[1. Call to Order - Welcome and Introductions]
[00:00:22]
MY NAME IS ZACH SAWYER AND TONIGHT I'LL BE SERVING AS THE CHAIR.
THIS IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2023.
FIRST MET HER BUSINESS CITIZEN COMMENT.
WE HAD A TOTAL OF TEN PEOPLE SIGN UP BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
BEFORE WE CALL YOU UP, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
STAFF WILL TIME EACH CITIZEN AND PROVIDE A WARNING WHEN THEY HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.
FIRST PERSON WE HAVE SIGNED UP IS HOLLY HUMPHREYS.
>> KRISTEN, WHERE IS KRISTEN? I HAVE PHOTOS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THEM UP ON SCREEN.
>> IF YOU'LL PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> YES, SIR. MY NAME IS HOLLY HUMPHREYS.
>> YEAH. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH IS NUMBER 10, THAT IS OFFERED BY CINDY PRATTIS AND RICHARD MURPHY, ITEM C AND ITEM D, STEVEN FOCK.
THIS PERTAINS TO LIMITATIONS ON VERTICAL MIXED USE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT THE STANDARD FOR VERTICAL MIXED-USE SHALL NOT APPLY ON A BLOCK CONTAINING SINGLE RESIDENTIAL FAMILY HOMES.
AND THAT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE SHOULD NOT BE 75, IT CHANGED TO 45 FEET. HERE'S WHY.
I WAS ON FACULTY AT UT AUSTIN FROM THE YEAR 1995-2003.
DURING THAT TIME, I SAW ON THE DRAG OF GUADALUPE STREET, WHICH IS YOU SEE ON THE MAP.
THIS MAP SHOW KRISTEN UP ON THE SCREEN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PAUSE WHILE THE TECHNICAL ISSUE GETS CORRECTED. [BACKGROUND]
>> HOW DO I ACTIVATE THE PICTURES?
>> ARE YOU SURE? ANYWAY, I'M ON THE MAP I HAD INCLUDED IN THE PHOTOS I SHOWED GUADALUPE STREET WHICH FORMS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE UT AUSTIN CAMPUS.
DURING THE TIME I LIVE THERE, I STARTED TO SEE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT BEHIND GUADALUPE BECOME COMPROMISED AND RAISED AND BUILDINGS DESTROYED THAT BELONG TO FAMILIES WHO OWN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO MAKE WAY FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING.
FOR THE 55,000 STUDENTS SAID, THEY PACKED INTO UT AFTER THE UNIVERSITY HAD TO START ACCOMMODATING THE TOP 10% OF THE GRADUATING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN TEXAS TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE DIVERSITY.
NOW, ORIGINALLY, A LOT OF THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES PROVIDED RENTAL SPACES FOR UT STUDENTS TO INCLUDE MY TA.
THE STUDENTS LIVED AND WALK TO CAMPUS.
BUT ONCE THAT HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STARTED TO GO IN PLACE DOWN GUADALUPE, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE DRAG, ALL THINGS STARTED TO CHANGE.
IN 2017, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE WAS CRIME.
TWO STUDENTS WERE MURDERED, TWO ATTACKED, SEVERAL IN THE HOSPITAL.
AND ALL ALONG GUADALUPE, THINGS STARTED TO GET VERY DICEY.
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS UNIVERSITY AVENUE, 19TH STREET, WHICH INCORPORATES THE HISTORIC SOUTH OVER TO NEIGHBORHOOD, TERRY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HEART OF LUBBOCK NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTHEAST, WILL BECOME LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND AUSTIN.
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING NEEDS TO BE PUT IN FORCE AND ALLOWED IN THOSE AREAS.
BUT I HAD SEEN WHAT HAPPENS AND FOR ALL THE PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT TECH IS GROWING AND GROWING AND NEEDS, THIS TECH WILL ONLY GROW BY 4,000 STUDENTS BETWEEN NOW AND 2033,
[00:05:02]
ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION BOARD STATISTICS.THIS IS CHICKEN LITTLE SAYING THAT THE SKY IS FALLING.
TECH HAS TWO DORMS PLANNED AND WE HAVE ALREADY VACANCIES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE STUDENTS UP TO 2033. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE MONT MCCLENDON.
>> MY NAME IS MONT MCCLENDON, ALPHABET 16TH AND SAY LUMEN AND WORK AT 1,500 BROADWAY.
I MAINLY I'M HERE ALONG THE TERRY OWEN JUST TO REURGE THOSE ITEMS ON THE UDC AMENDMENTS LIST THAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.
WE'RE HERE TO SHOW THAT WE CARE.
WE WERE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
CLARIFY ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES CLARIFICATION.
TERRY WILL OFFER COLOR COMMENTARY IF YOU ASKED HIM TO.
BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU PASS THOSE THINGS THAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD.
ITEM NUMBER 14 ON YOUR LIST, WHICH WAS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS DOWNTOWN.
OTHER THAN THAT, I'LL GIVE YOU BACK THE REST OF YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.
NEXT WE HAVE ROGER SETTLER HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 6.1 AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, KRISTEN. HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M ROGER SETTLER, 2120 BROADWAY, A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF THE HISTORIC BROADWAY CORRIDOR.
I RISE TO SPEAK, REPRESENTING THE CONGRESS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH HAS REPLACED LUNA AND THE HISTORIC OVER TO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE RISE IN SUPPORT OF TENCY SUBMITTED BY TECH TERRY AND ALSO THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY STEVEN POLLOCK RELATING TO 45 PUT LIMITS ON HIGH DENSITY AND POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF HIGH-DENSITY PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
I ALSO RISE IN SUPPORT OF TANYA HAIGIS HALDANE'S AMENDMENT RELATING TO PARKING, WHICH IS ANOTHER DENSITY ISSUE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS IN LUBBOCK WHICH ARE REPRESENTED BY THE CONGRESS, 10 OF US AND ALL HAD BEEN IGNORED BY THE CITY FOR FAR TOO LONG.
THIS RECENT PUSH TO BRING HIGH-DENSITY ZONING WILL CREATE THE TRAVESTY WE HAVEN'T OVER TO NORTH.
YES, I DO SUBMIT IT OVER TO NORTH WAS A TRAVESTY AND THAT IT DISPLACED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TO BE REPLACED BY HIGH-DENSITY UNITS, WHICH HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE VALUE OF THE CITY AT ALL.
IN FACT, DESPITE THE MUCH-VAUNTED TAX REVENUES SUPPOSEDLY BROUGHT IN BY THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND OVER TO NORTH THE TIP HAD TO COME TO THE CITY FOR TAX FUNDS FOR GRAFFITI REMOVED FOR $800,000.
OBVIOUSLY, IT HASN'T WORKED OUT THE WAY IT SHOULD.
HIGH DENSITY NEVER WORKS OUT THE WAY IT SHOULD.
THE BIG CITIES THAT THE TERM TENEMENT IS USED TO REFER TO A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
WE FIND HERE IN LUBBOCK, THE DEVELOPERS WHO BRING THESE HIGH DENSITY UNITS QUICKLY FLIPPED THEM TO OUT-OF-TOWN INTERESTS.
AND ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THE QUALITY OF THOSE PROJECTS GO DOWN, PEOPLE START MOVING OUT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MAINTENANCE, THE LACK OF PROPER CARE BY THE OUT-OF-TOWN CORPORATION.
I WOULD URGE YOU TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT THESE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO HIGH-DENSITY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE JAMES, I THINK IT'S MAYHOM.
>> YES. THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION ON NUMBER 10 ON THE LIST.
THAT MEANS I WANT LIMITS ON VERTICAL USE ON BLOCKS ZONE FOR RE SF1 AND SF2. WHY AM I HERE?
[00:10:06]
I GOT TIED INTO THIS THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION STUFF OVER THE COURSE OF PROBABLY 40 YEARS.WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS 14 WORDS, ACTIONABLE WORDS IN THAT, PRETTY SMALL.
WHY THESE 14 WORDS? IN THE COURSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UDC, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT END UP WITH ODD USE DESIGNATIONS.
A HOME CHIROPRACTOR OFFICE TURNS INTO A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON THE MAP.
WE TALK WITH THE CITY STAFF ABOUT IT.
THEY SAY, WE KNOW THERE'S SOME OF THESE.
WE HAVE A PLAN TO REVIEW THOSE OVER THE NEXT YEAR, SO THERE'LL BE ALL SORTED OUT.
I HAVE NO DOUBT AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MOST OF THOSE INSTANCES ARE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY BENIGN AND INVOLVE MINOR CHANGES.
WE BELIEVE THAT SOME MIGHT BE MORE PROBLEMATIC.
THAT'S HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC IN MY OPINION, WHEN IT'S PLACED INTO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THOSE ARE TWO THINGS THAT DON'T MIX WELL AND WE HAVE SOME INSTANCES WHERE THAT COULD HAPPEN UNDER THE ADOPTED UDC THAT IS YET TO BE REVIEWED AND STRAIGHTENED OUT.
ONE OF THOSE AREAS OF CONCERN, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, 19TH STREET.
THAT'S AN ODD ONE IN THAT WE SPENT OVER A YEAR GOING THROUGH A POLITICAL PROCESS WITH EVERYBODY ON THAT.
COUNSEL FIND A MAJOR DETERMINATION THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WAS APPROPRIATE THERE.
YET, THE CONSULTANTS WHO PREPARED THE UDC MAP APPARENTLY THOUGHT IT WAS.
THERE'S A LITTLE CONFLICT THERE.
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT? WE WILL SEE THESE CHANGES TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.
WE BELIEVE THOUGH, THAT THIS INHERENT PROBLEM OF MIXING HIGH DENSITY WITH SINGLE-FAMILY PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED NOW.
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE COURSE OF THE YEAR THAT WE LOOK AT CHANGING IT.
IF YOU APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT, WE PUT A STOP ON IT AT THIS POINT.
THEN AFTER THE STAFF GOES THROUGH ITS REVIEW PROCESS, THEY WILL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES AND THEY CAN BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED THEN AND PERHAPS THIS AMENDMENT BECOMES MOOT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
>> THANK YOU. MR. OR MRS. HAMILTON, I BELIEVE.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I LIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 20TH AND DETROIT.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO TALK TO YOU THIS EVENING.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT AMENDMENT 10C, THE ONE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY TECH TERRACE.
BY NOW I THINK YOU'RE ALL QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROBLEM, WHICH IS THAT UNDER THE REZONING OF THE UDR, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WERE SCATTERED AMONGST SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
ALTHOUGH WE'RE OBVIOUSLY VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THIS AFFECTS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS THE WHOLE CITY.
WE'RE VERY CONSCIOUS AND MINDFUL OF THE SIGNIFICANT WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THE UDC, BOTH BY THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHERS.
HOWEVER, WE DO FEEL THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
ALTHOUGH WE IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT COULD BE PROPOSED, WE DECIDED TO SUBMIT JUST ONE AMENDMENT WHICH WE FELT DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM MOST DIRECTLY.
THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT WHICH SAYS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO USE OF THE VERTICAL MIXED-USE STANDARD ON A BLOCK WITH ZONING FOR EITHER RE SF1 OR SF2 OR TO PUT IT MORE SUCCINCTLY, TO PREVENT THE BUILDING OF 75 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS ON BLOCKS ZONED WITH LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT, SPECIFICALLY IS THE SECTION 3902 OR 18CA.
PROVIDES SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE HDR STANDARD.
IN PARTICULAR, REQUIRING BUILDINGS ON ANY GIVEN BLOCK FACE TO BE ESSENTIALLY BUILT USING THE SAME STANDARD.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS BEING ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THIS AMENDMENT.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARTICULAR SECTION, AND I MENTIONED JUST ONE.
THAT IS IT DOESN'T TAKE VERY LONG LOOKING AT THE MAP TO IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE THIS PARTICULAR SECTION DOES NOT APPLY.
[00:15:03]
SOME EXAMPLES ARE 29TH STREET BETWEEN QUAKE AND PEORIA, 52ND STREET BETWEEN AVENUE X AND AVENUE W, 37TH STREET BETWEEN FRANKFURT AND ENGLEWOOD, AND I COULD GO ON.BUT IN THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS, YOU HAVE ONE BLOCK FACE CONSISTING ENTIRELY OF HDR AND THE OTHER BLOCK FACE CONSISTING ENTIRELY OF SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PLACES LIKE THAT ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
ONE THING THAT SHOULD BE MENTIONED IS THAT THIS PROVISION WOULDN'T PREVENT DEVELOPERS FROM USING THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT AND GENEROUS CATEGORIES AVAILABLE IN THE HDR, THING LIKE ANYTHING EXCEPT VERTICAL MIXED-USE.
IT ALSO WOULDN'T PREVENT THEM FROM BEING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THE SAME BLOCK AS USING VERTICAL MIXED-USE.
BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE MR. RICHARD MURPHY SPEAKING ON 6.1.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
I'M SPEAKING ALSO TO AMENDMENT 10C.
THE IDEA BEHIND AMENDMENT 10C TO PREVENT THE HDR ZONE FROM AUTHORIZING 75 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS IN PLACES WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
WHAT'S BEING DISTRIBUTED TO YOU IS A LETTER THAT I HAD HOPED YOU WOULD HAVE A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.
BUT IN ALL HONESTY, I MISUNDERSTOOD THE SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THESE LETTERS.
I'M SORRY THAT IT COMES TO YOU SO LATE, I'D HOPED YOU HAVE IT A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.
THERE ARE THREE MAIN POINTS THAT THE LETTER MAKES.
ONE, YOU'VE JUST HEARD ACTUALLY FROM ALISTAIR HAMILTON, WHICH IS THAT THE AMENDMENT ACTUALLY ADDRESSES A REAL PROBLEM.
AT THE COMBINED MEETING, THE ARGUMENT WAS MADE THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS BLOCK FACE.
THAT IS JUST AN IMAGINARY PROBLEM.
BUT AS A PROFESSOR HAMILTON IDENTIFIED, THERE ARE A SERIES OF PROPERTIES WHERE IT SEEMS THESE LIMITATIONS WOULD NOT BE MATERIAL IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT.
ABOUT A DOZEN OR MORE OF THEM ARE LISTED IN THE LETTER.
THE SECOND POINT IS JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE AN ELEPHANT THAT HAS BEEN SITTING IN THE ROOM.
IT CAME UP WITH THE COMBINED MEETING.
THAT IS ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES IS 19THS STREET.
NOW 19TH STREET, THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE ARE CURRENTLY SLATED TO BE A MIX OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND HDR.
I THINK WE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT THAT, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN THE DEVELOPER'S MOUTH, BUT ONE MIGHT EXPECT THE DEVELOPER TO SEEK REZONING OF THE HC PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY? WHY WOULD ONE SAY NO, IT'S CRAZY FOR THAT PROPERTY TO BE ZONED HC, AT WHICH POINT, UNDER THE HDR, THE DEVELOPER WOULD THEN FIND THEMSELVES WITH LEGAL RIGHTS TO CREATE A 75 FOOT TALL BUILDING ON THE SAME SPOT WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL, BY SUPER-MAJORITY VOTE, AFTER MONTHS OF CONTENTION, REJECTED THE 60 FOOT TALL BUILDING AS TOO BIG.
I THINK COMMUNITY MEMBERS MAY FIND THEMSELVES SURPRISED.
THAT'S THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
THE THIRD POINT IS THAT ACTUALLY THE AMENDMENT PRESERVES CITY DISCRETION.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE A DEFAULT RULE THAT YOU CAN ONLY GO 45 FEET TALL, 45, THAT'S PLENTY OF STORIES RIGHT THERE FOR SOME PURPOSES ON A BLOCK WHERE THERE'S LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK FOR MORE.
THE UDC ALLOWS FOR A DEVELOPER TO REQUEST GREATER DENSITY AND GET A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
IT'S JUST THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO PERSUADE THE CITY THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A BUILDING TALLER THAN 45 FEET ON A BLOCK THAT HAS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
WITH SUBMISSION, THAT SEEMS TO ME A VERY REASONABLE THING TO EXPECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AGAIN. I APPRECIATE.
>> EVERYBODY GET A COPY OF THAT LETTER.
NEXT SIGNED UP, MR. STEPHEN FAULT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS STEVEN FAULT.
I RESIDE AT 2827 23RD STREET, PRACTICED ARCHITECTURE AT 2022 BROADWAY ON THE PROPERTY TOO.
I'VE FOUND IT, MY AMENDMENT IS REALLY A REACTION TO TWO THINGS.
[00:20:05]
THE FACT THAT BOTH THE PROPERTY CAME UNDER REVIEW ON 19TH STREET AND THE ONE IN SOUTH OVERDOING IT WAS REJECTED BY COUNSEL.BUT THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT TABLE 39.02, 0.04 0.E-2, YOU START GOING ACROSS THERE'S 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 USES THE LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF 45 FEET.
NOW I'M AN ARCHITECT. I'M ASSUMING YOU KNOW THAT I DIDN'T GET FOUR STORIES IN 45 FEET.
BUT THEN THERE'S THIS 75 FOOT VERTICAL MIXED-USE.
IF THIS PASSES OR IS ADOPTED AND NOT AMENDED, THAT ISN'T AS OF RIGHT HEIGHT.
THAT MEANS THAT A DEVELOPER CAN COME IN, IF YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICTS AND I'M JUST NOT TALKING ABOUT TECH TERRORISTS OR SOUTH OVERTURNED, I'M TALKING ABOUT EVERY DISTRICT THAT HAS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CAN BUILD A 75 FOOT HIGH BUILDING AS OF RIGHT.
NOBODY, NO OTHER CITIZEN, NO OTHER NEIGHBOR CAN HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOUR HOUSE IF YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT.
AS OF RIGHT THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK, WHETHER YOU WANT A 75 FOOT HIGH BUILDING OR A 45 FOR THAT BUILDING OR NO BUILDING THEY NEED TO BE REPRESENTED BY YOUR COMMISSION, BY THE CITY COUNCIL SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS THEIR INPUT.
THIS WAS A REAL SURPRISE TO ME TO SEE THAT 75 FEET, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 75.
CHANGE THIS CHART OR THIS TABLE TO ALLOW FOR VERTICAL MIXED-USE OF 45 FEET LIKE ALL THE OTHER SIX AS OF RIGHT.
BUT THEN IF YOU WANT 75 FEET, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WHERE A SPECIFIC USE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU.
THERE CAN BE A CITIZEN INPUT COMES UP TO COUNCIL, CITIZEN INPUT SO EVERY CITIZEN, EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IS REPRESENTED BY THIS UDC.
NOW I REALLY WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT.
YOU'RE PROBABLY SAYING THERE IS NO WAY THAT ANYBODY IS GOING TO COME INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUT A 75 FOOT BUILDING.
IF I ASSEMBLE THE LAND AND GET IT REZONED, I'M GOING TO DROP A 75 FOOT BUILDING IF I WANT TO DO A VERTICAL MIXED-USE.
YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND UNDERNEATH THAT SCENARIO, HAVE NO SAY IN THAT SCENARIO.
GIVE THIS CITY, GIVE THE VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING ZONES THEY ARE IN, GIVE THE COUNCIL THE FLEXIBILITY TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL CASES THAT WANT TO GO TO 75 FEET HIGH. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT WE HAVE MR. JIM BERTRAM.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MY NAME IS JIM BERTRAM.
I RESIDE 57 SOUTH LAKE SHORE DRIVE, RANSOM CANAAN.
I REPRESENT THE LEVEL CARRIAGE SOCIETY IN A NUMBER OF OTHER LEVEL OF CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS STANDARDS WITHIN THE UDC.
I NOTICED THAT IN ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 39.02 0.014 REDUCTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER FOR LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT TO COME IN WITHIN THAT REDUCTION OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ELIMINATE CERTAIN USES THAT HE FEELS MIGHT NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT.
WITHIN THAT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE OF THE SECTIONS LISTED SPECIFICALLY BILLBOARDS AND THE WORDING WAS AT THE ELECTION OF THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF AMENDMENT OF THE REDUCTION OVERLAY.
SUCH OVERLAY MAY PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS EVEN IF ALLOWED IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT SECTION RECOMMENDED BY THE DEVELOPERS COUNCIL WAS STRICKEN.
I'M NOT SURE WHO BUY POSSIBLY STAFF, BUT IT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT IF A DEVELOPER IS PUTTING IN A LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE RISKING THE CAPSULE FOR THAT IF THEY FEEL FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE BILLBOARDS ARE NOT A COMPATIBLE PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ELIMINATE THEM.
I'LL SIMPLY SUGGEST THAT THAT BE REINSTATED AND PUT BACK IN THERE AS RECOMMENDED INITIALLY.
I'LL GIVE THE REST OF MY TIME BACK. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT WE HAVE TANYA HEGIBALDE.
[00:25:11]
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M TANYA HEGIBALDE, AND YOU SAID IT RIGHT, EVERYBODY SAYS HAGGIS, SO THANKS FOR THAT.
I LIVE AT 1704 AVENUE X AND I'M GOING TO TAIL ONTO THEM AND SAY I'M IN FAVOR OF TENNESSEE, BUT ALSO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE PARKING AMENDMENT AND I BELIEVE IT LANDED AS AMENDMENT 13TH.
AM I CORRECT? THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MERITOCRATS?
>> OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO BE AS ELOQUENT OR AS ON-POINT AS SHE IS, BUT I DID WANT TO COME IN HER STEAD SO THAT SHE IS OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND JUST TALK TO THEIR PROPOSED REDUCTION IN THE RATIOS FOR A3 PARKING SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE A3 DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE LOOKING TO COME IN ARE STUDENT HOUSING.
LOOKING AT THIS CHART, THE REDUCTION ON A 708 BED FROM 635 REQUIRED SPACES TO 428 IS OF UTMOST CONCERN.
ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT SO MANY OF THESE HDR THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THE AREAS AROUND TEXAS TECH.
LIKE THE TECH TERRORIST PROJECT, LIKE THE SOUTH OVERTURNED PROJECT, THAT'S A STEP BACKWARDS.
WE'RE ALREADY UP AGAINST INSURMOUNTABLE ODDS WITH THAT MANY PEOPLE COMING INTO THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
BUT THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT HAVING TO REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO GIVE THEM THE REQUIRED 635.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS WHO ALREADY ARE EXPERIENCING AN OVERWHELMING LACK OF PARKING.
WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO LET SOMEBODY BUILD THAT'S THIS BIG AND TAKE AWAY 100 AND SOMETHING PARKING SPOTS, WHERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE GOING TO GO? I CAN TELL YOU WHERE THEY'RE GONNA GO.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, DOWN ALLEYS, IN FRONT OF MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSES.
WE ALREADY HAD A PARTY IN SOUTH OVERTON THIS LAST WEEKEND AND WE HAD TO CALL THE POLICE BECAUSE THEY WERE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES AND IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAYS AND WE HAD TO COME CLEAR IT OUT BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET OUT OUR DRIVEWAYS.
WE COULDN'T GET DOWN THE STREET AND IF YOU MOVE KIDS, THAT'S GOING TO BE AN EVER PRESENT PROBLEMS. I FEEL LIKE THIS AMENDMENT IS A STEP BACKWARDS FOR OUR CITY.
IT IS DEFINITELY A STEP BACKWARDS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE A LOT OF THESE ARE BEING CONSIDERED.
