[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]
          [00:00:07]
          OKAY. I'LL START AGAIN. NOW IT IS. OH, IT'S STILL 4 P.M. CALLING THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER JUNE 11TH, 2026. AND IN ATTENDANCE, WE HAVE AN ENRIQUE LOPEZ, GENE HARRIS, MYSELF, LINDA AAD JEFF HEALEY, AND DAVE STEWART. NELSON MINYARD IS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND TODAY. SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE ARE 
          [II. CITIZEN COMMENTS]
PROHIBITED FROM ACTING OR DISCUSSING OTHER THAN FACTUAL RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. 
          ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA NOW. THOSE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A FORM TO SPEAK FOR US ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE CALLED UP TO SPEAK NEXT, AND WE HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK. AND THE FIRST PERSON THAT WE HAVE IS JOHNNY BUTLER, WHO WANTS TO SPEAK. ON A MATTER, NOT ON THE AGENDA. I'M SORRY. IT SAYS ON A MATTER, NOT ON THE AGENDA. YES. OKAY. OKAY. I OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THE TRACK 27. THAT'S THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. AND I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY IN 95. AND I HAVE ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AT 150 ACRES. I PRESUME THAT WAS MY DRIVEWAY WHENEVER I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE THAT HALF CIRCLE IS RIGHT DOWN HERE. THAT'S WHERE EVERYBODY TURNS AROUND AND PULLS OFF OR WHATEVER. AND THE. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THERE HAVE BEEN FOR A WHILE, OR DRAINING ALL OF THEIR WATER, HAULING IN TONS AND TONS OF FILL AND DRAINING THEIR WATER RIGHT ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY AND WASHING OUT MY, MY ASPHALT RIGHT ONTO MY PROPERTY. 
          MR. BUTLER, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT IT SEEMS THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ON AN AGENDA ITEM ON ON 7301 LOWMAN DRIVE. OKAY. COULD YOU HOLD OFF AND AND COME AND ADDRESS US BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THAT AGENDA ITEM? YES. OKAY. YOU CALLED ME. WELL, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO STAFF AND COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS. DO 
          [III.1.  Routine Reports from City staff.]
WE HAVE A ROUTINE REPORT FROM CITY STAFF FROM DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STROHMEYER. 
          YES, MA'AM. SO AS FAR AS REPORTS GO, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS EVERYTHING THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THE LEGISLATION IS CHANGING IN REGARDS TO MOBILE FOOD VENDORS. IT GOES INTO EFFECT JULY 1ST. 
          WE ASKED OUR ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT OUR CODE, FIGURE OUT WHAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LEGISLATIVELY COMPLIANT. WE DID RECEIVE THAT FEEDBACK FROM THEM. IT WILL PUT IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. GIVEN THAT THIS LAW TAKES EFFECT JULY 1ST, WE WILL SLOT IT FOR OUR NEXT AGENDA TO DISCUSS. WE'RE ALREADY BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL A LITTLE BIT. 
          AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE FROM LEGAL. THAT INCLUDES THE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE. CURRENTLY IT SITS IN CHAPTER FOUR. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THOSE REFERENCES OUT BECAUSE WE WE'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DO THE HEALTH PERMITS FOR MOBILE FOOD VENDORS. SO WE'RE GOING TO PULL IT OUT OF FOUR. AND THEN AND I'M AWARE THAT THIS MAY BE A LONG STANDING GAP IN OUR CODE, WE DON'T SPEAK TO IT IN OUR ZONING CHAPTERS. MOBILE FOOD VENDORS SPECIFICALLY. AND SO THERE'S SOME CLEANUP ON THAT SO THAT WE CAN REGULATE WHERE THEY GO IN THE CITY NOW THAT WE CAN'T REGULATE THEIR PERMITS. AND SO YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, IT CAME FROM LEGAL. AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING. AND I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP THAT IT'S COMING YOUR WAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IT. AND WE HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL PRESENT AT THIS MEETING. YES, 
          [III.2.  Routine Reports from City Council Liaison.]
MA'AM. OKAY. MR. PRINCE, DO YOU HAVE A REPORT? YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT FEEDBACK FROM COUNSEL. THESE COMMENTS ARE BACKGROUND ON SOME OF THE PREPARATION FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. SO THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS AROUND THE THE SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION AND APPROPRIATENESS OF HAVING DISCUSSION ON ON OR TWO ITEMS TONIGHT. THE THE ATTORNEY HAS BEEN BRIEFED ON THAT AND PROVIDED FEEDBACK TO STAFF. AND I'VE SEEN THE FEEDBACK AS WELL. BUT HE'S HE'LL BE ONLINE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          AND THEN SECONDLY, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT. THERE WAS AN EMAIL THAT MISS SENT OUT TO ALL OF YOU AND AND I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE DID IT. SHE, SHE WAS HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES GETTING 
          [00:05:05]
ON TO THE MESSAGE BOARD AND SHE WANTED TO POST ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. BUT SINCE SHE COULDN'T GET ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, SHE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE ADVICE FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER TO GO AHEAD AND SEND THAT EMAIL. THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HAS SINCE CALLED ME AND SAID, OOPS, I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. THAT WAS BAD ADVICE. MY BAD. SORRY. BUT THE GUIDANCE FROM CITY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR TO COUNCIL, AND I JUST WANT TO REFLECT THAT TO ALL OF YOU AS WELL. EMAILS LIKE THAT ARE JUST NOT ADVISABLE BECAUSE IT VERY EASILY LEADS TO A WALKING QUORUM SITUATION. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN MISS SENT THAT NOTE, IF ONE OF YOU HAD RESPONDED TO HER AND THEN ANOTHER ONE OF YOU TOOK A NOTE AND AND SAID, I'M GOING TO TALK, YOU KNOW, ASK A QUESTION OR MAKE A COMMENT TO ANOTHER COMMISSION MEMBER. THAT'S A WALKING QUORUM, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE REASON WE'VE SET UP THE DISCUSSION BOARD. SO, I MEAN, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE IT'S I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY OR THE LEGAL TERM. NO HARM, NO FOUL. BUT BUT I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU ALL THAT EMAILS TO ALL OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS BORDER ON US GETTING IN TROUBLE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. AND SO WE WANT TO AVOID THAT. AND THE COUNCIL HABIT HAS BEEN THAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS INFORMATIONAL THAT WE WANT ALL OF COUNCIL TO KNOW, WE WILL ASK EITHER THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DISTRIBUTE THAT AS APPROPRIATE SO THAT A SINGLE COUNCIL MEMBER IS NEVER EMAILING ALL OF THE ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO JUST A LITTLE FEEDBACK ON THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I, AGAIN, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL TO YOU ALL FOR THIS, THIS SESSION. OKAY. I BEFORE WE OPEN THE ACTION ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARING, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR YOU, JORDAN. AND THAT IS THE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SPLIT INTO TWO. SO WE REALLY HAVE TWO AGENDA ITEMS, BUT EACH OF THEM HAVE TWO PARTS. AND THAT WAS DONE AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL. AND IT SEEMED TO BE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM INTO TWO SECTIONS. IS IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS IS NEWLY BEING DONE THIS WAY? I'M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY FROM THE REASON IT CAME FROM THE CMO OFFICE, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEY CAN BE READ IN AT THE SAME TIME IF IT IT MAKES IT EASIER. OKAY. 
          OKAY. YEAH. WHO'S THE CMO? CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. OH, MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY. THAT'S BEEN CHANGED. IF YOU'LL NOTICE, ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA THAT WAS POSTED TODAY, THAT LANGUAGE HAS ALL BEEN CHANGED TO WHERE IT'S ALL TIED INTO ONE. SO IT'S BACK TO WHERE IT USED TO BE. OH, OKAY. IT GOT CHANGED. NO, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OKAY. OKAY. SO THEN I WILL READ THEM IN 
          [Items IV.1 & IV.2]
TOGETHER. SO MOVING ON TO ACTION ITEMS IN PUBLIC HEARING ON 26-2964-R-REZ. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO REZONE A PARCEL OF LAND FROM TR ONE TO C-2 PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF CHAPTER 14, AT APPROXIMATELY 4.94 ACRES OF LOT 27, TRAVIS HOLLOW. SECTION TWO, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 78, PAGE 398 AT 7301 LOWMAN FORD ROAD, LAGO VISTA, TEXAS. AND CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION FOR THE RECOMMENDATION ON A REQUEST TO REZONE A PARCEL OF LAND FROM TR ONE TO C-2 PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF CHAPTER 14, AT APPROXIMATELY 4.94 ACRES OF LOT 27, TRAVIS HOLLOW. SECTION TWO, AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 78. PAGE 398 AT 7301 LOWMAN FORD ROAD, LAGO VISTA, TEXAS, 7865. SO WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? YES, MA'AM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS. AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THIS PROJECT IS SLOTTED FOR ANNEXATION AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY. AND SO PART OF THAT IS ADDRESSING THE ZONING THAT GOES WITH IT CURRENTLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN CITY LIMITS. IT DOESN'T HAVE A ZONING. WHAT WILL HAPPEN PROCEDURALLY IS THAT RECOMMENDATION CAN BE MADE TONIGHT. AND THEN FINAL ACTION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE ANNEXATION FIRST, SO THAT WE HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ZONE AND THEN THE ZONING ACTION TO FOLLOW. IN ORDER TO GET THAT SITUATED, IT'S AN EXISTING BUSINESS. IT'S A STORAGE FACILITY. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CASE HISTORY ON IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING UTILITIES, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THEIR USE. THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ON EXACTLY AS THEY HAVE BEEN. THEY'RE JUST COMING INTO THE FULL CITY LIMIT LINES. OKAY. AND I ASSUME THAT THE REASON THAT WE HAVE MR. BULLOCK HERE, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, IS BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED AS TO DOING IT THIS WAY, DOING IT CONCURRENTLY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT YOU MENTIONED AT THE APRIL 16TH MEETING, APPEARS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 143-5, WHICH SAYS THE COMMISSION AND OR CITY COUNCIL MAY, AFTER THE ANNEXATION OF ANY TERRITORY TO THE CITY, THE 
          [00:10:03]
ORDINANCE PERMANENTLY ZONING NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTY SHALL ONLY BE CONSIDERED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE. SO BY REVIEWING IT AND THINKING ABOUT IT, TALKING ABOUT IT, DISCUSSING IT TODAY, THAT'S CONSIDERATION. AND SO MY QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS, HOW CAN WE DISCUSS IT? COULD COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME, MAKE HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN CONSIDER SOMETHING TODAY THAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS WE CANNOT CONSIDER? THE ORDINANCE ADDRESSES FUNDAMENTALLY ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL. ZONING DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL A COUNCIL TAKES ACTION. A, P AND Z IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. THE PROCESS THAT JORDAN HAS DESCRIBED AND THAT IS ONGOING TONIGHT, IS EXTREMELY COMMON IN TEXAS CITIES ALL OVER THE STATE. WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME. SO FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT, IT'S IT'S IT'S VERY COMMON. YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS, IS, IS THAT IT IS A RECOMMENDATION. THERE ARE TIMES AND GIVEN THE PARTICULAR FACTS SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING USE ON IT. IT IS PROBABLY WELL, IT IS ADVISABLE TO ADOPT ZONING CONCURRENTLY OR SHORTLY AFTER ANNEXATION BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS AND THE VESTED RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. CITIES THAT CITIES IT IS FREQUENT FOR CITIES TO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED LIKE A DEFAULT ZONING CATEGORY. AND YOU ALL HAVE ONE OF THOSE AS WELL, DEFAULT ZONING CATEGORIES. WHEN PROPERTY IS BROUGHT IN. HOWEVER, COURTS HAVE CRITICIZED THE PROCESS OF ASSIGNING DEFAULT ZONING SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF ANNEXATION, AND I'VE LITIGATED THAT VERY ISSUE. AND WHETHER OR NOT A CITY'S DEFAULT PROCESS IS IS SUFFICIENT WHEN IT'S GREEN SPACE AND UNUSED LAND, IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE WHEN IT IS AN EXISTING USE, IT IS POTENTIALLY MORE OF AN ISSUE BECAUSE IF THERE WERE FAULT WITH THE DEFAULT ZONING PROCESS, THEN YOU RUN THE RISK OF ANNEXING PROPERTY INTO THE CITY THAT IS, IN A NO MAN'S LAND OF NO ZONING. 
          AND SO THE THE THE PROCESS IS PERMISSIBLE. THE LEGISLATIVE BODY IS THE ONE THAT WILL ACTUALLY ENACT THE ZONING. AND, AND AS I MENTIONED IN AN EMAIL IN RESPONSE TO SOMEONE, I'M NOT SURE WHO I SENT IT TO, BUT SO LONG AS THE ZONING ACTION OCCURS AFTER THE ANNEXATION ACTION, THEN THE COUNCIL'S ACTION WILL BE VALID. OKAY, I STILL HAVE A QUESTION AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT EMAIL THAT YOU SENT, BUT WHEN YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE SAYS THE COMMISSION AND THIS IS THE COMMISSION, DOES THIS MEAN THAT OUR CITY CODE IS INVALID IN THIS CASE, AND WE JUST WILL GO BASED ON WHAT IS COMMONPLACE CURRENTLY? DOES OUR CODE NEED TO BE CHANGED? DO WE NEED TO HOW DO WE. HOW DO WE. OVERLOOK WHAT OUR CODE SAYS TODAY IN THE CONSIDERATION. COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT? LET'S GET TO THE RIGHT SECTION OF THE CODE. HANG ON ONE SECOND. LET ME PULL IT UP. OKAY. IT'S CHAPTER 143-5. OH, THE COMMISSION AND OR CITY COUNCIL MAY, AFTER THE ANNEXATION OF ANY TERRITORY TO THE CITY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S OUR ORDINANCE AND WE ARE THE COMMISSION. SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONSIDER SOMETHING AS LONG AS I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING. AND SO IF YOU COULD JUST HELP US KNOW THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THAT BY ACTING CONTRARY TO CITY CODE, WE'RE STILL BEHAVING APPROPRIATELY. WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS YOU'RE NOT ACTING CONTRARY TO CITY CODE BECAUSE. HANG ON, I'M STILL TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT SECTION HERE. PARDON? I'M SORRY. 
