUES WITHIN THE CITY MAY NOT BE APPLES TO APPLES. WHEN WE SAY 2015 AND 2016 AND MAKES IT FEEL LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE YEAR BUT THERE'S REALLY ONLY FIVE MONTHS BOOKS ONLY FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE NOT LEGAL, I WOULD SAY IF YOU HAD THAT SIGN AND YOU WERE TO SAY I NEED TO REPAIR AND MAINTAIN IT BUT TO DO SO SAFELY WOULD REQUIRE ME TO ESSENTIALLY DECONSTRUCT IT TO THE. THEORETICALLY I DON'T T KNOW I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. THE ISSUE THOUGH IS THE USE OF A DIGITAL BILLBOARD.

TO ME THAT'S WHAT HE COMES BACK DOWN TO HIS YOU WENT FROM A STATIC TRADITIONAL BILLBOARD ON ONE BOWL AT A HEIGHT I DON'T KNOW TO TWO POLES WITH ADDITIONAL BOARDS.

IN MY MY MIND YOU'VE CHANGED TOO MUCH. >> I WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THE ANALYSIS BUT I'M SAYING FROM THE TIMEFRAME STANDPOINT HAD IT BEEN DECONSTRUCTED FOR SAFETY AND RENOVATION PURPOSES AND PUT BACK UP IN A SIMILAR FASHION WITH ONE POLE RELATIVE SAME HEIGHT AND SAME SIZE BOARD THERE WOULD HAVE CONTINUED ITS

RIGHT TO BE NONCONFORMING USE. >> I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE THAT IS CORRECT.

BASICALLY YOU REMOVED WAS OTHERWISE A PROHIBITED USE. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT THIS EVENING TO BE PREPARED TO ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. WE REVIEWED THE ORDINANCE, THE SIGN ORDINANCE BACK THEN WHEN THIS CAME UP. MY RECOLLECTION IS WE DETERMINE ONCE IT WAS DOWN, IT WAS DOWN. ONCE IT WAS REMOVED. IT WAS THE BEST WE COULD TELL HE WAS REMOVED VOLUNTARILY AND IT SEEMED TO BE WITH THE INTENT TO PUT UP A NEW BOARD.

ONCE YOU DID IT THAT WAY IT WAS BASICALLY REMOVING A USE AND YOU CANNOT REBUILD IT BACK.

YOU CERTAINLY CANNOT REBUILD IT BACK WITH THIS NEW DESIGN. IN ANY CASE.

THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT BILLBOARDS MAKES ALLOWANCES FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND EVEN SOME EXTENT RELOCATION IF THERE IS A EXPANSION AND WIDENING OF IT RIGHT AWAY.

WE MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR MOVING THE SIGN. IN A EFFORT TO ALLOW IF THERE'S A CITY OR STATE REASON WHY THE SIGN IS IMPACTING BY A HIGHWAY PROJECT LET'S SAY.

BUT BEYOND THAT IT IS PRETTY TIGHT ABOUT ONCE YOU TAKE IT DOWN, IT IS DOWN.

AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW THE ONLY ONE I THINK REMAINS IS ONE OVER FM DONUTS ON 63 IN THE ENTIRE

CITY. >> THAT WAS DONE BEFORE ANNEXATION?

IT WAS LITERALLY, THEY PUT THAT UP ALMOST OVERNIGHT BEFORE. >> ANYONE ELSE? ANYTHING FROM STAFF RIGHT NOW? LOOKS FRIENDLY REMINDER MR. HUNT HAS THE VIDEO.

>> AT THIS TIME WE WILL INVITE THE APPLICANT MR.. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO O SAY AND IF YOU WANT TO SHARE YOUR VIDEO AT THIS TIME THAT IS GREAT.

[00:30:04]

>> MY NAME IS DOUG HUNT AND MY ADDRESS MY PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 1630 HIGHWAY 67 THE STORAGE FACILITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF 67. NORTH OF TOWN.

OUR WHOLE IDEA FOR PUTTING THIS LINEUP IS SO THE LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY WILL HAVE A WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN TOWN. THERE'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF SALES TAX DOLLARS TO BE SPENT IN TOWN AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THE SALES TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING DOWN THE 663 AND OTHER AREAS. THE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE HAVING A HARD TIME COMPETING. THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT ME TO THE IDEA OF DOING THE DIGITAL SIGN AND YES WE TOOK IT DOWN TO WORK ON IT. WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION WE COULD PUT ONE BACK UP AND WE FOUND OUT THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WILL LET THEM PLAY THE VIDEO AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

[MUSIC] >> MIDLOTHIAN IS GROWING EVERYONE THE LOCALLY OWNED SHOPS, RESTAURANTS AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE THE HEART AND SOUL OF OUR COMMUNITY TO GROW WITH IT. HI I'M DOUG HUNT OWNER OF ACCESS SELF STORAGE I BELIEVE OUR MIDLOTHIAN HOMETOWN BUSINESSES ARE FACING A CHALLENGE.

LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND OTHER LOCATIONS ALONG OLD 287 THESE BUSINESSES FORM THE CORE OF OUR LOCAL ECONOMY AND OFFER THE UNIQUE CULTURE AND AMENITIES TO GIVE OUR TOWN THE CHARACTER. TODAY USE AND INFORMATION IS FULL OF REPORTS PROFOUND EFFECT BIG-BOX RETAILERS ARE HAVING ON SMALL-TOWN BUSINESSES. FORCING THEM OUT IN RECORD NUMBERS. WITH ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND FRANCHISES POPPING UP ON THE NEW HIGHWAY 287 BYPASS AND ALONG HIGHWAY 67 OUR HOMETOWN BUSINESSES ARE FACING AN INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. TODAY THEY HAVE TO COMPETE FOR LOCAL CONSUMER SPENDING AGAINST LARGE NATIONAL CHAINS AND BIG BOX RETAILERS WITH HUGE ADVERTISEMENT RESOURCES. AS A COMMUNITY IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP PRESERVE THE CULTURE AND CHARACTER OF OUR HOMETOWN BY DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO KEEP VISITORS COMING TO OUR LOCALLY OWNED STORES, RESTAURANTS AND BUSINESSES. WE HAVE AN IDEA OF A WAY TO DO JUST THAT. INTRODUCING MIDLOTHIAN'S FIRST DIGITAL MESSAGE CENTER PROPOSED 40 FOOT 10 FOOT DISPLAY TO BE BILLED IN A HIGHLY VISIBLE LOCATION IN MIDLOTHIAN'S NORTHERN GET RIGHT ON HIGHWAY 67 NEAR NINTH STREET VISIBLE TO BOTH NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC THE MESSAGE CENTER WILL ALLOW LOCAL BUSINESSES TO GET THE WORD OUT TO NEARLY 50,000 CARS THAT PASS BY AILY. IT'S ARCHITECTURE WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE CITY'S HIGH STANDARDS USING QUALITY MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPING TO CREATE AN ATTRACTIVE DISPLAY.

THE SCREEN WILL FEATURE HIGH DEFINITION STATE-OF-THE-ART DAYLIGHT VISIBLE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL DISPLAY MESSAGES IN VIVID COLOR WITH IMAGE QUALITY THAT COMMANDS ATTENTION FROM THE FREEWAY. OUR ROTATING MESSAGE MODEL WILL ALLOW LOCAL MERCHANTS TO POST OUR MESSAGES AND VERY AFFORDABLE RATES AND EVEN USE THE MESSAGE CENTER ON THE 50 PERCENT SHARED BASIS MAKING IT DOUBLY AFFORDABLE FOR VIRTUALLY ANY BUSINESS.

AS A SERVICE TO THE MMUNITY A PORTION OF THE DISPLAY TIME WILL BE PROVIDED AT NO COST TO PROMOTE LOCAL CIVIC EVENTS, PROJECTS, SCHOOL ACTIVITIES, FUNDRAISERS AND MORE.

THE MESSAGE CENTER WILL ONLY BE USED TO PROMOTE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND EVENTS NO OUT-OF-TOWN FRANCHISES OR NATIONAL PRODUCT AS WILL BE SHOWN.

TODAY'S COMPETITIVE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT THE BUSINESSES WHOSE UNIQUE QUALITIES MAKE OUR COMMUNITY STAND OUT.

THIS DIGITAL MESSAGE CENTER WILL DO JUST THAT BY REACHING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND BUILDING TRAFFIC TO OUR LOCAL HOMETOWN BUSINESSES. IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY AND BE A GOOD INVESTMENT IN THE HEALTH AND FUTURE OF MIDLOTHIAN.

OUR TOWNSPEOPLE WORK HARD TO ATTRACT DISTANCES TO MIDLOTHIAN AND MAKE IT A COMMUNITY THAT OFFERS CONSUMERS HOMETOWN SHOPPING EXPERIENCE AND CULTURE THAT REFLECTS THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. STUDIES SHOW OUR CITIZENS WANT MIDLOTHIAN TO REMAIN A COMMUNITY WITH UNIQUE SMALL-TOWN CULTURE AND VALUES AND BENEFITS THAT COME WITH IT.

[00:35:03]

IT IS UP TO US TO HELP PROVIDE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SO THAT THE SMALL BUSINESSES CAN THRIVE. THIS NEW DIGITAL MESSAGE CENTER WILL BE A VERY AFFORDABLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT. PLEASE JOIN US IN SUPPORTING OUR HOMETOWN BUSINESSES AND HELP SECURE THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY BY APPROVING THE FIRST MIDLOTHIAN DIGITAL

MESSAGE CENTER. THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

>> IN THE LAST PRESENTATION THE CITY COUNCIL WE VOLUNTEERED AND HAD DEEP RESTRICTIONS DRAWN UP WE ARE ONLY SEEKING LOCAL BUSINESSES NOT SEEKING NATIONAL RETAILERS AND NATIONAL CHAINS.

