[00:00:02]
THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE.[1. Call to Order - Welcome and Introduction]
ON THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023, AND WE ARE HERE FOR A SPECIAL CALLED PUBLIC HEARING AND SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JOINTLY WITH OUR P AND Z GROUP. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY.AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CALL CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.
ALL RIGHT. SO KIND OF HERE'S THE PLAN FOR THE DAY OR AS WE INTEND IT TO GO.
SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T GO AS PLANNED.
WE WILL START OFF WITH INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND COMMENTS FROM OUR PLANNING STAFF TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS POINT AND THEN HAVE BEEN POSTED. ONCE THAT PRESENTATION IS OVER, WE WILL HOLD A JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE P AND Z COMMISSION, AND WE WILL CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. THIS IS NOT A TIME TO DISCUSS ANYTHING OTHER THAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OR THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED.
SO IF YOU HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, YOU WILL PRESENT YOUR PLAN AND HANDWRITTEN OR TYPED, WRITTEN OR WRITTEN SOME FORM. YOU CAN HAND THAT TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND THEN THAT CAN BE ONE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WE WILL THEN HAVE AS CONSIDERATION.
ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS DONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO P AND Z, THEN CAN TAKE ACTION TODAY OR THEY MAY RECESS.
THEY ARE ALSO POSTED FOR SEPTEMBER 7TH AND THAT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN EITHER TODAY OR ON THE SEVENTH.
AGAIN, ONCE P AND Z VOTES, IT THEN GETS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL AND THEN WE WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE.
BUT AT THIS TIME, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MS. SAGER AND CITY STAFF.
THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR.
COUNCIL. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
AS A REMINDER, THIS MEETING TODAY IS TO DISCUSS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL MAY 9TH OF 2023, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1ST.
TODAY I'LL BE GOING THROUGH 12 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS IN RELATION TO LOT DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE STATES FOR MULTI LOT DEVELOPMENTS WITH COMMON PARKING AREAS OR PARTY WALL STYLED CONSTRUCTION, LOT SIZES AND SIDE SETBACKS MAY BE REDUCED SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING APPROVAL.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE STATE HAS NOT GIVEN ME THE AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO VARY THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
THAT WOULD BE A VARIANCE THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
SO STAFF IS PROPOSING TO STRIKE THAT SENTENCE WITHIN THE DOCUMENT.
THIS IS THE CURRENT ADOPTED LOT, DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN RELATION TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE STATES THAT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE STANDARDS OF THIS SUBSECTION, AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAY DEEM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT A NON-CONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE AS APPLICABLE.
IT WILL STATE THAT DWELLING UNITS MAY BE EXEMPT FROM THE STANDARDS WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SHOWING THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED AS OR CONVERTED TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 20TH OF 1980.
THE HISTORY AND THE REASON BEHIND THIS DATE IS THAT IN 1980, CITY COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE WHICH ATTEMPTED TO STOP THE PROLIFERATION OF ACCESSORY LIVING UNITS. AT THAT TIME, THE CITY COUNCIL PERMITTED OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY LIVING UNIT THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE OR CONVERTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 20TH OF 1980 TO REGISTER THOSE UNITS.
AS THAT DATE STARTED TO GET FURTHER AWAY, BECAME MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT FOR OWNERS TO PROVE THE NONCONFORMING STATUS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE UNIT HAS NOT CEASED ITS USE AS BEING USED AS A LIVING UNIT FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR.
[00:05:10]
CONVERTED PRIOR TO THAT DATE BUT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION.THE THIRD AMENDMENT IS IN RELATION TO SIGNS.
UNDER THE CATEGORY OF SIGNS EXEMPT FROM THIS REGULATION, IT LISTS SIGNS ERECTED BY THE CITY, STATE.
A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ARE EXEMPT.
SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO STRIKE THAT.
WE DO WANT SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BE EXEMPT.
NUMBER FOUR, THE REDUCTION OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE RED LINE JUST BASICALLY CLEANS UP A FEW ITEMS IN IT.
THE FIRST BEING IT ESTABLISHES THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT, WHICH IS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARDS OF THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING DISTRICT BY REDUCING OR RESTRICTING THE STANDARDS AND REMOVING PERMITTED OR ACCESSORY USES.
IT ALSO PROVIDES REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY.
IT ESTABLISHES THAT COUNCIL CONSIDERS A FINAL REPORT FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND REMOVES LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL OR NEW USES TO BE APPROVED WITH THIS OVERLAY.
THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE OVERLAY.
THE INTENT IS TO STRICTLY REDUCE, RESTRICT, REMOVE PERMITTED USES IN THE DISTRICT.
NUMBER FIVE IS NUMBER FIVE IS IN RELATION TO MISS SAGER.
PATTERSON HARRIS HAS A QUESTION.
SURE. IS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT THAT DEVIATES FROM THE STANDARDS OF THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING DISTRICT BY REDUCING OR RESTRICTING RESTRICTING THESE STANDARDS AND REMOVING PERMITTED OR ACCESSORY USES.
SO IF SOMEONE WAS DEVELOPING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WANTED TO PROHIBIT CARPORTS OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THAT REASON.
THEN, MR. MCBRAYER. SO WOULD THAT ONLY APPLY TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS? IT COULDN'T BE RETROACTIVE TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MISS.
IT INCLUDES REQUIRED NOTICES ON FINAL PLATS APPLICATION, COMPLETENESS, REVIEW, STAFF REVIEW AND DISTRIBUTION, AND THEN THE PROCEDURES GOVERNING PRELIMINARY PLATS FINAL PLATS RE PLATS VACATING PLATS WAIVERS.
THIS IS BECAUSE OF HOUSE BILL 3699 APPROVED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE EARLIER THIS YEAR.
IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE CITY ADOPT CHECKLIST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT SUBMISSION.
IT IMPLEMENTS A NEW TIMELINE OR SHOT CLOCK FOR PLAT REVIEW AND APPROVAL BASED ON THE SUBMITTAL DATE.
SO ONCE A COMPLETE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, THE CITY WILL HAVE TEN BUSINESS DAYS TO REVIEW AND SEND A LETTER TO THE APPLICANT, EITHER APPROVING THE PLAT OR LISTING THE REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE APPROVED IF THE PLAT CANNOT BE APPROVED.
THE CITY WILL REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL IF SUBMITTED ON TIME AND EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE PLOT.
IF THE RESUBMITTAL CANNOT BE APPROVED OR THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET THE TIMELINE TO RESUBMIT, THE CITY WILL DENY THE PLAT AND THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO START OVER WITH A NEW APPLICATION. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT WOULD LOOK.
[00:10:07]
APPROVE IT. THE APPLICANT WILL THEN HAVE UNTIL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16TH TO SUBMIT THE CORRECTED PLAT FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW.NUMBER SIX IS IN REGARDS TO OUR NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY FOR PUBLIC NOTICE, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE UDC STATES THAT PUBLIC NOTICE OF ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTERS 211 AND 212.
WE ARE PROPOSING LANGUAGE TO ADD WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WHEN WRITTEN NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE SENT TO EACH OWNER WITHIN 200FT OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE CHANGE IS PROPOSED, WRITTEN NOTICE MUST INSTEAD BE SENT TO EACH OWNER WITHIN 400FT OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE CHANGE IS PROPOSED.
HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT WOULD LOOK USING CITIZENS TOWER WITH A 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY, 19 NOTIFICATIONS WOULD BE SENT 400 FOOT 41 NOTIFICATIONS WOULD BE SENT.
NUMBER SEVEN IS IN REGARDS TO THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY.
MORE THAN THREE UNRELATED PERSONS LIVING AND COOKING TOGETHER AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT.
RESIDENTS OF GROUP HOMES ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS DEFINITION.
THERE WAS DISCUSSION AMONGST COUNCIL THAT TO CONSIDER TAKING THIS DOWN TO TWO UNRELATED PERSONS.
SO WE ARE BRINGING THAT TO YOU TODAY.
FOR THE HISTORY OF THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY BACK IN THE 1941 ORIGINAL ZONING CODE, THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY WAS ANY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS LIVING TOGETHER AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT.
IN 1955, THAT DEFINITION HAD NOT CHANGED.
IN 1959, IT CHANGED SO THAT IT IS ONE OR MORE PERSONS RELATED BY BLOOD ADOPTION OR MARRIAGE OR NOT.
MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PERSONS LIVING AND COOKING TOGETHER AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT IS IN REGARDS TO A PERMITTED USE IN THE IP AND GI DISTRICTS.
OUR PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THIS USE FROM PERMITTED BY RIGHT TO A SPECIFIC USE.
NUMBER NINE IS IN REGARDS TO CARPORTS.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT TO 24FT IN LENGTH, 20 FOOT IN WIDTH.
FLAT ROOF METAL CARPORT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
NUMBER TEN IN REGARDS TO THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WE KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION COUNCIL WANTED TO HAVE AROUND THIS DISTRICT STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THIS DISTRICT.
SAME WITH NUMBER 11 BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING.
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES, BUT WE KNOW THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION.
LASTLY, NUMBER 12 MINIMUM CONNECTIONS FACING BY STREET CLASSIFICATION.
I DON'T SEE ANY FROM COUNCIL, ZACH.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU, MR. MAYOR? MISS JOY.
WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? YES. THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY STATES THAT RESIDENTS OF GROUP HOMES ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS DEFINITION.
ANY QUESTIONS? NO, WE'RE GOOD.
[00:15:01]
ALL RIGHT, MR. BELL, WE'VE GOT A QUESTION.CAN YOU CLARIFY ON THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? DOES THAT STILL DID THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT REGISTERED? IT WASN'T REGISTERED BEFORE.
AND IT COMES IN. THEY JUST HAVE TO COME BACK AND SHOW THAT IT WAS BUILT.
SO THE REGISTRATION PERIOD WAS FROM NOVEMBER 20TH, 1980 TO MAY 1ST, 1981.
IF THEY DID NOT REGISTER IT BY MAY 1ST, THEY HAD THE OPTION OF GOING IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET APPROVAL TO BE ABLE TO USE IT AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THE OPTION TO GO IN FRONT OF THAT BOARD IS REMOVED WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO ONCE THE UDC GOES INTO EFFECT, YOUR UNIT WILL EITHER BE LEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS REGISTERED DURING THE REGISTRATION PERIOD OR BECAUSE YOU RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
IT COULD POTENTIALLY BECOME LEGAL IF IT WAS NOT REGISTERED BECAUSE YOU MEET THE NEW REQUIREMENTS IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000FT² AND A THIRD PARKING SPACE AND THE MAIN HOME IS OWNER OCCUPIED.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AS OR CONVERTED TO A DWELLING UNIT AND PROVE THAT IT HAS BEEN USED CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT SITTING VACANT FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR SINCE THAT DATE UNTIL NOW.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A QUICK QUESTION ON ITEM NUMBER SIX, THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY VERSUS THE 400 FOOT BOUNDARY. AND MAYBE THIS IS MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT LET'S JUST SAY WE GO TO THE 400.
IS THE CITY OPEN UP CASE FOR LEGAL? IF IT'S STATE LAW AT 200 AND WE'RE LET'S SAY THAT SOMEONE FROM THE 300 RESPONDS, A 300 FOOT RESPONDS AND IT TURNS THE CASE NEGATIVE.
