[1. Call to Order - Welcome and Introductions]
[00:00:03]
THANK YOU FOR BEING PRESENT, AND TO ANYONE WHO IS WATCHING ONLINE, AS WELL, WE WELCOME YOU TO THIS JOINT MEETING OF THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
I WILL NOW CALL THIS JOINT MEETING TO ORDER.
I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING, MR. JAMES BELL, AND JAMES WOULD YOU CALL YOUR GROUP TO ORDER?
>> I CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EASILY DONE.
KRISTIN, YOU HERE? YOU READY TO GO?
[1. Introductory remarks and Presentation by the City of Lubbock Planning Staff on the proposed Amendments to the Unified Development Code and Documentation to be submitted with Plat Applications.]
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
TONIGHT, WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I WILL BE PRESENTING THE 76 AMENDMENTS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
YOU'VE HAD OTHER ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PROVIDED TO YOU ALL FROM CITIZENS.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THEM, AND WE'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT.
ITEM NUMBER 1 IS IN REGARDS TO RESIDENTIAL USES IN OUR SF-2 MDR AND HDR DISTRICTS.
THE CURRENT REGULATION ONLY ALLOWS A SINGLE PERMITTED HOUSING TYPE ON A BLOCK FACE.
OUR PROPOSED REVISION STATES THAT IF A BLOCK FACE CONTAINS ONLY ONE OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TYPES, THEN THE BLOCK FACE SHALL ONLY CONTAIN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
THAT ALLOWS IF A BLOCK FACE HAS MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES FOR THERE TO BE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, BUT STILL RESTRICTS A SINGLE FAMILY.
ITEM NUMBER 2 IS IN REGARDS TO SF-2 LOT DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY COTTAGE MINIMUM LOT AREA TO BE REDUCED TO 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
THIS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GARDEN HOME, SINGLE FAMILY USE.
ITEM NUMBER 3 IS IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOT DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS FOR DUPLEX.
THE CURRENT REGULATION FOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, THAT SHOULD BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OTHER USES IN OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
ITEM NUMBER 4 IS IN REGARDS TO NONRESIDENTIAL SIGN STANDARDS FOR CANOPY SIGNS.
CURRENTLY CANOPIES ARE LIMITED TO ONE SIGN.
STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT THERE BE NO MAXIMUM ON THE NUMBER OF SIGNS.
ITEM NUMBER 5, ALSO IN REGARDS TO CANOPY SIGNS.
THIS WILL ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAYS ON CANOPY SIGNS.
THESE TWO AMENDMENTS REALLY CAME FROM GAS STATIONS.
YOU HAVE THE CANOPY OVER THE GAS PUMPS.
THEY NEED TO HAVE THEIR ELECTRONIC PRICE SIGNS ON THOSE CANOPY FACES AS WELL AS THEIR LOGO, SO TWO SIGNS, LESS EMD.
ITEM NUMBER 6, THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF RETAIL SALES.
THE CURRENT UDC LISTS SMOKE SHOPS, BUT THEY ARE A SEPARATE USE APART FROM RETAIL SALES, SO THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS DEFINITION.
ITEM NUMBER 7 IS IN REGARDS TO FINAL PLATS.
CURRENTLY, THE LANGUAGE JUST STATES TO REFERENCE BY NAME TO RECORDED PLATS OF ADJACENT AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES.
THE LANGUAGE STAFF IS PROPOSING, I'LL READ IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT IN SUMMARY, IT ASKS THAT IT SHOWS ALL PROPERTY INFORMATION ON ABUTTING AND ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THERE'S A GRAPHIC TO SHOW WHAT WE ARE DESCRIBING.
ITEM NUMBER 8 IS IN REGARDS TO PRELIMINARY PLATS.
SIMILARLY, TO SHOW ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED DIRECTLY NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST, AND DIAGONALLY OPPOSITE FROM THE PLAT BOUNDARY. SAME GRAPHIC.
THIS CLARIFIES WHAT WE ARE NEEDING TO SEE ON THESE PLATS.
ITEM NUMBER 9, PRELIMINARY PLATS, ADDING CLARIFYING INFORMATION, THAT ALL INFORMATION AND SPELLING ON THE PLAT SHALL BE CORRECT, CURRENT, AND ACCURATE AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION.
WE REALIZE PROPERTIES SELL, AND SO AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION, IT NEEDS TO BE CURRENT.
ITEM NUMBER 10, ALSO IN REGARDS TO FINAL PLATS.
SIMILARLY, ALL INFORMATION AND SPELLING SHALL BE CORRECT, CURRENT, AND ACCURATE AT THE TIME THE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR HAS SIGNED SEALED AND DATED THE DOCUMENT TO BE RECORDED.
TOWNHOME CURRENTLY STATES THAT NO TOWNHOUSE STRUCTURE SHALL HAVE LESS THAN TWO DWELLING UNITS.
STAFF PROPOSES THAT BE THREE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND CHANGE THE OVERALL LENGTH FROM 250-300 FEET.
ITEM NUMBER 12 IN THE LAND USE MATRIX.
GOING ALONG WITH ITEM NUMBER 11, REMOVING THOSE DWELLING UNITS FROM THE LAND USE MATRIX AND LETTING THE DEFINITIONS CONTROL.
ITEM NUMBER 13, PRELIMINARY PLATS.
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO A NEW STATE LAW THAT STATES WATER AND SEWER SCHEMATIC LAYOUTS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE HOW
[00:05:03]
THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER OR AN APPROVED GROUNDWATER STUDY AS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.THIS IS IN REGARDS TO PLATS IN OUR EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, ETJ.
ITEM NUMBER 14, PRELIMINARY PLATS.
THIS IS ON THE LIST OF APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITIES, WHAT THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT, IF THEY ARE LOOKING TO REQUEST A WAIVER DELAY OR REQUEST PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY NEED TO SUBMIT THAT REQUEST AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
ON NUMBER 15, UNDER FINAL PLAT APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE MAJORITY OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY LISTED THERE, WE ARE MOVING TO ANOTHER SECTION, WHICH YOU'LL SEE HERE IN A MOMENT AND ONLY LISTING THE APPROVED GROUNDWATER STUDY, IF APPLICABLE, AS WELL AS THE REQUEST FOR WAIVER DELAY OR PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION IF APPLICABLE.
ITEM 16 MOVES THOSE OTHER ITEMS DOWN TO THE LIST OF BEFORE A FINAL PLAT CAN BE RECORDED, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED.
THIS SECTION LAYS OUT THE PROCESS WHEN A PLAT HAS TO BE RECORDED AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THAT RECORDING.
ITEM 17, IS IN REGARDS TO PRELIMINARY PLAT RENEWALS.
CURRENT LANGUAGE STATES THAT IF AT LEAST ONE PHASE OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT HAS RECEIVED FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, ITS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND IT HAS BEEN RECORDED, IT CAN RECEIVE AN EXTENSION.
SINCE WE DECOUPLED THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROCESS FROM THE PLATTING PROCESS AND PUT IT WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, THIS LANGUAGE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY RIGHT HERE.
ITEM 18, ALSO IN REGARDS TO PRELIMINARY PLATS.
STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT IF A FINAL PLAT CONTAINS FOUR OR FEWER LOTS AND TRACKS, OR INCLUDES ALL OF AN APPLICANT'S CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP, THAT A PRELIMINARY PLAT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED.
WE SEE THAT A LOT WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
A DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO DEVELOP A SINGLE TRACT FOR THEIR ONE COMMERCIAL USE.
THERE'S NO REASON TO DO A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THAT.
ITEM NUMBER 19, IN REGARDS TO SIGNS AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES.
THIS ADDS A PROVISION FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO FOLLOW THE COMMERCIAL SIGN CODE.
SOME OF THOSE NONRESIDENTIAL USES WOULD BE A CHURCH, A DAYCARE, MUSEUM, LIBRARY, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
ITEM 20, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOT DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS.
CURRENTLY A 20 FEET REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT BE CHANGED TO 15, AGAIN, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HOUSING TYPES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
ITEM 21, OUTDOOR STORAGE IS CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT BE A PERMITTED USE IN THIS DISTRICT.
ITEM 22 DEALS WITH THE DEFINITIONS FOR UTILITIES AND POWER GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, AND DISTRIBUTION.
THIS ADDS PUBLIC UTILITY INSTALLATIONS TO THE UTILITIES DEFINITION AND REMOVES IT FROM THE POWER GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, AND DISTRIBUTION.
ITEM 23 IS IN REGARDS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
NOW, A PORTION OF THIS IS IN STATE LAW AND WILL REMAIN REGARDLESS.
WE ARE JUST ADDING IT INTO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE PORTION THAT IS UP TO THE CITY, WHETHER OR NOT TO PLACE IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS AGAINST A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MUST RECEIVE IN ORDER TO TAKE EFFECT THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SO THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, SIX OUT OF SEVEN VOTES.
THE OTHER LANGUAGE HERE IN REGARDS TO A PROTEST COMES DIRECTLY FROM STATE LAW, AND WE ARE SUBJECT TO YOU REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S WRITTEN IN OUR UDC.
ITEM 24, IN REGARDS TO NONRESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE STATES THAT IT SHALL BE LOCATED TO THE REAR SIDE OF A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND AS GREAT OF A DISTANCE AS FEASIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDS CHANGE THAT AND STATE, THAT IT SHALL BE SCREENED ON ALL SIDES, BY MINIMUM, SIX FEET, SOLID WOOD, OR MASONRY SCREENING FENCE.
ITEM 25, SIGN REGULATIONS AND THE NONRESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE DISTRICTS CURRENTLY REQUIRES A 20 FEET CLEARANCE FOR BLADE SIGNS.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT BE CHANGED TO 10.
WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF SINGLE STORY PROPERTIES, WANTING TO HAVE A BLADE SIGN THAT CAN'T MEET THAT 20 FEET CLEARANCE, SO 10 IS APPROPRIATE.
ITEM 26 DEALS WITH OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
[00:10:03]
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE REQUIRES FOR A GARDEN HOME WHERE YOU HAVE THE HOME SET ON A ZERO LOT LINE, THAT THE POOL MUST ALSO MEET THE 10 FEET SETBACK IF PLACED BETWEEN THE HOMES.THIS REMOVES THAT REQUIREMENT AND WOULD ALLOW IT TO GO TO FIVE FEET TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HOUSING TYPES.
ITEM 27, WAIVER OF IMPROVEMENTS.
THIS ADDS THE LANGUAGE THAT IN THE EVENT A PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED, A WAIVER OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUEST MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH A FINAL OR REPLAT.
DELAY OF IMPROVEMENTS, SAME LANGUAGE.
IN THE EVENT A PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED IT MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH THE FINAL OR REPLAT.
ITEM 29, IN THE LIMITED USE STANDARDS FOR MEDICAL OFFICE OR CLINIC.
CURRENTLY, IT IS LIMITED TO GROSS FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
THIS IS ONLY WHEN IT IS A LIMITED USE IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT BE INCREASED TO 15,000 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER LIMITED USES SUCH AS DAY CARES, MUSEUMS, GALLERIES, LIBRARIES, WHICH ARE ALL AT 15,000.
ITEM 30 FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS.
CURRENT LANGUAGE, STATES THAT THE LOCATION NAME AND WIDTH OF ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS BE SHOWN.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT STATE THE LOCATION NAME AND WIDTH OF ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EASEMENTS, EXISTING OR PROPOSED THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT RATHER THAN JUST WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION LIMITS, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE PLAT BOUNDARY ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED STREET NAMES AS APPROVED BY CITY OF LUBBOCK STAFF.
WE WANT THE WHOLE PICTURE ON THE PLAT, NOT JUST SLITS WITHIN THE PLAT BOUNDARY.
ITEM 31, BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN APPLICABILITY.
CURRENTLY REQUIRES LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET WHEN THE INCREASE OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA IS LESS THAN 50% OR WHEN A CHANGE IN USE REQUIRES ADDITIONAL PARKING.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING WE REMOVE THIS REQUIREMENT SO THAT IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN YOU'RE INCREASING THE GROSS FLOOR AREA BY MORE THAN 50%.
ITEM 32, SF-2 OFF-STREET PARKING.
WE DO HAVE A MASTER PARKING MATRIX WITHIN THE CODE, BUT IN EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS, IT ALSO LIST PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USES WITHIN THAT DISTRICT.
MULTIPLEX, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST IN SF-2, EVEN THOUGH IT ISN'T ALLOWED USE.
THIS JUST ADDS THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT TO THAT SECTION AS WELL.
ITEM 33, IN REGARDS TO MONUMENT SIGNS.
CURRENTLY, THE LANGUAGE STATES MONUMENT OR POLE SIGNS ARE PERMITTED ON ONE STREET FRONTAGE WHEN 400 FEET OF FRONTAGE IS PROVIDED.
THE TOTAL AREA OF BOTH SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA.
THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT TWO SIGNS ARE ALLOWED.
ITEM 34, THIS IS A TABLE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE UDC REGARDING THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY THROAT LENGTH.
IT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE STREET STANDARD SECTION AND THIS WILL ALSO LOCATE IT IN THE PARKING LOADING STACKING AND ACCESS SECTION.
ITEM 35, IN REGARDS TO PRELIMINARY PLATS.
CURRENTLY STATES THAT YOU SHALL PUT A NOTICE ON THE PLAT, THAT IS FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES ONLY.
STAFF IS AMENDING THAT LANGUAGE JUST TO BE MORE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC.
A STATEMENT SHALL BE PLACED ON THE PLAT CLEARLY INDICATING IT IS FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT FOR RECORDING.
ITEM 36, THIS IS A SECTION WHERE THERE ARE NO SECTION NUMBERS FOR THE DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND SO STAFF IS ASKING THAT WE GET THOSE SECTION NUMBERS IN THERE.
THIS IS AN OLD OUTDATED STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO BLANKET SOLID WASTE COLLECTION EASEMENTS.
OUR SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT ASKED THAT THIS BE REMOVED.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE USE ANYMORE.
COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ARE PRIMARILY SERVICED BY PRIVATE COLLECTORS.
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO BLANKET UTILITY EASEMENTS.
THIS LANGUAGE WOULD STATE THAT BLANKET EASEMENTS ARE HERE AND GRANTED EXCLUSIVELY TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TRACT FOR SERVICE TO AND WITHIN THAT TRACT THAT KEEPS YOU FROM BORING UNDER YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO BRING UTILITIES TO YOUR PROPERTY.
THEY ARE ONLY FOR THAT PARTICULAR TRACT.
ITEM 39, FINAL PLAT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENTS.
AGAIN, CLARIFYING, THOSE EASEMENTS ARE ONLY WITHIN THE SPECIFIC LAW OR TRACT DESIGNATION.
[00:15:04]
ITEM 40, FINAL PLAT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS.PLATS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN NUMBERING SCHEME.
HOWEVER, IF A DIFFERENT NAMING CONVENTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR PRIOR ADJACENT PLATS WITHIN THAT SUBDIVISION, THEN A NAMING CONVENTION CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIOR PLAT MAY BE USED.
WE'VE RUN INTO THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES WHERE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LABELED LOT 1, LOT 2, IT'S A LOT AND A NUMBER.
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE TRACTS, TRACT A B, C, ETC.
WE HAD A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WAS PLAT 1, AND SO RATHER THAN CHANGING IT TO TRACTS AT THIS POINT, CONTINUE WITH THAT SCHEME FOR THAT PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION.
THIS AGAIN, JUST REITERATES IF A DIFFERENT NAMING CONVENTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, IT CAN CONTINUE TO BE USED.
THIS CLARIFIES WHEN WE HAVE PLATS LOCATED IN OUR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE PLAT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO THE LUBBOCK COUNTY FOR COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVAL.
WE ALREADY DO THAT, IT CLARIFIES IT HERE.
ITEM 43 ADDS A DEFINITION FOR A CUL-DE-SAC, A BULBOUS STREET OR PASSAGE CLOSED AT ONE END, THE DESIGN OF WHICH SHALL ADHERE TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ENGINEERING MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
ITEM 44. THIS DEALS WITH RECORDING OF PLAT AND DEDICATION OF IMPROVEMENTS.
THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT JUST DOESN'T FOLLOW A VERY LOGICAL ORDER.
IT STARTS WITH DEDICATION DEED AND THE LIST OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT BE REWORDED TO REQUIRED DOCUMENTS.
DEDICATION DEED IS A REQUIRED DOCUMENT.
LIST THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE DEDICATION DEED A THROUGH F, AND THEN CONTINUE WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS.
ITEM 45, DISTRICT BUFFERYARD STANDARDS.
WE NO LONGER HAVE AN MU-6 DISTRICT.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS AMENDED OUT OF THE UDC IN OCTOBER, CHANGE THIS LABEL HERE TO MU-5. ITEM 46.
AGAIN, WE CURRENTLY HAVE DEFINITIONS FOR MU-4 AND MU-6, REMOVE BOTH OF THOSE BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THOSE DISTRICTS.
ITEM 47 IS IN REGARDS TO MURALS IN NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS.
CURRENTLY, THEY ARE LIMITED TO 50% OF THE FACADE OR 10% OF THE FACADE AREA FOR A TENANT SPACE IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS, 750 SQUARE FEET IN THE NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT THERE BE NO MAXIMUM.
AN ENTIRE WALL OF THE BUILDING COULD BE PAINTED WITH A MURAL.
ITEM 48, NONRESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE FENCES.
THIS SECTION ALREADY IS LABELED NONRESIDENTIAL, AND THIS IS A TYPO, WHERE IT LISTS RESIDENTIAL FENCES, SO CLARIFYING THAT IT IS NONRESIDENTIAL.
ITEM 49. THIS ALSO DEALS WITH NONRESIDENTIAL FENCES.
CURRENTLY, FENCES AND GATES THAT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT CANNOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING.
STAFF IS ASKING THAT BE REMOVED, AND THAT EXCEPT IN THE IP, LI AND GI DISTRICTS, FENCES AND GATES THAT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING.
FENCES IN THE IP, LI AND GI DISTRICTS, MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT CAN BE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING FOR SECURITY PURPOSES.
>> KRISTIN, COULD YOU FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE THAT IS HERE, SAY WHAT THE IP AND GI DISTRICTS ARE, PLEASE.
LI IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, GI IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
ITEM 50 IN REGARDS TO OUR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, CURRENTLY REQUIRES ALL LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION TO BE SERVICED BY OUR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY INCLUDE MEDIANS, PROPERTIES THAT WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED.
WE'RE ADDING THE CLARIFYING STATEMENT, GREENSPACES MAINTAINED BY A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION MAY BE SERVICED BY A WATER WELL AND UTILITY EXTENSIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED.
WE'RE ADDING THE SAME LANGUAGE TO THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
ITEM 52 IS IN REGARDS TO HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, WHERE YOU HAVE A MULTIPLEX APARTMENT, NON RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE BUILDING ADJACENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX PROPERTY, THE BUILDING HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED BEYOND THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED.
[00:20:02]
IF THE SETBACK NEAREST TO THE ADJOINING RESIDENCE IS INCREASED ONE FEET FOR EVERY FOOT OF HEIGHT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.STAFF IS ASKING THIS BE AMENDED [NOISE] TO STATE THAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED BEYOND THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED IF THE SETBACKS FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES ARE INCREASED ONE FEET FOR EVERY ONE FEET OF HEIGHT ABOVE THE MAX.
WE ARE WANTING TO CLARIFY WHAT IS A COTTAGE INSTEAD OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
WE ARE ASKING THAT WE PUT THAT IT DOES NOT EXCEED 1,300 SQUARE FEET.
THAT WILL DISTINGUISH THE INTENT OF A COTTAGE BEING A SMALLER HOME THAN A CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
ITEM 54 IS IN REGARDS TO THE DEFINITION OF SETBACK.
WE HAVE A VERY LONG DEFINITION RIGHT NOW.
THIS SHORTENS IT UP AND CLARIFIES, STATING IT IS THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF A REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN AREA AT GRADE BETWEEN THE OUTER WALL OR EXTERIOR FINISH OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE.
DEFINITION OF A FRONT LOT LINE.
THIS WILL CLARIFY, IT'S LENGTHIER, BUT IT DOES CLARIFY.
FRONT LOT LINE MEANS THE LINE ON A PARCEL WHERE THE PUBLIC STREET RIGHT AWAY ENDS AND THE OWNER'S PROPERTY BEGINS.
ON PARCELS INTENDED FOR MULTI-FAMILY MIXED USE OR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE FRONT LOT LINE SHALL BE THE ABUTTING DEDICATED STREET RIGHT-AWAY-OF GREATEST DESIGNATION.
IF YOU HAVE A LOCAL STREET AND A THOROUGHFARE, IT WILL BE THE THOROUGHFARE.
OR LOT LINE OF MOST NARROW LENGTH, IF YOU HAVE TWO THOROUGHFARES, IT'LL BE THE ONE THAT IS MORE NARROW THAT ABUTTS THE STREET RIGHT AWAY.
ON PARCELS INTENDED FOR ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE FRONT LOT LINE SHALL BE THE ABUTTING DEDICATED STREET RIGHT AWAY OF LEASE DESIGNATION OR LOT LINE OF MOST NARROW LENGTH.
ITEM 56, DEFINITION OF REAR LOT LINE WILL BE OPPOSITE THE ESTABLISHED OR ASSUMED FRONT LOT LINE OF THE SAME PROPERTY, ABUTTING A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY OR SEPARATE PARCEL.
ITEM 57, AGAIN DEALS WITH DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS.
THIS CLARIFIES BEARINGS DISTANCES AND TIES TO THE PROPOSED PLAT BOUNDARY.
SERVICE LOTS OR TRACKS OR AN ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY SHALL BE INDICATED FOR ALL EASEMENTS TO BE DEDICATED OR GRANTED, AND PROPOSED BLOCKS OR OTHER CONTINUOUS GROUPS OF LOTS OR TRACKS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY RIGHT OF WAY.
AGAIN, THIS GIVES OUR GIS DEPARTMENT THE WHOLE PICTURE.
IT ALSO HELPS PREVENT SOMETHING I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE WE DEALT WITH FLOATING MEDIANS.
IF THEY HAVE NO BEARINGS TO TIE THEM TO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO GO IN AND DRAW THEM ON A MAP.
THIS WILL CLEAN UP THAT ISSUE.
ITEM 58, BOUNDARY LINES AGAIN WITH PLATS.
THIS JUST CLEANS UP THE SECTION THAT IT'S REFERENCING.
IN REGARDS TO THE BOUNDARY LINES, THE LINE SHOULD BE SHOWN IN THE SAME MANNER AS REQUIRED FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS IN THIS ADJUSTED SECTION.
ITEM 59, AGAIN, DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS.
THIS ADDS THE LANGUAGE THAT IF A PHASE DEVELOPMENT RESULTS IN LOT OR TRACT LABELS, WHICH DIFFER FROM THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, A REVISED OR UPDATED FINISHED FLOOR TABLE SHALL BE SUBMITTED.
A PRELIMINARY PLAT MAY HAVE LOTS LABELED ONE THROUGH 100.
BUT BY THE TIME THEY GET TO THE FINAL PLAT, IT MAY BE ONE THROUGH 120.
NOW, WHAT USED TO BE LOT 100 IS NOW LOT 120.
THE FINISHED FLOOR TABLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO MATCH THOSE NEW LOT NUMBERS.
ITEM 60, AGAIN, FOR PLATS, ADDING THE LANGUAGE FOR ETJ PLATS THAT THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE LUBBOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT SHALL BE PLACED ON EVERY FINAL PLAT WITHIN THE ETJ.
ITEM 61, DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS.
THIS IS IN REGARDS TO EASEMENTS OR RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN TO BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.
THIS ADDS THE LANGUAGE OR TO BE GRANTED A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT.
ITEM 62, DEFINITION OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.
IT REPEATS ITSELF AND THEN CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
THIS CLEANS UP THE DEFINITION.
THIS DEFINITION ALSO INCLUDES COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, INCLUDING TRADE OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL, REMOVE THE SECOND COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, AND REMOVE THE OR TRADE, WHERE IT SAYS ACCEPT MECHANICAL OR TRADE.
ITEM 63, CONTEXTUAL REAR SETBACKS.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE CONTEXTUAL FRONT SETBACKS FOR DEVELOPMENT.
IF THE APPLICANT MAY APPLY FOR A CONTEXTUAL REAR SETBACK WHEN
[00:25:05]
EXISTING REAR SETBACKS DIFFER FROM WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE BASE ON DISTRICT, AND IT'S BASED ON THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT.ITEM 64, THIS IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SECTION.
THIS CLARIFIES THAT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, BUILDING HEIGHTS AND MINIMUM SETBACKS IN THIS DISTRICT WILL FOLLOW THE SF-1 REQUIREMENTS, THE VERY LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, WHERE A MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK IS LESS THAN 20 FEET, A FRONT LOADED GARAGE FACING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL ALWAYS HAVE A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 20 FEET.
THIS IS A SIMILAR REVISION FOR THESE NEXT FEW ITEMS IN NUMBER 65, SF-1, VERY LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, CLARIFIES THAT A FRONT LOADED GARAGE WILL NOT HAVE A MINIMUM SETBACK OF LESS THAN 20 FEET.
SAME FOR NUMBER 66, LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, SF-2, NUMBER 67, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND NUMBER 68 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
NUMBER 69, RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES IN REGARDS TO SETBACKS.
THIS ALSO CLARIFIES IN THE ACCESSORY USE SECTION THAT A GARAGE SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN A 20 FOOT SETBACK WHEN IT IS FACING AN ALLEY OR STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
ITEM 70, THIS ADDS A DEFINITION, CLARIFIES WHAT ABUTTING IS CONSIDERED TO BE AND ADDS A GRAPHIC.
ITEM 71, IN OUR OFFICE DISTRICT.
THIS AMENDS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM 100-60 FEET, MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK FROM 40 AND 25 TO 25 AND 10, AND MINIMUM STREET SIDE FROM 30-15.
THIS IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
PROPERTIES THAT WERE ZONED GARDEN OFFICE AND OUR FORMER CODE CAME OVER AS OFFICE IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME MEETING THESE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.
THIS WILL ALLOW GARDEN OFFICES TO BE MORE EASILY DEVELOPED.
ITEM 72, DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THIS CLARIFIES THAT THE LOCATION THAT WILL SHOW THE GENERAL POSITION OF A PROPERTY RELATIVE TO AN INTERSECTION CONTAINING AT LEAST ONE ARTERIAL STREET OR STATE HIGHWAY, AND THAT'S IT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW TWO ARTERIAL STREETS OR AN ARTERIAL STREET AND A STATE HIGHWAY, THEY JUST NEED TO SHOW ONE.
ITEM 73, FOR FINAL PLAT, ADD THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LOCATION MAP.
FILING IS NOT THE SAME AS RECORDING.
FILING IS WHEN AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW.
THIS CLARIFIES THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED FILED WHEN IT MEETS THE ITEMS LISTED UNDER THE SECTION MEANING OF COMPLETE SUBMITTAL, THEN THE REVIEW STARTS.
ITEM 75, MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL LOT DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS.
THIS JUST ADDS CLARIFICATION UNDER DUPLEX, THAT THE MINIMUM LOT AREA LISTED HERE IS PER DWELLING UNIT.
YOU'LL HAVE TWO DWELLING UNITS, SO THOSE TWO NUMBERS WILL BE DOUBLED FOR THE LOT AREA.
ITEM 76, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT ACTUALLY DEALS WITH OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
IT ADDS IN AN OPTION FOR PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME THE BUILDING, THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED.
THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF ITEMS IN OUR LEGAL NOTICE.
IT WILL GO THROUGH ITS OWN PROCESS.
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS ANY CHANGES TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS COUNCIL AT YOUR AUGUST 13TH MEETING.
