Sep 26, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting

>> [MUSIC] GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

[00:00:02]

WE WILL BEGIN AN OPEN SESSION AND MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[1. Executive Session]

AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL WILL HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSULTING WITH THE CITY STAFF REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND TO HOLD CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, AND THE PURCHASE EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 551.072 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

FINALLY, PERSONNEL MATTERS UNDER SECTION 551.074 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

AT THIS TIME, WE ARE IN RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU MR. MASSEY.

I THINK EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME.

THERE WE GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

IT'S TWO O'CLOCK ON SEPTEMBER THE 26TH OF 2023, CITY COUNCIL HAS JUST EXITED EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE ARE NOW CONVENING AN OPEN SESSION IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

[1. Invocation]

HE'S GOING TO BE IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE STAND.

GENTLEMEN IF YOU REMOVE YOUR HATS, IF YOU HAVE THEM ON, AND IF YOU'D REMAIN STANDING ONCE HE'S DONE WITH THE PRAYERS, MAYOR PRO TEM PATTERSON HARRIS WILL LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGES.

THANK YOU MR. PEREZ FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

>> I WANT TO START BY READING THE WORD OF GOD REVELATIONS 3: 20.

HERE I AM I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK.

IF ANYONE HEARS MY VOICE AND OPENS THE DOOR, I WILL COME IN AND EAT WITH THAT PERSON AND THEY WITH ME.

TODAY, WE'RE AT A DAY OR THE YEAR HAS CHANGED 5784 ON THE JEWISH CALENDAR, NOT ON OUR ROMAN CALENDAR.

TODAY AS WE CELEBRATE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR, THIS YEAR IS THE YEAR OF MANY DOORS.

I WANT TO PRAY FOR ALL OF YOU CITY COUNCIL THAT GOD WOULD BLESS YOU WITH THE BLESSINGS OF GOD AND THE RIGHT DOORS OPEN.

HEAVENLY FATHER, I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY, FATHER.

I PRAY FATHER THAT YOUR DIVINE FATHER FAVOR FALL UPON THIS GROUP FATHER.

I PRAY FOR YOUR ANGELS IN CAMP AROUND THEM OF PROTECTION FATHER.

I PRAY FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK FATHER.

I PRAY FOR PROSPERITY FATHER TO ENTER OUR GATES FATHER.

I PRAY FOR YOUR ANGELS IN CAMP AROUND OUR CITY, AND I PRAY FOR YOUR DIVINE PROTECTION FATHER.

I PRAY FATHER THAT THIS GROUP MAY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR CITY.

I PRAY FATHER AS YOU GIVE THEM WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE TO CARRY ON THE TORCH AND TO FURTHER OUR CITY INTO GREATNESS.

I PRAY FATHER FOR MR. MAYOR TRAY PAIN THAT YOU MAKE HIM THE GREATEST LEADER WE'VE EVER HAD IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS.

IN THE NAME OF JESUS, WE PRAY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD SAY.

[2. Pledges of Allegiance]

>> AMEN. THANK YOU, PASTOR PEREZ.

IF YOU WILL REMAIN STANDING AND JOINING WITH US AS WE OFFER THE PLEDGE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS PLEDGE.

>> THANK YOU PASTOR PEREZ AND FOR YOUR BEAUTIFUL WIFE WHO WE KNOW YOU OUT KICKED HER COVERAGE FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

WE WILL FIRST START JUST A MINUTE TO GET OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS READY.

[3. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 26, 2023. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ]

WE WILL CALL YOUR NAME.

I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS.

I WILL CALL YOUR NAME AND YOU COME UP.

IF YOU WILL, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHICH AGENDA ITEM YOU ARE SPEAKING ON.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT.

JIMMY WILL GIVE YOU A 30-SECOND BELL AND THEN ONCE YOUR THREE MINUTES UP, YOU'LL GET A DOUBLE BELL AND THAT WILL TELL YOU THAT YOUR TIME HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

YOU AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS.

LAST AGAIN THE AGENDA ITEM YOU ARE SPEAKING ON.

WE'LL FIRST START WITH MARY CRITES.

[00:05:02]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MARY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS MARY CRITES A LONG TIME ARCHITECT HERE IN TOWN AND MY ADDRESS IS 46178 STREET.

THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] TODAY I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT ITEMS 617 ABOUT THE UDC PARKING RATIO FOR APARTMENTS, AND ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST.

USING THE RECENT ZONING FOR OVERDONE STUDENT HOUSING CHANGE PROPOSAL AS A REAL EXAMPLE, THE CURRENT A3 ZONING FOR A 700 BAD APARTMENT COMPLEX REQUIRES 635 PARKING SPACES.

UNDER THE NEW UDC, APARTMENT PARKING RATIOS THAT SAME 700 BED COMPLEX WOULD ONLY REQUIRE 428.

WHERE ARE THE MORE THAN 200 OTHER CARS GOING TO PARK? PUBLIC OPPOSITION DURING BOTH THE OVERTON AND THE 19TH STREET STUDENT HOUSING ZONE CASES THAT COUNCIL VOTED DOWN INCLUDED STRONG CONCERN ABOUT INSUFFICIENT PARKING AND BOTH OF THOSE ZONE CASES HAD HIGHER PARKING RATIOS THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE NEW UDC.

THE CITY SHOULD NOT ADOPT HIS OWN REQUIREMENT.

THAT WAS A CRITICAL REASON WHY TWO HIGH-PROFILE ZONE CASES WERE SO STRONGLY OPPOSED.

FURTHERMORE, IN THE NEW UDC, DORMITORIES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY AND REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH BED.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT A DORM WOULD REQUIRE MORE PARKING THAN A NEARBY APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THIS CHANGE IS IMPORTANT.

LUBBOCK IS A SUBURBAN CITY AND CARS ARE THE PREDOMINANT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION.

INSUFFICIENT PARKING ADDS CONGESTION TO STREETS AND ADDS CARS PARKING ON THE STREETS, INCREASING TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.

AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE CARS ARE ALREADY PARKED ON THE STREET BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS OFTEN DON'T HAVE DOUBLED OR CLOCKWISE.

WHEN THERE ISN'T ENOUGH PARKING, TENANTS AND DEFINITELY APARTMENT GUESTS AND VISITORS ARE ALSO MORE LIKELY TO USE OTHER PARKING LOTS, WHICH ISN'T FAIR TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN WITH INSUFFICIENT PARKING WOULD FURTHER AGGRAVATE THESE ISSUES.

THIS INEQUITY NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THE FIX IS SIMPLE.

UNDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, USE THE CURRENT PARKING RATIO FOR APARTMENTS IN LIEU OF WHAT IS IN THE UDC.

IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I HAVE A HANDOUT WITH THE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE PARKING RATIO FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I'M COMMENTING ON THIS TODAY BECAUSE AS AN ARCHITECT WHO WORKS WITH CLIENTS ON BUILDING PROJECTS, IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THE ZONING CODE BE CONSIDERED FAIR AND LOGICAL FOR ITS SUCCESS.

ZONING AND CODE MINIMUMS ALMOST ALWAYS BECOME MAXIMUMS. IT'S NEVER GOOD WHEN SOMETHING IS SEEN AS ARBITRARY.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT WHEN VOTING ON THE UDC AND THEN THIS TODAY, AND I HAVE A HANDOUT WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU MS. CRITES. MR. MURPHY?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR.

THANK YOU AS ALWAYS, FOR YOUR TIME.

A COUPLE OF POINTS TO MAKE.

ONE, IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, BUT DID I MENTION 29, 11 20TH STREET, THAT THE COUNCIL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE TO OVERCOME P&Z REJECTION OF AN AMENDMENT.

I BELIEVE THAT'S NOT TRUE UNDER THE UDC.

I'VE DISTRIBUTED ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT EXPLAINS WHY I THINK THAT, THE SHORTER THE MATTER IS IS THAT IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE UDC USING THE SEARCH FUNCTION FOR THREE-FOURTHS, THAT'S THE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT.

YOU WILL FIND TWO INSTANCES OF IT.

ONE IS FOR PARTICULAR ZONING DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS IN A ZONE OR NOT.

THE OTHER RELATES TO PLANNING.

THE UDC DOES NOT RESERVE POLICYMAKING POWER TO THE P&Z.

RATHER, THIS COUNCIL HAS PLENARY POWER TO MAKE ITS OWN DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO GENERAL REGULATORY DECISIONS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY TAKES A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THIS AND PERHAPS HAS FOUND SOME CITATION OR PROVISIONED THAT I'VE MISSED IN THE VERY LENGTHY AND COMPLEX UDC.

[00:10:01]

OF COURSE, I SPEAK UNDER CORRECTION AS I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY TAKES A DIFFERENT VIEW.

LET'S SEE, THAT WAS A LITTLE LONGER THAN I EXPECTED.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 617 WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT LIMITS AND THE HDR ZONE.

FIRST, I'LL JUST DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE UDC MAP.

IT DOESN'T SHOW UP AS WELL AS I MIGHT LIKE THERE, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DARK GREEN, LOTS AND LOTS OF YELLOW.

BUT LOTS OF DARK GREEN.

DARK GREEN OF COURSE, IS THE HDR ZONE AND THE THING ABOUT THE HDR ZONE, IS IT MEANS A HUGE CHANGE FOR BUILDINGS.

IN THE VAST MAJORITY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT IS BECOMING HDR, IT USED TO BE.

IT STILL IS TILL OCTOBER 1ST THAT YOU CAN BUILD 40 FEET, THREE-STORY BUILDING THANKS TO THE VERTICAL MIXED-USE STANDARD OF THE HDR, THAT IS GOING TO NEARLY DOUBLED TO 75 FEET AS OF COURSE YOU'RE AWARE.

IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THERE'S A BIT OF THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE GOING ON HERE.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, THERE HAS BEEN NO INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT DOUBLING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OR AUTHORIZATION IN ANY PROPERTY MAKES ANY SENSE.

THAT IS APPARENTLY GOING TO COME INTO COMPREHENSIVE REZONING FOR SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, WHICH DOES, IF YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, SEEM TO PUT A CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

THE PROBLEM IS, WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 75 FOOT AUTHORIZATIONS RIGHT NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

LET ME SKIP AHEAD.

THE CITY'S RESPONSE TO OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT BECAUSE IF BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENTS AND BECAUSE OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S NO INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT THAT'S BEEN DONE.

THE REASON WHY THAT BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT WILL NOT MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH A GREAT DEAL OF POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED IN MORE DETAIL BY ALASTAIR HAMILTON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY. ON Q MR. HAMILTON.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS ALASTAIR HAMILTON.

I LIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 20TH AND DETROIT. I'M HERE.

I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN A COUPLE OF SIMPLE THINGS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO RESTRICT THE CONSTRUCTION OF 75 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO FAR, NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY SUGGESTED THAT 75 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IS A GOOD IDEA.

INSTEAD, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE BLACKFACE REQUIREMENT LIMITS THEIR CONSTRUCTION.

JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE WHAT IT IS.

IN THIS CASE, IF YOU LOOK HERE AT THIS CAR PARK IN THE BOTTOM CORNER, THAT CAN'T BE TURNED TO A 75 FOOT TALL BUILDING BECAUSE THAT WOULD REQUIRE MIXING THE TYPES OF HOUSES ON THAT BLOCK FACE.

THE PROBLEM WITH USING THE BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY IN MANY PARTS OF THE CITY.

HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A PLACE WHERE IT DOESN'T APPLY.

THIS IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WHICH HAS A BLOCK FACE.

IT'S AN ENTIRELY HDR.

THAT MEANS THAT 75 FOOT OR TALL BUILDING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED THERE AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CITY WHERE THIS APPLIES AND SOME OTHER EXAMPLES LOOK ON THE LEFT.

THAT IS A ROW OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES, AS YOU CAN SEE IT, IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THERE AND THE BLOCK FACE IS AN ENTIRELY HDR ON THE RIGHT.

THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, THE SCORE MIX TO IT THAT ARE PART OF SOME HDR IS ACTUALLY A CHURCH.

THESE AREN'T THE ONLY EXAMPLES.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES AND I DIDN'T TAKE ME LONG TO FIND AT LEAST A DOZEN EXAMPLES ALL OVER THE CITY.

THIS IS A MAP IN YOUR HANDOUT.

I WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH MORE TIME ON THIS.

AFTER I FOUND IT I DIDN'T BOTHER TRYING TO FIND ANYMORE, BUT I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY A NUMBER OF OTHER PLACES AS WELL.

ONE THING I DO WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE AMENDMENT IS THAT IT DOESN'T IMPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE OTHER CATEGORIES IN THE HDR.

THAT INCLUDES HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING, LIVE WORK UNITS, AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

ADDITIONALLY, IT DOESN'T PREVENT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES FROM BEING ON THE SAME BLOCK AS A VERTICAL MIXED-USE BUILDING, PROVIDING THAT THEY ARE LOCATED IN THE HIGHER DENSITY ZONING CATEGORIES, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO LIMIT THE CONSTRUCTION 75 FOOT TALL BUILDINGS IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

IN FAIRNESS, ONE THING THAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS THAT SETBACKS MAY APPLY TO ALLEVIATE THIS PROBLEM.

THERE'S A 50 FOOT SETBACK ON A VERTICAL MIXED-USE BUILDING.

[00:15:03]

IN FACT, IT GOES FURTHER THAT YOU CAN'T CONSTRUCT THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES OPPOSITE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

FOR THIS REASON, WE THINK THAT SETBACK MIGHT BE SO HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MS. HUMPHRIES.

[BACKGROUND]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> I AM HERE TO PROPOSE MY SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY CINDY BRADICY AND RICHARD MURPHY WITH REGARD TO PLACING A WOMEN ON VERTICAL MIXED USE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT THE STANDARD FOR VERTICAL MIXED-USE SHOULD NOT APPLY ON A BLOCK CONTAINING ONE OR MORE VOTES ON FOR RE, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ONE OR TWO AND ALSO TO PROVIDE MY SUPPORT FOR STEPHEN FOX AMENDMENT WITHIN THAT AMENDMENT 10, WHICH IS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS FOR VERTICAL BUILDINGS, SHOULD NOT BE 75, WHICH SHOULD BE CHANGED TO 45 FEET.

I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU REASONS WHY.

BECAUSE I HAVE WITNESSED WHAT HAPPENED TO SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AT UT AUSTIN WHEN I SERVED ON THE FACULTY THERE, FROM 1995-2003, AND THE SITUATION HAS GOTTEN WORSE.

ON YOUR DESKTOP, YOU WILL SEE A MAP OF UT.

THAT RED LINE ON THE LEFT IS GUADALUPE AVENUE, WHICH FORMS A WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE UT AUSTIN CAMPUS.

THE STREETS TO THE LEFT OF GUADALUPE INCLUDE SAN ANTONIO AND THE WAITRESS.

WHEN I FIRST WAS THERE IN 1979, THAT WAS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE.

IN PART, THIS IS BECAUSE GUADALUPE BECAME, AS YOU KNOW, IS KNOWN AS DO THE DRAG.

IT TRANSITIONED FROM A JUST URBAN STREET WITH LESS THAN TWO STORY, MAYBE THREE-STOREY RESIDENCES AND BUILDINGS.

THESE TWO PICTURES ARE FROM 1940 HISTORIC GUADALUPE AVENUE.

