Sep 01, 2026 City Council

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLAW.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME? I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON DOWN.

IF YOU COULD SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN GO AHEAD.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, CLAY CHRISTY, CLAYMORE ENGINEERING,.

3231 HARWOOD, WOODLAND, WINFORD.

DENNIS FALL UNDER EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE,.

BUT AFTER DISCUSSION WITH YOU GUYS LAST TIME,.

WENT BACK, TALKED TO THE CLIENT ON THE PREVIOUS PAPERS.

THEY WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT A COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

OF THE DIFFERENT PAPERS, FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT,.

I THINK THE PAPERS ARE GOING TO LOOK MUCH NICER.

THAN LIKE A GRASS CREEK TYPE THING IS WHAT WE DID.

JUST THE LONGEVITY OF THOSE LIVING AND STAYING GREEN.

VERSUS WHAT IT IS THAT IT JUST TURNS INTO.

YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE PLASTIC LITTLE SUPPORTS.

AND IT DIDN'T LOOK QUITE AS CLEAN AND NICE RIGHT THERE.

SO WE DID THAT.

AS DENNIS MENTIONED, WE UPDATED THE ELEVATIONS.

AS NEEDED FOR THAT AS WELL JUST TO MAKE SURE.

THAT WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE WE MISSED.

THAT LITTLE CORNER AS WE HAD WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH DENNIS.

AND SO WE'VE GOTTEN THAT CLEANED UP AS WELL.

I THINK THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT WAS,.

WE KIND OF SPOKE ABOUT LAST TIME WAS THE STUCCO.

AND JUST MAKING SURE IT WAS THE CORRECT TYPE OF STUCCO.

AND WE DID MAKE SURE THAT CLARIFICATION ON THE RECORD.

WILL MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION? THAT IT WILL BE THE CORRECT TYPE OF STUCCO.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T THINK WE, SORRY.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS PROPERTY,.

AT LEAST AS IT IS NOW, IS AGAIN THAT ENTRANCE, RIGHT? THAT, SORRY, SORRY.

THAT ENTRANCE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THAT,.

IT'S LIKE I THINK JUST UNDER 100 FEET.

IF I COME OUT OF THAT AS AN EXIT,.

I'LL TRY TO GO DO A U-TURN.

AND THIS MIGHT BE A CHIEF CASEY QUESTION.

IF IT'S EVEN LEGAL TO CROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC.

AT LESS THAN 100 FEET.

BUT WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO THAT BEING AN ENTRANCE ONLY.

AND THEN THE DIRECTION IS ONE WAY AROUND.

AND THEN COMING OUT THE ADJACENT ROAD TO THE WEST? I THINK, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT AN ENTRANCE ONLY THERE,.

MR. TIGERT.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT.

WE'VE TRIED TO EVALUATE IT.

AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AND HIT ON IT LAST TIME.

WE TRIED TO MOVE THAT FURTHER EAST.

BUT DUE TO THE LOWERING OF THE ROAD.

WHEN IT WAS REBUILT, SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD,? IT GOT LOWERED DOWN FOR THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND WHERE THAT BIG CULVERT IS.

IT ADDS ABOUT SIX FEET OF FALL TO OUR SITE.

TO WHERE WHENEVER YOU WOULD BE COMING UP.

ON THAT EASTERN SIDE OF THAT ENTRANCE,.

I MEAN WE'RE ALREADY COMING UP AT THE MAXIMUM SLOPES.

FOR OUR FIRE LANE AND, YOU KNOW,.

KEEPING EVERYTHING NICE ON COMING IN ON THAT WESTERN SIDE.

YEAH, IT WAS PRETTY HIGH.

WE WENT LEVEL.

WE WENT TO SEE, IT WAS LIKE 20 PERCENT.

BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE FINISHED FLOOR SET.

BY THE FLOODPLAIN IN THE BACK.

SO I CAN'T BRING THE BUILDING DOWN.

DUE TO THE FLOODPLAIN ON THAT SIDE.

OF WHERE THAT IS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO KEEP THAT.

OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T FLOOD.

AND I DON'T HAVE TO ASK THE CHIEF OVER THERE.

THAT 20 PERCENT I JUST KNOW IS NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE.

FOR A FIRE TRUCK, MUCH LESS A PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE.

THAT'S STEEPER THAN PARKING GARAGE SLOPES.

WHICH ARE TYPICALLY KIND OF YOUR STEEPER AREAS.

THAT YOU HAVE LIKE THAT THAT TYPICALLY RUN,.

YOU KNOW, 13 TO 15 PERCENT.

RIGHT. WELL, I MEAN THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

IS HOW CLOSE THAT IS.

THE REST OF IT I'M LIKE, I DON'T HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH.

BUT MAYBE IN A MINUTE WE'LL GET A CHIEF CASE.

AND GIVE HER OPINION ON THAT.

SO AS FAR AS THE LEGALITY OF THE TURN.

IN THE PROXIMITY TO IT, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING DIRECTLY.

THAT'S ILLEGAL THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMEBODY.

FROM DOING THAT OR VIOLATING TRAFFIC LAW.

ALTHOUGH WE ALL KNOW BASED ON TIME OF DAY.

THAT MIGHT BE A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DO.

SO.

RIGHT. SO IT'S MORE NOT NECESSARILY.

THAT THERE'S ANY ISSUES WITH CROSSING THREE LANES AT 100 FEET.

IT'S A QUESTION OF IF THEY DO IT IMPROPERLY, RIGHT? IF THEY TAKE A RISK AND JUMP ACROSS, YOU KNOW, CARS.

[01:05:01]

AND THEN THERE'S THAT ISSUE.

THERE'S JUST A HIGH CHANCE OF AN IMPACT.

AT THAT LOCATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SURE. LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NOT ANYTHING DIRECTLY.

THAT WOULD BE A TRAFFIC VIOLATION.

FOR CROSSING THE THREE LANES AND MAKING THE U-TURN.

UNLESS THERE'S ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE THAT PROHIBITED.

OR PREVENTED SOMEBODY FROM DOING THE U-TURN.

IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BUT AGAIN, BASED ON TIME OF DAY, TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW,.

CERTAINLY CERTAIN TIMES OF DAY MIGHT BE EASIER.

TO SAFELY MANEUVER THAT THAN OTHER TIMES OF DAY.

I GUESS, CLAY, I HAD A QUESTION THAT IS A LITTLE BIT RELATED.

TO COUNCIL MEMBER TAGGART CENTER.

LAST NIGHT WE TALKED ABOUT TRYING.

TO CONNECT THIS LOT 6R WITH THE LOT 1 ON THE EAST SIDE.

WITH STONE BRIDGE.

I KNOW ORIGINALLY YOU SAID YOU GUYS DIDN'T REALLY WANT.

TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE.

LIKE YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL BRIDGE OVER I THINK.

THAT CEMENT AREA OVER THERE, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT ENTIRE EAST SIDE IS ALL DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN,.

CONCRETE CHANNELS AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES.

ON THAT EASTERN SIDE.

FROM A PRACTICALITY STANDPOINT.

AND EVEN IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING THAT WAS APPROVED HERE,.

THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PRACTICALITY.

OF CONNECTING OVER THE EAST SIDE IS JUST NOT VERY REALISTIC.

TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT TO CROSS OVER.

GOTCHA.

I GUESS IS THE PRACTICALITY FROM IMPLEMENTATION.

OR MORE KIND OF WITHIN LIKE THE CONSTRAINTS.

FOR THE PROJECT SINCE KIND OF AFTER OUR DISCUSSION LAST TIME.

KIND OF LOOKED AROUND TOWN AND SAW A COUPLE INSTANCES.

WHERE WE DO HAVE BRIDGES CONNECTING DEVELOPMENTS? AND WE USE BOX CULVERTS OVER THE CEMENT CHANNEL.

SO I WONDER IF YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE ON THAT.

OR CONSIDER THAT PIECE SINCE I THINK IT ALSO ADDRESSED.

THAT.

SO THAT'D BE DIFFICULT PHYSICALLY IN PLACES LIKE THAT.

THAT AT LEAST I THINK OF IN SOUTHLAKE AREAS.

AND MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME WHICH I'M NOT.

THE FEASIBILITY FOR THAT FOR ONE LOT IS WHERE THAT COMES.

INTO PLAY MOST OF THE TIMES.

THAT YOU HAVE THOSE BRIDGE CROSSINGS.

THAT'S CONNECTING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES.

AND MULTIPLE DEALS WHERE YOU CAN GO IN.

