Sep 15, 2026 City Council

DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH. ANY QUESTIONS? DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH, COULD YOU BRIEFLY OUTLINE ANY NON CONFORMING CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TODAY OR WILL EXIST AFTER THIS IS APPROVED.

THE ONE THAT APPEARS MOST PREVALENT IN THE MATERIAL THAT THEY PROVIDED US IS AN INCREASE IN THE NON CONFORMITY IN RELATION TO WHAT WOULD BY WAY OF THIS PLATT REVISION BECOME THE FRONT YARD SETBACK THAT'S REQUIRED ALONG CONTINENTAL BOULEVARD ESTATES RIGHT NOW. THE THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION IN PLACE WAS PLATTED AND AT THAT TIME PLATTED WITH A 30 FOOT SETBACK WHICH THEY ARE VESTED IN THAT. HOWEVER, IT DOES APPEAR THAT HOW THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AT THE TIME IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, WAS BUILT AT APPROXIMATELY AND I'M JUST ESTIMATING ABOUT 20FT FROM THE BOUNDARY. SO IT APPEARS TO CURRENTLY ENCROACH AT THE 30 FOOT BUILDING LINE NOW, BUT BY WAY OF DIVIDING THIS PROPERTY, IT CHANGES THE FRONT LOT LINE FROM SCENIC DRIVE TO CONTINENTAL BOULEVARD AND THEREFORE REQUIRES THE MINIMUM 35 FOOT SETBACK UNDER THE NEW PLATTING AND UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW SF20B ZONING REGULATIONS AND WHATEVER OUR OTHER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE, INCLUDING THOSE PERTAINING TO FLOODPLAIN OR DEVELOPMENT IN A FLOODPLAIN.

DENNIS, CAN YOU PULL UP A NEWER AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH LIKE THE LATEST ONE, GOOGLE MAPS OR SOMETHING? I DO NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS.

I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE NEWEST ONE ON MY PHONE RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, IT CLEARLY SHOWS AN ADDITION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT HOUSE AS WELL AS A LARGER PATIO, WHICH THEN MEANS THAT THAT SIDE

[00:45:01]

YARD SETBACK WOULD BE CALL IS A QUESTION.

I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. THE APPLICANT CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THE DATE OF THEIR AERIAL PHOTO, BUT SOME OF THE AERIALS THAT WE USED ALSO SHOW THAT IT'S IMPROVEMENT.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S THERE. NOW, OF COURSE, TO COUNTER THAT IF ONE WERE TO TAKE THAT BORDER BETWEEN 12 AND, WELL, WHATEVER THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, MOVE IT TO THE EAST, WE'LL SEE. BUT THEY PROBABLY FIX THAT RIGHT THAT.

NOT WITHOUT LOSING AREA TO THAT LOT. THAT WOULD LIKELY PUT THEM UNDER THE MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOOT.

WHAT IS IT RIGHT NOW? IT'S RIGHT. THE NEW LOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT IS EXACTLY AT 20,000 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY, PERFECT.

AND IF THEY HAD TO SHIFT OR ADJUST THAT, UNLESS THEY WERE ABLE TO PICK THAT ADDITIONAL AREA SOMEWHERE ELSE, THAT WOULD PROBABLY NOT WORK. I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY COULD GET THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT WE'LL GO TO THE APPLICANT ON 4C. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GO ON DOWN. AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE MICROPHONE, IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

JEWEL CHAD, 1029 BERNIE LANE, SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS.

DENNIS, THE PATIO THAT WE HAVE ON THE SIDE NOW FROM THE NEWER AERIAL, DOES THE PATIO HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE SETBACK OR IS THAT JUST THE BUILDING, ONLY THE BUILDINGS IS REQUIRED TO MEET THAT SETBACK? BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN WE PUT THAT LIGHT LINE THERE THE FIRST TIME, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOKED AT WAS WHERE THE BUILDING WAS IN RELATION TO THAT LINE.

NOW, THE NEW LOT TO THE EAST IS TOTALLY, I'D SAY 97%, MAYBE 95% OUT OF THE FLOOD. RIGHT.

SO THE EXISTING PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE, THE HOUSES ON THOSE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES.

I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT ON SCENIC DRIVE FACES SCENIC DRIVE. AND THE NEW PLAT IS GOING TO HAVE MORE FRONTAGE ON SCENIC DRIVE TO WHY THAT NOW NEEDS TO BE ON CONTINENTAL.

EXPLANATION FOR THAT IS BY DEFINITION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE FRONT LOT LINE IS DEFINED BY THE BOUNDARY OF LEASE DIMENSION ALONG A STREET FRONT. AND BY CHANGING THAT, THE FRONT YARD CHANGES WITH THAT.

SO THE LEAST ONE IS GOING TO BE.

THE STREET WILL BE CONTINENTAL. YES.

OKAY, SO THUS THE NEW LOT IS GOING ON THE EAST SIDE WOULD BE ON.

OH, I CAN'T SEE THAT FAR, BUT YEAH, ON THE OTHER STREET.

OKAY, LET'S SEE. AS FAR AS THE AERIAL GOES, WE HAD STARTED THIS PROCESS A FEW YEARS BACK WITH THE CLIENT AND WE HAD FLOWN A DRONE OVER THAT.

SO THAT IS A SURVEY GRADE AERIAL. IT'S NOT UP TO DATE BECAUSE THERE ARE NEW IMPROVEMENTS ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO ISSUE ONE WITH DIMENSIONS TO THE PROPERTY ON THAT. I WOULDN'T BE REPRESENTING WHAT WE HAD. BUT THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES ARE THE SAME AS WHAT WE HAD DONE A FEW YEARS BACK.

WHEN WE FIRST INITIATED THIS PROJECT, THE. THE LANDOWNER IN PROTEST ON THE SOUTHEAST WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE GROUP TRYING TO GET THIS THROUGH.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO WHERE THEY'RE OPPOSING IT, BUT THAT WAS A PARTY THAT WAS FOR THIS ENDEAVOR AND NOT AGAINST IT AT ONE TIME. A COUPLE THINGS WE'RE CLEANING UP WITH THIS PLAT, THAT HATCHED AREA RUNNING THROUGH THE SOUTHERN LOT.

THERE'S TWO HATCHED AREAS.

THOSE ARE AREAS BY PRIOR FLATS THAT WERE NEVER OFFICIALLY ABANDONED. SO WE HAVE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND ELECTRICAL EASEMENT, OUR UTILITY EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THE PROPERTY. PROBABLY MOST OF THE BIG DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DEFINITELY GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE THERE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN UP WITH THIS.

WE HAVE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AND SO FORTH, BUT AS FAR AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE. AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS GO, I DID NOT REALIZE THAT WE'VE BEEN CHAINED. DENNIS HAD MADE A NOTE OF IT THAT THE FRONTAGE WOULD BE ON CONTINENTAL, BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE EAST LOT, NOT UP THE WEST LOT.

SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT OR NOT, BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE FOR DECADES. IT HAS THE SAME ADDRESS, IT HASN'T MOVED. IT'S STILL FACING THE SAME WAY THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINENTAL. I'M UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE ON THIS COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS

[00:50:03]

FOR THE APPLICANT ON 4C.

DONE RIGHT NOW.

FOLKS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DENNIS. OKAY. YES. IF THE ORIENTATION. BECAUSE WE DIVIDED THIS LOT, IF THIS LOT WAS DIVIDED LIKE YOU'RE PROPOSING, THEN THE FRONT WOULD BE ON CONTINENTAL. WOULD THE ADDRESS OF THAT LOT CHANGE THEN TO CONTINENTAL? YES, IT COULD. THEY COULD REQUEST TO RETAIN THE SAME ADDRESS, IN PARTICULAR, IF THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME.

BUT THERE IS A MEANS BY WHICH THEY CAN REQUEST THAT THEY BE ADDRESSED OFF OF ONE STREET OR THE OTHER.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU, DENNIS. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C. AGAIN. WE HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS THAT I READ INTO THE RECORD EARLIER.

I'M GOING TO DO THAT AGAIN AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FIRST UP IS RYAN ESPERIAN AT 1304 O FIRST DRIVE. WE'LL SPEAK REGARDING 4C. IF YOU COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY DID THAT, AND THEN JUST CLARIFY OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT FOR 4C, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

YES, MAYOR. MY NAME IS RYAN ASPREYON. I LIVE AT 1304 OAKHURST DRIVE IN SOUTH LAKE.

WE ARE TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND I AM IN OPPOSITION. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN OPPOSITION, AND I BELIEVE MR. JEWELL MISSPOKE WHEN HE SAID THAT WE HAD AGREED TO THIS PREVIOUSLY AND CHANGED OUR MINDS. THAT'S NEVER BEEN THE CASE. I DID PREVIOUSLY GET A NOTICE A YEAR OR TWO AGO THAT THIS WAS BEING CONSIDERED. AND I CALLED THE CITY AND I SAID, HOW CAN Y' ALL REPLANT OUR PROPERTY WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION? AND HE SAID, WELL, Y' ALL SIGNED AN APPLICATION.

WE HAD IT RIGHT HERE. AND I SAID, NO, WE'VE NEVER SIGNED ANY KIND OF APPLICATION. SO IF AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON OUR BEHALF, IT WAS EITHER SUBMITTED BY MR. MYERS OR BY MR. JEWELL. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'M IN OPPOSITION NOW. ALWAYS BEEN IN OPPOSITION. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK YOU GUYS TO DENY THE PLATE PROPOSITION, MAINLY FOR THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AND DISCUSSED, BUT IN PARTICULAR THE ZONING, THE FLOODING, THE DENSITY. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO BE THAT CITY THAT TAKES EVERY PLOT THAT CAN BE DIVIDED AND START DIVIDING IT. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AND COULD CONTINUE HAPPENING, AND IT'S JUST A BAD PRECEDENT WITH THE FLOODING. I KNOW THAT THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET FROM US, WHO WAS ALSO IN THE NOTICE AREA, THE REQUIRED NOTICE AREA. I KNOW THAT THEY'VE HAD WATER RESTORATION PEOPLE OUT THERE YEAR AFTER YEAR, THEY GET FLOODED, IT GOES INTO THEIR HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE CASE TODAY, BUT I DO KNOW THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN THE PAST, SINCE WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS, I THINK.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO LET SOME OTHER FOLKS SPEAK TO THE FLOODING.

BUT WE DO GET FLOODING IN OUR FRONT YARD. WE ALSO, WHEN THE POND RISES, IT COMES UP INTO OUR BACKYARD. NOT EVERY TIME, BUT WHEN IT RAINS REALLY HEAVY, IT COMES UP PAST OUR FENCE LINE AND INTO OUR YARD. SO JUST ASKING Y' ALL TO CONSIDER THIS.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

NEXT IS RENEE ESPIRIT ESPRION, 1304 OAKHURST DRIVE.

WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 4C. RENEE, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

RENE ASBURY, 1304 OAKHURST DRIVE. AND I'M OBVIOUSLY IN OPPOSITION FOR THIS.

DITTO EVERYTHING MY WIFE JUST SAID.

WE HAVE NEVER AGREED TO ANYTHING THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.

SO APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING THE TIME AND LISTENING TO THE DISCOURSE TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. NEXT UP IS MR. OPPERMAN AT 1205 SCENIC DRIVE. WILL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM FOUR, 4C.

ROLLOFF.

OPPERMAN, I'M AT 1205 SCENIC DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ON THE PANEL. SO ONE THING I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT IS I'M RIGHT NEXT TO THE REPLAT AND I NEVER GOT A PUBLIC NOTICE.

SO YOU ARE RE PLATTING MY NEIGHBOR.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A NOTICE, BUT MAYBE I'M NOT TRYING TO ACCUSE ANYONE.

I'M JUST SAYING I FEEL LIKE I GOT A NOTICE.

SECONDLY, WE'RE DEALING WITH ALREADY THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE THAT'S BEING DONE ON THE CORNER.

YOU GUYS DID STUDIES AND IT IS INCREASING WATER FLOW BY US.

SO WE'RE ALREADY GOING

[00:55:01]

TO BE DEALING WITH THAT. WE'VE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ALREADY SINCE I MOVED HERE ON THAT DAM. WE'LL NEED TO CONTINUE TO SPEND DOLLARS ON THAT DAM BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE WATER FLOW.

THERE'S EROSION IN MY BACKYARD THAT I NEED TO DEAL WITH CONTINUOUSLY AND FLOODING.

AND I THINK MS. ANNETTE WILL SPEAK, WHO'S A NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE ROAD. SHE'S ALREADY DEALING WITH FLOODING ALREADY.

SO I JUST TELL YOU, I THINK WITH THE FLOODING CASE, MY BACKYARD'S ALREADY IN THE FLOOD ZONE. WITH THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE INCREASE, I REALLY THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF FLOODING AND EROSION IN HER BACKYARD. SO.

SO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.

OBVIOUSLY, I'M AGAINST THIS.

NOT OBVIOUSLY, BUT I'M AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU. THANKS TO YOU.

WE ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD FROM DEBORAH ADELSON AT 1310 OAKHURST DRIVE, WHO DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK THAT RECORDS OPPOSITION. DEBORAH, IF YOU'RE HERE, YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? GOOD.

AND WE ALSO HAVE A COMMENT CARD FROM A ANNETTE BENBOW AT 1202 SCENIC DRIVE. WE'LL SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 4C. COME ON DOWN.

I'M ANNETTE BENBOW AT 1202 SCENIC, WHICH IS JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS, FROM THE CORNER HOUSE.

AND ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING IT BACK FROM CONTINENTAL IS WE FREQUENTLY GET CARS THAT MISS THE ROAD THERE. THAT LITTLE BIT OF A CURVE BEFORE IT'S CALLED THE ROUNDABOUT, IT'S GOING TO BE. AND THEY END UP IN MY FRONT YARD OR IN HIS FRONT YARD.

AND SO IF IT'S NOT THAT VERY FAR, I'M A LITTLE WORRIED.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT MY HOUSE, TOO, BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE DRAINAGE.

I'M A LONG TERM SOUTH LAKE RESIDENT.

I'VE BEEN HERE 40 YEARS.

AND SO WHEN I FIRST MOVED THERE, THIS WAS A LITTLE CREEK, YOU KNOW. AND AS EACH DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE ALONG BETWEEN CONTINENTAL AND 1709, WE'VE GOTTEN MORE WATER.

AND SO NOW THERE'S REALLY A FLOODING ISSUE ALONG HERE.

AND I'M AFRAID WE'RE AT A TIPPING POINT. YOU KNOW, EVERY LITTLE BIT IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND THE ROUNDABOUT IS GOING TO INCREASE.

IF YOU'VE SEEN WHAT THEY'VE DONE UNDERNEATH THE DRAINS THERE, HUGE DRAINS, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF WATER COMING THROUGH THERE. AND SO PUTTING ANOTHER HOUSE UP THERE IS ALSO GOING TO INCREASE THE WATER.

AND SO I'M OPPOSED TO THE FOR THOSE REASONS. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 4C? ITEM 4C GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4C. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH OR STAFF OR ANY DISCUSSION. APPLICANT? YOU WANT TO COME UP FOR JUST A MINUTE? I THINK YOU'VE HEARD NEIGHBORS HAVING SOME CONCERNS AND SOME QUESTIONS. I THINK EARLIER THIS EVENING YOU HEARD SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THIS ITEM AND EVEN FROM DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH. DO YOU WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO TABLE IT AND TRY TO FIX SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP TONIGHT OR IT'S UP TO YOU.

IT'S YOUR APPLICATION.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY, AND MY APOLOGIES TO THE FOLKS WHO I SAID THAT WERE PART OF THIS ORIGINALLY.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.

I WAS GIVEN THE APPLICATION AND EVERYBODY HAD SIGNED UP, SO I DIDN'T ACTUALLY TALK TO YOU GUYS. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CUL DE SAC OR THE ROUNDABOUT THAT'S GOING THROUGH THERE, BUT I MEAN, HAS THE CITY DONE ANY KIND OF DRAINAGE STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF THAT ROUNDABOUT THROUGH THIS AREA? BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MY CLIENT'S BEING ASKED TO DO IS TO DO A DRAINAGE STUDY. WELL, THAT'S NOT BEFORE US NOW, BUT YES. WHEN WE DO PROJECTS LIKE THAT, THOSE STUDIES ARE DONE BY THE CITY. WHY WE'RE DOING ONE TOO. THAT'S ALL SO CLOSE BY, THESE FOLKS KEEP BREAKING UP THE ROUNDABOUT.

JUST A QUESTION.

DIDN'T KNOW AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS.

THE.

I NEED TO GET DENNIS SOMETHING THAT SHOWS THE DIMENSIONS TO THE PROPERTY LINES. I THINK THAT'S FAIR ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF MY CLIENT'S GOING TO LIKE THIS OR NOT, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR IT NOW AND SEE WHERE WE GO.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS? COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH? I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

[01:00:01]

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. PRO TEM ROBBINS. I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON 4C.

YES, MR. MAYOR.

MOTION TO DENY. ITEM 4 CZA 260056 PLAT REVISION FOR LOTS 12R1, 12R2 AND 13R1 BLOCK 2.

CONTINENTAL PARK ESTATES BEING A REVISION OF LOTS 12 AND 13 ARE CONTINENTAL PARK ESTATES.

IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE, TERRENCE COUNTY, TEXAS, LOCATED AT 1201 AND 1203 SCENIC AREA. DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT UNCERTAINTY WITH THE PLAQUE AS PRESENTED, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY. 4 SE.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. AND THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY. SO A YES VOTE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DENY. A YES VOTE IS TO DENY. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

CLARIFICATION BESIDES YOUR SON'S CERTAINTY WILL APPLY FLAT THAT IT'S BEING DENIED SUBJECT TO NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ITEMS LISTED IN THE REVIEW SUMMARY.

ITEMS. WHAT? AND ATTORNEY, COULD YOU.

SO I THINK THE STAFF REPORT OUTLINED A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WERE PRESENT WITH. APPLY IF YOU WANT TO REFERENCE THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE ITEMS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND TO DENY. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES AGAIN. A YES VOTE IS TO DENY. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES. AND THAT MOTION TO DENY TERRY'S 70. ITEM 4C IS DENIED. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON

[Items 6.A - 6.C]

TO ITEMS 6A, 6B AND 6C. WE'LL TAKE ALL THREE OF THOSE TOGETHER. 6A IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 1302, SECOND READING, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027, AND APPROVING THE REVISED BUDGET FIGURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026. 6B IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 1301, SECOND READING ON THE TAX LEVY ORDINANCE. AND 6C IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 030, AUTHORIZING PURCHASES FOR THE 2027 FISCAL YEAR AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER ENTER CONTRACTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SAID PURCHASES.

OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, SHARON JACKSON, IS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO GIVE US A FULL PRESENTATION THAT WE'VE ALREADY SEEN BEFORE OR ANY SELECTED SLIDES COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE. I THINK THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME OFFICIALLY IN HERE WE'VE SEEN THIS, BUT DIRECTOR JACKSON IS, AS ALWAYS, AVAILABLE TO GIVE US AS MANY SLIDES OR AS FEW SLIDES AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SEE A SLIDESHOW ON THIS ONE? ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR JACKSON AT THIS MOMENT? ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I DO, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 6A, 6B AND 6C.

SO ON 6C SPECIFICALLY, I'M GOING TO USE ONE EXAMPLE BECAUSE THIS ONE I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH.

