[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
          [00:00:10]
          P.M. AND I AM CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. AND WITH US TODAY, WE HAVE JEFF HOOLEY, MYSELF, GENE HARRIS, ENRIQUE LOPEZ, AND ANNE CLAYTOR. 
          SO WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE ALSO HAVE MISS JORDAN STROHMEYER FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND TIM PEACOCK AND PAUL PRINCE AS CITY COUNCIL LIAISON IS WITH US. FOR THE RECORD, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT'S WORTH CALLING IN THAT MR. STEWART AND MR. MINYARD ARE BOTH ABSENT. AND WE WE UNDERSTAND THEIR ABSENCE. SO IT'S AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY NON-AGENDA COMMENT CARDS. ANYBODY PLANNING ON MAKING ANY NON-AGENDA COMMENTS? NO. OKAY, 
          [III.1. Routine Reports from City staff.]
THEN WE WILL GO TO STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS. AND, JORDAN, DO YOU HAVE A REPORT FOR US? YES. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE KICKED OFF THE UDC REORGANIZATION PROCESS THAT STARTED ON APRIL 23RD. I BELIEVE IT'S STILL ONGOING. WE HAVE THE FIRST CHUNK DONE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVIEW IT. I AM TRYING WITH ALL OF MY MIGHT TO GET THE SECOND CHUNK DONE BEFORE MAY 20TH. OUTSIDE OF THAT, IT'S BUSINESS AS USUAL. WE ARE GETTING APPLICATIONS. STUFF WILL START TO BE ON AGENDAS, ALL OF THAT GOOD STUFF. AS JUST A NOTE, I AM OUT OF OFFICE FROM THE 21ST OF MAY TO THE 31ST OF MAY. MISS TAM WILL BE MY SECOND IN COMMAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL BE POSTING OUR AGENDA FOR JUNE NEXT WEEK. IT'S A LITTLE EARLIER THAN USUAL. NOTICES HAVE GONE OUT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER THAN USUAL, BUT WE WANTED TO GET IT DONE IN TIME TO NOT HAVE THAT BURDEN ON ALL OF THE REST OF THE STAFF. SO AS ALWAYS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, LET US KNOW. OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S WE'RE CHUGGING ALONG. YOU SAID THE THE UDC MATERIAL. OKAY, THE UNIFIED CODE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I WAS MAKING NOISE AND I DIDN'T HEAR FOR SURE WHAT YOU SAID. SO THANK YOU JORDAN. SO YOU WILL BE GONE ON THE 21ST. ARE YOU LEAVING AFTER THE 21ST? I WILL BE GONE ON THE 21ST. THAT'S THE FIRST DAY OUT OF OFFICE. AND THEN I WON'T BE BACK UNTIL JUNE 1ST. AND THERE IS NO CELL PHONE RECEPTION WHERE WE'RE GOING. SO I GENUINELY CAN'T CHECK EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS. CONVENIENT, I KNOW. OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          DOES YOUR ABSENCE AFFECT TIMELY POSTING OF AGENDAS OR PUBLIC NOTICES? NO. SO WE AS STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS TO POST IN ADVANCE OF EVERYTHING, INCLUDING PUBLIC NOTICES AND AGENDAS. AND SO YOU'LL SEE YOUR AGENDA PROBABLY MONDAY AFTERNOON, GIVE OR TAKE. 
          WE'LL HAVE IT AVAILABLE, AS WE ALWAYS DO. JUST KNOW THAT IT'S IT'S A FEW DAYS EARLY FROM WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO. AND THE NOTICES FOR APPLICATIONS HAVE GONE OUT. I THINK THEY WENT OUT LAST WEEK. AND SO WE'RE A LITTLE AHEAD OF THE GAME, BUT IT'S WITH INTENTION, NOT ON, YOU KNOW, ACCIDENT. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR JORDAN? NO. OH I FORGOT, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT ON A GENERIC ISSUE? LET'S LET'S HAVE MR. PRINCE 
          [III.2. Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]
MAKE HIS STAFF COMMENT. YEAH. AND SO I'LL I'LL START BY SAYING. THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED IT, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NOT. WE CAN ONLY HAVE THINGS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA DISCUSSED. SO WE DO BY STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO ALLOW CITIZENS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING THEY WANT. BUT THE COMMISSIONERS DON'T HAVE THAT. RIGHT. SO I THINK YOU ALL ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO TO TALK ABOUT TOPICS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA. NOW, CAN I GO UP THERE AND SAY SOMETHING? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW, JORDAN. DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THAT OR COMMISSIONERS? ARE THEY ALLOWED TO DO NON AGENDA ITEMS DURING THAT PART OF THE AGENDA COMMISSION OR COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK THERE JUST HAS TO BE A VERY PROMINENT STATEMENT MADE THAT YOU ARE ACTING AS A CITIZEN AND NOT CITIZEN, AND NOT AS A BOARD MEMBER, AND STEP DOWN AND DO THE WHOLE COMMENT CARD, THE WHOLE, I MEAN, THE ALL THE HOOPLA THAT GOES INTO IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT VIOLATES ANY LAW THAT THAT SOUNDS AGREEABLE TO ME. WHY DON'T WE DO THIS, ENRIQUE? WE'RE IN THE AGENDA ITEM FOR LIAISON COMMENTS. SO LET ME MAKE MY LIAISON COMMENTS. AND THEN YOU CAN REQUEST THE CHAIR AS TO WHETHER SHE'S 
          [00:05:01]
WILLING TO REOPEN THE TOPIC THAT SHE ALREADY CLOSED ON PUBLIC COMMENTS. OKAY. SO THE ONE, THE ONE THAT I KNOW OF IS I SAW JUST TODAY OR RECENTLY IN THE LAST FEW DAYS THAT THE MEETING THAT IS PROCEDURE TRAINING FOR COUNCIL AND ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONS IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY, I THINK IT'S 28TH, RIGHT, WHICH IS TWO, TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S IMPORTANT. PLEASE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO TO JOIN STARTS AT 6 P.M. THAT STARTS AT 6 P.M. 
          YEAH. I PERSONALLY HAVE A WEDDING AND DINNER THAT MAY OVERLAP WITH THAT. SO WHETHER I'M 6 P.M. I DON'T KNOW. BUT BUT IF YOU ALL CAN MAKE IT AND I'LL BE THERE AT MAKE MY BEST EFFORT TO BE THERE SMART ENOUGH TO TEACH THE CLASS, I MAY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF THE INFORMATION IN MY BRAIN ALREADY. THANK YOU. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. SO UNLESS THERE'S, I HAVE I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU REGARDING THAT BECAUSE THE TRAINING IS ON THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. THAT'S WHAT THE TRAINING IS ON. AND I'M WONDERING WHEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TRAINING FOR REGARDING LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS FOR NOT ONLY PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT BUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS WELL. BUT OF COURSE, I'M MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH, WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. SO IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE IN TWO WEEKS. BUT I'M VERY ANXIOUS TO HAVE TRAINING ON ON LAND USE. SO COULD YOU COULD YOU LOOK INTO THAT QUESTION BACK? AND I'LL POINT OUT, I THINK THE TRAINING IS MORE THAN JUST THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURES, BUT IT ENCOMPASSES ALL, YOU KNOW, ALL THINGS THAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMISSIONS AND HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO OPERATE. AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR MY 
          [II. CITIZEN COMMENTS]
COMMENTS. OKAY. AND NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          I WOULD REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR THREE MINUTES. I WILL SAY TODAY THAT WHILE YOU'RE WALKING, I'LL JUST USE THE TIME TO SAY THAT. WE'RE WE INTEND TO FOLLOW A STRICT THREE MINUTES FOR COMMENTS TODAY AND. ALSO, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE WE'RE BENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE HERE A LITTLE BIT BY CHANGING AND LETTING YOU COME AROUND AND MAKE COMMENT FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING, WE INTEND TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. REQUIRE THAT THE CHAIR RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS AND WITHOUT RECOGNITION FROM THE CHAIR, PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING OUT OF ORDER. AND IF PEOPLE ARE OUT OF ORDER, THAT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO A GOOD, CALM, MEANINGFUL, ORDERLY MEETING. AND THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE. SO PLEASE, EVERYBODY, ABIDE BY THE RECOGNITION FROM THE CHAIR FOR FOR MAKING COMMENTS. AND NOW. MR. IF I AM IN ALIGNMENT WITH MR. MYERS SUGGESTION, MISS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. AND SINCE YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION, PLEASE VERIFY THAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE YOUR OWN PERSONAL COMMENTS NOT REPRESENTED. SO YOU'LL SAY THAT PLEASE, MR. LOPEZ. OKAY. MY NAME IS ENRIQUE LOPEZ, AND THESE COMMENTS ARE AS A CITIZEN, NOT AS A COMMISSIONER. THE THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I'LL WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE LAST MEETING. AND I WAS MAD AS HELL AS TO HOW THIS GUY, ROBERT, HE'S NOT HERE. MR. ROBERTS ADDRESSED THE CHAIRPERSON AND THE THE CONFLICT THAT HE CAUSED. AND I'M KIND OF WONDERING WHY. YOU KNOW, MIKE, NOW, THIS IS AS A CITIZEN, WHY LINDA DIDN'T GET THE CHAIRPERSON DID GET MORE SUPPORT FROM THE CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS BECAUSE ON. 