AND FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT THEY CAN ENCOMPASS,.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE PERSON TO TAKE A BITE.

FROM THAT APPLE TO HELP OUT WITH THE COST SO TO SPEAK.

AND WITH THIS ONE I JUST, IT, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS,.

SUCH A SMALL RETAIL, IF WE HAD EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

AND WE PUT IT ALL THERE AND HAD THAT MASTER ACCESS COORDINATED.

WHENEVER IT WAS COMING IN THEN I THINK.

THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A POSSIBILITY AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

I JUST, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT.

JUST WITH ONE USER AND ONE PERSON THERE.

GOTCHA, SO ULTIMATELY IT'S MORE OF LIKE A COST FINANCIAL ENTRY.

RIGHT NOW.

OH, I MEAN THAT'S GOING TO BE, YEAH.

I MEAN YOU WOULD BE, ABSOLUTELY.

I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT IS.

I MEAN ENGINEERING WISE, I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE DOABLE.

YOU CAN GET AN ENGINEER PRETTY MUCH TO WORK YOU.

THERE'S SOMETHING TO WORK ON.

I KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST THE PRACTICALITY OF BEING ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO ABSOLUTELY THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY THE MAIN THING.

THAT WOULD DRIVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT UP.

GOT IT.

YEAH, JUST KIND OF CURIOUS BECAUSE I THINK.

THAT WOULD ALSO ADDRESS THE SAFETY.

AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS AS WELL.

AND I THINK BEFORE I ALREADY MENTIONED TOWARDS THE WEST,.

LIKE IF WE FEED A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC.

THROUGH THE EXISTING OFFICE PARK,.

LIKE TO TRY TO MITIGATE THAT ADDITIONAL RETAIL TRAFFIC.

THROUGH THERE.

SO IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR ENGINEERING,.

AND I THINK BASICALLY WHAT YOU MENTIONED IT IS.

FROM BASICALLY AN OPERATIONAL EXECUTION STANDPOINT,.

DEFINITELY WOULD LOVE FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER THAT.

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.

WITH THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD.

YES, SIR.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SPOKE ON THIS OTHER THAN BROAD TERMS. ABOUT THE PARKING ON 7209.

BY THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK.

WITH THE PREVIOUS COVERAGE.

IN THE PAPERS, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE NEED FOR OVER,.

YOUR OVER PARKING BY OUR ORDINANCE? AND SINCE YOU'VE CHANGED YOUR USES.

FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION,.

IS THAT REALLY STILL NECESSARY? SO WE WENT THROUGH, I TALKED ABOUT IT WITH THE DEVELOPER.

AND THE CLIENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEIR IDEAL FOR THE PARKING.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS THAT WITH THE FUTURE.

OF WHAT THEY HAVE WITH RETAIL,.

POTENTIAL A LITTLE BIT OF MAYBE RESTAURANT.

OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT MIGHT BE ABLE.

TO BE IN THERE.

THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT SOME.

OF THOSE PARKING USES MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO UP.

FOR WHAT THAT IS AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND SO THAT IS THE REASONING FOR THE PARKING.

AND WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED RIGHT NOW.

AND WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

AND SO THAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THE INITIAL PARKING.

THAT WE HAVE.

ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ITEM 6D IS A SECOND READING AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6D FOR THE RECORD.

THE CITY SENT OUT 33 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS.

AND TO DATE, NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6D? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6D.

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLAW OR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

[01:10:01]

MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS, I GUESS WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON 6D.

MR. MAYOR, MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6D,.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-208BZA26-0041,.

SECOND READING, ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN.

FOR HUNTINGTON SOUTHLAKE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6R.

AND 1 BLOCK 1 STONEBRIDGE PARK AND LOCATED AT 2350.

AND 2340 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD SUBJECT.

TO STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 24, 2026,.

SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 4 DATED AUGUST 24, 2026.

AND VARIANCES TO THE DRIVEWAY.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 634 HAS AMENDED SECTION 5. UA.

TO ALLOW A RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT DRIVEWAY.

WITH THE MINIMUM CENTERLINE SPACING.

OF APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET FROM BROCK DRIVE.

NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,.

THE SB2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT ZONING WILL BE LIMITED.

TO C2, LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT USES,.

ALLOWING AXIOM TREES AND LITTLE BIT REQUIRED CANOPY TREES,.

ALLOWING ARTICULATION ON THE WESTERN ELEVATION AS PRESENTED.

AND ALLOWING A RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT DRIVEWAY.

WITH MINIMUM CENTERLINE SPACING.

OF APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET FROM BROCK DRIVE.

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

WE HAVE A MOTION.

AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 5 TO 2.

ITEM 6D IS APPROVED.

[6.E. Ordinance No. 480-837a, ZA26-0043, 2nd Reading, Zoning Change and Site Plan for Building 900 at Shivers’ Farm on property described as Tracts 1A03 and 1A, James J. West Survey, Abstract No. 1620 and located at 1800 and 1900 N. White Chapel Boulevard. Current Zoning: “ECZ” Employment Center Zoning District. Requested Zoning: “ECZ” Employment Center Zoning District. Applicant: Blake Bickmore, Trademark Property Company. Property Owner: Shivers Family Partnership LTD. SPIN Neighborhood #3. PUBLIC HEARING]

NEXT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 6E, WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-837A,.

CASE NUMBER Z826-0043.

SECOND READINGS ARE IN CHANGE IN SITE PLAN FOR BUILDING 900.

AT THE SHIVERS FARM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1800.

AND 1900 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD.

DIRECTOR KILLEN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS ALSO IS SECOND READING.

THIS IS A ZONING AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DISTRICT.

TO FINALIZE THE USES AND DEVELOP SPECIFIC SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

FOR WHAT IS IDENTIFIED AS BUILDING 900.

THIS SITE WAS ORIGINALLY JUST CONCEPTUALLY PLANNED OUT.

UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THEY PROPOSE APPROXIMATELY 09,540 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.

THAT WOULD CONTAIN RETAIL, MEDICAL, RESTAURANT,.

EDUCATION USES AS A BUCKET OF POTENTIAL USES IN ADDITION.

TO WHAT'S OTHERWISE PERMITTED.

IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DISTRICT THAT TRADEMARKS UNDER.

OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY, IN ONE OF THE EARLIER PLAN ITERATIONS,.

OMITTED SOME OF THE SCREENING SHRUBS REQUIRED ALONG THE.

EASTERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE BUILDING SITE.

THOSE HAD BEEN ADDED BACK.

AND THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS PROPOSED, RENDERING.

PLANNED ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS.

AT THEIR JUNE 18TH MEETING, 5-0, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT.

AND APPROVED LANDSCAPING AS PRESENTED.

AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS AS WELL.

IT WAS PRESENTED AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS.

AT FIRST READING ON YOUR AUGUST 18TH MEETING,.

APPROVING AS IT WAS PRESENTED.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILO.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME? I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE ONE.

FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD,.

PLEASE.

IF YOU ALL CAN STATE NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN GO AHEAD.

OR ACTUALLY, COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLES MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION.

FOR YOU, CHAIR.

LAKE BECKMORE, THE TRADEMARK PROPERTY COMPANY,.

1701 RIVER RUN, FORT WORTH.

CHRISTOS KIMLEY-MORIN, 138455 NOEL ROAD,.

IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF TEXAS.

MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS YOU'VE ADDED EDUCATION.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN EDUCATION? AND IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? YEAH, EDUCATION IS MORE LIKE A MATHNASIUM,.

LIKE A PRIVATE TUTOR USE, WHICH IF YOU WANT TO CLASSIFY.

THAT AS RETAIL OR EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMONLY FOUND.

IN RETAIL CENTERS.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT DOING A DAYCARE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WHERE YOU'RE DROPPING KIDS OFF AND THEN COMING BACK.

IT'S NOT THAT TYPE

[01:15:01]

OF A PROPOSED USE.

FOR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THERE.

I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR DENNIS IS CAN WE NARROW.

THAT DEFINITION OF EDUCATION TO AREAS LIKE MATHNASIUM.

OR ANY OF THE OTHER LIKE COLLEGE TUTORING? IS THERE A WAY TO NARROW THAT DOWN? YES. I THINK IF YOU RESTRICTED IT TO PRIMARY,.

SECONDARY EDUCATION TUTORING OR COULD BE EVEN IF IT'S OKAY.

WITH YOUR COLLEGE PREPARATORY TUTORING,.

INCLUSIVE OF THOSE THREE POTENTIAL GENRES.