I THINK IT'S ODD THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT STUDENT HOUSING THE SAME WAY WE LOOK AS A DORMITORY.
APARTMENTS ARE PEOPLE WITH KIDS, PEOPLE WHO WANT THAT SEPARATE BEDROOM FOR AN OFFICE, FOR WORKOUT ROOM.
STUDENT HOUSING IS A DORMITORY, WHETHER YOU CALL IT A DORMITORY OR NOT, IT IS MARKETED TO STUDENTS.
THE AMENITIES ARE STUDENT-SPECIFIC.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE FAMILIES LIVING THERE AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE KIDS, BY ENLARGE WILL HAVE A CAR. THANK YOU.
>> THEN LASTLY, MS. CINDY PRATTIS.
>> GOOD EVENING, CINDY PRATTIS, 3118 20TH STREET.
TWO YEARS AGO, I WAS IN THIS LOBBY.
MY FIRST EXPOSURE TO THE UDC AND IT WAS CRAZY, INSANE, AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT, AND I TRIED TO UNDERSTAND IT, AND I ASKED WHAT'S THERE TO UNDERSTAND.
IT CAME TO THE MARCH MEETING THE FOLLOWING YEAR AT ONE OF THE LIBRARIES AND I SAID, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
IT'S 700 PAGES. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
WHY DO I NEED TO WORRY ABOUT NOT A THING? YOU REALLY DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THING, SO I DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT A THING.
ONE YEAR AGO, I STARTED LEARNING ABOUT ZONING WHEN WE WERE INTRODUCED TO THE 19TH STREET GOD BELL PROPERTY.
I DID GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ZONING.
WE WENT THROUGH IT AND THEN IT WAS OVER.
THEN I CAME TO THE MARCH MEETING THIS YEAR AND THERE ARE THESE BEAUTIFUL MAPS ALL AROUND THE ROOM THAT HAD ALL THE ZONING IS GOING TO CHANGE THE UDC.
I'M GOING TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING.
ALL THE ONES STRIP OF NOT 10TH STREET, IT WAS HDR HC.
NOW WE'RE NOT TARGETING, ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN SAID THAT WE'RE TARGETING BECAUSE WHEN WE LOOKED AT OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY, THERE'S THAT HDR WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
IT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE BECAUSE OF THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAD.
I DID START DOING SOME RESEARCH. I MET WITH STAFF.
THEY WERE FABULOUS CHRISTIANS REALLY BEEN TERRIFIC.
LOBBY HAS BEEN WONDERFUL, WORKED WITH US, OBVIOUSLY WITH KEPLER CITY COUNCIL REALLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON AND HOW'S THIS GOING TO AFFECT US, NOT WORRY ABOUT IT.
[00:30:03]
CHAPTER 39 WAS THE FIRST PART OF MY RESEARCH THAT I SAW.IT SAID UDC WAS TO CONSIDER LAND USES AND ZONING CHANGES IN RELATION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THAT MAP THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY INDICATES COMMERCIAL LIGHT RETAIL FOR 19TH STREET FROM UNIVERSITY TO BOSTON, NOT HDR AND HC, WHICH IS WHAT THE UDC WILL BRING TO IT.
THERE'S ALSO A SEGMENT OF THIS RIGHT IN THE CENTER, JUST SOUTH OF TECH TERRACE PARK.
THAT'S ALL HOMES. IT WILL BE REASONED TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S WEIRD. WE GOT SOME REAL QUIRKY STUFF IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN USED.
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW THE DECISIONS WERE MADE WHILE THEY WERE MADE.
THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL UNANSWERED.
I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THAT TENDENCY.
WE'VE INTRODUCED IT BECAUSE IT'S REAL SIMPLE.
WE HAD SOME VERY COMPLICATED IDEAS OF HOW WE COULD DO.
I THOUGHT MAYBE WE JUST NEED A BAND-AID.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT IS A BAND-AID.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT TNC AND SAY, [NOISE] THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE MOVEMENT FROM 200-400? A LOT OF NEIGHBORS ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT'S GOING ON A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN THE 200.
AMENDMENT 7, CONSIDERATION OF HAM WHERE WE THOUGHT TWO OR MORE, THREE OR MORE, IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT MIXED FAMILIES.
IT'S REALLY HARD TO ENFORCE ANYWAY.
IT'S WHEN AN ISSUE ARISES THAT PROBABLY IT GETS REPORTED.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP IT AT THREE OR MORE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THE LITTLE PIECE THAT'S UNDER GROUP HOME DEFINITIONS THAT SAYS TWO OR MORE.
THEN ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE CONSIDER THAT GAP WHERE THERE'S A TWO-WEEK GAP OR AN EXTENDED GAP BETWEEN THE ADOPTION OF THE UDC AND WHENEVER YOU PUT THESE AMENDMENTS IN PLACE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES CITIZEN COMMENT.
NEXT MATTER OF BUSINESS. WE NEED TO APPROVE
[2. Approval of Minutes]
THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27TH. [INAUDIBLE]>> SECOND BRAIN. ALL IN FAVOR? [OVERLAPPING]
NOW, WE WILL GET INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[3. Consent Agenda ]
I NEED A MOTION FOR ITEM 3.>> MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS?
>> SECOND AUBY. ALL IN FAVOR? [OVERLAPPING]
[4.1 Rule 15 Plats – plat applications accompanied by requests to delay improvements and/or close easements or streets. [Planning & Zoning Commission has final authority for approval.]]
PLUS, WE WILL HEAR FROM STAFF.JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED ITEM 4.1.4 IN MOORPARK BE DENIED.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE RESUBMITTING IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING P&Z MEETING.
DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT OR CAN WE JUST PULL IT OFF? WE WILL NEED TO VOTE, 4.1.4. HEAR FROM STAFF.
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS A ROLE 15 PLAT, IT'S FERGUSON ACRES, LOT 15B.
THE APPLICANT IS HUGO REED AND ASSOCIATES.
THIS PLOT IS LOCATED EAST OF RESEARCH BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF 19TH STREET AND WEST LUBBOCK.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SEWER AND PAVEMENT DELAYS.
HERE IS THE PLOT. HERE ARE CONDITIONS FROM ENGINEERING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAT WITH CONDITIONS AND APPROVAL OF SEWER AND PAVEMENT DELAYS.
CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WHAT WE'LL NEED A MOTION.
>> ALL OPPOSED. BULLET POINT 1.2.
>> HELLO. THIS IS THE FERGUSON ACRES, LOT, 16 AND 17.
THE APPLICANT IS HUGO REED AND ASSOCIATES REQUESTING A REAL 15 PLAT WAS SEWER AND PAVEMENT DELAYS.
HERE'S THE SUBMITTED PLAT UNDER REVIEW.
THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOUND FROM ENGINEERING GIS AND PLANNING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, SEWER AND PAVEMENT DELAYS.
I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> IN QUESTION. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1, 0.2 FERGUSON ACRES. SECOND.
>> SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? [OVERLAPPING]
>> ALL OPPOSED. 4.1.3 HYDRITE.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ASHLEY PYTHIA.
THIS IS HYDRITE, TRACTS A AND B.
THE APPLICANT IS ABACUS ENGINEERING SURVEYING FOR RULE 15 PLAT, REQUESTING A PAVEMENT DELAY.
[00:35:02]
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF ASPEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF EAST 66 STREET AND EAST SLAVIC. HERE'S THE PLOT.HERE ARE CONDITIONS FROM ENGINEERING.
MORE CONDITIONS FROM ENGINEERING.
GIS AND LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PLOT WITH CONDITIONS AND PAVEMENT DELAY AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH PAVEMENT DELAY.
>> ALL OPPOSED. IN 4.1, 0.4, DO WE NEED STAFF TO PRESENT, SINCE IT'S FOR DENIAL? WILL NEED A MOTION.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1.4.
>> SECOND. MR. WHEATON? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.
>> DID IT RIGHT, THAT WAS A GOOD MOTION.
I GET BACKWARDS ALL THE TIME. [LAUGHTER]
>> HELLO BOARD. I'M GREG HERNANDEZ, FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THIS IS A NEEL ADDITION PLAT LOT ONE, THE APPLICANT IS HUGO REED & ASSOCIATES FOR ROW 15 PLAT REQUESTING SEWER DELAYS.
THE PLAT IS LOCATED NORTH OF FOREST STREET AND WEST OF ALCOVE AVENUE AND WEST LUBBOCK IN THE LUBBOCK ETJ.
HERE'S THE PLAT. HERE ARE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS.
HERE ARE GIS CONDITIONS IN LUBBOCK COUNTY CONDITIONS, ADDITIONAL LUBBOCK COUNTY CONDITIONS, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAT WITH CONDITIONS AND SEWER DELAY AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ALL OPPOSED. WE'LL JUMP INTO ZONE CASES,
[5.1 Zone Case 59-B: Roberta Beam, request for a zone change from General Retail District (C-3) to Commercial-Apartment District (CA), at: • 2613 34th Street, located south of 34th Street, and east of Boston Avenue, Lisemby Addition, Block 1, Lots 5 through 7.]
THERE ARE QUITE A FEW.>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SHANE SPENCER AND THIS IS ZONE CASE 59-B.
THE APPLICANT IS ROBERTA BEAM AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-3 TO COMMERCIAL APARTMENT DISTRICT CA.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 34TH STREET AND EAST OF BOSTON AVENUE.
WE HAVE SENT OUT 34 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING BACK TWO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THE ONE IN OPPOSITION APPEARS TO OPPOSE THE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES. HERE'S THE AERIAL MAP.
THERE ARE BUSINESSES TO THE EAST, NORTH, AND WEST WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH.
HERE'S THE ZONING MAP, PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, C4 WITH GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT C3 TO THE WEST, LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT, C2 TO THE NORTH ACROSS 34TH STREET, AND SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT TO R1 TO THE SOUTH.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HERE DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
THIS REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THIS DESIGNATION ENTIRELY, BUT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE NEXT TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BEING A MIXED USE.
THEREFORE, THIS REQUEST IS IN MODERN CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PRINCIPLES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND IS APPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO BOTH NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.
THE PROPOSAL AND CHANGES COMPILE SURROUNDING AREA WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND THIS LOCATION IS ALONG 34TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> JUST TO VERIFY THE COMMERCIAL APARTMENTS ARE MORE RESTRICTED THAN C3?
>> PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. IT IS LIMITING MORE SO THAN WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO TODAY?
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE? LIKE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? YES, MA'AM.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE THE APPLICANT COMES FORWARD, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT AND ANNOUNCE THE ITEM 5.11, ZONE CASE 2538-JJ HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT.
SORRY, ANYBODY HERE FOR 5.11? I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT EARLIER, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. YES, MA'AM.
>> JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> ROBERTA BEAM AND I RESIDE AT 70 PONY EXPRESS TRAIL IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS.
[00:40:05]
THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN PROPOSAL IS AT 2613 34TH STREET.IT USED TO BE A NURSING HOME, SO I HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND I'M WANTING TO MAKE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITH THE PROPERTY.
>> SHORT-TERM RENTALS, IS THAT FOR NURSING HOME TENANTS?
>> NO, SORRY. IT USED TO BE A NURSING HOME.
WE ARE DOING AN AIRBNB, SIX BEDROOM AIRBNB.
>> YOU PUT IN YOUR LETTER IT'S GOING TO BE SIX BEDROOMS SHORT-TERM RENTAL, IS IT GOING TO BE SIX SEPARATE UNITS OR?
>> NO, SIR. IT'S ALL TOGETHER IN ONE BUILDING, SO IT'S SIX BEDROOMS INSIDE.
>> INDIVIDUALLY RENTED, OR IS IT ALL BE RENDERED AS A GROUP?
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE? NOT SEEING ANY, IS EVERYONE HERE SPEAK IN FAVOR? NOT SEEING ANY EITHER. THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> FOR MATTERS OF DISCUSSION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 59-B.
>> SECOND. SUSAN, ANY QUESTIONS?
>> PERSONALLY, I LIKE IT BECAUSE OF THE DOWNS ZONE.
>>YEAH, WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF CA REQUESTS, SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE CHRISTINE AND KIND OF FURTHER EXPLAIN WHAT CA IS FOR EVERYONE.
>> SURE. CA IS OUR COMMERCIAL APARTMENT DISTRICT, SO IT ALLOWS APARTMENTS IN ADDITION TO A HANDFUL OF COMMERCIAL USES, ONE OF THEM BEING A ROOMING HOUSE.
DIFFERENT FROM A HOTEL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE C4 ZONING.
A ROOMING HOUSE ALLOWS 3-11 OCCUPANTS SO THIS FITS WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY?
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT THEN? WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL OPPOSED. NEXT ZONE CASE IS 5.2.
[5.2 Zone Case 0092-A: Five Points Corporation for Heather Lea Hollingsworth, request for a Specific Use for an Event Center on property zoned Local Retail District (C-2), at: • 4228, 4230, and 4232-A Boston Avenue, located south of 42nd Street and west of Boston Avenue, Modern Manors Addition, Blocks 1, 2, and 3.]
THE APPLICANT IS FIVE POINTS CORPORATION FOR HEATHER LEA HOLLINGSWORTH, REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE FOR ANY EVENTS CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONE, LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2 AT 4228, 4230, AND 4232 BOSTON AVENUE.
WE'VE SENT OUT 34 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 42ND STREET AND WEST OF BOSTON AVENUE.
THE ONE IN OPPOSITION HAS CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND TRASH.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS TO THE EAST, ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, ZONED, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R1, AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ZONED RESTRICTED LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT, C2-A.
TO THE SOUTH AND WEST IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, ZONED MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT R3.
TO THE NORTH ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ZONE TO FAMILY DISTRICT R2.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS LOCAL RETAIL.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE EVENT CENTER.
HERE ARE A FEW GRAPHICS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THE ESTABLISHED SHOPPING CENTER.
THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPOSED REZONING LOCATION WILL BE ALONG 42ND STREET AND BOSTON AVENUE.
42ND STREET AND BOSTON AVENUE ARE BOTH DESIGNATED AS COLLECTOR STREETS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
[00:45:04]
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT, IT'S NOT FOR THAT ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER, IT'S JUST FOR SPECIFIC PART OF THE CENTER, CORRECT?
>> THANK YOU. PULL UP WHICH ONES IT IS.
THE FIRST ONE IS SHOWING THE WHOLE CENTER, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
>> THIS IS THE AREA THAT IT WILL BE IN.
>> WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST THREE NEIGHBORHOOD [INAUDIBLE]?
>> THOSE PICTURES ARE JUST THOSE THREE BUILDINGS. GO AHEAD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES, MA'AM. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> YEAH. HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH, 2302 91ST STREET.
MY BROTHER AND I OWN THE MODERN MEN OR SHOPPING CENTER.
IT HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN A PLACE FOR THE ARTS.
BELLY JOE'S SCHOOL OF DANCE WENT BACK TO THE '60S.
I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS THERE 60 SOME ODD YEARS AGO.
[LAUGHTER] BASICALLY NOW, IT'S THE THEATER, AND WE WANT TO KEEP THE THEATER INTACT.
YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE A COPY OF ALL THE THINGS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING.
WE BRAINSTORMED AND REALLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO DO ALL OF THAT.
WE'RE NOT MARRIED TO EVERYTHING.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO GOING FORWARD AT THE BEGINNING, KEEP THE THEATER, HAVE DANCE CLASSES, THEATER CLASSES, ART CLASSES, HOMESCHOOL CLASSES.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE YOUTH ARTISTS GUILD, WHICH DOES USE YOUTH THEATER IN CLASSES.
WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY POSTPONE WEDDINGS AND QUINCEANERAS AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE MORE PEOPLE COMING WITH EASE INTO IT.
LET'S SEE. I ADDED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN AFTER HOURS COUPLE OF EVENTS LIKE AN OPEN NIGHT, A OPEN MIC COMEDY NIGHT AND PROM, CABARET KARAOKE.
THEY WERE ALSO INTERESTED IN EXTENDING IT TO TEENS AND YOUTH AND HAVING A TEEN'S KARAOKE, GAMES, BOARD GAMES, THEATER GAMES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S AN OPPOSITION TO THIS.
I WAS READING OVER HER LETTER.
BASICALLY, I DON'T MEAN TO DISMISS HER LETTER AT ALL, BUT I THINK THAT SHE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
BECAUSE SHE'S SAYING THAT PEOPLE DRIVE VERY FAST AND THERE WAS A LOT OF GARBAGE IN THIS AREA.
WE WOULDN'T BE DOING THAT AND WE HAVE A VAST PARKING LOT, SO CARS WON'T NEED TO PARK IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT I DON'T THINK THAT HER CONCERN IS APPLICABLE. I THINK THAT'S IT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? GOOD. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION FOR THIS IS OWN CASE? NOT SEEING ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> FOR MATTER DISCUSSION I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 00928.
>> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T THINK IT'S ALSO.
>> IT'S PROBABLY BEEN BETTER ESPECIALLY FOR THAT AREA, IF I CAN GET THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> ALL OPPOSED? THAT WILL GO TO SIT COUNCIL. 5.3.
[5.3 Zone Case 0769-A: Omni Sacred LLC, request for a zone change from Single-Family District (R-1) to Two-Family District (R-2), at: • 2523 69th Street, located south of 69th Street and east of Canton Avenue, Caprock Addition, Lot 1153.]
>> BEFORE I BEGIN, I'D RECEIVED THREE ADDITIONAL LETTERS.
THIS IS ZONE CASE 0769-A, AND THE APPLICANT IS OMNI SACRED LLC.
THE PURPOSE IS TO REZONE FROM R1 TO R2.
TWENTY NINE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT.
WE RECEIVED THREE BACKING OPPOSITION, PLUS I HAVE RECEIVED THREE ADDITIONAL OPPOSED OPPOSITION LETTERS DURING THE MEETING FOR A TOTAL OF SIX OPPOSED.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH TO 69 STREET AND EAST OF CANTON AVENUE.
[00:50:04]
HERE'S A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWN AT THREE AND OPPOSITION WE RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE MEETING.THE CONCERNS ARE THAT THE ABILITY TO CHERRY PICK A PROPERTY TO BE ZONED FOR TWO FAMILY OCCUPANCY IS ESTABLISHED, AND AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS SETS A BAD PRECEDENT.
THEY BELIEVED THAT OCCUPANTS OF A DUPLEX HOUSING TEND TO BE MORE TRANSIENT IN NATURE AND NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY IN GOOD CONDITIONS.
LOWERING PROPERTY VALUES FOR RESPONSIBLE OWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MULTIPLE FAMILIES WITH MULTIPLE DRIVERS COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS DUE TO INADEQUATE PARKING AVAILABILITY.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWING THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING.
THE CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWS THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECTS PROPERTY AS WELL AS VIEW TO THE WEST, EAST, AND NORTH.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO R-2 WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, AND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING REQUEST WOULD RESULT IN SPOT ZONING.
THE LOCATION IS ALONG 69TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET BY MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> STAFF RECOMMENDED, ANY QUESTIONS? YOU'LL HAVE TO PASS THOSE LETTERS DOWN.
I BELIEVE ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE ON 69 ON THIS STREET. THANK YOU.
>> WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE? YES, MA'AM. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?
I'M HERE REPRESENTING MY DAUGHTER, WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE THAT IN QUESTION.
SHE DIVIDED THAT PART OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE SHE COMES TO LUBBOCK FREQUENTLY.
SHE'S IN THE MILITARY AND SHE LIVES IN BALTIMORE.
SHE COMES TO LUBBOCK FREQUENTLY AND SHE DIDN'T WANT TO GET A AIRBNB OR STAY IN A HOTEL SO SHE CUT THAT PART OF THE HOUSE OFF SO SHE COULD STAY THERE WHEN SHE COMES TO TOWN.
IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY ALREADY. THE FRONT PART OF IT.
THE BACK SHE'LL BE STAYING WHEN SHE COMES TO TOWN, SO I DON'T SEE THE OBJECTION OF MULTI-FAMILY IN THIS SITUATION.
>> YOU ARE NOT STATING YOUR ADDRESS THAT WE GET THE OKAY.
>> MY ADDRESS OR HER PARTICULAR ADDRESS?
>> MY ADDRESS IS 4226 E71585, SLAYTON TEXAS, 79364.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONE CASE? YES SIR.
IF YOU'LL PLEASE COME FORWARD, IF YOU WANT AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE SIR.
I LIVE AT 2529 69 STREET, LEVEL TEXAS 79413.
WE HAVE A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, SINGLE-FAMILY.
THAT'S WHY MOST OF US ARE THERE.
WE OBJECT TO THE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, MA'AM.
>> GOOD EVENING. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS HOUSE THAT WILL NAIL WANTS TO BE A DUPLEX.
I FIRST RECEIVED THIS LETTER INFORMING ME OF THIS MEETING ONE WEEK AGO TODAY.
I'M DISMAYED AT THE SHORT NOTICE I WAS GIVEN TO PREPARE.
NOT ONLY WAS IT ONLY ONE WEEK.
BUT IT WAS OVER A THREE-DAY HOLIDAY WITH A GOVERNMENT OFFICE CLOSED ON MONDAY.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT MY NEIGHBOR INTENDED TO MAKE THIS A DUPLEX.
I WAS NOT GIVEN THAT COURTESY.
MY OPINION IS THAT THE RUSH JOB OF THIS MEETING TONIGHT.
[00:55:03]
IS TO FORCE THROUGH WITH AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WILL IT WILL AFFECT LIKE ME.THIS LETTER THAT I RECEIVED LAST WEEK WHEN BOLD PRINT SAID.
THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE YOU WILL RECEIVE.
I SHOWED THIS LETTER TO ONE NEIGHBOR.
THEIR COMMENT WAS THEY NEVER GOT THE LETTER.
EXCUSE ME. ANOTHER NEIGHBOR IS OUT OF TOWN.
I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY WILL RETURN.
I HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY BOUGHT THIS LETTER OR NOT.
THIS LAST TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH.
I WAS THE FIRST PERSON THROUGH THE DOOR AT THE LUBBOCK COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 21:09 AVENUE Q. I ATTEMPTED TO MEET WITH AN APPRAISER.
TO FIND OUT INFORMATION ON THE ZONING CHANGE.
I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WERE OUT IN THE FIELD AND I CAN MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.
BUT OF COURSE, THE MEETING IS TO NOT.
THERE WAS NO TIME FOR ME TO ARRANGE A MEETING WITH THE APPRAISER ROUNDS, MY WORK SCHEDULE.
I HAVE NO FACTS AND NO FIGURES TO GIVE YOU.
THE IDEA THAT ONLY ONE HOUSE IS TO BE A DUPLEX IS LUDICROUS.
IF IT IS GRANTED TO THIS ONE HOUSE.
WHO ELSE ON OUR STREET WILL ALSO WANT TO MAKE THEIR MOUSE A DUPLEX? IF YOU GRANT IT TO THIS ONE HOUSE.
YOU WILL GRANT IT TO ALL HOUSES FOR EVER-CHANGING OUR QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M SURE THE VALUE OF MY HOUSE WILL FALL, POSSIBLY EVEN DRAMATICALLY.
SINCE I DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT SIZE OF THEIR HOUSE.
I'M ASSUMING IT IS THE SIZE OF OTHER HOUSES ON THE STREET.
ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
SINCE I COULD NOT TALK TO THE APPRAISER.
I ASK AROUND THE UNANIMOUS OPINION OF EVERYONE I TALKED TO SAID THAT ANYONE WILLING TO RENT HALF OF A SINGLE HOUSE OF THAT SIZE THAT HAD BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO.
WILL NOT BE PUTTING DOWN ROOTS, NOR WILL THEY STAY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS PROPERTY WILL BE A REVOLVING DOOR AT FIRST ONE RENNER, AND THEN ANOTHER.
IT IS ALSO EVERYONE'S OPINION THAT OUR STREET IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE PARKING OR THE EXCUSE ME, INCREASED TRAFFIC.
THEY ALL AGREED WE SHOULD EXPECT THE CRIME RATE TO INCREASE.
I UNDERSTAND THESE NEIGHBORS ARE EVIDENTLY HURTING FOR MONEY.
WHY ELSE WOULD THEY DIVIDE THEIR HOUSE? BUT EVERYONE IS HURTING FOR MONEY AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
I DO NOT THINK WHEN FAMILIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FINANCIALLY HURT.
EVERYONE ELSE BY CAUSING A DROP IN HOUSE VALUE OF ALL OUR OTHER HOMES.
NOR SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO ADD PARKING OR TRAFFIC OR RAISE THE CRIME RATE.
JUST SO THEY CAN MAKE A FEW BUCKS WITH A DUPLEX.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR MY VOICE.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? LET'S SEE. IN ANY WAY, WE'LL CLOSE.
>> FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION. MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> YOU CAN'T PUT A DUPLEX IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK [OVERLAPPING] SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY.
>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT IS NOT EXCATLY A DUPLEX.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> A QUICK PLUG FOR THE 400-FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY? JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD ESTABLISHED THE.
>> ANYBODY HEARD ANYTHING? THIS IS RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
[5.4 Zone Case 3488: BW Gas & Convenience Retail, LLC for Buffalos Partners, LLC & CMH Properties, LLC , request for a zone change from Transition District (T) to General Retail District (C-3), at: • 9704 Highway 87, located north of 98th Street and west of Highway 87, on 2.8 acres of unplatted land out of Block E, Section 8.]
THE APPLICANT IS BW GAS AND CONVENIENCE RETAIL FOR BUFFALOS PARTNERS, LLC AND CMH PROPERTIES, LLC.
THE PURPOSE IS TO REZONE FROM T-C3.
THREE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT AND WE RECEIVE ZERO BACK.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 98 STREET AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 87.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY VACANT LANDS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST, AND SYDNEY LIMITS TO THE NORTH AND WEST.
THE CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWS TO THE SOUTH INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL.
[01:00:04]
TO THE EAST INTERSTATE HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL, AND THE WEST AND NORTH OR CITY LIMITS.THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
HERE'S A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY AS WELL AS VIEW TO THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH.
HERE'S A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AND ALSO ITS GAS STATION.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS ERROR FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO C3 WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES.
THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL AND A FREEWAY.
THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE LOCATION IS ALONG 98 STREET WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL.
HIGHWAY D7, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A FREEWAY BY MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN IN 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> CAN YOU PULL UP THE SITE PLAN? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST LEAVE THAT UP THERE FOR A MINUTE. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE LIKE TO ADD? YES, SIR.
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M JOHN BOYNTON WITH THAT WELL, ENGINEERING REPRESENTING BW GAS.
>> ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO IT.
>> WELL, WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT THIS IS A FAVORABLE PROJECT FOR THE AREA.
IS A USE THAT IS BEST FIT FOR THIS CORNER.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO BRINGING THIS PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEW JOBS THAT WILL ACCOMPANY IT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT? LOOKS LIKE DIESEL ON THE WEST SIDE.
>>HIGH-SPEED DIESEL AND 12 MBDS FOR AUTO USE.
>> SIR, COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR ADDRESS REAL QUICK?
>>MY ADDRESS, 7306 ORANGE TIP ROAD, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77493.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE? ANYONE'S SPEAK IN FAVOR? NOT SEEING ANY WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SUSAN MOTION, SECOND BRAINER. ANY QUESTIONS COMING?
>> ALL OPPOSED. 5.5 FOR US? THEY ARE OKAY
[5.5 Zone Case 2968-D: SK Architecture Group, LLC for James Morgan, Ltd., request for a zone change from Apartment-Medical District (AM) to Garden Office District (GO), at: • 4007, 4009, 4011, 4013, 4015 and 4017 98th Street, located south of 98th Street and east of Orlando Avenue, on 1.23 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 17.]
>> THIS IS ON CASE 2968 D. THE APPLICANT HAS SK ARCHITECTURE FOR JAMES MORGAN.
REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM APARTMENT MEDICAL DISTRICT AM TO GARDEN OFFICE GO.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 98 STREET AND EAST OF ORLANDO AVENUE.
WE SENT OUT 27 LETTERS RECEIVING BACK ONE IN PAPER.
THIS IS A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE ONE IN FAVOR.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH IS RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
THE EAST IS DEVELOPED WITH BUSINESS AND THE WEST AS A CHURCH.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS AN APARTMENT MEDICAL.
THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT.
THE EASTERN ZONE DEPARTMENT MEDICAL.
THE WEST IS DESIGNATED AS HIGH-DENSITY APARTMENT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AS OFFICE PROPERTY.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.
HERE'S THE RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY THE APPLICANT.
THIS REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSALS RANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
LOCATED SOUTH OF 98, DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL STREET BY THE 2018 MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT WHICH IS CONDUCTIVE TO GARDEN OFFICES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>>CAN YOU PULL UP THE AERIALS?
>> IS THERE SITE PLAN ON THIS ONE?
>> NO. NO SITE PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> DEVELOPMENT EXCEPT FOR PERFECT WHICH WAS THERE BEFORE.
I THINK SOME OF THE OTHERS, DO THEY?
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
>> DO YOU WANT IT BACK ON THE AREA?
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS ALEX BURNS I'M WITH SK ARCHITECTURE GROUP AT 6302 70TH STREET.
[01:05:05]
WE'RE REQUESTING REZONED FROM APARTMENT MEDICAL DISTRICT TO GARDEN OFFICE DISTRICT.CURRENTLY, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMMERCIAL GARDEN OFFICES THAT WILL BE LEASED OUT TO TYPICAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICES WITH NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>> JAMES MORGAN, THE SAME GROUP DID THOSE THREE SMALLER GARDEN OFFICE BUILDINGS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CREDIT UNION?
>> OKAY. IT'S GOING TO BE [OVERLAPPING]
IT WAS [INAUDIBLE] DON'T REALLY KNOW THE REASON WHY.
BUT IT'D BE GOING BACK TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY OR PREVIOUSLY I GUESS.
>> HOW MANY BUILDINGS WERE YOU GOING TO PUT ON HERE?
>> FOUR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION IN THE SAME CASE? OR IN FAVOR? NOT SEEING ANY WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
>> FOR MATTER DISCUSSION, MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 2968-D, SECOND.
>> IT'S A GOOD SPOT FOR MONTHS.
>> IT'S A CONTINUATION OF ONE'S GOT STARTED THERE GOING NOW.
>> THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB AND IT'S TAKEN A WHILE FOR THAT TO FIND THAT AREA TO FINALLY COME ALIVE. NOW IT'S.
>> IT'S STARTING TO SO IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, OR QUESTIONS?
>> ALL OPPOSED. NEXT STOP, 0.6. SEVENTEENTH SERVICES.
[5.6 Zone Case 3351-B: Seventeen Services, LLC for two men and a baby, LLC, request a for a zone change from Local Retail District (C-2) to Interstate Highway Commercial District (IHC), at: • 3201 114th Street, located south of 114th Street and east of Indiana Avenue, on 5.57 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21.]
>> THIS IS ON CASE 3351-B, THE APPLICANT HAS SEVENTEENTH SERVICES FOR TWO MEN AND A BABY.
REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2 TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IHC.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 114 STREET AND EAST OF INDIANA AVENUE.
WE SENT OUT 16 LETTERS RECEIVING BACK TO IN FAVOR.
THIS IS A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE TWO IN FAVOR.
HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF OUR APARTMENTS.
THE EAST, WEST, AND SOUTH ARE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT.
THE NORTHERN PROPERTY IS ZONED FAMILY APARTMENT, THE EAST IS ZONED INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL.
THE SOUTH AND WEST ARE ZONED LOCAL RETAIL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.
THIS REQUEST CONFORM TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSED ON CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
LOCATED SOUTH OF 114TH, DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL STREET BY THE 2018 MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A VACANT LOT WHICH IS CONDUCTIVE TO SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> SOMEBODY IS WATCHING THE GAME.
>> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? SEVENTEENTH MR. GENTRY.
>> TYLER GENTRY SEVENTEENTH SERVICES LOCATED 1500 BROADWAY STREET 203 HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> QUESTION. REALLY THE INTENT OF WHAT IS FOR.
>> WE'RE DOING THIS IN PREPARATION OF THE TRANSITION TO UDC.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS WOULD TRANSITION TO A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IF LEFT IN C-2.
THE INTENT IS TO TRANSITION TO HC TO ALLOW FOR A RETAIL WAREHOUSE TOP OPERATION.
THEY SELL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES.
>> WE GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WHILE SHE'S PULLING THAT UP?
>> NO I JUST WANT TO SEE THAT.
>> DOWN BY THE OLD RAT AND WE'VE GOT THAT RAYBURN REYNOLDS THAT'S THE LEVEL.
PEOPLE DRIVE IN AND HE JUST DID THAT.
RAYBURN REYNOLDS NOT TOO LONG AGO AND THEY ALREADY FEEL IT WOULD BE SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN.
>> RAIBERT'S TO THE EAST OF THIS TYLER?
>> YES. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NAME OF THAT COMPANY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANKS TYLER.
>> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION THE ZONE CASE?
[01:10:04]
THEN YOU WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? YES, SIR.>> HI, I'M MICHAEL POSTER, 3110 FRANKFURT AVENUE.
I OWN THIS PROPERTY, I ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.
THAT'LL BE THE A FUTURE AFFORDABLE STORAGE.
I'VE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, AKA THE WILKERSON ZONE, EVERYTHING ACROSS THE STREET.
I EXPLAINED TO THEM EXACTLY WHAT I WAS DOING.
I'M NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THIS ONE.
BUT NOBODY'S AGAINST IT AND EVERYBODY'S LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S COOL, WELL WE'RE ALL FOR IT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MICHAEL? THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL NEED A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 3351-B.
>> SECOND. BRANDON, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL OPPOSE? SAW THE SAME APPLICANT NAME.
[5.7 Zone Case 3490: Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. for Red Canyon Development, LLC, request a Specific Use for an Athletic Center on property zoned Transistion District (T), at: • Generally located south of 146th Street and west of Quaker Avenue, on 3.3 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 6.]
THE APPLICANT IS HUGO REED AND ASSOCIATES FOR RED CANYON DEVELOPMENT.
REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM TRANSITION DISTRICT TO TRANSITION SPECIFIC USE FOR AN ATHLETIC FIELD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 STREET AND WEST OF QUAKER AVENUE.
WE SENT OUT SEVEN LETTERS RECEIVING THEN BACK.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
TO THE WEST IS THE COUNTY LINE.
VACANT LAND SURROUNDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS TRANSITIONAL, TRANSITIONAL DISTRICTS SURROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE EASTERN TRANSITION DISTRICT HAS A SPECIFIC USE FOR THE RED FEATHER GOLF COURSE.
THIS UNCHANGED IS BEING DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT PROJECT.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS SURROUNDING.
THIS REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSAL UNCHANGED, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 STREET, DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREET BY THE 2018 MASTER THERAPEUTIC PLAN.
THIS IS VACANT LAND, WHICH IS CONDUCIVE TO EXPANDING THE GOLF COURSE AND DEVELOPMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU AND WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES SIR MR. HOMAN.
>> GOOD EVENING I'M TERRY HOMAN WITH EGO READING ASSOCIATES, WORD 1601 AVENUE IN.
THERE WAS A GRAPHIC THAT I THINK WE HAD PROVIDED THAT I'M NOT SEEING HERE THAT MIGHT HELP TELL OUR STORY A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
I WENT THE WRONG WAY, I APOLOGIZE.
I JUST DIDN'T MISS IT MYSELF. SURE ENOUGH.
THIS WAS POINTED OUT, THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF OUR RED FEATHER GOLF COURSE.
WE WERE HERE IN SPRING OF 2022 AND WE RECEIVED T SPECIFIC USE OF ZONING.
THE WAY THE CURRENT CODE IS WRITTEN.
WE CAN DO A SPECIFIC USE IN ANY DISTRICT FOR AN ATHLETIC FIELD, COMMERCIAL PARK.
THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AND THIS RED FEATHER GOLF COURSE FIT IN THAT PIGEONHOLES, SO TO SPEAK.
WE'VE GOT 133 ACRE GOLF COURSE ZONED AS T SPECIFIC USE ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
AS MOST OF YOU ARE PROBABLY AWARE OF, THE GOLF COURSE HAS BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND REALLY COMING ALONG WELL.
WE'VE NOW DECIDED THAT AS THE SITE PLANS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THIS SOUTHWEST CORNER OVER A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S ANOTHER THREE ACRES OR SO THIS IS RIGHT AT THE FRONT AND THIS IS WHY ONE OF THE GRAPHIC.
THIS IS RIGHT AT THE FRONT DOOR TO OUR RED FEATHER RESIDENTIAL SEGMENT.
THERE WILL BE SOME CONCEITUS LOCATED HERE THAT WILL BE PART OF THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY AND PART OF THE GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS.
IT'S JUST, AGAIN, AUXILIARY USES FOR THE GOLF COURSE.
LONG STORY SHORT, WE HAD T SPECIFIC USE FOR THE GOLF COURSE.
WE WANT TO TACK ON THIS ADDITIONAL THREE ACRES AND APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THAT.
>> DO YOU ENTER IT THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL HOW DO YOU ENTER CLUBHOUSE OR WHATEVER QUAKER OR WOODROW?
>> NO THIS IS WELL-OFF OF QUAKER AND WELL OFF OF, WOODROW ROAD.
IF YOU CAN ENVISION WHERE THE HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY IS, IT'S BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY WHAT WILL BE 155TH STREET.
THAT'S A COLLECTIVE STREET AND THE INJURY TO THE CLUBHOUSE WILL
[01:15:03]
BE THROUGH A PRIVATE GATED AREA IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND THEN YOU GO INTO THE GOLF COURSE ITSELF.THIS IS A PRIVATE GOLF COURSE.
>> IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE? ANYONE HERE SPEAK IN FAVOR? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY MOTION?
>> MATTERS OF DISCUSSION, MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 3490.
>> ALL OPPOSED? 5.8 FOR 17 SERVICES.
[5.8 Zone Case 3058-E: Seventeen Services, LLC for Shag Holdings LLC, request for a zone change from Single-Family District (R-1) Specific Use for Residential Estates to General Retail District (C-3), at: • 7214 50th Street, located north of 50th Street and east of Upland Avenue, on 5.151 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 38.]
>> THIS IS ZONE CASE 3058-E, THE APPLICANT IS 17 SERVICES, LLC FOR SHAG HOLDING LLC.
THE PURPOSE IS TO REZONED FROM R-1 SPECIFIC USE FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATES TO C-3.
TEN LETTERS WERE SENT OUT AND WILL RECEIVE ONE BACK IN FAVOR.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 50TH STREET AND EAST OF BUCKLAND AVENUE.
HERE'S A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE ONE IN FAVOR.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY VACANT LAND.
THE CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH, SINGLE FAMILY SPECIFIC USE AND TO THE WEST TRANSITIONAL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES.
HERE'S THE VIEW OF THE SUBJECTS PROPERTY AS WELL AS VIEWS TO THE WEST, SOUTH, AND NORTH.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE TO C-3 WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PORTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, BUT WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SUGGESTED COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION INDICATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF TWO PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, WE'LL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE SUBJECTS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF TWO PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS AND WOULD PROVIDE A BUFFER FROM THOSE STREETS TO FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
THE LOCATION IS ALONG 50TH STREET AND UPLAND AVENUE, WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN 2018.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. ANY QUESTIONS?
WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? TYLER, ONCE AGAIN.
>> TYLER GENTRY, 17 SERVICES 1,500 BROADWAY, SUITE 203.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> THE END-USER IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME, WE JUST KNOW THAT A HOUSE ISN'T A GOOD FIT AT 50TH AND UPLAND.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE APPLICANT? GOOD. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE? ANYONE HERE SPEAK IN FAVOR? I'M NOT SEEING ANY, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ZONE CASE NUMBER 3058-E.
>> SECOND ARMY. DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS? [BACKGROUND] ALL IN FAVOR?
[5.9 Zone Case 3205-A: Seventeen Services, LLC for Paradise Business Park, LLC, request for a zone change from Interstate Highway Commercial District (IHC) to Local Retail District (C-2), at: • Generally located west of Frankford Avenue and south of 116th Street, on 5.524 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 20.]
1.9.THE APPLICANT IS 17 SERVICES, LLC FOR PARADISE BUSINESS PARK, LLC.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, IHC TO LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST TO FRANKFURT AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 116TH STREET.
WE SENT OUT 19 NOTIFICATIONS AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY IN RETURN.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
[01:20:06]
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, ZONED TRANSITION DISTRICT T TO THE NORTH WITH ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, ZONED TRANSITIONAL ADDITIONAL IHC TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, AND VACANT LAND ZONED LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2 TO THE EAST.THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
WHILE THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO C-2 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES.
C-2 ZONING IS APPROPRIATE ALONG A THOROUGHFARE AND IS A MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT THAN THE EXISTING IHC ZONING.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED LOCATION.
ADDITIONALLY, IT HARMONIZES WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE LOCATION IS GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL AND SOUTH OF 116TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET.
ARTERIAL STREETS ARE CONTINUOUS ROUTES WHOSE FUNCTION IS TO SERVE HIGH-VOLUME NEEDS OF LOCAL TRAFFIC AND REGIONAL TRAFFIC.
LOCAL STREETS TYPICALLY PROVIDE ACCESS TO SMALLER DESTINATION ORIENTED AREAS SUCH AS NEIGHBORHOODS, SUBDIVISIONS, OR LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND WE CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHEN A NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY HITS A PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T HOLD PROPERTY, THEY STILL GET NOTIFIED.
LIKE ALL THESE FOLKS, LIKE THE STREET, THEY WILL ALL KNOW ABOUT IT?
>> YES. ANY PROPERTY THAT THAT 200 FOOT HITS, WHETHER IT'S INSIDE THE CITY OR OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS RECEIVES THE NOTIFICATION.
>> OKAY. CAN YOU PULL THAT UP FOR PURPOSE OF VISUAL OF NOTIFICATIONS. GO BACK ONE.
>> THAT THEY WERE NOTIFIED. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY HAD BEEN ENCOMPASSED TO THAT BOUNDARY OR NOT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> HI. I AM KEELEY HERNANDEZ AND I'M HERE FOR 17 SERVICES LOCATED AT 1,500 BROADWAY STREET, SUITE 203, AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WHAT'S THE INTENT HERE WITH THE C-2?
>> THE CLIENT IS NOT WANTING TO USE THAT SPECIFIC SPACE FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL.
THEY ARE HOPING TO GO MORE GARDEN OFFICES.
>> OKAY. I'M JUST ASKING BUT WHY DID YOU NOT ASK FOR A GARDEN OFFICE?
>> WELL, THEY'RE TRYING TO DO A MIXED USE OF GARDEN OFFICES AND THEY WERE CONSIDERING ONE SHOPPING CENTER.
SO WE NEED IT TO ALIGN WITH C-2 FOR THE UDC TO TAKE EFFECT.
>> I'M SORRY. SO YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO USE A GARDEN OFFICE?
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE'VE ONLY BEEN TOUCHING THE PROJECTS SLIGHTLY.
THEY'RE WANTING TO DO MOSTLY GARDEN OFFICES AND MAYBE ONE SHOPPING CENTER ON THE EAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE THAT THE C-2 LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT IS MORE APPROPRIATE WHEN IT'S THE BUDDING TO I BELIEVE SOME OF THAT IS RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.
>> BUT YOUR POINT IS, WHY NOT JUST GO AND ASK FOR GARDEN OFFICE IN ITS ENTIRETY RESIDENT?
>> BUT SHE SAID SHE WANTS C-2 UP ALONG FRANKFURT ROAD.
>> C-2 BECOMES MORE FLEXIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE EDC.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS ZONE CASE? YES, MA'AM.
[01:25:11]
>> LISA BRANDY, 5813168, THAT'S RIGHT IN MY ALLEY.
YOU'RE TELLING ME SOMEONE'S GOING TO BUY THAT LONG SKINNY STRIP TO GET TO A BIG SECTION? NO, THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING RIGHT DOWN MY STREET.
WE'VE LIVED THERE 31 YEARS AND IT'S BEEN SO NICE AND QUIET.
I DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY GRAND KIDS, AND NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO DROP DOWN THAT SKINNY THING.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING DOWN MY STREET, TO GO ROUND, TO COME UP THAT BACK WAY.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO JUST USE THAT SKINNY LITTLE ROAD GOING IN AND OUT, THAT'S ONLY HALF AN ACRE WIDE.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY FOUR-AND-A-HALF OF THOSE JUST TO GET TO THE BIG ONE ACRES AND THERE'S ONLY LIKE THREE-AND-A-HALF OF THOSE.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN PUT COMMERCIAL IN IT.
THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO PUT FOR AN ACRE DATE TO PUT A COMMERCIAL AND PARKING AND PEOPLE TURNING AROUND AND GETTING IN AND OUT, SO I'LL SAY NO.
YES, WE GOT OUR LETTERS, WE DIDN'T TURN THEM IN.
SEVERAL OF THE PEOPLE BEEN OUT OF TOWN.
BUT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT ON THE BLOCK AND NOBODY'S HAPPY ABOUT IT.
THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE GOOD, THEY'D CLEAN IT UP BECAUSE IT'S THE BIGGEST MESS YOU'VE EVER SEEN.
BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PLUS, ONLY PLUS.
WE DON'T WANT THE TRAFFIC AND I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE TRAFFIC COMING IN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. CAN YOU PULL THE AERIAL BACK UP? SHOWING THAT BOUNDARY LINE.
>> QUICK QUESTION, MAYBE FOR STAFF, BUT ON THE WEST SIDE ON HOMESTEAD, IS THAT A HOUSE THERE WITH THE BLUE DOT, I GUESS THAT'S A POOL?
>> SO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IS THAT A ROAD OR DIRT ROAD? IT'S AN ALLEY.
>> IT IS A ROAD, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT IT'S PAVED.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AN ALLEY.
>> IT'S A TWO FOOT WIDE DEDICATED ROAD FOR AN ALLEY, AND IT IS BEHIND THOSE HOMES FACING 116.
>> THERE'S AN ALLEY THAT SEPARATES THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT RUNS EAST TO WEST.
>> THERE'S AN ALLEY RUNNING EAST TO WEST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SOUTHSIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES FACING 116.
>> SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT GOES THERE IN THE FUTURE, HE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE?
