Jan 22, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:01]

WEATHER WAS GOING TO BE. YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH. AND. HELLO, EVERYONE. I'M CALLING THIS

[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

ESSENTIALLY, WE CAN'T HEAR PEOPLE ON GO TO THEY CAN JOIN, THEY CAN TYPE OUT QUESTIONS.

AND SO IF SOMEBODY DOES SHOW UP TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS ASK THEM TO PUT THEIR QUESTION IN. THE CHAT STAFF WILL READ IT OUT LOUD, THEY'LL GET THE RESPONSE, AND WE'LL TRY TO, IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE, MAKE THIS A CONVERSATION. BUT FOR SOME REASON, WITH THE UPGRADES THAT'S GOING ON, WE CAN'T WE CAN'T GET THE AUDIO SWITCHED SO THEY CAN HEAR US. WE CAN'T HEAR THEM, BUT WE CAN SEE IF THEY TYPE ANYTHING OR RAISE THEIR HAND OR INTERACT IN ANY SORT OF WAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMENT CARDS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AS WELL AS COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ASKED TO BE READ AT THIS MEETING. SO WE'RE GOING TO REALLY KEEP IT TO A VERY STRICT THREE MINUTES SO THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. WHY DON'T WE JUST DO A QUICK QUESTION, ARE THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ON ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS OR ARE THEY NON AGENDA ITEM COMMENTS. OH THEY'RE ALL ON AGENDA ITEMS. YEAH. AND THEY WOULDN'T COME UP AT THIS POINT RIGHT. GOOD QUESTION. GOOD. GOOD POINT. OKAY. SO WE WILL THEN START WITH OUR ROUTINE

[III.1. Routine Reports from City staff]

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, AS WELL AS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ALL THAT STUFF. WE HAVE. WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME TO THIS BOARD. SO I'M HOPING THAT PUTS US INTO MARCH BEFORE WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON AN AGENDA. AND SO I'M HOPING FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS, WE CAN REALLY TRY TO GET AS MUCH OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DONE AS POSSIBLE AND MOVE ON FROM THERE. BUT AS I'M HOPING YOU ALL SEE THE CHANGES IN THE PACKETS, THE CHANGES IN HOW QUICKLY YOU'RE GETTING INFORMATION, STUFF LIKE THAT, I HOPE IT'S ALL GOOD. IF IT'S NOT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND WE'LL ADJUST. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S SMOOTH SAILING, FULL STEAM AHEAD AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP UP. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT IN ADDITION TO THE COMP PLAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON, WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND WORK ON SOME OF THE ORDINANCES THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS REFERRED TO US, AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT TREE ORDINANCE ON OUR FEBRUARY AGENDA. WELL, I BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO COUNCIL ON THE FEBRUARY 5TH MEETING TO WORKSHOP, AS IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY I'M IT'S NOT PART, IT'S THE PARTIAL REC COMMITTEE. YEAH, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S OKAY. JORDAN COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. I THINK IT IS AT LEAST OVER A YEAR FOR SURE.

AND ASKED THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ADDRESS IT WITH SOME VERY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS NOW SINCE THE LAST TIME WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THAT RECOMMENDATION IS PRETTY CLEAR IN THE RECORD. I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. IF WE COULD TAKE IT STRAIGHT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING. HOWEVER, IF THE TIMING DOESN'T ALLOW THAT AND WE WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION IN COUNCIL ON THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT EITHER DIRECTION. WE NEED TO GO. WELL, OKAY. WE CAN WORK THAT OUT BEFORE THE AGENDA TIME AND THEN WE'LL ASK FOR COMMENTS FROM YOU. MR. FRENCH, AS OUR CITY COUNCIL

[III.2. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]

[00:05:03]

DISCUSSION IS DESIRED. THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. AND WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM IN THE PACKET. SO WE WILL

[V.1. Discussion and Consideration of the Preliminary Plat for the Turnback Ranch Subdivision under application 23-2725-PR-PLA as submitted by the owner TURNBACK DEVELOPMENT, LLC.]

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY STAFF? SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EVERYTHING. THERE'S NO. VARIANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO NO SIR. OKAY, OKAY. DOES THE AGREEMENT REQUIRE TURN BACK TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE OLD GOLF COURSE? GOLF COURSE, GOLF CART APP THAT'S BEING USED FOR THE ROAD BECAUSE THAT'S CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE CITY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT. THE I DON'T. WE REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT. WE REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE COMING IN HERE FOR THE MEETING. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN REFERENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT REFERENCES GOLF CART PATHS. I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK FOR THE OKAY, NOW WHAT MY POINT IS, IF WE DON'T TRANSFER IT TO TURN BACK, THEN IT DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE. AND IN THE CITY WOULD JUST OWN THE ROAD AFTER IT WAS BUILT ON ITS PROPERTY. WELL, IF THEY'VE GOTTEN ENOUGH RIGHT OF WAY TO NOT NEED A VARIANCE AT ALL. OKAY, WELL, FORGET THE VARIANCE. I MEAN, THERE WAS THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY OVER.

WHY DOES THE PROPERTY HAVE TO BE TRANSFERRED IF THE CITY OWNS IT? WE OWN THE ROADS IN. WE OWN THE ROADS IN MONTALCINO. WE OWN THE ROADS IN. SO WHY IS THIS A SPECIAL ROAD? WELL, SO. AND BRAD CAN STEP IN IF I'M GOING OFF TRACK HERE. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT CONVEY LAND IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, AND SO THERE IS NO TRANSFERRING OF PROPERTIES HAPPENING WITH THIS.

I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAYS ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY. WHAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE APPROVED BEFORE WE'LL ACCEPT IT. AND SO THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND US, IF THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I'M GOING, I DON'T EVEN THEY'RE GOING TO IMPROVE DODGE TRAIL WHICH WE OWN OKAY. AND WE'RE GOING TO

[00:10:04]

AND THEN THE FINAL PLAT WILL DEDICATE THE RIGHT OF WAY BACK TO THE CITY. BUT THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT SWAP LAND IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. THAT'S RIGHT. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE SWAP WILL HAPPEN BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT IS APPROVED. SO ONCE THE PRELIMINARY IS DONE, WE WILL FINISH THAT CONVEYANCE PROCESS AND THEN THE FINAL PLAT WILL BE APPROVED AND WE'LL BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN IT'LL BE CONVEYED BACK TO THE CITY. SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS TO BE TREATED SPECIAL. AND I IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. SO WE ARE PAYING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS PART OF THE PROCESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND AS CHAIRMAN, CHAIRWOMAN AIRD ALSO MENTIONED, THERE IS THE QUIET TITLE SUIT THAT HAPPENED AND THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY ON WHO OWNS WHAT. AND SO PART OF THE PURCHASE THAT WE'RE DOING IS BUYING ALL OF WHAT THE CITY OR CITY STAFF AT THE TIME CLAIMED AS LAND, AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT THOSE STRIPS GO TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. WE WON'T BE ACQUIRING THAT PORTION EITHER.

RIGHT? WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO FORM AN HOA PRIOR TO THE CONVEYANCE TO THEM. SO THE CONVEYANCE OF THE THE LANDSCAPE AREA, WHICH IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL PLAT, WILL GO TO THE HOA. IT WON'T GO TO THE DEVELOPER. CORRECT. BUT WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET INTO THE EVALUATION OF THE WHOLE PLAT AND THE APPROVAL OF THAT, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF CITIZEN COMMENTS, AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY GET THOSE HEARD FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE AGENDA ITEM. SO I WILL CALL PEOPLE IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER. PAUL ROBERTS WANTS TO SPEAK ON ON THE TURN BACK ISSUE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS. GOOD

[00:15:01]

THANK YOU. CRYSTAL AND RACHEL LV PO BOARD. HELLO, I'M CHRIS, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF KOA.

RACHEL GONZALEZ, VICE PRESIDENT OF PLA. WE ARE ALSO ONE OF THE LARGEST SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO TURN BACK AND WORK WITH THEM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE HAVE A SEPARATE MOU WITH THEM.

WE ALSO HAVE THINGS THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO COME TO THE TABLE, COMPROMISES THAT WERE MADE, THINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED TO HAVE A BETTER PRODUCT THAN WHAT THEY WERE.

THEY HAVE MET EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR AND HAVE BEEN MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH US AND MAKE COMPROMISES TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING. SO WE ARE ASKING FROM THE PO THAT YOU APPROVE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT AND MOVE FORWARD. WE'VE ALREADY SPENT YEARS WORKING ON THIS. WE DON'T WANT IT TO BE FOR NOTHING. OKAY. ARE THEY? CAN I ASK A QUESTION OR. OKAY, NOW, THIS DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE LP, TO THE PO. THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS. THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN AMENITIES. RIGHT. SO SO OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES, DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT WE'RE A SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR A LARGE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER. SO OKAY. SO THEY DIDN'T TRY TO NEGOTIATE TRYING TO GET INTO THE PO. NO NO WE'LL PUT THAT OUT THERE PUBLICLY. NO DEVELOPER WILL BE COMING FORWARD BEING TO THE PO. OKAY. IN REGARDS TO OUR FENCING AND OUR DRIVEWAY. YEAH. BUT HERS YES. THERE'S BUFFERS THAT WE ASK FOR, THE DRIVEWAY, OUR SIGNS GOING TO END UP BEING MOVED. THEY'RE PAYING FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT SIGN. THEY'VE DONE SURVEYS. THEY'VE DONE SURVEYS. BOWMAN HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH US SEVERAL TIMES. WE'VE WORKED WITH LACEY. AND SO WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND OKAY, SO EVERYTHING WAS DONE IN A VERY TIMELY BASIS. NO CHASING BACK AND FORTH. OR ONCE WE GOT TO A POINT OF NEGOTIATING AND COMPROMISES WERE MADE. YES. IT HAS BEEN VERY QUICK. THEY'VE BEEN EASY TO WORK WITH. I WILL TELL YOU, NOT ONLY FROM A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS A PROPERTY OWNER THAT BACKS UP RIGHT TO TURN BACK. MY PROPERTY IS RIGHT NEXT TO THEM, BUT WITH THE PO IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS OF US NEGOTIATING AND MAKING COMPROMISES FOR THIS PRODUCT TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU. AND WE'VE CHECKED EVERYTHING. ALL THE BOXES ARE CHECKED AND I'LL BE SPEAKING AS A PRESENCE IN THIS MOMENT. OKAY. AND, RACHEL, AS LONG AS YOU'RE UP HERE AND YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK AT THE PRIVATE CITIZEN, DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW? YEAH. I AM, THANK YOU. OKAY. YOU'RE GOOD. YEAH.

SO LIKE I SAID, I LITERALLY DEDICATED SEVERAL YEARS OF MY LIFE. I WAS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. I WENT DOOR TO DOOR. IT WAS A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT. ME AND ANOTHER PERSON, AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS, ENDED UP GETTING A SUPERMAJORITY, WHICH FORCED HIM TO COME TO THE TABLE AND NEGOTIATE. WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE THIS PRODUCT IN FRONT OF YOU. THEY I WENT THROUGH WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB. THEY ARE MEETING ALL THE SETBACKS, THE HEIGHT, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, THE PHASING. EVERYTHING IS CAPTURED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE LEGALLY BINDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS REFLECTED ON THIS PLAT. AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE KNOWN AS SOMEONE. AND I'M SURE THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY WHO MAKES DEVELOPERS GO THROUGH ALL THESE HOOPS JUST TO TURN AROUND AND BE LIKE, HA HA, JOKE'S ON YOU. THANKS FOR COMING AND DOING ALL THESE COMPROMISES, BUT WE'RE STILL GOING TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME AND SAY, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT OKAY. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY NO TO DEVELOPERS, WE NEED TO PICK OUR BATTLES WISELY. AND THIS IS NOT ONE THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT WITH. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I'M HEARING THAT IN THIS ALONGSIDE THIS ROAD THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LANDSCAPING.

WAS THE LANDSCAPING AT THE REQUEST OF THE SURREY LANE RESIDENTS. OR WAS THE IT WAS AN AMENITY, AN ATTRACTION PUT FORTH BY THE DEVELOPER. SO ORIGINALLY THERE WAS CONVERSATION BECAUSE LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, BEHIND MY HOUSE, IT'S THERE, THERE'S NO TREES,

[00:20:05]

AND THEN IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, JUST LOOK AT TESSERA. SO IT'S HEARTBREAKING. THE CITY SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE TOO HASTY TO PASS THE ROAD PROJECT WITHOUT FULLY EVALUATING THE IMPACT ON OUR HOMES AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE ANY ROAD BUILDING, THROUGH THIS BEAUTIFUL AND TOO NARROW OF A PROPERTY CAN BEGIN.

IN CONCLUSION, LIKE I ALWAYS SAID AT THE TURNPIKE MEETINGS, WOOD FINISHES SAYING, WE DON'T NEED IT. WE DON'T WANT IT. WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT. AND I WASN'T NOTIFIED ABOUT ALL OF THIS. SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JULIE VARGAS. I PUT MY MINUTES FOR TWO. OH, OKAY. GIGI THEN.

OKAY. AND YOU WILL HAVE JULIE THREE MINUTES. YOU'LL HAVE SIX MINUTES TOTAL. YES. YOU'RE GOING TO GET TWO THREES SO YOU'LL HEAR THE TWO THREES. YEAH. OH THAT'S GOOD. THEN I'LL

[00:25:03]

WELL NO. CAN YOU TURN. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN TURN IT ON BECAUSE. PEOPLE AT HOME WHEN I HEAR IT PEOPLE AT HOME WON'T HEAR IT. YEAH. EXCEPT THE PEOPLE IN HERE. HELLO. SORRY.

