[008 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 50.958+ acres out of the J. Coldiron Survey, Abstract 224, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to a Planned Development District No. 181 (PD-181) for Single Family Four (SF-4) uses. The property is generally located on the south side of W. Highland Road, east of Mockingbird Lane. (Z22-2025-060)]

PUBLIC HEARINGS, ITEM 008, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE MAINTAINING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOP INTO 50.958 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES OUT OF THE J COLD IRON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 224, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURE DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 181 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY FOUR USES. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST HIGHLAND ROAD, EAST

OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE. >> OKAY. SO THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PD 181 WITH A BASE ZONING OF SINGLE-FAMILY FOUR POINT THE TOTAL SITE IS ALMOST 51 ACRES.

IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. THERE ARE 50 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND SEVEN HOA OPEN SPACE LOTS, WHICH IS ABOUT ONE ACRE.

THE COMP PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS IT ADDS RESIDENTIAL LOAD DENSITY, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE PROPOSED IS .98 TO 1.25 MAX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AS YOU CAN SEE, HERE'S A CLOSE-UP ON THIS SITE OUTLINED IN RED AND THEN ALL AROUND OUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES OR PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. AND THEN HERE YOU CAN SEE THE COLORED IS WITHIN CITY LIMITS AND THEN THE PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE THE OVERLAY COLOR ARE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. TO THE WEST IS MOCKINGBIRD SPRINGS ALONG WITH PART OF THE SOUTH AND THEN TO THE EAST IS WEST HIGHLAND ESTATES, WHICH IS BEING BUILT OUT. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. THE NORTH IS TO THE RIGHT OF YOUR SCREEN. SO WEST HIGHLAND IS TO THE NORTH AND THEN TO THE SOUTH WILL BE MOCKINGBIRD SPRINGS. AS YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT STREETS ALONG WITH THOSE 30 HOA SMALL OPEN SPACES ALONG WITH THE HOA OPEN SPACE WITH THE DETENTION POND, IN THE BLUE. IT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY OF THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN. THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE -- LAST TIME THEY CAME THROUGH THEY DIDN'T PROPOSE A 15 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE SPACE ADJACENT TO WEST HIGHLAND. THERE KEEPING THAT. NOW EVENTS WILL BE INSTALLED .

STONE BRICK INTERLAKE FEATURE, WHICH THERE ARE PHOTOS ON THE SCREEN OF WHAT THAT IS PROPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. ASICS WITH TALL DECORATIVE METAL OR WOOD FENCE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG ON PROPERTY LINES ALONG WEST HIGHLAND ROAD AND THEN AN HOA WILL BE ESTABLISHED TO MAINTAIN THOSE OPEN SPACES. GARAGE IS NO FEWER THAN 75% OF THE HOMES SHOULD BE BESIDE, BEHIND THE FRONT HOLDING PLAYING OR REAR GARAGE. EVERY LOT WILL HAVE ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM MATALIN BE SERVED BY WATER. THE ANTI-MONOTONY CLAUSE IS FIVE DIVIDED RESIDENTIAL LOTS WILL BE SKIPPED ON THE SAME SIDE AND THREE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET. DECORATIVE ACORN STREETLIGHTS WILL BE PLACED AT EVERY INTERSECTION AND 600 FEET THEREAFTER WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. MAILBOXES WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHERNMOST HOA OPEN-SPACE AND THAT CUL-DE-SAC OPEN-SPACE AREA, FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN OFF OF WEST HIGHLAND ROAD. SOME OF THE SECONDARY AMENITIES, THEY ARE MEETING ALL THE SECONDARY AMENITIES AND THE PRIMARY AMENITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, AND I HAVE THEM LISTED HERE. AND THEN WHAT CHANGED FROM THE LAST SUBMITTAL, AS MARY STATED, THEY DID COME THROUGH AND GET DENIED WITH NO PREJUDICE BY COUNCIL. SO ON THE LEFT OF YOUR SCREEN IS THE NEW PLAN AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS THE OLD PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CHANGE IN THE CURVILINEAR STREETS, THE OPEN-SPACE, THE DETENTION POND REMAIN AND NOW THEY ARE MEETING THE AMENITIES ALONG WITH THE STEP OUT INAUDIBLE ]. SURROUNDING LANE USE COMPATIBILITY, SO TO THE NORTH IS EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, ALONG WITH THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER, ACROSS FROM

[00:10:02]

MOCKINGBIRD SPRINGS. TO THE EAST THERE'S EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND UNDEVELOPED PLAN THAT'S PLATTED FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT. SOUTHWEST THERE'S EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY ONE WITH MAXIMUM DENSITY OF .25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THEN TO THE WEST IS ALSO ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY ONE WITH THE .5 WELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES, WITH A PROPOSED DENSITY. THE FUTURE LAND USE SHOWS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WHICH ENCOURAGES UP TO THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE .98 TO 1.25 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THAT IS PROPOSED WITHIN THIS RANGE SO IT'S CONSISTENT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING POLICIES, PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL RESIDENTS, REQUIRE HIGH QUALITY AND DISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN SIGHT DESIGN, PROTECT MIDLOTHIAN'S NEIGHBORHOODS BY REQUIRING TRADITIONAL LOT DESIGN AND REQUIRING MULTILEVEL CONNECTIONS STEP OUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND UNDEVELOPED LAND, WHICH THEY ARE DOING TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST. WE SENT OUT 42 POSTCARDS. WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PD 181 SINCE THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT TONIGHT FOR QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR STEPH? IF NOT, IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT

WISHES TO SPEAK? >> LET ME ASK ONE THING. YOU SAID THE STREETLIGHTS ARE 600 FEET APART. THAT SEEMS AN AWFUL LOT. IS THAT STATED FOR ANY REASON?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A REASON BEHIND THAT FOR THE APPLICANT, IF HE WANTS TO ANSWER.