IN THE ATTACHMENT BACK TO APEX CONCRETE AND THE AUTHORIZATION IN THAT IS THE $3,075,000. AND THE LAST TIME WE SAW THIS WAS AUGUST 5TH OF 2025 WHEN WE LOOKED AT THEIR CONTRACT. AND AT THE TIME, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THEY WERE UP FOR A POTENTIAL INCREASE OF 4% ON THEIR WHAT THEY NORMALLY CHARGE, BUT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR ANYTHING. WE APPROVED THEIR BUDGET OF $1.5 MILLION, ROUGHLY 1.5 SOMETHING AND SOME CHANGE. THIS IS LIKE DOUBLE WHAT IT WAS A YEAR AGO. SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE GOING TO A.

WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THIS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WE'RE AUTHORIZING THE CITY AND THE CITY MANAGER TO SPEND BASICALLY TWICE AS MUCH.

IT INCLUDES CAPITAL PROJECTS.

AND LAST YEAR CAPITAL PROJECTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE AUTHORIZATION. SO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND THAT ACTUAL CONTRACT IS UP FOR RENEWAL AND THE BIDS WILL GO OUT IN THE SPRING. SO THAT'S TO COVER THAT PURPOSE, BUT NOT TO SAY WE WOULD SPEND. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM WE WOULD SPEND WITH THAT VENDOR, INCLUDING THE CAPITAL PROJECTS OF SOME OF THE PAVING PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED LAST YEAR.

SO DO WE HAVE BIDS FROM THEM ON CAPITAL PROJECTS RIGHT NOW? NO. IT WOULD BE MATERIAL, LIKE SOME OF THE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE THAT WE DO IN HOUSE AND THE MATERIALS THAT WILL BE PART OF INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS.

OKAY, BUT.

SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE CONTRACT ANNUAL CONTRACT WITH THEM FOR 1.5 MILLION AND THAT'S IT.

THE APPROVAL LAST YEAR, THE 1.5 WAS THE FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THIS WILL BE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, WHICH INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN 2020.

OKAY, SO VOTING HERE ON THIS MEANS THAT WE'RE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT TO DOUBLE WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.

[01:05:01]

YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF DIRECTOR JACKSON? ANY OF THOSE ITEMS 6A, 6B, 6C? THANK YOU, DIRECTOR JACKSON.

6A AND 6B REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 6A, 6B AND 6C. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ANY OF THOSE THREE ITEMS, 6A, 6B AND 6C? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 6A, 6B, 6C.

COUNSEL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THOSE THREE ITEMS, THE BUDGET, THE PROPERTY TAX RATE AND THE AUTHORIZATION ON PURCHASES? YEAH, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS ON COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING ITEM 6C. IN ESSENCE, I FEEL THAT WE'RE AUTHORIZING FREEDOM TO SPEND OVER $56 MILLION ON VARIOUS CONTRACTS WITHOUT SEE COUNSEL GETTING INVOLVED VIRTUALLY AT ALL.

THE ITEMS IN SIX ZERO THINGS ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET THAT YOU'RE APPROVING THIS EVENING.

SO IT'S PART OF THE APPROVED BUDGET.

ANYTHING THAT WILL COME UP, EVEN IF WE USE THE SAME VENDOR THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED IN THE BUDGET, WOULD COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. YOU'RE JUST GIVING US AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET THAT YOU'RE APPROVING THIS EVENING.

OKAY, SO EVEN IF WE DO APPROVE THIS, THEN WHAT IS THE CURRENT MAXIMUM BEFORE IT WOULD COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AGAIN? IS IT $50,000? NO, IF THE MAXIMUM WILL BE WHAT'S INCLUDED IN ITEM 6C.

OKAY, SO THEN WE'RE APPROVING A CONTRACTOR FOR DOUBLE THE BUDGET OF WHAT THEY HAD THE YEAR PRIOR? YES, FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.

ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED.

AND AGAIN, WE COULD ALWAYS PULL AN ITEM OUT IF YOU WANTED TO AND EXCLUDE IT FROM THEIR APPROVAL.

I GUESS I'D BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE REST OF COUNCIL THINKS ON WHAT THAT LIMIT SHOULD BE.

YOU KNOW, I'M ALL FOR DOING THE PROJECTS AND GETTING PROJECTS DONE, BUT I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY BIG JUMP JUST ON THAT ONE CONTRACT. AND THERE IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE ON THIS WITH A WALL THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE A DAY TO BUILD, BUT IT TOOK 30 DAYS. AND WHEN I CHECKED INTO THE COST OF THAT WALL TO BUILD ON 1709 BY APEX. IT COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT FOR LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THE CITY WAS ACTUALLY CHARGED FOR IT. SO THOSE ARE CONCERNS THAT ARE LEGITIMATE THAT, YOU KNOW, A CITY APPROVED CONTRACTOR FOR COLLEYVILLE AND EULESS, WHO WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT IT, GAVE A VERBAL BID OF LESS THAN HALF. SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT JUST AUTHORIZING THOSE LEVELS. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT CITY COUNCIL WOULD THINK ABOUT SOME SORT OF WHAT THAT LIMIT WOULD BE.

I PERSONALLY COME FOR IT BECAUSE I THINK WHAT SHE'S EXPLAINING IS IT'S NOT A DOUBLING OF A SINGLE CONTRACT FOR A SINGLE JOB. BASICALLY WE APPROVED THEM FOR A MILLION FIVE TO BUILD THAT WALL LAST YEAR.

THIS YEAR WE'RE APPROVING A MILLION OR THREE AND A HALF MILLION BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUR WALLS FOR THEM TO BUILD. SO IT'S ADDITIONAL WALLS. I THINK YOUR DISCOMFORT'S WITH THE ACTUAL CONTRACTOR. MY COMFORT'S FINE WITH TRUSTING THE STAFF AND WHERE THEY'RE AT WITH THE BID PROCESS. EVEN THAT WALL, I BELIEVE, CAME BEFORE US AGAIN FOR DISCUSSION AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AT THAT POINT. AND I HAVE A FEELING SIMILAR PROCESSES WILL BE FOLLOWED IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS JUST FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY'RE SAYING THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND WITH THIS, WITH THIS CONCRETE CONTRACTOR FOR ALL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT THEY MAY PARTICIPATE IN OVER THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

IT'S SLATED FOR US TO HAVE MORE MARKEDLY MORE NEED THAN WE HAD IN FISCAL YEAR 26. THEREBY WE NEED TO HAVE A HIGHER CONTRACT.

IT'S A TYPICAL BUSINESS BUDGET WHERE YOU HAVE A LIST OF CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE.

YOUR ESTIMATE IS GOING TO BE $3.5 MILLION TO DO ALL OF THOSE. IF IT COMES IN UNDER THAT, THEN IT'S APPROVED.

IF IT'S OVER THAT, YOU HAVE TO COME TO US FOR APPROVAL, CORRECT? YEAH.

DIRECTOR JACKSON, COULD YOU SPEAK TO. IS THIS THE SAME PROCESS FROM THE 2026 BUDGET? YES, SAME PROCESS.

SO.

AND IF YOU RECALL, THAT SPECIFIC VENDOR HAD 1.5 MILLION IN THERE. AND WHEN WE BROUGHT THE WALL, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ALREADY AN ADOPTED BUDGETED ITEM, WE BROUGHT IT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY APPROACHED.

RIGHT, BECAUSE. BECAUSE THAT PROJECT WAS OVER A CERTAIN DOLLAR LIMIT, CORRECT? YES, BECAUSE IT'S. ANYTHING OVER 100,000 THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL WILL COME BACK IF IT IS

[01:10:01]

IN EXCESS OF AGENDA ITEM 16.

IN THAT CASE, BECAUSE THAT WALL WAS NOT A BUDGETED ITEM, CITY COUNCIL HAD NOT APPROVED IT AND IT WAS OVER 100,000, IT CAME FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

RIGHT. OKAY.

I DON'T THINK THAT WALL WAS IN THE BUDGET LAST YEAR AND THAT'S WHY IT CAME FORWARD.

WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE AND IT.

BECAUSE IT WAS OVER 100,000.

WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THE POINT OF THAT CONTRACT WITH THAT VENDOR IS THINGS THAT GENERALLY AREN'T IN THE BUDGET, POTHOLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WELL, NOT, I MEAN, NOT UNEXPECTED ITEMS, I SHOULD SAY UNEXPECTED ITEMS. SO THAT'S WHY IT POPS OUT AT ME, BECAUSE IT'S DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF UNEXPECTED ITEMS. BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S.

IT'S EXPECTED ITEMS, THIS IS EXPECTED ITEMS WITH REGARDS TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. BUT WE MAY NOT. ARE WE NOW CONTRACTED WITH THEM BASED ON IT TO USE THEM FOR THOSE PROJECTS OR ARE THOSE GOING TO COME BACK TO US TO TAKE A LOOK AT? IT WOULD NOT COME BACK TO YOU IF APPROVED THIS EVENING AND RESOLUTE UNDER THIS RESOLUTION.

SO THAT GOES BACK TO MY ARGUMENT. SO WE'RE IN ESSENCE RENEGOTIATING THE CONTRACT FROM LAST YEAR. RIGHT. LAST YEAR THE MAX WAS $1.5 MILLION.

YOU'RE AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES OF HOW MUCH WE CAN SPEND WITH THAT VENDOR.

RIGHT? SPECIFICALLY WITH THAT VENDOR.

YES, UP TO THAT AMOUNT.

DIRECTOR JACKSON, MAYBE IT'D BE HELPFUL. WHAT ARE THE ADDITIONAL. WHAT'S THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT OR PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO APEX? I THINK PUBLIC WORKS CAN GIVE YOU THE ADDITIONAL.

RIGHT. THAT MAY BE THE QUESTION OF WHY IS IT MORE THIS YEAR AND WHAT ARE THOSE PROJECTS THAT YOU ALLUDED TO? YEAH, I THINK JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE, THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WE'RE DOING UNDER THE KAPLAN PROJECTS. TWO OF THEM ARE SIDEWALK PROJECTS.

ONE ALONG PEYTONVILLE, THEY'RE IN OUR CIB PROGRAM, AND ONE ALONG DOVE. AND THERE IS ONE GREENWICH PROJECT ALONG MORGAN ROAD. THE COST FOR THE SIDEWALK PROJECTS, THE ONE ON DOVE, IS APPROXIMATELY $775,000. THE OTHER COST FOR THE SIDEWALK FOR PAYTONVILLE IS $600,000.

AND THEN THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IS 1.05 MILLION.

SO THAT'S THE COST INCREASE.

SO IN THOSE CASES, LET'S SAY THE SIDEWALK PROJECT WAS 700, WHATEVER THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS THAT PUT OUT THE BID. NO, I THINK IF THIS CONTRACT, UNDER THIS CONTRACT, IT WON'T GO TO BID.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

PREVIOUSLY WE HAD CONTRACT $1.5 MILLION OF EXPECTED ITEMS THAT WOULD HAPPEN. AND THIS CONTRACTOR DID AN RFP SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND WE RENEW THAT AND IT'S GOING TO RENEW NEXT YEAR.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE INCREASE THE PROJECTS TO THE CONTRACTOR BY $1.5 MILLION WITH NO RFP ON THE PROJECT. WHAT AM I.

SORRY, I'M JUST SAYING. WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? ONE THING TO NOTE, OUR COSTS ARE FIXED FOR CERTAIN THINGS. EVEN THOUGH IT DIDN'T GO OUT FOR BID, WE HAVE A, THEY HAVEN'T REQUESTED AN INCREASE I THINK IN THREE OR FOUR YEARS. SO OUR FIXED COSTS ARE FIXED IF IT FALLS UNDER THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

NO, I GET THAT.

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR OBVIOUSLY HOW CLEAR YOU'RE TRYING TO BE.

MAYBE I'M JUST BEING DIFFICULT OR FRUSTRATED. I'M USING THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT AS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE FOR HALF OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ENDED UP CHARGING US AS WELL AS STONE THAT WAS WRAPPED UP, READY TO DISAPPEAR AND GO SOMEWHERE UNTIL I BROUGHT IT UP. AND NOW IT'S SITTING IN THE CITY PARKING, CITY STORAGE SOMEWHERE. SO MY CONCERN IS, ARE WE GETTING SOUTH LAKE TAXED ON A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS? BECAUSE THE PROJECT ULTIMATELY THE WALL WAS $164,000. ANOTHER CONTRACTOR COULD HAVE DONE THE ENTIRE WALL, THE ENTIRE WALL FOR $80,000. SO THEREFORE WE BASICALLY PAID DOUBLE WHAT WE HAD TO PAY. AND TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT CAME UP PREVIOUSLY ON THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT, THERE WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING WALLS ALONG 1709 UNIFORM IN STRUCTURE, THE WAY THEY LOOK UNIFORM. AND LATER WHEN I CHECKED ON THAT, THERE USED TO BE 10 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLES OF RETAINING WALLS ON 1709 BETWEEN WHITECHAPEL AND PEYTONVILLE. NOW THERE ARE 11 DIFFERENT STYLES BECAUSE THAT CONTRACTOR PUT IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE THAN SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE REFERENCED.

SO ANYWAY, MY CONCERN AGAIN IS WE'RE AWARDING, WE'RE IN ESSENCE AWARDING THEM A THREE MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT, DOUBLING THEIR PREVIOUS CONTRACT FOR WHAT I KNOW FROM OWN PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE THAT WE BASICALLY PAID TWICE AS MUCH AS WE HAD TO FOR CITY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE, GO AHEAD.

I'M SORRY, ONE QUICK NOTE.

BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, THE WAY

[01:15:01]

OR WHY WE DO THESE ANNUAL CONTRACTS IS ONCE WE GET A CONTRACTOR LOCKED IN FOR A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF YEARS, AS SHARON WAS MENTIONING, WE DO GET THE PRICING LOCKED IN. AND THIS CONTRACTOR LOCK HAS REQUESTED ONLY TWO INCREASED PRICES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. SO THEY'VE INCREASED IT. THEY WERE CAPPED FOR 4%. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MARKET RATE WHEN WE CAP THEM IN, THE RATES THAT WE RECEIVED SINCE THAT EVERY YEAR THE ESCALATION HAS BEEN WAY MORE THAN 4%. SO WHEN WE WENT OUT TO BID FIVE YEARS AGO, WE GOT A CERTAIN SPECIFIC RATE.

THERE WERE CONTRACTORS THAT BID OR I DON'T KNOW THE ALL THE DETAILS BUT ONCE YOU GET THAT WEIGHT LOCKED IN, WE ARE AT AN ADVANTAGE AND WE GET THE.

WE BENEFIT FROM HAVING THAT CONTRACTOR ON A LONG EXTENDED CONTRACT EVEN FOR SMALLER JOBS. IF WE GO OUT TO BID FOR SMALLER JOBS, THE PRICE THAT COMES IN COMES IN WITH MORE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE SMALLER JOBS. SO THAT'S WHY BREAKING IN OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS AND BREAKING THEM INTO SMALLER PIECES AND GOING OUT TO BID EVERY SINGLE TIME MAY END UP RESULTING IN COSTING MORE MONEY. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE SMALL ANNUAL CONTRACTS FOR THESE SMALLER JOBS. NO, I GET THAT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A 4% INCREASE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $1.5 MILLION OVER $3 MILLION AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 700,000 PLUS PROJECTS WHICH TO ME ARE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.

YOU USE SOME OF OUR TURF FIELDS AS AN EXAMPLE THAT ARE $800,000 FOR A COUPLE OF TURF FIELDS IN NORTH PARK.

WE DID AN RFP ON THOSE. SO ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT I FEEL THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE ABILITY OF A CONTRACTOR TO MAKE MORE MONEY, THAT MUCH MORE MONEY, THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO DO A NEW RFP IF IT'S GOING TO BE ABOVE A CERTAIN, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY OF INCREASE FOR THAT YEAR. I MEAN, SO ONE, THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE WILL GO OUT IN THE SPRING FOR ANOTHER RENEWAL GOING FORWARD. BUT I THINK I'M HEARING YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT WE DO AN RFP FOR THOSE PROPOSED PROJECTS.

IS THAT THE REQUEST THAT I'M HEARING? I'M SORRY, SAY AGAIN, AM I HEARING A REQUEST THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING SEP GOES OUT FOR AN RFP FOR THOSE PROJECTS? SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ONE, YES, BUT I'M ALSO REFERRING TO ANY OTHER VENDORS.

IT'S JUST.

OKAY, SO IF I WERE TO, BETWEEN WEDNESDAY AND TODAY, GO THROUGH THAT ENTIRE LIST AND BE FAMILIAR WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CONTRACTORS AND WHAT INCREASES THERE ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WHAT THEY ALL. I MEAN, THERE'S GOT TO BE, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE 40 OF THEM ON THERE, THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED PRE TAMP.

RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S SIMPLE FOR US TO ALL UNDERSTAND. SO THERE'S A LOT THERE. THAT ONE JUMPED OUT RIGHT OFF THE BAT BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A BIG NUMBER. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT ANYTHING ABOVE A CERTAIN INCREASE IN WHAT WE HAVE A CONTRACT FOR.

BECAUSE TO ME WHAT I SEE IS WE'RE RENEGOTIATING A CONTRACT, WE'RE RENEWING A CONTRACT, WE'RE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF WORKLOAD THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM OVER THE NEXT YEAR, WHETHER IT'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS OR NOT. IT'S NOT JUST THEM. THERE'S PROBABLY A NUMBER OF OTHER ONES.

IN THERE AS WELL, THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING. WE SHOULD BE RELOOKING AT THOSE EACH TIME.

SPECIFICALLY BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE THIS PAST YEAR.

SO I'M CURIOUS, AND EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE HERE, WHEN YOU SAY THAT WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE CURRENT CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH THIS CONCRETE PROVIDER, IS IT A PER SQUARE FOOT OF SIDEWALK? WE PAY X AMOUNT, THERE'S 100 OR DIFFERENT ITEMS, AND IT'S A FIXED COST PER SQUARE FOOT.

AND ALL THE THINGS IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT WE HAVE.

SIDEWALK SPECIFICALLY IS SOMETHING THAT WE PAY.

WHATEVER, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, WE PAY X AMOUNT PER SQUARE FOOT PER SIDEWALK, REGARDLESS OF LOCATION OR ANYTHING ELSE.

AND I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, OR SOMEONE'S AT LEAST CURSORY LOOKED AT, HEY, WHAT'S THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE FROM A COMPARABLE CONTRACTOR? WE WOULD DO A GUT CHECK TO ENSURE THAT'S REASONABLE.

IN THAT GUT CHECK, WHAT DID YOU GUYS FIND? THAT IT'S REASONABLE. AND IT'S EITHER WITHIN THE MARKET OR LESS THAN THE MARKET. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVE A FIXED COST THAT WE'VE HAD FOR OVER A YEAR.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF BUS BY SOMETHING LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THESE PROJECTS WITH A PRICE THAT'S BASICALLY FIVE YEARS OLD. YOU SAID THAT WE HAD REQUESTED NO INCREASE.

THAT'S TWO INCREASES IN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

OKAY, THAT'S 4% EACH IN THOSE TWO YEARS. WELL, CONCRETE HAS GONE UP DRAMATICALLY, SO IT'S SURPRISING THAT IT STAYED THAT LOW.

SO IF I'M THE PROCESS IS THE RFP OCCURS WHEN YOU'RE PICKING THE CONCRETE CONTRACTOR BASED ON WHAT QUANTITIES THAT THEY'RE

[01:20:01]

GOING TO PRODUCE AT WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND THEN FOR SPEED TO MARKET TO BE ABLE TO DO THE CONTRACTS AND FULFILL OUR CITY'S NEEDS.