THIS PICTURE IS MORE FROM THE 1990S, BUT THIS IS GUADALUPE AVENUE TODAY.

I ASKED CAROL HENDERSON, WHO RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE HARRY RANSOM HUMANITY CENTER TO DRIVE GUADALUPE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT USED TO BE TO THE WEST OF IT TO SHOW US WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

ONCE YOU UT AND CITY OF AUSTIN ALLOWED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TO BE PLACED THERE.

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW, SHE'S DRIVING THROUGH THOSE THREE PARALLEL STREETS RIGHT BEHIND GUADALUPE.

THIS FORMS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS CAMPUS.

IT IS NO LONGER SAFE FOR STUDENTS HAVE BEEN MURDERED THERE.

THE SIDEWALKS ARE FILLED WITH VAGRANTS. THERE IS TRASH.

LOOK AT SMALL ONE STORY BUILDING IN THE FOREGROUND AND THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENCES BEHIND IT.

HERE'S A SMALL RESIDENTS THAT BLUE HOUSE NOW BUTTED UP AGAINST A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.

IN THE BACKGROUND THERE YOU SEE THE CATHOLIC PARISH BRICK BUILDING.

IT NOW IS BUTTED UP RIGHT NEXT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S A CLOSE-UP OF THE PARKING LOT.

THIS IS THE UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH.

GRAFFITI IS EVERYWHERE.

FURTHERMORE, THIS IS THE TEXAS FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, AND RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO IT NOW IS A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ALL OF THESE ONCE BEAUTIFUL SMALL STREETS OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE NOW OVERWHELMED WITH TRASH, PARKING.

THERE'S A PORT-A-POTTY.

THERE'S NO PLACE TO PUT ALL THE TRASH GENERATED BY THE HUGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE THAT NOW WE HAVE IN THESE HIGH DENSITY BUILDINGS.

THIS IS ALL THAT'S LEFT, IS ABOUT ONE STREET OF A FEW PITIFUL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

WE DO NOT WANT TEXAS TECH TO GO THE WAY OF UT AUSTIN AND HAVE THE BOUNDARY OF OUR CAMPUS.

WIND ON ITS UNIVERSITY AVENUE SIDE, IT'S 19TH STREET SIDE, NOR ITS OTHER BOUNDARY AREAS WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT SAFE FOR STUDENTS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MS. HUMPHREY. MR. SHANKLES.

[00:20:05]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.

JOSHUA SHANKLES, 2600 BLOCK OF 47TH STREET.

I AM HERE TO ALSO SPEAK ABOUT AMENDMENT 617.

I'M OPPOSING THESE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE CITIZEN-LED RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEM.

IT DOESN'T INCLUDE AN AMORTIZATION FOR VISION, WHICH WE HAVE REPEATEDLY TALKED ABOUT AND MAY IN FACT HAVE DOTTLED AROUND SO MUCH THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE A POSSIBILITY.

IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ACTING ON BLANKET DOWN ZONING, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S IN FACT A RECOMMENDATION THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU FROM YOUR OWN CONSULTANTS AS A RESULT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROCESS.

IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY PROVISIONS.

MEAGER THOUGH THEY ARE FOR ADJUSTING THE ABANDONMENT CLAUSES TO BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH OUR PEER CITIES AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS TO RESTRICT THE HEIGHT ON THE HDR.

I WOULD COMMEND MY NEIGHBORS ON BRINGING LOTS OF EVIDENCE TO THIS COUNCIL.

I WOULD OBSERVE, HOWEVER, THAT EVIDENCE IS OFTEN SOMETHING IGNORED BY THESE BODIES SO MAYBE THAT WON'T BE THE CASE TODAY.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE RECORD OFFICIALLY ON THE RECORD TODAY, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH BUCK PASSING AND HAND-WASHING AND FEIGN IGNORANCE AROUND THESE ISSUES WHERE WE'RE SAID, OH, WHY DIDN'T YOU BRING THIS FOREST BEFORE SOONER? EVEN THOUGH MORE THAN TWO YEARS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.

WE'VE HEARD LOTS OF ARGUMENTS ABOUT THIS LIKE, WHAT ABOUT THE BUSINESS PEOPLE'S RIGHTS? WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS? RIGHTS TO POISON YOUR NEIGHBORS IN PERPETUITY? NOBODY HAS THAT RIGHT.

THAT'S AN ABSURD ASSERTION.

OH, THIS IS SO COMPLICATED.

BRING US SOME EVIDENCE.

WE'VE SEEN THIS WEIRD BACK-PASSING BETWEEN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES WERE THERE LIKE THEY HEAR THESE STATEMENTS AND THEN THEY'RE LIKE, YES, WE AGREE WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

THEN THE VERY NEXT MEETING THEY'RE LIKE, OH, WELL, SOMEBODY FROM CITY STAFFED AND BRING US ANYTHING, GOSH, CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, OH MY GOODNESS.

ONE MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED? WE HAVE HEALTH OUTCOMES STUDY POINTING AT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LOSS.

WE HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF DOZENS, MAYBE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE BROUGHT HERE TO THIS BODY, ALL WITH FAILURE TO ACT, A COMPLETE ADVOCATION OF DUTY.

IT'S TOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO GET HERE AND ADVOCATE ON THIS ALL THE TIME.

DEVELOPERS HAVE HAD UNLIMITED ACCESS TO CITY STAFF, TO YOUR OWN OFFICES.

THEY HAVE SEEN EVERY POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS MEANT TO BALANCE THE CITY'S INTERESTS MORE UNIFORMLY, AGAINST THEIR OWN.

I FIND IT VERY VEXING THAT WE CAN'T DO THE SAME FOR OUR CITIZENS.

IN THE US CONGRESS, THE MUSE OF HISTORY IS UP ABOVE THE CHAMBER AND IT WATCHES EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE DO AND SO YOU'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO ME, MY ORGANIZATION.

YOU CAN LIKE ME, YOU CAN DISLIKE ME, WHATEVER, ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS, THAT'S FINE.

THE MUSIC HISTORY IS WATCHING WHAT YOU WILL DO, WHAT POLICY WILL MAKE, HOW YOU WILL ACT ON BEHALF OF YOUR PEOPLE.

I WOULD THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> I LIKE YOU, JOSH. [LAUGHTER]

>> RECIPROCATED.

>> MR. SETTLER.

>> HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY STAFF, I'M ROGER SETTLER, LIFELONG RESIDENT OF THE HISTORIC BROADWAY CORRIDOR AT 2120 BROADWAY.

ONCE AGAIN, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND HISTORIC OVER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO REAFFIRM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRINCIPLES WHICH WERE CODIFIED BY THE FEBRUARY, 2023 DECISIONS OF THIS COUNCIL 5-2 TO DENY A HIGH-DENSITY ZONING PROJECT IN TECH TERRACE, AND AGAIN LATER THIS SUMMER, BY A 4-3 VOTE TO DENY A VERY SIMILAR PROJECT IN HISTORICAL OVERTON SOUTH.

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE ONCE WROTE, "THE FAULT, DEAR BRUTUS IS NOT IN OUR STARS BUT IN OURSELVES." IF WE OURSELVES ALLOW THE UDC, WHICH HAS BECOME FASHIONABLE AMONGST CITY PLANNERS AND NOW LOVE IT FEELS THE NECESSITY TO GO ALONG WITH THE STATEWIDE AND NATIONWIDE TREND TO HAVING UNITED DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT IF WE ALLOW THAT UNITED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO RESEND

[00:25:03]

THE UDC COULD BECOME INSTEAD OF A VISIONARY DOCUMENT AFFIRMING ZONING PRINCIPLES IN A REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE WAY, IT COULD BECOME A RETURN TO SPOT ZONING, WHICH WAS THE VERY THING IN THE 1960S AND '70S THAT LED TO SOME OF THE TRAVIS STATES THAT WE SAW IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS IN LUBBOCK, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OVERTON.

SPOT ZONING ISN'T EVIL, AND IF WE RETURN TO THAT IN THE GUISE OF THE UNITED DEVELOPER'S CODE, WHAT CAN WE SAY? I SAID, YES, UNITED DEVELOPER'S CODE BECAUSE I FEEL THAT ONCE AGAIN THE DEVELOPERS WHO HAD FAR TOO MUCH ACCESS, THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD TWO LITTLE ACCESS, WHAT WE CALL ON THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR VOICE THAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE HERE ALL THE TIME LOBBYING THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD A HANDFUL OF REPRESENTATIVES TO GIVE THEM VOICE.

ONCE AGAIN, OUR STARS AND OURSELVES, ARE WE GOING TO AFFIRM THE LEGITIMATE ASPIRATIONS OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE RESONANCE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS? ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE UDC TO GUT THOSE LEGITIMATE ASPIRATIONS? THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS BEFORE US TODAY.

I CALL ON THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THESE AMENDMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE CODIFICATION THAT COUNCIL HAS ALREADY VOTED ON AND SUPPORTED THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THE INEQUITIES THAT HAVE EXISTED IN THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK FOR DECADES SHOULD ALSO BE ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, ROGER. MR. BULK.

>> MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL, STEPHEN FALL OF 2827, 23RD STREET, AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S NOT A THING BY CALLING ME MISTER, I USUALLY DUCK WHEN I HEAR THAT.

BUT I AM HERE AS MANY OF THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS IN TRYING TO DEAL WITH AND ADDRESS THE 75-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT THAT IS IN TABLE 39.02.04.E-2.

MY AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGE THE 75 AS OF RIGHT HEIGHT TO 45 FEET LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THAT CHART OR TABLE, AND THEN ALLOW AS A SPECIFIC USE, 75 FEET, SO THAT THIS COUNCIL AND OTHER COMMISSIONS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITIZENS TO SPEAK THEIR THOUGHTS AND DEAL WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS IN AN INAPPROPRIATE WAY.

IT SCARES ME PRETTY DEEPLY TO ALLOW APPLICANTS AS OF RIGHT 75 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.

THERE ARE PLACES IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS ON THAT ZONING MAP THAT ARE MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR OUR 75 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT GIVEN THE CHARACTER AROUND THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES.

THERE ARE OTHER PLACES TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU ALREADY AND YOU'VE WITNESSED THE EMOTIONS AND THE CONCERNS OF CITIZENS THAT PUTS YOU IN THOSE CHAIRS CONCERNING THE HEIGHTS OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

I ASKED YOU TO ADJUST THAT TABLE 45 FOOT HIGH ON VERTICAL MIXED-USE AS AN OF RIGHT NUMBER AND ALLOW 75 FEET TO A SPECIFIC USE BY GOING THROUGH A NORMAL REVIEW PROCESSES OR YOU HEAR, AS DOES A COMMISSION HEAR, THE CONCERNS AND MATTERS THAT CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT HAVE.

IT IS OF CONCERN TO ME, AS JUST SPOKEN TO THE TWO PROJECTS WERE VOTED DOWN, AND NOW WITH THE UDC THE DOOR COMES WIDE OPEN, AS OF RIGHT NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

THAT IS AN UNFORTUNATE POSITION TO GIVE APPLICANTS, OF WHICH I HEARD ONE SAY LAST TIME THEY WANT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

THAT'S WHAT STATED RIGHT HERE WHERE I'M STANDING TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. BULK. NOW I MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 4.1.

[4. Minutes]

IS THERE A MOTION? THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.

>> SECOND.

[00:30:01]

>> THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ITEM 4.1, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU ALL, 4.1 CARRIES 70.

[5. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.]

WE HAVE A POOL ON 5.7.

THIS IS A RESIDENT'S RESOLUTION ON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.

I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MR. ATKINSON.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR OF CITY COUNCIL.

THANK YOU FOR SWITCHING THAT.

COUNCIL THIS IS AN ITEM THAT COMES TO YOU FROM YOUR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ZONE.

THIS IS AN INCENTIVE, IT IS AN INCENTIVE OFFER SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT WE CALL THE KIMMEL CENTER PROJECT.

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS DEAL OFFERS UP TO SO IT'S A NOT TO EXCEED OFFERS UP TO $225,000 TO HTG THAT IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

ONE, HTG HAS TO CLOSE AND THUS OWNED THE PROPERTY.

THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CURRENT MOMENT THAT THEY ARE IN PROCESS OF DOING SO.

SECOND, AND THE OPERATIVE ONE, THEY MUST COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THE PROJECT.

AT THAT POINT, THEN THE TIP WILL REIMBURSE UP TO THE $225,000 FOR THE UTILITIES AND FOR THE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THAT PROPERTY.

THIS IS A 24-MONTH AGREEMENT, AND THE 24 MONTHS BEGINS WHEN OR IF THE COUNCIL SHOULD APPROVE THAT AGREEMENT.

MAYOR, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HTG PRESENT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL HIM FORWARD.

>> WHERE IS HE?

>> MR. TUDDLE IS RIGHT HERE.

>> MR. TUDDLE, DO YOU WANT TO CALL HIM FORWARD TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OR IS HE CALLING BOARD FOR QUESTIONS?

>> I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE A FEW BRIEF COMMENTS TO MAKE MAYOR, BUT MORE SO TO FILL COMMENT OR FILL QUESTIONS FROM THIS COUNCIL.

>> LETS GO AHEAD AND BEFORE WE CALL YOU, MR. TUDDLE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND REMOVE 5.7 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA SINCE THAT'S A POOL THAT WILL TAKE THIS UP INDIVIDUALLY.

IS THERE A MOTION ON 5.7 TO APPROVE? THANK YOU, MR. MADISON GALE FOR A SECOND.

NOW, WE HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL IS A MOTION AND A SECOND, LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION.

DOES ANYBODY LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. TUTTLE? ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF REGARDING 5.7 AND BEFORE WE MOVE INTO VOTING. MS. JOE.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYONE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROJECT, IS YELLOW IN TOWN AND IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE.

OH MY GOODNESS. NOW, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN LIKE IT NOW, BUT PROBABLY 30 YEARS.

WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE BOUGHT THE END TOWN IN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO REHABILITATE IT.

I THINK ALL OF US WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT BACK IN ITS GLORY DAYS.

BUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE OF TAX CREDITS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FLIPPED TO NEW OWNERS AND IN THE MEANTIME, IT HAS SAT LOOKING AWFUL.

YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING HAD WEED SIX FEET TALL OUTSIDE AT TIMES.

IT'S NOT BEEN KEPT UP AT ALL.

IN FACT, RIGHT NOW, IT'S UNDER A SUBSTANDARD HOUSING.

I ALWAYS GET THIS WRONG, HTG, HASN'T PURCHASED IT BUT THEY ARE IN CONVERSATION WITH THE CURRENT OWNERS.

AGAIN, PART OF THE ATTRACTION IS THE TAX CREDIT.

WELL, THE CURRENT OWNERS WERE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE THIS PROJECT DONE BY DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AND THEY HAVE OBTAINED THE ABILITY TO EXTEND THAT FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

SO THEY'RE STILL WITHIN THEIR TIMEFRAME TO DO THIS.

MY CONCERN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER WE SHOULD HELP THEM WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR NOT, THAT REALLY IS NOT MY ISSUE.

THAT PROVIDED IN HERE FOR A TERM OF

[00:35:02]

IS THERE ANYBODY SITTING IN THIS ROOM THINKS THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT? BUT IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT THAT WAS HAD BEFORE THE TIP BOARD, THEY SAID, WELL, IF IT DOESN'T GET DONE, THEN WE CAN EXTEND IT.

