[I) Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call]
          [00:00:10]
          JANUARY 27TH AND THE TIME IS 6:30 P.M. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? COPELAND. WEBB. 
          HERE. SIEGEL. HERE. HERE. CALIPHATE. HOUCK. HERE. OKAY, WE'VE GOT OUR QUORUM. FIRST UP, 
          [II) Approval of Minutes]
WE'VE GOT APPROVAL OF MINUTES. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          DECEMBER 9TH, 2025. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. MINUTES FROM COMMISSIONER WEBB AND A SECOND FROM VICE CHAIR SIEGEL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. WE'VE GOT MINUTES. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS THE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WELCOMES COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS EARLY IN THE AGENDA OF REGULAR MEETINGS. SPEAKERS ARE PROVIDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING THIS TIME PERIOD ON ANY AGENDA ITEM OR ANY OTHER MATTER CONCERNING CITY BUSINESS, AND THEY MUST OBSERVE THE THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. SO AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN CITIZEN COMMENTS. NO. OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THOSE AND KEEP GOING. CONSENT AGENDA. CONSIDER 
          [IV) Consent Agenda]
APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT OF PHASE ONE. SECTION 15 OF THE SIX CREEK SUBDIVISION. THIS IS. 
          LET'S SEE. SUV DASH 230327. I NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT ONE. OR DO YOU WANT TO PRESENT THAT ONE? I JUST WANTED TO DO A PRESENTATION. NOT REALLY, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO. YEAH, I'LL LET YOU. YES. OH, OKAY. SORRY. OKAY. MR. LUTZ HAD A FEELING SOMEONE WOULD. THERE WE GO. TONIGHT WE HAVE A FINAL PLOT OF SIX CREEK SUBDIVISION. THIS IS SECTION 15, PHASE ONE. 
          SO THIS IS THE GENERAL LOCATION AREA. THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. I COULDN'T REALLY GEO REFERENCE TO GET AN EXACT LAYOUT, SO I JUST DID A GENERIC SQUARE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. BUT THEY ARE LOOKING AT THIS FINAL PLAT. AGAIN THIS IS THE NEXT PHASE. THE PROPERTY IS IN WITHIN THE ETJ, BUT IT IS REGULATED VIA THE BLANCO RIVER RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THIS SECTION HAS ABOUT 85 LOTS. 82 ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THEY'VE GOT THREE OPEN SPACE DRAINAGE LOTS. A COUPLE ARE BETWEEN LOTS. KIND OF UNNOTICEABLE. I THINK THERE'S ONE LARGE ONE IN IN THIS ONE HERE. BUT THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS 0.39 ACRES. THEY ARE DEDICATING FOUR STREETS. SO ABOUT 225FT FOR ART WAY 1000 OF BEDFORD RUN ANOTHER 1000 ON SIX CREEKS. AND THEN VALE RUNS ANOTHER 2000FT, MOSTLY 50FT. TYPICAL EASEMENTS, WATER LINES, DRAINAGE SIDEWALKS AND THEN OUR STANDARD MUIS WATER AND SEWER IS CITY OF KYLE AND THEN PARKLAND. DEDICATION. THESE FEES ARE NOT BASED ON OUR CURRENT PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE. THESE ARE ACTUALLY OUTLINED IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO THEY PAY $150 PER ACRE FOR EACH, I'M SORRY, PER UNIT FOR EACH HOUSE. THEY ALSO HAVE SOME INTERNAL PARKLAND AND TRAILS THAT THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTED THAT ARE THAT ARE DOING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK THAT'S HOW THEY KIND OF CAME TO THE THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PARKS BOARD, BUT IT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO. SO THIS IS KIND OF THE LAYOUT OF THIS SECTION OF THE SUBDIVISION. AND YOUR OPTIONS ARE APPROVE AS PRESENTED, APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS OR DENY BASED ON A SPECIFIC CODE CRITERIA. SO I'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. TURNS OUT I HAD ONE QUESTION. 
