>> I WILL NOW OPEN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR
[00:00:03]
LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 27TH, 2026.THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO
[1. Executive Session]
EXECUTIVE SESSION ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK THE ADVICE OF CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL.SECTION 551.072 TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE EXCHANGE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECESSING AT 1:01 PM.
GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY HERE DOWN ON THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY.
GLAD EVERYBODY MADE IT, MADE IT HERE SAFELY AS WE ENJOY A LITTLE PRECIPITATION OF THE QUIET FORM.
I THINK WE CAN REPORT THAT WE GOT THROUGH WINTER STORM FERN PRETTY WELL HERE IN LUBBOCK.
I WANT TO COMMEND OUR CITY STAFF FOR BEING ON THE JOB AND TAKING CARE OF EVERYTHING.
THEY DID A PHENOMENAL JOB OF GETTING OUT THERE, SANDING AND SALTING OUR STREETS, KEEPING OUR MAIN THOROUGH FARES PLOWED WHERE NECESSARY, KEEPING US SAFE AND OPERATING THE EMERGENCY OPERATION CENTER.
NIGHT AND DAY. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR DOING THAT.
WE HAVE INCREDIBLE EMPLOYEES STAFF COMMITTED HERE WORKING IN TOUGH WEATHER.
ALSO GOT A LOT OF GOOD REPORTS FROM FOLKS AROUND TOWN ON OUR LP&L STAFF AND HOW QUICKLY THEY RESPONDED TO POWER OUTAGES TO GETTING PEOPLE BACK ONLINE.
IT'S JUST A TESTIMONY TO HOW HARD WORKING OUR PEOPLE HERE IN LUBBOCK ARE, HOW COMMITTED THEY ARE TO TAKING CARE OF OUR CITIZENS.
WE'RE FORTUNATE TO GET THROUGH THIS.
WE ALWAYS PREPARE FOR THE WORST AND ARE HAPPY WHEN THAT DOESN'T COME.
IT DIDN'T. WE WERE ABLE TO ENJOY IT.
WE WILL NOW CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION, AND WE'LL TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS.
[1. Invocation]
I'M GOING TO CALL FIRST ON SENIOR PASTOR MICHELLE SCHUBERT WITH NEW HOPE CHURCH HERE IN LUBBOCK TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION.AFTER THAT, I WILL HAVE A SPECIAL PROCLAMATION FOLLOWED BY OUR PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE.
LET'S STAND FOR OUR INVOCATION AS YOU ARE ABLE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.
IT'S ALWAYS A PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE.
IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED, WOULD YOU BOW YOUR HEAD WITH ME? HEAVENLY FATHER, WE PRAY FOR OUR DISTRICT LEADERS, MAYOR MCBRAYER, CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGERS, A BLESSING AS THEY GIVE THEIR TIME TO THE SERVICE OF THIS CITY.
WE HONOR THEIR COMMITMENT AND ASK FOR YOUR FAVOR THROUGH THEIR WISDOM, AS WELL AS FLOURISHING IN THEIR LIVES AS WELL AS THAT OF THEIR FAMILIES.
LIFT UP THEIR WORK HERE TODAY AS THEY SEEK TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THOSE MADE IN YOUR IMAGE ACROSS THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
HELP ALL OF US TO REMEMBER AS THESE LEADERS FACILITATE THE NEEDS OF THIS CITY, AND AS CITIZENS RESPOND, THAT THERE IS MORE THAT UNIFIES US THAN DIVIDES US.
HELP US TO REMEMBER YOUR HUMILITY OF SERVICE FOR MANKIND AS WE EACH MOVE IN ACTIONABLE LOVE TOWARD NEIGHBOR TODAY.
MAY THESE PROCEEDINGS GLORIFY YOU AND HONOR YOUR PURPOSE FOR THIS PLACE THAT WE HOLD DEAR.
MAY IT BE SO IN LUBBOCK AS IT IS IN HEAVEN, IN YOUR NAME, AMEN.
[2. Pledges of Allegiance]
>> I WANT TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY ON THIS SPECIAL DAY.
THIS IS A NATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY ACROSS OUR NATION.
I WANT TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO RECOGNIZE THAT HERE IN LUBBOCK.
I'VE INVITED TWO RABBIS WHO SERVE OUR JEWISH CITIZENS HERE IN LUBBOCK FOR THIS PROCLAMATION.
COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE A PART OF A NUMBER OF MAYORS WHO WERE INVITED FROM AROUND THE WORLD TO ISRAEL.
WE WERE THERE FOR AN OCCASION TO LEARN A LOT ABOUT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF INDUSTRIES AND AI STUFF THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN ISRAEL, BUT WE WERE ALSO INVITED TO BE GUESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT THERE.
[00:05:03]
WHILE WE WERE THERE, WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL.WE ALSO VISITED SOME OF THE SITES THAT WERE ATTACKED ON OCTOBER 7TH A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
THE PHRASE WE ALWAYS SAY IS NEVER FORGET, AND THE REASON WE HAVE TO SAY THAT IS BECAUSE THE THREAT OF ANTI SEMITISM NEVER GOES AWAY.
IT'S ALWAYS READY TO RAISE ITS UGLY HEAD TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
TODAY, I WANT TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE SPECIAL RECOGNITION, AND THEN I WANT TO INVITE RABBI ZALMAN BRAUN AND RABBI DR. STEPHANIE SCHEIN TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
WHEREAS JANUARY 27TH IS RECOGNIZED AS INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY, COMMEMORATES THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION OF AUSCHWITZ BERCHENAU, THE LARGEST NAZI CONCENTRATION AND EXTERMINATION CAMP.
THIS YEAR MARKS THE 81ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION OF AUSCHWITZ BERCHENAU, AND WE PAUSE TO REFLECT ON ONE OF THE DARKEST CHAPTERS IN OUR HUMAN HISTORY.
WHEREAS ON INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY, WE HONOR AND REMEMBER THE SIX MILLION JEWS SYSTEMATICALLY MURDERED BY THE NAZI REGIME, AS WELL AS MILLIONS OF OTHER INNOCENT VICTIMS WHO WERE DEHUMANIZED AND TARGETED FOR PERSECUTION AND EXTERMINATION.
WHEREAS INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY STANDS AS A SOLEMN REMINDER OF THE DANGERS OF HATRED AND BIGOTRY TOWARDS DIFFERENT RACES AND RELIGIONS AND UNDERSCORES THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION, VIGILANCE, UNDERSTANDING, AND ACTION TO ENSURE SUCH ATROCITIES ARE NEVER REPEATED AGAIN.
WHEREAS THE CITY OF LUBBOCK REAFFIRMS ITS COMMITMENT TO HUMAN DIGNITY, TOLERANCE, AND MUTUAL RESPECT WHILE STANDING FIRMLY AGAINST ANTI SEMITISM AND ALL FORMS OF HATRED AND DISCRIMINATION.
IT'S OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO PRESERVE THE LESSONS OF THE HOLOCAUST AS A CORNERSTONE TO OUR COLLECTIVE MEMORY AND TO HONOR THE RESILIENCE AND COURAGE OF THE SURVIVORS WHO REBUILT THEIR LIVES AND COMMUNITIES.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY OF LUBBOCK, DO HEREBY OFFER SPECIAL RECOGNITION TO INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE TODAY AND CALL UPON ALL OUR RESIDENTS TO JOIN US IN SOLEMN REMEMBRANCE OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST AND TO EDUCATE OURSELVES ABOUT THE HISTORY AND LESSONS WE CAN LEARN FROM THE HOLOCAUST AND RECOMMIT OURSELVES TO BUILDING A MORE JUST TOLERANT AND COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY FREE FROM ANTI SEMITISM AND HATRED OF ANY KIND DATED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
I'D LIKE TO CALL US NOW JUST TO HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE TO REMEMBER THOSE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST, AND THEN I'LL CALL THE RABBIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CALL UP RABBI STEPHANIE SHEIN OF CONGREGATION SHERIFF ISRAEL, HERE IN LUBBOCK.
COME FORWARD, AND I HAVE A PROCLAMATION FOR YOU AND INVITE YOU TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH [APPLAUSE]
THANK YOU FOR ELEVATING ME TO THE STATUS OF RABBI.
I'M A PRESIDENT OF CONGREGATION SHERIFF ISRAEL.
WE DO HAVE A RABBI IN THE ROOM WHO WILL SPEAK NEXT.
>> I'M A LITTLE TEACHING. THAT'S FAIR. RABBIS ARE TEACHING.
>> ARE YOU A REAL RABBI. INDEED.
>> ON BEHALF OF CONGREGATION SHERIFF ISRAEL, THANK YOU FOR THE SPECIAL BEAUTIFUL RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY.
REMEMBERING IS DEEPLY IMPORTANT.
I'M GOING TO READ SOME WORDS BY A RABBI, RABBI BARRY DOV KATZ.
THESE WORDS WERE WRITTEN AFTER OCTOBER 7TH.
THE STORY OF NOAH IS TOO HARD TO BEAR, BUT AT LEAST THERE WAS AN ARK TO INCLUDE, PROTECT AND SAVE FROM THE FLOOD.
NOW, WE ARE THE ONES WHO NEED AN ARK TO SAVE US FROM THE FLOOD.
WE ALL NEED GOPHER WOOD AND PITCH FOR OUR SOULS.
WE ALL SEARCH FOR THE WINDOW TO FEEL THE SUN ON OUR FACES AND TO SEE THE HORIZON.
SINCE THERE IS NO ARK, WE WILL BE THE ARK TOGETHER.
WHEN WE ARE IN DISTRESS, MAY WE BUILD TOGETHER AN ARK OF LOVE, ASSISTANCE, AND SUPPORT.
AN ARK THAT HAS ROOM FOR ALL OF THE TEARS.
MY WE TOGETHER BE AN ARK FACING EACH AND EVERY WAVE IN THE FLOOD AND STORM.
HELP US TO BE AN ARK OF MUTUAL FRIENDSHIP, SO THAT IN THIS NARROW PLACE FULL OF PAIN AND ANGER, WE WILL NOT BECOME ENEMIES,
[00:10:01]
THAT WE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT OUR FUTURE AND FATE ARE ONE.GIVE US THE STRENGTH TO BE AN ARK OF LISTENING, AN ARK THAT IS SPACIOUS AND HAS ROOM FOR ALL.
DO NOT LET THE FLOOD ENTER THE HOLINESS OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
REMEMBER THE ARK THAT MIRIAM PLACED GENTLY AND HOPEFULLY ON THE WATER.
PROTECT OUR LOVED ONES, PROTECT THE WOUNDED, GUARD US FROM EVIL.
SINCE THERE IS NO ARK, WE WILL BE THE ARK.
MAY WE SOON KNOW THAT THE WATERS HAVE RECEDED FROM THE EARTH, FULFILL FOR US THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN, "THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER FLOOD, AND THE RAINBOW APPEARED IN THE CLOUDS," AND LET US SAY AMEN.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
NOW, I'LL CALL UP AN ACTUAL RABBI.
RABBI ZALMAN BRAUN, WHO IS SERVES THE SHLICHUS OF LUBBOCK AT TEXAS TECH.
RABBI, YOU'LL COME FORWARD [APPLAUSE]
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR FOR INVITING ME HERE TODAY.
IT'S REALLY MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE, REPRESENTING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY HERE IN LUBBOCK AND THE JEWISH STUDENTS AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY.
BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE, TONIGHT ON THE HEBREW CALENDAR MARKS EXACTLY 76 YEARS SINCE THE RABBI, RABBI MENACHEM M SCHNEERSON ASSUMED THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHABAD-LUBBOCKVITCH MOVEMENT IN 1950.
THIS WAS MERELY A FEW YEARS AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST WHEN JEWISH COMMUNITIES ALL AROUND THE WORLD WE'RE IN A STATE OF DESPAIR OF DEVASTATION AND LOOKING TO REBUILD THEIR LIVES.
THE RABBI MADE IT HIS MISSION FROM THE FIRST DAY TO NOT JUST FOCUS ON REBUILDING OUR OWN COMMUNITY, BUT TO REBUILD THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES ALL AROUND THE WORLD TO ENSURE THAT IN ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD, WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY, WILL HAVE A HOME, WILL HAVE A WAY TO CONNECT HIS JEWISH IDENTITY.
TO DATE, THERE'S CHABAD CENTERS IN OVER 100 COUNTRIES IN ALL 50 STATES.
IT IS MY GREATEST HONOR TO BE DEB'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE IN LUBBOCK AND TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY JEW WILL ALWAYS HAVE A HOME.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.
SEE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE RABBI MADE A STRONG EMPHASIS ON WAS THE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS THAT GOD GAVE TO ADAM AT THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION, REITERATED TO NOAH AFTER THE GREAT FLOOD, WHICH ARE THE BELIEF IN ONE GOD, NOT TO SERVE IDOLS, NOT TO MURDER, NOT TO STEAL, NOT TO HAVE IMMORAL RELATIONS, NOT TO BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JUSTICE COURTS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ALL DO BEST OVER HERE, RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REFLECTIONS THAT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ENSURE TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN THAT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT LEARNING AND STUDYING AND BEING SMART, IT'S ABOUT HAVING MORAL VALUES AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORLD IS TRULY A CIVILIZED PLACE, A PLACE THAT GOD WANTS TO CALL HIS HOME.
UNTIL WE COME TO THE ULTIMATE TIME, THE WORLD WILL BE ONLY A PLACE OF GOODNESS AND KINDNESS WITH THE COMING OF THE CHEF, MAY BE SPEEDILY IN DAYS. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
>> I THINK WE ALL ARE REMINDED THE NAZIS FOLLOWED THE LAW.
A LAW WITHOUT A STRONG UNDERGROUNDING.
IT'S BASED AND THE LAW, I THINK WE ALL LEARN FROM GOD AND RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER AND LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER.
WITHOUT THAT, LAW IS WORTHLESS.
YES, WE TRY TO DO THE LAW HERE AS BEST WE CAN.
