[00:00:03]
>> IT IS NOW 6:01 P.M AND I CALL THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2024 TO ORDER.
THIS IS A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
NOW I INVITE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AS WELL.
>> I CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
>> BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING,
[1. Introductory remarks and Presentation by the City of Lubbock Planning Staff on the proposed Amendments to the Unified Development Code.]
I'M GOING TO ASK MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK PLANNING STAFF TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UDC.>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, AND COUNCIL, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THERE ARE 28 LANDSCAPE AMENDMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THEM AS QUICKLY AS I CAN AND SUMMARIZE THEM.
THE FIRST ONE IS IN REGARDS TO YOUR GROUND COVER REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW XERISCAPE GROUNDCOVER, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE GRAVEL, ROCKS WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET OF GROUNDCOVER AREA, YOU HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE LIVE PLANTS.
ITEM 2 IS IN REGARDS TO YOUR BUFFERYARDS.
THIS IS GOING TO STREAMLINE YOUR BUFFERYARDS BY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENTS TO SHRUBS AND THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES, STRUCTURAL VERSUS NATURAL.
IT'S GOING TO END UP LOOKING LIKE THAT.
MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES, REMOVING THE SHRUBS, REMOVING THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUFFERYARDS, AND CHANGING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED WIDTH OF BERMS AND INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE REQUIREMENT TO SEVEN FOOT IF A FENCE IS USED.
ITEM NUMBER 3 IS IN REGARDS TO YOUR LANDSCAPE POINTS.
THIS IS FOR YOUR SITE LANDSCAPING AND DEALS WITH CANOPY AND ORNAMENTAL TREES RATHER THAN PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET, IT WILL BE PER 2,000 SQUARE FEET.
YOUR DEFINITION OF GROUNDCOVER WILL BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF XERISCAPE.
FOR YOUR LANDSCAPE POINT SYSTEM IN REGARDS TO 50% OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL IS WATER EFFICIENT AS LISTED IN APPENDIX A.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE APPENDIX A IN A LATER AMENDMENT, AND WATER EFFICIENT IS PRETTY VAGUE.
THIS AMENDMENT HERE WILL LIST TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF POINTS.
FIFTY PERCENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN THE NON-TURFED LANDSCAPE AREA IS ZONED USDA 7, AND THEN 100% WOULD BE 10 POINTS, SO IT CLARIFIES IT.
ITEM 6 IS IN REGARDS TO INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SHRUBS.
CURRENTLY, A SHRUB IS REQUIRED IN A MINIMUM THREE-GALLON CONTAINER, BUT IT GIVES RATIOS IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE DIFFERENT SIZE CONTAINERS.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO STEAL THAT DOWN TO ONE GALLON IS YOUR MINIMUM.
ITEM 7 IS YOUR DEFINITIONS FOR CANOPY AND ORNAMENTAL TREES.
AGAIN, WE'RE REMOVING THE PLANT LIST OF APPROVED AND PROHIBITED PLANTS AND DEFINING THE TREES BY THEIR CANOPY WIDTH.
A CANOPY TREE IS A CANOPY WITH A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH.
ORNAMENTAL IS IN THE MINIMUM OF 10 FEET.
ITEM 8, REMOVE APPENDIX A IN ITS ENTIRETY.
WE DON'T WANT TO RESTRICT CREATIVITY FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
THERE'S REALLY NO PLANTS THAT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED, SO WE'LL REMOVE THAT IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU'RE RESTRICTING WHAT CAN BE DONE BY THE 60% AND 40% OF GENUS AND SPECIES.
WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT AS WELL.
ITEM 10, LANDSCAPE POINTS FOR A BUFFERYARD.
WHEN A BUFFERYARD IS NEEDED, CORRECT LOCATION AND COMPOSITION WILL GIVE YOU 10 POINTS.
CURRENTLY, BUFFERYARDS COUNT TOWARDS YOUR MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED, BUT THEY DON'T COUNT TOWARDS YOUR POINTS.
ITEM 11, THIS REALLY CLARIFIES THIS HAS CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION.
THE TITLE IS REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TYPES, WHICH IS YOUR SITE LANDSCAPING, YOUR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING, YOUR BUFFERYARD, YOUR FOUNDATION PLANTINGS.
YOU HAVE TO USE A MINIMUM OF TWO CATEGORIES FOR YOUR POINTS, BUT THIS CLARIFIES THAT THESE ARE YOUR ELIGIBLE LANDSCAPING TYPES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE EVERY SINGLE TYPE ON EVERY SINGLE PROJECT.
ITEM 12, THIS CLEANS UP YOUR POINTS IN REGARDS TO YOUR WATER, SO 100% OF WATER IN AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMES FROM TREATED PRODUCTION WATER.