>> YOU'RE WITH? >> ADK DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPING COMPANY. I DON'T REMEMBER US PUTTING A SPECIFIC DISTANCE ON THEM. WHATEVER THE CITY REGULATIONS ARE. SO I THINK WE DID THEM ON WEST HIGHLAND. THEY WERE JUST SORT OF EVERY CITY INTERSECTION. SO THERE'S FOUR ON THAT DEVELOPMENT TO THE

EAST. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >> I'LL SAY THAT THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT WE HAD OR THE FIRST PLAN WE CAME THROUGH PREVIOUS TO FEEDBACK WE HAD WAS TO CONNECT TO THE SOUTH, KIND OF CHANGE IT UP. THE SEXUALLY REDUCED THE STREETS BY 23%. SO OBVIOUSLY IT HELPS US ON OUR SIDE, BUT IT HELPS Y'ALL FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE AS WELL FOR STREETS, SO I THINK IT'S A WHOLE LOT BETTER DESIGN, AND THE CUL-DE-SACS, WE WANTED TO HAVE A BIGGER HOA AREA WITH THE TURNING APPARATUS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EVERYTHING, WE HAD TO BRING THE GREEN SPACE DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN THOSE BUT THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE KIND OF A NATURAL SPOT IN THE MIDDLE. SO I THINK WE WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT BUT JUST NOT TO THE EXTENT WE WANTED TO ORIGINALLY.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP, RIGHT? OKAY. SO WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK . SO WHY DON'T WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

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

PUBLIC HEARING. >> COMMISSIONER MAKES A MOTION TO CLOSE IT. SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER GIL SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE. WELL MY YES IS NOT GOING OFF, KERRY. SO I WILL VOTE

>> YES. OKAY. HERE WE GO. KNOW IT DIDN'T TAKE IT SO LET IT SHOW 7-0. NOW FURTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION?

>> DO WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS HOW OFTEN WE HAVE TO HAVE

[00:15:04]

STREET LIGHTS? >> WE DO HAVE THE STANDARD. I DON'T KNOW IF 600 IS THE STANDARD.

>> LIT UP IN THAT AREA, BUT AGAIN , 600 IS NOT UNCOMMON, BUT AGAIN, TYPICALLY WE ALWAYS TRY TO FOCUS ON MINIMUM OF INTERSECTIONS, LIGHTING THEM UP. THIS ONE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO HAVE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. WHAT WAS YOUR MOTION?

>> SKINNER, I'M SORRY, SECONDS THE MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION? AND IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE. HAS EVERYBODY VOTED? TAKE

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the development regulations of Planned Development District No. 107 (PD-107) for Single Family Three (SF-3) by amending the Planned Development Site Plan relating to a 49.7684 acre portion of PD-107 generally located south of Grove Branch Blvd. and west of Summer Grove Drive. (Z25-2025-064)]

WE'LL MOVE NOW TO 009, NEXT PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 107 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY THREE BY AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN RELATING TO A 49.768 PLUS OR MINUS ACRE PORTION OF PD 107 GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GROVE RANCH BOULEVARD AND WEST OF SUMMER

GROVE DRIVE. >> OKAY. SO THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE PD 107 AMENDMENT FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN WITHIN PHASE TWO A AND 2B EAST. THE TOTAL SITE IS AROUND 50 ACRES. THIS DID COME THROUGH ABOUT A MONTH AGO AND WE DID A CONTINUANCE TO COME TODAY.

IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND SO FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS THROUGH PD 107. THEY'RE PROPOSING 137 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND EIGHT OPEN SPACE LOTS, WHICH PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD 171 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND SEVEN OPEN SPACE LOTS. ALL THE REGULATIONS WITHIN THE PD WILL REMAIN, AND THE COMP PLAN SHOWS THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY. AND HERE WE HAVE THE BOTTOM PART OF THE PLAN. IN THE NORTHERN PART, STAFF HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE RESIDENTS REGARDING THE DRAINAGE ON THEIR LAND AND THEY HAVE MET WITH STAFF AND ARE WORKING ON SOLUTIONS FOR THAT. THE SURROUNDING LAND USE, SO TO THE NORTH IS UNDEVELOPED FUTURE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH RED AND FORMS, TO THE SOUTH IS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PD 62, THE GROVE NORTH AND SOUTH, TO THE DROPPING DOWN TO THE EAST THERE'S ALSO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THROUGH THE GROVE NORTH AND SOUTH AND THEN TO THE WEST IS UNDEVELOPED/INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES, WHICH IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/SINGLE-FAMILY THREE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL MODULE FUTURE LAND USE AND ALL THE REST OF SURROUNDING LAND IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY. SO HERE I HAVE A SCREENSHOT OF THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE SHOWING THE RESIDENCES THAT WOULD BE CLOSEST TO THE INDUSTRIAL, AND HOW THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE SCREENING WALLS AND FENCES. AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THERE MASONRY WALL AT THE BOTTOM, ALONG THOSE NEAR EASTGATE ROAD. SO THE THIRD PLAN SHOWS GROVE BRANCH BOULEVARD AS PROPOSED MAJOR COLLECTOR, SOUTH INAUDIBLE ] ROAD IS A PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL, SAND AND EASTGATE ROAD AS EXISTING MAJOR COLLECTORS AND THE FULL DUGOUT OF READING FARMS WILL EXPOSE GRAND BOULEVARD AND SOUTH ONWARD. SON ZONING HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY IS THAT IN 2007 IT WAS REZONED TO PD FOR E FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, A MIXED-USE FOR RETAIL AND OFFICE AND AN OFFICE PARK. IN 2017 IT WAS REZONED TO PD 107, WHICH IS ALSO THE CURRENT ZONING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL PROFESSIONAL, COMMUNITY RETAIL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. THIS PHASE IS JUST FOR THE RESIDENTIAL. SURROUNDING LAND USE, THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL NOT CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY SO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES. THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE AREA WILL REMAIN RESIDENTIAL