AND NOW THE PROPONENT HAS IS HOLDS THE STATE LAW OF 200.
I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE GETTING INTO THERE BY LOOKING POTENTIALLY STATE LAW AT 200? I WILL DEFER THAT TO LEGAL.
YEAH, THERE'S JUST NO ISSUES THERE.
THE COUNCIL THE CITY COULD OVER NOTICE WITHOUT ANY ISSUE LIKE THAT ARISING.
I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THE PRESENTATION OF THAT OR THE PROPOSAL OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE FIND THAT SO MANY CITIZENS ARE NOT AWARE AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THEM.
SO WITH 400FT, IT GIVES A LITTLE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS WHO WOULD BE IMPACTED TO BE NOTIFIED AND LET THE LEGAL TEAM ADD ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE OF THAT.
CHAD, NOW, THE 2 TO 400 OR ANYTHING OVER 400, THAT'S NOT AN OBJECTION WITHIN THE 200.
CORRECT. SO THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.
COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THAT MIGHT HELP? MR.. WHEATLEY SURE.
SO, WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT CALCULATION.
MR. MCBRAYER BACK TO THE ACCESSORY UNIT.
I BELIEVE MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
WHAT THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SHOW IF IT HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED.
NOT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS CONTINUOUSLY OCCUPIED.
SO THE SECOND OPTION ON THE SCREEN HERE, APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 2007 00034.
SO YES, TODAY IF THEY APPLY FOR ZBA APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE UNIT AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO AN OWNER OCCUPIED STRUCTURE, THEY ONLY HAVE TO PROVE IT WAS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THAT DATE.
SO THEN ANYONE WHO DID NOT GET APPROVAL FROM ZBA DID NOT REGISTER, DID NOT, CANNOT MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THE HISTORY, THE CONTINUOUS USE.
YES. EVEN THOUGH THAT'S DIFFICULT, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE A REASON FOR REVERTING BACK TO THAT MORE DIFFICULT STANDARD? EVEN THE CASES WE SEE TODAY GOING IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO PROVE.
[00:20:03]
USUALLY APPLICANTS DON'T HAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED.THANK YOU. MRS. PATTERSON. HARRIS. YOU CAN HAVE AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU WANT AS PATTERSON WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, CARPORTS, ETCETERA. THIS WILL NOT REQUIRE ANY ACTION BY ZBA.
OKAY. AND ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
HOW WILL WE KEEP UP WITH SOME OF THOSE CARPORTS THAT END UP BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE? THEY WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO GET A PERMIT, SO WE WILL REVIEW THE MATERIALS AND THE DESIGN AT THAT TIME, IF THEY DID NOT GET A PERMIT, CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN GIVE THEM A NOTICE.
OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION, MISS JOY.
I DON'T WANT TO FORGET YOU UP THERE IN THE SKY.
ANY QUESTIONS? TRY TO GET MY VIDEO ON.
WELL, HAVE TO BE ON THE SCREEN, ACCORDING TO THE.
YOU'RE THERE. UH, WAS THERE SOME REASON WHY PLANNING DID NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THE HDR REGULATIONS THAT I BELIEVE SOME PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED CHANGES.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHY WE FEEL THAT WHAT COUNCIL ADOPTED IN MAY IS APPROPRIATE AND DID NOT SEE ANY NECESSARY CHANGES TO IT? WELL, COULD YOU GET INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL ON THAT? THAT DOESN'T HELP ME VERY MUCH TO SAY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE.
I DON'T THINK APPROPRIATE IS IN A GOOD ZONING TERM.
BUT CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHY YOU DON'T THINK THAT AMENDMENT SHOULD BE APPROVED? SURE.
SO THE THE HIGH DENSITY HDR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ALLOWS A VARIETY OF USES.
I'M TRYING TO PULL IT UP ON SCREEN HERE.
SO EVERYTHING FROM SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED DUPLEX APARTMENTS, TOWNHOMES, LIVE WORK UNITS AND VERTICAL MIXED USE THE THE LOT SIZES EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.
YOU KNOW WE THINK IS CONSISTENT.
THE VERTICAL MIXED USE I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY I'M EXPECTING TO BE A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
RIGHT NOW IT HAS A 75 FOOT MAX BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT.
IN ADDITION, IT DOES HAVE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
YOU HAVE A 50 FOOT REAR SETBACK WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE.
YOU'RE STILL HAVING TO PROVIDE 5% OF COMMON OPEN SPACE.
YOU HAVE YOUR SIDE SETBACKS, 20 FOOT WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE HOUSING TYPE ON A BLOCK FACE TO BE ONE ONE HOUSING TYPE SO IT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO MIX AND MATCH AND PUT AN APARTMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK FACE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
SO THE FACT THAT IT HAS THAT PROTECTION THERE AS WELL, UM, WE THINK ALLOWING THAT EXTRA HEIGHT FOR THE MIXED USE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MISS JOY? UH, LANDSCAPING.
YOU SAID YOU KIND OF SKIPPED OVER THAT.
UH, YOU WANT TO BACK UP? YES. NOT CHANGING IT OR THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS.
WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? SO THE CURRENT ADOPTED ORDINANCE HAS BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING.
IT HAS FOUR DIFFERENT TYPES A, B, C, AND D, THEY ARE A IS FIVE FOOT.
STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
BUT WE KNEW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AMONGST COUNCIL.
THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO DISCUSS THE CURRENT BUFFER YARDS AND POTENTIALLY PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THEM.
THANK YOU, MISS SAGER, VERY MUCH.
[2. Hold a Joint City Council Meeting and Public Hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider amending the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023- O0054), and zoning map, including but not limited to proposed amendments to Sections 39.02.006.a.3, related to Lot Density and Dimensions, 39.02.020.e.1.A.ii, related to Accessory Dwelling Units, 39.03.021.a.2, related to Signs Exempt from Regulations, 39.04.024.a related to the Required Notice for Final Plats Containing Lake or Flood Risk Areas, 39.02.014, related to the Reduction Overlay (RO) District, 39.04, related to Subdivision Standards, 39.07, related to Development Review Procedures, 39.07.007(a), related to Public Notice, 39.10.002, related to Definitions, 39.02.016, related to the Land Use Matrix, Table 39.02.016-1, related to Permitted Uses by District, Table 39.02.006.e-1 related to IP Permitted Uses, Table 39.02.006.f-1, related to LI Permitted Uses, Table 39.02.006.g-1 related to GI Permitted Uses, 39.02.020.b (4)(F)(A)(iii) and 39.02.020.b (4)(F)(B)(ii), related to Residential Carport or Porte-Cochere Locations, 39.07.038 (c)(4), related to Applicant Responsibilities for Preliminary Plats, 39.02.004.e related to the High Density Residential (HDR) District, Table 39.02.003-1, related to Zoning Districts, 39.02.005.a, related to General Mixed Use Standards, 39.02.004.e (4), related to Lot Density and Dimensions, and Section 39.03.016 related to Bufferyard Landscaping, 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 H.B. 3699.]
[00:25:04]
THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING IS BEING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 211.007D OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
MR. SAWYER AND I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON BEHALF OF P AND Z.
STATE THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING TO.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT YOU WOULD PROPOSE, IF YOU WILL PLEASE HAND THAT TO MR. WEAVER AT THIS TIME, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, YOU MAY STEP FORWARD NOW.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M CINDY PARADIS, 3118 20TH STREET.
AND I HOPE I DON'T GET THIS ALL MIXED UP.
WE'RE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS AT THIS POINT.
THEN WE WILL SPEAK AGAINST OTHER AMENDMENTS IN A MINUTE.
THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S PRETTY IT'S PRETTY CONFUSING TO ME.
THEY WERE VERY SPARSELY ATTENDED FOR SOMETHING OF THIS MAGNITUDE.
AND SO I JUST ASKED SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE MUCH MORE EDUCATED ON THIS THAN I WAS, WILL THIS AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BASICALLY, AND WAS TOLD, NO, THIS WON'T AFFECT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SAID, OKAY, I DON'T HAVE TO READ THE 500 PAGES.
I'M JUST GOING TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS.
AND SO, I DISCOVERED, OH, YEAH, PERHAPS I DO NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS I COULD SUPPORT THAT.
WE'D LIKE TO HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THAT SMALLER NUMBER.
MR. MAYOR, MEMBER, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE P AND Z.
I TOO, AM CONFUSED WHETHER I'M FOR SOMETHING OR AGAINST SOMETHING.
SO I'M STEPPING OUT ON A LIMB.
HOPEFULLY I'M GOING TO DO THIS RIGHT.
SEND AN EMAIL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SPEAKING TO THE HEIGHT OF THE VERTICAL.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOUR NAME.
IT'S STEPHEN FALK. OH, I'M SORRY.
I LIVE AT 2827, 23RD STREET IN TECH TERRACE.
I AM SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT THAT I PROPOSED, AND THAT IS IF YOU LOOK AT TABLE 39.0 20.0040.E-2. ON THE RIGHT SIDE, IT SPEAKS TO VERTICAL MIXED USE. EVERYTHING ELSE ON THAT CHART IS 45FT IN HEIGHT.
AND THERE HAS BEEN IMMEASURABLE DISCUSSION IN THE LAST THREE OR 4 OR 5 MONTHS OVER TWO PROJECTS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY TALLER THAN 45FT. A BUNCH OF EMOTION THROUGH THOSE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, I WOULD HOPE THAT COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING WOULD ADOPT THE PREMISE FOR A VERTICAL MIXED USE, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 45FT.
THEN IF IF THE PROPONENT, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO PURSUE IT, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND I'M AND I'M NOT A ZONING EXPERT FOR A SPECIAL USE THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGH IN FRONT OF COUNCIL TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
IF YOU REMEMBER BACK WHEN WHEN YOU THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED OCTOBER 1ST AS THE LAUNCH DATE FOR THE UDC, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS CAME UP VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A USE CHANGE ACROSS THE STREET FROM OR IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THIS VERTICAL HEIGHT, 75FT, IN FACT, IS IMPACTED BY THAT.
[00:30:05]
AND THERE THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.IT'S AS OF RIGHT NOW, I DON'T WANT TO SQUASH DEVELOPMENT.
SO SINCE I SUBMITTED A MODIFICATION OR ADJUSTMENT, I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF MY ATTEMPT AT THAT THAT LANGUAGE AND WHATEVER, AND BE GLAD TO SPEAK OR ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
WE'RE JUST AT THIS TIME DOING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 400FT NOTICE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS AND THE COMMUNITY THAT I RESIDE IN.
OFTENTIMES THE INDUSTRY THAT'S COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY WERE NOT MADE AWARE THAT THEY'RE THERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
IT RELATES, I THINK I COULD SAY TO MR. FOX CONCERNS ABOUT THE 75-FOOT-TALL ALLOWANCE IN THE HDR ZONE.
FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, THE HDR IS CONSTITUENT ZONES FROM THE OLD CODE INCLUDE A2R3 WHICH WERE LIMITED TO THREE STORIES AND 40FT AND A 40% LOT COVERAGE PERCENTAGE.
AN APARTMENT MEDICAL THREE STORIES, 40FT, 40%.
