[IV.1. 26-2960-PDD-MOD: Open a Public Hearing to Consider, Discuss, and Take Action on Consideration and recommendation of a PDD Modification to the detailed and concept plan included in Ordinance No. 21-09-02-01, Firefly Cove Planned Development District (“Firefly Cove PDD”). Approximately, 211 acres located in ABS 2587 Survey 141 Cook W A & various others. ]

OKAY. THEN WITH THAT, WE CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 126-2960-PDD-MOD MODIFICATION. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS, TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE DETAILED AND CONCEPT PLAN INCLUDED IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 21090201 FIREFLY COVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, APPROXIMATELY 211 ACRES LOCATED IN ABS 2587 SURVEY 141 W, A AND VARIOUS OTHERS. BEFORE WE START THE STAFF REPORT, I HAVE A QUESTION ON WHY IT'S 211 ACRES, SO THE NOTIFICATION REFERENCES EITHER AN ADDRESS OR A GENERAL LOCATION. BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBDIVIDED IN SOME PORTIONS, WE WENT WITH THE LARGER PORTION OF THE PROJECT TO GET THAT ADDRESS, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE AN ADDRESS BECAUSE IT'S UNDEVELOPED LAND. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE THE ACREAGE DISCREPANCY IS PER STATE LAW. OUR NOTICE HAS TO REQUIRE WHAT'S BEING ASKED FOR, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHERE IT'S BEING ASKED FOR AND THE DATE AND THE TIME OF THE HEARING, WHICH IS WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THAT NOTICE. OKAY. SO

[00:05:03]

THE PROJECT IS ABOUT 286 ACRES AND ITS TOTALITY. YES, MA'AM. SO PART OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT IS AN ADDRESS OR A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THEREIN, OF WHICH IS WHY WE WENT WITH THE LARGER TRACK. BUT AS PHASE ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED, IT'S ALREADY SUBDIVIDED AND CUT OUT OF THE ORIGINAL SECTION OF THE LAND ITSELF. AND SO IT'S THE GENERAL LOCATION, THE ABSTRACT THAT IT'S LOCATED IN, AND THE TOPIC TO WHICH IS BEING REQUESTED, AND THE DATE AND THE TIME OF THE HEARING. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT, THE DISTRICT IS 211 ACRES.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE PDD, WHICH IS THE REQUEST, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED. BUT IN THE LEGAL NOTICE, WE HAVE TO SAY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT'S LOCATED HERE. AND SO THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS LOCATED.

HERE IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE LARGER PORTION OF THE TRACK THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBDIVIDED. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT FOR US? YES, MA'AM. SO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD. D ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN 2001 090201 SHORTLY AFTER THIS PD D WAS ESTABLISHED, THEY DID GO FOR A MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT MUD CONSENT HAD CAVEATS THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT DIDN'T MATCH THE PD D AS IT CAME FIRST AND THE MUD AGREEMENT CAME SECOND. AND SO THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL EXHIBIT OF THE PD D TO MATCH WHAT WAS AGREED ON IN THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT WHICH CAME AFTER. YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S CHANGES IN SOME ACREAGE. THEY'VE CONSOLIDATED DOWN SOME OF THEIR CATEGORIES. THEIR NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED. FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT OF WAY HAS GONE UP BECAUSE THEY PLANNED OUT SOME ADDITIONAL ROADS BECAUSE THEY'RE FURTHER ALONG IN THE PROCESS. THEY'RE OPEN SPACE AND AMENITIES HAVE FLIPPED AROUND A LITTLE BIT DUE TO WHAT WAS IN THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT.

ASIDE FROM THE LAND USE PLAN THAT'S PRESENTED, THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE. THERE'S NO CHANGES TO DENSITY. IT'S TRULY A SWAP OUT OF THE ORIGINAL EXHIBITS CONCEPT AND DETAILED PLAN. SO WE'RE HERE AS STAFF. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH THEIR LEGAL TEAM AS WELL. ANYTHING WE CAN HELP WITH? SO DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? YEAH, I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE I NOTICED. AND AM I COMING THROUGH? UNLESS I MISSED IT, THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND THIS IS A AN OLD QUESTION, IF YOU WILL. THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE DOES NOT MENTION THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE NEW ONE DOES. AND AND I SAID THIS. WE DON'T HAVE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE YET. SO WHY ARE WE REFERENCING SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT? YES, SIR. AND FOR OUR ATTORNEY, AT THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD THIS QUESTION, THEY'RE INTERCHANGEABLE. AND SO THEY CAN BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY. IT'S A PREFERENCE LEVEL.

WHETHER OR NOT WE GO BACK TO CODE OF ORDINANCES OR CONTINUE TO CALL IT A UDC, IT WAS ALSO, I BELIEVE, IN THE HOTEL ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE. OKAY. WELL, TO ME, A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPLIES A VERY SPECIFIC THING WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY AVAILABLE TODAY? NO, NOT ON THE CITY'S BEHALF. OKAY. TO ADD ON TO WHAT JEAN SAID, YOU GOT A COMMENT DOWN THERE? DAVE? I HAD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TURN IT ON.

WELL, IF IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND THEY BOTH MEAN THE SAME THING, WHY AREN'T WE USING WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? AND TO ADD ON TO THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND SINCE NONE OF US HAVE SEEN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE REALLY CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSERTION. SO IT WOULD REALLY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO SAY THAT WE ARE ABLE TO SAY THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE CITY, WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED AND WHAT WE'RE ALL WORKING WITH, WHICH IS WHICH IS THE ZONING CODE AS IS. AND SO, AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH OUR ATTORNEY AT ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS. SHE DID STATE THEY ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AND IT'S AT THE PREFERENCE OF THE BOARD AND IT'S THEIR WILL TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE PRIOR TO ADOPTION, IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO, TO SAY EITHER OR CODE OF ORDINANCES OR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND SO AS A BOARD, THAT CAN BE A RECOMMENDATION OF AN AMENDMENT IF IT'S APPROVED AND PROCEEDS FORWARD. WELL, I THINK THE CONSENSUS HERE IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONFIRM SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW, AND WE DON'T HAVE A UNIFORM. SO UNTIL WE DO, IF YOU COULD WRITE OUR ORDINANCES SO THAT IT

[00:10:05]

REFERS TO THE CITY CODE THAT WE HAVE NOW, OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION. THEN IF NO ONE ELSE DOES, THE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT TO THE THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE 200FT PROVIDED THE CHANGE IN THE PLAN. SO IT GAVE THEM A DIAGRAM, BUT IT DID NOT INDICATE THE CHANGES. THAT WOULD ALSO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC PICKLEBALL COURTS, THE PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS. AND THOSE ITEMS ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

AND THOSE THOSE ITEMS ARE REFERRED TO AS MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. AND SO THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE 200FT, THEY GOT THE NOTICE OF THE PLAN. THERE WOULD BE NO WAY FOR THEM TO KNOW THAT THEY WERE ALSO GOING TO BE THAT WAS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TODAY AND APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED IS THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE LAKE, PUBLIC ACCESS TO PICKLEBALL COURTS, ETC. SO THOSE CAVEATS WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE MUD AGREEMENT THEMSELVES. THERE IS NO THIS ITEM DOESN'T CHANGE THAT. THOSE WERE ESTABLISHED PER THE MUD AGREEMENT. AND SO THE WAY AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE NOTIFICATION, IT'S THAT WE'RE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE. WE HAD COPIES AVAILABLE THAT DETAILED THESE THINGS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. WE MADE IT AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE AS WELL. IT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN THE MUD AGREEMENT. AND SO IT'S NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION IN TERMS OF IT BEING A COMMITMENT THAT'S DENIED OR APPROVED. IT'S ALREADY APPROVED. IT'S AT THIS POINT, IT'S MAKING THE EXHIBIT MATCH WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE MUD AGREEMENT AND GETTING IT CLEANED UP IN THAT SENSE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY HERE, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BRAD HAD SAID TO ME DURING THE MUD AGREEMENT HEARING WAS THAT THE MUD AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT, AND CONTRACTS DON'T OVERRIDE THE PEE DEE DEE. SO IF IN FACT, THE CITY IS GOING TO SAY THAT THIS MUD AGREEMENT DOES OVERRIDE THE PEE DEE DEE ORDINANCE, THEN IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED IN THE ORDINANCE. IT'S GOT TO BE CHANGED SO THAT THOSE ITEMS THAT AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE THERE, REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PEE DEE DEE. THERE'S. IN ANY EVENT, THE PEE DEE DEE HAS TO BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL PEE DEE DEE. AND THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE HERE IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE. WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR EXHIBIT C, BUT ACTUALLY IT DOES. AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING CHANGED ARE REALLY SIGNIFICANT AS FAR AS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST. WHEREAS SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY NOT CARE THAT THE ESTATE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT HERE INSTEAD OF HERE, BUT I THINK THEY PROBABLY AND THEY PROBABLY WILL.

WHEN WE GET TO THE COMMENTS, WE'LL HEAR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CARE A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE PRIVATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOW GOING TO BE PUBLIC. SO I THINK THAT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE NOTIFICATION. OKAY. SO I THINK IT'S A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD A CONTRACT. NOT TO SAY THAT IT DOES SUPERSEDE THE ZONING, BUT A CONTRACT IS A CONTRACT, AND WE STILL HAVE TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE HOLDING UP OUR END OF THAT CONTRACT. AND SO THE INTENT IS TO RECTIFY THE PEE DEE DEE TO MATCH THE MUD AGREEMENT AND THE CAVEATS THERE WITH THAT. IF THERE'S INFORMATION THAT'S MISSING OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED, THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD CAN MAKE AS A WHOLE TO BRING IT BACK AND NOT TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM AT THAT AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITH WHAT'S PRESENTED AND THE WAY THAT IT'S SITUATED, THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT THE TIME. AND WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE ITS FATE AT THIS MEETING. GENE. SO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT THAT WAS USED IN DRAFTING THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT TIA IS STILL IN EFFECT FOR THIS NEWLY UPDATED ORDINANCE. IS THAT WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? OR SO THE T WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF. YEAH. I'M JUST IS THAT TIA THAT WAS DONE. IS THAT STILL THE TIA THAT'S BEING USED FOR THE NEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE? THERE WOULD BE NO

[00:15:01]

TRIGGER TO CHANGE IT. OKAY. SO BUT THE NEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE. PART OF THE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT. PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS HEARING IS SMOOSHING THINGS TOGETHER, INCLUDING. NOW, YOU KNOW, THE MUD AGREEMENT CALLED FOR OR THERE WERE CONCESSIONS MADE, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO IT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. SO. WITH THE. NOW WE HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS PILED ON TOP OF A TIA. THAT WAS DONE. I FORGET THE DATE SOMETIME IN 2021. AND YEAH, AND I THINK THE MUD AGREEMENT WAS AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT. SO NOW WE HAVE. SO THAT MUD AGREEMENT INTRODUCED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE LAKE AND TO AMENITIES. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT WOULD CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC. AND SO IT'S TO ME, IT SEEMS LOGICAL TO SAY IT COULD NEED A NEW TIA BECAUSE THOSE NUMBERS ARE THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME CHANGE IN THEM LIKELY. AND I THINK WE MAY HEAR WELL, LOOKING AT THE COMMENTS, THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC SO THAT TIA, IT SEEMS LIKE ISN'T REALLY A VALID PRODUCT ANYMORE. IT'S A VALID QUESTION TO ASK IF IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THEIR APPROVAL, OR IF IT'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE REQUESTED BEFORE THERE IS A LEVEL OF COMFORT MAKING THAT DETERMINATION THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M JUST SEEING IF I'M ON THE RIGHT TRACK. SO YEAH, THANK YOU DAVE. SO I AGREE WITH GENE THAT THE TIA IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED AND PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE REDONE. BUT I HAVE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM.

I'M LOOKING DOWN HERE AT THE TWO PARKS THAT ABUT THE WATER AND. WE HAVE A A LITTLE FLAG LOT OFF OF THE ROAD, AND THE BLUE LINE STOPS. AND THEN THEY'RE RUNNING PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH I DON'T THINK HAS ENOUGH WIDTH IN THE ROAD. THAT BEING PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, I COULD SEE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVING ACCESS AND MAYBE FIREFLY, BUT NOT THE GENERAL CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO IF THEY CAN'T GET THAT ROAD TO 22FT WITHOUT HAVING TO DO CONDEMNATION AND TAKING LAND AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT'S NOT A VIABLE PLACE TO PUT A PUBLIC PARK. AND THEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A PRIVATE BOAT RAMP IN A PUBLIC PARK. I'D LOVE TO KNOW HOW THAT ONE'S GOING TO WORK OUT. SO I GOT SOME. I GOT SOME MAJOR ISSUES WITH BOTH OF THE PARKS THAT TOUCH THE WATER. THE THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT THE FINAL RECORD SHOULD CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHETHER PARKLAND, OPEN SPACE TRAILS, SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND OTHER AMENITIES WILL BE OWNED OR MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. THE MUD, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OR ANOTHER RESPONSIBLE ENTITY. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FINAL RECORD, IS THAT THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE THE AMENDMENT, IT WOULD BE THE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. WITH THAT, IF YOU'LL NOTE ON THE DAIS, THERE IS AN UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN THAT DOES EXACTLY WHAT WAS REQUESTED AND OUTLINES WHICH FACILITIES OR WHAT IT WAS IN THE PACKAGE OF MATERIAL THAT WAS LEFT. AND SO THAT COMMENT SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN ADDRESSED THROUGH THIS EXHIBIT. THE REQUEST OR THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE UPDATING TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION OR INDICATING IN SOME WAY, EITHER BY WAY OF ORDINANCE OR EXHIBIT OR LIST OR SOMETHING THAT THESE THESE NOTES HAVE BEEN MADE. AND THIS IS A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. SO IT WILL HAVE TO BE UP. IT WILL HAVE TO BE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. SO IT WOULD IT CAN BE THROUGH RECOMMENDATION. SO IF YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE, IF WE GET COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THAT SITUATION, IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE WITH THE UPDATED EXHIBIT DETAILING OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. OKAY. IF IF THE COMMISSIONERS DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS OR NO, I WILL ASK FOR. THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT HAS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. DO YOU

[00:20:17]

GUYS HAVE A COPY OF THIS? THEY HAVE SMALLER ONES, LIKE A LARGER ONE. BUT WE'RE JUST SEEING IT SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANGES ARE FROM THE ONE THAT WAS OKAY. SURE. WILL THIS BE AVAILABLE ON THE PICTURE SO THAT THE. ON THE SCREEN SO THAT THE PEOPLE. OKAY, OKAY. IT DOESN'T MEAN. JORDAN, WILL YOU PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN SO THAT THE PEOPLE HERE CAN SEE IT.

HELLO, EVERYBODY. THANKS FOR HAVING US. MY NAME IS LUKE GAZDA REPRESENTING THE OWNERSHIP. AS THE APPLICANT. I THINK JORDAN HAS DONE A GREAT JOB ON OUTLINING WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY FOR THE CONSENT THAT WE APPROVED LAST MARCH, AND PART OF THAT AGREEMENT IS OBLIGATING US TO PROVIDE CERTAIN AMENITIES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AMENITIES. AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY WE SPENT THE LAST FEW MONTHS AFTER AFTER WE GOT THAT APPROVED TO REVISIT OUR LAND PLAN. AND WE ARE ESSENTIALLY DISPERSING THE AMENITY AREAS IN OUR PROJECT TO BE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT CLOSER TO THE DIFFERENT PHASES, MORE EASILY, EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTS AND PUBLIC. AND ULTIMATELY, IT CREATES A BETTER FUNCTIONING COMMUNITY. WE THINK IT'S A BETTER LAND PLAN. AND SO WE ARE HERE TO MARRY THE PDD EXHIBIT C TO OUR OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. AS JORDAN HAS OUTLINED. THAT IS PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. THE SECOND CHANGE IN THIS EXHIBIT OR THE SECOND ASK, I SHOULD SAY, IS WE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM THE THE SEGREGATION OF SINGLE FAMILY A AND SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE USES ON THE MAP OR COMBINING THOSE TWO ONE RED AREA. WE'VE ALWAYS INTENDED FOR SMALLER LOTS, THE SFA LOTS, WHICH ARE 40 FOOT LOTS TO BE INTERSPERSED AND INTERMINGLED WITH LARGER LOTS THAT ACCEPT THE STATE LOTS FOR AN 80 FOOT LOTS SO THAT THEY CAN LIVE ON THE SAME STREET. WE THINK THAT PROMOTES MORE ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY, BETTER STREET CHARACTER, A BETTER COMMUNITY, MORE RESILIENT COMMUNITY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CONVEYED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. AND SO THAT IS JUST FORMALLY PUTTING THESE IN THE SAME COLOR. AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DENSITY, WE'RE NOT ADDING UNITS. WE'RE NOT AFFECTING ANY BOUNDARIES. WE STILL HAVE 280 SFA LOTS, AND WE STILL HAVE 45 STATE LOTS. THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY CHANGES OR REQUESTS FOR TODAY. AS IT RELATES TO THE NEW EXHIBIT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AS JORDAN ALLUDED TO, WE'VE ADDED SOME ANNOTATIONS. WE WE CLARIFIED WHAT THE OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF EACH OF THESE USES IS GOING TO BE. AND PRIMARILY THAT IS THE HOA OR THE MUD DISTRICT ARE GOING TO OWN AND MAINTAIN THESE FACILITIES. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO DESIGNATED THROUGH ANNOTATIONS WHAT IS PUBLIC, PRIVATE OR BOTH.

