Jun 23, 2026 City Council

[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation]

[00:00:05]

>> GOOD EVENING. IT'S TUESDAY, JUNE 23RD, 2026, 6 P.M. WE HAVE A QUORUM OF CITY COUNCIL PRESENT. SO I'LL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN THIS EVENING WITH INVOCATION PLEDGES LED BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMOND.

>> LET'S PRAY. GOD, WE THANK YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE AND ALL THAT YOU DO. GIVE WISDOM OVER THIS MEETING, GUIDANCE ON OUR DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING, LORD HELP US WITH OUR COMMUNICATION AND WE PRAY BLESSINGS OVER THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND THE CITIZENS OF MIDLOTHIAN.

WE PRAY ALL THESE THINGS. AMEN.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNGOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE

AND INDIVIDUAL. >> COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY, IF

[2026-194 Announcements/Presentations]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE TO ALL THE HELP AND SUPPORT THAT BILL GAVE ME WHEN I TOOK OVER IN -- IT WAS A TOUGH TIME, HIM AND HIS WIFE REACHED OUT TO MYSELF AND TAMMY WAS AN IMMENSE HELPING AND TAKING A POSITION THAT WAS SUDDENLY CAME ON. SO HE LOVED THE CITY AND HE HELPED ME IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, AND I THANK HIM AND HIS

FAMILY. >> THANK YOU, RICHARD.

BILL WAS DEFINITELY A COMMITTED COMMUNITY SERVANT WHO HAD A PASSION FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, A PASSION FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN. I MET HIM THROUGH A COMMUNITY PRAYER MEETING AND HE WAS ACTIVE IN CREATING COMMUNITY THAT WAY.

AND HE WILL CERTAINLY BE MISSED. OUR PRAYERS AND OUR THOUGHTS DEFINITELY GO TO THE HOUSTON FAMILY AND TO DEBBIE SPECIFICALLY AS SHE MOURNS THE LOSS, AND I WANT TO MAKE HER AWARE THAT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY MOURNS THE LOSS OF BILL HOUSTON AND BY CITIZENS AND THEY'RE ALREADY UP TO 300,000

[00:05:26]

THEY HAVE A INITIATIVE OF THE GRANT FROM THE STATE FOR A FAMILY PLACE INITIATIVE SUPPORTED BY THE COUNCIL, SO THE LIBRARY IS DOING EXCELLENT AND HAS BROUGHT A GREAT IMPACT TO

OUR FAIR CITY. >> THANK YOU, RICHARD.

NEXT WILL BE KASEY CHESHIER WHO SERVES AS LIAISON TO THE PARKS

BOARD. >> OUR BOARD MET ON JUNE #TH AND THERE IS A LOT GOING ON WITH OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT.

SOME RECENT PROJECTS, PRELIMINARY WORK CONTINUES WITH THE HERITAGE PLAZA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

AND THE GROUNDBREAKING IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE ON JULY 9TH. I DO HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE PLANS TO ATTEND THAT ONE.

RIDGEVIEW PARK, THE NEW SIGN HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND BID DOCUMENTS ARE NEAR FINALIZE FOR THE UPDATE OF THIS PARK.

CIVIC CENTER IS SCHEDULED TO RECEIVE NEW FIELD LIGHTING WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN THE PERMITTING STAGE.

THE UPGRADING LIGHTING WILL SUPPORT EVENING SOCCER AD AND FOOTBALL PRACTICES. THE HAWK AND SPRING PLAYGROUND IS SLATED FOR RENOVATION SOON SO I WANT TO ASK FOR THE PUBLIC'S PATIENCE AS THE AREA WILL BE CLOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARILY. STAFF SHOWED SOME CONCEPT PLANS FOR FUTURE PARKS AND THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE CITIZENS PLANNING GROUP. I WANT TO FOCUS THIS NEXT SECTION ON A LOT OF SUMMER EVENTS THAT'S GOING ON, PARTICULARLY IN JULY. I DO WANT TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE PARKS TEAM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE MIDLOTHIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. THEY PULLED OFF AN AMAZING WORLD SOCCER FESTIVAL AND WATCH PARTY FOR TEAM USA'S FIRST SOCCER GAME ON JUNE 12TH TO GREAT FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC ON THAT ONE.

THE UPCOMING EVENTS, THERE'S BASICALLY SOMETHING EVERY WEEK FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR JULY. THE FIREWORKS SHOW ON JULY 3RD, 9:14, THE 4TH OF JULY SHOW IS ON AT 10 O'CLOCK DOWNTOWN. HERITAGE PARK GROUND BREAK, THAT'S ON JULY 9TH AT 9 O'CLOCK.

SUMMER MOVIES IN THE PARK, SOOTOPIA 8 P.M. ON JULY 11TH. JULY 17TH IS PARKTOPIA IN CELEBRATION OF NATIONAL PARKS AND REC'S MONTH FROM 6 TO 9 AT THE COMMUNITY PARK. AND THEN TO FINISH UP JULY, JULS CONCERT, 7:30 AT THE COMMUNITY PARK.

I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO FOLLOW MID-HOATIAN SOCIAL MEDIA FEEDS OR THE WEBSITE FOR ALL THOSE EVENTS BUT IT'S A BUSY

TIME FOR OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT. >> THANK YOU, KASEY.

>> THE BOARD RECEIVED THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE TRAIL HOUSE, THE SHADY GROVE PROPERTY. THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS.

AT THE 4TH OF JULY PARADE, INCITY IS PROVIDING FLAGS.

THEY GO AROUND AND GIVE OUT FLAGS TO EVERYONE AT THE PARADE, WHICH IS COOL. MELISSA, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMPLETED HER TWO-YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE.

THE MOST -- REALLY THE MOST EXCITING PART IS THE RFQ THAT THEY SUBMITTED OR PUT OUT THERE FOR THE MT. ZION PROPERTY TO LOOK AT POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON NOW. >> FANTASTIC.

THANK YOU. I SERVE AS LIAISON TO THE HISTORIC ADVISORY BOARD. JUST TWO QUICK THINGS ON THAT...

NUMBER 1, THEY RECENTLY APPROVED A MURAL, WITH THE HISTORIC NOD TO THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY THAT WAS -- HELPED TO START OUR COMMUNITY. THAT POTENTIALLY GO ON THE EL PRIM OS BUILDING. SECONDLY THEY HAVE APPROVED THE MUSEUM FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS SO I'LL SURE WE'LL BE SEEING THOSE AT COUNCIL. I WANT TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON BEHALF OF THE TEAM, BECAUSE COUNCILWOMAN SHEFFIELD SERVES AS THE LIAISON FOR THAT BOARD BUT HE'S UNABLE TO BE HERE THIS EVENING SO I'LL MAKE MENTION OF A COUPLE OF THINGS.

NUMBER 1, THERE'S MIDLOTHIAN SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING EVENTS, A COUPLE OF THOSE, SO THE BUSINESS PITCH COMPETITION, APPLICATIONS ARE STILL OPEN FOR THE BUSINESS PITCH COMPETITION, WHERE ESTABLISHED MIDLOTHIAN BASED BUSINESSES CAN COMPETE FOR AWARDS AND PRIZES. THERE'S THE BUSINESS EXPANSION COURSE, REGISTRATION IS OPEN FOR THE FOUR-WEEK BUSINESS EXPANSION COURSE. THIS IS DESIGNED FOR ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES READY TO GROW. THE PROGRAM PROVIDES PRACTICAL STRATEGIES FOR SCALING OPERATIONS AND PREPARING FOR LONG-TERM SUCCESS. AND THEN THERE'S THE PRIMARY JOB EXPANSION GRANT, MED HAS LAUNCHED A LOCAL PRIMARY JOB EXPANSION SUPPORT PROGRAM. ELIGIBLE BUSINESSES INVESTING AT LEAST 10,000 COULD QUALIFY FOR PROJECTS AND RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT OF UP TO 50,000. SO YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO GET

[00:10:02]

>> MIKA: MID RESIDENTS CAN ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE ABOUT THE PROCESS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I'LL TURN TO THE MAYOR.

>> I FEEL BAD BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING ON P AND Z Y'ALL SEE IT THE NEXT MONTH. MY WHOLE UPDATE IS IN YOUR

PACKET TONIGHT. >> COUNCILWOMAN WEAVER IS OUR

AIRPORT BOARD LIAISON. >> AIRPORT BOARD HAS MADE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HAD A JOINT WORKSHOP, SEVERAL OF US WERE PRESENT THERE WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS -- BOTH CITIES WERE AMENABLE TO KICKSTARTING THE FIRST PROJECT OUT THERE IN ABOUT 14 YEARS SO THAT'S VERY EXCITED FOR THEM.

THEY HAD THEIR ANNUAL PANCAKE FLY-IN EARLIER THIS MONTH.

AT THISATTENDANCE WAS A LYLE DAD BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF RAIN AND OVERCAST, SO IT WAS NOT AS WELL ATTENDED, BUT THOSE THAT DID CONTAINED HAD A WONDERFUL TIME OUT THERE.

IT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO INTERFACE WITH THE AIRPORT WHEN THEY MAY NOT GET A CHANCE TO DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS OTHERWISE. SO A LOT OF THINGS ON THE HORIZON OUT THERE. WE HAVE AN UNCUT GEM IN THAT AIRPORT THAT REALLY COULD BE AN ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR NOT JUST MIDLOTHIAN BUT THE WHOLE LS COUNTY REGION AS IT CONTINUES TO

GROW AND STARTS TO REACTIVATE. >> FANTASTIC.

