Nov 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:25]

START WITH THE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY ITEMS NOT ON

[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days. ]

ITEM TWO STAFF REVIEW. >> COMMISSIONERS , SO WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 28TH. AS YOU PRESENTED, AS YOU RECOMMENDED, IT BE APPROVED, AND THEN, THE REDDEN FARMS PD AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 5-0. THE NOVEMBER 11TH COUNCIL MEETING, THE EAST RIDGE PD WAS POSTPONED FOR A COUNCIL WORKSHOP THIS FRIDAY. AND, WE DIDN'T SET A DATE TO BRING IT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT AS WELL. THE ON WARD ROAD ZONING CASE FROM AG TO SINGLE FAMILY TWO WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH ONE PERSON ABSTAINING AND THE HARMONY BANK PD AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED 5-0 AND YOU RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT CASE AS WELL. THE DRAINAGE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THAT TEXT AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BY

[003 Discussion on possible Lighting Standards for new development. ]

COUNCIL 5-0. >> ITEM THREE, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

>> IF YOU REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, WE HAD BROUGHT A CASE TO YOU ABOUT ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE FOR THE TOM THUMB DEVELOPMENT AND IT GENERATED A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION AT COUNCIL. THEY HAD ASKED THAT STAFF TAKE A LOOK AT OUR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND OTHER CITIES. AND HAVE IT AT A DISCUSSION ITEM WITH YOU AND GET YOUR INPUT AND DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO LIGHTING STANDARDS.

SO, WE DO HAVE SOME EXISTING REGULAR REGULATIONS MOSTLY FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL. IT SAYS ALL LIGHTING WILL BE FULLY SHIELDED AND DOWNCAST AS NOT TO SHINE ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR RIGHT OF WAY. OR BE A HAZARD TO PASSING MOTORISTS OR CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE OF ANY KIND. WE TALK RESIDENTIAL NUISANCE. IF YOU HAVE A SIGN THAT IS LIT, IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE NORMAL SENSIBILITIES OF A PERSON ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR INTERFERE WITH REASONABLE USE. IT IS SOME VERY GENERAL NUISANCE LANGUAGE. IT DOES SPECIFY THAT THE SOURCE OF LIGHTING SHALL NOT BE DIRECTLY VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THIS IS DIRECTLY TALKING ABOUT NONRESIDENTIAL LIGHTING IMPACTING RESIDENTIAL. SO, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER REGULATIONS. THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIES IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS THE NORTH EIGHTH STREET DISTRICT THAT ILLUMINATED SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED. THERE IS A SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT STATES CABINET SIGNS MADE OF PLASTIC OR SIMILAR MATERIALS ARE NOT PERMITTED AS MONUMENT SIGNS. AND THERE IS A SECTION IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS SIGNS TO BE ILLUMINATED BUT THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE TO TRAVELED WAYS AND THE ENTIRE IMAGE OR DISPLAYED TEXT SHALL NOT BE ANIMATED OR FLASHING.

THIS IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. IT SEEMS CONTRA DIRECTORY. I THINK THE SECOND SESSION WAS MEANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE DIGITAL TYPES OF SIGNAGE YOU SEE WITH TIME AND TEMPERATURE AND GAS AND

[00:05:04]

IT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO, IT WAS ALWAYS ACCEPTABLE TO PLACE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WHERE THERE WAS NO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT AND YOU SEE THAT IN LIKE WAL-MART AND OTHER LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF IMMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT. SO MORE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REQUIRE THAT MONUMENT SIGNS ARE NOT INTERNALLY LIT AND I FOUND FOUR OF THOSE FROM 2020 TO 2022. BUT I ALSO FOUND EXCEPTIONS TO THAT IN RECENTLY APPROVED PD ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. JUST THIS YEAR, WE APPROVED A SIGN FOR A 7/11 THAT IS INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FOR A MONUMENT SIGN.

