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

[5. Public Forum. (The Public Forum will not begin prior to 7:00 p.m. This is the public’s opportunity to address the City Council about non-agenda items. During this proceeding, the City Council will not discuss, consider, or take action on any item presented. We respectfully ask that anyone stepping forward to speak during Public Forum to please limit remarks to three minutes or less.) ]

PUBLIC FORUM ALLOWS THE PUBLIC TO BRING UP ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA? YES, SIR. COME ON DOWN. AND I THINK. IS THE MICROPHONE ON? ALL RIGHT. IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD. I'VE BEEN A SOUTHLAKE RESIDENT SINCE 1998. HAPPY TO BE HERE.

I WANTED TO COME AND ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AND PERSONALLY THANK YOU FOR THE ACTIONS YOU TOOK IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS BEFORE YOU RELATIVE TO THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEWOOD AND CARROLL AVENUE.

I LIVE AT 1000 LAKEWOOD DRIVE. MY HOME SITS IN THE SIX HOME BLOCK THAT'S BETWEEN CARROLL AND CARROLL OAKS.

SO ANY CHANGE TO THAT INTERSECTION THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED TRAFFIC WAS GOING TO DRAMATICALLY IMPACT ME REALLY MORE THAN ANY OTHER RESIDENT.

I COMMEND STAFF IN PARTICULAR MR. JOSUE HERNANDEZ FOR HIS RESPONSIVENESS.

AND ALSO, YOU MAYOR. FROM SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENCE YOU'VE RECEIVED, THE DECISION TO SELECT OPTION B WAS CERTAINLY MY PERSONAL CHOICE. PUTTING A LIGHT THERE WOULD HAVE FORCED TRAFFIC, I BELIEVE, OUT OF LANDMARK IF AN ACCESS POINT HAD BEEN GRANTED AND WOULD HAVE SENT TRAFFIC DOWN MY STREET AND THROUGH FOXBOROUGH, SOUTHVIEW, AND LIKEWISE, TRAFFIC COMING FROM SOUTHVIEW AND FOXBOROUGH WOULD HAVE USED THAT AS A POINT OF EGRESS.

SO IN PARTICULAR, COUNCILWOMAN SHARLI, I NOTICED SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS WERE TRULY HEARTFELT, AND I APPRECIATED THE WAY YOU LISTENED TO OUR RESIDENTS.

[00:15:01]

AND COUNCILMAN WILLIAMSON, YOU MADE A COGENT POINT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A LIGHT THERE AND TRAFFIC FLOW IN THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF LIGHTS OF TRAFFIC COMING NORTH, OR. YEAH, WOULD BE SOUTH ON CARROLL AND MR. TAGGART ALSO YOU AS WELL AS FAR AS THE ABILITY TO MAKE A U-TURN AND COME BACK INTO THE LANDMARK BUILDING.

SO IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I COME AND THANK YOU PERSONALLY BECAUSE I KNOW YOU MAKE A TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORTS.

AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW, AS A CITIZEN, I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

WHO MR. HERNANDEZ LOOPS IN ON MUCH OF THE COMMUNICATION THAT HAS COME FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK DURING OUR PUBLIC FORUM ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA? YES. PLEASE COME ON DOWN. AND LIKEWISE, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN THE MICROPHONE I THINK IS ALREADY ON, AND THEN YOUR THREE MINUTES WILL START.

THANK YOU. DIANE DORMAN, 100 ASCOT DRIVE. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF EMAILS ABOUT SOME SAFETY SITUATION ON WHITECHAPEL.

I KNOW YOU'VE GOT THE AGENDA ITEM, BUT THIS IS KIND OF RELATED TO THAT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ON THAT.

I'LL SPEAK ON THAT DURING ITS TIME. BUT DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS, I'VE SENT NUMEROUS EMAILS IN TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, MAINLY INTO THE CITY MANAGEMENT TALKING ABOUT THE SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT THE STUDENTS ON WHITECHAPEL CROSSING FROM CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL OVER TO WHITECHAPEL, AND DURING SOME OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE LATTER PART OF 2025, WHEN I BROUGHT IT FORWARD AND HAD PICTURES OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHT BEING GREEN WHERE THE STUDENTS WERE CROSSING, WE WERE TOLD BY THE POLICE CHIEF, ASHLEY, THAT IT WAS WORKING AS PERFECT AND IT WAS NO PROBLEM.

