5. Discuss all items on tonight's agenda. No action will be taken and each item will be considered during the Regular Session.

[6. A. ZA21-0039, 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. SPIN Neighborhood #8. PUBLIC HEARING]

I WILL, WHICH IS ZA21-0039 SITE PLAN FOR MUSTANG BUSINESS PARK, AND I RECOGNIZED SENIOR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES KEN BAKER.

KEN, TAKE IT AWAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS SEEK APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR THREE DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY THREE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHT SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY TWENTY SIX ACRES.

IT IS ZONED I1, ADDRESSED AS 1800 STATE HIGHWAY 26.

A PREVIOUS REQUEST AND ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN WAS UNDER CASE NUMBER ZA21-0007.

A PART OF THAT ZONING WAS TO ALLOW THE CEILING HEIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSES TO EXCEED THE DISTRICT MAXIMUM.

THE ZONING WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND A SITE PLAN CAME BACK, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED

[00:25:05]

BY P&Z AND THEN CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL.

AT YOUR JUNE MEETING THIS PAST YEAR, IT WAS TABLED INDEFINITELY AND YOU DIRECTED STAFF TO STUDY THE AREA AND LOOK AT SOME POSSIBLE LONGER TERM TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY GIVEN THE EXISTING LAND USES IN THE AREA.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO COME BACK.

STAFF DID SEND COURTESY NOTICES OUT TO ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, ANY OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR OF THE SITE PLANS STOOD FROM JUNE AND SO THAT WAS CARRIED FORWARD AND THEN ANY NEW INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE LAND USE PLAN IS INDUSTRIAL.

THE WAREHOUSE OFFICE USES CONSISTENT AND AS MENTIONED, IT DOES HAVE A1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN PLACE IN THE USE PROPOSED IS PERMITTED.

THIS IS JUST AN AERIAL VIEW.

I KNOW COUNCIL IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE THE AREA, SO I WON'T SPEND MUCH TIME.

I DO HAVE AN OBLIQUE ANGLE VIEW IF WE NEED REFERENCES ANY TIME DURING THE EVENING, JUST A COUPLE OF STREET VIEWS FROM MUSTANG FROM TWENTY SIX LOOKING NORTH.

THIS IS JUST A QUICK HISTORY.

THIS IS THE APRIL 8TH, THE REZONING THAT WAS BEFORE YOU BACK IN APRIL AND HAS MENTIONED THE REASON THAT THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS IS TO RAISE THOSE CEILING HEIGHTS TO THIRTY NINE FEET IN THE I1 DISTRICT.

THIRTY FIVE FEET IS THE MAXIMUM.

AND SO THEY WERE COMING UNDER AN SP1 TO ALLOW THAT TO OCCUR.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME DRIVEWAY VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ORIGINAL REQUEST AND THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE THERE WAS SOME MODIFICATIONS MADE AT THE MAY 20TH PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WHICH INCREASED THAT STACKING DEPTH OFF OF SOUTHWESTERN AND THE BUILDING MAXIMUM HEIGHTS WERE REDUCED TO THIRTY FIVE FEET THAT WERE WITHIN THE DISTRICT STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT HAS SHOWN FUTURE EMERGENCY ACCESS ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE SITE.

IF A CONNECTIVITY IS EVER NEEDED OR ESTABLISHED, THERE MAY BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONNECTIVITY OUT TO BRUMLOW.

AS COUNSEL KNOWS, WE PRESENTED THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY AT YOUR MEETING LAST TIME IN JANUARY, AND WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FUTURE ON THAT.

BUT THE SITE HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATED TO ALLOW SOME CONNECTIVITY, IF THAT'S EVER DESIRED, TO BE ACHIEVED BACK TO THE WEST.

THIS JUST SHOWS THE SERVICE CENTER CONCEPT.

THESE ARE THESE ARE EARLY CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS AND SO DOES ACCOMMODATE THE EMERGENCY ACCESS. AS COUNCIL KNOW, THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FLOOD PLAIN TO THE TO THE EAST OF THE SERVICE CENTER SITE AND WEST OF THIS SITE.

AND SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN TERMS OF A BOX CULVERT AND THEN RECEIVING PERMISSION FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO CROSS THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA.

THESE ARE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, THESE ARE THE SAME MATERIALS THAT YOU SAW IN YOUR JUNE MEETING. THE MATERIALS ARE THE CONCRETE TILT UP WALL, THE SPRUCE WOOD MATERIAL, THE FIBER CEMENT. IT GIVES THAT WOOD APPEARANCE, METAL PANELS, ALL THE MATERIALS ARE PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE, AND THERE IS NO MASONRY OR MATERIAL VARIANCE BEING REQUEST.

AND AS MENTIONED, THE BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE ALL 35 FEET PER THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

THIS IS THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

THERE WAS QUITE A BIT DISCUSSION DURING THE ZONING AND SITE PLAN ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. IT WILL CONSIST OF ONE ROW OF PARKING.

YOU MAY RECALL THAT DURING THE EVOLUTION OF THE SITE PLAN, THE BUILDING WAS PUSHED BACK 100 FEET FROM THE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

IT'LL BE ONE ROW OF PARKING, TWO ROWS OF ORNAMENTAL TREES AND THERE'LL BE SOME CANOPY TREES. THERE WILL BE AN EIGHT FOOT BERM OR EIGHT-FOOT WOOD FENCE ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. ALSO, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS OUT TO WOODSY, AND YOU MAY RECALL THAT DURING THE EARLIER DISCUSSIONS THAT ANY GATE WOULD MIMIC THE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE AND LOOKS IN TERMS OF NOT BEING ABLE TO CRAWL UNDER IT.

IT WOULD TAKE ON A LOOK SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED FENCE.

[00:30:01]

THE TREES AT THE PLANNING WILL BE 15 FEET, AND THE MATURITY WHICH IS SHOWN AT THE BOTTOM SLIDE WILL BE ROUGHLY 25 TO 30 FEET IN HEIGHT.

AND THERE'S A VARIETY OF SPECIES AND THE SEEDS ARE ON THE CANOPY TREES SUCH AS CEDAR ELMS, LACE BARK ELMS, BALD CYPRESS AND HOLLIES WILL BE INCLUDED.

THIS IS A IMAGE THAT THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE THAT THE ACCESS EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE WOULD TAKE ON A SIMILAR LOOK AS THE FENCE.

AND THIS IS JUST LOOKING BACK FROM WOODSY TO THE SOUTH AND THEN TIMBERLINE, WHICH IS FURTHER TO THE EAST.

THERE IS ONE VARIANCE WHICH IS..

KEN, KEN JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT IS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY CORRECT? YES, SIR.

THEY WOULDN'T BE USED FOR DAILY TRAFFIC.

COULD BE USED FOR FIRE AND POLICE FOCUS ONLY.

THANK YOU. THE TREE CONSERVATION PLAN IS SHOWN ON YOUR SLIDE THERE.

THERE'S APPROXIMATELY TWENTY TWO POINT THREE PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER ON THE SITE. BASED ON THE ORDINANCE, 60 PERCENT IS REQUIRED TO BE PRESERVED.

THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW TWENTY SEVEN POINT SIX PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER TO BE PRESERVED. TREES INCLUDE A VARIETY OF SPECIES, WHICH THE TREES WERE SURVEYED, AND THAT INFORMATION IS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

AS LONG AS WELL AS THE CONDITION OF THE TREES, THE BLUE DOTS ON THE EXHIBIT INDICATE THE THOSE TREES THAT ARE WERE DEEMED AS DECLINING AND HEALTH.

PER THE SURVEY.

THIS IS THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

IN YOUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, THERE IS A VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA AND WHICH THE FOLLOWING FACTORS SHALL BE CONSIDERED WHEN EVALUATING THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.

THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKET AND CAN REFER TO THOSE AT ANY TIME DURING THE EVENING.

THIS IS THE OVERALL LANDSCAPING PLAN AND AS MENTIONED, THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING IS BEING EXCEEDED. THERE'S ROUGHLY OVER 400 TREES BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE, 333 ACCENT TREES AND THEN EIGHTY THREE CANOPY TREES.

THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE IN TERMS OF THE CANOPY TREES, THAT THE 50 PERCENT WOULD HAVE TO BE AT FOUR INCH CALIPER WHEN PLANTED AND THEN 50 PERCENT COULD BE AT TWO INCH.