AS I MENTIONED, YOU HAVE OTHER ADDITIONAL LIST FROM CITIZENS, AND ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS AN ORDINANCE THAT COUNCIL ADOPTED IN 2020.
IT DEALS WITH BRICK STREETS WITHIN OUR CITY AND IT ADDS PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTION OR IF THE BRICK STREET HAS TO BE DISTURBED FOR REPAIRS, HOW IT HAS TO BE REPLACED, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THIS ORDINANCE IN 2020, PUT ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN CHAPTER 40, AS WELL AS CHAPTER 36, OUR STREETS CHAPTER OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES INTO CHAPTER 40, THE ZONING CODE.
[00:30:02]
IT WAS NOT CARRIED OVER INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.AT THAT POINT, WE WERE ONE YEAR INTO CREATING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IT WAS NOT BROUGHT OVER.
WE WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS; WHETHER YOU WANT THAT TO BE ADOPTED AGAIN, AND IF YOU WANT IT IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OR IF YOU WANT IT IN CHAPTER 36.
WITH THAT, I WOULD BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DOES ONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KRISTINA? KRISTINA, I HAVE ONE.
>> JUST CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE GARAGES GOT TO BE FURTHER BACK.
WHAT'S THE THINKING BEHIND THAT ONE?
>> BECAUSE FOR A VEHICLE THAT IS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE DOOR. SURE.
>> THANK YOU. MAKES SENSE. ANYBODY ELSE?
>> ALONG THOSE LINES, I THINK THERE WAS ONE ON CARPORTS.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT ONE? IS IT 68, 69? I THINK. I DON'T REMEMBER.
>> THERE IS SOMETHING IN HERE.
YOU'RE CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT STATES THAT WHEN ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY, THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A CARPORT OVER A DRIVEWAY THAT IS ACCESSED FROM THE ALLEY, IT HAS TO BE FIVE FOOT FROM THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS THE SAME AS WHAT WAS IN OUR FORMER CODE.
>> I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT REQUIRING THE BRICK OR DEPENDING ON THE HOUSE, DID I SEE THAT OR AM I JUST?
>> THAT SECTION REGARDING THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IS NOT WITHIN OUR CASE.
>> THANK YOU. COUPLE OF ITEMS. POOL SETBACKS AT FIVE FEET.
P&Z GUYS OR MAYBE SOME OF MY BUILDER FRIENDS CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
FIVE FOOT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO A PROPERTY LINE WHEN THE ADJACENT HOUSE IS ALSO FIVE FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE.
WE HAVE A POOL WITHIN 10 FOOT OF ANOTHER STRUCTURE.
DO WE RUN ANY RISK OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT POOL CAUSING DAMAGE TO THEIR ADJACENT PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY HAVE GOTTEN IT SO CLOSE?
>> I WILL STATE THAT IS THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR ANY OTHER HOUSING TYPE ASIDE FROM A GARDEN HOME.
AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR A POOL CAN GO FIVE FOOT FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH ANY HOUSING TYPE RIGHT NOW.
THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE GARDEN HOME BECAUSE YOUR NEIGHBOR IS ON THE ZERO LOT LINE, IT WILL ACTUALLY PUT THAT POOL FIVE FOOT FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR'S WALL.
RATHER THAN 10 FOOT AS IT WOULD BE WITH OTHER HOUSING TYPES, BUT IT WILL BE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK SAME AS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ANY OTHER HOUSING TYPE.
>> MAYBE THAT ENHANCES MY QUESTION.
I'VE GOT A SWIMMING POOL FIVE FOOT FROM MY FOUNDATION.
>> I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A SWIMMING POOL AND I DON'T HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE HOUSE, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE ALLOWING A STRUCTURE TO BE AWFULLY CLOSE TO MY FOUNDATION.
OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT.
>> IT DOES RAISE THAT QUESTION, BUT SOMETIMES IN GARDEN HOMES, THEY'RE IN A PIE SHAPE.
IN SOME OF THOSE BACKYARDS, THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO DO A POOL, BUT IN A TRADITIONAL SETUP WHERE THEY'RE ALL PARALLEL, 10 FEET IN BETWEEN, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD PUT A POOL.
YOU'D HAVE A FIVE-FOOT WIDE POOL AT THE MOST.
I'M GUESSING THIS IS IN THERE FOR THE PIE-SHAPED LOTS OR ODD LOTS.
>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS ENCROACHING ON THAT NEIGHBORING FOUNDATION ON THAT ZERO-LOT LINE.
PART OF OUR REASONING WITH THIS IS ON YOUR LOT, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUT BY CODE, YOUR SWIMMING POOL FIVE FOOT WITHIN YOUR FOUNDATION.
YOU HAVE THAT 10-FOOT SEPARATION TO AN ADJACENT LOT TO YOU.
BUT ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, YOU'VE GOT A 45-DEGREE BEARING PLANE THAT YOU GENERALLY WANT TO STAY OUT OF BEFORE YOU START ENCROACHING ON A FOUNDATION.
WELL, ON YOUR LOT, YOU CAN GO WITHIN FIVE FOOT OF YOUR HOUSE.
THAT'S OUR REASONING WITH GOING FIVE FOOT TO AN ADJACENT FOUNDATION AS WE DON'T SEE THAT ENCROACHING ON THAT AND CAUSING ISSUES WITH IT AND IT'S BELOW GRADE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ABOVE GRADE THAT WOULD BE
[00:35:01]
A COMBUSTIBLE HAZARD TO AN ADJACENT LOT.>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I THINK ABOUT IT AS A COMBUSTIBLE HAZARD.
I THINK ABOUT IT IF IT'S ON MY LOT AND MY POOL LEAKS AND I DAMAGE MY FOUNDATION, MY INSURANCE COMPANY AND MY LIABILITIES REMAIN INTACT TO ME INTO MY PROPERTY.
BUT IF I'M ALLOWED TO GET IT WITHIN FIVE FOOT OF MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, THEN ANY POTENTIAL DAMAGE NOW CARRIES OVER TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT POOL, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEIGHBOR IS INSURED AT ALL.
>> SURE. THIS I THINK WAS PART OF THE REASONING WITH THAT 10-FOOT REQUIREMENT ADDITIONALLY IN THE UDC.
WE'VE JUST HAD A LOT OF ZERO-LOT-LINE GARDEN HOMES THAT HAVE WANTED TO PUT POOLS IN.
WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK AT THIS AND LOOK AT REALLY BELOW GRADE, WE'RE NOT REALLY CONCERNED WITH ABOVE GRADE BECAUSE THERE'S NO HAZARD THERE.
BUT IT'S A VALID QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING AND SOMETHING WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT.
AGAIN, WE DID JUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT BY BUILDING CODE, IT DOESN'T VIEW THAT IT'S IMPEDING ON YOUR FOUNDATION ON YOUR HOME SO WE WOULDN'T THINK IT WOULD ON THE ONE ADJACENT TO IT.
BUT IT STILL IS REDUCING THAT DOWN TO WITHIN FIVE FOOT OF THAT PROPERTY.
>> WELL, A WATER LEAK EVENTUALLY BECOMES ABOVE GRADE.
THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF WHAT A WATER LEAK DOES.
THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN OF MINE THAT WE'D ASK ABOUT.
SECONDLY, WE'RE CHANGING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A MULTIPLEX.
>> WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
IT'S JUST THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS NOT LISTED IN THE SF-2 ZONING DISTRICT SECTION, AND WE'RE JUST ADDING IT THERE TO A SECOND PLACE.
>> BUT NONETHELESS, WHAT IS A MULTIPLEX?
>> IT IS 3-4 UNITS, SO TRIPLEX OR QUADPLEX.
>> THANK YOU, KRISTEN. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME ON THE SUPERMAJORITY? THAT'S I GUESS NUMBER 23B.
THAT'S WHERE I CHANGE TO THE UDC, CORRECT?
THE PORTION THAT SPEAKS TO THE PROTEST THAT IS SUBMITTED BY 20% OF THE OWNERS OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED OR THE AREA OF THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT WITHIN 200 FEET, THAT IS IN STATE LAW THAT WILL REMAIN REGARDLESS.
THE PORTION THAT IS AN OPTION IS IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF A ZONE CHANGE OR AN AMENDMENT, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FROM CITY COUNCIL TO BE APPROVED.
>> I THINK TIM MAY HAVE BEEN BEFORE ME.
IS THERE A REASON BEHIND WHY WE THINK IT NEEDS A SUPERMAJORITY [OVERLAPPING]?
>> THAT WAS IN OUR FORMER CODE, AND IT WAS NOT CARRIED OVER INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
PERSONALLY, I THINK IT GIVES MORE WEIGHT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AS THE MEMBERS THAT COUNCIL HAS APPOINTED TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE AND HEAR THOSE REQUESTS FIRST.
>> MY P&Z, GUYS, WAS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WERE UNANIMOUS IN THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR COUNCIL TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE IF P&Z SAYS, NO?
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS THE LAW, IS IT NOT?
>> IT IS WRITTEN IN THE STATE LAW, BUT IT STATES SUBSIDIES MAY ADOPT TO THAT REGULATION.
>> WE'VE JUST NEVER HAD IT IN WRITING.
>> WE HAD IT IN WRITING IN OUR FORMER CODE.
IT WAS ADOPTED IN THE FORMER CODE.
>> ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT?
>> THESE ARE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH THEM JUST LIKE YOU WERE.
>> IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR YOU GUYS TO WANT TO DISCUSS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS THE ACTIVE SITTING P&Z COMMITTEE?
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU ALL THINK ABOUT THAT.
>> WE'RE NOT VOTING ON THIS TONIGHT RIGHT, KRISTEN?
>> THE PROCESS AND IT'S ON THERE,
[00:40:01]
IS THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO ACTIONS TAKEN BY EITHER BODY.AFTER TONIGHT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT GOES BACK TO P&Z, AND THEY WILL DISCUSS AS MUCH AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO THIS RECOMMENDATION ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.
KRISTEN IS RIGHT, THE PARTICULAR PROVISION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A PERMISSIVE PROVISION WITHIN CHAPTER 211.
IF YOU DID NOTHING, THEN IT WOULD JUST SIMPLY BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT COULD OVERRIDE WHAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WOULD DO.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THERE ANYHOW, BUT THIS WOULD JUST SIMPLY REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY IF YOU OVERRIDE THEIR DENIAL.
IF THEY APPROVED SOMETHING THAT'S THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE, ONLY IF THEY DENY THE RECOMMENDATION.
THEY WILL GET A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS.
I THINK SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE BODY SHOULD BE LEFT TOWARDS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY MEET AND TALK ABOUT IT.
ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT TO ASK.
YOU ASKING THEM, LISTEN, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE, OR WOULD LIKE REALLY FOR ALL TO DISCUSS THAT AT YOUR P&Z MEETINGS IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE.
BUT I THINK A SUBSET OF DISCUSSION AMONG THE BODY ITSELF AS TO HOW THEY FEEL ON SOMETHING PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE LEFT FOR THE ACTUAL MEETINGS THAT THEY HAVE IF THAT MAKES SENSE, DR. WILSON?
>> THANK YOU, MR. WADE. MR. COLLINS.
>> THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 71 OFFICES AND LOT DENSITY.
THE REVISION TO THE FRONT SETBACK IS 25-10 FEET, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD IN MY MIND, ELIMINATE FRONT PARKING.
TELL ME IF IN THAT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FACILITATES A PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THAT OFFICE AND NOW IT BECOMES A SIDE PARKING OR IT BECOMES A REAR PARKING LOT BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE A PARKING ON THE FRONT.
THAT THEN JUST ADDS A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE QUESTION OF, DO I GET TO PUT UP A SIGN IN THE FRONT OF THAT BUILDING? I'VE GOT A SIGN, I'VE GOT A SIDEWALK AND THEN I'VE GOT MY BUILDING.
THESE GARDEN OFFICES ARE NORMALLY LOCATED ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND SO I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH WHY WE WANT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO LOOK LIKE A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH THE HOUSE OR THE OFFICE SO CLOSE TO THE THOROUGHFARE.
>> THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT ALL INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DESIGNING THEIR PLAN. YOU'RE CORRECT.
A 10-FOOT FRONT SETBACK WOULD NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR A FREE-STANDING SIGN IN FRONT OF THAT BUILDING SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIT A FREE-STANDING SIGN AT THAT POINT.
THE 10-FOOT IS ONLY THE MINIMUM.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM PUSHING THEIR BUILDING FURTHER BACK AND PLACING THE PARKING IN FRONT IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.
BUT IF THEY WANTED THE 10-FOOT SETBACK AND A WALL SIGN AND PARKING ON THE SIDE OR REAR, THEY COULD DO THAT AS WELL.
>> ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, DOES THAT POSE ANY PARTICULAR CHALLENGES TO TRAFFIC?
>> I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T THINK THE 10-FOOT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
>> I BELIEVE IN A THREE-LANE COLLECTOR.
>> IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ALLOWED ON A COLLECTOR, WHICH WOULD ABSOLUTELY SEE LESS TRAFFIC THAN AN ARTERIAL OR THOROUGHFARE.
>> MR. BELL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> YES. KRISTEN, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK AND CLARIFY.
THIS IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE'VE CAME UP THIS CHANGED BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE COME UP TO IN PLANNING AND ZONING, WHERE WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT HAD OFFICES OR PLANNED TO DO IT, AND THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES AND SO THE SETBACKS.
WE WERE TASKED WITH WHETHER TO DENY OR PUT IT BACK OR START ALLOWING LET'S SAY SPOT ZONING IN AREAS TO GO FOR IT, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE INTENTIONS THAT WE WERE GOING WITH THIS; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES WE ARE SEEING WERE PREVIOUSLY ZONED GARDEN OFFICE, BECAME OFFICE UNDER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE WANTING TO BUILD A PRODUCT THAT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOT DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
THE OPTION IS, DO WE REZONE THEM, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OR DO WE OFFER THEM A SOLUTION UNDER THEIR CURRENT OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT?