OF A TUTORING ACADEMY, THAT WOULD COVER PRETTY MUCH ALL.

OF YOUR COMMON RETAIL TUTORING USES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? YEAH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

RANDY, DID YOU CATCH THAT? YEAH. BASICALLY JUST RETAIL TUTORING.

LIMITED TO RETAIL TUTORING.

WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE? YES. DIRECTOR KILLOUGH? YES, SIR.

THAT LOOKS PERFECTLY FINE.

YES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

OR DID YOU GUYS HAVE ANY PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING? JUST QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? DO I EVEN NOTICE ANYTHING? ABOUT THE DISHES BEING PUT BACK IN THERE ON THIS? IT'S NOT ON THERE.

HAS THAT BEEN THE STAFF REPORT, DENNIS? I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION.

DO WE NEED TO DO, DO I NEED TO NOTE ANYTHING IN THE MOTION? ABOUT THE DECORATIVE DISHES BEING PUT BACK IN THE PLANT? NO. IT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL.

SO NO, NO SIR.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU GUYS.

ITEM 6E IS A SECOND READING.

IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ON 6E FOR THE RECORD.

THE CITY PROVIDED 39 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS.

ON THIS ITEM AND TODAY NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6E? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6E.

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS.

FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH OR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS, WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON 6E.

YES, MR. MAYOR.

IN MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM 6E,.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 4E-837A, Z826-0043,.

SECOND READING, ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN.

FOR BUILDING 900 AT SHIVERS FARM, A PROPERTY DESCRIBED.

AS TRACKS 1A-03 AND 1A, JAMES J. WEST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 1620,.

LOCATED AT 1800 AND 1900 WEST CHAPPELL BOULEVARD.

SO THAT'S THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 24TH, 2026.

SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 3 DATED AUGUST 10TH, 2026,.

DURING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 9,540 SQUARE FOOT,.

ONE-STORY BUILDING ALLOWING THE USES TO CONSIST OF MEDICAL,.

MEDICAL OFFICE, RETAIL, FITNESS OFFICE, RESTAURANT,.

AND EDUCATION LIMITING, LIMITED TO RETAIL TUTORING.

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

WE HAVE A MOTION.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

ITEM 6E IS APPROVED.

NEXT WE'LL GO TO ITEM 6F, CASE NUMBER SA,.

ZA 26-0019, SITE PLAN

[6.F. ZA26-0019, Site Plan for Slate Office, on property described as Lot 7, Kirkwood East Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1520 W. Kirkwood Boulevard. Current Zoning: “NR-PUD” Non-Residential Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Skip Blake, Blake Architects. Property Owner: Brad Matheidas, Bymetals, LLC. SPIN Neighborhood #1. PUBLIC HEARING ]

FOR SLATE OFFICE, LOCATED AT 1520,.

WEST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED.

ON RESIDENTIAL PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

AND ALLOWS VARYING OFFICE AND STORAGE USES.

THIS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A SMALL BUSINESS.

AND PERSONAL OFFICE COMPLEX UNDER KIRKWOOD EAST DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1520.

THIS IS AREA PHOTO OF THE SITE, STREET VIEW OF THE SITE.

AND THIS IS THE OVERALL APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THIS SITE PLAN PERTAINS TO THIS PARTICULAR LOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

JUST A DETAIL OF THAT.

ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED PLUS OR MINUS 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PAD SITE.

AND ORIGINALLY HAD 36 PARKING SPACES POTENTIALLY ALLOCATED FOR THE SITE.

THIS IS THE COMPARISON OF CURRENTLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

AND THEN THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

THEY'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BEING CONSTRUCTED,.

JUST GIVEN THE PARKING NEEDS SPECIFIC TO THE BUILDING AND THE OVERALL SITE.

[01:20:01]

THE REDUCTION DOES NOT APPEAR, IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE OVERALL PARKING TO THE SITE.

THEY'RE PROPOSING THIS AS JUST THE USABLE OFFICE FLOOR SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING,.

JUST UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET, 5900 AND CHANGE SQUARE FOOT,.

WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 20 PARKING SPACES TO SERVE THAT.

THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING 24 SPACES OF THE 36 THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PLANNED FOR ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

LANDSCAPE PLAN, GRADING PLAN AND ELEVATIONS,.

MATERIALS AND DESIGN VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER PRODUCTS THAT HAD BEEN BUILT.

IN THIS PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS AT THEIR AUGUST 6 MEETING,.

7-0, SUB-REVIEW STAFF REPORT AND STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY PROVIDED.

AND WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES FROM OUR NOTIFICATION AREA.

I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU DIRECTOR KILLOUGH, ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM 6F? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, I THINK YOU SAID THEY WERE JUST UNDER 6,000,.

EVERYTHING HERE SAYS IT'S JUST OVER 6,100.

YEAH, THAT'S THE GROSS AREA I THINK INSIDE THE BUILDING,.

WHAT THEY HAVE OFFICE SPACE USE AND STORAGE,? THE NET USABLE SPACE IS JUST UNDER THE 6,000, NETTING THAT OUT.

24 PARKING SPACES WOULD COVER THE GROSS OF THAT, ROUGHLY 06,200 SQUARE FEET AS WELL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOOD.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON DOWN, SO IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, MAYBE SOME QUESTIONS.

COME ON DOWN AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

SKIP BLAKE, BLAKE ARCHITECTS, 1202 SAPPLY CHAPEL HERE IN SAPPLY.

AND OBVIOUSLY I'D ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

JUST A CLARIFICATION FOR YOU IS PART OF THAT NUMBER IS THERE'S COVERED PARKING,.

ALL THE PARKING THAT ADDRESSES THE FURNITURE OF THE BUILDING IS COVERED.

AND THAT'S, SO THAT NUMBER IS IN THAT NUMBER.

SO YOU'RE NEXT DOOR TO TERRY WILKINSON'S OFFICE,.

IS THAT THE ONE THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PICTURE? YEAH, THAT'S A REALLY NICE BUILDING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YEAH.

I THINK THEY TURNED IT OFF.

THERE'S A DOLL SIMULATOR IN THERE TOO.

OH, I'VE GOT TO GIVE TERRY A LOT OF CREDIT.

ALL RIGHT, SO THIS...

YEAH, IT'S BEEN A NICE DEVELOPMENT.

DOES IT LOOK SOMEWHAT SIMILAR IN PART OF THE MATERIALS AND ALL THAT? OKAY.

YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GO AHEAD.

COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE USE IS GOING TO BE OF THIS BUILDING? YEAH, THEY ARE, THE GENTLEMEN ARE HERE AND THEY CAN TELL YOU MORE,.

BUT THEY BASICALLY DEAL WITH PROPERTY TAXES NATIONWIDE.

AND SO THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW A STAFF OF 15.

AND SO THEY'LL STILL HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING FOR THAT,.

BUT THEY'RE A GROWING COMPANY AND, BUT YET,.

AGAIN, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING MORE? OKAY, I GUESS MY CONCERN WAS WE HAVE THE OFFICE LAYOUT.

AND I COUNTED 23 OFFICE SPACES PLUS LOBBY, BREAK ROOM, AND ET CETERA.

THERE'S 24 SPACES REALLY THAT ARE PARKED IN THIS BUILDING.

WHEN YOU GET MORE THAN 15 PEOPLE WORKING.

OKAY, COME ON DOWN TO THE.

Y'ALL CAN STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

YEAH, OF COURSE.

MY NAME IS BRAD MATHADAS.

I LIVE AT 511 IRONWOOD IN KELLER, TEXAS.

MY NAME IS CHARLIE YOUNG.

I LIVE AT 4513 17 LAKESPORT IN ROANOKE, TEXAS.

SO WE'RE A PROPERTY TAX FIRM CALLED SLATE.

WE WORK PROPERTY TAXES COAST TO COAST.

WE HAVE ABOUT 15 EMPLOYEES BUT ONLY 12 IN THE OFFICE.

AND BECAUSE OUR, MOST OF OUR CLIENTELE IS OUT,.

IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE STATE EVEN, WE WORK WITH SPECIFIC PROPERTY TYPE PRIMARILY.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CLIENTS THAT COME INTO OUR OFFICE.

IT'S REALLY JUST FOR US.

SO 24 CONCEIVABLY IS TWICE AS MANY AS WE NEED, YOU KNOW,.

FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT WE HAVE WORKING IN THE OFFICE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? THANKS, GUYS.

APPRECIATE IT.

NEXT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6F.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6F? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6F.

[01:25:02]

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ON 6F? ALL RIGHT.

