4.A. Consider approval of the minutes from the June 1, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[4.B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Plat 2026-117-P City View Estates Unit No. 22 An addition to the City of Amarillo, being an unplatted tract of land and a replat of a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, South Side Acres Unit No. 4, all the just mentioned being in Section 231, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas. (VICINITY: Arden Rd. & Western St.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Tigris XXX, LLC)]

CITY VIEW ESTATES, UNIT NO. 22. EMILY. THIS PLAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO BEING AN ATTRACTIVE LAND AND A REPLAT OF PORTION, OF A PORTION OF LOT ONE, BLOCK TWO, SOUTHSIDE ACRES, UNIT NUMBER FOUR. AND IT IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS.

IS IN THE VICINITY OF ARDEN ROAD AND WESTERN STREET, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR TIGRIS XXX, LLC. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING 77 LOTS FROM AN UNPLANNED, ATTRACTIVE LAND IN THE CITY VIEW ESTATE SUBDIVISION.

THE SUBDIVISION WILL FEATURE A MIX OF TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AS A PRIMARY LAND USES.

[00:05:02]

THE PLAT HAS ASSOCIATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND IS ALSO A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT, WHICH REQUIRES CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND EXTERNAL UTILITY COMPANIES, AND IT WAS FOUND TO CONFORM WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, EXCEPT FOR CORRECT ORIGINALS NOT YET BEING RECEIVED.

NOTICES WERE SENT AS REQUIRED AND AS OF THIS REPORT, NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AS PRESENTED WITH A CONDITION THAT CORRECT ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED THAT ADDRESS ALL REVIEW COMMENTS.

DO, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PLAT? IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PLAT? COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? OKAY. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THEN. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE PLAT AS STAFF RECOMMENDS, PENDING THE RETURN OF CORRECTIONS.

DO I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY DICK.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE PLAT, PLEASE SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM 4C, THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ZT-26-01.

[4.C. Public Hearing and Consideration of Zoning Code Text Amendment ZT-26-01 AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 4-10, ZONING, ARTICLE V, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, DIVISION 4, VEHICLE PARKING AND LOADING, SECTION 4-10-211, VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS, ADDING SECTION 4-10-211(8) OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR U.S. ROUTE 66 SIXTH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT ]

THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO MUNICIPAL CODE.

CHAPTER 4-10, ZONING, ARTICLE V, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, DIVISION 4, VEHICLE PARKING AND ZONING.

LOADING SECTION 4-10-211, VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS, AND THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO ADD SECTION 4-10-211, SUBSECTION 8 OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE US ROUTE 66-SIXTH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND THIS IS ONE THAT YOU ALL ARE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH.

I KNOW WE'VE HAD A FEW DISCUSSION ITEMS ON THIS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, BUT NOW WE'RE HERE TODAY FORMALLY FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE PARKING REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT FRONT UPON SIXTH STREET.

BASED ON SOME OF THE INPUT FROM THE LAST COUPLE DISCUSSIONS AND ALSO WITH CITY COUNCIL THE BOUNDARY OF THAT WE HAVE AMENDED TO RUN ON THE WEST SIDE FROM FOURTH STREET TO TWO ON THE EAST SIDE, THE BRYAN STREET.

THAT ALIGNS WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND ALSO INCLUDES ONE BLOCK EAST OUTSIDE THAT BOUNDARY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE POTENTIAL OF A FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT HERE AT GEORGIA STREET THAT MAY NECESSITATE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY FOR SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

SO WE FELT THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BUMP IT EAST TO ONE BLOCK.

SO AS THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN TODAY, THAT IS THE BOUNDARY.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THE RECAP, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH THE SAME PARKING STANDARDS ALONG SIXTH STREET THAT ARE IN DOWNTOWN, THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT OFF STREET PARKING, WHILE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES WOULD PROVIDE ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING.

SO EVEN THAT IS ACTUALLY A FURTHER REDUCTION TO WHAT IS REQUIRED CURRENTLY, BECAUSE I KNOW DEPENDING ON LIKE APARTMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S GENERALLY 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING.

SO EVEN THAT IS A SLIGHT REDUCTION AS WELL. SO AND JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW WHAT IS CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL USE, AS DEFINED BY THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE. THAT WOULD BE ONE FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

BOTH DETACHED AND ATTACHED. TWO FAMILY HOUSING.

MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING. A GROUP LIVING QUARTERS.

MANUFACTURED HOMES. TYPES A THROUGH C. INDUSTRIALIZED HOUSING.

MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS. AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISIONS.

AND ONCE AGAIN THIS HAS BEEN A FREQUENT POINT OF DISCUSSION AMONGST STAFF GOING BACK DECADES ALONG WITH PROPERTY OWNERS.

SIXTH STREET, AS YOU ALL ARE PROBABLY WELL AWARE, WAS DEVELOPED IN THE 1920S ORIGINALLY AND ESSENTIALLY DEVELOPED LIKE A SECONDARY DOWNTOWN ALMOST, IF YOU WILL, WITH A MAJORITY OF THE LOTS, WELL OVER THREE QUARTERS OR THREE FOURTHS, 75% LOT COVERAGE WITH REALLY NO OFF STREET PARKING.

AND THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE THIS DISTRICT WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED WHEN PARKING REGULATIONS, A DIDN'T EXIST, AND B THE AUTOMOBILE REALLY HADN'T TAKEN OFF YET IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN FACT, A LOS ANGELES GOES BACK TO THE TIME THAT THERE WERE STILL STREETCARS IN THE AREA, SO. SO IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE DISTRICT THAT'S ALWAYS THE PARKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CHALLENGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S COME TO TIMES OF CHANGES OF USE REVIEWS WITH BUILDING SAFETY THAT WE DO FREQUENTLY.

[00:10:06]

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENT WOULD OFFER MANY BENEFITS TO THE DISTRICT AND THE CITY.

IT WOULD HELP PRESERVE THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS A MAJOR ATTRACTION FOR ROUTE 66 TOURISM FOR AMARILLO.

IT WOULD CORRECT NON-CONFORMING STATUS REGARDING PARKING FOR THE SITES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR, AS PRETTY MUCH A MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL, OF THE BUSINESSES ALONG THERE ARE NON-CONFORMING.

AS IT PERTAINS TO PARKING THIS WILL CODIFY THIS CHANGE AND WILL SET CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR CITY STAFF AND PROPERTY OWNERS VERSUS PAST POLICY INTERPRETATIONS THAT KIND OF VARY STAFF TO STAFF OVER TIME. AND IT WILL PROMOTE FURTHER BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR, WHICH IS A KEY ELEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN SAN JACINTO.

AND FINALLY, THIS WOULD BRING THE REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT MORE IN LINE WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER FEATURED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND ALSO OF SIMILAR TYPES OF DISTRICTS IN OTHER PARTS OF AMARILLO.

IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE ELIMINATION OF PARKING FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND BUILDINGS.

IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE AMONG PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

I KNOW RECENTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF CANYON WHEN THEY REWROTE THEIR ZONING ORDINANCE, THEY DID THE SAME THING WITH THE DOWNTOWN SQUARE DISTRICT IN CANYON.

THEY DO NOT REQUIRE OFF STREET PARKING FOR THAT DISTRICT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, DALLAS AND FORT WORTH BOTH HAVE PASSED CODE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE LAST 18 MONTHS OR SO THAT ELIMINATED OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR HISTORIC PLACES OR BUILDINGS. AND STAFF NOTES THAT EXPECTED IMPACTS FROM THE CHANGE IN THE CODE ARE EXPECTED TO BE MINIMAL IN NATURE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. BUSINESSES AND RESTAURANTS ALONG THE CORRIDOR LARGELY HAVE NOT HAD PARKING LOTS SINCE THEIR ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE 1920S THROUGH 1940S.

THE EXPECTATION FOR PARKING IN THIS AREA IS THAT IS TO BE ON STREET VERSUS OFF STREET, AND THE.

AND THE CHANGE WOULD NOT RESULT IN A NEW CONDITION BEING CREATED.

RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AREA ARE ALREADY ACCUSTOMED TO ON STREET PARKING BEING A CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN THE CORRIDOR ALSO FEATURES VERY FEW BUILDABLE LOTS AND MOST OF THE CORRIDOR IS BUILT OUT WITH LONG ESTABLISHED BUILDINGS OR BUILDING, BUSINESSES AND BUILDINGS. IN FACT, UPON DOING A QUICK CHECK BASED ON AERIAL IMAGERY, THERE'S BASICALLY 3 OR 4 LOTS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN A BUILDING IN THIS BOUNDARY, AND THOSE ARE ACTUALLY BEING USED FOR PARKING CURRENTLY. SO YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THIS CORRIDOR IS BASICALLY ENTIRELY BUILT OUT.

AND IT IS ALSO LANDLOCKED AS WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.

AND THESE ARE HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT HAVE MINIMAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY.

SO GOING ON THE PUBLIC STAFF, PUBLIC AND STAFF OUTREACH WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS IN TWO INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT RELATED STAFF WITH THE CITY, AND ALSO HAD MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT IS HOUSED UNDER.

AND CITY STAFF DID NOT EXPRESS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS CODE AMENDMENT.

WE ALSO SENT IT TO TXDOT AS WELL. SINCE SIXTH STREET IS TECHNICALLY A TXDOT MAINTAINED ROADWAY AND THEY DID NOT EXPRESS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS ITEM AS WELL.

WE DID SHARE THE REQUEST WE PRESENTED TO THE SIXTH STREET MERCHANTS GROUP, WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 50 PEOPLE LAST SUMMER AND THEY ESSENTIALLY UNANIMOUSLY WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. AND WE ALSO HAD ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS ATTEND A, THE SAN JACINTO NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING GROUP FOR THE SAN JACINTO NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, AND THEY DID NOT EXPRESS ANY OBJECTIONS EITHER.

WE ALSO POSTED CHANGE OF THIS IN THE NEWSPAPER AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AS OF THE MEETING TODAY.

AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS CODE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED.

AND I ALSO INCLUDED ALL THE SLIDES FROM THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND CAN EXPAND UPON ANY OF THOSE IF NEEDED.

BUT WITH THAT, I GUESS I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALL FOR DISCUSSION AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? YOUR MIC FRED.

TURN YOUR MIC ON. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS ISSUE, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST? COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO.

I GOT ONE QUESTION. NOW. WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE HANDICAP PARKING SPOTS? THERE ARE EXISTING. I BELIEVE BACK WHEN THEY DID THE PROJECT IN THE 1990S THAT ADDED SOME OF THE WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THERE.

I BELIEVE THAT DID ESTABLISH SOME DESIGNATED HANDICAP PARKING.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THOUGH, THE PARKING THAT EXISTS OUT THERE TODAY IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE CONTINUING FORWARD.

THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE ON STREET PARKING PROPOSED WITH THIS CHANGE.

[00:15:01]

WELL, WILL THE CITY GOING TO REQUIRE SOME HANDICAP EITHER IF WE ARE TO HAVE SOME THEY'RE GOING TO REQUIRE HANDICAP STATE TO STAY CURRENT, OR IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY JUST ELIMINATE THE HANDICAP AS WELL? SO THE ADA TYPE REVIEW THAT'LL STILL BE A COMPONENT OF BUILDING SAFETY'S REVIEW.

I KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO HISTORIC AND THESE OLDER STRUCTURES, I BELIEVE THE CODE DOES HAVE SOME ALLOWANCES IN THERE THAT ALLOW FOR SOME REDUCTIONS, BUT THAT BE SOMETHING MORE SO FOR BUILDING SAFETY TO SPEAK TO AS TO WHAT WILL EXACTLY STILL BE REQUIRED GOING FORWARD FROM THE CODE PERSPECTIVE.

IT WOULDN'T BE A ZONING ISSUE. IT'S NOT A ZONING ISSUE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO YOUR MIC? I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU. THAT'S NOT A ZONING ISSUE. WE DO LOOK AT PARKING CALCULATIONS.

BUT THIS CHANGE WOULD ELIMINATE THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER ASPECT OF THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE TASK REVIEW TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, THAT IS TYPICALLY DONE THROUGH THE BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT. SO FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY.

SO THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, DICK. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE HANDICAPPED BE REQUIRED.

YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN I WAS 20 YEARS AGO, IT DIDN'T BOTHER ME.

BUT NOW IT DOES. BRINGS THE QUESTION UP OFF YOURS, DICK.