I MEAN, THESE ARE DEFAULTS. THEY COULD HAVE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE CODE, OF COURSE.
AND THEN TWO VERY DIFFERENT ZONES, A THREE HIGH RISE APARTMENT, 100FT, 40% AND COMMERCIAL APARTMENT.
ALL RIGHT. SO THOSE ARE THE CONSTITUENT ZONES OF THE HDR.
NOW, A KIND OF INTERESTING THING, ALMOST A SIDEBAR, IF YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, IS IF YOU LOOK ON THE INTERNET, YOU'LL FIND THIS CHART FROM AN EARLIER STAGE OF THE UDC PROCESS. AND IT'S SMALL PRINT, BUT THE BOTTOM AT THE BOTTOM IT HAS A CATEGORY OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT CATEGORY DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN MIXED USE AND PLANNED USES.
AND YOU CAN THE UPSHOT HERE IS THAT AN EARLIER STAGE OF THE UDC PROCESS, THE UDC CONTEMPLATED OR APPARENTLY PEOPLE WERE CONTEMPLATING TREATING A 2 OR 3 VERY DIFFERENTLY THAN COMMERCIAL APARTMENT AND HIGH-RISE APARTMENT.
WELL, THAT DISTINCTION AT SOME POINT IN THE PROCESS COLLAPSED AND THEY ALL WOUND UP IN HDR.
NOW, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, SO I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.
HDR HAS SEVEN DIFFERENT STANDARDS ACROSS THREE SUBDIVISIONS, SIX OF THOSE SEVEN LOOK A LOT ALIKE AND FRANKLY LOOK A LOT LIKE MDR.
UNDER MDR, YOU CAN DO ESSENTIALLY THE WELL, MANY OF THE SAME THINGS.
SIMILAR HEIGHT LIMITS APPLY IN MDR.
SO 45 FOOT LIMITS AND SUBSTANTIAL LIMITS ON PERCENTAGE OF COVERAGE EXCEPT IN VERTICAL MIXED USE.
MIXED USE IS A HIGHLY REGULATED FORM.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT BASE MIXED USE DISTRICTS.
BUT THAT THOSE DEFINITIONS, THOSE REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
SO ESSENTIALLY MIXED USE IS UNDEFINED.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? ALL RIGHT. SO HERE'S A SCREENSHOT OF, WELL, THE SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE CURRENT ZONING MAP.
AND THE COLORS DIDN'T COME OUT QUITE LIKE I EXPECTED ON THIS VERSION.
YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, BY THE WAY, FOR THE MASK.
I FOUND OUT I WAS EXPOSED LAST NIGHT, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO BE GOOD.
[00:35:01]
EVERYTHING. BLUE, GREEN, BRIGHT GREEN.LET'S SEE. THERE WAS ONE OTHER COLOR.
ALL OF IT IS NOW ZONED FOR 75-FOOT-TALL BUILDINGS UNDER THE UDC.
SWITCHING TO A SCREENSHOT OF THE UDC ITSELF, EVERYTHING DARK GREEN HAS BEEN ZONED FOR 75-FOOT-TALL BUILDING AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT CITY COUNCIL WANTS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK THROUGH THE MAP A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY, WE'LL FIND THAT THAT DARK GREEN IS SCATTERED AMONGST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. RIGHT.
THIS IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWING WELL, THE AM DISTRICT NEAR COVENANT, PARTS OF TECH TERRORIST.
AND IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE DARK GREEN IS OCCUPYING THE SAME BLOCK AS YELLOW.
AND IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE CITY, YOU'LL FIND MORE EXAMPLES OF THAT.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT TO SUGGEST? WELL, MAYBE WE THOUGHT THE THING TO HAVE DONE, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE A&M DISTRICTS, THE R-2, R-3 DISTRICTS THAT HAD BEEN LIMITED TO 40FT.
MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE JUST GONE INTO MDR.
MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING MORE TARGETED THAT CAN GET THE EFFECT THAT WE WANT.
AND SO WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NOW, MS. SAGER HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS LIMITS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE THAT WITHIN THE UDC THAT THAT COULD HELP TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ALSO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU CAN'T MIX AND MATCH BUILDING TYPES, BUT THAT PROVISION AGAINST MIXING AND MATCHING BUILDING TYPES THAT APPLIES TO A BLOCK FACE. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO A BLOCK.
SO, I THINK THIS IS 49TH STREET WITHOUT A SEVEN-STORY BUILDING.
AND HERE'S 49TH STREET WITH A SEVEN-STORY BUILDING.
SO THAT AND THIS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY EARLIER.
LIMIT ON VERTICAL MIXED USE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS BARRING VERTICAL MIXED USE IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER STANDARDS OF HDR, AND THAT MIXED USE IS UNDEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND HONORABLE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.
I LIVE AT 3008 26 STREET IN THE TECH TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN, WHICH IS 3910.002. THIS WOULD RESTORE THE 1983 DEFINITION OF A FAMILY BACK TO NO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE. THE REASONS FOR THIS ARE LONG.
I DO NOT WISH TO TAKE UP YOUR TIME NOW WITH CITING THOSE REASONS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG PROCESS, BUT THE REASONS FOR THIS ARE SAFETY, BASICALLY.
AND I WANTED TO JUST NOTE THAT REMOVING THAT CAP OF NO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE DOES NOT GIVE THE RESIDENTS NEARBY OR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OR CODES A WAY OR A LEVERAGE TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT HOMES THAT HAVE UNRELATED PEOPLE DO, IN FACT BEAR SCRUTINY.
FOR EXAMPLE. AND I STOPPED BY TO TALK TO THE INDIVIDUALS ABOUT THIS CASE.
IN 2020, MULTIPLE UNRELATED RENTERS LIVED AT 3101 21ST STREET.
THEY HAD BECOME A NUISANCE TO THEIR NEARBY NEIGHBORS TO INCLUDE DAILY AND NIGHTLY INTOXICATION, PUBLIC NUDITY, TO INCLUDE URINATING IN THE YARD, SCREAMING OBSCENITIES 24 OVER SEVEN FROM THE BACK PORCH, THROWING GARBAGE OVER THE FENCE, AND TO THE NEIGHBORS NEARBY YARDS AND PARKING MULTIPLE VEHICLES UP AND DOWN THAT STREET IN DEFIANCE OF PARKING CONTROLS.
[00:40:07]
RESTRICTION THAT DEFINED FAMILY AS ALLOWING NO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE IN A HOME IN ORDER TO USE THAT LEVERAGE TO EVICT THE OVER THE NUMBER RENTERS IN THAT PROPERTY, RESTORING THEREFORE THE PEACE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL ZONING COMMISSION.
WE WILL ALSO HAVE SOME OPPOSITIONS AS WELL.
BUT ARE THE THINGS WE DO APPROVE OF ARE THE PUBLIC NOTICE? WE HAVE BEEN UP HERE MANY TIMES AND PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE WOULD LIKE MORE ACCESS FOR THE CITIZENS TO POLITICAL PROCESSES AND NOT LESS.
I WILL JUST LET THOSE WHO ARE NOT AWARE KNOW THAT THIS DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE DO OFFICIALLY APPROVE OF MORE NOTICE AND NOT LESS.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY APPROVE OF IS IN LIEU OF ANY SORT OF ZONING CHANGES TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM INDUSTRIAL SITES THAT CURRENTLY STAND, WE WOULD LIKE TO STAND UP AND TRY TO PROTECT THOSE THAT MAY BE COMING DOWN THE LINE EVEN IF WE DON'T LIVE THERE.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE ARE VERY MUCH IN APPROVAL OF THE BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING RULES.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.
THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. HERNANDEZ. HERE'S THE CONFUSED LADY AGAIN.
I WANT TO SPEAK IN APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT THAT WE PRESENTED THAT RICHARD MURPHY JUST PRESENTED.
IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, THE CITY HAS RECEIVED A GRANT TO TRY TO GO IN AND FIX A LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS, BUT THE CONCERN WAS THAT THERE WERE A FEW OF THOSE THAT NEEDED AN IMMEDIATE FIX IN ORDER TO BE SURE THAT IT'S A BAND-AID.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I SUPPORT THE ONE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY MR. MURPHY IS IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY CLEAR, CLEAN CUT FIX.
SO I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THAT I AM APPROVING APPROVING OF THAT.
I'VE HAD SEVERAL CITIZENS ASK ME IF WE HAVEN'T MADE AN AMENDMENT, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING.
CAN AMENDMENTS COME FROM THE FLOOR TODAY? YES. OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE. WAS THAT YOU? IF YOU'LL HOLD OFF ANSWERING FOR THE CHAIR.
IF YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN OR THOSE THAT WERE.
OKAY. SO WHOEVER'S WANTING TO DO IT, THEY NEED TO HAVE IT WRITTEN AND HAND IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.
OKAY, GREAT. I JUST I THINK MR. FALK MENTIONED THAT, AND I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE THE ONE FROM MR. MURPHY AND. OKAY.
OKAY, GREAT. I JUST KNEW THERE WERE SOME THAT PEOPLE HAD ASKED ME ABOUT TODAY AND THEY SAID, IS IT TOO LATE FOR AN AMENDMENT? AND I SAID, I THINK YOU CAN PRESENT FROM THE FLOOR, BUT I WAS GIVING AN EDUCATED ADVICE.
WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE WRITTEN AND HANDED TO MISTER, WRITTEN AND HANDED TO HIM.
OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION CONCERNING THESE AMENDMENTS, IT APPEARS FROM THE TIMELINE THAT THERE WILL BE AT LEAST A TWO WEEK GAP FROM THE OCTOBER 1ST ADOPTION AND THE POTENTIAL ADOPTION OF ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT END UP GETTING PASSED THROUGH THE FIRST AND SECOND READINGS.
IS THERE ANY CONCERN OR ADDRESS BETWEEN A GAP ON THE UDC BEING IN PLACE AS OF OCTOBER THE 1ST, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PASSED BY YOU GUYS AS PERHAPS OCTOBER THE 15TH? I DON'T REMEMBER THE CALENDAR, BUT THE TIMELINE IS SUCH THAT THE AMENDMENTS WILL NOT BE ADOPTED UNTIL AFTER THE UDC GOES INTO PLACE.
SO SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS DURING THAT GAP WHEN THE UDC IS IN PLACE? THIS WAY, WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS, THE UDC GOES INTO EFFECT ON THE FIRST.
OKAY. SO ANYTHING THAT'S THAT'S LET ME SAY THIS.
I MAY BE ABLE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM MR. WEAVER, CINDY, BUT I WANT TO GO INTO QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. I JUST WANT BECAUSE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS PEOPLE ARE ASKING ME ARE, IS IT TOO LATE? AND I'M JUST LIKE, I KNOW THE TIMELINE AND THE TIMELINE COULD BE SUCH THAT MAYBE IT IS SO.
[00:45:05]
I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME THAT HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF THAT, BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES.GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M TONYA HAGEE VALDENE 1704 AVENUE X, AND I'M SORRY I AM NEW TO THIS PROCESS.
I'M LEARNING AS I GO. SO IF I SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT, FORGIVE ME AHEAD OF TIME.
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THAT WAS RECEIVED? AND IF I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING IN THE A3 DISTRICT.
