Apr 15, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:09]

EVERYONE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR COMING. I'M CALLING THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. IT'S 4:02 P.M. AND WE HAVE PRESENT WITH US TODAY AND CLEATOR. JEAN HARRIS, OUR VICE CHAIR. MYSELF, LINDA. ERIC NELSON, JEFF MILLER, AND DAVE STEWART. WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THIS. EXCUSE ME, THIS HEARING THAT'S GOT A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST. AND WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S WILLINGNESS TO COME AND LISTEN TO ALL OF THE FACTS THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED TODAY. SO THE FIRST THING I'LL DO IS ASK FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS.

AND WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, AND I'LL TAKE THEM IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER. CONSTANCE. LINDA, JUST A QUESTION. ARE THOSE PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR AN AGENDA TOPIC ITEM OR FOR NO AGENDA? I SUSPECT FOR AN AGENDA TOPIC FOR THE AGENDA. THEN WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT BEFORE YOU CALL ON THEM. OKAY, SO WE'LL HAVE OUR ROUTINE REPORTS FROM

[III.1. Routine Reports from City staff.]

THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BEEN MEETING AND MAKING PROGRESS IN THAT FRONT. WE HAVE ROUGHLY STARTED THE DIGITAL MAPPING PROCESS FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. AND SO EVERYTHING IS COMING TOGETHER SLOWLY BUT SURELY. THE CODE REORGANIZATION EFFORT, I BELIEVE, IS KICKING OFF HERE TOWARDS THE END OF THE MONTH, AND THERE WILL BE UPDATES TO COME ON THAT FRONT AS WELL. GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE LET US KNOW. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NO NEW UPDATES ON ANYTHING. SO THANK YOU. AND OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, MR. PRINCE, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS. NO MICROPHONE. NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL FOR FOR THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. AND I SEE THAT OUR MAYOR SAM HAS JOINED US. DID YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS? OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. HE'S SIGNING CHECKS. SO YOU KNOW THE CITY. WELL, I HOPE HE GIVES HALF AN EAR TO THE

[V.1. 25-2905-PDD-REZ: Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Recommendation on the rezoning of 19708 Boggy Ford Road, ABS189 SUR 98 CAMPBELL M F ACR 7.055 (AKA LOT 32 RAN CHOL CIELO) from TR-1 to a Planned Development District Rezoning pursuant to Section 10 Chapter 14 of the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances.]

[00:05:03]

SUSPENDED 22 FOR VICTORIA. I DON'T THINK IT'S ON. FOR BREAKING THINGS. IT DOES SEEM TO BE FOR IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A. I BET YOU CAN HEAR ME ANYWAY. WELL, WE NEED THE RECORDING TO HEAR YOU TOO. I THINK. THREE MINUTES. WE WILL. YES. THAT'S ALL. THIS IS NOT JUST A CLEVER WAY OF JUST CUTTING IT. THERE WE GO. BATTERIES AND TURNED THE RIGHT WAY. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

OKAY. IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S GREEN. SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TILT TILT IT UP. THANK YOU. OKAY. HOW'S THAT? IS THAT GOOD? OKAY. CONSTANCE MENDEZ, 2010 FOR VICTORIA CHASE. SO WE'RE IN SEVEN PORTICOS, PRETTY MUCH A BUDDING, YOU KNOW, THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR LISTENING AND FOR ALLOWING THIS OPPORTUNITY. I HAVE TO ALSO SAY I'M NOT AGAINST THE HOTEL. I THINK WE ESTABLISHED THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AGAINST A HOTEL, BUT LIKE THE OLD REAL ESTATE MANTRA IS LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. I AM, YOU KNOW, REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE, THE LOCATION AND HOW IT'S GOING TO DIRECTLY IMPACT, YOU KNOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THERE. SO I'D LIKE, I'M ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY TO SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT. AND I KNOW MR. DENDEKKER IS STILL WORKING ON THAT. IF I'M CORRECT. I DO APPRECIATE THE CONCESSIONS HE'S BEGINNING TO MAKE WITH LOWERING THE HEIGHT VARIANCE, THE REQUEST FOR THAT, AND ALSO REDUCING THE NUMBER OF ROOMS THAT HE'S ASKING FOR. I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THANK HIM FOR THAT. AND I WISH THAT WE COULD REDUCE IT EVEN FURTHER. AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF ROOMS, I'M STILL NOT SURE HOW THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, BEEN SET OUT. SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING SOME ACTUAL ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW WHAT MY OPPOSITION IS TO IT, IN ADDITION TO THE LOCATION, I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT AND YOU'LL HAVE THAT RECORDED. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. JUST FYI, THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS IN THE PUBLISHED PACKET. SO IF YOU LOOK ON AND YOU LOOK UNDER AGENDA PACKET, THE ENTIRE TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED UP THERE. OKAY. AND IT'S LIKE 200 PAGES. SO IT'S VERY IN-DEPTH. OKAY, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. A BUNCH OF ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS IN THERE TOO. YEAH. OKAY. HAS ACTUALLY GOING TO KIND OF LOOK OKAY, OKAY. AND A PRESENTATION TODAY BY THE DEVELOPER. OKAY.

REALLY SPECIFIC RENDERINGS TOO. SO OKAY, DRAWING. SO WE CAN KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE MOST OPPORTUNE THING TO ME WOULD BE TO PUT IT BACK ON. 1431 AND, AND LOWMAN. BUT I REALIZED, YOU KNOW, IF I'M BEING SENSIBLE AND PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC ABOUT IT, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN KEEP ON WORKING TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, I APPRECIATE IT. I SENT YOU ALL A LITTLE ARTICLE FROM THE WHAT WAS IT, FRANKLIN, INDIANA. SO

[00:10:06]

MENDEZ, PLEASE? WELL, I HAD TO MODIFY WHAT I WAS GOING TO TELL YOU ALL BECAUSE OF THE PLANS THAT CAME OUT. AND I THINK IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THAT HE MODIFIED HIS PLANS BECAUSE WHEN MR. PRINCE ASKED HIM, CAN WE LOWER IT? AND HE SAID, NO, I WILL NOT ALLOW IT, THIS AND THAT AND THE OTHER. WELL, THANKFULLY, THINGS ARE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM LINE OF EVERYTHING IS, IS, AS THE SAYING GOES, THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT. I USED TO TELL THE MEDICAL STUDENTS AND THE RESIDENTS WHEN I WAS TEACHING, YOU EITHER KNOW OR YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. YOU GOT TO QUESTION YOURSELF. DO I KNOW WHAT I NEED TO KNOW TO MAKE A DECISION? AND TRUST ME, WHEN I'M GOING TO SURGERY, I BETTER KNOW AND PLAN, RIGHT? SO THE POINT IS, IS THAT I HOPE YOU ALL CONTINUE IN THIS DIRECTION, BECAUSE I HAVE TO TELL YOU ALL THE LAST TIME I WAS VERY UNIMPRESSED AT THE DISCUSSION NOT TO TRY TO PICK YOU, PICK ON YOU, MR. NELSON, SINCE WE LIVED IN MIDLAND, THIS BUILDING WOULD LOOK GOOD IN NO TREES. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. WE'RE HERE IN A MUCH MORE VEGETATED AREA, AND THERE IS SUCH A THING AS NO TREES, BY THE WAY. YOU KNOW THAT. SO KEEP GOING IN THIS DIRECTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THIS BUILDING, EVEN THOUGH THEY LOWERED IT AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE WHOLE SLOPE. BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. AND YOU KNOW, WE'LL SEE FROM THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. PAUL ROBERTS. THANK YOU, MRS. AARON. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS. I'LL BE PRETTY QUICK HERE. FIRST COMMENT IS IT'S IT'S A BIT UNORTHODOX TO DO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS POINT IN THE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MEETING, TYPICALLY YOU HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION AND THEN THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. THAT WAY, JUST LIKE YOU GUYS CAN HEAR EVERYTHING, YOU CAN THEN MAKE A MORE INFORMED DECISION. EVERYBODY COMING IN HERE WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS TONIGHT ARE BASING THEM ON THE PACKET ALONE. NOT ANYTHING THAT MAY HAVE CHANGED OR ANYTHING THAT MAY COME UP OR, OR COME TO LIGHT IN A STAFF PRESENTATION OR AN APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.

SO IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD REQUEST YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER WAITING UNTIL AFTER THE STAFF AND APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS A PD, NOT A STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE. THAT MEANS NO HOTEL IS REQUIRED TO GO HERE IF THIS IS APPROVED. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, RIGHT? IT COULD BE ANY OF THE USES ALLOWED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT APPROVES THE PD. THERE'S A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS FOR UNLIMITED WATER USAGE UP TO THE POINT WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS FOR, IT'S LIMITED BY THAT AND THAT ALONE. AND THAT'S WHY IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DISCUSS WITH STAFF THE VIABILITY, THE LEGALITY OF REQUIRING A DETAILED PLAN, A DETAILED PLAN, AND TO REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAS PHASING IN IT WITH THE PHASING. IT'S THEN LIMITED TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD BECOME NULL AND VOID. IF THEY HAVEN'T BROKE GROUND FOR SOME REASON, THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW THOSE THINGS ARE DONE AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE OR NOT. I SAW JORDAN SHAKING HER HEAD, SO I'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE GET HER INSIGHT ON THAT, WHICH I WOULD CERTAINLY DEFER TO, AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO PUT THAT BACK ON.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU FOR INVESTING YOUR TIME IN THIS, GUYS. WELL, WE

[00:15:02]

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST. MADAM CHAIR, THE STAFF HAS BEEN TRYING TO JUMP IN WITH SOMETHING FOR A WHILE. I WAS GOING TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT EVERYBODY WAS SAYING. WE AS STAFF YOUR COUNCIL LIAISON, WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT AND HELP. IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN REGULATE CERTAIN THINGS, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE

[00:20:03]

AND SO JUST AS A, A FORETHOUGHT AND ALSO THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE DONE IN ONE PHASE. IT INDICATES IN THE PACKET IT'S GOING TO BE ONE PHASE. AND SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE MULTI-PHASE. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THE LONGEVITY LONGEVITY THAT A. YEAH. SO NEXT I WOULD LIKE TO I STILL WANT TO MAKE A. MR. STEWART, WOULD YOU. PROCEDURES THAT THE MEETING IS FOLLOWING.

OKAY. COULD YOU COULD YOU SAVE THAT TO THE TILL WE HAVE OUR DISCUSSION. OUR COMMISSION DISCUSSION. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROCEDURES. I THINK MR. ROBERTS IS RIGHT THAT THE CITIZEN COMMENTS OUGHT TO COME AT THE END. AND BASED UPON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF TALKING TO THE COUNCIL, I MAY GO IN WITH TEN COMMENTS AND SCRATCH FOUR OF THEM OFF AND THEN WRITE IN A NEW ONE. SO ANYBODY WHO HAS GIVEN THEIR CITIZEN COMMENTS BEFORE THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION, I THINK AT THE END OF THE.

PRESENTATION INTO THE PRESENTATION AND THE BOARD DISCUSSION, THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE GIVEN ANOTHER CHANCE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED UPON SOMETHING THEY HEARD IN THE MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. STEWART. NEXT, WE'LL HAVE MIKE SCHOFIELD AND SONNY SCHOFIELD OR WHICH. WELL, OKAY, JUST MAYBE. MY NAME, AS YOU SAID, IS MIKE SCHOFIELD. I LIVE AT 3408 CONGRESS AVENUE. I WANTED TO PIGGYBACK A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS WERE. THIS IS A PDA. SO THIS IS THIS IS ALMOST LIKE SPOT ZONING. THIS IS NOT LIKE C TWO IS YOUR YOUR LARGEST COMMERCIAL. BUT THIS IS A VERY CUSTOM ZONING, NOT EVEN ZONING ACTIVITY. SO ONCE THAT'S PASSED AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE ACROSS THE STREET IN, I FORGET THE NAME OF IT. NO, ON THE OTHER SIDE, I HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN HERE. BUT THE, THE WEDDING FACILITY THAT. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NATURE'S POINT. THANK YOU. AND THEY ALREADY HAD TO COME BACK AND GET FURTHER CHANGES TO BE DONE. IN MY OPINION, AFTER READING ALL OF THIS, THIS IS NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BEING COMPLETELY READY TO GO. THERE'S FOR INSTANCE, JUST SOME SOME SMALL THINGS SUCH AS TREE MITIGATION FOR ONE THING. WELL, NUMBER ONE, THEY'RE AT 56%. IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND THEN THEIR TREE MITIGATION IS VERY, VERY BROAD.