YOU CAN TAKE IT OFF. OKAY, WELL, DON'T START MY COMMENT. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M GIGI COVINGTON. I'VE LIVED HERE FOR 25 YEARS, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION. THIS COMMENT IS TO OPPOSE APPROVAL OF THE CURRENT PLAT AND CONVEYANCE INVOLVED, INVOLVING THE LAND KNOWN AS THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, THE CITY IS ATTEMPTING TO APPROVE A PLAN THAT RESTS ON A DEFECTIVE ZONING PROCESS. STATUTORY ZONING PROCEDURES REQUIRE THAT LAND USE CHANGES AND REZONINGS FOLLOW A STRICT SEQUENCE BEGINNING WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE FLUME, FOLLOWED BY PROPERLY NOTICED HEARINGS AND A GENUINE OPPORTUNITY FOR AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS TO PARTICIPATE.

IN THE CASE OF THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION, THE CITY ACCEPTED AND ACTED ON A PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT ALREADY ASSUMED A CHANGE IN USE OF THE LONG STANDING TREE GREEN SPACE AS A PRIMARY SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE BEFORE NEIGHBORS RECEIVED PROPER NOTICE. NOTICE TO AFFECTED OWNERS WAS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION ZONE WERE NOT PROPERLY NOTIFIED BEFORE THE CITY ACCEPTED THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT INCORPORATED THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION AS A ROADWAY INTO THE SUBDIVISION PLAN. IN REALITY, THE BROAD OPPOSITION WITHIN THAT ZONE WAS DOCUMENTED NOT BECAUSE THE CITY PROACTIVELY INFORMED ALL RESIDENTS IN THE ZONE, BUT BECAUSE A PETITION WAS CIRCULATED AMONG NEIGHBORS.

THAT PETITION WAS SIGNED BY ALMOST ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS, WITH EXCEPTION OF THE FEW THAT WERE UNAVAILABLE. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY RESPONSE IN FAVOR OF THAT ZONING CHANGE BELIEVED THE DECEPTIVE WORDING OF THE CITY NOTIFICATION THAT THEY WERE CHANGING FROM TEMPORARY ZONING DESIGNATION TO A PASSIVE PARK ZONE, WHICH ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE LAND'S LONG STANDING USE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARK.

SEVERAL OF THOSE NEIGHBORS FIRST LEARNED OF THE ATTEMPTED REZONING AND CHANGE OF USE DIRECTLY FROM THAT PETITION EFFORT, NOT FROM ANY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CITY. THE FACT IS, THE AGREEMENT MADE ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2023 TO SELL THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION WAS MADE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO INFORMING ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THEY WERE REZONING, AND AFTER THE FACT, THE CITY STILL DIDN'T INFORM ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS. THESE FACTS SHOW THAT THE STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION WERE NOT MET. THE MUNICIPAL CODE EXISTS TO MAKE LAND USE DECISIONS TRANSPARENT AND PREDICTABLE, SO THE COMMUNITY KNOWS HOW AND WHEN IT CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. IN THE CASE OF DODGE TRAIL, THE REQUIRED STEPS FOR THE FLUME AMENDMENT, PROPER NOTICE AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD WERE NOT FOLLOWED YET. THE CITY IS NOW ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT DEPENDS ON THOSE DEFECTIVE ACTIONS, BECAUSE THE CITY AND STATE STATUTORY ZONING PROCEDURES WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. MOVING AHEAD WITH APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY AND STATE GOVERNING LAW. TO DO SO WOULD RATIFY A PROCESS THAT IS VULNERABLE TO BEING FOUND INVALID IN COURT, AND WOULD FURTHER ERODE PUBLIC TRUST IN THIS CITY'S LAND USE DECISIONS. FURTHERMORE, REGARDING THE LAST PUBLIC MEETING, THE CITY FAILED TO PROPERLY NOTICE THE HEARING. THAT'S WHY IT'S TONIGHT. THIS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES THE CITY'S ONGOING FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE. AND AGAIN, TONIGHT'S MEETING WAS NOT PROPERLY NOTICED AS THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE SPECIAL NOTICE ON THE CITY WEBSITE. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION SHOULD REFUSE TO APPROVE THE CURRENT PLAT AND CONVEYANCE INVOLVING DODGE TRAIL. THE CITY MUST REQUIRE FULL, LAWFUL COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY ZONING PROCEDURES. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY HAS MINIMUM WIDTH STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO SAFELY ACCOMMODATE PAVEMENT, UTILITY DRAINAGE, SIDEWALKS, AND EMERGENCY ACCESS. THE PROPOSED DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL ROAD DESIGNS, AS, ACCORDING TO ROY CHAMBER IN A PUBLIC HEARING. YET IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUSH THE PROJECT THROUGH DESPITE THESE CLEAR DEFICIENCIES, PROCEEDING UNDER THESE CONDITIONS COULD CREATE UNSAFE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND POSE POTENTIAL DANGERS TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. IN 1990, THE CITY ACQUIRED THE PARCEL. THEN THE CITY MADE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND THE CITY DESIGNATED IT RURAL RESIDENTIAL. IN 2012, THE CITY DEEDED TEN FOOT STRIP OF

[00:30:05]

THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES US TO PUT A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND A SPECIAL NOTICE ON THE WEBSITE.

WAS THERE A SPECIAL NOTICE ON THE LEGAL AND PUBLIC AND LEGAL NOTICE WEBSITE? WE HAVE A SECTION ON OUR PAGE THAT SAYS LIKE DEVELOPMENT CASES OR PLANNING AND ZONING CASES, IT WAS PLACED THERE OUR. ALERTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST. AND SO WE DID MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS ON THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WEBSITE. THE SIGNS THAT WERE PLACED SAID PLEASE GO TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WEBSITE, CALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AND SO IT WAS ON A SPECIAL PLACE AND NOT JUST IN THE AGENDA. I GUESS I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN THE FUTURE, ALWAYS BE ON THE PUBLIC AND LEGAL NOTICES SECTION, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO KNOW. TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SECTION, I WELL, SO I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SECTION. SO THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PUT ON THAT LEGAL NOTICES PAGE BEFORE.

AND SO WE RAN INTO POSTING IT WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO POST IT. OUR CITY SECRETARY HAD ESSENTIALLY STATED THAT'S NOT WHERE WE PUT THOSE. AND SO WE CREATED A NEW PAGE ON OUR WEBSITE, PUT IT ON THE SIDEBAR. SO IT'S IT'S BIG, IT'S BOLD, YOU CAN'T MISS IT. AND THEN LINKED IT TO ALL THE LOCAL INFORMATION WITH CONTACT INFORMATION IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OKAY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT WE CAN WORK ON FOR FUTURE CASES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE APPARENT TO PEOPLE IF THERE WAS IF IT WAS A PUBLIC AND LEGAL NOTICES, ACTUAL TAB THAT PEOPLE COULD LOOK UP FOR THE NOTIFICATIONS I'LL GET WITH OUR CITY SECRETARY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL. SURE, CHAIRWOMAN, IF I IF I MAY MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS GOING BACK TWO PLUS YEARS AGO, AS SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED, WE WERE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS. I WAS CHAIR, I WAS LIAISON TO PLANNING AND ZONING WHEN THESE DISCUSSIONS ON TURNBACK HAPPENED. AND SO I SAT THROUGH CITIZEN COMMENTS WHERE THIS ROOM WAS PACKED WITH CITIZENS FROM TURNBACK PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME. AND THOSE SAME CITIZENS WERE SHOWING UP TO CITY COUNCIL, EVEN WHEN IT WAS NOT ON YET ON CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA. AND THEN AFTER IT WAS. SO I LOST TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS, BUT THERE PROBABLY WERE AT LEAST 20, MAYBE 30 MEETINGS WHERE THIS ROOM WAS PACKED. AND WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM FROM THE TURNBACK RESIDENTS. SO I, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, KNOW THAT I PERSONALLY AND THAT THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM CITIZENS. IT'S NOT THAT THE CITIZENS DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE PROCESS AND LEGALITY OF THE NOTIFICATIONS, BUT I'LL JUST SAY THAT THE FEEDBACK DID HAPPEN. I HEARD IT IN PLANNING AND ZONING AT THE TIME. HEARD IT. CAN I SPEAK TO THAT? NO, YOU MAY NOT. WITHOUT BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR. AND I'LL ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COMMENT ON THE ASSERTIONS THAT THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED. ARE WE IN THE IS SHOULD THIS COMMISSION BE CONCERNED THAT THEY WERE LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED TO APPROVE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAN? SO THE THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED RELATE TO ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.

I'VE NOT LOOKED AT THOSE. I MEAN, I WASN'T YOUR CITY ATTORNEY THEN. I'VE NOT LOOKED AT THOSE AGENDAS OR THOSE NOTICES. SO I CAN'T OPINE WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF THE STATE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET. I'M HEARING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW. BUT

[00:35:04]

AND THEN SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE DIDN'T SEE A NOTICE. I DIDN'T SEE A NOTICE EITHER. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOTICE. SO THAT'S THAT'S JUST CLARIFICATION FOR THE SECOND. OKAY. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT. DID I SO I'VE NOT LOOKED AT THE WEBSITE BUT WHAT I'M WHAT WHAT WHAT JORDAN DESCRIBED AS THE NOTICE THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE SOUNDS LIKE IT COMPLIES WITH YOUR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. I'VE ALSO NOT SEEN THE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY, BUT I'LL TAKE IT THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE THAT THERE IS A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

SO. SO ON ITS FACE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THOSE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. AS FAR AS YOU KNOW. TONIGHT'S MEETING AGAIN, WITH REGARD TO THE I WAS JUST HANDED THE THE DOCUMENT DATED MAY OF 2024. I'VE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE AND I'VE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT. HOWEVER, WHAT I CAN WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT IN TERMS OF THE ADEQUACY OF NOTICE UNDER TOMA, THE GENERAL TOPIC HAS TO BE DESCRIBED ADEQUATELY FOR THE PUBLIC NOTICE. IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIANT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVE NOTICE. THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF TOMA. AND SO AS LONG AS IT PUTS THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AS LONG AS AN AGENDA PUTS THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON NOTICE OF ACTION THAT COULD BE TAKEN, THEN IT IS SUFFICIENT. AND THAT NOTICE NEED NOT, UNDER THE LAW, ADVISE OF EVERY CONSEQUENCE THAT COULD FLOW FROM THIS ACTION. SO SO I'M NOT AGAIN, I'VE NOT LOOKED AT ANY OF THIS YET. HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT YET. BUT I'M NOT. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE I'M HEARING A TONE OF VIOLATION EITHER. SO.

BUT AGAIN, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. SHE'S NOT ALLEGING A VIOLATION IN THE IN THE APPEAL, THE NOTIFICATION VIOLATION THAT THAT SHE ALLEGED IN HER APPEAL WAS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PROMISED IN WRITING BY THE CITY TO VENTANA IN 2023 AND THEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH SHE HAS ONE, WERE NOT NOTICED UNTIL 2024. AND THE NOTICE THAT THAT SHE'S SPEAKING OF IS THE THE NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE TO GET A NOTICE FROM THE CITY. THOSE PEOPLE WITHIN 200FT HAVE TO BE NOTICED. AND THEN THEY GOT THEIR NOTICE. THAT NOTICE SAID, WE ARE GOING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM TR1, WHICH IT HAD BEEN SINCE THE CITY ACQUIRED IT IN 93. WE ARE GOING

[00:40:04]

NO, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THAT'S TRUE. ROADS ARE ALLOWED IN PARKS. THE ISSUE THAT YOU RAISED IN HER COMMENTS WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT. THEY WERE GIVEN NOTICE THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE ZONED PARK. AND THEN EVERYBODY, OF COURSE, AROUND THERE, WHEN THEY SAID, DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE? PEOPLE ARE LIKE, HIP HOORAY, YEAH, WE WANT TO PARK. AND THEY WEREN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS GOING TO. THEY WERE THAT THEY WERE BEING ZONED PARK SIMPLY BECAUSE AMBER SAID THAT WAS THE ONLY ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO PUT A ROAD IN. BUT I'M HEARING THAT THERE WAS NOTICE DEFICIENCY. BUT THEN THERE'S WORD THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED NOTICE THAT IT WAS PARKS. AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT I GUESS WHAT THE THE CONCERN IS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THAT IT WAS GOING TO PARKS NOTICE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO OUT. YEAH I DON'T I'LL JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT IF I MAY. YEAH. I ALL OF THIS WAS THOROUGHLY VETTED IN MULTIPLE PLANNING AND ZONING SESSIONS AND CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS. AND AT THAT TIME, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE PD AND APPROVE THE ZONING. AND AND SO I THINK THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS NOT TO TRY TO RELITIGATE SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED, BUT TO TO SAY, DOES THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT MEET WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE PREVIOUS PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL AND FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MR. MR. ROBERTS SAYS, YOU KNOW, HIS OPINION ON REVIEWING THIS IS THIS DOES MEET THE AGREEMENT. AND THE MOST INVOLVED PERSON AT THE TIME, CITIZEN, WHO WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF PLANNING AND ZONING, SAYS THE SAME THING. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITIZENS WHO LIVE THERE ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THIS ROAD GOING IN. THEY NEVER WERE. THEY WERE VERY VOCAL ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS A TRADE OFF THAT PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL MADE AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS THE BEST CHOICE, BUT UNPALATABLE TO TO THE CITIZENS OUT THERE. AND AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M PROBABLY RUNNING THE RISK OF BEING TOO INFLUENTIAL ON PLANNING AND ZONING ON THIS, BUT I HATE FOR US TO GET BACK INTO THE SAME DISCUSSION THAT WE SPENT PROBABLY 100 HOURS ON OVER THE PAST, MAYBE MORE. WELL, I THINK WE WERE I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY FOR THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY WHAT THE ACTUAL ESSENCE OF HER COMMENTS WERE. SO I, I HAVE FIVE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THAT ARE TO BE READ, BUT I HAVE TO READ NOW. I'VE GOT I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR JORDAN SINCE THIS STARTED BACK IN 2023. HOW MANY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED SINCE 2023? I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. I MEAN, MORE THAN ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED. THE PDP AMENDMENT

[00:45:01]

THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THAT YOU CAN TAKE THE ROAD INTO, BART. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO UTILIZE THEM.

