[00:00:01]
OKAY, THE TIME IS NOW 6:00 PM OUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR JANUARY 7TH, 2025 IS NOW IN SESSION.
NOW WE ARE EXPERIENCING SOME AUDIO AND VIDEO DIFFICULTIES AND, UH, WE REGRET THE INCONVENIENCE, UH, WITH THAT.
UH, FIRST ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD.
WE LEAVE THIS WITH THE OPENING PRAYER AND THE PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF TEXAS.
BEFORE I PRAY, I'D LIKE TO READ A VERSE, JEREMIAH 29 11, FOR I KNOW THE PLANS I HAVE FOR YOU, DECLARES THE LORD.
TO PROSPER YOU AND NOT TO HARM YOU.
PLANS TO GIVE YOU HOPE AND HOPE IN A FUTURE.
I BELIEVE THIS TIES IN WITH US GOING INTO A NEW YEAR.
HEAVENLY FATHER, AS WE GATHER HERE TODAY AT THE DAWN OF THE NEW YEAR, WE COME BEFORE YOU WITH GRATITUDE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
WE THANK YOU FOR THE BLESSINGS, EXCUSE ME, UH, THE BLESSINGS OF THE PAST YEAR AND THE LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH BOTH CHALLENGES AND TRIUMPHS.
WE ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AS WE START THIS NEW YEAR, AS IT, AND AS THE NEW CHAPTER, GRANT US WISDOM TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT REFLECT THE NEEDS AND INTEREST OF OUR CITIZENS.
HELP US TO LISTEN WITH OPEN EARS AND MINDS, AND ANALYZE THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AMONG US TO COME TO A COMMON GOAL.
INSPIRE US TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY TOGETHER FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR CITY, FOCUSING ON SUSTAINABLE GROWTH, SAFETY, AND WELLBEING OF OUR RESIDENTS.
AS WE BEGAN TO SET GOALS FOR THIS YEAR, LET US BE REMINDED OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO SERVE WITH INTEGRITY, COMPASSION, AND HUMILITY.
MAY WE BE GOOD STEWARD OF THE RESOURCES ENTRUSTED TO US, BLESS OUR COMMUNITY WITH HOPE AND RESILIENCE.
AS WE CONTINUE TO FACE THE ISSUES THAT COME WITH GROWTH TOGETHER, WE MAY STRIVE TO BUILD A CITY THAT EMBODIES THE VALUES WE HOLD DEAR.
IN YOUR SON'S NAME, I PRAY, AMEN.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN THE VISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
FOR ALL, HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE TEXAS.
ALRIGHT, FIRST ON THE AGENDA AS WE HAVE
[ Employee Introductions Animal Services: Carla Cardona-Kennel Technician EMS: Valentin Hernandez-Paramedic; Steven Amen-EMT (Part-Time); Noah Ellis-EMT (Part-time); Anne Koker-EMT (Part-time) Neighborhood Services: Patrick McIntyre-Code Enforcement Officer Parks: Steven Lovelace-Parks Maintenance Technician (P/T) Police: Luis Gonzales-Public Safety Communications Officer Police:Jonathan Bagby-Police Officer; Francisco Lopez-Police Officer; Daniel Hall-Police Cadet Utility Billing: Marvin Burkett-Meter Technician]
EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTIONS.EVENING MAYOR, COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER AND STAFF.
I'M LIEUTENANT LACORE AND I HAVE THE PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE YOU, ONE OF YOUR NEWEST KENNEL TECHNICIANS IN OUR ANIMAL SERVICES BUILDING, MS. CARLA CARDONA.
UH, SHE STARTED ON DECEMBER 16TH, 2024, AND SHE'S ALREADY SAID SHE HAS AMAZING COWORKERS.
HER, UH, EXPERIENCE SHE SAYS ISN'T PERFECT, BUT SHE CAN'T WAIT TO EXCEL AND MAKE MEMORIES WITH THEM ALL.
SHE WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SAN ANTONIO AND SHE GRADUATED FROM SOUTH SAN ANTONIO HIGH SCHOOL IN 2023, UH, WHICH WAS A GREAT ACHIEVEMENT FOR HER.
AND SHE'S JUST RECENTLY, UH, WAS ACCEPTED INTO THE PALO ALTO COLLEGE IN THE VETERINARY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
THAT WAS A DIFFICULT TASK FOR HER AND SHE'S VERY PROUD OF IT.
UM, SHE SAYS SHE LOVES HER CURRENT HOBBIES OR, UH, BUILDING, UH, LEGOS AND COLORING HER MULTIPLE COLORING BOOKS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS NEXT ONE, BUT I'M GONNA READ IT.
ONE FUN FACT ABOUT HERSELF IS THAT SHE LOVES THE WINTER COLD AND IT'S HER FAVORITE TYPE OF WEATHER.
UM, SHE LOVES HANGING OUT WITH HER FRIENDS AND MEETING OTHERS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MS. CARLA CARDONA, THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU GUYS TODAY FOR HAVING ME OUT HERE, UM, EXPERIENCING THESE NEW OPPORTUNITIES.
NEXT IS EMS. GOOD EVENING MAYOR COUNCIL, MR. WILLIAMS. UH, TONIGHT I HAVE THREE NEW EMS EMPLOYEES TO INTRODUCE TO YOU.
UH, FIRST UP I HAVE STEVE AM AMEN.
UH, STEVE STARTED WITH THE CITY NOVEMBER 18TH, 2024 AND GREW UP IN THE SHIRTS AREA AND HAS BEEN HERE MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE.
HE'S A GRADUATE OF STEPHEN F. AUSTIN UNIVERSITY.
UH, COMPLETED THE SHIRTS, EMS ACADEMY, UH, EMT PROGRAM IN 2024.
UH, HE HAS WORKED FOR E IN EMS FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE MONTHS NOW.
UH, EXCITED TO BE HERE AT SHIRTS.
HE'S MARRIED WITH ONE DAUGHTER AND IS AN AVID CYCLIST.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY EVERYONE.
I'M REALLY EXCITED TO WORK FOR MY HOMETOWN.
WELCOME TO OUR TEAM NEXT FOR YOU.
[00:05:01]
A PART-TIME EMT WITH THE EMS DEPARTMENT.UH, HE STARTED IN NOVEMBER AS WELL.
UH, HE GREW UP AND CURRENTLY LIVES HERE IN SHIRTS.
UH, NOAH ATTENDED THE SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE AND THE SHIRTS EMT ACADEMY.
HE OBTAINED HE HIS EMT CERTIFICATION THROUGH US.
UH, HE'S WORKED IN EMS FOR A LITTLE LESS THAN A YEAR WITH EXPERIENCE IN THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
UH, HE COMES FROM A FAMILY FULL OF EMS AND HE'S VERY EXCITED TO WORK IN THE SAME CITY THAT HE HAS, UH, HIS FAMILY AT.
SO CAN, UH, JUST WELCOME NOAH, UH, THANK YOU GUYS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND, UM, LIKE TO MAKE THE MOST OF IT.
PLEASURE TO MEET ALL OF YOU GUYS.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UH, VALENTINE HERANDEZ.
UH, HE IS A FULL-TIME PARAMEDIC WITH US.
UH, HE ALSO STARTED IN NOVEMBER.
UH, HE GREW UP IN THE SHIRTS AREA AND HAS RECENTLY MOVED BACK INTO SHIRTS.
UH, ABOUT A YEAR AGO, HE ATTENDED SHIRTS, EMT ACADEMY AND THEN OBTAINED HIS PARAMEDIC CERTIFICATION RECENTLY IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.
UH, HE'S WORKED IN EMS FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS.
UH, HE'S BEEN MARRIED FOR THREE YEARS NOW.
HE'S EXPECTING HIS FIRST CHILD IN TWO WEEKS,
SO, UH, HE ENJOYS SPENDING TIME WITH HIS TWO DOGS AND HIS CAT AT HOME.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S AN HONOR AND IT'S A BLESSING TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY THAT I GREW UP IN.
NEXT WE HAVE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.
AND MR. WILLIAMS. I AM PLEASED TO INTRODUCE OUR NEWEST CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, PATRICK MCINTYRE.
PATRICK'S HOMETOWN IS BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, AND BEFORE JOINING OUR CITY TEAM, HE WORKED AS AN ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL APPRENTICE.
FUN FACT ABOUT PAT, HE CAN DRAW A GOOD SNOOPY FROM MEMORY.
HE MAKES A MEAN STIR FRY AND WON THE WEST END ELEMENTARY GEOGRAPHY BOWL.
WE ARE EXCITED TO HAVE HIM JOIN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
IF YOU EVER WANNA TRY MY STIR FRY, JUST LET ME KNOW.
GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MAYOR MR. WILLIAMS. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF INTRODUCING STEVEN LOVELACE.
HE'S OUR NEWEST PART-TIME MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN, HAS ONLY BEEN WITH US A COUPLE OF DAYS.
UM, HE HAS SERVED SIX YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVES WITH THE MILITARY OCCUPATION, SPECIALTY OF MACHINE GUNNER AND THE INFANTRY.
HE COMPLETED HIS SERVICE WITH THE RANK OF SERGEANT.
HE RECEIVED AN ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE FROM NORTHEAST LAKEVIEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND COMPLETED HIS BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN THE SPRING FROM TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY WOO, WHERE HE STUDIED ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY.
I'M SO EXCITED TO HAVE ANOTHER AGGIE ON THE TEAM.
SOMEHOW I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SURROUND MYSELF WITH PEOPLE THAT BLEED MAROON, BUT AS YOU KNOW, I FORCE THEM TO WEAR MAROON IN THEIR UNIFORMS. THANK YOU STEVEN FOR BEING THERE.
AND, UH, ONLY WORKED A COUPLE DAYS, BUT I DID GET TO WORK THIS WEEKEND.
AND GETTING TO DO THE TOUCH A TRUCK EVENT WAS A LOT OF FUN TO SEE THE KIDS ENJOY IT.
MR. WILLIAMS. I AM LIEUTENANT KISE WITH THE SHIRTZ POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF INTRODUCING TWO NEW PATROL OFFICERS.
HE COMES FROM, UM, A SMALL TOWN IN IOWA AND HE WORKS.
UM, HIS BACKGROUND IS COMMUNICATIONS WHERE HE WORKED IN HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL AS OUR, UM, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.
AFTER THE MILITARY, HE CONTINUED HIS COMMUNICATION, UM, BACKGROUND BEFORE STARTING AS A PATROL OFFICER IN MIDLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, HE WORKED AS A PATROL OFFICER, CRISIS NEGOTIATOR AND INTOXILYZER OPERATOR BEFORE COMING TO THE CITY OF SHIRTS IN DECEMBER.
HE HAS BEEN MARRIED SINCE 2018.
HE HAS ONE DAUGHTER AND ONE BABY BOY ON THE WAY.
HE HAS, HE ENJOYS SPENDING TIME WITH HIS FAMILY HUNTING AND FISHING.
I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE TO YOU JONATHAN BAGBY, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME, AND I'M EXCITED TO START MY NEW CAREER HERE.
WELL, WELCOME, WELCOME TO OUR TEAM.
[00:10:02]
NEXT I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE TO YOU FRANCISCO LOPEZ.II FRANCISCO COMES TO US FROM SAN MARCUS AND HE HAS SERVED, UM, IN OUR UNITED STATES NAVY FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AS A MASTER AT ARMS. UM, HE ALSO WORKED IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN DIEGO GARCIA, LOCATED IN THE BRITISH INDIA OCEAN TERRITORY FOR 12 MONTHS.
UM, HE SPENT THE REMAINDER OF HIS CONTRACT AS A NUCLEAR WEAPON SECURITY SPECIALIST AND THE MARINE SECURITY SERVICE, UH, SECURITY FORCE BATTALION'S, NAVY ARMORY SUPERVISOR IN SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON.
HE WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED IN 2003, UH, 13, UH, SORRY, 2023.
HE IS, UH, MARRIED TO A, UM, ALSO A US MILITARY, US NAVY, UM, MACHINIST MATE AUXILIARY ON THE US MICHIGAN.
UM, THEY BOTH HAVE A, UH, 1-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AND THEY HAVE A BABY BOY ON THE WAY AS WELL.
UM, THEY LOVES, HE LOVES SPENDING TIME WITH HIS WIFE AND FAMILY AND HIS FAVORITE THINGS TO DO IS GOING TO THE GYM AND PLAYING ANYTHING ACTIVE SPORTS WISE.
UH, YES, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY AND I'M EXCITED TO, UH, SERVE THIS COMMUNITY.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR GUTIERREZ.
MR. WILLIAMS AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
UH, I HAVE THE HONOR TODAY OF INTRODUCING LUIS GONZALEZ, WHO WAS HIRED DECEMBER 16TH AS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICER.
UM, LUIS WAS BORN IN PEARSALL, RAISED IN DILLY NOT FAR.
AND, UM, HE IS RELOCATED HERE TO THE SHIRTZ AREA AND HE'S KIND OF EXCITED ABOUT THAT.
HE HAS A YOUNGER BROTHER WHO TEACHES AT RANDOLPH HIGH SCHOOL.
HE IS ENGAGED, LOOKING TO GET MARRIED BY THE END OF THE YEAR IN NOVEMBER.
AND HE HAS HOBBIES OF READING, PLAYING GUITAR, VIDEO GAMES WITH FRIENDS, AND, UH, LOOKING TO TRAVEL AND HOPING TO GET BACK INTO HUNTING AND FISHING.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
I'M A PRETTY SMALL TOWN GUY, SO I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY TO MY NAME BESIDES MY KIDS.
UM, I'LL DO MY BEST NOT TO LET EVERYBODY DOWN.
AND NEXT WE HAVE UTILITY BILLING.
GOOD EVENING COUNSEL MAYOR, WE ARE PLEASED TO INTRODUCE MARVIN BURQUETTE, OUR NEW METER TECHNICIAN AT THE UTILITY BILLING OFFICE, WHO RECENTLY STARTED DECEMBER 16TH.
MARVIN BRINGS A WEALTH OF EXPERIENCE AND DEDICATION HAVING RETIRED AFTER 26 YEARS OF ACT OF SERVICE IN THE AIR FORCE.
MARVIN AND HIS WIFE ABBY, HAVE BEEN HAPPILY MARRIED FOR 35 YEARS AND PROUD PARENTS OF TWO SONS WHO ARE CURRENTLY TRAINING IN PHOENIX TO BECOME PILOTS WITH THE UNITED AIRLINES.
UH, WE ARE EXCITED TO WELCOME MARVIN TO OUR TEAM AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS HE WILL MAKE IN HIS ROLE.
PLEASE JOIN US IN EXTENDING HIM A WARM WELCOME.
ALRIGHT, I GET THE LAST WORD HERE.
KARA SAID I HAD TO KEEP THIS TO 45 MINUTES.
NO, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS.
IT'S FINALLY GOOD TO BE BACK HOME.
I'VE BEEN OUT WITH THE DOGS BARK, SO I'M GLAD TO BE HERE.
[ City Events and Announcements Announcements of upcoming City Events (B. James/S. Gonzalez) Announcements and recognitions by the City Manager (S. Williams) Announcements and recognitions by the Mayor (R. Gutierrez)]
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF UPCOMING EVENTS.MS. GONZALES, OH, SORRY, MAYOR
OKAY, LEMME GET BACK ON TRACK HERE.
SO ON SATURDAY, JANUARY 11TH, THE SCHWARTZ FAMILY YMCA WILL BE HOSTING THE POLAR BEAR 5K AND PLUNGE.
UM, SO THE 5K IS A NEW EDITION THIS YEAR IT WILL BE AT 9:00 AM AT PICK PARK.
AND FOR MORE INFORMATION, UM, YOU CAN LOOK ON THE ATHLETE GUILD WEBSITE OR JUST GOOGLE SHORTZ FAMILY YMCA AND THE INFORMATION IS THERE.
UM, UH, JANUARY 13TH THROUGH JANUARY 24TH, REPUBLIC WILL BE PICKING UP CHRISTMAS TREES AND WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT ON OUR NEWS FLASH ON OUR CITY WEBSITE.
UM, JUST INFORMATION ABOUT DAYS THAT THEY PICK UP.
UM, AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FOLKS CAN CONTACT THE UTILITY BILLING OFFICE AT 2 1 0 6 1 9 1100 ON ON MONDAY, JANUARY 10TH.
UM, CITY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
WE'LL BE BACK HERE FOR OUR NEXT REGULARLY, UH, SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING
[00:15:01]
AT 6:00 PM AND FINALLY, INFORMATION ON THE RUNOFF ELECTION, UM, WHICH WILL BE ON JANUARY 18TH TO ELECT THE, UH, PLACE OF PLACE FOUR.THE LAST DATE OF EARLY VOTE IS ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 14TH.
AND, UM, MORE INFORMATION ON LOCATIONS TO VOTE AND, AND ANY INFORMATION YOU NEED ON VOTING WAS ON OUR WEBSITE@SHORTS.COM.
THANK YOU MS. GONZALEZ ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECOGNITIONS BY OUR CITY MANAGER.
UH, I WANTED TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS TO SIDNEY TIS IN THE, UM, PARKS DEPARTMENT.
SHE GOT THE, THE TRAPS TEXT TURN INTERNSHIP.
SO IT'S, IT'S IT'S PLAY ON WORDS FOR INTERN, BUT IT'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS SCHOLARSHIP TO COVER HER EXPENSES TO GO TO THEIR LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE AND SHADOW SOME OF THE, BE MENTORED BY SOME OF THE LEADERSHIP IN THE ORGANIZATION AS WELL AS ATTEND THE CONFERENCE.
ALSO, WE HAD A COUPLE OF PROMOTIONS IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER.
IRENE CHAVEZ WAS PROMOTED FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO PURCHASING SPECIALIST AND ADAM RODRIGUEZ PROMOTED FROM POLICE CADET TO POLICE OFFICERS.
SO CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THREE OF THEM.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECOGNITIONS BY THE MAYOR.
UH, I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU TO ALL THE CITY STAFF, UH, FOR MAKING KNOW FOR THE CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY, THE PARADE AND BLUE SANTA POSSIBLE.
UH, IT'S GREAT TO, UH, TO SEE THE, UH, THE STAFF OUT THERE AND, AND GETTING THE HOLIDAY SEASON STARTED.
WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH,
[ Hearing of Residents This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the City Council. Each person should fill out the speaker’s register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to no more than 3 minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body, and not to any individual member thereof. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks while addressing the Council may be requested to leave the meeting. All handouts and/or USB devices must be submitted to the City Secretary no later than noon on the Monday preceding the meeting. Handouts will be provided to each Councilmember prior to the start of the meeting by the City Secretary. All USB devices will be vetted by City IT staff to ensure City property is protected from malware. Discussion by the Council of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and/or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered.]
THE HEARING, THE RESIDENTS.THIS TIME IS SET ASIDE FOR ANY PERSON WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL.
EACH PERSON IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, AND WE ASK BEFORE ADDRESSING THE COUNSEL FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
NOW WE DO HAVE A, A FEW PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO, UM, IF IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO IT'S YOUR CHOICE, YOU CAN SPEAK AT THE HEARING, THE RESIDENCE, OR YOU CAN HOLD OFF UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING OR YOU CAN SPEAK AT BOTH.
MAYOR PRO TEMP, PLEASE CALL OUR FIRST SPEAKER BEN GUERRERO.
MR. MAYOR CITY COUNCIL, MR. WILLIAMS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
BENJAMIN GUERRERO, LIVING IN 5 0 6 CAPA COURT LANE, WANNA TAKE THIS TIME TO HIGHLY ENCOURAGE ALL REGISTERED VOTERS INSUREDS TO COME OUT AND VOTE DURING THE EARLY VOTING OR ON ELECTION.
I AM RETIRED MILITARY OF OVER 21 YEARS OF SERVICE, COMPLETED DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ, ASSIGNED TO THE FIRST INFANTRY DIVISION INTO CREATE IRAQ IN 2004, ASSIGNED TO THE FIRST ARMOR DIVISION IN BAGHDAD, IRAQ IN 2010.
CURRENTLY EMPLOYED WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN FORT SAM HOUSTON, APPOINTED TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE IN 2024.
ATTENDED EVERY COUNCIL MEETING IN THE PAST FOUR MONTHS, ATTENDED OVER 10 CITY EVENTS OVER THE PAST FOUR MONTHS, AND BEEN LIVING IN CHURCHS SINCE 2015 IF ELECTED THE CITY COUNCIL, PLACED FOUR, I WILL CONCUR WITH LOW CITY TAXES, OWNER PROPERTY RIGHTS, CITY ZONING, REPAIRING INFRASTRUCTURE WITH BEST VALUE, ENSURING OUR FIRST RESPONDERS HAVE THE LATEST TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT, AND WILLING TO ASSIST OUR CITY COUNCIL AS A TEAM PLAYER TO RESOLVE ALL CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED.
AS A SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT, I WANT TO THANK THE GUADALUPE COUNTY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS FOR THEIR ENDORSEMENT.
I WANT TO THANK THE SHIRTZ POLICE ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR ENDORSEMENT.
AND I WANT TO THANK MR. ROY RICHARD FOR HIS ENDORSEMENT.
AS WE ALL KNOW, ALL ELECTIONS ARE IMPORTANT, WHETHER IT'S FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCO.
THEREFORE, I, I ASK ALL REGISTERED VOTERS TO COME OUT AND SHOW YOUR AMERICAN PATRIOTISM TO VOTE FOR THE RIGHT CANDIDATE IN THIS RUNOFF ELECTION FOR CITY COUNCIL PLACE FOUR ON 18 JANUARY, 2025 IN CLOTHING.