AND WE'VE ALSO ADDED TO THE LEGEND HERE WHERE THE TRAIL SYSTEM, WHERE THE POOL IS GOING TO GO, WHERE THESE POOLS ARE CONTEMPLATED AND WHERE THE AMENITIES FOR LAKE ACCESS AND WATER RECREATION, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONSENT AGREEMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO GO.

SO THIS IS REALLY A FORMAL LAND USE PLAN THAT CONSOLIDATES THE REQUEST FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE AGREEMENT AND CONSOLIDATES. THIS PROJECT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO ADOPT THIS, TO EXECUTE ON OUR VISION. WE ARE HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON MATERIAL REGARD FOR COUNCIL. I THINK YOU CAN ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP EARLIER. OKAY? OKAY. JEFF HOWARD. WITH THE ANY OF THE

[00:25:04]

COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO ADDRESS A QUESTION TO COUNCIL? GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. YEAH. MY NAME IS JEFF HOWARD HOWARD IN AUSTIN, TEXAS. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY OUTLINE SOME OF THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE IN BOTH THE ORDINANCE AND IN THE ORDINANCE YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER TODAY, AND MAY ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE HAD. JORDAN CAN, OF COURSE, LET ME KNOW IF, IF, IF BRAD IS INDICATED TO HER THAT HE DISAGREES WITH ANY OF THAT. I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND HE'S NOT HERE TODAY. BUT BUT BUT I IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CITY ATTORNEY AGREES WITH SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS. SO FIRST OF ALL, WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT, YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE CLOSELY. IT ONLY DOES TWO THINGS. IT APPROVES AN AMENDED CONCEPT PLAN AND DETAILED PLAN. AND NUMBER TWO, IT SAYS IT REPLACES EXHIBIT C AND THE DETAILED PLAN WITH THE NEW EXHIBIT C, WHICH IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU. NOW THAT'S ALL. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING IS NOT INCREASING THE DENSITY, NOT INCREASING, NOT CHANGING ANY LAND USES. WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE MEETING THE POLICY DIRECTIVE OF COUNCIL THAT WAS ISSUED IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, AND THEY'RE MAKING THAT INCORPORATED INTO THIS, THIS LAND USE PLAN. AND THEY'RE DOING IT IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY. NO INCREASE IN INTENSITY, NO INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER, NO INCREASE IN DENSITY, NO CHANGE IN LAND USE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE P, D, D ON PAGE FIVE, THIS SECTION. SIX ONE. IT TALKS ABOUT USES AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS BOTH AMENITIES AREA. AND IT ALLOWS FOR USE OF THE AMENITY AREAS BY RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO BY OTHERS IN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OWNER AND OTHERS. CAN I INTERRUPT FOR JUST WHAT WAS THE REFERENCE IN THE. IS IT 23 OF YOUR PACKET, PAGE 23 OF YOUR PACKET? IT'S PAGE FIVE OF THE ORDINANCE. THAT HELPS. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FIND IT. I'M ON PAGE 23. IT SHOULD SAY SUBSECTION D. DO YOU SEE THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS AMENITY AREAS? OKAY, SO THAT THAT DOES INDICATE THAT THE AMENITIES BE FOR THE BENEFIT USE OF RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO FOR OTHERS IN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OWNER AND OTHERS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND WE AGREE WITH THIS, CONSIDERS THE CONSENT AGREEMENT TO BE SUCH AN AGREEMENT. AND THEREFORE, THAT'S WHY WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. IF YOU READ FURTHER DOWN IT, THE NOTION OF OF PICKLEBALL COURTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT SAYS WHAT SOME OF THE TYPES OF USES AND STRUCTURES YOU CAN HAVE IN THESE AMENITY AREAS. YOU CAN HAVE PLAYGROUND STRUCTURES, COMMUNITY BEACH, COMMUNITY BOAT RAMP, COMMUNITY SWIMMING POOL, BATHROOMS, COVERED PAVILIONS, SPORTS COURTS, ETC. SO EVERYTHING THAT COUNCIL DIRECTED BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT IS ALLOWED BY THE ORDINANCE. AND SO WE CAN ALREADY DO THIS IN THE AREAS ALREADY DESIGNATED IN THE PLANS. ALL WE ARE DOING NOW IS COMING UP WITH A WAY TO DISTRIBUTE THE AMENITIES THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION, RATHER THAN HAVING THEM ALL PLACED DOWN ON THE WATER. WE THINK THIS IS A BETTER PLAN, AND WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT WE ARE ALREADY ALLOWED TO DO IT. BY THE TERMS OF THE P, D AND THE LAND USE PLAN. IT'S JUST NOW WE'RE DOING IT IN A IN A BETTER, MORE THOUGHTFUL, WELL-PLANNED WAY.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THOSE TWO THINGS INTO FOCUS FOR YOU AS YOU DELIBERATE TODAY AND HAVE IT IN. OKAY. SO WHEN THE 2021PDD WAS WRITTEN AND THERE WAS THAT. PROVISION FOR THE USE OF OTHERS, AND IT WAS AGREED BY, BY AN UNSTATED AGREEMENT OF OTHERS. AND WE DISCUSSED THAT IT WAS THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE EASEMENT THAT WAS THAT ALLOWED DRAPER'S COVE RESIDENTS TO USE THE THE AMENITIES. AND IT WAS VERY SPECIFICALLY PUT IN THERE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS. IT WASN'T PUT IN THERE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT WAS PUT IN THERE

[00:30:03]

SPECIFICALLY FOR THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DRAPER'S COVE RESIDENTS. SO NOW ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT LANGUAGE THAT WAS INTENDED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE DRAPER'S COVE RESIDENTS, WHICH THEY HAD A RIGHT TO VIA EASEMENT AND DEED RIGHTS? AND NOW YOU'RE NOW YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THAT IS NOT A CHANGE TO THE PDD BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWING THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR. IT'S THE. THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS DETERMINED THAT THAT LANGUAGE AND THE CONSENT AGREEMENT COMBINED ALLOW FOR THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DICTATED AND DIRECTED, BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT. THAT LANGUAGE IN THE PD D ALLOWS THAT TO HAPPEN.

WELL, OF COURSE, HE WAS NOT HERE AND WAS NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION IN 2021 WHEN WE WERE ALL DISCUSSING EXACTLY SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THOSE PARTIES THAT ALSO HAD AN INTEREST. SO HE'S NOT AWARE OF THAT. BUT I THINK YOU ARE. I KNOW, I KNOW THAT YOUR YOUR COLLEAGUE MISS ELLERS IS AWARE OF THOSE OF THAT SPECIFIC AGREEMENT. I THINK I AM AWARE THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT FOR. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M AWARE THAT THIS IS INTENDED TO ONLY REFERENCE THAT. I THINK IF IT WAS INTENDED TO ONLY REFERENCE THAT, THEN IT WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THE EASEMENT WITH THE RESIDENTS. I THINK THIS IS MORE BROADLY DRAFTED. AND SO AND I THINK BECAUSE IT'S BROADLY DRAFTED, I THINK I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE CITY. AND HE'S GOT THE RIGHT INFORMATION. OKAY. WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE EASEMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I KNOW THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS VERBATIM FROM THE, THE GRANTOR FIREFLY COVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONVEY THE SAME OR OTHER RIGHTS AND, OR, AND OR EASEMENTS TO OTHERS, SO LONG AS SUCH FURTHER CONVEYANCE IS SUBJECT TO CONSTRAINT. SO THIS IS A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS THE GRANTOR AND OWNER OF THIS EASEMENT TO CONVEY TO OTHERS. I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE, I'M JUST SAYING THAT WHAT THIS WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW WITH THE AGREEMENT AND WITH THIS PD AMENDMENT IS WE ARE IN EFFECT, WE ARE CHANGING THE ORIGINAL PD D AS FAR AS THE ORIGINAL PD D, THE PROPERTY WAS GOING TO BE FOR THE USE OF THE FIREFLY COVE OWNERS AND THE DRAPER'S COVE RESIDENTS. AND THAT AND THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. BELIEVE ME, THERE WERE MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT, MANY DISCUSSIONS HERE IN THE CITY ABOUT WHAT THAT LANGUAGE REFERRED TO. NOW, THOSE PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER HERE. ROY GAMBER IS NO LONGER HERE. BUT THOSE PEOPLE. WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT, AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT EASEMENT AGREEMENT. AND SO IT IT'S NOT A MATTER OF CAN YOU OR CAN'T YOU? OF COURSE, YOU CAN AMEND THE PD D AND OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC. OF COURSE YOU CAN. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION, BUT WHAT IS A QUESTION IS DOES THAT AMEND THE PD D AND I THINK THAT IT CHANGES THE WHO CAN USE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S NOW BEING USED FOR THE PUBLIC. AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE FIREFLY COVE AND THE DRAPER'S COVE FOLKS. SO WE JUST NEED TO AMEND THE PD. D THAT'S JUST A PART OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. I THINK MAYBE MISS STROHMEYER CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I THINK MAYBE STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY HAVE TAKEN A POSITION THAT PD AMENDMENT IS NOT NECESSARY. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHEN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT WAS BEING CONSIDERED ABOUT ABOUT THIS REQUIREMENT, AND I THINK COUNCIL MADE THE POLICY DECISION TO REQUIRE THIS SORT OF PUBLIC ACCESS. DAVE. SO THE PUBLIC ACCESS, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM THE BEGINNING, WAS TO BE VERY CLOSE TO LOWMAN'S FORD, WHERE THE SWIMMING POOL AND THE PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE GOING. I HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THESE THREE PARKS GOING PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PRIVATE ROADWAY TO GET TO THE FLAG LOT. SORRY YOU SAID LOEHMANN'S FOR. YEAH. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE A SWIMMING POOL AND PICKLEBALL BUGGY? FORD BUGGY. FORD I'M SORRY. BOGGY FORD YEAH.

MY BAD. I THINK THE CONSENT AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR THOSE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE FACILITIES TO BE NEAR THE WATER IN 12 ACRES NEAR THE WATER, THE LAKE, RECREATION FACILITIES, THE POOL AND THE POOL, AND TWO SPORT COURTS FOR THE CONSENT AGREEMENT ARE TO REMAIN PRIVATE.

EIGHT PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE TO BE PUBLIC ALONGSIDE THE TRAIL SYSTEM, AS WELL AS THE LAKE

[00:35:06]

ACCESS AMENITIES. THAT'S WHAT WE CLARIFIED. IF YOU LOOK AT POOL AND PAVILION WITH THE BLUE CIRCLE, WE ALL HAVE TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT WILL BE THAT WILL REMAIN OWNED BY THE PRIVATE.

OKAY, SO THE ONE WITH THE ORANGE DOT AT THE BOTTOM WAS ALWAYS SUPPOSED TO BE PUBLIC, CORRECT? WELL, FOR THE FOR THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. EXCUSE ME, 205 B. DEVELOPERS TO GRANT PUBLIC ACCESS, THE CITY APPROVED IRREVOCABLE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT SAYS WHAT THE WHAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED. INSTALL ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF SHORELINE ALONG LAKE TRAVIS. SO FROM THE END OF THE BLUE ROAD DOWN TO THE FLAG LOT. WHO OWNS THAT ROAD? WE OWN DRAPER'S COVE ROAD ALL THE WAY. ARE YOU GOING TO BE DEDICATING IT TO THE CITY? NO, THAT'S THE PROJECT. BUT WE'LL BE DEDICATING A PUBLIC ACCESS. OKAY. AND SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DECIDED? WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT, THE HOA OR THE MUD.

IT WILL BE THE HOA OR THE MUD. OKAY. OKAY. NOW I HAVE I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THE HOA OR THE MUD IS BEING DISCUSSED AS OWNING A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES. AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE THE CITY HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A, OF A CONUNDRUM IN OUR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING SOME PUBLIC POOL, ETC. SOME PUBLIC AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING MAINTAINED BY AN AGREEMENT BY THE HOA, OR IT HAS SOMETHING IT'S INVOLVING THE PED. IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY COMPLICATED SITUATION. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO WHATEVER WE CAN IN ADVANCE OF, OF, OF, OF CONFIRMING THIS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION DUPLICATED, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE KNOW THAT IT CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS. WE SHOULD DECIDE BEFORE WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE AMEND THE PEE DEE DEE, WHO IS GOING TO OWN WHAT IS THE CAN THE HOA EVEN OWN FACILITIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED BY THE PUBLIC WHEN THE WHEN THE HOA IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT CORPORATION, CAN THEY MAINTAIN SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE USED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC? REALLY JUST IN RESPONSE TO THAT, AT LEAST ON THE THE MUD AND THE PIT ISSUE. SO A MUD AND A PIT ARE TWO SEPARATE, DIFFERENT.

RIGHT. THEY ARE A POD USES PUBLIC BONDS, RIGHT. AND SO IT TRIGGERS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT. MUD IS NOT. THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO WHEN THEY CAN MAINTAIN THINGS, NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN THEY CAN MAINTAIN THEM BETTER THAN WE CAN. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT PIT VERSUS MUD. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOA OR MUD. AND MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IF IT'S IF IT'S IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE MUD, IF IT'S GOING TO BE SUGGESTED TO BE THE HOA, THEN THAT WILL DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE AT TO SARAH. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO AVOID. NO, MA'AM. SO THEY'RE STRUCTURED SEPARATELY. A MUD AND AN HOA THROUGH A MUD CAN ACT TOGETHER AS ONE. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF TAXING ENTITY.

THEY OPERATE IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE THAN WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON AT TO SARAH. I DON'T THINK TO SARAH'S A FAIR EXAMPLE, AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS OF MUDS. YOU KNOW, TO A SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, YES, THE HOA AND OR THE DISTRICT CAN MAINTAIN THOSE FACILITIES AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC ACCESS THEM. OKAY. SO AN HOA CAN OWN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PICKLEBALL COURTS AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS IT THROUGH A PUBLIC ACCESS AGREEMENT. YEAH.

AN HOA IS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION THAT CAN ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS AND, AND, AND IS BOUND BY AGREEMENTS. AND CERTAINLY, AND CERTAINLY IT'S VERY OFTEN WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE PONDS OR YOU HAVE TRAILS, YOU HAVE OTHER FACILITIES THAT ARE HOA MAINTAINED. THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT OF SOME PUBLIC ACCESS. SOMETIMES IT'S ON TRAILS, SOMETIMES IT'S THE RIGHT OF A CITY TO COME IN AND MAINTAIN A POND. THAT'S ALSO BEING MAINTAINED BY THE HOA IF IT'S FAILING. SO YES, CERTAINLY. SO THEY COULD THEY COULD. NOW IS THAT FEASIBLE TO SETTLE AN HOA WITH MAINTENANCE OF A PUBLIC FACILITY? IT'S. YEAH, I THINK IT CAN BE. I THINK IT DEPENDS ON EACH PROJECT AND EACH. AND I THINK I THINK THE OWNERS CAN SPEAK TO THAT ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF IT. BUT YES, WE CERTAINLY SEE IT'S VERY COMMON IN, ESPECIALLY IN A DISTRICT, IN A MUD DISTRICT FOR THERE TO BE A MUD. OWNED AND OPERATED AND MAINTAINED PARK FACILITY THAT IS ALSO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THAT IS THAT THAT HAPPENS. YES. OKAY. I CAN SEE

[00:40:04]

IT WITH THE MUD OWNING IT AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH BUT THAT'S I'M KIND OF QUESTIONING THE HOA OWNING IT AND OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC. AS AN HOA MEMBER, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOA MEMBERS WOULD WANT TO PAY THE EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING A PUBLICLY USED FACILITY. YEAH, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR ON WHAT WHAT THE DUES STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT ALL IT'S GOING, WHAT ASSETS ARE GOING TO BE OWNED BY THE HOA, RIGHT. BUT IT WOULD LIKELY BE MAINTAINED BY THE IF IT'S A FINANCIAL PROBLEM FOR RESIDENTS, WE DON'T WANT TO BURDEN OUR RESIDENTS TO KEEP STRUCTURE THAT'S COST PROHIBITIVE. SO ON THE ON THE PLAN, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE PLAN SAY WHAT AMENITIES ARE GOING WHERE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S AMENITY AREA, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE ARE THE PICKLEBALL COURTS? WHERE WHERE DOES. SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF. OKAY. STAR. AND WE WERE CONTEMPLATING THOSE BEING UP IN THE NORTHWEST AMENITIES AREA. OKAY. ALONGSIDE THE POOL. AND THEN THE AND THIS IS OUR WE HAVEN'T FINISHED. OKAY, SO THIS IS OUR BEST GUESS AS OF TODAY OR THIS IS OKAY AS OF TODAY, BUT WE MAY ADD MORE AMENITIES. WE MAY CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THESE AMENITIES, BUT WE ARE REALLY HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT OR TO ASK FOR THE DISPERSAL OF THESE MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. AND I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY, PARDON ME EARLIER, THAT THE PUBLIC PICKLEBALL COURTS WILL BE DOWN BY THE WATER. NO, I DID, I MISHEARD THAT ALL PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE CONTEMPLATED TO BE RIGHT WHERE THAT PINK STAR. OKAY, SO IT'LL JUST BE A FENCE OR WHATEVER.