ZONING HAS NOT MET DUE PROCESS. I STAND OPPOSED TO THIS EXTENSION OF DODGE TRAIL, WHICH BY THE WAY, IS NOT WELL MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. ALREADY REFERENCED PAVEMENT CROSSCUTS POTHOLES CREEK CROSSING GUARDRAILS. THE LIST IS LONG. THANK YOU, GUY AND PATTY HOPKINS. AND THE NEXT ONE I HAVE IS FROM NATALIE AYERS. DEAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I AM WRITING TO SUBMIT A FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD CONSIDERED TO BE DODGE EXTENSION BEHIND THE RESIDENTS OF HORSESHOE LOOP AND SURREY.

BASED ON THE AVAILABLE SPACE AND LAYOUT OF THE AREA, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ADEQUATE ROOM TO SUPPORT A ROADWAY WHEN SITTING IN THE BACKYARD OF A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE ON HORSESHOE LOOP, WE CAN HEAR OUR NEIGHBORS AND SURREY ENJOYING TIME OUTDOORS IN THEIR BACKYARDS.

THIS WILL DISAPPEAR IF THE ROAD IS ESTABLISHED BY INCREASING NOISE LEVELS FROM TRAFFIC. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WOULD BE WALLS IF THERE WAS ROOM FOR THIS, BUT I THINK THAT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE LEVEL OF NOISE AND BOUNCE OFF THE WALLS. MY NEIGHBORS BOUGHT THEIR HOMES FOR THIS AREA AND THE GREENBELT BEHIND THEIR HOMES. IT WILL BE SAD IF THEY END UP HAVING A ROAD IN FRONT AND BEHIND THEIR HOMES, LOSING VALUE TO THEIR HOMES AND THE PEACEFULNESS OF OUR AREA. AS I BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT ALIGN WITH RESPONSIBLE PLANNING PRACTICES, I RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMITTEE TO REEVALUATE THIS PLAN AND CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. RESPECTFULLY, NATALIE AYERS, SHE'S ON HORSESHOE AND THIS IS FROM SCOTTY ELVES. ALSO ON HORSESHOE LOOP. I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD REGARDING THE PROPOSED DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION. PLEASE READ ALOUD AT THE PNC MEETING ON ONE 2226. I AM SCOTTY ELVES AND I AM OPPOSED TO THE CITY ACCEPTING THE CURRENT PLAN AND CONVEYANCE INVOLVING THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION. I LIVE IN HORSESHOE LOOP, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS PARCEL, WHICH HAS SERVED AS A LOCAL POCKET PARK FOR MUCH LONGER THAN THE DECADE I HAVE RESIDED HERE. I AM WITHIN THE 200 FOOT RADIUS OF NOTIFICATION OF THE PARCEL IN QUESTION. I HAVE NEVER

[00:50:03]

[00:55:01]

IT REFLECTS A DEVELOPER ACTING AS THOUGH THE OUTCOME IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. THIS IS NOT JUST A VENTANA ISSUE, IT IS A CITY ISSUE. IF PROPER PROCEDURES ARE NOT ENFORCED HERE, IT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT ANY DEVELOPER CAN PUSH FORWARD WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES, CONFIDENT THAT COMPLIANCE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THAT UNDERMINES PUBLIC TRUST AND THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COMMISSION. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REQUIRE VENTANA TO FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED PROCESS, INCLUDING REQUESTING THE NECESSARY VARIANCE, AND TO HALT ANY CONSIDERATION OF CONVEYANCE OR PLAT APPROVAL UNTIL THAT OCCURS.

I ALSO ASK THAT THE CITY ITSELF FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND THEN THERE ARE PICTURES ATTACHED THAT SHOW THE MOST AREA. OKAY, SO THAT THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF THIS HEARING. AND SO I WILL OPEN IT FOR. COMMISSION DISCUSSION. SO MY QUESTION IS EVERYBODY SAYING THAT IT'S NOT WHAT IT IS THAT THEY WANT ENOUGH TO HAVE A ROAD ON IT. THEY CUT THE ROAD IN THERE ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO. I TORE DOWN THE BARK BOOSTER PUMP.

AND AS SOON AS I DEMOLISHED THE PUMP HOUSE, THEY RAN THE TRACTOR THROUGH AND IT OPENED UP THAT AREA FOR THE ROAD. SO YOU CAN STILL SEE IT ON GOOGLE EARTH. BUT THE FIRST ROAD WAS CUT 15 YEARS AGO. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY OWNED IT AS A CART PATH. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THEY GOT THE PERMISSION TO DO IT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY COUNCIL. MR. MINION, I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST FOR CITY STAFF TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION. IF WE COULD PUSH IT OVER TO YOU AREN'T ENOUGH. SO EVERYTHING HISTORICALLY THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN A SIGNED, SEALED SURVEY. IT'S BEEN GUESS BEST GUESS BASED OFF OF YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN ASCERTAIN. WHAT YOU SEE ON THE PLAT IS SIGNED, SEALED BY A SURVEYOR SAYING THAT IT IS 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY. IF SOMETHING COMES BACK WHEN THEY'RE OUT IN THE FIELD, THAT'S NOT 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY, WE WILL DIG THEM AND ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THERE IS SOMEBODY PUTTING THEIR LICENSE ON THE LINE SAYING THAT THIS IS IN FACT 50FT. SO IS IT 50FT PLUS 1010, SO 70FT. IT'S 50FT PLUS TEN FEET OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF WHERE THIS ROAD IS HITTING CITY RIGHT OF WAY. ALREADY. THAT TEN FOOT PEW HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN, GIVING THEM THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THEY NEED TO HIT THAT 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY. NOW TO GET THAT TEN FOOT PEW. IT CAN BE DEDICATED BY SO MANY OTHER DIFFERENT MEANS. THEY CAN DO A STANDARD EASEMENT DOCUMENT THERE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ON THE PLAT BECAUSE THE LOT IS WITHIN ANOTHER PLAT. AND SO THAT'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE. BUT ACCORDING TO PLAT AND THEIR SURVEYOR, WHO HAS A LICENSE AND HAS BEEN OUT IN THE FIELD AND HAS SHOT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, THEY ARE AT THE 50FT. SO WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS A VARIANCE OR ZONING OR NOTIFICATIONS. THAT TO ME IS IRRELEVANT. WE'RE HERE TO TO LOOK AT THE PLAT. SO IF SURVEYOR SAYS THAT IT'S 50FT THEN I LIKE I SAY NOT I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S PROBABLY 50FT. AND JUST TO GEORGE'S POINT, YOUR YOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES CONTEMPLATE THIS. THE PROCESS IS THAT THE THE PRELIMINARY BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT SECTION 2.20 OF YOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT THE SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLANS PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT CONSTRUCTION PLANS BASED ON THE APPROVED

[01:00:05]

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AN APPLICABLE REGULATION. BUT WE WOULDN'T LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN THE IN THE EXHIBIT E. AND THAT JUST SAYS THAT THEY'VE GOT TO DEDICATE THE 50FT FOR THE ROADWAY ON THIS ON THIS ROADWAY. SO IN THAT RESPECT THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH THEIR WITH THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT SHOWS A REQUIREMENT FOR A 50 FOOT ROAD AND THEN TEN FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ON EACH SIDE FOR LANDSCAPING, ET-CETERA, LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS, AND THEN THIS SIX FOOT WALL AND THEN AT THE AT A HEARING THAT WAS HELD IN 2024. WE HAVE THIS SURVEY FROM BOWMAN, A LICENSED SURVEYOR, THAT SHOWS THAT THE THERE IS 54.21FT AT THE CORNER.

SO EVEN IF THEY TAKE TEN FEET FROM THAT FLOODED LOT, THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER ANOTHER PLAT.

IF THEY TAKE THAT, THAT BRINGS IT TO 64.21, WHICH ISN'T 50FT PLUS TEN PLUS TEN, WHICH IS REALLY 70. AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES. SO EVEN THOUGH THE CODE SAYS ONE THING, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR SOMETHING BEYOND THAT, AND THAT IS WHAT ROY JAMMER SAID AT THE HEARING. AND, AND AT THE AT THAT HEARING, WE HAD VENTANA WAS THERE, MR. KUBLI WAS THERE. AND HE HE HIMSELF SAID, WE WILL BE COMING BACK FOR A VARIANCE BEFORE, BEFORE THE PLAT. SO MY QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE BE APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BEFORE WE GET THE VARIANCE APPROVED? YEAH. SO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. IT IS NOT IT IS NOT A RULE OR REGULATION THAT GOVERNS PLAT SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL. SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M I'M PULLING OUT, I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THE RELEVANT PROVISION. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A PRIVATE AGREEMENT THEN BASICALLY BETWEEN THE CITY. AND THAT'S ALL IT IS. IT'S A PRIVATE AGREEMENT SAYING, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFICS OF THE, OF THE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT I MEAN, IT'S ENFORCEABLE. IT'S A LAWSUIT, BUT NOT AS A CODE ENFORCEMENT OR ZONING ISSUES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IN OTHER WORDS, THE IT'S IT'S JUST A PRIVATE AGREEMENT. WELL, IT'S A RECORDED AGREEMENT. WELL YEAH. BUT IT'S STILL IT'S RECORDED BUT IT'S PRIVATE. YEAH. TWO PARTIES. IT'S NOT THERE. HOW CAN YOU BUILD IT? I'M SORRY.

AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, PER THEIR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S A TEN FOOT PEW LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S IT. IT'S NOT TEN ON EACH SIDE. IT'S NOT. IT'S WHEREVER THEY WANT. WORD FOR WORD. AND IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. A TEN FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WILL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION. YEAH.

THAT'S IT. AND THERE ALSO THEN HAS TO BE. TEN FOOT OF SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING. AND THAT'S THE PART THAT THAT THE CITY IS CONVEYING TO THE HOA. THAT'S THE PART FOR THE TRAILS AND THE LANDSCAPING AND THE TREES. THAT'S THE PART THE CITY'S CONVEYING TO THE HOA FOR MAINTENANCE. SO IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE ROAD. YOU CAN LANDSCAPE OVER PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS.

YOUR DRY UTILITIES ARE IN YOUR PEW. IT'S YOUR ELECTRIC, YOUR TELECOM. IT'S NOT WATER,

[01:05:01]

AND THEY HAVE GIVEN THAT NO IT'S NOT ON PERIOD. IT'S NOT ON EACH SIDE. I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT HERE. ARE YOU LOOKING AT EXHIBIT G? E AND IT'S ONLY TEN FEET ON ONE SIDE. AND I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE TEXT. I HAVEN'T EVEN MADE IT TO THE EXHIBITS. I'M LOOKING AT THE EXHIBIT AND IT IS 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND A TEN FOOT PEW. AND IT'S DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT E. SORRY.

CAN YOU SEE THAT? NO, THAT'S THAT'S OUR ISSUE WITH THE THE SCREENS. YES. IF WE COULD SEE THAT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THAT CART PATH THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS WHAT I BELIEVE WAS QUITE NEW TO US. G G G G JUST ONE WORD. I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH YOU, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, YOU HAVE TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR. OKAY, WELL, I UNDERSTAND IT'S MUCH RIGHT UP HERE. IF THE AUDIENCE IS GOING TO SPEAK, THEN THE CHAIR NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE YOU AND YOU NEED TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY. YEAH, I HAVE ABOUT THIS. FIRST OF ALL, THE THE CART PATH IS WHAT WE USED TO CALL ONE OF THE FINGER LOTS.

AND THERE WAS A LAWSUIT BETWEEN A PRIVATE CITIZEN. THE CITY ASSUMED THAT IT OWNED ALL THE FINGER LOTS. WHEN THE CITY WAS INCORPORATED, THERE WAS A LAWSUIT THAT WAS SETTLED MAYBE 15, 18 YEARS AGO WHERE THE CITY PAID THE GUY, CHALLENGING THEM OFF TO DROP ALL CLAIMS, WHICH I THINK HE WAS JUST AFTER MONEY. SO THEN THE CITY HAD CLEAR TITLE SOMEHOW OR OTHER AROUND 2010, WHEN TURN BACK WAS FIRST PROPOSED, THE CONTRACTOR WAS ALLOWED BY CITY COUNCIL TO CUT THE TREES DOWN IN THAT EXACT SAME AREA TO PUT A ROAD IN. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE ANY BEARING ON TONIGHT'S VOTE. BUT THERE IS A PRECEDENT THERE THAT'S OVER 15 YEARS OLD THAT SAYS THAT A ROAD IS GOING THERE. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAME ABOUT. I KNOW THAT I TOOK THE BUILDING DOWN AND THAT THEY RAN THE BULLDOZERS THROUGH THERE AND OPENED UP THE ROAD.

AND YOU CAN STILL SEE THE ROAD IN TODAY'S GOOGLE BECAUSE THE TREES ARE NOT FULL GROWN YET.

BUT I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, CAN I ALSO ASK A QUESTION TO WHOMEVER IS THE ACTUAL AREA OF THE ROAD PART OF THIS PLANT, OR IS THE PLAT SIMPLY PLATTING PARCELS TO HAVE HOMES CONSTRUCTED ON THEM, LIKE THE JUST THE DODGE TRAIL, THE ONE THAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT. SO IT'S BOTH ON YOUR PRELIMINARY PLATS, YOU'LL SEE LOTS. YOU'LL SEE PARK PUBLIC SPACE LOTS. YOU'LL SEE RIGHT OF WAY. YOU'LL SEE ANY NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES AND STUFF TO THAT NATURE. AND SO THIS ONE, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT FACTORS HERE. THERE'S PAVEMENT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY DO IN CONSTRUCTION PLANS. AND THEN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEY THEY HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO THE FINGER LOT RAN BEHIND PROPERTY SO THAT YOU COULD GO OUT YOUR BACK FENCE.