          AND THAT'S REGARDING THE IMPACT FEE THAT'S UNDER WHAT WAS NEGOTIATED UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. CORRECT. IMPACT FEES ARE DIFFERENT. SOME DAS DO GRANDFATHER THOSE. I DON'T REMEMBER IF THERE WAS GRANDFATHERING ON THIS ONE, BUT NORMALLY THEY GO BY ACTUAL PLAT RECORDATION DATE. SO IF IF IT'S AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION THAT'S NOW JUST GETTING BUILT, THEY WOULD GO UNDER THE OLD FEES AT THAT TIME IF THEY WERE TO REPLAT SOME OF THESE NOW, EVEN AFTER IT WAS APPROVED, THEY WOULD BE UNDER THE NEW FEE. SO IT'S BASED ON PLAT DATE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION. AND SECOND TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM. MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          SECONDED. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM VICE CHAIR STEAGALL AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOUCK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT ONE IS APPROVED. NEXT WE HAVE 
          [3) Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to rezone property from its interim zoning classification of ‘A’ (Agriculture) to ‘R-1’ (Single-Family Residential) for an approximate 0.18 acres tract of land out of the John Pharass Survey, located at 100 South Old Stagecoach Road, Hays County, Texas. (Z-25-0142)
Public Hearing
]
          [00:05:04]
ITEM THREE. CONSIDER AND POSSIBLE ACTION. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM ITS INTERIM ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A AGRICULTURE TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR AN APPROXIMATE 0.18 ACRES TRACT OF LAND OUT OF THE JOHN FERRISS SURVEY, LOCATED AT 100 SOUTH OLD STAGECOACH ROAD, HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS. Z-250142. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS. AND BUT I'M GOING TO LET YOU PRESENT FIRST JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY STILL COMES IN. AND THEN WE'LL DO THE PUBLIC HEARING. SOUNDS GREAT. GOOD EVENING, KAYLA SHARP, SENIOR PLANNER. TONIGHT I HAVE A ZONING FOR YOU FOR 100 SOUTH OLD STAGECOACH ROAD. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REZONE 0.18 ACRES OF THE TOTAL 0.42 ACRE TRACT FROM THE INTERIM AGRICULTURE ZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1. SO 0.18 OF THE 0.42 ACRE TRACT WAS RECENTLY ANNEXED, BRINGING THE ENTIRE TRACT INTO CITY LIMITS. THE ANNEX PORTION WAS GIVEN THE INTERIM ZONING OF AGRICULTURE. THE EXISTING PORTION WAS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1. 
          THIS REQUEST IS TO ZONE THE NEWLY ANNEXED PORTION TO R1 TO MATCH THE EXISTING ZONING. THE EXISTING HOME IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REMOVED DUE TO THE ROAD BOND CONSTRUCTION, AND A NEW HOME IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE. SO WE ARE REQUESTING THE R-1 ZONING TO MATCH THE EXISTING SO THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTING THEIR NEW HOME, PER THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IS AN EXISTING USE THAT WOULD BE CONTINUED. IT'S NOT A NEW USE, SO CHANGING THE USE IN THE FUTURE WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. BUT RIGHT NOW, SINCE IT'S A CONTINUATION OF ITS EXISTING USE, WE ARE GOING TO SAY THAT THAT IS COMPLIANT FOR THIS PURPOSE. STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING TO BE APPROPRIATE, BASED ON THE EXISTING ZONING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES. REZONING TO R-1 WILL MATCH THE EXISTING ZONING OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. SO YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS OR DENY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE ZONING WAS POTENTIALLY ABLE TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF THE. SO I'M CURIOUS IF LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ANY PROBLEMS IF WE EVER REZONE THAT WHOLE AREA. SO MORE THAN LIKELY THE CITY WOULD NOT BE LOOKING TO TO REZONE THE ENTIRE AREA. IT WOULD BE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER AT A FUTURE DATE OR A FUTURE PROPERTY OWNER, WANTED TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR A DIFFERENT USE THAN WE WOULD BE LOOKING COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COOL, THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE NEED A MOTION. WE NEED TO DO PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS FOR REMINDING ME. PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN NOW AT 639. 