OKAY. YEAH. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THE MECHANICS OF SEPARATING PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. I SEE THAT NOW. SORRY. THERE WILL BE BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PICKLEBALL COURTS WILL BE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FIREFLY COVE ONLY. YEAH. COOL. THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. I MAY HAVE MISSPOKE. IT'S THE PICNIC TABLES, BARBECUE GRILLS, BEACHES, SHADE STRUCTURES, COVERED PAVILIONS THAT WOULD. AND POTENTIALLY A BOAT RAMP.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE PERMISSIBLE. BUT ARE ON THE 12 ACRES OF SHORELINE.

PICKLEBALL COURTS WOULD BE THE. AND. AND TO THE POINT ABOUT INFORMATION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE ON THE PLAN, I THINK IF IF THE IF THE COMMISSION WERE SO INCLINED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, IT COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT COULD BE THOSE CONDITIONS THAT MISS STROHMEYER HAS OUTLINED IN HER IN HER STAFF REPORT, WHICH COULD INCLUDE THOSE LATELY.

OKAY. AND WE WOULD JUST TRY TO GET A JUMP ON IT, THAT'S ALL. IF YOU MADE THAT PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION, WE COULD THEN GET IT FORMALIZED, GET IT IN THE PACKET AND MAKE SURE IT'S IN FRONT OF COUNCIL WHEN THEY CONSIDER IT IN THIS SMALLER, THIS FIVE AND A HALF ACRE AMENITIES AREA, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANYTHING ON THAT PARTICULAR FIVE AND A HALF ACRES? WHICH ONE? THAT'S THE THIS ONE RIGHT DOWN HERE. YEAH. IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY ANYTHING ON THAT ONE. YEAH. WE WILL LIKELY APPROVE THAT SPACE TO BE PARK SPACE FOR IMPROVEMENT WHAT IT IS TODAY. BUT WE WE HAVE. OKAY. OKAY. DAVE. OKAY. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 12 ACRES, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE LARGE TRACK AND THE FLAG LOT OR IS IT 12 ACRES? JUST THE LARGE LOT? 12, 12 ACRES IS JUST THIS PIECE. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS. YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU OWNED ALL OF DRAPER'S COVE, YET YOU'RE STOPPING THE IMPROVEMENT, THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT THAT YOU CALL OUT IN THE BLUE LINE AT THE EDGE OF. THAT UPPER, COULD BE PUBLIC, COULD BE PRIVATE PARK AREA. AND YOU'RE NOT IMPROVING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLAG LOT. IF THE 12 ACRES IS CALLED OUT THERE, THEN YOU'RE ASKING IN ADDITION THAT THIS FLAG LOT BE MADE PUBLIC, AND I'M AGAINST THAT. IT DOESN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SORRY. THE FLAG LOT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE FIVE ACRE SITE. YES. SORRY. WOULD YOU SAY THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN? HE'S AGAINST THAT BEING PUBLIC BECAUSE. BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T EXTENDED THE ROAD OR THE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW THE EXTENSION OF THE ROAD TO THE PLAN DOES NOT SHOW THE EXTENSION OF THE ROAD. BECAUSE THAT ACREAGE OF DRAPER'S COVE THAT WE OWN IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. IT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS, IS IT? IS

[00:45:01]

IT IN THE CITY? IT'S NOT. OKAY. WHY IS IT ON THIS MAP? IT WAS IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PD THAT THESE TWO AMENITIES AREAS THAT THESE TWO ROAD THIS PIECE OF THE ROAD RIGHT HERE, THIS PIECE OF THE ROAD RIGHT HERE, THAT'S IN THAT'S IN WHITE. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COMMUNITY. YOU SEE THE BLACK DASHED LINE HERE ON THE WESTERN EDGE. THAT IS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PD. SO WE CAN ONLY AMEND WHAT'S INSIDE THE PD. AND SINCE THAT AREA IS OUTSIDE THE PD, THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SHOWN IN BLUE. OH BECAUSE IT'S JUST THIS IS JUST THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OF THE MAP WHERE IT TURNS FROM BLUE TO WHITE. WE STILL OWN IT. ONE JUST IN THE PD ONE'S OUT.

SO LET'S GO BACK TO IT AGAIN. THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL PD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A 12.5 ACRE PARK, AND IF WE ACCEPT THIS, THEN WE'RE GIVEN THE FLAG LOT, THE POSSIBILITY OF SLIPPING IN UNDER THE RADAR AND BECOMING PUBLIC. I THINK IT NEEDS TO REMAIN PRIVATE. SO THE LAND WILL REMAIN PRIVATE. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LAND. I'M TALKING ABOUT USAGE. USAGE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY. IT SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. THE THE PARCEL THAT HE'S SPEAKING OF THAT FIVE AND A HALF ACRE FLAG LOT, THAT PARCEL IS SPECIFICALLY WAS ONE THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT CASE WHERE SOME OWNERS IN DRAPER'S COVE GOT RIGHTS TO THIS IN PERPETUITY TO USE IT AS A ACCESS TO THE LAKE AND AS A AS A PARK. SO IF AMENITIES WERE PUT ON THERE THAT INTERFERED WITH THAT, THAT COULD POSE A PROBLEM FOR WHOEVER IS IS GOING TO BE THE OWNER OF THAT AMENITIES AREA. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS THE MUD AND THEY OWNED IT AND WHATEVER WAS PUT ON THERE INTERFERED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EASEMENT RIGHTS, IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM. BUT YOU WERE REFERENCING PREVIOUSLY.

YES, CERTAINLY. CERTAINLY. YOU KNOW, THE OWNER WILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE EASEMENT. BUT I THINK THE EASEMENT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE. AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT INTERFERING WITH RIGHTS, THEN YES, YOU CAN USE IT. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. LIKE DEPENDING ON WHAT AMENITIES GO IN THERE, IT MAY OR MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THEIR EASEMENT RIGHTS. YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULDN'T BE AN INTERFERENCE. BUT BUT CERTAINLY IF YOU'RE CORRECT, IF IF THEY WERE TO, IF THE OWNER WERE TO DO SOMETHING IN THE EASEMENT THAT INTERFERED WITH THEIR EASEMENT RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE EASEMENT, THEN THEY COULD NOT DO THAT. WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHY BEFORE WE ACTUALLY CONFIRM OR APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD D WITH THIS PLAN, WE DO WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING WHERE AND. AND THE SECOND PART OF OF THIS TALKING ABOUT THE AMENITIES AREA, I WANTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE THE CITY CODE AND THE PD D REQUIRE PARK LAND. AND SO I THINK THAT WE ARE PROBABLY PLANNING IS THAT THE AMENITIES IS IN LIEU OF PARK LAND. I WOULD GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT. NO.

56 ACRES OF PARKLAND OR SORRY, CORRECT. MYSELF. 56 ACRES OF AMENITIES AS SHOWN, A PORTION OF WHICH WILL BE PUBLICLY DEDICATED OR PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, THE PD REQUIRED TO DEDICATE 11. OKAY. SO SOME OF THESE SOME OF THIS IS PARK LAND. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO IDENTIFY IN THE PD D ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THE PD D REQUIRES IN OUR CODE REQUIRES PARK LAND AND IT REQUIRES PARK LAND THAT MEETS OUR PARK LAND CODE. SO IT CAN'T BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN, FOR EXAMPLE, IT CAN'T HAVE A CERTAIN SLOPE, FOR EXAMPLE. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE. AND ONE OF ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE DRC, WHICH IS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH INCLUDES THE PARKS PERSON, CITY ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE, A REPORT FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THIS AND THAT ALL OF THIS MEETS THE MEETS THE PARK LAND, DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. AUDIENCE. AUDIENCE, PLEASE. NO CONVERSATION. THAT'S VERY DISTRACTING TO THE CONVERSATION UP ON THE DAIS. THANK YOU. SO IF WE HAD THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY, OH, TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE THAT WOULD INCLUDE A REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS PERSON ON THE STREETS. IT WOULD INCLUDE A REPORT FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL ON, YOU KNOW, ON SAFETY. IT WOULD

[00:50:04]

INCLUDE A REPORT ON ON ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING. SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AT LEAST WE MIGHT PUT IN OUR CONDITIONS IS A REPORT FROM THE DRC. SO, MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS THIS IS ZONING PD. D IS THE ZONING, THE THE THE PLAN, THE LAND USE PLAN PROVIDES SORT OF A FRAMEWORK. IT SHOWS YOU WHERE CERTAIN USES ARE ALLOWED AND HELPS IDENTIFY THE USES AND DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE PD, BUT THE OWNER WILL STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO THERE WILL STILL BE A SUBDIVISION PLAT.

THAT'S WHERE WE WILL ADDRESS THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE WE COMPLY WITH ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS, MAKING SURE WE REQUIRE WE COMPLY WITH PARK LAND REQUIREMENTS. SO, SO I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PD HAS TO SPELL OUT HOW IT'S GOING TO COMPLY WITH THOSE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS, WITH THOSE OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS. IT JUST NEEDS TO ESTABLISH THE USES AND DEVELOPMENT ALLOWED AND, AND SUPPORT. GENERALLY WHAT THE PLAN IS, THIS IS ALL WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ORDINANCE. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY LAND USES.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY DENSITIES, INTENSITIES OR IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE'RE DOING WHAT IS, IS BOTH ALLOWED AND HAS BEEN DIRECTED AS A POLICY MATTER BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND WE'RE DOING THAT IN A PLAN THAT IS MAKES BETTER SENSE AND IT'S A BETTER PLAN. SO LAND REQUIREMENTS, TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF. BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR A DETAILED PLAN, APPROVAL. THE DETAILED PLAN SHOWS. YEAH. IT'S A DETAILED PLAN THAT SHOWS GENERALLY WHERE THE LOTS AND ROADS WILL BE, BUT IT WILL WILL COME IN WITH A PLAT. THAT'S WHEN WE'LL SAY THIS. THIS PIECE GETS HAS THIS ACCESS EASEMENT AND, AND SO FORTH. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IN THE IN THE SUBDIVISION PLANS OR IN THE DETAIL PLAN REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CODE THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SPECIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE. AND SO AGAIN, I THINK AS LONG AS WE COMPLY WITH THE PD D AND THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, THAT WILL, THAT WILL ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF AS PART OF THAT PROCESS. I MEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY IN THE CODE FOR A DETAILED PLAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE, BUT IT DOES SPECIFY IN THE CODE FOR A DETAILED PLAN THAT YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY THE PARKLAND. THE PARKLAND HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED TO TO GET DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD WOULD PUT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS, IS IDENTIFYING WHICH OF THIS AREA IS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY AS PARK LAND. AND BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE DETAILED PLAN. SO I MEAN, I, AND I THINK THAT IS A CONDITION. AND I THINK THAT'S CONDITION. MR. ROMEO ALSO GAVE US GAVE US A COMMENT, I THINK DAVE. OH, OKAY. DAVE. OKAY. SO AS FAR AS THE PARKLAND GOES, IT TALKS ABOUT A PICKLEBALL COURT AND THAT'S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL AND A 12.5 ACRE PARK. I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO PUT PUBLIC AND OR PRIVATE ON ANY OF THE OTHER GREEN SPACES, BECAUSE THAT'S ONCE IT'S IN, IT'S HARDER TO TAKE OUT. IF IT'S IF IT'S NOT ALREADY DESIGNATED AS THAT, THEN THOSE NEED TO BE REMOVED. BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL ONE, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ON IT. THIS IS CHANGING THAT ONCE THIS PIECE OF PAPER IS ACCEPTED, THE DEVELOPER IS JUST GOING TO COME BACK AND SAID, WELL, I'M SCRATCHING OUT PRIVATE. IT'S NOW ALL PUBLIC. AND THAT'S NOT FAIR. I MEAN, IF ALL THIS IS ABOUT IS CHANGING AND INTERMIXING LARGE LOTS WITH SMALL LOTS, LET'S KEEP IT TO YOUR NEW ROAD PLAN AND YOUR LARGE LOT AND YOUR SMALL LOTS, AND LEAVE THE GREEN SPACES ALONE. I DON'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING SLIP IN UNDER THE RADAR. WE ADDED THE PUBLIC AND OR PRIVATE DESIGNATIONS AS A AS A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, AND ALSO TO CLARIFY AT THE CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WHICH AMENITIES ARE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FOR THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. SO THAT'S WHY WE ADDED IT HERE. IT WAS AT THE THE CITY WHO WANTS THESE PUBLIC, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AMENITIES AND STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT, SO THAT THE PDP MATCHES THE CONSENT. WE OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION DID NOT HAVE THOSE DESIGNATIONS, BUT THAT WAS THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO US BY THE CITY. AND MR. STEWART, IF I MAY, THE REQUEST FROM THE STAFFING LEVEL AT THAT POINT, THERE'S A

[00:55:01]

LOT OF, I BELIEVE, CONFUSION TO AN EXTENT OVER THE CHANGE. WHAT IS APPROVED IN THE PD VERSUS WHAT IS IN THE MUD AGREEMENT, BEING ABLE TO VISUALIZE, YOU KNOW, A, B AND C NOW, I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT WHEN WE MAKE THOSE DECISIONS TO THE AGREEMENT HAS SPECIFIC CAVEATS.

WHEN WE GO IN TO REVIEW OUR CLASSROOM PLANS, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MATCHES AND THAT IT'S 1 TO 1 AND THAT THERE'S SOMETHING TO HOLD TO. IN ORDER FOR US TO APPROVE PLATS AND APPROVE SUBDIVISION PLANS. AND SO IF THE EXHIBIT IS NOT ADOPTED WITH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, THAT'S OKAY. BUT WE STILL NEED TO SEE WHERE STUFF IS GOING. I'M GENERALLY SPEAKING SO THAT WHEN WE GET TO REVIEW, WE CAN SAY FOR THE UPDATED EXHIBIT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THIS SPOT THERE'S X, Y, AND Z. AND IN THIS SPOT WE HAVE ALL OF THIS STUFF. AND THEN WE'RE SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CITY CODE DURING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT THAT TIME, AS WELL AS THE PD D AND THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT. OKAY, LET ME TRY AGAIN. IF IT'S A PIE AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY NOTHING BUT FIREFLY, THAT'S ONE THING YOU WANT TO MAKE THOSE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. I DON'T CARE WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO OLD DRAPER'S COVE WITH THAT BIG GREEN PIECE AND THAT FLAG LOT, AND YOU PUT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ON THAT, I'M GOING TO OBJECT IF YOU WANT TO PUT PRIVATE ON IT AND YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND TRY TO CHANGE IT TO PUBLIC, AND THEN THAT MEETS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THE COUNCIL WANTED, THAT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. BUT IF WE SAY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHT NOW AND YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO GO PUBLIC, THAT AIN'T RIGHT. IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE IN DRAPER'S COVE. THOSE TWO NEED TO STAY PRIVATE UNTIL A LATER DATE. OBVIOUSLY, THE 12.5 ACRE PARK WAS CALLED OUT FOR TO BE PUBLIC, BUT IT'S ALSO ACCESSED OFF OF THE BLUE LINE. SO PART OF THE YOU KNOW, I JUST. I SPENT WAY TOO MUCH TIME WORKING FOR THIS CITY AND WATCHING A WHOLE BUNCH OF DEVELOPERS NOT TO SEE A RED WARNING FLAG RIGHT HERE IS SIMPLE ENOUGH TO DO. AND I, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, DAVE, AND I'M I'M ALSO. WOULD BE ADAMANT ABOUT KEEPING THAT PARTICULAR AREA AS PRIVATE, BUT I THINK IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL, WE MIGHT WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GET COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME HERE WITH COMMENTS. AND THEN WE MAY WE MAY ASK YOU TO COME BACK. WE MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE WHO CAME TO GIVE US THEIR INPUT. SO I'LL START TAKING I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IT 5:02 P.M. AND I'LL START TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER. SO EVERYBODY WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. PLEASE KEEP TO THREE MINUTES BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF YOU HERE. ARE YOU GOING TO BE TIMING THINGS AS WELL AS THE THERE'S A CHIME. OKAY. SO THE FIRST THE FIRST CARD I HAVE HERE IS FROM MIKE DENNEHY. I'M ON THE CLOCK. I GUESS I CAME HERE, I LIVE ON DRAKE COVE AND WE LOVE DRAKE COVE AND. WITH THIS PARK AND EVERYTHING REALLY GOING TO CHANGE OUR LIVES. MOST OF THE PEOPLE ARE RETIRED THERE. AND MY THE THINGS THAT HAVE REALLY I KAYAKED OVER THAT AREA. IT'S IT'S FLOODED. IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND I HAVE KAYAKED OVER IT MANY TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT THE ONLY THING. AND YOU HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THIS, THE PICKLEBALL. I'LL TAKE TENNIS. I'LL TAKE ANYTHING BASKETBALL. BUT PICKLEBALL IS REALLY GOING TO YOU KNOW, WE LOVE SITTING OUT ON OUR DECK AT NIGHT. I HOPE YOU GUYS DO ALSO.