SOFA HAD DISTRICTED OR COUNCIL HAD DIRECTED STAFF TO REVIEW THE REQUIREMENTS AND SEE IF ANY TEXT AMENDMENTS WERE NEEDED. SO, THE ENTIRE PLANNING TEAM WORKED TOGETHER AND SURVEYED OTHER CITIES. THEY DO HAVE VERY GOOD GRAPHICS THAT DEMONSTRATE WHAT IT MEANS IN TERMS OF LIGHT SPILLAGE. SO IF WE WERE TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO MORE DIAGRAMS OR MORE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING MORE VISUAL TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOAL IS TO WHEN WE SAY WE WANT TO ELIMINATE GLARE OR LIGHT SPILLAGE. GRAND PRAIRIE HAS A VERY GOOD ORDINANCE THAT DEFINES GLARE AND MEASURES RESIDENTIAL LIGHTS .25 FOOT-CANDLES. WHICH IS ALSO THE WAXAHACHIE STANDARD AS WELL. AND THEN THEY SAY, THEY INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT PARKING AREAS SERVICES AVERAGE TWO FOOT-CANDLES. AS A MINIMUM. AND THAT IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS BE ARE USUALLY ONE, TWO, OR THREE. TO SO WE THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF WE DID TRY TO QUANTIFY AT LEAST THE COMMERCIAL STANDARDS SO THAT IF THERE ARE COMPLAINTS WE CAN ADDRESS THEM.

FORT WORTH HAS SIMILAR STANDARDS IN TERMS OF SHIELDING LIGHTING AND DOWNCAST AND THOSE TYPES OF STANDARDS. HOWEVER, THEY DO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RESTRICTED DISTRICT THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC FOR LOCAL RETAIL SITUATIONS THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN NEIGHBORHOODS SO AS PART OF THAT DISTRICT, THEY DO SAY THAT SIGNS CANNOT BE ILLUMINATED SO WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY RESIDENTIAL, THAT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE. MANSFIELD AND WAXAHACHIE HAVE RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING AND GLARE STANDARDS AND THEY ASSIGN PENALTIES. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH WE WANT TO GET INTO RESIDENTIAL. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO AT LEAST DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN BY GLARE AND YOU KNOW, WE COULD EVEN LOOK AT PROHIBITED SIGNAGE LIKE STROBE LIGHTS OR THOSE TYPES OF LIGHTING SITUATIONS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS MORE ON THE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT SINCE THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS DISCUSSION. EXEMPTIONS AND ALL THE ORDINANCES THERE WERE EXEMPTIONS THAT INCLUDED EMERGENCY LIGHTING, HAZARD WARNING SIGNALS. COMMUNITY FACILITIES. STREET LIGHTING AND TEMPORARY LIGHTING. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. ARE THERE ANY GENERAL

QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THIS? >> QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

>> IS THIS MAINLY SIGNAGE? >> YEAH. REALLY MOST OF THE SIGNAGE IS WHAT CREATES THE LIGHT SPILLAGE. THERE ARE PARKING SIGN, PARKING LOT, I'M SORRY, LIGHTING STANDARDS THAT

[00:10:06]

WILLING TO CONSIDERED. >> ONE THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS WHEN TOM THUMB WAS COMING IN, THEY WANTED TO PUT SIGNS ON THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLE PUMPS. YOU MIGHT WANT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE IN THIS. CAN YOU GO BACK A COUPLE OF TIMES, A COUPLE OF SLIDES? THE ONE ABOUT INTERMITTENT LIGHTING I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

>> AND THAT REALLY IS MORE TO DO DIGITAL LIGHTING.

>> THERE PROVISIONS THAT TALK ABOUT DIGITAL SIGNAGE AND IF YOU SEE IT, IT WILL PROBABLY BE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. >> THIS PARTICULAR SECTION DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT. IT JUST SAYS NOT INTERMITTENT.

>> THIS IS AND I HAD IN MY NOTE THIS WAS TO ME A VAGUE REQUIREMENT AND I DIDN'T HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO. SO IT IS IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTION. SO, I JUST THINK IT WAS A GENERAL KIND OF A GENERAL HAZARD TYPE OF CATCH ALL SECTION. IF WE ARE TO REVISE I WOULD WANT TWO ADDRESS THIS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT SITUATION THIS WOULD

PERTAIN TO. >> IF I COULD SAY ONE MORE THING BEFORE JACKIE TALKS. SHE IS ALREADY REACHING. LAST MONTH, WE HAD A SUBDIVISION THAT CAUGHT MY EYE. THEY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR STREET LIGHTS WERE 600 FEET APART. THAT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFULLY GREAT DISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. I DON'T KNOW. THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IF WE ARE REDOING SOME THOUGHT INTO THAT. I UNDERSTAND COUNTRY THAT IS ONE THING. BUT WHEN YOU ARE PUTTING IN A SUBDIVISION THAT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFULLY LONG WAY.