          SEEING NONE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AT 639. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER HAWK AND A SECOND FROM VICE CHAIR STEAGALL. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? TO CLARIFY, WE'RE JUST APPROVING MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, RIGHT. NOT APPROVING THE REZONING. CORRECT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT ONE IS CLEAR. THANK YOU, 
          [4) Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding amendments to Chapter 53 (Zoning) and Chapter 54 (Landscaping and Screening Requirements) of the City of Kyle Code of Ordinances regarding tree survey and preservation requirements.]
THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 53 ZONING AND CHAPTER 54 LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF KYLE. CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. MISS MCCOLLUM. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU IS AN ACTUAL AMENDMENT TO OUR CURRENT CODE RELATED TO OUR TREES. SO IT IT GOES BETWEEN CHAPTERS 53 AND CHAPTERS 54. WE'RE TRYING TO AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING THE REWRITE OF OUR UDC. SO THIS WAS NOT A HOLISTIC REWRITE OF THIS CODE. IT WAS REALLY TRYING TO FIX SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS AND CLARIFICATION THAT WAS 
          [00:10:02]
CURRENTLY IN CHAPTER 53. MOVE THAT TO CHAPTER 54, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CHAPTERS THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THE CURRENT CODE. NOT REALLY LOOKING AT TRULY TREES AND WHICH ONES WE SHOULD PRESERVE AND ARE REPLACEMENT RATIOS. SO NO NEW POLICY STANDARDS OR MITIGATION RATIOS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE. AND IT'S REALLY TO HELP STAFF WITH SOME OF THE CONSISTENCIES, LACK OF DEFINITIONS LIKE WE HAD SOME OLD HERITAGE DEFINITIONS IN THERE OR REFERENCES WHERE REALLY OUR TERMINOLOGY THAT WE USE IS SPECIMEN. AND KNOWING THAT ABSOLUTELY WITH THE CODE REWRITE, THERE WILL BE FUTURE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES TO THIS OVERALL SECTION FOR OUR CODES. AND SO AGAIN, WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THERE WAS SOME INCONSISTENCY ON THE LANGUAGE CLARIFYING WHETHER OR NOT DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCE CONSTITUTES KIND OF CLEARING AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK WITH OUR TREE MITIGATION. AND THEN AND NOT ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT TO USE GRADING AS THE ABILITY TO VOID OR TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN AND THEN LOOKING AT CLARIFYING WHETHER DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE RESTORED IF THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPED. AND SO AGAIN, IT DOESN'T LOOK AT THE RATIOS OR SPECIMEN TREE THRESHOLDS OR MEDIOCRE MITIGATION RATIOS, OR OUR APPROVAL AUTHORITY OR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN IT DOES HELP US WITH OUR TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS DURING CONSTRUCTION. SO I DID MOVE THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE CURRENTLY IN 53, MOVED THEM OVER TO THIS SECTION OF 54. I HAD SOME OF THIS TERMINOLOGY AND NUMBERING, BUT HONESTLY I THINK WE CAN FIX SOME OF THAT, MAYBE RENUMBER THIS SECTION. SO IF YOU'RE SO. 