I THANK THE ENTIRE CITY OF CHURCH'S LEADERSHIP FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
[00:20:06]
DANIEL JAMISON.GOOD EVENING COUNCIL MAYOR, CITY STAFF, CITY MANAGER DANIEL JAMESON, 10 48 RICHMOND DRIVE, SHS, TEXAS.
AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE SHIRTS MAGAZINE FOR THIS MONTH, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE LOWE'S HARDWARE STORE HAS DONATED OVER $30,000 IN UPGRADING OUR VFW POST RIGHT HERE ON 78.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY WANT TO COME BACK AND DO MORE.
COMING UP, WE GOT OUR BREAKFAST, $10 EGGS, ALL THAT YOU CAN EAT.
YOU GO TO IHOP, YOU'RE GONNA PAY MORE THAN THAT FOR A MEAL LIKE THAT.
COFFEE, ORANGE JUICE, WATER, EGGS TO ORDER.
SO PLEASE, GUYS, COME OUT, SUPPORT YOUR VETERANS, YOUR LOCAL VETERANS 'CAUSE THAT'S WHO'S DOING THE COOKING.
MICKEY LESKI, MS. LESKI 7 0 5 MARYLAND DRIVE, INSUREDS, OF COURSE, MAYOR GUTTIER, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
MR. WILLIAMS, MR. SANTI, HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD START OF A NEW YEAR.
I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE TWO DEPARTMENTS IN OUR CITY THAT RECENTLY HELPED SOME SENIOR CITIZENS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW IT OR NOT, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF SENIOR CITIZENS THAT EITHER THEIR CHILDREN AREN'T AROUND TO HELP 'EM OR THEIR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS OR THEIR SAME AGE.
AND IT'S DIFFICULT FOR THEM SOMETIMES TO, TO DO SOME MINOR THINGS.
SO THE FIRST DEPARTMENT I WANNA RECOGNIZE IS OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
TWO OF MY SENIOR FRIENDS HAD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COME OUT TO ASSIST THEM WITH THEIR SMOKE DETECTORS AND THEY'RE BASICALLY IN NOT GOOD HEALTH.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT MEANT A LOT TO THEM AND I WANNA THANK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR DOING THAT.
WE SOMETIMES LOOK AT OUR PUBLIC WORKS AS, AH, THEY'RE JUST PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE FIRST RESPONDERS.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU, IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A WATER LEAK OR YOU SEE A SEWER OR A MAIN, UH, WATER PIPE BROKEN ON YOUR STREET, YOU REALIZE THEY ARE ALSO FIRST RESPONDERS.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK JARRET AND I DIDN'T GET THE LADY'S NAME THAT I CALLED, BUT I APPRECIATE THEM COMING OUT JAR COMING OUT AND HELPING ME.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO PROJECT ANYTHING UP THERE OR, UM, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED EARLIER, I SUPPOSE.
UM, IF NOT, I COULD JUST PASS IT AROUND.
DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST DO THAT? OKAY.
MAY I JUST, YOU CAN PASS THIS AROUND.
I LIVE AT 35 34 WOODLAWN FARMS IN SHIRTS.
AND I, I'VE BEEN WRITING A FEW EMAILS TO YOU BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
UH, LAST MARCH WAS A ZONING COMMISSION HEARING, UH, FOR A LARGE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DUE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF IRISH CREEK AND SAVANNAH.
THANK GOD IT WAS TOO CONGESTED.
WE'RE FACING ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THERE.
UM, WHICH ACTUALLY IS NOT BAD.
I, UH, SAW THE DRAWING BACK ON DECEMBER 4TH, BUT THE PROBLEM REMAINS THE INTERSECTION OF SAVANNAH AND IRISH CREEK.
AND I JUST, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO SOLVE THAT GORE POINT WHERE, UM, WHERE IT WOULD COME OUT AT, UH, IT, IT WOULD BE FINE IF WE COULD JUST DO THAT.
IT'S BECAUSE THE CITY MANDATED THAT WHEN THE BUILDERS BUILT KENSINGTON RANCH.
THAT'S WHY THE ROAD CURVES THAT WAY.
SO WITH THE OUTLET THERE, UH, WITH CURVES ON BOTH BLANK CURVES ON BOTH SIDES, TO HAVE THAT AS AN OUTLET IS JUST NOT SAFE, EVEN FOR THE POOR PEOPLE THAT WILL BE IN PHASE ONE OF THIS DRAWING I I GAVE TO, IT'S NOT VERY GOOD.
I HAD TO PUT IT TOGETHER WITH MY COMPUTER, UH, BECAUSE UNIVERSAL CITY, UH, WILL HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT BUTTS
[00:25:01]
RIGHT UP NEXT TO IT.BUT MY SUGGESTION WAS SIMPLY TO, UM, FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I'M WITHIN THE 200 FEET, UH, IF THERE WAS A WAY TO MAKE AN EEM THAT EMERGENCY, UH, EXIT ENTRANCE THERE ONLY, AND THEN PROVIDE THE ROAD THAT WAS IN AN ORIGINAL DRAWING, IT'S NOT IN THIS ONE.
THE ORIGINAL DRAWING HAD A ROAD THAT WENT ALONG DETS CREEK TO, UH, TO MASSIE AND THEN IT, IT WOULD BE MUCH SAFER FOR THE PEOPLE INSIDE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WOULD HAVE SERVICES EASIER BECAUSE OF THAT OPENING.
BUT EVEN WHAT I'M SUGGESTING FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE, I UNDERSTAND YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT LIGHTS, BLINKING LIGHTS THAT STOP TRAFFIC ON EACH SIDE OF THAT.
BUT I THINK PEOPLE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONSIDER THAT AND MAYBE ACCEPT IT AS SAFER THAN THE, WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT DRAWING THERE WHERE THERE COULD BE HUNDREDS OF CARS FEED RIGHT BACK THROUGH SAVANNAH AND IRISH CREEK.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IF IT'S STILL CORRECT, IS YOU CANNOT PUT A LIGHT THERE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE BLIND CURVES.
SO I JUST WANTED, I WISH I COULD STAY FOR THE OUTCOME.
THAT'S WHY I'M SPEAKING NOW INSTEAD OF WHEN YOU GET TO NUMBER SEVEN.
'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
UM, BUT I JUST, IF THERE'S A WAY I WOULD EVEN TELL THE BUILDER THE WAY THINGS WERE LEFT AT THE ZONING MEETING, MAYBE IT WAS A NICE DRAWING.
IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THAT INTERSECTION THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROBLEM, CHILD.
AND IF THERE'S A WAY TO COME TOGETHER SO EVERYBODY WINS, I THINK MY NEIGHBORS, WE'D ALL BE VERY HAPPY.
SO I JUST ASK YOU CONSIDER IT.
YOU CAN JUST KEEP THE DRAWING.
I THINK I SENT IT TO ALL OF YOU, BUT SORRY.
THAT'S IT ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT? YES.
[ Consent Agenda Items The Consent Agenda is considered self-explanatory and will be enacted by the Council with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless they are removed from the Consent Agenda upon the request of the Mayor or a Councilmember.]
ARE CONSIDERED SELF-EXPLANATORY.INFORMATION PACKETS ARE PROVIDED TO COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING.
THESE ITEMS REQUIRE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, RESOLUTION NUMBER 24 R 1 43.
AND ITEM NUMBER THREE, RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 R 0 0 1.
COUNSEL, DO ANY OF THESE NEED TO BE REMOVED FOR SEPARATE ACTION? YES.
OKAY, WE ARE REMOVING ITEM THREE.
WE WILL HAVE THAT FOR DISCUSSION.
COUNSEL, ANY OTHERS? DO I HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.
SECOND BY MAYOR PROTON WESTBROOK.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
WE'LL START WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.
UH, THE ELECTRONICS IS NOT WORKING.
[3. Resolution 25-R-001 - Authorizing the EMS, Utility Billing, Schertz Magazine, and Library debt revenue adjustments. (S.Gonzalez/J.Walters)]
TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 R 0 0 1 AUTHORIZING THE EMS UTILITY BUILDING MA UH, SHIRTS, MAGAZINE AND LIBRARY DEBT REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS.
AND IS MR. WALTERS HERE TO PROVIDE THE, I THINK, I THINK SARAH IS GONNA TAKE.
OH, UM, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE GONNA MAKE A PRESENTATION OR NOT, SIR.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, SIR.
LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION IN, IN OUR, UH, OUR PACKET, UM, THE MAGAZINE HAS A WRITE OFF OF LIKE $2,600.
I HAD THOUGHT IN THE PAST THAT WE HAD IMPLEMENTED SOME KIND OF PROCESS OR PROCEDURE TO ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR WRITE-OFFS.
I'M, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS FROM PEOPLE ADVERTISING.
SO, AND YES, LINDA'S HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
UM, AND SO IN OUR, IN OUR MAGAZINE AND MM-HMM
I, I THOUGHT IN OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WE HAD SAID, WELL, IF THEY'RE ADVERTISING, IF THEY WANT TO ADVERTISE IN OUR MAGAZINE, WHY WOULD WE LET THEM ADVERTISE AND THEN SEND THEM A BILL THAT COULD RESULT IN A POTENTIAL WRITE OFF WHEN WE SHOULD.
I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THE, THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PAY FOR IT AND THEN WE WOULD RUN OUR ADS THEN AND THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A NEED FOR A, FOR A WRITE OFF.
SO WE HAD DISCUSSED MOVING MORE TOWARDS CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS.
SO IF WE HAD CREDIT CARDS ON FILE, WE'D BE RUNNING THOSE AND, AND, AND HOPEFULLY, UH, MITIGATE SOME OF THAT.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A WRITE OFF FOR THE MAGAZINE IN SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS.
THIS PARTICULAR WRITE OFF IS ONE ACCOUNT AND IT'S TWO ADS.
SO IT HAPPENED TO BE FULL PAGE ADS.
[00:30:01]
AN ADVERTISER WITH US GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2021 AND WE'D HAD NO ISSUES.UM, I AM NOT SURE IF THE COMPANY WENT OUTTA BUSINESS, BUT WE RAN ONE AD IN APRIL.
WE SENT THEM THE INVOICE ON THE FIRST OF THE MONTH.
DURING THAT MONTH WE'RE PREPARING FOR THE FOLLOWING MONTH.
SO THEY ENDED UP GETTING RUN IN MAY.
HOWEVER, THEY NEVER MADE PAYMENT FOR APRIL AND THEN THEY NEVER MADE PAYMENT FOR MAY.
WE PULLED THEM FOR JUNE AND THEN WE STARTED THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO COLLECT.
WE HAVE NEVER HEARD BACK FROM THEM.
SO UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CLIENT AND THEN WE NEVER HEARD FROM THEM AGAIN.
IT, IT JUST CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, I, I KNOW WE HAD NOT HAD A WRITE-OFF FOR THE MAGAZINE FOR LIKE, EVER.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT POPPED UP AGAIN.
THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.
COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 R ONE R 0 0 1.
DO I HAVE, WE HAVE MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS AND SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALRIGHT, WE'LL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM
[4. Resolution 25-R-006 - Articulating the City of Schertz' position on potential truck bypass routes on FM 2252. (S.Williams/B.James)]
NUMBER FOUR.ARTICULATING THE CITY OF SHIRTS POSITION ON POTENTIAL TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE ON FM 2252.
BRIAN JAMES, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.
AS THE STAFF REPORT LAYS OUT, UH, PERIODICALLY, WE DEAL WITH, UH, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES THAT ARE BIGGER THAN THE CITY.
THEY, THEY HAPPEN ON A REGIONAL BASIS AND IN THIS CASE, IN WORKING WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS FROM GARDEN RIDGE, THEY HAVE CONCERN AND ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE TRUCKS USING FM 2252.
WE CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.
WE CERTAINLY WOULD CONCUR WITH SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
UM, AND CERTAINLY THE CITY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME AREAS WHERE WE CAN WITH TRUCK ROUTE AND TRUCK TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
UH, BUT IN PARTICULAR THIS, THE, THE SORT OF INITIAL EFFORT WAS TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE A TRUCK BYPASS ROUTE THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW TRUCKS CON TO CONTINUE TO TAKE THAT DIRECT ROUTE.
ESSENTIALLY, UH, FROM FM 1377 OR 1337, WHERE IT CHANGES TO 2252 ALL THE WAY TO 3 0 0 9.
UH, ESSENTIALLY THE IDEA WOULD BE HAVE TRUCKS HAVE TO TAKE THE SPUR OF 2252, WHICH GOES DOWN TOWARD 35, WHERE 4 82 COMES IN BY FIRE STATION TWO.
UM, TO AVOID ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC OR, OR REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC TAKEN 2252 KIND OF BY GARDEN RIDGE FM 3 0 0 9.
UH, I THINK AS STAFF HAS MET WITH FOLKS THERE, UH, OUR POSITION HAS BEEN WE CAN APPRECIATE THE PROBLEM.
WE'RE CERTAINLY WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU ON A REGIONAL BASIS.
HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT, STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF PUSHING FOR A TRUCK ROUTE OR EVEN ENCOURAGING BUSINESSES TO ALTER THEIR TRAFFIC PATTERN UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS.
ESSENTIALLY, WE NEED TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY TO SAY, IF THIS WERE DONE, WHERE DO ALL THOSE TRUCKS GO? AND LIKELY WHAT IT WOULD DO IS PUSH A LOT MORE TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGH THE CITY OF SHIRTS ON ROADS THAT ARE NOT, UH, DON'T HAVE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE IT.
PARTICULARLY SENDING THEM DOWN BY WHERE 4 82 COMES INTO SPUR OF 2252, WHERE FIRE STATION TWO IS POTENTIALLY CREATING SOME TRAFFIC ISSUE THERE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU WAS SIMPLY TO GET COUNCIL'S CONCURRENCE WITH THAT SO THAT IT WASN'T SAYING STAFF, OUR POSITION IS THIS.
DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCIL THINKS IT WAS TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OUR COUNCIL CONCURS, WE WANNA WORK REGIONALLY WITH YOU.
WE WANNA SUPPORT FUND AND SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS. HOWEVER, UNTIL WE HAVE DATA, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF PUSHING, UH, TO ALTER THE CURRENT TRAFFIC PATTERNS TILL WE UNDERSTAND THOSE IMPLICATIONS.
IN PARTICULAR, THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, UM, STAFF WENT TO WITH TDOT, UH, FOLKS FROM THE ALAMO AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, UH, THERE WERE, UH, WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE INVITATIONS SENT TO STATE REPS AND STATE SENATORS OFFICES AS WELL AS, UH, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO BEFORE THIS EFFORT GREW TOO FAR, UH, WE WANTED TO GET THAT CONCURRENCE WITH COUNCIL.
SO AGAIN, LIKE THE RESOLUTION REFLECTS THAT WE WANNA WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH FOLKS, WE JUST NEED TO DO IT IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY GOING FORWARD.
I WILL POINT OUT THERE WAS A TYPO IN THE RESOLUTION IN THE PACKET.
A CORRECTED VERSION IS SENT TO THE CITY SECRETARY, AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT'S, WHAT WOULD BE SIGNED.
SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
JUST FOR CLARITY, OUR CITY'S POSITION IS NOT IN FAVOR OF REROUTING IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION.
IF I'M, IT'S IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR UNTIL WE HAVE DATA TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY
[00:35:01]
CHANGES OR PROMOTING CHANGES TO TRUCK TRAFFIC.SO IF THE COUNCIL VOTES IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION MM-HMM
THEN IT LETS US SAY SHIRTS IS NOT IN FAVOR OF CHANGING TRAFFIC PATTERNS.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S, IT'S CLEAR.
NOW, BEFORE, BEFORE WE GO IN, I, YES SIR.
OPEN IT UP FOR THE REST OF THE COUNCIL HERE.
HOW MANY RESIDENTS LIVE ON 2252 IN GARDEN RIDGE? THAT THEY BROUGHT THIS UP TO OUR ATTENTION.
SO, SO IT WAS NOT RESIDENT NESSER WHO LIVE ON GARDEN RIDGE.
IT WAS A COUNCIL PERSON IN GARDEN RIDGE WHO BROUGHT IT UP.
AGAIN, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE GARDEN RIDGE COUNCIL.
I DON'T THINK THEIR COUNCIL HAS TAKEN IT UP.
UM, SO WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM RESIDENTS PER SE.
UM, AGAIN, LEMME BE CLEAR, WE DON'T DISAGREE THAT WE HAVE CHALLENGES WITH TRUCK TRAFFIC THROUGHOUT THE AREA, BUT AGAIN, AS YOU OFTEN HEAR, THOSE ARE BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEY EMPLOY FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEY PROVIDE A, UM, A RESOURCE THAT WE NEED IN TERMS OF CONCRETE ASPHALT, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE RELY ON FOR OUR PROJECTS.
AND SO WE NEED TO REALLY, I THINK SHORT DISPOSITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN HOW DO WE THEN WORK WITH FOLKS TO FIND APPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS TO SEEK FUNDING FOR THINGS THAT WE NEED AND HAVE EVERYONE TO CONTRIBUTE.
UM, WE TEND TO HAVE, UH, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS A VERY COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO DEALING WITH PROBLEMS. UM, AND, AND THAT INCLUDES WORKING WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES ABOUT HOW WE MANAGE OUR REGIONAL TRAFFIC.
AND SO WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING HERE, WELL, SOME MAY FEEL THIS SOLVES THEIR IMMEDIATE PROBLEM, WE THINK IT WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS FOR US.
AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM THE RIGHT WAY TO APPROACH IT.
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, DO WE ANTICIPATE ANY, ANY PROBLEMS WITH GETTING EITHER AM O OR TXDOT TO DO SOME UPDATED STUDIES IN THAT AREA WITH REGARDS TO, UH, TRAFFIC IN GENERAL AS WELL AS HEAVY DUTY FREIGHT TRAFFIC? RIGHT.
SO WHAT AMPO HAS INDICATED OF THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM AMPO INDICATED, AND AGAIN, THEY HAVE A BOARD AS WELL THEY HAVE TO GO TO FOR THESE THINGS, IS THAT THEY ARE IN PROCESS OF DOING SORT OF A REGIONAL FREIGHT STUDY.
UH, THIS AREA HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN IT, BUT THEY SEEM FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT IF THEY WENT BACK, GIVEN THE STATUS OF THAT, THEY COULD GET THIS INCLUDED IN THAT REGIONAL FREIGHT STUDY WOULD GIVE US SOME INFORMATION.
TDOT'S CERTAINLY BEEN A GOOD PARTNER FOR US.
THEY WERE A PARTNER IN THIS MEETING.
UM, BUT AGAIN, DIDN'T COMMIT AT THIS POINT TO DOING A STUDY.
OFTEN THERE'S A MATCH REQUIRED.
AGAIN, IT, IT WOULD SEEM ALSO THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AFFECTED WOULD, WOULD KICK IN.
AND SO, UM, I THINK SHIRTS HAS CONTINUED TO PROMOTE.
WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED OUR MATCH MONEY FOR PROJECTS AND STUDIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
15, 18, 11 0 3, UH, WHERE WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE, AGAIN, AS YOU MAY KNOW, EVEN THINGS LIKE WHERE, UM, ON 78 WITH THE, THE BATCH PLANT, WE HAD A SPILL OF SOME CONCRETE.
WE SENT OUR STREET SWEEPER OUT THERE TO GET IT BEFORE IT HARDENED.
SO WE, WE ARE GOOD PARTNERS WITH THEM.
UH, THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO DOING IT YET.
THESE ARE VERY PRELIMINARY STAGES WHERE I THINK EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, GOING FORWARD.
SO AMPO HAS SAID THEY THINK THEY CAN GET IT INCLUDED.
TXDOT HASN'T COMMITTED YET, BUT WEREN'T PRESSED PARTICULARLY FOR THAT, UH, PER SE.
NO OTHER COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST, UM, NOT IN FAVOR OF ALL THE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH OUR CITY STREET.
I MEAN, IF THEY NEED TO GO TO 1604, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME DOWN 2252, HIT I 35 AND GO ALL THE WAY AROUND TO, UH, FM, UH, 1604.
OR EVEN IF THEY, THEY CAN'T JUST GO STRAIGHT THROUGH, UH, THROUGH NAOC AND HIT THIS, UH, 1604, ALL THE TRAFFIC WILL BE RALLIED THROUGH OUR CITY.
IT WOULD, UH, I, I SYMPATHIZE WITH WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT THEN AGAIN, IT PUTS A BURDEN ON OUR, OUR CITY.
UH, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT STAFF'S POSITION HAD BEEN.
AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK PART OF WHAT WE WOULD LOOK FOR IS A MORE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THESE BUSINESSES, THE EMPLOYEE PEOPLE, THEY PROVIDE A GOOD THAT WE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THEY PROBABLY STRUGGLE JUST AS MUCH WITH TRANSPORTATION ISSUES AND SLOW TRAFFIC AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I KNOW JOHN NOAC, WHO SPEAKS FOR YOU A LOT, HE'S LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE OF HOW COULD WE FIND AN APPROPRIATE ROUTE? AND THEN PART OF IT IS IF YOU FIND A BETTER SOLUTION, HOW DO WE FUND THAT AND DO THAT AND TO HAVE IT IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN CREATE A WIN-WIN SITUATION AS OPPOSED TO, AGAIN, UH, TO BE BLUNT, UM, SOLVING ONE COMMUNITY'S PROBLEM AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.
THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY THE INTENT HERE.
UH, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS ARE AWARE OF THAT AND THINK IT THROUGH.
AND SO IT WOULD HELP STAFF TO HAVE THAT BACKING OF COUNSEL.
OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE MOTION
[00:40:01]
TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 R 0 0 6.I HAVE MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND WE'LL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.
[5. Resolution 25-R-005 Approving a Utility Service Extension Request for the Woman Hollering Townhomes (B.James/K.Woodlee)]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE.RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 R 0 0 5 APPROVING A UTILITY SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR WOM WOMEN HOLLERING TOWN HOMES.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
UM, THIS IS KIND OF A NEW ITEM.
IT'S A NEW, NEW PROCESS, NEW RULE.
UM, SO TRYING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UH, ABOUT IT.
UH, IN THE PAST IT WAS FAIRLY COMMON PRACTICE THAT IF A PROPERTY WAS TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE ETJ AND THEY WANTED TO TIE ON TO CITY UTILITIES, WATER, OR WASTEWATER, WE WOULD SAY, THAT'S FINE.
UH, YOU CAN ANNEX INTO THE CITY AND THEN WE'LL BE HAPPY TO SERVE YOU.
HOWEVER, UM, THAT RULE CHANGED WITH THE STATE AND WE DID, UM, YOU ALL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE LAST YEAR, UM, TO CHANGE THAT UP AND BASICALLY SAY, WELL, RIGHT, WE CAN'T FORCE YOU TO ANNEX IF YOU'RE ALREADY IN OUR CCN, WE, WE ARE OBLIGATED TO SERVE, BUT WE NEED TO CHECK INTO THIS.
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A, UM, A MECHANISM TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UH, AN APPROPRIATE, UM, SERVICE OR EXTENSION OF SERVICE.
AND, UH, CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT, UH, THE APPROVAL OF THAT EXTENSION REQUEST.
UM, SO THIS PROPERTY IS, UH, APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES.
IT IS, UH, IN THE ETJ IN THAT KIND OF DONUT HOLE AREA.
THERE'S WOMAN HOLLERING, UH, ROAD, AND THEN THERE'S, UH, SOME TRACKS CLOSE BY TO THAT, THAT'S ABOUT 30 ACRES.
AND A DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING, UM, A MULTIFAMILY OR TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S, IT'S, THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY TITLED WOMAN HOLLERING TOWN HOMES.
THERE'S NOT SPECIFICALLY A PLAN FOR IT AT THIS POINT, BUT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ZONING AUTHORITY.
THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE PLATING AUTHORITY OVER IT, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TIE ON TO OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER.
UH, SO WE DID GO THROUGH A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT CAPACITIES AND TIE IN LOCATIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
AND, UH, THEY DO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA THAT SET FORTH IN THE NEW ORDINANCE.
UH, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU APPROVE THE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS SINCE THIS IS KIND OF A, A NEW, UM, SITUATION THAT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD, UH, SIMILAR REQUEST BEFORE OF REGARDING CAPACITY YES.
WOULD THAT OFFSET SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS? SO WE, THAT, THIS IS WHY THIS TOOK QUITE A WHILE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEVELOPER, UM, TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS CAPACITY.
UM, WE DID LOOK AT THE WHOLE SEWER SHED THAT WOULD TIE INTO THE SAME LOCATION WHERE THIS IS TYING INTO TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS STILL CAPACITY FOR THE SEWER SHED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS TO TIE IN.
UM, THE ONE CAVEAT BEING WE CAN'T PREDICT WITH A HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURACY WHAT WILL POTENTIALLY DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
IF 12 PROJECTS CAME IN AND THEY WERE ALL MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS, THERE MAY NEED TO BE AN UPSIZE IN THE FUTURE AT THE TIME FOR, FOR WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT MIGHT COME IN.
BUT THAT BEING SAID, CURRENTLY LOOKING AT POTENTIAL ZONING BASED ON THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN, THERE IS CAPACITY FOR THE AREA THAT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS.
THERE IS CAPACITY CURRENTLY, YES.
YOU KNOW, UM, WE DO HOLD THE CCNS FOR THOSE AREAS SO WE ARE OBLIGATED TO SERVE.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THIS IS A STATE MANDATE THAT JUST MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US NOT TO SAY NO.
WHEN IN FACT WE'RE, UH, THE STATE HAS BASICALLY PUT THE OBLIGATION ON US TO SAY YES.
ALTHOUGH THEY'RE STILL PAY FOR THE, FOR THE UTILITIES AND THE PROCESSING AND ALL THAT, THEY ARE NOT GONNA PAY ANY CITY PROPERTY TAX AT ALL.
AND MAYBE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION I WANNA ADD AND SEE IF KATHY, YOU AGREE OR I MISSPEAK, IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CAPACITY, WE USE THE TERM DIFFERENTLY.
WHEN THE CITY STAFF THINKS, DO WE HAVE CAPACITY? IT'S CAN WE ACCOMMODATE YOUR FLOWS AND GET THEM TO WHERE THEY KNOW NEED TO GO TO BE TREATED? AND WE CAN, BUT AS WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT, THEY OFTEN HAVE TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
THE ISSUE HERE WAS WHAT ROUTE THEY WENT TO GET INTO THE LINE THAT
[00:45:01]
THEY NEEDED TO GET INTO TO BE TREATED WAS REALLY THE ISSUE THAT TOOK A WHILE.NOT THAT WE DON'T, IN THE SENSE WE MEAN THEY HAVE CAPACITY, IT'S JUST ROUTE THEY HAVE TO GO, UH, TO GET THERE.
IS THAT FAIR? SO TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, THERE'S A PREFERRED ROUTE FOR THEM TO TAKE THAT WOULD, UH, FREE UP ADDITIONAL CAPACITY THAT WOULD PROVIDE MORE OF A BUFFER FOR US FOR THE FUTURE IN PARTICULAR LINES IN, IN A, A SEGMENT OF LINE.
SO TO BE CLEAR, I THINK REALLY IN THIS CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAPACITY AND ALIGN THE ROUTE TO GET THERE.
NOT THE LARGE BROADER SENSE OF CAPACITY, OVERALL CAPACITY IN OUR SYSTEM.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE NO OPTION, BUT IF WE SAY NO TO THIS RESOLUTION, WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE THERE? I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING WE HAVE TO SAY YES, BUT THIS COUNCIL COULD SAY NO AT ON THIS RESOLUTION.
YEAH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SAY NO ON THE RESOLUTION.
THEY'LL PETITION TO BE RELEASED FROM YOUR CCN, I MEAN, OR YOU KNOW, YOU COULD, UH, THE, UH, PUC COULD, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT TO YOU AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS IN YOUR CCN, YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO SERVE.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
UH, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY ARE IN YOUR, WELL, WE CAN SEND A MESSAGE BY SAYING NO, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE ALL THESE OTHER DEVELOPERS ON OUR, ON OUR, UH, SO THE CAVEAT, I THINK, MAYOR, I, I APPRECIATE THE FRUSTRATION AND DON'T GET ME WRONG.
STAFF SHARES THIS FRUSTRATION AND WHAT WE DO ALL THE TIME, AS DAN SAID, YOU KNOW, IN THEORY THEY PETITION TO BE RELEASED AND THEN WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY DO TO START ACCOMMODATING THEIR SEWAGE.
AND THAT'S NOT AS GOOD A SOLUTION AS HAVING THEM TIE INTO OUR SYSTEM TO, TO BE BLUNT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CONCERN IS THAT BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
'CAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY DO, WHAT ROUTE THEY GO AGAIN, WHAT ISSUES WE CREATE WITH THE PUC SAYING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE CAPACITY FOR THE AREAS WITHIN YOUR CCN? DOES THAT TRICKLE OUT AND CREATE ISSUES FURTHER OUT? AND SO AGAIN, I SHARE THE FRUSTRATION, WHICH I, IF I MAY, I BELIEVE WE HAVE WITH THE STATE FOR CHANGING THE ANNEXATION LAWS AND SAYING CITIES, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS TRAFFIC AND, AND FIRES THAT MAY OCCUR AND, AND ALL THE THINGS THAT GO WITH IT AND ACCOMMODATE SEWER AND WHATNOT.
AND YET YOU CAN'T ANNEX TO SHARE THAT FULL TAX BURDEN WITH THEM.
AGAIN, THESE FOLKS WILL PROBABLY COME TO CITY PARKS AND USE CITY PARKS, BUT THEY'RE NOT HELPING PAY FOR THAT.
WE AGREE WITH THAT FRUSTRATION.
IF THERE WERE A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS, WE WOULD RECOMMEND IT, BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY NOT SUGGEST YOU NOT OFFER SERVICE BECAUSE AS DAN SAID, IT WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE WHERE THEY COULD PETITION TO BE RELEASED AND THEN IT MAY BE A MUCH WORSE SITUATION.
AND WE STILL HAVE ALL THOSE IMPLICATIONS.
AND AT THIS POINT, THEY CERTAINLY WOULD, IF WE ARE PROVIDING SERVICE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEIR, THEIR SEWER BILL.
UM, AND THAT WAY HELPS SUPPORT OUR, OUR, UH, SYSTEM.
AND SO THEY DON'T GET A FREE RIDE.
AND DAN, JUST TO CLARIFY, DAN, IF THEY DID NOT PETITION TO BE RELEASED FROM OUR CCN, WE WOULD STILL HOLD THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT COMES WITH IT, RIGHT? YOU GET, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE SERVICE, BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
RIGHT? AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THAT OBLIGATION BECAUSE THEN WE LOSE THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
AND, AND IT'S BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, BUT I WE DON'T GET ME WRONG.
OH, WE APPRECIATE THE FRUSTRATION.
WE'VE HAD TIME TO SIMMER ON IT AND STEW ON IT AND VENT ON IT.
I I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S JUST THAT THE, UH, UH, STATE LEGISLATIVE, UH, PUT THE BURDEN ON ON THE CITIES WITH ET JS, UH, AND YEAH, THE ANNEXATION, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE, ARE TRYING TO, WE, WE AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY MM-HMM
AND WE'VE VENTED AND STEWED AND BEEN FRUSTRATED BY THAT.
I'LL OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL FOR QUESTIONS.
BUT I, I JUST CAN'T SEE SUPPORTING THIS.
I MEAN, THIS IS THE SAME THING WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH ALL THE, THE DELAYED ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND, AND NOW WE'VE GOT A PROPERTY OWNER THAT WANTS TO DO STUFF THAT IS PUTTING A BURDEN ON OUR CITY.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S JUST REGARDING THE WASTE CONNECTION, BUT, BUT LIKE YOU SAID,
[00:50:01]
THEY'RE PUTTING A BURDEN ON THE CITY.THEY'RE GONNA BE USING ALL KINDS OF CITY RESOURCES AND NOT PAY PROPERTY TAXES LIKE THE 43,000 OTHER PEOPLE DO IN THIS CITY TO GET POLICE FIRE, EMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
YOU KNOW? SO WE'RE GONNA BE ON THE HOOK FOR THIS.
THEY'RE GONNA ADD, THEY'RE GONNA ADD THESE FACILITIES, THEY'RE GONNA ADD THESE BUILDINGS, UH, AND JUST BASICALLY THEY'RE THUMBING THEIR NOSE TO THE CITY OF CHURCHS.
I MEAN, ME, I, I PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S WORTH PUSHING THE TEST BUTTON.
AND IF THEY WANNA FIGHT IT, THEN THEY CAN FIGHT IT.
THEY WANT TO TRY TO GET RELEASED.
BUT, BUT TO SIT THERE AND GO TO A COMMUNITY AND SAY, WE WANT ALL OF THESE SERVICES, BUT ALL THE, BUT WE JUST DON'T WANNA DO ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S, I I, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT MYSELF UNDER UNDERSTOOD.
AND AGAIN, MAYBE JUST NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU, BUT ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, WHILE WE TEND TO THINK OF OUR CITY LIMIT BOUNDARIES COINCIDING WITH OUR CCN BOUNDARIES, THEY, THEY DON'T.
AND, AND, AND SO IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S AN AREA THAT'S SURROUNDED BY THE CITY AS OPPOSED ON THE EDGE OF THE COMMU AS OPPOSED TO THE EDGE OF THE CITY.
UM, BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT JUST TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT THE ONLY AREA THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS ISSUE.
AGAIN, THERE'S, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CCN BOUNDARIES, UH, THAT COVERS A BIG AREA.
I MEAN, WE'VE GOT FOLKS IN THE CITY OF SHIRTS THAT ARE COVERED BY CCMA THAT ARE COVERED BY NBU, WITH THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE, WITH ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
I MEAN, I GET ALL THOSE BOUNDARIES, OKAY? BUT AGAIN, THIS, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT ON THE EDGE THAT UNDERSTOOD, YOU KNOW, THE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET'S GOT MBU, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, AND IN ONE DEVELOPMENT'S GOT GE THIS, THIS IS A, A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT ON THE NORTHEAST, SOUTH AND WEST IS SURROUNDED BY THE CITY OF CHURCH.
AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS ANNEXATION PROCESS TO BRING ALL THESE OTHER PARCELS IN.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT WANTS TO STAY IN NO MAN'S LAND AND NOT BE A PART OF THE CITY OF SHIRTS, BUT WANTS ALL THE BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SHIRTS.
SO AGAIN, I GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR ON A COUPLE THINGS AND THAT, THAT'S JUST GONNA CHANGE YOUR MIND.
WHEN 10, 12 YEARS AGO, WE DID NOT DO DELAYED ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THIS PROPERTY.
SO THIS WASN'T ONE WE INITIALLY ENTERED INTO.
THIS WAS WHEN WE CHOSE TO NOT ENTER IT INTO, ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES OFF WOMAN HOLLERING CREEK ROAD.
NOW THAT BEING SAID, THE PROPERTY OWNER DID COME IN AND THEY PETITIONED TO ANNEX, UM, AND CAME BEFORE YOU FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING.
UM, AND I, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK TO EMILY TO CHIME IN AS TO HOW FAR THAT MADE IT, BUT IT DID NOT LOOK LIKE IT WAS GOING WELL FOR THEM ON THE ZONING.
AND THAT WAS WHEN THEY PULLED IT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ZONING WAS DENIED, PER SE.
I THINK, I THINK IT, IT NEVER MADE IT SO NOT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE, WITH THE PROPERTY NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
WE GOTTA PROVIDE EMS SERVICES, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE FIRE.
THE PROTECTION IS BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
BUT, BUT STILL, UH, IT, IT DOES PUT A BURDEN ON OUR CITY.
AND I THINK THIS MESSAGE, IF, IF THE COUNCIL VOTES, NO, IT'S SENDING A MESSAGE TO OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT ARE TRYING TO DO THE SIMILAR THING, THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA JUST STAND BACK AND JUST SAY YES TO EVERYTHING.
UH, AND I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT THAT THE, UH, TO LET THIS COUNCIL DECIDE THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD OPTION FOR US.
AND LET THEM PUSH THE BOUNDARIES, LET THEM COME AND, AND LET THE PROCESS TAKE OVER AND NOT JUST LET IT SLIDE THROUGH OUR CITY COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.
I AM A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE CITY, THOUGH.
I MEAN, WHAT'S THE COST GONNA BE? WHAT'S THE, UH, THE TIME CONSUMPTION OF THE, OF THE STAFF, THE, UM, OUR, OUR, UH, LEGAL SIDE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW MUCH ARE WE GONNA BE CONSUMED ON THAT TO FIGHT, FIGHT A LOSING BATTLE, UH, WITH THE STATE? YOU KNOW? DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, INPUT THERE, DAN? SO, NO, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT, WHAT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD COST YOU.
UM, HAVING A CONTEST, THIS, IF WE HAVE TO GO TO THE PUC OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO, TO BE FAIR TO THE DEVELOPER, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE AN OPTION BUT TO COME TO YOU FOR SERVICE BECAUSE THEY'RE IN YOUR CCN.
SO THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER OPTION TO GO TO FOR SERVICE AT THIS MOMENT.
[00:55:01]
THEY'RE IN YOUR CCN, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IN YOUR CITY LIMITS.SO THEY HAD THE RIGHT NOT TO, UH, SEEK TO BE ANNEXED.
SO, UM, IF THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE COUNCIL, THEN, THEN REALLY WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT EVERYWHERE ELSE.
YOUR CCN GOES OUTSIDE YOUR BOUNDARIES.
BECAUSE IF THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, THAT YOU WANT TO BE PART OF, UH, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD, UH, REMIND THE COUNCIL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE SETTLED A, A CASE WITH GREEN VALLEY AND TOOK IN ADDITIONAL CC N AND GAVE UP CC INTO THEM.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ALL WITHIN YOUR CITY AT THIS MOMENT, OR NOT WITHIN YOUR CITY AT THIS MOMENT EITHER.
UM, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS WAS PART OF ANY OF THAT WASN'T, UH, BUT THERE'S OTHER PORTIONS THAT ARE DOWN IN THIS AREA THAT I KNOW WERE SO, AND THAT WAS A LOT OF TIME OVER A LOT A LONG TIME AND A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAS SPENT ON THAT AS WELL.
SO, YEAH, I, I, LIKE I SAID, I JUST HATE TO SEE US GET CAUGHT UP IN SOMETHING IN, IN A LEGAL BATTLE THAT'S GONNA COST US TIME AND MONEY, UH, TO, TO MAKE A POINT.
AND, AND, AND IF I MAY, CERTAINLY WHAT COUNSEL COULD DO IS NOT ACT ON THIS ITEM AT THIS MEETING, NOT MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND HAVE STAFF GO BACK AND TRY TO MORE FULLY FLESH OUT WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE.
NOW AGAIN, YOU, YOU MAY FEEL PRETTY SOLID WHERE YOU ARE, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE, IS PUSH THIS BACK A MEETING AND HAVE STAFF COME BACK, UM, WITH A MORE COMPLETE, UM, ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE THINK MIGHT BE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT AND HOW THEY MIGHT GET SERVICE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, I MAY ASK, YOU KNOW, IS IS THERE A WAY TO, UH, PRICE IT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, UH, CCN ACCESS, UH, OR UH, CONNECTION ACCESS TO ALL THESE THINGS OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, HAVE A PRICING DIFFERENTIAL OR SOMETHING THERE THAT HELP MAKE UP OR SOME OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THE RATES ARE DIFFERENT.
THE RATE, THERE'S A DIFFERENT RATE MM-HMM
ALREADY, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE AND WOULD CONTINUE TO DO, IS THE RATE SET BY THE CITY COUNCIL? IT IS, BUT WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A HIGHER RATE IF WE WERE, YEAH.
COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WITH SETTLING WITH GB SUD AND I WAS PART OF THAT MEDIATION THING THAT WENT, THAT WAS A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF TIME.
AND TO ME, I'M LIKE, THE STATE TOOK OUR ABILITY AWAY PRETTY MUCH BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE CCN WITH THE NEW LAW.
AND SO MY QUESTION WILL BECOME, EVEN IF WE SAID NO, THE IMPLICATIONS OF, AND WE STILL LOSE, SO IS IT WORTH SENDING A MESSAGE KNOWING WE'RE STILL GONNA LOSE BECAUSE A PUC COULD COME BACK AND GO, AH, AH, AH, YOU STILL HAVE TO DO THIS.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY COULD DO THAT, 'CAUSE I, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THEM FULLY, BUT COULD THEY GO IN AND THEN TRY TO CREATE A MUD? I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHAT STAFF WANTS TO FULLY SORT OF UNDERSTAND, RIGHT? BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL LIKELY DO IS GO TO THE PUC AND SAY, LOOK, I, I'M IN THE CITY OF SHIRTS.
AT WHATEVER POINT IN TIME THEY CHOSE TO BRING THIS AREA IN THEIR CC N AT THE TIME WE WEREN'T IN THE CITY LIMITS.
THEY KNEW THAT THEY, THEY KNOW HOW THINGS WORK, WHETHER STATE LAW CHANGED OR NOT, RIGHT? SO THEY CHOSE TO SAY, WE WILL TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
WE'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN AND WE HAVE TO DO IT.
AND THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR MIND.
AND SO THEN THE, AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS? IS IT A MUD, IS IT THE PROPERTY OWNER GOING TO THE PC GOING, LOOK, IT'S NOT VIABLE FOR YOU JUST TO LET US GO TO SOMEBODY ELSE BECAUSE THE COST OF GETTING THERE, YOU NEED TO TAKE THIS WHOLE BIG SWATH, GIVE THAT OVER TO, TO GREEN VALLEY OR WHOMEVER OR MUD OR WHATEVER IT IS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE, AGAIN, IF YOU'D LIKE US TO EXPLORE AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN, WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO.
UM, BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND IT MAY.
BECAUSE WITH A MUD YOU HAVE, WE STILL THERE, YOU, YOU LOSE CONTROL AND THEN THEY CAN BE, YOU KNOW, TALKING WITH SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE MUDS.
THEY, ONCE THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE IN AND THERE'S NO GETTING OUT OF THAT.
WELL, A MUD WOULD JUST BE A FINANCING MECHANISM, RIGHT.
INSTALL FOR THEM TO DO INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THERE.
SO COULD THEY THEN GO TO THE PUC AND SAY, WE WANT TO CREATE A MUD AND THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY FINANCING TO DO THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I SUPPOSE THEY COULD PETITION TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE, THE CCN OR RELEASE FROM OUR CCN INFORM THEIR OWN, OR JUST CREATE THEIR OWN MUD DISTRICT.
