Oct 06, 2025 Town Council Archive

>> TRACY, WE HAVE A SECOND AND THE THIRD.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WERNER.

>> COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SCHIESTEL.

>> COUNCILMEMBER DREW.

>> ITEM K1 PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

ITEM K2, AND JULIE TAYLOR IS GOING TO PRESENT ON THIS ON THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION.

[K.2.Reimbursement Resolution - Consider approval of a resolution declaring expectation to reimburse expenditures with proceeds of future debt in the amount of $79,325,000.00 and authorizing the preparation of the documents associated with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the debt obligations; and providing an effective date. ]

>> MY APOLOGIES. GOOD EVENING.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION FOR THE UP AND COMING BOND ISSUANCE IN JUNE OF 2026.

WITH THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION, THIS WILL ENABLE THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS TO HAVE 100% OF FUNDING AVAILABLE BEFORE THE FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY SO THEY CAN BE ENCUMBERED BEFORE THE AWARD OF THE BONDS OR AWARD OF THE CONTRACTS BEFORE THE BONDS ARE SOLD THIS SUMMER.

THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION WILL ALLOW STAFF TO SATISFY THESE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN START THEIR PROJECTS A LITTLE EARLIER BY GETTING THE CONTRACTS UNDERWAY.

THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION WILL COVER THE PROJECTS COVERED ON THE FISCAL YEAR 25, 26 CIP, WHICH YOU ALL APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AND THEY CAN BE STARTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE IN JUNE OF 2026.

THIS WILL BE FOR PRELIMINARY EXPENDITURES, DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND SUCH.

ALL CONTRACTS WILL COME BEFORE COUNCIL BEFORE ANY CONTRACTS ARE AWARDED FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

THIS RESOLUTION IS FOR $79,325,000, AND IT INCLUDES BOTH THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AND A PORTION OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS THAT WERE APPROVED IN MAY.

THE TOTAL IS STREET IMPROVEMENT AND RECONCILIATION.

RECONSTRUCTION IS 8.5 MILLION WITH FIRE FIGHTING FACILITIES 30 MILLION, PARKS 17.3 MILLION, WATER AND WASTEWATER IS 23 MILLION WITH ISSUANCE COSTS COMING IN AN ESTIMATED 340,000.

THIS IS A LONG LIST OF PROJECTS THAT BARELY FIT ON THERE, BUT IT SHOWS THE CATEGORIES IN WHICH SUMMARIZE DETAIL WHICH I JUST SUMMARIZED.

BUT OF THIS LIST, 23.8 IS FROM THE GO ISSUANCES OF PROPOSITION A AND B FOR THE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PARKS AND THE CAC.

IT'S JUST A PORTION OF IT GETTING STARTED.

THEN 32 MILLION OF THE COS WILL BE FOR THE STREETS AND FIREFIGHTING FACILITIES WITH 23 MILLION COMING IN FOR THE UTILITY SYSTEM PROJECTS.

WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>> ANY COMMENTS? DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> I'LL DO IT. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM K2 AS WRITTEN.

>> TRACY, YOU CAN TAKE THE ROLE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER DREW.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SCHIESTEL.

>> COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WERNER.

>> ITEM K2 PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM K3,

[K.3.Dangerous Dog Ordinance - Consider approval of an ordinance amending Article V, Dangerous Animals, of Chapter 6, Animals, of the Town of Flower Mound’s Code of Ordinances, relating to the Dangerous Dog Ordinance. ]

THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE.

THIS CAME FORWARD TO US AFTER AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN FLOWER MOUND.

WE TOOK ACTION TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AGAIN.

BLAKE, YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION TONIGHT?

[01:00:01]

>> YES, I DO. TODAY I AM HERE TO BRING BACK THE DANGEROUS ANIMAL ORDINANCE.

JUST A LITTLE RECAP ON JULY 7TH.

THAT'S WHEN IT WAS FIRST REQUESTED TO TAKE A REVIEW OF THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE HERE IN THE TOWN.

AT OUR JULY 18TH, TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, WE PRESENTED THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND SHOW THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BENCHMARK CITIES AS WELL AS THE STATE LAW.

FROM THERE, WE'RE HERE TO PROVIDE THE UPDATES TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WERE REQUESTED.

THIS PRESENTATION WILL COVER DIVISION 2 OF THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE WHICH COVERS ANIMALS CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY.

ONCE AGAIN, ALL OF THE DANGEROUS DOG CODES ARE IN THE FLOWER BOUNDS CODE ARE GOVERNED BY THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, CHAPTER 822.

OUR CODE PRETTY MUCH ALIGNS IDENTICALLY TO THE TEXAS STATE CODE AND IT JUST COVERS THE PROCESS FOR SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDMENT, THE HEARING PROCESS, AND THE DESTRUCTION OR RELEASE OF THE ANIMAL.

BUT THERE IS A PART IN THE TEXAS CODE WHERE ALLOWS US TO MAKE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS TO A DANGEROUS DOG CODE, AS LONG AS IT ISN'T SPECIFIC TO A ANIMAL BREED.

THE CHANGES THAT WERE REQUESTED ARE WHAT WILL MAKE OUR DANGEROUS DOG CODE STRAIGHT FROM THE TEXAS STATE CODE.

JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDMENT.

WHAT IT DID IS IT EXTENDED THE CURRENT ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE CASES WHERE A DOG OR OTHER ANIMALS CAUSES SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO ANOTHER ANIMAL.

OUR CURRENT CODE ONLY COVERED IF AN ANIMAL CAUSE SERIOUSLY BODILY HARM OR INJURY TO A PERSON.

THIS ONE JUST MATCHES THE TWO CODES.

IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY APPLIES TO BOTH ANIMALS AND HUMANS AND APPLIES JUST ALL THE SAME PROCESSES INCLUDING THE SEIZURE HEARING AND DISPOSITION PROCEDURES AS A HUMAN INJURY.

TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.

IN THE TOWN'S CODE, THE DANGEROUS DOGS DEFINITION WAS CURRENTLY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY TO A PERSON.

WE JUST CATEGORIZED IT AS SEVERE BITE WOUNDS OR SEVERE RIPPING AND TEARING OF MUSCLES THAT WILL CAUSE A REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON TO SEEK TREATMENT FROM MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND WOULD REQUIRE HOSPITALIZATION WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE PERSON ACTUALLY SOUGHT MEDICAL TREATMENT.

WHAT WE DID IS WE ADDED THAT SECOND DEFINITION INTO IT AS WELL, SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO AN ANIMAL.

THE DEFINITION IS IT MEANS AN INJURY CATEGORIZED BY SEVERE BITE WOUNDS, FRACTURES, OR SEVERE RIPPING AND TEARING OF MUSCLES OR TISSUES THAT WOULD CAUSE A REASONABLY PRUDENT ANIMAL OWNER TO SEEK TREATMENT FROM A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL OR LICENSED VETERINARIAN, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY VETERINARY CARE TO PRESERVE LIFE OR PREVENT FURTHER SUFFERING WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER SUCH CARE WAS ACTUALLY OBTAINED.

ANYTIME IN THE UPDATED OR THE AMENDED EXCUSE ME, DANGEROUS DOG CODE, ANYTIME IT SAYS SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY, IT'S REFERRING TO BOTH PERSON AND AN ANIMAL.

IN THE CURRENT PROCESS IN ORDER FOR AN ANIMAL TO BE DECLARED TO HAVE CAUSE SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY.

THE FIRST STEP IS REALLY THE INCIDENT OCCURS AND THEN A REPORT IS FILED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT.

FROM THERE, THE ANIMAL IS SEIZED WHILE ANIMAL CONTROL INVESTIGATES THE ANIMAL.

THE ANIMAL IS SEIZED WITH A WARRANT AND THEY'RE HELD WITHIN THE ANIMAL SERVICES.

THEY'RE HELD WITHIN ANIMAL SERVICES.

THEN A HEARING IS HELD WITHIN 10 DAYS AND FROM THERE, THE COURT DETERMINES IF THE ANIMAL CAUSE SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY.

IF THE ANIMAL WAS DECIDED TO NOT HAVE CAUSED SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY, IT'S RELEASED BACK TO THE OWNER.

BUT IF IT IS SEEN TO HAVE CAUSED SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, THEN THE ANIMAL CAN BE DISPOSED OF WHICH JUST MEANS THE ANIMAL IS EUTHANIZED BY A LICENSED VETERINARIAN.

THAT IS THE PROCESS FOR IF AN ANIMAL HAS BEEN SEEN TO HAVE CAUSED SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY.

ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES.

>> IT MIGHT BE A BRAN QUESTION THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS MORE PERTAINING TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 822 AND THE ALLOWANCE PERHAPS

[01:05:02]

OF US BEING ABLE TO CHARGE THAT OWNER BACK FOR THE COST OF THE IMPOUNDMENT AND OR THE EUTHANIZATION.

ARE WE ALLOWED TO RECOUP THOSE COSTS?

>> THE STATUTE DIRECTS THAT THE TOWN ASSESS THE COSTS TO THE DANGEROUS DOG.

>> SO BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING THE LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE ANIMALS AS WELL AS HUMANS, DO WE NEED TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE FEE STRUCTURE, OR WOULD THAT BE IMPLIED OR AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED.

>> IT COPIED ALL OF THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO A HUMAN.

>> THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE HUMAN DEFINITION THAT SAID WOULD REQUIRE HOSPITALIZATION?

>> THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS.

>> SO WE JUST HAVE TO THAT.

>> THE ONLY ORIGINAL TEXT HERE IS THE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO AN ANIMAL.

>> THE OTHER TEXTS PRIOR TO THAT THAT YOU'RE BEING SHOWN IS JUST DIRECTLY COPIED FROM THE HEALTH AND SAFETY.

>> THAT'S IT THEN. THANK YOU. THANKS, BLAKE.

>> BLAKE CAN YOU GO TO SLIDE 6?

>> YES.

>> IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSION NO CHANGES SINCE THEN?

>> THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSION.

WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE WORK SESSION WAS THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE WHICH PRETTY MUCH FOLLOWS THE SAME PROCESS UP UNTIL IT GETS TO STEP 4 WHERE THE ANIMAL ISN'T DISPOSED OF, THE OWNER HAS TO HAVE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THE ANIMAL.

BUT THIS IS PART OF DIVISION 2 OF THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.

>> IN THE CASE WE HAD OF THE DOG THAT GOT OUT AND ATTACKED THAT HORSE.

THIS PROCESS WOULD KICK IN IF THIS HAD BEEN ON THE BOOKS AT THE TIME?

>> YES. IF THE DOG OR THE ANIMAL HAD BEEN WENT TO COURT AND IT WAS DECIDED THAT THEY CAUSED SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, THEN THEY WOULD FOLLOW THIS PROCESS.

>> IN ORDER TO START THIS PROCESS, STEP 1, THE OWNER OF THE ANIMAL THAT WAS ATTACKED HAS TO GO AND FILE THIS REPORT WITH THE COURT IN ORDER TO START THIS PROCESS?

>> CORRECT. OR IT'S PRETTY MUCH ANY WITNESS AS WELL, BUT THAT'S THE SAME FOR THE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AS WELL AS DANGEROUS DOGS.

>> I REALLY HAVE A QUESTION.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS SITUATION THAT PROMPTED THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE WAS HORRIFIC.

I READ THROUGH THE ORDINANCE VERBIAGE SEVERAL TIMES JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE RAMIFICATIONS.

THIS WHOLE TIME, I PUT MYSELF ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SUBJECT BEING A DOG OWNER AND A LIFETIME DOG OWNER, DOG LOVER, AND LIFETIME DOG OWNER, BUT ALSO ANIMAL LOVER AND OWNER OF LIVESTOCK AND PETS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE VICTIMIZED IN THEIR STALLS AS THIS PONY WAS.

READING THE WORDS, IT SEEMED A LITTLE HARSH, THE RIPPING AND TEARING FLESH, ETC, BUT ABSOLUTELY SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS AND OUR LIVESTOCK AND OUR PETS.

THE BURDEN IS REALLY ON THE OWNER OF THE DANGEROUS ANIMAL AND THIS EMPOWERS THE POLICE AND THE COURTS TO ENSURE THIS.

I STAND BY THIS ORDINANCE AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME THAT YOU DID IN THIS.

>> THAT'S NO PROBLEM. YES, EXACTLY HOW YOU SAID IT.

ANYTIME THERE SEEMS TO BE A CASE WHERE AN ANIMAL CAUSES SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO AN ANIMAL NOW.

WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, IT WILL ALLOW FOR THOSE SAME PROCEDURES AS IF IT WERE TO ATTACK AT HUMAN.

>> YEAH. GIVES THE COURT THAT ABILITY TO PROCESS GET THIS MOVING FASTER, OR GET IT MOVING, ACTUALLY, WHICH IS GOOD.

>> GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE OR THE STEPS.

YEAH. WHEN THEY FILE THE REPORT FILED.

IF IT'S A WEEKEND FRIDAY NIGHT.

DOES THAT MEAN THE REPORT CAN BE FILED ON A FRIDAY NIGHT TO KICK THAT OFF OR DOES IT? I'M NOT 100%.

MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE POLICE.

>> WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS JUST THE COURT PROCESS.

THEY CAN STILL CALL ANIMAL SERVICES ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND WE'LL GO OUT AND INITIATE.

THEN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY, WE'LL JUST SAY, ALL RIGHT, FILL OUT THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT WE CAN GIVE TO THE COURT OR YOU CAN TURN INTO THE COURT.

IT'S JUST PART OF THE LEGAL PROCESS.

REALLY THE VERY FIRST STEP IS YOU PROBABLY CALL ANIMAL SERVICES FIRST.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ACT QUICK ENOUGH AND WE GET THE ANIMAL INTO A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

>> JUST LIKE WITH THE HORSE WITH THOSE TWO HORSES, WE CAME OUT FIRST AND THEN WE'RE LIKE, WE NEED TO GET THIS INITIATED, PLEASE FILL OUT THIS AFFIDAVIT, AND YOU GET IT TO COURT, AND THAT JUST STARTS THE LEGAL PART OF IT.

WHEN WE SEIZE THE DOGS, WE HAVE 10 DAYS TO GET EVERYTHING GOING, AND SO IT WORKS VERY QUICKLY.

>> I'M HORRIFIED THAT THIS EVEN HAPPENED AND THAT THIS HAD TO COME FORWARD TO US,

[01:10:06]

TO THIS COUNCIL AND THAT WE'RE AT LEAST TAKING ACTION AS FAR AS WE CAN.

THEN THE COURT NOW HAS MORE CONTROL ON GETTING THIS MOVING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED BY THIS.

COUNCIL, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION?

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I CONSIDER A MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WERNER.

>> COUNCILMEMBER DREW.

>> THE DANGEROUS DOG ORDINANCE PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>> WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO SOME PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN ITEM K4,

[Items K.4- K.6]

5 AND 6 TOGETHER.

LEXIN, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTING ON ITEM K4 AND 5, AND THEN I KNOW RAY WATSON, YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMING UP FOR ITEM 6.

WE'LL JUST LUMP THIS ALL TOGETHER AND THEN WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT WHEN I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THAT SOUNDS GREAT. YOU GOT IT EXACTLY RIGHT, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AS MENTIONED, THIS IS OPENING THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR A MIXED USE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE LAKESIDE EAST PROJECT.

THIS HAD PREVIOUSLY COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL IN APRIL, AND IT WAS TABLED AT THAT TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO WORK ON THE APPLICATION TO TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT HE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL.

I'M NOW PRESENTING THE LATEST VERSION OF THE APPLICATION.

HERE'S THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S STILL SHOWING THE EXISTING LAKESIDE DFW PROPERTY BECAUSE AS WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THE DENSITY THAT IS PROPOSED OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF LONG PRAIRIE, THOSE ARE UNITS THAT WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE ORIGINAL LAKESIDE DFW.

THEN HERE IS THE PROPOSAL OF THE NEW PORTION OF THE PROJECT IN RED THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF LONG PRAIRIE.

LAND USE IS CURRENTLY CAMPUS COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE LAKESIDE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND MIXED USE.

THE ZONING FOR THE C-2 PROPERTY, IT'S A SPLIT ZONING WITH TWO PDS, PD-38, AND 39, BUT BOTH HAS COMMERCIAL 2 ZONING CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY, AND IT'S EXCLUDING THIS LITTLE SQUARE HERE.

THIS IS A PIECE OF THE SITE THAT WAS ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE PROJECT.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE.

THIS IS LOOKING WEST ACROSS LAKESIDE.

HERE WE ARE LOOKING NORTH EAST ACROSS LONG PRAIRIE INTO THE SUBJECT SITE.

THEN THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH DOWN OR ACROSS SPINK ROAD ALSO INTO THE SUBJECT SITE.

HERE IS THE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT.

AS MENTIONED, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM CAMPUS COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE LAKESIDE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO MIXED USE.

ZONING AMENDMENT.

THIS IS THE EXISTING LAKESIDE DFW LAKESIDE VILLAGE ZONING.

HERE IS THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE CONCEPT PLAN.

WITHIN THIS AREA, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUB-DISTRICTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.

ONE IS MU-TMR(3).

THAT TMR STANDS FOR MAJOR ROADWAY TRANSITION, AND THEN THIS IS MU-N(2), AND THE N STANDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL HAD 326 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

THE CURRENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES 132 TOWN HOMES, AND 1-2 STORY OFFICE RETAIL BUILDINGS OR RESTAURANTS COULD BE AT THAT NORTHWEST CORNER.

YOU CAN SEE THESE TWO FOOTPRINTS TOOK ITS PLACE.

WHAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE PROPOSAL, THE TOWNHOME BUILDINGS COULD EITHER BE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED OR THEY COULD BE PART OF A CONDO ASSOCIATION.

EITHER WOULD BE AN OPTION AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

TRANSFER OF UNITS.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE ORIGINAL NUMBERS IN THE LAKESIDE CODE, HOW THOSE NUMBERS ARE BEING REFLECTED TO SHOW THE 132 UNITS BEING ADDED TO THE MU-N(2) ZONE IN THIS PROPOSAL.

THERE ARE SOME USE MODIFICATIONS STILL PROPOSED WITH THIS APPLICATION.

[01:15:04]

THE FIRST IS TO PROHIBIT AUTOMOBILE RELATED USES, INCLUDING GAS STATIONS.

THE SECOND IS TO CHANGE THE STANDARDS FOR A FULL SERVICE HOTEL.

THESE STANDARDS WERE WRITTEN IN THE ORIGINAL LAKESIDE DFW CODE.