DR. ROBBINS WILL TAKE A MOTION ON 6F.

YES, MR. MAYOR, MOTION WILL BE APPROVED.

ITEM 6F, Z826-0019, SITE PLAN FOR SLATE OFFICE.

ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 07, KIRKWOOD EAST EDITION,.

CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS,.

AND LOCATED AT 1520 WEST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD.

SET TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 24, 2026,.

AND SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 2 DATED JULY 13, 2026.

NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,.

SITE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 06,192 SQUARE FOOT,.

ONE-STORY FORESAIL OFFICE BUILDING.

AND DECREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES FROM 36 TO 24.

BEFORE I CALL FOR A SECOND, LET THE RECORD REFLECT.

WELL, PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT.

AND TO DATE, NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6F.

AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

ITEM 6F IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU, GUYS.

NEXT, WE'LL MOVE

[7.A.Ordinance No. 480-667C, ZA26-0010, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Site Plan for Chapel Crossing Medical, on property described as Lots 1R1 and 1R2, Block A, Ravenaux Village Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 245 and 275 W. S.H. 114. Current Zoning: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District. Applicant: Grayson Hughes, Sutherland King Consulting, LLC. Property Owner: Jerry Hu, NoveVoyage Peaks Central, LLC. SPIN Neighborhood #5. ]

TO ITEM 7A,.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-667C, CASE NUMBER IS EA26-0010,.

FIRST READING ZONE CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR CHAPEL CROSSING MEDICAL,.

LOCATED AT 245 AND 275 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE.

IT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR A TWO-STORY, 30,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.

THE CURRENT APPROVAL IS A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THAT SITE.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THAT TO GO BACK UP TO THE THREE-STORY BUILDING.

AND JUST OVER 35,000 SQUARE FEET AND ALLOW FOR BOTH MEDICAL OFFICES.

AND LOOK FOR SURGERY SERVICES, BUT IN PARTICULAR FOR LASIK EYE SURGERIES.

PROPERTIES, RETAIL COMMERCIAL AND THE LAND USE PLAN, SP2 ZONING, AS I MENTIONED,.

AND IT'S PART OF THE ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTHEAST OF IT, ADDRESS AT 245,.

WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114.

AND THIS VIEW FROM 114 FRONTAGE ROAD OF THE SITE.

ANOTHER VIEW LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AS PART OF THEIR REQUEST.

TO ENSURE THAT THEY'VE GOT ADEQUATE PARKING THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE ADJOINING COUNTRYSIDE BIBLE CHURCH.

THEY'VE DRAFTED A DOCUMENT THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY STAFF HAS REVIEWED.

THAT WOULD BE FILED TO RECORD AND RUN WITH THE PROPERTY.

IF THIS ZONING AMENDMENT IS APPROVED.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SITE FROM THE INTERNAL PARKING AREA.

ANOTHER VIEW FROM COUNTRYSIDE COURT.

AND THIS IS A CURRENTLY APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SITE.

THIS WAS THE THIRD OR SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING.

THAT WAS PART OF THIS OVERALL PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE.

AND THIS IS THE OVERALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE REVISION.

A CURRENTLY APPROVED PLAN ON THE LEFT AND THIS WAS A CONCEPT PLAN.

AND ON THE RIGHT IS A SITE PLAN.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SPECIFIC TO THE SITE.

PARKING TABULATIONS THEY HAVE ARE ON THE RIGHT AND THE AREA OF SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT.

IS HATCHED IN ON THE CHURCH SITE JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN.

AND THIS ADDRESSES ALL REQUIRED PARKING OR AVAILABLE PARKING FOR THEIR SITE.

REQUIRED PARKING BASED ON THEIR USE OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE AT APPROXIMATELY 174 SPACES.

THEY ARE WITH THE AGREEMENT AND WHAT THEY'RE ADDING ON SITE.

THEY WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE 184 PARKING SPACES.

THIS IS AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS IN YELLOW WHAT'S CONSTRUCTED EXISTING ON SITE.

AND THE PINK WHAT WOULD BE ADDED WITH CONSTRUCTION

[01:30:02]

OF THIS SITE.

AND THEN THE BEIGE WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE SHARED USE OF WITH THE CHURCH.

AND ONCE AGAIN DATA COMPARISON.

AND A GRADING PLAN AND TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.

UNDER THE LAST ZONING AMENDMENT CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.

APPLICANTS WERE FOR THAT PROJECT WHICH THE APPLICANTS HAVE CHANGED HERE BUT.

IT WAS REQUIRED AS PART OF THAT ZONING WHEN THE SITE PLAN CAME BACK TO.

REVISE THIS AREA TO HELP ENSURE PRESERVATION OF THIS EXISTING OAK TREE AND.

THEY HAVE ACCOMMODATED THAT IN THE PLAN BEFORE YOU RECEIVE IT.

THIS IS THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN.

UTILITY PLAN.

EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN.

THE SITE DOES HAVE A DETENTION STRUCTURE ON THE ADJOINING LOT OF THIS PROJECT THAT WAS.

PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT THAT HANDLES ALL THE DEVELOPED CONDITION RUNOFF FOR THIS SITE.

THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND MATERIAL MIX.

AND ONCE AGAIN PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.

THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION PLACING 114.

EAST ELEVATION.

SOUTH ELEVATION.

WEST ELEVATION.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS AT THEIR AUGUST 6 MEETING.

SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT AND REVIEW SUMMARY PROVIDED AND THAT VOTE WAS 7-0.

AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

AND LIGHTING PLAN FOR BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS ON THIS ITEM 7A? DIRECTOR KILLOUGH, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON ANY ISSUE.

I KNOW IT'S AN SP.

THE USES IN THIS IS MEDICAL.

IS THAT CORRECT? THE USES ON THIS ITEM IS MEDICAL.

YES, MEDICAL AND THEN AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER.

THEIR PARKING IS BASED ON HOW EACH OF THOSE MANDATE REQUIRED PARKING RATIOS.

FOR MEDICAL OFFICE USES ARE PARKED AT ONE SPACE FOR 150 SQUARE FEET.

FOR THE AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS AND OTHER SURGERY TYPE USES WHETHER THAT'S HOSPITALS.

OR LIKE I SAID AMBULATORY SURGERIES.

IT'S ONE SPACE PER BED AND ONE SPACE PER FOUR EMPLOYEES IN PLACE DURING OPERATING HOURS.

SO THEY HAVE PARKED IT ACCORDINGLY.

AND WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AND PREVIOUS COVERAGE FOR MEDICAL? IT DEPENDS ON THE DISTRICT YOU'RE IN.

AND FOR THIS DISTRICT IT HAS HISTORICALLY IT STARTED OUT WELL THROUGHOUT THE MULTITUDE.

OF REVISIONS HERE IT'S BEEN EVALUATED ON THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE.

THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND NOT LOT TO LOT.

AND THE ORIGINAL WAS AT 65 PERCENT.

IT'S BEEN MODIFIED BUT HAS STAYED WITHIN THAT RANGE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIS IS THE OVERALL PLAN SHOWS THE EXISTING DEVELOPED SITE.

AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WITH WHAT HAS DEVELOPED ON THE ADJOINING LOT.

AND WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THIS LOT THE OVERALL IS AT ABOUT 63 PERCENT.

IS IT STILL A PART OF THAT? LOT IT LOOKS IT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE THE SAME DEVELOPMENT.

[01:35:02]

YEAH THE SP2 ZONING COVERS IT'S ALL UNDER THE SAME DISTRICT BOUNDARY.

AND SO HISTORICALLY THE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN ON THE BALANCE.

OF THE OVERALL SP2 DISTRICT WHICH IS COMMON IN A LOT OF OUR CUSTOM ZONING DISTRICTS RATHER.

THAN LOT TO LOT AND SO I BELIEVE THIS LOT IN AND OF ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE SMALLER BOUNDARY.

IS RIGHT AT ABOUT 80 PERCENT VERY CLOSE TO 80 PERCENT 79 AND A COUPLE OF POINTS.

AND I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS RIGHT AT ABOUT 50 A LITTLE OVER 50 PERCENT.

AND WHILE YOU HAVE THAT PARTICULAR MAP UP I DON'T SEE ANY CROSS ACCESS.

INTO THE CHURCH PARKING LOT IS THAT CORRECT? THERE IS AND ASSUMING IT'S STILL VALID OF RECORD THERE IS A CROSS ACCESS.

FOR THIS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS AND ENSURES ACCESS BACK OUT TO THROUGH THIS PROPERTY.