BUT YET A LATER CONVERSATION I HAD WITH LAUREN LANEAVE, THE INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

SHE SAID, IN FACT, THAT THE CROSSWALK WAS ACTUALLY HAD IN THE BOX.

I DON'T KNOW THE TERM, SO PLEASE PARDON ME. LIKE THE ELECTRONICS IN THE BOX WAS DEFECTIVE AND IT WAS CAUSING THE LIGHTS TO DO NOT PROPER THINGS FOR THE SAFETY. AND SHE SAID THAT THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED OR BOUGHT NEW ONES TO ADD ON TO THE SOFTWARE OR WHATEVER.

IT'S ABOVE MY SKILL SET, SO I DON'T KNOW. BUT I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WITH THE.

IT'S ONE THING THAT'S NEVER REALLY BEEN ADDRESSED IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ASHLEY SAYING THEY'RE WORKING PERFECTLY AND SO HER TEAM'S OUT THERE NOT ENFORCING SAFETY IN OUR CROSSWALK. AND THEN LAUREN SAYING THAT WE NEEDED NEW NEW GUTS OR BRAINS, ELECTRICAL PARTS IN THE CROSSWALK BOX IN ORDER FOR IT TO FUNCTION APPROPRIATELY FOR CHILDREN'S SAFETY.

AND THAT'S KIND OF BEEN LEFT OPEN. AND I HEARD THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT REPLACING IT, BUT DID THEY? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. SO EVEN IF 6B GETS DONE, WE STILL HAVE KIDS CROSSING THE STREET FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR, CROSSING OVER TO THE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THAT ONE TO SEE IF IF THE WORK'S ACTUALLY BEEN DONE, THE PARTS HAVE BEEN ORDERED AND IT'S ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING AS IT SHOULD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK DURING OUR PUBLIC FORUM ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC FORUM. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

WE'LL GO TO ITEM 6.A. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1228E.

[6.A. Ordinance No. 1228E, 2nd Reading, amending Chapter 2, Article 5, of the Southlake City Code to conform to state law changes impacting the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. PUBLIC HEARING ]

SECOND READING AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 5 OF THE SOUTHLAKE CITY CODE TO CONFORM TO STATE LAW CHANGES IMPACTING OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, LAUREN LANEAVE IS GOING TO LEAD US ON THAT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MAYOR. OKAY. THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA IS TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 1228E TO CONFORM THE CITY'S BOARDS AND COMMISSION ORDINANCE WITH STATE LAW.

IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THE STATE LEGISLATURE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH OVERSEES IMPACT FEES AND THE COMPOSITION.

SO SENATE BILL 1883 TOOK EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2025 AND AMENDED CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH GOVERNS HOW CITIES MAY ASSESS AND ADMINISTER IMPACT FEES.

AT A HIGH LEVEL, IMPACT FEES ARE CHARGES ASSESSED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT TO HELP FUND CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO SERVE THAT GROWTH, SUCH AS WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADS. THEY'RE NOT TAXES AND THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR OPERATIONS OR MAINTENANCE.

THEY ARE LIMITED BY STATE LAW TO SPECIFIC USES, SPECIFICALLY GROWTH RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS.

IMPACT FEES WERE ALREADY HEAVILY REGULATED PRIOR TO SENATE BILL 1883.

HOWEVER, THE CITY'S AUTHORITY IN THIS AREA HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY NARROWLY DEFINED AND SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT.

[00:20:03]

BUT 1883 BUILDS ON THIS OVERSIGHT FURTHER. ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN YELLOW AND HAS A STAR BY IT THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING TONIGHT, WHICH CHANGES THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NO LONGER SERVE AS THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, OR COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS CIAC. THE LAW NOW REQUIRES CITIES TO ESTABLISH A STANDALONE CIAC WITH A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF INDUSTRY REPRESENTATION.

ORDINANCE 1228 E BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IMPLEMENTS THOSE STATUTORY CHANGES LOCALLY AND ENSURES SOUTHLAKE REMAINS FULLY COMPLIANT.