BUT IN SERVING THIS COMMUNITY, I THINK ALL OF US HERE DO RECOGNIZE OUR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD FOR WHAT WE DO HERE.
>> IT'S THE PLACE AT WHICH WE NORMALLY TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS, BUT I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE ANY TODAY.
NORMALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK TO US ON ANY ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, AND WE WOULD GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES, AND WE ALWAYS WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING OR WHO MIGHT BE HERE.
IF YOU EVER HAVE ANY SUBJECT MATTER THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT DAY ON OUR AGENDA, YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL.
PLEASE LET US KNOW BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR MEETINGS AT 2:00 O'CLOCK.
SIGN UP, AND WE WILL PUT YOU IN THE QUEUE TO SPEAK TO US ON WHATEVER MATTER YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO US ON THAT'S PART OF OUR AGENDA.
THIS IS PART OF TRYING TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO OUR CITIZENS.
WE'LL TAKE UP NOW AGENDA ITEM 4.1,
[4. Minutes]
[00:15:02]
MINUTES FROM OUR DECEMBER 9TH, 2025, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND THE DECEMBER 11TH, 2025 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING.THOSE MINUTES HAVE BEEN IN YOUR PACKETS PRESENTED TO YOU.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE TO THOSE MINUTES?
>> I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET ME NO BY SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY? HEAR NONE.
THAT MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
[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.]
THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY REQUEST TODAY TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR A SEPARATE VOTE.I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
BUT I BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT ONE ITEM, BUT LET'S GET A MOTION FIRST, AND THEN DURING THE DISCUSSION, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT ONE ITEM. IS THAT APPROPRIATE? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND.
I BELIEVE, MR. COLLINS, YOU HAD A QUESTION.
[5. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution approving and adopting the FY 2025-26 City of Lubbock Investment Policy and Investment Strategy, as reviewed and recommended by the Audit and Investment Committee.]
YOU WANTED SOME INFORMATION PRESENTED, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THAT.>> I DID. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR.
ITEM 5.05 IS A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND MAKE SOME CHANGES TO OUR INVESTMENT POLICY AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY.
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME FROM OUR AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE AND SO I WAS HOPING THAT THE CITY MANAGER COULD PROVIDE US SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO WHAT MAY BE CHANGING THERE, THE ROLE AND PURPOSES OF THE AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, AND MAYBE GIVE US A LITTLE CLARITY ON WHAT DOLLARS THAT THIS GROUP OVERSEES FOR US.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMAN, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CFO, JOE HEMENZ TO COME UP, AND HE AND I WILL WALK THROUGH THIS.
YOUR AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE IS A SMALL, BUT VERY IMPORTANT GROUP.
YOU SEE THE RESULTS OF THEIR WORK WHEN WE COME IN TO BUDGET EACH YEAR TALKING ABOUT HOW YOUR INVESTMENT EARNINGS TRACK DIFFERENT BENCHMARKS AND WHERE WE ACHIEVE THAT.
OF COURSE, ALSO, AS WE PREPARED, WHAT IS NOW CALLED THE ANNUAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL REPORT OR YOUR CITY AUDIT.
JOE AND HIS TEAM WORK DIRECTLY WITH AUDIT AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, SO WE'LL LET HIM START AND I'LL FILL IN IF I CAN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST ROLES OF OUR AUDIT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE IS AN ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT WHICH IS BASICALLY YOUR FINANCIAL YEAR ENDS.
WHAT WE DO, WE GIVE THEM A DRAFT, THEY REVIEW IT, THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
WE WILL BE TAKING THIS DRAFT TO FEBRUARY 11TH.
TO THAT AUDITED INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, AND THEN TO COUNCIL ON THE SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY, WHICH I BELIEVE IS FEBRUARY 27TH.
WE'LL BRING THAT T OFF FOR FINAL RECOMMENDATION.
JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM. IT'S A FIVE MEMBER BOARD.
CURRENTLY, MS. TERESA CLARK IS THE CHAIR.
MR. EDDIE SCHULTZ IS THE ELECTRIC BOARD REPRESENTATIVE.
WE HAVE MR. BRANDON KIDD AND MR. COOPER CUNNINGHAM.
AGAIN, WE MEET WITH THEM QUARTERLY.
WE PROVIDE THEM IN THE INTERNAL AUDITS THAT HAVE HAPPENED BETWEEN THAT PERIOD AND THE INVESTMENT REPORT.
AS MR. ATKINSON SAID, WE HAVE ABOUT A $702 MILLION INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO, WHICH IT'S IN THE MONTHLY MANAGER REPORT, SO YOU ALL CAN SEE THAT.
BUT WE TAKE IT TO THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, ESPECIALLY WE HAVE SOME EXPERTISE ON THAT BOARD, AND SO THEY PROVIDE US WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE MARKET OR WHAT THEY THINK WE SHOULD INVEST IN.
AGAIN, FOR FISCAL YEAR 25, WE MADE ABOUT $17.1 MILLION IN OUR INVESTMENT POOL.
THE PRIOR YEAR WAS 21.1 MILLION.
IT'S A LITTLE LESS, BUT REMEMBER, THAT'S MARKET RATE DRIVEN.
AS INTEREST RATES WERE HIGHER, WE MADE MORE MONEY.
AS INTEREST RATES COME DOWN, THE SAME.
AGAIN, THIS IS MONEY, THE CASH THAT WE HAVE ON HAND IN OUR DEPARTMENTS, AND ALL THE PROCEEDS WE HAVE FROM THE BONDS THAT WE'VE ISSUED.
OF COURSE, WHEN THOSE BONDS ARE SITTING THERE ONCE WE ISSUE THE DEBT, AND HAVEN'T EXPENDED THOSE FUNDS, WE'RE INVESTING IN THEM.
WE'LL TRY TO BE THE BEST STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY AS WE CAN.
AGAIN, THAT'S A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW ABOUT THE AUDITING COMMITTEE DOES FOR US.
AGAIN, IT'S A FIVE MEMBER BOARD.
IT REQUIRES AT LEAST TWO WHO ARE INVESTMENT BANKING, AUDIT, FINANCING, AND THEN ONE MEMBER AND LARGE AND THEN ONE MEMBER FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARD.
HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
>> DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY $700 MILLION INVESTED AND THESE FUNDS MAKE UP FUNDS FROM ALL OF OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS.
THEIR RESERVE FUNDS, I ASSUME?
>> THESE FUNDS ARE ALSO THE FUNDS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE HELD TO SUPPORT
[00:20:04]
THEIR BONDING OR BORROWING THAT THEY HAVE TO DO TO CONTINUE WITH THE WORK OF THE CITY?>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. WE ISSUE THE DEBT ALL AT ONE TIME.
FOR THOSE BONDS, WE GET THE WHOLE ISSUANCE.
OF COURSE, YOU SPEND THAT OVER A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS, SO WHATEVER WE HAVE HAVE NOT EXPENDED OR PAID OUT THAT'S INVESTED INTO OUR PORTFOLIO.
>> I GUESS THE POINT OF MY QUESTION IS TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THOSE FOLKS AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CITIZENS WHO ARE OVERSEEING THE WORK OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF MANAGING OUR RESERVE FUNDS, AND THIS ACTION HAPPENS TO BE WHAT I WOULD CALL A PULLBACK, REFERRED TO AS A PULLBACK.
WE'RE RESTRICTING SOME OF THE INVESTMENTS AWAY FROM COMMERCIAL PAPER. COULD YOU EXPLAIN?
>> COMMERCIAL PAPER AT ONE POINT, WE HAD INCREASED.
IT HAD BEEN 10% OF OUR TOTAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.
WE WENT TO 30% BUT WE'VE AVERAGED ABOUT 6.4% IN COMMERCIAL PAPER.
IT MADE SENSE IT'S A LOT MORE RISKY IN THE CITY THEY WANT TO BE RISK ADVERSE.
WE NEVER REALLY WENT TO THAT 30% THRESHOLD, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO THE 10% THAT WE HAD PRIOR.
AGAIN, WE AVERAGED ABOUT 6.4% OF OUR TOTAL PORTFOLIO IN COMMERCIAL PAPER.
IT MAKES SENSE TO BRING IT BACK TO SET SOME LOWER PARAMETERS ON THERE.
WE BROUGHT THAT TO COUNCIL BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AUDIT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE TO BRING THAT DOWN TO THE 10%.
>> WELL, AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE CITIZENS THAT ARE OVERSEEING THAT, THOSE THAT ARE CAPABLE AND UNDERSTAND THE ZEROS, IF YOU WILL, BUT WE HAVE CITIZENS WHO ARE HELPING WATCH OVER THESE LARGE SUMS OF MONEY THAT THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.
THANK YOU AGAIN, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THAT'S IT.
>> YOU'RE CONGRATULATING GETTING THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO DO MATH IN PUBLIC.
I THINK YOU ALWAYS SAY, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO DO MATH AND SOME GREAT PEOPLE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO ASK, WHO IS OUR AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVE?
>> WELL, IT'S NOT AT LARGE AND I SHOULD HAVE MISSPOKE, BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT REQUIRED TO BE AUDITOR, FINANCIAL PERSON.
I BELIEVE THAT IS MR. COOPER CUNNINGHAM.
HE IS IN THE BANKING INDUSTRY, BUT IT'S JUST ONE OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT IN THAT FOCUS, BUT I THINK IT DOES HELP THAT THEY ALL HAVE A BACKGROUND IN FINANCE FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
>> SOMETIMES THEY ASK THE MOST INTERESTING QUESTIONS.
>> THEY DO. THEY KEEP US ON OUR TOES. THAT'S FOR SURE.
>> THERE YOU GO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT $70.1 MILLION?
>> REALLY WE JUST REINVEST IT.
IT'S MONEY THAT'S AVAILABLE OUT OF THAT INTEREST EARNINGS, AND SO IF WE NEED IT, WE'LL REINVEST IT.
IF WE CAN, WE'LL REINVEST IT, AND WE NEED IT TO COVER SOME OF THE EXPENSES WE DO.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S LIKE YOUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
YOU GET MONEY, YOU GET INTEREST ON THAT, AND YOU'LL REINVEST THOSE FUNDS TO MAKE MORE PROFIT ON THEM.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. JOE, WE'RE DONE.
I SEE THAT. THANK YOU JOE. APPRECIATE IT.
SINCE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
IF THERE IS NONE, LET'S ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM 4.1, THE CONSENT AGENDA, IS THAT RIGHT? GOT THE RIGHT NUMBER HERE? ITEM 5.
CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? I HERE NONE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.
[1. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 3540, a request of City of Lubbock, for zone changes in City Council District 1, from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Medium Density Residential District (MDR), High Density Residential District (HDR), Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), Heavy Commercial District (HC), Industrial Park District (IP), and Light Industrial District (LI), to Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), Industrial Park District (IP), Light Industrial District (LI), and General Industrial District (GI), at 11702 North Avenue P, 144.15 acres of unplatted land out of Block D, Section 39, 1604 East Drew Street, 7.21 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 36, 1002 East Drew Street, 258.57 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 36, 9104 North Interstate 27, 148.75 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 36, 8902 North Interstate 27 and 325 East Keuka Street, Lot 1, Tyco Addition, 202 East Keuka Street, 469.47 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 32, 8002 North Cedar Avenue, 58.65 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 32, 7112 North Cedar Avenue, 54.33 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 32, 5802 North Cedar Avenue, 262.79 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 28, 5401 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, 358.11 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 28, 2409 East Independence Street, 542.68 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-3, Section 2, 3602 East Stonehill Street, 231.33 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 43, 3301 East Stonehill Street, 150.54 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-3, Section 6, 101 East Regis Street, 137.55 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 901 East Regis Street, 10.13 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 909 East Regis Street, 9.87 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 1105 East Regis Street, 10 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 1115 East Regis Street, 15.82 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 1115 East Regis Street, Rear, 1.46 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 5001 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, 69.92 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 10, 1702 East Bluefield Street, 15.94 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-3, Section 1, 2202 East Bluefield Street, 141.04 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-3, Section 1, 2602 East Bluefield Street, 155.13 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-3, Section 1, 1822 East Kent Street, 76.61 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 8, 3002 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, 78.21 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 8, 2802 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, 15.61 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 8, 2019 East Bradley Street, 17.58 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 8, 2005 East Bradley Street, Lot 2, Buchanan Addition, 2021 East Bradley Street, Lot 5, Buchanan Addition, 2602 East Kent Street, 157.02 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 8, 2903 North Guava Avenue, 157.49 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 8, 4501 East 4th Street, Rear, 0.4 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 4, 2074 Cesar E Chavez Drive, the north 280 feet of Block 2, Canyon Park Addition, 1901 Erskine Street and 2074 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Rear, Block 89, Roberts-McWhorter Addition, 2070 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Block 1 and the south 155 feet of Block 2, Canyon Park Addition, 2006 Cesar E Chavez Drive, the north part of Blocks 94 through 96, Markowitz Addition, 1808 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Lots 1 through 12, Block 3, Pierce Addition, 1710 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Lots 1 through 12, Block 2, Pierce Addition, 1700 and 1702 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Lots 1 through 12, Block 1, Pierce Addition, 411 North Avenue P, Lot 3, Block 1, Pavers Addition, 402 North Avenue P, Lot 2, Block 1, Pavers Addition, 1624 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Tract A, Pavers Addition, 1402 Cesar E Chavez Drive, 32.73 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 80, 224 North Avenue Q Drive, Lot 1, Block 4, Rio Vista Addition, 1410 Cesar E Chavez Drive, Lot 1, Block 24, Guadalupe Addition, 301 North Interstate 27, the north 75 feet of Lot 2, less the east 7014.4 square feet, Mullins Addition, 221 North Interstate 27, the south 90 feet of Lot 2, less the east 7403.3 square feet, Mullins Addition, 205 North Interstate 27, Lot 4, less the east 28298.7 square feet, Mullins Addition, 203 North Interstate 27, Lot 3, less the east 4973.5 square feet, Mullins Addition, 103 North Interstate 27, Lots 1 and 2, Block 22, Guadalupe Addition, 2432 34th Street, Lot 13, Block 5, Massey Heights Addition, 2523 48th Street, Lots C, D, and E, Cone Addition, 4811 Akron Avenue, Tract A-3, Cone Addition, 2512 50th Street, Tract A-2 Cone Addition, 2514 50th Street, Tract A-1 Cone Addition, 3102 North Loop 289, Tract D, X-Fab Addition, 4311 Bradley Street, 3.585 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4307 Bradley Street, 1.25 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4304 Adrian Street, 0.8 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4224 Adrian Street, 0.35 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4220 Adrian Street, 1.16 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4302 Adrian Street, 1.84 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4216 Adrian Street, 0.92 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4210 Adrian Street, 0.92 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4208 Adrian Street, 6.126 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4108 Adrian Street, 0.39 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4102 Adrian Street, 5 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4117 Adrian Street, 12 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 3922 Ursuline Street, 18.49 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4305 Adrian Street, 1.09 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 2402 North Quaker Avenue, 8.74 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 4027 Clovis Road, 8.87 acres of land out of Block A, Section 18, 4025 Clovis Road, 0.99 acres of land out of Block A, Section 18, 4025 Clovis Road, Rear, 1.82 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 18, 4023 Clovis Road, Lot 14 Clovis Road Addition, 4019 Clovis Road, Lot 13 Clovis Road Addition, 4015 Clovis Road, Lot 12 Clovis Road Addition, 4011 Clovis Road, Lot 11 Clovis Road Addition, 4009 Clovis Road, Lot 10 Clovis Road Addition, 4001 Clovis Road, Lot 9 Clovis Road Addition, 1725 North Nashville Avenue, Lots 15 and 16, Clovis Road Addition, 1715 North Nashville Avenue, Lot 17 Clovis Road Addition, 1709 North Nashville Avenue, Lot 18 Clovis Road Addition, 1705 North Nashville Avenue, Lot 19 Clovis Road Addition, 1701 North Nashville Avenue, Lot 20 Clovis Road Addition, 1720 North Nashville Avenue, Lots 6 through 8 and Lot 25, Clovis Road Addition, 1706 North Nashville Avenue, Lots 22 through 24, Clovis Road Addition, and 1702 North Nashville Avenue, Lot 21 Clovis Road Addition, and consider an ordinance.]
OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ZONING CASE 3540, WHICH ACTUALLY ENCOMPASSES AGENDA ITEMS 6.1-6.3, BUT WE WILL TAKE UP EACH ITEM RELATING TO THIS ZONING CASE SEPARATELY.FIRST, WE'LL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.1, WHICH ENCOMPASSES A REQUEST FOR NUMEROUS ZONING CHANGES IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 BEING PROPOSED BY OUR STAFF, EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTIES LISTED IN AGENDA ITEM 6.2 AND 6.3.
AS A REMINDER THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM APPLICANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON KRISTEN SAGER, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ZONING CASE, SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
AS SHE STATED, ITEM 6.1 AND ZONE CASE 3540.
IT IS BEING BROUGHT BY THE CITY.
THIS IS A RESULT OF THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPLETED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR,
[00:25:03]
WHICH WE CONTRACTED WITH SAFE BILE TO COMPLETE OUR CONSULTANT.THESE ARE THEIR RECOMMENDED ZONE CHANGES FROM THAT ANALYSIS.
WE'RE STARTING WITH DISTRICT 1.
THE MAP ON YOUR SCREEN IS THE ENTIRETY OF DISTRICT 1.
WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REZONE THE ENTIRETY OF DISTRICT 1.
THIS IS JUST TO GIVE OUR CITIZENS A GOOD IDEA OF WHERE THIS IS LOCATED.
IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO UTAH STREET, DOWN TO 50TH, WEST TO NORTH UTICA, AND EAST TO NORTH FIDLEWOOD, SO A VERY LARGE DISTRICT.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM SF-2, MDR, HDR, AC, HC, IP AND LI, TO SF-2, AC, IP, LI, AND GI, AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH.
WE DID MAIL 798 NOTIFICATIONS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
WE RECEIVED 16 IN FAVOR AND NINE IN OPPOSITION.
THREE OF THE NINE IN OPPOSITION ARE FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY WE ARE ASKING YOU TO REZONE.
THOSE THREE ARE ITEM 6.2 BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY.
ITEM 6.3 IS TWO PROPERTIES WHERE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
AGAIN, THOSE ARE A SEPARATE ITEM FOR YOU TO VOTE ON, BUT YOU'LL GET AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF IT IN THIS ITEM.
AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A RESULT FROM OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE UPDATED IN DECEMBER OF 2018.
THIS IS THE LAST PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
WE UPDATED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE ADOPTED OUR NEW UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IN 2023.
NOW WE'VE COMPLETED THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS, AND WE ARE ASKING COUNCIL TO MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDED ZONE CHANGES.
AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS DISTRICT BY DISTRICT, STARTING WITH DISTRICT 1 IN JANUARY, AND HERE'S JUST AN IDEA OF OUR SCHEDULE FOR THIS GOING MONTH BY MONTH THROUGH THE DISTRICTS.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF SOME OF THE PROPERTIES.
THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES ARE ALONG INTERSTATE 27.
THIS INCLUDES OUR AIRPORT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY, SF-2.
THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES AT THE CLOVIS HIGHWAY AND QUAKER AVENUE.
THERE'S A PARCEL ON THE NORTH LOOP WEST OF NORTH UNIVERSITY, ACTUALLY ADJACENT TO BURL HUFFMAN, WHICH THE CITY OWNS, BUT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL.
THEN FURTHER SOUTH ALONG MLK, THERE'S SOME AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL PARK.
WE'RE NOT ASKING TO CHANGE THAT IT'S ADJACENT TO OTHER PROPERTIES ZONED RESIDENTIAL THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR A ZONE CHANGE.
ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES INCLUDE PART OF OUR CANYON LAKE SYSTEM, SOUTH OF ERSKINE, WEST OF THE INTERSTATE.
THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES ON EAST FOURTH, WHICH WERE ANNEXED IN 2023, A PETITION ANNEXATION FROM LIDA FOR THE INTENT OF PUTTING AN INDUSTRIAL USE, BRINGING AN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS TO THAT PROPERTY, AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES AT 34TH AND 50TH IN UNIVERSITY.
CURRENT ZONING ALONG THE INTERSTATE, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY ZONED LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY, SF-2.
THIS IS ALSO A RESULT OF OUR ANNEXATION PRACTICES.
WHEN PROPERTY IS ANNEXED, IT IS AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ZONING DESIGNATION, LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTY ALONG MLK.
CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL PARK.
THESE MAPS DO INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROPERTIES STUDIED IN THE ANALYSIS.
WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING A ZONE CHANGE ON ALL OF THEM.
BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE.THE PARCELS, THEY ARE ZONED SF-2 AND AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, WHERE WE ARE RECOMMENDING A ZONE CHANGE TO INDUSTRIAL PARK BECAUSE IT IS SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL.
THE RECOMMENDED ZONING FOR THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PROPERTIES ALONG THE INTERSTATE IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
THERE IS ONE OFFICE COMPLEX WHERE THE CONSULTANT IS RECOMMENDING AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, AND THEN INDUSTRIAL PARK ALONG MLK, AND THEN ALONG THE CANYON LAKES AREA, WE ARE RECOMMENDING SF-2.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL.
THERE ARE SOME UTILITIES, BUT WE'RE ASKING THAT BE TAKEN BACK TO SF-2.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ALONG THE INTERSTATE IS PUBLIC, SEMI PUBLIC USES, AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL.
THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE NORTH LOOP IS INDUSTRIAL, AND THEN THE PROPERTIES AT CLOVIS HIGHWAY AND NORTH QUAKER ARE CURRENTLY ZONED SF-2, BUT HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USES ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES.
CURRENT ZONING FOR THE AREA OF THE CANYON LAKES IS INDUSTRIAL.
RECOMMENDED, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR LOWDEN CITY SF-2 SOUTH OF ERSKINE, LOWDEN CITY SF-2, NORTH LOOP, AND THEN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AT CLOVIS AND QUAKER.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ACTUALLY RECOMMENDS INDUSTRIAL AT CLOVIS AND QUAKER AND THEN COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH LOOP.
BUT AGAIN, THAT PIECE IS ACTUALLY CITY OWNED ADJACENT TO BURL HUFFMAN.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN RECOMMENDS PARKS FOR THE CANYON LAKES AREA.
[00:30:01]
CURRENT ZONING AT 34TH IN UNIVERSITY AND 50TH IN UNIVERSITY.YOU HAVE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT 34TH, AND THEN YOU HAVE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL AT 50TH.
AT 34TH, WE'RE ACTUALLY ONLY RECOMMENDING ONE OF THOSE PARCELS BE CHANGED.
THE ONE AT THE HARD CORNER OF 34TH IN UNIVERSITY BE CHANGED FROM ITS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.
THE OTHER EXISTING USES ARE MEDICAL OR OFFICE TYPE USES WHICH CAN REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT ZONING.
THEN AT 50TH IN UNIVERSITY, ASKING THAT BE REZONED TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES COMMERCIAL ALONG 34TH AND 50TH.
THE TWO PROPERTIES ON EAST FOURTH, CURRENTLY ZONED LOW DENSITY, SF-2.
AGAIN, THEY WERE ANNEXED IN 2023, SO THEY CAME IN AS SF-2 ZONING.
RECOMMENDED ZONING IS FOR GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, AND THESE ARE THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT YOU'LL ACTUALLY BE VOTING ON IN ITEM 6.3.
THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE NOTIFICATIONS WE RECEIVED IN FAVOR THE 16 IN FAVOR, MAJORITY ALONG THE INTERSTATE.
OPPOSED THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE EASIER TO JUST SHOW YOU ONE BY ONE SO 2601 EAST KENT.
THIS PROPERTY WAS JUST IN THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY.
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER STATED THEY WANTED THE ZONING TO STAY AS IT IS.
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.
1093 NORTH AVENUE P AND NORTH COUNTY ROAD 2300, THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
ONLY THE PORTION THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE NORTH AVENUE P IS INSIDE CITY LIMITS.
THE RESPONDER STATED THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE ANNEXED.
THIS WILL NOT ANNEX ANY PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THEY WERE IN THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY, THEY ARE OUTSIDE SITTING LIMITS.
THEY DID NOT PROVIDE COMMENT ON THEIR OPPOSITION.
IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA FOR THE PROPERTY IN THE CANYON LAKES AREA THAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DOWN ZONE TO SF-2, DID NOT PROVIDE COMMENT ON THEIR OPPOSITION.
WITH THAT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND THE ONLY PROPERTIES YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON IN ITEM 6.1 ARE THE ONES LISTED IN 6.2 AND 6.3.
WITH THAT, I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.1.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE?
>> NO ONE IN FAVOR. IS THERE ANYONE HERE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
AS YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
THIS IS A LARGE ZONING CASE SO IF THERE'S A PARTICULAR PART YOU'RE WISHING TO SPEAK TO, JUST LET US KNOW.
>> I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT 6.1, THE ZONE CASE STUDY 540.
>> WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT 6.1, YES, AND 35.
>> I AM IN FAVOR OF WHAT IS ON THERE.
BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, MAYOR, WHEN YOU STARTED THE MEETING YOU MADE REFERENCE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I DID COME IN EARLY TO SIGN FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT SINCE, AND I HAD MY THREE MINUTES PAPER.
BUT I WAS TOLD THAT SINCE IT WAS A LINE ITEM HERE ON 6.1 THAT I DIDN'T NEED TO SIGN UP, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU'LL GET YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
IF YOU HAD WANTED TO SPEAK BOTH TIMES, YOU CERTAINLY COULD SPEAK BOTH TIMES, BUT WE'LL GIVE YOU YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO IT.
>> I'M GOING THROUGH IT NOW AT THIS POINT.
>> YES, MA'AM. YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A LIMIT NOW TO SPEAK TO IT.
DORA CORTEZ, I LIVE AT 217 NORTH AVENUE O, AND I AM ALSO REPRESENTING THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK COALITION AS A CODIRECTOR.
I AM HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS ZONE CASE 3540.
IN PARTICULAR, THE PLOTS OF LAND BEING CONSIDERED TODAY THAT ARE NORTH OF THE CANYON ON LAKE NUMBER 3.
BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHY THE PLOT OF VACANT LAND EAST OF UNIVERSITY AND NORTH OF ERSKINE, LUBBOCK COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT NUMBER R86622 WAS NOT INCLUDED FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY WHEN AND WHILE THESE OTHER SITES FOR REZONING WERE BEING CONSIDERED.
[00:35:02]
LAST TIME I WAS HERE, SOMEONE ON THE DIOCESE ASKED WHAT CHANGES I'D LIKE TO SEE.I SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNCIL FULFILL A PROMISE AND THIS PROMISE IS A WORD THAT I'M USING, THAT THEY MADE TO RESIDENTS OF NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK.
THAT PROMISE WAS TO CONSIDER DOWN ZONING OR REZONING ANY VACANT LAND HELD BY THE CITY, LEDA, OR URBAN RENEWAL, FROM INDUSTRIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY.
DON'T GET ME WRONG. THIS ZONE CASE SEEMS TO ADDRESS PART OF THAT ISSUE, BUT THESE ARE NOT THE BIG CHANGES I HAD HOPED THE CITY WOULD CONSIDER.
I WOULD LIKE NOW TO ADDRESS THE FEARS AND CONCERNS OUR RESIDENTS HAVE REGARDING THE DAILY DUMPING OF CONCRETE SLABS, ROCKS, ASPHALT, AND DEBRIS THAT COME DOWN FROM THE NORTH SLOPE, FROM THE CONCRETE ASH PLANTS ONTO CITY PROPERTY THAT IS NORTH OF LAKE NUMBER 3.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE TOLD ME THAT SINCE THESE COMPANIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND WHILE THESE AGGREGATES DO NOT AFFECT THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM OF LAKE NUMBER 3, THERE IS NOTHING THE CITY CAN DO.