FOR INSTANCE, SAVING CLUSTERS OF TREES ACTUALLY COUNTS TOWARD THEIR TREE MITIGATION. SO THEY'RE DOUBLE DIPPING RIGHT THERE. THE I DON'T THINK. AND THEN THEY HAVE A 10,000 CAP, 10,000 PER ACRE CAP ON, ON MITIGATION. SO THAT'S A VERY SMALL NUMBER BASED ON THE SIZE OF THIS FACILITY. THE PARKING IS, IS AT BARE BARE MINIMUM STANDARDS. IF YOU LOOK AT A 6000 SQUARE FOOT CONFERENCE ROOM AND THEY HAVE, I THINK 116 SPACES THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, ALLOWING FOR THAT AND GETTING TO THE END OF MY TIME. BUT THERE'S ALL THESE PEOPLE COMING TO A RESORT AND A SPA. ARE THEY GOING TO BE WANTING TO GO TO THE LAKE? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE LAKE ACCESS THAT'S PRIVATE TO P O MEMBERS. SO IF THERE'S A BUNCH OF TRAILER ACTIVITY GOING TO GO ON, DO WE HAVE AN APPROVAL FROM ESD ONE FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE THAT THERE'S YES, THERE'S 24 FOOT LANES AND THEY HAVE THE HEIGHT FOR THE LADDERS, BUT DO THEY HAVE A HAMMERHEAD OR A TURNAROUND APPROVED? I DON'T SEE THAT THE WAY THE PLANS LOOK, THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION FOR STREET FRONT. THERE'S THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE THAT GIVES THE THE DEVELOPER A LOT OF DISCRETION WITHOUT COUNCIL

[00:25:01]

HERE TO SUPPORT THE HOTEL PROJECT, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'LL HELP BOTH THOSE THAT UNDERSTAND ITS BENEFITS AND THOSE THAT STILL DON'T SEE IT, OR MAYBE HAVE A FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. I UNDERSTAND IT'S HARD TO SEE THE FINISHED PRODUCT BY DRIVING PAST A UNDEVELOPED LAND, BUT THAT'S TRUE FOR EVERY PROJECT BEFORE IT BREAKS GROUND. IMAGINATION CAN BE HARDER TO SUMMON THAN CRITICISM. I'M HOPING THAT TODAY WE CAN START TO PAINT A TRUE PICTURE OF WHAT THIS PROJECT IS ACCORDING TO THE DATA, AND COMPARE IT IN OUR MINDS TO OTHER HOTELS OF THE SIZE. WE CAN MAYBE STOP SAYING THAT IT'S A TOWERING COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT ACCURATE. LET'S MAYBE LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC AND REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, HOTELS DON'T CREATE THE KIND OF TRAFFIC THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE FEAR. HAS ANYBODY EVER BEEN TO A SMALL HOTEL AND HAD A CRAZY TRAFFIC INFLOW AND OUTFLOW? IT'S COVERED ON ALL FOUR SIDES BY OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE THE CLOSEST COMMERCIAL SPACE TO ANY HOMES.

SO THE CRITICISMS MAY NOT BE EQUAL TO THE IMPACT. AND THE PRAISE MAYBE HASN'T BEEN HEARD BY SOME HERE. BUT I'VE I'VE HEARD IT HUNDREDS OF BUSINESS OWNERS AND RESIDENTS THAT ARE EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BRING OUR COMMUNITY. A RESORT HOTEL ATTRACTS FAMILIES VISITING THE LAKE, WEDDING PARTIES, PROFESSIONALS ATTENDING EVENTS. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF OVERNIGHT STARES LAGO VISTA REALLY WANTS. HOTELS ARE QUIET BY NATURE. GUESTS SLEEP THERE. THE SURROUNDING TERRAIN PROVIDES MORE BUFFER THAN MOST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WOULD EVER OFFER. NOT SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT, DELAYING IT, TABLING IT HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES. EVERY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT GETS BLOCKED INSTALLED IS REVENUE THAT DOESN'T MATERIALIZE FOR TAXPAYERS, BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE ORGANIZATION STRUGGLING TO MAKE IT WORK HERE. THE SCRUTINY HAS NOT BEEN PROPORTIONAL TO THE IMPACT RETIREES ON FIXED INCOMES NEEDING A GROWING TAX BASE TO KEEP THEIR COSTS FROM CLIMBING. RIGHT NOW, ALMOST ALL THE FULL TAX BURDEN IS ON RESIDENTIAL HOMES. LOCAL BUSINESSES NEED VISITOR TRAFFIC TO SURVIVE. YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAMS, COMMUNITY EVENTS AND THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT RUN THEM NEED THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

VISITORS SERVING DEVELOPMENT CREATES. SO STANDING IN THE WAY OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DEFINED IN OUR CITY PLANS AND OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOESN'T PROTECT THIS COMMUNITY. IT REALLY HOLDS IT BACK. SUPPORT THIS PROJECT, I ASK. THE COMMITTEE SERVES ITS PURPOSE TODAY AND I ENCOURAGE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 430, AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SULLIVAN, TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY AMOUNT OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD PEOPLE'S COMMENT, I WOULD HOPE THAT AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION, THAT SOME THINGS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS OR ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED WHILE YOU GO THROUGH THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT.

YES, MADAM CHAIRMAN, I DEFINITELY INTEND TO DO THAT. OKAY. CAN WE SEE THAT? DO WE NEED TO ZOOM IN? IS IT GOING TO SHOW UP ON THAT SCREEN BACK THERE? NOT THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE. IT'S ON THE ONE ON THE SIDE. OKAY, I CLOSED IT. DOES IT NEED YOUR FACE TO. SORRY.

HERE. HANG ON. OKAY. PERFECT. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, CHAIRWOMAN AND THE COUNCIL OR COMMISSION.

[00:30:11]

AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S VERY CLEAR. I DO HAVE MORE COMMENTS TO MAKE ABOUT THE TREES AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THIS. AND IF I WANT TO ADVANCE. THERE WE GO.

OKAY. YEAH, IT'LL TAKE A TAKE JUST A MINUTE TO UPDATE ON THE ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT. I WOULD ASK A QUESTION THAT JUST CAME UP WHILE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PD, D AND HOW YOU DECIDED TO DO PD WITH RATHER THAN A C2 STRAIGHT C2 WHEN YOU MADE YOUR PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL, WHEN NOT YOU, BUT WHEN THE DEVELOPER MADE THE PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, IT WAS SPECIFIED THAT THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE ASKING FOR PD D ZONING FOR THIS FOR THIS HOTEL. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INTERACTION OR ANY ENGAGEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER IN THE TWO YEARS SINCE THAT TIME OF THE ANNEXATION? THAT'S THAT SAID, WE DON'T WANT A PD, D OR WE DON'T WANT THE ZONING OR HAS THERE BEEN ANY BACK AND FORTH ON THAT? HAS THERE BEEN ANY? SO WHEN I GOT INVOLVED, I SUGGESTED THAT PATH STRAIGHT ZONING TO MR. CURRY. AND THEN I HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH JORDAN. AFTER HAVING THE CONVERSATION WITH HER, IT SOUNDED LIKE SHE WOULD PREFER WE NOT GO THE STRAIGHT ZONING PATH, AND SO WE JUST DECIDED TO REVERT BACK TO THE PD. WE WERE ALREADY THERE. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT. WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO NOTICE AGAIN IF WE WANTED TO GO STRAIGHT C2 ZONING, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO RE NOTICE AND IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN 60 DAYS BEFORE WE'D BE ABLE TO EVEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET BACK ON PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA. SO WE JUST THOUGHT IT WAS HER PREFERENCE. IT DOESN'T BOTHER US A BIT, SO WE'LL JUST STICK WITH IT WITH THE PD. D DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NOT QUITE, BECAUSE MY QUESTION REALLY WAS TWO YEARS AGO WHEN YOU CAME, WHEN THE DEVELOPER CAME AND SAID, WE'D LIKE TO BE ANNEXED. AT THAT TIME, THE DEVELOPER SHOWED ON THE SCREEN THAT WHAT THEY WANTED TO ANNEX FOR, THEY WANTED TO ANNEX FOR A HOTEL. AND AT THAT TIME ON THE SCREEN, THEY SAID, WE WILL BE COMING BACK FOR A PD REZONING.

SO MY QUESTION IS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY BACK AND FORTH OR ENGAGEMENT OR INTERACTION FROM THAT TIME, FROM THE LAST TWO YEARS, SAYING THAT ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AT ALL HAVE DO NOT WANT A PD, D OR HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCOURAGEMENT FROM DOING A PD? SO TO BE CLEAR, I WAS ACTUALLY ON COUNCIL DURING THAT TIME, WASN'T INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT AT ALL OTHER THAN MAKING, YOU KNOW, JUDGMENTS AS THEY CAME FORWARD. I ONLY BECAME INVOLVED ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAVE TRANSPIRED BETWEEN TWO YEARS AGO TO ABOUT A MONTH AGO. I CAN CERTAINLY ASK RUBEN IF HE WANTS TO COMMENT ON THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE ANNEXED THIS PROPERTY IN JUNE 2024, AND SINCE THEN ROY ZUMBA WAS THERE. WE HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THAT. AND AFTER THAT, HE LEFT. AND THE WHOLE GAP TO ONE AND A HALF, ONE AND A HALF YEAR GAP OF THEIR OF RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. NO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR. WE DON'T WE

[00:35:02]

FROM 2024 TO 2025, THERE IS A HUGE GAP IN THE RESOURCES. SO NO COMMUNICATION OR NO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY THAT I HAVE RECEIVED. OKAY. I WAS JUST WONDERING THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT PRETTY MUCH YOU IT WAS PRETTY GIVING NOTICE IN JUNE OF 2024 WHEN YOU DID THE ANNEXATION THAT YOU WOULD BE COMING AND ASKING FOR PD REZONING. SO I JUST WONDERED IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY. ANY ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? NO.

NO DISAGREEMENT. OKAY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PD, OTHER THAN THE CONVERSATION I JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU THAT I HAD WITH MR. STROHMEYER ABOUT POTENTIALLY DOING STRAIGHT C2. AND AFTER THE CONVERSATION WITH HER, IT BECAME APPARENT IT WASN'T THE RIGHT WAY TO GO AND WE JUST STUCK WITH PD D OKAY, OKAY, THANKS. SO, OKAY, PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. THANK YOU MA'AM. SO I WANTED TO GO THROUGH ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE, AND I WILL TRY MY HARDEST NOT TO JUST READ THIS TO YOU GUYS, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE'S BEEN INVESTMENT IN DOLLARS TO PURCHASE THE LAND TO ALSO GET AN AGREEMENT WITH IHG AND WITH ENBRIDGE, WHO ARE GOING TO FRANCHISE AND OPERATE THE HOTELS. WE SHARED THE IHG FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH MR. OMAR, AND I BELIEVE SHE SHARED IT WITH THE REST OF Y'ALL. THERE HAVE SECURED FINANCING SO THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. I THINK THE ONE THING AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS DONE, AND TO BE CLEAR, IT WAS COMPLETED. IT WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF COMMENTS WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS, AND I BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AT THIS POINT. THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS TO BE HAD. SO I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REGARDS TO THAT. I THINK THE ONE THING I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE WAS COMMUNICATED VERY CLEARLY IS THAT DURING THIS LAST PERIOD OF TIME, CURRY HAS MADE SURE THAT IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. AND WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED IN JUNE OF 2024, WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO GOT UP AND SPOKE ABOUT AGAINST THE PROJECT. THE DEVELOPER WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HE WAS GOING TO BUILD A HOTEL ON THIS PROPERTY. WHEN HE ASKED FOR ANNEXATION, AND THE ANNEXATION VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. SO AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, AS FAR AS THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE SEE TO THE CITY MOVING FORWARD IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY SIZABLE FINANCIAL INVESTMENT IN CREATING A HOTEL PROPERTY WITH PERMANENT JOBS, 45 TO 55 PERMANENT JOBS, 370,000 APPROXIMATE ADDITIONS TO HOT TAXES, PROPERTY TAX BASE, COMPLYING WITH ORDINANCES.