YOU CAN'T MIX TREATED AND UNTREATED, SO THAT SHOULD BE 100%, AND THEN 100% IN AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMES FROM APPROVED WELL-ON SITE.
ITEM 13, THIS IS GOING TO REMOVE THIS PENALTY.
THIS ACTUALLY PENALIZES YOU MORE THAN 35% OF YOUR REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA IS TURF GRASS.
THERE'S NO REASON TO PENALIZE THAT, SO WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT.
ITEM 14, THIS CLARIFIES THAT YOUR PARKING BUFFERYARD CAN USE ANY COMBINATION OF THE ALLOWED SCREENING DEVICES.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE CONTINUOUS HEDGE.
[00:05:03]
YOU COULD BREAK IT UP WITH A MASONRY WALL IF YOU WANTED TO.ITEM 15, REMOVES THE LANGUAGE FOR A MAINTENANCE EASEMENT.
EASEMENTS ARE DONE AT THE PLATTING STAGE WAY BEFORE YOU EVER GET TO THIS STAGE OF THE PROJECT.
ITEM 16, THIS IS IN REGARDS TO YOUR STREET BUFFERYARD REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT DO A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION.
THIS WILL BE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE SUBDIVISION MAINTAINED BY AN HOA OR PID.
WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
ITEM 17, THIS IS YOUR LANDSCAPE POINT SYSTEM FOR YOUR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE.
THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITEMS HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO STREAMLINE IT AND DISTILL IT DOWN TO THE ONE LISTED HERE.
ITEM 18, THIS IS ANOTHER PENALTY.
IF YOU HAVE A SLOPE WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA THAT EXCEEDS 20%, YOU'RE PENALIZED ON YOUR POINTS.
THERE'S NO REASON TO DO THAT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT TO DO A BERM.
WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT. ITEM 19, THE STREET BUFFERYARD THAT I MENTIONED FOR RESIDENTIAL IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR OFFICE AND AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR IT. YOU HAVE YOUR DISTRICT BUFFERYARD STANDARDS.
WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE STREET BUFFERYARD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
ITEM 20, JUST REMOVES THAT ENTIRE TABLE FOR THE STREET BUFFERYARD.
ITEM 21, IS FOR YOUR PARKING BUFFERYARD.
CURRENTLY, IT'S REQUIRED IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 10 SPACES.
WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THAT TO 30.
WE DID REDUCE OUR PARKING STANDARDS, 30 IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE NUMBER FOR THIS REQUIREMENT.
ITEM 22, FOR YOUR PARKING BUFFERYARD STANDARDS, THE COMPOSITION, IT CLARIFIES THAT YOU CAN DO A CONTINUOUS PLANT SPACING, WHATEVER PLANT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME OF PLANTING TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS SCREENING AT TIME OF PLANT MATURITY.
ITEM 23, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE.
THIS REMOVES THE PROHIBITION ON USING A LARGE AREA OF MULCH AND ALLOWS SYNTHETIC TURF.
ITEM 24, THIS IS ADDING A CONTEXTUAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT WHERE AN INFILL PROJECT IS CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY ZONED IP, LI, OR GI, AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE INFILL SITE MAY MATCH THE LANDSCAPE AREA COVERAGE PERCENTAGE IN PLANTING MATERIAL DENSITY ON THE AVERAGE OF THOSE DEVELOPED NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
ITEM 25, WE'LL GIVE YOU POINTS TOWARDS YOUR LANDSCAPE TOTAL IF YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN IS STAMPED AND SEALED BY A LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
ITEM 26, THIS IS A GREAT GRAPHIC THAT WE HAVE IN HERE, JUST SHOWING HOW YOUR LANDSCAPING CAN LOOK.
ALL OF THE FOOTNOTES POINT TO THE DIFFERENT PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE TYPES, WHICH WE ARE STREAMLINING.
WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE BUT KEEP THE GRAPHIC.
ITEM 27, AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISTRICT BUFFERYARDS, STRUCTURAL VERSUS NATURAL.
IN ITEM 28, WE MOVED A COUPLE OF THE DISTRICTS AROUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT BUFFERYARD CATEGORIES AND PUT THEM WITH MORE APPROPRIATE DISTRICTS.
THAT'S IT. I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE]
>> IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, THEN YOU CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD.
>> WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE.
>> THEY CAN COME UP DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE THEIR COMMENT.
>> WE WILL HAVE A TIME FOR YOU MA'AM, A LITTLE BIT LATER.
THIS IS TIME FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS.