IT'S KIND OF TOO SMALL FOR THAT.
[01:00:01]
DON'T, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINK COULD MAKE IT WORK FINANCIALLY TO CREATE A MUD.BECAUSE I, I'M JUST, LIKE I SAID, SINCE WE DON'T DO THAT, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE ON A MUD.
SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.
AND I, I THINK TO STEVE'S POINT, THAT'S WHERE WE'D BE CONCERNED THAT THE ARGUMENT, HEY, THIS IS TOO SMALL TO DO A MUD, RIGHT? IT'S JUST OUR PROPERTY.
THUS, TO MAKE IT VIABLE, WE NEED TO REALLY IT MORE LARGELY IF SHIRTZ IS NOT GOING TO PROVIDE SERVICE.
BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO SCARE, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND REALLY SPEND SOME TIME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOST VIABLE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ARE.
WHAT TIME, WHAT KIND OF TIME CONSTRAINTS DO WE HAVE HERE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM TO DELAY IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
AGAIN, IF WE NEED ONE MORE, WE'RE PROBABLY OKAY WITH THAT.
SO MY THOUGHT WOULD BE, IS THAT THAT'S RIGHT.
YOU WANT TO GO PUSH TO THE NEXT MEETING? SEE IF WE CAN COME BACK? I WOULD THINK SO.
WELL, YOU KNOW, THE NORTHEAST PARTNERSHIP HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE, AND WE HAVE SPOKE TO OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND STATE SENATORS REGARDING THE LOSING CONTROL OF SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE ISSUES.
SO, UM, IT WILL GIVE US TIME SO THAT WE CAN GET, YOU KNOW, GET THEIR ATTENTION TO REVERSE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT THEY, THOSE MANDATES THEY PUT ON US.
I DO RECOMMEND THAT WE POSTPONE THIS.
UM, DO I HAVE A CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL TO POSTPONE IT? MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS TO TABLE IT AND SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WATSON.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE VOTE COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.
WE'LL TABLE IT AND IF YOU CAN BRING IT UP, UH, TO OUR NEXT MEETING.
[6. Ordinance 25-S-002 – Conduct a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately 85 acres of land, from Agricultural District (AD) to approximately 30 acres as Single-Family Residential District (R-6) and approximately 55 acres as Single-Family Residential District (R-2), generally located 2,000 feet North of the intersection of Weir Road and Trainer Hale Road, more specifically known as Bexar County Property Identification Numbers 310048 and 1190132, City of Schertz, Bexar County, Texas. (B.James/L.Wood/D.Marquez)]
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.UH, FIRST IS, UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX, ORDINANCE NUMBER 25 S 0 0 2.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 85 ACRES OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R SIX AND APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
R TWOS LOCATED 2000 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF WHEEL ROAD AND TRAINER HILL ROAD, MORE SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS BEXAR COUNTY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 3 1 0 0 4 8 AND 1 1 9 0 1 3 2.
CITY OF ASSURES BEAR COUNTY, TEXAS.
GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL MAYOR MR. WILLIAMS ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 2.
A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO R TWO AND R SIX ALONG WE ROAD.
HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW.
IT IS LOCATED ALONG WEIR ROAD.
I 10 IS FURTHER DOWN SOUTH AND THIS IS THAT BEND WHERE THAT ROAD TURNS INTO TRAINER HILL.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 85 ACRES.
IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND IT MAY LOOK FAMILIAR 'CAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE RECENT ANNEXATIONS THAT HAPPENED TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S A LARGE PARCEL ZONED PRE-DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
OVER HERE TO THE LEFT WE HAVE THE STERLING GROVE PDD THAT IS STILL UNDEVELOPED.
AND THEN TO THE RIGHT WE HAVE REAR ROAD AND OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE STILL WITHIN THE ETJ AND TO THE SOUTH.
WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT STILL HAS AGRICULTURAL USES AND IS ZONED EIGHT D.
SO WE SENT OUT 11 PUBLIC NOTICES IN NOVEMBER AND WE RECEIVED THREE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
AND A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS AND TWO SIGNS WERE PLACED ALONG WEIR ROAD BY THE APPLICANT.
SO KIND OF JUST SHOWING YOU HOW THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A BREAKDOWN OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING 54 ACRES AS R TWO AS SEEN HERE, AND 30 ACRES AS R SIX.
AND AGAIN, THAT 30 ACRES IS BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE FOR A TRACT OF R SIX IS 30 ACRES.
AND HERE IS THE EXISTING AD ZONING COMPARED TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
AGAIN, SOME OF THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES ARE THE WIDTH AND DEPTHS, UM, FOR EACH REQUIRED ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THE EXISTING A DL UM, REQUIRES A HUNDRED BY A HUNDRED LOTS AND HALF ACRES, WHEREAS THE R TWO ARE 70 BY ONE 20 LOTS WITH 8,400 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN R SIX IS 60 BY ONE 20 WITH 7,200 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHEN STAFF EVALUATES ZONE CHANGES, WE LOOK TO UDC SECTION 21 5 11 D FOR THE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.
UH, ONE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IMPLEMENTS THE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN.
SO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN HAS THIS SUBJECT PARCEL DESIGNATED AS COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD IS INTENDED FOR A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL USES, UM, ACCOMPANYING COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TYPE OF USES.
[01:05:01]
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT WHEN PEOPLE ARE PROPOSING ZONE CHANGES TO LOOK TO, LOOKING AT THE ROADS, IF THE ROADS CAN HANDLE THAT CAPACITY COMPATIBLE LAND USES AND LOOKING WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.SO STAFF SEES THE PROPOSED R SIX AND R TWO WITHIN THE SAME DEVELOPMENT AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN.
SO TWO, UM, AS PART OF PROMOTING HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, UH, THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE TR DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND UTILIZING STANDARDS AND TRADITIONAL USES.
SO STAFF SEES THE R SIX AND R TWO S ACTING AS A TRANSITIONAL USE TO THE EXISTING UNDEVELOPED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND IT WOULD KIND OF BE ONE OF THE FIRST PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THAT AREA.
SO THREE, THE PROPOSED R TWO AND R SIX ARE APPROPRIATE.
UM, IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA, AGAIN, THE MAXIMUM TRACK THAT AN R SIX TRACK CAN BE IS 30 ACRES AND WE SEE IT AS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE R SIX AND R TWO ARE INTENDED FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, KIND OF JUST STARTING TO CREATE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT IN THAT AREA.
SO IT'D BE, AGAIN, THE FIRST IN THAT AREA ALONG WE ROAD AND TRAINER HILL, THAT WOULD BE STARTING TO BE DEVELOPED IF APPROVED.
AND JUST TO SHOW YOU A COMPARISON OF THE STERLING GROVE PDD, THAT'S TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY, UM, THE STERLING GROVE PD DD STIPULATES 55 BY ONE 20 LOTS AND 65 65 BY ONE 10, SORRY LOTS.
AND, UM, THE ZONING THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TONIGHT IS R TWO, WHICH IS 70 BY ONE 20 LOTS AND 60 BY ONE 20.
SO WE SEE, WE DO SEE IT AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE STERLING GROVE PDD AND A TRADITIONAL USE TO THE AGRICULTURAL THAT'S STILL THERE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE.
AND THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE MEETS THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND IS SEEN AS APPROPRIATE WITH THE EXISTING USES IN THE MEDIA AREA.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 2 AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM ON DECEMBER 4TH AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT, IS AND WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? I THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, UH, APPRECIATE Y'ALL TAKING THE TIME TONIGHT AND, UH, ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
MY NAME'S, UH, SHAD SCHMID WITH KINGFISH DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND, UH, AS, AS DAISY SAID, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING, THERE'S NOTHING I CAN ADD TO IT.
UM, THE ZONING REQUESTS THAT WE ARE MAKING, UH, ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SHEZ IS, UH, COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN AND FLUME OR, OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
UM, AND IT'S, UH, COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES THAT ARE AROUND THE STERLING GROVE PD, DD ET CETERA.
UM, AND SO WE REQUEST, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, APPROVAL OF THE, OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I ALSO BROUGHT MY ENGINEER IN CASE YOU HAVE SOME LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL THAT'S OUTSIDE OF MY WHEELHOUSE.
UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN REFERENCE TO THIS SUBJECT? YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AT 7 0 9.
COUNCIL FLOORS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 2.
SECOND HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NONE? COUNCIL, UH, WE'LL START WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
[7. Ordinance 25-S-001 - Conduct a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately 26 acres of land, from Single-Family Residential District (R-2) to Single-Family Residential District (R-6), known as a portion of Guadalupe County Property Identification Number 64640, generally located 78 feet South of the intersection of Savannah Drive and Irish Creek Road, City of Schertz, Guadalupe County, Texas.(B.James/L.Wood/D.Marquez).]
NUMBER 25 S 0 0 1.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 26 ACRES OF LAND FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R TWO TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R SIX, KNOWN AS A PORTION OF GUADALUPE COUNTY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 6 4 6 4 0 LOCATED 78 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAVANNAH DRIVE AND IRISH CREEK ROAD.
CITY OF SHIRTZ, GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEXAS.
A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO R SIX, LOCATED ON SAVANNAH DRIVE AND IRISH CREEK ROAD.
[01:10:01]
HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW.IT IS LOCATED ALONG SAVANNAH DRIVE.
THIS IS THE IRISH CREEK ROAD INTERSECTION.
UM, UP NORTH WE HAVE THE KENSINGTON RANCH, PDD, ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST.
UM, IT WOULD BE THE SHEZ PARKWAY AND SAVANNAH DRIVE INTERSECTION.
WE HAVE, UM, A PARCEL THAT'S PART OF THE CITY OF SHIRTS THAT IS DRAINAGE BUT IS ZONED R TWO.
AND THEN FURTHER OUT EAST WE HAVE THE ASHLEY PLACE SUBDIVISION THAT'S ZONED, UM, R SIX.
AND THEN TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED R TWO.
AND THEN OVER HERE TO THE WEST, UM, IS THE REMAINDER OF THAT SUBJECT PARCEL THAT IS NOT PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE TONIGHT, BUT IT IS ZONED R TWO.
AND THEN WE GET INTO UNIVERSAL CITY, CITY LIMITS THAT HAS THAT ORCHARD PARK DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE SEND OUT 22 PUBLIC NOTICES IN NOVEMBER, AND WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR IN 19 IN OPPOSITION.
AND AGAIN, A NOTICE WAS PUB PUBLISHED IN THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESSED, AND TWO SIGNS WERE PLACED BY THE APPLICANT.
SO THE PROPOSED CHANGE MUST RECEIVE IN ORDER TO TAKE EFFECT THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACCORDING TO LGC, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 2 1 1 0.006 D SINCE, UM, WE DID RECEIVE 20 POINT 13% OPPOSITION.
SO AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED TONIGHT.
SO SOME BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY, UM, ALL OF PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 6 4 6 4 0 IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED, BUT ONLY THE 26 ACRES, UM, TO OUTSIDE OF THE APZ TWO IS BEING, UM, AFFECTED BY THE ZONE CHAIN IS BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE.
SO AGAIN, HERE IS THAT EXISTING R TWO DIMENSIONAL TABLE NEXT TO THE PROPOSED R SIX DIMENSIONAL TABLE.
AND AGAIN, THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES ARE THE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS.
R TWO REQUIRES 70 BY ONE 20, WHEREAS R SIX REQUIRES 60 BY ONE 20 LOTS MINIMUM.
AND IT'S A 1200 SQUARE FOOT DIFFERENCE OF 8,400 SQUARE FEET FOR THE EXISTING R TWO AND 7,200 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PROPOSED R SIX.
SO HERE IS A CONCEPTUAL MASTER LAND PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED WITH THEIR APPLICATION.
UM, THIS LARGE 26 ACRE PARCEL TO THE RIGHT IS WHAT IS, UM, WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
AND THIS PROPERTY DOES LOOK FAMILIAR BECAUSE IN MARCH IT CAME TO PNZ AND IN APRIL WENT TO COUNCIL FOR A PROPOSED PDD APPLICATION.
AND PART OF THAT PDD, THEY WERE ONLY PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE A PZ TWO WITHIN THOSE 26 ACRES.
AND THEY WERE RESTRICTING AND NOT ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE APZ TWO.
AND STAFF SAW THAT CREATION OF THE PDD TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTS WITHIN THE APZ TWO TO BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
BUT TONIGHT THAT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING R SIX AND THEY'RE ONLY PROPOSING TO REZONE THE 26 ACRES OUTSIDE OF THE APZ TWO TO A HIGHER DENSITY.
AND STAFF DOES NOT SEE THIS AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, AS IT EXCLUDES THAT REMAINING ACREAGE WITHIN THE APZ TWO, UM, WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
SO AGAIN, STAFF LOOKS TO TOWARDS UDC, SECTION 21 5 11 D FOR THE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.
ONE, UH, THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AGAIN, COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD IS INTENDED FOR A MIXTURE OF HOUSING OPTIONS WITH DIFFERENT SUPPORTING LAND USES.
AND AGAIN, THIS CAN BE THINGS LIKE COMMERCIAL THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR NEIGHBORHOODS, SCHOOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT ALSO WHEN CONSIDERING ZONE CHANGES AND LOOKING AT THEIR APPROPRIATENESS, WE MUST, UH, CONSIDER ROADWAYS AND IF THEY CAN HANDLE THE TRAFFIC.
ALSO LOOKING AT THE CONFLICTS AMONG LAND USES AND WHAT'S EXISTING IN THE AREA.
UM, SO STAFF DOES BELIEVE THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES DO MEET THE INTENT OF COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
AND LOOKING AT THIS SUBJECT, PARCEL R SIX DOES NOT IMPLEMENT OR MEET THE INTENT OF COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THIS AREA.
AND I'LL GO FURTHER IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE EXISTING R TWO DOES IMPLEMENT THE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE DESIGNATION AT THIS, UH, PARCEL BECAUSE IT'S PROMOTING THAT MIXTURE OF HOUSING AND THAT TRANSITION FROM THE SMALLER LOTS TO BIGGER LOTS THAT COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD IS INTENDING TO DO WITH THE MIXTURE OF HOUSING OPTIONS.
AND TO KIND OF GO FURTHER INTO WHAT'S EXISTING IN THE AREA, THE, TO THE NORTH, WE HAVE THE KENSINGTON RANCH ESTATES, PDD, THAT ESSENTIALLY IS OUR SIX WITH ALL OF THE PARCELS OUTSIDE OF THE A PZ BEING 60 BY ONE 20.
AND THEN OVER HERE TO THE RIGHT AT ASHLEY PLACE.
UM, THOSE ARE ALSO STRAIGHT ZONED AT R SIX WITH 60 BY ONE 20.
[01:15:01]
LOOKING AT THE ORCHARD PARK DEVELOPMENT THAT'S INSIDE UNIVERSAL CITY, UM, THOSE LAWS ARE APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQUARE FEET WITH 50 BY ONE 20.SO AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HOW, UM, STAFF IS SAYING THAT THE PROPOSED R SIX WOULDN'T REALLY BE IMPLEMENTING THAT MIX OF HOUSING OPTIONS JUST BECAUSE THIS IS THE EXISTING R TWO AND THE R SIX IS ALREADY SURROUNDING THAT COMMUNITY AND THAT PARCEL.
SO TWO, WHEN CONSIDERING, AGAIN, THE SURROUNDING USES AND THE COMP PLAN, THE EXISTING R TWO BETTER PROMOTES, UM, PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY.
AGAIN, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS, UM, AND COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON SAVANNAH.
AND HERE YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, UM, THAT SHIRTS PARKWAY AND SAVANNAH DRIVE INTERSECTION WHERE THE SCHOOL IS THE INTERSECTION OF IRISH CREEK AND SAVANNAH THAT RESIDENTS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT.
AND THEN THAT INTERSECTION OF SAVANNAH AND FM 1518.
SO THE EXISTING R TWO IS MORE COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE WITH EXISTING USES.
UH, IT PROMOTES THAT MIXTURE OF HOUSING OPTIONS.
IT IS EXISTING R TWO WITHIN THAT AREA AND IT PROVIDES A DIFFERENT DIMENSION OF LOT SIZES.
AND FOR, UM, PREVIOUS ZONING DISCUSSIONS AT CITY COUNCIL HAVE ESTABLISHED A POLICY THAT IF A ZONE CHANGE DOESN'T RESULT IN A BETTER DEVELOPMENT THAN WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY DEVELOP, THEN THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE WOULD NOT BE DESIRED.
UM, AND WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION BY RESIDENTS DUE TO THE HIGHER DENSITY.
AGAIN, THOSE SITE VISIBILITY CONCERNS ALONG SAVANNAH, THE EXISTING TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON SAVANNAH AND WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE INCREASED ALONG SAVANNAH WITH, UM, HIGHER DENSITY AND STAFF.
UM, JUST WANNA NOTE THAT WE DID, UM, RECEIVE, UM, A PUBLISHED ARTICLE FROM THE COMMUNITY IMPACT NEWS AND A UNIVERSAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BY A RESIDENT THAT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT SHOWS THIS AS PART OF A LARGER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER FORMAL APPLICATIONS, UM, WITHIN THE CITY OF SHIRTS OTHER THAN THIS 26 ACRE REZONE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
SO THIS IS THE ONLY FORMAL APPLICATION WE HAVE AT THIS TIME, AND THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS SENT TO US DOES NOT IMPACT STAFF'S OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FOR ERNEST 25 S 0 0 1.
AND AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ERNEST 25 S 0 0 1 AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 4TH, AND THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE FOUR TO VOTE.
AND, UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.
I THINK WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT.
UH, OKAY, GOOD EVENING COUNCIL PEOPLE.
PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, UH, THREE 15 EAST COMMERCE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
YOU'VE SEEN ME HERE A FEW TIMES BEFORE I WAS HERE FOR THE PREVIOUS REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
I HAD A A GAS STATION CASE THAT DIDN'T GO TOO WELL.
UM, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO MY, THIS, THIS EXHIBIT.
SO AS, AS DAISY SAID, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE LEAVING WHAT'S IN THE A PZ, WHAT IT ZONED TODAY WE'RE ASKING FOR A REZONING OF 26 ACRES, UH, TO THE EAST OF THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE PURPOSE BEHIND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE CAN DEVELOP THIS TOMORROW, JUST RACK 'EM AND STACK 'EM R TWO LOTS.
WE ASK FOR THE R SIX BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE, MORE GREEN SPACE.
YOU SEE THE, THE DETENTION AREA THAT CAN BE A LOT SMALLER.
WE CAN ALL PROBABLY EVEN GET RID OF IT AND JUST PUT HOUSES OVER THERE.
IT'S JUST AN OLD WATER TANK FOR THE, FOR THE POLO FIELDS THAT WERE THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE WE'RE COMING TO YOU TODAY.
YOU KNOW, I, WHEN MERITAGE HOMES, WHO'S THE, BASICALLY THE DEVOP, EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPER, WHEN THEY CAME TO ME AND I LOOKED AT THIS, I SAID, WELL, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE RENTAL HOUSING APARTMENTS AND SORT OF TOWN HOME USES THAT, THAT WERE, THAT CAME TO YOU BACK IN APRIL AS, AS STAFF MENTIONED.
SO I LOOKED AT THIS AND I SAID, WELL, OKAY, WE'RE NOT REZONING ANYTHING OR ASKING FOR HIGHER DENSITY IN THE A PZ.
BUT THEN WE GET STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BEFORE P AND Z.
AND BASICALLY IT'S JUST A, HOW IN THE WORLD DO WE COME UP WITH A WAY TO BASICALLY REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO NOT DEVELOP ANYTHING IN THE A PZ AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL GIVE 'EM HIGHER DENSITY ON WHAT'S OUTSIDE THE A PZ.
WHEREAS WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST SAYING, LOOK, WE'LL LEAVE THE A PZ THE WAY IT IS, THE ZONING THAT THE CITY GAVE IT TO IT PREVIOUSLY, AND WE'LL JUST ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA DENSITY OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER SLIDES THAT STAFF HAS, THIS ONE, UM, THE A PZ IS FULL OF HOUSES.
NOW WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TO RACK THEM AND STACK THEM LIKE THEY DO IN UNIVERSAL CITY, BUT THE R SIX WE'RE ASKING FOR IS BASICALLY EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE KENTON RANCH HAS.
AND SO WHEN STAFF SAYS THEY WANT, YOU KNOW, COMPLETE, COMPLETE CITIES AND COMPLETE DEVELOPMENTS, HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE, THE, THE CASE YOU JUST HEARD? WE'VE GOT R TWO, WE'RE ASKING FOR SOME R SIX, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.
AND YOU KNOW, AT THE, THE P AND Z THERE WERE SOME, SOME MEMBERS OF KENSINGTON RANCH THAT
[01:20:01]
WERE IN OPPOSITION BEFORE I EVEN FILED THE CASE.I REACHED OUT TO JOHN CLARK, WHO USED TO BE ON THE BOARD.
HE MIGHT NOT BE ON THE BOARD ANYMORE.
HE SAID, YOU KNOW, HIS, THEIR CONCERN WAS ON SAVANNAH DRIVE.
YOU KNOW, IN THE MORNING WHEN YOU'RE TAKING YOUR KIDS TO SCHOOL, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN OUT OUTSIDE OF THEIR SUBDIVISION.
