* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] IT IS SEVEN O'CLOCK. [Planning and Zoning on March 4, 2025.] ALL RIGHTY. WE WILL CALL THIS, UH, MEETING OF THE CITY OF HU, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2025 TO ORDER. IT IS 7:00 PM OKAY. ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER STEWART IS ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MORRIS? HERE. COMMISSIONER HUDSON? HERE. COMMISSIONER SHERROD? HERE. COMMISSIONER WORTZ HERE. AND COMMISSIONER BOYER. I AM HERE. SO WE HAVE ONE VACANCY AND ONE ABSENT. ALL RIGHT. UH, PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NONE. WE WILL OPEN AND CLOSE IT AT 7 0 1. ALRIGHTY. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025. ITEM 4.2 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED MEADOWBROOK PRELIM. PRELIMINARY PLAT 87.8 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND 335 LOTS LOCATED ON FM 1660 SOUTH. ITEM 4.3 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED IRONWOOD AMENDED PLAT 117.552 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND SIX INDUSTRIAL LOTS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INNOVATION BOULEVARD IN US HIGHWAY 79. ITEM 4.4 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED GOLA PHASE FOUR, FINAL PLAT 24.05, TWO ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND 133 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FOUR OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED ON FM 1660 SOUTH. DISCUSSION, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 4.3. ANY OBJECTION, ANY OBJECTIONS TO PULLING 4.3? HEARING NONE, WE CAN DO THAT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PULL 4.4. OKAY. ANY OBJECTIONS TO PULLING 4.4? HEARING NONE, WE WILL PULL 4.4. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING 4.1 AND 4.2. MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION, SORRY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4.1 AND 4.2 AS, UH, AS DOCUMENTED. I'LL SECOND IT. WHO, WHO, WHO SECONDED? I DID. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL GET YOU STRAIGHT. THANK YOU, . OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS TO ACCEPT CONSENT. AGENDA ITEMS 4.1 AND 4.2 AS PRESENTED AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WORTZ. ANY DISCUSSION? ? HEARING NONE WILL TAKE A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. FIVE ZERO. COMMISSIONER MORRIS? YEAH, ON, UM, I'M, I'M HAVE REALLY NO PROBLEMS AT ALL WITH 4.3. AND, UM, IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 80 OF OUR PACKETS, UM, IT LISTS, UH, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. STAFF REVIEW RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, AND THERE'S ONE THROUGH SIX. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, AS I LOOK THROUGH THE PLAT DOCUMENTS, PAGE 84 THROUGH 92, THERE'S A NUMBER OF, UH, RED AND BLUE COMMENTS THAT TALK ABOUT THIS. DOESN'T, IS IT EITHER QUESTION MARK OR THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. ALL I'M WONDERING AND ASKING STAFF, AND I DON'T NEED TO GO BY LINE, BY LINE ON THESE PAGES OF PLATS IS ALL, ARE ALL OF THOSE CORRECTIONS AND QUESTIONS INCORPORATED IN THE SIX CONDITIONS FOR THE STAFF THAT STAFF HAS, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL? YES. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WAS ABLE TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED PLA TO STAFF. IT WAS JUST, WE HAD ALREADY PUBLISHED THIS PACKET, SO WE KNOW THAT THESE CONDITIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET. UM, AS OF THE MEETING TONIGHT, THAT WAS ALL I WANTED TO DO IS JUST CONFIRM THAT. THANK YOU. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT 4.3 AS [00:05:01] PRESENTED BY STAFF. I SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS TO ACCEPT 4.3 AS PRESENTED WITH, UH, THE FOLLOW WITH THE INFORMATION FROM STAFF AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHERROD ALL DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHTY. HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY YES OR AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES. FIVE ZERO. COMMISSIONER WORTZ. UM, MY ONLY THING IS, UH, IF STAFF WOULD EXPLAIN AGAIN WHY WE WANT TO DISAPPROVE 4.4. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE LAST, UM, MEETING WE HAD. IF IT, IF WE, IF IT WAS, I'M SORRY. 