CORRECT. [A.1 CALL TO ORDER, QUORUM DETERMINED, MEETING DECLARED OPEN ] [00:00:07] I HEREBY CALL THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE SESSION ON MAY 19TH, 2026. FIVE COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT, AND WE HAVE A QUORUM BEFORE WE START THE MEETING. TONIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO DO A QUICK MOMENT OF SILENCE TO HONOR THE LOSS OF BOB. AND BOB SERVED FOR MANY YEARS TO THE CITY. HE WAS OUR PAST MAYOR AND HE SERVED ON MANY BOARDS. AND HE WAS ALSO ON THIS BOARD. AND HE WILL BE GREATLY MISSED. AND WE WANTED. THANKS FOR A LONG TIME. YES HE DID. AND WE THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE AND WANT TO SAY SOMETHING FOR HIS FAMILY. YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR SHARING, BOB WITH US. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [A.2 Pledges of Allegiance (U.S. and Texas) ] WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE TO US AND TO OUR TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE. REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS. ONE. NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR TO TEXAS. FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. CITY. TEXAS STATE, ONE. INDIVISIBLE. [A.3 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (Not for Items Listed on this Agenda. Three Minutes Each. No Deliberations with Commissioners. The Board May Respond Only With Factual Statements, Recitation of Existing Policy, and Request for an Item to Be Placed on a Future Agenda.) ] THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION FOR ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON ANY SUBJECT THAT IS NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA? AND WE DO HAVE SOME PEOPLE. AND AS A REMINDER, THERE'S A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. AND SINCE IT'S YOU'RE SPEAKING ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA, THE COUNCIL, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DELIBERATE. WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO LISTEN. SO FIRST UP, I HAVE KEVIN SANFORD. YES. SO NEXT UP I HAVE FREDDY MERCADO. IF YOU PLEASE APPROACH. THREE MINUTES. NO, NO, NO. I KNOW. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AS WELL. I MEAN, JUST BE REMINDED THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN BEST SO MUCH TIME AND SACRIFICE FOR THE FAMILY THAT WE HAVE CITIZENS. SO GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS FREDDY MERCADO, CITIZEN. I'M A RESIDENT OF THE OF THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK FOR ABOUT 17 YEARS NOW. I HAVE STOOD HERE BEFORE, PAST OTHER. OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO COVER OTHER TOPICS. BUT TODAY I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT A LAND THAT IS DESIGNATED AS PARKLAND THAT IS BEING SOLD TO A DEVELOPER. THIS IS LOCATED HERE AS OUTLINED HERE ON GREEN, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS MAP. IT IS LOCATED BY VISTA RIDGE AND COLONIAL PARKWAY. IT IS ACTUALLY A PART OF A DEATH WHICH IS THE BREAKAWAY ITJ AND IT IS DESIGNATED AS PARKLAND AS I STATED. I LIKE TO POINT OUT THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT OUTLINED IN BLUE. THOSE ARE ACTUAL PARKLANDS OF THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK THAT WERE DONATED BACK IN 2004. SO WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT THERE'S PARK HERE. PARK THE CITY PARK AND MIDDLE SANDWICH IS A WILLIAMSON COUNTY PARKLAND, AND THEN BELOW IT IS A OF CEDAR PARK PARKLAND. NOW, AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS AN ELK CEDAR PARK AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY NUMBER. AND IT WAS CONVEYED AS PARK AND RECREATION FOR PARK RECREATIONAL PURPOSES FOR THE PUBLIC BACK IN 1990. AND THIS IS THE ACTUAL RECORD IN WHICH IT'S FILED [00:05:03] THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY WILLIAMSON AS SUCH. THOSE TWO LANDS, THE OTHER PROPERTIES I MENTIONED THAT WERE BLUE WERE DONATED IN 2004. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THE AVERAGE ACREAGE IS 2.4 AND 10.8 ACRES. THE ONE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS 7.38. THIS PARTICULAR THE REASON I'M HERE TODAY IS BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY IN TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS ALREADY WHILE I'VE BEEN THERE IN THIS PROPERTY FOR 17 YEARS. WATER HAS MADE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE FENCE OF MY PROPERTY. AND THIS IS WITH THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT SITUATION ON THIS LAND. IF OUR CONCERN IS THAT DEVELOPMENT COULD ACTUALLY EXASPERATE THE SITUATION AND PUT THE HOUSES IN MORE RISK. THIS IS ACTUALLY PART OF A MAJOR OUTFALLS INTO THE US WATERS. IF YOU NOTICE HERE, THERE IS IT'S ACTUALLY ENTIRELY IN FLOOD LAND. AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE IN THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THAT'S THE RISK I HIGHLIGHTED TO YOU NOW IN BACK ON A LETTER THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A BREAKAWAY, IT WAS SPECIFIED THAT WILLIAMSON COUNTY HAD INITIALLY EXPLORED THE POSSIBILITY OF TRANSFERRING THE LAND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I POINT THIS OUT BECAUSE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE OTHER TWO LOTS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO CEDAR PARK. SO THE BEST OUTCOME TO VOID BOTH THE RISK OF POTENTIAL FLOOD RISK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS IMPROVEMENT OF OUR CONTINUOUS USE OF THIS PARK, WOULD BE FOR IT TO BE DONATED TO CEDAR PARK, OR AT LEAST LOOK INTO IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. MERCADO. WE APPRECIATE IT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? SORRY. KEVIN SANFORD. YES. KEVIN SANFORD I'VE BEEN A RESIDENCY AT THE PARK FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW. I LIVE NEAR FREDDY. WE ARE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. I AGREE WITH ALL THE POINTS THAT FREDDY HAS MADE SO FAR, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN DOING THIS, NOT ABOVE BOARD. THEY HAVE FIRST. IN AUGUST OF 2025 RELEASED THE EASEMENT THAT THAT GOVERNS THE THE DETENTION BERM THAT KEEPS THE WATER BACK FROM FLOODING DOWNSTREAM. WE'RE AGAINST THAT. SECONDLY, IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THEY HAD SURVEY TEAM OR SURVEY COME OUT AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A DEVELOPER, MCKELLAR, MCALLISTER AND ASSOCIATE, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THEY ARE GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY INTO THREE DIFFERENT LOTS. SO THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY THE THE, THE POND THERE AND REWORK THE ENTIRE THING, WHICH CAUSES THE FLOOD RISK THAT I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. SO THIS LAND FOR ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS THAT FREDDY HAD MADE IS ACTUALLY DONATED IN AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING BREAKAWAY PARK, WHICH IS IN THE ITJ, WHICH IS PART OF THE COUNTY, AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO REMAIN A PARK AS THAT CONDITION. SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE SAID THAT THE PARK WAS NEVER USED, WHICH IS UNTRUE, AND THAT THE PARK IS ABANDONED LAND. NOT TRUE. AND THAT IT'S YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST DEVELOP IT INTO THREE MORE HOUSES. SO WE ARE AGAINST THIS ALL MY WE HAVE MANY NEIGHBORS WHO ARE AGAINST THIS, BUT WE HAVE A PETITION STARTED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THAT THIS SHOULD COME TO YOU FOR APPROVAL AND IT SHOULD BE DENIED. THANK YOU, MR. SANFORD. ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? IT WAS. DAVID DOZIER. BEFORE I START TO. SPEAK ON C1. AND C2. SO THAT'S WHY I'M COMING NOW. IS THAT OKAY, OR SHOULD I WAIT TILL C1? WAIT TILL WE CALL UP C1. I'LL WAIT TILL. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. [CONSENT AGENDA] ALL ITEMS POSTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON WITH A SINGLE MOTION, WILL NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND WILL INCLUDE ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. IF ANYONE WISHES TO DISCUSS AN ITEM OR HAVE A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF AN ITEM NOW POSTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, THEY MAY ASK THAT IT BE REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTION. THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING CONSISTS OF. ONE ACTION ITEM SHOWN IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER B ONE. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION? IF NONE, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. [00:10:04] I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BRADFORD BROWN. AND I'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER. COMMISSIONER. REESE. COMMISSIONER. BRADFORD. BROWN. COMMISSIONER GROFF AND I'M AND I. THE MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. [C.1 (2024-6-FLU) (Related To 2024-4-Z) Public Hearing And Recommendation Regarding A Request By Whitestone Austin Land, LLC, For A Future Land Use Plan Amendment From Local Office/Retail/Commercial (LOC) To Regional Office/Retail/Commercial (REG) For Approximately 2.21 Acres Located At 1200 West Whitestone Boulevard. ] [C.2 (2024-4-Z) (Related To 2024-6-FLU) Public Hearing And Recommendation Regarding A Request By Whitestone Austin Land, LLC, To Rezone Approximately 2.21 Acres From Suburban Residential (SR) To General Business-Conditional Overlay (GB-CO) Located At 1200 West Whitestone Boulevard. ] WE'RE MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'RE GOING TO CALL UP ITEM C1 AND C2 TOGETHER. CHAIR AND COMMISSION, THIS IS DUSTIN HENRY, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. AND HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ITEMS C1 AND C2 ON YOUR STAFF REPORT USER TWO RELATED CASES LOCATED AT 1200 WEST WHITESTONE BOULEVARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT 2.21 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AGAIN AT 1200 WEST WHITESTONE BOULEVARD, ABOUT THREE LOTS TO THE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF STAR DRIVE IN WEST WHITESTONE BOULEVARD, THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS IN THE LOCAL OFFICE. RETAIL, COMMERCIAL. FUTURE LAND USE, DESIGNATED LOCAL OFFICE, RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH IS AN AREA ENVISIONED FOR LIGHT RETAIL SERVICE USES AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. THERE WAS A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN PETITION IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM FROM LOCAL OFFICE, RETAIL, COMMERCIAL TO REGIONAL OFFICE RETAIL COMMERCIAL TO SUPPORT A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO GENERAL BUSINESS, I'LL FIRST SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE 2.21 ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WITH THE ADJOINING 2.2 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE EAST, AND TO A DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY FIVE BUILDINGS WITH RETAIL, RESTAURANT OFFICE USES FOR MULTIPLE TENANTS. THE FUTURE LAND USE YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ON THE MAPS BEFORE YOU TO THE EAST AND THE WEST ALONG WHITESTONE BOULEVARD IS LOCAL OFFICE, RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL. TO THE SOUTH, ACROSS LONESTAR DRIVE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. ACROSS THE STREET TO THE NORTH IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME APARTMENTS. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS I MENTIONED, IS A FIVE BUILDING RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITH APPROXIMATELY 36,000FT² OF GROSS FLOOR AREA WHICH WOULD SUPPORT RETAIL, RESTAURANT AND OFFICE USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE AREA ENCIRCLED IN BLUE, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. IN THIS REQUEST, THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST IS EXISTING PROPERTIES ON GENERAL BUSINESS. ON THE SCREEN. ALL SENIOR STAFF REPORT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. NEXT, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE ZONING REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL BUSINESS. CONDITIONAL OVERLAY EXISTING ZONING IN THE VICINITY TO THE NORTH, ACROSS WEST WHITESTONE BOULEVARD IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY. TO THE SOUTH ACROSS LONESTAR DRIVE IS IS EXCUSE ME, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL CONTAINING LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. TO THE EAST IS ZONE GENERAL BUSINESS. THERE'S A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY ON THAT PROPERTY, AND TO THE WEST IS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AGAIN WITH A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH. THE APPLICANT DID REACH OUT BY MAIL TO SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 500FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND I DID CHECK IN WITH THE APPLICANT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, HE SAID HE HAD NOT RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM NEIGHBORS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A PACKET OF INFORMATION TO YOU. I BELIEVE THERE ARE FIVE EMAILS WITH COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR STAFF REPORT. I'M HERE AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ONE SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY FILED IN 24. [00:15:04] WHAT'S THE WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO GET TO US? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WHAT MOTIVATED THEIR TIMELINE. THE INITIAL APPLICATION CAME IN AND LATE 2024, WE HAD MENTIONED THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DIDN'T SUPPORT GENERAL BUSINESS AS A REZONING. SO THAT KICKED OFF THE PETITION REQUEST. AND AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WAS LOTS OF FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AND SOME OF THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU. AND FOR SOME REASON, I'M SORRY. I'M RECALLING GOING THROUGH MY PRESENTATION. I THINK SOME OF MY SLIDES WERE HIDDEN. IS THERE ANY SORT OF STATUTE ON TIMING OF WHEN SOMETHING IS WHEN THEY APPLY FOR SOMETHING, AND THEN THE ACTION HAS TO BE TAKEN? YEAH. CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THAT IS? YEAH. YEAH, I'LL, I'D LIKE TO DO A SLIGHT DO OVER ON MY PRESENTATION I APOLOGIZE. SOME OF MY SLIDES WERE HIDDEN FOR SOME REASON. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, A PETITION FOR A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT IS ONCE ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL. THEY HAVE 18 MONTHS TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO THEY HAVE JUST BARELY MET THAT DEADLINE TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF I COULD, APOLOGIES. I GOT A LITTLE YEAH, GOT A LITTLE CAUGHT OFF GUARD WITH MY PRESENTATION BEING KIND OF CHANGED AROUND HERE. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING GENERAL BUSINESS AND AFTER HEARING FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL AT THE PETITION, STAFF RECOMMENDED THIS BE CONSIDERED A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY REZONING REQUEST. SEVERAL LAND USES AND GENERAL BUSINESS ARE NOW PROPOSED TO BE PROHIBITED. THOSE ARE LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND ALSO SHOWN ON THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AS STRICKEN OUT IN RED. THERE SOME OTHER CONDITIONAL OVERLAY STANDARDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IN THIS REQUEST IS TO PROHIBIT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO LONE STAR DRIVE. THERE IS ALSO A RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE A REAR BUILDING SETBACK OF 50FT, WHEREAS THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD ONLY HAVE A 25FT SETBACK FROM THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE. THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO PROPOSE TO PROHIBIT LOADING DOCKS. AND ANOTHER CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING STANDARD IS TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF LIGHT FIXTURES TO 20FT IN HEIGHT, AND HAVE NO LIGHT FIXTURES WITHIN 50FT OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF A SINGLE FAMILY. USE CURRENT CODE WOULD ALLOW LIGHT POLES TO BE UP TO 25FT FOR PARKING AREAS, AND ANOTHER CONDITIONAL OVERLAY PROPOSED WITH THIS ZONING IS TO HAVE A 30FT LANDSCAPED AREA ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE ALONG STAR DRIVE. THE CURRENT CODE WOULD NOT REQUIRE A BUFFER YARD, SO THEY ARE PROPOSING A 30FT BUFFER YARD WHERE THE FIRST 15FT WOULD BE MORE OR LESS UNTOUCHED, LEAVING THE EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS AND UNDERBRUSH, AND THE NEXT 15FT WOULD BE PLANTED TO MEET THE CITY'S BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. HAVING FOUR INCH CALIPER TREES AND 15 GALLON AUTO MILITARIES PLANTED EVERY 30FT. AND AGAIN, TO SUMMARIZE, SHOULD THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT BE APPROVED? STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST TO REZONE TO GENERAL BUSINESS CONDITIONAL OVERLAY FINDING THAT THE ZONING REQUEST WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AGAIN, IF AMENDED, WE FIND IT SUPPORTS THE GOAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ENSURE AN APPROPRIATE MIX OF LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY. AND NOW I'M AVAILABLE FOR OTHER QUESTIONS. VERY APOLOGETIC. BACK UP THE THE ZONING IMAGE. YEAH. SO I GUESS AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO EVERYBODY UP HERE ON THE DAIS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST A REQUEST JUST FOR THE PROPERTY CIRCLED IN YELLOW. THEY'RE PLANNING TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IN THEORY, TOGETHER AT ONCE. SO ALL THESE RESTRICTIONS ONLY APPLY TO THE YELLOW. SO THEY COULD PUT A DRIVE ON LOAD, START AN EXIT FROM THE PROPERTY TO LONE STAR DRIVE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP. YEAH. SO I MEAN IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A RISK. AND THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO WITH IT, YOU KNOW, ON ON THE ENTIRE BACK WAY. SO THAT'S WHERE IT GETS TRICKY. YEAH. WHY IS THE ONE THAT'S ALREADY GB. WHY DOES IT NOT NEED A CHANGE. WELL IT'S BEEN DONE GENERAL BUSINESS I DON'T HAVE THE FULL HISTORY OKAY I COMMITTED A MEMORY. [00:20:02] BUT ALWAYS WAS OR HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME. YEAH IT'S GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING PREEXISTING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. SO IT'S. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. ONE MORE QUESTION. SO I NOTICED THAT THEY SENT OUT A 500FT. IS THAT JUST WHAT WE REQUIRE AS THE CITY FOR THEM TODAY. BUT WE FOLLOW STATE MINIMUM AT 300FT. SO THE I BELIEVE THE STATE MINIMUM IS 200FT. AND THE CITY REQUIRES LOCAL ORDINANCE 300FT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATIONS. WE CHANGE THAT. LAST TIME I WAS ON IT'S COMING BACK. TO ME. THE 500FT I MENTIONED IS IN THE CITY'S CODE FOR ZONING CHANGES. IF THE REQUEST IS WITHIN 500FT OF A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL USE OR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE APPLICANT HAS TO PROVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION. SUMMARY. THEY HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'VE TAKEN STEPS TO COMMUNICATE WITH NEIGHBORS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PROVIDE US A SUMMARY OF WHAT THEIR COMMUNICATION EFFORTS WERE. I FEEL LIKE IN THE PAST, WE'VE SEEN COPIES OF THE LETTERS TO THE APPLICANT HAVE SENT OUT. IS THAT JUST WHEN AN APPLICANT IS, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD GOOD, BUT IS BEING MORE DIRECT WITH THIS FORTHCOMING THANK YOU. THAT'S A MUCH BETTER WORK, MORE FORTHCOMING, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S REQUIRED. BUT YEAH, IN THIS CASE, THE STAFF DIDN'T RECEIVE A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THOSE LETTERS JUST FOR ANYONE OUT THERE THAT'S LISTENING. AND, AUDRA, CAN. YOU GO BACK AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? THE GDP. FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PROPERTY? YES. SO THERE'S WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY'RE WANTING TO CONVERT THIS RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO GENERAL BUSINESS. BUT TO PUT CONDITIONAL OVERLAY THAT'S JUST ATTACHED TO THE PIECE AND YELLOW. SO THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY WOULD ONLY EVER APPLY TO THAT NOT TO THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. SO THEY COULD PUT A DRIVE ON THE LONE STAR FROM THE RED ONE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT, BECAUSE THEY'RE DEVELOPING THE WHOLE THING AND THEY COULD NOT DO THEM AND SCAPING AND THEY COULD NOT DO THE LIGHT. I MEAN, SO AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THEM DO IT. AND THE USES THAT THEY'VE ASKED. OFF, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE WOULDN'T APPLY TO THE OTHER LOT AS WELL. IT WOULD JUST APPLY TO THE ONE ON THE LEFT. AND THE OTHER ONE IS. OTHER. ONES CLOSER TO THEM. ANY OTHER? NO. I HAVE APPLICANT QUESTIONS I THINK. IS THE APPLICANT HAVE A. I BELIEVE THAT GETS HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. BUT THEY DID NOT PROVIDE A PRESENTATION OKAY. MY NAME IS REPRESENTING THE THE OWNER ACTUAL OWNER. SO IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ADDRESS. YOU DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION. YEAH. BASICALLY LIKE YOU KNOW DURING THE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHATEVER THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED WE ACCOMMODATE THROUGH THIS OVERLAY CONDITIONS. SO THAT'S WHAT PRETTY MUCH DONE THAT LIKE SO. AND I LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT I KNOW YOU GUYS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT NEXT LOT GOING TO BE HAPPEN. LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A COMBINED DEVELOPMENT. AND WHEN WE SUBMIT THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAFF CAN HOLD THIS JOINING CASE. AND YOU KNOW THEY CAN EASILY ENFORCE THAT REQUIREMENTS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YEAH I HAVE A COUPLE. YES I'M LOOKING AT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION SUMMARY FORM. THE FIRST QUESTION IS HOW AND WHEN WERE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBOR PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED? HOW IS INFORMATION SHARED AND WHO WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THAT COMMUNICATION PROCESS? IN YOUR ANSWER IS MAIL THE LETTERS. CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE INFORMATION? SO WE WE DIRECT THE OWNER TO SEND LIKE THE SITE PLAN AND THE LETTER WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING CHANGES AND WHAT RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNCIL. BUT I DON'T HAVE THE CART WITH ME. BUT THEY SEND IT OUT. AND ACTUALLY I SPOKE WITH ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBOR. I THINK HER NAME IS MISS JONES. SHE CALLED ME AND I TALKED TO HER. SO WERE ANY OF THOSE LETTERS THAT YOU SENT OUT RETURNED? NO, HE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION BACK. AND THEN IT SAYS WHO WAS NOTIFIED? AND I THINK YOU LIST LIKE [00:25:03] A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE. THE CITY SENT OUT 20 LETTERS WITHIN A 300FT BOUNDARY. AND YOU SIT OUT EIGHT WITHIN A 500FT BOUNDARY. I THINK IT'S 200FT SURROUNDING WE SENT OUT. SO WHAT ABOUT THAT? LIKE 200 WITHIN THAT AREA? OKAY. STAFF JUST SAID IT'S MUST BE 500FT. OKAY. I THINK IT'S. WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING TO BUILD HERE? YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE A RETAIL LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE TENANTS. IT CAN BE A COFFEE SHOP OR ANYTHING. WHAT ARE THE DEMAND ON THAT. BUT WE HAVE SOME OVERLAY RESTRICTIONS. WHAT CANNOT BE HAPPENED. SO WE LISTED OUT ALL THOSE ON THAT. I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAY AND THE BUFFER IN THE BACK AND CHANGING THE LIGHTS. YEAH, I DO APPRECIATE THAT. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT AUDREY DID BRING UP. AND I ALSO JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE FOR PEOPLE LISTENING, I LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION SUMMARY FORM, BECAUSE THAT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF LEARN WHAT YOU'VE DONE AND HOW YOU'VE COMMUNICATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THIS REALLY DOESN'T TELL ME MUCH OF ANYTHING. AND THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS FOR AFRICAN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE REGULAR SESSION AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM C1 AND C2. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE REGISTERED. SO I'LL START TO READ OFF THE LIST THAT WISH TO SPEAK. ANNA JACKSON DOESN'T WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS AGAINST THIS ITEM C1 JOAN PINKMAN PINK I'M SORRY. APOLOGIES. WISHES TO SPEAK. I LIVE AT 1200 LONE STAR AND HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE. 1988. I WOULD MUCH PREFER THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD REMAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED SINGLE RESIDENTS, AT LEAST FOR THE FRONT HALVES OF EVERYTHING. FACING LONE STAR WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE, EVEN THOUGH SEVERAL OF THE. ONE GENERAL BUSINESS HAS BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I DO NOT HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY LETTERS FROM ANYBODY REGARDING THIS UNTIL I RECEIVED THE PLANNING AND ZONING LETTER ON MAY 11TH FROM CEDAR PARK. I DID CALL AFTER GOT THAT ON THE 11TH. ON THE 12TH I CALLED THE PHONE NUMBER THAT WAS ON THE LETTER AND LEFT A VOICEMAIL INDICATING WHO I WAS AND I WAS CALLING THE BACK. REQUESTED A PHONE CALL RETURN FOR MORE INFORMATION. I DID NOT RECEIVE IT. I CALLED CLOSER TO THIS MEETING AND I INDICATED THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND I WAS NOT REALLY AMENABLE TO THE CHANGES HE WAS REQUESTING. IF YOU GO FORWARD WITH THIS. THERE CANNOT BE ANY EGRESS ONTO LONE STAR. IT'S NOT MEANT TO HAVE ANY MORE TRAFFIC THAN IT ALREADY DOES. SCHOOL BUSSES BARELY FIT. THE CONDITIONAL OVERLAYS. I WAS IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERING THE RESIDENCE ACROSS THE STREET, BUT AGAIN. I'D PREFER TO LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AND SEE THE TREES IN THE UNDERBRUSH AND THE DEER AND OUR LOCAL FOX WHO HANGS OUT ACROSS THE STREET RATHER THAN POSSIBLY THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF NOISE, DEPENDING WHAT THE BUSINESSES ARE, [00:30:03] THE POSSIBILITY OF TRASH DEPENDING WHAT THE BUSINESSES ARE, AND BASICALLY THE MAINTENANCE OF THE THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY FACING ON STAR. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE WILLIAM JACKMAN. MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, FOR FOR THE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE REGISTERED THAT DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK, WE DO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE READ THEIR COMMENTS INTO THE RECORD. THERE ARE NONE FOR THIS. YEAH. I BELIEVE ANNA JACKSON HAD SOME COMMENTS. OH, I WASN'T. HITTING THE. DOWN ARROW. I'M SORRY. NO. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. WILLIAMS JACKMAN SAID THAT. WHY ARE WE REVISIT THIS IDEA WHEN THE RESIDENTS OF THIS AREA HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE AGAINST IT, AND HE IS AGAINST THIS AGENDA ITEM? THEN I HAVE JONATHAN BLICK, AND HE SAID, I'M OPPOSED TO UPDATING THE FLOW FOR THE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY ALONG LONE STAR. THIS IS A PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND SHOULD REMAIN RESIDENTIAL NATURALLY. I ALSO OPPOSE REZONING, SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REZONE BECAUSE THE NEW ZONING DOES NOT ALIGN TO THE CLUB. AND HE IS AGAINST THIS ITEM. NEXT IS DIANA. AND SHE IS AGAINST CHANGING THE FLOOD. NEXT IS JAY MARTIN WHO DOES WISH TO SPEAK. GREETINGS. GREETINGS. SO THERE IS. NO SIGNAGE ON LONE STAR DRIVE INDICATING ANY TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST CHANGE WHATSOEVER. I LIVE ON CEDAR PARK DRIVE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY FURTHER THAN 500FT, BUT. THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IS AGAINST ADDING ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES LONE STAR IS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD, I THINK I AM TOLD HERE. SO. SO THE ONE, THE ONE IN YELLOW IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE RIGHT OF IT, AS I LOOK AT IT, IS ALSO THIS GENTLEMAN'S PROPERTY. AND IS THAT WHERE THE CHURCH IS LOCATED? THE CHURCH IS NEXT. TO THAT. AND DOES HE ALSO OWN THAT PROPERTY? I DON'T. I THINK I HAVE HEARD THAT HE ALSO OWNS THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE I AM A MEMBER OF NORTHWEST FELLOWSHIP, AND WE HAD A CONTRACT FOR THAT PROPERTY, AND THE LANDOWNER CANCELED THAT CONTRACT ABRUPTLY. SO I ASSUME IT WAS SO THAT HE COULD PURSUE THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE, WHICH WOULD TRANSLATE INTO ADDING THAT THIRD PROPERTY POTENTIALLY TO THIS, WHICH HAS EGRESS AND OR HAS A ROAD ALREADY CONNECTED TO LONE STAR BECAUSE IT WAS A CHURCH. THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE ACCESS INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ANSWER IS NO. SO WOULD I IF THIS WAS TO