BUT WOULD YOU LIKE PICKLEBALL COURT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU WOULD BE HEARING? ALL NIGHT? SO MY THING IS, I CAN SAY IT'S IN A FLOODPLAIN. THE PICKLEBALL COURTS GOING TO BE COVERED, BUT I JUST THAT'S THE PART THAT REALLY. AND THERE'S PEOPLE WHO LIVE CLOSER TO THAT COURT,

[01:00:06]

WHICH I THINK WILL BE, YOU KNOW, NOISE WISE WOULD BE TERRIBLE. LIKE I SAID, WOULD ANYBODY HERE WANT A PICKLEBALL COURT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD? YEAH. NO. OKAY. LIKE I SAID, TENNIS BASKETBALL. BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY OBJECTION THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR.

THANK YOU. SHOULD I TAKE MY HAT? OH, THIS IS COP LAND. THE NEXT PERSON I HAVE IS GARY LIPSCOMB.

LIPSCOMB. GIVING ME TIME TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS. I THINK SOME OF THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING, BUT I WANT TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. SECOND AMENITIES. PARCEL OF PROPERTY ON THE WATER IS SHOWN ON THIS MAP PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. ACCESS. PIECE OF PROPERTY IN MY DRIVEWAY. THERE'S THREE OF US ON THAT DRIVEWAY. I BUILT THAT DRIVEWAY 30 YEARS AGO BECAUSE IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN TIRE TRACKS AT THAT POINT. AND. VERY CONCERNED WITH PUBLIC THAT THAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ACCESS TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS DOWN BETWEEN THREE PEOPLE. THAT PROPERTY HAS TOUCHES THE GROUND AS THEIR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THERE WAS INTENDED. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE SOLUTION OF THAT PROBLEM IS, BUT HAVING THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OR EVEN AVAILABLE THROUGH THAT DRIVE THROUGH OUR DRIVEWAY IS NOT A GOOD SOLUTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT DAY OF JEAN BRAMBLETT. HELLO. MOST OF THE RESIDENTS, THE 34 HOMES DOWN IN GRIFFINS COVE ARE DEEDED TO OUR PRIVATE PARK ACCESS. ONE EVEN HAS A METES AND BOUNDS ON THEIR DEED. EAST AND WEST BEACHES FOR THE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS ONLY. I ASKED CITY COUNCIL WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PUBLIC? I ASKED COUNCIL AND THEY SAID IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PUBLIC, BUT THE INSTRUMENT HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO THE RESIDENTS WITH DEEDS STATING THEIR PRIVATE PARK ACCESS IS REMOVED. I DISPUTE THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE ALL HAD KEYS UNTIL AQUA PALOOZA WHEN THE GATE WAS BROKEN DOWN. WHERE'S THE DEED GIVEN? OVER TO THE PUBLIC. WHERE DOES IT STATE IN THE SALE TO TRAVIS MEADOWS THAT OUR PRIVATE PARK IS PUBLIC? WHERE IS THE INSTRUMENT OF RECORD? WHAT INSTRUMENT HAS DEDICATED THE PUBLIC USE? WHERE IS THE EMINENT DOMAIN INSTRUMENT? WHERE IS OUR COMPENSATION? WHAT INSTRUMENT CAN YOU PROVIDE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE DEEDED FROM A PRIVATE PARK TO A PUBLIC PARK? AGAIN, WE DISPUTE THE CITY COUNCIL. THE ROAD FROM BOBBY FORD TO THE PARK IS INCAPABLE OF THIS KIND OF TWO WAY TRAFFIC. IF YOU OWN THE ROAD, WHERE? WHERE ARE YOU GOING? TO FILL A POTHOLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE JASON FOLTZ. AUDIENCE.

GENERAL POLICY, PLEASE. NO CLAPPING OR BOOING OR HISSING OR ANYTHING. LET'S JUST LET THE SPEAKERS SPEAK. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JASON FOLTZ. I AM A HOMEOWNER OF THE

[01:05:06]

DRAPERS COVE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT WHERE IT GOES FROM WHITE. WHERE? YEAH, WE'RE ON THE WHITE PART RIGHT THERE. I AM COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO MAKING THAT LITTLE FLAG FLAG PART IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. PUBLIC. THAT IS OUR PRIVATE AREA. I'M A DISABLED COMBAT VETERAN.

THERE'S A REASON WHY I MOVED DOWN TO THIS TO DRAPER'S COVE. IT WAS TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THE NOISE AND EVERYTHING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GENTLEMAN RIGHT THERE, I AGREE WITH HIM. I DON'T KNOW PICKLEBALL NOISES. I DON'T WANT I DON'T WANT PUBLIC ACCESS DOWN TO OUR LITTLE SLICE OF HEAVEN. I DON'T TRUST THESE GUYS. I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU, MR. STEWART. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE IN PLAIN BLACK AND WHITE. I MEAN, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN OUT IN LEANDER, AND I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IN A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER PLACES. THESE DEVELOPERS COME IN, THEY SAY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY TAKE THEIR PEN. ALL OF A SUDDEN, AFTER YOU SIGN IT AND YOU AGREE AND YOU AGREE, AND THEY SCRAPE IT OUT AND THEY'RE LIKE, OH, NO, IT'S GOING TO BE PUBLIC. I'M IN COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO IT. I AGREE WITH THEM. OUR ROAD CAN'T HANDLE THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. YOU KNOW WHO TAKES CARE OF OUR ROADS? THAT GUY RIGHT THERE. YEAH. HE'S BEEN MAINTAINING IT THE ENTIRE TIME HE GOES OUT THERE. HE. HE FIXES THE POTHOLES AND EVERYTHING. IT'S FUNNY THAT THE FIREFLY COVE, THEY STOPPED THEIR PAVING OF THAT ROAD RIGHT THERE. AND THEN THE REST OF OUR ROAD IS ABSOLUTE. IT'S IT'S IT'S A NIGHTMARE. I'VE ALREADY WENT THROUGH TWO SETS OF SHOCKS ON MY JEEP. ONE SET OF SHOCKS ON MY TRUCK, AND I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE THAT LONG. HIS DRIVEWAY IS OUR ACCESS TO THE WATER. YOU CAN'T EXPAND IT. AND I KNOW ONE THING. IF I WAS HIM, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE HAVING ANYBODY ELSE OTHER THAN THE PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT WE ALL TRUST COMING UP AND DOWN THERE. IT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME AND THEY TRASH OUR PARK. WHO CLEANS UP OUR PARK? WE DID AFTER THE AFTER THE FLOODS LAST YEAR. WE DIDN'T GET ANY HELP FROM TRAVIS COUNTY. WE DIDN'T EVEN GET ANY HELP FROM FIREFLY. WE DIDN'T GET ANY HELP FROM LARGO. WHO WAS IT? IT WAS US DOWN THERE TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS. WHO MOVES ALL THE GRASS DOWN THERE? YEAH, ONCE YOU GUYS TAKE OVER HOA. MIKE. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE DO EVERYTHING.

WE'RE ALREADY PAYING AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT FOR OUR WATER. IF THIS GOES THROUGH. I FIGURE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR LITTLE COVE? THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE LYDIA MCBRIDE. I HAVE SOME PICTURES TO. GIVE YOU WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE PODIUM. CAN YOU KIND OF TILT THAT MICROPHONE DOWN? SO YOU'RE TALKING. THANK YOU. AND I WROTE ON THE BACK IS, ARE THESE ALL DIFFERENT OR IS THIS IS THIS A SET FOR EACH OF US OR IS THIS I JUST GOT ONE.

OKAY. OKAY. I'LL START THEM DOWN THERE THEN. THANK YOU. SHOULD WORK. YEAH, I THINK THAT'LL WORK. OKAY, HERE WE GO. I CONSIDERED A MAJOR INVASION. A MAJOR INVASION OF PRIVACY BROUGHT ON BY FIREFLY. IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE OLD FARM COMMUNITY, WHICH IS ACROSS FROM US. IT'S A VERY SHALLOW, NARROW COVE. SMALL AREA IS NOT WIDE OPEN. LIKE LAGO VISTA IS LIKE THEIR PARKS ARE MORE TRAFFIC ON BOGGY WITH FIREFLY COMING IN AND THE NEW HOTEL. PEOPLE IN LAGO DON'T WANT THEIR PARKS PUBLIC. WHY SHOULD WE? VERY HIGHLY, VERY HIGHLY OPPOSED.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 50 YEARS. I'M 75 YEARS OLD. I WOULD LOVE TO LIVE THERE FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE AND APPLY IT. DID. I USED TO FIND THAT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THEIR CRAP? USED PARK FOR 50 YEARS IN OUR DEEDS IS PRIVATE AND IN PERPETUITY. WE HAVE SOLELY MAINTAINED PARKS AND DRAPER'S ROADS. TRAFFIC TURN LEFT IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE. NARROW WINDING ROAD. FIREFLY DOESN'T TAKE RESIDENTS INTO CONSIDERATION AT ALL. SOUNDS LIKE JUSTIFICATION TO ME. MOST OF US ARE RETIRED AND I INVITE EVERY ONE OF Y'ALL TO COME DOWN AND LOOK AT OUR LITTLE, WHAT DO YOU CALL A FLAGSHIP PARK, A LITTLE ONE. IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS. THEY'RE PUTTING LIPSTICK ON IT TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. AND I HAVE MARK WILLIAMS. HI.

[01:10:04]

OH. ONLINE. OKAY. OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER? CERTAINLY. HI, MY NAME IS MARK WILLIAMS, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE OLD FARM PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE FIREFLY COVE DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE SIX POINTS WHICH I WILL EMAIL IN. FOR THE RECORD, OLD FARM POA HAS NOT AGREED TO ANY EASEMENT TO THE CITY OR TO THE DEVELOPER. DISCUSSIONS TO DATE HAVE BEEN PRELIMINARY AND INFORMAL. NO COMMITMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND ANY SUCH GRANT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH OUR ASSOCIATION'S OWN GOVERNANCE PROCESS BEFORE IT COULD BE FINALIZED. TWO WE UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPMENT'S ENGINEERING WORK SHOWS THAT 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN NEAR OUR SHARED BOUNDARY, RISING BY APPROXIMATELY 3 TO 4IN. WE ASK THAT THE STAMPED ENGINEERING AND FLOOD STUDY SUPPORTING THAT FIGURE AND THE RESULTING AREA OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT BE CONFIRMED AS PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS CASE. THREE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT THAT AN ENGINEERING ALTERNATIVE EXISTS ADDITIONAL DETENTION CAPACITY OR A HIGHER DETENTION DAM THAT WOULD AVOID ENCROACHING ON NEIGHBORING COMMON PROPERTY ALTOGETHER. WE ASK THAT THIS ALTERNATIVE BE DOCUMENTED AND GENUINELY CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CITY'S REVIEW, RATHER THAN TREATED AS TREATING AN OFF SITE EASEMENT AS THE ONLY PATH TO COMPLIANCE. FOUR IN THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TO US. WE HAVE NOT FOUND A CONDITION OF THIS PD D MODIFICATION THAT REQUIRES FIREFLY COVE TO OBTAIN AN EASEMENT FROM THE OLD FARM POA. WE ASKED STAFF TO CONFIRM ON THE RECORD WHETHER SUCH A CONDITION EXISTS. SO THE COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT AND OUR COMMUNITY SHARE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING. FIVE OLD FARM POA LIES IN THE CITY'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND IS NOT SET ANNEXATION. WE ASK THAT TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS IN ANY FUTURE EASEMENT DISCUSSION NOT BE TREATED AS IMPLYING THE ASSOCIATION'S CONSENT TO ANY JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE. AND SIX WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE RECORD REFLECT OLD FARM POWER'S INTENT TO STAY ENGAGED IN THIS CASE AND ANY RELATED EASEMENT DISCUSSIONS AS THEY MOVE FORWARD. WE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING IN THE CITY COUNCIL'S HEARING THAT FOLLOWS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS THAT I THAT I HAVE HAVE I IS EVERYBODY THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SPOKEN. OKAY. BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. OKAY. YOU CAN SPEAK, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A CARD AFTERWARDS. OKAY. AND TURN IT IN. OKAY. COUPLE MINUTES LATE. SO I'M NOT THERE ON THE PODIUM.

OKAY. CAN YOU PULL THAT BACK UP ON THE SCREEN UP THERE? OH, I DON'T NEED A MICROPHONE. YES YOU DO, SIR. IT'S AN ONLINE MEETING, AND PEOPLE ONLINE NEED TO HEAR. OKAY, WELL, I GUARANTEE YOU YOU'RE HERE. YEAH, THEY CAN ONLINE RIGHT HERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHOEVER'S RUNNING THAT MAP GO DOWN. OKAY. SEE THAT GOLD DOT? WHAT'S THAT SUPPOSED TO BE? FOR LAKE ACCESS AND WATER RECREATION. THAT'S WHERE MY HOUSE IS. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? I HAVE ANOTHER MAP I CAN SHOW YOU. I AGREE WITH IT. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME SPOT. NO. WHERE IS. WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS? THREE. SIX. SIX. THIS UP HERE BESIDE THE GATE WAS BETWEEN THOSE TWO RED PARCELS. NOW NOT FIXED OR WHATEVER. AND THEN? AND THEN THIS IS HOW YOU GET TO THAT. OKAY. SO THAT'S PROBABLY THREE. OKAY THEN. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL THAT WAS A LITTLE SCARY. YEAH. AND I, I NEED A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE MAPS. AND BEFORE I ROUGHLY MOST OTHERS I'LL GO SIT DOWN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. YES, SIR. I FILLED OUT A CARD AND I DIDN'T CALL YOU. I'M SORRY. NO CARD YET. OH, YOU HAVEN'T FILLED OUT A CARD. OKAY, BUT YOU WILL. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. I LIVE ON RIVER'S COAST, AND I'M THE POTHOLE GUY. WE LOVE YOU, AND I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN. BUT AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, THAT ROAD IS FALLING APART. AND IT CERTAINLY WON'T SUPPORT ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. AND I, AS

[01:15:08]

FAR AS THE ROAD GOES, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS PLANS TO MAKE A NICE ROAD OUT OF IT? ANY FUTURE PLANS FOR THAT? CONCRETE PLANS. YOU'RE REALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS. HOW ABOUT HEAVILY WITH THE ASPHALT? YEAH, I THINK THE TYPICAL PROTOCOL. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO FOR THE AUDIENCE SAKE, YOU REALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSING THE FOLKS ON THE DAIS. AND IF YOU ASK A QUESTION THAT THEY THINK IS A QUESTION THEY WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT, AND THEY CAN THEY CAN PASS THAT ON. BUT YEAH, NO PROBLEM, NO PROBLEM. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CERTAINLY ASK THE FOLKS UP ON THE DAIS. OKAY. OKAY. IF WE HAVE NO OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE. JUST MAKING SURE. OH, OKAY. OKAY. GENTLEMEN. HI. DIRK ACOSTA WITH FIREFLY COVE. ONE. AND I'M TRYING NOT TO OFFEND EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM, BUT IF YOU SAID TONIGHT. WELL, WE'LL PUSH THIS UP TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE PRIVATE BY US. AND THERE'S A LINK TO CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. YOU SHOULD WATCH ON THE HEARING WHEN THE MUD GOT APPROVED, BECAUSE IT WAS THE CITY SAYING, MOVE THE PICKLEBALL COURTS UP. SO IT'S WHERE THE NOISE IS. GET IT CENTRALIZED. AND THEN SAID, BUT WE WANT EIGHT OF THESE TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND WE WANT THIS OPEN. AS YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN, NOTHING NEW. IT WASN'T US GOING. NO, WE WANT THEM PRIVATE. WE HAD OUR WAY. WE HAVE ALL THESE PRIVATE AND. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THEY DID IT BECAUSE THE REASON THEY DID. EIGHT WE'D NEVER DO. EIGHT. WE WERE GOING TO DO TWO AND THEN THEY SAID, WELL, LET'S MAKE IT EIGHT BECAUSE THEN SOME CITY CAN USE.