MY CONCERN IS THAT LENGTH OF TIME THAT 24 MONTHS, NO ASSURANCE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DONE AND I HAVE PERSONALLY HAVE SOME DOUBTS THAT YOU COULD DO THIS PROJECT IN 24 MONTHS IF YOU STARTED LAST MONTH.

I HAVE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, THAT WE'RE BACK INTO THIS, WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT WE CAN'T GET IT COMPLETED.

IF MR. TUTTLE CAN GIVE ME SOME ASSURANCES, I MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENT.

>> MR. TUTTLE, THAT MAYBE YOUR CUE.

YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS OR WHERE YOU ARE, WHAT THE PROCESS IS, AND HOW THIS LOOKS MOVING FORWARD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL AND STAFF.

MY NAME IS JUSTIN TUTTLE. I WORKED WITH HOUSING TRUST GROUP AS A DEVELOPER OF IN TOWN MOSS.

OF THE SAME VIEWPOINT, WE WANT SEE THIS PROJECT REDEVELOPED AND CLOSED.

OUR CURRENT HURDLES FOR THAT IT'S GETTING THE PLANT'S GETTING BUILDING PERMITS.

THE DOW IS TO CLOSE ON FIVE AMPS AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY.

WHATEVER YOU GUYS COULD DO TO STEPS FOR THAT PROCESS, THAT WE'RE HAVING A WIDE INTERESTS OF SIEMENS PROPERTY WANTING TO BE REDEVELOPED.

AS SOON AS WE'RE ABLE TO GET THOSE PERMITS IN PLACE, DOES IT ALLOWS US TO BRING THE FINANCING GATE CLOSED ON BOTH THE PROPERTY AND THE TRADITION THAT STARTED THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS? AS FAR AS THE CBD TEST AND THE MOU, THAT IS BASED ON A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, SO YOU'RE NOT BACKED INTO THAT ONCE WE ACTUALLY GET THIS CLOSE TO THE OCCUPIED.

BUT RIGHT NOW OUR CURRENT STEPS ARE TO GET THE FLAT PERMITS WE GET GOOD PROJECT CLOSEOUT FINANCING, SO WE COULD BE GETTING CONSTRUCTION.

>> YOU MAY HANG CLOSE, MR. JOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW WHEN YOU HAVE A FLOOR.

>> I'M HEARING THAT THE CITY IS HOLDING THIS UP BECAUSE THE PERMITS?

>> THAT IS OUR BIGGEST HURDLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PERMITS SO WE CAN CLOSE ON FINANCING.

AS SOON AS WERE ABLE TO GET PERMIT WE HAVE OUR AWARDS, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO BRING IN OUR FINANCING PARTNERS AND WILL HAVE TO HAVE OUR PERMITS ENHANCED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET US.

WE'RE NOT FLIPPERS, WHERE WE GET SPECULATIVE, MAYBE WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

WE HAVE TO BRING IN FROM ANY OF OUR FINANCING PARTNERS, WHETHER IT'S THE STATE OR HISTORIC CREDITS.

WE HAVE THOSE AWARDS, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A PERMITS IN HAND.

THE MILESTONES THAT WE HAVE OUR FLAT PERMITTING SO THAT WAY WE CAN GET OUR FINANCING AND CLOSE.

>> YOU HAVEN'T CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY YET, HAVE YOU?

>> THAT WILL BE AS ALL AT ONCE.

BASICALLY, WE'LL CLOSE ON BOTH THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN, WHICH WILL BE CLOSING ON THE PROPERTY.

WE DON'T BUY THE PROPERTY AND HOPING THAT WE CAN GET SOMETHING CLOSE FOR BASICALLY TRYING TO PUT THE FINANCING IN PLACE OR HAVE THE PERMITTING AND EVERYTHING SET TOGETHER, AND THEN AS SOON AS WE'RE ABLE TO GET TO THE CLOSING TABLE FOR FULL SIMULTANEOUSLY BE GETTING CONSTRUCTION SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT YOU ALL NEEDED THIS FUNDING FROM THE TIP TO GO TO YOUR LENDER WITH IN ORDER TO HELP MAKE THE DEAL WITH THEM.

IS THAT NOT ACCURATE?

>> THIS WILL HELP ENSURE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE DEAL.

ONCE AGAIN, IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT SO THIS WILL BASICALLY COME AT THE END ONCE THE PROJECTS BUILT.

BUT HAVING THIS COMMITMENT WILL ALLOW US TO ENSURE THE OVERALL FEASIBILITY WITH THOSE LENDERS AND GET US TO ALL THE FINANCIAL CLOSING.

OUR BIGGEST HURDLES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ARE BASICALLY GETTING ALL OF THE PERMITS AND ENTITLEMENTS IN PLACE AND THAT WAY IT ALLOWS ALL THE FINANCING PARTNERS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE FINAL DEAL WILL BE AND GET US CLOSE ON FINANCING.

>> WHAT CONVERSATIONS HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE CITY ABOUT THE PERMITS?

>> WE'VE ADMITTED FOR PERMIT, WE'VE CUT BACK OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE ON HOLD WITH THE FLAT.

I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE FLAT RADIANT I WAS EXPECTING TODAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A SECOND, BUT WE'RE UNDER REVIEW AND THAT IS OUR CURRENT STATUS.

WE'VE SUBMITTED THEN HAVE GONE BACK IN FOR PERMANENT.

>> WELL, I MEAN, I WILL TELL YOU THIS FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THIS.

BECAUSE THAT REALLY WASN'T WHAT WAS REPRESENTED

[00:40:03]

WE FELT WERE WAITING ON YOU GUYS TO GET CLOSE AND DO SOMETHING.

>> THERE HAS BEEN MANY STEPS THAT WE'VE HAD TO TRY TO, WITH SOME OF THE ECONOMIC HEADWINDS THAT WE'VE HAD IN TERMS OF INTEREST RATES WHERE WE'VE HAD TO ADJUST THEM TO REDESIGNS, BUT WE WERE IN FOR PERMITS AND THEN OUR BIGGEST NEXT HURDLES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS TO ACTUALLY, ONCE WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE PERMITS IN HAND, WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WENT AND DROPPED AT THE FINAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS WITH OUR FINANCING PARTNERS AND THAT IT WILL ALLOW US TO GET TO CLOSE.

>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THE CURRENT OWNERS?

>> WE ORIGINALLY PUT THIS SIDE UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE 2021 TAX CREDIT CYCLE.

I BELIEVE THE OWNER HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY SINCE 2016 AND WE HAVE BEEN UNDER CONTRACT SINCE OUR ORIGINAL TAX CREDIT APPLICATION.

>> SINCE 2021?

>> CORRECT. IT MAY EVEN JUST BEFORE THAT '20 FALL OR WINTER OF 2020.

>> NO, I THINK THAT'S ALL.

>> MR. MCGREGOR.

>> OF COURSE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN TO THAT PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE THE WAY IT IS.

SOMETHING'S BETTER THAN NOTHING, I GUESS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LOOKING AT THIS, YOU'RE BUILDING ADDITIONAL UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY AS WELL?

>> CORRECT.

>> WILL THOSE BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE REHABILITATION OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, OR IS THAT A SECOND DAY?

>> CORRECT. THAT'LL BE AT THE SAME TIME.

>> AT THE SAME TIME?

>> YEAH.

>> HOW MANY UNITS TOTAL WILL THIS HAVE?

>> FIFTY SIX UNITS. IT'S GOING TO BE THE 14 UNITS WHICH WILL BE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE 42 IN THE REDEVELOPMENT.

>> JUST FROM THE NAME OF YOUR COMPANY, IS THIS THE ONLY PROJECT THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS DONE OR HAVE THEY DONE OTHER PROJECTS?

>> HTG HAS DEVELOPED WELL OVER 5,000 UNITS, BUT BASED MOSTLY IN FLORIDA.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IN TEXAS, BUT WE'VE DONE OTHER MARGUERITE DEVELOPMENTS IN ARIZONA.

WE'VE DONE QUITE A FEW.

WE DEFINITELY HAVE THE MANPOWER, AND BANDWIDTH TO GET THIS DOPE AND DONE IN THE EXTRA PIECE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. ATKINSON, I THINK MAYBE YOU CAN ADDRESS THIS QUESTION, WE HAVE MR. DONALD AVAILABLE.

THIS IS NO COST TO THE CITY, THIS IS OUT OF THE TIP, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> $225,000, MR. DONALD, I GUESS MAYBE WHAT'S THE ESTIMATED COST OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE JUST I BELIEVE WE'RE AT 12.8 MILLION IS THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR IT.

>> WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY WOULD BE APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT TO BUILD THE TIP, WOULD REIMBURSE YOU $225,000 UPON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY?

>> CORRECT. ONES THE DOUBT ABOUT WHAT IS DONE.

>> THIS IS 1% OF THE PROJECT? COST-WISE WE APPROVED? I GUESS THE FRUSTRATION I THINK YOU MAY BE HEARING FROM COUNCIL AT SOME POINT IS THIS HAS JUST BEEN AN EYESORE, AND IT HASN'T BEEN WELL-MAINTAINED, AND SO MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING YOU COULD CONVEY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THIS.

OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD ALL I THINK WHAT THIS MOVING FORWARD, BUT IT'S JUST STUCK THERE.

MAYBE THERE'S AN ASSURANCE THAT YOU CAN GIVE US, BUT WHAT IS THE TIME-FRAME, THOUGH MS. JOY DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY ASK IT, BUT WHAT'S THE TIME-FRAME THAT YOU WOULD START? LET'S SAY THE CITY HAD THIS TO YOU, AND IT WAS PLANTED AND THE UTILITIES ARE MOVED TOMORROW.

>> ONCE THAT'S IN PLACE, OUR GOAL IS 100% START CONSTRUCTION BY THE END OF THE YEAR, IF NOT BEFORE THAT.

IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME ONCE WE HAVE EVERYTHING FINALIZED GOOD, BUT WE'LL DRAFT ALL THE FINAL FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS BETWEEN WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING, BUT WE'D LIKE TO START BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MS. JOY?

>> QUESTION IS, HOW LONG DO YOU COMPLETE? I KNOW THIS SAYS 24 MONTHS.

>> I THINK THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY HIT THAT IF ANYTHING, THAT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER.

I THINK THAT WE ARE OCCURRING CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE, I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE AT 18 MONTHS OF CONTRACTION TIME.

>> EIGHTEEN MONTHS.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY.

>> NO OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. DONALD? NO OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSIONS? THANK YOU, MR. DONALD. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 5.7, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, 5.7 CARRIES 7: 0.

NOW, WE WILL MOVE 5.1 THROUGH 5.34 BACK INTO CONSENT AGENDA.

[00:45:03]

THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.

THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 5.1 THROUGH 5.34, EXCLUSIVE OF 5.7.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7: 0.

WITH THAT, MR. ATKINSON, I BELIEVE IF WE LOOKED AT AGENDA ITEM 5.33, PART OF THAT CONSENT AGENDA COME FROM CONFIRMATION, THE APPOINTMENT OF OUR INNER POLICE CHIEF. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR, COUNCIL.

UNFORTUNATELY, INTERIM CHIEF RUSSIAN IS INVOLVED AT THE MOMENT, I DON'T THINK HE MADE IT BACK IN YET.

NO. PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. I DO APPRECIATE YOU.

HAD INTERIM CHIEF RUSSIAN BEEN PRESENT TODAY WE WOULD STAND UP AND INTRODUCE HIM.

OBVIOUSLY WITH THE OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING, THAT'S WHERE HE IS AND MOST APPROPRIATELY, THE PLACE FOR HIM TO BE RIGHT NOW.

WE WILL CERTAINLY MAKE HIM AVAILABLE TO MEET WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.

HE CAME IN AND STARTED FRIDAY AFTERNOON, FULL DAY YESTERDAY.

VERY PLEASED WITH HIS EFFORTS.

I THINK WE'RE PRETTY GOOD SHAPE TO HAVE HIM, AND HIS EXPERIENCE HERE WITH US TODAY.

MORE TO FOLLOW WHEN WE HAVE HIM IN PERSON.

>> THANK YOU MR. ATKINSON, WE'LL MAKE HIM STAND UP APPROPRIATELY WHEN HE'S HERE NEXT TIME.

[1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Upland Crossing Public Improvement District Advisory Board.]

[2. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Bell Farms Public Improvement District (PID) Advisory Board.]

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THIS IS THE APPOINTMENT OF TANYA STERNBERG TO THE UPLAND CROSSING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, AND 6.2 IS THE APPOINTMENT OF JENNIFER ROSEMARY TO THE BELL FARMS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD.

COURTNEY YOU MAY HELP ME HERE, I THINK THESE WERE APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THEIR BOARD, AND THEN THOSE WERE PRESENTED TO US. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU, COURTNEY.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.1 AND 6.2? THANK YOU, MS. JOY.

THANK YOU, MR. MCGREGOR, OR IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON 6.1 AND 6.2? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.1 AND 6.2 APPOINTMENTS, PLEASE SAY, AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 6.1 AND 6.2 CARRIES 7: 0.

WE HAVE SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS IN FRONT OF US TODAY.

WE WILL BEGIN WITH 6.3, AND IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN WITH US BEFORE, WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION BY STAFF, AND THEN WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THAT TIME TO SPEAK ON ONE OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS. WHEN YOU STEP FORWARD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU'RE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR.

WE WILL CALL THOSE OUT INDIVIDUALLY.

[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 59-B, a request of Roberta Beam, 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, and consider an ordinance.]

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONE CASE 59-B, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU MS. SAGER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ZONE CASE 59-B IS THE REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT (C-3), TO COMMERCIAL- APARTMENT DISTRICT (CA).

WE SENT OUT 34 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR ONE AND OPPOSITION.

THE ONE IN OPPOSITION HAD CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 34TH STREET, EAST OF BOSTON AVENUE.

THIS IS THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTIES WHO RETURNED TO RESPONSE IN FAVOR, AND AN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE ARE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH, WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL USES ALONG 34TH STREET TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST.

CURRENT ZONING IS C-3, THERE'S ADDITIONAL C-3, C-4, AND C-2 ALONG 34TH STREET WITH R1 RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THIS IS A FLOOR PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, SO WHILE THE REQUEST DOES NOT COMPLETELY CONFORM TO THIS DESIGNATION BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND APARTMENT USES, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.

ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING OF SURROUNDING AREA, 34TH STREET IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I WOULD BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SAGER, ANY QUESTIONS OF CUSTOM AT THIS MOMENT? MS. JOY.

>> IS THIS GOING TO BE USED AS A ASSISTED LIVING OR

[00:50:05]

>> NO. IT WAS FORMERLY AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, AND THE NEW OWNER WANTS TO USE IT AS A ROOMING OR BOARDING HOUSE, AND RENT IT OUT AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MS. SAGER. WE'LL BE BACK WITH YOU SHORTLY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> KRISTEN HAS A FULL DAY AHEAD OF HER, YOU MIGHT STAY ON THE FRONT ROW FOR THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON.

THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.3.

PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS, OR THE APPLICANT, OR STAFF, DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION WILL BE HEARD BY COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.3, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 6.3, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

SEEING NO ONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.3, AND I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.3.

THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.

IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 6.3.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. SAGER? I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? MS. PATTERSON HARRIS?