GETTING INTO THE ROLE OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

HISTORICALLY, THIS WAS SERVED BY THE SOUTHLAKE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS I STATED EARLIER, AND THEY SERVED AS DUAL ROLES IN THIS CAPACITY.

THE CIAC SERVES AS THE STATUTORY BODY FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON IMPACT FEE MATTERS.

THIS INCLUDES ADVISING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, REVIEWING IMPACT FEE, THE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT FEE RELATED PROJECTS, FILING SEMIANNUAL REPORTS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, IDENTIFYING INEQUITIES OR NEEDS FOR UPDATES, AND REVIEWING INDEPENDENT IMPACT FEE AUDITS BEFORE ANY FEE INCREASES ARE CONSIDERED.

IMPORTANTLY, THE COMMITTEE IS ALSO REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO FORMALLY REVIEW IMPACT FEE PLANS AND PROVIDE YOU WRITTEN COMMENTS IN THAT SEMIANNUAL REPORT.

THOSE WRITTEN COMMENTS BECOME THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF OUR IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND ARE LOOKED AT AS WE DO AUDITS OR ANY UPDATES.

TYPICALLY, THIS BOARD MEETS TWICE A YEAR WITH MORE FREQUENT MEETINGS DURING IMPACT FEE UPDATE YEARS.

WE ESTIMATE WITH THE NEW STATE LAW CHANGES, PROBABLY SOMETHING ABOUT 4 TO 6 MEETINGS A YEAR ON IMPACT FEE YEARS.

SO GETTING INTO THE CHANGES UNDER ORDINANCE 1228 E.

THIS ORDINANCE CREATES THE BOARD AND COMMISSION FRAMEWORK TO CREATE AN INDEPENDENT CIAC, DEFINE ITS STATUTORY DUTIES, AND ESTABLISH THE MEMBERSHIP STRUCTURE. THE COMMITTEE IS PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF SEVEN MEMBERS.

AS A NOTE, AT LEAST FOUR OF THOSE MUST REPRESENT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING INDUSTRIES, AND MAY NOT BE CITY OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY.

SO THE REMAINING THREE MEMBERS HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE STATE LAW.

BUT THOSE FOUR MEMBERS, IF IT'S SEVEN, AT LEAST 50% HAVE TO BE PART OF THAT INDUSTRY.

WHILE, THE STATUTE DOESN'T DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY IS, IT'S GENERALLY INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE PROFESSIONALS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING, FINANCING, ENTITLEMENT, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OR DELIVERY OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

SO THIS COULD INCLUDE ANYBODY WITHIN THAT, NOT JUST SOMEONE THAT HAS THE TITLE DEVELOPER IN THERE OR BUILDER IN THEIR TITLE, SUCH AS ENGINEERS OR ARCHITECTS THAT WORK DIRECTLY FOR DEVELOPERS.

THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ANYBODY THAT IS RETIRED FROM THAT INDUSTRY AS WELL.

SO FOR CLARITY, CITY OFFICIALS INCLUDES ELECTED OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF DECISION MAKING BOARDS, AND THEN, OF COURSE, CITY EMPLOYEES. SO IF APPROVED TONIGHT, THE ORDINANCE WOULD TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR THIS BOARD.

AND THEN WE'LL BRING AN ADDITIONAL ACTION FORWARD TO YOU AT A FUTURE MEETING TO VOTE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THAT BOARD.

AND THEN ONCE APPOINTED, WE'LL BEGIN WORKING WITH THEM AS ALIGNED WITH THE STATE LAW.

AND PRETTY QUICKLY, WE'LL BE WORKING ON SOME IMPACT FEE UPDATES.

AS ALWAYS, THIS ALIGNS WITH THE CITY'S STRATEGY MAP AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE.

HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING RELATED TO 1883.

THANK YOU, LAUREN. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING 6.A.

AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE? I HAVE ONE, MAYOR.

MEMBERS THAT REPRESENT THE BUILDING COMMUNITY AS BROADLY, AS THE STATE HAS DEFINED IT, MUST THOSE PEOPLE BE RESIDENTS OF SOUTHLAKE? AS THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN TODAY, YES.

OKAY. YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. AND FOR OUR PURPOSE OF CREATING THIS BOARD, DO WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY HOW WE'RE GOING TO SELECT THE OTHER THREE MEMBERS? LIKE, IS IT GOING TO BE FROM P&Z OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO LEAVE THAT TO OUR CHOICE? I GUESS THAT'S MORE A QUESTION FOR US MORE THAN LAUREN.