PROCEED. IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR AN EIGHT FOOT WALL AROUND A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIKE THAT? THERE IS NOT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE A SIX FOOT FENCE. I'M NOT I'M GOING TO LOOK TO CITY STAFF FOR THAT. FOR NO FENCING WHATSOEVER. SO WE WOULD HAVE FULL ACCESS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THIS THIS THING HERE WOULD HAVE NO NO WALLS AROUND IT. CORRECT. TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. SO MAYBE IS IT A PROPER QUESTION TO ASK THE LANDOWNER IF HE HAS DESIGNS TO USE THE REST OF HIS PROPERTY FOR THIS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? IS IT APPROPRIATE? YES, YOU CAN ASK. I MEAN. I CAN. I'M, [00:35:01] YOU KNOW, I'M. I'M A CONSULTANT. OH. YOU'RE NOT THE OWNER. I'M NOT THE OWNER. I'M A CONSULTANT. SO I CAN ANSWER AT MY LEVEL. KNOWLEDGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME IS UP, BUT DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO CLOSE? NO, I THINK THAT THAT'S. I'VE GOT IT. OKAY. I DID GET ACROSS THAT WE WEREN'T OPPOSED TO THIS, RIGHT? VERY, VERY CLEARLY. THANK YOU. DIANA ENTERED ANOTHER SECOND THING WHERE SHE SAID AGAIN, SHE IS AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE. AND THEN I HAVE SARAH KELLY, WHO DOES WANT TO SPEAK. AS WE'RE WORKING ON TWO AGENDA. PLEASE, PLEASE BRING IT SINCE WE'RE WORKING ON. TWO AGENDA ITEMS. WILL WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO C2 ALSO. OR AM. I CONFINING THAT ALL IN AGREEMENT. THAT NOW, BECAUSE I OPENED THE PUBLIC, I CLOSED THE REGULAR SESSION. I HAD OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOTH ITEMS, C1 AND C2. SO IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO BOTH, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. DOES THAT MEAN I GET 6 MINUTES OR 3 MINUTES? DID YOU REGISTER FOR THE OTHER ONE? I REGISTERED FOR BOTH. YES. YEAH, I WOULD THINK SO. SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED ALL OF THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT. YES. BEFORE WE STARTED. SO I LIVE AT 704 LONE STAR, A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. SO I AM AGAINST ANY KIND OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL. I'M ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE RAG, THE REGIONAL DESIGNATION ON THE FLIP REQUEST. THIS ALLOWS FOR BIG BOX STORES AND INTENSE PARKING LOTS, MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS THAT REALLY DO NOT FIT WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. IF I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THE MAP, BUT WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK, IT STICKS OUT LIKE A BIG RED SAW THUMB THAT IF IT WERE REGIONAL, INSTEAD OF BEING THE LOCK LIKE THE PROPERTIES NEXT TO IT, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN THAT THE SAME OWNER HAS THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CHURCH PROPERTY THAT THAT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNATED MULTIFAMILY. I'M NOT SURE WHY. I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS QUITE THE JIGSAW PUZZLE OF SONY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S OWNED MULTIFAMILY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THAT, BUT IT IS CONCERNING THAT THESE ALL LINK TOGETHER, AND WE'RE ONLY GETTING A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TONIGHT. THE REQUEST ON THE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS ASK DOES IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT. AND A REGIONAL DESIGNATION HERE IS DEFINITELY NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT. AND OF COURSE, NOW MY PHONE DECIDES TO MESS UP. IT ALSO ASKS ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE. IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS PREPARED FOR THIS. IT'S NOT THE DRAINAGE THAT THE CITY, THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS DONE ARE ALL SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. SO ANY STORMWATER COMING DOWN FROM WHITESTONE, COMING THAT'S DOWN THE HILL ONTO LONE STAR IS STILL GOING TO IMPACT THE PROPERTIES ACROSS LONE STAR. IF YOU'LL NOTICE, LIKE THE 711 PROPERTY THAT IS A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE EAST, THEY HAD TO DO A HUGE DETENTION POND NORTH OF LONE STAR IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THAT INTERSECTION WITH LONE STAR AND ROYAL, AND I CAN TELL YOU THE DETENTION POND DOES MOST OF THE JOB IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT WE STILL GET A RIVER GOING THROUGH OUR PROPERTY. SO WITHOUT ANY KIND OF DRAINAGE DETENTION POND, SOMETHING HERE THAT'S STILL GOING TO IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE THAT GETS TO THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. WE ALSO THOSE ROADS ARE ALREADY LABELED AS SUBSTANDARD, I BELIEVE IS THE WORD LONE STAR IS A SUBSTANDARD. WE DON'T HAVE ROOM FOR SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS, ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO AND WE HAVE TRAGICALLY HAD A PEDESTRIAN FATALITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE'S NO NOT GREAT LIGHTING ON THOSE STREET. SO ANYTHING THAT INCREASES DANGER TO THE PUBLIC ALONG THAT ROAD INCREASES TRAFFIC ALONG THAT ROAD WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM US LOUD AND CLEAR THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO THAT. I HAVE A CREATIVE SOLUTION THAT WE'VE PUT OUT BEFORE THAT THOSE LOTS RIGHT THERE COULD BE REPLANTED AND OFFER THE PARTS THAT FRONT LONE STAR DRIVE AS SINGLE RESIDENTIAL, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS THE OWNER COULD SELL EASILY, HAVE 3 TO 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS THERE ALONG LONE STAR DRIVE TO SELL AT A NICE, PRETTY PRICE [00:40:01] AND THEN DEVELOP THE WHITESTONE SIDE AS GENERAL BUSINESS. AND THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY THAT WE WOULD HAVE RESIDENTIAL IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUSINESS ALONG WHITESTONE. I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S NOT MAXIMIZING THE COMMERCIAL VALUE, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS EVER GOING TO AGREE WITH LONE STAR DRIVE AND WHAT IT HAS TO OFFER. I THINK. I ALSO WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE ZONING SIGNAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR THAT, BUT BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS WEST WHITESTONE BOULEVARD, THERE'S NOT ANY SIGNAGE ALONG LONE STAR. SO PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THAT ROAD HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THIS. AND THE 200FT RADIUS OF NOTIFICATION LETTERS, I THINK, MIGHT INCLUDE THREE PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOTS. AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE THAT GOT A NOTICE. AND I WAS GRATEFUL THAT JOAN REACHED OUT AND TOLD US WHAT WAS GOING ON SO WE COULD MAKE OUR VOICES BE HEARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT FOR ITEM C TWO. WE HAD ANNA JACKSON WHO SAYS I OPPOSE CASE 202464 RELATED TO 20244Z FOR 1200 WEST WHITESTONE BOULEVARD DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC SAFETY AND INCREASED CONGESTION. WHITESTONE BOULEVARD IS ALREADY HEAVILY TRAVELED, AND ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD WORSEN TRAFFIC AND CREATE MORE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS FOR DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS. I AM ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE CURRENT ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE HIGHER INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT. I WILL ALSO IT WILL ALSO NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTLY BEHIND IT. THEN I HAD. WILLIAM JACKMAN AGAIN WHO SAID, WHY ARE WE VISITING THIS IDEA WITHIN? THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA HAVE MADE IT CLEAR WE ARE AGAINST IT. AND THEN SARAH KELLY AGAIN. IT JUST SAID RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND SHE IS AGAINST ITEM. AND WE ALSO DO HAVE DAVID DOCTOR WHO DOES WISH TO SPEAK. YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. MY NAME IS DAVID. I LIVE AT 200. EIGHT ESCARPMENT WAY. THAT'S IN THE THOUSAND OAKS SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM LONE STAR. SO FIRST LET ME REITERATE. I HAVE ALSO SEEN NO SIGNS ABOUT THE ZONING PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES. I DRIVE THROUGH THIS AREA OFTEN, AND IT WAS ONLY BROOKE, MY ATTENTION RECENTLY THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY AN ITEM. BUT IMPORTANTLY, THE OWNER BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. THOSE MAPS EXISTED. THE OWNER KNEW WHAT THE ZONING WAS WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. THE PEOPLE ON LONE STAR, WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY, THOSE MAPS EXISTED. THEY KNEW WHAT THE ZONING WAS. WHEN THAT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY. THE OWNER NOW OF THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T LIKE THE ZONING. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE RULES, BUT HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY UNDER. AND HE WANTS ALL OF YOU TO CHANGE THOSE RULES. WITH THAT IN MIND, MY NAME IS DAVID ASHER. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE THOUSAND OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND LIVE NEAR THE LONE STAR DRIVE AREA. I'M HERE TO OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM C1 AND C2. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THE DENIAL OF BOTH OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE RELATED REZONING REQUEST, THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. LOCAL OFFICE, RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, OR LLC IS THE APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE PACKET DESCRIBES THAT CATEGORY A SUPPORTING SMALL SCALE LIGHT RETAIL SERVICE USES AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF NEARBY RESIDENTS AND REMAINS COMPLIANT OR COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE REQUESTED REGIONAL OFFICE RETAIL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION IS DIFFERENT. THE PACKET DESCRIBES IT AS LARGER IN SCALE, MORE INTENSE, AND A HIGHER GENERATOR OF TRAFFIC INTENDED TO SERVE A 3 TO 5 MILE RADIUS OR MORE. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE NEXT TO THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA. [00:45:01] THE RELATED REZONING WOULD MOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL BUSINESS WITH A CONDITIONAL OVERLAY. EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, THERE IS STILL A MAJOR INCREASE IN INTENSITY. THE PACKET SAYS THAT THE PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 36,000FT² IN FIVE BUILDINGS FOR RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL OR RESTAURANT IN OFFICE USES. I DO APPRECIATE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, INCLUDING NO ACCESS TO LONE STAR IF THAT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING BUFFERS, LINING, LIGHTING LIMITS AND HYBRID USES. BUT THOSE CONDITIONS DO NOT SOLVE THE CORE PROBLEM. THIS REQUEST WOULD REQUEST CREATE A MORE INTENSE REGIONAL, COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL BUSINESS PATTERN IN THE AREA WHERE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR LESS INTENSITY, NOT MORE. THIS CONCERN EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THE 500FT MAILING AREA. MANY RESIDENTS OUTSIDE THE NOTICE AREA WOULD STILL BE AFFECTED BY TRAFFIC, NOISE, LIGHTING AND IMPORTANTLY, THIS PRECEDENT SETS WHAT THIS PRESIDENT SETS ALONG THE WHITE STAR WHITE STONE BOULEVARD AREA, AND MANY ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED. WE SAW RECENTLY IN THE CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS, THERE WAS A STRONG NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNED ABOUT ZONING CHANGES LIKE THIS. RESIDENTS ARE PAYING ATTENTION AND THEY WANT DEVELOPMENT, THEIR RESPECTS, EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND FOLLOWS THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHITE STONE BOULEVARD MAY BE A MAJOR CORRIDOR, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY PARCEL ALONG IT SHOULD BECOME A REGIONAL, COMMERCIAL OR GENERAL BUSINESS. THE CURRENT DESIGNATION ALREADY ALLOWS REASONABLE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING DEVELOPMENT. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU DENY C1 AND C2. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OR ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? AT THIS TIME? SEEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REOPEN THE REGULAR SESSION. I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DELIBERATION. AND I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. SO, AMY, WHAT? AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I KNOW THAT SARAH'S ASKS, BUT I WANT TO ASK IT AGAIN. WHAT IS THE RULE FOR NOTIFYING THE CITIZENS? IS IT THE 500FT? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. AMY. LINK. SO THE 500FT REQUIREMENT IS A SUGGESTION, OR THE 500FT IS IDENTIFIED. BUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT NOTIFIES THOSE PEOPLE WITHIN 500FT IS NOT SPECIFIED. SO THEY COULD GO DOOR TO DOOR. THEY COULD WRITE LETTERS. THEY COULD REACH OUT TO THE HOTEL. SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF OF WAYS THAT THEY COULD COMMUNICATE IF THEY DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THOSE FIVE VOTES WITHIN 500FT. IT'S STILL SPECIFICALLY IN THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT DOES NOT NEGATE THIS REZONING PROCESS. WHAT ABOUT THE SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY? DOES THAT THE FACT THAT IT'S MAYBE SHOWN ON ON WHITE STONE AND NOT ON THE LONE STAR SIDE DOES THAT TYPICALLY. SO OUR OUR NOTIFICATION SPECIFIC IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE STATES THAT SIGNAGE SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE ROADWAYS WITHIN 200 EVERY 200FT. SO BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THIS PROPERTY, IT'S PROBABLY ONE ON WHITESTONE AND TYPICALLY ONE ON LONE STAR. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF TO UNDERSTAND. I WOULD ASSUME THOSE SIGNAGE WERE PUT ON BOTH, BUT. YEAH. JUDGING FROM CITIZEN COMMENTS. SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SIGNAGE BLOWS OVER IN THE WIND. PEOPLE PULL IT UP TO MOW. SO BUT IT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER CURRENT STATE LAW. I MEAN, THE SIGNAGE IS PLACED THERE AS AN ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION TO RESIDENTS, IN ADDITION TO NOTIFICATION ON OUR WEBSITE AND LETTER NOTICE THAT GOES OUT. AND IS THE 500FT RADIUS AROUND THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. SO ON ALL SIDES. YEAH. YEAH YEAH. AND IT'S TYPICALLY FOCUSED ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT 500FT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY. IF THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP SINCE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CROSS IN BUILDINGS OR PROBABLY LITERALLY GOING TO CROSS THAT PROPERTY LINE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO REPLANT THAT AS ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO THEY COULD THEY DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE TO. IT'S GOOD THAT THEY DO JUST TO HAVE ONE COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU DON'T HAVE SOME DIFFERING SETBACK ISSUES BETWEEN THE LOT LINES, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO. BUT BUT. CLEARLY. BUT DEVELOPMENT CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT THAT SUBDIVISION TAKING PLACE. AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO IN OUR MOTION TO SUGGEST [00:50:01] THAT THE THINGS THAT ARE DONE ON THIS LOT GETS DONE ON THE OTHER LINE? I'M ASSUMING THEY ANSWER. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS ONLY FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND DOES NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. AND THE OLD CHURCH PROPERTY IS NOT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT OR IT IS THE MULTIFAMILY. I WILL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT. I BELIEVE I BELIEVE THE THE SUBJECT PARCEL, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL BUSINESS ZONED PARCEL AND THE MULTIFAMILY ZONED PARCEL ARE OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. BUT THEY'D HAVE TO COME. MEAN THEY DEVELOP IT THAT WAY. RIGHT. YEAH. I MEAN, THEY COULD DEVELOP CURRENT. I MEAN, THEY GET FAMILY LIKE IT IS. YEAH. CORRECT. CAN YOU JUST REAL QUICKLY, BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO EDUCATE RESIDENTS. DO YOU MIND SPEAKING TO DRAINAGE AND WHAT RULES ARE OF CAPTURE SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS ONE OTHER OH, I THINK IT WAS THE MULTIFAMILY THAT IF THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP SOMETHING ELSE, THEY'D HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE REASON PROCESS AGAIN, WHICH WOULD BE MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS. BUT CAN YOU JUST. SURE. SO RELATED TO DRAINAGE, ANY SORT OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT. SO ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, WHICH INCLUDES SITE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING, PARKING, DRIVEWAY ACCESS, A VARIETY OF ITEMS. AND IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT CONFORMS TO OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. SO DETENTION. THEY CANNOT INCREASE THE FLOW COMING OFF OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY. SO WITH ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER ON THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF DETENTION TO DETAIN THAT WATER ON SITE SO THAT IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE FLOW OFF THE PROPERTY. AND RELATED TO THE MULTIFAMILY, THE ZONING THAT EXISTS ON THAT PROPERTY TODAY, IF THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND DEVELOP THAT WITH A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THEY COULD DO THAT WITHOUT REZONING THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE EXISTING ZONING THERE TODAY. AND THEY WOULD STILL. HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. ON EACH PIECE. OF PROPERTY. CORRECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DELIBERATION? CAN WE SEE THE LIST REAL QUICK OF ON OUR SCREEN OF WHAT? THEY'RE OUT. IS THERE ANYTHING ON HERE? ANYBODY ELSE CONCERNS ABOUT? A LOT OF RETAIL. I MEAN, THERE'S THIS, BUT I MEAN, I JUST HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPERTY IN GENERAL. I JUST AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. NO, I. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ENTERTAIN. AND I HAVE TO DO THIS ONE AT A TIME. SO FOR ITEM C1 I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE WE DENY ITEM C1 AS PRESENTED. ONE SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL FROM COMMISSIONER GROFF AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL SAY I. SO I'LL DO A REAL CALL VOTE. SORRY, COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER, HIGH COMMISSIONER. RICE, COMMISSIONER. BRADFORD BROWN. A COMMISSIONER. GRUFF. AND I'M AN I. SO THE DENIAL PASSES. ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND MOTION FOR ITEM C2. I MOVE, WE DENY ITEM C2 AS PRESENTED. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL FROM COMMISSIONER GROFF AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BRADFORD CROWN. SO YOU'LL BE VOTING TO DENY. [00:55:02] SO I'LL DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER, I COMMISSIONER EAST HIGH COMMISSIONER BRADFORD BROWN, HIGH COMMISSIONER GROFF I AND I'M AN I SAY THE MOTION TO DENY PASSES. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CALL UP ITEM C3. [C.3 (2026-4-Z) Public Hearing And Recommendation Regarding A Request By The Star05 Realty, LLC, To Rezone Approximately 0.77 Acres From Professional Office (PO) to Local Business (LB) Located At 3115 Kenai Drive. ] GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. AND. WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THIS IS ITEM C3 2026 FOR Z SPREADSHEET CREEK PLAZA. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.77 ACRES FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO LOCAL BUSINESS. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS LOCAL OFFICE. RETAIL. COMMERCIAL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF WEST PALMER AND CAN I DRIVE, AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A DAYCARE CENTER. USE. SURROUNDING LAND USES TO THE NORTH INCLUDE A MIX OF USES SUCH AS RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICES, RESTAURANT, MEDICAL, AND OFFICE. THERE'S VACANT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ACROSS THE DRIVE. OFFICE, RETAIL TO THE EAST AND OFFICE USES TO THE WEST. HERE YOU HAVE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING MAPS. PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON LOCAL BUSINESS AND PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND WEST IS OWNED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE SHADED IN BLUE. ON THE WEST IS THE THREE QUARTER ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, AND IT'S PART OF A LARGER ONE AND A HALF ACRE LOT. AND THE REMAINDER OF THAT LOT, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ZONING REQUEST, IS SHADED IN THIS PURPLE PINK COLOR AND ZONE LOCAL BUSINESS. SO REZONING THE THREE QUARTER ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO LOCAL BUSINESS WOULD UNIFY THE ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE LOT, AND ALSO RESENTING THE TO LOCAL BUSINESS WOULD BRING THE CURRENT USE ON THE SUBJECT SITE INTO COMPLIANCE. THE DAYCARE CENTER USE WAS APPROVED OR WAS PERMITTED WHEN THE CODE WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 2015, BUT THIS USE BECAME NONCONFORMING IN 2017. AND SO WHEN DAYCARE CENTERS WERE NO LONGER PERMITTED IN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT, SO THE DAYCARE CENTER USE IS PERMITTED WITH CONDITIONS AND LOCAL BUSINESS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. SO STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THIS ZONING CHANGE WOULD ALTER DEVELOPMENT IN INTENSITY, OR THE RELATIONSHIP WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. TO SUMMARIZE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL BUSINESS REQUEST AS IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND IT SUPPORTS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS TO ENSURE AN APPROPRIATE MIX OF LAND USE TYPES. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED NOTICE TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN 500FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOTIFIED 12 PEOPLE. STAFF IS NOT. HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS EITHER. ABOUT THE ZONING REQUEST. IS HAS A SHORT PRESENTATION AND IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND I AM AS WELL. YEAH, I MEAN MY BIG QUESTION WAS JUST LIKE, WHY IS THIS? I MEAN, IT MAKES SENSE AND I UNDERSTAND, BUT WHAT IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY'RE JUST NOW WANTING TO DO THIS? OR I MEAN, JUST YOU COULD ASK THE APPLICANT THAT SPECIFICALLY. IT DOES HAVE THE BENEFIT OF PROVIDING A UNIFIED ZONING TO THE WHOLE LOT AND ALSO BRINGING THE USE THE DAYCARE USE INTO COMPLIANCE CODE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO. I KNOW THAT COUNCIL CHANGED AND IT MAY NOT BE THIS UNDER THIS ZONING BUT SPECIAL USE PERMIT NOW FOR BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY THERE AND THEY'RE ALREADY FUNCTIONING AND EVERYTHING. THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND ALSO GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WELL, THEY. THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED IN LOCAL BUSINESS WITH CONDITIONS AND THEY MEET THOSE CONDITIONS. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY. GREAT. I'LL BRING. IF THE. APPLICANT IS HERE. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. SO I'M THE OWNER OF SCHOOL. AND IN 2015, AS MISS CINDY SAID AT THAT TIME, WE COULD DO A DAYCARE CENTER IN. AT THAT TIME IT WAS GENERAL OFFICE, BUT NOW IT IS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. SO IN THE GEO JOINING WE COULD DO THAT. BUT CERTAINLY THE COMPLIANCE RULE HAS BEEN CHANGED. SO WE THE REASON WE DECIDED TO APPLY FOR THIS ONE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY RULES. THAT'S ALL. AND THERE IS NO CHANGE. [01:00:02] WE ARE STILL RUNNING MONETARY SCHOOL HERE, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS THAT. SO THIS IS THE FIRST SLIDE. AND. SO AS I EXPLAINED, THE REQUEST TO REASON IS TO BRING THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO LIVE LOCAL BUSINESS. AND WE STILL WILL HAVE A CITY SCHOOL. WE WILL OPERATE THERE. THIS WILL ALIGN WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENT FOR CHILD CARE FACILITIES. DAYCARE IS PERMITTED WITH CONDITION IN LP DISTRICT EXISTING LOW IMPACT DAYCARE OPERATIONS. SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH SAME. NO CHANGE. AND SO I HAVE MODIFIED 13 PROPERTY NEIGHBORS WITHIN 500FT AND HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMENT FROM ANYBODY. ONE LADY SHE CALLED FROM 3009. CAN I DRIVE TO JUST ASK ME WHY IS IT THAT I EXPLAINED? SO SHE WAS ASKING IF SHE HAS TO DO ANYTHING. I SAID NO, BUT I'M JUST NOTIFYING YOU THAT WE ARE CHANGING THE JOINING. BUT STILL THERE WILL BE A MONASTERY SCHOOL SO YOU ARE FINE. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I RECEIVED SO FAR. AND SO IN THE LETTER I, I UPLOADED ALL THE SUMMARY INTO OUR OUR PORTAL. SO I HAVE THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO CHANGE THE JOURNEY WHICH HAS LETTER FROM CITY THAT I RECEIVED THAT WE HAVE WE NEED TO BE COMPLIANT BY CHANGING THE JOINING FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO THE LOCAL BUSINESS. SO THAT WAS THE REASON WE ARE CHANGING. SO I HAVE PROVIDED THOSE INFORMATION TO ALL THOSE RESIDENTIAL SOME AND SOME BUSINESSES WITHIN 500FT. SO THEY HAVE RECEIVED THOSE LETTERS. I'VE ALSO GIVEN GIVEN THEM THE LINK SO THAT YOU CAN GO ONLINE AND TAKE A LOOK ANYTIME THEY WANT. AND I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY CONCERN FROM ANYBODY. SO THIS IS I PRESENTED IN THE EARLIER THE SAME THING. THIS IS A SITE PLAN. SO IT WILL THE THE PART OF THE SITE PLAN WHICH IS ON THIS IS ONE SITE PLAN. BUT PART OF THE TRACK WAS ALREADY JOINED IN LV LOCAL BUSINESS AND PART WAS IN. SO NOW IT WILL BE ONE JOINING ALL OF THEM IN THE LV AND THEIR BUSINESS WILL BE STILL THE SAME. SO THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T GET ANY COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY. SO SO PRETTY MUCH THAT'S IN I HAVEN'T THIS IS NOT SEE ANYTHING EXTRA THAT I HAVEN'T SAID ALREADY. SO SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE REGULAR SESSION AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM C THREE. AT THIS TIME WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER TESTIMONY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REOPEN THE REGULAR SESSION. AND THEN I'LL ASK EVERYBODY UP HERE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. IT SEEMS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLEAN UP. AND JUST. MAKES SENSE. YEAH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. NO FURTHER DELIBERATION. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE'LL MOVE ON. CHAIR. CONSIDERING I LOVE COMPLIANCE, I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM C THREE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. AND I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER BRADFORD BROWN IN A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER. ALL THOSE. AND I KEEP DOING THAT I'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER. COMMISSIONER. REESE. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD. BROWN, HIGH COMMISSIONER GROFF. AND I'M AND I. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [C.4 (2026-6-OA) Public Hearing And Recommendation On Proposed Amendments To The Cedar Park Code Of Ordinances Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 14, Site Development, Chapter 16, Transportation Regulations, And Chapter 17, Traffic And Vehicles, Regarding Cedar Park's Transportation Criteria Manual. ] MOVE ON TO ITEM C FOR. RANDY SKINNER. I'M THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND THIS EVENING WE'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM C4, WHICH IS RELATED REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. [01:05:02] AND THIS IS RELATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S RECENT ADOPTION OF THE CEDAR PARK TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL. WE HAVE WITH THIS MR.. J WITH THE GOODMAN CORPORATION, AND HE'S REALLY BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING US WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS. I'M GOING TO ASK HIM TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT THOSE MOMENTS WILL BE. THANK YOU. IT'S GOOD TO SEE SOME SOME FOLKS HERE FROM THE MOBILITY MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE. SO IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS. BUT WHAT'S EXCITING IS THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PRODUCT OF THAT PROCESS. AND ONE OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE HAD WAS ACTUALLY GO THROUGH AND DEVELOP A CITY SPECIFIC CEDAR PARK TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL TO KIND OF HELP GUIDE BOTH DEVELOPMENT AND CAPITAL PROJECTS OVER THE NEXT, NEXT MANY YEARS TO DO THAT. AND SO IT'S HAPPY TO SAY THAT THAT DID GET ADOPTED IN