>> THEN AGAIN, IF WE GO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, THAT'S OPENING UP FOR OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESSES TO COME IN?
>> THANK YOU, KRISTEN, APPRECIATE IT.
[2. Hold a Joint Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing with the City Council and consider amending the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054), and zoning map including but not limited to proposed amendments to Sections 39.02.018.c, related to Residential Limited Use Standards, Table 39.02.004.c-2, related to SF-2 Lot Density and Dimensions, Table 39.02.004.d-2, related to MDR Lot Density and Dimensions, Table 39.03.023-2, related to Base Public and Nonresidential Districts Sign Standards, Section 39.10.002, related to Definitions, Section 39.07.041, related to Final Plats, Section 39.07.040, related to Preliminary Plats, Section 39.02.013, related to the South Overton Overlay (SOO), Section 39.02.016 and Table 39.02.016-1, related to the Land Use Matrix, Tables 39.02.004.c-1, 39.02.004.d-1, 39.02.004.d-3, 39.02.004.e-1, 39.02.004.e-3, and 39.03.009-1, related to Duplexes and Townhouses, Sections 39.02.004.a.7, 39.02.004.b.7, 39.02.004.c.7, 39.02.004.d.7, 39.02.004.e.7, related to Signs in Residential Districts for Non-Residential Uses, Table 39.02.004.e-2, related to HDR Lot Density and Dimensions, Section 39.06.002, related to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Section 39.02.020.d.7.C, related to Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Accessory Uses and Structures, Section 39.02.020.c., related to Residential Accessory Uses, Section 39.07.044, related to Waiver of Improvements, Section 39.07.045, related to Delay of Improvements, Section 39.02.018.e, related to Civic and Institutional Uses Limited Use Standards, Table 39.03.002-1, related to Building and Site Design Applicability, Table 39.02.004.c-3, related to SF-2 Off-Street Parking and Loading Schedule, Section 39.03.023.b.8, related to Monuments Signs, Table 39.04.005-3, related to Minimum Driveway Throat Length, Section 39.04.021.b, related to Recording of Plat and Dedication of Improvements, Table 39.03.016-1, related to District Bufferyard Standards, Section 39.02.020.b, related to General Accessory Uses and Structures, Section 39.04.012, related to Public Water Systems, Section 39.04.013, related to Public Wastewater Systems, Section 39.02.023, related to Specific Allowances, Table 39.02.022-1, related to Measurements, Sections 39.02.004.a.4.A, 39.02.004.b.4.A, 39.02.004.c.4.A, 39.02.004.d.4.A, and 39.02.004.e.4.A, related to Lot Density and Dimensions, Table 39.02.006.b-2, related to Office (OF) Lot Intensity and Dimensions, Section 39.07.004.f, related to Plat Filing, and review and approve written lists of all documentation and other information the municipality requires to be submitted with a plat application, as required by TLGC Section 212.0081.]
A JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER[00:45:02]
AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ZONING MAP, AND ALL THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE HEARD DISCUSSED AND PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD ASK THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND WHICH PARTICULAR AMENDMENT YOU ARE WISHING TO COMMENT ON, AND GENERALLY, WE'LL FOLLOW OUR RULE OF THREE MINUTES.
BUT I'LL BE A LITTLE BIT FLEXIBLE WITH THAT, BUT TRY.
WE HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT SO TRY TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS SO WE CAN GET EVERYBODY IN.
BUT ANYBODY WANTS TO STEP FORWARD, GUYS TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL, I'M JIM BAX 5711 NORTH I 27.
OVERALL, REALLY GOOD DOCUMENT, LOTS OF GOOD FREEDOM STUFF.
DR. WILSON, YOU BROUGHT UP NUMBER 23 ALREADY.
THAT'S EXACTLY MY BIG CONCERN IS NUMBER 23.
I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY THE POWER OF THE ELECTED TO MAKE A DECISION.
IF THIS GROUP IS SMART AS THEY MAY BE, DISAGREES WITH SOMETHING MAYBE ON A 5-4 TYPE VOTE, YOU ALL SHOULD BE ABLE TO OVERRIDE THEM ON A 4-3 TYPE VOTE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT TO GO FORWARD.
I DO NOT LIKE 23. THERE'S A FEW OTHER ONES I DISLIKE AS WELL.
I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THEM WITH YOU, BUT OTHER THAN TO SAY, AS YOU READ THROUGH THIS, IF IT TAKES AWAY LIBERTY, VOTE AGAINST IT.
IF IT ADDS TO LIBERTY, VOTE FOR IT.
THIS IS A LIBERTY-LOVING CITY.
I ALSO WANTED TO TAKE AND THROW ONE MORE THING FOR YOU ALL.
RIGHT NOW, COMMERCIAL ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL INSIDE OF THAT DISTRICT.
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'LL NEED TO CONSIDER.
WE HAVE A LOT OF OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BECOMING VACANT ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
PEOPLE ARE OFFICING OUT OF THEIR HOMES NOW.
ESPECIALLY IN THE SECOND STORY WHERE RETAIL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONING.
ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL UP THERE WILL ALLOW US TO TAKE SOME OF THESE VACANT BUILDINGS AND REPURPOSE THEM AND NOT HAVE BLIGHTED BUILDINGS ACROSS THE CITY. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> I'M NOT SO MUCH OPPOSED OR IN SUPPORT.
>>PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME, MARY, AND YOUR ADDRESS.
>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND P&Z MEETING, MEMBERS.
SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS ME, 4617 8TH STREET.
I'M AN ARCHITECT AND A CURRENT MEMBER OF THE CITY'S URBAN DESIGN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, HAVING SERVED SEVERAL TERMS OVER THE YEARS ON THAT COMMISSION, INCLUDING MULTIPLE TERMS AS ITS CHAIR.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON YET ANOTHER PROBLEM DISCOVERED WITHIN THE UDC, OF WHICH KRISTEN SAGER MENTIONED AT THE VERY END OF HER PRESENTATION.
STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT WHEN THE UDC WAS ADOPTED, THE LUBBOCK BRICK STREET PRESERVATION ORDINANCE WAS UNINTENTIONALLY REMOVED.
THEREFORE, IN MY MIND, COUNCIL SHOULD INTENTIONALLY RESTORE THAT.
THIS BEARS REPEATING, SINCE THE DELETION WAS UNINTENTIONAL, THEN COUNCIL SHOULD BE FULLY COMMITTED TO RESTORING THAT ORDINANCE AT ONCE.
LUBBOCK HAS PROTECTED ITS BRICK STREETS SINCE 1982, STARTING WITH A RESOLUTION, THEN THAT WAS CODIFIED BY ORDINANCE IN 2006, AND IT WAS REVISED IN 2020.
UNINTENTIONAL OR NOT, THERE ARE SORTS OF ALL PROBLEMS WITH THAT REMOVAL.
THERE WAS A LACK OF DUE PROCESS, NO NOTICE, NO OUTREACH, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, NO REVIEW FROM THE PRIOR COUNCIL'S UDC SUBCOMMITTEE, NO REVIEW BY THE PRIOR COUNCIL.
THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT AN EXAMPLE OF OPEN GOVERNMENT THAT THIS HAPPEN IS WRONG, AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD WRITE IT QUICKLY.
THE COINCIDENTAL TIMING OF THE CAC'S CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR STREET BOND RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH WILL LIKELY INCLUDE BROADWAY IN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, FURTHER EXACERBATES THIS ISSUE,
[00:50:02]
AND YOU CERTAINLY HAVE TO AGREE THE OPTICS ARE BAD.IT'S THE PRINCIPLE THAT MATTERS HERE.
>> THAT'S WHAT CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK ARE GOING TO REMEMBER.
THE PRINCIPLE WAS A MISTAKE CORRECTED.
THE THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK, WE DON'T LIKE BEING DUPED.
TRANSPARENCY IS VITAL FOR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
THE CITY AND THE CAC SHOULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ORDINANCES MISTAKEN REMOVAL, WHEN IT COULD HAVE LASTING REPERCUSSIONS ON LUBBOCK'S MOST ICONIC STREET.
FOR THE PLANNED BOND, DON'T MUDDY THE WATER BY DISREGARDING THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT OF USING HISTORIC BRICK WHEN BRICK IS USED ON BROADWAY.
REINSTATE THIS ORDINANCE ASAP.
IN THE MEANTIME, IMMEDIATELY DIRECT THE CAC TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AS IF THEY WERE STILL IN EFFECT WHEN THEY ARE SUBMITTING THEIR STREET BOND RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO CORRECT THIS INADVERTENT REMOVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE.
THANK YOU. I HAVE MY COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO GIVE OUT.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, GRETCHEN.
I LIVE AT 4012 69TH STREET, AND I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 47, WHICH IS THE AMENDMENT ALLOWING A MURAL FROM 50% - 100% OF A BUILDINGS EXTERIOR WALL.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF A MURAL.
KRISTEN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ACCORDING TO THE STATE, IS THERE A STATE STATUTE THAT WE CANNOT DEFINE WHAT A MURAL IS AS OPPOSED TO A SIGN?
>> WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION WE CANNOT REGULATE THE CONTENT.
>> THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES HAVE A DEFINITION.
WE JUST CANNOT REGULATE THE CONTENT.
>> THEY CAN'T REGULATE THE CONTENT.
THIS IS A DEAL WHERE, DO YOU HAVE A MURAL OR DO YOU HAVE A SIGN? SINCE THE CONTENT CAN'T BE REGULATED, THERE COULD BE A GREAT BIG HUGE SIGN SAYING, I DON'T KNOW, EAT AT JOE'S OR USE MY PLUMBER.
I THINK THE 50% RULE NEEDS TO REMAIN AS IT IS AND NOT INCREASE IT TO 100%.
BECAUSE OF THAT LACK OF STRUCTURE AND NO LIMITATION ON WHAT CAN BE PUT ON THESE MURAL/SIGN DEALS. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. NOW ANYONE WISHING TO STEP FORWARD TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS? I THINK WE HAVE SOME STUFF YOU'RE PASSING OUT FOR US.
>> WE HAVE LITERATURE. YES, SIR.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT. IS THIS ANOTHER BOOK?
>> IT IS A GOOD BOOK, AND IT'S ACTUALLY EVERYTHING YOU SEE.
>> THERE'S ONLY ONE GOOD BOOK, MR. HOMAN.
>> IT IS THE GOOD BOOK TONIGHT, MAYBE.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND ALSO GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M TERRY HOMAN.
I SERVE ON A SMALL GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UDC FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW.
FOR YOU THAT ARE NEW TO THE DIESE THIS EVENING, I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE FOR ME TO MAYBE INTRODUCE YOU TO OUR GROUP AND GIVE YOU A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF WHERE WE COME FROM AND WHAT OUR GROUP REPRESENTS.
[00:55:05]
THE WEST TEXAS HOME BUILDERS HAS A SUB GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS CALLED THE DEVELOPERS COUNCIL, AND IT'S JUST WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.IT'S PRIMARILY LAND DEVELOPERS.
IT HAS SOME CONSULTANTS, THE UTILITY COMPANIES PARTICIPATE IN THIS.
I SERVE ON THE DEVELOPERS COUNCIL WITHIN THE WEST TEXAS HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION.
I'M ONE OF FOUR PEOPLE THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THAT DEVELOPER'S COUNCIL WHO ARE ON WHAT I WOULD CALL A TASK FORCE.
WE HAVE BEEN CHARGED BY OUR GROUP TO PROVIDE CITIZEN INPUT AND PROFESSIONAL INPUT, QUITE FRANKLY, ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UDC.
CERTAINLY WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, WE TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN THAT.
OUR GROUP CONSISTS OF CHRIS BERRY.
HE'S A DEVELOPER WITH BETENBOUGH COMPANIES.
COREY DOLAN IS A CIVIL ENGINEER WITH AMD ENGINEERING.
MONT MCCLENDON IS WITH MCDOUGAL COMPANIES.
MONT IS A DEVELOPER AND A LAWYER AND WEARS QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT HATS AROUND TOWN.
I'M WITH HUGO REED AND ASSOCIATES.
I SERVE AS A LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT AND LAND PLANNER FOR OUR COMPANY.
OUR GROUP, I WOULD SAY THAT WE CONSTITUTED EASILY A COMBINED 70 TO 80 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE AMONG JUST THE FOUR OF US.
WHAT WE BRING TO THE TABLE IS EXPERIENCE, AND BY THE WAY WE BRING, I THINK, SOME NOBLE OBJECTIVES.
THAT BEING, HOW CAN WE ALL DEVELOP LOVE IN A BETTER WAY? WHAT ARE WE NOT DOING AS WELL AS WE COULD, AND HOW CAN WE IMPROVE? THAT'S WHERE THIS UDC CAME FROM.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE HEARD ME PREACH MANY TIMES BEFORE.
WE'VE HAD MAN DEEP DIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF SINCE THE TIME THE UDC WAS ADOPTED, AND WE ALL KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE THIS REGULAR ROUND OF AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE COMING ALONG THE WAY.
WE'RE AT AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, BASICALLY.
WE ATTENDED THE JUNE 6 WORK SESSION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD, AND WE WERE HAPPY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT THERE.
THE EASY THING FOR US TO SAY FIRST OFF IS, WHEN WE GOT TOGETHER WITH STAFF TO SHARE WITH THEM WHAT WE FELT OUR RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS MIGHT BE, WE ALL LEARNED THAT WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE ALREADY.
WE HAD SOME VERY GOOD PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING THESE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT OUR GROUP IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT WILL EVER BE PERFECT, BUT FOR US IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD, AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE TRYING TO PUT GOOD PRODUCT ON THE GROUND, IT DOES MOVE THE NEEDLE FORWARD IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION.
WE'RE CERTAINLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MAYBE POINT OUT AT THIS POINT THAT THE THING TO ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND ABOUT THIS UDC, YES, THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ALL CITIZENS.