BOTTOM LINE BRINGING A VERY BEAUTIFUL NEW ASSET TO THE CITY THAT WILL NOT ONLY HELP THE CITIZENS AND PEOPLE WHO VISIT HERE, BUT ALSO THE CITY ITSELF. WITH REVENUE GENERATION. THIS NEXT SLIDE. AND I'M GOING TO TRY AND GO THROUGH THESE FAIRLY QUICKLY. YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME. I WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE I WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP. THIS SLIDE JUST REALLY TALKS ABOUT THE JOBS THAT WE WOULD BRING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, NOT ONLY THOSE JOBS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEN THE PERMANENT JOBS AFTERWARDS. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT DOWN HERE, KIND OF IN THE THE LOWER LEFT AND THE LIGHT GREEN, THE PAYROLL THAT WE WOULD BE BRINGING TO THE CITY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A MILLION AND A HALF TO ALMOST $3 MILLION, DEPENDING ON THE TOTAL NUMBER AND THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE BEING PAID. SO IT IS A SIZABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT ARE BEING THAT IS BEING BROUGHT TO. AND WE WILL EMPHASIZE HIRING LOCAL TALENT FOR THE HOTEL SO THAT IT WILL BENEFIT PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE IN LAGO VISTA. AND THIS SLIDE IS JUST SAYING WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD. AND IT IS IN THE PDB ORDINANCE. AGAIN, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEVIATE FROM THIS WITHOUT COMING BACK BEFORE YOU OR AND THE COUNCIL. AND THAT IDEA IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING 90 ROOMS, 78 IN THE HIGH RISE HOTEL, THE THREE FOUR STORY HOTEL, 12 MORE IN THE CASITAS. WE'LL ALSO HAVE A FINE DINING RESTAURANT, A SPA AND AN EVENT CENTER. AND WE'LL HAVE. I'VE GOT A RENDERING. THIS NEXT PAGE SHOWS IT. I THINK I'VE GOT A BETTER RENDERING THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE. BUT WHAT I WANT TO INDICATE WHEN WE LOWERED THE.

THE BUILDING HEIGHT OF THE MAIN BUILDING, IT WAS BECAUSE THE CONFERENCE CENTER WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO BE UP TOP. WE TOOK THAT OFF AND WE'VE MOVED IT DOWN BELOW. AND YOU CAN SEE I'M GOING TO MOVE OVER HERE JUST REAL QUICK. THE WHITE SQUIGGLE UP THERE IS THE MAIN HOTEL BUILDING. THIS DOWN HERE IS THE CONFERENCE CENTER AND THEN THE CASITAS ARE DOWN BELOW.

SO WE MANAGED TO LOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. AND I'M GOING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THIS.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I TOLD MR. CURRY. THAT IS GOING TO BE THE THING THAT'S GOING TO STOP YOU IF YOU DO NOT FIX THE HEIGHT PROBLEM. AND SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE LAST MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF SINCE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM. I TOLD THEM FLAT OUT, YOU WILL

[00:40:01]

AND I GOT TO MAKE SURE THIS SWITCH IS BEFORE I GO TO IT. SO ON THIS SLIDE, REALLY JUST A COUPLE THINGS TO POINT OUT. NUMBER ONE, THE OVERALL BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TAX DOLLAR WISE, IS GOING TO BE NORTH OF HALF $1 MILLION ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND THEN FOR THE ENTIRE SET OF ENTITIES THAT GENERATE PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER $600,000 AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BEING A PRIME BENEFICIARY WITH OVER $300,000 ON AN ANNUAL BASIS GOING TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A RESULT OF PROPERTY TAXES FROM THIS PROPERTY. OKAY. TRAFFIC. AS I MENTIONED, THE TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. IT'S GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE ROUNDS. I THINK IT WAS A TOTAL OF THREE ROUNDS WITH THREES AND NICKELS.

AS FAR AS THEIR COMMENTS TO US AND OUR COMMENTS BACK, IT IS COMPLETE. THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE INDEPENDENT ENGINEER THAT DID THE STUDY, AND THEIR TAKE ON IT WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RELATIVELY MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH NOT ONLY BOGGY FORD, BUT THE TWO INTERSECTIONS THAT THEY STUDIED BOGGY AND LOWMAN AND LOWMAN AND DAWN, 976 TRIPS DAILY. I THINK THE KEYS ARE WE'RE NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT ARE LIKELY TO ARISE IN THIS AREA. YOU'VE GOT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS FIREFLY, LUNA RIDGE, RIVIERA, SHORELINE RANCH, WIND RANCH, IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENS THERE, AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO INFILL DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN DOWN BOGGY FORD AND HIGHLAND LAKES AND OLD LAGO. THOSE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FAR LARGER IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH WITH BOGGY AND THE INTERSECTION THAN WE WILL. I THINK THE OTHER THING TO NOTE, AND IT'S IN THE BULLET POINTS THERE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM, HOTELS IN GENERAL DRIVE LESS TRAFFIC THAN OTHER TYPES OF COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL, AND IT'S GENERALLY A MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE DAY. AND SO A HOTEL DEVELOPMENT IS PROBABLY DESIRED MORE SO THAN GENERAL RETAIL IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. AND THIS JUST TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT I TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. WE'RE 7%, AND I BELIEVE REALLY ALL THEY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT, IF I MOVE TO, I APOLOGIZE. I'M GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY TO THE NEXT SLIDE. YOU LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, THEY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT SHORELINE RANCH, NATURE'S POINT AND US, AND THAT'S HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THE 7%. THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AGAIN, INFILL DEVELOPMENT DOWN BOGGY AND HIGHLAND. THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RIVIERA. THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FIREFLY, LUNA RIDGE AND POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, WIND RANCH IN THE FUTURE. SO BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT WE ARE A SMALL PART OF THE ISSUE THERE. BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT WE WANT TO MAKE, AND I'LL MAKE IT ON THIS NEXT SLIDE, IS WE ARE IN SERVICE AREA ONE FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES. THAT MEANS WE GET TO PAY AT THE HIGHER LEVEL INSTEAD OF THE LOWER LEVEL. AND IT'S ESTIMATED THAT WE WILL PAY NORTH OF HALF $1 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES TO HELP AMELIORATE THE ISSUES WITH TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO PAYING OUR FAIR SHARE A PROPORTIONATE SHARE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH TRAFFIC ON BOGGY AND AT THE INTERSECTION. AND I WANT TO MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT AND I'LL COME YOUR DIRECTION, MR. STEWART, BECAUSE I HAVE A COMMENT I THINK THAT RELATES TO YOU. I THOUGHT I HEARD FROM YOU AT THE MEETING IN JANUARY THAT INSTEAD OF PIECEMEAL DEVELOPMENT BY DEVELOPERS TO IMPROVE ROADS OR INTERSECTIONS, THAT YOUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT EACH DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTES TO THE PROBLEM AND THE CITY COORDINATES HAVE AN OVERARCHING COORDINATION OF THE FIXES TO EITHER ROADWAYS INTERSECTIONS.

THAT'S OUR PREFERENCE TO TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE'D LIKE TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE IS, MAKE SURE THAT WE DEDICATE THOSE FUNDS TO THE CITY, AND THEN HAVE THE CITY BE THE ONE, BECAUSE THE CITY ALREADY HAS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, AND IT ALREADY HAS THE ITEMS THAT WILL BRING BACK INTO COMPLIANCE THE INTERSECTIONS. IT'S GOT THE PROJECTS ALREADY DETAILED OUT. WE WANT TO LET THEM BE THE

[00:45:04]

[00:50:03]

SORRY FOR THE ANALOGY, BUT FROM THE TOP TO BOTTOM, IT IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST AREA DEDICATED IN THE CITY TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT EVEN IS AS BIG, IF NOT BIGGER THAN THE SWATH THAT'S UP AT 1431. SO BOTTOM LINE IS THE AREA WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THIS, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR. AND THAT WAS DESIGNATED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND I JUST LET'S BE VERY CLEAR FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS, THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLANNING EFFORT TAKES SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 18 AND 24 MONTHS, AND IT IS ONLY ACCOMPLISHED AFTER COUNCIL STAFF, CITIZENS, LET'S BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. CITIZENS HAVE AN ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN PUTTING THAT TOGETHER WITH OUR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT. AND I WAS HERE IN 2016 WHEN THAT EFFORT WENT.

WHAT HAPPENED? AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE MEETINGS. I ATTENDED THEM ALL AT THE PAC, OVER AT THE HIGH SCHOOL, OVER AT K OAKS. THEY EVEN HAD A SESSION FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. BUT BOTTOM LINE, CITIZENS HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND ALL I WOULD SAY IS WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO PUT ON THIS PROPERTY IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY HAS TOLD DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE PUT ON THIS, THIS PROPERTY. AND IF YOU ZOOM IN ON THE NEXT SLIDE, IT'S A ZOOMED IN PORTION OF IT. YOU CAN SEE SEVEN PORTICOS IS THE AREA OVER HERE WHERE THE LOTS ARE DESIGNATED ALL THE LAND UP TO SEVEN PORTICOS AND OVER TO THE INTERSECTION AT LOWMAN AND ABHOGI IS DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL. SO BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG. AND WE'RE NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE'RE SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. WHAT SHOULD BE DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY? I WILL SAY A HUGE PORTION OF THAT LAND IS IN THE COUNTY, BUT THAT'S PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT WE DO IN A COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLANNING EFFORT. AND WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WE DESIGNATE PARCELS BOTH INSIDE THE CITY AND OUTSIDE THE CITY. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE DEVELOPED THERE. THAT WAY, IF EVENTUALLY THEY DO COME INTO THE CITY, WE'VE ALREADY DESIGNATED WHAT IT IS THAT WE WANT TO SEE THERE AND IN OUR CASE, OUR THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT MR. DENDUKURI AND HIS FIRM BOUGHT YEARS AGO WITH THE INTENT TO PUT A HOTEL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DESIGNATED FOR BY THE CITIZENS THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLANNING EFFORT. THIS IS JUST A BRIEF SLIDE TO SAY. I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE OUTLANDISH IN WHERE WE'RE PUTTING THE HOTEL. YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE, THE MIDDLE RED.

I APOLOGIZE, THIS MAP IS HORRIBLE. IT'S DIFFICULT TO READ, BUT THE RED IN THE MIDDLE IS THE LOCATION THAT WE WANT TO PLACE THE HOTEL UP ABOVE THE OTHER RED PARCEL. IT JUST SHOWS WHERE THE 1431 CORRIDOR IS. WHAT I TRIED TO PUT IN BLUE IS THE TYPES OF AMENITIES OR ATTRACTIONS THAT WOULD BRING PEOPLE TO LAGO VISTA, THAT THOSE FOLKS MIGHT NEED TO STAY AT A HOTEL. AND IF YOU CAN, YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WE'RE RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE ALL THESE AMENITIES ARE. 1431 ISN'T NEAR AS CONVENIENT AS THIS LOCATION IS TO ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT VENUES. ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS GOING TO BE THE NATURE'S POINT WEDDING VENUE.