SO WE PROPOSED AT THE P AND Z AND WE STILL PROPOSED TODAY TO ASK STAFF IF THEY WILL ALLOW US TO DO A STOP SIGN THERE.
IF, IF WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT STREET, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE A LOT OF THE SAFETY CONCERNS OUT THERE THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO MAKE LEFT HAND TURNS OUT OF THEIR SUBDIVISION IN THE MORNING.
SO IF STAFF WILL ALLOW US, WE WILL PAY FOR THAT AND WE WILL DO THAT.
SO THAT, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, IS JUST TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA DENSITY SO WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN SPACE.
AND WE'RE JUST LEAVING THE A PZ THE WAY IT'S, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE FOR YOU.
ALL RIGHT, THIS IS ON THE AGENDAS AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND THE TIME IS 7 21.
IS THERE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN REFERENCE TO THIS SUBJECT? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, UH, FOR STAFF HERE.
UM, YOU INDICATED THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO IT AND I WAS LOOKING OVER MY NOTES ON THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING BACK IN APRIL.
WE HAD, LOOKING HERE, LET'S SEE, WE HAD 65 PUBLIC NOTICES MAILED OUT AND 543 IN OPPOSITION.
OKAY? AND I, I'M, I'M NOT NO, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.
I, I, UM, I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM IN THIS SITUATION.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND THOROUGH, THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THIS.
AND MY QUESTIONS ARE NOT MEANT TO CHALLENGE YOUR ABILITY.
JUST BRING OUT SOME OF THE INCONSISTENCIES, UH, THAT I FOUND.
AND I DON'T WANNA MAKE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE IN THIS, BUT THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.
WHEN YOU HAVE 543 OPPOSITIONS, YOU SEND OUT 19 NOTICES, NO, 22 NOTICES AND 19 IN OPPOSITION.
THAT IS NOT VERY SIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO THE 543, BUT IT STILL MET THE THRESHOLD.
I'M JUST, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS HERE.
I APOLOGIZE IF WE INCORRECTLY USE THE TERM.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR WITH COUNSEL ON MM-HMM
IS, UH, THERE WAS ENOUGH OPPOSITION TO TRIGGER THE SUPER MAJORITY.
SO AGAIN, WE'LL, WE'LL LOOK AT THE TERM WE USE.
AND SO WE'LL TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM SUBJECTIVE TERMS EITHER WAY GOING FORWARD AND SIMPLY LIST THE QUANTIFIABLE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE NUMBERS.
WE CAN DO THAT GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE, THE HEARING OF RESIDENTS BACK IN APRIL, WE HAD 17 INDIVIDUALS THAT CAME UP TO SPEAK DURING THE HEARING, THE RESIDENTS.
AND WE ALSO HAD INDIVIDUALS FROM NORTH CLIFF HAVING THEIR OPPOSITION.
WE HAD ONE TODAY, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAD 26 PEOPLE CAME OUT HERE AND EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS AND OPPOSITION TO IT.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ZERO, NO ONE SHOWED UP FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE MAYOR.
CERTAINLY STAFF CAN BETTER GAUGE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT COME OUT IN OPPOSITION OR SUPPORTIVE CASES.
MY OTHER POINT IS THAT BACK IN APRIL, THIS SAME PIECE OF LAND WAS 2032 ACRES.
WHY IS IT 26 NOW? WHERE DID, WHERE DID WE LOSE SIX? SURE.
SO, SO I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IS, AGAIN, PREVIOUSLY WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED, AS DAISY INDICATED IS THEY BROUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST END THAT'S IN THE A PZ.
AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE THIS TIME IS THEY'VE EXCLUDED THAT PROPERTY IN THE A PZ.
NOW PART OF THAT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT UNLESS OUR, THE CITY OF SHIRTZ IS UDC STATES, THEN UNLESS WE GET AN AFFIRMATIVE LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM JBSA FOR REZONING WITHIN THE A PZ, THAT COUNSEL CANNOT APPROVE IT.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT, AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY SPECULATION, MAYBE I SHOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT GOES BACK TO SUBJECTIVE TERMS. SO THE APPLICANT CHOSE FOR WHATEVER REASON TO EXCLUDE THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHY THE ACREAGE IS REDUCED.
BUT THE TOTAL PROPERTY IS 42 ACRES THAT THEY OWN
[01:25:01]
THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT IS 42 ACRES.AND IF YOU REMOVE THE APZ ZONE LIKE YOU DID LAST TIME, THAT WAS 32 ACRES.
SO I I MAY BE MISUNDERSTANDING THEN.
SO YOU'RE SAYING, DID WE AIR THEN ON THE NOTICE OF THE SIZE OF YOUR PROPERTY THAT IS BEING REZONED? 'CAUSE IF SO, WE NEED TO RESTART IT.
IF IT'S 42 ACRES, NOT 26TH, THEN WE HAVE A NOTIFICATION HERE, IT WAS 32 ACRES BACK IN APRIL.
AND, AND AGAIN, MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE WHAT THEY, LAST TIME THEY INCLUDED THIS IN THE REZONING REQUEST, BUT THAT WAS A TOTAL ACREAGE.
AND SO THEY'VE EXCLUDED AT THIS TIME.
SO IT'S, IT WAS EXCLUDED LAST TIME TOO BECAUSE THE, THE WHOLE CONCEPT WAS ON 32 ACRE, 32 ACRES FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY, MULTI-LEVEL COMPLEX.
IF I'M, IF I MAY, MAY, AND AGAIN, I, I APOLOGIZE.
YOU, YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED AT IT MORE CLOSELY, AND I MAY BE INCORRECT.
MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THE PRIOR ZONING CASE INCLUDED THE WHOLE THING.
AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING AS PART OF THAT IS SAYING, WE AREN'T GONNA DEVELOP, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE ZONING TO NOT DEVELOP ON THAT.
BUT WHEN THEY SAID THEY WEREN'T TOUCHING THE, A PZ ZONE, WHICH THEY'RE NOT DOING AT THIS POINT EITHER, THEN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WAS 32 ACRES.
THIS TIME IT'S 26, I BELIEVE MAYOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE CARVED OUT THE, THE DETENTION POND PORTION, I THINK THAT MAYBE THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
IS THAT CORRECT SIR? DETENTIONS PART THIS HONOR.
I IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO PART OF THE MAP AND OKAY, SO WE TAKING OUT THE RETENTION POND IS, WE'RE LOOKING AT SIX ACRES AT THAT PORTION, BUT IT IS PART OF THE REZONING APPLICATION.
GO TO THE ONE WITH THE SIDE BY SIDE BOTTOM RIGHT THERE.
WE CUT OUT JUST BECAUSE WE CAN LEAVE THAT R TWO.
YOU'RE LEAVING PART OF IT R TWO.
THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY THE ACREAGE IS, THAT'S WHY THE ACREAGE IS WRONG.
BUT BECAUSE YOU LEAVE THAT AT PART OF R TWO, THEY'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T REZONE UNLESS YOU HAVE 30 ACRES.
YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? LEAVING IT OUT IS CAUSING YOU THE PROBLEM TO, TO CAUSE THIS DENIAL BECAUSE YOU GOTTA, YOU'RE SAYING YOU TO BUILD R SIXES, YOU GOTTA HAVE 30 ACRES.
I THINK NOT TO EXCEED, APOLOGIZE.
IF WE MISSPOKE WHAT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION ADVENT IS, WE DON'T WANT TO DO R SIX OVER MORE THAN 30 ACRES.
SO WE DON'T WANT A LOT OF IT, THEY'RE LESS THAN THE 30 ACRES.
THEY COULD HAVE, THEY COULD HAVE ONLY BECAUSE THEY LEFT SOME OF THE R TWO.
BUT, BUT AGAIN, I WANNA BE CLEAR, MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE IF WE, IF IF I PROVIDE CONFUSION, THE CAP ON THE 30 ACRES IS, YOU CAN'T REQUEST MORE THAN 30 ACRES AS R SIX.
YOU CAN COME IN AND REQUEST FIVE ACRES OF R SIX, 10 ACRES OF R SIX 20 ACRES OF R 6, 26 ACRES OF R SIX OR 30 ACRES OF R SIX.
AND THEN THAT POTENTIALLY WE WOULD APPROVE IF APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN THE 30.
IF YOU CAME IN WITH 50 ACRES OF R SIX, THAT'S WHERE IT'D SAY YOU'RE BIGGER THAN 30.
SO APOLOGIZE AGAIN IF WE CREATED CONFUSION THERE.
YEAH, I THINK, I THINK AGAIN, TO, TO MAYBE BE CLEAR FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, PART, PART OF WHERE WE HAD, AND AGAIN, STAFF TRIES TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT COUNCIL'S GENERALLY PHILOSOPHY IS.
AND AFTER WE HAD SOME, UM, CHALLENGES ON A NUMBER OF ZONING CASES THAT CAME FORWARD THAT, THAT THERE WERE DISCONNECTS ESTABLISHED RECORD APPROVAL ON COUNCIL DENIED VICE VERSA.
WE HAD THAT WORKSHOP AND SAID, HOW DO WE WANNA LOOK AT ZONING CASES? HOW DO YOU, HOW DID KIND OF YOU GENERALLY WANNA WORK? AND IT'S A RULE OF THUMB, IT'S NOT EVERYWHERE KIND OF THING OF THING.
AND, AND I THINK I USED THE EXAMPLE OF DO WE LOOK AT A ZONING CASE AND SAY, LOOK, UNLESS WE CAN REALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS GOING TO CREATE PROBLEMS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEN GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT.
RIGHT? LET'S NOT WORRY ABOUT IT SO MUCH.
LET'S NOT BE SO NITPICKY, LET'S NOT RIGHT.
OR IS THE PHILOSOPHY MORE, LOOK, IF YOU'VE GOT ZONING THAT'S VIABLE, RIGHT? AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT, IF SOMEBODY COMES IN FOR A REZONE OR AN SUP, THEN REALLY THAT REZONING OR SUP SHOULD BE MORE COMPATIBLE.
MAKE THE COMMUNITY BETTER, BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.
IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY HOW YOU, HOW YOU SORT OF LOOK AT IT.
AGAIN, STAFF GOT THE IMPRESSION MAYBE FALSELY SO THAT COUNCIL SAID, LET'S LOOK AT THIS STUFF AS THE LATTER AND SAY, IF SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME INTO REZONE AND IT'S VIABLE, THEN REALLY DOES THIS MAKE THE SITUATION BETTER? AND, AND, AND FRANKLY WHERE WE SET IS THAT WHOLE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD THING WE LOOK AT, IT
[01:30:01]
DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE IT BETTER.NOW WE MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD COUNCIL, WE, WE MAY HAVE GOT THIS ONE WRONG ON IT.
THE ANSWER MAY BE, LOOK, IT'S ONLY 1200 SQUARE FEET PER LOT.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
AND THAT STAFF LEARNS FROM IT.
WE LISTENS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
NOW THE OTHER POINT, MY FINAL POINT IS THE TRAFFIC.
THE RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, BUT ISN'T TRAFFIC MITIGATED BY HAVING TWO EXITS ON 1518 WITH THE NEW, WITH THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE THERE'S GONNA BE AN EXIT TO 1518 FROM ORCHARD.
ANOTHER ONE WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT IS, UH, THAT'S PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, ANOTHER ONE AT MASSEY ROAD.
SO THERE, THE TRAFFIC CAN BE MITIGATED BY THOSE THREE EXITS AND NOT JUST ALL THE, THEY THEY HAVE THE SENSE THAT ALL THE TRAFFIC'S COMING TO SAVANNAH, BUT THE TOTAL, TOTAL DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE EXITS ON 1518 AND ASKING.
MAYOR, LET ME, LEMME BE CLEAR.
YOU'RE CERTAINLY CORRECT THAT AS PROPERTIES DEVELOP AROUND IT AND ROADS ARE CREATED AND CONNECTIONS ARE MADE, TRAFFIC WILL DISSIPATE OUT AND GO FOR THOSE.
AND SO IT WOULD LESSEN THE AMOUNT ON THERE.
I THINK AGAIN, WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM COUNSEL ABOUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER ZONING CASES, LOOK AT WHAT'S THERE TODAY AND TREAT THAT.
AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE WITH THIS IS THAT WE LOOK AT WHAT'S PROPOSED TODAY.
AS OPPOSED TO WHAT MAY BE PROPOSED AND WHAT MAY BE BUILT AND WHAT MAY BE CONNECTED.
AND AGAIN, I I WILL, I WILL OFFER THIS, IF YOU WILL.
IT, IT'S, IT'S FRANKLY A NOMINAL AMOUNT OF LOT DIFFERENCE.
ANY IDEA HOW MANY, MY OPINION, HOW MANY? AND THAT'S A SUBJECTIVE, I I CAN'T TELL YOU.
'CAUSE AGAIN, THERE THERE ARE A SERIES OF FACTORS, RIGHT? AS I UNDERSTOOD ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THEY HAD WAS NEEDING FILL DIRT ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHY THEY REQUESTED STAFF APPROVE THEM TO DO SOIL BOAR TEST IN DES CREEK TO SEE IF POTENTIALLY THEY COULD TAKE SOME OF THAT SILT THAT'S ACCUMULATED, WHICH BENEFITS THE CITY AND USE IT ON THIS PROPERTY.
SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO JAM UP DEVELOPMENT.
WE GAVE THEM AUTHORIZATION TO GO DO BOARS TO SAY SURE.
IF IF THERE'S DIRT THERE THAT YOU CAN USE.
AND IT HELPS DESALT OUR CREEK HAVE AT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A NUMBER THAT I WOULD THINK MOST RESIDENTS WOULD NOTICE A DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC ON SAVANNAH.
WHETHER THIS DEVELOPED AS R TWO OR R SIX, I WOULD ARGUE BASED ON VEHICLE TRIPS PER HOUR AND WHATNOT.
I I THINK, UH, LISTENING, WATCHING THE, UH, THE P AND Z MEETING, I THINK THEY SAID SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 15 HOME DIFFERENCE.
SUBJECTIVELY LANGUAGE COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD? NO.
I'M, IF IF I'M CORRECT, THIS IS JUST ONE PIECE OF A BIGGER PUZZLE.
AND, AND I'M, I AM MY, I'M PERSONALLY NOT A BIG FAN OF THE, THE PIECEMEAL SLEIGH OF HAND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, UM, WHEN WE KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE MORE BY THE SAME PERSON, BUT WE'RE ONLY GETTING A PEAK UNDER THE TENT, UNDER THE CURTAIN.
SO, UM, THAT'S MY, MY BASELINE PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.
SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE WHERE IT SHOWS THE A PZ AND THE CITY BOUNDARY, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THAT, AM I CORRECT IN IN IN ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING IN ORANGE IS R TWO? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, AND THE, AND THE PIECE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS JUST THE THREE-SIDED YELLOW AND BLUE SECTION THAT'S CORRECT.
WHERE WE'RE GONNA KEEP PART OF IT AS R TWO, AND THEN PART OF IT IS R SIX.
WELL, EXCEPT THE, THE CUTOUT THE NOTCH OUT HERE.
SO EVERYTHING IN THE YELLOW SECTION WILL BE R SIX.
EXCEPT THIS LITTLE NOTCH OUT HERE.
AND THE SECTION BETWEEN THE BLUE AND THE RED CITY BOUNDARY LINE WILL BE R TWO.
UH, AND I'M GUESSING AT SOME POINT, UH, DOWN WHERE WE HAVE THE GB TWO AND THAT WILL PROBABLY DEVELOP BY SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE.
SO THAT'S PART OF THEIR LARGER PROPOSAL.
AND AGAIN, I THINK STAFF WAS HESITANT TO SORT OF SAY THIS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, AS DAISY SAID, WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND THERE'S THIS PLAN.
THEY'VE CERTAINLY SHARED IT WITH US.
THEY'VE CERTAINLY SHARED IT WITH THE UNIVERSAL CITY.
AND SO THE PLAN CALLS FOR THIS TO BE RESIDENTIAL.
[01:35:01]
UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I BELIEVE THEY GOT A, THEY REQUESTED AN INITIAL REVIEW FROM JBSA AND THAT CAME BACK.I, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, UM, COUNCILMAN DAVIS, I MEAN, WE DON'T, WHAT, WHAT'S IN YELLOW? THIS, THIS AREA THAT WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, THE 44 ACRES, WE HAVE THAT UNDER CONTRACT.
SO THIS OTHER STUFF, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED TO THE OWNERS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BUYING IT.
WE DON'T HAVE, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO COME IN PIECEMEALING YOU.
I I KNOW THERE'S A, A LOT OF MOVING PARTS ON THAT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT YES, SIR.
BECAUSE, BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LOOKING AT THIS ONE PIECE NOW IS A PIECE THAT'S GONNA ADD ON TO OTHER THINGS POTENTIALLY LATER.
AND, AND I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT LONG TERM, NOT JUST RIGHT NOW.
SO, I MEAN, TO ME, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAST PROPOSAL WE HAD WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I, AND, AND, AND IT'S, IT SEEMS MORE REASONABLE MM-HMM
UM, BUT FROM MY DAYS ON T SAC AND MY OTHER PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, AND I, I TEND TO DRIVE THE SHOWER EVERY NOW AND THEN.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT PORTION OF SAVANNAH.
UM, WITH RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT ALL THE KENSINGTON RANCH TO THE NORTH OF IT.
WE'RE GONNA BE ADDING MORE TO THE SOUTH OF SAVANNAH NOW.
UH, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE, AS IT'S LAID OUT NOW, IF YOU GO BACK A COUPLE SLIDES, I GUESS IT WAS, UH, WITH, WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW, NOT CONSIDERING THE FUTURE VISION OF THE SOUTHERN SIDE MAY HAVE A ROAD THAT CONNECTS TO MASKEY OR THERE MAY BE ANOTHER CONNECTION THROUGH ORCHARD PARK.
THAT'S ALL WE HAVE NOW, WHICH MEANS FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THERE IS ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT, UH, THAT'S INCORRECT BECAUSE ORCHARD PARK'S ALREADY DEVELOPED THAT, UH, FRAME DOES NOT SHOW ORCHARD PARK CONNECTING TO THAT STREET.
BECAUSE SO THERE IS, THERE'S TWO.
SO, SO THE APPLICANT, AGAIN HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR.
I'M LOOKING AT A GOOGLE THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED, THAT PORTION'S DEVELOPED, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
NO, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THAT ON GOOGLE EARTH NOW.
SO THERE IS A CONNECTION TO THE WEST, TO THE WEST THROUGH ORCHARD PARK.
UM, MY, MY BIGGEST HANGUP IS, IS SAVANNAH MM-HMM
UM, AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S LIKE NEXT TO, NO, THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC SIGNALS OTHER THAN THE ONE AT 1518 IN SAVANNAH.
UM, AND I DON'T RECALL ANY STOP SIGNS ALONG SAVANNAH FROM 1518 UNTIL YOU GET UP TO SHEZ PARKWAY.
UH, IS IT, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO, TO MAKE THAT INTERSECTION, UH, A FOUR-WAY STOP? SO, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, AND HAVING BEEN ON T SAC, YOU UNDERSTAND THIS.
SO WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD DO IS THE APPLICANT WOULD DO A-T-I-A-A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THEY WOULD LOOK IN PARTICULAR AT THAT INTERSECTION AND WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE WARRANTS FOR THAT AND WHAT THE FACTORS ARE.
AND CERTAINLY, AND I'M NOT TO SPEAK FOR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND ULTIMATELY IT GOES TO T SECOND CITY COUNCIL IS IF IT MEETS THE WARRANTS TO HAVE A FOUR-WAY STOP, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF IT.
BUT I, I CAN'T SAY THAT IT DOES IT, IT'S BEYOND JUST, WE ALL WANNA PUT ONE IN.
I MEAN, AND AGAIN, MY TIME ON T SH I I, I FULLY GET THAT CONSIDERING THE LIKE SIX OR SEVEN STOP SIGNS WE HAVE ON SAVANNAH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SHE'S PARKWAY LOOKING AT THE VOLUME OF HOUSES HERE, I DON'T SEE ANY WAY HOW THIS WOULD NOT WARRANT A FOUR-WAY STOP.
SO, SO THE ONLY CAVEAT I MIGHT SAY, COUNCILMAN, IS DON'T ASSUME THAT THOSE STOP SIGNS ON OTHER STREETS, IN FACT MEET THE WARRANTS WERE DONE PROPERLY.
THAT'S WHAT, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE VOLUME OF HOUSES TO THE NORTH MM-HMM
AND THE VOLUME OF HOUSES THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO THE SOUTH, I DON'T DISAGREE THAT AT SOME POINT IF ALL THIS DEVELOPS AS A LARGER VISION, THAT YOU PROBABLY HIT THE WARRANTS.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS WHOLE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R TWO, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND CERTAINLY CAN DEVELOP AS R TWO PER PERFECTLY FINE.
WE THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN TO DEVELOP.
IS R TWO, UH, THIS IS NOT A, A GATED COMMUNITY, CORRECT? UH, THEY HAVE NOT COME, WELL, THEY'RE NOT AT THE PLATING STAGE AND THAT'S WHERE THAT WOULD OCCUR.
[01:40:01]
THEY'VE NOT INDICATED THE PLAN IS FOR IT TO BE GATED.AND THE, AND THEIR, THEIR CURRENT PLAN IS, IS AS PRESENTED, I'M STILL IN GOOGLE EARTH, LEMME GET OUTTA THIS FOR A MINUTE.
