[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
WE'RE GOING TO START THIS MEETING OF THE PARKER PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 AT APPROXIMATELY 17:02 CAN BE 5:02 PM.I GUESS RIGHT HERE, WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATES WITH US TONIGHT.
LUCY AND LYNETTE WILL BE VOTING MEMBERS TONIGHT.
WITH THAT, WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGES.
>> YES. WE WILL BE SURE AND USE THE MICROPHONES.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THE ONLY THING WE HAVE A COMMENT CARD, BUT THIS WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE COMP PLAN COMMENTS.
OUR STANDARD STANDARD ITEMS HERE TO TAKE CARE OF ARE
[1. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 8, 2024.]
A COUPLE OF ACTIONS ON MEETING MINUTES.FIRST ONE, MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 8, AND THE SECOND ONE FOR MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 22.
DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR COPIES OF ELECTRONIC OR OTHERWISE? ON THAT HOLD ON. LET'S SEE.
THAT MEETING, DID WE LET ME CHECK THIS.
THE AUGUST 8 MEETING HAD THE SAME ATTENDANCE AS WE HAVE RIGHT HERE.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES?
>> WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TIME YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 8, 2024 AS WRITTEN.
>> SECOND BY LYNETTE. ALL IN FAVOR.
SECOND ITEM FOR THE NEXT SET OF MINUTES, ON AUGUST 22ND.
[2. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 22, 2024.]
YES.WE HAD MUCH MORE OF A FULL HOUSE THEN AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
>> WHEN I READ THE MINUTES EARLIER, I WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ONLY THING THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS THE ASSERTIONS THAT WERE MADE AND PROMISES THAT WERE MADE VERSUS WHEN I ATTENDED CITY COUNCIL, THE PROMISES WERE QUITE DIFFERENT AND THEY WERE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS MADE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAS ANY BEARING HERE, BUT THAT DID CATCH MY ATTENTION.
>> YES. I THINK AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT THE MEETING MINUTES CORRECT, WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED LATER ON IS PROBABLY NOT AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT'S DOCUMENTED HERE.
BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
>> ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR CHANGES ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE OR RECOMMEND?
[00:05:03]
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 22ND, 2024 AS WRITTEN.
>> SECONDED BY LYNETTE. ALL IN FAVOR.
THOSE ITEMS ARE TAKEN CARE OF.
I'M SORRY I GOT AN ELECTRONIC COPY, SO I GO TO SCROLL HERE.
[3. CONSIDERATION OF AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLAT [2 LOTS – LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK F].]
ITEM NUMBER 3, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 FINAL PLATE FOR TWO LOTS.THIS REMIND ME, IS THIS LIKE WAITING FOR A LOMER OR SOMETHING OR.
>> WAS WAITING FOR A LOMER AS LONG AS IS COMPLETE.
BUT WON'T ISSUE THE LOWER UNTIL THE LOP.
>> IS THERE, I GUESS I'M JUST GOING TO ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIAL HERE THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF FOR BEING DESERVE.
>> THE ENGINEERING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. THE LOTS ALREADY BUILT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.
IT'S FINALIZING THE PAPERWORK.
>> FINALIZING THAT PAPERWORK. BECAUSE I LOOKED ON FMA PAGE AND THE LOMER THAT'S ON THERE NOW WAS DATED BACK IN 2023.
THOSE TWO LOTS ARE IN THE FLOOD ZONE BY THAT LOAMER.
WITH ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH DRAINAGE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE LOTS ARE OUT OF THE FLOOD ZONE.
>> BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY JUST UNLESS I MISSED IT, I SAW NOTHING FROM THE ENGINEER IN HERE.
I JUST SEE THE MAP, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO READ THE MAP.
THE FONT IS WHEN I TRY TO ZOOM IN ON THE FONT, IT'S BLURRY.
>> SURE. PRESTON WAHOOD 44 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS 75204.
WE'RE THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE PLATE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO, 22 MONTHS AGO.
INCLUDED IN THAT WAS ALL OF THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.
ALL OF THE GRADING, ALL OF THE UTILITY, ALL OF THE PAVING.
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS NOT DONE WAS THE FINAL PLAT FOR THESE TWO LOTS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL PHASE 5 PLOT MAP, THESE ARE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THE CREEK DIPS DOWN.
AS AN ACT OF GOOD FAITH AND WORKING THROUGH THE CITY AND THEIR REQUESTS TO CONFIRM THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL IMPACT FROM FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION.
WHAT WE DID WAS WAIT TO PLAT THESE TWO LOTS UNTIL WE HAD COMPLETED THE FINAL LOAMER FOR KING'S CROSSING, WHICH IS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF SIX AND SEVEN.
THAT DRAINAGE ANALYSIS WAS ISSUED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY IN MARCH OF 2024, SIX MONTHS AGO.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE'VE CONFIRMED AND THAT DRAINAGE ANALYSIS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO FMA, THAT THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION UPSTREAM WILL NOT IMPACT ANYTHING DOWNSTREAM.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WAITING ON FOR THESE TWO LOTS WAS TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL IMPACT FROM ANY WORK THERE.
