[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.] [00:00:07] >> TO ORDER. AND LET THE RECORD SHOW WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, IT SAYS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INVITES THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC NOT SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ACTION ON THIS AGENDA AND PRESENTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS OTHER THAN ON A SPECIFIC CASES? ALL RIGHT. WE [002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days. ] WILL MOVE TO ITEM 2, WHICH IS STAFF REVIEW OF COUNSEL CASES IN THE LAST 60 DAYS. SO -- DOING THAT, OR? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. [003 Election of Officers] WE'LL MOVE NOW TO ITEM 3, ELECTION OF OFFICERS. WE HAVE TWO OFFICERS. CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR. SO THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR THE POSITION OF CHAIR NOMINATIONS. >> >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? OKAY, ALL IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. CO-CHAIR? FLOOR IS OPEN FOR NOMINATIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? OKAY. IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. [CONSENT AGENDA] OKAY. WE'LL MOVE NEXT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, ITEMS 004 AND 005. FIRST IS TO CONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATED JANUARY THE 21ST. ITEM 5 IS TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A FINAL PLAT OF THE MASSEY HERITAGE ADDITION. SO WE'LL HEAR BOTH NOTES, UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO PULL ONE OFF THE AGENDA. OKAY. FOUR, FOUR -- OKAY. FOUR OR FIVE? 4. OKAY. WE'LL PULL 4. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 005. >> 05? >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN [004 Consider the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dated:  January 21, 2025] FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IS UNANIMOUS. WE'LL GO BACK DOWN TO ITEM 4. SO WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE CHANGES? >> >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, [006 The request is to conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Zoning Change to allow the use for a Single Family Residential Planned Development, being 48.59+ acres of the W.M. M. Shofner Survey, Abstract 1300, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is presently zoned Agriculture (A) district. (Z01-2025-001)] COMMENT? ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? WE'LL MOVE NOW INTO PUBLIC HEARINGS. ITEM 006, THE REQUEST IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW THE USE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, BEING 48.59+ OR MINUS ACRES OF THE W.M.M. SHOFNER SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1300, EDDIE OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERLY IS PLEASANTLY ZONED AGRICULTURE . >> [00:05:10] ] DECEMBER -- INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] [00:10:46] >> [00:15:58] >> QUESTIONS TO STAFF? >> ] >> ORIGINALLY APPLIED -- INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] >> WELL -- VOLUME ] >> IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT GRANDFATHERED. >> >> OTHERS? >> ] >> SIR? IF YOU WOULD, COME TO THE MIC, SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR YOU, AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. >> ] >> KAREN AND KEVIN. AND THEY [00:20:16] WERE SAYING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THEIR STREET, ON ROLLINGWOOD, WHERE VERY UPSET ABOUT TRAFFIC -- >> I UNDERSTAND BRIAN'S REASONING FOR WANTING THAT, BUT I, FOR ME IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE GOES THROUGH OR NOT, AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY MAD, SO I WOULD PREFER TO GO TO SECOND DESIGN AND JUST NOT CONNECT IT AT ALL. IT'S ONLY 36 HOMES. IT'S NOT A HUGE DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN, IF WE COULD GO WITH THE SECOND DESIGN, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT FROM YOU GUYS. >> THAT'S THE CUL-DE-SAC, THE SECOND DESIGN. >> THAT IS THE CUL-DE-SAC DESIGN, SO. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? AND WE'LL BRING -- BACK -- OKAY. STAFF, ANYTHING ELSE TO THIS POINT? >> I'LL JUST SAY THAT THE CUL-DE-SAC DESIGN WOULD COMPLY WITH OUR ONE POINT OF ACCESS LOT REQUIREMENT, SO THAT WOULD BE OKAY, SINCE THERE'S LESS THAN 40 LOTS. ONE POINT OF ACCESS. >> OKAY. SO, MR. GLASS, IF YOU'LL COME UP. YOU'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED YOURSELF. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, OR? >> I JUST WANT TO SAY I WOULD'VE PREFERRED TO MEET WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE OPPOSITION, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE THOSE TWO GROUPS REACH OUT TO ME, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR THEM. I KNOW ONE OF THEM IS IN SUPPORT NOW, BUT THE OTHER ONE, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT OF THE WATER, AND I THINK THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF MISPERCEPTION ABOUT WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE. AND I GOT SOME PICTURES THAT, DO YOU MIND IF I SHOW THOSE TO EVERYBODY? OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS THAT MY FAMILY'S DONE OVER THE LAST DECADES. SOME OF THEM MYSELF. YEAH, I'LL JUST -- SURE. SOME OF THESE ARE KIND OF OLDER. LET'S SEE IF IT LETS ME SCROLL THROUGH. OKAY. WELL, THAT'S NOT AS BIG A PICTURE AS I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE. HERE YOU GO. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT, JUST FOR SOME OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE WONDERING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, YOU'VE GOT EIGHT-FOOT FENCES, PRETTY, PRETTY STANDARD SETBACKS, 80% BRICK OR ROCK. NOBODY REALLY BUILDS A TWO STORY ANYMORE, SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF HUGE TOWERING HOUSES, BUT WE'RE, WE TRY TO COME I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE TREES. WE TRIED OUR BEST TO TAKE OUT AS LITTLE TREES AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT JUST MAKES THE LOTS WORTH MORE MONEY, AND IT DOESN'T HURT THE PROCESS, ALSO. I TRY TO SAVE AS MUCH AS I CAN. BUT THEY'RE GENERALLY ABOUT 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES. IT'S JUST, THESE ARE SOME CONCEPT DESIGNS FROM JUST DIFFERENT ONES. THAT'S A HOUSE THAT'S GOING TO GO IN HARTSON ESTATES THAT APPROVED. THIS IS ONE THAT YOU APPROVE IN HORSESHOE -- WHEN Y'ALL APPROVE HORSESHOE MEADOWS, THAT WE BUILD, KIND OF MORE LIKE A MODERN FARMHOUSE. THEY ARE, THEY ARE, THEY'RE ALL BIG HOUSES . I THINK IN THE COUNTY, I WENT DOWN TO, LIKE, 2200 SQUARE FOOT OR LARGER, BUT IN MIDLOTHIAN, WE TRY TO KEEP IT AS BIG AS POSSIBLE, AND MOST OF THE TIME THE BUILDERS WILL GO UNDER 3000. I DID THIS FOR YOU, BRIAN, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WANTED TO SEE -- YEAH. WE MIGHT PUT SOME LINES, WE MIGHT MAKE A NICER SIGN. I WAS GOING TO GET WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT BY THE LOTS, AND SAY, WHAT YOU WANT, YOU KNOW? BECAUSE FOR ME, IT'S USUALLY 10,000 TO 20,000 FOR A SIGN LIKE THAT, BUT JUST KIND OF GENERIC. HERE'S ONE AT LONGBRANCH ESTATES. THERE'S ONE AT WINDING CREEK. WE JUST DID THAT ONE ABOUT A YEAR AGO. WELL, IT DOESN'T LET ME GO ANY FURTHER. MCALPIN MANOR. THAT'S THE ONE I WANTED TO GET. THERE'S A PRETTY COOL ONE OUT AT MCALPIN MANOR . I HOPE IT'S GOING BACKWARDS NOW. I REALLY LIKE THIS HOUSE. THIS IS OUT AT STONE HOLLOW ESTATES, RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. I REALLY LIKE THAT HOUSE, WHEN WE BUILT THAT. BUT THIS IS A CREEK RIGHT HERE, AND WE SAVE 100% OF THE TREES AND JUST MADE IT A NATURE PRESERVE. AND I THINK, OH, OKAY, I ALREADY SHOWED Y'ALL THAT ONE. BUT YEAH, THAT WAS JUST FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE KIND OF WHAT WE BUILD, WHAT WE DO, SO. >> QUESTIONS? >> [00:25:02] ] >> I DO LIKE THAT IT MAKES A T. THAT PART OF THE CORNER THERE ON ASHBURN. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US. I KNOW WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK, SO I WANT TO HEAR THEM FIRST, BUT THANK YOU. >> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> I DO APPRECIATE THE CUL-DE-SAC AND, AND NEIGHBORS NOT WANTING THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, BUT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WORK WITH STAFF, AND ITS STAFF WAS AMENABLE TO, TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF EMERGENCY ACCESS IN CASE OF? >> SO THAT'S WHAT I DID THE LAST TIME WHEN I CAME IN. I HAD A OPTIONAL GAIT PUT ON THERE, TO WHERE YOU GUYS COULD EITHER, OR COUNCIL COULD EITHER DECIDE IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A KNOX BOX, THEY COULD. AGAIN, THAT WOULDN'T, THAT MADE IT TO WHERE THE TRAFFIC WOULDN'T COME TO THE GROUP FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE THAT UPSET ABOUT THE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD IDEA, BUT THERE WAS, THERE WAS A COUPLE STAFF MEMBERS THAT DIDN'T LIKE IT, AND ONE OF THEM OUT RIGHT TOLD ME TO GET RID OF THE GATE. I SAID, NO PROBLEM, I'LL GET RID OF THE GATE. BUT NOW WE'RE BACK WITH THE PROBLEM WHERE EVERYBODY'S UPSET ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A CUL-DE-SAC. MAYBE THERE'S A THING -- >> -- SAFETY TO BOTH NEIGHBORHOODS. >> IT WOULD, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING WE, THEIRS, AND I DON'T HAVE THIS ON ME, SO I CAN'T SHOW YOU, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID OVER AT WATERFALL RIDGE ESTATES, WHERE WE DID A CUL-DE-SAC, AND THAT WE DID, LIKE, A COLLEGIAL ROAD THAT WAS GATED, TO WHERE IT'S NOT A TRUE CONNECTION FOR TRAFFIC, BUT YOU CAN STILL GET AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE THROUGH IF WE NEED TO DO THAT. WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE OPEN TO. THAT WEIGHT EVERYBODY WINS. >> YEAH. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF SPECIALTY PAVERS AND -- ALL KINDS OF STUFF YOU CAN PUT IN NOW THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THAT IT'S A PAVED CROSSING SECTION -- >> RIGHT. >> MAKE IT LOOK NICE. >> YEAH, MAKE IT LOOK NICE, AND MAYBE SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE SOLID. THAT MIGHT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS DON'T SEE INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND BITE YOU. SO. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE IN OUR PACKET. >> YES SIR. >> AND I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS, YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO STAFF, THIS INITIATIVE THAT'S BEEN GOING FOR A WHILE. BUT AS I LOOK AT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS LESS, I GUESS, THEN TWO ACRES, YOU HAVE 10 LOTS. IT IS, IS THAT A STUCK THING? I MEAN, YOU CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT HAVING AT LEAST 10 LOTS? >> WELL, NO. JUST THE WAY THE MATH WORKS OUT, AND I CAN GET INTO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THAT IF YOU WANTED, MAYBE MORE IN PRIVATE, BUT THE WAY THAT THE MATH WORKS OUT, WHEN WE HAD TO DO IT, STAFF WANTED TO GO THROUGH AND DO ALL THESE TURNS. EVERY TIME YOU DO ONE OF THOSE CUL-DE-SACS, WHETHER IT'S A HALF CUL-DE-SAC OR A FULL, IT'S JUST MORE AND MORE MONEY, MORE REBAR. IT'S MORE, MORE GRADING. AND ALSO ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION TO IS, BRIAN, WHATEVER YOU ARE SAYING -- WHENEVER YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS DRAINAGE EASEMENT, YEAH, THAT WILL BE THE PURPOSE OF THIS, TO MOVE A LOT OF THE WATER, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GRADE THESE IN A WAY TO TRY TO PUSH AT LEAST HALF THE LOTS OF WATER TO THE STREET TO CONNECT TO THAT PIPE, AND THEN GO DOWN. USUALLY WHAT WE DO IS JUST WE DO KIND OF A -- CUT, ABOUT THREE FOOT DEEP, YOU KNOW. BUT, YES, SIR, THIS, THIS LOT COUNT IS WHAT WE NEEDED, AND I'VE TRIED TO GET MY LOT COUNT, MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY THAT I CAN MAKE HAPPY, AND ALSO LISTEN TO YOU GUYS AND WHAT YOU ALL, Y'ALL'S COMMENTS WERE AS FAR AS DESIGNS. AND THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. >> AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF FOR YOU, BUT OUT OF ALL THE STANDARDS LISTED ON HERE, THERE'S NO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR DIFFERENT ONES THAT I GUESS IS NONCOMPLIANT. IS THAT AFTER ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, WHERE WE'RE ALL DOWN TO WHERE WE'RE STILL THIS FAR OFF? >> I MEAN, I PERSONALLY, JUST ON SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE DONE, THERE'S ALWAYS A COUPLE ISSUES, YOU KNOW? THE SETBACK STUFF, I DON'T MIND AT ALL CHANGING THOSE. I'VE TOLD BRIAN AND STAFF THAT THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE UP THERE, BECAUSE THE SETBACKS DON'T MATTER TO ME EITHER. I'LL COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE STANDARD RULE IS FOR THOSE. THE LOT COUNT, THOUGH, I DO HAVE TO HAVE THAT MANY TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> WE MIGHT NEED YOU TO COME BACK UP. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. WE HAVE QUITE A NUMBER OF FOLKS. WE HAVE THESE BROKEN DOWN INTO THOSE THAT ARE WITHIN 200 FEET, AND THOSE THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE 200 FEET. WE HAVE SOME WITH THE SAME ADDRESSES, SO BECAUSE WE HAVE A NUMBER, WE'RE [00:30:06] NOT GOING TO DENY ANYBODY THE RIGHT TO COME SPEAK, BUT WE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE REPETITIOUS. IF YOU HAVE ONE IN THE FAMILY, YOU CAN SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE GROUP, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, WE'LL LET YOU. FIRST ONE I HAVE IS JOE AND TERRY WINDSOR. I HAVE A LETTER. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? ARE THEY HERE? OKAY. THEY ARE OPPOSED, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT. RUSTY SPAHR. OKAY. LET ME SEE WHERE WE ARE HERE. HE OBJECTS. KEVIN, IS IT COIN? IS THAT HOW I PRONOUNCE IT, SIR? ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT TO SPEAK, SIR? OKAY. IF YOU WOULD COME UP, WE GIVE EACH PERSON THREE MINUTES. YES SIR. >> SPEAK WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, SIR. JUST ADDRESS IT TO THE COMMISSION. >> IF I TAKE MORE THAN THREE MINUTES -- >> OH, YOU'RE ASKING FOR MORE THAN THREE MINUTES? >> I DON'T WANT THAT IN MY THREE MINUTES. >> NO, IT'S PART OF YOUR THREE MINUTES. YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PERIOD. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF HIS STUFF, YOU ADDRESS IT TO THE COMMISSION. >> ALL RIGHT, SO I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, WHO DO I TALK TO AND WHEN? >> YOU'RE, YOU'RE TESTIFYING TO THE COMMISSION. >> OKAY, SO I'LL USE MY THREE MINUTES, BUT I'LL HAVE TO TRACKING DOWN AND TALK TO HIM. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY, GOT IT. EVENING. MY NAME IS KEVIN NGUYEN, 4220 WHITEHEAD ROAD. I'VE BEEN IN UNDERPIN HER FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS AND A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR AND MENTOR FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. I'VE LEARNED ALL BUSINESS IS NOT GOOD BUSINESS, AND ALL DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GOOD ELEMENTS. I WATCHED, I WAS OUT OF TOWN TRAVELING, THAT'S WHY I WASN'T HERE THE FIRST TIME. I WATCHED THE VIDEO AND READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. THE CONCERNS ARE MANY. LOT SIZE, TRAFFIC, GATES, CONSTRUCTIONS, ANIMALS, RATS, SNAKES, COYOTES, AND MANY MORE. WHERE ARE THESE ANIMALS GOING TO GO? AND THEN DRAINAGE. I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE DRAINAGE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, BUT THERE'S STILL ALL OTHER AREAS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED. AND SOME PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEIR YARDS FLOODED THAT LIVE ACROSS THE STREET. AND ALL THE DISCUSSIONS, ONE SUBJECT HAS BEEN MISSING. PEOPLE. THE HUMAN ELEMENT. I LEARNED THAT A GOOD DEVELOPER DEVELOP THE PROPERTY THAT FITS IN WITH THE CURRENT COMMUNITY THAT IS ESTABLISHED. NOTHING THIS DEVELOPMENT MESHES WITH OUR CURRENT COMMUNITY, AND DOES NOT BRING ANYTHING POSITIVE TO OUR COMMUNITY. 90% DOORS, WOULD YOU HOLD THAT UP? I THINK IF YOU GUYS CAN SEE THIS, THIS SIGN, ALL THOSE YELLOW SIGNS, THOSE ARE SENIOR CITIZENS. 90% OF THE BORDERS OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS. 80% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS BORDERING ARE RETIREES. ALLOWING ONE PERSON TO COME IN AND DISRUPT THE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY IS A HUGE MISTAKE . ON WHITEHEAD ROAD, THE AVERAGE RESIDENT HAS BEEN THERE OVER 20 YEARS, INCLUDING A CHURCH ELDER THAT'S BEEN HERE FOR 35 YEARS. THIS IS LOYALTY AND SERVICE TO MIDLOTHIAN. WE HAVE RAISED KIDS, GRANDKIDS, AND EVEN GREAT GRANDCHILDREN WHO HAVE VISITED GRANDMA AND GRANDPA, AND SPENDING TIME IN OUR BACKYARDS. CONSTRUCTION WILL PREVENT US, ALL OF US, FROM USING OUR BACKYARDS DUE TO HEALTH RISK, AND OUR HORSES WILL HAVE HEALTH ISSUES. WE ARE CITIZENS THAT HAVE ABIDED BY THE LAW, CONTRIBUTED TO SOCIETY, RAISE FAMILIES, SURVIVED PROPERTY TAXES SURPRISINGLY INCREASING DUE ANNEXATION BECAUSE WE ALREADY 65 YEARS OLD AND WE GOT OUR PROPERTY TAXES RAISED. AND NOW STRESS. IT IS CHALLENGING ENOUGH TO CONTINUE TO BE ACTIVE AND HEALTHY AS WE AGE. WE HAD SENIORS DEALING WITH ALZHEIMER'S, HAD SENIORS CARING FOR PARENTS WITH ALZHEIMER'S. WE HAVE HEART ISSUES, PEOPLE DEALING WITH HEART ISSUES AND CANCER FIGHTERS. WE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT LIFE. WE TAKE PRIDE IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE WANT TO LIVE IN OUR HOME FOREVER IN A STRESS-FREE COMMUNITY WITHOUT ALL THE ISSUES THAT ELEMENT WILL BRING. AND THERE'S NO CRIME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. INTRODUCING STRESS TO THE ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY WOULD BE A TRAGEDY AND PUT A SHADOW OVER ALL THE POSITIVE THINGS GOING ON IN MIDLOTHIAN. FINALLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ATTITUDE THAT WE NEED TO FORCE DEVELOPMENT IN EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY. WE NEED OPEN LANDS AND TREES. WE WANT TO SEE STARS. WE RECENTLY WERE AT THE MCDONALD OBSERVATORY, AND LIGHT, THERE IS LIGHT POLLUTION, AND WE ARE CONTRIBUTING STRONGLY TO IT. THE CITY COUNCIL STATES, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS MUST BE PROTECTED. IF A DEVELOPMENT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE IS APPROVED, IT HAS TO BE ONE WHERE A DEVELOPER THAT WORKS WITH EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND LAND AREAS AND MESH WITH THE COMMUNITY. RESPECT AND PROTECT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. RESPECT AND PROTECT SENIOR [00:35:06] CITIZENS. >> SIR? >> AND RESPECT AND PROTECT RETIREES. I THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. DORIS STOUT? >> WELL, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT RETIREMENT PEOPLE, I'M, I'M -- >> STATE YOUR NAME IN THE RECORD, IF YOU WILL, MA'AM. YOUR NAME INTO THE RECORD, AND YOU'RE, YOU LIVE IN THE CITY? >> I'M SORRY? >> DO YOU LIVE IN THE CITY? >> YES I DO. I LIVE ON WHITEHEAD ROAD. >> STATE YOUR NAME. >> DORIS STOUT. >> GO AHEAD. >> YOU WANTED TO -- ADDRESS? OKAY, OKAY. WELL, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT A RETIRED CITIZENS. I'VE BEEN HERE 22 YEARS, I'M RETIRED, AND MY CONCERN IS A FEW THINGS THAT HE HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE NARROW STREETS, THE NOISE, AND POLLUTION IN MY BACKYARD. I, I LIVED IN GRAND PRAIRIE BEFORE I MOVED HERE, AND THE LAND BEHIND ME, I'VE GONE THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT. BELIEVE ME, IT WAS A MESS. NOT ONLY WERE THERE ANIMALS AND SNAKES AND STUFF IN MY BACKYARD, BUT AFTER THEY WERE THROUGH, I HAD TO HAVE THE BACK OF MY HOUSE POWER WASHED AND PAINTED FROM ALL THE DIRT AND FILTH THAT WAS IN THE AIR. AND I WENT THROUGH THAT FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS BEFORE IT WAS FINALLY FINISHED., YOU KNOW, I SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN MY BACKYARD AND I ENJOY MY POOL. I LIKE GOING OUT THERE AND SPENDING TIME WITH MY KIDS AND MY GRANDKIDS, AND I LIKE THE QUIET, AND I WANT TO TRY TO KEEP IT THAT WAY, YOU KNOW? AND I, I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT FIT FOR, FOR OUR COMMUNITY, AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE BUILDER OR ANYTHING, BUT I SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN MY BACKYARD. I LOVE MY POOL. AND IF YOU BUILD HOUSES THERE, I'M TELLING YOU, YOU NEED TO PUT A TALL FENCE IN, OR NO WINDOWS IN THE BACK OF THOSE HAVE THIS. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. MARILYN HETTINGER, NON-SPEAKER STILL. OKAY. OKAY. CHRISSY ALLAH? YOU'RE A NON-SPEAKER? NO, YOU'RE DOWN AS A NON-SPEAKER. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S WHAT YOU -- AND YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION, SIR? OKAY. AND, FOR THE RECORD, MARILYN NAVA JERK IS IN OPPOSITION. DENNIS BARCLAY? YOU'RE SHOWN TO BE A SPEAKER. YOU WISH TO SPEAK, SIR? IF YOU WOULD COME UP, GIVE US YOUR NAME, IF YOU'RE IN THE CITY, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> BEFORE I GET STARTED -- >> SORRY. SOMEBODY CLOSED IT OUT. >> YEAH. HE HASN'T COME UP YET. >> CAN Y'ALL TAKE THE TIME OR OFF THE SCREEN? >> THERE WE GO. MY NAME IS DENNIS BARCLAY. I'M A RESIDENT, 4030 -- AND I WANTED TO ADDRESS, PRIMARILY CONCERNING OUR ROAD. I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY OF THE ROAD. THE ROAD IS PUSHED INTO SERVICE 15 LOTS BACK IN THE '70S. THE ONLY IMPROVEMENTS WE'VE SEEN ON THE ROAD IS, ABOUT EVERY 8 TO 10 YEARS, WE GET IT RESURFACED. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT ON THE ROAD FOR 37 YEARS NOW. CURRENT HOUSE, 27 YEARS. I INITIALLY LIVED NEXT DOOR, BUT WE BOUGHT 2.9 ACRES [00:40:03] AND BUILT OUR CURRENT HOUSE 27 YEARS AGO, WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY LOCATED. I'LL GIVE YOU A VIEWPOINT OF -- FOR THE ONES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ON IT. THIS IS A CULVERT THAT GOES UNDERNEATH MY ROAD, AND YOU SEE A PICKUP TRUCK SITTING ON THE CULVERT. -- THE PAVEMENT THERE IS ONLY 17 1/2 FEET WIDE, SO YOU CAN IMAGINE A WASTE TRUCK OR A SCHOOL BUS COMING AT YOU AT THAT CULVERT, THERE'S NOT MUCH ROOM TO PASS. THAT'S PRIMARILY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO EXTENDING INTO THE NEW SUBDIVISION. I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE CURB WITH, ROAD WIDTH WILL BE IN THE NEW SUBDIVISION, 28 FEET. SO I THINK YOU CAN IMAGINE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION AT 28 FOOT, 30, 35 MILES AN HOUR AND HIT OUR ROAD AT 15 OR 18 FEET WITH, AND COMING UP TO THAT CULVERT, AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. SO THAT WOULD BE DISASTROUS, IF SOMEBODY HAD TO RUN OFF THE ROAD INTO THAT CULVERT, IT'S ABOUT A FOUR FOOT DROP. CURRENTLY WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT FIVE CARS A DAY TO GO OVER THOSE CULVERTS, AND PRIMARILY BECAUSE HERE I'M STANDING AT THE CULVERTS LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE NEW SUBDIVISION. THERE'S ONLY THREE HOMES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BETWEEN THAT CULVERT AND THE, AND OF THE ROAD. SO IF WE EXTENDED THAT ROAD INTO THE NEW SUBDIVISION, WE WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL MORE TRAFFIC COMING ACROSS THAT CULVERT, AND ALSO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL REPAIRS REQUIRED. WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH THIS. I WAS GOING TO COVER THAT AGAIN, BUT 80% OF THE -- SURROUNDING THE SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY IS TWO ACRES OR MORE. IT MIGHT, -- SOUTHWEST CORNER. PER THE 2024 CPA, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE LOW-DENSITY -- AFTER WHAT HUNTER SHOWED TODAY, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE COULD LIVE WITH, FROM WHAT HE WAS ABLE TO SHOW US FROM THE DEVELOPMENT ALREADY. YES. >> YES. >> HERE'S THE CURRENT ONE, SF ONE, TWO ACRES. BUT THAT, IF WE GET, HE GETS DENIED, THAN THAT, I GUESS THAT WILL BE WHAT WILL BE APPLIED TO TWO ACRES. I ALSO PULL THIS UP, WHICH THIS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. UNDER THE LOTS -- 6/14-7, AND HE SUBDIVISION WITH 40 LOTS OR MORE SHALL THE -- MORE THAN ONE STREET. BUT BEDFORD ESTATES HAS 36 LOTS WITH ONE ACRE -- >> NEED YOU TO CLOSE. >> SORRY, OKAY. SO THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION. AND IN, AND CONCLUSION, FOR SAFETY SENSE, IT MAKES SENSE WITH THE CONDITION OF -- WITH LAND -- NO GAIT -- PUT INTO THE SUBDIVISION. SO THAT'S OUR -- TO HAVE NO GAIT, OR EMERGENCY GAIT ONLY. >> THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. LET THE RECORD SHOW -- HILL AT 309 HILLCREST IS IN OPPOSITION. NON-SPEAKER. LET THE RECORD SHOW KAREN WIGLEY, 4001 ROLLINGWOOD LANE, NON-SPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. KEVIN HAMPTON AT 3630 OAK TREE LANE, NON-SPEAKER, IN SUPPORT. LORETTA THOMAS, 1821 ASHFORD LANE, NON-SPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. THOSE ARE ALL THE ONES THAT ARE WITHIN 200 FEET. WE'LL GO TO THE ONES NOW OUTSIDE OF 200 FEET . OKAY. I HAVE THREE FOLKS AT 4241 HIDDEN ROAD. ALL THREE ARE NON-SPEAKERS. THAT'S SEAN BRAVO, RYAN CRABTREE, JENNA GOSS. OKAY. ALL THREE ARE IN [00:45:07] OPPOSITION. JOELLA BESSEL, 4040 ROLLINGWOOD LANE, I HAVE A LETTER IN OPPOSITION. OKAY. ROBERT NIX, 4250 WHITEHEAD ROAD, NON-SPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. MELISSA OR, 4021 ROLLINGWOOD LANE. YOU WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY, IF YOU WOULD COME UP. I'M SORRY? >> ] >> OKAY. JARED, IS THAT YOU? SO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? OKAY, IF YOU WOULD COME UP, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS JARED OR AT 4021 ROLLINGWOOD. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M HERE TO STRONGLY URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ADOPTED IN OCTOBER REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES PER LOT IN THE COUNTRY MODULE AREAS. THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY -- 36 LOTS ON JUST OVER ONE ACRE EACH. PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS THAT DIDN'T MEET THIS REQUIREMENT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DENIED, AND MY VIEW IS THIS ONE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. BEYOND THIS, THAT NONCOMPLIANCE, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRIMARILY TWO TO 18 ACRE LOTS. I KNOW THAT IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THERE WERE CLICKED ON A FEW ONE ACRE LOTS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT ROLLINGWOOD, MOST OF THOSE ARE OVER TWO. A RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY THEY ARE BUILDING IN AND RESPECT ITS EXISTING LANDSCAPE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ARE ALSO MAJOR CONCERNS, AS DENNIS POINTED OUT. BOTH ASHFORD AND ROLLINGWOOD HAVE DANGEROUS BLIND CURVES, AND ROLLINGWOOD ITSELF IS ONLY 17 FEET, 17 1/2 FEET WIDE OVER THE CULVERT. THIS ROAD IS EFFECTIVELY A CUL-DE-SAC NOW, WHERE RESIDENTS FREQUENTLY WALK DUE TO ITS LOW TRAFFIC. INCREASING TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROPER ROAD WIDENING OR SIDEWALKS CREATES SERIOUS SAFETY RISKS. A TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND PRESENTED BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED. LASTLY, WE ARE FIRMLY OPPOSED TO ANY THOROUGHFARE CONNECTING ROLLINGWOOD, ROLLINGWOOD LANE TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. IF SUCH CONNECTION IS CONSIDERED, THE ROAD MUST BE WIDENED, SIDEWALKS ADDED, AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT NEEDS ASSESSED TO ENSURE SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. I URGE THE COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE -- AS ITS NEWLY ADOPTED, AND PRIORITIZE SAFETY AND PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. SO, MELISSA, YOU WISH TO SPEAK? COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> SO I'M MELISSA ORR. I LIVE ON ROLLINGWOOD LANE. I AM OUTSIDE OF THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER ZONE, I GUESS, BUT SINCE I'M ON ROLLINGWOOD, I AM INVESTED. BUT I DO APPRECIATE THAT THE DEVELOPER SEEMS TO BE CONSIDERING CONCERNS LET ME SURROUNDING AREA IS PUTTING FORTH. SO I, I DEFINITELY FAVOR TWO ACRE, LARGER LOTS, BUT, YOU KNOW, BEING ON ROLLINGWOOD LANE, MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE CONNECTING. I, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT ROLLINGWOOD REMAINS A CUL-DE-SAC IT HAS BEEN, AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY MAIN -- >> THANK YOU. OKAY. RICK ORR . DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK, SIR? OKAY. IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS RICK ORR. I LIVE AT 4021 ROLLINGWOOD LANE . WE'RE ON 2.0 ACRES. IN I APPRECIATE THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION HERE HEARING OUR CONCERNS AT THE LAST MEETING, [00:50:03] AND DENYING THE REQUEST AT THAT TIME. AND I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER FOR COMING BACK AND COMING UP WITH A NEW PLAN THAT HAS SOME, SOME ISSUES THAT ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD AT THAT TIME. WE STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS, AND REQUESTS AFTER REVIEWING THE NEW PLAN SUBMITTED, ALTHOUGH I HAVEN'T SEEN THE ONE THAT HAD THE CUL-DE-SAC -- AT THE END OF THE STREET. SO THE, WHEN WE MOVED THERE 24 YEARS AGO, THERE WAS ONLY 13 CURRENT HOMES ON THE STREET. COMINGS AND GOINGS ARE NOT A LARGE AMOUNT, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO EXIT AT THE OTHER END. AND SO IT'S, IT'S A VERY PLEASANT STRAIGHT, A VERY PLEASANT PLACE TO HAVE LIVED FOR 24 YEARS. THE STREET IS VERY SAFE. WE DON'T GET A LOT OF SOLICITORS. WE DON'T GET A LOT OF PEOPLE RACING DOWN THE STREET. THERE'S ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT. AND WE KNOW WHO, WHAT CARS ON OUR STREET, SO WE KNOW WHEN PEOPLE ARE DRIVING DOWN, THAT, OH, THEY DON'T BELONG ON THE STREET, CHECK AND SEE, WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY DOING? AND THEY TYPICALLY COME IN AND TURN AROUND AND LEAVE. SO THIS WAS WHAT WE WANTED WHEN WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, AND I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS AS WELL. SO THE 36 LOTS AT ONE ACRE PER LOT IS, IN MY OPINION, EXCESSIVE FOR THE AREA, AND THAT WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE LESS NUMBER OF, OF HOUSES, OR LOTS THAT ARE BEING PUT IN THERE. THE CHANGE WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, PRETTY, PRETTY DRAMATIC, TO DO THAT. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH THE TWO, TWO ACRES PER LOT. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO, EVEN THOUGH I, I LIKE THE, THE CUL-DE-SAC OPTION BETTER FOR THEM, I'D STILL PREFER TO SEE THEM PUT A LOT AT THE END NEXT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S ON ROLLINGWOOD, SO THAT LATER IT CAN'T BE OPENED UP AND CHANGED, BECAUSE THERE'S A HOUSE THERE. SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S ATTENTION AND LISTENING TO US, BUT I HAVE ONE QUESTION. IS IT THE CITY'S PURPOSE TO SERVE THE EXISTING RESIDENTS OR THE DEVELOPERS LIKE SAY THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. DONNA ORR . >> ] >> OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. OKAY. LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A FORM FROM HEATHER PHILLIPS, 4081 ROLLINGWOOD LANE, NON-SPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. DON PHILLIPS, 4081 ROLLINGWOOD LANE, SHOWED TO BE A SPEAKER. SIR, IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS DON PHILLIPS. I LIVE AT 4081 ROLLINGWOOD LANE, AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH OUR LITTLE ROAD WE HAVE GOING DOWN THERE. WE, I, I DO APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER CONSIDERING NOT LETTING THAT BE AN OUTLET FOR THIS SUBDIVISION, AND I WOULD ASK HIM ALSO THAT HE WOULD CONSIDER INCREASING THE LOT SIZES, BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE PIE SHAPED LOTS LOOK LIKE THEY'RE PRETTY TIGHT ANYWAY. MAYBE, MAYBE GO TO 1.5 OR 2. THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. AND ONE THING I WANT TO BRING UP TOO IS ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY IS A SUBDIVISION THAT JOHN HOUSTON PUT IN, AND IT WAS A DISASTER WITH THE DRAINAGE ON THAT THING, AND THEY HAVE GOT TO GET THE DRAINAGE RIGHT. AND I DON'T KNOW, SOME OF THE CITY ENGINEERS NEED TO RECALIBRATE THEIR CALCULATORS OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE, LET'S GET IT RIGHT, YOU KNOW? LET'S NOT DUMP A BUNCH OF WATER ON OUR NEIGHBORS AND HAVE A BUNCH OF PROBLEMS. AND THE OTHER THING IS, THEY CAME IN AND BROUGHT TONS AND TONS AND TRUCKLOADS OF FILL IN THAT PLACE, AND LIFTED THE ELEVATION SO THAT EVERYTHING CAME OFF THAT PROPERTY AND ENDED UP ON EVERYONE ELSE'S PROPERTY, AND I, I JUST HOPE THE DEVELOPER [00:55:04] CAN BE CONSIDERATE OF THAT. ALSO, THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH TRASH AND DIRT AND DUST AND DEBRIS AND ALL OF THAT, AND I WOULD LIKE THEM TO TAKE CARE OF THAT TOO, AND CONSIDER THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THEM. SO IT'S MY POSITION, IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, THAT I DON'T WANT AN OUTLET ON THE ROLLINGWOOD. IF THEY CAN PUT A GATE THERE, I UNDERSTAND NEEDING TO GET FIRE TRUCKS AND STUFF IN THERE. PUT A GATE THERE, BUT DON'T DUMP ALL THAT TRAFFIC ON THAT LITTLE STREET, YOU KNOW? IN AND OUT TRAFFIC ON THAT LITTLE STREET. AND I, I WOULD ASK THIS COUNCIL, CONSIDER PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN PAYING TAXES IN THIS TOWN FOR 25 YEARS OR MORE, YOU KNOW? IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT, YOU COMMAND, YOU KNOW, -- MIDLOTHIAN. SO PLEASE, CONSIDER WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. THAT'S ALL I GOT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A FORM FROM MARK WATSON, 4260 WHITEHEAD ROAD, NON-SPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. I HAVE IN MY HAND THE LAST FORM. JOKING. CHRISTINA BROOKINS, 4070 ROLLINGWOOD LANE, NON-SPEAKER, IN OPPOSITION. SO THAT'S ALL THE FORMS THAT WE HAVE. IF I MISSED ANYBODY THAT HAS SIGNED UP? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HEARING ON, THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OF THOSE? PUBLIC HEARING'S CLOSED. -- ACTION. >> >> I, I HAVE BEEN IN MIDLOTHIAN FOR 23 YEARS. I HAVE SPENT MANY A NIGHT AWAY FROM MY FAMILY, SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE, BEING JUST LIKE YOU, DEFENDING WHAT I FEEL LIKE IS REALLY IMPORTANT, SO I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU FOR BEING HERE. HUNTER, I CAN TELL YOU'VE WORKED REALLY HARD TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING GREAT. LOOKING AT IT, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO THOUGH WITH A GATE, SIMPLY BECAUSE FIRE STATION NUMBER 3 COULD ACCESS IF THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING ON ON ASHBURN WHERE THEY COULDN'T GET THROUGH. I DON'T LIKE SEEING DEVELOPMENTS BUILT WITH ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT. I THINK THE -- IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO I DO THINK THAT IF THERE WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE, THAT A GATE SHOULD BE ADDED. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN FOR ONE THING LARGER LOTS, BUT AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER AND INVESTOR IN MIDLOTHIAN, I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE COMING HERE IN DROVES THAT WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS THEN SMALLER LOTS WHERE IT'S TEENY TINY HOMES ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. IT IS, IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE TO GO AGAINST WHAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS. I DON'T LIKE GIVING CAVEATS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M OF THE OPINION TO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING. I THINK THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS SPECIFICALLY THE REAR YARD SETBACK, AND I THINK HUNTERS ALREADY SAID HE'S FINE WITH MAKING THAT 25 FEET SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THINGS BEING BUILT ON PROPERTY LINES. BUT THIS LAND IS GOING TO GET DEVELOP AT SOME POINT BY SOMEBODY. SO I THINK THAT IS PRUDENT FOR US FOR -- TO TRY TO GET THE FEWEST NUMBER OF HOMES ON THAT LAND, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S WHAT HUNTER IS, IS BRINGING TO US TONIGHT. >> I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS. I, I, I GUESS MY PROBLEM IS, GOING BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, I MEAN, [01:00:02] WE STILL HAVE SOME GLARING KNOW IS HERE, OR AT LEAST TO ME THEY ARE. WE'RE LOOKING AT 28% OF THE LOTS TO BE ONE ACRE, NOT TWO ACRES. I CAN APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER BEING AS GENEROUS AS HE'S BEEN TO MEET WITH FOLKS AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, HOLD TO THE STANDARDS WE SET. WE START DEVIATING FROM THOSE, THEN WE GET A HODGEPODGE OF STUFF, SO I, I HAVE A LITTLE HEARTBURN WITH APPROVAL ON THIS. >> -- IS BACKWARDS, BECAUSE I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID. I AGREE WITH BOTH OF THEM. AND I JUST, I'M NOT QUITE SURE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, YOU KNOW, US BASICALLY CHANGING THE RULES IN THE PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH HE, YOU KNOW, WAS TOLD IT WAS GOING TO CHANGE. I'VE NEVER REALLY HEARD OF ANYTHING ONCE YOU APPLY FOR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THEN THE STANDARDS CHANGE. SO I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MAURICE, BUT I, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT, I, I, THAT JUST TROUBLES ME. I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOOD, OR, I MEAN, THAT MAY BE THE WAY IT IS. IT JUST TROUBLES ME. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? NOBODY WANTS TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, I'LL PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? FURTHER DISCUSSION? OFFICIALLY WE HAVE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, SO LET'S, LET'S VOTE BY RAISING HANDS. SO WE'RE VERY CLEAR. SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DENY, RAISE YOUR HAND. OKAY. THAT'S 2. AND OPPOSED? 3. MOTION FAILS. WE'LL -- FLOOR IS OPEN FOR ANOTHER MOTION. >> >> THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? AGAIN, BY RAISING OF HANDS, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? 3. OPPOSED? 2. MOTION PASSES. NO PROBLEM. WELL -- QUORUM -- WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM -- THAT'S CORRECT. YUP. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. >> >> APPROVAL -- >> SORRY. >> ORDINANCE IS REQUIRED -- APPROVAL -- >> BY AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION. >> YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT MOTION -- NO MOTION. >> YEAH, AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION. GO FORWARD WITH NO RECOMMENDATION -- >> ] THIS IS, THIS IS A, THIS IS -- THAT WE RUN INTO ON OCCASION. >> ] >> AT THIS POINT -- >> YES. >> [01:05:03] ] >> I, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR -- ] >> THERE IT IS. ANYWAY, AS I WAS SATING, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR, THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM. WHAT, WHAT IS THE SMALLEST LOT IN THE, AS IT'S PRESENTED RIGHT NOW -- THE CUL-DE-SAC? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS, LIKE, 1.03 -- >> IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET THESE TO 1 1/2, A MINIMUM? >> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION REAL QUICK? JUST, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE, DOES THAT NOT NEGATE THE NEED FOR ALL THE CUL-DE-SACS AND WIDE RADIUS IS? JUST A QUESTION. I'M -- >> MIKE, I'M, I THINK THE WHOLE REASON WE DID THE ROADS LIKE THAT IS TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN. IF WE PUT A GATE AND WE WENT BACK TO THE STRAIGHT ROAD DESIGN, I THINK YOU WOULD PROBABLY SAY IT'S A LITTLE PROBLEM, AS FAR AS -- RIGHT. OKAY. I'M, I'M, I DON'T -- >> WAS THERE SOMETHING, MIKE, THOUGH, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST TIME, OF THE STRAIGHT, THE ROAD BEING A STRAIGHT LINE, SO FORTH? >> THE BLOCK LANES. >> ] 600 FEET FOR, FOR CUL-DE-SACS. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN EXCEPTION, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE A REALLY LONG CUL-DE-SAC, ULTIMATELY. BUT EVEN KIND OF DOING, YOU KNOW, THE OFFSETS, YOU'RE STILL REALLY HAVING JUST ONE LONG BIG ROAD THAT STILL GOING TO EXCEED THE 604 CUL-DE-SAC REQUIREMENT, AGAIN, WHICH, WHICH BOTH P&Z AND COUNCIL CAN LOOK AT, P&Z CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL CAN PROVE THAT IF THEY SO CHOSE. THE ISSUE IS REALLY JUST, IF IT'S GOING TO BE GATED, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC, THEN THE DESIGN CAN BE, AND AGAIN, THE DESIGN THAT WAS PUT OUT THERE WAS SOMETHING LOOK AT FROM A, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK WOULD POTENTIALLY KEEP TRAFFIC -- AS A CUT THROUGH. IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT STAFF THAT HAD TO HAPPEN. IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT STAFF SAID, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS EXACT DESIGN. IT WAS JUST LOOKING AT, IF THE CONNECTION'S GOING TO BE MADE, THIS WOULD DISCOURAGE TRAFFIC FROM GOING THROUGH THEIR PURSES AND HAVING A STRAIGHT SHOT AND PUTTING STOP SIGNS AT EVERY INTERSECTION, AND THEN WE END UP HEARING FROM THE RESIDENTS SAYING, I GOT A STOP SIGN AT AN INTERSECTION WHEN I GO, YOU KNOW, A BLOCK. AND REALLY, THE STOP SIGNS BASED ON NU TCD AREN'T MEANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, SPEED CONTROL. THEY'RE MEANT TO BASICALLY SERVE IN AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE TRAFFIC ISSUES, SAFETY CONCERNS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. >> OKAY, THANKS, MIKE. >> SIR. >> JUST, JUST TO COMMENT, I, I, I THINK MAYBE, IN CONSIDERATION WITH THE VOTE UP HERE, I, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING. I WOULD HATE TO FORWARD THIS WITH NO RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. I THINK THIS THING CAN BE WORKED OUT. AND HOPEFULLY BY NEXT MEETING WE CAN GET IT WORKED OUT. SO I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE WOULD TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING RATHER THAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATION. >> THEY WERE SAYING, IF THERE WAS ANOTHER PERSON THAT CAME UP, BECAUSE MARK HAS TO RECUSE HIMSELF, AND THE OTHER GUY STEPPED DOWN, SO IT WOULD JUST BE A 3-3 AND WE WILL BACK HERE, DO IT ANOTHER -- I'M OPEN TO IT, BUT, I MEAN, I THINK I HAVE TILL MAY, DON'T I, JACKIE, UNFORTUNATELY. I'VE HAD, I'VE HAD TO EXTEND IN THIS ONE. SHE IS IN POOR HEALTH. SO I'VE HAD TO ASK THE NEWLY EXTEND ON HER, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN RUNNING INTO DESIGN ISSUES. BUT, I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING I WILL PRESENT IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THIS. THAT, THAT'S, I WORKED REALLY HARD WITH STAFF TO, TO PROCURE THAT, SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'D BE COMING RIGHT BACK WITH TIME, SIR. BUT I WOULD BE OPEN TO IT. >> YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO -- >> IF YOU WANTED TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT ONE, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT, IF YOU FELT LIKE THAT WOULD GET US SOMEWHERE. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD HELP OR NOT. BUT IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. >> LOT OF THAN PREVIOUSLY WERE TRYING TO PUT IN EVEN SMALLER [01:10:06] LOTS THAN THESE, RIGHT? SO IN THESE OUTER LYING AREAS, I WOULD LOVE FOR AT LEAST AN ACRE TO BE PRESENTED, IF NOT MORE, RIGHT? WE'VE HAD SOME OF THESE AREAS THAT COME IN ARE TWO AND FOUR ACRE PARCELS THAT COME IN WITH FOUR AND FIVE HOUSES ON THEM. SO WE'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH THAT SITUATION. SO WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON ALL THAT. NOW, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE AUDIENCE HERE IS WE HAVE A LOT OF RETIREES AND ELDERLY IN THIS AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF LARGER PARCELS IN THIS AREA TOO. I WOULD RATHER SET THE PRECEDENT NOW OF KEEPING THESE LOTS LARGE, AT THIS POINT, VERSUS THE SMALLER PIECES THAT COME UP DOWN THE ROAD IN THE FUTURE THAT ARE GOING TO WANT TO BE SUBDIVIDED EVEN SMALLER THAN AN ACRE. SO AT LEAST THIS IS SETTING THE PRECEDENT. THAT'S, THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. >> -- TO HUNTER, AS OPPOSED TO, IN AGREEMENT WITH MAURICE'S SAYING, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THE PEOPLE SPEAKING MAY BE MORE FAVORABLE OF THE BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU'RE DOING THE CUL-DE-SAC, OR THE GATE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO MAYBE BY NEXT MONTH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN WORK WITH THEM AND HAVE SOME MORE CONVERSATIONS, MAYBE WE WON'T HAVE AS MUCH DISAGREEMENT AMONGST THE PEOPLE. >> YEAH, I, I THINK FROM WHAT, AT LEAST WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE FOLKS, THEY'RE FAIRLY AMENABLE, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS. THEY SEEM LIKE THEY'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO TALK TO YOU. YOU'VE MORE THAN DEMONSTRATED YOUR WILLINGNESS TO TRY TO WORK WITH THEM. I, -- I JUST, MAYBE I'M WRONG, BUT IT JUST APPEARS LIKE YOU GUYS MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING. >> IT, IT COULD BE POSSIBLE. ON THE NOTION OF THE TWO ACRE TRACTS, THOUGH, NO, SIR, I WOULDN'T BE, I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD BE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT WITH THEM. TO ME, WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO EVERYBODY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONNECTION'S THE BIG PROBLEM. AND I KNOW THAT SOME OF THEM ALSO MENTIONED THE ACREAGE BEING A PROBLEM, BUT WHAT I BROUGHT TONIGHT FULLY FIXES THAT ISSUE. THE SECOND ONE, WHERE IT JUST ENDS IN A CUL-DE-SAC, IF WE HAD TO PUT A GATE THERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A CUL-DE-SAC AND DOES NOT EVER TECHNICALLY GOING TO CONNECT, COULD PUT A GATE THERE AND TO MAKE IT TO WHERE NO FUTURE CONNECTIONS EVER HAPPEN. BUT I'M TOTALLY OPEN TO THAT. BUT I FEEL THAT WHAT I'VE BROUGHT TONIGHT IS, DOES FIX A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCERNS WERE ABOUT, SO. >> AND, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, BUT IF IT WAS ONE OR TWO LOTS, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 20% OF YOUR LOTS BEING LESS THAN TWO ACRES. >> CORRECT. AND IT WAS THE SAME WITH HEARTS AND ESTATES AND LA PAZ RANCH AND A LOT OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT Y'ALL HAVE APPROVED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THAT'S WHY I WAS A LITTLE, NOT UPSET AT ALL, JUST A LITTLE SHOCKED. I WAS LIKE, MAN, YOU KNOW, WE, AND WE'RE BRINGING THESE QUALITY PROJECTS, AND WE BRING IN THESE ONE ACRE TRACTS. SOMETIMES THEY'RE A LITTLE BIGGER, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALL BIGGER. 60% TO 80% ARE ONE ACRE. I THINK HARTSON IS 99% ONE ACRE TRACTS, AND THAT WAS 56 LOTS, AND THAT ONE WENT THROUGH VERY EASILY. I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY NOW THIS ONE SEEMS TO BE SUCH AN ISSUE WHEN, PREVIOUSLY, THOSE, THOSE ONES WEREN'T. BUT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, SCOTT SAID, FIVE, IF I DON'T BUY THIS, IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THIS AND I DON'T BUY THIS, THIS WOMAN WILL LIKELY PASS. SHE IS IN POOR HEALTH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER ERRORS ARE GOING TO DO WITH IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH IT, BUT IT COULD GO BACK TO THE BANK IF THEY DON'T PAY TAXES AND THE BANK COULD COME IN HERE AND HIRE SOME DEVELOPER TO TRY TO DO TRACT HOMES OR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW? A LOT SMALLER THAN, LOT SMALLER HOMES. SO THAT'S A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY. >> SO AFTER LISTENING TO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAK , I, I WOULD BE WILLING TO REVISIT MY VOTE TO THE PREVIOUS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WELL, I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I'LL MOVE THAT MOTION, AND THAT SOMEONE ELSE CAN MAKE A MOTION. >> YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE? >> ] SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL THE PLAN, AS IT'S PRESENTED, WITH CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS TO MEET OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ON THE SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD, WHICH CHANGES THOSE FROM NOS TO YESES. [01:15:01] I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF THE GATES, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE OVER 65 SURROUNDING OCCUPANTS WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS THERE, AND THAT WE MOVED TO APPROVE. >> OKAY. >> -- >> WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOW, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, RAISE YOUR HAND. 4. AND I AM OPPOSED, SO IT PASSES 4-1. >> THANK YOU. >> [007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, relating to the use and development of 16.24+ acres out of the Martha Brenan Survey, Abstract No. 43, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas, by changing the zoning from Agriculture (A) District to Planned Development District No. 184 (PD-184) for Single Family Residential uses. The property is generally located on the west side of S. 14th Street, and north of McAlpin Road. (Z03-2025-003)] >> OKAY. OKAY. WE WILL MOVE TO 007, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP, RELATED TO THE SCENT OF 11 TO 16.24+ OR MINUS ACRES OUT OF THE MARTHA BRENAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 43, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 184 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH 14TH STREET AND NORTH OF MCALPIN ROAD. >> SEND IT BACK TO THE PODIUM. OKAY. OKAY. GIVE ME A MOMENT, PLEASE. >> IS IT WORKING NOW? OKAY. >> DID YOU GUYS DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY 11TH MEETING? OKAY. >> OKAY. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, CHANGING THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURE A TO PD FOR SINGLE-FAMILY, 38 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 16.24 ACRES, WHICH WORKS OUT TO 2.34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE LOT SIZES ARE, THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT RANGES. THEY HAVE LOT SIZES THAT ARE 10,000 TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET, AND 24,000 TO 32,000 SQUARE FEET. THE FEET, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THIS IS MEDIUM DENSITY, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, SO THIS IS LESS DENSE THAN THAT. LAND-USE GOAL 2 CUP PROVOKE AN -- ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND IT DOES MEET THE DENSITY FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE COMP PLAN. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE RESIDENTIAL. TO THE NORTHEAST RIDGE POINT, WHICH HAS A RANGE OF DIFFERENT LOT SIZES. THE ONES TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH ARE 14,000 SQUARE FEET. TO THE SOUTH IS DOVE CREEK, WHICH HAS A RANGE OF DIFFERENT SIZES. THE ONE LETTER TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH ARE 20,000 SQUARE FEET. TO [01:20:02] THE EAST IS, IS , WITH, WITH COME UP WITH ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, BUT IT SHOWS ME TO DENSITY ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE PROPERTIES OWNED AGRICULTURE, AND IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND IT SHOWS LOW DENSITY. SO THE HOMES ARE MINIMUM OF 50%, WILL BE, HAVE J SWING GARAGES. THEY WILL PROVIDE ANTIMONOPOLY PROVISIONS. THESE ARE ALL INCLUDED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. THERE ARE COMMON AREAS PROVIDED ALONG 14TH STREET AND MCALPIN ROAD. SIX-FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WHILE WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, WITH EIGHT THREE FOOT WIDE ATRIAL WAY MAINTAINED EASEMENT. THERE WILL BE A 15 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT, WHICH WILL INCLUDE TREES 30 FEET ON CENTER THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HLA. THEY ARE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS. IN THE NTP, IT SHOWS MCALPIN AND SOUTH 14TH STREET AS 90 FOOT WIDE NON-ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAYS. THE, THIS WILL ALL BE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. 40 FEET WILL BE DEDICATED FOR MCALPIN ROAD, AND THERE WILL PROVIDE A MEDIUM OPENING AND LEFT TURN LANE FOR A 14TH STREET. IT DOES HAVE LONG CUL-DE-SACS ON BOTH SIDES. THAT REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE VARIANCES WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. WATER IS -- AND SEWER, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. 31 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SITE. AT THE TIME OF THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE NO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION. WE RECEIVED ONE TODAY, AND THEY ARE WANTING TO SPEAK. WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> QUESTIONS? >> QUESTION, THE J SWING, MINIMUM 50%, THAT IS THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARD? >> I MEAN, THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A, A STANDARD, BUT MOST OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WILL HAVE AT LEAST 30, 35%. AND SO THEY'RE EXCEEDING THAT. >> OKAY. THAT'S, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THIS MIGHT BE MORE OF A STATEMENT/CONVERSATION PIECE WITH STAFF, THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS IN IT. BUT DID YOU SAY MASONRY WALL ON EXTERIOR -- >> YEAH. ON THE ROADWAY. >> BECAUSE I KNOW DOVE CREEK WENT THROUGH EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO HAVE AN OPEN, CLEAR ENTRY INTO THE SUBDIVISION WITHOUT BEING SCREENED BY A BIG BRICK WALL. THE MAJOR CORRIDORS RIGHT HERE THAT PEOPLE ARE DRIVING. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS BACK-AND-FORTH ON THE BRICK WALL -- BY ALL THESE BRICK WALLS -- SO WE STARTED TO -- >> SO I BELIEVE THE PD ACTUALLY GIVES THEM THE OPTION FOR THE WROUGHT IRON OR THE TUBULAR STEEL OR THE MASONRY, AND I, I THINK, THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I THINK THE LAST TIME WE HAD TALKED, THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE MORE OPAQUE TYPE OF SCREENING, YOU KNOW, TO BE AT THE ENDS OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, AND THEN HAVING THE MORE SOLID WALLS, YOU KNOW -- >> -- MY QUESTION'S -- THE SECOND PART OF IT IS AS YOU GO NORTH, WHAT ARE THOSE SUBDIVISIONS -- SO THEY'LL BE CONSISTENT GOING ALL THE WAY THROUGH -- >> I DON'T KNOW. WE COULD DO GOOGLE EARTH. >> IS IT -- >> THE BACKSIDE OF BRANDY RIDGE IS ALSO A BRICK WALL. BUT GOING DOWN, AS YOU WERE SAYING, INTO DOVE CREEK, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS DO HAVE WROUGHT IRON FENCES. BUT THE WAY THAT THIS IS OUTLINED, I DON'T KNOW -- >> RIGHT. >> YES, IT DOES LOOK LIKE BRIDGE POINT HAS A PORTION OF MASONRY, BUT THE PORTION OF IT, I DO BELIEVE, IS -- TUBULAR WITH LANDSCAPE. AND THEN BRANDY RIDGE, THOSE HOUSES KIND OF SIDE TO IT, AS YOU CAN SEE, ON THE SITE PLAN, AND THERE IS A WALL ON A LOT OF THAT, YES, MASONRY WALL, IT LOOKS LIKE, ON THAT. YES. AND I THINK ALSO TO THE [01:25:05] BACK. >> SO JUST BRINGING UP THE POINT OF THINKING OF THAT CONSISTENCY -- >> YEAH. >> WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT STREET, AND THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH, SO KEEPING IT CONSISTENT -- >> OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. APPLICANT? IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR. >> YES SIR. SAM SATTERWHITE WITH PETTIT ENGINEERING, 201 WINCO CIRCLE, WYLIE, TEXAS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I THINK MARY COVERED MOST OF IT VERY CLEARLY. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE, AND WE'RE OPEN TO WHATEVER KIND OF FENCE DESIGN IS, IS BEST FOR Y'ALL. SO WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE ON THAT. >> OKAY. >> AND ALSO I KNOW THERE'S SOME CONCERNS FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE'RE ALSO WILLING TO, TO DISCUSS. >> OKAY. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR. >> THERE, IS THERE AN AREA FOR DETENTION IN HERE? I JUST CAN'T READ THE SITE PLANS. >> YES SIR, THERE'S A DETENTION AT THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS, COMBINED, ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. >> I KNOW, DRIVING THIS AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF WATER POOLS -- >> THAT'S REAL SMALL IN THE SITE PLAN, SO PRINT >> OKAY, OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CHECK. >> YES SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. SCOTT WEIDMAN? IF YOU WOULD COME UP, SIR, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION, CORRECT? OKAY. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS SCOTT WEIDMAN. I LIVE AT 651 MCALPIN, WHICH IS THE ADJACENT TO THE WEST. WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS. I'VE GOT 10 ACRES. I'M PROBABLY THE SMALLEST ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MCALPIN THERE . IT'S KIND OF THAT GREENBELT FROM NINTH STREET ALL THE WAY TO 14TH. EVERYBODY'S GOT AT LEAST 10 ACRES, RIGHT? MY CONCERN IS, IS, FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE TRYING TO SHOEHORN 38 HOUSES INTO 16 ACRES ON MY EAST WALL. WHAT IS THAT GOING TO DO TO MY PROPERTY VALUE? LIKE, WHEN I MOVED OUT THERE 20 YEARS AGO, I MOVED OUT THERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW I'M GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M GOING TO WANT TO GET OUT OF THERE. HOW AM I GOING TO SELL MY PLACE? NOBODY IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN BUYING 10 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND NEXT TO 38 HOUSES. SO, SO WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS TO US THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS? OUR PROPERTY VALUES GO UP, WE'RE EITHER STUCK THERE OR WE TAKE HALF OF WHAT IT'S WORTH. I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE EITHER OPTION DOESN'T SEEM REALLY GOOD TO ME. ANYWAY, I KNOW THAT WHATEVER I'M GOING TO SAY IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO AFFECT Y'ALL'S DECISION MUCH. MY CONCERN, PRIMARILY, WAS FOR THE DRAINAGE. YOU MENTIONED IT, YOU'VE PROBABLY DRIVEN MY BY MY PLACE AFTER WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE FOUR HOUR, FOUR INCH RAINSTORMS. RIGHT THERE ON THE SOUTHWEST OF MY PROPERTY, MY DRIVEWAY IS DAMNING IT UP, AND I CAN GET THAT POND THERE ALL THE TIME. BUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF MY DRIVEWAY, IF Y'ALL RAISE THAT UP TO PUT PADS ON , THE ONLY PLACE FOR THE WATER TO GO RIGHT NOW, FROM THAT SECTION, IS EAST. IT GOES ACROSS THAT PIECE OF LAND. SO IF YOU DAM THAT UP, THERE'S NO PLACE FOR WATER TO GO EXCEPT NORTH TOWARDS MY HOUSE . I'M WORRIED ABOUT THAT. RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY THAT IT FLOODED LIKE THAT. IT'S OKAY NOW. I MEAN, IT, IT FILLS UP FOR A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN IT DRIES UP, SO IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL. BUT IF WE DAM UP THAT EASTSIDE , I'M GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE. I JUST KNOW I'M GOING TO GET FLOODED. SO THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED, PLUS I'M, I'M WORRIED ABOUT IF THIS GETS APPROVED, WHICH I'M SURE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO, WHAT KIND OF BARRIER ARE WE, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN MY PROPERTY AND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY DURING THE DEVELOPMENT? MY SUGGESTION, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, MY FEAR OF PROPERTY VALUES GO SUGGESTION WOULD BE, GO BIG OR GO HOME, YOU KNOW? BY MINE, BY THE 25 ACRES TO THE WEST OF ME, BY IT ALL THE WAY TO THE CREEK AND DEVELOP THAT, AND THEN WE'LL GO BY FARMS OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE AGAIN. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 20 MORE YEARS. BUT THIS, I DON'T KNOW. I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M, I'M GETTING THE SHAFT HERE WITH THIS PIECE, THIS DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I MEAN, IT'S A LOT OF HOUSES. THAT IS A LOT OF HOUSES. I, I [01:30:05] GUESS THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT, GUYS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. DID I MISS ANYBODY? THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I HAVE? OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ONE ELSE WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> ] >> HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION. -- >> >> SURE. >> ] >> WELL, WE HAVEN'T DONE FULL ENGINEERING ON THE SITE, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE WE'RE IN THE PLANNING STAGE. -- WHICH IS PRETTY ACCURATE, BUT NOT 100% ACCURATE. WE'LL GO THROUGH ENGINEERING, WE'LL GO OUT AND DO TOPO -- FULL SET OF ENGINEERING PLANS. I KNOW THE HIGH POINT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT, RUNNING EAST TO WEST. SO ADDRESSING A COUPLE ISSUES. SO THE POOLING ON OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, THE SOUTHERN PART, THAT'S A PRETTY FLAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S LESS, IT'S, IT'S A FOOT OR LESS GOING FROM WEST TO EAST. >> YOUR PROPERTY? >> YES SIR. >> HIS PROPERTY. WELL, FROM HIS PROPERTY OVER TO 14TH. SO IT'S LESS THAN A FOOT. SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT HIS FLOW, SO WE, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD DENY OUR PLANS IF WE DAMMED IT UP, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT, BUT IF WE RESTRICTED HIS FLOW ON OUR PROPERTY. SO WE'VE GOT TO TAKE THAT FLOW AND THEN RELEASE IT DOWNSTREAM AT THE SAME RATE THAT IT, THAT IT'S GOING. >> SO YOUR PLAN IS TO CAPTURE HIS DRAINAGE AND SEND IT TO THESE DETENTION PONDS AS WELL? >> AND SEND IT TO THE EAST, YES, SIR. SO THE DETENTION PONDS, I KNOW THE ONE ON THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF OUR PROPERTY, WILL GO TO THE EAST. I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE THE ONE ON THE NORTHWEST WILL GO, SEEING AS THAT'S, THAT'S THE HIGH POINT. I'M ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE EAST AS WELL, TO 14TH. BUT I DO KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED, BY LAW, TO, TO MAKE HIS SITUATION WORSE NOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER, BUT WE WILL 100% NOT MAKE IT WORSE. >> WHAT'S YOUR PLAN FOR THE BACK OF THESE LOTS THAT ARE ABUTTING HIS PROPERTY? >> THAT'LL BE A SIX FOOT WOOD PROPERTY FENCE. WE'RE OPEN TO SIT DOWN WITH HIM AND TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT FENCE DESIGN. DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT. WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I KNOW MS. SEAGRAVES HAS BEEN HERE A WHILE, SO SHE WANTS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AS WELL, SO WE'RE DEFINITELY OPEN TO DISCUSS THAT WITH HIM. >> OKAY. THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. >> HEY, COME ON OVER. SO KIND OF ALONG THE SAME LINES, THE STORM DRAINS, WHERE ARE THE STORM DRAINS CURRENTLY THAT ARE SERVICING THAT INTERSECTION OF 14TH AND MCALPIN? >> SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THERE'S A Y UNIT THAT WAS PUT IN AS PART OF 14TH STREET. SO THERE'S A -- AT THAT INTERSECTION. THE STORM DRAIN RUNS TO THE SOUTH. SO THAT WAS ALL DESIGN AND SET UP FOR THAT. AGAIN, IT'S ON THE CORNER. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND SCOTT, LIKE WE MENTIONED -- A NUMBER OF TIMES, OUT THAT WAY AFTER A BIG STORM, IT HOLDS. WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE. I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THAT AGAIN, YOU KNOW? MAY NOT MAKE IT, MAY NOT BETTER, BUT WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE THAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY DOING TODAY. >> SO IF IT'S ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION, THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE DETENTION PONDS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. >> CORRECT, BUT EVERYTHING'S GOING BACK, SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING BACK TOWARDS THE EAST, WHICH IS WHAT SAM WAS SAYING, BUT IT'LL FLOW BACK. THEY'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT IT. IT'LL FLOW BACK TOWARDS THE EAST. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. >> YES. >> YEAH. IT'LL PROBABLY STORM. THERE'S INLET, THERE'S A STORM DRAINS UNDERGROUND, I DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP IT IS, BUT AGAIN, IT WAS PUT UNDER THERE TRYING TO PICK UP THAT AREA, KNOWING THAT IT'S FLAT. YOU COULD RUN SOMETHING TO TIE INTO IT. SO YEAH. THAT MAY NOT BE GOING SURFACE DRAINAGE, BUT IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET PIPES FROM THERE BACK OVER TO THAT INLET. >> AND THEN I'M NOT SEEING SIDEWALKS HERE, BUT THE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE THERE WILL STAY THERE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IF THEY, IF THEY HAVE TO COME OUT FOR SOME REASON, BUT THEY HAVE TO REBUILD THEM. -- >> OKAY. AND THE 40 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS THAT ENOUGH FOR THE MCALPIN ROAD THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO -- >> SO RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT INTERSECTION KIND OF BUILT. SO THE ADDITIONAL FOR SURE. WE NEED TO LOOK AND SEE. I WE HAVE ADDITIONAL THAT CAME FROM THE SOUTH. I THINK WE HAVE 50 FEET [01:35:01] ON THE SOUTH, AND THAT'S WHERE THAT 40 FEET COMING FROM ON THE NORTH SIDE. BUT WE'LL VERIFY THAT AS PART OF THE PLANNING, THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WE'RE NEEDED. BUT IF YOU LOOK, WE KIND OF HAD THAT INTERSECTION SET UP AS IT IS RIGHT NOW TO HEAD BACK TO THE WEST AND THEN ULTIMATELY BACK TO THE EAST AS WELL. >> OKAY. AND I GUESS MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A ENTRY, LIKE, ON THE 14TH STREET PIECE OF IT? IS THERE -- >> AN ENTRYWAY FEATURE? >> YEAH. >> YES MA'AM. THERE'S ONE SHOWN, I'M SORRY IT'S SO SMALL, BUT IT'S ON THE SOUTH SOUTHERN END OF THE ENTRANCE OFF 14TH. YES, YES MA'AM. YES MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. THE OLDER I GET, THE LESS I CAN SEE. >> ANYONE ELSE? SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS. IS EVERYONE HERE? >> YEAH, MARY, CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND? BECAUSE THE WAY IT IN OUR PACKET, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME YES/NO IS WHAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH IN THE PRIOR ITEM. >> OH, THE PRIOR ITEM WAS COMPARING, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. SO THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. IT'S JUST GOING FROM TO, HOLD ON. I THINK IN THE STAFF REPORT I DID SOMETHING. HOLD ON. YEAH. SO IN THE STAFF REPORT, I'D PUT THE PD STANDARDS VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY 4, AND IT, IT WAS COMPARABLE TO EVERYTHING. I BELIEVE THE DIFFERENCE WAS THAT SINGLE-FAMILY 4 IS 15,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE PURPOSE FOR HAVING THE, THE BASE ZONING OF SINGLE-FAMILY 4 IS IF, FOR SOME REASON, THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MISSED IN THE PD ORDINANCE, THEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO REFERENCE WHEN YOU GO BACK THROUGH THE STANDARDS AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S WHY I DID THE COMPARISON, JUST TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE, BUT IF, FOR SOME REASON, THERE'S SOMETHING MISSED, THEN YOU HAVE A STANDARD TO FALL BACK ON. THEY'RE PROVIDING A 600 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE, I BELIEVE SINGLE-FAMILY 4 DOES SUPPORT 50. MOST OF THE OTHERS WERE COMPARABLE. THEY'RE DOING 2000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING VERSUS 1800. SETBACKS ARE THE SAME. IT'S A LOW, A LOWER DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE AT 2.34 VERSUS 3.0. IT'S A, IT'S A 80 FOOT WIDE LOT. >> DID YOU SEE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT? >> YEAH. I JUST DID THE COMPARISON, JUST TO SHOW, COMPARED TO THE BASE ZONING. >> THERE IS NO PARK, THERE IS AN AGE AWAY JUST FOR -- >> SINCE IT'S A 16 ACRE SITE, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FEES IN LIEU, AND IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WILL COLLECT ALL THAT MONEY AND BUILD A LARGER PARK. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I'VE GOT MORE STATEMENTS TO MAKE. THE J SWING ON MORE THAN 50% IS BOTHERSOME TO ME, BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THIS WHEN WE LISTENED TO THOMAS RALPHIE -- INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] THAT WAS THE ONE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT, OR MAYBE IT WAS -- I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS ONE OF THEM. AND WE GAVE BLUEFIELD A PASS THAT ALLOWED THEM TO USE SOME J SWINGS, BUT A J SWING IS NOT A PREFERRED, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE PARKING IN THEIR FRONT YARDS. IT'S NOT A GOOD THING, IN MY OPINION. I JUST -- >> THIS IS, THIS IS A J SWING ON THE SIMILAR SIDE OF THE LOT IN DOVE CREEK. >> SO THAT LOOKS LIKE A SIDE ENTRY TO ME. >> WELL, SIDE ENTRY IS J SWING. >> THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. >> WHAT ARE YOU THINKING IS J SWING? >> WHEN YOU MAKE A J TO GO INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY, WHEN YOU'RE, YOUR DRIVEWAY IS IN THE FRONT OF YOUR HOME. THIS IS A, THIS IS A SIDE ENTRY. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS? >> >> HE THINGS A SIDE ENTRY. >> YEAH. THE PICTURE IS A SIDE ENTRY. J SWING IS WHAT YOU HAVE NOTED IN YOUR -- [01:40:01] >> SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, I APOLOGIZE. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AGAIN? >> ENTRY INTO J SWING? >> NOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GIVE YOU AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION, BUT I THINK THE, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, AND THAT IS THAT PRIMARILY THE FRONT YARD OF THE DRIVEWAY ON, ON SOME DESCRIPTIONS. I'M SURE THERE IS SOMEBODY IN THE ROOM -- WHO COULD PROBABLY GIVE A DEFINITION OF A J SWING. >> ] WIDER LOTS -- HAVE THE SIDE ENTRY, MODIFIED J SWING TYPE. SO -- >> ] >> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. >> IT IS IMPERATIVE. YES. IT'S IMPERATIVE TO WIDE A LOT IN ORDER TO HAVE A TRUE SIDE ENTRY. J SWING LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, A J SWING ON A REAL J SWING, YOU GO INTO THE BACKYARD AND COME BACK, LIKE A REAL J. THIS IS LIKE AN L SWING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT L SWINGS HERE. SO THE WHOLE NOMENCLATURES INCORRECT, BUT EVERYBODY USES AN INCORRECT NOMENCLATURE WITH IT. SO. >> ] >> YES. AND THAT'S -- YES. >> 10, 12 YEARS, 10 YEARS -- HOW LONG IT'S BEEN, THAT'S -- >> YES. YES. AND THAT'S INCORRECT. >> WE NEED TO FIX THAT. >> YES, YEAH WE DO. BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WILL THIS BE THE, THE SIDE ENTRY GARAGE, WILL THAT BE THE FRONT YARD, OR WILL IT BE BEHIND THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE? IS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION HERE. >> SIDE ENTRY, I JUST WANT TO BE REAL CLEAR, THAT WE ALSO WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION FOR A THIRD DAY, OR A THIRD CAR GARAGE THAT WILL BE FRONTING THE STREET WITH THE TWO, TWO DAYS BEING THE SIDE ENTRY. IS THAT -- AND I BEING CLEAR? >> CAN YOU PULL UP GOOGLE MAPS? >> NO, I'LL PULL IT UP. IT'S FINE. >> IF YOU CAN PULL UP 726 CLARKSBURG LANE? ALL RIGHT. WEIRD TRYING TO LOOK UP THERE AND DO THIS. WHAT'S THE ADDRESS AGAIN? >> 726 CLARKSBURG . >> OKAY. >> YOU CAN DO A, A STREET VIEW. >> IT'S NOT -- HERE? >> DOES THE SATELLITE, YOU MEAN? >> YEAH. AND YOU CAN EVEN -- YEAH. >> YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT ADDRESS SHOWS -- YEAH -- >> THAT'S A J. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A MAJORITY OF -- THE HOUSE JUST TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE 730 -- FRONT ENTRY, VERSUS TURNING INTO THE GARAGE. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS? >> I THINK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT MODIFIED J SWING, BECAUSE THAT'S, LIKE KEVIN SAID, THAT'S THE NOMENCLATURE THAT WE'VE BEEN USING, THAT IT JUST IS COVERING THE WIDE, THE RANGE OF DIFFERENT SIDE ENTRY GARAGE IS. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE WANTING TO DO ALL, I THINK WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IS JUST ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THE PAST, THE CITY AND COUNCIL HAVE PREFERRED NOT TO HAVE ALL FOR FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. SO THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT PRODUCTS OTHER THAN FRONT ENTRY GARAGES. SO I'M NOT REALLY THINKING THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS EXACT DESIGN FOR, FOR 50%. THAT'S NOT THE IMPRESSION THAT I GOT. AND I, I DO BELIEVE THAT PROBABLY THE STRICT DEFINITION OF J SWING IS [01:45:03] WHERE YOU GO ALL THE WAY BEHIND THE HOUSE AND J SWING BACK . >> AND, JACKIE, WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, WHAT WE CAN DO IS ADD IN GARAGE ORIENTATION STANDARDS THAT 50% OF ALL DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE DESIGNED -- CONSTRUCTED WITH A J ENTRY GARAGE BEHIND THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE. >> I, I HEAR YOU SAY THAT, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BEHIND THE FRONT PLANE. SO TO ME, THAT'S THE -- >> ] YOU LOOK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, TO THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH, THAT'S A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE. NO, I'M SORRY, GO UP. ONE MORE. YUP. RIGHT THERE. SO THAT'S A SIDE ENTRY. >> THIS IS THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE. J SWING INTO THAT ONE. AND THEY ALSO WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION TO HAVE A THIRD, AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE BAY FACING THE FRONT YARD, PROVIDED THE GARAGE DOOR MUST BE SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL 20 FEET FROM THE FACADE OF THE HOUSE. >> ] >> THERE'S A FEUD J SWINGS OUT THERE WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT J SWINGS BEFORE -- ONE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS -- ISSUE, AND THAT'S WHY WE -- ALLOW IT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS. THE OTHER PIECE OF IT IS, AS I JUST SAID IN OUR LAST HEARING, I'M NOT A FAN OF SEEING A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOUSES SQUEEZED INTO A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF LAND. AND 38 HOMES IN 16 ACRES, NOT INCLUDING ROADS AND DRAINAGE AREA, IS JUST A LOT OF HOUSES. >> SO WE JUST WENT THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS, AND THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF THOUGHT PUT INTO ALL THE DIFFERENT FUTURE LAND USES, AND SO IN PLACES IN THE CENTRAL LOOP, OR IN THE CENTRAL, GOING MORE CENTRAL, THAT'S WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS HIGHER DENSITIES, AND THEN WHEN YOU GO OUT FARTHER, THAT'S WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THE TWO ACRES, OR, OR WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE. SO THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION ON THE DIFFERENT LAND-USE CATEGORIES. >> RIGHT. RIGHT. OTHER, I GUESS, QUESTION OR CONCERN IS TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD -- THAT WOULD PUT 14 PROPERTY OWNERS ON THIS PROPERTY LINE, THE WAY THAT THIS IS PUT TOGETHER. WHAT KIND OF -- IS PLANNED TO SEPARATE THOSE 14 OWNERS FROM THEM? >> SO SAM HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WOULD BE A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, AND THEN HE SAID THAT IF, FOR SOME REASON, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION WANTED HIM TO TALK TO THEM AND SEE IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FENCE, THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO SAY, THEN, HE COULD DO THAT. I THINK HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER JUST DOESN'T WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN AT ALL. >> I'M NOT SAYING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN AT ALL. I JUST WORRY IF YOU'VE GOT 13 DIFFERENT PARTIES THAT YOU HAD TO GO AND TALK TO -- >> ARE YOU THINKING THAT, MASONRY? I MEAN, BECAUSE WE -- >> I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY ANSWER IS. >> YEAH. >> I JUST SEE IT AS A CONCERN. >> A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS PACKED INTO ONE SINGLE PROPERTY. >> YEAH. >> SO I KNOW WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THOMAS -- IN ORDER TO SEPARATE FROM THAT NEXT NEIGHBOR, THEY WERE COMING IN AND ALMOST PUTTING THEM, LIKE, AN IMPROVED ALLEY OR SOMETHING, JUST TO SHOW SOME SEPARATION. NOT SAYING I WANT AN ALLEYWAY THERE. I JUST, I JUST SEE A FEW ISSUES. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. OTHER COMMENTS? EMOTION? >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. JUST GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE WE PUT IN THE ORDINANCE, ON THE GARAGE ORIENTATION, SHOULD THAT NOT SAFE NO MORE THAN 50%? >> YEAH. >> I DON'T WANT TO MANDATE 50%, BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY LITERALLY -- >> I MEAN, I THINK WE COULD PUT NO MORE THAN 50%, AND THEN SET BACK FROM FRONT PLANE. >> WELL, I MEAN, YEAH, THAT'S JUST -- 50% -- DESIGN THERE. I JUST DON'T WANT -- LITERALLY HOW IT READS IS HE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD 50% OF THEM WITH THAT DESIGN. YOU DON'T -- >> NO MORE THAN 50%. >> I THINK THE INTENT IS TO ALLOW NO MORE THAN. >> AND SETBACK FROM FRONT PLANE. >> YEAH. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY IT NOW. >> AND WE WANT SIDE ENTRY, NOT -- HE >> YEAH. >> WOULD IT BE NO LESS THAN 50%? [01:50:04] >> NO LESS THAN 50%, IF IT'S SIDE ENTRY. >> NOT NO MORE THAN. BECAUSE YOU'RE WANTING SIDE ENTRY, NOT FRONT ENTRY. SO YOU WOULD WANT -- >> DEPENDS ON HOW THAT, DEPENDS ON HOW THAT ENTRY IS WORDED. BECAUSE THERE'S QUITE A, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME REWORDING IN HOW THE ORDINANCE HAD TO BE WRITTEN, AS IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. >> NO LESS THAN 50% SIDE ENTRY, INSTEAD OF J SWING? >> YEAH. I MEAN, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. >> AND THEN SET BACK FROM FRONT PLANE? >> YEAH, YEAH. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. >> ANYBODY? >> DO YOU, DON'T YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? >> SAY IT AGAIN. >> OKAY. NO LESS THAN 50% SIDE ENTRY, AND SETBACK FROM FRONT PLANE. >> KNOW? THAT'S STILL NOT -- >> WELL, SETBACK FROM FRONT PLANE -- >> YOU'RE WANTING MORE SIDE ENTRY -- >> MORE SIDE ENTRY -- >> SO IT WOULD BE NO LESS THAN 50%. I'M SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT A MINIMUM OF 50% OR MORE. SIDE ENTRY GARAGES. >> RIGHT. >> YEAH. I MEAN, YOU CAN REWORD IT IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, BUT. >> YEAH. I HAD WRITTEN IT AS 50% OR MORE SHALL BE SIDE ENTRY. SAME DIFFERENCE. YEAH. >> OKAY. >> MAKE IT EASY. >> -- >> WELL, SET BACK FROM THE FRONT PLANE WOULD BE PREVENTING THE J SWING, I MEAN, THE FRONT YARD J SWING, ANYWAY. SO THAT WAS THE OTHER THING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED. SO, I MEAN, IF IT'S SET BACK FROM THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE, THEN WHEN YOU HAVE THAT, I CAN'T CLICK THERE, HOLD ON. WHEN YOU HAVE THIS SITUATION HERE, THEN THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE WOULD BE HERE, AND THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT THE GARAGE AS KIND OF A MODIFIED SNOUT, AND JUST HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, ALL DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. >> I MEAN, ALL THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS NOT HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT -- >> RIGHT. YEAH. SO, YEAH. SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PLANE WOULD DO THAT. >> YEAH. >> YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION? >> GO FOR IT. >> DON'T LOOK AT ME. >> YOU STARTED IT. >> YEAH. WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT? >> WELL, I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. >> SURE. >> AND THE ONE THING ABOUT THE PRIVACY FENCE, IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER TO, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATE FOR THE GAP SO THAT THE WATER SHEET FLOWING THROUGH. >> NO, NO, THAT'S TRUE. YOU KNOW, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NOTED CHANGES TO DRIVEWAYS . AS FAR AS WE COULD. COULD WE ASK THE GENTLEMAN IF HE HAS A PREFERENCE ON WHAT KIND OF FENCE HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE? >> SURE. I, WELL, WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. CAN WE -- >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> SIR, WHAT KIND OF A FENCE WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTY? SURE. >> ] >> YEAH, YOU, CAN YOU STEP UP HERE? >> IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY SPREAD WEST ONTO MY PROPERTY, I GET NOT WANTING [01:55:01] TO PUT UP A PERMANENT BRICK WALL OR MASONRY WALL. I GET THAT. BUT, BUT A WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE, COME ON, YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THEM, YOU KNOW? YOU PUT UP A WOODEN PRIVACY FENCE AND FIVE, 10 YEARS LATER, YOU'RE REPAIRING IT. YOU'RE FIXING IT. I'VE GOT A GERMAN SHEPHERD. HE WONDERS MY 10 ACRES. HE FINDS A HOLE IN THE FENCE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. AND, YOU KNOW, I MAY, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, HAVE LIVESTOCK. IT'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S STURDY ENOUGH TO HOLD UP TO THAT, UNLESS I HAVE TO PUT UP ANOTHER FENCE ON MY SIDE OF IT. >> I WOULD THINK IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT UP LIGHT SOCKS, THAT SIDE WOULD BE YOURS. >> RIGHT. BUT EVEN SO, YOU KNOW, A PRIVACY FENCE IS NOT VERY STURDY. IT'S NOT VERY PRIVATE. >> WHAT KIND OF FENCE DO YOU HAVE CURRENTLY? >> RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST, IT'S WIRE, YOU KNOW, JUST FIELD FENCE. STEEL PIPE AND WIRE. THE FENCE THAT WAS THERE. THAT FENCE WAS THERE WHEN WE BOUGHT IT, SO . THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY PRIVACY, BUT I DON'T NEED ANY PRIVACY FROM AN EMPTY PASTOR. IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, CATTLE FENCE, SO. >> SO, MARY, WHAT IF WE REQUIRED, OR HAD DONE IN OTHER SITUATIONS? I MEAN, THIS CAN'T BE THE FIRST TIME WE'VE RUN INTO THIS. >> IT'S RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, SO, I MEAN, IF IT WERE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, WE WOULD REQUIRE MASONRY FENCE. BUT RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, I MEAN, A, A PRIVACY FENCE IS TYPICAL FOR 99% OF THE -- I MEAN, SO. >> AND, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AS WELL. I UNDERSTAND THE OWNER'S CONCERN, RIGHT? IT'S THE SAME THING WE ALL CAME UP WITH HERE. THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A GOOD WAY TO SOLVE IT. >> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PUT AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE UP? ALL RIGHT. SO THEN I'LL MAKE A, A, SO IT LOOKS, LOOKS TO DO A PROPOSAL TO, OR TO APPROVE IT WITH THE FRONT ENTRIES, AS STATED EARLIER, AND THEN AN EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, WITH A PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES. ON THE WEST SIDE. THANK YOU. >> CAN I REPEAT, REPEAT THAT, BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO PRESENTED TO COUNCIL? I'M SORRY. >> NO, I CAN'T REPEAT THAT. >> CAN I REPEAT IT FOR YOU? >> SURE. GO FOR IT. >> NO LESS THAN 50% SIDE ENTRY, SET BACK FROM FRONT PLANE, AND EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE WEST SIDE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. >> IS THAT YOUR MOTION? >> THAT'S MY MOTION. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO HIS MOTION? OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOW, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. >> OKAY. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 008, [008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 33.339+ acres in the JT Rawls Survey, Abstract No. 933, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas, by changing the zoning from Planned Development No. 4 (PD-4) District to Planned Development No. 179 (PD-179) for Community Retail (CR) District uses. The property is generally located on the south side of West Main Street, west of State Highway 67, and northeast of US Highway 287. (Z16-2024-066)] CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 33.339+ OR MINUS ACRES IN THE JT RAWLS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 933, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM PLANT DEVELOPMENT 4 DISTRICT TO PLANT DEVELOPMENT 179 FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT USE. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST MAIN STREET, WEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 67, AND NORTHEAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287. >> OKAY. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS BRIEF, BUT THERE'S A LOT TO IT. SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN 67 AND 287. CURRENTLY IT IS HIS OWN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 4, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO PLANT DEVELOPMENT 179 BEFORE COMMUNITY RETAIL USES WITH MORE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. SPECIFICALLY, THEY'RE LOOKING AT A HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE, RESTAURANTS, COMMUNITY STORE, RETAIL OFFICE AND HOTELS. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS REGION MODULE. THERE'S SEVERAL GOALS AND STRATEGIES THAT SUPPORT -- THIS [02:00:02] LOCATION. TO THE NORTH, THERE'S PROPERTY ZONED COMMERCIAL FOR THE LOVES TRUCK STOP, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO PROPERTY PD 49, WHICH HAS A VARIETY OF LAND USES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THEN TO THE SOUTH, IT'S REALLY SURROUNDED BY PD 4, CURRENTLY. THERE'S UNDEVELOPED LAND. TO THE EAST IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 171, WHICH IS THE MAINSTREET TOWN CROSSING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND TO THE WEST IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 4 AS WELL. SO A LOT OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS TO LOOK AT ENHANCING THE DESIGN AND, AND USES FOR THIS AREA. SO PD 4, I DON'T, IT'S ONE OF THE FIRST PD'S FOR THE CITY STRONG. IT WAS DONE BACK IN THE 80S. IT DOESN'T HAVE PROVISIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. IT DOESN'T HAVE ELEVATIONS. IT DOESN'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND IT HAS VERY GENERALLY DEFINED LAND USES. SO IT'LL JUST SAY SOMETHING LIKE "COMMERCIAL" OR "MANUFACTURING". SO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND KIND OF CLEANUP THAT LANGUAGE. SO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 179 HAS CERTAIN USES THAT ARE ALLOWED WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO, LIKE BUSINESSES WITH THE WINDOWS, PET SHOPS, RESTAURANTS WITHOUT A DRIVE-THROUGH. THERE'S ONE DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT THAT'S ALLOWED, AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, AND A GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE STORE AND RETAIL SALES. SO, AGAIN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 4 REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROHIBITED USES. IT WAS JUST RESTRICTED TO ANY USES THAT WORD EXPLICITLY LISTED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO, IN THIS CASE, PROHIBITED USES FOR PD 179 R CAR WASH, PACKAGE STORE, OUTDOOR KENNEL, OR COMMERCIAL PARKING, WHICH ENCOMPASSES TRUCK PARKING, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT IT MIGHT BECOME MORE TRUCK PARKING, LIKE LOVE. SO WE DO HAVE IN OUR KIND OF ORDINANCES THAT LARGE TRUCKS CAN'T JUST PARK ANYWHERE, AND THEN IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO CHARGE MONEY OR, OR INTRODUCE THAT USE, IT'S PROHIBITED. AND THEN THERE ARE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD COME BACK THROUGH YOU AND CITY COUNCIL. SO UNLIKE THE LOWEST, WHICH WAS APPROVED AS PART OF PD 171, THE HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE WOULD COME BACK TO YOU, AND ANY OUTDOOR DISPLAY THAT THEY WOULD PROMOTE OR PROVIDE, THE LARGE-FORMAT STORE, THIS IS THE SAME PROVISION FROM THE WEBER DEVELOPMENT. SO IF, FOR SOME REASON, THE HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE DIDN'T COME IN, THEN A SIMILAR TYPE OF USE COULD COME IN, HAVE THE SAME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. A GROCERY STORE, MINOR AUTO AND HOTEL. SO THESE ARE ALL USES THAT REQUIRE AN SUB IN THE CR BASED ZONING, AND THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DID THE COMPARISON, THEY DO MEET MOST OF THE CRITERIA. PROBABLY THE TWO NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS ARE THE LOT WIDTHS, WHICH, WITH COMMERCIAL, ISN'T AS RADICAL AS IT IS WITH RESIDENTIAL. YOU SEE A LOT OF RETAIL CENTERS WHICH WILL HAVE, LIKE, WITH THE MIDTOWN , SOME RETAIL WITH NARROW COMMERCIAL LOTS THAT EXTEND BACK INTO THE PARKING AREA. AND THEN HEIGHT IS PROBABLY THE OTHER ONE, WHERE THEY ARE LOOKING AT 45 FEET MAXIMUM, 50 FEET FOR A HOTEL, AND ADDED 15 FOOT FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, LIKE SPIRES OR CLAP POWERS, WHATEVER. STAFF SUPPORTS THIS, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY AT ALL. SO THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THEN AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE ZERO SETBACK ON COMMERCIAL WHERE THEY HAVE A FIREWALL, THAT ALLOWS THEM TO DO [02:05:05] THAT. SO IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SO THIS IS A SITE PLAN JUST KIND OF LAYING OUT THE GENERAL USES ON THE SITE. THE HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE WILL BE ON THE WEST SIDE. THE CONVENIENCE STORE SHOWN ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND THE DRIVE-THROUGH, THEY DID PROVIDE PARKING AND A TABLE THAT SHOWS PARKING AND CERTAIN LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING. WITH TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC, THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY TXDOT ROADWAYS. MAINSTREET, YOU KNOW, REALLY, KIND OF, TO THE WEST, IS MORE DESIGNATED AS A 90 FOOT WIDE RIGHT AWAY MINOR ARTERIAL. ALL OF THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY TXDOT. THERE IS AGREEMENT FOR, EIGHT AGREEMENT FOR SHARED ACCESS BETWEEN THE FIRE STATION. THE T.I.A. THAT WAS DONE RECOMMENDS THAT WITH PHASE ONE THAT THEY ADD TWO OUTBOUND LANES FOR DRIVE THREE, AND THEN PHASE TWO THAT EASTBOUND, A RIGHT TURN D CELL LANE, AND WESTBOUND LEFT TURN D CELL LANE WILL BE PROVIDED FOR DRIVE TO, AND THAT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL BE INSTALLED ACROSS FROM LOVE'S ON DRIVE THREE. NOW, THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED YET, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH STAFF AND TXDOT ON. DID YOU GUYS FEEL FREE, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION, TO -- SO THERE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE, THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THEY SHOWED THE EASTERN, NORTHEASTERN PART OF THE SIDE IS PHASE ONE, AND THE WESTERN, SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE SITE IS PHASE TWO. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT JUST A MINUTE? FIRE STATION DRIVE, THAT COMES OUT ON THE OFFRAMP, COMING OFF OF 387 -- >> WELL, I, I THINK IT HAS TWO. I MEAN, THERE'S A DRIVE HERE -- YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE RIGHT HERE? >> YEAH. YEAH. >> YEAH. >> ISN'T THAT A RAMP? >> OH, IT DOESN'T -- NO. >> OKAY. THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED THAT WILL PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES IS THE AMENITY CENTER, WHICH WILL PROVIDE A GATEWAY TO THE CITY AND WILL PRESERVE THE EXISTING RETENTION PONDS, PROVIDE THREE WATER FEATURES -- COVERED SHELTER, OVERLOOK, SEEDING, WALKING TRAILS, AND THEY'VE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING FOR THE ENTRY FEATURE, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL TREES AND FLOWERS, SHRUBS, AND -- SO THEY'VE PROVIDED SOME PICTURES OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. THEY ALSO PROVIDED SOME DETAILED RENDERINGS OF ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND GAS STATION AREA. SO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BUFFERS ADJACENT TO ALL THE RIGHTS OF WAY. THE STREET, THE STREET TREES MAY BE CLUSTERED, BUT THEY STILL WILL MEET THE 40 FOOT RATIO. THERE WILL BE LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE OFFSTREET PARKING AREAS AND WOULD ENTRY FOR EVERY 10 PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE PARKING AREAS, AND ADDITIONAL SCREENING FOR ANY OUTDOOR USES OR BAYS. THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IS OLD TOWN ARCHITECTURAL. THE DESIGN, THEIR AIM IS TO LOOK AT BUILDINGS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'VE TRANSFORMED OVER TIME. THERE ARE SINGLE AND MULTITENANT BUILDINGS WITH THE -- FLOOR AREA OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE LARGE-FORMAT STORES GREATER THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET WILL, THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, THEY CAN USE THEIR CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE. HOWEVER, AGAIN, THOSE LARGER USES WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND P&Z, SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THEM. SO THIS IS JUST MORE DETAILED RENDERING OF WHAT THOSE BUILDINGS WOULD LOOK LIKE. AND THAT SITE PLAN INCLUDES PYLON SIGNS ALONG MAIN STREET AND THE 67 FRONTAGE ROAD THOSE WILL BE 35 FEET TALL. [02:10:03] MONUMENT SIGNS WILL BE 13 FEET SIX INCHES TALL. THE SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDINGS, EACH RETAIL SPACE CAN HAVE UP TO TWO SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE. THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE SIGNAGE ON TWO SIDES OF THE -- SINCE IT'S A 360 TYPE DESIGN WHERE THESE WILL BE FROM ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING. 12 LETTERS WERE SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> QUESTIONS? >> -- QUESTIONS -- MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT THE PROPERTY ON THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE TO THE WEST OF THE HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER? BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE, NO, NOT THE FIRE STATION. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THAT TRIANGLE. THEY, THEY WOULD, THEIR LOT WOULD BE BLOCKED. >> THEY, THEY DO HAVE ACCESS. I MEAN, JUST, THEY CAN GET ACCESS FROM THIS ACCESS EASEMENT BY THE FIRE STATION. I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, AT ONE TIME, HAD TALKED ABOUT PUTTING A HOTEL THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE COMING FORWARD ANYTIME SOON. >> SO HAVE THERE BEEN ANY -- FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR? >> NOT IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. >> HOW WOULD THIS ADDRESS THE CURRENT PARKING SITUATION THAT'S HAPPENING BY ALL OF THE -- THAT ARE PARKING IN FRONT OF THIS AREA? IS THERE A PLAN TO CREATE A PARKING LOT FOR THOSE TRUCKS? >> WELL, THE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TRUCKS PARKING ALONG MAIN STREET? SO THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK ALONG MAIN STREET. SO OUR, WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEY GET TICKETED. SO WE'LL CONTINUE THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CITY WANTS TO BUILD PARKING FOR THE TRUCKS. THEY PROBABLY WOULD JUST NEED TO FIND COMMERCIAL PARKING WHERE THEY CAN PAY AND PUT THEIR TRUCKS. >> AND I'D SUGGEST THIS REQUIRED PARKING ZONING THAT THEY HAD -- LOW VOLUME ] >> BUT I AM BEING REAL ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WE'RE CURRENTLY -- >> SURE. >> -- RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THAT THE HIGHWAYS ARE ROUTED, IF YOU ARE COMING OFF OF 287 AND YOU NEED TO GO NORTHBOUND ON 67, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE INTERSECTIONS. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING EVEN MORE TRAFFIC TO AN ALREADY SOMEWHAT DANGEROUS AREA WHERE YOU DO HAVE TRUCKS TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF LOVE'S. AND IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER GAS STATION, TWO DRIVE-THROUGH'S, AND A MASSIVE RETAIL STORE. SO I JUST, I'M JUST -- VOLUME ] WHERE ARE THOSE TRUCKS GOING TO BE, AND HOW ARE PEOPLE TRYING TO GET THROUGH -- I THINK YOU SAID THREE ENTRANCES ON THAT SIDE? I'M -- >> YEAH. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO VISUALIZE, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE, AND WHAT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS -- HAVEN'T COME TO US THAT WOULD ALSO PLAY INTO OUR POSITION? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT'S COME TO US IS ALREADY THERE, WITH THE WEBER DEVELOPMENT AND THE WEST SIDE, YOU KNOW, PRESERVE. SO, AND THEY, I THINK I'M GOING TO PROBABLY TURN THIS OVER TO THE APPLICANT, OR, YOU KNOW, OR MIKE, BUT WHEN THEY DID THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, THEY DID LOOK AT THESE INTERSECTIONS, AS WELL AS GOING, YOU KNOW, TWO INTERSECTIONS BEYOND THAT TO ANALYZE THE TRAFFIC. SO, I MEAN, IT IS GOING TO CHANGE, DEFINITELY. AND SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE BEST SOLUTION TO ACCOMMODATE THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. BUT THE TRUCKS, I MEAN, I THINK THAT A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE TRUCK PARKING ALONG DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE HIGHWAY, AWAY FROM THE CITY CENTER. COMMERCIAL PARKING ALONG DIFFERENT PARTS OF 67, OR SOME OTHER AREAS OF TOWN. >> WELL, AREN'T THEY, AREN'T THEY SURROUNDED BY TXDOT, REALLY? [02:15:01] >> THEY ARE. >> I THINK MAINSTREET IS A STATE HIGHWAY, YEAH? >> YEAH, TECHNICALLY. >> YOU GOT U.S. 67. THAT'S A TXDOT ROAD. YOU GOT TO 87. THAT'S A TXDOT ROAD. SO ULTIMATELY, WHATEVER THEY DO FOR TRAFFIC, INGRESS, EGRESS, OR WHATEVER, IS ULTIMATELY UP TO TXDOT, NOT THE CITY. >> AT THE CURRENT TIME, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. >> I MEAN, WE CAN REQUEST TO THE CITY THAT IT BE A CERTAIN WAY, AND HOPE TXDOT APPROVED THAT, BUT THE ULTIMATE DECISION IS TXDOT'S. >> THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. AND WE'VE HAD A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH, OR, I SHOULD SAY MIKE HAS COME AWAY TXDOT. I MEAN, THE, THE 7/11 THAT JUST GOT APPROVED FOR, BY COUNCIL, THEY WORKED WITH TXDOT AND STAFF TO WORK OUT THE RESOLUTION ON THAT. SO THAT'S THE GOAL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. >> OKAY, WELL, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, AND THEN COME BACK FOR STAFF QUESTIONS. YOU WANT TO COME UP? IDENTIFY YOURSELF. TELL US WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY. >> YES SIR. SAM SATURDAY WHITE -- 21 WINCO CIRCLE -- IT'S BEEN A LOT OF TIME TO GET TO THIS POINT. SEEMS ALMOST ANTI-CLIMACTIC, TO SUM IT UP IN 15 MINUTES. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR OVER A YEAR. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT OVER A YEAR BECAUSE ORIGINALLY, I, I DON'T THINK OUR PLAN WAS AS GOOD AS IT COULD'VE BEEN, AS GOOD AS IT IS NOW. AND I BELIEVE IT IS A LOT BETTER NOW WITH STAFF DIRECTION. WE HEARD THAT, YOU KNOW, A GAS STATION IS, IS A PROBLEM. WE DON'T WANT COMPS JUST, YOU KNOW, BLEEDING OUT ON THE ROAD. THAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU SAW. SO WE CAME UP WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO FRONT ON MAIN STREET, SO THERE WILL BE SOME ENHANCED LEVEL OF SCREENING THERE. WE HEARD THAT THE, THAT WE NEED SOMETHING SPECIAL HERE. I MEAN, YOU PUT A RETAIL CENTER IN A LOT OF PLACES, BUT WE'D LIKE SOMETHING SPECIAL. SO WE IDENTIFIED THE RETENTION, RETENTION PONDS THAT ARE IN PLACE NOW. WE'VE COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT, WHILE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, I, I THINK IT, IT, IT DOES, DOES REAL WELL IN THIS SITUATION. TRAILS AROUND THE PONDS, CLEANING THEM OUT, OBVIOUSLY, D SILTING THEM. WE HAD TO GO IN AND DO A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT STUDY OF THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AND DRAINAGE PLANE THAT WAS CREATED BY TXDOT. I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG AGO, BUT SOMETIME AGO. MAKE SURE IT'S STILL FUNCTIONING PROPERLY, AND DO WE NEED TO EXPAND THOSE AREAS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR DRAINAGE? AND THE TENSION. SO THAT WILL BE FURTHER IN THE PLANNING STAGE. I THINK OUR, OUR AMENITY PLAN, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A CENTERPIECE FOR THE COMMUNITY. I THINK IT'S WHERE FAMILIES ARE GOING TO COME SPEND TIME WALKING AROUND THE LAKES, THE PAVILION, ET CETERA. PEOPLE SITTING ON THE BACK OF WHAT YOU SEE IS THESE MULTITENANT BUILDINGS, AND EVEN THE MEDICAL OFFICE OVERLOOKING THE POND, AND TO GO OUT AND WALK DURING LUNCH OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. SO, I MEAN, WE, WE HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR THIS GETTING APPROVED. WE THINK WE BROUGHT A GOOD PLAN FORWARD WITH THE HELP OF STAFF, AND I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> OKAY. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I DO HAVE ONE, IF YOU CAN ANSWER. ARE YOU ALREADY IN DISCUSSIONS WITH TXDOT REGARDING INGRESS AND EGRESS, AND WHATEVER ELSE IS INVOLVED? >> YES SIR. AS MARY STATED, THE PIA STATES THAT IN 27, 2027, -- SHOULD WARRANT -- OF COURSE, THAT'S LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S ALL UP TO WHETHER THE WARRANT, TXDOT WARRANTS THE LOT. SO I KNOW THERE'S SOME SPACING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH WITH THE CITY, AND I, I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST TWO MEETINGS, PROBABLY MORE, BETWEEN TXDOT AND THE CITY TO IDENTIFY A SOLUTION THERE. SO WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S GOING TO BE -- SIGNAL IN THE FUTURE. >> MIKE, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? >> YES SIR. SO WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH TXDOT AS PART OF THE PIA THAT WAS DONE. ONE OF THE CONCERNS, OF COURSE, IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S LINEUP WITH, I THINK IT'S VALLEY CREEK, IT GOES INTO LOWE'S, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A -- IT'S A DRIVE. INTENT WAS TO ALLOW THAT SO THAT TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT NOW WOULD HAVE A [02:20:05] TRAFFIC SIGNAL AS WELL. THE CONCERN IS, WE HEARD BACK FROM TXDOT TODAY THAT, FROM A SPACING STANDPOINT BETWEEN 67 AND WHERE THAT DRIVE CURRENTLY IS RIGHT NOW, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE DRIVES THERE THAT WERE APPROVED AND PUT IN PLACE. THAT'S TOO CLOSE. THAT DOESN'T MEET THEIR STANDARDS. THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ELEVATE IT TO THE DISTRICT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT TO, TO GET THEIR, TO GET THEIR TAKE ON IT AS WELL. ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAID WAS IF YOU WOULD SHIFT A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO THE WEST, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IT DOESN'T LINE UP WITH LOVE'S, SO YOU STILL HAVE TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT WITHOUT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, BUT ALSO IF YOU START TRYING TO EXTEND THAT TO THE NORTH, A ROAD TO THE NORTH, IT'S ALL FLOODPLAIN AND REALLY LOW-LYING AREAS, SO THERE'S A BIG POSSIBILITY IT'S NOT GOING TO EXTENDED, THE ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED TO THE NORTH. SO THE BIGGEST CONCERN WE HAVE, AND I THINK JACKIE TOUCHED ON IT, IS THAT WHETHER YOU'RE GOING SOUTHBOUND 67, YOU WANT TO GO NORTHBOUND 287, OR YOU'RE GOING SOUTH BOUND 287, AND YOU WANT TO GO NORTH ON 67, EVERYTHING HAS TO COME THROUGH HERE. WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH TXDOT FOR YEARS ABOUT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A DIRECT CONNECT 67, 287, AND THE OTHER. IS THAT IN THE PLANS? SOMEWHERE IT IS, BUT WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN, I DON'T KNOW. SO THIS IS PART OF THE, THIS IS PART OF THE GROWING PAINS. YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO GET, IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER, YOU KNOW? IF AND WHEN THAT DOES HAPPEN, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT AGAIN, RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE NO PLANS. FRONTAGE ROADS ARE BEING PLANNED, BUT THOSE HAVE BEEN DELAYED. 1387 BEING PLANNED. THAT'S BEEN DELAYED. I MEAN, SO THERE'S A LOT OF DELAYS THAT ARE HAPPENING, SO, SO AGAIN, THE INTENT WOULD BE, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, I, I CAN'T IMAGINE HAVING THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT'S, WHAT'S OUT THERE NOW WITHOUT HAVING SOME KIND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL. IT'S JUST, THAT'S A REALLY SHORT LENGTH. YOU'RE EITHER CLOSE TO 287 AND THE SIGNAL THAT THERE, OR YOU'RE CLOSE TO 67. >> WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT, SCOTT? WHAT WAS TXDOT -- >> 2030 AND BEYOND. A MINIMUM OF -- >> YEAH. DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, ONE MORE COMMENT. MS. MCDONALD, WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, BUT -- WHETHER IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT ANY 18 WHEELERS IN OUR, IN THIS AREA, AND THAT'S WHY STAFF SUGGESTED WE PUT THE NO COMMERCIAL PARKING IN THERE. WE ARE DEFINITELY ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE -- MY CONCERN IS, I -- CITY COUNCIL MEETING -- LAST WEEK, AND I KNOW WE ALSO APPROVED SOME NEW PROJECTS RECENTLY. WE ARE BUILDING MORE AND MORE MANUFACTURING LANES. WE ARE SAYING YES TO MORE AND MORE WAREHOUSES. WE ARE WELCOMING ALL OF THESE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE THESE GIANT TRUCKS, AND THEN WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO GIVE THEM A PLACE TO GO. AND RIGHT NOW LOVE'S IS THE ONLY PLACE THEY HAVE TO GO. WE DIDN'T ALLOW A PILOT, OR FLYING J. WE TURNED THAT DOWN WHEN WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO ALL KINDS OF AMAZING STUFF IN THIS AREA. AND NOW WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO BUILD -- EVEN FURTHER AWAY. SO WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM A PLACE TO GO. SO I, I, I SEE THIS AS A CLUSTER. I SEE THIS AS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, AND SOMEBODY ELSE SAID IT, A GATEWAY TO OUR COMMUNITY. THESE ARE ALL OF THE BIG PLACES WHERE PEOPLE COME INTO THE -- I DON'T WANT TO LOOK ACROSS AND SEE A GIANT BOX. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT ROOFTOP. WE ALREADY ARE SEEING -- THAT HAS A BIG BOX -- COME OVER THE HILL, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SNOWING. ALL YOU SEE IS THE TOP OF THAT WHITE BOX. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT ANOTHER BOX. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT A THREE-STORY HOTEL. I THINK WHAT IS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW IN THOSE LANES, AND SEEING PEOPLE FISHING, AND I KNOW THAT'S OLD SCHOOL -- BUT I THINK THERE'S A BETTER PLAN TO USE THIS AND SUPPORT WHAT'S THERE, AND THE TERRAIN OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I -- >> SO LET'S, UNLESS WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, OR STAFF, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF WE CAN CARRY THESE COMMENTS OUT INTO DISCUSSION. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO TESTIFY, SO, CORRECT? SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND. >> IS THAT EMOTION? >> I, I MADE THE MOTION. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE MOTIONING. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> NOW THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. >> GO AHEAD. >> -- AS IT IS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG BOX RIGHT ACROSS THE HIGHWAY ANYWAY. I MEAN, USUALLY [02:25:02] WHETHER IT'S ONE OR ANOTHER, I THINK THIS IS THE BEST PRACTICAL PURPOSE FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE LOVE'S TRAFFIC. I THINK IT'S BETTER WITH THE ENFORCEMENT. IT USE TO BE REALLY BAD. BUT I DO AGREE THAT'S THE ONLY, THAT'S THE ONLY TRUCK STOP, REALLY, FOR MILES AND MILES. AND THERE NEEDS TO BE ANOTHER ONE. BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO HOLD THESE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE, WRECK THEIR PLANS, BECAUSE OF A LOVE'S TRUCK STOP . I THINK IT'S BETTER DOWN THERE, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME, DEFINITELY SOME INPUT FROM TXDOT TO IMPROVE THAT SITUATION. BUT I, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, AND I LIKE THE DESIGN. I THINK IT'S A LONG TIME COMING. >> ANYONE ELSE? ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY -- >> ] REGARDING THE -- LANGUAGE -- >> FOR BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, IT IF THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE FIRST PHASE. THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT. AND THAT AT LEAST PART OF THE MOTION INCLUDE -- OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR. WE DON'T HAVE A PERFECT , REALLY GOOD DEADLINE ON WHEN -- OTHERWISE, ARGUABLY, IF YOU SAY THE INITIAL PHASE, THE MAIN TRAFFIC LIKE IT IS BEEN -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANYBODY'S -- >> -- THIS NEEDS TO BE -- YEAH, RIGHT NOW THE LANGUAGE -- >> PENDING -- >> THE LANGUAGE OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INDICATES A NEED FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON THE MAIN STREET, WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE -- WITH THE ADDITIONAL -- ONE SIDE -- FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT LANGUAGE, BY ITSELF, DOESN'T REALLY IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHEN THAT MEANS, WHAT THAT MEANS, WHEN IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE IN. >> OKAY. SO -- WHAT IF WE SAID, PENDING -- >> MAKE SOLUTION -- >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE STOPLIGHT IS IN PLACE PENDING -- >> I WOULD SUGGEST -- >> CO FOR THE FIRST -- >> YEAH, PRIOR TO THE CO. >> BECAUSE THAT IS, THAT IS A LOT OF TIME -- >> COULD MIKE -- >> MIKE'S GOING TO -- >> I MEAN, THAT -- >> HENCE A BIGGER PROBLEM. I REALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT SOLUTION, BUT WE HAVEN'T WORKED THAT OUT YET. >> OKAY, SO LET'S NOT, I MEAN, THAT WILL BE OUR CALL, IF TXDOT SAYS IT CAN'T GO. -- PENDING THE APPROVAL OF TXDOT -- >> WHICH, OF COURSE, MEANS IF TXDOT NEVER APPROVES OF THE SIGNAL IT'S A >> THAT'S TRUE. SO I'LL, I'LL CALL BACK TO YOU. WHERE DO WE GO WITH THAT? >> SUBJECT TO, WELL -- PROVIDE, PROVIDED TXDOT APPROVES THE -- >> SO BY THE TIME -- >> I THE TIME -- >> BY THE TIME -- >> OKAY, SO -- >> GO AHEAD. >> AND I, I'M SORRY I'M THROWING THIS OUT, BECAUSE I WANT TO GO HOME, BECAUSE IT'S ICING SO WHAT ARE THE OTHER THI THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY HIT ON AND TALKED ABOUT, AND BEING PART OF KROGER AND WATCHING ALL OF THAT? THE OTHER THING THEY PUT ON HERE WERE THE SIGNS. CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE -- ARE -- SIGNS -- I'M SORRY. I'M NOT FINDING IT. [02:30:04] >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DIRECTIONAL SIGNS? >> NO, NO, NO. >> I SEE IT HERE. I'M NOT -- LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE. >> IT'S IN THERE. >> ICY CANOPY AND AWNING SIGNS. >>: MONUMENT SIGNS. >> OKAY. >> -- FIRST SECTION OF THE SITE PLAN. SUBSECTION -- FIRST SECTION -- IT MAY NOT BE, MAKE SURE YOU'RE IN THE ORDINANCE AND NOT IN THE STAFF -- >> RIGHT. IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF LIMITED TO SO MUCH HEIGHT, LIKE -- >> IT'S ON THIS. THIS IS INCORPORATED IN THE ORDINANCE. AND IT SPECIFIES THE HEIGHT ON THE, ON THE EXHIBIT. YEAH. ON THE DRAWING. SO THAT FUNCTIONS AS THE RESTRICTION. >> AND ARE WE OKAY WITH 35 -- IS THAT THE LOOK WE'RE GOING FOR? >> IS THAT NOT WHAT WE APPROVED? >> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE FOR -- >> ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY? >> -- WHEN THAT HAPPENS. BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THAT IS, THAT IS, IT'S A DIFFERENT THING ON THESE -- THEN IT IS OUT -- ALL THESE HIGHWAYS GOING AROUND. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM ALL THESE DIFFERENT VIEWS -- >> THE HIGHWAYS ARE ELEVATED, SO IT'S GOING TO BE -- >> WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING -- >> I THINK WE'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT IS. I MEAN, THE SIGNS ARE ADDICTING TO THE COUNCIL. PROBABLY WHAT WE DID DIDN'T CHANGE ANYWAY. SO I, I DON'T MEAN THAT DEROGATORILY. THAT'S JUST FACTUAL. THEY HAVE A VIEW OF SIGNS, AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THEM TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT. SO, THAT BEING THE CASE, YOUR, YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED WITH -- >> THE LIGHT BEING THERE, PENDING THE FIRST -- APPROVAL. YES. THERE YOU GO. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> OKAY. HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOW, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED. GOT [MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION] ONE. OKAY. STAFF, YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? >> YES. I WAS OUT OF THE ROOM WHEN THE MINUTES WERE DISCUSSED, AND THE DECEMBER MINUTES WERE CORRECTED, SO THEY ARE CORRECT, AND THEN THE JANUARY ONES WERE CORRECTED AS WELL. SO DAN ALTMAN WAS NOT THERE. HE WAS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AT THE TIME, AND EVERYBODY ELSE WAS HERE. Y'ALL TOOK THE PICTURE FOR THE VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION. THAT'S DECEMBER. AND DECEMBER, IS IT IN THERE, BECAUSE YOU GUYS APPROVED IT PENDING THAT WE HAVE, CORRECT THE ATTENDANCE SHOWING THAT MARK HILL WASN'T HERE. AND WE DID. >> >> OH, THE SEPARATE VOTE WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. APOLOGIZE. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF? >> NO, THAT'S IT. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SECO * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.