Nov 14, 2023 City Council

[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation]

[00:00:12]

>> CHAIR: GOOD EVENING, IT IS 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY NOVEMBER THE 14TH, 2023. WE HAVE A QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENT. I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. OUR FIRST ITEM IS OUR INVOCATION AND OUR PLEDGES, LEAD BY COUNCIL MEMBERER RODGERS.

>> DEAR LORD WE'RE BLESSED TO BE HERE AS A BODY AND A GROUP OF CITIZENS THAT ALWAYS TRIES TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

WE ASK YOU TO GUIDE US IN A WAY TONIGHT THAT WILL BENEFIT OUR COMMUNITY. WE'RE THANKFUL FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO BLESSED US WITH THEIR PRESENCE HERE TONIGHT. WE ASK THAT YOU BLESS OUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND WE'RE ALWAYS STRIVING TO WALK IN THE WAY IN A WAY THAT IS PLEASING TO YOURSELF AND YOUR GREATER KINGDOM. WE ASK YOU TO BLESS ALL OF US HOME SAFELY AND BLESS ALL OF OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BLESSING MIDLOTHIAN AS A CITY AS A WHOLE. IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY.

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL.". >> "HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE

[2023-450 ]

AND INDIVISIBLE." >>

>>> OPENING ITEM 2023-450 WHICH IS A PRESENCE OF AN AWARD TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I'LL DO THAT FROM THE FLOOR. COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY, I'M REAL PROUD TO PRESENT SOME AWARDS TONIGHT THAT WE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, I GOT TO SPEND A PORTION OF MY WEEKEND IN CORPUS CHRISTI ON BEHALF OF CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTING US AS WE RECEIVED THOSE AWARDS AMONGST HUNDREDS, POSSIBLY EVEN THOUSANDS OF OTHER CITIES. SO, I'VE GOT THIS TO READ, WHICH I'VE NOT READ. THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION TEXAS CHAPTER HELD THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE WHERE THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN RECEIVED 2023 TEXAS PLANNING AWARDING IN THREE CATEGORIES, THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT RENTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PLANNERS, PLANNING ACADEMICS, STUDENTS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CITIZEN PLANNERS OF THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS. FIRST MIDLOTHIAN WON A PLANNING ACHIEVEMENT GOLD AWARD FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN. COMMUNITY LEADERS, CITY STAFF HAVE DEVELOPED THE PLAN WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE OF 2020. IT INCLUDED AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLAN.

SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE PLANNING INCLUDE THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DINING FACILITY IN CENTRAL SQUARE. LAYING CONDUIT AND PROVIDING ELECTRICAL HOOKUPS FOR EVENTS. THE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LAWSON BUILDING AS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CREATION OF FOUNDER'S ROW AS A COMMUNITY RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. FEATURING ARCHITECT URAL ELEMENTS THAT FIT THE CONTEXT OF IT'S HOMETOWN.

MIDLOTHIAN ALSO WON A PLANNING ACHIEVEMENT SILVER AWARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FOR PARKS MASTER PLAN. THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE PARKS MASTER PLAN IN DECEMBER OF 2022, AND IT WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE PARTICIPATION OF COMMUNITY LEADERS, CITY STAFF AND DESIGN WORKSHOP. THIS PLAN INCLUDES PLANNING ANALYSIS AND THAT IDENTIFIES NATURAL ASSETS LIKE AREAS OF DENSE VEGETATION, BODIES OF WATER AND NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS. PROTECTED AREAS CAN ALSO PROVIDE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SUCH AS PARKS, TRAILS NATURE, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMING. MIDLOTHIAN WAS ALSO HONORED TO RECEIVE THE RICHARD R LILY PLANNING EXCEL SENT AWARDS GIVEN TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR HIGH LEVEL OF TRAINING STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. MAINTAINED A MASTER PLAN THAT IS CURRENT AND BROUGHT IT UP TO MEET THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. MIDLOTHIAN CONTINUES TO STRIVE TOWARDS INCREASING COMMUNITY AWARENESS IN PLANNING AND ENCOURAGING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. THIS AWARD RECOGNIZING OUR CITY'S SUSTAINED COMMITMENT TO PLANNING WHICH IS

[00:05:01]

(APPLAUSE) >> SO, MARY OR COLBY, OR, BOTH OF YOU, OR ANY PLANNING STAFF, PLEASE COME ON UP. AND LESLIE, COME UP AND WE WILL TAKE A PICTURE.

>> (APPLAUSE)

>> IT REALLY WAS QUITE THE HONOR TO GET TO REPRESENT US DOWN THERE AND RECEIVE THOSE AWARDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

[2023-451]

>>> COUNCIL I SENT AN E-MAIL TO YOU ALL WITH THE IDEA OF ACKNOWLEDGING AND RECOGNIZING SOME OF THE GOOD THAT GOES ON IN OUR COMMUNITY. I OBSERVED OUR SCHOOL BOARD AND THEY DO WHAT THEY CALL GOOD THINGS WHERE THEY EACH HAVE A DIFFERENT AREA OF EXPERTISE AND CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE WHERE THEY'RE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY. SO, I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO, BRIEFLY, EMPHASIS, BRIEFLY SHARE ON SOME OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT WE RECOGNIZED THAT ARE GOING ON IN OUR COMMUNITY. HIGHLIGHT A STAFF MEMBER. HIGHLIGHT SOMEBODY TO BE OBSERVED IN OUR CITY AND RECOGNIZE IT. AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SHARE SOMETHING WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THAT IS BOTH HIGH SCHOOL'S FOOTBALL TEAM ARE FIGHTING MIDLOTHIAN PANTHERS HAD A GREAT SEASON, THEY WERE RUNNER UP IN OUR DISTRICT, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY LOST THEIR FIRST GAME IN THEIR HEATED PLAYOFF BATTLE, BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE HERITAGE JAGUARS AND THEY'RE MOVING ON TO THE SECOND ROUND PLAYOFFS. THAT BEING SAID, I MADE THE UNFORTUNATE BET WITH THE MARY OF RED OAK, WHENEVER WE PLAYED FOR OUR DISTRICT TITLE. THE LOSING MAYOR WAS TO WEAR THE OPPOSING STUDENT'S HAT AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND THUS WE'RE SITTING HERE AND I WILL UNFORTUNATELY BE WEARING A RED OAK HAWK'S HAT. SO, GOOD PANTHERS, GO JAGUARS.

>> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SHARE SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE OBSERVED IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS IN OUR COMMUNITY?

>> SURE. >> SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I GOT TO SEE HAPPEN WAS THE MISTLETOE MARKET THAT THE MHS CHAIR BOOSTER PUT ON. IT WAS A NEAT EVENT, THEY BROUGHT IN ALL THE SMALL CRAFT BUSINESSES FROM AROUND MIDLOTHIAN. HOME MAKERS, AND BUILDING CANDLE MAKERS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT HAVE LITTLE PROJECTS THAT THEY LIKE TO DO. THEY GOT TO BRING IT IN AND SELL THEIR WEARS IN LIKE A FARMER'S MARKET STYLE. AND IT RAISED A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE BOOSTER CLUB, AND THE CHEER, IT TALK THE KIDS TO BE SELF-RELIANT AND TO GO OUT AND EARN AND BUILD SOME WEALTH FOR THE CLUB RATHER THAN JUST GO AROUND WITH A BUCKET AND ASK FOR HANDOUTS, AND IT WAS JUST A REALLY POSITIVE THING.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT WAS EXTREMELY WELL RECEIVED AND I REALLY LIKED SEEING THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND AN EVENT SATURDAY MORNING SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN ON FACEBOOK ABOUT SOME GRAFFITI THAT HAD WRONGFULLY DECORATED A HOME IN THE COMMUNITY. UM, UNKNOWINGLY, I DIDN'T EXPECT TO SEE THREE OF OUR POLICE STAFF INCLUDING OUR POLICE CHIEF SHOW UP AT THAT EVENT. IT MADE ME FEEL GOOD ABOUT US AS A COMMUNITY HOW MANY CAME TOGETHER, THERE WERE PROBABLY 100 FOLKS THERE INCLUDING KIDS AND THAT OUR OWN STAFF WOULD TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR WEEKEND ON A SATURDAY MORNING TO SHOW UP FOR AN EVENT LIKE THAT AND I'M THANKFUL TO THEM FOR THAT.

>>> ON SATURDAY I WAS ABLE TO TAKE THE KIDS DOWN TO THE LION'S

[00:10:06]

OUT THERE. >> CHAIR: ANYONE ELSE?

>> WELL, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE EMPLOYEE I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THIS EMPLOYEE, BUT, NEVER HAD THE STAGE DO IT, BUT, ADAM MERGER, I MEAN, THAT GUY, MY FOOTBALL COACH ALWAYS USED TO SAY, THE EYE IN THE SKY DOESN'T LIE. I DON'T THINK HE KNOWS THAT I SEE HIM AROUND TOWN ALL THE TIME. BUT, EVERY TIME I PASS HIM HE'S PULLING OVER HIS TRUCK AND PICKING UP TRASH, OR, HELPING AN OLD LADY BACK HER CAR OUT OR GETTING A CONE, HELPING SOMEONE WITH A FLAT, THE GUY'S ALWAYS DOING THE BEST THINGS.

SO, I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO GIVE ADAM A SHOUTOUT, SO, I WANTED TO USE THIS TIME TO DO THAT. SO, THANK YOU, ADAM.

(APPLAUSE) >> CHAIR: THIS PAST SATURDAY WAS VETERAN'S DAY, I THINK THE STATS ARE ONE TO TWO PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION ARE CURRENT OR FORMER MILITARY MEMBERS. OUR CITY HAS PUT ON A VETERAN'S DINNER FOR VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILY IN OUR CONFERENCE CENTER. I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE VETERANS IN OUR CITY. AND OUR VETERANS NATIONWIDE. AND, ALSO, THE VETERANS COMMITTEE THAT PUTS IN HOURS TO ORGANIZE THAT, THAT EVENT WAS WENT OFF WITHOUT A HITCH. HEATHER AND GINA, THEY DID A FABULOUS JOB. OUR CITY STAFFERS DID A FABULOUS JOB, ONCE AGAIN WITH THAT EVENT. AND I WAS THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED WITH THE HONOR AND RESPECT THAT THAT EVENT SHOWED TO THOSE PEOPLE.

THANK YOU. >> (APPLAUSE) .

>>> I CAME PREPARED, I THOUGHT IT WAS CITY RELATED. WHAT I CAME PREPARED WITH WAS THE ISO 1 DESIGNATION, IS WHAT WE GOT. I KNOW IT'S A BIG DEAL, AND IT'S REALLY GREAT.

>> WELL, IT'S, AN INSURANCE SERVICES RATING THAT WE ARE NOW THE HIGHEST CLASSIFICATION THAT YOU CAN HAVE FOR AN ORGANIZATION. AND THIS GOES, OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRE GETS THE BULK OF IT. BUT, IT ALSO GOES TO TALKING ABOUT OUR WATER PROVISIONS. SO, YOU GOT TO HAVE WATER TO PUT OUT FIRES ET CETERA, BUT, WE DO NOW HAVE THE HIGHEST INSURANCE CLASSIFICATION

THAT YOU CAN ATTAIN. SO... >> GOOD.

>>> FANTASTIC, THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR ENGAGING IN THAT.

[2023-452]

>> OPENING ITEM 2023452 TO RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON THE PLANNED EASE U.S. HIGHWAY 287 MEDIAN CLOSE YOU ARES AND OTHER RELATED SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS. >> AND FEBRUARY'S WORKSHOP WITH COUNCIL, TXDOT REPRESENTED AND CAME AND DISCUSSED THE PLANNED CLOSING OF ADDITIONAL MEDIAN OPENINGS ON 287 ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN. THE ENGINEER FOR TXDOT IS HERE TO UPDATE COUNCIL FOR THE PLANS THAT THEY HAVE FOR THE CLOSINGS AND TAKE INPUT FROM COUNCIL AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JUAN.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME. AGAIN, MY NAME'S JUAN PERNTIS, AS MIKE MENTIONED, BACK IN FEBRUARY, WE PROPOSED CAME UP WITH A PROPOSAL TO CLOSE SOME OF THESE MEDIANS DOWN FROM WALNUT GROVE TO WAXAHACHIE. WE HAD A WORK SHOP IN FEBRUARY, WE AFTER THAT WORKSHOP WE WENT BACK AND REGROUPED. WE DID GET A CONSULTANT ON BOARD IN FARMER'S BRANCH, WE GOT THEM ON BOARD AND WE GOT THEM TO ANALYZE ALL OF THESE CROSSOVERS. AS A RESULT THIS IS WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH.

WE WANTED TO COME PRESENT TO YOU GUYS AGAIN TO MAKE SURE TO GET BUY IN FROM THE CITY AND COUNCIL ON WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. MOVING FORWARD, THE PLAN IS TO, IF WE COULD BE OKAY MOVING FORWARD AND GETTING EVERYBODY'S BUY IN, THE PLAN IS TO HAVE A PROJECT LEAD

[00:15:01]

USER FRIENDLY, HOPEFULLY. >>> MOVING FURTHER SOUTH, THE SECTION ONE WILL BE AT THE CHURCH IN FIREFLY. THAT U-TURN WILL BE SHIFTED JUST A LITTLE BIT SOUTH AND THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR TRAFFIC TRAVELING NORTHBOUND AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO TURN BACK TOWARDS THE AIRPORT. AND THEN, IF YOU'RE TRAVELING, YOU KNOW, TRAVELING SOUTH AND WANT TO GET TO THE CHURCH, WE HAVE MOVED THAT CROSSOVER JUST SOUTH OF THAT BRIDGE. ORIGINALLY WE HAD IT CLOSER TO THE BRIDGE ON THE NORTHSIDE OF THE BRIDGE, BUT, AFTER LOOKING AT IT, WE WANTED TO GET THE TRAVELING PUBLIC ENOUGH TIME TO WEAVE AND MOVE OVER. GIVE THEM NEVER DISTANCE TO SAFELY GET OVER TO THAT TURN LANE. NOW, AT THE CHURCH AS WELL, WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A DECELERATION LANE THERE AS WELL. AND FOR BOTH OF THESE U-TURNS, THE SAME THING, WE DID THE TEMPLATES FOR THE LARGER VEHICLES AND WE'RE PROTOESING ACCELERATION LANES AND DECELERATION IN BOTH DIRECTION. FOR REX ODUM, IT WILL BE A LEFT ONLY GOING INTO THE AIRPORT. IF YOU WANTED TO COME OUT, YOU'LL COME OUT AND BE A RIGHT-OUT ONLY. AND THEN YOU WOULD USE THAT TURN AROUND JUST SOUTH OF THE CHURCH. SO, UM, THE LAST ONE THAT WE'VE GOT IF YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER U-TURN JUST SOUTH OF REX ODUM FOR THOSE THAT NEED TO GO BACK NORTH. AND, THE LAST CROSSOVER FOR THE FRONTAGE ROAD WILL BE THE SAME THING, THEY WILL BE A HOODED -- WE'RE GOING TO CALL THEM A HOODED LEFT FOR THE FUTURE FRONTAGE ROAD AND FOR THE FRONTAGE ROAD THAT'S THERE NOW. AND THE LAST ONE WE HAVE IS THE ON-RAMP FROM BUSINESS 287, WE'RE PROPOSING TO EXTEND THAT BACK TO WHERE THE ON-RAMP IS. I KNOW THAT WAS KIND OF QUICK. I KNOW THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME SOME OF YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THIS. I KNOW WE PRESENTED IN FEBRUARY, BUT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE Y'ALL'S INPUT, BUT, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT

NOW. >> CHAIR: TAMMY, DID ANYONE

[00:20:02]

SIGN UP TO SPEAK? (INAUDIBLE). >> CHAIR: COUNCIL?

>> MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE HOODED LEFTS WILL BLOCK VISIBILITY FOR PEOPLE AS THE CARS QUEUE UP, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE. IF YOU HAVE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC WAITING TO TURN AND YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE CARS, THAT SOUTHBOUND MAKING A LEFT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IF IT'S SAFE AND IT WILL CAUSE MORE BACKUP THERE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT IT BEING HOODED, THEY PASS EACH OTHER ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. SO, THEY HAVE A VIEW OF ONCOMING TRAFFIC. THIS IS GOING TO BLOCK THAT VIEW AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE AND IT'S GOING TO CAUSE

MORE CONGESTION, I THINK. >> OKAY.

>> ARE ALL OF THESE AND I BELIEVE I SAW CORRECTLY, ALL OF THESE EXAMPLES OF IMPROVEMENT ARE ON THE EASTSIDE OF WALNUT

GROVE CORRECT? >> Y'ALL DID A WONDERFUL JOB OF SHUTTING DOWN EAST GATE, ROBINSON, AND CLINTON, BUT YOU LEFT ONE OPEN BETWEEN EAST GATE AND WALNUT GROVE IN FRONT OF THE GAS STATION, RIGHT THERE AT THE OLD, UM, CAR YARD WHERE THEY HAD THE JUNK CARS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, AND IT'S GOT THE, UM, PROPANE, WHERE THE PROPANE STATION IS.

>> THAT'S THE FIRST ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

>> OKAY. SO YOU ARE -- >> YES.

>> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I SAW, THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU IF EVERYTHING WAS EAST OF WALNUT GROVE.

>> WE DID RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT.

>> JUST TO MAKE SURE, YOU'RE FIXEN TO FIX THAT SO TRUCKS

CANNOT U-TURN? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. >> WE COULDN'T DO IT WITH THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE OTHER ONES, BUT, LIKE I SAID, WE GOT THE CONSULTANT ON BOARD AND WE GOT THEM TO ANALYZE THAT AND WE GOT THEM TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> FOR MY OWN EXAMPLE I NOW MAKE MYSELF GO DOWN TO WALNUT GROVE. I CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE BRAIN INTERPRETS WHEN CARS COME UP THE HILL AND COMING OFF OF THAT OVERPASS AND DOWN, IT GIVES AN INTERPRETATION OF SLOWER MOVEMENT THAN IS REALISTIC. I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT THAT IS SO CLOSE TO THE WALNUT GROVE, TEXAS TURN AROUND UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE, I'M AFRAID THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE BAD ACCIDENTS THERE WITH CARS NOW. BUT, I GUESS WE'LL SEE IN TIME. AND I'M REALLY GLAD, THE TRUCKS BECAUSE I'M A BUSINESS OWNER, I SEE THREE TO FIVE TRUCK AS WEEK THEY'RE BRINGING U-TURNS AND BRINGING TRAFFIC TO A COMPLETE STOP WHILE THEY'RE DOING U-TURNS. SO,

THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> IF YOU'RE TRAVELING SOUTH BOUND, WHERE THE TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY TRUCKS WILL BE FORCED TO, I SAY FORCED, BUT, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO TO WALNUT GROVE TO MAKE THAT U-TURN, AND SO THAT'S THE IMPROVEMENT AND MODIFICATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE WITH THIS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE

PROPOSING. >> IT'S EVERYBODY. THAT MOVEMENT, IF YOU'RE COMING SOUTHBOUND TO GO BACK NORTH THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO HAVE TO WALNUT GROVE.

>> ON THE RIGHT-OUT ONLIES, CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT IT BLOCKS COMPLETELY? SO, LIKE, WHERE THE WATER IS RIGHT NOW. THAT'S A RIGHT-OUT ONLY, BUT YOU SEE PEOPLE, BECAUSE, THE CURB IS PUSHED OVER SOME, THEY JUST GO AROUND IT. IF THE CURB IS ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE CENTER, MAYBE IT WILL KEEP THEM FROM

GOING AROUND. >> SO, RIGHT NOW THIS IS THE SCHEMATIC LAYOUT, WE NEED TO GET OUR CONSULTANT ON BOARD TO DO THE PLANS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, RIGHT? WE HAVE DEVELOPERS THROUGHOUT ELLIS COUNTY AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE A RIGHT-ONLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ASKED FOR, MAKE SURE IT'S A RIGHT-OUT ONLY INSTEAD OF -- AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL HELP IS THAT WE ARE CONSTRUCTING ACCELERATION LANES. WE'RE EXTENDING THAT ACCELERATION LANE WHICH GIVES US THAT OPTION TO MAKE, I'M GOING TO CALL IT A PORK CHOP, FOR IT TO GO OUT FURTHER, INSTEAD OF STRIPING IT. IF YOU STRIPE IT, PEOPLE WILL CUT ACROSS AND GO THE OTHER WAY. WE'RE GOING THE RIGHT-OUTS ONLY, THE PLAN IS TO GO AHEAD AND CONSTRUCT ACCELERATION LANES WITH IT TO BE SURE IT'S A RIGHT-OUT ONLY.

>> I KNOW THAT YOU GAVE THEM A DECELERATION LANE WHICH IS GREAT, WHEN LEAVING CHURCH, THEY WILL BE FORCED TO GO RIGHT,

CORRECT, TOWARD MIDLOTHIAN? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IS IT POSSIBLE TO GIVE THEM AN ACCELERATION LANE?

>> YES. WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT.

[00:25:02]

>> AND I THINK WE'RE SHOWING A DECELERATION LANE, IF THE PAVEMENT IS ALREADY WIDE, SO, WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO RESTRIPE IT.

>> PART OF THE REASON I ASKED IS THEY RECENTLY GOT A DAYCARE THERE. SO, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD HELP.

>> WE COULD DO THAT. >> MY MAIN QUESTION, AND I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HAVE THIS MEMORIZED FROM OUR FEBRUARY MEETING, BUT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE DISCUSSED IN, YOU KNOW, CAME TO A CONCLUSION ON IN FEBRUARY THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN

THIS? >> I THINK WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN FEBRUARY, I THINK MOSTLY SOME OF THESE CROSSOVERS WE WERE SPLITLY SHUTTING THEM DOWN. THAT'S THE FEEDBACK WE GOT. I THINK ONE OF THEM WAS A CROSSOVER RIGHT THERE AT THE CHURCH, WE WERE JUST GOING TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS GOING AWAY.

>> I DO REMEMBER FOR FIREFLY, TALKING ABOUT PUSHING IT DOWN AND NOT NECESSARILY SHUTTING IT DOWN.

>> LIKE, FIREFLY COULDN'T GO ACROSS TO THE CHURCH, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> BUT, WE SCOOT IT HAD DOWN SO THAT SOMEONE COULDN'T U-TURN AND CUT ACROSS.

>> SO, HERE'S FIREFLY RIGHT? BACK WHEN WE PROPOSED IT, IT WAS RIGHT HERE SO PEOPLE HAD TO HURRY UP AND MERGE OVER. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD OUR CONSULTANT DO, SO, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE CROSSOVER HERE, WE HAVE NOW, IF YOU'RE ON FIREFLY, YOU HAVE TO COME TO THIS ONE AND YOU HAVE PLENTY OF DISTANCE TO BE ABLE TO SPEED UP, MERGE OVER AND SAFELY GET OVER.

>> AND IF YOU'RE COMING FROM WAXAHACHIE TO FIREFLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO PASTED THAT U-TURN AND GO DIRECTLY.

>> WHICH IS NOT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH RIGHT HERE TO THIS ONE. WHICH IS MAYBE, I WANT TO SAY IT'S MAYBE 2,000 FEET. SO, THAT'S ONE OF THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE. AND I THINK ON THE ORIGINAL ONE, TOO, WE REALLY DIDN'T SHOW THAT WE NEEDED THE DECELERATION LANES OR ACCELERATION LANES. AND ALSO, THE MOVEMENT. YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT IT WORKS FOR LARGER

VEHICLES AS WELL. >> WAS THERE CONSIDERATION FOR A DECELERATION LANE AT THAT EARTH TONS GREENERY OR THE OUTLET SPORTS SINCE IT'S A MULTI-TENANT FACILITY.

>> THIS ONE HERE? >> TO THE LEFT THERE?

>> RIGHT HERE? >> C

>> THE REASON I ASKED IS BECAUSE THAT ONE, SPECIFICALLY HAS HIGHER USE THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS GIVEN THAT IT'S

MULTI-TENANT, MULTIUSE. >> SO, I BELIEVE THEY, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK, BUT, I THINK THEY HAVE A DECELERATION

LANE THERE. >> DO THEY?

>> I BELIEVE SO. >> IN MY OPINION, I WAS ON IT TODAY AND IT'S QUITE SHORTMENT THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> WELL, WE COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT. THE OTHER THING, TOO, BECAUSE FIREFLY CAN ONLY BE SO LONG AND WHEN IT COMES TO AN ACCELERATION LANE HERE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THERE AND THE METAL GUARD FENCE FOR THE BRIDGE. SO, IT WOULD NOT BE HERE. I DON'T THINK IT WILL REACH.

>> CHAIR: OKAY. APPRECIATE THE UPDATE AND YOUR HARD WORK ON

THIS. >> AND WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S WORK AND I KNOW THAT MIKE'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND WE'VE BEEN CORD NAT -- COORDINATING WITH HIM. THE PLAN IS TO HAVE A PROJECT READY FOR AUGUST OF NEXT YEAR, POTENTIALLY TO GET IT ACCELERATED.

>> COUNCIL IS THE CONSENSUS THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE PLAN?

>> EXCEPT FOR THE DOUBLE-HOODED LEFTS, I THINK THAT WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM AND IF YOU COULD STAGGER THEM OUT LIKE YOU DID ELSEWHERE,

IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER. >> WE CAN LOOK TO STAGGER THEM OUT BUT IT'S HARD BECAUSE OF THE CROSS STREETS THERE. WE'LL LOOK AT IT, BUT, LIKE I SAID, IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING BECAUSE OF THE STREETS BEING RIGHT THERE. WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT. AND I CAN GET WITH MIC.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING OUR FEEDBACK AND WORKING WITH STAFF.

[2023-453]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIR: MOVING ON ITEM 2023-453. SID CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THE CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

[00:30:01]

COME UP. >> STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, WETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS GEORGE RIX AND I

DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS. >> OKAY.

>> I'M HERE TONIGHT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF TO YOU, BECAUSE, I'M ONE OF THE NOMINEES FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT YOU'LL BE VOTING ON THIS EVENING. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION ABOUT MYSELF AND SEEK YOUR SUPPORT FOR MY ELECTION. I'VE BEEN, ME AND MY FAMILY WE'VE BEEN IN ELLIS COUNTY AND MISD RESIDENTS FOR OVER 20 YEARS, WE'RE INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY AND WE CARE ABOUT WHAT TAKES PLACE. NOW, AS FAR AS MY BACKGROUND, I'M A RETIRED PETROLEUM ENGINEER. AND I WORKED IN THAT OCCUPATION FOR OVER 40 YEARS. AND I BASICALLY THINK IT DOES GIVE ME QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ARE BENEFICIAL TO THIS POSITION. THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF MY WORK WAS TO TAKE AND GATHER DATA TO EVALUATE IT AND DETERMINE BEST SOLUTIONS BE IT FIXING PROBLEMS OR FIND WAYS TO DO THINGS. TO GET MAXIMUM PROFIT FOR MY COMPANY WITH THE LEAST EXPENSE.

AMONG THOSE THINGS I ALSO HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUING ASSETS. AND I WAS A MAJOR PART IN FORMING CORPORATE BUDGETS OVER TIME AND DECIDING WHICH PROJECTS WERE WORTH SPENDING THE MONEY ON. SO, WHAT IS THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD DO? FIRST AND FOREMOST, THEY HIRE A CHIEF APPRAISER AND OVERSEE THEIR WORK TO LET THEM RUN THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IN THE BEST MANNER POSSIBLE. THEY APPROVE BUDGETS, I'M FAMILIAR WITH BUDGETS AND I KNOW HOW TO LOOK THROUGH BUDGETS AND FIND ITEMS THAT MAYBE NEED TO GO OR ITEMS THAT MAY NEED TO BE BEEFED UP.

BUT, IN THE END HAVE NO MORE IN THE BUDGET THAN IS NECESSARY TO DO THE JOB PROPERLY. AND LASTLY, TO IMPLEMENT POLICY CHANGES OR PROCEDURES THAT NEED TO BE DONE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OUR FOCUS IS TO HAVE AN EFFICIENT PROCESS AND TO PERFORM APPRAISALS FOR THE CITIZENS WHICH ARE ACCURATE AND FAIR.

I'M JUST, SO, THEREFORE I THINK, MY PREVIOUS QUALIFICATIONS, MY PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS, MY DATA ANALYSIS, I THINK, ALL WOULD FIT IN TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS POSITION AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, MR. RIX, APPRECIATE IT.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>>> TAMMY, ANYBODY ELSE SIGN UP TO SPEAK?

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> MOVING ONTO CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE DEMOCRATIC BEING ACTED ON BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION, IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE ANY ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA. HEARING NONE, I'LL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> CHAIR: A MOTION FROM THE PRO TEM, SECOND FROM MS.

[2023-463]

>> PUBLIC HEARINGS, OPENING ITEM OF 2023-463 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING PRESENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3.83 ACRES OUT OF PW LOWE SURVEY. COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3841 MOCKING

BIRD. >> THE PROPERTY IS 3.83 ACRES, AND HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP FOR THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL BE 1,172 SQUIRE FEET. THE PURPOSE FOR THE DWELLING UNIT IS FOR HIS PARENTS TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY WITH HIM. AS YOU KNOW IN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE, THERE'S A LIST OF REGULATIONS THAT AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER TO HAVE A SECONDARY DWELLING IN IT BY RIGHT. THAT'S APPROVED AT A STAFF LEVEL. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DEVIATIONS FROM THOSE REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR A SECONDARY ELECTRIC METER AS WELL AS A SECONDARY SEPTIC SYSTEM. THIS IS A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 2014. SO, THERE ARE A LOT OF THERE ARE SEVERAL

[00:35:04]

MOSTLY BECAUSE THE GAS COMPANY WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO TRENCH ACROSS THAT EASEMENT. PNZ DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CASE WITH ONE CONDITION, THERE PREVIOUSLY WAS A MOBILE HOME UP IN THE LEFT-HAND CORNER. SITE PLAN. WE DID WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THAT REMOVED PRIOR TO BEING PRESENTED TO PNZ BUT THE SEPTIC WAS STILL THERE AND UNDERGROUND. PNZ RECOMMENDED THAT THAT SEPTIC TANK BE FILLED AND THE APPLICANT IS MORE THAN HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIR: TAMMY, DID ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE OR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> UNDER CONDITIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, THAT REQUESTS THE EXISTING SEPTIC TANK SHALL BE FILLED PRIOR TO THE SECOND OCCUPANCY. THE SECOND DWELLING IS.

>> CHAIR: SINCE THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> CHAIR: MOVE BY PRO TEM. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIR: PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES 7-0. COUNCIL,

DISCUSSIONS, QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> CHAIR: IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SHARE, THEY'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT AT

THIS TIME. >> HE IS PRESENT FOR ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> CHAIR: QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? HEARING NONE I'LL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> CHAIR: MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECONDED BY MR. GARDNER. FURTHER DISCUSSION IN PLEASE

VOTE. ITEM PASSES 7-0. >>> OPENING 2023-464, CONDUCT A

[2023-464 ]

STREET. MARY. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY FOUR TO YOUR BAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND OPEN SPACE USES.

URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS A DESIGNATION FOR ADDRESSING INFILL DEVELOPMENT. CONDITIONS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CASE. THE PROPERTIES SOUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, UM, IT'S ZONED SINGLE FAMILY FOUR, WHICH IS THE CEMETERY. WHICH IS PART OF THE NEW TOWN MODULE. AND, IT TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE A COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY FOUR, UVPD 65 AND PD 42 WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY IN THE MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT IN THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE TROTTER HOUSE, AND A VACANT PARCEL. AND THAT IS ALL WITHIN THE NEW TOWN MODULE. THE NEW DOWN MODULE ALLOWS THE COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN WALKING AND BIKING DISTANCE OF ONE ANOTHER. SO, IT'S A DIFFERENT FEEL THAN WHAT YOU MAY SEE IN THE OUTER EDGES WHERE YOU HAVE UM LARGE SUBURBAN TYPE DEVELOPMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE PROPERTY AS NEW TOWN MODULE, AND IT HAS SEVERAL GOALS THAT SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF USE. SO,

[00:40:02]

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE TO TIE INTO THE EXISTING PORTION OF 9TH STREET AND ALLOW TRAFFIC TO FLOW AROUND IT. SHELBY COURT ACTS AS A SPINE ROAD IT IS 50 FEET WIDE AND ALIGNS WITH AVENUE K AT IT'S INTERSECTION WITH 9TH STREET TO THE WEST. THE, UM, WIDTH WILL ALLOW CARS TO PARK ON EACH SIDE AND IT'S WIDE ENOUGH FOR SIDEWALKS AND IT CAN ACCOMMODATE FIRE TRUCKS AS WELL AS WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES. A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GENERATE ENOUGH TRAFFIC TO REQUIRE IT. AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE WALKABILITY AND THE BIKE ACCESSIBILITY, THEY ARE PROVIDING, UM, SIDEWALKS FOR THAT USE. THEY'VE ALSO BEEN TALKING TO THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE A TRAIL THAT WOULD CONNECT 9TH STREET TO 14TH STREET IF POSSIBLE. AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE STUDENTS THAT WALK AND BIKE IN THAT AREA. THERE'S A MAILBOX FACILITY, AND IT IS OFF OF THE SIDEWALKS, SO THAT IT DOESN'T IMPEDE FLOW OF WALKING OR BIKING, AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO, UM, CROSS WALKS THEY'VE PROVIDED THREE AT THE MAILBOX AT 9TH STREET AND WHERE IT CROSSES SHELBY COURT. SO, THEY'VE BEEN VERY COGNIZANT OF WALKING AND BIKING. UM, I DO WANT TO SAY ONE THING, I HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE RECTANGLE LURE HOUSES. THIS IS A CONCEPT, THE HOUSES WILL NOT ALL BE RECTANGLE. THEY WANTED TO SHOW HOW THE GARAGES WOULD WORK WITH THE HOUSES IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'RE ORIENTED OR

[00:45:03]

THEY PROVIDED A LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEY'RE PROVIDING LARGE TREE SPECIMENS ALONG THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THEY WILL PRESERVE ALL TREES WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE. THEY'RE GOING TO MEET AND EXCEED THE TREE REQUIREMENT. PROVIDING TREES ALONG THE, STREETS AND ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO EXISTING DEVELOPED PROPERTY. UM, THEY ARE NEXT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN ON THE NORTH SIDE AND AGAIN THEY WILL NOT BE DISTURBING THE FLOOD PLAIN AT ALL. SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS YOU KNOW WORKED CLOSELY WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DESIGN AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT AREA, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AT THE OCTOBER 17TH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 7-0. WE DID RECEIVE AN OPPOSITION PETITION AND IT COVERED ABOUT 13.4% OF THE AREAS IN TEN FEET. WE ALSO RECEIVED SUPPORT AND THAT COVERS 15.2% IN THE AREAS OF 200 FEET. THE REASONS FOR OPPOSITION, PRIMARILY AT THIS POINT, INITIALLY, THERE WAS CONFUSION, SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS MULTIFAMILY AND A LOT OF THEM CHANGED THEIR MINDS ONCE THEY UNDERSTOOD IT WAS NOT MULTIFAMILY. AT THIS POINT, THE MAIN CONCERN ARE DRAINAGE AND

[00:50:04]

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU, MARY, DID ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK THAT'S NOT THE APPLICANT? WE'LL SAVE THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MARY. CODEDY? MR. NICKS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND WETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> I'M CODY MIX AND I LIVE AT 213 PROPERTY HUNTER, AND MY PROPERTY BACKS UP TO THE BOUNDARY OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. I THINK MY MAIN CONCERN'S DRAINAGE. I SHARED A VIDEO WITH MARY FROM THE PNZ, I SENT IT A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO. SO, WHEN A LARGE STORM COMES THROUGH, THE STORM WATER HAS GOTTEN WORSE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASEBALL FIELDS. SO, IT REALLY COMES THROUGH THAT FIELD PRETTY HEAVILY. AND, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S ZONED SF-4. AND, PD IS UVPD, SO, WE'RE APPROVING THE SITE CONCEPT. WE'RE APPROVING THE DENSITYND A THE SITE CONCEPT. THE TURN RELIEF DEADENDS TO THE FENCE AREA WHERE MY PROPERTY IS. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S VERY MUCH OF A GAP IN BETWEEN TO ALLOW FOR THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL TO TAKE THAT DRAINAGE WATER, THAT STORM WATER AWAY. SO, I THINK MY PRIMARY CONCERN AND MY REASON FOR OPPOSITION IS THE NOT THE DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE, I AGREE, I WOULD PREFER SINGLE-FAMILY TO BE BEHIND ME. IT'S PRIMARILY THE DRAINAGE AND THE LACK OF -- I DON'T SEE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THE DRAINAGE THAT EXISTS BACK THERE. I SENT THE VIDEO TO MARY, I THINK, RIGHT BEFORE THE PNZ MEETING AND THE ENGINEERS SENT A LETTER WHICH WAS IN THE AGENDA PACKET ON NOVEMBER 13TH SAYING HEY, WE'RE DOING RECALCULATIONS AND I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN EVIDENCE OF THAT RECALCULATION YET OR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE PRIMARY REASON I'M IN OPPOSITION TO IT, JUST BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE CHANGE TO IT. I THINK SECONDARILY, I THINK THERE'S AN OPPOSITION OF BEING SIMILAR TO MIDTOWN AND PAYING THE PREMIUM IN MIDTOWN AND MAKING SURE THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THAT HAVING THE FLOODPLAIN, THE PARK AND ALL OF THAT IS GREAT. ALL OF THAT IS VERY POSITIVE AND GOOD FOR US, TOO. BUT, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PRIMARILY, IT'S THE DRAINAGE.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU, SIR. >> TAMMY, ANYONE ELSE?

>> >> CHAIR: MR. MILL E STATE YOUR NAME AND WETHER OR

NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS. >> I'M STEVEN MILLER, I LIVE IN MIDTOWN AND I'M BASICALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, THERE. CODY'S PRETTY WELL COVERED ONE OF THE ISSUES, IT WAS THE DRAINAGE OF THE AREA.

MY BACKGROUND, I HAVE A DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, I SPENT 31 YEARS IN THE ARMY IN THE COCORP OF ENGINEERS. THE BIGGER PICTURE THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERN ABOUT IS THE MOVEMENT OF WATER IN THE CITY NOT JUST IN MIDTOWN OR THE ASSOCIATED AREA.

WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE ESPECIALLY WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE SPORT'S FIELDS AND THOSE THINGS THERE'S BEEN A LOT MORE WATER FLOWING OFF ROOFS AND PAVEMENTS THAN THOSE OF US WHO REMEMBER WHEN THE MAIN HIGHWAY WENT DOWN MAIN STREET, SO, I THINK A DEEP LOOK AT THAT NOT JUST TO MIDTOWN AND THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE, BUT, FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE T FLOWS THROUGH THE CITY, AND SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S GOING ON DOWNSTREAM CERTAINLY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT. SO, THAT'S ONE CONCERN. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY FOLKS IN THE AREA IS ONE THAT WE KIND OF COVERED A LITTLE BIT ALREADY. IT'S THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, AND THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. MY PERSPECTIVE IS THE COMPATIBILITY OF MIDTOWN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE COMPATIBILITY THAN THE OLDER PART OF THE CITY IN MY VIEW. I THINK THAT MIDTOWN IS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH OLD TOWN

[00:55:06]

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL INTERSECTIONS THAT YOU KIND OF HAVE TO SNAKE THROUGH TO GET ANY PLACE. NOW, MOST OF US UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION BY THE HIGH SCHOOL IF YOU COULD AVOID IT. SO, WE SEE TRAFFIC FLOWING THROUGH THAT AREA NARROWING DOWN INTO THE NARROW STREETS, ET CETERA, SO, SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN WIDEN THE STREETS OF MIDTOWN, IT'S KIND OF A NECK DOWN THERE. I GUESS THAT'S MY THREE MINUTES.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

TAMMY? IF YOU'LL KINDLY STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND WETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU'LL HAVE

THREE MINUTES. >> I HAVE TO WRITE MINE DOWN, IF Y'ALL FORGIVE ME, I'M GOING TO BE READING A LOT. UM, I'M SHARON HAWTHORN AND MY ADDRESS IS 217 CODEDY HUNTER AND I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE IT WAS BUILT IN 2016. AND I'M HERE TONIGHT SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN BEING PROPOSED ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. ALTHOUGH, I WILL SAY I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT BACK THERE, I'M SPEAKING ON A VERY PERSONAL LEVEL. AT THE TIME MY HUSBAND AND I PICKED OUT OUR LOT IN THE SUMMER OF 2015, THERE WERE NO OTHER HOMES ON CODY HUNTER, SO, WE PICKED OUT THE ONE WE WANTED. PART OF THE REASON WE PICKED IT OUT IS BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD BY OUR BUILDER, AND I THINK THAT HE HONESTLY MEANT IT AND BELIEVED, THAT BEHIND US WAS A FLOODPLAIN AND THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS MADE TO DRAIN INTO THAT FLOODPLAINS, THERE WERE COWS ON IT. SO, WE THOUGHT IT WAS PERFECT AND WE SNATCHED IT UP. MOVING FORWARD A YEAR, MY HUSBAND PASSED AWAY AND I MOVED INTO OUR DREAM HOME ALONE. AND I SPENT LOTS OF MAN HOURS AND DOLLARS TO CLEAN UP THAT PLACE THAT I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE A DREAM. THE COWS LEFT AND WERE REPLACED BY BOB CATS AND POISON IVY. BUT, ALL OF THAT IS TO SAY THAT I DIDN'T WANT THE CITY OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO FIX IT FOR ME, I JUST DID IT BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT NOBODY REALLY WANTED TO DO IT. SO, OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AS MORE HOMES WERE BUILT AND ESPECIALLY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL FIELD, STORM WATER RUNOFF PATTERNS CHANGED AND FLOODING BECAME AN ISSUE FOR THOSE OF US ON THE CODEDY. IT'S COMPLETELY ERODED THE SOIL AROUND THE ROOTS OF MY VERY LARGE TREE. WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS FIRST NOTICED, I CALLED MS. ELLIOTT TO ASK ABOUT THE FLOODING ISSUE NOT REALIZING WHAT KIND OF ISSUE I WAS TALKING ABOUT AND SHE SAID YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT UP WITH YOUR BUILDER, WHICH IS JUST NOT REASONABLE TO ME AFTER 8 YEARS, I'VE INVITED PNZ AND THE AFRICAN ENGINEERS AND YOU ALL BY E-MAIL TO SOME SEE THE DRAINAGE. I SENT YOU A COUPLE OF YOUTUBE VIDEOS THAT I UPLOADED TODAY SO THAT YOU COULD SEE THEM, OF HOW SWIFTLY, THE WATER COMES THROUGH. I'VE CONTACTED THE TCEQ AND AN ARBORIST TO INSPECT MY TREE.

JUST OVER THE PHONE, HE TOLD ME TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DIG UNDER THOSE ROOTS, THE TREE WILL BE LOST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO COME AND CUT DOWN THAT HUGE TREE, I CAN'T AFFORD IT. SO, IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO IMPOSE ALL OF THAT DAMAGE ON ME. SO, WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO WANT IS NOT TO WITH DRAW YOUR APPROVAL BUT JUST TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL WE CAN GET SOME OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES LOOKED AT. THE FLOOD PLAN THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING AT, I DON'T CARE IS IN LINE WITH WHERE THE WATER'S ACTUALLY GOING. NOW, AYE BEEN ASKED TO READ MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, DR. MILLER'S STATEMENT. HE'S AT HOME,

[01:00:05]

MY PROPERTY AT 221 CODEDY HUNTER ABUTS TO THE HAMMER HEAD TURN AROUND THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN. I'M UNABLE TO BE PRESENT IN-PERSON DUE TO MY WIFE'S VERY RECENT HIP REPLACEMENT. IT IS MY CONCERN OVER THE ZONING CHANGE, NOT ANYTHING AGAINST PROGRESS FOR OUR GREAT CITY THAT CAUSES MY OPPOSITION TO THIS CHANGE. I'LL REMAIN CONFUSED TO EXACTLY WHY THE ZONING CHANGE MUST OCCUR SINCE THE DEVELOPER IS STATING HE'S ONLY PROPOSING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SINGLE PLAN AS REPRESENTS FROM THE SINGLE DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DISCUSS WITH MYSELF AND NEIGHBORS IN A COLLEGIAL MANNER.

ONE THAT THIS CURRENT PLAN DOES NOT PROGRESS, THAT THE CITY MAINTAIN THIS AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENT WITH THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF MIDTOWN WHICH COULDN'T TOSS ELICITS COMP MEANTS FOR ALL WHO EXPERIENCES IT. THE DEVELOPER STATES IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO FULLY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS WILL DISCUSS THAT IN DETAIL. THAT'S ME. I ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE IMPACT PRESENT AND FUTURE OF ANY ZONING CHANGE AS WELL AS THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS FULLY ADDRESSED. THIS INCLUDES THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR WHICH THE DEVELOPER ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY. BUT, ALSO SO SHOULD FINANCIAL SHOULD ACCEPT FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO ITEMS SUCH AS DAMAGE AND REMOVAL OF TREES, IF ONLY PARTIALLY BEYOND THE CURRENT FENCE LINE. AND, TWO, ASSURING THE VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CODY HUNTER REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH OR EXCEED THAT OF OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THREE, DISRUPTION TO CURRENT FENCING WHICH IS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION, STEVEN MILLER. AND I WILL SAY THAT DR. MILLER AND I ARE THE TWO LOTS, WHERE THE HAMMER HEAD TURN AROUND IS, THAT WILL BE AGAINST OUR FENCES. AND, SO, MY CONCERN IS FOR MY TREE THAT WILL KERNEL BE DESTROYED.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. TAMMY, ANY OTHERS?

>> (INAUDIBLE). >> CHAIR: OKAY. WITH THERE BEING NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. I WILL GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES IF THEY SO CHOOSE. BUT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> PRO TEM AND SECOND FROM

MR. MOORMAN, PLEASE VOTE. >> CHAIR: ITEM PASSES 7-0.

>>> AND I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE THE APPLICANT?

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

RECORD. >> ERIC BULLES.

>> CHAIR: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OR ARE YOU STANDING

FOR QUESTIONS? >> I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. I CAN START BY ANSWERING THE DRAINAGE QUESTION. SO, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL THE LOTS ON CODY HUNTER ARE IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. SO, THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF IT CARRIES WATER IN A STORMING EVENT AS DESIRED. WHILE WE CAN NOT CONTROL ANY STORM WATER RUNOFF, WE CAN CONTROL WHAT'S ON OUR SITE. WE WILL NOT BE IMPOUNDING ANY LOT AND WE'LL ACCEPT ALL OF OUR OUTSIDE STORM WATER SO, WE HAVE, UM, UPSIDE TO STORM WATER TO ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS ON THE FLOODING ON THE ADJACENT LOT. WE DON'T OWN THAT ADJACENT LOT SO, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY WORK ON THAT LOT, BUT, ONCE IT GETS TO OUR PROPERTY, WE WILL ACCEPT IT AND GET IT DIRECTLY

INTO THE FLOODPLAIN. >>> THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC AS WELL. WE INTEND TO, UM, MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS WITH A LEFT-HAND TURNING LANES INTO OUR PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT A WARRANTED IMPROVEMENT BASED ON OUR AMOUNT OF TRIPS THAT WE'RE IMPACTING THE SYSTEM WITH. BUT, WE HAVE AGREED TO DO SOME MORE ONTO 9TH STREET.