AND BACK OUT TO COUNTRYSIDE AND I BELIEVE IN THAT AGREEMENT THEY HAVE THIS USE HAS USE.

OF THESE SPACES BUT THEY HAVE NOT REALLY COUNTED THOSE IN THEIR TABULATION.

OF WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING FOR AND THEN WHAT THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT.

WITH THE COUNTRYSIDE BIBLE, BAPTIST CHURCH FOR EXCUSE ME, BIBLE.

YEAH THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT MY NEXT QUESTION IS GOING TO BE FOR THE APPLICANT THEN.

ALL RIGHT ANYTHING ELSE FOR DENNIS? I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO HIS QUESTION ABOUT CROSS ACCESS TO THE CHURCH BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING.

FOR 84 OR SO SLOTS OVER THERE TO THE LEFT ON THIS BUT HOW DO YOU GET TO THOSE? YEAH THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE COUNTRYSIDE CHURCH AND OR GO OUT ON 114 OR COME IN OFF OF 114.

BECAUSE THIS IS THE WESTBOUND TRAVEL LANE SO YOU CAN'T.

BUT IF THEY COME IN ON 114 INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT THEY CAN'T GET TO THOSE CHURCH PARKING SPOTS.

WITHOUT GOING WAY DOWN SOUTH TO THE COUNTRYSIDE COURT.

IS THAT ACCURATE? IS THAT NOT? THAT IS ACCURATE.

THAT IS CORRECT.

WHY IS THAT? I GUESS IF WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR PARKING THERE WHY IS THERE NOT SOME KIND OF CONNECTION.

BETWEEN THE TWO PARKINGS TO ALLOW THERE TO BE REASONABLE INGRESS AND INGRESS.

TO THAT PARKING SPOTS? I WOULD ADDRESS THAT WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO DENNIS DO ME A FAVOR, GO OVER TO THE HEAT.

CAN YOU PULL UP THE EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP? I'M GOING TO GO HERE BECAUSE YOU GUYS TOOK SOME OF THE THUNDER AWAY FROM THIS END OF THE.

DENNIS BECAUSE WE'RE ALL LIKE YEAH THAT'S WHAT WE THINK.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE BOTTOM PART, THE TYPE OF PROPERTY THAT IS ON THERE? I DO NOT AS PART OF WHAT WE HAVE AND THIS IS THE MIDDLE I DO NOT HAVE THE OVERALL JUST.

WHAT THEY'RE HANDLING ON AND OFF THEIR SITE.

WITH THE APPLICANTS AS WELL AND I DON'T KNOW IF JEFF OR PREETAM ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

ON THIS BUT THE MAP I'M SHOWING, THE EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP, I MEAN THIS IS ALL VACANT LAND.

CURRENTLY RIGHT? IT IS YES.

AND BUT WE HAVE THE USES OF THE LAND LISTED AS OFFICE, OFFICE, OFFICE, OFFICE, CHURCH,.

CHURCH, CHURCH AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS OF.88 WHICH ARE BASICALLY CONCRETE COVERED.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND SO THEREFORE WHEN THEY COMPARE THE POST CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF.

TO PRE CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE POST CONSTRUCTION,.

THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP IS ALSO.888 ON ALL OF THESE AS WELL AND THE SAME USES.

SO I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THEY WOULD SATISFY THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS OF MAKING SURE.

THAT STORM WATER RUNOFF POST CONSTRUCTION DOESN'T EXCEED THE SAME AS IT IS PRE CONSTRUCTION.

PREETAM JUST CAME BACK OVER HERE, I DON'T THINK HE WANTS TO, OH JEFF'S HERE.

SLUMPED DOWN THERE.

SO TO CONFIRM THIS BECAUSE WE KIND OF RAN INTO THIS RECENTLY AND I THINK IT'S GOING.

TO GET ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT BUT AM I CORRECT IN THAT THIS.88 THAT THEY'RE USING MAY VERY.

WELL BE BECAUSE THE CITY HAS AN

[01:40:01]

ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THE POTENTIAL USE OF A FUTURE LAND USE.

PLAN DESIGNATION TO BE ABLE FOR THEM TO USE FOR RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS? YEAH SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE THEY WERE APPROVED UNDER A PREVIOUS DESIGNATION.

UNDER A PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEY'VE ACCOUNTED FOR THAT DRAINAGE.

WE HAVE MADE COMMENTS AND IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT IN TERMS OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING.

TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND ALSO KNOWING.

THAT INTENSITIES HAVE INCREASED AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT AND MAKE SURE.

THAT EVERYTHING MATCHES WHAT WAS APPROVED UNDER THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL SO.

OKAY DID WE LOOK AT, DID YOU GUYS DISCUSS THAT MAYBE IN PREVIOUS PAPERS THAT WERE PERFECT? I HAD NOT PERSONALLY DISCUSSED THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WITH THE APPLICANT.

ANYTHING ELSE FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH OR ANY OF OUR STAFF? ALL RIGHT WE'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME ON FORWARD.

IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS GRAYSON HUGHES WITH SUNWAY AND KEEN CONSULTING.

I ADDRESS THE 6430 MEADOW CREEK DRIVE AND HOUSE.

THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB ADDRESSING OUR PROJECT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTIONS.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AND MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO GO ONE AT A TIME WE CAN ADDRESS.

ACTUALLY LET'S START OVER HERE.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER FOX HAD THE FIRST QUESTION.

WE HAVE THE PARKING CROSS ACCESS ISSUE SO IF YOU MAYBE WANT TO RESTATE THAT FOR THEM.

AND THEN GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO ANSWER.

BUT I THINK THE QUESTION I'M GOING TO ASK IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM REYNOLDS WAS.

SAYING AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK IS NATURALLY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN OFF 114,.

THEY'RE GOING TO PULL INTO YOUR PARKING LOT AND IN THEORY THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE AROUND.

AND FIND OUT THERE'S NO PLACE TO PARK.

HOW WILL THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S PARKING IN THE CHURCH? HOW WOULD THEY BE DIRECTED? I MEAN WHAT'S YOUR PLAN? SO WE HAVE A CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH THE CHURCH.

IT'S ALL BUT SIGNED AND WILL BE FILED FOR RECORD AS DENNIS SAID WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND.

IT'S A VERY ANIMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE CAN PROVIDE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING.

THE TWO OWNERS IN FACT DID NOT WANT A PHYSICAL VEHICULAR CROSS ACCESS.

WE ARE PROVIDING TWO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, STAIRS AND WALKWAYS.

ANOTHER REASON NOT TO HAVE THAT VEHICULAR ACCESS IS BECAUSE OF THE GRADE DIFFERENCE.

THERE'S APPROXIMATELY THREE TO FOUR FEET OF GRADE CHANGE.

THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL ALONG THE WEST EDGE OF THIS PROPERTY.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THAT AND IT'S NOT ENTIRELY FEASIBLE WITH THE GRADES.

ON THE PROPERTY SINCE THERE'S A DECENT BIT OF FALL FROM WEST TO EAST.

AND I'M ASSUMING THEN THAT THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT PARKING IN THE REST.

OF THE COMPLEX TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM? THE PARKING THAT'S ON THE COMPLEX SITE PRIMARILY SERVES THE EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE.

BUILDING THAT'S THERE AND THERE WAS SOME EXCESS IN PARKING BUT DUE TO THE NATURE.

OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHURCH AND THE FRIENDLINESS THAT THEY'VE BEEN WILLING TO PROVIDE,.

WE DIDN'T SEE THE NEED TO GO NEGOTIATE ANOTHER PARKING AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER OWNER.

BUT DOES THE RETAINING WALL GO THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE WEST SIDE? IT GOES APPROXIMATELY TO, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN WHERE THERE'S A SHORT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.

THAT GOES FROM OUR BUILDING TO THE WEST, IT ENDS ABOUT RIGHT THERE.

SO IT'S 75% OF THE WAY FROM STARTING AT THE SOUTH CORNER.

SO I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE GRADE CHANGE AND ALL THAT AND THE RETAINING WALL,.

THE BACK OF THAT, BUT IF YOU JUST GO BEYOND THAT AND HAVE THE CURB CUT ACROSS THAT ACCESS AGREEMENT.

ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE, I MEAN, WHY CAN'T YOU DO THAT? THE SOUTHERN, SO THE RETAINING WALL STARTS AT THE BOTTOM CORNER WHERE WE INTERSECT.

WITH THE COUNTRYSIDE COURT.

