[004 Consider and act upon an amendment to a portion of the Preliminary Plat for Main Street Towne Crossing Phase II, being a 24.897± acre portion of the J.T. Rawls Survey, Abstract No. 933, W.P. Kerr Survey, Abstract No. 609, and J. Sharkey Survey, Abstract No. 1065. The property is located north of Spur 73, East of US Highway 67 Frontage Road, and west of Nicolette Creek Rd. (PP05-2023-074)]

FOUR, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN AMENDMENT TO A PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MAIN STREET TOWNE CROSSING PHASE II BEING J RAWLS, ABSTRACT 993. AND WP KERR SURVEY ABSTRACT 609.

IT IS EAST OF HIGHWAY 67 FRONTAGE ROAD AND WEST OF NICOLETTE CREEK ROAD. THANK YOU.

>> THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS NO ABLE--THE AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAIN STREET TOWNE CROSSING PHASE II MAC WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ON THE DUTY IN SH DURING COMMENTS NEEDING TO BE ADDRESSED BIRD STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

[00:05:10]

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

STATE YOUR NAME? >> GOOD EVENING I AM DANIEL STEWART, MY ADDRESS IS 5300 [INDISCERNIBLE], MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS PART OF THE CIVIL ENGINEE ON THE PROJECT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY CONDITIONS ON THERE, IT'S JUST SOME ITEMS THAT CAME IN FROM ENGINEERING AFTER WE HAD MADE MEAT I LAST SAW ITEMS TO CLEAN UP AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE TONIGHT. >> QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU. >> [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> WE HAD SUBMITTED AND WENT BACK AND FORTH ON A COUPLE OF COMMENTS IN THESE CAME IN RIGHT AFTER WE HIT THE SEND BUTTON TH LAST TIME. WE WENT AHEAD AND KEPT IT ON

THIS AGENDA. >> THANK YOU.

DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THIS? >> MOTION.

I NOTICE WE GOT SEVERAL PLAT THAT CAME THROUGH MISSING ITEMS IS THIS AN INTERNAL PROCESS WE HAVE CHANGED?

>> A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE 30 DAY CLOCK, AFTER THE STATE PAYS THE BILL BACK IN THE 2019 SESSION, SO WE TOLD EVERYBODY THAT 30 DAY TIMEFRAME SO OFTEN TIMES WE THINK THEY AR GOING TO ADJUST THE TIME, AND THEY DON'T OR THEY RESUBMIT AND THEN THERE ARE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS AS RESULT.

THINGS WERE CHANGE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE

>> I THINK MOST OF THE TIME, IN MOST OF THE SITUATIONS THE APPLICANT ADDRESSES THE COMMENT ONLINE AND EVERYTHING IN THEN REMOVE ONBOARD PRICE AT THINK I THIS CASE, AS I MENTIONED, THEY MISSED A FEW OF THE COMMENTS AN THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS THE IMPERATIVE BY THE TIME IT WENT IN YOUR POCKET AND THAT AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED IN EVERYTHING, ONCE THE PACKET WENT OUT, AND I WAS ON THE AGENDA IN IT WAS PUBLISHED IN EVERYTHING, THAT'S WHEN WE REALIZED THAT THERE WE'RE COMMENTS THAT STILL HADN' BEEN DRESSED LIKE THEY NEEDED T BE.

>> THANK YOU. >> WITHOUT A MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ROAD . THE WEATHER EASEMENTS, AND THE ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILITY AND THE FLOODPLAINS TO BE PUT ON ACCORDINGLY. THE MOTION APPROVED BY THE VICE

CHAIR? >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN .

DO WE HAVE IT SET UP ON THE VOTING FOR ITEM FOR? TO BE NEED TO DO IT MANUALLY? OKAY.

PLEASE VOTE. SHE IS GOING TO RESET IT.

WE WILL JUST RESET IT. THE ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a request for an ordinance amending the development and use regulations of Planned Development District No. 174 (PD-174) to allow for a detached accessory building located at 3352 S. Wyatt Road. (Z10-2026 028) ]

ALL RIGHTS COME OUT WE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM 00 DESKTOP AND CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND UPON A REQUEST FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND US ELEVATIONS FOR IS DEVELOP MEANT 174 TO ALLOW FOR AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 3252 SOUTH WYATT ROAD.

>> SENIOR PLANNER TO PRESENT, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 29 ACRES, SO IN PD FOR INDUSTRIAL USES AND DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL ON THE LANDING MAP. THE PLAN IS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR AN ACCESSORY FACILITY.

THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED AND 1997 AND REZONED TO PD IN 1995.

IT WILL REQUIRE VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE ACCESSORY HEIGHT OF VIOLENCE ALLOW IT TO BE VIEWED FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT

[00:10:02]

AWAY AND ALLOW SHIPPING CONTAINERS TO BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY WHERE THE 90 DAYS. THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT CHANGING THE INTENDED USE, SO THE REQUES IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES. SUPPORTING LOCAL AND APPOINTMEN OPPORTUNITIES. IN CONTRIBUTING TO A SUSTAINABL EMPLOYMENT BASE. THE ACCESSORY WILL BE EVERY WORKSTATION SHOWN ON THE RIGHTS OF THE SCREEN, THESE STATIONS ARE STRUCTURES FOR CORRECTING MINOR DEFECTS ON THE STEEL BEAMS . AND IT CONSISTS OF TWO SHIPPING CONTAINERS WITH THE STEEL ARCH SPENDING 40 FEET BETWEEN THEM, THEY WILL BE SECURED THROUGH CONCRETE PLAID NV 23 FEET.

THERE WE'RE CONCERNS WITH THE EXISTING ON-SITE OPERATIONS THA ARE OCCURRING WITHIN WYATT ROAD CURRENTLY.

I WILL SHOW YOU A PROPOSED STANDARD IN THE NEXT SLIDE TO ADDRESS THE ORDINANCE. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE FOR PERMANENT STORAGE CONTAINERS AS THEY ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN THE CODE WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS AND THESE WILL BE PERMANENT IN THERE WILL ALSO BE NO ADDITIONAL SCREENING TO MITIGATE THE VISIBILITY.

STAFF TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE I GIVES ME DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VARIANCE AS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS DOUBLE THE HEIGHT ALLOWANCE OF 10 FEET. IF APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDS TH FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WHICH WIL INCLUDE DESIGN STANDARDS TO KEE THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS AT STATIC AND RESTRAINING ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS TO BE WITHI THE PROPERTY WHICH IS INTENDED TO MINIMALIZE WITHIN THE PUBLIC JASON RIGHT AWAY ALONG WHITE STREET. NOTICES WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY ONE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE E-MAIL IN OPPOSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL

AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. >> QUESTION TO STAFF?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION VERY THE REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWS CALL OU FOR THE PROPOSED LOCATION TO BETWEEN GATE THREE AND FOUR, BU THE REVISED LANDSCAPING SHOWS U BETWEEN GATES TO M3.

DO YOU KNOW WHICH IT IS? >> YOU CAN SEE IT ON HERE.

RIGHTS IN THIS AREA ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.

THAT IS ON THE BACKSIDE AND THE WAY IT IS ON THESE DOCUMENTS, I DOES ON THE FRONT SIDE AT WYATT ROAD.

SO IT'S ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR THE BACK?

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHERE I IS LOCATED GARRETT? THE ORIGINAL LOCATION WAS SHOWN HERE.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR BINDERS.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPLACED THEN.

SO IF IT'S ON THE BACKSIDE, THA CHANGES A LOT.

>> IT WOULD BE THE VIEW FROM TH HIGHWAY PAIR COULD GET A UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE VIEWED FROM THE HIGHWAY, BUT THE BUILDING IS SIGNIFICANTLY TELE- THAN 23 FEET.

THERE IS ALSO THE ROLE OF TREES THAT BLOCKS THAT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> SO MAY BE THE CAN CONFIRM FO

US? >> WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK? COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE,.

>> STATE NAME AND WHETHER OR NO YOU LIVE IN THE CITY.

>> I AM BRIAN PECK HAZARDS AND LIVE IN [INDISCERNIBLE].

THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS THE ON ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

IS SHOWN IN THE UPPER RIGHT. >> TO ME THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHAT YOU ARE GIVEN SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL

[00:15:04]

YOUR FRONT PARKING WHICH WAS VERY CONFUSING TO ME.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT CAME OUT LIKE THAT, THAT WAS NEVER THE IDEA. WE WERE GOING TO PUT IT BETWEEN GATES THREE AND FOUR, AND THEN WE CHANGED OUR MIND AND DECIDED TO PUT IT IN THE BACK, BUT WE WERE NEVER GOING TO MODIFY THE

PARKING. >> IN YOUR COMPANY.

YOU OWN ALL OF THE ADJACENT LAN SURROUNDING THESE LOCATIONS,

CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> IN NOTIFYING OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO NOTIFY BECAUSE THEY OWN IT ALL.