SO I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU WANT TO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HURT MY FAMILY. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE MOST OF THEM HAPPY AND SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT ALL PRIVATE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S.

IT'S WE HAD A TOWN HALL WITH A LOT OF THESE FOLKS IN MAY, A YEAR AGO, AND IT WAS ATTENDED BY NORMA AND MR. BENEFIELD. AND WE TALKED ABOUT WATER, SEWER, WHAT WE HAD PLANNED. IF THEY WANT TO GET THE ROAD BETTER OR WHATEVER IT IS, WE'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THEM JOIN THEM UP.

EXPAND THE MUD. BUT OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT THAT. I UNDERSTAND. IS THAT TRUE? THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, AND I UNDERSTAND. BUT AS FAR AS QUIET NOISE AND INTERRUPTION, YOU KNOW, THE ROAD WOULD GET PAVED IS A PRIVATE ROAD. IT'S SUPPOSED TO STAY THAT WAY, IS WHAT THE CITY HAS SAID. AND WE MAINTAIN IT. AND WE'LL DO IT AS WE DEVELOP. BUT AGAIN, BACK TO THE PUBLIC PRIVATE THING. IT'S ON YOUR PLATE. I THINK, MR. GARCIA. I'M VERY HAPPY THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT POINT, BECAUSE IT THIS WAS PRIVATE UP UNTIL THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT DISCUSSIONS, AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE MUD CONSENT DISCUSSION. AND IT'S ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE IN LAGO VISTA SAY IN PUBLIC THAT THEY WANT PEOPLE. LAGO VISTA RESIDENTS, IN ADDITION TO THE DRAPER'S COVE RESIDENTS SAY THEY DON'T WANT PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS. THEY. THAT'S PART OF THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHEN PEOPLE WERE ASKED, DO THEY WANT. WHEN LAGO VISTA WERE ASKED, DO YOU WANT PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS? THEY SAID THEY ONLY WANT IT IF IT'S FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN LAGO VISTA. AND THEY WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY IN THE COMP PLAN, IT'S RECITED. IT SAYS, WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE TO SHOW THEIR RESIDENCY, LIKE SHOW A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR SOMETHING. THEY PEOPLE HERE HAVE EXPRESSED THAT THEY DO NOT WANT PUBLIC PUBLIC ACCESS. AND RECENTLY IN THIS THING CALLED NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS I'M NOT MUCH ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT SOME SOMEBODY POSTED SOMETHING ON SOCIAL ON NEXT

[01:20:04]

DOOR. I THINK IT WAS AN AI QUESTION ASKING ABOUT, DO THE PEOPLE IN LAGO VISTA WANT PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS? AND THERE WERE LIKE 90 PEOPLE THAT CAME AND WERE LIKE, NO, WE DON'T WANT IT. SO I CAN SEE WHERE YOU AS A DEVELOPER WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT, BECAUSE IT JUST MEANS PUTTING IN MORE STUFF AND MORE ROAD, JUST MORE STUFF. I CAN SEE THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE PEOPLE IN LAGO VISTA THAT THEY DON'T WANT IT. I THINK IT KIND OF CAME UP AT THE MUD CONSENT HEARING, KIND OF ON A SPUR OF THE MOMENT IDEA. AND SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY REASONS WHY, WHEN I SAID IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE NOTIFICATION TO PEOPLE, THE 200 AND 200FT, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT BE NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC THAT EVERYBODY IN, IN LAGO VISTA KNOWS ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE PDD BECAUSE UP TO NOW, THE RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED THAT THEY DON'T WANT THIS. AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED IT IN THE IN THE NOTIFICATION, I WANTED RESIDENTS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT. SO. SO THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT OPTION THAT YOU'RE NOT IT'S NOT YOUR IDEA. YOU'RE NOT COMMITTED TO IT. AND YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO DO IT IF THE CITY SAYS THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT IT. OUTSIDE OF THE PICKLEBALL COURTS LOVE TO BE IN PRIVATE PICKLEBALL COURTS. IF IT WAS JUST US, WE'D HAVE TWO BECAUSE WE HAVE 300 HOMES. THEY DON'T ALL PLAY PICKLEBALL ANYMORE. EIGHT COURTS OR TEN AS IT'S PROPOSED. YOU KNOW, OUR OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HERE WON'T FILL THOSE UP. BUT IF YOU DIDN'T AND THERE WAS CONVERSATION, IF YOU RECALL ALSO ABOUT PUBLIC. AND YOUR RESPONSE IS, WELL, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO GEORGETOWN USING THEM. AND THEY SAID, CAN WE MAKE IT? SO WE SAID, WELL, HOW ABOUT CITY RESIDENTS OF THE CITY? AND WE COULD MONITOR THAT.

AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER. IS THAT LIKE PICKLEBALL COURTS? YEAH, THOSE ARE OPEN, BUT YOU GOT TO LIVE IN THE CITY OR YOU GOT TO LIVE IN FIREFLY OR DRAPER. EITHER WAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS, BUT. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY SO. YOU'RE ONLY OBLIGATED RIGHT NOW TO MAKE TWO PIECES PUBLIC, WHICH IS THE 12.5 ACRES AND THE PICKLEBALL AREA. YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S CERTAIN USES TRAILS, BUT THE TRAILS I'M I'M NOT COUNTING TRAILS. I UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE IS A PUBLIC ACCESS. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GIVING IT TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S JUST PUBLIC ACCESS. YEAH. SO WE'D RATHER NOT BE. WELL, DON'T GET ME STARTED ON TRAILS. THOSE THREE BIG PIECES OF PROPERTY TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE WHERE IT SAYS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. SO AT THIS TIME, MAKING THEM ALL PRIVATE DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FROM THE, FROM THE ORIGINAL. BECAUSE TO ME, THAT IS A CHANGE FROM THE SEED THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO REPLACE. AND. YEAH, I MEAN, AND THAT'S TO YOUR ADVANTAGE AS WELL IS WHAT I'M HEARING. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRIVATE. WE COULD HAVE PRIVATE. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. I'D RATHER SEE THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD NOT. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT THE BUT THE CONSENT AGREEMENT YOU KNOW. SO COMMISSIONERS AND I'M GOING TO CHECK WITH CITY STAFF ON THIS. THE SCOPE OF WHERE THIS DISCUSSION IS GOING IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, BECAUSE REALLY WHAT I HEAR IS YOU ALL ARE, ARE ESSENTIALLY LITIGATING OR ASKING TO RELITIGATE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE. COUNCIL JUST REMINDED US OF THIS, FRANKLY, THE CITY, THE CITY HAS A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER, THE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT AGREEMENT, WHICH HAS THESE THINGS LISTED. AND WHAT I HEAR IS A STRONG FEEDBACK BOTH FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM MANY OF YOU, MAYBE NOT ALL OF YOU. I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ALL OF YOU, BUT FROM MANY OF YOU THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE CONTENT OF THAT MUD AGREEMENT. RIGHT. AND WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS DOING TONIGHT IS BRINGING A PLAN THAT SHOWS A CONCEPT PLAN THAT COMPLIES WITH THAT MUD AGREEMENT. AND SO THERE'S REALLY, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE'S TWO SEPARATE THINGS YOU CAN DO. YOU CAN, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, TAKE ACTION OR NOT ON THIS PLAN, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO COMPLY WITH THE MUD AGREEMENT. YOU CAN CERTAINLY ALSO, THROUGH ME, THE LIAISON AND THROUGH STAFF SHARE YOUR CONCERN. IF THE MUD AGREEMENT SIGNED UP FOR THINGS WHICH YOU DON'T THINK ARE A GOOD IDEA TO SIGN UP FOR. BUT BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT TONIGHT YOU HAVE

[01:25:05]

AUTHORITY TO FORCE CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE MUD DECREE. NO. AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO FORCE CHANGES. BUT THE MUD AGREEMENT, THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT IS BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE PDP AMENDMENT. AND SO RIGHT NOW, THE PD, ANYTHING THAT IS CHANGING ON THE PDP, ANYTHING THAT'S CHANGING ON THE PDP IS IS GOING TO BE VOTED ON BY THE COMMISSION AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL OR NOT, AND THEN COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO APPROVE IT. AND SO IT IS PART THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE PUT INTO THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT ARE SUBJECT TO THE PDP AMENDMENT. SO IT IT'S. THE MUD AGREEMENT DOES NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OUR OUR ABILITY TO AMEND THE PDP BECAUSE THE PDP HAS TO BE AMENDED WITH EVERYTHING THAT AFFECTS THE MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND MAKING THIS THESE PARKS PUBLIC IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST. AND, MADAM CHAIR, I THINK I THINK WHAT WE WOULD PROBABLY SAY ABOUT THAT IS THE CURRENT PDP ALLOWS WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S INTERPRETATION, AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING, IT ALLOWS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE DISTRIBUTING THOSE AMENITIES THROUGH. SINCE WE HAVE TO PUT 12 ACRES OF PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKLAND ON THE ON THE WATER, WE HAVE TO HAVE ROOM FOR FOR EIGHT PICKLEBALL COURTS. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE. SO SO THE PLAN. WE ARE ALREADY UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S INTERPRETATION, AUTHORIZING THE CURRENT PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. I THINK WHAT MR. PRINCE IS SAYING IS IF YOU WERE TO SAY MAKE IT ALL PRIVATE, HAVE NO PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE TO THE CONSENT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN THAT IMPLEMENTS AND DISTRIBUTES THAT. THOSE AMENITIES THROUGHOUT THE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT INCREASING LAND USES INTENSITIES FOR DISCOVER, ETC. OKAY. AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING THAT. I THINK THAT WE'RE JUST BRINGING UP THE POINT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. BUT DAVE, SO I'VE, I'VE ASKED THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES. I'M GOING TO TRY AGAIN.

SO IN THE MUD AGREEMENT, IT SAYS PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PICKLEBALL AREA IN THE 12.5 ACRE PARK. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT DOESN'T MENTION THE OTHER THREE GREEN AREAS, ALTHOUGH IT MAY MENTION THE TRAIL SYSTEM AND THEREFORE BARE BONES MINIMUM AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUD, THESE THREE PARKS CAN BE LEFT OFF OF A PUBLIC CLASSIFICATION. I'M SORRY SIR. WHICH THREE PARKS? THE FLAG LOT. THE. THE LOWER THE LOT RIGHT ABOVE IT. AND THE ONE WITH THE GREEN STAR. AND IF AT A LATER DATE, THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO TAKE THEM PUBLIC, WHICH IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE HE DOES, THEN THEY CAN BE DEALT WITH APPROPRIATELY. BUT TO SAY THAT THE MUD AGREEMENT REQUIRES 12.5, AND THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO LABEL THE ENTIRE 22 ACRES PUBLIC PRIVATE ACCESS, YOU'RE DOING MORE THAN WHAT'S BEING WHAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO, AND IT'S DOING MORE. I'M NOT SAYING DON'T MAKE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE PICKLEBALL. I'M NOT SAYING MAKE DON'T MAKE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE 12. I'M SAYING TAKE EVERYTHING ELSE OFF THE TABLE AND LEAVE IT PRIVATE. I THINK, I THINK WE FOLLOW YOU. AND I THINK THE ONLY THING IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY ABOUT WHERE THAT THOSE PICKLEBALL COURTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO, KNOWING THAT WE HAVE 12 ACRES THAT NEEDS TO BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE, I THINK.

CAN I SAY SOMETHING, DAVE? YEAH, I'LL RELEASE IT TO YOU. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IS THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN, BECAUSE THOSE PROPERTIES, THOSE TWO, THE FLAG LOT AND THE OTHER AMENITIES AREA WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING THE PICKLEBALL COURTS, THEY'RE IN THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN. PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE ALL GOING UP HERE. PICKLEBALL COURTS.

THERE'S NO PICKLEBALL COURTS DOWN HERE. WHAT IS WHAT IS THIS HERE? THAT'S JUST PUBLIC AMENITIES. AMENITIES. OKAY. WELL, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT ON THE DETAIL MAP, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN INDICATED BECAUSE THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN GOES ALL THE WAY UP INTO THE, YOU KNOW, SECOND PHASE OR WHAT USED TO BE THE SECOND PHASE,

[01:30:07]

YET STILL SECOND PHASE. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IDENTIFIED. I DO SEE WAVY LINES, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY FEMA FLOODPLAIN. AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXHIBIT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO INCORPORATE INTO THE EXHIBIT IS THE EASTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY FROM BOGGY FORD, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THOSE LOTS TO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE. THE EASTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY IS IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE AUSTIN ETJ RELEASE AREA, AND THE AUSTIN ETJ RELEASE AREA HAS ITS OWN SET OF REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THEY HAVE. AND THERE'S A SECTION IN OUR CODE THAT THAT THAT DESCRIBES IT. I THINK IT'S 3.16 THAT DESCRIBES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. SO THAT NEEDS ALSO TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THIS IN YOUR EXHIBIT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN. WHEN THEY RELEASE THEIR ETJ. I GUESS I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS TO THE EXTENT THAT AGREEMENT IS APPLICABLE, AND THAT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT GETS ENFORCED AT THE SUBDIVISION STAGE, SOME OF THE LOCKS UP INTO THE NORTH PART HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRELIMINARY PLAN AND SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL. SO I THINK THAT THE STROHMAIER CAN IF THAT'S IF THAT'S AN APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT, CAN ENFORCE THAT AT THE SUBDIVISION STAGE. WELL, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS LIKE FOUR YEARS AGO OR THREE YEARS AGO. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY OUT ON TIME. SO WE STILL HAVE TO SEE THAT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT DOES IF ANYONE DOESN'T HAVE DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION. ARE THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION. I'VE GOT I'VE GOT A COUPLE I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. WELL TO ADDRESS. COMMISSIONER STEWART, I THINK IF WE'RE UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, I'LL JUST REPEAT IT BACK TO YOU. YOU'RE SAYING NOT NOT THE 12 ACRE SITE, BUT THIS PARCEL. THIS PARCEL AND THIS PARCEL. YEAH. THEY'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND BY LABELING THOSE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. IF WE WERE TO COME IN AND SAY THOSE ARE PRIVATE ONLY, AND IT SHOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUD THING, RIGHT? YES.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT. THE 12 ACRES IS PART. I KNOW IT'S IT'S YOUR THING, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY WE AGREE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. YEAH. WE WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. HOW DO WE. I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION ON HOW TO MAKE A MOTION WHEN WE GET. I THINK I'VE GOT THAT. WELL, LET'S SEE WHERE YOU GO. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK I THINK WE'RE STILL OKAY.

YEAH. YOU YOU STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS? YES, YES, I'M. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU'VE BEEN BEING. YOU WERE GUIDED BY THE CITY TO MAKE A LOT OF THESE. CORRECTIONS, RIGHT? YES. AND IT JUST TAKES TAKES THE HECK OUT OF ME BECAUSE YOU GET GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY, AND THEN YOU COME TO EACH DEPARTMENT OR COMMISSION, AND THEY TELL YOU SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING TO LAGO VISTA FOREVER. THEY SAY YES HERE, AND THEN THEY SAY NO HERE. OKAY, NOW, I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM DRAPER'S COVE.

I'VE LIVED THERE. MISS KATHERINE MORRISON, YOU KNOW, SHE'S A GREAT FRIEND. SHE USED TO LIVE THERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL AREA. OKAY. BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE COMPLAINING THAT THE ROADS ARE NOT PAVED.

