[00:00:02]
IT IS TWO O'CLOCK AND CITY COUNCIL IS BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION.WE ARE CALLING INTO ORDER FOR OUR REGULAR SESSION.
BEFORE WE DO CALL INTO ORDER, WE HAVE OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS. TODAY, WE ARE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE PASTOR BEN LAGASSE FROM REDEEMER CHURCH.
DO YOU WANT TO COME ON UP, PASTOR? HE'S THE EXECUTIVE PASTOR OF REDEEMER.
I'M ALWAYS GLAD TO HAVE FOLKS FROM REDEEMER WITH US TODAY.
[1. Texas Anti-Gang Unit Update and Community Report]
SO IF YOU'D ALWAYS PLEASE STAND AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PRAYER, AND THEN WE WILL GO IMMEDIATELY INTO OUR PLEDGES LED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PATTERSON HARRIS.YOU LEAD US WITH WISDOM AND UPHOLD JUSTICE.
SO WE START IN PRAYER TO YOU AS THE CITY COUNCIL GATHERS TO SHAPE OUR COMMUNITY'S FUTURE THIS YEAR, GUIDE THOSE MAKING DECISIONS, HELPING THEM TO SEE CLEARLY, TO CHOOSE JUSTLY FOR OUR CITY'S BENEFIT.
HELP THEM TO DEAL WITH THE CHALLENGES FROM AN ABUNDANCE OF PRACTICAL WISDOM IN THE SENSE OF FAIRNESS MAKING CHOICES THAT BRING REAL BENEFITS.
IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS, LET THEM BE REMINDED OF THE GOSPEL'S CALL TO LOVE AND SERVE OUR NEIGHBORS.
ALWAYS AWARE OF THE LASTING IMPACT OF THEIR CHOICES.
BLESS OUR EFFORTS TO BRING ABOUT MEANINGFUL CHANGE.
TO NURTURE, RESPECT, UNITY, AND COOPERATION AMONG US.
MAY THEIR WORK ADDRESS TODAY'S NEEDS AND SET THE STAGE FOR A PROSPEROUS FUTURE FOR EVERYONE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
ENCOURAGE THEM AS THEY HELP BUILD A COMMUNITY WHERE EVERY PERSON CAN THRIVE, GROUNDED IN THE TRUTH THAT OUR FREEDOMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE GIFTS TO BE USED WISELY AND JUSTLY.
AND ALL THEY DO, MAY THEY REMEMBER THAT TRUE LEADERSHIP IS FOUND IN HUMBLE SERVICE.
FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS IN YOUR NAME, WE COMMIT OUR EFFORTS AND OUR CITY'S FUTURE, TRUSTING IN YOUR SOVEREIGN PLAN. AMEN.
IF YOU REMAIN STANDING AND JOINING WITH US, AS WE SAY THAT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN AND TEXAS FLAG.
>> WE WILL NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 4, WHICH IS CITIZEN COMMENTS, AND I'VE RECEIVED NOTICE THAT THERE WERE NO CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO WE'LL NOW MOVE TO 5.1 WHICH IS THE MINUTES FROM OUR DECEMBER 5TH REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ. GARCIA. SECOND, MR. MASSINGALE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 5.1, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7,0 ON 5.1.
I DON'T KNOW I THINK ALL THE MICS ARE OFF. IS YOURS WORKING?
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD WHILE MIKE'S WORKING ON THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WE HAVE ONE HOUSEKEEPING MATTER.
COUNCIL, THERE WERE NO POOLS, HOWEVER, 6.16 I BELIEVE THAT WAS PURCHASING FACILITIES FOR SOME FURNITURE.
I THINK WE HAVE A CLERICAL ERROR.
WE MAY NEED TO CLEAN UP, MR. ATKINSON.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM 6.16 THE THREE LINE ITEMS. THOSE TOTALS ARE CORRECT.
THE SUM OF THOSE LINE ITEMS IN YOUR AGENDA BACKUP IS INCORRECT.
THE CORRECT TOTAL FOR PACKAGE NUMBER 1, WHICH IS FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.
THE CORRECT TOTAL, THE AMOUNT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE IS $499,992.46.
IT'S A $50,000 DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT'S WRITTEN ON YOUR PAGE.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
[00:05:01]
I THINK ALL OF THE INFORMATION WAS CORRECT EXCEPT IT'S JUST A TOPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THERE.ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. ATKINSON ON 6.16.