THIS IS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION THAT LAST SITE PLAN, BUT THE THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS WAS PROVIDED IN HER PACKET AGAIN AND THE FINDINGS OF THAT STUDY ARE OUTLINED IN THAT TRAFFIC REPORT.

THE P&Z APPROVED THIS THREE ONE WHEN THEY REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN BACK IN MAY.

THEY GRANTED THE VARIANCE FOR THE TREE PRESERVATION.

YOU MAY RECALL THAT DURING THE FIRST SITE PLAN, THE ZONING THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE STOP SIGNS AND STOP BAR AT THIS INTERSECTION.

AND IF THIS IS APPROVED, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ALLOW PUBLIC WORKS TO DETERMINE THE BEST SITUATION, THEY ARE CITY STREETS, WE CAN MONITOR THOSE AND AND CHANGE ACCORDINGLY, AND TO ASK COUNCIL TO MAKE A TECHNICAL DECISION ON THAT.

IT MAY BE BETTER SUITED IF APPROVED.

THAT MAY BE THAT PUBLIC WORKS BECAUSE THEY CAN MONITOR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND SET UP ACCORDINGLY OR ADJUST ACCORDINGLY IF APPROVED.

THE ALSO THE OTHER CONDITIONS ARE STATED IN HERE, WHICH FOR THE THE MOST PART, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

ONE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IF A WESTERN EMERGENCY ACCESS WAS EVER ESTABLISHED AND THE NORTHERN EMERGENCY EXIT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE ELIMINATED OR REMOVED IF A NEW EMERGENCY ACCESS IS PROVIDED.

THIS IS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATIONS READ AS OPPOSED TO ONE UNDECIDED HAS CHANGED IN THIS PROPERTY HERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE RESPONSES.

STAFF BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION.

GREAT. THANKS KEN.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OK.

THANKS, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE SOME ON A LITTLE BIT LATER.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON DOWN? SIR, IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

[00:35:05]

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JASON BENGART, I'M WITH BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES.

2121 NORTH PEARL STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS SUITE 12 10 75201.

THANKS AGAIN, KEN, FOR PUTTING ON YOUR PRESENTATION.

THAT WAS PRETTY WELL REPRESENTED OF SOME CHANGES WE'VE MADE TO DATE OVER THE PAST QUITE A FEW MONTHS. BUT JUST AS A RECAP OF SOME OF THE CONCESSIONS ALREADY MADE.

AGAIN REDUCED OUR BUILDING HEIGHTS.

SOME SIGHTLINES WERE REQUESTED TO BE REDUCED JUST FROM A NORTH RESIDENT PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL AS FROM A TRAFFIC VOLUME PERSPECTIVE.

SO WE'VE WE'VE DONE THAT.

WE ELIMINATED THE NORTH ROW OF PARKING.

THERE WAS SOME FEEDBACK FROM SOME OF THE NORTH RESIDENTS THAT THEY WERE HOPEFUL THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ADJUST KIND OF THE BOUNDARY FROM THE FENCE TO THE PROPERTY OR TO THE BUILDING RATHER. WE'VE ACCOMMODATED THAT AND THAT SETBACK IS NOW AT 100 FEET, MODIFIED THE NORTH ACCESS GATE.

AND AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

THERE'S NO TRAFFIC FROM OUR FROM OUR SITE IN EITHER DIRECTION, AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO OBVIOUSLY NOT USING THIS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AS WELL.

MODIFIED ROADWAYS STACKING AT MUSTANG COURT AS KEN NOTED IN HIS PRESENTATION, THAT SWAP OF THOSE TWO NORTH BUILDINGS ALLOWED THAT STACKING TO INCREASE AND THEREFORE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF STACKING ONTO MUSTANG.

AND AS KEN NOTED, WE'VE GRANTED OR WILL BE GRANTING AN EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT THAT FITS INTO YOUR GUY'S OR THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY TO THE WEST.

SO WE'RE ALREADY SHOWING THAT ACCESS OR THAT EASEMENT FOR ACCESS.

AND OBVIOUSLY, WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON WHICHEVER RECOMMENDATIONS COME OUT OF THE OVERALL TRAFFIC STUDY.

WE'RE DEFINITELY WILLING AND WANT TO BE PART OF THAT OVERALL IMPROVEMENT.

SO AGAIN, YOU JUST SEE HERE THIS IMAGE IS IS REALLY JUST SHOWING THE REDUCED HEIGHT OR HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS.

THIS IMAGE IS FROM TIMBERLINE LOOKING SOUTH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT.

THAT BUILDING LINE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WITH THE INCREASED TREES THAT THAT SITE LINE IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, A WOOD FENCE AND TREES ARE NOT NOT BUILDING WHATSOEVER.

AGAIN, JUST TO RECAP, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION WITH TWO ROWS OF PARKING AND TWO ROWS OF TREES AND NO BERM.

AND TODAY IT'S ONLY ONE ROW OF PARKING ON THAT NORTH SIDE.

TWO ORNAMENTAL ROWS OF TREES AND THEN THE CANOPY, AS WELL AS THE BERM.

KEN ALREADY TOUCHED ON THIS ONE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT ONE HUNDRED FOOT SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING NOW.

TOUCHED ON A COUPLE OF THE DIFFERENT VARIOUS TREES THAT ARE PLANNED, OUR CANOPY TREES AND THEN OUR ORNAMENTAL TREES.

AGAIN, THE GATE THAT'S GOING TO MATCH.

THIS WAS REALLY AN OVERVIEW OR A SUMMARY OF ALL THE TRAFFIC STUDIES GONE THROUGH VARIOUS ITERATIONS ADDRESSING COMMENTS, MAKING TWEAKS AT THE SITE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE AND MEET RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDIES CONDUCTED.

AND AGAIN, DEPENDING ON WHICH, WHICH RECOMMENDATION AND WHICH WAY THE CITY WANTS TO GO, I MEAN, WE'RE ON BOARD TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS ACCESS POINTS.

AND THAT LEAVE FINAL COMMENTS FROM APRIL, THERE WAS NO CHANGES TO THE TIA RECOMMENDED.

AGAIN, HERE IS THE ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WE ARE NOW SHOWING ON OUR SITE PLAN, WHICH CONNECTS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.

AND JUST AS A REMINDER, I MEAN, OUR MANDATE IS CERTAINLY ALIGNED WITH SUSTAINABILITY.

OUR FACILITIES ARE LEED CERTIFIED.

AND CERTAINLY ONE IMPORTANT PIECE TO THAT, AND IT WAS A COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH WAS SITE LIGHTING.

AND IN ORDER FOR US TO ACHIEVE LEED, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT SITE THERE'S NO LIGHT POLLUTION BEYOND THE BOUNDARY LINE, WHICH WHICH WE WILL OBTAIN AS WELL.

AND THEN THE REASON WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS, IS REALLY THE TREE VARIANTS.

AS KEN NOTED, 22 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE VARIANCE IS TO REQUEST APPROXIMATELY TWENTY SEVEN POINT SIX PERCENT.

[00:40:07]

A COMPLETE TREE SURVEY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED, THIS IS PAGE ONE OF FIVE, I JUST WANTED TO ILLUSTRATE THAT EVERY TREE WAS EVALUATED, TAGGED, REVIEWED AND ONE OUT OF EVERY FIVE TREES ON THAT SITE IS EITHER A DECLINING OR HAZARDOUS STATE.

SO CERTAINLY NOT THE THE HEALTHY TREES THAT YOU KNOW PEOPLE WANT TO SEE AND ENJOY.

SO PART OF THE TREE VARIANCE IS CERTAINLY FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR US, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S ALREADY ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL SITES FOR THEM.

BASIC RULE OF THUMB IS FOR THEM TO BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

YOU'RE KIND OF AT AROUND A 30 PERCENT END UP COVERAGE OF THE SITE.

WE'RE ALREADY ON THE LOW SIDE UNDER 30 RIGHT NOW AND THIS WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, IT WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR US.

AND THIS FACTOR WAS PRETTY INTERESTING FOR US.

CERTAINLY A UNIQUE SITE, AS YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT OVER HERE.

THERE'S A PRETTY LARGE CLUSTER OF TREES.

I REPLOTTED THE ENTIRE SITE SHOULD THE TREES HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED COMPARED TO THE CLUSTER AND THE VARIANCE.

I MEAN, WE'D BE RIGHT AROUND THE MINIMUM.

IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE NEED TO HAVE THIS, THIS SPACE OVER HERE AND BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL IN THE CLUSTER, IT'S VERY, VERY CHALLENGING TO NOT REQUEST THE VARIANCE IMPOSSIBLE, ACTUALLY. AND THEN THIS FACTOR IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE USE AND FUTURE, AND AS KEN MENTIONED, IT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL AND FUTURE ZONED INDUSTRIAL, WE DEEM THAT COMPATIBLE.

SO AGAIN, INCREASING THE DEVELOPMENT COST IF WE WERE TO PRESERVE THE TREES WOULD WOULD MAKE THIS THIS DEVELOPMENT NOT FEASIBLE, ELIMINATING CERTAINLY VALUE OUR MILLIONS OF VALUE IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY LOWER THAN A TYPICAL 30 PERCENT SITE COVERAGE.

AND THEN THE FACTOR IN TERMS OF ANY ADVERSE EFFECT ON, YOU KNOW, PRESERVATION OF SOIL MOISTURE, EXCUSE ME, SOIL MOISTURE RETENTION, FLOW OF SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE THAT'S ALL FACTORED INTO OUR CIVIL ENGINEERED DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE NOT IMPERVIOUS COVER.

ANOTHER FACTOR IS THE BUFFER, AND CERTAINLY WE ALL KNOW THAT THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH HAVE THEIR CONCERNS, OBVIOUSLY WITH OUR BERM AND THE AMOUNT OF TREES WERE PLANNING ON THE NORTH. THIS IS ACTUALLY A BETTER STATE THAN IT IS TODAY IN TERMS OF TREE COVERAGE ON THAT NORTH ELEVATION.

AND THEN OTHER FACTORS.

SO CERTAINLY, PROCEDURES ADEQUATELY MITIGATE THE ALTERATION, SO OUR OUR MITIGATION STRATEGY IS REALLY TO PLANT A LOT MORE TREES AND OBVIOUSLY SAVE THE ONES THAT WE CAN, WHICH IS RIGHT AROUND.

SEVENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE SQUARE FEET OF CANOPY COVER.

IN TERMS OF ALTERATION AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH WHILE WE'RE PLANTING HEALTHY TREES, NOT TREES THAT ARE IN DECLINING STATE OR IN HAZARDOUS STATE, AND THEN THE VARIANTS WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO I MEAN, JUST AS AN OVERALL SNAPSHOT, YOU CAN SEE HERE THESE NUMBERS TELL A PRETTY STRONG STORY IN MY OPINION.

CODE REALLY REQUIRES 140000 SQUARE FEET OF CANOPY COVER.

WE'RE PROVIDING ALMOST FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PLUS PRESERVING SEVENTY THOUSAND OF THE EXISTING TREES.

SO REALLY, IN SUMMARY, THE BEFORE, BEFORE DEVELOPMENT STATE, WE'RE AT TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF CANOPY COVER AND AFTER WE'RE AT FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF CANOPY COVER.

SO I HOPE COUNCIL MAYOR, THAT YOU'LL TAKE ALL THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. DON'T GO FAR. SURE, WE WILL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK, SO ITEM 6A IS A PUBLIC HEARING SINCE IT'S A SITE PLAN, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

AND WE HAVE SOME COMMENT CARDS THAT I WILL READ FROM.

[00:45:03]

WE'LL START WITH THOSE AND THEN FROM THERE WE WILL CALL ON ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK. SO JUST A FEW GROUND RULES BEFORE WE GET STARTED.

YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO TALK.

SO THERE'S A LITTLE BOX ON THE PODIUM THAT WILL GO GREEN WHEN YOU ARE WHEN YOU START.

IT'LL START, IT'LL GO YELLOW WHEN YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT AND IT'LL START FLASHING RED WHEN YOUR TIME'S UP.

SO AT THAT POINT, WE'LL CUT THE MIC OFF AND MOVE ON BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO TALK TONIGHT, WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO.

SO REMEMBER TO ADDRESS ALL YOUR COMMENTS TO ME AND COUNSEL, NOT TO THE STAFF, NOT TO THE DEVELOPER, NOT TO THE AUDIENCE.

SO YOU GUYS, JUST ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY, JUST SAY IT TO US AND WE ARE.

OF COURSE, WE'LL KEEP EVERYTHING RESPECTFUL BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE DO IT HERE.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FIRST PUBLIC COMMENTER FOR THIS PROJECT.

ITEM 6A. CAMILLE [INAUDIBLE].

SORRY IF I BUTCHERED THAT, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.

AND TO START, ALWAYS STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. HELLO.

MY NAME IS CAMILLE [INAUDIBLE], AND I LIVE AT 1235 WOODSY COURT IN SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, 76092.

SO WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE AS WELL OVER A YEAR NOW.

AND YOU KNOW, WE HAD BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEVELOPER, BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES AND SUCH.

AND JUST, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGES THEY MADE REALLY DON'T DO JUSTICE.

THEY DON'T REALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE FOR THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR MAIN OBJECTIONS ARE BECAUSE WE FEEL THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT'S WAY TOO CLOSE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE 100 FEET SETBACK IS NOT NEAR, YOU KNOW, NOT NEAR FAR ENOUGH TO REALLY HELP WITH THE WITH THE SOUND ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROBABLY GENERATED BY THE TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF LIGHT POLLUTION.

AGAIN, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MITIGATE THAT.

BUT I'M NOT SURE 100 FEET IS NOT THAT FAR AND IT'S A BIG IT'S A BIG DEVELOPMENT, A BIG PROPERTY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO DO THAT, I FEEL.

AND ONCE THE THE WINTERTIME COMES AND ALL THE LEAVES FALL, THERE'S GOING TO BE LIGHT BLEEDING, FOR SURE. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE POINT, RIGHT? IT'S THE IT'S REALLY THE THE POLLUTION FROM THE DIESEL TRUCKS ARE BEING COMING UP.

THERE'S ALMOST A HUNDRED LOADING BAYS IN THE PROPERTY AND THE JUST THE SHEER VOLUME OF POSSIBLE MOVEMENT OF THE TRUCKS IN AND OUT IS GOING TO BE OVERWHELMING.

IF YOU JUST LOOK AT IT LOGICALLY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 100 LOADING BAYS AND DOING JUST A STANDARD EIGHT HOUR PERIOD, YOU CAN HAVE 400 TRUCKS, YOU KNOW, COMING IN AND UNLOADING.

SO THAT'S LIKE 800 TRIPS BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THAT SINGLE EGRESS.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS TOWARD FOR US THAT WITH THE SOUND AND EVERYTHING ELSE HAPPENING. SO AS I AS I WROTE THIS AND AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS, I ACTUALLY DECIDED TO READ UP ON SOME OF THE CITY OWN ORDINANCES, AND I FOUND VERY INTERESTING THINGS BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE AND IN THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING SECTION 26 I DASH ONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

THERE IS PROVISIONS, ACTUALLY, I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME.

BUT THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT THE SETBACK, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT HAS TO BE ABOUT 400 FEET FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING RESIDENTS TO ANY DEVELOPMENT ON ADJACENT LAND.

SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED AT ALL, WHICH I'M VERY SURPRISED THAT HASN'T BEEN NOTICED BY THE BY THE BY THE DEVELOPER.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT BECAUSE THAT IS ACTUALLY CODE AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE JUST DON'T LIKE.

THE OTHER THING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE ASK THE OPPOSITION, THE BUILDINGS.

SO THE LOADING BAYS ARE ALL FACING STATE HIGHWAY TWENTY SIX THAT WE WOULD MINIMIZE ANY OF THE SOUND NOISE AND FUMES IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE AT ALL.

THEY REALLY JUST KIND OF IGNORE THAT, YOU KNOW, [INAUDIBLE] ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES ON THE SAFETY SIDE.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ZACH KATE, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.

GOOD EVENING, ZACH KATE, 1008 ASPEN RIDGE DRIVE, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING NEW STAR.

AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I WAS HERE ON JUNE 1ST LAST YEAR DISCUSSING THE SAME ITEM, AND VERY BRIEFLY I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH SOME OF THE REASONS WE WERE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS WELL AS WHY WE'RE BACK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.

FIRST OFF, AS WE NOTED LAST TIME, NEW STAR TERMINALS, THEIR ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDES GASOLINE TO SOUTHLAKE AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

ANYTHING THAT IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY THREAT TO THESE TERMINALS AND THE TRUCKS THAT ARE

[00:50:03]

COMING OFF OF THAT SINGLE ACCESS ON MUSTANG COURT IS A THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF SOUTHLAKE AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

AS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE POINTED OUT, INCLUDING LIGHT TIMING ISSUES AT MUSTANG COURT, THAT IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, EXPANSION OF MUSTANG COURT, THE UNFAIR STATUS OF THE STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION THERE LEADING INTO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED.