OKAY? WHO WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE STREETS TO BE PAVED? WE OWN AND WILL MAINTAIN THOSE ROADS AS WE DEVELOP DOWN TOWARDS. THAT'S THE INTENT IS, BUT THAT'S THE INTENT. AND THAT ROAD WILL REMAIN PRIVATE. IT WILL BE OWNED BY THE MUD OR THE HOA. OKAY. THE MUD'S FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IS MAINTAINED. NOW IS THE DRAPER'S COVE. ARE THEY PAYING ANY KIND OF A FEE TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD? I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE PAYING. YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING IT. YOU KNOW, DOCTOR HOUSE. BUT ARE THEY CONTRIBUTING TO THE TO YOU OR HAVE THEY INFORM YOU THAT THEY WANT TO PAVE THE ROADS OR WHAT'S THE SITUATION THERE? THEY ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING. THEY HAVE INFORMED US THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING LIKE THIS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE SUPPORT THE POTHOLES

[01:35:04]

AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT OUR RELATIONSHIP IS STRICTLY RELATED TO WATER AND PROVIDING WATER TO THAT COMMUNITY. OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE THE PICKLEBALL? WHOSE IDEA WAS IT TO BRING PICKLEBALL INTO THE SUBDIVISION? THAT WAS THE I THINK THAT IS BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY. LIKE DIRK SAID, WE CANNOT, AS A 325 UNIT COMMUNITY, SUPPORT TEN PICKLEBALL COURTS. YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THEM TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BUT. OKAY. BUT THE ADDITIONAL EIGHT WAS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS I WAS LOOKING AT THE FLAT LOT, THE, THE, THE PARKING LOT OR HOW MANY DRIVEWAY? WHOSE DRIVEWAY WAS THAT? OKAY. YEAH, I WAS LOOKING AT THE AERIAL SHOTS. AND THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN YOUR PROPERTY OR FIREFLY. YOU KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED IN MY OPINION. AGAIN, I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE FACTS AND YOU CAN TAKE THEM AS YOU WILL. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SLOWLY, SLOWLY STARTED ENCROACHING ON YOUR DRIVEWAY OR ON YOUR STREET, WHATEVER THE HECK IT IS. AND THAT'S NATURAL.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS ABANDONED AND I'M NOT GOING TO NAME NAMES, BUT MAYBE ME, I MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE THAT I'VE, YOU KNOW, I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A CITY PARK.

AND I MEAN, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I CUT MY, I CUT THEIR GRASS AND I CUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IT'S A LIVE, LIVE SITUATION. BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT THE DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN SLOWLY BEING ENCROACHED. NOW, YES, HE'S MADE SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S YOURS. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S THE FIREFLY. SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, START ALMOST ON A CLEAN SLATE. LET'S GET DOWN TO BASICS, YOU KNOW, AND ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU KNOW, IF IT STARTED ELIMINATING THE PROCESS OF THE, THE ISSUES OF, OF COMPLAINTS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE, THE PICKLE BALLS. CAN YOU DO AWAY WITH THEM AT THIS POINT? OKAY. I JUST WANT TO REMIND THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS. THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS DECIDED IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN THE MUD WAS BEING DISCUSSED AND PASSED. SO THAT'S FOR US TO EVEN TALK ABOUT IT.

IT'S JUST KIND OF A WASTE OF TIME. LET ME ADD ON TO THAT, JEAN. THANK YOU. I THINK, MR. LOPEZ, SO WHAT IS IN YOUR PURVIEW TONIGHT, I BELIEVE, IS WHERE THOSE COURTS GO, RIGHT.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THEM DOWN SOUTH, UP NORTH, EAST, WHATEVER. WHERE SHOULD THEY GO OR WHERE THEY SHOULD THEY NOT GO? I THINK THAT'S WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS ZONING DISCUSSION.

THE FACT THAT THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER PREVIOUSLY NEGOTIATED IN THE MUD AGREEMENT, MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT TO DO EIGHT PUBLIC COURTS IN ADDITION TO THE TWO THAT THEY ALREADY WANTED TO DO FOR PRIVATE. THAT'S NOT IN THE SCOPE OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, CERTAINLY.

BELIEVE ME, I'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR THAT A NUMBER OF YOU THINK THAT WASN'T THE BEST, THE BEST IDEA. BUT THAT IS THAT IS WHAT IT IS. WHAT IT IS. OKAY. WELL, I, I THINK BASICALLY THAT'S I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE. I APOLOGIZE. WELL, JUST JUST TO CHIME IN. BY SHOWING THIS PLAN. PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE UP NORTH, CLOSER TO FLORIDA. THAT'S BY DESIGN. WE WE ACKNOWLEDGE THEY'RE NOISY AND THEY'RE LOUD. NOT EVERYBODY WOULD WANT THEM IN THEIR BACKYARD. AND SO. UNDER THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN THAT'S APPROVED TODAY, THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN PUT THOSE PICKLEBALL COURTS IS BY THE WATER. BY APPROVING THIS PLAN, WE CAN MOVE THEM OUT AWAY FROM THESE RESIDENTS. SO THIS ALLOWS US THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE A BETTER PLAN TO MOVE THOSE PICKLEBALL COURTS TO A NOISIER AREA, BOG YOU FORWARD. AND SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THOUGHT ABOUT, AND THAT'S HOW WE LANDED AT THAT LOCATION.

OKAY. NOW ON THE MAP, IS THAT THE EXACT LOCATION OR SO THAT APPROXIMATION, CAN YOU MOVE IT FURTHER TOWARDS THE THE YELLOW AREA, THE, THE YELLOW AREA IS HEAVILY TOPO AND ALL DRAINAGE.

SO, SO THAT'S THE FLATTEST PART RIGHT THERE. THAT AREA IS A FLAT AREA THAT WE'VE STUDIED.

AND IT'S, IT'S APPROXIMATE AS IT'S SHOWN ON THIS, BUT IT'S, IT'S WELL STUDIED AND IT'S A GREAT LOCATION IN TERMS OF, OKAY, OKAY. NOW IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY KIND OF A BUFFER ZONE?

[01:40:09]

I DON'T KNOW, SOMETHING TO IF IT'S A NOISE ISSUE, PLANT TREES OR SOMETHING ON THE NEAR THE ROAD OR TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE POSSIBLE NOISE. AND ALSO THE AND I KNOW RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOURS OF OPERATION, ETC. NO, NO, WE'RE WE'RE NOT. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE. BUT I MEAN, THERE'S THINGS YOU CAN DO TO REMEDY THE SITUATION, THE POTENTIAL NOISE, THE LIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SORRY, BUT A LOT SMARTER THAN ME AT THIS, WORKING AT THIS AND DESIGNING THAT AREA. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN PRESENT TODAY, BUT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING A POOL AND PAVILION AND SOME PARK SPACE ALONG THE PICKLEBALL COURTS, AND THERE'S SOME GRADE TO WORK WITH, AND IT ALLOWS US TO PUSH THE PICKLEBALL COURTS AWAY FROM THE ROAD, DOWN IN THE DOWN INTO THE, THE CANYON, SO TO SPEAK, TO HELP BUFFER THAT NOISE. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL AT THIS POINT IS, IS RIGHT TO, TO, TO SHARE. OKAY. BUT THAT THOSE ARE GREAT SUGGESTIONS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL CONSIDER. OKAY. WELL, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S IT FOR ME. I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT WE DON'T WANT PICKLEBALL IN DRAPER'S COVE.

PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS POINT. JEAN. IF OUR MARKET RESEARCH ALLOWS FOR THAT AND EVERYBODY WANTS IT. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION IF TO MR. STEWART'S POINT, IF THOSE AREAS, THE FLAG LOT, THE GREEN LOT UP ABOVE TO THE LEFT AND THEN THE GREEN LOT OR AREA UP FURTHER, IF THOSE WERE ALL REMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC ACCESS, DOES THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE AMOUNT OF THE LAND THAT'S BEING DEDICATED AS PARKLAND, OR AM I NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE GREEN AREA INCLUDED PARKLAND? OR DID I HEAR THAT WRONG? IT'S HARD TO SAY AT THIS POINT. WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH OUR PARKLAND DEDICATION PLAN, AND IT WILL INCORPORATE SOME OF THOSE AREAS. LIKELY, WE'D LIKE TO DEDICATE THE TRAIL, BUT THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T SATISFY OUR PARKLAND REQUIREMENT. JUST PLAIN SIMPLE FACT. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DEDICATE SOMETHING ELSE BEYOND THAT. AND SO WE'D HAVE TO COME OUT OF ONE OF THESE GREEN AREAS OR SOME OF THE OPEN SPACE, GIVEN THE LIFT STATION, I DON'T THINK THAT QUALIFIES. YEAH. AND IT'S GOT A IT'S GOT A TRAIL GOING THROUGH IT. SHOULD WE PUT A PICKLEBALL COURT? THE PICKLEBALL COURTS WILL BE DEALT WITH BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE CITIZENS FROM LARGO RIGHT BEHIND THE FENCE. THAT 10TH MAY DROP TO FOUR. WELL, THAT THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.

I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION THIS TRAIL IS WILL HAVE TO BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE. YEAH, I CAN, AS LONG AS THE BOTTOM TWO REMAIN PRIVATE. I MEAN, AT THIS TIME FOR THIS PURPOSE, TO MOVE THE PICKLEBALL COURT UP AND TO GET EVERYTHING ELSE, IF WE COULD LEAVE THE OTHER THREE AS PRIVATE, AND THEN THE FIRST ONE TO GO WOULD BE THE ONE THAT'S MORE IN THE MIDDLE OF FIREFLY THAN THE TWO LOWER THAT ARE ADJACENT TO DRAPER'S COVE. I THINK THAT'S THE BEST SOLUTION.

BUT I MEAN, I DON'T SEE A DRIVING FORCE TO CONVERT ANY OF THE THREE AT THIS TIME TO PUBLIC. I MEAN, IT'S ALL IN THE DETAILS BECAUSE THIS IS STILL A CONCEPT PLAN. HOW DO I KNOW YOU'RE NOT COMING BACK IN SIX MONTHS WITH SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT? SO. JUST I'M DONE.

OKAY, SO I READY TO MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS AND, AND A LOT OF COMMENTS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DETAILED PLAN COMPLY WITH CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. AS FAR AS WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE DETAILED PLAN. SO MY MOTION IS TO TABLE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROVAL FOR A CONCEPT AND DETAIL PLAN MODIFICATIONS TODAY PENDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE IS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO PNC THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT THAT THEY BE NOTIFIED OF ALL ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS THAT AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC PICKLEBALL COURTS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE

[01:45:02]

SUBMISSION TO PNC FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE AT THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY TO COME BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, TO INCLUDE A DETERMINATION OF THE DRC. PER CHAPTER TEN, THE STAFF MEMBERS REPRESENTING THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW PROCESS ENGINEERING, PUBLIC WORKS, FIRE MARSHAL, PARKS, PLANNING, ETC. THAT THEY HAVE ISSUED A REPORT ON THE PLAN AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DETERMINATION THAT THE PLANS AND THE PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED IN THE FORMER AUSTIN ETJ MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SPECIAL PLANNING AREA, AND THAT'S IN CITY CODE 3.16. AND THAT'S REGARDING SETBACKS, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, IMPERVIOUS COVER, LOT SIZE REGULATIONS OF THE LTWQTZ.

THAT'S LAKE TRAVIS WATER QUALITY T Z. I'M NOT SURE. CUT AND FILL AND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT. HAVE THAT. ALSO ON THE PLAN AND DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE PARKLAND, WHICH IS IN SECTION FIVE OF THE CODE REQUIRING REQUIRED ON DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL. THERE IS NO PARKLAND DEPICTED ON THE PLAN OR ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

IF AMENITIES AREAS ARE TO BE APPROVED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR QUALIFIED PARKLAND OR FEE IN LIEU, THERE HAS TO BE CONFIRMATION THAT THAT IS RECEIVED OFFICIAL CITY APPROVAL, AND IT'S GOT TO BE PRESENTED PRIOR TO APPROVAL AS A DETAILED PLAN OR A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IF THE AMENITIES AREAS ARE DEEMED PARKLAND, THEN THE PARKLAND. THE PLAN MUST SHOW READY ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET, JUST LIKE PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS ARE, AND MEET OTHER PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS IN THAT SECTION, AN UPDATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL IN JUNE OF 2022 THAT YOU REFERRED TO, SIR, ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY PHASE TWO APPROVAL, AND THAT WAS A REQUIRED MASTER DEVELOPMENT UPDATED PLAN AND A REVISED PLAN TO SHOW ALL FEATURES REQUIRED BY SECTION TEN DASH 20 C, INCLUDING AN ACCURATE SURVEY WITH LAYOUT OF THE ENTIRE TRACT IDENTIFYING ALL PLANNED AMENITIES IN THEIR LOCATIONS, PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, STREET ACCESS, PARKING PROVISIONS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS, A GENERAL THOROUGHFARE LAYOUT, ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS. THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN, THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE FORMER ETJ. ANY EASEMENTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY, PRIVATE OWNERS OR LCRA. ET CETERA. AND IDENTIFICATION OF ANY DEVIATIONS FROM REQUIREMENTS. AND THE THIRD THING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBMISSION FOR P AND Z WOULD BE AN UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY THE DRC TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC TO BE GENERATED BY THE PICKLEBALL COURTS AND LAKE ACCESS. THAT IS MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR? EXCUSE ME. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. NO. OKAY. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. YOU HAD A LOT, AND I TRY TO TAKE SOME NOTES, BUT I COULDN'T TRACK THEM ALL. I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. YOU'VE TABLED IT UNTIL A LONG LIST OF THINGS GET DONE. WHAT IF SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE NOT APPLICABLE? WHAT IF THOSE SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN YOU CAN LAWFULLY REQUIRE? THEY'RE ALL IN THE CODE, SIR, I UNDERSTAND, I'D LIKE TO REVIEW THAT, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT DOES STAFF DO IN THAT SITUATION? IF, IF IF A DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT SOME OR ALL OF THAT LIST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ASKED AND AND HOW DO WE GET IT BACK BEFORE YOU AND HOW DO WE GET BACK HERE? IF, IF THIS IS A EFFECTIVELY A A BAR ON FUTURE CONSIDERATION, UNLESS A LIST OF THINGS ARE MET, THAT'S A VERY GOOD AND CHALLENGING QUESTION.

AND IF WE HAD A CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ASK. BUT WE DON'T, GENE, I THINK I THINK A POSTPONEMENT TO A TIME CERTAIN THAT ALLOWS US TO THEN GO AND ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AND WE CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION, THIS WAS DONE. THIS WAS NOT DONE. HERE'S WHY IT WASN'T. SO I THINK A POSTPONEMENT IS IS PROCEDURALLY MORE APPROPRIATE AND MORE IN ORDER THAN A THAN A TABLE UNTIL, YOU KNOW, SOME LONG LIST OF CONDITIONS THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO AFFECT OR, OR WHETHER THEY APPLY ARE SATISFIED. I BELIEVE THE INTENT WAS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IS TO GIVE STAFF AND YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT THIS,

[01:50:06]

SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MOTION THAT IS OUTSIDE OF SOME ALREADY AGREED UPON DEAL, WHAT CAN BE DONE, WHAT CAN'T BE DONE? I THINK IT'S TO GIVE TIME AS OPPOSED TO JUST AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. IN MY MIND, THE ONE OF THE BIG ONES IS THE TIA, I CAN'T SAY. I MEAN, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING THIS UNTIL SOME OF ALL, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE AS WELL COME UP WITH AND GET ANSWERS SO THAT EVERYBODY'S GOT A NICE, CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT YOU KNOW. YEAH. SO MAYBE THE INCORRECT LABEL OR WORD IS POSTPONED INSTEAD OF TABLE. I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT A LEGAL BEAGLE. SO I JUST, I JUST DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT WILL MISS STROHMEYER KNOW ENOUGH HAS BEEN DONE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU? AND IF I MAY, PROCEDURE PROCEDURALLY AS WELL. THE WAY THE MOTION IS WORDED, IF ANYBODY'S MIND IS TURNED ON, GO AHEAD AND TURN IT OFF. SOMETIMES IT CREATES A FEEDBACK.

THE WAY THE MOTION IS WORDED, THEY CAN'T COME BACK UNTIL ALL OF THESE BOXES HAVE BEEN CHECKED. SOME OF THOSE BOXES MAY NOT LEGALLY BE ALLOWED TO BE CHECKED AT THIS PHASE IN THE PROCESS. AND SO THE QUESTION IS, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHAT DO WE DO. BECAUSE THEY'LL BE SITTING IN PERPETUITY. THEY CAN'T RELEASE EASEMENTS UNTIL CERTAIN STEPS ARE DONE ON THE PLAT.