BUT THE UDC IS REALLY GEARED FOR HOW DO YOU DEVELOP PROPERTY? THE IMPACT OF THAT IS, WELL, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT CITIZENS IN THEIR DAY TO DAY LIVES? ARE WE CREATING A GOOD PRODUCT ON THE GROUND? ARE WE DOING THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING? ARE WE HANDLING STREETS IN A PROPER WAY? WERE HANDLING PLANNING PROCESSES, ALL OF THAT.
EVERY BIT OF THAT GOES INTO THE ECONOMICS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT, AND THE HOME BUYER IS THE ONE WHO ULTIMATELY PAYS THE PRICE FOR THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF HOW WE ALL OPERATE.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOU ALL MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.
THE OTHER ITEM I WANT TO VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT IS THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS WAS US AND STAFF HAVE BEEN TALKING IN GENERAL TERMS ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE.
I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT NOBODY ANYWHERE REALLY SAT DOWN AND PUT THE RUBBER TO THE ROAD, SO TO SPEAK, TO REALLY DRAFT SOME FORMALIZED AMENDMENTS UNTIL RELATIVELY RECENTLY.
THE NEXT PART OF MY DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE WITH RESPECT TO THESE LANDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY DEFER TO YOU TWO GROUPS AS TO HOW YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.
I CAN GO OVER SOME OF THE DETAILED ITEMS IF YOU WANT, BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, THE LUBBOCK ALLIANCE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PRESENTED THEIR COLLECTIVE LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPE CODE.
RIGHT AFTER OUR JUNE 6 WORK SESSION,
[01:00:02]
COREY AND OUR GROUP ALSO E-MAILED SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS.THEN AFTER THAT JUNE 6 MEETING, COREY AND I SAT DOWN AND SAID, WE'VE REALLY GOT TO SIT DOWN AND TACKLE THIS.
NO ONE ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, OTHER THAN THE LALA GROUP, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GROUPS, HAD REALLY EVEN PRESENTED ANYTHING.
WE GOT TO WORK ON THAT, AND WE DID DEVELOP OUR LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
WHAT I HANDED OUT TO YOU TONIGHT, THIS GUY RIGHT HERE IS ONLY, QUITE FRANKLY, A COMPILATION OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GROUP PROVIDED THIS DOCUMENT IN MAY.
WE PROVIDED OUR SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS THIS LAST FRIDAY, THE 19TH.
WHAT I HANDED OUT THIS EVENING IS ONLY A COMPILATION OF THOSE TWO THINGS.
PLEASE KNOW, BUT FOR TWO VERY MINOR EXCEPTIONS, IT'S NOTHING THAT YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED.
BUT I FELT LIKE IT WOULD HELP BOTH GROUPS MAYBE IT'S THE EASIER TOOL FOR YOU TO USE.
YOU'VE GOT A ONE STOP SHOP WHICH REPRESENTS OUR COMBINED LANDSCAPE RECOMMENDATIONS, BOTH COMING FROM THE DEVELOPERS COUNCIL TASK FORCE, AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GROUP IN LUBBOCK.
I THINK I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT WE'RE PRETTY DILIGENT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE STILL ARE LEAVING GOOD PRODUCT ON THE GROUND.
I'VE SAID ALL ALONG, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
I THINK OUR PRIOR CODE WAS A LITTLE LIGHT, QUITE FRANKLY ON LANDSCAPING.
I CAN POINT TO A FEW PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEVELOPED AROUND TOWN THAT I JUST WISH THEY HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT OUR LANDSCAPING FROM THE PRIOR CODE HAD TO BE UPDATED, AND IT HAD TO BE IMPROVED.
WHAT OUR CONCERN HAS BEEN RECENTLY IS WE FEEL LIKE THAT PENDULUM HAS SWUNG A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING BOTH BODIES TO CONSIDER IS LET'S BACK THAT UP A LITTLE BIT, AND LET'S LOOK AT THINGS FROM A LANDSCAPING PERSPECTIVE THAT ARE A BIT MORE IN LINE WITH HOW WE TYPICALLY OPERATE IN LUBBOCK.
WHEN I SAY WE, I MEAN ALL PEOPLE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL VENDORS, LAND DEVELOPERS, REAL ESTATE AGENTS.
HOW DO WE TYPICALLY WORK? BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE COME TO LEARN IS, THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE UDC ARE PRETTY ONEROUS.
IN SOME CASES, IN OUR VIEW, NOT EVEN TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE.
WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE DID GET TOGETHER WITH THE LANDSCAPE GROUP AND WE CAME UP WITH THIS DOCUMENT.
AS I SAID, IT IS EVERYTHING YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE WITH TWO VERY MINOR EXCEPTIONS, AND I'LL WALK YOU TO PAGE 5.
ON PAGE 5, THE 75% REQUIREMENT HALFWAY DOWN WAS AN ITEM THAT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS HAD INTENDED, BUT FRANKLY JUST MISSED OUT OF THEIR SUBMITTAL.
I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.
THEN MY MOST RECENT ADD-ON IS THE YELLOW BOX ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE.
I'M GOING TO TRY NOT TO CHEW UP TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
I CAN TALK ON THIS FOR HOURS, IF YOU WANT, AND I DON'T REALLY THINK YOU WANT ME TO.
BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US, I THINK, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE HERE IN A MOMENT.
CONTEXTUAL LANDSCAPE ALLOWANCE, WHERE AN INFILL PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE SIMILARLY ZONED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ABUTTING AND IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET ARE DEVELOPED.
THE INFILL SITE MAY MATCH THE LANDSCAPE AREA COVERAGE PERCENTAGE AND PLANTING MATERIALS DENSITY ON THE AVERAGE OF THOSE DEVELOPED NEIGHBORING LOTS.
HERE'S WHY IN MY MIND WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT.
WHEN YOU HAVE A NEW GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT, A LOT OF ITEMS IN THIS CODE MAKE PERFECT SENSE.
HOWEVER, IF YOU'VE GOT A GUY WHO'S WANTING TO REHAB A PROPERTY IN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED, MAYBE IN AN OLDER PART OF TOWN, AND TO ASK HIM TO PUT THE SQUARE PEG IN THE ROUND HOLE AND TRY TO PUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF LANDSCAPE ON THE PROPERTY, WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S A DISADVANTAGE TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER, AND WE FEEL LIKE IT DISINCENTIVIZES REDEVELOPMENT IN AREAS OF TOWN THAT COULD USE IT.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE CONTEXTUAL SETBACK, THE BUILDING SETBACKS THAT KRISTIN ALLUDED TO EARLIER.
WE'RE ASKING A CONSIDERATION OF THAT WITH RESPECT TO LANDSCAPING AS WELL.
THE WORDING MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THAT IDEA IN FRONT OF YOU.
[01:05:05]
WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO TRY TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THESE AND NOT BORE YOU TO TEARS WITH ALL THE DETAIL.BUT ON THE FIRST PAGE, WE FEEL LIKE SOME OF THE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS ARE A BIT ONEROUS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR FOUNDATION PLANTINGS IN THE MULTIPLEX APARTMENT AND NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED USES.
A FOUNDATION PLANNING IS JUST WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO BOOK GREEN STUFF NEXT TO THE BUILDING.
IN THEORY THAT WORKS, BUT IN PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT REALLY DOESN'T SOMETIMES.
LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A STRIP CENTER.
YOU'VE GOT IN-CAP DRIVE UP RESTAURANTS ON EACH END OF THE STRIP CENTER.
YOU'VE GOT UTILITIES AND SERVICE ACCESS ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
YOU GOT A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
THERE'S JUST NO PRACTICAL WAY TO PUT FOUNDATION PLANNINGS IN THAT TYPE OF SETTING.
WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S WORTH REMOVING.
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING, WE BELIEVE IS VIABLE IN A LARGER PARKING LOT.
THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT, WE'VE STATED THAT PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING, WHICH IS THE LANDSCAPING OF THE ISLANDS AND MEDIANS IN THE PARKING LOTS, AND LET'S PUT SOMETHING TO MESS UP YOUR CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT.
ON A BIG PARKING LOT, I THINK THAT'S A NOVEL GOAL.
BUT IF YOU HAVE A PARKING LOT SAY, 28, 25 CARS, THAT JUST BEGINS TO NOT REALLY MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE IN OUR VIEW.
NEXT PAGE, WE'RE GOING TO SKIP TO PAGE 3.
BY THE WAY, IN THIS DOCUMENT, THE RED FONT IS EVERYTHING THAT ALREADY HAD COME FROM OUR GROUP.
THE BLUE FONT IS WHAT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS HAD PROVIDED.
>> THIS ITEM ON NUMBER 3, PAGE 3, THEY'RE JUST WANTING TO CLARIFY WHAT CONSTITUTES GROUND COVER.
WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S A WORTHWHILE DEAL.
PAGE 4, THIS IS PART OF THIS LANDSCAPE POINT SYSTEM.
THE TOP FOUR CATEGORIES ON PAGE 4 OR FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDSCAPE IN A PARKING LOT.
WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S JUST BECOME OVERLY COMPLEX.
OUR GOAL WITH THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT IS TO UNCOMPLICATED AND MAKE IT JUST A LITTLE EASIER FOR ALL OF US TO USE.
WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A GOOD WAY TO CONSOLIDATE THAT.
THE LANDSCAPE FOLKS TALKED ABOUT CHANGING THE TREE REQUIREMENT TO PER 2,000 SQUARE FEET RATHER THAN PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S JUST A BIT OF A FRIENDLY NOD TO WHAT WAS REALLY MORE PRACTICAL FOR LUBBOCK USA.
THERE'S A DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT YOU GET LANDSCAPE CREDIT POINTS IF YOU CAN SOMEHOW BLEND TREATED PRODUCTION WATER WITH OTHER WATER IN AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
I'M NOT A LICENSED IRRIGATOR BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN LEGAL.
AND SO WE'RE JUST SAYING TAKE THAT OUT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN BLEND WATERS IN AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
AGAIN, IT JUST OVERCOMPLICATES IT.
IT CAN BE MADE QUITE A BIT MORE SIMPLE.
THE NEXT PAGE, THE 75% THAT I HAD TALKED TO BEFORE, CURRENTLY SAYS, IF MORE THAN 35% OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING AREA IS PROPOSED TO BE TURF OR GRASS, YOU GET A 10 POINT PENALTY ON YOUR LANDSCAPE POINTS.
I DROVE BETWEEN TWO VERY NICE CHURCHES ON INDIANA AVENUE ON THE WAY TO WORK THIS MORNING AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE GREAT GRASS YARDS.
WHY WOULD YOU PENALIZE SOMEBODY FOR THAT? THE LANDSCAPE GROUP IS SAYING, LET'S SET THAT AT 75%, AND WE CERTAINLY AGREE.
ABOVE THAT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT REMOVE THE PLANT LIST.
THIS IS A CRITICAL ITEM BECAUSE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ARE LICENSED IN THEIR PROFESSION, AND THEY REALLY NEED TO BE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION MAKES SENSE FOR THAT PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE A LIST OF APPROVED PLANTS IN A DOCUMENT LIKE THIS, WE FEEL IT'S AN OVERREACH.
IT'S AN OVERREGULATION, WE BELIEVE.
IN SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PLANT LIST, THE TWO COMMENTS ON THE BOTTOM HELP CLARIFY THAT YOU HAVE TO USE PLANTS THAT ARE DEEMED AS VIABLE BY A CREDIBLE SOURCE, FOR EXAMPLE, SUCH AS TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY.
WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT OF FREEDOM.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.
THE NEXT ITEM WITH RESPECT TO BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING, THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE PULLED OFF.
THEY'RE SELF EXPLANATORY THERE.
THERE'S NO NEED IN OUR VIEW TO HAVE A BUFFER YARD BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
[01:10:04]
JUST IF YOU HAVE SMALL LOTS AND LARGE LOTS, THEY'RE ALL STILL HOUSES.WHY WOULD YOU HAVE A BUFFER YARD? SO WE'RE ASKING SOME OF THAT STUFF TO BE RELAXED.
AT THE TOP OF THAT PAGE, AGAIN ON MY PAGE 7, WITH RESPECT TO DISTRICT BUFFER YARDS, WE'RE SAYING IF YOU HAVE A STREET OR AN ALLEY THAT IS THE SEPARATOR BETWEEN THE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT SEPARATION [NOISE] IN AND OF ITSELF IS AN ADEQUATE BUFFER.
AND SO WE'RE ASKING THOSE DISTRICT BUFFERS TO BE REMOVED IF YOU HAVE A SEPARATION BY STREET OR AN ALLEY.
THAT'S WHAT THAT COMMENT MEANS THERE.
PAGES 8 AND 9 ARE REALLY JUST SOME NOTES AS TO MAYBE WHAT TO DO WITH SOME OF THESE BUFFER YARD DETAILS.
WELL, LET ME REPHRASE THAT. I THINK WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DEVELOPING ARE STILL GOING TO USE SOLID SCREENING FENCES, AND THE BUFFER YARD DETAILS REALLY NEED TO LEAN TOWARDS THAT, AS IT WERE.
ON PAGE 10, WE'RE ASKING FOR SOME OF THE HEIGHTS OF THE BUFFER YARDS AND SOME OF THE LOWER BUFFER YARD DISTRICTS TO BE DROPPED DOWN AT HEIGHT.
WE DON'T SEE A NEED FOR A FOUR FOOT TALL BERM, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO A BERM BETWEEN TWO ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE IN USE.
CANDIDLY, I EXPECT THAT VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE USING THIS BERM FEATURE IN A BUFFER YARD ANYWAY.
YOU GOT TO REMEMBER THIS DOCUMENT JUST SETS THE MINIMUMS. THAT'S THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS.
WE'RE TRYING TO JUST SET WHAT THE BARE MINIMUM IS, AND I THINK THIS THING BECAME A WISH LIST MORE THAN IT DID AT A MINIMUM.
PARKING BUFFER STANDARDS ON PAGE 11.
ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE SAYING IF IT'S MORE THAN 30 SPACES BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE BUILDING, THAT THAT IS THE TRIGGER WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A PARKING BUFFER.
