May 12, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY.

THAT MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

[6. 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.]

NOW WE MOVE ON TO OUR ITEM SIX, OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEMS CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE ARE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL DESIRES TO DISCUSS AN ITEM, THE ITEM IS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM SIX.

IF THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO PULL ITEMS 6.5.

AND 6.15 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 6.5 AND 6.15.

IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION.

DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

I HEAR NONE, SO THAT MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

[5. Budget Ordinance Amendment 1st Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance Amendment 27, respecting the General Fund in connection with Cost Center 4211, Code Enforcement Operating Budget - Demolitions.]

OKAY, FIRST NOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.4, A BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RESPECTING THE GENERAL FUND IN CONNECTION WITH COST CENTER 4211, CODE ENFORCEMENT OPERATING BUDGET FOR DEMOLITIONS.

I'M GOING TO CALL ON JOE JIMENEZ, THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.

MR. MAYOR, IF WE COULD, I MIGHT SUGGEST ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ERIC RAHINO.

OKAY, ERIC RAHINO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THAT.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A

[00:40:01]

LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM 6.5, WHICH IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT.

OBVIOUSLY, WE DEVELOP BUDGET FUNDS FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES, SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES IN PARTICULAR, KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

SO WHEN A STRUCTURE IS IDENTIFIED AS AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE, WE GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT, GET ORDERS.

AT THAT POINT, THE JUDGE WILL TYPICALLY ORDER THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY AND, ON AVERAGE, GIVE US IN BETWEEN 30 AND 90 DAYS.

IF AND WHEN THAT PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT DO THE DEMOLITION, CODE ENFORCEMENT THEN STEPS IN TO DO THOSE DEMOLITIONS.

THIS YEAR, CURRENT YEAR, WE HAVE ACTUALLY BUDGETED $200,000, WHICH IS A DECREASE FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET OF $300,000.

WE ARE ACTUALLY RIGHT AT BUDGET NOW AND HAVE DEMOLISHED 12 STRUCTURES.

WE HAVE SEVERAL STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY IN THE PIPELINE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BID THAT WE'RE READY TO DEMOLISH AS WELL.

HOPEFULLY SOME OF THOSE WILL BE DEMOLISHED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT IF THEY ARE NOT, WE'RE ASKING FOR $100,000, SO GOING FROM $200,000 TO $300,000 TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE DOING DEMOLITIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES, BUT THAT'S THE LINE ITEM.

THIS YEAR'S $200,000.

THE PRIOR COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE BEEN $300,000, AND WE'RE JUST SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE $100,000 TO GO TO THE $300,000 TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO DO DEMOLITIONS THIS YEAR.

I'VE GOT MR. WALKER HERE AS WELL TO ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, AS WELL AS MYSELF.

ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ERIC, SO I'M JUST KIND OF DOING IT.

I'M SURE EVERY DEMO IS NOT THE SAME, BUT THAT'S ABOUT $17,000 PER DEMO.

IS THAT KIND OF THE AVERAGE THEN? A COUPLE THINGS.

SO DEMOS ARE OBVIOUSLY BASED ON STRUCTURE SIZE.

WE HAVE DONE LARGER STRUCTURES.

WE'VE DONE A FEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES THIS YEAR.

WE ARE ALSO SEEING COST INCREASE FOR EVEN YOUR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

MR. WALKER, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.

THIS YEAR WE'VE SEEN PROBABLY THE NORMAL AMOUNT DOUBLE JUST FOR A NORMAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, BUT THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPACTED OUR BUDGET IS WE HAD A COUPLE OF STRUCTURES THAT BID REALLY HIGH.

ONE WAS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ONE OF THEM WAS A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.

MR. HARRIS.

COULD YOU REPEAT, EXCUSE ME, THE PROCESS OF DEMOLISHING, TEARING DOWN A HOUSE THAT'S BEEN BURNT? WHAT IS THE PROCESS YOU GO THROUGH? SO ON A BURNT, WE HAVE HAD A FEW BURN STRUCTURES THIS YEAR.

IF OFTENTIMES A BURN STRUCTURE WHEN WE GOT CALLED OUT, CODES GETS CALLED OUT BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SOME OF THOSE CAN BE WHAT WE CALL AN EMERGENCY DEMOLITION WHERE WE'RE REQUIRED TO BASICALLY MOVE FORWARD TO ABATE IT IMMEDIATELY.

IT MEANS KNOCKING IT DOWN AND THEN IT GETS CLEANED UP LATER.

BUT TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE...

IS WE'LL DO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER IF AND WHEN THEY DON'T COMPLY, THEY DON'T WORK ON THE PROPERTY TO BRING IT UP TO THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD.

WE THEN GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT.

THERE'S APPROPRIATE NOTICES THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT PROCESS BEFORE IT GOES TO MUNICIPAL COURT, AND THEN THE JUDGE WILL TYPICALLY GIVE THEM ANYWHERE FROM 30 TO 90 DAYS, WHAT WE SEE ON AVERAGE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER THEN HAS THAT TIME PERIOD GRANTED BY THE JUDGE TO DO THE DEMOLITION THEMSELVES OR EITHER THAT OR BRING IT BACK UP TO RACKING THE CODE.

IF AND WHEN THEY DON'T, AND OFTENTIMES WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT WHEN WE'VE GONE TO MUNICIPAL COURT, THOSE ARE STRUCTURES THAT OFTENTIMES DO NOT COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THEREFORE CODE ENFORCEMENT STEPS IN TO DO, WE HIRE A CONTRACTOR, WE BID IT OUT, AND THEN THE CITY DOES THE DEMOLITION.

WE DO ISSUE A BILL FOR THAT.

WE BILL THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IF AND WHEN THEY DON'T PAY, TYPICALLY THEY'LL HAVE 30 DAYS TO PAY, WE'LL THEN PUT A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY.

SO ABOUT HOW LONG DOES THIS PROCESS TAKE FROM WHEN YOU GET A COMPLAINT? FROM THE TIME THAT WE GET A COMPLAINT, WE GO OUT AND DO OUR INITIAL INSPECTION.

AFTER THAT, DEPENDING ON THE PROPERTY, IT CAN TAKE ANYWHERE FROM 45 TO 60, MAYBE LONGER, DAYS TO GET IT ON THE MUNICIPAL COURT DOCKET.

WHAT WE DO IS A TITLE SEARCH.

WE RELY ON OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO ASSIST US IN THAT.

AND DEPENDING ON THE SIMPLICITY OR THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT TITLE SEARCH, THAT GRANTS US A NOTIFICATION LIST.

THAT CAN TAKE A WHILE.

AND THEN BEING ABLE TO GET IT ON THE MUNICIPAL COURT DOCKET.

TO GET IT BEFORE THE JUDGE, SO WE HAVE TO TAKE ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

IT CAN TAKE A WHILE.

YEAH, I STILL DON'T HAVE A CLUE.

IS IT GOING TO BE SIX MONTHS, A YEAR, TWO YEARS? WHAT WOULD IT BE? RIGHT NOW, THE EARLIEST YOU'LL PROBABLY GET A CASE IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE.

WE HAVE A 60-DAY NOTIFICATION WINDOW THAT WE HAVE TO MEET.

[00:45:01]

HERE'S OUR CASES ONCE A MONTH.

AND DOES THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO CONTACT YOU AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ON THE STREET THAT'S CAUSING PROBLEMS TO, YOU KNOW, BEING UNSIGHTLY FOR ONE, BUT BEING OPEN AND PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF IT AND STUFF LIKE BEING UNSAFE? WE DO TAKE THOSE COMPLAINTS REGULARLY.

BUT THE NUMBER ONE.

GETTING INTO BACON, HEY, THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THIS HOUSE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY, PROBABLY DON'T OWN IT.

ERIC, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY OUTSTANDING DEMOLITION LIENS WE HAVE OUT? DO THOSE GET PAID OFTEN, OR IS THAT A PRETTY HIGH? THEY DO NOT GET PAID OFTEN, AND I'M COMBINING DEMOLITION LIENS ALONG WITH WEED LIENS.

SO FOR WHEN WE GO OUT AND MOW, WE ABATE THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S OVER $7 MILLION IN OUTSTANDING LIENS.

IF I COULD, I'LL ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT.

THE MAJORITY OF THOSE LIENS ARE QUITE OLD.

THEY'RE QUITE OLD.

THESE ARE NOT FORECLOSABLE LIENS.

SO THE TYPICAL WAY THAT ONE IS CLEARED IS AT SOME POINT THE PROPERTY TRANSFERS, AND IT TRANSFERS THROUGH A TITLE COMPANY.

WHEN IT GETS TO THE TITLE INSURANCE PART OF IT IS WHEN THE BUYER, WELL, WE CAN'T ISSUE THE POLICY AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT STANDING LIENS, SO IT GETS CLEARED UP THEN.

THIS IS ONE OF OUR TASKS AS WE'RE PREPARING THE FY27 BUDGET, IS TO SEE ARE THERE OTHER MECHANISMS THAT MAYBE WE CAN BRING TO THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

CAN THEY BE TURNED OVER TO COLLECTIONS? CAN THEY BE, THERE'S A TERM CALLED MONETIZING WHERE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, SOLD AT A DISCOUNT AND CARRIED BACK OVER.

BUT WE'RE TRYING TO VERIFY ALL OF THAT.

WE'RE NOT FINDING A LOT OF GOOD EXAMPLES FROM AROUND THE STATE.

IT'S PRETTY TOUGH, BUT YEAH.

AND I THINK THE OLDEST I'VE GOT IN THE RECORDS THAT I WAS PROVIDED, THERE'S A BUNCH OF THEM IN THE 70S AND 80S THAT HAVE JUST SET.

I'D DEFINITELY LIKE TO SEE US GO AFTER SOME OF THAT $7 MILLION BECAUSE THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, AT THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, WE'RE LOOKING AT $100,000, BUT EVERY $100,000 IS QUITE A BIT OF MONEY.

I'M GLAD THAT'S ON THE AGENDA NEXT YEAR.

MAYOR MCHILL? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I CAN TELL YOU, COUNCILMAN HARRIS, THAT SOMETIMES IT CAN TAKE YEARS, AND THAT'S THE SAD PART AND THE SAD REALITY, BUT OUR CODES DEPARTMENT IS ON TOP OF IT.

IT JUST TAKES SUCH A PROCESS BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE ALSO PROTECTING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OWNER.

SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE PROCESSES.

AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CUT BACK IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

I KNOW THAT WE HAD A LOT OF LIMITATIONS WITH OUR...

BUDGET BUT THIS IS ONE AREA IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU LIVE IN LAKE RIDGE TO WHATEVER PART OF TOWN WE'VE SEEN THOSE DEMOLITIONS HAPPEN ALL OVER THE CITY AND THEY'RE SO NECESSARY IF YOU ARE THE NEIGHBOR AND YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS I SORT EVERY SINGLE DAY AFTER A WHILE IT GETS FRUSTRATING SO I JUST WANT TO THANK OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT FOR STAYING ON TOP OF IT I KNOW IT'S NOT BEEN EASY YOU GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AND BUT IT'S JUST IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT WE DID HAVE TO MAKE THAT CUT OR BEHIND I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD PROPEL AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE EXTRA JUST TO MAKE UP FOR IT.

BUT NEVERTHELESS, THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING.

ERIC, SO KIND OF MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE TYPICAL CONDITION ON WHICH WE DO A NOTICE UH DEMOLITION, WHAT IS USUALLY, IS IT UNINHABITABLE? WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO BE DECLARED, UNINHABITABLE OR WHAT? THAT'S ONE COMPONENT.

A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU HAVE A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE, SO LONG AS IT'S SECURED, THEY'LL BE THERE IN COMPLIANCE.

SO A LOT OF TIMES YOU'LL HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT MAYBE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A WHILE, BUT IF IT'S SECURED, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY PROPEL US TO THE POINT TO WHERE IT GOES TO MUNICIPAL COURT.

IF IT'S ONE THAT'S A REFERRAL FROM PD OR FIRE, THAT, MAN, THIS IS.

THIS IS DANGEROUS, AND WE'VE GOT PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF IT, AND WHAT REALLY PROPELS US TO THAT NEXT LEVEL OF GOOD.

OR IF YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S BEEN A HISTORY OF FIRES, WHICH OFTENTIMES RESULTS IN AN EMERGENCY DEMOLITION.

DOES IT NORMALLY HAVE TO BE UNINHABITABLE, THOUGH, MEET THE HABITABILITY REQUIREMENTS? I MEAN, IF IT'S OPEN AND PEOPLE ARE COMING IN AND OUT, IS THAT SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF, OR DOES IT ALSO HAVE TO BE A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE? OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE, YES.

[00:50:02]

THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKES IT AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.

SO THAT'S...

ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT WE PRESENT IN OUR CASES.

WE CAN'T FIND SOMEBODY TO SECURE THE PROPERTY AND THEN MAKE THE NECESSARY REQUESTS WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEMOLITION.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANKS, DAVE.

THANKS, TIM.

I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF HOMELESS THAT OCCUPY THESE HOMES, AS WELL AS A LOT OF DRUG ISSUES HAPPENING AT SOME OF THESE HOMES.

SO THAT'S THE OTHER REASON THAT WE WANT TO SPEED THIS AND THAT THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.

ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.5.

SO MOVED.

I HAVE A MOTION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

HEARING NONE, THAT MOTION

ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY.

[15. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Engineering: Consider Ordinance No. 2026-O0052, amending Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances by adding “Division 2 Paving Alleys by Petition” to Article 36.08, establishing a process for the paving of unimproved alleys through a petition initiated assessment process and providing for placing a lien on property for unpaid assessments.]

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT, TAKE UP ITEM 6.15, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING DIVISION 2 PAVING ALLEYS BY PETITION TO ARTICLE 36.08, ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR PAVING OF UNIMPROVED ALLEYS THROUGH A PETITION INITIATED ASSESSMENT PROCESS.

