Aug 13, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:02]

INCIDENTS OF 1950. NINE. I MEAN, I'M BRINGING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING

[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[II. CITIZEN COMMENTS]

YEAH. SO FIRST I WILL CALL KEVIN SULLIVAN WHO HAS NON-AGENDA COMMENTS, BUT HE'S ALSO GOT THREE MINUTES FROM JOEL SCOTT. AND. JORDAN. ARE YOU DOING THE MINUTES THING? GOOD. OKAY. GIVE YOU ALL OF THAT. I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH AND I'M GOING TO TRY AND DO IT QUICKLY SO I DON'T TAKE UP ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME THAN I HAVE TO. BUT I THOUGHT I'D PUT THIS DOWN ON PAPER. SO WE CAN. SO THIS FIRST SLIDE I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY TIME ON. BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUOTE I RAN ACROSS A FEW OF WEEKS AGO, AND I THOUGHT I'D INCLUDE IT AND LEAVE IT FOR YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT ON YOUR OWN TIME. SINCE THE LAST MEETING, SHORELINE RANCH REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ENGAGED ME TO HELP THEM WALK THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

I SPOKE TO COMMISSIONER DAVE STEWART SHORTLY AFTER THAT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR THE CREATION OF THE FLUME THAT WAS POSTED TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AND THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL, AND MAINLY I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WERE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, DISCOVERED OR CONSIDERED, EXCUSE ME, AS THEY MAKE THAT MAP, THAT WAS A LITTLE UNCERTAIN, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. WE DISCUSSED, IF YOU REMEMBER, AT THE LAST MEETING, I TALKED FOR THE HOTEL AND I POINTED OUT VERY CLEARLY THAT IF THE FLUME CHANGE WAS MADE TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL, WE WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO REQUEST A PDB AMENDMENT THAT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAD. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. AND I POSED TO MR. STEWART THAT THAT APPLIES TO OTHER PROPERTIES AS WELL.

SHORELINE RANCH BEING A PRIME EXAMPLE. AND WHEN WE TALK THROUGH THAT, HE SAID, KEVIN, CAN YOU COME SPEAK ABOUT THAT AT THE NEXT PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING? AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I'M HERE TODAY. SO LOOKING AT THAT NEXT SLIDE THAT STARTS WITH PREVIOUS EVENTS IN 2010, OCTOBER 2010, SHORELINE RANCH RECEIVED THEIR FINAL AMENDMENT ON THEIR COMMUNITY. AND IN THAT, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD A QUARTER ACRE LOTS, HALF ACRE, LOTS, ONE ACRE LOTS. THEY ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SOME SMALL MULTIFAMILY WATERFRONT AMENITIES AND A GOLF COURSE. AND THAT MATCHED WHAT'S CALLED WHAT'S NOW CALLED NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL. THE CURRENT FLUME DESIGNATION. DESPITE THIS, THE FLUME THAT WAS PUT FORWARD TO COUNCIL SAID IT AS R1 OR THREE PLUS ACRE LOTS. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IS WHERE THAT LEADS. SHORELINE RANCH. ON THE NEXT SLIDE IN OCTOBER OF 22, PNC HEARD THE PETITION FOR SHORELINE RANCH TO BE CONSIDERED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WHAT IT WAS IN 2013, COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, AND THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO MAKE IT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO I JUST POINTED THIS OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ALL UNDERSTOOD. IT'S NOT AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION THAT PLANNING AND ZONING SET LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD, RESIDENTIAL FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. SO THIS IS KIND OF A THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE THE BULK OF WHAT I WANTED TO CHAT ABOUT AND WHAT DAVE HAD ASKED ME TO DISCUSS. AND THAT'S THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED IN JANUARY OF 2023.

AND I'M GOING TO BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I WAS ON COUNCIL. I WAS SOMEONE WHO VOTED FOR IT.

AND I'M PART OF THE PROBLEM AS PART OF THE REASON WHY I'M HELPING SHORELINE RANCH, TO BE

[00:05:04]

THIS IS THE ONE I DON'T TAKE AWAY ANYTHING TODAY OTHER THAN THIS. THIS IS THE ONE I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FIRST COLUMN, THE 2007, IT SHOWS YOU ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS THAT THEY HAVE ENTITLED AS PART OF THEIR COMMITMENT. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEXT COLUMN, THIS IS WHAT WE ANTICIPATE. IF WE WERE TO BRING AN AMENDMENT FORWARD, WE WOULD HAVE EVERYTHING THE SAME. THE ONLY THING IS WE'VE DROPPED MULTIFAMILY. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING THAT. WE ONLY WANT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO NOW TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE DESIGNATION WAS IN 2030. COMP PLAN, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, FIVE PLUS ACRE LOTS. AND THEN WHAT YOU ALL RECOMMENDED, WHICH WAS RURAL RESIDENTIAL, ONE THREE PLUS ACRE LOTS. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE UNIT TYPE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ENTITLED TO THAT IS ALLOWED BY WHAT Y'ALL RECOMMENDED. OKAY, NOT A SINGLE ONE. WE COULDN'T COME AND ASK FOR A CHANGE THAT MIMICS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THIS WORLD. NOW, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY TMC BACK IN OCTOBER OF 22, OR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS THE THE CURRENT PLACE TYPE THAT'S BEING PUT FORWARD. EVERY ONE OF THE UNITS THAT WE HAD HAVE ACHIEVED, WE HAVE IN OUR AMENDMENT, AND EVERYTHING THAT WE PROPOSE TO BUILD WOULD BE COVERED BY THAT. OKAY. OKAY. SO I JUST IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WITH THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED THAT SAID, YOU CAN'T BRING SOMETHING THAT'S INCONSISTENT.

WE CAN'T BRING A PGD AMENDMENT FORWARD TO GET RID OF THE OLD GOLF COURSE THAT NOBODY WANTS, AND HAVE AN AMENDMENT AND A MASTER PLAN. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN BE PROUD OF. SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU KNOW, JUST TO MATCH WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN SAYS, I THINK IT WAS JORDAN THAT POSTED RECENTLY TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD MIGHT HAVE THREE MORE MINUTES AFTER THIS EVENT. SHE. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, I THINK THIS IS RELATIVELY IMPORTANT POINT. CAN I CONTINUE BEYOND MY TIME FRAME? OKAY. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK? I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR THIS. YEAH. OKAY. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

CLARIFYING QUESTION THREE MINUTES OR ARE WE THREE MINUTES I WOULD SAY AND GO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. HAS HE ALREADY SPOKEN FOR SIX MINUTES? OKAY. THREE MORE MINUTES. THREE PAGES AGO.

OKAY. I LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN SAYS. SAY VERY CLEARLY, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS NOT A ZONING MAP, DOES NOT GRANT DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR ENTITLEMENTS. IT DOES NOT PREDETERMINE SPECIFIC LAND USE DENSITIES OR DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES. I DON'T SEE HOW WHAT THAT SAYS AND WHAT IS RECOMMENDED ON THE PLUME MATCH, BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE CAN REQUEST IS THREE PLUS ACRE LOTS BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATION THAT'S BEEN PUT FORWARD. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. I'M GOING TO SKIP ON. SO I'M GOING TO. HOW DO WE GET HERE. SHORELINE RANCH THEIR ENTITLEMENT DID NOT BECOME COME BECAUSE OF AN INCONSISTENT SORRY. SHORELINE RANCH'S ENTITLEMENT DID NOT BECOME INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLUME BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER CHANGED ITS ENTITLEMENT. NO. THE CITY ADOPTED A PLUME INCONSISTENT WITH A PREEXISTING ENTITLEMENT, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED A PROCEDURAL RULE, CREATING AN OBSTACLE TO FUTURE PB AMENDMENTS. OKAY, SO THE LANDOWNER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. THE CITY IS WHAT CAUSED THIS SITUATION UNDER R ONE DESIGNATION, SHORELINE RANCH IS EFFECTIVELY LIMITED TO TWO PATHS. IT'LL LEAVE THEIR OLD ENTITLEMENT THAT HAS CAUSED MULTIPLE BANKRUPTCIES OR ONLY BUILD THREE PLUS ACRE LOTS, WHICH THAT HAS ITS OWN PROBLEMS. OKAY, SO THE OTHER THING IS LET'S MAKE THE DESIGNATION NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MATCHES THE CURRENT DESIGNATION. I'M NOT TRYING TO LITIGATE RELITIGATE THE PAST. I THINK THIS LAST STATEMENT IS, I THINK, THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE ON THIS

[00:10:02]

WOULDN'T MIND IF MR. PRINCE COULD OPINE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT. EXCUSE ME, THAT THE.