ITEM, ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THAT PAGE, THERE'S TALK ABOUT PLANT SPACING.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT YOU ACCOUNT FOR WHAT THE MATURE SIZE OF THAT PLANT IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO PLANT SOMETHING BRAND NEW IT MAY LOOK A LITTLE SPARSE.
WELL IT'S GOING TO GROW UP AND SO THAT'S JUST A HINT TOWARDS THAT.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THE PARKING BUFFER YARD FOR THE STREET BUFFER YARD TO BE REMOVED SINCE YOU ALREADY HAVE A PARKING BUFFER YARD.
AND THEN ON PAGE 12, REMOVING THAT TABLE IS IN TANDEM WITH THAT COMMENT.
THE NEXT TWO PAGES ARE DIRECT CUT AND PASTE OUT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DOCUMENT.
I HAVE TO ADMIT I WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY [NOISE] REALLY IN A PINCH, DECIDING HOW TO GET THAT IMPLEMENTED INTO THIS LANGUAGE.
SO I THINK IF STAFF CAN LOOK AT THIS AND FIND A WAY TO ADOPT THESE NEXT TWO PAGES INTO THESE AMENDMENTS, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO DO IT.
MOVING FORWARD, OH, THE TOP OF PAGE 14.
THIS WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT HERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE NO MORE THAN 60% OF ANYONE GENUS OF TREE AND NO MORE THAN 40% OF ANY ONE SPECIES OF TREE.
WELL, THAT GREATLY REDUCES THE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY.
IF I HAVE A LARGE SITE AND I WANT TO DO A ROW OF OAKS OR MAPLES OR WHATEVER, I OUGHT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT SO WE FEEL LIKE THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED.
ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE, THERE'S TALK ABOUT ONE GALLON PLANTERS, TWO GALLON, THREE GALLON BUCKETS, AND THERE WAS ALL THIS RATIO ABOUT GETTING CREDITS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
JUST SET THE MINIMUM AT ONE GALLON.
JUST CALL IT GOOD. LET THE LANDSCAPERS DECIDE WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THEIR SITE.
THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 15, THIS REALLY LEANS OVER TOWARDS OUR DEFINITION SECTION.
WE'D LIKE A DEFINITION OF WHAT MULCH IS.
THEN THE COMMENT DOWN BELOW THAT IS BASICALLY A CLEANUP OF THE LANGUAGE ON THE MULCH AND INORGANIC GROUND COVER, WHICH BASICALLY EXPLAINS WHAT THAT IS.
LASTLY, ON THAT SECTION, WE WERE RECOMMENDING THAT SYNTHETIC TURF BE ALLOWED BY WRITE AND THAT WE DON'T CAT THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO DECIDE WHEN IT'S GOOD AND WHEN IT'S NOT.
I'M ALMOST DONE. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
VERY MUCH GOOD. RIGHTS OF ACCESS ON PAGE 16.
WE FEEL LIKE THAT MAY BE OUT OF PLACE A LITTLE BIT IN THIS DOCUMENT.
IT SAYS HERE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT FOR ACCESS FOR LANDSCAPING, IF YOU HAVE AN HOA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SET UP.
JUST LET THAT BE A PART OF THAT DOCUMENT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE YOU REGULATE THAT.
VERY LASTLY, THE LAST FOUR PAGES ARE JUST
[01:15:06]
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS IN THOSE FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUFFER YARDS.AND WHAT WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HERE, PRIMARILY, WHEN YOU GET INTO TO THE TYPE C AND D BUFFERS, WE BELIEVE THAT JUST THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED PER 100 FOOT, LONG TERM IS NOT VIABLE.
YOU CAN SEE THIS GRAPHIC REPRESENTS WHAT MATURE TREES MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN THAT 100 FOOT.
AND I THINK YOU'RE ASKING TO PUT TOO MUCH TREE IN A SPACE AND THE TREES ARE GOING TO SURVIVE, AND IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.
SO I DO APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
I HAVE ONE OF MY TASK FORCE PARTNERS HERE WITH ME THIS EVENING AND HE CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE ALSO HAVE MEMBERS FROM THE LUBBOCK ALLIANCE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS HERE.
WE DO HAVE THEIR SUPPORT, AND I'LL ASK THEM TO STAND UP IF THEY CAN [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.
AND THEY'RE CERTAINLY HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL.
THOSE GUYS ARE A LOT SMARTER ABOUT THIS STUFF THAN WE ARE.
WE HAD THE PLEASANT SURPRISE OF REALIZING WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE PRIMARILY WHEN WE GOT TOGETHER AND LOOKED AT OUR SEPARATE DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S A LOT TO DIGEST AND CERTAINLY WE'LL DEFER TO EVERYBODY'S JUDGMENT ON HOW DEEP YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS AT THIS POINT.
WE WANT TO SEE THESE AMENDMENTS GO FORWARD.
WE DO FEEL LIKE IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THE NEEDLE FORWARD ON LANDSCAPING, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AS WELL.
WITH THAT SAID, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND GET OUT OF HERE.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. HOLMAN WHILE HE'S UP HERE? MR. GLASHEEN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OH, SORRY.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE AND THE THOUGHT THAT YOU PUT INTO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S A LABOR OF LOVE.
WE'RE ALL DEEPLY INVESTED IN HOW WE MAKE OUR CITY LOOK. ABSOLUTELY.
>> THANK YOU. AND TERRY, THANK YOU AND YOUR GROUP, WEST TEXAS HOME BUILDERS, THE DEVELOPMENT GROUPS THAT HAVE WORKED SO HARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS.
I KNOW THE HOURS THAT YOU'VE PUT IN AND AGAIN, THANK YOU BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT YOUR INTENTIONS ARE WONDERFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY.
ON PAGE 7, YOU MENTIONED THIS CHANGE TO BUFFER YARDS AND I GUESS WHAT I'M READING IN HERE, IT WOULD BE AND IT COMES INTO THIS LANDSCAPING COMPONENT, BUT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE ELIMINATE BUFFER YARDS IN ITS ENTIRETY IF THERE'S AN ALLEY SEPARATING A DIFFERENT ZONING.
>> WITH RESPECT TO DISTRICT BUFFER YARDS, YES.
>> AND, MR. COLLINS, THE THING TO REMEMBER, FOR ALL OF US NOW IS, IS ALLEYS ARE BEGINNING TO GO AWAY TO SOME EXTENT? [NOISE] SO WE DO UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO STILL HAVE SOME SORT OF BUFFER, FOR EXAMPLE, OF SOME SORT, WHERE YOU HAVE A NON RESIDENTIAL USE BUTTING RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE.
BUT THE ALLEYS IN STREETS, PARTICULARLY STREETS HAVE SERVED US WELL OVER THE YEARS.
THEY PROVIDE THAT 20 FOOT GAP OR 60 FOOT GAP, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT SEPARATION IN OUR VIEW. YES.
>> CAN YOU ASSURE US THAT SEWER LINES AND ALLEYS ARE GOING AWAY SOMETIME SOON?
>> I DON'T KNOW OF ONE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WE'RE DOING THESE DAYS THAT HAS ALLEYS OTHER THAN REMNANTS OF STUFF THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.
>> HUMOR ME, PLEASE. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.
>> WE'LL JUST HAVE THAT IN THE STREET.
>> BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING NOW IS THAT IF WE HAD ALLEYWAY JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THOUGH, THAT IF WE HAD AN ALLEYWAY THAT SEPARATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM SOMETHING THAT WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARD SHOULD BE REMOVED?
>> AND I THINK FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, THERE'S TWO THINGS AT PLAY HERE IN OUR VIEW.
I THINK WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE BUILDING FENCES AND THOSE FENCES IN AND OF THEMSELVES DO GO A LONG WAY WITH RESPECT TO SEPARATION OF DIFFERENT USES.
[NOISE] THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE'VE ENCOUNTERED ON THESE BUFFER YARDS, PRIMARILY ON THE BACK SIDE OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TRACKS, MORE SO ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, NOBODY SEES IT, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY DO MUCH GOOD.
AND THAT'S ONE REASON WHY I HAD FOR EXAMPLE TAKEN ALL THE SHRUBBERIES OUT OF THE BUFFER THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A FENCE.
THAT SHRUBBERY DOES NOBODY ANY GOOD WITH RESPECT TO
[01:20:04]
INSULATING VIEW AND NOISE FROM ONE USE TO THE OTHER.IF YOU HAVE A FENCE, THEY'RE DOWN BELOW THE FENCE, NOBODY BUT THE DELIVERY AT 5:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING SEES THOSE SHRUBBERY.
>> WELL, I KNOW THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT TO A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT, AND SO I'M TRYING TO GET THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT AND ALSO THE UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID TO ME, I THINK IS IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE NOT MITIGATING NOISE, THEN THERE'S NO PURPOSE FOR THAT BUFFER YARD.
WOULD YOU GO SO FAR TO SAY THAT THE CANOPY OF A TREE WOULD HELP MITIGATE NOISE BETWEEN AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
>> I THINK IT DOES MORE FOR VISIBILITY THAN IT DOES NOISE PER SAY.
THERE'S ALREADY ELEMENTS BUILT INTO THE UDC, PRIMARILY WHERE YOU HAVE RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE UP WINDOWS, MAKING SURE THE MENU BOARD IS NOT RIGHT AT SOMEBODY'S BACK FENCE, AND SO THOSE GENERATE AS MUCH NOISE AS ANYTHING.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN ELEMENT OF NOISE TO SOME EXTENT WHEN YOU BACK UP TO NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND HOW MUCH THE TREES DO, I ALWAYS LOOK AT IT MORE OF THE VISUAL THAN THE NOISE.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM MARTINEZ-GARCIA.
>> THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION VERY INFORMATIVE.
>> IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT. I WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'RE HAVING WATER ISSUES.
WE'RE HAVING DIFFERENT TYPES OF WEATHER ELEMENTS AND HEAT ISSUES, AND SO WE HAVE TO BE PROACTIVE IN THESE EFFORTS.
THIS IS ALL GREAT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS, BUT WITH OLDER AREAS, I THINK SOMETIMES IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A LOT IN PLACE.
I DO HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF YOU EVER REVISIT THAT YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE AWARE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING EVEN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING DEVELOPMENT IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS STARTING TO POP UP.
BUT I THINK IT'S VERY GOOD AND THANK YOU FOR BEING CONSCIOUS OF WATER AND THE WEATHER ELEMENTS BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO PLAY A VERY SIGNIFICANT PART OF OUR FUTURE PLANNING. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THE POINT I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE.
OUR OBJECTIVE HERE IS TO FIND A REASONABLE SOLUTION IN LANDSCAPING.
OBVIOUSLY, WE KNOW WE DO NEED SOME LANDSCAPING AND HOW WE DEVELOP.
NO QUESTION. MY CONCERN IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OLDER PARTS OF TOWN, AND IF YOU IMPOSE, I'LL JUST USE A CLICHE, BUT IF YOU IMPOSE SOMEONE TO PUT THE CADILLAC ON THEIR PROPERTY AND ALL THEY HAVE IS A CHEVY, THAT DOES BECOME A CHALLENGE FOR SOMEONE TRYING TO DEVELOP IN AREAS THAT COULD NOT MAYBE AFFORD THE CADILLAC OF LANDSCAPING.
WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THAT BACK IN A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL OF US WHO ARE OPERATING IN THAT.
>> DON'T USE THAT ANALOGY IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT THROWS ME OFF A LITTLE BIT.
>> FOR ME, I WANT THOSE PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK GOOD, BUT I'M LOOKING MORE AT WATER CONSERVATION.
I'M LOOKING MORE AT THE FACT THAT YOU CAN PLANT A TREE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO SURVIVE.
I CAN SHOW YOU SO MANY EXAMPLES.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT WATER SET UP, YOU'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE, SO THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REDO IT, AND I THINK FOR ME THAT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST REASON THAT I SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
>> YES. I'D BE I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T REMIND YOU THAT THIS DOCUMENT CERTAINLY ENCOURAGES ZERO ESCAPE AND YOU'RE RIGHT, ALL OF THE GREEN STUFF TAKES LOTS OF WATER, AND WE ALL NEED TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF THAT MOVING FORWARD.
>> TERRY, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THANK YOU AND THANK YOU TO THE DEVELOPERS COUNSEL FOR REALLY ALL THE LABOR OF LOVE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT INTO UDC AND TO THE AMENDMENTS COMING FORWARD.
I KNOW THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU ALL HAVE DEDICATED TO THIS, PEOPLE JUST DON'T TRULY UNDERSTAND.
I WANT TO TELL YOU THANK YOU PERSONALLY AND FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, AND THEN JUST WANT TO THANK ALSO OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR BEING HERE AND PUTTING IN YOUR INPUT.
WE KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW YOUR JOB THE BEST, SO WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF HERE. WE APPRECIATE YOU.
[01:25:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS MAY BE FOR MORE FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS CRITICAL ROOT ZONE? IS IT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT OF TREE PROTECTION FENCE CONSTRUCTIVE APPROVED MATERIALS SHALL ENCOMPASS THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE.
THEN IT SAYS AT OWNER'S EXPENSE AN ISA-CERTIFIED ARBORIST OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SHALL BE PRESENT WHENEVER ACTIVITIES OCCUR, WHICH WILL POSE A THREAT OR RISK TO HELP A PROTECTED TREE.
WHEN SPEAKING OF REDEVELOPING OLDER PARTS OF IT, WHAT TREES, IF THIS TREE IS DYING, OR IT SEEMS TO PUT A LITTLE BIT OF A BURDEN ON SOME REDEVELOPMENT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS IN HERE.
>> MR. ROSE, YOU JUST WENT BEYOND MY PAY GRADE.
I'M GOING TO DEFER TO MY LANDSCAPE FRIENDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY SWIM IN ALL DAY LONG.
>> IT'S JUST THAT THAT'S OUT OF MY LANE.
>> I'II APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE LANDSCAPE GROUP THAT WANTS TO, MR. SCARBOROUGH, CAN YOU COME FORWARD AND HELP US WITH THAT?
>> THAT'S A SPECIAL PROVISION.