I DID SEE SOMETHING COME FROM MISS JOY EARLIER TODAY.
MR. ATKINSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
COUNCIL HAS NOT SEEN THAT YEAR YET.
MAYOR, YOU HAVE NOT CALLED FOR NEW FROM THE FLOOR YET? I CAN BRING IT UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO.
SO THEY COULD STEP FORWARD NOW AND THAT MAY ADDRESS YOUR ISSUE.
TANYA, WHEN SHE SPEAKS, YOU COULD CERTAINLY COME BACK UP.
OKAY. MARY WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE, SO I THINK SHE WAS HOPING I COULD TAKE THE LEAD.
BUT ABSOLUTELY. YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT UP AT THIS TIME? OKAY. MAYBE.
AND DON'T WORRY, TANYA, ABOUT NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
THAT'S ME. HALF THE TIME, THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO PULL UP.
OKAY, SO I BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IS TO GO BACK AND NOT CHANGE THE PARKING RATIO ON A3, NOT BRING IT DOWN SO DRAMATICALLY.
AND I'M SORRY, I AM READING EMAILS FROM MY PHONE, SO BEAR WITH ME.
HAVING JUST BEEN THROUGH THIS PARKING AND LACK OF PARKING IS AN UTMOST CONCERN TO THOSE OF US IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE TEXAS TECH AREA. I FEEL LIKE IF WE GO TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE UDC AND LET THAT GENIE OUT OF THE BOTTLE AND END UP WITH CLOGGED PARKING, LACK OF PARKING, NO PARKING WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND PUT THAT GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE. SO, I BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT THAT I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS TO, AT THE VERY LEAST, KEEP THE PARKING RATIOS FOR A3 AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO CONFLATE THAT RIGHT NOW.
OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S GOOD, TANYA.
THANK YOU. CHAD, LET'S GO AHEAD AND REFER COUNCIL.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND REFER TO THIS AS NUMBER 13 OUT OF 12.
I THINK THAT WILL MOVE US TO UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT LANGUAGE AND LOOK TO CLARIFY THAT.
OKAY. IF WE COULD TAKE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A MIXTURE BETWEEN MR. FALK, MR. MURPHY'S AND REFER TO THAT AS NUMBER 14.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS POINT.
OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT DOES THE JOB.
YES, MA'AM. TAKE THAT AS A WIN.
THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DO HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND, AND I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN DISTRIBUTED AT THE DAIS.
OKAY. MISS, MISS, MISS JOY, LET'S.
CAN YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? OKAY.
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
COME BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT REGARDING REMAINING ISSUES WITH ZONING DOWNTOWN.
[00:50:02]
SO A QUICK BIT OF CONTEXT.AND TANYA, I HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE, BUT IF I SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT, I WANT JUST AS MUCH GRACE.
THROUGH THE UDC, WE CREATED MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS.
DOWNTOWN, WE CREATED SIX OF THEM FOLLOWING THE SIX DISTRICTS THAT WERE BAKED INTO OUR OWN CODE.
OLD CODE AND SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE BORDERS OF THOSE.
YOU KNOW, I TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO GIVE SHAREHOLDER INPUT, STAKEHOLDER INPUT, TO SAY THAT I THOUGHT THAT WAS OVERLY COMPLEX AND THAT THERE WERE OTHER REASONS NOT TO DO THAT.
BUT THOSE REQUESTS WEREN'T TAKEN.
WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH, AND I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT MU TWO THROUGH MU SIX, WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH IS SORT OF AN UNUSABLE SITUATION IN REGARD TO ZONING DOWNTOWN THAT I THINK COULD BE STREAMLINED, I THINK COULD BE MADE BETTER.
SO, THERE'S THREE ISSUES I WANT TO TALK THROUGH, AND I'VE GOT A SOLUTION FOR EACH.
THERE ARE AREAS THAT WERE IMPOSED AN MU DISTRICT BECAUSE OF THEIR DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED TO A DIFFERENT MU DISTRICT AND IN PARTICULAR BROADWAY CB2 STRETCHES ALL THE WAY PAST 19TH STREET TO THE SOUTH AND IT STRETCHES ALMOST TO THE ARTS DISTRICT, TO THE NORTH.
AND THE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE GAVE FOR IT WERE A VERY INTENSE 90% FRONTAGE COVERAGE, VERY TALL, ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS WITH A WITH A A NOD TOWARDS THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN UPDATE TO TO MAKE BROADWAY MORE OF A DOWNTOWN CITY STREET. BUT SOME OF THOSE AREAS NORTH AND SOUTH COULD BE LESS INTENSE AND I THINK PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING REDEVELOPED IF THEY ARE LESS INTENSE.
THERE'S DISTRICTS, THERE'S PORTIONS OF DOWNTOWN WITHIN THE CBD TIF ZONE THAT ARE HCR I.H.S.
AND THEY OUGHT TO BE DISTRICTS.
SO MY PROPOSAL IS IN THREE PARTS AND YOU'VE GOT IT IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IS SHOW YOU MY FIRST POINT, WHICH IS IF YOU'LL IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE CHART ON PAGE TWO, I INVENTORIED THE PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS DOWNTOWN.
AND THE THING THAT I HOPE WILL JUMP OUT FOR FOR YOU.
AND IF NOT, I PUT IT IN BOLD SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE IS NO DISTRICT BETWEEN MU FOUR AND SIX.
THERE IS NO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND THOSE TWO ZONES VARY FROM MU THREE, WHICH IS THE CATCH ALL SORT OF GENERAL DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT BY ONE MEASUREMENT RELATED TO MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK.
SO MY FIRST PROPOSAL THEN WOULD BE TO RE DESIGNATE EVERYTHING ZONED MU FOUR AND MU SIX AS MU THREE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISOS. AND I'VE TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE ON THE TABLES AND WHERE IN THE SECTIONS, AND ALL OF THOSE HOW TO HOW TO IMPLEMENT AND IMPLEMENT THAT CHANGE AND HOW TO DO THAT.
THE CHANGE WOULD BE THAT WE MAKE THE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM FRONT BUILD TO ZONE TEN FEET AND THEN IN A SINGLE FAMILY SITUATION, MAKE THAT 25FT SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE FRONT STOOPS, FRONT PORCHES, FRONT YARDS AND ALL OF THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
AND THEN ALSO SAY THAT IN ANY BLOCK WHERE YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT MU THREE, YOU MAY ONLY HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THAT BLOCK.
THE LAST CHANGE RELATES TO PACKAGE STORES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET PACKAGE STORES CLOSER TO USES THAT ARE INTENDED BY THE TABC, SO WE'LL MAKE THAT A LIMITED USE AS WELL AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU MEET TABC REQUIREMENTS, BUT NOT LESS THAN 300FT OF SPACING.
THAT GETS RID OF TWO ZONES THAT DON'T DIFFER IN ANY WAY FROM THE OTHERS AND HARMONIZES IT WITH WTH THE LAST ZONE AS FAR AS THE PERMITTED USE TABLES.
JUST PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL LESS INTENSE ZONE.
SIMILARLY, EVERYTHING SOUTH OF 13TH STREET AND WEST OF TEXAS AVENUE SHOULD BE IN MU THREE.
AND I'VE SHOWN YOU THERE WHERE TO CHANGE THOSE TABLES AND WHAT THOSE TABLES SHOULD READ AS A RESULT.
THE LAST. THERE'S AN EXISTING VESTIGE OF DOWNTOWN.
[00:55:04]
THERE'S SOME POCKETS THAT YOU'LL SEE ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE CBD ZONE.I WOULD PROPOSE THAT YOU'RE DESIGNATE ANYTHING ZONED HC INSIDE OF THE CBD TIF ZONE AS MU THREE NOTE BECAUSE THAT'S. THERE ARE USES OVER THERE THAT MIGHT NOT MEET THE MU THREE USE CRITERIA.
NOTE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY GOT A GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE IN SUBSECTION 39 01010.
SO, MY UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT I THINK IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THAT GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE IS IF YOU HAVE A GRANDFATHERED USE, SO LONG AS YOU CONTINUE TO USE THAT USE AND YOU DON'T LET IT GO FALLOW UPON A TRANSFER, YOU CONTINUE TO ENJOY THAT USE.
SO THAT IS MY PROPOSAL IN THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FOUR.
SO IT INCORPORATES ALL OF THOSE CHANGES TOGETHER.
AND AS A RESULT OF THOSE THREE EASY FIXES, WE HAVE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE DIFFERENCES.
WE HAVE INTENSE USES ALONG THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE OF DOWNTOWN AND WE HAVE DEALT WITH VESTIGIAL ZONING IN DOWNTOWN AND WE CAN HARMONIZE ACROSS THE CBD TIFF ZONE INTO THOSE FOUR ZONES INSTEAD OF SIX.
OH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING.
I REPRESENT THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK COALITION.
OR SO I AM RECOMMENDING, IF YOU WILL LET ME SPEAK TO THEM.
I AM RECOMMENDING THEM AS AMENDMENTS.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
THESE BUILDINGS LOCATED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE UNSAFE AND UNSIGHTLY.
WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY SET ASIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO IMPROVE OR REMOVE ABANDONED AND BLIGHTED STRUCTURES ON THE INDUSTRIAL LAND AND THE CITY, REZONE IT TO SOMETHING SUITABLE TO OUR COMMUNITIES.
ALSO DOWN ZONED CURRENTLY VACANT, ABANDONED OR NON-OPERATIONAL LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL IN THE UDC ZONING MAP WITHIN 500 YARDS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
ONE OF THESE PICTURES SHOWS PICO LOCATED ON 34TH AND AVENUE A.
THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE CARVER CHILD CARE CENTER.
THE CARVER CHILD CARE CENTER CARE CENTER LOCATED ON 26TH AND ELM.
THE SECOND PICTURE IS A CONCRETE BATCH COMPANY THAT BORDERS MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT HAS BEEN CITED BY TCEQ FOR EMITTING TOO MUCH, EMITTING TOO MUCH POLLUTION.
THIS FACILITY IS NOT THE ONLY PLANT THAT IS NEXT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOU DOWN ZONE TRACKS THAT ARE ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL IN THE UDC ZONING MAP THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED, THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL IN THE 2040 FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOR EXAMPLE.
WILBERT FUNERAL SERVICES ACROSS THE STREET FROM CAVAZOS MIDDLE SCHOOL IS NOT INDUSTRIAL IN THE 2040 FUTURE LAND USE MAP BUT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL IN THE UDC ZONING MAP.
FURTHER, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU ALLOCATE SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO COMPLY WITH SB 909, WHICH SAYS HOW A CITY MIGHT TERMINATE A NON-CONFORMING USE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NONCONFORMING OR GRANDFATHERED INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES AND OR FACILITIES COULD BE EVENTUALLY TERMINATED AND REMOVED FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE 2040 PLAN RECOMMENDED DOWN ZONING A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF ANYONE ZONING TO COMMERCIAL IN SOUTH LUBBOCK AREA, THE VICINITY OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED MCALESTER PARK.
[01:00:01]
AND NOW THE CITY HAS ALLOCATED 1.5 MILLION IN AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS TO BUILD A 1.8 MILLION PICKLEBALL PARK IN MCALESTER PARK.THE 2040 PLAN, CALLED TO DISALLOW THE EXPANSION OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK.