          SEVERAL TIMES MR. ROBERTS WAS ASKED TO SIT DOWN AND HE JUST TALKED OVER HER. VERY RUDE. AND I'M GOING LIKE, DO WE NEED DO WE NEED TO START HAVING A POLICE OFFICER HERE, OUR SERGEANT AT ARMS, TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT? SO THE BIGGEST REASON I WANTED TO TALK IS TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, BRING IT OUT IN THE OPEN THAT THIS BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU THIS, HAD I BEEN HERE, I MAY NOT BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY ANNOYED AT THE WAY THE THE WHOLE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED. I MEAN, IT WAS DONE. BUT I JUST HOPE THAT MISTER ROBERTS, NEXT TIME HE COMES INTO THIS ROOM, HAS A LITTLE MORE COURTESY AND THAT WE ALL SUPPORT THE CHAIRPERSON BY TELLING THEM, YOU KNOW, IF WE ALL HAVE TO SAY 
          [00:10:02]
SIT DOWN AT ALL AT ONCE OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE I THINK HE WAS SO DISRESPECTFUL THAT AFTER I WATCHED THE THE VIDEO, I WAS JUST FLABBERGASTED. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T MAKE THIS THE MEETING LAST TIME, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MORE ASSERTIVE IN TELLING THEM TO SIT DOWN AND MAYBE AND QUITE MAYBE EVEN TO SHUT UP. AND I WAS KIND OF HOPING HE'D BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WANTED TO ADDRESS HIM PERSONALLY. UNFORTUNATELY, HE'LL HAVE TO WATCH THIS VIDEO AND. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LOPEZ. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 
          [V.1. Open A Public Hearing for the discussion consideration and possible recommendation regarding an Ordinance Of The City Of Lago Vista, Texas, Amending Chapter 14 Also Known As “Zoning Ordinance” Of The Code Of Ordinances, specifically Section 20, Tree Preservation and Landscaping Requirements, Subsection (E)(7), by removing the word “Pocket”.]
DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 14, ALSO KNOWN AS ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 23 TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTION E SEVEN. BY REMOVING THE WORD POCKET. DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION ABOUT THAT? YES, MA'AM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS ITEM. WE'VE DISCUSSED IT AD NAUSEAM AT THIS POINT. THE REQUEST FROM COUNCIL AND PRAC IS THAT WE STRIKE THE WORD POCKET. THIS ORDINANCE DOES EXACTLY THAT. NO ADDED FLUFF, NO OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IT'S JUST STRIKING THE WORD POCKET. PUBLIC NOTICES WERE DONE APPROPRIATELY. WE'VE POSTED ACCORDINGLY. AND IF ALL GOES WELL, IT'S ON SCHEDULE FOR THE JUNE 4TH COUNCIL MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JORDAN ON THAT? OKAY, THEN I WILL OPEN THE DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. DOES ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I WILL TAKE A MOTION THEN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OKAY, MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT ORDINANCE NUMBER TWO BE ASSIGNED A NUMBER. BE APPROVED. STRIKING THE WORD POCKET FROM THE ORDINANCE. I SECOND IT. OKAY. PUSH YOUR BUTTON. I SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. I I. OKAY, THEN IT'S UNANIMOUS. THAT IS 
          [VI.1. Approval of Minutes for March 12, 2026]
APPROVED. THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 12TH OF 2026. 
          I ASSUME EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MINUTES. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 12TH? I WILL TAKE A MOTION. I DID THE LAST ONE. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 12TH, 2026 AS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. OKAY, I SECOND OKAY, I SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. GREAT. 
          [VI.2. Approval of Minutes for April 15, 2026]
THAT'S UNANIMOUS. AND THEN WE HAVE THE MINUTES FOR APRIL 15TH, 2026. ALSO IN THE PACKET. I THINK EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO READ THOSE. PROBABLY NO DISCUSSION. SO DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR APRIL 15TH, 2026. I SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, I. OKAY. AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS. NOW WE GO ON TO OUR 
          [VI.3. Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary from the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee.]
ACTION ITEM OF DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS AGENDA ITEM IS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ONLY. DO WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION. NO, MA'AM, NOT AT THIS TIME. I KNOW THAT THIS WAS A SUBCOMMITTEE EFFORT. AND SO WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT, AS ALWAYS. OKAY. THEN IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR JORDAN, I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. AND AS AS I MENTIONED, THE HEARING HAS BEEN AGENDA FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ONLY. AND SO THAT'S ALL WE THAT'S ALL WE CAN LIMIT OUR DISCUSSION TO. MR. KING, DID YOU HAVE A. YOU'RE 
          [00:15:11]
NOT ON THIS. OKAY, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 421 ON THIS ITEM AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN I GO FORWARD? PARDON ME. CAN I GO FORWARD WITH A QUESTION? CAN YOU GO FORWARD WITH A QUESTION FOR FOR THE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS? YEAH. HE HAS A COMMENT. COMMENT. YEAH. OH, SURE. YEAH. AND IT STARTS OUT WITH THE QUESTION. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THAT MEANS ONLY THE, THE FIRST TWO PAGES, THIS ONE. 
          CORRECT. AND THE NEXT ONE AND NOT THE REMAINDER INCLUDED. OKAY. THAT IS ALL THAT IS ON THE AGENDA. YES. OKAY. AND SO DOES THIS REPRESENT AN OUTLINE OF THE CONTENTS THAT ARE ENVISIONED FOR THE PLAN? IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT THIS REPRESENTS? YES. YOU COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT IT AS AN OUTLINE. YEAH. OKAY. AND THESE TWO PAGES, HOW DO YOU SEE, HOW DO YOU ENVISION THEM LOOKING LIKE IN OUR FINAL PLAN? WILL THEY BE FLESHED OUT MORE, SOME PARAGRAPH WORK, OR WILL IT BE THIS KIND OF OUTLINE? WELL, I MEAN, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? YES. THE INTENT WAS THAT THEY BE FLESHED OUT FURTHER. OKAY, SO A FEW PAGES AT THE BEGINNING AS AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. YES. OKAY. THAT WAS. IS THIS INTENDED TO BE FULLY REPRESENTATIVE OF EVERYTHING? THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I SEE THAT I HAVE EXCEPTION WITH. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO DIVE INTO THEM NOW OR IF WE DIVE INTO THEM WHEN WE HAVE THE PLAN DRAFT PLAN MORE FULLY READY. WELL, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT PERTAINS TO THIS SUMMARY THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS, YOU CAN. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THEN THE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ITEM THREE B IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. OKAY. AND THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT I NOTICED. ONE IS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION PLACE TYPE IS NOT IN THERE. AND THE SECOND IS THAT THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TEARS. WE WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT TEARS UP UNTIL NOW. I ONLY SEE A PLACE THAT SEEMS TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE. I MEAN, THERE ARE STILL THREE. THEY ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REGULAR RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE. 