>> THE APPLICANT, WHERE MIGHT THAT INDIVIDUAL BE? PROBABLY BE A COMMON QUESTION.

HAVE YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS AND WHATNOT WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THAT AREA?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WHAT HAS BEEN THE GENERAL ATTITUDE REGARDING YOUR BURNING?

>> THE LAUNDRY MAN BESIDE ME WHICH IS TO THE EAST IS EXCITED.

THEY ARE FOR IT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE WE'LL BE USING THEM FOR SERVICES FOR THE LAUNDERING OF THE SHEETS AND STUFF.

>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE WARD GOING ON OVER THERE.

IT USED TO BE A DISTRICT TOO, BUT WE HAD TO COPY YOU UP.

[LAUGHTER] BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, AND LOOKS LIKE QUITE A BIT OF WORK WAS DONE.

>> THANK YOU. TO THE RIGHT OF ME IS A RESTAURANT AND THEN WE HAVE THE TATTOO SHOP AND WE HAVE LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO GO IN THERE.

THE OFFICE LOTS.

>> YES MA'AM.

>> WE HAVE A PAINTING I GUESS IT'S PAINTING WITH A TWIST TYPE THING THERE AND SO SHE'S PRETTY EXCITED BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN IN BUSINESS FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, MS. PATTERSON HARRIS. MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT IT HAS BEEN A BIG IMPROVEMENT TO THAT PART OF TOWN. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE THIS ALL TO PUT THAT PRIVACY FENCE.

I THINK THAT'S A PLUS TO THE WHOLE PROJECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MS. SAGER OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.3? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.3, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 6.3 CARRIES 7.0.

[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 0092-A, a request of Five Points Corporation for Heather Lea Hollingsworth, 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, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 6.4 IS IT REQUESTS FOR A SPECIFIC USE TOURNAMENT CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICTS C-2.

WE SENT OUT 34 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.

THE ONE IN OPPOSITION EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL, IN REGARDS TO RENTERS NOT MAINTAINING THEIR PROPERTY, DRIVERS DRIVING FAST THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND INDIVIDUALS PLAYING LOUD MUSIC AND PARTYING.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 42ND STREET WEST OF BOSTON AVENUE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE TWO RESPONSES WE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL MAP. THIS IS AN EXISTING MULTI-TENANT CENTER ON THE PROPERTY, AND THERE ARE OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES AROUND IT.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS C-2.

THERE IS R3, R2, AND R1 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT JUST SHOWING GENERALLY WHERE THE THREE SUITES ARE LOCATED IN THE SHOPPING CENTER WHERE THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO THIS EVENTS CENTER AND AFFORD PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

[00:55:05]

THEY'RE JUST LOOKING TO EXPAND THE DISMISSED SO THAT THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF PRINTING IT OUT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO HOLD EVENTS IN THESE LOCATIONS.

THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USES AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND WOULD THE APPROPRIATE IN THE ESTABLISHED SHOPPING CENTER.

IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS.

THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN DESIGNATED 42ND STREET AND BOSTON AVENUE BOTH AS COLLECTOR STREETS.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SAGER. EXCUSE ME.

I CAN'T EVEN DO THAT HERE. LET ME OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

HAS THE AGENDA ITEM 6.4.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT NOW? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE 6.4, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.4?

>> YES, SIR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH, 2302 91ST.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY SPECIFIC ZONING FOR THE EVENT CENTERED.

BEFORE I START [NOISE] PLEASE ALLOW ME TO NAME DROP FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE [NOISE] IF THIS WAS IN THE LATE '60S OR EARLY '70S MY DAD WOULD BE UP THERE.

HE WAS CITY COUNCILMAN AND MAYOR PRO TEM.

YOU MIGHT REMEMBER L&H DRUG.

MY BROTHER AND I NOW OWN THE MODERN MANNERS SHOPPING CENTER.

MY BACKGROUND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IS IN THEATER, I HAVE AN UNDERGRAD DEGREE AT TECH POFESSIONAL TRAINING FROM CIRCLE IN THE SQUARE IN NEW YORK CITY, AND THE MFA FROM UT AUSTIN.

SORRY IF THAT'S A PROBLEM.

ALSO, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ABOUT THAT.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY [NOISE] THAT ACTING IN FRONT OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IS CERTAINLY DIFFERENT THAN PUBLIC SPEAKING.

I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.

ANYWAY, SINCE I FIRST SUBMITTED MY PROPOSAL, I HAVE APPLIED FOR AN LLC, AND THAT JUST CAME IN YESTERDAY, SO I'M TICKLED ABOUT THAT.

FIVE POINTS CORPORATION OF WHICH I'M THE PRESIDENT AND I PERSONALLY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ALREADY UPDATING THE BUILDING.

GOING FORWARD, WE WANT TO SPEND SOME MORE MONEY, PARTICULARLY IN THE BEGINNING, FIXING UP THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THERE ARE THREE OFFICE SPACES.

WE HELPED TO RENT THAT OUT TO PEOPLE EITHER LONG-TERM, MONTHLY, AND/OR CO-SHARED WORKSPACES THERE.

MOVING FORWARD THOUGH, WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED BRAINSTORMING ABOUT THIS, WE HAD ALL THESE BIG IDEAS AND NOW IT'S LIKE, LET'S JUST START OFF SLOW AND GO WITH WHAT WE'RE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, WHICH IS COMMUNITY THEATER THERE.

WE HAVE A SWEET LITTLE SPACE THAT SEATS ABOUT 55 PEOPLE.

ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN UPCOMING PRODUCTIONS, CABARET NIGHTS, AND PROB COMEDY, ONE-PERSON SHOWS.

WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF HIGH-SCHOOL KIDS WANTING TO PRODUCE THEIR OWN SHOWS, WHICH I THINK IS SUPER COOL.

ALSO, I'M DIRECTING ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST IN THE SPRING.

IF ANYBODY WANTS TO AUDITION, SEND IT MY WAY.

WE WILL ALSO BE HAVING VARIOUS THEATER CLASSES, MASTERCLASSES.

I HAVE MANY FRIENDS, FORMER STUDENTS WHO'VE BEEN ON BROADWAY, NATIONAL TOURS, FILM, TELEVISION, AND SO FORTH.

I HAVE TO BRAG A LITTLE, AND MANY OF THEM WOULD LOVE TO COME TO A MASTERCLASS.

WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE THE YOUTH ARTISTS SKILLED RUN BY NICOLE KIDWELL WHO RUNS THE YAGL WE CALL IT.

SHE RUNS A TIGHT SHIP AND HAS UPWARDS OF 50 STUDENTS SIGNED UP THIS YEAR.

SHE ALSO HAS A CONNECTION WITH THE HOMESCHOOL COMMUNITY WHO HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN COURSES COMING UP IN FALL.

WE DO NOT INTEND TO SELL ALCOHOL OR FOOD, BLESS YOU, OTHER THAN THAT WE WOULD SELL FOR CONCESSIONS.

[01:00:03]

FRIENDS IN THE ART COMMUNITY INTERESTED IN TEACHING OR OFFERING TO HANG THEIR WORKS OR PROVIDE THEIR WORKS FOR SALE.

THESE ARE THE BASIC IDEAS AND IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TRY TO ANSWER THEM.

>> THANK YOU, MS. HOLLINGSWORTH.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. ANYBODY? NO.

>> WE MAY HAVE IN A MINUTE.

>> PARDON.

>> YOU MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS IN A MOMENT.

>> I JUST WAIT HERE.

>> YOU CAN SIT DOWN BY MYSELF IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> [LAUGHTER] COOL. THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE GOING TO ASK IF ANYONE ELSE IS HERE IS WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.

SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 6.4.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.4? THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.

THANK YOU, MR. MCGRAYER. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR MS. SAGER? I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE CUCKOO'S NEST UP HERE.

MR. MCGRAYER HAS ALREADY VOLUNTEERED TO BE JACK NICKLAUS.

[LAUGHTER] THE NURSE? NO NURSE RATCHET.

WHO'S TAKING IT? THAT'S DR. WILSON.

>> [BACKGROUND]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 6.4.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.4, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES METHODICALLY SEVEN, ZERO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW I'LL MOVE TO 6.5. MS. SAGER.

[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 0769-A, a request of Omni Sacred LLC, 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, and consider an ordinance.]

>> THERE'S A REQUEST TO REASON PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R-1 TO TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT R-2.

WE SENT OUT 29 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ZERO IN FAVOR AND SIX IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 66 STREET, WEST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE SIX THAT RETURNED THEIR RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION, AND HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT IS CURRENTLY SURROUNDED BY OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

THE ZONING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT R-1, AND THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY SO THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO R-2 WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMANCE.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

JUST TAKING ONE INDIVIDUAL LOT IN A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONVERTING IT TO THE TWO-FAMILIES ZONING.

SIXTY NINETH STREET IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

THEREFORE, A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF SIX OUT OF SEVEN IS REQUIRED FOR THE REQUEST TO BE APPROVED, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SAGER. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.5.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.5 YOU MAY APPROACH AT THIS TIME.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.5 YOU MAY APPROACH AT THIS TIME.

THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 6.5 IS CLOSED.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.5? THANK YOU, MS. JOY.

THANK YOU, MR. MASSANGO.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON 6.5? [BACKGROUND] I'M SORRY, MS. PATTERSON HARRIS, YOU WERE DOWN THERE. MS. PATTERSON HARRIS.

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION, IF THE OWNER WAS PRESENT.

WAS THE OWNER PRESENT AT P AND Z?

>> THE OWNER'S MOTHER REPRESENTED HER AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND DID SPEAK.

>> THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO'VE SENT IN THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, WERE ANY OF THEM AVAILABLE AT P AND Z?

>> YES. THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO SPOKE IN OPPOSITION AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND I APOLOGIZE; I DID NOT TELL YOU THEIR REASONS ON THEIR RESPONSES.

THEY WERE A DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES, INCREASE IN CRIME, INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.

THOSE WERE THEIR MAIN CONCERNS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR NOW.

>> THANK YOU, MS. PATTERSON HARRIS.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 6.5.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.5 PLEASE SAY AYE.

ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY.

NAY [OVERLAPPING]. MOTION FAILS.

[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 3488, a request of BW Gas & Convenience Retail, LLC for Buffalos Partners, LLC & CMH Properties, LLC, 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, and consider an ordinance.]

[01:05:01]

>> ITEM 6.6 IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM TRANSITION DISTRICT TO GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT C3.

WE SENT OUT THREE NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING NO RESPONSE.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 98TH STREET, WEST OF THE INTERSTATE, AND HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS VACANT LAND OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES SURROUNDING.

CURRENT ZONING IS TRANSITION.

THERE'S INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE SOUTH AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL TO THE EAST.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

HERE'S A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE PROPOSED ALL-SETS FOR THIS LOCATION.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE UNCHANGED REQUESTS.

THERE'S SOME CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

NINETY EIGHTH STREET IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND HIGHWAY 87 IS A FREEWAY.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU, KRISTEN. AT THIS TIME, I WILL NOW OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING US TO AGENDA ITEM 6.6.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.6 YOU MAY APPROACH AT THIS TIME.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.6? SEEING NONE, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.6.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.6? [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.

SECOND, MR. PATTERSON HARRIS.

SIX POINT SIX IS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.

DID WE HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE? WE GOT THEM HERE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT JIMMY CHANGAS OR AWESOME SAUCE, YOU CAN ADDRESS THOSE NOW.

[LAUGHTER] IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OR ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, AND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.6, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE [OVERLAPPING].

ANY OPPOSED? 6.6 CARRIES WITHOUT ANY JIMMY CHEN DISCUSSION.

[7. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3351-B, a request of Seventeen Services, LLC for Two men and a baby, LLC, 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, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 6.7 IS A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C2 TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, IHC.

WE SENT OUT 16 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 114TH STREET, EAST OF INDIANA AVENUE.

HERE'S THE NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE TWO RESPONSES WE RECEIVED IN FAVOR.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE ARE SOME EXISTING APARTMENTS, PEOPLE DRIVE IN IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST, AND SOME ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES TO THE SOUTH.

CURRENT ZONING IS C2.

THERE IS EXISTING INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL TO THE NORTH, A1 AND C3 TO THE NORTH AND WEST.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUR ARIEL WAS A LITTLE OUT OF DATE, SO THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING TO THE EAST.

THE FUTURE LAND-USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND SO THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION.

THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA; 114TH STREET IS DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL, AND INDIANA AVENUE IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SAGER. THEY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU MOMENTARILY.

NOW, OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.7.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.7 YOU MAY APPROACH AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE.

I WILL NOW MOVE TO THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.7.

I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.7.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.7? [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU, MR. MASSANGO.

THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA. ALL RIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION, ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. SAGER? WE HAVE AN APPLICANT.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR MS. SAGER.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.7, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE [OVERLAPPING].

[01:10:01]

[8. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3490, a request of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. for Red Canyon Development, LLC, for a Specific Use for an Athletic Center on property zoned Transition District (T), generally located south of 146th Street and west of Quaker Avenue, on 3.3 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 6, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 6.8 IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE FOR AN ATHLETIC FIELD ON PROPERTY ZONE TRANSITION DISTRICT.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146, WEST OF QUAKER AVENUE.

WE SENT OUT SEVEN NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING NO RESPONSES.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT IS SURROUNDED BY VACANT LAND CURRENTLY, AND THERE ARE SOME EXISTING RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES TO THE WEST.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS TRANSITION.

TO THE EAST OF IT IS TRANSITION-SPECIFIC USE FOR AN ATHLETIC CENTER.

THIS REQUEST IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT EXISTING ZONING, AND I HAVE A GRAPHIC LATER ON THAT WILL SHOW IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING 133 ACRES FOR THE RED FEATHER GOLF COURSE THAT WAS DONE TRANSITION-SPECIFIC USE LAST YEAR IN 2022.

THESE ADDITIONAL THREE ACRES ARE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT SAME PROJECT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, THIS REQUESTS CONFORMS TO THIS DESIGNATION AND IS APPROPRIATE, NEXT TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

THE GOLF COURSE WILL BE SERVING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND IT.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS; 146 STREET IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND QUAKER AVENUE IS ALSO DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MS. JOY.

>> THE BACKUP SAYS THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE FOR AN ATHLETIC FIELD.

>>THE TERM IN OUR CURRENT ZONING CODE IS ATHLETIC FIELD OR ATHLETIC CENTER, AND WE HAVE USED THAT HISTORICALLY FOR GOLF COURSES, OR I THINK IT ALSO ALLOWS YOU TO AN ATHLETIC STADIUM IF YOU NEEDED TO PUT IT UNDER THAT SPECIFIC USE.

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC IMMEDIACY FOR A GOLF COURSE?

>> WE DO HAVE A GOLF COURSE WITHIN THE UDC, SPECIFICALLY IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

I BELIEVE IT IS A LIMITED USE IN THE UDC, AND THERE'S REGULATIONS BEING THAT IT'S IN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA SO THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REZONE 100 PLUS ACRES TO COMMERCIAL FOR A GOLF COURSE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU FOR MS. SAGER. I WILL NOW OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.8.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.8 YOU MAY APPROACH AT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE. ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR YOU MAY APPROACH YOU AT THIS TIME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, ONTARIO HOME AND WITH YOU GO READ AND ASSOCIATES WERE 1601 AVENUE.

