[00:00:02] 2026 AND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER. [1. Call to order and establish a quorum is present.] THE COMMISSION CONSISTS OF SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS, SIX OF WHICH ARE PRESENT TODAY. AT THIS TIME, ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING ITEMS LISTED ON OUR AGENDA OR ITEMS RELATED TO CITY BUSINESS WILL BE RECEIVED AT THIS TIME. YOU CAN ALSO WAIT UNTIL YOUR PARTICULAR ITEM COMES UP ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. ADDRESS ALL REMARKS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT STAFF HAVE A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. MOVING RIGHT ALONG INTO OUR THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA ITEM 3.A ANY. [3.A. Announcements; ] ANNOUNCEMENTS? BRADY GOT A COUPLE FOR YOU ALL TODAY. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME STAFFING CHANGES HERE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS ACTUALLY EMILY'S LAST P&Z WITH US. SHE'S MOVING ON FROM US, SO JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THIS WILL BE HER LAST P&Z WITH US AND WITH THAT WE HAVE WILL DINGER WITH US. HE IS OUR NEW PLANNER, ONE THAT WILL BE JOINING US AND TAKING OVER SOME OF THE DUTIES FROM EMILY OVER TIME. SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL INFORM YOU ALL OF THAT TODAY. WELCOME. AND THEN AND WITH THAT ANNOUNCEMENT WISE THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR Y'ALL TODAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SORRY TO HAVE YOU LEAVING US, EMILY. IT'S OKAY. OKAY. GOOD DEAL. ALL RIGHT, ITEM 3.B, ANY UPDATES ON CASES THAT HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO COUNCIL? [3.B. Updates on cases forwarded to City Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission; ] YEAH, GOT A FEW FOR Y'ALL TODAY. THE BATCH PLANT OFF OF TRIANGLE DRIVE, THE ASPHALT BATCH PLANT THAT RECEIVED APPROVAL AT ITS SECOND AND FINAL READING WITH THE COUNCIL. SO THAT ITEM IS NOW CONSIDERED APPROVED. WE HAD FOUR CASES GO FOR FIRST READINGS, LAST MEETING. ALL OF THEM RECEIVED APPROVAL. AND THOSE WERE THE FOLLOWING. THE TOWN SQUARE R3 EXPANSION FOR ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY. THE DOWNTOWN RELIGIOUS CAMPUS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. THAT ONE AS WELL. THE BIG TEXAN RV PARK EXPANSION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STARLIGHT RANCH. AND THEN THE COLTER STREET GENERAL RETAIL REQUEST THERE AT 77TH. SO THOSE WILL GO FOR SECOND READINGS AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AS SCHEDULED. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I GOT ON THAT ITEM FOR TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU BRADY. ITEM 3.C ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR UPDATES FROM STAFF THAT'S NEEDED? COMMISSIONERS. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE'LL MOVE ON INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 4.A CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 3RD, [4.A. Consider approval of the minutes from the August 3, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. ] 2026 REGULAR MEETING. THOSE WERE EMAILED OUT TO EACH ONE OF YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? IF NOT, WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THOSE BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. OKAY. THANK YOU. CINDY, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. FRED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION IS APPROVED. ITEM 4. B. BRADY. YES. SO 4.B. [4.B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning 2026-133-Z Rezoning of 5.712 acres of land, being the east 153.1 feet of Lot 26 and the west 395.6 feet of Lot 27, Block 2, Coulter Acres, a subdivision of the north one-half of Section 38, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Office District 2 to Planned Development District for a Tiny Home Village. (VICINITY: Coulter St. & S.W. 77th Ave.; APPLICANT/S: OJD Engineering, LLC for Fairly Four A Texas General Partnership) ] OUR FIRST ITEM TODAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING CASE 2026-133-Z. THIS IS THE REZONING OF 5.712 ACRES OF LAND BEING THE EAST 153.1FT OF LOT 26 AND THE WEST 395.6FT OF LOT 27, BLOCK TWO COULTER ACRES. THIS IS LOCATED IN RANDALL COUNTY IN THE VICINITY OF COLTER STREET AND SOUTHWEST 77TH AVENUE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE FROM OFFICE DISTRICT TWO TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A TINY HOME VILLAGE, AND THE APPLICANT IS OJD ENGINEERING LLC FOR FAIRLY FOUR A TEXAS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THIS SITE AS A SINGLE LOT, WITH 51 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES LOCATED ON THE LOT THAT ALSO WILL FEATURE A PRIVATE PARK SPACE. THE USE OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS INSTANCE IS FOR THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF AMARILLO ZONING ORDINANCE DOES NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY WHICH THE APPLICANT AND MOST PEOPLE WOULD REFER TO AS A TINY HOME VILLAGE. AND ON YOUR SCREEN NOW IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THAT COMMUNITY AND THAT PARK SPACE. THE CITY PLAN 2045 PLACE TYPE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS THE RESERVE AND NEIGHBORHOOD LOW PLACE TYPE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PLACE 51 OF THESE TINY HOMES ON THIS LOT. IN ADDITION TO THAT PRIVATELY MAINTAINED PARK AREA FOR THE COMMUNITY. ADDITIONALLY, 18 PARKING SPACES ARE BEING PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO TWO PER FOR EACH HOME TO ACCOMMODATE THE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS. AND THIS WILL ALSO FEATURE A PERIMETER FENCING, WHICH WILL BE FIVE FOOT CONCRETE PANEL ON COLUMN FENCING, AS NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN. THE HOMES PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE FEATURE TWO SIZES, PRIMARILY A 14 BY 62 FLOOR PLAN, 868FT² AND A 14 BY 40 FLOOR PLAN, OR 560FT², [00:05:10] AND EACH HOME WILL ALSO FEATURE A SMALL YARD AREA AND TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, AND THIS WILL BE SERVED WITH PRIVATE DRIVES WITHIN THE SITE, ALONG WITH THE PARK THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE COMMUNITY THROUGH A FEE STRUCTURE THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO ESTABLISH. ADDITIONALLY, THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE ALSO PROPOSED. PRIVATE TRASH SERVICE IS PROPOSED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. ONE CARPORT FOR EACH HOME IS ALLOWED, IF DESIRED, BY THE RESIDENTS OF THAT HOME. A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF NINE HOMES PER ACRE IS ALLOWED, WHICH IN THIS CASE 8.93 IS PROPOSED. MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN HOMES IS TEN FEET. SETBACK OFF OF 77TH IS 15FT AND ALL OTHER PROPERTY LINES IS A TEN FOOT SETBACK. MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT 23FT. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE 35% FOR THE LOT. WHEN LOOKING AT THE IDENTIFIED RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN CITY PLAN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOW PLACE TYPE, A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF UP TO NINE HOMES PER ACRE IS RECOMMENDED. ADDITIONALLY, THE CATEGORY DOES ALLOW FOR PROMOTING A THOUGHTFUL INTRODUCTION OF MIXED INCOME HOUSING TYPES IN WAYS THAT DON'T SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE CURRENT CHARACTER. CITY PLAN DOES NOTE THAT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS NEED, LIKE AS PROPOSED, NEED ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO PROMOTE THE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD SCENARIO. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING THAT PRIVATE PARK SPACE TO OFFER ADDITIONAL AMENITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS. WHEN EXAMINING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY PLAN FOR EXISTING NEWER NEIGHBORHOODS, INCREASING HOUSING DIVERSITY BY INCORPORATING THAT MISSING MIDDLE DEVELOPMENT ALONG KEY CORRIDORS AS WAS IDENTIFIED AS A KEY RECOMMENDATION, AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST OFF OF COULTER STREET NEAR A PORTION OF THE WESTERN CITY LIMITS OF AMARILLO. IN WHAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AN APPROPRIATE AREA FOR SUCH A DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE GUIDANCE OF CITY PLAN. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF COULTER STREET ARE UNIQUE, GIVEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE CITY LIMITS AND THE LOCATION NEAR AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY. FOR EXAMPLE, PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE APPLICANT IS A CHURCH, AND THE FIRST PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS TO THE WEST OF THE CHURCH IS AN EXISTING TRAILER PARK THAT IS LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, WHILE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE APPLICANT INCLUDES PROPERTY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO CITY ZONING REGULATIONS. GIVEN THE CURRENT ZONING CASE TO THE EAST OF THE APPLICANT IS WHICH THAT IS THAT GENERAL RETAIL REQUEST I SPOKE OF EARLIER, A ZONING PATTERN WILL POTENTIALLY BE ESTABLISHED IN WHICH GENERAL RETAIL ZONING WILL BE LOCATED ALONG COULTER STREET THAT THEN TRANSITIONS TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS A HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT IN MANY AREAS, SUCH AS AN APPROPRIATE ZONING TRANSITION. AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL ALSO REPRESENTS WHAT STAFF WOULD CLASSIFY AS AN APPROPRIATE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WHEN CONSIDERING EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS AND ZONING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA, WHILE AT THE HIGHER END OF THE RECOMMENDED RANGE, THE PROPOSED DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WOULD FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOW CATEGORY OF 1 TO 9 UNITS PER ACRE. AND ADDITIONALLY THIS TRACK BEING LOCATED JUST OFF AN ARTERIAL WITH AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE TRANSITION, PROPOSED ENSURING COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO INCORPORATING AMENITIES TO THE PROJECT THAT WILL ENHANCE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, WHILE ALSO BALANCING THE POTENTIAL DENSITY CONCERNS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND WHEN EXAMINING THE GOALS OF CITY PLANNING, THE STAFF'S OPINION OF THIS PROJECT WOULD MEET MANY OF THE GOALS AND GUIDELINES OF THE PLAN, AND THEN THE SITE PLAN THAT IS ATTACHED ON YOUR SCREEN NOW IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. FOR EXAMPLE. THOSE WILL BE INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE. AND ANY CHANGES, IF THERE WERE EVER TO BE ANY PROPOSED, WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION, IN ADDITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT SITE PLAN WILL BE AN EXHIBIT OF THE ORDINANCE. REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT, TWO CALLS FROM THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN RECEIVED REGARDING THE REQUEST. ONE WAS A GENERAL INQUIRY AND THE SECOND CALLER WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. THE CALLER EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ON EXISTING PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA, AND ALSO HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE RESIDENTS FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE. WITH THAT THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THE PRESENTATION AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. BRADY, IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE TODAY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM. ALRIGHT. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS? YES. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. SO IT SAYS PRIVATE TRASH WOULD BE PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE WOULD LIKELY BE GIVEN THE SPACING OF THE LAYOUT OF THE PLAT, THERE WOULD LIKELY BE A TRASH RECEPTACLE SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD [00:10:08] BE FUNDED AND PAID FOR ONGOING BY THE HOA. CORRECT. FROM OUR LAST CONVERSATION WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THEY ARE GOING TO UTILIZE PRIVATE CART SERVICE WHERE EACH WOULD HAVE A PRIVATE ROLLOUT CART. OKAY, THIS IS KIND OF A UNIQUE DEAL WHERE IT'S KIND OF A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, WHICH WOULD KICK IT INTO THAT COMMERCIAL CATEGORY FROM THE WAY THE CITY LOOKS AT IT. SO THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE THE OPTION OF USING COMMERCIAL VERSUS PRIVATE SERVICE FOR THE CITY. SO WHAT OTHER NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD WOULD WE HAVE TO RELY ON OR INFRASTRUCTURE IS PROBABLY NOT THE CORRECT TERM, BUT WOULD WE HAVE TO RELY ON TO ENSURE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA ARE ABLE TO BE SERVICED IN THE SAME WAY THEY WOULD IF IT WAS NOT A PRIVATE AREA? AND CAN WE ASSURE THAT THAT HOA CAN MEET THOSE OBLIGATIONS? YEAH. SO ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THAT IS LOOKING AT THE UTILITIES THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR THIS. THEY DESIGNED ESSENTIALLY A SYSTEM THAT WILL IT'S PRIVATE, BUT ESSENTIALLY LOOPS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU WILL TIES INTO THE EXISTING CITY AND WATER MAINS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IN A POE AND ALSO I BELIEVE UP IN 77. SO THEY ARE TYING ALL INTO ALL THAT APPROPRIATELY. SO TO ENSURE THAT EACH SPACE, BECAUSE THIS IS BEING LEFT AS A SINGLE PLOTTED LOT. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. BUT SO FROM THAT ASPECT, IT'S REALLY NOT A LOT DIFFERENT THAN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN A LOT OF WAYS WHERE THE DEVELOPERS OR A DEVELOPER IS GOING TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY AND ULTIMATELY, LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OWNER, THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE DRIVE WILL STAY IN GOOD SHAPE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE UTILITIES HOLD UP OVER TIME. SO. SO TO BE CLEAR, THESE UNITS ARE NOT FOR SALE. THESE WILL BE RENTALS OWNED BY A SINGLE PERSON. THIS PROPERTY PERSON OR ENTITY. CORRECT. THIS IS GOING TO BE LEFT AS FROM A LANDOWNERSHIP PERSPECTIVE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SUBDIVIDE THESE EACH INTO THEIR OWN LOT. THIS IS A ONE LOT THAT'S GOING TO BE OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER AND WILL NOT BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER BEYOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS ONE? YEAH. SO IT'S NOT AN HOA. DICK COULD YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC, PLEASE. I'M SORRY. SO THIS IS NOT AN HOA? NO, THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING AN HOA FOR THIS. BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STREET AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT IF IT'S ONE LOT, ONE OWNER NOT GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED, NOT A CONDO UNIT. IT'S JUST ONE OWNER FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT, JUST LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND I'LL TURN BACK. ETHAN, IS THERE ANYTHING I NEED TO ADD TO THIS OR? NO. DO YOU MIND IF YOU WOULD APPROACH, APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND AND WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS. ETHAN JOHNSON I'M WITH OJD ENGINEERING, THE DESIGNING ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. YES, I DO LIVE IN CITY LIMITS. SO BRADY SUMMARIZED IT WELL, AND THE FACT THAT THIS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. AND SO ALL AGREEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATE BETWEEN EACH INDIVIDUAL RENTER OR LEASER WITH THEM. AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN ALL, ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES AND EVERYTHING WITH ONE SINGLE TIE IN TO CITY WATER SEWER. THE STREETS WILL BE MAINTAINED AS PRIVATE WITHIN THAT AGREEMENT. AND SO IT'S SOLELY GOING TO BE ON THE OWNER TO TO KEEP THAT INTACT. OKAY, GREAT. WHY DO THEY HAVE TO DO A PD? WHY COULDN'T THEY JUST DO IT AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX? SO OUR CITY THIS GETS INTO A DEFINITION ISSUE. THE CITY DEFINES AN APARTMENT AS THREE OR MORE UNITS UNDER ONE ROOF. SO THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE DEALS THAT DOESN'T FIT CLEANLY IN A BOX FROM A DEFINITIONAL STANDPOINT. I KNOW YOU ALL REMEMBER THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE THAT WE ALL LOOKED AT FIVE YEARS AGO OR SO BY NOW. TINY HOMES WERE SOMETHING AND VILLAGES WERE GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE WERE GOING TO ADD TO THAT, BUT THAT NEVER WENT THROUGH, OBVIOUSLY. SO IT'S JUST BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T REALLY FIT NEATLY IN A BOX FROM A DEFINITIONAL STANDPOINT. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, TYPICALLY THIS KIND OF SHARES CHARACTERISTICS OF SINGLE FAMILY AND ALSO KIND OF MULTIFAMILY. SO IT'S KIND OF THIS HYBRID LAND USE THAT DEFINITIONALLY DOESN'T REALLY FIT NEATLY ANYWHERE. AND THERE'S ALSO JUST WE FELT THIS WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY TO TAKE IT AS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT KIND OF HAVE A UNIQUE CHARACTER TO THEM CAN BE REQUESTED VIA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO WE FELT THAT THAT WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO TAKE THIS ONE. VERY GOOD. WHAT'S YOUR NEXT PROJECT? GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? SO AND AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT SEMANTICS HERE. BUT THE SEMANTICS MIGHT ULTIMATELY PROVE IMPORTANT SO THAT IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES THAT THAT REFER TO THE TINY HOME CONCEPT, THESE THEY'RE SEPARATE OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, EVEN IF THEY'RE ALL OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER, [00:15:06] THEY'RE SEPARATE OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND, AND DEEDS. SO IS, IS USING THAT TERMINOLOGY GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM LATER ON? THIS PROPOSAL, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY I PULLED THE, WHAT WE WERE POTENTIALLY GOING TO SET UP IN THAT ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE THAT NEVER WENT THROUGH. AND WE ACTUALLY WERE PROPOSING A COUPLE DIFFERENT MODELS WHERE THERE WAS A VILLAGE CONCEPT WHERE IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY THE OWNERS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY OWN THE PROPERTY. THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE LEASING. AND IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THIS PROPOSAL ACTUALLY ALMOST FIT WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED BACK THEN TO THE TEE. SO BUT WE PROPOSED SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR TINY HOMES IN THAT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT WAS NEVER ADOPTED. SOME OF THEM WERE FOR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OR LOTS WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED AND OWNERS WOULD MAINTAIN ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE HOME. BUT IN THOSE DEFINITIONS, WE ALSO DID HAVE A VILLAGE CONCEPT WHERE SUCH AS IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE WOULD BE A SINGULAR OWNER AND THEY WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE LEASED. SO. SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE I THINK BECAUSE I THINK AT SOME POINT WE WILL LOOK AT DUSTING OFF THAT TINY HOME OR PULL THAT OUT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT DIDN'T GET ADOPTED, BECAUSE WE ARE STARTING TO SEE SOME GROWING INTEREST IN THAT. I THINK WHAT'S GOOD IS THAT IN THIS CASE, IT ACTUALLY FITS WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING, BECAUSE MORE THAN LIKELY WE WOULD START WITH WHAT WE HAD PROPOSED PREVIOUSLY. AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE BOXING OURSELVES IN, DOWN THE ROAD IF WE DECIDE TO FORMALLY BRING HOME A OR BRING FORWARD A TINY HOME CONCEPT TO YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION. AND FINALLY, JUST AS A TAIL END OF THAT. SO YOU DISMISSED CALLING THIS A VILLAGE VERSUS TINY HOME. AND THERE WAS SOME RATIONALE FOR THAT. I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE WE DID USE ON THIS ONE WAS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A TINY HOME VILLAGE, IS WHAT WE CALLED THIS. OH, YOU CALLED IT A TINY HOME VILLAGE. YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE TERMINOLOGY THAT THAT THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE USED AS WELL. SO WE TRIED TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH THAT. THAT WAY, IF WE EVER PULL THAT FORWARD SOMEDAY, THIS WOULD FIT WITHIN THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. ANYBODY ELSE. IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOAH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. DICK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE AYE. MOTION APPROVED. ITEM 4.C. BRADY. YES. [4.C. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning 2026-152-Z Rezoning of a 4.56 acre portion of Block 1, Washington Industrial Tracts Addition, an addition to the City of Amarillo, in Section 173, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Light Industrial District to Planned Development District for a manufactured home park subdivision with reduced lot width and area minimums. (VICINITY: S.W. 47th Ave. & Washington St.; APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data, Inc. for Collins Family Properties, LLC)] WE'LL MOVE ON TO 4.C. THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF REZONING. 2026-152-Z. THIS IS THE REZONING OF A 4.56 ACRE PORTION OF BLOCK ONE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL TRACTS. THIS IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF AMARILLO WITHIN RANDALL COUNTY. IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHWEST 47TH AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET. THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO REZONE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISION WITH REDUCED LOT WIDTH AND AREA MINIMUMS. THE APPLICANT IS GEOSPATIAL DATA INC. FOR THE COLLINS FAMILY'S PROPERTIES, LLC. THIS DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THIS SITE WITH A MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION THAT WILL FEATURE 44 LOTS. AND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISION, NOR MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS. THE DEVELOPER REQUESTED A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND ADJACENT ZONING IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IN ALL DIRECTIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES INCLUDE VACANT LAND TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND UNBUILT STREET RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EAST, AND A CONTRACTOR WAREHOUSE AND MATERIAL STORAGE FACILITY TO THE WEST. THE PLACE TYPE FOR THE PROPERTY IS THE MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS PLACE TYPE PER CITY PLAN 2045, AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF SOUTHWEST 46TH AVENUE, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE BNSF RAILWAY AND A PRIMARILY PREDOMINANTLY INDUSTRIAL AREA. SOUTHWEST 46TH AVENUE IN THIS AREA HAS SERVED AS THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH AND THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 46TH AVENUE. SUCH ROADWAYS DO OFTEN FUNCTION AS A LINE OF DELINEATION BETWEEN LAND USE CLUSTERS WITHIN THE CITY, AS THE WIDTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY CAN OFTEN FUNCTION AS A CLEAR LINE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN USES THAT WOULD OFTEN NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER. IT IS NOTED THAT THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS BY RIGHT, AND THE CHART ON YOUR SCREEN ILLUSTRATES WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CODE IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT VERSUS THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. AND A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS ON HERE. WE'LL GO TO MINIMUM SPACE AND LOT SIZE FIRST. [00:20:02] TYPICALLY FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS 3500FT² IS THE MINIMUM MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS WOULD TYPICALLY BE 5000FT² PER LOT. THE PROPOSED SMALLEST LOT WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT IS 3421FT². THE AVERAGE OF THE LOT SIZE IS ABOVE THAT, BUT JUST SPEAKING STRICTLY ON THE MINIMUM REQUESTED THAT 3421 IS THE SMALLEST ONE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT MINIMUM WIDTHS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, THERE IS NOT A MINIMUM WIDTH FOR MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS TYPICALLY 50FT, AND IN THIS CASE THEY ARE PROPOSING 26FT FOR THE MINIMUM WIDTH. REGARDING MINIMUM RECREATIONAL AREAS MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS REQUIRE 8% OF THE PARK AREA TO BE RECREATION SPACE. AND THEN MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT. AND THEN THE REST OF THE ITEMS ON THERE ARE JUST VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MEET THE TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT AND THEN SETBACKS. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY PROPOSING 15 FRONT, TEN REAR, FIVE FOOT INTERIOR SIDE. THAT FITS PRETTY CLOSELY TO WHAT YOU SEE TYPICALLY IN MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS, BUT IN MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS WHERE THOSE HOMES ARE TYPICALLY A LITTLE PACKED IN THOSE STANDARDS ARE TYPICALLY A LITTLE GREATER THERE. AND THESE ABOVE STANDARDS ALONG WITH THE OTHERS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS BALANCE THE ASPECTS OF A DENSER RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT VERSUS THOSE OF A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISION IN WHICH THERE IS MORE LAND AREA PER LOT, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MORE SPACE BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND A MORE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT. THE ENHANCED STANDARDS SEEN ABOVE THAT ARE TYPICALLY REQUIRED FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ARE TO OFFSET THE POTENTIALLY LESS DESIRABLE ASPECTS OF A HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WITH AMENITIES THAT OFFER RESIDENTS A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE PARK AND ON YOUR SCREEN. NOW, THIS WILL SHOULD LOOK BETTER ON YOUR MONITORS UP THERE, BUT THOSE ARE THE PROPOSED MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS IN TERMS OF SETBACKS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE LOT CONFIGURATION AND EXAMINING THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, THE DESIGN IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT IS TYPICALLY SEEN WITHIN A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK REGARDING DENSITY AND LOT SIZE, BUT WITHOUT THE BENEFITS FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE PRESENT WITH AS A, BUT WITHOUT THE BENEFITS FOR THE RESIDENTS AND PRESENTED AS A SUBDIVISION. ADDITIONALLY, ANOTHER ASPECT TO CONSIDER IS THE INCREASED SETBACKS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY REQUIRED IN A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SETTING TO PROMOTE INCREASED FIRE SEPARATION. GIVEN THE CONSTRUCTION TYPE OF MANUFACTURED HOMES VERSUS TRADITIONALLY BUILT HOMES AND DISTANCE BETWEEN UNITS AND DENSER DEVELOPMENT SETTINGS, THE ABOVE PROPOSAL APPEARS TO UTILIZE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY MORE APPROPRIATE ON A LARGER, LOT LARGER BASELINE LOT SIZE. TYPICALLY, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A SITUATION LIKE THIS WOULD INCORPORATE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS OR TRADE OFFS THAT WOULD OFFSET THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE HIGHER DENSITY AND SMALLER BASELINE LOT SIZES. IN THIS INSTANCE, NO SUCH AMENITIES WERE PROPOSED. REGARDING THE EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WOULD INTRODUCE A HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT INTO AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREA. STAFF DOES NOTE THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT DOES ALLOW FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND SUBDIVISIONS BY RIGHT. HOWEVER, INTRODUCING A HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT IN SUCH A ZONE VIA A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD LIKELY CREATE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES AND CONFLICTS OVER TIME, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THIS AREA IS AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREA. THIS IS REINFORCED BY CITY PLAN 2045 PLACE TYPE DESIGNATION OF MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THERE SOUTH OF 46. THIS TYPE RECOMMENDS MORE INTENSIVE MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL USES AS THE PREDOMINANT DEVELOPMENT TYPE. REGARDING CITY PLAN 2045 AND ITS GUIDANCE, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH SEVERAL AREAS OF CITY PLAN, CITY PLAN RECOMMENDS THE PRESERVATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES THAT PROVIDE LOCAL JOBS BY INTRODUCING A NEW AND DENSER RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT INTO THIS AREA. AS PART OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD BE ENCROACHING INTO AN ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHILE ZONING AND LAND USE TRANSITIONS CAN BALANCE THESE ENCROACHMENTS NEAR INDUSTRIAL AREAS SUCH AS NOT PRESENT IN THIS PROPOSED SITUATION. A KEY GOAL OF CITY PLAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT APPLY TO THE SITUATION IS REDUCING ADJACENCIES TO INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES AND PROTECTING AGAINST HARM THAT INCOMPATIBILITIES COULD CAUSE. WHILE IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS RECOMMENDED AND ENCOURAGED WITHIN AMARILLO, [00:25:02] IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE ORDERLY AND APPROPRIATE IN NATURE AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF AN AREA. IN THIS INSTANCE, STAFF HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSING THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT VIA A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INTO AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL ZONED AREA THAT IS LARGELY DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES SOUTH OF 46TH AVENUE AND EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET, BETWEEN THE RAILROAD. THE PROPOSAL WOULD AND STAFF'S OPINION RESULT IN NEW COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR THE AREA AND GO AGAINST RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY PLAN 2045 REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT FOR. CALLS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED REGARDING THE REQUEST. ONE WAS A GENERAL INQUIRY AND THREE OTHERS WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE CALLERS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PROPERTY VALUES CONCERNS ABOUT INCREASES IN CRIME, INCREASES IN TRAFFIC AND THE DEVELOPMENT TYPE NOT BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN THIS AREA. WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, AND I KNOW WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEVELOPERS TEAM HERE AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME ON UP TO THE FRONT. HELLO, EVERYONE. DUSTIN DAVIS, I'M WITH GD. I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THIS PROJECT, AND I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT SEGUE FROM THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA. THAT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, IS THIS IS A TO CINDY'S QUESTION EARLIER WAS THESE WILL BE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. SO THESE CAN BE SOLD. THEY CAN BE KEPT. THEY CAN BE RENTED. THERE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES THERE. THE THE STREETS, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILT. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC STREET ON THE EAST SIDE THAT WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CITY. THE UTILITIES ARE ALL PUBLIC, BUT THE DRIVES INTERIOR WILL REMAIN PRIVATE. BUT WE FEEL LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU WANT INFILL, THIS IS THIS IS WHAT INFILL LOOKS LIKE. WHEN YOU WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TO SOME EXTENT, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. AND WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A, THE PERFECT PLACE TO DO THIS TYPE OF A PROJECT. AND JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM. IT'S IT'S VIRTUALLY THE SAME. THE SAME ASK. UP TO YOU GUYS. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. I KNOW THE DEVELOPER'S HERE, THEY CAN THEY CAN SPEAK TO IT ALSO. OKAY, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DEAL. I'LL LET THE DEVELOPERS MAYBE. HOW DO YOU HAVE PRIVATE STREETS IN A NON-HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION ARRANGEMENT? SO YEAH, LET ME SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY TIES INTO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THE PRELIMINARY PLAN. SO LET ME FLIP TO THE SITE PLAN HERE. SO IT'S AT CENTRAL STREET THERE. BELOW THE TOP COLUMN LOTS THERE. THAT WILL BE THE PRIVATE ROAD. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS ITEM ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN. NEXT IT WOULD BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND ON SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO THEIR LOTS DEPENDING UPON PRIVATE MAINTENANCE, IT'S GOING TO BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT Y'ALL DON'T RECOMMEND THAT YOU ALL ONLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT POTENTIAL VARIANCE, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT A MAINTENANCE MECHANISM AND A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THAT MAINTENANCE HAS TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE WE APPROVE A PLOT OUT HERE FOR THAT. SO IN THIS CASE, THE CITY HAS INDICATED TO THE DEVELOPER THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL MECHANISM AND A MAINTENANCE MECHANISM BEFORE A PLAT COULD BE FILED FOR THAT PRIVATE STREET. SO, SO WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, THAT COULD BE AN HOA. I KNOW THERE'S OTHER MECHANISMS OUT THERE THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY UTILIZE, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL NEED TO FIGURE OUT BEFORE THIS IS PLATTED IF IT GOES FORWARD. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. MR. FORD. BRADY, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCES IN LOT LANDSCAPE COVERAGE COMPARED TO A MOBILE HOME DEVELOPMENT AND A MOBILE HOME PARK FOR LANDSCAPING? YOU SAID MOBILE HOME PARKS REQUIRE SO MUCH OF IT TO BE ALLOCATED FOR THE AMENITY. AND THAT'S THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAST PROPOSED PROJECT. YEAH. SO ON MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, THERE ARE ORDINANCE TYPICALLY STATES THAT IT'S A 8% OF THE PARK AREA HAS TO BE DEDICATED FOR A PARK SPACE ESSENTIALLY. AND A MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION WHERE YOU HAVE THOSE 50 BY 100000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. AND THAT'S JUST LIKE ANY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THERE IS NOT A LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THAT BECAUSE THE POINT OF INCLUDING THE 8% PARK AREA IS TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT SPACE AND ABILITY TO MOVE ABOUT AND EXERCISE, IF YOU WILL, THAT THEY'RE LOSING BY BEING IN A PARK VERSUS HAVING THOSE 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS WITH A YARD AND SUCH. SO THAT THAT'S PROBABLY THAT'S THE INTENT OF THAT REQUIREMENT ON THE PARK VERSUS A SUBDIVISION. [00:30:01] SO THAT'S SOME OF THAT HISTORY THERE. IS THAT INTENT PROBABLY THERE FOR THE REDUCTION OF LOT SINCE YOU HAVE LESS LESS OUTDOOR SPACE TO USE? SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? SORRY. IS THAT PARK ALLOCATION THERE FOR THE LOWER DENSITY AND THE LACK OF BACKYARD SPACE AND FRONT SPACE? YES. THAT'S STAFF'S OPINION. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT 8% REQUIREMENT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT, THAT THAT'S IN A SETTING WHERE YOU HAVE PRETTY SMALL SPACES AND NOT A LOT OF YARDS IF ANY. SO. SO THAT'S THE INTENT BEHIND THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE PARK VERSUS A SUBDIVISION. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. THE 32 FOOT WIDTH WILL THAT WILL ONLY ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE WIDE. OR WOULD THAT POTENTIALLY ACCOMMODATE A DOUBLE WIDE? JUST A SINGLE ONE. OKAY. SO 26 FOOT WIDE LOTS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO HELP ME, HELP ME GET THERE. DUSTIN, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES BECAUSE I THINK I GOT THE HOA THING FROM THIS PRESENTATION AND THE LAST ONE MIXED UP MYSELF. SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES, BUT THEY KIND OF END THERE FOR ME. THIS IS SOUNDING A LITTLE BIT LIKE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN A MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION AND, AND AN RV PARK BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WITH, WITH NO YARDS AND NO PARK SPACE AND, AND NO REAL SPACE OTHER THAN THE, THE STREET. IT ALMOST SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT'S MORE OF A TRANSIENT TYPE IN AND OUT KIND OF THING. HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. SURE. SO I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS. I THINK FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT, IT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL. THIS IS PROPOSED AS A MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION WHERE THE PREVIOUS ITEM WAS TRADITIONAL BUILT. BUT THIS IS, THIS IS NOT AN RV PARK. THESE ARE INTENDED TO BE LONG TERM. THEY'RE NOT IN AND OUT. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY THAT. BUT THESE WILL BE FIXED TO THE GROUND. THEY'LL BE TIED TO THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE LONG TERM TENANTS, BUT THEY CAN BE INDIVIDUALLY SOLD ALSO. REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS ITEM AND THE PREVIOUS ITEM IS THAT THESE COULD BE INDIVIDUALLY SOLD. IF THE PREVIOUS ITEM CHOSE TO DO THAT, IT WOULD LOOK JUST LIKE THIS VIRTUALLY. THE BIG THING IS ON THESE LOT SIZES IS THAT YES, THE, THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT WITH A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. WELL, WHEN YOU HAVE ALMOST ALL SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOMES ARE 16FT WIDE. IF YOU TAKE THE 16 PLUS THE FIVE AND FIVE, THAT'S HOW YOU GET TO THE 20. THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO 26 TO KEEP THE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS ON EACH SIDE AND KEEP FIRE SEPARATION FROM STRUCTURE TO STRUCTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION CINDI YOU DID, BUT BUT NO OTHER AMENITIES ARE PROPOSED HERE. AND AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON WE DIDN'T PROPOSE ANY ADDITIONAL AMENITIES IS BECAUSE EACH LOT IS ITS OWN LOT, AND IT'S ABLE TO BE SOLD PER PLAT. SO EACH ONE OF THESE 42 LOTS IS INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED OUT. SO SIR, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? DEREK COLLINS. COLLINS FAMILY PROPERTIES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DOESN'T HELP ME. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. IS THERE A SIDEWALK HERE? IS THERE SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF ALL THIS? YES. SO THERE'LL BE A SIDEWALK AND A DRIVEWAY GOING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK. AND YOU CAN SEE JUST A LAY DOWN SIDEWALK. YES, SIR. YES, SIR. OKAY, SO THERE WILL BE WALKWAYS, WHEELCHAIR ACCESS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. YEAH. WE HAVE TO MEET ALL CURRENT ADA REQUIREMENTS, WHICH FALLS IN THE CITY STANDARDS. I WALK MY DOG IN THE BIVINS AREA ALL THE TIME AND IT'S A PROBLEM. YES, SIR. YEAH. WE'LL HAVE TO MEET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. YES, SIR. AND, BRADY, YOUR CONCERN WAS THAT YOU THINK THAT THESE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USERS WILL HAVE AN OBJECTION TO HAVING A MOBILE HOMES NEXT TO THEM? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? SO IT'S A COMPATIBILITY ISSUE LOOKING AT WHAT CITY PLAN RECOMMENDS. YOU KNOW, INTRODUCING THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT INTO AN INDUSTRIAL AREA GOES AGAINST MANY RECOMMENDATIONS OF CITY PLAN AND ALSO JUST COMMON PLANNING PRACTICES. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BALANCE SINCE YOU KNOW, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BY RIGHT DOES ALLOW MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS AND PARKS, BUT THOSE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE, IN OUR OPINION, BUILDS IN SOME ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND BETTER, BETTER BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS, YOU KNOW, LARGER LIGHTS, LOT SIZES, AMENITIES. [00:35:02] AND WE JUST. UPON REVIEWING CITY PLAN, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL LIKE IT GOES AGAINST A LOT OF WHAT THAT RECOMMENDS. JUST WITH INTRODUCING THIS ADJACENT TO INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS. I WILL NOTE ONE OF THE CALLERS THAT HAD CONCERNS IN OPPOSITION WAS THE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORING INDUSTRIAL SITES THERE. SO THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THAT POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENT. SO AND WHAT IMPACTS THAT COULD HAVE OVER TIME. AND THEY WERE AGAINST IT. YEAH. THEY HAD, THEY HAD CONCERNS. YES. THEY THEY VOICED AS OPPOSITION TO THIS. I'M SURE THE RAILROAD TRACKS DIDN'T COMPLAIN. SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? I'M SURE THE RAILROAD TRACK DIDN'T COMPLAIN, DID THEY? NO, WE DID NOT HEAR FROM BNSF. NOPE. BRADY DID STAFF SUGGEST TO RESUBMIT AS A MOBILE HOME PARK OR WAS IT? IN THE PAC MEETING THAT WE HAD A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO, WE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS AT THAT STAGE, AND ALSO THE WHAT'S TYPICALLY REQUIRED AND MAYBE SOME IDEAS TO POTENTIALLY INCORPORATE. BUT THIS IS THE DESIGN THAT THE DEVELOPER FELT COMFORTABLE BRINGING FORWARD. SO BUT WE DID HAVE A PAC MEETING A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO BEFORE THIS WAS SUBMITTED. I DO BELIEVE THE LOT WIDTHS AND DEPTHS ARE PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE REQUEST AND THE ZONING. SO FOR MANUFACTURED FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS THEY DON'T ACTUALLY ESTABLISH WIDTHS. THEY JUST ESTABLISH A SPACE SIZE. BUT WE'LL GO BACK TO THE SETBACKS FOR A SECOND JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SETBACK COLUMN FOR THE MANUFACTURED HOME PARK SUBDIVISION IT'S 15FT FROM PUBLIC STREETS, TEN FEET FROM ANY SPACE, 20FT ON THE SIDES AND 16 ON THE REAR BETWEEN MANUFACTURED HOMES. SO IT IS A 3500 FOOT SQUARE FOOT SPACE SIZE MINIMUM. BUT THOSE ARE SETBACKS IN THAT SETTING ARE ACTUALLY INCREASE. AND A LOT OF THAT GOES BACK TO THE FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS. I KNOW MANUFACTURED HOMES, GIVEN THE WAY THEY'RE BUILT ESPECIALLY YEARS AGO, THERE WAS JUST THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THOSE INCREASED SETBACKS IS JUST FIRE SEPARATION CONCERNS IN A SETTING WHERE THEY'RE PACKED IN THERE PRETTY TIGHT. WELL, FIRE IS STILL THE SAME CODE OF TEN, TEN FOOT. CORRECT. TYPICALLY ON RESIDENTIAL, IT'S A TEN FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN HOMES. AND CONDOS AND FIREWALLS AND MANY DIFFERENT MECHANISMS FALL IN IT AFTER OR LESS THAN TEN. BUT YEAH, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO YOU KIND OF SEE BETWEEN YOU HAVE THAT SMALLER SPACE SIZE. BUT OUR ORDINANCE THOUGH, HAS THOSE INCREASED SETBACKS WRITTEN IN THERE MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A VARIANCE TO A MOBILE HOME PARK. SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? WOULD IT BE MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A VARIANCE TO THAT SIDE SETBACK TO A MOBILE HOME PARK? OR WOULD THAT BE AN EASIER ROUTE? I THINK IF WE WERE LOOKING AT IT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD STILL PROBABLY HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS BECAUSE IT'S ALSO NOT JUST A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD SIDE THAT THERE'S CONCERNS. IT'S ALSO JUST THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF GET GIVEN THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA. THAT'S ALSO A CONCERN IN THIS SITUATION. I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION. SURE. I THINK ONE MORE. SO RIGHT NOW IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT PRIOR YEAH. LET ME KNOW WHAT SLIDE YOU NEED THERE. ONE YOU JUST CLICKED OFF OF THIS ONE. IT SHOWS ALL THE SPECS OF THE DIFFERENT. OH YES. SORRY. GIVE ME ONE SECOND AND I'LL GET BACK TO THAT ONE. THERE WE GO. SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT BY RIGHT, THEY COULD COME IN HERE AND DO MOBILE HOME PARK WITH 3500 FOOT LOT SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS WITH NO REQUIREMENTS ON WIDTH AT ALL. AND DO THE AND DO THEIR MOBILE HOME PARK RIGHT UNDER RIGHT? YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO. THEY COULD USE THOSE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS. AND ADDITIONALLY, THOUGH THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO THEN BUILD IN THOSE AMENITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED PER CODE. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CODE FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK VERSUS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. THEY WOULD HAVE TO INCORPORATE THOSE ITEMS. AND THERE'S ALSO SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCESS ROADWAYS THROUGH THE PARK AS WELL THAT WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET AS WELL. SO, SO OTHER THAN A COUPLE HUNDRED OR LESS THAN A 480FT² PER LOT, THEN THEY COULD DO THE SAME THING IN THE BY, BY RIGHT CORRECT? YEAH. MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS PER OUR CITY ORDINANCE WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. SO BASICALLY ALL WE'RE DOING IS GIVING AN 80, 80 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE. THAT'S ON THE WE'RE ACTUALLY WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT GIVING. MY NAME IS COLBY COLLINS COLLINS FAMILY PROPERTIES, THE 3421 SQUARE FOOT. THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE SMALLEST LOT. MOST OF THE LOTS ARE NEAR 4000 SQUARE FOOT. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM. HE'S ONLY THE. THE 3421 IS THAT SMALLEST LOT THAT IT SHOWS ON THE TOP THERE. ALL OF THE OTHER ONES ARE CONSIDERABLY LARGER. SO THE REASON YOU'RE DOING A PD INSTEAD OF JUST DOING WHATEVER IS REQUIRED BY RIGHT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, YOU DON'T HAVE THE EXTRA AMENITIES. WHAT, WHAT, WHAT AMENITIES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? [00:40:04] SO THERE ARE NO AMENITIES PROPOSED, BUT TYPICALLY WE'LL GO BACK TO THE CHART. TYPICALLY A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT PARK SPACE, THAT 8% VALUE A COMMON PARKING AREA. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A STORAGE FACILITY REQUIREMENT AS WELL FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS. SO THOSE ARE THERE ESSENTIALLY IT'S IN STAFF'S OPINION, WHAT'S PROPOSED IS A HYBRID OF THE TWO, BUT JUST WITHOUT THE AMENITIES OF A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT. IF I COULD OFFER, I APPROACH ALL OF THESE THINGS THINKING, THIS IS YOUR LOT, THIS IS YOUR INVESTMENT AND WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO APPROVE EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN. SO PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT MY NEXT COMMENT IS, IS CENTERED AROUND THAT. I WANT TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND THIS, BUT I ALSO THINK WE HAVE A DUTY TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO AND, AND THAT THAT PLAN MEANS SOMETHING. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO INSERT RESIDENTIAL INTO THIS INDUSTRIAL AREA, WHICH IS PERMITTED, ONE OF THE REASONS WE REQUIRE SOME OF THAT PARK SPACE IS BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO PROVIDE AND MAKE IT A NEIGHBORHOOD EXCEPT WHAT YOU PUT IN THERE, BECAUSE EVERYTHING AROUND YOU IS INDUSTRIAL, AND I AM CONCERNED THAT THERE IS AN UNINTENDED DRAIN OR TAX ON CITY SERVICES. IF WE CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING THE SAME TYPE OF DIVERSE POPULATION THAT, SAY, THE LAST SUBDIVISION WE APPROVED WOULD, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONTAIN ANY PARK AREA. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT'S NOT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT'S IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. AND SO I'M REALLY HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THERE HERE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE. BUT I'M NOT I'M NOT FEELING IT AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY. I MEAN, I DO UNDERSTAND, AND I GET IT. IT'S A FINANCIAL THING, BUT IT WITHOUT ANYTHING TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE IN THEIR SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOMES, TINY, TINY HOMES, KIND OF I THINK YOU'RE NARROWING DOWN TO MORE TRANSIENT AND, AND LESS STABLE HOUSING AND THAT'S GOING TO PULL MORE DRAIN. AND, AND I'M, I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITHOUT GETTING AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF PARK SPACE OR SOME WAY FOR THOSE RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE AND, AND ACTUALLY ENJOY THEIR, THEIR SPACE IN THEIR HOME. SURE. ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO BRING UP ON NORTHWEST NINTH STREET IN BONHAM. THE OLD WE RECENTLY BUILT 18 HOMES OVER THERE, VERY SIMILAR TO THE, THE, THE TINY HOME CONCEPT THAT WE LOOKED AT LAST ON THOSE, THE LOTS, THE PLATTED LOT IS 25 FOOT WIDE, 140 FOOT LONG. SO WE BUILT A 15 FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE ON THAT HOME. IT MEETS THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION REGARDING AMENITIES, THOSE WERE ALREADY APPLIED AT OUT LOT OVER THERE. SO WE DIDN'T ADD A PARK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT IN REGARD, WE RAN EVERY ONE OF THOSE OUT IN REGARDS TO THE BACKYARD, EACH ONE OF THOSE HOUSES, THERE'S 11 FOOT SPACING IN BETWEEN. AND THEY ALL HAVE ABOUT A 25 FOOT BY 45 FOOT BACKYARD AREA THAT'S FENCED IN. AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE CAME UP WITH THIS CONCEPT. THE MOBILE HOMES THAT WE WANT TO MOVE IN ARE 16 FOOT WIDE. THAT WOULD ALLOW THE TEN FOOT SPACING IN BETWEEN EACH HOME. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE THE BACK STORY FROM THIS DESIGN WAS WHAT WE'VE ALREADY COMPLETED INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF AMARILLO. THERE WE DID A STICK FRAME, YOU KNOW, A TRADITIONAL BUILT HOME, WHEREAS HERE WE'RE GOING TO DO A MOBILE HOME. AND IT'S, IT'S YOUR PLAN TO INSTALL THE MOBILE HOMES AND SELL OR LEASE THEM INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE HOME INSTALLED? YES. AND THE REASON I MEAN, THE SO THE MOBILE HOME PARK REQUIRES THE AMENITIES, THE MOBILE HOME PARK, IF IT WERE ITS ONE OWNER FOR THE ENTIRE THING. SO EVERY ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO BE A RENTAL UNIT. WITH IT BEING WITH US APPROACHING IT AS A SUBDIVISION, EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS CAN BE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY. SO, AND WITH IT BEING A SUBDIVISION, NO AMENITIES ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED. THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY AMENITIES. IF I MAY. IF YOU SELL THE LOT, DO YOU MAINTAIN SOME RULE OR REGULATION AS TO WHAT TYPE OF A MOBILE HOME SOMEBODY PUTS ON IT? I MEAN, YES, I MEAN, THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE CITY HAS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TYPE OF MOBILE HOME. SO YOU CAN'T PUT A 1952 MOBILE HOME ON IT. [00:45:01] NO, WE'RE ACTUALLY OUR GOAL WITH THIS PROPERTY HERE IS WE'RE ACTUALLY AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR MOBILE HOMES. WE OWN PARADISE HILLS MOBILE HOME PARK ON 24TH AND GRAND. BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT ALL BRAND NEW MOBILE HOMES ON EACH ONE OF THESE, HAVE THEM FULLY SET UP, SKIRTED, DECKED, EVERYTHING DONE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CITY. SO IF YOU YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SELL A LOT, YOU'RE GOING TO SELL A LOT WITH AN INSTALLED MOBILE HOME ON IT. YES. THAT IS THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. YES. GREG, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. SO YOU GOT TO HAVE 8% SPACE. BUT IF YOU GOT A 26 FOOT LOT THAT'S ONLY TEN FOOT BACKYARD GIVES YOU THE 8%. DON'T YOU HAVE MORE THAN TEN FOOT BACKYARD? YES, SIR. SO WOULDN'T THAT WOULDN'T THAT COMPLETE THE 8% ON A PER LOT BASIS? YES, SIR. THE MOBILE HOME PARK WHERE IT'S ALL OWNED AS ONE PROPERTY, THEY WANT TO SEPARATE 8% OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO BE DESIGNATED AS A COMMON PARK TYPE AREA SOMEWHERE WITHIN THAT LAND. BUT YEAH, I MEAN, LIKE THE ONES WE BUILT ON NORTHWEST NINTH. I MEAN, IT'S AN 11 FOOT ON EACH SIDE AND THEY ALL AVERAGE ABOUT A 25 FOOT BY 40 FOOT BACKYARD AREA THAT'S FENCED IN. AND EVERY ONE OF OUR TENANTS OVER THERE REALLY LIKE IT. I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE ROADS. DO YOU PLAN TO DEDICATE THOSE TO THE CITY? THE THE STREET THAT RUNS NORTH SOUTH ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS. NO, SIR. INSIDE THE PARK. INSIDE THE PARK? NO, IT WON'T BE. SO YOU SEE THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF THAT EXHIBIT, JOSH, WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE AN ALLEY. THE INVERTED THE TOP, ONE OF THE TWO. ROADS THERE. AND THEN THIS ROADS THERE. SO THE ROAD TO THE SOUTH EXISTS. WE GOT TO EXTEND IT A LITTLE BIT. THE ROAD THAT GOES AT AN ANGLE PARALLEL TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS. THOSE TWO ARE DEDICATED TO THE CITY. THE ONE, THE ONE THAT RUNS NORTH SOUTH, THE RIGHT OF WAY ALREADY EXISTS. SO WE'RE JUST BUILDING THE STREET INSIDE OF EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY, THE PART THAT GOES EAST WEST, THAT HAS THE HAMMERHEAD ON THE WEST SIDE. THAT PART WOULD BE PRIVATE. THAT'S WHERE I'M LEADING. IS THAT ROAD WITHOUT DEDICATING IT TO THE CITY. YOU HAVE NO HOA IN PLACE, I ASSUME? YES. THEY'LL HAVE TO BE. TO BRADY'S POINT THEY'LL HAVE TO BE SOME FORM OF A MAINTENANCE MECHANISM TO MAINTAIN THAT STREET. IF I COULD HAVE ONE THING. COULD WE GO TO THE KIND OF MORE ZOOMED OUT? SURE. COLOR MAP. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. THERE WE GO. SO WHAT I'M NOTICING IS I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF INDUSTRIAL AREA. I KNOW THAT THAT THERE'S THAT KIND OF CURVED AREA TO THE NORTH OF IT. THAT'S KIND OF A PANHANDLE COMING OFF OF THAT ABC SUPPLY. BUT I MEAN, TO ME, REALISTICALLY, I'M NOT SURE THAT LITTLE CURVED AREA WOULD EVER BE BIG ENOUGH TO BUILD ANYTHING INDUSTRIAL ON IT. REALISTICALLY, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S A AGAINST THAT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO THE NORTH. SO IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THIS IS A GOOD TRANSITION FROM THAT SINGLE FAMILY AREA TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA. SO I'M KIND OF WONDERING, WAS THAT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, OR IS IT JUST BECAUSE IT TECHNICALLY HAS THAT LITTLE BIT OF INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT WOULD STILL SEPARATE IT, THAT STOPS YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT? WELL, 46 IS BASICALLY A LINE OF DELINEATION IN THIS AREA WHERE EVERYTHING NORTH OF THERE. YES, YOU'RE CORRECT, IS RESIDENTIAL. THEN WE GOT THE PROPERTY THAT SLITHER, THAT KIND OF FINGERS OVER FROM ONE OF THE INDUSTRIAL USERS THERE TO THE WEST. YEAH, YOU'RE PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO SEE A BUILDING BUILT ON THAT, BUT TECHNICALLY THAT'S A UNIMPROVED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY THAT'S THERE. BUT IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT YOU GOT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST AND YOU GOT VACANT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WE'RE INTRODUCING AN INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE INTO AMONGST AN INDUSTRIALLY ZONED AREA. AND THAT GOES AGAINST THAT JUST AS WE OUTLINED, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF LOOKING AT CITY PLAN, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE DENSER AND NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT. YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT VIA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WHENEVER IT GOES AGAINST SOME OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? SO THAT'S JUST STAFF'S THOUGHTS THERE. I DO GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE, BUT I'M TO ME, I'M LOOKING AT KIND OF PERSPECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH. I'VE HAD SOME FRIENDS THAT HAVE LIVED OVER THERE. I'VE VISITED THEM, AND I KNOW IT'S REAL ANNOYING HAVING TO LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THOSE RAILROAD TRACKS, HOW LOUD IT CAN GET. AND TO ME, IT FEELS LIKE IF I'M LIVING THERE AND MY OPTIONS ARE EITHER TO HAVE ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL USE CASE FOR THIS LOT RIGHT ACROSS, I KNOW IT'S A DELINEATION LINE, BUT IF MY OPTIONS WERE EITHER HAVING AN INDUSTRIAL USE RIGHT THERE OR A MOBILE HOME PARK THERE WITH KIND OF [00:50:02] HOW TOUGH IT IS LIVING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY. I THINK I'D PREFER TO HAVE A MORE RESIDENTIAL TYPE THING THERE. IT'S KIND OF THE WAY THAT I LOOK AT IT. I'LL SPEAK TO TWO THINGS ON THAT TOO. NOAH. THE LITTLE FINGER THERE, DEVELOPERS TRIED TO PURCHASE THAT LAND AND THERE WAS NOT A THERE WAS NOT A WILLING SELLER. BUT THEY, THEY DID, WE ATTEMPTED FOR A WHILE TO BUY THAT LAND AND JUST COULDN'T GET IT DONE. NUMBER TWO AND YOU GUYS KNOW THAT BRADY'S ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE UP HERE, BUT I DISAGREE WITH HIM ON THIS ONE. THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN. HE AND I DISAGREE WHERE HE STATED THAT YOU WERE INTRODUCING AN INCOMPATIBLE USE. I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT WHEN BY RIGHT WE CAN PUT IN A MOBILE HOME PARK IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. SO I DISAGREE WITH THEM STAFF ON ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. OKAY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR P & Z. SORRY. YOU DIDN'T HEAR FROM ME YET, BUT IF IF THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER. SO WE'VE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MANUFACTURED HOME OR THE SUBDIVISION. WE TALKED ABOUT THE MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND HOW THIS IS FITTING. BASICALLY THE SUBDIVISION THAT DOESN'T WANT TO MEET THE WIDTHS OR IT'S A PARK THAT DOESN'T WANT TO PROVIDE THE AMENITIES. I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE BOARD WOULD BE IS WOULD, WOULD WE WANT STAFF TO ENTERTAIN LOOKING AT THE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE AND ACTUALLY CHANGING THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE WHAT ARE ESTABLISHED FOR MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS. AND IF WE'RE OKAY WITH GOING AWAY FROM EITHER OF THOSE, WHETHER OR NOT PROVIDING THE AMENITIES OR WHETHER GOING LESS AND LOT WITH SOME MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS, WE CAN WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE LIST OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ENTERTAIN. I MEAN, I'M ALWAYS KIND OF IN FAVOR OF REDUCING REQUIREMENTS AND LETTING PEOPLE