YOU'VE HAD THE PEOPLE DEPART, YOU'VE GOT THE BUDGET AND THE CHARTER AND STUFF THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH. I'VE HEARD THAT YOU GUYS MAY NOT DEAL WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE METROPOLITAN PLUME UNTIL MAYBE EVEN AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIMELINE IS TO TRY AND DEAL WITH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD IN COUNCIL LAST WEEK? COMMISSIONERS, IS THAT THE THE BUDGET IS TOP PRIORITY, AND THE REALITY IS THAT WE PROBABLY WILL NOT GET TO COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN. AND CHARTER IS PRETTY IMPORTANT TOO, RIGHT? SO SO WE SAID, LET'S GET THE BUDGET DONE. PRIORITY NUMBER ONE, LET'S GET THE GET THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS DONE.

BUT RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE GOING TO MISS THE WINDOW FOR NOVEMBER ELECTION. BUT BUT WE WE TOOK THE THE GOAL TO TRY TO GET THE CHARTER AMENDMENT WORK COMPLETED BY THIS COUNCIL, THIS SITTING COUNCIL, BEFORE THE NEXT COUNCIL IS ELECTED. WE FRANKLY DID NOT HAVE THE DISCUSSION OF TIMELINE OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN AND FLUME. BUT BUT THE THE THE LOGIC WAS THAT THAT WAS A LOWER PRIORITY THAN THOSE FIRST TWO THINGS. SO SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, MR. SULLIVAN, IS THERE'S NOT A. IN MY MIND, THERE'S NOT A CLEAR TIMELINE FOR THE CFP AND THE FLUME AT THIS POINT. THOSE OTHER TWO THINGS BEING HIGHER PRIORITY.

THE OTHER THING THAT WE'VE HEARD IS, IS THAT THERE IS POTENTIALLY TALKING TO COUNCIL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT LAW CAN BE ENFORCED. AND ARE THERE MODIFICATIONS TO BE MADE? I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT. THEY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP IT QUIET. BUT I THINK THAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIKE. BUT UNTIL SOMETHING IS SAID TO THE PUBLIC, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE TO OPERATE UNDERNEATH THE ORDINANCE. AND SO ON THE LAST SLIDE, I GUESS I PUT FORWARD THE ASK, WHICH IS WE'D LOVE FOR THE FLUME DESIGNATION TO BE CHANGED TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL. WE WOULD WE'RE REQUESTING THAT PNC ASK TO HAVE IT COME BACK FROM COUNCIL TO HAVE TO FURTHER DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH IMPORTANT POINTS THAT MAKE IT WORTHWHILE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO IT IF THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE BUDGET, WHICH HAS TO BE DONE BY SEPTEMBER AND THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE CHARTER, I WOULD THINK THE EARLIEST THEY COULD GET TO IT WOULD BE OCTOBER, MAYBE NOVEMBER, DECEMBER. AND SO THAT GIVES YOU ALL PLENTY OF TIME TO RECONSIDER AND PUT ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION BACK. AND I GUESS AS LONG AS I'VE GOT THIS HERE, NOT ONLY DO I THINK SHORELINE RANCH IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED, BUT THE ENTIRE 1431 ZONE WAS CHANGED TO NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTER. ALMOST NONE OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE THERE WOULD PASS MUSTER TODAY UNDER THAT DESIGNATION. AND IN THIS BIG CORNER HERE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PART OF COMMERCIAL ZONE. IT'S DESIGNATED RR 1 OR 2. I DON'T KNOW WHICH, BUT BOTTOM LINE IS, IS THIS IS ALL THIS ALL SHOULD BE HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL. AND SO IT'S NOT JUST US. I THINK THAT SHOULD BRING THIS BACK. I THINK THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO TALK ABOUT AND POTENTIALLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY ONLINE TODAY? NO MA'AM. WE DO NOT KNOW. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, SINCE I'M HEAVILY REFERRED TO. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, THE MAP YOU'RE HOLDING WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY P AND Z, THAT WHATEVER WEIRD CATEGORY THAT YOU CAME IN WAS NOT ON THE STEWART HARRIS MAP. WHAT WAS ON THERE? JUST LIKE WHAT WAS THERE FOR THE HOTEL WAS SUITABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. SO, MR. STEWART, I'M SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION, BUT THIS IS NOT AN AGENDA ITEM, RIGHT? RIGHT. AND THE RULES OF, OF, OF ENGAGEMENT HERE ARE THE COMMISSION IS NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. WE DIDN'T INFORM THE CITIZENS WE WERE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THIS. SO CITIZEN IS ALLOWED TO COME UP AND TELL US SOME GIVE US SOME COMMENTS. YOU ALL THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO EXTEND HIS TIME. UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T HAVE BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION ON IT. OKAY, FINE. THANK YOU.

I'LL TALK TO YOU LATER. LINDA. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW, I WILL SAY THAT THE THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS EXACTLY FOR THIS KIND OF THING. SO IF YOU ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, GO OUT AND POST SOMETHING ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND HAVE ALL THE DISCUSSIONS YOU WANT.

THAT'S IN A PUBLIC FORUM. AND THAT IS THAT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. AND IS MR. BROWN. MR. BROWN HAS ALSO ASKED TO MAKE COMMENTS.

[00:15:06]

I'LL DO IT. SEE IF THAT'LL DO IT. WELL, THE CAMERA'S NOT COMING ON. LET ME TRY A DIFFERENT PLACE. HOLD ON. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. WHY DON'T WE DO THIS, LINDA? IF IF MR. SULLIVAN NEEDS MY TIME, I'LL JUST READ IT TO HIM. BUT SINCE I CAN'T GET MY CAMERA TO WORK, LET'S JUST DO THAT, OKAY? MR. SULLIVAN, I BELIEVE IT'S FINISHED. I DON'T THINK HE HAS ANY MORE TO SAY, BUT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING AND MAKE YOUR NON AGENDA. I WILL THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S. I WOULD SAY THAT MR. SULLIVAN'S REQUEST IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE UP ON THE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, AS MR. FRIEND SUGGESTED, AS FAR AS HE'S ASKED THAT WE ASK THAT IT COME BACK. AND RATHER THAN DISCUSS THAT HERE, WE WILL DISCUSS IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, WHETHER WE THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT BACK AGAIN. OH, PAUL, DID YOU HAVE NON-AGENDA COMMENTS? YES, MA'AM, I DO SPECIFICALLY ON THIS VERY TOPIC. SO IT'S I FIND IT INTERESTING, QUITE FRANKLY, WHEN. WELL I'LL STOP. WHAT YOU'RE BEING TOLD IS NOT ACCURATE. THAT PD D, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 500 ACRES. HAD 120 ADDED TO IT A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN IT ACQUIRED ACQUIRED THE OLD GARY PLAYER GOLF COURSE.

IT'S ENTITLED FOR 562 LEWIS. THE DESIGNATION IS IRRELEVANT. ANY PD THAT HAS ENTITLEMENTS CAN DO WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR ENTITLEMENTS IN TERMS OF LOT SIZES AND LESS RESTRICTED AND LESS RESTRICTED TO THE CONTRARY BY A DETAILED PLAN. THEY HAVE 562 LEWIS THAT THEY CAN PUT ANYWHERE THEY WANT ON THAT PROPERTY UNLESS INCONSISTENT WITH THE THE DETAILED PLAN, THE WHAT IT SAYS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS IRRELEVANT. THE ONLY RELEVANCE OF THAT IS MANDATED BY STATE LAW. WHEN YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAYS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR PD D AND ASK FOR MORE. LOUISE PROPERTY RIGHTS OR SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY IN TEXAS, WHEN YOU BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOUR ENTITLEMENTS ARE AND WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY THAT PROPERTY HAS HAD. THE THE THE LOU COUNT INCREASED THREE TIMES. I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY 250 TO 300 AND SOMETHING, AND THEN NOW TO 562.