          SO THERE'S BEEN SOME MOVEMENT THERE, AND I THINK THOSE MOVEMENTS INCREASE DENSITY, POTENTIAL DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT IS A BIG DEAL TO ME. BEFORE WE HAD AND CORRECT ME, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK WE'RE COMBINING THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TIER ONE, WHICH WAS WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT BEING FOR THREE PLUS ACRES, THREE ACRES AND UP WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TIER TWO, WHICH UP UNTIL NOW THAT HAS BEEN TWO ACRES AND UP UNTIL, I GUESS 2.99. BUT WE'RE GOING TO COMBINE THOSE AND MAKE THOSE TOGETHER AS ONE THAT WILL BE FOR ONLY TWO ACRES AND UP. THAT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE A TIER ANYMORE FOR THREE ACRES AND UP, AND DOING THAT MEANS THAT ANY PLACE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, ANY PLACE WHERE THIS THIS CATEGORY IS USED ON OUR MAP, MEANS THAT ANY OF THOSE PLACES THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES PER HOME CAN NOW HAVE ONE AND A HALF HOMES ON THE SAME THREE ACRES. SO THAT INCREASES DENSITY. AND THEN THE NEXT THING IS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE COMBINING THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WE'VE PREVIOUSLY BEEN TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS OUR NORMAL ONE QUARTER ACRE LOT, ONE HOME FOR A QUARTER, APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER ACRE LOT WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TIER THREE. AND THAT WAS THE ONE WHERE WE HAVE ONE HOME FOR ONE ACRE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE COMBINING THOSE INTO ONE THAT'S ANYWHERE FROM ONE QUARTER ACRE TO TWO ACRES. AND IF WE DO THAT, THAT MEANS THAT ANY PLACE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SLATED AS A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES PER HOME CAN NOW HAVE UP TO EIGHT HOMES ON THAT SAME TWO ACRES, DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL. THEY CAN. AND I FIND THAT TO BE VERY CONCERNING BECAUSE 
          [00:20:02]
IT ALSO INCLUDES IT INCREASES OUR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DENSITY. AND THE REASON THAT INCREASING OUR POTENTIAL DENSITY BOTHERS ME. THERE'S A FEW REASONS. I'VE ONLY GOT A FEW I'LL BRING FORWARD. I'M SURE THERE COULD BE MANY OTHERS, BUT NUMBER ONE IS HOW IT AFFECTS WATER. YOU KNOW, OUR OUR CURRENT MAXIMUM BUILD OUT THAT'S PROJECTED IN OUR 2025 WATER MASTER PLAN IS ABOUT 47000 PEOPLE, 47,000 CITIZENS IN LAGO VISTA. YOU KNOW, THESE CHANGES IN THE PLACE TYPE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THAT MAX POPULATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT NUMBER IT WOULD INCREASE IT TO. AND IT WOULD BE MIGHT NOT BE EASY TO CALCULATE, SINCE THESE CHANGES ENABLE HIGH DENSITY. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY DICTATE IT. THEY DEFINITELY ENABLE SOME, YOU KNOW, AND WHEN IT COMES TO WATER, WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS. WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS OF OUR OWN. WE HAVE PROBLEMS COMPETING WITH OTHER TOWNS AROUND FOR THE SAME WATER OUT OF THE SAME LAKE. SO ANYTHING WE DO PLANNING WISE THAT INCREASES OUR DENSITY ABOVE WHAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN PLANNING AND PRIOR IS, I THINK, EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC. AND ANOTHER PLACE WHERE I THINK INCREASING DENSITY IS A PROBLEM IS JUST WITH OUR TRAFFIC CONGESTION. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE RIGHT NOW ON LOWMAN, IF WE GET THE MAX BUILD OUT 47000 PEOPLE, WHAT TRAFFIC ON LOWMAN CROSSING IS GOING TO BE LIKE? WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH. IF WE INCREASE OUR POTENTIAL DENSITY, IT'S JUST GOING TO COMPOUND IT AND MAKE IT THAT MUCH WORSE. WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. AND THIRDLY, IT'S VERY RELATED TO THAT. BUT EMERGENCY EVACUATION, WE KNOW WE ALL MOST OF US LIVE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF ANXIETY ABOUT WILDFIRE. AND IF WE HAVE A MAJOR WILDFIRE EVENT AND HAVE TO EVACUATE THIS PENINSULA, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BOUND BY WATER ON BASICALLY ON THREE SIDES. AND IN THIS CORE, WHAT WE MIGHT CALL TRADITIONAL LAGO. IF WE ADD MORE PEOPLE, WE'RE JUST COMPOUNDING OUR PROBLEM OF HOW DO WE EVACUATE ALL THE PEOPLE OUT IF WE HAVE TO. SO WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WHEN WE MAKE CHANGES THAT WE'RE NOT INCREASING POTENTIAL DENSITY. IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME. WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT, I THINK, IN THE PAST WITH OUR COMP PLAN COMMITTEE LAST YEAR, SUBCOMMITTEE. WE WHEN I SAY CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THESE, THE DENSITY OF THESE DIFFERENT PLACE TYPES, WE CALL THEM LAND USE CATEGORIES. LAST YEAR, WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT UP TO NOW. SO THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT I'M NOT FOR THEM. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TO HEAR FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE AND WHY YOU DECIDED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. IF IT'S JUST FOR SIMPLIFICATION, I LOVE SIMPLIFICATION, BUT WE CAN'T SIMPLIFY SO MUCH THAT WE'RE NOT AS EFFECTIVE. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW. OKAY, GENE. YEAH, MY MEMORY ON THIS STUFF, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IS THE BEST BECAUSE I GOT OTHER THINGS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. WHEN I WALK OUT OF HERE, I'M KIND OF DONE WITH PLANNING AND ZONING TO A LARGE DEGREE. BUT I THINK THESE LAND USE OR PLACE TYPES NOW, WEREN'T THOSE ALL BROUGHT UP IN A PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AND VOTED ON? AND THAT'S HOW WE I DON'T BELIEVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE CAME UP WITH THOSE TYPES. IF I IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME, CAN ANYBODY SAY THAT'S WRONG OR RIGHT? OR IF YOU LOOK. I'M SORRY, CAN I. 