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M ADDRESSING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT PROPERTY THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THERE IS A HOMESTEAD. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT, HOMESTEAD IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOME, AND SO DEPENDING ON IF THE CITY REQUIRES 117TH TO COME THROUGH, POTENTIALLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL BE REQUIRED.
>> BUT CAN I ACCESS. SO THE HOUSE ON HOMESTEAD, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT ITS OWN RIGHT NOW IF THAT OTHER SECTION WAS ICY, IS IT ADD THE TWO.
>> IF I MAY. WE'VE BEEN DOING A SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN.
NOW ON OUR SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN, WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF USING THAT ALLEYWAY AS A MEANS OF ACCESS.
THE PROPERTY WILL BE ACCESSED OFF OF THAT.
FRANKFURT? YES. SO THE LITTLE STRIP IS ACTUALLY WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW A 20-FOOT BUFFER YARD AND A FIRE LANE ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, MY CONCENTRATION'S ON THE EAST PORTION, IT WILL NOT BE USING AN ALLEYWAY AS A MEANS OF ACCESS.
>> SO MEANS ACCESS TOWARDS LEFT FOOT FIRE LANE.
>> NO. MY QUESTION WAS, KRISTEN, THE HOUSE ON THE BACK ON THE HOMESTEAD WHERE THE POOL IS, WHAT IS IT THEN?
>> SO JUST TO BRING SOME COMFORT AND CLARIFICATION, THE ALLEYWAY IS NOT THE MEANS OF ACCESS INTO THIS PROPERTY.
>> I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE SPEAKING UP POSITION AS WELL. PLEASE COME.
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> MY NAME IS PROFESSOR CASTRO.
ON THIS MAP, THERE IS NOT 117TH AT MY HOUSE RIGHT NOW.
WHEN I MOVED THERE, THE ADDRESS ALSO WAS WRONG.
[01:30:03]
I WAS TOLD I'VE BEEN TO THE CITY MANY TIMES.I DID CALL AND TALK TO SOMEONE, TUESDAY, I BELIEVE.
THEY SAID THAT THIS 117TH STREET THAT IS ON THIS MAP RIGHT HERE WILL PROBABLY BE AN ACCESS TO THAT SHOPPING CENTER EITHER AT THE FIRST LITTLE PEAK OR THE SECOND, THAT IT WAS POSSIBLY SUPPOSED TO BE A CUL-DE-SAC.
SO MY MAIN CONCERN IS IF THEY PUT THIS SHOPPING CENTER IN NUMBER 1, IS THERE GOING TO BE A FENCE? WHAT SIZE THE FENCE AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS RETAIL PROPERTY.
MY HOUSE IS RIGHT THERE, THE ONLY HOUSE LEFT ON THAT BLOCK.
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE ZONED IN IS IF MY ZONE IS JUST RESIDENTIAL OR POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE RIGHT BY A SHOPPING CENTER.
THEN MY KIDS ARE IN THE FRONT YARD A LOT AND THEN IF THAT 117TH IS GOING TO GO THROUGH TO GO IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO IN THROUGH HAYES ESTATES.
NOT ONLY FRANKFURT WOULD BE AFFECTED, SHE WAS SAYING THAT ONLY ENTRANCE WOULD BE FRANKFURT AVENUE WHERE PAUL'S PARTS IS RIGHT THERE.
LET'S SAY IF THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY OR A FIRE OR AN ACCIDENT WITH A PERSON, THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE ONE EXIT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
IF THERE WERE SO MANY CARS IN THERE, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE OF MY CONCERNS.
REALLY MY CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS MAKING SURE I HAVE TO EXIT OUR GARAGE ON HOMESTEAD.
MY HOUSE SETS COME OUT OF MY GARAGE ON TO HOMESTEAD SO IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ENTRANCE ON 117TH AND THEN ALL THAT TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, THAT CONCERNS ME AS WELL.
IT ISN'T ESTATE SO I DIDN'T KNOW.
MY QUESTION WAS HOW MANY ENTRANCES AS IT WHERE THE WHITE IS ON THE BACKSIDE.
HOMESTEAD, LIKE I SAID, 117TH THERE'S NOT A SIGN THERE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THERE WERE PEOPLE OUT THERE SURVEYING.
MY CONCERN WAS, IS THERE GOING TO BE A CUL-DE-SAC THAT WOULD GO IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE? THAT WOULD AFFECT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT TWO DEGREE.
THERE IS A STREET DEDICATION DEED ON OUR MAP OR 60 FEET ON THE EAST SIDE OF HOMESTEAD AVENUE SOUTH OF YOUR HOME, THAT IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE 117TH STREET.
IT HAS THE WHOLE 65TH STREET DEDICATION FOR A PORTION OF IT AND THEN IT GOES DOWN TO JUST THE SOUTHERN HALF WITH HALF OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC DEDICATED.
EVENTUALLY IT COULD BECOME A DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> ALL THE WAY UP TO FRANKFURT?
>> IT TERMINATES IN A CUL-DE-SAC.
SO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE DENSE MASONRY WALL SIX FOOT TALL?
>> MUCH LIKE IN YOUR BACKYARD? THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE ALLEY SIDE BORDERING THE HOST OF THE NORTH.
IT'LL BE ON THE WEST SIDE, BORDERING YOURS.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE PERIMETER IN ITS ENTIRETY OR IS IT THE SOUTH SIDEWALK?
>> ADJACENT TO THE PORTION THAT'S CURRENTLY INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL THAT IS NOT BEING REZONED.
NO, IT WON'T BE REQUIRED THERE.
IT'LL BE REQUIRED TO J SINCE EVERYTHING THAT ZONE TRANSITION, [NOISE] AS WELL AS THE BUFFER YARD UNDER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THAT'S WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.
PULLED BACK TO WHERE IT SHOWS THE IC.
>> THE CURRENT FROM THE COAL, THE SACRUM ITSELF. THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE EXPLAINING?
>> JUST WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE FANCY STRATEGIES THAT HAVE PROPELS PARTS.
>> KRISTEN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY FOR SOME OF US?
>> [INAUDIBLE] SORRY. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ACTUALLY ALLOWS MANY MORE USES THAN THE REQUESTED C2 ZONING.
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ALLOWS EVERYTHING FROM YOUR TYPICAL RETAIL SALES GROCERY STORE, JIM RESTAURANT,
[01:35:02]
THAT IT INCLUDES THESE THINGS LIKE NIGHTCLUB, BAR, LOUNGE, MORE INTENSE AUTOMOTIVE USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN C2, AUTOMOTIVE BODY SHOPS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.>> I SEE THE CONCERNS IS HERE IN THE WORD C2.
I HEAR THAT CONCERN, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW WITH THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, IT CAN BE PRETTY BAD AS OF RIGHT NOW.
WHAT I'M HEARING FROM NIGHTCLUB, BAR AND ALL THAT.
>> BUT I THINK WE ADDRESSED THE TRAFFIC ISSUE AS WELL, IF FRONTS FRANKFURT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ENTERING ON THE BACK PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THERE'S NOT A MEANS THERE EVENTUALLY.
>> THERE COULD BE A STREET ON 117TH.
COULD THEY HAVE ACCESS OFF OF THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
BECAUSE THERE IS A CURRENT STREET DEDICATION DEED FOR THAT PORTION OF 117TH.
>> THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT AS I'VE SEEN NOW.
I THINK IT'S A JUNKYARD, MAYBE.
IT CAN GO FROM BAD TO WORSE, OR IT COULD GO THE OTHER WAY TO DOES C2.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE CARE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ON HER SPEAK IN FAVOR? THAT ARIANNA SAID.
NOW WILL PERMIT OR DISCUSSION MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 32058. YES.
I THINK IT'S WILD WHEN I THINK IT WOULD BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IF IT WASN'T GOING FROM ICE DAMS, BEING DOWN ZONING AND UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS.
BUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN THERE RIGHT NOW WITHOUT ANYTHING, I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT MORE DETRIMENTAL.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THE WAY IT WORKS, BUT I SEE IT AS A PLUS.
NOW, AS YOU PUT IT IN BEING SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A POSITIVE GOING, WORSE.
>> CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON SUSAN, PLEASE?
>> LET'S CLARIFY. JUST SO EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT WE WERE CHANGING THIS TO COMMERCIAL, WHERE IT'S ALREADY COMMERCIAL.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE ARE DOWN ZONING, MEANING WE ARE RESTRICTING MORE BY CHANGING IT TO C2.
SAYING, HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, THAT ARE ALREADY ALLOWED THERE, WHICH WOULD BE BARS AND SO ON.
ALSO TO CLARIFY, ANYTHING THAT GETS BUILT THERE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SIX-FOOT SCREENING FENCE NEXT TO THE NEIGHBORS SO THE NEIGHBORS DON'T [NOISE] BE LIVING IN APARTMENT.
>> JUST CALL THE NUMBER OF VIETNAM HERE, IN ESSENCE, AN APPOINTMENT WITH WHO?
WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAD ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS?
>> NO, [NOISE] I DON'T THINK WE CAN.
>> WELL, YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON IT IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT SAFEGUARDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> CAN WE GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE AXIS HAS TO COME FROM FRANKFURT?
>> I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE, WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE PROPERTY.
>> YEAH, THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER WITH THAT, IT MAY RENDER IT USELESS.
>> YOU SAY CONDITIONS LIKE PUTTING A CONDITION IN THERE SAYING THAT YOU MUST RESTRICT ACCESS OFF 117TH TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AGAINST PERMITTING [OVERLAPPING]?
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
JUST BECAUSE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS IT AS RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY.
[01:40:01]
IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE AERIAL, THERE'S SEVERAL HOMES.>> IT IS A REALLY ODD PIECE OF LAND.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S BUTTS RIGHT UP AGAINST NEIGHBORHOODS AND I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THE OWNER TO THINK ABOUT ACTUALLY MAKING A GARDEN OFFICE WHICH IS MORE RESTRICTIVE.
YOU CAN'T PUT A SHOPPING CENTER IN THERE, BUT I THINK A GARDEN OFFICE PROPOSAL WOULD BE A LOT MORE AMENABLE TO THE NEIGHBORS THAN HAVING A SHOPPING CENTER.
>> IT LOOKS TO ME, IT'S HARD TO PUT A SHOPPING CENTER IN THERE ANYWAYS.
>> I CAN'T IMAGINE PEOPLE DRIVING OUT THERE TO GO TO A SHOPPING CENTER, BUT I COULD SEE PEOPLE PUTTING A GARDEN.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE THIS TABLE AND THE OWNER EXPLORE GARDEN OFFICE CHANGE.
>> MY FEAR OF THAT IS HE KEEPS IT IHC.
LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS [OVERLAPPING] AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTRICT.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE ONES THAT DOWN ZONING IT NOW TO WHERE THEY'RE WANTING IS A BETTER SAFE GUARD NOW, IF THEY WANTED TO GARDEN OFFICES.
>> IF WE DOWN ZONED AT THE C2, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO PUT A SHOPPING CENTER THERE.
THEY CANNOT HAVE GARDEN OFFICES THERE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE AND MORE PROBABLY I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE IT WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO PUT A SHOPPING CENTER.
>> ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE CALL THE QUESTION? IN CONDITIONS WHEN BUT IT WON'T CHANGE THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL OPPOSED 5.10, BEATEN BOTH.
[5.10 Zone Case 3489: Betenbough Homes, LLC, request for a zone change from Transition District (T) to Two-Family District (R-2), at: • Generally located south of 146th Street and west of Frankford Avenue, on 207.15 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 10.]
THE APPLICANT IS BENTENBOUGH HOMES, LLC.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM TRANSITION DISTRICT TO TWO FAMILY DISTRICT R2.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 STREET AND WEST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE.
WE SENT OUT 39 NOTIFICATIONS AND HAVE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVORITE AND THREE IN OPPOSITION.
ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION WAS DUE TO CONCERN ABOUT THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA.
HERE IS A MALE LOT NOTIFICATION MAP AND HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY TRANSITION DISTRICT T TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST.
WITH SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE EAST OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES WITH COMMERCIAL USES AT THE INTERSECTION OF FRANKFURT AVENUE AND 146 STREET.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, WITH THE COMMERCIAL USES AT THE INTERSECTION OF FRANKFURT AVENUE AND 146 STREET, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED DON'T CHANGE TWO, R2 IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION.
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION AND WOULD CONFORM TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTENDED LOCATION.
ADDITIONALLY, IT HARMONIZES WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL, AND WEST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIOLES.
ARTERIOLES ARE CONTINUOUS ROUTES WHOSE FUNCTION IS TO SERVE HIGH-VOLUME NEEDS OF LOCAL TRAFFIC AND REGIONAL TRAFFIC.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND WE CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> MICROPHONE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE OPPOSITION MAP FOR JUST A SECOND? [BACKGROUND]
[01:45:01]
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE APPLICANT?>> YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION, MY NAME IS WES EBERT.
I'M REPRESENTING BENTENBOUGH HOMES WHERE 63 OR FIVE 82ND STREET.
THIS ZONE CASES BEING BROUGHT TO YOU.
IT IS ONE OF OUR NEWEST DEVELOPMENTS GOING TO WE CALL IT A HOMESTEAD AT FRANKFURT.
IT'LL BE CLOSE TO 1,200 HOMES.
A MIX OF OUR CORE PRODUCT THAT A LOT OF YOU ALL HAVE SEEN BEFORE IN OUR AREAS AND A FEW IN OUR COTTAGE AREAS.
THERE'LL BE SOME GREEN SPACE AND PARK AREA THROUGH THIS COMMUNITY AND WE'RE LOOKING JUST TO BLEND THROUGH THE COMMUNITY THAT'S ALREADY THERE AND ADD ON.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES, MA'AM. CAN YOU PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?
>> FRANCIS MCCORMICK, ADDRESS 5637 COUNTY ROAD 7540.
I'M ONE OF THE OPPOSING VOTES.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES DEPENDING ON HOW THEY BUILD THIS.
I'M CONCERNED AS TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ENTRANCE.
ARE THEY PLANNING TO HAVE THAT OPEN OUT INTO COUNTY ROAD 7540 OR WILL IT BE DOWN CLOSER TO 146 STRAIGHT? OR THAT DUPLEXES WILL INCREASE THE TRAFFIC.
THERE'S ALREADY A GREAT DEAL OF TRAFFIC ON FRANKFURT AND THAT DUPLEX, SO JUST BRING IN MORE PEOPLE.
WINDSOR PARK, SUNDANCE, AND HIGHLAND OAKS ARE ALL OUT THERE AND NONE OF THOSE AREAS HAVE HALF-DUPLEX IS I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE DUPLEXES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA.
>> SPEAKING OF THE TRAFFIC, CITY ENGINEERING IS LOOKED AT IT.
IT'S FRANKFURT'S MORE THAN CAPABLE OF HANDLING AND ALONG WITH WHAT'S TO THE NORTH OF IT, IT'S FRANKFURT.
>> JUST NORTH OF THAT WOULD BE SUNDANCE ADDITION.
>> CITY ENGINEERING REVIEWED AND APPROVED IT.
AS FAR AS THE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS AND HAVE YOU ALL GOTTEN THAT FAR YET? I IMAGINE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SEVERAL ALONE, BOTH NORTH AND EAST.
>> WE HAVE, YES. OUR MAIN ENTRANCE THAT WILL HAVE ONE SIGN WILL BE JUST REALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT COMMUNITY PLAT ENTERING OR EXITING ON TO FRANKFURT, SO WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE ON 146, BUT THE MAIN ENTRANCE WILL BE THERE.
>> IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY.
>> IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR COMMUNITY, NOT ACROSS FROM COUNTY ROAD SYDNEY 540.
THERE'LL BE FENCES ALONG THERE FOR THE HOMES.
>> THE HOMES FANCIES? YES, MA'AM.
>> DO YO MIND STEPPING INTO THE MICROPHONE?
>> DO YOU MIND STEPPING TO THE MICROPHONE. I DON'T MIND YOU ALL.
>> WHERE WOULD THE DUPLEXES BE IN YOUR EDITION?
>> CURRENTLY BECAUSE OUR PLANS SOMETIMES CHANGE.
IF WE DO HAVE DUPLEXES, THEY ARE GOING TO BE ON 146 STREET.
>> EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.
EVEN THE COTTAGES, WHICH IS A MAJORITY OF THE SMALLER HOMES, IS WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A DUPLEX IN SOME PEOPLE'S VISION IS REALLY JUST A STILL A SINGLE-FAMILY COMMUNITY HOME AROUND 1,000-1,200 SQUARE FEET.
>> THAT'S LITTLE. I'LL PAUSE THERE. I'LL STOP.
>> ALSO ON YOUR SEEKING R2 SO YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING UNDER R2, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?
>> YOU CAN DO SO YOU'RE NOT JUST DOING IT TO COME AND GET R1 IS THE REDUCING OF THEM.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO, GARDEN HOME DO BUT SINGLE-FAMILY.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE DOING THE R2 TO CATCH IT ALL?
>> YES. IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE COTTAGE HOMES, WE ARE TRYING TO CATCH THAT ON THEIR OWN TO THAT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. I FORGOT WHERE WE WERE.
OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> YES, SIR. I'M JW MICHAELS AND I LIVE IN 57 50 TO 150 STREET JUST OFF THE FRANKFURT.
HIS CONSTRUCTIONS TO TAKE A BREAK RIGHT ACROSS FROM MY HOUSE.
WHEN I FIRST SAW DUPLEXES, WE WERE IN SOUTHWEST GARDENS OUT THERE AS MOUNTAIN MANUFACTURED HOMES,
[01:50:05]
REAL QUICK COMMUNITY, A VERY PEACEFUL, MINIMAL CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OUT THERE.OUR CONCERN WAS THAT DUPLEXES JUST ACROSS THE STREET, CRIME RATE WOULD GO UP. WE HAVE SOME PROPERTIES.
HIS AUDIO SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD, ACTUALLY. SOME PARKS AND WHATNOT.
THAT WAS ALL. HIS ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE WRAPPED AROUND MY HOUSE AND MY FRIEND.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? IS THERE ANYONE WHO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
NOT SEEING ANYONE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 3049.
>> CAN WE SEE THE NOTIFICATION?
ALL OF THOSE HOMES TO THE EAST, THAT RIGHT.
THAT WAS ALL EMPTY LAND AT ONE POINT.
JUST LIKE THIS IS INDIAN LAND AND IT BECOMES A DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT THIS IS A PRIME PLACE TO PUT A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
EVEN THOUGH HE'S ASKING FOR HIS OWN R2, WHICH ALLOWS FOR DUPLEXES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN HE IS GOING TO MAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS DUPLEXES MEANS THAT HE CAN MAKE SOME OF THEM DUPLEXES IF HE WANTS TO EAT IT, HE COULD MAKE ALL OF THEM DUPLEXES IF WE WANTED TO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BROADER ZONE RANGE THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE THINGS.
I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY VERY APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ASK FOR SOMETHING LIKE AN ARTERY.
IT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO BUILD ANOTHER NEIGHBOR.
>> THANK YOU, SUSAN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL OPPOSED? THAT WILL GO SEEK COUNSEL, 5.11 WAS PULLED. DID I GET THAT RIGHT?
[5.12 Zone Case 2538-KK: Delta Land Surveying for Red Yucca 806 Investments LLC, request for a zone change from Single-Family District (R-1) to Two-Family District (R2), at: • 2402 Urbana Place, located north of 25th Street and west of Urbana Place, Parkdale Addition, Block 2, Lots 3 through 5.]
THIS IS ZONE CASE 2538-KK.THE APPLICANT IS DELTA LAND SURVEYING FOR RED, YOU GET 806 INVESTMENTS, LLC.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R1 TO TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT R2.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN DISTRICT 6 AND IS LOCATED NORTH OF 25TH STREET AND WEST OF NIRVANA PLACE.
WE SENT OUT 25 NOTIFICATIONS AND HAVE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, ZONED R1 TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WITH VACANT LAND TO THE WEST.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS DESIGNATION.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
THE PROPOSAL AND CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS DESIGNATION.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 25TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET, AND WEST OF URBANA PLACE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, 2018.
LOCAL STREETS PROVIDE ACCESS TO SMALLER DESTINATION-ORIENTED AREAS SUCH AS NEIGHBORHOODS, SUBDIVISIONS, OR LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
COLLECTORS PROVIDE ACCESS AND MOVEMENT WITHIN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND WE CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> DURING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> THANK YOU. YOU WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I'D LIKE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS YES, SIR.
[01:55:10]
>> FROM ROBERT KENNEDY WITH DEATH LAND SERVING 1310 JARVIS STREET.
I BELIEVE THEY WANT TO PUT DUPLEXES.
>> CAN YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL AGAIN?
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION AND LISTEN CASE? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
NOT SEEING ANYONE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 2538-KK.
>> MR. BELL, ANY DISCUSSION? PUSH IT AGAIN AVI OR PUSH THE LEFT BUTTON.
NOW, HIS MIC'S DEAD OR IT'S BLINKING GREEN. ANY QUESTIONS? ONLY QUESTION CONCERN I GOT IS I'M NOT AGAINST GOING TO RT, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT, YOU'RE TAKING THREE [INAUDIBLE] LOCAL MAKING THEM A DUPLEX.
IT CONCERNS ME TO TAKE IT AT ONE PART IN DOING IT BECAUSE IF WE DO THAT THERE, THEN, WE PUT IN THE DOMINO, PUT ALL THAT OTHER AREA INTO IT.
THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH IT.
>> CAN WE GO TO THE STREET VIEW ON THAT? THE ONES THAT THEY WERE IN PRISON, THEY WERE IN THE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE ACROSS THE STREET TO ROW OF PINES, ONE THROUGH THERE.
>> LIKE WATERFOWL? YES. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A WEST.
>> I THINK LOOKING AT IT WITH OBVIOUSLY THE SOUTH VIEW SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT VIEW, BUT SOUTH VIEW SHOULD BE TWO THAT I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT.
IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET.
>> OR TO HER QUESTION WAS FUTURE LAND USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY?
>> HANDS UP. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR HANDS.
>> YEAH, WE'VE NOT HAD THIS BEFORE WHAT THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE USUALLY DON'T HAVE AN EVEN NUMBER, BUT A TIE VOTE DOES NOT PASS.
BECAUSE TO APPROVE SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST FIVE.
>> THAT WAS 5.12 THAT DID NOT PASS.
[02:00:09]
WE WILL MOVE ON TO 5.13.[5.13 Zone Case 3032-B: DLC Designs, LLC for Daniel Aaron Homes of West Texas, LLC, Drylands Homes, LLC, and KLemer Real Estate, LLC, request for a zone change from Single-Family District (R-1) Specific Use for Townhomes to Single-Family District (R1) Specific Use for Garden Homes, at: • 50, 51, 52, 64, and 65 Amesbury Court and 66 and 67 Windsor Court, located north of Erskine Street and east of North Milwaukee Avenue, Wilshire Estates Addition, Lots 50, 51, 52, 64, 65, 66, and 67.]
BEFORE YOU START, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE JUST SAID THE APPLICANT? BECAUSE IT WAS EVEN IT DOESN'T PASS.IT DOESN'T SO IT GOES CITY COUNCIL THAT WAY.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTOOD THE WORD. SORRY ASHLEY, GO AHEAD.