'CAUSE I WAS NOT HERE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY STAFF IS, WHY WE REJECTING IT. SURE THING FOR THE RECORD. ASHLEY BAILEY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, UH, THE REASON THAT WE ARE STILL RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS IS BECAUSE THIS PLAT HAS NOT REQUESTED TO WAIVE HOUSE BILL 31 67 OR 36 99 AS AMENDED. UM, THEREFORE THEY STILL HAVE ENOUGH OUTSTANDING COMMENTS. UM, ALSO ON THE DRAINAGE PORTIONS THAT ARE ALL ATTACHED MM-HMM . THAT ENGINEERING IS NOT YET COMFORTABLE TO EVEN APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. OKAY. SO AT THIS POINT, WE JUST HAVE TO DISAPPROVE AND THEN WE GO BACK INTO A CYCLE WITH THIS ONE WHERE THEY HAVE A SPECIAL SUBMITTAL DATE FOR DENIED SHOT CLOCK PLOTS, AND THEN WE HAVE 15 DAYS TO GET ON THE NEXT AGENDA. OKAY. MY QUESTION IS, HOW MANY TIMES CAN THEY, THE CYCLE IS NEVER ENDING. THEY BRING IT TO US NEVER ENDING? NEVER. OKAY. NEVER. NEVER ENDING? NEVER. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. LET'S HOPE IT'S NOT, I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE, BUT THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO PRESCRIPTION IN THE STATE LAW THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THEY ONLY HAVE THREE SHOTS OF THIS OR FOUR SHOTS OF THIS. THEY COULD CONCEIVABLY JUST KEEP SUBMITTING EVERY 15 ON THAT 15 DAY CYCLE, 15 OR 15 DAYS PRIOR TO EACH P AND Z MEETING AND TRY AGAIN AND TRY AGAIN. AND WE JUST KEEP TAKING THAT AND REVIEWING IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I, I JUST WAS WONDERING WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM 4.4 AS WRITTEN. I'LL SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WIRTZ TO ACCEPT ITEM 4.4 AS WRITTEN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HUDSON. AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION, SO WE WILL VOTE ON THIS. ALL IN FAVOR OF CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO DISAPPROVE, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. MOTION PASSES. FIVE TO ZERO ITEM 5.1. I'M SORRY. CAN I MAKE, SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP. WHEN YOU'RE SAYING, WHEN WE'RE DISAPPROVING THE RECOMMEND FOR DENIAL. IS THAT WHAT WE JUST DID? NO. YES, WE APPROVED DISAPPROVAL. WE APPROVED, WE APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION. RECOMMENDATION. I JUST WANTED DISAPPROVE. I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION MOST. YEAH, SORRY. THANK YOU. THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY YES. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. THAT'S OKAY. DOUBLE NEGATIVELY ITEM 5.1, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR 6 25 SCHNEIDER BOULEVARD FROM SINGLE FAMILY SF ONE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LI FOR AN APPROXIMATE 6.91 ACRE SITE. MORE OR LESS OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF SCHNEIDER BOULEVARD AND EAST OF INNOVATION BOULEVARD. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. JOHN BYRON, PLANNING MANAGER. THIS TRACK IS APPROXIMATELY 6.9 ACRES OF LAND AND IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SCHNEIDER BOULEVARD. THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH IS DESIGNATING THIS AREA AS EMPLOYMENT CENTER, UH, WHICH IS GONNA ALLOW THAT LIGHT MANUFACTURING OFFICE PARK AND SUPPORTIVE RETAIL. WE HAVE A IMAGE THERE ON THE RIGHT THAT SHOWS WHERE THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER, UH, THE SER WILL NOT BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME FOR THE ZONING CHANGE, BUT IT WILL BE A CONDITION ON THE ZONING CHANGE THAT ANY FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE SITE OR ANY ADDITIONAL CONNECTION MAY TRIGGER AN SER IN THE FUTURE. HERE WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY USES, UM, TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. IT'S THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH GATEWAY OVERLAY TO THE EAST SINGLE FAMILY WITH GATEWAY OVERLAY AND THEN THE WEST SINGLE FAMILY WITH THE GATEWAY [00:10:01] OVERLAY AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH THE GATEWAY OVERLAY. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE LEFT MAP, THAT BEING THE CURRENT ZONING. AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IT'S THE, UM, FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWING AGAIN THAT EMPLOYMENT CENTER. WE HAVE A SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT OF THE SITE. THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN ZONED TO THAT DEFAULT SINGLE FAMILY SF ONE. UM, BACK IN 2012. UH, THE SITE HAS BEEN USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES BY HOUSLEY COMMUNICATION INC. THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING USE AND THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AGAIN, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE EITHER ZONED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR HAVE THAT INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF USE CRITERIA FOR A ZONING MAP. AMENDMENT AS LISTED IN SECTION 10.3 OF THE UDC ARE AS FOLLOWS. SO THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ANY COMMUNITY, NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLA PLANS. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OF COURSE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH DESIGNATES THIS AS EMPLOYMENT CENTER. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND PERMITTED USES ON PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PROPOSED REZONING OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS COMPATIBLE TO THE TYPE OF USE THAT'S CURRENTLY ON SITE. UM, AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, THE SITE JUST HAD THAT DEFAULT ZONING OF SF ONE AND IT WAS NEVER REZONED. CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE CHANGED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS NECESSARY. UM, THE SITE AND AREA IS DESIGNATED FOR THAT EMPLOYMENT CENTER, WHICH ALLOWS THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE. AGAIN, AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, IT JUST HAD THAT DEFAULT ZONING OF SF ONE. AND THEN PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IS NECESSARY TO HAVE THE SITE COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND MATCH WITH MAT MATCH. WITH THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE PROPOSED ZONING DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. UH, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES HAVE EITHER THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE OR THAT USE. SO THE REZONING IS NOT GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, UH, BUT WILL JUST BRING THE, THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE PROPOSED ZONING CORRECTS THE CLERICAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR ON THE ZONING MAP. GOING BACK TO AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION IN 2012, IT WENT WITH THAT DEFAULT ZONE OF SF ONE AND JUST WAS NEVER REZONED FOR THE INDUSTRIAL USE. UH, THE REZONING TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS GONNA BE CONSISTENT WITH, UM, OUR FUTURE LAND JUICE MAP. THE PROPOSED ZONING RESULTS IS A LOGIC, LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. AGAIN, THE REZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT USE, THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND OF COURSE, WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS NOT MERELY INTENDED TO CONFER AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. UH, THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS JUST TO BE CONSISTENT, UM, WITH THE USE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THEN THE SITE IS ILLEGAL BUILDING LOT STAFF SENT OUT NOTICES TO 19 SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT 600 FOOT BUFFER. UH, TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ZERO RESPONSES AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE FROM SF ONE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH THE CONDITION ON THE ZONING CHANGE THAT ANY FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE SITE OR ANY ADDITIONAL CONNECTION MAY TRIGGER AN SCR IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. DISCUSSION. PUBLIC TURN AND JUST AS A REMINDER, IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. TERRY. ALL RIGHTY. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 PM IS ANYONE HERE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM? NONE. HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 PM ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE ARE NO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. CORRECT? DESPITE THE ZONING SAYING THEY ARE SF ONE AS AS STAFF LAID OUT QUITE WELL. RIGHT. THAT'S AN ADMIN ERROR. BUT IF IT WAS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY, AT SOME POINT IT'S GONNA REMAIN SINGLE FAMILY UNTIL IT'S REZONED, UNTIL IT'S REZONED, WHICH THEY'RE DOING. CORRECT. SO THAT KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH MY QUESTION IS OF THE 19 ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ZERO ARE RESIDENTIAL, CORRECT? YES. WELL, ZERO RESPONDED BACK. NO, MY [00:15:01] QUESTION AND ZERO ARE RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION IS, IS OF THE 19 ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR ANY OF THEM RESIDENTIAL? SURE. THEY WERE DON'T RESIDENTIAL. SO TO CLARIFY, SOUND RESIDENTIAL SOMETHING TO CLARIFY, IT WAS 19 PROPERTIES WITHIN 600 FEET. OKAY. THAT OKAY. AND WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY ADJACENT. WELL, I'M JUST READING WHAT IT SAYS HERE. OKAY. ARE YOU, ARE YOU SAYING ADJACENT TO IT OR WITHIN THE STAFF SENT NOTICE THIS QUOTE, STAFF SENT NOTICES TO 19 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS STOP. WERE ANY OF THOSE 19 ADJACENT PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL? YES. SO THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED BUT NOT CURRENT RESIDENTIAL? NO. RESIDENTIAL CURRENT PROPERTIES. PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM? YES. I THINK, I THINK THE CONFUSION IS THE TERMINOLOGY YEAH. ADJACENT. YES. BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THESE ARE NOT ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT? CORRECT. THIS IS ADJACENT AND THIS IS, AND THESE ARE, AND THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY HERE OR OVER HERE? THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY HERE. THESE ARE NOT ADJACENT TO IT, BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THE 600, 600 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. I THINK IT'S JUST THE WORD ADJACENT. RIGHT? OKAY. YEAH. SO NONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOTIFIED WERE OCCUPIED SF ONE PROPERTIES? YES, THEY WERE. I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A MM, THEY THEY NOTIFIED 19 PROPERTY OWNERS. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. SOME OF THOSE ARE HOUSES IN EMORY FARMS. SO YES. THE QUESTION IS SOME OF THE NOTIFIED PROPERTIES WERE WITHIN THE OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, RIGHT? THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT'S ALL I TO KNOW. BUT BUT THEY ARE NOT ADJACENT BUT THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT TO IT. WELL, THEY'RE ADJACENT WITH NOT 600 FEET. THEY'RE NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT. IT A SCRATCH ADJACENT. YEAH. COULD 600 FEET, BUT THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT. I JUST WANNA KNOW IF RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED . WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S JIM WORDS. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE'S 19, YOU HAVE TO PICK OUT 19 PIECES OF PROPERTY THERE, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT'S WHAT IT SAID. WELL, I THINK THE WORD, I THINK WHAT'S GOT YOU CONFUSED, MESSED UP. IS ADJACENT. YEAH. BECAUSE THEORETICALLY THOSE 19 HOMES OR THOSE 15 HOMES ARE, I JUST WAS CURIOUS NOT ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF ANY RESIDENTIAL CURRENT RESIDENTS WERE IN THE NOTIFIED PROPERTIES. I MEAN, IT WENT TO THE, AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. UM, IT WENT TO THE H-O-A-H-A MM-HMM . YEAH, THAT'S FINE. RIGHT? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE RESIDENTIAL FOLKS WERE INCLUDED IN THE NOTIFICATION. MM-HMM . THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING NOW. NOW ASHLEY DOES WHAT? YOU'RE GOOD. KEEP GOING. DOES IT GO JUST TO THE HOA MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR DOES IT IT, DOES IT ACTUALLY GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS? SO IF IT WOULD'VE GONE, SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE HOMEOWNERS. IF IT GOES, IF IT ACTUALLY TOUCHES A HOMEOWNER, AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER LOT, THEN IT WOULD GO TO THAT. IF, BECAUSE THERE'S THAT INTERVENING DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT'S OWNED BY THE HOA, IT WOULD ONLY GO TO THE