THEY CAN'T GET THE PLAT UNTIL THE PDB. AND SO PROCEDURALLY SPEAKING IN WASTEWATER TODAY, THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD. AND SO IF WE RUN INTO AN INSTANCE WHERE PROCEDURALLY LEGALLY STATE LAW WISE, THEY CAN'T GIVE CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? OKAY. HOW ABOUT IF THE MOTION IS AMENDED TO SAY IF ANY OF THESE REQUESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY CITY CODE TO GET A DETAILED PLAN APPROVAL, THEN THEY WOULD BE NOT REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION. THAT'S STILL VAGUE BECAUSE SOME OF THIS WILL GO TO STATE LAW PROCESS AS WELL. AS FAR AS TIMELINE OF DEVELOPMENT. AND SO. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE SO. WELL, WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE COULD DENY THE APPLICATION AT THIS POINT AND SAY, COME BACK WHEN IT IT'S IT MEETS WHEN IT MEETS CITY CODE.

I MEAN, IT'S REALLY NOT READY FOR SUBMISSION. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO SAY, OKAY, LET'S GET IT READY FOR SUBMISSION AND THEN WE'LL CONSIDER IT. BUT WE COULD DENY IT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DENY IT? AND THEN, MADAM CHAIRMAN, I CUT IN. SO THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DENY. YOU COULD CERTAINLY RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO DENY A PASS THE DECISION ON TO CITY COUNCIL. I BELIEVE, PER WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD US, IS THAT TOPICS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING. BUT IF PLANNING ZONING DOESN'T GET TO A RECOMMENDATION EITHER TO APPROVE OR DENY, CITY COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO PICK IT UP WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL OUTCOMES THAT COULD HAPPEN. I THINK THAT WHAT I HEAR THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY SAYING IS HE'D BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU TABLED IT TO A DATE CERTAIN, SO THAT IT IT JUST DOESN'T DRAG ON FOREVER, YOU KNOW, SO IT COMES BACK UP ON A CERTAIN DATE. THE OTHER THING IS YOU COULD, AS YOU'RE SUGGESTING, ALTERNATELY, YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY, BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE, YOUR, YOUR PERCEPTIONS OF THE, OF THE ISSUES WITH THE, THE APPLICATION AND PACKET, BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S UP TO YOU. AND THEN CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF WILL HAVE TO TOE TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WILL WE WAIT ON ALL THOSE QUESTIONS YOU HAD AND PLANNING ZONING TAX AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? OR WILL CITY COUNCIL SAY, WELL, WE JUST NEED TO PICK IT UP AND, AND, AND RESOLVE THIS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS, I THINK, COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. FIRST THING IS A VOTE WAS TAKEN. SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE TO DISSOLVE THAT VOTE PROCESS. AND THE SECOND THING IS I THINK THE DATE CERTAIN IS A GREAT POINT BECAUSE JUST TO HAVE IT HANGING OUT THERE, THAT'S BAD FOR EVERYBODY. SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE TO STAFF, WHAT WOULD BE A DATE WHERE EVERYTHING IN THIS MOTION COULD BE CONSIDERED? IT COULD BE COMPARED TO STATE LAW, TO MUD AGREEMENTS, TO ALL THAT JAZZ, TO FIND OUT IF THESE ARE. THINGS THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE DONE OR IF THEY'RE PROHIBITED FOR SOME REASON AND ON SUCH DATE, THEN EVERYBODY CAN COME BACK AND HEAR THAT RESULT. SO MAYBE ASK THAT QUESTION FIRST, BUT THEN THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO THE THERE IS A PROCESS TO AMEND

[01:55:02]

WHICH WE'LL GET TO. YES. OKAY. DAVE, THIS IS FOR COUNCILMAN PRINCE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO DO A TIA IN 30 DAYS AND BRING THIS BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING, BUT COULD WE RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT A NEW TIA NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THESE REASONS BECAUSE OF THE RELOCATION AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I MEAN, SOME OF THE STUFF SEEMS FAIRLY SIMPLE, BUT SOME OF THE STUFF TO ME SEEMS LIKE IT COULD TAKE 3 OR 4 MONTHS AND THERE SHOULD.

IF THIS IS BASICALLY A CONCEPT PLAN, IT'S A DETAILED PLAN. IT'S A DETAILED PLAN. I MEAN, IF WE'RE CALLING OUT THE DEFECTS AND TELLING THEM, OKAY, TO MOVE THIS UP HERE, I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S GOT TO BE A HYBRID BETWEEN THE TWO. WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO, TO PUT SOME WAY OF VERBALIZING OUR CONCERNS AND KEEP IT MOVING FORWARD. WELL, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY LISTED IN OUR CITY CODE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED BEFORE THEY CAME HERE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AS A P, D, D DETAILED PLAN. SO IF WE WANT TO SET A DATE CERTAIN WE COULD WE COULD SET IT FOR LIKE IF YOU WANT TO PREDICATE THE, THE, THE EVENTUAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON A TIA TO BE FURNISHED AND, AND GET THIS OTHER STUFF TAKEN CARE OF SOONER WE COULD SAY, WELL, IF YOU CAN GET IT DONE IN A MONTH, WE CAN ALWAYS SCHEDULE IT FOR A MONTH. AND THEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING DONE IN A MONTH, WE CAN POSTPONE IT AGAIN. I THINK THAT I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S CUSTOMER SAID YOU CAN EITHER APPROVE IT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS ALIGNING, WHATEVER YOUR CONCERNS MAY BE, YOU CAN DENY IT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE THESE THINGS THAT YOU WANT. OR YOU CAN, I THINK PRACTICALLY, YOU COULD POSTPONE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN NEXT MONTH, FOR EXAMPLE. AND IF WE GET AS MUCH DONE AS WE CAN, AND IF YOU FEEL READY TO ACT AT THAT TIME, THEN YOU YOU CAN ACT AT THAT TIME. OKAY, WELL, I'M WILLING TO AMEND MY MOTION TO POSTPONE IT TO THE AUGUST MEETING.

COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE PROCESS, WHICH IS PROBABLY A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. BUT I THINK FIRST, BACKING UP, MR. HARRIS HAD A QUESTION ABOUT TO STAFF, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT QUESTION WITH THE LIST OF THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THERE A DATE CERTAIN THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL? MR. STROHMEYER SO TO NOT HOLD UP PROCESS, I WOULD RECOMMEND A 30 DAY TIMELINE. HOWEVER, FROM THAT LIST AND NOT HAVING IT IN FRONT OF ME, I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT 30 DAYS WILL BE ENOUGH. SOME OF IT IS AT THE RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER. SOME OF IT WOULD BE ON CITY STAFF AND NOT JUST MYSELF AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENTS. AND SO I THINK 30 DAYS TO KEEP THE BALL ROLLING IS GREAT. HOWEVER, WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT MAY NOT BE READY IN 30, JUST DEPENDING ON THE LIST. AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I'LL GIVE HER A COPY. AND THE PROCESS, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS SOMEONE WHO VOTED FOR IT, CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. AND THEN IF THAT'S SECONDED AND APPROVED, THEN A NEW MOTION CAN BE MADE. BUT IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT JUST PASSED, MAKING A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. I SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR. AYE, I. OKAY, SO THAT'S A UNANIMOUS ALL IN FAVOR FOR RECONSIDERATION IN A MONTH. NO, I THINK SO. WHAT THAT SAYS IS THE MOTION THAT JUST PASSED, WE AGREED. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT SOME MORE AND MAKE A NEW MOTION. OH OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. WHICH BASED ON THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE OKAY. AND MISS STROHMEYER IS GOING TO CHIME IN. OKAY. YES. AND I APOLOGIZE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN DO IT ONCE. OKAY. SO IT SAYS ON HERE, NOTIFY AGAIN WHAT IS NOTIFY DETAILING. WHAT ARE WE TALKING LETTERS. ARE WE TALKING, YOU KNOW, WEBSITE INFORMATION? HOW ARE WE WHAT IS NOTIFIED BECAUSE IT'S VAGUE. WELL I THINK THAT THE NOTIFICATION TO THE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT SHOULD INCLUDE THE FACT THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE THESE MAJOR CHANGES, CHANGES OF PUBLIC INTEREST WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION. SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE A NOTIFICATION TO, TO MAIL. OKAY. SO. WELL, AND AGAIN, WHEN WE SAY NOTICE FOR A PD AMENDMENT, OUR CODE REQUIRES THE FULL BELLS AND WHISTLES. WE HAVE TO DO SIGNS, WE HAVE TO DO NEWSPAPER, WE HAVE TO DO MAILOUTS. WE HAVE TO DO THE WEBSITE AND THE PACKET AND ALL OF THAT. IF WE'RE GOING TO NOTIFY FOR 30 DAYS, IS IT JUST

[02:00:04]

THE MAIL OUTS OR IS IT THE WHOLE GAMBIT FOR THE PD ORDINANCE? BECAUSE THOSE ARE DIFFERENT PROCESSES, WHICH DAVE WAS COOPER LANE NOTIFIED IN THE FIRST ONE. IT'S YEAH, IT SHOULD BE. SO WE HAVE YEAH. IT WAS NOTIFIED. YES, SIR. RIGHT HERE WE HAVE A FEW. I'M I'M STRUGGLING TO SEE WHY WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A NEW NOTIFICATION PERIOD. IT DOESN'T.

IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S DOUBLE WORK THAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. IF COOPER LANE HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THEY'RE GETTING PICKLEBALL COURTS AND THEY HAVEN'T SAID SOMETHING BY NOW, I THINK OKAY, IS THAT THEY WEREN'T TOLD THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED OF THAT. NOBODY WAS NOTIFIED OF THAT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I JUST ASKED HER. WAS COOPER LANE NOTIFIED? AND SHE SAID YES. IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THEN MY NEXT STATEMENT IS GOING TO GO 180 DEGREES DIFFERENT. SO WE SENT NOTICE TO 200FT THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. CHANGING OUT EXHIBITS. THAT INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET BEEN PUBLISHED FOR 16 DAYS I BELIEVE IS WHAT WE HAVE. THAT SHOWS THESE CHANGES AND DESCRIBES THESE CHANGES AND TALKS ABOUT THINGS. BUT THE MAIL OUT SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T SAY, HEY, PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE GOING TO BE HERE NOW. YEAH, I THINK STAFF FEELS LIKE THE NOTICE, THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PDD AMENDMENT. MISS EYRE IS ASKING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH IS, I THINK BASICALLY THAT. DID YOU KNOW THIS CONSENT AGREEMENT? THE SEPARATE DOCUMENT SAYS THAT THERE ARE THESE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AMENITIES. AND THIS PLAN IS IMPLEMENTING THAT. OKAY. SO. BUT WHEN YOU DID THE NOTIFICATION, WAS THIS DOCUMENT AVAILABLE? IT WAS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE IN THE PACKET. WHEN WE. SO WHEN WE SEND OUT PUBLIC NOTICES, WE ARE PUBLISHING PACKETS AT THE SAME TIME WITHIN OUR 15 DAY WINDOW. AND SO ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN AVAILABLE. WE'VE HAD COPIES AT CITY HALL. I KNOW ME AND MY STAFF HAVE ALL SPOKE TO RESIDENTS ABOUT THE CHANGES AND WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT YES, THE MAP HAS BEEN AVAILABLE, BUT IT DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY IN THE NOTICE THE PUBLIC AMENITIES WILL BE X, Y, AND Z, BUT IT SAYS IT ON THE MAP. THAT'S DUE DILIGENCE. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE ONLY PEOPLE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS COOPER LANE. AS LONG AS THESE OTHER THREE PROPERTIES ARE KEPT PRIVATE. I MEAN, THE TIA OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE REDONE, BUT I THINK IT CAN BE BY THE TIME IT GETS TO COUNCIL, THEY'LL HAVE IT DONE. BUT I MEAN, IF THERE WAS ANY NOTIFICATION TO BE DONE, I THINK IT WOULD BE COOPER LANE BECAUSE NO, NOTHING ELSE IS CHANGING. COOPER LANE DID RECEIVE THE MAILOUTS JUST AGAIN, THERE WASN'T SPECIFICALLY SAYING PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE GOING FROM X TO Y. IT SAYS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE PACKET, IT'S AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL OR ONLINE. OKAY. AND NOTHING IN THE NOTIFICATION SAID THAT THE LAKE ACCESS WOULD BECOME PUBLIC, WHEREAS BEFORE IT WAS PRIVATE, NOTHING IN THE NOTHING IN THE NOTIFICATION SAID THAT. BUT THE MODE AGREEMENT SAID THAT THE 12 ACRES WAS PUBLIC, WHICH IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AS WELL.

I MEAN, THE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PUBLIC IS WHERE THE PICKLEBALL COURTS GOING AND THE ONE WITH THE ORANGE DOT. THE OTHER THREE HAVE SLIPPED INTO THE DISCUSSION, WHICH IS NOW SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE COMING BACK OUT, BUT I MEAN, OKAY, SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC NOTIFIED? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T WANT THEM NOTIFIED. I'M SAYING THAT I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN NOTIFIED. WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE. WELL, I AGREE WITH DAVE. I THINK WE'RE. LISTEN, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM DRAPER'S COVE HERE. AND IF I KNOW LAGO VISTA, EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW, EVERYONE HAS TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO NOTIFY YOU EVERY SINGLE THING THAT HAPPENS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE, IN THE, YOU KNOW, BEING INFORMED, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE WEBSITES, WE HAVE THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LIKE TO DO IS JUST, JUST TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT BECAUSE I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM, WE'RE BASICALLY ASKING THEM TO SPEND, IN MY OPINION, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY AND STILL NOT HAVE AN ANSWER. SO WHAT I LIKE TO DO IS I LIKE TO ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT IT WITH CONTINGENCIES,

[02:05:04]

BECAUSE THIS WAY IT'LL KEEP THE BALL ROLLING A LITTLE FASTER. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO STEP ONE. WHAT I LIKE TO DO IS MAKE A MOTION OR ENTERTAIN THE MOTION, ACCEPTING THE THE, THE AMENDMENT OR THE THE. YEAH. THE AMENDMENT C AND WITH CONTINGENCIES TIED TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT NOTIFYING EVERYBODY AGAIN, BUT, YOU KNOW, DOING THE TRAFFIC STUDY, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BELONG TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BECAUSE AGAIN, ANYTHING WE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF CHANGES, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING TO PUT, LET'S SAY A PICKLEBALL. THEY MIGHT FIND THAT THERE'S A, A HIDDEN CAVE DOWN THERE. OKAY. SO THEY CAN'T PUT IT, YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO HAVE THE BEST INTENTIONS IS TO PUT THE PICKLEBALL HERE. OKAY. THAT'S IT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTIES THAT AS A DEVELOPER, YOU JUST DON'T EXPECT. OKAY, SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE, THE, THE NEW AMENDMENT WITH CONTINGENCIES CONCERNING THE TRAFFIC STUDY. AND I DON'T KNOW, SOMETHING ELSE, DAVE, OR THOSE THREE PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED TO REMAIN AT THIS TIME, PRIVATE, PRIVATE. I'LL SUPPORT THE TIA STUDY BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT PUBLIC PARK IS GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC AT THAT POINT. I AGREE, I'D BE SORT OF CURIOUS WHERE THE PARKING IS GOING TO GO FOR THE TRAILS IN, BUT WITH THE NUMBER OF WALKERS WE HAVE AROUND HERE, I THINK THEY'RE UNDERESTIMATING THAT TRAFFIC AS WELL. SO THE T I AMENDED TIA IS JUSTIFIED. THEY DON'T NEED TO, I DON'T KNOW. BUT DON'T DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION THAT WE KNOW WE JUST MADE THE MOTION YET. OH NO I'M JUST ENTERTAIN. I'M JUST I JUST THOUGHT HE SAID HE WOULD MAKE A MOTION. YEAH.

SO I'M TELLING HIM I WANT TO ATTACH THESE THREE PROPERTIES AND I'LL SUPPORT THE T. WHAT WAS YOUR THIRD ONE. THE NOTIFICATION WAS THERE ANOTHER ONE LINDA. BUT THE YEAH. THE THE REQUEST WAS THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS TO PRESENT A DETAILED PLAN, A DETAILED PLAN PER CHAPTER TEN. SO AND THE OTHER REQUIREMENT WAS THAT THEY SHOW US WHERE THE THAT THEY MEET THE RELEASE OF THE ETJ, THAT AGREEMENT THAT THIS THAT THIS PLAN MEETS THAT AGREEMENT. SO WE HAVE. FOUR WE'LL TAKE OUT THE NOTIFICATION. WE STILL HAVE. FOUR LEFT, RIGHT.