          SURE, IF THERE'S A PACKET THAT MR. MEYER HANDED OUT TO US. IF YOU LOOK ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT. THAT SHOWS PLACE TYPES THAT WERE FROM THE DRAFT THAT CAME FROM STAFF IN FEBRUARY, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE GOING FORWARD WITH. I DON'T THINK WE VOTED ON ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. WE DID VOTE. I MEAN, WE VOTED, BUT WE DID. AT THE FIRST SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, WE DID REVISE THE FROM THAT TO THIS AT OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. MADAM, THAT WAS AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. THE FIRST SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING? YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING IN. YES, MA'AM. RELATIVE TO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND WATER AND REALLY ANY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, AGAIN, HAVING BEEN WORKING IN 
          [00:25:03]
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY DECADES, NO DEVELOPER CAN BUILD ANYTHING THAT IMPACTS INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT MITIGATING THAT IMPACT BY EITHER CONSTRUCTING THEMSELVES ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO FACILITATE THEIR DEVELOPMENT, OR PAYING RELATIVELY MASSIVE FEES SO THAT A CITY CAN DO THAT. I'VE DONE IT. I'VE SEEN IT DONE BOTH WAYS. I'VE DONE IT PERSONALLY, BOTH WAYS. SO THE PURPOSE OF HAVING BROADER PLACE TYPES WAS SIMPLY TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY AND NOT BOX OURSELVES IN. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALMOST INEVITABLY, SOME DEVELOPER WILL COME WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT INTO OUR NICE, NEAT LITTLE BOX. AND NOW YOU'RE PROCESSING VARIANCE REQUESTS AND GOING THROUGH A RELATIVELY LABORIOUS PROCESS. SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW. IT MAKES SENSE. I THINK IT'S BETTER FOR US TO PUT THE GUARDRAILS ON UP FRONT RATHER THAN. AND DEAL WITH IT IN THE WAY THAT YOU MENTIONED. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT SAFER. WE WE DEAL WITH IT ON BOTH ENDS. IF WE HAVE THE GUARDRAILS UP FRONT. 
          SO I GUESS THAT'S MY MY VIEW ON THAT. I DON'T DISCOUNT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO BE PROTECTING UP FRONT WITH THE PROPER OR THE BETTER PLACE TYPES. GENE. YEAH. 
          ONCE AGAIN, I HAVE A QUESTION, OR AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING, LIKE FOR RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT IT WOULD BE ONE RESIDENCE PER TWO ACRES AND UP ONE RESIDENCE FOR A TWO ACRE LOT AND UP IN SIZE. RESIDENTIAL STANDARD LOTS COULD VARY FROM A QUARTER ACRE TO TWO ACRES, AND YOU COULD HAVE ONE ONE RESIDENCE ON THAT QUARTER ACRE LOT, OR YOU COULD HAVE ONE RESIDENCE ON UP TO A 1.9 GROSS ACRE LOT, NOT CRAM EIGHT OF THEM IN THERE. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. GO AHEAD. YEAH, MAYBE IT WASN'T THE INTENT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD ALLOW. IT WOULD ALLOW UP TO EIGHT QUARTER ACRE LOTS TO BE PUT ON TWO ACRES. AND, AND I LOOKING AT IT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT WAY. AND SO I GUESS MY COMMENT REALLY IS THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS MEETING ON THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, IF THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. AND I WOULD KIND OF THINK MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE REWORDED, NOW IS THE TIME TO PUT FORTH SUGGESTIONS ON REWORDING IT SO THAT IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT WE ALL THINK IT MEANS. WELL, CAN I GO AHEAD? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THE INTENTION WAS TO. I DON'T THINK THE INTENTION WAS TO PROMOTE HIGHER DENSITY. BUT BUT IT ALLOWS IT AS SUCH, I WOULD PREFER TO GO BACK TO THE THREE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TIERS AS THEY WERE DEFINED. WELL, AS THEY WERE DEFINED IN, IN THIS BACK IN MARCH. YOU KNOW, BY HAVING ALL THREE OF THEM, IT PRESERVES THAT SPACE, THAT LARGER SPACE FOR THE LARGER LOTS. AND WE DO KNOW THAT ALL THIS IS GUIDELINES, BUT IT SETS THE GUARDRAILS UP FRONT AND THAT THESE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE PUT ON THE FLUME. BUT THIS SETS OUT UP FRONT HOW WE WANT THINGS TO BE. SO MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT WE GO BACK TO THE THREE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TIERS. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION IN HERE AS WELL. I KNOW THERE'S BUFFERING THOUGHT ABOUT THAT WE CAN USE, BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONE OR AT LEAST HAVE IT AVAILABLE TO US TO USE TO MAKE A BETTER TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND LOW IMPACT OR EVEN HIGH IMPACT COMMERCIAL AREAS. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I WAS IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING THE TRANSITION AREAS ACTUALLY SPECIFIED IN HERE IS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES TRANSITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. SO BY ORDINANCE, IF SOMEBODY CAME TO US AND WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THAT THAT DIDN'T FIT INTO THE ORDINANCE, WE DON'T REALLY NEED A FLUME CATEGORY TO DICTATE IT. WE WOULD HAVE THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD THAT WOULD PROTECT 
          [00:30:03]
THAT. AS FAR AS AS MAKING MORE CATEGORIES, I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A FEWER CATEGORIES AND JUST BECAUSE IT THERE COULD BE MORE RESIDENCES ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY DOESN'T MEAN THERE WILL BE. AND THAT THEY WILL BE COMING. EVERY DEVELOPER WILL BE COMING WITH A PLAN THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED AND CONSIDERED. AND THIS JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT. 
          LESS, LESS CUMBERSOME AS FAR AS COMING AND ASKING FOR VARIANCES ALL THE TIME, BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO, DEVELOPERS WILL BE ABLE TO COME TO US AND PRESENT A PLAN. AND AT THAT POINT WE CAN. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS TO BE THIS WAY. IT CAN STILL HAVE LESS DENSITY. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE MANDATORY HIGHER DENSITY BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE CATEGORIES. CAN I RESPOND? YEAH, YES, THAT'S TRUE. AND I THINK I MENTIONED THAT WHEN I FIRST STARTED THIS, THAT IT ALLOWS FOR HIGHER DENSITY. IT DOESN'T DICTATE IT. BUT I THINK THAT BY IT'S BETTER TO PUT THE GUARDRAILS ON UP FRONT, LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, LET PEOPLE COME AND ASK FOR THE VARIANCE. BUT WE NEED TO TELL DEVELOPERS, THE PUBLIC, EVERYONE HOW WE WANT THINGS TO, TO BE, HOW WE ENVISION THINGS BEING DEVELOPED. AND THEN, YES, YOU KNOW, LET THEM COME WITH THEIR VARIANCE REQUESTS. BUT I THINK IT'S MUCH BETTER TO SET EXPECTATIONS UP FRONT WITH USING CLEAR, MORE, MORE CLEAR LAND USE TYPES OR PLACE TYPES OF, OF OUR INTENT. AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S BOTH FOR THESE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION. I DON'T KNOW THE ORDINANCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I'VE HEARD ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER TO CATCH THAT UP FRONT RATHER THAN MAKE SURE WE CATCH IT LATER ON, BECAUSE I THINK THINGS HAVE COME THROUGH HERE WHERE WE HAVEN'T CAUGHT IT, OR WE'VE CAUGHT IT BY. I CAN THINK OF ONE TIME IN PARTICULAR WHEN IT WAS THE THE NEW CONVENIENCE STORE GAS STATION THAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE CITY SIGN. WE TALKED ABOUT ADDING THE BUFFERING IN, BUT I DON'T THINK WE EVER REFERENCED THAT ORDINANCE. IT JUST CAME UP THROUGH OUR NATIONAL OUR NATIONAL DISCUSSION. SO I'M AFRAID IN THE FUTURE WE MAY HAVE. OTHER TIMES WHEN RELYING ON THAT ORDINANCE MAY FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. I'D MUCH RATHER TAKE CARE OF IT UP FRONT WHERE WE CAN. I MEAN, OUR MAP IS NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECT, BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE USE AVAILABLE TO US FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONE. 
          ENRIQUE, YOU WERE NOT ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE EITHER. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT I THINK SOME OF THESE ALREADY SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ON THE MAP, ON THE FLUME, THEY ALREADY HAVE A. 