NOW THAT THAT PIECE IS CHECKED OFF.
WE'RE JUST READY TO GO BACK AND PLAT THESE TWO LOTS.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY FULLY CONSTRUCTED.
THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO.
WE HAVE JUST BEEN SITTING AND WAITING TO BE PLATTED.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> JUST IN FACT THAT THE DRAINAGE DITCH GOES RIGHT BEHIND THOSE TWO JUST TO THE NORTH.
WHAT YOU JUST SAID, ANY UPSTREAM BUILDING THAT GOES ON, HAS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF?
>> IT IS. THE DRAINAGE DITCH THAT'S BACK THERE IS REALLY THE SMALL DRAINAGE DITCH THAT DRAINS FROM THE RETENTION POND FROM PARKER LAKE ESTATE OVER TO MUDDY CREEK.
ALL OF THE FUTURE DRAINAGE IS DESIGNED TO TRAVEL FROM THE WEST TO THE EAST THROUGH THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM INSIDE THE SUBDIVISION AND GO DIRECTLY INTO MUDDY CREEK.
IT'S NOT UTILIZING THIS DRAINAGE STRUCTURE.
>> ALSO, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE ON THE EAST SIDE OF LEWIS LANE COMPLAINED ABOUT WATER COMING ONTO THEIR PROPERTY.
I THINK YOU GUYS ARE ADDRESSING THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PLAT.
>> AM I TO UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT
[00:10:03]
THE PREVIOUS ENGINEERING REPORT COVERED THESE TWO PLANTS.THESE TWO LOTS. I THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD BEEN COMPLETELY PULLED OUT OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR FINAL PLATTING OF CROSSINGS 5.
I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY PULLED OUT OF IT.
>> THEY WERE APPROVED IN THE ENGINEERING PROCESS.
THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, THEY WERE STAMPED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY AND THEN WERE ACCEPTED AS THE RECORD DRAWINGS FOR KING'S CROSSING 5 INCLUDED ALL THE LOTS IN KING'S CROSSING 5.
AT THAT TIME, WE COULD HAVE ASKED THE CITY TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE LOTS IN KING'S CROSSING 5 BECAUSE ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE. EVERYTHING WAS DONE.
THE CITY SIMPLY ASKED US AS AN ACT OF GOOD FAITH, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THIS FLOODPLAIN LINE IS NOT GOING TO MOVE IN THE FUTURE? WE SAID, SURE, NO PROBLEM.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO CONFIRM THAT BEFORE WE COME BACK AND PLAT THESE TWO LOTS.
BUT THE ACTUAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS THESE TWO LOTS WAS ACCEPTED AND DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT ACCEPTANCE WAS? I CAN PULL UP THAT QUITE A WHILE AGO.
THE DRAINAGE, LET'S SEE. GO BACK.
>> DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> NO, WHY WEREN'T THESE TWO PART OF THAT APPROVAL PROCESS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MY RESPONSIBILITY TODAY BECAUSE ALL I HAVE IS THIS AND I DON'T HAVE THE ENGINEERING FROM PRIOR.
I ACTUALLY DID WATCH SOME OF THE MEETINGS FROM THOSE TIMES TO TRY TO BRING MYSELF BACK UP TO SPEED.
I JUST AND I LOOKED AT THE FMA MAPS.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE LOMER CAN'T BE DONE UNTIL WE APPROVE THE PLOTS, BUT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THOSE LOTS IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
THERE'S A INDICATION ON THAT DOWN HERE.
IT TALKS ABOUT THIS SPECIAL ZONING FLOOD ZONE A.
>> CORRECT. KING'S CROSSING 5 WAS ACCEPTED JUST JUST A YEAR AGO.
DECEMBER 20TH OF 2023 WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF KING'S CROSSING 5.
THAT'S WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE WAS DONE AND COMPLETE.
ALL WE DID WAS PULL OUT THESE TWO LOTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT OF THE PLOT.
A PLOT IS TRULY JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENT THAT DEFINES WHERE THE LOT IS, WHAT THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS, AND THEN WHAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED THERE.
THAT'S ALL THE ASK IS TODAY IS TO DEFINE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THESE TWO LOTS.
ALL OF THE ENGINEERING WORK WAS APPROVED AND ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION.
THEN ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN SINCE ACCEPTED.
WE HAD THE RIGHT TO PLOT THESE IN JANUARY OF 2024.
THE CITY SIMPLY ASKED, WOULD YOU CONSIDER NOT PLOTTING THESE TWO LOTS SINCE THERE'S FLOODPLAIN IN THE BACK YARD AND CONFIRMING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN OTHER THAN WHAT SHOWN PRESENTLY.
WE FINISHED THE NEXT STUDY, WHICH IS UPSTREAM AND CONFIRMED THAT THAT IS CORRECT AND THERE'S NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT.