SO THAT'S JUST A QUESTION. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO DEFINE IT NOW WITH THIS ORDINANCE.

YOU CAN LEAVE IT UNLESS YOU WANT IT IN THE ORDINANCE AS SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT CAN YOU CAN ALSO LEAVE IT OPEN FOR COUNCIL FLEXIBILITY.

AND THAT MIGHT BE THE WISEST. YEAH, MAYBE WE'LL PICK, YOU KNOW, THE THREE WHO ARE PERHAPS ALREADY SERVING THE CITY IN SOME WAY.

[00:25:05]

ONCE WE GET THINGS UP AND RUNNING AND PERHAPS PICK THE OTHER FOUR AND THEN FILL IN WITH THE OTHER THREE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR LAUREN ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU LAUREN. APPRECIATE IT. ITEM 6.A. REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT'S A SECOND READING.

I´LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6.A. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 6.A.

SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6.A.

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, I WILL CALL FOR A MOTION ON ITEM 6.A.

YES MAYOR, COUNCIL, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6.A. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1228E SECOND READING AMENDING CHAPTER TWO, ARTICLE FIVE OF THE SOUTHLAKE CITY CODE TO CONFORM TO STATE LAW CHANGES IMPACTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6.A.

AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 6.A IS APPROVED.

NEXT UP IS ITEM 6.B. ORDINANCE NUMBER 1298. SECOND READING ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON BORDEAUX DRIVE BETWEEN SOUTH CARROLL AVENUE AND

[6.B. Ordinance No. 1298, 2nd Reading, adopting an ordinance to establish parking restrictions on Bordeaux Drive between South Carroll Avenue and Lorraine Drive and on Ascot Drive between North White Chapel Drive and Saratoga Drive. PUBLIC HEARING]

LORRAINE DRIVE, AND ON ASCOT DRIVE BETWEEN NORTH WHITE CHAPEL AND SARATOGA DRIVE.

AND AGAIN, WE'LL INVITE LAUREN LENEAVE FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO PRESENT THAT ISSUE OR ITEM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THE REQUESTED ACTION ON THIS ITEM IS TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 1298 AMENDING CHAPTER 18 TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 18-184 PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN STREETS OF THE SOUTHLAKE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH NO PARKING ZONES ON DESIGNATED PORTIONS OF ASCOT AND BORDEAUX DRIVE. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THE JANUARY 6TH MEETING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THESE MAPS SHOW THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE NO PARKING ORDINANCE IS PROPOSED FOR ASCOT DRIVE.

IT'S GOING TO BE BETWEEN NORTH WHITE CHAPEL AND SARATOGA DRIVE, AND ON BORDEAUX.

IT'S RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE BETWEEN SOUTH CARROLL AND LORRAINE DRIVE.

THERE'LL BE PLANNED TO BE THREE SIGNS INSTALLED ON EACH SIDE OF ASCOT DRIVE, AND ONE SIGN INSTALLED ON EACH SIDE OF BORDEAUX DRIVE.

THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON CITY STREETS WHERE ROADWAY WIDTH, TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, OR PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS WARRANT RISKS AND RESTRICTIONS.

IN RESPONSE, THE POLICE AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS CONDUCTED SITE OBSERVATIONS AND CONFIRMED THAT THERE ARE SOME INGRESS AND EGRESS CHALLENGES SPECIFICALLY, PARTICULARLY DURING SCHOOL PICKUP TIMES. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THIS ITEM FORMALLY BEGAN ON OCTOBER 30TH WHEN THE STAFF MAILED OUT LETTERS TO ALL ASCOT DRIVE RESIDENTS AS WELL AS RESIDENTS OF BORDEAUX. THESE LETTERS OUTLINED THE CONCERNS, PRESENTED POSSIBLE OPTIONS AND REQUESTED INPUT BEFORE MOVING FORWARD. WE HEARD FROM LOTS OF RESIDENTS ON ASCOT DRIVE, AND AFTER THAT LETTER WENT OUT THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE MAP, ABOUT THE REGULATIONS, SOME QUESTIONS, SOME FEEDBACK.