BUILD WHAT THEY WANT ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. ARE YOU SAYING THOUGH LOOKING AT DOING THAT BEFORE LETTING THIS GO THROUGH OR. NO, SIR, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF THAT'S A THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE RIGHT NOW IS LOOKING AT A MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION WITH LESSENED STANDARDS. SO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, THEN, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY WE NEED TO LOOK AT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS WELL BECAUSE AND I THINK THAT THAT THAT INTRODUCES BACK INTO THE CONVERSATION, A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT INDUSTRIAL COULD OR SHOULD ACCOMMODATE THE THE MOBILE HOME PARK. SO AGAIN, I'M I'M ALL FOR IT. AND I GET IT. I KNOW I COMMISSIONER I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE OTHER SUBDIVISION ACROSS FROM IT, BUT I THINK WITHOUT ANY AMENITIES WHATSOEVER, NO PARK PLACE SPACE AND THESE SMALLER SIZE LOTS UNDER 5000FT². WE, WE ARE, WE ARE WITHOUT INTENDING TO, WE ARE CREATING AN APPEAL TO A SPECIFIC, NOT NECESSARILY A BROAD, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE WHAT MIGHT BE FOUND ACROSS THE STREET, BUT A SPECIFIC, LESS, MORE TRANSIENT, LESS PURCHASE ORIENTED OR, OR LIVING THERE FOR A LONG TERM RENTER ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I FEEL LIKE THAT CREATES COSTS. AND IT'S THE REASON THAT THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXISTS. IT CREATES LIABILITIES FOR THE CITY THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE THERE. SO I PERSONALLY LIKE THE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THERE AND THE WAY THAT THE ORDINANCE IS SET OUT RIGHT NOW. AND I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF, OF HOLDING TO IT. I, I KNOW THAT COSTS SOME LOTS, BUT I THINK YOU COULD REINTRODUCE THIS WITH THE, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A PARK SPACE THERE AND MAKE IT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S MORE LIKE AND COMPATIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS THE STREET. I AGREE WITH CINDI. I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF AMENDING OR LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE FOR THE MOBILE HOME PARK, IF THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEVELOPER OUT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL TRACK, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED, I THINK THE LOCATION COULD SUPPORT IT. CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING TO THAT? IF WE WERE IN ANOTHER PART OF TOWN AND WE ZONED THIS MODERATE DENSITY, WE COULD PUT IN 20 FOOT WIDE BY 100 FOOT DEEP TOWNHOUSES WITH NO PARK REQUIREMENTS. IT'S THE SAME. IT'S THE SAME THING WITH EVEN A POTENTIALLY HIGHER DENSITY INTO AN INDUSTRIAL ZONED AREA. WELL, IF WE IF WE CAME IN AND SAID WE WANT TO REZONE THIS MODERATE DENSITY, WE COULD DO THAT BY RIGHT WITH NO PARK REQUIREMENTS, NO AMENITIES REQUIRED. AND AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. [00:55:01] YEAH. AND WE USE THAT TO NOAH'S POINT. WE USE THAT AS A TRANSITION AREA FROM NON. I'M GOING TO CALL NON RESIDENTIAL MEANING COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL INTO THE LOWER DENSITY EXCUSE ME INTO THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO I AND AGAIN I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL YOU GUYS DOING THIS AND CINDI. YOU ASKED THE BEST QUESTIONS EVERY TIME. SO I FAIL TO SEE WHERE THIS IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN A A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED SUBDIVISION. I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS UNLESS YOU'RE PID SETTING THESE, THEY WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR AN FHA HOME LOAN. THEY WILL. WE WE DO IN OUR OFFICE. WE DO INSPECTIONS ON MOBILE HOMES EVERY WEEK TO VERIFY THAT THE FOUNDATION QUALIFIES FOR VAFHA OR HUD. YOU'RE RIGHT. RIGHT. SO THEY CAN'T. THEY DON'T. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THEY NECESSARILY WILL, BUT THEY CAN. BUT I DON'T THINK IN MODERATE DENSITY, THE STATEMENT OR THE ASSET CLASS IS IDENTIFIED. I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN OF THAT STAFF COULD CONFIRM. BUT I THINK THAT'S THE REASONING YOU'RE NOT IN MODERATE DENSITY. WELL, I'M JUST I'M JUST POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PARK SPACE REQUIREMENTS. AND IT IS ZONING THAT'S GIVEN ME THE HEARTBURN. IT IS THE THE ZONING ISSUE. CODY. AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. YEAH. I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THAT, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE. MY OPINION IS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A GUY COME IN AND DO A FIVE ACRE MOBILE HOME PARK AND HAVE ON THE WHOLE THING AND RENT OUT SPACES AND HAVE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. BUT WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE A PLACE WHERE SOMEBODY CAN COME AND BUILD MOBILE HOME LOTS AND SELL THEM, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE GREEN SPACE UNLESS SOMEONE TAKES CARE OF IT. NOW, THE WAY WE TAKE CARE OF THOSE IN THE WOODLANDS OR WHEREVER WE HAVE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, I DON'T KNOW IF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR MOBILE HOME LOTS. SO IT MAY BE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO WHERE THEY CAN DO MOBILE HOME LOTS, BUT NOT HAVE TO HAVE GREEN SPACE. THAT'S SOMEONE'S GOT TO MAINTAIN AND OWN AND THEN HAVE GREEN SPACE. IF WE WANT TO DO A MOBILE HOME PARK AND ONE GUY OWNS THE WHOLE THING, JUST LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. BUT THEY HAVE A PRIVATE STREET, SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT SAME. I DON'T KNOW. FROM WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I TEND TO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING DICK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS. AND IT'S A THE WHOLE POINT OF THE, THE, THE SINGLE WIDE IS TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS ON A SMALLER LOT. I MEAN, THE 50, THE 50 FOOT WIDE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT IS FOR A STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. R1, R2, R3. AND IF WE NEED, WE NEED SOMEWHERE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY AND SELL THE LOTS. AND TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE HAVING IT WHERE IT HAS THAT PRIVATE STREET. THIS IS KIND OF A GREAT KIND OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENT OF WHAT DOES HAVING THAT KIND OF FUNDING MECHANISM LOOK LIKE IN THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT? IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WE'RE ALMOST THERE ON SEVERAL, SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THIS. HOWEVER THERE ARE SOME HURDLES. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU GUYS TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT IT TO MAYBE SEE IF YOU COULD TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT? WORKING WITH STAFF, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU GUYS WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT? I MEAN, OF COURSE WE'LL TAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND LOOK AT EVERYTHING. BUT LIKE MY BROTHER WAS SAYING OVER ON NORTHWEST NINTH, WE WE BUILT 18 HOMES ON 25 BY 140 LOTS AND HAVE PROVEN THE CONCEPT. SO WITHOUT HAVING THE GREEN SPACE, WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE, WE'RE GIVING AN ADEQUATE SIZED YARD. THAT IS THEIR AMENITY SPACE. THEY WILL HAVE A SOLID BACKYARD. AND THESE LOTS ARE BIGGER THAN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE OVER THERE ON NORTHWEST NINTH. IN A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AREA. CORRECT? CORRECT. BUT I THINK I THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT WE HAVE IN THIS ONE, THE TYPE OF PARTICULAR PURCHASER ON THIS IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU WOULD FIND IN OTHER PLACES. IT'S NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD MIX, I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT DOES, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DAWSON THAT IT DOES PROVIDE SOME SORT OF A BUFFER OR A TRANSITION ZONE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND MAYBE BETWEEN THERE. WHILE NOT IDEAL, IT IS SOMETHING THAT FITS IN THIS PARTICULAR SIZE OF AREA THAT MIGHT NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE LARGER, LIKE INDUSTRIAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I SEE KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. COMMISSIONERS. ONE MORE. YOUR LOTS OVER THERE ARE 25 BY 140. AND THESE ARE 26 BY WHAT? SO THE, THE SMALLEST IS 26 BY 125, THE LARGEST 1 OR 26 BY 160. OKAY. SO THERE'S OVER 10% FLUCTUATE TO MAKE IT WHERE THE MINIMUM WILL ABSOLUTELY BE OVER THE 3500 SQUARE FOOT. [01:00:04] WE CAN COME DOWN ON OUR STREET OFF 27. SO YOU'RE 10 TO 15% GRASS OR LOT OR, AND IT'LL BE THE SAME COVERAGE AS THE LAST PROJECT WHERE THEY SAID, IT'S 35, 35. I'M SORRY, IT'S 35% LOT COVERAGE. WE'LL BE MEETING THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE LAST PROJECT AS WELL. 35% LOT COVERAGE PER HOME, EXCEPT WE'RE PROVIDING A FENCED IN YARD. THEY'RE PROVIDING THE THE AREA FOR EVERYBODY TO GET TOGETHER. WE'RE PROVIDING A LITTLE MORE PRIVACY, AND WE ARE GOING TO FENCE EVERY ONE OF THEM IN. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE HOMEOWNER. EVERY HOME WILL BE FENCED IN FROM THE BEGINNING AND SOLD AS IS. SO MY MATH IS CORRECT. YOU'RE AT ROUGHLY 65% THEREABOUTS OF FREE SPACE ON THE LOT. CORRECT GRASS, IF YOU WILL. OKAY WITH THAT. COMMISSIONERS DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, A MOTION, ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PUT FORWARD? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE, WE APPROVE IT AS LONG AS THE AS LONG AS THE CITY GETS SATISFIED WITH THE AGREEMENT ON THAT STREET. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY DICK AND NOAH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION? OR DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD A COMMENT? NOT ANYBODY. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. OKAY. THAT'S 4 TO 2. IT PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ALONG ON OUR AGENDA ITEM 4.D. [4.D. Consideration of Variance/s Associated with Preliminary Plan 2026-45-PP (Washington Industrial Tracts Mobile Home Subdivision) This item considers the request for a variance from the requirement to provide alleys for a proposed subdivision and from the requirement that all lots must front upon a public street. The development under consideration for the just mentioned variances is known as the Washington Industrial Tracts Mobile Home subdivision, a 4.56 acre portion of Block 1, Washington Industrial Tracts Addition, an addition to the City of Amarillo, in Section 173, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas. (VICINITY: S.W. 47th Ave. & Washington St.; APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data, Inc. for Collins Family Properties, LLC) ] YES. YES. SO 4.D IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE JUST MENTIONED ZONING CASE. THEY ARE CONSIDERING A THIS CONSIDERS A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS MUST RUN UPON A PUBLIC STREET. AND THIS IS KNOWN AS THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL TRACTS MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION. SAME LOCATION AS PREVIOUS CASE. AND THEY ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR A SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS 4-6-53B AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL LOTS MUST RUN UPON A PUBLIC STREET, WHICH IS 4-6-54D, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE A TOTAL OF 44 HOMES. THAT IS NO ALLEY AND WILL FEATURE ONE PRIVATE STREET THAT WILL SERVE 29 OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE REMAINDER WILL HAVE FRONTAGE UPON PUBLIC STREETS THAT EITHER EXIST OR ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED. REGARDING