          NO ENTITLEMENTS. OH, GEEZ. I FORGOT THE WORD. ZONING. NO NO NO NO. WELL I APOLOGIZE, IT'S OKAY. NO I'M SERIOUS, I DON'T KNOW. OH YEAH. YEAH. SOME THERE'S ALREADY BUFFER ZONES ON SOME AND THE FLU MAP ISN'T THERE. YOU KNOW, LIKE, I KNOW THERE'S SOME PROPERTY PROPERTIES ON BOGGY FORD AND SANTA CARLOS THAT'S R4, BUT I BELIEVE PART OF THE THOSE LOTS HAVE A BUFFER ZONE. SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS THE THE THING IS TRY TO STREAMLINE THE OPERATIONS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF AT THE MINIMUM, MAKE IT MORE INVITING FOR AT LEAST DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND, AND CHECK OUT THE, THE, THE CODES, THE CITY CODES. AND, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, IF YOU, IF YOU PUT ALL THESE BUTTS, ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, RULES BEFORE THEY COME HERE, THEY'RE GOING TO GO, WHOA, HOLD IT. THIS IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO DO BUSINESS. 
          OR I MEAN, IT'S THE FIRST IMPRESSION YOU GET. OKAY. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE, IT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDING ON ON DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE PLAN ON. THEN THAT'S WHERE WE LOOK TO THE CODES AND CITY COUNCIL, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT OR NOT, OR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT OR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROVE IT. 
          BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW I WOULD LEAVE IT. WELL, LIKE I SAID, I, I WOULD VOTE IF I WAS TO VOTE, I'D PROBABLY JUST VOTE. PROBABLY LEAVE IT AS IT IS. I MEAN, WITH THE, WITH THE CHANGES, WITHOUT THE CHANGES. WITH WITHOUT THIS. YEAH. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD VOTE 
          [00:35:08]
FOR THIS RATHER THAN THIS. YES. SO THIS, THIS IS THE FEWER AND THAT'S THE OKAY. THIS IS THE, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. SO KEEP IT AS THREE, RIGHT. THREE IS THREE TIERS THREE V YEAH. MADAM CHAIR. IN GENERAL, ONE OF MY CONCERNS AND TO YOUR POINT, ENRIQUE, ABOUT ATTRACTING DEVELOPERS, LAGO VISTA HAS A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL AREA. UNFORTUNATELY, IT ALSO HAS DESPERATELY AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE COST TO YOU KNOW, MAINTAIN THAT CONTINUES TO INCREASE OVER TIME. AND YOU'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY NEED TO GROW THIS CITY, BOTH COMMERCIALLY IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS RESIDENTIALLY TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE THAT AD VALOREM AND SALES TAX BASE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE REVENUE TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE IN THE GROUND TODAY. SO KILLING OR, OR DAMPENING OR DISSUADING DEVELOPERS FROM WANTING TO TAKE A CHANCE ON LAGO VISTA, I THINK OVERALL HURTS THE COMMUNITY'S REVENUE BASE, WHICH IN TURN HURTS EVERYBODY. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? WERE YOU IN PARTICULAR REFERRING TO THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONE? NO, JUST OKAY. JUST IN GENERAL. ALL RIGHT. I WAS JUST GOING TO POINT OUT, SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONE, TRANSITION PLACE TYPE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WOULD NOT NECESSARILY PUT ASIDE LAND AS A TRANSITION BUFFER. IT COULD, BUT GENERALLY IT'S MORE OF ENVISIONING TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN BE FRIENDLY TO OTHER CATEGORIES THAT ARE MAPPED NEXT TO IT JUST, YOU KNOW, CREATES A TRANSITION BETWEEN MORE DISPARATE PLACE TYPES. MADAM CHAIR. THE OTHER THING, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL, JEFF, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GET INTO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT RIGHTFULLY TURNS UP IN A ZONING ORDINANCE OR IN A DESIGN GUIDELINE, OR IN ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY WITH IN TERMS OF, HERE'S MY OVERALL PLAN, I WANT TO PUT THIS MANY LOTS IN, AND I ALSO NEED TO DO THESE SETBACKS IN THIS, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS OTHER STUFF IS IMPLIED IN HERE, BUT ISN'T DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THIS DOCUMENT. IT NEEDS TO BE IN MORE SPECIFIC ZONING ORDINANCES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND I THINK TO, TO ADD ON TO WHAT ANN SAID WHEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS LOOKING AT THIS, WE REALLY WERE LOOKING AT THIS AS THIS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE COMP PLAN IS KIND OF TAKING A BROADER PERSPECTIVE. AND WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS COME IN, THEN THAT'S WHEN YOU KIND OF GET INTO THE DETAIL. BUT THIS IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, EVEN, YOU KNOW, OUR INTENT WAS TO ELIMINATE A LOT OF THE REAL NITTY GRITTY DETAILS AND, AND JUST KIND OF MAKE THIS AN OVERALL BROAD LOOK AT HOW WE WANT THE CITY TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          I, YEAH, I AGREE DEFINITELY WITH THAT APPROACH. AND THAT'S THE WAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THE PLACE TYPES I'M TALKING ABOUT GET TO THAT GRANULAR OF A LEVEL. AND I THINK EVEN IF WE HAD THE NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE AND WE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE MAP AND DIDN'T FIND A PLACE TO PUT IT, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HOLD IT FOR OUR USE, BECAUSE IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE REVISIONS OF THE PLAN AS WELL. 
          AND THE SAME THING FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL. OF COURSE, I HAVE MUCH. I HAVE MORE CONCERN ABOUT THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TEARS BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW MORE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS A COMPOUND PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH. THIS RIGHT HERE. THE NEXT PAGE OVER FROM THAT TABLE IS THE VERSION OF THE FILM THAT JEAN UPLOADED TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD BACK IN FEBRUARY, AND IT USED THE THREE TIERS. WHEREAS MARKED ON IT IS MOSTLY THIS EASTERN PART OF TOWN THAT HAS THOSE THREE RURAL RESIDENTIAL TIERS. WAS IT JUST WHEN YOU CAME TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT YOU ALL DECIDED TO MAKE THE CHANGE? WHEN WE WERE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WE DID. YES. JEAN. 
          NO, I, I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT QUITE THE WHOLE PICTURE. OKAY. WHEN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WE 
          [00:40:07]
WERE TOLD THAT ALL THE WORK WE DID COULDN'T BE USED FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS THE TERM WAS A HOT OVERLAY, COULDN'T BE MADE OUT OF IT. SO. AFTER THAT, NOW WE'RE HERE. SO. 
          AND, AND I'VE, DAVE STEWART AND I WORKED TOGETHER ON THAT, AND I STILL THINK IT WAS PRETTY GOOD. WE DON'T HAVE AS THE COMMISSION, WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE GIS TOOLS THAT CAN BREAK STUFF DOWN INTO LOTS AND STREET LINES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. AND SO IT WAS VERY GENERAL USE FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE. WE DON'T HAVE THE, THAT MAPPING CAPABILITY TO, TO REALLY LINE IT OUT LIKE THE, LIKE THE MAPS, YOU KNOW, HAS A NICE STRAIGHT LINE. SURE. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. AND SO YES, THAT MAP WAS PREPARED WITH THAT IN MIND. BUT THEN IT WAS DECIDED THAT THAT COULDN'T BE USED. WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION THOUGH IS ON HERE, THERE'S RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL TWO. I'M I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN FIND RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ON HERE, BUT THERE IS THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE. SO IN FEBRUARY YOU FELT LIKE THAT WAS A GOOD DESIGNATION TO HAVE THERE. WHAT CHANGED YOUR MIND? I'LL GO BACK TO NOTHING CHANGED MY MIND. THOSE WERE THE DESIGNATIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME. 
          AND SO WE USED THEM. AND THEN WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT THE MAP THAT WE PREPARED USING THOSE COULDN'T BE USED. AND SO, AND I, THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I KNOW. 