>> THAT IS MORE OF A MINIMUM. I DID SEE IN SOME OF THESE ORDINANCES THAT THEY HAVE. THEY JUST REQUIRED A LIGHTING PLAN.

IT IS A ONE PAGE DOCUMENT THAT JUST KIND OF TALKS ABOUT THE THINGS WE JUST DID IN BULLET THAT OKAY, THIS IS HOW WE ADDRESS PARKING LOT LIGHTING. IF COULD BRING SOME EXAMPLES WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING FURTHER. THANK YOU. ALSO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN A DEVELOPER IS PUTTING THOSE LIGHTS IN, WHOMEVER IS PROVIDING THE ELECTRICITY, WHETHER IT BE HILCO OR ENCORE IS THE WINABLE FOR CHANGING THE LIGHTBULBS AND KEEPING THEM ILLUMINATED. WE SHOULD MOVE THEM IN AS THE TYPES OF LIGHTS FROM THE LIGHTS CHANGING FROM OLD STYLE. TO LED. THERE IS PROBABLY A LOT MORE WE COULD ADD INTO THIS ORDINANCE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH

WE WANT TO GET INTO THAT. >> I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS SPECIFIC TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW. PRIVATE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. SO, WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE GOING INTO STREET LIGHTING BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT

THAT AS WELL. >> YEAH.

>> AND JUST ONE OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WE LOOKED AT OVER THE SUMMER THEY TALKED ABOUT ACORN STYLE LIGHTING VERSUS OTHER TYPES OF LIGHTING SO IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A STANDARD WHEN WE ARE TALKING TO THESE DEVELOPERS.

>> OKAY. >> ANYONE ELSE? DOES PART OF THE REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION LOOK AT THE LUMENS? HOW BRIGHT THE LIGHT

IS? >> YES, SO WE DID LOOK AT LUMEN STANDARDS. RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR

[00:15:02]

ANYTHING ELSE? >> IF YOU CAN THINK OF SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE MEETING YOU CAN EMAIL ME.

>> WE'LL DO THAT. >> WE DO HAVE A DARK SKY.

ORDINANCE OR A NIGHT SKY? >> NOT OFFICIALLY.

>> I THOUGHT WE DID. >> WE TALK ABOUT DOWNCAST AND SHIELDED AND THAT IS A NIGHT SKY TYPE OF REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN I RESEARCHED THE DARK SKY ORDINANCES THEY ARE EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE. SO THEY ARE REALLY. FREDERICKSBERG HAS A DARK SKY ORDINANCE. THEY ARE ONE OF 33 CITY INS THE REGION WITH THAT TYPE OF ORDINANCE AND IT IS EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE AND I DON'T THINK WE COULD DO IT TODAY EVEN IF WE TRIED.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS WISH TO GO OVER ONE OF THESE. SO WE WILL PULL ITEM 005 OUT. SO, WE WILL TAKE 004, 006, AND 007 UNLESS SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO PULL ONE OF THOSE OUT. ALL RIGHT. SO, 004, CONSIDER THE MINUTES FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATED OCTOBER 21ST, 2025. 006, CONSIDER AN ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR WEST SIDE PRESERVE SECTION 2B BEING 26.315 ACRES OF THE JOHN CHAMBLEE SURVEY. ABSTRACT 192 AND MEP AND P RAILROAD COMPANY. 007, ASKER AND ACT UPON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ON WARD SUBDIVISION OF THE JB EMERSON SURVEY. 1208. GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF ON WARD AND SHILOH ROAD. ANY MOTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WITH 5

REMOVED. >> PLEASE VOTE. EVERYBODY VOTED?

EVERYBODY VOTE ED? >> HIT IT AGAIN. HIT IT AGAIN.