BUT WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR
[2. Hold a Joint Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing with the City Council to discuss and take action to amend the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054) including but not limited to proposed amendments to Division 3.4, related to Trees, Landscaping, and Buffering, including, but not limited to, Section 39.03.014.b regarding General Provisions, Table 39.03.014-1 regarding Required Landscape Types, Sections 39.03.015 and 39.03.015.e regarding Development Landscaping and Groundcover Requirements, Tables 39.03.015-1&2 regarding Landscape Point System and Parking Lot Planting Requirements, Sections 39.03.016.d.1, 39.03.016.e.1, 39.03.016.e.3.A, 39.03.016.e.3.B.i, 39.03.016.e.4&6, and Tables 39.03.016-1 through 39.03.016-3 regarding Bufferyard Landscaping, Sections 39.03.019.a.2, 39.03.019.a.6.B, and 39.03.019.d.6 regarding Installation and Maintenance, Appendix A related to Plant List, Division 2.2, Tables 39.02.004.a-4, 39.02.004.b-4, 39.02.004.c-4, 39.02.004.d-4, 39.02.004.e-4, 39.02.006.a-4, 39.02.006.b-4, 39.02.006.c-4, 39.02.006.d-4, 39.02.006.e-4, 39.02.006.f-4, and 39.02.006.g-4 related to Zoning Districts and Standards, specifically Required Landscaping Types Summary, and Section 39.10.002, related to Definitions.]
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IT IS 6:10 P.M.IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS REGARDING THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LET US KNOW YOUR NAME AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. MA'AM?
MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE]. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT IS PARKING BUFFERYARD?
>> THE PARKING BUFFERYARD IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN 30 SPACES BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET,
[00:10:04]
THEY'LL HAVE A 2.5 FOOT TALL PARKING BUFFER, THAT CAN BE A MASONRY WALL, IT CAN BE A HEDGE, ANY TYPE OF CONTINUOUS ROW OF PLANTING.>> THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THE AMENDMENT 39.03.015.
IT'S THE ONE THAT DIDN'T EXIST AND IT WAS ADDED RIGHT NOW.
IT SAYS THAT NEW LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE AN AVERAGE OF WHAT IS SURROUNDS THE OTHER PLACES AROUND IT IN CASES NOT RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MEANS IT'S INDUSTRIAL OR ANY OTHER.
DOES EVERYBODY KNOW WHICH ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU. I FIND THIS NEW PROPOSED REVISION CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS IN THE LANDSCAPE THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED TO MAKE IT LESS HOSTILE FOR PEDESTRIANS, MORE BIKE FRIENDLY, LESS CAR-CENTRIC, LESS RACIST, MORE DEMOCRATIC, AND MUCH OTHER THINGS THAT CAN BE MADE IN THE NEW LANDSCAPE.
HOWEVER, IF WE REQUIRE THEM TO DEVELOP SIMILARLY TO WHAT IS ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED SURROUNDING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT, THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE GOING TO JUST PERPETUATE THE SAME PROBLEMS. I PROPOSE THAT THIS REVISION IS MORE CONTEXTUALIZED IN THE TERMS OF THE PARK, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL NEW PROPERTIES.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO COME FORWARD?
>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
I'M TERRY HOLEMAN, I'M WITH HUGO REED AND ASSOCIATES WE'RE AT 1601, AVENUE N. ON JULY 25TH, I STOOD UP HERE AND TOOK QUITE A BIT OF YOUR TIME SPELLING OUT A LOT OF LANDSCAPE AMENDMENTS THAT OUR GROUP HAD LOOKED AT AND HAD RECOMMENDED.
OF COURSE, ON THE 25TH, YOU WEREN'T EQUIPPED TO BE ABLE TO EVEN REALLY CONSIDER THAT AT THAT POINT, AND HENCE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING.
THE THING I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU IS, BY THE WAY, I'M REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPERS COUNCIL SUBSET OF THE HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION.
WE HAD ALSO MET WITH THE LUBBOCK ALLIANCE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, AND WE FELT LIKE WE WERE OF THE SAME MIND, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF LANDSCAPING IN LUBBOCK, BUT WE FELT LIKE THE CODE, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, WAS SO OVERPRESCRIBING AND SO ONEROUS THAT WE FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM.
ON JULY 25TH, I STOOD UP AND LINED OUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF AMENDMENTS FOR YOU.
I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP ALL YOUR TIME DOING THAT AGAIN TONIGHT.
THEN ON AUGUST 21ST, WE HAD A GREAT COORDINATION MEETING WITH OUR GROUP AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF TO GO OVER ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
ON AUGUST 28TH, WE THEN HAD A FOLLOW UP WITH THE SAME GROUP TO REFINE THESE COMMENTS.