WITH APPROVAL OF COUNSEL, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THAT IN THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND I WOULD ASK A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.1 THROUGH 6.27.
THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.
THANK YOU, DR. WILSON. I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.1 THROUGH 6.27, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7,0.
MOVING INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WE'LL START OFF WITH BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
COUNSEL, WITH PERMISSION OF EVERYONE, I'M GOING TO READ EACH OF THE BOARD NAMES.
I'LL READ THE MEMBER INFO ON THE RECOMMENDATION AND WE'LL READ THOSE IN AND TAKE A VOTE ON TOTAL.
ALSO, IF YOU WILL LOOK AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES BOARD, WE HAVE ONE TO REAPPOINT AND THEN THE SECOND POSITION THAT'S ON YOUR LIST, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT AND POST THAT FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO I'LL START OFF WITH THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, TIFF BOARD OF DIRECTORS GABRIEL VATELLA, BRETT MCDOWELL, AND ROBERT TAYLOR.
WE HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO REAPPOINT THOSE THREE TO THEIR SAME POSITIONS.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BOARD, NARTURE BARNES.
RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT MS. BARNES.
MOVING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNED OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT ALAN HOLLY AND JOHN WICKER AND TO PLACE CAL RABBLE FROM DISTRICT 3 INTO THE POSITION TO REPLACE DANA LAMBINES.
NEXT, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE CULTURAL ARTS GRANTS REVIEW STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE FOR CHRISTINA GONZALEZ TO BE REAPPOINTED.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE HEALTH EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO REPLACE DR. SPEARMAN WHO HAS MOVED TO LEDA BOARD WITH DR. DAVID LONG.
NEXT WE HAVE THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT WILLIAM DENEVIC TO THAT POSITION AND TO REPLACE DWIGHT OVERTON WITH KENDRA WATSON FROM DISTRICT 4.
NEXT WE HAVE A LIBRARY'S BOARD.
WE HAVE EDDIE KIRKPATRICK, SHERRY LEWIS, AND KATHY KITTEN.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO REAPPOINT THOSE THREE PARTIES.
MOVING ON TO THE SECOND PAGE, WE HAVE THE LUBBOCK BUSINESS PARK TIF BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT DR. KATHY ROLO, TONY WHITEHEAD, AND TO REPLACE BRETT KATE WITH CHRISTOPHER HOOK.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE MODEL CODES AND CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD.
WE HAVE, THANKFULLY, FOUND MARVIN WHITE FROM DISTRICT 5 WHO WILL SERVE IN THAT POSITION TO REPLACE MARK BRANSCOME.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE NORTH OVERTON TIFF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, A RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT TIM PRIDMORE TO THAT POSITION.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REPLACE THOMAS HAWKINS WITH TERIK REDWIN.
MOVING ON TO THE PUBLIC TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REPLACE NAOMI COUTER WITH KRISTEN COUCHER.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE NAOMI WITH KRISTEN MURRAY FROM DISTRICT 5.
NEXT, WE WILL HAVE THE URBAN DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT MARY KREITZ.
THEN TO APPOINT SHEILA POWELL FROM DISTRICT 2, MATTHEW WEAVER FROM DISTRICT 4, AND DANIEL BIS FROM DISTRICT 1.
THEN ON THE URBAN RENEWAL NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINT AMBER SANDERS, ROBERT BAXTER, AND MILTON LEE.
THEN TO APPOINT BRENDA HAWKINS TO REPLACE DR. STEVE GERMAN, AND A RECOMMENDATION TO APPOINT MICHAEL GOMEZ FROM DISTRICT 1 TO REPLACE JOSHUA FROST.
THEN MOVING TO OUR LAST PAGE, THE VETERANS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REPLACE AARON JOHNSON FROM DISTRICT 5 WITH JEFF LOWERY FROM DISTRICT 4.
FINALLY, OUR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO PROMOTE DEWANNA MCPEARSON AND TO PROMOTE SHANNON SPENCER, AND THEN TO REAPPOINT JOE V. FROM DISTRICT 2, AND TO REPLACE DEWANNA MCPEARSON AS AN ALTERNATE SPOT WITH
[00:10:04]
DANIEL CRAIG AND SHANNON SPENCER IN THE ALTERNATE SPOT WITH JOSE VALENCIANO.ANY QUESTIONS, COUNSEL, ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE REQUESTS? I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE NAMES AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THOSE POSITIONS.