THE NEW STANDARDS WOULD REQUIRE A PORT CACHE AT THE MAIN ENTRY, A SWIMMING POOL.

IF POOL IS LOCATED OUTDOORS, A MINIMUM 150 SQUARE FEET OF SHADED AREA, A MINIMUM 500 SQUARE FEET OF EXERCISE FACILITY, 800 SQUARE FEET OF MEETING ROOM, 750 SQUARE FEET OF DINING, AND THEN A FURNISHED LOBBY OR LOUNGE.

THE WAY THAT THIS DIFFERS PRIMARILY FROM THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION THAT WAS IN THE LAKESIDE CODE IS IT REQUIRED AN ACTUAL RESTAURANT TO BE ON SITE.

THE APPLICANT WANTED TO CHANGE THAT TO BE A DINING AREA, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A RESTAURANT.

THEY'RE PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT, THEY BELIEVE SOME HIGH END RESTAURANTS IN THE AREA AND THOUGHT THAT IT DIDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE TO COMPETE WITH THE HOTEL.

ALSO, THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION HAD 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEETING AREA, AND SO THEY'RE REDUCING THAT, BUT ADDING SOME REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGES OF OTHER AMENITY AREAS WITHIN THE HOTEL SO THAT IT WOULD STILL MEET THE HIGH EXPECTATIONS OF THE TOWN.

ALSO, DEVELOPMENT STANDARD MODIFICATIONS.

FOR PERCENTAGE OF OPENINGS, DOORS AND WINDOWS, THIS HAS STAYED TRUE TO WHAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE LAST VERSION.

NORMALLY, THE REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF WINDOWS AND DOOR OPENINGS ON THAT FIRST FLOOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

THEY WANT TO NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT IF IT'S A RESTAURANT WITH THE WALL THAT ENCLOSES THE KITCHEN BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT TYPICALLY HAVE WINDOWS LOOKING INTO THE KITCHEN AREA.

THEY WANTED TO ELIMINATE ANY OPENING REQUIREMENT ON THE WALL THAT HOUSE THE KITCHEN.

THEN IF THERE ARE OFFICE BUILDINGS, BE SMALLER SCALE, BUT IF THERE ARE OFFICE BUILDINGS DEVELOPED WITHIN THIS PROJECT, THEY WANTED TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO 85% DOORS AND WINDOWS SPECIFIC TO THE OFFICE BUILDING.

THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE, I BELIEVE 75% WOULD BE THE MAX.

BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ONE BUILDING.

ALSO, THEY'RE ASKING TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES UP TO SIX STORIES FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL BUILDING.

THERE IS STILL AN EARNOUT REQUIREMENT INCLUDED WITHIN THE APPLICATION.

IT SAYS THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY TOWN HOME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SPACE TO INCLUDE COMPLETION OF A BUILDING FINAL INSPECTION INDICATING FINISH OUT PERMITS ARE READY TO BE APPLIED FOR.

THE 15,000 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE MU-TMR(3) SUB ZONE AND SHALL INCLUDE THE BUILDINGS LOCATED BETWEEN THE TOWN HOMES AND FM 2499,SO WITHIN THESE BUILDINGS.

THERE WAS A TYPO WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

IT'S AT 18,000.

THAT ACCIDENTLY GOT COPIED OVER FROM THERE WAS ANOTHER STANDARD THAT SAID ON THE FIRST VERSION THAT SAID THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE AT LEAST 18,000 WITHIN THE FIRST FLOOR, THE MULTI FAMILY BUILDING.

THIS IS SHOWING THE STREET SCAPE AND PARKING, AND SO THIS IS REQUIRED TOWN TRAIL HERE ALONG THE PERIMETER THERE.

THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE STREETSCAPE STANDARDS LOCATED ALONG ALL OF THESE ROADWAYS.

THEN THEY'RE PROPOSING A PARK TRAIL ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WAS SHOWN TO THE PARKS BOARD, THEIR VISION FOR ACTIVATING THAT AREA.

THIS EXHIBIT IS JUST TO SHOW THAT THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FROM THE LAKESIDE CODE, THAT PARKING EXCLUSION WITHIN THE 60-FOOT RADIUS OF THE CORNERS, AND ALSO THE 50% MAXIMUM FRONTAGE ALLOWED FOR PARKING ALONG 2499.

BUILDING HEIGHT, AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THEY'RE REQUESTING SIX STORY HEIGHT FOR THAT HOTEL BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE THERE ON THE SOUTHERNMOST LOCATION ADJACENT TO LAKESIDE.

THE OTHER BUILDINGS WOULD BE TWO STORY MAX FOR THOSE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND THEN THE TOWN HOMES WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF THREE STORIES.

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ARE STILL UTILIZING SOME OF THE SAME PARK AND OPEN SPACE AREAS THAT THEY SHOWED TO THE PARKS BOARD WITHIN THE PARK CREDIT OPTION.

THIS IS AREA 1,

[01:20:02]

WAS CONSIDERED GENERAL OPEN SPACE.

AREA 2 WAS THE RESTAURANT OPEN SPACE, AND AREA 3 WAS THE RETAIL CORNER OPEN SPACE.

OVERALL, IT'S 1.76 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE.

THE PROJECT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE 1.06, THAT'S 5% OF OPEN SPACE OF THE BASE AREA.

THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FROM THE TOWN'S BASE MU ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE LAKESIDE CODE.

THAT'S SEPARATED OUT INTO PLAZAS AND GENERAL OPEN SPACE.

THESE ARE STREET SECTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

TO MAKE THIS VISION WORK, THEY PROPOSED SOME ADDITIONAL STREET SECTIONS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCE.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCES WITH THESE FROM JUST THE TOWN'S REGULAR STREET SECTION, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS WITHIN THE STREET SECTIONS.

WE DON'T NORMALLY DO THOSE WENT IN TOWN STREETS, BUT THEY ARE MAKING THESE PRIVATE STREETS.

WE'RE FINE WITH THEM DOING THEM FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS, THEY'LL BE MAINTAINING THOSE.

THEY ARE MEETING THE NECESSARY WIDTHS.

YOU CAN SEE THESE HAVE THE ANGLED PARKING SPACES.

THIS WOULD BE IN THE MORE COMMERCIAL AREA.

THE RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE WOULD BE WITHIN THE TOWN HOME AREAS.

THEN THERE IS ONE SECTION WHERE IT'S SEPARATED TOWN HOMES ON ONE SIDE AND THE COMMERCIAL AREA ON THE OTHER.

IT'S A SPLIT WITH THE ANGLED ON ONE SIDE AND THE PARALLEL PARKING ON THE OTHER SIDE.

WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO FINALIZE THE DETAILS FOR THE COURTYARD PRIVATE DRIVE.

I'M USING THIS JUST TO SHOW YOU.

BUT THERE IS A SECTION HERE WHERE THE TOWN HOMES ARE FRONTING ON AN OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE MIXED USE CODE ALLOWS FOR.

BUT IF THEY WERE TO BE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS, THEN THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE ON AN OFFICIAL STREET SECTION, AND SO WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT THE DETAILS OF YOW WIDE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE WHERE THE UTILITIES WOULD GET PLACED.

WE'VE STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT ON THAT.

WITH THAT IN MIND, IF THE PROPOSAL IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE TONIGHT, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVING IT WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT WORK OUT THE FINAL DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH STAFF BEFORE FINALIZING.

>> LEXIN ON THOSE STREETS HERE, I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE PRIVATE STREETS, NOT TOWN STREETS.

THAT BEING SAID, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER DIFFERENCES TO WHAT THE TOWN WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE AS FAR AS WIDTH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

>> NOT FOR THESE. I THINK THAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE IS WE WOULD NOT NORMALLY STRIPE THIS.

FOR INSTANCE, ON THE RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE DRIVE.

WE DON'T USUALLY STRIPE THE PARALLEL SPACES.

IF YOU JUST THINK WITHIN LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S EXTRA SPACE SO PEOPLE CAN PARK ALONG THE SIDE, BUT WE DON'T STRIPE IT. THAT'S A DIFFERENCE.

IT'S SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO.

THEN LIKE I SAID, THEY WANTED TO SCOOT THE TREES IN WITHIN THAT AREA.

WE WOULD HAVE PUT THEM ON THE SIDEWALK AREA.

IT'S NOT HOW WE NORMALLY DO THEM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH IT.

>> OKAY. THANKS.

>> THIS IS JUST SHOWING WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE ANYTHING, SO THIS IS MORE OF AN FYI.

IT SAYS SIGN SETBACK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING SIGN SECTION.

THE ONLY THING WOULD BE IF FOR SOME REASON, THESE DIDN'T END UP GETTING PLATTED AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT WOULD TYPICALLY BE PER LOT.

IF FOR SOME REASON THIS WHOLE FRONTAGE WAS ALL ONE LOT, THEN IT WOULD NORMALLY SAY YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE SIGN.

IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE JUST LETTING YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME, THEY WANT TO HAVE THESE MONUMENT SIGNS AT THE CORNERS AND EVERY ENTRANCE POINT.

AS MENTIONED, THIS DID GO TO THE PARKS BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION, AT THE TIME, THERE WAS A LARGER NUMBER OF UNITS.

THAT ONE WAS WITH THE 324 UNITS.

AT THAT POINT, THEY WERE NEEDING TO EQUAL 6.81 ACRES.