UH, THEIR CURRENT PLAN IS TO RETAIN THE DETENTION POND.
SO THEY DID NOT INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE ZONING.
BUT AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THIS BACK AND FORTH AND STAFF IS ALWAYS UNDER TRYING TO UNDERSTAND DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL.
THIS IS NOT A PDD, THIS GRAPHIC IS NOT LOCKED IN.
SO, SO AGAIN, AS WE UNDERSTOOD IT FROM TALKING TO THE DEVELOPER, THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT ABOUT DETENTION BECAUSE THEY'RE RIGHT ON DETS CREEK.
IT WAS ABOUT NEEDING FILL DIRT AND THAT IF THEY COULD GET FILL DIRT FROM DEEDS CREEK, THEN THEY WOULD DEVELOP THAT INSTEAD, BUT THEY WOULD DEVELOP IT AS R TWO.
AGAIN, I I, I CAN'T SAY WHAT THEY'LL DO.
I UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTAND THE ZONING IS WHAT IS, BUT UNDERSTAND, SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS PICTURE HERE, THIS IS JUST A CONCEPT.
AND IN REALITY, UH, THE ENTIRE POND AREA IN THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER COULD BE BUILT AS R TWO.
NOW, AGAIN, I WANNA BE REAL CLEAR ON THIS.
THE AFRICANIST STOOD UP AND BRETT AND SAID, WE'RE NOT GONNA DEVELOP IT.
I DON'T DOUBT HIS WORD ON THAT, UNDERSTAND HOW STAFF WENT INTO IT.
WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD IS THAT THE REASON THAT WAS NOT BEING DEVELOPED AND WAS DETENTION IS BECAUSE THEY NEEDED FILL DIRT.
AT WHICH POINT WE SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DEEDS CREEK RIGHT THERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO PROBABLY DETENTION.
WE'LL GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO GO TEST THE SOIL TO SEE IF IN FACT YOU COULD DESAL OUR CREEK, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL FOR US IN CAPACITY.
AND THEN THEY COULD PUT THAT DIRT THERE AND THUS NOT HAVE THE NEED FOR FILL BECAUSE IT'S A COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET IT UP.
AND THEN THEY COULD DEVELOP THOSE AS LOTS.
WE, YOU GAVE 'EM THE ZONING, THEY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO DEVELOP UNDER IT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BACK DOOR JAM UP, BUT, BUT THE SECTION, BUT THE SECTION WHERE THE, WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THAT THE DEF DEFENSE ON THIS PICTURE MM-HMM
THE SECTION WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE DETENTION POND, UH, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE ZONING REQUEST TO GO TO R SIX.
SO IF THEY TOOK SILT AND DIRT FROM DEEDS CREEK AND FILLED IN THAT SOUTH EASTERN CORNER WHERE THERE'S CURRENTLY A RETENTION POND BECAUSE OF THE ZONING REQUESTS THEY'RE MAKING TONIGHT, THEY COULD NOT TURN AROUND AND SAY, DAD, WE'VE CHANGED OUR MIND.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT A LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC THERE WITH R SIX.
BUT THEY COULD SAY, WE'VE CHANGED OUR MIND, WE'RE GONNA PUT A CUL-DE-SAC WITH R TWO THERE.
BUT, BUT AGAIN, I, I WANNA BE REAL CLEAR.
UNDERSTAND HOW STAFF GOT INTO IT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PLAN FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
I MEAN, I, I THINK THIS LAYOUT IS NOT, IF IT TURNED OUT THIS WAY, IN MY MIND THAT'S NOT PROBLEMATIC.
I THINK A TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD END UP SAYING, YEAH, A A TRAFFIC STOP SIGN FOUR WAY WOULD BE WARRANTED AND APPROPRIATE.
AND I THINK THE CLEANING OUT OF THE POND WOULD MAKE A NICE RECREATIONAL AREA FOR THE AREA IF THAT'S HOW IT PLAYS OUT.
COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD, UH, I WATCHED THE PLAN AND ZONING MEETING AND, UM, TO ME, I THINK WITH THEM TRYING, THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM RANDOLPH TO SAY THEY AGREE WITH THIS.
LIKE THE LAST ONE, THEY GOT THE RECOMMENDATION.
AM I CORRECT? BUT THEY DON'T, THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR IT ON THIS ONE.
THEY, THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED IT.
OKAY, THEN, BUT MY OTHER QUESTION IS, FOR ME, YOU DID NOT GET IT WRONG FOR ME.
IF IT'S NOT GONNA BE BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE APPROVED.
I, I SEE IT CAN ALL BE DEVELOPED AS R TWO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
IF WE HAVE A BUNCH OF R SIXES WHERE THEY ARE, WE'RE JUST ADDING MORE.
AND I AGREE IT IS PROBABLY A 15 HOME DIFFERENCE.
BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING DIFFERENT? YOU'RE GETTING THE SMALLER LOTS.
YOU'RE NOT GIVING US THE LARGER LOTS AND I'M JUST NOT IMPRESSED AND I KNOW THAT IT'S BIGGER.
IT'S GONNA BE PART OF A BIGGER DEVELOPMENT.
SO THEN IT IMPACTS US IN THAT WAY.
IT'S NOT JUST THIS LITTLE SECTION FOR SHIRTS, IT'S SELMA, IT'S IT UNIVERSAL CITIES.
SO THEN WHO'S TO SAY THAT THE TRAFFIC, DEPENDING ON WHERE IT GOES, IS EVERYONE GOING INTO THE FUTURE, SOME OF THAT TRAFFIC FROM UNIVERSAL CITY AND SELMA COMING OUR WORST, IT MAKES IT WORSE.
SO FOR ME, I'M MORE ABOUT DOING WHAT IS BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY.
[01:45:01]
DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS BEING BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY.SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.
I'LL JUST START WITH THE, UH, THE, THE WHOLE TANK CONCEPT.
I'D RATHER SEE ROOFTOPS AND WATER OUT THERE FROM A, FROM A BIRD.
UH, AND WE HAVE MENTIONED THAT TO THE APPLICANT THAT IF YOU DO DETENTION, RANDOLPH GENERALLY PREFERS IT TO BE DRY AS OPPOSED TO WET.
RIGHT? WE HAVE, WE HAVE ENOUGH WATER RETENTION OVER THERE IN D CREEK, BUT AS FAR AS THE, UH, THE HOUSING, UH, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 15 HOMES, UH, DIFFERENCE, THAT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE, MAKE OR BREAK THE DIFFERENCE.
I MEAN, IF, IF, IF ALL THEY DID WAS WANT TO DO R TWO, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE.
AND, AND THAT 10 OR 15 HOME DIFFERENCE WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T EVEN BE AN ISSUE.
UH, SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 10 OR 15 HOMES.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, THERE'S STILL NICE SIZE LOTS.
UH, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO, YOU KNOW, TINY HOME LOTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND I'M JUST, MY OTHER CONCERNS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER, AND THAT'S OUR NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, UH, ALLOWING, ALLOWING THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT IN INSIDE THE A PZ.
SO, UH, THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME, YOU KNOW, UH, ESPECIALLY SEEING THAT THEY'VE HAD A MILITARY LEADERSHIP IN THAT COMMUNITY FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS.
BUT, UH, UH, THAT, THAT'S MORE OF AN IMPACT THAN 10 OR 15 HOMES.
BUT I, YOU KNOW, I, I INCONVENIENT, YES.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU ALL LOOK BACK AT THE DEVELOPMENT OF KENSINGTON RANCH, THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT HAD SAVANNAH GOING STRAIGHT, AND THEN THERE WAS A LARGE ARGUMENT ABOUT, OH, IT'S GONNA BECOME A RACETRACK.
AND SO THEY PUT THE CURVES IN AND NOW IT CAN'T BE A RACETRACK, BUT YOU CAN'T PUT A STOPLIGHT THERE EITHER.
SO, YOU KNOW, LONG-TERM, LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ON THAT.
UH, SO I, I'M OKAY WITH IT AS IT IS BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO, TO DEVELOP DOWN THERE.
UM, AND IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE IT SAFE.
SO COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON GOING TO MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 1.
UH, UM, BEFORE WE GO INTO THE VOTE, UH, MAYOR PRO TEMP, UH, YOU HAD COMMENTS? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SORT OF SAY, I GUESS IN YOUR, IN OUR NOTES, THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R SIX REPLICATES WHAT IS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND DOES NOT PROPOSE A DIFFERENT ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES.
THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROMOTES A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES AS IT CREATES A TRANSITION FROM THE EXISTING SMALLER LOT HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
SO UP UNDER R TWO, A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES.
IS THERE UP UNDER R TWO, WHAT TYPE OF MIXTURE HOUSE THAT WOULD PRODUCE A, HOW TO SAY IT, LESS THAN 15 HOUSES, RIGHT? YOU'D PRODUCE MORE DENSITY.
SO, SO I THINK WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO SAY, AND AGAIN, THE, WHAT WE DID WITH THE COMP PLAN WAS WE CREATED THIS CONCEPT OF A COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD, SORT OF THIS AREA.
AND, AND WITHIN THAT AREA, WHAT WE WANT IS A MIX OF USES SOME COMMERCIAL WHEN APPROPRIATE, IT'S WORTH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, OF DIFFERENT TYPES, OFFICE, RETAIL, ET CETERA.
WE WANTED RESIDENTIAL, SOME SINGLE FAMILY, PROBABLY SOME TOWN HOMES, A LITTLE BIT OF MULTIFAMILY, AND THEN WE WANTED SINGLE FAMILY ON DIFFERENT LOT SIZES, RIGHT? WE'RE OKAY WITH SOME SMALLER, SOME R SIX, SOME R SEVEN, BUT WE DON'T EVER WANT EVERYBODY TO COME IN AND DO R SIX OR R SEVEN.
WE WANT SOME BIGGER, LOTS MIXED IN THERE TOO.
AND, AND IT'S, THAT'S THE BALANCE IN THE MIX OF LOT TYPES.
AND SO AGAIN, I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, UM, THERE'S A REASON TO APPROVE THIS.
THERE'D BE A REASON TO APPROVE A REZONE ON THE PROPERTY BELOW IT TO OUR SIX AS WELL.
THEN, UM, THERE'S A REASON TO SAY, YEAH, IT DOESN'T MAKE THE COMMUNITY BETTER WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT TO KIND OF GO WITH IT.
BUT I THINK THAT'S THE IDEA THAT WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM COUNCIL IS THAT WE DON'T WANT ALL ONE SIZE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
WE DON'T WANT ALL SMALL LOTS, NOR ARE WE GONNA MANDATE ALL REALLY BIG LOTS, RIGHT? WE NEED A BALANCE AND WE NEED A MIX.
AND IT REALLY IS A JUDGMENT CALL AS TO WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE BALANCE AND MIX.
ALSO, THE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE TRAFFIC STUDY.
SO EARLIER, IT'S NOT LOST ON ME THAT EARLIER WE WERE ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WE TALKED ABOUT, HEY, LET'S SLOW THINGS DOWN BECAUSE OF LET'S HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY.
I THINK IT WAS ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON 2252 OR 2242.
UM, AND THEN I THINK I'VE HEARD A COMMENT TODAY ABOUT, HEY, MAYBE WE NEED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND DO A
[01:50:01]
TRAFFIC STUDY.BUT IN THE PAST, IN PAST MEETINGS, IT WAS PERFECTLY FINE FOR YOUR STAFF TO ADVISE WHEN PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT TRAFFIC.
AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, THE TRAFFIC IS BAD AND MAYBE WE NEED TO SORT OF, TO, TO CLARIFY COUNCILMAN THE QUESTION HERE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
WAS SPECIFICALLY TO INSTALLING A STOP SIGN AND YOU'VE NOT HEARD STAFF, I DON'T BELIEVE BEFORE EVER SAY, WE'RE FINE INSTALLING A TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WITHOUT A STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
I WILL SAY THIS, AND TO YOUR POINT, WHAT STAFF TYPICALLY GETS UP AND SAYS IS LOOK ON ZONING CASES, IT REALLY ISN'T RELEVANT THE EXISTING CONDITION ON A ZONING BECAUSE WHEN PROPERTIES DEVELOP, THEY COME IN AND THEY BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S REQUIRED AND THEY BUILD TOWARD THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
AND SO WHAT STAFF LOOKS AT IS THAT LARGER LONGER TERM POSITION.
I KNOW SOME ON COUNCIL DON'T TAKE THAT POSITION BECAUSE YOU'VE RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF PROJECTS BECAUSE THE IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT THERE TODAY, IT SEEMS BASED ON YOUR STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT THAT.
SO I THINK STAFF HAS BEEN CONSISTENT.
WE'RE STILL CONSISTENT, WHICH IS, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INSTALLING A TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A STUDY, BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A ZONING BECAUSE THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE TODAY IS MAYBE NOT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE BECAUSE WE KNOW DEVELOPMENT COMES I, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT COUNCIL'S POSITION ON THAT IS.
SO I, UH, WITH, WITH THIS PROJECT, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE STAFF.
UM, WHEN IT CAME TO THE PROJECT THAT WE HAD LAST YEAR, I COMPLETELY DISAGREED.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD RECOMMENDATION AND, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH IT.
BUT THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, I I I UNDERSTAND IT'S ONLY 10, 15 HOUSES LESS.
THIS, UH, WELL, WHY, WHY IS THAT BETTER THAN HAVING THE R TWO LOTS? I MEAN, WHY IS IT THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO GET SMALLER AND SMALLER AND SMALLER? I THINK AT A CERTAIN POINT, AND THIS ISN'T TO, TO GO NECESSARILY AGAINST DEVELOPERS, BUT THEY'RE GONNA LOOK TO SEE HOW THEY CAN GET THE MOST HOUSES THAT THEY CAN THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME, AS LONG AS THEY KNOW IT'S GONNA SELL, IT'S OUR JOB TO SAY, WELL, ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT HAPPENING EVERYWHERE? AND TO ME, I'M NOT, AND I THINK WE DO NEED A MIXTURE OF THIS, OF THE LOT SIZES, AND I, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CURRENT ZONING THAT WE HAVE.
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US AND SAID, WE WANT TO GO TO R SIX BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE SEE AS JUST BEING, YOU KNOW, AN IMPROVEMENT, THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO GET THAT ZONING.
I JUST SAW IT AS, HEY, WE'RE GONNA GO R SIX BECAUSE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IN MORE LOTS THERE.
AND SO WITH THAT, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CHANGE IN RE RESUME.
COUNSEL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE DO HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.
I MUST REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT THIS REQUIRES A FIVE ONE VOTE FOR APPROVAL BECAUSE IT MET THE THRESHOLD OF 20%.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? NONE.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
WE HAVE THREE OBJECTIONS AND THREE A'S, UM, MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
[8. Ordinance 25-S-003 - Conduct a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately 20 acres of land from General Business District (GB), Agricultural District (AD), and Pre-Development District (PRE) to Middle Density Residential District (R-5), more specifically known as 5524 Eckhardt Road, also known as a portion of Comal County Property Identification Numbers 75449 and 78233, City of Schertz, Comal County, Texas. (B.James/L.Wood/S.Haas)]
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF LAND FROM GENERAL BUSINESS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND PRE-DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO MIDDLE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, MORE SPECIFICALLY KNOWN AS 5 5 2 4 ECKARD ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ELL COUNTY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 7 5 4 4 9 AND 7 8 2 3 3.
CITY ASSURES, ELL COUNTY, TEXAS.
MR. WILLIAMS, THIS IS ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 3.
THIS IS SOME SATELLITE IMAGERY OF THE PROPERTY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN GREEN HERE.
THIS IS ECKERT ROAD RIGHT HERE, JUST DIRECTLY TO THE WEST.
UH, JUST TO THE NORTH IS INTERSTATE 35.
[01:55:01]
UH, THIS IS THE, UH, CYPRESS POINT SUBDIVISION THAT IS TO THE EAST HERE.AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, UH, THIS KIND OF WEDGE SHAPED DEVELOPMENT HERE IS GOING TO BE A, UM, AN APPROVED COMMERCIAL OFFICE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT.
SO ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 2024 16, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WERE SENT.
SO FAR WE'VE RECEIVED NOTHING.
UH, ONE SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY.
ONE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE WAS SENT TO AL ISD.
AND ON DECEMBER 18TH, 2024, A NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS.
SO HERE'S JUST A, UH, A PROPOSED ZONING, UH, EXHIBIT HERE.
WHAT, AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, UH, TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTY TO MIDDLE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R FIVE.
THIS LITTLE TABLE HERE, UH, TO THE RIGHT JUST KIND OF SHOWS WHAT IS THE EXISTING ZONING IN THE AREA TO THE NORTH IS GENERAL BUSINESS.
TO THE SOUTH IS, UH, GENERAL BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
TO THE EAST IS, UH, SOME GENERAL BUSINESS AS WELL, ALONG WITH SOME RIGHT OF WAY, I'M SORRY.
AND THE WEST IS RIGHT AWAY AT ECKERD ROAD.
SO IN OCTOBER, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AN ORDINANCE THAT CREATED A NEW ZONING DISTRICT, AND THIS IS OUR FIRST APPLICATION FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT JUST TO SORT OF, UH, BRUSH UP, UH, THE COUNCIL ON SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR SOME OF THOSE, UH, DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN STANDARDS ARE.
SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, THE DWELLING UNITS, UH, THE DENSITY WILL BE 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS A QUARTER ACRE.
UM, THE SETBACKS ARE 25 FOR THE FRONT SIDE AND REAR ARE 10 FEET.
THE MAX HEIGHT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN BE 35 FEET MAXIMUM OUS COVERAGE CAN BE 80%.
THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT.
AND THIS, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO ALL MULTI-FAMILY SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN ARTICLE NINE THAT IS SCREENING AND BUFFERING, UM, INTERIOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THINGS ALONG THAT NATURE.
SO IN LOOKING AT, UH, REZONE REQUEST, UH, THE STAFF LOOKS AT UDC SECTION 2154 D CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
NUMBER ONE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IMPLEMENTS THE POLICIES OF THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE ADOPTED PLANS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS REGIONAL CORRIDOR, UH, THAT HAS ALL THIS RED RIGHT HERE.
UH, THAT DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL AND ENTERTAINMENT AREAS THAT SERVE THE REGION ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
AND THEN IT ALSO HAS ACCOMMODATIONS FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEXES.
AND FOR THIS REASON, THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
NUMBER TWO, WHETHER THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE PROMOTES THE HEALTH SAFETY, GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY.
THE UDC AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WAS RECENTLY AMEND IN OCTOBER 22ND, 2024.
UH, AND THAT WAS THE ORDINANCE 24 S 1 56 ESTABLISHING THIS MIDDLE DENSITY DISTRICT R FIVE.
UH, AND THAT WAS REALLY CRAFTED TO, UH, ENCOURAGE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD BE LESS DENSE, A LITTLE MORE, UM, COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IN SHIRTS.
UM, SO THE UDC DOES STRIVE TO ENSURE SAFE AND ORDERLY EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT AND TO PREVENT THE OVERCROWDING OF LAND AND UNDO CONCENTRATION OR DIFFUSION OF POPULATION.
THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE POLICIES IN THE UDC AND IT DOES THUS PROMOTES THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.
NUMBER THREE, WHETHER THE USE IS PERMITTED BY THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE WILL BE CONSISTENT AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
THE IMMEDIATE AREA IS, IS MOSTLY RURAL RESIDENCES.
ALSO THERE IS THAT CYPRESS POINT SUBDIVISION.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO PARKLANDS JUST FURTHER TO THE SOUTH.
SO THE, THE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED WITH MIDDLE DENSITY ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
AND NUMBER FOUR, WHETHER OTHER FACTORS ARE DEEMED RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT.
UH, SO STAFF FEELS IT'S NECESSARY TO, UM, EXPLAIN, SAY THAT THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED R FOUR, UH, WHICH IS MUCH MORE DENSE, UH, 35 UNITS PER ACRE, A LITTLE BIT MORE INTENSE LAND USE.
UM, AT THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, THE UH, COMMISSION ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED THAT THEY TRY THIS NEW DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE R FIVE.
AND SO THE APPLICANT, UH, AGREED TO DO THAT AND WITHDREW THEIR R FOUR APPLICATION AND CAME IN WITH AN R FIVE REQUEST INSTEAD.
I FEEL THAT IT'S WORTH MENTIONING TO SHOW THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH US.
SO THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SURROUNDING LAND USES MEETS THE INTENT OF THE UDC.
UH, THE SHIRTS FIRE, EMS AND POLICE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST AND PROVIDED NO OBJECTIONS.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 3 AND THE SHIRTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MET ON DECEMBER 4TH, 2024 AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH A SIX TO ZERO VOTE.
AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
[02:00:01]
TO HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR US? NO.IS THERE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN REFERENCE TO THIS SUBJECT? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
COUNCIL FLOOR'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 3.
SECOND HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.
SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN COUNCIL.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE VOTE.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER
[9. Ordinance 25-S-004 - Conduct a public hearing and consider amendments to Part III of the Schertz Code of Ordinances, Unified Development Code (UDC), to Article 11, Section 21.11.6 Prohibited Signs and Section 21.11.17 Temporary Signs. (B.James/L.Wood/E.Delgado) ]
NINE.CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO PART THREE OF THE CHURCH'S CODE OF ORDINANCES, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ARTICLE 11, SECTION 21 POINT 11.6, PROHIBITED SIGNS AND SECTION 21 11 17.
