* 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. [00:00:04] ALL RIGHT. [1. CALL TO ORDER – 6:00 PM] WELCOME EVERYONE. IT IS OFFICIALLY 6:00 PM ON JANUARY 28TH, 2025 TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE CITY OF BURN, TEXAS. UH, WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN A PRAYER THIS EVENING? I GRACIOUS GOD, WE GIVE YOU THANKS FOR YOUR GLORIOUS SON, JESUS CHRIST, AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN YOUR SERVICE, THE LORD, BUT ALSO IN SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. BE WITH US TONIGHT, THIS LORD, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE ONGOINGS OF OUR COMMUNITY. BE WITH US, UH, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY AND, AND BE WITH THOSE WHO GOVERN AND LEAD THAT WE DO WITH YOUR HEART AND, AND YOUR GUIDANCE. SO, LORD, JUST BE WITH THIS COMMUNITY AS WE CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD AS A COMMUNITY TOGETHER. UH, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE REIGN THAT YOU BROUGHT US TO TODAY, LORD, AND CONTINUE WITH THE REIGN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, LORD, UH, AGAIN, JUST GUIDE OUR HEARTS, GUIDE OUR DECISION MAKING AND GUIDE OUR CONVERSATION, YOUR PRESENCE. NAME WE PRAY. AMEN. WOULD YOU JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN TO THE TEXAS FLAG? IGI, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY. LIBERTY, JUSTICE FOR ALL, HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD. ONE, AN INDIVIDUAL. YOU MAY BE SEATED. MOVING ON TO [2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THIS EVENING? NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, PUBLIC COMMENTS. I BELIEVE NOBODY HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT, UM, IF SOMEONE HAS COME, HAS COME IN LATE AND WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THE THREE MINUTES WILL BEGIN AT THAT TIME. OKAY. NOTE TAKERS ON PUBLIC COMMENTS. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM [4. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below within the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and may be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item may be moved to the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence.] NUMBER FOUR, CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, CONSENT AGENDA LINE NUMBER FOUR, A THROUGH FOUR, EDI HAVE AN ISSUE WITH DI WANT TO DISCUSS. OKAY, WE WANNA DISCUSS AGENDA ITEM FOUR D, DR. MACUSA, ME. GO NOW. YEAH, GO AHEAD NOW. OKAY. UM, THIS IS A, A NOTICE FOR I BELIEVE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SIMPLY A HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING, NOTHING MORE. BUT I, I WANNA REMIND VOCALLY AND LOUDLY, PUBLICLY ZONING IS NOT A RIGHT. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE TO ZONING. THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR ANNEXATION ONLY IF THE PER THE PARTY IS ANNEXED, THEY COME IN UNDER A HOLDING ZONING. THE REASON I MAKE THIS STATEMENT IS THAT IN THE MATERIALS PROVIDED, IT INDICATES THAT APPARENTLY THE OWNER IS ALREADY THINKING OF R 3D DUPLEX ZONING. AND THAT'S FINE. THEY CAN THINK THAT, BUT THEY SHOULDN'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA GET THAT. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM I CONTINUE TO HAVE WITH THESE REQUESTS. I REALIZE DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE IDEAS ABOUT WHAT THEY WANNA PUT THERE, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT JUST 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THINKING, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GONNA GET THAT THAT HAS TO FIT IN THAT AREA. IT ALREADY HAS A HIGHLY, UH, DEVELOPED SUBDIVISION DENSELY NEXT TO IT. IT HAS APARTMENTS NEXT TO IT, A HOTEL NEXT TO IT, A ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BEHIND IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES THERE. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE ANNEXATION HEARING, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR 'CAUSE IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US. AND I DON'T WANT TO BE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT EXPECTATIONS, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, P AND Z MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT WE WILL DECIDE THE ZONING REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S REQUESTED OR WHAT'S ANTICIPATED. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY ON THAT. THANK YOU DR. COUNCIL. MIKE LUSO. ALRIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AS IS THEN COUNCILMAN WILLISON. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN SCOTT. PLEASE VOTE AND CONSENT AND AGENDA TO PASS THIS FIVE ZERO. THANK YOU EVERYONE. ALRIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE [8. EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE:] EXECUTIVE SESSION. UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. WE'RE GONNA MOVE THAT FORWARD BEFORE MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. WE'RE GONNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS EIGHT A 2025 DASH 3 0 0 0 3 0. SECTION 5 51 0 7 1. CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING SPENCER RANCH AND THEN B 2025 DASH 0 3 2, SECTION 5 51 0 7 1. CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY PENDING OR CONTEMPLATION LITIGATION. WE'LL ADJOURN FOR, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RETURN FOR REST REGULAR SESSION AFTERWARDS. SO ADJOURNING OFFICIALLY AT 6:04 PM TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU EVERYONE. ALL RIGHT, WELCOME BACK EVERYONE [9. RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION AND TAKE ANY NECESSARY ACTION RELATING TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.] TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON, UH, JANUARY 28TH. THAT IS OFFICIALLY 6:51 PM RETURNING TO THE REGULAR CITY MEETING TO MOVING TO AGENDA ITEM [A. RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 2025-01; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF BOERNE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3. ZONING, SECTION 3.2, ZONING MAP, ZONING 71.12 ACRE TRACT FROM A HOL-INTERIM HOLDING ZONING DISTRICT TO R2-M MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, LOCATED AT WEST STATE HIGHWAY 46 (KAD NO. 307605 AND 316184; A10360 - SURVEY 179 NEWTON & TAYLOR 71.12 ACRES) TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. (FORESTAR (USA) REAL ESTATE GROUP INC. AND CONTINENTAL HOMES OF TEXAS, LP)] NUMBER FIVE A 2025 DASH 0 2 8. RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE FIRST READING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025 DASH ZERO ONE IN ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF BURNING UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER THREE ZONING. SECTION THREE TWO [00:05:01] ZONING MAP ZONING, 71.12 ACRE TRACK FROM A WHOLE, WHOLE INTERIM HOLDING ZONING DISTRICT TO AN R TWO AND MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT WEST STATE HIGHWAY 46 CAD NUMBER 3 0 7 6 0 5 AND 3 1 6 1 8 4 A 1 0 3 6 0. SURVEY 1 7 9 NEWTON AND TAYLOR, OR 71.12 ACRES TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. FOUR STAR REAL ESTATE GROUP, INCORPORATED AGAINST CONTINENTAL HOMES OF TEXAS LP PRESENTING NATHAN CRANE. NATHAN. THANK YOU MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. UH, AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE ZONING FOR THE BIRCH AT SPENCER RANCH. UH, THIS IS HOW THIS ACTION WOULD ALIGN WITH OUR STRATEGY MAP. UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO, UH, LOOK AT, UH, HOW, UH, WHEN STAFF REVIEWS, UH, A, A ZONING REQUEST, UH, WHAT STEPS AND WHAT DO WE REVIEW AS WE GO THROUGH THAT. UH, THE FIRST IS YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, UH, THAT HAS OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP. UH, IT HAS OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. ALSO. WE LOOK AT OUR MOBILITY MASTER PLAN. UH, WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA LISTED IN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. UH, WE LOOK AT ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS THAT MAY BE IN PLACE AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AS MENTIONED. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR, UH, ZONING FOR THE BIRCH AT SPENCER RANCH. IT IS LOCATED WEST OF I 10 AT THE INTERSECTION OF COCHRANE AND HIGHWAY 46. I'M SORRY IF I SAID THAT WRONG. I'VE HEARD FOUR DIFFERENT PRONOUNCING OF THAT ROAD. SO HERE WE GO. UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT, UH, THE, THE AREA IS HERE. UM, YOU'LL NOTICE, UH, SPENCER AND BOULEVARD HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ALONG WITH INTERIOR, UH, ROADS AND BRIDGES FOR PHASE ONE. THE ACREAGE IS 71.12 ACRES. UH, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, UH, WAS R TWO M. UH, THE UPDATED REQUEST IS TO APPLY ZONING DISTRICT OF R TWO N. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR 201 LOT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THIS AS NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL AND R TWO N WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION. UH, THERE IS SOME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE PROPERTY. UH, YOU'LL NOTICE THE, UH, FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND DPZ MAP ON THE LEFT AND OUR CONTOURS, UH, ON THE RIGHT. UH, THEY DID GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MENDING THE, UH, FLOODPLAIN MAP. IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE S ONE, UH, IT ACTUALLY BENEFITED THEM QUITE A BIT. BUT THIS WAS WHAT WAS, UH, LOOKED AT IN 18, UH, WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE PLATS. YOU ALSO NOTICED THE, UH, CONTOURS, UH, AND STAYING AWAY FROM THE, UH, STEEP SLOPES ON THIS SITE. UH, OUR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, UH, SHOWN HERE, YOU'LL SEE THE, UH, BIRCH AND YELLOW. UH, THIS IS, UH, WHAT IS CALLED SPENCER RANCH BOULEVARD. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE, UH, VARIOUS TRAILS, UM, THROUGH FEDERATE CREEK AND A TRIBUTARY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY. UH, THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT FUNKY. UH, TYPICALLY WE LIKE TO SEE ANNEXATION AND ZONING FIRST BEFORE WE SEE, UH, PLATS AND, AND SO FORTH. UH, THIS, THE ORIGINAL, UH, REQUEST, UH, ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT WAS IN THE ETJ. UH, AND THIS IS THE, HIS PRO HISTORY OF THE PROJECT. A MASTER COMMUNITY PLAN WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF, UH, 2018 BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT IDENTIFIED THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE GENERAL LAYOUT OF THE SUBDIVISION. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 8TH, 2021. AND YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, PLAT APPROVALS BEFORE YOU, UH, JUST NOTE THAT, UH, PHASE ONE A, WHICH IS SPENCER RANCH BOULEVARD, IS COMPLETED ALONG WITH PHASE ONE B AND PHASE TWO IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. GETTING INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL ON OUR MASTER COMMUNITY PLAN, UH, INCLUDED 209 UNITS ACROSS THREE DIFFERENT PHASES, UH, WITH AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF, WITH A DENSITY OF 2.94 LOTS PER ACRE, AND AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF 5,400 SQUARE FEET. IT DID INCLUDE, UH, 24.48 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. UH, AS YOU CAN NOTICE, PRIMARILY, UH, RELATED TO, UH, FLOODPLAINS FOR FREDERICK CREEK. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, BECAUSE THIS WAS IN, IN ETJ, UH, ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THE CITY HAS TO, UH, HELP INFLUENCE, UH, DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THE ETJ IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN JUNE, 2021, INCLUDED APPROXIMATELY 160 ACRES. [00:10:01] UH, OTHER PROVISIONS INCLUDED TIMING OF ANNEXATION, HOW THE AREA WAS TO BE ANNEXED, SHOW YOU THAT IN A MINUTE. CONSTRUCTION TIMING OF THE, UH, SUBDIVISION AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SPENCER RANCH BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 46. WHAT WE HAVE TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS THE REQUEST, UH, FOR THE ZONING OF JUST THE BIRCH AT SPENCER RANCH. UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO AREAS. WE'LL GET THAT IN A MINUTE. UM, AND THIS IS 71.12 ACRES. UH, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DID ALLOW FOR 209 LOTS. IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. UH, THE, THE TOTAL LOTS, UH, THAT ARE APPROVED AND PLATTING IS 201. YOU'LL NOTICE NONE OF THIS AREA HERE, UH, WAS WHAT WE CALL THE FRONTAGE AREA IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. UH, THIS IS THE FRONTAGE AREA CONSISTS OF ABOUT 87 ACRES. UH, USES INCLUDE MIXED USE, LOW RISE, UH, MULTIFAMILY SHOPPING CENTER, OFFICE PARK. UH, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ANNEXED AND WE HAVE NO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, UH, APPLIED FOR ANNEXATION SEQUENCE. UH, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY, UH, UH, TO BE ABLE TO ANNEX. SO WE DID A PORTION OF I 10, UH, CAME INTO AREA TWO THREE, INCLUDED THIS AREA FOUR TO SPENCER RANCH BOULEVARD TO BURGETT SPENCER RANCH. AGAIN, THIS AREA, UH, IS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. UH, THE, THIS CHART COMPARES THE MASTER COMMUNITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE LOTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE PLATS. UH, PHASE ONE, YOU'LL NOTICE, UH, 62 IN BOTH THE MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND THAT'S BEEN DROPPED TO 59, PHASE TWO, UH, 73, 73 AND 72, UH, PHASE 3 74, 74, AND 74 GRAND TOTAL OF 201, WHICH IS EIGHT LESS THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, ENVISIONED. THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS ALSO, UH, A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN, UH, WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS. UH, STAFFED TO DO A COMPARATIVE DENSITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS. UH, THE UDC DEFINES DENSITY AS A NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE OF LAND. SO WE TAKE THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND DIVIDE IT BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS. UH, YOU'LL NOTICE A COMPARISON HERE. UH, WE, WE TOOK A, UH, DARTBOARD AND THROUGH DARTS AND, UH, PICKED SOME RANDOM, UH, SUBDIVISIONS TO SHOW, UH, WHAT DENSITY. YOU CAN SEE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH, UH, MANY OF OUR OTHER SUBDIVISIONS OPEN SPACE. UH, AT THE TIME, THE MASTER PLAN, UH, WAS APPROVED. 14.2 ACRES WERE REQUIRED. THEY DID INCLUDE 24.48. SINCE THEN, THAT'S BEEN INCREASED TO 28.92 ACRES, UH, WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF 4.44 ACRES, PRIMARILY, UH, FLOODPLAIN, UH, PRESERVATION. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO, UH, PROPOSED, THAT'S THE WORD, SORRY, PROPOSED TO ADD, UH, TRAIL EASEMENTS IN FREDERICK CREEK AND TRIBU, AND THE TRIBUTARY TRAIL, UH, SORRY, THE TRIBUTARY. AND THOSE WERE NOT, UH, PROVIDED IN THE MASTER PLAN. SO THAT'S IN ADDITION TO, UH, WHERE WE WERE IN 2018. UH, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. UH, WE DID HOLD A BERNIE NEIGHBORHOOD DISCUSSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 15TH. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY ATTENDEES. UH, THE MEETING, WE DID GO THROUGH A FORMAL PRESENTATION, AND THE MEETING WAS ON THE WEBSITE. UH, NOTICE FOR OUR TWO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, UH, HEARINGS WERE POSTED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER, UH, AND RADIUS AND NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT TO NEIGHBORS WITHIN 500 FEET. UH, WE DID RECEIVE, UH, UH, SEPARATE RESPONSE. THREE SEPARATE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION, UH, FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT. IT WAS POSTED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER, AND WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION. AS I MENTIONED, PLANNING ZONING, COMMISSION HELD TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST WAS ON NOVEMBER 4TH, UH, 2024. INCLUDED FOUR INDIVIDUAL, UH, COMMENTS, UH, REPRESENTING THREE PROPERTIES. UH, THEY WERE ALL IN OPPOSITION OF, UH, THE PROPOSED ZONING. UH, DECEMBER 2ND WAS OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. UH, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS, UH, FROM THE PUBLIC AT THAT MEETING. UH, THE COMMISSION DID VOTE SIX OH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR R TWO M. UH, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON R TWO N, UH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE [00:15:01] A FURTHER P AND Z, UH, MEETING AND HEARING, UH, THE APPLICANT ASKED TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING. WITH THAT, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. UH, OUR CHAIRMAN FROM PLANNING AND ZONING IS HERE. ALSO, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S HERE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS YOU FOR A COUPLE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MAMO, IF YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND GOOD EVENING TO YOU AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I THINK THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND TIME DURING MY TENURE YEARS CHAIRMAN OF PNZ, WHICH HAS BEEN NOW ALMOST FIVE YEARS. I'VE HAD TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU ON A ZONING MATTER. UH, YOU MIGHT RECALL SEVERAL YEARS AGO THEN, UH, MAYOR TIM HRE ASKED ME TO COME DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THE, UH, PROPOSED EMRY DEVELOPMENT ON HIGHWAY 46, RIGHT NEAR CHAMPION HIGH SCHOOL. AT THAT TIME, THE PNZ UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS A 200 PLUS UNIT SINGLE FAMILY FOR RENT DEVELOPMENT ON HIGHWAY 46, WHICH OF COURSE AT THAT TIME WAS FOUR LANES, WHICH IT STILL IS TWO LANES EACH DIRECTION AND THE CENTER LANE. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A SECOND. UM, TONIGHT, I THINK, UH, MAYOR RICHARD THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF I COULD SHARE SOME THOUGHTS WITH THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE COMMISSION'S THOUGHT PATTERN AND MINDSET IN UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDING DENIAL. WHAT WAS THEN PRESENTED TO US WAS R TWO M, LIKE THE EMBRY DEVELOPMENT DISPENSER RANCH DEVELOPMENT IS A 200 PLUS UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON HIGHWAY 46, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE SIMILARITIES END. WHILE EMBRY IS ON AN IMPROVED STRETCH OF HIGHWAY 46, AGAIN, HAVING TWO LANES EACH DIRECTION WITH THE CENTER LANE, SPENCER RANCH IS ON JUST A TWO LANE UNIMPROVED SECTION OF HIGHWAY 46. AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, AND I FELT THAT IT WAS A CONCERN TO US THAT SUCH A LARGE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ON A VERY SMALL ROAD WITH IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT THERE, YOU'VE SEEN THESE BLIND CURVES, REALLY EITHER SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITH CARS AND TRUCKS AND TRAFFIC GOING, THE SPEEDS THAT THEY ARE, ESPECIALLY ON A NIGHT LIKE TONIGHT WHERE IT'S EXCEEDINGLY FOGGY OUTSIDE, WE BELIEVED IT PRESENTED AN UNACCEPTABLE, DANGEROUS SITUATION. IN FACT, THE VERY DAY AFTER OUR COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DENY THE ZONING REQUEST, A T OFFICIAL MADE A PRESENTATION TO THE KENDALL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT. AND DURING THAT PRESENTATION, IT WAS THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ENGINEER. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO EITHER BRING HIM IN HERE OR TALK TO HIM BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS MATTER AS A FINAL VOTE. BUT HE SAID AT THAT TIME, AGAIN, THE DAY AFTER WE VOTED ON THIS, THAT THAT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY 46, BETWEEN IH 10 ON THE EAST AND STATE HIGHWAY 16 ON THE WEST HAD MORE THAN TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF FATALITIES. DURING A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, 2019 TO 2024, THE NUMBER OF CRASHES RESULTING IN FATALITIES ALONG THAT STRETCH OF HIGHWAY 46 WAS TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. NOW, IN THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN CHAIRMAN OF P AND Z, WE'VE ONLY RECOMMENDED TO YOU ALL BECAUSE YOU ALL, AS, AS COUNCILMAN MACALUSO MADE CLEAR EARLY ON IN THE MEETING TONIGHT, YOU ALL ARE THE FINAL ARBITERS, THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS, THE FINAL DESIRES OF THESE ZONING CASES. BUT IN THE NEARLY FIVE YEARS, AGAIN, THAT I'VE BEEN ON P AND Z, WE'VE ONLY RECOMMENDED TO YOU APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENTS AS LARGE AS SPENCER W RANCH, EMBRY BEING ONE ON FIVE LANE HIGHWAY 46 EAST OF TOWN. AND THERE WAS ALSO A MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX ALONG THE IH 10 ACCESS ROAD. IN BOTH THESE CASES, THE COMMISSION, I THINK, WAS SATISFIED THAT THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE SURROUNDING THESE DEVELOPMENTS COULD BE IMPLEMENTED SAFELY WITHOUT ANY RISK OR WITHOUT ANY UNDUE RISK, UNREASONABLE RISK TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY. CONVERSELY, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF PROJECTS COME BEFORE US AND BEFORE YOU ALL, WHERE WE HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE PROPOSED LARGE SCALE SUBDIVISIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHATEVER IT IS, MULTIFAMILY, EVEN ALONG THE CITY'S TWO LANE ROADS. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER PARKHOUSE AT THE CORNER OF OLD FREDERICKSBURG AND CASCADE CAVERNS THAT WAS ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS AS 200 PLUS UNITS. AND WE FELT LIKE, AND YOU AGREED WITH US, THAT THAT WAS TOO MANY ON THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. ON THOSE SMALL TWO LANE COUNTRY ROADS, WHICH IS THE SAME SITUATION WE HAVE WITH [00:20:01] SPENCER RANCH, WITH HIGHWAY 46 WEST. IT'S STILL UNIMPROVED A TWO-LANE DANGEROUS COUNTRY ROAD. THE SECOND PROJECT THAT YOU, YOU ACTUALLY NEVER GOT TO SEE WAS A DEVELOPER WHO CAME TO US OR MAYBE A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WHO WANTED TO BUILD A 300 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX ON OLD SAN ANTONIO ROAD. CAN YOU IMAGINE 300 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THAT TWO-LANE ROAD? I THINK THAT DEVELOPER GOT THE SENSE TALKING TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE THAT PROBABLY WASN'T GONNA BE FAVORED BY THE COMMISSION AS A WHOLE IN SOME, AND I'M SURE M**K MCCAIN HAS SHARED THIS WITH YOU DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. THERE ARE SIX CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF ZONING CHANGES. AND I WON'T READ ALL SIX TO YOU, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT AS A COMMISSION, AS A BODY OF, OF ALL SIX OF US WHO WERE PRESENT THAT NIGHT, WHO UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO DENY THE R TWO MAN REQUEST, WE HAD GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT TWO OF THESE CRITERIA. ROMAN THREE SAYS, THE CITY IS ABLE TO ADEQUATELY SERVICE THE NEW USE OR NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH THE NEEDED STREETS OR MITIGATION MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ADEQUATELY SERVICE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOW, WE DID HAVE SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, AND I SAW SOME REFERENCE TO THAT IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET THIS EVENING. OUR ONLY CONCERN IS THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL'S NOT GONNA BE IN PLACE BY THE TIME THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BUILT OUT, THAT PERHAPS IT COULD COME IN PLACE OR COME ONLINE WHEN 50% OF THIS IS BUILT OUT TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITIONAL A HUNDRED UNITS OR SO TO BENEFIT FROM THIS. IT MIGHT HELP MITIGATE WHAT WE, WHAT WE THINK IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION THERE. BUT THERE'S NO ASSURANCE THAT TEXTILES GOING TO APPROVE THAT, ALTHOUGH I DO APPLAUD CITY STAFF FOR RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEVELOPER PAY A PORTION OF THAT TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION. 