TWO, WE CAN'T MAKE A PREDICATE AS A CONDITION THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO PRESENT A DETAILED PLAN FOR APPROVAL. THAT'S THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PRIOR TO PRESENTING A DETAILED PLAN FOR APPROVAL. WELL, I GUESS I'M A I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. I THOUGHT THIS WAS A DETAILED IT'S CALLED A DETAILED PLAN. IT'S CALLED A DETAILED PLAN, BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE CODE. ALL THE THINGS THAT THE CODE SAYS HAS TO GO IN A DETAILED PLAN ARE NOT ON IT.

YEAH. WELL, BUT ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS THE THE AUSTIN WHAT IS THAT, THE AUSTIN. IT WAS THE ETJ RELEASE. RELEASE. THERE'S SOME THERE'S ANOTHER NAME FOR IT. BUT ANYWAY, WELL, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THAT FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO, IT'S A CITY. THE CITY HAS A CODE 3.16 THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. AND IF THEY COMPLY WITH THAT, THEN THEY WILL BE COMPLYING WITH THE ETJ REQUIREMENTS. I THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD TO GET APPROVAL FROM. NO, NO. SO IF I MAY, AND GOING JUST DOWN THE LIST, I DON'T WANT TO. OKAY, SO WE HAVE DETERMINATIONS OF THE DRC PER CHAPTER TEN FROM MEMBERS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS REGARDING THE PLAN ITSELF, WE HAVE DETERMINATION THAT THE PLANS ON THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE ETJ MEET THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY HANDLE DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. REVIEW THROUGH PLATTING AND SUBDIVISION PLANS, DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING PARKING. AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY DEAL WITH AT THE PLANNING STAGE BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE GET FORMAL CALCULATIONS ON WHAT THE PARKLAND IS AND WHAT THE TOPOGRAPHY IS AND HOW WE FIT IT IN WITH OUR CODE. IT'S ALSO WHERE WE CHARGE PARKLAND FEES AND DEDICATION. SO THE OTHER THING IS AN UPDATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL BACK IN 2022. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED IN 2022, BUT THAT WAS THE OTHER ONE. AND THEN REVISED PLANS TO SHOW ACCURATE SURVEY WITH LAYOUT OF THE ENTIRE TRACK, ALL PLANNED AMENITIES AND THEIR LOCATIONS, PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, STREET ACCESS, PARKING PROVISIONS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS, A GENERAL

[02:10:03]

THOROUGHFARE PLAN LAYOUT, ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS. THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN, THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE ETJ, ANY EASEMENTS AND IDENTIFYING ANY DEVIATIONS. AND SO AGAIN, THAT ONE IS ALSO HANDLED DURING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AS WE GO PHASE BY PHASE. AND SO WE HAVE THE NOTICE. WE HAVE THOSE THINGS. AND THEN THE TIA AS SEPARATE ON THE LIST FROM THE FIRST MOTION. AND THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATION FOR THIS NEW ONE. AND SO I'M TRYING TO I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO BASE IT OFF OF THE FIRST ONE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN EITHER DIRECTION. WELL, LET'S SEE, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO. SO THEY'RE PULLING UP THE REQUIRED CONTENTS OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR OUR ORDINANCE. I KNOW IT'S THE ONLY ONE. I HAVE TABLET WITH ME. IT'S AWFUL HARD FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO TALK ABOUT. WORDS. OKAY, SO IF I MAY, WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS? GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS A BOARD, WE HAVE THE DIA, WE HAVE THE PRIVATE PUBLIC ACCESS ON THE LOTS IN THE MIDDLE. THOSE THREE GREEN SPACES WE HAVE. THERE'S WELL, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF THEM. WELL, I GUESS THE CONCERN IS THAT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION TEN TO, TO, TO MEET A DETAILED PLAN. ONE OF THEM IS A SURVEY. SURVEY OF WHAT. THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T A SURVEY. IT'S NOT ON THE SURVEY. SO THIS ACTUALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO US WITHOUT THOSE REQUIREMENTS BEING MET. ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PACKET.

CAN WE CAN WE CLIFF NOTE IT. I DON'T HAVE MY TABLET IN FRONT OF ME. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CODE IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HAND. WELL, ON THIS RIGHT HERE, ALL YOU HAVE TO PUT IS THE ENGINEER SURVEYOR STAMP, IT LOOKS LIKE. SO THE PLANS THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED AND MIND YOU, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS. THEY HAVE SURVEYS OF THESE. JUST WHAT IS PROVIDED AS THE CONCEPT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE SURVEY INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY NOT TO THE DETAIL BEING REQUESTED IN THIS SECTION OF THE FIRST MOTION. A DETAILED PLAN SHOWS EACH LOT AND IT SHOWS THE HOUSE ON THE LOT OR THE RESIDENCE ON THE LOT. IT SHOWS HOW FAR THEIR SETBACK.

HERE'S THE NUMBER ONE ACREAGE IN THE PLAN, AS SHOWN BY A SURVEY CERTIFIED BY REGISTERED SURVEYOR. TWO LAND USES, PERMITTED USES SPECIFIC IN DETAIL AND THE ACREAGE FOR ITS USE. I THINK LAND USES IS ADDRESSED BECAUSE WE'VE IDENTIFIED THOSE BY CATEGORY, AND THEN IT'S PICKED UP IN THE OFF SITE INFORMATION. ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES, ZONING STREETS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, ETC. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION, LOCATION, SIZE OF STREETS. I THINK WE HAVE THOSE BUILDINGS. IT SAYS FOR THAT'S FOR MULTIFAMILY AND NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. SO WE'RE ONLY REQUIRED TWO BUILDINGS. ARE YOU READING FROM 1020 C FOR DETAILED PLAN TEN DASH 20 C? I THINK SO. TEN DASH 60 CHANGES IN DETAIL IN THE DETAILED PLAN, CHANGES IN THE DETAILED PLAN. BUT. AND THEN IT SAYS UNDER DETAILED PLAN REQUIREMENTS UNDER I. IF I MAY MISS. I FEEL LIKE THIS CONVERSATION HAS NO LONGER BEING PRODUCTIVE. IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THIS THIS MATERIAL DOES NOT MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DETAILED CONCEPT PLAN OF PUD STAFF BROUGHT IT IN FRONT OF US AND THE. THE. THE DEVELOPER DID SOMETHING THAT STAFF WAS SATISFIED WITH TO COME INTO OUR PACKET TONIGHT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL EITHER MOVE TO MAKE A DECISION, MOVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH SOME STIPULATIONS AS MR. LOPEZ WAS HEADED TOWARDS OR RECOMMENDING TABLING. BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT MOVING IN A PRODUCTIVE DIRECTION. I WAS LOOKING AT 1020, BUT YES, POSTPONED TO DATE, CERTAIN OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY WITH THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL, BECAUSE I WOULD GO BACK TO MY MOTION TO POSTPONE WITH THESE CONDITIONS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A JUST THE OPPOSITE. LIKE I SAID, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT A CASE. SO PROCESS WISE, MISS ARIEL IS THE CHAIR. SHE MADE A MOTION. SO EMOTION IS ON THE TABLE. OKAY. THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE SOMEONE CAN SECOND OR NOT. IF NO ONE SECONDS THAT MOTION DIES. IF IT'S SECONDED, THEN A VOTE WILL BE TAKEN. OKAY. I THINK A SUBSTITUTE MOTION CAN BE MADE. OKAY, SO THEN YOU COMPLETE YOUR MOTION. SO I WAS JUST GOING TO

[02:15:06]

SAY AT THIS POINT I'M NO LONGER CLEAR ON WHAT THE MOTION IS. OKAY. SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THIS DETAILED PLAN MODIFICATION. PARDON ME FOR 30 DAYS. FOR 30 DAYS. ACTUALLY IS OUR NEXT MEETING 30 DAYS FROM NOW OR LONGER. OUR SECOND WEEK IN AUGUST. HOW LONG IS THAT? HOW ABOUT IF WE POSTPONE IT TO THE AUGUST P AND Z SCHEDULED MEETING? OKAY. AND. I WOULD LIKE TO I WILL ELIMINATE THE REQUEST FOR THE NOTIFICATION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SUBMISSIONS TO P AND Z AT THE TE DETERMINATION OF THE PER CHAPTER TEN, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PLANS AND THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE FORMER AUSTIN ETJ MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SPECIAL PLANNING AREA. THAT'S 3.16 REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE PARKLAND. THAT'S SECTION FIVE.

NO PARKLAND IS DEPICTED ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS BEEN APPROVED AS PARKLAND. BY THE CITY, AND TO REVISE THE PLAN TO SHOW ALL THE FEATURES REQUIRED BY 1020. SEE. AND AN UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DEFER BEYOND THE NEXT PNC MEETING. BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL. THAT'S MY MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL IN FAVOR, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THE DATE AUGUST 13TH, NOT 30 DAYS. JUST SAY AUGUST 13TH. THAT'S DATE CERTAIN. THAT'S WHEN THE NEXT PNC MEETING IS OKAY. YOU CHECKING THAT? I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, I, I I OKAY, OKAY. SO THEN WE HAVE I DIDN'T HEAR MR. LOPEZ. OH, I DIDN'T SEE IT YET. YEAH. I DON'T THINK SHE CALLED FOR THE OPPOSED. OKAY, I OPPOSE. OKAY. SO IT'S 4 TO 1. THANK YOU. I STILL THINK YOU OUGHT TO GIVE HIM LIMITATION AS PARKLAND. PARDON ME. PARDON ME. JUST TO LET THE TRANSITION. NO, NO WE'LL TAKE WE'LL TAKE AGENDA ITEM ONE OPEN THE PUBLIC

[V.1. Open a public hearing to consider, discuss, and take action on an ordinance of the City of Lago Vista, Texas, amending the City of Lago Vista Code of Ordinances by removing mobile food vendor and mobile food establishment regulations from Article 4; amending Article 14.200, Exhibit A, “Zoning Ordinance,” Sec on 6, by adding Sec on 6-110, “Mobile Food Vendors”; amending Article 14.200, Exhibit A, Part IV, Table B, “Table of Allowed Uses for Zoning,” by adding “Mobile Food Vendor” and “Mobile Food Vendor Park” as use classifications; providing findings of fact; providing for attachments; providing for repealer; providing for severability; providing for codification; providing for a penalty; and providing an effective date ]

HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS.

AMENDING THE CITY OF LUBBOCK IS THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. BY REMOVING OVER TO THE GENDER AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. ARTICLE FOUR AMENDING ARTICLE 13.200. EXHIBIT A ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION SIX AND SECTION 6-110 MOBILE FOOD VENDORS AMENDING ARTICLE 14.200. EXHIBIT A FOR A TO BE TABLE OF USES FOR ZONING BY ADDING MOBILE FOOD VENDOR AND VENDOR. IS USEFUL IN PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT. PROVIDING FOR ATTACHMENTS, PROVIDING FOR REPEALER.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR CLARIFICATION, PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? YES, MA'AM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS. AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, STATE LAW CHANGED ON US PER USUAL. SO EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST, WE'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO REGULATE MOBILE FOOD TRUCK PERMITTING. AND SO IN OUR CURRENT CODE, THE WAY IT'S SITUATED, THE ONLY THING WE DID REGULATE WAS THE PERMITTING.

NOW THAT WE'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO DISCUSS HOW WE REGULATE THE ZONING ASPECT OF IT. AND SO WHAT OUR ATTORNEY HAS DONE IS DRAFTED WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY FLIP THE SITUATION. NOW THAT WE CAN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT, WE'RE NOW REQUIRING CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MET. IN ADDITION TO THEIR STATE ISSUED PERMIT, THE RECOMMENDATIONS, OR I GUESS, THE POLICY DECISION THAT'S

[02:20:02]

REALLY UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS HOW WE WANT TO REGULATE THE ZONING SIDE OF IT. AND SO THAT CAN INCLUDE WHAT DISTRICTS THEY'RE ALLOWED IN. THE ADDITIONAL CAVEATS THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS DRAFTED, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, KEEPING YOUR SITE CLEAN, DOING ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, ABOVE AND BEYOND STANDARD OPERATING. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE INTENT HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT IT HAS AND REFLECTS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S IT'S THE CATALYST IS THE FACT THAT THE STATE LAW CHANGED. AND NOW WE HAVE TO SHIFT THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE ARE WORKING. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M SORRY, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. NOW, THIS JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, THESE ARE THE THEY'RE STILL BEING REGULATED BY THE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. RIGHT. AND IS THAT ONE OF THE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO WHAT THE CITY WHERE THEY PULL THEIR PERMIT. SO THEY STILL HAVE TO DO HEALTH INSPECTIONS. THEY STILL HAVE TO DO YEARLY REPORTING, YEARLY, YOU KNOW, SANITARY INSPECTIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. HOWEVER, THE STATE IS NOW THE ONLY PERSON ALLOWED TO REGULATE IT UNLESS THE STATE OR SOMEBODY ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITH AN APPROPRIATE BODY, THERE'S STILL SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO AS OF TODAY, THE STATE HAS AUTHORITY OVER ALL. AND SO NOW INSTEAD OF PULLING A PERMIT THROUGH US AND GETTING IT RENEWED EVERY YEAR, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STATE AND FOLLOW THE STATE'S REGULATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE NOTED IS PRESENT ON THE APPLICATIONS, BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT NINE DAYS BEHIND ON THIS LEGISLATION TAKING ACTION, IS THAT ONE OF THE CAVEATS TO GETTING A PERMIT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY IN WHICH YOU OPERATE. AND SO TODAY, AS IT IS, WE DON'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO ANYBODY CAN PULL A PERMIT, ANYBODY CAN PARK ANYWHERE. ANYBODY CAN SET UP SHOP. AND SO THIS IS THAT IS BRIDGING THAT GAP. BUT YES, THE PERMIT IS STILL REQUIRED JUST NOW. THE STATE DOES IT INSTEAD OF US. OKAY. OKAY. SO I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR. THAT THE SYSTEM WE HAD BEFORE CAN NO LONGER MOVE FORWARD. SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? WHAT'S THE VERBIAGE THAT WE NEED TO BE VOTING ON? BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY CAME WITH SOMETHING, RIGHT? SO WHAT OUR ATTORNEY HAS COME UP ON IS IN YOUR PACKET. SO YOU'LL SEE THE BIGGEST CHANGE IS IN EXHIBIT A, IT'S WHAT WOULD BE ADDED TO OUR CODE. IT OUTLINES HOW THINGS ARE DEFINED, WHAT IS REQUIRED, WHAT SITE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED, AS WELL AS SOME CAVEATS FOR. IT STARTS ON PAGE 104 OF THE PACKET. YES. ALSO. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR FOR, YOU KNOW HOW THEY PARK ON A SITE, HOW THEY DON'T IMPEDE TRAFFIC, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, HOW THEY CAN'T HAVE TRASH, DEBRIS, RUBBISH, STUFF LIKE THAT. THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE OKAY WITH THIS AS PRESENTED? ARE THERE MODIFICATIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE TO IT THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WHAT DISTRICT SHOULD WE ALLOW THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN IN? THERE'S TWO THINGS AND WE HAVE A CASE OF IT FOOD TRUCK PARKS VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL TRUCK. FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. AND SO WE'VE ADDED THOSE TWO CATEGORIES AND REGULATED THEM DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THEY WILL TRIGGER DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE CONVERSATION. ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AS PRESENTED? DO WE WANT TO EXPAND ON WHERE STUFF'S ALLOWED. DO WE WANT TO REDUCE WHERE STUFF'S ALLOWED? ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THE ATTORNEY HAS PROVIDED FOR THOSE REGULATIONS? SO WHAT CATEGORY IS A PARK? WHICH ONE OF THESE ON 105. SO ON 1P1P1 IS GOING TO BE OUR PARKS. AND CURRENTLY IT'S NOT PERMITTED IN FOR EITHER AN INDIVIDUAL TRUCK OR A FOOD TRUCK. PARK WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN A PARK. WHAT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE LOG FEST DOWN AT BERKELEY PARK? WHAT IF WE HAVE SOMETHING OUT AT SUNSET PARK? THOSE ARE SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS. THEY'RE GOVERNED UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE CODE, AND SO THEY FALL UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT. THIS IS STANDARD DAY TO DAY, YOU KNOW, OPERATIONS TODAY. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST GO PARK AT OUR PARK FOR NO REASON. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT COULD CONTINUE. UP. OKAY. JUST TO REAFFIRM THE DOES IT MATTER IF IT'S ON PRIVATE? IT'S A PRIVATE LIKE PO VERSUS A PUBLIC PARK. A PARK IS A PARK, RIGHT? FOR THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT OR, OR THE SPECIAL PERMIT. SO THE PARKS, I