          [00:15:09]
WHAT'S THE SECTION NUMBER AGAIN? I'M NOT. I'M APOLOGIZE. BRAD. IT'S SECTION NUMBER 3-50 IN CHAPTER 14 TITLED ZONING OF NEWLY ANNEXED AREAS. OKAY. 350. THAT'S WHAT I HAD. SORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK IT'S ITEM B THAT MISS ERRED IS PRIMARILY REFERRING TO. YOU CAN SEE. SO HERE'S HERE'S THE ISSUE. SECTION 3-50. NUMBER ONE A IS THE PORTION OF YOUR CODE THAT ASSIGNS AUTOMATIC ZONING. THAT WHICH I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY CLASSIFIED AS A TEMPORARY TR ONE ZONE UNTIL RECLASSIFIED. AND. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE COMMISSION AND OR CITY COUNCIL MAY, AFTER THE ANNEXATION OF ANY TERRITORY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS ON ITS OWN TO GIVE THE NEWLY ANNEXED TERRITORY A PERMANENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE IT USES THE WORD MAY. IT. IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THE ACTION THAT'S TAKING PLACE TONIGHT. IF THE CITY. IF THE ORDINANCE SAID THE CITY. THE COMMISSION ENTERED THE CITY SHALL. ONLY AFTER THE ANNEXATION, THEN YOUR INTERPRETATION. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION, BUT BECAUSE IT SAYS MAY, THAT'S PERMISSIVE. AND WHAT IT'S CONTEMPLATING IS THE TYPICAL PROCESS WHERE A PIECE OF PROPERTY COMES IN AS THIS AUTOMATIC ZONING DESIGNATION AS PART OF ANNEXATION. AND WHAT I'M WHAT I'M RELATING IS THAT THAT PRACTICE, WHILE COMMON AMONG CITIES, HAS BEEN CRITICIZED BY COURTS, I DON'T I MEAN, IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER CHANGING IN ON A MOVING FORWARD BASIS, BUT I THINK THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO, PARTICULARLY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WHERE YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH AN ESTABLISHED USE COMING IN. THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT IT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT USE OF THE PROPERTY IS BEING MADE. THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING AT THE PERMANENT ZONING. AT THE SAME TIME, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT TYPICALLY WHEN YOU ANNEX PROPERTY, IT RECEIVES THAT TEMPORARY ZONING DESIGNATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THE FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY. IT MIGHT BE YOU MIGHT SUSPECT WHAT IT IS, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IN THIS CASE, YOU DO KNOW. AND SO BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN THAT SECTION SAYS MAY, IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THE ACTION THAT'S HAPPENING TONIGHT. 
          BUT IF IT SAID SHELL, THEN IT WOULD BE PROHIBITED. I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE. YES. OKAY. SO IT IT GOES ON TO SAY THE ORDINANCE PERMANENTLY ZONING NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTY SHALL ONLY BE CONSIDERED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, AND THAT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE WILL BE AFTER THE JUNE 18TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 
          SO. WELL, NOT I MEAN, SO SO THE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ZONING, RIGHT? YOU HAVE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION, AND THEN THE COUNCIL TAKES ACTION AND ESTABLISHES THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ZONING AFTER, YOU KNOW, CONCURRENT WITH OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION. AND SO IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THE ACTION AS BEING CONTEMPLATED IN THIS SEQUENCE. IT'S JUST THAT THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE PAPERWORK AND THE DATES OF DESIGNATION OF EFFECTIVE DATES THAT ARE THAT ARE WILL BE CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCES THEMSELVES. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR CLARIFICATION? I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT I WHAT I'M HEARING AND WHAT I'M READING IN PART C IS THE IS THE OPERATIVE ONE THAT I THINK THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING. THAT'S THE STICKING POINT, IF YOU WILL, SAYS THE ZONING CHANGE MAY BE STARTED BY THE CITY AND OR PROPERTY OWNER BEING ANNEXED. FOLLOWING THE CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXING LAND. SO THE THE REASON WE CAN DO THIS IS BECAUSE WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING THIS. WE'RE NOT MAKING. WELL, I GUESS WE ARE. WE ARE BEING MADE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. BUT IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. WE AREN'T THE REZONING BODY. AND SO WE CAN DO THAT. CITY COUNCIL THEN CAN MEET, ANNEX AND THEN FOLLOW OUR RECOMMENDATION, THEIR DESIRES, WHATEVER, AND ASSIGN THE ZONING AS C TWO. YES. YOU'VE YOU'VE STATED THAT'S THE THAT IS THE THAT IS A PROCESS 
          [00:20:04]
THAT'S COMMON. AND THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE. AND, AND THIS SECTION 350 IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT ANY OF THAT. I'VE REVIEWED THAT SECTION I, I, ONE OF MY ONE OF MY PARTNERS REVIEWED THAT SECTION AS WELL. AND WE BOTH CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION INDEPENDENTLY THAT, THAT THE PROCESS LAID OUT HERE BY, BY JORDAN IS, IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER YOUR ORDINANCES BECAUSE PRECISELY AS YOU SAY, SIR, WHAT'S HAPPENING TONIGHT IS A CONSIDERATION AND A RECOMMENDATION. ULTIMATELY, THE THE COUNCIL, THEY MAY OR MAY NOT ACCEPT YOUR RECOMMENDATION. THEY MAY DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT ACTUALLY SETS THE ZONING TONIGHT IS IS A IS A PART OF THE PROCESS THAT MAY BE THAT MAY GO FORWARD, YOU KNOW, AS THIS AS THIS HAPPENS, YOU MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO ZONING. AND THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDES IT DOES NOT APPROVE THE ANNEXATION. AND THEN YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN NOTHING HAS HAPPENED, RIGHT? NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN. SO THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY. BUT IN THE EVENT THAT THE ANNEXATION DOES OCCUR AND THAT PASSES, THEN, THEN, AND ONLY THEN COULD THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDE TO FOLLOW WHATEVER YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS OR NOT, THAT THAT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THEIR DISCRETION. GOT IT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT 4:22 P.M. AND, MR. BUTLER, I THINK YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS. ALL RIGHT. HAD THE PROPERTY SINCE 1995. WE BUILT A HOUSE UP THERE. 
          I DON'T USUALLY GET INVOLVED IN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. I OWN BUSINESS, BUT THIS BUSINESS THAT IS TRYING TO EXPAND AT THIS TIME, THEY'RE DOING IT WITHOUT A PERMIT. THERE'S NO PERMIT OVER THERE. THE ONLY THING THAT'S POSTED IS SOMETHING FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT I'VE QUESTIONED THEM ABOUT THAT WENT TO TTCQTCEQ ABOUT IT, AND THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW. THEY'VE GOT HIM STOPPED BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE LAST RAIN. JUST WASHED, COMPLETELY WASHED ALL OF THE ASPHALT OFF MY DRIVEWAY, AND I'M THE ONE THAT PAID FOR THAT, THAT ROAD THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP. THERE WASN'T A ROAD THERE WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PLACE. 
          I PAID FOR IT. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN TAKING CARE OF THAT HALF CIRCLE. I MOW IT AND TAKE IT, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT NICE FOR THE CITY. AND I PASSED THE DRIVEWAY. I DO IT ALL MYSELF. I PAID FOR IT ALL MYSELF. THIS GUY WILL NOT PAY FOR ANYTHING AND HE'S RUINING MY DRIVEWAY. SO I'VE GOT AN ATTORNEY BE HERE AT THIS NEXT MEETING. AND THE CITY, AS FAR AS I KNEW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ANNEX THAT, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO OR HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES. 
          IT'S IN THE CITY. HE'S NOT DOING THAT. YOU CAN'T JUST YOU KNOW, I GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO TO PUT THEIR DRIVEWAY UP THERE OFF OF MY PROPERTY WHENEVER IT WAS OWNED BY TWO OWNERS AGO. I KNEW THEM AND I LIKED THEM. I DON'T LIKE THIS GUY. HE THREATENED ME PHYSICALLY JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WANT HIM RUNNING WATER ACROSS MY DRIVEWAY. I'VE GOT EXACTLY EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID, AND HE THREATENED ME. AND THEN I SAID, ARE YOU THREATENING ME? AND HE SAID, YES. OKAY, SO I DON'T LIKE THAT. SO I'M HERE. THAT'S THE REASON THAT I'M TELLING YOU THAT IF THE CITY GETS INVOLVED WITH THIS GUY AND YOU ALLOW HIM TO PUT THIS TO CARRY ON WITH THAT, HE'S GOING TO ADD ANOTHER. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF STORAGE BUSINESSES THERE OR STORAGE BUILDINGS, BUT THEY'VE ALREADY HAULED IN ALL THIS MATERIAL AND I'VE GIVEN THEM TWO OPTIONS. I SAID, YOU CAN RUN YOUR RUN THE THE DRAIN WATER ALL THE WAY ON YOUR SIDE OF THAT. OUR ROAD TO LOWMAN'S. AND THERE'S ALREADY A PIPE UNDER THERE. AND HE GOES DOWN AND THEN UNDER A HUGE PIPE AND RUNS IT OVER TO THE LAKE. BUT HE SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. TWO CONTRACTORS THAT HE HAD WORKING ON, HE FIRED THE FIRST ONE AND HE TOLD ME, NO, WE'RE GOING TO RUN IT DOWN THIS SIDE JUST LIKE YOU WANT. OKAY. HE FIRED THOSE GUYS. THEY GONE AND HIRED ANOTHER CREW FROM DALLAS. I TALKED TO THEM TWO. AND YEAH, THE PLAN IS WE'RE GOING TO RUN THE WATER ALL THE WAY ON OUR SIDE TO LOWMAN'S UNDERNEATH THE PIPE. IT'S ALREADY UNDER THERE. AND THIS HE SAID. WHEN I QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT IT, HE SAID, WELL, THEY DON'T OWN THIS PLACE, I DO. YOU SHOULD HAVE CAME TO ME. AND THAT'S WHAT I TRIED TO DO. WELL, 
          [00:25:02]
MR. BUTLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL COME BACK AT JUNE 18TH WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS THIS. OKAY? OKAY. SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT TODAY. OKAY. BUT I JUST WANTED TO I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO SAY UP HERE. WELL, TECHNICALLY, YOU'RE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, SO THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE HAVING FUN. SO. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARENTS. AND I AM SURE THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THEM AS WELL. MISS, IF I MAY SUGGEST STAFF MAY COMMENT ON ON MR. BUTLER'S STATEMENTS AROUND IF THEY'RE ANNEXED, THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE CITY RULES. RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AFTER ANNEXATION IS DONE, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CODE. AT THAT POINT, WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE AUTHORITY TO CODE ENFORCE, TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCEDURAL THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT AND BRING THINGS INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CODE. THINGS CAN'T BE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND CITY OVERSIGHT. THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW CITY ZONING REGULATIONS. IT'S ALL TIED TO THE ANNEXATION. AND SO TODAY, NOBODY AT THE CITY HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER THAT PROPERTY. IF WE CAN MAKE IT THROUGH ANNEXATION AND ZONING AT THAT POINT, WE WE CAN. I CAME OVER EARLIER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD REQUEST ONE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO JUST RIDE WITH ME OVER THERE, AND YOU CAN TAKE ONE LOOK AT IT AND SEE THE WHOLE THING, THE WHOLE PROBLEM. LET ME GET YOU MY CARD AND MYSELF AND A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL GO OUT WITH YOU. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND. 