'CAUSE THAT'S AN EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING. I WILL SAY AS AN ASIDE, THAT WHEN SEVERAL OF US WALKED AWAY FROM THE MEETING IN DECEMBER WHEN WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND TO YOU ALL TO DENY THE REQUEST THAT WE WALKED AWAY AND WE KIND OF COMMENTED, YOU KNOW, IF THE COUNCIL FOLLOWS OUR LEAD AND MAKES THE SAME DECISION ARRIVES AT THE SAME PLACE WE DID TONIGHT, WE THINK WE WILL HAVE SAVED AT LEAST ONE LIFE, MOST LIKELY MORE. AND AGAIN, BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON THIS, I WOULD CONSULT WITH THE T EXPERT THAT'S ALREADY MADE A PRESENTATION TO KENNEL COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT. AND THE LAST ROMAN, FOR PART OF YOUR CRITERIA IS ANY OTHER FACTORS WHICH WILL SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY. NOW, I'M NOT SUGGESTING IF YOU PROVE THIS TODAY, YOU'RE ALL IMMORAL. AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN IMMORAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT CONCEPT OF WHAT IS THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY NOW AS APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND YOU ALL AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE MAKE VALUE JUDGEMENTS EVERY TIME WE GET TOGETHER FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE DECIDE AS A BODY WHAT WE THINK REPRESENTS THE BEST VALUES, THE BEST INTENTIONS, AND THE BEST COURSE FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS COMMUNITY. NOW, BACK IN DECEMBER, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OUR COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT WAS, IT WAS NOT IN THE BEST GENERAL WELFARE OF THIS CITY. LONG TERM. NOW, REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER. I ACTUALLY CAN FORESEE THAT AND I ADMIT THAT. BUT AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP APPOINTED BY YOU ALL TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU ON MATTERS SUCH AS THIS, IT WAS OUR UNANIMOUS DECISION. THIS WASN'T THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THE RIGHT TIME TO PUT A 200 PLUS UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND MAYOR, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE MIGHT HAVE OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS YOU THINK IS NECESSARY TO HELP FURTHER YOUR PROCESS OF DECISION MAKING ALONG. I APPRECIATE IT. CHAIRMAN BANDWIDTH, IF YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU JUST SIT DOWN AND, AND WE'LL HAVE THE, THE APPLICANT COME UP AND, AND LET THEM SPEAK THEIR SIDE. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THANK AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO COMMUNITY. I KNOW YOU DON'T DO IT FOR THE MONEY. I APPRECIATE YOU STICKING AROUND. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL MEMBERS, KEVIN DINDA WITH ORTIZ MCKNIGHT, REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER FOUR STAR HOMES AND DR HORTON HOMES. UM, STAFF GAVE A VERY IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION ON THIS ENTIRE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON. BUT THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT I DO WANT TO NOTE, UM, SPECIFICALLY THE TIMELINE, WHICH STAFF MENTIONED IN THEIR PRESENTATION. AS STAFF NOTED IN THEIR PRESENTATION, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF BERNIE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT SINCE AROUND 2018 WHEN THE INITIAL MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY PLAN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED AT ALL TIMES DURING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE, THE 71 ACRES SITE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, WAS CONTEMPLATED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THESE 71 ACRES. UH, AS STAFF NOTED [00:25:01] IN THEIR PRESENTATION, SINCE APPROVAL OF THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY PLAN, THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT PLANS INCLUDING PLATS FOR PHASES ONE A ONE B, PHASE TWO, PHASE THREE IS CURRENTLY PENDING FINAL APPROVAL. AND OF COURSE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ANNEXED. UM, IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF BERNIE'S CORPORATE LIMITS IN JUNE OF 2024, IN OCTOBER OF 2024. THAT IS WHEN WE FILED FOR PERMANENT ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, AS STAFF MENTIONED IN THEIR PRESENTATION, AND AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IT'S A 100% SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. UM, WE ARE COMPLYING WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF BURN. WE HAVE SECURED A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND NOTABLY, ONE OF THE BIG IMPROVEMENTS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF SPENCER RANCH BOULEVARD. THAT IS THE FOUR LANE COLLECTOR ROADWAY CONNECTING TO HIGHWAY 46. AND THE REASON I MENTION THAT IMPROVEMENT IS BECAUSE THAT IMPROVEMENT IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. IF YOU DRIVE OUT TO SPENCER RANCH TODAY, YOU WILL SEE THAT ROADWAY, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT IS FOUR LANES. IT HAS A BIKE LANE. IT'S A BIG BEAUTIFUL ROADWAY. UH, THE, IN FACT, SINCE APPROVAL OF THE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY PLAN, WE HAVE REDUCED THE TOTAL DENSITY OF THE PROJECT FROM 209 UNITS, AS WAS INITIALLY CONTEMPLATED IN 2018 TO 201 201 TOTAL UNITS, WHICH COMES OUT TO ROUGHLY A DENSITY OF THREE UNITS PER ACRE. THE REASON THAT I MENTIONED THAT IS BECAUSE EVERYTHING LEADING TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN DONE WITH AN EYE TOWARDS BERNIE POLICIES OR GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN PLACE, SPECIFICALLY AS STAFF NOTED THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, WHICH AGAIN, SPENCER RANCH BOULEVARD IS ON THE CITY'S MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND IT IS CONSTRUCTED TONIGHT. WE ARE REQUESTING THAT IS THAT THIS PROPERTY BE ZONED R TWO N, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DESIGNATION. WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT FROM INCEPTION IN 2018. TO NOW, UH, WITH ME IS OUR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEVELOPER FOUR STAR HOMES AND MILANO GUERRERO IS HERE, AND LESLIE OAND FROM DR. HORTON IS HERE. UH, AGAIN, WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE HAVE COUNCIL START ADDRESSING THE APPLICANT OR NATHAN OR UH, CHAIRMAN BWO. UM, SO WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE REGULAR HEARING, GO INTO A PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 PM IF ANYONE HAS SIGNED UP TO COME SPEAK FORWARD ON THIS MATTER, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. AND IF ANYONE HAS COME IN LATE AND HADN'T HAD ANY TIME TO SIGN UP ON A CHEAT SHEET, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD. OKAY. WE ARE OFFICIALLY GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT SEVEN 15. AT THIS TIME, I'M GONNA OPEN 'EM UP TO COUNSEL IF THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE ANY, UM, ANYONE COME FORWARD AND HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ANY OF THE APPLICANT OR COMMISSIONER BWO OR NATHAN, DR. MACUSA. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE ITEM FOUR IS, IT SAYS R TWO M, IS THAT WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY? THAT'S WHAT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS. THE ORIGINAL, BUT THAT, IS THAT WHAT'S REQUESTED TONIGHT, NATHAN? THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID. I THOUGHT SO. UH, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR R TWO M, UH, BECAUSE M AS IN MARY, N AS IN MARY, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS ADVERTISED. THAT'S HOW WE LISTED IT ON THE AGENDA. THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASSIGN A LESS DENSE ZONING DISTRICT, UH, WITHOUT RE ADVERTISEMENT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE P. AND I KNOW EVERYONE HERE HAS WATCHED THE P AND Z DISCUSSION. CHAIRMAN BA WOLF WAS THERE NOT DISCUSSION OF R TWO N AT LEAST IN SOME FASHION, NOT MN AS IN NICK AS OPPOSED TO M AS MARY. YOU'RE CORRECT. WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR TWO MEN, AND MY GUESS IS THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE GONE BACK AND WATCHED THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. AND UM, WE APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW, YOU RELY ON US FOR OUR OPINIONS, BUT AGAIN, REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER ANYWAY, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION FROM THE DIOCESE, KIND OF FREE FLOWING WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT AN R TWO N OR SOME OTHER DESIGNATION, AND WE THREW OUT SOME IDEAS FOR THEM TO LOOK AT, TO CONSIDER. BUT AS I THINK, UH, UH, MR. CRANE SAID THEY OPTED TO MOVE FORWARD TO YOU ALL, UH, FOR THE FINAL DECISION, I GUESS WITHOUT GOING OR SPENDING ANY MORE TIME AT THE P AND Z LEVEL OR STAFF LEVEL TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD'VE FOUND MORE PALATABLE. [00:30:04] AND THIS PROJECT WAS BEGUN IN 2018 BY A PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL, PNZ. I DON'T THINK ANYONE UP HERE WAS AROUND IN 2018 WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY WAS DONE. UM, AND SO THE COUNCIL SINCE THEN HAS SORT OF FOLLOWED ALONG WITH THAT ORIGINAL SITUATION. UH, WE NEED TO POINT OUT FOR THE PUBLIC A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT HOW THIS OCCURRED. 'CAUSE THIS IS NOT THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. THIS IS TO BE, I WON'T SAY FULLY, BUT IT'S BACKWARDS IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. UM, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNEXED AND THEN ALL OF THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO PLATTING, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKED OUT. WHY IS THAT THE CASE? FIRST OF ALL, IT WASN'T IN THE CITY, IT'S COUNTY PROPERTY. SECONDLY, THE PROCESS OF DEALING WITH ETJ HAS CHANGED NOW THREE TIMES, FOUR TIMES DUE TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE GRADUALLY CHANGING THE RULES. SO THE CITY HAS CONSTANTLY TRIED TO REACT TO WHATEVER WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO TO TRY TO DEAL WITH GROWTH IN THE PERIPHERY OF THE CITY. SO THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE. UH, THE SECOND ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S BEEN NO APPETITE WHATSOEVER FOR THE COUNTY TO PURSUE ANY ADDITIONAL MOBILITY. SO THE COUNTY WAS OFFERED THE, THE ROADS THAT WERE DISCUSSED A MOMENT AGO, AND THEY REFUSED. SO THAT LEFT THE CITY IN THE POSITION OF HOW DO WE ENHANCE MOBILITY IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THESE HOUSES ANYWAY IN THE ETJ WHERE WE HAVE NO DENSITY CONTROL WHATSOEVER, NOR DOES THE COUNTY HAVE ANY DENSITY CONTROL OTHER THAN THEIR 10 ACRES IN A WELL WATER PLAN. SO BEYOND THAT, WE WERE ALL OF THESE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE BEGINNING IN 2018 BY A PREVIOUS MAYOR, PREVIOUS COUNCIL, PREVIOUS P AND Z WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DEAL WITH. SO NOW WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE KIND OF BACKWARDS HERE, THE PROPERTY'S BEEN PLATTED. AND I MAY HAVE TO ASK OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PLATTING COULD BE CHANGED BY THE DEVELOPER, BY THE, BY THE BUILDER. THAT'S THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. BUT THERE ARE ISSUES BECAUSE UTILITIES HAVE BEEN BASED ON THAT PLATTING THAT WAS APPROVED, THAT CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE'S BEEN PUT IN BASED ON THOSE AGREEMENTS THAT WERE IN PLACE. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE COMPLICATIONS HERE THAT COMPLICATE THE FACTUAL ISSUE OF ZONING. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT INDE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COUNSEL, PLEASE, UH, M**K, THAT ALMOST INDEPENDENT OF WHAT ZONING WE AGREE ON, WE CANNOT UNDO THE PLATING. IS THAT CORRECT, COUNSEL? SO THE PLATINGS BEEN DONE, AND OTHER THAN THE GOODWILL OF THE DEVELOPER, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO REDUCE THE DENSITY FURTHER. I THINK IT, I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, BUT I THINK THE COUNCIL WOULD AGREE. I DON'T THINK HAD WE COME TO THIS DE NOVO, ANY OF US WOULD'VE APPROVED R TWO M OR R TWO N OR ANYTHING REMOTE REMOTELY THAT DENSE. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT HOW, THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE. WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION. SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE PLATTING IS DONE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MAYOR, IF I MIGHT RESPOND, I MEAN LIKE, YES, MR. MCKINNEY, I'M BURDENED UNFORTUNATELY WITH A LAW DEGREE. I DON'T KNOW THE PUBLIC LAW ASPECT OF THIS AS WELL AS HE DOES, BUT WE HAD A LOT OF THE SAME DISCUSSION AT P AND Z. UM, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, I MEAN THE STATE OBVIOUSLY GIVES CITIES ZERO ZONING POWER IN THE ETJ AND THE STATE CONTINUALLY ERODES THE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE STATE TO DEAL WITH GROWTH ISSUES IN THEIR ETJ. AND I SUSPECT THIS SESSION WILL SEE MORE EROSION OF THAT POWER. WE'VE CONTINUALLY SEEN THAT OVER THE YEARS. SO WE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. SO WHEN THE PLAT CAME TO US PER THE 2018 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO PER STATE LAW IS MR. MCKINNEY WILL TELL YOU IS APPROVE THE PLAT. IF IT MET THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS, WE HAD TO APPROVE IT. AND YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, IT WAS THE CARPET FOR THE HORSE. IT'S A REALLY UNUSUAL SITUATION. BUT I WILL SAY THIS, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE CITY DECIDES TO ZONE THE PROPERTY. LIKE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, COUNCILMAN MACALUSO ANNEXATION TAKES PLACE. IT'S A HOLDING ZONING CLASSIFICATION. AND THEN WE RECOMMEND TO YOU ALL, YOU DECIDE WHAT THE ZONING'S GOING TO BE. SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THE CITY, REALLY ONLY MAJOR POWER TO MANAGE GROWTH RESPONSIBLY IS THROUGH ZONING AND DENSITY RESTRICTIONS. THAT'S THE ONLY POWER WE HAVE LEFT. SO WHEN THEY CAME TO US AS A P AND Z, WE ACTED AS IF IT WAS DE NOVA BECAUSE THAT'S OUR OBLIGATION. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? AND TO US, HAVING THAT LARGE DEVELOPMENT ON A TWO LANE BUSY DANGEROUS HIGHWAY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. NOW THEY ALREADY HAD THEIR PLAT. NOW WE ASKED MR. MCKENNEY, I BELIEVE, AT THAT MEETING, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE GIVE THEM SOME OTHER CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN IF YOU WILL THE COUNCIL GIVE THEM SOME CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN R TWO M OR R TWO N, MARY OR NANCY? AND THE RESPONSE WAS, WELL, THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THOSE LOTS [00:35:01] AS THEY HAVE THEM ALREADY PLATTED, BUT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A NUMBER OF HOMES THAT ARE CALLED NON-CONFORMING, WHICH CAUSES A PROBLEM FOR THEM BECAUSE THOSE LOTS ARE GONNA BE HARD TO SELL. THEY'RE GONNA BE HARD TO FINANCE BECAUSE LENDERS AREN'T GONNA WANT TO HAVE A NON-CONFORMING COLLATERAL IF THAT HOUSE BURNS DOWN. IT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE, UH, RECONSTRUCTED. SO THE DEVELOPER AND THAT SORT OF CATCH 22 THEN IS WHERE WE ARE AS A CITY NOW. AND SO THAT DEVELOPER CAN THEN DECIDE TO REPL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPER ZONING. THEY CAN DO THAT VOLUNTARILY AND THAT WOULD AVOID ANY NON-CONFORMING ISSUES. SO THAT OPTION'S AVAILABLE TO THEM JUST AS THE OPTION WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM WHEN WE OFFERED IT BACK IN DECEMBER TO POSTPONE THE MENU TO TRY TO WORK ON A MORE AGREEABLE SOLUTION TO ALL. OKAY. COUNCILMAN SCOTT. SO IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION, DID YOU CONSIDER THE PRIOR AGREEMENTS THAT WERE MADE WITH THE DEVELOPER BY LAW COUNCILMAN SCOTT? WE CAN'T. AND THAT'S RIGHT. I I, I APPRECIATE YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. SO THIS IS WHERE I, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK FROM P Z'S PERSPECTIVE, AND THIS IS DONE BACKWARDS. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT THE NORMAL WAY OF BUSINESS, BUT I THINK THIS IS WHERE I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT OF WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE OBLIGATION, SINCE WE MADE THESE PRIOR AGREEMENTS, UH, IT WAS UNDER THE COUNCIL DIRECTIONS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS PRESENTED, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY TOOL AT THE TIME THAT WE HAD TO REDUCE, UH, DENSITY IN THE ETJ. UH, IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY WAS NOT ENVISIONED, UH, AS A CITY PROJECT. IT WAS ENVISIONED AS A, AS A COUNTY PROJECT. SO IT WAS BY WAY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT, THAT WE MADE. AND, AND IT WASN'T, IT'S NOT 209 LOTS AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED. IT'S BEEN REDUCED DOWN TO 2 0 1. BUT I, I THINK THIS, AS FOR COUNCIL, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING IN TOTAL. AND, AND WHILE I, I, I, I LISTENED TO THE TXDOT, UH, DISCUSSION ON I 10 OR NOT I 10 ON HIGHWAY 46. AND WHILE I AGREE, THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE ARE, ARE HORRIBLE, UH, IT, IT, THERE'S A LOT OF LIFE THAT HAVE BEEN LOST ON 46. UM, HISTORY TELLS US THAT TXDOT IS A REACTIONARY, UH, GROUP. AND UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T SEE THEM. THEY'RE NOT VERY FAST MOVING. AND, UM, I'M UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE LIVES LOST IN THE FUTURE, UH, PRIOR TO ANY, UH, REAL REMEDIES TO FIXING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY 46 GOING OUT, OUT, UH, WEST. BUT EVEN ON EAST, I MEAN, WHEN WE APPROVED EMERY APPROVED, UH, UH, EMERY'S, UH, CONSTRUCTION, WE KNOW HIGHWAY 46 ON THE EAST SIDE IS, IS INADEQUATE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN. WELL, WE DON'T CONTROL THE ROADS THAT HIGHWAY 46. WE, I MEAN, WE'RE AT, AT THEIR MERCY. UH, I I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WILL TAKE UNDER CONSIDERATION, UH, A FINAL APPROVAL, YOU KNOW, ZONING HOMES BEING BUILT ON HIGHWAY 46 TO CONSIDER LIGHTING. UH, I, I THINK TXDOT WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND I ONLY HOPE THAT THEY WILL, UH, MAKE QUICK DECISIONS, QUICKER DECISIONS TO MAKE, IMPROVEMENTS TO HIGHWAY 46. BUT IN LIGHT OF THAT, WE HAVE, WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS AGREED TO BY CITY COUNCIL, UH, IN THE PAST, SOME COUNCILMEN, UH, THAT ARE ON COUNCIL ARE, WERE THERE AS PART OF THAT. UM, WE MADE THOSE AGREEMENTS. THIS MEETS ALL OF THOSE AGREEMENTS, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AS A, IN, AS A TOTAL AGREEMENT. WE HAVE, THEY HAVE MET MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THOROUGHFARE, UM, REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE, UM, THAT OTHERWISE IF, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A THOROUGHFARE PLAN, UM, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO DO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ROADS AND BRIDGES ARE COMPLETED ON THE BEHALF OF CITY COUNCIL AT OUR REQUEST. AND SO GOING FORWARD, IF WE, I, I'VE BEEN, I'M, WE MET WITH, UH, WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND WE, WE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE R TWO M'S IN MARY, UH, ZONING, AND WE ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER A LOWER, AND EVEN AT THAT MEETING, THEY WERE HESITANT ABOUT THAT. UH, IT, IT WOULD, THAT WILL CREATE SOME NON-CONFORMING LOTS. AND THEY NEEDED TO CHECK WITH TITLE COMPANIES AND WHAT CONSEQUENCES THAT MIGHT HAVE. THEY'RE NOT ALONE. WE'VE, BY ZONING REZONING, UH, WE DID SOME BULK REZONING HERE IN THE CITY. WE'VE CREATED A LOT OF, UH, DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY, A LOT OF CURRENT HOMES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING TO THEIR ZONING, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALONE. AND SO I, I BELIEVE THEY CHECKED WITH THEIR TITLE FOLKS [00:40:01] AND THEY FOUND THAT TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE, UH, PATH. AND SO I THINK BY THEM COMING TO US AND SUGGESTING THEY WOULD ACCEPT A LOWER ZONING, I THINK IS ANOTHER CONCESSION ON THEIR PART. UM, IT GIVES US KIND OF A HALF WAY. WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM THE, THE MARY OR TWO IS IN MARY ZONING, WHICH I FEEL WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE ONLY IN THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T CAUSE US ANY, ANY REASON TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE OR FIX ANYTHING. THE AGREEMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GIVES US PROTECTION AGAINST THEM DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE, UH, LIKE TRYING TO REPL AFTER ZONING AND GETTING 250 LOTS IN THERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S RESTRICTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. BUT IF COUNSEL, IF COUNSEL CAN, UM, AGREE WITH ME THAT R TWO M IS, WHILE APPROPRIATE IS TOO MUCH, THEN WE'VE ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER OUR TWO M AS IN NANCY, AND THEY, THEY HAVE COME BACK TO ACCEPT THAT. AND THAT WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE GIVING THEM, WE WOULD BE HOLD WITHHOLD, WE WOULD BE HOLDING OURSELVES TO OUR PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT SAID WE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BUILD 209. THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR 201 LOTS AND BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD. AND I THINK THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ONE OF OUR LONGER RUNNING DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING SINCE 2021. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR TIM OR YOU SIT DOWN? I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. WELL, MAY I JUST MAKE ONE MORE POINT THOUGH? 