I'D LIKE TO THANK MS. SANGER FOR PROVIDING THIS GRAPHIC IN THE POWERPOINT.

IT HELPS TELL OUR STORY ABOUT AS WELL AS ANYTHING IS DUE TO A LOT OF MY HARD WORK FOR ME TODAY.

THIS IS A VERY SMALL EXTENSION OF THE RED FEATHER GOLF COURSE THAT'S WELL UNDERWAY OUT SOUTH OF 146 AND WEST QUAKER.

MR. PAINE AND THE GOLF COURSE DEVELOPER HAVE TEAMED UP AND DECIDED TO NOT JUST FINISHED PAIN, SORRY.

RED CANDY AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE GOLF COURSE DEVELOPER HAVE TEAMED UP TO SHIFT THE LOCATION OF THE CLUBHOUSE AND SO FORTH AND THAT DOES EXTEND THOSE OPERATIONS INTO THIS AREA THAT WE'RE SEEKING ZONING FOR NOW.

MS. JOY, MAYBE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASKING.

UNDER THIS ZONING, WE ARE STILL OPERATING UNDER THE CURRENT CODE.

WERE VESTED IN THE CURRENT CODE BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY MADE OUR PLANET APPLICATIONS AND SO FORTH.

WE FELT IT WAS JUST MOST CONSISTENT FOR US TO DO THE T SPECIFIC USE.

BUT YES, IN THE UDC, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DIALOGUE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT HOW TO GET APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR GOLF COURSES.

THIS IS A SQUARE PEG AND AROUND WHOLE LOT OF SORTS GIVES ME AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, TERRY. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.8? I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS THE AGENDA ITEM 6.8.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.8? THANK YOU, MR. ROBERT.

SECOND, MS. SANGER.

WE HAVE A 6.8 IN FRONT OF US.

ANY QUESTIONS OF TERRY, MS. SANGER OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.8, PLEASE SAY AYE.

[01:15:02]

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7, 0. 6.9 MS. SANGER.

[9. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 2968-D, a request of SK Architecture Group, LLC for James Morgan, Ltd., 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, and consider an ordinance.]

>> 6.9 IS ZONE CHANGED FROM A PARTNER OF MEDICAL AM TO GARDEN OFFICE GO.

WE SENT OUT 27 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR OF ZERO AND OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTHERN OF THE EATS STREET, EASTERN FLICKER AVENUE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE RESPONSE WE RECEIVED IN FAVOR FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VACANT.

THERE ARE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO THE EAST AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH.

CURRENT ZONING IS APARTMENT MEDICAL.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL APARTMENT MEDICAL TO THE EAST, E2 TO THE WEST, AND R1 TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

FUTURE LAND-USE FIND DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR OFFICE LAND USER.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

HERE'S THE RENDERING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT OF THE PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR OFFICE LAND USER.

IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUESTS REGARDING OFFICE ZONING.

DOES THEN CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

NOW NEED STREET IS DESIGNATED AS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL AND ORLANDO AVENUE IS DESIGNATED AS THE GLOBAL STREET MASTER PLAN.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SURPLUS AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE AND CAN CAN YOU GIVE CHANCE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. MS. SANGER.

ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME TO 6.9? THANK YOU, KRISTEN.

AT THIS TIME, I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.9.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.9 MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 6.9.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. GIBRO SANCHEZ S TEXTURE GROUP TO 70TH STREET.

WE PUT THE RENDERING THAT YOU SEE WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED FOR PERMIT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE GARDEN OFFICES, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, STANDARD MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 8-5 BUSINESSES.

WHAT IT TENDS TO GO THERE.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE IS HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.9? I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.9.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.9? DR. WILSON. THANK YOU, MS. SANGER GO.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE APPLICANT? QUESTION, MS. SANGER FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.9.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ITEM 6.9 PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 6.9 CARRIES 7, 0.

[10. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3058-E, a request of Seventeen Services, LLC for Shag Holdings LLC, 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, and consider an ordinance.]

>> HALFWAY THROUGH.

ITEM 6.10 IS A ZONING CHANGE FROM R1 SPECIFIC USE FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATES TO GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICTS C3.

WE SENT OUT TO NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR ZERO AND OPPOSITIONS.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 50TH STREET, EAST OF ISLAND AVENUE.

THE RESPONSE SNAP SHOWS THE ONE IN FAVOR WE RECEIVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW.

IT IS MOSTLY SURROUNDED BY VACANT LAND.

THERE IS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE EAST.

CURRENT ZONING IS R1 SPECIFIC USE FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATE.

THE SPECIFIC USE FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATES JUST MEANS THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE LIVESTOCK ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS TRANSITION ZONE IN ON THE WEST SIDE OF F1 AVENUE.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS A MIX OF LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

THIS PROPERTY BEING ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY AT THE TIME THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS COMPLETED IS A REASON WHY IT SHOWS THIS WAY WITH A CIRCLE AS THE COMMERCIAL AT THE INTERSECTION.

THAT BEING AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO THOROUGHFARES THIS WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL PHALANGES.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY USES.

AGAIN, HAD THIS BEEN INSIDE CITY LIMITS.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL.

WHICH THE C3 REQUESTS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH.

THE PROPOSED SOME CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA BEING AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO THOROUGHFARES.

THE STREET AND F12 AVENUE, WHICH ARE BOTH DESIGNATED AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIOLES.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. SANGER AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, MS. SANGER. I WILL NOW MOVE

[01:20:04]

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.10 YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 6.10.

NOW I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.10.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.10? DR. WILSON, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE AN APPLICANT? THANK YOU.

WE HAVE APPLICANT HERE. WE HAVE MS. SANGER HERE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.10? THE MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.10 PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 6.10 CARRIES 7, 0.

[11. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3205-A, a request of Seventeen Services, LLC for Paradise Business Park, LLC, for a zone change from Interstate Highway Commercial District (IHC) to Local Retail District (C-2), generally located west of Frankford Avenue and south of 116th Street, on 5.524 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 20, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 6.11 IS THE ZONE CHANGE FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICTS C2.

WE SENT OUT 19 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING NO RESPONSES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 114TH STREET WEST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE NORTH, WITH SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE.

THEN A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.

CURRENT ZONING IS INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL.

THERE IS TRANSITION TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH WITH ADDITIONAL IHC AND THEN C2 AND C3 AND INDUSTRIAL PARK, IDP TO THE EAST.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY FOR THE LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND USER.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USER IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR C2 ZONING.

HOWEVER, THE C2 ZONING IS A DOWN ZONE FROM THE EXISTING INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

IT WILL BE MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE IHC.

THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INAPPROPRIATE ON ITS LOCATION, LONGER THOROUGHFARE.

IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND LOCATED WEST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE.

WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIOLES SOUTH OF 116TH STREET.

WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 7-1 AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. SANGER THIS TIME? THANK YOU, MS. SANGER.

THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.11.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.11 YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

AGAIN, JUST AS A REMINDER, AS YOU APPROACH, IF YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS.

>> HELLO, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS PATRICIA CASTRO, I LIVE AT 5918, 117TH STREET.

>> THANK YOU, MRS. CASTRO.

>> IF THE YOU-ALL PULL UP MAYBE THE MAP THAT SHE WAS SHOWING. THANK YOU.

I AM HOUSE EAST OF THE YELLOW LINE.

I'M THE ONLY RESIDENT ON THAT BLOCK NOW.

THAT IS GOING TO BE ALL COMMERCIAL.

HAVE YOUNG KIDS.

MAIN CONCERN IS THE STATE ONLY HAS ONE ENTRANCE WHICH WOULD BE ON 116.

THAT'S HOW WE ENTER AND THERE'S VERY LOW TRAFFIC.

ON HOMESTEAD, MY CONCERN NOT BEING ONLY THE ONE ENTRANCE, BUT ALSO NOW ON 117TH, THAT WOULD BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS SHOWN ON THAT PICTURE, WHICH WOULD BE A CUL-DE-SAC AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT'S SHOWING.

THAT WOULD PROBABLY ENTER INTO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

MY CONCERN IS JUST WHERE MY HOUSE SETS AND SAFETY FOR MY CHILDREN THAT WERE OUTSIDE.

WE HOMESTEAD, WE HAVE A GARDEN.

WE'RE ALWAYS OUTSIDE.

THEN THE TRAFFIC, THAT WOULD BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOME.

ALSO, JUST THE SAFETY FOR WHERE I SIT AT MY RESIDENTS ON THAT WHOLE BLOCK.

THAT WAS MY CONCERN WHEN I CAME THE FIRST TIME AT ZONING.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS ON HOMESTEAD WITH THAT OPENED UP EVENTUALLY TO 114TH AND MORE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH.

JUST WHEN WE PULL OUT,

[01:25:01]

WHERE I SIT, IT JUST CAUSES A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FOR MY FAMILY THAT SIT ON THAT ONE CORNER, NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO OR HOW TO SOLVE THIS SITUATION.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M AARON LLOYD.

I LIVE JUST TO THE NORTHWEST TO MRS. CASTRO'S PROPERTY.

I DID NOT GET TO ATTEND THE PRELIMINARY MEETING HERE A FEW WEEKS AGO.

I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS.

BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNATED IN [INAUDIBLE] IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

CHANGING THIS TO COMMERCIAL, I HAVE QUESTIONS, LIKE PART OF THE BUILDINGS GOING TO ENTAIL THE HOUSES THAT OFFICE BUILDINGS SAID THAT RESEMBLE HOUSES.

IS IT GOING TO BE A STRIP CENTER? WHAT ARE THE HEIGHTS OF THESE BUILDINGS GOING TO BE? IS THERE GOING TO BE A SCREENING FENCE? IF SO, WHAT IS IT? IS IT GOING TO BE A SOLID FENCE, TREES, LANDSCAPE? I BELIEVE MRS. CASTRO TOUCHED ON THE FACT OF THE ENTRANCES TO THAT AREA.

IS IT JUST GOING TO BE ON FRANKFURT? THAT'S GOING TO BRING IN A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND THEN A LOT OF, I GUESS THE BEST WAY TO SAY, THEY LOOK OUT OF PLACE AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT COMING IN ON A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

I'M OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT TO FAIL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.11? ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.11, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. TYLER GINGER AT SEVENTEEN SERVICES AT 1500 BROADWAY, SUIT 203.

WE ARE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

WE HAVE PREPARED PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT AND PRELIMINARY PLANS ON THE EASTERN PORTION, THE PANHANDLE, IF YOU WILL, FOR A PHASE 1 PROJECT, PRIMARILY AT GARDEN OFFICE SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS, I BELIEVE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT CURRENT ZONING USE, BUT IT WILL CONVEY TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AS IS.

WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY TOO INTENSE TO BE THIS CLOSE TO NEIGHBORS.

WE DID RUN THIS PROJECT THROUGH PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING AND CONFIRM THAT THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROAD TO THE SOUTH WILL NOT BE REQUIRED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THE ONLY REASON WE WOULD WANT TO UTILIZE THAT AS A ENTRANCE INTO THIS PROJECT IS IF THE FIRE MARSHAL REQUIRES IT FOR FIRETRUCKS.

AT THIS POINT, THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING APPEARS THAT WE CAN ENTER THE PROPERTY FROM FRANKFURT ONLY, TURNAROUND AND EXIT THROUGH THAT AS WELL FOR THE GARDEN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.11?

>> HELLO AGAIN. GABRIEL SANCHEZ.

I LIVE ON 119TH IN FRANKFURT.

IF YOU GO TO THE SITE PLAN RIGHT THERE UNDER 19TH, MY HOUSE IS RIGHT CUTOFF ON THE CROP REGION.

I DRIVE THIS ROUTE EVERY DAY GOING BACK HOME TO WORK.

AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT A VERY NICE CYCLICITY.

I THINK GOING TO A C2 DOWN ZONING IT FROM IFC GIVES IT A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMETHING MORE MORE PLEASING FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS IT BEING NIC, IT COULD BE ANYTHING AT THAT POINT.

IT COULD BE SHOPS AND STUFF VERSUS THE C2A STRIP CENTER OR GARDEN OFFICES.

I WOULD SAY I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THAT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.11? NOW, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 6.11.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.11? MR. MADISON GIL.

THANK YOU, DR. WILSON. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON 6.11, MRS. JOY?

>> YES. MR. GENTRY, YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK UP.

I WAS AT THE MEETING AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS BECAUSE,

[01:30:04]

MR. BOYD, WERE ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY P&Z BECAUSE HE WASN'T THERE?

>> IN REGARDS TO THE INGRESS AND EGRESS CODE FOR FRANKFORD.

>> WELL, ALL OF HIS OBJECTION.

THEY HAD SEVERAL.

>> I APOLOGIZE MISS FOR TRIAL.

I BELIEVE THAT ZONING MEETING EARLY SO I UNDERSTAND [OVERLAPPING] WAS THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS QUESTIONS WERE.

>> WELL FOR ONE WE HAD A LOT, SO MR. BOYD, DID YOU FILE OPPOSITION LETTER?

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> BUT DID YOU FILE AN OPPOSITION LETTER? OKAY. WELL, [LAUGHTER] IT WOULD'VE BEEN HELPFUL TO GIVE THEM THERE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERN IS BUILDING HEIGHT.

THESE AREN'T ALL SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS WOOD FRAME STRUCTURES.

[BACKGROUND] OF COURSE, WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE NEW BUFFER YARD DEPARTMENTS AND SCREENING OF UDC, WHICH PROVIDES ADEQUATE SEPARATION.

IN ADDITION, THERE'S AN ALLEY TO THE NORTH.

SO JUST LIKE SO MANY OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS, WE FEEL LIKE THE GARDEN OFFICES LACK COMMERCIAL USE LIKE, THIS IS A PRETTY NICE NEIGHBOR.

>> SO WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SOUTH, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT 117TH STREETS.

>> NOW 117TH STREET IN OUR PLANNING, WE DO NOT SHOW TO IMPROVE THAT ROAD.

IN THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING, WE WERE TOLD WE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO IMPROVE THAT ROAD.

OUR INTENTION IS NOT TO USE IT AT ALL AND ONLY ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY THROUGH FRANKFORD

>> SO TO THE NORTH, THAT'S AN ALLEY?

>> THERE IS AN EXISTING ALLEY ON THE NORTH SIDE. YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. SO YOU'RE GOING TO COME IN AND GO OUT ONTO FRANKFORD?

>> CORRECT.

>> SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY REASON THAT YOU WOULD DISTURB, WHERE I SEE YEAH, THE HOUSE ON HOMESTEAD? IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S RIGHT.

>> UNLESS PEOPLE START GOING UP DOWN THE ALLEY.

>> THEY'D HAVE TO GET THROUGH THE FENCE TO GET THERE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SAID THAT IS PLANNING AND ZONING THAT IT THINKS THEY WERE ANTICIPATING THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER EXIT OR ENTRANCE FROM SOMEWHERE AND YOU'RE SAYING NO.

>> THE PLAN IS NOT TO HAVE ANOTHER INGRESS-EGRESS POINT.

>> MS. SEGRE, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION ON IHC THAT MIGHT HELP MR. BOYD? I MEAN, MAYBE A LITTLE EXPLANATION AS THE TWO THAT ARE HERE, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A DOWN ZONE AND WHAT COULD BE USED THERE IF IT STAYED WHERE IT WAS?