THE ALLEY WAIVER, THE DEVELOPER MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SERVICE IS TYPICALLY PROVIDED WITHIN ALLEYS ARE BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN OTHER MANNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING FRONT ENTRY DRIVEWAYS, UTILITY ACCESS VIA THE STREETS AND OR EASEMENTS, AND TRASH SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED VIA CART SERVICE. THE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT DID STATE THAT THEY COULD SERVE SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH EXISTING RESOURCES AND THE OPINION OF STAFF. THE WAIVER WOULD NOT RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS. REGARDING THE USE OF A PRIVATE STREET TYPICALLY, A MAINTENANCE MECHANISM WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR FUNDING MUST BE DEMONSTRATED TO ENSURE THAT ACCESS TO RESIDENTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES THROUGH THE LOTS WILL BE MAINTAINED. THIS IS OF EVEN GREATER IMPORTANCE FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WHILE, WHILE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS IN AMARILLO THAT DO UTILIZE PRIVATE DRIVES FOR LOT ACCESS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, TYPICALLY THESE AGREEMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND THE FUNDING OF THE MAINTENANCE MUST BE DEMONSTRATED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF PLATS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON A MAINTENANCE MECHANISM THAT WILL MAINTAIN AND FUND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH IS BROTHERS LANE. THE PRIVATE STREET IS ALSO PROPOSED TO FUNCTION AS A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND ACCESS FOR THE LOTS. IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT RELATED DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY THAT WHILE THE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL, A CONDITION OF APPROVAL SHOULD BE THE FILING OF EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE MECHANISM AND OTHER APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT MAINTENANCE WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN ADDITION TO THE FUNDING OF THAT MAINTENANCE PRIOR TO A PLAT BEING CONSIDERED AND APPROVED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT BE THE CASE AND THAT CITY STAFF AND LEGAL WILL REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO FILING OF PLOTS FOR THIS PROPERTY TO ENSURE THAT WE FEEL THAT PUBLIC SAFETY AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT IS BEING MAINTAINED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE TWO ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PRELIMINARY PLAN. [01:05:01] AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALL FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SO WE WE NEEDED TO GET THROUGH THE PREVIOUS ITEM. AND SO I'LL BACK UP THE DEVELOPER. WE'RE EXPLORING DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE MECHANISM. BUT WE WANTED TO GET KIND OF THROUGH THIS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH BEFORE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT, BUT WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE MAINTENANCE MECHANISM BEING IN PLACE PRIOR TO PLATTING OF ANY LOTS. WHY WOULDN'T YOU MAKE IT A PUBLIC STREET? THERE WOULDN'T I THINK IT WAS THE DEAD END LENGTH. WE COULD NOT MAKE THAT WORK FOR A PUBLIC STREET. THE CITY LIMITS THAT TO 650, 600, 600, 600FT. WE'VE GIVEN VARIANCES ON THAT BEFORE. I REMEMBER THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THEORETICALLY VARIANCE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR WITH A PRELIMINARY PLAN. SO WE HAVE DONE THAT. WELL LET ME BACK UP. SO THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH FIRE CODE NOW. SO THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT NOW. SORRY. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT CHANGED IN WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ADOPTED THE, THEIR MOST RECENT FIRE CODE REGULATIONS. I KNOW THE VARIANCES WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL. SO THAT WAS SINCE THAT'S TIED TO FIRE CODE REQUIREMENT, THAT'S WHY THAT WOULD BE MAYBE A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED OF A ROUTE TO GO FOR A PUBLIC STREET. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR DUSTIN OR FOR CITY, BUT WHAT OTHER THAN AN HOA WOULD BE A FUNDING MECHANISM? BECAUSE I'M NOT CONVINCED AN HOA IS A VIABLE TOOL. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ARE ONE PROBABLY THE, ONE OF THE MORE COMMON ONES WE SEE. I KNOW TRAILS AT TASCOSA IS PROBABLY OUR LARGEST EXAMPLE OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS BEING SERVED WITH PRIVATE STREETS. I BELIEVE THEY UTILIZE A HOA AND FEE STRUCTURE OUT THERE. SO THERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES HERE IN THE CITY OF THAT WITH THE TRAILS AT TASCOSA WILL PROBABLY BE IN THE LARGEST EXAMPLE OF THAT. BRADY, DO YOU NOT BELIEVE STAFF WILL CONSIDER THIS DEVELOPMENT TOO SMALL FOR A PID? TYPICALLY, PIDS AND AMARILLO HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN AMENITY BASED PIDS. SO FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT SURE IS FEASIBLE OR NOT. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D HAVE. BUT BUT YEAH, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE TO OUR STAFFS AND LEGAL SATISFACTION THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD MEET THE NEEDS THAT IT NEEDS TO ENSURING SAFE AND ADEQUATE ACCESS TO THOSE 29 LOTS. I GUESS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE, IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING YOU GUYS WANTED TO, TO GIVE A VARIANCE FOR THE CUL DE SAC DOWN THE END MEETS THE FIRE MARSHAL TO TURN TURNING RADIUS OF A FIRE TRUCK. THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY NO? THEY JUST THEIR VARIANCES HAVE A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD THAN SOME SOME OF THE ONES YOU ALL ARE MORE ACCUSTOMED TO DEALING WITH. AND THOSE ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY ARE DIFFERENT BOARD THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. ACTUALLY, I KNOW WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT ON SOME UNRELATED ITEMS RIGHT NOW WITH SUBDIVISION DESIGN, BUT THERE'S JUST A LOT HIGHER, BUT THOSE ARE JUST A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DEAL TO DEAL WITH THAN SOME OF THE OTHER TYPICAL SUBDIVISION RELATED ITEMS THAT WE MORE COMMONLY SEE. COULD THAT NOT BE SENT TO THE FIRE MARSHAL FOR A WAIVER ON SOMETHING THIS SMALL? I MEAN, THEORETICALLY, THAT COULD BE SUBMITTED TO THEM, BUT THEY HAVE A PRETTY HIGH BAR, THE CLEAR WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. MAYBE WE NEED TO LOWER THAT BAR. MAYBE THE CITY COMMISSION NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED, I DON'T KNOW. AND I'LL SAY THE OTHER THING TOO, THE STREET THAT'S PROPOSED IT WOULD IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN OUR TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AS WELL. SO THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT IT IN ADDITION TO THE LENGTH THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BEYOND THE TYPICAL STREET SECTION. SO IN TERMS OF WIDTHS AND EVERYTHING, SO. AND A LOT OF TIMES WITH THE FIRE MARSHALS TYPE OF VARIANCES AND SO FORTH, THAT DEALS WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. AND THAT'S YOU GUYS DEAL MORE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING, WHEREAS THE PUBLIC SAFETY GOES TO A DIFFERENT BOARD. EVEN ON ZONING, I WOULDN'T WANT ANYTHING THAT WASN'T SAFE. WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THEY DEAL WITH IS PUBLIC SAFETY. SO IF THEY DIDN'T GRANT A VARIANCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION KIND OF ON THAT TRAIN OF LOGIC. IF I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S LIKELY THAT THIS WAY THAT IT WOULD GO. BUT IF WE'RE TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH AND GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT AND HAVE IT WHERE IT COULD BE DEVELOPED AS A PUBLIC STREET AND THEN DEDICATED, WOULD THAT MEET THE DEFINITION UNDER CONRAIL'S PROPOSAL, WHERE WOULD THAT COUNT AS A FUNDING MAINTENANCE MECHANISM IF IT WERE TO BECOME A PUBLIC [01:10:05] STREET AND DEDICATED? YEAH, IF IT'S BUILT, IF IT IF IT WERE TO BE SUBMITTED AND GO THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND MEET THOSE SPECS AND BE BUILT THAT WAY AND GET ACCEPTED AT THAT POINT, THE CITY WOULD AT THAT POINT, THE FUNDING MECHANISM WOULDN'T BE NEEDED BECAUSE AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC ASSET THAT'S MAINTAINED BY THE CITY AS ANY, ANY OTHER PUBLIC STREET IN TOWN. THAT'S MY QUESTION IS MAYBE KIND OF A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT IF WE'RE, IF WE WERE TO LIKE APPROVE THIS WITH THAT CONDITION, WOULD THAT CONDITION BE MET BY DOING THAT? BASICALLY, THE VARIANCE WOULDN'T BE NEEDED ANYMORE. SO IF IT IF THEY ALL FRONTED ON A PUBLIC STREET, THAT'S NO LONGER A VARIANCE FOR IT. WELL THE VARIANCE ALSO INCLUDES THE ALLEY. YEAH. THERE'S TWO VARIANCES ON THIS REQUEST. SO THE ALLEY. YEAH. THE ALLEY MATTER IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE MATTER AS IT PERTAINS TO THE STREET. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, LIKE IF THAT WAS THE ROUTE WENT DOWN, WORDING IT AS HAVING IT WHERE IT'S A CONDITION WOULDN'T THEN CAUSE AN ADDITIONAL ROADBLOCK THAT WAY. BUT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S WOULDN'T. YEAH. THEORETICALLY THOUGH. YEAH. IF THIS WERE TO BE SOMEHOW CONSIDERED AND APPROVED AS A PUBLIC STREET, THEN YEAH, THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THAT VARIANCE AND FUNDING MECHANISM. SURE. BUT ENGINEERING THOUGH WOULD NEED TO WEIGH IN ON THAT AND SEE IF THEY. AND THEN THERE'S THE FIRE ASPECT STILL, OF COURSE, TOO. BUT ENGINEERING WOULD ALSO NEED TO WEIGH IN AND SEE IF THEY WOULD CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE SECTION LIKE THIS. THROUGH THEIR CODES AND THEIR PROCESS, WHICH ULTIMATELY I BELIEVE WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU ALL, BEFORE YOU ALL POTENTIALLY. SO ON THAT, ON THAT ASPECT OF THIS, IF WE APPROVE THIS, THEY COULD STILL GO AND FILE FOR A WAIVER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY BOARD AND. WELL, IN THIS CASE THAT'S SINCE, SINCE THEY ARE PROPOSING A PRIVATE DRIVE, ESSENTIALLY, IF THEY ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A MECHANISM THAT WILL MEET THE MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING NEEDS FOR THAT MAINTENANCE, THEY WOULD NOT TECHNICALLY HAVE TO GO TO FIRE AT THAT POINT. IT'S ONLY IF THEY WERE TO PROPOSE THIS AS A PUBLIC STREET, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN CODE ALLOWS FOR, THEN THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO FIRE, POTENTIALLY JUST BECAUSE IT'D BE A PUBLIC STREET THAT'S PUBLICLY MAINTAINED, IT'S A LITTLE LONGER THAN TYPICAL OR ALLOWED FOR BY CODE. MR. CHAIRMAN, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES THAT ARE COMBINED INTO ONE PROPOSAL. BUT WHILE I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE ALLEY WAIVER, I WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE NOT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THE FUNDING MECHANISM AND WHAT THOSE OPTIONS ARE. SO I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BIFURCATE THAT AND VOTE SEPARATELY OR OR TABLE BOTH UNTIL THEY CAN EXPLORE WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET THAT WAIVER AND MAKE IT A PUBLIC STREET. I PERSONALLY AM NOT CONVINCED THAT AN HOA THAT SMALL CAN ADEQUATELY FUND A STREET WHEN THAT'S THE ONLY AMENITY THERE. AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO CREATE A BOND OR SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE BY APPROVING A PRIVATE STREET AND SAYING THAT. I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF TABLING. THERE'S TOO MANY HURDLES ON THIS ONE. IT FEELS LIKE. SO AM I HEARING A MOTION? LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND. CINDI TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU COULD CONSIDER EACH OF THESE VARIANCES INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER IF YOU SO CHOSE SO. OR YOU COULD TABLE BOTH OR IT'S UP TO YOU ALL. BUT THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE VARIANCES. SO YEAH, YOU CAN ADDRESS THEM HOW YOU ALL SEE FIT. AND I'M NOT SURE IT BENEFITS THE THE APPLICANT FOR US TO APPROVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER ANYWAY. SO IF AND I'LL ASK LEGAL THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE MOTION TO TABLE THIS. YES. AND DO I NEED TO IDENTIFY TO WHEN. YES. SO I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS TO THE. IF THE NEXT. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND. SO IF WE TABLE IT, WE HAVE TO DO A SPECIFIC DATE. IF WE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, LESLIE, BUT IF WE POSTPONE THAT. BECAUSE THAT'D BE A LOT THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN, I THINK IN TWO WEEKS. BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WE BE BUMPING IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS. IF WE POSTPONE IT, THAT WE POSTPONE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT IS READY TO COME BACK WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AND POSSIBLY INVESTIGATE THE VIABILITY OF, OF A VARIANCE ON THE LENGTH OF THE STREET SO THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A PUBLIC STREET. IS THAT YOUR MOTION? YES. I'LL SECOND. I THINK OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON THE 9TH OF SEPTEMBER. IS THAT CORRECT? EXCEPT NOW I CHANGED THE MOTION WAS POSTPONEMENT, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT A DATE ON IT. GOTCHA. THAT IS CORRECT, THOUGH. THE NINTH IS OUR NEXT MEETING. [01:15:03] SO WHERE THIS DOESN'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WE CAN THERE'S NO NOTICE REQUIRED POSTING REQUIREMENT FOR IT OTHER THAN THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO MEETING. SO WE COULD HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY WITH SCHEDULING IT. SO IF IT'S READY FOR THE NEXT ONE, WE'LL SCHEDULE IT OR WHENEVER IT'S READY ONCE WE TOUCH BASE WITH THE DEVELOPER'S TEAM. OKAY. CAN I ASK A QUESTION FOR YOU? IF IT'S POSSIBLE IT WOULD BE BETTER ON OUR SIDE IF, IF THE ALLEY WAIVER WAS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU GUYS TO GO AHEAD AND GET THAT. BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT AND I HAVE TO BUILD ALLEYS, THAT COMPLETELY CHANGES THE LAYOUT. IF I IF I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT A PUBLIC STREET, I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT A PUBLIC STREET. THAT'S THAT'S FINE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. BUT I NEED TO KNOW WHICH DIRECTION I'M GOING TO GO SO THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THE LAYOUT. SO IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THE MOTIONS, THAT WOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE ON OUR SIDE. MR. CHAIRMAN AND LESLIE, I'M LOOKING AT YOU IF IT'S APPROPRIATE AND THE PERSON WHO SECONDED MY MOTION, I WILL MAKE MY MOTION SPECIFIC TO THE PRIVATE STREET. AND AND THEN WE'LL BE PREPARED TO OFFER A MOTION ON THE ALLEYS SEPARATELY. I STILL HAVE MY SECOND ON THAT MOTION. SO YOU WANTED TO LET'S MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THE MOTION CORRECT. SO THE MOTION CURRENTLY IS I'D LIKE TO POSTPONE THE DECISION ON THE PRIVATE STREET VARIANCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE GET MORE INFORMATION AND IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO US. DO I NEED A MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE TWO SINCE THEY WERE PRESENTED AS ONE? NO. YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION AND THEN AFTERWARDS Y'ALL CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS SPECIFIC TO THE PRIVATE STREET. PERFECT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? YEAH. JUST A PERSONAL COMMENT. AS FAR AS ME BEING QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE ENGINEERING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE STREETS ARE BUILT PROPERLY, I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO DO THAT. AND SO I'VE GOT TOTAL CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY ENGINEERS AND STAFF TO EVALUATE A PLAN TO HAVE A STREET BUILT AND HAVE IT MAINTAINED MUCH MORE THAN, THAN I HAVE THE CAPABILITIES OF DOING THAT MYSELF. WHAT WE'LL DO AS PART OF THAT FUTURE ITEM OBVIOUSLY OUR ENGINEERING TEAM WILL WEIGH IN ON THAT AND PART OF THEIR ANALYSIS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT PRESENTATION. DEPENDING ON WHERE WE DECIDE TO GO WITH THAT. SO OUR CITY ENGINEERS WILL DEFINITELY BE A PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. AND WE'LL PROBABLY EVEN BRING THEM TO THIS MEETING POTENTIALLY DEPENDING ON HOW OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER GO. SO WE'LL DEFINITELY BRING THAT EXPERTISE TO THE TABLE. THAT WAY YOU ALL CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS AND LEAN ON THEIR EXPERTISE AS WELL. BUT WHETHER WE PASS THIS MOTION OR NOT, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO DO THE SAME THING, RIGHT? THE ENGINEER'S CITY ENGINEERS ARE GOING TO REVIEW IT, INSPECT IT, AND THEY WOULD NOT IN SUCH A WAY, IF IT WAS APPROVED AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THEY WOULD NOT ACTUALLY REVIEW THAT SINCE IT'S A PRIVATE DRIVE. SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. AYE. OKAY. SO WE'RE 3 TO 3. FAILS. SO IF I COULD THE WAY THAT I SEE I ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU KNOW, I GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM CINDI. BUT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO CREATE THIS FUNDING AND MAINTENANCE MECHANISM. AND DOING THAT, THE WAY THAT IT'S PROPOSED IS TO DO IT AS A CONDITION FOR THIS TO GO THROUGH. AND SO I GET THAT THERE'S SKEPTICISM TOWARDS IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO CREATE THAT. BUT TO ME, IT'S LIKE I'D WANT TO GIVE THEM THE GO AHEAD TO TRY AND FIND THAT. AND WITH THE GUARANTEE THAT IF THEY ARE ABLE TO FIND IT, EVEN IF IT IS UNLIKELY THAT IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM, WE WANT YOU TO DO ALL THIS RESEARCH TO FIND OUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH IT. AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEM HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER COUPLE WEEKS, OR PROBABLY MORE LIKELY STAFF NOTED THE QUICK TURNAROUND THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO HAVE THEM WAIT ANOTHER MONTH ON THIS. THAT'S KIND OF WHY I VOTED. IT TOOK ME EIGHT MONTHS TO GET OUR PID DONE. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING QUICK. ALL RIGHT, SO BACK TO WHERE WE ARE. THAT MOTION FAILED. LET ME GET ONE MORE QUESTION FOR IF IF THE IF THE MOTION IS APPROVED. BRADY, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT ENGINEERING IS NOT GOING TO EVALUATE THE PLANS AND SIGN OFF ON IT? THEY WOULD NOT, SINCE IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD OR PRIVATE DRIVE, ESSENTIALLY. COULD THAT BE A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL? YOU GUYS THEORETICALLY COULD DO THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW. WE GOT AN ENGINEER DRAWING IT. HE'S GOING TO DRAW IT GOOD. BECAUSE I'VE USED HIM BEFORE. BY THE SAME TOKEN, IF WE HAD THE CITY ENGINEER SIGN OFF ON IT AS WELL, I THINK THAT GIVES THAT GIVES BELT AND SUSPENDERS, [01:20:04] IF YOU WILL. I JUST KNOW TYPICALLY OUR CITY ENGINEERS DO NOT REVIEW PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE OR DEVELOPMENT. TYPICALLY, THEY TYPICALLY ONLY REVIEW ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUBLICLY ACCEPTED. SO THEY WOULD NOT, THEY, THE CITY ENGINEERS WOULD NOT GO OUT TO A PRIVATE ROAD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT DO YOU WANT TO REVISIT IT? DO YOU WANT TO TABLE IT? WHAT WOULD YOU GUYS LIKE TO DO? I'D GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT PASSED, BUT I'D MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REGARDING THE PRIVATE STREETS WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE'S FUNDING AND MAINTENANCE MECHANISM THAT'S SATISFIES THE CITY'S ON THAT. I'LL SECOND IT. SO ARE YOU INCLUDING THE ALLEYS AS WELL? SO IT'S IT'S THE ORIGINAL MOTION PROPOSED. YES, THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS WELL AS I'D MAKE THE MOTION TO ALSO INCLUDE THE ALLEY WAIVER. OKAY. WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT. ANY DISCUSSION? WE DID IT ON BOTH. YEAH. WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT BOTH JUST LIKE AS IT'S WRITTEN. SO WE'RE DOING THE ALLEY AND WE'RE DOING THE ALLEY VARIANCE AND A PRIVATE STREET WITH AN ADEQUATE FUNDING MECHANISM THAT'S VIABLE. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NO. 2 TO 4. IT PASSES. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 4.E. ALL RIGHT. 4. E IS ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAN. [4.E. Consideration of Variance/s Associated with Preliminary Plan 2026-164-PP (Stone Crossing Unit No. 3) 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 variances is known as Stone Crossing Unit No. 3, a 19.24 acre tract of unplatted land, located in Section 36, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas. (VICINITY: Sundown Ln. & Coulter St.; APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data Inc. for Triple Star Properties, LLC) ] THIS ONE IS THE CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH 2026-164-PP STONE CROSSING UNIT NUMBER THREE. THIS IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ WITHIN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE VICINITY OF SUNDOWN LANE AND COULTER STREET. THE APPLICANT IS GEOSPATIAL DATA, INC. FOR TRIPLE STAR PROPERTIES, LLC. AND THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION OF A REQUIREMENT FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ALSO KNOWN AS STONE CROSSING UNIT THREE. AND THIS WILL BE A PROPOSED TEN LOT DEVELOPMENT. THAT WILL BE A CUL DE SAC. AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF NO ALLEYS. ALLEYS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITHIN NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE ETJ FOR SEVERAL DECADES NOW, AS ROADWAYS WITHIN THE ETJ ARE TYPICALLY CONSTRUCTED AT A WIDER WIDTH TO ALLOW FOR ACCESS, SERVICES AND UTILITIES TO BE PROVIDED AT THE FRONT OF THE LOTS. IN THIS INSTANCE, AN 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY IS PROPOSED AND WOULD ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT ACCESS FOR SUCH. RANDALL COUNTY, IN ADDITION TO THE CITY DEPARTMENTS, REVIEWED THIS PROPOSED LAYOUT AND FOUND IT TO BE GOOD ORDER AND DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD RESULT IN DETRIMENTAL DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS IF APPROVED. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. OKAY. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM. SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? YES. TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON. MICROPHONE. FRED, CAN YOU TALK INTO YOUR MIC, PLEASE. IF THIS IS GOING TO BE IN THE ETJ. WELL, THESE LOTS BE SERVED BY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. NO, THEY ARE PROPOSING WELL AND SEPTIC, SO THEY WILL HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THE. THEY'LL HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATE FOR GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY AS WELL. AND WE'VE MADE THE DEVELOPER AWARE OF THAT. THAT'LL HAVE TO BE DEMONSTRATED PRIOR TO THEM PLATTING. BUT THEY HAVE THE SUFFICIENT SIZE FOR SEPTICS AND WILL HAVE TO SATISFY THAT GROUNDWATER REQUIREMENT BEFORE A PLAT'S FILED. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. MOVE TO APPROVE. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. JOSH. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE AS STAFF RECOMMENDS. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SECOND BY CINDI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE ON THE AGENDA FOR US? NOPE. THAT IS IT FOR TODAY. THANK YOU. BRADY. IT IS 4:24 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.