[00:20:03]

LOW-DENSITY, SO THESE WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING OR FUTURE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, A GOAL TO PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL RESIDENTS. WE DID SEND OUT 82 POSTCARDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO PD 107, THE READING FARMS PHASE TWO A AND 2B, SINCE THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES CONSISTENT WITH FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND CONSISTENT WITH GUIDING OUR FUTURE WITH THE 2045 GOALS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS. THAT IS ALL I HAVE AND I DO KNOW THE

APPLICANT IS PRESENT TONIGHT. >> IN THAT ORDINANCE IT REFERENCED EXHIBIT C IN SECTION 1, SECTION 1, A1 AS WELL AS SECTION D AND BITSY IS NOT INCLUDED IN OUR

>> ON THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE, SECTION 1 A1, THE PLAN WHICH WOULD BE EXHIBIT C. IT'S ALSO REFERENCED AGAIN IN SECTION 1C BUT THE ACTUAL PLAN IS NOT IN OUR BOOKS.

>> I HAVE ATTACHMENT ONE, ATTACHMENT TWO, BUT THEN -- THIS IS THE APPROVED ORDINANCE AND THIS IS IT'S JUST GOING TO BE ON THIS PART.

>> IT WILL FOLLOW THE RED DASHED LINE.

>> BENEFIT OF INFORMATION, THAT'S BASICALLY THE SAME AREA THAT WILL BE EXISTING, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE ALSO.

>> AND IT REFERENCES TREES ON WHICH SIDE OF THE FENCE? THE THREE INCH

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE READING FARMS SIDE OF THE FENCE.

THE FENCE IS ON THE PROPERTY

>> >> OUR VICTORIES GOING IN THE

BACK OF THESE PROPERTIES >> I THINK IT'S REQUIRED TO BE ON THE FENCE EASEMENT SO THEY COULD BE REQUIRED BY THE HOA.

>> OKAY. >> ON READING THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE. IT SAYS SHOWN IN PHASES? A AND 2 B ON THE FENCING PLAN. SO IF WE GO TO THAT FENCING PLAN, IT'S SHOWING THE ENTIRE THING. SO IT'S NOT BREAKING IT UP. SO WE'VE GOT THESE LOTS, 15 THROUGH 24, THAT AREN'T INCLUDED IN THE FENCING

PLAN OR THEY ARE INCLUDED. >> THEY ARE INCLUDED.

>> THIS ISN'T A PLAT. THIS IS JUST MORE OF AN EXHIBIT. SO WHENEVER THEY GO TO PLAT PROPERLY --

>> I KNOW BUT IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT WE REPROVING.

>> RIGHT. THE VERBAL PART OF IT STATES THAT IT JUST WILL FOLLOW ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT C, ATTACHMENT 2, BUT WHEN THEY GO TO PLATTS THEY'LL HAVE THAT EASEMENT AND IT WON'T BE AN EXHIBIT FOR THEM. IT WILL BE IN PLATTING FORM.

>> SO I THINK WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING RIGHT NOW IS SHOWING THAT IT'S ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH IT CAN'T REALLY BE, SO THEY'RE JUST USING AN EXHIBIT TO SHOW WHERE THE SCREENING WALL AND TREES WILL BE REQUIRED, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY COULD BE PLATTED FOR

SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. >> IT SAYS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE COMMON SPACE BUT NOT THE

RESIDENTIAL. >> CAN YOU POINT ME TO THAT?

>> YES. >> YOU CAN JUST TELL ME WHERE ON

THE ORDINANCE. >> I MEAN ACTUALLY IN THE

[00:25:06]

ORDINANCE. >> IF YOU LOOK ON THOSE EXHIBITS, IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT WHERE THE MASONRY WALL IS, IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THAT SIDE BUT IT'S ON THEIR. THE MARKINGS, ACTUALLY WHEN I WAS PUTTING THE ORDINANCE TOGETHER I HAD SITE PLAN ON THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE THE PAGE BEFORE THAT WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT -- THERE YOU ARE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE -- GO TO THE SITE PLAN

SLIDES. >> I THINK THIS IS WHAT

INAUDIBLE ] >> YEAH.

>> WE HAD THEM ADD THAT IN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MINCING THE

PACKET AT THE -- >> IT'S RIGHT THERE.

>> OKAY, SO WE'RE ONLY GOING TO PUT THE WALL ON TOP OF THE DEVIL

>> FOR SOME REASON ITSELF, YOU'LL SEE SOME LINES WHERE THE MASONRY WALL IS.

>> THE LINES THAT ARE IN HERE SHOWS IT ONLY BEING ON HALF OF THE DOG PARK BUT NOT THE OTHER HALF.

>> OKAY. >> SO WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE

OTHER HALF OF THE DOG PARK? >> WE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND IT ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE PARK.

>> YOU SHOULD ALSO GO UP TO THE -- I DON'T HAVE A POINTER. SO NORTH OF THE DIAGONAL ON THE LINE WHICH IS THE SHOULD WE HAVE A FENCE GOING ALL THE WAY AROUND, BECAUSE THAT'S

WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE EXHIBIT? >> RUSSELL IRONS WITH STRAND ENGINEERING. SO IF YOU WRAPPED IT AROUND YOU BLOCK THE EXISTING POND OUTFALL, SO YOU COULDN'T PUT FENCE IN FRONT OF THE POND OUTFALL THERE. THE SCREENING WALL IS MAINLY TO SCREEN FROM THE EXISTING BATCH PLANT THAT'S THERE. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL

PLAN IN THE PD. >> OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR

THAT AREA? >> THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL IS GOING TO GO ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE BUT NOT IN FRONT OF WHERE

THE POND OUTFALL IS AT. >> MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THE POND OUTFALL AREA? WHAT ARE YOU, PUTTING IN TREES,

ARE YOU -- >> WE COULD DO A LANDSCAPING PLAN BUT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO RESTRICT THE FLOW FROM GETTING OUT BECAUSE THEN THE POND WOULD JUST FLOOD.