[00:20:01]

>> ALL RIGHT, SO WE LEARNED SOMETHING NEW, THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSED. ITEMS 4, 6, AND 7. WE DO NEED TO NOTE LOCKING AT THE BOARD, THEY SHOW YOU HAVING VOTED AS MAURICE. IT DIDN'T GET CHANGED TO THE SEAT WITH YOUR NAME SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE

[005 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat for Redden Farms Phase 2A & 2B being 49.768± acres of the Coleman Jenkins Survey, Abstract No. 555 and Abstract No. 556. Generally located south of Grove Branch Blvd. and west of Summer Grove Dr. (PP08-2025-052)]

MINUTES REFLECT THAT CORRECTLY. >> THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 005 CONSIDER AN ACT UPON REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT, 4.976 ACRES.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF APPLICANTS WHO WISH TO SPEAK. LYNN AND GARY RENTON. THREE MINUTES. STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU

LIVE IN THE CITY. >> I'M LYNN AND THIS IS MY HUSBAND GARY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME FOR TALKING TO US. WE JUST HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DRAINAGE FROM THE FARMS. WE SHOWED YOU ALL THIS LAST TIME. THIS IS OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK PLOT AND WE HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 45 YEARS. AND THE DAIRY HAS BEEN THERE FOR 65 YEARS. AND WE HAVE NEVER HAD WATER LIKE THIS AND THE DEVELOPERS TELL ME IT IS NATURALLY OCCURRING RUN-OFF THAT IS NO MORE THAN IT WAS IN THE PAST. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE IT IS MORE THAN IT WAS IN THE PAST. I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT. THE ENGINEERS, THIS IS WHERE IT IS COMING OFF OF REDDEN DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAVE IT ANGLED. IT DID GO DIRECTLY INTO OUR COW PEN. NOW THEY HAVE TURNED IT SO IT GOES DIRECTLY INTO THAT INDUSTRIAL PARK. OUR SUGGESTION WAS IF THEY TURNED THE WATER THIS WAY, THE OTHER DIRECTION, 600 OR 800 FEET PERHAPS BY PIPE, THERE IS A LARGE CREEK OVER HERE. IT WOULD GO INTO A LARGE CREEK. INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY ACROSS US. BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM IS IT WOULD MESS UP ONE OF THEIR LOTS AND COST MONEY TO HAVE PIPES ACROSS IT SO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS THEY ARE PUTTING UP THINGS TO SLOW THE VELOCITY OF THE WATER AND I UNDERSTAND SLOWING THE VELOCITY WILL HELP BUT THE VOLUME IS INCREASING WITH EVERY ONE THEY BUILD. I KNOW THAT IS ALL I CAN SAY. THEY CAME DOWN AND THEY PUT SOME DIRT IN FRONT OF THE VENTS. THE INDUSTRIAL PARKS ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT DIRT LINE AND THEY SAID THAT WOULD HOLD THE WATER BACK.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, THAT LITTLE DIRT PILE IS NOT GOING TO HOLD THE WATER BACK. OKAY AND THIS IS WHY BECAUSE THEY HAULED IN I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF LOADS OF DIRT AND HAVE RAISED THE ELEVATION OF THE LAND. SO, THEREFORE, THE WATER DRAINS ON US. AND, THAT JUST SHOWS MORE THE DIRT PILES. CURRENTLY, WE, A TEAM OF ENGINEERS, THIRD PARTY ENGINEERS LOOKING AT IT IS GOWNING TO SEND US POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ERIC OLSEN? YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION.

>> OPPOSITION . STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN

THE CITY. >> ERIC OLSEN. I'M IN MIDLOTHIAN AS WELL. I HAVE KNOWN THE PROPERTY FOR OVER 20 YEARS.

AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE FLOODING LIKE IT IS NOW. WE WOULD SIT IN THE BACK ON THE PATIO DURING RAINSTORMS. AND NEVER WAS THE WATER OVER THE CREEK. THAT IS CLOSE TO THEIR

[00:25:03]

PROPERTY. >> YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION?

>> I AM DEFINITELY IN OPPOSITION.

>> THANK YOU. STAFF? >> I HAVE EVIDENCE HERE.