THE CITY MUST NOT ALLOW THESE AGGREGATES TO ENCROACH ONTO CITY PROPERTY AND NOT DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE STORMWATER SYSTEM TO LAKE NUMBER 3 IS AFFECTED.
AT THAT POINT, IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
THIS IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND WE WANT OUR LAKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO ITS RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WE NEED THE CITY'S HELP.
WE NEED CITY INSPECTORS TO EVALUATE, ACCESS, OR COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WILL PREVENT THESE MATERIALS FLOWING DOWN THAT NORTH SLOPE INTO CITY PROPERTY CAUSING HARM TO THE LAND AND TO THE LAKE. THANK YOU.
YOUR CONCERN IS IT ABOUT THE ZONING, OR THAT THIS WAS NOT DOWN ZONED, OR IS IT MORE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT?
>> I THINK, MAYOR, THAT IT IS MORE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT THERE'S A SLOPE THERE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE CANYON AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE LAKE.
THE THE DEBRIS THAT COMES DOWN, IT'S ALREADY DOWN TO WHERE THE CITY PROPERTY IS AT, AND IT'S GONE BEYOND THAT POINT, AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT DEBRIS GOING BEYOND THE CITY PROPERTY.
WE WANT SOMETHING TO BE DONE TO PREVENT THAT.
>> THANK YOU, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IS NOT PART OF THIS ZONING.
>> MS. AGAR, IT'S NOT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. I'VE SENT THE AWESOME EMAILS RECENTLY.
ANYWAY, MY NAME IS FABIAN MATA.
I LIVE AT 211 NORTH AVENUE M, RIGHT BY THE CANYON.
I AGREE WITH DORA. BASICALLY, I NOTICED THAT THE ORDINANCES ARE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, ALL THIS CONFUSING THING, BUT WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
WHY DON'T I LIKE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL? YOU ALL KNOW WHAT GOES IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, DON'T YOU? EVERYBODY? WRECKING YARDS, CONCRETE PLANTS.
I WONDER WHAT THAT WOULD COVER.
WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT TO DO IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, THAT'S CUSTOM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES, AND Y'ALL ARE GOING TO ALLOW THAT? WHATEVER THEY WANT, CUSTOM? I'LL GO OUT THERE AND KILL SOME COWS, BEHEAD THEM, AND TURN THEM INTO ART AND BLEED DOWN THE STREET, THAT'S GOING TO BE ALLOWED.
THAT'S GI, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CONCRETE PLANTS IN THE CANYON.
THERE'S AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, AND YOU-ALL SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT EMAIL.
IT CLEARLY SAYS, I HAD TO DIG IT UP, BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THE PLANT, THIS 1972 ORDINANCE, PLANT THIS, PLANT THAT. IT DOESN'T APPLY.
NO MORE GREEN AROUND THE CANYON, ESPECIALLY WHERE MEXICANS ARE.
ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A CONCRETE PLANT, 2009.
WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? THEN WHERE IS THE LADY WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF P&Z? WHERE IS SHE? THEY FINALLY SENT ME AN EMAIL AND THEY SAID THAT IT WAS PLANTED BEFORE THIS DAY OR PLANTED BEFORE THAT DAY, THEREFORE A CONCRETE PLANT IS ALLOWED RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE CANYON.
[00:40:03]
1972, AFTER THE TORNADO HIT, THAT CITY COUNCIL SAID, NO, LIGHT COMMERCIAL, 15% TREES AND GRASS.YOU ALL GOT TO CHANGE THAT. I'LL TELL YOU WHY I DON'T WANT GI.
I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, AND ONE OF YOU GUYS, I DON'T KNOW, IT MAY NOT BE ANY OF YOU-ALL, BUT YOU SAID HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE STATE.
IT'S GOING TO BE OKAY. THAT DUMP SITE OVER THERE IN SOUTH LUBBOCK, HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE STATE, IT'S GOING TO BE WONDERFUL, HEAVY REGULATION.
DE JURE BASICALLY MEANS THIS IS A LAW, AND WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
TRIPLE C CONCRETE, TO JUST FIND OUT THEY DON'T HAVE A STORMWATER PERMIT.
THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR YEARS, AND YOU ALL HAVE BEEN SAYING, THAT'S OKAY. I JUST FOUND OUT.
THEY CONFIRMED THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD IT FOR YEARS, FOR DECADES.
THEN THEY LOST THEIR PERMIT LAST YEAR, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, 2023 END OF.
I CALLED THEM TO SAY, HEY, BY THE WAY YOU'RE OPERATING WITHOUT A PERMIT, THEY SHUT THEM DOWN. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IT AGAIN.
I GOT THE LEGAL DOCUMENT HERE.
THEY PRETTY MUCH IGNORED US AND SAID, YOU DON'T LIVE 440 YARDS THERE. I DO WALK MY DOG.
I LIVE 600 YARDS FROM THERE, SO I DON'T HAVE STANDING, BUT THEY DID SAY THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AN ORDINANCE.
APPARENTLY, THIS ORDINANCE SAYS THEY CAN BE THERE, SO TCQ CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
THEY CAN DO THAT BEHIND CARMONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
YOU ALL ARE ALLOWING POLLUTION NEXT TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND YOU WANT MORE GI? NO. ASHAMED OF LUBBOCK.
YOU WANT MORE STUFF. THEN LET ME GIVE YOU A LIST OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE OUT THERE.
THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY REGULATED BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
YOU-ALL KNOW THEIR MISSION. LOOK IT UP IF YOU DON'T KNOW.
TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, CITIZENS' HEALTH.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE BUSINESSES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
SAND AND GRAVEL PITS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, ROCK QUARRIES, AUTO SALVAGE YARDS, RECYCLING CENTERS, WASTEWATER, FOUNDRIES, CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS.
BY THE WAY, MY NEIGHBORHOOD WAS EVACUATED IN 2013, HYDROGEN SOMETHING, COTTON SEED BAY OR WHATEVER.
YES, NEARBY. THEY EVACUATED IT.
[INAUDIBLE] LEAKING AMMONIA EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
I GUESS WE'RE GETTING USED TO THE SMELL.
WE CAN ONLY COMPLAIN SO MUCH. THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
I POINTED OUT THAT THEY LOST THEIR PERMIT.
THERE IS AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO COORDINATE WITH TCQ.
LET'S GET CODE ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED WITH THIS. I'M GETTING SICK OF THIS.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE NAMES OF THE BUSINESSES IN NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK THAT ARE REGULATED BY TCQ.
LEPRINOS, AND I GUESS THEIR WASTEWATER IS ON EAST 4TH AND THEN THE PLANT IS ON EAST 19TH.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK OUT THE WASTEWATER.
J&B INDUSTRIAL, NORTHEAST LOOP 289, HYDRA CHEMICAL COMPANY, E66, DIAMOND PLASTICS, MARSHALL STREET, FARMERS COOP COMPRESS, SOUTHEAST DRIVE, WILKERSON STORAGE INDUSTRIAL STORAGE, E66, BECKNELL WHOLESALE, EAST 44TH, O2 INDUSTRIES ON ERSKINE.
REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THEY'RE DEFINITELY NORTH OR EAST.
[INAUDIBLE] LOGISTICS, MLK, MCLANE HIGH PLANES, LOOP 289, GRADY'S ASPHALT, BAYER CROP SCIENCE, PERMIAN BASIN MATERIALS.
THAT'S RIGHT BY MY HOUSE, NORTH AVENUE, K. PERMIAN BASIN, THE TCQ DIDN'T WANT TO DO THE THING.
I HAVEN'T HIT THEM ON THE WATER STUFF.
THEY'RE GOING TO GET HIT. THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR.
HE RETIRED EARLY. JASON'S THE DIRECTOR NOW.
ANYWAY, I'M STILL HITTING THEM.
I'M GLAD THE CITY DID GO OUT THERE, BUT THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT.
THEY RECOMMENDED, THE BERM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A FENCE, IT'S FULL OF CONCRETE AND DIRT.
THEY SAID WE RECOMMEND A LITTLE FENCE THAT HOLDS THE DIRT IN WHEN IT RAINS BECAUSE IT'S ALL OVER AVENUE K. YOU-ALL GO OVER THERE.
THE STUFF IS ALL OVER THE CITY STREET.
CONCRETE AND DIRT. GO OVER THERE.
YOU'LL SEE IT. EVERY TIME IT RAINS, YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE LITTLE GULLIES COMING DOWN THE 12 FOOT THING.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FENCE. BY THE WAY, THAT COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN 2018.
TCQ DID NOTHING. THEY SAID, OCCASIONAL WATERING OF THE YARD IS OKAY.
I THINK YOU ALL GOT THOSE EMAILS.
I DON'T KNOW. IF NOT YOU-ALL, I'LL SEND IT TO YOU.
PYCO, THAT'S ON THE EDGE OF DISTRICT 1.
MY POINT IS THIS. YOU CANNOT ADD ANY MORE GI AT ALL.
BE FAIR. EMPATHY AND COMPASSION.
DO YOU-ALL HAVE ANY OF THAT? YOU-ALL PRAY A LOT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EMPATHY OR COMPASSION? PUT YOURSELF IN OTHER PEOPLE'S SHOES. YOU REALLY HAVE NONE.
THAT P&Z THING THAT WE GOT RID OF, THE DATA CENTER.
[00:45:02]
REALLY? YOU PROBABLY SAW THAT 900 ACRES. SOME HOUSES OUT THERE.THE POOR PEOPLE OUT THERE, OUR GROUNDWATER.
WE STILL GET OUR WATER FROM WELLS.
THAT'S OKAY, WE NEED A DATA CENTER.
TO HELL WITH YOUR GROUNDWATER.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, MR. MATA.
IS IT NOT GI? WHAT WOULD BE THE DATA CENTER? INDUSTRIAL LIGHT? WHAT WOULD IT HAVE BEEN? MY POINT IS WE DON'T WANT ALL OF THAT STUFF.
RESIDENTIAL, INSIDE THE LOOP. LET ME GO FURTHER.
>> JUST PLEASE CONFINE YOUR COMMENTS TO PROPERTY THAT IS BEING ZONED TODAY AND NOT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY HERE TO DISCUSS THAT TODAY.
I KNOW YOU HAVE THEM MR. MATA AND YOU'VE COMMUNICATED THEM, BUT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT ZONING CHANGES TODAY.
>> NOW YOU'RE AWARE OF WHY WE DON'T WANT THEM IN ZONE G.
>> ENVIRONMENTAL. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
IF IT WASN'T POLLUTING, THEN IT'D BE OKAY.
THE WHOLE POINT IS ENVIRONMENTAL. OUR HEALTH.
THE SCHOOL'S HEALTH. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
THE WATER. GI, POLLUTION, AND WATER. THAT'S THE CONNECTION.
IF YOU-ALL CAN'T GET IT MAYBE WE NEED SOME PEOPLE REPLACED OUT HERE.
THAT'S THE CONNECTION. GI. WE DON'T WANT THAT ANYMORE.
I CAN GO ON FURTHER, BUT I'LL SEND YOU-ALL THE EMAILS.
YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD DAY. WE'RE NOT THROUGH, BY THE WAY. WE JUST BEGAN.
>> COUNCIL, I AM LOOKING AT A MAP AND YOU INDICATED WHEN I CAME UP THAT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED.
I HAVE A MAP FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING THAT WAS THE CASE 3540, AND I THINK I HAD ASKED YOU TO BRING THAT MAP UP AT ONE POINT WHEN WE WERE AT THE OTHER MEETING.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY THAT IS A ZONING CHANGE, WHICH I AM IN FAVOR OF, BY THE WAY, FROM A INDUSTRIAL 2 SINGLE FAMILY.
BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAD INDICATED THAT THAT WAS NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, AND IT IS.
I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT IS ON THE MAP.
IT IS PART OF THE 3540 RECOMMENDED ZONE CHANGE. THANK YOU.
>> MS. AGAR, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, PLEASE? THANK YOU.
>> I'LL GO TO A DIFFERENT MAP. BUT THIS AREA HERE SOUTH OF ERSKINE IS CANYON [INAUDIBLE] HERE'S THE CURRENT INDUSTRIAL ZONING.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO REZONE THIS INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTY DOWN TO SF2.
THERE ARE NOT ANY EXISTING CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS IN THIS PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANT THE CLARIFICATION ON.
I KNOW YOUR CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE CONCRETE BATCH, BUT IT'S NOT ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT'S BEING REQUESTED FOR REZONING TODAY.
>> CLARIFICATION. IT IS NOT IN THERE, BUT IT IS NEAR THERE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR CITIZENS ARE REFERRING TO.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR KRISTIN FOR CLARIFICATION.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS LARGE SWATH OF REDISTRICTING GOING TO GI?
>> THE AREAS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ARE LOCATED ALONG THE INTERSTATE.
ON THIS MAP, THE LIGHTER GRAY IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, THE DARKER GRAY IS INDUSTRIAL PARK.
THEN THERE IS SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RECOMMENDED AT CLOVIS HIGHWAY AND QUAKER.
THEN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL RECOMMENDED HERE ON EAST 4TH.
>> KRISTIN, THAT LAST ONE IS ITEM 63.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION?
>> MR. MATA, IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK UP, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING TO AN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, AND A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED RIGHT HERE.
[00:50:01]
>> SHE MENTIONED THE ONE THAT WE DON'T WANT.
COUNCILMAN MENTIONED THAT IT'S NEARBY.
WHEN THE P&Z MEETING WAS THERE, AND I POINTED IT OUT BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT AROUND THE CANYON, RIGHT AROUND THIS, AND SHE JUST SAID [NOISE] THIS SHIRKING, WE DON'T LIKE THAT.
WE DON'T WANT, WE CAN PUT THIS NEARBY AND ALL THAT.