>> CHAIR: OKAY. THANK YOU, IF YOU COULD JUST STAY CLOSE JUST IN CASE THERE ARE FURTHER QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MARY TO COME UP AND STAND FOR QUESTIONS AND I'LL OPEN TO COUNCIL I'M SURE THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT YOU

COULD ENGAGE WITH. COUNCIL? >> HEY, MARY, MY FIRST QUESTION WAS ON THE DETACHED GARAGES. UM, I THINK THAT I GET IT, BUT, AND I GET THAT IT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BUT, ON HERE IT

[01:05:01]

>> SO, YEAH. SO, THEY WENT THROUGH SEVERAL DIFFERENT REITERATIONS OF THIS, UM SITE PLAN AND ONE OF THEM HAD ALLEY ENTRY GARAGES, AND, THEY ABANDONED THAT ONE BECAUSE, UM ARES TESTIMONY DEAD-ENDED INTO THE, UM, 9TH STREET IN A WAY THAT DIDN'T WORK WITH THE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION. SO, THAT'S WHY THEY LOOKED AT DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES AND, CAME UP WITH THIS ALTERNATIVE. THE, UM, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, THE, UM, GARAGES ARE ACTUALLY MUCH FURTHER BACK THAN 20 FEET.

REALLY, THE ONLY ONE THAT COMES CLOSE TO THAT IS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, UM, AGAIN, THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE PREVIOUS REITERATION THAT THEY HAD GONE THROUGH. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE GARAGES ARE ACTUALLY VERY FAR SET BACK AND THEY'RE OVER 40-FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE HERE. UM, AND THEN THIS IS YOU KNOW, MAYBE 20-FEET. BUT, THEN, THEY CAN PUSH THE THEY COULD PUSH THE GARAGE BACK. IT'S JUST, AGAIN, THIS IS A CONCEPT TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

>> AND I'M NOT GOING TO HOLD THEM TO THE CONCEPT PLAN BUT IT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I'M APPROVING A FRONTAGE GARAGE OR AN ALLEYWAY ACCESS GARAGES, BECAUSE, THEY'RE BOTH STATED IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> WELL, I MEAN, THE ALLEY DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THERE

AREN'T ALLEYS. >> THAT'S THE PART WHERE I'M

CONFUSED AT. >> WE'LL HAVE TO REMOVE THAT FROM THIS CHART. I'M NOT TRYING TO.

>> NO, NO, I'M TRYING TO BE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> WE COULD DO THAT WITH THE ORDINANCE, REMOVE THAT LINE FROM

THE CHART. >> OKAY.

>> WHILE YOU'RE ON THAT, THOUGH, I NEED MORE CLARIFICATION OF US SAYING THIS IS CONCEPT, BECAUSE, IT IS A UVPD. SO, IT STATES CLOSELY AND IT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE ORDINANCE. SO, WHY ARE WE SAYING THIS IS A CONCEPT?

>> WHAT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE DOCS.

>> IT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> SO, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SAYS THEY WILL PROVIDE A SITE PLAN AT THE TIME OF PERMIT. AND THAT'S WHAT MIDTOWN DOES, THEY COME IN AND DEVELOP THE SPECIFIC LOT AND FIGURE OUT THE EXACT FLOOR PLAN THAT SOMEONE WANTS AND SUBMIT A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE. MY SECOND QUESTION AND I'M CONFUSED IS ON THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. I GUESS IT'S PLATTED DOWN THE CENTER OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY HAVE

SHARED ACCESS? >> IT'S A PRIVATE, MUTUAL SHARED DRIVEWAY. IT'S PRETTY COMMON IN OTHER PARTS OF THE METROPLEX, BUT, I KNOW IT CONFUSED A LOT OF PEOPLE. SO, THEY CAN MAKE IT WERE THEY HAVE SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS IF THEY NEEDED DO THAT IT JUST INCREASES IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.

>> THIS HOME BACKS UP TO A THOROUGH FAIR AND OPEN SPACES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROUT IRON FENCINGKNOW WROUGHT IRON F

>> SO, THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT THEY PROPOSED JUST TO SHOW THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A PARK THERE, IT WOULD FIT. BUT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NEGOTIATING WITH THE FINAL PLOT. SO, THE, UM, SO, THEY HAVE THE 20-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THEY WILL HAVE THE MASONRY WALL ON THIS SIDE. AND ON THIS SIDE, THEY'RE SHOWING THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND THEY HAVE THE EASEMENT ON THE WALL THAT WILL SHOW THE WROUGHT IRON AND BRICK COLUMNS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING. ONE OF

[01:10:04]

BRICK FENCE ALL THE WAY THROUGH. >> AND MY LAST QUESTION ACTUALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE PARK. THEY'RE PUTTING IN A PARK ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCES, CORRECT? THEY'RE REQUIRED TO

PUT IN A PARK? >> YEAH, WELL, THEY'RE STILL NEGOTIATING THAT WITH THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH HEATHER, I COULD BRING HER OUT.

>> THERE ARE GOING TO PUT AN OPEN SPACE WITH PLAYGROUND

EQUIPMENT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD MOVE THE PARK OFF OF THAT MAJOR ROAD BUT IF THERE'S NOT A PARK THERE.

>> IT WAS JUST TO SHOW THAT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH SPACE TO

PUT THAT ON THERE. >> WELL, TO PIGGY BACK ON THAT, IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PUT IN ONE, AND THAT HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED YET, WHY IS THIS BEFORE US?

>> THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO A PARK THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO AN OPEN SPACE AND THEY WANTED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT WAS WANTING TO PARTNER IN. SO, THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF POSSIBILITIES. BUT, WE'RE HOLDING THAT OFF ONTO

PLATTING. SO... >> ALSO, KEEP IN MIND, WE'RE AT THE ZONING STAGE AND SO ONCE THIS GETS APPROVED ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE PLATTING APPROVAL. SO, CERTAIN THINGS WILL COME BACK TO YOU AND CERTAIN THINGS WILL NOT

COME BACK TO YOU. >> RIGHT.

>> RIGHT. >>

>> IN TERMS OF NUMBERS OF DWELLINGS, WHAT'S THE DELTA BETWEEN THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND THE CURRENT BY RIGHT ZONING?

>> THAT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY BECAUSE IT'S SINGLE-FAMILY FOUR.

BUT, YOU COULDN'T JUST STAMP A SINGLE FAMILY FOUR PLAN ON THIS BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD BE INTERFERING WITH THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO, THEY WOULD PROBABLY LOSE A LOT OF LOTS BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T JUST, YOU KNOW, PUT A LOT ON THE FLOODPLAIN WITHOUT, Y YOU KNOW, LOSING THE FLOODPLAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO RECLAIM A LOT OF THE FLOODPLAIN WHICH WE DON'T

WANT THEM TO DO. >> THEIR ENGINEERS HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THERE'S DEFINITELY A DRAINAGE ISSUE. LOOKING AT THE LETTER THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLECTING THAT AND DUMPING IT INTO THE CREEK. WHAT HAVE WE DONE AS FAR AS THE STUDY TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE DOWNSTREAM ON OTHER FLOODING ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AROUND THE CITY? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING FROM HIGHLY PER MEABLE AND ABSORBING GROUND TO A NONPER MEABLE. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. ALTHOUGH THEY'RE LOOKING AT HOW TO KEEP THE WATER OFF OF THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND THEIR NEIGHBORS, WHAT WILL IT DO TO THE REST OF THE CITY DOWN THE STREET?

>> AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH THIS.

>> CAN WE... >> THERE'S A SERIES.

>> CAN WE GET THE ENGINEER BACK ON THAT?

>> THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY CAN NOT --

>> SO, A LOT OF IT DEPENDS ON THE WATER SHED AND WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE WATERSHED. SO, IF WE WERE TO DETAIN, WE WOULD DELAY THE PEAK OF OUR WATERSHED. AND ALL OF THAT WOULD HIT THE 14TH STREET CORRIDOR AT THE SAME TIME. BY US FREE RELEASING, OUR PEAK WON'T MATCH THIS PEAK SO OUR WATER'S GONE BEFORE THE STORM WATER COMES THROUGH THIS SYSTEM.

>> BUT, YOU'RE INCREEING THE FLOW OFF OF THE PROPERTY?

>> CORRECT. >> BUT, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. I MEAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SHELBY.

>> WELL, WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS WE CAN'T HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT DOWNSTREAM. SO, THAT'S HOW WE DO OUR ANALYSIS. SO, WHEN WE, SO, ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE NOT CREATING AN ADVERSE IMPACT. IF WE WERE TO DETAIN OUR PROPERTY, THEN, WE WOULD BE CREATING AN ADVERSE IMPACT AND WE WOULD FLOOD PEOPLE DOWNSTREAM, BECAUSE, ALL OF OUR WATER WOULD NOW HIT AT THE SAME TIME.

[01:15:04]

>> LAST TIME I CHECKED, RAIN FALLS EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME

TIME. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE MIKE SPEAK TO WHAT THEY LOOK FOR WHEN IT COMS TO APPROVAL.

>> THE TWO THINGS WE LOOK AT IS ON SITE RETENTION AND THE DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT. AND THAT'S LOOKING AT, AS HE INDICATED YOU DO LOOK AT PEAKING AND YOU LOOK TO SEE WHAT CAPACITY IT HAS ON THE DOWNSTREAM. THOSE ARE UNIVERSAL AND THOSE REALTIME TYPICAL THINGS BEING LOOKED AT. WITH WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, THERE'S RETENTION PONDS UP STREAM AND THAT'S WHAT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT AND STATED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT DISCHARGING AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S SOMETHING

THAT'S LOOKED AT HIGH >> SO, IT WILL BE INCREASING THE FLOW OF WATER? THERE'S NO WAY YOU CANNOT.

>> IF YOU RETAIN IT, THE OPTION IS TO DETAIN IT AND HOLD IT BACK AND RELEASE IT OVER TIME. THE PROBLEM THAT YOU RUN INTO WHEN YOU HAVE OTHER DEVELOPMENT AND YOU'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BASIN, YOU'RE PEAKING AT THE SAME TIME WHICH BASICALLY IS WORSE THAN IF YOU WEREN'T ALLOWING THAT DEVELOPED FLOW.

>> THE THING IS THAT WE'RE ADDING TO THAT PROBLEM.

>>> TO GO BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENT EARLIER THAT WORKED FOR THE CORP OF ENGINEERS. THIS HAS BEEN AN IMMENSE CONCERN OF MINE. I WANTED US TO GO AS FAR AS TO KNOW TATE FOR OUR CITY WHERE WE HAVE KNOWN FLOODING ISSUES AND TO BE ABLE TO, ALLEVIATE THOSE PROBLEMS THROUGH DESIGN ADDITIONS TO DEVELOPMENT ON GOING WITHIN THE STAGE OF EVENTS. SO THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IT AS WE GO. AND WE CAN FIX THE PROBLEMS DOWNSTREAM THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF RETAINAGE OF THE PROBLEM OR BETTER FLOW SYSTEMS. WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS SEVERAL LEVELS DEEP. I'M CONCERNED, NUMBER ONE: THAT I BELIEVE I DON'T KNOW, JOE, YOU MIGHT CORRECT ME, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CAN LEGALLY DO WHAT I JUST ASKED TO DO, IN OTHER WORDS, WE SAY TO A DEVELOPER THAT WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A FLOODING PROBLEM, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS PIECE IT HAVE PROPERTY, BUT, WE HAVE A FLOODING PROBLEM AND WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO PUT IN A RETENTION BOND IN TO CORRECT THAT. I'M GETTING THE FEEL THAT WE LOOK AT EACH PROPERTY INDIVIDUALLY WITHIN THE CHECKER BOARD PROGRAM. AND WE'RE DEVELOPING ISSUES AND CLAIMING RETAINAGE OR TO LET LOOSE IN THAT PARTICULAR SWAT, AND WE DID IT ON THE SLOT BEFORE AND THE SLOT BEFORE AND THE SLOT DOWN THERE, AND, WE'RE CREATING THIS ADDITIONAL FLOODING THAT WE'RE ALL SCRATCHING OUR HEADS SAYING WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM. AND I BELIEVE, WE'RE, IN A WAY CREATING IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SYMPTOMATIC APPROACH TO CORRECTING IT WITHIN ONGOING DEVELOPMENT. AM I RIGHT OR WRONG?

>> SO, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE COUNCIL IS LOOK AT REGIONALIZATION. AND YOU'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT REGIONAL DETENTION. AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION IN THE PAST WITH COUNCIL THE ISSUE THAT WE GET INTO IT WHICH PART OF THE REGION

YOU'RE PUTTING IT ON. >> ARE WE NOT LOOKING AT PROPERTIES MORE FROM AN INDIVIDUAL FLOW CONCEPT VERSUS WITHIN A COMPREHENSIVE IDEA. IS THAT NOT PROBLEMATIC?

>> SO, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PREAND POST-DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT DELTA, RIGHT?

>> SO, LET'S GO BACK TO THE DRAWING, I BELIEVE IT'S SITE D, EXHIBIT D. WITH THE GREEN AND BROWN HOMES THAT LOOK THE SAME.

[01:20:01]

>> YES. >> SO...

>> THESE GARAGES, CAN THOSE GARAGES MOVE BACK? I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION. THIS GOES INTO A QUESTION FOR YOU, MIKE.

CAN THESE GARAGES, I'M ASSUMING THEY CAN FLOW TOWARDS THE BACK

FENCE? >> YOU MEAN PUSHED BACK?

>> CAN THEY? >> WHAT WE WOULD LOOK AT IS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES WELL, THERE'S A SETBACK BUT THERE'S ALSO A LIMITED AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT YOU COULD HAVE.

>> SO, HERE'S MY CONCERN, I GO BACK TO SUBDIVISIONS, I OWNED A FENCE INSTALLATION BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS. SO, I SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT COMING IN AND IT LOOKS GREAT AND WE GOT ALL OF THIS FLOOD TO STUDY BUT YOU GO BACK 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY'VE GOT A SWIMMING POOL AND A STORAGE BUILT AND YOU LOOK AT THAT AND YOU DON'T SEE THAT GREEN. IS THAT THE PERCENTILE

FIGURED IN THE DRAINAGE RUNOFF? >> YOU LOOK AT THE DEVELOPED FLOW, YOU LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL, YOU LOOK AT ABOUT A .5 C FACTOR.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY IN THE UNDEVELOPED STATE, IT WOULD BE A .3 OR THE .35, THAT'S THE DELTA THAT YOU LOOK AT, THAT'S THE RULE OF THUMB AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR REGULATIONS.

SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LEVEL OF C-5. WHICH IS WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE. BUT, IF YOU GO UP ON DEVELOPMENTS, IT SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE MORE IMPERVIOUS AREA, RIGHT, SO, THERE'S MORE RUNOFF, SO, THAT'S WHAT THAT VALUE IS SHOWING ON THE C FACTOR.

>> I FEEL LIKE I KNOW THAT THESE PROPERTIES HERE HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM BECAUSE OF OTHER BACKYARDS THAT I'VE BEEN IN THAT YOU WALK OUT THE BACK DOOR AND THERE'S CONCRETE BECAUSE THERE'S A SWIMMING POOL AND THE CONCRETE TO THE SWIMMING POOL GOES UP TO SO MANY FEET OF A BRICK FENCE AND TO THE RIGHT THERE'S A STORAGE BUILDING AND YOU LOOK AT THE BACKYARD AND IT'S LIKE, OH, IT TAKES THEM EIGHT MINUTES TO MOW THE BACKYARD. AND WE TALK IN THESE MEETINGS ABOUT HOW WE'VE DONE ALL THE CALCULATIONS AND STUDIES AND THE WATER'S GOING TO BE TAKEN IN, BUT, I JUST CAN'T BUY IT. AND I DON'T SEE A WAY TO RETAIN ALL OF THIS WATER. DOES THAT NOT CONCERN -- I MEAN, I'M, I'M, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GRASPING AS ED IS HOW THIS WORKS OUT WITHIN THE HYDRAULICS EQUATION AND DO ONE FOUR BLOCKS AWAY THE SAME WAY AND SAY, THIS IS GOING TO WORK OUT BECAUSE WE'RE RELEASING IT.

WE'VE OBVIOUSLY INCREASED IT, BUT, IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT.