I WILL CALL ON ERIC RAHINO, OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, AGAIN TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THAT.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, THIS IS THE SECOND READ OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL AT THE LAST MEETING, AND BASICALLY THIS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES AN ALLEY PAVING ASSESSMENT THROUGH A PETITION PROCESS TO WHERE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE YOUR PARTICULAR BLOCK OF IT, YOU KNOW, AND YOUR NEIGHBORS AND TWO-THIRDS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND 51% OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AND PETITION TO THE CITY TO PAVE THE ALLEY.

THERE'S ALSO A PROCESS IN THAT SAME ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED ON THE FIRST READ TO BASICALLY WITHDRAW THE PETITION BY...

ONE-THIRD OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE 50% AND IT'S AN OR 50% OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO THIS IS THE SECOND READ.

ONE THING I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION AFTER THE FIRST READ WE LEARNED WE DESIGNED THIS ORDINANCE AROUND BEING A HUNDRED PERCENT RECOUP FOR THE CITY MEANING THE NEIGHBORS WOULD PAY THAT PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD PAY FOR FOR 100% OF THAT COST AND LOOKING AT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LIMITATION IN STATE STATUTE THAT I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.

BASICALLY THE SET OF 100% IT LOOKS LIKE OUR MAXIMUM RECOVERY FOR THAT WOULD BE.

90% AND THEREFORE PUTTING A 10% BURDEN ON THE CITY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WOULD REQUIRE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROJECT IN ORDER TO FUND THAT.

BUT I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS FOR, NUMBER ONE, I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT 10% SINCE THAT IS A CHANGE FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT YOU.

AND NUMBER TWO, ANY OTHER FEEDBACK YOU HAVE SINCE YOU'VE NOW HAD IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL COUPLE OF WEEKS, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INPUT YOU WANT TO PROVIDE TO STAFF.

AND MY ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATION TODAY TO YOU IS AFTER I TAKE THAT FEEDBACK IS FOR YOU TO POSTPONE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN.

GIVE US TIME TO LOOK AT ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE AND POSTPONE IT TO JUNE 9TH. IF THAT'LL OFFER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION.

MR. HARRIS.

YES INITIALLY I HAD THOUGHT, I GUESS I DIDN'T READ THE FINE PRINT, THAT THE 49% WOULD HAVE TO PAY AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS DECIDED.

51% DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED IT DONE.

AND BEEN EDUMACATED, THAT'S WHAT I USED TO TELL MY STUDENTS, NOT EDUCATED, BUT PAID ATTENTION AND SEE THAT IT WOULD GO ON THEIR PROPERTY LIEN.

SO REGARDLESS IF THEY'RE FINANCIALLY ABLE OR NOT, THE BILL OF...

I AM INTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THINGS.

PAVING AN ALLEY MAKES IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE.

I'M FOR THAT.

THE WAY IT GETS PAID, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THE WAY IT GETS PAID.

ERIC, SO I THINK WHEN YOU TALKED TO US THE FIRST TIME, WE HAVE DONE THIS AT SEVERAL POINTS, JUST SORT OF INFORMALLY WITH, ON A PER BLOCK BASIS.

I GUESS IN ALL THOSE INSTANCES.

EITHER EVERYBODY ON THE ONTO IT OR THOSE WHO WANTED IT HAD TO PAY THE FULL FREIGHT OF WHAT THAT COST WAS.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, WE'RE TRYING TO MIMIC A PROCESS THAT THERE IS A PROCESS TODAY TO WHERE A NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP OF CITIZENS CAN GET TOGETHER AND BASICALLY GET WITH THE CITY TO PAVE AN ALLEY.

AND THE WAY IT WOULD WORK, I MEAN, IT'S EITHER THROUGH AN HOA WHERE THEY COLLECT DOLLARS,

[00:55:02]

HOWEVER THAT IS, BY RESIDENT, OR IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS A.

GROUP OF CITIZENS GET TOGETHER AND THEY THEY BUT THEY WOULD BASICALLY THEY WOULD HIRE THE ENGINEER THEY WOULD THEY WOULD HAVE THE ENGINEER DESIGN IT BE DESIGNED INTO OUR SPECIFICATIONS IT'D BE REVIEWED BY OUR ENGINEERING TEAM THAT ONCE APPROVED THEY THE RESIDENTS WOULD THEN WHETHER THROUGH THE HOA OR MAYBE IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT THEY WOULD THEN GO HIRE A CONTRACTOR TO DO IT SO THERE'S A PROCESS NOW TO DO IT THIS JUST KIND OF TOOK THAT PROCESS OUT AND THEN REALLY FORMALIZED IT AND THAT PROCESS STILL BUBBLE TODAY EVEN WITH OR WITHOUT THIS ORDINANCE ALL THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS REALLY ORIGINALLY WOULD JUST BASICALLY HAD THE CITY BE THE LEAD IN ESSENCE THE PROJECT MANAGER WE WOULD WE WOULD DESIGN IT WE WOULD HIRE SINCE WE'RE MORE BROUGHT TO YOU TWO WEEKS AGO WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT COST RECOVERY AND NOW WE'VE LEARNED IT'S STATUTE OF LIMITATION WHERE WE CAN ONLY RECOUP UP TO 90%.

OKAY, AND SO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS I SAW RAISED ABOUT IT WERE, AGAIN, I THINK SOME OF IT'S A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM, WAS PEOPLE SAYING, OKAY, YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE ME TO PAY TO HAVE MY ALLEY PAVED, EVEN IF I DON'T WANT IT PAVED.

IF YOU WERE IN THAT THIRD OF THE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T WANT TO BEAR THAT EXPENSE UNDER THIS, YOU WOULD STILL BE TAGGED WITH THAT EXPENSE, ALTHOUGH I THINK YOU TALKED ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO PAY IT OUT OVER A YEAR.

AND I THINK MAYBE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO EXTEND ANYTHING PAST A YEAR.

DID WE DO ANY STUDY ON THAT? YEAH, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT.

RIGHT.

AS FAR AS CARRYING A DEBT AS A MUNICIPALITY, BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'D BE DOING AS FAR AS YOUR PAYMENT.

AND SO THAT PART OF IT MIRRORS WHAT WE DO WITH OUR SEWER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHERE YOU HAVE A PAYMENT PLAN THAT YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT.

AND WE CAN'T EXTEND THAT PAST THE YEAR.

BUT IF IT WERE NOT PAID, IF THE PERSON JUST SAYS, I DON'T WANT TO PAY IT AT ALL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEN THE LIEN WOULD GO ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT LIEN WOULD BE PAID AGAIN WHEN THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED THROUGH A SALE OR SOMETHING ELSE.

SO THE PERSON ACTUALLY, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY IT, WANT IT, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO GET IT PAVED.

IF THEY'RE IN THAT THIRD, IT WOULD STILL BE PAVED.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY ANYTHING.

WHEN THEY SOLD THE HOUSE, THAT'S WHEN THE MONEY WOULD BE COLLECTED.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AT THAT POINT, PAID BY THE PERSON PURCHASING THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IT ACTUALLY BECOMES A PART OF THEIR ASSET.

THAT ARE PART OF A BENEFIT TO THEM AS A PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THEY DON'T.

THAT'S THE PART I THINK WAS MISUNDERSTOOD AS WE TRIED TO COMMUNICATE THIS, WAS YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE ME TO DO SOMETHING I DON'T WANT TO DO AND PAY FOR IT THAT I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR.

AND SO I THINK THAT PART WAS NOT QUITE UNDERSTOOD.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

IT'S A LIEN.

NOW, NOT EVERYBODY LIKES THAT EITHER, HAVING A LIEN ON THEIR PROPERTY.

THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO EVEN THAT.

SO, YEAH.

THE ISSUE IS THEN YOU CAN DRIVE THAT NUMBER DOWN TO 10%, BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE IN A SITUATION, UNLESS YOU MAKE IT TOTALLY VOLUNTARY AND EVERYBODY HAS TO AGREE TO IT OR A FEW PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE ALLEY PAID AND THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO PAY FOR IT OVER A YEAR OR IT'LL BE A LIEN AND IT'LL GET PAID LATER ON WHEN THEIR PROPERTY SELLS.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT A LITTLE BIT MY CONCERN AND WHY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT POSTPONED TOO IS JUST SO WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND GET SOME FURTHER FEEDBACK ONCE I HOPE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE JUST WITH THE SYSTEM WE ALREADY HAVE.

STANDING AGAIN IS THIS WAS MEANT THE REASON WE CAME UP WITH THIS WAS SO THAT AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.

I MEAN WE COULD JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS WHY IS THIS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE WAY IT WAS AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE IMPROVEMENT IS? WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE UTILITIES AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THAT STUFF IS DONE AND THAT'S PART OF THAT WHOLE PROCESS OF US LOOKING AT IT AND REVIEWING IT AND MAKING SURE IT'S DONE TO THE PROPER STANDARDS SO THAT IT CAN CARRY OUR TRASH TRUCKS DOWN THE ALLEY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON WHY WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DO THIS OTHER THAN THE AD HOC WAY WE WERE DOING IT? A COUPLE THINGS, SO I MEAN THAT OUTLINED IT VERY WELL AMIR.

ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND EVEN IF A GROUP OF RESIDENTS DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN TODAY THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET OUR SPECIFICATIONS IT STILL INCLUDE THE UTILITY RELOCATIONS AND WHATNOT SO IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME STANDARD.

I THINK ONE ADVANTAGE I'LL ADD TO THE ONE THAT YOU THE ONES THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED WOULD BE YOU KNOW WE WE DEAL WITH ENGINEERING ALL THE TIME WE HAVE ENGINEERS ON STAFF.

WE ALSO MANAGE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ALL THE TIME AND A LOT OF FOLKS THEY DON'T KNOW THAT'S NOT IN THEIR EVERYDAY ONE ADVANTAGE THAT IT DOES STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS WHERE IT LOOK UP RESIDENTS WANT TO DO IT.

WE WANT TO PAY FOR IT WE JUST DON'T KNOW THAT MAYBE THE PROCESS ON HOW WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT REGARDING SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING LET'S JUST SAY UNDER THE SITUATION WE HAVE IT CURRENTLY, AND A GROUP

[01:00:02]

OF PEOPLE DECIDE THEY WANT TO PAVE THEIR ALLEY.

DO WE STILL HAVE TO PAY 10% IF IT'S JUST THEM DECIDING? OR DO WE ONLY PAY THE 10% IF IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE AS AN ORDINANCE? SO IT'S THE RIGHT NOW IT'S IF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WANT TO JUST DO IT THEMSELVES THEY WOULD PAY FOR ALL OF IT.

NO 10%.

THERE'S NO 10% LIMITATION.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY A LIMITATION THAT'S PLACED ON A LESS THAN 100% YOU KNOW DO YOUR OWN TYPE ALLEY.

THIS IS SOLELY ON THE ABILITY FOR Y'ALL TO ASSESS ON THEM THE COST FOR PAVING THE ALLEY THAT 10% LIMITATION ON THE ESTIMATE.

FOR THAT COST IS WHAT IS WHAT IS LIMITED BY STATE STATUTES SO IF WE'RE THE ONE DOING THE ASSESSMENT THEN WE HAVE TO PAY THE 10 PERCENT YEAH YEAH THAT'S RIGHT OKAY IF A PETITION COMES IF IT'S IF IT'S A PETITION DRIVEN BECAUSE THIS IS ALL PETITION DRIVEN YEAH THIS IS ALL SOMETHING THAT IS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 313 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE AND SO IT OUTLINES EVERYTHING IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE INCLUDING THE LIMITATION ON WHO WOULD BE DOING THE HIRING? THE CITY OR UNDER THIS ORDINANCE OR THE HOMEOWNERS? SO UNDER THIS ONE, IT'S KIND OF BACKING UP A LITTLE BIT.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE A PETITION.

THE PETITION WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, AND IF IT'S AN APPROVED PETITION, OUR ENGINEERING TEAM, CITY STAFF, WOULD BASICALLY DO A FEASIBILITY STUDY, AND IN THAT FEASIBILITY STUDY, THEY WOULD DESIGN 30% OF THE ALLEY, PROVIDE THAT COST ESTIMATE BACK TO THE RESIDENTS, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THEY STILL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND THEN FROM THERE...

THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL PETITION TO WITHDRAW THE ORIGINAL PETITION.

WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CITY.

WE WOULD DESIGN IT WITH IN-HOUSE CITY ENGINEERS, AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD AND WE, THE CITY, WOULD BID IT OUT AND RECEIVE THE CONSTRUCTION.

WE COULD DEFINITELY SAY THAT IT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO, TYPICALLY WHEN THE CITY BIDS STUFF OUT, WE HAVE...

YOU KNOW HIGHER COST OF THINGS.

WHAT UM HOW MANY HOW MANY HOUSES ARE ON A TYPICAL BLOCK? 20? 18 TO 20.

AND WHAT'S THE COST? YOU GUYS HAVE A ROUNDABOUT COST OF WHAT IT IS TO PAVE? SO WE RAN SOME NUMBERS ON A COUPLE OF WE RAN A KIND OF A MORE LOWER DENSITY VERSUS A HIGH DENSITY OR HIGH DENSITY HAVING THE 20 HOMES IS ABOUT 04,000 A LOT AND IT'LL VARY I'LL SAY THAT IT WILL VARY DEPENDING THEM ON.

AGE OF THE ALLEY, THE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND, WHATNOT.

SURE.

ONE ALLEY WE RAN WAS ABOUT 04,000 VERSUS LOWER DENSITY.

ONE WE RAN, I THINK IT HAD LIKE 14 HOMES.

WE WERE CLOSER TO MAYBE THAT 08,000 MARK PER LOT.

YEAH, I WAS JUST SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN WE VOTED THIS LAST TIME BECAUSE IT DOES REMIND ME OF THE SEWER LINE ISSUE.

BUT IT ALSO BOTHERS ME THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE DOING THE HIRING AND IT TYPICALLY IT JUST DOES IT COST GOVERNMENTS MORE TO GET THINGS, YOU KNOW, BUILT.

MR. COLLINS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

A COUPLE QUESTIONS, ERIC, AS WE CONSIDER THIS.

IF WE'RE 20 HOMES AND APPROXIMATELY $4,000 PER HOME, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $80,000 FOR A TYPICAL CITY BLOCK ALLEYWAY.

