[00:00:02] GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO I'M GOING TO BE OPENING CONCURRENTLY HERE, HOPEFULLY I DON'T BLOW YOUR MIND ON THIS, BOTH OUR SIGN BOARD MEETING AND OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING [1. Call to Order. ] HERE FOR APRIL 8TH. WITH THAT, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ACTUALLY GET INTO THE SIGN BOARD ITEMS FIRST. BUT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WAS GOING TO LET KEN BAKER DO SOME ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS [3. Administrative Comments.] HERE RELATIVE TO OUR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BOARD. SO I GUESS, KEN, YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND TAKE IT FROM HERE? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. EACH YEAR WE DEVELOP AN ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT, AND THIS REPORT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW ON STATISTICS AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THE COMMISSION WAS PROVIDED VIA EMAIL LAST WEEK. THE LATEST REPORT, IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE ON OUR CITY WEBSITE FOR THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO VIEW IT, BUT IT'S A WEALTH OF INFORMATION. IT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF ALL THE PDS SERVICES OFFERED THE E-SERVICES, OUR ELECTRONIC SERVICES, UPDATES ON MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, RECOGNITIONS THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE RECEIVED OVER THE PAST YEAR, AND A NUMBER OF STATISTICS RELATED TO OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS AND AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITY. SO I'D LIKE TO ASK MADELINE A., WHO IS ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TO COME FORWARD AND JUST MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION AND PROVIDE YOU WITH AN OVERVIEW. SO, MADELINE. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MADISON A., AS KEN BAKER MENTIONED, AND I HAVE THE PLEASURE TO PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT. KEN KIND OF STOLE MY THUNDER WITH THE INTRODUCTION. SO I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND SKIP THE FIRST SLIDE AND GO STRAIGHT TO THE SECOND ONE. [VIDEO] SO AS KEN MENTIONED THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE SERVICES THAT THE PDS DEPARTMENT OFFERS, AS WELL AS ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION. THIS REPORT IS MADE UP OF SEVEN DIFFERENT SECTIONS, AS YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU. I'LL FIRST BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON SOME ECONOMIC POINTS IN THIS REPORT, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE 2,601 AND ONE BUSINESSES IN SOUTH LAKE. AND DESPITE THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, WE DID GET TO ADD 68 NEW BUSINESSES IN SOUTHLAKE IN FISCAL YEAR 2020. ON THIS SIDE, I'D LIKE TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO OUR HOUSING MARKET SECTION. WE DID HAVE 590 HOME SALES IN 2020 AND WE DID ISSUE 79 NEW HOME PERMITS WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR AS WELL. AND WE DID ISSUE 148 CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION, I WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THE TOTAL VALUATION ADDED IN SOUTHLAKE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL. THAT WAS ABOUT 303 MILLION AND NEW COMMERCIAL WAS ABOUT 50 MILLION. WE DID INCLUDE A BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS REVIEW IN THIS REPORT, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SECTION, YOU DID MEET 14 TIMES WITHIN FISCAL YEAR 2020, AND YOU DID HAVE 60 AGENDA ITEMS THAT YOU REVIEWED. THIS NUMBER IS COMPARABLE TO YEARS PAST. HOWEVER, IT IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER AND THAT'S LIKELY DUE TO THE PANDEMIC THAT WE HAD. AND WE ALSO INCLUDED THE 2035 QUARTER PLANNING COMMITTEE STATISTICS AS WELL. AND I DO SEE A LOT OF FAMILIAR FACES WHO ALSO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE, WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT AND SOME FORMER MEMBERS AS WELL. THIS COMMITTEE DID MEET 4 TIMES WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR AND DID REVIEW 18 AGENDA ITEMS. THIS BOARD OR THIS COMMITTEE DOES MEET MORE FREQUENTLY THAN 4 TIMES. BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS LIKELY DUE TO THE PANDEMIC. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE DOES WIN A LOT OF AWARDS AND IS RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION TO THE COMMUNITY. SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE DID RECEIVE A GREAT PUBLIC SPACE FROM THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION TEXAS CHAPTER. WE ARE VERY HONORED TO RECEIVE THAT DESIGNATION THROUGH THAT ASSOCIATION. SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT TONIGHT. WE INCLUDED A NEW SECTION IN OUR REPORT THIS YEAR THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE COVID-19 [00:05:05] PANDEMIC AND THE E-SERVICES THAT WERE PRODUCED FROM THAT, WE DID HAVE A DIFFICULT YEAR IN 2020 IN OFFERING DELIVERING SERVICES TO OUR RESIDENTS. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DID CONTINUE THROUGH OUR E-SERVICES SECTION AND IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, IT WAS BUSINESS AS USUAL. SO WE DID INTRODUCE VIRTUAL BUILDING INSPECTIONS THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO OUR RESIDENTS AND CUSTOMERS THAT ENSURED THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF BOTH OUR INSPECTORS AND THE RESIDENTS AS WELL. AND WE ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, WHAT IT IS, WHAT THEY DO IN THE COMMUNITY, HOW YOU CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THEM AND CONTACT THEM IF YOU NEED ANYTHING. SO WE DID HIGHLIGHT THAT IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA SPOTLIGHT AS WELL. AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE DO HAVE OUR LAND USE IN SOUTHLAKE, THIS DATA WAS OBTAINED DECEMBER 2020. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GREATEST PERCENTAGE OF LAND THAT WE HAVE WITHIN SOUTHLAKE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. I WILL NOW GO INTO SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT RELATED INFORMATION THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CITY. WE DID HAVE, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, 79 NEW BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED THROUGH OUR DEPARTMENT. THAT NUMBER WAS SLIGHTLY LOWER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 AND WE HAVE SEEN A SLIGHT DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF PERMITS THAT ARE GETTING ISSUED RESIDENTIALLY. OUR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT VALUE WAS 91.3 MILLION, WHICH WAS AN INCREASE FROM LAST FISCAL YEAR. AND WE DID HAVE 531,651 NEW RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED, WHICH IS A SLIGHT DECREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR. AND THE GRAPHS ARE ALL COMPARABLE TO WHAT I JUST PRESENTED. SO WE HAVE THE SAME SECTION, BUT FOR NEW COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, WE ISSUED 20 BUILDING PERMITS IN FISCAL YEAR 2020, WHICH WAS ALSO A SLIGHT DECREASE FROM 2019, BUT NOT AS SIGNIFICANTLY. WE SAW 35.9 MILLION IN NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT VOLUME AND 249, 274 IN SQUARE FOOTAGE PERMITTED. I'M JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON FINANCIALS FOR A MOMENT FOR VALUATION ADDED, THIS IS THE VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS ADDED DURING AN APPRAISAL HERE, WHICH INCLUDES NEW AND EXISTING HOMES AND BUILDINGS. AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE DO HAVE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL VALUATION. IT'S THE TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY. RESIDENTIAL VALUATION INCLUDES ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CITY AND NONRESIDENTIAL VALUATION INCLUDES HOSPITALS, OFFICES AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ENTITIES. ANOTHER PORTION OF VALUATION COMES FROM OUR TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE AND COMPARABLE TAXABLE VALUE IN FY 2020. WE DID SEE 10.3 BILLION IN TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE AND 8.3 BILLION IN TOTAL TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS PRIMARILY DUE TO EXEMPTIONS SUCH AS HOMESTEAD DISABLED OVER 65 EXEMPTION AND OVER 65 TAX FREE. AND THE FINAL SLIDES THAT I HAVE TONIGHT, I HAVE GIVEN YOU GRAPHS OF THE REVENUE THAT WAS COLLECTED IN FY 2020. ON THE LEFT IS OUR TOTAL SALES TAX COLLECTED, AND ON THE RIGHT IS FOR OUR GENERAL FUND. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND IS PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF THREE REVENUE GENERATING SOURCES. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE AD VALOREM OR PROPERTY TAX, MUNICIPAL SALES TAX AND FRANCHISE TAX, WHICH REPRESENT REVENUE FROM PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES OPERATING IN SOUTHLAKE. IN THE FINAL SLIDE, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE FEES THAT WE DO COLLECT THAT DO ADD TO THE REVENUE FOR THE CITY. WE DO COLLECT HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. WE DID SEE A DECREASE IN THAT NUMBER FROM 2019. WE ALSO HAVE SIGN PERMIT FEES THAT WE COLLECT AND THE OVERALL TOTAL FEES THAT WE COLLECT FROM BUILDING PERMITS. SO THOSE SIGN PERMIT FEES DID TAKE A SLIGHT DECREASE, BUT WE DID INCREASE IN OUR TOTAL BUILDING FEES THAT WE COLLECTED FOR 2020. AND AS KEN MENTIONED, THIS REPORT IS ONLINE, THE FULL REPORT IS POSTED ONLINE AND MYSELF, KEN OR DENNIS WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. NO, THANK YOU, MADELINE, ON ANY HARD QUESTIONS FOR MADELINE, FROM ANYBODY UP [00:10:05] HERE, NONE. OK, NOW, THANK YOU VERY, VERY EXTENSIVE INFORMATION. I THINK IT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT TOOL TO USE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR RESIDENTS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL CONTEXT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE CITY AND ESPECIALLY THE HISTORICAL INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL. SO THANK YOU. I GUESS UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK, WITH THAT, WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL TRANSITION, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, BACK INTO OUR SIGNBOARD AGENDA. WE'LL TAKE THOSE ITEMS IN ORDER. FROM THERE, WE'LL GO INTO OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA AGAIN, MOVING BACK, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON MUSTANG BUSINESS PARK TO THE END, MOVING UP ITEM NUMBER 16, WESTWYCK PLAT REVISION TOWARD THE BEGINNING. AND JUST A COUPLE OTHER BRIEF COMMENTS. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE BUILDING HERE IS UNDERGOING SOME RENOVATIONS AT THE MOMENT. WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ALL OF US TO KIND OF SPEAK UP SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HEAR WE STILL HAVE OUR COVID PROTOCOLS IN PLACE. I THINK, AS YOU CAN SEE OUT THERE TRYING TO SPACE PEOPLE OUT AND HAVE THE MICROPHONE UP FRONT, KIND OF SPACED OUT AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE WHILE YOU'RE SPEAKING AND SPACING OUT STAFF AND OURSELVES DOING OUR BEST TO HAVE THE MEETING IN PERSON, BUT IN A SAFE AND PRUDENT MANNER. AND AGAIN, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING, SO WE'LL TRY TO WORK THROUGH THEM AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. BUT SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL PROCEED WITH OUR SIGN BOARD AGENDA. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WE CAN PROBABLY TAKE ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE AT THE SAME TIME IN TERMS OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS, OK. AND WITH THAT, I GUESS, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY EDITS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON ANY OF THOSE MINUTES? AND IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH ARE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 4TH, 2021 SIGN BOARD MEETING, AS WELL AS THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY TWENTY FIFTH, 2021 SIGN BOARD MEETING. WE HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE PLEASE. OK, MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO. NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS A SIGN VARIANCE FOR THE GARDEN DISTRICT PARK VIEW AT SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE. WE HEARD A PRESENTATION ON THAT ITEM IN OUR WORK SESSION. MAYBE, DENNIS, MAYBE YOU CAN JUST KIND OF LEAVE IT ON ONE OF THE MORE PERTINENT PAGES. I MEAN, I THINK IF I UNDERSTOOD THE ITEM RIGHT. REALLY THE PRIMARY GOAL HERE IS TO REVISE WHAT SOME OF THE CONTENT ON THE SIGN TO UPDATE IT RELATIVE TO SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENT, SO TO SPEAK. IS THAT FAIR? CORRECT. AND ALLOW IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR OR ONE YEAR PERIOD. OK, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OK, I GUESS WE CAN CALL THE APPLICANT UP AS WELL. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S PATIENTLY WAITING OUT THERE SEEING NO QUESTIONS. IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS, I GUESS WE CAN TAKE A VOTE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SIX ON OUR AGENDA, SV 21-0002, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. OK, OK, LET'S GO OUT AND VOTE, PLEASE. PASSES SEVEN ZERO. GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL. NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS, I THINK, THE ENCLAVE DENTAL SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST. AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER ITEM WE HEARD STAFF PRESENTATION DURING OUR WORK SESSION. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, WE CAN OUR STAFF NOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXISTING SIGN BEING MOVED FROM A FAIRLY PROMINENT LOCATION ALONG SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD PER DR. SPRINGERS QUESTION. SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD AND SHADY OAK, IT SOUNDED LIKE TO THIS LOCATION THAT DENNIS IS HIGHLIGHTING. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST FOR STAFF. OK, IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON THIS ITEM? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? OK, I GUESS WITH THAT, IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA, SV 21-0004, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OK, LET'S GO AND VOTE, PLEASE. PASSES SEVEN ZERO. [00:15:01] GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL, SIR. LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA FOR SIGN BOARD THIS EVENING, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS A SIGN VARIANCE FOR WHISTLE BRITCHES IN THE SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE AREA. AGAIN, THE LAST ITEM HERE, WE ALSO HEARD A STAFF PRESENTATION ON DENNIS HAS AN ON THE PERTINENT SLIDE RIGHT NOW. THE MURAL, I BELIEVE IT'S IF I"M SAYING THIS RIGHT, DENNIS. THE MURAL ITSELF IS WHAT EXCLUDES IT FROM OUR RECENTLY REVAMPED SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE MASTER PLAN. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. IT STIPULATES THESE TYPE SIGNS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SIGN BOARD. OK, WELL, OBVIOUSLY THIS GETS A LITTLE BIT INTO SUBJECTIVITY, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW MYSELF, IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. AND I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A SPACE THAT'S HAD SEVERAL TENANTS. SO IT'S I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FAIR TO SAY IT'S A CHALLENGED SPACE, BUT CLEARLY IT HASN'T BEEN ONE OF THE STRONGER SPACES. SO ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS? OK, IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON THIS ITEM? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LIGHTING. OK, DO YOU MIND, MA'AM, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND YOU CAN KEEP YOUR MASK ON OR OFF WHATEVER YOU PREFER, AND IT JUST MAYBE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. [INAUDIBLE]. AND MY ADDRESS IS 305 NORTH DELAWARE STREET, IRVING, TEXAS, 75061. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THE QUESTION WAS HOW THE LIGHTING WORKS FOR THE SIGN, IS THAT CORRECT? EXTERIOR LIGHTING ISN'T IN MY SCOPE OF THE JOB. OURS IS JUST TO INSTALL THE SIGNS. BUT THERE'S PRESENTLY NO EXTERIOR LIGHTING AND I'M NOT AWARE OF PLANS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING. AND I GUESS CITY STAFF. IS THAT FAIR? IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSUMPTION? I APOLOGIZE. I COULD NOT HEAR WHAT SHE SAID. I THINK I GUESS I THINK THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT THE CURRENTLY THE SIGN IS NOT LIT AND THAT IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED OR NOT REQUESTED TO BE LIT. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. THERE'S NOTHING THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT INDICATES IT WOULD BE LIT. IS THAT WHAT YOU NEED. OK, GOOD QUESTION. OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE WE HAVE HER HERE. ALL GOOD. THANK YOU MA'AM. ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS OR IF NOT, WE'LL PROCEED TO A VOTE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA, SV 21-0005, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. OK, WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE. AND PASSES SEVEN ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS, GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL. AND WITH THAT I WILL GAVEL OUT JUST OUR SIGN BOARD, NOT OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. WE'LL KEEP THAT GOING. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. WE'VE ALREADY REALLY DONE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS. UNLESS STAFF HAS ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANT TO ADD? I THINK THEY'RE GOOD. I'D SAY THE SAME THING WITH RESPECT TO CHAIRMAN COMMENTS. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO OUR CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH I BELIEVE IF I GET THE [CONSENT AGENDA] NOD FROM STAFF, WE CAN TAKE ALL THESE ITEMS AT ONCE. AND CAN WE ALSO INCLUDE WITHIN THAT TABLING ITEM NUMBER 14 TO OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS APRIL 22ND. OK, SO WE'LL ADD THAT IN AS A FOURTH ITEM. THE OTHER THREE ITEMS ARE APPROVE ALL OUR MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 25TH. FINAL PLAT FOR GMI SOUTH LAKE EDITION. AND FINAL PLAT OR A PLAT. IT LOOKS LIKE FOR LOTS 6566. SO ITEMS 5, 6, 7 AND 14, WOULD BE WHAT WE'D BE VOTING ON. SO ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THOSE BEFORE I ENTERTAIN A CONSENT AGENDA MOTION? OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. MR. CHAIRMAN. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS 5, 6, 7 AND 14 ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA, MOVING ITEM 14 TO THE APRIL 22ND MEETING. I THINK I'LL AMEND THAT, I GUESS. IS THAT ADDING THAT AMENDMENT MOVING ITEM 14 TO THE APRIL 22ND MEETING. ANY OTHER, WE GOOD. OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE. OK, PASSES 7-0 CONTINUE TO BE ON A ROLL HERE. [00:20:05] NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS NUMBER 8. AND AGAIN, THIS IS AN ITEM WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE BACK OF OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING. BUT I THINK HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THE REST OF THIS METHODICALLY. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ACTUALLY MOVE UP, MAKE SURE I REMEMBERED THIS ITEM NUMBER 16, WHICH [16. ZA21-0022, Plat Revision for Lot 2R, Block 1, Westwyck Court Addition, on property described as Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Westwyck Court Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1235 and 1215 Westwyck Court, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. SPIN Neighborhood #5. PUBLIC HEARING ] WE HEARD A STAFF PRESENTATION ON EARLIER THIS EVENING. ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS ITEM, IF I DIG THROUGH MY MATERIALS HERE, WAS IT'S BEING PRESENTED CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS APPROVALS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, ON THIS ONE. OK, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OK. IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM? OK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM. OK, I WANT TO FORGET THIS ITEM NUMBER 16 DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO WE WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW. AND IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO SAY ON JUST THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD SEEING NOLAN. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND UNLESS WE NEED ANY OTHER DEBATE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 16 IN OUR AGENDA. ZA21-0022 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER ONE DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND, OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE, AND PASSES 7-0 CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT STEP. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM 9 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH [9. Consider: ZA21-0010, Site Plan for The Jane Patio Cover, on property described as Lot 1, Block 1, Park Village, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 1035 E. Southlake Blvd. (The Jane address is 1151 E. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 390). Current Zoning: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #9. PUBLIC HEARING ] IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE JANE PATIO COVER. KEN WE MIGHT NEED YOU TO MOVE THE MICROPHONE AROUND JUST A LITTLE UNLESS OTHERS CAN HEAR YOU AND I CANT. IS THIS BETTER? A LITTLE BETTER. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF COMMISSION THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR COVERED PATIO STRUCTURE FOR THE JANE AND PARK VILLAGE. THIS IS PARK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS CATTY CORNER OF THIS LOCATION. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW THAT SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE TENNIS SPACE THAT IS SEEKING THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE OUTDOOR PATIO AS PART OF THE PARK VILLAGE REZONING OUTDOOR PATIOS WERE PERMITTED, BUT A REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE OUTDOOR AREAS WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS PRIOR TO APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN. AS SUCH, THIS APPLICANT IS PROCESSING A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THIS PATIO AREA. THIS IS JUST A CLOSER AND AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE SMALLER FOUNTAIN. PROTEIN FIT KITCHEN WAS A TENANT IN THE SPACE AND A SITE PLAN FOR A TEMPORARY PATIO WAS PERMITTED BACK IN 2018 AND THE THOUGHT AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THE TENANT WOULD COME IN AND DO A MORE FULL BLOWN PATIO AT THIS LOCATION. BUT THAT WAS NEVER PURSUED AND THESE WERE REMOVED WHEN THE EXPIRATION IS INDICATING A SLIDE DATE WAS REACHED. THESE ARE SOME OF THE EXISTING PATIOS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE AREA. THIS IS IN AND AROUND THE FOUNTAIN AREA INCLUDES LUNA GRILL, MALAI KITCHEN, TAVERNA ROSSA AND GLORIA'S. ALSO ON THE FRESH MARKET, THERE IS A KIND OF AN OUTDOOR PATIO AREA THAT'S CLADDED THE AUSTIN STONE OR THE LIGHTER STONE THAT YOU SEE. THERE IS ONE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND THAT IS FOR TO ALLOW THE STEEL POST AS IT'S BEING PRESENTED. THE MALAI KITCHEN WAS GRANTED VARIANCE FOR THE POST THEY'RE KIND OF A WOODEN TYPE POST THAT WAS APPROVED. IN ADDITION, WHEN THE RECENT PARK VILLAGE REDO THE FOUNTAIN, THE ACTIVITY AREA, THE ENTERTAINMENT AREA WAS RECENTLY APPROVED AND THE ZONING CASE EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE ARBOR STRUCTURE WAS APPROVED WITH POSTS OR THE STEEL POST, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT OR SLIDE. THIS IS THE EXISTING FAÃ♪ADE. THESE ARE THE PLANS AND I CAN GO BACK AND ANY DETAILS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT SOME [00:25:03] RENDERINGS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. YOU CAN SEE THE MATERIAL TYPES LISTED ON THIS SLIDE. THEY'RE ALSO ASKING FOR THESE ROLLER SHADES TO ALLOW THE OUTDOOR AREA TO BE USED DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER. THERE ARE FANS IN THE CEILING. AND IN YOUR PACKET, THERE ARE DETAILS ON SPECIFICS ON ALL THE ELEMENTS. AS MENTIONED, I'LL BE GLAD TO GO BACK OVER THOSE IF NEEDED. AGAIN, THERE IS A VARIANCE REQUESTED TO THE SECTION INDICATING THE ZONING ORDINANCE THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED VARIANCE ALLOW THE COLUMNS TO BE SIX BY SIX BLACK CLAD ALUMINUM COLUMNS, ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? OK, THANK YOU, KEN GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE APPLICANT GO AHEAD AND COME UP HERE NOW, IS THE APPLICANT HERE DO YOU MIND COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU DON'T MIND. WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. YES. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MY NAME IS MICHAEL SMOLTZ I'M WITH THE DESIGN FIRM WORKING ON THIS PROJECT REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. OK, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, ANYONE? YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A QUESTION. I GUESS I'M NOT SURE WE GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO BE HEARD. YOU SAY YOU MIGHT NEED TO SWALLOW THE MICROPHONE. I THINK FOR US TO HEAR IT OR A LOUDER MOUTH,THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BIT FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, THE RATIONALE BEHIND REQUESTING THAT THE CLADDING NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE? PLEASE? YES, SIR. WE JUST FEEL THIS WILL BE A CLEAN, MINIMAL DESIGN THAT GOES WELL WITH THE EXISTING FAÃ♪ADE, AS WELL AS HELPING TO KEEP THIS SPACE OPEN FOR OPTIMAL VIEWS TO THE STOREFRONTS. SINCE WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE FAÃ♪ADE, MAINTAINING SIGHTLINES LINES TO THE SPACE IS IDEAL FOR CUSTOMER INTERACTION FROM THE OUTER SIDEWALK AREAS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT MOXIE'S HAS DONE ON THE CORNER OF, I BELIEVE, MAIN AND CENTRAL, ALTHOUGH JUST IN BLACK TO MATCH THE FAÃ♪ADE, KEEPING IT MORE OPEN, NOT CLAUSTROPHOBIC. AS MENTIONED, THESE WERE SIX BY SIX METAL COLUMNS, MASONRY WOULD ADD EIGHT TO 12 INCHES TO THESE COLUMNS. HINDERING SIGHTLINES AND YEAH. OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD IF WE NEED YOU, WE WILL CALL YOU BACK UP. SO THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW. AND ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM IS WELCOME TO COME FORWARD SEEING NOLAN. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER NINE. I MEAN, I GUESS I'D JUST SAY I THINK OVERALL, I THINK IT'S A POSITIVE REQUEST. IT'S KIND OF A DEAD AREA. IN THAT PART OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, I THINK IT DOES A GOOD JOB OF MAYBE BRINGING IT A LITTLE BIT OF LIFE AND ACTIVITY. IT'S NOT A VERY VISIBLE SPACE, WHICH PROBABLY TRANSLATES INTO WHY IT HASN'T HAD A LOT OF ACTIVITY. SO I'M FINE AS PRESENTED, BUT OPEN TO OTHER COMMENTS, THOUGHTS. I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD, GOOD. OK. ALL RIGHT, WELL, I GUESS I WON'T BELABOR IT THEN WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WHERE I THINK WE NEED TO CATCH THE VARIANTS ON HERE. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA, ZA21-0010 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST. 2021, ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW, SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021 AND SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED. I HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OK, LET'S GO OUT AND VOTE PLEASE. AND PASSES 7-0 GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL, SIR. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. AND MR. BAKER WILL TELL US WHERE. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO [00:30:02] INSTALL A RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM TO BE LOCATED GENERALLY ON TWO SOUTH REROOF AREAS OF THE HOUSE AND THE SOUTH ROOF AREA OF A DETACHED GARAGE. THE PROPOSED SOLAR ARRAY FOR THE HOUSE AND THE ATTACHED GARAGE CONSISTS OF 57 ENERGY PANELS AND APPROXIMATELY 1000 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN END OF SOUTH LAKE. THIS IS JUST TO THE EAST OF DAVIS AND SOUTH OF CONTINENTAL. TO THE SOUTH IS THE CITY OF KELLER. THE LAND USES A MIX OF MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY. THE CURRENT ZONING IS SF1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE HOME ON TIMBERLINE AND THE ROOF STRUCTURES. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SOLAR ARRAY IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE HOME TO THE SOUTH. AND IN KELLER, THIS IS MORE OF AN OBLIQUE ANGLE WHICH PROVIDES SOME DETAILS. THE DISTANCE FROM THE GARAGE AREA TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS OVER 300 FEET. ALSO, THE SOLAR RAYS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE TIMBER CAUGHT RIGHT AWAY. 39 SOLAR PANELS ON THE HOME AND THEN 18 ON THE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR 57 TOTAL THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SOME SPECIFICS IN YOUR PACKET ON THE FUNCTIONALITY AND SPECS ON THE SOLAR ARRAY AND SOME EXHIBITS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE STAFF SHOWING SOME DIFFERENT ANGLES. AGAIN, NOT IN THE RIGHT AWAY. THE THE ONLY REASON THERE ARE TWO REASONS IS THIS CANNOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. YOU MAY RECALL YOUR RECENT SOLAR APPROVAL. ONE WAS THAT IT EXCEEDS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE OTHER IS THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS ON A AN ANGLED ROOF AND THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED ON FLAT ROOFS, STRUCTURES. A COUPLE OF PHOTOS FROM THE TIMBERLINE COURT. AND THESE ARE RESPONSES ALL IN FAVOR FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. WE DO HAVE IN ALL THE SOLAR APPLICATIONS THIS EVENING, WE DO HAVE ALL THE HISTORY OF APPROVALS THAT NEED IT. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER OF YOUR QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM. GOOD. OK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. KEN. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? DO YOU MIND COMING OVER HERE TO THE MICROPHONE SIMILAR TO THE LAST COUPLE OF SPEAKERS? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KEITH WATKINS, AND I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO TALK A LITTLE SORRY, A LITTLE CLOSER. SORRY ABOUT THAT. MY NAME IS KEITH WATKINS I'M THE REGIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR FREEDOM SOLAR POWER. WE'RE LOCATED AT 3070 STORY ROAD WEST IN IRVING, TEXAS. OK, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS IS A GOOD APPLICATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING IN SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU , GLAD TO DO THAT. YOU HAVE NO IDEA, SIR, HOW LITTLE THAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH. SO YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING THERE, ILL PASS ON THE POSITIVE TO OUR DESIGN TEAM DOWN IN AUSTIN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR JUST GENERAL COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? OK, THANK YOU. IF WE NEED YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK. APPRECIATE IT. ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. [10. Consider: Resolution No. 21-011, (ZA21-0012), Specific Use Permit for a Residential Solar Energy System on property described as Lot 2, Block 2, Continental Park Estates Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1211 Timber Court, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #10. PUBLIC HEARING] I'LL GO OUT AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT ITEM. IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING SPECIFIC YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD SEEING NOLAN. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 10. I OPEN IT UP TO SOME DELIBERATIONS. I'M NOT SURE ANYBODY CAN TOP DR. SPRINGERS COMMENT, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO TRY, GO AHEAD. OK, I GUESS WITH THAT AND AGAIN, I JUST APPRECIATE IT. IT'S NICE TO NOT HAVE A BIG ARGUMENT ABOUT ONE OF THESE. SO STRAIGHTFORWARD. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA, ZA21-0012 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021, ALSO SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT STAFF REVIEW NUMBER 2 DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. AND ALSO SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 21-011 SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE, AND PASSES 7-0. [00:35:04] CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK AT THE, UH, THE NEXT LEVEL, SIR. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD. MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ELEVEN ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I DID A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM DURING THE WORK SESSION. I'LL BE GLAD TO REFER BACK TO ANY PARTICULAR SLIDES OR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER, DENNIS. YOU DID. AND I GUESS MAYBE ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR ME, THE CURRENT OR PREVIOUS USE IN THIS SPACE, DO WE KNOW THAT IF THERE WAS AN SUP ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AS WELL? I GUESS, IS THERE ANY HISTORY YOU CAN PROBABLY REMIND ME OF? I'M SURE IT'S IN THE REPORT. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE WAS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPROVED, I BELIEVE, IN 2017 CONTINGENT OR TIED TO A TWO YEAR LEASE AND ANY SUBSEQUENT EXTENSIONS THERE FOR A JUJITSU SCHOOL. SIMILAR USE OCCUPANCY IN OPERATION. OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? GOOD FOR NOW.. OK, THANK YOU, DENNIS. IS THE APPLICANT HERE ,DO YOU MIND COMING FORWARD, PLEASE? THE MICROPHONE, SAME AS PROTOCOLS BEFORE NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, STEVEN HICKEY, 7908 NORTH MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, IRVING, TEXAS. OK, THANK YOU. MAYBE JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU ENVISION I MEAN, YOU HAVE IT IN THE REPORT HERE, BUT JUST SOUNDS LIKE A MODERATE CLASS SIZES, KIND OF WEEKDAY NIGHTS, WEEKENDS. HOW YOU ANTICIPATE PARKING DROP OFF PARENT STAYING. I MEAN, JUST IN TERMS OF JUST TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO TYPICALLY, I'VE BEEN TEACHING FOR SIX YEARS NOW AND MOST SCHOOLS DO OPERATE AND SAY, OK, YOU HAVE ABOUT A 45 MINUTE WINDOW, WE PREFER TO DROP OFF AND THAT'S HOW I'M GOING TO RUN MY BUSINESS AS WELL. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN MOST PARENTS WANT TO DO. OUR LOBBY SIZE ISN'T VERY BIG, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TOO MUCH PLACES FOR PARENTS AND FAMILIES TO BE HANGING OUT ANYWAY. SO HOPEFULLY THEY CAN GET THEIR GROCERIES AND STUFF. SO SINCE WE'RE RIGHT THERE BY THE SAMS AND STUFF OK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? I'VE GOT A QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE. IT'S MAYBE ONE THAT OUGHT TO BE DIRECTED TO CITY STAFF AS WELL. BUT ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT WE HEARD VOICED HAD TO DO WITH SOME SAFETY CONCERNS RELATIVE TO AREAS AROUND THE BUILDING. DO WE KNOW UNDER THE PRIOR TENANT OR ANY HISTORY AT ALL? HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SAFETY ISSUES WITH THE DESIGN AND THE LAYOUT OF THAT BUILDING IN THE PRIOR USE THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED? STANDPOINT, WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY ISSUES THAT OCCURRED DURING THE OCCUPANCY OF THE PREVIOUS MARTIAL ARTS TENANT, YOU KNOW, READ THE CONCERNS OF THE OPPOSITION LETTER AND I PROVIDED THAT TO THE APPLICANT JUST PRIOR TO THE MEETING STARTING. SO PERHAPS THEY COULD JUST ADDRESS, I GUESS, PARENT AND TRAFFIC OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THE OPPOSITION LETTER AND AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THEIR OPERATIONS OF THE BUSINESS WOULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE LETTER. SO I DID SEE ON THERE THERE'S A FIVE FOOT TERRACE THAT THE OBJECTION WAS TALKING ABOUT, SO DEFINITELY GOING INTO THE BUSINESS, I WOULD SET INTO THE POLICY THAT THAT SPACE IS OFF LIMITS. IT IS BEHIND THE BUSINESS. SO ANY TIME THEY WANT TO SIGN UP THEIR KID FOR OUR MARTIAL ARTS PROGRAM, THAT SHOULD BE IN THE CONTRACT WITH THEM AND ANY OTHER SAFETY ISSUES, ESPECIALLY LIKE REGARDING PLAYING IN THE PARKING LOT AND SUCH. OK, SO THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IN BOTH YOUR AGREEMENT AND JUST YOUR OPERATIONS, THAT YOU WILL, I GUESS, TRY TO TO AVOID, I GUESS. OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICANT? OK, IF WE NEED YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK. [00:40:01] THANK YOU FOR COMING UP HERE. ITEM NUMBER 11 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. [11. Consider: Resolution No. 21-012, (ZA21-0013), Specific Use Permit for a Commercial School on property described as Lot 9, Block B, Commerce Business Park, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2820 Market Loop, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "1-1" - Light Industrial District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING ] I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND SEE IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. YOU KNOW, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, WE RECEIVED THE OPPOSITION LETTER FROM I BELIEVE IT'S IN ENGLISH, FROM MARKET LOOP PARTNERS. 