          OKAY WITH WITH MOVING THESE TREE DEFINITIONS DOWN, WE COULD LOOK AT JUST FIXING KIND OF THE NUMBERING IN THIS AREA, BUT KEPT THOSE CONSISTENT BUT MOVED THEM AND THEN REALLY KIND OF CHANGED THE REFERENCE TO HERITAGE TO SPECIMEN, WHICH IS OUR CURRENT CODE LANGUAGE FOR THAT. LOOKED AT THE MODIFIED THE CLARIFY, CUT AND FILL ALLOWANCES, WE AS STAFF DID HAVE SOME AREAS IN THE CODE WHERE WE ALLOWED DISEASED OR DYING ALLOWANCES. IF THE TREE WAS DISEASED OR DYING, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THE MITIGATION OR THE REPLACEMENT FOR IT AND ADDED SOME LANGUAGE FOR THAT AND D5. AND THEN WE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT REQUIRES MITIGATION FOR TREES THAT ARE REMOVED AFTER THE FACT. SO EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND DIDN'T GET APPROVAL, THAT WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR THAT. AND THEN OUR CURRENT CODE EXEMPTS TREES WITHIN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS. I WENT AHEAD AND TOOK THAT OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE PUTTING VERY LARGE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS ON SOME OF THE PLANS. QUITE HONESTLY, THAT WASN'T REALLY INDICATIVE OF WHERE BUILDINGS WOULD BE PLACED. SO I DID REMOVE THAT EXEMPTION FROM THE CODE FOR FOR THAT AS WELL. SO IN THE CODE THERE IS SOME RED LINES OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE KIND OF THE AREAS THAT WERE REMOVED. AND THEN AGAIN NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE UPDATES OF THE CODE, BUT KIND OF JUST CONCENTRATING ON THOSE AND THEN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE UDC WILL ABSOLUTELY HAVE FUTURE ALIGNMENT WITH TREE MITIGATION AND TREE SPECIES. OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY PROVIDED SOME GOOD LANGUAGE THAT WOULD REALLY CHANGE SOME OF THE STUFF IN THE CODE THAT HONESTLY, I THINK POTENTIALLY DOES NEED TO BE CHANGED AS WELL. BUT I WAS REALLY TRYING TO LIMIT THESE CHANGES TO THE UDC TO BE KIND OF SPECIFIC AND PINPOINT ON THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR UDC ALIGNMENT WILL ABSOLUTELY LOOK AT LONG TERM PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES, IMPROVE CLARITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CODE. AND THEN THIS IS JUST REALLY LOOKING AT HELPING US IN THE INTERIM BEFORE THE UDC ADOPTION. SO WITH THAT HIRE STAFF AND KIND OF LOOKING AT MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU, WE ARE YOU WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDING BODY. YOU WOULDN'T BE THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR THESE ORDINANCE CHANGES AS WELL. THEY WOULD BE FORWARDED UP TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. AND WE'RE HOPING THAT YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF IT FOR CLARIFYING KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN OUR CURRENT CODE. AND THEN OPTIONS, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS THAT YOU SEE OR DENY IT ALL TOGETHER. AND I WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AS WELL, I HADN'T 
          [00:15:02]
FORGOTTEN I THINK. YES. OKAY, SO BEFORE WE'RE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS, WE'LL DO PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL OPEN THAT NOW AT 645 AND NO ONE IS STILL HERE. SO WE ARE CLOSED AT 645 FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND NOW IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? NOT A QUESTION, BUT MORE A COMMENT. YOU MENTIONED THAT WE'RE GOING TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS DURING THE CODE REWRITE. 
          AND I THINK IN THAT SECTION THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER, ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS ENTRIES ON THERE. I KNOW MY NEIGHBORHOOD, PLUM CREEK, HAS ARRANGED TREES EVERY TIME WE HAVE A STORM BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST FALLING APART AND THEY'RE TOO CLOSE TO HOUSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTED FOR CONVERSATION WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR REQUEST HERE. THANK YOU. 
          AND I AGREE, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NEEDS. AND FOR ME, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT RAW DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF EXISTING HOMEOWNERS AND KIND OF SOME OF THAT TOO. SO YEP I AGREE. YEAH. AND TO CLARIFY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT WE CAN DO ABOUT EXISTING HOMES, BUT THE NEW ONES BEING BUILT CAN CERTAINLY LEARN FROM THE PROBLEMS OF THE EXISTING HOMES ARE HAVING. SO. OTHER QUESTIONS OKAY, I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. MY FIRST ONE IS ABOUT LET'S SEE SECTION D4F. SO IT WAS THE THE SLIDE OF THE PRESENTATION THAT TALKED ABOUT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, THE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND THE RESIDENT. 