I'M JUST HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU HAVE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT REPRESENT THIS COLLABORATE EFFORT BETWEEN THE PRIVATE SIDE AND THE PUBLIC SIDE, AND WE STAND IN FULL SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.
>> ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE LADY.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE CONTEXTUAL LANDSCAPING ISSUE.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT IS ONLY FOR INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
WHAT WE HAVE DISCOVERED RECENTLY, SOME REAL LIFE CASES WHERE WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S WANTING TO REDEVELOP AN INDUSTRIAL SITE IN ONE INSTANCE, JUST EAST OF I27, AND THEY'RE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF LANDSCAPING.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO IMPOSE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NEW OWNERS LANDSCAPING THAT REALLY LOOKS OUT OF CONTEXT.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTEXTUAL LANDSCAPING.
NO QUESTION IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S ON A THOROUGHFARE OR CERTAINLY NEW INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND A NEW DEVELOPMENT, IT HAS TO ABIDE BY WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE.
BUT THIS GIVES US A BIT OF A CONSIDERATION FOR INFIELD PROJECTS IN ALREADY HEAVILY IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
WITH THAT, I'D BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS, BUT WE DO STAND IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS.
[00:15:02]
>> YES, MR. HOMAN, MY QUESTION AS TO THE WOMAN'S CONCERN ABOUT IT PERPETUATING A BAD CONTEXT OR WHATEVER A BAD.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? I KNOW YOU SAY THAT IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL AREAS AROUND IT, DID YOU GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO HER CONCERN ABOUT PERPETUATING?
>> IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER CONTEXTUAL LANDSCAPING, IF WE ARE NEXT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
IF WE ARE EMBEDDED IN A FULLY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND YOU'VE GOT EXISTING WAREHOUSES WITH BASICALLY NO LANDSCAPING ON EITHER SIDE OR YOU MAY HAVE A WAREHOUSE THAT HAS VERY MINIMAL LANDSCAPING, YOU'RE MATCHING WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S REALLY FOR INFILL PROJECTS.
IT'S NOT WHERE WE HAVE NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WHAT I WOULD CALL A GREENFIELD.
IF WE WERE ACROSS THE STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL, WE STILL HAVE TO DO ALL OF THE NEW LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
>> FOR PURPOSES OF THE DISCUSSION, COULD YOU DEFINE INFIELD FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT KNOW?
>> LET'S SAY THAT IT'S A FULLY DEVELOPED PART OF TOWN, AND MAYBE THERE'S A DEVELOPED LOT.
THE BLOCK IS FULL OF DEVELOPED LOTS, AND MAYBE SOMEBODY WANTS TO REHABILITATE ONE OF THE LOTS.
MAYBE STRIKE THE BUILDING, BUILD SOMETHING NEW, OR MAYBE THE PROPERTY WAS ALWAYS VACANT.
BUT IF IT'S WITHIN ALREADY SURROUNDING DEVELOPED AREA, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER AN INFIELD DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET ME SEE HERE JUST A SECOND.
I'M LOOKING FOR MY NAMES TO COME UP FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK. MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> TERRY, YOU KNOW, I'M SO BIG ON ZERO SCAPING AND WHATNOT.
I GUESS MAYBE IT'S THE WAY YOU SAID IT.
THAT IF IT'S NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE PUT NEW LANDSCAPING DEFINITELY.
BUT EVEN IF YOU ARE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED.
SOMETIMES IF YOUR BUSINESS IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, WE STILL WANT YOU TO LOOK GOOD.
SOME OF THESE FOLKS, IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL, THEY JUST CAN'T AFFORD ALL THE LANDSCAPING OR THE SHRUBBERY AND WHATNOT.
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL ON HOW YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF US COULD TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT. DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> THE CONTEXTUAL LANDSCAPING IS NOT AVAILABLE TO US IF WE'RE NEXT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
I'M HOPING THAT CURES YOUR CONCERN A LITTLE BIT.
BY THE WAY, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL HAS REALLY BEEN BASICALLY UNCHANGED SINCE THE PRIOR CODE, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT WOULD EASE YOUR FEARS.
FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT TERRIBLY COMMON THAT WE HAVE INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL.
BUT IN THOSE CASES, WHEN THOSE PROPERTIES ARE REDEVELOPED, ABSOLUTELY, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE NEW GUIDELINES.
>> I JUST WANT YOU TO HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT WE CAN TALK AFTERWARDS.
>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS HER BECAUSE I THINK SHE DOESN'T REALIZE SHE HAS TO COME UP TO SPEAK, AND SHE ALREADY DID.
>> MA'AM, IF YOU'LL STEP FORWARD, THEN WE CAN HEAR YOUR QUESTION.
>> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HOMAN OR IT FOR US.
>> THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS NEW CONTEXTUAL DEVELOPMENT RULE IS NOT FOR RESIDENTIAL SONS, HOWEVER, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO WALK ON PLACES THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL OR THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BIKE AROUND INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS NO SIDEWALK ON AVERAGE ON THAT BLOCK AND THERE IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WANTS TO ADD SIDEWALK.
THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT RESIDENTIAL ZONES DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT AFFECTING US BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE WHOLE CITY AND TO ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE WHOLE CITY.
IT CONCERNS ME THAT YOU'RE DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL, AND IT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE REGIONS OF LUBBOCK MORE AVAILABLE AND EASIER TO ACCESS.
I'M SAYING ALL OF THIS IN THE CONTEXT BECAUSE I'M A RESEARCHER AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY.
[00:20:04]
AND WE HAVE CONCERNING EVIDENCE THAT THE REGIONS THAT ARE SEGREGATED IN THE NORTH AND EAST PART OF THE CITY ARE DEFINITELY MORE CONTAMINATED, THAT THE PEOPLE IS NOT HEALTHIER THERE, THAT THE PEOPLE IS HAPPIER THERE AND THAT THEIR EXPOSE ARE REALLY HIGH AND CONCERNING AMOUNT OF POLLUTION, SO WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THOSE TWO AREAS ARE SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES, WHICH MEANS THAT AGAIN, IF WE CONTINUE PERPETUATING THE WAY THESE TYPE OF INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN BUILT FOR THE PAST 70 YEARS, THEN THESE SITUATIONS ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY THOUGH IS LANDSCAPING AND NOT POLLUTION.
THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT DEFINITELY CAN BE RAISED OR SIDEWALKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THOSE ARE NOT WITHIN WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY.
WE'RE REALLY JUST DISCUSSING LANDSCAPING, WHICH I DON'T THINK WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON WHETHER YOU COULD WALK SOMEPLACE OR RIDE A BIKE SOMEPLACE.
BUT YOUR CONCERN ABOUT BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS IS NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY.
YES, SIR. COME FORWARD, MR. SCARBORO.
>> I'M ALEX SCARBORO, WORK AT THOMAS TREE PLACE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND I'M SPEAKING TODAY FOR THE LEVEL ALLIANCE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
I WANT TO FIRST THANK ALL OF YOU AND THE ZONING FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS.
I THANK KRISTEN AND HER STAFF FOR MEETING WITH US AND WE STAND IN FAVOR OF THIS.
WE THINK THIS IS GOOD FOR LUBBOCK, IT'S GOOD FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
WE SHARE THE CONCERN THAT WE WANT A BEAUTIFUL CITY ALSO AND WALKABLE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD FOR OUR CITY, SO WE STAND IN FAVOR.
THANK YOU, MR. SCARBORO. MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> HE HAS PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS AS AS TERRY, SO I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON, IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO WALK IN THE DISTRICT WHERE, IF YOU HAVE ACCESSIBILITY AND YOU'VE HAD SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING, I CAN SEE YOUR POINT AND I'M NOT SURE.
WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? I APOLOGIES.
MS. RAMIREZ, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UNTIL YOU'VE LIVED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU'VE BEEN SURROUNDED BY AN INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT, IT'S HARD TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WALK AND YOU CAN DEFINITELY SEE THAT WE HAVE AN INCREASING WALKING POPULATION.
BUT I THINK THAT IN REVIEWING THIS, AND IT IS MY SECOND TIME TO LOOK AT IT.
FEEL LIKE THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS THAT WE WILL BE OPEN TO THEM.
IS THAT NOT RIGHT, KRISTEN? BUT I THINK WHAT WE ALSO NEED ARE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
I'M WITH THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK COALITION.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED TONIGHT, AND I DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHERE THE CITY IS ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT I AM LOCATED IN AN AREA WHERE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL.
NORTH EAST LUBBOCK HAS A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED WITH THE COMMITTEES AND THE COUNCIL ABOUT IS THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK THAT ARE STILL ZONED M1S AND M2S.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY HAS ALREADY TOUCHED ON THAT, IF THEY'RE ALREADY EXPLORING THOSE PROPERTIES, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOWN ZONING OR NOT.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BUFFERS THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT, THAT IS, IF THE AREAS AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOT CHANGED.
[00:25:06]
THOSE BUFFERS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.THEY NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THOSE AREAS WHERE PERHAPS INDUSTRIAL IS BEING BUILT.