2315 ROOSEVELT DRIVE IN ARLINGTON. SO I GUESS IF HE OR ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, FEEL FREE. NOTING THAT FOR THE RECORD AND SEEING NOLAN ELSE JUMP UP, I'LL GO OUT AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS PEOPLE WANT TO SHARE IN TERMS OF COMFORT LEVEL WITH THE REQUEST OR LACK OF. I'LL JUST FOLLOW UP ON THE COMMENT ABOUT SAFETY. I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO INCLUDE SOME REFERENCE TO THAT OR SOME ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THE LIABILITY THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STUDENTS IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ALONG THOSE LINES? MAYBE, MAYBE ONE ACTION ITEM. THERE'S MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE AN EXAMPLE AGREEMENT THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE IN YOUR APPLICATION WITH FOR THE NEXT LEVEL, ASSUMING IT GETS VOTED ALONG. AND THAT WAY, CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF DISCOURAGING THAT. SO WITH THAT, I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ELEVEN ON OUR AGENDA, ZA21-0013 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST. 2021, ALSO SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT STAFF REVIEW NUMBER TWO DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. AND FINALLY SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 21-012 ANOTHER. ANOTHER WELL CRAFTED MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. OK, LET'S GO AND VOTE PLEASE. THANK YOU. PASSES 7-0 AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL SIR. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWELVE, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC [12. Consider: Resolution No. 21-014, (ZA21-0014), Specific Use Permit for a Residential Solar Energy System on property described as Lot 13, Block 2, Regal Oaks Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1603 Regal Oaks Drive, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #5. PUBLIC HEARING ] USE PERMIT AGAIN FOR ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ON REGAL OAKS DRIVE. COMMISSION, THIS REQUEST IS APPROVAL TO INSTALL RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS TO BE LOCATED ON GENERALLY ON THREE SOUTH AND THREE EAST ROOF AREAS OF THE HOUSE. THE PROPOSED SOLAR ARRAY FOR THE HOUSE CONSISTS OF 55 SOLAR ENERGY PANELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1090 SQUARE FEET. LOCATION OF PROPERTIES 1603 REGAL OAKS DRIVE. ZONING IS OR LAND USED AS LOW DENSITY. RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS SF 1A. THIS IS JUST NORTH OF THE TUSCAN RIDGE CIRCLE, YOU MAY RECALL A PREVIOUS APPROVAL ON REGAL OAKS DRIVE. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE THE PROPERTY VIEWS LOOKING BOTH FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SOLAR ARRAY ALL ARRAYS ARE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH, FACING ROOF LINES NOT VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT AWAY. TOTAL GRAY AREA AREAS MENTIONED JUST OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. 55 PANELS. A COUPLE OTHER SIDE PHOTOGRAPHS. THIS IS YOUR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUP FOR REGAL OAKS, WHICH WAS 30 SOLAR PANELS, JUST OVER 500 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT WAS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION 1601. 1603, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE ALL RESPONSES HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR, TWO FROM TUSCAN RIDGE TO THE REAR AND THEN TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, JUST HISTORY OF WHAT'S APPROVED. THAT CASE WAS ZA18-0042. GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, THANKS, KEN. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I THINK WE'RE GOOD, IS THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? YOU MIND COMING UP MICROPHONE, PLEASE, SIR. AND SAME PROTOCOLS BEFORE; NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. JIM CUSHMAN, 11813 NATIVE DRIVE, FORT WORTH, TEXAS. [00:45:04] ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AGAIN, I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO IN A ROW THAT ARE ACTUALLY GOOD APPLICATIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. DULY NOTED FOR THE RECORD. KIND OF A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THE NEXT ONE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR COMMENTS? APPARENTLY. OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD, SIR. IF WE NEED YOU BACK, WE'LL CALL YOU UP. ITEM NUMBER 12 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL GO AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM AND SEEING NOLAN. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 12. ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS BEYOND WHAT DR. SPRINGER HAD TO SAY ON THIS ONE? A LAST WORD AGAIN, OK, I GUESS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE. ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 12 ON OUR AGENDA, ZA21-0014 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST. 2021 AND ALSO SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT STAFF REVIEW NUMBER TWO DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021. AND ALSO SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION 21-014 SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. LETS GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE. AND THANK YOU, PASSES 7-0 AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13. [13. Consider: Resolution No. 21-015, (ZA21-0015), Specific Use Permit for a Residential Solar Energy System on property described as Lot 10, Block 3, Harbor Oaks, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2910 Harbor Refuge, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #2. PUBLIC HEARING ] LUCKY 13 IS THE THIRD SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING ON HARBOR REFUGE. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THIS APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO INSTALL A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST REAR ROOF OF THE HOUSE IN THE WEST REAR ROOF OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST REAR CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE TOTAL ARRAY IS 34 SOLAR PANELS. THE PROPOSED SOLAR ARRAY FOR THE HOUSE CONSISTS OF 14 ENERGY PANELS AND ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING 20 ENERGY PANELS TOTALING 713 SQUARE FEET. PROPERTIES 2910 HARBOR REFUGE LOCATION. THE PROPERTY, IT'S IN LOW DENSITY SF 1A ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTIES HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. JUST TO HELP YOU LOCATE THIS, THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF CARROLL AND BERNIE LANE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. NORTH IS UP ON THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT. THE 20 SOLAR PANELS, AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE 14 ON THE HOUSE. THIS IS JUST AN EXHIBIT THAT WAS PROVIDED SHOWING THE LOCATION THERE IS A TREE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. A COUPLE OBLIQUE ANGLES OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING BOTH FROM HARBOR REFUGE AND THEN ON THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. THIS IS, SITE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AS WELL AS THE HOME, AND A COUPLE OF VIEWS FROM THE STREET. ALL RESPONSES FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE HISTORY. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, KEN, WERE THOSE ARE POSITIVE RESPONSES. ALSO, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THAT AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THAT WOULD BE THESE HERE. SO THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM THOSE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORS, BUT THEY WERE NOTIFIED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. OK, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. KEN, THANK YOU IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM. AHA. YOU LOOK FAMILIAR, SIR. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN FOR THE RECORD. 11813 NATIVE DRIVE FORT WORTH, TEXAS. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? YEAH, HERE WE GO. DRUM ROLL. I FEEL LIKE WE REALLY NEED TO GET THE THIS ONE THREE IN A ROW. I'M GOING TO PLAY THE LOTTERY TONIGHT. WOW. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THESE ARE THIS IS A GOOD SIGN THAT 2021 IS OFF TO A BETTER START NOW BECAUSE THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. SO THANK YOU ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? [00:50:04] I'LL PLAY THE BAD GUY THEN THE. I HAVE NO OBJECTION AT ALL TO THE PANELS ON THE MAIN HOUSE, BUT THE GUEST HOUSE OUT BACK THAT IS BASICALLY ON THE PROPERTY LINE. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE APPROVAL OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE BEHIND THERE BEFORE YOU PUT SOMETHING ON THAT ON A GUEST HOUSE, BECAUSE THIS IS UNLIKE THE LAST ONE OR ONE OTHER MORE. WE HAD THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE FEET. LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE GOT 10 TO 12 TO 15 FEET TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS FROM THAT PROPERTY, DISTANCES IS FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE TO THE HOME THAT'S BEHIND IT. AND THAT MAY MAKE THIS ALL A MOOT POINT. BUT I THINK TO COMMISSIONER SPRINGERS QUESTION ABOUT THE REACTION OR APPROVAL OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. AS YOU GO TO COUNCIL, THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. OK, DULY NOTED FOR THE RECORD. GOOD COMMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICANT? OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE NEED YOU AGAIN. ITEM 13 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING OR I'LL AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM AND STRIKING OUT AGAIN, SEEING NOLAN. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC, HEARING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ONE BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 13 ON OUR AGENDA, ZA21-0015 SUBJECTS TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 2ND. 2021, ALSO SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC USE PERMIT STAFF REVIEW NUMBER TWO DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021 AND SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 20-15 SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM AND NOTING THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO TALK TO THE HOMEOWNER NEXT TO THE GUEST HOUSE. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE. AND ONCE I VOTE. PASSES 7-0 GOOD LUCK NEXT LEVEL AND CONGRATULATIONS. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR SECOND TO THE LAST ITEM THIS EVENING. [15. Consider: ZA21-00018, Site Plan for GMI, on property described as Tract 11E, Thomas Easter Survey Abstract No. 474, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 2450 Crooked Lane, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING ] SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR CONFIDENCE. WE GET HERE ITEM NUMBER FIFTEEN, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN FOR GMI. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR ITEM FOURTEEN, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THEM THAT THIS ITEM WAS TABLED UNTIL THE APRIL 22ND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. DULY NOTED. ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THE GMI PROJECT. THIS IS LOCATED AT 2450 CROOKED LANE, THE PROJECT BUILDING AND A LOT OF ADDRESSES WILL BE ADDRESSED OFF OF NOLAN DRIVE ONCE THAT PLAT IS FULLY, SOUTH NOLAN ONCE THAT PLAT IS FULLY FORMALIZED. THIS IS A REQUEST TO GET SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PHASE TWO, WHICH INCLUDES THREE FLEX COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 59000 SQUARE FEET, AND THE THREE LOTS TOTAL TO APPROXIMATELY 5.74 ACRES. THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY IS AS MIXED-USE, AND THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS SP2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH LIMITED I ONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. THE PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE AREA SHADED IN THIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. PHASE ONE, WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 80,000 SQUARE FOOT CORPORATE OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY SITE PLAN. THIS VIEW LOOKING IN A NORTH DIRECTION, VIEW LOOKING IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION, THIS IS CROOKED LANE ALONG THE FOREGROUND AND SOUTH NOLAN OFF TO THE LEFT VILLAGE CENTER, SOUTH VILLAGE, CENTER BOULEVARD EXTENDS THROUGH THIS AREA AND IS BUILT TO APPROXIMATELY THIS POINT RIGHT HERE AT THIS TIME. THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR PHASE ONE AND THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR PHASE TWO, [00:55:04] THE PHASE TWO BOUNDARIES SHOWN IN RED. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR PHASE TWO, YOU MAY RECALL THAT WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS DRIVEWAY, ACCESS WOULD BE COMPLETED TO THE TERMINUS OF SOUTH VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE AS IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS WOULD BE LIKEWISE COMPLETED TO NOLAN DRIVE. THERE IS NO ACCESS DIRECTLY TO CROOKED LANE WITH THIS PROJECT. THIS IS THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN. THIS WAS THE ONE APPROVED WITH THE OVERALL CONCEPT AND PHASE ONE SITE PLAN AND THE SUBMITTED PLAN FOR THE PHASE TWO PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED CONSERVATION PLAN. THIS IS THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN. AND THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN ONCE AGAIN, IS FULLY CONFORMING WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTED UNDER THAT CONCEPT PLAN AND ZONING. THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS PRESENTED WITH THE PHASE ONE GMI BUILDING AND THE REMAINING BUILDINGS WERE TO FOLLOW THE SAME USE OF MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURE AS PRESENTED WITH THE PHASE ONE BUILDING. AND THESE ARE ELEVATIONS PROVIDED FOR BUILDING A WITHIN THE PHASE TWO. ALL BUILDINGS ARE A MIXTURE OF STONE PAINTED TILT WALL WITH SOME ARCHITECTURAL METAL ACCENTS SHOWN HERE. THIS IS BUILDING B AND BUILDING C. AND ALL BUILDINGS APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PHASE ON ARCHITECTURE. THIS IS A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN PRESENTED WITH THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN. AND SOME VIEWS LOOKING AT VARIOUS POINTS OF THE PROPERTY FROM STREET FRONTAGE, THIS IS A CROOKED LANE AND SOUTH NOLAN INTERSECTION. THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION FROM NOLAN AND CROOKED LANE AND A VIEW, LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS NOLAN IN THE FOREGROUND, LOOKING IN THE NORTH NORTHEAST DIRECTION ALONG CROOKED LANE. THIS WOULD BE LOOKING WEST TO THE FRONT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY FROM CROOKED LANE. THESE ARE SOME VIEWS FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY PERSPECTIVES. THIS IS A PHASE ONE NOLAN OFFICE PARK, WHICH IS JUST TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PINNACLE POINT, LOOKING WEST, BE LOOKING SOUTH EAST FROM THE ADJOINING PINNACLE POINT, WHICH IS WEST OF THE PHASE ONE GMI BOUNDARY AND A VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM KIMBALL HEIGHTS. THIS IS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PHASE ONE GMI CORPORATE BUILDING SITE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION EXHIBIT ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION WAS [01:00:07] RECEIVED FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 700 WHISPERING WOOD CIRCLE. AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT RESPONSE IN YOUR PACKET. WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, REPRESENTATIVE, OF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. OK, DENNIS, REAL QUICK, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND THEN I'LL GO TO OTHERS. SO JUST CONFIRMING AGAIN, WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US FOR CONSIDERATION IS CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS APPROVALS SO FAR, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OK. AND THEN MAYBE JUST REALLY QUICKLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK SINCE THE LAST APPLICATION, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DRAINAGE. I MEAN, I GUESS IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN KIND OF ADD ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE DRAINAGE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THINGS THAT ARE MAYBE ALSO OFF OF THIS SITE AS WELL. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S MAYBE JUST ANY CONTEXT YOU CAN ADD, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT ON THE LAST CASE AND JUST MAYBE SOMETHING WE CAN ADD ON THIS ONE. CERTAINLY VIRTUALLY ALL THE DRAINAGE COMING ONTO AND OFF OF THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE CONTAINED IN THIS DETENTION STRUCTURE AND THEN PIPED INTO THE SYSTEM THAT CROSSES SOUTH NOLAN AND THEN EXTENDS INTO THE CHANNEL THAT RUNS THROUGH THE CORNERSTONE BUSINESS PARK AND THEN EVENTUALLY MAKES ITS WAY, ITS WAY ACROSS 114 INTO GRAPEVINE LAKE. SO AND OUR STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THIS PLAN, I THINK SOME OF SOME OF WHAT ANYBODY MAY BE EXPERIENCING ALONG CROOKED LANE WILL LIKELY IMPROVE AS THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPS, BECAUSE IF THERE IS ANY OF THAT SHEET FLOW THAT'S COMING OFF THE THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY RIGHT NOW THAT'S MAKING ITS WAY ACROSS CROOKED WILL LIKELY BE ELIMINATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE PARTICULAR RESIDENT HAD AT 700 WHISPERING WOOD HAD TO DO REALLY WITH THE CURRENT CONDITION OF CROOKED LANE AND JUST NATURAL BUILD UP OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS. AND THE BARDICHE IS ON EITHER SIDE. AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS STAFF HAS HAD THAT ON THEIR WORK SCHEDULE TO COME IN AND JUST DO SOME CLEAN UP OF THAT. AND IT IS TRULY JUST A COINCIDENCE. BUT THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO DO THAT TOMORROW. WELL, I JUST BARRING ANY UNFORESEEN INCIDENTS THAT WOULD CAUSE A DELAY. UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT GOOD TO KNOW IT'S PRIORITY. OK, NOW, THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT. AND AND HONESTLY, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE ON THE PATHWAYS, THE SIDEWALKS, I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT AS A REMINDER THAT WE HAVE TO SEE IF I CAN GET BACK THERE. YEAH, I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT ABOUT. THERE WE GO. THERE YOU GO. OK, YEAH. NOW, I WAS HAPPY. I REMEMBER WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THAT IN THE LAST APPLICATION. I WAS HAPPY TO SEE IT INCLUDED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO THE SOUTH, IS THERE A PLAN TO TRY TO EVENTUALLY CONNECT THAT INTO KIMBALL OR JUST CURIOUS? IT WOULD EITHER OCCUR WITH SOME REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY ALONG THERE OR AS A CITY, THE DESIGNATED COMPLETION PROJECT THAT TIMING OF SOME OF THOSE PLATS ALONG THERE. I WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE IF, FOR INSTANCE, THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH DOES HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THE TIMING AT WHICH THAT PROPERTY WAS PLATED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IF THEY'D BUILT A RESIDENCE ON THAT PROPERTY, WHETHER IT WOULD REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIDEWALK WITH THAT RESIDENCE, IT VERY WELL MAY, GIVEN THE TIMING OF THEIR PROJECT. BUT I'D HAVE TO CONFIRM WHEN THAT PLAT WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED, THE REMAINING [01:05:05] PROPERTIES ALONG THAT SIDE, A CROOKED LANE GOING BACK TOWARDS KIMBALL. I BELIEVE THE TIMING OF WHEN THOSE WERE PLATED AND IF SOMEONE WANTED TO TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD A SIDEWALK AS PART OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE HOMES JUST BECAUSE OF WHEN IT WAS PLATTED, IF IT WERE REDEVELOPED INTO ANOTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD WARRANT COMPLETION OF A SIDEWALK SECTION WITH THAT REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. BUT ABSENT OF THAT, IT WOULD BE A CITY PROJECT TO COMPLETE ANYTHING BUT BACK TO KIMBELL. OK, YEAH, I ASSUME YOU WEREN'T GOING TO TELL ME THAT THAT WILL GET DONE TOMORROW EITHER. BUT BUT NO, IT'S GOOD TO KNOW IT'S ON THE LONG TERM PLAN. I THINK THAT THAT'S THAT'LL BE NICE TO ONE DAY GET DONE LAST QUESTION FROM ME. IT LOOKED LIKE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, AS YOU WERE SAYING, THERE'S NO VARIANCES OR ANYTHING RELATED TO ANY OF THAT. I MEAN, IT'S GOT A LOT OF ARTICULATIONS AND MATERIALS. I WILL POINT OUT THAT WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE HOUSE BILL THAT LIMITED THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DICTATE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THE BUILDING BE FULLY ARTICULATED OR FULLY COMPLY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT DO IMPACT, I BELIEVE, ALL THREE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE ON THE PROPERTY. AND SO THE DIFFERENCES THAT LIE THERE ARE THE DEGREE OF ARTICULATION THAT'S GIVEN BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY. I BELIEVE THESE WOULD BE ABOUT A TWO FOOT OFFSET MINIMUM AND THESE ARE ALL ABOUT ONE FOOT. AND THEN THE USE OF THE PAINTED TILT WALL UNDER OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED. BUT LIKE I SAID, GIVEN THE PREEMPTION UNDER STATE LAW, WE WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT OF THE OK. SO TO THE EXTENT WE'RE ABLE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING THE BEST PRODUCT THAT WE CAN. SO. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ONE? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU, DENNIS. GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP ON THIS ITEM IF YOU DON'T MIND. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS. DREW D. WITH CLAY MOORE, ENGINEERING 1903 CENTRAL DRIVE, BEDFORD, TEXAS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS. I DON'T HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH THE PROJECT, SO I WAS CURIOUS ON PHASE ONE WHEN THAT'LL START AND THEN. WILL PHASE TWO GO NEAR BEHIND IT, AND IT WILL IT BE SPECULATIVE OR HOW ARE YOU LOOKING AT THAT? I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S SPECULATIVE. PHASE ONE, HOPEFULLY, FINGERS CROSSED WE'RE IN THE FINAL REVIEWS WITH ENGINEERING AND THE CITY STAFF. SO CONSTRUCTION I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, IS IMMINENT ON PHASE ONE AND THEN PHASE TWO WOULD BE FOLLOWING RIGHT AFTER THAT. OK OTHER QUESTIONS? SO YOU SAID THESE ARE NOT SPEC BUILDINGS, THAT THEY'RE GMI IS GOING TO USE THEM. I CAN'T SAY WITH 100 PERCENT CERTAINTY ON PHASE TWO, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THEIR HEADQUARTERS IS IN PHASE ONE AND THEIR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AS WELL. THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NOTHING HAD CHANGED. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS I MIGHT ASK DENNIS? DO YOU MIND TURNING THE PRESENTATION TO THE TREE PRESERVATION SLIDE? YES. CAN YOU JUST TALK THROUGH REALLY QUICKLY FOR ME ALONG SHADY RIGHT THERE, THE GREEN KIND OF KIND OF THE THIN LINE OF GREEN THERE, I GUESS. HOW DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT PLAYING OUT IN TERMS OF TREE PRESERVATION AND POTENTIALLY FOR THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, COULD YOU MAYBE PRODUCE AN ELEVATION OR SOMETHING THAT KIND OF VISUALIZES HOW THAT WILL LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN AN IMPROVED FORM CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION? YEAH, I THINK THE COLOR MAKES IT LOOK WORSE THAN IT IS. [01:10:01] BUT THE INTENT IS THAT WE WOULD BE PRESERVING ALMOST TWENTY SIX PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY ON SITE AND PREDOMINANTLY AROUND THAT CROOKED LANE, WHICH WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY ON THAT LONGEST SIDE. SO THE INTENT WOULD BE TO CREATE A LARGE GREEN SPACE THERE TO PRESERVE THOSE EXISTING TREES. AND WE'VE ALSO I BELIEVE WE'VE PROVIDED A LARGER LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAN THE CODE REQUIRES. SO THERE WERE SOME CONCESSIONS, I BELIEVE, THAT WERE MADE WITH THE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THAT CONCEPT PLAN. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO HAVE THE DETENTION POND DOWN THERE. SO JUST THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THAT, SOME OF THOSE TREES HAD TO BE REMOVED, BUT IT'S COMING BACK WITH AN OPEN GREEN SPACE IN THAT CORNER. SO THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE PLEASING TO LOOK AT. BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK AT POSSIBLY A RENDERING OR A VISUAL AND BRING BRING THAT OR I THINK TO TRY TO BRING THAT TO COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I THINK ESPECIALLY THAT KIND OF A THIN STRIP UP CLOSE TO VILLAGE CENTER. I MEAN, I GUESS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE WAY THAT A LAYOUT. RIGHT, YOU'LL HAVE THE STREET, YOU'LL HAVE A SIDEWALK, YOU'LL HAVE A STRIP OF LAND, MAYBE YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE DIMENSIONS BETTER, MAYBE 15 FEET PLUS OR MINUS 15 OR 20. I BELIEVE THEY WILL HAVE THE TREE PRESERVATION WITHIN IT. THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE PARKING OR ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL WHAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, I GUESS, ADDITIONS TO THAT. AND THEN MAYBE JUST KIND OF ANYTHING THAT HELPS BETTER VISUALIZE THE WAY THAT WILL LOOK. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE KEY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE. I KNOW RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THERE'S MORE THE COMMERCIAL, BUT IT'S MORE THE FEEL. YOU KNOW, I'VE TRIED TRYING TO PRESERVE THE FEEL I THINK IS THE IMPORTANT. WE'D BE HAPPY TO STUDY THAT. OK. YEAH, I'D ASK FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW. IF WE NEED YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK. ITEM NUMBER 15 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING FOR ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND SEEING NO ONE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT OR IN GENERAL OR DELIBERATIONS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION HERE? OK, UM, MR. VICE CHAIR, IF YOU THINK YOU'RE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO ENTERTAIN. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 15 ON OUR AGENDA, ZA21-0018 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST. 2021. AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER THREE DATED, APRIL 1ST. 2021, SPECIFICALLY NOTING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED AND ALSO NOTING THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO BRING RENDERINGS AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD HELP WITH RESPECT TO THE VIEWS ALONG THE TREE PRESERVATION CORRIDOR. OK, WE'VE GOT A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND, LETS GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE, AND PASSED 7-0. CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK WITH THOSE CAVEATS AT THE NEXT LEVEL. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO OUR FINAL AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING THAT SEEMS TO HAVE [8. Consider: Ordinance No. 480-780, (ZA21-0007), Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mustang Business Park on property described as Tract 1B3, Harrison Decker Survey, Abstract No. 438, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 1800 S.H. 26, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "1-1" Light Industrial District. Requested Zoning: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING ] STILL A HEALTHY GALLERY TO IT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, GETTING THROUGH EVERYTHING AND YOUR CONFIDENCE. WE GET THERE IN A TIMELY MANNER. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS A ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR MUSTANG BUSINESS PARK. I THINK OUR SECOND GO AROUND ON THIS ONE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF ON THIS ITEM. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND. WE'LL GIVE YOU A MINUTE TO COOL OUT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU MENTIONED, MS. CHAIRMAN, THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT YOUR LAST MEETING. THE REQUEST IS FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE, A SITE PLAN FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SP1 DETAILED PLAN FOR THREE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSES TOTALING POSSIBLY 340000 SQUARE FEET ON 26 ACRES. PROPERTIES LOCATED THAT ADDRESS 1800 STATE HIGHWAY 26. THE PROPERTY IS LAND USED FOR INDUSTRIAL. IT ALSO CURRENTLY HAS I1 ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. AS DISCUSSED LAST TIME, THE PROPERTIES ACCESS FROM HIGHWAY 26 FROM THE SOUTH [01:15:03] VIA MUSTANG CORP.. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. AND A COUPLE OF STREET VIEWS, THEY WERE PRESENTED AT YOUR LAST MEETING. I'LL JUST QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THESE. THIS IS A SITE PLAN COMPARISON, AND IN THE PRESENTATION, I'LL GO OVER MORE DETAILS, BUT JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL AND WE'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS ON THE CHANGES. SINCE YOUR LAST CONSIDERATIONS ITEM, THE BUILDING HEIGHTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED, INITIALLY PROPOSED AT 36 CLEAR. NOW IT'S REDUCED TO 32 CLEAR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 40 FEET. THE OFFICE SPACE PROPOSAL IS REDUCED FROM 15 PERCENT TO 6 PERCENT. THAT ALLOWED SOME OF THE PARKING REDUCTION TO TAKE PLACE. YOU'LL SEE THAT UP ON THE NORTHERN PART ON THE SITE PLAN DATED APRIL 8TH. THAT ROAD PARKING TO THE NORTH ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE LANDSCAPE HAS BEEN ENHANCED ON THAT NORTH SIDE. THE THE NEW PLAN, AS MENTIONED, HAS ONE ROLL OF PARKING THAT IS JUST ON NOW ON THE SOUTH DRIVE VERSUS TWO. ALSO, SOME ADDITIONAL ROWS OF CANOPY TREES AND LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THAT NORTH SIDE AS WELL AS A BERM. AND THE APPLICANT WILL GO OVER THAT IN DETAIL DURING THEIR PRESENTATION. ALSO, THERE WAS A MODIFICATION TO THE EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE TO THE NORTH SHOWN AT THIS LOCATION IN TERMS OF DESIGN. WE'LL GO OVER THAT. AND THEN THERE'S SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERNAL DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENT, WHICH HAS INCREASED SOME FUNCTIONAL STACKING CAPACITY ON THE INTERNAL. THIS DRIVE HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE WEST. AND ANY VEHICLES THAT ARE TRAVELING TO THE BUILDING IDENTIFIED AS BUILDING NUMBER THREE, WILL INCREASE THEIR STACKING INTERNALLY INTO THAT LEFT HAND TURN MOVEMENT IS MADE. IN ADDITION, THERE WAS A VARIANCE FOR A SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH WESTERN STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED THAT VARIANCE REQUEST AND A SIDEWALK WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE. AS MENTIONED, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT HAS BEEN DECREASED FROM YOUR PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION, THE REQUEST IN THE SP1 REGULATIONS WAS AT 45 FEET THAT HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 40 FEET, WHICH WILL REDUCE SOME OF THE SITE LINES. IT ALSO REDUCED THE CLEAR HEIGHT OF THE CEILING SLIGHTLY FROM 36 FEET TO ABOUT 32 FEET. THERE IS STILL ONE VARIANCE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED IN TERMS OF THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE. BECAUSE OF THE THE LIGHT CONFIGURATION, THERE IS A ZERO DEPTH IN THE STACKING DEPTH THAT IS A FUNCTIONAL STACKING THAT IS PROVIDED ABOUT 60 FEET. BUT THAT IS TECHNICALLY STILL A VARIANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION. SO JUST TO GO INTO SOME DETAILS ON YOUR ISSUES AND CONCERNS AT YOUR FEBRUARY 25TH MEETING, THIS CHART TRIES TO CAPSULIZED THOSE CONCERNS. THE COMMISSION HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE BUILDING HEIGHTS ASKED THE APPLICANT TO REDUCE THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS. AS MENTIONED, THE SP1 REGULATION WAS REDUCED FROM 45 TO 40. THE BUILDING HEIGHTS NOW RANGE AROUND 39 FEET, APPROXIMATELY IN HEIGHT. SOME OF THE TOWER ELEMENTS MAY EXTEND TO THAT. 39 FEET ELIMINATE THE PARKING ROW ALONG THE NORTH DRIVEWAY. THE PARKING THAT NORTH PARKING AISLE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE REASON THAT COULD BE REDUCED AND STILL MEET THE PARKING CODE IS THAT THE ALLOCATION OFFICE HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 15 PERCENT TO 6 PERCENT OF THE FLOOR AREA. THE OFFICE PARKS AT A HIGHER RATIO THAN THE WAREHOUSE PARKING RATIOS, AS SUCH, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO REDUCE THOSE PARKING SPACES. 70 PARKING SPACES HAVE HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PREVIOUS PLAN, SO THERE'S A REDUCTION FROM 462 TO 392 PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. AGAIN, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, SOME ADDITIONAL CANOPY TREES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. [01:20:01] A BERM HAS PROVIDED IN THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. THERE IS A CROSS SECTION SHOWING THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE THAT THE APPLICANT GO OVER FROM THE SITE AND THEN THE ELEVATION TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO LOOKING AT A VARIETY, MORE OF A MIX OF EVERGREEN TREES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A MORE PERMANENT BUFFER YEAR AROUND VERSUS LESSENING THE EXTENT OF THE DECIDUOUS TREES ALONG THAT BUFFER YARD. AND THEY'LL BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THAT. CONSIDER LOCATING THE SOUTH DRIVEWAY CLOSER TO BUILDING THREE AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS MOVED INTO A WESTERLY DIRECTION. PROVIDE AN OPAQUE GATE AT THE EMERGENCY ACCESS END OF [INAUDIBLE] COURT A AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WHICH MATCHES THE THE FENCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. AND WE'LL GO OVER THAT. CONSIDER ACCESS TO BRUMLOW AS DISCUSSED, THE CITY DOES OWNS THAT PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST AND WILL UTILIZE THAT PROPERTY POTENTIALLY FOR ITS PUBLIC WORKS OPERATION CENTER. WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS IF THIS SITE OR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED, WE WOULD LIKE TO TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS FOR OUR PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLES IN CASE OF AN INCIDENT ON BRUMLOW THAT WE COULD GET OUR OUR VEHICLES OUT 226. SO NO MATTER HOW THIS CASE DEVELOPS, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY PURSUES AS EMERGENCY ACCESS BACK TO THE EAST TO ALLOW. IF WE USE THAT PARTICULARLY AS AN OFF SITE TO PROVIDE ACCESS BACK OUT, PROVIDE A TIA THAT ADDRESSES THE LEE ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS. A REVIEW OF CIA AND LEE ENGINEERING REVIEW HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND IS IS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION. YOU WERE SENT THE LATEST VERSION IN OUR EMAIL TRANSMITTAL EARLIER THIS WEEK, AND YOU DO HAVE THAT. ALSO, THE SENIOR ENGINEER WITH LEE ENGINEERING, JOHN DENHOLM, IS HERE AND HE HAS A FEW COMMENTS ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY FOLLOWING MY PRESENTATION. AND WE'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY ANY TRAFFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AND THEN PROVIDE A SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTH-WESTERN STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED THAT VARIANCE AND PROVIDED THAT SIDEWALK. SO, AGAIN, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN REVISIONS THAT YOU'LL BE CONSIDERING THAT WERE CONSIDERED AT THE 25TH MEETING AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS THE SAFE PLAN THAT YOU'LL BE CONSIDERING THIS EVENING. JUST AN ENLARGED VERSION OF THE SITE PLAN. SO THESE ARE THE PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS IN THE BUILDING HEIGHTS, AND I JUST QUICKLY GO THROUGH THROUGH THIS, THE