NOW THAT THAT'S DONE, WE HAVE COME BACK AND ASKED TO INCLUDE THESE TWO.
>> I GUESS, JUST FOR MY OWN INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE, HAVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT ATTACHED TO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO BASE MY VOTE ON.
>> I THINK YOU CAN ANSWER THAT IF YOU WANT TO, BUT REALLY THE ENGINEERING WAS APPROVED YEARS AGO.
THE FINAL PLOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENGINEERING.
IT SIMPLY ARE THE LOTS CONSTRUCTED WHERE THE SURVEYOR IS STATING THAT THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED.
THAT IS ALL THE FINAL PLOT DOES.
THE PRELIMINARY PLOT IS RELATED TO THE ENGINEERING AND THE GRADING AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.
THIS IS JUST CONFIRMING THAT THE LOTS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED ARE WHERE THEY ARE.
>> IT'S NOT DEALING WITH THE DRAINAGE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PART OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT APPARENTLY HAPPENED RECENTLY FORCED TO PREPARE FOR PHASE SIX.
>> CORRECT. THERE'S NO ENGINEERING WORK DIRECTLY RELATED TO THESE LOTS.
THE QUESTION WAS, IS THERE ANY IMPACT DOWNSTREAM, WHICH IS YOU CANNOT HAVE.
FMA REGULATES THAT AND SAYS, YOU CANNOT IMPACT DOWNSTREAM.
BUT SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, WE SAID, SURE, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT APPROVAL DONE AHEAD OF TIME AND CONFIRM THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT DOWNSTREAM, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED AND SO WE'RE ASKING TO PLAT THOSE TWO LOTS.
[00:15:01]
>> I DROVE BY THERE TODAY, AND THOSE TWO LOTS ARE BUILT UP, AND THEN THERE'S A POND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THERE.
>> IT'S A GREAT SPOT TO BUILD A HOUSE.
>> YOU SAY THE ENGINEERING STUDY WAS JUST COMPLETE TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WILL BE NO IMPACT FROM UPSTREAM.
DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT ENGINEERING STUDY THAT WAS JUST COMPLETED?
>> THE CITY HAS MULTIPLE COPIES.
THE REVIEW WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY FIVE OR SIX TIMES AND TWO ENGINEERS, TWO INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS AND TWO INDEPENDENT HYDROLOGISTS REVIEWED IT EXTENSIVELY AND APPROVED IT.
THAT IS NOT BROUGHT TO P&Z COUNCIL.
IT'S HANDLED ON AN ENGINEERING LEVEL.
>> BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO APPROVE IT?
>> NO, MA'AM. YOU'RE NOT ASKED TO APPROVE ANYTHING ABOUT DRAINAGE.
YOU'RE ASKED TO APPROVE THAT THE LOTS ARE WHERE THEY ARE, THAT THE RECOMMEND.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. MR. ROSATO, I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT DRAINAGE AFTERWARDS, BUT THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO IT IN THIS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT RELATED TO THE PLAT.
>> WE ARE WHAT WE ARE REALLY TASKED TO DO HERE IS TO DETERMINE THAT YES, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
THIS IS WHAT THE FINAL PLAT WILL LOOK LIKE.
WE'RE NOT GOING BACK TO REHASH ENGINEERING ISSUES AND HYDROLOGY ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE'RE BASICALLY HERE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOW BEING CLOSED UP AND ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
>> CORRECT. REALLY, ALL A FINAL PLAT DOES IS CONFIRM THAT THE LOTS WERE CONSTRUCTED WHERE THEY WERE PROPOSED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THAT'S BEEN DONE.
THAT LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, AND THAT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE IN THE PACKET, THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE FROM DECEMBER OF 2023, THAT ACCEPTED THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALL OF THESE LOTS.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THIS PLANT BE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO BUT ME SAYING THAT.
>> OKAY. I'LL RECOMMEND THAT WE MAKE AN APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE PHASE FIVE OF KING'S CROSSING, FINAL PLAT, TWO LOTS, LOTS 26 AND 27 BLOCK F.
ALL IN FAVOR? WE WERE RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS PLAT BE APPROVED AS IT'S FINALLY DOCUMENTED.
>> THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT.
WE'LL BE BACK TO SEE YOU LATER THIS YEAR WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT RELATES MORE TO DRAINAGE AND ENGINEERING FOR THE NEXT PHASE AND WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT AND ALWAYS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS INDEPENDENTLY TOO.
GARY HAS MY CONTACT INFORMATION.
>> HE JUST SUBMITTED PLATS TODAY AND WE'LL SEE.
[4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (COMP PLAN): PUBLIC HEARING - THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING WILL BE TO CONSIDER ANY REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROP]
ON THE AGENDA IS GOING BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMP PLAN AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ANY POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALSO SOME CONSIDERATION AND ACTIONS TO ANY REVISIONS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.AT 17:22, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING,
[00:20:05]
AND WE HAVE TERRY LYNCH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME AND MAKE SOME COMMENTS.>> I ONLY HAVE ONE EXTRA COPY FOR YOU
>> TERRY LYNCH, 5809 MIDDLETON DRIVE.