>> OKAY. >> I UNDERSTAND, I'M JUST SAYING LIKE WHAT'S PLAN IS THERE?

>> FOR A LANDSCAPE PLAN, IF WE WOULD SUBMIT THE LANDSCAPE PLANS WITH THE CIVIL PLANS. I BELIEVE IT IS.

>> JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. TWO QUESTIONS.

SO THE POND OUTFALL OUTFLOW GOES WHERE, INTO THE REDDENS

PROPERTY? >> THE CURRENT OUTFALL, YES, DRAINS THROUGH THE PROPERTY, THROUGH A CREEK THAT CITY STAFF WALKED LAST WEEK WITH HIM. I KNOW THERE IS SOME PLAN OF ACTION THERE BUT THE WATER, YOU KNOW, IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS DOWN

TO THE FLOOD PLANE. >> SO WHAT'S THE PLAN?

>> TUESDAY WITH REDDENS ON-SITE. THERE WAS A GAME PLAN AND COURSE OF ACTION AND THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT WITH THE

[00:30:01]

REDDENS. WE ALSO ARE MEETING WITH THE REDDENS ON THE STAFF SIDE AGAIN TOMORROW BECAUSE THEY STILL HAD EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS AFTER THAT MEETING THEY HAD. WE'LL MEET WITH THEM AGAIN TOMORROW, JUST WITH STAFF HERE AT CITY HALL, TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL MITIGATION, BUT UNDERSTAND IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING WHEN EVERYBODY LEFT, IT WAS KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE OF OKAY, THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP TO TAKE SEE ABOUT TRYING TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE IMPACTS. THE PONDS THERE NOW, THE OUTFALL IS THERE NOW TODAY. IT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY AS PART OF A PREVIOUS PHASE SO IT IS GOING BASICALLY FOR THE MOST PART FOLLOWING THE

DRAINAGE WHERE IT GOES NOW. >> I GUESS THE PICTURES WE SAW LAST WEEK OR LAST MONTH WERE PRETTY SEVERE, SO ARE WE THINKING THIS IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT NEGATIVELY ON TO THEIR

PROPERTY? >> SO AGAIN THERE'S PHASES THAT ARE GOING THAT DIRECTION. MOST OF THIS IS NOT GOING THAT DIRECTION. THE MAJORITY OF WHAT'S SHOWING ON THIS IS GOING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, SO IT'S NOT CONTINUING TO GO BACK TO THE WEST . IT'S GOING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

>> SO THEIR PROBLEM IS FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, NOT THIS?

>> A MAJORITY OF IT, YES SIR. THAT'S A PREVIOUS PHASE THAT'S UNDER BASICALLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED SO IT'S THERE RIGHT NOW AND AGAIN THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME THAT WILL BE AROUND IT BUT THE MAJORITY OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEING HERE ON WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO REZONE IS ACTUALLY NOT GOING BACK TO THE WEST.

>> THE DRAINAGE COMES FROM -- I'M ASSUMING IT'S NORTH, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BATCH LINE, CORRECT?

>> YES . >> EVERYTHING SOUTH OF THAT IS DRAINING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION?

>> FOR THE MOST PART, YES. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT GOING BACK BECAUSE WHERE THE POND IS LOCATED AT NOW, IT'S NOT SHOWING ON HERE, I WISH IT WAS BUT IT'S NOT BUT AGAIN THERE'S THE POND THAT'S UP IN THE AREA AND AGAIN FOR THE MOST PART WHAT'S GOING OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA IS NOT GOING BACK TOWARDS

THE REDDEN. YES SIR. >> DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THEY WISH TO PRESENT? OKAY. ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

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

PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> COMMISSIONER MCDONALD MAKES A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BLAND SECONDS THE MOTION. ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. EVERYBODY VOTED? OKAY. IT IS 7-0. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DECLINE AS PRESENTED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATCH UP ON THE PAGE, EXHIBIT B DOES NOT PROPERLY SHOW WHAT IT

SAYS. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. DOOR IS OPEN FOR OTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> COMMISSIONER HILL MOVES TO APPROVE AS IT IS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

>> OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THE ORDINANCE AND ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT C TO BE REDRAWN TO SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THE FENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A FENCE ACROSS THE POND DRAIN AND THE PAGES AREN'T CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER, SO MAKING THE MOTION THAT IT BE AMENDED TO SHOW CORRECTION.

>> AND I SPEAK? I MAY DEVELOPER. DUSTIN DAVIDSON , I REPRESENT STARWOOD, THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. WE ARE NOT REQUESTING TO CHANGE ANYTHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED WITH RELATION TO THE FENCING AND THE LOCATIONS OF THE FENCING. SO WHAT IS ALREADY IN EFFECT IS NOT CHANGING. ALL RIGHT? THIS IS REDUCING ZONING. IS REDUCING LOT SIZES. IT'S GENERALLY STAFF HAS ASKED FOR APPROVAL. WE WILL FOLLOW THE RULES. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY KIND OF VARIANCE OR TO CHANGE ANYTHING HERE AS IT RELATES TO FENCING, AT ALL.