WHAT KIND OF, WHAT POSITIVE WAY CAN I BE INFORMED THAT THIS IS GOING TO WORK OUT? HOW DO WE KNOW?

>> WELL, THAT'S ONE THING, YOU DON'T KNOW. AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IS BECAUSE DEPENDING UPON WHAT TYPE OF RAINFALL AND INTENSITY. THIS IS DESIGNED AND SIZED FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF STORM. QUICK EXAMPLE WE HAD THAT BIG RAINFALL IN 2018, THAT WAS BETWEEN A 3 AND 500 YEAR EVENT. NOBODY'S DESIGNING FOR A 300 TO A 500 YEAR EVENT. ON ROADS YOU'RE LOOKING BETWEEN 10 AND 25 YEARS. ON DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION, YOU'RE LOOKING UP TO 100 YEAR EVENT. AND IF IT GETS LARGER THAN THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT DESIGNING FOR IT. SO, THE POINT BEING IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET THE RAINFALLS AND INTENSITIES, IT MAY BE A FIVE YEAR STORM A 25 YEAR STORM OR A 50-YEAR STORM.

SO, YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT IT FROM THAT STAND POINT OF DESIGN.

BUT, AGAIN, THERE'S A TIMING INVOLVED WITH IT. THERE'S ALSO, AGAIN, A PERSON WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE STATE THAT HAS A SIGNED AND SEALED THAT SAYS I'M A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND I'M PUTTING MY LICENSE ON THE LINE WHEN I'M SIGNING MY NAME TO THIS DOCUMENT THAT SAYS I'VE CALCULATED THESE CONDITIONS AND BASED ON THAT, THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD

FUNCTION. >> SO, THAT FLOODPLAIN IS MARKED ON THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT AS A 100 YEAR

FLOODPLAIN? >> YES.

>> WAS IT BEFORE THE FLOODPLAIN.

>> WHAT I'M GETTING AT, WE'RE DUMPING A TON OF MORE WATER ON IT, BUT, YET, THE FLOODPLAIN HAS STAYED THE SAME AS BEFORE?

>> THE STUDY DONE MORE RECENTLY, IT WAS LOOKING AT THE

[01:25:02]

THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE BASIN TO ESTABLISH THE LIMITS OF THE

100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN. >> OKAY, I HAVE A HARD TIME

EATING THAT, BUT, I'LL ACCEPT IT >> WHEN YOU LOOK FOR APPROVAL, YOU MENTIONED THAT FLOW WILL BE INCREASED WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STAND AND THE STUDIES AND CALCULATIONS, THE INCREASE WOULD NOT BE TO A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO PROPERTIES, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> YOU COULD LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO ON-SITE DETENTION, WHAT YOU FOUND IS WHEN YOU HAVE ON-SITE DETENTION IN PLACES YOU END UP WITH A BIGGER PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE TWO AREAS PEAKING AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

YES, THIS FLOW IS INCREASING, BUT, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS WHAT IT IS DOING WITHIN THE CHANNEL THERE NOW. WHAT'S COMING, WHAT'S BEING DETAINED AND WHAT'S COMING HERE, 15, 20, 30, 40 MINUTES LATER THAN WHAT YOU SEE INITIALLY.

>> ARE YOU STATING THAT THE CALCULATIONS ARE TAKE BE INTO CONTEXT FOR THE CIVIL ENGINEER WHO IS IT THE STUDY FOR THIS EDITION, MIDTOWN'S EDITION AND EVERY SINGING ADDITION DOWNSTREAM PRESENTED A CALCULATION IN THERE THAT SAYS

THIS IS SAFE. >> NO. SO, LIKE, MIDTOWN, MIDTOWN HAS DETENTION PONDS THROUGHOUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU LOOK FURTHER TO THE SOUTH, INSTEAD OF THE DRAINAGE GOING HERE, IT'S GOING AROUND TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S STILL GETTING TO THE CHANNEL BUT IT'S GETTING THROUGH THE SITE, SO, THERE ARE AREAS DONE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. STILL GOING THROUGH THE SAME AREA BUT NOT RIGHT THROUGH THIS SPECIFIC AREA HERE. SO, ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE, THEY'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHAT THEIR IMPACT IN AND SO, WHEN THEY LOOK HERE, THEY HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S ACTUALLY IMPACTING THAT NOW AND WHAT THEY'RE ADDING TO, AND WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS ON IT.

>> BUT, ON THE TOTAL CALCULATION OF EVERYTHING, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WAXAHACHIE CREEK?

>> NO, THERE'S A CERTAIN POINT THEY SAY YOU GET ABOUT 10% OF

THAT. >> WELL, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

>> WELL, BECAUSE, THERE'S A CERTAINLY POINT WHERE THEY GET SO FAR DOWNSTREAM IT'S LIKE THE 10%. IF THAT'S THE WORK, THEN, WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS STUDY DOWN TO THE GULF.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR MARY.

THANK YOU, MIKE. MARY, I JUST WANT TO ASK THIS OF COUNCIL, I'VE ASKED THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS, 20-FOOT SETBACKS ON THE FRONTAGE DON'T WORK. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHY, THESE ARE THE NO 20S AS CLARK MENTIONED, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, I'M GOING TO MENTION IT. WHEN YOU OWN THAT TRUCK WITH THE RANCH HAND BUMPER, OR, IF YOU OWN A SUBURBAN, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU HOW I KNOW, THE NUMBERS OF LITTLE BABIES I'VE ALMOST RAN OVER WHILE DRIVING DOWN A NICE LITTLE STREET IN A NICE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S BECAUSE DADDY'S CREW CAB TRUCK AND HIS BALL ARE HANGING IN THE STREET OVER THE SIDEWALK BY A FOOT AND JUNIOR SWINGS THAT ON THE STREET WHILE I'M DRIVING DOWN THE

STREET. >> CAN I SAY SOMETHING.

>> THAT WAS A MINIMUM, AND, WE CAN CROSS THAT OUT.

>> I'M ONLY STATING, I NEED THIS COUNSEL'S HELP AS TO ADJUST THAT. THIS ISN'T YOUR FAULT, I'M BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE AT LEAST IT'S A SUBJECT MATTER THAT I CAN FINALLY ADDRESS EVERYBODY, PLEASE HELP ME GET THIS SETBACK RIGHT, I DON'T CARE IF WE'VE GOT TO STAGGER THE GARAGES, 20-FOOT SETBACKS DON'T WORK. AND THEY'RE IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND YOU GUYS ARE LIVING IN THAT BOX.

AND NOW, HERE'S MY NEXT QUESTION AS A FENCE MAN. DO WE HAVE

ANYMORE COMMON DRIVEWAYS? >> IN THE CITY, NO. IT'S NOT A

MIDLOTHIAN THING. >> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT MY CONCERN IS. THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT KEPT ME IN BUSINESS, SWIMMING POOLS, DOGS, AND MAD NEIGHBORS. ARE THESE COMMON DRIVEWAYS ABLE TO HAVE A FENCE PUT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THEM.

[01:30:02]

>> YEAH, THEY WOULD NEED TO WIDEN THEM.

>> BECAUSE, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS IS, AND I'VE BEEN IN SOME WEIRD SITUATIONS. WHERE SOMEBODY BROUGHT ME OVER AND SAID WE NEE THERE'S ONE RULE, YOU CAN'T TOUCH THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE I'M UNDER A PROTECTION ORDINANCE AND I CAN'T TOUCH THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'RE MAD AT EACH OTHER, SO, I CAN ENVISION FENCES GOING DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THESE SOONER OR LATER IN A BUYOUT OF IT.

>> I SHOWED YOU A PICTURE IF THEY WERE TO BE TOTALLY

SEPARATE. >> SO, THIS IS SET UP IN A WAY TO WHERE IF SOMEBODY GETS ANGRY AND WANT IT DOWN THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND PUT UP A FENCE, THEY CAN DO THAT?

>> IT'S THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF TRYING TO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. LIKE, IF THEY EACH HAD A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY, IT'S WIDER.

I MEAN, TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAY SUNSHINE WIDER THAN THE COMMON

SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT. >> BUT, WOULDN'T AN ALLEYWAY BE

LESS? >> NEW YORK CITY ACTUALLY, THE ALLEYWAY CREATED MORE CONCRETE. AND WE WENT THROUGH PROBABLY FIVE DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF TRYING, THE ALLEY DEFINITELY CREATES MORE CONCRETE. IT HAD TO LOOP AROUND, ALL THE WAY AROUND IS THAT AREA, IT LOOPED AROUND THAT AREA AND IT HAD TO HAVE A MID BREAK IN BETWEEN THE LONG BLOCK. IT CREATE ADD LOT

OF PAVEMENT. >> IF IT'S 50 FOODWIDE AND 100

FEET DEEP. >> IT'S NOT 100 FEET DEEP,

THAT'S A MINIMUM. >> IT'S 148 FOOT DEEP.

>> THOSE ARE MEN MUMS. SO, IF YOU LOOK AT, I THINK THAT I LISTED THE RANGE OF, UM, LOT SIZES, AND, 5,000 IS LIKE, THE, MINIMUM IT COULD BE AND THEN, UM, 9,000, HERE, I'LL FIND IT.

>> (INAUDIBLE) >>

>> NO, YOU'RE NOT CUTTING ME OFF.

>> YEAH, I CAN'T COMPARE IT TO THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE THEY WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. IT'S DIFFICULT TO COMPARE IT TO SOMETHING, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME TO SHOW YOU.

>> SO, ONE LAST QUICK QUESTION. ON THE SETBACK SPACE BETWEEN THE HOUSES, NOT ON THE DRIVE SIDE, IT'S THE VACANT SIDE, IT'S BETWEEN THE HOUSES. WHAT'S THE SETBACK OF THE HOUSE ON THE MINIMUMS, THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE HOUSE? BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER SITUATION THAT I'VE GOTTEN INTO WHERE LOTS ARE SO TINY AND THE HOUSE IS BIG ENOUGH TO WHERE THE AC UNIT IS LITERALLY SITTING ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> YEAH. SO, IT'S A FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK AND THAT WOULD BE A MINIMUM 10 FEET BETWEEN TWO RESIDENCES.

>> SO, IT'S A FIVE FOOT? >> YEAH.

>> YES. THAT'S WHAT OUR BUILDING CODES REQUIRE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ALLEN, DO YOU HAVE

SOMETHING? >> YEAH, I WANTED TO GET CLARITY FROM A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED EARLIER. SO, THE DELTA BETWEEN THE SF 4 AND THIS, I KNOW IT CAN'T BE, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE, BUT, I MEAN, IS THERE ANY ROUNDABOUTS OF HOW MANY MORE HOUSES AND ROOFTOPS WE'RE PUTTING ON THIS PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE WANT TO PROTECT YOUR DRAINAGE IF A DEVELOPER COMES BEFORE YOU AND SAYS THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THE FLOODPLAIN, 100% COMPLETELY AND ALL THE TREES WITHIN IT AND ALL THE VEGETATION, THAT IS A WONDERFUL THING DO IN TERMS OF DRAINAGE. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL FOR ANY SITUATION. A LOT OF, UM, DEVELOPERS COME IN AND DO A LOW AND THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO CLAIM MORE FLOODPLAIN AND THEY CAN IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS BUT, YEAH, THEY CAN CLAIM IT. AND HERE, YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT REALLY WANTS TO PRESERVE IT AND, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY FIX A PROBLEM THAT ISN'T THEIR MAKING. SO, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DRAINAGE MEMO THAT WE PROVIDED, UM, THERE'S A LOT

[01:35:05]

>> SO, IS IT STAFF'S OPINION THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HELP THE DRAINAGE ISSUE WITH THESE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE

SHARING CONCERNS? >> THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE WATER COMING BACK UP. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY HASN'T BEEN SAID CLEARLY IS THAT THIS PROPERTY IS DOWNSTREAM. SO, THEY CAN NOT PUSH WATER BACK UP STREAM. SO, YOU GUYS SKIP SAYING WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE PROBLEMS DOWNSTREAM, IT'S CONFUSING BUT, TO THE SOUTH IS UP STREAM. SO, THE PROPERTY'S GOING UP, WHERE THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE OTHER PROPERTY ARE LOCATED, THEY'RE ACTUALLY DRAINING ONTO THIS SIDE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. SO, THEY'RE TAKING THAT WATER ON.

>> SO, I GUESS I WAS CONFUSED, SO, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HELP THESE PEOPLE'S DRAINAGE ISSUES.

>> I'LL LET THE ENGINEER RESPOND TO THAT.

>> I MEAN, I'M NOT ASKING, LIKE, A GOTCHA, I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND. >> HE'S LEGALLY REQUIRED NOT TO INCREASE THE DOWNSTREAM RUNOFF. SO, HE CAN'T.

>> WE DO KNOW DIRECTLY ACROSS THE HOME THERE IS AN ELDER HOME THAT'S BEEN IN CONTINGENCY OVER THE YEARS IF THERE'S AN OLDER

HOME DOWN IN THAT DITCH, RIGHT? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THE

WEST SIDE OF 9TH STREET? >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY, IN THAT SAME DRAINAGE THAT YOU FOLLOWED ACROSS, THERE IS A HOME IN THAT DITCH.

>> OH. >> THERE ARE OTHER HOMES DOWN THAT LITTLE TRAIL THAT THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT.

>> I WANT TO LET ALLEN FINISH HIS LINE OF QUESTIONING AND GET TO CODY, HE'S HAD HIS HAND UP FOR AWHILE.

>> SO, I THINK MY QUESTIONS ARE DONE, MY COMMENTS ARE MORE FOR COUNCIL, I MEAN, I'VE BEEN HERE THE SHORTEST AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT, ONE THING THAT I'M STARTING TO REALIZE NOT JUST PARTICULAR TO THIS SITUATION, BUT, A LOT OF THESE THAT WE LOOK AT IS WHAT WE SEE ON PAPER, OFTEN TIMES SEEMS LIKE IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD AND IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT THING AND THEN WHEN YOU GET OUT ON THE STREET AND YOU TALK TO FOLKS AND LOOK AT REALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING, IT SEEMS DOESN'T PAN OUT THE WAY IT'S ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO. AND SO, MY OPINION IS, IF THERE'S A CHANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER, UM, IF WE'VE ALREADY GOT A DRAINAGE ISSUE WHICH I THINK THAT'S CLEAR BASED ON THE VIDEO, IF THERE'S ANY CHANCE, EVEN IF IT'S MINIMAL THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ANY FURTHER AFFECT OF, A NEGATIVE OUTCOME, I MEAN, WE'RE ABOUT TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLAR TOSS FIX A DRAINAGE PROBLEM FROM DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN, AND IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE'RE KIND OF RUNNING IN CIRCLES. SO, THAT'S MY OPINION. AND I APPRECIATE YOU

ANSWERING ALL OF MY QUESTIONS. >> CHAIR: WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN

A MOTION, MAYOR? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS IN THEIR QUESTIONS.

>> JUST QUICKLY, YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB ANSWERING ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS AND I'LL MOVE QUICKLY. IN MIDTOWN IS A 10 FOOT SETBACK

FROM THE FRONT IS THAT NORMAL? >> FOR MIDTOWN?

>> YEAH. RIGHT BELOW IN MIDTOWN.

>> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT ALL THE SETBACKS ARE FOR MIDTOWN, IF YOU LOOKED AT AN AERIAL, THEY'RE SMALL LOTS AND THEY HAVE PRETTY SHORT SETBACKS, BUT, I DON'T KNOW OFF

THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> OKAY. WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT DRAINAGE ON THE FRONTAGE AREA, BUT, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE ADDRESSED THE DRAINAGE ON THE FRONTAGE HOUSES. ARE WE SAYING THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED DOWN THERE?

>> THE WATER FLOWS FROM THAT SITE TO THIS SITE.

>> WHAT SITE TO WHAT SITE? >> FROM MIDTOWN TO THIS SITE.

IT'S UPHILL. SO, IT FLOWS IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> SO, THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE UPSTREAM AND

DOWNSTREAM. >> MIKE'S STANDING BEHIND YOU.