AGAIN, THEY HAVE SCALED BACK THE PROVIDED PARK AND OPEN SPACE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH BUILDING OUT THE TOWNHOME UNITS.

IF THIS ENDS UP BEING THE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS AS OPPOSED TO LOTS THAT ARE UNITS THAT ARE PART OF A CONDO ASSOCIATION, THE TOWN HAS A HIGHER PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT,

[01:25:01]

FOR THE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS AND SO THEY WILL HAVE TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE WITH ADDITIONAL PARK FEES IN THAT CASE.

IF IT ENDS UP MOVING FORWARD AS PART OF A CONDO ASSOCIATION, THEN THE OPEN SPACE AND PARK DEDICATION THEY ARE SHOWING IS ADEQUATE.

THESE ARE JUST THE CAPTIONS.

AS MENTIONED, IT'S BOTH A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND A REZONING FOR MIXED USE ZONING.

THERE'S THE FINAL PLAN.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION.

>> THE TWO STORY HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT TOWN REQUIREMENT, OR IS THAT THE APPLICANT REQUEST?

>> FOR THE TWO STORY HERE?

>> IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENT. I MEAN.

THEY COULD PROBABLY POTENTIALLY GO UP TO THREE STORIES IF THEY WANTED TO, BUT THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO DO TWO.

>> THANK YOU. LEXIN YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S NO AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED USES.

THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE CAR WASHES AND REPAIR SHOPS, AND DOES THAT INCLUDE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS?

>> THEY COULD POTENTIALLY REQUEST A DRIVE THROUGH WITH LIKE A BANK OR A DRY CLEANER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT IT'S NOT A USE THAT'S ACTUALLY AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED.

THAT'S MORE OF JUST SAY YOU MIGHT WANT THAT AS FOR EASE OR CONVENIENCE WITH IT, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN SUP TO GO BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

>> THAT'S REASONABLE. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ONE. SORRY. WHEN YOU WERE ON SLIDE, I THINK 16, YOU SAID RECOMMENDATION IF WE DID RECOMMEND TO PROCEED TO DO IT WITH STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT WORKS WITH STAFF ON THE WAS IT PARKING ORIENTATION OR WHAT WOULD BE THE WORDING THAT YOU WOULD PREFER?

>> I THINK YOU COULD JUST SAY TO FINALIZE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

JUST BE THAT WAY, AND THAT LIKE THE STREET SECTIONS REFERENCED, WE'LL GET THAT UPDATED AS WELL.

>> NO QUESTIONS. JIMMY ARCHIE IS COMING FORWARD, I GUESS.

I'M SORRY, RAY, YOU WERE GOING TO TALK FIRST. RAS FIRST.

>> MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.

>> MAYBE. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE FIRST SLIDES PRETTY QUICK BECAUSE LEXIN PRETTY MUCH COVERED THEM.

SITE LOCATION LOOKING FROM WEST TO EAST AL OF THE SITE.

WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY IN THIS 380 AGREEMENT IS STRICTLY THESE TWO SECTIONS.

THIS IS A RETAIL SECTION AND THEN ALSO THE HOTEL SECTION.

ALL THE INCENTIVES ARE ONLY BASED ON THESE TWO SECTIONS OF THE PROJECT.

AS YOU SAW IN SOME OF LEXIN SLIDES, THIS IS THE ACTUAL LAYOUT.

YOU HAVE THE HOTEL SITTING HERE, AND THEN THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS ARE SITTING HERE FACING LONG PRAIRIE ROAD.

FIVE UP TO FIVE RESTAURANTS, 22,500 SQUARE FEET, TWO RETAIL STRIP CENTERS, 15,000 SQUARE FEET, ONE UPSCALE HOTEL AND THEN 132 TOWN HOMES WITH ALL SURFACE PARKING ON THAT.

THE REASON FOR THE SURFACE PARKING IS THAT YOU WENT FROM SEVEN ACRES TO 11 ACRES ON THE HOUSING, AND SO YOU TOOK AWAY A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IN SOME OF THE OTHER COMPONENTS THAT WERE ON THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION, AND THEN IT ALSO PUSHED THE VALUE ON THE ABILITY TO BUILD THE PARKING GARAGE.

THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ALL THE SURFACE PARKING ON THIS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WAS ASKED FOR, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A HOT TAX OF 50% FOR SEVEN YEARS.

THAT WOULD BE REBATED BACK TO THE DEVELOPER AS WELL AS AN AV REAL PROPERTY AND BPP PROPERTY FOR 50% FOR SEVEN YEARS, AND THEN SALES FOR 50% FOR SEVEN YEARS.

THEN THE PERMIT FEES WOULD ALSO BE REBATED.

NORMALLY, WE WAIVE THOSE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION WHERE THIS IS TO OFFSET SOME COSTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT REBATING THOSE FEES INSTEAD OF WAIVING THOSE FEES.

WE WILL BE WORKING WITH FINANCE TO CREATE AN ESCROW ACCOUNT TO ESCROW THOSE FEES, AND THEN THOSE FEES WILL THEN BE REBATED BACK TO THE DEVELOPER.

WE ALSO HAVE IMPACT FEES REBATE AS WELL.

AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE OF, IMPACT FEES GO INTO THE IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT, BUT CANNOT BE PAID OUT OF THAT ACCOUNT.

WE DO THE GRANT OUT OF GENERAL FUNDS.

WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS YOU LOOK ON THE SPREADSHEET ON THAT TOP SECTION, WE'VE ACTUALLY SPREAD THAT GRANT OUT OVER FIVE YEARS, AND THAT'S MORE OF A CASH FLOW ISSUE FROM THE TOWN'S PERSPECTIVE SO

[01:30:02]

THAT WE DON'T GET IN TROUBLE WITH TOO MUCH CASH FLOW GOING OUT AT ONE TIME.

MR. ARCHIE HAS AGREED TO THAT TO HELP WITH THAT CASH FLOW ISSUE.

AS WE LIKE TO SHOW YOU, THIS PROJECT BREAKS EVEN YEAR ONE.

WE'RE MAKING MORE MONEY THAN WE EXPEND.

THAT'S BASICALLY BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL BASED ON WHAT COMES IN FROM THE PROJECT.

ALL OF THESE ARE PERFORMANCE BASED INCENTIVES, AND ALL OF THEM ARE AT LESS THAN 50% EXCEPT FOR THE IMPACT FEES AND THE PERMIT FEES.

WE HIT TOTAL BENEFIT OVER TOTAL COST IN YEAR FOUR AND THEN CUMULATIVE NET BENEFIT OVER TOTAL COST IN YEAR SEVEN.

IT MEETS YOUR STANDARDS THAT YOU'VE SET TO HIT ALL OF THE PAYBACKS WITHIN THAT SEVEN YEAR PERIOD.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN LEXIN IS HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER.

THEN I THINK MR. ARCHIE HAS A PRESENTATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO AS WELL.

>> RAY, YOU SAID EVERYTHING IS PERFORMANCE BASED? YES ON THIS.

IF THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT GO AS PLANNED, THE TOWN'S NOT OUT ANY MONEY.

>> THE ONLY MONEY OUT IS WHATEVER IMPACT FEES WERE PAID AND THEN PAID BACK OUT TO HIM.

BUT YEAH, THE E AND ALL OF THESE ARE DONE ON PERCENTAGES OF WHAT COMES INTO THE TOWN.

ALL THE MONEY THAT WOULD GO BACK TO THE PROJECT, EXCEPT FOR THOSE TWO ARE PAID BACK WITH WHATEVER'S PRODUCED FROM THE PROJECT?

>> THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER 380 AGREEMENTS.

>> YES, SIR.

>> NO. THANK YOU. WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT, JIMMY ARCHIE COME FORWARD AND DO HIS PRESENTATION, IF YOU'RE READY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YOU BACK. I'LL LET YOU DO THAT.

>> DID YOU HAVE MORE LEXIN?

>> NO. I WAS SAYING I THINK I MIGHT HAVE OPENED IT ALREADY. THERE WE GO.

>> THANK YOU, LEXIN. GOOD EVENING TOWN COUNCIL.

MAYOR, T STAFF, AND SEE SOME COMMISSIONERS IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.

MY NAME IS JIMMY ARCHIE WITH REALTY CAPITAL, 909, LAKE CAROLYN PARKWAY, IRVING, TEXAS.

AS USUAL, LEXIN DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING THE REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT.

M PRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE SH TONIGHT.

THIS HAS BEEN A LENGTHY PROCESS FOR US.

I THINK IT'S BEEN A GOOD PROCESS FOR US AND FOR THE TOWN HOPEFULLY.

WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BACK IN MARCH OF 2022 WITH THE HOPES OF EXPANDING LAKESIDE, ON TO THIS FOURTH UNDEVELOPED CORNER ACROSS THE STREET.

WE UNDERTOOK A LENGTHY PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS WHERE WE REACHED OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, HELD PUBLIC MEETINGS, HAD LOTS OF DIALOGUE TO SEE IF AN EXPANSION OF LAKESIDE WAS SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY THE FOLKS ON THE SOUTHERN END OF TOWN WHO THE PROJECT WAS NEAR THEIR HOMES.

MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THIS IDEA OF EXPANDING A MIXED USE PROJECT OF SOME NATURE, ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WE FELT CONFIDENTLY THAT THERE WAS.

WE MOVED FORWARD, APPLIED FOR THE MIXED USE ZONING APPLICATION.