THE COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR THE ZONING CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH IT CONTRADICTED THE 2040 PLAN NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK RESIDENTS FEEL THAT BROKEN PROMISES IS WHAT WE GET INSTEAD OF DO WHAT YOU SAY.
MY FAMILY HAS CALLED NORTH LUBBOCK HOME FOR SIX GENERATIONS.
MY GRANDMOTHER HAD NO EDUCATION AND MY MOTHER HAD A THIRD GRADE EDUCATION.
THAT RESPONSIBILITY, THAT RESPONSIBILITY NOW FALLS ON US.
AND WE NEED EACH ONE OF YOU TO CHAMPION FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
I WOULD ASK AT THIS TIME ALL THOSE WHO ARE HERE TO SUPPORT OUR CAUSE TO PLEASE STAND.
MR. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.
CAN SOMEONE SHARE WITH ME WHAT THAT WHAT JUST HAPPENED? AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS ITEM NUMBER 14.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS A THERE IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR THE TECH TERRORISTS.
YEAH. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE THAT WOULD BE 14 AND YOU WOULD BE 16.
WHATEVER. MY CONCERN IS, I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT THE 75 FOOT HEIGHT AND GET DOWN TO 45 BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER HDR ZONES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY.
IT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THOSE ZONES EITHER.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT ONE CAVEAT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.. AND THEN ONE LAST COMMENT.
I THOUGHT I WAS SOMEWHAT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE A TWO WEEK GAP BETWEEN OCTOBER 1ST AND WHEN SOME OF THESE NEW AMENDMENTS ARE, IN FACT, ENFORCED.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THEM RETROACTIVE BACK TO OCTOBER 1ST? BECAUSE IF SOMEONE SUBMITS, I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ASK MR. WEAVER. BUT AT THIS TIME, WE'RE JUST IN A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A.
GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M MARY VINES, 4002 16TH STREET.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK, FIRST OF ALL, IN FAVOR OF MISTER MURPHY'S AMENDMENT.
WANT TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE WRITTEN VERY QUICKLY THAT I KNOW NEEDS REVISION.
[01:05:02]
WHEN MR. MURPHY SPOKE, HE SEEMED SURPRISED THAT ONE OF THE MAPS THAT SHOWED UP WAS NOT THE MAP THAT HE HAD SEEN EARLIER.AND I WHEN I WAS LOOKING TODAY AT THE UDC MAP, I DIDN'T SEE I SAW ONE MAP, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE OTHER MAP THAT WAS WAS PROJECTED.
BEFORE I TELL YOU WHAT, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TO AMEND.
THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING AND THIS IS THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I'M WANTING TO SPEAK ABOUT THE THE AREA THAT WE CALL UNIT TECH HARRIS.
AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE THE FIRST MAP THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IS NOT THE MAP THAT IS PROJECTED NOW, BUT IT SINCE IT WAS LABELED UDC MAP, I'M ASSUMING I WAS ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS THE MAP.
AND SO WHAT I'M SPEAKING TO IS IN REGARD TO THAT MAP, IS THAT NOT THAT IS NOT THE CURRENT MAP.
THIS ONE IS THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU PREFER? AND THIS ONE IS IS ZONING.
THE UDC ZONING? YES, I WOULD LIKE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT.
WHAT I SAW ON ON THIS MAP WHEN IT WAS SHOWING THE UNIT TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWED SOME THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SEEING ON THAT MAP.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU CAN ZONE IN ON THE UNIT TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD? SURE. WE CAN GO TO THE MAP ON THE WEBSITE AND ZOOM IN.
MAYBE. SO, THE UNIVERSITY OR DO YOU WANT TO GO FURTHER? IT'S INDIANA UNIVERSITY, 19TH TO 34TH STREET AND 19TH HERE? YES. DO YOU WANT ME TO ZOOM OUT SO YOU CAN SEE THE FULL MILE? I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FULL MILE.
IS THAT OUR TO THE ORANGE IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH TODAY IS R2 OR A ONE.
OKAY. AND THIS IS BOSTON AND 27TH. OKAY.
WHEN MRS. PRADA SPOKE, SHE SAID THAT WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IT WAS PRESENTED AS IF THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MAJOR CHANGES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WHAT I AM SEEING RIGHT NOW IS SOMETHING THAT ON THE MAP THAT I THOUGHT I WAS LOOKING AT THIS MORNING THAT SHOWED SHOWED SOME OF THAT MEDIUM DENSITY SOUTH OF TECTARIUS PARK.
AND THAT IS NOT HAS NOT BEEN MEDIUM DENSITY.
THAT HAS BEEN OUR ONE AS FOR AS LONG AS I HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND I THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS WHAT IS WHAT WE HAVE KNOWN IS BEING PROPOSED.
SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, AND I KNOW THAT IT IS NOT IN THE IN THE LANGUAGE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE UDC MAP TO SHOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE UNIT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM UNIVERSITY, 19TH TO 19TH TO INDIANA TO 34TH STREET TO BE CHANGED, TO BE LABELED R1, EXCEPT FOR THE R2 THAT
[01:10:09]
WAS NEAR 34TH STREET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY WHAT IT IS AND WOULD LIKE IT TO BE SHOWN AS COMMERCIAL AND APARTMENT ON 19TH STREET BETWEEN BOSTON AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE IS COMMERCIAL CURRENTLY, INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD BEARING THE DESIGNATION OF BEING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MUNSON.
GRETCHEN SCOTT LIVE AT 4012 69TH STREET IN LUBBOCK.
I'M REAL CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO HERE TODAY.
WHEN I SAW THE ANNOUNCEMENTS, IT WAS JUST IF YOU HAD ISSUES WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, YOU COULD BRING UP AMENDMENTS OR THINGS YOU'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGED.
AND NOW I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I'VE GOT IT WRITTEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE CHANGED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT FIRST BEFORE I GIVE IT TO YOU.
IS THAT OKAY? AND THIS DOES THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE CHAPTER 40 RESIDENTIAL CODES.
AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH ISSUES WITH THESE CODES BECAUSE AND I'VE MET WITH MR. WALKER TWICE AND I'VE MET WITH KRISTEN TWICE, BUT THE MAIN THINGS I SEE AFFECTING MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MELANIE PARK AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATIONS.
BUT THEN THERE'S ALL THESE EXCEPTIONS, AND THE MAIN ONE I OBJECT TO AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDRESSED IN AN AMENDMENT IS THE USE OF TRAILERS BEING CALLED THE TRANSPORTING GOODS AND SERVICES.
SO IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING TO SIT IN YOUR YARD BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE IT LIKE THAT, THE SOLUTION IS YOU PUT IT ON A TRAILER AND THEN YOU CAN CALL IT TRANSPORTING GOODS AND SERVICES, AND IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY.
ON 68TH STREET IN THE 3300 BLOCK, THERE IS A SHAVED ICE FOOD TRUCK, A BOUNCY HOUSE BUSINESS THAT HAS TRAILERS ALL THE TIME WITH THE HOUSES ON IT AND A HAMBURGER FOOD TRUCK RIGHT IN A ROW, THREE HOUSES.
MY FEAR WITH THE FIRST ONE WAS YOU LET ONE IN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM ALL IN.
AND AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THEIR PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE SELLING ON A TRAILER, THEY'RE GOOD TO GO.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT LOOPHOLE CLOSED.
DON'T GIVE AN EXCEPTION TO TRANSPORTING GOODS AND SERVICES.
AND THEN THE OF THE ISSUE WE HAVE A CODE ENFORCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE TWO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ON A RESIDENCE ACCORDING TO MR. WALKER. IF THEY DON'T REFERENCE PHONE NUMBERS OR WEBSITES, THEN THEY'RE GOOD TO GO EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ALL THIS ADVERTISING ON THEM.
SO I WOULD LIKE AN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THIS CODE TO SAY IF A VEHICLE OR A TRAILER HAS A BUSINESS ON IT, A BUSINESS ADVERTISING ON IT, THEN IT IS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND ONLY ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED PER RESIDENCE.
MR. WALKER BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE.
WELL, WHAT ABOUT STATE VEHICLES? THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S NOT FEDERAL, COUNTY, STATE OR CITY.
SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE TAKEN CARE OF.
WE WERE GIVEN NO NOTICE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO COME NO NOTICE AT ALL.
THEN THERE WAS A PROPOSED VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS FROM 5 TO 9 WHILE NOT INCREASING THE PARKING. SO THERE WAS A HEARING AND ALL MY NEIGHBORS GOT TOGETHER AND WE WERE ALL GOING TO COME DOWN AND PROTEST THE VARIANCE.
HOWEVER, WE WERE GIVEN NO NOTICE OF THAT.
WE WERE GIVEN NO NOTICE THAT THE VARIANCE WAS PULLED.
SCOTT, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD STICK TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
IF YOU HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, LET US KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
[01:15:01]
SO I THINK I'VE GOT EVERYTHING.I'LL BE GLAD TO HAND THIS IN ANYWAY.
IS THAT CORRECT? OR PROPOSE AMENDMENTS OR ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE THIS AT THIS TIME? YES, AT THIS TIME.
OKAY. THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER ONE.
THE GROUP HOME ISSUE, WHICH I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
THAT DOESN'T SOMEHOW THAT DOESN'T FALL IN WITH THE TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THE GROUP HOME ISSUE.
KRISTEN, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT? LET'S NOT GO TOO FAR OFF IF YOU HAVE A.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER NOW WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING.
OKAY. I THINK YOU'RE JUST TOPICS FOR ANOTHER DAY, MISS SCOTT.
WELL, I WAS AFRAID I WASN'T GOING TO GET ANOTHER DAY.
I'M SORRY. ANYWAY, I'VE WRITTEN THEM ALL DOWN AND I'LL HAND THEM IN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IF YOU'LL HAND THAT TO MR. WEAVER. MR. MAYOR? YES, MISS JOY.
ARE WE ACCEPTING NEW AMENDMENTS? WELL, WE'RE STILL IN A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PUBLIC, SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE NOT HAVING DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL OR AMENDMENTS FROM THE DAIS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL COMMISSION.
JOSHUA SHANKLES 2600 BLOCK OF 47TH STREET.
I DO HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THIS.
WHILE IT IS WHY IT IS THAT I'M HERE, I PROPOSE THAT THIS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE CONTAIN A PROVISION WITHIN IT TO AMORTIZE CONFLICTING USES THAT EXIST WITHIN OUR CITY.
OUR ORGANIZATION, AMONG THE MANY THINGS IT DOES, TWO OF THEM ARE PRESENTING EVIDENCE BASED POLICY TO THE COUNCIL THAT HASN'T BEEN CONSIDERED.
AND OUR METRIC FOR PRESENTING POLICY TO THE COUNCIL IS, IS IT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND AN AMORTIZATION PROVISION BEING ALLOWED INTO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE? VERY MUCH IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DONE THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
IT IS SOMETHING MANY OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS HAVE ASKED YOU FOR, WHICH MAKES IT VEXING THAT WE DON'T FIND IT ON THE AMENDMENTS LIST RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU GUYS IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID VOTE TO ALSO RECOMMEND TO YOU GUYS.