IT'S STILL GOING IN THERE. WE DON'T WANT ANY OF THIS STUFF, ANYTHING REGULATED BY TCEQ.
IT'S OBVIOUS WHAT YOU ALL ARE TRYING TO DO.
WE GET A LITTLE BUSINESS OVER HERE.
THIS ZONE OVER HERE, THIS CORNER OVER HERE, AND MAYBE WE CAN GET THIS OTHER ONE, THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL RIGHT NEXT TO IT, NEXT TO THE HOUSE.
THAT'S THE WAY YOU-ALL OPERATE, AND WE'RE GETTING TIRED OF IT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT AGAIN, WE GOT TO STICK TO THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY.
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER PEOPLE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:02.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.1? [BACKGROUND] DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
THE MOTION HAS A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING, AYE.
>> ANY POST SAY, NAY. HEAR NONE THERE.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0.
NOW, WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.2 OF ZONING CASE 3540,
[2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 3540, a request for zone changes in City Council District 1 from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) and Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC) to Industrial Park District (IP) and Light Industrial District (LI), at 2702 North Quaker Avenue, 1.30 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, 2704 North Quaker Avenue, 1.57 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 13, and 3802 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, 33 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-3, Section 1, and consider an ordinance.]
WHICH IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, WHICH IS SF-2, AND AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS AC TO INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT, IP AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, L1 AT 2702 NORTH QUAKER AVENUE 2704 NORTH QUAKER AVENUE AND 3802 NORTH MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD.MS. SAGER, CAN YOU PROVIDE US A BRIEFING ON THIS ZONING ITEM, SUBJECT TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THESE ARE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WERE PART OF ZONE CASE 3540, WHERE THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING A ZONE CHANGE, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED OPPOSITION.
SO SINCE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE, IT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY OF SIX OUT OF SEVEN VOTES FROM CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED.
THE FIRST PROPERTY IS 2702 NORTH QUAKER AVENUE.
CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY SF-2.
CURRENT USE APPEARS TO BE WAREHOUSING.
2704, NORTH QUAKER AVENUE, IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PRIOR PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT, ALSO ZONED SF-2.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING LI ZONING ON BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES.
THEN 3802 NORTH MARTIN LUTHER KING JR, BOULEVARD, CURRENT ZONING IS SF-2 AND AC.
THERE IS A GREEN HEAVY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCEL WITHIN THIS PROPERTY.
THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS.
WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE SF-2 AND AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.
THAT ZONING WAS APPROVED IN 2016.
IT IS STILL CURRENTLY VACANT, SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING INDUSTRIAL PARK AS WELL.
AGAIN, P&Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE THAT WE NEED A SUPERMAJORITY FROM COUNCIL IN ORDER FOR THESE TO BE APPROVED.
>> MR. GARCIA, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
>> IT APPEARS THAT THE EXISTING LAND USE MATCHES THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
WHY WAS THE OWNER OPPOSED TO THE ZONE CHANGE?
>> HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS.
>> HAVE WE REACHED OUT TO THE OWNER OR TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT?
>> THE OPPOSITION WE GOT, IS IT JUST ONE OF THOSE FORMS, OR THEY MARK X OPPOSED?
>> IF THAT PERSON IS HERE TODAY, THEY CAN COME IN AND SPEAK.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE HERE OR NOT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A OWNER OR ANOTHER OWNER IN THE AREA.
SOMEONE DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS IN TERMS OF CONCERNS OF TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
BUT GIVEN THAT THE EXISTING USE IS ALREADY A COMMERCIAL AND YOU HAVE OTHER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE AREA, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE TRAFFIC.
>> WELL, THIS IS JUST MORE OF A COMMENT THAT I WOULD BE VERY HESITANT TO CHANGE A ZONE OVER THE PROPERTY OWNER'S OBJECTION, BUT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BRING THEIR LAND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR EXISTING USE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE DOING FAVOR.
I'M INCLINED TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE ZONE CHANGE, AND IF THE OWNER FEELS STRONGLY ENOUGH ABOUT IT, WE CAN LOOK AT REVERTING IT IN THE FUTURE.
>> ANYONE ELSE? HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MAYOR PUTU.
>> KRISTIN, WHAT IS THE CLOSEST I KNOW BASED ON THIS,
[00:55:05]
THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THIS I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA.>> THIS IS QUAKER AND CLOVIS HIGHWAY.
>> I GUESS, NORTH OF THE GREEN SQUARE, THAT IS RESIDENTIAL.
>> HOW MANY FEET AWAY FROM THAT IS THIS PARTICULAR?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I COULD GET THAT MEASUREMENT FOR YOU.
>> EVEN LOOKING AT THE CURRENT PHOTO IN THE LEFT CORNER, IT'S OBVIOUSLY ALREADY BEING TREATED.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT IS GOING TO APPEAL OR BRING ANY RESIDENTIAL TO THAT AREA.
>> BUT THE TRAFFIC IS A CONCERN.
HERE'S THE OTHER THING AND I HEAR THIS FROM FOLKS ALL THE TIME.
WE JUST DON'T WANT ANYMORE INDUSTRY LIKE THIS, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM.
I'VE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL STAFF MEMBERS THAT KNOW, I WANT TO SEE MORE HOUSING, THINGS THAT ARE MORE APPEALING.
WE CAN'T JUST KEEP GETTING ALL THE JUNK, IF YOU WILL.
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT PROPERTY IS BEING USED AS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ALREADY.
ALL WE'RE DOING IS JUST CHANGING THE ZONE, BUT IF THAT PERSON WANTED TO APPEAL, THEY COULD COME BACK AND WE COULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER TURNING THAT BACK, RIGHT?
>> ABSOLUTELY. NOT ONLY WOULD YOU NEED A SUPERMAJORITY TODAY.
IF APPROVED TODAY, YOU'LL STILL NEED A SUPERMAJORITY ON SECOND READING AT YOUR FEBRUARY 10 COUNCIL MEETING.
AND AS YOU STATED, THE ZONE CHANGE WILL ACTUALLY BRING THEM INTO CONFORMANCE.
AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY, THEY'RE NON CONFORMING.
THEY COULD NOT EXPAND, THEY COULD NOT CHANGE THE USE UNLESS IT WAS SOMETHING ALLOWED IN SF-2.
>> WE INVITE THEM TO COME AND BE HERE TO SPEAK TODAY?
IS THAT PERSON HERE BY CHANCE?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. SAGER?
>> WE'RE DOING A PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING WAS SPECIFIC TO ALL THE ITEMS OF AGENDA ITEM 6.1.
YOU'RE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING NOW FOR ITEM 6.2 FOR THAT.
>> WE'RE NOW GOING TO CALL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM 6.2.
IF ANYONE IS HERE AND WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR ZONE CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF ANYONE'S HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO IT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU. PROTOCOL, 17 NORTH AVENUE, O.
AS A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT 1 AND A CO-DIRECTOR OF THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK COALITION, I AM OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE IN DISTRICT 1 FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO ANY OTHER TYPE.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO LET THE COUNCIL KNOW THAT WE DO NOT WANT ANY TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ANYMORE.
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE COUNCIL TO SEE THAT WE ARE ALREADY INUNDATED WITH ALL OF THESE INDUSTRIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WE DON'T WANT IT ANYMORE.
I AM OPPOSED TO THIS 62 ZONE CHANGE. THANK YOU.
>> I LEFT MY PHONE UP HERE. I'M SORRY, GUYS.
ANYWAY, MY QUESTION, STUDYING ALL OF THIS, I'M NEW AT THIS, BUT WHO IS ASKING FOR THESE ZONING CHANGES? WHAT BUSINESSMEN, WHAT CORPORATION IS ASKING FOR THIS? THEY JUST COMING OUT OF THE AIR, OH, THERE'S RESIDENTIAL OVER HERE, BUT WE MIGHT NEED SOME ROOM FOR INDUSTRIAL IN CASE SOMEBODY'S INTERESTED IN PUTTING A BUSINESS IN THERE.
WHO TALKED TO MS. SAGER AND SAY, HEY,
[01:00:02]
MAY WE SUGGEST THAT WE TURN THIS INTO A, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.THAT'S WHERE CORRUPTION AND GREED COMES IN.
IF THIS PASSES, WE'LL FIND OUT WHO ASKED FOR IT AND THEN WE WILL DEAL WITH IT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I SEE NONE. I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:11.
AGAIN, WE'LL NOTE BECAUSE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF OPPOSITION AND THIS ZONING CHANGE, IT WILL REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.2? DO WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? MR. GARCIA.
>> SIR, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT PROMPTED THE REVIEW OF THE ZONE CHANGE, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THAT THIS IS PART OF A LARGER CITY WIDE REVIEW THAT WE'RE DOING OF ALL LAND THAT'S OUT OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING AND SOME GENERAL UPDATES FROM THE UDC.
THIS WAS DONE IN COLLABORATION WITH THE OUTSIDE CONSULTANT IN OUR OWN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
>> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE? NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT.
ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING, AYE.
>> THERE IS ONE NAY. THAT MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SUPERMAJORITY.
NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 6.3, ZONING CASE 3540.
[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 3540, a request for zone changes in City Council District 1 from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to General Industrial District (GI), at 4609 East 4th Street, 5.56 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 4, 4501 East 4th Street, 105.11 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 4, and consider an ordinance.]
I REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT SF-2 TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT GI AT 4609 EAST 4TH STREET AND 4501 EAST 4TH STREET.MS. SAGER, IF YOU'LL PROVIDE US A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ZONING CASE, SUBJECT TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> LAST TWO PARCELS, PART OF THIS CASE.
THESE ARE TWO PARCELS LOCATED ON EAST 4TH EAST OF THE LOOP.
CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A ZONE CHANGE TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
AS A REMINDER, THIS PROPERTY, ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THIS ONE, WERE ANNEXED IN 2023.
IT WAS A PETITION ANNEXATION REQUEST FROM LITA WITH THE INTENT OF BRINGING AN INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS TO BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
P&Z DID RECOMMEND DENIAL BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE, EVEN THOUGH THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL, COUNCIL HAS AMENDED THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ONLY A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS REQUIRED FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED.
>> KRISTIN, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
IN HEARING THE CONVERSATION, AND I HAVE TO AGREE, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL BASICALLY MEANS WHATEVER, GIVE US A BREAKDOWN OF THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE IN SLIGHTLY LESSER ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARK.
WHAT CAN WE DO IN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK THAT WE COULDN'T DO IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL?
>> THAT YOU COULDN'T DO IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL?
>> WELL, HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, [OVERLAPPING] PLEASE.
>> SURE. GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, OF COURSE, IS OUR LEAST RESTRICTIVE DISTRICT OUT OF ALL OF THE DISTRICTS, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW HEAVY MANUFACTURING, AND YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK, EVEN HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE.
I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT ANY CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE.
THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT ANYWHERE.
ANY NEW ONES, EVEN IF THEY NEED GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING, WOULD STILL NEED APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE REQUIREMENT.
GI IS NOT OPEN TO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, THERE ARE STILL SOME LIMITATIONS.
INDUSTRIAL PARK, LIKE I SAID, IT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IT'S GEARED TOWARD MORE WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE DISTRIBUTION.
WE HAVE OUR LUBBOCK BUSINESS PARK BOULEVARD.
THAT AREA IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL PARK.
THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES, INDOOR OPERATIONS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
>> IF A ZONING WAS INDUSTRIAL PARK, COULD YOU THEN CIRCLE BACK WITH A SPECIFIC USE THAT FITS INTO THAT, THAT MAYBE SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD OBJECT TO.
IF I WERE GOING TO COME I DON'T WANT TO BUILD A BATCH PLANT.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT IF I WERE GOING TO COME AND BUILD A BATCH PLANT, AND I'VE GOT TO HAVE SPECIFIC USE IN GI, IS THAT CORRECT?
[01:05:02]
>> I CAN'T GET SPECIFIC USE FOR A BATCH PLANT OR SOME REALLY HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING.
I'M ASSUMING LEPRINO IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
I CAN'T COME TO YOU IN A INDUSTRIAL PARK AND GET A SPECIFIC USE THAT'S TWO STEPS UP THE LADDER?
>> I THINK THAT'S YOUR SECOND QUESTION BEFORE I TURN LOOSE TO THE MICROPHONE.
WE HAVE NOW PROVIDED A PATHWAY FOR ANNEXATION WITH ZONING CONNECTED?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE TWO PROCESSES CAN RUN PARALLEL AT THE SAME TIME.
ONCE THE ANNEXATION IS COMPLETED, YOUR ZONE CHANGE MAY BE COMPLETED AT THE SAME TIME.
>> THAT WAS DONE IN '25. THAT'S A BRAND NEW.
WHEN LITA CAME FORWARD WITH THIS PROPERTY TO ANNEX, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PATHWAY TO SET A ZONING FOR THAT LAND WHEN THEY CAME IN?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO MS. SAGER? I DON'T SEE ANY.
THANK YOU. WHEN I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.3, ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL JOHN OSBORNE, 1,500 BROADWAY.
I WORK WITH LITA, AND WE ARE HOPING TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THIS.
WE DID PETITION OR MAKE APPLICATION, I SHOULD SAY, TO HAVE THIS BE IN GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
BUT WE'VE BEEN CHECKING WITH CITY STAFF AND WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT THIS AFTERNOON TO BE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING AND WHICH WOULD STILL ALLOW US TO HAVE DISTRIBUTION TYPE FACILITIES THAT MIGHT BE OVER THERE.
THAT'S MOST LIKELY WHAT WE WANT TO GO ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, GIVEN ITS LOCATION AND ALSO THE OIL WELL AND THE PUMP JACK THAT ARE LOCATED ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
WE THINK THAT A BUSINESS THAT WOULD NEED GENERAL INDUSTRIAL WOULD NOT EVEN WANT TO LOCATE ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT IF THAT'S POSSIBLE, PLEASE.
>> WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AT THE POINT WE TAKE UP THE BOAT ON IT.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE HERE TODAY WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 6.3?