AT THISATTENDANCE WAS DAMPENED O THE RAIN, I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. THANK Y'ALL FOR THE UPDATES.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO GIVE CITY COUNCIL AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPORT ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. OUTSIDE OF THE THINGS THAT KASEY ALREADY MENTIONED WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'VE NOTICED OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON. TO 2026-195 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. CITIZENS

[CONSENT AGENDA]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL MATTERS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED THAT ITEM CAN BE REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. I DID HAVE A REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER RENO TO REMOVE ITEM D AND ITEM I THIS EVENING.

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE ANY OTHER ITEMS OUTSIDE OF ITEM D AND ITEM I? HEARING NONE, WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA, MINUS ITEM D AND ITEM I.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> SORRY, THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER CHESHIER AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE.

I DON'T SEE A RUNNING TOTAL HERE, TAMMY.

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO -- THERE IT IS.

NOW IT SHOWED UP. I'LL JUST -- WE'LL DO IT THE OLD WAY. YOU CAN JUST KEEP GOING.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. SO WE'LL OPEN ITEM D FOR

[D. Consider and act upon authorizing the purchase and installation of a new bulk poly alum storage tank at the Tayman water treatment plant by Control Specialist Services, LP, in the amount of $141,789.]

I GUESS RICHARD, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR MIKE?

>> TSQ REQUIREMENTS SO IT IS A FUNDED PROJECT.

IT IS FUNDED WITHIN THE UTILITY FUND.

AND AGAIN, IT'S ONE THAT'S MANDATED THAT WE HAVE TO STAY UPON TCQ REQUIREMENTS SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE HAVE.

>> HE I JUST UNDERSTAND IT'S FULLY FUNDED OUT OF THE UTILITY

[00:15:02]

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS? >> IT'S BUDGETED OUT OF THE

UTILITY FUND AND IT IS FUND. >> AND IT IS 100% REQUIRED BY

STATE LAW. >> YES, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE 15 DAY REQUIREMENT, YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY MY REQUEST TO COUNCIL. LAST WEEK, WE HAD SOME CITIZENS EXPRESS A THOUGHT I INTERPRETED THAT SAID WHEN YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL ITEMS, THEY SHOULD BE DISCUSSED OPENLY.

WHICH I AGREED WITH. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS A SUGGESTION, NOT A REQUEST THAT THESE ITEMS BE REMOVED. AND I ALSO SUGGESTED THAT WE ADOPT A POLICY SIMILAR TO TYPE A AND TYPE B BOARDS ABOUT AUTOMATIC APPROVAL WHEN YOU NEED COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

>> JEFF'S TELLING ME THAT WE CAN BRING THAT BACK AND DISCUSS THAT

AT FUTURE -- >> I'M JUST CLARIFYING WHY -- I DO NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH EITHER OF THESE.

I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A FAIR COMMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE

SOME OPEN COMMENTS. >> JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, SO THEY UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE THE COUNCIL DID HAVE THIS PREVIOUS -- PORTION OF THE OF THIS COUNCIL DID HAVE A DISCUSSION AND GAVE DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER AND I WAS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION ON CONSENT ITEM, THAT WE COULD MOVE LARGER ITEMS -- LARGER EXPENDITURES TO THE CONSENT IF THOSE ITEMS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH YOUR BUDGET PROCESS.

AND SO THAT -- WHAT SHOULD BE ON THE CONSENT, CHRIS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN BUDGETED FOR THE MOST PART. IF THERE WANTS TO BE A CHANGE IN THAT POLICY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS.

>> AND WE'LL BRING THAT POLICY FORWARD IN A WORKSHOP SETTING

AND HAVE AN OPEN DIALOG -- >> IF IT SAYS IT'S PART OF THE BUDGET, YES, THAT WOULD GREATLY ADDRESS THE POINT, I THINK.

>> SURE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM D? WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON IT MOTION MADE AND APPROVED BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMOND, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO PRO-TEM.

TAMMY, I DON'T KNOW WHICH BUTTON TO PUSH.

RESTART VOTE? THERE WE GO.

SORRY, WE'RE PLAYING WITH NEW SYSTEMS TONIGHT.

THE ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

[I. Consider and act upon the purchase of nine (9) 2026 Dodge Durangos from Grapevine Dodge Chrysler Jeep in an amount not to exceed $409,135. This excludes the upfitting and additional equipment of a mobile radio, vehicle hotspot, graphics, and in-car video system.]

>> SO SINCE WE DID PULL ITEM I, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT INTO RECORD AND THEN OFFER DISCUSSION, OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD COUNCIL CHOOSE TO. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE PURCHASE OF NINE 2026 DODGE DURANGOS FROM GRAPEVINE DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $409,135.

THIS EXCLUDES THE UP IF THE FITTING AND ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT OF A MOBILE RADIO, VEHICLE HOT SPOT, GRAPHICS AND IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEM. COMMANDER HARP, DO YOU WANT TO JUST GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS IS.

>> YES, SIR. THESE ARE -- SO SIX OF THE VEHICLES WERE SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED IN THE BUDGET REQUEST FROM THIS PREVIOUS YEAR, INTO THIS YEAR.

THEY WERE GOING TO BE SET FOR POOL VEHICLES SO FRONT LINE POOL VEHICLES THAT WILL BE REPLACED IN THE REPLACEMENT PLAN MOVING FORWARD TO ADDRESS SOME ISSUES WE HAD IN ADDING A LOT OF RESOURCES TO OUR SOR PROGRAM WHICH DEPLETED OUR TRADITIONAL RESERVE PROGRAM, WHICH ARE VEHICLES THAT TYPICALLY ARE GOING TO HAVE BETWEEN 100, 120,000 MILES OR THEM SO NOT AS RELIABLE, SO WE WERE HAVING TO TRIPLE UP IN SOME OUR FRONTLINE VEHICLES WHICH SHORTENS THE LIFE OF OUR VEHICLES.

SO THAT'S THE SIX. THE TWO WERE GRANT POSITIONS, BACKFILLS FOR THOSE SO WE RECAPTURED THOSE FUNDS TO PURCHASE TWO ADDITIONAL VEHICLES IN OUR PATROL VEHICLE AND ONE IS A REPLACEMENT FOR OUR CRISIS INTERVENTION UNIT.

SO YOU WILL SEE NEXT MY GOAL IS TO HAVE THAT ALL COMPLETED FOR NEXT COUNCIL FOR THE ACTUAL UPFITTING BUT WE'RE COMING IN UNDER BUDGET ON THAT REQUEST AS WELL.

THESE ARE ALL ALLOCATED IN THE FINANCIAL IMPACT NOTES, WHERE THE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS ARE. BUT THEY'RE ALL FUNDED THROUGH

DIFFERENT SOURCES. >> THANK YOU, COMMANDER.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? MAKE A MOTION ON IT? SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CHESHIER. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, COMMANDER.

[2026-197 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing the Neighborhood Gathering for the City Fireworks Show, an event hosted by Wayne Shuffield, scheduled for Friday, July 3, 2026, in accordance with a Special Event Permit as established by the City of Midlothian Zoning Ordinance 2013-24, as amended, Section 2.04 (Use Table) (Case No. SEP18 2026).]

HEATHER? >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. COMMAND SHUFFIELD OBVIOUSLY RECUSED HIMSELF ALL THE WAY FROM THE MEETING TONIGHT TO NOT

[00:20:01]

HE ESTIMATES 50 PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE.

THERE WILL BE ONE SNOW CONE TRUCK PRESENT AS THE ONLY FOOD VENDOR ATTENDING. THEY REQUESTED CONES THROUGH PARKS AND REC TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT PROGRAM.

NO SIGNAGE IS PROPOSED FOR THIS EVENT.

AND THE APPLICANT PAID THE 50-DOLLAR APPLICATION FEE.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION AND THE MIDLOTHIAN POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THIS EVENT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER FOR MR. SHUFFIELD.

>> THANK YOU, HEATHER. ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF HEATHER?

>> JUST TWO REAL QUICK ONES. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S LOTS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EFFORTS TAKING PLACE WITH THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THIS LOCATION AND LAUNCH SITE.

ANY CONCERNS FROM POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENTS?

>> NO, SIR. >> AND THEN SOME SUPPLY CONCERNS FROM PARKS AS FAR AS CONES, PARKADES, ARE YOU GUIDES

SUFFICIENT THERE? >> WE'RE GETTING OUR COUNT.

WE HAVE MULTIPLE, AS YOU SAW EARLIER, WE HAVE MULTIPLE REQUESTS, SO WE'VE LET EVERYONE KNOW THEY MAY HAVE LIMITED AMOUNT OF CONES. BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT THROUGH. SO BETWEEN OUR EVENTS GOING ON AND THEIRS, WE'LL HAVE CONES AND BARRICADES EVERYWHERE.

>> YEAH, OKAY, THANKS. >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS?

>>

IT. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> AND HE IS BUSTED ON CAMERA SD

[2026-198 Consider and act upon a quote from G.A.W. Construction Services, LLC, a city-wide concrete vendor, to complete the removal and installation of the street and sidewalk on S. 5th Street and Meadows Crest Court due to the FY 24-25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Line Rehabilitation Project at a cost of $146,654 with a 10% contingency for a total cost of $161,320.]