>> THINK THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE IN THE 200 FEET, BUT I THINK THE MAJORITY IS OUR PROPERTY.

>> OKAY, INDY RECALL OFF THE TO OF YOUR HEAD HOW TALL IS THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING THAT IS THER CURRENTLY?

>> THINK IT'S 48 FEET. >> SO THIS WOULD BE HALF THE

HEIGHT OF WHAT IS EXISTING. >> RIGHTS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

AS I SAW THE ZONING IT WAS STIL SINGLE-FAMILY ONE, RIGHT? BUT IT IS SLATED TO BE A SOLAR POT EVENTUALLY PART EVENTUALLY,

IS THAT TRUE? >> NO.

>> WHERE DO YOU MEAN? >> WE HAVE UNDEVELOPED LAND, SOLAR FARM, THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AROUND THERE IS SINGLE-FAMILY ONE. WHAT I'M GETTING TO, AND I GUES THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS D YOU KNOW WHAT A 10-FOOT LIMITATION ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, IS THAT SOMETHING WHEN THIS WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THEY ASKED FOR 1?

>> I'M NOT SURE BUT SF ONE IS ALREADY SOLAR PARK.

IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR THREE OR FOUR EUROS.

>> OKAY. I'M GOING STAFF ABOUT IT, THANK YOU. SO THE SF PART THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THERE IS AN EXISTING SUV OR A SOLAR FARM IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TWO .

>> OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 10-FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING RESTRICTION, THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE BEEN A SINGLE-FAMILY ONE OR A RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTION, CORRECT

? >> IT'S IN THE CODE THE NON- RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS, IT'S NOT SOMETHING UNIQUE TO THE PD.

>> AND THEN JUST REALLY HAVE THAT KIND OF LIMITATION ON

BUILDINGS? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER IF YOU COULD STEP UP, PLEASE,. HE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY.

>> I AM DEBORAH MARQUARDT AND I LIVE IN MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS,.

I AM ONE OF THEM THEY GOT A CARD .

THIS CASE IS MISLEADING BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ID NUMBER ON THIS HERE IS 294 DEST 036 WHICH IS 9 SOLAR FARM SO IF YOU SEE THE CARD HERE, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR IT IS NOT SPECIFIED.

THEY ARE SAYING 29 ACRES, THAT IS INCORRECT, THAT ID NUMBER IS 94 ACRES. I DO HAVE A PROBLEM.

YOU SAY IT'S ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT BUILDING, WHY CAN'T THEY PUT AN EXTENSION ON THAT BUILDING THEN? THAT IS AN EYESORE IF YOU'RE COMING FROM 67.

IT IS VERY VISIBLE FROM THAT BI BRIDGE COMING OVER, WHO WANTS T SEE THESE STORAGE CONTAINERS WITH A BIG ARCH? YOU GUYS APPROVED THEM TO DO A GRAVEL STORAGE AREA FOR THEIR BEAMS, WELL YOU OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS BECAUSE NOW TO PEOPLE IN CROSSROADS INDUSTRIAL SPARK HAVE REQUESTED AND FOR CITY COUNCIL PASSED THAT GRAVEL AS A STORAGE AREA, SO IF YOU'RE GOIN TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS, YOU ARE GOING TO OPEN UP ANOTHER CA OF WORMS FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPMEN AT THE LOGISTIC PLACE, PEOPLE WANTED TO PUT STORAGE CONTAINER THERE.

WHAT ABOUT LOWE'S WANTED TO HAV PERMANENT ONES THERE THEN TRACK YOU'RE JUST OPENING IT UP I CAN'T SEE WHY THEY CAN'T JUST BUILD IF IT'S ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING, JUST ADD ONTO THAT BUILDING FOR WHAT THEY WANT. THANK YOU.

LIKE I SAID, I JUST DON'T WANT THE SOLAR FARM BEING PART OF THIS YEAR, AND THEN LATER ON, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO COME AND DO

[00:20:01]

WHATEVER THEY WANT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF IS DRIVING THROUGH THE AREA, I SEE THAT THERE ARE OTHE STRUCTURES LIKE THIS ON OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, SO WE HAVE ALLOWED THIS IN THE PAST, IS THIS COMING TO US TODAY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND VISIBILITY? BECAUSE WE HAVE ALLOWED IT OTHE PLACES. IN THE SAME VICINITY.