ASSIGNING PARKING OFF THE STREET IN THE RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT GOING TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR TOSS TO COME IN AND REQUIRE SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS? I. I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW. TYPICALLY I KNOW IN DOWNTOWN WE DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE HANDICAPPED PARKING IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WHENEVER WE DO THESE NEW PROJECTS DOWNTOWN. SO THE TASKS ELEMENTS OF THIS IS KIND OF CROSSING THAT BOUNDARY MORE SO IN THE BUILDING SAFETY REVIEW OF THIS. SO NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD EXACTLY PLAY A FACTOR INTO THIS.

TO ME, I THINK. YOU GOT A QUESTION. HONESTLY, I THINK THAT THESE ARE IMPORTANT CONCERNS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME MOSTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS BASICALLY RATIFYING THE SITUATION THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND THERE, BECAUSE THERE AREN'T THE BUILDINGS WITH PARKING ON IT.

AND WE'RE BASICALLY JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT PEOPLE PARK ON THE STREET, AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE WORTH IT LATER ON.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT NECESSARILY WOULD COME THROUGH US, BUT FOR THERE TO BE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT REQUIREMENTS SHOULD THERE BE FOR THE ON STREET PARKING WITH HANDICAPPED.

BUT TO ME, I'M NOT SURE IF REALLY GOING BACK AND TRYING TO ADD MORE TO THIS DISCUSSION TODAY WOULD REALLY DO MUCH TO SERVE HER, EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE THROUGH US.

BECAUSE THE GOOD THING ABOUT SIXTH STREET, I'LL NOTE IS THAT I BELIEVE THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF SPOTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR ADA USE.

AND ADDITIONALLY THOSE EVERY INTERSECTION ALONG THERE FOR THE MOST PART, I BELIEVE FOR THAT BUSINESS CORRIDOR DO HAVE ADA RAMPS AT THE CORNERS THERE THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE ALONG THE SIDEWALK. SO JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT AS WELL THAT THAT WAS PART OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

I BELIEVE THEY DID IN THE 1990S WAS IMPROVING THOSE SIDEWALKS AND INTERSECTIONS FOR ACCESSIBILITY.

ONE QUESTION I DID HAVE, IF I WANTED TO, THAT SECTION THREE, THE PENALTIES THAT JUST KIND OF A STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE.

IT IS. YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE THAT GOES IN MOST ORDINANCES OF THIS NATURE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF HOW SOMEONE MIGHT BE CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING ON STREET PARKING.

BRADY, DO YOU HAVE ANY DETAIL ABOUT THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS? THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY OF THAT NATURE.

I KNOW THEY DID IMPROVEMENTS BACK IN THE 1990S AS PART OF THAT PROJECT, THAT WHENEVER THEY WENT DOWN SIXTH AND ADDED SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS AND AS OF TO THE POTENTIAL PROJECT THERE AT GEORGIA AND SIXTH, I KNOW THAT THAT DID NOT RECEIVE GRANT FUNDING WHENEVER THEY TRIED TO PURSUE THAT.

SO THEY'LL BE PURSUING THAT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

BUT I KNOW FOR THAT GEORGIA INTERSECTION, IF THAT WERE TO EVER GET FUNDED, THAT WOULD INCLUDE POTENTIALLY SOME LANDSCAPING AROUND THAT INTERSECTION UPON FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE. JUST CLARIFYING THAT I WAS LOOKING AT THE EXHIBIT, SO I FIGURED THERE WAS IMPROVEMENTS TO GO WITH IT.

THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. SOME OF THOSE BUSINESSES ACTUALLY HAVE PARKING BEHIND.

SOME OF THE LOTS 140 OR 150, AND THE BUILDING COVERS 60FT.

YEAH, THERE ARE A LIMITED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS ON THERE THAT DO HAVE SOME.