WE WANT A CERTAIN LOCAL COMMUNITY. THE DEEP RESTRICTIONS MAY BE THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO OR HAVE THE DESIRE TO ENFORCE THEM BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CITIZENS ARE IN MIDLOTHIAN NOW. 20,000? ANY ONE OF THOSE CITIZENS THAT CHOOSES CAN ENFORCE THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS. ANYONE OF YOU PEOPLE HERE.

CAN ENFORCE THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS. SOME PEOPLE SAID WHAT IF YOU SELL IT? I'VE BEEN IN REAL ESTATE AND SELF STORAGE SPECIFICALLY CLOSE TO 40 YEARS NOW. I'VE YET TO SELL ONE PROPERTY AND I HAVE NO PLANS ON SELLING THE PROPERTY AND MY SON WORKS FOR ME. HE WILL TAKE ON THE LEGACY WHEN I'M GONE. AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ANYTHING WOULD BE UP TO DISCUSSION TO SEE WHAT THE IDEAS ARE. THAT THE DDC WANTED TO TALK

ABOUT. >> ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL WANTED DISCUSSIONS ON THE BOARD AND THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT GETTING THE WORD OUT ABOUT LOCAL BUSINESSES AND I THINK THE CITY DEIFICATION IS MONEY THAT COULD BE ASKED FOR SO THE ISSUE WOULD BE THAT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE TONIGHT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO TABLE THIS OR

REQUESTED TO BE TABLED AND TAKE TIME TO DO THOSE THINGS. >> I WOULD RATHER MOVE ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND IF WE DON'T MAKE IT WE WILL COME BACK.

>> UNDERSTAND. >> MR. HUNT DO YOU HAVE A STORAGE FACILITY IN THE AREA OF

POLK AND 67? >> POLK STREET AND 67. >> YES IN DALLAS.

>> WITH THIS SIGN BE SIMILAR TO THE SIGN? >> YES.

>> LARGER OR SMALLER? >> A LITTLE BIT LARGER. A LITTLE LARGER THAN THAT WHEN IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BUT YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF OUR PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS.

WE HONOR THE HIGH SCHOOL ALEDICTORIANS ON OUR SCIENCE. WE HAVE ONE IN RED OAK AND ONE ON 35 IN LANCASTER. THE ONE UP IN DALLAS I PUT IN THE CHAMBER AUCTION AND LET

THEM AUCTION SEVERAL TIMES. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> THANK YOU SIR.

STAFF ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO SIR. NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO WE

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

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

>> MY OPINION IS THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN. THIS IS A POLITICAL COUNCIL DECISION. FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE IF IT WAS A SINGLE POLE WITH A STATIC BOARD THAT GETS MORE INTO A POLICY QUESTION OF WAS IT NOT CONFORMING AND DID WE GET THAT ADVICE BACK THEN? BASED ON LEGAL COUNSEL ANSWERS I THINK COUNSEL HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION. FROM A POLITICAL STANDPOINT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

[00:40:03]

>> MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY. IS THERE A SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND DENY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 007. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND

[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance of the City of Midlothian, Texas, amending the City of Midlothian Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map relating to the temporary zoning designation relating to the use and development of 1,150± acres of the property annexed into the Corporate Limits of the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 2004-10 by changing the zoning classification of the 350± acres described in Section 1, herein (Tract A) to Agricultural (A) Zoning District and by changing the zoning classification of the 800± acres described in Section 2, Herein (Tract B) to Single Family Two (Sf-2) Zoning District. (Z23-2023-70)]

(Z23-2023-70) >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. TONIGHT WILL BE A LOOK AT IS CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ZONING TO EGG AND SINGLE-FAMILY.

I LOOK INTO THE EXPLANATION IN A LITTLE BIT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PINKISH AREA IS 350 ACRES AND WE ARE WANTING TO REZONE HAT TO A PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND THEN IN THE BLUISH AREA THERE WAS 100 RES WE WANTED TO REZONE THAT INTO A PERMANENT SINGLE-FAMILY. THIS IS LARGELY UNDEVELOPED AREA OWNED BY THE SALVATION ARMY IN THE PINK AREA. AND THE HY-VEE RANCH IS IN THE BLUE.

IT IS MOUNTAIN PEAK SPECIFIC NOT SPECIFIC BUT SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT.