YOU GUYS HAVE THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING HAS TALKED A LOT ABOUT BUFFERS AND I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU CONTINUE TO LOOK AT BUFFERING AROUND INDUSTRIAL AREAS WHEN THEY ARE BUILT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF LAND THAT NEED TO BE DOWN ZONED BOTH WITH THE CITY, LEADER AND URBAN RENEWAL THAT IS IN OUR AREA, SO THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE A CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. MS. SAGER, CAN YOU COMMENT JUST A LITTLE BIT TO HER COMMENT? HOW DO THE BUFFER YARDS WORK, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE, LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL OR TWO CONTRASTING ZONINGS NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
>> IT'S BASED ON ADJACENT DISTRICTS, ACTUALLY, ITEM 28 ON YOUR LIST.
IF YOU HAVE A GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO SF2, WHICH THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL IS SF2, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED THE LARGEST TYPE D BUFFER YARD.
YOU KNOW IT'S SCALED BASED ON ADJACENT USE.
IF YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, IT'S ONLY A TYPE B BECAUSE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS NOT NEAR AS INTENSE AS YOUR GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
>> CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF A TYPE A AND A TYPE B ARE?
>> TYPE A IS FIVE FOOT IN WIDTH, TYPE B IS 10 FOOT, TYPE C IS 15, AND TYPE D IS 30.
THEN YOU HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES.
YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DO A FENCE, YOU HAVE THE GROUND COVER, YOU HAVE THAT MINIMUM WIDTH TO PROVIDE THAT BUFFER.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK I SAW SOMEBODY ELSE COMING FORWARD. THANK YOU.
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE COMMISSION AND TO KRISTEN BECAUSE SHE'S DONE A LOT OF PLANT LIST APPROVING FOR ME LATELY.
I REPRESENT NEW WEST WORKSHOP.
I'M THE OWNER AND PRINCIPAL DESIGNER THERE.
WE'RE A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FIRM HERE.
I'VE JUST MOVED BACK HERE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO FROM DENVER.
WHERE I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR EIGHT YEARS AND THEN IN ARIZONA FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE THAT.
I WAS A LITTLE DISMAYED AT THE UDC AS IT WAS WRITTEN AND IS NOW WRITTEN JUST BECAUSE IT'S OVERBEARING.
>> I'VE WORKED IN SOME OF THE MOST LIBERAL COMMUNITIES IN THE COUNTRY, BOULDER COLORADO, AND LUBBOCK UDC IS MORE OVERBEARING AND LIBERAL THAN THAT ONE.
I'VE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS TO KRISTEN IN PLANNING AND ZONING, AND WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT, AND I SUPPORT MOST OF IT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF NUANCES THAT I DO WANT TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE COMMISSION ON THAT I THINK, WELL, BECAUSE REALLY, THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN BALANCE.
WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THE BEAUTY OF THE CITY, FUNCTIONALITY, SAFETY, ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS.
AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW, IT'S OUT OF BALANCE, AND I THINK THAT THIS BRINGS IT A LOT MORE TOWARD BALANCE.
BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THIS WOULD BE SECTION 39319, THIS WOULD BE AMENDMENT 9.
I DO NOT SUPPORT STRIKING THIS FROM THE UDC.
I THINK THAT IT ENCOURAGES A MONOCULTURE OF TREE COVER AND BECAUSE THE REASONING WAS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO STIFLE DESIGN, BUT THE 60/40 AS A DESIGNER, SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME, DOES NOT STIFLE DESIGN.
IT ENCOURAGES DEVELOPERS TO PLANT ONE TREE EVERYWHERE AND I DON'T SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS WOULD BE AMENDMENT 17, GIVING THAT MANY POINTS TO A SINGLE TREE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN REACH ALL YOUR POINTS BY PUTTING FIVE TREES IN A PARKING LOT AND NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ELSE TO GET YOUR POINTS.
I CAN FORWARD TO KRISTEN LATER, BUT MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT YOU MAKE PARKING LOT TREES
[00:30:01]
A REQUIREMENT THAT'S SEPARATE FROM ANY POINTS THAT YOU REQUIRE SO MANY TREES IN A PARKING LOT PER EITHER PARKING SPACE OR PER SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT DOESN'T EARN YOU ANY POINTS AND IT'S JUST A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU MUST MEET.I THINK THAT'S A WAY TO REDUCE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND PROVIDE PARKING LOT TREES WITHOUT SOMEONE GETTING ALL THEIR POINTS FROM FIVE TREES AND JUST IGNORING ALL THE OTHER THINGS THEY SHOULD BE DOING TO GET THEIR POINTS.
REALLY, THE LAST THING I WOULD GO TO IS, LET'S SEE.