>> I HEAR YOU, HOWEVER, OUR ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN WITH AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS AND THREE OF THE FOUR ITEMS ARE

[00:35:04]

RESPECTIVE OF FENCING SO WE HAVE A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT HASN'T YET BEEN RESOLVED. WE HAD FENCING ISSUE THAT IS NOT SHOWING TO MATCH UP. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN LESS HOUSES AND GIVEN US MORE OPEN SPACE. IF WE CAN APPROVE JUST THAT ONE CHANGE AND TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE OUT, I WOULD SAY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, BUT THE FENCING THAT'S HERE, IT'S NOT

LINING UP. >> WHAT'S HAPPENING IS -- AND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS SHOWING THE EXTENT OF WHERE THE WALLS WOULD BE

>> OKAY. >>

>> SO MS. MCDONALD, LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN UNDERSTAND. THIS IS A FENCE RIGHT HERE, ALL THE WAY DOWN. THAT'S WALL, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? CAN YOU SEE THAT?

>> TOP, TO THE LEFT, GOES OVER HERE AND THEN SOUTH. THE OUTFALL FOR THIS, DISREGARD THIS LOT. THAT LOT'S NO LONGER THERE. THAT IS INCORRECT AND I THINK WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKET IS CORRECT. IT HAS THE GREEN OPEN-SPACE HEADING DUE WEST AND THAT IS THE DRAINAGE AREA. THE DRAINAGE GOES DUE WEST FROM THERE. IT DOESN'T GO TO THE SOUTH AT ALL, SO THE FENCE IS BETWEEN EASTGATE AND THAT

DETENTION POND. >>

>> YES MA'AM. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS --

>> IF YOU'LL FLIP TO THIS -- >> YEAH.

>> AND AGAIN THIS DRAWING SHOWS

INAUDIBLE ] >> THIS SAYS IT STOPS HERE. IT

HAS TO CONTINUE ON HERE. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING.

>> THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE LANDSCAPE PLANS.

>> THERE SHOULD BE A SECOND EXHIBIT . BECAUSE I PREPARED IT MYSELF. THERE IS A SECOND EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE OTHER LEADER HERE, THAT'S RIGHT HERE, AND THAT POINTS RIGHT THERE. AND THEN THIS IS FROM THE ORIGINAL PD. THAT EXHIBIT RIGHT THERE, THAT IS NOT THE UPDATED ONE THAT WE PROVIDED CITY STAFF.

>> OKAY. THEN I'M INCORRECT. SORRY. FORGET EVERYTHING I JUST

SAID. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE

ARE BEING CONSISTENT. >> WE HAVE THE UPDATED --

>> IT'S IN HERE IN A MOCKUP. >> THE UPDATED ONE? CAN WE SHOW

-- >> ACTUALLY DO LOOK AT THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT, WHAT IT DOES SHOW FOR THE BALANCE.

>> IT DOES NOT SHOW THE NORTHERN PART OF THAT FENCE.

>> RIGHT, IT'S STOPPING HERE. >>

>> THERE IS NOT AN ARROW POINTING THIS WAY. THERE'S ONLY AN ARROW POINTING THERE. WHICH IS IN LINE WITH WHAT HE JUST SAID, THAT WE ARE NOT PUTTING A MASONRY WALL WHERE WE HAVE A DRAINAGE

>> NOVEL DOWN HERE. >> OKAY, SO WHEN THE REDDENS WERE HERE LAST MONTH, THERE DRAINAGE ISSUES HIGHER -- OKAY, SO THEN THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

[00:40:03]

>> THAT IS CORRECT. OR IT SHOWS THE EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THEN THIS IS YOUR BASE, SO THEN YOU HAVE YOUR EASTERN WALL

OVER THERE -- >> SO WHY DOES IT SAY IT'S

STOPPING HERE? >> INAUDIBLE ] LINEAR FOOTAGE RIGHT THERE. IT'S JUST TO VISUALLY SHOW THEY ARE THERE AND YOU ARE HERE. THEY ARE OVER THERE, THEY

ARE HERE. >> OKAY. SO IT WILL.

>> THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEM, THIS IS ON --

>> ONE OF THESE IS YOURS AND ONE OF THEM IS MINE.

>> CLEAR HIS MIND. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS LAST MONTH WE STOPPED THIS BECAUSE OF THE REDDENS BEEN HERE AND THERE BEING SOME OTHER ISSUES. IS THIS CORRECTING ALL OF THE ISSUES OR ARE THERE ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT STILL NEED TO BE CORRECTED

BEFORE THIS IS AMENDED? >> I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT BUT THIS IS NOT IMPACTING THAT ISSUE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. TO MIKE'S POINT, THE ISSUE, THE MAJORITY OF THE DRAINAGE ON THE REDDEN S IS COMING FROM THE NORTH. THIS IS ALL TO THE SOUTHEAST, THE DRAINAGE, I'M SORRY, THE DRAINAGE IS ALL TO THE SOUTHEAST, SO THE ISSUE WITH THE REDDENS IS ALL COMING FROM THE NORTH. LET ME SEE IF I CAN --

>> FROM UP HERE, AND THE DETENTION IS RIGHT HERE, HEADING DUE WEST.

THIS PD IS ALL HERE HEADING SOUTHEAST. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE.

I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT HERE. OR MAYBE IT'S UP NORTH A LITTLE

BIT. >> THE RETAINING WALL THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THE LAST 10 MINUTES.

>> ALONG THIS READ PART AND ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE.

>> DRAINAGE DIRECTLY NORTH OF THIS WALL AND IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THIS RETAINING WALL?