THE SEWER IS ABOUT 1000 FEET INTO RIGHT UP ON 663. IN 19 THESE AREAS WERE NEXT IN 1999 AND 2004. WHEN THESE WERE AN NEXT THE CAVE AND AS A TEMPORARY AG WHEN PROPERTIES THEY CAME IN AS A TEMPORARY AG. THESE WERE NEVER PERMANENTLY ZONED. WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS GOING BACK THROUGH OUR ANNEXATION ORDINANCES WE'VE SEEN THROUGHOUT THAT TIME PERIOD AND RESELLING THEM TO A PERMANENT ZONING DISTRICT. LIKE I SAID THE ONE IN THE BLUE WOULD BE AS OF TO AND THE ONE IN THE PINK WOULD BE AG. ABOUT 2019 WE CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY WOULD BE ONE LOT PER ACRE. WHEN THOSE WERE AN NEXT AG WAS ONE LOT PER ACRE SO WE ARE CHOOSING TO REZONE THE PORTION IN THE BLUE TO SINGLE-FAMILY AND THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT BACK IN 1999 AGRICULTURAL DENSITY ONE LOT PER ACRE. IN OUR REQUEST WE HAVE HAD A REQUEST FROM SALVATION ARMY AND THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT BUT WANT TO LEAVE IT AG AND THAT IS ONE LOT PER FOUR ACRES SO LOW DENSITY BUT THEY DON'T HAVE PLANS TO CHANGE THE AREA ANYTIME SOON. LIKE I SAID HY-VEE RANCH IN THE BLUE AND ON THE PINK THESE ARE VARIOUS DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING FOR ACRES. LOT WITH HIS PRINTER FOR ETC.

AND SINGLE-FAMILY NUMBER TWO WOULD BE ONE ACRE 125 FOOT LOT WITH FUTURE LAND USE PLAN HAS THIS AS ORIGINAL AND THERE'S A SMALL PORTION NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 63 AND 875 THAT IS ORIGINAL. ETAIL. RURAL AND SUBURBAN DENSITY MODULES DOWN BELOW. TO THE NORTH OF THIS WE HAVE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AT THE CORNER OF 875 AND 663. WE ALSO HAVE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS TO THE NORTHEAST ONE ACRE DEVELOPMENT ETC. BUT TO THE SOUTH EAST AND WEST THOSE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY ONE DISTRICTS. THIS ZONING CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WHICH IS ORIGINAL, RURAL AND SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY MODULES.

LEGAL NONCONFORMING WAS ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION.

THE ONLY CHANGE FOR HY-VEE RANCH IS ANTICIPATED TO AFFECT OPERATIONS.

THEY HAVE SOLD THE RANCH PROPERTY AND THEY ARE PLANNING TO DEVELOP THAT AS RESIDENTIAL.

ZONING CHANGE FOR CAMP AND SALVATION ARMY WILL NOT IMPACT ANY OF THEIR CURRENT ACTIVITIES. WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.

[00:45:04]

A EMAIL FOR QUESTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED RIGHT NOW ON THESE TWO TRACKS. THIS IS A CITY INITIATED REZONING NOT AN APPLICANT OTHER THAN THE CITY. WITH THAT I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I KNOW THERE'S PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T DO THIS?

>> IT REMAINS THE TEMPORARY ZONING. THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE TEMPORARY ZONING. VESTED RIGHTS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WE ARE TRYING TO BUTTONED THAT .

>> ANYONE ELSE? WE DO HAVE THREE SPEAKERS. FIRST ONE IS EDWARD BIGGERS.

>> DUMB IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND SS. >> EDWARD BIGGERS ATTORNEY IN DALLAS TEXAS 2616 HIBERNIA ST. IN ALLISON MAY 2, 2004. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SALVATION ARMY REPRESENTED SALVATION ARMY IN THIS MATTER. THEY'VE ASKED ME TO COME TONIGHT AND ADDRESS YOU ABOUT THE ZONING THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE AND TO REPRESENTATIVES WITH THE SALVATION ARMY ARE HERE TONIGHT AS WELL.

AND I WILL BE SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHAL MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS CONTINUING ON WITH THE STAFF FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS. WE HAVE TRACK A AND TRACK B AND SALVATION OWNS THE TRACK A PROPERTY AT THAT'S BEEN A TEMPORARY AGRICULTURE ZONE.

THEY WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO STAY THAT WAY AS OUR CULTURE AND CONTINUE THEIR NONCONFORMING USE AS THEY'VE DONE SINCE THEY BEEN AN NEXT. IT WORKS FOR THEM AND THEY HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE AGRICULTURAL OR CURRENT NONCONFORMING USES. WE WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

THE OTHER PART THOUGH IS THE HY-VEE RANCH WHICH IS THE TRACK B, SALVATION ARMY SOLD THE PROPERTY IN 2016. AS PART OF THAT SALE THE BUYER WHICH WAS HARBOR HAVE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY FROM US AND WE ENTER INTO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT.

AS PART OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT I SENT YOU PAPERS AND HOPEFULLY HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF YOU. INCLUDES A COPY OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANT AGREEMENT.

IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF A SEE WHERE BAUCOM ROAD IS AT THE TOP THREE FOURTHS OF THE WAY UP. IN THE BLUE AREA OF ABOUT 200 FEET EAST OF BAUCOM ROAD, I WILL CALL IT EAST NOT QUITE EAST THERE IS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT THAT PROPERTY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THAT IS ALL THAT EVER CAN BE DONE WITH THE PROPERTY. SALVATION ARMY COULD RELEASE IT BUT IT'S RENDERED WITH THE LAND AND IN PLACE TODAY AND THE SALVATION ARMY HAS NO INTENT OF RELEASING THAT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. AS SUCH THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AGRICULTURAL WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT SECTION GOES DOWN THROUGH THEIR TO BE ALSO ZONED AGRICULTURAL ONE CAUSE THAT IS ALL THAT CAN BE DONE ON THAT PROPERTY AND IS MORE E APPROPRIATE THAT IT BE LISTED AS SUCH. SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION GOING DOWN IN THE FUTURE THESE SF TO WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING MEHOW IS AN AREA THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT CANNOT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT AS FAR AS OURS. AGRICULTURAL.

[00:50:08]

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS. >> IN REGARDS TO THE LETTER A

YOU ARE OKAY WITH WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING? >> ABSOLUTELY.

WE'VE BEEN AGRICULTURAL FOR ALL THESE YEARS AND AN NEXT YEAR HASN'T BEEN ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE NONCONFORMING USES. THEY HAVE NO INTENT TO CHANGE THE USES THEY ARE NONCONFORMING USES THEY HAVE GOING FORWARD. IT IS PRIATE AND CLEARLY THEY ARE NONCONFORMING BUT THERE'S

NO ISSUE WITH THAT. >> IN OUR PACKAGE IT SAYS THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WILL BE 350 ACRES. SINGLE-FAMILY TO WHICH WE ENTER ACRES.

THE 800 ACRES TRACK B? YOU'RE ASKING FOR 200 ACRES OF THAT TO BE CARVED OUT AND BE

AG? >> THAT'S WHY WE SAY EAST OF BAUCOM ROAD.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT RUNS PAST THE CITY LIMITS INTO THE DJ.

IT GOES DOWN SO IT IS NOT 200 ACRES IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT'S WHY I CAPTURED IT THE WAY I THE PORTION OF THE RICHARD TO COVENANT PROPERTY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THAT THAT BE ZONED AGRICULTURAL. IF YOU CONTINUE DOWN BAUCOM ROAD ALL THE WAY TO THE WATER DISTRICT THE BUFFER GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THAT. CLEARLY IT IS NOT 200 ACRES.

TOTAL AREA OF THE CITY LIMITS. >> IS IT JUST THE CITY LIMITS THAT'S BURDEN BY THE

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR THE ENTIRE TRACK? >> THE ENTIRE TRUCK.

>> TRACK B. >> YES 200 FEET THAT RUNS ALONG BAUCOM.

GO PARALLEL AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE DIAGRAM IT GOES DOWN AND TURNS AS BAUCOM ROAD TURNS AS

WELL. >> REVIEWED THE DRAFTING ATTORNEY FOR THE RICHARD TO

COVENANT BACK IN 2016? >> I WAS NOT THE DRAFTING ATTORNEY BUT I DID PARTICIPATE.

>> WAS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES, IF YOU KNOW, WAS IT TO KEEP THIS AREA AGRICULTURE?

>> YES. >> IN TERMS OF THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN DENSER RESIDENTIAL CAUSE ANY HARM TO SALVATION ARMY'S OPERATIONS OR IMPACT ANYTHING THEY ARE DOING

OUT THERE? >> THE REASON WHY WE GOT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT IS BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN OF IMPACTING THE SALVATION ARMY PROPERTY.

AS A WAY TO DO THAT WOULD HAVE THE BUFFER ZONE. BASICALLY ELIMINATING TRAFFIC

COMING THROUGH BAUCOM ROAD. >> CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THAT WOULD HARM THE SALVATION ARMY'S

OPERATIONS AT THE CAMP? >> IT IS A CAMP ATMOSPHERE. WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

THE CAMPUS BEEN HERE A LONG TIME AS EVERYONE KNOWS. THE CITY IS GROWING IN THAT DIRECTION. THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME WE WANT TO PROTECT THE CAMP ATMOSPHERE SO PEOPLE CAN COME TO USE IT IN THE SALVATION ARMY USES IT AND WE CAN MAINTAIN THAT ATMOSPHERE.

WE BELIEVE THAT BUFFER ZONE IS PART OF KEEPING THAT. >> THANK YOU MR. BIGGERS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. 200 FOOT STRIP BUFFER? >> YES.

>> I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY BUT A TITLE GUY COME IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT ITSELF IT SAYS NO STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED AND RESTRICTED AREA EXCEPT BARNES AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES ONLY IF SUCH ARE SET BACK AT LEAST 1000 FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE.

IF THE COVENANT AREA IS 200 FEET HOW CAN IT ENFORCE 1000 FOOT SETBACK?

>> DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DRAW THAT OUT. >> THE BURDEN AREA IS 220 ACRES SO NOT GOING TO COVENANT ALL TRACK B BUT A PORTION THEREOF. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR HIS DESCRIPTION THAT SAYS IT IS 200 FOOT FROM THE EDGE OF RIGHT AWAY.

>> RUNS ALONG THEIR PARALLEL SO YOU CAN SEE THE THOUSAND FEET ON THE SETBACK.

[00:55:06]

>> JUST ON THE ACTUAL BUFFER. >> OKAY THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE

DISPARITY. THANK YOU SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU SIR. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VICTOR CALLING H.

IF YOU COME AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE THREE E MINUTES.

>> MY NAME IS VICTOR CALLING HIM AND I I REPRESENT MOUNTAIN PEAK COMMUNITY BAPTIST T CHURCH AND THEY HAVE BEEN AN SP TO COME AND GIVE MY THREE MINUTESI DO I DO ALL THE MAINTENANCE AND ALL THE E SIGNING OF THE PAPERWORK. ANYTHING THAT IS TO BE DONE IN THAT AREA I'M THE ONE THAT DOES IT. I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU APPROVE THIS REZONING SO THEY CAN BUILD HOMES YOU ARE GOING TO RUN INTO TWO OR THREE OBSTACLES. I HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 2003. I HAVE PROPERTY ON PICKNEY LANE. I'M VERY WELL AWARE OF THE WATER STRUCTURE OF THE MOUNTAIN PEAK. IT GOES ACROSS THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY AND DOWN THE STREET AND GOES ACROSS THE FRONT OF MOUNTAIN PEAK COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH.

LAST YEAR THEY REPAIRED THE EIGHT INCH WATER LINE THAT GOES ACROSS THE CHURCH PROPERTY.

I THINK THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MAINLINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOUR FEET DEEP.

IT WAS NOT FOUR FEET DEEP IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET WATER TO THIS BIG SUBDIVISION AND I CALL THAT BIG, THEY WILL HAVE TO ENLARGE THAT WATER LINE THAT IS GOING TO DISRUPT WATER USAGE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. TO OUR CHURCH AND TO THE SUBDIVISION THAT'S BEHIND US WHICH I THINK IS CALLED CRESTVIEW.

ALL THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE WATER FROM MOUNTAIN PEAK ARE GOING TO GET HIT WITH DISRUPTIONS PERIOD. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GET THE ELECTRICITY? IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE CITY IS ALREADY CUTTING CONTRACTS WITH ENCORE OVER ON BB JONES ROAD. TO GET UP EAGER POWER CENTER THERE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU KNOW. I JUST READ IT ON THE WEBSITE.

YOU HAVE TWO THINGS. YOU HAVE WATER AND YOU HAVE ELECTRICITY.

NOW WHAT ABOUT SEWER? THEY ARE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT OR PEOPLE ARE DISCUSSING ABOUT THE DISRUPTIONS HAPPENING ON 663 BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO EXTEND BIGGER SEWER TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. I THINK THE CITY HAS THEIR HANDS FULL ALREADY.

IF THEY KEEP ADDING ON MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR HANDS FULL.

THE CITY DOESN'T SACRIFICE LIKE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY SACRIFICE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT IS ON 663 ALREADY.

THE CHURCH JUST SPENT $7000 REPAIRING CURBS THAT HAVE BEEN BROKEN ON OUR PROPERTY THAT WE SPENT OUR MONEY FOR AN YOU KNOW WHY WE SPENT IT? BECAUSE THE SAME EYES COME

THROUGH OUR PROPERTY ON OUR HIGHWAY. >> I NEED YOU TO SER YOUR THREE

ES IS OVER A LITTLE LE BIT. GO AHEAD AND CLOSE. >> WE SPENT OUR MONEY REPAIRING AND I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU GUYS TO GO OUT THERE AND SEE IT. WE HAVE SEATS IN FRONT OF OUR

[01:00:09]

WE PUT UP THE BUMPERS SO THEY QUIT DRIVING THROUGH. THAT ONLY STOPPED PART OF T.

>> THANK YOU SIR. THE LAST FIGURE WE HAVE SIGNED UP AS MISTY VENTURA.

SORRY I COULD NOT READ THE WRITING. IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND ADDRESS.

>> MISTY VENTURA 9406 BISCAYNE BLVD., DALLAS, TX 75218. ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY HIGHLY LEGS MIDLOTHIAN LLC OWNER OF TRACK B. I WANT TO PROVIDE FIRST A COUPLE POINTS OF INFORMATION. THERE'S BEEN MUCH TALK ABOUT TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL ZONING OR A DESIGNATION OF AG ZONING. WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS NEXT IN 1999 AND 2004 THE DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURAL WAS NOT ZONING. THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN ZONED.