THE APPLICANT IS DLC DESIGNS, LLC FOR DANIEL AARON HOLMES OF WEST TEXAS LLC, DRYLANDS HOMES, LLC, AND KLEMER REAL ESTATE, LLC.
REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R-1 SPECIFIC USE FOR TOWN HOMES TO R-1 SPECIFIC USE FOR GARDEN HOMES.
WE'VE SENT OUT 52 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING THREE IN FAVOR.
THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED NORTH OF ERSKINE STREET AND EAST OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES.
WHAT 64, 65, 66 AND 67 ARE SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL HOMES, ZONED R-1, SPECIFIC USE FOR GARDEN HOSE.
LOTS 50, 51, AND 52 ARE SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE NORTH AND EAST.
ZONE R-1, SPECIFIC USE FOR GARDEN HOSE, AND TO THE WEST IS DEVELOPED WITH A RETIREMENT HOME ZONED GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICTS C3 AND VACANT LANDS ZONE TO TWO FAMILY DISTRICT, R-2, AND LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2 TO THE SOUTH.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY SPECIFIC USE.
HERE ARE PHOTOS OF LOTS OF 64-67 AND PHOTOS OF LOTS 50-52.
THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA.
THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
LOTS OF 67 AND 66 ARE CURRENTLY NOT CAPABLE OF TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT AS THE LOTS ARE NOT CONNECTED.
THE ADDITIONAL LOTS ARE SURROUNDED BY OTHER GARDEN HOMES, MAKING IT COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED REZONING LOCATION WILL BE ALONG ERSKINE STREET, WINDSOR COURT, AND AMESBURY COURT.
OUR SECOND STREET IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL.
WINDSOR COURT AND AMESBURY COURT ARE DESIGNATED AS PRIVATE ROADS IN THE GATED COMMUNITY OF WILSHIRE ETATES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> BASICALLY, THIS IS COMING BACK LOOKS LIKE IN 2018.
THEY HAD A ZONE FOR GARDEN HOMES.
GARDEN HOME AND THEY CHANGED IT TO DOWN HOME.
NOW THEY WANT TO GO BACK TO GARDEN HOME BASICALLY.
>> AND THEY GO BACK TO GARDEN HOMES.
>> YEAH, THAT IS A WILD LAYOUT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? YES MA'AM.
>> GOOD EVENING. AMANDA KING WITH DLC DESIGNS 1318 NORTH KING.
YES, YOU NAILED IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD.
IT WAS ASKED FOR THE TOWN HOME ZOOMING.
ALL WE CAN ASSUME IS THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THE LOT HAD INTENDED TO REPLAT SO THAT TOWN HOMES COULD BE BUILT.
SO WITH THE CURRENT ZONING YOU CANNOT BUILD TOWN HOMES ON THESE LOTS WITHOUT REPLATTING THEM.
THE NEW OWNERS JUST WANT TO TAKE IT BACK TO WHAT THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANKS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE SAME REQUEST? ANYONE HERE SPEAK IN FAVOR? NOT SEEING ANY. THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THANK GOODNESS FOR THE EASY ONES.
>> ALL OPPOSED. NEXT ONE, MR. WHEATLEY, I BELIEVE YOU WERE GOING THROUGH RECUSE.
[5.14 Zone Case 3175-G: SK Architecture Group for 806 Land Group LLC, request for a zone change from Restricted Local Retail District (C-2A) and Reduced Setback SingleFamily District (R-1A) to High-Density Apartment District (A-2), at: • 5914 Erskine Street, located north of Erskine Street, and west of North Genoa Avenue, on 3.475 acres of unplatted land out of Block JS, Section 7.]
>> GOOD EVENING. THIS IS ZONE CASE 3175-G THE APPLICANT IS SK ARCHITECTURE GROUP, 4806 LANE GROUP, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM RESTRICTED LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2A, AND REDUCED SETBACKS.
SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R-1A, TO HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT A2.
[02:05:02]
WE SENT 30 NOTIFICATIONS AND WE HAVE RECEIVED BACK ONE IN FAVOR AND 10 IN OPPOSITION.ONE OF THOSE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY.
THE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC AND NOISE AND DESIRE THE COMMERCIAL USES OVER THE APARTMENT USES.
HERE'S THE AERIAL MAP, THEIR HOMES, THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTH, AND A POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBSTATION TO THE EAST.
PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST ARE ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R-1 WITH REDUCED SETBACK, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, R18, TO THE NORTH AND HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT A-2, WITH A SPECIFIC USE FOR POLICE STATION TO THE EAST.
HERE FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES ITS PROPERTY FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S THOSE PHOTOS RIGHT THERE, THE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
WHILE THIS REQUEST IS ON CONFORM TO THIS DESIGNATION, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE NEXT TO ADJACENT LAND USES AND ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THEREFORE, THIS REQUEST IS IN MODERATE CONFORMANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PRINCIPLES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND IS APPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES COMPILED, THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE LOCATION IS ALONG ERSKINE'S STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPLE ARTERIAL BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GABRIEL SANCHEZ.
I'M A DESK CHARACTER TEXTURE GROUP 6302 7TH STREET.
WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE IDEA OF THESE APARTMENT DESIGN INTENT THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES IS A BREATHABLE OPEN PLAN, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUPER CRAMPED.
THERE'LL BE HIGH-END BOUTIQUE STYLE APARTMENTS.
WE READ THE LETTERS WITH A DEVELOPER AND WE TOOK EACH LETTER SERIOUSLY.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING INTO A DIFFERENT LINE OF SIGHTS OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
BUT WE BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL DESIGN INTENT OF THE PROJECT ALREADY ADDRESSED THE MOST OF THOSE, BUT WE'D BE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS ADDRESSED AND WE'RE EAGER TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU ALL OR ANY RESIDENTS MAY HAVE.
>> WHEN YOU REFERENCE LINE OF SIGHT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING?
>> YEAH. YES SIR, AND TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTIES OF THE NORTH OF THE-
>> WHAT'S THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDING OFF OF THAT, IS IT 43 FEET?
>> WE'RE GOING OFF THE UDC CURRENTLY, SO IT'D BE 20 FOOT, BUT WE PLAN ON HAVING PARKING BACK THERE WITH THE BUFFER YARD.
THE ACTUAL BUILDING, AS IT STANDS IS GOING TO BE 60 FOOT FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
THEN WE PLAN HAVING A SIX FOOT BUFFER YARD RIGHT OFF NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
>> YOU HAVE YOUR FENCE, YOU HAVE YOUR BUFFER YARD, PARKING, AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS STRUCTURE?
>> YES, SIR. I'M CURRENTLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE STORIES OR THE BOTTOM.
THE THIRD STORY WILL BE ABOUT 24 FOOT HIGH DECK HEIGHT.
THIRTY FOOT UP IN THE AIR, AVERAGE PERSON.
>> WE ALSO HAVE A LINE OF SIGHT DIAGRAM.
WE PUT IT TOGETHER AFTER READING THE LETTERS.
WE HAVE IT ON USB WE ALSO HAVE A PRINTOUT. I COULD SHOW YOU ALL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> WHAT'S A LINE-OF-SIGHT DIAGRAM?
>> BASICALLY, TO SCALE WE SHOW WHERE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE AT.
SO THERE'S A BALCONY FACING TO THE NORTH.
WE SHOW BASICALLY HOW THE ANGLE OF LIKE A SIX-FOOT TALL PERSON ON THAT 24 FOOT TALL DECK, CAN SEE HOW FAR THEY CAN SEE.
WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALLEYWAY FENCES ON THE NORTH PROPERTIES AS WELL AS OUR PROPERTY.
AT THE TIME WERE CONSIDERING TREE FENCES SO BASICALLY PLANTING TREES ALONG THAT NORTH PROPERTY TO HELP THOSE HOMEOWNERS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
>> YOU ADD SOMETHING TO IT BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH, TAKE OUT PROOFS.
THREE YEARS FROM NOW LET'S SAY THERE ARE NO TREES BUT YOU SAID 60 FOOT FROM YOUR PROPERTY LINE WILL FROM THERE, WE STILL HAVE A 20 FOOT ALLEY, ANOTHER FENCE.
>> YES, SIR. YEAH. SIXTY FOOT IS WHERE THE FENCE WE'LL HIT AND THEN 20 FOOT WILL BE THE NORTH PROPERTY FENCE.
[02:10:04]
ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU.IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION FOR THIS ZONE CASE? YES SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> MY NAME IS ANDRES DIEPPAS AND CAN WE SEE THE AERIAL VIEW? I OWN THE PROPERTY WEST TO IT.
I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.
I HOPE TO LIVE THERE A QUIET LIFE AND BE CLOSE TO THE HOSPITAL WHERE I TAKE CARE OF MY PATIENTS.
DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN SEEING A TREMENDOUS CHANGE THERE.
ALL THIS LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND WHEN I MOVED INTO MY PROPERTY, I TRIED TO GET TRASH.
I WAS NOT ADD NEXT TO THE CITY SO I COULDN'T GET TRASH SERVICES, I DON'T GET THE WATER SERVICES.
I DON'T GET ANY SERVICES. AS MATTER OF FACT, MY INTERNET BROKE OUT WHILE BACK IN.
THE ONLY THING I CAN GET IS SATELLITE.
I LIVE THERE, BUT THE ONLY THING THAT I GET FROM THE CITY IS A BILL FOR TAXES, AND TRASH.
EVER SINCE THEY DEVELOP THIS, ALL I DO IS PICK UP TRASH AND PAY PEOPLE TO PICK UP TRASH IN THIS AREA.
MY KIDS THEY USED TO BE ABLE TO RUN AROUND AND PLAY WITH THE HORSES AND MY ANIMALS.
NOW CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S VERY COMMON TO FIND PEOPLE WANDERING AROUND, JUMPING MY FENCE.
BUT THE DEVELOPERS FOR THIS GROUP WERE NEVER ASKED TO ACTUALLY BUILD A FENCE.
ALL I HAVE IS EACH HOUSE INDEPENDENT FENCE AND PEOPLE ABANDON THEIR TRASH, MATTRESSES AND THAT BECAME MY FRONT YARD.
IS REALLY INCONVENIENT TO LIVE THERE AT THIS MOMENT.
ADDING AN EXTRA AMOUNT OF PEOPLE LIVING THERE IS GOING TO CREATE A TREMENDOUS DISTRESS FOR ME.
AS RIGHT NOW I LIVE PAID TAXES WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT I CAN GET IT FROM THE CITY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? YES. PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MY RESIDENCE IS AT 972 CURRY ROAD 16 IN CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO.
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF TWO ADDRESSES AT 5905 FORDHAM 5909 THERE ARE WILL BE RIGHT ALONG THE FENCE LINE OF THE NEW PROPOSED PROPERTY, APARTMENTS, HIGH-DENSITY APARTMENTS THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO.
MY HUSBAND AND I JUST RECENTLY PURCHASED THESE TWO HOMES FOR OUR DAUGHTERS.
ONE JUST RECENTLY GOT MARRIED, THAT'S MY SON-IN-LAW.
THEY LIVE IN ONE AND I HAVE ANOTHER DAUGHTER WHO ATTENDS LCU AND LIVES IN THE OTHER WITH ROOMMATES.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE BOUGHT THE PLACE IS BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE SECURE.
THERE'S THE POLICE STATION RIGHT THERE. IT WAS FENCED OFF.
WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE JUST A LOCAL RETAIL SHOPPING STRIP.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE DIRECTLY INTO THE BACKYARDS OF MY GIRLS.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AND THERE'S NO WAY AROUND THAT IF YOU'RE GOING UP.
IT'S NOT A LARGE AREA OF LAND AND SO THERE ISN'T REALLY AN OPTION BUT TO GO UP AND TALK TO THE RESIDENTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY'RE ALL SINGLE FAMILIES SOME WITH KIDS, SOME RETIRED.
EVERYBODY'S BEEN OPPOSED THAT I'VE TALKED TO.
SECURITY, PRIVACY, AND THE OTHER CONCERN DECREASING OUR PROPERTY VALUES SHOULD WE DECIDE TO SELL.
I THINK AT THIS POINT OUR KIDS WOULD LIKE TO STAY THERE AND RAISE THEIR FAMILIES.
BUT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND A LOT OF NOISE AND A LOT OF RIFFRAFF FROM HAVING APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT THERE.
THERE ARE NO THERE ARE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THAT AREA.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE THEY'D WANT TO PUT ONE RIGHT THERE.
WE HAD KNOWN THIS AHEAD OF TIME BECAUSE WE BOUGHT THESE IN MAY.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE PROBABLY PURCHASED IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE IT WILL DECREASE THE VALUE AND IT IS A HUGE PRIVACY.
THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN NOT JUST LOOK IN THE BACKYARD.
I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S MAIN CONCERN SECURITY FOR MY GIRLS.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.
I'M SORRY. I'M A LITTLE BIT OUT OF MY ARENA HERE.
>> JUST ONE LAST THING, I DIDN'T CAST MY THOUGHTS SO I WOULD LIKE TO DO AS
[02:15:04]
WELL OPPOSING [INAUDIBLE] SOMETHING IF YOU CAN.>> SO MY NAME IS JESS BROCKMAN.
I RENT IT FROM MY MOTHER-IN-LAW.
ME AND MY WIFE HAD JUST GOT MARRIED IN APRIL, MOVED INTO THIS HOME.
AND WE AGREE TO MOVE INTO THIS HOME BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF IT.
IT'S A VERY SMALL, VERY QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS A SINGLE FAMILY.
MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR NEXT TO ME IS A YOUNG GUY THAT'S TRYING TO START A FAMILY.
THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ME HAVE TWO LITTLE GIRLS.
THEY ARE EXTREMELY OPPOSED TO IT.
HE'S ACTUALLY IN A BAND, SO HE TRAVELS A LOT.
HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTERS ARE LEFT THERE ALL THE TIME.
WE HAVE DOCTORS, WE HAVE RETIREE PEOPLE, WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF STUFF GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S VERY QUIET. IT'S VERY PEACEFUL.
I AGREE THAT I APPRECIATE THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP WITH THE TREE FENCES AND FENCES AND THE BOUNDARY OFF OF THAT.
BUT THE MATTER OF FACT IS WE ONLY HAVE A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE, THAT'S A WOOD FENCE, AND OUR YARDS ARE VERY OPEN.
WE DON'T HAVE TREES BACK THERE YET.
IT'S A BRAND NEW NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE DIRECTLY INTO OUR BACKYARD.
WE CAN NEVER GO OUT THERE AND JUST HANG OUT.
ME AND MY WIFE WERE PLANNING ON HAVING OUR FIRST CHILDREN THERE.
I WOULD PROBABLY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH MY KIDS JUST BEING ABLE TO SAY, HEY, KIDS GO OUT IN THE BACKYARD WHEN THERE COULD BE 20, 30 DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THERE COULD BE ALL PEOPLE IN APARTMENT COMPLEXES BEHIND OUR HOME THAT COULD BE SEEING INTO OUR HOUSE.
OUR BEDROOM WINDOWS ARE RIGHT THERE.
ALMOST EVERYBODY ON THAT STREET RIGHT THERE WITH THE PROPERTY'S BACKING UP INTO IT, ALL OF OUR WINDOWS ARE FACING THAT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
I TRY NOT TO BE SUPER PESSIMISTIC, BUT I ALSO DON'T TRUST A LOT OF PEOPLE.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF CRAZY PEOPLE OUT THERE NOWADAYS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE MOVED INTO A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE POLICE STATION RIGHT THERE NEXT TO IT.
SO I WOULD REALLY ASK FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE PRIVACY, SAFETY, BUT ALSO THE LAND VALUE.
I DON'T OWN THE LAND, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT MY MOTHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW TO LOSE MONEY ON BUYING THIS PROPERTY TO TRY TO HELP US START OUR LIVES TOGETHER AND EVERYTHING GO DOWNHILL FROM THERE. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? IS THERE ONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? YES, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> GOOD EVENING YOU ALL. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
SO JASON NESLONEY, 8345 UPWIND AVENUE.
SO I'M GOING TO BE THE BUILDER ON THE PROPERTY.
I'M REALLY TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF THE NORM HERE WITH APARTMENT.
IT HAS A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION TO IT.
WE GOT SOME REALLY COOL CREATIVE IDEAS.
SK AND I TEAM UP REALLY WELL WITH STUFF WE'RE PLANNING ON.
IT IS GOING TO BE A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IT IS GOING TO BE APARTMENT.
THERE'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TRAFFIC, MAYBE, AT ALL HOURS, WHEREAS COMMERCIAL MAY NOT.
BUT I ALSO FEEL LIKE IT'S STILL GOING TO GIVE A VERY UNIQUE APPEAL TO THE SUBDIVISION.
AND WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO VALUES, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE AFFECTED BY THAT.
BUT I DO WANT TO ADDRESS SOME CONCERNS LIKE WHAT MR. YEP HAS SAID ABOUT THE TRASH.
WE'VE GOT SOME LITTLE POCKETS THERE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME TRASH RECEPTACLES.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO KEEP UP WITH, OF COURSE, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP THE BEAUTY OF IT.
BUT WE'RE ALREADY PLAYING THE MATTER UPFRONT.
ALSO, TO ADDRESS MR. BROCKMAN'S CONCERNS, AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
AND IF IT WERE ME TOO, I'D DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM ON THAT.
SO I WANT TO DO EVERYTHING AND I CAN AHEAD OF TIME TO PLAN FOR THAT AND BE AS GOOD OF A NEIGHBOR AS I CAN BECAUSE, ULTIMATELY, I GET WHERE HE'S COMING FROM.
AND SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING THESE TREE LINE LIKE PRIVACY AREAS, WE'RE SHOOTING FOR AROUND 30 FOOT TALL TREES.
SO I WANT TO TRY TO GET AS CONDENSED IN THERE AS WE CAN.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY GOOD AMOUNT OF TREES, A LOT OF LANDSCAPING.
WE ARE TRYING TO BRING A UNIQUE APPEAL TO THIS PROPERTY BY PUTTING IN A LITTLE BIT OF
[02:20:01]
EXTRA LANDSCAPING ALL THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY, NOT JUST ON THE BACKSIDE.SO I THINK, VISUALLY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A REALLY NICE LOOK TO IT.
BUT ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO CREATE THAT LEVEL OF PRIVACY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THIS IS HOW FAR BACK CAN WE GET THEM FROM THAT FENCE LINE.
SO THAT WAY, YOU REALLY CAN'T EASILY SEE AS HARD AS IT IS, MAYBE THROUGH THE TREES.
BUT HOPEFULLY, THERE'S VERY LITTLE IF NONE THAT YOU CAN SEE THROUGH TO GET BACK INTO THE BACKSIDE OF THEIR PROPERTIES.
SO I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND I THINK IT COULD BE A REALLY BEAUTIFUL ONE WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH IT.
THAT'S ALL I HAD UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DID YOU MEET WITH ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS TO SHOW THEM ANY SITE PLANS OR ANY OF YOUR PLANS?
>> WE ACTUALLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN REALLY FAR ENOUGH INTO THE PLANS YET.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET ACROSS THIS HURDLE FIRST BEFORE WE REALLY FINISH EVERYTHING OUT.
>> HAVE YOU BUILT ANYTHING LIKE THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE?
>> SO THIS WOULD BE MY FIRST APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT WE'VE DONE A TON OF MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS.
MY BACKGROUND IS IN COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, SO I'VE BUILT SOME REALLY BIG COMMERCIAL PROJECTS IN THE PAST AND BUILT A REALLY BEAUTIFUL HOME.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH NESLONEY HOMES, BUT DEFINITELY TAKE PRIDE IN MY WORK.
THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU, GUYS.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? YES, SIR.
>> EXCUSE ME. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WILL STEPHEN'S ON THE AMD ENGINEERING AT 651568 STREET.
I JUST WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF POINTS.
FIRST BEING THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY ZONED A2 BEFORE IT WAS REZONED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021 TO C2A.
SO BEFORE ITS CURRENT ZONING, IT WAS ACTUALLY ZONED A2 FOR APARTMENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP.
AND I THINK ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IS, I THINK THIS PROJECT HAS A GREAT TEAM ON IT.
I THINK IT'S GOT A GREAT ARCHITECTURE FIRM, AND A GREAT CUSTOM HOME BUILDER.
SO I THINK IT'S A TEAM THAT CARES ABOUT THE PRODUCT.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE ALREADY TAKEN STEPS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE VISIBILITY CONCERNS FROM THE HEART OF THE STRUCTURE.
>> ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR? NOT ANY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL NEED A MOTION.
>> FOR MATTER DISCUSSION, MOTION TO APPROVE ZONE CASE 3175G.
>> ON THE FACE OF IT, IT LOOKS LIKE A LOGICAL PLACE TO PUT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF THEY HAD TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS TO SHOW THEM WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, YOU CAN PROMISE A LOT OF THINGS.
AND IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW TO BACK UP YOUR PROMISES.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CHICKEN AND EGG THING.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS.
WE SEE THIS ALL THE TIME WHERE PEOPLE BUY PROPERTY THAT HAS A LOT OF LAND AROUND IT.
AND THEY THINK, I'M LIVING OUT IN THE COUNTRY AND NOTHING'S EVER GOING TO COME HERE.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IT'S MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION ANYWAY.
SO IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST PROMISING THING TO BE PUT IN THAT PLACE? SOMETHING IS GOING IN THAT SPOT.
>> I'M TRYING TO THINK OF ANOTHER CASE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE SAME TEAM, I THINK IT WAS.
THIS CAME UP ON 114TH A LONG TIME AGO.
NO. IT WAS BETWEEN INDIANA AND QUAKER ON 114TH.
IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE HAD THIS SAME CONCERN.
AND THAT HAD A LESSER SETBACK FROM IT ON THE RESIDENT'S SIDE.
[02:25:04]
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT KRISTEN? IS THIS RINGING A BELL FOR THE ANNUAL?>> YES. THERE'S TWO CASES, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
THERE IS C2A ON THE CORNER OF 114TH AND THEN THIS, THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SOUTH AT 122ND IN MEMPHIS, THERE WAS AN A2 [INAUDIBLE] CASE, THAT WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
>> KRISTEN, ON AN A2, WHAT'S PERHAPS LIMIT?
>> UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE, A2 IS LIMITED TO THREE-STOREY.
>> I THINK THAT'S IN FAVOR OF CHANGING IT TO THAT AND THE FACT THAT IT USED TO BE A2. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS THAT WAY TWO YEARS AGO.
>> THAT IT HAS A HEIGHT LIMIT, I THINK IS IN ITS FAVOR.
>> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UNDER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, A2 WILL BECOME PART OF THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SO IT'LL HAVE A FOUR-STOREY LIMITATION FOR APARTMENTS.
IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO MIXED USE, IT WOULD BE 75 FOOT.
>> TELEGRAPH IN FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
AIN'T THAT WHAT YOU SAID? WE HAVE 60 FEET.
>> YES. THAT'S WHAT CLIENTS ARE NOW [INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT'S THE REQUIRED SETBACK IN THERE?
>> WE TRYING TO SEE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
>> SO WHAT WE RESEARCHED ON THE UDC FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THAT BACK SETBACK WOULD BE 20 FOOT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE FOUND ON THE CHART.
THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND HOW PARKING HAS TO WORK, WE HAVE TO HAVE PARKING ON THE PERIMETER.