TEMPORARY SIGNS, MS. DELGADO FLOOR IS YOURS.
THIS IS FOR ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 4 A UDC AMENDMENT FOR SIGNS SPECIFICALLY FOR 21 11 6 PROHIBITED SIGNS AND 20 21 11 17 TEMPORARY SIGNS.
EMILY DELGADO, PLANNING MANAGER.
SO AS THE COUNCIL MAY REMEMBER, BACK IN NOVEMBER, WE DID BACK TO BACK CITY COUNCIL, UM, WORKSHOPS ABOUT TEMPORARY SIGNS.
GOT A LOT OF, UM, FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION AT THOSE WORKSHOPS.
AT THE SECOND WORKSHOP, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS SHOULD BE MODIFIED.
WE SHOULD HAVE INCREASED, UM, TEMPORARY SIGN HEIGHT IN THE AREA.
AND ADDITIONALLY, WE SHOULD PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON THE PROHIBITION FOR WIND-DRIVEN SIGNS.
SO, AS A REFRESHER, THESE ARE YOUR TYPES OF TEMPORARY SIGNS, WIND SIGNS, UH, A-FRAME, BALLOON SIGN, OR THE INFLATABLE GUY.
RIGHT? UH, BANNER SIGNS AND BANDIT.
SO GOING JUST AS A REFRESHER, AGAIN, THE CURRENT UDC ARTICLE 11 BASIS, THE TEMPORARY SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT BASED OFF OF THE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION.
SO DEPENDING ON HOW LARGE THE ROADWAY IS, DETERMINES HOW LARGE YOUR TEMPORARY SIGN CAN BE.
WE ALSO HAVE LIMITATIONS ON SETBACKS, TIME LIMITATIONS, AND THE NUMBER OF SIGNS BASED OFF OF THE TWO WORKSHOPS AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS RECEIVED.
STAFF IS PROPOSING THREE AMENDMENTS, THE FIRST ONE BEING 21 11 6 FOR PROHIBITED SIGNS.
CURRENTLY, THE UDC DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT LANGUAGE PROHIBITING THE WIND-DRIVEN FEATHER FLAG OR THE INFLATABLE BALLOON SIGNS.
SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT STATES WIND-DRIVEN SIGNS, INCLUDING FEATHER FLAGS AND INFLATABLE SLASH BALLOON SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED REGARDLESS OF SIZE.
THE NEXT ONE IS 21 11 17 B FOR THE MAXIMUM AREA.
AGAIN, THE CURRENT UDC, UH, IS BASED OFF OF THE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT FOR THE APPLICANT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR CLASSIFICATION IS.
SO TO STREAMLINE THAT, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO HAVE A MAXIMUM AREA OF 36 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN THE NEXT IS 21 11 17 C FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
AGAIN, ELIMINATING THE, UM, STREET CLASSIFICATION AND JUST ALLOWING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE IN THE CITY.
SO HERE'S JUST THOSE RED LINES.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT UDC AMENDMENTS, WE LOOK AT 21 4 7 D FOR THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.
THE FIRST ONE BEING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROMOTES THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW FOR LARGER IN BOTH HEIGHTENED AREA FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS, WHICH DOES ALLOW, UH, GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESSES.
UH, ADDITIONALLY IT DOES INCLUDE CLARITY ON WHAT SIGNS WOULD BE PROHIBITED, WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR BUSINESS OWNERS AS WELL BEFORE THEY, YOU KNOW, GO AND PURCHASE SIGNS.
NUMBER TWO, AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE UDC UM, STAFF FEELS THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES MEET THE GOALS AND DESIRES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE NOVEMBER WORKSHOP.
ADDITIONALLY, PREVIOUS UDC AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ABOUT ADDING THAT GREATER FLEXIBILITY, ADDING THAT CLARITY.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS PDD AMENDMENT, EXCUSE ME, THIS UDC AMENDMENT IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, ADDING GREATER FLEXIBILITY, ALLOWING LARGER SIGNS, BUT ALSO CLARIFYING WHAT SIGNS WE DO NOT WANT.
NUMBER THREE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CORRECTS AN ERROR AND MEETS THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGING CONDITIONS OR IS IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN STATE LAW.
FOR THIS UDC AMENDMENT, IT'S REALLY TRYING TO MEET THAT CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, THE DESIRE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND AGAIN, TO MEET OTHER UDC AMENDMENTS TO ADD THAT CLARITY.
THERE ARE NO OTHER FACTORS AT THIS POINT, WHICH ARE DEEMED RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT
[02:05:01]
IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 4, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MET ON DECEMBER 4TH.
THEY DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE SIX ZERO VOTE.
ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE TIME IS 8 0 5.
IS THERE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN REFERENCE TO THIS SUBJECT? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
ALRIGHT, COUNCIL FLOORS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
YEAH, THANK THANKS TO THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THIS AND, AND CLEANING IT UP AND MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER FOR OUR, OUR BUSINESSES OUT THERE.
UM, I I PERSONALLY STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
UM, I, I THINK IT'S, I I I THINK IT'S KIND OF SILLY.
I, I AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN HAYWARD IN OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO DRIVE DOWN 3009 AND SEE OR ANY OF OUR STREETS AND SEE A BUSINESS WITH 47 FEATHER FLAGS OUT FRONT.
BUT TO BAN 'EM ENTIRELY, I THINK IS JUST A LITTLE BIT OVERKILL.
UM, LA FOR EXAMPLE, LAST FRIDAY, THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HAD THEIR MONTHLY FISH FRY AND THEY HAD LIKE TWO OR THREE FEATHER FLAGS OUT IN FRONT OF THEIR ORGANIZATION, LETTING PEOPLE THAT DRIVE UP AND DOWN THE CHURCH PARKWAY KNOW THAT THEY WERE HAVING THEIR, THEIR FISH FRY.
UM, AND TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT THEY CAN'T PUT UP THAT EASY TO PUT UP FEATHER FLAG, PUT IT UP AND THEN TAKE IT DOWN THAT NIGHT.
UH, BUT THEY CAN GO OUT AND I GUESS BUILD A SIX FOOT BY SIX FOOT WOODEN SIGN AND AS A TEMPORARY SIGN AND PUT IT OUT IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING AND DRAG IT BACK AND FORTH.
I, I, TO ME, THAT'S JUST RIDICULOUS.
UM, UH, AGAIN, THE, THE 36 SQUARE FOOT, THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT, I THINK THAT'S A LOT CLEARER THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.
BUT THE TURNAROUND AND JUST ARBITRARILY BAND, YOU KNOW, A A RELATIVELY SIMPLE, EASY TO PUT UP, EASY TO TAKE DOWN, UH, FLAG FOR A SPECIAL EVENT OR A FUNCTION, UH, ON AN, ON AN OCCASIONAL BASIS AND JUST SAY, YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVERKILL FOR THE CITY, AND I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVERLY RESTRICTIVE.
SO, UM, I, I, MYSELF, I CAN'T, CAN'T APPROVE OR VOTE FOR APPROVING THE CHANGES AS TO AS THEY'RE WRITTEN NOW.
AND, UH, I, I KNOW WHEN WE GET INTO THESE DISCUSSIONS, A LOT OF TIMES THINGS GO BACK AND FORTH AND, AND WHATNOT.
AND AFTER I READ THIS, YOU KNOW, I SAW THE CLARITY THAT YOU HAD IN THERE AND, AND I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN DAVIS.
I THINK SOME OF THE, JUST THE TOTAL BAN IS, IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TOO, UH, TOO RESTRICTIVE IN THERE.
UH, YEAH, I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE STREETS.
WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE LEAVING THINGS OUT FOR WEEKS ON END THAT TURN FROM A NICE BRIGHT, UH, FLAG TO A RATTY TATTY, YOU KNOW, RAG, UH, FLYING AROUND THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT OBVIOUSLY, BUT AS HE SAID, YOU GOT THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, I MEAN IT, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 12 TIMES A YEAR, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR FISH FRIES AND, UH, PEOPLE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.
AND YES, EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE IT'S AT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY USE IT AS A, NOT JUST AS AN ATTRACTION, BUT AS A DIRECTIONAL HELP TOO, YOU KNOW, ENTER HERE, UH, KIND OF THING.
THAT'S JUST AN EASY ONE TO, TO, TO USE.
UH, AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, BALLOONS ARE REALLY POPULAR FOR OPEN HOUSES,
I APPRECIATE IT, BUT AFTER IT'S PUT ON PAPER AND WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING IT AMONG, AMONGST SEVEN PEOPLE AT ONE TIME, UH, SOMETIMES THE WORDS COME OUT NOT QUITE WHAT I MEANT.
IT'S NOT JUST THE KNIGHT OF COLUMBUS, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE THEIR ASSIGNED FOR, WELL, FOUR HOURS IN ONE MONTH.
BUT EVEN HERE AT THE CIVIC CENTER THIS WEEKEND, WE HAD A FEDER, UH, A WIND SIGN.
IT WAS A SPECIAL CARD EVENT THAT THEY WERE HAVING JUST TO ADVERTISE THAT THEY WERE HERE IN OUR CIVIC CENTER.
AND WE WILL HAVE TO RESTRICT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON INTO THE CIVIC CENTER, WHAT FUNCTIONS ARE BEING OCCURRED IN THERE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SIGNS THAT IS
[02:10:01]
PROVIDED TO SAY, HEY, COME IN AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE.UH, SO IT IS A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE.
MAY I WISH, AGAIN, IN HINDSIGHT, I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE PRESENTATION WE PROVIDED ON NOVEMBER 19TH, WHICH ALLOWED FEATHER FLAGS, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO.
I'M ALSO HEARING WE WANNA ALLOW RENTERS OF THE CIVIC CENTER TO POST TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, WHICH WE GENERALLY DON'T ALLOW.
THEY PROBABLY PUT IT UP WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL, BUT THAT WE WANNA ALLOW RENTERS OF THE CIVIC CENTER TO PUT UP TEMPORARY SIGNS.
SO WHAT WE COULD DO, CERTAINLY IF YOU WANT TO TABLE THIS ITEM, CONTINUE IT, WE CAN COME BACK WITH WHAT WE PRESENTED ON THE 19TH, UM, MAYBE ADDING A PROVISION TO ALLOW FEATHER FLAGS FOR RENTERS OF THE CIVIC CENTER AS WELL.
I MEAN, DID THAT BETTER CAPTURE IT? BUT I'M TRYING TO RECALL WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE ON THE 19TH THAT, THAT VERSION DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH.
I THINK FOR MOST, UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE COUNCIL IS WE, YOU KNOW, A TEMPORARY SIGN IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OR TWO DAYS.
WE DON'T WANT THESE SIGNS TO STAY OUT FOR MONTHS.
IS IS IS A TOPIC THAT WE, WE, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE SIGNS CONTINUOUSLY OKAY.
SO THE CLARIFICATION THEN, IF I, IF I MAY, IS, AND, AND THIS I GUESS WOULD BE THE CHALLENGE IS SO LIKE THE CIVIC CENTER, A RENTER FOR THE COULD THIS, I GUESS IS THE STRUGGLE.
SO IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT PEOPLE CAN PUT UP, WE DON'T WANT TEMPORARY SIGNS UP FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, JUST A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THEY CAN PUT 'EM UP FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
BECAUSE I, 'CAUSE IT'S A CHALLENGE ENFORCEMENT TO SAY, HEY, YOU HAD IT UP FOR TWO DAYS, YOU GOTTA TAKE IT DOWN.
WHEN I, WHEN I, AND THEY TOOK IT DOWN INITIALLY WANTED THIS, I'M SORRY, UM, IT WAS TO ENGAGE THE BUSINESSES.
WHAT CAN WE DO FOR THEM? SO, SURE.
I DIDN'T WANT IT TO LAST GET FADED AND LOOK TACKY.
SO WHAT COULD WE POSSIBLY DO AND HAVE REQUIREMENTS? OKAY.
AND SO WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT MAYBE? I THINK WHAT STAFF'S LOOKING FOR THEN UNDERSTAND THAT IS, SO HOW LONG AND HOW OFTEN ARE YOU THINKING? AND WE CAN GO BACK AND WORK SOMETHING UP.
I WOULD SAY NO MORE THAN A WEEK IS FINE.
I WOULD OFTEN TO ME THANK YOU.
AND TO ME, TO ME, YOU KNOW, I, AGAIN, I I DON'T WANNA SEE, I'M LIKE COUNCILMAN BROWN, I DON'T WANNA SEE FEATHER FLAGS PERMANENTLY INSTALLED, YOU KNOW, A WHOLE ROLL OF 'EM THERE.
AND THEN THEY'RE GETTING OLD AND TATTERED.
BUT I MEAN, IF THEY'RE PUTTING 'EM UP FOR A FUNCTION SPECIAL EVENT, WE HAVE THAT OPTION.
UH, THE CIVIC CENTER TO ME IS KIND OF DIFFERENT.
UM, WE HAVE FOLKS THAT PUT ON EVENTS AND RENT THE SENIOR CENTER OR THE, THE CIVIC CENTER.
TO ME, THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS IT'S BACK OFF THE ROAD AND I GUESS THEY'RE WANNA PUT SOME KIND OF SIGN OR SOMETHING UP BY THE FRONT CHURCHS PARKWAY.
WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.
THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT BE NEEDED ONCE OUR DIGITAL SIGN IS REINSTALLED, WHEREVER WE'RE REINSTALLING IT.
UH, BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT IF SOMEBODY IS RENTING THE CIVIC CENTER, THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE THAT THEY ARE IN THE CIVIC CENTER ON OUR DIGITAL SIGN.
PEOPLE DRIVE UP AND DOWN THE, THE CHURCH PARKWAY.
SO YEAH, LINDA, WHAT LINDA SAID IS THAT WE DO HAVE A POLICY, AND AGAIN, THERE'S SOME LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO RENT FOR WHAT YOU HAVE TO RENT, ET CETERA.
WE CAN BRING THAT BACK NEXT MEETING ON THE LED SIGN.
UM, AGAIN, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO REMARK THIS WEEK AND THEY HAVE ONE MORE PERMIT ISSUE TO DO, AND THEN THAT SHOULD BE GOING AND INSTALLED.
UM, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO, UH, WITH REGARD TO THAT.
AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK WHAT WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR IS THE CONSENSUS OF HOW LONG YOU WANT 'EM UP.
WE DON'T WANT 'EM UP TOO LONG, BUT SO WHAT IS TOO LONG? SO BRIAN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS, AND, AND IS REMAINING OR WOULD REMAIN UNDER WHAT'S PROPOSED IS 180 DAYS MAXIMUM.
THAT'S A TEMP SIGN, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND SO THAT, IF YOU WANT ALLOW, SO IF WE THE, RIGHT NOW WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED TO DISALLOW FEATHER FLAGS, SO A FEATHER FLAG COULD BE PUT OUT FOR 180 DAYS, RIGHT? IF YOU JUST WANTED TO ELIMINATE THE PROHIBITION ON THE WIND DRIVEN ALTOGETHER, AND WE TREATED FEATHER FLAGS LIKE ALL OTHER TEMP SIGNS, THEN THOSE WOULD BE THE, THE RULES THAT WOULD, THEY WOULD FOLLOW.
I WOULD SAY 30 DAYS IS PLENTY.
IF YOU'RE ADVERTISING NEW BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE TALK ABOUT, AND THE SAME THING WITH THE, THE ISSUE.
WHEN WE WERE HAVING THE, UH, GARAGE SALES
UH, AND I THINK MOST OF OUR RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND, MOST OF OUR BUSINESSES UNDERSTAND,
[02:15:01]
UH, THE ABUSE IS VERY MINIMAL, IF ANY.AND I WOULD THINK THAT IF YOU, YOU OPEN UP A NEW BUSINESS, YOU WANNA ADVERTISE YOUR NEW, UH, 30 DAYS IS FINE.
UH, SO IS THE IDEA, MAYBE AGAIN WITH THAT, GIVEN THE GENERAL COMPLIANCE OF SHIRTS FOLKS ON IT, DO WE EVEN NEED TO, I MEAN, AND ONE THING WOULD BE AGAIN, IS HOW LONG WE MANAGE THAT.
WHAT WE COULD DO IS JUST PUT THE ORDINANCE AND SAY IT'S A 30 DAY ON THE WEATHER FLAG.
WE DON'T EVEN REQUIRE A PERMIT.
AND WE JUST LET FOLKS KNOW THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
AND THEY, WE TRUST THEM TO FOLLOW THE REGULATION.
WE DON'T EVEN PERMIT IT AND, AND, AND RELY ON THEM TO SAY, HEY, THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS.
AND, AND THEN WE WOULDN'T PROBABLY HAVE AS MUCH TIME ON ENFORCEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT TOO.
COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD, AS YOU WERE SAYING THAT, I WAS THINKING EVEN WITH HAVING ANY TYPE OF ORDINANCE WHERE YOU GIVE THEM TIME, WHO'S GONNA GO OUT THERE AND POLICE THAT? HOW DO YOU KNOW, IF WE SAY 30 DAYS, HOW DO WE KNOW IT WAS 30 DAYS? ARE WE EXPECTING EVERYONE? TO BE HONEST, WHEN I WATCHED PLANNING AND ZONING, I SAW ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SAY SHE WOULD PUT OUR SIGNS UP AND TAKE 'EM DOWN EVERY NIGHT.
AND WE ARE EXPECTING EVERYONE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY DON'T DO.
I JUST THINK ABOUT ALL THE PLACES THAT I DRIVEN DOWN.
WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN SOME OF THESE ROADS, THOSE FLAGS CLEARLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, OR THE BLUE MAN NEARLY CLEARLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND IT JUST LOOKS TACKY AND IT DOESN'T, I, MAYBE IT DOES, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN IT WHEN I'M DRIVING BY.
IT DOESN'T CAUSE ME TO GO IN TO SAY, OH, THERE'S A NEW PLACE OPEN.
RIGHT? SO, SO, AND FOR ME, WHEN I WANNA KNOW WHEN SOMETHING'S COMING, IT'S, IT'S IN THE MAGAZINE.
I SEE IT AND I GO, HEY, I THINK I WANT TO GO TO THAT RESTAURANT, OR I WANNA GO TO THAT BUSINESS.
SO, SO I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF IT.
SO AGAIN, TRYING TO BRING CLARITY ON STAFF WORK.
SO WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS.
WE GET SOME COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
WE GET SOME FLAUNTING OF THAT, RIGHT? UM, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRACK A 30 DAY PERIOD, BE IT CONSECUTIVELY OR NO, YOU'RE FINE TO DO IT FOR TWO DAYS HERE AND THEN COME BACK THREE MONTHS LATER AND DO IT FOR TWO DAYS AND THEN COME BACK THREE MONTHS LATER.
BUT OVER THE COURSE OF A A CALENDAR YEAR, YOU GET UP TO 30 DAYS, RIGHT? WE CAN REQUIRE THEM TO PULL A PERMIT.
I MEAN, AND, AND SO THERE'S A WAY TO TRACK THE TIME LIMIT UP, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE KNOW WE ISSUE PERMITS, WE HAVE ENOUGH STAFF, BE THEY EITHER IN CODE ENFORCEMENT BUILDING INSPECTIONS THAT WE CAN SAY, HEY, JUST DOUBLE CHECK THAT THEY DIDN'T PUT IT UP OR WE TOOK IT DOWN AGAIN, IF WE WANT TO REQUIRE THE PERMIT, THAT WOULD BE HOW WE WOULD TRACK IT.
NOW, AGAIN, WHAT COU STAFF WOULD WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF WE HAVE COUNSEL SUPPORT FOR THOUGH, IS THAT IF WE GO OUT, SOMEBODY HASN'T PULLED A PERMIT, WE'RE GONNA TELL 'EM TO TAKE IT DOWN AND WE'RE NOT GONNA LET 'EM WEAVE IT UP WITH A GRACE PERIOD.
AND THAT Y'ALL ARE OKAY WITH THAT, RIGHT? AS OPPOSED TO THEN STAFF GETS A BUNCH OF CALLS SAYING, WHY DID YOU MAKE 'EM TAKE DOWN? WELL, YOU MADE 'EM TAKE IT DOWN FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO COME IN AND GET A PERMIT AT THE WINDOW.
AND THERE WERE EVENTS OVER THE WEEKEND AND WHERE ARE WE HASSLING THEM, KIND OF THING.
I MEAN, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE EXPECTATION.
NOW, THE OTHER WAY YOU CAN DO IT IS SORT OF AN HONOR SYSTEM WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GET A PERMIT.
SO WE'RE NOT MESSING WITH THAT, BUT WE'RE RELYING ON THEM TO SAY, I'M GONNA KEEP WITHIN THE 30 DAYS.
AND THERE'S NOT A WAY FOR US TO TRACK IT.
THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT.
AND SO SOME PEOPLE WILL TRY TO FOLLOW THE HONOR SYSTEM, SOME PROBABLY WON'T.
BUT, BUT JUST TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE ISSUE.
IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN A 30 DAY CONSECUTIVE, MEANING YOU CAN COME IN, YOU GET IT 30 DAYS.
BUT AGAIN, THE KNIGHTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DO IT WHEN THEY HAVE THE FISH, RIGHT? WHICH IS NOT A CONSECUTIVE THING.
UM, BUT WE COULD, WE COULD ENFORCE THAT WE CAN DO 30 DAYS, NO MORE THAN THREE TIMES A YEAR.