IT IS NOT ZONE TODAY SO IT IS A BIT OF A MESS NUMBER TO SAY WE ARE TRANSFERRING TEMPORARY ZONING TO PERMANENT ZONING OR WE ARE REZONING THE PROPERTY IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN ZONED COMMUNITY MAY CHOOSE TO ZONE THE PROPERTY. PROPERTY OWNER OPPOSES THE PROPOSED ZONING BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES VESTED RIGHTS.

THE PROPERTY HAS PRE-ANNEXATION VESTED RIGHTS PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 43.002.

THE PRE-ANNEXATION VESTED RIGHTS INCLUDE ALL OF THE EXISTING USES INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL USES IN ADDITION THE PROPERTY HAS A PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT VESTED RIGHTS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST THE PROPERTY HAS VESTED RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THIS COMMISSION APPROVED AND THE CORRESPONDING AMENITY CENTER SITE PLAN THAT WAS A PORTION OF THE APPLICATION WITH THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT. TO THE EXTENT THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO ZONE THIS PROPERTY AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE PROPERTY BE ZONED CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES VESTED RIGHTS. TO THE EXTENT THAT CITY COUNCIL CHOOSES TO ZONE THE PROPERTY INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE VESTED RIGHTS.

IT CREATES A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE, LEGAL BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS VESTED RIGHTS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS DON'T MATCH THE ZONING.

YOU HAVE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE IT CREATES A BURDEN NOT ONLY ON THE OWNER BUT ON THE COMMUNITY AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S OFTEN CHARACTERIZED AS A REGULATORY TAKING AND IT COMES WITH ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR EVERYONE. BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE THINGS BOTH THE VESTED RIGHTS AND THE CONCERNS RELATED TO LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, I'M RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES VESTED RIGHTS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> YES IS HIGHLAND LAKES MIDLOTHIAN LLC SUBSIDIARY CONTROL BY HARBOR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC?

>> A HARBOR IS THE PROCESS OR ON TITLE. >> YOU PURCHASED IT AT ARMS

LENGTH TRANSACTION FROM BAY HARBOR? >> I'M NOT THAT REAL ESTATE LAWYERS I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I'M HAPPY TO FIND THE ANSWER IF THAT'S HELPFUL.

YES YOU TALKED ABOUT NONCONFORMING USES. ANY INFORMATION THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE OF THE 800 ACRES?

>> I BELIEVE THE STAFF REPORT LIST MULTIPLE USES INCLUDING A FISHING CAMP AND RESIDENTIAL

USES. >> NOTHING ELSE THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY ELSE TO SPEAK. WE DID HAVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORMS TURNED IN BY THE FOLLOWING ASHLEY ENDICOTT OPPOSITION.

WAYNE REYNOLDS IN OPPOSITION. PAUL FERGUSON IN OPPOSITION. PAUL REYNOLDS IN OPPOSITION.

LET THE RECORDS SHOW THAT. >> I WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS COMMISSION MAY HAVE.

[01:05:08]

>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. NOBODY ELSE I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

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

A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. THE FLOOR IS

OPEN FOR ACTION AND OR DISCUSSION. >> I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT WHEN I LOOK AT THE 2016 DOCUMENT IT LOOKS TO ME SALVATION WANT TO PRESERVE THIS FOR AG USE. THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY BY HARBOR AGREED TO BURDEN A QUARTER OF THE PROPERTY WITH A AGRICULTURAL USE, RESTRICTED USE SETBACKS FOR BONDS AND 10 ACRE LIMITS GREATER USES IN THE COUNTY FORCED DURING THE TIME PERIOD IN 2016.

THE COUNTY HAD A ROAD FROM REJECTION MORE OR LESS ONLY APPLIED TO ESIDENTS NOT PARTITIONING FOR FARMING. I THINK THE USE IF WE ARE GOING TO ZONE IT THE ZONING SHOULD BE AGRICULTURE. THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THERE IS A CREEK.

WHENEVER I SEE THESE PROJECTS WE GO FROM AG AND IF WE APPROVE THIS AT THE SINGLE-FAMILY NUMBER TWO WE HEAR THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE 800 HOMES HERE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS FROM THEY WILL SAY OK YOU WILL BE GREEN PACES AND DO GREAT THINGS SO GIVE US 12 OTHER HOUSES. AT THAT ZONING AND WE ARE BACK HERE WITH 2000.

IF WE DO AG THAT'S RIGHT FOR TWO OTHER HOMES AND I THINK THAT IS A NUMBER THAT SHOCKS SOME PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR AND SUBMITTED THAT COULD I WOULD APPROVE AG FOR THE ENTIRE BOTH ARCELS. IF I CAN MAKE SOME LARIFICATION REGARDING E RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. FIRST OF ALL CITIES ZONING WON'T TRUMP PRIVATE COVENANTS.