>> THE BIGGEST I GUESS INTENTIO OF IT WOULD BE TO GET AROUND, NOT GET AROUND, SORRY TO GET VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT ALLOWANCE I BELIEVE IT'S 13 FEE IN 7 INCHES.

>> SO THE ONE THAT I SAW ON ROWELL CORKE PARKWAY BELIEVE IT WAS, I WAS TRYING TO FIND THE PROPERTY OWNER MIDLOTHIAN ENERG I BELIEVE, SO THE STORAGE BUILDING THEMSELVES ARE UNDER THAT 10-FOOT, SO COULD THEY PUT THE STORAGE BUILDINGS WITHOUT THE COVER. THEY ARE BEHIND THE FENCE.

SO THEY COULD THEY COULD NOT? >> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE CODE STRICTLY STATES THAT SHIPPING CONTAINERS CANNOT BE ON THE PROPERTY FOR MORE THA 90 DAYS, AND THAT IS WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM COUNCIL.

>> OKAY. AND THEY ARE IN PUBLIC VIEW ARE NOT IN PUBLIC VIEW OR JUST PERIOD.

>> JUST PERIOD. >> THE SAME ISSUE WE DO AT

WALMART. >> THOSE ARE IN PUBLIC VIEW AND THOSE ARE IN A RETAIL AREA, NOT A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA BEHIND

FENCE NOT IN PUBLIC VIEW. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

>> JUST THINKING THROUGH THIS. AND GIVE.

>> DRY HERE A MOTION TO CLOSE? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOS

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, DO I HAVE SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PLANNED.

PLEASE VOTE.

CLOSED 6-0. FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

THAT DIES WITHOUT A SECOND. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> TO BUY HER A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> COMMISSIONER ALTMAN MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, AND COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ

SECONDED THAT. >> MR. CHAIR, ON YOUR MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING DENIAL DOES THAT

APPROVAL INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS? >> OKAY.

WHY DON'T YOU PULL THOSE BACK U AGAIN.

>> JUST FOR CLARITY, YOU ARE RECOMMENDING A DENIAL, BUT

CONDITIONS WEREN'T PROVIDED. >> BECAUSE WE ARE RECOMMENDING

DENIAL. >> SO WHAT CONDITIONS WOULD YOU

LIKE? >> WE SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, WE REQUESTE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BE APPLIED THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN HERE.

SO HE SAID APPROVED AS PRESENTED , BUT THEY ARE RIGHT BEHIND YOU, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

THAT THE OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BE CONFINED TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY, SO THAT THIS WAY THEY ARE NOT USING QUIET ROAD RIGHT AWAY.

THEY'RE SHIPPING CONTAINERS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING DESIGN STANDARDS THAT THEY ARE PAINTED WITH A NON- REFLECTIVE COLOR, MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION AND REPAIR, FREE OF GRAFFITI AND OTHER MARKINGS OTHER THAN THE NAME OF THE

[00:25:04]

CONTAINER, AND SUCH OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY LAW WHEN SUCH CONTAINERS OUR IN TRANSIT IN THEN THE LAST ONE IS THAT IT BE MAINTAIN THE APPEARANCE OF A ON TRIP SHIPPING CONTAINER WHICH MEANS IT'S ALL LIKE THE NEW CARGO UNIT THAT HAS TRAVELED BEFORE ENTERING THE RESALE MARKET. TO KEEP ME AND ASKED THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THOSE CONDITIONS?

>> THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT, PLEASE,?

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHAIR, WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST REQUESTED CONDITION, AM GOING TO SUGGEST THAT EXCLUD IF THIS IS PART OF THE MOTION, THAT IT EXCLUDE TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM AND OVER WYATT ROAD BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT ACCESS T PROPERTY WHICH IS LOGICALLY LITERALLY WOULD BE PART OF THE OPERATIONS, ACCESSING PROPERTY.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF WITH THE ADDITION THAT OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY THEY MAY USE OTHER ROADS FOR

ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ , PLEASE VOTE.

DID YOU ACTUALLY VOTE YES? IT PASSES FOR ATTACHMENT TO.

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a request for an ordinance amending the development and use regulations of Planned Development District No. 109 (PD-109) adopting a detailed site plan, elevations, and a landscape plan for Lot 3, Block 1, Harvest Hill Addition. The property is located south of Harvest Hill Drive and east of Fawn Drive. (Z20-2026-059) ]

WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 008 PROTECT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND REUSE REGULATIONS OF DISTRICT 109 ADOPTING A DETAILED SITE PLAN ELEVATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOT THREE BLOCK ONE HARVEST HILL ADDITION THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF HARVEST HILL DRIVE AND EAST OF

BONN DRIVE. >> JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND, SIR.

