Apr 08, 2026 Planning & Zoning Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:13]

CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE AGENDA TO AMEND THE AGENDA AND MOVE AGENDA ITEM 11 A ONE UP TO THIS POINT IN THE MEETING. YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION IN THE SYSTEM. YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION IN THE SYSTEM. IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. OKAY. EASIER SAID THAN DONE. IT'S NOT WORKING. OKAY. THE LITTLE BROWN BUTTON HERE. OKAY. IT'S GREAT. OUT. CAN YOU DO IT NOW? THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. THERE WE GO. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO AMEND THE AGENDA AND MOVE UP 11 A ONE. GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE. THAT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. SO WE WILL CONTINUE

[a. Planning and Zoning Commission Rules of Procedure]

CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION. RULES OF PROCEDURES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THIS ITEM IS THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU ARE SEEING THE AMENDMENT TO YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. THE ONLY CHANGE FROM LAST MONTH'S CONSIDERATION IS THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE TO MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION. SO THE VERSION OF THE DRAFT THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU RETAINS THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION PRETTY MUCH AS IS. IT STILL DOES REMOVE THE TEN MINUTE TIME LIMIT, BUT ALLOWS FOR THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS, NOT OR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO THAT LANGUAGE, IS THERE ONE ADDITIONAL CHANGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IS NOT REFLECTED? IS THE CHANGE ON YOUR YOUR ELECTION OF OFFICERS TO ADD THAT YOUR ELECTION OF OFFICERS, WHEN SELECTED, THAT THOSE OFFICERS WOULD START THE MEETING FOLLOWING. SO IF LIKE TONIGHT'S MEETING, YOU'RE GOING TO SELECT OFFICERS. SO THOSE NEW OFFICERS, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO SHUFFLES AND, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GET EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED, WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS TO PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT THAT WOULD TAKE EFFECT. ON THE FOLLOWING MEETING FOLLOWING THE ELECTION. AND THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WE HAVE FROM WHAT'S PRESENTED. OKAY. YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT OR WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT IT. DO WE NEED TO MAKE THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT? WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO MAKE THE MOTION TO INCLUDE IT. AND YES, IT WOULD BE IN THE SECTION UNDER 102, SECTION 102, AND PROBABLY THE LAST SENTENCE IN THAT SECTION THAT UPON SELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS, THE NEW OFFICERS WOULD TAKE EFFECT. THE MEETING FOLLOWING THE ELECTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? STAFF? I HAVE ONE THE TEN MINUTE LIMIT. ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY THAT WAS REMOVED? JUST TO CORRELATE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S RULES AS WELL, OR THEIR AGENDA POSTINGS AS WELL. AND THEN IN LINE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. OKAY. SO NOW SO WE CAN'T WE CAN'T LIMIT THE SUBJECT TO THE TIME PERIOD THAT WE. MATT, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT ONE? THE LIMITATION ON THE TIME LIMIT TO TEN MINUTES. IF THERE'S AN INTEREST. EITHER WAY, THIS COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO EITHER LEAVE THE LIMIT PER SUBJECT OR TO REMOVE IT, AND I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REMOVE IT SO THAT IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. I'M NOT SURE OUR CARRIAGE. EITHER WAY, I WAS JUST CURIOUS THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, I SAW THE MINUTES ABOUT PUTTING IT BACK IN, BUT THEN I SAW THAT PARTICULAR PART TAKEN OUT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS.

YEAH. ANY ANY COMMENT, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE. EVERYBODY HAPPY WITH THE THE THE SO SO COUNCIL HAS IT IN. NO THEY DON'T, THEY HAVE IT OUT ALSO. OKAY. AND YOU WANT TO WE'RE MATCHING. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION. MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

SO THE MOTION IS TO AMEND SECTION 102 TO INCLUDE A SENTENCE THAT SAYS THAT THE ELECTED OFFICERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WILL ASSUME THEIR ROLES AT THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THEIR ELECTION, AND THAT WE'RE ONE TO APPROVE THESE CHANGES OVERALL.

ALSO, MAKE A MOTION THAT INCLUDED IN THAT MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANGUAGE AS

[00:05:01]

[a. Consider electing a Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary.]

WE'LL HAVE TO DO THOSE MOTIONS MANUALLY. OKAY. THE THREE. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF CHAIR? I HAVE ONE I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE REGGIE PEARSON. CHAIR. OKAY, I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? OKAY. I WOULD NOMINATE TIM HANEY, CHAIRMAN, IF I WOULD, IF I MAY SEPARATE HIM. LET'S VOTE ON THE FIRST ONE. SO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER PEARSON AS CHAIR. WE'LL VOTE ON THAT. IF IT PASSES, IT PASSES. IF IT FAILS, THEN WE CAN CONSIDER A NEW MOTION FOR CHAIR.

OKAY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN. SO WE'RE DOING THIS MANUALLY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO NOMINATE TO ELECT COMMISSIONER PEARSON AS THE CHAIR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WELL, I GUESS WE HAVE TO RAISE OUR HANDS, RIGHT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO. OPEN NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF VICE CHAIR. IS THERE ANY NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR? NOMINATE TIM HANEY FOR VICE CHAIR. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A NOMINATION AND A AND A SECOND MOTION AND SECOND FOR POSITION OF VICE CHAIR. GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOUR PLACE YOUR VOTES, PLEASE. FOR. OKAY, OKAY. THAT MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. AND THEN OPEN FOR NOMINATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF SECRETARY. I'LL MAKE A NOMINATION FOR SECRETARY FOR. I SECOND THAT EMOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, FOR THE POSITION OF SECRETARY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[4. READING OF MINUTES]

APPROVE THE SPECIAL AND REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 11TH.

AND COMMISSIONERS, I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DID RECEIVE EDITS TO THE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED, AND WE WILL MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. AND THOSE EDITS REFLECTED COMMISSIONER NAMES, AS IN CERTAIN POSITIONS. AND SO I'LL HAVE VANESSA READ OFF THOSE EDITS. AND THEN IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO. WELL, WE NEED TO MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT IN THE MINUTES. AND SO FOR THE EDITS IN THE MINUTES, IS THE TITLES TO BE CHANGED FOR JAMES FROM VICE CHAIR TO COMMISSIONER. THE EDITS IN THE MINUTES IS THE TITLE CHANGE FOR JAMES DAVIDSON. IT'S LISTED AS VICE CHAIR, SO WE'LL CHANGE IT TO COMMISSIONER. AND JUST TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND, WHAT HAPPENED IS IS THE SEAT THAT COMMISSIONER DAVIDSON WAS PUT INTO IN THE SYSTEM WAS STILL TIED TO THE PREVIOUS VICE CHAIR. SO THAT POSITION TITLE WAS NOT REMOVED. SO THAT WILL BE CORRECTED IN THE SYSTEM. AND FOR OUR MINUTES IT NEEDS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT. AND SO WE WILL. SO LET'S GET THAT OFF TO. IT WAS ON WHERE IT WAS ON ONE OF THE PLOTS. LET'S GET RID OF THAT. SO MOVED. OKAY, SO EVERYBODY CLEAR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE WE'RE BACK ON THE SYSTEM HERE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE

[00:10:03]

COMMISSIONER BOLDEN, WE'RE MISSING. THANK YOU. OH, SORRY. I WENT TOO FAST. IT CLEARED.

ALL RIGHT I DIDN'T I'M ASSUMING MOTION CARRIED. YES. SORRY. I MOVED TOO FAST. TOO FAST. ALL

[a. Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission]

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. WELL, GOOD EVENING

[a. Development Services]

[b. Engineering]

OKAY, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON AGENDA ITEMS OR CONCERNS, NOT ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY

[a. CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:15:14]

[b. Ayesha Mosque]

I'M NOT SURE I'M SAYING THAT RIGHT. AISHA. MOSQUE. HELLO. SO THIS PLAT WAS ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED FOR DISAPPROVAL. HOWEVER, AS OF YESTERDAY, THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED EVERY CONDITION AND STAFF IS NOW RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND YOU SHOULD FIND UPDATED STAFF REPORTS PASSED OUT. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM. I GUESS I JUST HAVE A KIND OF MORE ABOUT THE SAUSAGE MAKING, BUT HOW DOES IT COME BEFORE US? OR IT GETS IN THE PACKAGE A WEEK AGO AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE STUFF THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, AND NOW THEY HAVE.

CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE INSIGHT ABOUT WHAT HOLDS THAT UP? IT WAS JUST A LOT OF REVISIONS. IT TOOK A FEW TRIES BASICALLY, AND THEY FINALLY JUST GOT IT RIGHT. SO I GUESS HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW IT GETS IN THERE, KNOWING IT'S DOES IT INTENTIONALLY GET PUT IN WITH A DISAPPROVE RECOMMENDATION UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FIX EVERYTHING BY THE TIME THE MEETING HAPPENS? OR HOW DOES HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO NO, SO YOUR APPLICATION SCHEDULE HAS DEADLINES. YEAH. AND SO THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN BY THOSE DEADLINES IS WHAT'S EVALUATED. AND WHAT'S A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE ON IN THIS CASE, THE CONDITIONS ON THAT PLAQUE WERE RELATIVELY MINOR. IF THIS PLAT IS DISAPPROVED, IT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICANT SUBMITTING A NEW APPLICATION PAYING NEW FEES. SO STAFF TECHNICALLY RECEIVED THIS APPLICATION AND HAVE AND THEY HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE COMMENTS. AND BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAD NOT ACTED, STAFF IS PRESENTING THAT AS AN OPTION THAT THE COMMISSION CAN APPROVE.

NOW, THE COMMISSION CAN ALSO DISAPPROVE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEADLINE. BUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS PLOT. THANKS.