I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I APPRECIATE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON THE DRAFT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I THINK IT'S A CRITICAL DOCUMENT FOR OUR CITY TO HAVE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO US FINALLY GETTING A PROPER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IN GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT, I CAME ACROSS SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO PRESENT AND MAKE SURE MY CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED.
THE FIRST THING AND MAYBE THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT I LOOKED AT OR NOTICED AS I WENT THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WITH RESPECT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE PLAN DOESN'T ADDRESS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A PARCEL OF LAND.
TO ME, A BIG PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THINKING STRATEGICALLY AND IDENTIFYING WHERE WE WANT TO CONSIDER OR DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE AND IF SO, AT WHAT PARTS? NOW, I KNOW OUR CITY IS DEVELOPED WITH RESPECT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR MOST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OWNED.
BUT THERE ARE ETJ PROPERTIES THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO ADDRESS THE REVENUE SIDE.
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE EXPENSE SIDE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT NEVER TALK TOO MUCH ABOUT THE REVENUE SIDE.
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS CRITICAL TO BE ADDRESSED MORE DEEPLY.
NEXT THING IS IN PAGE 11, PARKERS POPULATION I'D SUGGEST THAT YOU IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF PARKERS OF THE 2023 POPULATION.
AS I LOOK AT THE COLLIN CAD, ASSESSORS OFFERS CERTIFIED TOTALS THAT NUMBER IS 1824 AND IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S SHOWN.
I THINK THAT NUMBER NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED.
PAGE 14, THE CHARACTER OF PARKERS NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH, IT IDENTIFIES PROPERTIES IN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, IT TALKS ABOUT PROPERTIES IN HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS.
IT SEEMS TO IMPLY WE HAVE TWO CLASSES OF RESIDENTS, THOSE HOAS AND THOSE WITH NON IN HOAS, AND THOSE NON IN HOAS, WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE FURTHER, AND THOSE IN HOAS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING.
THE IMPLICATION AS I READ THROUGH IT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO STRICTLY ENFORCE CODE ENFORCEMENT ON NON HOA RESIDENTS AND SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AGAIN.
WHETHER YOU'RE IN AN HOA OR NOT, YOU HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT.
THOSE CODES THAT, PLANNING AND ZONING DID AN EXCELLENT JOB ON SEVERAL YEARS AGO OF UPDATING ARE INTENDED TO BE, AS I UNDERSTAND, FOR ALL RESIDENTS.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE IN AN HOA OR IF YOU'RE IN A NON HOA, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOULD REFLECT THAT A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY IN MY OPINION.
PAGE 19 CITY OWNED PROPERTY CITY HALL.
THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THAT, IN MY OPINION, IS AN OPINION THAT OTHERS MIGHT ARGUE.
IT SAYS THAT THE CITY CANNOT CONDUCT ITS OPERATIONS BUT IT IS MANAGING TO DO SO AT PRESENT.
TO SAY IT CAN'T CONDUCT ITS OPERATIONS, AND YET IT'S DOING IT, I THINK THE WORDING ON THAT NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED.
YES, WE DO HAVE A TIGHT QUARTERS IN OUR CITY HALL.
I THINK IT'S MISLEADING THE WORDING IS INDICATING WE CAN'T DO BUSINESS.
AND I'VE SEEN DIFFERENTLY, HAVING BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR A FEW YEARS.
OUR STAFF DO REMARKABLE THINGS.
THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH SHOULD CLARIFY THAT THE VOTERS VOTED AGAINST THE BOND PROPOSALS,
[00:25:06]
AND I WOULD EVEN SUGGEST THAT IT SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERCENTAGES THAT THE RESULT OF THE ELECTIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED.A LOW INTEREST RATE TO IMPLY THAT THE RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THIS BOND BECAUSE IT WAS LOW INTEREST RATES.
THAT'S NOT THE REASON PEOPLE VOTE FOR THINGS, IS JUST BECAUSE OF LOW INTEREST RATES.
I AGREE LOW INTEREST RATES IS A DRAW AND IT IS.
BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE BASE NEED IDENTIFIED, AND THE VOTER SAID NO.
AGAIN, I THINK THE CLARITY OF THAT PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED.
CITY OWNED PROPERTY, PAGE 20, CITY HALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
THE FACT THAT A CITY HAS GROWTH DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL.
HOPEFULLY, WE'RE GETTING EFFICIENCIES AND JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GROWING TO SAY WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE STAFF, I WOULD ARGUE WITH THAT STATEMENT.
THEN ALSO THE STATEMENT THAT A LACK OF SPACE LIMITS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN PERSONNEL, I WOULD ARGUE WITH THAT FACT, THAT IS NOT A FACT.