          MAYBE I SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT THE MAP ITSELF. I KNOW THAT WE USE OR YOU USED. I HATE TO MAKE IT PERSONAL. IT'S. YOU AND OTHERS I'M SURE HAVE USED THE R ONE WHEN TRYING TO DO THE MAPPING EXERCISE AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS OKAY. THEN WHY WOULD WE CHANGE THAT? OR WHAT CHANGED YOUR MIND ON THAT? I THINK ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, WHAT IS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSED IS THAT TO MAKE IT MORE GENERAL AND TO HAVE FEWER SPECIFIC PLACE TYPES, MAKE THE PLACE TYPES MORE GENERAL, TO MAKE IT A MORE ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR DEVELOPERS, WHICH WE NEED. 
          AND AND I'LL TACK ON TO THIS CONVERSATION, THE TRAFFIC ON LOWMAN FORD. I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, BUT BOGGY FORD IS SLATED TO BE TWO LANES, BOTH DIRECTIONS I WOULD. I'M GOING TO GUESS, SINCE LOWMAN FORD IS OUR MAJOR ARTERIAL FEEDER, THERE'S A SIMILAR PLAN FOR THAT, THAT IT WILL INCREASE IN SIZE AT SOME POINT. SO YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TRAFFIC. 
          ABSOLUTELY. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. GO AHEAD. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, OF COURSE YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          EVEN IF WE DOUBLE IT THE LANES, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS. I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT IT'S, IT'S IT WILL BE PROBLEMATIC AT FOUR LANES. MAYBE WE'LL GO TO SIX LANES. WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE SOLUTIONS WILL BE. BUT YOU KNOW, IT. IT'S. REALLY CAREFUL NOT TO CREATE PROBLEMS FOR OURSELVES. AND AS FOR DEVELOPERS, YES, WE WANT DEVELOPERS. WE WANT DEVELOPERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE THAT FIT OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT DEVELOPERS THAT COME HERE, THEY KNOW WHAT WE WANT, HOW WE WANT THINGS TO BE, HOW WE WANT TO PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER. AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DEVELOP WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK. AND IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN LET THEM GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. LET'S WAIT FOR SOME OTHERS TO COME. WE DON'T WANT TO DRIVE THEM ALL AWAY, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY TEAM. 
          YES, I WOULD, I GUESS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS DIRECT OUR ATTENTION BACK TO WHAT'S HERE, BECAUSE THE AGENDA ITEM IS REFERENCE. THIS. THAT DOCUMENT THAT'S IN OUR PACKET. THIS IS A DIFFERENT COPY. IT'S THE SAME THING, BUT IT'S TO ADDRESS THAT DOCUMENT. NOW, IF THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS ON CHANGING THE WORDING TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT A RESIDENTIAL STANDARD LOT. 
          PLACE TYPE COULD GO FROM A QUARTER ACRE TO 1.99 ACRES, DOESN'T MEAN THERE COULD BE A HOUSE ON EVERY QUARTER ACRE UP TO THAT ALMOST TWO TWO ACRES. LET'S MAKE THAT CLEAR. IF ONCE AGAIN, IF THAT WAS THE INTENT, WHICH I THINK IT WAS, BUT IT'S CLEAR THE LANGUAGE ON THAT SO THAT IT'S ONE RESIDENCE CAN BE BUILT ON SOMETHING AS SMALL AS A QUARTER ACRE, OR UP TO 1.99 
          [00:45:09]
ACRES, ONE RESIDENCE. I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH THAT ONE. SO THAT'S MY SUGGESTION, IS TO LET'S WORK ON THIS DOCUMENT AND MAKE SURE IT'S IT'S SAYING WHAT WE WANT IT TO SAY BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THIS WAS NOT I'M NOT DONE. OH, GO AHEAD. DON'T RELOAD WHILE I'M TALKING. THIS WAS A SUMMARY. IT'S NOT THE COMP PLAN. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE USED TO BUILD THE COMP PLAN AROUND IT. IT'S JUST A SUMMARY. AND, AND YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHY, YOU KNOW, IT INCLUDES ALL THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE INITIAL COMP PLAN. THIS IS A FRAMEWORK TO FLESH IT OUT. LIKE YOU SAID, I BELIEVE I'M DONE. CAN I, CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? SO ALONG THOSE LINES, SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE. LET'S SEE THE, I GUESS THE RESIDENTIAL STANDARD LOT. THAT'S THE ONE THAT WOULD BE ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT UP TO TWO ACRES. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID UP TO 1.9, 1.99. YEAH. SO THAT IS A LOT MORE CLEAR THAT WAY ON A RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT. BUT THAT ALSO BE ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT AT TWO ACRES OR ABOVE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT IS A DIFFERENT I HAD A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING. OKAY. SO ONE RESIDENCE FOR EVERY TWO PLUS GROSS ACRE LOT. MAYBE WE COULD JUST SAY IT LIKE THAT. OKAY. YEAH, WE'VE CHANGED THE WORDING BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME, BUT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THOSE. SO YOU WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE THE WORD LOTS. ONE RESIDENCE PER TWO PLUS GROSS ACRES, LOTS AND JUST WANT THE WORD LOTS ADDED ON ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT FOR FOR EVERY TWO PLUS ACRE LOT. YEAH, ONE ONE RESIDENTS PER LOT FOR EVERY TWO PLUS ACRE LOT. WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. IT SAYS ONE RESIDENCE PER TWO PLUS GROSS ACRES. I WOULD SAY ONE RESIDENCE PER TWO PLUS ACRE LOT. YES. IF YOU SAID THAT, IF YOU SAID ONE RESIDENCE PER TWO PLUS ACRE LOT, THAT WOULD ALSO DO IT. AND CAN YOU ADD SOME CLARIFICATION HERE? THE REASON THE WORD GROSS IS IN THERE IS BECAUSE ANY DEVELOPMENT WILL NECESSARILY REQUIRE STREETS. AND NOW OUR STREETS ARE RIGHT OF WAYS ARE GETTING WIDER. I KNOW SARAH IS ANY EXAMPLE. YOU'RE GOING TO ALSO HAVE CURB AND GUTTER, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SIDEWALKS. AND YOUR RIGHT OF WAY AREA ALONE IS TAKING UP A GREAT DEAL OF ACREAGE. SO WHEN YOU FACTOR THE ROADWAYS INTO THE GROSS ACREAGE, YOU'RE SHRINKING THE AMOUNT THAT'S BUILDABLE FOR RESIDENCES, WHICH AGAIN, ACTUALLY LESSENS DENSITY. BUT THAT'S WHY WE PUT THE GROSS IN THERE. THANK YOU. AND I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER AGAIN THAT THIS IS THE IT'S A SUMMARY. 
          IT'S KIND OF A BIG PLAN SUMMARY. AND WHAT THE INTENT IS FOR THIS TO GO TO COUNCIL, WHEN COUNCIL WILL TAKE ALL OF THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER SO FAR BY THE BY THE CPC AND BY US AND BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE SUBMITTED MATERIAL, AND THEY WILL TAKE ALL OF THE MATERIAL AND THEY WILL THEN MAKE A MORE A SOMEWHAT MORE SPECIFIC COMP PLAN OUT OF OUR SUMMARY. SO THERE'S THIS THIS IS STILL UP TO THEM TO. FLESH OUT. MADAM CHAIR, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MENTION WHAT WE'VE BEEN ADVISED BY COUNCIL AS WELL IN TERMS OF. 
          THEY HAVE A SEPARATE PLAN. BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY COUNCIL, NOT ME PERSONALLY, THAT THEY SAID SPECIFICALLY OR THEY DIRECTED THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY NOT TO PUT TOO MUCH EFFORT INTO THIS, BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON FOR BOILING DOWN TO A SUMMARY, RATHER THAN TRYING TO EDIT VERY VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENT. 