WE DON'T TYPICALLY ENFORCE PRIVATE COVENANTS EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT WE ENFORCE COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE AND NEWER SUBDIVISIONS AND RIGHT TO DO SO FOR OBVIOUS REASONS BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL COMMON AREAS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED BY HOA.

BEYOND THAT WE TYPICALLY DON'T AND WE CAN'T TRUMP PRIVATE COVENANTS.

WITH THE ZONING CASES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLARIFIED.

SECONDLY ONE THING I DID NOTICE ABOUT THESE COVENANTS IS THEY TERMINATE IF AT SOME POINT SALVATION ARMY NO LONGER OWNS ANY PART OF THE BENEFIT OF PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN THE COVENANTS. AT SOME POINT EVEN IF THIS WAS CHANGED TO THE SF TO SHOW THE SALVATION ARMY CELL PROPERTY AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ALL THE PROPERTY THE WAY I'M READING THE COVENANT SO AS LONG AS THEY ONLY AVE A A PORTION THE COVENANT REMAINS INACTIVE BUT ONCE THEY SELL IT ALL AS DEFINED IN THE COVENANT IT GOES AWAY.

AT WHICH TIME WHATEVER THE ZONING IS AT THAT TIME WOULD THEN NOT BE BURDEN BY THE COVENANT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD.

ONE THING WE DID AT THE STAFF LEVEL DISCUSSING THIS INITIATED ZONING WAS BASICALLY TO TREAT THIS ALONG OWNERSHIP LINES. BASED ON THE SALVATION ARMY REQUEST TO REMAIN WITH THE PERMANENT ZONING OF AG. WE WERE INITIALLY CONSIDERING SF TWO FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL, 1150 ACRES. WITH THE REQUEST SALVATION ARMY AND CURRENT USES WE SPLIT THAT OUT. THAT GAVE YOU THE CASE TODAY. IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES AT THIS POINT PHYSICALLY IT REQUIRES US TO RE-ADVERTISE IN ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICTS BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE ENLARGING TRACK EIGHT AT THAT . WE ARE STUCK WITH AS WE'VE ADVERTISED AT THIS POINT.

WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO CREATE ANOTHER CASE AND REDO THIS IF WE WERE TO NOT GO ALONG

[01:10:08]

>> AS FAR AS COMMISSIONERS COMMENT I THINK WE ARE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE 208 ACRES, 200 COMES UP OF A LARGER TRACK AND 800 IS WITHIN SIDE THE LIMITS OF IDLOTHIAN SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A QUARTER THAT'S BURDENED WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL TRACK CORRECTLY BUT I BELIEVE IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN 800 ACRES TOTAL THAT WAS CONVEYED.

INCLUDING THE PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THERE IS MORE LAND OUTSIDE THE

CITY LIMITS. >> MUCH MUCH MORE. WE DON'T TRUMP RESTRICTIONS WITH ZONING FOR BACK TO COMMISSIONERS POINT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF INTENT BY THE VESTED OWNER OF TRACK B THAT THE 200 ACRES IN WHATEVER PORTION LIES WITHIN THE CITY SHOULD BE AN AGRICULTURAL USE. THAT MAY REQUIRE BRINGING BACK AND REDRAWING BOUNDARIES DEPENDING ON WHAT COUNSEL DOES I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE VERY RARELY DO YOU SEE ZONING BECOME LESS DENSE OVER TIME AS HE POINTED OUT IT BECOMES MORE DENSE OVER TIME.

I THINK AT LEAST IN THE BUFFER ZONE IT SHOULD BE HONORED TO RESPECT THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND THAT THE CITY AND WHEN ANNEX TO SAY THE PORTION OF 200 ACRES SHOULD REMAIN AGRICULTURAL. I THINK THE SALVATION ARMY MAKES A GOOD POINT.

IF THEY DO SELL AT SOME POINT IN THE COVENANT GOES AWAY WHOEVER THE OWNER IS CAN COME IN AND TRY TO INTENSIFY THE USE AT THAT POINT. THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A ZONING CHANGE THAT'S CONCURRENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN IN THE POLITICAL WHIMS OF THE COMMUNITY. I PERSONALLY THINK AS PRESENTED I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE I THINK THE AGRICULTURAL AREA SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE BUFFER AREA. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HIS SF TO THE RIGHT PLACING? IT WAS BROUGHT IN AS A TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL USE AND THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DO SOMETHING MORE DENSE THEY ALSO WANT TO DO SOMETHING MORE DENSE THAN SF TWO WOULD ALLOW. PUT IT ALL AS AG AND LET THEM COME IN AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY

WANT OR THINK THEY HAVE AND WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AT THAT POINT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. BOOKS I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND TO. FURTHER R DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I. LET ME COUNT THE HANDS RAISED. SIX ÃONE. THAT IS THE LAST ONE TO BE HEARD ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. DID WE HAVE ANYTHING FROM STAFF? ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS ANYTHING? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

ADJOURN. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.