          YEAH, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS. THERE'S CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN THIS APPLICATION AS FAR AS UTILITIES GO. AND ONE SECTION, THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO ABIDE OR HOOK UP TO SEWER AND WATER AFTER ANNEXATION. BUT ON PAGE 17, IT STATES, REGARDING MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WE WISH TO HIGHLIGHT THAT OUR FACILITY IS SELF-SUFFICIENT. WE DO NOT REQUIRE CITY SERVICES SUCH AS WATER OR SEWER, ENSURING THAT OUR ANNEXATION WILL NOT PLACE ANY ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON CITY'S EXISTING UTILITY CAPACITY OR PUBLIC WORKS RESOURCES. SO FIRST, I'LL ADDRESS THE SEWER. WHEN I RAN THE LINE UNDERNEATH LOEHMANN'S FORD AND HOOKED UP HILLSIDE, I STUBBED OUT THE SEWER SERVICE TO THIS PROPERTY. THEY CHOSE NOT TO HOOK UP TO IT, AND THEY'RE USING A PORTA POTTY NOW. THE PLACE WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND WITH NO REGULATIONS, BUT I CAN GUARANTEE THAT IF THIS. IF THEY HAD BEEN INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER BUILT A STORAGE SHED WITHOUT FIRE HYDRANTS STRATEGICALLY LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TERRAIN, IF THAT PLACE CATCHES ON FIRE, IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT HILLSIDE AND IT'S GOING TO START A FIRE THAT'S GOING TO HEAD TO TO JONESTOWN. SO TO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT THAT A PROPER FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL OF THE STORAGE UNITS. AND ADDITIONALLY, I DON'T KNOW OF ANOTHER BUSINESS IN LAGO VISTA WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO USE A PORTA POTTY. SO THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HOOK UP TO THE CITY SEWER, WHICH MEANS THEY'LL NEED TO PAY TAP AND IMPACT FEES FOR BOTH. I JUST SUGGEST AND REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PHASE. AND SO IF IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO A PUBLIC COMMENT THAT HAS JUST HAPPENED, IT'S FAIR TO ASK THE CHAIR BUT FOR GENERAL COMMENTS, IT'S BETTER TO WAIT UNTIL THE DISCUSSION IS UP. YOU KNOW, POST UNTIL WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT FOR. I THINK THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOOD, RELEVANT COMMENTS, DAVE. IT JUST FEELS LIKE THAT WOULD BE IN THE THE AFTER THE PUBLIC IS FINISHED MAKING ALL THEIR STATEMENTS. TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I'M USED TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS COMING AFTER THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. AND LIKE LAST TIME, IF MR. BUTLER WANTS TO SPEAK AGAIN AT THE END, I THINK HE OUGHT TO BE GIVEN THE THING. THIS IS THE ONLY COMMISSION I'VE EVER BEEN ON WHERE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PROCEED TO DISCUSSION. WHAT WE ALWAYS DO IN CITY COUNCIL IS THE STAFF MAKES THEIR COMMENTS, AND IF THERE'S A PERSON THAT IS PRESENTING FROM THE APPLICANT, THEY MAKE THEIR COMMENTS. AND THEN AFTER THAT'S DONE, THEN THE PUBLIC HAS THEIR CHANCE TO COMMENT. AND THEN THERE'S A DISCUSSION ON THE ON THE ON THE 
          [00:30:01]
DAIS AMONG THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OR COMMISSIONERS. AND THEN DECISION HAPPENS FROM THAT. 
          SO THAT'S BEEN OUR NORMAL PROCEDURE. SO IT'S SO WE'RE NOT HAVING TWO ROUNDS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS GOING ON AS AS ACTUALLY HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST IN THIS MEETING. THAT BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT. DID WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ASKED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE HERE. OKAY. I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE I OFFICIALLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT 432 AND I'LL OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS. MADAM CHAIR, IS THE CURRENT EXISTING FACILITY IN TRAVIS COUNTY? IT'S IN TRAVIS COUNTY? YES. THE EXISTING ISN'T IN LAGO VISTA, BUT THEY WANT TO ANNEX THE NEW PROPERTY INTO LAGO VISTA. THEY WANT TO ANNEX THE EXISTING AND THE NEW INTO EXISTING. OKAY. THEN AUTOMATICALLY THE EXISTING IS GOING TO NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE IF THERE ARE FIRE. SO AND ALL DEFAULT TO BRAD ON THIS ONE TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M STATING THIS ACCURATELY. I DON'T THINK WE CAN REQUIRE THEM BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT AT A TIME IN WHICH THOSE STANDARDS DID NOT APPLY. SO ANYTHING NEW THAT THEY DO, ANY RENOVATIONS, ANY NEW PERMITS, ANY EXPANSIONS, WE CAN REQUIRE THAT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, RETROFIT WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE AND FALLS IN LINE WITH STATE LAW. BUT I CAN'T FORCE THEM ON DAY ONE TO COME INTO OUR CODE WHEN THEY BUILT THE BUILDING, NOT IN CITY LIMITS, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. NO, IT MAKES SENSE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE. YEAH, JORDAN STATED IT CORRECTLY. OH. YEAH. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THEY WOULD BE CALLED NONCONFORMING OR GRANDFATHERED IN IF OTHER CODES, THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE BUILT TODAY, WE CAN'T RETROACTIVELY GO BACK AND HAVE THEM CHANGE IF THEY EXPAND, IF THEY RENOVATE, IF THEY. I MEAN, IT COULD BE EVEN SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT. 
          THERE ARE CERTAIN TRIGGERS THAT SAY WE CAN FORCE ADDITIONAL THINGS TO BECOME COMPLIANT, BUT THERE IS A VESTED RIGHT IN THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BUILT TODAY THAT WE CAN'T SUPERSEDE BECAUSE THEY'RE ANNEXING. OKAY. WELL, THAT BEING SAID, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IF THEY'RE BEING ANNEXED, IF THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO BE ANNEXED BY THE CITY. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THEY'RE ASKING FOR TROUBLE, BUT WHAT'S THE BENEFIT FOR THEM IF YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF IT'S GOING TO COST THEM IN THE FUTURE TO, YOU KNOW, BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CODE OR SOMETHING, WHAT'S WHAT'S THE BENEFIT FOR THEM? AND SO THIS WAS MENTIONED AT A COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL, AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE APPLICANT'S LETTER FOR ANNEXATION. SO IT'S WITH THAT MATERIAL, ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE TRYING TO EXPAND. HOWEVER TRAVIS COUNTY CAN'T FIND THEIR ORIGINAL PERMITS. AND SO TRAVIS COUNTY WON'T LET THEM EXPAND. AND SO TRAVIS COUNTY TOLD THEM ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, PULL YOUR PERMITS THROUGH THE CITY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT UNDER CITY STANDARDS. BUT AT THAT POINT, YOU CAN PROCEED WITH SOME KIND OF CONSTRUCTION OF SOME KIND. HOWEVER, AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE FOLLOWING OUR RULES AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WELL AWARE OF THAT, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE IN OUR CODE COMPLIANCE. THEY HAVE TO BE UNDER OUR FIRE STANDARDS, OUR WATER WASTEWATER STANDARDS FOR THAT EXPANSION PORTION ONLY. 
          AND SO TODAY, WHATEVER'S THERE, WE CAN'T REALLY TOUCH UNTIL THEY EXPAND, MODIFY, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. ANYTHING NEW IS OUR STANDARDS, OUR RULES OF REGULATION, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS FULLY AWARE THAT IT MEANS MORE STIPULATIONS. AND I'M SORRY, I HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THEN TO DAVE'S POINT ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCY OF WE'RE WE'RE SELF-SUFFICIENT. WE DON'T NEED TO TIE INTO CITY SERVICES. THAT'S THE EXISTING. THE NEW WOULD BE. IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH THEY'RE PLANNING TO EXPAND. AND SO PART OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS WILL TELL US HOW MUCH MORE THEY CAN PUT DOWN ON THE GROUND. AND THAT'S WHERE THINGS COME INTO PLAY. THAT NEW SECTION MAY HAVE TO BE FIRE SUPPRESSED, BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT. THEY'RE NOT TYING ANYTHING EXISTING INTO CITY UTILITIES AS FAR AS EXTENSIONS GO, AND IT'S IN THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE PLAN AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION. IT'S COMPLETELY ON THEM TO PAY FOR THE COST OF ANY WATER AND WASTEWATER EXTENSIONS TO SERVE THEIR PROPERTY. WHEN THINGS ANNEX, WE CAN DO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THROUGH THE ANNEXATION PROCESS THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THE CITY WILL PAY FOR X, YOU'LL PAY FOR Y, WE'LL MEET IN THE MIDDLE, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT SHAKE OUT TO BE. THIS PROPERTY OWNER DECLINED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND SO TODAY THERE'S NOTHING. TOMORROW THERE'S NOTHING. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COST TO GET THAT SOMETHING. YEAH. I WAS THINKING MAYBE THAT'S A HOOK. IF THE NEW AREA HOOKS IN TO MUNICIPAL FACILITIES AND IF THE OLD AREA SUDDENLY NEEDS MORE, THEN MAYBE THAT'S YOUR HOOK TO GET INTO. AND ANYWAY, WE'LL GET TO THAT POINT. WHEN THEY SUBMIT SOME KIND OF SITE DEVELOPMENT THEY WILL HAVE ON ANY EXPANSIONS. THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET CITY CODE, WHATEVER THAT 
          [00:35:04]
IS. AND THAT INCLUDES FIRE. SO THANK YOU JORDAN. AND THAT'S ONLY FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. 
          OR IS THAT FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING. THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE FOR THE NEW RIGHT. IT'LL BE FOR THE NEW SOMEHOW TO THE BUT THERE'S CAVEATS IN THAT WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR HOSE LAY, IF YOU CAN'T REACH A CERTAIN HOSE LAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IT ONTO THE PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S UP TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. IF YOU CAN'T GET ENOUGH PRESSURE, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO BUILD A TANK. THERE'S THERE'S THINGS WHEN THEY COME WITH A SET OF PLANS THAT WILL TELL US WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO BE COMPLIANT, AND UNTIL THEN, WE DON'T KNOW. BUT ANYTHING THEY NEED TO BE COMPLIANT, THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR. THE CITY IS NOT ON THE HOOK FOR ANY EXTENSIONS OR UPSIZING NECESSARY TO SERVE THIS PROJECT. OKAY. MR. STEWART, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD THINK IN ON SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW. THIS ACTION HAD TO HAVE FIRE PROTECTION. THAT'S BETTER THAN NOT HAVING ANY AT ALL. AND BASICALLY AS SKINNY AS THAT THING IS, IF THEY HAD THE FIRE HYDRANTS FOR CORRECTING PLACE, THAT WOULD COVER BOTH THE OLD AND THE NEW. BUT I THINK A STRONG ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN, IN LAGO VISTA THAT SERVICED WITH A PORTA POTTY, ONLY THEY NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF INDOOR PLUMBING. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS? WELL, I THINK THEY I THINK I AGREE, BUT I THINK THE NEW BATHROOMS PER SE WOULD HAVE TO BE UNDER NEW BUILDINGS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RETROFIT. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO RETROFIT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH THE WITH THE BATHROOMS. NOW, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS THE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A VERY STEEP DRIVEWAY IS THAT HAS THE FIRE CHIEF DRIVEN UP THE UP ALL THE WAY UP THE HILL TO SEE IF IT'S. THE RIGHT SIZE FOR THE FIRE TRUCKS AND EVERYTHING? I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. SO, TRAVIS, BECAUSE WE CONTRACT WITH ESD ONE, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PROPERTY TODAY. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. THEY'RE THEY'RE STILL IN THE COUNTY. THEY STILL GET SERVICED BY TRAVIS COUNTY. AND SO IF TRAVIS COUNTY IS AWARE OF AN ISSUE, IT WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP AND ADDRESSED. THE ANNEXATION DOESN'T IMPACT WHO'S ENFORCING FIRE THINGS. IT'S THE SAME. IT'S JUST WE WILL TALK TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THEIR PROJECTS INSTEAD OF JUST BEING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEM. 
          OKAY. IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS REQUEST AND SEND IT TO COUNCIL WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO. IS THERE SOME WAY TO ADD SOMETHING THAT THE FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE NEW SECTION AND POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF THE PORTA POTTY FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING BE FIGURED INTO THIS SOMEHOW? AND. BRAD. YEP. YEAH. THOSE ARE I MEAN, THOSE ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NOT RELATED TO I MEAN, THE, THE APPLICATION IS FOR A ZONING DESIGNATION. AND SO THOSE THAT THAT REALLY GETS INTO SOMETHING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THIS IS THE ACTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN TONIGHT. I WITHDRAW THE COMMENT. OKAY. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. HARRIS AND A SECOND FROM MR. LOPEZ. DO WE? NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. AND I AM NOT VOTING IN FAVOR SIMPLY BECAUSE I'M NOT. IT WASN'T SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED TO ME. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON SOMETHING THAT'S IN A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS AFTER ANNEXATION, SO IT STILL PASSES. 
          MR. BULLOCK, I WE RAN INTO THIS ISSUE AT CITY COUNCIL, AT A COUNCIL MEMBER CHOOSING NOT TO VOTE. IS THAT ALLOWABLE ON A COMMISSION? I KNOW IT'S I DIDN'T VOTE, I VOTED AGAINST VOTED NO. OH, YOU VOTED AGAINST I'M SORRY. OKAY, I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU. THEN I WILL 
          [00:40:03]
WITHDRAW MY QUESTION. OKAY. AS LONG AS YOU'RE ON RECORD. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR AND ONE ONE AGAINST. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT TWO ITEMS THAT WILL 
          [Items IV.3 & IV.4]
COMBINE INTO 126-2963-R-REZ. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, AND I'LL ALSO READ IN, CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF CHAPTER 14 FROM TR1 AND R1S2C2 AT 7600 FORD ROAD FOR 0.1421 ACRE TRACT A AND LOTS. 1873 TO 1874 LAGO VISTA ESTATES. SO DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? YES. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS. THIS ONE IS A BIT MORE OF AN INTERESTING CASE. AND SO HISTORICALLY THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY WAS TWO AND A HALF LOTS. THERE WAS A UTILITY EASEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO. THOSE HAVE BEEN COMBINED. AND WHEN THEY WERE COMBINED THE ZONING WASN'T ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF THE LOT CONSOLIDATION. AND SO WHAT'S ESSENTIALLY HAPPENED IS NOW WE HAVE ONE LOT WITH TWO ZONING CATEGORIES ON IT. AND SO THE FRONTAGE IS COMMERCIAL. ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU'LL NOTE THAT IT ALSO SAYS COMMERCIAL FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TRACK. THE BACK PORTION OF THE TRACK IS RESIDENTIAL ZONED RESIDENTIAL. AND SO IT'S A ONE FOR ONE MATCH ON THIS CHANGE. THE INTENT IS TO CLEAN UP THE ZONING AND MAKE IT COMMERCIAL ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK END OF THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE MISS AIRED SOME NOTICES IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE FOR AND AGAINST CATEGORIES. AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE AND IT'S INCLUDED IN THE PACKET TO AN EXTENT, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. IT IS AN AUTO ZONE PROJECT. THEY HAVE KEPT THE DEVELOPMENT ONTO THAT FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. I BELIEVE IT'S VERY PRELIMINARY, AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANTS HERE TODAY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. STAFF IS HERE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. IF THERE'S ANYTHING SPECIFIC, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS IT. OTHERWISE WE'LL WE'LL LEAVE YOU TO IT. WELL, THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE HAD IS I DON'T FIND THAT THIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER. OKAY. 