SO WE SENT AN ADDITIONAL LETTER ON NOVEMBER 6TH, CLARIFYING OPTIONS, ADDRESSING RESIDENT QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

AND THEN AS PART OF THAT, THERE WAS A SURVEY OF IF YOU'RE IN SUPPORT, NOT IN SUPPORT.

THOSE SURVEY RESULTS WERE COLLECTED IN NOVEMBER AND PROVIDED IN A FOLLOW UP LETTER ON NOVEMBER 25TH TO ALL THE RESIDENTS, LETTING THEM KNOW WHAT THE SURVEY RESULTS WERE AND THAT STAFF WAS PLANNING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE.

AND INCLUDING THE TWO MEETING DATES THAT THIS WOULD BE READ AT.

DURING THIS OCTOBER TO NOVEMBER OUTREACH WINDOW, AS I MENTIONED, WE ALSO RECEIVED SEVERAL PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, ANSWERING QUESTIONS, AND WORKING WITH RESIDENTS TO HELP EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED.

THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEY REALLY SHAPED WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

SO BASED ON THE FEEDBACK, RESIDENTS CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED THAT THE PRIMARY PROBLEM DOES OCCUR DURING SCHOOL LET OUT HOURS.

AND MANY SUPPORTED A SOLUTION, BUT WANTED A NARROWLY TAILORED WINDOW SO THAT THEY COULD PRESERVE NORMAL PARKING OUTSIDE OF THOSE HOURS.

OF THE ASCOT DRIVE RESIDENTS, 57 SUPPORTED SOME FORM OF PARKING RESTRICTION, 21% WERE OPPOSED AND 21% DID NOT RESPOND.

ON BORDEAUX DRIVE, THERE´S TWO RESIDENTS THAT ARE IMPACTED AND WHEN WE SAY IMPACTED, WE SAY WOULD HAVE A SIGN IN THEIR YARD VERSUS SENDING IT TO EVERYBODY ON BORDEAUX.

[00:30:10]

ONE RESIDENT RESPONDED IN FAVOR AND ONE DID NOT RESPOND.

BASED DIRECTLY ON THIS FEEDBACK, STAFF REFINED THE PROPOSAL TO A TARGETED, TIME LIMITED RESTRICTION THAT APPLIES ONLY ON SCHOOL DAYS BETWEEN 2:30 P.M.

AND 4 P.M. RATHER THAN A FULL TIME PARKING PROHIBITION.

THIS RECOMMENDATION REFLECTS WHAT THE RESIDENTS TOLD US WOULD BE BEST TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WHILE MINIMIZING NEIGHBORHOOD DISRUPTIONS, WHILE WE'RE PUTTING THESE IN, WE ALSO COMMIT TO WORKING WITH EACH OF THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE ASSIGNED PLACED IN THEIR YARD TO MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S IN THE SPOT THAT THEY WANT WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF LEGAL RESTRICTION.

THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES, AND TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FOR FIRE APPARATUS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS.

THE APPROXIMATE COST FOR THIS IS ABOUT $3,000 AND THAT WILL BE HANDLED WITHIN THE TRAFFIC DIVISION'S EXISTING BUDGET.

SO IF APPROVED TONIGHT, THE NEXT STEPS WILL BE TO HAVE OUR TRAFFIC DIVISION BEGIN COORDINATING WITH THOSE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE A SIGN PLACED IN THEIR YARD WORKING ON LOCATION. AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN COMMUNICATIONS WITH CISD AND PREPPING COMMUNICATIONS FOR SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND THEN WE EXPECT IF ALL OF THE COORDINATION WITH RESIDENTS GOES WELL, WE SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING UP NO LATER THAN EARLY FEBRUARY.

AS ALWAYS, THIS ALIGNS WITH OUR CITY STRATEGY MAP AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, LAUREN. ON THE SIGNS, IF WE APPROVE THEM FOR INSTALLATION, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PUBLIC WORKS.

THEY MAKE THEM AT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR LAUREN ON ITEM 6.B? YEAH. LAUREN, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, DID WE LOOK AT CHAPEL DOWNS ALSO, OR DID WE EVER CONTACT ANYBODY OVER THERE, OR DO WE NOT HEAR FROM ANYBODY OVER THERE? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STANDING ON THAT STREET AS WELL. NO, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM CHAPEL DOWNS RELATED TO STOPPING AND STANDING.