          THIS ONE. SO F DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR MUCH ABOUT THIS ONE. BUT I IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, IT'S NOW SAYING THAT PEOPLE USED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ONLY DO HALF OF THE NORMAL REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING NO, EVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL FOR THESE EXISTING PLOTS, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THE FULL REPLACEMENT THAT'S SPELLED OUT IN THE CODE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO I WILL SAY THIS IS I DID DELETE F FROM THIS SECTION. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY THERE'S ANOTHER ALLOWANCE FOR KIND OF MITIGATION IN IN A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE CODE. SO I DELETED IT FROM THIS AREA WHERE IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. SO THIS IS REALLY LOOKING AT LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL IT UP ON THE LARGER TREE ORDINANCE. I MEAN I'M ALL FOR FOR THE CHANGE. YEAH. BUT SO IT'S NOT THAT THAT'S OFFICIALLY CHANGING NOW. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE IN PLACE. IT'S JUST WRITTEN SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT. SO THIS IS. THIS SECTION IS FOR OH MY GOODNESS. SORRY I'M JUST PULLING UP. D. SO IT'S FOLLOWING THE DEFINITIONS AND THEN IT'S UNDER. REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN. MODIFICATIONS. YES I TOOK IT FROM HERE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THEM BE EXEMPT IN THIS AREA. BUT I DID WANT ALLOWANCES FOR REPLACEMENTS BECAUSE THIS IS TALKING ABOUT ESSENTIALLY EXEMPT AREAS. SO I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BE COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM SERVING AND KIND OF DOING THE TREE MITIGATION. BUT REPLACEMENT AND MITIGATION RATIOS WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THAT SMALLER RATIO. SO I DIDN'T FEEL IT FELT UNDER KIND OF THE MAIN HEADING OF THAT TITLE, TO THEN MODIFY IT AT A, AT A DIFFERENT RATIO FOR THAT ONE SECTION. SO THAT'S WHY I LEFT IT IN THE OTHER AREA. OKAY. SO THE THE SECTION WHERE IT'S LEFT, DO WE HAVE THAT IN THE PACKET THAT WAS GIVEN TO US. YES. AND LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK HERE. I CAN SEE HOW THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEARER TO NOT HAVE IT IN THE REQUIREMENTS SECTION, SAYING ONE THING AND THEN TO HAVE A DIFFERENT RULE SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO IT'S UNDER FIVE A. AND I THINK IT'S ON. OKAY. SO SEE IT'S KIND OF THE SAME LANGUAGE THERE. SO I KIND OF TOOK IT OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THERE. BUT I LEFT IT IN THE FIVE AREA OKAY. OKAY. BUT IF WE NEED TO KEEP IT THERE I CAN WORK WITH WITH LEGAL AND WE CAN 
          [00:20:04]
WE CAN LEAVE THAT EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THERE TOO, KNOWING THAT AGAIN, THIS IS INTERIM IN NATURE. SO IT'S OKAY. IT'S JUST MOVED FROM FOUR TO TO STAYING IN FIVE. YES. FIVE. I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT WHETHER IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO HAVE IT IN BOTH PLACES VERSUS JUST ONE, BUT I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE THOUGHT CRITICALLY ABOUT IT. AND COUNCIL WILL ALSO HAVE A CRACK AT THIS TOO, SO I DON'T WANT TO HOLD US UP OVER THAT. THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING WHY THAT WAS MOVED THOUGH, BECAUSE I HADN'T NOTICED IT IN SECTION FIVE. 