WHAT WERE SOME OF THE. YOU CAN TREAT? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO IN DEPTH, BUT WHAT WERE SOME OF THE ISSUES TO REFRESH MY MEMORY. MOSTLY FORM AND CONTENTS ISSUES WITH LIKE THE NOTES, SETBACKS, MINOR THINGS SO MATERIALLY WITH THE STRUCTURE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. IT WAS IN LINE WITH WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO. IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING CODES AND ORDINANCES. SO BASICALLY, IF WE DON'T IF WE DIDN'T BY CHANCE APPROVE IT TONIGHT, IT WOULD JUST BE ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH. SO BY THE WAY, YEAH, BECAUSE THE, THE REPORT THAT WE GOT HAD ALL THE DEFICIENCIES IN IT AND THEY WERE LIKE THEY SAID THEY WERE FORMATTING AND IT'S JUST, YEAH, IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEY HADN'T DONE A PLAT FOR THE CITY BEFORE AND DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO ALL THESE THINGS. AND, AND I GUESS WE'VE GOT BACK TO THEM AND SAID, HERE'S ALL THIS NEED TO FIX.

AND THEY DIDN'T GET IT FIXED IN TIME FOR THE ACTUAL FILING DEADLINE. SO. ALL RIGHT. SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THEN I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. AND A SECOND GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN. ITEM C CONSIDER SIENNA TOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL SITE. CONSIDER

[c. Sienna Town Center Commercial Site]

SIENNA TOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL SITE REPLAT. NUMBER ONE. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICANTS REQUEST REQUESTED 30 DAY EXTENSION PERIOD AND TO POSTPONE THE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM 8C1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUESTED EXTENSION PERIOD, AND PLACE THE ITEM ON THE MAY 13TH MEETING AGENDA. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION. GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE. THAT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AS A RESULT,

[00:20:05]

I'M SORRY. IF I MAY. I MEAN, JUST. JUST TO TO SPEAK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, PART OF THE REASON FOR THE EXTENSION REQUEST IS ALLOWING MORE TIME FOR DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY TO COME TO TERMS ON SOME AREAS WHERE WE DON'T CURRENTLY SEE EYE TO EYE.

SO THAT'S, I THINK, PART OF THE REASON STAFF EXTENSIONS IS A LITTLE EXTREME. I'M SORRY.

NOTED. YOU KNOW, I JUST I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY VOTED. I VOTED NO, BUT YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S JUST SIX EXTENSIONS OF THE FOR THIS IS WAY TOO MANY. ABOUT FIVE TOO MANY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHARE. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON. BACK TO THE MAIN AGENDA HERE TO

[a. Sienna MD Annexation - Planned Development]

[00:25:03]

EACH ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS DOES HAVE AN ON SITE RECREATION FACILITY. THEY ARE A PART OF A LARGER PARKLAND DEDICATION THAT DEDICATED LAND OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THOSE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENTS. SO THEY'RE NOT A MATCH FOR MATCH FOR THE CITY'S GREEN BELT REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, AS MENTIONED, THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE AT ABOUT 23 DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE FROM THE CITY'S MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS. AND THEN ON THE WEST SIDE, THE BROADSTONE DEVELOPMENT HAS TWO PUBLIC STREETS ON TWO SIDES OF IT. AND SO FROM THE STAFF ANALYSIS, THE BUILDINGS, THERE'S TWO BUILDINGS RIGHT TO THE WESTERN EDGE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE IMAGE, BROADSTONE IS GOING TO BE THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE SITUATED TO THE FARTHEST LEFT THAT IS THAT STREET. ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT IS AVALON RUN, AND THOSE BUILDINGS ARE SET BACK ABOUT TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IT'S STILL COMPLIANT WITH BUILDING CODES, FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S MF2 DISTRICT. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS BASICALLY TO MAINTAIN THESE DEVELOPMENTS AS DEVELOPED AND INCORPORATE THE MF2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS. AND WHERE THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IS IF A BUILDING HAS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, IF THE SITE HAS TO BE REDEVELOPED, THEN THOSE STANDARDS, AS WE ARE PROPOSING WOULD APPLY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THERE? OKAY. YES. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE POINT TO ASK HIM, BUT I WENT THROUGH THAT AREA THE OTHER DAY AND I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING AND SO FORTH, BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR BUILDING STANDARDS? SO FOR INSTANCE, SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS WE REQUIRE SCREENING OF AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. THEY'RE NOT SCREENED RIGHT THERE ARE THERE? THERE'S RAILINGS, PORCHES IN PLACE. THEY DON'T THEY DON'T MEET A LOT OF OUR STANDARDS THROUGH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS NOW GETTING LAID OVER THESE WHERE THEY NOW HAVE TO COME IN COMPLIANCE. SO SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING. BUT IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS SELECT THE SCREENING STANDARDS OF SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. THINGS OF THAT NATURE ARE WITHIN OUR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS. THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPLY THOSE STANDARDS TO THE PROPERTY.

AND SO WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS THAT ANYTHING THAT'S EXISTING WOULD REMAIN SO LONG AS IT'S EXISTING, ANY MAJOR MODIFICATIONS OR TAKING IT OUT OF, YOU KNOW, A NON-CONFORMING STATUS WOULD REQUIRE ADHERENCE TO THE CODES AS ADOPTED. SO CONCEIVABLY IF IT WAS RECONSTRUCTED THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE BUILDINGS WERE RECONSTRUCTED AND THEY HAD EXTERIOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR GENERATORS OR, YOU KNOW, TRASH ENCLOSURES THAT TODAY DON'T MEET THAT STANDARD. ANY NEW RECONSTRUCTION, MAJOR MODIFICATION WOULD TRIGGER THAT IF THAT CODE IS ADOPTED OR IF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO WHAT IT IS NOW IS GOING TO STAY THAT WAY. CORRECT. THAT THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. CAN WE INCLUDE LANGUAGE IF WE WANT TO THAT SAYS NO, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SOME OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR FOR APARTMENTS. YEAH. LEGAL QUESTION. YEAH. SO THE LANGUAGE COULD BE INCLUDED TO REQUIRE THEM TO ADD ADDITIONAL ANCILLARY SCREENING. ALTHOUGH AS JENNIFER HAS NOTED, ANY CHANGE WOULD GENERALLY IMPLICATE OUR NON-CONFORMING USE STANDARDS. SO THERE MAY BE SOME REPERCUSSIONS. SORRY, I DIDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU. IT WOULD IT WOULD IMPLICATE WHAT? SO ANY CHANGE IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURES OF THE BUILDING IMPOSING NEW STANDARDS WOULD GENERALLY REQUIRE THE CITY TO TRIGGER ITS NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD THEN. GENERALLY, THOSE AREN'T TRIGGERED UNLESS THERE'S SOME CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURES

[00:30:04]

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE SIENNA RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION AND I MEAN, I MEAN SIENNA STANDARDS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE THE CITY STANDARDS. OKAY. BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE ALREADY MET IT I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. RIGHT. WELL, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE SIENNA ASSOCIATION AND THE PROPERTY. YEAH. SO PRETTY MUCH IS IT FAIR TO SAY IN LAYMAN'S TERMS THAT WE'RE PRETTY MUCH STUCK WITH IT UNTIL THERE'S A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION THAT'S NEEDED IN THE FUTURE? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. OKAY. GOT IT. FOR THOSE AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY CORRECT, CORRECT. MAYBE THE CORRECT WAY DUANE WOULD BE THEIR GRANDFATHER.

OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. SORRY, BUT I MEAN, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION, BUT DOESN'T THAT KIND OF OPEN THE DOOR FOR WHAT SIENNA BUILDS AND PUTS IN PLACE? AND THEN WHAT ENDS UP IN IN FRONT OF US JUST DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WE WERE SETTING FOR THE, FOR THE CITY. SO IT'S UPON THE POINT OF ANNEXATION IS, IS FROM THE POINT OF ANNEXATION MOVING FORWARD GENERALLY IS WHEN THE CITY STANDARDS WOULD APPLY. SO FOR THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED, GENERALLY WHAT'S EXISTING? OKAY. SO BUT THESE PROPERTIES WOULD. ARE THEY CURRENTLY UNDER THE SIENNA ASSOCIATION AS FAR AS DEED RESTRICTIONS? AS FAR AS WE'RE AWARE? YES, THEY SHOULD BE. SO THAT EVEN THOUGH WE CHANGED THE ZONING, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. UNLESS, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THAT SPECIFICALLY. BUT SO IF THERE'S AN ISSUE CHANGING THAT, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THEM NOT MEETING THE SIENNA DEED RESTRICTIONS, THAT IS STILL SIENNA ASSOCIATION. THAT CORRECT. IS THE CORRECT IS UNDER UNDER THAT CONTROL, WHICH IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPER WHO BUILT THESE THINGS. SO. OKAY, OKAY, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON. SO IN THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, SO THERE'S TWO TRACKS THAT ARE BUILT OUT WITH COMMERCIAL USES, AND THOSE ARE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SIENNA PARKWAY. AND THOSE INCLUDE A CAR WASH, AN EXISTING CAR WASH, AS WELL AS A SHOPPING CENTER THAT CONSISTS OF THREE BUILDINGS. AND WE ON THE LIST THERE SHOWS THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED WITHIN THOSE BUILDINGS. THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING, WE TALKED ABOUT FOUR OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY'VE BEEN CONTINUING FORWARD WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT THOSE BUILDINGS WOULD BE FULLY LEASED OUT BASED ON THIS TENANT MIX.

SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THOSE BUILDINGS TODAY. ALL OF THOSE BUSINESSES, INCLUDING THE CAR WASH, CURRENTLY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING LC3 RETAIL DISTRICT, WHICH IS A MORE REGIONAL KIND OF DRAW, HIGHER IN INTENSITY. COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED ZONING FOR BOTH OF THESE TRACKS WOULD BE THE LC3 RETAIL. AND JUST USING THAT JUST FOR VISUALIZATION, BECAUSE WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS TO SPELL OUT THE USES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THOSE TRACKS. AND SO THE BASE WOULD BE THE LC3 RETAIL DISTRICT WITH EXCEPTIONS. AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE EXCEPTIONS SHORTLY. HEIGHTENED AREA STANDARDS WOULD BE THE LC3 RETAIL DISTRICT STANDARDS. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, IS THAT THERE'S NO HEIGHT LIMIT UNLESS THE PROPERTY ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IN BOTH OF THESE TRACKS CASES, THEY DO NOT. SO IT'S NOT A THE LC3 DISTRICT DOES NOT APPLY A HEIGHT LIMIT. NOW, I WILL NOTE THAT AGAIN, THESE ARE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND NONE OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE TALLER THAN ONE STORY. THE CAR WASH, AS WELL AS THE THREE SHOPPING CENTERS. IN ADDITION, THE AREA STANDARDS OF LC3 ARE THE SETBACKS. SO HOW CLOSE THE BUILDINGS CAN BE TO THE PROPERTY LINES. SO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, AND ALL OF THE BUILDINGS AS EXISTING COMPLY WITH THOSE STANDARDS. OKAY. FOR THE UNDEVELOPED TRACKS, IT INCLUDES TWO PROPERTIES THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL USES, AS WELL AS TWO THAT ARE MORE UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED. SO

[00:35:01]

THE LAST PIECE IS ON THE EAST SIDE, AND IT'S JUST SOUTH OF ONE OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

THAT TRACT IS ALSO OWNED BY THE SIENNA LEVEE DISTRICT AND IS PART OF UTILITIES DETENTION INFRASTRUCTURE. AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS GOING TO BE ASKED A COUPLE. SO ON HERE WHERE IT SAYS A1B ON THE DOCUMENT WE HAVE THAT'S MARKED A1A, THE THE THIS PLANNING AND ZONING REPORT LIKE THAT, THAT'S A1A THERE. OKAY. IT'S THAT'S IT. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE, I'M AHEAD OF MYSELF. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD THIS TIME. OKAY. AND FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING FOR THOSE TRACKS FOR THE A3 ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION, AND THEN ON THE SCREEN THAT'S LABELED A1B. BUT AS NOTED, IF IT'S REFERENCES A1, A, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EAST. THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIENNA PARKWAY IN THE FORT BEND PARKWAY. FOR BOTH OF THOSE TRACKS, THEY ARE UNDEVELOPED. THEY ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. AND SO THE PROPOSED ZONING FOR THOSE TRACKS WOULD BE. THE LC3 WAS PERMITTED IN. CURRENTLY IN THE LC3 DISTRICT, WITH EXCEPTIONS. AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO. THE NEXT SLIDE WILL COVER THOSE EXCEPTIONS. HEIGHTENED AREA STANDARDS. THE LC3 DISTRICT WOULD BE. IS THE PROPOSED BASE FOR THOSE TWO TRACKS, TRACK A2 AND TRACK A1, F THAT ARE CURRENTLY USED AND OPERATED FOR UTILITY DRAINAGE PURPOSES. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS THE SUBURBAN DISTRICT, SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT'S CLASSIFIED TODAY. THIS WOULD BE PERMANENTLY ZONED SUBURBAN DISTRICT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS OWNED BY A PUBLIC ENTITY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS DID FOR THIS WHOLE AREA? DID DID COUNCIL REFERENCE ANYTHING TO YOU ALL ABOUT? THE VISION OF OF WHAT THEY WANT THE AREA TO BE RELATIVE TO ZONING, FOR EXAMPLE, DID THEY RECOMMEND THAT THIS SHOULD ALL BE LC THREE BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN FROM THE TOLL ROAD OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT? WERE THEIR CONVERSATIONS AROUND THAT? AND I'M ASKING BECAUSE I WANT TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE SIZE OF THE LAND THAT GOES IN THAT IT'S, IT'S PROPERLY ZONED AND ALSO HOW IT'S ADJACENT TO PEOPLE LIVING THERE. IT'S VERY, IT'S A VERY TIGHT SPACE. AND IN ALL THE ZONING THAT WE'RE DOING, THERE'S, THERE'S NO ROAD EXPANSIONS THINKING OF EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC, THINGS THAT SORT.

SO BOTTOM LINE WAS THERE, DID THEY RELAY ANY MESSAGING THAT COULD HELP INFORM HOW WE LOOK AT ZONING FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION COMING FROM THE JOINT MEETING WAS THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES AND PARTICULARLY THEIR POSITION RIGHT THERE ALONG THE TOLL ROAD. AND SO THIS IS A CRITICAL, YOU KNOW, CORRIDOR FOR THE CITY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE COMING THROUGH, WHETHER COMING FROM THE SOUTH THROUGH SIENNA PARKWAY OR BACK EAST AND WEST ON THE FORT BEND TOLL ROAD.

SO I THINK THE THE VISION THAT WAS ARTICULATED THERE IS THE LC3. WE'RE JUST USING JUST FOR VISUALIZATION PURPOSES, JUST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A CONTEXT TO SPEAK FROM. AND WE'LL ADJUST LIKE THAT, THAT LONGER LIST OF WHAT TYPE. I REMEMBER THAT PART. WE'LL KEEP GOING. WELL, NO, AND IT'S JUST THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, FROM THE COUNCIL AND THEN EVEN FROM THE COMMISSION, THE DISCUSSION IS BEING VERY INTENTIONAL WITH THESE REMAINING PIECES OF LAND.

SO THE LC THREE DISTRICT IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THAT THROUGHOUT THE CITY. IT'S VERY GENERIC DISTRICT. IT ALLOWS FOR A HOST OF COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION IS, IS HOW DO YOU POSITION THESE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED PIECES OF PROPERTY TO REALLY KIND OF STRATEGIZE AND BE PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE PIECES NEEDED FOR THOSE TYPES OF AMENITIES THAT BOTH THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, AND THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL, YOU

[00:40:03]

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A TWO AND A1F WHAT ARE THEY ZONED AS NOW? THE DETENTION AND UTILITY AREAS. SO THEY'RE ALL CLASSIFIED SUBURBAN DISTRICT. THAT'S THE CURRENT. OKAY. AND SO WHAT ARE WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING? ARE YOU STILL RECOMMENDING PERMANENTLY ZONING IT SUBURBAN DISTRICT PERMANENTLY MAKING IT SD AND I KNOW THAT ONE'S A LITTLE A LITTLE CONVOLUTED BECAUSE IT'S CLASSIFIED, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE THE PROCESS FOR ZONING. SO, SO LONG AS IT STAYS UNDER THAT CLASSIFICATION, IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY ZONED THAT WAY.

HOWEVER, THE SUBURBAN DISTRICT IS DESIGNED FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES ESSENTIALLY. SO IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL USE. BUT PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT ARE USED TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING IT, IT'S THE PERMANENT ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THAT. YEAH. IN SOME OF THE DRAWINGS, WE HAVE TRACKED A3 SPLIT INTO TWO. IS A3 A SINGLE CONTIGUOUS TRACT? WE'VE GOT A. IF YOU GO UP TO AGAIN, I. IT'S IN THE PRESENTATION HERE. THE.

ONE OF THE OVERALL PICTURES THAT'S GOT THE BLACK LINE AROUND THE OUTSIDE A2 IS SPLIT.

IS IT I MEAN, A3 IS SPLIT. IS IT THAT ONE RIGHT THERE? IS IT REALLY ONE CONTIGUOUS PIECE? SO I BELIEVE ON THE THE PROPERTY ROLLS, IT'S TWO SEPARATE TRACTS OF PROPERTY. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO ZONE IT, WE'VE JUST COMBINED IT INTO ONE BECAUSE THE ZONING WOULD BE ALL THE SAME FOR IT. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY A2 IS INTERESTING. IT'S A AGAIN, DRIVING AROUND THAT AREA YOU GOT, YOU'VE GOT A POND THERE. THAT'S A, IT'S A DETENTION OR RETENTION POND. I DON'T KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO TRY AND FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WATER THERE AND SO FORTH. I KNOW IT'S NOT NECESSARILY CONDUCIVE TO THE AREA, BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ITEMS THAT WOULD BE THERE IF YOU DRIVE DOWN UNIVERSITY GOING BETWEEN 1092 AND 59. SUGARLAND IS A BIG THAT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, RIGHT? THEY HAVE A BIG DOG PARK THERE. IT'S GOT A POND AND EVERYTHING ELSE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I KNOW FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT DOESN'T MAYBE TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT, BUT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE, THE, THE WATER THERE AT A2. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE LEVEE DISTRICT OWNING IT. JUST AN OBSERVATION. OKAY. KIND OF FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT COMMISSIONER DAVIS SAYS. I MEAN, WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT BEING INTENTIONAL AND L3. LC THREE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO BE INTENTIONAL. SO I, YOU KNOW, I SAT DOWN AND LOOKED AT BASICALLY LC TWO AND KNOCKED OUT. I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A NUMBER OF THINGS OR THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A NUMBER OF THINGS TO COME OUT OF THERE. THERE'S PROBABLY SOME MORE THAT WE THAT COULD COME OUT, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PLACE TO START IS REALLY THIN IT DOWN, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO WANT TO SEE. AND IF WE KEEP PASSING STUFF THAT IF WE KEEP INCLUDING STUFF THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S NOT IN THE VISION FOR THE CITY, I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY THIN THAT DOWN. AND THEN LASTLY, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS FOR THAT, THAT SECTION THAT'S GOT THE THREE STANDALONE STOREFRONT BUILDINGS, LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A NAIL SALON IN THERE AS AN EXAMPLE. RIGHT NOW, IF WE DON'T INCLUDE NAIL SALONS IN THIS AND THAT BUSINESS GOES, DOES, DOES ANY, DOES THAT ALLOW THEM TO KEEP ONE? OR IF WE SAY NONE, DOES THAT BUSINESS JUST STAY IN IN IN IN PLACE UNTIL IT NO LONGER DOES THEY CLOSE UP OR FOR WHATEVER REASON. SO IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OF THE BUSINESSES AS THEY EXIST TODAY, IF THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING THAT'S ADOPTED, THEY WOULD THEN BECOME A NON-CONFORMING USE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CITY TOOK ACTION. EITHER THE CITY TOOK ACTION TO REQUIRE THEM TO STOP THE USE, OR IF THEY ABANDONED THE USE FOR A TIME PERIOD GREATER THAN SIX MONTHS, THEN THEY WOULD LOSE THAT, RIGHT. THOSE WOULD GENERALLY BE THE TWO TRIGGERING CIRCUMSTANCES.

THANK YOU. JENNIFER. IN OUR LAST MEETING, ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD A CONCERN ABOUT SOME OF THE CHANGES COMING IN THIS AREA BECAUSE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY OR THE LAND THAT WAS JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT PROBABLY MADE SOME PROMISES. AND DID

[00:45:02]

WE'VE HAD ONGOING CONVERSATIONS AND IT'S THE THE TWO LANDOWNERS, AND I BELIEVE ONE IS SITTING HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL. SO WE'RE HAVING ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL AUTHORS, THREE LANDOWNERS, WITH ALL OF THE IMPACTED LANDOWNERS. AND I THINK TO THAT QUESTION IS, BEFORE THIS AREA WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY HAD THAT COVERED THIS THIS PROPERTY HAD A LAND USE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AND THAT LAND USE PLAN ALLOWED FOR GENERAL, COMMERCIAL AND A FEW OTHER SPECIFIC ITEMS. THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT OWNS THE SHOPPING CENTERS HAS SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND HAS SPOKEN ABOUT, I BELIEVE, AT THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT RETAINING ALL OF THE USES THAT WERE PERMITTED UNDER THE AGREEMENT. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, IS RETAINING THAT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WE'VE HAD CONTINUE TO BE, YOU KNOW, STILL TRYING TO BALANCE WHERE THE CITY IS TRYING TO GO IN THE VISION THAT THE CITY HAS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THAT MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES AS WELL AS AS REALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT THE MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES WITH THE DESIGN OF THE ROADWAYS, THE, YOU KNOW, POSITIONING OF DRIVEWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE ALL ALIGNED AS WELL. SO THE, THE RECOMMENDATION REFLECTS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS PROVIDING THE OWNERS, YOU KNOW, WITH FLEXIBILITY TO STILL BE ABLE TO MARKET, YOU KNOW, AND SALE AND LEASE AND USE THEIR PROPERTIES AS NEEDED, BUT IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CITY WANTS TO GO IN AS WELL. THANKS. SO AS DISCUSSED ON THE EXCEPTION, SO THIS IS JUST A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT'S INCLUDED. SO THE RECOMMENDATION INCLUDES THOSE PERMITTED THOSE USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE LC3 DISTRICT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CAR WASHES ARE A PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT. AND THE LC3 DISTRICT. THAT IS ONE OF THOSE USES THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, PREVALENT WITHIN THIS AREA.

HOWEVER, THERE IS ONE EXISTING. SO TO THAT QUESTION ON USES THAT ARE EXISTING, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD INCLUDE TO LIMIT ONE CAR WASH, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE THE EXISTING CAR WASH WITHIN THAT AREA. THE RECOMMENDATION ALSO INCLUDES PROHIBITING THE FOLLOWING USES, AND THAT INCLUDES GAS STATIONS. NOW THE OWNERS HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD THAT THERE ARE SOME PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY TO THESE PROPERTIES AS WELL. THAT MAY ALSO LIMIT GAS STATIONS OR AN ADDITIONAL GAS STATION WITHIN THIS AREA. HOWEVER, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THAT ALSO WITHIN THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. SO PROHIBIT GAS STATIONS, AUTO ACCESSORY, AUTO, YOU KNOW, OIL CHANGE, YOU KNOW, TYPE BUSINESSES, TIRE SHOPS, BUSINESSES OF THAT NATURE PROHIBIT PAWN SHOPS, OFFICE OR A MINI STORAGE TYPE FACILITIES, LIQUOR STORES, OFFICE WAREHOUSES. THOSE ARE USUALLY THOSE BUILDINGS THAT ARE FAIRLY LARGE IN SIZE AND SCOPE, THAT HAVE A SMALL OFFICE AREA, BUT ARE LARGELY USED FOR WAREHOUSING OF MERCHANDISE, MATERIALS, PROHIBITING LIQUOR STORES. I THINK I SAID I'M GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION SAVINGS AND LOANS, WHICH IS PROBABLY A SOMEWHAT OUTDATED TERM. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO MAY I ASK, CAN YOU DEFINE THAT A LITTLE BIT? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT CASH CHECKING PLACES OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING NOT SORRY, CHECK CASHING PLACES. CORRECT. SO WE ACTUALLY DEFINE THOSE AS CREDIT ACCESS BUSINESSES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SURE. AND SO THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY ON THE LIST, BUT IT COULD BE ADDED IF THE COMMISSION DESIRES THE SAVINGS AND LOANS ARE PRETTY MUCH KIND OF LIKE THE, THE BANK BANKING KIND OF INSTITUTIONS. WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT TO BANK? WHY WOULD WE WANT TO BANK? WOULDN'T WE? WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT A BANK? AND THAT'S THAT'S AT THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION. THAT'S THIS IS THIS IS JUST A LIST OF STAFF AS PRESENTED FORWARD. I THINK IT'S AN LC TWO. IT'S LISTED IN LC TWO WHICH WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE. CORRECT. RIGHT.

AND THAT THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT ON THIS. AND SO THE THERE IS A SLIDE THAT SHOWS ALL ALL USES. SO UNDERSTAND THAT THE WAY THAT THE ZONING IS SET UP TODAY IS IT'S CUMULATIVE. SO ANYTHING THAT IS LISTED IN THE LC ONE DISTRICT, WHICH IS USUALLY VERY RESTRICTED CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL OR WITHIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS TYPE, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, ANY OF

[00:50:04]

ANY OF THOSE USES ARE PERMITTED IN LC THREE, AND LC3 HAS A MORE REGIONAL KIND OF DRAW. AND THOSE ARE THE USES THAT WE ARE PERMITTING AS BASELINE OR PROPOSING AS BASELINE HERE.

OKAY. ARE YOU AT A POINT WHERE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S IN THOSE PROPOSALS? AND I JUST PULLED THAT SLIDE UP. OKAY. AND SO FOR THE COMMISSION'S REFERENCE, AND I'LL, I'LL LET YOU ALL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL. THE ITEMS IN RED ARE THE ITEMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE LC THREE DISTRICT. AND THOSE ARE THE, THE TYPES OF USES THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO PROHIBIT OR TO LIMIT. IN THE CASE OF A CAR WASH TO JUST ONE, THE EXISTING. SO THESE ARE THE OTHER TYPES OF USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE LC THREE DISTRICT. THAT IS UP FOR THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS AND DETERMINE IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE REMAINING USES OR, YOU KNOW, TYPES OF USES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITHIN THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. AGAIN, MY IN LOOKING AT IT, I THINK KIND OF WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS LC TWO SEEMS TO BE MORE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE LC THREE HAS THINGS LIKE LOUNGES, HOTELS, MOTELS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO SEE ON THAT CORNER. YOU'VE ALREADY GOT PAWN SHOPS OUT OF THERE. IT'S GOT CANDY MANUFACTURING, A BAKERY. I THINK THOSE KIND OF TEND A LITTLE MORE TO THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE VERSUS LC TWO. YOU CAN HAVE A CONFECTIONERY RETAIL STORE, BUT I THINK. I THINK IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR US TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE AT THIS POINT THAN THAN LESS. AND SO FOR FOR THAT, THAT WOULD ROLL BACK, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE USES. SO IF THE COMMISSION DOES PROPOSE LC TWO USES, THEN IT WOULD REFLECT SOME OF THESE USES ON THE SCREEN, BUT NOT ALL. SO GAS STATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE PERMITTED USE WITH SP APPROVAL IN CERTAIN CASES IN THE LC THREE DISTRICT. IF THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS LC TWO GAS STATIONS ARE NOT A PERMITTED USE THERE. AND SIMILAR TO SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS AS WELL. BUT CONVENIENCE STORES ARE LC TWO RIGHT NOW, AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO SEE. I THINK RATHER NOT SEE A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THAT CORNER EITHER. OKAY. SO IN THIS LIST IT SHOWS ON THE VERY FIRST COLUMN. SORRY. YEAH. AND THE VERY FIRST COLUMN, IT SHOWS US NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE CENTER IS THE LAND USE THAT COMMISSIONER SOLOWAY IS REFERRING TO. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHEN YOU DO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE LC THREE, WHAT IS THE REAL TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT? HOW DO WE MEASURE THAT? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION. I MEAN, BEING THE NEOPHYTE HERE, THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING HERE, OF COURSE, WE KNOW THEY DO OVERLAP IN CERTAIN AREAS. DOES THAT MEAN THOSE THAT LC TWO AREA AND LC ONE IS GOING TO GET OVERPOPULATED THEN OR WHAT OCCURS? I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION. SO THE CHANGES YOU'RE YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT ARE JUST AS IT IT APPLIES TO THIS AREA. SO IT WOULD NOT CHANGE LC THREE DISTRICTS CITYWIDE OR LC TWO DISTRICT CITYWIDE. YES MA'AM. PER THIS ACTION, THIS WOULD JUST APPLY WITHIN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE 57 ACRES SUBJECT TO THIS THIS ITEM. SO MY THOUGHT, GIVEN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD IS I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO BE ZONED. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THERE'S PROBABLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF CATEGORIES THAT WE CAN PULL FROM. BUT GIVEN THE AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT REPETITIVE, BUT GIVEN THE CONVERSATION WE HAD AT THE JOINT MEETING, THE LOCATION, I THINK THE REMAINING LAND IN THE VISION FOR MISSOURI CITY AS A WHOLE. I'M CONCERNED THAT WHAT WE SEE HERE DOESN'T REALLY REFLECT THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY OF WHICH CATEGORY WOULD BE BEST USED FOR ZONING SO THAT IT'S A LITTLE CLOSER. I UNDERSTAND THERE WON'T BE A PERFECT OVERLAP OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD LOOK FOR ZONING OPPORTUNITY. THAT'S NOT SO LOOSELY DEFINED, IF YOU WILL, AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE AND A LITTLE BIT MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CITY IS GOING WHEN IT COMES TO THE VISION AND WHAT'S REMAINING AND WHAT WE DO WITH THAT LAND. OKAY. AND SO IS THERE PERHAPS A

[00:55:03]

ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. AND WE CAN WE CAN GO BACK, TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND BRING THAT BACK FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION. BECAUSE TO THAT TO THAT POINT. SO THIS PARTICULAR AREA, PORTIONS OF IT WERE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FORT BEND PARKWAY CORRIDOR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. SO IT IS IT IS REFLECTED IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE FOCUSED A LOT IN THIS. THIS PARTICULAR CORRIDOR WAS RECOMMENDED AS A GATEWAY. YEAH. AS A GATEWAY CORRIDOR. AND FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE THE FORT BEND PARKWAY, YOU KNOW, JUST HAS SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING TO AND THROUGH THAT AREA, AS WELL AS SEEING A PARKWAY, YOU KNOW, TO AND THROUGH THAT AREA. SO TO YOUR POINT IS WE CAN GO BACK AND CONSIDER THIS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION AND BRING THAT BACK FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION AS A PACKAGE TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND TRY TO PARE DOWN SOME OF THESE USES. BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE GOING IS JUST THIS IS JUST FOR CONVERSATIONAL PURPOSES, BUT FOR THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, IT WOULD BE A SPECIFIC LISTING OF USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED WITHIN THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. AND WE'LL STILL ADD, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BECAUSE COMMISSIONER SELBY BROUGHT UP SOME GOOD POINTS, AS WELL AS WHAT SHOULD BE REMOVED AND WHAT COULD BE LCTWO. BUT WHEN HE WAS SAYING THAT WE'VE KIND OF HAD THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE WITH THE COMP PLAN. SO THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE BROUGHT THAT TO. AND THE COMP, THE STUFF THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE COMP PLAN, THE I'M ASSUMING THIS, THIS IS THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS. IS THE FOCUS ON RECRUITMENT AND LIFESTYLE AMENITIES DESIRED BY RESIDENTS DINING, RETAIL, MEDICAL. IS THAT REFLECTED IN THE UPDATE AS WELL? IT COMMENTS ABOUT IT KIND OF SAYS SAYS. I THINK IT SAYS THE SAME THING IN DIFFERENT WORDS DOWN BELOW IT, AM I CORRECT? YES, YES. OKAY.

YEAH, WE GOT ONE BULLET POINT FOR MEDICAL CARE MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THAT RIGHT ABOVE APARTMENTS, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION. I THINK, RESPECTFULLY, THE GOOD PART ABOUT THIS IS SPECIFIC TO A COUPLE OF PARCELS OF LAND. WE CAN BASICALLY DETERMINE WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THERE.

THEREFORE, FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT OF VIEW, THOSE BUSINESSES AT THAT POINT WOULD

[01:00:03]

AND TRYING TO GET BUSINESSES TO COME THERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO. OKAY. SO THIS, THIS IS THE PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHERE THAT MIGHT HAPPEN ALSO. OKAY. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THIS CORRIDOR, THIS INTERSECTION RIGHT HERE, THAT'S LC THREE MATERIAL. NO QUESTION ABOUT HIGH VOLUME REGIONAL.

IT'S IT'S NOT LOCAL, IT'S NOT NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO TO THINK THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO PUT A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS IN THERE IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. RIGHT. AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS PROBABLY WON'T MARKET IT TO BE THAT RIGHT. SO I THINK WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL. WE CAN'T JUST FOCUS IT DOWN TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD X IN HERE, THEN THEN YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S WE'RE KIND OF HEADING DOWN THAT PATH. WELL, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY DRILLED DOWN TO THE EXACT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DRILL IT DOWN AND EXCLUDE MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE EXCLUDING NOW. SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ATTEMPT HERE IS, IS TO, IS TO LOOK AT THESE USES AND SAY, IT'S AS SAD AS IT IS. WE GOT TOO MANY OF THESE. WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE. RIGHT. AND BY THE WAY, BANK IS IN THERE. SO SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK ARE DIFFERENTIATED SOMEHOW. SO. BUT THEN AGAIN, IS IT REALISTIC TO THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A MOTEL OR A HOTEL IN ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES? I CAN'T IMAGINE THE LANDOWNER WANTS TO GO THAT DIRECTION BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY NOT FINANCIALLY BENEFICIAL FOR HIM TO GO THAT DIRECTION VERSUS OTHER POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE THAT, YOU KNOW, HE MAY HAVE. RIGHT? WELL, WE NOT I'M PRO-BUSINESS BY ALL MEANS, BUT WE'VE HAD THINGS COME BEFORE US THAT THERE WERE THE SAME TYPE OF BUSINESS ACROSS THE STREET AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. SO WE HAVE TO BE MORE IN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY IN CONTROL, BUT WE HAVE TO TAILOR IT DOWN SOME AND BEING REALISTIC OF WHAT WE WANT, NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO A BETTER JOB OF PLANNING FORWARD, NOT JUST NOW. AND I AGREE. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE STAFF IS TRYING TO GO WITH THIS. OKAY. AND, AND, AND I, I DON'T THINK LCTWO IS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS AREA. OKAY. I THINK THAT IT HAS TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY BEYOND LCTWO. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GO THROUGH THIS LIST AND SAY ALL THE ONES THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE. SO I HAVE A. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, I GUESS THE STATISTICAL STANDPOINT, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GET SOME TYPE OF REPORT THAT SHOWS THE QUANTITY OF THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES AND HOW THEY'RE SPREAD OUT OVER THE CITY? I THINK THAT CAN HELP US KIND OF ADJUST THIS LIST TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. WHAT'S IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THESE PARCELS? EXACTLY. YES, SIR. THAT KIND OF GETS INTO LIKE CENTRAL PLANNING OF HOW MANY BUSINESSES OF THIS TYPE DO WE WANT IN THE CITY. AND I DON'T I DON'T THAT'S A LITTLE KIND OF ORWELLIAN ALMOST. I THINK IT'S MORE BECAUSE THE FREE MARKET'S GOING TO DETERMINE SOME OF THAT. I THINK THE QUESTION, THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS HERE'S SOME THINGS I DON'T WANT THERE. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY MOTELS OR HOTELS THERE ARE IN THE CITY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ONE THERE. RIGHT. SO I THINK THE APPROACH IT MAYBE FROM THAT STANDPOINT AND LET THE MARKET FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S ENOUGH BUSINESS TO SUPPORT A STARBUCKS ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER. RIGHT. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, SAM. BUT I THINK THE KEY FACTOR HERE IS LET'S LOOK AT THE I'M LOOKING FROM A LONG TERM STRATEGIC VIEW. THE MARKET SHOULD DRIVE IT, BUT ALSO LET'S TAKE CONSIDERATION. HOW MUCH IMPACT DO WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE CITY IN THOSE CERTAIN CATEGORIES? GOES BACK TO TYING IT IN TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YES, SIR. AND BASICALLY SAYING WE HAVE AND I WANT TO USE THE TERM WISH LIST, BUT THIS IS OUR DESIRE OR DESIRES IN THAT AREA. AND AND SO ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TO DO MORE FORWARD THINKING AND

[01:05:08]

YOU DO HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION AS WELL. AND IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT PROPERTY OWNER ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THOSE THAT OWN PROPERTY WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. AND IT'S AT THE THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL. WELL, I MEAN, I THAT WOULD BE GOOD INFORMATION, BUT I'M, I'M KIND OF HEARING THAT WE'RE NOT READY TO ACT ON THIS ITEM. NO. AND AND MAYBE WE NEED TO STEP BACK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST APPROACH IS TO GETTING TO SOME RESOLUTION OF, OF, OF SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GIVE TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. SO I'M KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET STAFF TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD. AND IF THEY WANT TO INTERACT WITH WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AND GET SOME INPUT AND FEEDBACK, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD THING TO DO OFFLINE. BUT IS THAT OKAY? I WOULD, I'D AGREE WITH THAT. MAYBE CAN WE PROVIDE SOME INPUT ON THINGS WE'D LIKE TO NOT SEE? RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT GOES BACK TO COMMISSIONER BOWDEN SAID IF WE CAN GET A KIND OF LIST WE SHOULD EXPECT IN THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS ALL THE ENTIRE THING THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS TOO. ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS I KNOW FROM THE PACKAGE STORAGE AND FACILITIES ARE THERE IN THE TRACK A1, I GUESS IT'S BEEN PROHIBITED. IT'S REMOVED, BUT IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE AN LC4? CORRECT. SO BASELINE FOR INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. IF SOMEONE WERE PROPOSING A NEW STORAGE FACILITY, IT WOULD BE PROHIBITED IN LC3. IT WOULD BE PERMITTED IN LC SEC. OKAY. BUT BECAUSE THIS IS COMING FROM AN AGREEMENT THAT HAS JUST GENERAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES, THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS, IS TO USE THOSE AS THE BASE, WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY. OKAY, OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO HOW DO WE BEST ARTICULATE THE THINGS THAT WE DON'T THINK OUGHT TO BE ON THIS LIST? SHOULD WE DO THAT NOW OR SHOULD WE WAIT? SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO HEAR FROM THE COMMISSION, THOSE USES THAT GIVE YOU THE MOST HEARTBURN BASED ON THE DISCUSSION AND BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, AS WELL AS WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS DESIRING TO GO MOVING FORWARD. SO IF THERE ARE USES THAT ARE ON THIS LIST THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN RED FONT TO CALL THOSE PARTICULAR USES AT OUT, SO THAT AS STAFF GOES BACK AND TAKES A LOOK AT ALIGNING THIS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND FRAMING THIS AND BRINGING IT BACK FORWARD, THAT WE CAN TAKE THOSE USES INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL. OKAY, WELL, I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW WITH THIS. THE WITH EVERYBODY COMING INTO THE CITY AT THIS POINT, OR IF THAT'S THE GOAL, HOW YOU HAVE CHILD CARE FACILITIES THERE. SO THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED. OKAY. THAT SHOULD OR IT SHOULD NOT BE IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A DAYCARE ON THE SIDE OF A HIGHWAY. OKAY. FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, MY $0.02 WORTH JUST GOING THROUGH THE LIST. DRUGSTORES, THAT MARKET'S CHANGING. IF YOU LOOK AT HOW MANY EMPTY DRUGSTORES, JUST DRIVE DOWN 1092. THERE'S THREE OF THEM. I'D PUT THAT ON THE LIST. I'D PUT NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTERS. I'D PUT THAT ON THERE OF THE NON PACKAGED LIQUOR STORES. I'D ADD TO THE LIST COMMERCIAL INDOOR RECREATION. I'D ADD INDOOR GAME PARLORS. YOU'VE ALREADY GOT PACKAGE LIQUOR STORES ON THERE.

[01:10:05]

CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THAT'S IT'S NOT EVEN TEN ACRES. ONE OF THEM'S FOUR AND THE OTHERS ONE AND A HALF OR SOMETHING. ALTHOUGH TWO FOUR ACRE PROPERTIES. RIGHT. AND SO KEEP IN MIND TOO, YOU KNOW, LAND USES IS A PART OF THE PUZZLE, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, TO SUPPORT THAT LAND USE. SO EVEN IF THE USE IS PERMITTED, IF, IF SUFFICIENT PARKING OR SUFFICIENT ACCESS, SUFFICIENT UTILITIES, ALL OF THAT PLAYS A ROLE IN WHAT COULD ACTUALLY BE DONE. SO FOR THESE PARTICULAR TRACKS IS WHAT THE CONSIDERATION WOULD INCLUDE. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, MAYBE THE SAME FOR OTHERS. I DON'T I'M NOT READY TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE LIST JUST YET. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT WAS DONE IN REGARDS TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND THE GATEWAY DISTRICTS AND ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ALONG WITH LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THINKING ABOUT THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE FUTURE AND HOW WE WANT TO SEE THIS AREA AND OTHERS DEVELOPED. AND THEN I THINK AFTER THAT, FOR ME, I'D BE IN A BETTER. I WOULD PREFER THEN TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE LIST, BECAUSE I'D HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE, I THINK, A BETTER DECISION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. I RECALL SOMEONE IN CITY COUNCIL SAID, WE NEED TO REMOVE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS FROM THEIR. I'D LIKE. I'D LIKE A CLEARER INTERPRETATION OF MOTEL AND HOTELS. OKAY, WHAT IS. IT FALLS UNDER A A LARGE. ENTITY, A LARGE. A CHAIN HOTEL. OR COULD IT BE ONE OF THEM POP UPS THAT COME UP THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THAT WE SEE IN DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT TOWNS? STAFFORD. STAFFORD, FOR INSTANCE, UP THERE IN FRESNO COMING DOWN HIGHWAY SIX. THERE'S A THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HOTEL MOTEL, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT INTERPRETATION IS. AND I SEE IT'S IT'S NOT THERE.

YEAH. AND WE I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DEFINITION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT COVERS HOTELS.

BUT ESSENTIALLY THOSE KINDS OF FACILITIES THAT ARE SET UP FOR, YOU KNOW, SHORT STAYS. AND SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, DESIGN STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. BUT THAT HOTEL MOTEL REFERENCE IN TERMS OF LAND USE COVERS ALL OF THOSE TRADITIONAL, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE HOLIDAY INNS, THE HAMPTON INNS, THE CRYSTAL LENS, THAT DEFINITION INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF LAND USES, RIGHT? THAT WOULDN'T FALL UNDER A CHAIN, A LARGE CHAIN OR

[01:15:02]

JUST TWO QUICK THINGS. I'VE BEEN USING THIS. ZONING LIST. IT DOESN'T HAVE SOME OF THE STUFF ON THERE. CAN WE GET A COPY OF THAT. I DON'T YEAH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'D SEEN THAT FULL LIST IN A PACKAGE. SO THIS SHOULD BE A COMBINATION OF LQT1, LQT2 AND LQT3. AGAIN, THIS IS I PULLED THIS OFF OF THIS, THE WEB PAGE THREE YEARS AGO WHEN I JOINED. AND IT'S GOT A COUPLE THINGS THAT AREN'T LISTED UP THERE. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. BESIDES, I DON'T HAVE THE MASSAGE BECAUSE I'M SURE. HOW IN THE HELL DID I MISS THAT? WELL, I DON'T SEE IT ON HERE.

AND THERE'S A THERE'S A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT REPAIR. SO ANYWAY, I JUST APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS UPDATED. I WILL SAY FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, IT MAY BE THE VERSION BECAUSE THAT WAS PROBABLY THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ADDED INTO THIS IS I JUST LOOKED THIS IS FOUR YEARS OLD. IT'S GOT JANUARY 2022. SO WE JUST NEED TO MAKE.

YEAH, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CURRENT VERSION. BUT THIS SHOULD, THIS SHOULD BE THE SAME LIST THAT'S REFLECTED ON ON THE ZONING. QUICK REFERENCE. AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD ASK MAYBE STAFF TO TALK. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT A THREE TRACK WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE FOR SOME KIND OF PARK. AND AGAIN, I KNOW IT DOESN'T MEET THE RETAIL STUFF, BUT YOU'VE GOT THE WATER RIGHT NEXT TO IT. FIND A WAY TO MAKE USE OF THAT. I MEAN, THERE'S THAT AREA BETWEEN THE TWO IS BADLY OVERGROWN, BUT THAT COULD BE CLEANED UP AND BE A VERY, VERY NICE AREA. OKAY.

BUT WHO WOULD DO THAT? I MEAN, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO BUY IT AND DO THAT. I WAS GOING TO SAY THE LEVEE DISTRICT OWNS IT. WOULD THEY WOULD THEY SELL IT FOR THE CITY? I DON'T KNOW, I JUST ASKED THE CITY TO TAKE BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S IT'S AN INTERESTING FEATURE THAT WOULD BE NICE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BECAUSE THERE'S WALKING TRAILS ALL AROUND IT. AND THAT AREA TO THE SOUTH IS ALL DEVELOPED AND THERE'S WALKING TRAILS THAT RUN UNDER, WHAT IS IT, AVALON, THAT THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK FROM THAT SUBDIVISION OVER TO THAT AREA? SO. BASICALLY, I GUESS TABLING THIS ITEM. YEAH, WE, WE WILL, WE WILL TAKE ALL OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND REASSESS KIND OF WHAT THIS PACKAGE LOOKS LIKE AND THEN BRING IT BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION. I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS FOR FOR STAFF IN THE JOINT MEETING, I THINK KEEPS BRINGING UP WATER. SO IT'S MAKING ME THINK ABOUT IT.

IN THE JOINT MEETING, THERE WAS A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION ON DATA CENTERS. HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF WHERE WE PLACE IT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T WANT TO SAY MAKE SURE THERE'S NO DATA CENTERS IN THAT TRACT OF LAND IF WE'RE NOT EVEN AT THAT POINT YET. SO WHERE, WHERE ARE WE ON THAT? SO IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM COVERS DATA CENTERS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. DATA CENTERS. YEAH. AND FROM THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING DATA CENTERS WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR PLAN. AND I WILL TURN OFF MY MIC THEN.

THANK YOU. OKAY, SO DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING SPECIAL? WE JUST THE ITEM WAS CONSIDERATION

[a. SUP Amendments]

[01:20:10]

CERTAIN OF THESE USES IN SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS, THEY MAY BE PROHIBITED AND THEN OTHER SPECIFIC DISTRICTS, THEY REQUIRE APPROVAL. OKAY. DO WE REALLY WANT TO CONSIDER CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS? SO LET'S GET TO THAT SO WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. SO WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU ALL TONIGHT FOR YOUR DISCUSSION AND FOR RECOMMENDATION AND FINAL REPORT ARE THE USES AS DESCRIBED. SO WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS IT WOULD AMEND OUR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ADD THESE PARTICULAR USES. SO GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS ARE CURRENTLY A USE IF THEY'RE TRYING TO LOCATE IN THE LC3 DISTRICT AND THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REQUIRES SUV APPROVAL. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE THE ADJACENCY TO RESIDENTIAL AND REQUIRE APPROVAL FOR ANY GAS STATION LOCATION THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

CAR WASHES ARE CURRENTLY A USE BY RIGHT IN ANY PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED LQT2 AND LQT3, LQT4, ETC.

WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE CAR WASH COULD GO IN ANY OF THOSE ZONES, SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONES THAT THEY COULD BE PERMITTED WITHIN. MEANING THAT IF A PROPERTY ZONED LC ONE OR IF IT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT A CAR WASH CANNOT GO INTO THOSE PROPERTIES. BUT WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE IS APPROVAL ON THOSE PROPERTIES WHERE THEY'RE CURRENTLY PERMITTED. OKAY. AUTO REPAIR SHOPS ARE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT IN THE LC THREE DISTRICT. THIS WOULD ADD THE SUV APPROVAL. IN ADDITION TO THAT, LC THREE, LC FOUR, ETC. DISTRICT DATA CENTERS DATA CENTERS ARE CURRENTLY NOT REFLECTED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THE EMERGING KIND OF FIELD. I THINK EVERYBODY IS FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, THE NEED FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOW THAT

[01:25:07]

SO FOR CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS, YES. WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS IN ADDITION TO THE SCP PERMIT REQUIREMENT, THIS WOULD ESTABLISH APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, SETBACK DESIGN STANDARDS. AND SO BASICALLY PROVIDING WHAT THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE IF SOMEONE WANTED TO LOCATE AND OPERATE THIS TYPE OF USE WITHIN THE CITY'S LIMITS. SO JUST IN SUMMARY, THESE ARE SOME OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED PER THIS AMENDMENT, INCLUDING DISTANCES AWAY FROM CERTAIN USES. THOSE USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL USES, SCHOOLS, YOU KNOW, USES WHERE WE MAY HAVE SENSITIVE POPULATIONS. SO ENSURING THAT THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES ARE WITHIN A DISTANCE OF THOSE ALSO REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF IMPACTS. SO THAT THOSE USES AREN'T A NUISANCE TO OTHER USES THAT MIGHT BE IN PROXIMITY. THOSE INCLUDE NOISE IMPACTS FROM EQUIPMENT, YOU KNOW, OR OPERATIONS ON THOSE PROPERTIES AND AIR IMPACTS, WHICH IS A MAJOR CONCERN WITH THE OPERATION OF SOME OF THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT INCLUDE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANS, AND THEN ALSO THE DISCRETION THAT IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THAT WE CAN ADD THAT.

AND WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS THIS PROVIDES HOW THESE TYPES OF USES WOULD BE EVALUATED IF SOMEONE WANTED TO LOCATE ONE WITHIN THE CITY GOING THROUGH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PROCESS. SO WHEN THEY MAKE AN APPLICATION, THEY WOULD FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES. AND THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE COUNCIL IN THAT CONSIDERATION PROCESS.

IS IT OUTLINED IN THE GUIDELINES? WHO HAS OWNERSHIP OVER THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN? IS LIKE DOES IT STATE IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OF THE CONCRETE PLANS, OR DOES THE CITY HAVE AUTHORITY TO HOLD THE COMPANY ACCOUNTABLE WHILE ENACTING THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN? I'M JUST CURIOUS. SO ULTIMATELY THE OWNER WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU KNOW, TO ADHERE TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT'S RECOMMENDED IN YOUR HAVE A COPY OF THE DRAFT LANGUAGE. THERE'S LANGUAGE TO APPLY A MECHANISM THAT IF THAT OWNER OR IF THAT BUSINESS IS NOT COMPLYING, THAT THERE IS A MEANS BY WHICH YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OR SOMEONE CAN TAKE ACTION. SO THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE TO THAT EFFECT. JENNIFER, WE TALKED ABOUT THE TIA TRAFFIC IMPACT, IMPACT ANALYSIS, NOISE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT. IT COULD BE UTILITY ASSESSMENT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S GOING TO COME UP WHEN WE DO THE CFP.

SO WE ARE ASKING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THOSE REPORTS. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THOSE REPORTS ARE COMING FROM A THIRD PARTY VENDOR. IS THAT SOMETHING WE TRUST THOSE VENDORS OR DO WE HAVE A LIST OF VENDORS OR THE COMPANIES WHO DOES THOSE KIND OF REPORTS? OR ARE WE RELYING ON ANY COMPANY APPLICATION? GO TO ABC, ANY COMPANY AND PROVIDE THE REPORT. IS THAT HOW WE ARE DOING IT? ACTUALLY, I CAN ANSWER THAT, COMMISSIONER. SO ANY NOISE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS ARE REQUIRED. PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION. YOU JUST DON'T GO OUT TO A VENDOR THERE. THEY PUT THEIR LICENSES ON THE LINE. SO IF A NOISE IMPACT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LIKE A NOISE EXPERT, PROFESSIONAL WHO'S BEEN IN THAT BUSINESS AND THEY DO THESE

[01:30:05]

AND THOSE ARE LITTLE SMALL ONES THAT ARE OFTEN PUT UP ON JOB SITES AND SO FORTH. YOU SEE THEM AROUND THE WHEN THEY PUT WIND TURBINES UP, RIGHT, THEY GET THEY PUT THESE LITTLE TEMPORARY CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS UP. DOES THIS APPLY TO THEM AS WELL? SO AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE LANGUAGE IS, IS, IS BROAD. SO IT WOULD INCLUDE TEMPORARY SETUPS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES, OKAY. AS WELL AS PERMANENT SETUPS AS WELL. AND SO THE COMMISSION CAN, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK IF THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE IS TO DISTINGUISH, YOU KNOW, FROM THOSE TWO POSITIONS OR LEAVE THEM AS IS, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THEY WOULD COME BACK THROUGH FOR EVALUATION.

THANKS. YOU'RE WELCOME. WE MAY WANT. OH, I'M SORRY. WE MAY WANT TO DISTINGUISH IT BECAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERMANENT PLANTS, WE SHOULD CONSIDER LIMITING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMANENT PLANTS, OR AT LEAST RECOMMEND THAT TO CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A SET NUMBER. SIMILAR TO OUR PAST DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE DO AND DON'T WANT. WELL, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE INVENTORY OF THE EXISTING PLANTS. OKAY, WOULD BE TO. WE COULD DENY AN S, U P BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALREADY TOO MANY OR THERE'S ONE THAT'S RIGHT NEAR THERE. RIGHT.

AND SO WE IS GOING TO IS SETTING AN ACTUAL NUMBER GOING TOO FAR OR I'M REALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF UTILITY IN DOING THAT. YEAH, MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO. I'M JUST OKAY. I WOULDN'T EXPECT THAT TO BE THE CASE. ALL RIGHT. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO AVOID SETTING A SPECIFIC NUMBER AND INSTEAD RELY ON THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, EACH CASE IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE. AND. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT GIVES YOU THE FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH THE PERMANENT VERSUS TEMPORARY ONES TOO, BECAUSE YOU CAN YOU CAN ASSESS THE TEMPORARY ONE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU WOULD A PERMANENT ONE. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD, AND VINCENZO, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH THIS. FOR THE ONES THAT ARE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION BASED, THOSE ARE GENERALLY CONSTRUCTION LAY DOWN AREAS, RIGHT? AND SO MOST OF THOSE DEVELOPERS OR BUILDERS ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PLAN THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THAT KIND OF WITH CONCRETE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. CORRECT. MOSTLY THOSE COMMISSION, MOSTLY THOSE LIKE MOBILE PLANTS ARE LIKE TEX DOT OR SOMETHING. LIKE THEY WERE BUILDING A BRIDGE THEY WOULD SET UP ON SITE. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST DEVELOPERS WHO ARE BUILDING THINGS, USUALLY THEY'LL TRUCK THEM IN. THEY'RE NOT UNLESS IT'S A MEGA HUGE PROJECT WHERE IT'S COST EFFECTIVE FOR THEM TO PUT UP THEIR OWN PLANT, BUT OR THEIR TEMPORARY PLANT. BUT I THINK IN THOSE CASES, WE COULD STILL SAY, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THAT STUFF, WE CAN MAKE IT SUCH THAT THEY'RE LIMITED IN THEIR USE AND IT'S NOT A PERMANENT USE. QUESTION. I HAVE ACTUALLY TWO QUESTIONS. SO NUMBER ONE, BESIDES CONCRETE PLANS, WHAT ABOUT ROCK CRUSHING PLANTS, SINCE THERE'S ONE BEING PROPOSED FOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIENNA JUST OUTSIDE THE ETJ. CORRECT. SO THAT MAYBE THAT OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS AS WELL. OKAY. AT SOME POINT. AND SO AND AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THERE'S DEFINITION FOR THE CONCRETE PLANTS. AND SO WE MAY HAVE TO BRING BACK ANYTHING THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF. YEAH. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION COMMENT IS, DO WE, AS THE CITY AND THIS COMMISSION HAVE ANY SAY AT ALL IN THE ETJ OVER THINGS LIKE THIS? SO JUST IN THE CITY LIMITS ONLY. RIGHT. AND SO, SO THE ITEM WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS JUST SPECIFIC TO CITY LIMITS BECAUSE IT'S THE ZONING. SO THE ZONING TOOL WE CAN ONLY USE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. AND SO LIKE THE ITEM PREVIOUS, THERE WAS A CITY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BUT GENERALLY DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. THE CITY ZONING DOES NOT EXTEND TO. ALL.

WE RECEIVING A LOT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS NOW. IS IT JUST BASED ON MARKET DEMAND. SO WE'VE IT IS A A INQUIRY. YES, YES, YES. AND FOR THOSE PURPOSES AS WELL IS YOU KNOW,

[01:35:09]

[01:40:06]

SO MAYBE THERE MAY BE A LIMITED NUMBER OF UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES, WHICH IT WOULD APPLY TO, BUT THERE MAY BE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AND WOULD BE REDEVELOPED TO WHICH THESE REGULATIONS WOULD APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. BUT AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK TO IF WE IF THE CITY REALLY DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT THEM HERE, WHY NOT JUST SAVE EVERYBODY A LOT OF TIME AND GO INTO A BUNCH OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND JUST SAY, WE DON'T WANT THEM. THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE MOST. IF THAT'S THE DESIRE, CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS, WHY NOT JUST DO THAT? AND I PUSH IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION ON, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE ARE EMERGING, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE SHORT SIGHTED BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY COULD EVOLVE TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE NOT AS BIG A DEAL. AND YOU COULD CHANGE THAT AND YOU COULD CHANGE THE RULES THEN, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF THEY IF THEY BECOME SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE, A LITTLE MORE ATTRACTIVE, I'M NOT MAKING A CASE. I'M JUST KIND OF PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF HEARING MORE AND MORE BACK FROM CITY COUNCIL. WE DON'T WANT THESE. WE DON'T WANT THESE. JUST SAY YOU DON'T WANT THEM AND LET'S SAVE EVERYBODY A WHOLE BUNCH OF TIME. THIS SEEMS TO FIT IN THE. BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EFFORT OF MEETING WITH THESE PEOPLE, KNOWING THAT THE END. MORE THAN LIKELY THE END RESULT IS A NO. WHY NOT JUST BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND THAT'S ALL. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. OKAY, I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT MAYBE FOR THE ENGINEERING. I KNOW THIS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE DATA CENTERS. WHAT IS THE NEED OF HAVING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND NOISE MITIGATION FOR THESE DATA CENTERS? ANY REASON FOR THAT? SURE. DEFINITELY NOISE MITIGATION. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THE, THE VIBRATION AND WHATNOT IN SOME OF THESE DATA CENTERS THAT ARE EXISTING. AND SO THE RESIDENTS IN THESE, YOU KNOW, SMALL TOWNS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE WHERE THESE DATA CENTERS COME UP, THEY'RE ACTUALLY AFFECTING THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR LIKE SLEEP PATTERNS AND WHATNOT. SO DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF STUDY FOR THE NOISE MITIGATION. LIKE, I GUESS, LIKE THE COOLING FANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY JUST KEEP LIKE CONSTANTLY AND YOU HAVE THIS BACKGROUND NOISE THAT JUST MAKES PEOPLE GO A LITTLE BIT WACKY IN TERMS OF THE TIA, A LOT OF THESE DATA CENTERS ARE PRETTY HUGE. SO WE WANT TO KNOW WHEN YOU'RE CONSTRUCTING AND WHATNOT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE IMPACTING TRAFFIC GENERALLY AFTER THEY'RE DONE, THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED. YOU WON'T HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE BECAUSE IT'S MAINLY COMPUTERS AND WHATNOT RUNNING, RIGHT? YOU MIGHT HAVE A FEW PEOPLE, BUT WE WANT TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACTS IT HAS, ESPECIALLY LIKE DURING CONSTRUCTION, THEY MAY NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, AFTER A COUPLE YEARS OF RUNNING, THEY MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW? YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION. OKAY. I MUST I MUST AGREE WITH MR. SOLLOWAY, THOUGH. I HAVE A BROTHER IN UTAH THAT LIVED NEXT TO LIVED NEXT TO A DATA CENTER THAT CAME UP OUT OF NOWHERE. AND HE WAS MORE THAN 500FT AWAY

[01:45:04]

[b. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment - Shared Access]

[01:50:03]

IT'S REALLY JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE I HIGHLIGHTED IN RED WHERE THAT PLAT NOTE IS SAYING PLEASE PUT SHARED ACCESS ON THIS PROPERTY. AND THIS IS IF YOU CAN'T RECOGNIZE IT, YOU PROBABLY CAN'T. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PLAT FOR THE VAQUEROS RESTAURANT. GOOD RESTAURANT. SO MOVING FORWARD, THAT'S COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, BEFORE WE HAD A SHOPPING CENTER THAT HAS A GROCERY STORE AS WELL AS AN APPROVED EVENT CENTER AT THE SHOPPING CENTER TO THE NORTH THAT'S RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED THAT CURRENTLY CAN'T CONNECT TO THE SHARED ACCESS ON CASA VAQUEROS RESTAURANT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE INTERNAL DISAGREEMENTS ON HOW THAT SHARED ACCESS GETS BUILT. AND ON THE CITY SIDE, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ENFORCEMENT MEASURES BECAUSE OF OUR CURRENT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO HELP PUSH IT FORWARD. SO WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO ESTABLISH ARE SOME IDEAS AND WAYS TO ADD LANGUAGE TO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING SHARED ACCESS TO ACTUALLY PUT THE PLACE AND THICKNESS AND WIDTH AND THE WEIGHTS CONSTRUCTED ON THE PLAT ITSELF, SO WE CAN CATCH IT IN THE BEGINNING. NOW, A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THIS WON'T BE RETROACTIVE. IT'LL JUST APPLY TO NEW PLATS AND RE PLATS FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES. AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THERE'S ACTUALLY A CONSTRUCTION ON CART, RIGHT? THE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING WHERE THEY DID IT THE WAY WE WOULD WANT TO SEE IT IN THE FUTURE, WHERE THEY ALREADY PROVIDED THE STUB OUTS FOR POTENTIAL SHARED ACCESS TO POTENTIAL NEIGHBORS COMING FORWARD. SO THAT'S GREAT. AND THEY DID IT PROACTIVELY. THEY ALSO JUST HAVE THAT ONE LITTLE PLOT NOTE. THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EXTRA ON THEIR PLAT SAYING THIS IS HOW THICK IT IS. THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS HOW IT KIND OF OPERATES. THEY ALSO JUST HAD THAT LITTLE PLAT NOTE AND WHAT THEY ENDED UP PUTTING IN. SO YEP, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS IF WE SHOULD MAKE THIS CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE. JUST CURIOUS ON THE DISCUSSION. YOU SAID IT WOULD NOT BE DONE RETROACTIVELY, BUT WITH THE TWO EXAMPLES YOU SHARED, I'M SURE YOU HAD A WHOLE LOT TO CHOOSE FROM OF EXAMPLES WHERE WE WOULD HAVE WANTED SHARED ACCESS AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO WHAT WERE THE DISCUSSION DISCUSSIONS IN TERMS OF AND YOU ALL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, LIKE GETTING MORE SHARED ACCESS. I THINK IT'S A GOOD STEP, BUT WHAT CAN WE DO RETROACTIVELY? IF ANYTHING, I'LL PUT THAT TO LEGAL. IS THAT POSSIBLE AT ALL WHATSOEVER. SO THAT'S THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE IS BECAUSE THERE ARE VERY LIMITED OPTIONS. YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, THERE'S DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IS INTENDED TO APPLY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR WHETHER IT'S INTENDED TO JUST APPLY INTERNALLY WITH ONE LARGE PROPERTY IN SHARED ACCESS.

AND WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF THAT, WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED IS CLARIFYING THAT FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THE INTENT IS THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE SHARED ACCESS TO ONE ANOTHER FOR TRAFFIC FLOW, ETC. ONCE AGAIN, FOR FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY PLATTED. THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME ARE THE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY NOW, IF THEY CAME FOR A REPLAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS. AND SO WE'VE USED THIS LINE BEFORE. ABOUT THE BEST TIME TO PLANT A TREE IS 20 YEARS AGO. THE SECOND BEST TIME IS NOW. AND SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE AND THE MOTIVATION. SO I'M BUILDING A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE I'M ADJACENT TO SOMEBODY I'M NOT REAL THRILLED ABOUT. AND I DON'T WANT THEIR TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH ME. AND MAYBE I'M ON A CORNER AND I REALIZE IF I CONNECT TO THEIR PARKING LOT, I'M GOING TO GET A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH. SO IS THIS GOING TO REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO GIVE ACCESS TO HIS NEIGHBOR IF HE BUILDS A NEW PROPERTY, ARE WE ARE WE REQUIRING THAT. THAT WOULD BE THE. SO IF IT'S INCLUDED ON THE PLAT, IT WOULD BE A A ACCESS RIGHT FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER BY VIRTUE OF

[01:55:04]

SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WOULD THAT EASEMENT BE PARKING LOT? SO THE FOR THE OTHER BUSINESS, THE DISCUSSION CURRENTLY IS TO PROVIDE FOR SHARED ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, CREATING A RIGHT OF SHARED PARKING I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE LANDOWNER DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS ON ON PARKING LOT USAGE, BUT THIS IS SPECIFIC TO ACCESS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. YEAH. OKAY. MAY I SPEAK? AND THE REASON WHY WE HAVE SHARED ACCESS IS THAT IF NOBODY SHARED THEIR ACCESS WITH EACH OTHER, EVERY PARCEL WILL JUST HAVE THEIR EGRESS ON THE STREET. AND THEN WE'RE ACTUALLY, IF A, IF A VEHICLE WANTS TO HAVE A DONUT AT DUNKIN AND STARBUCKS IS NEXT TO THEM, YOU KNOW, DONUTS AND COFFEE GO TOGETHER, RIGHT? WE WANT THEM TO ACTUALLY JUST USE THAT SHARED ACCESS VERSUS GOING OUT IN THE STREET, GO AROUND AND ALL THAT. SO WE DON'T WANT TO INTRODUCE TRAFFIC INTO THE STREET WHEN THEY CAN JUST GO RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. AND SO, I MEAN, THAT'S THE INTENTION OF HAVING THIS. AND SO SINCE 2004, WE ACTUALLY HAD THAT LANGUAGE. SO IT IS REQUIRED FOR 22 YEARS THAT THEY DO ALLOW EACH OTHER TO GO BACK AND FORTH. IT'S JUST NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE. AND I'LL ADD ON THE SHARED PARKING. THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS A TOOL IN A REGULATION THAT ALLOWS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO WORK OUT SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENTS. SO WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT COULD BE REMOVED AND RELIED ON THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND WHAT THAT WOULD SPEAK TO MORE IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT MATT JUST MENTIONED IN TERMS OF THE INTENT OF IF YOU HAVE A SHOPPING CENTER, THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE ALL OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THAT SHOPPING CENTER, THEY SHARE A PARKING AREA AS OPPOSED TO EACH BUSINESS HAS THEIR OWN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CARVED OUT SPACE OR ASSIGNS THAT ARE DESIGNATING JUST FOR SPECIFIC BUSINESS. BUT WHAT THIS LANGUAGE DOES RIGHT NOW IS REQUIRES TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, SHOPPING CENTER AND A RESTAURANT SHOPPING CENTER AND AN OFFICE TO HAVE SHARED PARKING. AND THAT MAY NOT BE THE INTENT OR THE FOCUS OF THIS REQUIREMENT. SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT MAKING THE CHANGE TO STRENGTHEN THE ABILITY FOR SHARED ACCESS. BUT IN TERMS OF SHARED PARKING, THOSE ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE PROVIDED FOR THROUGH ZONING. SO THE CITY DID APPROVE THE THE CONSTRUCTION, THE PERMITTING TO HAVE ONLY ONE ENTRANCE FOR THAT, FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY. CORRECT. ONLY ONE ENTRANCE. NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD TWO ENTRANCES. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO CONNECT. IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE PICTURE WHERE I PUT THAT LITTLE RED SQUARE, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE SMALL. THEY'RE TRYING TO PUNCH THROUGH RIGHT THERE. BUT BECAUSE OF OUR LACK OF TEETH ON OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES, THEY CAN'T MAKE THAT CONNECTION. SO THEY'RE KIND OF HAMSTRUNG TO ONLY USE THEIR NORTHERN CONNECTION, WHICH THIS IS AN OLD SATELLITE PHOTO. THEY'VE, THEY'VE BUILT IT SINCE THEN. BUT I MEAN, IT GETS OTHER THINGS AS WELL. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE SHARED ACCESS LIKE THIS. AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT ENZO SAID, TEX-DOT MIGHT NOT WANT TO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO STUB OUT ONTO DIRECTLY THEIR ROADS. SO THEY MIGHT BE RESTRICTING THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND SOME OF THE INVESTMENTS THAT THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD BRING TO THE SHOPPING CENTER MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COME TO REALIZATION BECAUSE THEY WERE ASSUMING THAT THEY COULD HAVE THE SHARED ACCESS GOING THROUGH, WHICH IS WHAT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS IN THE CITY ORIGINALLY. YEAH. THE INTENTION WAS THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE MADE THEM PLAN FOR THAT CROSS ACCESS. BUT BECAUSE THE WORDING WASN'T AS STRICT AS IT COULD BE, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. WHEN THEY DID THE PLATS, THEY DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THAT. CORRECT. IT WAS APPROVED ANYWAY. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVED IT TOO, RIGHT. WELL, YEAH. AND SO CLARIFICATION ON THAT. YEAH. THIS IS AN OUTDATED PHOTO. SO THE SHOPPING CENTER ITSELF HAS ACCESS. SO THEIR ACCESS IS NOT SOLELY DEPENDENT ON ACROSS ACCESS IN THIS CASE. SO THEY DO HAVE CURRENTLY ACCESS TO THE STREET THAT'S JUST NORTH. THAT'S AT THE TOP OF THIS PICTURE. AND THAT'S THE STREET THAT NOW INTERSECTS INTO FIFTH STREET INTO 1092. AND THERE'S A SIGNAL THERE. SO THE

[02:00:02]

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW AT ITEM 14. ONE MORE MOTION. A MOTION TO ADJOURN A SECOND VOTE, PLEASE. I'M MISSING A COUPLE OF VOTES, PLEASE. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER ARMSTRONG AND DAVIDSON, IF YOU COULD VOTE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.