MID ZONING APPLICATION, WE WERE APPROACHED BY HEB, ABOUT POSSIBLY PUTTING A GROCERY STORE DOWN HERE.

WE KNOW HEB HAS BEEN ONE OF THE TOP RETAILERS WANTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN.

WE PUT OUR ZONING APPLICATION ON PAUSE, WANTED TO VET THAT INTEREST TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE.

THEY REJECTED THE SITE ULTIMATELY TWO TIMES.

PARTLY, FOR LACK OF DENSITY DOWN IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF TOWN, BUT PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY BUILT A STORE IN THE COPPELL AREA THAT THEY FELT WOULD DRAW FROM THIS PART OF FLOWER MOUND.

WE REV THE ENGINE BACK UP ON THE MIXED USE ZONING APPLICATION.

WE CAME BEFORE THE COUNCIL IN MARCH, AND HERE WE ARE IN OCTOBER WITH A REPRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, ESSENTIALLY KEEPING THE CONCEPT IN PLACE OF A WALKABLE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, BUT REMOVING APARTMENTS AND REPLACING THEM WITH TOWN HOMES.

WHEN WE LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE TODAY, THE REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT CONTINUE TO ESTABLISH A FRONT DOOR, TO TOWN THAT DEMONSTRATES QUALITY AND WELL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

AGAIN, THIS PROJECT, SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL BACK IN MARCH, ESTABLISHES THE ONLY FOUR WAY INTERSECTION IN DALLAS FORT WORTH, DESIGNED IN SUCH A COMPLIMENTARY MANNER.

[01:35:03]

NOTHING CHANGES ABOUT THAT.

THESE REVISIONS CONTINUE TO ENSURE ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY, AND LAND PLANNING COHESIVENESS WITH THE REST OF LAKESIDE.

THIS REVISION SUBSTITUTES TOWN HOMES IN PLACE OF APARTMENTS, THEREBY REDUCING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

BUT ALLOWS US TO RETAIN A SMALL AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL TO HELP ACTIVATE THE WALKABILITY OF THE PROJECT.

AGAIN, IT RETAINS THE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY NATURE OF THE PROJECT.

THE REVISIONS CONTINUE TO REMOVE THE UNDESIRABLE C2, USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY.

AS LEXIN MENTIONED, IT REMOVES NON DISCRETIONARY RIGHT TO DRIVE.

ANYTHING THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DRIVE THROUGH FOR, WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO HAVE DISCRETION OVER THAT.

AGAIN, IT RETAINS THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO HELP IN THE RECRUITMENT OF DESIRED RETAILERS AND RESTAURANTS, AS WELL AS SUPPORTING THE BUSINESSES AS CUSTOMERS AFTER OPENING.

THE RETAIL SERVES THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL SERVES THE RETAIL, AND WE MAINTAIN THAT INTEGRITY EVEN WITH THIS REVISION.

THE REVISIONS RETAIN THE PROGRAM OPEN SPACES.

AGAIN, THE NATURE TRAIL PART TO THE EAST, THE ARTS PLAZA, ENTERTAINMENT PLAZA, AND ACTIVITIES PLAZA, NOTHING'S CHANGED ABOUT THAT.

IT SUPPORTS THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE EXISTING LAKESIDE PROJECT RATHER THAN BEING DETRIMENTAL WITH UNDESIRED USES IN ARCHITECTURE.

THIS WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY WHEN WE DID OVER 3.5 YEARS AGO WAS PARTLY TO PROTECT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WORKED SO HARD ON, AND CREATE SOMETHING COMPLIMENTARY ACROSS THE STREET AND NOT THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED ACROSS 24 HOURS AND NIGHTS.

THEN FINALLY, YOU KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING I'M EXTREMELY PLEASED ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS, OUR COMPANY MAYBE LOOKS AT THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY BEFORE AGREE TO A PLAN OR AN ORDINANCE.

WE LOOK AT THE END, AND WE WORK OURSELVES BACKWARDS, AND WE MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT WE AGREE TO, WE'RE NOT JUST AGREEING TO GET ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE AGREEING AND WE'RE MAKING CHANGES WITH THE END GOAL IN MIND, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY AN EXECUTABLE PROJECT.

THIS REVISION, WE BELIEVE ALIGNS WITH THE VISION OF TOWN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ATTRACTING QUALITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LIMITING APARTMENT LAND USES.

IT PROVIDES BOTH SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING RESIDENTS, AND THERE WERE RESIDENTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION BACK IN MARCH, BUT IT PROVIDES EVERYBODY WITH A PROJECT THAT SERVES THEIR STATED WANTS AND NEEDS.

ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT BACK IN MARCH, WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT IN THIS REVISED APPLICATION.

FINALLY, YOU TAKE EVERYTHING COMPREHENSIVELY, IT MEETS THE ECONOMIC BUSINESS GOALS, OF THE DEVELOPER, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION.

HOPEFULLY, YOU PUT ALL THREE OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

THIS COMES OUT TO BE A WIN-WIN WIN IF WE'RE ABLE TO GET YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT.

WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

>> JIMMY, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION.

ONE OF THE GOALS THAT WE HAD FOR THIS WAS TO TRY TO HAVE THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OWNERSHIP.

THE BEST WAY I THOUGHT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WAS BY PLATTING THEM INDIVIDUALLY SO THEN THEY COULD BE SOLD AS THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE, HOW DOES A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ACCOMPLISH THAT, BUT ALSO SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO?

>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO DO IS SUBDIVIDE THE RESIDENTIAL TRACT INTO AS MANY SEPARATE OWNERSHIP PARCELS AS RESIDENCES WE'RE BUILDING.

IF WE'RE ABLE TO PLAN FOR 132 UNITS, THAT WOULD MEAN THERE'D BE 132 SEPARATELY PLATTED LOTS, EACH WITH THEIR OWN TAX ACCOUNT, EACH SUBDIVIDED, ABLE TO BE SEPARATELY OWNED.

IF WE CHOOSE TO GO THE CONDOMINIUM ROUTE,

[01:40:02]

THERE WOULD BE ONE LOT, BUT THAT ONE LOT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A RECORDED CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION THAT SUBDIVIDES THE PROPERTY INTO HOWEVER MANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WE'RE GOING TO BUILD.

IT'S REALLY JUST A DIFFERENT WAY TO LEGALLY SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.

>> BECAUSE WE DON'T YET KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE THE TOWN HOME BUILDER, OUR COMPANY DOES NOT BUILD JUST STRAIGHT TOWN HOME COMMUNITIES, SO WE WILL BE RECRUITING A TOWN HOME BUILDER.

BUT THIS GIVES US THE FLEXIBILITY.

THERE'S SOME CONSTRUCTION THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT DOING PRIVATE STREETS, IF IT'S A CONDOMINIUM, IT'S FIRE LANES AND EASEMENT.

IT'S REALLY MORE IN THE CONSTRUCTABILITY OF THE BUILDINGS.

YOU WON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE WALKING OR DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, WHETHER IT'S A CONDOMINIUM OR A SEPARATELY PLOTTED LOT, YOU WOULD ONLY KNOW THAT IF YOU WENT TO THE TAX RECORDS AND SAW, IT WOULD EITHER BE A UNIT OR A LOT.

HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS A QUESTION.

>> THIS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PRETTY TYPICAL.

>> FOR EXAMPLE, LAKESIDE TOWER IS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> THE TOWN HOMES AROUND THE GARAGE AT LAKESIDE TOWER IS A CONDOMINIUM OR CONDOMINIUMS. SO YES.

>> OKAY. YEAH. THANKS, JIMMY GOOD JOB.

>> SO THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS THE NUMBER OF STORIES, TWO STORIES.

DOES IT ALLOW YOU SOME FLEXIBILITY IF WE ALLOWED SOME BUILDINGS TO GO TO THREE, IF YOU MIGHT.

>> THE ONLY ONE THAT MIGHT IS THAT THE SPHINX AND LONG PRAIRIE CORNER.

THE OTHER BUILDINGS ARE PRETTY WELL DESIGNED.

WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO BUILD THERE.

WHEN YOU HAVE VERY SMALL BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, YOU CAN'T GO VERTICAL BECAUSE YOU NEED STAIRCASES AND ELEVATORS.

THE BUILDING ON THE CORNER, IT WOULD HELP US IF THAT WERE UP TO THREE STORIES, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU THINKING OF IT. YEAH.

>> YEAH. ORIGINALLY, YOU HAD A BIGGER OFFICE SPACE THERE IF WE ALLOWED YOU TO GO UP TO THREE OR FOUR STORIES.

>> I WOULD THINK EVEN IF WE DID ONE OFFICE BUILDING ON THAT CORNER, MOST LIKELY, IT'S GOING TO BE TWO STORIES.

I JUST I DON'T KNOW.

LEXIN, THAT'S ALL ONE ZONE.

IS THERE A WAY TO SEPARATE OUT THAT ONE CORNER IN TERMS OF BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM THE REST OF IT? IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD WORK OUT?

>> YES. I THINK WE COULD WORK THAT OUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

I MEAN, IT'S ALSO FINE IF YOU JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WHOLE ZONE CAN BE UP TO THREE STORIES, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO BUILD THEM THAT TALL.

>> YEAH. I MEAN, MY THOUGHT IS THAT THIS AREA IS NOT REALLY WELL SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL IF IT GIVES YOU SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY.

>> I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR THE CORNER LOT IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

>> I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANKS FOR WORKING WITH US AND BRINGING BACK PROPOSAL AND TRYING TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

>> YEAH, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE REALIZE THE HOURS AND HOURS.

EVERYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL HAS SPENT LOOKING AT ALL THIS AND JIMMY ARCHIE PUTTING ALL THE TIME IN TO MAKE THESE REVISIONS TO GET CLOSER TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, BUT TRYING TO GET SOME OWNERSHIP OVER THERE.

AND DOING THE BEST BUSINESS AS POSSIBLE OVER THERE.

I WANT TO DOVETAIL INTO THAT FOR ONE SECOND BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE PLANNED.

BUT THIS MIGHT BE THE LAST TIME WE GET TO WORK TOGETHER ON A PROJECT.

I WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME WORDS OF APPRECIATION AND COMPLIMENTARY COMMENTS ABOUT HOW HARD YOU WORK.

WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, YOU DO IT, AND I ALWAYS FEEL LIKE IF THERE'S A CHALLENGE PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT.

IF YOU CAN'T DO IT, NO ONE CAN.

BUT I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, I'VE REALLY ENJOYED WORKING WITH YOU AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TREMENDOUS EFFORTS IN HELPING FLOWER MOUND BE THE BEST THAT WE CAN BE.

>> OKAY.

>> VERY WELL. WELL, JIMMY, THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE TWO COMMENT CARDS.

I SAW SOMEBODY PUT ANOTHER COMMENT CARD OVER THERE.

>> THAT IS FOR ITEM K8.

[01:45:02]

>> OUR FIRST SPEAKER ON PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLAYTON FLURRY.

>> MAYOR, COUNCIL.

THE REST OF YOU HARD WORKING FOLKS FOR THIS TOWN.

THANKS FOR LET ME BE HERE AND SPEAK AND JIMMY AND TEAM, THANKS FOR HAVING THE PATIENCE OF JOB. I TELL YOU.

ON A SIDE NOTE, I WISH THEY HADN'T LEFT YET BECAUSE I WANTED THEM TO KNOW AND MAY THE RECORD STAND THAT THOSE NOT LAKESIDE BUT THE CULTURAL ART CENTER, EVERY ONE OF THOSE THREE RENDERINGS HAD A FB AREA APPROVED.

FLORES BURGERS WOULD GO GREAT REALLY WOULD GO THERE.

IN ALL SERIOUS THOUGH, CLAYTON FLURRY, 2005 FOXBORO TRAIL, AN EIGHTH OF A MILE FROM THAT LOCATION RIGHT THERE ON THAT MAP.

WELL, FIRST, AS A RESIDENT, AN EIGHTH OF A MILE FROM THERE, I SUPPORT THIS AND I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORS I TALK TO.

IN FACT, I HAVEN'T TALKED TO A NEIGHBOR THAT SAYS, NO WAY.

WE SUPPORT THIS AS NEIGHBORS. WE TRULY DO.

YES, WE WILL BE DOING NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AND WE HOPE TO SEE SOME OF ALL THERE TOMORROW.

THEN AS A BUSINESS OWNER IN THIS TOWN, ONE OF WHICH IS IN LAKESIDE, WE TALK TO PEOPLE DAILY, THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE A WEEK.

NOT ALL OF THEM ABOUT THIS PROJECT, BUT THE ONES THAT THIS DOES COME UP, IT WAS A HEAD SCRATCHER WHEN THIS THING CONTINUED TO DIE ON THE VINE, IF YOU WILL, AND I'LL TELL YOU THE SUPPORT IS REAL FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IT TRULY IS, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT FOR EVERYBODY, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, I LIVE BREATHE THIS AREA EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I KNOW WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE PEOPLE IN THIS AREA WILL SUPPORT THIS, WHAT JIMMY AND THE RESIDENTS AND THE BUSINESS OWNERS IN LAKESIDE PROPER HAVE PUT TOGETHER DOWN THERE SO FAR AS THE COMMUNITY WITHIN THIS GREAT TOWN COMMUNITY, IT'S SIMPLY AMAZING.

IT TRULY IS. SO MUCH FOR THE RECORD, I COULD HAVE NAMED THIS NEW DESSERT WE'RE GOING TO DO AT OUR LAKESIDE STORE, AFTER MY DAUGHTER OR AFTER MY NEW PUPPY, WHICH, BY THE WAY, I TOOK A PICTURE, WE'LL LET OUR DOG KNOW OF THIS NEW DON'T BITE PEOPLE ORDINANCE COMING OUT.

BUT WE'VE GOT THIS NEW DESSERT.

OUR FIRST DESSERT AT FLURRY'S LAKESIDE, AND WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT THE LAKESIDE SCOOP.

IT'S AN AMAZING DESSERT.

WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT IT LATER.

NOW IT'S NOT THE PLACE, BUT WE COULD HAVE NAMED IT ANYTHING, BUT WE NAMED IT AFTER THE COMMUNITY WHICH WE OPERATE IN AND WHICH WE TRULY LOVE.

IF WE CAN GET MORE OF LAKESIDE IN THIS TOWN, IT'S A WIN. THANKS, TOM. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE TODD BECK.

>> GOOD EVENING, TODD BECK, 10845, PANALS HALLS DRIVE AND ARGO.

MAYOR, TOWN COUNCIL, MAYOR.

I APOLOGIZE EARLIER FOR INFORMALLY ADDRESSING YOU. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE CAN RE ADDRESS HERE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

BUT FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE DEVELOPER FOR ALL THE CHANGES AND STUFF THAT HE HAS MADE.

REALLY ALIGNED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF P&Z AND TOWN COUNCIL.

YOU GUYS TALK MENTIONED TO YOU ABOUT THE TIME HAS PUT FORTH.

APPRECIATE ALL YOUR GUYS' EFFORTS AS WELL.

I KNOW P&Z HAD MANY LONG NIGHTS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

BUT THE CHANGES WERE MADE, I THINK, AGAIN, ALIGNED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE THERE, AND IT REALLY TRULY KEEPS THE CONSISTENCY OF LAKESIDE DFW, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB IN BUILDING OUT.

UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T LIVE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF MY WAY, BUT I DO DRIVE THROUGH IT EVERY NIGHT ON THE WAY HOME.

I'LL DEFINITELY BE STOPPING THERE MORE FREQUENTLY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. BUT THANK YOU.

>> WELL, THIS IS EXCITING.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE.

>> I THINK SHOULDN'T WE DELIBERATE FIRST?

>> WELL, IF ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, WE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN SUPPORT OR WHATEVER.

>> I DO HAVE A COUPLE THINGS TO SAY.

HATS OFF TO REALTY CAPITAL.

YOU ALL HAVE DONE A HECK OF A JOB.

YOU'VE COME BACK TIME AND TIME AGAIN, DONE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED OF YOU.

WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD AND MENTIONED THE SURVEY OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

THERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING RESPONSE AS TO WHAT WAS WANTED AND WHAT WAS DESIRED FOR LAKESIDE EAST.

WHEN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CAME BACK, OR I SAY THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL CAME BACK, THIS SPRING IS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS, EXCEPT FOR WE HAD THE MULTIFAMILY WITH A STRUCTURED PARKING.

WE HAD THE LARGER OFFICE ON THAT NORTHWEST CORNER.

OVERWHELMINGLY, THE RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THAT, THAT WERE IN THAT IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND LAKESIDE IN THE SHINING AREA WERE OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT.

[01:50:01]

WE HEARD VERY FEW THAT WERE AGAINST THAT.

SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP ARE VERY VALID CONCERNS.

WE DON'T WANT TOO MUCH DENSITY, WE DON'T WANT TRAFFIC IMPACTS.

WHEN WE HAD OUR TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER TALK ABOUT THE C2 VERSUS THE PROPOSAL BACK IN THE SPRING, WHAT WAS PROPOSED EVEN WITH THE MULTIFAMILY IS GOING TO BE LESS TRAFFIC THAN THE ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED C2.

THAT ALSO PROVIDED A VERY GOOD TRANSITION BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL TO THE EAST.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR STRUCTURED PARKING AT YOUR MULTIFAMILY, AND THEN YOU TRANSITION INTO THE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL.

I THINK THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD PROPOSAL.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT DID NOT GET THE TRACTION THAT WAS NEEDED.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS PALATABLE.

ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SAY, AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE A WONDERFUL QUALITY DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER DOES COME AT A COST.

WITH THE CHANGE IN REDUCING ABOUT 193 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM THE MULTI FAMILY TO THE TOWNHOUSES.

WE'RE REDUCING 193 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, NOT A MEANINGFUL IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.

HOW ARE WE ARE SACRIFICING ABOUT 360 SOME ODD THOUSAND DOLLAR OF TAX REVENUE TO THE TOWN PER YEAR? THIS COMES AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE FINANCIALLY CHALLENGED AS A TOWN, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERY WAYS TO TRIM OUR BUDGET TO FIND EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE CAN SQUEEZE, AND THIS IS GOING TO COST US SOME TAX REVENUE.

IN ADDITION, THE 380 AGREEMENT, $5 MILLION OVER SEVEN YEARS.

GRANTED, THAT IS REIMBURSEMENT MONEY, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE AT RISK OF THAT MONEY UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUCCESSFUL AND BRINGS IN THE REVENUE THAT WE ALL KNOW WHAT WILL COME IN.

ALL THAT TO BE SAID, I THINK THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER PROPOSAL FOR THE TOWN'S PERSPECTIVE.

THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE PHENOMENAL FOR THE AREA.