          OKAY, MY SECOND QUESTION WAS ABOUT NUMBER SIX. SO IT SAYS TREES. IT USED TO SAY TREES MAY BE DONATED OR A FEE IN LIEU OF PLANTING. AND NOW IT'S SAYING TREES MAY BE PLACED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY WITH CITY APPROVAL. SO WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING IT PLACED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY VERSUS DONATED? I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T WANT SOMEONE DROPPING OFF A HUNDRED TREES ON MY ON MY DOORSTEP AND SAY, HEY, HERE'S OUR DONATION, OKAY? VERSUS VERSUS, HEY, HERE'S THE PLAN FOR PUTTING THESE TREES OUT ON THIS SITE. SO I NEED, I NEED, YOU KNOW, IN PUBLIC PROPERTY. SO I ABSOLUTELY WANT THE ABILITY TO HAVE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, WORK IN PUBLIC LAND IF IT KIND OF WORKS FOR THAT SITE VERSUS JUST ROLLING UP A TRUCK AND, AND SAY, HERE'S MY REPLACEMENT, TREES WOULD NOT BE. AND WHO ACTUALLY WOULD BE PLACING THE TREES? WOULD IT BE THE APPLICANT OR WOULD THE CITY BE DOING IT? I THINK IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF HONESTLY OF EITHER, BUT THAT'S I CAN I WOULD LIKE TO KICK TO THE PARKS BOARD BECAUSE LET'S BE HONEST, MOST PUBLIC PROPERTIES WILL BE LOCATED IN PARKS AREAS, SO THEY PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S IRRIGATION THERE, IF IT'S AN APPROPRIATE AREA FOR THOSE TREES. I DO THINK POTENTIALLY A CONTRACTOR OR THE APPLICANT COULD THIRD PARTY OUT AND HIRE THAT WITH KIND OF SUPERVISION OF OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. BUT THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON FOR SURE. YEAH. 
          THE THE CONCEPT OF CITY APPROVAL IS A BIT VAGUE. SO I DEFINITELY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE JUST PUTTING THINGS IN PLACES WHERE THEY COULD GET NO WATER, OR THEY WEREN'T SUITED FOR THE SOIL. SO WHAT DID CITY APPROVAL MEAN? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DO HAVE A PLAN DOWN THE ROAD TO GET THAT. ABSOLUTELY. BUT LET'S BE HONEST, I DO THINK THAT SECTION COULD COULD USE SOME MORE LANGUAGE TO. I JUST DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO BE LIKE, HEY, HERE'S MY, YOU KNOW, 3 TO 1 RATIO ON MY TREES. HERE YOU GO. FIGURE IT OUT. I'D BE LIKE, OKAY, GOTCHA. THAT'S CLEAR. THANK YOU FOR TALKING ME THROUGH THOSE. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. ANY OTHER LAST MINUTE QUESTIONS? OKAY. I WILL SAY OH ANOTHER CORRECTION. I INTRODUCED SOME NEW LANGUAGE ABOUT AGAIN, I TRIED NOT TO, BUT THEN I GOT CAUGHT, WHICH WAS GOOD NEW LANGUAGE ABOUT KIND OF PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL. IT'S INCONSISTENT IN THE CODE EVERYWHERE. I'M GOING TO KEEP THE INCONSISTENCY AND NOT INTRODUCE A NEW TERM WITH THIS. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE WILL REMAIN RELATIVELY THE SAME. BUT PLANNING DIRECTOR AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, EVEN THOUGH THOSE TITLES HAVE CHANGED, WILL CONTINUE TO BE CONSISTENT IN HERE. SO WHICH ROLE SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE APPROVING THIS? WOULD IT BE YOUR ROLE? WHO'S APPROVING THE TREE REMOVALS OR. YEAH, I MEAN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING WORK ON IT ALL TOGETHER OR WHATEVER. BUT YEAH, SO BUT THAT'S WHY I HAD ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WROTE IN AND THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. LIKE, HEY, WE SHOULD HAVE ONE DEFINITION THAT LOOKS AT ALL THE ONE CHAPTER THAT LOOKS AT ALL THE DEFINITIONS TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, AND AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THE