PAGE 21, CITY OWNED PROPERTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
WHEN REFERRING TO THE RESIDENT APPROVAL FOR FUNDING, I JUST HAD A QUESTION, I WASN'T HERE BACK THEN, BUT WAS THE ACTUAL BOND PROPOSITION BASED ON A DOLLAR AMOUNT WITH THE INTENT TO BUILD SEPARATE FIRE AND POLICE FACILITIES.
IT'S UNCLEAR. BUT PART OF THAT SENTENCE REFERS TO THE POLICE FACILITY, AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE IN THERE BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT THE POLICE FACILITY, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T BUILD A POLICE FACILITY, THEY USED FUNDS FROM THAT BOND TO FIX UP THE POLICE BUILDING AT THAT TIME.
EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A NICE, PRETTY DRAWING SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT MONEY FOR, THE BOND APPROVES THE DOLLARS.
THE BOND DOESN'T APPROVE EXACTLY HOW THINGS ARE DONE.
AGAIN, THE WORDING, I WOULD SUGGEST LOOKING AT THAT.
FIRE DEPARTMENT, PAGE 21, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE JUST ON.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, PAGE 23, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RENOVATED, THAT WAS THE SAME QUESTION.
PAGE 25, CITY OWNED PROPERTY PARKS AND TRAILS.
THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, I HAVE A QUESTION, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING A REQUIREMENT THAT DEVELOPMENTS DONATE LAND TO THE CITY FOR OPEN GREEN SPACE, IT'S UNCLEAR, OR ARE THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN GREEN SPACE, WHICH, MOST OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS DO, BUT THEY ARE WITHIN A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION.
THEY'RE NOT CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND FOR LIABILITY PURPOSES, THEY'RE SOMEWHAT RESTRICTED TO USE BY THE HOMEOWNERS.
THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OR ALL OF THESE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO COLLECTOR STREETS.
A WHITE STONE'S SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, OR ARE THEY AN AN EASEMENT? I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT SAYS THAT THE CITY WILL MAINTAIN THOSE SIDEWALKS AND SO I JUST HAD A CLARIFICATION QUESTION.
ARE THOSE SIDEWALKS IN WHITE STONE, IN FACT, IN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY OR ON AN EASEMENT? THAT'S JUST A QUESTION.
THE WATER SYSTEM, PAGE 28, SHOULD THERE BE A COMMENT ABOUT WHEN THE CITY TOOK THE PECAN ORCHARD, AS IT'S MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION? $6 MILLION BOND WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, IT DIDN'T SPECIFY WHAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT IN DETAIL TERMS. THE WORDING HERE IMPLIES THAT IT WAS A LOT OF SPECIFICITY IN THAT BOND, AND MAYBE I'M INCORRECT THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS ALL THAT SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT IT WAS TO BE USED FOR.
IT WAS FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT,
[00:30:02]
BUT BEYOND THAT, I'M NOT SURE.ALSO, IN THAT SECTION, IT TALKS ABOUT THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021.
THOSE FUNDS ARE NOT USABLE FOR PURPOSES OF BUILDING THE FACILITY, SO THAT'S AN INCORRECT STATEMENT THERE.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT'LL BE COMING FROM SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS, WHICH SHOULD BE THE SURPLUS FUNDS OR THE PROPRIETARY FUND.
THE OTHER THING, I DON'T SEE ANY MENTION OF THE WATER IMPACT FEE AND THAT SEEMS TO BE AN IMPORTANT PIECE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE A WATER IMPACT FEE CHARGED TO HELP COVER THE COST.
PAGE 29, THE INFRASTRUCTURE UTILITIES, NATURAL GAS.
SHOULD IT BE MENTIONED THAT NATURAL GAS IS NOT A CITY SERVICE? AS I READ THROUGH IT, IT IMPLIES THAT THESE ARE CITY SERVICES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THE CITY DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT.
STREETS AND DRAINAGE ROAD MAINTENANCE, PAGE 31, PARKER'S CONCRETE SUBDIVISION STREETS REMAIN IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.
I THINK IT SAYS IN GOOD CONDITION.
I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE GOOD IS NOT THE PROPER TERM BECAUSE CONCRETE STREET MOSS RIDGE IS A CONCRETE STREET, AND IT'S NOT IN GOOD CONDITION.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. GOOD IS CONSIDERED A VERY OPTIMISTIC AND VERY POSITIVE TERM, SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
ON DRAINAGE, PAGE 39, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH STATES THAT THE DRIVEWAY COVERT MUST BE LARGER THAN THE CULVERT UPSTREAM FROM THEM. I'M NOT SURE.
BUT I THOUGHT THAT IT MUST BE EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN THE CULVERT UPSTREAM, SO A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER THERE, BUT IT STRUCK ME AS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE CONFIRMED.
BAR DITCH MAINTENANCE ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT THE HOMEOWNERS BAR DITCH MAINTENANCE.
THE CITY HAS BAR DITCHES ALSO, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BAR DITCHES, IN GENERAL, NEED TO BE MAINTAINED.