SENIOR PLANNER TO PRESENT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A 2.51 CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LOT DESIGNATED IN YOU JOAN MODULE I THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THE APPLICANT AND STREET REQUESTING AN SITE PLAN TO AT ADD A BUILDING TO THE EXISTING THREE IN THE PD SITE PLAN. AND EXTEND 1997 THE PROPERTY WA REZONED FOR REGULAR USES IN 200 TO AND ADDED AN AMENDMENT FOR A GROCERY STORE, RESTAURANTS, AND A DRYCLEANER IN 2018.

IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE BUILDINGS ARE LABELED GENERAL PROFESSIONAL AND THE EXISTING P SO THE BUILDINGS WILL REMAIN TH SAME FOR THE SAME PERMITTED USES .

THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT CHANGING THE INTENDED USE SO THE PD REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES . THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN PLACING PROFESSIONAL USES NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEWTOWN CONCEPT.

THE AMENDMENT INCREASES THE DEVELOPMENT FROM THREE 4,050 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDINGS 24 NG TOTAL BUILDING AREA FROM 12,150 TO 20 TO THOUSAND 144 SQUARE FEET RIGHT OTHER NOTABLE DETAIL INCLUDE TWO ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS ON THE FRONTAGES AS WELL AS BUILDING INCREASE FOR THE HEIGHT AND PITCH. IS BUILDINGS WOULD CHANGE FROM 20-FOOT FLAT DESIGNED TO HIP TOWER ROOFS REACHING 28 FEET 7 INCHES FOR THE ELEVATIONS WOULD REPLACE THE CURRENT PD SMALLER AWNINGS AND STOREFRONTS GLAZING WITH LARGER PROJECTING

[00:30:05]

CANOPIES AND SMALLER PUNCHED WINDOWS.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADDITIONAL MULTITENANT SIGNS FO THEY ARE 10 FEET TALL INTERNALL ILLUMINATED, AND WILL BE IDENTICAL TO THE CURRENTLY APPROVED.

THE LANDSCAPE PLANS MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING A 20-FOO BUFFER FOR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENC AND A 10-FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAYS FOR SCREENING I HAVE ADDED THE RED TO SHOW WHER THE DUMPSTER WILL BE LOCATED IT WILL BE ENCLOSED PER CODE REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE OPENING DOORS FACING AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USES. THE BLUE LINE SHOWS THE EXISTIN 6-FOOT TALL MASONRY WALL REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. NOTICES WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND ONE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY THIS AFT'S STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO OBJECTIONS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL DUE T THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS I AM OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT CONFIRMED IF THEY WILL BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

>> THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY,

PLEASE,? >> I AM DANIEL STEWART, [INDISCERNIBLE], FRISCO, TEXAS,. I AM REPRESENTING THIS APPLICATION AS WELL AND DENOTED A GREAT JOB OF PRESENTING THEIR CASE TO YOU AS HE MENTIONS, THI IS A MINOR DEVIATION FROM THE ORIGINALLY IMPROVED THAT HAVE THE THREE BUILDINGS BUT THE SAM BASIC LAYOUT, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THIS TIME.

WE ARE PROPOSING THE TWO NEW SIGNS THE EXISTING SIGNS HAVE BEEN 100 PERCENT UTILIZED AND S WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE TO PROMOTE THE NEW BUSINESS AND THAT NEW BUILDING SPRAYED HAPPY TO ANSWE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? TO KEEP MY ONLY QUESTION IS AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY, AND NOISE COMING FROM THE BUILDING, ART THERAPY ACT DOORS ON THESE

BUILDINGS? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> KNOW. THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION RIGHT

NOW TO HAVE A BACKDOOR. >> SO THEY HAVE FULL OF NEIGHBORS THAT SURROUND THIS AREA SHOULDN'T REALLY EXPERIENC

ANY EXTRA NOISE. >> THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANYBODY

BACK THERE, NO. >> SO THE LIAM'S GAPING BACK THERE, IS THE MASONRY WALL, ARE AT THE LANDSCAPING THE MASONRY WALL OR BEHIND IT? WHERE IS THE LANDSCAPING?

>> WE ARE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ON OUR SIDE OF THE

MASONRY WALL. >> BUT THE LIAM ESCAPING WILL B

TALLER THAN 6 FEET? >> YES.