          WE HAVE THE CERTIFICATION FROM HILL COUNTRY NEWS SHOWING THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED ON 514. I IT'S NOT IT'S NOT SHOWING IN THE TEXAS NOTIFICATIONS. WHAT WAS PUBLISHED ON. 14 WAS FOR CITY COUNCIL TO HEAR IT DO. SO IT WASN'T ON OUR WEBSITE EITHER. WE HAVE. I CAN SEND YOU THE PUBLICATIONS FOR ALL OF THEM. MR. BULLOCK AND I HAD OPINED ON THIS. WE'VE BOTH REVIEWED THE NOTICES AND FOUND THEM TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES. OKAY. AND I'VE ASKED FOR THAT, AND NO ONE FURNISHED IT TO ME. SO WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE. CAN CAN WHILE WE ARE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, CAN SOMEBODY PULL IT UP? YES. I WOULD ASK FOR A MINUTE. OKAY. 
          MR. STEWART, OKAY, SO THE LIGHTS ON. OKAY. WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS COMBINED INTO A SINGLE LOT, I SENT SEVERAL EMAILS TO CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE AND PUBLIC WORKS STAFF AND INFORMED THEM THAT THERE IS AN ACTIVE SIX INCH AC FORCE MAIN IN THAT EASEMENT. AND IF YOU VALVE OFF EITHER INTO THAT, THE FIRE PROTECTION FOR NORTHLAND AREA IS NIL. IT'S GONE. SO THERE IS AN EASY SOLUTION, WHICH I GAVE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS STAFF, WHERE WE HOOK ON TO THE MAIN OUT IN NORTHLAND, AND WE RUN IT OUT AND HOOK IT TO A DISTRIBUTION PIPE THAT'S ALONG LOWMAN'S FORD, AND WE BACK UP THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, GO AS FAR AS WE CAN WHERE THERE'S NO HOOKUPS, AND THEN HOOK THAT AC PIPE TO THAT SAME MAIN TO WHERE WE STILL HAVE THE LOOP. I PERSONALLY FIXED TWO LEAKS ON THIS WATER LINE. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAD ANOTHER LEAK THERE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO, SO I KNOW THAT THAT MAIN IS ACTIVE, AND I THINK THAT THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, AT HIS EXPENSE, OUGHT TO TAKE THAT AC PIPE OUT OF SERVICE AND HOOK IT TO THE WATER MAINS ON LOWMAN. OKAY. ADDITIONALLY, IN THE PACKAGE, THE FORCE MAIN IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. I PUT THAT INTO, AND IT'S NOT ON THE MICROPHONE. BEFORE YOU DO 
          [00:45:07]
THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST MISS AIR, JUST MANAGING THE MEETING. IF YOU HAD A COMMISSIONER THAT WAS MAKING COMMENTS, IS HE DONE? IS HE HAS HE RELEASED THE FLOOR? I'M DONE. MR. HEALY IS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT. ACTUALLY, I'LL WAIT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A QUESTION TO HER. SO I'LL WAIT. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR. SHE'S WAITING. WE'RE WAITING. OKAY. SO DAVE, I, I WASN'T ABLE TO HEAR LIKE THE FINAL LITTLE BIT OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. SO IS THERE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT SOME ACTION IS BEING POTENTIALLY TAKEN THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM FOR THE FIRE SUPPRESSION? JUST IF YOU COULD CLEAR THAT, CLARIFY THAT FOR ME, PLEASE. YES. THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS AN ACTIVE DISTRIBUTION WATER MAIN GOING ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY, TO WHICH IT ABANDONED THE EASEMENT FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO. AND THEY'RE FIXING TO BUILD A PARKING LOT AND BUILDING ON TOP OF IT. I DON'T THINK THAT WE WANT TO BE BUILDING ON TOP OF A 50 YEAR OLD WATER LINE. I THINK WE WANT TO REROUTE IT. MADAM CHAIR, IF THE WATER LINE IS IN AN EXISTING EASEMENT, THEY CAN'T BUILD A BUILDING OVER AN EXISTING EASEMENT. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ABANDONED. THE CITY'S ALREADY ABANDONED THE EASEMENT WITHOUT RELOCATING THE LINE. AND THE LINE IS ACTIVE. 
          YES, THE LINE'S ALWAYS BEEN ACTIVE. THEY HAD A LEAK ON IT THREE YEARS AGO. AND WHY DID THEY ABANDON THE EASEMENT? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO ME. AND THERE'S SOMETHING IN AN OLD FILE THAT SAYS, IN 2019, WHEN THIS CAME UP, THERE WAS AN ESTIMATE THAT IT WAS GOING TO COST ABOUT $35,000 TO MOVE THAT WATER LINE, PROBABLY. SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT NOW THE MOVEMENT OF THAT LINE WOULD BE QUITE A BIT MORE. BUT, WELL, JUST PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING OVER A LIVE UTILITY LINE, NO MATTER WHAT THE NATURE OF THE LINE WAS. I DON'T THINK THEIR PLAN. AND IF THERE'S NO EASEMENT, A BUILDING ON THE UTILITY LINE, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE JUST THE PARKING LOT. YEAH. THE PARKING, IT JUST LOOKED LIKE SOMETHING THAT USUALLY YOU CAN PARK OVER AN EASEMENT, SO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU. THE PROBLEM IS WITH USING A VIBRATORY ROLLER TO BUILD A PARKING LOT ON TOP OF A CONCRETE MAIN WITH A 50 YEAR LIFE SPAN THAT IS 48 YEARS OLD. IT'S A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. WE BUSTED AC LINES DOING OVERLAYS WITH VIBRATORY ROLLERS. I CAN IMAGINE WHAT A PARKING LOT IS GOING TO BE LIKE. COMMISSIONERS, THAT CITY MANAGER IS REMINDING ME THE ANSWER MAY BE THE SAME AS WE HEARD ON THE PREVIOUS ONE, THAT THESE ARE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFIC DETAILS, WHICH ARE NOT IN THE SCOPE OF ZONING, BUT I WOULD INVITE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COMMENT OR CITY STAFF TO COMMENT ON CAN AND WILL THESE THINGS BE ADDRESSED IN A ZONING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS? SPECIFICALLY, WHAT'S THE CONFLICT? THE WATER LINE NEEDS TO BE MOVED. THE WATER LINE NEEDS TO BE MOVED OFF PROPERTY AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. THIS TAXPAYER SHOULD NOT BE PAYING TO MOVE THAT LINE. THAT'S A FUNCTION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT. AND TO BE IT, WHEN WE GET INTO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, SITE CONSTRAINTS WOULD BE THE CATALYST FOR THOSE MOVES. AND SO I WOULD GUARANTEE THAT IT HAS TO BE MOVED, GIVEN THE WAY THAT IT'S QUITE LITERALLY SPLITTING THE PROPERTY IN HALF. BUT IT IS A FUNCTION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT A FUNCTION OF ZONING. I JUST WANTED IT ON RECORD THAT THERE'S A WATER LINE THERE. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU FOUND THE PUBLICATION? OKAY, SO IT WAS IN FACT PUBLISHED IN HILL COUNTRY NEWS ON 514. WE DO HAVE THE CONFIRMATION AND THE CERTIFICATION FROM THAT. I BELIEVE YOU'RE SPEAKING IN REGARDS TO THE CITY WEBSITE AND HAVING IT LISTED ON THERE. I'M ACTUALLY SPEAKING IN REGARD TO THE THE THE SITE THAT'S MAINTAINED BY THE TEXAS STATE PRESS ASSOCIATION THAT KEEPS 
          [00:50:02]
THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE PUBLICATIONS. AND IT DOES NOT SHOW IT DOES NOT SHOW A PUBLICATION FOR THIS HEARING, FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING TO HEAR THIS. IT DOES SHOW A PUBLICATION FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING TO HEAR THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM THAT WE HEARD. SO, AND IT DOES SHOW A PUBLICATION ON THAT DATE FOR CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT DOES NOT SHOW A PUBLICATION FOR US IN IN THE RECORD OF THE TEXAS. SO SO IT'S NOT ON THE CITY WEBSITE AND IT'S NOT IN THE HERE. AND I DID ASK OF A FEW DAYS AGO FOR EVIDENCE OF PUBLICATION, AND I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE FROM ANYONE IN THE CITY. SO WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEND NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS TO THE, THE NEWSPAPER THAT WE ADOPT AS OUR NEWSPAPER. I THINK WE TYPICALLY DO IT EVERY YEAR. IT'S STANDARD PROCEDURE. THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO. WHAT THEY DO WITH THOSE NOTICES GO BEYOND WHAT WE AT A STAFF LEVEL FUNCTION AT. WE'VE SENT THE NEWSPAPER NOTICE TO OUR CERTIFIED NEWSPAPER POSTING SITE, PER WHAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO DO AT A STAFF LEVEL. AND SO THE THE GAP BETWEEN HILL COUNTRY NEWS AND WHAT WE'RE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO. AND THIS WEBSITE, WHICH I'VE NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT ANY OF OUR POSTINGS FOR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE, BUT WE HAVE, AT A STAFF LEVEL, SENT OUT NOTICES TO THE ADOPTED NEWSPAPER THAT WE ADOPTED AS A CITY. OKAY. BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IN FAIRNESS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE AND AND, AND IN CONSIDERATION THAT THE FACT IS THAT THE STATUTE SAYS WE MUST PUBLISH NOT JUST THAT WE MUST SEND IT. AND IF IT GETS LOST IN THE MAIL OR WHATEVER, THAT'S THAT'S OKAY. I THINK WE NEED TO CONFIRM THAT IT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, BECAUSE THE POINT OF THE PUBLICATION IS TO GIVE NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMUNITY. SO IT'S, IT'S NOT IN A IN A TEXAS STATE PRESS ASSOCIATION WEBSITE THAT IS MANDATORY BY THE STATE TO KEEP ALL THE PUBLICATIONS OF RECORD. 