COUNCIL. >> 2026-198, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A QUOTE FROM GAW CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR CITY-WIDE CONCRETE VENDOR TO COMPLETE THE EH REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF THE STREET ST. AND SIDEWALK ON SOUTH 5TH STREET AND MEADOWS CREST COURT, DUE TO THE FY24-25 WATER AND SANITARY SUE LINE REHABILITATION PROJECT AT A COST OF 146,654, WITH A 10% CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL COST OF $161,320.

ADAM? >> -- SO WE THOUGHT WE WERE -- THANK YOU -- I DON'T KNOW IF I HAD A VOICE OR NOT, I DON'T THINK I NEED A MICROPHONE BUT -- BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE REPLACED THE UTILITY TEMPORARILY WITH SOME ASPHALT AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN OUT THERE THAT WE WERE GOING TO LEAVE IT THAT WAY. WELL, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

AND WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THE UTILITY LINES WERE PUT IN CORRECTLY BEFORE WE WENT BACK THROUGH AND COVERED ALL THE LINES WITH CONCRETE AND EXPENSIVE WORK.

SO -- BUT THE REASON WHY WE'RE COMING TO YOU TONIGHT, VIA THE CITY DOING THIS, IS THIS WE HAVE A CITY-WIDE CONTRACT THAT WE USE. WE ALREADY WENT OUT FORBIDS SO O WE PROJECT MANAGED THE SPECIFIC JOB FOR REPAIRS AND NOT HAVING TO PASS IT ONTO THE CONTRACTOR WHERE THEY PROBABLY DO A LITTLE BIT OF MARKUP. BUT WE ALSO CAN ADD LITTLE THINGS TO IT, IF WE NOTICE THAT A PIECE OF CONCRETE IS BROKEN OR ANOTHER UTILITY CUT WAS SUNK FROM YEARS PAST, THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING CHANGE ORDERS BASED ON THE PROJECT TOO.

SO IT'S A PROJECT MANAGEMENT FORM, SOMETHING WE'VE ALREADY WENT THROUGH ON THE BIDDING THROUGH A CITY WIDE CONTRACT.

AND SO I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO BRING THIS FORWARD SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND CORRECT THESE ERRORS.

>> TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? QUESTIONS OF ADAM ON THIS? RUSS?

>> IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE CUTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED WITH CONCRETE AND SOME ARE ASPHALT AND THERE'S AT LEAST ONE SECTION THAT'S JUST DIRT THAT IS SLOWLY SINKING INTO A WONDERFUL TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE THERE ON 5TH STREET.

SO DID WE START WITH ONE AND WE'RE SWITCHING TO ANOTHER?

>> NO, SIR, AND YOU KNOW -- AND I HAVE [INDISCERNIBLE] EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A CITY-WIDE CONTRACT, THE NUMBER REQUIRES ME TO COME IN FRONT OF COUNCIL AND BEING THAT IT WAS A CITY-WIDE CONTRACT, I THOUGHT I HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. FOR THAT I APOLOGIZE.

SO WE WENT AHEAD AND STARTED ON IT AND NOBODY TOLD ME TO STOP.

>> GETTING IT CORRECTED, BACK TO YOU KNOW NOMINAL STATE IS THE

MOST IMPORTANT THING. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

[00:25:01]

>> SO I APPLAUD YOUR TENACITY AND EFFICIENCY THERE.

SO IN THIS, IT SAYS THE FINANCIAL IMPACT FUNDING SOURCE, IT GIVES TWO BUDGET LINES BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHICH BUDGET THAT COMES OUT OF. AND I SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW THAT

BASED ON THE NUMBERS. >> IT SHOULD BE 32 AND 33,

SORRY, YOU'LL FUND. >> THOSE ARE UTILITY FUND -- EVEN THOUGH THE CITY IS MANAGING, WE'RE NOT PULLING THESE FUNDS OUT OF GENERAL FUNDS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT AND WE DID ANTICIPATE THIS REPAIR WITH THE OVERALL PROJECT WHEN WE DID THE REHAB WORK.

SO IT WAS ANTICIPATED. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S PART OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF SORTS, YOU KNOW ITSELF SO --

>> SO USING OUR CITY-WIDE CONTRACT WE CAN GET IT DONE CHEAPER THAN IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE UTILITY CONTRACTOR

MANAGE THAT PORTION DERVE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, SIR.

>> IT'S HARD TO BE A FISCAL STEWARD.

I APPRECIATE THAT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? THANK YOU. THE MOTION?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE TO APPROVE BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WICKLIFFE.

[2026-199 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a Secondary Dwelling Unit in an Agricultural (A) District, relating to the use and development of Lot 33, Sunshine Place, Phase II, located at 1833 Sunbeam Court. (Case No. SUP06-2026-024).]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DANIEL HUMBREY.

THIS IS A SECOND TO ALLOW A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT TO BE SERVED BY A METER FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING.

THE LOT IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE.

THE SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT TABLE.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, WITH A 40-FOOT REAR YARD SET BACK AND A 30-YARD EAST SIDE YARD SET BACK. IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE SIZE ALLOWANCE, LOT COVERAGE AND ENCROACH INTO REGULATION SETBACKS AND 2-ACRE LOTS ARE PERMITTED [INDISCERNIBLE].

PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY WERE GIVEN NOTICE AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

A SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS NOTICE BEING PUBLISHED IN THE CITY NEWSPAPER FOR TEXAS LAW COMPLIANCE.

P AND Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 6-0.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST: [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. IS ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SINCE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING AND THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN WEAVER SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WICKLIFFE.

PLEASE VOTE. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES 6-0.

YOU SAID THE APPLICANT IS HERE MPLET WOULD.

WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK OR REPRESENT THE CASE? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO DANIEL'S -- INAUDIBLE ] PLEASE, PLEASE, COME UP IF YOU DON'T MIND. IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.

MY NAME IS CASSANDRA SERNA. I'M THE DAUGHTER.

>> I JUST REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS APPROVE IT.

YEAH. IT'S A HOME FOR ME AND MY FIANCE AND A CHILD THAT WE'RE EXPECTING.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. IF YOU DON'T MIND, STAY CLOSE IN CASE THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT ONLY YOU CAN ANSWER.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?

HANNAH? >> MY ONLY ONE PROBABLY FOR STAFF: ONE EMAIL OF OPPOSITION, WHAT WAS THAT FOR?

>> IT WAS FROM A FELLOW NEIGHBOR.

>> BUT IS THERE ANY -- >> IT WASN'T -- NOT MUCH DETAIL.

IT WAS REALLY JUST ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF BUILDINGS ON THE

PROPERTY [INDISCERNIBLE] >> OKAY.

KASEY? >> YEAH, MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF AS WELL. ANY LIMITATION ON HOW THE SECONDARY UNIT IS USED IN THE VERBIAGE, LIKE SHORT-TERM RENTALS, RIGHT NOW WE KNOW WHAT THE USE IS BUT DOWN THE ROAD WE

NIGHT NOT. >> IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO RENT THEM OUT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

RICHARD? >> COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE

DRIVEWAY TO THE SECOND PROPERTY. >> SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, I'M

SORRY? >> THE DRIVEWAY.

WHERE IS THE POSITION -- I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO -- IS THERE A

DRIVEWAY TO THE SECOND PROPERTY? >> THERE WILL BE, YES.

I CAN PULL IT UP. >> WHICH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THE

EXISTING HOUSE WILL IT -- >> IT'S RIGHT UP HERE,

[00:30:01]

SIDE. >> OKAY. IT CONCRETE OR ASPHALTR

WHAT? >> IT WILL BE UP TO CITY

STANDARDS, CORRECT. >> SAY AGAIN?

>> IT WILL BE UP TO CITY STANDARDS.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? A MOTION? OKAY MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CHESHIER.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[2026-200 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a Type 2 Communication Tower on property zoned Light Industrial (LI) and adopting regulations for the use and development of a 0.062± acre portion of Lot 2A, Block A, Fastenal Resubdivision, located at 545 Burk Hawkins Street. (Case No. SUP05-2026-022).]

OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING IS 2026-200, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN OWNERS GRANT AGRICULTURE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TYPE II COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.62-ACRE PORTION OF LOT 2A, BLOCK A,FEST NALL RESUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 545 BURK HAWRK INCIDENCE STREET. DANIEL?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DANIER HUMBER TO PRESENT.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW 120-FOOT TYPE II COMMUNICATION TOWER ON THE LOT ZONED LI AND DESIGNATE THE AS NEW TOWN.

STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AS IT'S NONRESIDENTIAL USES ARE COMMERCIAL, ENTERTAINMENT AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW, WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING, LAND USES AND FUTURE LAND USE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT TABLE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING ZONING BUT INCOMPATIBLE WITH LAND USES DUE TO NONCONFORMING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

HERE IS A REGULAR AND ENLARGED SITE PLANS, WITH THE TOWER AREA OUTLINED IN RED. THE COMMUNICATION TOWER SITE PLAN FEATURES A GATED DRIVE, A MASONRY ENCLOSED TOWER AND ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT. THE VARIANCE WILL BE NEEDED AS THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET.

HERE IS A PROPOSED TOWER ELEVATION RENDERING, WHICH WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REGULATION BY 85 FEET. THE CODE DOES ALLOW COMMUNICATION TOWERS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS BY PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL 2 FEET OF FRONT YARD, REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SET BACK FOR EACH ONE FOOT OF A MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. SO TO AVOID THIS VARIANCE, 170-FOOT WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO EACH SETBACK.

THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH STAFF AND REDUCED THE HEIGHT BY 30 FEET SO THEIR LOWEST HEIGHT IS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE CUSTOMER COVERAGE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES. WE INCLUDED THIS SLIDE AS WELL TO SHOW THE OTHER TOWERS NEAR DOWNTOWN, BEING CELLULAR CARRIER TOWERS. ONE BEING 120 FEET AND ONE BEING 150 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS -- WAS ANNEXED IN 1991 AND INITIALLY ZONED LI IN '89.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE GOAL LU5, BECAUSE IT EXPANDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COVERAGE AND SUPPORTS COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND WITH GOAL EF1 FOR IMPROVED LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FOR LONG-TERM GROWTH. AND SUPPORT OUR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY AND SERVICE NEEDS. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH GOAL LU4 BECAUSE THE TOWER EXCEEDS THE AREA'S INTENDED HEIGHT AND DOES NOT MAINTAIN AESTHETIC CONSISTENCY AND WITH GOAL CH2 FOR MAIN STREET EXPOSURE AND PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. THE PROPERTY AND ONE EMAIL WAS IN OPPOSITION. A SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS NOTICE BEING PUBLISHED IN THE CITY NEWSPAPER FOR TEXAS LAW COMPLIANCE. AT THE PNZ MEETING, THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO A TIED VOTE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I THINK I'M OPEN TO THE QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL WITH THEIR OWN

PRESENTATION. >> OKAY, THANK YOU, DANIEL.

IS ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS? NO PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS. I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMOND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM CLOSES 5 -0, JUST LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT MAYOR PRO-TEM WAKE CLIFF STEPPED OUT MOMENTARILY. OKAY APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF INTO THE

MICROPHONE. >> HELLO.

MY NAME IS DAVID DRAPER AND YES, I'M HERE TO PRESENT ON THIS.

SO MY FIRM IS HIRED BY THE WIRELESS CARRIERS TO HELP FILL IN GAPS THAT THEY FIND IN THEIR COVERAGE.

AND IN THIS SITUATION, WE CAN SEE ON THIS MAP HERE THAT THEY'VE GOT A SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE PROBLEM.

THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR T MOBILE.

WHEN WE'RE HIRED BY T-MOBILE THEY ASK US TO GO OUT AND FIND LOCATIONS IN THIS AREA THAT HAS THE ELEVATION THEY NEED, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS 150 FEET. THEY REDUCED IT TO 120 FEET, FIND ANYTHING WHETHER IT'S A ROOFTOP, AN EXISTING TOWER, A BILLBOARD, ANYTHING OF ANY HEIGHT THAT WILL GET THEM THE

[00:35:02]

SO WE WENT OUT AND TALKED TO A FEW OF THE PROPERTY OIRNS, SEE WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO LEASE US SOME LAND, BUILD A TOWER.

THERE ARE QUITE A FEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THIS STRETCH AND THE MORE WE LOOKED, WE FOUND AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY ALONG THERE TOO, THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE MORE FOR GIVING FOR A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS. A FEW YEARS BACK WE HAD A PROPERTY DOWN THE ROAD THAT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WE BUILT A TOWER THERE THAT IS BUILT NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE EVEN NOTICES IT IS DOWN THERE BUT IT IS.

THE NEXT MAP WILL SHOW, IF THIS WERE TO PASS THE COVERAGE WE WOULD GET -- OH, SO THIS SHOWS YOU AGAIN, WHAT -- THE OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO COVER THIS AREA. SIDE BY SIDE WE'LL SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENCE. DURING PNZ ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SUGGESTED WE GO TO THE NORTH, I THINK THERE'S A CAR AREA UP THERE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S COVERED.

WE REALLY NEED ALONG MAIN STREET HERE TO TRY AND GET WHAT THIS GAP IS FILLING IN. THERE'S SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT IT WOULD HELP, BUSINESSES, THE SCHOOL, RESIDENCES THAT IT WOULD HELP WITH COVERAGE IN THIS AREA. WE REALLY WANT TO GET IN HERE TO NOT ONLY T-MOBILE COVERAGE BUT THERE'S ALSO A 911 ISSUE.

ONE OF THE OTHER PNZ FOLKS MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVE A FAMILY JOKE DO NOT TRY AND CALL ME WHEN I'M ON MAIN STREET, AND WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A JOKE WHEN IT'S A 911 ISSUE SO WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD SPOT FOR THIS.

YOU WILL SEE HERE OTHER CELL TOWERS AND CELL SITES AROUND TOWN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GREEN DOT IS WHERE -- THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THERE'S CLEARLY A WHOLE RIGHT NOW, TO SEE WHAT THIS TOWER WILL LOOK LIKE, HERE IS THE ONE THAT WE'VE BUILT FURTHER DOWN ON 287 THAT IS EXISTING. IT WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO THAT.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE ONE THAT LOOKS IDENTICAL TO IT, IF YOU WALK OUT THE BACK DOOR HERE AND LOOK TO THE NORTH, YOU WILL SEE IT ON YOUR BACK STEP HERE. SO THEY LOOK LIKE A CELL TOWER.

THERE'S THE AREA. AGAIN, INDUSTRIAL AREA, TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. A RENDERING OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. AGAIN COMING UP TO 87 OR MAIN STREET, RATHER, WHEN IT TURNS THERE AND I THINK PEOPLE WILL KNOW IT'S THERE IF YOU'RE IN THIS MEETING, OR IF YOU SEE IT BEING BUILT, AFTER THAT YOU PROBABLY WON'T NOTICE IT.

BUT -- SO IN DALLAS, ONE OF THE MOST AINFLUENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IS UNIVERSITY PARK. THEY HAVE ONE BUILT AT THEIR CITY HALL. AND IF NORTH WORTH, THERE'S TWO CELL SITES BEHIND THERE TO HELP COVERAGE FOR THEIR TENANTS AS WELL AS THEIR TENANTS' CUSTOMERS THERE WAS SOME CONCERN IN THE MEETING THAT A HOTEL MIGHT BE BUILT NEAR THIS SITE.

WE'VE BUILT ON THREE HOTEL PROPERTIES AND THEY ENJOY IT BECAUSE IT HELPS THEIR CUSTOMERS.

AND I THINK THAT EVERYONE APPRECIATES THE COVERAGE WHEN THEY NEED IT, SO -- THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING.

>> YOU MENTIONED IT'S PRIMARILY FOR T-MOBILE BUT AT A LATER SLIDE, YOU SHOCKED IT COULD HOST THREE SEPARATE USERS?

>> CORRECT, WE'RE DESIGNING THIS FOR THREE CARRIERS.

SO IF AT & T OR VERIZON -- AND I THINK THEY WILL -- NEED SOME COVERAGE IN THIS AREA, WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT.

AS WE SAW ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN NOW SO I THINK THEY WILL HAVE A NEED AT SOME POINT AND WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER TOWER TO HAVE

TO BE BUILT. >> RIGHT, CLARK?

>> ON THE COVERAGE MAP, IS THAT JUST T MOBILE'S COVERAGE OR IS THAT COVERAGE OF ALL CELL TOWERS?

>> THIS MAP HERE IS JUST T-MOBILE.

THAT'S THEIR HEAT MAP. IT SHOWS YOU WHERE THEY -- WHERE

THEIR COVERAGE HITS. >> BUT TO SAY THAT LIKE WE HAVE A DOUGHNUT HOLE THERE OR A GAP IN COVERAGE, WE ONLY HAVE A GAP

IN COVERAGE THIS WITH T-MOBILE? >> THAT COULD BE TRUE BUT I CAN SHOW YOU THIS MAP RIGHT HERE IS ALL CARRIERS.

ALL THE BLUE DOTS ARE AT & T, VERIZON, T-MOBILE.

SO I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT TO THE SOUTH, ALL THREE CARRIERS ARE ON THAT TOWER. ONE OUT YOUR BACK DOOR HERE IS AT & T AND T-MOBILE. I DON'T KNOW IF VERIZON IS ON THE OTHER DOT OR NOT BUT -- I KNOW WHERE T-MOBILE IS AND I KNOW WHERE AT & T IS ON THAT ONE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> BUT THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER

CELL SITES CLOSER IN THAN THAT. >> YES, HEQUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

[00:40:08]

KASEY? >> JUST CAN THE APPLICANT DISCUSS ANY ALTERNATE LOCATIONS THAT WERE LOOKED AT AT THIS

PARTICULAR -- ANY ONES OUT THER- >> WE TALKED TO THE SCOOTER'S COFFEE I THINK IT IS RIGHT THERE.

THEY HAD SOME INTEREST. AGAIN RIGHT UP ON MAIN AND -- IT WOULD BE NOT AS OBSTRUCTED BY TREES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THEY WERE INTERESTED. WE TALKED TO A COUPLE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, THE VET CLINIC AND SOME OTHERS, BUT DIDN'T GET VERY FAR. JUST THOSE WERE LITERALLY RIGHT ON MAIN STREET AND WE FELT BEING BACK OFF TO THE NORTH BEHIND SOME TREES AND IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA WAS GOING TO BE A BETTER

FIT. >> OKAY.

AND I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS A LITTLE MORE TO STAFF HERE.

DO YOU MIND EXPANDING ON CONCERNS THAT LED TO THE RECOMMENDATION AGAINST THE APPROVAL, PLEASE.