WITH EACH NEW HAND IT CHANGES. THERE WERE AGREEMENTS MADE THAT GOT IT TO 562. WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAYS IS IRRELEVANT. THE FLUME DESIGNATION TODAY IS FIVE ACRES, ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES, WHICH YOU GUYS RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL ACTUALLY INCREASES IF THEY EVER DID GET A SUCCESSFUL PD AMENDMENT AND THEY WANTED TO GET ADDITIONAL. LOUISE, THEY COULD DO THAT BASED ON THREE ACRES INSTEAD OF FIVE ACRES. BUT AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IT BASED ON THEIR CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS OF 562. LOUISE, WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAYS IS ABSOLUTELY NONBINDING AND IRRELEVANT. THAT'S A CANARD. IT'S A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. SO WHAT THEY CAN DO IS WHAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO DO. THEY CAN PUT THE HIGHER DENSITY STUFF UP ON THE HILLTOP, ETC. WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH THAT. AS FAR AS THE SUPERMAJORITY NEEDED TO AMEND A PD D, THE REASON COUNCIL AGREED TO THAT UNANIMOUSLY, MIND YOU, IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING THAT LAND SPECULATORS AND CARPETBAGGERS AND VARIOUS TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS DON'T GO AND GET PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT AND KEEP COMING IN. PROMISING PIE IN THE SKY IDEAS LIKE A RITZ HOTEL AND OTHER NOTIONS THAT WAS ACTUALLY SUGGESTED FOR THE WINN RANCH OR RITZ HOTEL.

EVERYBODY. THEY PITCHED THESE SCHEMES TO GET HIGHER ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN GO AND SHOP IT AND FLIP IT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE SO MANY DORMANT

[00:20:01]

THANK YOU, I UNDERSTAND WHEN SORRY, I JUST LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. BUT THE SUPERMAJORITY, THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO ENSURE THAT WHEN SOMEBODY COMES AND ASKS FOR A CHANGE IN THEIR PD D, THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING A PRODUCT THAT IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH, EVERYBODY WILL BUY INTO IT. REMEMBER, WHAT OUR ORDINANCES SAY IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PD D IS NOT SO THAT A DEVELOPER CAN AVOID OTHER OBJECTIVE. OTHERWISE MORE RESTRICTIVE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES. A PD D IS A MASS VARIANCE THAT SAYS YOUR LOT SIZES CAN BE SMALLER. COVER CAN BE MORE, FORMAL HERE. CHAIR WOMAN AIRED. DO YOU AND THE COMMISSION WANT TO EXTEND HIS TIME OR HAVE YOU HEARD WHAT YOU NEED TO HEAR? WELL, WE EXTENDED THE TIME FOR MR. SULLIVAN, SO I THINK WE NEED TO. WELL, IS IS KEVIN SULLIVAN IS HE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO REBUTTAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO, WE'RE JUST HEARING COMMENTS. OPINIONS COME. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HE MADE A STATEMENT THAT THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THE REBUTTALS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. SO THE FLUME DOES NOT HINDER ENTITLEMENTS. IT ONLY BECOMES RELEVANT WHEN YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING. WHEN YOU SEEK A ZONING CHANGE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE ONLY TIME YOU WANT TO SEEK A ZONING CHANGE IS WHEN YOU WANT TO, OR IF THE PD.

IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN YOUR ENTITLEMENTS. THE ORIGINAL PLAN FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS FOR I BELIEVE, I THINK, AND I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS, AROUND 1250 LEVEES WITH THE LARGEST LOTS THAT THEY REFERRED TO AS A STATE, LOTS BEING QUARTER ACRE, LOTS THAT WOULD HAVE REBUTTED THREE, FOUR AND SIX ACRE LOTS. THAT'S A NON-COMPATIBLE ADJACENT LAND. USE THE FLUME DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL ONE DWELLING UNIT, OR ONE ONE LOU ONE DWELLING UNIT FOR FIVE ACRES, HAS BEEN THERE FOR OVER A DECADE ON THAT AREA WHILE THOSE ENTITLEMENTS EXISTED. IF SOMEBODY IS CHOOSING NOT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, THAT'S NOT ANYBODY ELSE'S FAULT, BUT THEIR OWN CIRCUMSTANCE. THE SUPERMAJORITY PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE A GOOD QUALITY PRODUCT. WHEN YOU ARE GRANTING A MASS VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES. THAT'S IT. AND LASTLY, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I HEARD ONE OF YOU AT THE PRIOR MEETING ASKED, ASK SOMEBODY, WELL, HAVE YOU GUYS GOTTEN TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY ADJACENT OWNER? NO, BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. THEY USED TO WORK TOGETHER AND THEY HAD A FALLING OUT. AND THERE'S MULTIPLE PEOPLE. THERE'S MULTIPLE LAWSUITS THAT STILL ARE GOING ON TO THIS DAY IN THIS AREA.

AND THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THE MONTECITO PD? NO, THAT'S THAT'S NOW ALL UP FOR SALE FOR $66 MILLION. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN. IT WAS OVERPAID FOR $30 MILLION. YOU CAN'T DEVELOP A PROPERTY AT THAT. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A HAIRCUT SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE PURCHASED AT A REASONABLE MARKET PRICE, SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING WITH IT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE DECIDED I'M GOING TO BE READING THE FLUME COMMENTS TODAY OR NOT.

WHAT DID WE DECIDE? WE DECIDED I WAS. WELL, CITIZEN COMMENT THE NON AGENDA. FLUME COMMENTS.

SO THE AUTOZONE. YEAH. SO HERE'S THE CHALLENGE. I THINK IT COMES TO YOUR DISCRETION.

OKAY. NORMALLY A CITIZEN WOULD NOT GET MULTIPLE TAKES ON NON CITIZEN COMMENTS. MISTER.

MISTER ROBERTS JUST USED MORE THAN HIS NORMAL THREE MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TAKE MORE OF THE COMMISSION'S TIME TO READ THOSE OR DEFER THAT TO A LATER MEETING. OKAY.

SO THESE ARE THESE ARE THESE ARE I THINK IT'S YOUR DISCRETION. THESE ARE COMPLETELY THESE ARE ON THE THE AUTOZONE FLUME CHANGE THAT CAME IN FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HERE THAT IS ON THE AGENDA OR IS NOT ON THE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT WAS IT WAS PUBLISHED TO BE ON THE AGENDA FROM COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. I BELIEVE IF SOMEONE HAS SENT IN A NON-AGENDA COMMENT AND THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY MADE NON AGENDA COMMENTS, THEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO READ. OKAY, BECAUSE IT WAS PUBLISHED FOR TODAY, BUT THEN IT WAS TAKEN AWAY. AND SO I HAVE THESE COMMENTS. YEAH. SO I WILL READ THEM. AND IT'S OUR HABIT HAS BEEN TO GO AHEAD AND RUN THE THREE MINUTE CLOCK IN CASE SOMEBODY WRITES A SUPER LONG MONOLOGUE. OKAY. OKAY, SO THIS COMMENT IS FROM AND AGAIN, THIS IS ON THE FLUME CHANGE

[00:25:05]

THIS WAS DUE TO IMPROPER ADVERTISEMENT IN A NEWSPAPER, INADEQUATE POSTING OF SIGNAGE ON OR NEAR THE PROPERTIES, AND LACK OF REQUIRED FLUME HEARING IN ORDER TO CHANGE ZONING ON LOT 1874. THIS IS A STEP BY STEP PROCESS AND DOES TAKE A REQUIRED AMOUNT OF TIME FOR APPELLANTS REQUEST TO BE CONSIDERED. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER MEETING RESCHEDULED SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE AFTER THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES ARE IN PLACE. I'M ESTIMATING AT LEAST 2 OR 3 WEEKS FURTHER. APPELLANT HAS NOT WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATION FOR FLUME CHANGE. TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE MAILED OR DROPPED OFF YOUR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REGISTRATION FORMS, YOU MAY CONTINUE TO DO SO. I ALSO SUGGEST AFTER YOU DROP OFF OR MAIL YOUR FORMS, THAT YOU EMAIL A COPY TO THE CITY COUNCIL. FORMS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WILL BE RETAINED BY THE CITY AND INCLUDED. ONCE THE NEW FLUME MEETING IS SCHEDULED.