THEY MAY NOT NECESSARILY MEET THE SPECS, THE, FOR WHAT, FOR A NEW PARKING LOT NOWADAYS, BUT SOME DO HAVE LIMITED PARKING EITHER BEHIND THEM OR OFF TO THE SIDE THOUGH THAT. THAT IS CORRECT.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? AND IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

[00:20:09]

A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FROM NOAH. ANYONE WANNA SECOND IT? SECOND. SECOND. BRANDON. ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO APPROVE IT, PLEASE SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. OKAY, NEXT ITEM IS 4D. EMILY, IS THAT

[4.D. Consideration of Plat 2026-105-P Amarillo KIA Unit No. 1 An addition to the City of Amarillo, being an unplatted tract of land, in Section 64, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas. (VICINITY: Buccola Ave. & Soncy Rd.; APPLICANT/S: Hugo Reed & Associates, Inc. for Bradley/Wilson Properties, LLLP)]

YOU? YES, SIR. 4D IS THE CONSIDERATION OF PLOT 2026-105-P. AMARILLO KIA UNIT NO. 1. IS IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO BEING AN UNPLATTED TRACK OF LAND IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS. IS IN THE VICINITY OF BUCCOLA AVENUE AND SONCY ROAD.

THE APPLICANTS ARE HUGO REED & ASSOCIATES, INC.

FOR BRADLEY/WILSON PROPERTIES LLLP. THIS PLAT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING ONE COMMERCIAL LOT FROM AN UNPLATTED TRACT OF LAND FOR A NEW CAR DEALERSHIP. CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS REQUIRED AS A PLAT HAS ASSOCIATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND IS A FINAL PLAT.

THE PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND EXTERNAL UTILITY COMPANIES, AND IT WAS FOUND TO CONFORM WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION PLANS PENDING FINAL APPROVAL.

THE PROVISION OF SURETY AND COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND CORRECTED ORIGINALS BEING PROVIDED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AS PRESENTED WITH A CONDITION THAT INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ARE APPROVED.

SURETY IS PROVIDED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OR IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED.

THE CORRECT ORIGINALS AND CORRECTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS APPLICATION? IF NOT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS.

WHAT'S THE ZONING HERE? I BELIEVE IT IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP.

BUT THIS PROPERTY, WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE THE SITE PLAN IN FOR THIS PROJECT AS WELL.

SO BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

I ALSO HAVE THAT SAME QUESTION. THERE ARE A LOT OF THOSE DEALERSHIPS ALONG SONCY THAT HAVE THAT KIND OF SPECIALIZED ONE FOR THEM.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDS. I'LL SECOND.

SECOND BY DICK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. OKAY, NEXT ISSUE IS 4E. GOT A LOT OF STUFF TODAY.

[4.E. Consideration of Variance/s Associated with Preliminary Plan 2025-168-PP Plaza at Tascosa Phase 2 This item considers the request for a variance from the requirement to provide alleys for a proposed subdivision and from the requirement that lots must front upon a public street. The development under consideration for the just mentioned variances is Plaza at Tascosa Phase 2, a 10.09 acre tract that includes unplatted property and a portion of Tract B, Amended Tascosa Estates Unit No. 1, all in Section 11, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: N. Forest St. & N. Western St.; APPLICANT/S: OJD Engineering, LLC for Tascosa Development Company, LLC) ]

YES, MOVING ON TO 4E, THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PRELIMINARY PLAN 2025-168-PP. THE PLAZA AT TASCOSA PHASE 2 AND THIS ITEM.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOTS MUST FRONT UPON A PUBLIC STREET.

THE DEVELOPMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE PLAZA AT TASCOSA 2.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES. THAT INCLUDES UNPLATTED PROPERTY AND A PORTION OF TRACK B, AMENDED TASCOSA ESTATES UNIT NO. 1. AND THIS IS IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF NORTHWESTERN OR NORTH FOURTH STREET AND NORTHWESTERN STREET.

AND THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROJECT IS OJD ENGINEERING, LLC, FOR TASCOSA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. AND AS I JUST MENTIONED, THEY ARE REQUESTING THOSE VARIANCES FROM ORDINANCE SECTION 4-6-53B AND 4-6-54D. THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT FOR ALLEYS AND STREETS ESSENTIALLY.

AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE MUCH LIKE PHASE ONE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY LOCATED THERE TO THE SOUTH OF THE RED BOX AS THE FIRST PHASE THAT THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE. IT'S GOING TO BE MIXED USE IN NATURE OFFICE, RETAIL, AND THIS ONE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO IT AS WELL.

THEY ARE PROPOSING EIGHT RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TEN FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT IS THE DRAFT SITE PLAN ON YOUR SCREEN THERE.

THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IS THERE ON THE WEST WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND THOSE ARE ESSENTIALLY PROPOSED TO BE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.

AND IN THIS SITUATION, WHENEVER A DEVELOPER WANTS TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE TYPICAL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE,

[00:25:07]

THE PRELIMINARY PLANS REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION.

ALL PROPOSED LOTS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO UTILITIES VIA PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED DESIGN.

ADDITIONALLY, DRAINAGE BETWEEN THE LOTS WILL BE ESTABLISHED PER DRAINAGE EASEMENTS THAT WILL BE DETERMINED AND DEDICATED AS PART OF THE DRAINAGE REPORT FOR THIS PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE PLANNING OF THE DEVELOPMENTS. REGARDING ACCESS THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING, MUCH LIKE IN PHASE ONE, A SERIES OF SHARED ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENTS THAT WILL BE DEDICATED PER BOTH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY, ALONG WITH A FUTURE PLAT AND ALSO SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS THAT WILL BE EASEMENTS.

THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS FOR ACCESS, MAINTENANCE OF EASEMENTS AND OTHER CRITICAL FUNCTIONS.

AND THEY ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLOT BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT A LATER DATE.

SOLID WASTE SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED VIA CARTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.

AND FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT THAT CAN EITHER BE THIRD PARTY SERVICE OR CITY SERVICE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS.

UPON REVIEW OF THE DESIGN BY CITY STAFF, WE FOUND IT IS LARGELY IN LINE WITH WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AND APPROVED FOR PHASE ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, IT'S SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS NATURE THAT ARE FOUND AROUND AMARILLO.

PROBABLY THE OTHER MOST PROMINENT ONE IS THE LOWE'S ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF TOWN THERE OFF LOWE'S LANE.

IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL STILL NEED TO APPLY FOR REZONING TO EXPAND THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT MAKES UP PHASE ONE.

THE APPROVAL TODAY IS SIMPLY REGARDING THE VARIANCES FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, WHICH ONLY ADDRESS SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND REGULATIONS.

BUILDING ELEMENTS ARE SHOWN ON THE SHEETS TODAY FOR REFERENCE ONLY TO SHOW THE THEORETICAL DESIGN AND HOW IT FUNCTIONS.

UPON REVIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTORS, STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED VARIANCES WOULD NOT RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE AREA IF APPROVED.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL? IF NOT, I OPEN IT UP FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

HOW IS A DEVELOPER GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THESE ROADS? IS IT THROUGH A PIT OR IS IT THROUGH A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION? THEY HAVE AN HOA. THEY. YEAH, THEY HAVE AN HOA LIKE MECHANISM OUT THERE FOR PHASE ONE.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO EXPAND THAT SAME MECHANISM HERE FOR PHASE TWO.

AND A COMPONENT OF THAT DOES INCLUDE A MAINTENANCE MECHANISM THAT ESSENTIALLY, I BELIEVE ALL THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD SHARE.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY CARRY OVER THAT SAME MECHANISM TO THIS PHASE THAT THEY USED IN PHASE ONE.

IS THAT ROADWAYS FOR SURFACE OR IS IT INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL? JESSE, YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? GOOD QUESTION.

COMMISSIONERS, JESSIE ARREDONDO WITH OJD ENGINEERING. I'D LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU HAVE.

JOSHUA, WHAT'S THE QUESTION. I WAS ASKING IF THE HOA ENCOMPASSES SURFACE ONLY OR IS IT SUBSURFACE AS WELL, INCLUDING UTILITIES. THE UTILITIES WILL BE PUBLIC THAT THE WATER SEWER MAINS, THERE'S A PORTION OF THE UTILITIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRIVATE, BASICALLY, THAT SERVE THE FIRE HYDRANTS THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF.

BUT THE MAJORITY OF UTILITIES SERVING THIS SITE IS PUBLIC AND WILL BE IN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.

THANK YOU. JESSIE. ARE THE LOTS 13 THROUGH, I BELIEVE.