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PASS WHATEVER'S COMING TO THEM. RIGHT NOW, IT COMES, THEY DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY HERE BUT THAT DRAINS BACK DOWN TO THIS PROPERTY AND DRAINS IT AND GOES TO THIS PROPERTY. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BASICALLY CONVEY EN ROUTE WHATEVER IS TO

[01:40:02]

THAT CREEK. >> SO, ANY FENCE, EVEN IF IT WERE JUST A BOARD ON BOARD CEDAR FENCE WOULD BLACK FLOW.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE LOT

REQUIREMENT IS ON SF-4. >> 15,000.

>> 15,000. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, WHAT THAT MAP LEADS UP TO, BECAUSE, THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED

EARLIER. >> IS THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE 70

OR 80 FOOT ON SF-4 NOW? >> THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 100, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

>> THERE'S NO WAY TO RUN THAT MATT, BASED OFF OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT CAME OUT TO 11.21, IF YOU TAKE THE NET USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND DIVIDE IT OUT BY THE LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT

DOESN'T TAKE AWAY LOT USAGE. >> IT ALLOWS A 3.0 DWELLING UNIT

PER ACRE AVERAGE. >> 3.3. WE'RE AT 3.3.

>> OKAY. >> I'VE OFTEN WONDERED WHAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN THIS TEXT OF TOWN GIVEN THAT IT'S A VACANT LOT AND IT'S ALL DEVELOPED AROUND IT. I THINK YOU'RE SOMEWHAT LIMITED ON WHAT YOU CAN DO THERE, AND THAT SAID, I PERSONALLY ALSO HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE DRIVEWAYS ALTHOUGH I KNOW THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD ADJUST THAT PLAN AND MAYBE SOME OF THE DENSITY ISSUES, AND SOME OF THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S A LOT TO STILL BE DISCUSSED. AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE FAME PRODUCT BUT THERE'S A DISCUSSION OF THE DECELERATION LANE LANE, THE PARK PLAN ISN'T DONE AND MIKE SAID THEY WERE LOOKING INTO THE ENGINEERING TO THE WATER FLOW ON OUR SIDE. THERE'S QUITE A FEW UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. SO, I'M NOT AGAINST A DEVELOPMENT THERE. I'M NOT AGAINST EVEN A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT THERE, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT

THIS IS THE ANSWER. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WRAP INTO MIDTOWN.

>> CHAIR: FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE GOING TO THE MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AS PRESENTED.

>> CHAIR: I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY MR. HARTSON.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: SECOND BY MR. MOORMAN, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION TO DENY? PLACE

YOUR VOTES. >> MOTION TO DENY CARRIES, 7-0.

[2023-465]

>>> ITEM 2023-465, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 28, TO CHANGE THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF ZION ROAD AND 1500 FEET EAST OF

SUDITH LANE. COLBY? >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. WE BEGIN OUR NEXT CASE FOR THE EVENING IS GOING TO BE FOR AGENDA ITEM 2023-465 AND THIS IS IN RELATION TO CASE NUMBER Z 27-2023-085 AND IN THE A PROPOSED REQUEST TO PD 28, SPECIFICALLY. SO, THE TOTAL SITE IS 55.5 ACRES. THE LAND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED HOWEVER WE WANT TO NOTE THAT ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO, AGAIN, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS, GARAGE STANDARDS AS WELL AS LOT WIDTH STANDARDS WITHIN THE PD. THETUTE FUR LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS MODULE AS WELL. TO THE NORTH AND WEST IS AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ALONG THE NORTH SIDE. TO THE SOUTH OF SUMMER CREST AND TO THE EAST

[01:45:04]

[01:50:03]

WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT WE HAD A STAFF ANALYSIS SECTION WHICH TOUCHED ON ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING STANDARDS FOR THE LOT TYPES, LOT WIDTHS, AND SETBACK STANDARDS TO CHANGE, WE BELIEVE THAT IT STILL MEETS THE INTENT OF THE PD AS WELL AS MEET THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS WITH SUMMERCREST AND SPRING CREEK.

>> SO, TODAY, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PDZ VOTED 4-0, STAFF QUESTIONS APPROVAL AS

PRESENTED. >> CHAIR: ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CASE THAT'S NOT THE APPLICANT?

>> HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I'LL HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE VOTE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

AND IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OR JUST STAND FOR QUESTIONING, COMPLETELY UP TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, AND COUNCIL, I'M TOD WINTERS WITH PC ENGINEERING. BASICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE IS THIS IS THE FOURTH RENDITION OF THIS PD OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS OR SO. THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED, I'M SURE THAT YOU'VE BEEN BY THERE, STREET ARE IN. SIDEWALKS ARE POURED, AND THE FRANCHISE IS NOW FINISHED. AND WHEN WE TOOK THIS PLAT AND BROUGHT IT DOWN, WE REALIZED THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP. WE'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION TO THE SIDE YARD AND IF YOU LOOK AT THESE, THESE ARE BIG LOTS. I LOVE TO STAND UP IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS WHEN I HAVE 20,000 SQUIRE FEET OF LOTS. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, WE HAVE A 70-FOOT LOT WITH A 15-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, WHICH LEAVE AS 40-FOOT PATH. WE HAVE A HUGE LOT WHERE WE CAN ONLY PUT A 40-FOOT PAD ON THERE. YOU CAN'T BUILD AN $800,000 HOUSE ON A 40-FOOT PAD. IT ALLOWS US TO REDUCE IT SLIGHTLY IT IS TO PUT THE J-SWINGS. SO, THE HOUSE WILL MOVE OVER AND ALLOWS FOR THE J-SWING. THE MAJORITY OF THESE BUILDERS BUILD A J-SWING ON THE UPHILL SIDE. EVEN THOUGH THE HOUSE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. SO, UM, IN MY OPINION, WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE NEVER -- COULD YOU GO BACK TO WHERE IT

SHOWS THE (INAUDIBLE)? >> THE TYPE C LOTS ARE AN ISSUE HERE BECAUSE IF YOU SEE WHERE THEY ARE, AND, PART OF THE CONFUSION, ONE OF THE REASONS WHERE THEY'VE THE ONE STATEMENT IN THERE ABOUT CHANGING A TYPE B OR A TYPE C LOT FOR THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS BECAUSE IN THIS PD, THE LOTS WERE DEFINED TWO DIFFERENT WAYS, ONE WAY IS BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT AND THE OTHER'S DEFINED BY THE WIDTH. AND SO, THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT UP THIS CONFUSION. THIS IS TO CLEAN THIS UP. THE FIRST, WHEN YOU COME INTO THE MAIN DRIVE THERE, THOSE FIRST FIVE LOTS, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY ALY SERVED. THEY'RE ONLY 82-FEET WIDE. AND THE MINIMUM OF THAT CATEGORY IS 85. SO, THAT'S WHERE THERE'S CONFUSION, BECAUSE, IT'S DEFINED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. THE YELLOW ONES THAT YOU SEE THERE, SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A TYPE C LOT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THESE CORNERS AND BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO, THE C-LOT HAD A 50-FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND AS YOU COULD SEE THEY'RE ADJACENT AND THEY HAVE SETBACKS ON EITHER SIDE. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO HAVE LOTS SET WAY BACK FROM THE OTHER ONES. THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL, IT HELPS US BUILD A BETTER PRODUCT. THE REASON WE ASKED FOR THE 30% INSTEAD OF THE 25. THE PREVIOUS THREE PDS, ALL HAD 35%. THIS FOURTH ONE GOT MOVED TO 25, I BELIEVE. THE REASON WE ASKED FOR 30 IS BECAUSE WE HAVE 36 TYPE A LOTS AND THE ONES THAT YOU IN THE ORANGE IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER, NONE OF THESE EXCEPT MAYBE THE ONE IN THE FRONT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND THOSE ARE WHAT WE FEEL LIKE WILL BE THE FRONTAGE.

DO YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR?

[01:55:02]

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT GARAGES. >> SO, AS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, IT IS 20-FOOT. IT HAS BEEN 20 FOOT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FOUR

RENDITIONS OF THE PD. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> SO, WE WOULD AGREE TO SET THAT BACK TO 25-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE GARAGES ON THE FRONTAGE, WHICH WILL STILL ALLOW. SO, IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THEIR FLOOR PLAN WHERE THEY COULD SET THAT BACK, THEY COULD, THEY HAVE THAT OPTION. THE PADS ARE BUILT ALREADY, RIGHT? SO, IF I START TO SHOW EVERYTHING BACK, I'M RUNNING OUT OF ROOM IN THE BACK, SO, IF I COULD JUST MOVE THE GARAGE BACK, WE WOULD BE WILLING TO GO TO A 25-FOOT SETBACK ON

THAT. >> SO, COUNCIL WILL KNOW THE

GENTLEMEN'S STANCE ON THAT. >> I WAS ON COUNCIL WHEN THIS LAST RENDITION WAS DONE AND I BELIEVE WE WENT THROUGH SOME SUBDIVISION WHERE WE DID ZERO PROJECTS. WE REALIZED WE WERE INUNDATED WITH THEM AND WE WERE INUNDATED WITH 20-FOOT SETBACK GARAGES. AND WE DECIDED THAT WE HAVE SO MANY OF THEM THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DRIVE DOWN THE STREET LOOKING INTO EVERYBODY'S GARAGE. AND WE ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO DRIVE DOWN THE STREET WITH ELEVATED HOMES THE WAY THEY'RE BACKED UP WITH KIDS RIDING THEIR THREE-WHEELER AND SHOOTING INTO THE STREET. WE ALSO DECIDED THAT WE WANT BIGGER LOTS. AND THAT CAUSED A 70-FOOT LOT WIDTH MINIMUM. AND SO, IN OUR VIEWPOINT, THAT WOULD PLACE A FORCE OF A LITTLE MORE SEPARATION. AND I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL, BY THE WAY, I LIKE, ACTUALLY, THE J-SWING WITH THE STAGGERED FRONTAGE GARAGE IN THE BACK. I THINK THAT'S GREAT. IT'S FAR ENOUGH BACK THAT IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL. THIS IS A SMALL NUMBER. I JUST WANT TO WARN COUNCIL, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THESE 35% ALLOWANCES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVE NO LITTLE 3 YEARS-OLD. IS THAT

RIGHT, JOE? >> PLEAD THE FIFTH.

>> SO, I WOULD WARN COUNCIL WE HAVE A TON OF FRONT ENTRY GARAGES OUT THERE. YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS SETBACK,

THOUGH. >> OKAY.

>> MAKE SURE THAT'S IN THE MOTION.

>> . >> CHAIR: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? SGH I JUST, UM, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT I MAYBE READING IT WRONG, I UNDERSTAND ALL THE SETBACKS THAT YOU'RE ASKING IT FOR, AM I READING IT CORRECTLY THAT THE TYPE B LOTS WILL BE SMALLER THOUGH, BECAUSE THE

WIDTH IS SHAPING? >> SO, WHEN YOU SAY SMALLER, THEY'RE BASICALLY DEFINED BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THEY ALL FIT WITHIN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE'RE ASKING FOR THOSE, I BELIEVE IT WAS THOSE FIVE AND A COUPLE TWO IN THE MIDDLE THAT JUST DIDN'T MEET THE 85-FOOT WIDTH. SO, A TYPE B LOT WAS DESIGNED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE PD, ONE WAS FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE WHICH WAS 10,000 TO 20,000. THE ISSUE IS, WHEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS DONE, THOSE SIX THAT YOU SEE THERE, I'M SORRY, SEVEN, EIGHT, DID NOT MEET THAT. AND, SO, THIS IS WE'RE BASICALLY JUST COMING BACK AND SAYING, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE THESE BY SQUARE FOOTAGE. BUT, THEY'RE NOT ANY SMALLER, THEY STILL MEET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT, BUT, BECAUSE THESE ARE BUILT AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WHICH WAS APPROVED. THOSE JUST DID NOT MEET THE WIDTH OF THE

DEFINITION. >> SO, THE LOT WIDTHS ARE GETTING SMALLER, BUT, THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NOT

CHANGED IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT'S THE DIFSHS. >> YES. THE FRONTAGE.

>> THE LOT WIDTH IS REDUCED. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BUT, NOT THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS.

>> I GUESS IT IS REDUCED BUT IT'S STILL WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PER THE DESTINATION OF THAT TIMELINE.

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS I KNOW THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THIS PROPERTY AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. FROM WHERE I'M COMING FROM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS 13 YEAR FROM THAT BALLPARK SINCE THIS ORIGINAL PD WAS APPROVED. AND YOU'VE HAD HOW MANY REVISIONS? THREE

[02:00:03]

THAT'S MY POINT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT, I MEAN, THIS DEFINITELY MEETS THE INTENT. WE'RE NOT COMING IN HERE ASKING FOR SMALLER LOTS OR MORE LOTS, I

MEAN -- >> THIS WAS NOT A QUESTION. IT WAS A STATEMENT I WAS MAKING. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NARROWER LOTS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LARGER PATH SIZE THAT PUTS THE ROOF TOPS CLOSER TOGETHER. AND, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S MORE CROWDING AND IT IS A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.

AND, SO, THAT'S WHAT I'M TAKING OFFENSE TO.

>> I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE, I DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE I WAS MISLEAD. THE WIDTH ON THE PURPOSE LOTS IS GETTING SMALLER. IT'S STAYING WITHIN THE RANGE TO BE ABLE TO SAY IT CAN BE PURPLE, BUT, IT IS GETTING SMALLER. AND THE HOUSE

ARE GETTING BIGGER. >> SO, WHAT YOU SAY, GETTING SMALLER, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO REDUCE IT.

WE'RE ASKING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY WERE BUILT. THAT'S HOW THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WAS PRESENTED AND HOW IT WAS APPROVED. I WAS NOT THE ENGINEER WHEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WAS.

BUT, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED, APPROVED AND BUILT.

SO, WE'RE JUST HERE TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE DOING, WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS CORRECT. AND, SO, WE'RE CHANGING THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEET IT IS. SO, YOU COULD SEE THOSE LOTS ARE 80.75 TO 82.33. SO, THEY'RE THIS FAR FROM BEING FROM 85, RIGHT? SO, THEY'RE NOT 85-FOOT WIDE, ONE OF THEM IS 80.75 AND ONE OF THEM IS 82. IT'S A FEW FEET NARROWER.

IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE SAME HOUSE. BUT, THOSE FIVE HOUSE ARE BASICALLY BRINGING THIS TO A REAR IT'S RIGHT THERE.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT WILL BE THE SAME HOUSE, BECAUSE, WITH THE SETBACKS, YOU STATED THESE ARE ALL LARGER HOMES?

>> SO, BASICALLY THESE ARE ALL PLACED ON AN 80-FOOT WIDTH WITH THE SET BACKS, SO, THE PAD'S GOING TO BE THE SAME. AND, WITH THE REAR ENTRY, THEY WILL BE AT THE FRONT, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL BE AT THE 20-FOOT BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE A GARAGE ON THE FRONT.

SO, THAT WILL GIVE THEM MORE ROOM ON THE BACK. DOES THAT

MAKE SENSE? >> DO YOU HAVE MORE, UM, IS IT THE SAME NUMBER OF LOTS AS YOUR LAST PD?

>> IT IS. IT IS THE SAME EXACT NUMBER OF LOTS WHICH WAS APPROVED AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT LEVEL FOR THE PD. SAME LOT COUNT, SAME BREAKDOWN, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE SOME TYPE B LOTS TYPE A LOTS, I MEAN, THIS HAS THE SAME BREAKDOWN. WE'RE JUST

CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER, ANNA, BUT, I KNOW THAT WE DID A STUDY ON THIS BACK IN '2012 OR '14 AND HE STARTED A NEW TARGET OF 80 IS WHERE WE WANTED TO BE BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT DEVELOPERS ALSO, AND I KNOW THAT Y'ALL LIKED, WHEN THEY GET TO THE 80-FOOT MARK, IT STARTS TO SURPASS IT AND IT STARTS MAKING THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS GET VERY EXPENSIVE. THE EXPENSES NOW ARE 65 TO 75, IF IT'S 80 OR ABOVE, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. I DO WATCH THE FRONT ENTRIES AND I THINK THAT YOU MENTIONED THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT, IT WAS GOING TO BE MY LAST QUICK QUESTION. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DENSITY RATIO IS ON THIS. PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT? DO WE KNOW IF IT'S A 2.75? 3.0? DO WE KNOW?