          IT'S NOT IN THE HILL COUNTRY NEWS WEBSITE. WE HAVE THE CERTIFICATION FROM HILL COUNTRY NEWS SAYING THAT IT WAS POSTED IN WITH WHAT WE SENT THEM. BUT THEN CAN YOU SHOW IT TO US? THAT'S THE LITTLE CLIPPING IS PART OF THAT, THE CERTIFICATION, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DATE ON IT. AND OKAY, I THINK IT WAS IN, I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT THAT ONE IN. OKAY, SO I HAVE THE EMAIL CONFIRMATION FROM HILL COUNTRY NEWS. AND THEN I ALSO HAVE THE ACTUAL NEWSPAPER WHERE IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THERE. AND WE HAVE THE DATE OF CONFIRMATION IS MAY 14TH. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO VERIFY. OKAY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IF YOU WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION WHEN I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR IT AND PUT IT ON THE WEBSITE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT ON THE. IT WAS IT WAS NOT ON THIS HERE WHERE IT'S REQUIRED, IT'S REQUIRED TO BE KEPT. SO WE HAVE HAD YOUR STAFF REPORT. DO WE HAVE A REPORT FROM THE APPLICANT? HERE? HERE ON BEHALF OF AUTOZONE REZONING. REALLY EXCITED FOR IT. HERE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY. CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO THIS IS A PROPOSED AUTOZONE STORE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTHLAND AND LOHMAN FORD. IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF THE TYPICAL AUTOZONE STORE THAT GETS ADDED IN FOR ADDITIONAL STORES WITHIN THIS AREA. WE DID LOOK AT THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, THE WATER LINE, KIND OF THE ZONING THAT'S OUT THERE TODAY. AND WE CHOSE, YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN 
          [00:55:05]
SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE ZONING APPLICATION, KIND OF KEEPING EVERYTHING UP ON THE HIGH SIDE OF THE HILL. THERE WAS NO FEASIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY GOING FORWARD. HAVING THAT ONE POINT OF ACCESS AND WITH THE PARKING LOT STAYING ON TOP TO AVOID ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL COSTS FOR LARGER LOANS ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE. SO HOW DOES THIS DIFFER ON THE ENTRANCEWAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ON LOHMAN FORD FROM THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED WHEN YOU CAME TO CITY COUNCIL AND HAD YOUR LAST ORDINANCE APPROVED? I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THAT, AND I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. OKAY. BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ENTRANCE ON LOHMAN AND ONLY ON LOHMAN FOR THAT, AND THAT WAS APPROVED, AND THAT'S OKAY. BUT YOU'RE NOT PART OF THAT. OKAY. THE THE OTHER THING I WOULD MENTION THAT'S PERTINENT TO THE PRIOR PLAN IS THAT THE STRIP IN BETWEEN THE THE EASEMENT STRIP IN BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ZONED C TWO. SO WE DON'T NEED TO ZONE THAT PART C TWO TODAY. AND THE PART THAT'S JUST ABOVE ON THE RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT WAS THAT REMAINED UNSOLD, IT REMAINED TR ONE. AND THAT WAS WITH THE ASSUMPTION. AND IT WAS PREDICATED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE REZONED AT A FUTURE DATE TO RESIDENTIAL, SO THAT IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE LOT. SO ACTUALLY, TODAY WE ARE ONLY THE ONLY PART OF THAT STRIP THAT'S LEFT ON UNZONED IS ABOUT 0.0381, AND THAT'S ALL THAT IS LEFT TO BE ZONED, BECAUSE C TWO IS ZONED AT A PRIOR AT A PRIOR ORDINANCE. SO JUST TO KEEP CLEAN AND CURRENT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS NOTICED. THE ACTION WOULD TECHNICALLY APPLY TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS IT'S NOTICED AND PUBLISHED FROM A STAFFING LEVEL. WE DIDN'T WANT TO START SLICING AND DICING WHAT WAS GETTING ZONED, WHAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY STARTING FRESH FROM A NEW ORDINANCE FROM TODAY? WELL, NOT TODAY, WHENEVER IT'S FORMALLY APPROVED AND ADOPTED, THAT COVERS THE ENTIRE PARCEL. AND SO FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE, IT'S JUST A CLEAN WAY TO GET THE WHOLE THING, GIVEN THAT IT'S ESSENTIALLY THREE DIFFERENT TRACKS IN ONE. WELL, THERE WAS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE PART THAT WAS ALREADY ZONED C TWO THAT WAS ALREADY ZONED. AND THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS PART OF THE PRIOR ORDINANCE. GOING BACK TO THE NOTIFICATION, THE PUBLICATION THAT OKAY, THAT I WAS UNABLE TO FIND EVER SINCE MAY 14TH, THAT IT'S NOT HERE, THAT THE OTHER ASPECT OF CONCERN FOR ME ABOUT ABOUT NOTICE IS THAT THE NOTICES WERE PUT ON THE LOWMAN FORD SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THERE WAS NO NOTICE PUT ON THE NORTHLAND SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT NO PUBLISHED, NO SIGNAGE. AND SO HOW WOULD THE PEOPLE ON THE NORTHLAND SIDE OF THE PROPERTY KNOW THAT THE ZONING APPLIED TO THAT RESIDENTIAL LOT? THERE WOULD BE NO WAY FOR THEM TO KNOW THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN THE NOTIFICATION LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE PEOPLE ON NORTHLAND AND THE SIGNAGE WAS NOT ON NORTHLAND. SO AND IN THE PRIOR ORDINANCE, WHEN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS PROCESSED, IT SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE BECAUSE 7600 LOWMAN IS ONE PARCEL BECAUSE IT'S BEEN CONVEYED AS THE SAME PARCEL FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, BUT IT STILL IS COMPRISED OF TWO DIFFERENT LOTS, ONE WITH THE NORTHLAND FRONTAGE, ONE WITH THE LOWMAN FRONTAGE, AND THERE WAS NO SIGNAGE ON NORTHLAND AND THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT DIDN'T MENTION TO THEM THAT IT WAS AFFECTING THAT RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT WAS ON NORTHLAND, AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO WAY FOR THEM TO KNOW IT, BECAUSE IT JUST HAD THE 7600 LOWMAN ADDRESS. SO I'M CONCERNED THAT THOSE PEOPLE DID NOT GET ADEQUATE NOTICE. AGAIN, YOU'RE SHOWING US THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER. IT'S IT'S I'M UNABLE TO FIND IT IN THE PAPER. AND IT WASN'T ON THE WEBSITE. EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER THREE ITEMS THAT WERE PUBLISHED THAT DAY ARE ON THE CITY WEBSITE. THIS ONE ISN'T ON THE CITY WEBSITE. AND THE NOTIFICATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WAS WAS. SO I'M, I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT HOLDING THIS HEARING TODAY IS, IS NOT DOING JUSTICE TO. ALSO IN THE PACKET, WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT'S ALWAYS PROVIDED, WHICH IS TELLING US WHO ALL WERE NOTIFIED IN THE PACKET. WE ALWAYS HAVE A LIST OF THE PARCELS THAT WERE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE NOTIFIED. AND IN LIEU OF THAT, WE GET A LIST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE NOTIFIED. BUT IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T KNOW WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED, NOR DO WE HAVE A LIST OF THE OWNERS. OKAY. WELL, SO 
          [01:00:07]
BRAD AND I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AS WELL. THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK IN AN EMAIL THAT WE CAN PROVIDE OR SHARE AS WELL. SO BECAUSE THE TRACT IS ONE TRACT AS A WHOLE, THE ENTIRE 200 FOOT BUFFER AND THE ON YOUR PACKETS, IT'S PAGE 63 IS THE FIRST ONE. I'M SEEING IT. 
          BOTH TRACKS WERE NOTIFIED. AND AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO CLEANLY, ADMINISTRATIVELY. DOING THIS. 
          WE LUMPED THEM ALL TOGETHER FOR A REASON. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION INCLUDES BOTH OF THE LOTS. WE NOTIFIED THE 200 FOOT BUFFER FROM BOTH OF THE LOTS, AND BECAUSE THEY'RE ONE TRACK, OUR CODE SAYS THEY HAVE TO DO A SIGN EVERY SO MANY FEET WITH A MAXIMUM OF THREE IN THE MOST PROMINENT LOCATION, PUBLICLY VISIBLE ALONG RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE WAS PUT ONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROPERTY ON LOWMAN'S, ONE IN THE MIDDLE, AND THEN ONE AT THE CORNER OF BOTH OF THE ROADS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST PROMINENT LOCATION TO BE SEEN. 
          ANYBODY COMING IN THAT WAY OR GOING OUT THAT WAY WOULD HAVE SEEN THE ONE ON THE CORNER FOR THE. SO THE SIGNS, THAT'S FOR THE SIGNS AND THEN THE ON THE CITY WEBSITE, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. I DON'T RUN THE WEBSITE. I CAN LOOK INTO IT. AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER ONE THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT. WELL, SEE, JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, THE NOTICE LIST. YEAH. JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, THIS PROPERTY WAS RE WAS REZONED. IT WAS UP FOR REZONING. AND WHEN IT WAS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE NORTHLAND AREA, WHEN THEY WERE NOTICED, THEY WERE NOTICED THAT THE NORTHLAND PROPERTY WAS PART OF THE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION, BUT THAT IT WAS GOING TO REMAIN RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAD, THAT ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED SAYS THAT THAT PROPERTY WAS GOING TO STAY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT THAT EASEMENT STRIP ALONG THE TOP WAS ALSO, IN THE FUTURE GOING TO BE ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT, ALTHOUGH WE DID GET AN EMAIL TODAY FROM CITY ATTORNEY THAT TALKED ABOUT IN GENERAL ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ETC. IT DID SAY IN IN THE MEMO THAT THAT IS, UNLESS WE HAVE A CITY ORDINANCE THAT IS DIFFERENT, DIFFERING FROM THAT. AND WE DO HAVE A CITY ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, THAT WE FIRST HAVE A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE HAVE NOT ONLY ORDINANCE, WE'VE GOT FORMS, WE'VE GOT A WHOLE PROCEDURE THAT WE FOLLOW SO THAT WE FIRST CHANGE THE FLUME, AND THEN WE CHANGE THE THE ZONING. SO HERE WE ARE. WE ARE SKIPPING THE CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FLUME, WHICH IS, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT IN OUR ORDINANCE. SO I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH OUR CITY ORDINANCE IN THAT RESPECT AND PROCESS A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND, AND SINCE SINCE OUR CITY ATTORNEY TOOK A LOOK AT THAT SITUATION AND ISSUED AN EMAIL, I WOULD ASK BRAD IF YOU WOULD ADDRESS IN YOUR EMAIL. YOU DID MENTION THAT ALL OF THAT IS ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOT BEING ZONING MANDATORY ET-CETERA, UNLESS UNLESS THE CITY HAD SPECIFIC ORDINANCES THAT ADDRESSED IT. AND THEN WHAT WASN'T ADDRESSED IN THE EMAIL IS THAT WE DO INDEED HAVE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE. 1320DD41320D4 THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, IF WE'RE GOING TO USE IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THE PROPERTY FROM SOMETHING SPECIFIC, VERY DIFFERENT, WE NEED TO HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE. AND THAT PROPERTY CURRENTLY THE NORTHLAND PROPERTY, THAT PARCEL IS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS A STATE RESIDENTIAL. AND SO A STATE RESIDENTIAL IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN C TWO. AND SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IF WE COMPLY WITH OUR ORDINANCE. NOW YOU YOU MAY BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DON'T COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, COULD YOU ELABORATE ON WHY WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT TODAY? NOW, NO, THAT'S NOT MY RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I, I, I, I AM NOT THE ORDINANCE AND THE, THE PRIOR TREATMENT OF THIS, OF, OF THE, WHAT DO YOU SAY, NORTHLAND OR NORTH? I FORGET THE STREET NAME. NORTHLAND. OKAY. I'M NOT YOU KNOW, APPARENTLY THAT HAPPENED FOUR YEARS AGO. SO I'M NOT I I'M HEARING ABOUT THAT FOR THE 
          [01:05:04]
FIRST TIME RIGHT NOW. THE THE NAME OF THAT HOWEVER, AND I DON'T KNOW, AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW, WHAT YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP LOOKS LIKE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, I HAVE A COPY OF IT. SORRY, I HAVE A COPY OF IT. OKAY. SO WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM JORDAN WAS THAT THAT THAT DUE TO KIND OF A PECULIARITY OF THE, THE CONSOLIDATION OF THESE LOTS THAT THERE WAS THAT THERE'S A. A PORTION OF IT MIGHT BE COVERED BY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND A PORTION MAY NOT. BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT AS I SIT HERE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. BRAD. OKAY. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THE PORTION IS THE PORTION THAT IS BEING IS THERE A PORTION THAT IS BEING REZONED THAT IF IT WERE REZONED TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, WOULD BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP? YES, YES, BECAUSE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWED ONE LOT AS C TWO AS COMMERCIAL, AND IT SHOWED ANOTHER ADJACENT LOT AS A STATE RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE THIS MAP WAS DONE IN 22. IN DECEMBER OF 22, SO IS THE STATE HAD AN ORDINANCE. WE'VE HAD AN ORDINANCE PASSED IN 23 THAT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THEN WE NEED TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN PROCEDURE AND WE HAVE A PROCEDURE IN PLACE. AND IN SECTION 1320 D FOUR THAT LISTS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, IF WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE TO HAVE FIRST, WE HAVE TO HAVE AN APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THAT, FOR THAT NORTHLAND PART LOT. AND THEN WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE REZONING OF THE WHOLE PARCEL. WELL, THOSE AGAIN, THOSE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS CAN BE DONE CONCURRENTLY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THEM SEQUENTIALLY. 
          THEY CAN ALL BE TAKEN UP AT THE SAME TIME. BUT IT IS IT IS CORRECT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO REZONE A PARCEL OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND SO IF THERE IS IF THERE IS A PORTION THAT IS THAT IS GOING TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT WOULD BE. THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROPERLY ZONED PARCEL. NOW. 
          WITH REGARD TO THE NOTICE AND THE SIGNS, WELL, I DIDN'T I OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT SEEN THEM PERSONALLY, SO I DON'T I CAN'T YOU KNOW, I CAN'T EYEBALL IT AND TELL YOU WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          BUT I WILL TELL YOU THOUGH, THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF POSTING SIGNAGE, YOUR ORDINANCE TREATS PARCEL TREATS CONTIGUOUS PARCELS AS ONE SINGLE PROPERTY. AND SO ALL IT REQUIRES IS AN ADEQUATE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH FRONTAGE AND IT MUST BE SEEN FROM THE STREET, I'M ADVISED THAT IT WAS ABLE TO BE SEEN FROM THE STREET. I DON'T KNOW THE CONFIGURATION OF THESE STREETS. I'M NOT I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, WITNESSED THAT PERSONALLY. SO SO YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT COMPLIES WITH THE FLUME. IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO ZONE TO ADOPT ZONING UNTIL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE ZONING ADOPTED. NOW YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. AND PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT COULD BE. REZONED. AND, YOU KNOW, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND SEND THAT TO COUNCIL AND HAVE THAT APPROVED AND SO FORTH, YOU COULD COME BACK FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP APPROVAL FOR YOU, OR YOU CAN KICK IT AND, AND, AND, AND START THAT PROCESS. 
          BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THAT STANDS. WELL, WE, THE CITY HAS A SPECIFIC FORM CALLED APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND AS A SPECIFIC PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. AND IT DOES NOT ANYWHERE INDICATE THAT IT CAN BE DONE CONCURRENTLY WITH THE CHANGE OF THE ZONING. IT INDICATES IN ORDINANCE 23-01-19-03 THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE FIRST. THERE FIRST HAS TO BE A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BEFORE A CHANGE IN THE ZONING CAN BE CONSIDERED. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT BUT AGAIN, THAT CAN OCCUR AT THE SAME MEETING. AND THAT FREQUENTLY HAPPENS, RIGHT? AS LONG AS THE AS LONG AS SEQUENTIALLY IN THE MEETING WHERE THE ACTUAL ZONING OCCURS. THAT'S NOT TONIGHT. THEN AGAIN, IT'S LIKE ANNEXATION AND THEN ZONING. SO IT WOULD BE ANNEXATION OR MAYBE EVEN FUTURE LAND USE MAP 
          [01:10:05]
ANNEXATION THAN ZONING AS WITH THE OTHER ONE. SO AS LONG AS THOSE OCCUR SEQUENTIALLY, THEN THEN FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, YOU'RE FINE. THAT FREQUENTLY OCCURS AT THE SAME MEETING. BUT IN ANY EVENT, WHAT IF, IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PROCESS AND LENGTHEN IT OUT, THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODIES. BUT YOU CANNOT. FINAL ZONING COULD NOT BE ADOPTED ON A PARCEL. IF THAT ZONING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW THE CITY CODE AND THE CITY ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT WE THAT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND A SPECIFIC NOTIFICATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SO THAT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE AFFECTED WILL KNOW SPECIFICALLY THAT THAT PARCEL IS BEING REZONED FROM OR CHANGED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM A STATE RESIDENTIAL TO BEING CONSIDERED FOR A COMMERCIAL USE, SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE INPUT ON THAT CHANGE, AS WELL AS THE CHANGE TO THE ZONING. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. ARE YOU PLANNING ON PUTTING A RETENTION POND ON THAT PROPERTY? BECAUSE NONE OF YOUR DRAWINGS SHOW ONE. WE WOULD GO UNDERGROUND RETENTION WITHIN THE PARKING LOT. COOL. AND THEN TRYING TO PUT A RETENTION POND WOULD BE ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE. IT WOULD JUST IT'D BE A LITTLE DIFFICULT WITH GRADES. SO. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. THEN WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENTS AT 5:12 P.M. AND I HAVE A KAREN TODD WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS. I HAVE A 20702 ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. AND I ATTENDED THE PRIOR TO MEETINGS. FIRST WAS GOING TO BE A GAS STATION. THE SECOND ONE A STRIP MALL. I RETENTION TIME AND BOTH OF THEM WERE TURNED DOWN, WHICH IS WHY IT REMAINS RESIDENTIAL. I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS I HAD THE LAST TWO TIMES. THIS GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT AN UNDERGROUND RETENTION, AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT RETENTION ABOVE GROUND. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION WILL AFFECT MY PROPERTY BECAUSE MY PROPERTY IS DOWNHILL FROM THIS PROPERTY. AND THIS GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT A PARKING LOT BEING BUILT AT THE TOP OF THE HILL. THAT IS A RETENTION WALL GOING TO BE BUILT BECAUSE AGAIN, ANYTHING THAT GOES DOWNHILL IS GOING TO BE ON PROPERTY. CONCERN IS ALSO IT'S QUITE A QUIET RESIDENTIAL AREA. IN ORDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN, I THINK NOTHING'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE A LIGHT AT NORTHLAND AND LOWMAN, AND THERE'S ALREADY A PHOENIX AUTO ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS PROPERTY GOES FROM. THEY HAVE A LOT OF CARS, A SMALL PARKING LOT, SOMETIMES WHERE CARS ARE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF NORTHLAND, WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE A RIGHT HAND TURN DOWN INTO 38. MY CONCERN IS TRAFFIC COMING IN, OUT. WHERE'S THE ENTRANCE? WHERE'S THE EXIT GOING TO BE? I THINK IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO PUT THE EXIT ON MOMENT BECAUSE IT'S A VERY BUSY ROAD. AND THE EXITS ON NORTHLAND, MY MY DRIVEWAY IS RIGHT AROUND THE CURVE FROM THAT AND MY CONCERN IS POSSIBLE ACCIDENTS. ALSO, I WAS TOLD LAST TIME THAT THERE HAS TO BE A 25 FOOT GAP BETWEEN MY PROPERTY LINE AND ANY KIND OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, BUT I WAS ALSO TOLD THAT COULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. LIKE RESIDENCES HAVE. MY CONCERN IS, AND ANYTHING COMMERCIAL CAN BE BUILT RIGHT ON MY PROPERTY LINE, AND I WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT. PLUS AN AUTOZONE MIGHT BE THERE NOW, BUT FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN THEY SELL TO SOMETHING ELSE AND NOBODY HAS ANY CONTROL OVER THAT, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THEN? I DON'T THINK THAT RESIDENTIAL STRIP NEEDS TO BE COMMERCIAL. I THINK THAT MOST OF IT IS UPHILL AND. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT. RIGHT THERE NEXT TO IT. AND I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY ABOUT SIX YEARS AGO AND LOVE LIVING WHERE I DO. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GOING TO LOVE AS MUCH IF I HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO ME. THE AUTOZONE IS DIAGONAL ON THE STREET. I DON'T SEE IT. I DON'T REALLY HEAR IT BETWEEN BETWEEN 
          [01:15:01]
THE PHOENIX AUTO AND THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHICH IS DIAGONAL. AND THOSE TWO PROPERTIES, THEY HAVE A BUFFER. I DON'T HAVE A BUFFER. AND OF COURSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS WILL PROPERTY VALUES FOR MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBOR AND ANYBODY ELSE DOWN THE STREET GO DOWN BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS COMMERCIAL. COMMERCIAL ITEM, RIGHT? ANONYMOUS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND I WILL SAY I APPRECIATE WHAT DAVE SAID EARLIER. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE WATERLINE AND MY CONCERN ABOUT FIRE SUPPRESSION IS THAT WATER LINE IS NOT IF IT GETS REZONED, BUT THEN THERE'S NO CONTROL. YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHETHER THE WATER LINE IS GOING TO BE CHANGED, AND THE CITY DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM TO DO IT. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO US IF WATER ACCESS. SO SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN IT TO DISCUSSION. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 517 AND OPEN IT TO DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS. MADAM CHAIRMAN. WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE THE SURVEY OF THE THE POSSIBLE SITE PLAN. SO THE AUTOZONE IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON ONE. WELL, IT USED TO BE TWO LOTS. NOW IT'S ONE LOT. SO IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE AUTOZONE IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE CORNER LOT. THAT'S ON LOWMAN AND NORTHLAND. WHAT'S GOING TO THE OTHER THE OTHER SIDE OF THE. IS THAT GOING TO BE A GREENBELT OR WHAT'S THE RETENTION POND? WHAT'S GOING TO BE BETWEEN THAT AND AND THE PERSON'S OUT THERE IN HER HOME? IS THERE GOING TO BE SOME. IS THAT A BUFFER ZONE OR WHAT EXACTLY IS THAT? IT'S YOUR THIS RIGHT HERE. I RECALL THAT THE, THE, THIS PART HERE I THOUGHT WAS, WAS GOING TO KEEP ALL OF THE TREES THAT WERE CURRENTLY THERE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S A BUFFER. YEAH. SO THAT'S THE BUFFER ZONE. AND HER HOME IS OVER HERE. YEAH. CAN WE CALL THE BUILDER BACK UP? SURE, SURE. COULD WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME BACK PLEASE? YEAH. SO MY QUESTION IS THE IT USED TO BE IT WAS TWO LOTS. THAT WAS REPLATTED INTO ONE LOT ON ONE LOT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR AUTOZONE ON THE CORNER OF LOWMAN FORD AND AND HIGHLAND LAKES. NO. NORTHLAND, THE ADJACENT LOT. WHAT USED TO BE THE ADJACENT LOT. I SEE THAT THERE'S A BUFFER ZONE, SOME BUSHES. WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE. WHAT DO YOU HAVE FORECAST FOR THAT. IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING SITE OR IS THAT GOING TO BE JUST GREENBELT OR PARKING OR WHAT? YES. AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, AFTER THE REZONING, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS, AND THEN WE GO THROUGH A REPLATTING THAT WOULD SUBDIVIDE AUTOZONE OFF FROM THE LARGER PIECE AND LEAVE THAT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LATER ON, BASED ON THE GRADE THAT'S GOING DOWN FROM LOWMAN FORD DOWN NORTHLAND, WE WERE ANTICIPATING THAT WHOLE STRIP ALONG THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY JUST TO REMAIN AS VEGETATION, BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET A DRIVE FROM ROLLING FORWARD DOWN TO NORTHLAND DRIVE, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE 15 TO 20 FOOT RETAINING WALLS, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANYTHING ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO DO IN THAT SCENARIO. SO. OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS FOR LIGHTING JUST TO LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS THE LIGHTING WOULD BE ON THE BUILDING AND IT WOULD BE COMPLYING WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES. OKAY. ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF MEETING MINIMUM STANDARDS, YOU WANT TO GO A LITTLE, A LITTLE DARKER. I GUESS I SHOULD SAY IT WOULD BE UP TO YOU. OKAY. YEAH. SO BECAUSE WE ARE A DARK SKIES COMMUNITY, WE HAVE ALREADY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. 
          EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DOWN LIT. THEY CAN'T HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LUMENS. THERE'S THERE'S ALL OF THAT THAT GOES INTO IT ALREADY. TYPICAL LIGHTING STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY IN CENTRAL TEXAS, THE DARK SKIES IS THAT HIGHER, BETTER, BEST STANDARD. AND SO THAT IS ALL PART OF SITE DEVELOPMENT. IT ALL HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S IT, MR. HARRIS. YEAH. I'D JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM WHAT I THINK I HEARD. SO THE THE AREA BETWEEN THE BUFFER ZONE AS INDICATED ON THE ZONING EXHIBIT AND THE ACTUAL AUTOZONE STORE THAT WILL BE LEFT VACANT FOR THE TIME BEING WITH POSSIBLE FUTURE USE OF ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE UNAWARE OF ANY FUTURE COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD OCCUR. IT'S JUST TAKING 
          [01:20:03]
THIS PROPERTY UNDER A SINGLE ZONING SO THAT WE COULD BUILD THIS AUTOZONE STORE, REPLAT THE SUBDIVIDE OFF, AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD RETAIN THE REST FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME THAT THEY CHOOSE. OKAY. I STILL THINK I HEARD THAT THE POTENTIAL OR THE IDEA IS THAT AT SOME POINT, THE LAND BETWEEN THE AUTOZONE AND THAT BUFFER ZONE WILL BE COMMERCIALLY DEVELOPED. IT COULD, I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT IT WOULD BE OKAY. SOMEBODY OTHER THAN AUTOZONE. 
          YEAH, BUT THAT'S THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR. TO YOU, THE SHADED AREA ON THIS SURVEY IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE LAND THAT IS NEEDED TO BUILD THIS AUTOZONE PARK APPROPRIATELY, ON WHICH IT'S. IT'S PAGE 73. SORRY. YES, EVERYTHING VERY FAMILIAR KIMLEY-HORN FORMAT. SO SO EVERYTHING THAT'S SHOWN WITHIN THAT ZONING SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED BUILDING. IT SHOWS THE PARKING AREA. THAT'S THAT SHADED GRAY WAS IN THE FRONT OF THAT PARKING. YOU'LL SEE KIND OF A REALLY WEIRD U-SHAPE. THAT'S THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION. AND THEN THE STORM PIPE THAT WE HAVE THAT SHOOTS OUT DIRECTLY. PLAN WEST. THAT WOULD BE FOR THE OUTFALL OF THAT STORM SYSTEM. THAT'S STILL KIND OF IN THE WORKS AS FAR AS WHERE THE EXACT LOCATION AND WHERE THAT GOES IS. WE STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING ALL THE STORMWATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR DISCHARGING INTO THAT ROADSIDE DITCH, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE. AND AS MENTIONED EARLIER, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ALL THAT. WHAT I'M WHAT I'M AIMING AT IS IN THE EXISTING C TWO ZONE, IT LOOKS LIKE, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE ONE LITTLE PIECE OF THIS DRIVE AISLE, YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE THIS AUTOZONE IN THE EXISTING PROPERLY ZONED C TWO PORTION OF THIS LAND, RIGHT? FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE ABOVE GROUND IMPROVEMENT THAT YOU'LL SEE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. FUNCTION PRIMARILY ALONG THAT BECAUSE I'M INCLINED IT CLEARLY AND I'M GUESSING, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER WANTS AN ENTIRELY, AN ENTIRELY COMMERCIALLY ZONED LOT. HE HAS NO SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IT. NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT THIS FORUM AT THIS POINT, BUT IF IT WERE ME, I WOULD WANT TO SEE. 