YES, THEY ARE BUILDING THEIR OWN HOTEL, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH HOTEL SPACE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE BRINGING OUT HERE. THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION WOULD BE VERY CONVENIENT FOR THOSE WHO ARE GOING OVER TO THE NATURE'S POINT FACILITY. THIS NEXT SLIDE.

AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE. THE MAPS ARE NOT THE GREATEST. THE SUGGESTION HERE WAS THAT 1431 IS A MUCH BETTER LOCATION FOR A HOTEL. AND I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO CAPTURE WITH THIS, THESE TWO MAPS AND THE POINTS THAT I HAVE HERE IS THAT, OKAY, LET'S SAY YOU GO TO 1431. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IT? I HEARD SOMEONE, I BELIEVE IT WAS A CITIZEN PIPED UP AT THE COUNCIL MEETING AND INDICATED, OH, OVER TOWARDS TESORO WOULD BE GREAT. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS YOU'VE GOT SUNSET PARK, CEDAR BREAK FACILITY, YOU'VE GOT TESSERA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 1431, AND YOU'VE GOT US FISH AND WILDLIFE TO THE NORTH. THERE IS NO LAND OVER THERE THAT YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE TO BUILD A HOTEL. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND SO IF YOU COME BACK INTO LAGO PROPER ALONG 1431, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROBLEM. A LOT OF THE LOTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLATTED AND A LOT OF IT IS RESIDENTIAL. BUT THEN THERE IS COMMERCIAL ALL ALONG. 1431 THE PROBLEM THAT YOU RUN INTO IS THAT MUCH OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE HAS ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN FOR, TAKEN, AND THERE ARE NO SEVEN ACRE PARCELS THAT ARE FOR SALE IN THIS AREA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORNER OF LOMAN AND 1431, WHERE THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME TO, THERE ARE LOTS THERE. THEY ARE FOR SALE. BUT THE PROBLEM IS YOU WOULD HAVE TO ACCUMULATE AT LEAST THREE OF THEM IN ORDER TO GET A SEVEN ACRE PARCEL. AND

[00:55:04]

[01:00:03]

BOTH THE LOWE'S MARKET AND THE BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS DIRECTLY ABUTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND THEY WERE APPROVED. THE PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT IS HAS A 48FT ABOVE THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE LOT. AND IT WAS APPROVED AND ONE I DIDN'T PUT ON HERE THAT I'D FORGOTTEN ABOUT. BUT I CONFIRMED THE HIGHLAND LAKES CLUBHOUSE PDB THAT IS STILL ACTIVE. IT IS STILL AN ENTITLEMENT THAT IS OUT THERE, AND THAT IS A THREE STORY, 60 ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL THAT IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND IT WAS APPROVED. NOW, THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO IN A LAND FAR, FAR AWAY. BUT BOTTOM LINE IS IT IS OUT THERE AND IT WAS APPROVED. OKAY, ON THIS NEXT SLIDE, I REALLY WANT TO KIND OF ZERO IN ON OUR BUFFERING BETWEEN US AND RESIDENTIAL. I THINK JUSTIN PUT IT VERY CLEARLY, WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT I PUT UP THERE SHOWED IT VERY CLEARLY THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMERCIALLY RECOMMENDED AREA.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK, WE'RE THE THE LOT THAT IS OUTLINED IN RED. THERE IS A FULL COMMERCIAL LOT BETWEEN US AND THE SEVEN PORTICO'S DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A 400 FOOT LOT AND BUFFER PLUS 400 FOOT PLUS. WE ARE 800FT AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST HOUSE IN SEVEN PORTICOS. WE'RE 1100 FEET AWAY FROM MOST OF THE HOUSES IN SEVEN PORTICOS, AND WE'RE 1500 FEET AWAY FROM THE MENDEZ HOUSE.

SO THERE'S IF YOU TAKE A LOOK. APA HAS RECOMMENDATIONS. AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.

IF YOU HAVE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'D CALL US INTENSE, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE 25 TO 50 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN INTENSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL. AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY TIMES THAT. AND WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS, IS THAT WE'RE SURROUNDED BY OTHER COMMERCIALLY RECOMMENDED AREAS. AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC STREET THAT IS ON THE FOURTH SIDE. AND APA. ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THEY HAVE IS PUBLIC STREETS ARE AN ACCEPTABLE BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. SO BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE SURROUNDED BY APA, SUFFICIENT BUFFERING BETWEEN OUR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTIAL THAT IS NEAR US. AND I JUST WOULD FINISH BY SAYING THAT THE FIREFLY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROBABLY THE CLOSEST TO OUR PROPERTY LINE. I SENT THE EMAIL OVER TO JORDAN.

I BELIEVE SHE SHARED IT WITH YOU ALL. DIRK GAZDA REPORTED BACK THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO OUR DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE CHECKED THE MARKS THERE WITH

[01:05:06]

PERFECT. THERE WE GO. SO AGAIN HE TOOK IT UP TO 42 TO 44FT. AND HE IS THIS IS LOOKING OVER TOWARDS SEVEN PORTICOS. YOU CAN SEE IN THE CLOSE DISTANCE. THAT'S THE HOUSE ON THE THE LOT RIGHT NEXT TO US. BUT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AND HE, AS HE PANS, WE DON'T SEE THEM AND THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE US BECAUSE OF THE HILL AND THE TREES. THEY WILL BE VERY WELL GUARDED FROM OUR BUILDING. THAT'S THE NEW STORAGE FACILITY THAT WAS JUST PUT IN. YOU CAN SEE THE HIGH SCHOOL OVER THERE, BUT SEVEN PORTICOS, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE US. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU BET. OKAY. AND THEN OKAY. OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THE NEXT SLIDE, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SIDEWALKS THAT CAME UP AT BOTH MEETINGS. THE GENTLEMAN HERE BROUGHT IT UP AS WELL. I NUMBER ONE, LAGO VISTA DOES NOT HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR SIDEWALKS. SO WE UNDERSTAND IT'S DESIRABLE. WE UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S DESIRABLE. IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B MORE EASILY AND SAFELY WITHIN THE CITY. GET THAT? THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALKS DOWN ALONG BOGGY. AND THE REASON WHY IS MULTIFOLD. NUMBER ONE, WE'RE GOING TO BE LIKELY DEDICATING THE DECELERATION LANE. DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT SIDEWALK IN THAT AREA. NUMBER TWO, ON BOTH SIDES OF US. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COUNTY. IT'S NOT IN THE CITY. CITY'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY ABILITY TO DICTATE THAT THEY PUT SIDEWALKS THERE. AND SO AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TIMELINE THEY'RE ON, WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO COORDINATE WITH THEM. YOU GO A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN TOWARDS THE GAS STATION AND SMILING DONUTS. YOU'VE GOT UDO SCAPES. WELL, THEY BUILT A BUILDING RIGHT UP TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE. THEY'RE STILL IN THE COUNTY. THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY TO HAVE SIDEWALKS. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO SIDEWALKS. I THINK WHAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS. IF WE CAN WORK WITH OUR FELLOW LOT MATES TO EITHER SIDE OF US TO COORDINATE SIDEWALKS ALONG BOGGY FORD RIGHT THERE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE JUST DON'T WANT TO BE REQUIRED TO. AND WE END UP BEING THE ONLY SIDEWALK, AND IT'S THE SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE. THAT'S KIND OF WAS OUR THOUGHT PROCESS. HERE'S ANOTHER KIND OF LOOK AT THE CONCEPTUAL PART OF THE BUILDING. I THINK THE IDEA THAT WE WANTED TO KIND OF ASSUAGE HERE WAS THAT I THINK PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STAIRS AND SO FORTH. THIS SLIDE IS JUST SIMPLY AMBRIDGE IS GOING TO MANAGE THE FACILITY FROM SOUP TO NUTS, THE CASITAS, THE RESTAURANT, THE HOTEL, THE SPA, EVERYTHING. NONE OF IT IS GOING TO BE STARS, NONE OF IT. IT'S GOING TO BE MANAGED THROUGH VRBO OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING THAT WHY WOULD YOU PUT PARKING UP TOP? WE TALKED WITH OUR CIVIL ENGINEER. THE ISSUE REALLY COMES DOWN TO TOPOGRAPHY.

IF WE WERE TO PUT IT ANYWHERE ELSE, WE WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO BUILD A MULTI-LEVEL STRUCTURE AND IT WOULD BECOME COST PROHIBITIVE. AND SO THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE PUT THE PARKING WHERE WE DID. AND I'VE GOT ANOTHER SLIDE HERE IN A LITTLE BIT THAT HANG ON. THERE

[01:10:05]

THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WE DON'T JUST LIKE. WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT'S DEVELOPED SIDE BY SIDE BY BY US. WE CAN'T GET CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS BEHIND US. AND SO WE'RE COMPLETELY DEPENDENT UPON THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS TO THE NORTH OF US TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE WOULD EVER HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ANOTHER ACCESS POINT FROM LOWMAN FORD, NOT JUST FROM BOGGY, BUT WHAT WE DID IS, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE, WE SAID VERY CLEARLY THAT WE ARE OPEN TO A SECOND ENTRANCE TO OUR PARKING LOT. AND I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY HAVING THE PARKING LOT BACK THERE IS NOT A BAD IDEA, BECAUSE A SECOND ENTRANCE COULD ENTER TO THE PARKING LOT THERE. IF DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED ON THIS PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH OF US, AND THEY WERE AMENABLE TO HAVING A CUT THROUGH WHERE FOLKS WHO WERE COMING TO THE HOTEL WANTED TO COME INTO THE BACKSIDE OF THE HOTEL. BUT BUT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF A JOINT ENTRANCE, AGAIN, THE PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE OF US THERE IN THE COUNTY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLANNING WITH TRAVIS COUNTY. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS.

THE GENTLEMAN TO THE LEFT OF US WITH THE HOUSE THERE. HE CAME BEFORE US SAYING HE WANTED WATER AND SEWER FROM US, BUT DIDN'T WANT TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY. AND THAT CONVERSATION DIDN'T GO VERY FAR. AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS HIS PLAN IS CAN CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITH TRAVIS COUNTY AND HIS GARAGE AND RESTAURANT, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS TIMELINE IS. TREES. I KNOW THIS IS POTENTIALLY A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. WE ARE OPEN TO YOUR FEEDBACK. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS VERY CLEAR. BUT WHAT I INDICATED IS IN OUR INITIAL. WITH THE EXHIBITS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WE WE HAD A TREE SURVEY DONE. WE'VE INDICATED WHICH TREES WOULD BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS LIMITED ABILITY FOR US TO PLANT NEW TREES ON OUR SITE. WE PROBABLY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPLACE ALL OF THE CALIPER FOR CALIPER INCH. SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE FEE IN LIEU OF. AND THE ONLY THING WE DID, WE DID ASK FOR IT. I'LL BE BRUTALLY HONEST. WE ASKED FOR A 10,000 PER ACRE, NOT FOR OUR LOT PER ACRE LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TREE MITIGATION FEE. AND THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD POINT TO IS, GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S QUITE LIKELY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING HALF $1 MILLION PLUS A YEAR INTO THE CITY, AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE A 1.5 MILLION PAYROLL PLUS THAT WOULD BENEFIT LOCAL RESIDENTS. WE THOUGHT IT WAS A REASONABLE THING TO ASK FOR. IF YOU ALL DETERMINE IT'S NOT REASONABLE, WE'RE LISTENING TO YOU, BUT WE AT LEAST THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH ASKING FOR. THE COORDINATION WITH. OH, I'M SORRY, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT TREES. SHOULD I ASK THEM NOW OR LATER? WHITE, WHY DON'T YOU WAIT AND WE'LL HAVE ALL THE DISCUSSION LATER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I THINK I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE SLIDES LEFT. THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT COORDINATION WITH THE ESD WHILE I WAS STILL MAYOR. MR. DENDUKURI HAD COME, GOTTEN ANNEXED, AND HE HAD CALLED ME MULTIPLE TIMES ASKING FOR HELP ON VARIOUS THINGS. AND I GENUINELY I JUST POINTED HIM IN THE DIRECTION OF THE RIGHT PERSON HE NEEDED TO TALK TO. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I INTRODUCED HIM TO CHIEF NORMAN AND HE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH CHIEF NORMAN, WITH GREG JOHNSTON, AND THEY VERY CAREFULLY LOOKED AT OUR SETUP, AND OUR CIVIL ENGINEERS MADE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE PUT TOGETHER WITH REGARD TO OUR. EXCUSE ME, ENTRANCE DRIVE AND THE ABILITY FOR THEIR EQUIPMENT TO GET TO VARIOUS BUILDINGS THAT WERE WITHIN THERE, THAT WE MET ALL OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS, THAT THERE WAS NO ISSUES. AND YOU CAN CONVERSE WITH MR. NORMAN YOURSELF IF YOU WANT TO, BUT BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THAT WE WE ASSUAGE ANY ISSUES THAT THEY HAD ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR ABILITY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY FOR ANY KIND OF EMERGENCY. AND I WAS RIGHT. I AM PRETTY MUCH DONE. SO JUST KIND OF FINAL THOUGHTS, I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT I THINK WE HAVE PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT VERY MUCH MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY ACTIVE, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT IS IN EFFECT AT THIS POINT, UNLIKE OTHERS, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE GENTLEMAN NEXT TO US WHO WANTED OUR WATER AND SEWER BUT DIDN'T WANT TO ANNEX