>> 2.06. >> THAT'S WAY DOWN THERE.

>> THESE ARE LARGE LOTS. THERE'S NO LOT.

>> I WOULD SAY IT'S AVERAGING 2.7.

[02:05:06]

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS COUNCIL?

>> I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR YOU, I MEAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU BUILT SOME OF THESE THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT AND NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE THE PD TO ALLOW FOR THE NON-CONFORMING BUILDOUTS?

>> YES. THE LOTS IN QUESTION, THAT IS CORRECT. THEY'RE BUILT AT 82-80 FEET WIDE. SO, THEY MEET THE DEFINITION AS DEFINED AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT, NOT BY THE WIDTH. THOSE LOTS.

>> IT'S EIGHT OR 80? >> EIGHT.

>> SO, THEY'RE STILL OVER 80-FEET WIDE.

>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND AN ASK THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED. BASICALLY, SOMEBODY MADE A MISTAKE, AND BUILT OUT OF COMPLIANCE, AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT CHANGING THE PD IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY ABSOLVE YOU HAVE THAT MISTAKE.

>> THE THING I CAN SAY IS, AND I COULD BE WRONG, I WILL THINK, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES TO WHERE IT CAME TO US WITH A LOT OF FRONT ENTRIES. AND WE SAID NO, YOU'RE GOING TO DO J-SWINGS. AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE COULD DO THAT. I'M ALMOST POSITIVE, AND, I THINK THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD, AND THEY FOUND OUT ALL OF THESE LOTS THEY'VE ONLY GOT ABOUT (INDISCERNIBLE) AND REALISTICALLY, WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS LITERALLY THREE TO FOUR FEET IN WHICH HAD WIDTH. IN MOST OF THE LOTS IN TOWN, THERE ARE 65.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND I GUESS, LEGAL. WHAT HAPPENS IN THE EVENT THAT WE DON'T APPROVE THIS WITH

NON-CONFORMING CONSTRUCTION? >> THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD

THEM. >> HE SAID THEY'VE BEEN BUILT,

THE PADS ARE ALREADY DOWN. >> THEY WILL NOT GET BUILDING PERMITS. SO, THERE'S NOT CONCRETE ON THE GROUND?

>> THE STREET ARE POURED. THE STREETS ARE POURED, THE LOTS ARE GRADED OUT, THERE'S NO CONCRETE PADS ON THEM.

>> OKAY. FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'LL HAVE A MOTION.

>>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO

DENY. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIR: WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION, FURTHER

DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? >> PLAYS YOUR VOTES.

>> CHAIR: MOTION TO DENY FAILS BECAUSE IT IS A TIE, SO,

IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE

MOTION -- . (INAUDIBLE) >> I GUESS I WOULD TO HEAR MORE DISCUSSION BECAUSE I'M LEFT A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED RIGHT NOW.

>> CHAIR: OKAY. STAFF, OR THE APPLICANT.

>> AND I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE THIS. BUT, THESE. THE EIGHT LOTS WITH THE BLUE DOT DON'T MEET THE WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF 85-FEET. SO, THEY'RE ASKING THAT THAT BE LOWERED TO 80, TO MAKE THOSE EIGHT LOTS COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AND THEN, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S ALSO THE ALL THE SETBACK CHANGES WHICH WERE LISTED. BUT, THESE EIGHT LOTS AND COLBY, I DON'T KNOW IF ON THE RED DOT ONE, THAT'S JUST REDUCING THAT ONE. BECAUSE,

IT'S ON A CUL DE SAC, I ASSUME. >> THAT'S THE ONLY ONE BETWEEN

THE TYPE C. >> SO, IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE EIGHT LOTS IN BLUE BEING REDUCED FROM 85 TO 80 AND THEN THE CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS. >

>> 80 TO 82. >> WELL, THE STANDARD IS 85, SO, THERE'S ONE 85 TO 80 TO BRING THESE BACK INTO

COMPLIANCE. >> SO, THE ARROW TO GET US TO THE BLUE DOTS, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?

>> THE GARAGES WAS A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE.

>> SO, HOW DID WE GET HERE? >> WE GOT HERE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO FIX A LAYOUT OF A PLAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO FIT WITH

PADS ON THE GROUND. (INAUDIBLE) >> IT'S A VALUE PROCESS.

[02:10:03]

>> IT'S A DESIGN STANDARDS PROBLEM.

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION

ANSWERED? >> I'LL TRY AGAIN. (INAUDIBLE)

>> YES, SO, IN THE CASE OF A TIED VOTE. THE MOTION FAILS AND IF WE REACH A STALEMATE, WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE STEPS WITH THAT. WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED AND CORRECT ME, JOE, IF I NEED TO BE, APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CLAIMED EXTRA 5-FOOT SETBACK ON THE FRONTAGE OR GARAGES TAKING THEM TO A 25-FOOT SETBACK. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM MR. RODGERS, DO WE HAVE A

SECOND. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> AND, UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT?

>> PLEASE VOTE? >> CHAIR: AND AGAIN WE HAVE A 3-3 TIE SO THE MOTION FAILS. COUNCIL, IT'S AT OUR PREROGATIVE

IF WE WANT TO TABLE THIS. >> I HAVE A SUGGESTION, AT LEAST FOR, OR, MAYBE A QUESTION UM, ON THESE TYPE C, WHICH, I KNOW THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF THEM, WHERE WE'RE GOING ON THE, UM, WE'RE GOING FROM 50 TO 30 ON THE YARD AND THEN ON THE I'M LOOKING AT THE SCREEN ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE PACKET, WHERE WE'RE GOING FROM 50 TO 30 AND THEN 25 TO 20. CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, UM, WHAT THE PURPOSE BEHIND THAT IS AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE ACTUAL PRODUCT WILL BE. SO

>> SURE, THIS IS GOING INTO RELATION TO THE TYPES OF HOMES THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, TRY TO GO MAXIMIZE THAT. IN RELATION TO THE SPECIFICALLY TO THE TYPE B AND TYPE C LOTS WHERE THAT ONE IS REDUCED FROM 50 FEET TO 30 FEET, THAT IS TRYING TO CREATE A CONSISTENCY WITH THE TYPE B LOTS. AGAIN, THERE'S ONLY FOUR TYPE C LOTS THAT ONLY MAKE UP 3.5% OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO, TO ALLOW MORE OF A CONSISTENCY THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE 20-FOOT DROPPOFF. BUT, THE OTHER ONES ARE MORE SO IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOMES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD.

>> OKAY. THANKS. >> UM, DID THAT INFORMATION

CHANGE ANY PERSPECTIVES? >> NO. OKAY.

>> I THINK WE'RE AT A STALEMATE WITH THIS. I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR US TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING WHICH I BELIEVE IS DECEMBER 12TH, DOES THAT REQUIRE A MOTION?

>> YES. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> (INAUDIBLE) >>

. >> CHAIR: I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO REOPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE DECEMBER 12TH MEETING.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?

>> PLEASE VOTE. >> CHAIR: AND IT DOES PASS 5-1. SO, THIS ITEM WILL BE MOVED TO THE DECEMBER 12TH

MEETING. >> OKAY.

[2023-466]

>>> OPENING ITEM IN THE REGULAR AGENDA, 2023-466 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR A DAY THERE WILL CARE DEVELOPMENT ON ONE.30 ACRES OUT OF THE MARCELLUST HAWK KINS SURVEY. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 14TH STREET AND HAWK KINS RUN.

>> COBY? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND

COUNCIL. >> AGAIN, OUR LAST CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM 466 IN RELATION TO SP 05 HIGH PRESSUREN 2023-83 WHICH IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR A PROPOSED DAYCARE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A SITE PLAN REQUEST.

THE LAND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. AND THIS IS WITHIN

[02:15:06]

IN COMPARISON TO OUR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 81 AND COMMUNITY RETAIL STANDARD. SO, THE FAR LEFT-HAND SIDE FACES THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THE SECOND COLUMN DEPICTS WHAT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN REQUIRES AND THE THIRD COLUMN SHOWS WHAT THE DAYCARE IS PROPOSING IN THE FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN AND SHOWS WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE STANDARDS. AS YOU SEE IN THE FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE STANDARDS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PARKING. PART OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE THE PARKING FOR A DAY CARE DEVELOPMENT IS ONE SPACE PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MINIMUM OF 25 SPACES BEING REQUIRED WITH THE MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED 32 SPACES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 26 SPACES AND THEIR REASONING IS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT IS THE NEEDED NUMBER TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE DAYCARE DEVELOPMENT WHEN ACCOMMODATING ALL STAFF MEMBERS. WE'LL TOUCH ON THAT AS WELL WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT IS NOT MEETING THAT STANDARD. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING FORT SITE. AND THE NEXT TWO SLIDES DEPICT THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE PLAN. IT'S ONE STORY, 26-FEET TALL WITH STUCCO BEING THE PRIMARY MATERIAL WITH STONE ON THE BOTTOMFUL BUILDING. WE MENTIONED THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS, ONE FOR PARKING AND WITH THE PARKING RATIO BEING ONE SPACE PER 400 SQUARE FEET FOR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, THAT'S A MINIMUM OF 25 SPACES NOT TO EXCEED 32, THEY'RE REQUESTING 36 THAT'S A VARIANCE OF 4 SPACES THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR THE APPLICANT. DRIVEWAY SEPARATION. PER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SITE, THEY'RE NOT TO HAVE, UM, ANY LESS THAN 330 FEET IN DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS. THE APPLICANT FOR THIS SITE IS REQUESTING 247 FEET BETWEEN VAGUS OF DRIVEWAYS ON THAT SITE.

WE WANT TO NOTE THAT WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT WHITE HOUSE ONE OF THOSE DRIVES IS ON ONLY RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT. HOWEVER WE WANTED TO NOTE THAT'S A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT AS WELL. AT THE OCTOBER 17TH, PNZ MEETING. PNZ VOTED 6-0 FOR APPROVAL PER STAFF COMMENTS. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

>> CHAIR: THANK YOU. ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? HEARING NO PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKES A PRESENTATION OR JUST STAND FOR QUESTIONING, IF THEY'RE HERE. YOU'RE WELCOMED TO SPEAK ON THE

CASE. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> CHAIR: COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF MR. SMITH, YOU SAID?

>> YES. >> CHAIR: OR, OF STAFF?

>> I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION AND COLBY CAN PROBABLY ANSWER IT. I NO HE THAT IN THAT AREA THEY'RE GOING A CURB CUT IN ORDER TO CREATE TURN LANES THERE, CURRENTLY, IS THIS DIRECTLY IN

FRONT OF THIS PROPOSED FACILITY? >> SO, HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, IN RELATION TO WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO, ARE YOU, WHAT'S, THEY ARE CURRENTLY, THEY'RE CURRENTLY CUTTING SOMETHING ALONG HERE SOMEWHERE.

>> YES. >> I'M CURIOUS IF THAT LINES UP FOR THE INGRESS, EGRESS FOR THIS FACILITY?

>> I THINK SO, YEAH. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIR: COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. HEARING NONE.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I'M SORRY, QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? >> OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF

[02:20:04]

THEY WANT TO HAVE 36? >> YES, SIR.

>> HOW MANY STAFF TO YOU FORESEE BEING ON SITE AT ANY ONE

TIME? >> WHAT IS THE STAFFING?

>> SO, THEY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 200 STUDENTS MAXIMUM PROPOSED.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THEY WILL START WITH THAT, BUT, 30 FACULTY MEMBERS, AND WHAT WE WERE INFORMED THAT IT WOULDN'T BE 30

AT ONE TIME. >> 30 STAFFERS?

>> YES. 30 FACULTY MEMBERS TO HELP ACCOMMODATE THOSE STUDENTS, I WAS INFORMED THAT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY ALL AT ONCE, BUT,

THROUGHOUT THE DAY. >> HOW WOULD THEY BE PICKED UP? WHERE WOULD THE -- WHERE WOULD THE PARKING BE, THEN?

>> RIGHT, SO, THEY HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT AS WELL AS IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEY HAVE AS YOU COME IN HERE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, A WRAP AROUND LANE AND I BELIEVE IT'S PICK UP

AND DROPPOFF AROUND THAT AREA. >> AND IT'S MAINLY DONE THROUGH

THE WRAP AROUND LANE? >> CORRECT.

>> SO, YOU DON'T FORESEE A GREAT NUMBER OF PARENTS HAVING TO

INITIALLY PARK AT ONE TIME? >> MOSTLY, THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE JUST THE FOUR EXTRA PARKING SPOTS JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE 38 STAFF AND THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON SITE ALL THE A

ONCE. >> HOW LONG IS THE QUEUE FOR THIS, AND IF THE QUEUE BACKS UP, DOES IT NOT GO ON TO THE

HIGHWAY? >> NO, SO, RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE AN APPROVED TIA THAT APPROVED THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY (INDISCERNIBLE) GOING BACK TO THE HIGHWAY.

>>> SORRY, HOW DOES IT PREVENT THAT?

>> IF THERE'S 30 CARS THAT COME IN WITHIN A SHORT WINDOW OF TIME, THOSE CARS GO OUT TO WHERE ONCE IT'S OFF OF YOUR PROPERTY?

>> THEY WOULD BE GOING EITHER TO, I'M SORRY, TO THE WEST.

>> SO, AM I TO ASSUME THERE'S A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH THE

OTHER PARCEL THERE? >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> CHAIR: ALLEN, QUESTION?

>> IS THERE, ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, IS THERE ANY PARKING AVAILABLE ON THAT -- I MEAN, MY KIDS, WHEN THEY WERE IN PRE-SCHOOL DAYS, YOU KNOW, DAYCARE, THEY ALWAYS HAD PARTIES, YOU KNOW, HALLOWEEN, THEY WOULD HAVE A PARTY, ALL THE PARENTS COME, CHRISTMAS, PARTY, ALL THE PARENTS COME. PLUS, YOU HAVE ALL THE STAFF. SO, NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY WANTING TO PARK. WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO DO THAT? HOW IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN? WHAT'S THAT OVERFLOW SITUATION

LOOK LIKE, THAT'S ALL? >> I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THESE PARKING

SPACES HERE. >> DO YOU ALL HAVE OCCASIONS

WHERE ALL THE PARENT THE COME? >> I'M NOT SURE, I WOULD HAVE

TO ASK THE ACTUAL CLIENT. >> I GUESS FOR CLARIFICATIONS, HE'S WITH THE ENGINEERING COMPANY NOT THE ACTUAL DAYCARE.

>> SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO ASK YOU THAT, I JUST, UM, I MEAN, DID STAFF LOOK AT THE CROSS ACCESS? WHAT IS NEXT DOOR?

>> SO, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST THING GOING INTO THE SITE RIGHT NOW. SO, IT IS UNDEVELOPED AS YOU GO EAST TO THE PROPERTY, WE DO EXPECT IT TO DEVELOP, IT WILL COME IN YEARS IF YOU WILL, RIGHT NOW, THIS IS THE FIRST THING THAT'S GOING, ON THAT ACTUAL

SITE. >> IS THAT OWNED BY THE SAME

PEOPLE? >> YES, SIR.

>> SO, THEY COULD PUT IN PARKING THERE FOR THEIR?

>> I MEAN IT'S. (INAUDIBLE) >> THIS IS A DETAILED SITE

PLAN. >> IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CURRENT QUESTIONS. DOES IT MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS?

>> I WASN'T HERE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS, I'M SORRY.

>> OH, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I MADE THAT COMMENT.

>> SO, HOW MANY CARS CAN FIT INTO THIS QUEUE TO DROPPOFF?

>> I'M NOT SURE OF THE EXACT NUMBER, WE KNOW AT LEAST SIX CAN STACK HERE FROM THIS PORTION HERE TO THE BACK. WE KNOW AT

[02:25:01]

THE EXACT NUMBER. >> YOU SAID, 20, CLYDE?