>> I'M SORRY, THE -- >> JUST EXPAND A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE CONCERNS ABOUT LEADING TO THE NOT RECOMMENDING THIS.

>> THE HEIGHT WAS THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN RELATION TO ADJACENT

PROPERTIES. >> OKAY.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING VARIANCE?

>> IT WASN'T THE PRIMARY CONCERN, JUST NONE WAS PROVIDED.

>> RICHARD? >> WOULD YOU SHOW THE SLIDE OF THE TWO EXISTING TOWERS, THAT YOU HAD UP EARLIER.

YOU HAD A SLIDE THAT SHOWED TWO TOWERS THAT EXIST.

UP EARLIER. I THOUGHT YOU HAD -- THOUGHT I SAW THAT.

>> WAS IT IN HIS PRESENTATION? THERE, THAT ONE -- THANK YOU.

>> CLARK? >> I THINK I ANSWERED MY OWN

QUESTION. >> OKAY.

>> YEAH, AND JUST WITH T-MOBILE, YOU MENTIONED THAT BEING A PRIMARY CLIENT. WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE THEY USING FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT OF THIS PARTICULAR TOWER? YOU MENTIONED IT COULD GO OUT TO OTHER ONES BUT ARE THEY GOING

50%, MORE THAN 50% -- >> NO, THEY WOULD BE USING -- LET'S SEE, IT'S DESIGNED FOR THREE AND EVEN IF ALL THREE WERE ON THERE, THERE WOULD STILL BE SOME ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.

BUT THE WAY THE ENGINEERS DESIGN IT, KIND OF LIKE THE PICTURES UP THERE, THEY SET IT UP FOR THREE WITH A MAXIMUM -- THEY GO BY WIND LOAD AND SQUARE INCHES. SO THEY'RE DESIGNED FOR 30,000 SQUARE INCHES OF SPACE PER CARRIER AND TYPICALLY A CARRIER INSTALLS ABOUT -- BETWEEN 15 AND 20 SO A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF PER CARRIER SO THERE'S AMPLE SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL LOADING, IF

YOU WILL. >> OKAY.

>> DID YOU TALK WITH RANDY DUTTON AND WHAT WAS HIS

RESPONSE? >> I -- I DID NOT.

>> STAFF. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN UP SEVEN YEARS DERBY ONLY REMEMBER ONE OTHER CELL TOWER BEING --ING UP FOR APPROVAL SO ALL THE OTHER CURRENT TOWERS, ARE THOSE JUST PUT IN BEFORE MY TIME? WAS -- WERE THOSE GRANDFATHERED IN? LIKE, DOES ANYONE -- I'M JUST CURIOUS, LIKE THIS ISN'T A CONVERSATION WE HAVE EVERY DAY.

WE HAVE SOME POLICIES AROUND IT BUT HOW DID THOSE OTHER ONES GET THERE AND HOW DID THAT COUNCIL DECIDE?

>> SO THERE WAS THE ONE THAT HE DID MENTION THAT WAS APPROVED THAT DID HAVE TO GO THROUGH COUNCIL.

THE OTHER ONES I DID FIND MET THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS SO THEY DID NOT NEED TO BE APPROVED, THEY WERE APPROVED

ADMINISTRATIVELY. >> OKAY.

SO IS THIS ONE -- THE VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT THEN, BECAUSE OF THE FUTURE ZONING THAT IT'S IN, LIKE THE NEW TOWN MODEL DOESN'T ALLOW FOR CONTROL TOWERS CELL

TOWERS OR -- >> THE VARIANCES ARE FOR THE LANDSCAPING AS WELL AS THE HEIGHT.

>> NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW TOWN MODEL OR THE ZONING.

>> NOT A VARIANCE, NO. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION?

>> I MEAN, CELL TOWERS ARE TALL, AND EVERYBODY'S GOT ONE, RIGHT, CELL PHONE AND WE'VE GOT A LOT MORE EVERYBODIES AROUND HERE THAN WE USED TO HAVE. SO I DON'T KNOW -- I KNOW THEY DO HAVE SOME LIMITED APPLICATIONS THAT CAN BE SHORTER, MOST OF THOSE I BELIEVE ARE SINGLE CARRIER, YOU KNOW,

[00:45:08]

I HAZARD TO GUESS THAT BEFORE HE PUT THE MAP UP WITH THE BLUE TOTS ON IT, I WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD-PRESSED TO PICK OUT MORE THAN TWO OR THREE OF THOSE AT MAX.

BECAUSE THEY DO KIND OF FADE INTO THE SKYLINE AT A CERTAIN POINT. SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DECIDE AS A COUNCIL TONIGHT, IS DO WE WANT TO HAVE LESS TOWERS THAT ARE TALLER OR MORE TOWERS THAT ARE SHORTER IS THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK TO PUT THESE IN AND THE SHORTER TOWERS ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT LESS BUFFER REQUIREMENT AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, A LOT LESS -- THEY MIGHT CONFORM WITHOUT THE VARIANCES. SO --

>> ANY FURTHER DIALOG ON THIS? I'LL TAKE A MOTION IF THERE IS

ONE. >> THE VARIANCE GOT WRITTEN INTO THE CURRENT SUP, DANIEL, BEFORE, SO THAT WAS FOR THE LANDSCAPING, AND THEY AGREED TO THE REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHTH.

>> CORRECT, YES. >> SO THOSE ARE ALREADY COVERED -- THE VARIANCE IS ALREADY COVERED IN THE SUP THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, SO IT WOULD JUST BE APPROVED AS IT'S PRESENTED, IF THAT IS [INDISCERNIBLE] --

>> BUT ON STAFF'S DENIAL, IT SAYS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

AND MAYBE I'M CONFUSED. I'M DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO BE COMBATIVE BUT WHEN I ASKED EARLIER IF THE FUTURE LAND USE OR THE ZONING OR THE NEW TOWN MODEL HAD TO PLAY A FACTOR, THE ANSWER WAS NO. SO CAN I AT LEAST GET LIKE SOME MORE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE

INCONSISTENCY? >> WELL, I THINK THE HEIGHT -- DANIEL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE HEIGHT IS BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY.

>> CORRECT. >> IT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MODULE. IT'S THE ZONE --

>> OKAY, I'M FOLLOWING YOU NOW. >> THE WAY I READ IT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS IS 35 FEET.

SO ANYTHING ABOVE 5 FEET WOULDN'T MATCH THE LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. >> OKAY, I UNDERSTAND NOW.

>> OKAY. HAVE A MOTION TO DENY ON THE TABLE. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO DENY IS MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMOND, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO-TEM WAKE CLIFF.

WHIT CLIFF. PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION TO DENY CARRIES 4-2. MOVING ON TO ITEM 2026-201,

[2026-201 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a Contractor’s Shop, and Storage Yard (Electrical Transmission Repair and Service Center) for Lot 11, Block 1, Oncor Transmission Repair Center Addition, located at 4700 US Highway 67. (Case No. SP03-2026-027)]

DANIEL? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

DANIEL HUMBER SENIOR PLANNER TO PRESENT.

THIS IS AN SUBPOENA AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLAN ON A LOT ZONED LI AND DESIGNATED AS CORPORATE MODULE.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL BE APPLIED TO THE BOTTOM PORTION OUTLINED IN THE RED, WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU IN MORE DETAIL ON THE NEXT SLIDE. CHANGES WILL FEATURE A LEFT TURN LANE, AN ENTRANCE SEPARATE AS WELL AS THE CONVERSION OF A SERVICE CENTER, TRUCK BAY AND PARKING AREAS INTO ONE ENCLOSED AND SIX OUTDOOR TRANSFORMER AREAS.

HERE IS A CLOSER VIEW SHOWING THE TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREAS, WITH FULL MASONRY SCREENING AS WELL AS BALLISTIC WALLS FOR ADDED PROTECTION MEASURES. THE SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW WITH ADJACENT ZONE, LAND USES AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE BOTTOM LEFT TABLE.

STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL USES AND ZONING. ALL RIGHT, LANDSCAPING AND

[00:50:03]

PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY WERE GIVEN NOTICE AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN SAVED.

NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE CITY NEWSPAPER FOR TEXAS LAW COMPLIANCE. PNZ RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT A VOTE OF 5-0 TO 1 AND STAFF REPRESENTS APPROVE OF THE SUP AMENDMENT DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THEY CAME UP IN QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANYBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK? WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENT I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION MADE BY KWAN CHESHIER, SECONDED BY MAKEOVER PRO-TEM WICKLIFFE.

PLEASE VOTE. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES 6-0.

YOU SAID THE APPLICANT IS HERE, DANIEL? WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAND AND SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION OR JUST STAY FOR QUESTIONS? IT'S UP TO YOU.

IF YOU DON'T MIND INTRODUCE YOURSELF INTO THE MICROPHONE.

>> MY NAME IS DYLAN SMITH. I AM WITH KINLY HORN.

I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BUT I'M HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER

ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. >> FANTASTIC, THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT?

KASEY? >> YEAH, JUST LOOKING AT THE 16-FOOT BALLISTIC WALL, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S KIND OF CLOSER TO THE SHILO SIDE. IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> IT'S CLOSER TO THE EAST HAND SIDE OF THE SITE.

>> WALK ME THROUGH ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS USED TO SOFTEN THE IMPACT OF A LARGE BALLISTIC WALL.

>> WE'RE PROVIDING LANDSCAPING PRIMARILY ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE THE U.S. ARE PRESERVED NEAR U.S. HIGHWAY 69.