WE CAN'T PUT A BUILDING THERE TO MAKE THIS WORK.
>> THAT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE DIRECTLY.
BECAUSE THEN YOU'D HAVE SIMPLY JUST FAR AWAY THAT [INAUDIBLE].
ANYTHING ELSE? BRANDON'S WORK AND GOOD BRANDON.
WHEN YOU HAVE MOTION GOLF QUESTION ALL IN FAVOR?
THAT'S WE'RE DONE WITH ZONE CASES BEFORE WE GET ANOTHER BUSINESS. THEY TAKE A BREAK.
COME BACK THEN. WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK.
YOU'RE BACK IN SESSION FOR ITEM 6.1.
[6.1 Consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission of a final report to the Lubbock City Council on amendments to the Unified Development Code, Zoning Map, and Documentation to be submitted with Plat Applications.]
FOR THE CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF A FINAL REPORT, LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL ON AMENDMENTS FOR THE INFANT DEVELOPMENT CODE, ZONING MAP, AND DOCUMENTATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PLAN APPLICATIONS.WE WILL START AT THE TOP AND LET'S WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IT. WE ALL READY?
>> WE I UNDERSTAND THIS OUT BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING TO TALK ABOUT THESE, BUT WE NEED TO VOTE ALL AT ONE TIME.
WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THESE AND MAKE JUST TABLE OF DECISION WHOLE SESSION.
>> JUST IT'S LIKE THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU'LL DO THE ETC.
>>THAT'S BEEN TOO MANY MEETINGS AGO.
>> NUMBER 1, LOT DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS CITY STAFF COMMENT.
I'LL JUST GO STRAIGHT, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS, MINIMUM SETBACKS, OR FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES AND WE STRUCK THE REST OF IT, OR THE CITY STAFF STRUCK THE REST OF IT.
FOR MULTILAYER DEVELOPMENTS WITH COMMON PARKING AREAS OR PARTY WALL STYLE CONSTRUCTION LOT SIZES, SIDE SETBACKS, MAYBE REDUCE SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING APPROVAL AND SHE WANTED TO STRIKE THAT ANYTHING REFERENCE TO DIRECTORS APPROVAL, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IS APPROVAL OF STROKE.
AS FAR AS THE MCCLINTON HOME AND GROUP, ALL DEVELOPMENTS AND NC DISTRICT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE, I'LL REFERENCE THAT YOU ALL CAN READ IT.
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS AND MINIMUM SETBACKS ARE FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES.
FOR MULTI LOT DEVELOPMENTS WITH COMMON PARKING AREAS OR PARTY WALLS STYLE CONSTRUCTION.
STRUCK THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IS APPROVABLE APPROVAL AND THEN MINIMUM LOT WIDTH BE 20 FEET AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH SHALL ALLOW THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT.
[02:30:03]
>> THAT ON ITEM B, WHAT THAT DOES IS JUST FURTHER DEFINE WHAT THE MINIMUM LOT SHOULD BE FOR GARDEN, OFFICE TYPE TOWN HOME SITUATIONS.
IF I'M EXPLAINING THIS RIGHT, I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST MAKE IT.
>> DEFINABLE LIKE ON 114TH STREET YOU CAN PLOT, SAY, TEN OF THOSE IN A ROW AND THEN THEY CAN SELL OFF FIVE OR SELL OFF FOUR AND GROUP THEM. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> TARA, YOU WANT TO COME ELABORATE? THEN WHAT THAT WHILE HE'S COMING UP, THEY ALSO SAID MAKE THIS SAME CHANGE TO SECTION 39.02.
YOU'RE CLOSE, BUT YOU'RE THINKING OF BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE PURPOSELY DID VERY NARROW TRACKS SO THAT THEY CAN BE SOLD IN INCREMENTS AND THEN GROUPED TOGETHER, WE'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
THIS IS WHERE IT TRULY WOULD BE SEPARATELY OWNED, NARROW LOTS.
NOW, YOU WERE CLOSE ON ONE PORT ONE PORTION OF 14TH STREET.
WE DID THE NARROW LOTS IN ANTICIPATION OF SELLING GROUPS.
BUT TO THE EAST OF THAT, WE DID BY GOLLY 20-FOOT WIDE LOTS THAT ARE PARTY WALL STYLE CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAD SPELLED OUT.
>> BOTH OF THOSE HAVE. THANK YOU.
SO FOR MULTI-LINE DEVELOPMENTS WITH COMMON PARKING AREAS AND PARTY WALL STYLE CONSTRUCTION.
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH SHALL BE 20 FEET MINIMUM WALL SHOULD BE DEL SQUARE, KRISTEN? I KNOW YOU ALL YOU ALL HAD JOBS AND Y'ALL STRUCK ALL THAT TOOK YOUR PART OFF.
I KNOW THAT THEY CAME BACK IN AND PUT THIS IN AT THE LAST MEETING.
I DON T THINK WE'VE GOT REALLY A CHANCE TO HEAR WHAT STAFF'S THOUGHTS ARE ON IT, WHETHER THEY THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, IF IT'S NOT AN ISSUE AND THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AS WELL.
>> THE POTENTIAL ISSUE THEY MAY RUN INTO IS REALLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE RATHER THAN THE ZONING CODE.
THE BUILDING CODE IS GOING TO HAVE RESTRICTIONS FOR ESPECIALLY IF THE BUILDING ON THE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT GETS BUILT UP AGAINST THOSE PROPERTY LINES.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF FIREWALLS AND OPENINGS AND WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO.
SO THEY MAY RUN INTO SOME ISSUES THERE.
>> WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY RUN INTO ISSUES?
>> THEY WILL HAVE TO PULL THE BUILDING BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> SO THAT'S A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS?
>> I PERSONALLY SEE NO GOOD REASON NOT TO ACCEPT THESE CHANGES ON EITHER A OR B.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK THAT I WOULD GO WITH STRIKING IT WITH THE CITY STAFF.
THEY HAVE STRUCK AND THEN ADDING MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, SHELBY 20, A MINIMUM.
>> EITHER WAY, YOU'RE AMENABLE TO B AND C.
>> WELL, WITH THEIR DIFFERENCE.
>> IT'S EITHER [OVERLAPPING] A OR B AND C.
>> THEN I WOULD GO TO B AND C. I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
>> THE DIVIDER, TERRY'S JUST A TWO-HOUR FIREWALL ON THOSE.
I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ZONING, BUT THE QUESTION WAS POSED ABOUT SEPARATION.
IT'S JUST A TWO-HOUR FIREWALL.
>> IT'S WHATEVER THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES.
IT'S JUST YOU'RE NOT GATHERING UP A BUNCH OF NARROW LOTS IN ONE OWNED BUILDING.
IT'S TRULY CONSTRUCTED LIKE A TOWNHOUSE, BUT IT'S JUST IN THAT COMMERCIAL SETTING.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN LET ME REMIND YOU TO SHARE SOME LIGHT ON WHAT YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>> HOLD ON. STEPHEN GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE.
>> WHAT FIREWALL IS IN BUILDING CODE?
>> THAT'S ALRIGHT. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO ENTERTAIN THAT? YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A FIREWALL IS IN THE BUILDING CODE?
>> BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IT'S EITHER A OR B AND C. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUARREL WITH THAT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON EACH ONE.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WORLD SAYING HERE IS 1B AND 1C IF YOU WILL.
>> YOU'D BE KEEPING TRACK DOWN.
>> I'M KEEPING TRACK OF IT. IS EVERYBODY READY TO MOVE ON TO NUMBER 2?
>> YOU GOOD? ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT APPLICABILITY PREVIOUS EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
WHAT THIS LAST CITY STAFF STRUCK AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAY DEEM THE NECESSARY DWELLING, OBVIOUSLY DIRECTOR PLANNING THEIR STRIKING THAT PIECE OF IT.
ADDING WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO PROVIDE 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, 1980.
[02:35:07]
WHEREAS MCCLINTON HOME AND PARTIES SAY MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE LANGUAGE.IF YOU REMEMBER PREVIOUS DISCUSSION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS DOCUMENTATION BACK TO 1980 AND I THINK THE REASON WHY THAT WAS IN THERE WAS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STARTING POINT FROM WHERE WE BEGAN AS PLANNING AND ZONING.
IS THAT RIGHT? ON ACCESSORIES DWELLING UNIT.
>> BE CUTOFF FOR LEGAL IN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, YES.
>> IF WE MAKE NO CHANGE, IT'S EITHER YOU'RE CONFORMING OR YOU'RE NOT.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> IF YOU'RE MAKING NO CHANGE, THEN YOU'RE ADOPTING THE UDC,.
>> YOU ADOPT IT, YOU'RE EITHER LEGALLY OR ILLEGALLY OR NOT.
>> THERE'S REALLY A IN THE ARGUMENT THERE IS WE'VE HAD 40 YEARS TO GET LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL AT THIS POINT, YOU'RE NOT LEGAL.
BUT IF YOU HAVE THE REGISTERED YOUR APARTMENT CERTIFICATE, YOU'RE STILL LEGAL.
>> DOES THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME? I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHY WE GO BACK TO 1980.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A WELL.
>> ALTHOUGH YOU CAN PROVE THAT IT'S BEEN CONTINUOUS USE SINCE 43 YEARS AGO.
YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT?
>> GOING BACK ON A LOT OF THESE GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT KRISTEN, HER THOUGHTS BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T GOT TO HURT THE STAFFS.
OH, [OVERLAPPING] PROS AND CONS, SORRY.
NOT TO SAY THEY MAY NOT HAVE DIFFERENCES. THEY MAY NOT.
BUT A MARK TO YOU IT SEEMS LIKE IT IMMEDIATE DECISIONS YOU ARE YOU'RE NOT IT'S NOT A YOU'RE IN-BETWEEN, BUT YOUR THOUGHTS, KRISTEN.
>> WE ORIGINALLY PUT THE DATE IN JUST TO HELP CLARIFY THAT WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LEGAL STRUCTURE LEGALLY BUILT.
BECAUSE IF SOMETHING WAS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WAS BUILT IN 1995, IT WAS BUILT ILLEGALLY.
THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL USE.
WE TOUCHED ON THIS BRIEFLY AT THE JOINT HEARING AND I THINK KELLY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF WE REMOVE THE DATE, THEN ANYTHING IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE UDC BECOMES NON-CONFORMING WHETHER IT WAS BUILT LEGALLY OR NOT.
THEN YOU JUST ENFORCED THE UDC MOVING FORWARD.
WE OUGHT TO GO WITH FOOD STAMPS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS.
>> BECAUSE I GUESS IF YOU GO WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, IT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO DO ANY HARM BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE IT EITHER WAY. IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM GOING.
WELL, IT WAS. I DON'T THINK IT MAKES TOO MUCH DIFFERENCE EITHER WAY, BUT I THINK IF YOU LINK THE DATES AND AT LEAST YOU'VE GOT TO CUT OFF AND SOMEBODY KNOWS AND THEY GO WHAT YEAR WAS THAT YOU HAD TO DO IT.
WE WOULD ACCEPT A AS THEY HAD IT RIGHT THERE.
TAKE UP THE DIRECTOR'S PART AND USE THE PART WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDES.
>> YEAH, JUST LEAVE IN 1980 IN THERE.
>> SO THE GREEN WRITING IS SAYING UNLESS YOU HAVE THE CERTIFICATE?
>> YES. THE GREEN WRITING IS SAYING THAT YOUR STRUCTURES STILL HAD TO HAVE BEEN BUILT TO LEGALLY UNDER THE FORMER CODE PRIOR TO 1980.
IF WE REMOVE THE GREEN AND JUST LEAVE IT AS IS, THEN IT WILL ALLOW EVERYTHING BUILT SINCE THEN ILLEGALLY TO BECOME NON-CONFORMING AND CONTINUE BEING USED, WHICH IS AN OPTION.
SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO CUT IT OFF AT 1980 OR CUT IT OFF IN 2023?
>> CUT IT OFF IN 2023 BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK THAT FAR, WE ALREADY SAID, THERE'S A GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WON'T HAVE ANY OF THE STUFF. RIGHT?
>> THAT'S TRUE. BUT IF YOU DO IT AT 2023, THAT MEANS THAT THEY BUILT IT, THEN THEIR LEGAL THEY'RE JUST NON-CONFORMING.
>> BECAUSE IF THEY'RE ILLEGAL, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?
>> WITHOUT THE 1980 DATE, THEY WILL BECOME NONCONFORMING AND CAN CONTINUE THAT USE.
>> SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, PEOPLE DO.
>> CAN I HAVE AN EXAMPLE, PLEASE.
I'M SO SORRY, I'M A LITTLE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF YOU BUILT SOMETHING IN 1985, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A PERMIT FOR IT AND IT'S ILLEGAL.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN GOOD CHANCE TO GO TO 2023, IT BECOMES NON-CONFORMING AND LEGAL, AND I CAN CONTINUE WITH.
>> SO YOU'RE LETTING THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT STUFF AND DID IT ILLEGALLY BENEFIT FROM IT?
>> YEAH. THEY CAN LOGICALLY KNOW, YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS.
[LAUGHTER] HOW MANY THINGS HAVE WE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN TOO?
[02:40:01]
WHO'S GOING BACK AND TAGGING ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS FROM THE PAST? [NOISE] NOBODY.WHAT IS GOING BACK TO 1980 AND STARTING TODAY?
>> SO IN A SINGLE YEAR, HOW MANY DETACHED APART ACCESSORY ADUS ISSUES HAVE YOU HAD?
>> DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WHAT I'M SAYING?
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHY I BLINKED [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND I'LL USE AN EXAMPLE. MY NIECE AND NEPHEW OWNED A HOUSE AND THEY HAVE ONE BEHIND IT.
WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS LEGAL AND FOUND OUT IT WASN'T.
SO THEY'VE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR 10 YEARS AND THEY'VE BEEN ABIDING BY THE LAW AND NOT WRITTEN IT.
SO BY DOING THIS, YOU'RE BASICALLY PUNISHING THEM FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW OR THEY COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IT ILLEGALLY AND NOW BEEN LIVING.
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN GO BACK AND FIX ALL THOSE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.
I CAN'T GO BACKWARDS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> IN UDC TO ME, IT'S VERY BLACK AND WHITE MOVING FORWARD.
THERE SO MANY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THAT THAT EXISTS.
ANYWAY, THAT'S MY [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND I AGREE, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES.
>> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, IF YOU GO WITH OPTION B, YOU'RE ACCEPTING EVERYTHING UP TO TODAY?
>> AND THEN GOING FORWARD, YOU GOT TO COMPLY WITH A UDC AND THE SETBACKS AND THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS?
>> IT'S ALMOST, I DON'T WANT TO SAY IMPOSSIBLE, BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET AN ADU.
>> IT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT. MINIMUM LOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> 10,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> AND BRANDON AND YOU HAVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?
>> I LIKE THE CLEAN, HEY, WE'RE STARTING WITH THIS.
I'M NOT SAYING FORGET ABOUT THE PAST, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S HARD TO PROVE [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, CLEAN BREAK, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
SO B, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
NUMBER 3, SIGN [LAUGHTER] EXEMPT FROM REGULATION GENERALLY.
>> RICK ABOUT CITY-STATE, THEY STRUCK THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN TOUCH ON VNC IF YOU'D LIKE FOR ME TOO.
>> SURE. YOU WANT TO START WITH CITY STAFF [OVERLAPPING]
>> CHRISTINE JUST ASK A QUESTION, KIND OF GO.
SO WHETHER YOU KNOW, IS MONT AND TERRY'S DEAL COMING IN, BASICALLY THE SAME AS YOURS, BUT JUST ADDING THOSE COMMENTS INTO THEM.
>> SO THOSE TWO COMMENTS WERE WHAT STAFF STRUCK FROM THE REDUCTION OVERLAY DISTRICT BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDED BACK IN.
>> SO STAFFS STRUCK APPROVAL OF A REDUCTION OVERLAYS SHALL NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL OF ZONING BOARD OF JUSTICE, ZBA.
>> AND IT WON'T THAT WAS JUST REDUNDANT, WHICH IS WHY WE STRUCK IT.
>> BUT THEY'RE PUTTING IT BACK IN?
>> JUST TO FURTHER CLARIFY AND THAT'S FINE.
WE ONLY STRUCK IT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY.
>> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD, JAMES.
>> THE REDUCTION OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS EVEN IF ALLOWED IN THE BASE SO MANY DISTRICTS.
>> SO THAT ONE WE STRUCK BECAUSE BILLBOARDS ARE NOT A PERMITTED USE IN ANY DISTRICT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE.
SO TO ME, THIS WOULD BE PROHIBITING SOMEONE FROM EVEN MAKING THE REQUEST, WHICH I DO NOT THINK IS THE INTENT OF THIS DISTRICT.
>> SO BEING MORE RESTRICTIVE ON BILLBOARDS, EVEN IN HIS SPECIFIC USE, SO THAT A DEVELOPER HAS THE OPTION TO SAY, I'M GOING TO COME DEVELOP THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND NO, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE BILLBOARDS REGARDLESS OF?
>> YEAH. IT'S SAYING YOU'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO ASK.
BUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO RESTRICT WHAT IS PERMITTED IN THE BASE AND DISTRICT.
>> MA'AM, AND WE BEAT UP BILLBOARDS IN THE UDC,
[02:45:04]
I HAVE TO SHOW MY CARDS OUT.I THINK I VOTED AGAINST IT, BUT EVERYBODY ELSE VOTED IN FAVOR OF GETTING RID OF BILLBOARDS.
THIS JUST FURTHER GETS RID OF THEM.
IF WE STARTED DOWN THAT PATH, CITY COUNCIL TO SET IT AT ADOPTED, I THINK YOU SEND IT TO THEM FOR THE RESTRICTION.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY, ME LOOKING AT THIS GOING AND LISTENING TO WHAT STAFF HAS SAID, UNDERSTAND WHAT B AND C ARE SAME, BUT I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE COULDN'T JUST STAY WITH A.
IF IT'S JUST CLARIFYING AND IT'S ALREADY NOT PROHIBITED, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> SO ON C, TERRY, IT'S ALREADY NOT ALLOWED.
IF YOU REQUEST A REDUCTION OVERLAY, IT'S ALREADY NOT ALLOWED AND THAT BILLBOARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED CITYWIDE.
>> WE ALREADY SAID NO TO BILLBOARDS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD GIVE ANY CRACK IN THE ARMOR WHERE SOMEBODY HAS A SHOT AT, PUT A BILLBOARD IN THE MIDDLE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE TRYING TO PREVENT ANYBODY FROM FITTING.
>> YOU GOT TO THINK OF IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT AN RO DISTRICT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, WHICH IS, YOU HAVE A BASELINE SET OF THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED AND ZONING DISTRICT.
AND WE SAY, WELL, WE WANT TO DO AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT THAT PROHIBITS X, Y, AND Z.
BECAUSE WE WANT THERE TO BE A ZONING ELEMENT IN PLACE TO FURTHER REFINE WHAT WE THINK WE'D LIKE OUR DEVELOPMENT TO LOOK LIKE THE RO DISTRICT.
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE STILL HAVE THIS OPTION FOR SPECIFIC USE IN THE LI AND GI ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND SO THE WAY THE CODE CURRENTLY IS SET UP, IT WOULD AT LEAST GIVE A DEVELOPER AN OPTION TO DO AN RO DISTRICT IN THOSE TWO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS TO BASICALLY SET THE HAMMER DOWN AND SAY, I DON'T WANT EVEN THE SPECIFIC USE IN MY LI OR GI DISTRICT.
>> THAT WAS WHERE THE MINDSET WAS.
>> IS THAT NOT THE WAY YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THEIR REQUESTS.
TO ME, THE RO DISTRICT IS TO RESTRICT WHAT'S PERMITTED IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
A SPECIFIC USE REQUIRES A WHOLE NEW REQUEST, TO HEARING, APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL.
TO ME, YOU'RE RESTRICTING SOMEONE FROM EVEN ASKING WHERE THE INTENT OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO RESTRICT WHAT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
>> IF IT'S YOUR DEVELOPMENT AND YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT AN ADDED LAYER OF NO BILLBOARDS, IT'S YOUR DEVELOPMENT.
ISN'T THAT A POSITIVE THING? IF IT'S YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU'RE SAYING I DON'T WANT BILLBOARDS?
>> YEAH. AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HAVE AN OPTION IN THERE WHERE IT'S ENFORCEABLE THROUGH ZONING AND IT'S NOT HAVING TO BE FUSSED ABOUT IN A PRIVATE CORP MATTER THROUGH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. YES.
>> I DON'T KNOW [INAUDIBLE] ARE GOING OVER BILLBOARDS AND WE TOOK IT OUT.
SAY WE'RE NOT PUTTING A BILLBOARD, WE DON'T WANT BILLBOARDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE BIGGEST ARGUMENT.
THIS JUST FURTHER EXTENDS THAT.
>> FURTHERMORE, IF SOMETHING CHANGES AND SUDDENLY BILLBOARDS BECOME A BY RIGHT USE AT SOME POINT, THIS IS IN PLACE THAT IS A TOOL FOR PROTECTION.
>> I GET THAT EVERYBODY IS HAVING TO GIVE AND TAKE A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THAT WAS WHERE OUR HEAD WAS AT ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
>> IT'S LIGI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL GENERAL.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HAVING TO COME BACK AND HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS BUT IT'S DONE.
THERE'S NO BILL BOARDS, AND THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY'S VOTED.
>> THE CITY OF LUBBOCK BILLBOARD COMMITTEE THAT COME AND FIGHT EVERY BILLBOARD, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME FIGHT THOSE BILLBOARDS.
>> OR THEY DON'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY.
[OVERLAPPING] I GUESS IT'S A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE.
>> IT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAY, IT'S HOW YOU SAY IT.
I'M PRETTY SURE I VOTED AGAINST IT, BUT EVERYTHING IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
TYPICALLY, EVERYTHING'S NEGOTIABLE.
SO I JUST FEEL LIKE ADDING THAT EXTRA LAYER OF, THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN HERE.
BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT'S FAIL-SAFE, LIKE IF SOMETHING WERE TO CHANGE, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE HANDCUFFING THEM NOW TOO.
[02:50:04]
WE ALREADY SAID, WE DON'T WANT THIS, BUT 20, 30 YEARS FROM NOW, PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MIND.
I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THEY'LL LOVED BILLBOARDS THEN, I DON'T KNOW. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT IN 20 OR 30 YEARS IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT, THEY CAN CHANGE IT.
>> YOU GOT TO JUMP TWO HOOPS AT THAT POINT.
>> SO WHY DO WE NEED TO SAY IT AGAIN?
>> IT'S ALREADY DONE. THEY HAVE TO COME FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS.
>> RIGHT NOW IT'S NO BILLBOARDS, PERIOD.
>> NO, THEY CAN DO IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS WITH THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY CAN COME ASK, DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO GET IT.
>> SO THEY HAVE TO COME ASK, DO YOU STRONGLY WANT A BILLBOARD?
>> I'M FINE WITH THAT, HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT WAS PART OF WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS BECAUSE WE ALWAYS GET THESE BILLBOARD CASES.
SO YEAH, THEY CAN COME AND ASK.
AND THEY KEEP COMING AND ASKING AND WE KEEP TURNING THEM DOWN.
>> THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS IN MY OPINION.
IT'S LIKE YOU DON'T GET YOUR DAY IN COURT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO IS JUST SAY, BASICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO SAY NO, BUT THERE'S NO POINT IN YOU EVEN GOING FOR US TO SAY NO.
THEY'LL BE IN CONTROL. ONLY IN THE REDUCTION OVER LANGUAGES.
>> YES, MA'AM, AND YOU NEED TO TELL ME IF I SHOULDN'T BE JUST STANDING UP HERE ON THE FILE LIKE THIS, BUT I CAN SEE THIS SCENARIO PLAYING OUT ABOUT A QUARTER SECTION LAND THAT IS PRIME FOR LI AND GI ZONING.
SO I GET THE LI AND GI ZONING, AND I SAY, I DON'T WANT BILLBOARDS OR WHATEVER, AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE IN A SET THAT UP IN THE RO DISTRICT.
IF I SIT ON THAT AND SELL THAT PROPERTY, THEN I DON'T KNOW ANY REASON WHY A NEW OWNER COULDN'T COME IN AND THROUGH A NEW ZONE CASE, REMOVE THE RO.
SO NOTHING LEFT IS PERMANENT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST THAT THAT LAYER THAT OUR GROUP WAS HOPING TO HAVE IN PLACE.
>> THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT BILLBOARD.
>> IF IT'S THE DEVELOPER OFFERING HIS PROPERTY IS WANTING TO DEVELOP IT AND HE'S GOING TO SAY, I'LL DOUBLE SHARE YOU.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO BILLBOARDS HERE, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
>> SO WHEN HE SAID THAT YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE IT TO A COURT HEARING.
EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR ME, HOW THIS PROTECTS THE DEVELOPER.
>> IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND SO ABSOLUTELY SOMEBODY CAN PUT WHATEVER DEED RESTRICTIONS THEY WANT TO OWN THEIR PROPERTY AND AVOID THIS DISCUSSION ALTOGETHER.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO NOT HAVE TO CARRY THAT INTO THE COURT OF LAW BECAUSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE THAN ZONING.
IT GETS IT OUT OF THE PRIVATE FUSS, AND IT GETS IT INTO A CODE ISSUE THAT'S EASIER TO TRACK.
>> THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL NEVER BE REQUIRED BECAUSE YOU'RE REDUCING AND RESTRICTING.
YOU'RE NOT VARYING SOMETHING TO SOMETHING MORE.
>> LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IN FAVOR OF C. GENERAL CENSUS AND WE'LL SEE [OVERLAPPING] WHO'S WHERE.
>> WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.
>> THERE WE GO. ANC, YOU GOT IT.
NUMBER 5, SUBDIVISION STANDARDS.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE.
WELL, I CAN LET THEM TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THESE ARE REALLY JUST SOME CLEAN UP THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING OVER AND OVER THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PERMANENT.
WE CAN GO LINE-BY-LINE IF YOU WANT.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE ONE MENTIONED.
THIS FIRST ITEM OR B, ACTUALLY THE STATE LAW REQUIRES IT NOW TO GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR AN APPEAL.
THAT WAS JUST AN ERROR IN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART IN CHANGING THE PLOTTING REQUIREMENTS.
>> SO DO WE NEED TO ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT?
>> SO WE ALREADY KNOW [INAUDIBLE]
>> SO HOW DO YOU WANT TO SPIN THIS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] CAN WE GET STAFF'S VIEW ON THESE OF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS FROM STAFF?
[02:55:02]
>> BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THIS FOR THE NEXT 30 MINUTES, WHEN I JUST LOOK AT ITEM C THROUGH J FROM CITY STAFF POSITION, ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE YOU'RE JUST, LIKE YES, THAT'S ACCEPTED? THAT CITY STAFF IS IN AGREEANCE WITH SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS IT?
>> SURE. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH C, THAT JUST CLARIFIES SIGNED BY CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER.
RATHER THAN PUTTING THE ACTUAL FEE ON THE CHECKLIST, THEN WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT EVERY TIME WE CHANGE THE FEES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT MAKES SENSE.
>>CHANGE IT TO ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCILS. SO THAT'S FINE.
E, THAT JUST FURTHER CLARIFIES THE TYPE OF WATER AND SCHEMATIC LAYOUTS.
F, THAT'S THE SCALE, THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
HONESTLY, THE SCALE IS NOT AS IMPORTANT NOW AS IT USED TO BE, SINCE EVERYTHING'S DIGITAL.
AS LONG AS WE CAN READ IT, IT'S FINE.
G, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE G, YOU'RE TYING IT TO A SECTION CORNER.
H, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH H, THEY HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE IT, SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH GIS TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION IS ON OUR WEBSITE.
I, WE NEED THE APPROVAL SIGNATURE BLOCK ON THE PRE-PLOTS BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT NOW.
AND THEN J, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
VICTOR, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM J WHERE IT STATES THAT, AND THEN THE DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS TO READ THE FOLLOWING, SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE SHALL BE PLACED ON EVERY FINAL PLOT, FINAL PLOTS PRESENTED FOR REPORTING SHALL BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE SURVEYOR?
>> SO NOW WE'RE GOOD WITH ALL OF THEM.
>> WE'LL GO WITH THAT. SO WE HAVE THE QUESTIONS, WE'VE GOT BASICALLY B THROUGH J, AND I'M ASKING THIS FOR LEGAL TO GO THROUGH.
SO HOW WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT WITH THE CITY STAFF'S PART? WOULD WE DO A WITH THE ADDITION OF OR WITH THE ADDITION AND CORRECTIONS ACCORDING TO?
>> DID YOU WRITE ALL THAT DOWN?
>> YEAH. I GOT IT, JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY.
>> FOR EVERYBODY ON P&Z, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND? DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS FURTHER, OR YOU ARE COMFORTABLE?
SO WE'LL LET BRANDON START WITH THIS SINCE HE USED THIS AS AN EXAMPLE.
>> TWO HUNDRED TO FOUR HUNDRED.
>> BEFORE YOU JUMP IN, THOUGH, LEGALLY, THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE 200 FOOT IS STATE STATUTE, LOT OF STATES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SO THE MAJORITY.
>> SO THAT'S ONE BOUNDARY AND THEN WE'RE JUST ADDING AN ADDITIONAL BOUNDARY TO THAT.
THERE WERE SOME LEGAL COMMENTS THAT CAME UP ABOUT ALL THAT.
>> SO THE STATE REQUIRES US TO NOTIFY EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THOSE PROPERTIES AND THE OWNERS IN THAT 200 FEET ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT GET CONSIDERED FOR WRITTEN OPPOSITION IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE AT THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE OTHERS WOULD BE THE OTHER 201 FEET TO 400, WOULD BE TREATED AS SOMEBODY COMING HERE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND IT'S IN FAVOR OF OPPOSITION OF THE CASE, AND THEY WOULDN'T BE WEIGHTED THE SAME.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE DEALING WITH THE OVERTON AND THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE ARE JUST GIVING THEM NOTICES.
>>YEAH, THEY JUST SPREAD THE WORK, BUT THE CITY IS WILLING TO GIVE IT OUT, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
>> I THINK THAT'S A COURTEOUS THING TO DO.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
>> AND WE HEAR FROM THESE PEOPLE ANYWAY.
AND I THINK THAT I IT GOES A LONG WAY FOR THE CITY REACHING OUT AND SAYING, WELL, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU, INSTEAD OF THEM COMING HERE SAYING, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU LEFT ME OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION.
AND SO I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDE TO SPREADING IT TO 400 EXCEPT MAYBE A LITTLE MORE WORK.
>> THANKS [NOISE]. JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M NOT TAKING A POSITION, JUST EXPLAINING WHAT THE ISSUE WAS THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP.
>> CAN WE HEAR FROM THE STAFF IF THEY OBJECT TO SPREADING IT OUT TO 400? WHAT ARE THE DOWNSIDES TO DOING THAT?
>> BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THEM SEPARATELY POSTAGE.
>> YES, CORRECT. BECAUSE AS STATED, THE TRIGGER FOR THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS ONLY WHAT'S WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY.
[03:00:06]
YES, IT'S DOUBLED THE NUMBER OF NOTICES, SO DOUBLE THE COST, PAPER MAILINGS, EVERYTHING.IT'S KEEPING TRACK OF THE TWO SEPARATE BOUNDARIES.
>> ON THE OFFICIAL REPORT WHEN WE GET THE REPORT FROM NIIGATA BEFORE P OF Z DATA SET.
WILL YOU GUYS JUST REPORT THE EIGHT OPPOSED INSIDE THE 200 OR DO YOU REPORT TO US ALL OF THEM?
>> WE WILL REPORT ALL OF THEM.
>> WE WOULD DRAW TWO BOUNDARIES SO THAT WE CAN SEE THIS IS A 200.
>> WE ALL KNOW THAT IT'S REALLY WITHIN THAT 200 BOUNDARY THAT MATTERS IN TERMS OF THE LAW.
>> BUT THE EXTRA 200 FEET AROUND JUST SEEMS TO ME I THINK THAT'S [OVERLAPPING] COURTESY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THE TIME NOBODY COMES FROM EVEN WITHIN THE 200 BOUNDARY.
BUT THEN ON MANY CASES THOUGH YOU'LL GET THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD TRY, NOT GOING TO MENTIONED WHICH ONES?
>> YOU ALSO THINK ABOUT THIS TOO, A LOT OF TIMES WITHIN THAT 200 FEET, THERE'S ONLY TWO OR THREE PEOPLE BUT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO GO BEYOND THAT.
I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT WE DO IT THE 400 NOTE, BECAUSE IT MAY JUST BE 10 MORE FEET AND IT IMPACTS THAT SOMEONE ELSE.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING. I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING.
>> THE POINT ABOUT PUBLIC HEARING IS TO GIVE PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING] A VOICE.
>> I USED EXAMPLE SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
I HAD ONE NOT THROUGH THIS, BUT THROUGH THE HOUSING STANDARDS.
THERE WAS HALF TIMES SIX HOUSES FROM THE CORNER.
IT WAS ON THE CORNER ACROSS THE STREET AND I WAS OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION.
TO ME THAT'S JUST BLOCK AWAY. IT'S NOT LIKE ON.
>> THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAJORITY BRANDON AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD TO IT, BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IT.
I THINK WORD OF MOUTH WORKS BETTER THAN MAILING OUT A PIECE OF PAPER.
I THINK HALF THE PEOPLE IN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS ARE MAIL TO NOTICE AND THEY NEVER DID IT.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT THEY HEAR ABOUT IT FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS.
>> BUT I THINK ALSO IT'S TRUE WORD OF MOUTH WORKS BETTER IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAN IT DOES IN OTHERS.
BUT WHEN SOMEBODY, LIKE WE HAD A CASE TONIGHT WHERE SOMEBODY SAID I SHOWED THIS TO MY NEIGHBORS AND THEY HADN'T GOTTEN ONE.
THIS AUTOMATICALLY CREATES SOME ILL WILL.
[OVERLAPPING] LIKE THE CITY IS TRYING TO LOCK US OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT THAT'S THEIR PERCEPTION.
THEY COME IN HERE ALREADY ANGRY.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK ASIDE FROM COSTS AND EXTRA WORK FOR THE CITY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DOWNSIDE TO REACHING OUT A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN THE 200 FEET.
>> IS THERE ANOTHER MEANS OF REACHING OUT IN THAT BROADER RANGE FROM 201-400 FOOT?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD DO THAT.
>> YOU HAVE TO BE MAILED NOTICE ON MINING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE INDUSTRY THAT UNDERTAKING THAT WOULD TAKE [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU COULD JUST GO DOOR KNOCKING.
>> [LAUGHTER] I THINK WHERE YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF THIS IS PRIMARILY AND THAT COULD BE OFFERED IS WHERE I KEEP HEARING IT HERE AS DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 2 BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO MUCH INDUSTRIAL, WE'RE SO SPREAD OUT.
I ALMOST THINK IT ALMOST TARGETS THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S AN INDUSTRIAL PARK THERE MEANS THAT THE ONES THAT ARE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY WHATEVER IS GOING IN SHOULD BE NOTIFIED.
THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW [OVERLAPPING]
>> ACROSS ALL DISTRICTS FOR TODAY.
>> YES. BUT IT IS TWO DISTRICTS THAT MATTER.
IT'S ONE DISTRICT THAT MATTERS.
IT'S ONE BLOCK THAT MATTERS. [NOISE]
>> PEOPLE IN THOSE DISTRICT THEN MATTER.
>> IS JUST THE SAME 75 FOOT VERSUS 45 FOOT.
>> LET'S NOT GET AHEAD PF OURSELVES.
>> ONE THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT YOU ALL DON'T HAVE TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ON EVERY ONE OF THESE, YOU CAN JUST HAVE COMPETING MOTIONS, ONCE YOU ALL GO THROUGH IT ALL.
>> NO, LET'S DO IT. THANK EVERYBODY.
THE MAJORITY IS ON THIS, WE ARE DOING IT.
>> NO. I THINK EVERYBODY IS IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> I'M GOOD WITH IT, WHATEVER.
>> MOVING ON SEVEN, DEFINITION OF A FAMILY.
THIS IS GOING FROM IT WAS TWO WHICH THEY'RE STRIKING THREE,
[03:05:01]
GOING BACK TO TWO.>> CITIZENS PROPOSAL, LET'S SEE THIS.
CITIZENS STRUCK NO MORE THAN THREE.
ANY NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS LIVING AND COOKING TOGETHER AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT ARE UNDER THE SAME RESIDENCE GROUPS, HOMES ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS DEFINITION.
CITY STAFF SAID MAKE NO CHANGE, LEAVE IT AT THREE AND THEN MCCLINTON HOLMAN PARTY SAID MAKE NO CHANGE, KEEP CURRENT LANGUAGE.
>> I'M GOING TO VOTE THAT WE LEAVE IT AT THREE.
I THINK THAT IN TODAY'S WORLD, THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY IS A WHOLE LOT BROADER THAN IT'S EVER BEEN AND I DON'T SEE, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT YOU'VE GOT TWO DIVORCED PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING TOGETHER AND THEY HAVE A CHILD AND YES, EVERYONE TELLS ME, THIS IS REALLY JUST FOR AN ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE.
IT ALSO COULD BE USED TO GET SOMEONE TO TARGET SOMEONE ELSE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FULL PICTURE OF WHERE TODAY'S SOCIETY ACCEPTS FAMILY [OVERLAPPING] AND BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL AS A CITY OF SAYING WHAT OUR DEFINITION OF FAMILY IS THAT JUST BECAUSE ME AND JAMES ARE LIVING TOGETHER, WE'RE NOT MARRIED [LAUGHTER] AND WE'RE NOT, IT'S NOT, THAT'S IT EXACTLY.
>> I JUST WANT IT TO BE WHERE ONE NEIGHBOR DOESN'T SAY, I DON'T WANT THAT TYPE OF FAMILY LIVING NEXT DOOR TO ME SO I'M GOING TO USE THIS BECAUSE THAT CAN HAPPEN.
WHEN SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT CAN HAPPEN AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AS A SOCIETY, WE'RE NOT ALIENATING GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
I THINK THAT ALSO PLAYS TO TWO AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN TWO AND I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS.
THAT'S WHY I'M LEANING TOWARDS GOING BACK TO TWO, MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE.
FROM WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, THIS ISN'T ENFORCED.
IT'S NOT A CITY CODE ENFORCED, IT'S TYPICALLY USED WHENEVER THERE'S A NUISANCE IN A HIGHLY RATED NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE MAJORITY OF CASES THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED ARE SMALLER HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE '40S OR '50S, AND THE INCREASE OF CARS WHERE THEY'RE PARKING IN THE YARD, PARKING IN THE STREET, THEY'RE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO LANES.
THAT'S A BIG CONCERN AND EVERYBODY ALWAYS COMES UP AND TALKS ABOUT TRAFFIC.
WHEN I HAVE SEEN IT BEING USED, TO YOUR POINT, WHETHER IT'S TWO OR THREE, YOU CAN USE IT TO TARGET ANYBODY.
I'M GOING TO USE, I KNOW A SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I WOULD SAY, WELL OVER 50%, I'M GOING TO SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE RENTAL HOMES HAVE MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PEOPLE LIVING IN IT.
HOWEVER, IT'S MOST OF THE TIME IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN CASES WHERE IT BECOMES A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN ENFORCED AND USED FOR TYPICALLY THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS TO THE FRONT SIDES AND BACK, BUT I'LL ALLOW IT.
>> I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND SPECIAL SITUATIONS AND IT'S ONLY USED IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, YOU ALL SAY IT'S FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IS STILL BEING USED WRONG IN SOME CASES.
WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN PLAY, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT CAN BE USED AND TARGET LIKE SHE SAID, THERE'S PEOPLE BEING TARGETED.
CAN BE TARGETED. NOT THAT THEY ARE BEING TARGETED, BUT THEY'RE PEOPLE CAN BE TARGETED.
LET'S LOOK AT THE ECONOMY TODAY.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO LIVE TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE SEPARATELY AND THEY MAY NOT BE RELATED.
IS IT NOT TARGETING A SPECIFIC POPULATION OF INDIVIDUALS? COULD THAT BE COLLEGE STUDENTS? COULD THAT'D BE MIXED FAMILY.
IT COULD BE TARGETING MORE THAN JUST THOSE THAT ARE PROBLEM AND NUISANCES.
>> THERE WAS ON THAT CITIZEN PROPOSAL SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THEIR FAMILY MEANS ONE OR MORE PERSONS RELATED BY BLOOD, ADOPTION, OR MARRIAGE, OR ANY NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS LIVING AND COOKING TOGETHER? I DON'T WANT TO GET TIED. THAT'S HARD TO FIND.
>> HERE'S A QUESTION. DO Y'ALL KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THIS HAS EVER BEEN ENFORCED? HOW OFTEN THAT HAPPENS?
>> I DON'T KNOW. [OVERLAPPING] JUST FROM TALKING TO MY CLIENTS, THEY TOLD ME IT'S AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR CODES TO USE ONE, BUT IT'S ALL JUST LIKE ANY OF OUR [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S BASICALLY COMPLAINT-DRIVEN.
>> AS MOST OF OUR ORDINANCES ARE.
BUT THAT'S ALL. I DON'T KNOW PERSONALLY.
>> THANK YOU. BUT THAT KIND OF COMPLAINT CAN BE USED NOT JUST IN A ATTACK SITUATION AND THAT'S IS MY FEAR.
>> REMEMBERED, IT'S FOREVER, IT'S EVERYWHERE.
[03:10:01]
>> MOST OF THESE SCENARIOS ARE NOT LIKE THERE'S TWO OR THREE PEOPLE LIVING THERE.
IT'S LIKE THERE'S SIX COLLEGE STUDENTS LIVING TOGETHER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE TWO OR THREE IS GOING TO MATTER THAT MUCH, BUT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AT THREE FOR THE REASONS ALREADY MENTIONED.
IF WE HAVE TO HAVE IT AT ALL, IF WE HAVE TO DEFINE FAMILY AT ALL.
>> I'D BE IN FAVOR OF GETTING OUT OF BUSINESS TO DEFINE A FAMILY.
>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DEFINE IT, BUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO AND THREE, THEN I'M CHOOSING THREE.
>> REAL QUICK, SHOW OF HANDS. WHO WANTS TO KEEP IT AT THREE? WHO WANTS TO KEEP IT AT TWO? [LAUGHTER] WE'RE GOING TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M JUST BUCKING THE SYSTEM.
>> THAT WAS SEVEN. WE'RE JUMPING INTO EIGHT LAND USE MATRIX.
TRANSPORTATION, UTILITY, AND COMMUNICATION THEY USE POWER GENERATION TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION INCLUDES LARGE SOLAR COLLECTORS AND WINDMILLS AMEND FROM PERMITTED USE P TO A SPECIFIC USE S IN ALL THREE DISTRICTS.
THOSE THREE DISTRICTS BEING IP, LI, AND GI.
REMIND ME. I'M DRAWING A BLANK ON IP.
>> WELL, BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION AND THEN MCCLINTON HOLMAN SAYS MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.
CITY STAFF SAYS MAKE A SPECIFIC USE.
>> I AGREE WITH THE SPECIFIC USE.
I THINK THAT'S ONE THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IN THE DISTRICTS THAT RUN INTO A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE NOW.
I THINK THIS HAS GIVEN A LITTLE MORE SAY THAN JUST ANYBODY COMES IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND BRING THEIR CASE TO WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE? ARE YOU GOING TO PUT A SOLAR FARM THERE? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PUT? YOU GOING TO PUT WINDMILLS? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? I THINK THIS IS ONE THAT JUST IT'S A NOD TO SAYING, HEY, WITH RESPECT TO NEIGHBORS' OPINIONS AND EVERYTHING FOR IT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE HARMING ANYBODY.
I THINK MAYBE IT'S ANOTHER STAFF, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD [INAUDIBLE].
>> I AGREE WITH THE SPECIFIC USE.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT? BRANDON? THEN SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH 8A.
NUMBER 9, RESIDENTIAL CARPORT GOING FROM 20 FEET TO 24 FEET AND IT'S ONLY ONE RECOMMENDATION.
CITY STAFF TYRIAN AND MON DIDN'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. THERE'S NOTHING PUBLISHED.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IN THE CARPORTS ANYWAY NOW THEY HAVE TO BE THEY'RE FACING AND THE SAME OF THE BUILDING.
THEY CAN'T BE YOUR TRACTOR SUPPLY THROW OUT METAL.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? WE'RE GOOD? ITEM NUMBER 10, HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
WE'RE ALL WELL-VERSED ON THIS NOW.
A LOT DENSITY IN DIMENSIONS ZONING MAP.
CITY STAFF SAYS NO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
MCCLINTON, HOLMAN GROUP SAYS MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.
THE CITIZENS AND THE PRACTICE RICHARD MURPHY, THEY WANT TO AMEND.
LET ME JUST JUMP TO ADD LIMIT ON VERTICAL MIXED-USE AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS STANDARD FOR VERTICAL MIXED-USE AND THE MIXED-USE SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT APPLY ON A BLOCK CONTAINING ONE OR MORE LOTS ZONED RESF1 OR SF2.
THEN STEPHEN FAULT AMEND THAT SECTION 3902W04.
WE SAY MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR VERTICAL USE FROM STRIKE 75, CHAPTER 45.
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR VERTICAL MIXED-USE.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE VERTICAL MIXED-USE PROJECT MAY BE INCREASED WITH THE APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE CURRENT HDR AS PAST, AND AS IT IS NOW IT ALREADY STATES THAT IF IT'S IN A STANDARD BLOCK PHASE, THAT IF THERE'S MIXED USES IN THERE, THEN IT CAN'T BE IN HDR. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YOU CAN'T MIX HOUSING TYPES ON A BLOCK PHASE.
THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, DUPLEXES, GARDEN GNOMES, COTTAGE HOMES, ANY OF THAT ON THE BLOCK PHASE, YOU CAN'T DROP IN APARTMENTS.
>> BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IT RECOMMENDED BLOCK INSTEAD OF BLOCK PHASE. CORRECT?
>> D JUST WANTED TO DO FOR 7545 UNLESS THEY [INAUDIBLE] TO THAT.