I'VE HEARD ABOUT U-TURNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE DID TALK WITH ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, SHADY OAKS ACROSS FROM DURHAM, BUT WITH THE CISD´S ANNOUNCEMENT OF DURHAM CLOSING.

SO IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL OR HELPS, THEN I GUESS IF WE HEAR FROM RESIDENTS OVER THERE, WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT THAT AT THAT TIME.

SO JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR IF ANYBODY'S ACTUALLY WATCHING THIS.

YEAH. QUICK QUESTION, LAUREN, ON THE BORDEAUX PORTION.

DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BORDEAUX AND CARLISLE? AND THE GENESIS OF MY QUESTION IS, BY TAKING CARE OF THIS ON BORDEAUX, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY ALL WE'RE DOING IS PUSHING THE PROBLEM DOWN TO CARLISLE? OF COURSE IT´S A POSSIBILITY. WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM ANYBODY ON CARLISLE.

THERE IS A CROSSWALK THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO BORDEAUX, AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE'VE SEEN THIS PROBLEM, OR THE COMPLAINTS OCCUR IS WHENEVER THERE'S A CROSSWALK DIRECTLY FROM A SCHOOL INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN THE PARENTS PARK THERE. OKAY, WELL, I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST, BUT I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD KEEP AN EYE ON IT. YOU KNOW, WE'LL KNOW PRETTY QUICKLY IF, YOU KNOW, PARENTS ARE LIKE, OKAY, NO PROBLEM. I'LL JUST MOVE 50 YARDS DOWN TO CARLISLE. YEAH.

BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO CORRECT THAT THEN. YES.

THANK YOU. DOES CISD KNOW THIS IS IN THE WORKS? WE HAVEN'T COORDINATED WITH THEM YET. THAT'S THE NEXT STEP AFTER APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 6.B? AND I THINK HOPEFULLY THIS WILL WORK ITSELF OUT IN THE FUTURE.

I KNOW WITH THE POTENTIAL SALE OF DURHAM, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT WE COULD LOOK AT DOING A ROAD FROM WHITECHAPEL OVER TO SHADY OAKS.

THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WORKED WITH THAT MAY ALLEVIATE A LOT OF THIS PROBLEM LONG TERM, BUT AT LEAST SHORT TERM. I THINK THIS IS GOOD, YOU KNOW.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LAUREN. THANK YOU. ITEM 6.B.

IS A SECOND READING AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 6.B.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6.B? YES. COME ON DOWN. WE'LL GO FIRST AND SECOND.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN FOR THE RECORD. AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. I THINK THE MICROPHONE IS ALREADY TURNED ON. AND GO AHEAD. DIANE DORMAN, 100 ASCOT. I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO CHUCK AND FRANCES ON THE FIRST READING FOR ASKING SOME QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THERE'S DEFINITELY QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE ASKED. IN SEGUEING BACK TO THE CONVERSATION THAT I SPOKE ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC FORUM, THERE ARE ALREADY ORDINANCES IN PLACE. SECTION 18171 AREA OF THE ROADWAY LEFT FOR TRAFFIC.

AND THEN SECTION 18178 RESTRICTED PARKING. IN WITH THE PRIOR ONE TO.

[00:35:04]

SAY A NAME THAT'S LONG OFF A CLIFF HERE. BUT WHEN RANDY BAKER WAS HERE, HE KNEW THESE ORDINANCES, HE ENFORCED THEM. WHEN HE FELL OFF A CLIFF WITH THE CITY, SO DID THE ORDINANCE.

AND ANYTIME YOU'D BRING IT UP TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY JUST SHRUG THEIR SHOULDERS.

SO WE GOT LEFT IN A CONUNDRUM OF CODE ENFORCEMENT.

POLICE, BECAUSE POLICE DIDN'T SEEM TO WANT TO ENFORCE IT. AND IF WE CALLED, THEY'D DRIVE BY ASCOT AND WAIT FOR THE ROAD TO CLEAR BEFORE THEY WOULD COME DOWN THE ROAD.