>> NO, NO. WATER SEEKS THE LOWEST POINT. THE LOWEST POINT IN THE OUTFALL IS RIGHT HERE, HEADING DUE WEST. AND THERE IS A LOT SMARTER PEOPLE THAT CAN TALK THROUGH THIS THAN ME. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CLARIFIES ANYTHING

>> THANK YOU. >> BASED ON THE PERFECT CLARIFICATION I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

MOTION? >> I WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

>> OKAY. >> THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. >> ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER SKINNER MAKES A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER HILL SECOND. OKAY. PLEASE. EVERYBODY VOTE? IT DOES PASS 6-1. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 10 AND I'LL READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD BUT WE ARE GOING TO NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE

[010 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 3.047+ acres out of the B.F. Hawkins Survey, Abstract 464, by changing the zoning from Single-Family Three (SF-3) District to a Planned Development District No. 176 (PD-176) for Office and Retail uses. The property is generally located on the south side of US Highway 287, and west of South Midlothian Parkway. (Z26-2025-066) Continuance Request to the November 18, 2025, P&Z Meeting ]

REQUEST TO THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING. IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING AND ACT UPON IN ORDER NANSEMOND IN THE CITY OF ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING APPLICANT TO 3.07+ OR MINUS ACRES OF THE VFW BE AD HOC AND SURVEY ABSTRACT FOR 64 BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY THREE DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 176 FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USE. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 67 AND WEST OF SOUTH MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING.

[00:45:02]

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE UNTIL NEXT MONTH.

>> COMMISSIONER BLAND MAKES A MOTION TO CONTINUE. IS THERE A

SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> COMMISSIONER KOHLER SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. EVERYBODY VOTED? OKAY. 7-0. TO CONTINUE. OKAY. ITEM 011, TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC

[ 011 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 11.102+ acres of the J.V. Emerson Survey, Abstract No. 1208, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) to Single-Family Two (SF-2). The property is generally located southeast of Onward Road and Shiloh Road. (Z27-2025-067) ]

HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP RELATING TO USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 11 POINT 102+ OR MINUS ACRES OF THE JV EMERSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1208, BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY TWO. PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF ONWARD ROAD

AND SHILOH ROAD. >> OKAY. MARION SPENCER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. THE NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST OF ONWARD ROAD AND SHILOH ROAD FROM A AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY TWO, DISTRICT FOR FARM LAND ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3970 ONWARD ROAD . THE HOME EXISTED SINCE 1980 AND THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED AGRICULTURAL WITH THE 1989 CITYWIDE ZONING. ONWARD ROAD IS SHOWN AS A MINOR ARTERIAL OF 90 FEET ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS THE SITE AS COUNTRY MODULE, WHICH IS COMPOSED OF LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES. IT SAYS THAT IT ALLOWS LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL LAND UP TO TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE LOW DENSITY AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RURAL LOOK AND FEEL OF THE COUNTRY MODULE. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH ARE ALL ZONED AGRICULTURAL. TO THE WEST IS ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL WITH JUST A QUARRY AND YOU HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE EAST AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO THE NORTH IS UNDEVELOPED.

BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND IN THE COUNTRY MODULE IT SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD INCREASE SEPARATION WITH LANDSCAPING AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES. THE APPLICANTS HAVE SUBMITTED A PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY. IF YOU NOTICE THE FOUR ACRES ON THE PLAT THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REZONING REQUEST IS THEY ARE MAINTAINING THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY BUT THEY ARE INCLUDING IT IN THEIR PLAT AND SO THEY ARE PROPOSING SEVEN TOTAL LOTS IN THEIR SUBDIVISION, WHICH WOULD BE A DENSITY OF .55 UNITS PER ACRE. THE SF TO ZONING WOULD -- IF THEY WERE TO, THEY COULD GET IT BY RIGHT. IT WOULD ALLOW ONE UNIT PER ACRE, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE TWO UNITS PER TO ACRE LOTS THAT THE COUNTRY MODULE RECOMMENDS. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREA, THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND AROUND IT, IT'S A MIXTURE OF LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL AND FARMLAND AS WELL AS YOU HAVE FOUR ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS THAT WERE PDS FOR SF TO, JUST SIMILAR ZONING AND RESIDENTIAL, STATE-BASED, WHICH IS THE OLD ZONING CODE, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE SF? AND THEY ARE LOCATED HERE, HERE, THIS PIECE, THIS FINAL PLATTED AND HERE AND ALL OF WHICH ARE ABOUT A HALF-MILE FROM THE PROPERTY. AND THOSE FOUR CASES CAME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING IN COUNCIL AS PDS TO AMEND DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE SF 2 ZONING REGULATIONS AND THE APPLICANTS TODAY ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY WAIVERS OF ANY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. WE SENT EIGHT POSTCARDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITH 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE. I DID GET A

[00:50:03]

PHONE CALL EARLIER TODAY FROM ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND SHE JUST HAD QUESTIONS IF IT WAS FOR HER PROPERTY, AND IT WAS A NO, SO SHE HAD NO OPINION ON THEIR ZONING REQUEST. BUT BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE AID TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY TWO ZONING DISTRICT BUT DO NOTE THAT IT IS PARTIALLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE STRATEGY IN GUIDING OUR FUTURE IN MIDLOTHIAN 2025 THAT RECOMMENDS REQUIRING TRANSITIONAL LOT DESIGN AND ENSURE THAT ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM ADJACENT USES AND PROPERTY ARE INTERNALIZING IMPACT NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M OPEN FOR QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. CAN YOU CLARIFY, IS THIS 14.1 ACRES OR IS THIS

11.1 ACRES? >> IT IS 11.1 ACRES THAT'S BEING REZONED BUT THE OVERALL PROPERTY THAT EXISTS TODAY, THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAT IS 15 ACRES.

>> OKAY. AND CAN YOU HELP ME MATH MY MATH HERE, BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW WE'RE GETTING TO .55 IF WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 14 DUST 15 ACRES POINT

>> SO WHAT'S BEING REZONED TO SF 2 IS 11 ACRES AND THEY ARE PROPOSING SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THAT. SO THE SIX LOTS DIVIDED BY 11 GETS YOU JUST OVER -- IT'S LIKE FIVE POINT -- IT'S A REALLY LONG NUMBER. IT ROUNDS UP TO .55 POINT

>> I'M NO MATHEMATICIAN. BUT IF I WAS TO ROUND UP TO 12 ACRES AND I WAS PUTTING SIX HOUSES ON IT, THAT WOULD BE AN AVERAGE OF TWO. SO HOW ARE WE GETTING TO .5?