>> RUSS LYONS WITH STRAND ENGINEERING. WAS NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE REDDENS. AN ENGINEER MET WITH THEM ON SITE. WALKED THEIR PROPERTY. THEY CAME TO AN AGREEMENT ON IMPROVEMENTS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. I UNDERSTAND IT ENTAILED SOME GRADING ON THEIR PROPERTY WHERE THEY AGREED THEY WANTED IT TO GO. AS FAR AS THE PICTURES SHOWING THE WATT EARLERRIER, THAT WAS, THOSE WERE FROM PREVIOUSLY. BEFORE THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. THE NEW GRADING HAD BEEN DONE. THE PILES OF DIRT I CANNOT TELL WHERE THAT DIRT IS. WITH THIS PHASE, THOUGH, OUR DRAINAGE ISN'T GOING THERE. WE HAVE TWO PONDS ON THE SOUTH END, ALMOST OUR ENTIRE SITE DRAINS SOUTH. IT DOES NOT GO TO THE REDDENS. IT GOES INTO A CLOSED SYSTEM. SO IT IS NOT GOING TO BE OVER LAND. DRAINING TOWARD THEM. THIS PHASE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MITIGATE THE SITUATION. THERE IS NEW DRAIN ALAN DOYLE CRITERIA THE CITY JUST APPROVED SO THE RUN OFF COEFFICIENTS WENT UP.

NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE FUTURE PHASE.

>> QUESTIONS? >> OKAY, SO IF YOU KNOW IT IS NOT YOUR PHASE THAT DID IT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT ONE DID?

>> IT WAS 1B EAST. APPROVED BY THE CITY. THAT EXISTING POND IS NOT EVEN A PART OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT WAS REMOVED. SO IF YOU LOOK KIND OF AT THAT CORNER AREA SO THAT WAS PART OF THE PHASE ONE EAST. AND THEN THIS ONE, EVERYTHING DRAINS TO YOUR POND HERE. AND A POND HERE. AND THESE ARE PICKED UP BY EXISTING CLOSED SYSTEMS. IT WILL ALL BE UNDERGROUND.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THIS MAY BE FOR YOU OR STAFF. BUT LOOKING ON HERE, IT SAYS THE DRAINAGE PLAN PLAN IS REQUIRE TODAY BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER. IT SAYS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED. IS THAT

[00:30:02]

YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS? >> DOES THAT MEAN THEY MET THE DRAINAGE STUDY CRITERIA. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE LEVEL OF WATER DOWNSTREAM. AND ALL THOSE TYPE OF CRITERIA. ! AND LASTLY, AS PNC, WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS PLAT. IF WE TAKE NO ACTION, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO WHO WILL FIX THE PROBLEM WITH THEIR PROPERTY?

>> SO, AS THE EMAIL I GAVE STATED AND THEY STATED, THAT OUR CITY ENGINEER MET WITH THE THIRD PARTY TO WALK THE SITE AND LOOK AT WAYS THEY COULD HELP TO REDIRECT THE FLOW. SO THEY JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE REPORT BACK. THEY WERE HOPING IT WOULD HAVE COME BACK LAST WEEK. AND THEY ARE EXPECTING IT THIS WEEK. BUT IT WILL HAVE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW THEY COULD DO SOME GRADING TO HELP THE DRAINAGE.

>> SO WHO IS THEY? IS THAT THE CITY?

>> YEAH. >> WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

FIXING THIS? THE CITY? >> WE HAVE OFFERED TO DO IT.

>> OKAY. >> DID YOU SAY THERE WAS AN EXISTING DETENTION POND THAT WAS REMOVED?

>> YES, SIR. SO, THAT EXISTING POND THAT EXISTING POND IS PART OF THE FINAL PLAT APPROVED AND FILED BUT IT IS NOT A PART OF

THIS ONE. >> WHAT DID THEY PUT IN PLACE OF

THE POND? >> NO, NO ONE IS GOING TO BUILD

OVER THE POND. >> THERE IS A POND THERE NOW.

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT ONE B EAST ONE WAS

COMPLETED . >> BUT IT DRAINS ON THE REDDENS.

>> YES, SIR. THROUGH THEIR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.

>> SO IF THAT DETENTION POND IS PART OF ANOTHER PLAT AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT DRAINS ON THEIR PROPERTY, SO WE ARE NOT TALKING

ABOUT THAT SITUATION? >> NO, WE ARE NOT.

>> OKAY. >> THIS PHASE IS INDEPENDENT OF THAT POND. ALMOST OUR ENTIRE PHASE DRAINS TO OUR TWO PONDS TO

THE SOUTH. >> SO, TWO AT THE BOTTOM HERE.