          AND ESPECIALLY WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL, I WOULD WANT TO SEE A FULLY FLESHED OUT LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND APPROPRIATE BUFFER ZONES, ETC. FOR RESIDENTIAL BEFORE I WOULD BE WILLING TO REZONE JUST WILLY NILLY. THIS OTHER PIECE, IF THE AUTO ZONE COULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON THE EXISTING C TWO PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S MY OPINION. THANK YOU. AND I MEAN I, I BELIEVE THAT WE REALLY SHOULD TAKE THIS ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, WHICH SAYS THAT THE REZONING MUST HAVE A REQUIRED CONFORMANCE TO THE MASTER PLAN. AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE MASTER PLAN AS NOT ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS OR ESTABLISHING ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, BUT NO ZONING APPLICATION DEEMED TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT FIRST SUCCESSFULLY SEEKING AMENDMENT TO THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO IT DOESN'T READ THAT IT CAN BE DONE CONCURRENTLY. IT DOES READ THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE SEPARATELY. AND OUR CITY PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO DO IT CONSECUTIVELY, NOT CONCURRENTLY. AND THERE IS A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE FLUME AMENDMENT. AND SO. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE NOT CONSIDER THIS FOR REZONING TONIGHT, BUT THAT WE DO RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT TAKE A LOOK AT WORK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE APPLICATION AND THE PROCESS FOR CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BECAUSE THE COMPANY RIGHT NOW, THE FLUME SAYS THAT LOT IS A STATE RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT'S VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THAN A COMMERCIAL USE. SO IT'S CLEARLY NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WE. I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT, I'M GOING TO REREAD THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION AND WHAT IT SAID. AND IF YOU WANT TO DO IT SEQUENTIALLY INSTEAD OF CONCURRENTLY, THAT'S A POLICY CHOICE, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS. AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE 
          [01:25:01]
APPLICATION. AND SO TONIGHT IS NOT AN APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE. THAT'S THAT'S AT THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL. THIS IS THE PNC LEVEL OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. SO IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANT TO DO IT SEQUENTIALLY, THAT YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. BUT IT'S A POLICY DECISION NOT REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. WELL, FRED, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANT OR THAT I'M CHOOSING. WHAT I AM CHOOSING IS TO COMPLY WITH THE WRITTEN ORDINANCE, WHICH SAYS NO ZONING APPLICATION DEEMED TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED. AND SO WE'RE CONSIDERING A ZONING APPLICATION HERE, BUT IT SAYS IT SHALL WE SHOULDN'T CONSIDER IT WITHOUT FIRST SUCCESSFULLY SEEKING AN AMENDMENT THAT ELIMINATES THE INCONSISTENCY. AND WE HAVEN'T SOUGHT AN AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THAT INCONSISTENCY. SO IT'S NOT THAT I WANT TO DELAY IT. IT'S NOT THAT I WANT TO NOT DO IT CONSECUTIVELY. I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES. I'VE GIVEN YOU MY OPINION OF MY MY READING OF THE ORDINANCE. BUT AGAIN, YOU ALL PROCEED ANY WAY YOU WANT. MR. STEWART. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S ALL ZONED AS ONE LOT NOW, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO, MR. STEWART, THAT'S THE REQUEST. SO CURRENTLY IT WAS TWO LOTS THAT WERE SPLIT. AT FIRST THEY MERGED LOTS TOGETHER AND THEY NEVER CORRECTED THE SPLIT ZONING. AND SO THE BUT IT IS A MERGED SINGLE LOT. YES SIR. SO WE HAVE A HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE HERE. AND SO OUR CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE MAP. AND SO BECAUSE THIS IS ONE PROPERTY WITH TWO FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS GUIDANCE. AND SO HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS RELEVANT AND CONSISTENT. AND HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT RELEVANT AND CONSISTENT. AND SO IT'S ADDITIONALLY A POLICY QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, THAT FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT AND WHAT THAT INCONSISTENCY IS. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO WHERE I STARTED. SO BASICALLY WE HAVE A SINGLE LOT HERE WITH A WATER PIPE THAT DOESN'T BELONG THERE. BUT YOU CAN'T NOT REZONE THE WHOLE LOT TO THE REQUESTED C-2, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO PUT THE OUTFALL FOR THE SUBTERRANEAN RETENTION POND IN. SO I'M FAVORING RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE IT TO THE C-2 WITH A CONCURRENT CORRECTION TO BRING THE THE ZONING IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FUTURE LAND USE MAPS INTO COMPLIANCE. I REALLY FEEL THE CITY BUNGLED THIS BACK IN 2019 IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE, AND EVERYBODY'S PAYING FOR IT. WE JUST NEED TO CLEAN UP A MESS SOMEBODY ELSE MADE. I'M DONE. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT CONSOLIDATION, WHICH IT SEEMS TO BE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT. MR. STEWART. WE HAD TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE EASEMENT IN BETWEEN, AND AT SOME POINT AFTER THE OWNER OWNED THESE TWO SEPARATE LOTS, THEY ACQUIRED THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SEPARATE EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH IT. 
          AND THERE WAS NEVER BEEN THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CONSOLIDATION. NOW, THE PARCELS HAVE BEEN CONVEYED TOGETHER FOR YEARS. BUT AND THE LAST ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY PASSED, THEY VERY CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THE SECOND LOT AS A SEPARATE LOT WITH THE INTENTION IN THE ORDINANCE, IN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE, WITH THE INTENTION OF KEEPING IT A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND HAVING THE EASEMENT AT THE TOP OF THE LOT IN THE FUTURE ALSO BEING ZONED RESIDENTIAL. SO IT SEEMS THAT THE CITY WAS VERY, VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT HOW THEY PASSED THAT ORDINANCE. IT WAS PREDICATED ON KEEPING THAT LOT RESIDENTIAL. SO UP UNTIL NOW, THE CITY HAS CONSIDERED IT TWO SEPARATE LOTS, A COMMERCIAL LOT AND A RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH A EASEMENT IN BETWEEN MADAM CHAIR. AND ACTUALLY, JARED, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH. IT SAYS IT'S TWO PLATTED LOTS. SO THEY JUST HAPPEN TO BE DIFFERENT ZONES. IT'S NOT A CONSOLIDATED HAS NOT BEEN MERGED. I BELIEVE IT'S SHELBY COUNTY IS INCORRECT THOUGH. THE COUNTY SHOWS IT THAT WAY. YEAH. BUT BUT. YOU WOULD STILL CONSOLIDATE COMBINING. I MEAN YOU COULD AT SOME POINT. YEAH YOU COULD, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN YET. RIGHT. SO. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION. I WOULD 
          [01:30:13]
MAKE A MOTION. IF NO ONE ELSE WILL MAKE A MOTION, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS REQUEST FIRST BE PROCESSED. AND IN IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 13.20 D THAT WE FIRST SUCCESSFULLY SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CHANGE THE DESIGNATION TO ONE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING REQUESTED. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN AS WELL. BASICALLY. 
          OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. I WILL TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY I, I, I, I. I'M THINKING. OKAY, I'LL GO NAY. OKAY. JEFF, WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE? I OKAY, SO THEN SO WE HAVE FIVE. 
          WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION WITH MR. STEWART DISSENTING. OKAY. OKAY. THEN 
          [IV.5. Approval of the May 14th, 2026 Minutes]
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MAY 14TH, 2026 MINUTES. HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THOSE MINUTES? AND ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES, ETC. BUT SUGGESTED ON THOSE MINUTES. IS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE MINUTES? OKAY. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ABOUT THE MINUTES? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT. OKAY, I SECOND OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. YOU'RE ABSTAINING. 
          GORDON HERE. OKAY, OKAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE FIVE IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTENTION. AND THEN WE HAVE AN AMENDED AGENDA ITEM. EXCUSE ME, CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR, I, I DON'T JUST SO AS TO AVOID ANY ISSUES BECAUSE THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE I, I DIDN'T CATCH WHO ABSTAINED, BUT WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE ABSTENTION? THE CHARTER REQUIRES A BASIS FOR THE ABSTENTION. MR. STEWART WAS NOT PRESENT. HE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. HE WASN'T AT THE MEETING. OKAY. THAT'S PRETTY UNASSAILABLE, I WOULD SAY. OKAY. SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND 
          [Additional Item]
TAKE ACTION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT. MADAM CHAIR, THE PACKAGE THAT I HAVE ONLY HAS FIVE ITEMS, WITH THE MINUTES BEING THE LAST ONE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE AS WELL. YEAH. 
          ME TOO. I GOT NOTHING ON THAT. YEAH. SO THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT MADE AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL LAST THURSDAY, THAT WE ADD THIS TO OUR AGENDA. AN EMAIL WENT OUT ON MONDAY WITH WHAT I HAVE. 
          WE ALSO HAVE COPIES AS WELL. IT'S ALSO POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. ESSENTIALLY THE REQUEST FROM COUNCIL WAS THAT WE TAKE THE RED LINE AND WE TAKE THE DRAFT FROM FEBRUARY, FIND SOME WAY TO MUSH IT TOGETHER AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. AND SO I HAD POSED SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. THERE WAS SOME SOME AGREEMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE PLAN THAT COULD BE PARSED OUT EVEN MORE. BUT THEN THERE WERE POLICY QUESTIONS. AND AT A STAFF LEVEL, WE DON'T DO POLICY DECISION MAKING. AND SO THERE'S SOME CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS IN THERE. AND THEN THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND SO THE INTENT WAS TO GET FEEDBACK IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IF BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE MESSAGE, GIVEN THE TURNAROUND TIME, THERE HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE. 
          AND THAT'S I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THIS IS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. IF WE'D LIKE 
          [01:35:04]
TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD, MORE THAN HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY MIGHT, YOU KNOW, HAVE WHEN YOU CAN SIT AND FOCUS, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE MEMORANDUM THAT WAS POSTED TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS JUST ASKING FOR SOME FEEDBACK, SOME CLARIFICATION ON THINGS, AND WE'LL TAKE THAT AND PROCEED FORWARD WITH CHANGES TO THE DRAFT. AS AN UPDATE. I WILL SAY OUR GIS PERSON HAS STARTED AND IS ALMOST COMPLETE WITH THE DRAFT. AS I HAD MENTIONED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, FROM A STAFFING LEVEL, WE'RE GOING TO PACK IN AS MUCH RESPONSIBLE COMMERCIAL AS WE CAN AND ASK WHERE YOU WANT US TO BACK OFF OF IT AND REPLACE IT WITH OTHER THINGS. AND SO THE DRAFT, YOU SEE, AGAIN, IT'S A DRAFT. WE'RE REACHING HIGH ON THE COMMERCIAL END, AND MOST OF IT MAY BE GONE BY THE TIME THAT WE GET THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ALL THE BOARDS AND COUNCILS AND EVERYTHING. AND SO BE PREPARED. THAT DRAFT IS NOT FINAL. IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM DO WE BELIEVE THAT IT COMPLETELY ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. BUT THAT WILL BE HEADED YOUR WAY NEXT MONTH AS WELL. AND AGAIN, WE'LL MAKE IT PUBLIC. WE'LL GIVE TIME IN ADVANCE. I KNOW THAT IT'S A BIG CONVERSATION TO HAVE, AND SO WE'LL DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE IT'S IT'S WIDELY AVAILABLE. WELL, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO TO YOUR INTRO, JORDAN, IS THAT DURING THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AT THEIR JUNE 4TH MEETING, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MEETINGS, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT YOU AND TAM WERE AT THE FIRST MEETING AND I. I PUT AT EVERYBODY'S PLACE THE MINUTES OF THAT FIRST MEETING. 
          AND AT THE FIRST MEETING WE CAME UP WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES. AND SO THOSE CATEGORIES WERE DEVELOPED, YOU KNOW, WITH STAFF. AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE HAD ONE OTHER MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE ON A WEEKEND. AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THE FINAL MEETING WAS JUST AFTER THIS HAD BEEN PUT ON THE. AGENDA FOR PRESENTATION. AND WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS GOING TO BE ON IT. SO WE REALLY FEEL LIKE THERE WAS STAFF PARTICIPATION WAS IN 50% OF THE MEETINGS. AND SO I DID GIVE EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION HERE THE, THE, THE NOTES FOR THE MINUTES FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING THAT DEVELOPED THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES THAT YOU AND TAM WERE INVOLVED IN, AND ALSO AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. AND. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY SAID WAS THAT THEY REALLY WANTED THE FUTURE LAND USE TO ESTIMATE DENSITIES, AND THEIR FIRST PRIORITY WAS GOING TO BE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO GET THAT SOLIDIFIED AND POSSIBLY APPROVED, EVEN SEPARATE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THEN ANOTHER COMMENT THAT WAS MADE WAS COORDINATE WITH THE STAFF TO COORDINATE WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND BRING THAT SUBCOMMITTEE'S RED LINE BACK INTO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR REVIEW, BECAUSE THE RED LINE THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS NOT FINAL. YOU KNOW, IT WAS A WORK IN PROGRESS. SO IT WASN'T REALLY A DRAFT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. IT WAS IT WAS A WORK IN PROGRESS DRAFT. SO RATHER THAN HAVE COMMENTS MADE ON SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY NOT FINISHED, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE AT THE. WELL, I WOULD UNLESS THERE'S OTHER DISCUSSION HERE, I WOULD I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE CAN CHANGE IT, BUT I WOULD MOVE THAT STAFF, COORDINATE WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND BRING THE SUBCOMMITTEES RED LINE BACK TO P AND Z AT A FUTURE MEETING, AND THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING, THE FLUME CATEGORIES BE THE SUBJECT OF A P AND Z AGENDA ITEM. WITH THAT MEETING'S OBJECTIVE BE TO VOTE ON A RECOMMENDATION OF FLUME CATEGORIES TO THE COUNCIL. SO THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE OUR NEXT MEETING OBJECTIVE ON THE FLUME CATEGORIES, GET THAT SOLIDIFIED, AND EVEN GET THAT TO THE COUNCIL BEFORE WE THEN HAVE A MEETING ON THE DRAFT OF THE COMP PLAN THAT GIVES US ALL MORE TIME TO WORK ON THE DRAFT OF THE COMP PLAN, BUT IT GIVES THE COUNCIL THE FLUME CATEGORIES THAT THEY THAT THEY SAID WAS TOP PRIORITY. SO, OKAY, SO THAT WAS A MOTION THAT WAS ELABORATED ON. SO I, IF I CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION. OKAY. AND I HAD ASKED COUNCIL THIS AS WELL. AFTER LISTENING TO THE MEETING, I WAS CONFUSED, TO BE HONEST. I HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED REGARDING THE CATEGORIES BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ONES FLOATING AROUND AND THE, THE GIST AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I KNOW THERE'S ONLY TWO OF YOU HERE, BUT THAT THE INTENT WAS TO STICK WITH THE. 11 WITH THE EXPANDED RURAL RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          AND SO I. WE'RE HEARING THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SIX. AND THEN WE'RE HEARING COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE. 11 AND WE'RE SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE 
          [01:40:03]
OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE PROCEED. WELL, THAT'S WHY, I MEAN, THE COUNCIL DID RECOMMEND THE 11 AND. BUT SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO AT THE NEXT MEETING IS SAY, OKAY, GIVEN THAT THE COUNCIL IS RECOMMENDING THE. 11 LET'S ALL TAKE A VOTE ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND AND AND CLARIFY THAT, MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, WHATEVER IT IS, AND, AND PASS THAT ON BECAUSE THEY, THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THE FLUME CATEGORIES. 