AFTER THE PNC HEARING, COUNCIL WILL HAVE THEIR OWN OPEN HEARING WHERE CITIZENS CAN SPEAK. IT TAKES SIX OF SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS TO EITHER PASS OR DENY APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

ONCE THE FUTURE FLUME DATE IS POSTED AND ADVERTISED, I WILL LET EVERYONE KNOW. PURPOSE OF THE ZONE CHANGE FLUME HEARING THE CITY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE MAP IS A FUTURE GUIDE USED TO PROVIDE FOR FUTURE GROWTH WITHIN OUR CITY. THE FLUME LISTS CURRENT ZONINGS AND ANY PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THOSE ZONES REQUIRES A FLUME HEARING BY ORDINANCE. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO GET 100% INVOLVED IN THE OPPORTUNITY TO STOP THE ZONE CHANGE TO LOT 1874, CHANGING LOT 1874 FROM RESIDENTIAL TO C2 WILL BRING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELL INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ATTACHED IS A MAP OF THE PROPOSED COMBINATION OF LOTS 1873 LOT

[00:30:05]

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

JORDAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORT? YES. SO AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, TODAY IS GOING TO BE MY LAST DAY WITH THE CITY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND DUE TO THE PROCESS FOR BRINGING IN AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER, AT THE SAME TIME, A DECISION WAS MADE TO NOT HAVE SEPTEMBER MEETINGS, JUST TO GIVE SOME TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A TRANSITION IN THE MEANTIME. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE'S AN ITEM THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE PUSHED ON OUR AGENDA. AND SO JUST WITH THAT IN MIND, AS WE APPROACH THAT, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE

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

SO POLICE CHIEF RON JOY HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS THE ACTING CITY MANAGER. AND ERIC ZENO, WHO'S IN THE ROOM, HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS THE ACTING ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. AND KIND OF THE THE THINKING THERE FROM CITY COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE IS THAT MR. ZENO KNOWS A LOT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS BUILDING, AND MR. JOY CAN USE HIS HIS HELP IN RUNNING THINGS.

AND I'VE BEEN REALLY PLEASED WITH HOW MR. JOY HAS BEEN HANDLING THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS OF WORK, THAT HE'S IN THE POSITION. IT'S A BIG LIFT, BUT HE'S DOING A GREAT JOB, AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPOINTED A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THREE TO START WORKING WITH THE SEARCH FIRM AND START REVIEWING RESUMES OF INTERIM CITY MANAGERS WITH THE INTENT OF VERY QUICKLY MOVING TO GET AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER IN PLACE, WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT A LONGER TERM PROCESS WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO FIND A PERMANENT CITY MANAGER. AND SO. SO WHERE WE ARE ON THIS PARTICULAR POSITION IS THAT MR. JOY HAS MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL THAT HE NOT FILL THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ROLE BEING SUCH AN IMPORTANT ROLE.

BUT WAIT UNTIL AT LEAST THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER IS IN PLACE TO FILL THAT ROLE. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT LEADS TO THE, THE STATEMENT THAT THAT JORDAN JUST MADE WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT MEETING FOR THIS COMMISSION IS, IS A LITTLE BIT UP IN THE AIR. BUT CERTAINLY I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT SEPTEMBER WOULD NOT, YOU KNOW, A NEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DIRECTOR WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE IN IN A TIMELY FASHION TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO MEET IN SEPTEMBER. AND CERTAINLY I KNOW.

MR. THAT YOU HAD HAD HAD SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT HAVING A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING LATER THIS MONTH, AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT'LL BE POSSIBLE EITHER. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. YOU SAID THERE'S A SUB THERE'S A SUBCOMMITTEE TO PICK THE NEXT POSITION. NO, NOT QUITE. SO SUBCOMMITTEE WILL NOT PICK. WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS BEEN TASKED WITH DOING IS LOOK AT AT RESUMES AND WEED OUT THE ONES THAT ARE OBVIOUS, NOT GOOD CANDIDATES, AND BRING THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR CANDIDATES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE FULL CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE A DECISION. AND WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE? THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE? DID. WE DID. YEAH. NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER IF WE IF WE NAMED THAT IN PUBLIC. SO I'M SURE YOU DID. YOU DID BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS SHANE, JESS, TOM AND JESS HALL AND, AND ADAM BENEFIELD. YEAH. AND YEAH, IT WAS MENTIONED IN PUBLIC. YEAH.

THANKS. OKAY. SO NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. LINDA. SO WE CAN'T MEET TO DISCUSS ANYTHING. I MEAN, COULD, COULD WE USE IT AS A WORK SESSION? I GUESS THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK ACTING CHIEF ACTING CITY MANAGER JOY, IF WE CAN MEET TO HAVE A WORK SESSION, IF YOU WANT ME TO. AND THIS THIS WOULD BE A CONSENSUS DIRECTION TO ME AS LIAISON IF YOU WANT ME TO, IN MY MY LIAISON REPORT, I COULD BRING FORTH THE QUESTION OF IS THERE A WAY AND THIS WOULD BE A DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL TO HAVE WITH WITH THE ACTING CITY MANAGER AS A WAY FOR PLANNING AND ZONING TO HAVE A MEETING OR TWO THAT ARE WORKING SESSIONS THAT STILL ARE, YOU KNOW, PUBLISHED AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. CERTAINLY YOU CAN

[00:35:02]

RIGHT. AND I THINK IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO HOLD SOME MEETINGS MAYBE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, MAYBE SOMEBODY WHO'S A STAND IN, MAYBE MAYBE TAM. SO YEAH. AND I'LL, I'LL BE HAPPY TO BRING THAT UP WITH COUNCIL. AND I THINK THAT WILL BE SOMETHING FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO, TO ADVISE US ON AS WELL. BUT BECAUSE BECAUSE PLEASE BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT WE DO HAVE MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE WE MIGHT REQUEST THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE THERE. THEN HE COULD KEEP THE TRAIN ON THE TRACKS. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THANK

[IV. CONSENT AGENDA]

SO THAT IS THE MOTION. THE SAME ONE THAT WAS REQUESTED AT THE JULY MEETING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE REDONE THE WHAT IT WAS. I THINK WHAT I HEARD COUNCILOR PRINCE SAY WAS, WE NEED TO SPELL OUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, WHAT YOU THINK NEEDS TO BE IN IT, INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. IS THAT YEAH, I, I WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT WE PUT

[00:40:03]

THE JUNE MOTION. WHY CAN'T WE JUST HAVE HER MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THAT ONE SECTION TO THE WAY SHE WANTS IT, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE IT IN AND JUST CUT THE MONKEY IN THE MIDDLE OUT. YOU CERTAINLY YOU CERTAINLY CAN DO THAT. DO YOU KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO WRITE IT? I MEAN, LET'S LET'S JUST FIX IT AND GO ON. I'LL WRITE THE MOTION READS. OKAY, THE ITEM IS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF CHAPTER 14. FROM TIER ONE AND R1 S TO C2 AT 7600 LOMAS FORD ROAD. 0.1421 ACRE, TRACT A AND LOT 1873 TO 1874 LAGO VISTA ESTATES, MOVED BY LINDA AAD, SECONDED BY GENE HARRIS TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED, SUBJECT TO A SUCCESSFUL AMENDMENT OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY WITH A FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUESTED ZONING IN COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 14, SECTION 1320 D OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA ZONING CODE THAT READS THAT ONCE. IF. IF THE FLUME IS SUCCESSFULLY CHANGED, THAT THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS APPROVED. THAT'S HOW IT READS. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANTED. WE WANTED THEM TO GET A FLUME APPLICATION, A FLUME CHANGE HEARING, A FLUME CHANGE, HEARING AT P AND Z, AND THEN ONE AT COUNCIL, AND THEN TO FOLLOW ORDINANCE PROCEDURE TO GET A ZONING APPLICATION TO P AND D AND A ZONING APPLICATION TO COUNCIL. SO THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED SO THAT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT ONCE THAT FLUME CHANGE IS DONE, THAT WE HAVE APPROVED THE REZONING. OKAY. IF YOU CAN'T REWRITE IT RIGHT NOW, CAN YOU REWRITE IT AND THEN SUBMIT IT SO WE CAN HAVE THAT PHRASEOLOGY PUT IN TO THE MINUTES WHEN THEY COME BACK NEXT MEETING? MR. PRESIDENT. SO. I'M GOING TO.