DOES ANYBODY REALLY WANT THAT ON THE RECORD? MISS JOY, THANK YOU. THAT FALLS UNDER 7.1, ALL THOSE NAMES READ IN, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 7.1 AND THOSE NAMES AFORE MENTIONED, NAMES READ, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION ON 7.1 AND THOSE NAMES CARRIES 7-0 NOW WE MOVE TO 7.2.
THIS IS THE DECLARATION BY THE MAYOR FOR POSITIONS ON THE LUBBOCK HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
I DECLARE ADA MARTINEZ AND AMANDA GRAY AS THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE LUBBOCK HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD COMMISSIONERS.
NOW, WE'RE MOVING TO 7.3 AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MISS BROWN.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNSEL, PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU TODAY.
LET ME FIGURE OUT HOW, THERE WE GO.
ITEM 7.3 IS BOTH A PUBLIC HEARING AND A FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO SET THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THE RECENTLY CREATED CYPRESS RANCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
THIS AND THE SECOND READING ON THE NEXT COUNSEL AGENDA, SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TODAY WILL BE THE FINAL STEPS IN CREATION OF THE CYPRESS RANCH PID AND SET THEM UP TO START COLLECTING THAT ASSESSMENT THIS CALENDAR YEAR.
JUST AS A REMINDER, YOU HAVE A MAP HERE OF THE PID.
WE ARE NOW JUST SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE.
THESE ARE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CYPRESS RANCH PID.
JUST TO ORIENT YOU AND THE PUBLIC THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING, 19TH STREET OR LEVEL LAND HIGHWAYS TO THE NORTH, SO YOU'RE VERY CLOSE TO THE CITY LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 19TH STREET AT INLER AVENUE.
AS A REMINDER, YOU'VE SEEN THIS INFORMATION BEFORE.
BUT WE ARE SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THIS CALENDAR YEAR FOR 2024 AT A RATE OF $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.
FOR EVERY $100,000 OF VALUE IN A HOME, A HOMEOWNER WOULD PAY $150 TOWARDS THE PID ASSESSMENT, AND THAT IS COLLECTED BY THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AT THE SAME TIME AS PROPERTY TAXES, AND THEN SENT FROM EL CAD TO THE CITY FOR STAFF AND A FUTURE BOARD TO MANAGE.
PART OF THIS ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF YOU DO HEAR ANY OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT RATES, YOU WILL NEED TO PASS ON THOSE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.
WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MISS BROWN. YOU MAY STICK CLOSE IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS.
>> COUNSEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, COUNSEL WILL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 7.3 CONCERNING THE 2024 ASSESSMENT FOR THE CYPRESS RANCH PID.
IF ANYONE HERE IS WISHING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OR IF THERE'S ANY WRITTEN OPPOSITION, WE CAN READ THAT ALOUD DURING THIS PORTION OF THE HEARING.
IF ANYONE IS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, YOU MAY STEP FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NONE, WE WILL NOW ASK IF ANYONE HERE IS WISHING TO STEP FORWARD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME.
NOW, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO ITEM 7.3.
COUNSEL HAS NOW HEARD A BRIEF PRESENTATION, AND WE'VE HEARD FOR MANY OF THOSE, AND THERE WERE NONE OPPOSED OR IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, SO I WOULD NOW ASK FOR A MOTION TO CONSIDER AGENDA ITEM 7.3.
IS THERE A SECOND, MR. MCGREGOR.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 7.3? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 7.3, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7:0. THANK YOU, MISS BROWN.
[00:15:08]
NOW, MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM 7.4 AGAIN, ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.I'M GOING TO HAVE KRISTEN MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND GIVE US A GENERAL OVERVIEW AND THEN I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALLOW FOR COMMENTS IN FAVOR AND AGAINST, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
ITEM 74 IS ZONE CASE 15110 THE APPLICANT IS KESHAM LLC WITH A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AC.
WE SENT OUT 60 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ZERO IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THE ONE IN OPPOSITION DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS REGARDING THEIR OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 50TH WEST OF QUAKER AVENUE.
HERE'S THE NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE ONE PROPERTY WHO DID RESPOND IN OPPOSITION.