          I THINK THEY WANTED US TO. ARE YOU THINKING THAT THEY DON'T EVEN WANT US TO CONSIDER THEM, THAT IT'S ALREADY A DONE DEAL? I, IF I YEAH, PLEASE CHIME IN. SO MY MEMORY OF THE DISCUSSION, I'LL INVITE THE MAYOR TO, TO ADD OR CORRECT ANYTHING IF HIS MEMORY DIFFERS. MY MEMORY OF THE DISCUSSION WAS THERE WAS NO FORMAL VOTE TAKEN. THERE WAS A CONSENSUS DISCUSSION ON THE DAIS, AND I THINK PROBABLY MORE THAN OR A MAJORITY OF THE OPINIONS WERE THAT THE 11 CATEGORIES THAT I THINK STAFF HAD PUT IN THE ORIGINAL. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE. 11 WERE THE STAFF ORIGINAL, RIGHT. THAT THE MORE THAN THAN HALF OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS PREFERRED THAT. 
          RIGHT. BUT WE DIDN'T TAKE A FORMAL VOTE. WHAT I DO REMEMBER US SAYING IS WE DID NOT WANT TO SHORTCUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW PROCESS. AND SO I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD MEAN COUNCIL IS SAYING THERE WAS A SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, BUT WHAT'S THE FULL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION? NOW, ALREADY, MORE THAN HALF OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID, WE THINK IT'S 11, BUT YOU ALL COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. WE RECOMMEND THIS. RIGHT. AND BUT IT WAS REALLY ABOUT LET'S HAVE A DUE DILIGENCE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING SIDE ON THE WHOLE THING, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE FLUME, BUT THE INCLUDING THE RED LINE AND THE RIGHT. BUT AND SO I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT I HAD SEEN HAPPEN WAS THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAD DONE SOME WORK, BUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE YOU ALL WERE REALLY DONE. AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATION IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING. AND CITY COUNCIL WAS SAYING, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP. SO DON'T JUST JUST DON'T JUST BRING US A DRAFT OF SUBCOMMITTEE THOUGHTS, WHICH IS NICE TO SEE, BUT BUT WE WANT TO SEE WHAT THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE RECOMMENDS. AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYOR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? THUMBS UP ON THAT. OKAY. WELL, WHEN WE AT THE LAST MEETING, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, THAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DID HAVE THE SIX, 5 OR 6 FLUME CATEGORIES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED ON. THAT WAS THE ONLY THING WE VOTED ON, WAS THAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT INCLUDED THOSE FLUME CATEGORIES. AND THOSE FLUME CATEGORIES WERE DEVELOPED WHEN WE FIRST MET WITH WITH STAFF. SO THAT WAS A THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL. THEN IT GOT TO COUNCIL. AND YOU ALL REALLY DID EXPRESS A PREFERENCE FOR THE 11 CATEGORIES FROM WHAT I RECOLLECT. AND THEN IT CAME BACK TO US. SO SINCE IT WAS EXPRESSED DURING THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT IT WAS A PRIORITY TO GET THOSE FLUME CATEGORIES IDENTIFIED, I WOULD SAY IF WE'D SPEND THE NEXT MEETING ADDRESSING THE FLUME CATEGORIES AND COMING TO A ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MR. HOOLEY CHANGED HIS HIS VOTE. SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT. AND THEN AT THE MEETING AFTER THAT WORK ON THE COMP PLAN, TEXT THE DRAFT. AND IF I MAY, PART OF THE MEMORANDUM THAT WENT OUT, IT'S ON AS WELL AS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IN AN EMAIL, THERE'S CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ON THE LAND USE CATEGORIES NOT TO MAKE A DECISION, BUT TO START THINKING ABOUT IT. IT'S BASED ON THE 11 THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT AND HOW WE, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT AND NAVIGATE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATELY DEFINED AND CATEGORIZED AND HAVE THE STANDARDS THAT WE WANT TO SEE. THAT WOULD BE MY STARTING POINT FOR HOMEWORK IN ADVANCE OF OUR NEXT MEETING, JUST SO THAT WHEN WE COME IN, WE CAN REALLY LOCK IN AND FIND SOME COMMON GROUND ON WHATEVER THAT MAY BE AND WHATEVER DIRECTION. AND THEN DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH THOSE 11 CATEGORIES CHANGE, WE MAY HAVE TO UPDATE THE MAP. BUT THE BASE FOR THE MAP HAS BEEN COMPLETE BASED OFF OF THOSE 11 CATEGORIES. AND SO IF ONE COLLAPSES INTO THE OTHER, THAT'S EASY. WE JUST MERGE THEM. 
          I HOPE WE DON'T ADD ANY MORE CATEGORIES, BUT IT'LL BE EASIER FOR US TO FIGURE OUT. BUT ALL OF THIS, AGAIN, THE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ARE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND I WOULD ASK IN ADVANCE THAT WE CAN AT LEAST PUT SOME COMMENTS OR SOMETHING TO DISCUSS IN ADVANCE OF NEXT MONTH. OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, I WOULD AGREE THAT EVERYBODY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND, AND. MR. MR. ROBERTS IS RAISING HIS HAND. MR. ROBERTS YES, MADAM CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT THE DIRECTION TO YOU GUYS WAS TO GET WITH STAFF, NOT WITH WITH IT WAS WITH THE 
          [01:45:06]
COMMISSION AS A WHOLE, NOT THEY NEVER SAID MEET WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PNC. THEY SAID MEET THAT STAFF SHOULD GET WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. ARGUABLY, I THINK YOU CAN STILL DO YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE AND HAVE IT THAT WAY, BUT THE DIRECTION WAS TO MEET WITH THE COMMISSION AND THAT THEY EXPLICITLY SAID UNEQUIVOCALLY KEEP ALL 11 PLACE TYPES AND TOWARD THE VERY END, COMMISSIONER BARNES EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY, I WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT WE KEEP ALL 11 PLACE TYPES AND THAT THEY DON'T MONKEY WITH IT, QUOTE UNQUOTE. 
          AND EVERYBODY AGREED TO THAT. MR. PRINCE ALSO TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT WE WERE THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO THE 11 PLACE TYPES ON PAGE. I THINK IT WAS 571 OF THE PACKET AT THE TIME. AND THAT WAS AFFIRMED, AND THE CONSENSUS WAS UNANIMOUS. AND THEN THAT WAS THAT. SO THE DIRECTION WAS TO KEEP ALL 11 PLACE TYPES, NOT TO CONSOLIDATE THEM, NOT TO CHANGE THEM, NOT TO MAKE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT WAS IT. IT'S ON VIDEO. THANK YOU. WELL, I MEAN, BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE DON'T THEN HAVE TO ADDRESS THE FLUME TYPES AT ALL AND JUST DISCUSS THE COMP PLAN TEXT OR DO WE DO DOES THE P AND Z STILL HAVE TO? I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS SENT BACK TO US FOR FOR ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION. BUT IS MR. ROBERTS SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS THE FLUME TYPES BECAUSE YOU GUYS ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION? I'LL RESTATE. 
          OKAY. THERE WAS NO FORMAL DECISION. WE DID NOT TAKE A VOTE. THERE CLEARLY WAS A STRONG CONSENSUS. AND I THINK MR. ROBERT ACCURATELY AS REPRESENTING THE DISCUSSION, INCLUDING MISS VANESSA'S COMMENTS. SO THERE WAS A PRETTY STRONG CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL THAT THE 11 PLACE TYPES WERE THERE. DOES THAT SAY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IT? NO. YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION AS A COMMISSION TO SAY, WE BEG TO TO DISAGREE. AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE 11. OR YOU COULD SAY, IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS, WE'RE GOING TO ACQUIESCE TO THAT AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OTHER PARTS OF THE DISCUSSION. BUT THERE WASN'T A FORMAL PROHIBITION. YOU MAY NOT VOTE TAKEN. THERE WAS CLEARLY GUIDANCE FROM A CONSENSUS PERSPECTIVE, AND YOU ALL REALLY SAID THAT IT WAS A PRIORITY. SO THAT'S WHY I'M THINKING THAT IF WE JUST ADDRESS IT AS A PRIORITY, REEVALUATE TAKING YOUR YOUR PREFERENCES IN MIND, TAKING WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, TAKING CHANGED AND CHANGE MINDS OR WHATEVER. AND ONCE AGAIN, JUST ADDRESSING THOSE CATEGORIES AND, AND CONFIRMING THAT AND GETTING THAT OFF THE TABLE AND THEN WORK ON THE, ON THE COMP PLAN TEXT THAT. MADAM CHAIR, I'LL RECOMMEND THAT, THAT YOU ALL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT STAFF HAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT TALKING POINT TO TRY, OR A GREAT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO FOCUS THE DISCUSSION ON VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, TO TRY TO MOVE THE CONVERSATION FORWARD. SO I THINK, YES, FLUME IS IMPORTANT AND PLACE AND, AND TYPES OF, OF ZONES OR AREAS IS VERY IMPORTANT. BUT MAKING PROGRESS ON THE WHOLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS IMPORTANT TOO. AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S GOOD WORK THE STAFF HAS DONE HERE. SO THE MORE YOU CAN GET DONE IN A IN A UPCOMING MEETING, THE BETTER. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE TO LIMIT THAT DISCUSSION TO JUST FLUME AND PLACE TYPES, OR WHETHER YOU CAN ALSO MAKE PROGRESS AGAINST THE DOCUMENT THAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED. THE MORE YOU CAN DO, THE BETTER. TO MY PERSPECTIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE WE HAD THE PAST MEETING WHERE THE AGENDA LANGUAGE LIMITED THE DISCUSSION. AND SO YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER MORE BROADLY, GENERAL LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE DISCUSSION TO GO AS FAR AS IT'S ABLE TO GO TO TO MAKE PROGRESS QUICKLY. DOES ANYONE WANT TO? THEN I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENT MOTION? I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF REVIEW AND COMMENT ON ALL THE SUGGESTIONS THAT THE MAYOR PUT IN A RATHER LONG THREAD ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I THINK THERE WERE SOME VERY, VERY VALID POINTS THERE, AND THEY SHOULD BE INCORPORATED. YEAH. THAT'S IT. WE WILL ADD OUR FEEDBACK TO THAT POST ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AS WELL. IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. I WANT TO COME IN TO NEXT MONTH FULLY PREPARED TO TO IRON ALL THIS OUT. AND IN THEORY, IF THE MAP IS SOMEWHAT READY, EVEN IN A DRAFT FORM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TO HASH OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, MAKE EDITS, AND THIS PORTION SHOULD BE WRAPPED UP IN THEORY, HOPEFULLY AUGUST WOULD 
          [01:50:08]
BE MY MY TARGET UNLESS WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CALLED MEETINGS, WHICH AGAIN, TOTALLY POSSIBLE, JUST DON'T WANT TO COMMIT. OKAY, SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT STAFF PROCEED ALONG THE LINES THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED IN THEIR LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. QUESTION I ALWAYS HAVE OF STAFF, IF I IF I MAY, IS THAT CLEAR WHAT THAT MEANS? THAT MOTION. A CLEAR AS MUD. THAT WAS THAT WAS MY HESITANCY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT MOTION AMENDED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC AND MORE HAVE A MORE SPECIFIC. MORE SPECIFICALLY STATED OBJECTIVE. IF I MAY, I WOULD SAY THE HOMEWORK OF THE QUESTIONS WITHIN THE MEMORANDUM. MR. SAHM'S POST GETTING SOME KIND OF FEEDBACK ON THAT AND COMING BACK FOR DISCUSSION NEXT MONTH. I DON'T I DON'T EVEN KNOW NECESSARILY IF WE NEED A MOTION. 
          I GET THAT GIST. WELL, THEN THEN I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT THE STAFF REPORT AT THE WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS, BE VERY SPECIFIC AS FAR AS IDENTIFYING WHAT THE OBJECTIVES WILL BE FOR THAT MEETING SO THAT THERE WON'T BE AN OPEN ENDED DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION THAT JUST GOES NOWHERE. THAT WOULD BE REALLY KIND OF LIKE AN OUTLINE OF WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH DURING THAT NEXT MEETING. SO I THINK A LOT OF THAT WILL ALSO DEPEND ON HOW MUCH GOES ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IN ADVANCE. WE CAN ONLY COME WITH A HOLISTIC PICTURE IF WE HAVE EVERYBODY'S FEEDBACK AND OPINIONS. AND SO TO AN EXTENT, I WILL NEED Y'ALL'S HELP AS WELL TO GET COMMENTS ON THIS POST, AS WELL AS WHAT MR. SAM HAS POSTED, SO THAT WHEN WE COME IN, WE CAN FLY THROUGH THAT LIST OF THINGS, FIND COMMON GROUND, AND IN THEORY, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO GET EVERYTHING CLEANED UP IN ONE SWOOP AND DO ANOTHER REVIEW. 
          OKAY, WELL, AGAIN, AS LONG AS AS LONG AS THE QUESTIONS OR TOPICS ARE VERY SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED. OKAY, OKAY, SO WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T NEED A MOTION ON THAT. WE JUST MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT. OKAY. WITHDRAWAL. WON'T HURT, I SUPPOSE. SO SINCE IT WAS SECONDED. YEAH, IT WON'T HURT TO WITHDRAW. I WITHDRAW MY MOTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, I WILL ADJOURN THE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.