LET ME MAKE AN ASSERTION AND WHICH THE STAFF WILL HAVE TO TELL ME IF I'M RIGHT OR NOT.

THE STAFF NORMALLY GOES BACK AND WATCHES MEETINGS. AND THE MOTION THAT THEY CAPTURED HERE MAY BE ACTUALLY WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE IN THE IN THE MEETING AND WHAT YOU VOTED ON. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WHAT WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT MEETING DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY. MISS HEARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CASE IS. WELL, WE DO HAVE A TRANSCRIPT.

AND SO THE TRANSCRIPT IS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S THE POINT TO AMENDING THE MINUTES CAN ONLY BE IF THE TRANSCRIPT SUPPORTS THE MOTION WITH DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE. YES. BECAUSE YOU ALL VOTED ON SOME MOTION. RIGHT. AND AND SO PERHAPS THE PERHAPS THE, THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT IS TO, TO GO BACK AND SOME OR ALL OF YOU LISTEN TO WHAT HAPPENED. AND, AND THAT GETS CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES. BUT YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T CHANGE A MOTION BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE YOU, YOU MEANT TO DO WAS, WAS NOT CONVEYED CORRECTLY. STAFF IS JUST TRYING TO DOCUMENT WHAT THEY HEARD. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THE MOTION WAS MADE ACCURATELY AND IT'S IN THE TRANSCRIPT. AND SO I WOULD LIKE THE PERSON WHO DOES THE MINUTES TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION FROM THE TRANSCRIPT. FROM THE TRANSCRIPT. OKAY. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I THINK THIS THIS MIGHT BE ANOTHER THING FOR US TO USE THE DISCUSSION BOARD TO.

ALL OF US NEED TO GO BACK AND FIND THAT TRANSCRIPT AND READ IT. AND. AND THEN I THINK YOU OR ME OR SOMEBODY WRITE UP. A FORMAL MOTION AND PUT THAT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD BASED ON

[00:45:10]

TRANSCRIPT. AND THEN I, I MEAN, OTHERWISE, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE VOTING ON THESE MINUTES AT CHRISTMAS, RIGHT? BUT WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE STAFF TO BE VERY PARTICULAR AND START WRITING THE MINUTES SO THAT THEY'RE ACCURATE BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS PROBLEM REPEATEDLY. OH, I AGREE, THEY NEED TO BE ACCURATE. OKAY. THE PROBLEM WITH THE MOTION FOR FIREFLY IN THE JULY MINUTES WAS THAT IT SAYS SOME OF THE HERE ARE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION WHERE SOME OF THESE THINGS. WELL, THE MOTION REALLY HAS TO BE EVERYTHING THAT WAS INCLUDED, NOT JUST SOME OF THE THINGS. HERE ARE SOME. IT HAS TO BE. SO THAT'S WHAT HAS TO BE. THAT'S WHAT HAS TO BE CHANGED IN IN THAT MOTION. AND THOSE MINUTES. SO SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. DID YOU VOLUNTEER TO DO THAT? SURE. OKAY. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE ACTION ITEMS? WE DON'T THINK WE FINISHED THE MOTION AND THE SECOND AND THE VOTE.

OKAY. DISCUSSION. ROB, CAN YOU WITHDRAW IT OR I THINK YOU CAN CHOOSE TO TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THESE MINUTES PENDING THE THE REQUESTED CORRECTION TO THE MOTIONS. AND, AND THEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CORRECTIONS MEETS YOUR MEETS YOUR NEEDS. OKAY.

YEAH. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THESE? YEAH. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA TO TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. YEAH. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TRANSCRIPTS CAN BE REVIEWED TO GET A MORE ACCURATE, DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MOTIONS MADE FOR CONSENT ITEMS. NUMBER ONE AND TWO. I SECOND IT, I SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY AGAINST. OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND. OKAY.

YES, SHE SHE VOTED IN FAVOR. SORRY, I WAS MUTED. YES. IN FAVOR? OKAY. SO THEN THE NEXT

[V.1. 26-2960-PDD-MOD: Consider, discuss, and take ac on on considera on and recommenda on of a PDD Modifica on 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.]

SO THEY'VE SUBMITTED EVERYTHING TO US. AGAIN STAFF IS DOING THE REVIEW AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I

[00:50:01]

THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT GO INTO THAT. AND SO AGAIN THE NOTICE IS POSSIBLE.

BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AS A WHOLE WAS OUR QUESTION. AND IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MOTION AT OUR LAST MEETING. WELL WOULD IT THEN BE A GOOD IDEA TO TO MAKE THAT MOTION AGAIN. SO WE WE CAN ONCE AGAIN VOTE ON IT AND HAVE CLARIFICATION ON IT. MADAM CHAIR, I, I PERSONALLY AM A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WHETHER DEMANDING NOTIFICATION IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON ORDINANCE AND BASED ON STATE LAW. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET, I THINK CERTAINLY THE COMMISSION CAN POINT OUT THEIR CONCERNS, BUT IT PROBABLY IS A GOOD QUESTION FOR ME TO TAKE BACK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO WHETHER THIS COMMISSION CAN REQUIRE A NOTIFICATION OF CITY STAFF IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH A DISCUSSION ON A TOPIC. OKAY. THEN WHAT WE COULD SAY IS WE ARE WE WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THE CITY ORDINANCES THAT APPLY, BE BE FULFILLED. THE, THE IF YOU DON'T WANT US TO SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT THE NOTIFICATIONS WERE NOT DONE PROPERLY, THEN WE CAN JUST SAY, WE WILL EXPECT TO SEE THAT ALL OF THE CITY CODE AND STATE CODE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, AND THAT IS TO INCLUDE PROPER NOTIFICATION. MA'AM, I THINK THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE PLACING DEMANDS ON STAFF IS MY CONCERN HERE. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXPRESS YOUR CONCERN AND YOUR YOUR YOUR BELIEF THAT SOME ORDINANCES WERE NOT MET. WHETHER YOU CAN REQUIRE STAFF TO MEET SOME SPECIFICS AND REPUBLISH, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO, TO WEIGH IN ON. BUT IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL HERE, AND WE CAN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. WELL, THE NOTIFICATION WAS KIND OF A IT WAS REALLY LIKE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT ANYTHING THAT IS A CHANGE TO THE PDE, THAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT THAT MUST BE AMENDED IN THE PDE. AND SO, OF COURSE, THE NOTIFICATION AMENDMENT MUST NOTICE TO THE PEOPLE WHAT IS BEING CHANGED. SO THAT'S IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT THAT ANY ITEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST THAT'S BEING CHANGED IN THE PDE SHOULD BE NOTICED TO THE PUBLIC. AND SO I IT MAY

[00:55:09]

[01:00:01]

[01:05:01]

YOU'RE BEING, YOU'RE BEING NOTIFIED AS A COURTESY AND YES, WE'LL LISTEN AND WE'LL. BUT OUR ULTIMATE DECISION SHOULD BE TO BENEFIT LAGO VISTA. AND NOT ONLY THAT, KNOWING THAT LAGO VISTA, BUT THE TAX ROLLS, ETCETERA, THAT WILL BENEFIT LAGO VISTA. AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT I THINK WE HAVEN'T BEEN FOCUSING ON. WE NEED TO START FOCUSING ON THE BIG PICTURE AND JUST SEE WHAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT LAGO VISTA. IF THEY WANT TO GET ANNEXED AT A FUTURE DATE, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO OR MAYBE NOT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO START FOCUSING ON LAGO VISTA AND LESS ON THE PERIPHERAL. WELL, ERICA, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING THAT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, AND THAT'S WHY I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE PUBLICATION THAT'S IN THE NEWSPAPER BE VERY SPECIFIC SO THAT ALL THE LAGO VISTA CAN KNOW WHAT IS BEING AMENDED ON THIS PAD, SO THAT ALL THE LAGO VISTA WILL KNOW THAT WHAT WAS PRIVATE WAS WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE TO BE KEPT PRIVATE WILL NOW BECOME PUBLIC IF IT'S AMENDED THIS WAY. AND SO I VERY MUCH WANT ALL OF THE CITY PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR INPUT, AND I WANT THEM TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE PUBLICATION, PARTICULARLY TO BE VERY SPECIFIC, TO LET LAGO VISTA KNOW SO THAT THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO COME TO THE HEARING AND SAY, DO THEY WANT THIS OPEN OR CLOSED OR WHATEVER, SO THAT THE WHOLE AMENDMENT IS CONSIDERED BY LAGO VISTA? OKAY. WELL, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS A NEW ISSUE, I'D AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I THINK IT'S HARD TO FIND SOMEBODY IN LAGO VISTA WHO DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FIREFLY. I KEEP FORGETTING THE NAME, SO I APOLOGIZE. YOU KNOW, I JUST LIKE I SAID, I JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A POINT WHERE. AND AGAIN, NOTHING AGAINST THE COMMISSION OR THE CITY OR WE NEED TO START. I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD BLINDERS. OKAY.