THAT'S WHAT THE RETAINING WALL IS AND GOES ALL THE WAY NORTH WEST.

OKAY, GOT IT.

WELL, THEN DOES IT WORK CLOSER TO THE TOP? THERE IS A PRETTY LARGE TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC OVERHEAD LINE THERE THAT THEY HAVE TOLD US.

THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO RELOCATE.

LEAVE WHAT? THE, THERE'S HIGH POWERED OVERHEAD LINES, OVERHEAD POWER POLES THAT CARS CAN'T FIT UNDER.

THERE'S, SO CAN I ZOOM IN ON THIS MUCH? IS THERE A MAN ON THIS? THAT'S PROBABLY MORE HELPFUL THERE.

OKAY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE NORTHERN CORNER ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE EXHIBIT, THERE'S,.

YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE GUY WIRES THAT ARE COMING INTO THE PAVEMENT,.

WHICH WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RELOCATE THOSE.

THAT WOULD BE THE FEASIBLE

[01:45:02]

LOCATION FOR A DRIVE TO CROSS AND THAT LINE IS,.

THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE POLES WITHIN ABOUT A 10 OR 15 FOOT RADIUS.

CAN YOU USE THE CURSOR TO SHOW THAT? I DIDN'T QUITE SEE IT.

NO, I'M SORRY.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT A CURSOR.

YEAH, YOU CAN JUST POINT THAT OUT.

THERE IT IS.

OKAY. SO THESE ARE THE GUY WIRES THAT WE'RE RELOCATING AND THEY WILL GO ABOUT RIGHT HERE,.

BUT THIS IS THE LARGE OVERHEAD LINE THAT'S THERE IN PLACE.

YEAH, SO IT'S NOT MORE OF A LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING INTO THE PROPERTY.

THE OVERHEAD LINE ACTUALLY RUNS NORTH SOUTH ALONG OUR PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND THEN TURNS.

AND RUNS WEST UP THE CHURCH OF SPANISH THIS WAY.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

I LOVE IT.

LIKE THE FLOOR IS CEILING GLASS AND IT LOOKS, I THINK IT LOOKED REALLY, REALLY NICE ON 114.

I'M CURIOUS IF IT'S, IF THERE'S PRE-LEASING DONE.

I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT MAYBE LASIK, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT THE FOCUS IS.

OR IF THERE IS A PRE-LEASE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO THIS IS ACTUALLY AN OWNER OCCUPIED DEVELOPMENT.

THE THIRD FLOOR WOULD BE VACANT FOR FUTURE LEASE OPPORTUNITIES, BUT FIRST FLOOR.

AND OUR ARCHITECT IS HERE TO FURTHER COMMENT ON THIS.

I BELIEVE THE FIRST FLOOR IS FOR THE LASIK SURGERY CENTER.

AND THE SECOND FLOOR IS FOR THE AMBULATORY SURGERIES.

THAT'S GREAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

IS IT JUST LASIK SURGERY OR ARE THEY DOING CATARACTS RIGHT NOW AND THINGS LIKE THAT? OR IS IT ALL SPECIFICALLY LASIK? I'M NOT 100% SURE, BUT WE'LL LEAVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

ABSOLUTELY.

KYLE KAISER, ARCHITECT WITH SAN DESIGN.

2001 NORTH LAMAR DALLAS.

THAT IS CORRECT.

THE FIRST FLOOR IS PRIMARILY FOR CLINIC USE.

THERE WILL BE THE LASIK PROCEDURES AS WELL ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

SECOND FLOOR WILL BE THE AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER FOR CATARACTS.

AND ANY OTHER EYE SURGERIES THAT NEED TO TAKE PLACE.

THIRD FLOOR, WELL, FUTURE USE IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING.

POTENTIAL OCULAR PLASTIC SURGERY AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU FOR THE DESIGN.

I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT.

I NEED TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CROSS ACCESS.

YOU MENTIONED AN ELEVATION CHANGE.

ON THE CROSS ACCESS FOR THE WALKING, IS THERE AN ELEVATION CHANGE ON THAT AS WELL? YES MA'AM, THERE ARE STAIRS.

WE HAVE TWO PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES.

SO ONE IS IN THIS, WE'VE DONE FURTHER DESIGN SINCE THIS LIGHT LINE CAME IN FRONT OF PNZ.

SO THERE ARE STAIRS RIGHT HERE WITH THIS PRIMARY ACCESS.

AND THEN THERE'S A SECONDARY STAIRCASE THAT WE ADDED IN OVER HERE NEXT TO THE DUMPSTER.

AND THOSE WERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHURCH.

SO THERE'S NO ADA ACCESS FROM THAT, FROM THE CHURCH TO YOUR FACILITY, WOULD THAT BE IT? NO MA'AM, THE ADA IS SATISFIED ON EACH BUILDING SPECIFICALLY.

OKAY, BUT NOT TO GET TO THAT PARKING LOT OVER THERE? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M JUST STILL CONCERNED ON THE DRAINAGE ASPECT.

SO CAN YOU LIKE INFORM US LIKE WHAT IS THE PLAN ON YOUR RUNOFF RIGHT NOW? YES SIR.

SO THE ENTIRE SITE BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS AND I GUESS I CAN SCROLL BETWEEN THESE TWO MAYBE.

SO I GUESS HERE ON THIS OVERALL PLAN AND THERE'S A REGIONAL POND DOWN HERE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.

AND WHEN THIS PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT FULLY DEVELOPED FLOWS.

AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED ASSUMING BOTH OF THESE LOTS WOULD BE FULLY DEVELOPED.

AND SO THAT POND HAS ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED ASSUMING FULLY DEVELOPED ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THIS FLOWS THEN I ASSUME WITH THE STAFF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.

THAT WHETHER THOSE NUMBERS ARE ACTUALLY ACCURATE I'M NOT SURE.

YES SIR, WE'VE ALREADY LOOKED AT THAT.

THERE'S AN EXTREMELY DE MINIMIS INCREASE TO THE POINT WHERE YOU KNOW WE WILL WORK WITH STAFF.

ON HOW TO SATISFY THAT NEED THAT I MEAN WE'RE TALKING WE'RE TALKING DROPLETS IN THE BUCKET.

WELL I MEAN THE DROPLETS WITH IT BECAUSE OF THE COEFFICIENTS YOU GUYS ARE USING SO.

WELL THE CO-EFFICIENT HAD NOT CHANGED ESSENTIALLY THE INTENSITIES THAT HAD CHANGED.

SO WHEN NEW ATLAS 14 DATA CAME OUT NEW RAINFALL DATA WAS ADOPTED FROM TIME TO TIME.

AND THAT'S WHAT ADJUSTED THE VALUE.

NO I'M REFERRING TO THE COEFFICIENTS THAT ARE HERE FOR THE UNDEVELOPED LAND.

AT THE SAME AS FOR THE DEVELOPED LAND.

SO IT REALLY WOULDN'T CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF THE CALCULATION.

FOR THE WATER RUNOFF TODAY IN THEORY IS THE SAME AS THE WATER RUNOFF TOMORROW.

SO THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS AND IN REALITY TODAY THERE'S GOING TO BE LESS WATER RUNOFF.

THAN THERE WILL BE TOMORROW SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S GOING TO GET CORRECTED.

[01:50:01]

WELL I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT HERE SO THE REASON WE DIDN'T SHOW THE LIKE A 0.3 COEFFICIENT.

ON THE EXISTING IS TO NOT ARTIFICIALLY SHOW THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DETAIN WHEN THIS POND.

HAS ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED FOR FULLY DEVELOPED FLOWS.

SO WE CAN WORK WITH STAFF ON HOW TO BEST REFLECT THAT IN THE PLANS BUT WE KNOW.

THAT THAT POND HAS BEEN DESIGNED.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT MAKES SENSE I LIKE THAT.

OKAY THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? THANK YOU GUYS APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU ALL.

ITEM 7A IS A FIRST READING AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 7A.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 7A? SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7A.

COUNCIL ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH OR THE APPLICANTS.

FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? THERE YOU GO AHEAD.

I THINK YOU SEE IT COMING.

I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH BUILDING FOR THE LOT AND I THINK IT'S DEMONSTRATED.

I CAN'T SUPPORT 80% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE IN THIS DISTRICT, IN THIS LOT.

IT'S JUST THAT'S LIKE ALMOST INDUSTRIAL LEVELS OF COVERAGE.

AND IT JUST DOESN'T FIT ON 113 I THINK.

I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING, THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE,.

THE INABILITY, I THINK THE FACT THEY CAN'T PARK IT IS ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION.