FEBRUARY AT COUNCIL. IT HASN'T GONE INTO EFFECT YET. THAT'S GOING TO START IN THE SUMMER, LIKELY AT THE END OF JUNE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS COMING UP FOR THAT. AND SO PART OF THAT LAST STEP IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. SO WHEN WE DID THAT PROCESS, WE ADOPTED THE MANUAL. BUT IN GOING THROUGH THE MANUAL DEVELOPMENT THERE WERE SOME OUTDATED AND THEN JUST SOME CONFUSING TERMINOLOGIES JUST FROM OVER TIME THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE CODE. AND SO WHAT REALLY, REALLY WE'RE WORKING ON IN THESE FOUR CHAPTERS OF THE CODE WAS TRYING TO DO SOME CLEANUP, BUT ALSO SOME THINGS THAT RELATED TO THE MOBILITY MASTER PLAN AS WELL AS THE TRANSPORTATION MANUAL, JUST SOME KIND OF QUICK OVERARCHING EXAMPLES OF THAT. AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH EACH CHAPTER. THE HIGHLIGHTS REAL QUICK IS THE OLD CODE HAD THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS PLAN, WHICH WAS FROM 2010 REFERENCE. SO WE TRY TO GO THROUGH AND CLEAN UP REFERENCES TO THAT TO BE TO THE MOBILITY MASTER PLAN. THERE WAS A LOT OF PLACES WHERE HISTORICALLY THE CITY'S USED THE CITY OF AUSTIN TRANSPORTATION MANUAL, SO WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND CLEAN THAT UP TO MAKE SURE IT WAS REFERENCING THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK. AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT I'LL HIT ON HERE. BUT THAT'S THE GENERAL GIST OF WHAT THIS ITEM IS ABOUT. IN CHAPTER 12, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS IN THERE. I'LL GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY, BUT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC THING THAT WE DID TO ALIGN WITH TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 212, ABOUT PROPORTIONALITY CHECKS BEING NEEDED TO BE DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. SO WE ADDED THAT IN WE ALSO HAD A COUPLE DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE WE HAD TO CLARIFY DIFFERENT ENGINEERING STANDARDS, MANUALS AND CRITERIA AND WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN DIFFERENT PLACES. NOW THAT WE'LL HAVE A CEDAR PARK SPECIFIC MANUAL, WHEREAS THERE ARE STILL SOME CITY OF AUSTIN BEING USED BY THE CITY FOR DRAINAGE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOME OTHER TYPES OF. CRITERIA FOR ENGINEERING. AND THEN ANOTHER THING THAT WE GOT TO HELP IS WE DID A BIG PROCESS DURING THE MOBILITY PLAN TO UPDATE THE ROADWAY PLAN AND THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS AND SHARED USE PATH REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THAT'S BEING NOW POINTED TO THE RIGHT PLACE FROM THE CODE. I MENTIONED THE BIG TRAILS. AND THEN WE HAD SOME DUPLICATIVE STUFF IN THE CODE AND THE CM TO CLEAN UP. AND IT'S GOOD. REAL QUICK QUESTION. YES. SORRY FOR THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. IS THIS ONE OF THE CHANGES FROM THE LAST SESSION WHERE IT COULD BE AN OUTSIDE LICENSE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE A CITY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER? THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. IT'S CHAPTER 212 .90 FOR THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. AND SO THAT SECTION SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE RETAINED BY THE CITY FOR THE TEXAS OCCUPATIONS CODE. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GET REALLY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S A CITY EMPLOYEE OR SOMEONE THAT'S HIRED. DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS HAVE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH A DIFFERENT HAVE INTERPRETED IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT WHAT WAS LACKING IN THE CODE IS IT DIDN'T EVEN REFERENCE THE LICENSE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO DO THAT. SO IT WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK OF THE STATE LAW. PERFECT. THANK YOU. YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. CHAPTER 14. THIS AGAIN WAS REALLY SIMPLE IN TERMS OF CHANGING OUT WHERE IT'S A CITY OF AUSTIN, TCM CLEARING THAT UP. BUT THE OTHER ONE IN HERE THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO US AT LEAST GOING THROUGH THIS WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY SHARED USE PATHS AS A REQUIREMENT IN THE ROADWAY PLAN AND THE MOBILITY MASTER PLAN. THERE ARE SPECIFIC PLACES WHERE CHARITIES PASS OR TEMPLATE SIDEWALKS, OR THERE'S EVEN A TRAILS PLAN RIGHT NOW IN THAT DOCUMENT. SO I WANTED TO DEFINE WHAT A SIDEWALK VERSUS A CHARITY PATH WAS, WHAT THE MINIMUM WIDTHS WERE FOR THAT. SO WE KIND OF GOT THROUGH THAT, WORKED THROUGH THE BEST PRACTICES, LINING UP WITH THE TKM, AND ALSO NATIONAL PRACTICES FROM AN AGENCY CALLED ASHTON, WHICH DEFINES THE MINIMUM WITS FOR WHAT A SHARED USE PATH NEEDS TO BE. AND SO WE GOT THAT INSERTED AND ADDED FOR SOME DEFINITIONS IN THE CODE IN THAT CHAPTER. SOME OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS. FIRST, THE CLEANUP BY THE SECOND ONE IS DIFFERENT. SO THE FIRST ONE HERE IN CHAPTER 16 THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO THE TKM TO THE CITY'S NETWORK NODE DESIGN MANUAL. THAT'S BASICALLY LIKE 5G FACILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. YOU SEE THOSE POLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE ATTACHED OUT THERE FOR CELLULAR NETWORKS. THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IN EVERY CITY IN 2018 FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE, HAD TO GO THROUGH AND DO LIKE EMERGENCY ADOPTIONS [01:10:01] ABOUT 7 OR 8 YEARS AGO TO PUT TOGETHER THESE MANUALS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAD ONE IN IT. BUT THE CITY OF CEDAR PARK ALREADY HAS ALL THAT IN THE CODE. SO WE JUST CLEAN THAT UP TO SAY LIKE NOT REFERENCE, BUT JUST REFERENCE THE CODE ITSELF, WHICH ALREADY COVERS THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT ONE IS. THE SECOND ONE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. SO THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN THE THE CODE BETWEEN CHAPTER 12 AND 16, WHERE THERE WERE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS IN DIFFERENT PLACES FOR A THRESHOLD TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT. ONE PLACE, IT HAD THE DAILY TRIP THRESHOLD OF 2000 TRIPS AND THEN SOMEWHERE ELSE IT HAD PEAK HOUR TRIPS, WHICH IS LIKE A MORNING OR AFTERNOON PEAK TRAFFIC OF 100. SO WE'VE CONSOLIDATED THAT TO ONE LOCATION. AND THE MAIN THING I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT HERE IS WE ACTUALLY LOWERED THAT THRESHOLD FROM 2000 TO 1000. AND SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT AROUND CEDAR PARK. BUT THE POINT OF THAT IS REALLY TO KIND OF CAPTURE WHAT YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE MORE OF IN THE FUTURE, WE ANTICIPATE, WHICH IS REDEVELOPMENTS. AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL TOTAL INCREASE IN TRIPS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THAT DOWN, TO CAPTURE SOME OF THOSE AND SEE WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE AS THINGS MAKE A FIRE CHANGE AT THE TIME ON THAT. LAST ONE. AND THEN I'LL HIT FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. TYPO. THERE'S A LOT OF THESE. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE. THERE IS ACTUALLY A FEDERAL MANUAL UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. AND THERE'S ACTUALLY A TEXAS ONE THAT WAS ADOPTED THAT WAS ADOPTED LAST FALL. AND JAMES SO WE CLEANED THAT UP. THERE WAS ALSO THIS LIST OF STUFF IN THE 1990S OF INVENTORIES OF THINGS THE CITY DOESN'T ACTUALLY MAINTAIN. SO WE GOT RID OF THAT AND CLEAN THAT UP SINCE IT WASN'T BEING USED. SO A LOT OF REALLY GREAT DETAILED STUFF THERE, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT. IT'S VERY TECHNICAL. SO MORE CLEANUP CLEANUP. YES. I HAVE ONE MORE CHAPTER 12 QUESTIONS. YEAH. CHAPTER 12. ON PAGE 40. IT'S 12.11 .01 OKAY. YOU'RE CROSSING OUT SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. IS IT BECAUSE WE REFERENCED THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE? YES, I THINK IT WAS THE WRONG CHAPTER. IF I REMEMBER WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE INTERNALLY. YEAH. WE DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE A CONFLICT THERE OKAY. IT'S ALL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANKS. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE REGULAR SESSION AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM C4. WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON C4. SO SEEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REOPEN THE REGULAR SESSION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. AND LEAVE. IT IS A C4. I MOVE, WE PASS C4 AS PRESENTED. SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER GROFF AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BRADFORD BROWN. I'LL DO A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER. COMMISSIONER. REESE. COMMISSIONER. BRADFORD. BROWN. COMMISSIONER GROTH. AND I'M AND I. MOTION PASSES. [C.5 (2026-8-OA) Public Hearing And Recommendation On Proposed Amendments To The Cedar Park Code of Ordinances Chapter 4, Business Regulations, Chapter 6, Seasonal, Temporary And Mobile Business And Events, Chapter 11, Zoning, And Appendix A, Fee Schedule, Regarding Food Establishments, Mobile Food Establishments, And Temporary Uses.] ALL RIGHT. I'LL CALL UP ITEM C5. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS ANDREA. WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO THIS ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS ANOTHER CODE AMENDMENT, THIS TIME IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE BILL 2844 THAT WAS PASSED AT THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND SO I WILL BRIEFLY GO OVER A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT HOUSE BILL, SPECIFICALLY HOW IT IMPACTS CEDAR PARK AND THEN THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO TO SEVERAL CHAPTERS IN OUR CODE TO CODE CONSISTENT WITH THAT HOUSE BILL. AND SO SPECIFICALLY AS IT APPLIES TO CEDAR PARK, THIS HOUSE BILL ESSENTIALLY REMOVES THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO LICENSE AND PERMIT ANY MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT OR FOOD TRUCK WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. THE HOSPITAL APPOINTS THE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE, AS BEING THE PERMITTING AGENCY FOR ALL FOOD TRUCKS, AND IT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT IF A FOOD TRUCK HAS A LICENSE FROM THE STATE, WE, THE CITY, CANNOT PROHIBIT THEM WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. THIS HOUSE BILL DOES STILL GIVE US THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO APPLY OUR FIRE CODE, AS WELL AS LOCATION AND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS TO THE FOOD TRUCKS, AND THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS NOT A CHANGE OF POLICY, BUT MORE SHIFTING, KIND OF LIKE WHERE SOME OF OUR REGULATIONS ARE SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO APPLY THESE STANDARDS AND AGAIN, BRING OUR CODE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS. AND SO OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PRIMARILY IMPACT FOUR CHAPTERS, OR I SHOULD SAY THREE CHAPTERS PLUS THE APPENDIX, INNER CITY CODE OF AUDIENCES. AND AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE CLEANUP ITEMS TO REMOVE ALL OF THOSE CONFLICTING STANDARDS FROM STATE LAWS. [01:15:04] SO AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, STATES RULE SAYS WE CANNOT REGULATE HOURS OF OPERATION. SO THAT OR ORDINANCES OR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED. BUT WHERE ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS ARE BEING SHIFTED AND MOVED AROUND ARE REALLY PRIMARILY TO CHAPTER SIX, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY TO MOBILE FOOD VENDORS. AND THOSE CENTERS ARE PRIMARILY GOING TO APPLY TO ANY FOOD TRUCKS THAT OPERATE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS OF WAY. AND THEN CHAPTER 11, WHICH IS OUR CHAPTER, AND THEN IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY FOOD TRUCKS THAT ARE OPERATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND SO TO ENSURE, AGAIN, CONSISTENCY WITH THAT STATE LAW, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE REALLY MORE LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING INCLUDED. SO FOR EXAMPLE, FOOD TRUCKS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PARK OR OPERATE ON COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR OR HIGHER CLASSIFICATION ROADWAYS. THEY CANNOT ENCOURAGE THEM TO SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, PARKING, OWLS, FIRE LANES AND SO FORTH. AND WE ARE ADDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE DISPLAYING THEIR STATE LICENSE AND APPROVED FIRE INSPECTION AT ALL TIMES. AND AS MENTIONED, WE ARE ALSO DOING SOME OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS BECAUSE THE CITY DOES DEFER TO THE HEALTH DISTRICT FOR ALL OTHER FOOD ESTABLISHMENT PERMITS. WE'RE CLEANING UP THE FEE SCHEDULE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REFERENCES THERE'S FEE SCHEDULE AS OPPOSED TO OUR INDIVIDUAL FEES, AND THAT IS REALLY IN. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST SAY, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME FURTHER, BUT I THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE THAT THE THE STATE BILL THAT WAS PASSED, IT'S IN THEORY SO THAT A MOBILE FOOD TRUCK, IF THEY ARE IN HUTTO ONE DAY OR AROUND THE NEXT, OR CEDAR PARK THE NEXT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO KEEP APPLYING FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL CITY PERMITS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW AND THEN. THAT WAY THEY JUST HAVE ONE STATE PERMIT AND THEY CAN DRIVE AROUND IT. YEAH. YEAH, YEAH. AND SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF CLEANING UP TO MATCH THE STATE. YES. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE CHAPTER 11 DEFINITIONS WAS WAS THIS ALL THIS SETBACK CHANGE? IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I READ THIS BILL. WAS THE SETBACK CHANGE DICTATED IN THE BILL, OR DID Y'ALL JUST TAKE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT MORE, TAKING. THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ, CLEAN IT UP? IT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE. IT'S JUST CLARIFYING THE LANGUAGE. YES. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. DO YOU KNOW BY ANY. CHANCE TO HELP ME. ANY FOOD TRUCKS WE HAVE. IN THE CITY. THAT ARE PERMANENT. THAT ARE THEY DON'T SWITCH AROUND. HE ACTUALLY. HAPPENED TO HAVE ABOUT 20 ACTIVE PERMIT PERMITTED FOOD TRUCKS INTERCITY, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY HAD TO PULL UP THAT NUMBER EARLIER THIS WEEK SO THAT OUR ACTIVE PERMITTED. YES. IT'S GROWING AND GROWING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? AT THIS TIME? I WILL CLOSE THE REGULAR SESSION AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM C5. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS, SO SEEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REOPEN THE REGULAR SESSION. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DELIBERATION, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. MADAM CHAIRMAN, I'LL MOVE THAT. THE MADAM CHAIR WOMAN. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. I DON'T SEE FIVE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. IN. A SECOND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER BRADFORD BROWN AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER REESE. AND I WILL TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER. COMMISSIONER. REESE. COMMISSIONER. BRADFORD. BROWN. COMMISSIONER GROFF. AND I'M AN I. THE MOTION PASSES. NOTHING FOR ITEM D1. [E.1 Update Regarding Council Actions Related To Planning and Zoning Items And Designate Delegate for Future Council Meetings ] I'LL CALL UP E1 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS. GOOD EVENING. DUSTIN. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. JUST HERE TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT COUNCIL ACTION ON ITEMS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOUR DAIS IN THE PAST, AND SOME UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETINGS AND ITEMS THAT WILL BE GOING ON TO COUNCIL AT THE APRIL 23RD AND MAY 14TH MEETINGS. WHERE HAVE HAPPENED SINCE YOUR LAST PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING ON APRIL 23RD? COUNCIL APPROVED THE THE SECOND READING OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE SCREEN. THE CODE UPDATES, AS WELL AS REASONINGS AND AMENDMENT THAT YOU SAW AT YOUR MARCH PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. AND WE HAD NO ITEMS ON THE MAY 15TH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR UPCOMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. WE'VE GOT MAY 28TH AND JUNE 11TH. [01:20:02] THERE ARE NO ITEMS ON THE MAY 28TH COUNCIL AGENDA, AND FOR JUNE 11TH, WE WILL HAVE THE FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS EVENING'S ITEMS. AND WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY VOLUNTEERS FROM THE COMMISSION TO ATTEND THE JUNE 11TH MEETING. I CAN BE HERE JUNE 11TH IF ANYONE WANTS TO JOIN ME. THANK YOU, MR. GROFF. JUNE 11TH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER UNDER ITEM E2 DIRECTOR AND STAFF COMMENTS. [E.3 Closing Comments] WE'LL MOVE ON TO CLOSING COMMENTS. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE GUYS? JUST THOUGHT. IT WAS A GREAT MEETING AND. VERY PRODUCTIVE. AND JUST WISH EVERYBODY A GREAT MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, THREE DAY WEEKEND AND PLEASE DRIVE SAFE, BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND THANKS TO. STAFF. THIS WAS A LOT OF WORK. YEAH. I REALLY APPRECIATE. ALL YOUR HELP. AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO CITY STAFF. I MEAN, WE REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU DO. AND I KNOW THERE'S NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE LEFT, BUT THANK YOU TO THE PUBLIC. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. ALWAYS APPRECIATE IT WHEN THE PUBLIC COMES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST SOMETHING. EVERYBODY'S OPINION MATTERS. SO WE VALUE THAT A LOT. AND WE HAD REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION UP HERE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT FROM OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. AND AGAIN JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, ABOUT BOB ANTAL THAT HE WILL BE MISSED. ABSOLUTELY. A SECOND. THAT EMOTION ABOUT THE PUBLIC AND BOB AND THANK YOU CITY STAFF Y'ALL. WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOU. SO I KNOW AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS APPRECIATE YOU AND EVERYONE. PLEASE BE SAFE. BE CONSCIOUS OF EVERYONE AROUND YOU DURING THE HOLIDAYS AND JUST LET'S BE GOOD HUMANS. YEAH. THANKS. CITY STAFF, ESPECIALLY THE CODE AMENDMENT. THOSE REPORTS ARE REALLY, REALLY WELL DONE AND REALLY THOROUGH. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, A GEEK OUT ON STUFF LIKE THAT. SO AND THANKS FOR ALL MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I ALWAYS APPRECIATE OUR CONVERSATIONS. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE HOW MUCH I MISSED THIS. AND I WAS GOING THROUGH MY PACKET LAST WEEK. OH YEAH, I ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS. YOUR MEETING, YOUR MEETINGS WILL BE LONGER NOW, PROBABLY BECAUSE I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. AND DUSTIN, THANK YOU FOR GETTING MY PACKET TO ME EARLIER. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, I ADJOURNED THE MEETING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.