SO THE WHOLE THING IS A FINGER LOT, WHICH MEANS THE GOLF CART COULD GO ANYWHERE ON THE FINGER LOT. IT WASN'T IN A FIXED LOCATION, AND IT WOULDN'T BE ANY WIDER THAN A GOLF CART. BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY'S ALLOWED THE DEVELOPER TO TO CUT THE ROAD THROUGH THERE AND ALL THE OTHER ROADS. MORE THAN 15 YEARS AGO, I THAT'S PROBABLY EXPIRED, BUT PERMISSION WAS GIVEN BACK THEN. SOMEHOW I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW. AND THE PLANT HAS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION AND THE 241. SO IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S TWO ORDINANCES, ONE FOR THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION, AND THAT'S FOR A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT'S ON HERE. IT'S REFLECTED ON HERE. AND THEN THE OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS FOR THE DODGE TRAIL. IT'S CALLED THE DODGE TRAIL OR THE TURNBACK RANCH DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S ON HERE. SO THOSE TWO LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE BOTH ON HERE. I'M STILL UNCLEAR, BUT WE ARE WE'RE CERTAIN THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE 50FT. SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE BY THEN.

WE'RE ALREADY TRAPPED INTO THIS, INTO THE I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHY PEOPLE KEEP SAYING VARIANCE. I MEAN, IF A IF A SIGNED, SEALED SURVEY IS SAYING THAT THE ROADWAY IS MEETING THE CITY STANDARD OF 50FT AND THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET THAT CLEARLY SHOWS ON THIS EXHIBIT FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, WHAT VARIANCES NEED? I ALSO BEAR IN MIND WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES IS A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN ROADWAY WIDTH, RIGHT? RIGHT. I

[01:10:05]

AND THIS IS THE NARROWER SECTION THAT SHOWS 65.5FT IS NECESSARY. THAT'S IT. CITY ATTORNEY I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A QUESTION AND WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. WELL, THE CITY ATTORNEY MADE A COMMENT THAT IT WAS THAT THE WIDTH WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CALLED FOR. AND I'M POINTING OUT THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CALLS FOR, IN ITS NARROWEST PLACE, 65.5FT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'M SEEING THAT ON BOWMAN'S SURVEY EXHIBIT E. I'M LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I'M NOT IN THE PACKET. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. EXHIBIT E IS LOOKING AT SECTION C3 OF THE INSERT SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF WHAT THAT AREA. WAS OKAY. AND WE WERE NOT SURVEYED AT THAT POINT. WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SURVEY. I MEAN, AGAIN, THE THE SURVEYED PLAT REFLECTS COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR REQUIREMENT. YOU'RE RIGHT WITH. THAT. AND I'M, I MEAN THE AS AS MISS ELLIS POINTS OUT, THE EXHIBIT E IS NOT A SEALED CIRCUIT. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE CITY PROPERTY, WHILE IT DOES EXPAND BECAUSE IT IS THAT FLAG TYPE LOT, THEY'RE STILL ONLY NOTING 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS THE ENTIRE EXHIBIT. THE DEPICTIONS FOR SECTION A AND SECTION CC THAT'S NOT TAKEN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS TRYING TO BE DEPICTED IN THAT, BUT IN THE SEMI MORE OFFICIAL SURVEY, THEY'RE STILL ONLY STATING 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. WELL, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DISCUSS THE WIDTH OF THIS EXTENSION ANY LONGER. I THINK I THINK THAT.

ALL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THAT. YEAH. AS FAR AS THAT, I GUESS WE'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO. OH, BASICALLY, IF WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT THE PLAT AS AS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS SHOWN THAT WE'RE NOT ON A DEAL TO DO ZONING OR ANYTHING ON THE DODGE TRAIL, THIS ISN'T A USE

[01:15:09]

THIS ISN'T GOING TO RECORD. AND IN TERMS OF AND I HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THIS IS PROBABLY COME UP OVER THE YEARS, BUT SPECIFIC CONCERNS ON DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION IN PARTICULAR, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE IN 23. IT IS 26. SO AND IT'S BEEN LITIGATED, YOU KNOW, VERBALLY FOR QUITE A WHILE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND THAT IS THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND IF WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS IT IS, ARE WE REQUIRED IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT, OR DO WE HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY AND THE FINAL? BECAUSE, AS ANNE MENTIONED, WELL, THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY, BUT WE HAVE ALWAYS OPERATED THAT IF YOU APPROVE A PRELIMINARY AND NOTHING CHANGES, YOU MUST APPROVE THE FINAL. SO COULD WE HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THAT? YEAH. I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU GET THAT UNDERSTANDING FROM, BUT YOUR ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE OPPOSITE. SECTION 2.17 OF THE SUBDIVISION CODE SAYS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT. OKAY, SO WHERE I'M GETTING IT FROM IS WHAT ROY GIAMBRA SAID AT EVERY, AT EVERY AT EVERY PRELIMINARY PLAT HEARING FOR THE LAST YEARS.

OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED IT STATED THAT THIS IS NOT WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. OKAY? THAT'S WHY I WANTED IT STATED FOR EVERYONE. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YOU CAN'T. IS THERE ANY. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS APPROVAL? APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT? ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER FINAL? THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ACTS. OKAY. JEFF, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. IF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH CODE, ARE WE COMPELLED TO APPROVE IT? YES. STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT IF A IF A PLAT, WHETHER PRELIMINARY OR FINAL STATE LAW DOESN'T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO, THE STATE LAW DOES PROVIDE THAT IF A PLAT MEETS ALL STATE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR YOU KNOW OF YOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THEN, THEN APPROVAL IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MUST APPROVE IT IF YOU KNOW YOU CAN DO MANDAMUS AND IT'S GOING TO GET APPROVED BY A COURT. AND DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT? IT REALLY DOESN'T, BECAUSE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT. HOWEVER, I CAN'T I CAN DISCERN NO VARIANCE BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T I DON'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE THERE EITHER, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. OKAY. THANK YOU. A QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS THE PROPERTY. THERE'S A NOTE ON THE PLAT. PRELIMINARY PROPERTY ZONING IS GOVERNED BY TURN BACK RANCH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE. AND IT GIVES A DISTRICT NUMBER AND IT GIVES THE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NUMBER. BUT IT DOESN'T REFERENCE THE ORDINANCE FOR THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION. AND YET THE DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ON THIS PLAT. BUT BUT THE ORDINANCE THAT IS REFERENCED DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT. CAN THAT BE AMENDED SO THAT ON THE FINAL PLAT THAT IS INCLUDED. SO YOU CAN JORDAN, WAS THIS THE ONE WHERE WE SAID THAT THERE WAS NOT. SO I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS THE REQUEST FOR THE ORDINANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION ORDINANCE ARE YOU REFERRING TO? THERE IS A DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION ORDINANCE AND THERE IS A TURN BACK RANCH DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. RIGHT. WHAT WHAT DOES ORDINANCE FOR DODGE TRAIL DO? WHAT WAS IT FOR? IT IS FOR IT IS FOR THE. IT DISCUSSES THE FACT THAT THIS WILL BECOME THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT. AND IT WILL. IT IS IN REFERENCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR IT SAYS THERE WAS A ORDINANCE FOR THE TURN BACK RANCH DEVELOPMENT IN SEPTEMBER OF 23. AND THEN THERE WAS A DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION ORDINANCE IN APRIL OR MAY OF 24. SO THERE'S TWO ORDINANCES THAT COMPRISE THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR BOTH, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE REFERENCE TO THAT ORDINANCE FOR BOTH. SO IF, IF, IF THERE IS A AN APPLICABLE REFERENCE TO AN ORDINANCE, THEN THEN THE APPROVAL TONIGHT COULD BE APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION THAT THE FINAL PLAT REFLECT REFERENCE TO THE ORDINANCE, I GUESS NAME WHAT THAT ORDINANCE NUMBER IS OFF THE TOP OF MY

[01:20:04]

OKAY. AND THEN. SO THEN WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR AND I AM I AM VOTING AGAINST BECAUSE I'M NOT I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS DODGE TRAIL EXTENSION MEETS THE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND THAT'S THAT'S MY CONCERN. SO THAT'S THE REASON I'M VOTING IN FAVOR. BUT WITH

[V.2. Discussion and Possible action regarding setting a new time for regularly called meetings.]

OH, OKAY. THAT IS THAT IS OUR NEXT ACTION ITEM DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SETTING A NEW TIME FOR REGULARLY CALLED MEETINGS. OH, AND WE HAD WE HAD MADE A. DID YOU OH, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS? OH NO MA'AM, I WAS JUST HOLDING UP NUMBER FOUR, 4:00, 4:00, 4:00. OKAY. AT THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD DISCUSSED HAVING A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, THIS TIME AT FOUR, STARTING AT 4:00, BUT THAT WE NEEDED TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION TO DETERMINE IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE OUR PERMANENT NEW TIME OR WHAT. AND SO DO WE. CAN'T MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE REGULAR SCHEDULE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS FROM SIX 6:00 PM TO 4:00 PM. WAIT A SECOND. I'LL SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. DAVE, DID YOU VOTE IN FAVOR? YEAH. OKAY, SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY. YOU SECONDED. JEFF. JEFF. JEFF DID. AND NOW

[IV.1. Discussion and Clarification on the Future Land Use Map Land Use Categories.]

[01:25:01]

THANKS. I THINK RACHEL OFFERED ME HER MINUTES. IF IT BECOMES AVAILABLE, I DO SEE IN THE. I PRESUME ALL OF YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THAT EMAIL, AND I'LL JUST BE VERY BRIEF UP HERE AS YOU AS YOU PROBABLY DEDUCED. ALL THE THE EMAIL ITSELF SETS UP THE MATRIX THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMAIL. SO THE MATRIX IS EVERYTHING IN THE EMAIL MANIFESTS. WHAT THIS DOES IS IT IT TWEAKS WHAT I'VE PROVIDED YOU GUYS WITH LIKE ONE OF THE MISTAKES I MADE WITH WHAT I SHARED WITH YOU GUYS LAST TIME WAS THAT I FORGOT TO INCLUDE MINIMUM LOT SIZES ASSOCIATED WITH NUMBER OF THE DESIGNATIONS, RIGHT. SO IN THIS WHAT YOU SEE IS YOU SEE THE ACTUAL FRACTION.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT COMP PLAN FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'LL SEE LOW DENSITY 1 TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND AND SO WHAT THIS DID IS I TOOK JORDAN'S DEFINITIONS THAT SHE PUT ON THIS AGENDA IN THE LAST AGENDA. AND THEN I TRIED TO MERGE THEM WITH OUR CURRENT COMP PLAN. AND THEN I PROVIDED FOR A REDUCED THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL FROM FIVE DOWN TO THREE, SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE A MORE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION LOT SIZE FROM THREE DOWN TO LOW DENSITY OF 1 TO 4.

SO YOU HAVE THREE WOULD BE YOUR LARGEST AND THEN TWO AND THEN ONE. WHAT THE THREE DOES IS IT'S EMBLEMATIC OF MOST OF WHAT'S PLOTTED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROMAN FORT, WHICH IS NO LESS THAN THREE ACRES, UP TO SIX ACRES. SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE SOME INTEREST, JUST MORE CONSISTENT. AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE DEVELOPMENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPERS. BUT THEN IT ALSO HAS A TWO AND A ONE, BECAUSE WITHOUT THE TWO AND A ONE YOU'RE GOING FROM 3 TO 1. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A 66% REDUCTION. IF YOU LIVE ON A QUARTER ACRE LOT, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE A LOT NEXT TO YOU. THAT'S A 66% REDUCTION IN SIZE. IT HAS TO BE EQUITABLE ACROSS THE FULL SPECTRUM. BUT WHAT THAT TWO ACRE DESIGNATION DOES AS WELL IS IT CAPTURES ALL OF OUR CURRENT VELOCITY WE HAVE IN LARGO. WELL, MOST OF THEM MANY OF THEM ARE NARROW BUT DEEP. AND SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN LARGO. AND THEN YOU HAVE A ONE ACRE, WHICH CAN BE USED TO HELP CAPTURE ANYTHING THAT MIGHT COME IN FROM THE ETJ, SUCH AS WATER. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING, BUT I USE WATER AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY SUCCESSFUL HIGH END DEVELOPMENT OF ONE ACRE LOTS.

SO IT KEEPS THAT OPTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT COMP PLAN DEFINED AS R1 L. SO IT'S NOT CREATING SOMETHING NEW REALLY THE ONLY CHANGES 5 TO 3.

AND THEN YOU CREATE TWO TO BRIDGE. SO YOU HAVE COMPATIBLE LAND USE AND IT DOWNSIZES ACCORDINGLY. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I DID IN HERE IS UNDER BUILDING TYPE NOTES IS I ADDED SOME LANGUAGE THAT REALLY APPLY, AND THERE'S ALSO A FOOTNOTE. IT'S IN THE FOOTNOTES. AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT KIND OF ENSURES THAT PEOPLE IN WHETHER YOU'RE AN OLD LARGO, WHETHER IT WOULD BE REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU'RE AT, LARGO, EVERYBODY HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT WHEN THEY BUY THAT QUARTER ACRE LOT IN LARGO, THEY IT'S ZONED, WHATEVER THE DESIGNATION IS, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO END UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT UNLESS IT GOES SUCCESSFULLY THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE. IN OTHER WORDS, BACK TO COMPATIBLE LAND USE. SO THIS ENSURES THAT

[01:30:05]

SO THESE WERE PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA AT THE LAST MEETING. THE INTENT TODAY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO KIND OF GET SOME INPUT FROM YOU AS A COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON TRACK. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE QUITE AT DETERMINING DENSITIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK IN ORDER TO GET THAT FOUNDATION, FIRST WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE THE CATEGORIES WE WANT, THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING. AND I BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTIONS POSED AS TO HOW DETAILED THESE HAVE TO BE. IF WE EVEN HAVE TO ASSIGN DENSITIES WITHIN THEM AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO GET A A STRONGER FOUNDATION BEFORE WE MOVE ON AND MOVE TO TO THOSE MORE INTRICATE QUESTIONS AND HOW IT INTERACTS WITH OUR CURRENT CODE.

WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A THING WITH ALL OF THEM PULLED UP. OUR SCREEN IS NOT WORKING. AND SO AS FAR AS HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED AS A COMMISSION, WHETHER WE GO PAGE BY PAGE AND TALK ABOUT IT AND WORK THROUGH IT, IF THERE'S IT'S, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER BY COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER WE FIGURE IT OUT. WE'RE HERE TO TAKE NOTES. WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN, CLARIFY ANY QUESTIONS THAT THERE MAY BE. AND THEN MY HOPE IS THAT NEXT MONTH, WE'LL BRING YOU WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER ALMOST A FINAL WORKING DRAFT. AND FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CONTINUE THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE. WE CAN'T START MAPPING UNTIL WE HAVE THESE CATEGORIES LOCKED IN AND SITUATED. AND SO THIS IS A KIND OF AN IN-BETWEEN STEP. AND I THINK NEXT MONTH THERE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK, SO TO SAY. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY ON THE RIGHT TRACK. WELL LET'S FIRST START WITH DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

OPEN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE DECIDE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT PAGE BY PAGE OR WHATEVER. GO AHEAD I'LL GO AFTER YOU. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT THE THE DENSITIES THAT MR. ROBERTS HAS CONVEYED HERE ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT OUR COMP PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE FROM LAST YEAR'S COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED. AND I KNOW YOU'RE THINKING OR YOU MENTIONED THAT WE MAY NOT NEED TO CONSIDER THOSE YET. WE WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER THEM QUICKLY, BECAUSE I KNOW I FEEL THAT EVERYONE IS GOING TO WANT THOSE SPECIFIED WITH OUR CATEGORIES.

THE NEXT THING IS, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY WE'VE USED PLAN. USE CATEGORIES, USE CATEGORIES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING PLACE TYPES NOW WHICH IS A DIFFERENT A DIFFERENT PARADIGM. WE'RE NOT DESCRIBING SECTIONS OF OUR TOWN BY HOW THEY'LL BE USED, BUT BY HOW THEY'LL BE EXPERIENCED, HOW THEY'LL LOOK, HOW THEY'LL FEEL, WHAT KIND OF NOISE CONDITIONS THERE WILL BE, HOW WILL THE NATURAL SURROUNDINGS BE PRESERVED, THAT TYPE OF THING. ALL OF THIS CAN BE BAKED INTO THESE AND THESE. SO THESE PLACE TYPES ARE ABOUT HOW IT'S EXPERIENCED RATHER THAN HOW LAND IS USED. THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE. I THINK I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT AS WE GO INTO THIS. WE CAN'T JUST RELATE THIS TO USE CATEGORIES AS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST. AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ACTUALLY, I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT. BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW SMALL TOWNS IN TEXAS THAT HAVE STARTED USING PLACE TYPES. AND THE LIST INCLUDES DRIPPING SPRINGS, BURNEY, BASTROP, MARBLE FALLS, FREDERICKSBURG, WIMBERLEY, GRANBURY, KENNEDALE. AND THERE'S I'M SURE THERE ARE MORE. THEY'RE USING SLOT PLACE TYPES, PLACE TYPES, PLACE TYPES. AND THE MAIN REASON THEY'RE USING THEM IS TO IS FOR PROTECTION, FOR PRESERVATION OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS FROM NEW GROWTH AND TO PREVENT COMMERCIAL CREEP AND TO PRESERVE RURAL CHARACTER. MOST OF THOSE TOWNS, IF NOT ALL OF THOSE TOWNS I MENTIONED, WOULD BE CONSIDERED SEMI-RURAL. NONE OF THEM ARE EXACTLY LIKE US, BUT WE'RE NOT EXACTLY LIKE THEM. THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY LIKE US, BUT YOU KNOW, THEY ARE A FAIR COMPARISON FOR THIS PURPOSE. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DO NEED TO DO IS, IS TALK TONIGHT ABOUT WHAT PLACE TYPES WE WANT TO HAVE. WHAT

[01:35:07]

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. AND DAVE, DID YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS? YEAH. WELL, BASICALLY I LIKE WHAT MR. ROBERTS HAS PUT TOGETHER. I LIKE DEALING WITH THE MASS, THE MATH BASED. AND ACTUALLY THIS IS A HYBRID DOCUMENT FROM WHAT I CAN TELL OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM INCORPORATING IN SOME OF THE STUFF THAT SHE HAD MENTIONED& AND FITTING IT INTO A CHART.

AND THE CHART IS EASY TO WORK WITH. SO. LET ME GO HERE FIRST. SO THE WAY I SEE THIS WORKING IS THAT IF WE GET THIS CHART, THEN WE HAVE A WAY OF CALCULATING LOUISE, AND THEN WE NEED TO STAFF NEEDS TO ASSIGN THESE TO THE PORTIONS OF LAGO VISTA. THE COLOR CODED MAP IS GOING TO CHANGE. THEN WE NEED TO DO AN ANALYSIS IN EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES AND COME BACK WITH A GRAND NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WHAT THIS MAP IS GOING TO ALLOW FOR A PROJECTED BUILD OUT FOR THE CURRENT LAGO VISTA, WHICH WILL THEN TELL US IF OUR PLANT, OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANT SIZING IS CORRECT AND WILL ALLOW US TO ANTICIPATE WHAT WE WILL NEED TO ADDITIONALLY PURCHASE TO DISPOSE OF OUR EFFLUENT. SO I THINK THIS THIS GETS US THIS IS LIKE A SHORTCUT. AND I SORT OF LIKE TO SEE THIS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DISCUSS IT TODAY, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH TO PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE FOR POSSIBLE ADOPTION WITH FURTHER DISCUSSION. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S DONE. BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING HERE THAT I'D SORT OF LIKE AN EXPLANATION ON BECAUSE IT'S NEW TO ME. OKAY, I CAN'T EVEN THINK THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH ABOUT GROSS DENSITY. COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? YES, SIR. OUR CURRENT COMPLEX. SO 2024, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID IS WE AMENDED, ACTUALLY, WHICH I THINK COUNCILMAN PRINCE BROUGHT IT UP, WHICH WAS A GREAT SUGGESTION. AND WHAT IT IS IS YOU HAVE YOUR YOU CALCULATE THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WHAT WAS HAPPENING IS DEVELOPERS WERE EXPLOITING THAT BY VIRTUE OF THERE BEING NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY WRITTEN IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND AND IT WAS JUST BASED ON THE GROSS CALCULATION. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE REMOVED IN THIS CASE, LIKE FLOODPLAIN IN THE ROAD, WE WERE TRYING TO GET ALL OPEN SPACE REMOVED, BECAUSE WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT EFFECTIVELY LOWERS THE DENSITY, LOWERS NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT CAN GET OUT OF THE PARCEL. AND DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. BASICALLY. OKAY. SO YOU'RE TAKING OUT ROADS RETENTION PONDS. SO IF YOU START FLOODPLAIN. YES SIR. IF YOU START WITH 300 ACRES BUT 50 OF IT IS FLOODPLAIN, WHEN YOU DO YOUR DIVISION TO ARRIVE AT THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, IT'S LESS THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH WOULD BE EXACTLY WHAT TURN BACK IS MAKES SENSE. YES. OKAY. AND SO THAT WAY YOU'RE REALLY IT IS WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ALL DECIDED ON. AND I THINK WE'RE A VERY GOOD FIT. VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. VERY WELL DONE. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OVER HERE. NO, NO. OKAY. JUST TO VERIFY. SO SOME OF THESE NUMBERS CAME. THEY WERE IN CORRELATION WITH THE TURN BACK OR. NO SIR. HE WAS I THINK THE POINT HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS IS TURN BACK IS AN EXAMPLE. HAS A LOT OF PROPERTY THAT'S IN. OH OKAY I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OKAY. CORRECT. BUT I THINK I ANSWERED THE QUESTION. IT'S, IT'S IT IS AS HE POINTED OUT, IT'S A HYBRID. THIS TRACKS THE COMP PLAN. IT TRACKS THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, AT YOUR LAST MEETING, YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU WERE GOING TO RECEIVE DENSITY AT THIS MEETING. I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN YOUR PACKET. AND I SAW MISTAKES IN MY PRIOR ONE. SO I THOUGHT THIS I WOULD BRING THIS FORWARD. YOU KNOW, COUNCIL DIRECTION WAS ORIGINALLY FOR YOU GUYS TO CREATE A SUBCOMMITTEE TO CREATE DEFINITIONS AND THEN TO CREATE DENSITY. AND THEN THE NEXT STEP WAS TO DO THE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WAS TABLED. AND HERE WE ARE. SO I'M TRYING TO DO WHAT I DID IS TRY TO PROVIDE

[01:40:07]

OKAY. THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD HAVE GOT TO 700 IS IF THEY COUNTED THE FLOODPLAIN.

EVERYTHING. SO WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING IN THERE THAT CUTS OUT ROADS, FLOODPLAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED WITH 700 AND TURN BACK. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSER TO THE 349 WE WOUND UP WITH. SO AND THAT'S WHAT GOT RID OF THOSE MICRO LOTS. AND WHEN YOU DO THE MICRO LOTS, THEN, YOU KNOW YOU'RE OVERLOADING YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSITY ON THE NET USABLE NET. YES. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS GOING TO CHANGE. AND THAT'S ONE I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT. OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE SEEMS TO BE CONSENSUS AMONG THE COMMISSION ON ADOPTING THIS MATRIX AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. IF WE CAN GET IT ON THE AGENDA MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS AS A BASIS FOR. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I'M ASSUMING WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADOPT THE CHART ITSELF, BUT THE CONTENTS OF THE CHART TO THEN PUT INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WHERE THIS IS A WORKSHOP. SO WE'RE NOT TAKING A VOTE ON THIS, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ABOUT ABOUT YES, I THINK I THINK THERE'S CONSENSUS ON DENSITIES. I CAN'T SAY THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON WHAT OUR CATEGORIES OR PLACE TYPES ARE. NO. OKAY. BUT INCLUDING DENSITY, WHICH IS YEAH, YEAH. WELL, ULTIMATELY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF A CALCULATION ONCE THE NEW FLUME IS ACCEPTED. THAT GIVES US A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT THE REAL BUILD OUT IS. ARE WE REALLY GOING TO NEED A 2.7 MILLION GALLON PLANT, OR COULD WE GET BY WITH A 2.3? OR DO WE REALLY NEED MORE? YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE ROOM FOR FOR FLOOD WATERS BECAUSE WE GOT HIT WITH 300,000. THAT'S NEVER GOING TO GO AWAY. YEAH. SO BUT THIS WILL WITH THAT RECALIBRATION IN THE NEW CATEGORIES, THEN WE COULD, WE COULD REALLY HELP, YOU KNOW THE CITY COUNCIL IDENTIFY WHAT UTILITY BUILDOUTS REALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE. GETS US A FORECAST. YEAH. WE COULD USE IT FOR. AND IT'S ONLY AS GOOD AS IT'S A SNAPSHOT. AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO DO A RECALC, YOU KNOW, EVERY FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING. BUT EVEN A SNAPSHOT AT THIS, IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING OFF OF. IT'S BEEN HIT AND MISS RECENTLY, YOU KNOW, SAN ANTONIO BASED ENGINEERING FIRM WORKING ON IT IN AN OFFICE WITH NEVER STEPPING FOOT AT PLANT THREE AND TELLING US WE NEED 30 MILLION TO FIX IT. I MEAN, WE CAN GET HARDER NUMBERS, BUT FACT BASED. SO, JORDAN, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL MAP, IS THE MAP TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION? BECAUSE I REMEMBER AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT A BUNCH OF PDS THAT ARE SORT OF DORMANT, THAT ARE OUT THERE AND ARE BEING ALLOCATED TO A DORMANT LAND USE. RIGHT. THE MAP WILL SHOW WHAT'S ALREADY DESIGNATED AS THINGS, AND WE WORK AROUND IT. I MEAN, I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON CHICKEN AND EGG, WHICH IS COMING FIRST. SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS NON-REGULATORY. IT'S NON-BINDING, AND SO IT SHOULD BE WHAT WE WANT THE CITY TO BE. AND THEN THE ZONING AND ENTITLEMENTS ARE SOMETHING COMPLETELY SEPARATE. THERE SHOULD NOT BE BEST PRACTICE IS TO ACCOUNT FOR IT IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE SPOT ON TO WHATEVER THE CATEGORY IS, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY THIS SPECIFIC ONE GETS ITS OWN DISTRICT BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAS ENTITLEMENTS. WE NEED TO FIND WHERE IT FITS IN OKAY, SOME KIND OF WAY. ARE WE ADDRESSING THE DORMANT PDS? IS THAT GOING TO BE EVER GOING TO BE

[01:45:08]

AND THEY WE LOOK AT THE FLUME AND, AND SO IF IT'S, IT'S IF THE REZONING REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FILM, THAT'S A, THAT'S A KEY ISSUE. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT MAKES ONE LESS OBSTACLE I GUESS. YES. YES. IT'S REALLY A VISIONARY. THIS IS THE IDEAL. YES. DENSITIES WILL INCREASE AS WE MOVE OVER HERE AND COMMERCIAL WILL BE OVER THERE, ETC. AND IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND HAPPENS TO FIND A GREAT LAND PRICE ON SOMETHING, THEY WANT TO BUY IT AND THEY WANT TO DO, IT'S NOT IN THIS VISION, THEN IT REQUIRES A LOT MORE CONVERSATION. YES, YES. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO ON THE FLUME AND NOT SAY WE HAVE A, A PGD RIGHT NOW CALLED SMITH AND IT'S GOT 200 LOUISE. SO THE FLUME WOULD JUST INDICATE THAT IT WAS A BASIC STYLE OF ZONING, BUT IT WOULDN'T MENTION THE 200 PDS. YOU WOULD GET THAT FROM A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT I GUESS. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, THE FLUME THAT THE FLUME IF, IF, IF YOU HAVE IF THERE IS AN ENTITLEMENT AND IN THIS PORTION OF THE CITY AND IT'S A PGD, IT'S, IT'S WHATEVER. AND, BUT BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU'RE PROJECTING GROWTH TO OCCUR, YOU THINK THAT IN THE FUTURE THIS MIGHT BE CURRENTLY ZONED AND THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. RIGHT.