IF THEY'RE IN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, HAVE THEY RUN INTO THE SAME SITUATION.
CITY CULVERTS UNDER STREET AND EIGHT BURDENS ALSO ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY, AND THERE'S NOTHING ADDRESSING THAT ASPECT. LET'S SEE.
STREET AND DRAINAGE, PAGE 39 GOALS AND OBJECT REFERENCE TO STRICTER CODE ENFORCEMENT.
THIS IS AGAIN, REFERRING TO THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOA RESIDENTS AND NON HOA.
PAGE 40 OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
THERE SEEMS TO BE AN INCONSISTENCY IN WHERE ARE THE INFORMATION.
IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS SOME PLACES WE GAVE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND SOME PLACES WE DIDN'T, BUT THAT'S A MINOR THING.
THE IMPLEMENTATION ON PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACES AND THESE COMMENTS RELATE TO BOTH THE PAGE 42 AND PAGE 50.
THE COMMUNITY PAVILION AND COMPLEX, I BELIEVE A LARGE OPEN PAVILION WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE FOR EVENTS, BUT A COMPLEX, IN MY OPINION, SEEMS EXCESSIVE FOR A CITY PARK OR SIZE.
OTHER OPTIONS TO CONSIDER FOR LONGER TERM, THERE WERE A LOT OF COST AND THE CITY PARKS AREA IS A NICE TO HAVE PIECE AND IT'S NOT A NEED AND SO PUTTING THESE THINGS UP HIGH IN THE PRIORITY LIST IN FUTURE YEARS.
COMING IN REAL SOON WE'RE GOING TO START DOING ALL THESE THINGS.
I HAVE THINGS, LIKE, WE'VE GOT THIS MODULAR BUILDING NOW THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY IN, BUT I STRONGLY EXPECT THAT TO BE EMPTIED.
HOPEFULLY BEFORE TOO LONG WHEN WE FIND THE FINAL SOLUTION FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND AT THAT POINT, WE'LL HAVE A MODULAR BUILDING THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED SOMEHOW FOR OUR PARK FACILITIES AND CITY FACILITY PARKING COULD BE USED TO PARK DURING NON OFFICE HOURS.
THOSE TYPES OF THINGS TO LESSEN.
IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF WANTS IN PARKS AND WRECK THAT I AS A CITY OF PARKER, I THOUGHT WE WERE LEAN AND MEAN.
>> ACQUISITION OF GREEN SPACE.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST IS THE IMPLEMENTATION,
[00:35:01]
THE CITY HALL AND POLICE FACILITIES.MY ONLY COMMENT THERE IS BEFORE ANY DESIGNS ARE DONE, A NEED VERSUS A WANT ANALYSIS SHOULD BE COMPLETED.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN WRITE THAT IN THE DOCUMENT, BUT IT'S GOT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
THAT'S PART OF THE GOAL IN MY OPINION.
IF ONLY HAVE X DOLLARS TO SPEND, WHAT WOULD I INCLUDE? IT'S A PROCESS. IT'S AN EXERCISE PEOPLE CAN GO THROUGH.
IF THIS IS ALL I HAVE AND IT IDENTIFIES WHAT REALLY IS THE NEEDS RATHER THAN A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE A LOT OF LESSER NEEDS.
>> WE HEARD A LOT OF GOOD INPUT FROM TERRY.
I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 17:38.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION TO THE REVISIONS ON THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
WITH SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT TERRY BROUGHT HERE, WHAT'S A GOOD PLAN OF ACTION FOR THIS? DO WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT SOME OF THESE REVISIONS AND DO WE SEND IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE TO GO DIGEST THESE AND THEN BRING IT BACK? THAT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO SIT HERE AND HASH THROUGH ALL THESE RIGHT HERE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE FOR MAYBE THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE TO DIGEST THESE FIRST AND COME UP WITH SOME RESPONSE TO THEM OR PROPOSED CHANGES.
THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO THEN TAKE THOSE AND HAVE A LARGER GROUP OF PEOPLE LOOK AT IT.
>> I THINK THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE USE OF A COMMITTEE I AGREE WITH YOU.
>> WITH THE SUGGESTIONS THAT TERRY LYNCH BROUGHT FORWARD, I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE.
SHE HAS I THINK SOME GOOD PAGE OF NOTES AND EVERYTHING ON THE SUGGESTED CHANGES.
OR SUGGESTIONS AND LET THEM DIGEST THOSE AND THEN SUGGEST SOME REWORDING, IF NECESSARY CHANGES, AND THEN COME BACK TO THE P AND Z WITH MORE OF A SUMMARY OF WHAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING TO BE ADDRESSED, IS THAT OKAY?
I THINK IF WE CAN GET GARY TO MAKE A COPY OF HER REMARKS THERE.
AND THEN ALSO TO PROVIDE THAT.
WELL, I GUESS IT'LL BE PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE.
>> RIGHT. IT'LL BE PART OF THE PART OF THE PACKET.