CASE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT WE'LL HAVE WITH THE UDC REWRITE FOR OUR CURRENT CODE. FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE HAVE PULLED OUT DEFINITIONS AND COMBINED THEM WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS. YOU KNOW, SO VERSUS KIND OF HOLISTICALLY BEFORE. SO THAT'S WHY I CONTINUE TO DO THIS WITH THIS, THIS CODE AMENDMENT. LIKE WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TREE SURVEY IN THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE TREE CHAPTER. IT WAS REFERENCED BACK BUT THERE WAS NO REFERENCE BACK. SO I DID PULL IT TO CHAPTER 5412 TO TRY TO KEEP IT HOLISTICALLY WITH THAT. BUT BUT YEAH, SO IT'S A BAND AID. GOTCHA. QUESTIONS. OKAY. WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS RECOMMENDATION. I MOVE THAT WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS PRESENTED. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO COUNCIL FROM COMMISSIONER WEBB AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOUCK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? AND TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS JUST AN INTERIM WHILE THE CODE IS BEING REWRITTEN. RIGHT. THE UDC RIGHT IS. BUT I WILL SAY IT'S INTERIM AS LONG AS OUR CODE IS IN EFFECT. RIGHT. SO IT WILL BE THE NEW IF IF APPROVED BY 
          [00:25:05]
COUNCIL, IT WILL BE THE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS UNTIL THEY'RE REPLACED. BUT THE CITY AND OUR STAFF IS WORKING ON AN ENTIRE CODE REWRITE GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUALMS ABOUT APPROVING OR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I JUST WANT TO DO A FRIENDLY REMINDER LIKE, LET'S CHECK OUR OUR NUMBERING. YES, I WILL FIX THIS DEFINITE. AGAIN, I DIDN'T WANT TO REMEMBER THE ENTIRE, BUT I DO THINK I CAN CHANGE THESE DEFINITION AREAS AND RENUMBER THERE AND IT WON'T BE TOO FUNKY. OKAY, COOL. ALL RIGHT, WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. 
          [5) Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the following: 
Introduction of the City of Kyle's new Senior Planner - Anjali Naini.
]
THAT ONE IS PASSED. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT UP WE HAVE RECEIVER REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING INTRODUCTION OF THE CITY OF KYLE'S NEW SENIOR PLANNER, MR. LEWIS. YES. SO TODAY WE HAVE ANGELINA NYE WITH US. SHE HAS QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE. SO SHE'S TEN PLUS YEARS OF PLANNING EXPERIENCE STARTED AT GRANT WORKS THERE. THEY DO SMALL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, SMALLER CITIES. THEN SHE WENT TO BORQUEZ LAW FIRM. THEY'RE BASED OUT OF AUSTIN. SHE DID IN-HOUSE PLANNER, ENDED UP IN DRIPPING SPRINGS, AND WE ACTUALLY OVERLAPPED THERE FOR LIKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS, WHICH WAS NICE. AND SHE WENT TO CITY OF WESTLAKE HILLS. SHE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THEN MOST RECENTLY WAS A STAFF PLANNER AT ANOTHER LAW FIRM. SHE HAS HER BACHELOR'S OF ARTS IN HISTORY AT TRINITY UNIVERSITY, MASTER OF SCIENCE IN COMMUNICATION, REGIONAL PLANNING, UT AUSTIN AND SHE IS ACP CERTIFIED. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE HER WITH US AND YOU'LL BE SEEING A LOT MORE OF HER PRESENTING AT THESE MEETINGS. SO THANK YOU. WELCOME ABOARD. 
          LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. YEAH OKAY. THAT WAS OUR REPORT FOR THE EVENING. SO AT THIS TIME THERE ARE NO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED. AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEA
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.