MATERIALS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS, BUT THE BUILDING HEIGHTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED. YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING HEIGHTS ON FEBRUARY 25TH, ELEVATIONS ROUGHLY 40 FEET, 42, 40 AND 39. THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN REDUCED UNDER 40 FEET IN HEIGHT. BUILDING TWO, AND THEN BUILDING THREE, THESE ARE SOME PERSPECTIVES THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TO THE STAFF SHOWING A VIEW AT THE ENTRANCE. AND THESE ARE SOME SIGHTLINES FROM THE NORTH THAT PRESENTED LOOKING SOUTH AT YOUR MEETING ON THE 25TH. THIS DOES INCORPORATE THE FENCE AND DOES SHOW THE ENHANCED BUFFER AREA. LOOKING BACK TO THE SOUTH. THE INSET, IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND IS THE CROSS SECTION, WHICH IS IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. AND THEY'LL PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAILS ON THE ELEVATION CHANGE IN SOME OF THE PROPOSALS FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THAT NORTH SIDE. UP ON THE UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY GATE, WHICH WILL BE MORE OF A MATCH TO THE FENCE THAT IS PROPOSED. SINCE THE LAST MEETING, STAFF HAS HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE FIRE MARSHAL ON HOW THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS WOULD OPERATE, ACCORDING TO THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE FIRE CHIEF, THAT ANY RESPONSE, EMERGENCY RESPONSE WOULD BE FROM 26. SO IF A CALL RECEIVED, THEY WOULD STILL ACCESS THE PROPERTY VIA MUSTANG. THIS WOULD NOT BE USED ANY TIME THERE'S AN EMERGENCY CALL ON THE SITE. ONLY TIME THAT IT WOULD BE USED WOULD BE IF THERE WAS A SERIOUS FIRE ON THE SITE OR [01:25:05] MAYBE A FIRE THAT WAS ON THE ADJACENT TANK FARMS THAT COULD BE USED. IF APPROVED, THERE WILL BE PERIODICALLY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL CHECK THE EMERGENCY ACCESS THEY HAVE AN OPTICON OR A KNOX BOX SYSTEM WHICH ALLOWS IT TO BE OPEN BEFORE THE FIRE TRUCK ARRIVES. AND IT'D ONLY BE USED IN THOSE THOSE CASES WHERE THERE'S A MAJOR INCIDENT ON THE ON THE SITE. OTHER TIMES THAT IT MAY BE USED, IF THERE'S ANY INCIDENT ON 26 OR THE RAIL CROSSING IN ORDER TO EVACUATE THE SITE, IT COULD BE UTILIZED ALSO AT THAT TIME TO EVACUATE THE SITE IF ACCESS BACK TO 26 IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO SOME TYPE OF ACCIDENT THAT WOULD OCCUR. AS MENTIONED, THE CITY DOES ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST AND, YOU KNOW, ONCE THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, WE'LL BE EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE WEST, WHICH, OF COURSE, THESE PROPERTIES COULD ALSO UTILIZE. AND SO THERE COULD BE A FUTURE DATE, A MORE OF A PRIMARY EMERGENCY ACCESS BACK TO BRUMLOW. BUT WITH THE TIMING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY'S PROPERTY, THE TIMING MAY NOT LINE UP. AND THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS ASKED FOR A SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS AS PART OF THE SAFE PLAN PROPOSAL. A COUPLE OF STREET VIEWS LOOKING TO THE SOUTH. FROM TIMBERLINE AND WOODSEY, THIS WAS YOUR TREE CONSERVATION PLAN. DUE TO THE RECONFIGURATION, THE SITE, THAT TREE PRESERVATION HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 27 PERCENT. IT WAS A TWENTY ONE AT YOUR LAST MEETING. MOST OF THE GAIN IS TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THIS IS A MUSTANG NORTH IS TO THE LEFT ON THIS EXHIBIT. THIS IS THE PREVIOUS OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND THIS IS THE NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN ON THE LEFT PORTION OF THE SLIDE, AGAIN, NORTH IS TO YOUR LEFT. THIS IS THE ENHANCED [INAUDIBLE] ADDITION OF LANDSCAPING ADDITIONS OF CANOPY TYPE TREES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED AND THE APPLICANT WILL GO OVER THAT IN MORE DETAIL. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. YOU DO HAVE A COUPLE OF TIAS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK TIMELINE, THE INITIAL TIA, THE KIMLEY-HORN TIA THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT WAS PRESENTED FEBRUARY 1ST, '21. SECOND COMMENTS FROM CITY WERE IN LEE ENGINEERING WILL RETURN FEBRUARY 25TH. THE TIA WAS UPDATED AND RESUBMITTED MARCH 17TH. THE CITY COMMENTS BY LEE ENGINEERING WERE RECEIVED MARCH 26. MAGELLAN, THE NUSTAR, THE MAGELLAN TIA FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WAS RECEIVED IN LATE MARCH. WE HAVE ALSO ADDRESSED THAT PARTICULAR TIA WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THEN LEE ENGINEERING PROVIDED SOME FINAL COMMENTS. AND AGAIN, LEE ENGINEERING IS HERE THIS EVENING TO SUMMARIZE THOSE COMMENTS FOR THE COMMISSION AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. SO THIS IS THE KIMLEY-HORN STUDY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU, THE SUMMARY OF THAT PARTICULAR STUDY, SOME OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT FROM A STAFF WHEN WE REVIEW IT IS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT'S PROVIDE AT THE INTERSECTION. THE KIMLEY-HORN STUDIES BOTH THE MUSTANG SOUTHWESTERN INTERSECTION AND THE TWENTY SIX INTERSECTION. AND SO YOU HAVE BOTH THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR BOTH THE INTERSECTIONS DURING THE PEAK WEEKDAYS HOURS, WHICH MOST TRAFFIC WE GENERATE AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS AT THAT TIME. AND THE LETTERS THAT YOU SEE TRANSLATE TO DELAY TIMES. IT'S NOT REALLY LIKE A GRADING SCALE, BUT AS YOU GET INTO THE E AND F, YOUR DELAY TIMES [01:30:01] WILL BE HIGHER. SOME OF YOUR DELAY TIMES AT THE TWENTY SIX MUSTANG INTERSECTION ARE A FUNCTION OF DURING THE PEAK TIMES, WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, MUCH LIKE 1709 IS YOU WANT TO MOVE TRAFFIC ALONG THOSE MAJOR ARTERIALS. SO THEY'RE PUSHING TRAFFIC AND THOSE SIGNALS ARE TIMED SUCH TO PUSH AS MUCH TRAFFIC THROUGH AS POSSIBLE DURING THIS PEAK HOUR. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME LOWER LEVEL SERVICE JUST BASED ON THE SIGNAL TIMING THAT'S OCCURRING AT THAT INTERSECTION. BUT THE INTERSECTION AT SOUTHWESTERN AND MUSTANG ARE OPERATING AT A VERY HIGH AB LEVEL SERVICE COMPARED ACCORDING TO THE KIMLEY-HORN TRAFFIC STUDY. THE SUMMARY FROM THAT STUDY IS THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ACCESS THE INTERSECTION, MUSTANG AND SOUTHWESTERN DO NOT MEET AND ALWAYS STOP CONTROL. PART OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS TO LOOK AT A FOUR WAY STOP AT THIS LOCATION. AND I'LL ASK OUR CONSULTANT TO ADDRESS THAT. AND THE KIMLEY-HORN STUDY, THE APPLICANT STUDY ALSO INDICATES THEY DO NOT EXPECT ANY CUES DEVELOPING ON THE PROPERTY, BOTH PEAK HOURS THAT VEHICLES ENTERING PROPERTIES LESS THAN ONE PER MINUTE AND THE RATE OF THE VEHICLES EXITING THE PROPERTY IS LIKEWISE LESS THAN ONE PER MINUTE. NOW, WHEN YOU DO THE STUDIES, OF COURSE, IT ALL DEPENDS EVENTUALLY ON WHAT TYPE OF USE OCCUPIES THOSE FACILITIES. DIFFERENT USES DRIVE MORE TRAFFIC. SO THIS IS BEST GUESS ON STANDARDS THAT ARE PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL AND BUT FUNCTIONALLY ON THE GROUND, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT EVENTUALLY OCCUPIES THAT BUILDING ON WHAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT EVENTUALLY IS. AND, REAL QUICK BACK ON THAT, WHEN IT SAYS 2-WAY STOP, CAN YOU MAYBE USE THE MOUSE TO SHOW THEORETICALLY WHERE THOSE TWO STOP SIGNS WOULD BE AND WHAT WHERE THEY WOULD BE STOPPING TRAFFIC? YES, SIR. MAYBE I'LL COME BACK TO THIS ONE HERE, IT MAY HELP. WOULD BE THIS LOCATION AND THIS LOCATION AND THIS WOULD ALLOW TO BE ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY FREE FLOW, BECAUSE THE CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A STOP SIGN IS THE TRAFFIC KIND OF GOES NORTHWEST ON MUSTANG COURT. IT COULD QUEUE BACK TOWARD THE RAILROAD TRACKS OR TWENTY SIX OR. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WITH A FOUR ALL-WAY STOP THE DELAY TIMES WOULD BE MINIMAL AND WE WOULDN'T EXPECT IT TO COME BACK TO THE RAIL LINE. THE TANKER TRUCKS BY STATE LAW HAVE TO STOP AT THE RAILROAD BEFORE CROSSING. AND SO, THE STUDY DOESN'T INDICATE STACKING BACK, BUT THERE WOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL DELAY. THE CONCERN IS, OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN [INAUDIBLE] STACKING BACK TO THE RAILROAD TRACK, WHICH IS ABOUT 270 FEET FROM THAT STOP BAR, IF IT WERE TO BE PUT IN PLACE. IN ADDITION, ON 26TH, THERE IS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT STACKING LANE, A RIGHT HAND TURN LANE, WHICH DOES PROVIDE SOME FUNCTIONAL STACKING SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACK. BUT I'LL LET THE PROFESSIONAL ADDRESS THAT AND GIVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT THEY FEEL IS BEST FOR THE CITY. AS MENTIONED, THERE'S A ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. AND JUST A SUMMARY OF THAT IS THE PROPOSED NEW DRIVE INTERSECTION SHOULD BE MOVED NORTH TO CREATE ADDITIONAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS. AT A MINIMUM, THE SOUTH DRIVE SHOULD BE RELOCATED AS SHOWN IN FIGURE ONE, WHICH YOU SEE ON THIS, WHICH BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, THERE HAS BEEN SOME RECONFIGURATION THAT DRIVES A FOUR STOP CONTROL IS RECOMMENDED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MUSTANG COURT AND SOUTHWESTERN STREET. AND THEN A SECONDARY PUBLIC ROAD ACCESS SHOULD BE INCLUDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE LETTER FROM THE ENGINEERING PROVIDING THEIR OPINION. AND IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE, MR. CHAIRMAN, MAYBE I CAN HAVE MR. DENHOLM, WHO'S AN ENGINEER, COME UP AND MAYBE ADDRESS SOME OF THESE WHILE WE'RE ON THESE SLIDES. YEAH, THAT'LL BE GOOD. [01:35:09] THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. JOHN DENHOLM WITH LEE ENGINEERING. JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT SHORT. THE STUDY AS A WHOLE THAT WAS PERFORMED BY THE APPLICANT, BY KIMLEY-HORN. IT MEETS INDUSTRY STANDARDS. IT'S DONE PROPERLY. FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, IT DOESN'T INDICATE ANY ISSUES THAT WOULD BE OF CONCERN. THE OPERATIONS AT THE SIGNAL AT MUSTANG AND STATE HIGHWAY 26, THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY FOR POTENTIAL ISSUES. MOST LIKELY AS THE SITE DEVELOPS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES INCREASE, IT'LL PROBABLY REQUIRE SOME RETIMING, SOME COORDINATION WITH GRAPEVINE. THE TIA INDICATES THE GRAPEVINE ACTUALLY CURRENTLY HAS A RETIMING PROJECT UNDERWAY. SO THERE SHOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO ADJUST THE PHASE TIME THERE ON MUSTANG WITH RESPECT TO THE TRUCKS HAVING TO STOP AT THE RAIL CROSSING WHEN THEY'RE EXITING ON TO STATE HIGHWAY TWENTY SIX. SO WHEN YOU'RE EASTBOUND, THE WAY THE DETECTION WORKS AT THAT INTERSECTION IS THAT IT IS PROGRAMED SO THAT IT'S LOOKING FURTHER BACK TO SEE IF THERE ARE VEHICLES WAITING IN ADVANCE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. AND SO AS ONE TRUCK GOES, IF THERE'S ANOTHER TRUCK WAITING THAT HAS TO COME TO A STOP, THE DETECTION CAN DETERMINE THAT THERE'S STILL VEHICLES THERE AND IT CAN PROVIDE LONGER GREEN TIME FOR THAT. AND AGAIN, ALL THAT CAN BE ADJUSTED AS THE SITE DEVELOPS THE FOUR WAY STOP QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO MUSTANG COURT AND SOUTHWESTERN, IN GENERAL, ANY TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLE IS TO TRY TO PROVIDE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CONTROL NECESSARY. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE TWO WAY STOPS INSTEAD OF FOUR WAY STOPS. IN THIS INSTANCE, I THINK WE'RE BETTER OFF TRYING THE TWO WAY STOP FIRST, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS WITH WHETHER OR NOT A VEHICLE MIGHT COME BACK TOWARDS THE RAILROAD TRACK. AND IF OPERATIONAL ISSUES DEVELOP, WHICH ARE UNLIKELY GIVEN THE OPERATIONS PREDICTED IN THE TIRE, THEN THE CITY COULD LOOK AT A FOUR WAY STOP AT THAT POINT. BUT FROM THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE TIA, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A NEED FOR A SECONDARY ACCESS OR STRONGER CONTROL. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS ON TRAFFIC, AT LEAST FOR NOW? CAN ALWAYS CALL BACK IF WE NEED TO. YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT GRAPEVINE WORKING ON THE TIMING OF THE TRAFFIC. WHAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT DECISION? I MEAN, HOW THEY HANDLE THIS INTERSECTION IN THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THIS TRACK, WHICH IS SOUTHLAKE LAND, THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ALL THAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMING OF EGRESS THERE. RIGHT. SO, HOPEFULLY, GRAPEVINE WILL BE NEIGHBORLY. GENERALLY, THEY CONTROL ALL THE SIGNALS ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 26. IT'S IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST TO NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION ON YOUR CROSS STREETS, WHETHER THEY'RE SERVING SOUTHLAKE RESIDENTS OR GRAPEVINE RESIDENTS, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STAFF, THEY TRY TO MINIMIZE DELAY, AS MR. BAKER PRESENTED IN HIS PRESENTATION, STATE HIGHWAY 26 IS OPERATED MUCH LIKE 1709, IN THAT IT'S A COORDINATED SYSTEM WHERE A PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO THE THROUGH TRAFFIC ALONG THE MAJOR STATE HIGHWAY. SO THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME DELAY. YOU RARELY WOULD SEE LEVEL OF SERVICE A OR B CONDITIONS ON A CROSS STREET WHEN IT IS INTERSECTING A MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAY LIKE THAT. BUT THERE SHOULD BE SOME OPPORTUNITY AS THEY RETIME IT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GREEN TIME, ADJUST DETECTION SETTINGS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE TO PROVIDE BETTER OPERATIONS ON THE CROSS STREET. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I GUESS, EITHER FOR ON TRAFFIC OR EITHER FOR CITY STAFF ON THAT PRESENTATION, I GUESS ANYTHING ELSE FOR NOW? OK, KEN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. YES, JUST ONE ONE OTHER SLIDE. THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSES THAT WE RECEIVED AN EXHIBIT SHOWING THAT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS NOW? KEN, COULD YOU GO BACK AND SHOW US ON THAT, THE DRAWING OF THE SITE PLAN WHERE THE CITY OWNS THE PROPERTY YOU'RE SPEAKING OF? YEAH, I CAN, ACTUALLY... YEAH, THAT SLIDE RIGHT THERE. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHERE THE CITY OWNS PROPERTY TO THE WEST. RIGHT NOW, THE CITY'S STUDYING WHAT THAT USE IS GOING TO BE, BUT MUCH LIKE [01:40:09] ANY APPLICANT, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE COURT OR COMMITTEE, THE SPEND PROCESS, THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS, THE LEGAL NOTIFICATIONS. YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY AND IT'S KNOWN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE A RELOCATION OF OUR OPS CENTER, WHICH IS ON CONTINENTAL, BECAUSE AS WE'RE GROWING AS A CITY, MORE EQUIPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS. AS MENTIONED, OUR ACCESS IS SHOWN HERE. BUT AS THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPS, NO MATTER HOW THIS DEVELOPS, WE'LL BE PURSUING A EMERGENCY ACCESS. BECAUSE IF THERE WAS AN INCIDENT HERE, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS FOR OUR VEHICLES AND OUR EQUIPMENT TO GET OUT, WHICH WOULD BE TO THE EAST. YOU KNOW, WE COULD ALSO EXPLORE MAYBE SOME OTHER OPTIONS. BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT POTENTIAL EMERGENCY ACCESS POINTS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE. OK, THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OK, THANK YOU, KEN. GOOD DETAILED PRESENTATION. NOW, I SUPPOSE THAT WE HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE. I GUESS I'D ASK A FEW THINGS. ONE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO THE OTHER APPLICANTS AND THEN TWO, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP THIS MOVING ALONG. I GUESS I'D SAY PLEASE FOCUS ON WHAT'S CHANGED, HOW YOU'VE ADDRESSED NOT KIND OF REPRESENT THE DEAL OVER AGAIN. SO, TRY TO FOCUS ON THOSE DIFFERENCES. NO. YEAH, I THINK THE MICROPHONE MUST BE OFF. UM, TRY IT AGAIN. TEST YEP, THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. JASON B. WITH BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES. 2121 NORTH PEARL STREET IN DALLAS, TEXAS. THANK YOU, KEN, MR. BAKER, THAT WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. SOME OF THIS CONTENT YOU'RE ABOUT TO SEE IS A DUPLICATE OF WHAT MR. BAKER JUST PRESENTED. SO I'LL KEEP TIME IN THE BACK OF MY MIND AS I GO THROUGH THIS. WE LISTENED, WE HEARD YOU. THE CHALLENGES THAT WERE BROUGHT FORWARD EITHER BY THE COMMISSION OR OUR VARIOUS NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY REALLY BOILS DOWN TO SIGHTLINES, NOISE, FUMES AND LIGHT FROM TRUCKS AND CARS, THE SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY TO THE NORTH, TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND STACKING AND, OF COURSE, TREE HEIGHTS. TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, THERE'S REALLY IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO FOUR MAIN SITE PLAN CHANGES, FIRST ONE BEING REDUCING THE BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM THIRTY SIX FOOT CLEAR, TO THIRTY TWO FOOT CLEAR, REDUCING THE OFFICE SPACE FROM 15 PERCENT TO 6 PERCENT. SECOND ONE BEING ELIMINATE THAT NORTH ROLL PARKING, WHICH CREATED SPACE, ALLOWING US TO ADD A LANDSCAPE BERM AND MORE TREES, A THIRD ONE BEING MODIFIED [INAUDIBLE] REQUIRE NORTH EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE. SO THIS IS AS MR. BAKER WENT THROUGH THE GATE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE TEMPORARY AND THE FOURTH ONE BEING MODIFIED ROADWAYS AND STACKING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE PRETTY QUICK. JUST SHOWING THE REDUCTION IN OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT. MR. BAKER WENT THROUGH THESE IMAGES HERE, BUT REALLY, YOU'RE SEEING A REDUCTION IN THAT OVERALL BUILDING PLANE OR THAT ELEVATION OVERALL BECAUSE THE REDUCED BUILDING HEIGHT, SAME THING WITH THIS IMAGE FROM THE FROM THE ENTRY. OBVIOUSLY, THE BENEFITS WERE REDUCED FROM THIRTY SIX FOOT CLEAR TO THIRTY TWO FOOT CLEAR . IN THE LAST SESSION, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS. WELL REALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS A DIFFERENT TENANT. THE THIRTY TWO FOOT CLEAR BUILDING IS NOT ATTRACTING YOUR E-COMMERCE TYPE TENANT THAT WOULD TYPICALLY WANT TO SEE THE BIGGER HEIGHTS FOR MORE PRODUCT STORAGE, MORE THROUGHPUT. WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING HERE ARE TENANTS THAT ARE LOCAL, REGIONAL, THESE ARE YOUR YOUR TILE SUPPLY COMPANIES OR HVAC COMPANIES, PLUMBING COMPANIES, MATTRESS DISTRIBUTION MIDDLEMEN, IF YOU WILL. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE SLEEP NUMBER AT ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS AT DFW AIRPORT. THEY HAVE A NICE BIG SHOW SUITE OR SHOWROOM IN THE FRONT AND THEN A DISTRIBUTION PORTION TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. [01:45:01] THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING HERE. SO WHY 32 TO VERSUS 28 FEET CLEAR? WELL, TENANTS NOW ARE DEMANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE STORAGE JUST TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND WITHOUT RELYING ON SUPPLY CHAIN SO MUCH. WITH THE COVID PANDEMIC. THEY'VE REALLY EXPERIENCED HICCUPS IN SUPPLY CHAINS. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP A LITTLE BIT MORE PRODUCT IN THERE CONTROL AND THEIR FACILITIES. AND OF COURSE, WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE PRODUCT IN THEIR FACILITIES, THE AMOUNT OF INCOMING DELIVERIES WOULD BE REDUCED AS WELL. AND TO TOP THAT OFF, THE CONCENTRATED STANDARD WORKING HOURS FOR THESE TYPES OF TENANTS IS REALLY DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS, SORT OF SEVEN A.M. TO SEVEN OR EIGHT P.M. DURING THE DAY. WE DON'T EXPECT OR OFTEN SEE ANYTHING BEYOND THAT. AGAIN, MR. BAKER DID A GREAT JOB SHOWING THIS, BUT JUST TO REITERATE THE INITIAL SUBMISSION, THE TWO ROWS OF PARKING, ONE ROW OF ORNAMENTAL TREES, ONE ROW OF CANOPY TREES AND NO LANDSCAPE BERM COMPARED TO THE CURRENT SUBMISSION, WHICH WAS ONE ROW PARKING, TWO ROWS ORNAMENTAL ONE ROAD CANOPY AND A LANDSCAPE BERM. THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD IMAGE. I THINK IT REALLY SHOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE WITH THIS LANDSCAPE. SO THAT BERM IS ACTUALLY SIX FEET. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, YOU HAVE YOUR EIGHT FOOT FENCE. AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE PERSON STANDING BESIDE THAT, THE TOP IMAGE SHOWS YOUR INITIALLY PLANTED ROW OF CANOPY AND ORNAMENTALS, WHICH ARE ROUGHLY 16 FEET AT PLANTED STAGE. THE IMAGE AT THE BOTTOM IN WHITE SHOWS THE POTENTIAL GROWTH AFTER 10 YEARS, WHICH IS ROUGHLY TWENTY SIX FEET. JUST AN IMAGE SHOWING THE TYPES OF TREES, AGAIN, YOUR YOUR LIVE OAK IN THE TOP RIGHT AND YOUR RED CEDAR AT THE BOTTOM LEFT ARE BOTH GREEN YEAR-ROUND, SO WE WON'T HAVE ISSUES LESSENING THE APPEARANCE IN THE WINTERTIME. THE BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF THIS REVISED PLAN LESS TRAFFIC ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH IS LESS NOISE, LESS SITE LIGHTING, REDUCTION OF OFFICE SPACE PERCENTAGE, OBVIOUSLY LESS CARS ON THE NORTH SIDE, ADDITIONAL TREES ARE GOING TO PROTECT. IT'S GOING TO BE A SOUND DAMPENING REDUCE SIDE LIGHTING. AND AGAIN, TWO OF THE SELECTED TREES ARE GREEN YEAR-ROUND. SO UNDER THE THIRD PIECE, WHICH IS REALLY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM THE NORTH RESIDENTS WANTED TO CERTAINLY PUT FORWARD FOR WHATEVER WE COULD AND NEED THE FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL ON SUCH A FENCE AND GATE. BUT OUR INTENT HERE IS TO GO WITH A BULKIER WOOD FENCE WITH A MATCHING GATE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT'S SHOWN IN THE PICTURE, THUS PREVENTING BALLS, CHILDREN, WHATEVER GOING UNDER THE FENCE, THROUGH THE FENCE, OVER THE FENCE. AND AGAIN, THIS THIS COULD VERY WELL BE TEMPORARY IN NATURE WITH THE POTENTIAL WEST SITE GRANTING ACCESS. AND ALSO, HIGHER SECURITY EIGHT FOOT WOULD BE OUR MINIMUM, THAT'S THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED WITHOUT GOING FOR ANOTHER ORDINANCE ON THE TOPIC. I THINK I'LL BYPASS THE TRAFFIC. LEE ENGINEERING AND MR. BAKER DID A GREAT JOB SUMMARIZING SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WERE BOUNCING BETWEEN THE VARIOUS TIA REPORTS. THIS IMAGE IS REALLY SHOWING WITH THE CHANGES MADE, SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL TRUCK STACKING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE WRAPPING UP TO THE NORTH. ALSO BE NOTED THAT TRUCKS INBOUND HEADING WEST DON'T ACTUALLY MAKE THAT FIRST LEFT TURN. THEY GO TO THE NEXT LEFT TURN DOWN SOUTH. TYPICALLY, TRUCKS WANT TO ACCESS DOCKS IN A COUNTERCLOCKWISE MOTION. SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AGAIN. BENEFITS AND IMPACTS LESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LESS STACKING ON MUSTANG, BETTER TRAFFIC FLOW IN SOUTHWESTERN THAT WAS SHOWN PREVIOUSLY. AND THEN LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, WITH THE REDUCED RISK OF THE TRUCKS. I JUST WANTED TO WRAP UP AGAIN WITH ALL THE BENEFITS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY BRINGING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BRINGING TO THE AREA, BRINGING TO THE [01:50:01] CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. BROOKFIELD, SUSTAINABILITY IS CERTAINLY A PRIORITY FOR US; IT'S MANDATED FOR ALL OF OUR PROJECTS. IT'S GOING TO BE A LEED CERTIFIED BUILDING, WHICH REALLY MEANS LIGHT POLLUTION REDUCTION, REDUCTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, OF COURSE, A WHITE ROOF, SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT, ENERGY EFFICIENT SYSTEMS, WHICH ARE A MODEL AND COMMISSION AND FOLLOW THE CODE THAT WAY. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, LOW WATER CONSUMPTION WITH HIGH EFFICIENT FIXTURES AND LED LIGHTING. SO ALL BENEFITS TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU, SIR. OK, I GUESS WITH THAT, I MIGHT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS MYSELF, BUT I THINK I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY. UM, I GUESS WHAT I MIGHT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COMING BACK UP TO THE MICROPHONE REAL QUICK. I GUESS FIRST JUST CONFIRM AND I GUESS MAYBE KNOW SOME OF THE CHANGES YOU MADE CERTAINLY GO TOWARDS ADDRESSING SOME OF THE ITEMS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CHANGES YOU MADE ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE RELATIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT. JUST CONFIRMING, I GUESS, AFTER OUR PREVIOUS MEETING THAT YOU DID HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, OR CAN YOU KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THAT? YEAH, YOU BET. SO WE MADE A FEW ATTEMPTS, ACTUALLY, ONE ROUND OF PHONE CALLS. WE DIDN'T GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK OR RESULTS, NO CALLBACKS. SO THEN I ACTUALLY HAD DELIVERED SOME LETTERS OUTLINING SOME OF OUR PROPOSED CHANGES TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND FOLLOWED UP WITH ANOTHER ROUND OF PHONE CALLS THIS WEEK. OK, AND WHAT MATERIALS IS THE WALL OR THE FENCE MADE OUT OF? WE'RE LOOKING AT A WOOD FENCE, SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE BULKY. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A STANDARD WOOD GARDEN FENCE. MASONRY WAS ALSO A CONSIDERED OPTION, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S A WATER LINE AND AN EASEMENT, THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT JUST BECAUSE OF THE HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO THAT WATER LINE. BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD ELEMENTS TO BRIGHTEN IT UP. BUT IT WILL BE EIGHT FEET TALL? YES, SIR OK, GREAT. SO, I MEAN, I GUESS YOU'VE GOT THE FENCE, YOU'VE GOT THE BERM WHICH HELPS ALSO THE EXTRA LANDSCAPING. YOU'RE GOING ABOVE ORDINANCE FOR THAT. CORRECT. AND ON TOP OF THE BERM TO GIVE IT HEIGHT. WE'VE GOT THE SIX FEET OF BERM PLUS THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, EVERGREEN TREES. THE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING REMOVAL OF THE PARKING. SO THAT'S ALL KIND OF ABOVE-- IT'S STILL ABOUT A 100 FOOT SETBACK. OK, SO I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL IN TERMS OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, ADDRESSING CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. SOUNDS LIKE YOU YOU WERE HELPFUL IN TERMS OF THE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE WEST ON THE SITE. YOU ALSO REMOVED THE SIDEWALK VARIANTS, CORRECT. PROBABLY SOMETHING ELSE I'M FORGETTING HERE, BUT MAYBE IT'LL COME UP LATER. BUT OK, I THINK THAT ADDRESSES ANY OF THE COMMENTS I HAD AT THE MOMENT. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD SLIDE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OK, COMMISSIONER SPRINGER, I WAS WANTING TO KNOW WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LANDSCAPE, KEEPING THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WORKING, MAINTAINING THAT FENCE. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNER OR IS IT GOING TO BE THE TENANT? YEAH, THAT'S A BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY. OK, SO PROPERTY OWNER. YES, SIR. OKAY, BECAUSE I GUESS THE INTENT IS NOT AS OF NOW TO SUBDIVIDE, SELL OFF THESE BUILDINGS AND INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. IT'S TO MAINTAIN IT ALL AS ONE OWNERSHIP. CURRENTLY, YES. OK. UM, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION BUT IT WENT OUT OF MY HEAD. OH AND I GUESS JUST, I MEAN JUST NOTING IT MAYBE MORE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO TALK ABOUT LATER. I MEAN I SEE THERE'S STILL, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE ZONING, YOU'RE REQUESTING STILL IN EXCESS OF THE THIRTY FIVE FOOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION, BUT FROM FORTY FIVE DOWN TO FORTY. AND THEN THE SITE PLAN IS STILL A VARIANCE RELATED TO STACKING DEPTH, ALBEIT WE'VE KIND OF TALKED THROUGH. YEAH. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE ELEVATION OF THE FINISHED FLOOR IS ACTUALLY SET DOWN. [01:55:01] SO REGAINING SOME HEIGHT. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST SESSION, BUT THAT SITE LINE FROM THE NORTH THAT IT'S NOT REALLY THIRTY FIVE FEET FROM THEIR SAME ELEVATION, THEY'RE SET DOWN. OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? QUICK FOLLOW UP TO A STATEMENT I BELIEVE YOU MADE ABOUT NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS WOULD BE ANTICIPATED AT 7 AM TO 7 PM. IS THAT AS PART OF YOUR EFFORTS TO SECURE TENANTS FOR THIS SPACE? ARE YOU LAYING THAT OUT AS AN EXPECTATION OR IS THAT A HOPE? NO, THAT'S JUST WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. THAT'S PRETTY TYPICAL. THERE'S NO FORMAL RESTRICTION ON THAT, I SUPPOSE, AT THIS MOMENT. WELL, THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION OBVIOUSLY, YOU'VE ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND BY THE WAY, I THINK YOU'VE DONE A NICE JOB OF ADDRESSING AND LISTENING TO THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE PRIOR MEETING. BUT RESIDENTS, OBVIOUSLY, SPECIFICALLY THOSE TO THE NORTH, ARE GOING TO BE CONCERNED IF THERE'S TRAFFIC THAT IS AND I DON'T KNOW THE HOURS THAT A FOOD SERVICE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY MIGHT WORK, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD BE MORE APT TO WORK AT NIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE DELIVERING PRODUCT TO THEIR CUSTOMERS DURING THE DAY. SO PERHAPS THAT IMPACTS THE TYPE OF CUSTOMER YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AND I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO THAT OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT NOISE AND POLLUTION AND THOSE TYPES OF CONCERNS. SURE. AND AGAIN, TO ADDRESS THAT, THE LEED CERTIFICATION RESTRICTS LIGHT POLLUTION ON THE SITE AS WELL WITH THAT BERM AND FENCE. I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO PREVENT A LOT OF THAT LIGHT FROM GETTING ACROSS REGARDLESS, SO. AND OBVIOUSLY, I GUESS CLEARLY SUBJECT TO OUR CITY ORDINANCES AS WELL ON THOSE MATTERS, BUT YEAH, GOOD GOOD COMMENT. FOCUS ON ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION, SORRY TO DENNIS OR KEN. THE ONLY REASON FOR THE ZONING CHANGE IS THE CLEAR HEIGHT, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. OK, WE MIGHT INVITE YOU BACK, SO DON'T RUN OFF. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. I RECEIVED SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS. I'LL TRY TO CALL THOSE CARDS ONE AT A TIME HERE. AND JUST AS A HEADS UP, HOW ALL THIS TYPICALLY WORKS IS I'LL CALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS AND THEN I'LL JUST OPEN IT UP. EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T SUBMIT A CARD, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP. WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE LIMITATION PER SPEAKER AND MS. LYDIA WILL KEEP TRACK OF THAT. YOU'LL SEE SOME LITTLE LIGHTS UP HERE ON THE PODIUM. IT'LL BE GREEN, YELLOW, I THINK, AFTER MAYBE A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND IT'LL START BLINKING RED. ONCE YOU'VE GONE PAST THREE MINUTES, I'D ASK YOU PLEASE RESPECT THAT. SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M ALREADY GOING TO SLAUGHTER THE FIRST NAME I READ OFF HERE, AS USUAL. BUT THEY RESIDE AT TWELVE THIRTY TO TIMBERLINE COURT. [INAUDIBLE] WISHES TO LODGE OPPOSITION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK. JUST NOTING IT FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK CAN IF NOT, YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT IT NOTED FOR THE RECORD. OK, GOOD. OK, SO SHE'S HERE AND NOTING THAT SHE IS OPPOSED TO THE ITEM. WE ALSO HAVE ZACHARY [INAUDIBLE]. I'M SURE I MESSED THAT ONE UP AS WELL. TEN ZERO EIGHT ASPEN RIDGE DRIVE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM AND IN OPPOSITION. SO I GUESS SIR, IF THAT'S YOU, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN JUST IN CASE AND GO AND GET YOUR THREE MINUTES WORTH. YES, IT'S ZACHARY KATE ONE ZERO ZERO EIGHT ASPEN RIDGE DRIVE, SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS, 76092, AND I'M HERE IS REPRESENTATIVE OF NUSTAR ENERGY LP, AS WELL AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. AND JUST TO VOICE CONCERNS, PRIMARILY DEALING WITH THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ACTUAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPACT THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AND FINALLY, THE DISRUPTION IT'S GOING TO CAUSE TO THE EXISTING USE, PARTICULARLY BY NUSTAR AS WELL AS MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, WHICH WILL BE ADDRESSED BY MR. MIKE MCCANN, I BELIEVE, AS DID THE FIRST ISSUE. IT'S NOTED IN THE TIA THAT FIFTY ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE FOR GENERAL OFFICE USE. NOW, THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC PROJECTION MODEL USED CONSIDERS THIS TO BE [02:00:02] ENTIRELY WAREHOUSING. IF YOU ACTUALLY APPLY THE GENERAL OFFICE USE PROJECTIONS, YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT UPWARDS OF FIVE HUNDRED VEHICLES COMING IN OFF THAT ALONE EACH DAY, WHICH ACTUALLY ADDS UP TO IN EXCESS OF A THOUSAND TRIPS PER DAY COMING TO THE SITE OFF OF ONE ACCESS POINT. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE WHEN YOU THROW IN THE ROUGHLY TWO HUNDRED AND AT A MAXIMUM THREE HUNDRED FIELD TRUCKS BETWEEN NUSTAR AND MAGELLAN THAT USE THAT POINT EACH DAY, THAT IS GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THAT INTERSECTION. AND THIS GOES TO THE POINT OF PARTICULARLY SAFETY, BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT HUNDREDS OF VEHICLES IN THAT AREA. AND I BELIEVE, MR. BAKER ADDRESSED THE PARTICULAR ISSUES WITH HOW EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WOULD BE DEALT WITH, PARTICULARLY IN THE SITUATION OF A FIRE. WELL, IN SUCH A SITUATION, YOU COULD SEE THE POTENTIAL, DEPENDING ON HOW BAD IT IS FOR A MASS EXODUS, UP WOODSEY CT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHILE EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE THAT SAME ACCESS POINT TO GET TO THE DEVELOPMENT OR EVEN TO A MAGELLAN OR A NUSTAR PROPERTY. BY THE SAME TOKEN, ASSUMING THAT THE ACTUAL EXODUS GOES DOWN TO TWENTY SIX, YOU HAVE THE ISSUES WITH THE LIGHT RAIL AS WELL AS TRAFFIC COMING OFF TWENTY SIX, ALLOWING POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF VEHICLES TO BE TRYING TO EXIT AT THAT ONE EXIT POINT. SO THE SAFETY CONCERNS ARE THERE FROM NUSTAR'S POINT OF VIEW. BUT SECOND, THERE'S ALSO A CONCERN THAT NUSTAR AND MAGELLAN ARE GOING TO HAVE PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS TWO WAY STOP PLAN IN THAT ALLOWING ALL THE TRAFFIC TO BE RIGHT OF WAY GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CAUSE STACKING ISSUES ON THE SIDES OF THE WEST AND EASTBOUND ON THE STREET THERE AT MUSTANG COURT. PARTICULAR CONCERN OF NUSTAR WITH THIS REGARD IS THAT IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY AND OTHER LANDOWNERS, NUSTAR, IN TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE TERMINALS TO THE SOUTHEAST OF MUSTANG COURT. THE ISSUE AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THERE WAS STACKING CONCERNS WITH THE FUEL VEHICLES THAT WERE GOING INTO THE TERMINAL AND IN ORDER TO REMEDY THAT SITUATION, NUSTAR SPENT SIX POINT NINE MILLION DOLLARS UPGRADING THE INFRASTRUCTURE AT THAT SOUTH EAST TERMINAL, AS WELL AS INCREASING ACCESS TO THE NORTHWEST TERMINAL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY STATE COURT FOR TRAFFIC TO GO THAT WAY AS WELL. AND THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE DELAYS IS GOING TO BE CAUSED BY THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, ROUGHLY A THOUSAND VEHICLES PER DAY COMING THROUGH THERE IS GOING TO CAUSE ADDITIONAL DELAYS IN BEING ABLE TO GET FUEL TANKS THROUGH THAT SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST TERMINAL AND BACK OUT ONTO TWENTY SIX. IF THAT HAPPENS, NUSTAR ESSENTIALLY COULD HAVE SPENT SIX POINT NINE MILLION DOLLARS TRYING TO REMEDY A SITUATION THAT THE CITY AND OTHER NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS WANTED ONLY FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO CAUSE THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM. AND IN THAT CASE, THAT BECOMES NOT ONLY THE STACKING ISSUE, BUT A SAFETY ISSUE THAT NUSTAR MIGHT HAVE TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OF GETTING OUT OF THEIR TERMINAL. OK, AND IF I CAN ASK YOU TO WRAP YOUR COMMENTS UP HERE OVER FOUR MINUTES NOW, I APOLOGIZE, . I COMPLETELY MISSED THAT. WITH THAT, I FINISH MY COMMENT. OKAY, AND OBVIOUSLY, ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS ARE WELCOME TO KIND OF ADD ON TO YOUR POINTS. THANK YOU. NEXT COMMENT CARD I HAVE, WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, IS A STEVEN [INAUDIBLE], I BELIEVE. AND I THINK IT JUST SAYS AN ADDRESS OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD. OR ELSE I CAN JUST NOTE YOUR OPPOSITION FOR THE RECORD. DULY NOTED. NEXT SPEAKER ARNOLD KIMBALL 418 WOODY IN KYLE, TEXAS, IS IN OPPOSITION OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. DOESN'T SAY IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK OR NOT. NOT? OK. NEXT SPEAKER DAN BOYKIN, I BELIEVE. FORTY TWO HUNDRED SINGLETON BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS, OPPOSITION OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, BUT WISHES TO SHARE HIS OPINION OR NOT? GOOD. OK IN OPPOSITION DULY NOTED. MIKE MCCANN, ONE WILLIAMS CENTER, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. IS THIS YOU, SIR? OK, THANK YOU AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND RESTATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IN CASE I GOT IT WRONG. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MIKE MCCANN, ONE WILLIAMS CENTER, TULSA, OKLAHOMA, 74172. I REPRESENT MAGELLAN. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL. LET ME HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. COME BACK AND SPEAK WITH YOU ALL. THERE'S FOUR POINTS. AND BASICALLY IT'S THIS. THE SAFETY WITH THE ADJACENT USE. [02:05:01] THAT'S A BIG ISSUE AND THE FIRST RESPONDER COMPLEXITY THAT'S GOING TO CREATE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE REALITY IS THE TIA UNDERSTATES THE ACTUAL DENSITY OF WHAT'S GOING ON AT THAT SITE. THE THIRD, AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC, THE THIRD ISSUE IS, IS THAT THE CONFLICTS, THE INHERENT CONFLICTS ON MUSTANG CT WITH THE COTTON BELT TRAIL, STATE HIGHWAY TWENTY SIX AND MUSTANG DRIVE IN THE ADJACENT USES CAN'T BE RESOLVED, NOT THE WAY THEY'VE GOT IT DESIGNED. AND THE THIRD THING IS BY PROPOSING A TWO WAY STOP, IT CREATES A HARDSHIP FOR THE EXISTING USES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. AND IT'S CAUSED BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER HASN'T ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS. SO THAT'S THE GIST OF IT AND I'VE GOT A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, I DIDN'T PUT IT UP. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I COULD GIVE IT TO YOU. I'VE GOT SEVERAL COPIES I CAN GIVE YOU TO BASICALLY HIGHLIGHT IT. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WITH SAFETY FIRST, IF WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY AND I'M GOING TO GO OVER TIME. BUT STEPHEN [INAUDIBLE] REPRESENTING MAGELLAN. I HOPE YOU'D LET ME CAPTURE SOME OF HIS TIME. BUT THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT THIS IS WE'VE GOT THESE FUELING TERMINALS AND FUELING TANKS. IT'S A HAZARDOUS BUSINESS. WE UNDERSTAND WE PLAN FOR THE WORST. WE WANT TO BE SAFETY FIRST. SO WHEN YOU CREATE THIS SITUATION WHERE THE PRIMARY ONLY EXIT IS AT THE MUSTER POINT OF WHERE OUR EMERGENCY PROVIDERS OR OUR ACCESS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE COMING IN AND THEY'VE GOT TO EXIT THREE HUNDRED AND NINETY CARS AND 90 PLUS TRUCKS. WE GOT A PROBLEM. SO THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE EMERGENCY ACCESS. WELL, RIGHT NOW THE MAGIC WORD IS WE CAN EXPLORE GOING OUT WEST ON THROUGH THE CITY PROPERTY, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. AND SO FROM AN INCIDENT COMMAND PERSPECTIVE, THAT JUST CREATES, YOU KNOW, THE NORTH AND THE WEST WOULD BE THE PREFERRED EXIT POINTS FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO EVACUATE. BUT THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR THE SINGLE, IT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE A COMPLEXITY FOR INCIDENT COMMAND. SO THAT'S OUR SAFETY ISSUE. THERE'S AN UNDERSTATEMENT UNDER THE TIA, WE DIDN'T DO A TIA. WHAT WE HIRED THE COMPANY TO DO IS REVIEW THE TIRE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE ON OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT AND DONE A SEPARATE TIRE. WE JUST REVIEWED THE REPORTS AND SUBMITTED. WHEN WENT OUT THERE, [INAUDIBLE] UNDERESTIMATE THE PURPOSE OF THE TIA IS TO MAKE TRAFFIC PROJECTION BASED ON HOW A PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED. WELL, YOU'VE GOT TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND A WAREHOUSE AND IT'S NOT FIFTY ONE THOUSAND ANYMORE. NOW, IT'S TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS TABLE, IT WAS IN OUR REPORT FROM TEC, THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FOR TRAVELING WITH A GENERAL OFFICE IS TEN POINT EIGHTY THREE. THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FOR WAREHOUSING IS ONE POINT SEVEN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A SIX TIMES FACTOR FOR OFFICE SPACE VERSUS THE TRUCKS. SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, YOU'VE GOT 20 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. THAT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN TRIPS A DAY. YOU'VE GOT TWO HUNDRED OR THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSING, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THE FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX TRIPS. AND THEN YOU HAVE. SO IT'S A TOTAL TRIPS TODAY OF ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWELVE, NOT THE 584 AS REPRESENTED. AND THE COUNT, THE TXDOT COUNT OF TWENTY NINETEEN, BACK ON, THAT'S THE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC THEY WERE SHOWING THAT MUSTANG CT WAS ELEVEN TWENTY ONE. THAT'S CAPTURING THE PUBLIC STORAGE TRAFFIC. IF I CAN ASK IF YOU CAN WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS AS WELL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY WHERE YOU CAN YIELD TIME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WELL, THE BOTTOM THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS. THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT PROBABLY NEED TO HAPPEN FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS THING WORK AND WHERE IT WORKS, WHERE THE CITY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY, A FOUR WAY STOP WILL HAVE TO BE. I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM WITH A THREE WAY STOP CREATES A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, QUIKTRIPS, HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS, AND SO DO SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES. BUT SECONDARY PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD NEEDS TO BE PROBABLY GO TO BRUMLOW AND MUSTANG COURT SHOULD HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LEFT HAND TURN LANE BECAUSE OF THE ELEVEN POINT FOUR SECONDS WE GET FIVE POINT SEVEN MINUTES AN HOUR OF GREEN LIGHT TIME. IT'S ONLY GOING TO GO DOWN THE GRAPEVINE. HIGH SCHOOLS ACROSS THE STREET THEY'RE WANTING TO RECALIBRATE IT FOR THE SCHOOL, NOT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHLAKE. IN SUMMARY, YOU'VE GOT SAFETY TO MITIGATE THE FIRST RESPONSE CONCERNS. DENSITY OF USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS AND THE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN, CONSIDERING THE CONFLICTS WITH THE ADJACENT USE. OK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. OK, LAST COMMENT CARD I HAVE IS RALPH W. SEVENTEEN HUNDRED MUSTANG CT IN OPPOSITION. DOESN'T SAY IF HE WISHES TO SPEAK OR NOT. OK, COME ON UP AND NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IF YOU DON'T MIND SIR. [02:10:02] AND THEN GO AHEAD. YEAH. RALPH W. 1700 MUSTANG COURT SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, 76092. I DO WORK FOR NUSTAR FOR THE LAST THIRTY FOUR YEARS. LIKE I TOLD YOU THE LAST THIRTY FOUR YEARS A LITTLE HISTORY ON THIS DEAL IS THEY MADE US CLOSE ALL THREE OF OUR EXITS. WE USED TO HAD THREE EXITS COMING OUT OF ALL THE TERMINALS. THEY MADE US PUT IT OVER TO ONE SPOT. SO THE CITY AND THE STATE AND DOT AND DART PUT US INTO ONE SPOT AND LIKE ZACH SAID, WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, YOU KNOW, AND EVERYTHING. AND I'M OUT THERE EVERY DAY. I DON'T CARE WHAT THAT TRAFFIC STUDY SAYS. YOU CAN ONLY GET ONE AND A HALF TRUCKS THROUGH THERE, THAT SECOND TRUCK, [INAUDIBLE] YELLOW, AND TO BE HONEST, A LOT OF THEM ARE RED. AND WHEN THEY DID AWAY WITH THE RIGHT HAND TURN, THAT MADE IT WORSE. SO THIS SITUATION IS REALLY UNFAIR TO US. HEY, IT'S GREAT FOR THEM, BUT IT'S REALLY UNFAIR TO THE EXISTING PEOPLE. AND WE DON'T APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. WITH THAT, I'VE READ ALL MY COMMENT CARDS. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING'S STILL OPEN. IF ANYONE ELSE DIDN'T FILL OUT A CARD, WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND I SEE ONE GENTLEMAN TAKING ME UP ON IT. IF YOU DON'T MIND, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, SIR. YES, MY NAME IS CAMILLE [INAUDIBLE] AND I LIVE 1235 WOODSEY COURT. I'M ABOUT 80 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY THAT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, WE SEE A SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT IN ABILITY TO ADD SOME GREEN SPACE BETWEEN US, BUT WE REALLY DON'T THINK IT'S NEAR ENOUGH. I HAD CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AS WE GOT THE NOTIFICATION TO KIND OF DISCUSS THAT WITH THE NEIGHBORS. AND WE REALLY DON'T SEE WHY THE WEST SIDE IS GETTING ALL OF THE GREEN SPACE. THERE IS NOTHING ON THAT SIDE. THERE IS NO HOUSING. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THAT SHOULD BE MOVED ALL THE WAY TO THE NORTH. WE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF GREEN SPACE FACING FROM THE NORTH TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE ANY OF THE NOISE POLLUTION WE'RE GOING TO GET AND FUMES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THOSE BUILDINGS ARE HUGE. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY SAY. I UNDERSTAND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE ACTUAL OCCUPANTS ARE GOING TO BE, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING ANY KIND [INAUDIBLE] YOU KNOW, COULD BE HAPPENING, LOADING TRUCKS, UNLOADING TRUCKS OR WHATEVER. AND SO THAT'S OUR HUGE CONCERN. WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BUILDINGS REPOSITIONED. SO THE ACTUAL LOADING DOCKS ARE FACING STATE HIGHWAY 26. THAT WAY, AGAIN, IT MAKES THE BUILDINGS KIND OF THE SOUND DAMPENER FOR ANY OF THAT NOISE THAT COULD BE COMING OVER. RIGHT. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS AS WELL. THE BIG THING ALSO IS THE EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD. AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. WOODSEY CT ROAD IS NOT DESIGNED FOR ANY KIND OF HEAVY TRAFFIC AT ALL. I DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE SAY THAT THE TRASH TRUCK THAT COMES OVER, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH CAUSES DAMAGE ON A WEEKLY BASIS. RIGHT. SO THAT ROAD, IT IS NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THAT. WE WOULD LIKE NOT TO SEE ANY KIND OF ACCESS, ANY KIND OF GATE FACING WOODSEY CT FROM THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THOSE ARE OUR MAIN CONCERNS. OK, THANK YOU, SIR. OK. PUBLIC HEARINGS STILL OPEN. LAST CHANCE FOR ANYONE--OK, THERE YOU GO. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, SIR. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JAKE HALTER WITH KIMLEY-HORN. MY ADDRESS IS 13455 NOEL ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS. OK, WE WERE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS IN THE STUDY, SO I JUST WANTED TO QUICKLY ADDRESS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME UP TWICE IN THE OBJECTIONS. SO IT WAS THAT OFFICE INSIDE OF A WAREHOUSE USE. THE CLAIM WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE WAREHOUSING. AND I'LL JUST READ YOU A QUOTE FROM THE MANUAL WHERE ALL OF THIS DATA COMES FROM. SO WHEN THEY'RE DESCRIBING THE WAREHOUSING USE, THEY SAY, AND I QUOTE, THE USE IS PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS, BUT IT MAY ALSO INCLUDE OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. AND SO THE POINT BEING, OFFICE USE IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA THAT WE ALREADY HAVE. AND SO IT'S UNNECESSARY TO DOUBLE COUNT AN OFFICE USE. SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE RESPONSE TO ANY SORT OF CLAIM THAT WE NEED TO GENERATE A SECOND TIME FOR OFFICE. SO ALL OF THE OFFICE SPACE THAT WE'VE USED IT'S BEEN REDUCED IN SUBMISSIONS HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SEEING NO ONE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS I'LL MAYBE PASS IT AROUND THE DYAS HERE. I MEAN, I THINK OBVIOUSLY, UNLESS THE APPLICANT REQUESTS I THINK WE'VE [02:15:04] REVIEWED THIS ONCE. WE'VE HAD A SECOND CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. THEY'VE TRIED TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS. WE'VE HEARD SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, UM, LIKELY AT THIS POINT IN SOME FORM OR FASHION OR ANOTHER PROBABLY TIME TO SEND ALONG THE CITY COUNCIL ONE MAN OR ANOTHER. UM, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT HERE. IT IS LAND USED FOR INDUSTRIAL, THIS SITE. THEY ARE REQUESTING WITHIN THE ZONING REQUEST A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE IN BUILDING HEIGHT, ALBEIT THEY ARE GIVING SOME THINGS BACK IN TERMS OF ABOVE THE ORDINANCE ON ON BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING AND PARKING. THEY'RE ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE, OBVIOUSLY ON STACKING UP. WE'VE HAD AN IN-DEPTH, UH, TRAFFIC DISCUSSION. A LOT TO TAKE IN THERE. INTERESTING. YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT OF A MORE COMPLICATED ACCESS POINT HERE AND THEN ALSO TRYING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK. SO MAYBE WHAT I'LL DO IS MAYBE PASS IT AROUND AND SEE WHAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE THINK IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST. I SAW COMMISSIONER DYCHE'S LIGHT ACTIVATE OVER THERE. SO, I THINK I'LL START THERE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS IT. AND I WOULD NOTE AS COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS MENTIONED, WERE IT NOT FOR THE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND I GUESS THE STACKING VARIANCE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PASS ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL, BUT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO PASS FOR IT. I NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC BOTH ON TWENTY SIX. AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A POTENTIAL OUTLET ONTO BRUMLOW. AS SOMEONE WHO TRAVELS ON BRUMLOW REGULARLY, THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER. AND I THINK YOU'D HAVE SOME REAL OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS OVER THERE THAT MAKE THIS LOOK FAIRLY SHORT. I DON'T THINK ASKING AND GETTING GOOD CORPORATE CITIZENS LIKE NUSTAR AND MAGELLAN TO SPEND A BUNCH OF MONEY TO RESOLVE A PROBLEM AND THEN GIVING SOMEBODY ELSE THREE YEARS LATER A VARIANCE THAT TOTALLY NEGATES THAT MONEY SPENT IS A GOOD WAY TO ENCOURAGE OUR CORPORATE CITIZENS TO PLAY BALL NEXT TIME. AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS WON'T BE A BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS AS WELL. UM, SO I'LL PASS THAT. I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS THOUGHTS ON THEIR TAKE ON USAGE AND WHO THEIR POTENTIAL TENANTS ARE GOING TO BE. BUT I'M AFRAID I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING THAT'S CONVINCED ME TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAYBE BEFORE YOU PASS THE BATON, I GUESS I'M ASSUMING WHAT I'M HEARING THERE IS A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR EITHER OF THE VARIANCE IS PROBABLY NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO PUT IT, EITHER ON THE HEIGHT OR THE STACKING. IS THAT CORRECT? SINCE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO RULE ON, YES. OK, COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE READY TO COMMENT, BUT YOU DID GET CALLED OUT, SO. YEAH, SURE. LOOK, I'M I'M SENSITIVE TO THE RESIDENTS HERE AND THEIR CONCERNS, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT BROOKFIELD'S DONE A GOOD JOB OF MITIGATING A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS WITH THE BERM, THE STYLISTIC NATURE OF THE WALL, YOU KNOW, OVERDOING THE LANDSCAPING. AND I WOULD POINT OUT I THINK ONE OF THE RESIDENTS SAID THAT THERE'S THERE'S MORE GREEN SPACE ON THE WESTERN SIDE. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE SLID TO THE WEST BECAUSE THERE'S FLOODWAY ON THAT WESTERN SIDE SO IT HAS TO BE KIND OF PUSHED TO THE RIGHT. BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS THE TRAFFIC AND THE SAFETY AND THE LIGHT. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THAT. HOWEVER, THESE GUYS CAN LOWER, BROOKFIELD CAN LOWER THE CLEAR HEIGHT, NOT COME [02:20:03] TO US, AND THEY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. RIGHT. AND SO MY CONCERN IS IF THEY DO LOWER THE CLEAR HEIGHT, DO THIS, IT CAN BE ARGUED AS A FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE PROJECT THEN, ESPECIALLY THE LARGER BUILDING, IN WHICH CASE IT CAN STAY VACANT FOR A LONG TIME. AND I DON'T THINK WE REALLY WANT THAT. AND SO IN MY VIEW, IF IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL AND THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THIS LOCATION IS INDUSTRIAL, THEN WE NEED TO BE AMENABLE TO MAKING IT FUNCTIONALLY WORKABLE FOR A MODERN INDUSTRIAL USE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT DOESN'T GET AROUND THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS CLEARLY. BUT AGAIN, THEY CAN DO THIS IF THEY JUST LOWER THE CLEAR HEIGHT AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, NOT A LOT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON IT. OK, THANK YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE I'LL JUMP IN. YEAH. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A TRICKY ONE. AS AN OLD COMMISSIONER OF OURS, TODD PARRISH, USED TO SAY, A LOT OF THE EASY SITES IN SOUTHLAKE ARE GONE. SO WE GET A LOT OF THE HARDER ONES. AND THIS ONE WITH THE ACCESS POINT IS HARD. I MEAN, I GUESS WHAT I TRY TO THINK THROUGH IS. IT IS LAND USE FOR INDUSTRIAL, ALBEIT, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE YOU A CERTAIN TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL OR NOT, BUT IT'S LAND USE FOR INDUSTRIAL. IT DOES HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT AS OF NOW, AT LEAST FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. AND SO IN ORDER TO ENJOY ANY KIND OF MINIMUM PROPERTY RIGHTS, YOU HAVE ONE ACCESS POINT. YOU GOT A LAND USE. SO I THINK AND MAYBE IT'S KIND OF GOING IN BETWEEN EVERYBODY ELSE'S VIEWS, BUT TO ME, THAT DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY THAT YOU DESERVE RELIEF ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT REALLY GUARANTEED THAT YOU'RE GUARANTEED THE USE. YOU'RE NOT GUARANTEED THE HEIGHT, ALBEIT I DO VERY MUCH LIKE SOME OF THE CONCESSIONS THEY MADE RELATIVE TO THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE TO THE NEIGHBORS, IT MAY NOT BE CERTAINLY PERFECT OR ALL THE WAY TO WHERE MAYBE EVERY NEIGHBOR WANTS IT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A BIG IMPROVEMENT FROM LAST TIME. AND THEN ON, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, STACKING DEPTH. THAT'S A HARDER ONE FOR ME. SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'VE GOT ZERO FEET OR 100 FEET, YOU KNOW, YOU STILL HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL USE. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENJOY YOUR PROPERTY AND THAT'S YOUR ONLY ACCESS POINT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO DO? SO I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING WITH BUILDING HEIGHT ONE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE SYMPATHETIC ON THE STACKING DEPTH ONE. ALBEIT THAT DOESN'T DISMISS THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC. WE PROBABLY SPENT AS MUCH TIME ON TRAFFIC TONIGHT AS WE HAVE ON ANY CASE IN A YEAR OR TWO AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MULTIPLE VIEWS ON THAT. SO IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T DISMISS THAT. I JUST DON'T HAVE A GREAT ANSWER FOR IT. SO WITHOUT I GUESS LOOKS LIKE DR. SPRINGER LOOKS LIKE HE WANTS TO TAKE A TURN, SO I'LL PASS THE BATON TO MY RIGHT. WELL THE ONE INTERSECTION, IT'S THE ACHILLES HEEL OF THIS WHOLE PLACE AND DRIVING TWENTY SIX AND MUSTANG DRIVE. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE NUSTAR AND THE MAGELLAN PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS JUST A TERRIBLE INTERSECTION AND THIS IS ONLY GOING TO EXACERBATE IT. AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID THEY EASILY COULD JUST REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. YOU KNOW, IF THEY IF THEY'RE JUST BOUND AND DETERMINED THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. BUT, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S HARD I CAN'T TELL THESE GUYS THAT THEY NEED TO POSTPONE THEIR PROJECT UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO BRUNELLO THAT I DON'T KNOW. I JUST TO ME, IT MAKES NO SENSE. I THINK WE'RE PENALIZING THE EXISTING PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE NOW AND I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER DYCHE THERE, THAT THEY YOU KNOW, THESE GUYS WENT IN AND SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND NOW WE'RE TELLING THEM, WELL, FOR YOUR EFFORTS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A STOP SIGN, JUST SLOWING EVERYTHING DOWN. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE THING. AND I DON'T SEE A LOT OF CHANCE FOR THEM REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS AS FAR AS LIKE SO THEY COULD GET MORE SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE. I MEAN, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS HAVE GOT VALID POINTS ON THE NORTH. BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF REMINISCENT OF WHEN WE DID CENTRAL MARKET OVER HERE AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE ABUTTING TO IT, YOU KNOW, HAD THE SEVENTEEN FOOT WALL PUT UP. AND NOW THEY ALL HATE IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT TURNED OUT TO BE NOT AS BAD AS THEY THOUGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE A LOT TO MITIGATE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS FROM THE [02:25:01] NEIGHBORS. AND BUT IT'S THE THE ONE INTERSECTION THAT REALLY IS WHAT I DON'T LIKE. AND I GUESS PART OF MY STRUGGLE THERE, BECAUSE I SHARE THE CONCERN ABOUT THAT. BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT IF THIS HAD A SECOND ACCESS POINT OUT TO THE WEST ON BRUMLOW, HALF OF TAMRON WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT. SO YOU CAN'T YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER. AND I'M NOT SAYING MAYBE YOU DON'T IGNORE THEM; I'M JUST SAYING THEY'LL BE HERE. AND THOSE MOMS WOULD MAKE THE OIL FIELD GUYS SEEM TAME BY COMPARISON. [LAUGHTER] I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER OR COMMISSIONER PHALEN, SOMEBODY WANT TO.. LADIES FIRST. I MEAN, I THINK I ECHO EVERYONE ELSE'S CONCERNS. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONCESSIONS THAT THEY'VE MADE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE NORTH SIDE. I THINK IN THAT REGARD, I COULD GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT. BUT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT THIS PROPERTY OWNERS CREATED, BUT IT EXISTS. AND I JUST CAN'T GET COMFORTABLE WITH THIS USE AS PROPOSED FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT WITH THE NEIGHBORING USES AND THE LIMITED INGRESS AND EGRESS. SO I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. MR. ROTHMEIER, YOU GET THE LAST COMMENT. I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING IS EVEN IF THEY REDUCE THE CLEAR HEIGHT TO TWENTY EIGHT FEET, THAT DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE TRAFFIC OR SAFETY ISSUES. THEY'RE THE SAME. IT'S AN INTENDED USE. IT'S AN APPROVED USE AND I GUESS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS IN AND I UNDERSTAND ALL THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE HEIGHT ISSUE, I THINK THE REALITY OF TODAY'S WAREHOUSING MARKET IS PROBABLY A LOT DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS WHEN THE CITY ORDINANCE WAS DRAWN UP. I THINK THE EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FORCE FIT A DEVELOPER INTO AN ORDINANCE THAT MAY NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT IS WHAT'S TROUBLING TO ME. AND I UNDERSTAND THE ONE ACCESS POINT ISSUE. I CERTAINLY DO. I UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY CONCERNS. I THINK THE I THINK THE DEVELOPER, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A LOT OF CONCESSIONS IN TERMS OF ELIMINATING VARIANCES, ELIMINATING REQUESTS. AND FOR ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET AROUND THE ISSUE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN AN ORDINANCE AND A BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COME TO YOUR CITY, IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DEVELOP PROJECTS. I'M ALSO SENSITIVE, HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT STATEMENT TO THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH. THUS, MY QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT TRYING TO SUBMIT OR TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT MARKETING SHOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING WITH RESTRICTED HOURS TO DAYTIME HOURS AND MAYBE USES IN TERMS OF TYPES OF CUSTOMERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I'M SORRY, I'M FENCE SITTING RIGHT NOW AND I'M NOT SURE THE RIGHT ANSWER. I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS BRINGING UP EARLY ON THAT, YOU KNOW, HAD THIS BEEN A 2 8 FOOT CLEAR SPAN APPLICATION, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE AT ALL. AND I THINK GIVEN THAT I'M PROBABLY LEANING MORE TOWARD MAYBE TRYING TO ENHANCE A LITTLE BIT OR SUGGESTING THAT WE ENHANCE A LITTLE BIT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE NORTH FACING SIDE, BUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THAT MAKES SENSE AS COMPARED TO A PIECE OF LAND. OK, WELL, MAYBE THE PATH FORWARD HERE IS TO FIGURE OUT, IS THERE A DERIVATIVE? IT SOUNDS LIKE IF I'M LOOKING AROUND THE DAIS HERE, THERE'S NOT SUPPORT TO MOVE FORWARD AS PROPOSED. IS THAT FAIR? OR WE COULD TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. I'M JUST GETTING THE VIBE THAT, I MEAN, WE COULD ALWAYS TRY A MOTION ON THAT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE ONE. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES? THIS IS PROBABLY FOR THE CITY, BUT WHO WOULD BE THE ONE TO DECIDE? IT WOULD BE THE CITY THAT WOULD DECIDE IF IT WAS GOING TO BE A TWO WAY STOP OR A FOUR WAY STOP, NOT THE DEVELOPER, RIGHT? THESE ARE PUBLIC STREETS, SO OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE THAT DECISION ON THE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION. OK, I'M SORRY. PUBLIC HEARING'S CUT OFF SO FOR EVERYBODY. SO WE'RE OK WITH THAT. I MEAN, WE COULD TRY TO SEE IF THERE'S SUPPORT FOR SOME KIND OF EITHER AS IS OR MAYBE A DERIVATIVE WHERE MAYBE THE HEIGHT, THE EXTRA HEIGHT IS NOT GRANTED. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT. I MEAN, COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER MADE SOME GOOD POINTS. I WONDER IF WE COULD LEGALLY ENFORCE RESTRICTED HOURS OR RESTRICTED TENANT USE, A. B, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE SAME THING, WOULD BE PUTTING SUCH AN UNFAIR LIMIT ON THE DEVELOPER. IT'D BE THE SAME AS JUST DENYING THE REQUEST ALTOGETHER. [02:30:02] SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'D DO THAT. I THINK TYPICALLY THAT'S KIND OF WE KIND OF LOOK TO THE CITY ORDINANCES TO GOVERN THAT IN TERMS OF IF THEY ARE OPERATING AT LATE HOURS AND THEY ARE MAKING NOISE OR LIGHT, THAT'S WHERE THE CITY AND STAFF, I GUESS, JUMP IN IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D COMMENT ON THAT. TYPICALLY, REGULATING HOURS IS DIFFICULT, IT PROBABLY COULD BE CHALLENGED. IT'S ALSO VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN TO DO SOME ACCOUNTING BUSINESS AND ARE TECHNICALLY OUT OF WORKING A WEEKEND. BUT ONE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, UNDER THIS SP THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT ARE USES AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF INDUSTRIAL OR THE OFFICE OR THE MIXED, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS A USE THAT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, IF THE CONCERN IS A CERTAIN TYPE OF USE YOU CAN NARROW THAT USE OF THAT BUILDING UNDER THE SP ZONING SO THAT IS ONE OPTION THAT THE P&Z OR THE COMMISSION COULD LOOK AT UNDER THE GUISE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE SP ZONING DISTRICT. OK, AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT COULD TAKE A STAB AT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING A PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL ON USAGE THAT WOULD OR WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY COUNCIL, WITH THIS BEING A ZONING CASE, WE'LL GET TWO READINGS. SO I GUESS TWO HEARINGS. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT OR? YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT. OK, SO THAT'S-- MR. CHAIRMAN, MY PREFERENCE AND SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT WE PUT FORWARD THE MOTION, SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES. THIS IS NOT THEIR LAST CRACK AT THIS. THEY CAN TAKE, AS YOU SUGGESTED, WHATEVER CHANGES THEY WANT TO TAKE OR NOT TAKE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND LET THEM HAVE THE FINAL WORD. I THINK MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR US TO-- YEAH, NO, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. AND THAT'S WHERE I WAS TRYING TO THINK, AT LEAST WHERE WE START IN TERMS OF LIKE I GUESS I COULD SAY FOR MYSELF AND I WAS TRYING TO VERBALIZE THAT I'M LESS SYMPATHETIC ABOUT THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I MEAN, CERTAINLY, I GUESS AS MUCH AS ANYBODY UP HERE THAT'S, AGAIN, TODAY'S KIND OF FUNCTIONALITY, SO TO SPEAK. BUT AGAIN, I KIND OF LOOK AT IT AS YOU'RE PROVIDED THE ABILITY TO HAVE A LAND USE ON THERE, BUT THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE YOU CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, ASPECTS WITHIN IT. AND I THINK THAT ALSO GOVERNS FREQUENCY OF TRAFFIC LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. IN FACT, I THINK THE APPLICANT BASICALLY ADMITTED THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION IS THAT BY LOWERING THE CEILING HEIGHT, THEY'RE CUTTING DOWN ON VELOCITY. SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL, I WOULD BE SYMPATHETIC TO ONE THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE EXTRA HEIGHT, BUT MAYBE INCLUDES THE STACKING VARIANCE. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY WOULD BE SO. AND A REVIEW BY THE APPLICANT OF PERMITTED USES WITHIN PARTICULARLY MAYBE THE TWO NORTHERN BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED TO COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. YEAH. SO WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT, AND CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE THEIR OWN. WE'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. AND IF IT DOESN'T PASS AND STAFF JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME HERE, WE'LL GO FOR ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION. AND IF THAT DOESN'T PASS, THEN AT SOME POINT WE MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY. AND IF THAT PASSES, WE HAVE TO HAVE SUPPORT FOR SOMETHING TO MOVE ON. BUT WE CAN TAKE A FEW VOTES INITIALLY TO SEE WHERE PEOPLE SHAKE OUT. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF THE CLEAR HEIGHT IS A NO AND THE STACKING IS A YES, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU'RE IT'S NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING KIND OF DEAL. RIGHT. AND SO I'M WONDERING IF THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE AS IS OR NOT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, YEAH, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT BECOMES CONFUSING FROM A YAY OR NAY PERSPECTIVE. OK. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S FINE, I THINK BUT I KNOW WHAT STAFF LIKES TO TRY TO DO IS UNDERSTAND FROM FROM THE COMMISSIONER IS KIND OF WHERE DIFFERENT PEOPLE SOURCE OF IS IT THE HEIGHT, IS IT STACKING OR IS IT BOTH. AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR MAYBE AS WE GO AROUND REAL QUICK SO THAT THEY CAN GET A READ ON THAT, BECAUSE COUNCIL ASKED THAT AFTER THESE DELIBERATIONS. AND I GUESS I'D SAY FOR MYSELF REAL QUICK, IT'S MORE THE HEIGHT THAN THE STACKING BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THE STACKING. I OBJECT TO BOTH, BUT I AGREE. [02:35:02] I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR THE STACKING. OTHERS, MAYBE JUST AROUND THE DAIS HERE? I WOULD SAY I'M MORE AGAINST THE STACKING THAN I AM AGAINST THE HEIGHT. OKAY, COMMISSIONER PHALEN? I WOULD BE MORE AGAINST THE STACKING AS WELL. COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER? I THINK MY POSITION IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT I'M MORE--I'M NOT AGAINST EITHER, BUT THE STACKING IS A GREATER CONCERN, THAN IS THE HEIGHT. I DO HAVE SOMETHING WHEN WE COME BACK I WANT TO OFFER IS A HYBRID TYPE OF MODEL. LET'S FINISH. BUT I'M SORRY I COULDN'T HEAR YOU ON THAT. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. I'M SORRY I COULDN'T HEAR THE LAST PART. BUT COMMISSIONER? HE SAID HE HAS A PROPOSAL FOR A HYBRID MODEL. ALL RIGHT. SO, AGAIN, THIS IS DIFFICULT AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT. I AM IN FAVOR OF BOTH STACKING AND CLEAR HEIGHT. YEAH. I MEAN I THINK I COULD GET THERE, BUT I THINK I THINK FOR A LOT OF REASONS I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY COUNCIL WILL DOVE DEEP INTO THIS AND MAYBE THEY CAN COME UP WITH A BETTER ANSWER. AND THEN I WANT TO SEE, MAYBE THE APPLICANT IN THE INTERIM CAN KIND OF WORK TO SEE, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL WAYS THEY CAN TRY TO SATISFY THAT. BUT I GUESS WITH THAT, MAYBE FIRST WE'LL TRY A MOTION, UM, I GUESS THAT WOULD PROPOSE APPROVING THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED SUBJECT TO STAFF REPORTS AND--OH, CRAIG, DO YOU WANT TO -- BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I'M SORRY YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME BEFORE. LET ME THROW OUT AN IDEA. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FEASIBLE OR REALISTIC. IS IT FEASIBLE TO HAVE A BUILDING THAT HAS TWO DIFFERENT HEIGHTS? SO YOU HAVE A TIERED LOOK WHERE MAYBE THE FIRST HALF OF A BUILDING IS TWENTY EIGHT FEET, THEN IT MOVES TO THIRTY TWO FEET IN THE CORE OF THE BUILDING. JUST A THOUGHT. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THEY PONDER AND CARRY FORWARD, BUT WELL, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN PONDER KIND OF IN THE INTERIM AFTER THIS STEP ONTO THE NEXT STEP. AND THEY CAN, IF SO, THEY CAN PROVIDE THAT AS AN OPTION. WITH THAT, THEN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER ZA21-0007, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 1ST, 2021 AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER THREE DATED MARCH 31ST, 2021 AND GRANTING THE STAFFING VARIANCE RELATED TO A MINIMUM STACKING DEPTH. DO WE HAVE EVERYTHING ON THAT MOTION? OK, WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE. AND 3-3, WHICH PRETTY MUCH, I THINK, SUMS UP ABOUT THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF. AND YOU CAN SEND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION WITH A 3-3 VOTE. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO, I MEAN, AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY TELLS COUNCIL EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KNOW. SO I GUESS WHAT I'D SAY IS, I MEAN, APPLICANT, YOU HEARD A LOT OF THE BACK AND FORTH HERE, A LOT OF STRUGGLE. I THINK COUNCIL WILL HAVE SOME SIMILAR STRUGGLES. I'D RECOMMEND THAT YOU ADDITIONALLY REACH OUT TO ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THE GENTLEMAN OVER HERE ON YOUR RIGHT AND THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, SEE IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK. ASSUMING THE APPLICANT MOVES THIS FORWARD TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IT'LL BE ON APRIL 22. IF IT STAYS A ZONING CASE, I THINK IT'LL GET HEARD TWICE, TWO CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS. AND I YOU KNOW, I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIALS THAT YOU REFERENCED EARLIER THIS EVENING, INCLUDING A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. WELL, I DON'T THINK THEY'LL GIVE YOU TIME TO PRESENT IT. YOU CAN PROVIDE IT AHEAD OF TIME AND YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT AND THEY'LL REVIEW IT. AND THAT GOES FOR ANYONE, NEIGHBORS, WHOEVER, YOU CAN PROVIDE ANY MATERIALS TO COUNCIL AHEAD OF TIME FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN THEY'LL HEAR EVERYTHING AGAIN AT THAT MEETING. SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S PATIENCE THIS EVENING. NOT AN EASY ONE. WE TRIED TO WORK THROUGH IT. AND GOOD LUCK, EVERYBODY. THANKS. WITH THAT, YES? [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE APRIL 20TH APRIL 20TH, I APLOGIZE YEAH, THE P&Z MEETING WOULD BE APRIL 22. OK, YEAH, I GOT IT. THANK YOU, SIR. APRIL 20TH. THAT'S TUESDAY. SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. AND WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.