SOME OF THESE ARE THE SAME ITEMS ON THIS LIST, INCLUDING THE FACT THE NEW STAR HAS ALREADY SPENT CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT THE CITY PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT UP.

AND WE LEFT IT AT WELL, WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE? IS IT ALLOWING THIS DEVELOPMENT TO GO THROUGH WHENEVER THESE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS? AND WE THOUGHT NOT.

NOW THIS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COUNCIL AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING BECAUSE THE COUNCIL TABLED THIS ISSUE UNANIMOUSLY AND INSTRUCTED THE CITY STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THESE ISSUES.

SO THE CITY STAFF IS PRESENTED AS OF TWO WEEKS AGO TO THIS COUNCIL AND UPDATE ON ITS STUDY OF SCENARIOS TO ADDRESS THESE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES.

AND THOSE INCLUDE RETIMING THE LIGHTS IT MUST IN COURT AND HIGHWAY 26, RESTRIPING MUSTANG COURT, EXPANDING MUSTANG COURT AND PROVIDING ACCESS VIA MUSTANG COURT OVER TO BRUMLOW EITHER DIRECTLY OR VIA HART STREET OR UP TO CONTINENTAL BOULEVARD.

NOW THE REASON I SAY ALL THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IF THE CITY STAFF, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PRELIMINARY, WE DON'T HAVE A FINALIZED REPORT, IS MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS A HEALTHY AND SAFETY ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND WHAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD THUS FAR FROM THE APPLICANT IS IN ADDRESSING OF ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED PREVIOUSLY OR BEING RAISED TODAY.

SO IT WOULD BE, WITHOUT THE REPORT BEING FINALIZED THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE INPUT ON WHAT THE POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOMMENDING FOR RECTIFYING THESE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES ARE.

IN FACT, DIRECTOR COHEN DID STATE TWO WEEKS AGO THAT THERE WAS STILL A LARGE AMOUNT OF FEASIBILITY THAT WAS BEING DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE REPORT, AS WELL AS THE NEED TO REACH OUT TO LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS LIKE NUSTAR TO CONSULT ON IT PRIOR TO MAKING A FINAL RECOMMENDATION. CONSIDERING THESE POTENTIAL SCENARIOS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH COULD ACTUALLY FIX SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT MANY OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE BROUGHT UP.

IT WOULD BE PRESUMPTIVE TO GO AHEAD AND GRANT THE SITE PLAN WITHOUT THOSE BEING ADDRESSED. SO AND ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A COMMITMENT THAT THOSE THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE GOING TO BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION AND PRIOR TO ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT TO ACTUALLY OPEN BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY LIKE GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON A HOUSE THAT WAS UNSAFE TO LIVE IN.

SO WITH THOSE THINGS IN MIND, WE ASKED THIS COUNCIL TO TABLE THIS ISSUE PENDING THE FINAL REPORT FROM THE CITY.

THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD TIMING.

NEXT SPEAKER IS RALPH WIMP, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.

RALPH WIMP WITH THE NEW STAR ENERGY.

1700 MUSTANG COURT, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092.

I AGREE. I'VE BEEN EVERY TIME I LOOK AT THAT THING AND I THINK ABOUT THE SIX POINT SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE SPENT TO HELP THE CITY MOVE FORWARD ON THE ON THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT BEFORE IS BEING WASTED.

YOU KNOW, WE PUT OUT, BUT THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO PUT OUT, YOU KNOW, AND SO SO IT JUST BOTHERS ME THAT WE SPEND SIX POINT SEVEN AND THEN EVEN THE PRIORITY SEEMS TO BE TO GIVE THEM THE ACCESS WITH THE STOP SIGNS.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN SAYING THAT THEY'LL GO FOR THE THREE, THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE. BUT BUT IT WAS IT WAS AMAZING TO ME AND LIKE I TOLD YOU ALL THE LAST TIME THAT IT WAS ALL RIGHT.

IT WAS VERY BAD FOR US TO HAVE TRAFFIC STACKED UP GOING INTO OUR FACILITY.

BUT NOW IT'S GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC STACKED UP GOING OUT OF OUR FACILITY.

SO IT'S JUST THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.

SO WE HAD TO SPEND $6.7 MILLION FOR NOTHING, IS WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO.

AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I HADN'T EVEN HEARD THEM TALKING ABOUT MAYBE BEING WILLING TO OPEN UP THESE BUILDINGS IN PHASES TO SEE WHICH BUILDING IF ONE BUILDING MIGHT AFFECT THE TRAFFIC OR IF, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT IT AND MAYBE TWO BUILDINGS TO SEE IF IT AFFECTS TRAFFIC, SEE HOW THE BUILDINGS AFFECT THE TRAFFIC.

MAYBE OPEN IT UP IN PHASES.

I KNOW THERE ARE SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THAT OPEN UP IN PHASES, SO NOBODY'S EVEN WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT.

AND SO I JUST ASKED PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT IT AND NOT APPROVE SOMETHING UNTIL ALL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

THE FINAL COMMENT CARD I HAVE IS STEVE HOFFNER, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.

[00:55:01]

THANK YOU, STEVE HOFFNER WITH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS IN OKLAHOMA CITY, 6000 SOUTHWESTERN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF NUSTAR.

I WAS HERE ALSO AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING AND I JUST WANTED TO REFRESH THE COUNCIL'S MEMORY ON SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE SEE FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT.

I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE LEE REPORT.

IT'S A VERY EXTENSIVE REPORT AND I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF IT IN TERMS OF WAREHOUSING.

THE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE BASED ON A FAIRLY LOW DENSITY RATE.

THE WAREHOUSING IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT CAN BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT WITH [INAUDIBLE] AMAZON TYPE FACILITIES, AND WE'RE UNCLEAR AS TO EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE. ALSO, THE ITE STUDY SAY THAT [INAUDIBLE] TYPE FACILITIES CAN BE UP TO 24 FEET IN HEIGHT AND ABOVE. THE SECOND CHART THAT I HAVE HERE IS THE ACTUAL CAPACITY ANALYZES THAT WERE IN THE KIMBERLY HORNE REPORT, AND YOU CAN SEE EVEN ON A 2021 EXISTING TRAFFIC, THAT THERE ARE SOME OPERATIONAL ISSUES AT THE STATE HIGHWAY 26 INTERSECTION OPERATING AT ED.

AND AS WE ADD TRAFFIC TO IT, WE ACTUALLY GO INTO A LEVEL OF SERVICE F THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE HIGH VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.

THIS IS A PM PEAK HOURS THAT I'VE NOTED SOME OF THE HIGHER VOLUMES AND ALSO THE KIND OF NORTHWEST LEFT TURN.

YOU SEE IT ALMOST 600 VEHICLES PER HOUR CURRENTLY, THAT TAKES UP ALMOST ALL OF THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY AT THAT INTERSECTION AND ADDING CARS TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS, WHICH IS BEING PROPOSED IS WHAT EXACERBATES THE ISSUE.

THE CAPACITY ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE DONE DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THESE ARE GASOLINE TRUCKS AND HAVE TO STOP AT THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

I BELIEVE I MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME.

IT'S PRETTY COMMON TO HAVE TWO OF THOSE TRUCKS AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

ONE OF THEM STOPS, ADVANCES THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CURRENTLY ALLOWS ABOUT 10 TO 12 SECONDS.

I KNOW IT CAN BE MODIFIED, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE TIME AWAY FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND SO THE SECOND TRUCK ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH ON YELLOW.

IF WE ADD TRUCKS TO THE INTERSECTION, IT JUST CONTINUES TO BE A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

IN SUMMARY, THE LEAF STUDY, I THINK, HAS SOME SOME EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO MITIGATE THE CAPACITY, THE CAPACITY ISSUES AND HAVE SECOND POINTS OF ACCESS.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS IS GOING TO BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK IN TERMS OF MODIFYING THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT MUST END QUOTE.

I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT AND THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IF IT STAYS A SINGLE POINT, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO NEED TO WIDEN THAT INTERSECTION AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANES AT THAT INTERSECTION TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY.