LAURA CORTEZ TO 17 NORTH AVENUE O AND ALSO CO-DIRECTOR FOR NORTH AND EAST LEVEL COALITION.
ITEM 6.3, I AM OPPOSED TO THE ZONE CHANGE ON THAT ITEM AS WELL.
AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH IT WENT FROM GI WAS AMENDED TO INDUSTRIAL PARK, I STILL OPPOSED THE CHANGE FROM A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE HERE? [BACKGROUND]
A WHILE BACK LITA OBVIOUSLY HAS AN INPUT ON ZONING.
SO THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP BECAUSE IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY IS FUNDING IT.
AND ONCE AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO IS INFLUENCING LITA? THE BUDDY SYSTEM.
THERE'S OVERSIGHT AND INCENTIVES THEY PAY PEOPLE TO COME IN AND BUILD THIS THING.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINIZED.
MAYOR ROBERTSON A LONG TIME AGO WONDERED, LIKE, THE BUDGET WAS EIGHT MILLION, AND THEY WERE GIVING AWAY ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE COMING INTO BUSINESSES.
I THINK THE LEADER NEEDS TO BE SCRUTINIZED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HEAVY INPUT IN GI ZONING AND THIS AND THAT.
YOU ALL NEED TO LOOK INTO THAT HEAVILY, SERIOUSLY.
IF YOU ALL WON'T, I WILL. IT'S NOT THAT HARD. THAT'S ALL.
>> IT'S CRAZY HOW I FIND MYSELF AT THIS PODIUM.
SHEILA PATTERSON, HARRIS 2303, LUBBOCK TEXAS USA.
I USED TO SERVE IN THAT STAND.
AS I BEGAN TO LOOK AT THIS PIECE, IT REALLY BOTHERED ME BECAUSE I WAS REMINDED OF THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY FOCUSES FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT OFF OF EAST FOURTH
[01:10:03]
WAS IN CASE WE NEEDED THAT PROPERTY FOR LEPRINO.AS LIFE WOULD HAVE IT, LEPRINO DID NOT NEED SUCH PROPERTY, AND SO IT REMAINED, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN ANX AND REMAINED SF-2.
DURING THAT TIME WHEN WE WERE LOOKING TO EVEN CHANGE DOING THE ANNEXATION FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS ACTUAL LOCATION.
WE HAD SOME PUSHBACK FROM THOSE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE BOTH TO THE WEST AND TO THE EAST OF THIS ACTUAL PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THERE ARE RESIDENCE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE IN THOSE PLACES.
MY CONCERN WOULD BE IS NOW AND WAS THEN.
BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE WILLING TO ALLOW US TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH LEPRINO, I THINK IT'S MORE THAN RIGHT THAT WE DEFINITELY LOOK OUT FOR THEM AT THIS MOMENT AND NOT ALLOW THAT WE DISALLOW THE CHANGING OF THIS ZONE FROM SF-2 TO GIR-2 INDUSTRIAL PARK, EITHER ONE.
EITHER ONE WILL CAUSE A HUGE SEPARATION OF THESE TWO PIECES OF LIVING AREAS.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD SERVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WELL, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS.
THEY'RE STILL PEOPLE, AND I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET YOU FIVE DOLLARS TO A NICKEL.
THAT IF YOU ASK THEM, IF YOU ASK THEIR REPRESENTATIVE THAT THEY WOULD STILL SAY THEY'D RATHER NOT THAT THAT TYPE OF INDUSTRY BE IN THAT AREA.
I WOULD ASK THAT EACH OF YOU WOULD BEAR IF THIS WERE IN YOUR DISTRICTS, AND YOUR CITIZEN SAID, HEY, MAN, THIS IS NOT SERVE US WELL.
NOBODY WANTS A BIG INDUSTRIAL PARK OR INDUSTRIAL ANYTHING ANYMORE WITHIN THAT NEAR TO RESIDENCY.
I CALL UPON EACH OF YOU TO THINK SENSIBLY AND COMPASSIONATELY AND DO NOT ALLOW THE CHANGE OF ZONE FROM SF-2 TO GIR INDUSTRIAL PARK IF THAT'S WHAT IS DECIDED LATER. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:23.
FIRST, WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.3.
IS THERE A MOTION? GOT A MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
NOW, I'LL OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION OR AN AMENDMENT.
>> MAYOR, WE'RE FACED WITH A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES AS WE EXAMINE THESE ZONE CASES, PARTICULARLY IN NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK.
I FEEL SOMEWHAT TORN BECAUSE WE LOOK AT PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTIES THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL SAY THAT NO MATTER THE DISTRICT, THAT PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED.
THAT PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP, AND WE HAVE NO CONTROL TO DO THAT.
WE JUST FAILED A MOTION A MOMENT AGO FOR SUCH A PROPERTY, I THINK.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT NEW PARKS BUILT, AND WE MENTIONED THE INDUSTRIAL PARK THAT LITA CONTROLS, ACTUALLY, TWO OF THEM.
YOU LOOK AT THOSE PROPERTIES AND THE TYPE OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE AND THE VISION THAT IS THERE AND THE APPEARANCE OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
I THINK WE WENT THROUGH A GREAT DEAL OF CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL OF THE SETBACKS AND THE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT, AND ETC THAT HAS TO BE DONE WITH LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND MORE PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL PARK.
LITA HAS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
THE REQUIREMENTS THAT LITA PUTS ON BUSINESSES TO BUILD IN THOSE PARKS IS VERY STRINGENT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CHANGE TO THAT IN LITA'S STANCE ON THE THINGS THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE DONE.
CERTAINLY DON'T SEE ANY CHANGES IN PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE CONSISTENCY AND THE HANDCUFFS THAT ARE PUT ON THOSE BUSINESSES TO BUILD QUALITY NICE LOOKING PROPERTIES THAT SERVE OUR COMMUNITY WELL.
I THINK WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND AGENDA ITEM 6.3 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR THESE TWO PROPERTIES FROM GI TO AN INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT.
>> YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION TO AMEND.
>> EXCUSE ME. I ASK YOUR ORIGINAL MOVER IF HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION?
[01:15:03]
>> WELL, YOU ACCEPT THAT MR. GARCIA.
HE ACCEPTS THAT. SO NOW A SECOND.
DO WE NEED A SECOND IF HE ACCEPTS IT.
>> YES, YOU STILL NEED A SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, MR. PARLIAMENTARIAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER, MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I LIKE A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS FROM NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK, WE GET TIRED OF DRIVING DOWN A ROAD NEAR A RESIDENT WHERE THERE IS CONSTANT DUST FROM A CONCRETE BATCH COMPANY OR WATER RUNOFF.
I KNOW THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING.
BUT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK WHAT ALSO CONCERNS ME IS, DID Y'ALL SAY SOMETHING TO ME? THANK YOU. THERE'S TWO OIL WELLS NEARBY.
I CAN'T SEE ANYBODY REALLY WANTING TO BUILD NEAR AN OIL WELL.
I THINK THAT FOR ME, IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GAME CHANGER BECAUSE TO ME I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT MY CHILDREN NEAR THAT, BUT IT EXISTS.
SOME OF THESE IN THAT AREA, THEY'VE NOT BEEN WELL MAINTAINED.
I THINK SOMETHING LIKE AN INDUSTRIAL PARK MIGHT NOT BE A BAD THING.
I KNOW WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
I KNOW JOHN IS IN THE AUDIENCE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF JOHN? CAN I DO THAT?
>> THAT'S UP TO THE COUNCIL AND TO YOU, MAYOR. CERTAINLY.
>> JOHN, CAN I ASK YOU THAT PROPERTY? DOES IT ALREADY BELONG TO LEPRINO?
>> NO, IT DOESN'T. AT THE ORIGINAL TIME THAT WE PURCHASED IT, LEPRINO WAS NOT LOOKING TO CLEAN THE WATER AND THEN PUT IT INTO LAKE 6.
THEY WERE GOING TO DO LAND APPLICATIONS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CITY DOES ON THE FAR EAST SIDE.
WE HAD ACQUIRED SOME PROPERTY IN ORDER TO HELP THEM THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT LINE OF CONVERSATION.
WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO WHERE LEPRINO THEN PUT THEIR WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ON SITE, AND NOW WE'RE ABLE TO PUT THE CLEAN WATER INTO THE LAKE 6.
THAT LAND HAD ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED, AND WE WERE THEN SEEING THAT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR A FUTURE DISTRIBUTION CENTER, EITHER ASSOCIATED WITH LEPRINO, OR FOR LEPRINO.
WHILE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY BEEN NEEDED, WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS JUST NOT A LOT OF AREAS NEAR LEPRINO WHERE SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD HAPPEN.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EAST LOOP, BUT IT'S MUCH CLOSER TO SOME HOUSING, AND WE SAW ENVISION MORE RETAIL ALONG THAT LOOP, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE A LIGHT COMMERCIAL AREA THAT MIGHT BE BEHIND IT BECAUSE OF HOW CLOSE THOSE RESIDENTS ARE.
WE'VE REALLY NOT TRIED TO SELL THAT LAND AT ALL FOR DISTRIBUTION TYPE OPERATIONS.
THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF LAND AVAILABLE IN THAT AREA TO SUPPLY A DISTRIBUTION CENTER, WHICH IS WHAT WE PRIMARILY LOOKED AT FOR GOING INTO THIS PARTICULAR AREA. BUT.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT MORE THAN LIKELY YOU WOULD USE IT FOR COMMERCIAL USE?
>> THE 100 AND ROUGHLY 10 ACRES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO PARCELS, 105, AND ANOTHER FIVE ACRE PARCEL.
THOSE TOGETHER WOULD BE LIKELY FOR A DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
WE STILL THINK THAT ULTIMATELY, OVER THE NEXT DECADE, THAT IF LEPRINO DOESN'T NEED IT, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO NEED IT FOR DISTRIBUTION, AND WE SEE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND EASY ACCESS TO THE LOOP.
I BELIEVE THAT LEPRINO HAS BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOU IS IF WE DID DO CHANGES TO INDUSTRIAL PARK, WOULD YOU BE LIKE, SUPER ATTENTIVE TO REGULATING AND MAKING SURE THAT IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS, THAT IT WOULD BE A COMPANY THAT WOULD FOLLOW OR BE CONSCIOUS OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
>> YES, MA'AM. WE HAVE WORKED REAL HARD TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMPANIES THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH AND ARE COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY ARE GOOD FITS FOR NOT JUST OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE AREA THAT THEY'RE GOING INTO.
WE SPECIFICALLY WENT WITH LEPRINO TO THEIR GREY COLORADO PLANT WHERE THERE'S SOME RESIDENTS NEARBY AND JUST SMELLED THE AIR.
WE LISTENED TO WHAT THE SOUNDS WERE LIKE.
[01:20:04]
WE TRIED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THOSE SURROUNDING RESIDENCE AREAS.I KNOW A DISTRIBUTION CENTER IS REALLY PRIMARILY JUST FOR THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS.
IT'S NOT REALLY MEANT FOR THE PROCESS OF SOMETHING THAT WHERE THERE MIGHT BE GASES EMITTED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE THINK THAT THAT'D BE THE MOST CONDUCIVE TO BE NEXT TO THE OIL WELL AND THE PUMP JACK.
YET STILL BE ALLOWED TO GO IN NEAR RESIDENTS.
MOST HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DOES NOT WANT TO BE NEAR RESIDENTS AT ALL.
WE CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD BE ACTIVELY LOOKING TO GO ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THEY WOULD MORE LIKELY WANT TO GO ON THE FAR OUTSKIRTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT MOST RESIDENTS DON'T WANT THEM.
>> WE ALSO DON'T WANT DATA CENTERS NEAR THERE.
JUST LET YOU KNOW, BUT I APPRECIATE.
I THINK THAT'S A MORE SOLID UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU.
>> KRISTIN, CAN YOU TELL US P& Z ON WHAT THEIR VOTE WAS SO WE CAN.
>> THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
WE HAD CITIZENS SPEAK IN OPPOSITION AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, STATING THE SAME AS WHAT YOU'VE HEARD HERE TODAY, NOT WANTING INDUSTRIAL NEAR THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
THE P&Z DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OTHER ZONING.
THEY WERE ONLY LOOKING AT THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. KRISTI, I APOLOGIZE.
I WAS ASKING BRAYDEN THAT SAME QUESTION WASN'T TRYING TO SPEAK OVER YOU.
KRISTIN AND/OR JOHN, SO THERE'S NO CURRENT PLANS FOR NEEDING THIS PROPERTY TO BE INDUSTRIAL AT THE MOMENT, BECAUSE THE THOUGHT WAS LIKELY LEPRINO MIGHT NEED IT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THEY DON'T NEED IT RIGHT NOW.
>> CORRECT. LEPRINOS TOLD US THAT THEY DON'T NEED IT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, OUR BIG CHALLENGE ON IT IS THE MARKETING OF THE PROPERTY.
WHEN COMPANIES CONTACT US OR WHEN WE WERE CONTACTING COMPANIES ABOUT PARTICULAR SITES AND THE SUCH, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY ALWAYS ASK IS, WHAT'S THE ZONING OF THAT PARTICULAR SITE, OR DOES IT NEED TO BE ANNEXED AND AND ZONED? IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, USED TO COME ACROSS AS TRANSITIONAL, WHICH WAS THE SAME AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BUT THE TRANSITIONAL AT LEAST DIDN'T SAY RESIDENTIAL ON IT.
OUR CLIENTS COULD GET THROUGH THAT PRETTY EASILY.
BUT NOW THAT IT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THEY KNOW THAT THAT'S A BIG CHANGE BETWEEN RESIDENT.
THAT'S A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS TO NO RESTRICTIONS IF IT GOES TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL OR SOME RESTRICTIONS AS IT GOES TO INDUSTRIAL PARK.
FROM A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE, WE LOSE OUT.
THE COMPANY DOESN'T WANT TO EVEN CONSIDER COMING TO A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IF THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT IT CAN ACTUALLY MAKE HAPPEN.