I SHARE THE EXCITEMENT. I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A WONDERFUL ADDITION, AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

>> I WAS AGAINST APARTMENTS.

I WAS EVEN MORE AGAINST C2.

I DO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP.

I THINK THIS IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PREVIOUS PLAN IN THAT RESPECT.

I THINK THAT I ALSO APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT WAS DONE TO SATISFY OUR CONCERNS.

I APPRECIATE THAT ALSO.

>> WELL, JIMMY OFFERED US A CHOICE.

HE OFFERED US IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, EITHER C2 ZONING, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE WANT.

WE SEE THE GAS STATION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT INTERSECTION OR AN ELEVATED COMMERCIAL PROJECT, WHICH WE KNOW REALTY CAPITAL CAN EXECUTE AND DOES A GREAT JOB.

UNFORTUNATELY, THAT REQUIRES AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE TO MOVE FORWARD, AND THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE HE PROPOSED WAS A MULTI FAMILY PROJECT, WHICH IS JUST NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF FLOWER MOUND ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN AS WE KNOW.

TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN TO STILL GET THE ELEVATED COMMERCIAL PROJECT, WE HAD TO STEP IN AND PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE IN THE FORM OF THIS 380 AGREEMENT.

JIMMY WORKED WITH US AND HE'S STILL GETTING A QUALITY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT OUTCOME. IT'S NOT PERFECT.

BUT IT'S A REALLY GOOD COMPROMISE, AND I THINK THAT JIMMY IS A GREAT PARTNER.

HE'S THE ONLY PARTNER THAT I WOULD PROBABLY TRUST WITH A PROJECT LIKE THIS, AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS 380 BECAUSE BY INCREASING IMPACT FEES TO 100%, BY NOT DOING IT TOURS IN THAT AREA, IT REALLY GAVE US A SEAT OF THE TABLE TO HAVE THESE NEGOTIATIONS, AND I TRUST THIS DEVELOPER COMPLETELY, SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS.

>> THAT'S REALLY GOOD TO HEAR. WE AGREE, ADAM.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, ASHLEY, WAS THE POINT THAT CHRIS BROUGHT UP, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION TO INCREASE AT THE DEVELOPERS DISCRETION, THE STORIES TWO, WAS IT THREE OR FOUR?

>> IT WAS UP TO FOUR, I THOUGHT.

WAS IT UP TO THREE. CHRIS, DID YOU SAY FOUR?

>> THREE.

>> I'M LOOKING AT JIMMY THERE.

>> AS LONG AS IT'S NOT 6, 7.

>> THREE OR FOUR.

>> NO ONE GOT THAT JOKE. YOU GOT IT. YOU HAVE TEENAGERS.

>> I JUST WANT TO TIE INTO THAT.

I APPRECIATE JIMMY FOR WORKING WITH US TO REMOVE THE MULTI FAMILY TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS ON SOME OF THE DENSITY.

I THINK THIS IS A VASTLY IMPROVED PROJECT, AND I AGREE REALTY CAPITAL IS GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB.

THEY'RE GOING TO NO GET OUT OF THE PARK, AND I THINK IT BRINGS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT IN FIRE THE QUALITY RESTAURANTS, THE OFFICE, ANOTHER HOTEL.

YEAH, LOOK FORWARD TO THIS ONE.

>> YES, BUT DEFINITELY BEEN A LABOR OF LOVE.

WAS IT THREE OR FOUR?

>> THREE.

>> YEAH. THREE. THREE.

>> THEN YOU HAVE TO DO ALL OF THE SEPARATE SEPARATELY?

>> THEY ALL HAVE TO BE SEPARATELY.

THEN WHICH ONE GETS THE MENTION ABOUT FINALIZING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS?

[01:55:06]

IS THAT EACH OF THEM HAS TO HAVE THAT TWO OR JUST FOUR?

>> THAT WAS FOUR.

>> THE ZONING ITEM.

>> THAT'S FOUR.

>> FIVE. THAT'S FIVE. I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.

I'LL JUST SAY I MOVED TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM K4 AS WRITTEN.

>> TRACY.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, MARTIN?

>> FOUR PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM K5 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT WORKS WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND.

[BACKGROUND]

>> INCLUDING THREE STORIES FOR THE TWO BUILDINGS MENTIONED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

>> IT'LL BE UP TO THREE STORIES.

>> UP TO THREE STORIES.

>> WE CAN TAKE THE ROLL. WE HAD A SECOND.

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM K6 AS PROPOSED.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM MARTIN?

>> ITEMS, K4, 5, AND 6 PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

CONGRATULATIONS, JIMMY ARCHIE.

LEXIN IS GOING TO DO ANOTHER PRESENTATION ON ITEM K7 ON THE BROOKVIEW PHASE 1A.

[K.7.SSP25-0003 - Brookview Phase 1A - Consider a request for a Subdivision Site Plan (SSP25-0003 - Brookview Phase 1A) to create a residential subdivision with certain exceptions, modifications, and waivers to the Code of Ordinances. The property is generally located north of Cross Timbers Road and east of Canyon Falls Drive. (PZ recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 at its September 22, 2025, meeting.) ]

THIS IS IT. THAT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

THIS IS A SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN FOR BROOKVIEW PHASE 1A.

THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND THAT'S WHY IT'S COMING BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

HERE IS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.

THE ORANGE IS THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDOUT, AND THEN THERE AT THE CORNER IS AMENITY AND DETENTION POND THAT'S ALSO BEING BUILT AS PART OF THIS FIRST PHASE.

HERE'S A MORE DETAILED VIEW.

THE LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN RETAIL FOR THE CORNER, AND THE ZONING IS PD-202 WITH SF-5 AND RETAIL TWO USES.

A MODIFICATION TO THE STREET BUFFER LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED.

THE COUNCIL MAY RECALL.

WE JUST RECENTLY CREATED THIS EXCEPTION PROCESS.

TYPICALLY, AN APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE 25-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

THAT BUFFER CAN BE EXTENDED SOME, BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T HAVE THINGS BETWEEN IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU COULD JUST SAY THE BUFFER EXTENDED PAST ALL THE HOUSES AND THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

IN THIS CASE, THE DETENTION POND IS COMING IN THE MIDDLE THERE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE LIKE, THEN THEY NEED TO GET THE EXCEPTION TO GO AHEAD AND CAPTURE THESE TREES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE POND TO COMPLETE THEIR LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

THEY ARE STILL PROVIDING THE SAME NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES AS WOULD TYPICALLY BE PROVIDED.

THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EASEMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT HERE ALONG 1171 THAT WILL NOT ALLOW PLANTING WITHIN THEM.

IT'S JUST NOT AN OPTION TO MEET IT WITHIN THAT FIRST 25 FEET.

THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE REQUESTED THIS MODIFICATION OR EXCEPTION APPROVAL.

THE NEXT ONE IS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ENTRY AND SIGNAGE.

THE TOWN HAS A STANDARD THAT SAYS RESIDENTIAL ENTRY SIGN FACE MAY NOT EXCEED 60 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS ALSO A RELATIVELY NEW STANDARD BECAUSE BEFORE THIS, WHEN DEVELOPMENT PLANS USED TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER WOULD ALWAYS PUT WHATEVER THEIR PROPOSED SIGNAGE WAS AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION, AND SO THEN THE COUNCIL COULD DECIDE WHATEVER THEY THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT.

BUT ONCE WE STARTED BASED ON CHANGES FROM THE LEGISLATURE, WE STARTED APPROVING THESE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THEN THE SUBDIVISION SITE PLANS ADMINISTRATIVELY.

WE HAD TO CREATE A STANDARD FOR WHAT THESE WOULD MEET TYPICALLY, AND THEN IF THERE WAS ANY REQUEST TO MODIFY THAT, IT WOULD GO ON TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AS AN EXCEPTION REQUEST.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

[02:00:01]

YOU SAID THE TYPICAL STANDARD, WE WROTE IN WAS 60 FEET.

THE APPLICANT WAS INITIALLY REQUESTING 108 SQUARE FEET.

THIS IS THE REQUEST THAT WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THEY HAVE TWO SIGNS.

ONE THAT'S HERE AT CLEAR VIEW, AND THEN THIS ONE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE AT THAT ENTRANCE.

THIS WAS SHOWING WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING, A 108 SQUARE FEET.

P&Z THOUGHT THIS WAS TOO LARGE.

THEY DIDN'T SUPPORT IT.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY DICTATE A NUMBER, SO THEY ASKED THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AND POTENTIALLY TALK TO COUNCIL TO SEE WHAT ALL WOULD BE OPEN TO.

THIS IS WHAT THEY'VE COME BACK WITH.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 80 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF 60.

YOU CAN SEE THE COMPARISON FOR THE 60 SQUARE FEET.

IT WOULD BE 22 INCH LETTER HEIGHT, AND SO THIS WOULD JUST EXTEND IT TO 25 INCH LETTER HEIGHT.

THEN THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 3.5 FEET AS OPPOSED TO JUST THREE FEET.

FOR THAT OVERALL THAT B FOR THE TOP THERE.

THAT'S SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE AND WHAT THEY ARE NOW REQUESTING FOR THE 80 SQUARE FEET.

>> LEXIN, DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT COMPARES TO THE EXISTING CANYON FALLS AND TRAILWOOD ENTRANCE SIGNS?

>> IT'S DEFINITELY LARGER THAN TRAILWOOD.