>> THEY JUST LOOKED AWFULLY CLOSE TOGETHER.

OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER SIGNED UP? WE DO NOT.

A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

>> A MEETING TO CLOSE THE PUBLI HEARING BY VICE CHAIRMAN DONALD A THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAND.

PLEASE VOTE. IT PASSES 6-0.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO STAFF? IF NOT, I WILL HEAR IN MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VERY.

>> IT MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, IS THERE A

SECOND? >> A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAND . PLEASE VOTE.

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon a request for an ordinance amending the Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a liquid natural gas processing facility on Lot 2, Block 3, Railport Business Park. The property is located at 5091 Brookhollow Drive. (SUP09 2026-056)]

THAT PASSES SIX TO STRING 0. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 009 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON THE REQUES AMENDING THAT SPECIFICALLY THIS FOR NATURAL GAS FACILITY THE BUSINESS PARK PARK LOCATED AT 5091 BROOK HOLLOW DRIVE.

>> COULD EVENING, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST TO AMEND A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR SLICK RICK NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY THE PROPERTY IS

[00:35:02]

31-POINT TO 19 ACRES IN IS CURRENTLY ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIA WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMITS. THE FUTURE LAND USE DOES DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY AS INDUSTRIAL MODULE.

AND THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE ARE A LIQUID NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ZONING MAP COME AT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND IT I SURROUNDED BY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, AND AGRICULTURAL LAND USES.

THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE UNDEVELOPED EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WHICH IS ALSO A LIQUID NATURAL GAS PLANT.

THE PROPOSED REQUESTERS TO AMEN THEIR CURRENT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO THE 13,937 SQUARE-FOOT LIQUID NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY IN IT IS GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE EXISTED GRAVEL PAVEMENT AREA. THE PROCESS IS TO TREAT ACTUAL LIQUID FROM THE VAPORS OF THAT NATURAL GAS SO THAT IT CAN BE EASILY CONVERTED IT IS CONVERTING IT TO A LIQUID SO THAT IT CAN BE STORED AND TRANSPORTED.

THE NEW FACILITY WILL MATCH THE EXISTING FACILITY ON-SITE AND A AT 60.5 FEET TALL AT THE HIGHES POINT OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROCESSING FACILITY.

THAT'S NOT REALLY INSIDE OF A BUILDING, IT'S MORE EQUIPMENT MORE THAN ANYTHING. SO THAT THIS IS LOOKING AT IT FROM THE AERIAL VIEW AND THIS I WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE GROUN THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT IT WOULD ROUGHLY LOOK LIKE ON SITE SO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE THIS ONE A STRUCTURE SIMILAR TO THIS END THEY WOULD BE ADDING A SECOND ONE ON SITE.

WE DID SEND 12 POSTCARDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET AND THERE IS A SIGN ON SITE IN WE RECEIVED NO OPPOSITION TO TH PROJECT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL O THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TH LIQUID NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY AND THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? KNOW, OKAY.

WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK?

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

>> MOTION TO CLOSE BY COMMISSIONER BLAND, DO I HAVE A

SECOND? >> A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES 6-0. ADDITIONAL.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO STAFF? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAND

AND A SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN . PLEASE VOTE.

[010 Consider and act upon an amendment to the Preliminary Plat for Seagraves, being a 16.240± acre portion of the Martha Brennan Survey, Abstract No. 43. The property is located west of South 14th Street and north of McAlpin Road. (PP12-2025-070)]

THE ITEM PASSES 6-0. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS, ITEM 010, CONSIDE AND ACT UPON THE AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BEING A 16.240 PLUS OR MINUS ACRE PORTION AT THE MARTHA BERNARD SURVEY THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 14TH STREET AND NORTH OF CALVARY.

TO KEEP MARIAN SPENCER, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING WAS CLOSER TO THE MIKE. THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT TO MATCH THE APPROVED THAT YOU ALL SAW LAST MONTH AND WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL LAST WEEK.

SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT DOES AT THAT RESIDENTIAL LOT BACK INTO THE PRELIMINARY PLOTS SINCE THEY AR RETURNING THE ADDITIONAL LOT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLOTS, THIS IS WHY THIS IS COMING BACK TO YOU. THE REASON THIS ISN'T ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS THEY HAD MISSED ONE EASEMENT WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO THERE IS AN EXISTING LINE FOR THE WATER LIN HERE AND THAT WATERLINE IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND SO THE QUESTION IS WITH THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, DOES THAT WATERLINE NEEDS TO BE AN EASEMENT, AND THAT HADN'T BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLOTS, SO THE CONDITION IS BEFORE THEY CAN PROCEED FORWARD THAT THEY GET THAT CONFIRMED THAT THAT WHILE PROVIDING CAN BE , WHETHER OR NOT BUT WHAT IF I NEEDS TO BE IN AN EASEMENT. IF IT NEEDS TO BE IN AN EASEMEN

[00:40:04]

IT WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE FINAL PLAT IN AND THE PLANS.

>> DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK?

>> THANK YOU. I AM TODD WINTERS AT 1600 NORTH COLLINS IN RICHARDSON, TEXAS BIRD AND THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT HERE. AS FAR AS THE WATERLINE GOES, W ARE DEDICATED SIGNIFICANT AMOUN OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE SO THAT WATERLINE WILL BE IN THE RIGHT WAY.

IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WE HAVE TO MOVE IT AND OF COURSE WE WILL, BUT WE HAVE A BIG BUFFER OUTSID OF THAT, SO I DON'T SEE THAT

BEING AN ISSUE AT ALL. >> QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? TO HEAR EMOTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PLA WHEN FINALS, THAT IT HAS THE APPROPRIATE EASEMENT RIGHT AWAY

OR WHATEVER IT NEEDS. >> HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIRMAN MCDONALD, IS THERE A SECOND? IS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLAND. PLEASE VOTE.

THIS PASSES 6-0. ITEM NUMBER 11 CONSIDER AND ACT

[011 Consider and act upon a detailed site plan for a 7.632+ acre portion of Planned Development District No. 179 (PD-179) for a Place of Worship. The property is generally located at the southwest corner of US Highway 287/US Highway 67 Loop, and West US Highway 287. (Z08-2026-014)]

UPON A DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR A 7.63 TO PLUS OR MINUS ACRE'S PORTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 169 FOR A PLACE OF WORSHIP, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF U.S.

HIGHWAY 287 AND U.S. HIGHWAY 67 LOOP AND WEST HIGHWAY 287.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THE NEXT ITEM IS A DETAILED SIT PLAN FOR A PLACE OF WORSHIP ON 7.63 TO ACRES OF UPLAND DEVELOPMENT 179 WHICH IS KNOWN AS CRESTVIEW.

FOR FUTURE BRAND USE MAP SHOWS THIS AREA AS REGIONAL MODULE IN THE CURRENT LAND USE IS UNDEVELOPED.

THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED AND 1984 AND IT HAS BEEN REZONED FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY TO COMMUNITY RETAIL AND THE MOST RECENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT WAS HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE END OF JULY TO AMEND THE OVERALL PD LANGUAGE AND UPDATE THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THIS SITE.

THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING ARE NONRESIDENTIAL AND MOST OF THEM ARE UNDEVELOPED IN THIS AREA.

THE DETAILED SITE PLAN IS FOR 41,105 SQUARE FOOT PLACE OF WORSHIP AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR A PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW 394 PARKING SPACES. THIS VARIANCE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL PD AMENDMENT AND SO IT IS HERE TODAY AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN FOR YOU TO LOOK AT .

THE DETAILS THAT THEY ARE INCORPORATING THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, ALTHOUGH THE REVISED PD DID EXEMPT THEM FROM THE OLD TIME REQUIREMENTS. THE SIGN PLAN DOES COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. FOR PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE PLACE OF WORSHIP IS 188 SPACES BASED ON ONE SPACE PER FOUR SEATS AND SIX SEATINGS IN A WORSHIP AREA, SO THAT MAXIMUM PARKING FOR THIS SITE WOULD BE 235 SPACES WHICH IS 25 PERCENT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM. SO THEY ARE REQUESTING 394 SPACES BASED ON THEIR OTHER SITES THAT THEY HAVE AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 1169 BY 18 WHICH ARE COMPACT AND 270810 BY 18.

ON THE SITE THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING A SCHOOL OR A DAYCARE AND PARKING IS PRIMARILY WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUNDAY.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PLACES OF WORSHIP OF A SIMILAR SIZE DIDN'T MIDLOTHIAN. THIS IS JUST A SITE THAT WE LOOKED AT BASED OFF THEIR SQUAR FOOTAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF PARKIN THEY HAD. THEIR ELEVATIONS, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 40 FEET, IT DOES INCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES INCLUDING CORNICES, FREESTANDIN CANOPY IS, ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT IT IS SCREENED AND IT DOES HAVE TH APPEARANCE OF MULTIPLE BUILDING

[00:45:03]

WITHIN A SINGULAR STRUCTURE AND THEY DO HAVE.