IT'S SOMETHING MIGHT BE CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, BUT THE DUE TO GROWTH PATTERNS OR WHAT HAVE YOU SOME STUFF THAT WAS RESIDENTIAL, IT TRANSITIONS TO COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR ROADWAY BECOMES MORE WELL TRAVELED OR WHAT HAVE YOU. AND THAT THAT HAPPENS. THAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I LIVE. RIGHT. SO IT MIGHT BE RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU CAN ANTICIPATE THAT AS THE FUTURE GOES ON. AND IF THIS GROWTH CONTINUES, IT'S LIKELY SO THAT THAT FRONT ROW IS GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL. RIGHT. YOU HAVE

[01:50:01]

SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON OR UNUSUAL TO HAVE A FLUME WHERE YOU ANTICIPATE THAT IN THE FUTURE IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY, AND THAT DOESN'T CREATE ANY KIND OF LEGAL BARRIER OR LIABILITY OR ANYTHING THAT THAT SORT OF THING HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE DOING ANOTHER SNAPSHOT. IN TIME. YEAH. THE I MEAN, THE THE CURRENT ZONING MAP IS A SNAPSHOT. YEAH. THE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP MIGHT REFLECT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS. BUT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THAT ALTHOUGH IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL TODAY, WE EXPECT THIS CORRIDOR FOR EXAMPLE, PROBABLY BE I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK DAWN DRIVE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. IT'S MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW, BUT LIKE THE THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE THAT'S THERE THAT WAS CONVERTED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. THAT'S A FANTASTIC EXAMPLE OF WHAT BRAD IS SPEAKING TO. IT MAY NOT BE TODAY, BUT IN 20 YEARS, DAWN MAY HAVE MORE OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES FLIPPED TO COMMERCIAL USES. AND THE THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE HAS DONE QUITE WELL AT THAT CONVERSION WITHOUT IMPACTING NEIGHBORS AND IMPACTING THE RESIDENTIAL AROUND THEM. THEY FIT IN TO TO WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THEM. IT'S A SERVICE THAT'S PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT IT'S NOT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY. IT'S WHERE DO WE WANT STUFF IN 20 YEARS? WHERE DO WE WANT STUFF FOR OUR KIDS FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR US WHEN WE'RE OLD AND SHRIVELED UP? LIKE WHAT? WHAT KIND OF THINGS ARE WE LOOKING FOR IN 20, 25 YEARS OUT FROM NOW? AND SO I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE THE FLUME IS REGULATORY. IT'S NOT. AND SO REALLY, PIE IN THE SKY, WHAT DO WE WANT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BE 25 YEARS FROM NOW? THAT'S THE QUESTION. DO WE HAVE ANY IS THERE ANY JUST OVERARCHING TRAFFIC DATA LIKE TRENDS OF WHERE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING OR EXPECTED TO DRIVE WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT IS MOVING FORWARD? BECAUSE AND I'M SEEING THIS FROM THE VIEW OF COMMERCIAL AND I'M THINKING ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE THE CITY NEEDS TO PURCHASE AND MONEY IS NEEDED FOR THAT. AND WHILE AD VALOREM IS GREAT FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, IT'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU SALES TAX BASE. TODAY IS GOING OVER TO CEDAR PARK AND OTHER PLACES. IF THERE ARE WELL TRAVELED CORRIDORS OR ANTICIPATED WELL TRAVEL CORRIDORS, IS THAT WHERE WE WANT TO START FOCUSING ON THIS WORK? WE WANT COMMERCIAL IN OUR PERFECT WORLD SO WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PULL TRAFFIC DATA. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A LOT. WE HAVE DIFFERENT. EVERY DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO DO A TIA, AND SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT POINTS FROM AROUND THE CITY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TO, TO KIND OF MARRY UP. REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, WE ONLY HAVE SO MANY ROADS THAT ARE COLLECTOR LEVEL THAT ACTUALLY GET PEOPLE OUT OF HERE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, BOGGY IS A GOOD ONE. LOWMAN FORD IS A GOOD ONE. I THINK DAWN NEEDS TO BE A SCALED BACK VERSION OF WHAT, YOU KNOW, LOWMAN IS OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE 1431 CONTINUING TO THE WEST AREAS OF MARQUET, AREAS OF AMERICAN, YOU KNOW, AND SO IT'S WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW THE ROAD IS BEING USED. AND PART OF THAT ALSO GOES INTO OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, WHICH WE'RE ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE THEY KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND. RIGHT. YOU WOULD EXPECT SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL TO WHAT SCALE? THAT'S UP FOR DEBATE. BUT ALONG COLLECTOR LEVEL ROADS AND HIGHER ARTERIALS, YOU WANT THAT REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LIKE 1431. WE WANT BIG BOX. WE WANT PLACES THAT ARE GOING TO PULL PEOPLE OFF OF THE ROAD, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHERE LOCAL RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO SAY, I HAVE TO STOP THERE. YOU KNOW, I SHOP LOCAL AND I STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM 1431 IN CEDAR PARK AS I POSSIBLY CAN. AND IF SOMETHING WAS CLOSER TO ME, I'M GOING TO GO THERE BEFORE I DRIVE TO 1431 TO GO TO BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS, BECAUSE IT'S CONVENIENCE OF IT. AND SO THAT'S THERE'S THE AND YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE PACKET AS WELL. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREAS ARE FOR RESIDENTS. WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT REGIONAL, WE'RE GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT THOSE BIG BOX THINGS. AND WHERE DO THEY FIT IN THAT 2025 YEAR PLAN? AND WHERE DO WHERE DO WE SEE THOSE THINGS HAPPENING. AND SO I THINK IT'S A BIGGER A BIGGER DISCUSSION AS A WHOLE.

BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PULL TRAFFIC DATA AND TRY TO TRY TO FIND SOME COMPREHENSIVE WAY TO VIEW IT. THAT'S NOT I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT. YOU KNOW, I THINK IF ANYTHING, MAYBE JUST LIKE LOWMAN FORD, BECAUSE, I MEAN, THERE'S A HOTEL GOING ON ON 1431, I MEAN, ON LOWMAN FORD AND LOWMAN FORD EXTENDS ALL THE WAY TO WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE NOT I'M SORRY, NOT LOWMAN, FORD, FORD, FORD. I MEAN, IF WE DO MARKET TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, MAYBE JUST ON BOGGY FORD BECAUSE THE

[01:55:06]

THE 2023 DOCUMENT WAS ENGINEER MEASURED DATA OF TRAFFIC AT THAT POINT IN TIME. OKAY. YEAH.

AND IT DID I THINK THAT THAT DID TAKE IN ANTICIPATED THE LOU DWELLING UNITS LOSE FROM EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS WERE CONSIDERED IN THAT ANALYSIS OKAY. AND THEN ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WHICH WAS DONE JUST BEFORE I, I GOT ON THE COUNCIL. I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE I NEVER DID PUT A LOT OF WEIGHT IN IT. AND I'LL GIVE YOU JUST A GOOD EXAMPLE IS AT THE END OF JIM'S HOUSE WAS OKAY, THE HOUSE, AS YOU GUYS MAY KNOW, OVER THERE WITH THE TRANSFER WAS THERE'S AT THAT POINT AND OVER AT THE END OF IN LAKESHORE RANCH AT THE END OF AUSTIN BOULEVARD, THAT THOROUGHFARE PLAN HAS A FERRY GOING ACROSS LAKE TRAVIS TO THE OTHER SIDE.

SO IF YOU THINK THERE'S A CHANCE OF THAT HAPPENING, YOU MIGHT WANT TO TAKE THE REST OF IT INTO ACCOUNT. BUT I THINK I DON'T WANT TO DISMISS THE WHOLE THING. IT'S OBVIOUSLY SOME GOOD WORK PRODUCT, BUT THERE ARE SOME PRETTY RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTIONS IN THERE FOR A NON-CONSTANT LEVEL, MR. ROBERTS. YES, SIR. WHILE YOU'RE THERE, CAN I ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION? YES, SIR. MY PLEASURE ON THIS DENSITY GUIDANCE THAT YOU PROVIDED. ARE ALL OF THESE CATEGORIES ON HERE? ARE THEY A 1 TO 1 MATCH TO THE PROPOSED PLACE TYPES? NOT THE SAME EXACT VERBIAGE. NO, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T EVEN CONTEMPLATE PLACE TYPE VERSUS USE TYPE. WHAT I DID IS I TRACKED OUR WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT I TRIED TO CAPTURE THE INTENT OF THE VERBIAGE USED IN HER WORK PRODUCT AND TRIED TO BRING IT TOGETHER. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT YOU DON'T JUST HAVE YOUR DENSITY RIGHT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR COMP PLAN, IT CLEARLY SAYS, OKAY, THIS LAND USE TYPE, RIGHT? AND THEN IT GIVES YOU THE CALCULATION FOR WHAT THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS. AND THEN WHAT THIS DOES IS IT ALSO ENUMERATES AND CODIFIES THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AS WELL. SO WHILE IT'S IMPLIED IN OUR CURRENT COMP PLAN IT'S NOT EXPLICIT. IT'S JUST IMPLIED THROUGH THE THROUGH THE MATH. BUT IT DOES THAT. SO YOU HAVE YOUR LAND USE. YOU HAVE YOUR YOUR DENSITY CALCULATION. THEN YOU HAVE THE MIN LOT SIZE. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET INTO THE COMMERCIAL, IT GETS INTO FAR THAT I DON'T KNOW

[02:00:03]

THIS IS LIKE YOUR TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHETHER IT'S A ONE STORY OR TWO STORY BUILDING FLOOR AREA RATIO. YEAH. AND SO THAT'S A THAT'S IN THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN OF THAT. AND I THINK INCLUDING THAT IN YOUR NEXT AGENDA PACKET FOR YOU ALL TO LOOK AT AND COME BACK WITH ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TWEAKS OR OTHERWISE IS A IS A GREAT IDEA. AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT.

THANK YOU. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DO AS WE GO THROUGH THESE PLACE TYPES IS WE NEED TO COMPARE THEM TO OUR CURRENT. USE CATEGORIES. CATEGORIES. SEE IF WE HAVE GAPS AND SEE WHICH AND ALSO JUST SIGN THEM. YOU KNOW WHICH OF OUR CURRENT USE CATEGORIES APPLY TO EACH PLACE TYPE. YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT APPLES TO APPLES. AT LEAST I DON'T THINK THEY ARE. AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING COVERED AS WE GO THROUGH. SO AS FAR AS THE ROADS GO, LIKE I TOLD YOU LAST WEEK, BOGGY FORD IS A FOUR LANE, I BELIEVE ALL THE WAY TO HIGHLAND LAKES FOR SURE TO AMERICAN DRIVE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE A NEW COMMERCIAL ZONE IN AMERICAN AND BOGGY FORD OR NOT, BUT IT WILL DEFINITELY BE FOUR LANES ALL THE WAY TO THERE. THE OTHER ONE IS NATIONAL, AND I DON'T SEE THAT GOING COMMERCIAL. I'M REALLY STRUGGLING. WHY IN RC MADE THAT A FOUR LANE ROAD, AND THEN THE LAST ONE'S DODGE TRAIL. SO I DON'T. ANOTHER THING THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTING THIS IS THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT THE SECOND CAMPUS ON LBUSD. THE SCHOOL IS SUPPOSED TO BUILD A COMPLETELY ALMOST IDENTICAL CAMPUS ON THAT VACANT ACREAGE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TENNIS COURTS. WHEN IT'S GREEN, GROWTH STARTS TO PUSH US TO FIVE A, WHICH IS GOING TO DRIVE BOGGY FORD GOING INTO A FIVE LANE ROAD WITH ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION ROADS, WHICH IS THEN GOING TO REALLY PUT THE PRESSURE, I BELIEVE THE TIA SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO ALSO EXPAND BOGGY FORD AT LOEHMANN'S TO FIVE LANES AT THE WHEN THE HIGH SCHOOL WAS BUILT, WHICH IS YEAH, AGAIN GENERATE MORE STUFF. SO ANYTHING ON AMERICAN DRIVE BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU'VE GOT THE THAT'S WAS THAT A CAN OF WORMS. WELL TECHNICALLY AMERICAN DRIVE IS A TWO LANE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE ANYTHING ELSE. HIGHLAND LAKES COULD BE A FOUR LANE. IT DOESN'T EXACTLY SHOW UP AS THAT, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO EITHER TRIM THE ISLANDS OR TAKE THEM OUT TO MAKE IT A FOUR LANE. SO. BUT YEAH, I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC EVENTUALLY WHEN THEY BUILD THAT WELL, HOTEL OR CONDOMINIUMS ON THE WHERE THE OLD LAGO VISTA HOTEL USED TO BE ON AMERICAN DRIVE OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISLAND, AND INSIDE THE PENINSULA. YEAH. THE 1900 AMERICAN DRIVE. YEAH, YEAH, I WOULD SAY WE WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS ANALYSIS, WE NEED TO FOCUS ON BOGGY FORD AND ASSUME HIGHLAND LAKES WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A FOUR LANE. AND YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP A NEW COMMERCIAL PACKET DOWN THERE IN THAT HOTEL ZONE. AND YOU SEE WHAT THEY'VE BEEN BUILDING OVER OFF OF SANTA MONICA, SOME HIGH DENSITY STUFF. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THAT WATERFORD GATED COMMUNITY. WE MAY SEE THOSE POPPING UP DOWN THERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAYBE LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE PUTTING IT INTO THE ZONING MAP. NOW, IT'S THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR ONE THING, IF WE ZONE IT NOW, IT'LL CONCENTRATE THEM WHERE WE WANT THEM RATHER THAN DOWN LETTING SOMEBODY GO IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THOSE ARE THE ROADS THAT ARE GOING TO LEAD TO DEVELOPMENT, WHERE THE WATERLOO HOMES MODEL HOME USED TO BE. I THINK THAT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL. AND WELL, I MEAN, THAT SHOULD ALL BE COMMERCIAL JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHO WANTS TO LIVE THERE, YOU KNOW? BUT I GUESS THAT'S ANOTHER ANOTHER DAY. YES.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND WHAT, WHAT MR. STUART IS DESCRIBING IS NOT WHAT'S ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. I THINK HE'S COMING AT IT FROM AN ENGINEER'S PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WHAT HE THINKS MIGHT NEED TO BE. AND MAYBE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN OUGHT TO BE MORE WHAT HE'S DESCRIBING. I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN SHOWS RIGHT NOW. THERE'S THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO LOOK AT THIS. I'D BE HAPPY TO SEND A LINK TO IT. I WAS JUST 2021 THOROUGHFARE PLAN. AND THERE REALLY ARE THREE CATEGORIES OF ROADS THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED. THE MINOR COLLECTOR, WHICH ARE JUST ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION. MAJOR COLLECTOR WHICH ARE ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A TURN LANE IN BETWEEN, AND THEN MINOR ARTERIAL, WHICH ARE TWO