BUT I THINK THERE'S BEEN VERY VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS FROM EVEN BEFORE I BECAME A COMMISSIONER CONCERNING FIREFLY. AND I THINK WE'RE JUST FEEDING. I MEAN, I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF A NEW MAILOUT OR ADVERTISEMENT WILL ACTUALLY GENERATE THE KIND OF INTEREST THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

MY GUT FEELING IS THAT IT'S NOT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S NOT A NEW ISSUE. IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. SO UNLESS. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THIS DISCUSSION IS GOING, WHY YOU'RE I'M I'M NOT QUESTIONING YOUR CONCERNS. I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS LEADING TO REGARDING THIS ITEM? BECAUSE THIS ITEM CAN'T BE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT, WHICH I THINK IS KIND OF WHERE YOU'RE GOING. IT'S GETTING PUT OFF. BUT IF STAFF ISN'T READY TO GIVE US WHAT WE NEED TO, TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION, THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT BEING DISCUSSED. WELL, NO, I GUESS I'M TALKING MORE ABOUT THE. COPS OR THE ADVERTISING, THE NOTIFICATIONS. THAT'S BASICALLY IT. YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I VOTED AGAINST NOTIFYING EVERYBODY ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE THAT ADDS ANOTHER EXTRA LAYER OF CALL IT BUREAUCRACY, I THINK. YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S MY POINT. YOU KNOW, LET'S EXPEDITE THIS. EVERYBODY WHO'S SHOULD KNOW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, YEARS AGO, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IF WE'RE. VISIT THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATIONS. OKAY.

THE THINGS THAT NEED THAT ARE CHANGING THE THINGS THAT ARE CHANGING WERE JUST WERE JUST CHANGED IN THE. WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS WE ARE AMENDING THE PDD TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE WITH LAST YEAR'S MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT. SO THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT MADE SOME CHANGES THAT NOW HAVE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO AN AMENDMENT TO THE P, D D ORDINANCES TO AMEND A, P, D, D REQUIRE NOTIFICATIONS AND TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, ONE HERE AND ONE AT COUNCIL. SO EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE MAY BE AWARE OF WHAT WAS IN THE MUD CONSENT AGREEMENT, WE ARE NOW AMENDING THE P, D, D AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PDD ORDINANCES REGARDING AMENDING DEEDS. AND THEY REQUIRE NOTIFICATIONS. AND SO THE NOTIFICATIONS NEED TO BE SPECIFIC BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT ARE WE AMENDING. SO IT'S NOT REALLY IT'S REALLY NOT UP TO US. WE'RE NOT MAKING THIS REQUIREMENT. WE'RE JUST COMPLYING WITH THE P, D, D AMENDING REQUIREMENTS. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION IS DOING. IT'S JUST A COMPLIANCE WITH HOW YOU HOW YOU GO ABOUT AMENDING A P, D, D, HOW YOU GO ABOUT HAVING THE TWO

[01:10:07]

YES. THE DEVELOPER HAS THOSE EASEMENT RIGHTS AND WE HAVE THEY'RE RECORDED. SO WE ALL HAVE THE EASEMENT. WE ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THE EASEMENT RIGHTS. NO, I'M SAYING THE ACTUAL THE PEOPLE AT DRAPER'S COVE THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED, NOT THE DEVELOPER, THE PEOPLE IN DRAPER'S COVE HAVE ACCESS TO THEM, THE DEVELOPER, EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE RECORDED. RIGHT. SO I GUESS, BUT SO THERE'S NO MYSTERY OF WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN'T. THERE IS DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THIS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE IT. AND, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHY I SAID IF YOU KNOW, IF IT STAYS PRIVATE, THERE'S NO NOTIFICATION BECAUSE IT'S THERE'S NO REAL CHANGE HAPPENING TO THE PROPERTY. THE SAME PEOPLE STILL HAVE THE RIGHTS TO IT, BUT NOT THE PUBLIC. BUT AND IF THEY MAKE THAT FIVE AND A HALF OR THAT 12.5 ACRE PARK PUBLIC, I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY IMPACT. I'M NOT THAT SAVVY ON THE AREA, BUT MY BIG CONCERN IS THAT COOPER LANE, IF WHEN YOU'RE TAKING IT FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE, THERE'S SOME STUFF WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO PUT THE WHOLE 281 ACRES BACK UP. NO, NO. THESE ARE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. WE JUST GOT TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCES AND WORK OUR WAY OUT. OKAY. BUT YEAH, I MEAN, KEEP IT SIMPLE. WELL, THAT'S MY WHOLE AMBITION, MR. COSTA. FIREFLY COVE. I AM PERSONALLY DEEP INTO THESE.

THAT'S HOW MANY PAPER IT TAKES. THERE ARE 60, 66 PARCELS DOWN THERE THAT ARE THAT ARE NOT OURS. THEY'RE AND THEY'RE NOT THEY WERE DONE A LONG TIME AGO. WE DIDN'T GET A LOT. YOU GOT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION. SO EVERY ONE OF THOSE IS 4 OR 5 PAGES. I'M RIGHT ABOUT 40 PRINTING THOSE, GOING THROUGH THEM ALL. AND WE'LL MAKE THAT AVAILABLE TO YOU PROBABLY IN THREE WEEKS.

AND I WILL I WILL LIST ALL THE PARCELS, HOW MANY THERE ARE RIGHT NOW. I, I'VE LOOKED AT AT LEAST 40 AND NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY ARE ■EXCLUSIVE. THEY'RE ALL NON-EXCLUSIVE. VINCENT HAD THE RIGHT FOR US NOW TO GO IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO CHANGE THE USE HERE. I WANT TO CHANGE THE USE THERE. IT'S CLEAR IN THE BILL THERE'S THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO, ONE OF WHICH IS NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, WHICH I DON'T REALLY LIKE. BUT ANYWAY, I WILL HAVE

[01:15:07]

AND WE'VE MET ONCE IN A TOWN HALL WITH ALL OF THOSE RESIDENTS. NORMA AND ADAM BOTH ATTENDED THAT, AND WE HAD GOOD ATTENDANCE FROM THEM AND JUST WENT THROUGH WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WHERE THEY WANTED TO BE RELATIVE TO. IF YOU WANT TO BE IN THE MUD, THEN WE CAN GET WATER AND SEWER HERE. DEFINITIVE. THEY LIKE WHO THEY ARE AND I DON'T. IT'S FINE.

IT'S GOOD. BUT NO, THEY LOVE WATER AND WE'LL PAY FOR IT. THEY LOVE SEWER. THEY DON'T WANT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE MUD. THE MUD RAISES THEIR TAXES. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR ANYTHING. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM, AT LEAST MOST OF THEM. AND THERE WERE A COUPLE COUNCIL PEOPLE THERE WHO VERIFIED THAT WE WERE. WE ALSO SAID, WELL, YOU COULD JOIN THE HOA AND, YOU KNOW, GET ON SOME OF THE PRIVATE STUFF IF YOU WANT, BUT NO INTEREST. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME, AND IT KIND OF PERTAINS TO THIS, THAT I REALLY WANT TO BE SURE THAT DOES GET DONE IN THE, IN THE FINAL PRESENTATION THAT YOU MAKE IS THE IDENTIFICATION OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE OWNED BY THE MUD AND EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE OWNED BY THE HOA, NOT SOMETHING THAT SAYS IT'LL EITHER BE OWNED BY THE MUD OR THE HOA, BUT TO HAVE THAT ACTUALLY DEFINED, WHO'S GOING TO OWN IT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL OF IS THAT WE KNOW WHO THE OWNER IS GOING TO BE, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO COME. WE DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT LATER ON THAT WILL THE CITY WILL TAKE OWNERSHIP OF ANYTHING BECAUSE IF THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF ANYTHING, WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT APPROVED THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO WORK IT OUT BEFORE YOU COME BACK. LIKE, WHO EXACTLY IS GOING TO OWN WHAT SO THAT LATER ON, IF THERE'S A CHANGE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH PNC AND COUNCIL. I WOULD DOUBLE CHECK, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT MY AGREEMENT THE CITY AGREED TO. I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THE STORM, THEY WANT TO OWN THE SYSTEM, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN IT. THAT'S US. SO IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT CLEAR. IT'S IT'S CLEAR, BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS OH, THE HOA WILL OWN THEM. WE WILL PUT IN THE WATER AND SEWER LINES AND BUT THE CITY OWNS IT AND THE CITY WANTS THE REVENUE OFF AND THAT'S BUT BUT JUST BUT JUST BE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS ON THE ON THE EXHIBIT. PICKLEBALL COURTS OWNED BY MUD OR HOA, IDENTIFY WHO WILL BE THE OWNER. IT'S GOING TO BE HOA. WITH EIGHT OF THE TEN. ALLOWING PUBLIC AND PUBLIC IS EXPRESSED BY ALL THOSE COUNCIL PEOPLE AS A LOT OF DISTANCE IN THEIR WORDS IN THE HEARING. LISTEN TO ME. WELL, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE FROM JOHNSTOWN COMING DOWN HERE. SO WHAT WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCESS SYSTEM. IT'S FAIRLY EASY THESE DAYS. YOU KNOW, YOUR QR CODE AND WE GET YOUR ADDRESS, GO ON IN AND USE IT. BUT WE WANT WITH A COURTS WE NEED PEOPLE OUT OF IT. WITH 325 HOUSES, THEY'LL NEVER FILL THEM UP. OKAY. SO MR. GAZDA ON THE ON THE JULY, ON THE JULY 28TH PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED IT WHERE THE AMENITIES ARE, IT SAYS AMENITIES, AREAS OWNED AND

[01:20:06]

AND YOU CAN GO TO IT AND I'LL JUST CREATE A TABLE. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. AND THAT THAT'LL BRING EVERYTHING TO BALANCE AND. YOUR PREFERENCE. WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE PRIVATE OR PUBLIC IN THE LONG RUN, IF YOU HAD A IF YOU WERE KING FOR A DAY. THE ANSWERS, THE ANSWERS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE ANSWER IS BOTH. I MEAN, I'M NOT BEING. WE HAVE A SWIMMING POOL. WE HAVE A SWIMMING POOL PLAN. WE'RE DOING SOME. WE'RE LOOKING AT USAGE AND DETERMINE WHAT SIZE. ONE. WE DON'T HAVE GAS HERE. GAS IS VERY EXPENSIVE. THEY'RE NOT HEATING THAT POOL FOR. IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE EMPTY FOR 4 OR 5 MONTHS A YEAR. I MEAN, I LIVE WITH MY YOU KNOW, I CAN USE MY POOL, UP TO FIVE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. SIX IF YOU WANT TO, BUT WE'LL SO THERE'S PLACES LIKE THAT WHERE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THOSE FROM LAGO VISTA THAT ARE USING THAT. SO WE'RE DESIGNING IT FOR THE USAGE. WE THINK IT WILL BE IN THERE, BUT ALL THE STUFF. AND THAT WAS ALL AGREED TO IN THE MUD THAT THE CITY WANTED ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. THEY WANTED THE PICKLEBALL COURTS.

THEY WANTED ACCESS TO THE TRAILS, ALL OF WHICH WE LIKE. IT'S MORE PEOPLE. SO, I MEAN, IT'S A BAD ANSWER TO SAY, OH, IT DIDN'T ANSWER. GOOD QUESTION. BUT IT'S BOTH, I MEAN, AND THE TRAILS. I, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PLACES WHERE I THINK THE CITY WANTED TO OWN IT AND YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT. AND I HAVE TO GO BACK AND, AND GET IT ALL DOWN AND GET IT. ALL RIGHT. I JUST KNOW THERE ARE PLACES THERE WHERE THE CITIES CAN OWN IT, BUT ALL THE COST IS GOING TO COME BACK TO THE OF THE MONTH, AND THE CITY WOULD MAINTAIN IT. NO, NO, LIKE THE LIKE THE TRAILS THEY WANT US TO DO. OH, SO, YOU KNOW, SO OKAY, SO THE THING MAY I ASSIST? I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I JUST DIDN'T I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU ASKED IF YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. OKAY. HI, THIS IS LACEY WITH MCCLAIN AND HOWARD REPRESENT FIREFLY. ALL OF THE PUBLIC PARKLANDS WILL BE OWNED BY THE MUD. THERE MAY BE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE HOA FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES, BUT ALL OF THE PUBLIC HAS TO BE OWNED BY THE MUD IN ORDER FOR THE MUD TO GET REIMBURSEMENTS FOR THEM. SO ALL PUBLIC PARKLAND WILL BE OWNED BY THE MUD. THE PRIVATE PARKLAND WILL HAVE TO BE OWNED BY THE HOA, AND IT WILL BE INDICATED ON THE UPDATED LAND PLAN THAT COMES BEFORE YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING, WHEN THE NEXT MEETING HAPPENS. AND WE WILL WE FULLY INTEND TO COMPLY WITH THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE AT THE LAST MEETING. OKAY, OKAY.

THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S GREAT. SO THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE COMPLETE. IT WILL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WHO OWNS WHAT SO THAT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE LAGO VISTA, WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE AT THE DETAILED PLAN, THEY'LL THEY'LL KNOW WHO OWNS WHAT. AND THEY CAN MAKE THEIR INPUT BASED ON WHAT THE PLAN IS. THE PLAN WILL COMPLY WITH THE WITH THE CODE AND THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE CONFUSED? NO.

YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT TAKING ANY ACTION ON. SO THERE IS NO MOTION TO BE MADE BECAUSE IT'S IT'S GOING TO COME BACK WHEN WHEN STAFF NOTIFIES P AND Z THAT THE APPLICANT IS READY, THEN WE WILL RESCHEDULE.

MADAM CHAIR, A MOTION HAS TO BE MADE TO RETABLE IT. SO MOTION WAS BRING IT BACK ON THIS MEETING. SO NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO MOVE IT TO A FUTURE DATE. IT CAN BE REGULAR SCHEDULED OCTOBER MEETING. IT CAN BE YOU KNOW, AFTER THINGS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I THINK

[01:25:03]

WE'RE JUST WAITING ON THE STAFF TO EVALUATE THE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE SUPPLIED THEM. SO I THINK THAT'S THE MOTION THAT WHEN THE. WELL, SO SHE'S GOING TO BE READY SOMETIME AROUND OCTOBER, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. WELL. SO STAFF HAS TO MAKE COMMENTS ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHATEVER THOSE COMMENTS ARE, SMALL, BIG, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IF THERE ARE ANY. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE A FINISHED FINAL DRAFT. SO WE'LL SET IT FOR OCTOBER. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE Y'ALL ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DEADLINE AT THAT POINT. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO NOVEMBER. MY SUGGESTION IS IF WE COULD SIMPLIFY THIS, TO JUST MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE IT TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. PERFECT. AND IF THAT IF THAT HAPPENS IN SEPTEMBER, THEN IT'LL BE ON THE AGENDA AND YOU MAY HAVE TO TABLE IT AGAIN BECAUSE STAFF HASN'T FINISHED.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN SEPTEMBER. THAT'S OCTOBER IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

BUT BUT WE WERE JUST TOLD WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SEPTEMBER MEETING. I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M SUGGESTING REMOVE THE MONTH, REMOVE THE DATE. JUST REGULAR MOTION. OKAY? OKAY. PLANNING AND ZONING SESSION. I MOVE THAT THIS BE MOVED UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

SECOND YOU SECOND IT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, OKAY. ANY AYES? ANY NAYS? NO NAYS. AND THEN IT'S UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND

[V.2. Consider, discuss, and take possible ac on on a referral from the City Council on possible subdivision regula ons draMed by previous Council Member Rob Durbin.]