>> SURE. THE CURRENT INTERSTATE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, IHC ZONING WAS APPROVED 10 YEARS AGO IN 2013.

IT ALLOWS EVERYTHING THAT'S ALLOWED IN C-2, AS WELL AS C-3 WITH ADDITIONAL USES INCLUDING AMBULANCE SERVICE, AUTOMOTIVE TRANSMISSION SHOT, BODY SHOT, BOAT TRAILER SALES, BREW PUB, AND A COMMERCIAL PRIVATE CLUB, A DANCE HALL, NIGHTCLUB, BAR, LOUNGE, FURNITURE STORES, MOBILE HOME SALES, MICROBREWERIES, MUFFLER SHOP, PRINT SHOP, PACKAGE STORES, TATTOO STUDIOS, A VARIETY OF USES, VETERINARY HOSPITAL.

C-2 IS LOCAL RETAIL AND IT ALLOWS RETAIL TYPE USES.

A SHOPPING CENTER, OFFICE USES, RESTAURANTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY TYPE OF AUTOMOTIVE USE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY TYPE OF BAR OR NIGHTCLUB LOUNGE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, TATTOO STUDIO, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> I GUESS MR. BOYD, THAT WILL BE A POINT THAT AS IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED, THERE'S A LOT OF BAD THINGS THAT MAYBE PERSPECTIVE THINGS THAT COULD GO THERE THAT WOULD DISRUPT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING FROM SOMETHING WILL HAVE A LOT MORE USE, A LOT MORE TRAFFIC, AND MAYBE THINK YOU WOULDN'T WANT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND GOING DOWN TO WHERE IT'S MORE RESTRICTED.

MAYBE THAT HELPS YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> MS. PATTERSON HARRIS.

>> MR. BOYD, I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO. COME ON BACK HERE AND HANG OUT WITH ME.

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE SIR.

WHERE DO YOU LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY WHETHER IT'S BUSINESSES BEING PROPOSED?

[01:35:07]

>> OKAY. THE YELLOW LINES THAT'S OUTLINING THE PROJECT.

>> YES, SIR.

>> THERE'S CASTRO LIVES TO THE WEST, WHICH IN THIS PICTURE WOULD LEAD TO THE LEFT.

THE HOUSE THAT THE PROPERTY THAT IT SHIFTS TO THE LEFT OF THAT VERTICAL LINE.

I LIVE TO THE NORTH AND CATTY CORNERED ACROSS THAT ALLEY.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE ALLEY NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT ALLEY AND HOMESTEAD AVENUE.

>> OKAY. I GOT YOU.

>>FROM THE FIRST HOUSE, NORTH IS HER HOUSE AND A WAREHOUSE.

>> OKAY. I GOT YOU.

>> MR. BOYD, WHAT IS ABSURD IS MS. PATTERSON HARRIS.

I'M JUST GOING TO GET THAT ADDRESS, I THINK I FAILED TO DO THAT.

THE ADDRESS IS 6116.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> NO, IT'S MY FAULT.

>> SO IF ANY ACTIVITY WERE TO TAKE PLACE HEADING OUT TO HOMESTEAD AND I GUESS SOMEONE TRYING TO GET TO 116 OR 117TH, THE 116TH COULD IMPACT YOU? IF IT DOES ANY ACTIVITY COMING OUT ON THE HOMESTEAD AND GOING TO THE WEST, THAT WOULD IMPACT YOU.

>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT? YES. FOR WHATEVER REASON, THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON 116TH, AND THEN GOING NORTH AND SOUTH ON THE OLD HOMESTEAD, I HAVE MY PLACE AND MS. CASTRO HOME.

>> TO ME AND YOU TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.

IT SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE ISSUES IN THAT AREA THAT'S THE STREETS AREN'T DESIGNATED.

>> THAT THE STREETS ARE WHAT?

>> ARE NOT PAVED OR DESIGNATED.

>> WELL, MORE OR LESS, THEY ARE PAVED.

116TH STREET IS PAVED AND THEN HOMESTEAD IS PAVED FROM 116 SOUTH TO MY PLACE, THE SHOP RIGHT THERE AND THEN AT ALLEY THE PAYMENT STOPS AND THEN IT'S JUST A GRAVEL ROAD FROM THAT ALLEY SOUTH, THAT'S MS. CASTRO HOME AND THEN THOSE OTHER FOUR HOUSES.

>> YEAH. SO WHAT DO YOU FEEL WOULD MAKE THIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? WHAT COULD BE DONE TO MAKE YOU BE A LITTLE BIT ON BOARD OR WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT'S HERE BEFORE US? [OVERLAPPING] WHAT'S YOUR BIGGEST COMPLAINT?

>> I GUESS MY BIGGEST DEAL ON THERE IS THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE, 117TH STREET GOING DOWN IN FRONT OF MS. CASTRO'S PLACE.

[OVERLAPPING] IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE AN OUTLET [OVERLAPPING] AS WELL BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW IF, SAY IT ONLY HAS ONE ACCESS ON FRANKFORD AVENUE, THEN JUST SAY THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT THERE OR WHATEVER, WILL THEN THOSE OTHER CARS NEED TO GET OUT OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GETTING IN OR WHAT?

>> I GOT YOU

>> BUT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON 116TH AND DOWN THAT ALLEY FOR WHATEVER REASON.

>> YEAH. AS LONG AS I'M THINKING THAT BECAUSE, JUST LOOKING AT IT, SOMEBODY CAN GAUGE THAT AND THINK THAT, THAT ALLEY IS A ROADWAY.

>> YES, MA'AM. EXACTLY.

>> [BACKGROUND]

>> THERE'S BEEN SO MANY NAMES THROWN OUT THIS AFTERNOON.

I CAN'T REMEMBER ANY, I'M SIMPLY MISSED THE BOY.

[LAUGHTER] LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

NO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO COMMUNICATE AND LET SOME OF THE FOLKS UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON, WAS THERE?

>> YES, I DID RECEIVE A CALL AND WE FELT.

>> WHO SIR?

>> CASTRO.

>> OKAY.

[BACKGROUND].

>> COME ON FORWARD.

>> AFTER I REACHED OUT AND LOOKED UP AND COPIED WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE.

I CALLED AND THEN I BELIEVE WE SPOKE ON THE 13TH.

HE WAS ADDRESSING MY CONCERNS AND HE WASN'T GOING TO LET THEM KNOW MY CONCERNS.

I WISH THEY WOULD'VE LET ME KNOW BEFORE ALL THIS BECAUSE I'M REALLY

[01:40:03]

IT'S LIKE I WAS TELLING MY HUSBAND, WE'VE ONLY BEEN THERE ALMOST SEVEN YEARS.

WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO THE HOUSE.

BUT I'M RAISING CHILDREN.

I'M ALSO A FOSTER PARENT.

I'M NOT FOSTERING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'VE ADOPTED TWO.

JUST CONCERNS THE GIRLS ARE OUTSIDE OF LIVE AND MY CONCERN IS SAFETY REALLY AS WELL AS TRAFFIC.

THERE IN THE FRONT YARD OR LAW, THEY RATHER BACK.

IF THERE IS A ROAD COMING IN ON 107 FEET OR ON HOMESTEAD, I MEAN, SAFETY IS THE REASON WE MOVED THERE WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

BUT NOW I'VE BEEN COMING TO THE CITY FOR EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBOR AND ALL THE MATH AND STUFF WHICH I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE CLEANED UP.

BUT MY CONCERNS STILL IS THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND I'M ALL FOR IMPROVEMENT AND BUSINESSES.

I COME FROM A BUSINESS FAMILY SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF OFFENSE COMING IN, BUT IT'S JUST WHERE MY HOUSE SET.

I'M THE ONLY ONE ON THAT WHOLE BLOCK NOW.

IT'S JUST NOT GOOD FOR ME TO BE RIGHT THERE WHERE I'M AT.

ALSO I TOLD HIM I MIGHT EVEN BE WILLING TO LEAVE AND SELL OR DO SOMETHING BECAUSE THAT IS NOT FOR US TO BE THERE, FOR ME TO BE WORKING AND MY HUSBAND AND WE WORKED IN AS MY GIRLS GET OLDER AND THEN BE OUTSIDE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS ONE OF MY BIG ISSUES AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE MOVE INTO THIS ESTATES.

>> THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD RELIEVE YOU OF THAT FEELING?

>> NO. I MEAN, REALLY, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ADEQUATE BUSINESS, WHICH I COME FROM A BUSINESS FAMILY, MY DAD ALWAYS SAID CUSTOMER SERVICE IS NUMBER ONE.

MAKING SURE YOU ADDRESS EVERYBODY THAT'S AFFECTED AROUND YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY WATCHING ME.

MY CONCERN IS WHERE MY HOUSE AT? WHAT AM I GOING TO DO FOR THE SAFETY OF WHERE I'M GOING TO BE AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND PUT IN.

I JUST WISH THAT THEY WOULD HAVE COME AND SAID, WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS.

ARE YOU WILLING TO DO A, B, OR C? BUT RIGHT NOW, EVEN ON PHASE ONE, LET'S SAY THEY DON'T PUT IN 117TH ON PIPELINE, BUT FACE, HE COMES IN AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ANYBODY COMES IN AND SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO PUT AN EXIT SOMEWHERE IN FRONT OF YOU OR HERE OR HERE.

THAT'S MY CONCERN AS WELL.

JUST THE SAFETY OF WHERE MY HOUSE IS AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT IN.

IT IS GOING TO CLEAN UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROBABLY WERE ALL THE DEBRIS AND STEP IS.

BUT AT THE SAME ASPECT, YOU CAN ALSO SAY, WHAT ABOUT THAT? THERE ARE PEOPLE HANGING OUT BACK THERE.

ALL THOSE THINGS COME INTO FACTOR, ESPECIALLY ME BEING THE ONLY HOUSE RIGHT THERE ON THAT BLOCK.

THOSE WERE REALLY MY CONCERN.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> MR. CASTRO, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

BUT BALANCING THOSE CONCERNS VERSUS WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED THERE.

HOW ARE YOU BALANCING THOSE? DO YOU PREFER TO HAVE WHAT'S THERE OR EVEN SOMETHING WORSE THAN WHAT'S HERE.

>> I'M GOING TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE FEE SNAKES, WE GET THE RABBITS THAT WE OPPOSED IF SOMEBODY COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF MY CHILD RIDING HER BACK-OFF OR HER BAG OR FAST WALKING AROUND FROM THE CNS AND COMING INTO OUR YARD.

I WOULD RATHER HAVE LESS THERE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S APPEARANCE.

>> MY OTHER QUESTION, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.

SO 117TH STREET, THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH BETWEEN HOMESTEAD IN FRANKFURT, DOES IT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOME.

>> IS IT A DIRT STREET ALL THE WAY THROUGH?

>> [OVERLAPPING] RIGHT NOW. IT'S JUST NOW.

WHEN WE MOVE THERE, IT WAS WEEDS BUT I JUST TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO MOW BECAUSE I CAME TO THE CITY ABOUT SIX YEARS NOW AND NOTHING WAS DONE.

I JUST TAKE IT UPON MYSELF.

>> IT'S NOT A GRAVEL ROAD OR A DIRT ROAD OR ANYTHING REALLY AT THE MOMENT?

>> IT'S JUST WEED.

>> IS IT PART OF OUR PROPOSAL TO PAY THAT? ANYTIME SOON? BECAUSE.

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A DEDICATED RIGHT AWAY AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.

>> FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF A ROAD BEING THERE ANYTIME SOON.

>> I WOULD NOT THINK THE CHANCES ARE GREAT.

[01:45:03]

IF IT'S DEDICATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF HER HOME.

ONLY HALF WIDTH.

BY THE TIME YOU GET FARTHER TO THE EAST, BACK TOWARDS FRANKFURT.

IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING WAS PLANTED YEARS AND YEARS AGO AND NEVER DEVELOPED.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

I WAS TRYING TO SAY.

WHEN I STARTED GOING TO THE CITY ABOUT MY ADDRESS WAS WRONG, WHERE I LIVE, WHEN WE HIT THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE, OUR ADDRESS.

I HAVE TO PUT IN AS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS BECAUSE IT WAS ALL WRONG.

BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE A CUL-DE-SAC IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME IN AND BUILD ROUTE WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING, THAT EVENTUALLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE TO BUILD WOULD HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CULDESAC THAT IS SHOWN ON THE PAPERWORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE FOR THE FUTURE.

SO 117TH THEY SAID WOULD EVENTUALLY BE A CUL-DE-SAC.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE 6.11 IN FRONT OF US.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

STILL. YES. MS. JOY, YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OF STAFF.

>> FOURTH, OF THAT PROPERTY THAT'S RESIDENTIAL AS WELL?

>> YES.

>> WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY THAT FACES FRANKFURT. WHAT IS THAT?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS

>> MR. KENDRICK TOLD US THAT THERE WOULD BE A FENCE.

WE'VE TURNED OUT FENCING ALL THE WAY AROUND.

>> WE WILL HAVE TO FENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UDC, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND OUR PREFERENCE TO BELIEVE IS DEFENSE FOR STAFF AS WELL, ALONG WHAT WOULD BE THE 17TH STREET CAN CLOSE THIS.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ALONG WITH PROPERTY WITH PAUL'S PARTS UNLESS REQUIRED.

>> WELL, MS. CASTRO'S CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE WALKING OUT ON THAT AREA, THAT BUSINESS AREA, JUST WALKING OUT AND WANDERING AROUND.

IF YOU THINK THAT ALL THE WAY TO WHERE THE LITTLE JAGGED STARTS BELOW ELBOW STARTS? RIGHT THERE. YOU'RE GOING TO FENCE IT ALL THE WAY DOWN. YES?

>> THAT WOULD BE YOUR PREFERENCE? YES.

>>OKAY.

>> AGAIN, WE WENT THROUGH PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS.

OUR PREFERENCE AGAIN IS NOT TO PAVE THIS ROAD.

WE WERE TOLD THAT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO NOT WANT TO USE THAT.

>> BUT THERE'S NO ROAD.

>> RIGHT. WELL, THERE IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEN WE WERE TOLD WE WOULD NEED TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVE IT.

>> MS. CASTRO, DOES THAT HELP YOU ANY THE FENCING AND EVERYBODY UP HERE IS UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM.

YOU GOT WORSE THINGS TO SOUND HERE NOW THAN THIS.

>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN EMPHASIZE ENOUGH. WHAT COULD THEY DO THAT?

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> THAT'S A SIX-FOOT WHAT? FENCE.

>> I BELIEVE THE UDC REQUIRES EIGHT FOOT.

>> EIGHT FOOT? OKAY.

>> AND 20 YARD BUFFER.

I'M STILL LEARNING THAT CODE.

THERE'S ALSO A LANDSCAPE BUFFER [INAUDIBLE]

>> I DON'T THINK ANY OF US REALLY LIKE THE SITUATION, BUT AS MUCH PROTECTION IS WE CAN PUT IN THIS, AND MR. GENTRY, I DON'T WANT YOU JUST TO SAY WHAT UDC REQUIRES.

I WANT YOU TO TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THIS IS I THINK A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW THE UDC REQUIREMENTS BENEFIT NEIGHBORHOODS.

BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS, I THINK HEALTH AND CREATING THAT BACK.

>> BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF TOO MUCH ON OTHER THINGS.

[01:50:02]

THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE.

I THINK THE MESSAGE, MS. JOY, CONVEYED MANY ABSCESSES, IT DOWN ZONE.

AND WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL SHOWING UP.

THANK YOU, MR. GENTRY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 6.11, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.11, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-2.

I BELIEVE THE NAYES FOR RECORDS, MR. PATERSON HARRIS, MS. JOY.

[12. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3489, a request of Betenbough Homes, LLC, for a zone change from Transition District (T) to Two-Family District (R-2), generally located south of 146th Street and west of Frankford Avenue, on 207.15 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 10, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 6.12 IS UNCHANGED FROM TRANSITION TO TWO FAMILY DISTRICT R2.

WE SENT OUT 39 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ZERO IN FAVOR AND THREE IN OPPOSITION AS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 LESTER FRANKFURT AVENUE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE THREE PROPERTIES WHO'VE RESPONDED IN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THERE ARE RESIDENCES ON THE EAST SIDE OF FRANKFURT HAPPENING.

CURRENT ZONING IS TRANSITION AND IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS TO THE EAST TO FRANKFURT AVENUE AND A PORTION NORTH OF 146 STREET.

FUTURE LAND USE PLANS AS AN EXCESS PROPERTY FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USER.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

IT IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE PROPOSAL LAYOUT OF THE LOTS FOR THIS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USERS, WITH COMMERCIAL USERS AT THE INTERSECTION OF FRANKFURT AND 146 STREET IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE TO R2, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

HOWEVER, R2 IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND WE CONFORM TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IT WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL AND WEST TO FRANKFURT AVENUE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS THE MINOR ARTERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THREE RESPONSES AND OPPOSITION HAD CONCERNS ABOUT LOWERING PROPERTY VALUES AND AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SAGER. LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS THE AGENDA ITEM 6.12.

ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.12, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE. WE WILL MOVE TO THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 6.12.

YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

>> HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS WES EVERETT.

I'M REPRESENTING BIMBO HOMES, 6305 8 SECOND STREET.

THIS IS OUR NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WERE WANTING TO GET IT TO REZONE FROM TRANSITION TO R2.

IT WILL BE CALLED HOMESTEAD AT FRANKFURT, TO BE CLOSE TO AROUND 1,200 HOMES.

IT'S MAJORITY OF IT IS OUR CORE PRODUCT, WHICH IS 1,200-1,500 SQUARE FOOT, 2,000 AND RIGHT IN THAT AREA.

AND THEN ALSO A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF OUR COTTAGE, WHICH IS SMALLER AROUND 1,000-1,100 SQUARE FEET, THAT WE BEING SMALLER POCKETS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND A VERY SMALL PORTION, WE WERE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY HAVING TOWN HOMES, BUT THAT IS ON A FURTHER PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR IT LOOKING AT IT BEING R2.

I DID REACH OUT TO EACH ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIT IN OPPOSITION.

I WAS ABLE TO TALK TO TWO OF THE THREE.

AND THERE AS KRISTIN STATED, THEY HAD ISSUES WITH WORRYING ABOUT LOWERING PROPERTY VALUES.

THEY ALSO DISCUSSED WITH ME WORRYING ABOUT US CAUSING MORE ISSUES WITH THE WATER ISSUES AND HOW LINUX, IT'S WHERE ALL THREE OF THEM WERE LOCATED AT.

WE'RE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE BRINGING CITY WATER WILL BE EXTENDED TO THAT AREA.

I'M HERE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>> ANY OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.12, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.12.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.12? THANK YOU DR. WILSON. THANK YOU, MR. MAGER.

[01:55:01]

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7, 0.

[13. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 3032-B, a request of DLC Designs, LLC for Daniel Aaron Homes of West Texas, LLC, Drylands Homes, LLC, and KLemer Real Estate, LLC, for a zone change from Single-Family District (R-1) Specific Use for Townhomes to Single-Family District (R-1) 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, and consider an ordinance.]

>> ITEM 6.13 IS THE REQUEST FOR HIS OWN CHANGED FROM R1 SPECIFIC USE FOR TOWN HOMES TO R1 SPECIFIC USE GARDEN HOMES.

WE SENT OUT 52 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING THREE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF OUR ERSKINE STREET, EAST OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE THREE PROPERTIES, THREE RESPONDED IN FAVOR, TWO OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.

THEY ARE PART OF THIS DEVELOPING WINDSOR STATES NEIGHBORHOOD.

CURRENT ZONING IS A MIX OF SINGLE-FAMILY R1, SPECIFIC USE FOR TOWN HOMES AND GARDEN HOMES, AS WELL AS JUST STANDALONE R1.

THERE IS C3 TO THE WEST, R2, AND R1 TO THE SOUTH.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA.

THAT'S PROPOSED SPECIFIC USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THE LOCATION WILL BE ALONG OR ERSKINE STREET, WINDSOR COURT AND AMESBURY COURT.

ERSKINE STREET IS DESIGNATED AS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL WITH THE OTHER TWO DESIGNATED AS PRIVATE ROADS.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SURFACE AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU MS. SAGER, MR. MUBARAK.

>> BETWEEN A TOWN HOME AND A GARDEN HOME.

>> A GARDEN HOME IS A HOME THAT HAS A ZERO LOT LINE.

SO YOU PLACE ONE WALL OF THAT HOME DIRECTLY ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN HAVE 10 FEET OF SEPARATION BEFORE YOU HAVE THE NEXT HOME.

A TOWN HOME IS TWO UNITS THAT ARE CONNECTED.

THEY ALMOST LOOK LIKE AN APARTMENT WITH THE PROPERTY LINE RUNNING THROUGH THE WALL.

>> THANK YOU MS. SAGER. MAY BE ON STANDBY ONCE AGAIN, BUT AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 6.13.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.13, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE, I WILL MOVE TO THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.13.

SEEING NONE.

WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.13.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.13? THANK YOU MS. JOY, THANK YOU MR. MIBRAYER.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 6.13.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS MS. SAGER? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? MS. JOY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION, SO JUST GO AHEAD.

>> THIS IS AN UNUSUAL DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD SAY, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FINISH IT OUT, IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

THEY HAD SOME VACANT PROPERTY IN THAT CUL-DE-SAC AND THEN DOWN ON THE CORNER.

I'M SURPRISED WE DIDN'T HAVE SOMEBODY OPPOSED TO IT, BUT WE DON'T.

NORMALLY, THEY CAN SAY THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, BUT THERE'S NO REAL OPPOSITION THAT'S BEEN EXPRESSED TO ME FROM MY DISTRICT, AND SO I JUST SEE IT AS THE PROJECT TO FINALIZE THAT ADDITION.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.13 PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 6.13 CARRIES 7-0.

[14. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2538-KK, a request of Delta Land Surveying for Red Yucca 806 Investments LLC, for a zone change from Single-Family District (R-1) to Two-Family District (R-2), at 2402 Urbana Place, located north of 25th Street and west of Urbana Place, Parkdale Addition, Block 2, Lots 3 through 5, and consider an ordinance.]

COUNCIL, THIS IS, I BELIEVE IT WAS A 44PMZ, BOTH THESE WILL REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY.

JUST KEEP THAT IN THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD.

MS. SAGER, 6.14.

>> AT 6.14 IS THEN CHANGED FROM SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, R-1, TO TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT, R-2.

WE SENT OUT 25 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ZERO RESPONSES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 26TH STREET, WEST OF URBANA PLACE.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT IS WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS RESIDENCES AS WELL AS OTHER VACANT LOTS.

[02:00:05]

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN EXCLUDING THIS PROPERTY FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE R-2 DESIGNATION AS IT IS CONSIDERED MEDIANS AND CITY RESIDENTIAL, THOUGH IT CAN BE APPROPRIATE AND THE LOCATION IT'S WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN INFILL PROJECT.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT IS LOCATED NORTH OF 25TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET WEST OF URBANA PLACE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO FOUR, THEREFORE, A SUPERMAJORITY OF SIX OUT OF SEVEN VOTES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE REQUEST TO BE APPROVED, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU, MS. SAGER.

THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.14, AND ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.14, YOU MAY APPROACH THE STAND.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 6.14. YOU MAY APPROACH.

>> I'M ROBERT GREEN, 1310 JARVIS STREET.

>> AND WENDY JONES FROM RED JACCARD INVESTMENTS, 6671 MAINE ROAD, ANTON.

>> THIS IS A VERY UNDERDEVELOPED AREA.

A LOT OF THE LOTS THAT ARE VACANT OUT HERE ARE NOT PLATTED.

NOBODY IS WINE ENOUGH TO SCOOP UP ANY OF THESE LOTS.

THIS WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE AREA, I BELIEVE.

I WATCH THAT THE CLIENT OWNS ARE LARGER, 100-FOOT LOTS.

I BELIEVE THE STREET TO THE SOUTH, 25TH STREET, IS NOT IMPROVED.

URBANA PLACE IS.

IF SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME IN AND TRY AND RE-PLAT THESE LOTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FINISH OUT 25TH STREET, I BELIEVE.

THEY'VE BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG TIME, A LOT OF THIS AREA HAS RIGHT HERE.

>> IN MY RESEARCH, THERE WERE 11 VACANT LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD AND 11 ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD AS YOU GO FROM 19-26TH STREET.

IT CONSISTS OF TWO CHURCHES.

THERE ARE NINE HOMES.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY BUILT BETWEEN 19TH AND 26TH STREET.

TWO OF THOSE ARE SITTING IN A STATE, THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE VACANT, I'M NOT SURE.

ONE IS A MOBILE HOME THAT'S LEFT IN A LIFE ESTATE AND ONE IS A FAINT ON PROPERTY.

THE FIVE EXISTING HOMES WERE BUILT BETWEEN 1923 AND 1953, WITH FOUR BEING BUILT BETWEEN 1979 AND 2009.

THE MEDIAN SIZE HOME IN THE AREA IS 1,142 SQUARE FOOT.

THE PICTURES OF THE CITY PUT UP THE ONE WITH THE PRETTY WATER BEHIND IT AND THE TREES IS THE BEAT-AND-GO DEVELOPMENT UPON CROSSING AND THEY'VE PUT A BARRIER DOWN.

I'VE GOT SOME PICTURES THAT REALLY GIVE YOU AND DEPICT THE AREA.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE, I'VE GOT THEM HERE THAT I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT.

BUT IT REALLY IS A DECLINING AREA, THERE'S NOT MUCH BEING BUILT.

THE THREE DUPLEXES THAT WE'VE PROPOSED TO BE BUILT IN THIS AREA, WE HOPE WOULD BRING SOME GOOD CLIENTELE TO THE AREA, BRING SOME SAFETY, AND SOME CLEANUP TO THE REMAINING PORTION.

>> THANK YOU. YOU MIGHT STICK AROUND, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR THESE APPLICANTS, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.14? SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 6.14.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.14? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS FOR THE QUESTIONS OF MS. SAGER, OR DISCUSSION? MS. JOHN?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. SAGER.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A 44 VOTE WHEN WE HAD EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT.

COULD YOU SHARE WITH US, ONE,

[02:05:03]

>> I DO NOT RECALL ANY OPPOSITION AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING.

I THINK THE COMMISSION WAS THINKING ABOUT THE EARLIER CASE ON 69TH STREET WHERE YOU HAD A BUILT-OUT ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE ONE INDIVIDUAL LOT WAS REQUESTING A SUDDEN CHANGE.

PLANNING STAFF SEES THIS REQUEST DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE YOU ARE TAKING THREE-FIFTHS OF A BLOCK THAT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND ASKING TO REZONE IT TO R-2 IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU NEED INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS NOT COMPLETELY BUILT OUT, AND SO WE THINK IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PROJECT, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS STEMMED FROM WOULD THIS ALSO BE CONSIDERED SPOT ZONING.

>> THE BAIT AND BOTH HAD LEFT.

THERE HE IS, THE NEAREST NEIGHBOR.

YOU WANT TO COME UP AND I ASSUME HE GOT NOTICE ON THIS.

MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.

NO? NO NOTICE. OKAY.

>> IF YOU WOULD HAVE SENT IT OUT TO THE 400-FOOT NOTIFICATION, I MIGHT HAVE.

>> THERE HE IS. THAT'S RIGHT.

>> IT'S VERY 7207 URBANA STREET.

>> BUT YOU'RE CLOSE ENOUGH.

THE JURY IS HERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, AND IT BROUGHT DOWN ZONE R-1, ALL OF THAT.

THERE'S NOT MUCH OVER THERE ACCORDING TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE JUST GOT.

DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT?

>> NOT REALLY. WE'RE ALMOST BUILT OUT THERE.

WE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF THE CENTER AND UP WHEN CROSSING.

WE'VE ALREADY MOVED ACROSS THE STREET ON 34TH STREET AND TO THE EAST OF UPWIND WITH OUR CONTINUATION OF UPWIND CROSSINGS.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS AREA BUILT OUT.

I THINK IT NEEDS SOME HELP WITH SOMETHING OVER THERE THAT COULD HELP REVITALIZE WHAT CAN BE REVITALIZED.

I KNOW THERE'S A BIG PLAYA LAKE IN THE AREA, SO THEY GET SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES.

>> THANK YOU, THAT HELPS.

>> YEAH.

>> THANK YOU, CHRIS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? I GOT THE MOTION AND A SECOND ON 6.14.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.14, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 6.14 CARRIES 7-0. AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.

LET'S DO A 15-MINUTE BREAK.

THAT MAY DRAG A COUPLE OF MINUTES BECAUSE WE HAD A BIRTHDAY YESTERDAY, MS. PATTERSON HARRIS HAVE ANOTHER YEAR ROUND THE SUN, UNLESS YOU WANTED THAT BROUGHT UP.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HER.

[APPLAUSE] WE'LL SING LATER.

WE'RE GOING TO BE IN RECESS UNTIL 4:22.

[15. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 3175-G, a request of SK Architecture Group for 806 Land Group LLC, for a zone change from Restricted Local Retail District (C-2A) and Reduced Setback Single-Family 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, and consider an ordinance.]

MS. SINGER

>> ITEM 6.15 IS THE ZONE CHANGE FROM RESTRICTED LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT C-2A TO HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT A-2, WE SENT OUT 30 NOTIFICATIONS, WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR 11 IN OPPOSITION, ONE OF WHICH WAS FROM OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARIES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF ERSKINE, WEST OF FRANKFURT AVENUE, HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTIES THAT RESPONDED IN FAVOR AND AN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, TO THE EAST IS THE NORTH LUBBOCK POLICE SUBSTATIONS.

TO THE NORTH IS A DEVELOPING NEIGHBORHOODS AND TO THE WEST ARE ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES.

THIS ARIEL IS A LITTLE BIT OUTDATED, SO WE DID HAVE OUR GIS DEPARTMENT SHOW PROPERTIES WHERE PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO BUILD NEW RESIDENCES, AS WELL AS AN AREAL FROM GOOGLE, WHICH IS A LITTLE MORE UPDATED, AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE BILLS OUT RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

CURRENT ZONING IS C-2A, THERE IS SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, R1 TO THE NORTH, WEST AND SOUTH, HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT DISTRICT TO THE EAST, THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN DOESN'T MAKE THIS PROPERTY FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS,

[02:10:03]

THE FUTURE LAND-USE NOT DESIGNATE THIS AREA FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, WHILE THE A-2 REQUESTS DOES NOT CONFORM TO THIS DESIGNATION, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION ADJACENT TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND PROVIDE A BUFFER TO THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH FROM THAT THOROUGHFARE.

THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA OR IT'S CONSTRAINT IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPLE ARTERIOLE, BUT MASTER HAIR CARE PLAN.

STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SURPLUS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE FOUR TO THREE WITH ONE RECUSAL AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MS. SINGER. SURE WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU SHORTLY AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 6.5, ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF 6.15, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME.

AGAIN IF YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN SPEAK TO YOUR OPPOSITION.

>> 510 NORTH GOWER AND I LIVED AT THAT ADDRESS SINCE 1990 AND WE USED TO BE OUT THERE WHERE IT WAS COTTON FIELDS ALL AROUND US AND NOW IT'S NOT WHICH THAT'S NOT ALL BAD.

THEY'RE EXPANDING ERSKINE STREET NOW, ARE WORKING ON IT AND THEN WE COME UP AND SOMEBODY'S WANTED TO BUILD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE NORTH AND WHAT'S OUR APP? BUILD SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LIKE WE HAVE ALL THE WAY ON BOTH SIDES NOW REALLY ALL THREE SIDES AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BUILDING UP ON TOWARDS WEST, EXCUSE ME.

I JUST HAVE THAT OPPOSITION AGAINST THAT, OR BEING JUST A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS AND MOST OF US HAVE UP THERE PRETTY MUCH GOT OUR HOUSES BAIT FAR, SO WE'RE RETIRED AND THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO BE AND I HATE TO SEE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX NOT KNOWING EXACTLY HOW TALL AND I DIDN'T GET A NOTICE BECAUSE I'M PAST THE 400 FOOT SO THAT IF YOU EVER LOOK AT THE WAY ALL EFFECT WE LIVE ON COLDEST ACTS A LOT OF SO AND THIRD HOUSE OFF THE COLDEST AND THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I GOT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> ANYONE ELSE YOU'RE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.15?

>> CINDY PARADIS, 31, 19, 20TH STREET AND I REALLY DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS PARTICULAR FIGHT, BUT I WAS AT P&Z MEETING AND THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE SPEAKING AGAINST IT, SOME OF THEM CAME IN FROM OUT OF TOWN BECAUSE THEY HAD PURCHASED PROPERTIES THERE AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY'RE NOT HERE TODAY OTHER THAN THEY PROBABLY HAD SOME FEELING OF HELPLESSNESS.

[16. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Planning: Consider Ordinance No. 2023-O0117, for a request for annexation, from the Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Inc., to annex an area of approximately 411 acres, adjacent to the eastern city limits of the City of Lubbock, north of East 4th Street and east of East Loop 289, into Lubbock's corporate limits.]

THAT PARTICULAR AREA WILL BE FOUND TO MDR, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MEANS IT CAN BE UP TO 2.5 FEET, AND SO IF I LIVE BEHIND IT, I LIVED IN FRONT OF IT, I REALLY WOULD NOT WANT TO 45 FOOT STRUCTURE.

IT'S THROUGHOUT TOWN, THERE ARE A LOT OF 45 THAT STRUCTURES THAT CAN BE BUILT WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE OF THIS WEIRD, WACKY ZONING INTO MDR, SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT ANYBODY WHO IS LOOKING AT THESE UNCHANGED REQUESTS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT R-2, A-2 ALL BE MDR AND MBR HAS MUCH MORE RELAXED REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS HEIGHTENED PARKING, THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH MENTIONING. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[17. Ordinance 1st Reading - Planning: A. Consider and take action on the City of Lubbock Planning and Zoning Commission's final report of September 7, 2023, to the Lubbock City Council on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054) recommended for adoption, limited to the following: 1. Sections 39.02.006.a.3 & 39.02.006.b.3 (related to Lot Density and Dimensions); 2. Section 39.03.021.a.2 (related to Signs Exempt from Regulations); 3. Section 39.02.014 (related to the Reduction Overlay (RO) District); 4. Article 39.04 (related to Subdivision Standards); 5. Article 39.07 (related to Development Review Procedures); 6. Section 39.07.007(a) (related to Public Notice); 7.1. Section 39.02.016 (related to the Land Use Matrix); 7.2. Table 39.02.016-1 (related to Permitted Uses by District); 7.3. Table 39.02.006.e-1 (related to IP Permitted Uses); 7.4. Table 39.02.006.f-1 (related to LI Permitted Uses); 7.5. Table 39.02.006.g-1 (related to GI Permitted Uses); 8. Sections 39.02.020.b(4)(F)(A)(iii) and 39.02.020.b(4)(F)(B)(ii) (related to Residential Carport or Porte Cochere Locations); 9. Section 39.04.005-1 (related to Minimum Connection Spacing by Street Classification); and 10. Sections 39.02.005.d.3 and 39.02.018.c.7 and Tables 39.02.003-1 and 39.02.016-1 (related to Base Mixed Use Districts and Zoning Map) B. Consider and take action on the City of Lubbock Planning and Zoning Commission's final report of September 7, 2023 to the Lubbock City Council on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054) recommended for denial, limited to the following: 1. Tables 39.02.004.d-3; 39.02.004.e-3; and 39.03.009-1 (related to Parking Requirements); 2. City of Lubbock zoning policies regarding property with abandoned, industrial, or nonconforming uses, and the zoning map for residential properties adjacent thereto; 3. Certain permitted uses in residential neighborhoods, limited to customary home occupation, commercial vehicles, short-term rentals, and the equal distribution in the City of group homes; 4. Designation of the U.N.l.T. Neighborhood (area bordered by University Avenue, 19th Street, Indiana Avenue, and 34th Street) as R-1 only, with certain exceptions made for R-2; 5. Staff recommendation regarding Section 39.02.020.e.1.A.ii (Previously Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit); 6. Section 39.10.002 (definition of "Family"; regarding proposals to modify the allowable number of unrelated persons constituting a Family); 7.1. Addition of Section 39.02.004.e(4)(A) (regarding a limitation of Vertical Mixed­ Use in Residential Neighborhoods); 7.2. Section 39.02.004.e(4) and Table 39.02.004.e-2 (reducing the maximum building height for Vertical Mixed Use from 75 feet to 45 feet; allowing an increase by Specific Use)]

>> ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 6.15? SEEING NO OTHERS, ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.15, YOU MAY APPROACH IT THIS TIME?

>> THANK YOU COUNCIL, JORDAN WHEATLEY, 3917, 114TH STREET, I'M WITH 806 LAND GROUP, LOCATION IN THIS TRACK IS JUST WEST OF THE BRAND NEW POLICE STATION.

WE DID HAVE THIS TRACK ZONE AS THE A-2 ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO, WE TRIED TO GO TO THE C-2A, WE REALLY COULDN'T GET ANY TAKERS ON THAT.

WE WANTING TO REVERT BACK TO THE A-2, WE ARE JUST THE DEVELOPER ON THE TRACK, THE BUILDER CONTRACTOR IS HERE TODAY ALSO, AND HE'S WANTED TO TALK.

WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUST A PERFECT OFFBEAT LOCATION, SMALL, THREE-AND-A-HALF ACRES SIDE, BOUTIQUE TYPE APARTMENT BUILT BY ACCUSTOMED TYPE BUILDER, IS FIVE BUILDINGS,

[02:15:03]

HE HAS REACHED OUT TO ALL THE OPPOSITION, SO THIS IS OUR LAST PIECE HERE AT UPTOWN WHERE WE FEEL LIKE IF WE CAN GET THIS THERE, IT MIGHT SPUR SOME COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ALONG NORTH FRANKFURT ON THOSE COMMERCIAL TRACKS THAT WE DON'T OWN, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE NORTH FRANKFURT TO CONTINUE TO BE DEVELOPED.

WE'D APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND JASON, THE BUILDER, IS GOING TO COME SPEAK, THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR MR. NESLONEY? I GUESS YOU'RE ALREADY COME ON IN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, JASON NESLONEY.

NESLONEY HOMES, 832045 OAKLAND AVENUE.

IN REGARDS TO OUR PROPOSED PROJECT, REACHED OUT TO ALL THE OPPOSITION, AS WELL AS ALL THE NEIGHBORS, TRIED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THEIR CONCERNS THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY.

WE ARE PLAYING IN A THREE-STORY BUILDING ABOUT 38 FEET TALL.

WHAT WE'RE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS GO OVER SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE'RE MODIFYING TO OUR PLAN.

ORIGINALLY WE HAD ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS.

THERE WAS FACING NORTH IS FACING LOOKING INTO THOSE YARDS ON FORDHAM.

BUT WE ACTUALLY HAD SINCE ROTATED THAT WHOLE BUILDING TO FACE EAST-WEST AND THEN ESSENTIALLY ALL WINDOWS AND PATIOS ARE NOW GOING TO BE FACING EAST-WEST AS WELL.

THEN ON THAT WHOLE NORTH WALL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BLANKET OFF.

THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY LINE OF SIGHT TO THE NORTH.

SAME WITH THE OTHER TWO NORTH BUILDINGS.

THEN THE OTHER THING WE WERE TRYING TO DO HERE IS WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ENCLOSE ON THOSE PATIOS.

THEY ARE NOW FACING EAST, WEST.

WE'RE GOING TO ENCLOSE THAT NORTH SIDE TO PREVENT ANY LINE OF SIGHT BACK TOWARDS THE NORTH.

THEN OTHER THING WE'RE GOING TO DO, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE.

I THINK IF IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO SEVEN ON THE THREE SIDES, SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.

ALONG WITH PLAIN 13 TO 14 FOOT, BRODY RED SEA ARE EVERGREENS ON OUR NORTH BUFFER YARD.

THOSE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MATURE HEIGHT OF ABOUT 25 FEET.

OUR TARGET AUDIENCE FOR THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE OF THOSE YOUNG PROFESSIONAL TYPES.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HIGHER RENT RATES ON THESE, AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING HAVING SOME OF THAT TYPE OF TENANTS.

WE HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGER IN PLACE IF THIS WAS TO GO THROUGH.

WE USE ON ALL OF OUR MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT HAS A REALLY STRINGENT APPLICANT APPROVAL PROCESS JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE OCCUPYING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO TEAR HIM UP.

WE'RE NOT TO GO BACK AND FIX THEM.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR MORE MATURE AND ESTABLISH TENANTS FOR THESE APARTMENTS.

HOPE THIS ADDRESSES SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH OUR POTENTIAL BUILDS.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> WE MAY HAVE SOME AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, MR. NESLONEY.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.15?

>> GABRIEL SANCHEZ, AS ARCHITECTURE GROUP.

WE'RE THE ONE DESIGNING THE PROJECT AND JUST GIVE YOU A OR INSIGHT ON THE DESIGN.

WHAT WE'RE GOING WITH PHONES, TO SKETCH MODERN APPROACH.

THESE WILL BE GABLED STRUCTURES.

ALTHOUGH THEY ARE 38 FEET AT THE PEAK, THIRD STORY DECK IS ACTUALLY AT 24 FEET.

IF YOU THINK OF A SIX-FOOT TALL PERSON, I LEVEL 30-FOOT, WHICH WE'VE ROTATED AND WE KILLED ALL LIGHT LINE OF SIGHT TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS JASON WANTS TO PLANT THE BRODY THEATERS, EIGHT FOOT EIGHT FOOT SPACING ALL ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES.

WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE, IT'S GOING TO GIVE US A BETTER BACKDROP FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE BETTER BACKDROP FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A STRIP MALL WITH CONDUIT AND RTUS ON HOW TO USE IT OR LOOKING AT IT, GOING TO LOOK AT EVERGREEN TREE THE AROUND THAT ARE GOING TO BE 25 FOOT TALL ON THEIR BACK FROM THE BACK PATIO.

I'LL BE HERE WITH JASON HAVING QUESTION.

[02:20:04]

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 6.15? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 6.15.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.15? THANK YOU, DR. WILSON?

>> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE. I KNOW MR. MCBRAYER WAS GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. NESLONEY. MR. MCBRAYER?

>> YES, MR. NESLONEY, HOW MANY UNITS ARE YOU PLANNING EITHER FOR BUILDINGS AND THEN ONE COMMUNITY CENTER OR WHATEVER? IS THAT WHAT IT IS?

>> THERE'S GOING TO BE FIVE IN TOTAL THAT ARE THREE-STORY AND THEN ONE COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE MIDDLE.

>> AT HOW MANY UNITS?

>> ROUGHLY 102 AT THE MOMENT.

>> 102 UNITS. OKAY.

>> MS. JOY.

>> THERE WERE 11 PEOPLE I THINK THAT APPEARED AT PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE VARIETY.

THERE WAS ALSO AND I HAD ASKED CITY MANAGER TO BE SURE WE HAVE A CURRENT GOOGLE EARTH.

DO WE HAVE THAT SOMEWHERE? THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT.

OH THE ONE I'M LOOKING AT HAS BLUE STUFF ON IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ABOUT.

AT PLANNING AND ZONING, THEY HAD A TWO-YEAR OLD BLOCK WHICH DIDN'T SHOW MANY HOUSES TO THE NORTH.

THAT'S FULLY DEVELOPED THERE.

IS THERE AN ALLEY BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTY AND THOSE HOME?

>> THERE IS. JUST GOING FIDELITY.

>> THEY'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT.

THOSE LOOK THEY'LL LOOK RIGHT OVER THEIR BACKYARD.

THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN GET AROUND IT.

YOU AND I HAVE TALKED AND YOU HAVE REACHED OUT.

HAVE YOU MET WITH THE MODULE.

>> I JUST REACHED OUT TO EVERYBODY VIA EMAIL OR MAIL AND IN PARTICULAR, THOSE IN OPPOSITION HAD REACHED OUT VIA EMAIL MOSTLY.

BUT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS QUICKER IT UNTO HIM.

BUT ALSO I MENTIONED IN THERE IF THEY HAD ANY CONCERNS TO REACH OUT TO ME EVEN MY CONTACT INFO, BUT ACTUALLY DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM THEM AFTER I SENT THE RESPONSE LATER.

>> I THINK THEY HAD ALREADY EXPRESSED ALL 11 OF THEM AT PLANNING AND ZONING.

YOU TELL ME YOU'VE CHANGED YOUR SITE PLAN.

>> CORRECT.

>> IS IT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET?

>> SHOULD BE YES.

ON BUILDINGS, YOU SEE THAT RED BUILDING.

THAT WAS THE ONLY BUILDING THAT WE HAD LOOKING TOWARDS THE NORTH ORIGINALLY, AND SO WE ACTUALLY ROTATED AT 90 DEGREES TO FACE EAST AND WEST.

I DON'T KNOW IF ON HERE NOT BE ON HERE.

WE HAD ANOTHER DIAGRAM OF WHAT WE'RE RENDERING AND WHAT THOSE ELEVATIONS WITH WHITE TO THE NORTH.

YOU CAN SEE ON HERE HOW THE TREE LINE BUFFER YARD RIGHT THERE.

RIGHT HERE WHERE THE MOUSE IS, WE HAVE ACTUALLY LEFT ME GET BACK OVER HERE.

WE HAVE A LITTLE PATIO RIGHT HERE.

THIS WALL COMES ALL THE WAY OVER AND CLOSES OFF THAT LINE OF SIGHT.

SAME THING ON THIS SIDE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.