THERE'S NO OTHER LANDSCAPING BEING PROPOSED NEXT TO THE BALLISTIC WOMAN BUT THAT'S PRIMARILY JUST BECAUSE THAT IS CLOSER TO THE RAILROAD AND I ASSUME WILL SEE LESS ATTENTION.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON IT.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE BY AND SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[2026-202 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to rezone 3.251+ acres out of the J.H. Jones Survey, Abstract No. 586 from Agricultural (A) District to Single-Family Two (SF-2) District. The property is located at 1850 McAlpin Road. (Case No. Z05-2026-009)]

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1850 MCALPIN ROAD.

WELCOME. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ARDEN SPARKS TO PRESENT. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY 2 FOR A NEW DWELLING, SO ESSENTIALLY THEY WHATNOT TO SPLIT THE WANT TO SPLIT THE DWELLING INTO TWO.. THE TOTAL SITE IS ABOUT 3.3 ACRES SO LOT 1 WILL BE 2.17 ACRES, WHICH IS THE LOT THAT THE CURRENT DWELLING IS ON. AND THEN LOT 2 IS A LITTLE OVER 1 ACRE. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COUNTRY MODULE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

AND THEN ON THE RIGHT OF YOUR SCREEN, I JUST HAVE THE COUNTRY MODULE LAYER ON IT SO YOU CAN SEE ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO COUNTRY MODULE.

IT SUPPORTS LOW DENSITY AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL WITH LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. THE RECENT REQUEST IS PARTIALLY CONSISTENT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE ON LOT 1 IS .5 AND THEN LOT 2 IS ABOUT 1 DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE, WITH THEM TOGETHER BEING .62 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

IN COUNTRY MODULE PERMITS, .25 TO ABOUT .5 DWELLINGS PER ACRE.

THEY DO FOLLOW MULTIPLE OF THE GUIDING OUR FUTURE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, INCLUDING L U2 REQUIRING HIGH QUALITY AND DISTINCTIVE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, TRANSITIONAL LOT DESIGN AND PERMITTING SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE CURRENT SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, SO YOU CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY ALONG WITH THE HOUSE IS THE BIGGER SQUARE AND THE SMALLER SQUARE IS THE GARAGE. AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED REPLOT.

SO LOT 1 IS GOING TO BE THE CURRENT, WITH THE CURRENT DWELLING AND THEN LOT 2 WOULD BE WITH THE NEW DWELLING.

AND IN 1920 THE EXISTING HOME SITE WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THEN IN 2004, THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO CITY LIMITS AND ZONED AGRICULTURAL WHICH IS WHAT HAS STAYED SINCE THEN.

IT IS NONCONFORMING TO AGRICULTURAL DUE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, MAXIMUM DENSITY, MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE AND MINIMUM

[00:55:01]

BUT MCALPIN ROAD IS -- DOES MORE THAN SUFFICE ONE EXTRA LOT.

AND THEN ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE COMPARISON BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL AND SINGLE FAMILY 2 WITH THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BEING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. A LOT OF THE ADJACENT LOTS ARE ONE TO TWO ACRES, WHICH IS KNOWN CONFORMING TO THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING. SO ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO AGRICULTURAL ZONED.

AND ON THE RIGHT OF YOUR SCREEN, OUR JIS TEAM MADE A REALLY COOL MAP SO ALL OF THE RED HASH MARKED PROPERTIES ARE NONCONFORMING TO THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DUE TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. AND THEN THE YELLOW IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

WE DID SEND 17 POSTCARDS OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE, GOOD OR BAD.

A SIDE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND NOTICE PUT IN THE PAPER ON JUNE 6TH ABOUT TONIGHT.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONE SINCE IT'S PARTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

WE DO NOTICE THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES. PLANNING AND ZONING DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH A VOTE OF 4-1 AT THE APRIL PNZ MEETING.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

STATEMENT IF POSSIBLE. >> THANK YOU, ARDEN.

ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS SO I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION MADE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED 6-0. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF? MAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WOULD

LIKE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS LUCAS NICKS.

I'M THE APPLICANT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS -- THIS IS MY GRANDFATHER'S LOT, IT'S THE ORIGINAL LOT.

THAT IS THE 3.2 ACRES. AND WE ARE -- MY GRANDFATHER HAS GIVEN US THAT FRONT PORTION. WE'RE WANTING TO ESSENTIALLY DIVIDE IT AND USE THAT FRONT PORTION, THAT ONE PLUS ACRE TO BUILD OUR 2,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WHICH CONFORMS TO THE SF2.

FROM THERE -- THE REASON WE WANT TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY WE NEED TO FINANCE THE LOT, OUR POCKETS AREN'T THAT DEEP SO WE'LL NEED TO GET THAT -- GET THAT PORTION OF THE LAND IN OUR NAME AND THEN UPON THAT, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A LOAN, IF APPROVED. THE SAD PART SO THIS IS -- AND I HATE SAYING IT BUT MY GRANDFATHER IS 90, HE'S NOT GOING TO BE AROUND MUCH LONGER BUT UPON HIS PASSING WE ESSENTIALLY WANT TO MAKE IT BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL LOT AND THEN FROM THERE, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S NEEDED TO DO ON HIS ORIGINAL -- OR ON THAT ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD, WHICH IS ROUGHLY A THOUSAND FEET WITH THE DETACHED GARAGE THAT WM TO SF2 REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. SO WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU LOOK AT THIS AND ALLOW THIS TO CONFORM -- OR EXCUSE ME, CONVERT FROM AG TO THE SF2, SO WE CAN ESSENTIALLY THEN REPLY THIS TO

FINANCE THE BUILD OF OUR HOUSE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF ON THIS CASE?

>> FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, ANY ACCESS OR UTILITY CONCERNS WITH

THE SPLIT? >> NO.

OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED IT AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY

CONCERNS. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH IT EITHER. PERSONALLY.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FOR RUSS?

>> NO, I THINK IT'S -- I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK -- I FOR ONE AM OPPOSED GENERALLY TO ADDING MORE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO MCALPIN ROAD, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A VERY TRAVELED CORRIDOR ALREADY, BUT THIS IS IN MID-BLOCK WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE UNITS THAT ALREADY HAVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS. SO I DON'T THINK IT REALLY COMPOUNDS THAT. WE DO HAVE 2-ACRE LOTS ACROSS THE STREET BUT THE WIDTH IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING HERE. EVERY LOT THAT TOUCHES IT, I WENT AND CHECKED THEM ALL, THEY'RE ALL BETWEEN 1 AND 1.5 ACRES. SO A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GENTLY DEVIATE FROM THE COUNTRY MODULE AND ALLOW A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY. SO I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS

REQUEST. >> AND I WILL -- IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, MR. NICKS.

[2026-203 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the development and use regulations of 10.074± acres out of the William Hawkins Survey Abstract No. 465 and a portion of Lot 2, Block B, Proffitt Industrial Park, located north of East Main and west of South Midlothian Parkway (Case No. Z09 2026-026).]

[01:00:02]

MYRIAM? >> HI, GOOD EVENING, MYRIAM SPENCER, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 123.

IT IS LOCATED NORTH OF MAIN STREET AND WEST OF ASPEN PARKWAY. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS ON ASPEN PARKWAY AND MURRAY STREET. THE GUIDING OUR FUTURE MIDLOTHIAN 2045 HAS THIS PROPERTY AS NEW TOWN MODULE.

THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, ARE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BASE, BECAUSE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 123 IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BASE ZONED.

AND IT'S WHOLLY SURROUNDED BY NEW TOWN MODULE.

SO THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS PROPOSING ONE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, ONE 4500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING HERE IN YELLOW, AND THE REMAINING PURPLISH BLUE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE 6,000 SQUARE FEET. THEY'RE PROPOSING MULTI-TENANT OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS. THEY'RE PROVIDING 166 PARKING SPACES AND THE ONLY VARIANCE IS TO THE MASONRY STANDARDS.

SO THEIR ELEVATIONS, THE MIDLOTHIAN MASONRY REQUIREMENT IS 90% MASONRY MATERIALS; HOWEVER, WHEN WE EVALUATED THEIR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PD, WE FOCUSED MORE ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING. AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING IS PROVIDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT IS MORE OF A MODERN LOOK BUT BECAUSE IT IS ONLY 43% MASONRY, WITH THE COMBINATION OF THE MATERIALS, THAT'S WHY THEY ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE.

ALSO IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDINGS, THEY ARE NOT MEETING OUR VERTICAL AND HORIZON ALAR HL ARTICULATION.

THE FACT THAT IT IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONED, WE SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST. AND SO TO SHOW WHERE THE REAR OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD HE BE FACING IS ON THE BLACK LINES, SO ALL OF THE FACADES THAT ARE FACING STREETS OR ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS WOULD BE WITH THE MULTIPLE COLOR SIMILAR TO THE FRONT HERE.

AND SO FOR THE LOOPED AREA, WHERE THEY LOOP AROUND, WHERE YOU ADDRESS A STREET, ASPEN PARKWAY IS TO THE LEFT HERE.

THEY WOULD HAVE THE FRONT FACADE AND SO THE REAR FACADES ARE KIND OF HIDDEN BY THE FLOODPLAIN AND WALLS AND INTERIOR SETBACKS.

THEY DO MEET THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT.