[02:05:05]

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DEBATE WHETHER THAT MAP IS RIGHT OR NOT TONIGHT, BUT I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THAT AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, LET THAT LET THAT SINK IN. AND WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THAT MAP OR NOT, YOU CAN COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS, BUT IT'S JUST INDICATIVE FOR YOU. AND THAT'S ON THE CITY WEBSITE, THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. YEAH, I DID A SEARCH FOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND IT SHOWED UP. NO, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO SEND YOU THE LINK TO THE EXACT DOCUMENT. OKAY, SO, MR. PRINCE, I WASN'T REFERRING TO YOUR STUDY. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE PLAT MAPS. WHEN YOU GO TO THE PLAT MAP, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND NATIONAL AND BOGGY FORD ARE PLATTED FOR A FOUR LANE ROAD. AND IF YOU GO TO DODGE TRAIL, WHICH PLATTED FOR A FOUR LANE ROAD AND HIGHLAND LAKES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT AS A TWO LANE ROAD BACK IN THE 70S, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE WIDENED TO MEET IT. TO NOW BE THE ONLY REASON I KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE WE TREATED NATIONAL BOGGY FORD AND DODGE TRAIL AS A TWO LANE ROAD, AND WE COULD NOT FIND THE WATER MAINS UNTIL WE DUG ALL THE WAY ACROSS. WE DUG PERPENDICULARLY ACROSS THE STREET AND FOUND THEM 20FT OFF THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT. SO WE WENT AND LOOKED AT THE PLAT MAPS AND YEAH, SO NOW WE KNOW WHERE THE MAINS ARE.

WE GO STRAIGHT OUT IN THE BUSHES AND START DIGGING. YEAH. WOW. BUT YEAH, THE PLAT MAP, THAT'S WHERE NRC WAS GOING TO DIRECT THE GROWTH TO. WAS THERE FOUR LANE ROADS AND IT'S BOGGY FORD I BELIEVE ALL THE WAY TO HIGHLANDS NATIONAL, ALL THE WAY TO THE SECOND OUTPOST, TRACE DODGE TRAIL, THE BAQUET AND THEN OF COURSE, IF YOU WERE TO UPDATE THE TRAFFIC PATTERN ON HIGHLAND LAKES, IT WOULD BE A FOUR LANE. BUT ONCE YOU GET TO AMERICAN DRIVE, IT GOES BACK TO TWO, I THINK. CAN I ALSO ASK, ARE THESE ALL CITY ROADS OR TEXTS? I MEAN, I THINK 1431 IS A TEXT ROAD, BUT IS EVERYTHING ELSE JUST CITY ROADS? YEAH, LOGAN FORD IS. I THINK FORD WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY BECAUSE WE PAID THE OVERLAY AT TWO YEARS AGO. CITY HAS JURISDICTION DOWN TO THE CITY LIMIT, WHICH IS SOUTH PARK. OKAY. BUT BUT AND THE REST IS IS COUNTY OR TEX-DOT IS 1431. YEAH. NO, NO. BUT IN AREAS THE COUNTY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. OH LET'S SEE WHEN WE DO THAT NEXT SECTION ON LOWMAN'S. WE SHOULD BE GETTING ASSISTANCE FROM THE HIGH SCHOOLS. TIA OH SO THE THE PART THEY FRONT BUT WE'LL BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE REST. YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS. WELL SO DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT YOU HAVE PLENTY OF INPUT FOR, FOR YOUR NEXT STAGE TO PUT TOGETHER. KIND OF. SO I HAVE SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. WHAT MR. ROBERTS HAS PROPOSED IS 12 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. ARE WE SAYING WE WANT TO ADOPT THOSE 12 CATEGORIES AND GIVE THEM INDIVIDUAL SHEETS LIKE THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE PACKET? DO WE WANT TO FIND SOME WAY TO MUSH THESE TOGETHER? HOW ARE WE? CAN YOU GIVE US SOME OF THE REASONS THAT YOU HAVE A A SMALLER NUMBER OF CATEGORIES AND GIVE US MAYBE THE PROS AND CONS OF OF EACH ONE? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO AGAIN, GIVEN THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS STRICTLY GUIDANCE TO WHERE WE WANT THINGS TO BE, THE MORE CATEGORIES WE GET INTO, THE CLOSER WE GET INTO ESSENTIALLY HAVING ZONING, RIGHT? WHEN YOU HAVE 12 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, 15, 20 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, AND YOU'RE NITPICKING ON WHERE THESE CATEGORIES GO, IT NO LONGER BECOMES A VISIONARY THING. AND IT'S MORE SO. SO WE'RE WE'RE GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING SOME SOME KIND OF ZONING. AND SO YOU KEEP YOUR CATEGORIES BASIC. MOVING TO THE PLACE TYPES ALLOWS US TO IT'S IT'S ALMOST A MENTAL SHIFT FROM THE REGULATION ON DENSITY TO I CARE MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THAT AREA REMAINING THE SAME.

AND OUR GUIDANCE ON THE REGULATIONS AS FAR AS LIKE TYPICAL LOT SIZE AND CHARACTER CAN BE EXPLAINED WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU. SO IF WE WANT, YOU KNOW,

[02:10:01]

IT'S WHATEVER CAN BE AGREED UPON AND WHATEVER IS RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED BY THE BOARD. WE'LL EXECUTE IT IN EITHER DIRECTION. WE JUST THIS THIS WAS THE POINT OF THIS WORKSHOP IS TO FIGURE OUT, ARE WE ON THE RIGHT TRACK? ARE WE NOT ON THE RIGHT TRACK? DO WE WANT THESE 12 INSTEAD OF THE SEVEN THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU? YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE? WHERE ARE WE GOING? WHAT WOULD BE A MORE STREAMLINED OPERATION TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE OR TO CONSOLIDATE? BASICALLY THESE PLUS THE SEVEN OR WHAT'S WHAT'S DO YOU HAVE ANY GUIDANCE ON THAT? WELL, SO IT LOOKS LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE CIVIC PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ARE MERGED ON OURS BUT SEPARATED ON THIS DOCUMENT. IT'S IT'S MORE OF A PREFERENCE ON THAT FRONT. THE INTENT WAS THAT CIVICS. SO YOUR SCHOOLS, YOUR CITIES, YOUR POLICE, YOUR FIRE, WE SHOULD ALL BE WORKING TOGETHER IN RELATION WITH PARKS AND OPEN SPACE WHERE WE CAN, SO THAT WE HAVE THESE WHAT EQUATES TO PUBLIC AREAS. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, YOUR LIBRARY SHOULD BE NEXT TO YOUR PARKS AND YOUR OPEN SPACE. AND FOR INSTANCE HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONNECTED THROUGH A SMALL THING WHERE THEY CAN COME TO CITY HALL, THEY CAN GO TO THE LIBRARY. WE HAVE KIDS FROM THE LIBRARY, COME OVER ALL THE TIME AND SING SONGS AND READ BOOKS. AND IT'S THAT COMMUNITY CENTER.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE LUMPED TOGETHER IN THIS. IF WE WOULD LIKE TO SEPARATE THEM OUT AND HAVE CIVIC USES COMPLETELY SEPARATE, THAT'S OKAY AS WELL. BUT I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME FORM OF INTEGRATION WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE WANT THIS TO LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE. PARKS ARE BECOMING MORE COMMONPLACE. TO BE EMBEDDED IN WITH LIBRARIES. IT'S IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE HEAVILY LOOKING AT. HOW DO WE HAVE OUTDOOR SPACE AND INDOOR SPACE WITH OUR LIBRARY? HOW DO WE GET FAMILIES IN? HOW DO WE ATTRACT PEOPLE TO COME TO OUR, YOU KNOW, SPACE? CEDAR PARK HAS DONE IT. ROUND ROCK HAS DONE IT. JUST FOR LOCAL EXAMPLES. THE CITY OF TEMPLE IS GOING TO DO IT. THEY HAVE DESIGNS BEING SUBMITTED AND SO THAT ONE IS PREFERENCE ON. CAN I INTERRUPT JUST THAT ONE THING? I DO THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE ONE JUST FOR TOWN AND CIVIC CENTER. IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION OKAY. AND YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE ONE YOU PROPOSE FOR CIVIC PARKS AND CONSERVATION. I JUST FEEL THAT THE CIVIC PARKS AND CONSERVATION COULD PERHAPS BE IN A LOT OF AREAS OF THE CITY, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE. WE ALREADY HAVE A CIVIC CENTER, SWIMMING POOL, BALL FIELD. SO WE'RE THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO SEPARATE OUT CIVIC FROM THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. NO, NOT NECESSARILY, BUT I'M THINKING CIVIC CENTER I THINK OF AND AGAIN WE THINK OF PLACE TYPES AS HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE IT. SO I THINK OF OKAY, IF I'M STANDING THERE AND I'M LOOKING AROUND AND GOT MY EARS OPEN, THE WIND IS BLOWING THROUGH MY HAIR, YOU KNOW, HOW DO I EXPERIENCE IT? AND RIGHT NOW, IF I GO TO THE CITY HALL, I SEE THE PD OVER HERE, I SEE THE LIBRARY HERE. THIS IS THE CENTER OF OUR CIVIC LIFE. WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE PARKS. WE DO HAVE LITTLE PARKING RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK THE PARKS AND CONSERVATION BY ITSELF IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND MAYBE IN OTHER AREAS, MAYBE THAT COULD STILL BE CONSIDERED CIVIC. BUT WE HAVE A CIVIC CENTER. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE CATEGORY FOR THAT. THAT'S JUST MY SO THE COMMENTS COMMENTS I GOT. I THINK PUTTING THESE 12 CATEGORIES, MAYBE ADDING IN THE CIVIC CENTER, I SORT OF LIKE THE DETAIL BECAUSE. IT MIGHT HEAD OFF SOMEBODY TRYING TO INCREASE DENSITY IF THEY ACTUALLY SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO I MEAN, REALLY YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BE COLORING A MAP UP, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE A RAINBOW OR SOMETHING. IT'S GOING TO BE SPLOTCHES AND IT'S GOING TO BE SAYING WHAT WE WANT TO GO ON THERE. BUT LIKE THIS, MISSING THE MISSING ONE THAT HE POINTED OUT THAT YOU CAN GO FROM A ONE ACRE TO A THREE ACRE WITHOUT A BUFFER. I SORT OF LIKE THAT BECAUSE IF I WAS BUYING PROPERTY, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, I CAN DO ALL OF THIS RIGHT HERE. BUT I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD PROBABLY BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD DOCUMENT. IT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED. IT'S OBVIOUSLY MISSING. COULD ADD A CATEGORY

[02:15:03]

I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I HAVE ANOTHER PLACE TYPE I WOULD RECOMMEND, WHICH WOULD BE A LEGACY COMMERCIAL TRANSITION. SO WE ALREADY HAVE A WE HAVE COMMERCIAL, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S ALSO NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. OKAY. THE LEGACY COMMERCIAL TRANSITION WOULD BE USED FOR THINGS LIKE THE THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND RESTAURANT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON ON LOHMAN. AND WHEN THAT CAME TO US, MY BIG CONCERN ON THAT WAS THIS RIGHT BACKED UP TO RESIDENTIAL STREET. THE BACKSIDE IS RESIDENTIAL STREET, THE FRONT SIDE IS ISLAMIC COURT. AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT KIND OF BARRIERS OR BUFFERS CAN WE PUT IN BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL STREET AND THAT DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS LEGACY COMMERCIAL TRANSITION. YOU CAN SPECIFY IN THESE PLACE TYPES, YOU CAN SPECIFY IN ADVANCE WHAT THE DESIRED. FEATURES ARE THAT SHOULD GO WITH IT, LIKE WHAT THE BUFFER SHOULD BE. SHOULD THERE BE FENCES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND THIS LEGACY. AND THE REASON I CALL IT LEGACY IS BECAUSE THESE ARE FOR STRIPS OF LAND THAT ARE SO SMALL THAT YOU COULDN'T JUST SAY, HEY, YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A 30 FOOT BUFFER.

THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THAT. SO THIS WOULD BE A SPECIAL ONE FOR THOSE PIECES OF LAND THAT ALREADY HAVE THINGS PRESCRIBED IN THERE FOR FOR SPECIAL LANDSCAPING WALLS. WHAT ARE WE DECIDING TO DO? AND SO THAT'S DECIDED UP FRONT. IT'S NOT 100% BINDING. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET A ZONING APPLICATION, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE HOW DOES IT MATCH TO THE FLU. WHAT IS THE CATEGORY, THE PLACE TYPE FOR THIS LAND PRESCRIBED. AND WE'RE GOING TO ASK EXTRA QUESTIONS IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO GO OUTSIDE OF THAT. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF PLACE TYPES. IT CAN ALSO BE USED FOR TREE PROTECTION. IN ADDITION TO OUR TREE ORDINANCE, WE CAN SPECIFY IN OUR PLACE TYPES THAT WE WANT A CERTAIN. FOR EXAMPLE, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OF CANOPY PRESERVATION, SO THAT WITHIN THIS AREA OF TOWN WE WANT ANY DEVELOPMENT TO PRESERVE 60% OF EXISTING CANOPY. ALL THAT CAN BE BAKED INTO THESE PLACE TYPES.

I THINK THAT THIS TOPIC AND GOING FORWARD WITH IT, IS ACTUALLY A PERFECT USE FOR THE DISCUSSION BOARD, BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY NOW HAS THEIR CREDENTIALS TO LOG INTO THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND SO WE REALLY HAVE A BASIS THAT WE CAN, THAT WE CAN USE AS A STARTING POINT, AND WE CAN ADD MORE AND AND GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND CONTINUE AS, AS IDEAS DEVELOP AS, YOU KNOW, AS WE THINK OF THEM AND PUT THEM ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND, AND YOU CAN ACCESS IT TOO, CAN'T YOU? SO. ARE WE READY MAYBE TO LEAVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AND GO TO THE NEXT ONE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE CAN USE THE DISCUSSION BOARD FOR, FOR AS LONG AS IF WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING, DISCUSS POSSIBLE ACTION, MAYBE.

I THINK I THINK THAT IS THE PLAN. OKAY. YES, IF I MAY. AND. THAT WAS A GOOD POINT. THE MISSING CATEGORY. RIGHT. SO ONE OF MY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS ON THIS WE HAVE 1234567 DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES. IS THAT WHERE WE WANT TO GO. DO WE WANT TO TRY TO SCALE IT BACK? FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM I THINK SEVEN GEEZ, THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE IT. MY FIRST IMPRESSION IS THAT IT'S EXCESSIVE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU'RE DEALING WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT THREE, FOUR, FIVE ACRE LOTS HERE. WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, .12 ACRES HERE. SO, SO IF WE COULD TAKE THE SEVEN CATEGORIES THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET AND FIND A WAY TO MUSH THESE TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT'S APPROPRIATE, IS THAT IS THAT WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO WITH

[02:20:01]

WE CAN GET THAT DONE. SO SO WHEN YOU MERGE THEM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU RESPECT THE DENSITIES THAT MR. ROBERTS LAID OUT BECAUSE THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH WITH WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS RECENTLY ALSO APPROVED OR RECOMMENDED. AND IT MAY BE THAT IT'S IT'S UNDER ONE, BECAUSE WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY WHAT EQUATES TO LIKE LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT. IT'S ALL THE SAME DENSITIES. AND SO IT MAY BE IT FALLS UNDER ONE CATEGORY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THEN IT'S, IT'S THERE'S SUBSECTIONS OF THAT OR SOME, SOME WAY TO MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE WHERE WE'RE NOT OVERCOMPLICATING THIS. IS THERE ALSO GOING TO BE AND I BELIEVE JEAN BROUGHT THIS UP ABOUT ADUS AND STUFF AT THE LAST MEETING. AND THERE'S DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPES OUT THERE NOW IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS, YOU KNOW, ON SITE STICK BUILT, AND THEN THERE'S MODULARS AND THEN MOBILE HOMES AND OUR THE TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL OTHER THAN JUST THE DENSITY PER ACRE. ALSO GOING TO BE IN THIS VISION, THIS BLOOM VISION TO AN EXTENT. SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE CATEGORIES WITHIN YOUR PACKET IT SAYS APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT TYPES. CURRENTLY OUR CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ADUS. AND I THINK IT'S A VERY SENSITIVE SUBJECT. AND UNTIL WE'RE READY TO POKE THAT BEAR AND OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS, IT MAY NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT ADUS THAT THAT'S A CITYWIDE CONVERSATION THAT I THINK NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT. WHEN YOU DRAFT THESE, CAN YOU ALSO ADD IN PROPOSED PROTECTIONS THAT WOULD GO WITH SOME OF THESE? YES. OKAY. SO I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER NOTE ABOUT PROTECTION. SO LIKE THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION PLACE TYPE THAT'S RECOMMENDED HERE. AND IT IT WOULD ALMOST ALWAYS GO NEXT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE ON THE MAP AND ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION YOU WOULD HAVE PROTECTIONS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY WOULDN'T PROTECT WHAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION. THEY WOULD WELL COULD. BUT IT THE IDEA IS IT WOULD PROTECT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TO KEEP THEM FROM HAVING ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM AN AREA NEXT TO IT WHICH MIGHT HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT. AND THE MISSING CATEGORY YOU SPOKE ABOUT, I THINK THAT GETS BETTER ADDRESSED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONE WITH SPECIFIC CALL OUTS FOR IF YOU ARE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL, WE NEED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND MITIGATION EFFORTS. IT COULD, BUT WHEN A PROPERTY LIKE THAT ONE ON LOWMAN NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION, NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ON THE MAP, BECAUSE IT'S LOWMAN ALL ALONG, THERE IS PRETTY MUCH ALREADY THOUGHT IT WAS COMMERCIAL. WELL, IT WOULD BE ITS PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL THAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS. AND I HAVE ONE MORE. OKAY. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SCENIC CORRIDOR PLACE TYPE THAT COULD BE USED, LIKE ALONG LOWMAN SECTIONS OF LOWMAN WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE PROTECTIONS ON CLEARING OF TREES, OF MAYBE SETBACKS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THAT ALLOW COMMERCIAL THERE. SO THAT SCENIC BEAUTY OF THE TOWN IS PRESERVED. AND THERE MAY BE OTHER PLACES WHERE WE COULD USE THAT AROUND TOWN. I THINK WE USED TO HAVE ONE. YEAH. THE THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT RESTRICTION CAME FROM THE SCENIC CORRIDOR ARGUMENT. PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO BUILD THREE STORY HOUSES. SO THE THIRD FLOOR, THEY WOULD HAVE THE GREAT LAKE VIEW, BUT IT TURNED OUT THEY WERE KNOCKING OUT EVERYBODY BEHIND THEM FROM SEEING THE LIGHT. SO THAT'S WHEN THEY CAME DOWN. AND THEY SAID THAT THE PEAK OF THE ROOF, FROM WHAT THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE PROPERTY OR WHATEVER, HOWEVER IT'S WORDED, LED TO THE NOTCH INTO THE HILLSIDES. AND THEN IT'S NO MORE THAN A THREE STORY, BUT

[02:25:01]

[IV.2. Discussion regarding the proposed outline for the updated Comprehensive Plan.]

WHAT WAS THE CONSENSUS OVERALL DOCUMENT? OKAY. I DIDN'T RECALL THAT ONE. IT WAS IT WAS ASKED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IF THEY COULD ALSO DO THAT. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO CONSENSUS. OKAY. GREAT. THANKS. AND IF I MAY, ON THIS SUBCOMMITTEE THING, I PERSONALLY ASKED STAFF TO ALLOW US TO COME TO THE TABLE WITH BETTER DRAFTS THAN WHAT HALF IS PROVIDED THEY STILL FULLY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH SUBCOMMITTEE IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT. I WANTED A CHANCE TO BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE THAT WAS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT I THINK WE ALL THINK. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MARK UP HALFS. RIGHT. AND THAT WAS THE LAST AGENDA ITEM AND THE SAME THING ON THE AGENDA. I REMEMBER THAT IT WAS THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING IN WHICH YOU HAD ASKED THEM TO LET YOU COME BACK AND PRESENT SOME MORE PRODUCT, AND THEY AGREED TO TABLE IT. AND BUT YEAH, THANKS FOR CLARIFYING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OPEN THE DISCUSSION. SO DOES

[02:30:08]

OKAY. YES. I CAN MAKE SURE THAT'S IN YOUR INBOX. ARE YOU ASKING COPY OF THE DRAFT OF WHAT? JIM? WELL, IF WE'RE MODIFYING SOMETHING, I'D SORT OF LIKE TO SEE THE ORIGINAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE CHANGING. YEAH. MAKES SENSE. I WAS JUST WONDERING, WANT TO CLARIFY THAT YOU WANT THE DRAFT WE'RE WORKING ON, NOT THE CURRENT ONE THAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED. WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ONE. WELL, LET ME HAVE THE CURRENT ONE AND THE DRAFT SO I CAN SEE. OR IS THE DRAFT MARKED UP WITH THAT? IF I OPEN IT UP IN WORD I CAN SEE EDITS ON IT. NO. SO WE'RE REORGANIZING IT. AND SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE APPLES TO APPLES. WELL THEN BOTH OKAY. THEY'RE DIGITAL. JUST A COUPLE OF EXTRA ON THE WEBSITE. IT'S ON THE WEBSITE. YEAH. OH OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT I'LL LOOK FOR IT ON THE WEBSITE THEN. AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT LINKS ARE SENT AS WELL. I'M NOT USED TO STUFF BEING ON THE WEBSITE. WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT LUXURY. THE DRAFT IS ON THE WEBSITE TOO, ISN'T IT? THE DRAFT IS ON THE WEBSITE. THE ORIGINAL IS ON THE WEBSITE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL LOOK FOR PDFS. AND THEN THE I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THE CONTENT IS CHANGING. I THINK WE'RE PARSING BACK KIND OF THE FLUFF THAT WAS INCLUDED AND REORGANIZING. SO IT WON'T BE APPLES TO APPLES, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY APPLES TO ORANGES. I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, AND THIS IS A LITTLE SELFISH, BUT IF HE CAN SEND US A LINK BECAUSE OUR TIME IS LIMITED IN ME HAVING TO JUMP ON THE WEBSITE AND LOOK AND EXPERIMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THE ONLY ONE, BUT I. SO WHY COULDN'T WE DO THIS? WHY CAN'T YOU PUT THE LINK IN THE CHAT BOARD? YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN THEN EVERYBODY'S GOT THAT WOULD BE VERY EASY AND QUICK. YEAH, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, IF I MAY. WE HAVE SOME FILES TO SEND OUT AFTER THIS FROM EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT. AND SO I WOULD PREFER TO SEND AN EMAIL THAT HAS EVERYTHING INCLUDED IN THAT. IF WE CHOOSE TO PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, WE CAN JUST I HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF STUFF I GOT TO SEND. OKAY. SO AS LONG AS WE GET IT. DOESN'T MATTER. AND THEN AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE BOARD MEANS. THE THE I GUESS YOU HAVE TO LOG INTO THE COMPUTER AND GET INTO WHEN YOU GET ON THE WEBSITE, THERE'S AND YOU'RE AT THE HOME. THERE IS ACTUALLY LIKE PICTURES LIKE AND IT'LL SAY DISCUSSION BOARD AND IT'LL SAY AGENDAS. AND IT SAYS WATCH MEETINGS. AND YOU, YOU JUST LOGGED IN, YOU JUST YOU JUST HIT THE DISCUSSION BOARD.

AND THEN WITH YOUR NEW CREDENTIALS, YOU'LL HAVE TO LOG IN, OKAY. WITH THESE, WITH YOUR NEW CREDENTIALS, WITH YOUR CREDENTIALS. AND THEN AFTER THAT YOU JUST YOU CAN POST AND DO AND THE AND THE DISCUSSION BOARD. YEAH I MIGHT GO THERE NEXT WEEK SO HE CAN SHOW ME HOW TO. YEAH WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT. ANYBODY WHO NEEDS ANY HELP WITH IT WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT OKAY. AND SIT DOWN AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT JUST WHAT CLARIFYING COMMENT ANY CITIZEN, AND THEREFORE ANY OF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CONTENT ON ALL OF THE DISCUSSION BOARDS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LOGGED IN TO READ THE DISCUSSION BOARD. YOU ONLY HAVE TO BE LOGGED IN IN ORDER TO MAKE COMMENTS OR OKAY. AND SO IT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE IF THERE'S THINGS THAT WE WANT FOR EXAMPLE COUNCIL TO SEE, COUNCIL CAN READ OUR DISCUSSION BOARD AND WE READ WE READ COUNCIL DISCUSSION BOARD. SO FOR EXAMPLE LIKE ON REVIEW COMMITTEE IT'S BEEN REALLY HELPFUL. WE'VE THEIR BOARD AND THEY READ OURS. SO IT IT CUTS DOWN ON EMAILING. AND EVERYBODY THEN HAS ACCESS TO EVERYTHING. AND YOU GOT PAPER TRAIL. YES. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE DISCUSSION BOARD. KEEP THAT. KEEP THAT IN MIND. OH WELL THE STAFF ABLE TO WRITE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. YES, YES, YES THE. FREESE AND NICHOLS REPORT THAT WAS ON JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE BOARD. OKAY. AND ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT OR ARE WE READY TO ADJOURN? I JUST HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS OUTLINE, I LIKE IT I THINK THE TERMINOLOGY, I LIKE THE TERMINOLOGY USED. AND I THINK THE OUTLINE PROGRESSES WELL, IT FLOWS WELL. AND I ESPECIALLY LIKE YOU PUSHING THINGS BACK TO THE APPENDIX. SO IF WE IF WE CAN MAKE IT SO THAT PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY READ THE PLAN AND NOT GET BOGGED DOWN IN THE WEEDS BY USING THE APPENDIXES, THAT'D BE GREAT. AND SO IF THERE'S CONSENSUS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH. I'LL ONLY SAY THAT PART THREE IS UP TO THE PARKS AND REC BOARD. AND

[02:35:02]