>> YES, SIR. >> THOSE ARE DETENTION PONDS AND

THEY MEET OR EXCEED ENGINEERING? >> IT IS THE HUNDRED YOU CANNOT RELEASE WITH IT. THEIR NEW CRITERIA BREAKS IT DOWN TO IN THE 25 YEAR YOU CAN ONLY RELEASE I WANT TO SAY, THE 10. THE CITY HAS ADDRESSED THIS WITH THEIR NEW DRAINAGE CRITERIA. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST ONE THAT ADHERES TO THE NEW DESIGN CRITERIA. THIS WILL BE TO THE TEE WHAT THE CITY WANTS. WHEN WE ACTUALLY DESIGN THE PONDS IT WILL BE WITH THE CIVIL PLANS SO FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT IS JUST FOR US TO SUBMIT PLANS FOR THE CITY TO REVIEW. SO, IF THE CITY COME BACK AND SAYS NOT BIG

ENOUGH, WE'LL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. >> SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING DIRECTLY. THOSE PONDS HAVE INCREASED THEIR COLLECTION CAPACITY. THE STANDARDS INCREASED. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. NOW WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE MORE STORAGE. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GET WIDER BUT THEY CAN GO DEEPER AND YOU CAN WALL THEM IN. KIND OF YOU SEE A LOT OF WAL-MARTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. WHERE YOU PROVIDE QUITE A BIT MORE STORAGE. BUT IN A SMALLER KIND OF HORIZONTAL AREA.

>> JUST TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PLAT WHERE THE CITY

[00:35:05]

SITUATION? >> YES. THIS WILL NOT BE A CITY

FACILITY. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

>> NO. >> SO, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN WITH

1B EAST? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING HAPPENED. I THINK THAT IF THE SHEET GLOWS ONTO THE PROPERTY, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. RUSSELL JUST SAID THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE POND WAS EXCAVATED AND FINALIZED. IT WOULD NOT BE AS INTENSE AS THAT. WE WERE HAPPY TO MEET WITH THE REDDENS AND SEE IF WE COULD DO ANYTHING TO MAKE ANY MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO HELP WITH THE FLOW TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP THEM OUT IN LONG TIME RESIDENTS.

>> SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE PAST.

THAT WAS CAUSED BY SOMETHING. >> IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER AND MIKE WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT. HOW AND WHAT THE IMPACT IS. IT IS MUDDY WATER AND IT COULD BE VERY SHALLOW AND YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL. YOU ARE NOT SEEING

HOW DEEP IT IS. >> I UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH, BUT IF THAT WAS RUNNING THROUGH MY BACKYARD, I WOULDN'T BE HAPPY

EITHER. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> IS THAT PHASE CLOSED OUT? >> IT HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED YET.

>> ONCE IT IS RECORDED THAT MEANS ALL THE FACILITIES ARE THERE. SO IT DID GET RECORDED LAST MONTH.

>> I WOULD NOT MAKE THE LEGAL CONCLUSION THE CITY OWNS THE

FACILITIES. >> OKAY. THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF

THE HOA. >> WE WOULD GET REGULAR CALLS AND WE ARE HAPPY TO COORDINATE SOLUTIONS.

>> I DON'T WANT FOLKS HERE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE STATEMENTS THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW ARE LEGALLY TRUE ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF ANYTHING.

>> THAT'S TRUE. >> LOOKS LIKE THE VOTING SYSTEM, WE WILL DO THIS THE OLD FASHIONED WAY. 005. AND I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. HEAR A SECOND? ALL IN

FAVOR? >> AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND, WE'LL DO IT THAT WAY. 5-1.

>> I'M SORRY. YOU SAY. >> 4-2.