'CAUSE YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT TEX O AND WHEN I WAS A COUNCILMAN FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, I WRESTLED WITH THEM REPEATEDLY ON THE WACH PARKWAY HIGHWAY 2 81 IN 1604, THE VERY SLOW MOVING. BUT ONE THING THAT I DID LEARN IS THEY'RE MUCH FASTER TO RESPOND IF YOU FOUND A FINANCING MECHANISM TO GET THE MITIGATION MEASURES YOU WANT. AND SO AS A COUNCILMAN, WHAT I DID WAS I'D HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPER UPFRONT THE COST OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, AND THEN UNDER PRINCIPLE ALITY, AS THE PROPERTIES AROUND THAT WERE DEVELOPED, THOSE DEVELOPERS WOULD REIMBURSE THAT DEVELOPER FOR THEIR PORTION OF THE COST. BUT THAT WOULD HELP MITIGATE THE CONCERNS ABOUT 200 HOMES AND 400 CARS COMING IN AND OUTTA THERE EVERY DAY. AND SO THERE ARE WAYS TO BE CREATIVE HERE TO GET TO A POINT, I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR POINT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 2018, BUT AGAIN, IT COULDN'T HAVE SET THE ZONING BACK THEN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE CONTRACT ZONING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ILLEGAL. SO THERE WAS NO PROMISE OF ZONING BACK IN 2018. SURE. BUT OBVIOUSLY WITH THE PLAT APPROVAL, THAT ADDS A NEW TWIST. I, BUT YOU APPROVED PLATS ALL ALONG THE WAY AS WELL. I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU PLANNING ZONING APPROVED PLATS, PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, AND PHASE THREE ALL ALONG, KNOWING THAT THOSE WERE HOMES GONNA GO IN THERE, I MEAN RIGHT. WE HAD NO CHOICE UNDER STATE LAW, BUT TO APPROVE THEM. RIGHT. AND SO I JUST, WE ALSO, WE COULD HAVE, WHEN WE ANNEXED THIS, WE COULD HAVE ADOPTED R TWO M ZONING WHEN WE ADOPTED AND, AND, AND PLOTTED OR, UH, ANNEXED THE PROPERTY. WE COULD HAVE ANNEXED IT WITH THE PROPER ZONING TO MATCH THIS. UH, SO LIKE WE PUT A HOLDING ONE IN THERE. I MEAN, SO WE, WE, WE ARE JUST DEALING WITH THE SITUATION THAT CAME BEFORE US IN A DIFFERENT, IN A DIFFERENT, UM, IN A BACKWARDS FASHION, NOT ABNORMAL TO WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DEAL WITH. AND SO, UH, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO DEAL WITH LONG TERM. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT THE SAME. I MEAN, THERE ARE NO OTHER PROJECTS YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT HAVE THE SAME ISSUES IN TOWN, RIGHT? I'M NOT, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR 'EM BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S AN'S AN INCONSISTENCY AND IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE TO ADDRESS. DO ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHAIRMAN BA WOLFF? COUNCILMAN WRIGHT? I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS. I JUST, OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OH, FOR NATHAN AT THIS TIME? FOR TIM, IF YOU DON'T MIND FOR THE CHAIR. YEAH. UM, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE LOWER ITEMS, MAYBE YOU, YOU DIDN'T GET TO THIS AND YOU KNEW THERE'D BE NON-CONFORMING LOTS, UM, IN YOUR MIND DID YOU, DID THAT SEEM LIKE WE WERE KICKING THE BUCKET JUST TO ANOTHER GROUP TO THEN COME BACK AND HAVE TO FIX THE NON-CONFORMING OR YOU FELT LIKE BY GOING LOWER THAT GAVE SOME PROTECTION OVER LIFE AND PROTECTION ON 46 ET CETERA? IF THAT MAKES SENSE? BECAUSE WILSON, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM, NO, I DON'T THINK WE'RE KICKING IT, KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. THOSE LOTS WILL ALWAYS BE NON-CONFORMING. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY FUTURE P AND Z OR COUNCIL COMING BACK IN AND CHANGING WHATEVER YOU ALL AGREE TO THROUGH THE, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. BUT I WILL SAY THAT, I MEAN, DEVELOPERS ALREADY EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO HAVE A NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS. THEY'VE COME DOWN EIGHT UNITS OUT OF 209. AND IT'S NOT A GIGANTIC STEP, BUT AS COUNCILMAN SCOTT SAID, IT'S SOMETHING. BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, DEALING WITH A LOT OF THESE ISSUES OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, JUST AS YOU ALL HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF YEARS EXPERIENCE, THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR MORE COMPROMISE. IF THERE'S EIGHT UNITS, COULD BE 20. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC NUMBER IS. WE TRIED TO [00:45:01] HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND JUMPSTART THAT PROCESS IN DECEMBER AT P AND Z. BUT AGAIN, THE DEVELOPER JUST WANTED TO COME RIGHT TO YOU GUYS RIGHT AWAY. AND THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE. IT CERTAINLY IS THEIR PREROGATIVE TOO. SO ACTUALLY I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SORRY, I LOST MY VOICE. LAST WEEK. UM, THE, UM, ORIGINALLY, UH, Y'ALL HAD ASKED FOR CONCESSION TO GO TO R TWO N, UH, AS IN, UM, NOVEMBER. AND ORIGINALLY THE RE REQUEST WAS NO, WE WANT YOU TO VOTE BASED ON OUR CURRENT, UM, REQUEST. SINCE THEN, THE REQUEST HAS CHANGED. IS THERE STILL MORE CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD IF THEY WERE TO BE PRESENT IN FRONT OF PLANNING AND ZONING? I UNDERSTAND IT COULD END WITH CITY COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT, BUT NOW THAT THERE IS A WILLINGNESS TO GO DOWN TO R TWO N SHOULD, IN YOUR OPINION, SHOULD THEY BE COMING BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS, THAT HAD BEGUN? I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S BEEN DELAYS, BUT THERE'S BEEN DELAYS SINCE 2018. UM, AND, AND I THINK YOU HAD, AND SOMEBODY ELSE ON PLANNING AND ZONING HAD SAID IN THIS SITUATION, WHO IS THE CUSTOMER IN THIS CASE? IS IT THE DEVELOPER OR IS IT THE, UM, PUBLICS IS THE PUBLIC, THE CUSTOMER, UM, AND, AND WHO IS IT THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO GREATEST CONSIDERATION IN THIS DECISION MAKING? SO, UM, IS THERE MORE CONVERSATION TO BE HAD IF, IF THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THEY GO BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING? WELL, COUNCILWOMAN WRIGHT, I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. IN FACT, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE VIDEO AND YOU OUGHT HAVE WATCHED IT, THAT WAS MY PREFERENCE WAS TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION. I DIDN'T WANT IT TO END RIGHT THERE WITH THE DENIAL. IN FACT, I WAS TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER, LET'S, LET'S SIT DOWN AND VISIT ABOUT THIS SOME MORE TO SEE IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE THAT EVERYONE CAN SUPPORT. BECAUSE THAT'S MY NATURE. NOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY COMMISSION MEMBERS AS A WHOLE TO SAY WHAT ARE, WHAT THEY WOULDN'T SUPPORT ULTIMATELY ON THIS. BUT I THINK THEY, THEY WOULD SUPPORT ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD SAY YES. I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION TO GET TO THAT POINT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE TO BRING IT BEFORE YOU. IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO. YOU'RE THE ELECTEDS. YOU GUYS GET TO DECIDE THESE THINGS. WE DO WHAT YOU ASK US TO DO AS YOUR APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. WE'LL GIVE YOU OUR OPINION, WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU GET TO DECIDE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU BAIL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR NATHAN. WHAT IS THE NEXT ZONING? JUST REMIND ME THE NEXT ZONING CATEGORY BELOW R TWO N AS IN NANCY, LESS DENSE I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. GOING IN REVERSE. WHAT IS THAT CATEGORY? IT'S CALLED R ONE M HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF SEVEN, UH, MY 7,800 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE REPRE PLATTING OBVIOUSLY THEORETICALLY. IF THEORETICALLY IF IF YOU WERE STARTING, IF THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT. YEAH. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGAIN, MUCH OF THIS IS FOR PUBLIC AWARENESS, SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, UM, THEY HAVE U UTILITIES PLUMBED FOR THE FIRST 59 LOTS, CORRECT. PLANNED AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE FOR THE REST, BUT NOT PLUMBED TO THE ACTUAL PLATTED LOTS. AM I CORRECT IF I'M WRONG, TELL ME. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, SO I REALIZE THEY'VE SIZED THINGS IN A CERTAIN WAY, BUT THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY PUT UTILITIES TO THE REMAINING A HUNDRED. AND SO SOOTS, UM, FURTHER TO TO CHAMPION AL'S PO POINT ABOUT 46 WEST. UM, I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ON CERTAIN THINGS BY THE PUBLIC. I'M TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT YET MIIR LOMAS IS BEING BUILT BUT YET TAP PATILLO IS EXPANDING. NONE OF THOSE ARE IN THE CITY OF BURN THAT'S IN THE COUNTY UNDER THE COUNTY'S RULES. SO THE COUNTY SEEM, I KNOW THE COUNTY HAS NO CONTROL OVER A DENSITY. I'M JUST SAYING. SO THOSE THINGS ARE HAPPENING. NOW WE KNOW THAT THE GRONKOWSKI PARK IS GONNA GO IN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 46 WEST, WHICH IS I THINK WHAT, 3,600 ACRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT THAT EVENTUALLY WILL BE A STATE PARK AND THAT'S GONNA DRAW TRAFFIC. SO I MEAN WE KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE MORE TRAFFIC ON 46 WEST. WE ALSO KNOW THAT MOST OF THE ACCIDENTS AND PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF WITH FATALITIES HAVE OCCURRED NEAR MIRA LOMAS AND NEAR TAPIO. NOT IN THE LOWER PART OF 46 TOWARD I 10, WHICH IS THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ADDITIONALLY, I'VE HEARD IT SAID THAT WHY IS, WHY IS THE CITY ALLOWING THIS? WE DO NOT, WE DID NOT PROVIDE [00:50:01] THEM WITH WATER. THEY'RE NOT GETTING WATER FROM THE CITY OF BURN. THEY DON'T EVEN TECHNICALLY HAVE A SEWER FROM THE CITY OF BURN EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WE MADE A TEMPORARY UTILITY AGREEMENT TEMPORARY SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE MORE INFLUENCE OVER THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID. AND THAT'S COMING UP FOR EXPIRATION IN 26 IN RENEWAL, POSSIBLE RENEWAL. IF YOU WENT TO R TWO M AND MAYBE THE DEVELOPER CAN SPEAK TO THAT, IS THAT EVEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NOW AS I UNDERSTAND IT, M**K, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IF THEY WANTED TO PLA BUILD WHAT'S PLATTED, EVEN WITH R TWO WITH RM OR Y ONE M, IT WOULD STILL BUILD WHAT'S BUILD WHAT'S PLATTED. AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? CORRECT. SO IT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE THE ZONING ALMOST DOESN'T MATTER. IT WOULD JUST CREATE MORE NONCONFORMING LAWS. THAT CORRECT? AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY? WELL, I THINK IT, I THINK IT'S AN OVERSTATEMENT TO SAY ZONING DOESN'T MATTER. WELL NOT THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT WOULD NOT IF, IF THEY CHOOSE TO BUILD WHAT'S PLATTED, THE LOTS REMAIN NON-CONFORMING LOTS REGARDLESS. BUT UH, IT WOULD BE A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES ONE OF THESE CLASSIFICATIONS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. GOTCHA. THEY WOULD REMAIN NONCONFORMING MORE. NO, COUNCIL SCOTT, QUESTION NATHAN, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SPLIT THE ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE ONE ZONING? NO, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. SO ONE THOUGHT IS THEY HAVE THE ZONE ONE ALREADY PLUMB DONE AND THAT'S READY FOR R TWO M. AND THEN THE OTHER IS R ONE M. AND I DUNNO. AND IF WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE THEN TABLE THIS AND WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION. AS THE CHAIR POINTED OUT, I NEGOTIATING, I ASKED THAT QUESTION EARLIER BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE POINT ABOUT WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN PLACE INFRASTRUCTURE WISE TO THE ACTUALLY PLATTED LOTS. AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA REMIND THAT I'M BEING TOLD, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE TO THE QUOTE UNQUOTE PLATTED LOTS AND THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT BEYOND THOSE FIRST 59. IF THAT'S INCORRECT, PLEASE, UH, THE BUILDER, WHOEVER TELL US WE'RE WRONG, EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE WRONG. THAT'S, I, THAT'S WHAT I'M TOLD. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S ANO G**O. I'M WITH FOUR STAR DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS ON THE PROPERTY. UM, SO TO SOME EXTENT THERE IS, THERE IS A, WE BUILT A BRIDGE TO THE NEXT UNITS. SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, A BRIDGE ISN'T CHEAP. I UNDERSTAND. AND SO WE BUILT A BRIDGE OVER THE WATERS OF THE US SO THERE IS SOME INFRASTRUCTURE IN THAT AR THE SEWER AND WATER IN YET? NO, BUT WE HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTION. SO WE ARE COMMITTED IN THIS ALREADY, RIGHT? WE TOOK THE PLAS THAT WE HAD APPROVED AND WE'VE BEEN MOVING FORWARD. SO TO SAY THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS WRONG. WELL, I DON'T MEAN INFRASTRUCTURE IN TURN. I UNDERSTAND THE ROAD IS, IIII ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS IN THAT SECTION. YOU'VE RUN, UH, SEWER PIPE, YOU'VE RUN WATER, YOU'VE RUN WHATEVER TO THOSE ACTUAL LOTS IN THAT ADDITIONAL AREA. SO WE HAVE BROKE GROUND. WE, WE HAVE NOT COMPLETED THAT NOW, BUT WE HAVE BROKE GROUND. WE HAD A PRE-CON MEETING WITH THE CITY AND WE STARTED MOVING FORWARD, STARTED MOVING. SO IN THEORY, COUNCILMAN WILLIS'S SUGGESTION COULD BE DONE IF YOU WERE AMENABLE TO IT. AND THE SUGGESTION WAS SPLIT THE ZONING. UM, HAVING R TWO M IN THE PLA ONE AND THEN R ONE M AND PLA TWO AND THREE. WELL, HYPOTHETICALLY YOU ARE NOT, YOU'RE NOT COMMITTED TO IT RIGHT NOW. SKIP THAT. I, I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO PALLET JUST IN THAT BUILDING BRIDGES ISN'T CHEAP AND UM, TO MAKE THOSE LOTS WORK WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO PALLET. I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE YOU THINK THE THE LARGER LOT HIGHER PRICE HOMES WOULDN'T SELL OR JUST BECAUSE I'M JUST BE, YOU KNOW, I'M LEARNING TOO. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, OVERALL SPENCER RANCH, UH, THE ROAD ITSELF AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A, A BIG LIFT, RIGHT? THAT INITIAL LIFT, IF ANY OF YOU HAVE DRIVEN IT, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE WATER QUALITY PONDS, YOU KNOW, A A LOT OF, AND TO YOUR ALL'S CREDIT, Y'ALL HOLD YOURSELF TO A HIGHER STANDARD. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT THE WATER QUALITY PONDS IN THERE THAT WE'VE BUILT SEVERAL OF THEM. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS STUFF WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BUILD IN OTHER PLACES, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT MUCH INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY IN, WE NEED TO SPREAD THAT OVER AS MANY LOTS AS POSSIBLE. NOW WE DID TAKE IT DOWN TO 2 0 1, BUT WE STILL FEEL THAT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER TO MAKE THIS WORK, RIGHT? SO, AND HOW MANY NONCONFORMING LOTS WERE IN R TWO N ON THE OTHER PARTS OF THE PROPERTY? 20 SOMETHING. NATHAN, ALTOGETHER WHICH PHASE ARE WE WE TALKING ABOUT? WELL, THE, THE OTHER IN PHASE TWO AND THREE, NOT ONE ONE'S ALREADY PLUMBED. TWO, THERE WERE 72 [00:55:01] LOTS AND 22 WERE NON-CONFORMING. SO 50 WERE CONFORMING. AND IN PHASE THREE, UH, THERE WERE 70 LOTS. AND I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN HOW MANY NON-CONFORMING, I THINK IT WAS 20 SOME. SO IN THAT AREA, IF YOU WENT TO R TWO N, INDEPENDENT OF THE R TWO M IN THE FRONT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOSE ALL 40 LOTS? OR WOULD, OR WOULD IT BE SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT? THAT WOULD JUST BE NON-CONFORMING. YEAH, JUST NON-CONFORMING. WELL, I'M SAYING IF THEY CHOSE TO LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS, I'M SAYING, I'M JUST ASKING A DIFFERENT QUESTION. IF THEY DID REPLAY IT, HOW MANY WOULD THEY HAVE TO LOSE? SO, UH, PHASE UH, ONE B UH, NINE LOTS WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING. IF YOU GO TO PHASE 2, 22 LOTS AND PHASE THREE WOULD BE 23. RIGHT, BUT I'M SAYING, SO 45 COUNCILMAN IS SUGGESTING THAT R TWO M GO TO PHASE ONE. THAT SOUNDS THERE'S NONE THERE. YEP. SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY THERE THAT, THAT'S ALREADY PLUMBED. I'M ASKING A DIFFERENT QUESTION. I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS. IF WE DID R TWO R RN, WE WOULD'VE 40 SOMETHING NON-CONFORMING LOTS. I'M ASKING A DIFFERENT QUESTION. IF THEY SUPPO, IF THEY SO CHOSE TO TRY TO MEET THE RN STANDARD, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SOME REPLANTING, HOW MANY LOTS DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD ACTUALLY LOSE? THEY WOULDN'T LOSE ALL 40. YOU MEAN FOR THE 7,800 SQUARE FEET? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? RIGHT. WELL, THE, WELL, NO, FOR THE, UH, THE R ONE NR ONE N THE R ONE N, YES. SO THAT'S THE 45 I MENTIONED. OKAY, WELL REAL QUICK, LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST POINT OUT IF YOU CREATED IT, IF YOU CREATED THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER TO REDUCE THE PLATTED NUMBER OF LOTS BELOW 2 0 9, WE ARE NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR OWN AGREEMENT. I'M LIKE, WE'RE SETTING STANDARDS THAT THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN NEVER ACHIEVE 209 LOTS WAS WHAT WE AGREED TO. SO LIKE WHY WOULD WE CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHICH WOULD CREATE AN, I JUST, I'M GONNA, 'CAUSE I WROTE THIS DOWN A WHILE AGO, I JUST HAVEN'T GOT BACK TO IT. I'LL ONLY COUNTER WITH THAT ARGUMENT IS THAT WHEN WE MADE THE AGREEMENT FOR A SPECIFIC NUMBER, IT WAS BASED ON A DEVELOPMENT IN THE ETJ THAT HAVE HAD PRIVATE WATER, PRIVATE SEWER. AND WE WERE TO WHAT YOU POINTED OUT BEFORE, WE WERE DOING WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE BEST WITH WHAT WAS AVAILABLE. NOW WE HAVE MORE AVAILABLE BECAUSE THINGS CHANGED. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. WELL WE, WE HAVE PRIVATE WATER AND PRIVATE SEWERS STILL. LIKE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE A ZONING, RIGHT? WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT BEFORE. 'CAUSE WE, WE ANNEX SOMETHING WE DIDN'T THINK WE WERE GOING TO AT THE TIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. OKAY. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THEY'VE PUT IN THREE, $4 MILLION WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS. I, AND, AND I THINK THE MOBILITY, THIS IS A BAD TIME TO TRADE. WE TRADE I THINK FOR A MOBILITY SAKE IT'S, YEAH, HUGE. I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY. I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH. SO I DON'T, I'M NOT LOSING SIGHT OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE FROM INFRASTRUCTURE, UM, PER WHAT THE CHAIR SAID. JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THE BEST FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPER. CORRECT. I THINK FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, THIS IS WHERE THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN CAME. I MEAN, THIS WAS, THIS WAS THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND IT, THE, THIS, IT STARTED WITH THIS DEVELOPER. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAD TO BITE THE BULLET AND, AND MAKE THESE BIG IMPROVEMENTS. AND, AND THE REST OF THOSE ROADWAYS PROBABLY NOT AS EXPENSIVE AS THIS FRONT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN. BUT THEY, THEY MADE THIS COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WORK IS DONE. AND SO ANYWAY, I I JUST, I FIND THIS TO BE A HARD TIME TO RETRADE, TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETRADE THIS. I I ANYTHING WE WOULD DO, I WOULD, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER OUR PRIOR AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY PUT IN PLACE AND NOT TRY TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETRADE THIS DEAL. WELL, WE ARE CONSIDERING IT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS PROLONGED DISCUSSION. I THINK THE ONLY REASON IT'S PROLONGED IS BECAUSE, UM, AND I THINK THAT CHAIRMAN BEOV POINTED IT OUT. I THINK THE HOPE WOULD'VE BEEN THAT THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A RETURN TO PNZ TO HAVE THIS HASH OUT THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE NOW, MORE HASHED OUT THERE, SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE COME TO PERHAPS SOME, AND MAYBE NOTHING WOULD'VE CHANGED. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENED. THEY'VE COME TO US NOW. SO WE'RE HAVING THIS HASH OUT HERE, WHICH WE HAVE TO DO BECAUSE IT'S THE REALITY. AND I DO LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE, IF, IF WE GET TO NO BETTER SOLUTION THAN THIS, BEYOND THE R TWO N, UM, WOULD BE TO ASK THEM TO, TO DEAL WITH THAT. THAT LIGHTS, UH, THE, THE SIGNAL SITUATION AT, UH, SPENCER AND, UH, 46, BECAUSE I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT IN SOONER. I DON'T THINK 50% DEVELOPMENT IS, IS SUFFICIENT BECAUSE, UH, WE KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE GONNA CONTINUE ALONG 46. WE KNOW THAT EVENTUALLY, I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT EVENTUALLY UPPER BALCONES IS GONNA HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S JUST INEVITABLE. AND WE KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE MORE DEVELOPMENT ON 46. UH, I MEAN ON THE I 10 SERVICE ROAD AT SOME POINT, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A HOSPITAL THAT GOES IN THERE, IF THAT DOES COME TO FRUITION. SO I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED. DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY BE RESOLVED [01:00:01] HERE, BUT I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION IS A GOOD ONE. UH, MAYBE THE DEVELOPER WOULD CONSIDER THAT. ARE WE UNDER OBLIGATION TO MAKE A DECISION AS A COMMISSION, OR CAN WE RECOMMEND THAT THEY RETURN TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND ALLOW THAT COMMISSION TO DO WHAT THEY DO AND HAVE THEM MAKE THIS DECISION AND HASH IT OUT AND HASH OUT ALL THESE QUESTIONS. WELL, I THINK THAT'S AN OPTION. TABLING IT'S AN OPTION. KEEP TALKING. TONIGHT'S AN OPTION. MY, MY POINT TO SENDING IT BACK, UH, MAKE MY ARGUMENT FOR SENDING IT BACK TO P AND Z. P AND Z CANNOT CONSIDER, SHOULDN'T. THEY DID NOT CONSIDER PRIOR AGREEMENTS. THEY, THEY DID NOT. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR 200 TO NINE LOTS. AND THEY CAN'T CONSIDER THAT. AND SO SENDING IT BACK TO THEM TO NOT CONSIDER THAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE USE LIKE, THEY, THEY CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS, CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T. UM, I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S, IT'S BEST PLACED. WE ARE THE BODY TO MAKE THIS DECISION. UH, IT MAYBE, I, I DON'T THINK P AND Z HAS THE TOOLS TO CONSIDER, THEY DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO CONSIDER PRIOR AGREEMENTS WE DO. CORRECT. AND MAYBE, MAYBE WE, WE NEED TO MAYBE NEED TO NEED SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER. I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2018, RIGHT? AS FOR SOMEONE THAT'S NEW TO THE COUNCIL, UM, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING TO CLEAN UP SOMETHING FROM SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY SHOULDN'T, SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE FOR THIS COUNCIL AT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE. RIGHT? AND SO MAYBE MORE DISCUSSIONS IS WHAT'S NEEDED. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT, WHAT, WHAT THE CORRECT ANSWER IS HERE. I THINK WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT RN AND R TWO M FOR THAT FRONT SECTION AND RN ONE FOR THE SECOND SECTION. UM, AND A COUPLE OTHER OPTIONS. THERE'S, I MEAN, WE NEED TO, THE DEVELOPER NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT THIS TYPE OF STUFF AND SAY, ARE THEY WILLING TO COME BACK TO US AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION? WELL, I, I THINK THAT, UM, ALL DUE RESPECT TO P AND Z 'CAUSE I APPRECIATE Y'ALL AND YOU REALLY DO A LOT. I DO THINK QUENTIN BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT THAT I THINK WE'RE, AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT PROBABLY DOES NEED TO STAY AT COUNCIL. UM, AGAIN, AGAIN, WHETHER WE DO THAT TONIGHT OR, UM, TABLED, I DO THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT. AND THAT'S OF ALL THE RESPECT TO P AND Z. 