SORRY, I'M NOT A LITTLE MORE ORGANIZED HERE, BUT THIS WOULD BE THE AMENDMENT FOR 23 MULCHING AND ORGANIC GROUND COVER.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE TO DISALLOW ARTIFICIAL TURF.
THAT HAS A SHELF LIFE, AND IF THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR WHAT TO DO WITH IT WHEN IT STARTS TO LOOK REALLY TERRIBLE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF REALLY UGLY TURF LAYING AROUND ALL OVER THE CITY IN 10 YEARS FROM NOW.
BECAUSE THAT'S AN EASY WAY OUT TO JUST PUT ARTIFICIAL TURF IN LANDSCAPING AREAS TO GET OUT OF ACTUALLY HAVING TO DO SOMETHING DECENT.
I FEAR THAT THE NEWLY DEVELOPED AREAS OF THE CITY WILL TURN INTO A PAT PAT GOLF COURSE.
IF WE DO THAT, I'D REALLY LIKE FOR THAT TO BE RECONSIDERED.
OTHER THAN THAT, I LIKE EVERYTHING IN IT.
I SUPPORT IT ALL, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
>> KRISTEN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO HIS CONCERN ABOUT THE MONO CULTURE? I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR CONCERN IS JUST THAT IT'S ONE UNIFORM TREE OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT IT?
>> THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SPECIES YOU IN DIVERSITY IN THE HEIGHT, SHAPE, COLOR, ALL COLOR, BLUE, ALL THESE THINGS THAT I'M A DEVELOPER AND I JUST GO IN AND I WANT TO DO A QUICK AND EASY THING THAT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, PLANT 10 OF THOSE, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT 10 OF THE SAME TREE AND THE THREE DIVERSITY.
THEN YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THIS PROPERTY HAS ALL OF THIS TREE AND THE NEXT PROPERTY NEXT DOOR HAS ALL OF THIS TREE, AND THERE'S NO DIVERSITY IN TREE SPECIES.
I THINK IT'S A BIG STEP TOWARD THE FUTURE CHARACTER OF THE CITY BECAUSE WE PLANT TREES FOR 20 YEARS FROM NOW, I THINK IT'S A HUGE.
>> I GUESS MY CONCERN AND SOMEONE ACTUALLY SPOKE TO THIS TO ME JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AS I WAS WALKING AROUND THE PARK WAS THE PROBLEM OF THE MONOCULTURE BEING THE DISEASE SPREADING BETWEEN THE TREES.
THERE'S NO VARIANCE OF THE SPECIES, SO THEY'LL ALL DIE AT THE SAME TIME AND YOU HAVE NOTHING THAT'S LEFT STANDING.
DID YOU ALL CONSIDER THAT? DID YOU WEIGH THAT CONCERN BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THROUGH I THOUGHT, WHY DID THEY GET RID OF THAT ONE?
I KNOW THE LUBBOCK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT GROUP, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
I WOULD INVITE ANY OF THEM TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO IT AS WELL.
BUT FROM STAFF STANDPOINT, WORKING WITH THEM, WE WERE LOOKING AT IT FROM A CREATIVITY STANDPOINT.
>> I THINK EVERYBODY'S NOTICING THAT ALL THE ELM TREES ARE DYING.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DIE TOTALLY, BUT YOU GET THAT EFFECT WHEN ALL YOU HAVE IS ONE TREE.
>> MR. SCARBORO, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? DID YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION?
>> YES, WE DID. I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID.
I AGREE THAT DIVERSITY IS GOOD IN ALMOST EVERY LANDSCAPE.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN PLACES WHERE YOU'RE WANTING TO USE A VERY FORMAL SETUP.
A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S WHEN YOU WANT TO USE ONE VARIETY.
THAT'S RARE, BUT THE CODE, THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, WOULD FORBID THAT.
BUT MOST LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WOULD FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT HE'S SAYING.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE HEADED TO A MONOCULTURE STATUS, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THAT OPTION OUT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PLACES THAT IT IS PERFECTLY NATURAL.
MONOCULTURES CAN LEAD TO A PROBLEM, I AGREE.
WE UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR THAT CHANGE.
>> COULD A POINT SYSTEM BE USED TO BALANCE THAT SOMEHOW RATHER THAN JUST TOTALLY TAKING THE.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ALMOST EVERY PLAN DEVELOPED THAT WOULD HAVE A MIX OF PLANTS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION.
BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT IT MAY JUST CALL FOR THAT.
[00:35:03]
IT MAY JUST BE THE APPROPRIATE THING, AND WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO REMOVE THAT COMPLETELY FROM OUR TOOLBOX.THAT MAKES SENSE. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I DO AGREE WITH MR. SCARBORO ON THAT ACCOUNT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE IT THAN JUST A BLANKET TOWARD THE OTHER DIRECTION.
MAYBE YOU HAVE BY APPROVAL ON THAT ELEMENT.
THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE NOT ALL LANDSCAPES ARE DESIGNED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.
A LOT OF THEM ARE DESIGNED BY BUILDERS, A LOT OF THEM ARE DESIGNED BY ARCHITECTS.
I LOVE ARCHITECTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND SO THAT'S WHERE I FEEL LIKE THE DANGER IS.
I'M NOT SO MUCH WORRIED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DESIGNER DOING WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BUT I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE BUILDER DOING IT AND THAT'S MY CONCERN.
I LIKE TO USE MASS PLANTINGS TOO, I LIKE TO USE FORMAL TREE PLANTINGS TOO, BUT I THINK MAYBE THERE'S AN AVENUE TO ASK FOR APPROVAL FOR THAT RATHER THAN JUST GIVING A BLANKET, GO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH TREES TYPE OF APPROACH. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SPACE FOR THIRD OR FOURTH TIME.
I UNDERSTAND WHY TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE AND DEVELOPMENT MAY NOT EASILY BE RELATED TO ISSUES LIKE POLLUTION, BUT LET ME PUT IT TO AN EXAMPLE, MR. MAYOR.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE LOWER THE PARKING SPOT REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY IMAGINE GENERALLY.
THAT WILL MAKE BUSINESSES TO BE CLOSER TOGETHER, WHICH MEANS EVERYBODY CAN GET WHERE THEY WANT EASIER AND FASTER, WHICH MEANS WE ARE EMITTING LESS POLLUTION.
THE WAY A CITY IS BUILT, IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO REFLECT ON THE AIR QUALITY AND ALSO THE HEALTH OF ITS HABITANTS.
AGAIN, WHAT I SEE HERE IS WE KNOW THAT SO FAR, INDUSTRIAL ZONES HERE IN LUBBOCK, DO NOT HAVE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUFFERS, TREES, SIDEWALKS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
AGAIN, THIS ADDITION OF 3103O15, SAY THAT WE WILL BE PERPETRATING WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE RIGHT NOW.
AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS, THERE SHOULDN'T BE MORE SIDEWALKS.
IF THERE ARE NOT TREES, THEN THERE SHOULDN'T BE MORE TREES FOR SHADE.
THIS PROBLEM IS GOING TO CONTINUE.
I THINK IT WILL BE WORTH IT TO GO OVER IT TO DISCUSS WHAT THE AVERAGE OF THE CONTEXT MEANS.
IS IT THE AVERAGE ON THE AREA OF GRASS PER SQUARE METER, OR IS IT THE AVERAGE OF TREES? I THINK SO FAR IS A LITTLE BIT VAGUE.
I WILL JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO OVER IT AND THINK MORE ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THOSE AREAS ACCESSIBLE FOR EVERYONE.
BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, THESE INDUSTRIAL AREAS DIVIDE REGIONS WHERE WE LIVE LIKE THE EAST PART OF LUBBOCK.
WE HAVE TO CROSS THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE FROM THE EAST TO GET TO CAMPUS, FOR EXAMPLE.
WHAT CAN WE MAKE TO MAKE THOSE AREAS ACTUALLY WALKABLE AND ACTUALLY PROTECTED FROM CARS GOING REALLY FAST BESIDE US, ETC, ETC. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU AGAIN. JUST REMINDED WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION TONIGHT.
I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR COMMENTS.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO COME FORWARD NOW MAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I SEE NONE.
I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:41 PM AND I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR WORKING VERY HARD ON THIS,
[3. Discussion regarding timeline and procedures regarding adoption of amendments to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054).]
AND I THINK THIS IS THE WAY CITY GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.PEOPLE WHO ARE THE CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO DEAL WITH THIS TALKING WITH FOLKS HERE AT CITY HALL AND WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TRY TO GET OUR RULES,
[00:40:06]
OUR REGULATIONS, OUR ZONING TO FIT LUBBOCK.I JUST SET A BOX DOWN ON US THAT WE PICK UP FROM SOME OTHER CITY OR SOME OTHER PLACE AND SAY, WELL, THIS WORKS HERE.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS WORK TOGETHER.
I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME THAT YOU PUT IN, ALL YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT.
I THINK YOU'VE BEEN VERY GOOD.
JUST REMINDER THE PUBLIC, THERE'S NO ACTION TAKEN TONIGHT.
ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3RD, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER AND VOTE ON AMENDMENTS AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING AND THEN ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER AND VOTE ON AMENDMENTS AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING.
THAT'S THE FIRST ORDINANCE READING AND ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22ND, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS IN THEIR REGULAR MEETING FOR THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE.
HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.