HOA. NOW IF THE H HOA DOESN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, THAT SOUNDS UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT THE CITY'S FAULT. OKAY. IT'S NOT ON THE, BUT YEAH. UM, WE JUST LOOK AT, UM, SO PART OF THE ZONING APPLICATION IS THEY HAVE TO GIVE US EVERY, ALL THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS BASED ON WCA, UM, WITHIN THAT 600 FEET. AND THEN MY TEAM THEN ALSO VERIFIES THAT THAT IS THE CORRECT . RIGHT. THOSE ARE THE CORRECT, UM, OWNERS, ESPECIALLY JUST BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU'LL HAVE A LAG AND WCA WILL HAVE BEEN UPDATED. UM, AND THEN WE SEND OUT THOSE NOTICES. BUT FOR THIS ONE, JUST WITH HOW LARGE THOSE OTHER LOTS ARE, IT WOULD'VE REALLY JUST GONE TO THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL USERS ZONE, SINGLE FAMILY OR NOT. RIGHT. AND THEN THAT HOA WAS THE LAST ONE. OKAY. IS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON WHY YOU, YOU SAID IF IT DOESN'T BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH, IT REALLY, IT JUST WENT TO THE, A MANAGEMENT COMPANY OF THE HOA. IS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON WHY IT YOU WE DON'T SEND TO THE, THE, IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE 600 FEET, 'CAUSE THEN YOU JUST GET INTO THE, WELL IF IT'S 601 OR IT'S 602 OR SO IS IT 605? WE ARE ALREADY OVER THREE TIMES THE LEGAL OH, I KNOW. OF STATE LAW AND WE RARELY GET NOTICES AND SO WE JUST CALL IT AT 600. OKAY. I JUST, UH, OKAY. I JUST CAN SEE SOMEONE COMING UP SAYING, WELL, I DIDN'T BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. RIGHT. AND TYPICALLY, I MEAN THESE ARE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE. THESE ARE POSTED IN THE PAPER. THEY ARE POSTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR AGENDAS. THEY'LL BE POSTED AGAIN AS PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR COUNCIL. WE GIVE AMPLE NOTICE, BUT I THINK STATE LAW IS STILL AT 200 FEET. RIGHT. IT'S RIGHT. SO WE ARE, I MEAN REALLY IF YOU ARE OVER 600 FEET AWAY, YOU'RE NOT REALLY AFFECTED BY A USE THAT'S EXISTING. THAT JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN ZONED SINGLE FAMILY. 'CAUSE THAT WAS THE PRACTICE AT THAT POINT IN 2012 THAT WE'VE JUST ANNEXED AND ALWAYS OWNED SINGLE FAMILY. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING FOR ME. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. AND ALSO TOO, ISN'T THERE PUBLIC NOTICE SIGN POSTED ON THE PROPERTY? SO ANYBODY GOING INTO THAT SUBDIVISION SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT? YEAH. IF ANYBODY DRIVES [00:20:01] BY, THEY CAN SEE IT TOO. YEAH. THANK YOU. ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THE STAFF REVIEW WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT WITH THE CONDITION OF ZONING CHANGE THAT ANY FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE SITE OR ANY ADDITIONAL CONNECTION MAY TRIGGER AN SCR IN THE FUTURE? DEFINE MAY. I MEAN WHAT, DEFINE WHAT, WHAT DECIDES WHETHER THERE'S AN SER OR NOT? UM, IF THEY'RE GOING TO END UP CONNECTING INTO THE SYSTEM, AND IT IS MORE THAN WHAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THE WATER SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM LOOKS LIKE, THEY MAY HAVE TO, THEY COULD HAVE TO DO A FULL BLOWN SER TO SEE, SO IF THIS REDEVELOPS, WHICH IS PROBABLY LIKELY, IT WON'T ALWAYS BE THIS HOUSE, THEY COULD TEAR THAT DOWN AND REDO SOMETHING AND RIGHT. YOU KNOW, GO SOMETHING MORE OF LIKE WHAT IRONWOOD HAS DONE OR TITAN HAS DONE, THEN THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY TRIGGER. OKAY. SO IT'S IMPLIED PER CODE. SO MAY TRIGGER SER PER IF IF IT, IF THE CODE CHANGE. I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHTY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 5.1. DID YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES. MM-HMM . MM-HMM . OKAY. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE 5.1 WITH STAFF COMMENTS. I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHTY. ITEM 5.1. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER HUDSON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WIRTZ. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. I'LL TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NO. MOTION PASSES. FIVE ZERO ITEM SIX DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT. OKAY. THE ONLY UPDATE I HAVE FOR YOU IS THAT WE COULD NOT GET A FULL QUO FOR NEXT WEEK. WE WILL NOT HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING YOU GET YOUR TUESDAYS BACK, WHICH IS GREAT BECAUSE ONE OF US WAS GONNA BE HERE, ONE OF US GONNA BE UPSTAIRS FOR HCU. THIS WORKS OUT BEAUTIFULLY NOW , SO WE WILL NOT BE, UH, UM, GROUP DIVIDED. THAT SAID, WE ARE HOPING FOR UDC AND THE ENGINEERING MANUAL, UH, ADOPTION IN APRIL. SO PLEASE KEEP AN EYE OUT BECAUSE WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE THAT ON THAT FIRST MEETING IN APRIL. THIS, AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. OKAY. WELL QUESTION THE BDC ITEM GOING ON. SO IF YOU HURRY WE CAN ALSO YEAH. UM, GO HAVE SOME FUN . OKAY. WELL QUESTION YES WITH COMMISSIONER LEE OUT AND COMMISSIONER MORRIS HAS, IS RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL. WHEN WILL WE FILL THIS SEAT? THAT IS UP TO COUNCIL AND I DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THAT. OKAY. UM, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROCESS TO GO THROUGH BASED ON THEIR APPLICATIONS. SO THEY WILL FILL IT WHEN WE HAVE, UM, WHEN THEY HAVE HAD A MOMENT TO LOOK OVER APPLICATIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY. AND THEN THEY APPOINT, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY MOVEMENT. SO POTENTIALLY ON THURSDAY NIGHT WE COULD GET SOMEONE APPOINTED. DO, DO YOU KNOW WHO'S CHAIRING OR WHO, HOW THAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT BOARD LOOK LIKE ON CITY COUNCIL? I DO NOT. I BELIEVE IT'S THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THEY GET TOGETHER SEPARATELY TO GO OVER ALL THE APPLICATIONS AND ALL OF THE OPEN BOARD POSITIONS. THEY DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY JUST DO IT IN A VACUUM FOR JUST ONE ITEM. UM, AND THEY LOOK OVER EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY. IS IT CUSTOMARY FOR, YOU KNOW, STAFF TO REMIND CITY COUNCIL THAT WE'RE DOWN ONE? UH, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A RUNNING LIST OF WHO'S, WHAT'S OPEN. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, I KNOW LAST YEAR IT WAS THREE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE AND MYSELF AS WE INTERVIEWED. OKAY. PEOPLE, UH, THAT WAS WHAT, IN JUNE, MAY OR JUNE DID YOU INTERVIEW FOR ALL BOARD POSITIONS OR JUST NO, JUST PNC. PNC. OKAY. MM-HMM . YEAH. THE, NOW THE LAST THREE OR FOUR BOARD MEETING, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, SEVERAL OF THOSE, THEIR COMMISSION BOARD GROUP ON CITY COUNCIL DID NOT EVEN MEET SO WELL. I THINK THEY TYPICALLY WAIT UNTIL THEY NEED TO APPOINT THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE. OH. THERE'S CRITICAL POSITIONS OPEN. WELL, I CAN REMIND THEM THURSDAY. RIGHT? THANK YOU. BUT THE THING IS WE'VE GOT FIVE PEOPLE HERE. WELL, SIX ACTUALLY. MM-HMM . SO WE'RE NOT REALLY IN A CRITICAL NO, NOT YET. YET. RIGHT. I'LL, I'LL REMIND THEM IN MY GENTLE CARING SHE WILL MANNER, YEAH. I MEANT CRITICAL POSITION, BUT I JUST MEAN GETTING A FLOW OF CANDIDATES IN THE PIPELINE I THINK IS, IS, YOU KNOW, PRUDENT. WELL, SUZANNE SAID SHE HAD, I THINK STILL HAD PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO BE ON IT [00:25:01] FOR THE LAST TIME THAT YOU DID IT. THAT YOU STILL HAVE THOSE NAMES. I PROBABLY STILL HAVE THOSE IN MY, SO SHE COULD, I COULD LOOK AND SEE AND TALK TO THEM. WHI WHICH DOES BRING UP THEN WOULD YOU BE INTERVIEWING THEM AS ACTING CHAIR? IF, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO, I GUESS IF THAT'S WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO. ALL RIGHT. MY, MY QUESTION ALSO WOULD BE, DO WE NEED TO DECIDE WHO'S GONNA BE VICE CHAIR, RICK, UH, OR NOT ? UH, WE HAVE THAT ON AN AGENDA, BUT WE KEEP MOVING IT OUT UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL COMMISSION. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. AND YOU KNOW, THE, I GUESS IT'S FAR, NEVERMIND. IT'S, IT'S NOT, WE DON'T DO THE, THE RE-UPS UNTIL JULY. RIGHT. JUNE TYPICALLY. BUT JUNE JULY VACANCY, SO NEVERMIND. DON'T DO IT. I KEEP THINKING IT'S EARLIER THAN IT'S LATER THAN WHAT IT IS AND IT IS REALLY . YEAH. OKAY. IF THAT IS EVERYTHING, WE WILL ADJOURN AT 7 26. ARE Y'ALL READY? WE'RE MISSING, UH, SIX ITEM SIX. NO, SHE JUST DID IT. KIDDING. . I WAS LISTENING. . GIMME SOMETHING TO THROW. OKAY, ROB. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.