THEY ARE NOT ASKING ANY VARIANCES FOR THE LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING TO MEET THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING. WE DID FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE GOAL 3 AND ECONOMIC AND FINANCE GOAL 3, BUT WE ORIGINALLY -- IT'S PARTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE GOAL 4, ABOUT ENHANCING LOCAL AESTHETICS AESTHETICS.

WE DID SEND 17 POSTCARDS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE AREA, ONE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED. AND NOTICE WAS POSTED ON JUNE 6TH AND WE RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE TO THIS REQUEST.

AND SO STAFF DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, WITH -- AND WE DO SUPPORT THEIR VARIANCES, AND PLANNING AND ZONING DID SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AT THE MAY 19TH

MEETING. >> THANK YOU, MYRIAM.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC? WITH NO PUBLIC INPUT I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> PUBLIC HEARING BY MAYOR PRO-TEMPERATURE WICKLIFFE.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CHESHIER. PLEASE VOTE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES 6-0. IS THE APPLICANT HERE, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION? NO? YES? OKAY. COMEN UP ANDCOME ON UP AND INTRE

YOURSELF. >> HI.

I'M NAMES MARTIN, I'M WITH GARDNER CONSTRUCTION, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

MYRIAM DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING SO --

>> JUST STAY CLOSE IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I'LL KICK IT OFF WITH A QUESTION ABOUT THE MASONRY VARIANCE.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE SEEN THAT.

AND I THOUGHT WE COULDN'T REGULATE THAT.

[01:05:01]

>> IT'S IN THE INDUSTRIAL. >> YES.

>> SO WE CAN'T REGULATE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL.

>> THAT AND IT'S -- >> -- DOESN'T REQUIRE MASONRY.

>> AND IT'S ALSO IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

>> STATE SLAW A LAW IS A WILD A. COUNCIL, DISCUSSIONS ON THIS?

>> MAYOR, COULD YOUCOULD YOU SHH THE BLACK LINES, THE SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT VERY THAT HAVE TE METAL FACADE? THERE WE GO. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE RELATES TO THE THREE THAT ABUTT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY LINE OF THE

PROPERTY. >> THESE OR -- JUROR THE EXTREME

RIGHT OF THE >> THE EXTREME RIGHT OF THE MAP.

BECAUSE THAT AREA BEHIND IT IS I BELIEVE IS STILL UNDEVELOPED.

IT'S BEEN LOOKED AT BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL USAGES. ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, I DID NOT SEE ANY TREES OR SHRUB PLANTINGS, IT JUST SAID SOD ON THAT SIDE. BUT I THINK IT'S 20-FOOT BUFFER

OF LANDSCAPE -- >> THAT'S RIGHT BUT THERE'S ALSO A MASONRY REQUIREMENT ON THAT SIDE AS WELL.

>> 6-FOOT MASONRY AND THE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE HOW TALL? I THINK IT FALLS OFF TOWARDS

THAT DIRECTION. >> IT'S SINGLE SLOPING TO THE BACK SO IT WILL BE PROBABLY TERMINATE AROUND 20, 21 FEET.

>> RIGHT, ON THE BUILDING, BUT WHERE THE WALL ACTUALLY SITS IS GOING TO BE ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE, WHICH I

BELIEVE -- >> OH, YOU'RE TALK ABOUT THE

MASONRY -- >> THE FOOTER OF THAT WALL IS GOING TO BE BELOW THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING.

>> THE MASONRY WAINSCOTING AT THE REAR, PROBABLY ANYWHERE FROM

3 TO 6 FEET. >> SO YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A MASONRY WAINSCOT ON THE BACK SIDE?

>> IT'S BEEN PART OF THE OPTIONS.

>> OKAY. WHAT I'M SAYING THOUGH IS YOU'VE GOT BUILDING, AND THEN IT SLOPES AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, THE WAY THE GROUND ROLLS THERE. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT WALL.

SO IF YOU'VE GOT A MASONRY WALL IT'S NOW SHORTER, BECAUSE WHERE THE FOOTER OF THAT WALL IS IS BELOW THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF

THE BUILDING, YES? >> I SEE.

>> SO IF YOU PUT A WAINSCOT AROUND THE BOTTOM, THAT MIGHT BE

BLOCKED BY THE WALL, BUT -- >> SURE.

>> SO I GUESS FOR ME, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THESE BUILDINGS TO HAVE IT MORE OF A 360 ARCHITECTURE OR TO PUT SOME PLANNINGS BACK THERE THAT SOFTEN THAT IMPACT BECAUSE THE USES THAT HAVE COME IN, NONE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS THROUGH FRUITION BUT HAVE BEEN MORE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE SO I THINK WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE IN THE FUTURE. THE REMAINDER, THE BALANCE OF IT LOOK, GREAT. I THINK THE ARCHITECTURE REALLY TIES IN WITH KIND OF WHAT'S EXISTING THERE IN THE BUILDING THAT HAS THE LS COUNTY TAX OFFICE AND THAT SOUTH, IT'S GOING TO BE TUCKED BEHIND A HOTEL AND A WAFFLE HOUSE.

AND SO I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.

I THINK WE SORELY NEED USES LIKE THIS FOR SMALL BUSINESS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THAT THERE AREN'T A LOT OF AVAILABLE OPTIONS IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, 6 AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SUCCESS AS THAT PROPERTY TO THE

EAST DEVELOPS OUT IN THE FUTURE. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO WOULD Y'ALL BE AMENABLE TO ADDING SOME MORE LANDSCAPING

BEHIND THOSE EASTERN BUILDINGS? >> YES, I THINK WE WOULD.

>> OKAY. SOME UNDER STORY PLANNING AND SOME OVERSTORY THAT WOULD HELP SOFTEN THAT FACADE?

>> WE COULD ADD THAT. >> KASEY?

>> YEAH, THIS WAS MORE OF A QUESTION MORE TO STAFF.

AS I KIND OF TRY TO ENVISION PARTICULARLY ON THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LARGER BUILDING, I THINK IF IT'S A SPORTS VENUE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL OVERFLOW PARKING ONTO MURRAY STREET AT ALL?

HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THAT? >> SO --

>> I KNOW THEY'RE SHOWING IS 20% 120% BUT ARE WE CONCERNED WITH

THAT HAPPENING? >> LOOKING AT THE PD REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BASE, IF THEY WERE TO DO ANYTHING LIKE A RESTAURANT TYPE USE, WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE HIGHER TRAFFIC VOLUMES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME

BACK WITH AN SUP. >> ANNA?

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT ROSS HAD -- THERE, TO THAT ONE. SO PEOPLE ARE PARKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE BUILDINGS, AND THE ENTRANCES ARE ON THE INSIDE? IS THAT -- LIKE THE ENTRANCES ARE FACING EACH OTHER INTO --

>> IT'S SPLIT ON THIS ONE. SO YOU HAVE A PARKING AREA HERE THAT KIND OF GOES ALONG THE ASPEN PARKWAY SIDE.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE WOULD PARK AND THE FRONT DOORS WOULD BE HERE. BUT THEY DO HAVE LOADING BAYS ON

[01:10:03]

>> OKAY, SO BOTH THE FRONT DOORS OF ALL -- OF BOTH OF THESE ROWS ARE ALL FACING THE SAME DIRECTION?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY.

WE KEEP SAYING TUCKED AWAY, LIKE WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I LOOK AT THIS JUST AS A NATURAL EXTENSION OF -- LIKE THE TAX OFFICE,

THAT'S ALL THAT AREA, RIGHT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND LIKE THERE'S NO -- ANY OF THE OTHER -- UNLESS IT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER, WE DON'T DO METAL BUILDINGS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN THIS AREA.

AND I UNDERSTAND LIKE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUT I GUESS I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS FITS IN.

CAN SOMEONE HELP ME WITH THAT? >> I THINK THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY SITS BEHIND A VERY, VERY LARGE METAL BUILDING.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS THAT THE WHITE -- LIKE THE WHITE BUILDING THAT'S BEHIND THAT?

>> YEAH, SO GO BACK, THERE -- THERE YOU GO.

IT SHOWS IT THERE. SO THE LITTLE NODULE THAT KICKS OUT TO THE WEST, WHERE THE 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE 4,000 SQUARE FEET IS LOCATED ON THEIR SITE PLAN IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE POWER -- BUILDING.

>> IS IT NOT LIKE OVER THOSE METAL BUILDINGS WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, IS IT NOT OVER ON THE RIGHT SIDE?

>> YEAH, THEY WILL BE BEHIND WHERE THE HOTEL IS APPROVED.

>> YEAH, THE HOTEL WOULD BE -- SO THE HOTEL, THERE -- SO YOU HAVE -- THIS IS BLUE MINT THAI AND THIS AREA IS WHERE THE 6 AND THE 4 ARE OVER HERE. AND THEN THE OTHER 9 BUILDINGS

ARE ON THIS SIDE OF THE SITE. >> SO THE METAL -- THE TWO METAL BUILDINGS THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT ARE LIKE ON THE SIDE

OF LIKE BLUE MINT THAI? >> YES, THEY'RE OVER HERE.

>> CAN WE POINT OUT WHERE THE HOTEL IS AS WELL.

>> YOU HAVE ONE OVER HERE. >> OKAY.

SO GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER, ANYTHING NEW THAT'S BEEN BUILT THERE IN THE LAST MANY YEARS, THAT'S NOT METAL,

RIGHT? >> INTERESTING.