IS THAT FAIR ENOUGH? YES, SIR.

AND SO WHAT...

I THINK I'VE UNDERSTOOD EARLIER IS THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO ONLY BE ABLE TO COLLECT BACK 72,000 OR APPROXIMATELY $8,000 IS GOING TO BE BORNE BY THE CITY FOR THIS BENEFIT.

AND YOU PROBABLY CAN'T DO IT TODAY.

I UNDERSTAND WE JUST LEARNED OF THIS YESTERDAY, THIS 10% ISSUE.

CAN YOU ESTIMATE WHAT KIND OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO PAY THAT BACK? BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT, CERTAINLY YOU'VE GOT REDUCED MAINTENANCE.

YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT WE HEARD LOTS ABOUT HOW THE TRASH TRUCKS WERE CRUSHED BY A SEWER LINE AND AND SOME OF THESE THINGS WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH NOW I DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT THEN BUT NONETHELESS WE'VE GOT THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES SO THERE IS A BENEFIT TO THE CITY FOR HAVING THAT ALLEYWAY PAVED.

CERTAINLY AND WE CAN COME UP WE CAN WE DON'T HAVE THOSE COSTS NOW BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING IN A FEW WEEKS TO LOOK AT AND CONSIDER.

BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO REGRADE THE ALLEY.

THERE'S LESS MAINTENANCE.

THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE TO THE CITY, OBVIOUSLY, IN HAVING MORE.

THAT'S WHY IT'S A NEW STANDARD IN OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL.

YEAH, AND SO TRASH GETS PICKED UP WHETHER IT RAINED OR NOT.

CORRECT.

SO THERE IS SOME SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT IN MY MIND TO HAVING A PAVED ALLEYWAY.

THE OTHER POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE THAT MAYBE CAME IN QUESTION DURING CITIZEN

[01:05:02]

COMMENT IS THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CITIZEN-LED.

THIS IS NOT THE CITY, THIS IS NOT CITY STAFF GOING OUT AND PICKING OUT RANDOM ALLEYWAYS ON ANYWHERE IN TOWN AND SAYING, OH, THIS ONE NEEDS TO BE PAVED AND THAT ONE DOESN'T.

THIS IS A CITIZEN-LED EFFORT THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY.

AND SO THERE'S A PROCESS THAT WE HELP TO FACILITATE THAT AND ENSURE THAT WE GET GOOD WORKMANSHIP, MAYBE THE FORESIGHT THAT GOES INTO MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T DO OTHER DAMAGE OR CREATE OTHER PROBLEMS FOR...

FOR PEOPLE THAT WE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE GOTTEN IN THE OLDER METHODOLOGY THERE.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THE CITY DOES NOT PAY VALLEYS.

THAT IS CORRECT.

WE DO NOT.

YOU KNOW GO OUT AND DECIDE WHAT ALLEYS GET PAVED AND WHAT ALLEYS DON'T THE DEVELOPER DECIDES YOU KNOW WHEN THEY BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT IF THEY'RE GOING TO PAVE THE ALLEY OR NOT PAVE THE ALLEY THAT'S KIND OF THEIR DECISION SO WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PAVING ALLEYS UH JUST TO ADDRESS UH I MISS UH PATTERSON HARRIS'S POINT UH YOU KNOW THE CITY'S NOT DECIDING WHO GETS A PAVED ALLEY AND WHO DOESN'T THE CITIZENS GET TO DECIDE WHO GETS A PAVED ALLEY BUT WE'VE NEVER BEEN IN THE POSITION OF PAVING ALLEYS IT'S IT'S A BIG ENOUGH BURDEN TO GET OUR OUR STREETS PAVED HERE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO ALLEY PAVING BUSINESS AS A CITY.

OKAY, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. ROSE, AGAIN.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS, JUST SO YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO EVERYONE, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR THE THIRD OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT WANT THEIR ALLEY PAVED? IT WOULD BE THE, IT'S OUTLINED IN THE...

PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO BASICALLY BE ANOTHER PETITION.

MR. WADE, CAN YOU HELP ME? YEAH, PERHAPS I CAN HELP OUT.

SO LET'S ASSUME THAT WE'VE GOTTEN A PETITION.

LET'S ASSUME THEN THAT AFTER THE PETITION'S GOT, SO FIRST WE HAVE TO GET THE PETITION THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

IT GOES TO THE ENGINEERS.

THEY LOOK AT IT, OUR GUYS, AND THEY SAY THAT IT'S A VALID PETITION, AND THEN THEY GIVE THEM THAT.

THEY COME UP WITH AN ESTIMATE OF A COST FOR DOING THE ALLEY.

THEY PROVIDE THAT TO THE PETITIONERS AND ALL THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS.

THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST.

THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME...

ANOTHER PETITION CAN COME BACK, AND IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF WITHDRAWING THE ORIGINAL PETITION, THEN WE'RE DONE.

IF IT DOESN'T, IF WE DON'T GET A PETITION LIKE THAT, THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE APPROVED, THE ASSESSMENT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THERE'LL BE A NOTICE OF A HEARING THAT WILL BE PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER TO HAVE A HEARING IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ALL THE EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU, AND ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE HEARING, PLUS IT'LL BE PUT IN THE NEWSPAPER.

I'LL HAVE A HEARING IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE HEARING.

Y'ALL TAKE INTO EVERYTHING, AND THEN Y'ALL DECIDE AT THE HEARING WHAT THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT'S GOING TO BE.

SO YOU'LL TAKE EVIDENCE FROM ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

IF A PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY NOT TO SIT THERE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

SO Y'ALL HAVE, IT ALL STILL HAS THIS DUE PROCESS, IF YOU WILL, COMPONENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT'S REQUIRED BY STATUTE.

AND THEN AFTER YOU HAVE THE ASSESSMENT HEARING, Y'ALL SET THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE ESTIMATED COST.

AND THEN YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH, WE MOVE FORWARD WITH DOING ALL THE ENGINEERING, HIRING THE CONTRACTOR, AND GETTING THE ALLEY PAVED.

SO IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE TO DECIDE IF IT GOES FORWARD? YEAH, SO Y'ALL ARE, THE ASSESSMENT, EVENTUALLY TO SET THE ASSESSMENT, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SET IT AFTER A HEARING AND NOTICE OF THE HEARING, AFTER EVERYTHING.

BUT IT'S STILL GOT TO GO, EVEN BEFORE IT GETS TO THAT POINT, THOUGH.

YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE PETITION PROCESS AND THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW THE PETITION.

SO I GUESS THERE'S A COUPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZENS WHO DON'T WANT IT TO BE DONE TO HAVE IT WITHDRAWN.

AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE FROM COUNCIL.

YEAH.

GOT IT.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. COLLINS.

I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH, I DON'T WANT TO SAY CONFUSION, BUT MISUNDERSTANDING AND NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS THAT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO POSTPONE THIS.

AND SO I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL POSTPONE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ITEM 6.15 TO DATE CERTAIN JUNE 9TH OF 2026 AT OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING IN.

JUNE, JUNE 9TH, 2026.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU, MR. PERGINO.

[1. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 1154-D, a request of Jeremy Davis, for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 2518 Parkway Drive, located south of Parkway Drive and west of Zenith Avenue, Oates Addition, Lot 3, and consider an ordinance.]

WELL, I'LL TAKE UP OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

AND WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM 7.1, ZONING CASE, ONE OF THESE AND OTHER OMNIBUS ZONING CASES.

[01:10:02]

1154-D, A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGES FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 2518 PARKWAY, LOCATED SOUTH OF PARKWAY DRIVE AND WEST OF ZENITH, OAKS AVENUE, LOT 3.

AND WE'LL HAVE A HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING FIRST ON THIS.

EXCUSE ME, THIS IS NOT THE OMNIBUS ONE, BUT AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

THE COUNSEL MAY ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNSEL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I CALL ON KRISTEN, YOU'RE ALREADY UP HERE, TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON THIS ZONING CASE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ZONE CASE 1154D IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.

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

HERE'S THE NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT IS FRONTING ONTO PARKWAY DRIVE, AND THERE IS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES WITH SOME VACANT LAND TO THE SOUTH.

CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

IT IS BORDERED BY HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AND LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY SF2.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS.

THE REQUEST TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG A FREEWAY AND ADJACENT TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL, SO THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

PARKWAY DRIVE IS CONSIDERED A FREEWAY IN THE 2018 MASTER FAIR AFFAIR PLAN.

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.

ANY QUESTIONS? MR. HARRIS.

COULD THAT BE AS MS. BE USED FOR ANYTHING BESIDES JUST AUTO IF SOMEONE DECIDED TO OPEN UP A RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING THERE COULD THAT IS ITS OWN FOR THAT AS WELL YES THE AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW RETAIL SALES RESTAURANT PERSONAL SERVICE AS WELL AS AUTOMOTIVE USES OKAY THANK YOU BECAUSE WE NEED ALL THE BUSINESS WE CAN GET OVER THERE THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THANK YOU.

I'LL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.1.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE? IF YOU WILL COME FORWARD.

I SEE NONE.

IS ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE? IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON, PHYLLIS GANT, GAMBLE, 7701 AVENUE J, LOVELL, TEXAS, DISTRICT 2.

I SPEAK AGAINST THIS CHANGE THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR COMMERCIAL USE, RESTAURANTS, BUSINESSES, EVERYTHING BUT AUTO.

AND IN LOOKING AT MR. DAVIS'S OTHER AUTO PROPERTY, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANT REPRESENTED IN OUR COMMUNITY AT ALL.

ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 7.1? I SEE NO ONE, SO I WILL NOW CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 3.02 P.M.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.1? WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON AGENDA ITEM 7.1? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF ITEM 7.1, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.

THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 7.2, ZONE CASE 2911E, A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM OFFICE DISTRICT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 10909 WAYNE AVENUE, LOCATED EAST OF SIDE ROAD, NORTH OF 110TH STREET, EPIC NORTH EDITION, TRACK Q.

[2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 2911-E, a request of Seventeen Services, LLC, for Lequity, LLC, for a zone change from Office District (OF) to Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), at 10909 Wayne Avenue, located east of Slide Road and north of 110th Street, Epic North Addition, Tract Q, and consider an ordinance.]

FIRST, WE'LL CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM, AND I'LL NOW CALL ON DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, KIRSTEN SAGER, AGAIN, TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY SUBJECT TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

SAGER? GOOD AFTERNOON.

ZONE CASE 2911E IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM OFFICE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

WE SENT OUT 59 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING THREE

[01:15:01]

IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 110TH, EAST OF SLIDE ROAD.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE THREE IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION, ALL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST.

HERE IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS A DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST.

AS WELL AS THE NORTH AND THEN SOME STARTING TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES WITHIN THIS BUSINESS PARK.

CURRENT ZONING IS OFFICE.

IT IS BORDERED TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH BY ADDITIONAL OFFICE ZONING, SF2 TO THE EAST, AND THERE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR OFFICE LAND USES.

AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

HERE'S THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

SHOWING THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR OFFICE, SO WHILE THIS REQUEST DOES NOT FULLY ALIGN WITH THAT DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUPPORTS SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USES.

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

THE LOCATION IS ALONG WAYNE AVENUE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.

HOWEVER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER? DR.

WILSON.

MS. SAGER, CAN YOU DISCUSS SOME OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING'S REASONING FOR THE UNANIMOUS DENIAL? SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST WERE AT THE MEETING AND SPOKE IN OPPOSITION.

THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE WHEN THEY BUILT THEIR HOMES OR PURCHASED THEIR HOMES, THEY WERE TOLD THAT THIS WOULD BE A GARDEN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY DID NOT WANT RETAIL NEXT TO THEM.

KRISTEN, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS IN MIND FOR THIS? YES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

HE IS PROPOSING A HAIR SALON.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT IT'S WRITTEN ON THE ROOF OF THAT BUILDING RIGHT THERE.

AND WHAT ELSE IS BEING BUILT ON THIS ROW HERE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH, BUT SINCE IT'S ZONED OFFICE, IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY SOME SORT OF GARDEN OFFICE TYPE USE.

OF THE ONES IN OPPOSITION, WHAT WAS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS? THINGS THAT COME WITH RETAIL, CONCERNS ABOUT TRASH, NOISE, TRAFFIC.

AND OF THE...

DID THEY KNOW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE? YES, THEY STATED IT AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHAT IT WOULD BE.

AND I THINK THAT WAS KIND OF MY SAME THOUGHT PROCESS WAS...

WILSON.

I DON'T NECESSARILY CONSIDER A HAIR SALON REALLY RETAIL IN MY BRAIN.

I MEAN, IT MORE FUNCTIONS KIND OF LIKE AN OFFICE WITH PEOPLE COMING AND GOING.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO, WERE PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH TRAFFIC, OR WAS IT THAT THEY THOUGHT, I MEAN, WAS IT TRASH? I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THE BOIL DECK BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE OFFICE, JUST PHYSICALLY LOOKS LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING.

I THINK THEIR CONCERNS ARE THE OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

IF IT WASN'T A HAIR SALON, LIKE FUTURE POTENTIAL FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

YEP.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM MS. SAGER? I SEE NONE.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.2.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I DO HAVE SOME IMAGES THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR...

CAN I UNPLUG THIS? CURTIS?

[01:20:07]

I GUESS WHY WE WOULD WORK ON THAT.

SO MY NAME IS JEREMY VARDAMAN.

I'M A PROJECT ARCHITECT WITH 17 SERVICES.

LOCATED AT 1500 BROADWAY, SUITE 203.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IN HERE IS A SALON IN THE BACK PORTION OF THE ABBOT NORTH.

YES, WE ARE SEEKING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

THAT IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE LEAST STRINGENT ZONING IN ORDER TO PUT IN PERSONAL SERVICES.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.

THIS IS A SERVICE-BASED BUSINESS.

IT'S NOT A RETAIL SALES-BASED BUSINESS, RIGHT? YOU DO HAVE DOCTOR'S OFFICES TO THE SOUTH OF US, BUT THOSE DOCTOR'S OFFICES ARE GOING TO ALSO SELL PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE THERE.

PRIMARY BUSINESS HERE IS SERVICE.