NOW IT STOPS 'EM FROM DOING IT NEXT 30 DAYS.
UM, IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THE COUNCIL AT THIS POINT.
UH, DO YOU WANNA TABLE IT UNTIL THEY REVISE IT? YOU WANNA MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THIS MOTION? I MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS.
DO I HAVE TO SAY THE ORDINANCE TOO? OKAY.
THERE'S THERE BEEN A MOTION TO TABLE ORDINANCE NUMBER 25 S 0 0 4 AND SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN TO TABLE IT.
I, I THINK MAYOR, THE, THE LACK OF CLARITY, WE'RE HAPPY TO COME BACK NEXT MEETING.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO COME BACK WITH.
I THINK, UH, I, I THINK THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO IS 30 DAYS, NO MORE THAN THREE TIMES DURING THE YEAR.
SO YOU COULD, AND JUST NOT CONSECUTIVE, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN DO 30 DAYS.
[02:20:01]
YOU HAVE TO TAKE A MONTH OFF, TAKE 30 DAYS, YOU CAN DO IT ANOTHER 30 DAYS, TAKE A MONTH OFF AND DO IT TO ANOTHER 30 DAYS, AND THEN YOU'RE RESTRICTED FOR FOUR MONTHS.BUT IF YOU COME IN AND SAY, I JUST WANT TO DO IT FOR TWO DAYS, YOU'RE EATING UP A 30 DAY WINDOW, IS THAT, THAT'S FINE.
RIGHT? SO YOUR TOTAL MAX IS 90 DAYS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT STAFF WE'RE HAPPY TO DO.
WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS TO ME DOING THAT, MAYOR, MAYOR I, YOU'RE SAYING 30 DAYS.
AND IF THEY JUST COME IN AND SAY THEY WANT TWO, THAT COMPLICATES MATTERS.
BECAUSE IF YOU SAY, OH, I JUST WANT TWO, AND THEN THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND.
I MEAN IT, I THINK WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE COMPLICATING MATTERS WITH THREE TIMES A YEAR, 30 DAYS, THAT KIND OF THING.
I'M, I THINK WE'RE JUST, WE'RE MAKING IT MORE COMPLICATED.
AND IT'S SORT OF LIKE WE, WE AGREED AND WE DISAGREED.
NOW WE AGREED, NOW WE'RE DISAGREEING AGAIN ON HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO.
AND THAT'S SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE, I THINK IS 'CAUSE WE ARE NOT AGREEING ON THIS AND WE KEEP DISCUSSING IT AS IF WE'RE BREAKING IT DOWN AND WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS OF THINGS AND WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO GET IT INTO THE WEEDS OF THINGS.
WE'RE EITHER GONNA ALLOW 'EM OR NOT ALLOW 'EM.
BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES, IF THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND GET A PERMIT, THEN SOMEONE ON STAFF HAS TO TRACK THAT, THEN MAKE SURE IT'S 30 DAYS.
AND THEN WHAT IF SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE A PERMIT? I MEAN, THEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT.
I THINK IT, IT JUST COMPLICATES THE WHOLE ISSUE IN MY OPINION.
I WILL SAY THIS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, WE HAVE A VERY NICE PERMITTING SOFTWARE SYSTEM.
IT LETS US DO A LOT OF THINGS.
SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, A CHALLENGE IN BREAKING IT DOWN THAT WAY.
THE SYSTEM LETS US, IT'S REALLY FOR THE APPLICANT COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.
AND, AND AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE, UH, WE NEED TO FOCUS, AS MICHELLE SAID EARLIER ON THE BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS FOR THE BUSINESSES.
UH, I, I KNOW THAT OUR INTENT IS NOT TO STOP A ONE DAY GARAGE SALE SIGN OR A ONE DAY OPEN HOUSE SIGN.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE FROM INDIVIDUALS AND, AND WHATNOT.
SO, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DO PULL A LOT OF GARAGE SALE SIGNS FOR ONE DAY,
WELL, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT DON'T MEAN, I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE MIXING, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUAL, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE LIKE SAYING, YOU KNOW, LEMONADE STAND, YOU KNOW, GO PULL THAT SIGN.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A SIGN UP THERE
BUT, UH, DEFINITELY FOR BUSINESSES, IF YOU'RE OUT THERE ON 3 0 0 9 OR SHEZ PARKWAY OR 78 OR, OR WHATEVER, YEAH.
I MEAN, WE NEED, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME STANDARD, SOME CONTROLS, SOME, UH, SOME LEVEL OF, UH, UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, THAT THE BUSINESSES CAN CLEARLY SAY, OKAY, I CAN, I CAN'T.
I NEED TO GO DOWN AND PULL A PERMIT.
YOU KNOW, UH, I HAVE A GRAND OPENING OR I HAVE A SPECIAL THIS WEEKEND, I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE, YOU KNOW, RED WAVY SIGNS AND A BALLOON GUY, YOU KNOW.
UH, WHEREAS THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO HAVE A, UH, YOU KNOW, AN OPEN HOUSE TO SELL THEIR HOUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THEY HAVE TO GO DOWN AND GET A PERMIT FOR A SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY? SO, SO A A FOR SALE SIGN IS EXEMPT.
IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SIGN.
SO YOU CAN PUT A FOR SALE SIGN, BUT WE TEND TO GET HER THE OPEN HOUSE THAT IT'S NOT THE ONE ON YOUR LOT, IT'S THE ONE OUT ON SURE.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE IT ON YOUR LOT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UH, YEAH, FOR FOR SALE, WE, WE HAVE A SISTER CITY THAT THEIR INTENT WAS NOT TO, TO RESTRICT THAT, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT GOT WRITTEN.
AND THEIR CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS ENFORCING THAT.
YOU KNOW, AND, UH, IT CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, FOR SALE SIGN IS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF SIGN, DIFFERENT SET OF RES ALONG WITH AN OPEN HOUSE ALONG WITH THE GARAGE SALE.
UH, GARAGE SALE IS A SPECIFIC KIND, I THINK THE OPEN HOUSE WE TYPICALLY CONSIDER TO BE A, UM, A FOR SALE SIGN SAME DAY EVENT.
WE CATEGORIZE IT THE SAME WAY.
COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, UH, OUR, OUR PERMITTING SOFTWARE.
I MEAN, HOW, HOW, HOW FLEXIBLE IS THAT? CAN SOMEONE GO AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT ONLINE WITHOUT COMING INTO THE CITY? OH, YEAH.
UH, AND IF YOU SET UP A PERMIT FOR A FLAG SIGN, COULD THEY FEASIBLY GO ONLINE, APPLY FOR THAT PERMIT, THE SYSTEM SAYS IT'S GOOD FOR A DAY OR TWO OR THREE, WHATEVER WE SET IN THERE WITH ZERO FEE.
AND ONCE THEY SUBMIT THAT THEY GET THEIR ELECT THEIR PERMIT ELECTRONICALLY.
THE APPROVAL'S ELECTRONICALLY, SOMEBODY HAS TO TOUCH IT.
RIGHT? IT'S NOT A FULLY AUTOMATED SYSTEM WHERE YOU STICK THIS IN AND IT'S AUTO APPROVED.
SOMEBODY HAS TO GO LOOK AT IT.
BUT, BUT THAT'S A COUNTER BECAUSE I'M GUESSING, I'M GUESSING THEN IF, IF YOU, IF YOU'RE GONNA TURN AROUND AND SAY FLAG, I MEAN, I GUESS WE'RE SAYING THE INFLATABLE, WAVY GUYS AS A NO-GO.
[02:25:01]
UH, BUT IF THEY'VE GOT A FLAG SIGN OR EVEN THE INFLATABLE WAY, RIGHT? I KNOW WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT AND HOW CLOSE IT WAS TO THE STREET AND ALL THAT KIND OF GOOD STUFF.UM, BUT THEORETICALLY WE COULD TRACK IT THAT WAY WHERE IF SOMEBODY GOES ONLINE AND SAY, LIKE THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, THEY CAN GO IN THERE THAT MONTH AND SAY, I NEED A PERMIT FOR THREE FLAG SIGNS FOR ONE DAY.
UM, AND THEN SOMEONE IN THE STAFF CODE ENFORCEMENT'S RUNNING THOSE REPORTS OF WHO'S GOT THESE THINGS AND HOW LONG THEY'RE, THEY'RE FOR, I MEAN, IT'S, YEAH, WHAT THEY'LL DO IS THOUGH, IF THEY'RE OUT LOOKING AT SIGNS AND THEY SEE A SIGN UP, AND THIS IS TAKE A GENERAL TEMPORARY SIGN, RIGHT? SO YOU GOT A TEMPORARY SIGN THAT CURRENTLY IS ALLOWED IN THE CODE, IF THEY GO BY AND LOOK AT IT AND THEY GO, AH, THAT'S NEW.
THEY'LL SOMETIMES GO, LET ME CHECK AND SEE IF THEY PULLED A PERMIT FOR THAT.
JUST LIKE THEY DO AS THEY'RE DRIVING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOMEBODY'S DOING ROOF WORK AND THEY GO, EH, LET ME JUST CHECK, MAKE SURE THOSE GUYS GOT A PERMIT.
I MEAN, BECAUSE I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT, AT LOOKING AT IT FROM A 30,000 FOOT VIEW.
I MEAN, EVEN IF WE CHANGE THE TEMPORARY SIGN TO A SIX MONTH PERIOD FOR A SIX BY SIX SIGN, UH, NOT TO EXCEED 36 SQUARE FEET, NO MORE THAN SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT, I'M SURE THERE'S AN EDUCATION PROCESS WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, TEMPORARY SIGNS HAVE A, HAVE 180 DAYS.
UM, I'M SURE CODE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT SITTING THERE LOOKING AT, WELL, I GOT THE REQUEST TODAY.
I'M GONNA PUT THIS ON MY CALENDAR TO GO OUT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW TO MAKE SURE IT'S TAKEN DOWN.
BUT AS THEY DRIVE AROUND AND THEY SEE THESE THINGS, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE YOU SEE A ROOFING GUY, UH, THEY'RE GONNA SEE THIS TEMPORARY SIGN AND SAY, HEY, THAT THING'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.
LET ME GO BACK AND CHECK AND SEE HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE.
IT, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THE CITY CAN DO THAT'S GONNA BE A HUNDRED PERCENT PERFECT TO HOLD EVERYBODY IN THE CITY ACCOUNTABLE AND TO THE HOUR OR MINUTE OR DAY OF SIGNS.
UM, BUT I I, I JUST THINK THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR SOME OF THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES TO, TO BE ABLE TO ADVERTISE THEIR BUSINESS, TO, TO DRAW ATTENTION TO WHAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON, UH, WITHOUT JUST PUTTING A HAMMER DOWN AND SAYING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
AND, AND, AND SO AGAIN, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
AND SO I THINK, AGAIN, WHAT I'M HEARING THE DISCUSSION SAY, AND SO LET ME, LET ME ASK THIS.
THERE CLEARLY SEEMS TO BE A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WANTING TO ALLOW FEATHER FLAGS.
DOES THAT EXTEND TO INFLATABLES OR IS IT REALLY JUST NO, NO INFLATABLES, BUT, UM, FEATHER FLAGS? I'M GOOD WITH, OR NOT SIX AND ONE HALF DOZEN THE OTHER, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR A MAJORITY OF KNOTS OR SHAKES.
DEFINITELY NOT, UH, THE BALLOON GUYS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY RE-LISTENED TO THE MEETING FROM THE LAST TIME BECAUSE I DIDN'T RECALL THE FEATHER FLAGS BEING PROHIBITED.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS JUST LIMITED TO A HEIGHT SIZE.
BUT, UH, I, I GUESS I WAS WRONG.
I DEFINITELY KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO INTEREST IN HAVING THE BALLOON GUYS AND THE BIG AND FLOATABLE GORILLAS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO I GUESS I COULD LIVE WITH THE, THE FEATHER FLAGS, BUT, UH, I THINK THEY WOULD'VE TO BE UNDER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION AND THE OTHER RULES THAT ARE SET FORTH.
SO I'M LOOKING FOR, AGAIN, A MAJORITY OF FOLKS ON THE BALLOON GUY.
COUNCIL, NOT, NOT THAT I'M COUNTING VOTES.
SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THIS POINT IS ALLOWING FEATHER FLAGS AND ALLOWING FEATHER FLAGS UP TO THE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
AND, AND WHAT WE'RE INCLINED TO DO IS WE'RE GONNA TREAT THOSE DIFFERENT THAN A TEMPORARY SIGN.
SO WE'RE NOT GONNA LET YOU HAVE IT UP THE 180 DAYS.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING FOLKS SAY IS THAT, AND LET STAFF GO BACK AND TRY THIS, IS THAT I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE 'EM UP TOO LONG OF A STRETCH AT ONCE.
SO MAYBE 30 DAYS, MAYBE A MONTH, RIGHT? 31 FOR SOME.
BUT I ALSO AM OKAY WITH, LET'S TAKE A, AN ORGANIZATION THAT EVERY MONTH OVER FRIDAY AND SATURDAY RIGHT? DOES AN EVENT AND THEY WANT TO PUT 'EM UP ROUTINELY.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT THEY HAVE 'EM UP FOR 24 DAYS, IT'S NOT EVEN THE FULL 30 DAYS.
THERE'S SOME WINDOW I'M WILLING TO ALLOW.
AND SO THE QUESTION THEN IS WE CAN, WE CAN WRITE IT THAT WAY, RIGHT? THAT, THAT SAYS, LOOK, YOU, YOU'VE GOT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS YOU CAN HAVE IT UP.
YOU CAN EITHER BREAK THAT DOWN INTO SMALLER
[02:30:01]
BITS OR YOU CAN HAVE ONE FELL SWOOP.OR YOU CAN DO IT IN TWO BATCHES, WHICHEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
THE QUESTION KIND OF WOULD BE IS, IS 30 DAYS WHAT WE'RE THINKING? WHICH IS, AND THAT WOULD BE ANNUALLY, OR IS IT NO, THAT'S NOT QUITE ENOUGH.
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EQUAL BOTH WAYS.
SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS LET YOU DO THE WIND-DRIVEN SIGNS, THE FEATHER FLAGS FOR SAY, UP TO 90 DAYS A YEAR.
AND THAT CAN EITHER BE IN ONE BATCH OR BROKEN DOWN.
AND AGAIN, YOU COULD BREAK DOWN SOMEWHERE IN 30 DAYS AT A TIME.
BUT I THINK WHAT, SOME BUSINESSES HAVE A NEW BUSINESS COMING IN.
I'M HEARING SOME PEOPLE SAY, YEAH, GIVE 'EM 30 DAYS.
BUT THEN YOU'VE ALSO GOT, WELL, IF THEY DO A SEASONAL SPECIAL, THEY 30 DAYS IN THE SPRING, 30 DAYS IN THE WINTER, RIGHT? WE CAN GO EITHER WAY.
I THINK THE QUESTION ALWAYS, HOW MANY DAYS DO YOU WANNA ALLOW SOMEBODY TO HAVE FEATHER FLUS UP A YEAR? ORDER OF MAGNITUDE? MAYOR PRO, I SPOKE, UH, YES SIR.
SO I'D LIKE TO START OFF, UM, MAKE A COMMENT.
AND, UH, BEFORE I CALL THE QUESTION, I CAN MAKE A COMMENT AND A SHORT STORY.
ONE, UM, YOU'VE BEEN EXTREMELY PROFESSIONAL AND PATIENT.
UM, AND SO WHICH SEGUES INTO THE, THE SHORT STORY.
THIS REMINDS ME OF THE TIME I STARTED COUNTRY LINE DANCING.
COUNTRY DANCING AT, UH, COWBOYS.
UH, THE LEADER, THE FOLLOWER IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE LEADER.
AND IT SEEMS TO, WHICH GOES INTO, HEY, YOU'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY FOLLOWING 'CAUSE THERE'S DIFFICULTY LEADING, THERE'S NO CONSENSUS.
AND YOU'RE GETTING ALL THESE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS HERE.
AND I DON'T BLAME YOU 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE, I'VE BEEN A POOR LEADER AND I'VE BEEN A POOR FOLLOWER.
UH, BUT WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE KEEP GOING DOWN THE SEGUE, WE EITHER NEED TO VOTE THE MOTION UP OR DOWN, AND THEN YOU CAN BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH.
OR WE CAN TRY IT AGAIN, OR WE CAN VOTE IN, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
BUT THIS IS, SHE'S ALREADY MADE A MOTION.
AND WE'RE, WE KEEP GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES.
NO, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, COUNCILMAN, IF I MAY, I MEAN, I THINK THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WAS DENY.
I CLEARLY GET THE SENSE THERE'S A MAJORITY THAT'S NOT COMFORTABLE APPROVING WHAT'S BEFORE YOU.
AND IT WOULD DENY THE MOTION WAS TO TABLE TO TABLE TO TABLE.
BUT I, I THINK THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN CALLED, BUT I THINK THE, WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR WAS SPECIFICS.
WERE WERE THOSE, WAS THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDED TO YOU? RIGHT.
I, I THINK WE'RE GETTING CLOSER.
AND SO, AGAIN, LET ME, IF I MAY OFFER, AND AGAIN, I, I DON'T WANNA DRAG THIS OUT.
I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS SORT OF DISCUSSION.
I THINK COUNCILMAN BROWN'S COMMENT WAS, WAS VERY MUCH ACCURATE AND WE WOULD AGREE.
YOU TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS IN THE ABSTRACT DURING A MEETING, AND THEN YOU SEE IT ON PAPER AFTER YOU'VE SLEPT ON IT.
LET'S COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT.
AND, AND THAT HELPS YOU SHAPE IT.
SO OFTEN THESE ARE AN ITERATIVE PROCESS.
STEPH DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE WAY THIS THING HAS GONE.
WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS, THIS IS OFTEN WHAT HAPPENS WITH A TRICKY, CHALLENGING QUESTION.
THERE'S NOT A RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER.
SO WE'LL TRY TO MOVE IT ALONG.
AND SO I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME DIRECTION.
I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT STAFF WOULD SAY IS TRYING TO GET A FEELING WE CAN COME BACK WITH A COUPLE OF VERSIONS IS KINDA HOW LONG ARE YOU THINKING WE WANT TO ALLOW FEATHER FLAGS UP? IS IT FOR 90 DAYS? IS IT 30 DAYS? IS KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING THAT WE DON'T WANT IT LESS THAN 30, MAYBE DON'T WANT IT MORE THAN 90.
UM, AND THAT CAN BE EITHER IN ONE PERIOD OR IT CAN BE BROKEN UP COLLECTIVELY EITHER IN ONE ONE STRAIGHT PERIOD, OR, OR YOU CAN BREAK IT IT UP.
I THINK YOU HAVE YOUR DIRECTION.
THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED BY MAYOR PRO TEMP, UH, WESTBROOK MOTION'S BEEN MADE TO TABLE THE, UH, ORDINANCE 25 S 0 0 4 BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON AND SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, CALL FOR THE VOTE MAYOR AS A POINT OF COUNT NOTIFICATION.
IF WE SAY NAY, YOU'RE GONNA BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH.
IF YOU SAY, AYE, YOU GONNA BRING IT BACK AND Y'ALL GOTTA SIT UP HERE AND KEEP VOTE.
NEXT MEETING, NEXT MEETING, SAME DAY WE'RE, YEAH.
UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TABLE AND THE POSTPONED IS THE TABLE WILL BE BROUGHT BACK UP ON THE NEXT MEETING TO POSTPONE IS A TIME, TIME LAPSE THERE.
SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BOTH.
OKAY, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE VOTE.
UH, MAYOR, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.
AFTER PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING THE STATEMENTS YOU MADE, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS, UH,
[10. Quarterly Update- City Council Approved Zoning and Specific Use Permit Ordinances in relation to current development status]
QUARTERLY UPDATES.UH, CITY COUNCIL, THE, UH, ZONING AND SPECIAL USE, SPECIAL USE PERMANENT ORDINANCES, UH,
[02:35:01]
IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STATUS.[11. Information regarding a pending update to the City of Schertz Water and Wastewater Master Plans, Land Use Assumptions, and Capital Improvement Plans that establish the basis for updates to the City's Water and Wastewater Impact Fees. ]
INFORMATION REGARDING A PENDING UPDATE ON THE CITY OF SHIRTS, WATER, AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLANS.UH, INFORMATION PACKETS WERE PROVIDED TO COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO VIEW AT OUR WEBSITE, SHIRTS.COM.
[ Requests and Announcements Requests by Mayor and Councilmembers for updates or information from Staff Requests by Mayor and Councilmembers that items or presentations be placed on a future City Council agenda City and Community Events attended and to be attended (Council)]
WE'LL GO ON TO REQUEST AN ANNOUNCEMENTS.COUNSEL ANY POSSIBLE UPDATES OR INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM STAFF.
COUNSEL, ANY POSSIBLE ITEMS YOU'D LIKE TO PLACE ON THE FUTURE AGENDA? NONE.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON, NOTHING AT THIS TIME.
COUNCIL MEMBER ALISO? UH, NOTHING SIR.
COUNCIL MEMBER HAYWARD, UH, NOTHING.
I JUST WANNA LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT THE NEW TEXAS TOWN AND CITIES MAGAZINE, YOU'LL GET DIGITALLY, PLEASE READ IT.
IT'LL BE VERY HELPFUL DURING THE, UH, 89TH LEGISLATURE.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, NOTHING TONIGHT.