          CAN I RESPOND? YES, YES, I AGREE COMPLETELY ON THAT. THIS HAPPENED TO US LAST YEAR WHERE. 
          YOU KNOW, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE LAST YEAR. GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE THOUGHT, WOW, WE REALLY NEED TO DO A LOT TO REALLY PUT THIS DRAFT INTO SHAPE. AND INSTEAD OF DOING 
          [00:50:03]
THAT, WE SAID, LET'S JUST RECOMMEND THIS TO COUNCIL. NOW, COUNCIL TOOK SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, ASKED US TO REWORK IT, BUT I MEAN, WE COULD KEEP REWORKING THIS AND WORKING ON IT FOREVER. AND WE NEED TO GET MOVED ON AND GET IT DONE. I BELIEVE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON THESE WOULD BE FINE. I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO TRY IF IT DOESN'T TAKE TOO MUCH EFFORT, IF WE IF WE GIVE THEM A NEW MAP TO TRY NOT TO CHANGE THE BUILD OUT POPULATION, WHATEVER'S ON OUR MAP, TRY TO MAKE IT MATCH WHAT OUR BUILD OUT POPULATION IS. FOR THE 2025 MASTER WATER PLAN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, TRY NOT TO INCREASE OUR OUR DENSITY PLAN FROM ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TO TAKE TO GIVE TO COUNCIL THIS SUMMARY OF WHAT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE IN GENERAL, AND THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE IT AND COMPLY WITH ALL THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN COMPILED, ALL THE MATERIAL BY CPAC AND PNC AND THE COMMUNITY, ALL OF THE MAPS, ALL OF THAT, AND THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE IT ALL UNDER ADVISEMENT AND DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, THAT THEY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AND THEY'LL HAVE ALL THE MATERIAL AND LET THEM DO IT. SO CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? SO WHAT TIME FRAME DO YOU THINK WE HAVE? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE TIME FRAME IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO SEND THIS TO COUNCIL. THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO COUNCIL AND RECOMMEND TO THEM THAT THEY WILL TAKE THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TAKE ALL OF THE MATERIAL COMPILED, AND THEN THEY WILL PREPARE A FINAL REVISION OF THE COMP PLAN FOR THE COUNCIL'S ADOPTION. AND THAT, I BELIEVE, IS WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO. AND I THINK THAT BY GIVING THEM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE DONE IN THIS BROAD FORM, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO DO. MR. MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY WORTH DISTINGUISHING COUNCIL. SO THE FORM WE HAVE RIGHT. IS THAT AS LIAISON, IF COUNCIL HAS ANYTHING TO SAY TO YOU, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO COME THROUGH ME AS LIAISON. AND AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY COUNCIL DIRECTION TO THE LIAISON ON THIS SUBJECT. IT MAY BE THAT ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL INDIVIDUALLY HAVE TALKED TO SOME OF YOU AND ADVISED ON, ON THEIR OWN AS AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT NOT SPEAKING FOR THE WHOLE COUNCIL AND AND ADVISED AND I HAVEN'T DONE THIS. I'M JUST SURMISING FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, IT MAY BE THAT SOMEONE HAS SAID, YOU GUYS SHOULDN'T TAKE FOREVER ON THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL'S GOING TO DIG IN SUPER DEEP ON IT. AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT BAD ADVICE. BUT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT COUNCIL HAS NOT GIVEN DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU GUYS NEED TO DO, AND HAS NOT CONVEYED THAT TO ME, AND I'VE NOT CONVEYED THAT TO YOU. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY FREE TO FREE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO HAVE. 
          BUT I DO THINK THAT COUNCIL WILL WANT IT TO MOVE ALONG THAT QUICKLY. AND, YOU KNOW, WHICHEVER COUNCIL MEMBER MAY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT TO YOU, I'D SAY I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT THERE'S BEEN NO FORMAL DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL. YOU ALL ON HOW TO PROCEED. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, JEAN. I JUST MADE I'M SORRY, MY I GUESS I'M ALLERGIC TO SOMETHING. MY THROAT HAS GOT SNOT IN IT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S KIND OF GROSS, BUT. SO I JUST TRIED WRITING SOME AMENDMENTS. SO A RESIDENTIAL, LARGE LOT. ONE RESIDENCE FOR A TWO PLUS GROSS ACRE LOT. MINOR CHANGE. I THINK IT'S ABOUT OKAY. RESIDENTIAL STANDARD LOT ONE RESIDENCE FOR LOTS VARYING IN SIZE FROM A 12:45 .99 GROSS ACRES. YES. 
          OKAY. AND THEN RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ADD UP TO EIGHT RESIDENTS RESIDENCES ON ONE GROSS ACRE. I JUST LEFT OFF THE CARVE OUT TO INCLUDE YADA YADA YADA. YEAH. MADAM CHAIR, INCLUDING THAT CARVE OUT. ONE THING I NOTICED IS WE HAD NOT IDENTIFIED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS. SO EVERYTHING IS CONTEMPLATED. AGAIN, THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE VAGUE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MULTIFAMILY IN ADDITION TO THE SENIOR HOUSING AND OTHER THINGS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD IT UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY AS PART OF THAT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO WOULD YOU HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND THAT LANGUAGE TO SAY A CARVE OUT TO INCLUDE SENIOR HOUSING, ASSISTED LIVING AND STANDARD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING? 
          [00:55:05]
OKAY. AND THAT. MEANING APARTMENTS? YES. COULD I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT CONDOMINIUMS? INDUSTRY JARGON. I AGREE THAT WE HAVE THAT NEED. MY QUESTION WOULD BE HOW DO WE HANDLE NOT GETTING A THREE STORY APARTMENT OR EVEN TWO STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT NEXT TO. A RESIDENTIAL STANDARD LOT BY THE FLUME, JUST BY BEING CAREFUL. AND AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE REASON THAT WE CEASED WORK ON THE FLUME IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE UNLESS THERE'S CONSENSUS ON THE USE TYPES, THEN YOU'RE CREATING A MAP THAT MAY CHANGE. OKAY, OKAY. I THINK THAT WE OH, I WAS GOING TO BRING UP AN EXAMPLE, THE CONDOMINIUMS OR I'M SORRY, THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT ARE ON BOGGY FORD ON THE OTHER STREET, WHICH IS MARSHALL AVENUE, THOSE ARE SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND WHAT THEY THESE APARTMENTS DID, IT'S I FORGOT IT'S THE LOW INCOME HOUSING, APARTMENT APARTMENTS. ANYWAYS, THERE'S A BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND, YOU KNOW, SO BASICALLY THERE'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE WHERE YOU HAVE HIGH DENSITY THAT ABUTS TO A SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT? THERE'S KIND OF A GREENBELT THERE. WHEN YOU'RE IN THOSE HOMES, YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THAT APARTMENT BUILDING. YOU DON'T EVEN SEE IT BECAUSE OF THE GREENBELT. SO THAT'S KIND OF HARD TO PUT INTO A WRITTEN PLAN BECAUSE IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I THINK THAT THAT OKAY, OKAY. I MEAN, I'M JUST POINTING OUT THE WHERE WE COULD HAVE THE NEED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONE. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT. OKAY. I HAVE TWO OTHER THINGS I'D LIKE TO ADD. I THINK THAT'LL BE IT. THE FIRST IS I PROMISED DAVE STEWART, WHO'S NOT HERE TODAY, THAT I WOULD READ A STATEMENT FOR HIM. DOES IT PERTAIN TO THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY? BECAUSE WE ARE WE WE WANT TO STICK TO THE TOPIC OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, WHICH IS THE AGENDA ITEM. AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO LET ME MOVE ON THEN. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD SAY IT PERTAINS OR NOT, BUT BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION TODAY. I MEAN, MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT WE TAKE. THE STAFF DRAFT FROM FEBRUARY AND THE FLUME MAP THAT. WELL, I GUESS THE GENE WORKED ON, I DON'T KNOW, AND GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND THAT TO CITY COUNCIL AND LET THEM RUN WITH THAT AND LET THEM MAKE THEIR CHANGES AND DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO SPEND MUCH MORE TIME ON THIS. IF, IF WE FEEL CITY COUNCIL WANTS IT AND WANTS TO TAKE ACTION. WELL, I THINK THAT WE'VE PRETTY MUCH HAD A PRETTY THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF THIS. QUESTION. JORDAN. WHAT WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT MAP? I GUESS A, A BETTER EXPLANATION BECAUSE I THERE WAS A TERM HOT OVERLAYS COULDN'T BE MADE AND I DON'T, I, I'LL JUST I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. SO, SO WITH THE MAPPING ASPECT, THE ISSUE IS WITHOUT CATEGORIES THAT ARE SET IN STONE, ANY MAPPING WORK WE DO HAS TO BE COMPLETELY REDONE WHEN THOSE CATEGORIES CHANGE. AND SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, STAFFING CAPACITY IS NOT NECESSARILY AT THE POINT WHERE WE CAN MAKE MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE SAME MAP WITH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. AND SO MY HOLDOUT HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN, LET'S GET THE CATEGORY SOLIDIFIED SO THAT WE CAN START MAPPING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE EVER GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE THEY ARE FULLY FLESHED OUT, FULLY IDENTIFIED AND APPROVED, OR GENERALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS BOARD. AND SO THAT'S WE CAN MAKE MAPS. IT'S JUST IF WE HAVE TO, FOR INSTANCE, IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO WITH THE ORIGINAL CATEGORIES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REDO THE WHOLE MAP ANYWAYS. AND IT'S ABOUT TWO WEEKS WORTH OF WORK WHEN YOU GET INTO THE DIGITAL PROCESSING OF ALL THE DATA. 