>> I SEE WHAT -- >> I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT AS A PERCENTAGE

HAVE SIX LOTS. >> BECAUSE YOU HAVE SIX UNITS

AND 12 ACRES. >> OKAY.

>> CONSENT AGENDA, WE HAVE 16 ACRES WITH 37 HOMES THAT WE APPROVED JUST FINE BUT NOW WE'VE GOT SIX HOUSES, SIX DWELLINGS GOING ON 11 ACRES AND WE ARE SAYING THAT'S TOO MANY, NOT ENOUGH.

BASED ON THE FEATURED LAND-USE DENSITY. THAT ONLY WAS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND THIS IS

>> IT WAS LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THIS IS COUNTRY

MODULE. >> SO CAN YOU BACK UP TO THE MAP THAT SHOWED THE SURROUNDING AREA? PERHAPS ONE MORE. I'M NOT SURE IF WE GO FORWARD OR BACKWARDS.

>> THAT ONE? >> NO, IT HAD BLUE ON IT. THAT ONE. SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT CHERRY BARK AND WE'VE GOT THE 1.016 AND ALL OF THE ONE ACRES THAT ARE HERE AND WE LOOK AT INAUDIBLE ] AND WE'VE GOT ALL THE ONE ACRES THERE, WE'VE GOT ON SHILOH ONE ACRES, WHY WOULD THIS NOT BE CONSISTENT?

>> BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS CAME IN BEFORE THE UPDATED FUTURE LAND USE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THE COUNTRY MODULE WAS AMENDED WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT RECOMMENDS THE TWO ACRE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> SO WHY ARE WE NOT INCLUDING -- WHY WOULD WE NOT INCLUDE ONE

IN THE SUBDIVISION? >> THE OWNERS DIDN'T WANT TO REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE. THEY WANTED TO KEEP THEIR AGRICULTURAL ZONE AND SO AS A PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PLOTS, THEY ARE MAINTAINING THAT FOUR ACRES THAT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.

[00:55:19]

>> TO RETAIN THEIR NONCONFORMANCE STATUS.

>> QUESTIONS, STAFF? IF NOT, DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO

SPEAK? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS TRAVESTY GILL. I'M APPLICANT ON THIS CASE. JUST HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFY ANYTHING. MR. BLAND, MAYBE TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE

PRELIMINARY PLOT. >> BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE

THE SAME ZONING. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. NO ONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

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

PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> MCDONALD MAKES A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONER SKINNER SECONDS THE MOTION. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOW PLEASE VOTE. HAS EVERYONE VOTED? I THINK I JUST KILLED THE BOAT SO LET'S PLEASE VOTE AGAIN. PLEASE VOTE AGAIN.

>> OKAY. 7-0. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, DISCUSSION AND REACTION.

>> FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

>> I GUESS FOR DISCUSSION AMONGST US, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS ARIEL CORRECTLY, OUR LAND PERSON TO THE WEST IS THE QUARRY, RIGHT? SO WE ARE NOT HAVING HOUSES ON TOP OF HOUSES.

WE ARE PUTTING HOUSES NEXT TO THE QUARRY.

OTHERWISE IT'S NOT IMPACTING ANYBODY ELSE AND FROM WHAT I CAN TELL IS THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE TARGET IS, IS THAT ALSO QUARRY OR IS THAT ANOTHER LANDOWNER?

>> SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, WE WOULD NOT BE IMPACTING ANY OTHER LANDOWNERS. IS THAT A FAIR THING TO SAY?

>> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> OKAY, SO WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REZONED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SKINNER. OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH JUST CHANGING THE ZONING WITHIN A SUBDIVISION. I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO BE SETTING THAT

PRECEDENT. >> IT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION RIGHT

NOW. >> MAKING A SUBDIVISION.

>> WE HAVE SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT ZONINGS FOR DIFFERENT THINGS ALL YEAR ROUND. YOU MAY HAVE FAMILY AND YOU MAY HAVE COMMERCIAL, AND WE HAVE

>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE. IF NOT,

[01:00:03]

PLEASE VOTE. VOTING. >> I CANNOT -- OKAY, IT DOES PASS 5-2. MOVED TO ITEM 12. WILL KNOW IT WON'T VOTE YES.

[012 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 0.783+ acres, being in Planned Development District No. 118 (PD-118); and being Lot 2, Block A, Midpark Addition, as recorded in Plat Records, Ellis County, Texas, Instrument No. 2427883. The property is generally located on the south side of US Highway 287 service road, and on the west side of S. 14" Street. (Z28-2025-068) ]

>> OKAY. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 12, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF LOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP RELATED TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF .78 3+ OR MINUS ACRES BEING IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 118 AND BEING LOT 2 BLOCK A MID PARK ADDITION AS RECORDED IN PLAT RECORDS OF ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, INSTRUMENT NUMBER 242-7883. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 287 SERVICE ROAD AND THE WEST SIDE