I'M ALEX SCARBOROUGH, 2009, MESA.
THE INTENT IS PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES.
IF THERE WAS A REDEVELOPMENT OF A LOT OR SOMETHING THAT HAD EXISTING TREES ON IT, THAT YOU COULD GET BONUS POINTS FOR PRESERVING THOSE TREES.
>> THAT OUTLINES WHAT HAS TO BE DONE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, FOR PRESERVING TREES, SO THAT YOU DON'T CREATE INTO CONSTRUCTION A SITUATION THAT DOES KILL THE TREE.
THAT'S THE INTENT OF THAT, IS TO GIVE GUIDELINES FOR TREE PRESERVATION, IN DEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT A LOT IN LUBBOCK, BUT WHEN WE DO OFTEN IT'S REALLY SOMETHING NICE THAT YOU WANT TO PRESERVE.
>> WOULD THIS ALLOW FOR THE MOVEMENT OF SAID TREES?
>> YES, IT IS. IN THE CODE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WOULD BE BONUS POINTS IF YOU DID PRESERVE TREES THOUGH.
THIS IS HOW DO YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT.
>> GOT YOU. APPRECIATE IT, MR. SCARBOROUGH. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MAYOR.
>> MAKE A COMMENT. I'M A NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL YOU PEOPLE FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS FOR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE LUBBOCK A GREATER CITY THAN WHAT IT IS. THANK YOU, GUYS.
>>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION, MR. MAYOR.
IN OUR PACKET TODAY, WE WERE EMAILED FEW SAMPLE SITE PLANS FROM MR. WILKERSON.
MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. HALLMAN AND HIS GROUP, OR COREY, OR VICTORIA, BUT SINCE THE UDC HAS BEEN IN PLACE WITH THESE LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, CAN ANYONE FROM THAT GROUP SPEAK TO REAL-LIFE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED UNDER THESE RULES? HOW THOSE HAVE GONE, WERE THEY SHELVED, DID THE CLIENT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, OR WHAT DID THEY ULTIMATELY DECIDE TO DO WITH THE PROJECT AS A RESULT OF THESE RULES? I JUST SEE THIS IN OUR PACKET, AND IT LOOKS LIKE IN ONE INSTANCE A BUILDING IS SMALLER, ONE INSTANCE A BUILDING IS BIGGER, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR FROM COREY, OR TERRY, OR SOMEBODY, ON PRACTICALITY OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE.
>> GOOD EVENING, COREY [INAUDIBLE] AMD ENGINEERING [NOISE] 68TH STREET.
WE'VE HAD A FEW PROJECTS SHELVED BECAUSE OF SOME OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WITH THE ALLEY THAT WE'VE RUN INTO.
I'D RATHER NOT GIVE SPECIFICS ON THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S STILL IN LIMBO, BUT IT'S SURROUNDED BY A REAR ENTRY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOT AN ALLEY.
WE'RE PLANNING TO PUT A FENCE THERE.
WELL, NOW WITH THIS CODE, WE'VE GOT A BUFFER YARD TO PULL BACK INTO LANDSCAPE.
IT'S VIEWED AS A TAKING, REALLY.
THEY PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR SQUARE FOOT FOR THAT PROPERTY, AND NOW THERE IS A LOT OF EXPENSE THAT GOES INTO INSTALLING THAT LANDSCAPE AND THEN ALSO MAINTAINING THAT LANDSCAPE, AND SO IT FLIPS THE PENDULUM A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR, AND THEN AFFORDABILITY NOT ONLY FOR INSTALLATION BUT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THAT PROJECT.
[01:30:02]
THAT'S ONE COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT I HAD, I'VE GOT ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S ALSO ON HOLD FOR THE SAME REASON.IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS BACK OF HOUSE THAT NO ONE SEES AND ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE'VE GOT THIS 15-FOOT BUFFER YARD, HIGH-PRICED PROPERTY THAT IS NOW GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE KINDS OF CHANGES TO LANDSCAPE AND MAINTAIN.
MY CONCERN IS NOT JUST IN THAT IMPLEMENTATION, BUT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO MONITOR THAT IN THE FUTURE.
IS THAT GOING TO STAY THAT WAY THE NEXT YEAR? IS IT GOING TO BE MONITORED TO SEE IF TREES ARE STILL THERE, AND BUSHES ARE STILL THERE, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? THERE'S A LOT TO DIGEST THERE.
THOSE ARE JUST TWO EXAMPLES THAT I KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER PUBLICLY FUNDED PROJECTS WHERE BUDGETS HAVE BEEN SET AND NOW THESE THINGS COME UP THAT MONEY IS NOT THERE FOR, BONDS ARE NOT THERE FOR.
WE'VE SET IN PLACE DIMENSIONS FOR PROPERTIES FOR DECADES BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW CAN FIT.
WE'RE HEMMED IN IN SO MANY PLACES THAT NOW WITH THESE BUFFERS AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS LANDSCAPING, IT'S MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DRAW THESE SITES IN.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
YOU'VE GOT A GROUP OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS HERE THAT WOULD LOVE TO SELL MORE TREES.
BUT THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR LICENSE, AND TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, TO DO WHAT'S REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE.
IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS, SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE NONE OF THOSE THINGS.
I APPLAUD THEM FOR COMING FORWARD WITH THESE EFFORTS TO TRIM THINGS BACK TO SOMETHING THAT'S REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE.
>> COREY, I'M SORRY, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN.
THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME THE MIC QUICK ENOUGH.
JUST GOT TO BE QUICK ON THE DRAW HERE.
YOUR EXAMPLES, WHAT WERE THEY ZONED AS, THE TWO PROPERTIES?
>> ONE OF THEM WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED C3, THE OTHER IS A GARDEN OFFICE.
>> A GARDEN OFFICE BUTTED UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE, BUT IT GOES BACK TO SOME OF THESE SETBACKS.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE WERE ACCUSTOMED TO DOING WITH PARKING, MAYBE A COMPLEX WHERE YOU'VE GOT A BOX THAT'S OWNED, AND SO THAT'S WHERE SOME OF YOUR SETBACK QUESTIONS COME IN.
SOME OF THESE ARE COMING FROM REAL WORLD.
THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE ACTUALLY DO IT IN LUBBOCK, AND SO IT'S, SOMEBODY CALLED IT A LABOR OF LOVE.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING CHOICE OF WORDS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH.
BUT THE UDC HAS HAD SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT.
>> MORE COMPREHENSIVELY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
MR. COLLINS, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
SO COREY, INTO THE EXAMPLE THAT MR. WHEATLEY MENTIONED, NOT ONLY DO WE SEE THE POTENTIALS IN THE LIABILITIES, IF YOU WILL, OF THE LANDSCAPING, BUT I THINK THE EXAMPLE THAT WE SAW SAW AS MUCH AS A 25% REDUCTION OF THE CAPACITY OF THAT PIECE OF LAND, THE AMOUNT OF BUILDING THAT COULD BE PLACED ON IT.
IN AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DRIVER WHEN I LOOK AT A PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, IS HOW BIG A BUILDING CAN I PUT ON IT.
HOW MANY ACRES DO I HAVE TO BUY.
I TAKE THAT IN MIND THAT I CAN'T MAYBE GET ONLY 75% OF THE BUILDING THAT I HAD INTENDED ON THAT SPACE DUE STRICTLY TO THIS MAYBE 15-FOOT SETBACK.
THEN I THINK AS WE CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T GET ANY NOISE BENEFIT OR ANY VISUAL BENEFIT FROM LANDSCAPING AT THE BACK OF THAT PROPERTY, I THEN MAYBE QUESTION THE NEED FOR THAT SETBACK IN CERTAIN SETTINGS.
IT'S REALLY WHY I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY THE NOISE ISSUE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND SOMETHING LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
I GUESS THAT'S MAYBE JUST RESTATING WHAT'S BEEN SAID, BUT AN IMPORTANT THING TO KNOW.
WE'VE BROUGHT SOME OF THESE THINGS UP IN THE PAST AND OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ABOUT SOME OF THIS, AND THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN BACK AS WELL, WE'VE REDUCED YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND SO NOW YOU'VE GOT ALL THIS ROOM.
WELL, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE A MINIMUM, AND TO ME THAT PENDULUM HAS SWUNG WAY TOO FAR.
[01:35:03]
I'M NOT DEVELOPING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW OR DRAWING ANYTHING IN WITH THAT MINIMUM BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO FEW IN A LOT OF CASES.WE STILL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT OUR CLIENTS NEED.
IT'S GOING TO MORE OFTEN THAN NOT BE MORE THAN THAT MINIMUM.
THE ARGUMENT THAT WE GREATLY REDUCED THIS THING IT SOMETIMES ISN'T REASONABLE OR RESPONSIBLE.
WE'VE GOT TO USE MORE PROPERTY FOR PARKING OR FOR BUILDING, FOR WHATEVER.
>> WELL, I THINK TO YOUR POINT, IF I PLAN AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND KNOW THAT I'M ANTICIPATING 50 EMPLOYEES, IT DOESN'T HELP ME IF I ONLY HAVE TO HAVE 35 PARKING SPACES.
>> IT DOESN'T IMPACT MY LAND USE.
I STILL NEED PARKING SPACES FOR MY 50 EMPLOYEES PLUS.
I HEAR THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GO DOWN UNTIL YOU TELL ME.
>> YOU'LL STAY THERE. ONE OF MY QUESTIONS HERE, AND AGAIN, THIS IS OFF OF PAGE 7, AND YOU REFERRED TO IT, WHERE YOU HAVE A REAR ENTRANCE TO SOME PROPERTY, AND THEN YOU HAVE A FENCE BEHIND THAT, MIGHT BE AN APPROPRIATE BUFFER.
BUT DO YOU SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STREET SIDE OF THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND WHETHER OR NOT THE BUFFER SHOULD BE? YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOUND, BUT THERE IS A VISUAL ELEMENT I THINK TO A BUFFER YARD TOO.
JUST DO YOU SEE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO?
>> WE STILL HAVE PARKING BUFFERS IN THERE, AND WE STILL HAVE LANDSCAPING IN THOSE PARKING BUFFERS.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU RELY ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL LICENSES THAT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS HAVE, AND PROVIDING REASONABLE LANDSCAPING FOR THAT SITE.
AS FAR AS, IF I'M A RESIDENCE AND I'M NEXT DOOR TO SOMETHING ADJACENT AND THERE'S NO FENCE, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
IF THERE'S A STREET ACROSS, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A VALUE IN BUFFERING A DEPTH BASED ON SOME RUBRIC BETWEEN ME AND THAT OTHER ENTITY.
IF THERE'S A THOROUGHFARE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, THAT PROVIDES THAT BUFFER, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING? ANYBODY? I DON'T WANT TO OVERLOOK YOU GUYS.
YOU'RE SITTING THERE, YOU OKAY?
>> [LAUGHTER] ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK, AND SUPPORT? MR. PAYNE.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNSEL, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
FIRST OF ALL, HAS MR. [INAUDIBLE] DID SUPPORT THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ALL, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING ISSUE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS CORRECT OR NOT, THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME LACK OF APPETITE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ROUND OF UDC CHANGES.
I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU FROM AN EXPERIENTIAL STANDPOINT.
IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF I'VE BEEN PRETTY ACTIVE IN SELLING COMMERCIAL TRACTS OF LAND, MOSTLY AROUND THE NEW UMC HOSPITAL, OR I SHOULD SAY THE BEAUTIFUL NEW UMC HOSPITAL.
OF ALL THE ISSUES THAT ARISE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MY POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, THEIR ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, MY ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, THIS IS UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT EXCEPTION THE ISSUE THAT CAUSES THE MOST CONSTERNATION.
MOST ESPECIALLY THE ISSUE OF BUFFER YARDS, AND MORE ESPECIALLY THAN THAT, THE ISSUE OF REAR BUFFER YARDS.
THE COMPLAINT THAT I HEAR IS NOT ABOUT COST, IT'S ABOUT THE LOSS OF THE ABILITY TO FULLY DEVELOP THE TRACT OF LAND.
I WOULD JUST SUBMIT THAT THERE IS AN URGENT NEED TO ADDRESS THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
FURTHER, IF THE CONCERN IS ABOUT VISUAL ISSUES, INCREASE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF A FENCE,
[01:40:01]
TO SEVEN FEET INSTEAD OF SIX FEET.IF THE CONCERN IS ABOUT SOUND, REQUIRE A SOLID MASONRY FENCE RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE USE OF A WOOD FENCE, WHICH DEFINITELY CHANGES THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT NOISE ISSUES.
BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS SOON AS WE CAN POSSIBLY ADDRESS IT.
THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE DONE THAT ARE NOT BEING DONE BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO DEVELOP THE LAND, AND END USERS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT NOT SPECULATIVE INVESTORS, AND A LOT OF TIMES THEY HAVE TO BUY MORE LAND TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, AND IT'S THAT ADDITIONAL LAND COST THAT IS A COST ISSUE, NOT THE COST OF THE LANDSCAPING OR THE COST OF A FENCE, BE IT HIGHER OR SOLID MASONRY, IT'S JUST THE ADDITIONAL LAND COST THAT'S REQUIRED TO FULLY DEVELOP THEIR PROJECT.
THAT IS VERY EXPENSIVE AT THE CURRENT PRICE OF LAND.
THAT'S MY ONLY REQUEST, THAT YOU ALL TRY TO ADDRESS THIS AS SOON AS YOU CAN.
>> YOU MAY, WELL, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? NOBODY?
>> THANK YOU, MR. PAYNE. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? MR. WILKERSON.
>> COUNCIL, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THANK YOU GUYS FOR SERVING AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO HAVE THIS HEARING AND RECONSIDER SOME OF THE ASPECTS OF THE UDC.
I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE GOOD BOOK YET, BUT I'M FEELING THE SPIRIT AND I'M STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM MR. HOMAN AND MR. DOON AND EVEN MR. PAYNE.
IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT SOME COMMON SENSE IS BEING INJECTED INTO THE DISCUSSIONS HERE.