THAT THE BUILDING'S JUST TOO BIG.

AND I MEAN PREVIOUSLY IT WAS APPROVED 66% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

SO THOSE ARE ALL AREAS THAT GAVE ME HEARTBURN AND THE FACT THAT 80% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

WOULD ONLY PRODUCE DROPLETS OF WATER WAS A LITTLE CONCERNING AS WELL.

RON I'D AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK YOU KNOW ALL THESE THINGS ARE INTERCONNECTED,.

ALL THE ISSUES YOU'VE HEARD BROUGHT UP TODAY, TONIGHT ON THE PARKING,.

THE ACCESS AND DRAINAGE ARE ALL YOU KNOW RELATED AND CONNECTED.

SO YOU KNOW FOR YOUR HOMEWORK IF IT GOES THROUGH ON FIRST READING.

I WOULD SUGGEST STRONGLY COMING BACK WITH A MODIFIED BUILDING THAT LOOKS GOOD.

BUT THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH, TOO MUCH BUILDING, TOO MUCH PARKING.

WITH THAT THEN WE HAVE THE PARKING ISSUE AND THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CROSS ACCESS.

TO THE CHURCH WHICH IS REALLY IN MY MIND NOT EVEN CROSS ACCESS AT ALL.

SO LET'S, SORRY GARY, SO YEAH SOME HOMEWORK IF IT PASSES ON FIRST READING.

TO COME BACK WITH AN OPTION B. YOU CAN PRESENT WHATEVER YOU WANT.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY TWO CENTS ON MORE OPTIONS GIVE YOU A BETTER CHANCE.

TO GET THE YES ANSWER ON THE SECOND READING.

SO COUNCIL ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YEAH I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER FOX.

I'M JUST NOT THERE AT ALL RIGHT NOW SO I THINK THAT THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME WORK TO BE DONE.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE MORE GREEN SPACE OR AND GET THAT PERCENTAGE DOWN.

I AGREE 80% IS WAY TOO MUCH.

I AGREE WITH ALL OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE PARKING, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE ACCESS,.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT TOO MUCH IN PREVIOUS COVERAGE.

I AM NOT THERE ON THIS.

WELL HEARING THAT WE COULD MAYBE TABLE IT.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR FOUR VOTES TO MOVE ON TO SECOND READING.

OR IF YOU WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON FIRST READING.

IT'S A, IF YOU NEED A MINUTE TO DISCUSS IT AMONGST YOURSELVES EITHER IN HERE OR OUT IN THE HALL.

YOU KIND OF HEARD YOU KNOW OUR COMMENTS FROM THE DIAS BUT IT'S YOUR APPLICATION.

SO IF YOU NEED A MINUTE TO THINK ABOUT IT AND TALK ABOUT IT ON WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO AS FAR.

AS TABLING OR GOING AHEAD ON A VOTE.

THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS.

I THINK AT THIS TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO TABLE DO WE, IS THERE A PROTOCOL OF HOW,.

LIKE DO WE COME IN FOR ANOTHER FIRST READING ON THE NEXT COUNCIL HEARING? RIGHT THIS ONE WOULD BASICALLY NOT COUNT. YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST READING.

YOU HAVE TO VISIT WITH DIRECTOR KILLOUGH ON THE TIMELINE AS FAR AS WHEN YOU WOULD NEED TO GET YOUR.

YOUR NEW PLANS IF YOU DO CHANGE THEM UP TO GET ON OUR NEXT MEETING WHICH IS IN TWO WEEKS.

SO THAT'S A QUICK TURNAROUND.

YOU MAY BE PROBABLY LOOKING AT THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER UNLESS YOU GUYS ARE REALLY QUICK BUT.

WE'LL, IF YOU'LL COORDINATE WITH DIRECTOR KILLOUGH IN HIS OFFICE ON THE TIMING TO GET NEW STUFF.

SUBMITTED WE'LL, WE CAN TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING AND IF YOU'RE NOT READY FOR THE SEPTEMBER 15TH.

WE CAN PUSH YOU TO OCTOBER WHATEVER, WHATEVER IF YOU CAN GET THAT STUFF IN THAT'S ON YOUR SCHEDULE.

SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO TABLE IF WE'RE NOT READY TO COME BACK IN WITH OUR REVISED APPLICATION.

IF YOU WANT WE'LL, IF YOU WANT WE'LL PUT YOU TO SEPTEMBER 15TH AND SEE IF THAT HAPPENS.

AND IF IT DOESN'T THEN WE'LL TABLE YOU AGAIN IF THAT'S OKAY.

OKAY AND CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING? YEAH GO AHEAD.

SO ONE COMMENT THAT I WOULD HAVE MAYBE FOR HOMEWORK AS WELL IS THERE'S A PROPERTY THAT'S.

BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT THAT ORIGINALLY WHEN IT CAME THROUGH CITY COUNCIL WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING.

THAT THE VIEW COMING FROM THE HIGHWAY SHOULD HAVE A CERTAIN LOOK TO IT.

SO NOW THE BUILDING THAT'S

[01:55:02]

THERE NOW IS BEAUTIFUL AND I KNOW THAT THE BUILDING IS.

GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL BUT THERE'S ALSO THE GREEN SPACE LOOK AND SO IT'S SOMETHING JUST.

TO KEEP IN MIND FOR THAT.

ALL RIGHT SO PER YOUR REQUEST WE'LL TABLE YOU OR DO A MOTION TO TABLE YOU TO SEPTEMBER 15TH.

YES SIR.

I UNDERSTAND.

AND THEN WORK WITH DIRECTOR KILLOUGH AND IF YOU NEED MORE TIME JUST LET THEM KNOW AND WE'LL,.

WE'LL GET YOU ON THE SCHEDULE.

GREAT THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT LET'S DO A MOTION TO TABLE ON 7A.

YES MR. MAYOR I MOTION WE TABLE ITEM 7A ON ITS NUMBER 480-667CZ826-0010 FIRST READING ZONING.

CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR CHAPEL CROSSING MEDICAL ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1R1 OR 1R2.

BLOCK A RAVENO VILLAGE ADDITION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS AND LOCATED AT 245 AND.

275 WEST STATE HIGHWAY 114 TO THE OCTOBER 6TH MEETING.

THE, WHAT DO YOU WANT? SEPTEMBER 15TH.

DO YOU WANT TO TRY FOR SEPTEMBER 15TH FIRST? OCTOBER, FIRST OCTOBER MEETING.

OCTOBER 6TH.

OCTOBER 6TH THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ON 7A TO OCTOBER 6TH AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THE MOTION TO TABLE.

AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

WE'LL SEE YOU IN OCTOBER.

NEXT WE'LL GO, IS EVERYONE ALL RIGHT? ANYONE NEED A BREAK OR ANYTHING? GOOD.

[7.B. Ordinance No. 480-321a, ZA26-0042, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Site Plan for St. Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church, on property described as Lot 1R, Block 1, St. Martin-in-the-Fields Addition and located at 223 S. Pearson Lane. Current Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. Applicant: Justin Hiles, VLK. Property Owner: Protestant Episcopal Church Council of the Diocese of Texas. SPIN Neighborhood #11. ]

ALL RIGHT NEXT WE'LL GO TO 7B OR DECEMBER 480-321A CASE NUMBER Z826-0042 FIRST READING.

ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR ST. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH LOCATED AT 223.

SOUTH PEARSON LANE.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

THANK YOU MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CURRENT SB2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE.

A 2,600 SQUARE FOOT SANCTUARY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING.

THIS AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY IS PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC AND CURRENT.

ZONING.

SB2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT INCLUDES BASE CS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT USES.

THIS IS A VIEW OF THE CHURCH FROM SOUTH PEARSON LOOKING IN A NORTH EASTERLY DIRECTION.

AND A VIEW LOOKING EAST THROUGH THE PARKING AREA.

AND THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING BACK WEST FROM CHESAPEAKE LANE.

THIS IS THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THAT THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE STACKING REMAIN AS THEY CURRENTLY EXISTED.

THE COMMISSION AS PART OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION MOVED THIS FORWARD WITH THEM REVIEWING THAT.

AND MAKING SOME CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE STACKING DEPTH ON THOSE TWO DRIVEWAYS.

THIS IS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY SITUATION IN DETAIL.

AND THIS IS THEIR REVISED AND CURRENTLY PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

THE APPLICANT HAS STRIPED OFF THESE AREAS IN THE PAVING AND THIS WILL ELIMINATE THE.

STACKING CONFLICTS PROVIDING ONE OF THE DRIVEWAYS, THE NORTHERNMOST DRIVEWAY, A FULL 75 FEET OF.

STACKING WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.

THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE AND THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY ACCESS AT 71 FEET, VERY CLOSE TO THE.

REQUIRED 75.

THIS REDUCES THE OVERALL PARKING FROM I BELIEVE 137 TO 107 WHICH STILL ADEQUATELY PARKS THE SEATING CAPACITY OF THE CHURCH WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 80 PARKING SPACES.

THIS IS A COMPARISON OF THOSE TWO PLANS SIDE BY SIDE.

[02:00:04]

HIGHLIGHTING THE CHANGE IN THE DATA SUMMARY.

AND ONCE AGAIN DETAIL, VARIANCE IS STILL REQUESTED FOR THE SPACING OF THE DRIVEWAYS.

AND THEN ONCE AGAIN THE 71 FEET DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM 75.

THESE ARE THE VARIANCES STILL REQUESTED, THE DRIVEWAY SPACING AND MINOR STACKING.

VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED.

THIS IS GRADING PLAN, TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE.

PROPOSED ADDITION AND ELEVATION.

THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION, NORTH ELEVATION AND WEST ELEVATION.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM 70 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF.

REPORT AND REVIEW SUMMARY NOTING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY SPACING AND STACKING.

DEPTH BUT ALSO APKIN'S WILLINGNESS TO EXTEND THE STACKING DEPTH ON THE EXISTING PARKING SPOTS.

WHICH THEY HAVE ADDRESSED WITH THE PLAN PRESENTED TO YOU THIS EVENING.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES ON THIS ITEM FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

I BELIEVE APKIN ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT.

THANK YOU DIRECTOR KILLOUGH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS, GO AHEAD.

YES, DENNIS ON THE STACKING, IS THERE ANY REASON THAT SECOND DRIVE WAS NOT PUSHED TO 75 AS WELL? I THINK IT WAS JUST TO AVOID LOSING POTENTIALLY ONE MORE SPACE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANOTHER.

PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT THAT COULDN'T GET THEM TO THE ADDITIONAL FOUR AND A QUARTER FOOT.

SO I CAN ASK THE APPLICANT THAT QUESTION.

ALSO ON THE CHURCH SITE, THEY'RE NEEDING THE PARKING BUT MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW,.

IF THEY HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT, CHRISTMAS, EASTER, OUTDOOR EVENTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE MORE PARKING,.

IS THAT, DO WE EVER ACCOUNT FOR THAT, THAT WE REQUIRE MORE PARKING? YOU KNOW, JUST UNANTICIPATED LARGE EVENTS OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, SUNDAY SERVICES, I CAN'T THINK.

WHEN THERE'S KNOWN THINGS ABOUT A CHURCH OPERATION, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS THOSE? BY HOWEVER THEIR USES ARE STRUCTURED.

HOWEVER, THEY'RE, AS FAR AS WE KNOW WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, YOU KNOW,.

THEY OPERATE AS ANY OTHER CHURCH DOES AND THE ORDINANCE HAS A SPECIFIC PARKING SET OF REGULATIONS.

FOR CHURCHES THAT'S BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LARGEST ASSEMBLY AREA OR SANCTUARY.

AND THEY'RE EXCEEDING THAT RIGHT NOW BY ABOUT 20, OR EXCUSE ME, YEAH, 27 SPACES I THINK SO.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THIS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON DOWN, GUYS.

AND IF YOU ALL CAN STATE NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

I THINK YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION LOADED UP.

MACRO V, 1211 MAGNOLIA DRIVE, CAROLTON.

CLAYTON NOLAN, 3229 DARTMOOR COURT.

ALAN VENTURA, ST. MARTIN'S, 223 SOUTH PEARSON.

ALL RIGHT, WELCOME, GUYS.

DID YOU HAVE YOUR OWN APPLICATION, PRESENTATION YOU WANTED TO SHOW US? I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOME LINK TO THAT.

SO CURRENTLY THE CHURCH IS ABOUT 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE ADDITIONAL AT ABOUT 2,500 SQUARE FEET, IT'S ABOUT 50 OCCUPANTS TO THE CURRENT 200.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE USE, WE'RE JUST EXTENDING THE

[02:05:04]

CURRENT CHURCH.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

WE'RE ALSO ADDING A FIRE LANE ON THE EAST.

IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THIS WILL BE DURING THE SLIDES.

SO WITH THE NEW ENTRY, THE TOWER WILL BE ABOUT 43 FEET CONNECTING TO THE PARISH HALL.

LIKE I SAID, THE SEATING INCREASE TO 250 WERE MAINTAINING THE SAME LOOK AND MATERIALS ARE CURRENTLY THERE.

SO THE RENDERING OF THE INTERIOR, THE NORTH DECKS, THE SANCTUARY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD BEFORE I OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.

MADAM COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PARKING.

WAS THERE ANY REASON THAT YOU ELIMINATED OR DIDN'T GO 75 FEET ON BOTH THE STAFFING,? ON THAT SECOND STAFFING STEP? YEAH, 175, 171 ON STAFFING.

YES, SIR.

THAT WAS TO TRY AND SAVE THE PARKING SPACE AS NEEDED ONE DAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU GUYS.

THIS IS A FIRST READING, SO IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING,.

BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 7B.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 7B? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7B.

COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH OR THE APPLICANTS? I GUESS, IS THERE ANY, TO BE DIRECTOR KILLOUGH, IS THERE, OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY LOSE THE PARKING SPACE.

SO THEY DON'T NEED THE VARIANCE FOR THE STAFFING, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY,.

THEY STILL HAVE MORE THAN THE PARKING, CORRECT? NO, THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

BEFORE YOU WALK AWAY.

THE FIRE LANE GOING TO THAT EAST SIDE, DOES IT HAVE TO BE A HAMMERHEAD FOR A TURNAROUND.

ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST, EAST OF THE PARISH HALL? I, LET ME SEE, LET ME SEE IF I CAN SEE THE MEASUREMENT.

NOT, IF IT'S.

ALL THE WAY UP.

MORE THAN 150 FEET, THEY CAN PROBABLY MAKE THIS MANEUVER,.

BUT IT COULD VERY WELL REQUIRE THAT IF, AND GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

THE PROMPT FORWARD, SIR, IF YOU WANT.

OKAY, FOLKS.

THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE HAMMERHEAD DESIGN.

THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS THAT THEY HAVE.

THIS IS ONE, IT'S WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE END.

SO THIS DOESN'T FORM A FIRE CODE.

SO IF IT'S GOING TO THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE SITE, THE INTENT IS JUST TO BACK UP AND GO.

YEAH, WE WOULD BACK TO THE PARKING LOT RIGHT THERE WHERE YOU SEE THE HAMMERHEAD,.

WHERE IT COMES BACK IN.

YEAH.

YOU DON'T LIKE TO TURN AROUND RIGHT THERE.

AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS, THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT.

WE CAN BACK 150 FEET TO GET TO THAT AREA TO TURN AROUND.

OKAY, COOL.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALSO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT 37 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT ABOUT 7B,.

AND TO DATE, NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON 7B.

THE ISSUE WAS RAISED ABOUT THE PARKING SPACE AND THE STACKING DEPTH.

SO ELIMINATE ONE PARKING SPACE AND THEN THERE'S 75 PLUS FEET, I GUESS.

YEAH, UNLESS IT'S A HARDSHIP.

I DON'T SEE THE REASON FOR GRANTING VARIANCE THERE.

YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? LOSING THAT ONE PARKING SPACE TO GET THAT FROM 71 TO 75 PLUS FEET? OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

SO IF WE COULD BUILD THAT INTO THE MOTION THAT WE'LL ELIMINATE ONE PARKING SPACE ON,.

WHAT WOULD THAT BE? THE SOUTH ENTRANCE TO ALLOW FOR, INSTEAD OF 71 FEET OF STACKING DEPTH,.

WHERE I'M THINKING WILL BE MORE THAN 75.

I THINK ALL YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO DO IS JUST NOT APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

YEAH.

THAT SHOULD COVER IT.

HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT.

ISN'T THERE A VARIANCE ON THE STACKING IN THE ORDINANCE? NO.

I THINK THERE'S A VARIANCE IN THE STACKING IN THERE.

ALLOW THE DRIVEWAY SPACING AND REVISE STACKING DEPTH WITH PARKING REMOVAL.

JUST DON'T PUT AS PRESENTED ON THERE.