AND THEN WITH REGARDS REAL QUICKLY TO THE INTERSECTION, I THINK THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME WAS HOW DID WE PUT STOP SIGNS IN THERE? AND I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF'S CONCERN AND THEY WANTING TO DO IT FROM A PUBLIC WORK STANDPOINT. FROM MY VIEWPOINT, IF WE ALLOW THE NORTH THE KIND OF THE NORTHWEST TRAFFIC IN FREE FLOW AND THEN HAVE THREE WAY STOPS AT THE OTHER LOCATIONS THAT THAT GIVES EQUAL CAPACITY TO EVERYBODY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

APPRECIATE IT. SO THAT'S THE END OF MY COMMENT CARDS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? MR. SCHILLING. MAYOR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, MARTIN SCHILLING 2665 , NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS 76092.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

FROM THE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WE HAVE SUCH A HAZARDOUS SITUATION. I THINK WE NEED TO SHUT THE INTERSECTION OFF NOW AND THEN GO FIX IT SO WE DON'T KILL SOMEBODY ON TWENTY SIX.

2001 IS WHEN WE PUT MUSTANG IN SERVICE, SO THAT'S 20 YEARS AGO AND NOW IT'S A CRISIS.

EVERYBODY KNEW THAT THE WRIGHT PROPERTY WAS GOING TO DEVELOP.

WE ALL WORK TOGETHER ON THAT AND NOW WE'RE THE LAST GUY IN AND WE'RE THE BAD GUY.

WE'VE CAUSED THE PROBLEM.

THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME, SO TO TO BLAME IT ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN IS WRONG.

THE WHEN WE WORK TOGETHER ON THAT AGAIN, EVERYBODY KNEW THAT THESE PROPERTIES WERE ALL GOING TO DEVELOP. SO I AGREE THAT THE INTERSECTION IS NOT FUNCTIONING TO THE LEVEL WE'D ALL LIKE, BUT IT'S BEEN DOING THAT FOR 20 YEARS.

SO, YOU KNOW, NUSTAR HAS GOT TWELVE HUNDRED MILLENNIAL FOOT OF FRONTAGE ON BRUMLOW.

WELL, THERE'S A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS.

THEY COULD GO BUILD A ROAD FROM THERE AND THEY COULD GET INTO THEIR TERMINAL THAT DRIVE.

THEY'D TAKE 50 PERCENT OF THE TRAFFIC OUT OF THE INTERSECTION.

SO IT'S FRUSTRATING FOR ME.

I'VE BEEN, AS YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED ON THIS PROJECT NOW FOR, I DON'T KNOW, TWENTY FIVE,

[01:00:06]

TWENTY SIX, TWENTY SEVEN YEARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE CAN'T DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS FIXED.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME.

WE'VE GOT MANY SOLUTIONS THAT'LL WORK.

MY THINKING IS THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE ITS EMERGENCY.

WELL, YOU'VE BEEN LIVING WITH IT FOR 20 YEARS, SO YOU CAN'T LIVE WITH A COUPLE MORE YEARS BEFORE WE GET IT FIXED.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER SPEAKER SPEAKERS ON ITEMS 6A.

SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CAN COME BACK UP HERE.

SO LET ME START BY ASKING THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ACTUALLY PRESS PAUSE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY FIRST.

SO ALAN, WE SO THIS IS A SITE PLAN.

WE TALKED LAST MEETING ACTUALLY EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STANDARDS OF APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN LIKE WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE CONSIDERING NOW VERSUS A ZONING CHANGE OR SOMETHING OTHER SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE COULD BE CONSIDERING. COULD YOU JUST PLEASE GO OVER WHAT OUR WHAT OUR OBLIGATIONS ARE AS FAR AS CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN KIND OF IN GENERAL, WHAT WHAT, HOW HIGH A BAR IS THIS? YES, SIR.

YOU KNOW, AS I DISCUSSED WITH THE COUNCIL ON A COUPLE OF RECENT MEETINGS, WHEN WE'VE HAD CASES THAT HAVE DEALT WITH THESE ISSUES, THE CITY COUNCIL AND REGULATING LAND DEVELOPMENT OPERATES BASICALLY ALONG TWO TRACKS.

LAND USE DECISIONS ARE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STANDARD ZONING ENABLING ACT IS ADOPTED IN CHAPTER 211 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

AS WE FREQUENTLY TALK ABOUT, THAT IS IS A SUBJECTIVE DISCRETIONARY LEGISLATIVE ACT WHERE THE COUNCIL DETERMINES THE USE OR USES TO WHICH LAND MAY BE PLACED AND THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE APPLICABLE WITHIN EACH DISTRICT AS IT AFFECTS EACH PIECE OF PROPERTY OR STRUCTURE.

THE COUNCIL HAS ENORMOUS DISCRETION, AND WE FREQUENTLY DISCUSS THAT WHEN ZONING CASES APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

ONCE WE MOVE OUT OF THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND WE'VE MADE THE USE DECISION, THEN WE MOVE INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT WORLD ON LAND DESIGN.

IT'S NO LONGER LAND USE, IT'S LAND DESIGN.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE APPROVING SUBDIVISION PLATS OR SITE PLANS.

AND TEXAS LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES AND IT'S ENCAPSULATED PRINCIPALLY IN CHAPTER 212 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN ADOPT REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS RELATING TO THE DESIGN OF LAND DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE BROAD DISCRETION TO DO THAT, BUT ONCE WE HAVE ADOPTED SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS OR PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTIES, IF A DEVELOPER OR APPLICANT SUBMITS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR PLAT THAT IS COMPLIANT FACIALLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR REGULATIONS, THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE BODY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVAL, BE IT PLAN COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN.

IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY.

THERE IS NO SUBJECTIVITY INVOLVED WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES FORWARD AND SUBMITS A SITE PLAN OR A PLAT, THE STAFF REVIEWS IT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.

IF THEY FIND IT COMPLIANT.

THEN, OF COURSE, WE MOVE FORWARD QUICKLY ON THE PROJECT.

IF THEY NEED A VARIANCE, SOME SPECIFIC RELIEF FROM A SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE REGULATION.

IT COMES TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ULTIMATELY FOR A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT CAN BE APPROVED BY THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ONLY ITEM OF CONCERN ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT THAT IS FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, FACIALLY NON-COMPLIANT IS THE THE LANDSCAPING VARIANCE REQUESTED BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION THAT MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT. THE COUNCIL HAS DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A VARIANCE IS JUSTIFIED UNDER OUR REGULATIONS.

HOWEVER, IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, IF THE CITY IS CHALLENGED IN ANY MANNER, WHAT THE COURT WILL LOOK FOR IN THE EVIDENCE IS IS THIS APPLICANT BEING TREATED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO OTHER COMPARABLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS.

SO THE QUESTION THE COUNCIL WOULD FACE IS IN OTHER AREAS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OR IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY.

IF VARIANCES FOR FROM LANDSCAPING COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUESTED FOR INDUSTRIALLY

[01:05:02]

ZONED PROPERTY, HOW HAS THE CITY TREATED THOSE REQUESTS? AND AS LONG AS THE CITY'S ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE'VE TREATED THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES, THEN OF COURSE, THE CITY'S DECISION WOULD BE SUSTAINED IF FOR ANY REASON, WE DECIDE NOT TO FOLLOW A CONSISTENT POLICY OR PRACTICE, AND WE DENY A DEVELOPMENT OPTION TO A PROPERTY OWNER.

THEN, OF COURSE, WE RUN INTO THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF FEDERAL LAW, DEALING WITH REGULATORY TAKING OF PROPERTY INTERESTS.

AND OF COURSE, WE WORK VERY HARD IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TO PROTECT ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY DOES NOT BECOME ENSNARLED IN THOSE KINDS OF ACTIONS IF WE CAN AVOID IT. YEAH, OK.

SO WE HAVE A SITE PLAN WITH ONE VARIANCE.

SITE PLAN WITH ONE VARIANCE, OTHERWISE THE STAFF IS INDICATED IN THE REPORT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS SUBMITTED, IS COMPLIANT WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FOR AN I OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE TRACT AT THIS LOCATION. SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT JUST THE OVERALL FLOW OF THE SITE, THE SAFETY OF THE SITE, AS FAR AS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OUT OF THE SITE OR ON MUSTANG DRIVE.

TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS OR IS THAT MORE A LAND USE CONSIDERATION? IN THIS INSTANCE, WE HAVE A PROVISION IN CHAPTER 40 OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH A SITE PLAN WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE APPROPRIATE REGULATORY BODIES BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE.

ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IS THREATS, POSSIBLE THREATS TO PUBLIC SAFETY CREATED BY THE MOBILITY PLAN OR STRUCTURE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THE I THINK MANY LAYMEN WOULD INTERPRET THAT TO SAY THE COUNCIL HAS BROAD DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.

THAT'S AN ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE MADE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE TEXAS COURTS AND LOOKING AT THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT DEAL WITH MINISTERIAL ACTS SAY IF YOU ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT TRACK IN MAKING A DECISION, THERE HAS TO BE SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION YOU ARE MAKING, I.E., ARE THERE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDIES OR REPORTS THAT REFLECT THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSED CIRCULATION OR TRAFFIC MOVEMENT PLAN WOULD CREATE A PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY RISK IN AN IMPERMISSIBLE MANNER THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY BASED ON NORMAL COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS? I THINK WE'RE ALL AWARE THERE HAVE BEEN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYZES PERFORMED ON THIS SITE, AND THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS HAVE NOT PRODUCED A REPORT INDICATING THAT WE FACE THAT KIND OF ISSUE AT THIS SITE.

SO, SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS, OBVIOUSLY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

BUT IN THIS CONTEXT HERE, AS WE CONSIDER A SITE PLAN, WHICH IS MINISTERIAL WHEN IT'S CLEAN, IT'S NOT HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE A VARIANCE IN THIS CONTEXT.

THERE IS AN EVIDENTIARY BAR THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN ANYONE MEET.

WELL, AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE THE CITY STAFF OR THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AT THIS POINT, INDICATING THAT WE HAVE AN IMPERMISSIBLY INAPPROPRIATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SYSTEM PROPOSED THAT THE CITY'S CONSULTING ENGINEER HAS IN ESSENCE REVIEWED IT AND BELIEVES THAT IT FALLS WITHIN ACCEPTABLE RANGES FOR THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. OK.

AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THE SITE IS NOT WITHOUT ITS CHALLENGES.

SO KEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU? WHAT? A.

LAST TWO WEEKS AGO, YOU AND DIRECTOR COHAN KIND OF TALKED TO US ABOUT PLANNED CHANGES TO THE SITE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT RETIMING.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WIDENING WHAT, WHAT'S IN THE WORKS, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT AS WE GO FORWARD THE CITY TO BE DOING TO IMPROVE CIRCULATION IN THIS AREA OF TOWN? SURE, THE STAFF IS ENGAGED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH GRAPEVINE.

THEY CONTROL THE SIGNALS ON HIGHWAY 26.

THEY ARE LOOKING AT A RETIMING EFFORT.

THEY ARE CURRENTLY DOING A REVIEW OF THE LEED ENGINEERING STUDY.

WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND INCLUDING CREATING A DUAL PHASE OR WHERE YOU HAVE LEFT HAND TURNS OUT OF THE MUSTANG SIDE AND LEFT HAND TURNS OUT OF THE COMING NORTH ON MUSTANG TO ASK THEM TO LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND SO LOOKING THAT AT THE INTERSECTION LONG TERM ON THE CONNECTIVITY BACK TO BRUMLOW OR TO THE NORTH, THAT WILL BE A POLICY DECISION THAT WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND SEEK DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO PURSUE.

THOSE MAY RESULT IN A MODIFICATION TO OUR MOBILITY PLAN TO INCLUDE THOSE ON OUR MOBILITY PLAN TO BEGIN MAKING THOSE POTENTIAL FUTURE ROADWAYS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING.

[01:10:03]

WELL, AND MY REQUEST TO BE WITH COUNCIL'S DEFERENCE, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE SITE PLAN GOES, I WOULD ASK YOU GUYS TO PUT THAT A HIGH PRIORITY BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A BIT OF A MESS ALREADY. YES, SIR.

QUESTION DO YOU HAVE AN AERIAL OF THE REGION OF THIS WHOLE CORNER? YES, SIR. OR THIS SITE AND THE SURROUNDING SITES? OK, YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE YOU WANT.

YEAH, THAT'S GOOD, THAT'S GOOD.

OK, SO THE VARIANCE IN FRONT OF US IS A TREE PRESERVATION VARIANCE.

THIS IS INDUSTRIAL LAND USE.

IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. WE'RE NOT THERE'S THERE'S NOT A REZONING IN FRONT OF US.

I MEAN, DO YOU REMEMBER PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING KEN I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF SOME OF THE SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL SITES AS THEY DEVELOPED, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE TREE VARIANTS REQUESTED? HOW? I MEAN, I KNOW WE TYPICALLY WE PURCHASE THESE THINGS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BUT INDUSTRIAL IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH TREE PRESERVATION.

RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU'VE HAD CASES, I MEAN OF THE USES OUT THERE HAVE BEEN THERE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO OUR TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS BEING IN PLACE.

TYPICALLY, AS THIS HAPPENED, DID THIS EVENING, THEY TRY TO OFFSET THAT THROUGH MITIGATION OR OTHER MEANS REPLANTING, MAYBE SPECIES THAT HAVE A GREATER SURVIVABILITY RATE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PUT FORWARD.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THESE CASES WHERE THE TREES ARE IN THE PRIME DEVELOPMENT AREAS, IT'S TOUGH NOT TO PROVIDE A VARIANCE.

AND HISTORICALLY, COUNCIL HAS CONSIDERED THOSE.

AND MY LAST QUESTION FOR YOU BEFORE I TURN OVER TO COUNCIL, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.

CAN YOU JUST. COULD YOU COULD YOU TELL WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO? COULD YOU JUST SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT? YES, I BELIEVE SO. IN THE I1 ORDINANCE, THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RELATED TO LIGHT AND AND NOISE, WHICH THEY WILL NEED TO ADHERE TO.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A NOTE ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY.

THAT'S FOR ANY BUILDING THAT'S WITHIN 400 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY.

IF YOU GO TO THE DEFINITION FOR SINGLE FAMILY, IT REFERS TO SF ONE, SF TWO.

THESE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED MH AND THERE IS A NOTE IN THAT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IT GOES BACK TO 200 FEET AND A LOT OF THOSE STANDARDS DEAL WITH MATERIALS AND BUILDING MATERIALS.

YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, AS COUNCIL KNOWS THAT THE TWO LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS AGO, THE MATERIALS BILLS PRETTY MUCH TOOK THAT AWAY FROM THE CITIES AND THAT ANY MATERIALS THAT ARE APPROVED IN LESS RE CODE CYCLES ARE ALLOWED AS BUILDING MATERIALS. SO IT'S STILL ON THE BOOKS.

BUT IT'S IN THESE CASES THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE'RE HOLDING OUR STANDARDS ARE ON OUR COURT OR DISTRICTS BASED ON SOME REGULATIONS THAT WE CAN STILL HOLD THOSE.

UNDERSTOOD. OK.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECT TO RECOGNIZE? YES, MAYOR, I HAVE ONE FOR DIRECTOR BAKER, ALSO ONE FOR OUR POLICE CHIEF AND THE ONE FOR DIRECTOR BAKER MAY HAVE TO BE PUNTED TO THE NUSTAR FOLKS, BUT I'LL ASK YOU FIRST, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT HOURS THE NUSTAR TERMINAL IS ACTIVELY TAKING TRUCKS IN AND OUT? I AM NOT. I ASSUME IT'S PROBABLY TWENTY FOUR.

SO BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY TIME THERE'S NO PROHIBITION ON, OK, MAYBE WE GET THAT ANSWER IN A MINUTE. I JUST DON'T KNOW.

AND THEN A QUICK QUESTION FOR OUR POLICE CHIEF, IF WE COULD.

I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT HERE, CHIEF BRANDON, BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS THERE BEEN A MAJOR COLLISION AT THIS INTERSECTION INVOLVING A GAS TRUCK HISTORICALLY? NO, NOT THAT I RECALL, BUT TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT.

THAT'S MY KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR ACCIDENTS AND WHERE THEY OCCUR.

NOT NECESSARILY AN EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH FOR OUR RECORDS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE IMPRESSION THAT MAYBE THERE WASN'T SOMETHING EIGHT OR 10 YEARS BACK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT NOTHING THAT I'M AWARE OF.

SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN OCCASION, BUT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF A PATTERN, I GUESS.

CORRECT? OK, OK.