>> IT'LL BE PART OF THE PACKET, AND IT'LL BE PART OF OUR MEETING MINUTES AS WELL.
BUT RIGHT NOW, I'D LIKE TO GET A COPY OF THAT.
IF YOU COULD DO THAT, I THINK WE GOT A COPY UP HERE, OKAY.
>> YEAH. SINCE IT HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL COMPLAINT, COUNCIL IS GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES.
SO DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO KEEP ON CHANGING IT OR LET COUNCIL ADD IT TO COUNCIL'S CHANGES?
>> WELL, THAT I MEAN, THAT'S A VALID QUESTION.
I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU SINCE YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SO MUCH.
I MEAN, BEFORE I BROUGHT IT TO COUNCIL, I THINK I WOULD WANT TO GUESS, GET ALL THE PRELIMINARY CHANGES AND REWORDINGS DONE.
>> BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT TERRY MENTIONED THERE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY IT WAS IN THERE THE WAY IT WAS. SO I'M JUST-.
>> MAYBE WE TAKE THIS BACK TO COMMITTEE AND SORT OUT
[00:40:01]
THOSE REASONS AND ALL THAT AND THEN BRING IT AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE, COUNCIL.>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT I MEAN, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME A FEW MEETINGS AGO DOING GRAMMAR.
I DO THINK THAT IS PROBABLY NOT WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE.
AND SO I WOULDN'T WANT COUNCIL TO HAVE TO DO DETAIL WORK UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP.
WHERE THEY DISCUSS IT, THEN THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR A WORKSHOP, BUT THE MEETINGS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE A LITTLE FASTER WITH A COMPLETE DOCUMENT THAT THEY'VE REVIEWED IN ADVANCE, THAT THEY CAN VOTE ON.
I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE.
BUT JUST FROM A USE OF TIME PERSPECTIVE, SHE HAS A LOT OF DETAIL HERE AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF IT GETS IMPLEMENTED, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEND THIS WHOLE THING TO COUNCIL AND HAVE THEM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP.
I GUESS WHAT I WOULD HOPE, ANYWAY, IS THAT BY THE TIME THIS GETS TO COUNCIL, THAT MAYBE THE PEOPLE FOLKS ON COUNCIL HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, AND [LAUGHTER] I KNOW.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I WOULD HOPE.
>> YEAH. IS THAT THEY'VE LOOKED AT THIS A LITTLE BIT AND DECIDED THAT, THEY'RE LIKING IT OR NOT LIKING IT OR A LITTLE MORE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I UNDERSTAND THE PREDICAMENT WE CAN GET INTO IN TOO MANY CYCLES HERE, IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL.
YES. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THESE CYCLES.
I GUESS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE NEXT TIME WE MEET OR IF THERE CAN BE SOME AT LEAST SOME RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS, PROPOSED CHANGES OR WHATEVER, AND SAY, WHETHER WE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T IMPLEMENT IT OR WHY? I JUST GET SOME CLOSURE ON THAT BECAUSE I MEAN, I CAN DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND SOME OF WHAT TERRY HAS SAID IN TERMS OF THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF OPINION IN THERE.
BUT I WASN'T REALLY WORRIED ABOUT IT THAT MUCH BECAUSE I'M JUST THINKING, THIS IS A HIGH LEVEL.
I'M GOING TO SAY A LITTLE BIT OF A FLUFFY DOCUMENT, IF YOU WILL.
BUT THEN I GUESS I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE READ SOME OF THE DETAILS, AND THEN THEY START PICKING THROUGH IT AND SAY, WELL, WHY DIDN'T THEY SPEND THAT MONEY THAT WAY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO I GUESS SAYING ALL THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT IT GOES BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND THAT THEY LOOK AT THESE SUGGESTIONS AND THEN COME BACK WITH WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD BE CHANGED OR WHAT THEY THINK SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND WHAT YOU KNOW NOW.
THEN I THINK WE CAN MAKE A DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THOSE AND SEND IT ON OR WHAT, OR DO WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP OR SOMETHING, [LAUGHTER] SORRY ABOUT THAT.
CAN WE AGREE TO DO THAT AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE, BUT MAYBE IF THE NEXT MEETING WE HAVE, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT WILL BE?
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY WE WOULD HAVE ONE EARLIER IF WE NEEDED TO? IF WE WANTED TO JUST HAVE ONE TO TALK ABOUT THE COMP PLAN?
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A WORKSHOP FOR GARY, OR?
>> WELL, I THINK THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT.
>> IF YOU WANT TO INVOLVE THE COMMITTEE, I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO GET AN ELECTRONIC COPY TO
[00:45:01]
THE ASAP SO THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE AT LEAST TWO MEETINGS, IF NOT MORE, BASED ON THE SPEED AT WHICH THAT COMMITTEE WORKS, THEY'RE THOROUGH.AND THE HOURS THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM, THAT COMMITTEE NEEDS TO GET CRACKING ON IT.
>> I'VE GOT A SCANNED COPY THAT I SCANNED IN JUST NOW WHEN I WENT LATE COPIES.