'CAUSE THEY DO IT FOR ABSOLUTELY ALL EVEN MORE MONEY THAN WE DO IT FOR . UM, WINK WINK. UM, SO I DO AGREE WITH CLINTON. CAN YOU ER ADDRESS SOMETHING REAL QUICK OR SURE. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, SIR. SO MY NAME IS JOE MARK MATKIN, MATKIN HOOVER ENGINEERING. AND I ACTUALLY WAS THE MASTERMIND OF THIS WHOLE CREATION, UM, WAY BACK WHEN. SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT, AND YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF CHRIS TURK AND LAURA AND ALL THOSE, AND Y'ALL WANNA TALK ABOUT MOBILITY AND MAJOR THIRD OF HER PLAN AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU, I'VE BEEN AN ENGINEER SINCE 2002, IS WHEN I STARTED MY FIRM ASKED FOR NO LESS THAN 20 YEARS FOR THE MAJOR THIRD OF HER PLAN TO BE UPDATED. WHAT YOU'RE NOT REMEMBERING IS THAT THE MAJOR THOROUGH FAIR PLAN ACTUALLY WENT ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY, OKAY? AND IT WAS ONLY THROUGH THE SUBMITTAL IN MARCH OF 18 WHERE WE ASKED P AND Z TO CONSIDER THAT MOVING IT TO THE NEW LOCATION WAS CONSIDERED. IT WAS STILL SHOWN IN 2018 DYING INTO SPENCER ROAD, WHICH WAS A HORRIFIC, HORRIFIC SCENARIO. AS, AS IT WAS DRAWN ON YOUR MAJOR THIRD GRADE PLAN. IT EXISTED FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS FROM YOU GUYS THAT P AND Z AND NOBODY EVER UPDATED. EVER. OKAY? SO WE CREATED THIS AND DID THIS MASTER PLAN. LOOKING BACK AT IT, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT IF WE WOULD'VE DONE WHAT WE WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO, WHICH WAS DEDICATE 60 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND BUILD A TWO LANE ROAD INTO THIS SUBDIVISION. COULD HAVE GONE FORWARD. BUT MY OFFICE HAS BEEN THERE, KIN HOOVER ENGINEERING, RIGHT THERE ON SPENCER ROAD SINCE 2002. OKAY? AND AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY, IT WAS LIKE, HEY, WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. OKAY? I PROMISE YOU THAT THOROUGH FAIR, GOING INTO THAT SUBDIVISION IS BAR NONE BETTER THAN ANY OF 'EM GOING INTO SOUTH GLEN ESPERANZA, WHETHER 2,500 PEOPLE IN ESPERANZA. AND YOU GOT ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION. I MEAN, THAT IS EXEMPLARY OF WHAT A ROAD SHOULD LOOK LIKE. AND WE HAD TO FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL. NOW GOING TO DENSITY AND ALL THIS OTHER KINDA STUFF. YOU'RE CORRECT. THAT MASTER PLAN WAS SUBMITTED KENDALL WEST UTILITY, AS MUCH AS EVERYBODY WANTS TO HATE IT, WE WERE ABLE TO BUILD A PIPELINE THAT SECURED WATER TO WHAT, 1500 TO 1600 EXISTING COMMUNITY MEMBERS. PEOPLE THAT GO TO FAB, THEY GO TO BERNIE NORTH, THEY GO TO THAT KIND OF STUFF. AND WHAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER WAS THEY HAD NO WATER, [01:05:01] THEY HAD NO ACCESS TO GBA. ALL OF THAT STUFF WORKED IN, YOU KNOW, TOGETHER IN SEQUENCE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THE COUNTY DIDN'T ADDRESS IT, THE CITY DIDN'T ADDRESS IT. I HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH BOWMAN AND T THOMPSON AT THE TIME WE WORKED WITH YOU GUYS. WE DID A WHEELING AGREEMENT. WE WERE ABLE TO BUILD THOSE PIPELINES AND STABILIZE THE WEST SIDE OF BURNING. I I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT A PROBLEM WAS CREATED AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, BACKWARDS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. IT IS, BUT IT ALSO ISN'T, Y'ALL WEREN'T CONTIGUOUS AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED TO DO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THAT ROADWAY. OKAY? THE COUNTY WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT. SO WE WERE STUCK WITH, OKAY, THE COUNTY WON'T ACCEPT THIS ROADWAY, WHICH IS A GRADE A ROAD. Y'ALL WEREN'T CONTIGUOUS. SO THEN WE HAD TO GO THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT TOOK US THREE YEARS TO GET A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED. ALL OF THE TEXT IMPROVEMENTS, ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CONTRIBUTIONS AS PART OF TIA THAT YOU HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN FOR THE TRAFFIC LIGHT, ALL THOSE KIND OF STUFF. ALL THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THAT ROADWAY. THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE TIA, THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THEY'VE GOTTEN TEXDOT APPROVAL. SO ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND BEN WOLF'S CON, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS ABOUT TDOT, YOU ARE CORRECT, IT'S FURTHER WEST THAT THE MAJOR PROBLEMS OCCUR. IT'S NOT IN THAT, I MEAN, MY OFFICE HAS BEEN THERE AT SPENCER ROAD FOREVER, SIDE DISTANCE ARE MET, ALL OF TXDOT. SO BY YOU APPROVING IT TODAY, YOU'RE NOT SOMEHOW GOING PAST TXDOT FROM A STANDPOINT OF, OH, YOU'RE CREATING SOME HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE CONDITION FOR SOMEBODY IN THE FUTURE. TDOT'S APPROVAL HAS BEEN OCCURRED AND HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. I, I RESPECT YOUR DEAL FROM A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS VERY COSTLY TO BUILD THAT BRIDGE AND TO DO THOSE KIND OF STUFF. YOU ALSO DON'T REMEMBER THAT THE UDC MODIFIED MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THIS PROCESS AND THEY DID WATER QUALITY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WERE NEVER CONTEMPLATED IN THE ORIGINAL COST TESTAMENTS AND THE DEVELOPER COMPLIED WITH EVERY ONE OF THOSE REQUESTS ALL ALONG THE WAY. SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AS FAR AS WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING FROM YOU GUYS, AND I'M NOT GONNA SPEAK TO 'EM WITH WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO, ZONING, BUT THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE BACK THEN, THERE WERE GOOD DECISIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHERE THAT ROADWAY NEEDS TO BE. FROM A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, THAT'S WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. HAD WE JUST DEDICATED 30 FEET, 60 FEET ACROSS THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE THAT SAID, HEY, Y'ALL FIGURE OUT MOBILITY IN THE FUTURE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AN ABSOLUTE ALBATROSS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED AT THE TIME. AND SO I DON'T WANT Y'ALL TO THINK THAT SOMEHOW YOU'RE TRYING TO CORRECT WRONGS OF THE PAST. THAT'S NOT THE CASE BECAUSE NOBODY DID ANYTHING WRONG IN 2018 AND WE SIGNED THE DEVELOPMENT, AGREE TO 2 21. EVERYBODY DID THE BEST THING THEY COULD WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB. THEY'VE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LOTS. EVERYBODY'S DONE WHAT WE PARTICIPATED IN. PROPERTY OWNERS ALL ALONG THE WAY, MYSELF INCLUDED, AGREED TO ANNEXATION SO THAT WE COULD BE THERE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE SUBDIVISION WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETELY DONE BY NOW. ZONING WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE AN ISSUE. I REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION. WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT OUT. WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE THREE YEARS OF DELAYS AND TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED. AND IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER, THAT WAS ALSO DURING COVID AND ALL OF THAT. THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED. I MEAN, LIKE YOU COULDN'T ASK FOR ANY MORE TRAIN WRECKS TO HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO THAT. SO WITH REGARD TO THE TEXT DOT COMMENTS, NOTHING THAT YOU APPROVE OR DO TODAY IS GONNA CHANGE TDOT IN THAT LOCATION. THEY'VE COMPLIED, THEY'VE ADDED THE TURN LANE, THEY'VE DONE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THEY'VE GOTTEN TEXT DOT APPROVALS. THAT'S WHAT MIKE MAN, THAT'S WHAT JEFF CARROLL, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO RELATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION, GETTING THE PROPER APPROVALS ONCE WE SET THAT. BUT THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS FAR AS WHAT WE TRIED TO ACCOMPLISH, I THINK IT'S A, A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE OF WHAT A ROADWAY SHOULD LOOK LIKE OF WHAT A DEVELOPMENT GOES INTO. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T WANT Y'ALL TO THINK THAT SOMEHOW YOU'RE TRYING TO CORRECT SOME WRONG OF THE PAST. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. I DON'T THINK WE THINK THAT. OKAY. I THINK I SPELLED IT OUT PRETTY CLEARLY. YEAH. THAT THE TIMELINE THAT WE ARE DEALT WITH, THE SITUATION THAT AS YOU JUST ACKNOWLEDGE IS BACKWARDS. YEP. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, NOT NECESSARILY JUST THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE IN THAT PRECISE AREA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AT LEAST ACCOMMODATE WITH. THAT'S WHY THE DISCUSSION IS SO [01:10:01] OPEN, BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE THIS CONVERSATION UNLESS IT'S OPEN. YEP. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY WHAT YOU SAID, BUT WHAT THE BUILDER HAS SAID. WHAT EVERYONE UP HERE HAS SAID, THESE ARE ALL THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU SAID. I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S THE REALITY OF HOW WE GOT HERE. YEP. SO, I MEAN, WE DON'T THINK ANYTHING WAS DONE WRONG EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD A JUGGLE DEALING WITH THE ETJ RULES THAT HAVE CHANGED REPEATEDLY BY THE LEGISLATURE. AND I KNOW PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR THAT, BUT THAT'S THE CASE. A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE. I MEAN, AND AS AN ENGINEER FOR 30 YEARS, WE HAVE TO BALANCE ALL OF THAT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN, OKAY, IS THIS A COUNTY, IS THIS A CITY? AND THEN HOW DO WE WORK TOGETHER? AND IN THIS SITUATION, THIS WAS THE BEST SITUATION FOR IT TO BE ANNEXED IN THE FUTURE. FOR IT TO COME IN. IT WAS THE BEST SCENARIO FOR ALL PARTIES AT THE TIME. SO THANK YOU COUNCIL SCOTT. MR. MAYOR, JUST TO CONTINUE THIS BOARD, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN THAT WE SEE WHERE WE'RE AT AND IF WE, WE CAN DISCUSS IT FURTHER AND SEE IF I HAVE ANY, IF I HAVE ANY, UH, ANYBODY MIGHT SECOND THIS. UM, BUT LET ME, DO WE NEED TO RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF THE MOTION? NO. OKAY. THEN I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT, UM, WE APPROVE, UM, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF BURNING UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER THREE ZONING SECTION 3.2, ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF BURN, UH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER THREE, ZONING SECTION 2.3 0.2, ZONING MAP ZONING, 71.12 ACRES FROM A HOLDING INTERIM ZONING DISTRICT TWO R TWO N AS IN NANCY MOD, UH, THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT WEST STATE HIGHWAY 46. CAD NUMBER 3 0 7 6 0 5 AND 3 1 6 1 8 4. AND A 1 0 3 6 0 SURVEY 1 79 NEWTON AND TAYLOR, 71.12 ACRES TO ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. FOUR STAR USA REAL ESTATE GROUP INC. AND CONTINENTAL HOMES OF TEXAS. LP MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SECONDARY MOTION. OKAY, SECOND. COUNCILMAN WILSON? NO SECONDARY MOTION. OH, SECONDARY MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SECONDARY MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 25TH TO ALLOW FOR, UH, SOME MORE DISCUSSION. I'LL A SECOND. A SECOND FOR COUNCILMAN WILSON. I SECOND THAT. OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S UP HERE? HAVE TO GO TO THE SECOND ONE FIRST. ROBERT'S RULES. SO SHE SECONDED THE, MY MOTION. OH, OKAY. SECOND. FROM COUNCILMAN, COUNCILMAN VOTE, PLEASE VOTE. MAY, MAY I PROPOSE A ASK A QUESTION PRIOR TO OUR VOTE. WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF TABLING THIS? WHAT, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACHIEVE? WHAT CAN WE FURTHER DISCUSSION? PUBLIC DISCUSSION. I MEAN, I DUNNO. MAYBE HERE ONE, SOMEONE, WHAT DO WE NEED? MAYBE SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF CAN ALSO MEET WITH THIS GROUP. UM, 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE A PROPONENT FOR IT. SO MAYBE WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS COMING FROM A DIFFERENT MINDSET. REAL QUICK. PROPONENT. I, I A PROPONENT YOU, YOU JUST MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION. SO I'M, SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT. IF, IF I HAD A SECOND ON MY MOTION AND WE, WE COULD THOROUGHLY, THOROUGHLY DISCUSS IT NOW, JUST, I DON'T THINK YOU DID. SO WE, YOU CAN VOTE NO ON THIS. IT MIGHT FAIL AND THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO YOUR MOTION AND THAT MIGHT FAIL. AND THEN, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. ALRIGHT, WE GONNA MOTION VOTE TO TABLE. MOTION PASSES. FOUR ZERO TO TABLE. UH, AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 25 0 2 8. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME, FOR YOUR DISCUSSION. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [A. MONTHLY PROJECTS UPDATE.] SIX, CITY MANAGED REPORT. BEN? YES, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. I JUST HAVE MY ANNUAL OR MY MONTHLY, UH, UP TO PROJECT UPDATE FOR YOU. WE DIDN'T HAVE, UH, THAT LAST MONTH BECAUSE OF THE CHRISTMAS, UH, HOLIDAY. UH, WE COMBINED NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER. I DO HAVE QUITE A FEW ITEMS, UH, TO PRESENT TO YOU OF, UH, THAT WE'VE ACHIEVED OR ACCOMPLISHED SINCE THEN. AND I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T GET THIS OUT TO YOU LIKE I NORMALLY DO. THE DAY BEFORE THAT, WE WERE TRYING TO GET LAST MINUTE UPDATES ON THINGS. UM, NEXT, NEXT WE'LL GET INTO THE MOBILITY. DO NOT REALLY HAVE, UM, ANYTHING TO REPORT SEVERAL OF THESE ITEMS. SEVERAL OF THE SIDEWALK ITEMS [01:15:01] WERE SUPPOSEDLY, UH, GONNA BE DONE BY THE END OF JANUARY OR BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY. THINGS THAT DELAYED A LITTLE BIT. ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THESE JUST WAITING ON FINAL, UM, DESIGN COMMENTS BACK. SO, UH, AGAIN, I WILL EMAIL THIS OUT TO YOU SO YOU CAN SEE THOSE SPECIFIC, UH, UH, UPDATES. NEXT, UM, PLANT, PLANT, STREET PARKING LOT DESIGN. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE. UH, WE WOULD, WE HAD HOPED TO HAVE HAD THIS COMPLETELY DONE THE DESIGN WISE SO THAT WE COULD GO OUT AND BID THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS WE'RE BEHIND A COUPLE MONTHS, SO I'VE TURNED THAT YELLOW, BUT THAT IS IN PROGRESS AND WE SHOULD HAVE SOME GOOD, UH, UPDATES FOR YOU IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO. IT WAS ABLE TO GET THE, UH, THE CAMERA, UH, CAMERA WILL PLACE SOME DONE AT THE LIBRARY. UM, SO WE'RE APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. THEY, THEY'RE NEXT, THEY'RE NOW WORKING ON THE CITY HALL REPLACEMENT CAMERAS. NEXT, UH, MIKE MANN AND HIS STAFF GOT THE TANK MIXER DONE WITH THE ESPERANZA TANK. THIS IS A, A MUCH NEEDED, UH, QUALITY WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, UH, FEATURE THAT, UH, KEEPS THE WATER FRESH SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO, UM, DISCARD OR DUMP AS MUCH WATER EVERY NOW AND THEN WHEN WE HAVE TEST TESTING SCORES THAT, UH, IMPLICATE THAT, UH, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING DONE WITH THE WATER THERE, ESPECIALLY IN MOMENTS OF HOT IN THE SUMMERTIME WHERE WE'RE NOT USING AS MUCH WATER 'CAUSE WE'RE HAVING THE CONSERVATION, UH, RESTRICTIONS. SO THIS KEEPS THE WATER FRESH IN THE TANK. NEXT, UH, NEXT OF COURSE, LAST MONTH YOU MIGHT RECALL BOTH THE, THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR COURT AND THE NOISE ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. UH, SO THAT IS, UH, TWO BIG PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ON OUR WORK PLAN FOR A COUPLE YEARS, SO WE'RE GLAD TO SEE THAT MOVE OFF NEXT. OUR UTILITY RATE STUDY IS THE SAME THING. WE WENT OVER THAT WITH COUNCIL OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MONTHS. UM, SO THAT IS ACCOMPLISHED. I DO WANT TO, UH, SHARE WITH YOU THAT, UH, THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND POLICY WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL IN MARCH. NEXT. NEXT, UH, THE HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW. UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT THE LAST MEETING. SO THAT COMMISSION'S DONE. WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD ON PREPPING FOR THE COMMUNICATION FOR THE ELECTION. UH, CHRIS SHADROCK AND HIS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, THEY GOT OUR CITY LOGO TRADEMARKED. THAT'S A QUITE A LEGAL PROCESS TO GET THROUGH THAT. SO WE GOT NOTIFICATION THAT THAT WAS, UH, APPROVED. AND THEN OF COURSE, OUR COMMUNITY SURVEY WAS DONE LAST MONTH. WE'LL BE REPORTING ON IT, UM, HERE ON THURSDAY. AND SO I'VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU GUYS A HIGHLIGHT OF THAT AND WE'LL MAKE OUR FIRST PUBLIC PRESENTATION THIS THURSDAY. AND JUST FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S, UH, AWARENESS, THE, UM, THAT SURVEY WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE ON, ON OUR WEBSITE, UH, THE NEXT DAY ON FRIDAY. NEXT, UH, AGAIN, BACK IN THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, UH, CHRIS SHADROCK HAS BEEN WORKING ON SOME SEASONAL BANNERS AS YOU SEE, UH, THAT WE POST UP AROUND, UH, DOWNTOWN ON OUR STREET, UH, LIGHTS AND, AND, AND SO FORTH, UH, UPDATING THOSE. UH, ALSO WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO GET A CITY FLAG THAT ENCOMPASSES OUR LOGO. WE DON'T HAVE A FLAG. WE DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD A CITY FLAG. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, DOING THAT. AND WE'LL, DIRECTOR SHADROCK WILL COME BEFORE COUNCIL, I BELIEVE NEXT MONTH TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT. THE MUNICIPAL COURT YOUTH DIVERSION PLAN HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. UH, I, I BELIEVE CLAUDIA AND JUDGE PHILLIPS WILL COME BEFORE COUNCIL IN MARCH TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY DID GET THE WORK DONE THERE. NEXT. AND THAT IS IT. IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC QUE PROJECTS YOU WANT ME TO GO BACK TO, TO TALK ABOUT? OKAY, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE STAFF'S ATTENTION TO THEIR WORK PLANS. EACH DEPARTMENT HAS THEIR OWN WORK PLAN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND, UH, WE, THEY UPDATE THAT FOR ME AND, UH, APPRECIATE THEIR PROGRESS. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, MAN. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON [7. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL – No discussion or action may take place.] TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL. AND I'M GONNA KICK THIS OFF. FIRST, UM, ONE, I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE. I WANT THANK THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS HERE TONIGHT. UH, CHAIRMAN BANDWIDTH FOR COMING AND SPEAKING, NATHAN, FOR, AND CHRISTIE AND THE STAFF FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND US ALL THE INFORMATION ON THIS SPENCER RANCH DECISION AND, AND ISSUE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE LIGHTLY. UH, WE'RE LISTENING TO COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, CITIZENS INVOLVEMENT. WE UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF THE DEVELOPER AND THE HOME BUILDERS, UH, BUT ALSO EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO THIS. AND SO, UM, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT AS A COUNCIL, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING AND WE'RE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STARTED, I STATED EARLIER, IT STARTED SINCE 2018 AND HERE WE'RE IN 2025. UM, AGAIN, I KNOW WE WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE MAKING THE BEST DECISIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. UM, THAT BEING SAID, UM, THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHATTER ABOUT THE HOMEROOM CHARTER, UM, AND I WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ABOUT THAT, THAT CHATTER. UM, HOMELAND CHARTER WAS REVIEWED BACK IN 2020 DURING [01:20:01] COVID. UM, THERE WAS 13 ITEMS ON THE BALLOT. 12 PASSED, ONE DIDN'T, THE BALLOT, ONE IT DIDN'T PASS, WAS EXTENDING TERM LENGTHS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS. UM, I ACTUALLY BROUGHT THIS UP TO CITY MANAGER AND C STAFF PROBABLY A YEAR AGO WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THE CHARTER, UM, AND ASKED, YOU KNOW, HERE WE ARE DURING THE LAST ELECTION, WHY ARE WE RUNNING SO, YOU KNOW, BEING REELECTED SO FAST, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING WE COULD DO ABOUT THAT. UM, SO THAT WAS MY INTENTION OF BRINGING IT TO THE CITY CHARTER. IT WAS MY INTENTION TO TALK TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT IT, ABOUT BRINGING IT FORWARD. UM, ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID, WE TRIED THAT ONCE BEFORE AND IT DIDN'T WORK. I SAID, WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD TRY IT AGAIN. WE'RE IN A NEW AGE AND, AND IN, IN NEW DEVELOPMENT OF BERNIE. AND SO I THINK, UM, EXTENDING THE TERMS IS SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR CONTINUITY. UM, UNDERSTANDING WHAT, HOW THIS CITY GOVERNMENT WORKS. STATE LEGISLATURE WORK IS SOMETHING THAT TAKES TIME AND UNDERSTANDING AND FOR PEOPLE TO ASK TO BE RUN EVERY TWO YEARS TO SPEND THEIR TIME AND THEIR ENERGY AND THEIR OWN, UM, RESOURCES. UM, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T, WE DON'T TAKE INTO, INTO ACCOUNT THE TOLL IT TAKES ON THE CANDIDATES. UM, ESPECIALLY THE, THE BANTER THAT CAN GET THROWN AT, AT INDIVIDUALS DURING AN ELECTION. AND TO PUT SOMEONE THROUGH IT EVERY TWO YEARS I THINK IS KIND OF RIDICULOUS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SCHOOL BOARD IS THREE YEARS. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS FOUR YEARS. OUR STATE AND LOCAL, OUR, OUR FEDERAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS FOUR YEARS. SO I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, AND SO I WANT THE COUNT THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THEN THIRDLY, UM, BEN, FOR THAT FLAG, CAN I GET MY PICTURE ON THAT FLAG? , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL, COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? I REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S DISCUSSION AND, AND YOUR INPUT TONIGHT. AND, UH, I KNOW WE'LL GET, WE'LL COME TO A, A CONCLUSION HERE SOON ABOUT THIS. I KNOW IT WASN'T THE OUTCOME THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED THIS EVENING, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TAKING THESE DECISIONS THAT AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY LIGHTLY, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S KNOWN. SO I APPRECIATE THIS TIME AND EFFORT. SO IF THAT'S IT, NO COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL. UH, Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT EVENING AND ENJOY THE RAIN THE NEXT COUPLE DAYS. MEETING ADJOURNED. 8:08 PM. * 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.