          WELL, I THINK THAT WE'VE PRETTY MUCH REACHED CONSENSUS WITH JEFF'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND HIS SUGGESTION TO THAT THIS BE PUT TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OTHER DATA THAT'S BEEN COMPILED AND SENDING IT TO COUNCIL. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? 
          [01:00:06]
IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION, ENRIQUE, OR DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? NOT AT THE MOMENT. DO YOU. YEAH. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING. USE THE FEBRUARY STAFF DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE FEBRUARY 22ND MARKED OUT FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED BY GENE HARRIS AS A WORKING BASIS FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND THEN DIRECT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF TO FURTHER REFINE AND UPDATE THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL AND COMMISSION GUIDANCE. THIS PREVIOUSLY GIVEN PRESERVE THE RURAL, RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLACE TYPE FRAMEWORK FROM THE 2020 DRAFT, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY CHOOSE TO DO TO DIFFER, INCLUDING APPROPRIATE TRANSITIONS, OVERLAYS AND CONTEXT SENSITIVE STANDARDS AS A CORE ORGANIZING STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN AND THAT ANY FINAL DRAFT BE ROUTED THROUGH THE FULL, PROPER PUBLIC HEARING AND REVIEW PROCESS PRIOR TO ADOPTION. I HAVE A DISCUSSION WHEN IT'S THE RIGHT TIME. I. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. OKAY. DOES WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA ITEM? I THINK THAT YOU WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE ALL ENCOMPASSING THAN THE AGENDA ITEM. DOES ANYBODY ELSE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I GUESS I WILL. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE LAGO VISTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION THREE B, PART FOUR. TO READ. RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT ONE RESIDENCE FOR A TWO PLUS GROSS ACRE LOT. THREE B PART FIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARD LOT. ONE RESIDENCE FOR LOTS VARYING IN SIZE FROM ONE 12:45 .99 GROSS ACRES AND THEN RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY UP TO EIGHT RESIDENCES ON ONE GROSS ACRE CARVE OUT TO INCLUDE SENIOR HOUSING, SLASH ASSISTED LIVING AND MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. I HAD RESIDENCES I KNEW THAT WASN'T RIGHT, SO THAT'S. MY MOTION. CAN I AMEND YOUR MOTION? SURE. I WOULD TAKE EVERYTHING THAT JEAN JUST SAID. AND ALONG WITH THAT, SAY THAT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE THE RECOMMENDATION BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL AND RECOMMEND THAT ALONG WITH THE SUMMARY, THEY USE THE COMP PLAN MATERIAL PROVIDED BY CPAC. THE OTHER COMP PLAN MATERIAL PROVIDED BY P AND Z AND THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, AND THAT THE COUNCIL PREPARE A FINAL REVISION OF THE COMP PLAN FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION? YES. OKAY. I SECOND JEAN'S MOTION, AS AMENDED BY MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. I I, I DID YOU SAY I DID YOU SAY I DID YOU SAY OKAY THEN THAT WAS UNANIMOUS. MADAM CHAIR, CAN I ASK WHO WILL UPDATE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY? WILL BE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR STAFF IS IF YOU SEND ME THAT WORDING THAT YOU. WELL, IF YOU'LL SEND ME YOUR YOUR WORK, IF YOU WILL SEND ME THE WORDING THAT YOU WANTED ADDED, I'M. I'M GUESSING THAT WOULD JUST GO. AT THE END OF THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION, THE MOTION, THE MOTION. OH, SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CHANGE SECTION B TO WHAT WAS AGREED UPON. AND I'LL DO THAT AND THEN ADD A NOTE THAT WE MADE A MOTION FOR BLAH BLAH BLAH. AND THEN WE CAN SEND THAT REPORT TO COUNCIL WITH THE OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU'VE LISTED. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO TYPE OUT THAT MOTION FOR FOR YOU? YOU CAN. I KNOW MERCEDES IS ALSO HERE TAKING NOTES FOR MINUTES AND SO SOMEBODY WILL HAVE IT. OKAY, WELL I WILL, I WILL MAKE THE CHANGES I'VE GOT I'VE GOT THEM WRITTEN RIGHT HERE. OKAY. AND I'LL, I'LL TYPE THOSE IN. SEND 
          [01:05:04]
THAT WHAT TO YOU THE EXECUTIVE. YEAH. HOWEVER THIS WORKS OUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IT SITUATED BEFORE WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK. WELL, I CAN TYPE THIS OUT AS SOON AS I GET HOME. OKAY? I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE TO SEND IT. YOU CAN SEND IT TO ME AND I'LL MAKE SURE IF I DON'T DO IT, SOMEBODY HERE WILL. OKAY. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO TYPE THE MOTION TO. IF YOU IF YOU NEED ME TO. OKAY. JUST THERE WAS A SPECIFIC, VERY SPECIFIC WORDED MOTION WHICH WAS VOTED ON. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK STAFF WILL NEED TO COMPARE THAT MOTION IN THE, IN THE MINUTES, RIGHT. WITH WHAT YOU GUYS SEND. SO I DON'T KNOW, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EASIER FOR THEM TO DO IT. YOU HAVE TO CHECK IT AGAINST THAT OR IT'S EASIER FOR STAFF TO DO IT. SO RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE A PDF COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 
          IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEND THE WORD. STAFF CAN DO EVERYTHING. I JUST DON'T HAVE A. 
          AS SOON AS WE OPEN THE PDF, IT'S GOING TO THROW OFF FORMATTING. OH, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. OKAY, OKAY. OKAY, WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. YES, SIR. OKAY, OKAY. YEAH, I WILL MAKE THE CHANGES VERBATIM FROM WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN. OKAY. THAT I STATED IN MY MOTION TWO THREE B FOUR FIVE AND SIX. OKAY, PERFECT. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, THANK YOU EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.