I'LL SEND IT TO THE MADDIE AND DISTRIBUTE.
>> WELL, SO THE PLAN IS THAT THAT SET OF SUGGESTIONS/ CHANGES OR WHATEVER, ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE'S GOING TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO HAVE ONE OR TWO QUICK MEETINGS AS FAST AS THEY CAN, I GUESS.
IF WE CAN GET THIS IF THEY CAN TURN IT FASTER THAN, THE END OF OCTOBER OR WHATEVER, THEN I'M OPEN TO HAVING ANOTHER MEETING WHERE WE CAN JUST TALK ABOUT THE COMP PLAN AGAIN AND GET THAT MOVING ALONG.
THEN EVEN IF WE HAVE TO TURN THAT INTO SOMETHING WHERE, WE SIT HERE AND WE GO OVER IT FOR AN HOUR OR SOMETHING, MAYBE WE DO THAT AGAIN.
>> ISSUES WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO IS EARLY VOTING COMING UP.
>> WELL, WE'LL JUST TELL EVERYONE NOT TO VOTE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
[LAUGHTER] THEY CAN VOTE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WHERE FINDING A PLACE TO MEET.
>> THE COMMITTEE MET AT LEAST TWICE IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEFORE.
AND MANY TIMES HERE, THERE WERE MANY MEETINGS AND THEY WERE VERY LONG.
THIS WOULD TAKE SOME TIME, SO THEY NEED TO GET CRACKING ON IT.
>> OCTOBER 24 IS AN OPTIMISTICALLY PAST THING.
UNLESS TO MEET AGAIN ON IT. LOOK AT LUCY'S RIGHT.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DON'T HAVE AVAILABLE TODAY, LUCY WITH THE EARLY VOTING IS THE USE OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THEY'VE MADE THAT LIVING QUARTERS NOW, UNLESS WE WANT TO HAVE GUYS SWORN IN THERE BESIDE US WHILE WE'RE MEETING.
>> IS IT LEGAL FOR US TO MEET AT A COFFEE SHOP?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITY OF THAT.
>> I THINK IT HAS TO BE OPEN MEETING.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN OPEN MEETING AND AVAILABLE TO WHO WHOEVER WANTS TO ATTEND
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE COMMITTEE.
>> COMMITTEE IS WHAT I'M REFERRING TO BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SENDING A TASK BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
I CAN IMAGINE THE RECEPTION IS GOING TO BE GREAT.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE THRILLED TO DO THIS, BUT JUST GIVE THEM TIME TO DO IT.
>> I KNOW HOW THESE THINGS GO.
I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE TIMES IN THEIR SCHEDULE TO DO IT AND EVERYTHING.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS ON SOME LONG COMPLEX THINGS.
I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S EFFORTS AND ATTENTION TO DETAIL ON ALL THESE THINGS BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES.
BUT I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATELY RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO BACK COMMITTEE AND LET THEM FIGURE OUT HOW THEY NEED TO MEET AND DIGEST THAT AND THEN LET US KNOW WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE THEY CAN COME BACK AND NEXT MEETING.
>> IF WE CAN GET THIS TO COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK AND THEY HAVE QUICKLY HAVE CHANGES RECOMMENDED OR WHATEVER, AND YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE MEETING, WE CAN SEND IT OUT AND SEE IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE.
THAT'S THE BEST CASE SCENARIO.
>> JUST PERSONALLY WHEN IT COMES TO NOVEMBER, I MAY NOT BE AROUND FOR LARGE PART OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> I GUESS THAT'S THE PLAN RIGHT NOW, EVERYBODY.
>> I LIKE THE PLAN AND I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WELL, A LOT OF IT IS DETAIL THAT SHE WAS RECOMMENDING, BUT THE FIRST ITEM, THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S REALLY RELATES TO OUR ZONING.
WE REALLY NEED TO BE MORE DETAILED ABOUT WHAT WE WANT IN THIS CITY.
DO WE WANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? DO WE WANT TO RETAIN OUR AGRICULTURE OPEN DEVELOPMENT? I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT. I MEAN, DEVELOPERS DO LOOK TO SEE IF THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.
IT IS SIGNIFICANT WHAT GETS WRITTEN ON THIS DOCUMENT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE LET IT GO.
[00:50:05]
LET'S CHECK OFF ITEM 4 FOR RIGHT NOW AS IT GOES BACK THROUGH THE CYCLE.ANY OTHER ROUTINE ITEMS? ANY OTHER FUTURE ITEMS?
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT?>> [INAUDIBLE] 4 AND KINGS CROSSING, 6 AND 7.
YOU GET ALL THE ENGINEERING [BACKGROUND]
>> [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] SHE'S GOING TO ABSORB HERSELF.
SHE'S GOING INTO ALL THAT ENGINEERING STUFF.
>> WELL, IF NOTHING ELSE, I THINK WE ARE READY TO ADJOURN AT 17:53. [NOISE] [BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.