[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 3.047± acres out of the B.F. Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 464, by changing the zoning from Single-Family Three (SF-3) District to a Planned Development District No. 176 (PD176) for Office and Retail uses. Generally located on the south side of US Highway 287, and west of South Midlothian Parkway. (Z26-2025-066) ]

>> HARD TO TELL. >> ALL RIGHT. SO WE WILL MOVE ONTO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. CONDUCT A HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 3.04 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES OUT OF THE BF HAWKINS SURVEY. CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY THREE DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

[00:40:01]

>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSION. AS A REQUEST TO REZONE A THREE ACRE UNDEVELOPED LOT FROM SF3 TO PD WITH AN UNDERLYING ZONING OF GP TO DEVELOP TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS SLIGHT SHOWS THE ZONING LAND USES AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY. TO INCREASE THE ZONING MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWANCE BY FIVE FEET. HERE IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE REPORT FOR THIS CASE INCLUDED FOUR VARIANTS. A REVISED SITE PLAN WAS PROVIDED BE I THE APPLICANT WHICH ADDRESSED TWO VARIANCES. ONE BEING THE THREE-AND-A-HALF LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG HIGHWAY 287. LINE TO INCLUDE A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW SOD INSTEAD OF THE EVERGREEN PLANNED MATERIAL FOR THE ADJACENT ALONG THE BOUNDARY. IT IS OWNED BY A CHURCH AND UNDEVELOPMENTED . FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH TO THE EAST. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO OBJECTION. STAFF NOW RECOMMENDS APPROVE OF THIS REQUEST DUE TO COMP PLAN CONSISTENCY. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. AND THE APPLICANT REMOVING THE NEED FOR THE TWO MORE SIGNIFICANT VARIANTS. THANK YOU AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

>> QUESTION TO STAFF? YES. >> THAT WAS CORRECT.

>> THE ONLY REASON THE SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL WAS REQUIRED TO BE THERE, BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY WHERE THE WALL IS BEING PLACED IS ZONED AS A SINGLE FAMILY. THAT IS CORRECT.

JUST LIKE THIS PROPERTY. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY DESIGNATED FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. THERE IS JUST THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. UH-HUH.

>> LEVEL FIVE ARKITETURE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY. AND APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THIS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> HAVE YOU HAD ANY DRAINAGE RESEARCH DONE FOR THIS PROPERTY?

>> YES, WITH E HAVE. WE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS. TO PUT IT IN KIND OF A NUTSHELL, WE ARE KEEPING ALL THE DRAINAGE THAT IS COMING OFF OF OUR PROPERTY ON OUR PROPERTY. UNDERGROUND DETENTION. RUN OFF DRAINAGE THAT COULD NOT INCREASE OFF OF THAT PROPERTY. SO NONE OF THAT WILL BE DONE. WE ARE NOT PUSHING ANY WATER OFF. AND KEEPING

[00:45:01]

EVERYTHING. >> SO, WHERE THERE IS A RETENTION POND WITH DRAINAGE ACROSS THIS PROPERTY AREA AND THEN, THERE IS A DETENTION POND SOUTH OF YOUR PROPERTY. SO, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE WATER COMING ACROSS YOUR PROPERTY?

>> BASED ON OUR CALCULATIONS, A LOT OF THAT DRAINAGE IS COMING FROM THE NORTH. THERE IS A LOT OF RUN OFF. WE ARE CAPTURING THAT. BEFORE IT FALLS INTO THAT DETENTION POND. WE ARE NOT INCREASING ANY OF THE FLOWS TO THE POND TO THE SOUTH. WE ARE NOT TAKING ON A WHOLE LOT OF THE DRAINAGE FROM THE PROPERTY THAT GOES UNDERGROUND. IT ESSENTIALLY BYPASSES OUR PROPERTY AS IT GOES INTO THAT DETENTION POND TO THE SOUTH OF US.

>> WHAT KIND OF OFFICE SPACES ARE THESE GOING TO BE?

>> THEY WILL BE CLASS A OFFICE SPACES. THE DEVELOPER WILL PUT THEIR BUSINESS THERE. MAINLY ON THE SECOND FLOOR. GROUND LEVEL.

THAT COULD BE CORPORATE OFFICES. WE ARE ASKING FOR ALLOWANCE OF RETAIL ON THIS PROPERTY. THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF A QUICK SERVE OR A SIT DOWN TYPE RESTAURANT POTENTIALLY BEING IN THAT RETAIL SPACE IN ONE OF THE SECOND BUILDINGS THERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK

YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> SO, THE CHURCH PROPERTY IS

SINGLE FAMILY? >> THAT IS CORRECT. IT IS BASED

ON ZONING, NOT ON USE. >> THAT SEEMS SORT OF SILLY.