OF SOUTH 14TH. >> CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A ZONING REQUEST FOR A DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR TRACK TWO POINT THE SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES THAT TRACK TWO COME BACK AS A PD AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THE INFILL. THIS IS FOR HARMONY BANK. IT'S A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION THAT 4000 SQUARE FEET WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE. THE BASE ZONING IS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE STACK AND YOU FROM SIX SPACES TO TWO SPACES FOR THREE LANES AND THEY PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FROM OTHER AREAS IN THE METROPLEX, OTHER BANKS IN THE METROPLEX WHERE THIS HAS BEEN AN ADEQUATE FACILITY. SO THEY ARE PROVIDING PARKING THAT EXCEEDS THE 25% MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT. THEY'RE ASKING FOR EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANES AND THEN TWO BUILDING SIGNS ON ONE FACADE. THE PROPERTY IS PLATTED AS MID PARK ADDITION LOT 1, BLOCK A. THIS WHOLE AREA WAS AMENDED IN 2024 TO INCORPORATE THE ACREAGE AT THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY. PD 119 HAD A BOUNDARY THAT ENDED HERE AND THEN THEY CAME BACK AND REZONED AND INCORPORATED THE ABANDONMENT OF MOUNT ZION ROAD IN 2024. THEY ARE SURROUNDED BY LOTS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED CURRENTLY AND THE SOUTH 14TH STREET THOROUGHFARE IS A MAJOR ARTERIAL THAT IS BUILT OUT AND THEY HAVE ACCESS TO TWO DRIVEWAYS ALONG SOUTH 14TH STREET. THIS ONE HAS A MEDIAN OPENING THAT WILL BE SIGNALIZED AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WEST. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN JANUARY OF 2019. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES IN ZONING NEW TOWN MODULE, ENCOURAGES ASSORTMENT OF COMMERCIAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SO IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COMP PLAN POLICIES THAT SUPPORT THIS REQUEST FOCUS ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AS IMPORTANT ENTRIES AND ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ATTRACT AND RETAIN HIGH PAYING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, DIVERSIFY MIDLOTHIAN'S EMPLOYMENT BASE TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH COMP PLAN POLICIES AS WELL. THE FACADE HAS BRICK THAT MATCHES THE REST OF THE MID PARK PLAN.

THE LIGHT GREEN THAT THEY ARE SHOWING HIS GLAZING AND THE DARK GRAY IS METAL OR STUCCO. THERE IS THE SIGN VARIANCE ON THIS FACADE THAT YOU SEE HERE. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DOES MEET OR EXCEED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE ADDING TWO PARKING LOT TREES SO IT EXCEEDS IN THAT CAPACITY. HERE IS PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKED LIKE AND MATERIALS ON THE OTHER BUILDINGS AROUND THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES. THE PROVIDED DETAILS OF JUNCTURE SCREENING WILL ALSO MATCH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THEY PROVIDED DETAILS FOR THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE. WE MAILED

[01:05:08]

NINE POSTCARDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SITE AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES THE THREE VARIANCES. STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

>> DOWN THERE, IS THAT A BANK ALSO?

>> KNOW IT'S NOT. ITS VARIOUS MOSTLY MEDICAL RELATED USES SO A LOT OF THIS PARK IS MEDICAL RELATED OFFICES, LIKE EAR NOSE

AND THROAT AND VARIOUS USES. >> I THINK THERE IS A PHARMACY

THERE AS WELL. >> TALKING ABOUT NOT THE STRIP

CENTER BUT THE LAST BUILDING. >> YOU MEAN THIS ONE RIGHT HERE?

>> THE BOTTOM. >> THIS ONE? THAT ONE, IT HAS DIFFERENT SUITES BUT THAT'S THE ONE THAT HAS EAR, NOSE AND

THROAT. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, ANYBODY? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISHES TO SPEAK?

>> ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS WITH THAT? OKAY. IF NOT THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER HILL NEEDS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SKINNER SECONDS THE

MOTION. PLEASE VOTE. >> EVERYBODY VOTED. SEE, IT

WON'T LET ME VOTE YES. >> JUST VOTE NO JUST BECAUSE.

>> FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT AND SUBMIT IT.

>> COMMISSIONER SKINNER MAKES A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A

SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER

DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE. >> EVERYBODY VOTED?

>> IT FLASHED IT. IT WAS 7-0. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS DOING

THAT. >> SO IS EVERYBODY AN AYE ON

[013 Consider and act upon an ordinance amending Chapter 10A “Subdivision Ordinance” Section 6.16 “Improvement Standards and Requirements” of the Code of Ordinances by renaming and amending in its entirety, Subsection 5, regarding the design of local drainage systems. (OZ02-2025-074)]

THAT? NO NAYS? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE'LL MOVE NOW TO ITEM 13, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMEND CHAPTER 10 A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 6.16, IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS INAUDIBLE ] CODE OF ORDINANCES BY RENAMING AND AMENDING IN ITS ENTIRETY, SUBSECTION 5 REGARDING THE DESIGN OF LOCAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING. AS THE COMMISSION KNOWS THAT THERE'S PLANS TO DO A REWRITE OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THAT'S STILL PROBABLY A YEAR OR SO OUT SO KIND OF LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EVENING, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE STARTING TO SEE WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT IS THERE IS DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE ARE EXPRESSING, AND WE KNOW THAT HAPPENING AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO DO IS REALLY TRY TO HIT HIGH LEVEL, LEAD OUR ORDINANCE IN PLACE BUT AMEND THIS SECTION THAT DEALS WITH DRAINAGE AND DEVELOPMENT AND TRY TO REALLY FOCUS ON THE ONES THAT WE REALLY CAN KEY ON THAT WILL HELP US OVER THE NEXT YEAR BUT WHAT WE'LL END UP DOING IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULL REWRITE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL AND ORDINANCE IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT WILL GO INTO REALLY DETAILED ON FUTURE REQUIREMENTS ON THE DRAINAGE SO THIS EVENING BUT WE WANTED TO DO IS REALLY JUST SPECIFY THAT THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS TODAY. SO THE ONE IS WE CURRENTLY USE THE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD, WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD, HOWEVER, WE DON'T DIFFERENTIATE WHEN WE SHOULD NOT USE THE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD, SO IT'S USUALLY ANYTHING THAT'S OVER 200 ACRES YOU WANT TO USE THE UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SPECIFIED AGAIN, STILL FOLLOWING THE SAME MODIFIED BUT ALSO GOING TO THE UNIT OF THE THINGS YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET IS ON THE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT SO WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS LISTING IS FOUR RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE THAT ARE PRETTY BROAD.