SALON IS ROUGHLY 5,500 SQUARE FEET, SO IT CAN'T FIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WAYNE, WHICH DOES HAVE VESTED RIGHTS, WHICH IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR A SALON, BUT WE'RE TOO LARGE TO PUT IT OVER THERE.

OKAY, MR. VARDAMAN, LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.

WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO EMAIL THAT PRESENTATION TO US RATHER THAN UPLOAD IT INTO OUR...

NOWHERE.

MAYOR IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WE HOLD THIS ITEM.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OTHERS.

COME BACK.

WE'LL GET THAT PRESENTATION, GET IT SET UP AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM WHERE Y'ALL CAN SEE THAT.

I THINK THAT WOULD LIKELY HELP THEIR CASE.

YEAH, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM RIGHT AT THE MOMENT.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP IN A MOMENT.

[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3543, a request for zone changes in City Council District 4 from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Medium Density Residential District (MDR), High Density Residential District (HDR), Office District (OF), Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), and Heavy Commercial District (HC), to Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Medium Density Residential District (MDR), High Density Residential District (HDR), Office District (OF), Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), and Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 3201 and 3223 South Loop 289, Tracts C and H, Live Oak Addition, 7414 Elgin Avenue, 6.47 acres out of Tract N, Melonie Gardens Addition, 2516, 2514, 2512, and 2510 81st Street, Lots 52 and 54-56, Gatewood Addition, 2803 114th Street, 11.81 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, 3001 114th Street, 6.49 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, 3101 114th Street, 25.88 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, 3102 116th Street, 1.91 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, 12601 Indiana Avenue, 11.10 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, 12605 Indiana Avenue, Tract A, Discount Shops on Indiana Addition, 12701 Indiana Avenue, 6.7 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, 12709 Indiana Avenue, Tract A, Worship Center 1 Addition, 3802 130th Street, 3.64 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 22, 3814 130th Street, Tract A, less the right-of-way, First Presbyterian Church Addition, 3815 130th Street, 1.22 acres out of Tract F-1, Kelsey Park Addition, 13005 Norfolk Avenue, 1.23 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 4, 3714 146th Street, 0.75 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 4, 14401 – 14412 Kenosha Drive, Lots 119 – 130, Eastwick at Kelsey Park Addition, 11209 Slide Road, Tract A less the west 5 feet of right-of-way, Raney Addition, 11912 Slide Road, 1.02 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 24, 12108 Slide Road, 0.91 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 24, 12116 Slide Road, 1.5 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 24, 12302 Slide Road, the east 240 feet of the north half of Tract A less 810.467 square feet of right-of-way, Sandy Mariah Estates Addition, 12308 Slide Road, the east half of the south half of Tract A less the east 4.89 feet, Sandy Mariah Estates Addition, 5103 82nd Street, 0.08 acres out of Tract J, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, 5105 82nd Street, Tract I-8, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, 5107 82nd Street, 2.32 acres out of Tract I-7-A, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, 5109 82nd Street, Tracts I-5 and I-6-A, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, 5109 82nd Street Rear and 8215 Slide Road, Tract I-3, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, 5111 82nd Street, Tract I-4, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, 8209 Slide Road, Tract I-1, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, and 8211 Slide Road, Tract I-2, Lakeridge Country Club Estates Addition, and consider an ordinance.]

OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO 7.3.

THIS IS ENCOMPASSING AGENDA ITEMS 7, 3, 4, AND 5.

WE'LL TAKE UP EACH AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO THIS ZONING CASE SEPARATELY.

WE'LL TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 7.3 OF THE ZONING CASE, 3543, A REQUEST FOR NUMEROUS ZONING CHANGES.

THIS IS THE OMNIBUS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 BEING PROPOSED BY STAFF BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PROPERTIES LISTED IN 7.4 AND 7.5.

SO, MS. AGER, AGAIN, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND I'M HAPPY TO START OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WAIT FOR THE PRESENTATION OKAY SO ITEM 7.3 IS THE CONTINUATION OF OUR ZONE CHANGES THAT ARE A RESULT OF THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS THAT WE COMPLETED AT THE END OF THE LAST YEAR WITH OUR CONSULTANT.

THESE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES WITHIN DISTRICT 4.

THEY RANGE ALL THE WAY FROM 81ST AND UNIVERSITY, SOUTH LEAP IN INDIANA, 130TH IN INDIANA, 114TH IN INDIANA, 146TH IN MEMPHIS, 82ND AND SLIDE.

JUST KIND OF THE WHOLE SPAN AND THEY ARE MAINLY CLEANUP CASES.

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST.

WE HAVE SOME DUPLEXES AT 81ST AND INDIANA THAT ARE ZONED OFFICE THAT WE ARE ASKING TO REZONE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

WE HAVE PROPERTY AT SOUTHLEAST.

IN INDIANA WHERE WE HAVE OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE RESIDENTIAL ZONING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT TO COMMERCIAL ZONING.

WE HAVE PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 130TH AND INDIANA WHERE THE NEW UNITED IS BEHIND THAT THAT HAS ANNEXATION SF2 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY THERE THAT NEEDS CORRECTED ZONING.

WE HAVE ZONING ALONG 130TH WEST OF UNIVERSITY ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE'S A CHURCH.

IT HAS A MIX OF FOUR DIFFERENT ZONINGS.

AND, GIVE ME A WAIT, CONTINUE OR WAIT FOR THE SCREEN.

WE SENT OUT 1,029 NOTIFICATIONS FOR THIS CASE.

WE RECEIVED 18 IN FAVOR, 8 IN OPPOSITION.

SO AGAIN YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE PROPERTIES 81ST AND UNIVERSITY, SOUTH LEAP IN INDIANA, 82ND AND SLIDE AS WELL AS 114TH, 130TH ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 146TH BACK OVER TO THE SLIDE AND 114TH.

SO BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER, THOSE ARE THE DUPLEXES CURRENTLY ZONED OFFICE.

AND THEN ALONG THE LOOP, YOU HAVE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH SPLIT ZONING BETWEEN MDR AND SF2.

[01:25:01]

AND THEN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, SPLIT ZONING BETWEEN MDR AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

SO WE WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THAT ZONING, THE RESIDENTIAL FOR THE DUPLEXES, THE COMMERCIAL FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING, AND CORRECT THE APARTMENT ZONING SO THEY DON'T HAVE SPLIT ZONING ON A SINGLE PROPERTY.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR MEDIUM TO CITY RESIDENTIAL AND THEN COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC ALONG THE LOOP.

82ND SLIDE THIS IS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONED SF2 THIS IS A RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CASE FOR LAKE RIDGE AND THEY KEPT THE BASE ZONING OF R1 ADDED A SPECIFIC USE TO ALLOW CT USES IN THIS AREA YOU HAVE AN OFFICE BUILDING AND THEN A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES ALONG 114TH EAST OF INDIANA, YOU HAVE INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING ON THE NORTH OF 114TH. YOU HAVE SF2 ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS A RESULT OF ANNEXATION.

AND THEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL, SOME ADDITIONAL SF2 ALONG 116TH AND AC OVER ON INDIANA.

WE ARE JUST LOOKING TO DOWN ZONE THE INDUSTRIAL PARK.

THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT.

THERE IS A DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH AND TO ZONE THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 114TH TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL AS WELL.

THAT DOES NOT BRING THE EXISTING CONCRETE BATCH PLANT INTO COMPLIANCE.

THEY ARE NON-CONFORMING, THEY WILL STILL BE NON-CONFORMING, BUT IT GETS THE PROPERTY READY IF THAT WERE TO EVER CHANGE.

AND THEN WE'RE RECOMMENDING CHANGING THE SF2 ALONG 116TH TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL BECAUSE IT IS SURROUNDED BY HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES MAKE THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

AT INDIANA AND 130TH, THE NORTHEAST CORNER, YOU HAVE SF2 ZONING, AGAIN FROM ANNEXATION WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

YOU HAVE SOME EXISTING AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, A MIX OF ZONING FOR THE CHURCH ON MEMPHIS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE A PORTION OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 130TH AND MEMPHIS THAT HAS HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

WE'RE RECOMMENDING AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER.

THERE IS AN EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY THERE AND CORRECTING THE APARTMENT ZONING TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL FOR THE CHURCH.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

146TH AND MEMPHIS.

WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON THE MDR AND SF2 ZONING HERE.

AGAIN, YOU HAVE AN EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ANNEXATION ZONING WE'D LIKE TO BRING TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

THAT SINGLE BLOCK OF MDR IS THE ONLY BLOCK OF MDR WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE'D LIKE TO BRING IT BACK DOWN TO SF2.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES MAKE THIS AREA FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

122ND SLIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE TO THE NORTH WAS ONLY STUDIED BY OUR CONSULTANT BECAUSE OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THAT AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL CORRECT IN THE FUTURE THE CHURCH TO THE SOUTH A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY IS ZONE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND THEN YOU HAVE EXISTING BUSINESSES ON THE WEST SIDE OF SLIDE ROAD AGAIN WITH ANNEXATION SF2 ZONING.

WE'D LIKE TO CORRECT THE DISTANCE ZONING TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL AND HAVE THE CHURCH HAVE ONE SINGLE ZONING FOR THEIR PROPERTY WITH HDR.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

FINALLY, UNDER IMPORTANT SLIDE, WE HAVE AN EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ZONED SF2 AS A RESULT OF ANNEXATION.

WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

WE HAD ONE PROPERTY IN FAVOR, THREE IN OPPOSITION THAT WERE ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES AT SOUTH LEAP IN INDIANA.

SEVERAL IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES ALONG 114TH AND INDIANA.

I SPOKE WITH THE ONE IN OPPOSITION.

SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DOWNZONED EVEN FURTHER.

SHE FELT LIKE AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL WAS NOT RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH.

YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL IN FAVOR ALONG 130TH AND INDIANA.

THE 13005 NORFOLK, THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF OUR PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.

ONE OPPOSED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AT 146 IN MEMPHIS, THREE OTHERS IN FAVOR, AND TWO MORE IN FAVOR AT 122ND AND SLIDE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPERTY AT 3102, 114TH DID SUBMIT WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO OUR PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER NEXT DOOR, AGAIN, INDUSTRIAL PARK, ASKING TO GO

[01:30:01]

TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN THE PROPERTY AT 116TH AND INDIANA, WE DID RECEIVE WRITTEN OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ALL OF THE ZONE CHANGES EXCEPT FOR THE ONES LISTED IN ITEMS 7.4 AND 7.5.

AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER? MS. RASHEEM? THE THREE PROPERTIES WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS OPPOSED THE ZONE CHANGE, ARE THOSE THE ADDRESSES LISTED IN 7.4 AND 7.5? YES, THE THREE IN 7.4, WE RECEIVED A WRITTEN OPPOSITION.

THE ONE IN 7.5, THE PROPERTY OWNER SPOKE AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, AND SO THE P&Z VOTED ON THAT PROPERTY SEPARATELY AS WELL.

IN THE PRESENTATION, DID YOU SHOW US THE PROPERTY ON 7.5? I DID NOT.

I HAVE A SEPARATE PRESENTATION.

I'M JUST JUMPING OUT.

YES.

I MEAN, I DID NOT SHOW IT SEPARATELY, BUT IT IS HERE ALONG SLIDE ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE.

ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER? SEE YOU, DAD.

I WON'T JUMP AHEAD.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 7.3.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE? I SEE NONE.

IS ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ZONE CASE 7.3? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

NO ONE? SO I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 3.20.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.3? SO MOVED.

MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM 7.4 ARE THE THREE PROPERTIES WHERE WE RECEIVED WRITTEN OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS THEREFORE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF SIX OUT OF SEVEN VOTES WILL BE REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THE ZONE CHANGES TO BE APPROVED THEY ARE 3102 114TH CURRENT ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL PARK STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL 2802 114 ALSO INDUSTRIAL PARK ALSO RECOMMENDING AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3543, Part 2, a request for zone changes in City Council District 4 from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) and Industrial Park (IP) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC) and Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 3102 114th Street, 9.19 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 19, 2802 114th Street, 13.86 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 19, and 3219 116th Street, 4.54 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 21, and consider an ordinance.]

POINT FOUR.

I'LL NOT DESCRIBE IT.

ALL YOU'LL DESCRIBE IT.

AND 32 19 116 CURRENTLY SF2 STAFF IS RECOMMENDING HEAVY COMMERCIAL AGAIN JUST SHOWING THE SURROUNDING RESPONSES AND AGAIN A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE WILL BE REQUIRED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THESE THREE ZONE CHANGES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM MS. SAGER? ALL RIGHT, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.4.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO AGENDA ITEM 7.4, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I SEE NONE, SO I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON 7.4 AT 3.23 P.M.

BECAUSE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING CHANGE, IT WILL REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.4? WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND.

OKAY, MR. HARRIS, YOU HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? MR. COLLINS.

MAYOR, I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED A PRECEDENT AMONGST THE COUNCIL IN PREVIOUS CASES LIKE THIS.

WHEN THE OWNER WAS OPPOSED TO A ZONE CHANGE, WE'VE TRIED TO HONOR THAT CHANGE OR HONOR THEIR WISHES NOT TO DOWNGRADE THEIR PROPERTY.

AND I UNDERSTAND MAYBE THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE CONCERNS, BUT THE OWNERS HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR PROPERTY AND THE USES THAT THEY BOUGHT IT UNDER.

AND SO I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ALLOW THIS EXISTING ZONE TO REMAIN.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT, AND WE HEAR OFTEN AS WE'VE DEALT WITH THESE ISSUES IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS AROUND TOWN, THAT 114TH STREET BETWEEN INDIANA AND UNIVERSITY CONTAINS A CEMENT BATCH PLANT.

THIS IS IN SOUTH LUBBOCK.

IT IS THERE, AND IT IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE NOTE THAT...

LANDOWNERS USE THEIR PROPERTY AS THEY CHOOSE

[01:35:02]

TO USE THEIR PROPERTY UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS AND RULES THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THEM.

DISPATCH PLAN'S BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

I ASSUME IT'LL BE THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS LONGER.

COUNCIL DOES NOT DETERMINE HOW LAND IS USED.