AND I KNOCK ON WOOD ASKING THAT QUESTION, OF COURSE, BUT I WANTED TO KNOW, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

DOES SOMEONE FROM NUSTAR WANT TO COME UP AND SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE HOURS? I'LL PROBABLY HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP FOR YOU.

ALSO, IF THAT'S OK.

AND MAYBE YOU CAN IF YOU HAVE RALPH WIMP WITH NUSTAR.

[01:15:04]

YEAH. SO HOURS OF OPERATION THAN IF YOU REMEMBER ANY ACCIDENTS AT THAT INTERSECTION.

NOT AT THAT INTERSECTION.

BUT THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT AT AN INTERSECTION THAT WAS CLOSED WENT LIKE, MR. MARTIN SAID. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAD TO CLOSE THEIR THEIR SIDES.

WE USED TO CALL EACH EACH TERMINAL USED TO HAVE THEIR OWN EXCESS OUT.

AND AT ONE POINT IT WAS IT WAS ALAN AT THE TIME THEY WERE TRYING TO PULL OUT A CAR, HIT THEM. AND SO.

SO IT'S ANY TIME THAT YOU GIVE A GAS TRUCK, IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET GOING AND IT BEING A CAR GETS A LITTLE IMPATIENT.

YOU KNOW, THAT CAN CAN BE A BE A PROBLEM.

BUT WE ARE A TWENTY FOUR HOUR FACILITY.

WE DO APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN US AND MAJELLA AND PROBABLY ABOUT 250 TRUCKS A DAY, AND OUR BUSINESS HAS PICKED BACK UP SINCE.

IT'S A SENSE OF COVID RESTRICTIONS HAVE COME ALONG, SO IT IS BUSIER.

SO JUST ONE FOLLOW UP, SIR, ON THAT TWENTY FOUR, SEVEN OR THOSE 250 TRUCKS? ARE THEY FAIRLY EVENLY DISPERSED THROUGHOUT TWENTY FOUR HOURS OR IS IT HEAVIER DURING THE DAYLIGHT HOURS AND THE SLOWER, HEAVIER DURING THE FIRST PART OF THE DAY LIKE, SAY, FROM SIX O'CLOCK TO NOON? AND THEN THERE'S A PERIOD IN THERE WHERE IT SLOWS DOWN IN THE AFTERNOON, THEN THE NEXT SHIFT COMES ON AND THEN IT'S REAL BUSY RIGHT AT THE NEXT SHIFT, YOU KNOW? AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY FROM ABOUT FOUR TO, WELL, I ACTUALLY MEAN THAT, BUT IT GOES IT'S A TWENTY FOUR HOUR. SURE.

I THINK WHERE YOU PROBABLY FOLLOW WHERE MY LINE OF QUESTIONS IS, AND THAT IS IF IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, IS THERE MODIFICATIONS THAT CAN BE MADE TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY WHILE STILL MEETING THE DEMAND NEEDS BY, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY FLIPPING THAT A BIT TO WHERE PERHAPS THE NIGHTTIME IS WHEN MOST OF THE, YOU KNOW, USES THERE WHEN THERE'S VERY LITTLE AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC? WELL, RIGHT NOW THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC AT THE NIGHTTIME, BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT DEPENDENT ON US. IT'S THE THE COMPANIES THAT GO TO THE SERVICE STATIONS.

THEY DON'T WORK EIGHT HOUR SHIFTS, THEY WORK 12 HOUR SHIFTS AND MOST OF THE TRUCKS HAVE TWO DRIVERS. SO THERE ARE TWENTY FOUR HOUR TRUCKS AS WELL.

AND SO THEY COME AND THEY TRY TO FILL UP THE STATIONS AS IS BEST THEY CAN.

OK, THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO CONTROL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

OK, I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

COULD I GET THE APPLICANT BACK UP HERE? THANK YOU, SIR. SO A LOT OF TALK ABOUT MOBILITY ON THE SITE, SAFETY ON THE SITE.

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS WILLING TO DO? WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING ON DOING? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION? YEAH. AGAIN, I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT OUR SITE PLAN, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS DEPENDING ON WHICH DIRECTION THE CITY GOES.

SO HENCE THAT ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE WEST.

SO AT SOME POINT, IF IF THAT IS IMPROVED, WE'LL HAVE THAT THAT CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN SITES, DEPENDING ON WHICH DIRECTION THE CITY WANTS TO GO ON ON STRIPING FROM, YOU KNOW, BEYOND OUR SITE.

I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT WORKING TOGETHER ON THAT.

YOU PARTICIPATING FINANCIALLY, PERHAPS? YEAH. OK, BUT IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO KNOWING, YOU KNOW, THE ULTIMATE GAME PLAN, AND OF COURSE, AND AGAIN, THAT STUDY WAS BASED ON A 20 30 BUILD OUT WHERE VOLUME OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE HIGHER THAN IT IS TODAY.

SO MAYBE IT'S A PHASED APPROACH TO THE SOLUTION.

DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO PHASE THESE BUILDINGS IF THEY'RE PASSED OR ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD THEM ALL AT ONCE? THEY'LL BE BUILT AT ONCE.

OK? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, THANKS. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

OK. WELL, COUNCIL, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

YOU KNOW MY VIEW, THIS IS A SITE PLAN WITH ONE VARIANCE, AND THE VARIANCE IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO APPROVE AS A MATTER.

OF COURSE, I DON'T SEE A WAY TO DEVELOP THIS SITE WITHOUT IT.

I THINK HEALTH AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY ARGUMENT, I THINK, IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, WORK FROM THE FROM THE CITY, PUTTING TOGETHER A GOOD PLAN ON HOW TO IMPROVE MOBILITY ON THAT SITE.

BUT AS FAR AS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW, A SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE IS I REALLY DON'T SEE A REASON TO DENY IT.

BUT WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I'LL CHIME IN. I FEEL IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MAYOR, I'M ACTUALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY COMPONENT HERE.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT SOME OF THE CONCERN IS FROM NUCOR, BUT I JUST BECAUSE YOU DELIVER FUEL TO THE LOCAL AREAS DOES NOT MAKE IT A SAFETY HAZARD BECAUSE THERE'LL BE MORE VEHICLES.

I MEAN, THE ROADS THAT YOU DRIVE ON ARE VERY BUSY ROADS, AND THE INTERSECTIONS THAT YOU CROSS ARE VERY BUSY INTERSECTIONS.

AND I'M NOT SEEING HOW THIS IS AN ENHANCED SAFETY CONCERN.

I DO, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ENHANCED MOBILITY CONCERN.

JUST THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT, AS IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN.

[01:20:04]

AND THAT'S WHY WE DID THIS TRAFFIC STUDY.

YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT LEE HAS GIVEN US A REPORT THAT SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS AN ADEQUATE INGRESS EGRESS.

I WOULD SUGGEST FROM MY MY OWN TRAVELS UP AND DOWN THIS ROAD THAT ADDING ALL THIS INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC WILL CERTAINLY CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THAN LESS.

SO I'D REALLY LIKE OUR STAFF TO WORK DILIGENTLY TO ENHANCE THAT EXISTING INGRESS EGRESS AND NOT PUT ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ONTO BRUMMEL AND CERTAINLY NOT ON TO CONTINENTAL.

THOSE WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE LAST MEASURES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF GO TOWARDS AND WIDENING STRIPING, TIMING THE LIGHTS, FINDING A WAY, IF POSSIBLE, TO TO HAVE STACKING LANES OR DIESEL LANES TO SUPPORT THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WOULD COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF A POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF THIS OF THIS REQUEST, AS WE AS WE DISCUSS THE TREE ORDINANCE.

AGAIN, I CAN'T AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO SEE ALL THE HEALTHY TREES REMAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE TREES.

I THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AN UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DEVELOPING THEIR LAND. SO I DON'T SEE US REALLY HOLDING THAT AS A AS A JUSTIFICATION TO NOT BE ABLE TO APPROVE THE SITE.

NO, I THINK THAT'S IT.

I I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SO AS A RESULT, I'M CONSISTENT WITH IT.

I FEEL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

YEAH, I'LL JUST I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHTS IN THE NOTES I'VE TAKEN THROUGHOUT THIS IS WHERE MY HEAD IS.

IT'S ZONED APPROPRIATELY AND A ZONING CHANGE, AND IT'S INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S ZONED APPROPRIATELY.

THE HANG UP WE HAD LAST TIME WHERE WE TAPPED THE PAUSE BUTTON WAS ON SAFETY UNLESS WE SAID, LET'S GET A STUDY.