>> I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT THE MARKETING ASPECT OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE CHAPA HOLL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S DIRECTLY NORTH OF THERE JUST A GENERALIZED CHANGE IN ZONE, WHICH I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP OUR ZONING.
NOTHING AGAINST LITA, NOTHING.
I LOVE LEPRINO IF WE HAD A PLAN FOR IT.
I DO WORRY WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ABUTTING RIGHT UP THERE TO EAST FOURTH WHEN JUST BLANKETING, SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO ZONE SOMETHING NOW, NOT KNOWING WITH THAT MARKETABLE CAPACITY, WHAT COULD COME RIGHT THERE, AND I NEVER TRY TO USE A CRYSTAL BALL BECAUSE I THINK THIS COUNCIL'S BEEN VERY AMENABLE TO INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES AND COMPANIES LIKEWISE COMING IN AND CHANGING ZONING.
I DEFINITELY WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO JUST HOLDING TEMPORARILY UNTIL YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING THAT'S GREAT, BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I DO THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE PUT THERE THAT WAY, IF SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE THERE, WE COULD CREATE A GOOD ENOUGH BUFFER BETWEEN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOMETHING ELSE AND NOT JUST DOING A BLANKET CHANGE RIGHT NOW.
I'M A LITTLE WARY ABOUT THAT AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE WHEN YOU PUT SUCH A LARGE ZONE, ANYTHING COULD COME, AND FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, I UNDERSTAND.
BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND FROM Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE THAT IT COULD JUST OPEN IT UP TO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT WANT TO COME IN.
THEN IT TAKES AWAY THE DISCUSSION FROM BOTH THEM IF IT'S ALREADY ZONED THAT WAY, AND IT TAKES THE DISCUSSION AWAY FROM COUNCIL.
THAT MAY NOT BE DEVELOPED FOR 20 YEARS.
BUT I HATE TAKING AWAY THE DISCUSSION ASPECT OF IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT TAKES AWAY THE VOICE FROM BOTH.
I'M NOT SURE I CAN SUPPORT IT RIGHT NOW, NOT SAYING THAT I COULDN'T SUPPORT IT IN THE FUTURE, IF IT'S THE RIGHT PROJECT THAT WE KNOW SOMETHING COULD BE THERE, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD STILL HAVE A GOOD VOICE IN THAT DISCUSSION.
[01:25:02]
>> ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND AGAIN, I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY ON THIS IS WHAT I THINK WE TRY TO LOOK FOR IS THE BEST USE OF A TRACT OF LAND.
AND WHAT'S IT LIKELY TO BE USED FOR? OFTENTIMES, WHAT WE IMAGINE THE BEST USE OF A LAND TO BE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IN REALITY, IT CAN EVER BE.
I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THIS LAND FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE FOR IT TO BE RESIDENTIAL IS THE PRESENCE OF THE OIL WELLS ON IT.
FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE A HOPE THAT SOMEHOW THE INFILLING BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, ONE ON THE WEST, ONE ON THE EAST, WILL BE RESIDENTIAL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY LIKELY TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE OIL WELL.
THEN IT BECOMES WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? AS A CITY, WE ANNEXED IT, AND AT SOME POINT, OUR CONCERN FOR OUR ENTIRE CITY IS TO DEVELOP PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE CITY.
BECAUSE AS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, IT BRINGS IN PROPERTY TAX MONEY TO THE CITY.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO OPERATE AND RUN OUR CITY.
IT'S NOT GOOD TO LEAVE A PIECE OF LAND UNUTILIZED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND WE ANNEX THIS.
AGAIN, THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WAS JUST THE DEFAULT ZONING.
ANYTHING BROUGHT IN THROUGH ANNEXATION IS, UNLESS NOW THEY COME IN WITH THE ANNEXATION AND REQUEST THE ZONING AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT UP UNTIL NOW, THAT'S JUST WHAT IT WAS.
THEN YOU HAD TO COME AND ASK FOR THAT ZONING TO BE CHANGED.
IT'S NOT LIKE THIS WAS EVER NECESSARILY INTENDED TO BE SF ONE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
THAT'S JUST WHAT IT WAS AUTOMATICALLY ZONED.
SO I BELIEVE THAT'S OUR CONCERN.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, TOO, ABOUT HOW YOU MARKETED THAT RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.
I THINK THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED TO PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY REQUEST A PROPOSAL, REQUEST INFORMATION, ANSWER IT IN THAT WAY, SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE DESIGNATION THAT WILL REMAIN ON IT.
IT'S JUST A DEFAULT DESIGNATION.
BUT I THINK OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE GAVE THIS SOME VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DEFER TO THEM.
WE GET TO VOTE ON IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE POINT OF HAVING THEM IF WE DON'T LISTEN TO THEM IN SOME WAY, FORM, OR FASHION.
I CERTAINLY WANT TO SEE THE PIECE OF LAND DEVELOPED, BUT I THINK I GOT A LITTLE PROBLEM OF DOING IT NOW.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPZONE IT.
I GUESS THAT'S THE PROPER WORD FOR IT.
AND THAT'S PROBABLY ITS BEST USE, IS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK AT THIS POINT.
BUT I THINK WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION, MAYBE AT A BETTER TIME IN THE FUTURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER CONCERNS?
YOU TALKED ABOUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE NO LONGER HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE'RE NOW FOR DISCUSSION.
MR. MATA, THIS IS FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE COUNCIL NOW.
[OVERLAPPING] I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO QUIT SPEAKING, MR. MATA.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS NOW AS A COUNCIL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. GARCIA.
>> MAY I ASK YOU TO PULL UP THE SATELLITE VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, PLEASE? MY CONCERN WITH LEAVING THIS PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL IS THAT IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE USED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
DO WE HAVE THE SATELLITE VIEW AVAILABLE?
>> WELL, IT'S A VERY ZOOMED-OUT MAP FROM OUR ORIGINAL ZONE CASE.
I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE A MORE ZOOMED-IN AERIAL FROM IT.
>> COUNCILMAN, IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
>> WE HAVE TO DO IT FROM A DIFFERENT COMPUTER.
>> AS I WAS STUDYING THIS, THIS ONE HELPS A LITTLE BIT.
BUT LOOKING AT IT, I THINK THE SATELLITE VIEW HELPS SHOW WHY THIS IS NEVER GOING TO BE USED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TWO OIL WELLS, WHICH OCCUPY A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE SPACE ON THE TRACT.
THEN YOU HAVE OUR EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
>> CAN WE SEE WHERE THOSE OIL WELLS ARE?
>> THOSE BROWN PADS ARE THE OIL WELLS.
IS THAT A TANK BATTERY UP ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL?
[01:30:01]
>> EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT YES.
>> YES, THAT IS RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT, AND THEN THAT'S WHERE THE TRUCKS ENTER AND COME IN AND GO AROUND.
>> YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE OIL FIELD SERVICE TRUCKS USING THAT ROAD AND GOING THERE EITHER TO SERVICE THE WELL OR TO PICK UP THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCED THERE AT THE TANK BATTERY.
BECAUSE OF TEXAS LAW AND THE WAY THAT THE MINERAL ESTATE IS SUPERIOR, THERE'S NOTHING THAT ANY LAND USER COULD REALLY DO TO STOP THE MINERALS FROM BEING EXPLOITED THERE.
THIS IS NEVER GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AS ANY SORT OF RESIDENTIAL USE.
WITH THE ADJACENT INDUSTRIAL USES AS WELL, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THIS SOME SORT OF INDUSTRIAL, WHETHER IT'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHATEVER THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION, FOR EXAMPLE, COUNCILMAN COLLINS HAD.
WE'VE ALREADY PUT THE WORK INTO STUDYING THE ISSUE NOW.
WE KNOW WHAT THE ZONING NEEDS TO BE IN THE FUTURE.
IF WE WAIT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND THEN DECIDE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC PROJECT, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO MAKE ZONING CONSIDERATIONS, BECAUSE WE DON'T MAKE ZONING DECISIONS ON A SPECIFIC USE BASIS, BUT ON A CATEGORY OF USES.
IF WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WHAT THE CATEGORY OF USES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY, I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S THE TIME TO DO IT NOW.
MR. OSBORNE, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.
>> YES, SIR, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
BUT THE OTHER FIVE ACRES IS THAT KIND OF SWATH OF LAND RIGHT IN BETWEEN THE HOMES AND THE COMMERCIAL AREA THAT'S DUE SOUTH OF THE OTHER OIL WELL.
THAT WOULD BE A ROAD THAT WOULD COME INTO THE PROPERTY.
IT MIGHT ACTUALLY HELP THOSE TRUCKS GOING TO THE OIL WELLS TO UTILIZE THE ROAD GOING INTO THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS THAT ARE NEARBY, BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN ACCESS THAT IS THROUGH THOSE OTHER RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
>> YOU COULD JUST SHIFT THE TRAFFIC ONTO FOURTH INSTEAD OF THE BACK ROADS.
>> YES, SIR. THEN ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE OF WHERE THOSE OIL WELLS ARE LOCATED, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE WESTERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY, SO LIKELY, ANY BUILDING THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE WOULD ACTUALLY BE AS FAR AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE EAST TO ENABLE A BUILDING TO BE IN THERE.
THE LAND TO THE EAST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT ROAD RIGHT THERE, IS WHERE PLANTX SYSTEMS IS PLANNING TO GO WITH THEIR GREENHOUSES.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN ADJACENT DISTRIBUTION FACILITY NEXT DOOR TO THOSE GREENHOUSES.
>> THAT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE SATELLITE YET, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE GREENHOUSES THAT ARE THERE TO THE EAST ON TO THE AREA WITH THE PIVOT AND SOUTH.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. YES, SIR. THAT LAND IS CURRENTLY WITH PLANTX SYSTEMS. THEY HAVE PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION LATER THIS YEAR.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER, I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC TERM UNDER THE UDC FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD CONSIDER IT A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE TO HAVE THE GREENHOUSES, AND IT MAKES SENSE THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WOULD HAVE THAT USE AS WELL.
>> MR. OSBORNE, YOU JUST RAISED AN IMPORTANT POINT FOR CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE OIL WELLS.
YOU SAID THAT, AND THAT WAS GOING TO MY QUESTION.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE OF SUBDIVIDING THIS, BUT YOUR POINT IS IT'S NOT REALLY USEFUL AS A SUBDIVIDED.
IT WOULD ONLY BE USEFUL AS AN ENTIRE TRACT BECAUSE THE OIL WELLS WOULD REALLY PREVENT MUCH IN THE WAY DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING ON THE WESTERN SIDE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE FORMER COUNCILWOMAN SHILLA PATTERSON HARRIS, WAS MENTIONED TO ME THAT THERE ARE SOME SUBDIVISIONS WHERE HOMES KIND OF GO NEAR OIL WELLS.
THERE'S VERY, VERY FEW OF THEM IN OUR AREA, AND THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT PEOPLE HIGHLY DESIRE TO DO.
IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE OF EITHER A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR A PARTICULAR AREA THAT'S HIGHLY DESIRABLE TO BE IN.
I JUST DON'T ENVISION THAT MORE HOMES ARE GOING TO WANT TO GO IN RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO A TANK BATTERY AND PUMP JACK.
I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF MOMS IN MY YEARS OF DOING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND IT'S PRETTY RARE FOR THEM TO WANT KIDS TO BE ABLE TO BE OUT NEAR A PUMP JACK.
>> I KNOW A FRIEND OF MINE WHO LOST HIS ARM ON A PUMP JACK.
>> AGAIN, YOU'RE RAISING AN IMPORTANT POINT HERE.
THAT WESTERN PART OF IT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED AT ALL.
>> NO. IT'LL LIKELY JUST BE A [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF YOU DO A DISTRIBUTION FACILITY OR MAYBE EVEN TWO ON THIS 100 ACRES, IT MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO GET THREE, BUT THERE'S A PORTION OF IT THAT WON'T ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED, BUT WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE IT SET UP TO WHERE IF IT ENDS UP BEING SUBDIVIDED, THAT A PORTION OF THAT REMAINS WITH ONE OF THE PROPERTIES SO THAT IT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED, BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY BECOME DEVELOPED.
>> I WASN'T REALLY FOCUSING ON THOSE WELLS AND WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.
>> THEY'RE MORE ON THE WESTERN SIDE [OVERLAPPING]
[01:35:02]
>> THESE OIL WELLS ARE STILL ACTIVE, RIGHT?
>> THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND BASED ON ONCE YOU CAP AN OIL WELL, YOU STILL CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING ON IT, CAN YOU? BECAUSE NOW THE LAND IS CONTAMINATED.
I MEAN, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT NOT RIGHT?
>> IF THE LAND WAS CONTAMINATED, THEN THE OIL COMPANY OR WHOEVER DID THE CONTAMINATION WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP.
ONCE YOU CAP A WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU DON'T BUILD ON TOP OF IT BECAUSE THE OWNER OF THE RIGHTS OF THAT WELL STILL MAY HAVE TO GO IN AND DO SOMETHING TO IT OR MAINTAIN IT OR AT LEAST THEY'RE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
I'M NOT AN OIL AND GAS ATTORNEY BY ANY STRETCH OF THE MEANS, BUT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH THOSE WELLS.
>> THIS IS A REALLY TOUGH CASE, AND I KIND OF WISH THAT I MEAN, WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GOING TO USE IT NOW, BUT IT'S JUST.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE BEING PROACTIVE, BUT THERE'S STILL A FEW LITTLE QUESTIONS.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, BUT THERE'S STILL HOMES NEAR HERE.
I'M HEARING WHAT FOLKS ARE SAYING.
I'M NOT GOING TO LIE, RIGHT NOW I'M REALLY UNCERTAIN ABOUT THIS WHOLE ITEM.
>> WE TRIED TO STILL ALLOW FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE WILLING AND ABLE TO GO IN THERE.