THE MARKET DETERMINES LAND USE, AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF I'M OUT OF LINE BY SAYING THAT, I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT OWNERS USE THEIR LAND TO THE BEST OF THE MARKET, AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

BUT WE HAVE A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT IN SOUTH LUBBOCK IN CASE PEOPLE WERE NOT AWARE.

MR. COLLINS SAID IT BETTER THAN I COULD.

MR. RUFFINI.

MS. IGER, THE CONCRETE BATCH PLANT WASN'T ONE OF THEM THAT OPPOSED THE DOWN ZONING, CORRECT? OR THEY WERE? SO WE ARE NOT DOWN ZONING THE CONCRETE BATCH PLANT.

NOT IF I HAVE A GOOD VIEW.

THEY WERE IN THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

THEY RECEIVED A NOTICE, YES.

WERE THEY THE ONE THAT OPPOSED ANYTHING? NO.

OH, OKAY.

THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED.

SO YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S CURRENTLY IS INDUSTRIAL PARK? THAT'S JUST FACING ON 114TH.

OKAY. I WAS, OKAY.

I GOTCHA.

YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, IF A NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT, YOU KNOW, NEXT TO AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL PARK THAT HAD, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDINGS ALREADY STANDING AND EVERYTHING.

IT BACKS UP DIRECTLY.

THEN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT YOU KIND OF KNOW WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR THERE, BUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED.

AND I JUST I DON'T THINK A INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR 114TH AND INDIANA, YOU KNOW, DIRECTLY, YOU KNOW, A BUDDING UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL.

I WOULDN'T WANT AN INDUSTRIAL PARK DIRECTLY BEHIND MY NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER, ESPECIALLY IF I'VE, YOU KNOW, BUILT THE HOUSE PREVIOUS.

NOW, IF I BUILT IT, YOU KNOW, WITH ALREADY AN INDUSTRIAL PARK BUILT AND THERE AND ZONED THAT WAY, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

EDGAR, CAN YOU GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION OF WHY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION...

RECOMMENDED DENIAL.

ALONG THIS WHOLE PROCESS, IF A PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY CHANGING THEIR ZONING WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, THOSE REQUESTS HAVE BEEN HONORED.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, I SEE NONE.

SO ARE WE AT THE POINT TO CALL FOR A MOTION? ONE MORE, MR. ROSE? OH, I SEE THAT.

OKAY, MR. ROSE.

MS. SAGER.

SORRY.

DID THE PROPERTY OWNER SAY, DID THEY HAVE PLANS FOR THIS, OR DID THEY SAY? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

THEY JUST WANTED TO KEEP THEIR CURRENT ZONING.

AND WE ALREADY DID PUBLIC HEARING, SO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S NOT HERE, I ASSUME? I DON'T THINK SO, SINCE THEY DIDN'T SPEAK.

YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY HAD PLANS FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, TO BUILD SOME SORT OF INDUSTRIAL.

SOMETHING OR ANOTHER BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO KNOW I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE ZONING IF THAT'S HELPFUL.

I WAS CURIOUS WHY WE HAD INDUSTRIAL PARK IN THIS AREA.

SO BACK IN 2013 A ZONE CHANGE WAS APPROVED FEBRUARY OF 2013 REZONING IT WAS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES R1, R1 SPECIFIC USE, R2 AND A1 TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY INDUSTRIAL LIMITED TO ONLY TWO USES OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE UNIT FACILITIES.

SO BACK THEN IT DID NOT HAVE THE GAMUT OF IHI, IT WAS LIMITED TO THOSE TWO USES.

HOWEVER WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UDC AND THE ZONING CHANGES, WE BROUGHT IN YOU KNOW THE NEW ZONING WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS SO THAT'S WHY IT'S INDUSTRIAL PARK.

SO IT WOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN LIMITED IN ITS USE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES.

WILSON.

[01:40:01]

AND THEN IT JUST BECAME VERY GENERAL WITH UDC'S CHANGE.

SO IT WASN'T WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PROBABLY BOUGHT IT AS FOR THAT REASON WITH A PLAN.

IT WAS JUST HOW IT SWITCHED DURING UDC.

WOULD MAKE THE POINT IS THAT YOU KNOW I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR WHEN A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER COMES AND JUSTIFIES WHY THEY WANT TO KEEP A CURRENT ZONING IN THE OTHER CASES MAY I POINT OUT THAT WHEN THAT WE DID CONSIDER THAT AND WE APPROVED THAT THEY ACTUALLY CAME AND JUSTIFIED IT AND BROUGHT GOOD REASONING FOR US TO KEEP THAT ZONING SO THERE'S NO PROPERTY OWNER HERE TODAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEE, NONE.

SINCE THIS REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE, LET'S PUT IT UP FOR EVERYBODY TO VOTE.

VOTE FOR APPROVAL OR...

OKAY, THAT MOTION FAILS.

VOTERS TWO IN FAVOR, FIVE AGAINST.

ALRIGHT.

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH SHOWING WHO VOTED HOW? MAYOR, I BELIEVE THE COUNT IS CORRECT ON YOUR SMALL SCREENS.

IT DIDN'T SWITCH TO THE BIG ONES.

I THINK MS. PAZ HAS GONE TO CHECK ON THAT.

WE COULD DO.

LET ME JUST, YEAH, WE CAN JUST DO THAT, A ROLL CALL.

WHO VOTED? IF YOU VOTED YES, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

WE HAD TWO VOTES FOR, SO EVERYBODY ELSE WAS A VOTE AGAINST.

OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM

[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3543, Part 3, a request for zone changes in City Council District 4 from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 12118 Slide Road, 0.75 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 24, and consider an ordinance.]

7.5, AND THAT'S, WELL, I'LL LET YOU DESCRIBE THIS ONE AGAIN.

THE LAST PROPERTY FROM ZONE CASE 3543, 12118 SLIDE ROAD.

THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME AND SPOKE IN OPPOSITION.

CURRENT ZONING IS SF2.

WE ARE ASKING FOR AUTO OR COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S CURRENTLY A HAIR SALON AND OFFICE AT THIS PROPERTY.

THE TWO RESPONSES IN FAVOR.

WE OF COURSE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL BY REQUEST BY A VOTE OF ONE TO FIVE.

AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I CAN'T SEE WHO IS SPEAK, IF ANY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. HAGER? DR.

WILSON? SO KRISTEN, RECITE THAT AGAIN.

SO IT'S CURRENTLY SF2 AND THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR A HAIR SALON IS AC AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO AC? CORRECT.

THEIR CONCERNS, I BELIEVE, WERE CONCERNS ABOUT PROPERTY TAX, THE POTENTIAL OF ZONING AFFECTING THAT.

I SAW SOMEONE ELSE WITH A QUESTION.

ANYBODY ELSE WITH A QUESTION FOR MS. SAGER? ALL RIGHT.

I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING NOW ON ITEM 7.5.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.

I SEE NO ONE.

ALL RIGHT, I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.5 AT 3.33.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? ANYBODY? SO MOVED.

I HAVE A SECOND.

DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT, I SEE.

OH, MR. COLLINS.

OH, BRIEFLY, STILL.

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, AND MR. ATKINSON, YOU MAY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, THE ZONING OF A PROPERTY DOESN'T SHOW UP AT LCAD.

HOW THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT ITS TAX VALUATION.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IT SHOWS UP AT LCAD.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT FACTORS THEY

[01:45:01]

ALL CONSIDER ON VACANT LAND FOR ZONING.

IT'S NOT VACANT, THOUGH.

THIS PROPERTY'S NOT VACANT, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT.

MR. GUSHIN.

THIS CASE REMINDS ME A BIT OF THAT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY TO, AND WE DIDN'T GET A REASON ARTICULATED WHY THE PROPERTY OWNER OPPOSED THE ZONED USE.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THIS PROPERTY OWNER IN THE LONG RUN TO LEAVE IT AS SF2 AND A NON-CONFORMING USE.

BUT THE OWNER DID COME AND SPECIFICALLY ASK US NOT TO CHANGE IT, EVEN IF IT'S FOR A BAD REASON.

I'M INCLINED TO DEFER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST ON THIS ONE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

WILSON? ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS JUST REQUIRES A...

OPPOSITION IT JUST REQUIRES A CIVIL MAJORITY VOTE ON THIS ONE RIGHT ALL RIGHT OKAY, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF ITEM 7.5 PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE AYE ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY OKAY, IS THAT THREE SIX BEFORE OKAY, SO THAT THAT MOTION FAILS ALL RIGHT,

[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2538-PP, a request of Parkhill for Lewis Farms Commercial, LLC, and Kinsey 2015 Real Estate Trust, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), generally located north of 4th Street and east of Upland Avenue on 33.7 acres of uplatted land out of Block JS, Section 3, and consider an ordinance.]

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 7.6.

MS. SAGER? ITEM 7.6, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY SF2 TO AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL.

WE SENT OUT 36 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

HERE IS THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE TWO IN FAVOR.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 4TH, EAST OF EPLAND.

THERE ARE RESIDENCES LOCATED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS TO THE EAST AND WEST AND A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL USE TO THE SOUTH.

CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 4TH.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USES WITH COMMERCIAL AT THE CORNER.

HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THE FUTURELAND USMAT DESIGNATION IS FOR THE MAJORITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

ALTHOUGH THE REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE IS NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.

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

FORTH AND UPLAND ARE BOTH DESIGNATED AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH ONE RECUSAL.

AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.6.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.

DO YOU HAVE A COPY FOR EVERYONE? YOUNGEST MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL HAS TO PASS EVERYTHING OUT.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS ALAN HAWLEY.

I'M A SITE DEVELOPER.

WE RESIDE AT 4222 85TH STREET.

AND I ALSO HAVE THE DEVELOPER HERE WITH US, ANDY BEAN.

AND SO...

SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE BASICALLY HERE FOR THE LEWIS FARMS MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY.

THIS REQUEST SUPPORTS A LARGER COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY, INCLUDING 727 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE NORTH WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL ALREADY AND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING PRETTY SOON.

[01:50:02]

TODAY WE'RE REQUESTING THE AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING TO ALLOW THIS TRACK TO DEVELOP AS A COHESIVE MASTER PLANNED MIXED-USE CENTER, A PIECEMEAL COMMERCIAL STRIP.

CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS JUST KIND OF SHOWING AN INTENT, POSSIBLY WHAT COULD AND HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD LAY OUT WITH THE MULTI-USE ANCHORED, YOU'LL SEE THERE, BY A LARGER FORMAT RETAIL USER, SUPPORTED BY MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDINGS, RESTAURANT PAD SITES, POTENTIALLY WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES AND POTENTIAL LOW-INTENSITY OFFICE USES AS WELL.

AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS CREATES A TRUE ACTIVITY CENTER, WE FEEL LIKE, FOR THIS AREA.

SO FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT THOUGH, I THINK ONE OF THE KEY FEATURES IS THIS INTERNAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM THAT YOU SEE THERE, INCLUDING THAT CENTRAL SPINE ROADWAY THAT'LL JUST HELP DISTRIBUTE TRAFFIC ACROSS THE SITE.

WHAT THIS DOES IS IT'LL REDUCE CONGESTION ON UPLAND AND QUINCY AND IMPROVES OVERALL ACCESS AND SAFETY.

JUST AS IMPORTANT IS HOW WE TRANSITION TO THE RESIDENTIAL, TO THE NORTH.

THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL FULLY COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK'S UDC BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

THAT INCLUDES LANDSCAPE BUFFER YARDS, SCREENINGS SUCH AS FENCING WALLS, GREEN SPACE CORRIDORS.

AND FINALLY CC ZONING IS CRITICAL BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO DESIGN THIS PROJECT AS ONE COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT WITH BETTER CIRCULATION, FEWER ACCESS POINTS, STRONGER BUFFERING, AND A HIGHER QUALITY RESULT.

THIS IS, WE'RE HAPPY TO PRESENT THIS DEVELOPMENT TO YOU.

WE THINK IT'S A ONE-OF-A-KIND MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT'LL HELP SET A PRECEDENT IN THIS AREA OF TOWN.

THAT WE THINK NEEDS IT, AND IT'LL BE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE FUTURE RESIDENTS AND SUPPORT LONG-TERM GROWTH.

ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER.

ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M ANDY BEAN WITH LUBBOCK LAND COMPANY, 12203 QUAKER AVENUE.

I THINK KRISTEN AND ALAN HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING OUR ZONE CASE.

I JUST WANT TO BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I SEE NONE.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 3.42.

AND IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.6? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. COLLINS.

JUST BRIEFLY, ANDY, WOULD YOU PICK UP THE PACE HERE A LITTLE BIT, SIR? WE NEED THIS IN DISTRICT 6, AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SEE THIS IMPROVEMENT OUT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US TODAY.

I SEE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

I GUESS I'M REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW ON THE RECORD.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE NOW GO BACK TO 7.2.

MR. BARNUM? YEAH.

AND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE, MR. VARDMAN? YES, I AM.

OKAY, SO JUST TO COVER BACK WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING, WE'RE LOOKING TO REZONE THIS TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW FOR UNUSED IN THE BACK END OF THE EPIC NORTH.

SEE HERE IS WE'VE GOT A HIGH-END SALON COMING IN TO THAT BACK PORTION.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DOES ALLOW FOR USES LIKE RETAIL, RESTAURANTS,

[01:55:02]

AND USES LIKE THAT.

GIVEN HOW FAR BACK INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT IS, THOSE USES REALLY WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE.

AND SO REALLY WANT TO FACE BUSINESSES.

I BELIEVE KRISTEN MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE JUST OFFICES.

THE HOMES WERE ACTUALLY BUILT BEFORE ANY OF THE OFFICES WERE ACTUALLY STARTED IN THAT AREA, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS EVEN BEFORE THE ZONING WAS FINISHED.

SO WHAT IS THERE CURRENTLY IS OFFICE ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THINGS SUCH AS CEMETERIES, THE USE OF MICROBREWERIES AND MICROMANUFACTURING IN THAT AREA AS WELL.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST BRING ANOTHER SERVICE-BASED BUSINESS INTO THAT AREA.