THESE ARE ALSO THE FIRST ZONE CASES WHERE WE'VE HAD THE 400 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY SO YOU CAN SEE BOTH THE 200 AND THE 400 FOOT BOUNDARIES ON THIS MAP.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG 50TH STREET, ALONG WITH OTHER BUSINESSES, ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THERE IS ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AUTO, URBAN COMMERCIAL, AND ONE HEAVY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALONG 50TH STREET, WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH, LOW DENSITY, AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTH, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN GREEN.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USER DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR AC ZONING.
THE REPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS APPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO THE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES, AND ALONG 50TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO FOUR AND I WILL POINT OUT HISTORICALLY, WHEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL, IT REQUIRED A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF SIX OUT OF SEVEN FROM COUNSEL IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED.
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE DID NOT INCLUDE THAT PROVISION, SO SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR COUNSEL TO APPROVE THIS TODAY.
I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I'M GOING TO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LET COMMENTS BE MADE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OF YOU AND MAYBE THE APPLICANT AT THE SAME TIME.
SO NOW WE WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUR AGENDA ITEM 7.4 ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO AGENDA ITEM 7.4 YOU MAY STEP FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 7.4 YOU MAY STEP FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE AN APPLICANT OR ANYBODY AVAILABLE THAT'S IN FAVOR?
>> WE DID SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT LAST WEEK HE WAS CONCERNED HE HAD MISSED THE MEETING BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME BETWEEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THIS HEARING.
WE ASSURED HIM IT WAS TODAY JANUARY 9, SO I'M NOT SURE WHY HE'S NOT HERE.
>> THANK YOU, KRISTEN. SEEING NO ONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO AGENDA ITEM 7.4. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 7.4?
>> THANK YOU, MR. MASSINGALE? I KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS OF YOU AND YOUR FURTHER DISCUSSION OF COUNSEL.
MR. MACBRAYER. I'LL START WITH YOU.
>> YES. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS EAST, WEST, NORTH, SOUTH PICTURES SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE?
>> AND I WILL SAY THAT EAST OF VIEW IS PROBABLY NOT TYPICAL OF WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO.
WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW AN ILLEGAL DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED.
SO THE WEST VIEW, THIS IS WHAT HE'S PROPOSING TO USE OR IT'S CURRENTLY WHAT HE'S USING IT FOR.
>> IN MY UNDERSTANDING IS JUST TO THE EAST OF IT, THAT PROPERTY IS ALSO ZONED AC,.
>> CORRECT SO HE'S WANTING TO ZONE THIS AC SIMILAR TO THE ONE JUST ADJACENT TO HIM.
>> BUT THE OPPOSITION CAME FROM THE WEST SIDE.
>> PROPERTY OWNER IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT WAS JUST THE AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AC PROPERTY OWNER IS USING TO THE EAST? HOW IS HE USING THAT PROPERTY? I DON'T SEE IT AT ALL.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I THINK IT'S [OVERLAPPING] CONVENIENCE STORE AND GAS STATION.
[00:20:02]
I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR I APOLOGIZE.>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S USED FOR AS AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SO THERE ARE CARS PARKED ON IT FROM TIME TO TIME. THANK YOU.
>> KRISTEN, WAS THERE A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR A SMOKE SHOP? WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT?
>> THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR WAS AC WITH A SPECIFIC USE FOR A SMOKE SHOP.
THERE ARE REGULATIONS WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ARE A PREREQUISITE FOR APPLICATION.
THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE WITHIN 600 FEET OF CHURCHES AND DAYCARES, OR 1,000 FEET OF OTHER SMOKE SHOPS.
THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN 600 FEET OF AT LEAST ONE CHURCH SO THEY CANNOT EVEN REQUEST THE SPECIFIC USE, WHICH IS WHY THE REQUEST WAS CHANGED TO ONLY THE AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL WHICH HE WOULD NEED FOR THE U HAUL RENTAL.
>> AND THAT U HAUL RENTAL IS ALSO IN VIOLATION AT THIS TIME, SO HE'S GOT A SMOKE SHOP THAT'S IN VIOLATION AND A U HAUL RENTAL BUSINESS THAT'S ALSO IN VIOLATION.
>> YES. WE CHECKED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT TODAY FOR AN UPDATE AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE SMOKE SHOP HAS CLOSED, THE U HAULS, WE'RE NOT SURE, THERE'S U HAUL TRAILERS LEFT ON THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU. MISS MARTINEZ GARCIA?