SO I'M HERE TO BRING THAT AMENDMENT FORWARD ON BEHALF OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER HALF OF WHAT OUR ORGANIZATION DOES, WHICH IS REPRESENTS MANY CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU AND WHO CUT ACROSS MANY OF YOUR DISTRICTS.
HONORABLE MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
I'M ROGER SETTLER, 2120, BROADWAY, A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF THE HISTORIC BROADWAY CORRIDOR.
AND I AM I SPEAK TODAY REALLY MORE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR.
I'VE HEARD RUMORS THAT IT IS PROPOSED TO BE MIXED USE.
IS THAT CORRECT? MR. SADLER, THIS IS A TIME IF YOU HAVE TO DISCUSS OR PUBLIC HEARING ON ONE OF THE 12 THAT WERE POSTED OR IF YOU HAVE A WRITTEN PROPOSED AMENDMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT, I MIGHT HAVE A WRITTEN AMENDMENT IF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IS ALLOWED IN THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR.
OKAY. IF THAT COMES UP, I GUESS YOU CAN SPEAK AT THAT TIME.
BEFORE WE GET INTO OPPOSITION, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND WE'RE GOING TO GET WITH CHAD AND WE'RE GOING TO COLLABORATE ON, IT LOOKS LIKE 13 THROUGH POSSIBLY 21 SO WE CAN KEEP THESE ORGANIZED.
SO WE'LL BE IN RECESS COUNSEL UNTIL RIGHT AT 330.
[01:20:04]
ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, MR. SAWYER, WITH THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WE HAVE AT THIS TIME AND AGAIN, THIS IS HOW THIS IS POSTED, WAS THE DISCUSSION OF ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. AND THOSE THAT WERE POSTED WERE ONE THROUGH 12.JOY. THOSE ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE.
I THINK THAT THAT IS REGARDING THE PARKING WE HAVE 14, WHICH IS THE TECH TERRACE AND MR. MURPHY'S PRESENTATION, OR AT LEAST THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WE RECEIVED FROM THEM.
NUMBER 15 IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR MR. MCCLENDON. NUMBER 16 IS AN EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED FROM MR. FAULK, AND HIS PROPOSAL WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO TECH TERRACE.
HOWEVER, IT PROPOSED A 45% CAP, 45 FOOT CAP AS OPPOSED TO 75.
NUMBER 17 IS A PROPOSAL FOR MS. VINES REGARDING R1 AND R2.
NUMBER 18 IS THE PROPOSAL FOR MS. GRETCHEN SCOTT REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION.
NUMBER 19 IS THE ONE FROM MR. SHANKLES AND MS. CORTEZ REGARDING AMORTIZATION.
SO WE HAVE AT THIS TIME ONE THROUGH 19 CLEAR AS MUD.
I BELIEVE OTHER AMENDMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY MS..
THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IN THE SAME VEIN AS THE AMORTIZATION OF MR. SCHINKEL. SO WE DO HAVE THAT RIGHT.
OKAY. AND TELL ME YOUR NAME, SIR.
THIRD PLACE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. SORRY ABOUT THAT, MISTER. NO, YOU'RE GOOD.
THE REASON THE REASON IS, IS BECAUSE OF HOW THIS PROCESS WAS CARRIED OUT.
I ALSO DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT IN WRITING SINCE YOU GUYS WANTED IT IN WRITING ON THE SPOT.
I HAVE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU EFFECTIVELY SILENCED, MR. MAYOR. AND I'M TALKING TO YOU DIRECTLY BECAUSE YOU ARE THE KIND OF THE THE GUY THAT DIRECTS THE MEETINGS.
SO ANY SORT OF RULE CHANGES WOULD PROBABLY GO THROUGH.
YOU. I WILL ALSO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO NUMBER TWO HERE ON YOUR OWN AGENDA, WHERE IT SAYS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND IT HAS THE ONES LISTED.
NUMBER TWO IS THAT PUBLIC HEARING HAS A VERY SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ALL THAT.
THESE PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING UNTIL WE GOT HERE.
SO ALL OF THOSE FOLKS THAT STOOD UP WITH MISS CORTEZ, YOU EFFECTIVELY SILENCED THEM.
AND THIS IS AN OFFICIAL AMENDMENT BY LUBBOCK COMPACT, AND I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE ITS OWN AMENDMENT.
SO THE AMENDMENT IS TO DOWN ZONE ALL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT IS CURRENTLY OR WILL BE NONCONFORMING AFTER PASSAGE OF THE UDC OR ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CHANGING THOSE TO TRANSITIONAL.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT IF ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS IS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING OR A TORNADO TO THE TUNE OF 75%, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BRING BACK THAT USE AS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE.
THAT ALSO MEANS THAT SOME OF THOSE LOTS SITTING EMPTY NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RIGHT NOW THAT ARE ZONED HEAVY USE INDUSTRIAL, THOSE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A NEW HEAVY USE COME IN IN THE MIDST OF ALL OF THIS.
AND WHAT THIS WOULD DO FOR YOU, MR. MAYOR, AND THE CITY COUNCIL IS IT WOULD SHOW THE COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY IN DISTRICT ONE AND DISTRICT TWO, WHO HAVE FOUGHT THIS FIGHT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
AND WE'VE GIVEN YOU ALL THE SCIENCE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
YOU WILL SHOW THEM THAT THEY MATTER TO THIS COUNCIL AND TO THIS CITY LIKE THE REST OF THEM DO.
AND WE'RE GLAD THAT THE DEVELOPERS WERE ABLE TO GET A LOT OF THEIR AMENDMENTS IN.
WE NEED DEVELOPERS, BUT WHO FILLS UP THOSE BUILDINGS TO PAY THOSE TAX BASES? THEY CREATE THE CITIZENS.
AND SO THERE'S ANOTHER FACTOR HERE THAT'S NOT BEING CONSIDERED.
AND FOR YOU TO HAVE PEOPLE TRY TO MAKE THEM WRITE SOMETHING ON THE SPOT BEFORE IT'S CONSIDERED, WHEN TODAY IS THE DAY TO CONSIDER IT AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR VOTE AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT.
I THINK THAT'S A SHAME. SO MY WRITTEN AMENDMENT IS ONCE AGAIN DOWN ZONED ALL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT IS CURRENTLY OR WILL BE NONCONFORMING AFTER PASSAGE OF THE UDC OR ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO TRANSITIONAL.
[01:25:03]
THANK YOU.ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
AND GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MONT AND I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH COREY DOOLAN AND CHRIS BERRY IN OUR DEVELOPERS COUNCIL GROUP AS SORT OF WE'RE THE REAL STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS THAT MEANING THAT WE'RE THE ONES WHO SWIM IN THIS BUSINESS DAY IN AND DAY OUT.
SO I'M STANDING HERE IN OPPOSITION, BUT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE LENS THROUGH WHICH I'M LOOKING.
BY THE WAY, TERRI HOLMAN, 4,492ND STREET.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CATCH.
SO I'M GOING TO DO SOME OF THE LIGHT LIFTING FOR JUST A MOMENT, AND THEN I'M GOING TO BOUNCE AROUND JUST TO TOUCH ON THESE 12 ITEMS. AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK MONT MCCLENDON TO BACK CLEAN UP FOR ME.
SO ALSO I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE LENS THROUGH WHICH WE'RE LOOKING.
A LOT OF MY COMMENTS ARE NOT OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENTS, BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO EAT, SLEEP AND BREATHE THIS, WE HAVE MAYBE SOME LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE FEEL LIKE MIGHT BE BETTER SUITED FOR WHAT WHAT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
I HAD ORIGINALLY MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT FOR CERTAIN STYLES OF CONSTRUCTION THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW SOMETHING SMALLER. THEY HAVE SINCE COME BACK AND SAID THEY DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
SO THIS HANDOUT THAT I GAVE YOU, IN FACT, WILL GIVE YOU A QUICK PRIMER.
THIS ROUGHLY FOLLOWS THE 12 AMENDMENTS.
THE YELLOW TEXT IS OUR ACTION RECOMMENDATION.
THE BLUE TEXT ABOVE THAT IS SORT OF A BRIEF EXPLANATION.
THE GREEN TEXT IN THESE ITEMS IS JUST THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, RIGHT? SO NUMBER ONE FOR US, I BELIEVE WAS EASY.
MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS SHALL BE 20FT AND MINIMUM LOT AREA SHALL BE 1000FT².
WE HAVE DONE SOME SUBDIVISION PLATS RECENTLY WHERE WE'VE HAD OFFICE STYLE DEVELOPMENT BUT WAS CONSTRUCTED MORE LIKE TOWNHOMES, WHERE YOU HAVE MAYBE A 20 FOOT TOWNHOME STYLE LOT THAT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING AND MAYBE HAVE A COMMON PARKING AREA.
IT'S DIFFICULT IN THAT SETTING TO MEET THE 100 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT'S A THAT'S A TECHNICAL ITEM THAT WE HOPE YOU CAN GET BEHIND.
THIS IS THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS.
ON MY HANDOUT, THE TOP OF OUR PAGE TWO.
AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU WERE FOLLOWING ALONG IN THIS INITIAL 30 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT PLANNING POSTED, YOU CAN YOU CAN DRILL DOWN AND FIND SOME OF THIS STUFF. MY ITEM NUMBER A UNDER THERE SPEAKS TO THE TABLE ON PAGE 368.
[01:30:07]
BEFORE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS THE PLACE TO GO TO FOR AN APPEAL.THERE'S A REFERENCE HERE TO APPLICATIONS COMPLETED BY THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER, AND IT SAYS AS LISTED ON THE LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THAT'S REALLY NOT THE PLACE TO BE FINDING PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION, BECAUSE THE WAY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WORKS IS THEY'RE CUSTOMARILY MONTHS BEHIND.
AND SO YOU COULD JUST AS EASILY SAY BUY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
MAYBE THERE WAS A TRANSACTION THAT OCCURRED JUST A FEW DAYS AGO.
SO WE'RE JUST SAYING REMOVE THE REFERENCE ON THAT.
NEXT IS ITEM C, THIS SHOWS UP A FEW CASES WHERE THE THE THE PLAT REVIEW FEES ARE HARD CODED INTO THE UDC. IT SETS DOLLAR AMOUNTS WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE UDC.
WE'RE SAYING TAKE THAT OUT AND JUST SAY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
ITEM D SPEAKS TO A NEW REQUIREMENT FOR WATER AND SEWER SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS WITH PRE PLATS.
ALL I'M SAYING IS, IS ADD LANGUAGE, SAY WATER AND SEWER SCHEMATIC LAYOUTS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL BE SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER THAT TIGHTENS IT UP A LITTLE BIT. ITEM E! I ALMOST HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THIS.
THIS IS HAVING TO DO WITH PLAT SCALES AND YOU'VE GOT TO SET NUMBERS RIGHT.
SO I'M SAYING IN HERE, RATHER THAN THE CRITERIA THAT THEY SET, JUST SAY DRAW TO STANDARD ENGINEERING SCALES RANGING FROM 1 TO 10 TO 1 TO 100, 1 TO 200. SCALE IS ALLOWED FOR PLATS LARGER THAN 100 ACRES ONLY WHEN INFORMATION ILLUSTRATED ON THE PLAT IS CLEARLY LEGIBLE ON THE PRINTED FULL SIZED PAPER.