THE BUSINESS OWNER HERE WITH US TODAY AND ALSO THE DEVELOPER.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM.

MR. ROGERS.

SO WHAT, CAN YOU TELL ME, THERE'S SOME OFFICES ALREADY BUILT THERE, CORRECT, ON THAT STRIP? THAT'S CORRECT.

CAN YOU, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE? SO RIGHT NOW THEY ARE, A LOT OF THEM ARE MEDICAL OFFICES.

WE ARE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF SEALING SIX OTHER SETS FOR OFFICES IN THAT AREA ALONG WAYNE.

ALL OF THOSE DRAWINGS THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNED FOR ARE SPECULATIVE, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE WHICH WILL BE THERAPY USE AND A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS.

ALL OF THEM FALL WITHIN WHAT IS ESTABLISHED THERE.

AND IS THERE A DENTIST, IS THERE ANY DENTAL OFFICES IN THERE? JUST ALL DOCTORS? I THINK SO.

RIGHT.

AND THESE AREN'T, THESE AREN'T.

LIKE EMERGENCY SERVICES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THIS IS TYPICALLY GENERAL WELLNESS AND EVERYTHING.

LIKE THE ONE ON THE CORNER IS A WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, THEY DO A LOT OF SKIN TREATMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LOOKING AT IT, IT'S PERSONAL SERVICE.

WHAT FALLS UNDER PERSONAL SERVICE? A VARIETY OF THINGS, OBVIOUSLY.

BEAUTY SALON, BARBERSHOP.

STUDIO, A GYM, ANYTHING THAT IS SERVICE RELATED.

YEAH, AND I WAS JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STUFF THAT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE OFFER, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT BOTOX AND SKIN SERVICES AND...

YOU KNOW, JUST SOME THINGS THAT KIND OF SEEM LIKE SERVICE.

SO THIS IS, WOULD YOU SAY THIS SALON IS, I MEAN, WOULD YOU SAY THIS IS A HIGH-END SALON? YES, SIR.

I WOULD.

I WOULD SAY THIS IS A HIGH-END SALON, SQUARE FEET AND COMMUNITY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

HEARING IS OUT.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

WE DO HAVE A BUSINESS RIGHT NOW THAT'S ACTIVE.

WE'VE EXPANDED, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS THAT WANT SOME SERVICES, AND NOW WE NEED A BIGGER FACILITY.

ZONING HAS BEEN AN ISSUE.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PROVIDE A GOOD SERVICE IN.

I THINK WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET THERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE NICE.

I MEAN, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.

FEEL FREE TO ASK KERSH.

SHE'S THE ONE RUNNING OUR CURRENT BUSINESS.

AND YOU GUYS ARE LOCAL HERE IN TOWN, RIGHT? WELL, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 88.

I'M A RED RAIDER.

TRUE, TRUE.

I WENT TO MEDICAL SCHOOL HERE.

I WENT TO GRADUATE SCHOOL HERE.

AND I'M A PHYSICIAN HERE AT COVENANT FOR OVER TWO DECADES.

SO, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE.

GOOD DEAL.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT.

[02:00:02]

KRISTEN, IS HE CORRECT THAT THIS COULD BE A MICROBREWERY? THAT IS A LIMITED USE IN THE OFFICE DISTRICT AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS TYPICALLY AND IT COULDN'T BE THAT CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL.

MR. COLLINS.

DID I HEAR YOU SAY EARLIER THAT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET WAS ALREADY ZONED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL? NO, IT IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PARTICULAR LOT.

WHICH ACROSS THE STREET ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I'M TALKING ABOUT, WELL...

WEST OF IT? TO THE WEST.

NO, TO THE WEST IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

I HAVE A SMALL STRIP OF SPLIT ZONING BETWEEN OFFICE AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

ARE THOSE LOTS PLATTED ALREADY? YES, ONLY YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT TRACKS J, THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY OUTLINED ARE PLATTED, YES.

I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS LOT IS HALF AND HALF AND IT'S ALREADY PLATTED AND HOW WE GOT TO THAT POINT OF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO HDR ON THE BACK OF A...

TYPICALLY DONE BY NEATS AND DOWNS BEFORE THE PLATTING AND IT CAN GET A LITTLE OFF WHEN THEY COME IN AND PLAT.

I GUESS FOR ME I'D PROBABLY HAVE A LOT BETTER COMFORT LEVEL IF WE JUST HOPPED ACROSS THE STREET AND NOT BACKED UP AGAINST THESE NEIGHBORS.

THAT ARE THERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR ZONE CASE.

WE SAID 5,500 SQUARE FEET OF SALON.

HOW MANY HAIRDRESSERS WOULD YOU HAVE AN IDEA IN 5,500 FEET? I'M SORRY.

RIGHT NOW WE CURRENTLY HAVE 15 STYLISTS RANGING FROM HAIR, AESTHETICS, AND LASH.

SO WE'RE HOPING FOR THE NEW SALON, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE UP TO 17 ROOMS, SO WE COULD HAVE ANYWHERE FROM 15 STYLISTS TO UP TO 30.

AND WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE MANY DIFFERENT SERVICES SO THAT IT COULD BE A ONE-STOP SHOP.

YEAH, SO YOU COULD HAVE 20 STAFF MEMBERS AND AS MANY AS 20 PATRONS IN THE BUILDING AND THEN A FEW WAITING.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE QUITE EASY TO HAVE 50, 60 FOLKS IN THAT PARKING LOT AT ANY ONE TIME.

IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? TYPICALLY, BUT WITH OUR SALON NOW, WE HAVE 10 ROOMS AND 15 STYLISTS.

THERE IS NOT ONE TIME WHERE ALL THE STYLISTS ARE THERE AT THE SAME TIME.

SO THAT PARKING LOT IS NEVER COMPLETELY SATURATED.

WE HAVE A BUNCH OF OPEN PARKING SPOTS.

SO IT'S NEVER...

WILSON? I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I MEAN, OTHER THAN HOW WE LAID IT OUT WITHIN THE UDC, THAT A HAIR SALON WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN A PHYSICIAN'S OFFICE.

THE TRAFFIC PATTERN TO ME IS THE SAME.

I'VE BEEN SAYING, WORKING AS A PHYSICIAN, YOU KNOW, IT BRINGS THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARS.

WHETHER THEY'RE COMING THERE FOR A STYLE OF SERVICE AND OR SOMETHING WITH AESTHETICS VERSUS COMING IN FOR A MEDICAL SERVICE.

I THINK IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT IT JUST IT ENDED UP IN A DIFFERENT ZONE CATEGORY WITH THE UDC.

BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH WHERE THIS SITS.

AND I COMMEND YOU ON GROWING YOUR BUSINESS.

AND I THINK I DO KNOW DR.

HERRERA PERSONALLY AND I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST THAT HIS FAMILY IS WONDERFUL AND THEY BRING GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY.

I THINK IT FITS WITH THE OTHER OFFICES THAT ARE IN THIS AREA AND I MEAN LIKE I SAID AND OTHER THAN THE UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S JUST CLASSIFIED DIFFERENT UNDER OUR UDC I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE BUSINESSES OTHER THAN THE TITLES THAT ARE ON THE FRONT.

REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT THIS JUST AS ZONING, BUT WE DO THIS ANYWAY, AND I'M GOING TO GO THERE.

THE WOMEN'S CLINIC ON THE VERY SOUTH SIDE, SOME OF THEIR SERVICES ARE CHEMICAL PILLS, MICRONEEDLING, BOTOX, FILLERS, IPL ACNE TREATMENT, AND SCAR REVISION.

SO, I MEAN, SOME OF THE STUFF IS...

YOU KNOW, BEAUTY RELATED.

I JUST DON'T SEE HOW, THERE'S NOT A ROAD, THERE'S NOT A ROAD BEHIND HERE, RIGHT, KRISTEN? THERE'S JUST, IT'S AN ALLEYWAY, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT LIKE THAT THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ANY MORE TRAFFIC THAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE DR.

[02:05:01]

WILSON SAID, VERSUS THAT OR A DOCTOR'S, OR A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, GETTING PATIENTS IN AND OUT.

SO I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD BE, UM, HOW YOU WOULD EVEN KNOW THE, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

IN TERMS OF, ESPECIALLY WITH, YOU KNOW, WHO OWNS THE BUILDING AND IT'S LOCALLY OPERATED AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, RENDITION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT TOGETHER.

MR. MACHINE.

THIS USE IS GOING TO BE FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE OTHER ADJACENT USES.

I LIKE TO SAY THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT SPECIFIC USES, BUT WE LOOK AT CATEGORIES OF USES.

AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN THIS LOCATION, IT'S NEVER GOING TO LEND ITSELF TO ANY SORT OF INTENSIVE...

HIGH VISIBILITY RETAIL.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DROP A DRIVE-THRU MCDONALD'S THERE BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT THE TYPE OF TRAFFIC THAT THEY NEED.

IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO LEND ITSELF TO THAT, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU BUILD A HIGH-QUALITY BUILDING LIKE THAT, IT'S GOING TO LEND ITSELF TO THAT TYPE OF USE.

WE HAVE THESE TYPES OF...

TYPES OF USES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN TECH TERRACE, AND I THINK IT ADDS A LOT OF CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S A GREAT THING.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY NOTICEABLE TRAFFIC DIFFERENCE FOR THE FOLKS WHO LIVE ON A CUL-DE-SAC ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM THERE.

AND SO I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.

P&Z HAS GOTTEN IT WRONG.

NEIGHBORS AT THE END OF THE DAY JUST DON'T HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS OVER THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

QUESTIONS AND VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

THEY'LL BE CLOSED ON SUNDAYS AND MONDAYS, RIGHT? THEY'LL BE ALL BOOTH RENTAL STYLISTS, SO THEY HAVE OPEN ACCESS TO IT EVERY DAY AT ALL HOURS.

OKAY, BUT WHAT TIME WILL THEY CLOSE? OR WILL YOU CLOSE DAILY? THEY, SO WE RENT OUT THEIR SPACES, SO THEY HAVE OPEN ACCESS 24-7 ACCESS TO THE SALON.

SO THE SALON WE HAVE NOW, I MEAN, WE'RE OPEN AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY.

IT JUST DEPENDS ON THAT STYLIST'S SCHEDULE.

MORE OR LESS, WHAT WOULD THE LATEST TIME BE? UM, SIX, TYPICALLY.

THERE'S MAYBE SOME TIMES WHERE IT'S LIKE A CRAZY...

APPOINTMENT.

MOTHER'S DAY.

EXACTLY.

BUT THERE'S NOT MANY TIMES WHERE THERE'S LIKE 10 TO 10 P.M.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH YOUR OTHER BUSINESS AND IT'S RAN VERY WELL.

OH I APPRECIATE IT.

I THINK THIS IS OKAY IN THIS AREA.

ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO SAY, MR. BARNUM? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? NO, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE? MAYOR THOMAS PAINE, 1005 BROADWAY.

OH, I'M SORRY.

I'M DOWN HERE SO MUCH, I THOUGHT THIS WAS REAL.

WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BUT EVERYBODY ELSE DOESN'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

MY ADDRESS IS 15309 FM 1730 IN LUBBOCK COUNTY.

I THOUGHT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP SOME...

SOMETIMES THERE'S A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO SOME OF THESE THINGS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.

I KNOW THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIST OF USES IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, BECAUSE THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, AND THESE ARE QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER.

WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, THE ADJACENT HOUSES WERE ALREADY BUILT.

SO WHATEVER...

THOSE HOMEOWNERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A BUILDER, DEVELOPER, REALTOR.

THEY WERE TOLD THAT AS HAVING NO POINT OF REFERENCE ON ANYTHING.

SUBSEQUENTLY, I PUT THE ZONING IN PLACE THAT MORE OR LESS THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, BEFORE THE UDC.

AND WHEN I DID THAT, WHAT YOU NOW SEE AS OFFICE ZONING WAS ZONED GARDEN OFFICE, AND WHAT YOU NOW SEE AS HDC ZONING WAS ZONED AS APARTMENT MEDICAL.

THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR THAT WAS BECAUSE I WANTED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE ADJACENT OWNERS TO THE EAST AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

AND GARDEN OFFICE ZONING PRIOR TO THE UDC HAD HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, AND APARTMENT MEDICAL DID NOT, AND I SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO NOT HAVE THOSE LIMITATIONS ON HEIGHT IN THE REST OF THE OFFICE PARK.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THE ORIGINAL ZONING WAS WHAT IT WAS.

IT CAME INTO THE UDC.

AS OFFICE AND AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

WHAT KRISTEN SAID IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

THE ZONING YOU SEE IN PLACE WAS PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO PLANNING.

AND SO WE HAD A LAYOUT AT THE TIME AND HAD WE EXECUTED THAT

[02:10:03]

LAYOUT, THE WEST SIDE OF THE OFFICE ZONING WOULD HAVE ALIGNED WITH A STREET.

BUT THAT LAYOUT CHANGED.

AND THAT'S WHY IT NOW DOES NOT ALIGN AND YOU SEE THIS SPLIT ZONING ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THE ONE OTHER THING I'LL TELL YOU IS THE LITTLE PLATTED TRACK WEST OF YORK AVENUE YOU SEE RIGHT IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YOUR PORTRAYAL HERE IS PRIMROSE DAYCARE CENTER.

AND THEY WERE THE FIRST USER IN THIS OFFICE PARK.

THEY WERE PLATTED AS TRACK THEN I PLATTED THE REST OF THESE TRACKS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE ALL PLATTED.

WAYNE AVENUE, YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CURVE AT THE NORTH END.

THAT CURVE WILL GO TO THE WEST AND COME BACK SOUTH AND CONNECT TO YORK AVENUE.

AND THAT CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR VERY SOON.

THE UTILITIES TO CONNECT THOSE ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.

AND CONSTRUCTION ON THE STREET TO CONNECT THAT AROUND WILL BEGIN RELATIVELY SOON.

THE PLANS FOR THAT, I BELIEVE, ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY TODAY FOR APPROVAL.

AND SO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE EAST SIDE HAS BEEN COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT I'D CALL OFFICE ZONING.