WELL, WE HAVE A STUDY AND IT SAID THAT IT'S ADEQUATE, YOU KNOW, ADEQUATE.

IT'S NOT FANTASTIC.

I GET IT, BUT IT'S NOT INADEQUATE.

IT'S ADEQUATE. THAT WAS THE BIG PIECE WE NEEDED TO HEAR.

I NEED TO TO THE POINT COUNCIL MEMBER PATENTS MAKE MAKING.

I THINK ANY TIME YOU'RE DEALING WITH GAS TRUCKS, THERE'S INHERENT DANGER.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT A WRECK THAT YOU WANT TO SEE HAPPEN, BUT I LIKE THE FACT THAT THIS HASN'T BEEN A I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE EVERY DECISION BASED ON SAFETY, THEN WE NEED TO SHUT DOWN KIMBALL AND SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF ACCIDENTS THAT ARE THERE FAR IN EXCESS OF THIS INTERSECTION. SO.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US, BUT WE GOT THE STUDY THAT SAID IT WAS ADEQUATE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER PATTON.

BRUMLEY WAS MY LAST ALTERNATIVE, BUT WE KNOW THERE IS A SOLUTION.

WE KNOW THAT IF WE GET DOWN THE ROAD AND THIS IS JUST UNTENABLE, THAT WE HAVE A SOLUTION, WE CAN TAKE NEW STAR TRAFFIC UNDER BREMBO IF WE NEED TO.

SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I SUPPORT, BUT IT'S IT'S AN OPTION.

WE'RE NOT BACKED INTO A CORNER WHERE THERE ARE NO OPTIONS HERE.

AND THEN THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS I DO AGREE WITH SOMEBODY SAID IT'S LIKE THE LAST PERSON IN IS THE ONE. YOU'RE GOING TO BE PUNISHED HERE.

THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. THIS IS THEIR THEIR PROPERTY.

IT'S ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT.

AND IRONICALLY, THIS SITUATION THAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM AND THE POSSIBLE SAFETY ISSUE IS THE FUEL TRUCKS.

IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT, IT'S THE FUEL TRUCKS.

SO HOW WRONG IS THAT TO PLACE THAT ON THE APPLICANT AND SAY, BECAUSE YOUR NEIGHBORS CREATE THE ISSUE, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

I'M IN SUPPORT.

OK. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COUNCIL, IF IF THERE'S NOT ANY DISCUSSION ON TAKE A MOTION.

OK, MARY, IN COUNCIL, I MOVE, WE APPROVE.

ITEM NUMBER 6A OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS ZA21-0039, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN FOR MUSTANG BUSINESS PARK ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 1B3.

HARRIS AND DECKER SURVEY EXCUSE ME, THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY TWENTY FIFTH TWENTY TWENTY TWO AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW.

SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED JANUARY TWENTY FIFTH TWENTY TWENTY TWO.

THIS IS ONE OF THE VARIANCES TO APPROVE VARIANCE REQUESTED TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FIVE EIGHT FIVE E, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM MINIMUM OF 60 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER TO BE PRESERVED ON SITE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW APPROXIMATELY TWENTY SEVEN POINT SIX PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER TO BE PRESERVED.

WE'RE NOTING THE FOLLOWING APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO DEDICATE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PRIVATE STREET EASEMENTS FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCESS TO THE WEST.

APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS GATE TO THE NORTH, SIMILAR TO THE GATE SHOWN IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION, WHICH MATCHES THE EIGHT FOOT TALL, SOLID SCREEN

[01:25:01]

FENCE. AND IN THE EVENT THAT A WESTERN EMERGENCY ACCESS, DRIVE, ACCESS OR STREET ACCESS IS PROVIDED, THE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE NORTH CAN BE EVALUATED FOR CLOSURE.

AND FINALLY, THE CITY CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL ULTIMATELY DETERMINE THE DESIGN OF THE MUSTANG COURT SOUTHWESTERN DRIVE INTERSECTIONS IN TERMS OF STOP SIGNS AND STOP BAR DESIGN. OK, WE HAVE A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

AND ITEM 6A PASSES SEVEN-ZERO.

WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 6B, WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-791 ZA21-0094, SECOND

[6. B. Ordinance No. 480-791, (ZA21-0094), 2nd Reading, Zoning Change and Site Plan, to include a variance to the Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended, for 1800 E. SH 114 on property described as Lot 1R, Brewer Industrial Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 1800 E. SH 114, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "B-1", Business Service Park District. Proposed Zoning: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #4. PUBLIC HEARING]

READING ZONE CHANGE THE SITE PLAN.

DIRECTOR BAKER. THE PRESENTATION ON THIS YOU THIS WAS DISCUSSED ON [INAUDIBLE] YOUR FIRST READING, BUT THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE TO ALLOW THE CATERING KITCHEN IN AT THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1800 EAST STATE HIGHWAY 114.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED AREA.

IN ADDITION, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A MASONRY VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE BUILDING MATERIALS TO REMAIN AS CURRENTLY IN PLACE.

THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING AND THEY WANT TO REMAIN TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THESE OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.

ONE HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THE EAST SIDE, WHERE IT SAYS OPTIONAL.

THESE ARE SOME PROPOSED ELEVATIONS, BUT THIS EASTERN PERSPECTIVE, THIS FACADE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. THERE'S A PHOTO TAKEN TODAY AND THEY WANT TO HAVE AN OPTION TO IMPROVE THE FRONT ON FUTURE TENANT OCCUPANCY.

REALLY, THERE'S THIS IS JUST ALLOWS THAT CATERING KITCHEN TO OCCUPY THE BUILDING, WHICH REQUIRES A ZONING CHANGE.

SEEMS STRAIGHTFORWARD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR BAKER? THANK YOU, SIR. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? NO NEED TO COME DOWN IF YOU DON'T.

SORRY TO CATCH YOU MID-STRIDE THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL FOR THE APPLICANT AND THEN I'LL.

OK. OK.

WELL, ITEM 6B IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF ANYBODY IN THE CROWD WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO US ABOUT 6B SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL TAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 6B OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-791, ZA21-0094, WHICH IS THE SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE IN SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE A VARIANCE TO THE MASONRY ORDINANCE NUMBER FIVE FIVE SEVEN AS AMENDED FOR 1800 EAST STATE HIGHWAY 114.

THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 25TH, 2022 AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED DECEMBER 30TH 2021 APPROVING THE VARIANCE TO ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 480, SECTION FOUR THREE EIGHT POINT NINE POINT C POINT ONE POINT A IN THE MASONRY ORDINANCE NUMBER FIVE FIVE SEVEN AS AMENDED TO ALLOW THE EXISTING METAL PANEL EXTERIOR TO REMAIN. THIS IS NOTING ALLOWING A CATERING KITCHEN AS PERMITTED USE AND ALLOWING THE OPTIONAL EXTERIOR FACADE IMPROVEMENTS.

WE HAVE MOTION IS THEIR SECOND? SECOND. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING OVER THERE? I WENT TO PUSH THE SPEAKER VOTE BUTTON AND HIT THE NO BUTTON, SO I JUST STARTED PUSHING BUTTONS. OK? ITEM 6B PASSES SEVEN ZERO WITH A LITTLE SPEED BUMP.

WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT! MOVES ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9A, ZA21-0098 PLAT REVISION FOR LOTS, 11R1 AND 11R2,

[9. A. ZA21-0098, Plat Revision for Lots 11R1 and 11R2, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition on property described as Lot 11, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 325 Pine Dr., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #9.]

ET CETERA, AND DIRECTOR BAKER.

MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. THIS IS A REQUEST TO APPROVE A PLAT REVISION TO DIVIDE APPROXIMATELY THREE POINT ZERO SEVEN SEVEN ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS.

ONE A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 325 PINE.

LAND USES, LOW DENSITY AND SF 1A ZONING IS IN PLACE.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION.

THE INTENT IS TO CREATE AN ACCESS DRIVE ALONG WHAT IS CALLED LOT TEN, WHICH IS A PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND PINE TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR A NEW RESIDENTIAL LOT ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

THIS IS THE PLAT SHOWING THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1998.

AH LOT 10 IS THIS HOUSE AND THEN LOT 11 IS THE EXISTING LOT AS SHOWN.

THIS GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATES WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.

[01:30:04]

THERE IS AN EASEMENT TO 12 FOOT EASEMENTS.

APPROXIMATELY THE DRIVE IS SHOWN.