IT WAS REFERENCED EARLIER THAT I SENT AN E MAIL TO STAFF TODAY THAT ESSENTIALLY PROVIDED A SITE PLAN AS WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS A CASE STUDY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND IN LUBBOCK AND HOW IT'S AFFECTED BY THE UDC.
IT'S A SMALL SIDE, IT'S A LITTLE OVER AN ACRE.
IT'S IN THE 6,000 BLOCK OF 42ND STREET.
IT'S BETWEEN A PROPERTY THAT WE DEVELOPED FOR ALL SIDES SUPPLY AND A PROPERTY THAT LA ELECTRIC DEVELOPED.
GOOD, SOLID COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE COULD DEVELOP PRIOR TO THE UDC WAS 15,520 SQUARE FEET.
THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, IS AMONG THE MOST ONEROUS PROVISIONS OF THE UDC, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO CONSIDER AS WELL.
BECAUSE UNDER ALL THE TERMS OF THE UDC, WE CAN ONLY DEVELOP 11,820 SQUARE FEET.
WE'RE 76% OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD WE PLATTED THIS PRIOR TO WHATEVER IT WAS, OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
I'M NOT GOING TO DELVE INTO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, WELL, I WILL. I'LL GIVE YOU.
WE'VE GOT A DEVELOPMENT HERE THAT WE'VE DONE, AND WE'VE ALWAYS BUILT A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL, AND IT'S A PERFECT SCREEN BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.
RIGHT OVER HERE, WE GOT ANOTHER SIX-FOOT HIGH WALL.
WE'VE GOT THIS ONE ACRE LOT IN BETWEEN, AND ACCORDING TO THE UDC, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A 15 FEET OF LANDSCAPING.
IN A PERFECT WORLD, YOU WANT THAT LANDSCAPING TO BE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THE FENCE.
IF I DO THAT, THEN I'VE GOT GAPS IN MY FENCE AND KIDS OR DOGS OR HULA HOOPS OR BASKETBALLS OR SOCCER BALLS OR WHATEVER CAN MIGRATE INTO THERE.
THERE ARE HUGE LIABILITY ISSUES.
THE ONLY THING THAT A DEVELOPER CAN DO IS BUILD HIS FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR 25 YEARS, THEN I'VE GOT TO PUT 15 FEET OF LANDSCAPING ON THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE OF THE FENCE, WHICH NOBODY'S GOING TO SEE.
TO COUNCILMAN MARTINEZ'S POINT, IT'S GOING TO USE WATER.
WE'RE BUYING OURSELVES A JOB FOR NO REASON.
NOT TRYING TO BE HARSH, BUT TRYING TO LET YOU GUYS SEE WHERE THIS REAL WORLD TAKES YOU.
THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT USED TO BE 10 FEET.
WE NEVER BUILT ANYTHING ON A 10-FOOT SETBACK, BUT NOW IT'S 40 FEET.
THE REAR SETBACK WENT FROM ZERO TO 100 FEET.
THAT SEVERELY RESTRICTS YOUR LAND USE.
THE SIDE SETBACK WENT FROM NONE TO 20 FEET.
THE SIGN IS A BIG ISSUE BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE COMPANIES WANT A MONUMENT SIGN.
[01:45:03]
THE SIGN SETBACK WENT FROM 10 FEET TO 20 FEET.THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VISIBILITY FOR A SIGN.
PARKING LOT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE COREY IS COMING FROM.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE STAY THAT I SENT TO YOU, WE LOST 3,700 FEET OF BUILDING, AND OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT WENT UP THREE SPACES, AND WE'RE LIKE COREY, WE BUILD BEYOND WHAT'S THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO MEET OUR CUSTOMERS' REQUIREMENTS.
BUT ANYHOW, THE PARKING BUFFER YARD, I'M FAILING TO SEE THE BENEFIT IN THAT.
WE HAVE TO PUT EITHER A TWO-FOOT CMU WALL OR A TWO-FOOT HEDGE BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE PARKING.
IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE DONE OUT THERE, THEY'RE WELL DONE AND THEY PRESENT WELL THEIR POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER UNNECESSARY.
IT'S NOT AS US AS THE DISTRICT BUFFER YARD.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE UDC MOVE THE GOAL POST SIGNIFICANTLY FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, PROBABLY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, TOO.
IT REDUCES THE VALUE OF THE LAND, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, MAKES IT LESS PRODUCTIVE.
IT MAKES IT LESS PRODUCTIVE FOR THE CITY TOO, BECAUSE JUST IN THAT SIMPLE CASE STUDY THAT I PROVIDED, THAT'S ANOTHER 3,700 FEET THAT DIDN'T GO ON THE TAX RULES.
IT REDUCES THE ADDITION TO THE TAX BASE.
HONESTLY, IT REDUCES THE INCENTIVE TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND IT DRIVES DEVELOPMENT INTO LUBBOCK COUNTY.
I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR TAKING TIME TO REVISIT THIS, AND I IMPLORE YOU TO TAKE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT TERRY AND COY AND THEIR GROUP WILL PUT TOGETHER AND TO FURTHER STUDY SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO STAY UP HERE?
>> I DID. I SENT IT THIS MORNING AND YOU GUYS MIGHT NOT HAVE GOTTEN IT.
SOMEBODY MENTIONED RECEIVING IT.
I'M HAPPY TO COME SIT DOWN AND TALK YOU THROUGH EXACTLY HOW IT'S FIXED.
LOOK, I'M TALKING ABOUT A ONE-ACRE SITE.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF ACRES IN TOWN TO BE DEVELOPED.
DEVELOPMENT IS A LIFEBLOOD OF THIS COMMUNITY.
WE NEED POSITIVE REASONS FOR THIS TO OCCUR, NOT LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT FORCE IT ELSEWHERE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. FOLKERSON. I THINK I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT DEVELOPERS ARE REAL PARTNERS IN OUR CITY'S DEVELOPMENT AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP PROPERTIES INTO MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTING PARTS OF OUR ECONOMY.
I WILL JUST BACK TO THE CHEVY AND CADILLAC EXAMPLE THOUGH.
LUBBOCK MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A F 150 CITY, I DON'T KNOW.
WE'RE NOT REALLY EXACTLY A CADILLAC CITY HERE.
YES, WHAT WE DEVELOP HERE NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR LUBBOCK.
I'VE ALWAYS SAID, LUBBOCK IS LUBBOCK. LUBBOCK IS UNIQUE.
WE APPRECIATE ALL OF Y'ALL'S CONTRIBUTION TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION, AND I THINK WE'LL ALL TAKE ALL YOUR SUGGESTIONS SERIOUSLY, AND I KNOW THE PLANNING AND ZONING WILL TOO.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE SPENT ON IT.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? MR. COLLINS.
>> JUST QUICKLY TO ADD TO THAT.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE STAFF.
I KNOW THAT THESE FOLKS ARE DOING THE WORK OF OUR DIRECTIVE.
THEY GET SOMETIMES HANDCUFFED IN THE THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY FOLLOW THE CODE.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THEM FOR THEIR WORK, RECOGNIZING THAT THEY'RE GIVEN RULES AND WE CAN HELP THEM AS WE MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, I THINK, GOING FORWARD, BUT THEY DO A GREAT JOB FOR US, AND SO THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT, THE MORE CLARITY WE CAN GIVE TO THEM, THE EASIER THEIR JOB BECOMES, SO TRUE. MISS MARTINEZ GARCIA.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WE GOT TO ASK QUESTIONS TO THE FOLKS THAT WERE AGAINST, AND MARY, THAT WAS YOU.
I THINK I NEED TO ASK MY QUESTION MORE TO KRISTEN.
[01:50:03]
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE BRICK.CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE? I KNOW THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY REVIEWING.
DO WE HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT?
>> THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED AUGUST OF 2020 LAYS OUT PROTECTIONS FOR BRICK STREETS LOCATED ON BROADWAY AVENUE BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND AVENUE E, AS WELL AS BRICK STREETS DOWNTOWN, CRICKETS AVENUE, BUDDY HOLLY, TEXAS AVENUE J.
BRICK STREETS WITHIN THE SOUTH OVERTON RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, 20TH STREET, MAIN STREET, AND IT GIVES A PROCESS WHERE IF IT'S GOING TO BE DISTURBED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN UTILITY REPAIRS, IT HAS TO BE REPLACED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT AFTER A REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY MANAGER WHO HAS TO CONSULT WITH THE URBAN DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
IT JUST LAYS OUT THE PROCESS FOR THOSE PROTECTIONS AND HOW IT HAS TO BE REPAIRED IF DISTURBED.
AS WE MENTIONED, IT WAS NOT CARRIED OVER INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO IT IS NOT IN EFFECT AT THIS TIME.
WE JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO BOTH OF Y'ALL'S ATTENTION IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER WITH THESE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK INTO THE CHAPTER 36 STREET CHAPTER.
>> MR. HANNO, I KNOW YOU SENT US A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE?
>> YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE, I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE THING TO WHAT KRISTEN INDICATED.
IT IS SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WANTS TO REINSTITUTE.
AS KRISTEN MENTIONED, YOU CAN ADD IT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IF YOU WANT TO REINSTITUTE IT, THOSE STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND YOU DO IT THROUGH CHAPTER 36.
THAT IS BASICALLY PART OF THE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
IT ADDRESSES STREET, SIDEWALKS, AND PUBLIC WAYS.
WE THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A MORE APPROPRIATE PLACE IF YOU WANT TO ADD IT BACK. JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
THAT WOULD THEN JUST GO STRAIGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND IT WOULD NOT INVOLVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU DISCUSS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. WADE. I WAS FIXING THE DIRECTED QUESTION TO YOU ANYWAY, BUT I'LL LET YOU COMMENT FIRST WHATEVER YOU WERE GOING TO SAY.
>> I'LL ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK PROBABLY.
>> MISS CRITES RAISED THIS AS A DUE PROCESS MAYBE ISSUE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IS THAT A CONCERN? I UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE'S SAYING, PUT IT BACK IN, AND WE CAN TAKE WHATEVER ACTION WE WANT ON IT AGAIN.
DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE FACT THAT WE LEFT IT OUT AND DO WE NEED TO PUT IT BACK IN?
>> I THINK THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, IF COUNCIL WANTS IT BACK IN, THEN YES, I DO THINK THAT COUNCIL AT SOME FUTURE DATE WILL NEED TO TAKE ACTION PUTTING IT BACK IN.
I AGREE WITH MR. RHINO THAT THAT I'VE LOOKED AT THE ORDINANCE AS WELL.
TO ME, IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A I FIRST DESCRIBED IT AS A RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE THAT WAS SPECIFIC FOR OUR HISTORIC BRICK STREETS.
THAT WOULD BE NOT SO MUCH A ZONING ISSUE AS IT WOULD BE MORE OF A STANDARDS THAT YOU HAVE FOR OUR RIGHT OF WAYS THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY THE BRICK STREET.
THAT WOULD BE IN CHAPTER 36 IS WHERE IT WOULD BE.
I DO THINK WE OBVIOUSLY CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON IT TONIGHT.
STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME INTEREST IN BRINGING THAT FORTH AT A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WE COULD DO WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE ZONING NOTICE PROCESS.
THAT WOULD JUST SIMPLY BE AN ORDINANCE BROUGHT BACK FORWARD.
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INADVERTENTLY OR NOT INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE WHEN WE PASSED THE UDC THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID IF IT WAS IN HERE, THEN IT WAS REPEALED.
THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT LEGALLY, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY AT THAT TIME.
NO PROBLEM THOUGH WITH YOU BRINGING IT BACK AND PUTTING IT BACK IN YOUR CODE OR THIS COUNCIL PUTTING IT BACK INTO YOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES AT A FUTURE COUNCIL DATE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR?
>> IT DOES. THANK YOU. MISS CRITES, I SAW YOU COME FORWARD.
DID YOU WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT?
>> I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM, AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH CHANGING WHERE IT IS.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US EVEN KNEW THAT IT SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE UDC.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
IF I CAN SPEAK FROM MEMORY, SO DON'T HOLD THIS TO ME EXACTLY,
[01:55:02]
THE 2020 ORDINANCE ACTUALLY HAS FOUR PARTS TO IT.BROADWAY WAS THE ONE THAT REQUIRES MORE REVIEW AND MORE INPUT FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE URBAN DESIGN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, THE TF, CITY MANAGER, ETC.
BUT IT PROVIDES VERY CONSTRICT ADHERENCE TO PRESERVING OUR BRICK STREETS IN SAY SOUTH OVERTON AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THEM EVEN IN THE TECH TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT WOULD PROTECT SAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO REBUILD THOSE STREETS, THEY MUST BE REBUILT IN BRICK.
THERE'S TWO LEVELS OF DOWNTOWN STREETS.
SOME GIVE WIDE LATITUDE ABOUT WHAT THE CITY CAN DO.
OTHERS SAY YOU MUST RETAIN THOSE STREETS AS WELL.
IT WAS A FINELY CRAFTED AND MUCH NEGOTIATED DOCUMENT OVER A PERIOD OF WEEKS BETWEEN DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY THINKS IT'S GREAT, BUT WE MET IN THE MIDDLE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT THAT BACK.
WHETHER IT'S IN THE UDC, I CAN LIVE WITH THAT OR IN WHEREVER YOU JUST SUGGESTED, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE.
THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
NOW LET'S JUST TALK A LITTLE ABOUT OUR TIMELINE.
[3. Discussion regarding timeline and procedures regarding adoption of amendments to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054) and zoning map.]
THERE'S A TIMELINE OF PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE ZONING MAP.WHAT I HAVE HERE IS AUGUST 1ST FOR A PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AND AUGUST 13, THEN THAT WILL COME TO US AS A CITY COUNCIL.
I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE THAT ON THEIR SCHEDULE.
THAT'S THE ORDER IN WHICH WE WILL TAKE THIS UP, AND EVERYONE WHO'S HERE KNOWS THAT THOSE ARE THE DATES OF THOSE MEETINGS.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? IF NOT, THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.