AND THEY'D BE LIKE, WELL, LOOK, NOBODY'S HERE. NOBODY'S PARKED IN YOUR DRIVEWAY NOW. SO THERE'S SOME CONCERNS ON THAT.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY I KNOW IN THE EMAILS I BROUGHT UP TO YOU ALL THAT WHEN ASCOT, RIGHT NOW, AS YOU'RE FAMILIAR, MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE WAS CAUGHT ON FIRE IN JANUARY LAST YEAR, AND HE'S IN THE PROCESS OF REBUILDING.

HE'S HAVING CONTRACTORS COME AND GO. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DELAYS IN HIS PERMITS DUE TO CRAZY STUFF.

AND THEN SO HE'S GOING TO HAVE CONTRACTORS ON THE ROAD.

SO I HAD ASKED LAUREN AND WHEN WE SPOKE THAT THERE WOULD BE LIKE A.

I HATE THIS TERM, A COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION FOR VENDORS BECAUSE WE CAN'T GUARANTEE WHEN OUR ROOFS ARE GOING TO BLOW OFF OR WE NEED NEW WINDOWS.

WITH ANYTHING HAPPENING, THE VENDORS ARE GOING TO BE THERE DAY OR NIGHT OR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME COMMON SENSE EXEMPTIONS IN THERE.

AND THEN ONE OF OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO LIVES KIND OF ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, HIS WIFE'S UNFORTUNATELY ON HOSPICE.

WHEN A MEDICAL EMERGENCY HAPPENS, IT'S NOT DEFINED BETWEEN 2:30, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN 2:30 AND, YOU KNOW, SORRY, YOU CAN'T HAVE MEDICAL EMERGENCY BETWEEN 2:30 AND 4 TO HAVE THEIR HOME NURSING COME IN.

SO THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SENSE OF COMMON SENSE EXEMPTIONS, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, WHETHER IT'S A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. I GUESS PUTTING OURSELVES BACK TOGETHER TEMPORARILY TO CREATE LIKE A VENDOR PARKING SHEET TO PUT IN A WINDOW SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL'S NEIGHBOR BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN HORRENDOUS THROUGH THE YEARS.

AND AS YOU ALL KNOW AS ALSO MENTIONED, SOME OF OUR LONG CREWS.

I MEAN, LIKE ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS MENTIONED THE MAIL LADY OR MAIL DEPARTMENT TRIES NOT TO COME AROUND LET OUT BECAUSE OF BLOCKED MAILBOXES.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE OUR LAWN CREWS THAT SHOW UP.

AND IT GOES BACK TO HOME VENDORS, THEY SHOW UP IN THEIR SCHEDULE WHEN THEY CAN GET THERE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE I CAN'T SAY CAN'T COME BETWEEN X TIME AND X TIME.

SO I'D LIKE SOME COMMON SENSE EXEMPTIONS PLACED IN THERE SO THAT WE'RE NOT FACING ANY MORE CONSEQUENCES AS A NEIGHBOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK? I. COME ON DOWN. THIS IS ON ITEM 6.B, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

DEAN LATTICE. 111 ASCOT DRIVE. BEEN THERE SINCE 92.

I'VE BEEN THANKFUL TO LIVE IN THE CITY AND RAISED OUR KIDS HERE.

THE PROBLEM ON THE STREET. I USED TO FEEL FOR MY NEIGHBORS THAT LIVED UP AT THE TOP OF THE HILL, CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL, BECAUSE I COULD SEE WHAT HAPPENED EVERY DAY.

WELL, THIS PAST YEAR IT HAS JUST SHIFTED. IT HAS EXPANDED, I SHOULD SAY, TO NEARLY THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STREET.

I'M THE NEXT TO LAST HOUSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STREET AND IT'S JUST LIKE, OKAY.

AND IT'S ON BOTH SIDES. THERE'S PEOPLE CUTTING IN AND OUT AND STUFF.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO HEAR THIS, TO CONSIDER IT.

MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THE SIGN, 3:00 TO 4:00 WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT WINDOW.

BUT IF IT HELPS BECAUSE OF OTHER SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR WHATEVER, YOU NEED TO HAVE A A BROADER TIME.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT THAT I HAD.

AND ANYWAY, I'M THANKFUL IF YOU NEED TO PUT A SIGN IN MY FRONT YARD, YOU KNOW, I WOULD WELCOME THAT OVER WHAT I'M EXPERIENCING THIS YEAR.