[03:15:02]
ON C1, THE BLOCK THAT'S SAME BOTH SIDES.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE STRAIGHT FACING EACH OTHER.
CORRECT? THAT'S A BLOCK PHASE?
>> WE HAVE IT DEFINED IN THE UDC.
BLOCK IS THE AGGREGATE OF PRIVATE LOTS AND REAR ALLEYS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE STREETS AND THEN A BLOCK PHASE IS DEFINED AS ONE SIDE OF A STREET BETWEEN TWO CONNECTIVE FEATURES INTERSECTING THAT STREET.
THE FEATURES CAN BE OTHER STREETS OR BOUNDARIES OF STANDARD GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, SUCH AS PARKLAND, BULB OF A CUL-DE-SAC, OR OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY.
>> WELL, MAYBE THE EASY WAY TO THINK OF IT IS A BLOCK WOULD BE THE PROPERTIES THAT SHARE AN ALLEY THAT ARE BOUND BY STREETS.
A BLOCK PHASE IS JUST FROM ONE INTERSECTION TO THE OTHER OR SOME OTHER FEATURE, JUST THAT ONE SIDE.
>> THERE WOULDN'T BE MANY INSTANCES WITHOUT A BLOCK PHASE?
>> NO. I'M JUST TRYING TO DO BECAUSE DO THE BLOCK.
BUT IF THE OTHER SIDE WAS BEHIND IT.
I LIVE ON 65TH, SO 65TH AND 64TH IS HOUSES.
YOU'VE GOT THAT ON THE BLOCK, I COULDN'T DO ANYTHING THERE, BUT IF I WAS JUST ON 65TH, THAT BLOCK PHASE, I COULD BUT THEN IT WAS GOING TO BE HARD FOR ME TO DO ANYTHING IF I DON'T OWN A PROPERTY BEHIND.
>> IF YOU CHANGE IT TO BLOCK AND YOU ARE BACKING UP TO SF 1 OR SF 2.
BUT SAY IT'S BLOCK PHASE, IT WON'T FIT.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO GRASP MY HEAD AROUND THAT.
>> YOU WOULD NEED THE WHOLE BLOCK PHASE.
>> YOU NEED BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET WHEN ONE UNIT CLOSES.
>> BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I HAVE BECAUSE THIS IS SO TAILORED TO THE FINAL POINT AND HAVING THE APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CITY I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING AROUND THAT.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT FOR D AS WELL.
GETTING TO 45 AS A BLANKET STATEMENT.
>> WITH A CAP ON THE WHOLE CITY.
>> I DON'T LIKE THAT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD LIMIT TO 45 FEET NOT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT, BUT NO.
>> SOME CONFUSED ON THAT. D1 IS SOMETHING SEPARATE THAN I GUESS D.
>> IT'S 45 TO COME UP TO GO TO 75.
YOU'VE GOT TO GET SPECIAL REQUEST, SPECIFIC USE.
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE BRANDON? YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO COME BACK FOR SPECIFIC.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT APPLYING SOMETHING TO THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS ALSO A CONCERN THAT THERE WOULD BE THOSE INSTANCES WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A 75-FOOT BUILDING APPEARING IN A MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY DO BUT RIGHT UP AGAINST SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS.
I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY THE WAY I SEE THIS IS IT'S A GOOD OLD-FASHIONED COMPROMISE, WHICH IS OKAY.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS BEING BUILT IN THESE AREAS.
HOW ABOUT WE SAY THEY CAN ONLY GO UP 45-FEET? IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE A 75-FOOT APARTMENT BUILDING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, YOU CAN COME ASK FOR A SPECIFIC USE.
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY BLACKETLY SAYING, YOU CAN NEVER DO THIS.
>> I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THIS.
THIS FEELS LIKE IT'S ABOUT A CASE THAT WE'VE HEARD BEFORE.
IT FEELS LIKE IT'S ABOUT A SPECIFIC TO A COUPLE OF CASES THAT WE'VE HEARD.
L FEEL LIKE THAT NOW WE'RE APPLYING THAT ON EAST 19TH STREET AND SOUTH. IT'S ACROSS THE CITY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ON THAT WOULD BE WE'VE HAD TWO CASES THAT WERE VOTED DOWN BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN, WE'RE SAYING THE CITY COUNCIL'S VOTE DIDN'T MATTER, IT WOULD JUST GO IN.
THERE'S A REASON THAT IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL AND A REASON CITY COUNCIL VOTED NO.
>> BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S JUST TWO.
THERE COULD BE MANY MORE THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD YET.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ABOUT HEIGHT.
I THINK BOTH THOSE CASES WOULD STILL BRING OUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION, EVEN AT 45, AND THEY WOULD VOTE IT DOWN OR
[03:20:02]
THE OPPOSITION WOULD BE HERE JUST IN THE SAME NUMBERS AT 45 FEET.THEY WOULDN'T WANT IT EVEN AT 45.
>> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GET BEHIND SOMETHING THAT'S JUST TAILORED TO SEPARATE TWO VERY SPECIFIC USES.
>> CAN I RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE SAYING?
>> NO, SIR. WE'VE ALREADY HAD PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'VE HAD THESE TWO SPECIFIC CASES AND THEY WERE BOTH VOTED DOWN BY THE CITY.
IF THIS PASSES AND PASSES WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT IN THERE, THESE HDR DESIGNATIONS ARE IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, IN THESE SPECIFIC SPOTS.
IS THAT ALL NOW NULL AND VOID?
>> CAN SOMEBODY COME IN NOW AND SAY, WELL NOW IT'S HDR, WE CAN BUILD OUR APARTMENT COMPLEX THERE?
>> IF IT IS ZONED HDR ALREADY AND THEY DON'T NEED A ZONE CHANGE, THEY COULD CONSTRUCT A VERTICAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
BUT IT ALSO HAS A 50-FOOT REAR SETBACK WE ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS.
>> IF THAT HAPPENED, IN SOME SENSE I THINK THAT'S, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? IT GOES AGAINST WHAT WAS INTENDED TO HAPPEN.
>> COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT SUBVERTS SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL VOTED ON.
>> I COULD BE WRONG. I'M NOT SURE IF OUR JOB IS TO AGREE WITH CITY COUNCIL, WE'RE JUST PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION.
BUT MY CONCERN IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING BIGGER THAN AGREEING WITH CITY COUNCIL, IT'S ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS INTENDED TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE JUST SAYING, WELL, WE'RE THROWING THAT OUT NOW, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO CHANGE THE LAW.
>> WELL, IT'S ABOUT THE TECH TERRORISTS DEAL ON 19TH.
REMEMBER THAT BUILDING WAS FIVE FEET FROM THE ALLEY, AND NOW THIS IS SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE 50 FEET, AND SO THAT PROJECT COULDN'T HAPPEN RIGHT THERE.
I THINK THERE'S ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE AS IT'S WRITTEN.
>> SETBACKS RESTRICT A LOT WHERE THIS CAN BE DONE.
I'M STILL GOING TO GO. WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION TO NOT ACCEPT IT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, NO, WE DON'T ACCEPT IT, SO THEY'VE GOT THEIR VOICE AT THAT POINT.
>> THOUGH, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM COMING IN AND DOING A SPECIFIC USE IN COMING TO US AND US LISTENING TO THEM AND US MAKING A DECISION BASED ON ANYTHING OVER 45? [OVERLAPPING]
>> IN MY OPINION, I'M USING TWO INSTANCES WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DICTATE MY DECISION FOR THE REST OF THE CITY AND I CAN'T DO THAT.
>> WHY DON'T THEY HAVE TO COME BACK EACH TIME SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN AND SAY, HEY, WE STILL DON'T WANT THIS.
I'M JUST TURNING THE QUESTION BACKGROUND ON YOU HAVE LIKE FAMILIAR PERSPECTIVE.
>> I'M SAYING THERE MAY BE ONE IN SOUTHWEST LUBBOCK THAT COMES UP IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS THAT WE GO, NO, THAT SHOULDN'T BE A 75.
>> I CAN'T MAKE THAT WINKY-BLINK.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE SITE PLAN, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THAT.
I'M WILLING TO SAY, HEY, 45 FEET THAT'S IT UNLESS YOU COME TO US.
I THINK I JUST DON'T WANT TO HECKLE DEVELOPMENT.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT IF WE ZONE IT, LIKE YEAH, IT'S OKAY, GO AHEAD.
THEN THEY DON'T COME HERE ANYMORE AND ASK US, THEY JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
BUT BY PUTTING SPECIFIC USE ON IT, THEN WE CAN AT LEAST GO, YES, IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PHASE.
NO, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PHASE.
>> WHAT DO WE COME INTO THE 45 AND THE 75? HOW WAS THAT DETERMINED THAT THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE HEIGHT OR FOR THIS SPECIFIC HDR? HOW DO WE COME UP WITH THAT?
>> WELL, THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THAT.
>> HOW DID THE UDC COME UP WITH THAT 75? HOW DID THEY COME ABOUT?
>> THE APARTMENTS, IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONSTRUCT ONLY APARTMENTS, NOT MIXED-USE, YOU HAVE THAT 45-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT? MIXED-USE, WE WERE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TYPICALLY, YOUR FIRST FLOOR IS GOING TO BE THAT RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE.
THINK ABOUT A 15-FOOT CEILING HEIGHT, AND THEN YOU GET FOUR STORIES OF APARTMENTS ON TOP OF THAT.
FIVE STORY BUILDING, YOU STILL HAVE THE FOUR STORIES OF APARTMENTS,
[03:25:03]
WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU WERE DOING ONLY AN APARTMENT PROJECT, AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL FLOOR OF THE RETAIL.>> I KEEP GOING BACK TO BOTH THESE CASES BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
THE UNIVERSITY CASE, THOSE ARE ONES ON THE BLOCK.
>> ADJACENT TO SOUTH OVER 10?.
>> THEY RESUMED A1, WHICH WILL COME OVER AS MDR, NOT HDR, SO THEY STILL NEED SOME CHANGE.
>> YEAH, SO IT'S STILL HAD TO COME TO US.
>> ON 19TH STREET, IT'S MIXED USES, SO IT'S NOT ALL HDR.
>> THERE'S A SMALL PIECE OF HDR, IT'LL BE HEAVY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SFT.
>> I'M BELIEVING IT NO IT IS, I'M OPTION A.
>> LET'S MAKE THE SHOW WE GOT TO CALL IT.
IS EVERYBODY READY TO CALL OR YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE MORE?
>> MR. CHAIR, I JUST FEEL LIKE I NEED TO REMIND YA'LL IF YOU HAVE OPPOSING MOTIONS, YOU CAN DO THAT.
I JUST DON'T WANT ANY OF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN'T.
>> WE'RE NOT MAKING A MOTION RIGHT NOW BUT [OVERLAPPING] I NEVER.
SHOW HANDS, LEAVE AS IS NO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PER CITY STAFF COMMENTS.
THAT ALSO GOES ALONG WITH THE MCCLINTON HOLMAN AND THEN THE ITEM C, CINDY PRATTIS AND RICHARD MURPHY SHOW HANDS.
THEN ITEM D, STEPHEN FOX AMENDMENT FOR 75-45, SHOW HANDS.
NEXT. ITEM 11, UPPER YARD LANDSCAPING.
SEE STAFF HAD NO COMMENTS OR NO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, MCCLINTON HOLMAN GROUP HAD NO CHANGE TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.
SO THAT'S WHY AS I'VE BEEN ON THERE. GO AHEAD.
>>> QUESTION FOR LEGAL, SO WHEN WE DO THAT, DO WE VOTE ON 10 SO SHOULD WE JUST SAY LEAVE IT AS IS? LEBANON?
>> ITEM 12, MINIMUM CONNECTION SPACING BY STREET CLASSIFICATION CITY STAFF SAYS, THIS MEASURE EDGE TO EDGE.
TERRY PROPOSED AMEND THE TABLE TO READ MEASURED BETWEEN THE NEAREST EDGES OF DRIVEWAY THROUGHOUT AND THEN IT GOES ON OR PROVIDE GRAPHICS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE TEXT DATA ACCESS MANAGEMENT MANUAL.
>> YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? >> YEAH.
>> THIS POINT MOVING AT SO 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, THESE WERE ALL MOTIONS MADE FROM THE FLOOR OR LAST MEETING.
BEFORE WE EVEN TOUCH THIS, HAS CITY STAFF REVIEW THIS AS LEGAL STAFF REVIEWED THIS HAVE TERRY AND MONT, HAVE THEY ALL HAD TIME TO LOOK AT THIS.
I'LL LEAD, THIS IS MY OPINION THAT THE WAY THAT WE DID THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT TO THAT POINT, BUT IT SEEM THAT WE NEED TO ORGANIZE THIS BETTER.
JUST SHOOTING FROM THE HIP, FROM THE FLOOR AND ASKING PEOPLE TO MAKE UP.
WE NEED TIME TO VET IT, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT, I WANT TO COMMUNICATE WITH Y'ALL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON HERE THAT, WHEN WE START GETTING INTO SOME OF THIS, I'M GOING TO ADAM HERNANDEZ'S REQUEST.
I'VE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SAY LEGALLY, YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
WHAT'S BEING PUT IN FRONT OF US, OR WE'RE REALLY ALLOWED TO LOOK AT AND COMMENT ON OR WHAT ARE WE?
>> YOU CAN RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE ZONING MAP.
BUT YES HOW IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S VAGUE, WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES TO SHOW YOU, SO IF YOU WANTED STAFF TO DO THAT, WE WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO PUT THAT TOGETHER.
>> AMORTIZATION OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMEND THE ABANDONMENT ORDINANCE? THAT 12 MONTHS TO SIX MONTHS, IS THAT, ARE WE?
>> I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT [INAUDIBLE] CONTACT FOR HER.
[03:30:03]
THAT'S DANGEROUS. MY POINT TO EVERYBODY HERE, I GUESS, FOR THOSE THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE LAST MEETING, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE DISCUSSING THIS? DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF DISCUSSING IT WITHOUT HAVING ANY COMMENTARY FROM CITY STAFF OR DO YOU WANT TO LOOK?
>> I THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT LINE.
I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT FOUR MORE OF THESE REVIEWS.
TWO SEMIANNUAL FOR TWO YEARS AND I JUST THINK THE NEXT TIME WE DO THIS, IT SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED THAT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT SHOULD GO TO CITY STAFF FIRST BEFORE IT COMES UP TO US.
BECAUSE LIKE RIGHT NOW I FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUST US WITH NO COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF.
IF I WAS YOUNGER, I WOULDN'T LIKE THAT.
I DON'T LIKE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE IT.
>> CAN WE CREATE A FORMAL WAY OF A CITIZEN TO PRESENT AN AMENDMENT?
>> ULTIMATELY IF IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING, THEY CAN SAY ANYTHING TO YOU ALL.
>> WELL, I JUST THINK THAT IT SHOULD COME THROUGH STAFF BEFORE IT COMES TO OUR VOTE.
I THINK NEXT TIME IF THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL SAY, OKAY, WE'VE HEARD ALL THESE, NOW IT'S GOING TO GO TO STAFF, AND WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE OUR MEETING LIKE WE DID LAST TIME.
NEXT TIME, EVERYTHING HAS TO GO TO STAFF FIRST BEFORE WE HAVE THIS MEETING, I THINK.
I'D LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS SAID THAT THE FOLKS IN THE CROWD DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OR THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THEY HAD IT SUBMITTED THAT DAY AND SO THAT'S WHY I WASN'T READY TO MOVE THAT DAY ON THOSE.
I AGREE WITH YOU, THERE SHOULD BE SOME FORMALIZED PROCESS, EVEN IF THAT'S SAYING, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ANYTHING FROM THE FLOOR.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT AFTER CITY STAFF HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.
>> DO YOU ALL WANT TO ADDRESS, GET INTO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR DO YOU WANT TO GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS AND HAVE A REBUTTAL RESPONSES?
>> I'M AFTER CITY STAFF TO REVIEW IT, AND THEN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER AND WE CAN ASK THEM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
SOME OF THEM GOT IN THERE FOUR, FIVE TASKS THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I WILL SAY TO ME ON SOME OF THEM MAKE SENSE, SOME OF THEM DON'T AND FIGURE OUT.
>> YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT AMORTIZATION.
I NEEDED SOME SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE CITY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S IN PLAY WITH THE STATE BECAUSE THE STATE HAS CONTROL OVER SOME OF THAT ALREADY.
ARE WE TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION?
>> THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE STAFF WOULD KNOW THAT INFORMATION, AND I COULD ASK THAT QUESTION AND GET MORE DIRECTION BEFORE MAKING A DECISION.
>> WHAT ABOUT 14? THAT ONE WE DID DISCUSS IT THE LAST TIME.
>> THAT'S THE ONE WHERE THEY WERE TAKING THE SIX MIXED-USE DISTRICTS OR CB DISTRICTS AND COMBINING THEM INTO THREE.
>> IN THREE. WHAT WAS IT? WE CONSOLIDATED WHAT WAS THERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> KRISTEN, WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?
CITY STAFF DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT SO 14A.
THEN WE GET INTO 15 NONCONFORMING USES OF ZONING MAP.
THERE'S SOME REQUESTS IN THERE.
>> I WILL SAY, I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE ASKED THAT DOWN ZONE, EXISTING, CONFLICTING ZONING OR NON-CONFORMING ZONING.
WE DO HAVE A PROJECT WAITING WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DO A ZONING MAP ANALYSIS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, AND DETERMINE AREAS THAT HAVE INAPPROPRIATE ZONING AND BRING THOSE TO YOU SO YOU CAN CORRECT THE ZONING MAP.
WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING THAT IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
>> YOU'RE TAKING SOME OF THIS IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE IN SOME OF IT POSSIBLY?
>> SEE THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF FORMALIZING THIS SOME WAY BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TODAY, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON ALL THESE ONES.
WE HAVE ONE VOTE, WE HAVE ONE MOTION.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IS POSTPONING THIS TO THE NEXT P&Z MEETING SO THAT WE ALL HAVE TO EDUCATE OURSELVES ON 13-17.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE 14 COULD DRAG OUT QUITE A BIT LONGER, WAITING ON YOU ALL BEFORE WE GET OUR MAP IGNORE 14.
[03:35:01]
>> I'M SORRY, 15. I HATE TO HOLD UP 1-12 OR ALL OF THESE ABATEMENT FOR ONE, BASED ON ONE.
IT MAY DELAY IT FOR THREE MONTHS FOR ALL WE KNOW.
>> COULD THE VOTE BE TO DELAY THE ADDRESSING THE DOWN ZONING TO AFTER THAT EXERCISE?
>> NO. PROBABLY JUST YOU'RE GOING TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY EACH OF THESE ITEMS, WHICH ONES YOU WANT.
BUT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK CITY STAFF TO PUT IT ON YOUR NEXT MEETING.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK ROBBIE TOLD ME AT ONE POINT, MAYBE I'M MIS-REMEMBERING THIS.
WELL, I'M WAITING FOR HIM TO CORRECT ME IF I'M MIS-REMEMBERING, BUT THE MAP THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT AND RE-EVALUATE THINGS AND REZONE THINGS THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE NOW AND SO ON, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN UNTIL WE ACTUALLY PASS THE UDC. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, WE WOULD PREFER TO DO IT AFTER OCTOBER 1ST WHEN THE ADOPTED UDC GOES INTO EFFECT.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CIP FOR THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS?
>> YES. WAS I REMEMBERING THAT RIGHT? EXCEPT I GOT IT.
>> YEAH. WHAT KRISTEN SAID IS RIGHT, IT'S REALLY OPTIMUM.
WE HAVE THE COMPLAIN AND IT MANDATED THE UDC AND THEN THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS BASICALLY IS TO FOLLOW THAT.
>> THAT IS IN A SENSE, PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE?
>> YES. I SAID YES BEFORE MORE OR LESS.
>> THAT WAS THE NEXT. EMMA? THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I SAID.
WE CAN MAKE A MOTION NOW AND SAY WE DENY ALL THIS UNTIL THAT GETS RESOLVED.
UNTIL ITEM 15, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO GO OFF OF ON THAT OR WE CAN POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING OCTOBER 7TH.
>> IS THERE ISSUE WITH 13 AND 16, BECAUSE 15 AND 17 WILL BE THAT ZONING MAP? LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING.
YOU CAN'T POSTPONE PART OF THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING.
THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT CAME UP [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. BECAUSE WHENEVER STAFF HAS IT READY FOR YOU TO REVIEW WILL BE WITH UDC AMENDMENTS.
DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CONTENT IS, THE UDC AMENDMENT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TO HAVE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
>> ANYTHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE AS AN AMENDMENT, WE HAVE TO DENY.
CORRECT? BUT THAT'S NOT SAYING IT'S DENIED FOR ALL THE TIME.
THAT MEANS WE CAN COME BACK AND REVISIT IT AT A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN OTHER THINGS HAVE FALLEN.
>> REMEMBER WE HAVE FOUR MORE OF THESE.
>> CORRECT. DENIAL IS NOT NECESSARILY LIKE PUTTING OUR STAMP OF PERMANENT.
>> CORRECT. THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS UDC TAKES EFFECT ON THE FIRST AS IT WAS VOTED?
>> BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ORDINANCE.
>> YES. I SAY LET'S PUT THIS THERE TONIGHT.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE LONGER WE POSTPONE THIS, THE UCDS GOES UNCHANGED.
THERE ARE KNOWN IN THE UDC AS IT IS TODAY.
WE'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH A MORE FORMAL WAY TO GET THESE THINGS TO COME THROUGH.
I'M NOT GOING TO STATE. GO AHEAD.
>> CAN WE ACCEPT ALL OF THEM AND SAY WE DID NOT 15?
>> CAN'T VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE. YOU CAN'T VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE.
>> YOU CAN'T. THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION FOR YOU ALL BECAUSE IT'S MULTI-COMPONENT.
>> WOULD WE DO IT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY BECAUSE JAMES HAS BEEN TAKING GREAT NOTES?
>> WE APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.
>> IS THIS WHAT I'VE GOT TO DO. DO I HAVE TO LIST OUT ALL THE SECTIONS OR CANNOT SAY ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, NUMBER 1 TO CONTENT, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING?
>> I'D LIKE YOU JUST SAY THE LETTERS.
>> I DON'T HAVE TO READ OUT SECTION 39 [OVERLAPPING]?
WE MOVE THESE AMENDMENTS FORWARD, AND NAME THEM AND SAY, AND DENY THESE AMENDMENTS?
>> OR JUST YOU COULD SAY DENY THE REMAINDER.
>> I GOT IT. LET ME TAKE A DRINK. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK WE ALL NEED A DRINK.
>> NOTHING. WE'RE NOT DOING 13 OR 15, 16 AND 17. MAKE YOUR MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIR, I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS.
AMENDMENT 1, ITEMS B AND C. AMENDMENT 2 ITEM B.
[03:40:03]
AMENDMENT 3, AMENDMENT A.AMENDMENT 4, NUMBERS A AND C. NUMBER 5, AMENDMENTS A THROUGH J.
ITEM 7, AMENDMENT C. ITEM 8, AMENDMENT A.
AMENDMENT 11, ITEM A, AMENDMENT 10A, 11A, 12B, 14A, AND DENY ITEMS 13, 15, 16, AND 17.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.