THE REASON THAT DR. HERRERA AND HIS DAUGHTER ARE HAVING TO ASK FOR THIS ZONING HAS TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THE USE, WHICH EXCEEDS OFFICE ZONING ALLOWANCES.

I BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE CONSTRUCTION AND THEIR USE WITH THE INTENTION OF THE OFFICE PART.

ALSO, AND HERE COMES, I THINK, THE SIMPLE SOLUTION, I HAVE SPOKEN, UNFORTUNATELY, I HADN'T MET DR.

HERRERA BEFORE TODAY, SO I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HIM OR HIS DAUGHTER DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS, BUT I SPOKE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OUT IN THE LOBBY.

ABOUT THIS, AND I AM PREPARED, I BELIEVE THEY ARE PREPARED, TO PUT IN PLACE, AND THIS WILL REMIND YOU OF A CASE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU NOT LONG AGO.

THIS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD PREPARE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD SAY USE IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE HAIR SALON OR USE IS ALLOWED IN THE OFFICE ZONING.

SO THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE ANY CONCERN ANYONE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT USES.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE FUTURE, IF IT BECAME NOT AN OFFICE SALON, I MEAN A HAIR SALON, WHAT HAPPENS? WELL, IT WOULD THEN REVERT TO HAIR SALON OR OFFICE USES.

SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES WOULD THEN NOT BE AVAILABLE, AND WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION.

TO PUT IN PLACE RECORDED DEED RESTRICTIONS.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER ONE.

THE OTHER ONE WAS LESS CERTAIN ABOUT SOME THINGS ABOUT THE ZONING.

BUT IF Y'ALL PASSED THIS TODAY, WE WOULD COME TO THE SECOND READING WITH THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS RECORDED, AND THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE EVERYONE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE ANCILLARY USES LISTED IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AS I'LL ALSO TRANSPARENTLY TELL YOU THAT I STILL OWN ALL OF THE LOTS EXCEPT THE PRIMROSE LOT THAT ARE...

IN YOUR GREEN IN YOUR PICTURE ALL OF THE PLATTED LOTS ARE NOW IN CONTRACT TO BE SOLD NONE HAVE BEEN SOLD BUT THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BE YOU KNOW SIMILAR USES TO WHAT YOU ALREADY SEE IN THE REST OF THE PART AND I'LL BE PLAITING THE REST OF THE LOTS TO THE NORTH AND WEST THAT FRONT ONTO THE STREET THAT I'LL COMPLETE I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I HOPE THAT MIGHT HELP.

WILSON? I APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT, MR. PAYNE.

JUST A RANDOM QUESTION WITH YOUR OTHER LOTS ACROSS THE STREET.

WITH THE SALE AND THE REPLAT OF ALL OF THAT AS YOU'RE DEVELOPING THE OFFICE PARK, IS IT GOING TO CLEAN THE ZONING UP SO THEY'RE NOT SPLIT HALFWAY? HONESTLY, I HAVE NOT CONSULTED WITH KRISTEN ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

I THINK IT CERTAINLY CAN BE DONE.

IF THE LOTS TO THE WEST OF WAYNE AND THE REST AROUND THE OFFICE PARK ARE CHANGED, THEY WOULD BE CHANGED TO MATCH THE HDC.

I KNOW THE CITY DOESN'T LIKE SPLIT ZONING.

WE JUST HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED THIS.

BUT THAT'S EASILY CLEANED UP IF THE CITY WANTS TO CLEAN IT UP.

APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME'S KELLY MOORE, AND I LIVE AT 4904 109TH STREET.

[02:15:01]

AND SO I'M SEPARATED FROM THIS PROPERTY BY ABOUT THREE HOUSES.

I CAN SIT ON MY FRONT PORCH AND SEE IT.

AND THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE REASONS I'M HERE, IS THAT, AND ESPECIALLY TO LEARN THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC, I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.

WE HAVE A VERY QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF A CUL-DE-SAC TO ME.

WE HAVE A VERY QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC, AND TO LEARN THAT PEOPLE COULD BE GETTING THEIR HAIR DONE AT 11 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AND, YOU KNOW, CARS BEING DOWN THERE.

ALSO THE SHEER NUMBER OF CARS.

FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET RIGHT NOW.

NOW IT'LL PROBABLY GET GOING MORE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE YEARS.

AND THEN THE SECOND REASON I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOU IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL DEAL WITH PRECEDENT, BUT WE'RE ALSO WORRIED ABOUT IF YOU DO THIS, THEN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT DOOR TO THAT, AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT DOOR TO THAT.

THERE'S A LOT OF SPECULATION, BUT AS LONG AS PEOPLE HAVE...

THE ABILITY TO UH...

AND GET JUNE CHANGES THE BUFFER CAN GO IT CAN GO ON DOWN TOWARDS THE CORNER BECAUSE THIS LOT THAT GO AWAY SO THERE'S MORE ROOM THERE THAT'S UH...

YOU KNOW, JUST RIGHT DOWN FROM OUR HOUSE.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT THAT MIGHT BE SET AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE AFTER WE DIDN'T BUILD OUR HOUSE THERE.

WE BOUGHT IT.

WHEN ABOUT THE TIME CONSTRUCTION STARTED, MAYBE A LITTLE AFTER ON THOSE OFFICE HOMES.

BUT WE KNEW IT WAS AN OFFICE AREA.

I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL OVER TOWN, AND THEY SEEM TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S COMING.

BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY THIS, THAT YES, SOMEBODY PROBABLY WON'T COME AND WANT TO PUT A 7-ELEVEN IN THE CORNER THERE.

DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS OVER TO THE WEST OF US, THE PURPOSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD CHANGE, AND THESE KIND OF THINGS COULD BECOME MORE COMMON.

SO I JUST ASK YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I AM UNOPPOSED TO THE CHANGE.

I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MOORE? THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS BRENDA WHITTEN, 4908 109TH STREET.

IN THAT MAP, I'M ON THAT BACK STREET IN THAT CUL-DE-SAC ON THE SECOND HOUSE FROM THE BIG PURPLE SQUARE.

MY HUSBAND AND I, RANDY, ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.

WE WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, AND WE STATED OUR OPINION.

AND WHEN WE CAME OUT OF THAT, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS SAID, THEY HAD BEEN DOWN THAT SITUATION BEFORE, AND IT WAS A SLIPPERY SLOPE IS THE WORD THEY USED.

BY COMING IN AND MAKING THAT ONE PLAT A DIFFERENT ZONE.

AND I'M SO GLAD WE WERE DELAYED, BECAUSE WHEN I LISTENED TO THE REST OF THE ZONING, CHANGES THAT WERE PUT BEFORE YOU, YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT ZONES AND INCONSISTENCIES AND THAT YOU'VE ALREADY STATED, I'VE HEARD YOU SAY, YOU DON'T LIKE THAT.

WELL THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WHEN YOU MAKE THAT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN ALL THE REST OF THAT PURPLE IS OFFICE.

WE PURCHASED THAT HOME EXACTLY, WE'VE BEEN IN THERE A YEAR.

AND WE ASKED, JUST LIKE EVERYONE WOULD, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE CHECKED, IT WAS ZONED OFFICE.

WE WERE PERFECTLY CONTENT WITH THE OFFICE SITUATION THAT WE SEE ALL OVER TOWN RIGHT NOW.

I CAN TELL YOU, YOU ASKED WHAT WAS THERE, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THOSE BUSINESSES ARE.

YES, IT'S THE WOMAN'S NEIGHBORHOOD CLINIC ON THE CORNER, AND YES, I GOOGLED THEM, AND YES, THEY DO DO BOTOX. I WAS DISAPPOINTED.

IT WAS ALREADY DONE.

THERE'S THE SPINE INSTITUTE.

THERE'S ANOTHER, HOME HEALTH.

BUSINESS, THERE'S A TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMPANY, THERE'S A BLANK BUILDING THAT'S NOT BEEN LEASED OR SOLD YET, AND I AM NOT TRYING TO BE PERSONAL.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ZONING CHANGE FOR ONE LOT.

AND THEN, AS MR. MOORE SAID, IT SETS A PRECEDENT IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ONE OF YOU EARLIER.

YES, WE WANT TO PROTECT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS VERY QUIET.

[02:20:02]

WE ALL WALK OUR DOGS.

I CAN SIT OUT AS LONG AS I WANT AND NOT BE DISTURBED.

I'M CONCERNED WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC.

I KNOW THE HOURS.

WERE STATED THEY COULD BURY.

MY GUT TELLS ME IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 6 O'CLOCK.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.

SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION.

THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE IN FAVOR WERE NOT AT THE ZONING COMMISSION WITH THOSE OF US THAT WERE.

AND I KNOW THEY ALL HAVE A STAKE IN IT, AND I RESPECT THAT.

BUT WE DO TOO.

WE MADE A HUGE INVESTMENT BY PURCHASING THAT HOME AND INVESTING OUR RETIREMENT.

AND WE PLEASE CONSIDER OUR OPINIONS TOO.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITTEN.

YES, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS TOM TENNER.

I LIVE AT 4909 109TH PLACE, WHICH IS THE CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE 109TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC.

MY HOUSE IS ON THE CUL-DE-SAC.

SO I'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION FLOATING AROUND, AND I'M GOING TO SAY A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS, BUT OWNERS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD...

INVESTED IN HOMES BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THE PROPERTY ON WAYNE, BOTH SIDES, EAST AND WEST, WAS GOING TO BE OFFICES.

IN FACT, I BOUGHT PROPERTY THERE WERE NO HOUSES, WELL THERE WAS ONE HOUSE THERE, BUT DAN WILSON AND I HAD A DISCUSSION.

HE SAID IT WAS OFFICE AND ONE OF HIS SELLING POINTS TO ME WAS OFFICES ARE LIKE 8 TO 5, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS COULD BE ANY HOUR DURING THE WEEK.

IT COULD BE WEEKENDS, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE HERE BETWEEN OFFICES AND COMMERCIAL OFFICES.

IT'S GENERALLY GOING TO BE 8 TO 5.

I UNDERSTAND SOME FLUCTUATIONS, BUT THE COMMERCIAL IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

WE ARE WORRIED THAT IN THE EVENINGS AND ON THE WEEKENDS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LIGHT AND NOISE POLLUTION.

I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THAT MANY PEOPLE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SORT OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS I GUESS, THEY RENT A SPACE SO IF THEY WANT TO BE THERE AT 2 IN THE MORNING THEY CAN DO THAT.

THE DOCTOR'S OFFICES, I'M AT THE MEDICAL SCHOOL, I'M A PROFESSOR THERE, AND A NUMBER OF MY EX-STUDENTS WOULD LOVE TO HAVE 50, 60 CARS SITTING IN THEIR PARKING LOT DURING THE DAY, NOT NECESSARILY AT NIGHT OR ON WEEKENDS, UNLESS THEY'RE IN AN EMERGENCY ROOM.

THE OTHER THING FOR ME IS REZONING COULD BE A WEDGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT FOR THE REST OF THE PROPERTY THE GENTLEMAN SAID HE PURCHASED IT AFTER IT WAS OVER THERE FOR WHATEVER WAS SAID BEFORE WAS IRRELEVANT THAT REALLY IS KIND OF UNFORTUNATE, ISN'T IT? HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS BUYING WE THOUGHT WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE BUYING, BUT WE CAN'T CHANGE OURS.

WE'RE SORT OF STUCK THAT HE APPARENTLY CAN.

I FIND THAT KIND OF IRONIC THAT I WAS SOLD MY PROPERTY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

HE WAS SOLD HIS PROPERTY, I ASSUME UNDER THIS CONDITION, AND HE BOUGHT IT.

AND NOW HE WANTS TO CHANGE THOSE RULES.

WEST OF WAYNE IS OFFICE.

WHAT'S TO SAY THAT NOW THAT THIS COUNCIL APPROVES COMMERCIAL, WHY NOT MAKE THE REST OF IT COMMERCIAL? I MEAN, IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE, AS WAS SAID, AND I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO COME DOWN HERE ALL THE TIME AND HAVE TO ARGUE AGAINST THIS KIND OF THING.

I GUESS...

THE BIGGIE HERE FOR ME IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT TO THE BUSINESS.

ACTUALLY, I KNOW, I THINK THE BUSINESS OWNERS ON 98TH AND QUAKER, VERY NICE PLACE, NICE TRAFFIC, NICE PARKING.

THEY SAID THEY NEED TO EXPAND AND YET THEY ALSO SAID THEY'RE NEVER ALWAYS TOTALLY FULL.

SO I'M NOT SURE I BUY THAT ARGUMENT, BUT IT'S A NICE, IT'S A NICE LOCATION.

I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT TO THE BUSINESS.

I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT TO THE ARCHITECT.

I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

I HAVE YET TO HEAR ANYBODY TELL ME HOW IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE ALL

[02:25:01]

OF THOSE ARE NOW FILLED IN.

HOW IS THIS GOING TO BENEFIT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? I DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT.

I SEE A LOT OF POTENTIAL RISKS.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE BOTOX PLACE, I UNDERSTAND IT'S DOWN THERE.

BUT IF THEY GO UNDER, THAT LOT WILL BE SOLD AS OFFICES.

IF THESE PEOPLE GO UNDER, THAT PLACE WILL BE SOLD AS BUSINESS.

I'M SORRY, COMMERCIAL.

AND I APPRECIATE THE OFFER TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THAT.

BUT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING NOW, THAT IS WORTH THE COST OF A CUP OF COFFEE.

BECAUSE ANYBODY COULD COME BACK IN HERE AND SAY, OH, WE WANT A ZONING CHANGE.

AND WE HAVE ALL THESE REASONS, AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR BUSINESS.

SO I'M REALLY, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE IT, BUT I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THIS SLIPPERY SLOPE.

ONCE YOU SELL ONE COMMERCIAL, WHAT'S TO KEEP THE REST OF IT FROM GOING COMMERCIAL? AND THEN, THEN WE'VE REALLY GOT A PROBLEM.

THEN WE DO HAVE A LOT OF NOISE.

OFFICES ARE 8 TO 5, GENERALLY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

I'M VERY PLEASED.

NOW, I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION.

I WAS FINE.

I THINK YOU'RE CHANGING UP MY ENVIRONMENT NOW.