THIS IS HOW WE DO IT. SO IT'S AN AWARDED CONTRACT TO DO ALL CONCRETE NEEDS TO ONE COMPANY. BECAUSE IF WE'RE DOING AN RFP FOR EVERY SINGLE SIDEWALK WE EVER DO, WE'D BE DOING THAT LIKE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPERATE THE GOVERNMENT.

OKAY, SO THIS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE THINGS HERE, GUYS, OKAY? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROCEDURE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COSTS. HAS CONCRETE GONE UP THE LAST COUPLE YEARS? YES. HAS IT GONE UP IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS? NOT THAT MUCH. SO THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR, AS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF 40 PLUS IN THERE, CAME THROUGH HERE AUGUST 5TH, ONE YEAR AGO. AND AT THAT TIME, WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED CRACK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BECAUSE MAYBE MY MEMORY'S FADED ON IT, WAS THEY WOULD BE DOING WORK FOR US UP TO $1.5 MILLION IN A YEAR. AND MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY SINCE THEN WAS, HOW DOES THIS WORK? AND IT WAS, WELL, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE AUTHORIZED UP TO 1.5. NO MORE THAN $1.5 MILLION IN ONE YEAR. NOW IT'S $3 MILLION IN ONE YEAR WITHOUT IT ACTUALLY COMING THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AS AN APPROVAL ON A CONTRACT FOR A CONTRACTOR. THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY IN THIS CITY NEED TO WAKE UP AND LISTEN TO, BECAUSE THIS IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF A CONTRACTOR WHO GETS HIS CONTRACT DOUBLED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE RFP PROCESS, WHICH SHOULD HAPPEN SO THAT OTHER CONTRACTORS CAN ACTUALLY BID.

SO WHEN I HEAR THAT THIS PERSON'S BEEN DOING US A FAVOR BY NOT INCREASING 4% EACH YEAR, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DO A $700,000 SIDEWALK PROJECT THAT NORMALLY WE WOULD GET AN RFP FROM A CONTRACTOR TO ACTUALLY DO. THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS. WE'RE LITERALLY SAYING, FORGET THE CONTRACTING PROCESS OF THIS PERSON RENEWING THEIR CONTRACT WITH CITY COUNCIL THIS YEAR.

LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND LET THEM DO $3 MILLION WORTH OF WORK.

THEY ARE DOING TWICE THE WORK.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT GETTING TWICE AS MUCH MONEY FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE.

AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT SPECIFICALLY, DID YOU ESSENTIALLY NOT FORMALLY RFP IT? BECAUSE THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCESS OF EVERYTHING.

BUT DID YOU GO AND CHECK, HEY, CONCRETE X, WHAT'S YOUR GOING RATE FOR SIDEWALKS? $2,000 IS PERFECT. I HAVE NO IDEA.

BUT.

SO, OKAY, THIS IS AN EXAM THAT WOULD COST US NINE. THEY SAID THAT THEY DID GUT CHECK THAT AGAINST. THAT WAS THEIR TERM GUT CHECK AGAINST MULTIPLE OTHER OPTIONS AND FELT LIKE THIS WAS STILL WITHIN THE MARKET OR BELOW THE MARKET FOR THESE PROJECTS. SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, YES, IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH A FORMAL RFP PROCESS, BUT TO ME, THERE IS. I MEAN, SHARON'S BEEN DOING THIS A LOT LONGER THAN YOU OR I. AND I THINK THAT SHE'S EXCEEDINGLY, EXCEEDINGLY CONSERVATIVE. I THINK THAT HER FINANCIAL KNOWLEDGE AND I THINK OUR STAFF'S KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT THIS FROM A COST CONTAINMENT STANDPOINT, THEY'VE PROVEN THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT WITH OUR TAX CUTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND I DON'T THINK. I THINK THAT THEY'RE GETTING TWICE AS MUCH FOR TWICE AS MUCH WORK.

I DON'T DISAGREE. AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

WHAT I'M TALKING. THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN APPROVED. APPROVED IN THE PAST. A YEAR AGO, THEIR CONTRACT WITH THIS CITY WAS $1.5 MILLION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR BLANKET LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO HAVE APPROVALS FOR POTENTIALLY INCREASES IN WHAT WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT WITH. SO THIS CONTRACTOR IS THE PREFERRED CONTRACTOR FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TO DO, IN ESSENCE, MINOR.

SUPPOSED TO BE MINOR. ROAD REPAIR IS A MINOR. MINOR THINGS.

SO AN ADDITIONAL TWO SIDEWALKS AND.

BUT I DON'T.

I DON'T THINK THAT A $700,000 SIDEWALK IS A MINOR REPAIR.

I DON'T CONSIDER THAT MINOR EITHER.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS ONE YEAR AGO, WHY DID WE BOTHER RENEWING THEIR CONTRACT FOR ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE ALL.

IT'S IN THE CAPITAL.

BECAUSE WE WEREN'T DOING THOSE SIDEWALKS IN FISCAL YEAR 2026.

CORRECT.

DOING THOSE IN 27.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SEPARATE PROJECT WHICH SHOULD GET AN RFP. AND MY BELIEF AND MY FEELING AS I SIT UP HERE TODAY IS THAT AS A RESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY THAT PAYS TAXES IS THAT IF THERE'S A LARGE PROJECT ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, THERE SHOULD BE AN RFP. UNLESS THEY HAVE, IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE A PREFERRED CONTRACT OF 1.5 MILLION A YEAR. OKAY, FINE. I GET THAT. WE VOTED ON IT. WE APPROVED IT.

BUT NOW, IF I AGREE TO THIS SUCCESS, I AM SAYING I'M GOOD WITH THIS CONTRACTOR HAVING AN AGREEMENT FOR $3 MILLION THIS COMING YEAR. BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT ALREADY PERSONALLY THAT WE PAY DOUBLE FOR WALL REPAIR. FLAT OUT FACT. SO I TRUST STAFF. I TRUST SHARON. I KNOW SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S DOING. I GET ALL OF THAT. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN

[01:25:03]

THAT OUR STAFF IS FAMILIAR WITH EVERY SINGLE COST OF EVERYTHING ACROSS THE PLANET. AND I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE BEFORE WE REQUIRE AN RFP FROM OTHER CONTRACTORS TO MAKE IT FAIR FOR THE CONTRACTORS AND FAIR FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

LET'S GO BACK AND ADDRESS THIS WALL THAT YOU'VE BEEN BRINGING UP. YOU SAID YOU FOUND A BID FOR HALF THE PRICE. WE'VE NEVER SEEN A BID. LET ME FINISH. YOU SAID YOU TALKED TO A GUY ON THE PHONE AND HE WENT AND DROVE BY, AND THEN 30 MINUTES LATER HE SAID, YEAH, I COULD DO IT FOR WHATEVER. SO WE'VE NEVER SEEN A BID FOR THAT. AND I'M NOT JUST. I DON'T KNOW THIS CONTRACTOR. I THINK HE DOES WORK FOR COLLEY BILL AND GRAPEVINE. BUT, YOU KNOW, TO SUGGEST THAT WE'RE WASTING MONEY OR THAT THERE'S A COMPETING BID THAT WE IGNORED.

I MEAN, A PHONE CALL, SOME GUY THAT DROVE BY AND 30 MINUTES LATER SAID, OKAY, X PRICE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF SPECS OR, YOU KNOW, TO COMPARE WITH WHAT WE HAD FROM APEX. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S APPLES FOR APPLES.

WELL, THE QUESTION ON THAT WOULD BE WHERE YOU GOT 30 MINUTES? BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT. BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY 30 MINUTES, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU WOULD RECALL THE CONVERSATION YOU AND I HAD BACK IN APRIL. IN WHICH CASE, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS DISCUSSED FOR ME TO REACH OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER TO DISCUSS WITH THE CITY MANAGER. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAT ONE COULD HAVE.

BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO HAVE THAT PERSON FOLLOW UP WITH AN ACTUAL COPY OF WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO, HE WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT, WHICH IS NO POINT HIM GOING ANY FURTHER BECAUSE THE CITY WASN'T GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE HAD ALREADY AUTHORIZED IT.

THE CITY DID NOT WANT TO RE LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. I'M USING THAT PROJECT AS AN EXAMPLE AND AN EXAMPLE ONLY. AND IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT OF IT, IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THAT VENDOR LAST YEAR FOR $1.5 MILLION MAX. AND IF WE AGREE TO THIS 6C, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME I'M SEEING THIS, WAS THIS WEEK, THEN WE ARE NOW INCREASING THAT PERSON'S, THAT COMPANY'S BUDGET TO WORK WITH US TO $3 MILLION WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION, WITHOUT ANY NEW RFP. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $700,000 PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK ON.

AND I'M SORRY, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. AND I DON'T THINK I'M OUT OF LINE WITH. HAS NOTHING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING WITH THE WALL.

WE COULD, WE COULD TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH DOES IT ACTUALLY COST TO DO A $700,000 SIDEWALK AND JUST WHAT TRUST. I'M SORRY, YOU CAN'T GO THERE.

I CAN'T SAY I IMPLICITLY TRUST SHARON AND OUR STAFF. IF THEY SAY THEY'VE GONE AND THEY'VE CHECKED AND THEY'VE ASKED FOLKS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, WHAT THE GOING RATE IS FOR SIDEWALKS, AND WE'RE IN LINE. I TRUST. I TRUST OUR STAFF.

SHARON, CAN YOU GIVE US, LIKE, WHEN YOU SAID DO A GUT CHECK, WHAT DOES THAT INVOLVE? CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? WE HAVE A STAMPY MANAGER THAT WILL DO DIFFERENT RESEARCH AND TO THE POINT THAT THE WORK HE'S DONE, TXDOT AND OTHER CITIES WILL SEND HIM THEIR BIDS AND THEIR INFORMATION. SO THAT WILL ASSIST WITH THE GUT CHECK. AS TO OUR PROPOSAL, IS IT IN LINE WITH OTHER PROPOSALS FROM TXDOT AND A CITIES AS WELL.

AND SO ON THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU KNOW IF WE DID THAT FOR THAT PARTICULAR ONE FOR THE SIZEWALKS? WELL, ONCE, YES AND NO. ONCE IT COMES BEFORE WE ACTUALLY WOULD START THAT PROJECT. HE WILL DO THE GUT CHECK BASED ON THAT BECAUSE PRICES CHANGE.

SO IT WILL BE CLOSER TO THE TIME TO DO THAT PROJECT. HE'LL DO THE GUT CHECK BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GO FORWARD AND START THE PROJECT.

SO AS YOU'RE GETTING READY TO, TO LIKE PULL THE TRIGGER, YOU WILL THEN LOOK AT IT AND IF YOU FOUND A BETTER PRICE, LOOK AT REGIONAL PRICES. THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM CHANGING IF WE NEEDED TO BECAUSE WE FOUND A BETTER PRICE.

AND THEN JUST ANOTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION LAST YEAR, THE 1.5, MY UNDERSTANDING, IT MAY BE INCORRECT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WAS FOR PROJECTS THAT POPPED UP THAT IF THEY WERE FOR KNOWN.

THE 1.5 WAS FOR KNOWN PROJECTS. THINGS THAT WE WERE AWARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET ACCOMPLISHED IN 2026, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE WALL.

AND THAT'S WHY THE WALL CAME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL SEPARATELY.

OKAY, SO THAT WASN'T. I UNDERSTOOD THAT AS MAYBE WHAT I IN MIXING THE TWO UP IS THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE APPROVED CONTRACTOR, WE WENT WITH THEM VERSUS THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INCIDENTAL, SO TO SPEAK, POOL OF MONEY THAT WE USED ONE PRODUCT BECAUSE THEY WERE A KNOWN CONTRACTOR THAT HAD THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS TO MEET THE NEED TO DO THE WALL. IT WERE WE COULD MOVE QUICKER THAN GOING AND DO A FULL RFP BECAUSE IT WAS THE TIMELESS OF THE ESSENCE TO GET IT COMPLETED. AND THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH THAT VENDOR AND BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THAT PART OF IT.

AND SO WHEN WE GET CLOSER TO TIME FOR THE SIDEWALKS, WE ARE GOING

[01:30:03]

TO DO A GUT CHECK. WE'LL DO THE MORE IN DEPTH OF GETTING LOOKING AT OTHER PREVIOUS OTHER CONTRACTORS AND OTHER BIDS FROM OTHER CITIES AND DO THE GUT CHECK AS FAR AS THE PRICE QUANTITY, IF THAT'S REASONABLE.

AGAIN, THAT KIND OF.

WE'RE SAYING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE. SO IF WE APPROVE THIS CONTRACTOR AND ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS THAT HAVE BIG INCREASE, I'M USING ONE AS AN EXAMPLE, THEN WE ARE ACTUALLY APPROVING THEM TO DO THREE. UP TO 3 MILLION SOMETHING.

YOU'RE AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SPEND UP TO 3 MILLION WITH THAT CONTRACT.

HOWEVER, STAFF WILL STILL DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE.

RIGHT. BUT THAT DUE DILIGENCE SHOULD BE AN RFP.

WE COMPLETED AN RFP FOR THAT.

THAT VENDOR. WE COULD DO A FULL RFP FOR THAT PROJECT.

TO YOUR POINT, WE COULD. BUT IF WE DO OUR GUT CHECK AND IT'S A REASONABLE PRICE, THEN THAT'S WHY GO TO A FULL RFP. IF WE CAN DETERMINE THAT THE PRICE IS FAIR WITHIN MARKET OR EVEN BELOW MARKET.

WHICH GOES BACK TO MY QUESTION ON DO WE NOT HAVE SOME SORT OF NUMBER OF NUMBER. IF A PROJECT IS ABOVE A CERTAIN NUMBER, WHICH I THINK YOU SAID WAS $100,000, THEN WE WOULD REQUIRE AN RFP. BUT IN THIS CASE WE'RE NOT. NOW WE'RE JUST GOING TO JUST ASSUME THAT THEY'RE PART OF PRICES THAT THEY GAVE ARE REAL ESTATE PRICES BECAUSE THEY CHARGED.

WHAT HAPPENED? WE DID AN RFP WITH THIS VENDOR FIVE YEARS AGO. SO WE HAVE FIXED PRICES, SO WE KNOW WHAT THEIR PRICE IS GOING TO BE BEFORE WE START THE PROJECT.

THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD DO A GUT CHECK TO ENSURE THAT OUR PRICE, THAT FIXED COST, IS STILL REASONABLE AND WITHIN MARKET. BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY COMPLETED AN RFP WITH THE VENDOR.

AGAIN, FOR A PROJECT'S TOTAL OF 1.5 MILLION.

NO, NO, NO.

THE RFP WE DID FIVE YEARS AGO, IT LISTS ABOUT 200 DIFFERENT ITEMS OF WHAT THEY CAN DO.

THAT'S. THAT WAS RFP. AND ANYTHING THAT FALLS WITHIN THAT RFP, WE CAN USE THEM TO COMPLETE A PROJECT. SO WE'RE NOT REDOING THE RFP EVERY YEAR, RIGHT? NO. BECAUSE WE'RE RENEWING A CONTRACT EACH YEAR AND THEY CAN GET RENEWAL, RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND THIS IS THE LAST YEAR WITHIN THAT FIVE YEAR GO BACK OUT TO GET IN THIS SPRING THESE PARTICULAR THINGS AGAIN WITHOUT BEING DIFFICULT.

I'M SORRY. ANY PROJECT THAT'S OF SIGNIFICANT SIZE, I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE AN RFP SO WE CAN GET FAIR PRICING FROM DIFFERENT VENDORS AND POTENTIALLY SAVE THE CITY SOME MONEY, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON IT.

ALL RIGHT, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO ON THESE THREE PROJECTS, THE TWO SIDEWALKS AND ONE DRAINAGE THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE UNDER THE APEX UMBRELLA, THOSE WILL HAVE TO GUT CHECKS BEFORE MOVING FORWARD, I'M ASSUMING.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M ASSUMING ANY BIG PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE A GUT CHECK INVOLVED WITH IT.

EITHER.

YES, SIDEWALK OR A ROAD BUILDING OR SIX FORD TRUCKS.

IT'S EITHER A FULL RFP. IF IT FALLS WITHIN AN EXISTING RFP, WE WILL STILL DO THE GUT CHECK TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST BANG FOR THE TAXPAYER SELLERS.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF IT FAILS THAT GUT CHECK? OR A STRESS TEST, I GUESS WOULD BE ANOTHER TERM WE COULD CONSIDER AND GO THROUGH A FULL RFP AND THEN THAT WOULD COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE WE WOULD USE A DIFFERENT VENDOR AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ONE OF THE GUT CHECKS AND WHAT PROCESS ARE WE USING FOR THAT WE HAVE A CIP CONSTRUCTION FINANCIAL MANAGER WHO WOULD BE THE PERSON THAT WOULD DO THE ANALYSIS OF THOSE CONTRACTS AND THE.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS A METHOD HE'S DEVELOPED TO WHERE TXDOT AND OTHER ENTITIES FOR DIRECTLY SEND INFORMATION TO HIM AS WELL AS COG.

AND YOU'RE OVERSEEING THAT? YES. HE WORKS WITHIN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

FULLY TRUST.

IT'S NOT A MATTER OF TRUST, GUYS.

YOU DID SAY I DON'T TRUST IT.

NO, IT'S A MATTER OF PROCEDURE REQUIRING BIDS FROM CONTRACTORS FOR PROJECTS OVER CERTAIN COSTS. WHEN YOU RUN A BUSINESS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU TRUST YOUR STAFF, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT AND SPEND MONEY.

IT'S LITERALLY. IT'S A MATTER OF, OKAY, WELL, HOW MUCH COSTS CHANGE AND PROCESSES GET EASIER SOMETIMES AND COSTS GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT. AND SOMETIMES COSTS GO UP.

BUT IF A PROJECT IS ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, NO MATTER WHAT, THERE SHOULD BE AN RFP ON IT IF IT'S OUTSIDE THEIR CONTRACT.

SO, AGAIN, THAT'S JUST MY FEELING. SO, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY WE'RE VOTING ON EACH ONE OF THESE SEPARATELY.

6A, 6B, 6C WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE VOTES ON THOSE THREE ITEMS. I JUST ASKED THE CITY RESIDENTS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THESE TYPE OF VOTES AND FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME ON WHAT YOU FEEL IS REALISTIC.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH HOW WE'VE OPERATED FOR 20 PLUS YEARS. WE HAVE THE SECOND LOWEST PROPERTY TAX RATE IN TARRANT COUNTY. WE HAVE A $3 MILLION COST REDUCTION IN OUR EXPENDITURES THIS YEAR.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M CONFIDENT IN WHAT OUR STAFF IS DOING.

AND YOU SAY IT'S NOT A TRUST

[01:35:02]

THING, BUT IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE IT IS. YOU'VE BEEN INFORMED ON HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE GUT CHECK. WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT GUT CHECK OR STRESS TEST FAILS? AND IT COULD GO TO AN RFP. SO I'M COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD ON.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO 6C. BUT WE'LL TAKE THEM SEPARATE MOTIONS ON 6A. 6B AND 6C. MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS. YES, MR. BUSH.

MR. MAMUS. WE APPROVE ITEM 6A, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1302. SECOND READING. APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 AND APPROVING THE REVISED BUDGET FIGURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON SECOND. 6A. THAT MOTION CARRIES.7 0. WE'LL TAKE A MOTION ON 6B.

YES, MR. MAYOR. MOTION. WE APPROVE ITEM 6B, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1301. SECOND READING. TAX LEVY ORDINANCE.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON 6B. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON SIX. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 7 0 6B IS APPROVED WITH THE NEW TAX RATE OF 0.29. LET'S DO A MOTION ON 6C.

WE APPROVE ITEM 6C, RESOLUTION NUMBER 260030, AUTHORIZING PURCHASES FOR THE 2027 FISCAL YEAR AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER CONTRACTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SAID PURCHASES.

MR. MYER? MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON 6C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6C. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 1. ITEM 6C IS APPROVED. AGAIN, THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF FOR ALL THE GREAT WORK GOING BACK TO JANUARY ON THE BUDGET AND ALL OF THESE ITEMS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK, APPRECIATE ALL THE DEPARTMENTS YOU KNOW WHO OPERATE AND START THE BUDGET PROCESS WITH ZERO BASED BUDGETS AND BUILD IT BACK UP AGAIN.

THEY DON'T JUST TAKE WHAT WAS DONE THE YEAR BEFORE AND ADD TO IT. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. I KNOW IT'S A LONG PROCESS. LOTS OF MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER TO FINISH IT. AND NOW WE'VE APPROVED THIS BUDGET, WHICH I'M EXTREMELY PROUD OF AFTER BEING HERE 10 YEARS.

THIS IS THE BEST BUDGET WE'VE

[6.D. Ordinance No. 480-321a, ZA26-0042, 2nd 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. PUBLIC HEARING]

EVER DONE. SO THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THAT. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 6D, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 321A, CASE NUMBER ZA26 0042. SECOND READING, ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR STAGE MARTIN IN THE FIELDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH LOCATED AT 223 SOUTH PEARSON LANE. I THINK SINCE THE FIRST READING, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SOME CHANGES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT FIRST READING ABOUT SOME STACKING AND SOME PARKING SPACES. SO DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH, IF MAYBE WE COULD GO TO THOSE CHANGES, UNLESS COUNCIL NEEDS THE WHOLE PRESENTATION, WE COULD JUST MAYBE SEE THE CHANGES FROM FIRST READING AND WHERE WE'RE AT NOW.

THIS WAS THE PLAN PRESENTED AT FIRST READING. ONE OF THE REMAINING ISSUES WAS STACKING DEPTH ON THE TWO DRIVEWAYS THEY'RE ASKING TO KEEP IN PLACE. THEY FURTHER ADJUSTED THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY FROM THE 71FT THAT WAS AT YOUR LAST MEETING TO THE CONFORMING 75FT WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE. IT RESULTED IN THE REDUCTION OF ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE, BUT THE THE SITE REMAINS COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THEIR SANCTUARY AND CHURCH FACILITY. I'LL BE GLAD TO REFER TO ANY OTHER SLIDES OR INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH ON 6D? WE'RE GOOD RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU, SIR. IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON 6D? COME ON DOWN. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD WITH 6D.

JUSTIN HILES WITH BLK ARCHITECTS, 1320 HIP HILL DRIVE IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS.

SINCE WE'VE ALREADY PRESENTED THIS FIRST READING, WE'RE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

GREAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT CHANGE.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON 6D. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, THOUGH. 6D IS A SECOND READING AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 6D. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM 6D? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6D. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH OR THE APPLICANT FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? JUST CURIOUS REAL QUICK, DENNIS, WHAT DOES THIS EXPAND THEIR OCCUPANCY TO TOTAL WITH SANCTUARY ADDITION? DO YOU KNOW OR DO YOU KNOW? 10 OR 15 PEOPLE. AND THE PARKING IS HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE ALLOTTED TO 110 OR SO? SO THERE'S 106.

WITH THE REMOVAL

[01:40:03]

OF THE PARKING SPACE SPACES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE STACKING DEPTH, WE'VE REDUCED DOWN TO 106 PARKING SPACES. OUR SANCTUARY IS INCREASING FROM ABOUT 250 OCCUPANTS TO ABOUT 300 OCCUPANTS AND THAT'S REQUIRING JUST UNDER 100 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

THANKS.

YEP. ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE HE'S UP HERE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I SHOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT FOR ITEM 6D, 37, PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND AS OF TODAY, NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6D? MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON 6D.

YES, MR. MAYOR.

A MOTION.

WE APPROVE ITEM 6D, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480, 321A Z826 0042. SECOND READING, ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR ST. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1R BLOCK 1, ST. MARTIN FIELDS ADDITION AND LOCATED AT 223 SOUTH PEARSON LANE. SUBJECT TO STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026. SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 4, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026 AND VARIANCE IN THE DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE NUMBER 634, ALLOWING THE DRIVEWAY SPACING AS PROPOSED, NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ZONING CHANGE IN SITE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 2,647 SQUARE FOOT SITE SANCTUARY ADDITION THAT WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING SANCTUARY. A NEW PRIMARY ENTRY AT THE SOUTH ELEVATION THROUGH A 43 FOOT TALL TOWER IN NARTHEX COVERED ARCADE CONNECTING THE NEW SOUTH ENTRY TO THE EXISTING PARISH HALL.

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SECTION OF FIRE LANE AND ALLOWING THE DRIVEWAY SPACING AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN A REVISED STACKING DEPTH AT A MINIMUM OF 75FT WITH REMOVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AS PRESENTED.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON 6D. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6D AND THAT MOTION CARRIES.

[6.E. Ordinance No. 480-772a, ZA26-0045, 2nd Reading, Zoning Change and Site Plan for Sedo Laser, on property described as Lot 15A, Lakewood Acres Phase 1 Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 750-756 N. Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. Applicant: Chris Lott. Property Owner: North Carroll 114 Properties, LLC. SPIN Neighborhood #7. PUBLIC HEARING]

70 6D IS APPROVED. NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 6E, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 772A CASE NUMBER ZA26 0045. SECOND READING ZONING CHANGE IN SITE PLAN FOR SITO LASER AT 7503756 N. CAROL AVE. DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH THANK YOU MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE. IT'S AN EXISTING BUILDING. THIS PROPOSAL CHANGES NOTHING WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTING BUILDING OR BUILDING SITE.

THIS REQUEST IS SPECIFICALLY TO ADD A USE TO BE PERMITTED UNDER THEIR SB1 ZONING. THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKEWOOD AND NORTH CARROLL AVENUE LAND USE ON ITS OFFICE COMMERCIAL. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED SP1 WITH 01 OFFICE USES AND THIS IS A REQUEST TO ADD A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL SPECIFICALLY FOR LASER TREATMENT TRAINING.

THIS IS A STREET VIEW FROM NORTH CARROLL AVENUE, ANOTHER VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION OF LAKEWOOD AND CARROLL, VIEW FROM LAKE WOOD AND CURRENT SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SUITE THEY INTEND TO OCCUPY AND HOW THEY THAT WOULD BE LAID OUT. THEIR REQUEST IS TO ADD AS I STATED, RETAIN ALL THE O1 DISTRICT USES AND WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER THE SP1 THEY HAVE TODAY AND ADD AESTHETIC LASER TRAINING WITH A MAXIMUM OF 12 STUDENTS PER CLASS. THIS IS JUST HOW THE SITE LAYS OUT PARKING LOT AND WHAT'S AVAILABLE ON SITE TODAY THERE'S 67 SPACES AND BASED ON THE OCCUPANCY AND THE SPACE THEY INTEND TO OCCUPY, ASSUMING THE VACANT SPACE EITHER IS EVENTUALLY TAKEN UP BY THIS APPKIN OR A FUTURE OFFICE TENANT IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO GENERAL OFFICE AND THAT REMAINING SPACE TO STAY AT THE 12 STUDENTS AND REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMMERCIAL SCHOOL PARKING REGULATIONS. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ITEM LIMITING IT TO THE SPACE THEY INTENDED TO OCCUPY ONLY AND LIMITING THAT TO EIGHT STUDENTS AND TO PROVIDE A THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AHEAD OF THE FIRST READING AND COUNCIL APPROVED THIS ITEM 70 ON CONSENT NOTING

[01:45:01]

THAT APPLICANT WOULD RETURN WITH OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THEIR ANNUAL PARKING EVENT, ENSURE THERE'S NO NEED FOR ON STREET PARKING ON LAKEWOOD AND THEN LIMITING THEIR CLASS SIZE TO 12 STUDENTS. WE'VE RECEIVED ONE WITHIN THE 300 PUT NOTIFICATION IN OPPOSITION AND 18 FOUR AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL OPPOSED OUTSIDE AND THE 18 ARE ALL IDENTIFIED OUTSIDE AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS SPOKE AT THE MEETING. SIX PEOPLE SPOKE IN SUPPORT THREE SPOKE IN OPPOSITION AT THE AUGUST 6TH P&Z MEETING AND A SUPPORT LETTER FROM A TENANT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. AND APPLICANT IS HERE TO REPRESENT THEIR ITEM AS WELL.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE SITE PLAN, BUT IT'S REALLY TO JUST ADD THE EXTRA PERMITTED USE OF THE LASER TRAINING? THAT IS CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH AT THIS TIME? I'M CURIOUS, HAVE WE EVER, AS A CITY REQUIRED A BUSINESS THAT'S ADEQUATELY PARKED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HAVE EXCESS PARKING OFF SITE FOR A HOLIDAY PARTY? AS FAR AS THE SITUATION, NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, ALBEIT THE HOLIDAY EVENT PARTY IS CONSIDERED CUSTOMARY INCIDENTAL USE OF A BUSINESS OR AN OCCUPANT.

AND SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THOSE WITHIN A CERTAIN FRAMEWORK AND DEPENDING ON NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY INTEND TO HAVE ATTEND, PROVIDE MASS GATHERING INFORMATION FOR THEM TO POLICE IF THERE'S NEED FOR INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED JUST BECAUSE OF THE LARGE CROWD BEING IN ATTENDANCE. BUT GIVEN THAT THIS IS AN SP SITE PLANNED DISTRICT ZONING, WHICH REALLY OPENS UP CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE USES WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS ZONING AND TIED TO THAT SP1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS IF IT'S A CONCERN THAT THE COUNCIL BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FOR PUBLIC PUBLIC SAFETY.

DENNIS, AM I CORRECT IN REMEMBERING THAT THEY HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY FOR THEIR HOLIDAY EVENT PREVIOUSLY? YES. THEY HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH CITY PREVIOUSLY ON THE EVENTS THEY HAVE HAD? YES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON 6B. WELCOME AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

HI, MY NAME IS MISTY METIS, I'M AT 1009 HAT CREEK IN BARTONVILLE, TEXAS. GOOD EVENING MAYOR MCCASKIL AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

AGAIN, I'M MISTY METAS AND I OWN SADO LASER, CURRENTLY AT 750 AND 752 ON NORTH CARROLL.

I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE PLAN FOR THE SKIN AND LIGHT AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO OPERATE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT.

BUT I SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE REQUEST FROM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO JUST REGARDING THE OFF SITE PARKING FOR OUR ANNUAL PROCESS PARTY THAT YOU GUYS WERE JUST DESCRIBING.

THE EVENT IS ABOUT THREE HOURS ONCE A YEAR AND WE'RE SENSITIVE TO ANY CONCERNS BY NEIGHBORS AND WE TAKE IT SERIOUS THAT YOU GUYS MADE A REQUEST TO US. SO OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS I'VE SPOKE WITH THE CITY STAFF AND CONTACTS AT VARIOUS SITES. SO MY REPORT WILL INCLUDE WE'VE HAD OUTREACH TO STAFF REGARDING THE GARAGES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH LAKE SQUARE. THE LOCATION OF THOSE GARAGES ARE PARTICULARLY HELPFUL. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, TALKING WITH MR. KILLOUGH, IF THERE ARE SOME COMPLICATIONS, IT'S REALLY PROBABLY NOT A LIKELY SOLUTION. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH KITE, WHO KIND OF MANAGES THOSE GARAGES RIGHT NOW, TO EXPLORE POTENTIAL SURFACE PARKING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE GARAGE. I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW FAR THOSE ARE GOING TO GO.

IT'S NOT FLOWING EASILY RIGHT NOW. BUT WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE STAFF OF THE GRANITE OFFICE COMPLEX A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH. AND WE'RE TRYING TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT THEY HAVE

[01:50:01]

SOME SURFACE PARKING AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE PARKING GARAGE RIGHT THERE. AND SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE UNDERWAY WITH THEM.

SO THEY.

THAT'S THE POTENTIAL. AND THEN THERE ARE JUST A COUPLE OF IDEAS DENNIS ACTUALLY HAD FOR US FOR SOME INITIAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PARKING ALONG DIVISION, WHICH MAY ACTUALLY REQUIRE SOME GREATER COORDINATION WITH ALL OF YOU GUYS AND THE CITY AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS, POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS.

WE AT SOME POINT MAY COME TO YOU GUYS FOR SOME APPROVAL TO GET SOME PARKING RIGHT THERE IF IT WORKS OUT WITH THEM.

BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY CONTINUE TO WORKING WITH THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE JUST SOUTH OF US.

THOSE ARE NOT MANAGED BY LIKE ONE PARTICULAR GROUP. SO IT'S JUST LITERALLY GOING BUSINESS BY BUSINESS AND TRYING TO COORDINATE WITH THEM. AND THEN WE ALSO, AS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE SOUTH LAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEN WE GET OUT CONES. AND WE DO MANY THINGS. WE HAVE ADDITIONAL HELP, CONTRACT HELP TO PATROL THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR VISITORS, IF ANYBODY IS BACK THERE, THERE'S NO PROBLEMS AND WHATNOT.

NOT.

BUT I HAVE ONE IDEA THAT I'M VERY HOPEFUL ABOUT IS THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH GATEWAY CHURCH, THAT'S JUST ACROSS THE HIGHWAY THERE. THEY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD AMOUNT OF PARKING RIGHT THERE. I THOUGHT WE HAD IT ALL BUTTONED UP WITH FACILITIES, BUT NOW WE'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH A SECURITY THING. SO IT'S NOT DONE FOR TODAY.

BUT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THEM BECAUSE IF WE'RE ABLE TO SECURE SOME SPACE RIGHT THERE, WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE A REALLY EASY SHUTTLE THERE.

THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD SOLUTION.

SO WE ARE DEFINITELY WORKING ON THAT IDEA THAT CAME BEFORE US LAST TIME. AND SO JUST KNOW THAT IN SHORT, I'M FOLLOWING UP ON EVERY ALTERNATIVE TO FIND ADDITIONAL OFFSET PARKING IF THAT IS HELPFUL TO NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THANK YOU FOR OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE ZONING REQUEST THAT'S SPECIFICALLY HERE TONIGHT, WHICH WOULD REALLY HELP THE SPIN AND LIGHT INSTITUTE BECOME A REALITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH LAKE AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

QUICK QUESTION. SO JUST TO CONFIRM THE SPACE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S ONE CLASSROOM FOR THIS NEW USE, THE NEW CLASS. 12 STUDENTS MAXIMUM? YES, SIR.

OKAY. SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, WE CAN GET TO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER WITH THE HOLIDAY EVENT PARKING, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE USE IN THE SPACE OR THE OTHER ISSUES REGARDING PARKING? OH, ONE OTHER THING. MR. WATT SUBMITTED A LETTER SAYING YOU COULD USE HIS PARKING SPACES. CAN YOU MAYBE EXPLAIN WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT? YES. THERE'S A PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT IS NOT USED RIGHT NOW. AND SO HE HAS, BASICALLY, I BELIEVE, THAT SPACE GETS SIX PARKING SPACES. AND HE HAS WRITTEN A LETTER THAT ALLOCATES FOUR OF THOSE SPACES TO OUR SPACE AT 752 THAT WE COULD USE SO THAT HE WOULD ONLY KEEP CONNECTING THE TWO REMAINING THAT HE FEELS LIKE HE NEEDS.

WE HAVE YOUR PARKING STUDY WHICH SHOWS NOT FULL, CORRECT? YES, SIR. THE PEAK TIMES. SO WHEN THERE'S THE LEAST AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE SPACES, THERE WERE ALWAYS AT LEAST. I THINK 29 WAS THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE SPACES, WITH THE AVERAGE BEING IN EXCESS OF 40 SPACES AT A TIME THROUGHOUT THE WEEK.

40 THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

40 OPEN SPACES. YES, SIR.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? I THINK WE'RE GOOD RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING ON 6E AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6E. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK REGARDING 6E? SEEING NONE BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE DO HAVE PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS THAT WENT OUT. LET'S SEE 17 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT OUT. WE'VE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING RESPONSES, WHICH I'LL READ NAMES AND ADDRESSES AND RESPONSES INTO THE RECORD.

STICK AROUND.

WALTER SPRINGER, 975 LAKEWOOD, IS OPPOSED.

JOSEPHINE MEADE AT 475 BENTWOOD IS OPPOSED. REBECCA MADISON AT 550 BENTWOOD LANE IS OPPOSED. TOMMY MADISON AT 550 BENTWOOD LANE IS OPPOSED.

VINCENT MORETTI AT 475 BENTWOOD LANE IS OPPOSED. TO AMY NEWBY AT 2885. BERNIE LANE IS IN FAVOR. ANGIE LOPEZ AT 2028 WANDERLUST DRIVE IS IN FAVOR. BENTLEY MIDDLES AT 10O, 9 HAT CREEK ROAD IS IN FAVOR. ELENA REYES AT 1013 COOL RIVER DRIVE IS IN FAVOR.

HEATHER DUTTON AT 2082081 RED OAK PORT IS IN FAVOR. CHRISTY NELSON AT 805 HELMSLEY PLACE IS IN FAVOR. NINA CLINGMAN AT 750 N CAROL AVE IS IN FAVOR.

TOMMY LOPEZ AT 2008 WANDERLUST DRIVE IS IN FAVOR.

VALERIE CORTEZ AT 3604 PLEASANT RUN ROAD IS IN FAVOR. JACQUELINE BEN MEER AT 143 SWEET STREET IS IN FAVOR. ALLISON MILLER ORTIZ AT 400 PALLADIAN BOULEVARD IS IN FAVOR. BROOKE THOMPSON AT 452 MARSHALL ROAD IS IN FAVOR. LAUREN KELLY AT 611 WINDING CREEK CT IS IN FAVOR.

[01:55:02]

SUSAN CULLEN AT 725 BENTWOOD LANE IS OPPOSED. CHRISTY KELSON AT 805 HELMSLEY PLACE IS IN FAVOR. SUN WOO AT 900 WILDWOOD IS OPPOSED. YANA DAVIDSON AT 903 TURNBERRY LANE IS IN FAVOR. JAMES DABARO AT 950 OMBY LANE IS UNDECIDED.

ROBIN MCCOURT AT 1510 N.

CARROLL AVE IS IN FAVOR.

NATALIE RENDA AT 2206 SHADOW CREEK DR. IS IN FAVOR. ASHLEY BALLARD HUTCHINSON AT 2602 S.

WHALE RUN CT. IS IN FAVOR.

AMY HOLLAND AT 2084 BROOKSHIRE DR. IS IN FAVOR.

MARTIN NEWBY AT 2885 BERNIE LANE IS IN FAVOR. KATE HENNESSEY AT 308 WEST GLADE ROAD IN COLLEYVILLE IS IN FAVOR. MARGARET STEELE AT 4800 FAIRBANK LANE IS IN FAVOR. TAMMY CARPENTER AT 313 GLEN HOLLOW AND KELLER IS IN FAVOR. DEREK GIST AT 8845 RUMFIELD ROAD IN NORTH RICHLAND HILLS IS IN FAVOR.

AND BILL LOU AT 750 NORTH CAROL AVENUE IS IN FAVOR. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 6E? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6E. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH OR THE APPLICANT OR ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH, MR. MAYOR, I'M JUST GOING TO GO ON RECORD THAT I HAVE A REAL HARD TIME THAT WE HAVE A BUSINESS THAT'S ADEQUATELY PART LEGALLY PARKED AND IS WANTING TO HAVE A HOLIDAY PARTY TO CELEBRATE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT COME AND SPEND THEIR MONEY IN SOUTH LAKE AND PAY THE TAX MONEY AND HELP US OUT. AND WE WANT TO REQUIRE THEM TO GO ABOVE. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. I THINK SHE'S JUMPED THROUGH EVERY HOOP SHE COULD POSSIBLY JUMP THROUGH, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE COUNCILMAN FAWKS REALLY EXPECTED A REQUIREMENT OF THIS. I THINK IT'S GREAT IF SHE FINDS A WAY TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO PARK OFF SITE. BUT WE DON'T EVER REQUIRE A BUSINESS THAT'S ADEQUATELY PARKED TO FIGURE OUT THEIR HOLIDAY PARTY. IF YOU HOST A HOLIDAY PARTY AT YOUR HOUSE, GUESS WHERE PEOPLE PARK ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE THANKING TO COME AND SUPPORT OUR CITY. I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME. THIS IS REALLY ABOUT 12 STUDENTS.

IT'S ABOUT SIX WEEKS, A QUARTER OF INCREASED TRAINING. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE REQUIRING HER TO FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT PARKING SETUP FOR A HOLIDAY PARTY.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK ABOUT, LIKE, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'LL HAVE BIBLE STUDIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

RIGHT. ONCE A MONTH.

AND THE STREET IS PACKED.

THANK GOD.

IT IS PACKED.

RIGHT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCONVENIENCE, BUT WE'RE CELEBRATING THE SUCCESS OF GOOD THINGS AND GIVE BUSINESSES AND SMALL BUSINESSES IN TOWN WELL.

AND TO BE CLEAR, IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION THAT THIS BE A REQUIREMENT. AND IF IT CAME ACROSS THAT WAY, THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING.

SO.

AND THAT'S. I'M NOT LOOKING FOR THAT IN THE MOTION TONIGHT. WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE REAL PAIN POINT, AND SHE'S LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS. SHE'S MADE A COMMITMENT TO TRY HER BEST TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THAT, AND I'M SATISFIED.

I AGREE WITH THAT. WELL SAID.

DITTO.

DITTO. ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON 6E.

MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS.

YES, MR. MOTION. MR. MAYOR.

HOW MUCH DO WE APPROVE? ITEM 6E, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 772A Z826 00 45. SECOND READING.

ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN.

PROCEDURAL LASER ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 15A, LAKEWOOD ACRES, PHASE 1 EDITION OF CITY OF SOUTH LAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED AT 750 AND 756 NORTH CAROL AVENUE, SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS, SUBJECT TO STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026. SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 4, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026, NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN TO ADD A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL FOR AN AESTHETICS LASER TRAINING AS A PERMITTED USE, LIMITING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS TO 12 PER CLASS SESSION.

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

[6.F. Ordinance No. 480-837b, ZA26-0047, 2nd Reading, Zoning Change and Development Plan for Trademark/Shivers’ Farm Residential (Trademark Southlake), on property described as a portion of Tract 1A, James J. West Survey, Abstract No. 1620, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1800 and 1900 N. White Chapel Boulevard, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning “ECZ” Employment Center Zoning District. Requested Zoning “ECZ” Employment Center Zoning District. Applicant: Trademark Property Company. Property Owner: Shivers Family Partnership LTD. SPIN Neighborhood #3. PUBLIC HEARING]

CARRY SEVEN ZERO SIX E IS APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS.

NEXT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM 6F, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 837B, CASE NUMBER ZA26 0047. SECOND READING. ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRADEMARK SHIVERS FARM RESIDENTIAL AT TRADEMARK SOUTH LAKE, LOCATED AT 1800 AND 1900 NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD. AGAIN, THIS IS A SECOND READING. COUNCIL, DO WE NEED THE FULL PRESENTATION OR.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH, IS THERE ANY CHANGES SINCE THE FIRST READING? YES, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THEY HAVE INCREASED THE STACKING DAY DEPTH OF THE STREETS.

LET'S GO TO THAT SLIDE OR THAT GRAPHIC AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT.

THIS IS THE NORTHERN BLOCK

[02:00:02]

OF LOTS ADJACENT TO MEDDLERMERE. AND THIS WAS PRESENTED AT FIRST READING.

STACKING TO THE GATE FROM THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT WAS APPROXIMATELY 110FT AND WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY ABOUT 46FT.

AND THE SOUTHERN BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KIRKWOOD WAS AT 105, 46FT IN WIDTH. THE SECOND READING, THIS IS BOTH SECTIONS AND THEN HAVE A DETAIL HERE. IT'S BEEN INCREASED ON THE NORTH TO 145FT. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 50FT OF DEPTH FROM THE MEDIAN TO THE FACE OF THE GATE. AND LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE INCREASED THAT FROM 110 TO 145. AND ON THE SOUTH IT'S GONE FROM 105, I BELIEVE, TO 135. AND ONCE AGAIN THEY'VE GOT APPROXIMATELY 50FT, I BELIEVE TO THE FACE OF THE GATE BETWEEN THE MEDIAN AND THE GATE. THESE WERE THE GATE DESIGN IMAGES FROM EXTERIOR OF THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PATHWAY PLAN AND THEN MOVEMENT EXHIBIT. I'LL BE GLAD TO REFER TO ANY OTHER EXHIBITS YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.

COUNCIL, ANY OTHER SLIDES YOU'D LIKE TO SEE OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH ON SECOND READING. I THINK WE'RE GOOD RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. JEFF CAN HEAR ON 6F. COME ON DOWN, GUYS. IF Y' ALL COULD STATE YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

CHRIS DELVES WITH KIMLEY HORN, 13455 KNOLL ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS. BLAKE BICKMORE WITH TRADEMARK PROPERTY COMPANY 1701 RIVER RUN, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.

ALRIGHT, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHANGE FROM FIRST READING TO TONIGHT? THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. JUST TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL STACKING. A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT TURNAROUND. COULDN'T INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THAT DRIVE, SO WE DECIDED TO INCREASE THE LENGTH OF THAT DRIVE SO THAT WE COULD STACK MORE CARS IN THE EVENT WHEN SOMEONE POTENTIALLY IS TURNING AROUND.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? ALL RIGHT, APPRECIATE THE CHANGE.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING ON 6F AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6F. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ON 6F? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6F. COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH OR THE APPLICANTS? ALSO NEED TO READ INTO THE RECORD THAT 64 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND AS OF TODAY, NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON ITEM 6F. NO DISCUSSION.

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

YES, MR. MAYOR, A MOTION. WE APPROVE ITEM 6F. ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 837B Z826 0047.

SECOND READINGS ONLY CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRADEMARK SHIVERS FARM RESIDENTIAL TRADEMARK SOUTH LAKE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF TRACT 1A JAMES J.

WEST SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 1620, CITY OF SOUTH LAKE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND LOCATED 1800 AND 1900 NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD, SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS. SUBJECT STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 3, DATED AUGUST 24, 2026, NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ZONING CHANGE DEVELOPED BY PLAN TO ALLOW GATED PRIVATE STREETS FOR THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING AND NOTING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLATS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS WILL BE REVISED AND CONFORMED WITH THE AMENDED ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE NUMBER 483 AS AMENDED AND BE AUTHORIZED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON 6F? SECOND CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6F. AND THAT MOTION FAILS. 3, 4, GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THAT WAS FAILED ON A 3, 4 VOTE. DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS POINT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? NO, SIR.

IT WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYONE

[02:05:02]

NEED A BREAK BEFORE WE GET INTO THE REST OF THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK 5 MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL SEE YOU HERE IN 5 MINUTES, RIGHT AT 9 O'.

CLOCK.

ALL RIGHT, I WILL CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

YES, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, A DISCUSSION ABOUT RECONSIDERATION ON THE LAST VOTE AND JUST SEE IF THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION THAT CAN BE HAD ABOUT THAT 6F.

OKAY, CHECK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE HAVE NOT MOVED ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. IS IT OKAY TO CONSIDER OR HAVE A DISCUSSION ON 6F BEFORE MOVING ON TO 6G? WHAT DID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS? I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE FAIRNESS, I GUESS, OF A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE AT A SECOND READING AND A FIRST READING HAS PASSED AND NOW A SECOND READING FAILS WITH NO CONSIDERATION OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONCERNS. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO WORK WITH THIS, WITH THIS PLAN. I THINK WE ALL ARE HOPING THIS PLAN GOES THROUGH AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING DONE ON THIS DIRT. AND I THINK THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISE TO HELP WITH PIDS AND THINGS.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S AN OPTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HELPS SOMEONE GET TO A PATH FORWARD FOR THIS APPLICANT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT ON IT'S RELATED, UNRELATED. I STATED MY POSITION ON THE GATED ISSUE QUITE CLEARLY, BUT IN THE YEARS I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, IT IS QUITE COMMON TO SAY MAYBE WE'RE GOING TO KICK IT TO A SECOND READING, BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEES THAT YOU'RE GETTING THROUGH THAT.

SO A LOT OF TIMES THAT IS A. I MEAN, I DID IT A COUPLE MONTHS AGO ON ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE I SAID, I'M GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO GO TO SECOND READING. I WANT TO MORE STUDYING ON IT. SO I DON'T THINK. I DON'T THINK THAT IN ITSELF IS AN ISSUE. I MEAN, I JUST THINK THAT THAT COUNCIL'S DISCRETION AND SOMETIMES WE'VE HAD COMPLETELY UNFINISHED PROJECTS THAT WE SAID WE'LL MOVE FORWARD A SECOND, BUT YOU BETTER DO BETTER AT SECOND READING. SO I REALIZE THERE WASN'T A LOT OF DISCUSSION, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION TWO WEEKS AGO, SO. SURE, YEAH.

AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.

I JUST. I DON'T THINK THAT I'M.

I THINK THAT THE ONLY PIECE THEY WERE ASKED ABOUT WAS THE STACKING DEPTH AND HELPING WITH THIS ON THAT PIECE. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THINGS WENT SOUTH. I THINK THERE WAS SOME, MAYBE EVEN CONFUSION ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THIS GATING, THESE TWO PIECES FORCING MORE TRAFFIC THROUGH METAIRIE, WHICH REALLY.

GATING THIS AS ZERO BEARING UPON METAIRIE WHATSOEVER HAS ZERO BEARING ON THAT. THE ONLY THING IT DOES IS PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM GOING THROUGH HERE, THROUGH THIS, THROUGH THIS, THESE TWO PIECES GETTING TO WEST KIRK KIRKWOOD EITHER WAY.

SO.

I REALIZE I'VE BEEN REALLY, REALLY CLEAR ON MY CONDITION ON GATES. I'M LOOKING HARDSHIP SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT. I DON'T BUY INTO THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC IN THESE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND TO ME, THIS IS PURELY. AND IT'S MUCH LIKE THE ONE WE HAD ON THE NORTH SIDE. THIS WAS 100% DRIVEN BY ECONOMICS. AND THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING COUNCIL SHOULD BOW TO. AND I THINK THAT IT'S REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR WHEN WE GIVE PEOPLE A VARIANCE FOR AN ECONOMIC REASON.

SO WALK ME THROUGH THE. I MEAN, BECAUSE THE ECONOMICS WE DISCUSSED WAS THE PIT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY CAN SELL THEM, THEY SELL THE LOTS HIGHER.

WELL, WHETHER THEY SELL THE LOTS HIGHER, WE'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE PIT, WHICH IS. WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR CONSIDERATION.

FOR CONSIDERATION.

SO AS LONG AS WE'RE CLEAR ON.

YEAH, BUT THAT'S. THAT THEY'VE MADE THAT CLEAR. I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO.

WE GAVE THEM, WE, WE CONTACTED THEM AND SAID, HEY, WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET RID OF THE BID? AND THEY SAID, WELL, IF WE GATE IT, WE CAN GET RID OF THE BID BECAUSE IT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE EXCLUSIVE.

I WASN'T PART OF THAT CONVERSATION, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. I JUST, LIKE I SAID, IT'S WHEN IT'S PURELY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS TO. AND I MEAN, THE APPLICANT TOLD ME THAT IN A MEETING. YEAH, I CAN SELL THE LOTS FOR. TO THE REALTOR FOR A HIGHER PRICE.

YEAH. AND GET RID OF YOUR RETAIL.

SOMETHING'S WRONG IF HE CAN'T.

I MEAN, EVERYBODY ELSE IN TOWN CAN AFFORD TO DEVELOP A RESIDENTIAL. I MEAN, HECK, THEY COME TO US WANTING TO TURN TO RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THEY GET BETTER FINANCING ON THE COMMERCIAL. SO I MEAN, EITHER IT WORKS ECONOMICALLY OR IT DOESN'T. AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN IN ABOUT TWO MORE ITEMS.

[02:10:01]

I HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ABOUT GATES. I DON'T LIKE THEM. I THINK IT DRIVES DOWN THE VALUE OF OTHER, OTHER HOUSES IN TOWN. I'VE HAD CONSTITUENTS COME TO ME AND MAKE THAT VERY CASE.

AND I AGREE THAT I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE CLOSING OFF OUR COMMUNITIES.

SO. BUT I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT

[6.G. Resolution No.26-028, ZA26-0037, Specific Use Permit for a Mass Gathering Event for the Pride Kel-So, on property described as Lot 1R, Block 1, St. Martinin-the-Fields Addition, and located at 223 S. Pearson Lane. Current Zoning: “SP-2” Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #11. Applicant: April Dreyson, Dreyson Ventures, LLC. Property Owner: Alan Bentrup, St. Martin-in-the-Fields Episcopal Church. PUBLIC HEARING ]

ON THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ITEM? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 6G, RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 028. CASE NUMBER ZA26 0037. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MASS GATHERING EVENT FOR THE PRIDE TELSO ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1R BLOCK 1ST. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS ADDITION, LOCATED AT 223 SOUTH PEARSON LANE.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MASS GATHERING EVENT FOR THE KELSO PRIDE FESTIVAL.

THIS IS LOCATED AT ST. MARTIN AND FIELDS EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT 223 SOUTH PEARSON. THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE. THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY IS PUBLIC, SEMI PUBLIC AND CURRENT ZONING IS SP2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT PRIMARILY WITH CS USES FOR PURPOSES OF PLACE OF WORSHIP. THE PROPOSED EVENT IS TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 3RD OF THIS YEAR.

WILL INCLUDE VENDOR TENTS, FOOD TRUCKS, EVENTS SET UP AND THOSE WILL BEGIN AT 8AM AND SHOULD RUN UNTIL ABOUT 11AM EVENT TIME FOR IS BETWEEN 2PM AND 6PM CLEANUP SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY 9PM THEY'RE ESTIMATING UP TO 2,500 ATTENDEES. VENDORS WILL BE ON SITE, FOOD TRUCKS, YARD GAMES AND PERFORMERS ATKIN HAS INDICATED NO ALCOHOL SELLS FOR THE EVENT. AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE EVENT TO BE HELD IN 2026. THIS IS THEIR OVERALL SITE EXHIBIT.

AND THIS IS A FENCING EXHIBIT.

THE RED OUTLINE INDICATES STAKED STRING LINE IDENTIFYING BOUNDARY. AND THEN THERE'S EXISTING WOOD FENCE ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY. THE GATE WILL HAVE A ROLLING FENCE AND WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ALLOW FOR EITHER PEDESTRIAN ENTRY OR ENTRY OF THE SHUTTLE VAN SERVICE. I BELIEVE ALL ENTRY INTO THE EVENT WOULD BE CONTROLLED IN THIS AREA. AND THEN THEY'RE PROPOSING A CHAIN LINK SCREEN TYPE FENCE, TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK WITH SCREENING ON THAT 6 FOOT IN HEIGHT ROUGHLY IN THIS VICINITY APPROXIMATELY 20FT FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND THAT PARTICULAR FENCING.

BUT THE CHESAPEAKE PARK. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM SOUTH PEARSON LOOKING NORTH. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PARKING AREA AND HOW THE SITE CURRENTLY EXISTS. AND ANOTHER VIEW OF THE OPEN FIELD AREA FROM SOUTH PARK. THIS IS A VIEW FROM CHESAPEAKE LANE. MASS GATHERING EVENT CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDE SAFE INGRESS, EGRESS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THE VICINITY. SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR THE EVENT, SUFFICIENT ILLUMINATION FOR NIGHTTIME EVENTS, OF COURSE, ADEQUATE PARKING, ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR FOOD SUPPLY, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, WATER SUPPLY, PARKING, SANITATION, TOILET FACILITIES, FURMAN CONTROL AND SAFETY.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR AUGUST 20TH MEETING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 05:1 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT AND REVIEW SUMMARY PROVIDED TO THEM. THIS IS RESPONSES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TO DATE WITHIN THE NOTICE AREA. I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA,

[02:15:01]

ONE JUST OUTSIDE THE 300 FOOT AND FIVE WRITTEN RESPONSES AND THOSE ARE ONE IN SUPPORT. AND THEN FIVE RETINA POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE 300 FOOT BUFFER AREA. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YOU MAY HAVE APPLICANTS HERE TO REPRESENT THE ITEM AS WELL.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE 6G? IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

MY NAME IS APRIL DRAYSON. MY ADDRESS IS 681 UNION STOCKYARD BOULEVARD IN FORT WORTH.

AND I AM THE FOUNDER OF PRIDE KEL-SO DID YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR JUST YOUR QUESTIONS? WE WENT OVER ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH, SO THIS IS PARTIALLY MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON 6G? NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 6G. 6G REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6G? YES, SIR.

COME ON DOWN. I HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS WHICH I'LL READ IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT GO AHEAD. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GO AHEAD.

YEAH, COME ON.

IN.

COME ON DOWN. IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK. COME ON DOWN. YEAH, JUST NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

OKAY, I WONT BE THAT LONG.

PAUL SIEGEL, 903 MEADOW LANE IN SOUTH LAKE.

WHEN WE FIRST MOVED HERE, WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY VALUES ITS STUDENTS, VALUES THE CHILDREN HERE. THE SCHOOLS WERE FANTASTIC AND IN A STATE.

WE BELIEVE THAT LAST YEAR THIS EVENT CAUSED A LOT OF UPHEAVAL.

AND SINCE THEN, THERE'S BEEN AN ARTICLE THAT HAS QUOTED ONE OF THE FEMALE APPLICANTS.

AND IN THAT ARTICLE, IT WAS VERY MILITANT, THAT IT WAS MORE OF LIKE A PROTEST, AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS. AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT BECOMES A STATEMENT OF TRYING TO JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKE A POINT.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

I DON'T THINK THAT WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR SHOULD HAPPEN AGAIN.

IT COULD CREATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION.

THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE VERY INFLAMED BY THE WHOLE THING.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S REALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VALUE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND SEEING THESE DRAG QUEENS OUT THERE LIKE LAST YEAR, IT WAS A PART.

SO I DEFINITELY AM AGAINST HAVING THIS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING 6G? AND I'LL GET TO THE COMMENT CARDS.

YES, PLEASE COME ON DOWN. AND AGAIN, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

YEAH, MY NAME IS REVEREND ELLEN SINGER. MY ADDRESS IS 1509 ORCHID SPRINGS DRIVE IN FORT WORTH. AND I'M AN ASSOCIATE PASTOR AT ST.

MARTIN'S IN THE FIELDS. AND I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO WHY WE'RE SO EXCITED TO HOST THIS EVENT. OUR MISSION DIRECTLY FROM JESUS IS TO LOVE GOD AND LOVE OUR NEIGHBORS AS OURSELVES. AND OUR MOTTO IS TO WELCOME EVERYONE.

ALL ARE WELCOME, NO EXCEPTIONS. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE OPEN OUR CAMPUS TO ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT EVENTS. WE HOST SCOUTS AND AA MEETINGS, AND WE HOST FEVER UNITED SOCCER CLUB. AND THIS IS PART OF THAT MISSION FOR US TO HOST A SAFE AND FUN WAY TO GET OUR COMMUNITY TOGETHER.

AND THE EVENT LAST YEAR WAS A GREAT SUCCESS, AND I SEE NO REASON THAT IT WOULDN'T BE A GREAT SUCCESS. AND THAT WAS ESPECIALLY THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL SUPPORT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND FIRST RESPONDERS AND SECURITY LAST YEAR FROM THE CITY AND OTHERS. IT WAS A COORDINATED EFFORT, AND WE ARE DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE AND GRATEFUL. SO THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING ITEM 6G? NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT THERE WERE 37 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS SENT OUT, TWO OPPOSITION RESPONSES RECEIVED WITHIN 300FT ONE IN FAVOR WAS FROM SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF 300FT. THOSE NAMES AND ADDRESSES ARE. ELIZABETH ALVAREZ AT 255 CHESAPEAKE LANE WAS OPPOSED. JEREMY HEIMBACK

[02:20:03]

AT 405 CHESAPEAKE LANE WAS OPPOSED. COLLEEN GOLESTAN AT 708 BRYSON WAY WAS IN FAVOR. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS WHICH HAVE COME IN ELECTRONICALLY. I'LL READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD.

PAUL SIEGEL AT 903 MEADOW- LANE IS OPPOSED TO 6G. LORI SIEGEL AT 903 MEADOW LANE IS OPPOSED TO 6G. HILLARY RABBLER AT 602 STONEBURY DR. IS OPPOSED TO 6G. MICAH RYAN AT 907 CHIMNEY HILL TRAIL IS OPPOSED TO 6G. PATRICIA YEAGER AT 1402 VINA ROSA COURT IS OPPOSED TO 6G. LILY WONG AT 403 JACKSON SQUARE IS OPPOSED TO 6G. LINDA KRISHNA AT 1333 MONTGOMERY LANE. RECORDS OPPOSITION TO 6G. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK OR SUBMIT ANY KIND OF COMMENT CARD ON ITEM 6G? I SEE NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 6G.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH OR THE APPLICANT OR ANY DISCUSSION ON 6G? SEEING NONE, I WILL CALL ON MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS FOR A MOTION ON 6G.

YES, MR. MAYOR. I MOTION WE DENY ITEM 6G. RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 028, ZA 260037. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MASS GATHERING FOR THE PRIDE KELSO ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 01, R BLOCK 1, ST. MARTIN IN THE FIELDS. ADDITIONALLY LOCATED 223 SOUTH CAROLINA LANE. SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REVIEW NUMBER THREE.

SUMMARY NUMBER THREE, DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY 6G.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, CAST YOUR VOTES ON 6G. THIS IS A MOTION TO DENY. SO A YES VOTE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DENY. CAST YOUR VOTES. AND

[7.A. Ordinance No. 480-299a, ZA26-0044, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mulino Ristorante, on property described as Lot 4, T. Thompson No. 1502 Addition, and located at 1125 Davis Boulevard. Current Zoning: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #10. Applicant: Jeff VanCuren, Halbach Dietz Architects. Property Owner: Marc Rhima, Rig Properties, LLC. ]

THAT MOTION CARRIES. THE MOTION TO DENY CARRY 7 0, ITEM 6G IS DENIED. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 7A, WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 299A, CASE NUMBER ZA26 0044.

FIRST GREETINGS ON CHANGE IN SITE PLAN FROM ALINO RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 1 2.

EXCUSE ME, 1125 DAVIS BLVD.

HERE IN SOUTH LAKE. DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH.

THANK YOU AGAIN. MAYOR. THIS IS A REQUEST TO ENCLOSE WHAT IS CURRENTLY NOW USED AS A PATIO AREA, OUTDOOR PATIO AREA TO A 522 PLUS OR MINUS SQUARE FOOT ENCLOSED PORTION OF THE RESTAURANT. IT'S LOCATED AT THE NORTH CORNER OF WEST CONTINENTAL AND DAVIS BOULEVARD. RETAIL COMMERCIAL ON OUR LAND USE PLAN AND CURRENTLY ZONED SP1 DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT. THIS FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING AND THIS IMPROVEMENT TO THE BUILDING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO THE SP1.

ZONING THEREFORE REQUIRES A ZONING CHANGE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED TENANT OR THIS IS THE EXISTING TENANT LOCATION. THIS IS THE CURRENTLY UTILIZED OUTDOOR PATIO AREA.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED ADDITION AREA TO BE ADDED.

DETAIL OF THAT. AND INTERIOR FLOOR AREA OF THAT. THIS IS A COMPARISON OF HOW THIS LOOKS TODAY VERSUS THE PROPOSED REVISION. ANOTHER VIEW OF THAT. AND ANOTHER VIEW.

PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6, 0 AT THEIR AUG. 20 MEETING, SUBJECT TO THE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY AND THE SAC REPORT. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES FROM THOSE IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA OR OUTSIDE. AND I'LL BE

[02:25:05]

GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND REFER BACK TO ANY ADDITIONAL SLIDES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS AT THIS TIME? DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH, WERE YOU ABLE TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARTICULATION? YES, I WAS. AND THEY ARE FUNCTIONALLY EXTENDING THIS WALL A LITTLE BIT.

BUT GIVEN THIS INSET HERE, THEY DO GET CREDIT FOR THE HORIZONTAL OFFSET OF THAT. AND ALONG THIS PLANE THEY'RE STILL VERTICALLY OFFSET. SO IT STILL ARTICULATES.

VERY GOOD.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? THANK YOU, SIR. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON DOWN.

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

JEFF VANCUREN WITH HALBACH DIETZ ARCHITECTS, 6913 CAMP BUOY BOULEVARD AND FORT WORTH.

DID YOU HAVE ANY PRESENTATION OR SLIDES OR ANYTHING TO SAY? ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SO FAR SO GOOD, I GUESS.

THANK YOU, SIR.

APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

7A IS A FIRST READING AND NOT 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. I THINK THE EDITION LOOKS GREAT. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

YEAH, I AGREE. THAT'S ONE OF MY FAVORITE ITALIAN RESTAURANTS. AND IF YOU'VE EVER EATEN THERE, IF YOU HAVEN'T EATEN THERE, YOU SHOULD EAT THERE. BUT THE SUN HITS THAT SO HARD THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE YEAR.

SOUTHWEST.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE IT'S POINTING. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A GREAT THING FOR THIS BUSINESS.

KIND OF REMINDS ME OF THE ADDITION ON DUST CHICKEN WINGS, WHICH WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH, AND HOW THEY ENCLOSE THEIR PATIO. I THINK IT MAKES THE BUILDING LOOK BETTER AND I AGREE THAT'S HOW IT LOOKS HERE.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S POSITIVE.

IT KIND OF WASTED SPACE FOR WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, AND I'M GLAD THEY'RE THRIVING ENOUGH TO EXPAND.

ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT, WELL, CALL FOR A MOTION ON 7A.

YES, SIR, MR. MAYOR. A MOTION.

WE APPROVE ITEM 7A, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 299A Z826 0044. FIRST READING. ZONING CHAIN AND SITE PLAN FOR MOLINO RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4T THOMPSON NUMBER 1502 EDITION, LOCATED 1125 DAVIDSON BLVD. STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026. SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 2, DATED AUGUST 14, 2026, NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, REQUIREMENTS, APPROVAL, ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN TO CONVERT AN EXISTING OUTDOOR PATIO INTO A PERMANENTLY ENCLOSED BUILDING AREA.

BEFORE I CALL FOR A SECOND, I FORGOT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD. WE HAVE 16 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS AND NO RESPONSES AS OF TODAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON 7A. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON 7A. THAT

[7.B. Ordinance No. 480-849, ZA26-0054, 1st Reading, Zoning Change and Concept Plan for 4060 N. White Chapel Boulevard on property described as Tract 16, R.D. Price Survey Abstract No. 992A. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: “SF-30” Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #1. Applicant and Property Owner: Amanda Hellman.]

MOTION CARRIES 7 0. IT'S APPROVED ON FIRST READING.

WE'LL SEE YOU'RE BACK FOR SECOND READING. NEXT WE'LL GO TO ITEM 7B, ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 849, CASE NUMBER ZA26 0054. FIRST READING. ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR 4060 NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD.

DIRECTOR KILLOUGH.

THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH WHITE CHAPEL AND WEST BOB JONES AND THEN ALSO ABUTS THE EAST BOUNDARY OF RAINEY COURT. IT'S LOW DENSITY ON THE LAND USE PLAN AND CURRENTLY AG ZONING REQUESTED ZONING IS SF30. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM RAINEY COURT, A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM BOB JONES AND RAINING COURT, AND A VIEW FROM WATT CHAPEL. BOB JONES. THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN. YOU MAY NOTE THAT THE REQUEST HERE IS FOR SF30. TYPICALLY IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING CHANGES FOR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE SF1A OR 1B. THE GROSS AREA OF THE TRACT INVOLVED IS JUST SLIGHTLY UNDER ONE ACRE AND FOR THAT REASON IT DOES NOT INHERENTLY CONFORM WITH THE DISTRICT. THE NEXT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR WHICH IT COULD CONFORM IS SF30. GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, IT COULD NOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED UNDER THAT. AND, AND FOR THAT REASON WE FIND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN. THE AREA REPRESENTED HERE IS GROSS AREA. JUST ESTIMATING ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY OFF WHITECHAPEL AND WEST BOB

[02:30:02]

JONES. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. THAT DROPS US TO, I THINK JUST UNDER.

JUST UNDER 4,100 SQUARE FEET AFTER THAT. NONETHELESS, THE GROSS AREA IS 3 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.

THIS IS A DRAINAGE PLAN, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6, 0 NOTING APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO EXPAND PRESENTLY REPRESENTED SIDELINE. THAT WAS ON THE BOB JONES FRONTAGE TO 35FT WHICH IS THE MINIMUM DISTRICT FOR THE SF30. AND THAT CORRECTION'S BEEN MADE ON THEIR PLAN. WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES WITHIN THE NAVIGATION AREA. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH.

SO WE'RE HERE ON THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S 3 SQUARE FEET LESS THAN AN ACRE.

CORRECT. AND THE AREA SHOWN HERE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR BOB JONES OR WHITE CHAPEL, WHICH WE CALCULATE TO BE JUST AROUND A LITTLE OVER. JUST A LITTLE UNDER 2,600 SQUARE FEET ADDITIONAL BOTH SIDES. THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A PERFECT SQUARE. I THINK SO.

IT'S ABOUT 208FT EACH DIRECTION.

NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WEST.

THAT COMES OUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH OF DIFFERENCE. THAT PROPERTY LINE ON THE EAST SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE CAPTURES 4.3 SQUARE FEET. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THAT LINE COULD GET MOVED SOMEHOW OR SOMETHING COULD GET CAPTURED? SO IT HITS ONE ACRE.

YEAH. GIVEN THAT BOUNDARY THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING. THAT IS WHERE THE DEEDED BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS. AND SO OUTSIDE OF THAT, THAT 3 SQUARE FEET LIES WITHIN WHAT IS CURRENTLY CITY OF SOUTH LAKE RIGHT OF WAY. BE IT ALL BY PRESCRIPTION OR PREVIOUS ALLOCATION FROM THE COUNTY RECORDS.

TO GRANT THAT BACK TO THEM WOULD TAKE A DIFFERENT ACTION OTHER THAN JUST THE ZONING ACTION. IT WOULD REQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT TO GRANT THAT BACK TO THEM TO WHICH THEY COULD INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR BOUNDARY. AND THEN ASIDE FROM THAT, THE COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ANY OR GRANT THROUGH THE CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL ANY VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY BEING REQUIRED.

BUT IT COULD BE DONE AT THE PLATTING.

IT COULD BE DONE. IT DOES REQUIRE APPROVAL OF WHAT'S CALLED ABANDONMENT ORDINANCE.

THAT WOULD ALLOW EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED BACK TO THE OWNER, WHICH WOULD NEED TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE TO CITY COUNCIL FOR TWO READINGS.

SO IF WE WERE CONSIDERING OR WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE COULD BUILD THAT REQUIREMENT OR BUILD THAT CONDITION INTO THE MOTION.

YEAH. THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH DOING THAT AND CHANGING THEIR REQUEST. SF1A TRADITIONALLY GOING FROM A. WHAT'S CONSIDERED A MORE INTENSE AND SOME DEGREE, SOME AREAS LESS RESTRICTIVE SET OF CODES TO MORE RESTRICTIVE.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT.

LESS INTENSE.

THEY CAN CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE FLY, BUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH LAND AREA.

I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE OF NORTHWIGHT CHAPEL HOLDS AS FAR AS TURNING THAT INTO A MUCH BIGGER ROAD.

HOPEFULLY NOT. BUT IN ANY EVENT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF DISTANCE FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD TO THE BORDER OF THAT PROPERTY, THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE A COUPLE OF PROPERTIES DOWN THAT JUMPS OVER A TOUCH MORE, WHICH GAVE ME THAT THOUGHT EARLIER TODAY.

THAT SEEMS LIKE, OKAY, WELL, THAT ONE'S OVER A LITTLE BIT.

OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM THERE. THAT QUARTER OF AN INCH ISN'T GOING TO KILL ANYBODY, YOU KNOW.

AND I DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY IF. IF THAT'S A DIRECTION THAT APPLICANTS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH AND COUNCIL WOULD LIKE THEM TO TAKE, WHETHER OR NOT TYPICALLY IT'S DEEMED THAT ZONING BOUNDARIES, THEY TYPICALLY ARE CONSIDERED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD WHEN APPLIED. I DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY. WHETHER OR NOT ZONING OF PART OF THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A SF1 WITH THAT ACTION HAVING

[02:35:01]

TO BE TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME.

IT'S AN ACTION THE COUNCIL HASN'T TAKEN YET ON THAT ITEM.

IT'S NOT TO SAY SOMEBODY COULD CHANGE THEIR MIND AND NOT APPROVE THE QUICK LINE ORDINANCE FOR ABANDONMENT ORDINANCE.

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE FUNCTION, THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SF1A AND SF30 IS PRIMARILY THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS. 40 FOOT IS REQUIRED ON THE SF1.

DISTRICT 35 IS PERMITTED ON SF30. SF30 IS MORE RESTRICTIVE ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS.

PERMITTED, YOU'RE LIMITED TO 750 SQUARE FEET OF DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT GOING TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

YOU'RE ALSO LIMITED ON THE HEIGHT OF THOSE STRUCTURES THAT CAN'T BE OVER 14FT. WHERE SF1 ALLOWS LARGER STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SETBACKS. PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS GO UP TO 20 IF THEY'RE DETACHED.

SO THERE MAY BE SOME REASONS TO STICK WITH SF30. IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ISSUES LIKE THAT ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH THE STRAIGHT ZONING DIRECTOR, WE CAN'T REQUIRE A DIFFERENT SETBACK, CAN WE? CAN'T REQUIRE IT. THE APPLICANT COULD IF THEY WISH TO MATCH THE OTHER. THEY COULD DO THAT ON THEIR PLAT IF THEY WISH TO SET IT AT 40FT AND HOLD THAT AS A RESTRICTION UNDER THEIR PLAT.

COUNCIL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KILLOUGH AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT, LET'S TALK TO THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL PROBABLY VISIT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON 7B? COME ON DOWN. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

YEP.

MY NAME IS VINCENT O' CONNOR AT 7802 ARE THEIR DRACO.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF WITH PETER AND AMANDA HELLMAN. THEY'RE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THIS PROPERTY AS YOU SEE IT WAS MISSED THAT BY THAT POINT, .0001 AMOUNT WE'VE ACTUALLY MET ON.

SO THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THEIR HOUSE PLAN SET ON THIS LOT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH TO BE ABLE TO PULL PERMITS ON BIRTH.

DISTURBANCE AND BUILDING SO THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THAT FULL PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE CITY TO GET THAT GRANTED THAT TINY AMOUNT OF SPACE AS IT IS.

WE DID GIVE THAT 35 SETBACK LINE AND WE ACTUALLY. THEIR PLANS ARE SET BACK 40FT TO MATCH THE OTHER HOUSES ON RAINEY COURT.

SO AS IT IS RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

BUT THIS IS JUST WHAT WE WERE RECOMMENDED TO DO IS DSF 30 IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT .0001.

GOT IT.

COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TREES? GONNA SAVE A LOT OF THEM.

GOING BY THERE TO LOOK AT THE LOT THIS WEEKEND. IT LOOKED LIKE A TORNADO HAD COME THROUGH.

YEAH. WE MET WITH KEITH AND HE GAVE US PERMISSION.

KEITH MARTIN, THE TREE CONSERVATIONIST FOR SOUTH LAKE HE GAVE US PERMISSION TO DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CLEARING SO THAT THE APPLICANTS THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY COULD REALLY SEE WHAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THEIR HOUSE BED. SO WE WENT IN AND CLEARED THE CERTAIN ONES THAT KEITH GAVE US PERMISSION TO KIND OF CUT DOWN. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE'LL BE CLEARING THOSE OUT.

CUT DOWN WOULD BE A GENEROUS TERM.

BUT NO.

IF THE LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR SAID THAT THOSE WERE GOOD TO REMOVE THEN THAT'S REALLY WHAT MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE.

SO THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU SIR. THIS IS THE FIRST READING SO IT DOES NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING BUT I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 7B. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 7B? COME ON DOWN.

YES SIR.

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

1098 NORTH CIRCLE WEST PARK IN SOUTH LAKE. I AM MARRIED TO AMANDA HELLMAN WHO'S PULLING THE PERMIT. AS WE WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAD DEALING WITH THE TREE WE MET WITH THE CONSERVATION. WE'RE NEW TO THIS COMMUNITY. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PROPERTY ABOUT A HALF A MILE AWAY AROUND FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS.

PETER HELLMAN.

WE WANTED THIS PROPERTY SINCE WE CAME HERE. WE WERE ABLE TO KNOW THE FULL HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY OF BEING A DESCENDANT FROM BOB JONES. WE'RE VERY PROUD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY VERY RECENTLY AND

[02:40:01]

OUR DESIRE WAS TO MAINTAIN THE COMMUNITY. THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT WE WOULD NOT SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.

WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS A FULL ACRE. WE UNDERSTAND IT'S A FRACTION OF AN INCH DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS A DIFFERENTIAL. WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE LAST MEETING THEY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION. IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE A RULE. GOING FORWARD, WE ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SF4. EXCUSE ME, SF1 WITH THE SETBACKS, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY DEALING WITH THE TREE CONSERVATORY.

WE'VE BEEN CONSTANTLY WITH THEM TO FIND OUT WHAT TREES WE CAN MAINTAIN.

SINCE MOST OF THE CANOPY HAS BEEN DESTROYED IN THE OTHER PROPERTIES, WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT FEEL AS IT RELATES. AS THE DISCUSSION CAME BACK, THE SF30 WAS A CONCERN FOR SOME OF THE COMMUNITIES BESPOKE LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND AND THEIR CONCERN WAS JUST NOT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY THE WAY THAT IT IS.

AS AN SF30, THERE WOULD BE NO WAY OF SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY.

WE'VE ASKED THE NEIGHBOR IF WE COULD ACCOMMODATE MORE, LIKE I SAID, A FRACTION OF AN INCH. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY. RIGHT NOW WE'RE UNDER A TIME CONSTRAINT. ANY DELAY CAN AFFECT US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE. OUR FINANCES AND THINGS OF THAT ARE TIED INTO THIS PROPERTY AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS AND IF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS IF IT COULD BE ADDRESSED. I DON'T KNOW IF IN THIS FORM, BUT AS I SAID, GOING BACK TO THE SF1, WE HAVE. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE REQUESTING SF30, WE ARE MEETING EVERY REQUIREMENT OF SF1 AND WILL ABIDE TO THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL THAT OUR DESIRE IS TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT BE OBJECTED BY THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON 7B? OR I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7B. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO OPTIONS, MAYBE MORE. BUT WE COULD VOTE ON TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED AT THE 0.999 ACRES. OR WE COULD DO THE WHAT WE DISCUSSED A FEW MINUTES AGO ABOUT POSSIBLY WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON WHATEVER THE MEASUREMENT IS TO GET THEM TO ONE ACRE USING SOME CITY PROPERTY. THERE MAY BE OTHER OPTIONS. COUNCIL, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS? GARY? I'LL LOOK AT YOU FIRST OR. SORRY, AUSTIN.

WELL, AND I JUST. WHILE I LOVE COUNCIL MEMBER TAGGART'S IDEA OF COULD WE FIND A QUARTER INCH SOMEWHERE, IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MOVING IT FORWARD AS IT'S PRESENTED. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE ALREADY PLANNED TO MEET THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT UNPLANNED THAT WAY. SO IT'LL MATCH UP TO THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ELSE WE WOULD HAVE A CONCERN OTHER THAN HAVING THAT SF30 ZONING STICKING IN THE, IN THE LOW DENSITY LAND USE RIGHT THERE.

I MEAN ESSENTIALLY. I MEAN IT CONFORMS IN EVERY OTHER WAY AND IT'S JUST IMMATERIAL IN THE NUMBER.

SO I'M FINE WITH IT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD AS PRESENTED.

FRANCIS, GO AHEAD.

THIS IS MORE FOR THE ATTORNEY IS NOT 999 AND WE CAN'T CALL IT AN ACRE. I MEAN, IS THERE. DO WE HAVE A ROUND? IT'S HOW YOUR ORDINANCE DEFINES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SF1.

AND IT SAYS A ONE ACRE. SO WE'RE CLOSE, BUT WE'RE JUST NOT QUITE THERE.

SO WHAT THEN? SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS, SEAN, MAYOR MCCASKIL HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU MIGHT TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH, WITH THE CITY WORKING WITH THEM TO GET UP, GET THAT QUARTER OF AN ACRE.

MY ONLY CONCERN AGAIN IS ONE ACRE. IS ONE ACRE. 43,560 SQUARE FEET. SO I MEAN, WHERE'S OUR LIMIT? 3FT? 6FT? 10FT? 50FT? 100FT.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS SO MINUTE. DON'T DOUBT IT AT ALL. BUT I PREFER TO NOT HAVE AN SF30 SITTING GLARING RIGHT THERE AT THAT CORNER. SO WHAT COULD WE DO? WELL, THEY REALLY THE ONLY OPTION AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS IF CITY ABANDONED THAT RIGHT OF WAY SO THAT IT BECAME THEIR PROPERTY VERSUS CITY PROPERTY.

BUT THAT REQUIRES A SEPARATE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT'S NOT AN OPTION FOR YOU THIS EVENING. AND SO IT WOULD RESULT IN A DELAY.

OKAY, AND HOW LONG ARE WE TALKING LIKE START TO FINISH ON THAT? WELL, IT WOULD REQUIRE TWO WEEKS, SO YOU'RE TALKING ANOTHER MONTH.

IS THERE ANYTHING TO STOP THE OWNERS IF THEY'RE ALREADY MEETING EVERYTHING INSIDE SF1A

[02:45:03]

FOR THEM TO START THEIR PROCESS OF BUILDING. IF WE APPROVE THIS SF30 AND THEN COMING BACK AND SAYING IF YOU'LL ABANDON IT, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, THEM GETTING THEIR DRAWING CHANGE POST CONSTRUCTION.

THERE'D BE NO WAY TO REQUIRE THAT.

I'M NOT ASKING, BUT THEY MAY WANT IT. I MEAN THEY MAY IF THEY KNOW WE WANT. I MEAN WHAT I JUST HEARD WAS A FAMILY THAT WANTS TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO FIT IN BASICALLY HERE. IF THEY KNOW THAT EVERYONE WANTS THEM TO BE SF1A, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANT TO GET THE BUILDING ON THEIR HOUSE, WHICH I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.

AND TO MAKE THEM WAIT ANOTHER 30 OR 40, 45 DAYS FOR. AND IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS MATH RIGHT, THIS IS 208.71 BY 208.71. IS THAT RIGHT? IS THIS AN ACTUAL SURVEY HERE THAT I'M LOOKING AT? BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEY'RE NOT 3FT SHORT, THEY'RE 0.14FT SHORT.

THEY'RE LITERALLY. THEY'RE 2 INCHES.

YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S INFINITESIMALLY SMALL. SO THEY CAN BUILD THEIR HOUSE AND COME BACK SOMETIME AND SAY, WELL, TO THE CITY TO THIS POINT, IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW. IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS AND THEN FOLLOW UP BY FINDING A WAY TO MOVE THAT PROPERTY LINE, IS THERE ANY REASON THAT WE COULD NOT JUST DO A CITY INITIATED REZONING TO TAKE IT TO ONE ACRE? AND THAT'S THE DIRECTIVE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. THAT WAY WE DON'T.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS FORMALLY.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE CITY WOULD BEAR ALL THE BURDEN OF THE REZONING.

THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE WE WOULD APPROVE OUR OWN REQUEST.

THEN WE COULD MOVE. WE COULD, WE COULD TAKE CARE OF IT.

AFTER THE FACT OF MOVING THIS FORWARD. I'M JUST, I'M THROWING THAT OUT.

THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

OR GET A DIFFERENT SURVEYOR OUT THERE.

IT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION.

WE WOULD, WE WOULD WANT.

IDEALLY WE WOULD WANT TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GET APPROVAL OR AGREEMENT TO THAT CITY INITIATED ZONING.

BUT THAT IS AN OPTION.

YES, SIR.

I THINK WE MOVE FORWARD.

I LIKE WHAT GARY, WHAT GARY IS SUGGESTING.

I THINK THAT SHE COULD START BUILDING HER HOUSE. ANYTHING WE DO OTHER THAN APPROVE SLOWS DOWN THEIR HOUSE BUILDING.

JUST ADD THAT NOTE TO THE MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO.

THE CITY WILL LOOK INTO A POSSIBLE CITY INITIATED REZONING TO PUT IT AT ONE ACRE. WHETHER WE DO IT OR NOT, WE'LL DECIDE. THAT'S OUR CALL.

SO THE CITY WILL EXPLORE ABANDONMENT OF. RIGHT AWAY.

CARA, YOU OKAY ON THAT LANGUAGE.

OR BOTH? THE ANSWER TO ONE.

I BELIEVE THEY ARE ACCOUNTING FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION IN THE PLAT THAT THEY ARE PROCESSING THAT MUST BE FILED IN ORDER TO PULL THEIR PERMIT. SO THAT IS LIKELY TO COME OFF. IT WILL BE LESS MUCH. WHAT I WAS EXPLAINING THERE IS ON THE PLATS RECORDED ON THAT IT WILL LIKELY BE MUCH LESS THAN 3 SQUARE FEET SHORT.

UNLESS UNDER YOUR ACTION, YOU'RE GOING TO GRANT THEM A VARIANCE TO ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. AND IN LIEU OF THAT, PUTTING IN PLACE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WHICH THEY ARE ALREADY SHOWING ON THEIR CONCEPT PLAN.

I THINK I LIKE WHAT I JUST HEARD. WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT TONIGHT.

WELL, YOU'RE STILL THREE SQUARE FEET SHORT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE CAN ADD A VERY.

INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A QUICK CLAIM THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE CAN REDUCE THE AMOUNT THEY'RE DEDICATING WITH THEIR PLAN. IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID? CORRECT. AS PART OF THE CONCEPT PLAN, IT'S WITHIN YOUR ABILITY TO GRANT A VERY VARIANCE TO ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIRED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBJECT TO THE 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. BEING DEDICATED ON THE PLAN. SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. THEY'LL STILL BE 3 SQUARE FEET SHORT.

THIS SHORTAGE OF SQUARE FEET DOES NOT PROVIDE THE NET LOT AREA, WHICH IS GOING TO BE JUST UNDER 41,000 SQUARE FEET. IF THEY DEDICATE ALL THAT RIGHT AWAY, WE'D HAVE TO DO ALL THAT AT THE NEXT SLIDE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT EXHIBIT, THERE'S A DASHED IN AREA INSIDE THE BOLD BOUNDARY THAT SAYS VARIABLE WIDTH RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. THE 43,557 SQUARE FEET GOES OUT

[02:50:03]

TO THE OUTER BOLD BOUNDARY, NOT THE INSIDE DEDICATION BOUNDARY. SO THAT ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ACCOUNTS FOR JUST UNDER 2600 SQUARE FEET.

OF THAT 53 OR 43, 557 SQUARE FEET.

SO IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO.

IN ORDER TO GET THIS MOVING, WE WOULD STILL NEED TO APPROVE THE SF30.

AND THEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY WILL THEN INVESTIGATE, GIVE IT UP A QUARTER INCH OR WHATEVER TO THE OWNERS WHO HOPEFULLY WOULD BE WILLING TO BE ABLE TO CALL THEIR HOUSE AN SF1A AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, VERSUS AN SF30 ANYWAY. WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO COME IN HERE FOR? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO ON CONSENT LATER? I THINK THAT'S ALL PART OF THE CITY EXPLORATION.

IF WE DO. I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH CITY INITIATORY ZONING AND IF WE DO THAT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW UP, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

IT'S 100% ON THE CITY UNLESS THEY OBJECT TO IT. SO TO YOUR POINT, THEIR LOT COULD MAGICALLY BECOME SF1A WITHOUT THEM EXPENDING ANY MORE RESOURCES IS MONEY OR TIME.

I SEE THEM SHAKING THEIR HEADS NOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.

SO THAT GIVES US JUST.

WE CAN TAKE THE TIME TO SEE IF WE CAN EXPLORE THE SOLUTION THAT GETS IT UP TO THE RIGHT SIDE. AND THEN THE CITY, LIKE I SAID, WE CAN JUST RUN. IT TAKES TWO READINGS. IT'S A ZONING.

WE WOULD ONLY BE ZONING OF OUR PROPERTY.

WE CAN'T CONTROL PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REZONE THEIR PROPERTY.

WE CAN, OKAY, SHOCK WHAT WE CAN DO IF YOU'RE AUSTIN.

DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED FOR A MOTION? YOU NEED TO CLARIFY THE WORDING.

I HAVEN'T CHANGED THE MOTION.

YEAH, I'M READY.

ALL RIGHT, CAN WE JUST. DO WE NEED TO VERBALLY CONFIRM WITH THEM THAT THEY'RE WITH THE OWNERS, THAT THEY'RE GOOD TO DO? YOU WANT TO COME DOWN AND PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO BOOST YOU ALL UP TO AN ACRE? YOU CAN SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AMANDA HELLMAN, 1098 NORTHWEST PARK CIRCLE, SOUTH LAKE STATE.

THE ADDRESS AS WELL.

1 098. GO AHEAD.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBLEM HERE IS SF30. PEOPLE ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH HIGH DENSITY AND SPLITTING THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DOING THAT. SO IF TO GET THE MOTION STARTED OR SO WE CAN GET OUR PROJECT STARTED, WE'RE HAPPY TO ABIDE WITH WHATEVER YOU DECIDE AND THEN GO AHEAD AND SWITCH IT TO SS1A LATER ON. AS LONG AS WE CAN GET UNOPPOSED.

OF COURSE.

WE WERE TOLD ABOUT THE RAINS IN NOVEMBER AND IT WOULD DELAY OUR BUILD. SO AS SOON AS WE CAN GET STARTED, THE BETTER. WE HAVE OUR BUILDER HERE. WE COULD SHOW YOU THE PLANS.

IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO SUBDIVIDE OR ADD ANY OTHER STRUCTURES.

GOT IT. WE'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU GET THERE AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE HOMES IN THAT AREA, ONE ACRE OR LARGER. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EXTRA FEW FEET.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS, YOU'RE UP.

YES, MR. MAYOR. MOTION. WE APPROVE ITEM SEVEN, THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 480. 849ZA 26 0054. FIRST SCREEN ZONING CHANGE IN CONCEPT PLAN FOR 4060 NORTH BY CHAPEL BOULEVARD. SUBJECT STAFF CORPS DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026.

CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER THREE DATED SEPTEMBER 04, 2026, NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SF 30 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING WILL NOT INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY ASSETS. THE REQUEST IS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AND THE CITY WILL EXPLORE ABANDONING A PORTION OF ITS RIGHT OF WAY AND POTENTIAL REZONING TO 1 ACRE AND SF1A.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

BEFORE I CALL FOR A SECOND, WE HAVE 11 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT OUT. ONE RESPONSE WAS IN OPPOSITION FROM DAVID THOMAS AT 4429 SADDLE RIDGE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON 7B? SECOND CAST YOUR VOTES ON 7B. THAT MOTION CARRIES.7 0. FIRST READING IS

[7.C. Ordinance No. 1303, 1st Reading, Designating a Geographic Area within the City as a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Pursuant to Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, to be known as Reinvestment Zone Number Two, City of Southlake, Texas; Describing the Boundaries of the Zone; Creating a Board of Directors for the Zone and Appointing Members of the Board; Establishing a Tax Increment Fund for the Zone; Containing Findings Related to the Creation of the Zone; Providing a Date for the Termination of the Zone; Providing that the Zone Take Effect Immediately Upon Passage of the Second Reading of this Ordinance; Providing a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. ]

APPROVED. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE OUR NEXT MEETING FOR A SECOND READING. NEXT UP

[02:55:03]

IS ITEM 7C, ORDINANCE NUMBER 1303. FIRST READING.

DESIGNATING A GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITHIN THE CITY AS A TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 311 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER TWO IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. AND DIRECTOR CORTEZ, WELCOME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL BRINGING FORTH. I KNOW WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SHIVERS FROM PROPERTY. AND SO NOW AFTER THE MASTER DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WE ARE NOW APPROACHING THAT FIRST FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS THE TIRZ ZONE NUMBER TWO. SO AS THE COUNCIL IS WELL FAMILIAR WITH THE SHIVERS FARM DEVELOPMENT, AND AS WAS CONSIDERED EARLIER THIS EVENING, IT'S THERE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 114, JUST IMMEDIATELY THERE TO THE WEST OF NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD. THESE ARE JUST SOME SIMPLE RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS PREVIOUSLY SEEN BEFORE IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE THAT SHOULD BE COMING FORWARD UPON CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT. SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A QUICK UPDATE ON KIND OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. SO THE DEVELOPMENT ALTOGETHER IS, AS THE COUNCIL WELL KNOWS, WELL OVER 200,000 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL SPACE CONSISTING OF RETAIL, A SPECIALTY, GROCER, RESTAURANTS, ALL OFFICE, IN ADDITION TO THE 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, FOR A TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF ABOUT $127 MILLION. SO THE CITY DID RECEIVE AN INCENTIVE REQUEST FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT BACK IN LATE IN 2024, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ZONING FOR THE SITE WAS APPROVED BACK IN LATE 2025 UNDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 480 837. SO SUBSEQUENT TO THIS, CITY STAFF ENTERED INTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS WHICH EFFECTIVELY BORE THE TIRZ AND THE POTENTIALLY FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF TWO PIDS FROM THE DEVELOPER SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, AS THE COUNCIL LIKELY RECALLS BACK IN JUNE, A LOT OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL, INCLUDING THIS TIRZ THAT THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS EVENING WAS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THAT MDA.

AND THAT MDA IS PRETTY IMPORTANT FOR THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING BECAUSE THAT EFFECTIVELY IS STILL IN EFFECT AS WE CONSIDER THIS TIRZ LOOK AT THIS TRS AS BEING THE FUNDING MECHANISM THAT'S IN PLACE, BUT THE MDA IS BEING THE OVERARCHING DOCUMENT THAT HAS PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS OF A DEVELOPER. SO WITHIN THAT MDA THAT THE COUNCIL CONSISTS OF BACK IN JUNE, PART OF THE FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT WERE TO BE ENTERTAINED OR CONSIDERED AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS OF COURSE THIS TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE, A CHAPTER 380 PROGRAM WHICH WOULD THE SALES TAX REVENUES THAT ARE BORN FROM THE CHAPTER 380 WOULD FEED BACK INTO THE TIRZ AND THE POTENTIAL FOR TWO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, ONE FOR THE COMMERCIAL PIECE AND ONE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE. ALL OF THIS, INCLUDING THE TRS HERE, WOULD NOT EXCEED THE 18.85 MILLION. AND THAT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS IT REFERENCED HERE WITHIN THE TRS PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN, BUT IT IS ALSO STILL PART OF THE MDA. SO TO GET INTO THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THIS TIRS NUMBER TWO, THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED BASE YEAR 2026 AND OF COURSE IT WILL TAKE THE DEVELOPER A COUPLE YEARS TO CONSTRUCT THE SITE, PARTICULARLY THE COMMERCIAL SITE, WHICH WE DO HAVE ESTABLISHED DEADLINES FOR THAT. I'LL TALK ABOUT HERE IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, BUT IT IS FOR ESSENTIALLY UP TO A 95% OF THE CITY TAX INCREMENT FOR THE EDIBLE SALES TAX. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY FOR THE GENERAL FUND ONLY. SO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS THAT YOU WOULD ALSO CONSIDER, CEDC, SPDC AND CRIME CONTROL ARE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THAT REIMBURSEMENT. NOW I MENTIONED THE TERM FOR THE TIRZ IS EFFECTIVELY FOR 18 YEARS, BUT THE TRS WOULD LIVE FOR A TOTAL OF 21 YEARS. AND AS I MENTIONED, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE YEARS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO UNDERGO CONSTRUCTION. BUT THEY'RE DOING THE TIRZ INITIALLY RIGHT NOW, OR WE'RE PROPOSING IT INITIALLY SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE A BASE YEAR UNDER WHAT THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS TODAY. THE INCENTIVE CAP AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IS STILL IN PLACE.

THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE WITH THIS TRS AT ALL. AS I ALSO MENTIONED JUST EARLIER, THERE IS A PART OF THIS IS A CHAPTER 380 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT. ALL OF THIS ALL FEEDS INTO THAT 18.85 MILLION THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. AND THE FIRST MECHANISM THAT WOULD BE IN PLACE IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL.

SO AS A DEVELOPER HERE, THE NEXT TWO

[03:00:01]

TO THREE YEARS GOES THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. THIS DEVELOPMENT, 50% OF THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GO BACK AND REIMBURSE TO THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A BENEFIT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE COST CENTER WOULD BE LOCATED IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS.

BUT BY BRINGING IT HERE TO SOUTH LAKE, THIS ACTUALLY HELPS CONTRIBUTE TO THAT 18.8 MILLION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

OF COURSE THERE IS PARAMETERS FOR THAT AS WELL. THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT WITHIN A TWO YEAR PERIOD.

AFTER THAT FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED ON THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. NOW, ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IS BUILT, RETAIL TENANTS START GOING IN, RESTAURANTS START OPENING UP.

95% OF THAT COMMERCIAL RETAIL SELLS GENERAL FUND ONLY WOULD GO BACK INTO THE TIRZ AS WELL. AGAIN, STILL THE CAP REMAINING IN PLACE OF THE 18.85 MILLION.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS DOESN'T PRECLUDE OR REMOVE ANY OF THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE MDA THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDERED BACK IN JUNE. THOSE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE STILL IN PLACE. THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPER HAS TO STAY ELIGIBLE FOR THE MDA, INCLUDES A MINIMUM CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF $127 MILLION, MAINTAIN A MINIMUM TAXABLE VALUE OF THAT FIRST YEAR OF $80 MILLION, START CONSTRUCTION OF ESSENTIALLY BY THE FIRST OF THE YEAR HERE IN 2027, AND COMPLETE THE COMMERCIAL PORTION BY DECEMBER 31ST OF 2028. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS MENTIONING, THAT IT WOULD TAKE A COUPLE YEARS. SO THEY EFFECTIVELY HAVE 24 MONTHS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. SO WHAT WOULD THE TIRZ EFFECTIVELY FUND? SO THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN ARE OUTLINED WITHIN THAT PLAN AND ALSO LISTED HERE ON YOUR SCREEN.

WHAT'S ALSO SHOWN ON YOUR SCREEN IS THE GENERAL OUTLINE OR THE BOUNDARY OF THE TIRZ REINVESTMENT ZONE.

JUST TO GIVE THE COUNCIL A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLICIT DETAILS ON WHAT SOME OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS LOOK LIKE.

THEY'RE SHOWN HERE ON YOUR SCREEN THROUGH THE RENDERING HERE.

OF COURSE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS, WATER LINES THAT GO THROUGH COMMERCIAL PORTION, BUT ALSO SOME OF THE MORE PUBLIC PORTIONS AS WELL THAT GO ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROUNDABOUT TRAILS, LANDSCAPING AND SO FORTH. SO ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE DEFINED AND ELABORATED ON WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN. AND THE ONE THING I'LL NOTE AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE ITEMS IS THAT THIS, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP AND REALLY KIND OF A TWO STEP PROCESS. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN ALONG WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE ZONE AND ASSIGNS THE BOARD WHAT WOULD COME SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE, LIKELY IN NOVEMBER, WOULD BE THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY FINISH ESTABLISHING THE ZONE. AND THE COUNCIL WOULD ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT THE PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN IS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY.

SO WHAT'S BEING EFFECTIVELY PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL? WHAT IS THIS ORDINANCE DOING AND WHAT IS THE COUNCIL CONSIDERING? AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE. YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CONFIRMING THAT THE TERM OF THE TIRZ IS FOR THE 21 YEARS AS IT'S BEING PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL THIS EVENING.

WE'RE ALSO APPOINTING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHICH AS YOU LIKELY NOTICE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF. AND YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN AND THE STATUTORY FINDINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. SO WHAT, WHAT DOES THE ORDINANCE NOT DO? SO IT DOESN'T REMOVE, AS I MENTIONED, ANY OF THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NDA, IT DOESN'T REVISE ANY OF THE TERMS OR TIMELINES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE MDA, AND IT ALSO DOES NOT MODIFY THE TOTAL INCENTIVE AMOUNT ESTABLISHED BY THE MDA. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE STILL IN EFFECT AND WE DID THIS INTENTIONALLY HAVING THOSE TWO COMPONENTS KIND OF IN PLACE.

AS I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THERE IS TIMELINES FOR THE PROJECT COMPLETION, WHICH ONE OF THEM I HAD MENTIONED, THE CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT DOES NEED TO START BY JANUARY 1ST OF 2027, WHICH FROM MY GATHERING IS THAT THE DEVELOPERS WENT ON THEIR WAY TO BREAK GROUND ON THE PROJECT, SO THEY WILL LIKELY MEET THIS PERFORMANCE STANDARD. BUT THEY DO HAVE, AS I MENTIONED, 24 MONTHS TO COMPLETE IT, WHICH THE DEADLINE FOR THAT WOULD BE BY DECEMBER 31ST OF 2028. THERE IS ALSO THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF IT, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THIS TIRZ BY ANY MEANS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

BUT PER THE MDA THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WITH THE DEVELOPER, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS LATER BY JUNE 30TH OF 2029. AND ALL THE SAME CITY SAFEGUARDS THAT WERE WITHIN THE NDA STILL APPLY IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL. SO TO GIVE THE COUNCIL AS I MENTIONED, SINCE THIS IS A TWO PART PROCESS, RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IS OBVIOUSLY CONSIDERING THIS FIRST ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING

[03:05:01]

THOSE HIGH LEVEL ITEMS FOR THE TIRZ, THE PUBLIC HEARING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED SUBSEQUENTLY ON OCTOBER 7TH FOR THIS SAME ITEM. WHAT WILL THEN NEED TO HAPPEN IS NOW THAT THE TRS BOARD HAS BEEN APPOINTED, IF IT IS PASSED BY COUNCIL, THE CSRS BOARD WOULD CONSIDER THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD CONSIST OF THIS COUNCIL AND ANOTHER ORDINANCE WOULD NEED TO BE ADOPTED FOR THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN WITH ALL FINAL DETAILS. THE ONE THING I HAD NOT MENTIONED, BUT IT IS WITHIN THE MEMO AND WITHIN THE CSRS ITSELF, IS THAT WE DO ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE AS WELL FOR THIS. AND SO ONCE THE COUNTY CONSIDERS THIS ITEM AND DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE, IDEALLY WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT WITHIN THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN AND THEREFORE ARE ADJUSTING OUR PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION WITHIN IT. THAT SAID, THE INCENTIVE AMOUNT IS STILL THE 18.35 MILLION. IT DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL WHETHER THE COUNTY PART PARTICIPATES OR NOT. THAT NUMBER IS SET ALTOGETHER IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO APPROVE THAT FINAL ORDINANCE, AND ALONG WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WE WOULD, SHARON'S TEAM AND MYSELF, WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT IS REQUIRED FROM THE STATE FROM A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT THAT PAPERWORK SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND OFFICIALLY DO OUR REPORTING PER STATUTE REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS IS PRETTY FAIRLY LARGE DOCUMENT. BUT I WANTED TO HIT SOME OF THE HIGHEST NOTES WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN AND EFFECTIVELY WHAT WOULD OCCUR WITH COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THANK YOU. DIRECTOR CORTEZ.

JUST TO CONFIRM, I KNOW YOU ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING AT 10 O' CLOCK AT NIGHT, THIS TIRZ IS LIKE OTHER INCENTIVES WE'VE DONE ON OTHER PROJECTS WHERE THE CITY IS NOT CUTTING A CHECK UPFRONT FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE DEVELOPER.

THIS IS MONEY THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD EARN BACK ON NEW TAX REVENUE GENERATED, GET CUTS OR REBATES ON PORTIONS OF THAT NEW TAX REVENUE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS UP TO THAT AMOUNT? YES, SIR.

ABSOLUTELY.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANIEL AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD PRESENTATION.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

SEE, THERE'S NO APPLICANT PRESENTATION ON THIS ONE DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 7C. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON 7C? SEEING NONE ON CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON 7C. COUNSEL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON DETERMINATION UNDER ITEM 7C? NOW I'M GOING TO ASK IF DIRECTOR CORTEZ CAN STEP BACK TO THE MICROPHONE. HOW ABOUT THEM, APPLE? CAN YOU PUT UP THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE EXTENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE? I THINK I DIDN'T SEE IT.

WAS IT THIS ONE? THEN YOU HAVE ONE WITH LITTLE DOTS THAT SHOWS ALL THE WATER LINES AND SEWER LINES.

THAT'S SPECIFIC TO THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN. IT SHOWS KIND OF EVERY.

ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND I'LL SPEAK TO THAT WITHOUT IT. AND MY APOLOGIES TO MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS.

YOU HAVE TO DIG FOR IT. OKAY, THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT OF THIS TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE IS TO SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND FOR THAT REASON I'M GOING TO ASK. WE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY WANTS TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF REINVESTING TAX DOLLARS INTO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO I TALKED TO DIRECTOR CORTES AND HE HAD SOME SPECIFIC WORDING TO MAKE THAT PRETTY SIMPLE.

I THINK ALL INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS NEED TO BE SEPARATE FROM TIRZ.

THERE WE GO.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT LANGUAGE. YES, SIR.

LOOK AT THAT.

WATER.

BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THAT MAP.

BUT THERE ARE IN THE PRELIMINARY FINANCING PLAN, IT DOES SHOW SOME OF THE LIKE WATER LINES AND STORM SEWER LINES AND SEWER LINES GOING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL. I DON'T THINK WE WANT THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT CLEAR RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO USE THOSE TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

JUST THE COMMERCIAL PART. JUST THE COMMERCIAL PART. SO, DANIEL, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST? YES, SIR.

WHAT I WOULD EFFECTIVELY PUT IN THE MOTION IS TO JUST GO AHEAD AND EXCLUDE ANY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE TIRZ. SIMPLE ENOUGH THANK YOU.

[03:10:01]

I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCIL MAYOR PRO TEM ROBBINS. ALL RIGHT.

MR. MAYOR.

MOTION.

MAY I APPROVE ITEM 7C.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1303. FIRST READING AND DESIGNATING A GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITHIN THE CITY IS A TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 311 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE TO BE KNOWN AS REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER TWO, CITY OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS, DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE, CREATING A BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE ZONE AND APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT FUND FOR THE ZONE CONTAINING FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CREATION OF THE ZONE, PROVIDING A DATE FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE ZONE PLAN FINDING THAT THE ZONE TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE OF THE SECOND READING OF THIS ORDINANCE PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE NOTING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. DESIGNATING TAXING PERMIT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER TWO, TIRZ NUMBER TWO ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE IN TERM OF THE TAX INCREMENT AS NOTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN. DESIGNATING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ZONE AS PRESENTED AND ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN AND EXCLUDING ANY RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE TIERS.

[9.A. MSP26-0001, Master Sign Plan for Shady Oaks Office Condos, located at 515 and 521 W. Southlake Boulevard. ]

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND CAST YOUR VOTES ON 7C. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 7 0 PASSES ON FIRST READING.

WE'LL SEE YOU ALL FOR SECOND READING. WE'RE GOING TO SKIP PAST 8A FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES. WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. AND WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 9AMSP 26, 0001.

MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR SHADY OAKS OFFICE CONDOS LOCATED AT 515 AND 521 WEST SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD. DIRECTOR K.

THANK YOU. ITEM 9A IS A MASTER SIGN APPROVAL REQUEST FOR 515 AND 521 WEST SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD. THIS IS LOCATED JUST ACROSS FROM SHADY OAKS INTERSECTION AND IS KNOWN AS SHADY OAKS OFFICE CONDOS. THIS IS AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE.

THESE ARE THE TWO BUILDINGS INCLUDED IN THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. THE RED SYMBOL IS WHERE PROPOSED ATTACHED SIGN REGULATION IS PROPOSED FOR 521. THE TWO BLUE SIGNS ARE WHERE PROPOSED ATTACHED SIGN REGULATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR 515. AND THEN THE YELLOW SIGN SYMBOLS ARE FOR HANGING SIGNS BEING REQUESTED AS PART OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. THIS IS FLOOR PLAN LAYOUT OF EACH OF THE BUILDINGS WITH THE PROPOSED ATTACHED SIGNS AND HANGING SIGNS REPRESENTED ON THOSE FLOOR PLANS. THIS IS BUILDING 515 IN THE MOST WESTERN TENANT SPACE.

APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO BE PERMITTED ATTACH SIGN THAT HAS MAXIMUM LOGO LETTER HEIGHT OF 36 INCHES FOR THIS LOCATION WITHIN THE CENTER AND ITS DISTANCE FROM THE INTERNAL DRIVEWAY.

MAXIMUM LOGO HEIGHT FOR IT IS 1 FOOT AND 5.5 INCHES I BELIEVE LETTER SIZE TYPICALLY 12 INCHES FOR THIS TYPE BUILDING.

THEY'RE ALSO ASKING FOR HALF INCH SIGN DEPTH TO BE PERMITTED ON THE SIGNAGE. AND THIS IS THE EASTERN MAIN TENANT SPACE FOR BUILDING AT 515. THEY'RE REQUESTING THE SAME PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE SIGNS THAT WOULD GO IN PLACE THERE. THE CURRENT SIGN IS CURRENTLY PERMITTED FOR THAT LOCATION. ON BUILDING 515 WHICH IS THE FURTHER SOUTH BUILDING. THEY ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF HANGING SIGNS INSIDE THE VARIOUS TENANT SPACES FOR SOME OF THE SUBTENANTS WITHIN THE BUILDING SPACE.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE ABILITY

[03:15:03]

TO RETAIN THOSE AND SWITCH TO THOSE OUT AS TENANTS COME IN REMAINING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE PUT IN PLACE. AND HERE'S DETAILS OF THOSE BROADER VIEW OF THE BUILDING AS A WHOLE.

THIS IS 521 WHICH IS THE MORE NORTHERN BUILDING CLOSEST AND MORE VISIBLE FROM WEST SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD. THIS IS THE EXISTING SIGN IN PLACE BUT AS PART OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN THEY ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL TO HAVE CONSISTENT SIGNAGE WITHIN THE BUILDING SPACE AND ALLOW THEIR MAXIMUM LETTER LOGO HEIGHT FOR ANY TENANT TO COME IN THERE TO ALSO MATCH THE DESIGN CRITERIA OF THE OTHER SIGNS AT MAXIMUM 3 FOOT IN HEIGHT AND AS LITTLE AS A HALF FOOT INCH DEEP. NON LIT SIGNAGE. ALSO REQUIRES REQUESTING THE HANGING SIGNS WITHIN THE OPENING AREAS FOR SOME OF THE SUBTENANTS AND REQUEST RETAIN THOSE AND SWITCH THOSE OUT AS TENANTS COME IN AND OUT. THOSE SIGNS ARE ALREADY EXISTING TODAY AND THEY'RE ASKING TO RETAIN THOSE. AND JUST HERE'S SOME OTHER PHOTOS OF 521. THE SIGN BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6.0 AS PRESENTED, ADDING EXCEPTION IF THE HANGING SIGNS THAT ARE PRESENTLY THERE ARE CHANGED WITH ANY OTHER THAN JUST THE BASE CONTENT WITHIN THE FRAME THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NEW SIGN PERMIT OR MODIFY THE MASTER SIGN PLAN. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I CAN.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KILLOUGHUGH. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT ATTACHED BY THE SIGN BOARD ON THAT ONE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DENNIS? THANK YOU, SIR.

APPLICANT HERE ON 9A, COME ON DOWN. IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN GO AHEAD.

YES, SIR. BRANDON GRANBERRY, 1012 NATIVE TRAIL IN HEATH.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SIGN COMPANY, FIRST GRAPHIC SERVICES.

AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE BUSINESS PART IS OUR GOAL.

YES, SIR. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

MAY YOU HANG AROUND FOR A MINUTE? THANK YOU.

9A DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON 9A. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 9A? SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 9A. COUNCIL LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS, YOU KNOW BETTER, GO AHEAD.

I KNOW ANOTHER WAY TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE TO WORK WITHIN OUR SIGN ORDINANCE. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR HANGING SIGNS.

AND AS THE SIGN BOARD APPROVED THAT RESTRICTION THAT IF THEY MAKE ANY MAJOR CHANGES, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK.

BUT I DON'T SEE ANY REASON IN THE WORLD TO GO GIVE THEM MUCH LARGER SIGNS AND LOGOS THAN PERMITTED BY OUR ORDINANCE ACROSS THE BOARD.

IN THESE OTHER BUILDINGS, THEY'RE SET BACK. YOU'RE IN THE. MOST OF THESE ARE IN THE PARKING LOT BY THE TIME YOU GET THERE. SO IT'S NOT HARD TO FIND THE EDWARD JONES WHEN YOU DRIVE IN.

AND THERE'S NO REALLY COMPELLING REASON OTHER THAN THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE BIGGER SIZE.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL ANY, FURTHER DISCUSSION, DOES THAT.

WAS THE HEISTEIN SIGN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY THOUGH? DO WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT HEISTEIN? THE HEISTEIN SIGN HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2011, SO.

SO WAS IT APPROVED, DO WE KNOW? YES, IT WAS APPROVED. THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. SO THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS.

WELL, THEY ARE IN THEIR REQUEST ASKING TO HAVE THE SAME PROVISIONS FOR THE HEISTEIN SIGN. THEY DON'T INTEND TO CHANGE IT NOW, BUT IF THEY EVER DID CHANGE IT

[03:20:02]

TO HAVE THE SAME PROVISIONS TO ALLOW UP TO THAT 36 INCH LETTER LOGO HEIGHT, BUT STILL THEY'RE REQUIRED TO STAY WITHIN THE MINIMUM, OR, EXCUSE ME, THE MAXIMUM AREA THAT THEY'RE PERMITTED TO PLACE A SIGN ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO THEY'RE STILL LIMITED BY SIGN AREA AND SIGN PLACEMENT AS TO WHERE IT CAN GO ON THAT FACADE. THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE SAME POTENTIAL HEIGHT CONSISTENCY WITH THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS.

SO IF I SEE CHANGES, HE'S GOING TO SHRINK IT.

BASICALLY THEY'RE TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING UNIFORM ACROSS THE CORRECT.

YES. THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGE THIS TIME FOR THE EXISTING HEISTEIN SIGN OR THE EDWARD JONES SIGN.

IS THE EDWARD JONES SIGN MAJORITY APPROVED? CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO, YES.

SO EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE NOW THEY'RE GRANDFATHERING IN.

EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS GOING TO SHRINK DOWN WHAT'S THERE IF IT'S REDONE AND MAKE IT UNIFORM ACROSS THE BOARD. MIDDLEMAN 2 IT'LL MAKE HEISTEIN SIGNS SMALLER. HEISTEIN SIGNS BIGGER THAN WHAT THESE. WHAT THESE.

WHAT THESE AREA SIGNS ARE, AREN'T THEY.

IT'S WIDER. THE LETTER SIZE FOR THOSE FOR THE EXISTING SIGN IS SMALLER THAN THE 36 INCHES CURRENTLY. SO IS THE EDWARD JONES THAT'S THERE NOW.

SO ARE THEY PRINTING CARDS THIS PARTICULAR SIGN HERE, THIS THAT'S EXCEEDING THE 36 INCHES AND THEY'RE JUST WANTING TO ALLOW CONSISTENCY AS TENANTS CHANGE SHOULD THEY NEED.