HEIGHT LIAM'S. THEY ARE PROVIDING 360-DEGREE ARCHITECTURE IN THEY DO HAVE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND LINSKY PLAN FOR THE PLACE OF WORSHIP AND APPROVAL OF THE PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE PLACES OF WORSHIP NOT TO EXCEED 394 SPACES.

>> I'M NOT READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS TONIGHT.

AT LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO PRAY.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> PLEASE VOTE.

IT PASSES 6-0. WE MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12.

[012 Consider and act upon a detailed site plan for a 10.76+ acre portion of Planned Development District No. 179 (PD-179) for a Home Improvement Store. The property is generally located on West Main Street, approximately 658 feet east of West US Highway 287. (SP05-2026-046) ]

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> PLEASE COME FORWARD? STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY, PLEAS

FAX. >> I AM BRETT HARRINGTON, I ACTUALLY LIVE IN EDMOND, OKLAHOMA, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. THEY GOT IN FRONT OF YOU PREVIOUSLY AND A LOT HAS HAPPENED, BUT WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IS THE FACT THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE AS PEOPLE APPROACH FROM THE WEST ON MAIN STREET THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THA WE TAKE LIGHTLY OR THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED, IT'S AN HONOR TO B IN THAT POSITION AND WE WANT TO STEWARD IT WELL.

AS THE COMMISSIONER ASKED LAST TIME, WHY THIS LOCATION? IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE HERE TO CHANGE LIVES, WE'RE NOT SEEKING PROFIT IS ANOTHER BUSINESS YOU MIGHT POSITION THEMSELVES HERE WOULD DO SO AND RIGHTLY, WE ARE SEEKING TO IMPACT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT KNOW THAT WE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY IN THE VISION YOU ARE CASTING FOR OLD TOWN ARCHITECTURE. WE ARE EXCITED TO BE A PART OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING IS YOU GROW AT THE WEIGHT YOU ARE GROWING AND AS YOU STICK TRUE T WHO YOU ARE AT THE ROOTS, WE WANT TO HONOR THAT AND COME ALONGSIDE OF A.

THAT IS OUR HEART BEHIND ALL OF THIS.

WE DO NEED MORE PARKING THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY TH CODE. WE DON'T BASE THIS ON THE VACUUM , IT'S ACTUALLY BASED ON THE PARKING STUDY THAT STAFF REQUESTED WE DO EARLIER THIS YEAR.

SO WE DID SURVEY TO CHURCHES, ONE OF OUR OWN AND THEN MIDLOTHIAN BIBLE CHURCH WHICH I COMPARABLY SIZED.

THE PARKING DEMAND HAS MERIT. IN ADDITION THE ITE STUDY WOULD SAY THAT ALL PARKING SHOULD BE 488 SPACES BASED OFF THE SIDE O THE BUILDING MAY HAVE BEEN THAT AS A NATIONAL DATA STANDARD THA WE DID NOT MAKE UP, THAT IS JUS WHAT THEY SAY.

WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS AND IT I FUNCTIONING NOT OUT OF THE NUMBERS WE HAVE 46 LOCATIONS IN 12 STATES THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATIONAL FOR 30 OR SO WE HAV A LOT OF DATA WE HAVE PULLED ACROSS ALL OF OUR CAMPUSES GREA WE RUN ABOUT 130 SERVICES EVERY WEEKEND SO WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING DEMAND, WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED. WE DID IT FOR BRIEFLY WITH THE SHARED PARKING SITUATION. OUR REQUEST FOR PARKING IS REALLY BASED OFF OF BEING ABLE TO BOX OFFICE SITE AWAY, BUT WE CAN IMPACT THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN'S OF THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. THAT IS OUR HEART MAY CONSIDER IT WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROPOSED DETAIL YOU SEE ON THAT SITE PLA IS WHAT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PD CONCEPT INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS THAT IS SHOWN ON THE. OUR REQUEST SEEMS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A PD VISION. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DATA AND MANY THINGS, BUT ULTIMATELY WERE SEEKING YOUR FAVOR AND APPROVAL ON THE PARKING VARIANCE .

I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, WE HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEERS AS WELL . WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION

. >> B APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY TABLED THIS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, SO WE

WILL HOLD IT WHERE WERE AT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.