HAVING IT BE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF THAT TYPE, WHICH WOULD BE INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND IT COULD BE ONE BIG DISTRIBUTION CENTER, COULD BE A COUPLE OF SMALLER ONES.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE SEE THAT CHANGING OF THE ROAD ACCESS WOULD BE BEST FOR THAT PROPERTY.
>> MR. ROSE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
THIS IS MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS.
LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY ITSELF, I MEAN, TO BE FRANK, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY DEVELOPER THAT COMES IN HERE AND DEVELOPS SOME SORT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, I LOOK AROUND TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT, I SEE JUNK YARDS AND ALL SORTS OF INDUSTRIAL THAT'S GOING ON.
MY PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING, I MEAN, THEY UNANIMOUSLY VOTED THIS DOWN, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE I TRUST ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH IT.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, MAYBE TURN AROUND AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING.
BUT THE FACT THAT PLANNING AND ZONING TURNED IT DOWN UNANIMOUSLY REALLY CHANGES THE WAY I LOOK AT IT.
SO I'M GOING TO PROBABLY, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS DECISION, I'M GENERALLY GOING TO LEAN TOWARD WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAS RECOMMENDED.
>> I WANT TO JUST ASK A QUESTION HERE.
IF WE VOTE IT DOWN TODAY, IS THERE A TIME LIMITATION ON WHICH IT COULD BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN BEFORE THE P&Z TO DISCUSS IT FOR THE PURPOSE THAT WE'VE AMENDED IT FOR, OR DISCUSSING THAT AMENDMENT TODAY?
>> WELL, FIRST, THIS IS STAFF-INITIATED.
IT'S A CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGE ON IT.
DEPENDING ON, I WOULDN'T THINK SO, ASSUMING THAT IT WOULD COME BACK AS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ZONING CHANGE.
>> IT COULD BE RIGHT THROUGH P&Z AGAIN, WITH A REQUEST FOR IT TO BE REZONED TO INDUSTRIAL PARK? YEAH.
>> I WOULD THINK THAT IT COULD BE, YES.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. COLLINS.
>> VERY QUICKLY. BECAUSE WE HAVE MADE THE CHANGE IN OUR MOTION.
WE ARE TALKING INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND I AGREE P&Z HAS NOT WEIGHED IN.
THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO DENY GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.
BUT I THINK, AND SOMETHING THAT I'M ASKING, WE SEE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
I THINK MISS PATTERSON, HARRIS SAID THAT.
BUT GIVEN THE NEW ANNEXATION RULES THAT WE HAVE STATEWIDE TODAY, EVERY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY THAT WE SEE ON THE SCREEN TODAY WOULD HAVE TO VOLUNTARILY AND PROACTIVELY REQUEST ANNEXATION.
>> WE ARE NOT AS A CITY GOING TO GOBBLE UP ANY OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES?
[01:40:02]
THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR THERE TO BE A PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO COME TOGETHER TO REQUEST ANNEXATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VOTE IN THE AREA THAT MAY NOT THEN BE EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MAJORITY AND AN ELECTION.
BUT THE GENERAL RULE IS, IT HAS TO BE ALL VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION THAT COME INTO THE CITY.
THE CITY COULD NOT INITIATE THE ANNEXATION WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
>> LIKE WE HAD WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN SOUTH OF TOWN. THEY HAD AN HOA.
THEY HAD A GREAT DEAL OF ORGANIZATION BEHIND THEM BEFORE THEY CAME AS A GROUP TO ANNEXATION.
FOR THIS TO HAPPEN HERE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN.
THESE FOLKS WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP AN HOA.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD VOTE AND THEN COME TO THE CITY TO REQUEST ANNEXATION BASED UPON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHICH, TO MY POINT IS, IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES, MAYBE THE VACANT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, VACANT PROPERTY TO THE NORTHWEST, WOULD COME WITH A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF A PLAT LARGE ENOUGH THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS.
JOHN, THE ZONING FOR PLANT AS IS GENERALLY INDUSTRIAL?
THIS IS A ODD ONE. I'M GOING TO LET CHRISTIE ANSWER [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT IS AN ODD ONE. IT'S RESIDENTIAL ESTATES, BUT THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE IT IS INDOOR CROP PRODUCTION.
RESIDENTIAL ESTATES IS WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR AG USES.
>> YOU'D RATHER DO MATH IN PUBLIC, MAYOR THAN [OVERLAPPING]. VOTING IN PUBLIC IS WORSE.
>> MAYBE JUST TO COMPLICATE THINGS JUST A BIT MORE, IF WE ADDED THE FLOODPLAIN, IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST PART OF THAT.
>> CAN YOU DO THAT FOR US? I KNOW THAT YOU CAN.
>> I FEAR I HAVE ANGERED THE GIS.
IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT,
>> COUNCILMAN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE HAD LONG DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY STAFF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ON PLANT AS BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT SMALL LITTLE TINY GREENHOUSES.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY A MILLION SQUARE FEET EACH.
>> THERE'S STILL A GREEN HOUSE?
>> YEAH, THERE'S STILL A GREENHOUSE.
ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME TO.
WE ALL SCRATCHED OUR HEADS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S WHAT THEY DECIDED.
THE MIDDLE PORTION IS REALLY THE AREA THAT WILL END UP BEING DEVELOPED.
>> I GUESS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF MAYBE RECLAIMING AS MUCH AS 30% OF THAT IS ALL THAT YOU HAVE IF YOU DEVELOPED A STORAGE FACILITY SOMEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY.
THE ORIGINAL INTENTION WHEN YOU BOUGHT THIS WAS GOOD.
TODAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'VE GOT THERE.
BUT BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST BECOMING A PART OF OUR CITY IS VERY, VERY SMALL.
I THINK THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PROPERTY COMING ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF PLANT AS, AGAIN, MUCH THE SAME, VERY, VERY SMALL PROBABILITY OF THAT.
JUST WANTED TO POINT THOSE THINGS OUT. THANK YOU.
>> LET ME MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT, [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE'RE DOING THE ZONE CHANGES TO BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF NEIGHBORS, BUT HISTORICALLY, WE'VE ALSO GIVEN LESS WEIGHT TO THE PREFERENCE OF THOSE WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE CITY.
IF YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF THE CITY, THEN YOU GET TO PARTICIPATE WITH A GREATER DEGREE IN THESE PROCESSES AND DELIBERATIONS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE PRIORITIZE CITY USES WITHIN THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU. MY PREFERENCE IS JUST TO RUN IT BACK THROUGH THE BNC AGAIN WITH THE DIFFERENT ZONING REQUEST.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS ON THE AMENDMENT, RIGHT?
>> IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MAIN MOVER AND SECONDED, SO THIS IS YOUR MAIN MOTION.
>> SO THIS IS MAIN MOTION NOW.
>> FOR INDUSTRIAL PART, THAT'S HOW THAT WORKS.
>> IT IS THE MAIN MOTION NOW TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO IP.
>> ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> OKAY. TWO. ALL OPPOSED SAY, NAY.
[01:45:01]
>> THAT'S 4-2, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
COUNCIL WILL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 6.4 TO 6.9.
[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 1112-H, a request of Brooke and Josh Linnenkugel, for Three Dogs Holding, LLC, for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 2006 50th Street, located east of Avenue U and north of 50th Street, Ridge Crest Addition, Block 7, Lots 15, 16, and the west 5 feet of Lot 17, and consider an ordinance.]
WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE WILL CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE ZONING CASES.MS. SAGER, IF YOU COULD GIVE US A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THOSE ZONING CASES, SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ITEM 6.4, ZONE CASE 1112-H.
THE REQUEST IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL.
WE SENT OUT 49 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING NO RESPONSE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 2 NORTH OF 50TH EAST OF AVENUE U.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ALONG 50TH STREET WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.
CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL, AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ALONG 50TH WITH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
THE PROPERTY FRONTS 50TH STREET, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MS, SAGER? I SEE NONE.
YES. DID I HEAR SOMEBODY SPEAK?
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE REST?
>> YEAH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THEM ALL UP AT ONCE. YOU'RE GOING TO RUN THROUGH ALL OF THEM?
[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 1391-J, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC, for BCCS Legacy Holdings, LLC, for a zone change from Medium Density Residential District (MDR) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 3201 South Loop 289, located east of Indiana Avenue and south of South Loop 289, Live Oak Addition, Tract C and 342.52 square feet of Tract H, and consider an ordinance.]
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL.WE SENT OUT 77 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 4, SOUTH OF LOOP 289, EAST OF INDIANA AVENUE.
HERE'S A RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE IN FAVOR.
THERE IS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO THE WEST WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND THE LOOP TO THE NORTH.
CURRENT ZONING IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE AREA WITH HEAVY COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL AT THE INTERSECTION.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
IT FRONTS SOUTH LOOP 289, WHICH IS A FREEWAY.
OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> JUST OUT OF SHEER CURIOSITY, DO WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING THERE?
[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3546, a request of Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. for Lutheran Christ Church, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 12704 Quaker Avenue, located west of Quaker Avenue and south of 127th Street, on 14.67 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 23, and consider an ordinance.]
THIS IS ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2 TO AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL.
WE SENT OUT 51 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 130TH, FUTURE LOOP 88, WEST OF QUAKER AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4.
HERE'S THE MAP SHOWING THE TWO RESPONSES IN FAVOR.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE IS RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH WEST WITH SOME ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH FRONTING ONTO FUTURE LOOP 88.
CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY SF-2 ZONING ALONG LOOP 88, AGAIN, AS A RESULT OF ANNEXATION, AND THEN A MIX OF OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG QUAKER AVENUE.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
IN YOUR NEXT CASE, 3547, THE TWO PROPERTIES ARE BEING DEVELOPED TOGETHER ON THIS SITE PLAN THAT IS SHOWN HERE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
WHILE THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH THAT WILL FRONT ONTO LOOP 88.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
AGAIN, IT IS ALONG QUAKER AVENUE, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND IT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH THE PROPERTY
[01:50:02]
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH ALONG LOOP 88, WHICH IS A FREEWAY.STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[7. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3547, a request of Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. for Bolton Oil Co. Ltd., for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 4404 130th Street, located west of Quaker Avenue and north of 130th Street, on 9.53 acres of unplatted land out of Block E2, Section 23, and consider an ordinance.]
AGAIN, A ZONE CHANGE FROM SF-2 TO AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL.WE SENT OUT 16 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO IN DISTRICT 4 AT QUAKER AND LOOP 88.
HERE IS THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE PROPERTY IN OPPOSITION SOUTH OF LOOP 88.
AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, IT IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE CASE I JUST PRESENTED.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES ALREADY EXISTING ALONG LOOP 88.
CURRENT ZONING, THERE IS AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ALONG 130TH OF LOOP 88.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE SITE PLAN AGAIN, SHOWING A MULTI USE DEVELOPMENT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, SO THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGNATION.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ALONG QUAKER AVENUE IN 130TH, FUTURE LOOP 88, PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL AND FREEWAY.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? SORRY ABOUT THE NOISE INTERFERENCE.
[8. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3549, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC, for Myles Thomason, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 4520, 4602, and 4608 130th Street, located west of Quaker Avenue and north of 130th Street, Thomason Addition, Tract A and 4.39 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 23, and consider an ordinance.]
THIS IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2 TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
WE SENT OUT 10 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 4, NORTH OF LOOP 88, WEST OF QUAKER AVENUE.
THIS IS WEST OF THE TWO CASES WE JUST SAW.
HERE IS THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE PROPERTY IN OPPOSITION.
AGAIN, THAT PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF LOOP 88.
HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING BUSINESS ON THIS PROPERTY.
CURRENT ZONING IS LOWDEN CITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2.
THERE IS A PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, ALREADY ZONED HEAVY COMMERCIAL WITH AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL ALONG LOOP 88.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, WHICH THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA ALONG FUTURE LOOP 88, WHICH IS A FREEWAY.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? DR. BUSSA.
>> MS. SAGER, THIS IS JUST A CLEAN UP, RIGHT? THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO COME IN CONFORM?
[9. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3550, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC, for Steve and Vicky Baker, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) and Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC) to Heavy Commercial District (HC) and Office District (OF), at 13301 Slide Road, 5101, 5001 and 4815 130th Street, located south of 130th Street and east of Slide Road, on 128.46 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 5, and consider an ordinance.]
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2 AND AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE.WE SEND OUT 73 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING NO RESPONSE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT 5, SOUTH OF LOOP 88, EAST OF SLIDE.
HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT, PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY VACANT LAND.
THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTHEAST AND THEN SOME COMMERCIAL USES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOOP 88.
CURRENT ZONING IS AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY SF-2.
IT IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER SF-2 AND AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING WITH SOME ADDITIONAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
HERE'S THE GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THIS SHOWS YOU THE SPLIT WHERE THE BULK OF THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE ASKING TO REZONE TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND IN THE PORTION IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH.
THEY ARE ASKING FOR OFFICE TO PROVIDE THAT BUFFER.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.
WHILE THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATION FOR RESIDENTIAL, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO OF THE FREEWAY AND A THOROUGHFARE, AND THE OFFICE ZONING WILL CREATE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
IT IS ALONG SLIDE ROAD, AS WELL AS FUTURE LOOP 88.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE,
[01:55:01]
AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.THANK YOU, MS. SAGER. A LOT OF ACTIVITY IN DISTRICT 4. MR. ROSE.
WELL, I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS 6.4 TO 6.9.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THESE? WILL.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS WILL STEVENS WITH AMB ENGINEERING AT 6515 68TH STREET.
I'M HERE ON AGENDA ITEM 6.5, 6.8 AND 6.9.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR THOSE ITEMS.
>> I DON'T KNOW, BRAYDEN. MR. ROSE ASKED ABOUT ITEM 6.5.
THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC PLANS RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S A LOT OF FLOOD ZONE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH BEFORE WE CAN REALLY KNOW HOW MUCH LAND WE CAN TRULY DEVELOP.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE ZONING CASES? ANYONE HERE TODAY WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE ZONING CASES? I SEE NONE, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:07.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.4 TO 6.9?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE.
THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0.
THERE BEING NO OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.