SO I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BOTHER YOU WITH THIS, BUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS, IS IF IF IT'S BAKED INTO THE CODE THE WAY IT IS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TECHNICIAN WHO'S GOING TO MAYBE FUSS WITH ME ON ON THE WAY I DRAW A PLAT WHEN IT SHOULD BE MY DISCRETION AS TO HOW THAT'S PUT TOGETHER.
I PROMISE THERE'S AN END TO THIS.
IT'S MY SUGGESTION ON A CLEAN UP ON THE THE LANGUAGE, ON TYING PROPERTIES TO SECTION CORNERS.
I JUST SAY TIE IT TO A SECTION CORNER OF THE SECTION IN WHICH THE PLAT IS LOCATED.
THAT'S A LITTLE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN SAYING THE ABUTTING SECTION CORNER.
THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. WE AGREE WITH THAT.
CURRENTLY, THAT INFORMATION IS NOT ON YOUR GIS WEBSITE OR WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.
SO THE FOLKS HERE SAY INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON CITY GIS.
ADAM H. BEAR WITH ME HERE FOR A MOMENT.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A SIGNATURE BLOCK REQUIREMENT ON THE PRE PLATS.
WE'RE SAYING PUT THAT ON THERE.
ADAM I THIS IS A BIG ONE FOR US.
THIS WAS ADDED IN. THIS WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL CODE.
THIS IS NEW. SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY WORTH BRINGING UP.
ITEM NUMBER 25 ON PAGE ON PAGE 397 REQUIRES A BEFORE BEFORE A PLAT IS CAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. IT HAS TO BE SIGNED BY A SURVEYOR FOR A LITTLE ONE LOT COMMERCIAL PLAT THAT IS NO PROBLEM.
BUT WHEN WE HAVE AN 80 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THE SURVEYOR HAS TO CERTIFY THAT HE'S SURVEYED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUB REGS, WHICH MEANS THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SET ALL THE CORNERS, MOST OF THEM.
THAT IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF TIME AND EFFORT.
AND WHAT HELPS US IS IF WE CAN HAVE A REVIEW OF A DRAFT PLAT BEFORE WE GO TO THAT TIME AND EFFORT.
[01:35:06]
IT'S TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BEFORE WE GO TO THAT KIND OF TIME AND EFFORT.WE WANT TO KEEP THAT BECAUSE IF YOU MAKE US GO SURVEY THE PLAT BEFORE IT'S EVEN SUBMITTED, THAT'S A HUGE RISK ON THE PRIVATE SIDE BECAUSE SOMEBODY IN PLANNING OR SOMEBODY IN ENGINEERING MAY FIND SOMETHING THAT EITHER DOESN'T MEET CODE THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT OR SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T LIKE, THAT THEY WANT US TO CHANGE.
AND WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY SPENT A HUGE AMOUNT OF EFFORT GETTING A SURVEYOR TO SIGN THAT.
NEXT PAGE, I'M GOING TO SKIP DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE LAND USE MATRIX AND THE SHIFTING OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES TO REQUIRE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TO GO THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE ZONE CASE.
IT'S OUR POSITION THAT USUALLY IF YOU'RE DOING A SOMETHING THAT IS A UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, POWER TRANSMISSION, THE LIKE, THAT'S A NEED, THAT'S NOT A WANT.
AND IT'S IT'S OUR FEAR THAT IF IF POLITICS, POLITICS BEING A SPECIFIC USE ZONE CASE, IF POLITICS IS INJECTED INTO THAT, YOU MAY LOSE THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU HAD TO DO WITH RESPECT TO UTILITIES.
I'M GOING TO SKIP LASTLY DOWN TO NUMBER 12.
THERE'S NEW LANGUAGE IN THE CODE ABOUT DRIVEWAY SPACING.
GOOD IDEA. WE AGREE WITH THAT.
THE NEW LANGUAGE SAYS EDGE TO EDGE.
THAT'S TOTALLY FINE, BUT EDGE OF WHAT? TO EDGE OF WHAT, RIGHT.
AND I KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO TO KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE WAS INTENDED HERE.
LET'S JUST CLEAN THE LANGUAGE UP MEASURED BETWEEN NEAREST EDGES OF DRIVEWAY THROATS.
OR YOU CAN DO A LITTLE DIAGRAM SIMILAR TO WHAT DOT HAS IN THEIR ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL.
SO AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR KIND OF BORING YOU WITH THIS, BUT THESE ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND IT'S UP TO US TO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL OPERATE IN.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO YIELD TO MONT AND ASK MONT TO SPEAK TO THE OTHER ITEMS. THANK YOU.
MARTIN MCLENDON 4602 16TH STREET.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING ITEMS. I WANT TO CLARIFY ON THE FIRST, WHICH TERRY JUST ADDRESSED, THAT WE'RE ASKING THAT CHANGE BE MADE TO BOTH NC AND F BECAUSE THAT SAME LANGUAGE EXISTS IN BOTH SPOTS AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MAKE THE SAME CHANGE IS AN OVERLOOKED SECTION TO ADUS AND KRISTEN AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD BE FACING YOU GUYS SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING THIS FIRST GO THROUGH.
RIGHT. AND SO MY MANTRA THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU PLEASE STEP CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE.
AND THEN LET'S LIVE WITH THAT.
MY RESPONSE TO TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE ADU LANGUAGE IS IN MY MIND, UNDER THE EXISTING CODE, YOU IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING ADU, IT IS EITHER REGISTERED AND THEREFORE LEGAL.
IT HAS. AND I APPRECIATE KRISTEN POINTING OUT IT HAS A VARIANCE AND IS THEREFORE LEGAL OR IT MEETS THE DESIGN CRITERIA AND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA OF THE CODE AND IS THEREFORE LEGAL OR IT DOESN'T AND IT'S NOT LEGAL.
AND I DON'T THINK CREATING A WAY BY WHICH SOMEBODY CAN DRAW RECORDS BACK TO 1980 AND MEET THE NEW CRITERIA FOR 43 YEARS IS A REASONABLE USE OF OUR TIME.
[01:40:02]
I THINK THOSE FOLKS HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE AND IF THEY'RE NOT THERE YET, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THERE.SO IT EITHER MEETS THE CODE OR IT DOESN'T.
SO I DON'T THINK THE ADU PROVISION REQUIRES ANY CHANGES.
SECTION FOUR, THE REDUCTION OVERLAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF CHANGES.
MOST OF THOSE CHANGES ARE CLEANUPS AND CLARIFICATIONS AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
OKAY, THAT'S BETTER. THANK YOU. TWO MINOR TWEAKS ON THE REDUCTION OVERLAY.
THE FIRST IS THE MESSAGE ON REDUCTION OVERLAY WAS WE ARE CREATING A ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ARE THE PROVINCE OF P AND Z, AND THEREFORE I THINK REINSTATING THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS APPROVAL OF A REDUCTION OVERLAY SHALL NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS A REASONABLE CODIFICATION OF OUR EXPECTATION IN THAT REGARD.
THE SECOND HAS TO DO WITH BILLBOARDS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WAS TAKEN OUT, BUT WHAT I WILL SAY TO YOU IS THAT IF I HAVE A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT ALLOWS BILLBOARDS AS A SPECIFIC USE, WHICH CURRENTLY IS ONLY INDUSTRIAL USES IN OUR CITY, I WOULD LIKE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO.
I WOULD LIKE TO USE AN ARROW TO SAY NO BILLBOARDS IN THIS ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR MY PROPERTY.
SO THAT DOWN THE LINE, NO, SOMEONE CAN'T COME FORWARD WITH A SPECIFIC USE AND PUT A BILLBOARD ON THAT PARCEL WITHOUT CHANGING THE ZONING.
I'D LIKE TO RULE OUT, LINE OUT AREAS FOR BILLBOARDS THROUGH THE USE OF THE REDUCTION OVERLAY.
I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE CHANGE.
I WANT TO TWEAK THIS A LITTLE BIT BASED ON A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH WITH STAFF.
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD STAFF TO SAY WAS THAT YOU CAN COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AND AND OVER NOTIFY.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SAYS COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
IF YOU CAN DO THOSE TWO THINGS, DO IT.
BUT DON'T CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO CONTRADICT STATE LAW.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THAT THAT PROVISION 2111 OR 2 211 062 AND 211 07C DOESN'T SAY AT LEAST 200FT.
SO THE STATUTE, THE STATE STATUTE HAS SPOKEN ON THE TOPIC.
IF IT IS THE OPINION OF COUNSEL THAT YOU CAN YOU CAN OVER NOTIFY AND NOT VIOLATE THAT, DO IT.
BUT WRITING LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTS IT I THINK IS UNWISE.
I APPRECIATE STAFF'S PRESENTATION OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY IN OUR ZONING CODE.
IT'S THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TWO OR MORE OR THE THREE OR MORE THAT I THINK IS PROBLEMATIC.
SOMEONE WITH LOTS OF SIBLINGS HAS A DIFFERENT HOUSING OPTIONS THAN SOMEONE WITH NONE.
A A MAN WITH A CHILD MOVING IN WITH A WOMAN WITH A CHILD VIOLATES THE ORDINANCE.
DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE KNOW A FAMILY LIKE THAT? I THINK IT'S PROBLEMATIC.
I THINK IT'S UNSEEMLY TO DRAW THOSE LINES.
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE.
ACTUALLY. I PERSONALLY, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THE CODE AND TAKE THE NUMBER OUT ALTOGETHER.
BUT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, WHICH IS 3.2, IS BETTER THAN TWO.
OKAY. I COME FROM A BIG FAMILY.
IT'S TREATING DIFFERENT PEOPLE DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW AND.
[01:45:01]
HDR IS THERE A WAY TO PULL UP THE UDC ZONING MAP? BECAUSE I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING.LET'S GO TO EIGHT. LET'S GO TO 19TH AND UNIVERSITY.
YEAH. LET'S GO. I WANT TO SHOW YOU 19TH AND UNIVERSITY.
JUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE PROPOSALS.
I THINK THE FIX THAT'S PROPOSED DOESN'T FIX ANYTHING.
IT CAN'T BE ABOUT HEIGHT, BECAUSE THE PURPLE IN THIS MAP IS H.
SEE, IT'S C4 THAT TURNS THE H C, AND THERE IS NO HEIGHT RESTRICTION AT ALL.
NONE. SO IT CAN'T BE ABOUT THAT.
IT CAN'T BE ABOUT SMALL LOT SIZES THAT ARE HDR BECAUSE THE SETBACK AND THE SIDE SETBACK MAKES THEM UNBUILDABLE IF YOU TAKE DR. STEVE'S LOT AT 26TH AND BOSTON AND TRY TO BUILD SOMETHING 75FT TALL ON IT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELEVATOR THAT SELLS GUM ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THAT'S IT.
MOREOVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIMITED CRITERIA FOR APARTMENTS IN HDR, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT SAYS.
CLEAR AS DAY WHEN YOU'RE WEARING YOUR GLASSES.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT SF2 ON A BLOCK FACE, YOU CAN'T HAVE HDR.
I THINK YOU'RE. I DON'T THINK WE'RE FIXING ANYTHING.
I THINK WE'RE BORROWING TROUBLE.