FOR CANYON FALLS, I WOULD NEED TO TRY TO RESEARCH THAT.

THE CANYON FALLS ONE DIDN'T GO THROUGH OUR NORMAL PROCESS.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS CROSSING CITIES AND ALL OF THAT, BUT IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH OUR STANDARD PROCESS FOR THEIR SIGNAGE.

>> I THINK IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE, ISN'T IT? IS IT ON THE LEFT WHEN YOU DRIVE IN OR IS IT ON THE RIGHT?

>> NO, IT'S IN FLOWER MOUND.

>> JUST TO WALK THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN.

AGAIN, HERE IS THAT BLOCK FOR THE AMENITY DETENTION POND.

THIS IS THE FIRST SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ADJACENT TO CROSS TIMBERS.

YOU CAN SEE HERE ARE THE TWO ENTRANCES WHERE THE SIGNS ARE PROPOSED.

AGAIN, HERE'S CLEAR VIEW, AND THEN THIS IS THE OTHER ENTRANCE.

THIS IS LOOKING AT THE SITE, LOOKING NORTH UP THAT FIRST ENTRANCE SITE, WHERE THIS SIGN WOULD BE.

THIS IS LOOKING UP WHERE CLEAR VIEW WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, WHERE THE OTHER SIGN WILL BE LOCATED.

THEN THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THE DETENTION POND.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LITTLE WATER THERE ALREADY, WHERE THAT WILL BE EXPANDED INTO AN AMENITY POND.

THIS IS STARTING FROM THE NORTH.

THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD OUT DENTON CREEK AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS COMING NORTH GOING DOWN SOUTH.

THEY'RE NOT BUILDING THAT RESIDENTIAL SECTION THAT'S FARTHEST NORTH.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD DENTON CREEK AND THEN PICK UP THE SUBDIVISION HERE.

THEN IT'LL JUST CONTINUE ON DOWN, IT'S BROKEN INTO SECTIONS BECAUSE IT'S A RELATIVELY LARGE PLAN.

THEN THIS IS THE BOTTOM SECTION THAT'S ALONG CROSS TIMBERS.

HERE AGAIN, IS THAT AMENITY DETENTION POND OR RETENTION POND.

HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

HERE'S THE CLEAR VIEW ENTRANCE, THE LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

THIS IS CONTINUING EAST ALONG CROSS TIMBERS, JUST SHOWING YOU THE LANDSCAPING THERE.

THEN THIS IS GOING UP DENTON CREEK BOULEVARD TO ITS IN SECTIONS, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT'LL GO HERE TO HERE TO HERE, JUST CONTINUING NORTH.

THEN THE LAST SECTIONS OF DENTON CREEK IN THE AREA WHERE THEY'RE NOT CONSTRUCTING THE HOMES YET.

HERE IS THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S PROPOSED AROUND.

THEY HAVE AN AMENITY AREA WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION AS WELL FOR THOSE RESIDENTS AND BACK TO THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN AROUND THAT POND AT THE CORNER.

HERE'S JUST THE FINAL TWO IMAGES TO REMIND YOU WHERE THOSE WOULD BE LOCATED.

AGAIN, THERE ARE THE MODIFICATION EXCEPTION REQUESTS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS.

THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> NO QUESTIONS. YEAH. WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS MIKAYLA CREIER.

I'M WITH MESA DESIGN GROUP.

OUR OFFICE IS IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS, 2001 NORTH MAR STREET.

GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THIS.

[02:05:02]

THERE WE GO. YES. WE ARE REQUESTING FOR OUR TWO ENTRY SIGNS TO HAVE A SIGN FACE EXCEPTION.

FOR THE WESTBOUND SIGN, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT SOME CONFUSION WITH FLEGIBILITY AND MARKETABILITY OF THE TOWN'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AS WELL.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH VISIBILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING DOWN THAT ROAD TO BE ABLE TO SEE OUR DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.

THEN ON THE EASTBOUND, WE HAVE SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES THAT HAVE PUSHED THE SIGN BACK FROM THE ROAD PRETTY FAR.

THE LARGER LETTER HEIGHT IS VERY HELPFUL FOR AGAIN, THAT VISIBILITY AND LEGIBILITY. THERE WE GO.

HERE'S THE I THINK WE WAS SHOWN BEFORE.

BUT WITH THE 80 SQUARE FOOTAGE SERVICE AREA AS AN INCREASE FROM THE 60 SQUARE FOOTAGE EXCEPTION REQUEST.

THEN ACTUALLY SPEAKING ON SOME OF THOSE SURROUNDING SIGNS.

WE DO HAVE THOSE TWO CANYON FALL SIGNS RIGHT THERE AT THE WEST SIDE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS PROBABLY ROUGHLY ABOUT 115 SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL INCLUDING BOTH OF THEM, AND THAT'S JUST BASED ON THE SIGNS SQUARE FOOTAGE SIGN LETTERS.

THEN FOR THE TRAILWOOD, THEY DO HAVE THREE SIGNS, ESTIMATING PROBABLY A TOTAL OF CLOSER TO 60, AND THAT'S JUST AGAIN, ESTIMATIONS.

HERE YOU CAN ALSO SEE WHERE WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED OUR WESTBOUND SIGNAGE FOR THE BROOKVIEW DEVELOPMENT IN THAT YELLOW ASTRICT AND IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO CONFUSION WITH THE TOWN'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, AND IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AND ASKED TO MOVE THAT BACK.

WE DID MOVE THAT BACK TO THE DETON CREEK BOULEVARD.

HERE WE GO LOOKING WEST.

THIS IS WESTBOUND ROUGH LOCATION OF THAT SIGNAGE IN THAT GREEN DOT JUST AS WE'RE APPROACHING AT THAT SPEED LIMIT OF 50 MILES AN HOUR.

THEN JUST SO YOU ALL THAT CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE, WE HAVE TWO OF OUR RENDERINGS DONE AS WE'RE INCREASING IN, JUST TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE IN LEGIBILITY, EVEN THAT THREE INCHES OF LETTER HEIGHT REALLY HELPS.

THEN THIS IS ALONG FROM THE EAST.

WE CAN SEE THOSE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SLOPES.

AGAIN, THAT'S ALL UTILITY EASEMENTS AS WELL.

COMING CLOSER, AND THEN BACK INTO OUR RENDERS AS WELL.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE THERE'S SOME OF OUR POWER LINES AS WELL THAT ARE GOING TO BE BLOCKING SOME OF THOSE SIGNAGE, AND SO HAVING LARGER LETTER SIZE IS ALSO GOING TO BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THAT LEGIBILITY.

THERE IT IS RIGHT AS YOU'RE TURNING IN.

THEN YES AT BLOCK K LOT 1, WHICH IS THAT OFFICIAL TERMS FOR THE AMENITY POND THAT WE'RE DOING UP THERE.

WE DO HAVE THAT LOCATED ON HERE FOR YOU WHERE THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS.

THEN SHOWCASING ALL THE UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT THROUGH THERE AND THEN THAT GREEN LINE THAT'S DASHED IS ACTUALLY SHOWCASING WHERE THE LIMITS OF THAT 25 FEET ARE AND THAT'S COMPLETELY IN A GAS EASEMENT, AND SO THERE WILL BE NO PLANTING AS DISCUSSED.

YEAH. AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS? COUNCIL.

>> I GENERALLY DON'T LIKE THE LARGER SIGN.

JUST TO BE HONEST, JUST BECAUSE IT IS LARGER THAN THE CANYON FALLS AND TRAILWOOD SIGNS.

HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS FURTHER BACK, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

IT'S ONLY THREE INCHES, SO I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO DO IT AT THIS POINT.

>> IT'S ALSO ELEVATED, TOO.

THAT AREA IS PRETTY ABOVE THE ROAD.

I JUST LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS AND I JUST THINK THAT THE INCREASE HEIGHT LOOKS MORE OBNOXIOUS.

I FEEL WE SET THESE STANDARDS FOR A REASON AS TO MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE.

>> I WOULDN'T HAVE GONE WITH THE 106 SQUARE FEET.

I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO YOUR POINT A LITTLE BIT OBNOXIOUS.

BUT I THINK THE 80 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ONLY 30% MORE THAN WHAT WE WOULD ALLOW, BUT THE SETBACK WILL GIVE THE VISUAL THAT IT'S ACTUALLY SMALLER.

WE'RE NOT RIGHT ON TOP OF IT. I'M OKAY WITH IT.

>> I ONLY WANT TO HEAR WHAT BRIAN THOUGHT AND SINCE YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT, I'M OKAY WITH IT.

ALSO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT P&Z ASKED YOU TO DO. THEY GAVE YOU FEEDBACK.

THEY OFFERED A COMPROMISE AND YOU TOOK IT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, GREENBOOK HAS BEEN FANTASTIC TO WORK WITH.

THAT'S A FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM STAFF AND WE DON'T HEAR THAT ABOUT EVERY DEVELOPER.

BUT YOU GUYS APPARENTLY DO WHAT WE ASK AND DO IT WELL, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

[02:10:02]

>> THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

THAT WAS THE NUMBER BEING THROWN AROUND WAS 80 SQUARE FEET.

YEAH, I'M FINE WITH IT, TOO FOR SURE.

>> COUNCIL, IF NO MORE QUESTIONS, NO MORE COMMENTARY, DOES ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> YEAH. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE REGULAR ITEM K7 AS PRESENTED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> AYE. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SCHIESTEL?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM MARTIN?