[01:15:01]

THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE START WITH OUR DISCUSSION, I WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE CITIZENS RAISED HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. AND THE ONE THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU TOUCHED ON WAS MR. SCHOFIELD ASKED IF THIS IF THE IF THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO LVP FACILITIES, AND I. I THINK THAT IT. NO, IT WON'T, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT. NO, IT WON'T, IT WILL NOT. WE'RE NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. IT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF. WE'RE NOT SEEKING ACCESS TO THE AMENITIES.

AND I THINK THAT IS THE. I THINK YOU COVERED ALL OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE CITIZENS INPUT. AND SO ONE LITTLE POINT. COME TO THE MIC. TALK. BUT YOU DID SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TALK. THE CHAIRPERSON RECOGNIZES YOU AND YOU MUST BE IN FRONT OF A MICROPHONE. WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE ME FOR ONE FOR ONE POINT? I WAS JUST BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL. THE THE STATEMENT YOU SAID ABOUT THE TREE MITIGATION WAS IN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. THE STATEMENT IN 2G SAYS PRESERVE TREE CLUSTERS MAY COUNT TOWARDS MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS RIGHT HERE. TREE MITIGATION FEES SHALL BE CAPPED AT 10,000 PER ACRE. SO IT DOES SAY THAT. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. NOW I WILL OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION TO COMMISSIONERS. AND DAVE, DID YOU WANT TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS NOW? WELL, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHERE DO THE EMPLOYEES PARK? WHERE THE EMPLOYEES PARK. IS WILL ONLINE. WILL ARE YOU THERE? WILL POURNELLE. HE'S OUR. OH, ACTUALLY, HE'S NOT THE. WELL, YEAH, HE DOES PARK PARKING. WILL. YEAH. HEY, GUYS. I'M HERE.

WILL PARNELL, ENGINEER OF RECORD. THE EMPLOYEES WILL PARK IN THE PARKING LOT BEHIND THE BUILDING WHERE THE PARKING IS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. SO. WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA. OKAY. JEFF, DID YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS? YES, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I ALSO HAVE SOME REMARKS. SHOULD I SAY THE REMARKS FOR LATER OR GO WITH THOSE AS WELL? IF THEY ALL IF THEY ALL FIT TOGETHER, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST MAKE IT ALL ONE PIECE. OKAY? IS THERE A WAY TO NOT HAVE TO HOLD THIS BUTTON THE WHOLE TIME? NO. MAYBE LET GO AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. YEAH.

OKAY. SEE IF I CAN DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. FIRST QUESTION, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL BY LOOKING AT THE TOPO MAP THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM FROM BOGGY, THE HOTEL WILL ON THE LEFT SIDE WILL BE ABOUT ON THE VERY HIGHEST POINT OF THE LOT. IS THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. I WANT TO ADD ON TO THE QUESTION ABOUT LAKE ACCESS. WILL THE GUESTS OF THIS

[01:20:06]

AND IF THEY ARE GUESTS OF LVP MEMBERS, THEY COULD GO TO THE PARKS AS GUESTS, BUT NO SPECIFIC ACCESS OTHERWISE. OKAY. LET'S SEE, MY THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT TREES. SO ON THE, THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, I SAW THAT THE LOWEST TREE ID, THEY ALL HAVE TREE IDS LISTED IN THE TABLE. LOWEST ONE IS 16. THE HIGHEST ONE IS 361. AND OF THOSE THERE WERE 74 THAT WERE PROTECTED TREES, 26 THAT ARE OR EXCUSE ME, 774 THAT ARE PROTECTED. TREES THAT WILL BE REMOVED, 26 ARE PROTECTED TREES THAT WILL BE RETAINED. SO THAT MAKES 100 TREES. BUT FROM THE TREE ID NUMBERING, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S AT LEAST 361 TREES TOTAL. IS THAT RIGHT? AND I'M GOING TO. WILL, CAN YOU CHIME IN? DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY NECESSARILY WENT IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER WITH THE THE TREE NUMBERING. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO SAY TO THAT. I'M GOING TO PULL OPEN THE TREE SURVEY RIGHT NOW SO YOU ALL CAN CONTINUE ON WHILE I SEARCH ON THAT. OKAY. WELL, MY, MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, RELATED IT WOULD BE HOW MANY TOTAL TREES, BOTH PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED, EXIST ON THE SITE. YOU KNOW, IF WE KNOW THAT, I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT. HOW MANY TOTAL TREES, BOTH PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED, WILL BE REMOVED? AND THEN OF ANY TREES THAT WERE NOT LISTED AS EITHER BEING PROTECTED AND RETAINED OR PROTECTED AND REMOVED, HOW MANY OF THOSE WILL BE ALSO REMOVED? SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A FULL PICTURE OF HOW THE CHANGES WILL BE ABOUT THE TREE COVER. YEAH. AND I'M GOING TO LEAN ON WILL TO ANSWER. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. I CAN CERTAINLY TRY TO DIG THAT UP BEFORE THE MEETING'S OVER, AND I'LL TRY TO CHIME IN WITH IT. OKAY, GREAT. ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE RELIEF ON THE TREE MITIGATION FEES. IS THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO REPLACE SOME OF THE TREES THAT YOU PLAN TO REMOVE? JUST THAT'S OUR FEELING. WELL, THE ASKING FOR THE RELIEF FOR A LOWER TREE MITIGATION FEE IS WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE BRINGING A LOT TO THE CITY. AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A REASONABLE ASK. WE DO FEEL LIKE WE WILL LIKELY HAVE TO PAY A FEE, BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PLANT THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT WE'RE THE SAME CALIPER INCHES THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT. OKAY, SO YOU THINK YOU WILL MAX OUT THE CAPABILITY OF REPLACING? PROBABLY SO. OKAY. YES, SIR. SORRY. CAN YOU COME TO THE MIC? THIS THIS PARTICULAR LAND IS ON. UNDERNEATH THE ROCK FORMATION IS GLEN ROSE. GLEN ROSE FORMATION IS PROHIBITS ANY KIND OF PLANTING, ANY TEXAS NATIVE PLANTS. SO MANY THINGS ARE HAPPENING IN THAT AREA. SO BASED ON THAT, I CANNOT GUARANTEE. BUT NO, THAT'S A REASON. WHAT ARE KEVIN IS SAYING IS WE WILL MITIGATE WITH THE IMPACT FEE WHEREVER IT'S POSSIBLE. WE WILL PLANT MORE TREES. OKAY. AND THAT'S REALLY INTERESTING. IS THAT TRUE? BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S ON KIND OF A DOME AT THE TOP OF THE HILL, OR WOULD THAT BE TRUE ANYWHERE? EVEN THE THE LAYERS UNDERNEATH THE LAND IS GLEN ROCK, GLEN ROCK FORMATION, LIMESTONE FORMATION, WHICH IS A VERY GRANULAR, THICK FORMATION. WE HAVE TO DRILL A LOT INTO, REALLY PLANT ANY MORE TREES INTO THAT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

IT'LL GROW GREAT CEDARS. AND THERE'S PLENTY UP THERE. BY THE WAY, I'LL JUST MENTION, I NOTICED THAT YOU'RE SAVING ONE LARGE CEDAR TREE THAT ACTUALLY IS NOT PROTECTED. SO I'LL GIVE YOU PROPS FOR THAT. MR. HUGHLEY, IF YOU JUST GIVE ME A COUPLE MINUTES, I'LL GET YOU. WE DON'T DO TREE TO TREE. WE DO CALIPER INCH, CALIPER INCH. AND SO I CAN GET YOU THAT NUMBER IF YOU JUST GIVE ME TWO, THREE MINUTES. OKAY, GREAT. I DO HAVE MORE COMMENTS OVERALL. SHOULD I GO FOR THOSE NOW OR YOU WANT TO HAVE OTHERS ASK MORE QUESTIONS? WELL LET'S GET THE QUESTIONS THEN. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COMMENT. OVERALL COMMENT OF OVERALL COMMENTS AND AND A FEW SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU ASK THOSE QUESTIONS NOW? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR HAVING A MUCH BETTER

[01:25:01]

AS FAR AS WHEN WE START, IT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDENT UPON GETTING THE PLANS AND THEN GETTING THEM APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY. SO THAT WILL DETERMINE A LITTLE BIT. BUT ARUN, DO YOU HAVE. YEAH, EXACTLY. THAT'S THE POINT. IT TAKES 18 TO 24 MONTHS FROM THE POINT WE GET ALL YOUR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS APPROVED FROM THAT POINT. IT TAKES 24 MONTHS. SO ZONING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEN CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES, WE WILL TRY TO DO AS FAST AS WE CAN. BUT AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON THE CITY. YEAH, I GET IT. AND YOU'VE GOT TOPOGRAPHY AND UNDOUBTEDLY THERE WILL BE WEATHER IMPACTS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD WERE RELATED TO SECTION SIX IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, JUST IN JORDAN. THIS MAY HAVE BEEN JUST ME MISINTERPRETING. THIS ISN'T STAYING ON IN THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION K OF OR RATHER SECTION SIX, SUBSECTION K, THE BUILDING ORIENTATION AND STREET VISIBILITY. YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT IT IS. THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO. AND THERE'S A LIST OF THINGS. ONE OF THEM WAS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ARTICULATION SOLELY DUE TO STREET VISIBILITY. I WOULD WANT ARTICULATION IF PORTIONS OF THIS HOTEL ARE. AND I REALIZE IT'S SET BACK FROM THE STREET AND IT'S ALSO COMING UPHILL AS YOU LOOK BACK FARTHER. BUT ANYTHING THAT'S VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, I WOULD WANT TO SEE NICE AS WELL AS LOADING AREAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. DEFINITELY OUT OF VIEW OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ENTIRELY. AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. THAT IS HOW IT IS PRESENTED. YOU CAN CHOOSE AS A CONDITION THAT THAT BE CHANGED, MODIFIED, STRIKED.

AND SO IT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. AND THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD WAS ON ITEM OH, THE RETAINING WALLS. YOU'VE GOT 20 FOOT RETAINING WALLS. I REALIZE THAT DOESN'T SCREEN 42 FOOT BUILDING.

VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE HEIGHT REDUCTION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S TAKING MORE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. THAT WAS MY BIG STICKING POINT. SOME OF YOUR RENDERINGS SHOW WHAT LOOKED LIKE TO BE CYPRESS TREES OUTSIDE OF THE RETAINING WALLS. I MEAN, RETAINING WALLS ARE ARE NICE, BUT UNLESS THEY'RE REALLY PRETTY ON THE OUTSIDE, THEY'RE JUST A BIG WALL AND THAT'S NOT NICE. SO ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO LANDSCAPING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THOSE RETAINING WALLS TO SORT OF CAMOUFLAGE IT EVEN MORE? AND AGAIN, IT TAKES TIME. FOR US, IT IS TOO EARLY TO REALLY TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YES, OUR IHG BRAND, EVEN THEM, THEY DON'T AGREE TO THAT KIND OF ABSURD LOOKING THING. SO WE HAVE OUR THEY HAVE A DESIGN GROUP. IHG HAS A DESIGN GROUP. THEY WILL NOT APPROVE ANYTHING WHICH IS REALLY BAD FOR THEIR BRAND. SO WE WILL BE TAKING ALL THE MEASURES. EVEN YOU MENTIONED ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSPORT. ALL THOSE THINGS WILL BE HIDDEN. IT WON'T BE A THING. IT WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE BOGIE FOR NOW. SO EVERYTHING WILL BE VISIBLE FROM EVEN FROM THE SIDE. IT IS FROM AN ESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE. EVERYTHING WILL BE PRISTINE. IT LOOKS IT SHOULD LOOK AS AN BRANDED HOTEL. IT IS A FOUR STAR HOTEL. IT IS NOT AN UNDERSTATED. THEM. YES, SIR. AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN STANDARDS WHEN WE ARE BUILDING THE HOTEL. SO EVERYTHING VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD MAKES A LOT OF DIFFERENCE FOR THEM.

THEY WILL NOT APPROVE. THEY WILL NOT APPROVE FOR THEM. FORGET ABOUT ME. UNDERSTAND? THEY WILL NOT APPROVE THAT. PERFECT. SO WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN LINE WITH

[01:30:04]

BUT JUST SOME HOUSEKEEPING THINGS, I GUESS, FOR THE. THE ORDINANCE, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 23, I HAVE A QUESTION THERE ON THAT LAGO VISTA RESORT HOTEL USE PARKING TABLE. NOW IT SAYS HOTEL MOTEL 90 ROOMS. IT DOESN'T SAY HOTEL 78 CASITAS 12. SO I'M JUST I'M CURIOUS, DOES THAT NUMBER REFLECT THOSE TWO NUMBERS JAMMED TOGETHER? OKAY. CAN CAN I ADD ON TO THAT, JEAN, BECAUSE I WAS TAKING NOTES ON THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. SO IN THE PACKET THERE ARE DIFFERENT PLACES SAY 90 VERSUS 78. THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANTED. MR. SULLIVAN, NUMEROUS TIMES YOU STATED 90, AS I HEARD, BUT THE THE UPDATED MAP THAT WE WERE GIVEN SAID 78 ROOMS. THE STAFF REPORT SAYS 78 ROOMS. THE ORDINANCE SAYS 78 ROOMS. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SAYS 90 ROOMS. SO MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 90 OR 78? THE TOTAL IS 90. THERE WILL BE 78 IN THE HOTEL BUILDING AND 12 IN THE CASITAS. YEAH. AND I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. YEAH. IT DOES. IT DOES SPELL THAT OUT. I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW. BUT I'M JUST SAYING ON THAT TABLE I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S 90 TOTAL ROOMS. IT'S REALLY SMALL. THE TABLE IN THE ORDINANCE HAS TO BE REPLACED. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO IT'S ITEM C IV. THERE IS A LIST FOR HOTEL MOTEL WITH THE LIST OF 90. AND THEN THE CASITAS ARE A SEPARATE LINE. I SEE THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT. I THINK IT BECAUSE IT WAS TAKEN FROM THE ENGINEERED PLANS. I THINK THERE WAS SOME. JORDAN. IT'S CORRECTED ON THE NEW B1.

OKAY, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT HAS TO BE ACCURATE. YES. SO THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND ALSO IF YOU GO TO PAGE 24, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS ON THERE. IT TALKS ABOUT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE DON'T HAVE ONE YET. SO WHY ARE WE REFERRING TO THAT IN AN ORDINANCE. WE'RE REFERRING TO SOMETHING THAT ISN'T IN EXISTENCE YET. IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE UNDER LANDSCAPING.

I'M SORRY. SUPERSEDE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT'S ACTUALLY IN TWO PLACES IN THE. IT IS. I'M JUST POINTING OUT THE ONE. IT'S KIND OF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 24 HAS UTC THE SAME AS THE UNIFIED BUILDING CODES. THEY'RE LIKE NATIONWIDE TO AN EXTENT. SO UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS JUST WHERE ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE SMUSHED INTO ONE THING. IT'S TERMINOLOGY FOR A STRUCTURE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IT'S OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, BUT IT'S JUST A UNIFIED STRUCTURE.

WHEREAS TODAY THEY'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE. IT'S IT MATTERS, BUT IT'S ALSO INTERCHANGEABLE IN A SENSE. I GET THAT, BUT I'M ASKING I'M QUESTIONING IT. IS IT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A

[01:35:08]

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE MOVING WITH THE CODE REORGANIZATION. THE INTENT IS TO OR WE'RE ASKING FOR AN APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH CONTAINS SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST YET. AND I AM A LITTLE LEERY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S OKAY. I WOULD DEFAULT TO LEGAL IF THERE IS ANY TECHNICAL AND LEGAL BASIS. THAT'S WHY WE NEED AN ATTORNEY HERE. SHE'S ON THE PHONE. OH, COOL. WELL, AWESOME.

QUESTION. YES. NO, I WAS ASKING I DON'T IF YOU WANT IT TO BE JUST IN LINE WITH HOW YOUR ORDINANCES ARE CURRENTLY DRAFTED, YOU COULD REFERENCE THAT PARTICULAR CHAPTER OF YOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT CALLING IT A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD RENDER THIS VOID OR VOIDABLE THIS ORDINANCE, BECAUSE I THINK THE INTENT WOULD BE KNOWN THAT IT MEANS WHAT YOU HAVE AS YOUR OVERALL CODE OF ORDINANCES GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT. COULD, COULD, WOULD YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA ON, PLEASE? YES. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. AND TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT, WHEN, WHEN AND IF WE SWITCH TO A UDC, THEN IT DOESN'T REFLECT THE LANGUAGE. AND SO SURE, I GET IT. I KNOW IT'S WE'RE TRYING TO JUGGLE ALL THE PLATES IN THE AIR. I GET IT, I'M PART OF THE PROCESS. I DON'T LIKE IT. I'M JUST. BUT I HAD TO ASK THE QUESTION. NO, WE APPRECIATE IT. I THINK MY LAST QUESTION IS OR COMMENT IS ON THAT SAME PAGE RIGHT ABOVE WHERE IT SAYS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT REFERS TO THE VISTA VERDE HOTEL PLAN DEVELOPMENT. WHAT'S THAT? WE HAD SIMILAR QUESTIONS. I'M NOT I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S INTENDING TO SAY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE VISTA VERDE IS WHAT THE HOTEL WILL BE CALLED. AND SO I THINK IT WAS A A MISNOMER IN THE TEXT, BUT WE'VE HAD THE SIMILAR WE'VE HAD THE SAME QUESTION. THAT'S ANOTHER ONE I WOULD LIKE TO IF I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING TO SAY, I'M AN. APPROVAL OF THIS, I WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO NOT HAVE THESE LITTLE THINGS KIND OF HANGING OUT THERE. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE. AND I JUST AND I JUST RECALL THE CITY ATTORNEY, I FORGET WHICH MEETING MAKING THE COMMENT THAT HE IS VERY HESITANT ABOUT DOING FLOOR AMENDMENTS, THAT SOMETIMES THEY'RE KIND OF SKETCHY. AND SO THIS NEEDS TO BE ALL IN LINE TO, I WANT TO APPROVE THIS. I'M WILLING TO VOTE FOR THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THESE THINGS ALL IRONED OUT. YES. SO I DON'T THESE CHANGES I DON'T THINK WOULD CAUSE NECESSARILY NECESSARILY HESITATION WITH THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. EITHER STRIKE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHANGE IT TO AS ADOPTED CODE AS ADOPTED, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. AND THEN THAT VERBIAGE ON THE VISTA VERDE, LET'S GET THAT CLEANED UP THAT THAT'S AN EASY CHANGE. I HAVE THREE NOTE TAKERS IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE TRACKING. SO THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION PERHAPS OUR ATTORNEY CAN ANSWER FOR US RIGHT NOW. YES, YOU COULD MAKE THOSE AMENDMENTS IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PASS THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS, AND THEN STATE THOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. AND THAT WOULD PARDON ME. AND THIS ISN'T A LARGE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS, BUT THAT, LIKE I SAID, I'M JUST AWARE OF I'M REMINDED OF WHAT WAS SAID BY. DURING THAT ONE MEETING. AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO SET US UP FOR FAILURE BY MAKING AMENDMENTS ON THE FLY. JUST A COMMENT. I WONDER, PROPOSING THEY'RE NOT. I WOULD I WOULD NOT CALL THOSE SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS. THOSE SEEM TO BE MORE FORM FORMATTING. SO I DON'T I DON'T FORESEE A PROBLEM WITH THEM. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY'LL HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY OVER WHAT THAT ORDINANCE IS APPROVED. YES OR NO. SO I THINK LIKE YOU SAID, JORDAN'S TAKING NOTES. AND IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANT TO PRESENT YOUR MOTION WITH THOSE CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, YOU CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. AGAIN, THE COMMISSION TONIGHT IS NOT APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING. THEY'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. SO ANY OF YOUR FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, IF IT GETS TOO CONFUSING FOR COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU INTENDED, THEN THAT'S A PROBLEM. BUT AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR ENOUGH THAT COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO, IN YOUR VIEW, UNDERSTAND THOSE AMENDMENTS, I, I PERSONALLY, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH WITH THAT IF I,

[01:40:01]