I THINK WE'RE DOING VIOLENCE TO HIS OWN CLASSIFICATION IN PURSUIT OF A PARTICULAR RESULT.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE ON HDR.
IN OUR HANDOUT TO YOU, WE'VE TRIED AGAIN TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
OUR ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN GOLD.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LEAVE ME ALONE WITH A WORD PROCESSOR.
AND OUR PROPOSED CHANGES ARE IN GREEN.
BY AND LARGE, THEY'RE PRETTY LIGHT TOUCHES.
AND WE'RE AFTER THE SAME THING.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM HERE, NOT A PARTICULAR RESULT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OVERALL SYSTEM.
AND THEY'VE GOT A BIG JOB IN FRONT OF THEM.
THANKS, GUYS. IT'S A BORING BLACK GUY.
UNDER ITEM FIVE, ALL OF THE MINUTIA THAT I RAN THROUGH ON THE PLAT PROCESSES AND REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, IT ESCAPED ME THAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE HAD A TIP OF THE HAT TO THOSE PLATS THAT ARE IN THE ETJ.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A CERTIFICATE FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE, SO FORTH.
BUT MY QUESTION TIED TO THAT AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE, SHOULD WE NOT STILL BE HAVING SIGNATURE BLOCKS FOR PLATS IN THE ETJ THAT REQUIRE COUNTY COUNTY JUDGE SIGNATURE, AT LEAST IN THE DRAFT THAT WE SAW THAT'S BEEN DROPPED OFF.
SO THAT'S A BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT AND MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS THAT, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. OH, LASTLY, I WANTED YOU TO KNOW I SHOULD HAVE STATED THIS FIRST.
I'M ALWAYS BACKWARDS, RIGHT? I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT THESE ITEMS ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED SORT OF IN PASSING WITH STAFF OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
AND AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US THAT WE CERTAINLY BRING THOSE TO YOU, YOU ALL HERE TODAY.
WE WERE WE WERE ASKED TO DO IT THIS WAY.
AND AGAIN, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[01:50:10]
MR. MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND ZONING.I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE HDR AMENDMENT.
AND THAT'S A PROPERTY THAT MY COMPANY OWNS.
YOU'VE ALL HEARD YOU'VE YOU'VE SEEN THE PRESENTATION THAT THE DEVELOPERS MADE ON THIS PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT IT, AS DO YOU FOLKS.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS AFRAID WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND TRY IT AGAIN.
BUT I JUST THINK IT'S WRONG TO TO CHANGE SOMETHING FOR A SINGLE PROPERTY.
BUT THE AIM HERE IS TO PREVENT US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO THERE.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT? WHEATLEY. MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
I BELIEVE THAT CITIES SHARE SOME THINGS IN COMMON WITH PEOPLE.
AS PEOPLE, WE CAN HAVE MOMENTS THAT HAPPEN THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE CONTINUE FOREVER, JUST LIKE THEY ARE. I KNOW THAT ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE.
WHO HAVE KIDS. ALL OF YOU ALL AND EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM WHO HAS KIDS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MOMENTS WITH OUR KIDS THAT ARE SO INCREDIBLY GREAT THAT WE'D LIKE FOR THAT FEELING, FOR THOSE MOMENTS TO CONTINUE FOREVER.
BUT THEY DON'T AND THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE WAY LIFE WORKS.
WE EITHER EMBRACE THE GOOD AND THE BAD AND MOVE FORWARD AS WE GO OR WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD.
AND IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD, WE'RE MOVING BACKWARDS.
I COULD GO BACK TO 2014 AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME, BUT I'M GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE.
MR. PAINE, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO LIMIT THIS TO YOUR OPPOSITION TO A SPECIFIC PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
OKAY, I'LL BE GLAD TO DO THAT.
SO I'M SPEAKING IN REGARD TO THE AMENDMENT ABOUT PROPOSED HEIGHT LIMIT IN HDR, AND I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT I CAN CONSIDER IT AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP LUBBOCK THE WAY IT WAS AND NOT MOVE FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE.
IS THAT FAIR? OKAY, STOP ME IF I GET OUT OF BOUNDS.
THERE WAS A VERY VOCAL CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED LUBBOCK TO STAY THE WAY IT HAD BEEN, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONTROVERSY ABOUT SOME PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS AT THAT TIME.
AND HAD THAT CONSTITUENCY PREVAILED, THE CITY LIMITS OF LUBBOCK TODAY WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW. THE CITY OF LUBBOCK WOULD BE PREPARING TO STAGNATE BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE NOWHERE TO GROW.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IF ANYTHING WERE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION WITH THE ISSUE OF HEIGHT LIMITS ON A NINE LANE STATE THOROUGHFARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, I BELIEVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHOULD BE HIGHER, NOT LOWER.
[01:55:01]
IN A RECENT CASE WHERE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN 4 TO 3, THAT WAS AT APPROXIMATELY 14TH AND AVENUE X, THAT PROPONENT PROVIDED A LOT OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AS TO WHY PEDESTRIAN STUDENT HOUSING PROJECTS NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE OF A CERTAIN SIZE IN ORDER TO BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.IF WE MAKE THEM NOT FEASIBLE, THEN WE MAKE THEM NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
A LIMIT OF LESS THAN 75FT PROSPECTIVELY WOULD RENDER THEM NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE ENOUGH DOORS FOR THE ECONOMICS TO WORK.
THE PEDESTRIAN STUDENT HOUSING DEVELOPERS ARE WATCHING CLOSELY.
IF WE START LOWERING THAT HEIGHT LIMIT, THEY WILL BE GONE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK.
A&M WILL HAVE A RECRUITING ADVANTAGE OVER TEXAS TECH AS A RESULT.
WE NEED TO CONSIDER THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE WE ACT ON THAT AMENDMENT.
I'M OBVIOUSLY OPPOSED TO KEEPING THAT HEIGHT, THAT 75FT, I THINK, FOR A THRIVING COMMUNITY IS TO LOOK AT THE TEXTURE. MR. VOLKER YOU'RE SPEAKING TO A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT THAT YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO KEEPING THE CODE AS IT IS.
YOU PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT I DID RESTRICTED THIS TO 45.
SO WE HAVE THAT, AS I BELIEVE, ITEM NUMBER 16.
SO YOU HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED.
ARE YOU SPEAKING AGAINST A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT ONE THROUGH 20? I'M SPEAKING AGAINST KEEPING THE HEIGHT AS IT IS IN IN THE THAT 75 FOOT HEIGHT, WHICH I'VE ALREADY DONE.
MS. SAGER WHICH AMENDMENT IS THAT SPECIFICALLY? I THINK I'M 15 OR 16.
OH, SORRY. YOU'RE FINE, MR. ATKINSON. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO LEAVE IT AT 75 FOOT.
THAT IS WHAT IS PROPOSED IN YOUR UDC.
MR. FALK'S AMENDMENT HAS BEEN NUMBERED NUMBER 16, AND THAT IS TO MAKE IT LESS THAN 16.
RIGHT. SO THERE'S NO THERE'S NO PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
I WILL NOW AT THIS TIME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MR. SAWYER AND WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.
I SEE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION.
I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHERE I FIT IN HERE.
I HAVE A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I'M JANE HENRY. I LIVE AT 5233 20TH STREET.
SO ARE YOU AGAINST THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY MISS CRITES AND MISS JOY? NO, I JUST HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO IT.
OKAY. YOU SPECIFICALLY JUST STATE WHAT THAT IS.
MAY BE BETTER, MR. WEAVER, TO GATHER THAT FROM HER AFTERWARDS.
OKAY. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND READ THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
I MOVED TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US REQUIRING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR APARTMENTS.
CURRENTLY, TABLES 39.0 2.004.D-3.
WOULD THAT FACILITATE? YES, MA'AM. I THINK WE HAVE THIS ONE IN FRONT OF US.
OKAY. THEN THE I MOVE TO AMEND THE SAID REQUIREMENTS TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING ONE PARKING PLACE
[02:00:06]
PER EACH DUE, WHICH I THINK IS A DWELLING UNIT 1.5 PER DUE WITH ONE BEDROOM, TWO PER PER DUE WITH TWO BEDROOMS, 2.5 PER DUE WITH THREE PLUS BEDROOMS AND ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR EVERY DUE, EVERY FOUR DUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT.THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. ATKINSON, I THINK I HAVE THAT AS SLIGHT INCREASE IN CHANGES THERE FROM THAT ONE.
WAS THAT 1.5 PER TWO BEDROOMS AND THEN 2.5 FOR THREE PLUS 1.5 FOR ONE BEDROOM, TWO FOR TWO DOES FOR TWO BEDROOMS, 2.5 WITH THREE PLUS BEDROOMS AND ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR EVERY FOUR DUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO EMAIL THIS TO YOU, MR. MAYOR? THE THAT IS WHAT WE NOW HAVE IS AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE.
OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT FROM MISS JOY.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT'S THE ONE WE HAVE LISTED AS NUMBER 13.
HELLO, MY NAME IS EMILY HOBSON.
I LIVE AT 9701 WEATHERFORD AVENUE.
THERE ARE BLENDED FAMILIES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY BIOLOGICALLY RELATED, BUT THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, COLLEGE STUDENTS WILL ALL LIVE TOGETHER AND HAVE SEPARATE LEASES.
SO WHAT I THINK THE BETTER DEFINITION WOULD BE IS THAT EVERYONE LIVING IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS UNDER THE SAME LEASE, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A FAMILY UNIT INSTEAD OF EACH ROOM GETS THEIR OWN SEPARATE LEASE, WHICH HELPS THESE DEVELOPERS BE ABLE TO RENT OUT MORE AND TAKE UP THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. RICHARD MURPHY 2911 20TH STREET.
I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IF YOU'LL FORGIVE ME FOR ASKING, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE OPPOSITION THAT WAS MADE? NO, SIR. THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR, I THINK IT'S IN CIVIL PROCEDURE SOMEWHERE.
YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME HE'S THE EXPERT ON CIPRO.
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. I THINK, MR. SAWYER, I CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I BELIEVE PNC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS PUT THESE TOGETHER.
AND WE'VE GOT AMENDMENTS THROUGH, I BELIEVE, 2019, SOMEWHERE IN THERE THROUGH 22.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE WILL PUT THOSE TOGETHER FOR PNC.
I BELIEVE YOU'RE SCHEDULED FOR THE SEVENTH.
I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, I KNOW THIS.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE, OR AT LEAST IN A LONG, LONG TIME SINCE THE EARLY 70S.
SO SOME OF THIS IS FAIRLY NEW FOR US AS A CITY, AS A CITY COUNCIL, AS AS STAFF AND PLANNING AS WELL.
AND THAT WAS THE GOAL ALL ALONG.
THAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH COUNCILS BEFORE US FOR FIVE YEARS.
BUT BY NO MEANS DOES THIS COUNCIL INTEND TO SAY, WELL, ONCE IT'S DONE THIS NEXT GO AROUND, IT'S NEVER GOING TO CHANGE? AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL IS TRYING THEIR VERY BEST TO DO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. SAWYER? ANYONE YEAH.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO KEEP YOUR MEETING OPEN.
BUT AS FOR CITY COUNCIL, WE WILL BE ADJOURNED.
[02:05:02]
THANK YOU.