>> THAT WAS MY COMMENTS IS THAT THESE HAVE BOTH BEEN OPERATING ILLEGALLY.
>> EVEN AFTER WE REJECTED THEM SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
I KNOW I DID DRIVE BY ONE DAY AND HE HAD THE LARGEST TRUCKS EVEN SITTING ON THE SIDEWALK SO IT'S BEEN A CONCERN.
>> IS THERE A PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT?
>> WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT NO LONGER HAS THE KIND OF CATCH ALL OF 1-175 THAT IT PREVIOUSLY HAD FOR MULTI TENANT CENTERS SO IT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON EACH INDIVIDUAL USE.
GENERALLY, 1-300 FOR RETAIL TYPE USES COULD BE ALL THE WAY UP TO 1-600 DEPENDING ON THE USE.
>> FOR HIS JUST TYPICAL RETAIL USES IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY GOING TO BE 1-300 ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
>> THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE BEEN MEETING THAT PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE DRIVE THROUGH.
HE DID REMOVE SPACES WITH THE ILLEGAL DRIVE THROUGH SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS STILL MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT.
>> I'VE DRIVEN THIS LOCATION QUITE OFTEN, JUST I MEAN, IN MY OWN DAY TO DAY BUSINESS AND THOSE TRUCKS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.
>> AND WE VISITED WITH HIM PRIOR TO TODAY WHEN THAT WAS THE CASE AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
>> BASICALLY SO IN MY MIND, I'M GOING WHY ARE WE HERE?
>> IF COUNSEL DENIES THE REQUEST TODAY SINCE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL, HE WILL HAVE TO WAIT ONE YEAR BEFORE COMING BACK.
>> MR. MAYOR, I HAD ONE THING.
SO WE DO HAVE AN ACTIVE CODE CASE ON THIS.
WE HAVE ISSUED MULTIPLE NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS, A CITATION, AND DEPENDING ON THE COUNSEL'S ACTION TODAY, WE ARE PREPARED TO ISSUE WEEKLY CITATIONS DEPENDING ON HOW THE MEETING COMES OUT.
BUT WE DO HAVE AN ACTIVE CODE CASE.
>> THANK YOU, ERIC. WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 7.4, PLEASE SAY AYE.
WE'LL NOW MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM 7.5.
KRISTEN, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP IN ON THAT AND THEN I'LL DO THE SAME THING.
WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ITEM 7.5 IS ZONE CASE 3058G.
THE APPLICANT IS 17 SERVICES, LLC FOR TOMMY FORD.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2 TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL AC.
WE SENT OUT 12 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF 50TH AND UPLAND.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE PROPERTY WHO DID RESPOND IN FAVOR.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
VACANT LAND TO THE NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH WITH RESIDENCES TO THE EAST.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY SF2.
THE CORNER IMMEDIATELY ACROSS 50TH HAS ALREADY BEEN ZONED OUTER RING COMMERCIAL AC.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY FOR LOW DENSITY
[00:25:03]
RESIDENTIAL THAT RECOGNIZES THAT THE CORNER OF TWO THOROUGHFARES IS INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL.HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH THE INTENT THAT THE INTERSECTIONS BE ZONED, COMMERCIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AC ZONING REQUEST.
[NOISE] THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
LOCATION IS LONG, 50TH AND UPLAND, WHICH ARE BOTH PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS.
STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> THANK YOU, MS. SEGER. COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO 7.5. IF ANYONE HERE IS WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO AGENDA ITEM 7.5 YOU MAY STEP FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
IF ANYONE HERE IS WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF 7.5 YOU MAY STEP FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED AS TO AGENDA ITEM 7.5.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 7.5? THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.
THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF MS. SEGER ON 7.5? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? I GUESS I'LL JUST BACK UP ON MY SOAP BOX.
THAT EVEN WITH THE UDC AND SOME CHANGES, I STILL THINK IT'S VERY VALUABLE FOR AN APPLICANT TO SHOW UP WHEN THEY HAVE A ZONE CASES PARTICULAR PUBLIC HEARING, AND TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, OR AT LEAST BE PRESENT FOR COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS. MS. PATTERSON HARRIS?
>> YES. AND IF THE APPLICANT WERE HERE, I'D ASK THAT INDIVIDUAL WHAT THEIR PLANS WERE.
BECAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH AND I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR WITH THAT TYPE OF ZONING RIGHT NEXT TO LOW DENSITY.
DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA, DID THAT PERSON SHARE WITH YOU?
>> IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A UNIQUE LOCATION BECAUSE YES, YOU DO HAVE RESIDENCES IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR, BUT THEY'RE FRONTING ONTO A THOROUGHFARE.
AND I THINK THE INTENT IS TO GET THE COMMERCIAL ZONING IN PLACE, SAME AS WHAT THEY DID ACROSS THE STREET, AND GET IT READY TO MARKET FOR A FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE.
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES HAVE ADDITIONAL BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL PROTECT THOSE RESIDENCES TO THE EAST.
>> EVEN WITH THAT UNDERSTOOD, WHY SPECIFICALLY AUTO TO URBAN COMMERCIAL?
>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY OTHER THAN I THINK THE INTENT IS TO GET IT READY TO MARKET FOR THE VARIOUS USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THOSE DISTRICTS.
>> BECAUSE THAT WOULD GIVE THE IDEA OF WHAT WHAT THE INTENT MAY BE.
BUT SINCE THE PROPONENT IS NOT HERE, I CAN'T ASK THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> YES, MS. PATTERSON HARRIS. SORRY. THERE WAS A PORTION IN HERE I THOUGHT THAT SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC REQUEST OR A SPECIFIC USE AT THIS TIME.
THEY WERE PLANNING TO HAVE IT CHANGED FOR THE FUTURE, AS MS. SEGER SAID.
BUT I'M LOOKING FOR THAT. GO AHEAD.
>> I JUST FORGOT MY THOUGHTS THERE.
>> THAT'S WHAT MINE DOES ALL DAY, I'M SORRY.
>> UNDER MR. NOBLE DID ASK MS. PATTERSON HARRIS, HE INQUIRED AT THE PNZ IF THERE WAS A PLAN.
MR. GENTRY REPLIED IN THE NEGATIVE, ADDING THE OWNER SIMPLY KNOWS, THERE WON'T BE A USE FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING ON THIS PARCEL.
WHAT IS THE NORTH OF THAT, MS. SEGER?
>> AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL. AND THAT WAS DONE IN 2021, I BELIEVE.
>> THE ONE TO THE NORTH IS WHAT AGAIN?
ACCORDING TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE UTILIZED AS A BUFFER TO RESIDENTIAL? OR WOULD IT POSE ISSUES? COULD IT POTENTIALLY POSE ISSUES TO THE RESIDENTIAL?
>> UNDER OUR FORMER ZONING CODE, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL WHEN IT WAS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SIDE RATHER THAN THE REAR.
[00:30:02]
WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FORTUNATELY, IT HAS THE ADDED BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS.SO POTENTIALLY INCREASED SETBACKS, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS, THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THOSE RESIDENCES SO THAT ALLEVIATES THAT CONCERN.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE THAT WAS MY DEAL.
I'M THINKING MAYBE I'M STILL STUCK IN THE [LAUGHTER] OLD ZONING PROCESS, BUT I JUST GET CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITIZENS WHEN WE WANT TO PUT THINGS.
IT JUST SEEMED KIND OF ODD AND IF AUTO WERE NOT THE PURPOSE, I'M CONCERNED AS TO WHY THAT HAD TO BE THE ZONING OF CHOICE.
>> BUT ACCORDING TO UDC, THERE WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE NEW REQUIREMENT SET BACK BUFFERING?
>> YES, PROTECTION IS IN PLACE.
>> REMIND ME AGAIN WHAT THE BUFFERING DISTANCE WOULD BE, BECAUSE IT IS COMMERCIAL, BUT IT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO [NOISE] RESIDENTIAL.
SO WHAT WOULD BE THE DISTANCE?
>> IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE A TYPE B OR TYPE C. SO 10-15 FOOT FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ITSELF.
>> THERE MAY BE AN INCREASED SETBACK DUE TO IT BEING RESIDENTIAL AS WELL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. SEGER? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL BEFORE WE TAKE IT TO VOTE? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND OF AGENDA ITEM 7.5.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
IT IS 2:31 ON THE 9TH OF JANUARY.
WE'RE GLAD TO SEE ALL THESE BRIGHT, SHINY FACES BACK.
IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT YEAR AND WE WILL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.