AND AGAIN, IF SOMEBODY CAN TELL ME, OH...

YOU'RE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THIS.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT IT IS, BUT ALL I SEE IS A NEGATIVE.

I'M OPPOSED, OBVIOUSLY.

MR. WASHINGTON, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, SIR, WHY...

WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND PLEASE DON'T GET UP.

I'M JUST RESPONDING TO YOU.

MY QUESTION AND RESPONSE IS, WHY WOULD YOU BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY? THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE USER ARE WHAT'S...

THE FOUNDATION OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND OUR PRINCIPLES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY USE.

SO TO THE EXTENT THAT A PROPERTY DOESN'T CREATE A NUISANCE OR DISRUPT YOUR LAND USE, THERE'S NO ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.

SINCE I'M ADDRESSING IT TO YOU, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RESPOND, BUT DON'T FEEL ANY PRESSURE TO.

NO, OH NO.

I DON'T THINK I AM ANTICIPATING NUISANCES.

FROM THEM BEING ABLE TO BE OPEN AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT, THAT PROPERTY WILL BE OPEN.

WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANY HOUR, DAY OR NIGHT.

WE ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR OTHER CHANGES.

SO THAT'S ONE.

BUT YOU ARE TOTALLY CORRECT.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO EXPECT THE BENEFIT.

BUT THEY BOUGHT UNDER ASSUMPTIONS.

I BOUGHT UNDER ASSUMPTIONS.

WHY DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME IN AND CHANGE THE RULES AFTER THE REST OF US HAVE INVESTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF MONEY IN OUR PROPERTY? WE BOUGHT THAT KNOWING IT WAS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL, QUIET.

NOW THEY'RE CHANGING THE RULES TO ALLOW SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME IN WHO COULD BE OPEN ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT.

THEY CAN HAVE TRAFFIC COMING IN THERE, WHATEVER, ESPECIALLY IF THEY OPEN UP.

AND I GUESS...

THEY COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE ALL OF THOSE.

I MEAN, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME IN AND CHANGE IT? WHAT'S TO KEEP THEM FROM GOING AUTO IF THEY GET ENOUGH VOTES ON THE COUNCIL? I MEAN, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RULES.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE LAWS.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO CHANGE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE HERE FOR.

BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO BENEFIT FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.

I'M TRYING TO NOT BE DAMAGED OR HURT.

BY SOMEBODY ELSE'S USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.

I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

I'LL CONTINUE MY COMMENTS, AND THANK YOU, SIR.

BUT THIS IS A CONSISTENT LAND USE WITH THE ADJACENT USES, AND IN PARTICULAR...

THE MARKET ECONOMIC FACTORS ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET ARE NOT GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE USES IN THE FUTURE, EVEN IF THIS PARTICULAR LAND USER DOESN'T CONTINUE TO OPERATE THERE.

KRISTEN, CAN YOU ANSWER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR ME? ON WAYNE AVENUE, THIS IS WHERE THE BUSINESS WOULD, I MEAN, THIS IS WHERE THE TRAFFIC WOULD ENTER TO GET TO.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

TO CUE LET ME JUST REMIND YOU WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS PHASE AND SO I THINK WE JUST STILL BE JUST HEARING FROM ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION

[02:30:03]

ANYONE WE CAN HAVE THAT DURING THE DISCUSSION ALL RIGHT NO ONE ELSE COMING FORWARD THEN I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 4 19. ALL RIGHT AND UM IS THERE A MOTION DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF A MOTION ON ITEM 7.2? WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

NOW WE OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.

CAN WE GO BACK TO THAT THAT MAP PLEASE? SO THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE COMING THROUGH WAYNE AVENUE RIGHT? CORRECT.

WOULD THERE BE ANY FENCING BEHIND THAT BUSINESS? I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THERE USUALLY IS.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE IN THE PAST.

I'M JUST MAKING SURE.

AND THEN THIS IS I GUESS IT'S ALLEYWAY.

WHAT'S IN BETWEEN? AND DO WE HAVE BESIDES, SO THERE'S ONLY ONE ENTRANCE TO, LET ME SEE WHAT THAT IS, TRQ? TRACT Q, YES.

OKAY, THERE'S ONLY ONE ENTRANCE.

YES.

ONE ENTRANCE, ONE EXIT.

THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THE EAST SIDE, WILL EITHER HAVE A SEVEN-FOOT SOLID MASONRY WALL.

OR A SEVEN-FOOT WOOD FENCE WITH A LANDSCAPE BUFFER DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE YET WOOD FENCE HOW ABOUT YOU KNOW I HEARD LIGHT POLLUTION IS THERE A WAY TO BE PROACTIVE AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO LIGHTS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT BUT ARE THEY IN THE BACK OR ARE THEY IN THE FRONT AS WELL? OF COURSE, FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL, WE HAVE THAT.

OKAY, GOTCHA.

IT'S USUALLY...

LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 05,500.

WHAT'S THE PROXIMITY OR THE PARKING LOT? WHAT DID YOU SAY? HOW BIG IS THE PARKING LOT TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT? SO WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EAST SIDE FOR NOT JUST THIS BUILDING BUT ALL OF THE BUILDINGS.

SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ADDING EXTRA? NO.

WE WOULD NOT BE ADDING EXTRA ONTO THIS PROPERTY.

AND WHAT'S SHOWN HERE, THAT BUILDING ACTUALLY NEEDS TO SLIDE 10 FEET TO THE WEST IN ORDER TO MEET NOT ONLY THE, ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO PUT THE TREES TO BUFFER BOTH THE LIGHT POLLUTION AND THE NOISE POLLUTION THAT MAY COME FROM.

OKAY, THAT'S ALL.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT CASES, I THINK, COMING.

KRISTEN, CAN YOU REMIND ME, WHAT WAS THE VOTE ON THE P&Z? IT WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

YEAH, I'M NOT USUALLY IN FAVOR OF SPOT ZONING.

JUST, AND I'M, YOU KNOW, DAVID AND I AGREE ON A LOT, BUT THERE ARE A FEW THINGS WE DISAGREE ON.

AND ZONING IS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT DOES RESTRICT THE USE OF PROPERTY.

SO YOU DON'T, YOU CAN'T JUST DO ANYTHING ON YOUR PROPERTY.

YOU DO HAVE TO DO WHAT ZONING IS SET OUT.

AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ZONING.

YOU KNOW, ZONING'S ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR A LITTLE BIT.

YEARS I THINK BUT WE HAVE IT NONETHELESS AND IT HAS PROVIDED FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT THE CITY AND I I'M REALLY PRETTY RELUCTANT TO DO SPOT ZONING IN ANY CASE I MEAN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MR. PAYNE AND THE PROPERTY HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS REALLY NO OTHER WAY TO ACTUALLY UTILIZE THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF SOME OTHER ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY WITH GAS LINES AND STUFF LIKE THAT BEHIND IT JUST MADE IT SO THAT THIS WAS REALLY THE ONLY WAY HE COULD MAKE USE OF THAT PROPERTY THIS PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR WHAT IT'S OWNED FOR THAT THAT BLOCK IS FILLED UP WITH SUITABLE BUSINESSES THAT FIT THAT ZONE ZONING PURPOSE I FIGURE THIS PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD TO SOMEBODY THAT WILL FIT THE OFFICE DISTRICT

[02:35:02]

USE EVENTUALLY AND IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A WONDERFUL BUILDING A WONDERFUL BUSINESS I JUST I CAN'T OVERCOME THE ISSUE OF SPOT ZONING WHEN I FIGURE THERE IS ANOTHER USE FOR IT THAT IT WILL PROBABLY BE SOLD FOR AT SOME POINT THAT WILL FIT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF IT SO I KIND OF AGREE WITH THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ON THE SPOT ZONING WE'VE ZONED IT THIS WAY, AND I FAVOR KEEPING IT THAT WAY, BUT THAT'S JUST MY POSITION ON IT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

AND THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR, I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH THIS, WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION, THE TYPE OF BUSINESS IT IS, YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT.

I THINK IT MATCHES THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I THINK MANY PEOPLE WILL BENEFIT BY IT FROM USING IT.

NO OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY.

NAY.

SO WHAT WAS THAT? TWO NAYS.

IS THAT RIGHT? WERE YOU AN AYE? OKAY SO THAT MOTION PASSES 5-2.

ALL RIGHT, NOW, EVERYBODY'S LEAVING NOW?

[7. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing for the City Council to consider the creation of a Public Improvement District for Centerpointe, which covers a portion of an area in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, generally bounded on the east by North Avenue U, on the south by Drake Street, on the west by North University Avenue, and on the north by Georgetown Street.]

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL TAKE UP ITEMS 7.7 AND 7.8.

THAT IS WHERE WE ARE, MAYOR.

YEAH.

THE 7.7 IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING.

AND THEY'RE RELATED.

THE FIRST OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERED THE CREATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR CENTERPOINT, WHICH COVERS A PORTION OF AN AREA IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

SO THESE ARE RELATED.

WE'LL GET THAT DESCRIPTION HERE IN A MINUTE.

SO I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON MOLLY VALASTEROS, OUR SPECIAL DISTRICTS MANAGER, TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON THIS ITEM.

MAYOR, IF I COULD, JUST A MOMENT OF QUICK PRIVILEGE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT MOLLY HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF COUNCIL BEFORE.

I DID.

I...

DIDN'T THINK I WOULD EVER CALL HER NAME BEFORE.

THIS IS MOLLY BALLESTEROS.

SHE HAS BEEN IN OUR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR A WHILE.

SHE HAS ALSO BEEN OUR INTERIM DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHEN MS. BROWN LEFT AND WAS STOLEN IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT BY FORT WORTH.

MOLLY HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL AND TREMENDOUS JOB KEEPING US MOVING THROUGH THIS.

THE YOUNG LADY SITTING BEHIND MOLLY DOES NOT KNOW I'M DOING THIS EITHER.

THIS IS MS. DANIELLE WILLIAMS. SO DANIELLE IS OUR NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

SHE WAS ANNOUNCED TWO WEEKS AGO, MAYBE NOT EVEN QUITE TWO FULL WEEKS AGO, BUT I EXPECT YOU WILL SEE BOTH OF THESE LADIES MORE IN THE FUTURE.

SO DANIELLE, WELCOME.

MOLLY, THANK YOU FOR THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE DONE, AND WE'LL NOW LET YOU GET ON TO CENTERPOINT.

THIS IS HIS LAST MEETING SO HE'S REALLY WANTING TO GET EVERYTHING IN HERE.

I HOPE THIS IS AN EASY DECISION FOR YOU GUYS TODAY COMPARED TO SOME OTHER.

THANK YOU MR. AGRI.

SO IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION FOR BOTH ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TODAY THAT WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE CREATION RESOLUTION FOR THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF CENTERPOINT.

SO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CENTERPOINT DEVELOPMENT, IS LOCATED AT HALF MILE NORTH OF LOOP 289 ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND DRAKE STREET.

THIS PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS 79.91 ACRES AND THERE ARE SEVERAL DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD 375 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

DEVELOPERS INCLUDE DRAKE EDGEWOOD LLC, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT.

GEORGE MCMAHAN AND JULIE MCMAHAN, WHO PROVIDED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PETITION THAT YOU GUYS REVIEWED AT THE LAST MEETING IN MAY.

LENAR, BANDANA LLC, AND WTLC CENTERPOINT LLC.

SO AS A REMINDER, AT THE APRIL 14TH MEETING, YOU GUYS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE PETITION FROM THE DEVELOPER FOR THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THE DEVELOPERS MEET THE PETITION REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVING MORE THAN 50% OF OWNERS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY ON TAXABLE REAL VALUE

[02:40:03]

AND THE SECOND REQUIREMENT IS HAVING MORE THAN 50% OF THE OWNERS OR THE 50% OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SIGNING THE PETITION.

THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY MET ALL THREE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, ALTHOUGH ONLY TWO ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PETITION.

STAFF SINCE THEN HAVE PUBLISHED AND MAILED NOTIFICATIONS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS PER STATE LAW ON APRIL 17TH.

ON YOUR SCREEN IS A LIST OF ALL THE THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO SPEAK ABOUT TODAY IN RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WHETHER THEY ARE FOR OR AGAINST THE CREATION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE DEVELOPER'S INTENT IS TO BUILD TWO GREENSCAPED AREAS IN THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THESE TWO GREEN SPACES WILL BE IN THE ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT.

AND THEY WILL PROVIDE GREEN SPACE, BEAUTIFICATION, AND AMENITIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE TODAY THAT YOU MAY ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO TODAY ALL WE ARE DOING IS FINALIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

YOU GUYS DO HAVE IN YOUR PACKET A PROPOSED SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN THAT OUTLINES...

THE WHAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES WILL PAY FOR IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS ESTIMATED TO BE 72 000 OF SERVICES OVER FIVE YEARS SET AT 17 CENTS PER 100 VALUATION AND THAT WILL GO THROUGH 2031.

AT THE NEXT IF YOU GUYS APPROVE THIS TODAY WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU ON JUNE 9TH FOR THE CLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION AND A CALL FOR AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THAT, WE WILL RE-NOTIFY THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 7TH, WHICH WILL ALSO BE THE SECOND AND LAST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

IF THAT IS THEN PASSED, WE WILL COME BACK AGAIN ON JULY 21ST FOR THE SECOND READ OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PID CREATION PROCESS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU GUYS TODAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. BALACEROS? THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7.7.

IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IN FAVOR OF IT? HI, I'M JULIE MCMAHAN WITH DRAKE EDGEWOOD LLC.

OUR OFFICE ADDRESS IS 7703 LASALLE AVENUE, AND I REPRESENT THE CENTERPOINT PED.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THE CREATION OF THE PED, AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION

[8. Resolution - Business Development: Consider a resolution making findings and authorizing establishment of the Centerpointe Public Improvement District, which covers a portion of area in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, generally bounded on the east by North Avenue U, on the south by Drake Street, on the west by North University, and on the north by Georgetown Street.]

TO IT? I SEE NONE, SO I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 4.32.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 7.8, THE RESOLUTION CREATING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT TO END ITEM 7.8? WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND.