V) Consider and Possible Action

[3) Consider approval of a request to rezone an approximately 98.88 acres tract of land from the interim zoning classification of Agricultural (AG) to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), consisting of approximately 13 acres of Retail Services (RS) district, 48.4 acres of Single-Family Attached (R-1-A) Garden Home district, and 28.4 acres of Apartment Residential 3 (R-3-3) district, for property located at 1100 E. FM-150, in Hays County, Texas. (Z-25-0138) Public Hearing ]

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 98.88 ACRES OF TRACT LAND FROM THE INTERIM ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL AG TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF RETAIL SERVICES.

SES DISTRICT 48.4 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED R-1-, A GARDEN HOME DISTRICT AND 28.4 ACRES OF APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL. 3-33 DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 EAST FM 150, IN HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS. 0138. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS.

SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT NOW, OR DO YOU? I WOULD PROBABLY WAIT TILL THE END. THAT WAY I CAN GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND MAY OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT PUBLIC TO TO HAVE QUESTIONS IF THEY SEE SOMETHING.

OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. FIRE AWAY. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN.

COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING. SO TODAY IS WHAT WE'RE EFFECTIVELY CALLING PROJECT SAHARA.

[00:15:03]

THERE'S A NEW DEVELOPER CALLING IT CITY POINT.

A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. IT IS PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE MULTIPLE APPROVALS TO GET THIS PROJECT ENTITLED.

BUT NZ'S CONSIDERATION TONIGHT THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY IS OVER THE RECOMMENDED ZONING.

SO I'LL GO THROUGH KIND OF THE STEPS OF THIS PROCESS.

THE FIRST ONE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SUBJECT TRACT ACTUALLY HAD A NON ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT SINCE HAS EXPIRED.

AND SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT COMING INTO THE CITY.

SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A NEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE ANNEXATION. COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ANNEXATION WHEN THINGS COME IN AND ANNEX.

THEY COME IN AS A DEFAULT ZONING OF AG. SO THIS IS WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING THE REZONING TO GET RID OF THAT INTERIM CATEGORY.

AND THEN THE ZONING PUD HAS THE LAND USES. THAT IS WHAT YOUR CONSIDERATION IS TONIGHT.

I WILL TOUCH BRIEFLY ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING MATERIALS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S PERTINENT TO Y'ALL'S DISCUSSION. BUT THAT IS IN ANOTHER DOCUMENT.

THERE'S ALSO A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING MECHANISM TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS.

THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE A WATER CCN SWAP WITH COUNTY LINE.

THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT FAR AWAY FROM THE PROJECT, SO IT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO SERVE IT AT THIS TIME.

AND THEN THERE'S A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION.

THERE IS PART OF THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERING A TAX CREDIT HOUSING COMPLEX, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE COUNCIL PASSES A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO THERE'S A LOT MOVING ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO I'LL KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS IS THE STEPS THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH.

I'M GOING TO START WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MOVING TO PUD. THERE'S A LOT OF SLIDES. SO IF I GO A LITTLE FAST, YOU WANT ME TO SLOW DOWN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. SO FIRST OFF, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IT'S GOING TO TALK A LOT ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS OR RESPONSIBILITIES.

BUT THE BIG ONE THAT THAT ZONING CONSIDERS IS THE BUILDING MATERIALS.

SO SOME RECENT STATE LAW CHANGES. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO BUILDING MATERIALS IS EITHER IT'S IN AN EXISTING OVERLAY OR IT'S THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO THIS IS WHY THIS IS HERE. THEY ARE LOOKING AT 40% BRICK OR STONE ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROJECT FOR THE COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY REMAINING MATERIALS ARE GOING TO BE STUCCO, CEMENT, SIDING, METAL OR TILE. THESE ARE SOME RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL WILL LOOK LIKE.

AND THEN THESE ARE THE UPDATED RENDERINGS OF THE MULTIFAMILY.

SO IF YOU GO THROUGH THIS, MATCHES A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH WHAT YOU SAW ON THE SINGLE FAMILY.

I'LL GIVE YOU A SECOND TO LOOK AT THAT BEFORE I JUMP INTO THE NEXT SLIDES.

SO HERE'S THE SUMMARY OF Y'ALL'S REQUEST. THIS IS THE MEAT AND POTATOES OF WHY WE'RE HERE.

IT'S A BASIC REZONE 98.88 ACRES. AGAIN THEY'RE ASKING FOR 13 ACRES OF RETAIL SERVICES.

THAT'S GOING TO BE PARCEL ONE ON THIS MAP UP ALONG FM 150.

THERE'S GONNA BE 48.4 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY R-1A, WHICH IS A GARDEN HOME DISTRICT.

THAT'S PARCEL THREE AND APPROXIMATELY 28 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL R3 THREE.

THAT IS PARCEL TWO IN THE BROWN. PARCEL TWO WILL HAVE TWO SEPARATE TRACKS.

THERE'S TWO MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED ON THAT.

ONE IS A LOW INCOME TAX, HOUSING AND CREDIT, AND THEN ONE IS A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE DETAILS. IT'S 1100 EAST FM 150.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE 10.5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, PARKLAND, VIBE AND DETENTION.

IN THIS PROJECT, ABOUT 7.2 ACRES OF LAND DEDICATED FOR PASTRANO SENIOR PARKWAY.

THERE IS A ONE ACRE EXISTING CELL TOWER SITE ON 158 TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY AND LEAVES APPROXIMATELY 80.1 BUILDABLE ACRES, NOT INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY TO SERVE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

THIS IS THE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN ON WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL LOOK LIKE.

SO YOU'LL SEE THE KIND OF LIGHT YELLOW IS SINGLE FAMILY FRONT LOADED.

THE ORANGISH COLOR IS GOING TO BE A REAR LOADED PRODUCT.

AND THEN THE MULTIFAMILY IS IN THE SALMON COLOR, I GUESS.

AND THEN THE PINK IS COMMERCIAL ALONG 150. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT LAND USES ON RETAIL SERVICES, THIS IS GOING TO ALLOW ALL THE PERMITTED USES IN R'S DISTRICT.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A MINIMUM OF 70,000FT² OF COMMERCIAL THAT WILL BE HAVE TO CONSTRUCT BE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS SITE.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL USES CIVIC OR PARKLAND.

THE APPLICANT IS DONATING APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES TO THE CITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FUTURE MUNICIPAL FACILITY.

IF THAT CAN'T BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A GIVEN TIME FRAME, THAT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONVERTED TO PARKLAND UNTIL THE CITY FINDS A USE.

BUT BUILDING A BUILDING IS TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

THEY ALSO HAVE SOME LIMITED USES THAT THEY'RE ALLOWING IN THE RS.

SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR ONE BANK WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH.

[00:20:02]

THEY ARE ASKING FOR POSSIBLY ONE MATTRESS STORE MAX OF 2500FT² AND ONE LIQUOR STORE MAX OF 2500.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THERE'S BEEN ANY CONTRACT SIGNED WITH.

THEY JUST WANT MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY TO TO RECRUIT COMMERCIAL.

AND NOW SOME OF THE PROHIBITED USES ARE SOME OF OUR TYPICALS.

WE HAVE BAIL BONDS AND PAYDAY LOANS VAPE AND SMOKE SHOPS, GAS STATIONS, CAR WASH STORAGE, SELF-STORAGE STORAGE FACILITIES. STANDALONE KIOSKS, ATM MACHINES, DOG GROOMING ICE MACHINES AND THEN AUTO SALES PARTS AND REPAIRS WILL BE PROHIBITED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU LOOK HERE AT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS BLUE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE KIND OF THE CIVIC BUILDING THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER.

AGAIN, THAT AND OR A PARK UNTIL A BUILDING CAN BE CONSTRUCTED.

AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL IS UP AT THE FRONT. THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE PASTRANO PARKWAY.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SETBACKS, PARKING REGULATIONS WHAT'S DIFFERENT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR THIS RS PUD, WHICH YOU NORMALLY SEE IS THERE'S CURRENTLY NO VARIANCES REQUESTED.

THEY'RE GOING TO JUST FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOUND IN THE RS. THEY THINK THAT WORKS FOR THEIR NEEDS.

LANDSCAPING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ZONING DISTRICTS OR I'M SORRY, WITH OUR LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.

BUT THEY ARE ALSO GOING TO IMPLEMENT ASPECTS OF ONE WATER, AND I'LL GET TO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.

I HAVE A SLIDE KIND OF DESCRIBES WHAT THAT IS.

SO Y'ALL CAN KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW THAT THAT WORKS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE R 33 REQUESTED ZONING THIS IS GOING TO ALLOW PERMITTED USES IN THAT DISTRICT.

IT'S GOING TO BE 630 UNIT MAXIMUM. AGAIN, TWO MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS.

YOU WILL HAVE A TAX CREDIT PROJECT AND A MARKET RATE PROJECT.

THE R3 THREE OR THE SPUD DOES ALLOW SOME PERMITTED USES.

BASICALLY THE USES IN THE RS DISTRICT CAN BE PUT IN THE MULTIFAMILY SECTION.

AT THIS TIME, THERE'S NO CONTEMPLATION FOR GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, BUT IF THEY WANTED TO CONSTRUCT THAT, THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT USE IF THERE'S CONCERNS THAT THE MULTIFAMILY WOULD GO AWAY AND WOULD BE JUST A TON MORE COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A MAJOR, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN. IT WOULD REQUIRE TO COME BACK TO PNC AND COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.

MOVING ON TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEY ARE LOOKING AT A BUILDING HEIGHT FOUR STOREYS, APPROXIMATELY 55FT. SETBACKS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT HERE.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT 20FT TO PASTRANO SENIOR PARKWAY.

BUT THERE IS THE WAY THE ROAD IS DESIGNED. THERE'S A 100 FOOT ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT THAT PARALLELS THAT ROAD.

SO ODDS ARE THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO GET WITHIN THAT 20FT.

BUT THAT'S THE ESTABLISHED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TEN FEET TO ALL OTHER PUBLIC STREETS, KIND OF PERIMETER BOUNDARY LINES.

AGAIN, LANDSCAPING TO OUR CODE. PARKING IS AT 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT.

THEY ARE ALLOWING OR ADDING 10% GUEST PARKING TO THE REQUIRED, AND THEY ANTICIPATE ABOUT 20% OF THE PARKING WILL BE COVERED.

NEXT WE LOOK AT THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. THIS IS AN R1 ZONING.

SO PERMITTED USES. AGAIN WE'RE LOOKING AT 330 MAXIMUM UNITS.

YOU'RE GOING TO FIND DETACHED FRONT LOADED PROPERTY DETACHED ALLEY LOADED.

THE ZONING ALLOWS TOWNHOMES AND PATIO HOMES. AND THEN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED.

SO THIS THESE USES WERE PULLED RIGHT OUT OF OUR NEWLY ADOPTED COMP PLAN.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT IS ANTICIPATED IN THIS AREA FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE SETBACKS HERE.

THESE ARE BROKEN DOWN BY THEIR DETACHED FRONT LOAD, DETACHED ALI LOAD TOWNHOME OR PATIO.

YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE SOME TEN FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACKS.

WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A LOT OF THAT BEING BUILT JUST BECAUSE PEX REQUIREMENTS FOR EASEMENTS ARE 15 FOOT MINIMUMS, BUT THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THOSE SETBACKS IN CERTAIN AREAS.

CORNER SIDES ARE ALL AT TEN, SIDES ARE AT FIVE.

OBVIOUSLY TOWNHOMES INTERIOR ZERO AND THEN REARS ARE 15, FIVE AND FIVE.

ESPECIALLY ON THE DETACHED ALLEY LOADED THAT GARAGE WILL WILL SIT UP ALONG THE ALLEY.

WHEN WE LOOK AT LOT STANDARDS AGAIN, SAME BREAKDOWN ABOUT 4000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM ON THE FRONT LOADED 3000 ON THE ALLEY, TOWNHOMES, PATIOS, ABOUT 1200 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS THE LOT FRONTAGE MINIMUM.

SO 45FT, 35FT. TOWNHOMES ARE 16. AGAIN, THOSE ARE COMMON WALLS.

YOU COULD HAVE A SERIES OF FOUR OR YOU COULD JUST BE TWO.

KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE THE DESIGN. IMPERVIOUS COVER SET AT 70% 95 AND 90.

OBVIOUSLY THAT 90 IS FOR THOSE INTERIOR LOTS.

JUST BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LOTS, DID I GO LOT STANDARDS? LOOKING AT HEIGHT WE'RE TALKING MAX HEIGHT OF 35FT FOR HOMES AND TOWNHOMES AT 45.

[00:25:02]

THAT'S TYPICAL BUILDING HEIGHT ACROSS THE CITY.

THESE ARE THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR LIVING AREAS.

AGAIN, THOSE CAN BE LARGER AND THEN MINIMUM GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE SIZES.

WHEN IT COMES TO GARAGES THOUGH BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACKS.

SO FRONT LOADED ARE GOING TO HAVE BE A MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND THEY MAY NOT EXTEND IN FRONT OF THE HOME.

SO YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE HOUSE IS AT 15, THE GARAGE WILL BE 20.

YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE ARE AT 20, BUT IN NO CASE WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY SNOUT HOUSES, NO GARAGE PROTRUDING FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME.

GARAGES FOR OTHERS WILL BE IN THE ALLEY FOR THE TOWNHOMES AND THE REAR LOADING PROJECTS PRODUCTS PARKING.

SO MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES IT'S GOING TO BE TWO PER UNIT FOR THE FRONT LOAD WHICH IS PER OUR CODE AND THEN TWO PER UNIT PLUS 25% VISITOR PARKING FOR REAR LOADED. THAT WOULD BE TOWNHOMES.

SO THEY WILL SATISFY THAT THROUGH EITHER SOME POCKET SURFACE PARKING FOR GUEST PARKING OR STREET PARKING PARALLEL WHEREVER THAT'S ALLOWED.

BUT THEY WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PARK ON STREET COUNTED AS THOSE GUEST PARKING IF THERE ARE CERTAIN MINIMUM WIDTHS.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE FIRE ACCESS TO ALLOW PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.

TRANSPORTATION IS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO AGAIN, THEY'RE DONATING 7.2 ACRES FOR PASTRANO SENIOR PARKWAY.

IT'S A MINOR ARTERIAL. IT'S 100FT IN RIGHT OF WAY.

ONCE COMPLETED, THIS WILL CONNECT FM 150 TO YARRINGTON ROAD.

WE HAVE ANOTHER SECTION THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED NOW.

AND IT'S IN DESIGN. THIS WILL PROVIDE A MAJOR SEGMENT TO THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN.

EXCUSE ME. PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM A FULL TIA.

THIS WILL TALK ABOUT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, NOT JUST FOR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON CAPISTRANO, BUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON 150, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON 158 ANY AND THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS? THOSE WILL SCOPE THAT THE CITY WILL SIT IN. IT'LL BE US, THE DEVELOPER, AND THEN TXDOT THERE AND THEN THE COUNTY AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME BOND PROJECTS FOR SOME ROAD WORK AS WELL.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, SO WE UNDERSTAND HOW TRAFFIC WILL BE AFFECTED.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARKLAND PART OF THIS PROJECT.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS GOING TO REQUIRE 1.5 ACRE COMMUNITY PARK AND PAVILION BE DONATED TO THE CITY.

THAT WILL BE A FEE SIMPLE TRANSFER. THEY WILL MAINTAIN MAINTENANCE OF THAT SAID BUILDING AND PROGRAMING.

THEY ALSO GOING TO DEDICATE 0.9 MILES OR ROUGHLY TWO ACRES OF TRAIL, PROVIDED.

YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THIS IMAGE. IT'S ALONG 158 COMES UP.

GO FORTH, I'M SORRY. PASTRANO. AND THEN CUTS BACK OVER TO KIND OF A PAVILION AREA, RECREATIONAL AREA IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTION.

SO AGAIN, GIVING THAT ACCESS AND THAT ROUTE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BUT OVERALL THERE'S GOING TO BE ABOUT TEN AND A HALF ACRES OF PARKLAND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER. A LITTLE BIT ON THE 1.5 ACRE COMMUNITY PARK THAT'S GOING TO BE HAVE ROUGHLY 1500FT² OF INDOOR MEETING SPACE, RESTROOMS, DRINKING FOUNTAIN, COVERED SPORTS COURT, PLAYSCAPE.

THEY'RE GOING TO USE NATIVE LANDSCAPING. OPEN SPACE IS PROBABLY AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN ACRES OF TRAILS.

THERE'S SOME PASEOS POCKET PARKS AS WHEN IT COMES TO PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS THEY'RE REQUIRED 960,000.

AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING 2 MILLION.

SO THEY ARE EXCEEDING THOSE PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS AS WELL.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WATER CONSERVATION THIS WAS SOMETHING THE WATER DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING WAS BIG ON.

THANK YOU FOR THE DEVELOPER FOR IMPLEMENTING THOSE.

THEY ARE IMPLEMENTING ASPECTS OF ONE WATER. SO ONE WATER IS KIND OF A HOLISTIC APPROACH THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW TO NOT ONLY EFFICIENTLY UTILIZE THE WATER THAT YOU HAVE, BUT HOW YOU CAN COLLECT IT, WHETHER THAT'S RAINWATER, AC CONDENSATION.

DETENTION. AND HOW YOU CAN UTILIZE THAT FOR IRRIGATION.

IT'S VERY COMPLEX. THERE'S A FAMOUS SCHOOL, CANYON LAKE, THAT IS COMPLETELY SELF-SUFFICIENT ON ONE WATER.

THEY'RE NOT TAKING THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT FAR. SO IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAN THAN ONE SINGULAR SCHOOL.

BUT THEY ARE UTILIZING DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPING.

AGAIN, ARTIFICIAL TURF, MULCH AND AGGREGATE WHEREVER FEASIBLE.

THEY WILL BE UTILIZING LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT DESIGNS.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO COLLECT ALL THIS WATER THROUGH DRAINAGE SWALES, RAIN GARDENS.

THOSE WILL BE COLLECTED IN THE REGIONAL DETENTION POND THAT WAS PLANNED SOUTHEAST ON THOSE IMAGES.

AND THEN THE WATER FROM THAT POND IS GOING TO BE CAPTURED, STORED ON SITE AND UTILIZED FOR THE IRRIGATION ON SITE IRRIGATION.

SO THIS WILL HELP SIGNIFICANTLY LESSEN THE REQUIREMENT ON CITY'S POTABLE WATER SUPPLY.

[00:30:05]

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN KEEP IN MIND THIS DEVELOPMENT CAME IN ALMOST.

I THINK IT'LL BE THREE YEARS AGO IN JANUARY. THAT WE'VE STARTED DISCUSSING THIS WITH, WITH THE CITY AND THE AND THE APPLICANT.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS, BUT THE MEAT AND POTATOES AND DISCUSSIONS HAVE PRETTY MUCH BEEN THE SAME.

SO WHEN THEY CAME IN, THEY WERE ACTUALLY UNDER THE OLD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAD A DIFFERENT FUTURE LAND USE IN THIS AREA.

BUT THEY DID WORK TO KIND OF ADD ELEMENTS OF THE NEW COMP PLAN INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE ADUS, THE TOWNHOMES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO THE NEW COMP PLAN CALLS THIS OUT AREA AS A REGIONAL, COMMERCIAL AND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU CAN SEE BY THE IMAGE THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL NODE IS MORE OF A KIND OF GENERAL AREA.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SHOWN AS AS CIRCLES. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANT WE'RE NOT CONVERTING ALL THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT ARE TO THE NORTH SIDE OF 150 INTO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.

SO YOU CAN SEE THIS KIND OF SLIDING DOWN ONTO THE PROPERTY AND COVERING IT, AND THE REST WOULD BE, THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. SO COMP PLAN DOES ALLOW THE REGIONAL SCALE COMMERCIAL.

IT DOES ALLOW THE TOWNHOME OR THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD ALLOWS THE TOWNHOME, SMALL PLEXES AND GARAGE COURTS.

THE ONLY THING THAT THAT IS MISSING HERE IS THE MANY OVER.

SO IF YOU REMEMBER, MANY OVER IS DEFINED AS GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WITH ESSENTIALLY APARTMENTS ON TOP.

SO MANY OVER ARE AN APARTMENT PRODUCT. I THINK HERE, GIVEN THE LAYOUT OF THE LAND, THE WAY GO FORTH BISECTS.

I'M SORRY, SENIOR PARKWAY BISECTS THE PROPERTY.

IT REALLY DOES SKINNY DOWN WHERE THAT MULTIFAMILY IS.

AND SO IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO TRY AND GET GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THE KIND OF COMMERCIAL UP ON BOTH SIDES.

SO WE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE THEY'RE TRYING TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT'S WHY STAFF IS IS SUPPORTIVE OF THEM. SO TONIGHT YOU HAVE SOME OPTIONS.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS.

RECOMMEND DENIAL. STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED ZONING AS PRESENTED.

AND SO THAT WAS A LOT. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALL FOR QUESTIONS.

THE DEVELOPERS HERE, IF THERE'S SOMETHING I CAN'T ANSWER OR IF IT'S WANTED TO KNOW THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND SOMETHING.

AND SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, YOU GAVE YOUR PRESENTATION, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS.

SO BEFORE WE DIVE INTO OUR QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO OPEN THAT UP AND GIVE THE PEOPLE AT THE MEETING A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

SO IT IS 704 AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

HELLO. KENNETH ROCHA, HOMETOWN. KYLE. I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT THE PRESENTATION HAPPENED BEFORE THIS BECAUSE IT GIVES US INFORMATION TO DIGEST. WHAT THIS ALSO SHOWED WAS EVEN LIKE ON SLIDE 13. THERE'S SO MANY MOVING COMPONENTS. THE LOT FRONTAGE FOR TOWNHOME PATIO INDICATES ON PUBLISHED INFORMATION THAT IT'S TEN FOOT.

BUT WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY WAS 16 FOOT. SO THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO GET CLARIFICATION OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING PRESENTED BASED OFF OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS RECEIVING. SO IF THIS INFORMATION WENT OUT LAST WEEK, WE'RE OPERATING SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS LOT FRONTAGE MINIMUM FROM 10FT TO 16FT.

BUT WHAT ELSE? WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN MISSED? SO WHAT I SAID DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, I WILL REITERATE THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOR THE PIT HEARING. SO TABLING THE ITEM IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW AS WELL.

I KNOW YOU PREVENT YOU WERE PROVIDED SOME RECOMMENDATION AND SOME OPTIONS.

TABLING WASN'T ONE OF THEM. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S AFFORDED TO YOU IN ORDER FOR YOU TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT ALSO GIVES YOU TIME TO HEAR OTHER PUBLIC CONCERNS FOR PEOPLE THAT MAYBE COULDN'T MAKE IT TODAY.

AND TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEING PRESENTED IS DIGESTIBLE TO SOMEBODY WHO ISN'T AS FAMILIAR WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS, DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION WHAT MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE AND IMPERVIOUS COVER MEANS.

AND SO GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY, US BEING THE COMMUNITY AND Y'ALL TO DIGEST THE INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED.

I KNOW I'M FAMILIAR THAT THERE COULD ALSO BE A SHOT CLOCK INVOLVED WITH THIS TO WHEN YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO DEFAULTING TO APPROVAL. AND THAT'S WHERE MY, MY PREVIOUS COMMENT WAS.

THAT CAN BE CHANGED WITH A, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER AND UNDERSTANDING AS MUCH INFORMATION THAT'S BEING PROVIDED.

[00:35:01]

IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING OUR DEVELOPER, OUR PARTNER, WOULD BE AMENABLE TO US TO ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION.

WHEN WE HEAR THE QUICK PACE BEING PROMOTED BY BY STAFF, IT CREATES A MINDSET THAT WE WANT TO PUSH IT THROUGH, TO JUST PUSH IT THROUGH. AND SO MY ENCOURAGEMENT IS TO BE INTENTIONAL WITH Y'ALL'S RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. COMMITTEE. I'M LARRY STAMPS, BY THE WAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHO I AM, BUT IN REGARDS TO MR. ROACH'S COMMENT, I'VE ALREADY DIGESTED AND I'VE HERE TO TELL YOU THAT I AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS, IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.

AND I'LL TELL YOU TWO REASONS WHY. IT'S 1000.

ROUGHLY 1000 HOMES. AND I CAME IN LATE, SO IF MY NUMBER'S WRONG, FORGIVE ME, BUT I'M UNDERSTANDING.

THERE'S ABOUT 1000 HOMES AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE COMING INTO THIS TOWN WITH THIS PROJECT.

HAVE YOU DRIVEN ON OUR HIGHWAYS, ON OUR CITY STREETS TODAY, THIS WEEK OR THIS MONTH? IT'S INCREDIBLE TRYING TO GET THROUGH TOWN. SO WE HAVE 1000 HOMES PROPOSED IN THOSE BUSINESSES.

ON TOP OF THAT, THINK ABOUT HOW MANY MORE CARS ARE WE GOING TO HAVE NEW VEHICLES WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE MOVING IN OF THESE HOMES AND BUSINESSES. YOU'RE GOING TO TIE UP A TON OF MORE ROADS WITH A TON OF MORE TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL.

PASTRANO SENIOR PARKWAY IS NOT GOING TO ALLEVIATE THAT PROBLEM, BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS ARE GOING TO GO ELSEWHERE WITHIN OUR CITY AND TRAVERSE THROUGH OUR CITY TO OTHER LOCATIONS. I AM SO FRUSTRATED WITH OUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW.

I. I LOVE THIS TOWN, BUT I'M READY TO MOVE. QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T WANT TO MOVE.

I WANT THIS ISSUE FIXED. AND WE CAN'T FIX IT IF WE'RE CREATING MORE PROBLEMS. AND MY RESPECT, I KNOW YOU PUT A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS.

A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT. I RESPECT THAT TOTALLY.

BUT THIS IS THE WRONG TIME, FOLKS. IT'S THE WRONG TOWN.

IT'S THE WRONG TIME AND THE WRONG TOWN. ANOTHER THING ARE WE ARE NOT OUT OF WATER.

NEARLY SOMETHING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT.

BECAUSE EVERY DAY I HEAR SOME CONCERNED CITIZEN WONDERING ABOUT OUR WATER.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN FIVE YEARS WHEN WE CAN'T EVEN TAKE CARE OF THE THOUSAND RESIDENTS WITH A THOUSAND HOMES? JUST MULTIPLY THAT BY 20, YOU KNOW, 2.5. HOW ARE WE GOING TO WATER ALL THOSE FOLKS AND THEIR CATS AND THEIR DOGS AND THEIR PLANTS AND THEIR CARS WHEN THEY NEED WASHING? I'M PRETTY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. I WANT YOU TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT IT, TOO.

AND IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE SITTING ON THIS PANEL.

SO TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION. AND JUST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I PLAN ON FIGHTING THIS, AND I PLAN ON FIGHTING IT WITH AN ARMY. AND THAT ARMY IS CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO VOTE HERE, LIVE HERE, WORK HERE AND SLEEP HERE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IT'S YVONNE FLORES. FOR THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT, SO A FEW CONCERNS THAT I HAVE WERE THE, THE REQUEST FOR MATTRESS AND A LIQUOR STORE. THOSE ARE A MINIMUM OF 2500FT². ALSO A BANK.

A BANK IS AN AVERAGE BANK IS ABOUT 6000FT². BUT I'LL GIVE THEM FIVE, SO THEY RESERVE 5000.

SO NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT 10,000FT². NOT FOR THE RETAIL THAT I THINK IS GOING TO FIT IN THIS AREA.

AND THAT'S NOT EVEN INCLUDING PARKING. I'M NOT SURE IF PARKING IS INCLUDED IN THAT 10,000FT² THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING OR IF THAT WILL BE ADDITIONAL.

SO THEN IT CUTS IT DOWN TO 60,000 RETAIL. DOES THAT INCLUDE OR DOES THAT INCLUDE PARKING.

SO ARE WE TAKING ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR PARKING SUBTRACTING FROM THE 60,000.

60,000 IS APPROXIMATELY THE SIZE OF A REGULAR KROGER.

SO IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT INTO PERSPECTIVE ADDITIONALLY, THE PARKS MY CONCERN IS IF ANYBODY WAS WATCHING THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OR READ THE BUDGET, THERE IS EXACTLY ZERO EMPLOYEES ADDED TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR PARKS.

SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ADDITIONAL PARK THAT'S GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY? I DID LIKE THE WATER CONSERVATION THAT THEY HAD FOR THEIR OVERALL COMMUNITY.

MY CONCERN IS THERE'S NONE FOR THE HOMES. SO WHEN YOU FLUSH YOUR TOILET, WHEN YOU TAKE A SHOWER, WHEN YOU COOK YOUR MEAL, THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE CITY REALLY NEEDS TO FOCUS ON CONSERVING ITS WATER.

[00:40:07]

ALSO, THERE IS CURRENTLY $0.00 BUDGETED FOR COUNTY ROAD 158 AND HIGHWAY 150.

THE TWO MAJOR ROADS THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT.

MY SUGGESTION IS IF THE CITY WANTS THE ROAD BUILT, THEY SHOULD BUDGET FOR IT.

THEY SHOULD. THAT WILL BRING A BETTER DEVELOPMENT IN THE EVENT THAT THEY IT'S REALLY NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT THE CITY TO JUST LEAVE IT UNDEVELOPED FOR NOW.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OWNERS ARE BACK HERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF HAS WORKED HARD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU, BETWEEN THE PEOPLE THAT SIT ON MY RIGHT AND THE PEOPLE THAT SIT ON MY LEFT, THERE IS EXACTLY FIVE PEOPLE HERE THAT LIVE DOWN THAT ROAD.

NOT ANYBODY ON P AND Z LIVES ON THE EAST, NOT ANYBODY SITTING TO THE RIGHT OF ME THAT REPRESENTS THE CITY LIVES ON THE EAST, AND NEITHER DOES ANYBODY TO THE LEFT OF ME. SO WHEN WE TAKE OUR TIME FROM OUR DAY TO COME UP HERE AND AND SPEAK TO YOU GUYS, I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. I HAVE A SON AT HOME THAT'S WAITING TO PLAY GAMES WITH ME AS I FINISH THIS, AND I DON'T WANT THIS TO ALL BE IN VAIN. I UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT ME BECAUSE WHO I AM AND I SPEAK OUT.

BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO THIS ISSUE IN PARTICULAR THAN JUST ME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AGAIN, I'LL COVER A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I REALLY, ACTUALLY LIKE THE IDEA THAT MR. ROCHA PUT FORTH MORE THAN ANYTHING.

AND THAT'S TABLE THIS. YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH AN AWFUL LOT OF INFORMATION TONIGHT.

YOU'VE ALSO BEEN PRESENTED WITH A LOT OF REASONS THAT THIS ISN'T READY TO GO FORWARD.

LIVING WHERE I LIVE IN COOL SPRINGS, I TRAVEL COUNTY ROAD 150 AND 158 ON A DAILY BASIS.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 158, WHERE VEHICLES HAVE ACTUALLY CRASHED THROUGH FENCES, INTO HOMES OR NEAR HOMES. IN COOL SPRINGS, DUE TO CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES COMING AROUND THOSE CURVES AT HIGH RATES OF SPEED ALREADY OVERLOADED. WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING IS INVESTIGATE TRUCKING COMPANIES.

I KNOW WHAT OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES DO TO ROADS. I KNOW WHERE OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES DO TO CITIZENS WHO COME INTO CONTACT WITH THEM WHEN ARE OPERATED UNSAFELY.

AND THAT HAPPENS ALL OVER THAT. AND THIS CONSTRUCTION, EXCUSE ME, IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE THAT WORSE.

ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE MARKET, THERE ARE OVER 2000 HOMES CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET IN THE AREA.

WE HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE FOR SALE AND HAVE BEEN FOR SALE FOR MONTHS.

MY NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT OF ME HAS TAKEN HER MARKET, HER HOME OFF THE MARKET, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET SO LONG THAT SHE'S STARTING TO LOSE VALUE. IN ADDITION TO THE VALUE, WE'VE ALREADY LOST, THIS PROJECT WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED THREE YEARS AGO REQUIRED A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL THAT INCLUDED A GROCERY STORE THAT IS NOW GONE, AND THE KIND OF RETAIL THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN IS SMALL, LITTLE DINKY THINGS. WE DON'T NEED MORE SANDWICH SHOPS. WE DON'T NEED MORE DISCOUNT RETAIL STUFF.

WE NEED A GROCERY STORE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT LAND, LET'S BUILD SOME REAL RETAIL ON IT.

NOT MORE HOUSES THAT WE DON'T NEED. THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S BEING BUILT IN WATERSTONE, THE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE BEING THAT ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE IN WATERSTONE ARE SITTING EMPTY.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND THE ROAD IS NEEDED.

I GET THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE ROAD GOING THROUGH THERE NECESSARILY. I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE A ROUNDABOUT ON COUNTY ROAD 158 AS PART OF THAT PROJECT. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THAT AREA IS ALREADY DANGEROUS TO TRAFFIC, AND CREATING A ROUNDABOUT IS NOT GOING TO HELP THAT.

SO I ASK YOU AGAIN, PLEASE TABLE THIS. IF YOU DON'T, THEN VOTE NO COMPLETELY ON IT.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS EMILY LEDINGHAM. I ALSO RESIDE IN THE COOL SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD ASK FIRST THAT THIS BOARD CONSIDER INFRASTRUCTURE.

PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT BEING LAID. FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE IS A RECIPE FOR LOWERED HOME VALUES. AS WE ARE CONTINUING TO ASK HOMEOWNERS TO TAKE ON MORE TAXES.

PERSONALLY, MY WATER RATE JUST DOUBLED LITERALLY DOUBLED IN FEBRUARY.

MY ELECTRICITY RATE ALSO INCREASED VERY RECENTLY, AND WE'VE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

OKAY. THAT'S FINE. WE ARE ASKED TO ACCEPT HIGHER COSTS OF LIVING AND LOWERED HOME VALUES WITH LITTLE TO NO DIRECT BENEFIT TO THOSE HOMEOWNERS. AS YVONNE AND MR. ROCHA, TIM. AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T CATCH THE FIRST SPEAKER'S NAME HAVE ALL PRESENTED.

[00:45:07]

THERE ARE OVER 2000 HOMES ON THE MLS RIGHT NOW, NOT INCLUDING RENTAL UNITS.

THE CITY OF KYLE IS NOT LACKING HOMES. WE ARE LACKING IN OTHER AREAS.

THE PRESENTATION DID NOT FULLY ADDRESS THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND AS YVONNE POINTED OUT, THEY ADDRESSED THE IRRIGATION AND SOME OF THE LARGER COMPONENTS.

BUT WHAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IS INDIVIDUAL HOMES, THE WATER CONSUMPTION THERE, AND THE ANTICIPATED IMPACT OF THESE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT WEREN'T EVEN DEFINED. THERE IS NO MONEY BUDGETED FOR TWO MAJOR ROADWAYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND SORRY, NOT GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED, BUT GOING TO BE IMPACTED IN MEANINGFUL WAYS.

THOSE ROADS ARE DANGEROUS. THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST THREE CRASHES IN TWO PRIVATE BACKYARDS SINCE THE TIME THAT I MOVED IN, WHICH WAS TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO. THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.

WE NEED TO CONSIDER INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST. WE NEED TO CONSIDER WATER FIRST.

WE NEED TO CONSIDER CARING FOR WHAT WE HAVE FIRST AND RESOLVING THE ISSUES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE BEFORE WE ADD IN MORE UNITS THAT AREN'T NECESSARY UNTIL WE CAN TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE.

WE DON'T NEED TO ADD MORE TO OUR PLATE.

OKAY, SEEING NO ONE ELSE COMING FORWARD FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT AT 718.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS NOW IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MR. LUTZ? YES, SIR. THE ROADS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ARE, IN FACT, CITY, COUNTY AND STATE ROADS, ARE THEY NOT? YES. ONCE. ONCE THEY GET ANNEXED PORTIONS WILL BECOME PART OF THE CITY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE SITE.

CURRENTLY, 158 AND ONE 5150 IS A TXDOT ROAD. I THINK BOTH OF THESE HAVE PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE COUNTY AS PART OF THEIR BOND PROJECT, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THE NEW COUNTY BOND PROGRAM SHOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES HERE.

THERE IS ON 150. I DO NOT HAVE THE DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WHAT THAT THAT BOND CALLS FOR.

I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COMMISSION THEIR STUDY.

THEY HAVE SOME OTHER ISSUES TO WORK OUT WITH THE BOND FORMAT ITSELF.

BUT THAT AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING THE TIA DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE ARE GOING TO COORDINATE WITH THEM REGARDING THAT.

YES, SIR. DOES TXDOT KNOW AT ALL THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE? YES. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL TXDOT MEETINGS WITH THEM OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE DISCUSSED ROUNDABOUTS, SUPERTEASE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTERSECTIONS FORMS THERE.

ESPECIALLY AT PASTRANO N150. SO MOST SPECIFICALLY, ARE THERE GOING TO BE, IT APPEARS TO ME, ENTRANCES ON PASTRANA PARKWAY AND I SUPPOSE 158 AS I'M READING THIS WHERE WILL THESE ENTRANCES BE? THEY'RE NOT IDENTIFIED JUST YET. I MEAN, THAT'LL BE COMING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.

WHAT YOU HEAR, SEE, HERE ON THIS PLAN IS APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS.

SO WE DO HAVE, WHEN WE LOOK AT ENTRANCES, SAY OFF.

158. THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS WE LOOK AT. ONE IS SAFETY, VISION, ROAD FLOW, TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.

SOME ARE PART OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THEMSELVES, WHAT WE CALL BLOCK LENGTH.

HOW FAR YOU CAN HAVE BETWEEN INTERSECTING ROADS? THAT CAN BE 300FT, 500FT OR 1000. GENERALLY YOU WANT TO GO LOWER SO THAT YOU HAVE MORE ACCESS POINTS AND YOU DON'T HAVE BACKUP AT, AT, SAY, ONE MAJOR INTERSECTION. I THINK A COUPLE SUBDIVISIONS IN TOWN, THEY HAVE ONE EXIT, AND THEN YOU KIND OF SEE PEOPLE BACKING UP. SO ALL OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS AND THE LAYOUT BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT OR PLAT.

WHEN THEY PRELIMINARY PLAN IT, THAT'LL GO THROUGH TRANSPORTATION, ENGINEERING PLANNING.

AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL KIND OF FINE TUNE WHERE THOSE EXACT LOCATIONS ARE, BUT THEY WILL PROBABLY MOST LIKELY BE IN SOME OF THE GENERAL AREAS.

SO AS I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A MULTI YEAR PROJECT.

YES, SIR. SO THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THEN, OF ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES OVER THIS TIME, RATHER THAN JUST HURRYING AND GETTING THE PROJECT DONE. THERE WILL BE YEARS TO WORK ON THIS, IN FACT.

YES. I THINK WHAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS TALKING ABOUT THE THE FRAMEWORK AND ULTIMATELY JUST THE BASIC ZONING.

I THINK ANY PROJECT THAT COMES THROUGH YOU, YOU MODIFY AS IT GOES ALONG.

I MEAN, THERE'S PROJECTS HERE THAT I'M SURE SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE FOR TEN YEARS AND THEY MAY HAVE STARTED AND THEY'RE STILL NOT COMPLETE.

[00:50:07]

AND SO AS THINGS DEVELOP, AS THINGS GO THROUGH STAFF IS ALWAYS LOOKING AT WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T WORK.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT REALLY TOO MUCH INTO THE DETAILS ON ON SAY WHAT SOME OF THESE HOW THESE USES WILL BE EXACTLY LAID OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE SEE THE KIND OF THE ENGINEERED PLANS. BUT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT CAN BE DONE.

AND THEN THAT SETS THE RULES FOR WHEN THEY COME IN.

WE CAN SAY, OKAY, YEAH, THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

YOU DON'T GET A SEPARATE METER FOR YOUR ADU BECAUSE IT'S PART OF YOUR IT'S ONE ONE UNIT, ONE METER, ONE TAP. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO INTO KIND OF EACH SITE SPECIFIC THING.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH AS, AS THEY COME ONLINE THAT BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THE GROCERY ISSUE IS, IS THERE'S NOT A GROCER PLANNED HERE FOR THIS TIME, BUT THAT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ONE FROM COMING IN.

BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CONTROLS. IF THE DEVELOPER IS ABLE TO LAND ONE, THEN THEY THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO LAND ONE.

SO YES, A LOT OF TIME TO, TO WORK THIS, THIS PLAN OR THIS PROJECT WILL BE KIND OF MASSAGED AS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH SITE. I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION THAT ABOUT THE MINOR CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE TO THE PLAN AND THAT MINOR CHANGES WOULD BE INSTATED AS LESS THAN I WOULD STATE IT AS UP TO 20% OF THE THE PARCEL COULD BE OTHERWISE THE PLANS COULD BE CHANGED AND THAT THOSE PLANS WOULD BE THEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED OR NOT BY PLANNING DIRECTOR. YES.

AND ALL STAFF WILL LOOK AT THAT. WE HAVE MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS THAT THOSE GO THROUGH.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGAIN PUBLIC WORKS, WATER ENGINEERING, TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING.

THAT JUST IDENTIFIES I THINK SOME PEOPLE KIND OF GET SUCKED INTO THE EXACT LOCATION OF THAT BUILDING, AND SOMEONE WANTS TO SHIFT IT OVER BECAUSE ANOTHER BUILDING MAY HAVE GOTTEN BIGGER.

AND SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO KEEP THINGS WHERE THEY ARE.

FOR ME, IT'S IF IF THE MULTIFAMILY WERE TO GO AWAY AND THEY WANTED TO ADD A COMMERCIAL SECTION, THAT'S A MAJOR DEVIATION. THAT'S NOT EVEN SOMETHING THAT THAT STAFF COULD APPROVE, AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.

BUT IT IS DONE TO GIVE FLEXIBILITY FOR, THINGS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.

MAYBE YOU HAVE A DRAINAGE AREA. YOU CAN'T MAKE THE WATER LINE WORK, OR YOU CAN'T PUT THE SEWER LINE IN THE EASEMENT.

YOU GOT TO REROUTE IT AND CAUSE THE ROADS TO SHIFT.

SO AGAIN, THE FLEXIBILITY IS JUST TO ALLOW THIS, THIS SITE TO GET MASSAGED INTO PLACE.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SEEM CAPABLE AND TO DOING THE JOB THE STAFF I HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN CITY STAFF.

THERE'S SOME GREAT, GREAT TEAM MEMBERS ON ON YOUR DEPARTMENTS.

OKAY. THAT'S IT FOR SOME OF MY BIGGER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER SERRANO. YEAH. QUICK QUESTION ON I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SLIDE ON BUILDING MATERIALS.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT LIKE IN THE I-35 OVERLAY WHATSOEVER, BUT I THINK A 40% MINIMUM IS RELATIVELY LOW TO CONSTRUCT THESE NEW BUILDINGS. I THINK IT SHOULD BE ALMOST DOUBLE THAT.

THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON THE BUILDING MATERIALS. I WOULD HAVE TO.

IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A MODIFICATION, I'D HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE TO KIND OF LEAN ON THE DEVELOPER TO SEE IF THEY COULD GO WITH THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, IF YOU'RE TALKING 80% STONE, JUST JUST KIND OF REMEMBER THAT THE WAY WE CALCULATE IT IS YOU'VE GOT YOUR BUILDING SAY IT'S TEN FEET TALL BY 100FT WIDE. THAT THAT 80% IS ONLY GOING TO BE OF WHAT'S LEFT AFTER WINDOWS AND GLAZING.

SO JUST IT CAN AFFECT YOUR NUMBERS JUST. AND I THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE I-35 OVERLAY.

BUT JUST, JUST SO YOU KNOW, BUT IF THAT'S A ROUTE OR A RECOMMENDATION THAT Y'ALL KIND OF WANT TO MAKE THEN I'D SAY AT THAT POINT WE CAN KIND OF BRING UP THE APPLICANT AND THEY CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

COMMISSIONER COPELAND MR.. DURING THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION, YOU SAID THAT BUILDING MATERIALS CAN BE MANIPULATED EITHER THROUGH DEVELOPER AGREEMENT OR AN OVERLAY. IS AN OVERLAY UNDER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT? WHAT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR THE FUTURE? NO. CURRENTLY AN OVERLAY IS NOT NOT ALLOWED. THE WAY THE STATE LAW CHANGED IN 2019, I BELIEVE THE OVERLAY HAD TO BE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THAT THAT THAT LAW WENT INTO EFFECT. SO WE HAD THE I-35 OVERLAY.

[00:55:04]

WE'VE GOT VETERANS DRIVE, WE'VE GOT BUTTON CREEK, SO WE HAVE SEVERAL OLD 81.

WE HAVE SEVERAL OVERLAYS, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ONE IN THAT AREA.

SO WE COULD NOT CREATE ONE AT THIS TIME. YOU CAN KIND OF DO THE SAME THING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT THOSE BUILDING MATERIALS IN THERE.

IN ESSENCE, IT DOES FUNCTION AS, AS AN OVERLAY OR CAN BUT.

BUT A SEPARATE OVERLAY. NO, SIR. THANK YOU. AND THEN FOR THE ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION, HAS THAT BEEN STIPULATED YET IN TERMS OF RETAIL VERSUS MULTIFAMILY VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY, OR IS THAT A FUTURE DISCUSSION POINT? THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE ON PHASING REQUIREMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

AGAIN THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE REQUIREMENT FOR 70,000FT².

AND THAT IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF PARKING. THAT IS JUST BUILDING.

I KNEW THAT WAS A QUESTION. SO THAT IS JUST BUILDING FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING.

AND SO THIS WILL BE MULTIPLE PHASES THE DA IS GOING TO CONTEMPLATE.

SO THEY'RE THEY HAVE TO BUILD SO MANY SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY BUILD SOME OF THE MULTIFAMILY AND SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THEY CANNOT MOVE ON TO THE SECOND PHASE OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND COMMERCIAL UNTIL OR MULTIFAMILY UNTIL ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL IS DONE.

SO IF IF COMMERCIAL IS SLOW TO DEVELOP, IT WOULD PUT THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL ON HOLD.

SO THERE ARE SOME TRIGGERS THAT THAT COUNCIL HAS ASKED STAFF TO PUT IN THERE TO TRY AND ENSURE THAT WE DON'T JUST GET A BUNCH OF HOUSES AND NO, NO NEEDED COMMERCIAL BECAUSE AGAIN, WHEN WE TALK TRAFFIC, THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL IN AREAS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET ON THE ROADS AND GO OTHER PLACES. SO WE WANT THAT COMMERCIAL TO DEVELOP.

AND WE WANT IT TO DEVELOP ACCORDINGLY. AND SO THIS KIND OF A WAY WE CAN PUT SOME GUARDRAILS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET A BUNCH OF RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT THAT IN THOSE GUARDRAILS ARE SET AT THIS POINT AND NOT SUBJECT TO TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION AND VOTE.

THEY'RE NOT SET. COUNCIL WILL SET THEM WHEN WHEN THIS GOES TO THEM.

WE'RE STILL HAVING SOME CONVERSATIONS ON THE DAS AS PART OF OUR PROCESS, PREPPING FOR THAT COUNCIL MEETING.

IT IS NOT PART OF YOUR VOTE. BUT IF YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON, ON, SAY, BUILDING MATERIALS, YOU CAN INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION FOR JUST COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE VOTE ITSELF, BUT IF YOU JUST HAD SIDE COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS YOU WANTED TO SHARE WITH COUNCIL, STAFF CAN DO THAT UNDER THE DISCUSSION ON R3 THREE UNITS.

YOU OUTLINED THAT FIRST FLOOR RETAIL IS A POTENTIAL POSSIBILITY THAT COULD BE EXPLORED IF THE DEVELOPER CHANGED TO DO A LOT MORE RETAIL VERSUS THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. I BELIEVE THE WORD YOU USED IS COULD BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR.

WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS BETWEEN COULD AND WOULD WIN THAT SITUATION? SOMETHING LIKE, SAY THE BUILDING IS IS CONSTRUCTED.

I'M SORRY. LET ME GO BACK TO. THANK YOU. SAY ONE OF THESE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, THIS PINK, U-SHAPED ONE HERE IS IS RESIDENTIAL. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL.

AND THE OWNER CAME IN AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT ALONG THIS ONE SIDE THAT THAT FACES THE COMMERCIAL, WE'D LIKE TO ADD A COFFEE SHOP, A GYM AND A WEIGHT ROOM.

I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE WE WOULD LOOK AT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE LAYOUT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE DENSITY.

IT'S NOT A MAJOR. AND WHEN I SAY JIM, I THINK OF LIKE ANYTIME FITNESS NOT CRUNCH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE SCALE OF WHAT'S BEING USED, WHAT THOSE DETAILS ARE.

THAT WOULD KIND OF DICTATE WHETHER WE CONSIDER IT A MAJOR OR MINOR.

I THINK FOR ME, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT MINOR. IF IT'S NOT CHANGING ALL THOSE THINGS, WE'RE NOT ADDING DENSITY.

BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S A GROUP DECISION. SO, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC WORKS MAY SAY, HEY, NO, WE HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT.

SO THEN WE MAY SAY, YEAH, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S MAKE THIS A MAJOR AND LET'S KICK THAT UP TO PNC AND COUNCIL.

BUT GENERALLY DISCRETION OF THAT MULTI-PARTY STAFF STAKEHOLDER GROUP THAT WOULD DETERMINE WHAT WOULD QUALIFY AS MAJOR VERSUS MINOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MAKE A CHANGE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS GOING TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE.

IT MAY BE THEY MAY CONSIDER IT A MINOR CHANGE.

BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE CITY AS AN APPLICATION SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HIGHLIGHTING ALL THEIR CHANGES SO THAT STAFF CAN REVIEW IT AS A GROUP.

AND THEN WE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S MINOR OR MAJOR, AND THEN DETERMINE WHICH PROCESS TAKES OVER FROM THERE.

THANK YOU. ON THE SETBACK DISCUSSION FOR R1, A DEPENDING ON ACTION LATER ON, THE AGENDA FOR ITEM FOUR, DOES THAT COLOR OR SHADE ANY OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT OR IS THAT A SEPARATE TOPIC? THERE'S NOT REALLY OVERLAP BETWEEN SEPARATE SEPARATE ZONING DISTRICTS.

SEPARATE. THIS POD, AS YOU KNOW, FROM OUR TRAINING A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, IS VERY IT'S UNIQUE OWN ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THAT'S HOW YOU SHOULD SORT OF LOOK AT THIS ONE.

AND THEN I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ON THE PRESENTATION I DID SEE THAT THE THE NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS PART OF THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN.

[01:00:06]

IT'S IT'S CONSIDERED THERE. CORRECT? YES. OKAY.

I THINK I'M GOOD FOR NOW. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WEBB, I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION BETWEEN A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS UP HERE AND SOME CONVERSATION THAT I GOT TO HAVE LEADING UP TO TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, I THINK MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, BUT SINCE IT'S NOT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, CAN YOU CONFIRM THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE? 70,000FT²? IS IS THE TOTAL RETAIL? THAT IS JUST THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

GOTCHA. AND THAT DOES OR DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING IN THERE? THAT DOES NOT. THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING IS SEPARATE.

AND AGAIN, I WILL SAY THOSE ARE MINIMUMS. IF THE DEVELOPERS GETS SOMEONE IN THAT THEY LIKE OR AN ANCHOR AND IT KIND OF CHANGES, YOU KNOW COMMERCIAL IS INTERESTING. DEPENDING ON WHO COMES IN, IT COULD ADD, YOU KNOW, MORE PEOPLE FLOCK IN IT COULD CHANGE THE DEMOGRAPHICS SO THEY, THEY COULD BUILD MORE AT THAT POINT AND I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE A MAJOR CHANGE. WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT.

BUT THOSE AGAIN, THOSE ARE MINIMUMS. THOSE AREN'T JUST THE MAXIMUMS. SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND. THANKS AGAIN. A QUESTION ABOUT RETAIL.

ON THE IN THE REPORT, IT SAID THAT THE RETAIL MAY ACTUALLY MOVE SOUTH AS WELL.

THERE MAY BE AN OPENING OF MORE SPACE ON THE SOUTH.

IS THAT. WELL IT'S JUST MORE THE THE LAND USE CHART.

SO THE R 33 THAT WOULD ALLOW SOME COMMERCIAL USES.

THE THE WAY THE REASON FOR THAT IS, IS WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT IF Y'ALL HAD SOME CONCERNS.

BUT THEN IF THE OWNER DID WANT TO PUT IN A COFFEE SHOP ON THE GROUND FLOOR ON ONE OF HIS APARTMENT BUILDINGS, THAT WOULD BE A DEAD NO. WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THROUGH THE PROCESS OF KIND OF OPENING ALL THESE AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO MAJOR CHANGES ARE MAJOR WHEN WE SAY THAT IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE TEXT AMENDMENT, BUT I MEAN, THE PUTT IS PART IS WRAPPED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO THEN THAT'S ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

AT THAT POINT, YOU MAY BE TALKING DIFFERENT OWNERS.

YOU MAY HAVE RESIDENTIAL GROUP, YOU MAY HAVE MULTIFAMILY GROUP, YOU MAY HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL GROUPS.

SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF CHANGES LATER ON.

BUT BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S CONTEMPLATED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? LET'S GO.

OKAY. SO MY FIRST QUESTION ON THIS MAP IN FRONT OF US, WHICH WASN'T IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE WERE GIVEN TO PREPARE FOR THE MEETING, I SEE THIS THING CALLED A RETAIL STREET. SO MY FIRST QUESTION JUST IS, WHAT IS THAT? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S IN THE SES AREA.

COULD YOU OR THE APPLICANT SO YEAH. SO SOME OF THESE STREETS AGAIN, THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED TO US LATE.

OR TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION WHEN WE TALK THROUGH THIS.

BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THIS THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY AREAS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE SOME PRIVATE STREET ELEMENTS.

THAT'S MOST LIKELY WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE. IT MAY BE A WAY TO TRANSITION THE KIND OF MULTIFAMILY OVER INTO THE COMMERCIAL AREA.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE LABEL CAN BE ADJUSTED. WE DON'T REALLY TALK ABOUT IT IN THE DA.

WE JUST TALK ABOUT IT. IT'S EITHER PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

TRAVIS PASTRANA WILL BE WILL BE PUBLIC. MOST OF THE ROADS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WILL BE PUBLIC, MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT ARE THEY FUNCTION LIKE A APARTMENT, DRIVE AISLE, CIRCULATION AISLE. BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO WHERE YOU GO TO WALMART.

THOSE ARE STREETS ARE LABELED, BUT THEY'RE PRIVATE.

THEY'RE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. IT'S NOT PART OF THE CITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

SO MOST LIKELY THESE STREETS WILL HAVE TO BE NAMED JUST FOR ADDRESSING 911 ISSUES, BUT IT'LL MOST LIKELY BE A PRIVATE STREET.

OKAY, SO THERE'S NOT RETAIL HAPPENING ON THE STREET.

IT'S JUST A PRIVATE STREET. CORRECT. OKAY. UNLESS UNLESS I'VE GOT THAT WRONG.

BUT I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. SINCE WE HAVE THIS UP, ONE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS WAS GOING TO BE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE POD, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PARKING FOR THE ALLEY LOAD HOMES AND TOWNHOMES AND HOW IT WOULD NEED TO BE ON STREETS THAT HAVE A MINIMUM OF 36FT OF PAVEMENT FOR THE FIRE REASONS.

AND WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE POD, THE ONLY STREET THAT HAS THAT WIDTH THAT'S NOT PASTRANO SENIOR PARKWAY IS JERNIGAN STREET.

[01:05:07]

AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCED THAT. OUTSET.

IT'S NOT A VERY LONG STREET. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS, HOW ARE WE PLANNING TO ACCOMMODATE THE VISITOR PARKING? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LONG STREET. IS THERE ADDITIONAL AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO BE JUST KIND OF PAVED LOTS FOR GUESTS, OR HOW WILL THAT HOW WILL THAT WORK? MOST LIKELY A COMBINATION OF BOTH.

THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE HAVE A CONCRETE ANSWER ON THAT, BUT IT MOST LIKELY A COMBINATION OF ON STREET PARKING AND AND SATELLITE LOTS IS WHAT WE CALL THEM. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE DID THAT WITH LIVE OAK TOWNHOMES.

THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT GUEST PARKING. SO THEY KIND OF SPARSE SOME SOME LOTS OUT.

BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND LET ABBY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

HI. ABBY GILFILLAN WITH LIONHEART. SO ANYWHERE THAT ESPECIALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT THOSE KIND OF SIDE STREETS WHERE THERE'S NO BUILDINGS FACING THEM BUT THEY'RE COMING FROM CHAVO PASTRANO KIND OF BACK TO THE TO THAT ONE LONG STREET THAT RUNS ALONG THE NORTH, ALL THOSE SIDE STREETS WHERE YOU JUST HAVE THE SIDES OF BUILDINGS THERE FACING THEM, AND IT'S KIND OF RIGHT AMONGST THE REAR LOADED PRODUCT.

WE'LL HAVE 36FT OF PAVEMENT FOR THOSE AND ACTUAL STRIPED PARKING.

SO THAT YOU'LL SEE ACTUALLY STRIPE DESIGNATED SPACES ON EITHER SIDE OR AS JASON WAS TALKING ABOUT IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN OR NATURAL DRAINAGE OR PLACES LIKE THAT, WE CAN ALSO COME IN AND BUILD SOME DESIGNATED PARKING LOTS, BECAUSE ON THE ON THE DRAWING THAT I'M LOOKING AT, WE'RE SHOWING LOCAL STREETS FOR THAT, THAT LONG ROAD THAT ENDS IN THE CUL DE SAC.

THE PED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT SHOWS CURB TO CURB THAT.

THAT'S 30FT. AND I THOUGHT THAT THE LANGUAGE SAID IT HAD TO BE 36, BUT LET ME DOUBLE CHECK.

SO YES. SO THE THE LANGUAGE ON THE STREET AS A LOCAL STREET IS AGAIN THE MINIMUM.

IF THE APPLICANT IS FINDING ISSUES OR PROBLEMS FINDING SITE LOCATIONS, THEY CAN INCREASE THAT WIDTH TO GET THE PARKING.

IT IS JUST A MINIMUM. IT'S NOT A MAXIMUM. SO THAT STREET DESIGN WILL COME THROUGH AS PART OF THE PLAT.

AT THAT POINT, IF THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T WANT TO SAY SACRIFICE LAND SPACE OR BUILDABLE AREA FOR A SATELLITE PARKING LOT, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THAT ROAD BY BY SIX FEET TO GIVE THEM THEIR MINIMUM.

SO AGAIN, THERE'S FLEXIBILITY TO TO GET A PROJECT BUILT WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PIGEONHOLING ONE PRODUCT TYPE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE TRICK WITH, WITH SOME OF THESE PARTS.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT CROSS SECTION, JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S, THAT IS THE MINIMUM.

OKAY. SO ASSUMING THAT THEY WIDEN THE STREET, SOME OF THESE WILL HAVE TO MOVE AROUND QUITE A BIT AS FAR AS THE LAYOUT BECAUSE OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. THEY MAY THEY MAY PUSH BACK.

THE DEVELOPER MAY SAY, WELL, WE COULD MAYBE GET RID OF AN ALLEY HERE AND DO THIS AGAIN.

THIS IS JUST WHAT'S ALLOWED. THIS IS KIND OF THE OVERALL IDEA AND EXAMPLE, BUT IT MAY LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT LAYOUT.

YEAH, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD HERE IS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS DO NOT HAVE SATELLITE PARKING PADS.

SO AS MUCH TO ANY EXTENT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE LIKE SAFE SIDE STREETS WITH PARALLEL PARKING OR SOMETHING.

I THINK THAT WOULD DO MORE TO CONTRIBUTE TO MAKING THIS FEEL LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF A DEVELOPMENT.

SO ALSO ON THIS MAP WE SEE THAT THERE'S RESIDENTIAL CROSSING OVER.

THEY MIGHT HAVE TO CROSS OVER TO HAVE A SENIOR PARKWAY TO GET TO THE RETAIL AND USE THOSE SPACES, WHICH WE WANT PEOPLE TO DO. AND THEN LIKEWISE, PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE MULTIFAMILY AREA, IF THEY WANT TO USE THE COMMUNITY PARK, WOULD ALSO NEED TO CROSS THE STREET. I SEE ON HERE THAT THERE IS A SECTION WHERE THE TRAIL LOOKS LIKE IT MAYBE CROSSES OVER BY THE COMMUNITY PARK.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPOTS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S LIKE SOME TRAFFIC CALMING OR SOMETHING THAT MAKES SURE THAT THIS PLACE IS WORKABLE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO USE IT? AT THIS TIME, NO, WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THE TIA OR FULL DESIGN ON THAT ROAD.

YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE POD THERE'S A CROSS SECTION THERE FOR 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY SHOWS CERTAIN ELEMENTS SIDEWALK PLANTING, STRIP STREET TREES. BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE ROAD, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL EITHER

[01:10:04]

CROSS STREET CONNECTIONS OR TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ARE THAT'LL HAVE TO GO GO THROUGH AS PART OF THE TIA IN THAT PROCESS.

OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE THAT IN THE POD WHERE WE HAVE KIND OF CROSS SECTIONS OF STREETS AND WE SEE HOW STUFF IS LAID OUT.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE INCLUDED IN A, IN A POD, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION.

I THINK EVERYONE WANTS THOSE CROSS SECTIONS. THIS PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ENGINEERED FOR SURE, SO I DO WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

THIS IS A FIRST KIND OF FIRST SERIES OF OF PLAN APPROVALS FOR THIS PROJECT IS TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT THE LAND USE.

SO THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN WITH THEIR THEIR SUBDIVISION, THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEIR CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THEIR FINAL PLATS, EVEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO INDIVIDUAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. SO A LOT OF THOSE TRUE DETAILS THAT YOU GET ON, KIND OF THE ENGINEERING LEVEL, WILL WILL COME BACK FOR SURE. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW HOW ADVANCED IT WAS BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION FOR A WHILE.

SO IF THERE WAS INFORMATION. YEAH. ALL GOOD. YOUR FINGERS ON THE MICROPHONE.

DO YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP AND SAY, IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S AN ENTIRE PROCESS OR SERIES OF PROCESSES THAT FOLLOW THIS, AND THAT WILL BE CLEARER TO EVERYBODY AS THEY GO ALONG.

SEEM. OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION IS ALSO RELATED TO OVERLAYS.

SO THIS SECTION, THE FRONT SECTION WHERE THE RETAIL IS, I'M ASSUMING THAT FALLS UNDER THE EAST FM 150 OVERLAY DISTRICT.

OH YES. SORRY, I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. 150. ACTUALLY, I DON'T THINK IT GOES THIS FAR.

THIS IS NOT THE CITY LIMIT. WE'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK. DOES IT GO THAT FAR? YES.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CUPS AND THE PAD WHERE IT SAYS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A COPY PROCESS FOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THOSE COPS WILL COME TO PLANNING AND ZONING. OR WILL THEY BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY? RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE SLATED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.

BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE DA AND THE BUILDING MATERIALS, USUALLY WHEN THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, WE DON'T DO THE OVERLAY REVIEW BY PNC BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF COVERED ON THE DA.

FOR AREAS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE DAS, THEN THAT'S THE OVERLAYS ARE THE MECHANISMS WE GET TO DO THAT.

BECAUSE PART OF THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROJECT IS KIND OF BUILT TO FRUITION OR TO WHAT WAS ENVISIONED.

I THINK SOME OF THE DEVELOPER'S CONCERNS LONG TERM ARE CHANGES IN BOARDS, CHANGES IN MEMBERS DOES THAT CHANGE OPINIONS ON LOOK AND MATERIALS? SO I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOME CONSISTENCY AND STABILITY ON THAT.

BUT IF THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT COME BACK.

THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ADD THAT TO TO THE MOTION.

QUESTION. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO CONFIRM, I MAYBE MISUNDERSTOOD EARLIER.

AN OVERLAY IS POSSIBLE HERE. OR IS THAT PROHIBITED UNDER STATE LAW? WE COULD NOT ADD ONE TO, LIKE, 158. I'M NOT SURE.

I DON'T HAVE A I WILL SAY THIS IS A PD. SO THAT'S THE BEST THE BEST ABILITY TO TO GET THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD WANT IN THERE.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS.

SO IT'S IT'S COMING IN FOR ANNEXATION. I WOULD I WOULD SAY IF THERE'S ELEMENTS THAT YOU WANT OF THE OVERLAYS TO APPLY TO THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT, ABSOLUTELY MAKE THAT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE IT COULD BE IN IT COULD BE IN HERE VERSUS APPLYING AN OVERLAY FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE CITY LIMITS.

SO THE PD IS THE ULTIMATE KIND OF OVERLAY TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE REALLY SPECIFIC ON THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT'S IN THERE.

SO YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY GET THOSE THOSE ELEMENTS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. AND I WOULD SAY THAT FM 150 OVERLAY, JUST SO YOU KNOW, IS ONE OF OUR OVERLAYS THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY STANDARDS IN IT.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE I-35 THAT CALLS OUT LANDSCAPING, BUILDING MATERIALS, PERCENTAGES AND ALL OF THAT.

IT WOULD JUST GIVE THE BODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IT AND, YEAH, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I'M ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS HERE. I DO HAVE MORE, BUT I WILL PAUSE IF THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP.

YES, PLEASE. I WANTED TO I HAD A QUESTION AS A FOLLOW UP TO YOUR COMMENT ON THE WITH THE CERTAIN STREETS HIGHLIGHTED, BOLDED AND UNDERLINED ON MY PAPER THAT I THINK PARKING WAS ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS HERE.

ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE AREAS IN KYLE WHERE WE'VE PLANNED FOR LESS CARS AND LESS TRAFFIC.

AND IT SOUNDS GREAT WHEN YOU PLAN FOR IT. AND WHEN PEOPLE MOVE IN, IT NEVER GOES THAT WAY.

DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY? I ABILITY? I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD ANYTHING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BUT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO ADD A 36 FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR SOME OF THESE STREETS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I, I THINK THAT COULD GO IN THIS POD AS A

[01:15:09]

SUBDIVISION. YOU CAN DEFINITELY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR LIST YOUR CONCERNS AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION, IF THAT'S ONE OF THEM. I THINK YOU JUST HAVE TO BALANCE, YOU KNOW, CITY STREET A LOT OF PAVEMENT WITH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU WANT TO LOOK YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT SOME STREETS THAT ARE 36 FOOT WIDE AND THERE'S NO PARKING ISSUES.

AND WE GET COMPLAINTS THAT IT'S A RACEWAY. AND THEN YOU GET STREETS THAT ARE LOWER AND AND FIRE CAN GET THROUGH, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S IS A PARKING ISSUE AND WE GET COMPLAINTS AS A PARKING ISSUE.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE JUST LOOK AT EACH ONE.

BUT HOWEVER YOU FEEL ON THIS, IF THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION, YOU WANT THEM TO GO TO 36 OR SOME OF THEM.

AND THEN I WOULD SAY THAT YOU INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR MOTION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE IT EXISTS, BUT IT GOES ALONG WITH WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A QUICK RECOMMENDATION. IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DA, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE NOT PUT THOSE IN THE MOTION FOR THE PUD, BECAUSE THAT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT, BUT THAT IF YOU DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNSEL ON THE DA, YOU THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS YOU FROM MAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. I JUST WOULDN'T PUT IT IN THE SAME MOTION. WOULD THAT BE A BETTER RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DA OR FOR THE PUD? WHERE'S THE BEST PLACE TO PUT THAT? PROBABLY THE DA, I THINK WOULD BE THE BEST PLACE FOR THAT.

OKAY, THANKS. WHY IS IT BEST INSIDE OF THERE? GENERALLY, I MEAN, YOU CAN PUT YOU CAN PUT THE STREET WIDTHS IN THE PUD.

ZONING DOES DICTATE YOUR MINIMUM STREET WIDTH SOMETIMES.

SO IF YOU'RE IN A COMMERCIAL, WE MAY SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE 50FT WIDE.

HOWEVER, IT'S ALSO PART OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

SUBDIVISION IS NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF ZONING.

SO THERE'S FOUND THERE. TO ME, THE DA TRUMPS EVERYTHING.

AND SO THAT'S THAT'S USUALLY WHERE I WOULD STICK IT.

IT COULD BE STUCK IN BOTH YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IT, BUT I WOULD, I WOULD JUST IF THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION, WE COULD PUT IT IN THE PUD. AND THEN YOU CAN STILL MAKE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

SAY, LOOK AT THAT IN THE, IN THE DA. THANK YOU.

MY NEXT QUESTION IS ABOUT ONE WATER. IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA.

I HADN'T SEEN THAT BEFORE. HOW FAMILIAR ARE THE CITY DEPARTMENTS WITH ONE WATER? ARE THEY GOING TO BE QUALIFIED TO CHECK THE PLANS FOR THAT? IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT GOING TO BE QUALIFIED TO NOTICE WHEN SOMETHING'S NOT WORKING THE WAY THAT IT IS? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN? SO THREE PART ANSWER TO THAT. YES. PUBLIC WORKS IS DEFINITELY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THAT IS.

OUR WATER UTILITY DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN RESEARCHING THIS FOR TWO YEARS NOW.

A YEAR AND A HALF. THEY'VE GONE OUT AND DONE SITE VISITS AT CANYON LAKE AT THAT SCHOOL.

THEY'VE MET WITH, WITH THE FOLKS THAT DO THAT FROM A INSPECTOR TECHNICAL LEVEL.

IT'S REALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN THAN STANDARD PLUMBING.

IT JUST MEETS BASIC PLUMBING CODE. SO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE'RE PUMPING WATER FROM A DETENTION POND INTO AN OUTFALL TO LET IT SLOWLY RELEASE OR WE'RE PUMPING IT BACK UP THE STREET TO TIE INTO IRRIGATIONS.

THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE RULES ON HOW TO CONNECT PIPES TO PIPES.

SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THERE'S THERE'S NO ISSUE, NO, NO LEARNING CURVE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

CODE ENFORCEMENT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALWAYS A TRICK.

WE HAVE LIMITED CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF. IRRIGATION IS IS BIG AT CERTAIN TIMES OF YEAR, NOT OTHERS.

SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO KEEP AN EYE OUT AND SEE HOW THAT'S GOING.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S GENERALLY WE HAVE 2 TO 3 CODE OFFICERS.

SO THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING THEY LOOK AT UNLESS WE GET INTO STAGE THREE OR DROUGHT RESTRICTIONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE DESIGN CORRECT AND DONE PROPERLY, INSTALLED PROPERLY, BECAUSE THE ENFORCEMENT MIGHT NOT BE AS. AND THOSE ARE ALL ENGINEERED PLANS.

SO THOSE COME IN THROUGH SOME OF THEM MAY COME IN AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE DETENTION.

THEY MAY SHOW THOSE STUB OUTS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO, WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO GO PUMPED OUT.

BUT WE PROBABLY WON'T SEE THE PATHS OF THOSE LINES.

WE MAY SEE THEM ALONG THE ROAD OR ALONG A CERTAIN AREA, BUT THE DETAILS FOR THE LANDSCAPING, THOSE, THOSE STUB OUTS WILL BE DONE AT SITE DEVELOPMENT.

AND AGAIN, THOSE WILL BE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT SET OF PLANS. BUT THOSE ARE ALL LOOKED AT ENGINEERED SEALED STAMPED.

OKAY. I GOT A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THIS. IT'S EASY TO COLLECT RAINWATER.

IT'S HARD TO STORE IT. IT'S MY EXPERIENCE. SO WE MAY HAVE A PARTICULAR AREA TO COLLECT THIS RAINWATER FROM ALL OVER THE PARCEL OF THE PROPERTY.

ON ONE SIDE, I SUPPOSE. WOULD THIS BE TIED INTO THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR OVERFLOW?

[01:20:02]

I DON'T KNOW. MOST OF THE SITE, THE STORMWATER SIDE, THOSE DETENTION PONDS ARE GOING TO BE TAKING IN SOME OF THE STORMWATER.

BUT I DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS. I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS ENGINEER COULD SKIN THAT CAT.

YOU KNOW, I'D, I'D BE GUESSING IF I KNEW WHICH ONE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT, Y'ALL, THE DEVELOPER KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THEY'LL HANDLE THAT OTHER THAN THEY'RE COMMITTING TO HANDLE IT.

YEAH. OKAY. THAT KNOCKED OUT MOST OF MY LITTLE RANDOM QUESTIONS HERE AND THERE. SO NOW I HAVE, LIKE, KIND OF THE BIGGER CRUX OF THE ISSUES FOR ME.

AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID TONIGHT, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A LONG TIME.

BUT AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE ARE NO BINDING AGREEMENTS ON THIS YET, AND THEREFORE, I BELIEVE IT'S SUBJECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE PASSED IN JANUARY OF 2024. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY SAYS IS AN ACTION THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING IS ELIMINATING APPROVAL OF SINGLE USE SUBURBAN SUBDIVISIONS.

AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THREE PARTS. SOME SINGLE FAMILY, SOME MULTIFAMILY, SOME RS.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE APPROVING SOME SINGLE FAMILY AREAS.

AND ONE THING I LIKE ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT DOES ALLOW FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF STRUCTURES IN THAT SINGLE FAMILY AREA, THE FRONT LOAD, THE ALLEY LOAD, THE TOWNHOME, THE ADU ALLOWING SOME VARIETY.

I THINK THAT IS, AS YOU SAID, IN THE SPIRIT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS THERE'S NO ASSURANCE THAT ANY OF THESE TYPOLOGIES OTHER THAN PROBABLY WHATEVER IS CONVENIENT, DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY IS GOING TO BE BUILT UP.

AND IF IT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PLAN, I WOULDN'T APPROVE IT.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE KYLE HAS A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE, SO WE CAN SERVE PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF LIFE WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS, WITH DIFFERENT DESIRES FOR WHAT KIND OF LIFESTYLE THEY WANT TO HAVE.

AND I THINK THAT WE CAN DO BETTER HERE IN THE POD FOR THE CITY FOR COMPLYING WITH THE COMP PLAN.

SO ONE IDEA THAT I'VE BEEN BOPPING AROUND IN MY HEAD IS ASKING FOR A MINIMUM OF TOWNHOMES, ADUS. I UNDERSTAND THAT MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT'S BUILT BY THE DEVELOPER, THAT MIGHT BE BUILT BY THE OWNER OF THE LAND THEY DECIDE TO PUT IN AN ADU.

I DON'T WANT TO MANDATE ADUS, BUT TO MANDATE TOWNHOMES JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME SORT OF VARIETY GUARANTEED IN THE SPOT TO TO GO WITH THAT TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE, PER THE COMP PLAN FOR THIS AREA.

I THINK THAT THAT'S NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING UNREASONABLE, GIVEN THAT OTHERWISE WE'RE WE'RE BASICALLY VOTING AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE BUILT AND THAT WE BELIEVE IN. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO TALK WITH US ABOUT? HOW MANY WE COULD MAYBE SET AS A JUST LIKE A BASE THRESHOLD FOR WHAT WE COULD AGREE TO FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.

YEAH. I'LL HAVE TO TURN THAT OVER TO THE DEVELOPER.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THE THE ZONING WILL ALLOW MULTIPLE TYPES, BUT THERE'S NO MINIMUM LIKE YOU SEE IN THE, IN THE COMMERCIAL. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THAT OVER TO JORGE KANAWATI WITH ATX CAPITAL, THE DEVELOPER THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE STUDIED AND IN A LOT OF DETAIL.

AND WE DEFINITELY WANT THAT THAT FLEXIBILITY.

WE DEFINITELY SEE A POSSIBILITY OF DOING TOWNHOMES HERE.

BUT TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY, BY THE CURRENT MARKET AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH, WITH OTHER HOMEBUILDERS IN THE AREA. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE MARKET WOULD SUPPORT RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE IN THE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE WE WOULD I MEAN, WE WOULD ULTIMATELY LOVE TO HAVE THAT MIX AS WELL.

BUT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT HARD RIGHT NOW TO, TO BE ABLE TO 100% COMMIT TO DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY. SO ANOTHER THOUGHT, I GUESS THIS ONE'S MORE FOR STAFF, BUT ALSO ALONG THE LINES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR FOR BEING HERE AND FOR YOUR COMMENT.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T TECHNICALLY ALLOW FOR APARTMENTS IN THIS AREA EITHER.

SO COULD WE ASK THAT THESE APARTMENTS GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS WELL SO WE CAN AT LEAST SEE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE IN MY MIND, I'M I'M THINKING WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS GETS BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,

[01:25:04]

WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. SO MAKING SURE THAT THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THESE APARTMENTS DOESN'T I GUESS, ALIENATE OR FEEL DISJOINTED FROM THE USE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TREVOR SENIOR PARKWAY.

I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A STEP TOWARDS PUTTING POWER BACK INTO THE CITY, HANDS INTO THE PEOPLE'S HANDS TO HAVE A SAY SINCE WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS WELL WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW ON THE CUP.

I WOULD SAY THAT RECOMMENDATION WOULD GO INTO THE DOCUMENT THAT WOULD NOT BE A DA, BECAUSE THAT IS A ZONING DEAL.

SO IF IF THAT'S Y'ALL'S RECOMMENDATION, THEN FEEL FEEL FREE TO MAKE THAT.

YES. OKAY. AND THEN MY LAST COMMENT, IT'S NOT FOR THE PUD.

I GUESS THIS WOULD BE MORE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMMENT.

ARTIFICIAL TURF. I KEEP SAYING THIS. I'VE BEEN BEATING THIS DRUM FOR YEARS.

IT IS WELL KNOWN. DRAWBACKS? MICROPLASTICS, LANDFILL WASTE, CHEMICALS.

IT'S SUPER HOT, SO IT CREATES THAT URBAN HEAT ISLAND.

I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IF WE'RE VERY INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHERE WE ALLOW THAT MATERIAL TO BE USED AND TRY TO LIMIT THE, THE VOLUME OF IT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S JUST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THAT'S NOT FOR US. $0.02. THAT WAS MY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE NIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DEFINITELY.

MINOR LEAGUE. LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPING, PART OF THIS IS DICTATED BY LCRA AND THEY GO FOR SMALL ORNAMENTAL TREES RATHER THAN FULL SIZE TREES. IS THERE A WAY TO WORK WITH THEIR BUREAUCRACY? SHOULD IT COME TO THAT, THAT WE WOULD HAVE FULL SIZE TREES WHICH MEETS OUR NEEDS? YEAH, I JUST SO TREES AND LCRA EXCUSE ME ARE A FUNNY THING.

SO THEY ARE GOING TO LIMIT THE TYPE OF TREE THAT CAN GROW BY HEIGHT.

GENERALLY THOSE THOSE TREE SPECIES ARE DEFINED BY THE, THE TYPE OF EASEMENT ITSELF.

THIS BEING A TRANSMISSION LINE LINE, I'M ASSUMING THOSE ARE HIGHER.

THEY MAY ALLOW TALLER ONES. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, BUT WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT UNDERSTANDS VEGETATION VERY WELL.

SO YOU CAN GET CANOPY TREES THAT DON'T HAVE THE HEIGHT OF, SAY, A CEDAR ELM.

THERE'S MULTIPLE TREES THAT ONLY GROW 20FT TALL, BUT THEY HAVE A 30 FOOT WIDE SPAN, SO CEDAR ELM CAN GO 60FT TALL, BUT IT'S STILL ONLY 30FT WIDE. SO I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF OPTIONS TO ENSURE SHADE TREES ALONG THE VIBE AND THE SIDEWALKS.

AND THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD WITH WITH PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS MULTIPLE MONTHS.

SO YES, WE WILL GUARANTEE THAT THAT THEY'RE NOT CRAPE MYRTLES IN THOSE LCR RESTRICTIONS ARE LIMITED TO THEIR EASEMENT, NOT TO THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. CORRECT? YES. THE EASEMENT AND THAT EASEMENT LOCATION HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED YET.

IT'S JUST GENERALLY KNOWN IN THE PLAN. THE LCRA EASEMENT IS DEFINED.

THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE ROAD JUST BASICALLY THE RIGHT OF WAY STARTS WHERE THAT DOES.

WHERE WE DO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IS IN THE VIBE TRAIL.

IT IS GOING TO BE INSIDE THAT EASEMENT. THERE MAY BE AREAS WHERE IT COMES OUT.

SO BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. THAT SIDEWALK IS PROBABLY FINE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'LL JUST BE SELECTING THE RIGHT SPECIES EITHER FOR THE EASEMENT OR OUTSIDE THE EASEMENT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM. ON THE ON THE ON THE PUD. YES. QUESTION ON THAT ON THE DAY PROCESS.

DO WE NEED TO SEPARATE THE MOTION BASED ON WHAT'S PRESENTED AND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, OR DO WE MAKE ONE MOTION THAT INCLUDES EVERYTHING? I WOULD MAKE ONE MOTION FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING, AND THEN MAYBE FOLLOW UP WITH SOME DIA CONSIDERATIONS IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT IN A SEPARATE MOTION. OKAY. FOR THE SAKE OF MOVING THINGS ALONG SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA ITEM THREE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION. AND IF THERE'S A SECOND, WE CAN GO ON AND DISCUSS AND MAKE AMENDMENTS.

SECOND. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?

[01:30:10]

WELL, I THINK IT WAS YOU, DANIEL, FOR SURE. I THINK YOU WERE ON BOARD THEN, BUT CERTAINLY CHAIRWOMAN DUNCAN AND MYSELF WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE COMP PLAN AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS OVERLY AMBITIOUS. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD VISION FOR THE CITY.

IT WAS RELATIVELY EXCITING. AND. A FAST GROWING TOWN TO THINK THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY DEVELOP SOMETHING THERE THAT WAS GOING TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY. WORK FOR THE PEOPLE AND ADDRESS THE GROWTH.

I WOULD HATE TO ABANDON THAT. AND THE WHAT WAS IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT PLAN? I THINK WE WERE LOOKING FOR HIGHER DENSITY, DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO STICK WITH THAT BEST WE CAN IN TERMS OF OUR AS WE GO FORWARD HERE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DA AS WELL AS THE PUD. THIS IS MOTIONS ABOUT THE PUTT. SO HERE'S MY CONCERN, IS THAT IN THE TIME I'VE BEEN UP HERE IN THE DAIS, I'VE SEEN PODS APPROVED.

I'VE BEEN A PART OF THE APPROVAL APPROVAL PROCESS AND NOTHING'S HAPPENED WITH THEM.

NOTHING HAS HAPPENED NOT JUST BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS OR LACK OF FINANCING.

JUST NOTHING HAPPENED. I THINK THEY FRANKLY, IN MY OPINION, CAME INTO PLAY AS LAND PARCELS THAT NOW HAD A POD WHICH ALLOWED DIFFERENT USES THAT WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF STANDARD ZONING, MAKES IT MORE VALUABLE.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT APPROVAL OF A POD, I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WANT TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE AN APT ANALOGY.

SOME MEAT ON THE BONE HERE. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY LOOK AT AND SAY, YES, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT CONFORMS TO THE COMP PLAN AND ACTUALLY BRING SOMETHING TO THE TOWN, RATHER THAN LEAVING IT AS AN EMPTY LOT THAT'S MERELY BEEN REZONED FROM AG.

IT'S EASY TO REZONE FROM AG. WHAT DO YOU DO FROM THAT POINT ON IS SOMETHING ELSE.

SO I HAVE THE KIND OF CONCERNS THAT IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE OTHER OWNERS IN THE FUTURE, WHICH THERE EASILY COULD BE.

FOR INSTANCE, THE COMMERCIAL MAY GET SPUN OFF TO SOME OTHER OWNER.

I'M CONCERNED IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS THAT DIFFERENT THINGS WILL BE PARCELED OUT, IF NOT THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.

AND I REALLY WANT THESE FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION OF THE POD AND THE COMP PLAN AND REALLY, REALLY CONFORM TO THE DA AS WE WOULD HAVE ANY INFLUENCE OVER IT.

AND GOD BLESS THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE MORE WASTED LAND, WASTED SPACE AS BEING FLIPPED.

JUST CAN'T STAND TO SEE IT. THIS IS A VERY CRUCIAL PART OF TOWN.

I THINK IT COULD BE A REAL STANDARD FOR WHAT WE CAN DO IN THIS TOWN, IF IT'S DONE THOUGHTFULLY, AND WE GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES THAT WERE DESCRIBED THAT CAN'T BE DONE IN A PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE WOULD TABLE IT.

IT'S JUST TOO MASSIVE AND TOO COMPLEX FOR THAT KIND OF THING.

SO I WOULD JUST APPEAL TO ALL OF YOU TO LET'S THINK ABOUT THIS CAREFULLY.

I'VE MADE THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL, BUT LET'S HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION HERE, UNDERSTANDING WHAT THIS IS GOING TO MEAN FOR OUR FUTURE, AND REALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE CHAIRWOMAN HAS SAID ABOUT CONFORMING TO THE COMP PLAN.

WE'VE GOT TO GET THAT INTO THE MESSAGE IN THE DA AND REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS AS WE'RE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THE PUD.

WE'RE GOING FROM BLANK AGRICULTURAL LAND TO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE ROUGHLY WHAT WE'VE GOT IN FRONT OF US.

I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL THERE THAT MEETS THE COMP PLAN.

IT WOULD BE THE FINAL COMMENT. SO FROM TONIGHT, I'VE HEARD FROM THE DAIS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TOPICS OF CONFORMING WITH THE COMP PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND WAYS TO ENFORCE THAT THROUGH CUPS OR WHATEVER DISCUSSION IS RECOMMENDED UP TO ON THE DAY SIDE, AND I'VE HEARD DISCUSSION ON PARKING CONSIDERATIONS AND CERTAINLY ECHO THE SENTIMENT OF SATELLITE PARKING DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THE RIGHT FIT FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN. I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE TWO, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING ANYTHING FROM OUR DISCUSSION HERE.

JUST CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. THANK YOU. AND I'LL ADD THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT ARTIFICIAL TURF. YOU BEAT ME TO IT, BUT WE SHARE THAT ONE.

AND FOR THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT WATER, THERE ARE LOTS OF LOW WATER GRASSES THAT GROW REALLY, REALLY WELL IN CENTRAL TEXAS. THAT DO NOT HAVE THE SAME NEGATIVE EFFECTS AND CREATE AS

[01:35:10]

MUCH HEAT AS ARTIFICIAL TURF DOES. SO PERHAPS ALL OF US, HAVING ARRIVED ON THIS DAIS AT DIFFERENT TIMES, MS NEED SOME CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO PUT IN A POD IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WOULD WANT MODIFIED AND WHAT WOULD GO INTO A DA JUST FOR.

WE ALL COULD BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. SO FOR THE THE POD, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO, I WOULD DEFINITELY PUT THAT INTO THE POD.

I THINK WHAT JASON OUTLINED, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT KIND OF THE STREET AND THE STREET PARKING AND NOT HAVING SATELLITE OFFICES OR SATELLITE KIND OF PARKING LOTS I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD COMMENT, AS WELL AS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IN THE, IN THE DA AS WELL. BUT I THINK THAT WOULD GO INTO THE POD TO, I THINK, BUILDING MATERIALS, IF YOU'RE WANTING TO INFLUENCE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT WOULD BE A DA COMMENT.

AND THEN WHICH ONE O THE, THE TURF OR THE KIND OF ASTROTURF MATERIALS.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A DAY AS WELL. YEAH, I WOULD PUT THE STREET WIDTHS OR THE CROSS SECTIONS IN BOTH, BOTH THE, THE PUTT AND THE DA. IS THERE A CONCERN IF ANY OF THESE MAKE IT INTO BOTH A PUTT AND A DA, THAT WE THEN HAVE TWO DOCUMENTS AND IF SOMETHING GETS AMENDED THEN WE'RE MISALIGNED? NO, I MEAN THEY CROSS POLLINATE OR SUPPORT EACH OTHER QUITE A BIT.

YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE PUTT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AN EXHIBIT INTO THE DA.

PERFECT. SO THE LANGUAGE MAY CONFLICT, BUT HOPEFULLY NOT.

BUT THEY SHOULD MATCH. IF SO, IF THERE'S AMENDMENTS WE'RE AMENDING BOTH FOR SURE.

YEAH. THE ONLY CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS AVOIDING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN OF FIXING TWO DOCUMENTS IF SOMETHING'S MISALIGNED AND THEN IT NOT BE CAUGHT, AND THEN THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT. YEAH. THEN I WOULD SUPPOSE THIS IS A THIS IS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTING AN AMENDMENT IN THAT CASE FOR THE PUTT.

AND WE CAN MAYBE. WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY WE COULD MAYBE DO A BUNCH OF LIKE LITTLE MINI MOTIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD WORK. LIKE AS LONG AS YOU VOTE AS ONE, PARKING AS ONE, AS LONG AS EACH AMENDMENT IS A SEPARATE AMENDMENT THAT CAN BE VOTED ON AND YOU VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY, THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN VOTE ON THE MOTION ONCE YOU'RE DONE WITH AMENDMENTS. BUT AGAIN, I RECOMMEND THAT ANY DA COMMENTS BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY AT THE END.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO START WITH A MOTION TO AMEND THAT I HOPE WILL BE SOMETHING WE CAN ALL BE ON BOARD WITH. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE POD TO INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CUP PROCESS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, AND FOR ANYTHING FALLING INTO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THOSE TO COME TO PNC IN THE NORMAL CIP PROCESS. TO CLARIFY. SO THIS WOULD BE FOR THE THE MULTIFAMILY AND ESSENTIALLY ALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

YES. OKAY. OR I MEAN, WHATEVER FALLS INTO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO I THINK THAT'S JUST COMMERCIAL. RIGHT. I TO JUST TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION FOR THIS, MAYBE WE COULD DO THE MULTIFAMILY AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RS DISTRICT. I THINK THAT WOULD PROVIDE CLARITY ON THAT FROM THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.

YEAH. OKAY. SO MY MY OFFICIAL MOTION OR AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION IS TO ADD TO THE PUD THE REQUIREMENT FOR CIP PROCESS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND RS ZONING AREAS.

SECOND. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY, SO THAT ONE'S IN.

OH, Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT ME. I'M WAITING ON Y'ALL TO MAKE AMENDMENTS.

I'M SORRY. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE FOR THE ROADS. YEAH, OKAY.

BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THE DISCUSSION IS TO MAKE THE ROADS 36FT WIDTH.

RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED OR TO MAKE THAT THE MINIMUM.

BUT FOR WHICH ROADS, LIKE ALL THE ROADS OR JUST PRIMARY STREETS, BECAUSE WE HAVE SERVICE STREETS,

[01:40:01]

LIKE I THINK 36 FOOT ROADS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROBABLY EXTREMELY EXCESSIVE.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I SOME OF THE MAIN ARTERIES OUGHT TO AT LEAST BE 36.

AS FOR WHICH ONES YOU'D HAVE TO GET, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO QUANTIFY.

YEAH, THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND MAYBE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY STAFF KNOWING THAT THIS IS SO PRELIMINARY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS OVER THE YEARS.

MAYBE YOU COULD LIMIT THE ALLOWANCE OF OF SATELLITE OR OFF OFF OFF SITE PARKING UNLESS THEY'RE AT A TRAILHEAD OR, YOU KNOW, OR SOMETHING RELATED TO A LANDSCAPE OR, YOU KNOW, OR GREENBELT AREA OR, OR FOR PARK, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO REALLY KIND OF HONE IN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THAT IF, IF AND WHEN THERE IS NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, IT COULD BE DUAL USE, YOU KNOW, TO, TO SUPPLY THAT THAT'S AN OPTION.

OR JASON, DID YOU HAVE AN IDEA ON THAT TOO? YEAH.

I'M, I'M SPITBALLING A LITTLE BIT INSIDE MY BRAIN.

I WOULD HAVE CONCERN IDENTIFYING ROADS IN CASE THE LAYOUT CHANGES.

I THINK THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS. IF YOU SAY THE THIRD ONE FROM IN I THINK MORE CONCERNED WITH.

IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE, PERCENTAGE BASED. I IMAGINE THERE'S SOME SORT OF CALCULATION FOR GUEST OR OVERFLOW PARKING.

I MEAN, I'D ALMOST RATHER RECOMMEND SOME LANGUAGE THAT LIMITED LIKE, I LIKE WHAT MELISSA SAID, LIMIT SATELLITE PARKING TO AREAS THAT ARE AT TRAILHEADS OR AT PARKS OR RETAIL AREAS, MAYBE STREETS.

YEAH, YEAH, MAYBE STREETS SHALL BE A, MAYBE THE MINIMUM IS 30, BUT YOU SAY AND SHALL INCREASE TO 36 TO SATISFY GUEST PARKING FOR REAR LOADED PROJECTS.

AT LEAST THAT GIVES US SOME LANGUAGE THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS, WE CAN SAY, LOOK, THIS THIS LOT OR THIS ROW OR THIS BLOCK SHOWS TEN UNITS.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE X AMOUNT OF PARKING. THAT MEANS IF YOU CAN'T PARK THEM HERE, THAT ROAD NEEDS TO BE INCREASED.

I WOULD RATHER HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO TO HANDLE THOSE ISSUES THAN JUST KIND OF ARBITRARILY THROW SOMETHING AT THE WALL AND MAY NOT EVEN APPLY TO THEIR DESIGN. ABBY, ARE YOU ALL KIND OF MAKE SENSE TO YOU ALL? ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS? I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT LANGUAGE WISE, BASED ON ROAD.

I THINK IT'S JUST IF WE CAN DO IT THAT LIMIT THE SATELLITE PARKING AND ROAD SHALL BE INCREASED TO ACCOMMODATE REQUIRED GUEST PARKING.

AND THEN? THEN THE DEVELOPER CAN KIND OF DECIDE WHERE THOSE ROADS ARE.

AGAIN, THOSE ARE JUST MINIMUMS. SO THEY MAY BE WIDER.

BUT I AGREE 36 THROUGH ALL OF IT IS. THAT'S A LOT.

YEAH, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE. NOT MY INTENT, BY THE WAY.

BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT TYPE OF APPROACH, BEING RESPECTFUL TO THE DEVELOPER THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN ENTIRE 98 ACRES OF STREET, THAT THAT DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THE GOALS, AND MAYBE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IS.

IT HAS TO BE 36FT WIDE IF IT IS. INTENDED TO BE PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, YOU COULD END UP WITH SOME AREAS WHERE YOU GO DOWN TO THE 30.

YOU COULD PARK ON ONE SIDE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT FRONT LOADED ACROSS THE STREET.

THEY HAVE A DRIVEWAY, THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL PARKING.

THEY DON'T NEED THE GUEST PARKING ACROSS THE STREET IS TOWNHOMES.

IN THAT CASE, YOU COULD NO PARK ONE SIDE. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO NOW.

WE KNOW PARK THE SIDE WITH THE FIRE HYDRANTS SINCE FIRE NEEDS ACCESS TO THOSE.

SO I THINK THERE'S SOME OPTIONS THERE. YOU COULD ADD SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU KNOW, SAYS JUST I WAS TRYING TO JUST FOCUS ON BASED ON FIRE LIFE SAFETY. MAYBE PARKED, MAYBE REDUCED.

GIVE. GIVE STAFF SOME FLEXIBILITY. AND SO BEFORE ATTEMPTING A MOTION HERE I'M JUST KIND OF LOOKING ACROSS THE THE BOARD HERE, HEARING TRAILHEADS CIVIC LOCATIONS SO THAT CIVIC CENTER TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE PARKING THERE.

THE RETAIL AREAS PARKING. SORRY. MINIMUM 36FT FOR PARKING ON STREETS, FOR PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.

AND THEN CONSIDERATIONS ON THE LIFE SAFETY PARAMETERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

ARE THERE OTHER LOCATIONS THAT I AM OMITTING? WHAT YOU WROTE SOUNDS BETTER THAN WHAT I WROTE. I LIKE THAT.

YEAH. OKAY. MOTION TO AMEND TO LIMIT PARKING TO TRAILHEADS, CIVIC AND RECREATION LOCATIONS. RETAIL ZONED AREAS AND TO REQUIRE

[01:45:08]

A MINIMUM OF 36FT OR YEAH, 36FT FOR ROADWAYS THAT HOUSE PARKING INTENDED FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD AND FOR AREAS FOR LIFE, SAFETY AND CONSIDERATIONS. FOR CLARITY, THAT'S A LIMITATION ON SATELLITE PARKING.

YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. SATELLITE PARKING ONLY.

I'LL SECOND. I COULD NOT WRITE ALL THAT DOWN.

WITH THE WITH THE STAFF BE ABLE TO REPLAY THAT FOR US? MAYBE. OKAY. SO. SO I'LL START WITH WHAT I KNOW FOR SURE.

THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER COPELAND, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WEBB.

YES. OKAY. TO LIMIT SATELLITE PARKING AT. TO ONLY BE AT TRAILHEADS, RETAIL.

CIVIC LOCATION. STATION, AND THEN THE NEXT THING I GOT WAS ABOUT THE THE PARKING ON THE ROADS, WHICH REQUIRE SATELLITE MINIMUM MINIMUM WIDTH OF 36FT FOR PARKING ON BOTH SIDES, AND TO ACCOUNT FOR LIFE SAFETY ISSUES AND ENSURE ABILITY TO PASS.

I ASSUME ALL OF THE ABOVE THAT WAS ACCURATE. OKAY.

DOES EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION FEEL LIKE THEY UNDERSTAND? YES, YES. OKAY, THEN I WILL NOT REPEAT ALL OF THAT BACK.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? NO. OKAY. I'LL HAVE TO DECIDE. DO I HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I DON'T THINK I DO.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO AMEND, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. PARKING. GOT IT.

SO THE ONLY THING. THAT'S LEFT THAT I CAN REMEMBER.

OH, THIS ONE SHOULD BE EASY FOR A FOR AN AMENDMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE ATTACHMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US AS, AS BACKUP FOR THIS MEETING, TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED IMAGES OF THE MULTIFAMILY.

YEAH, THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US TODAY BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN THE IN THE DOCUMENT, THE, THE RS SECTION AND THE MULTIFAMILY SECTION HAS JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLE IMAGES.

I THINK THEY JUST WANT TO INCLUDE. YEAH. WHAT WE SHOWED TONIGHT, JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSISTENT BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES THAT THE, THE SCALE AND THE STYLE ARE MEANT TO BE USED AS REFERENCE.

AND WE DON'T WANT THOSE. SO OKAY. SO THE MOTION TO AMEND IS TO UPDATE THE PICTURES IN THE DOCUMENT.

IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT SECOND. OKAY. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COPELAND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. WE'VE GOT OUR IMAGES.

AND THEN THE LAST THING FOR ME IS ABOUT ADHERENCE TO THE COMP PLAN.

AND AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET PAST THAT ONE WITHOUT HAVING A MINIMUM.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MARKET FACTORS AT PLAY THERE.

YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES HAVE TO DO WHAT'S REALISTIC FOR THEM, BUT ALSO WE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR OURSELVES AS A CITY.

SO IF ANYONE HAS IDEAS ABOUT HOW WE APPROACH THAT, WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THEM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S KIND OF A GATING ISSUE FOR ME. I WAS GOING TO SAY, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MINIMUM OF 40% ON THE BUILDING MATERIALS AND INCREASE THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN OURS. I THINK THAT'S THE DEA.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM OF TOWNHOMES THAT ARE REQUIRED.

CORRECT. YEAH. YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU'RE TALKING I DON'T KNOW IF I.

TRYING TO SEE HOW I CAN SAY THIS. THE ZONING DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEM.

SO IT IS IN LINE WITH THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT ALLOWS BOTH.

I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST POINT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU WANT A MINIMUM TO BE REQUIRED.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A PERCENTAGE, IF THAT'S A UNIT NUMBER, YOU'LL HAVE TO KIND OF DISCUSS BETWEEN YOURSELF.

BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IF THE ZONING ALLOWS THE USE, THEN THE ZONING MEETS THE COMP PLAN.

THEY MAY NOT BUILD AT ALL, BUT IT DOES MEAN I JUST WANT THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED.

TONIGHT HAS MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHAT IS INTENDED TO BE BUILT BASED ON THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE MARKET WOULD NOT BE COMPLIANT WITH THE

[01:50:01]

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

BUT WHY IS IT NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE PLAN? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO APPROVE ANY SINGLE USE OR SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE USE SUBDIVISIONS.

IT'S EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE ACTIONS OF THE COMP PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED.

SO AT LEAST IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE TYPES OF HOUSING TYPOLOGIES THERE, WE CAN SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT THE THE STANDARD KIND OF PRODUCT THAT WE BUILD IN KYLE.

IT DOES SOMETHING TO TRY TO FILL THAT MISSING MIDDLE VOID THAT THE COMP PLAN WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS, SO THAT WE GET DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRODUCTS FOR PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF THEIR LIFE WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVELS.

AND YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE RECTIFY THAT HERE.

I THINK IT'S TOUGH BECAUSE AS I WOULD UNDERSTAND IT FROM WHAT YOU SAID, CODING CODES, TRUMP COMP PLANS.

AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IN THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS, WE HAVE TO USE POLITE NUDGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO MOVE THINGS ALONG.

I SUPPOSE A PROPERTY OWNER COULD COME IN AND BUILD EITHER TYPE UNDER THE CODE I THINK IS THE ISSUE.

SO HOW DO YOU NUDGE PEOPLE ALONG TO GET THEM TO GO WITH THE COMP PLAN? BECAUSE THE COMP IS NOT GOING TO TO BEAT THE CODE.

THAT'S WHAT A PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD UNDER.

BUT I'M ALL FOR NUDGING THIS ALONG AND GETTING IT INTO THE COMP PLAN ARENA SO THAT WE GET WHAT WE WANT.

I'M AFRAID OF ABANDONED PROJECTS. WE'VE GOT ONE IN TOWN.

I'M AFRAID OF FLIPPING PROPERTY. WE'VE GOT TOO MANY OF THOSE AROUND, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

SO LET'S NUDGE THIS PROCESS ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPER AS BEST WE CAN, AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMETHING TO WORK HERE.

I THINK OUR INTENT IS CLEAR ENOUGH. I THINK I UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS CLEARLY MYSELF, BUT THIS THIS IS THE REALITY OF WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST.

CODING VERSUS COMP PLAN. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT I DON'T KNOW WHEN SOMETHING WOULD BE BUILT, THOUGH, I HOPE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. THAT'S WHY I GET CONCERNED ABOUT FLIPPING PROPERTY THAT'S GOT A POD DESIGNATION.

BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL MARKET, THERE'S 2000 EMPTY HOMES IN AUSTIN, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT MARKET.

SECONDARILY, THE ECONOMY. AND SO IF WE GO INTO A PROJECT LIKE THIS AND IT CANNOT GET THE FINANCING, WE'VE GOT FALLOW LAND THAT IS NO LONGER CALLED AG.

YOU KNOW, AND SO THE BEST THING WE CAN DO GIVEN THE CODE IN OUR LOVE OF THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH WITH.

THE THING IS, IS TO NUDGE THINGS ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPERS.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A POINT IN TIME THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE, I WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO.

THANK YOU. AGAIN FOR SPEAKING TO OUR OUR TIMING ON ON THE PROJECT.

WE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ARE GOING TO BE VERY MOTIVATED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPERTY OR OUR PLAN IS TO DEDICATE THE SEVEN ACRES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAPISTRANO PRETTY SOON AFTER, AFTER PROJECT APPROVALS.

WE WE ARE ALREADY IN DEEP, DEEP NEGOTIATIONS WITH AN AFFORDABLE DEVELOPER THAT'S VERY INTERESTED IN AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPER THAT'S GOING TO BE LOOKING TO BREAK GROUND ON THEIR PROPERTY AS SOON AS CHIVO PASTRANO SENIOR PARKWAY STARTS CONSTRUCTION.

AND THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BE THE THE TRIGGER THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW.

BASICALLY EVERYTHING ELSE TO TO START. THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE COMMERCIAL.

TRIGGERS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE IN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE D.R.

IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO WHILE STILL. HAVING US COMMIT TO SOME LEVEL OF RETAIL, STILL ALLOWING US TO DEVELOP THE REST OF THE PROJECT WHILE THE RETAIL IS MOVING AHEAD, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING TO FIND RETAIL TENANTS. AND FOR THAT REASON, BASICALLY THE WHOLE PROJECT IS ON PAUSE.

WE DO THINK THAT THE THE MORE WE CAN SPEED UP THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL, THE MORE ATTRACTIVE IT WILL BE FOR RETAIL DEVELOPERS.

WE'RE WE'RE ALREADY HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH MULTIPLE RETAILERS.

I THINK AGAIN, THE CONSTRUCTION OF PASTRANO IS REALLY, REALLY SEEN BY MOST RETAILERS AS SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL TO ALLOW THEM TO, TO COME INTO, INTO THE PROJECT. BUT WE HAVE EVERY, EVERY INCENTIVE FOR, FOR THIS PROJECT TO,

[01:55:03]

TO MOVE FORWARD AS, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT'S, THAT'S DEFINITELY OUR INTENTION. IS THERE FINANCING AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING? CAN WE GET TOWNHOMES AND GARDEN HOMES AND SUCH IN A PROJECT LIKE THIS REALLY UNDER TODAY'S MARKET CONDITIONS? WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS A MIX OF 45 FOOT LOTS AND 35 FOOT LOTS OF 35 FOOT LOTS FOR ARE SIMILAR PRICE POINT TO TO TOWNHOMES.

SO IT'S A IT'S A SIMILAR PRODUCT BUT FULLY DETACHED WITH, WITH INDIVIDUAL YARDS.

AND SO WE THINK THAT'S A, A VERY ATTRACTIVE AND AN EVEN HIGHER QUALITY PRODUCT TYPE THAT GOES TO SIMILAR, SIMILAR BUYER PROFILE. AND YES, THERE IS FINANCING IN TODAY'S MARKET FOR, FOR THAT PRODUCT.

IT'S IT'S DEFINITELY SLOWER AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP THE WHOLE THING IN, IN ONE GO.

IT'S A MULTIYEAR PROCESS. BUT BUT IN THIS LOCATION IN PARTICULARLY NEXT TO TO THE RETAIL, WE THINK HAVING THE RETAIL HERE IS ALSO GOING TO SEPARATE, SEPARATE AND DIFFERENTIATE THIS PROJECT FROM FROM OTHER PROJECTS OR OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THAT ARE OUT THERE. I THINK THE THE PROXIMITY TO THE RETAIL IS GOING TO BE VERY ATTRACTIVE TO SOME RESIDENTS, AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE VERY MOTIVATED TO HAVE THAT RETAIL BE AS HIGH QUALITY AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE AS AN IMPORTANT SELLING POINT FOR THE REST OF THE PROJECT.

OKAY. AND SO AS REPRESENTING THE OWNER, YOU HAVE A LOT OF LATITUDE AS TO WHAT HAPPENS ONCE A PUTT.

IS THERE ACTUALLY, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED? WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, AND I SAY THIS IN ALL SINCERITY AT THIS PART IN THE PROCESS, I KNOW WE'RE WAY DOWNSTREAM. I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR YOU AND ABBY TO READ THE COMP PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT, AND REALLY SEE WHAT CHAIRMAN ONCKEN AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF A VISION FOR THE CITY.

AND ACTUALLY FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY OUT AND HOW IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED, YOU KNOW, FOR MORE DENSE BUILDING FURTHER OUT TO NORMAL SUBURBAN KIND OF LAND USES. SO PLEASE READ THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS LIKE THEY SAY ABOUT LEGISLATION.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WATCH IT, IT LOOKS LIKE MAKING SAUSAGE.

IT'S A MESSY THING. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

BUT AS IN ALL SINCERITY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO READ THE COMP PLAN SO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT VISION IS.

AND WE'RE NOT TALKING PAST EACH OTHER SO MUCH ABOUT THAT.

AND SIR, FOR YOUR DISCUSSION JUST NOW ON THE 35 FOOT LOTS, YOU SAID THEY'RE A SIMILAR PRICE POINT FOR DETACHED VERSUS TOWNHOME.

WAS THAT A I UNDERSTAND THAT PROPERLY OR DID I MISUNDERSTAND SLIGHTLY HIGHER, BUT NOT TO A DIFFERENT PRICE POINT FOR THE 35 FOOT LOT HOMES AND THE TOWN, THE THE ATTACHED TOWNHOMES? AND THEN QUESTION TO CITY STAFF IF ZONED AS CURRENTLY DISCUSSED, WOULD THAT GIVE HIM THE FLEXIBILITY? SHOULD MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE THAT HE COULD CHANGE COURSE? OR WOULD THAT REQUIRE US TO COME BACK AND VOTE ON A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE FOR ZONING PLAN FOR THIS? NO, HE DEFINITELY WROTE THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THE IN THE ORDINANCE.

THAT'S BEFORE YOU TO HAVE BOTH AN ATTACHED PRODUCT AND THE DETACHED PRODUCT, THE SMALLER AND LARGER LOTS.

IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE DEVELOPER IS TELLING YOU, THOUGH, THEIR MAIN INTENTION RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, IS TO HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PRODUCT ON ON SMALLER AND LARGER LOTS.

BUT THE ORDINANCE OR THE LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU DOES ALLOW BOTH.

OKAY. AND MADAM CHAIR, JUST KIND OF DISCUSSION FOR OUR TEAM.

I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THERE OF IF WE HAVE A COMP PLAN AND WE'RE NOT ADHERING TO IT, WHY DO WE HAVE A COMP PLAN? AND HAVING TO BELIEVE THAT WHEN THEY'RE COMING HERE AND SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, THAT'S THE PLAN AND THEY HAVE FLEXIBILITY, GREAT.

BUT WE CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN.

BUT I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND REVOTE ON SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF THAT CHANGES.

SO I DON'T LOVE THAT ASPECT, BUT I SEE A LOT OF GOOD HERE OF TALKING ABOUT A CIVIC CENTER, TALKING ABOUT MORE PARK SPACE, TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO DEVELOP THIS IN A WAY THAT WE'RE PUTTING SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER USAGE THAT WE MAY NOT OTHERWISE. FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS LIKE I, I THINK THAT THERE'S GOOD HERE THAT DOES OUTWEIGH SOME OF THE CONCERNS, AND I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE DISCUSSIONS AND PUTTING ON LIMITATIONS OF COME BACK TO DISCUSS FOR CUPS.

COME BACK TO DISCUSS DIFFERENT CHANGES HERE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GUIDING IT AND NUDGING IT THAT THAT DIRECTION.

AND I DEFINITELY ECHO WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE AUDIENCE OF THERE'S DEFINITELY A DEMAND FOR A GROCER ON THE EAST SIDE.

AND IF I UNDERSTAND THINGS RIGHT, A FACTOR THERE COULD EXIST IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH POPULATION DENSITY TO ATTRACT THOSE TYPES OF

[02:00:01]

RETAIL. AND IF WE CAN ENCOURAGE THAT BEHAVIOR, WE CAN NUDGE IT IN THAT DIRECTION TO TRY AND HELP THOSE GROCERS COME IN THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH SOME OF THOSE GOALS. BUT I AGREE THAT WITH SOME OF THE GUARDRAILS WE'RE TRYING TO PUT UP, THAT THIS IN MY MIND, OUTWEIGHS MORE GOOD THAN BAD.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO SUM IT UP.

I THINK THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT I'M, I DON'T CARE FOR ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT OVERALL, I THINK IT DOES MORE GOOD THAN BAD. I DON'T IT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY THE WAY I WOULD HAVE DRAWN IT UP.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I DON'T CARE FOR SOME OF THE FINANCING MECHANISMS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW. YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE LIMITED PARKING.

HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN A BIG CALL FOR MORE RETAIL ON THE EAST SIDE.

THIS HELPS PROVIDE THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS, WHERE THEY WANT IT, HOW THEY WANT IT, BUT IT PROVIDES THAT THERE'S BEEN A CALL TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC ISSUES.

THIS IS DEFINITELY A VOTE IN FAVOR OF MOBILITY.

THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME GROWING PAINS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, BUT THE END RESULT, I THINK, IS GOING TO BE GREATER MOBILITY ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN.

YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BEST WAY TO ZONE THIS LAND, WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW IT'S ZONED.

WE GET TO LOOK AT A PROPOSAL AND DECIDE IF WE AGREE WITH THAT OR NOT, BUT AG IS CERTAINLY NOT ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE WHERE IT IS RIGHT NOW.

AND SO I THINK OVERALL, THIS IS A, THIS IS A POSITIVE THING FOR OUR CITY.

I AGREE THERE'S A LOT OF POSITIVES FOR FOR THE PROJECT.

THERE'S A LOT I LIKE ABOUT IT. STREET TREES PARTICULARLY.

I LOVE STREET TREES. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXCUSE OF, WELL, THE MARKET RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH WHERE WE HAVE DEMAND TO BUILD THIS TYPE OF HOUSING, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RETAIL.

SO IF WE BUILD RETAIL, THEN WE CAN BUILD HOUSES.

WELL, AT THAT POINT, YOU'VE ALREADY BUILT THE HOUSES AND THERE'S NO ROOM LEFT.

LIKE, THERE'S NOT A LOT LEFT IN THIS AREA THAT CAN BE BUILT OUT.

WE HAVE A TON OF SINGLE FAMILY ALREADY THAT'S NOT SELLING.

SO WHY ARE WE GOING TO BUILD MORE SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THAT SAME VEIN OF THINGS LIKE MAYBE IT'S NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THIS SORT OF PROJECT, BUT I KNOW A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WE SAW SOMETHING KIND OF SIMILAR TO THIS JUST DOWN THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT THAT HAD PARKS, HAD RETAIL, HAD TOWNHOMES. IT WAS ON 150 EAST OF THERE.

WHAT WAS THAT ONE CALLED? WOODMERE. WOODMERE.

LIKE, HAS ANYTHING HAPPENED WITH THAT ONE? DID IT EVER GET BUILT? ARE THEY OKAY? SO WE'RE BASICALLY BUILDING LIKE ANOTHER WOULD MIRROR THAT HASN'T BEEN BUILT YET.

CAN I, CAN I STRUGGLE? I THINK IT'S EASY TO LOOK AT CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND SAY, HOW IS THIS GOING TO WORK? BUT THIS IS AT LEAST 3 TO 5 YEARS BEFORE. I MEAN, ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSES ARE BUILT THERE ON THE MARKET.

I THINK IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S 2000 HOMES ON THE MARKET TODAY, HOW IS THIS GOING TO WORK FIVE YEARS FROM NOW? AND I THINK THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY YOU HAVE TO LEAD WITH RETAIL AND PUT BUSINESSES THAT WE DON'T PUT BUSINESSES ANYWHERE.

BUSINESSES PUT THEMSELVES WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO THRIVE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY OR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN TRUMP FREE MARKET ECONOMICS. AND SO I THINK I WISH I COULD, BUT I THINK YOU BUILD FOR THE FUTURE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FORESIGHT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE THINGS. AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE BUSINESSES AND GROCERS WANT TO BE INSTEAD OF SAY, I'M GOING TO STICK YOU HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO THRIVE, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BRING THE PEOPLE.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST NOT HOW I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW ANY OF THESE BUSINESSES APPROACH THEIR KIND OF THEIR PLAN.

AND SO I THINK IT'S I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A REASONABLE WAY FOR US TO APPROACH IT TO.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO LET THE ECONOMICS OF THE SITUATION DICTATE HOW IT'S BUILT.

I AGREE THAT THAT'S JUST A PRACTICAL REALITY.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, AS I SUGGESTED, THAT PEOPLE WHO COME TO TOWN IF YOU'RE DOING SERIOUS BUSINESS SHOULD READ IF THEY'RE ON I-35, I-35 OVERLAY BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING, I SUGGEST THAT ANYBODY'S COMING TO TOWN WHO WANTS TO DO SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT.

READ THE COMP PLAN. IT MAY NOT BE LAW, AND PEOPLE MAY THINK THAT THEY CAN SKIRT IT OR SOMETHING,

[02:05:03]

AND I SUPPOSE THEY CAN. BUT THE TRUTH IS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS, BUSINESS PEOPLE TO GET A VISION OF WHAT PEOPLE HAD IN MIND.

DIFFERENT CIVIC GROUPS, CITIZENS COUNCIL, PNC, WHAT THIS TOWN COULD LOOK LIKE THAT WAS DIFFERENT AND WAS SOMETHING WE COULD ALL ENJOY, AS WELL AS NOT JUST PARKING OUR CAR IN A THE GARAGE AND HIDING OUT AT HOME.

BUT AN ENVIRONMENT, A HUMAN SCALE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE CAN ENJOY AND LIVE IN.

AND I THINK THAT COMP PLAN, AS I SAID, I SUGGEST EVERYBODY READ THAT REALLY.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY. WELL, I DO WHY PEOPLE INSIST ON NOT READING THE OVERLAY OR NOT READING THE COMP PLAN, BUT CERTAINLY I ENCOURAGE IT ALL THE TIME. THAT'S WHY I'VE ENCOURAGED IT HERE PUBLICLY TONIGHT.

YEAH, MONEY'S GOING TO RULE THE DAY, BUT CAN YOU SPEND YOUR DOLLARS IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN RESPECT THE WILL OF THE CITIZENS IN THAT AREA FOR WHAT THEY THINK WOULD BE BEST FOR THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENT THEY'RE LIVING IN, WHERE THEY'RE WORKING, WHERE THEY'RE SHOPPING? YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID NEGATIVELY ABOUT THE TOWN, SADLY ENOUGH.

BUT I THINK WE CAN GET OVER THAT KIND OF THING IF WE LIVE ACCORDING TO SOMETHING LIKE A COMP PLAN, YOU KNOW, THAT WENT THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS AND FALLIBLE, FALLIBLE THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

IT WAS A PROCESS AND IT WAS A COMMUNITY PROCESS THAT HAD WE WERE SITTING DOWN IN WORKSHOPS WITH COUNCIL ON THAT.

SO IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. SO YEAH. BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IT'S NOT EVEN BUT IT'S BUSINESS AND COMP PLAN.

THAT'S JUST MY TAKE. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT.

I DEFINITELY HEAR YOU. AND WE DID LOOK AT THE COMP PLAN AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THE COMP PLAN AND KYLE ALLOWS A DIVERSITY OF PRODUCT TYPE.

AS GEORGE DISCUSSED, WE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE TOWNHOMES.

THAT'S WHY IT'S ALLOWED IN THE IN THE PLAN. BUT ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THESE HOUSING TYPES DO, WHILE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A TOWNHOME, IT IS DESIGNED SO THAT THEY FRONT ONTO A PUBLIC SHARED GREEN SPACE.

AND SO THOSE, THOSE ONES YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE THAT FRONT INTO THE GREEN SPACE.

IT'S IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE OF A SHARED COMMUNITY SPACE AS OPPOSED TO EVERYBODY BEING IN THEIR BACKYARDS.

SO YOU COME IN BY THE ALLEY AND YOU PARK. YOU DON'T HAVE LIKE YOUR YOUR OWN BACKYARD NECESSARILY.

MAYBE YOU HAVE LITTLE PRIVATE COURTYARD. BUT THEN YOUR FRONT YARD REALLY BECOMES THAT SHARED COMMUNITY SPACE AND COMMUNITY GATHERING SPACE THAT STARTS TO GET TO.

SOME OF YOU TALKED ABOUT TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN. SO WE DID TRY TO INCORPORATE THE THAT STYLE OF PRODUCT.

AND SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ATTACHED PRODUCT, IT IS TRYING TO HIT SOME OF THOSE PROVIDING THAT DIVERSITY AND SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE AS OPPOSED TO THE STANDARD PULL INTO YOUR DRIVE, PULL INTO YOUR FRONT LOADED GARAGE AND AND HAVE YOUR OWN PRIVATE BACKYARD.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO SAY THAT THAT WE REALLY DID THINK ABOUT THAT WITH THIS DESIGN.

SO AN IDEA THAT COMES TO MY MIND NOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD GUARANTEE AS A MINIMUM, SOME PERCENTAGE OF, ALLEY LOAD PRODUCTS. SO THEY HAVE THAT PASEO COURTYARD FEEL THAT COULD COUNT AS A TOWNHOME BECAUSE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ALLEY LOADED.

COULD WE COMMIT TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BEING ALLEY LOADED UP INSTEAD OF LEAVING THAT UP TO, YOU KNOW, MARKET AS IT GOES? I DO LIKE FREE MARKETS.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT. I'M TRYING TO APPRECIATE THAT THIS LINE.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO OTHER. YES. YEAH. WE CAN WE CAN COMMIT TO THAT.

THAT THAT'S DEFINITELY INTENT. I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY COMMIT TO.

OKAY. IN TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE, I MEAN, IT'S HARD I KNOW IT'S HARD TO COME UP WITH RIGHT NOW.

YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU. NOT NOT RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE WE WOULD DO 20% AND THEN WE MIGHT END UP DOING MORE THAN THAT, BUT JUST A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. ARGUMENT. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST TOUCH ON THAT.

I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT THEY BE WILLING TO ADJUST TO INCLUDE A MINIMUM.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT MAYBE THE LANGUAGE RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL IS TO INCLUDE A MINIMUM AND MAYBE NOT DEFINE THAT MINIMUM NOW AND GIVE, GIVE GEORGE AND US A CHANCE TO TO LOOK AT WHAT THAT MIGHT BE.

20% MAY SOUND FINE. IT MAY NOT WORK OUT. AND THEN WE'RE STUCK WITH SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE BUILT, AND WE GOT TO COME BACK AND AMEND IT. SO IF I THINK IF WE CAN KEEP THE LANGUAGE VAGUE, THAT WOULD BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ON MAYBE NOT A HARD NUMBER, BUT JUST AT A MINIMUM. AND THEN WE CAN WORK THE NEXT WEEK OR SO BEFORE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL ON THAT AT A MINIMUM TO THE DA.

[02:10:09]

BUT THAT WOULD BE HARD. YEAH. YES.

I'LL PUT THAT IN THE POD. WE MAY ADD IT TO THE DA JUST IN CASE WE TALK ABOUT SOME PHASING IN THE DA.

MAYBE THAT'S ANOTHER WAY WE HANDLE IT. AND SO LOGISTICALLY, IF WE WERE APPROVING A POD TONIGHT THAT SAYS CONTINGENT UPON COUNCIL DETERMINATION, LATER COUNCIL WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF SETTING THAT THAT AGREEMENT.

IS THAT CORRECT? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I MENTIONED THE LOGISTICS OF HOW WE WOULD.

YEAH. I WILL SAY, FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING TONIGHT, YOU ARE RECOMMENDING BODIES.

SO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS ABSOLUTELY THE RECOMMENDING BODY FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.

SO IF YOU WANTED TO ESTABLISH A THRESHOLD, MAYBE YOU COME UP WITH LIKE A MINIMUM NUMBER, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, AS CONFIRMED, YOU KNOW, AND FORWARDED TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OR SOMETHING, MAYBE YOU CAN GO ALONG ALONG THOSE LINES TOO.

THANK YOU. I REALLY LIKE THE FOOTPRINT THAT'S ON THE ILLUSTRATED PLAN.

LAYING OUT THOSE BLOCKS, THOSE NICE KIND OF SQUARE SORT OF BLOCKS ON THERE.

I LIKE THAT A LOT. SO IT'S HARD TO COME UP WITH A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE TO INCLUDE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ROAD WITH CHANGES AND EVERYTHING WOULD, WOULD AFFECT THAT.

BUT I ALSO KNOW WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL, THEY MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT PRIORITIES BECAUSE THEY, THEY'RE NOT US. SO I WOULD HATE FOR IT TO GET THERE.

AND THEN THEY DON'T ADD THE MINIMUM, BUT IT'S ALMOST EASIER IF IT GOES TO THEM FULLY PACKAGED.

AND THEN THEY JUST HAVE TO DECIDE YES OR NO INSTEAD OF PICKING IT UP AND AND RUNNING WITH THAT TORCH.

BUT I MEAN, WHAT JASON SAID MAKES GREAT SENSE.

JUST INCLUDE A MINIMUM, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE IS JUST THE MOST BASIC HIGH LEVEL COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF CONCEPT TO PUT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE, SO THEY HAVE SOME GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS COULD ALL COMPLETELY CHANGE 100 DIFFERENT TIMES BEFORE IT GOES TO FINAL APPROVAL.

SO A MINIMUM OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR AT LEAST GIVES A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY THAT YOU GET SOME VERSION OF THAT.

OKAY. I ALSO LIKE THAT ONLY BECAUSE IF WE PICKED A NUMBER TODAY, IT'D BE A BIT ARBITRARY.

AND IT'S NOT A DATA DRIVEN KIND OF CONCLUSION.

SO I LIKE LEAVING IT OPEN ENDED, BUT REQUIRING THAT THERE'S SOME MINIMUM THRESHOLD IN THERE.

ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE JUST TO INCLUDE SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU RECOMMEND TO APPROVE WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THAT THE R-1 ZONING SHALL HAVE BOTH TYPES TOWNHOMES AND A MIXTURE OF AND IT'S NOT A MINIMUM.

IT'S NOT I MEAN, IT IS A MINIMUM BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE, BUT IT'S IT'S THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD DO.

JUST DO ONE. I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IT AND GO, OKAY, WHERE DOES IT MAKE SENSE.

IS IT THIS BLOCK, IS IT THIS ROW? IS IT THIS STREET WITHOUT PAINTING ANYBODY INTO A CORNER ON A PERCENTAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION. IF THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEABLE TO THAT, JUST REQUIRING BOTH.

AND THEN LET THE MARKET SHAKE OUT WHAT THOSE FINAL NUMBERS ARE.

DO WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE FOR AN AMENDMENT? NOT YET, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE POD RIGHT HERE.

THE THE PURPOSE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE AREA IS TO ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF HOUSING, HOUSEHOLD TYPES. I CANNOT TALK TODAY. HOUSEHOLD TYPES AND ATTACHED OR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS WITH A MINIMUM OF A SQUARE FOOT.

BUT IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT FRONT OR ALLEY LOAD IN THAT DESCRIPTION.

THERE IT IS. COVERED IN OTHER PLACES LIKE WE'RE PERMITTED USES, SETBACKS, LOT STANDARDS.

IT'S ALL THERE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD LIKE A WHOLE SENTENCE INTO THE PUD SAYING THAT WE WANT THE BOTH AND NOT OR. AND I LIKE I THINK THAT'S AN ELEGANT SOLUTION.

JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT'S THERE FOR BOTH. BUT THANK YOU.

OKAY. WHAT'S THE MOTION? SHALL WE TRY IT? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE POD.

MOTION TO I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE POD BY ADDING A STATEMENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DESCRIPTION THAT CLARIFIES THAT ALI LOAD AND FRONT LOAD ARE BOTH GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. OKAY, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS MOTION WOULD THEREFORE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER THREE WITH THE AMENDMENT OF

[02:15:08]

THE LANGUAGE YOU JUST STATED. NOW THIS THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.

AND THEN IF THIS ONE PASSES, THEN WE AMEND. THEN WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT WITH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL. OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST FOR THE LANGUAGE CHANGE. YES.

OKAY. YEAH. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WEBB.

LET US DISCUSS WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THAT ONE? OKAY. IF WE HAVEN'T MADE THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TONIGHT, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMISSION.

AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE STAFF, AS YOU WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND COUNCIL AND REACH A HAPPY POINT ON THIS.

PLEASE DON'T GIVE US JUST, LIKE, ONE STREET. I'M TRYING REALLY HARD TO TO BE NICE.

SO. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO THE MOTION? OKAY. SO I GUESS NOW WE MOVE INTO THE FULL MOTION.

THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE REZONE REQUEST FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING RETAIL SERVICE, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED R-1A GARDEN HOMES AND APARTMENT RESIDENTIAL.

THREE DISTRICTS. WE'VE AMENDED IT SEVERAL TIMES.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE OVERALL MOTION TO APPROVE THE REZONING REQUEST OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE REQUEST? IT'S A LOT OF WORDS. SORRY. OKAY. WE'VE DONE LOTS OF TALKING.

WE CAN. WE CAN BE DONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT PASSES.

OKAY. NEXT WE MOVE TO. ITEM NUMBER FOUR. OH, DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT KIND OF YOUR DIA. SORRY TO BRING THAT UP. SOME KIND OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIA INCLUSIONS TO COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. YES. SO THIS WAS WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING MATERIALS, ARTIFICIAL TURF AND STREET WIDTHS, AGAIN, AS THINGS WE WANTED TO INCLUDE. I DO THINK THE STREET WIDTHS WILL KIND OF GO IN AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE OF THE BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BLOOD.

OKAY. BUT BUILDING MATERIALS IS IS ACCURATE AND ARTIFICIAL TURF AND THE TURF.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND ADJUSTMENTS OR INCLUSION IN THE DA. ABOUT THE.

ABOUT WHAT? BUT YEAH I'M GOING TO LET YOU THE.

BUT WHAT DO YOU WANT WITH THE BUILDING MATERIALS? I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT TURF. I WANTED TO MENTION PERCENTAGE FROM 40% TO 80% OKAY.

OKAY. SO WE'LL RECOMMEND 80% BRICK AND STONE FOR THAT'S THE RETAIL SERVICE AND MULTIFAMILY.

NO, THAT IS STRICTLY FOR THE COMMERCIAL. JUST FOR COMMERCIAL.

OKAY. ONLY FOR COMMERCIAL. AND THEN FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF USED IN THE AREA TO BE PROHIBITED.

PROHIBITED. OH, LET'S SHOOT FOR THE MOON. LET'S DO IT.

RECOMMEND PROHIBITION OF ARTIFICIAL TURF FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT CLARIFICATION? THIS IS A SINGLE MOTION FOR BOTH ITEMS. YES. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. COULD WE BIFURCATE IT JUST IN CASE THERE'S DISAGREEMENT OR OR SEPARATE DISCUSSION? I THINK WHERE I WAS GOING WITH IT, BUT YEAH, I WOULD RECOMMEND SEPARATE MOTIONS.

THAT WAY THEY COULD BE VOTED UP OR DOWN INDEPENDENTLY.

OKAY. UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING AND I'M HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

NO, YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BODY IS GOING TO WANT TO DISCUSS BOTH OF THESE ISSUES SEPARATELY, SO I WOULD RECOMMEND ONE MOTION FOR EACH. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL PARK ARTIFICIAL TURF FOR NOW.

AND WE'LL JUST MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE D.A.

HAS AN 80% REQUIREMENT FOR BRICK AND STONE MATERIALS IN THE RETAIL SERVICE ZONE.

I NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. AND I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS.

OKAY. MY QUESTION. WHERE WHERE DOES THE 80% COME FROM?

[02:20:01]

I'M ALL FOR INCREASING THAT PERCENTAGE. HOW DO WE GET TO 80? YEAH, I'M KIND OF COMPARING IT TO OUR. EITHER WAY, IT'S RELATIVELY CLOSE.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES IT SHOULD BE BUILT TO LAST, NOT TO JUST YOU KNOW, A MINIMUM OF 40%. AND THEN YOU HAVE STUFF ON THE PART OF THE SITING.

AND I THINK WE'VE DONE SUCH A GREAT JOB THUS FAR BUILDING NEW STRUCTURES THAT ARE LITERALLY ALL BRICK AND STONE.

I THINK WE SHOULD CARRY THAT OUT. IS 80% THE THRESHOLD FOR THAT 35 OVERLAY? NO, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO THE THRESHOLD.

YEAH, I 35 OVERLAY IS 90% MASONRY. THAT'S AFTER ALL OF THE DOORS AND GLAZING AND EVERYTHING.

I I'LL TELL YOU THE REASON I REALLY LIKE IT, BECAUSE SO FAR THE ONLY BUILDINGS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION HAVE BEEN METAL BUILDINGS WITH THE FACADE. AND AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO START ELEVATING THAT AREA.

IF YOU WANT TO ELEVATE THE RETAIL AND YOU WANT TO ELEVATE THE TYPES OF HOMES THAT GO IN THERE, IT'S GOT TO START SOMEWHERE. SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

ALL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS LEGAL FOR US TO TO MANDATE THIS.

IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. SO I THINK YOU AS THE COMMISSION YOU SAW THIS INFORMATION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. I THINK YOU CAN SAY AS A COMMISSION, WE UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A 40%, YOU KNOW, BRICK AND STONE. WE WOULD LIKE THAT YOU KNOW, THAT ELEVATED TO 80% OR WE WOULD WE ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF YOUR DAY WITH YOUR CONSIDERATIONS FOR BUILDING MATERIALS.

I'D ALSO SAY YOU'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THE PUD, SO YOUR VOTE ON THE PUD IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. THESE ARE JUST SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU, AS A RECOMMENDING BODY, THINK COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE BRICK AND STONE BUILDING MATERIALS FROM 40 TO 80%, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY.

OKAY. LET'S SEE. ARTIFICIAL TURF. THE NEXT RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD MOTION TO GIVE COUNCIL ABOUT THE DA IS FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF TO BE ELIMINATED.

FROM THE LANDSCAPING OPTIONS IN THE IN THE POT.

SECOND. VERY QUICK. SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? ARE WE LIMITING TURF ELSEWHERE IN THE SAME EXTREME? NOT FOR LACK OF ME TRYING. I WOULD SAY NO, NOT RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE WE'RE NOT. BUT. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE ALLOWS TURF.

IT IS A LIMITED ON PERCENTAGE. SO IT'S NOT THEY CAN'T JUST COME IN AND 100%.

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE? KAYLA CAN PROBABLY GET YOU AN ANSWER IN ABOUT 10S.

I WANT TO SAY IT WAS 25, 30%. IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T A LOT.

THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION, ACTUALLY, ON THIS BOARD TO INCREASE THE REQUIRED USE OF, OF TURF, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT ORDINANCE CAME OUT ABOUT DURING WATER ISSUES.

AND SO THEY GET TURF. LOOKS NICE, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IT DOES, IT MAKES IT HOTTER.

IT LEACHES MICROPLASTICS INTO THE SOIL. IT'S BEEN BANNED IN SOME COUNTRIES BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S LINKED TO CANCER.

THERE'S ALL KINDS OF ISSUES WITH IT, AND I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY POIGNANT THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF IN AN AREA WHERE WE'RE WANTING TO HAVE ONE WATER, WE'RE WANTING TO CAPTURE THIS WATER AND THEN REUSE IT IN OTHER PLACES.

WE'RE JUST LIKE SPREADING MICROPLASTICS EVERYWHERE.

I THINK IT MAKES NO SENSE TO INCLUDE ARTIFICIAL TURF IN AN AREA WHERE WE'RE DOING THAT.

THAT'S MY $0.02. I THINK IF YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED ME THREE YEARS AGO, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF UNTIL I REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT WAS.

UNTIL I REDID A LOT OF MY LANDSCAPING AND LOOKED INTO IT.

AND I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT GRASSES IN CENTRAL TEXAS AND HOW YOU HOW YOU HAVE LOW WATER LANDSCAPING THAT STILL LOOKS NICE AND GREEN, AND I THINK IT'S VERY POSSIBLE WITHOUT ALL THE DANGEROUS EFFECTS OF HAVING IT THERE WITHOUT THE HEAT THAT IT CREATES.

AND SO I'M VERY MUCH IN THE OTHER CAMP NOW, BUT JUST BECAUSE I KNOW IT CAN BE DONE NATURALLY.

[02:25:10]

I FOUND THE ALLOWANCES FOR ARTIFICIAL TURF. SO FOR COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS SYNTHETIC PLANTS OR ARTIFICIAL TURF MAY NOT MAKE UP MORE THAN 50% OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING.

THAT'S ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT IN DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF IS USED, IT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS COVER.

SO IT COULD ALSO COUNT TOWARDS THEIR MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWANCES.

SO THERE'S SOMETIMES LIMITATIONS ON HOW MUCH THEY'LL WANT TO USE BECAUSE IT CAN COUNT TOWARDS THAT CALCULATION.

THE AMENDMENT MIGHT BE THEN THAT WE RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TURF TO BE USED TO SAY 5% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT'S ARBITRARY, BUT IT'S ALL ARBITRARY.

OR AT LEAST RECOMMEND THAT THEY NOT FOLLOW THE RATHER GENEROUS STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT LANDSCAPING CODE.

YOU KNOW. WE DO HAVE A MOTION ALREADY OUT AND SECONDED, WHICH IS TO ELIMINATE ARTIFICIAL TURF FROM THAT. SO OR FROM THE, FROM THE PED LANGUAGE.

SO WE WOULD EITHER NEED TO AMEND THAT OR WE CAN VOTE ON IT AS STATED.

AND IF IT FAILS WE CAN TRY IT THAT WAY. LET'S JUST VOTE ON IT AND COME BACK QUICKLY.

OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. HI. HI. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT PASSED.

I DON'T THINK. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE DA THAT WE WANTED TO RECOMMEND? OKAY. NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM FOUR. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR PATIENCE, BY THE WAY, AS WE WENT THROUGH THAT

[4) Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to Ch. 53A, Art. II, Pt. B, Sec. 5 of the Code of Ordinances to reduce the "Front Yard" setbacks from 15 feet to 5 feet, reduce the "Side Yard" setbacks from 15 feet to 5 feet, and reduce the "Rear Yard" setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet in the PC R-3 Multi-Family Residential PUD District of the Plum Creek Planned Unit Development (“Plum Creek PUD”). (Z-25-0139) Public Hearing ]

CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON CHAPTER 53, A, ARTICLE TWO, PART B, SECTION FIVE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS FROM 15FT TO 5FT, REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15FT TO 5FT, AND REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACKS FROM 15 OR FROM 10FT TO 5FT IN THE PC.

R3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE PLUM CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

PLUM CREEK PUT Z-250139, MISS SHARP. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, KAYLA SHARP, SENIOR PLANNER. I HOPE YOU'RE ALL STILL AWAKE AND HERE WITH US.

I'LL TRY AND KEEP THIS AS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.

HOPEFULLY THIS ONE IS MUCH QUICKER THAN THE LAST.

SO TONIGHT WE HAVE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS IN THE R3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN THE PLUM CREEK PUD.

THAT'S A MOUTHFUL. THE PLUM CREEK FLOOD WAS CREATED IN 1997.

IT'S BEEN PERIODICALLY AMENDED TO REFLECT EVOLVING DEVELOPMENT GOALS.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING TONIGHT ARE BEING REQUESTED TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE GOALS AND VISION OF PLUM CREEK.

THE REDUCED SETBACKS WILL HELP SUPPORT A MORE URBAN AND PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

SO THE CURRENT FRONT SETBACK IS 15FT. WE ARE LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT TO FIVE.

THE CURRENT SIDE SETBACK IS 15FT. ALSO LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT TO FIVE.

AND THEN THE REAR SETBACK IS TEN. AND WE'RE LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT TO FIVE AS WELL.

IF APPROVED, THESE CHANGES WILL ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-3 STANDARDS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT R-3 DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT, OF COURSE, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

HOWEVER IF THEY'RE IN IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN R-3 TYPE DEVELOPMENT, SAY A STANDARD GARDEN STYLE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT IN THE MXD, IT WOULD FOLLOW THE R-3 SETBACKS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS OPPOSED TO THE MXD STANDARDS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I HOPE IT DID. SO THE PROPOSED SETBACKS TONIGHT WILL BRING SEVERAL EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS INTO COMPLIANCE AND ALSO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS. KEEP IN MIND THAT REDUCING SETBACKS WILL NOT MODIFY ANY SETBACK AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S AN R1 OR R2 ADJACENT TO A SITE THAT DEVELOPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R3 STANDARDS, THERE MIGHT BE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD NOT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD NOT MODIFY ANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

[02:30:01]

AND THEN THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, DENSITY OR PERMITTED USES.

THIS IS PURELY SETBACKS. SO AS I STATED, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BETTER ALIGN WITH THE GOALS AND VISION OF PLUM CREEK, WHICH PRIORITIZES URBAN FORM, WALKABLE STREETS, A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, AND INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS.

THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LONG TERM VISION AND GOALS OF THE PLUM CREEK COMMUNITY.

SO YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS, OR RECOMMEND DENIAL.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTIONS? I KNOW I RAN THROUGH THAT VERY QUICKLY. WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM, SO I HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN WE CAN DIVE INTO OUR QUESTIONS FOR FOR MISS SHARP.

SO I'M OPENING A PUBLIC HEARING AT 902. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? NO. OKAY. CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING AT 902. ALL RIGHT, FIRE AWAY.

QUESTION. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. THIS WILL NOT IMPACT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

NO, NO. OKAY. COULD YOU GO BACK A SLIDE? ANOTHER ONE? I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE IRONY OF THIS ANALYSIS.

WITH EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT URBAN FORM, WALKABLE STREETS, VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. GEE. OKAY.

WELL, I GUESS I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. MISS SHARP.

WHY WAS FIVE FEET SELECTED AS THE NUMBER TO LAND ON? SO GENERALLY, I WILL SAY THERE. THERE WERE SOME PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND DEVELOPED PROJECTS THAT ARE.

AT FIVE FEET RIGHT NOW THAT ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

SO WE KIND OF CHOSE FOR THESE AMENDMENTS FIVE FEET TO ALIGN WITH SOME OF THOSE AND ALSO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY FOR ANY FUTURE PROJECTS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ONE.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND AND A SECOND FROM VICE CHAIR STEGALL.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE.

WE DON'T GET TO APPROVE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE.

ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. OKAY. STAFF REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

[5) Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the following: Introduction of Rosie Truelove, Executive Director, Strategic Development and City Organizational Changes. Upcoming City Event (Kyle City Fest 2025) ]

MR. LUTES. ALL RIGHT. SO TONIGHT I WANT TO INTRODUCE ROSIE TRUELOVE. SHE IS OUR NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT.

IN CASE Y'ALL ARE WONDERING WHAT THAT IS THAT IS A NEW DEPARTMENT IN OUR ORGANIZATION.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH SOME REORGS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A WAY TO COORDINATE KIND OF ALL ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO ROSIE IS GOING TO BE OVER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, STRATEGIC PLANNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT KIND OF BRING ALL THOSE FUNCTIONS INTO ONE HOUSE.

SO WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE ROSIE JOIN US. SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY NOW FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS, SO Y'ALL MAY HAVE SEEN HER AROUND. IF YOU HAVEN'T.

WELCOME, ROSIE. I TALKED ABOUT THAT. AND AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION AMBER HAS BEEN MOVED UP TO DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

SHE WILL STILL BE OVER DEVELOPMENT, SO WE'RE NOT LOSING HER. THEY DIDN'T TAKE HER AWAY FROM US. WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE HER IN THAT ROLE AS WELL.

SO SHE'S GOING TO BE OVERSEEING STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER, WASTEWATER, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS. SO SUPER BUSY.

WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND GIVE HER ALL THE HELP WE CAN.

AND THEN THE NEXT LAST THING IS KYLE CITY FEST.

THAT IS SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, FROM 4 TO 8 AT VERDE PARK.

JOIN US FOR THIS ONE OF A KIND EVENT. IT'S THE ANNUAL STATE OF THE ADDRESS OF THE CITY.