>> WELL, YEAH, I MEAN -- THE TWO COLLISION PLACES FOR METAL BUILDINGS -- WELL, YOU SAY BUILDS, I WANT TO PAUSE, LIKE THEY CAME IN AND GOT A PD AND REDID THEM, BUT THOSE TWO BUILDINGS TO THE LEFT OF POWER FORM ARE TWO METAL BUILDINGS THAT THEY REDID. BUT THEY ONLY DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHICH IS THEY JUST FACADE THE SIDES THAT FACE THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE BUT IF YOU GO TO THE BACK SIDE OF THAT BUILDING, IT'S STILL 10 SO THEY JUST DRESSED UP THE MAIN

THOROUGHFARE PIECE. >> YEAH, TO A BUILDING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME, YEAH.

YEAH I'M NOT A FAN OF THE METAL BUILDING FOR THE NEW BUILD IN THE BACK OF THEM NOT BEING DONE AND -- JUST PERSONALLY.

I WOULD RATHER MATCH THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS.

EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO BUILD LIKE A FULL BUILDING.

>> OKAY. ROSS?

>> YEAH, SO I MEAN, I GUESS I TAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VIEW ON THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS SO TUCKED AWAY BEHIND MUCH LARGER STRUCTURES. YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS INCOMPATABILITY WITH ADJACENCY I, AND BUT FOR THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY WHERE I THINK WE MAY SEE SOME RESIDENTIAL USE AT SOME POINT IN THE IF FUTURE, THE ONES THAT FACE NORTH UP TO A DRAINAGE AREA, I DON'T THINK WILL BE VERY DEVELOPABLE DUE TO FLOOD AND DRAINAGE CONCERNS. THE INTERIOR ROAD, THE METAL SIDE OF IT FACE THE THE OTHER BUILDINGS WITHIN OF THIS SO THEY'RE SCREENED FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT'S DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE BLUE MINT THAI BUILDING BACKS UP TO THE POWER FOAM BUILDING THAT'S EXISTING THERE.

SO I THINK IF ANYWHERE IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO MAKE SOME CONCESSIONS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ELEVATED ARCHITECTURE THEY'RE DOING ON THE FRONT OF THESE GUYS, GIVING IT A VERY RETAIL FEEL, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE TUCKED AWAY BACK IN THERE --ER IS AND E SORELY LACKING INDUSTRIAL USE FACILITIES.

THESE ARE THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT MAKE UP THE FABRIC OF -- I MEAN, HECK, MASSEY'S CARPET STORE HAS BEEN PROMINENT ON MAIN

[01:15:05]

WE JUST APPROVED AS A COUNCIL DERBY WASN'T ON -- I WASN'T ONL AT A TIME BUT A REVITALIZATION OF THE LAWSON BUILDING AND WE REVITALIZED IT INTO A NEW BUILDING SO I THINK WHEN WE SAY THAT, IT'S -- THERE IS PRECEDENT FORETHIS.

YEAH, THEY WERE EXISTING, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY WERE BEING REDONE, WE COULD HAVE SAID, HEY, SKIN THEM, FULL MASONRY ALL THE WAY AROUND, YOU CAN PUT THAT STUFF ON THE OUTSIDE OF ANY METAL BUILDING. AND WE DIDN'T.

SO I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE, BUT I I WOULD WANT TO SEE PLANTINGS ON THE EASTERN LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO MATCH KIND OF THE STREETSCAPE DENSITY THAT WE'RE DOING ALONG

THE FRONT, ON ASPEN PARKWAY. >> JUST WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT: I LIKE THE IDEA OF BUFFERING THAT WITH VEGETATION.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT IT'S HARD TO SEE, THERE'S -- LOOKS LIKE UTILITY EASEMENTS, A SEWER LINE, ET CETERA.

IS THERE A LOT OF UTILITIES RUNNING DOWN THAT -- BEHIND THOSE BUILDINGS TO THE EAST -- BETWEEN THAT PROPERTY AND THAT

20-FOOT? >> NO, SIR, NOT TO THE EAST.

THERE ARE SOME UTILITY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE WEST SIDE OF ASPEN PARKWAY AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPONENTS OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT AND PHASE 1 IS WE'RE PUTTING IN ASPEN PARKWAY ALONG WITH A NEW WATER LINE AND A STORM INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT TIES INTO MURRAY STREET. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT HERE, IT CALLS OUT A 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AND AN EXISTING 8-INCH SANITARY SEWER LINE.

IT'S CALLING OUT A 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. IF THERE'S NOTHING BACK THERE, THEN GREAT. IT ALSO CALLS OUT I THINK SOMETHING FROM ONCOR AS WELL. SO THAT LITTLE GAP, I JUST WANT

TO KNOW WHAT'S OVER THERE. >> IT'S A GOOD -- TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER IS THAT THAT WAS AN ELECTRICAL UTILITY EASEMENT. KINLY IS HERE -- MAYBE YOU CAN

JUMP? >> MIKE FEATHER, I'M THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT. THERE ARE EXISTING EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S A SEWER LINE THAT CONNECTS -- THAT SERVES OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE INSTALLING WATER LINES, STORM SYSTEMS. THERE'S ONCOR LINES THAT SERVE THE REAR LIKE BACK BEHIND MURRAY STREET, AND THE PLAN IS TO REALLY RELOCATE THOSE, BUT AT THE MOMENT, I MEAN, ALL EASEMENTS THAT ARE EXISTING TODAY ARE THERE TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> YEAH, I JUST WANTED COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT -- IN THAT 20-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT'S THERE -- AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING TREES IN IT, ARE THERE POWER LINES, ARE THERE SEWER LINES UNDER THE GROUND, WHEN BUT TO PLANT THESE THINGS, IS THAT FREE

AND CLEAR THAT 20-FOOT? >> YES, IT IS FREE AND CLEAR.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY, IS THAT -- THAT'S A PLATTED UE THAT WAS REQUIRED BUT NOT FOR AN EXISTING LINE?

>> YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S FOR AN ELECTRIC LINE THAT IS -- WAS PLATTED AND PLANNED BUT NOT INSTALLED.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON THIS.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT M FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, REQUIRING OVERSTORY PLANTINGS ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO CONFORM WITH THE SAME DENSITY THAT IS REQUIRED ALONG ASPEN PARKWAY.

>> CAN THE APPLICANT UPDATE THE SITE PLAN -- LANDSCAPE PLAN JUST TO SHOW THAT, MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE EXHIBIT?

>> YEAH. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS STATED BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. SECONDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEMPERATURE PRO-TEM WICKLIFFE.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 4-2.

THANK YOU, MYRIAM. WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

NUMBER 2, REAL ESTATE DELIBERATION REGARDING REALLY PROPERTY TO DELIBERATE THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. NUMBER 3, WHICH IS SECTION

[01:20:01]

NUMBER 5, SECTION 551-.08 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DELIBERATION REGARDING COMMERCIAL OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM A BUSINESS PROSPECT, AND TO DELIBERATE THE OFFER OF A FINANCIAL OR OTHER INCENTIVE TO A BUSINESS PROSPECT, PROJECTS 2509.

AND THEN FINALLY NUMBER 6, SECTION 551.072, REAL ESTATE: DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: TO DELIBERATE THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY WHERE DELIBERATION IN OPEN SESSION WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE POSITION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THIRD PARTIES BY MED.

SO AT 7:20, WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[2026-205 Action resulting from Executive Session, Item #2: Real Estate]

>> WE ARE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:00 P.M. ON THE..

WE HAVE ACTION ITEMS THIS EVENING.

NUMBER 2 SECTION 551.072. TO DELIBERATE REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TO DELIBERATELY PURCHASE EXCHANGE LISA VALUE

REAL PRE... >> I MOVE THE CITY MANAGER BE AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE EXECUTED AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES, ALYSSA, CHRISTINE AND... TO PURCHASE ONE A 0.957-ACRE TRACKED OF LAND FOR A PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND GENERAL UTILITY EASEMENT.

TWO, 0.1-ACRE TRACKED OF LAND FOR PUBLIC EASEMENT, AND THREE, A 0.122-ACRE TRACKED AND A 0.80-ACRE TRACKED OF LAND FOR STRUCTURE EASEMENTS. EACH BEING LOCATED OUT OF THE SURVEY ABSTRACT REPORT REAND THE HOUSE SURVEY ABSTRACT REPORT-- REPORT 525 MIDLOTHIAN COUNTY TEXAS.

SO-- IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITAL ROADWAY PROJECT, PLUS PAYMENT OF ALL RELATED CLOSING COSTS.

THE CITY MANAGER IS FURTHER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY SUCH ADDITIONAL CLOSING DOCUMENTS AS MAYBE REQUIRED BY SUCH AGREEMENT IN THE TITLE COMPANY AS NECESSARY

TO CLOSE THIS TRANSACTION. >> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES BACK 6-0.

[2026-206 Action resulting from Executive Session, Item #3: Personnel Matters – Planning Director]

TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT OF IMPORTANT-- APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT OR DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ME--

EMPLOYEE. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO INTRODUCE ANDREW AS THE EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS.

>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. AZERI SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMAN HAMMONDS. -- IS THERE A SECOND.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-207 Action resulting from Executive Session, Item #3: Personnel Matters – Senior Administrative Assistant]

EMPLOYEE. >> I VOTE TO APPROVE THE EXECUTIVE DECISION-- EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT APPOINTMENT.

>> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.