18. ARE THOSE YOUR RESIDENTIAL? DID I HEAR RESIDENTIAL? YES. ONES ON. ON THE WEST WE'RE CALLING THEM COTTAGES.

THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE. COTTAGES. AND THAT'LL BE FACING UP AGAINST A WHOLE NUMBER FOUR, I BELIEVE, ON THE COURSE. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO BLEND RESIDENTIAL ZONING WITH COMMERCIAL? WE PLAN ON HAVING A LANDSCAPING BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE COTTAGES, IN BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SORRY TO CLARIFY, I MEANT REGARDING THE LANGUAGE.

OH, WITH LANGUAGE OF MAINTENANCE. NO RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCE COMPARED TO.

WE'RE DOING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. SO IT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE THAT MIX.

YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. JESSE. YES. YOU'RE WELCOME.

JESSE. YES. TRACK. HAVE A DIRECT ACCESS TO WESTERN STREET.

WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO GO FROM THIS TRACK ONTO WESTERN STREET? YES, SIR. AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER, WE DO HAVE AN APPROVED TEX DOT PERMIT FOR THAT LOCATION.

DOES IT BUTT UP AGAINST TASCOSA? YES. CAN TASCOSA COME THROUGH? NO. OKAY. AND CAN YOU GO FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTO THE ONE THAT'S SOUTH OF IT? YES. IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW.

[00:30:03]

YES. WE'LL BE ABLE TO. SO THERE WILL BE ACCESS FROM RYAN PALMER LANE.

BUT IT'LL JUST BE A GOLF CART TRAFFIC NORMALLY FROM WESTERN AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.

SO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IN THE BACK IS NOT SIMILAR TO LIKE A BARN DOOR TO MATCH OR COMMERCIAL LOOKING WITH THE OVERHEAD DOOR.

NO, I BELIEVE THE PLAN IS, IS JUST FOR THEM TO HAVE THEIR OWN UNIQUE LOOK TO HELP BLEND IN WITH THE GOLF COURSE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. JESSE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.

I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

AYE. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR LAST ITEM TODAY ON THE AGENDA FOR ITEM 4F.

[4.F. Consideration of Variance/s Associated with Preliminary Plan 2026-98-PP Town Square Southeast This item considers the request for a variance from the requirement to provide alleys for a proposed subdivision. The development under consideration for the just mentioned variance is Town Square Southeast, a 11.79 acre tract of unplatted land in Section 63, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas (VICINITY: Soncy Rd. & Hillside Rd.; APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data, Inc. for Mary Marsh and William Marsh, Trustees of EBOB/Marsh Trust) ]

THIS IS ALSO THE CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAN CASE 2026-98-PP.

TOWN SQUARE, SOUTHEAST. THIS PROPERTY IS AN APPROXIMATELY AN 11.79 ACRE TRACT LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF HILLSIDE ROAD AND SONCY ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS GEOSPATIAL DATA, INC.

FOR THE MARY MARSH AND WILLIAM MARSH TRUSTEES OF THE EBOB/MARSH TRUST.

AND THE VARIANCE THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE ALLEY WAIVER TO NOT PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR A SUBDIVISION.

AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THIS TRACT IS PROPOSED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

KIND OF A CONTINUATION OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON THERE ALONG SANTEE. THIS IS MORE SPECIFICALLY JUST OUT IN FRONT OF TOWN SQUARE THERE.

SO I KNOW THE BRAHMS IS KIND OF AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF YOUR IMAGE HERE.

AND THEN THEY DO HAVE SOME INITIAL POTENTIAL BUYERS FOR SOME OF THE TRACKS IMMEDIATELY ALONG SWANSEA.

SO THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED THE SUBMITTAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND OTHER ITEMS THAT REQUIRED THE NECESSITATED THE NEED FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS TRACT. SO ESSENTIALLY AT THE MOMENT THEY ARE PROPOSING THREE LOTS, THE TWO ALONG SWANSEA AND THEN THE LARGER ONE THAT RUNS NORTH TO SOUTH FROM THAT RUNS FROM HILLSIDE UP THROUGH TO TOWN SQUARE BOULEVARD.

THEY ANTICIPATE PROBABLY FURTHER SUBDIVIDING THAT BACKTRACKED AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD.

AND AT THAT TIME THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COME IN AND AMEND THIS AND SHOW HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK.

BUT AT THE MOMENT, THOUGH, THIS REFLECTS THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT THEY DO HAVE.