>> (INAUDIBLE) >>

>> CODEDY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS WRAPS ALL THE WAY

AROUND, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEY CAN QUEUE HERE BECAUSE IT'S CONNECTING THERE?

>> YES, SIR. >> SO, YOU COULD HAVE QUEUEING IN BOTH LANES AND ALL THE WAY BACK DOWN TO THE BUILDING.

>> MY ONLY CONCERN IS THE QUEUE GOING OUT INTO THE MAINLY STREET

AND CAUSING AN ACCIDENT. >> SO, THEORETICALLY, IF THERE WERE ANY TYPE OF AN EVENT, THEY COULD JUST UTILIZE THE PICK UP AND DROP OFF LANES AND SOME ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY PARKING FOR THAT, RIGHT? THERE'S NO ISSUE FOR THE CITY?

>> WELL, IF THERE WAS A FIRE LANE THEY WOULDN'T, I DON'T KNOW WHERE -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING.

BUT, I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WOULD BE A FIRE LANE OR

NOT. SO... >> OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION OF STAFF. AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER.

BUT, I'M STILL LEARNING HERE. IF THERE WAS ALREADY A PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THAT BECAUSE IT WAS ESTABLISHED AND BUILT AND HAD IT'S OWN PARKING, AND THIS WAS A SECONDARY DEVELOPMENT FOR PARKING AND THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING IN THEIR PARKING WAS PARKING NEXTDOOR, IS THAT CONSIDERED CAN THEY CALL

THE POLICE ON THEM? >> SO, IT'S CONSIDERED A

SECONDARY PRIVATE PARKING. >> OKAY. NOTHING DO WITH THIS CASE, I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX THERE.

>> CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MOTIONS?

>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> CHAIR: OKAY.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> CHAIR: MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. AND SECONDED BY MR. MOORMAN. THAT PASSES 6-0.

[2023-467]

THANK YOU, COLBY. >>> OPENING ITEM, 2023467 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDER OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ABANDONING ALL RIGHTS TITLE AND INTEREST IN A PORTION OF VV JONES ROAD DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBITS A AND B WHICH ARE ATTACHED. AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE SAID ABANDONMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MIKE?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND COUNCIL. AT LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN OCTOBER, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE RIGHT OF COMPENSATION AGREEMENT AND I SPOKE MORE IN REGARDS TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON VV JONES ROAD.

THIS IS THE ORDINANCE THAT PUTS THAT INTO PLACE. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE ROAD IS BUILT. THIS IS JUST SO THAT IT'S READY TO GO IN THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THAT TO BE ABANDONED. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

>> CHAIR: ENTERTAIN A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> CHAIR: MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. RODGERS, SECONDED BY MS. HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

[2023-468]

>> ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> CHAIR: OPENING ITEM 2023-468. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN AGREEMENT WITH FORD AV TO REPLACE THE PROJECTORS IN THE CONFERENCE CENTER IN THE AMOUNT

OF $53,418. HEATHER? >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. HOW ARE Y'ALL THIS EVENING? GOOD.

[LAUGHTER] >> I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO OF THE PROJECTORS AT THE CONFERENCE CENTER. THE PROJECTORS WERE ORIGINALLY INSTOOLED IN 2015 AND ONE OF THE PROJECTORS, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THE BULB BURST IN IT AND THEY CALLED IN THE CONTRACTOR WHO CAME IN AND PULL IT HAD DOWN, CLEANED IT OUT, TRIED TO HOOK IT BACK UP, IT STILL HAS AN ERROR CODE AND IT WOULDN'T WORK. IT NEEDS TO BE, THEY SAID THEY COULD SEND IT BACK FOR TESTING IF WE PAID $500 TO SEND IT BACK TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE MANUFACTURER WILL NO LONGER WARRANTY THEIR REPAIRS OF ANY SORT BECAUSE THEY SAY IN DECEMBER THE UNITS ARE FIVE YEARS PASSED THEIR LIFE SPAN. SINCE IT WAS PUT IN IN 2015.

[02:30:04]

LEAVE. >> CHAIR: THANKS, HEATHER, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THE CASE? COUNCIL AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE WE HAD A STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS THIS PAST WEEK, AND FROM WHAT I HEARD IT WAS THE BEST ONE YET WITH AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION PROVIDED BY MS. LUNDBURG, MR. DICK AND MYSELF.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROJECTORS WERE NOT WORKING SO THE STELLAR GRAPHICS THAT WE SAW WERE BLURRY, SO, I WOULD MOVE TO I A

PROVE THIS. QUESTIONS? >> ONE QUESTION SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEING OUTSIDE OF THE WARRANTY AND SUPPORT, IS THIS INCLUDING AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON THESE?

>> I WILL REFER TO MIKE. BUT, IT LOOKS BECAUSE YOU ARE IT GURU IS THE MAN WHO MAKES IT HAPPEN, I'M JUST THE LITTLE PARK GIRL.

>> THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY, BUT, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO EXTEND THAT AT THIS TIME.

>> HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT TIME FRAME? WHAT'S

THE LIFE SPAN ON THE PROJECTORS? >> THOSE ARE LASER PROJECTORS, THEY DON'T HAVE BULBS, THE LIFE SPAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE LONGER.

THE OTHER ONES GOT EIGHT YEARS, AS FAR AS THE WARRANTY ITSELF, I BELIEVE IT'S FIVE YEARS AND WE CAN DO ANOTHER TWO TO THREE YEARS ON TOP OF THAT, BUT, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE

DETAILS TO DO THAT. >> THE EXISTING I'M JUST, I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY HIGH COST, YOU KNOW, 25 GRAND FOR A PROJECTOR

IS VERY HIGH. >> THEY'RE VERY LARGE

PROJECTORS. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT, YOU KNOW, 4K PROJECTORS FOR CONSIDERABLY LESS. I'M CONCERNED WITH THE FIVE-YEAR WARRANTY ON IT. AND THE FACT THAT, UM, IT'S GOT TO BE AN EXTREMELY HIGH COST. THEY'RE RATED FOR A SPACE THAT THEY'RE SERVING, AND YES, THERE ARE CONSUMER GRADE PROJECTORS WHICH ARE MUCH CHEAPER, BUT, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE SERVING MUCH SMALLER SPACES. THESE ARE VERY LARGE PROJECTORS PROJECTING IN A VERY LARGE SPACE. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DIMENSIONS OF THE SCREEN IN THE MAIN BALLROOM, BUT, IT IS VERY BIG AS FAR AS

THE PROJECTION GOES. >> AND KNOWING THAT DIFFERENT PROJECTORS HAVE DIFFERENT MOUNTING REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS DISTANCE TO THE SCREEN IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE CORRECT PICTURE SIZE, WHAT WE HAVE TO ALSO PAY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL MOUNTING OR CABLING COST IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO RELOCATE THESE?

>> NO, SO, THE PROJECTOR, THESE ARE RATED FOR THE SAME DISTANCE AS THE CURRENT PROJECTORS THAT ARE THERE.

>> SO, THOSE WOULD BE A HOT SWAB, NO CABLING COST?

>> THERE'S NO CABLING COST BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THE SAME CABLING EXISTING THERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO IT AS WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE THIS AS ECONOMICALLY THAT WE CAN RIGHT NOW. SURE, IT'S RELATIVE, RIGHT? IT IS A LARGE COST, BUT, AS ECONOMICAL AS WE CAN TO GET THE PRODUCT WHICH WILL SERVE THE SPACE. KNOWING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT LONG-TERM REVIEWING THAT WHOLE SPACE WE EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO REUSE THE PROJECTORS IF WE DO ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THAT BALLROOM IN THE FUTURE.

>> AND WILL THESE BE ABLE TO PROJECT IN FULL LIGHT

ENVIRONMENT? >> YEAH. YEAH.

>> THEY'RE RATED FOR LIGHTS BEING ON IN THAT SPACE TO OVER COME THE AMBIENT LIGHTING IN THE AREA.

[02:35:01]

>> EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL, FURTHER QUESTIONS? >> CHAIR: I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY MISS HAMMONDS, AND SECONDED BY MR. RODGERS.

>> CHAIR: QUESTIONS ON THE MOTIONS? COMMENTS? PLEASE

[2023-469]

VOTE. IT DOES PASS 6-0. >> THANK YOU.

>> OPENING ITEM 2023-469 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN'S FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 CONFERENCE CENTER BUDGET IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO

EXCEED $53,418. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, YES, THIS IS TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET FOR THE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED ITEM. I'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> CHAIR: COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF ANN REGARDING THE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVE ITEM.

>> HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> CHAIR: MOTION BY MRS. HAMMONDS, SECONDED BY MR. RODGERS. COMMENTS QUESTIONS

[2023-470]

>>> OPENING ITEM 2023-470 CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE MIDLOTHIAN MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT INTWO OF UNLIMITED TAX BOND SERIES 2024 IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,860,000.

>> SO, THIS ONE IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, I KNOW, YOU'RE ALL AWARE OF THE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER TWO WE REFER TO THAT AS BRIDGE WATER A LOT HERE IN THE CITY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CREATED IN 2019. STARTED TO SAY 1920. AND THAT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN AMENDED RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A FINANCE PLAN AT THAT TIME. UM, THE DISTRICT HAS HELD AN ELECTION, THEY HAVE APPROVED AN ISSUANCE OF, UM, UNLIMITED TAX UTILITY BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,860,000. THE ELECTION THAT THEY HELD IN 2021 AUTHORIZED AN ISSUANCE OF $151,060,000 IN UTILITY BONDS AND IT ALSO AUTHORIZED, UM, SOME ROAD BONDS AS WELL AT $229,560,000. THIS IS THE FIRST ISSUANCE FROM THAT ELECTION. AND, UM, NO ROAD BONDS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS. IT OUGHT TO BE, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ISSUE TO SELL OBLIGATION OF THE MMD, THE CITY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY ANY OF THESE BONDS. AND SO, WE HAVE A SUGGESTED MOTION FROM OUR BOND ATTORNEY ON HOW TO APPROVE THIS.

BUT, BASICALLY, UM, THEY DID PROVIDE US NOTICE AND THEY ASKED FOR FOR US TO APPROVE. IF COUNCIL DOES NOT TAKE ACTION, THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THE BOND SALE REGARDLESS. SO, IT'S AN

ADMINISTRATIVE CHECK BOX. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU. DID

ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK, TAMMY? >> NO.

>> CHAIR: COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF ANN REGARDING THIS AGENDA

ITEM. >> HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> ACTUALLY WE HAVE TO READ THE

MOTION. PER THE BOND ATTORNEY. >> I MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF THE MIDLOTHIAN MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TWO UNLIMITED BONDS SERIES 2024 BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT TWO. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> AND SECONDED BY MR. RODGERS. >> CHAIR: PLEASE VOTE.

[2023-471]

>> AND ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> THANKS, ANN.

>> CHAIR: OPENING ITEM 2023-47 WORN CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION OF VOTES CAST TO ELECT DIRECTORS FOR THE ELLIS APPRAISAL DISTRICT FOR YEARS 2024-2025. CHRIS, DO YOU WANT

TO SPEAK TO THIS? >> OKAY, THIS IS THE TIME IF YOU RECALL, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WE MADE A NOMINATION TO THE BOARD. NOW'S THE TIME TO ACTUALLY CAST THE VOTES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS. WE HAVE 360 VOTES AVAILABLE TO US. THEY CAN ALL BE ASSIGNED TO ONE PERSON OR THEY CAN BE SPLIT UP AMONGST MANY. YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE LIST OF CANDIDATES NOMINATED BY THE VARIOUS TAXING ENTITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. SO,

[02:40:03]

>> THANKS, CHRIS. TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS

CASE? >> AND CHRIS IS CORRECT, LAST NIGHT AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING THEY GAVE MR. HURST ENOUGH VOTES. THEY DID THROW THE REST OF THEIR VOTES TO MR. RIX WHO WE HEARD FROM EARLIER THIS EVENING.

>> SO, YOU'RE SAYING PART OF THE BOARD VOTED FOR MR. HURST

AND PART OF THE BOARD. >> THEY VOTED TO ALLOCATE THE

SPLIT. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> THERE'S TWO ENTITIES IN THE COUNTY THAT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES BY THEMSELVES, THAT'S THE MISD AND THE WAXAHACHIE ISD, THE MEMORIAL DAY ISD HAS 1,019 VOTES THEY THREW 834 TO DAVID HURST WHICH LEFT HIM AT 185, SO, MR. RIX GOT THE BALANCE OF THAT ONE 85.

>> AND IN THE HYPOTHETICAL, IF WE WERE TO PUT THE REMAINING OF OUR VOTES TO MR. RIX, IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO GET HIM APPOINTED BUT IT WOULD GET HIM MUCH CLOSER. DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL? I DID HAVE A LENGTHY PHONE CALL THIS AFTERNOON WITH MR. RIX AND FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH HIM. SO, I WOULD ADVOCATE TO PUT AT LEAST SOME OF OUR VOTES TOWARDS THAT.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I'M OKAY WITH MR. RIX.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THE REMAINDER OF OUR VOTES FOR

MR. RIX AS WELL. >> I WOULD CONCUR, HE COMES

VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. >> IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONSENSUS IS TO PUT ALL 360 VOTES TO MR. RIX. MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE PLACE 360 VOTES TOWARDS MR. GEORGE RIX.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> CHAIR: DID WE DO THAT

RIGHT? >> (INAUDIBLE).

>> CHAIR: THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION THAT WOULD APPLY 360 VOTES FROM THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN TO MR. GEORGE RIX AND IT WAS SECONDED BY MR. GARDNER.

>> OKAY. PLEASE VOTE. >> CHAIR: THAT DOES PASS 6-0.

[2023-472]

>>> OPENING 2023-472, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE VET ROBS ROBS MEL NAMING COMMITTEE. COUNSEL, I'LL TAKE THIS ONE. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS, AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE OR VETERANS MEMORIAL TRIBUTE WHICH WAS OPENED A YEAR AND-A-HALF AGO, TWO YEARS AGO. AND IT'S LONG BEEN DISCUSSED TO ADD NAMES OF VETERANS TO THAT. UM, TO THAT MEMORIAL, TO THAT TRIBUTE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE IS TO APPOINT A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WOULD DISCUSS THE PROCESS FOR WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, A PROCESS FOR THE VETERAN GETTING A NAME ON THAT MEMORIAL, OR, WHAT TILTLY WHETHER THAT'S ENGRAVED OR WHETHER THAT'S AN VERSION OR SOMETHING. THE IDEA IS TO GET THE MEMBERS OF THE B BOARD AND THE PARKS BOARD AND COMMUNITY ADVOCATES WHICH ARE ACTIVE WITH VETERANS ASSOCIATIONS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PARKS BOARD AND ULTIMATELY TO COUNCIL AND THEN WE'LL SEEK FUNDING PROBABLY FROM THE B BOARD. BUT, THAT IS THE IDEA OF THE NAMES THAT HAVE COME UP. AND I DID JUST RECOGNIZE THAT I LEFT ONE NAME OFF SO I'LL ADD ONE TO THE LIST. IT IS MYSELF. ED GARDNER, THE ONE THAT I'M GOING TO ADD, IF HE'S WILLING IS HARTSON AS THE PARK'S BOARD LIAISON. PARK BOARD MEMBERS, PATH FERAL, AND MR. DANEMY MCCLINTON WHO IS A VET HIMSELF.

[02:45:02]

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO A

SUBCOMMITTEE. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECONDED BY MS. HAMMONDS. >> PLEASE VOTE.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

>> ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> CHAIR: THANK YOU, ALL. WE DO HAVE EXECUTIVE THIS EVENING. WE HAVE ONE ITEM TO DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. FROM SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE PETITIONS FILED FOR THE CREATION OF THE PROPOSED HIGHLAND LAKES MUNICIPAL UTILITY

>> CHAIR: WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, THERE'S NO ACTION TO TAKE, SO, WITH THAT, I WILL SAY THAT I'M GLAD THAT THIS MEETING IS OVER SO THAT I CAN REMOVE THIS HAT. HOPEFULLY, NEXT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.