NOBODY WILL WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE ON THE SERVICE ROAD

TO 287. >> IT WOULDN'T BE ON THE SERVICE ROAD. IT WOULD HAVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IN BETWEEN IT. AND IT IS LIKE DANIEL SAID, A LARGE TRACT OF LAND. WE HAVE THE PD TO THE SOUTH. THE VILLAGES ON THE SQUARE. WE ENCOURAGED THEM TO REACH OUT TO THE CHURCH. I DON'T THINK THEY DO AT THIS

TIME. >> CAN WE, IF IT WAS TO BE A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, COULD WE THEN REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT

TO BUILD SIX FOOT RETAINING? >> IT IS TYPICAL THAT WE DON'T REQUIRE THE RESIDENTIAL TO PROVIDE THE SCREENING. IT IS

USUALLY THE COMMERCIAL ASIDE. >> YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, MAKING THE DEVELOPER COME BACK. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY DECIDES TO DEVELOP A PARTICULAR WAY. IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET THAT DEVELOPER.

IT WILL PROBABLY NOT BE THE ONLY ONE.

>> I PERSONALLY WANT TO SAY I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF A WALL.

I WISH THAT A NATURAL LANDSCAPE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WE COULD ALLOW. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT THE BUCK BRICK WALLS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE 20 PLUS YEARS AND THE MORTAR IS FALLING DOWN. WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON BEING WIDE OPEN SPACES. WHEN WE GO AND BUILD WALLS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING WALLS, THAT

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. >> THERE ARE FOUR VERY YAPS. YOU

[00:50:05]

>> JUST GOING BACK TO THE DRAINAGE THING. IF WE LOOK AT THE WAY WATER FLOWS ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY, I THINK WE ARE JUST SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR ANOTHER ISSUE. NATURAL.

LANDSCAPE BUFFER MAKES MORE SENSE.

>> OKAY. >> WOULD THE DEVELOPER BE

AGREEABLE TO THAT? >> ORIGINALLY THE FIRST REQUEST WAS TO THOSE TWO VARIANTS. PLANNING THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF SHRUBS AND TREES IS QUITE EXTENSIVE. WE DO HAVE ROOM TO PLANT PLENTY OF TREES AND SHRUBS JUST NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. WE WOULD LIKE TO PLANT A LOT OF TREES AND SHRUBS.

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

>> PLEASE VOTE. >> IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. FURTHER DISCUSSION? OR A MOTION?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMOVE THE WALL AS A REQUIREMENT AND HOW DO WE WANT TO PHRASE THE LANDSCAPING.

INAUDIBLE ] >> YOU THE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION AND WE CAN TWEAK IT FOR COUNCIL. AND SAY THEY ARE STILL REQUESTING THE VARIANTS AND THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE

SHOWING. >> OKAY WE WILL HAVE A MOTION WE REMOVE THE WALL AS A REQUIREMENT AND THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING ON THAT SIDE. WE HAVE A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE. WHAT

HAPPENS HERE? OH. >> SO THE VOTING IS.

>> HERE WE GO. >> ALL RIGHT, PLEASE VOTE AGAIN.

IT DIDN'T TAKE THE FIRST TIME. EVERYBODY VOTE? OKAY. AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. I CAN'T CHANGE IT. WE'LL FIX THAT. ALL

[009 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 Lots 1-A and 1-B, Block 1, Sharka MDN Addition, located in Planned Development District No. 106 (PD-106), by adopting development regulations with a Unified Sign Agreement. The property is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Railport Parkway and US Highway 67. (Z32-2025-079) REQUESTING CONTINUANCE]

CONTINUANCE? PLEASE VOTE. >> WHOA, WHOA, BEFORE WE DO THAT. LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE ACTUALLY OPENED THE PUBLIC

[00:55:01]

HEARING ON THE RECORD. >> YES. IF YOU DO THAT, WE DON'T HAVE TO RENOTICE. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

>> SO LET'S DO AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE TO CONTINUE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> FAIR ENOUGH. MY BAD.

>> WE HAVE OPEN FIRST-DEGREE HEARING.

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WE HAVE TO CLOSE IT. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 16TH.

PLEASE VOTE. THE LATEST DISCUSSION STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS ANNOUNCEMENTS. ANYBODY? DO I HEAR A MOTION TO

ADJOURN? >> SECOND.

>> ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> WE ARE DONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.