SO ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD WISH TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6.B? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6.B.

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I THINK IT'S A GOOD START IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

SO HOPEFULLY THOSE PEOPLE IN ASCOT DRIVE CAN SEE SOME SORT OF CHANGE AND GIVE US FEEDBACK AND WE CAN ALWAYS ADJUST THINGS FROM THERE.

111 ASCOT IS ALL THE WAY DOWN BY SARATOGA, SO THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD WAYS THAT PEOPLE GO.

FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THERE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS MYSELF, 3 TO 4 IS REASONABLE. I THINK 2:30, WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN PEOPLE START STACKING UP AT THE SCHOOL, SOME PEOPLE GET THERE 45 MINUTES TO AN HOUR AHEAD OF TIME JUST SO THEY CAN GET THROUGH THAT LINE, BECAUSE THAT LINE, IT'S A 45 MINUTE WAIT TO GET THROUGH THAT ENTIRE LINE.

SO I THINK THE 2:30 TO 4 IS GREAT. AND THEN OF COURSE, AS FAR AS ANY EXEMPTIONS GO, HOPEFULLY OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD OBVIOUSLY,

[00:40:01]

YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOMEONE THERE DOING SOME WORK, THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, VERSUS THE GUY THAT'S JUST SITTING THERE SAYING, WELL, I'M THE LANDSCAPER AND HE'S IN A, YOU KNOW, 500 SERIES MERCEDES, THEN WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET A GENERAL IDEA OF WHO THEY ACTUALLY ARE. SO, YOU KNOW. ANYTHING ELSE ON 6.B? ALL RIGHT.

MAYOR PRO TEM WILLIAMSON, LET'S DO A MOTION ON 6.B.

YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6.B.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1298. SECOND READING ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON BORDEAUX DRIVE BETWEEN SOUTH CARROLL AVENUE AND LORRAINE DRIVE.

AND ON ASCOT DRIVE BETWEEN NORTH WHITECHAPEL DRIVE AND SARATOGA DRIVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6.B. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 6.B. IS APPROVED.

NEXT UP IS ITEM 9.A. CASE NUMBER ZA25-0077, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DOVE ROAD ADDITION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CARDINAL COURT

[9.A. ZA25-0077, Preliminary Plat for Dove Ridge Addition (formerly known as Cardinal Court Addition), being a revision of Lot 9 and Lot 57R, F. Throop No. 1511 Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2080 and 2117 E. Dove Rd. Current Zoning: “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #4. ]

ADDITION, LOCATED AT 2080 AND 2117 EAST DOVE ROAD.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGH. THANK YOU. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THE PRIMARY PORTION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ENCOMPASSES 2080.

THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY IS APPROACHED THE ADJOINING LOT TO THE EAST TO ACQUIRE A SMALL PORTION OF THEIR LOT TO COMBINE INTO THIS TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL BUILDABLE LOT WITHIN WHAT WAS A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THIS PROPERTY.

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY IS SF1 A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS A VIEW FROM DOVE ROAD OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY FOR 2080. AND THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT. THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ALLOCATED AS OPEN SPACE.

AND WHAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY IS LOOKING TO ACQUIRE A PORTION OF THIS TRACK TO COMBINE WITH THIS TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL BUILDABLE LOT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT. THE REMAINDER OF THIS LOT WOULD STILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THE SF1 REGULATIONS. AND THIS IS THE EXISTING DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND DRAINAGE AREAS AND THEIR PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN.

AND THEIR PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN. THIS IS THEIR TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.

THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 30% OF EXISTING TREE COVER ON THE SITE WHICH REQUIRES A PRESERVE 60% OF THAT. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 63.8% PRESERVATION.

AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE PROPOSED STREET TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND BUILT AS A PRIVATE STREET WITH A GATE. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A PUBLIC STREET, AND IF A PROPERTY OWNER IS WITHIN THAT SUBDIVISION WISH TO CHANGE THAT TO A PRIVATE STREET IT REQUIRES, IT GOES THROUGH A PROCESS FOR CONVERSION FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE.

CITY COUNCIL DOES HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SO IT IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PLAT 6-0, BUT DENIED THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PRIVATE STREET.