AS FAR AS COMMENTS, I. I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR. WHAT WE DID FIND FROM PREVIOUS FILES ARE THE RED LINES THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S NO RED FLAGS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF APPROVAL EXPIRATIONS, WE NEED TO. I WOULD RECOMMEND GETTING LEGAL'S INPUT ON IT. SOME. SOME HAVE STATUTORY GUIDELINES AND SOME DON'T. AND SO GETTING SOME CLARITY ON THAT. BUT THERE WASN'T A LOT OF INFORMATION WITHIN THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORTS THAT WE FOUND. AND SO AS FAR AS A HISTORY OF IT, I'M NOT SURE ON THAT FRONT. AGAIN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, NO MAJOR QUALMS ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES. AND THEN INCLUDED IN THE PACKET IS ALSO THE MOST UP TO DATE. CHAPTER TEN JUST FOR HARD COPY REVIEW. SINCE WE'VE GOTTEN OUR CODIFICATION CAUGHT UP TO DATE, AND SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THIS ONE WAS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE MY TIME, AND SO I DON'T HAVE MUCH OF THE HISTORY REGARDING THE CODIFICATION THAT WAS PUT IN THE PACKET, THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO RED LINE OF THAT TO SEE HOW IT COMPARES TO THE EXISTING APPROVED CODE, THE. SO STARTING AT PAGE 116 OF THE PACKET, THAT IS OUR ADOPTED CODE TODAY, FULLY CODIFIED ONLINE. AND SO THERE WOULDN'T BE RED LINES PAGES. IT IS. 110 TO 115 OR WHAT. THE CHANGES FROM MR. DURBIN WERE PROPOSED. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT AN UPDATED COPY OF ALL OF CHAPTER TEN WAS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE RED LINES.

[01:30:02]

DID ANYBODY EVER CHECK TO SEE THAT THEY WERE IDENTICAL? SO IF YOU RECALL BACK IN FEBRUARY, APRIL, MARCH, TIME FRAME, OUR CODIFIERS WERE TASKED WITH GOING THROUGH ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES FROM 2023 TO 2026 AND UPDATING. THIS IS THAT VERSION OF OUR CODIFIERS GOING BACK AND MAKING SURE OUR ORDINANCES REFLECT WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE MADE AS. AND SO I THINK WE'VE FINISHED THAT PROCESS IN MAY, ROUNDABOUT TIME FRAME. AND SO AGAIN, 116 TO THE END OF THE PACKET IS THAT IT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH TODAY. GIVEN THAT MR. DURBIN'S COMMENTS AND RED LINES WERE I WAS UNAWARE OF WHEN THOSE WERE PULLED FROM MUNI CODE, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT AN UPDATED COPY OF THE CODES, AS IS TODAY, ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR DISCUSSION, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE A CHANGE PER SE. WHAT? WHAT? I WAS JUST WONDERING IF ONCE ALL THOSE CODIFIERS DID THEIR WORK, IF ANYBODY EVER CHECKED THE ACCURACY OF WHAT THE CODIFIERS DID TO BE CERTAIN THAT THE UPDATED CODE MATCHED THE EXISTING CODE, OR IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY CHANGES, INADVERTENT CHANGES THAT WOULD THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR CODE. SO WHEN THE CODIFIERS GO IN TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, THEY TAKE THE ORDINANCES WORD FOR WORD TYPICALLY, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY INCLUDE RED LINES AND THEY TRANSFER THOSE OVER. IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS OR THINGS THAT MAY NEED CLARIFICATION.

BOTH ROBIN, CHARLES AND MYSELF GOT THOSE EMAILS ASKING FOR THOSE THINGS. SOMETIMES WE HAD TO DO SOME RESEARCH. SOMETIMES WE HAD TO GO BACK THROUGH NOTES AND WATCH MEETINGS. THEY DO LOOK THROUGH THOSE THINGS TO TO VERIFY, BUT THEY CAN ONLY CODIFY AN ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.

AND SO IF THE ORDINANCE WASN'T CLEAR OR IF BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE EXCEPTIONS AND SETBACKS, RIGHT? WHEN SOMETHING WAS MOVED, STUFF WAS LEFT OUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN OR THE RED LINE WAS COMPLETED AND SENT TO THE CODIFIERS. THIS SPECIFIC SECTION, I DON'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF ANYTHING WAS FLAGGED, BUT I WILL SAY THERE WERE MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF REVIEW WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE LOOKING AT WHAT WAS BEING CHANGED. OKAY, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? I KNOW THAT WHEN MR. DURBIN DID THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THAT I HAD ACCEPTED EVERYTHING THAT HE DID, I THOUGHT THAT WHAT HE DID WAS GOOD, BUT I ALSO ADDED ON TO IT. I MADE IT, I, I PUT IT ON AND I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND WHAT I ADDED ON. AND SO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO. BEFORE WE FORMALLY. TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL THAT THEY ADOPT THIS, THAT I. IF YOU WOULD BEAR WITH ME AND GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO LOOK FOR MY CHANGES OR GIVE ME TIME TO REDO THEM AND PRESENT THEM TO YOU. SO I WOULD LIKE TO NOT DEAL WITH THIS TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS FOR TODAY. CAN YOU PUT THOSE INTO THE DISCUSSION BOARD? YES, YES I COULD. I WILL BE HAPPY TO AS SOON AS I FIND THEM OR REWRITE THEM. SO DO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS. SO MOVED. OH SORRY. MR. OH MR. ROBERTS YES. WHEN YOU WHEN YOU OPEN UP, OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK, IF YOU PLEASE. OH, OKAY. I CAN

[01:35:01]

ENSURING THAT THE ORDINANCE COUNCIL ADOPTED IS THE ORDINANCE EVERYONE ACTUALLY FOLLOWS. THANK YOU. I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BUT I CAN ONLY LISTEN AND COMPREHEND AND PROCESS AT A CERTAIN PACE. AND TO SAY I UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST READ AS I CAN'T DO THAT, I, I DIDN'T, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER.

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU EMAILED TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. AND SINCE YOU'RE NOT ACTING SINCE IF YOU'RE NOT ACTING ON IT TONIGHT, YOU GUYS CAN READ WHAT I EMAILED EACH OF YOU AND FURTHER PROCESSING. OKAY. AND THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING. SO I GUESS THIS WAS SENT OUT LATER THIS AFTERNOON. AND I DON'T HAVE MY I BROKE ONE OF MY OWN RULES. I WAITED UNTIL LIKE AN HOUR BEFORE I GOT TO THIS, ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE YOUR MEETING. AND I WAS LIKE, I'D RATHER SEND SOMETHING THAN NOTHING. AND I'D RATHER YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO REFERENCE AFTER THE MEETING, EVEN THOUGH I'VE SPOKEN SUCH AS I HAVE HERE TODAY, IT. IT. SOME THE COMMENTS ARE BASICALLY SAYING THIS WHAT WHAT THEIR BEEN PROPOSED IS VERY GOOD. IT MAKES SENSE. THERE'S ON PAGES 114 AND 115 OF YOUR PACKET. THERE'S SOME ARTIFACTS THAT GOT CARRIED IN THAT ONLY THE COMPUTERS SHALL WE SAY PICKED UP ON THAT. THERE WERE NO NEITHER URBAN NOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REDLINED. I THINK IT WAS NUMBERED AS NUMBER TEN AT THE BOTTOM OF 114. THAT'S AN ARTIFACT THAT DOESN'T BELONG THERE. SO IN MY COMMENTS, I MADE REFERENCE TO YOU DIRECTING STAFF TO CLEAN THAT UP. THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, IS SOMETHING THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT DIDN'T BELONG AND WAS JUST A COMPUTER ERROR. AND SO ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO BE

[01:40:04]