WE HAVE A SAY ON WHAT GOES TO COUNCIL. AND I WANTED TO BE A GOOD PRODUCT. SO IT HAS A BETTER CHANCE WITH YOU ALL. SO MY QUESTION MAYBE FOR THE ATTORNEY, I DON'T KNOW. SO IF IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH TC REGULATIONS, HOW DO WE GET THE BACKWASH WATER FROM THE SWIMMING POOL TO GO TO THE STORM POND? AND HOW WOULD WE GET THE TURN? LANE MOVED ON TO HOTEL PROPERTY AND NOT USE ANY R O W? WHERE DOES HOW DO YOU PUT THAT INTO THE RECOMMENDATION? YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME, SO I'LL RESPOND. MR. STEWART, I AGAIN, I'LL COME BACK TO. IF A FLOOR. IF A MOTION IS MADE TO APPROVE WITH CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, THE DECELERATION LANE IS ON THE THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY, NOT ON CITY OR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE IS. AS LONG AS THOSE THINGS ARE CLEAR TO STAFF AND CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY COUNCIL, I THINK Y'ALL ARE ON PRETTY SOLID GROUND. STAFF CAN MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO THE PACKET COMING IN TO COUNCIL AND WE CAN WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. AND IF I MAY, THE DECEL LANE OUR STANDARDS REQUIRE IT TO BE. THEY CAN'T PUT IT IN A RIGHT OF WAY. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A PRELIMINARY AND A FINAL PLAT SHOWING THE DEDICATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S. IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS WITH THAT. THE THE BACK WATER, THEY HAVE TO MEET TCU COMPLIANCE. THEY HAVE TO MEET LCRA. THERE IS NO. BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED THOSE STANDARDS IN OUR CODE. THEY CAN'T CIRCUMNAVIGATE IT. IT'S SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S IN THE PDB OR NOT. OKAY? THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO THE BACKWASH WATER. IF THEY PUT IT INTO A GRINDER PUMP AND SEND IT TO THE SEWER PLANT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF IT CAN BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE AND WE ELIMINATE THE BURDEN ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD POND STORAGE FOR THAT WATER, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO BUY CEDAR TREES TO IRRIGATE THAT WATER. IF WE CAN DISPOSE OF THAT WATER ON SITE, IT'S A PLUS FOR THE CITY, AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN TC THAT SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TO PUT SWIMMING POOL BACKWASH WATER INTO THAT STORAGE POND. HOWEVER, THERE MIGHT BE ONE THAT SAYS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS IN CONTACT WITH HUMAN BODIES, THAT IT CAN'T BE DONE. I HAVEN'T LOOKED THAT UP. I JUST SEE IT AS A POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY. IF WE COULD ELIMINATE A MAJOR PROBLEM THE CITY HAS, WHICH IS EFFLUENT DISPOSAL. SO I'M CALLING FOR, IF POSSIBLE. IF NOT, WELCOME TO THE SEWER PLANT. OKAY, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON THE CASITA HEIGHT. IT DOESN'T SAY ON THE TABLE. I HAVE NOT FOUND WHERE THE CASITA HEIGHT WILL BE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN R4. SO IN R4, IF IT'S IF IT'S THE HEIGHT IS ALLOWED FOR 35FT, IF THERE'S THREE OR MORE ATTACHED. BUT I THINK THAT THE WAY THIS IS DESCRIBED, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE TWO UNITS ATTACHED IN EACH CASITA, WHICH MEANS THAT THEN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 25FT. SO HOW HIGH ARE THE CASITAS. YES. YEAH. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE CASITAS. AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE ORDINANCES. IT IS 24FT. OKAY. AND I THINK THE WAY WE PHRASED IT IS THAT THE OTHER BUILDINGS, THE CONFERENCE CENTER AND CASITAS WILL NOT BE ANY TALLER THAN 32FT. AND THERE'S NO HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR EITHER ONE OF THOSE BASED ON WHERE THEY'LL BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S AT ITEM F, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 23. IT SAYS ALL OF THE STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO STORIES. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE WILL BE NO HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR THE CASITAS OR THE CONFERENCE CENTER. CORRECT. JUST ONLY FOR THE HOTEL. HOTEL BUILDING. OKAY.

YES, MA'AM. CAN I ASK A TAG ON QUESTION THERE REGARDING THE CASITAS? SO THE IT'S ON, IT'S ON A SLOPE. THEY'RE BUILT ON A SLOPE. SO ON ONE SIDE THE FOUNDATION WILL BE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER. THE DOWNHILL SIDE. DO YOU KNOW HOW HIGH THE FOUNDATION WILL BE OFF OF THE SURFACE? GROUND WILL. ARE YOU STILL THERE? AND DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH. I'M HERE AND I YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE A 6 FOOT OR 7 FOOT EXPOSED FOUNDATION ON THE ON THE LOW

[01:45:04]

GOOD. JORDAN GAVE ME SOME NUMBERS ABOUT A QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF THE TREES TO BE REMOVED AND KEPT. AND YOU GAVE ME THE THE CALIPER INCHES, 814IN TO BE REMOVED AND 333IN TO BE KEPT. BUT I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. IS THAT JUST THE PROTECTED TREES OR I WAS KIND OF WANTING TO KNOW WHAT'S THE OVERALL INVENTORY OF TREES? I'M TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR WHAT'S THE TOTAL IMPACT ABOUT THE CANOPY COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS ALL PROTECTED. SO OUR ORDINANCE ONLY REQUIRES THAT TREE SURVEYS, THEY SHOW PROTECTED TREES. AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT IN THOSE CALCULATIONS. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE WITH YOU AS WELL. WILL PARNELL HERE. I JUST WANT TO PIPE IN REAL QUICK. WE HAD 100 TREES ON SITE AND I THINK 24 BEING KEPT, 76 BEING REMOVED.

TREE 300 UNFORTUNATELY SHOWED UP IN BOTH PLACES TO BE KEPT AND BE REMOVED, BUT IT WILL BE REMOVED. THE REASON THE 24 INCH CEDAR SHOWS UP IS BECAUSE IT'S 24IN, AND THAT GETS TO BE A HERITAGE TREE IS THE REASON WHY WE SHOWED THAT IN OUR TABLE. OKAY, GREAT. I WAS ABLE TO WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME HAVE THAT PERMISSION TO DO SO. IT'S ACTUALLY VERY BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. I NOTICED THERE ARE QUITE A FEW TREES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, IN THE THREE, 4 TO 5 INCH AND THEY'RE NOT PROTECTED. AND THERE'S QUITE A FEW. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE TOTALITY OF, OF THE TREES TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF THE IMPACT. SO IF WE DO HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, I'D APPRECIATE GETTING IT ABOUT THE TOTALITY. AND I DID HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT ALL OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED EITHER IN THE PRESENTATION OR BY THE QUESTION THAT WERE ASKED BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS. SO. IF ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS HERE? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ACTUALLY, I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I DO HAVE A COMMENT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO SAY, I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY POSITIVES TO THIS, AND I DON'T ARGUE WITH MANY OF THE POSITIVES THAT THAT THIS HAS.

YOU KNOW, THE THING WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, WHAT WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT IS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ARE THE NEGATIVES, THE THINGS THAT HOLD US BACK, THAT GIVE US CAUSE TO WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR TO NOT APPROVE THIS? AND I HAVE FIVE AREAS THAT I HAVE CONCERNED WITH. AND REALLY, THEY ALL KIND OF COME BACK TO THE FIRST OF THEM. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THOSE ARE. THE FIRST ONE IS COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY. THE SECOND IS INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INAPPROPRIATENESS WITH THE LOCATION, AND THEN THE HEIGHT, MASSING AND SKYLINE IMPACT. AND THEN FINALLY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND TREE MITIGATION CONCERNS. BUT REALLY, THEY ALL KIND OF COME BACK TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER. YOU KNOW, I JUST THOUGHT BEFORE I JUMP INTO THESE, I WILL COME BACK AND I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. JORDAN, EARLIER YOU MENTIONED THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE ONLY FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. LET ME GO BACK TO MR. ROBERTS. YOU SEEM TO HANG ON THIS. WHY WOULD YOU AND YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT, WHY DO YOU SEEM SO. WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO EVEN THINK ABOUT. I MEAN, WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR US TO EVEN HAVE ANYTHING LIKE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? AND WHY? AND JORDAN IS CORRECT, WHAT MYSELF AND OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING KEVIN AND MR. PRINCE AND NORMA AND MR. SAM, WHO WERE HERE, AND ALL OF US, WE HAVE BEEN A PARTY TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN THIS CITY FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOT PRE ANNEXED, BUT ALREADY IN THE CITY LIMITS. WHAT HAPPENED IS I HEARD AND WHEN SHE SAID WHEN, WHEN JORDAN MENTIONED THAT AND CLARIFIED FOR THE RECORD, SHE'S RIGHT. AND BRAD POINTED THAT OUT AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. OR MAYBE IT WAS HERE JUST A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO. AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, HEY, I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL BEEN DOING IT IN THE PAST. I WASN'T HERE THEN, BUT I'M TELLING YOU NOW, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. IT'S ONLY FOR PRE-DEVELOPMENT. AND WHEN I GAVE MY PUBLIC COMMENTS A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO, I STILL HAD IN MY HEAD THE ORTHODOXY OF

[01:50:05]

[01:55:06]

AND AGAIN, WHEN I SAY QUARTER, I'M NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT BLOGGING. I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT ON LOWMAN BECAUSE BECAUSE THIS HOTEL IS ON THE TOP OF THE HILL, IT'S AFFECTING 360 DEGREES AROUND US. YOU KNOW, THE SITE AS IT COMES IN ON BOGGY FUNCTIONS AS A GATEWAY INTO A LARGEST RESIDENTIAL, ARGUABLY THE LARGEST RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE CITY.

AND THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THE SCALE AND THE VISUAL IMPACT MATTERS EVEN MORE THAN IT MIGHT ELSEWHERE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THIS AREA SHOULD ACTUALLY BE COURSE CORRECTED TO SOME TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION CATEGORY IN OUR NEW COMP PLAN.

I DO HOPE THAT WE CONSIDER THAT IN THAT PROCESS. SO I THINK THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS HIGH INTENSITY REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.

WELL, EVEN MORE SPECIFIC IS THE HEIGHT MASSING IN THE SKYLINE IMPACT. SO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND THE HILLTOP LOCATION CREATE A SKYLINE ALTERING MASS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THIS ON THE TOP OF A HILL THAT I CAN THINK OF. WE DO HAVE A FEW OTHER LARGE BUILDINGS AROUND, BUT THEY'RE NOT ON THE TOP OF A OF A OF A HILLTOP OR RIDGELINE WHERE THEY ALTER THE ACTUAL SKYLINE OF OUR CITY. AND THIS WILL DO. SO. OUR ORDINANCE EXPLICITLY REQUESTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AN 11 FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE. THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO BE 42FT TALL, AND THAT EXCEEDS THE 35 FOOT

[02:00:03]

IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY NICE ADDITION TO THIS DEAL. AND FOR WITH THE LINKEDIN DEAL, I JUST SEE THAT MY DAUGHTER GOT MARRIED IN DRIPPING SPRINGS. I HAVE ONE HOTEL, SO IT'S RIDICULOUS. BUT ANYWAY, TO ME IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT POSITIVE FOR THE CITY OF. DIVA.

I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, BUT I THINK THAT THE PRESENTATION TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE CITIZENS HAD. OKAY. CONNIE. YEAH, YEAH. MR. HUGHLEY SEES MY HEART. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION. IT REALLY, YOU KNOW, EXPRESSES WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. BUT ADDITIONALLY, I WAS GOING TO ANSWER MR. SULLIVAN TALKING INTO THE MICROPHONE WHEN YOU MENTIONED NO ONE APPEARED, NOBODY RAISED OBJECTIONS WHEN THIS LAND WAS ANNEXED. WELL, YOU KNOW, OUR SYSTEM OF NOTIFYING OUR RESIDENTS OR OUR CITIZENS IS PRETTY POOR UNLESS YOU ATTEND EVERY PNC, EVERY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON. SO YOU HAVE TO BE HERE IN ORDER TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS. AND WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE IN 2011. BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, THE PNC OR BEFORE THE CITY PLAN CHANGED THINGS. THE ZONING WAS CHANGED. SO WE HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY WHEN WE BOUGHT THAT HOUSE, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. I MEAN, IF WE KNEW, OKAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND BUYS A HOME WITH THAT BEING A BUDDING YOUR PROPERTY? SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU

[02:05:05]

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN THE PUBLIC AND LEGAL NOTICES. SO IF YOU KIND OF KEEP TRACK OF THAT, THAT'S THE WAY YOU CAN KEEP UP IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. THE WE ARE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH 15 DAYS IN ADVANCE ON THOSE. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMETHING YOU KNOW, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HAS THIS NEW NEWSLETTER. MAYBE THAT WILL BE A WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE INFORMED, I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY. ANYWAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY. JUST WHAT I WOULD DO.

WE NEED TO REINSTATE THE THREE MINUTES TO AVOID. YES, I THINK WE SHOULD. YES. AS I MENTIONED WHEN I WAS HERE BEFORE, YOU GUYS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. PREVIOUSLY ON A PRIOR OCCASION, I'M PRETTY MUCH AGNOSTIC ON THE HOTEL. IF ANYTHING, I LEAN TOWARD IT. WHAT I CARE ABOUT ARE THE THINGS THAT I'VE POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, AND I'VE ATTEMPTED TO POINT OUT AGAIN TODAY, AND THAT IS THAT IT'S DONE CORRECTLY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT. WE DO HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCES THE ABILITY FOR STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE AN ADDITIONAL FOUR FEET PLUS AN ADDITIONAL FOUR FEET ON TOP OF THAT. SO THE QUESTION IS IN THE PDB, IS IT TRULY GOING TO BE LIMITED TO 42FT OR CAN THEY DO AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT FEET? MR. ROBERTS, A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR YOU. I'VE SEEN CUT AND FILL STAFF APPROVAL, BUT I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN.

THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS THE CUT AND FILL. CUT AND FILL, BUT NOT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, BUT NOT HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. WHEN YOU RAISE THE GROUND ELEVATION FOUR FEET PLUS FOUR FEET GET TO EIGHT FEET. IT'S NOW AT 50FT, BUT FROM THE CURRENT GRADE. BUT THE ELEVATION IS RELATIVE TO THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE PROPERTY. SO THINK BACK TO NATURE'S POINT, WALTER'S WEDDING VENUE. AND WE HAD PDB VIOLATIONS OVER THERE AND WE HAD MULTIPLE STOP WORK ORDERS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THEY WENT ABOVE THE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. THAT RESULTED IN THE WHOLE WORK STOPPAGE AND NEGOTIATIONS. BUT YES, SO ULTIMATELY, IF YOU RAISE THE GRADE FOUR FEET PLUS FOUR FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING GRADE TODAY, YOU'RE AT 50FT. ANYWAY, THAT'S MY POINT. I HOPE THAT ISN'T DEDUCTED FROM MY THREE MINUTES ANSWERING THE QUESTION. THE SO THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK YOU GUYS SHOULD GET CLARITY ON REGARDING ANNEXATION. YOU BROUGHT THIS UP EARLIER AND THEN I HEARD IT BROUGHT UP AGAIN. I VOTED FOR ANNEXATION, NOT BECAUSE THE SUGGESTION, THE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT THAT COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR THIS BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE HOTEL IS POPPYCOCK. THE REASON YOU WANT TO ALLOW ANNEXATION IS SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE INFLUENCE AND GUIDANCE AND SAY OVER HOW THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, AS OPPOSED TO DENYING THE ANNEXATION, AND THEN THEY DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT IN THE COUNTY. THAT'S WHY YOU DO THAT. SO DON'T SUGGEST OR IMPLY OTHERWISE. THAT'S INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. AS TO OTHER ACREAGE, THERE'S 7.82 ACRES THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE ON 1431 NEAR THE HILL THAT YOU POINTED OUT. IF YOU'D LIKE, I'D BE I OFFERED TO CONNECT YOUR CLIENT WITH THEM.

I NEVER HEARD BACK. IT'S AVAILABLE FOR $2.4 MILLION. OFF MARKET WASTEWATER IS CURRENTLY AT EIGHT. IF YOU WATCH THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WASTEWATER IS AT 84% OF CAPACITY. HOW MUCH WATER? HOW MANY LUNGS IS THIS PROPERTY GOING TO USE? HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T MAKE A DECISION THAT'S GOING TO ADVERSELY IMPACT OUR CAPACITY. WE'RE AT 84%. THANKS.

COMMENT. MR. ROBERTS, IS THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SAY THAT WE ARE. THERE IS ANY IMPLICATION THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE PLAN WHEN THEY APPROVED THE ANNEXATION? THAT'S NOT WHAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE GETTING AT. WHAT THEY'RE GETTING AT IS WHEN THE ANNEXATION WAS PRESENTED IN A PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANS FOR THE FACT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE THIS HOTEL WAS PRESENTED

[02:10:05]

POINT OF ORDER? YES. OKAY. PROCEDURE. OKAY. AT THIS POINT, I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD ENOUGH COMMENTS AND ENOUGH DISCUSSION AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MAY I PLEASE ASK YOU QUESTIONS? I THINK THEY'LL BE SHORT ANSWERS, ONE FOR MR. SULLIVAN AND ONE IS FOR MRS. STROHMEYER.

YES, YES, JEFF. GO AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU. IN THE ORDINANCE, ARE THERE ANY LIMITATIONS ON WATER USAGE OR IS THAT WOULD THAT BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE? IT'S WE SHOULD NEVER TIE THINGS LIKE TIMELINES AND UTILITIES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE CAN VERY QUICKLY BROACH IN THE CONTRACT ZONING, AND WE NEVER WANT TO BE THERE. AND SO THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THINGS LIKE A UTILITY AGREEMENT SO THAT THEY DON'T EXCEED A CERTAIN CAPACITY.

HOWEVER, AND IN SPEAKING TO THE UTILITIES, WE MODEL EVERYTHING. ANY PROJECTIONS GET SENT TO OUR ENGINEERS AND MODEL, THEN IF THE ENGINEER DOESN'T CLEAR IT, WE DON'T PROCEED IT, WE DON'T BRING IT BEFORE BOARDS. WHATEVER ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE TO OUR SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR PROJECT HAVE TO BE DONE AS PART OF THEIR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE FACT THAT WE'RE AT 85% CAPACITY, WE'VE BEEN AT 85% CAPACITY. WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS EXPANDING THAT CAPACITY. WE'RE DOING STUDIES. WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE. AND SO ALL OF THIS IS ADDRESSED WHEN WE GET TO SITE DEVELOPMENT. IT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ZONING PACKET. OKAY. THANKS. AND, MR. SULLIVAN. IN OUR PACKET IN THE AMENDMENTS. EXCUSE ME, ON THE AMENDMENTS, THE EXHIBITS, SOME OF THE PLANS HAVE TYPOGRAPHICAL MARKINGS ON THEM. SO I'M LOOKING AT ONE RIGHT NOW AND IT SHOWS. IT SEEMS TO SHOW THAT THE THE DRIVE THAT GOES BY THE HOTEL ENTRANCE IS AT 1000 AND I BELIEVE 1008FT. SO I MEAN SINCE THAT IS MAY NOT BE A QUESTION TO YOU, BUT SINCE THAT IS IN THE EXHIBIT, IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS SET RIGHT, IT COULDN'T BE CHANGED WITHOUT WHAT. YES, PLEASE. I THINK I'M GOING TO ADDRESS BOTH YOUR QUESTION AND MR. ROBERTS CONCERN. I BELIEVE WE ARE VERY CLEAR IN THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WHERE THE BASE OF THE HOTEL WILL BE AND WHAT IT'S ASML IS. YES. OKAY.

THAT CAN'T BE. WE COULD GRADE UP HIGHER, BUT WE STILL CAN'T GO ABOVE THE WHATEVER THE ASML THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED IN THE ORDINANCE. SO WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT I THINK YOU'RE AFRAID OF. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION AND RESPECTFULLY, STAFF WOULD NEVER APPROVE THAT. IT IS VERY CLEAR WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE. IF THE EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT MET IN SITE DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO GET A BIG FAT NO. AND THAT'S JUST IS IT IS WHAT IT IS. WE WILL NOT VIOLATE ZONING CODE IN SITE DEVELOPMENT. AND ANYBODY WHO DOES SHOULDN'T BE ON STAFF.

RIGHT. AND IF I COULD JUST TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE ANNEXATION, IF I LED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL WAS APPROVING THE HOTEL PROJECT AT THE TIME, THAT'S NOT WHAT MY INTENT WAS. MY INTENT WAS TO INDICATE WE WERE VERY WELL AWARE OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY WHEN WE DID THE ANNEXATION, AND I WOULD SAY THE DEVELOPER HAS

[02:15:01]

I CAN TELL YOU FROM WATCHING THIS FROM THE SIDELINES FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, I THINK THIS DEVELOPER, THIS OWNER, THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN OVER BACKWARDS TO LISTEN TO INPUT, TO MAKE CONCESSIONS, TO SHAPE THIS PROJECT INTO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY LONG TERM. I COULDN'T HELP BUT CHUCKLE WHEN I HEARD MENTION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

THERE ARE ASPECTS OF LAGO VISTA COMMUNITY CHARACTER THAT ARE NOT TO BRAG ABOUT. IN FACT, IN SOME CASES ARE EMBARRASSING. I THINK THIS PROJECT GOES A LONG WAY TO IMPROVING THAT CHARACTER AND TO ESTABLISHING A BENCHMARK FOR FUTURE PROJECTS. I WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK. THIS IS JUST FREE FLOWING RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN TELL YOU. IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THIS CITY WILL BE PROUD OF FOR YEARS TO COME. THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANTED TO BE A VOICE OF SUPPORT ON IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL HAVE A WORD. JUST BECAUSE JEAN JEAN PUBLISHED. YOU SHOULD DO IT.

YOU COULD ON YOUR CONCERNS. NO, MY CONCERNS WERE TAKEN CARE OF, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

YEAH, OKAY. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE ORDINANCE BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO CORRECT THE TABLE ON PAGE 23 TO ACCURATELY, ACCURATELY REFLECT THE NUMBER OF ROOMS TOTAL. ON PAGE 24. CORRECT. OR FIND OUT WHY THE WORDING IN SECTION I REFERS TO VISTA VERDE HOTEL PLAN DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.

KEEP THE REFERENCE TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. ELIMINATE THE TREE MITIGATION FEE CAP. REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE A DECEL LANE ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND REQUIRE THAT ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO BE ADDED TO ANY BUILDINGS FOR ANY REASON TO INCLUDE FILL BEING ADDED. RAISING THE GRADE THAT THAT QUESTION SEEMS TO BE PUT TO BED, BUT I JUST WANT TO I THAT'S MY MOTION. I SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. I WANTED TO ADD TWO MORE TO HIS MOTION. WELL, IT'S ALREADY BEEN SECONDED. I DON'T THINK WE CAN ADD ANYTHING. YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO. MR. STEWART COULD PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT AND THEN MR. HARRIS CAN ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT THAT. OKAY. SO ARE YOU PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? YES. THAT THE BACKWASH

[02:20:05]

OKAY. AND NOW YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSALS. FURTHER AMENDMENT ON PAGE 25 AT ITEM K AFTER THE AWARDS MEET, ANY MINIMUM GLAZING PERCENTAGE STRIKE THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ABOUT ARTICULATION FROM STREET VISIBILITY AND ORIENTING LOADING ZONES. IT'S CONFUSING. AND UNNECESSARY. OKAY, SO YOU YOU YOU DO, YOU DO YOU ACCEPT THE I ACCEPT THAT, OKAY. AND SO I DON'T THINK YOU REALLY HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR OWN AMENDMENT, BUT OKAY THEN IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL AGAINST NAY. OKAY. SO THE MOTION CARRIES TO MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. THE MOTION WAS STATED AND IT'S 23521. THANK YOU. SO, MADAM CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT HAPPENED WITH AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4.1? DID WE PASS OVER IT.

I MISSED IT WHICH WHICH WAS WHICH WAS WHAT. IS THAT THE POCKET THAT WAS THAT WAS DROPPED DUE TO NO NOTIFICATION. OKAY, I MISSED, I MISSED THE DROP STATEMENT. I JUST SAW IT ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. WELL THE AGENDA WAS AMENDED AND IT WAS LEFT OUT BECAUSE OF THAT. OKAY.

OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 12TH, 2026. I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY HAS THOSE MINUTES IN THEIR PACKET. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PACKETS PROMULGATED AND NOT ALL OF THEM. THE MINUTES ARE IN EVERYBODY'S PACKET. HAVE YOU? I DON'T THINK THEY WERE IN YOUR PACKET. WERE THEY IN YOUR PACKET, JEFF. NO, BUT I SAW THEM ONLINE. OKAY.

OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN THE MINUTES? OKAY. I BECAUSE THE MINUTES WERE NOT IN EVERYBODY'S PACKET.

I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 12TH, 2026, TO OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR? DAVE, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THAT? OKAY. THEN IT'S YOU.

JEAN WAS SECOND. NO, NO, NO, NELSON WAS SECOND. OKAY. THE OTHER JEAN. OKAY. THANK YOU.

EVERYONE. THE MEETING IS ADJO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.