4.A. Consider approval of the minutes from the August 17, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[4.B. Consideration of Plat 2026-183-P South Gateway Unit No. 3 An addition to the City of Amarillo, being an 84.97 acre tract of unplatted land, in Section 32, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas (VICINITY: Interstate 27 & Sundown Ln.; APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data, Inc. for Attebury Elevators, LLC)]

THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION OF PLAT 2026. 183-P SOUTH GATEWAY UNIT NUMBER 3.

THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 84.97 ACRES OF LAND IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS. IN THE VICINITY OF I-27 AND SUNDOWN LANE.

THE APPLICANT IS GEOSPATIAL DATA, INC. FOR ATTERBURY ELEVATORS, LLC, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING AT THIS TIME TO CREATE 3 PLATTED LOTS FROM THIS UNPLATTED TRACT OF LAND, PLUS DEDICATE SOME ADDITIONAL STREETS FOR THAT AREA.

AND SINCE THIS PLOT DOES HAVE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THAT IS THE REASON FOR IT BEING BEFORE Y'ALL TODAY.

THIS AREA IS ZONED LIGHT COMMERCIAL, SO IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THIS AREA WOULD DEVELOP WITH NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

AND THIS IS ON THE PERIPHERY OF THAT KIDS INC.

DEVELOPMENT. TO GIVE YOU A FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR THE AREA.

WE FOUND THAT THE PLAT DOES CONFORM WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. AND IT IS ALSO IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THIS AREA AS WELL. AND WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CORRECTED ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU BRADY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE TODAY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS. ANY COMMENTS? OKAY.

IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU. DICK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU CINDI.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION IS APPROVED.

ITEM 4.C. YES. 4.C IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF PLAT 2026-184-P FORD SUBDIVISION UNIT NUMBER 7.

[4.C. Public Hearing and Consideration of Plat 2026-184-P Ford's Subdivision Unit No. 7 An addition to the City of Amarillo, being a replat of Tract 31, Ford’s First Subdivision, in Section 159, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: Bonita Ave. & Brown Ave.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Noah Goodson)]

THIS IS A ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO. IT IS A PLAT OF TRACK 31 OF FORBES SUBDIVISION.

THIS IS LOCATED IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF BONITA AVENUE AND BROWN AVENUE.

THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR NOAH GOODSON.

AND THIS PLAT IS ESSENTIALLY TAKING THAT LARGER CURRENTLY PLATTED LOT AND SPLITTING IT INTO 2 LOTS.

THE SMALLER LOT THERE 31 B CURRENTLY CONTAINS A HOME.

AND THE APPLICANT IS SIMPLY WANTING TO SPLIT OFF THE REST OF THAT EXCESS PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL HOME SITE.

AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST. AND SINCE IT IS A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT THAT IS WHY IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION.

SO ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A VARIANCE FOR LOT WIDTH NEEDED AS THE PROPOSED REAR LOT THERE.

[00:05:04]

A 31 A IS 54FT WIDE, WHILE R-1 TYPICALLY REQUIRES 60FT.

THIS PROPOSAL WOULD SEPARATE THESE INTO TWO LOTS, AND TYPICALLY IN R-1 ZONING, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 7500FT², WITH THAT MINIMUM 60 BY 100 DIMENSION REQUIREMENT.

AND THESE LOTS DO EXCEED ALL THOSE STANDARDS EXCEPT FOR THE 1 LOT HAVING THAT 6 FOOT VARIANCE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED.

AND THE REASON THAT THEY COULD NOT MAKE THAT WIDER WAS THE WIDTH OF THE LOT, IF INCREASED, WOULD ENCUMBER PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY FOR THAT HOME.

SO THAT IS WHY THEY WANTED TO LEAVE THE LOT LINE AS PROPOSED.

EXCEPT FOR THAT NOTED VARIANCE, THE PLOT DOES CONFORM WITH THE TYPICAL SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, EXCEPT FOR CORRECTED ORIGINALS NOT BEING RECEIVED.

AND WHEN LOOKING AT THAT PROPOSED VARIANCE OF 6 FEET, WE DO NOT VIEW THAT AS BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA IF APPROVED.

GIVEN THAT THE LOTS MORE THAN EXCEED THE TYPICAL R-1 STANDARDS AND EVERY OTHER ASPECT, AND ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT AND SURVEYOR ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT TO ENSURE THAT BOTH LOTS CAN SHARE A DRIVEWAY.

THAT WAY, WE'RE NOT CREATING A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S AN EXCESS AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAYS ALONG THERE THAT WOULD NOT MEET STANDARDS.

SO WITH THAT, WE VIEW THE PLAT AS ACCEPTABLE.

REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY AS OF THIS MEETING TODAY.

AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, THE PLAT AND THE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT CORRECTED ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED.

OKAY. THANK YOU BRADY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

COMMISSIONERS. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BRADY, IF I MAY.

I JUST WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE THE SLIVER OF THE LOT THAT WILL REMAIN WHEN IT'S SUBDIVIDED, THAT'S ON THAT EAST SIDE THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THERE THAT THEY'RE PARTITIONING OFF. SO THE DRIVEWAY IS ACTUALLY GOING TO REMAIN ON THE SMALLER LOT THERE.

OKAY. SO THE REASON THEY COULDN'T MAKE THAT SLITHER WIDER TO MEET THE STANDARD WAS BECAUSE OF THAT DRIVEWAY.

OKAY. NOW I UNDERSTAND. SO THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S THERE IS ON THE WHAT WILL BE THE SMALLER LOT THAT IS APPROVED? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO WHEN ANOTHER STRUCTURE IS BUILT, IT IS LIKELY TO BE BUILT BEHIND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

AND THERE WILL BE EITHER A SHARED EASEMENT OR ANOTHER DRIVEWAY.

RIGHT. BESIDE THAT DRIVEWAY. AND THE GOOD THING ABOUT HAVING THAT EASEMENT, IF THEY FIND THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET CODE WITH THE DRIVEWAY SPACING, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SHARE THE EXISTING DRIVE. SO WE'RE BASICALLY BUILDING THAT IN THERE BECAUSE DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, IF THEY WERE TO BUILD THE NARROWEST RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, THEY MIGHT HAVE THE SPACING FOR THAT.

BUT IF THEY WANT SOMETHING A LITTLE WIDER, THEN ULTIMATELY THEY'D BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH THE NEIGHBOR.

THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM.

WILL THAT BE DONE IN THE FUTURE? THAT EASEMENT WOULD BE DONE VIA THE PLAT.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE COMMENTS ON THE PLATS RED LINES, IS THAT IF THAT'S THE WAY THEY DECIDE THEY NEED TO GO, IT'LL BE DEDICATED PER THE PLAT. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM.

ANYTHING ELSE? ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS I NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE NOTES ON IT IS A QUESTION ABOUT A BACK STRUCTURE.

OH YES. SO ANYTIME WE LOOK AT A PROPERTY WHERE WE'RE SEPARATING STRUCTURES OUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING A ILLEGAL USE BY PUTTING LIKE A SHOP ON A LOT BY ITSELF. THEY ARE SOON TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON A HOME IN THIS.

SO WE DISCUSSED WHAT THE EXACT PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY WERE, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY JUST SIMPLY WEREN'T WANTING TO SEPARATE THAT SHOP OUT AS A SEPARATE PROPERTY, IF YOU WILL. BUT THEY ARE SOON TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON A HOME ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE CREATING A, A LEGAL SITUATION WITH THIS PLOT THAT SINCE THERE IS A HOME THAT WILL BE BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY, THEN EVERYTHING CHECKS OUT THERE. AFTER DISCUSSING IT WITH THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. I GUESS I WAS WONDERING IF THERE IS A STRUCTURE THAT'S ON WHAT WOULD BE THAT NEW LARGER LOT ALREADY.

BUT. THERE IS. THERE'S GOING TO BE A HOME THERE.

SO YES. AND THEY'RE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THEY, IF THEY HOME WEREN'T TO BE BUILT THERE IN THE FUTURE, THEN AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BECOME A ZONING VIOLATION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS.

SO. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? I'LL MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

THANK YOU. NOAH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

THANK YOU. LANDON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

[00:10:04]

AYE. MOTION APPROVED. ITEM 4.D. YES. 4.D IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF PLAT 2026-187-P

[4.D. Public Hearing and Consideration of Plat 2026-187-P Wolflin Place Unit No. 8 An addition to the City of Amarillo, being a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, Amended Plat of Wolflin Place, in Section 186, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: Hayden St. & Wolflin Ave.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Gloria & Raymond Rawls and Tom & Deanna Jordan)]

WOOLFIN PLACE, UNIT NUMBER 8. THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO AND IS A REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2.

BLOCK 9 AMENDED PLAT OF WOOLFIN PLACE IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF HAYDEN STREET AND WOOLFIN AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC., FOR GLORIA AND RAYMOND RAWLS AND TOM AND DEANNA JORDAN.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLOT, THEY ARE RECONFIGURING AN INTERNAL LOT LINE TO CORRECT A ENCUMBRANCE OF OR A ENCROACHMENT OF AN ACCESSORY THAT BASICALLY THAT PROPERTY LINE GOES DOWN THE MIDDLE OF A CURRENT GARAGE.

SO THEY ARE WANTING TO GET THAT CORRECTED AND HAVE THESE 2 LOTS PROPERLY SEPARATED, AND THEY'RE SIMPLY RECONFIGURING THAT INTERNAL LOT LINE.

AND IT REQUIRES CONSIDERATION AS THIS IS ALSO A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT AND REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND STAFF NOTES THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIMENSIONS ON THIS PLOT AS THAT AREA WAS PLATTED BACK IN THE 1920S 26 TO BE SPECIFIC THIS WOULD, WOULD NOT MEET TODAY'S STANDARDS OF R-1 AS THIS PLAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE CURRENT R-1 STANDARDS.

SO AS THEY EXIST TODAY THE LOT, THE PROPOSAL LARGELY REFLECTS HOW THEY WERE PLATTED IN 1926 EXCEPT FOR THAT REAR WIDTH OF THE LOTS AT THE FRONT OF THE LOTS, THEY ARE 50FT WIDE, BUT AT THE REAR THEY DO HAVE TO JOG THAT PROPERTY LINE AROUND THAT ACCESSORY BUILDING. SO AT THE REAR THEY ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

ONE IS 47FT WIDE AND ONE IS 50FT, 3 FEET WIDE AT THE REAR.

AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT HAVING THE JOG THAT PROPERTY LINE AROUND THE ACCESSORY BUILDING TYPICAL R-1 STANDARDS TODAY ARE 60 BY 100, 7500FT². AND THESE ARE 50, 50FT WIDE AS THEY WERE PLOTTED.

THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WOULD UPON SPEAKING WITH THE SURVEYOR, THEY ARE ENSURING THAT THAT WILL MEET THE 3 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. SO THEY DID VERIFY THAT IN THE FIELD THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

AND THIS PLOT WAS REVIEWED BY CITY AND LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES AND WAS FOUND TO CONFORM WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN THE PLOT TECHNICALLY VARYING FROM R-1 STANDARDS AND THE CORRECTED ORIGINALS NOT YET BEING RECEIVED.

REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY AS OF THIS MEETING TODAY.

AND WITH THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLAT PRESENTED.

WITH THE VARIANCES FROM R-1 STANDARDS AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT CORRECTED ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

COMMISSIONERS. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION AGAIN, BRADY. SO IT SAYS THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING IS LOCATED.

SO IS THERE AN EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK AROUND, OR IS THERE ONE THAT'S EXISTING PROPOSED? IT'S EXISTING AS THE TYPO ON MY PART. OKAY, IT'S AN EXISTING ONE AND HAS EXISTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND IT IS A GARAGE. IT'S NOT A DWELLING.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

SO. SO IT'S CURRENTLY LEGAL NONCONFORMING. WOULD THAT CHANGE WITH UPDATING IT OR WOULD IT STILL BE LEGAL NONCONFORMING OR.

YEAH. SO THE PLAT, IT'S KIND OF A WEIRD DEAL WHERE AS IT WAS PLATTED IN THE 20S, IT DOES NOT MEET OUR R-1 STANDARDS.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY REMAINING THE SAME AS IT WAS PLATTED, OTHER THAN JUST JOGGING THAT INTERNAL LOT LINE A LITTLE BIT.

SO ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE JUST REQUESTING THAT VARIANCE TECHNICALLY FROM THE TYPICAL R-1 STANDARDS, EVEN THOUGH THE WAY IT'S PLATTED TODAY WOULD NOT MEET THOSE.

IT'S KIND OF A UNIQUE DEAL THAT WE RUN INTO SOMETIMES IN THESE OLDER PARTS OF TOWN THAT WERE PLOTTED BACK IN THE 20S AND 30S.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT BY DOING THIS, WE'RE NOT SHIFTING IT FROM BEING LEGAL NONCONFORMING TO NOT LEGAL.

NO, WE WOULD WE WOULD NOT BE MAKING IT ILLEGAL IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, GIVEN THE NATURE OF HOW THAT AREA IS PLOTTED.

AND HAS BEEN PLOTTED FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS NOW.

I THANK YOU. I JUST KNOW THAT I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE MAKING CHANGES CAN MAKE IT GO FROM LEGAL NON CONFORMING TO.

RIGHT. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T GOING TO CAUSE THAT ISSUE.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONSIDERATION TODAY IS THAT YOU ALL ARE HEARING THAT AND DECIDING IF IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT.

SO SO BY US POINTING THAT OUT, YOU'RE ULTIMATELY CONSIDERING THAT AS PART OF YOUR APPROVAL.

[00:15:04]

REALLY SO. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ONE? IF NOT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE THAT WITH THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND SUBJECT TO THE RETURN OF THE CORRECTED FINAL DOCUMENTS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. CINDI. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU. FRED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE. MOTION APPROVED. ITEM 4.E. 4.E. IS A CONSIDERATION OF PLAT 2026-190-P

[4.E. Consideration of Plat 2026-190-P C.W.C. Enterprises Unit No. 3 An addition to the City of Amarillo, being a replat of Lot 2B & 2C, Block 1, Exxon Addition Unit No. 2, Lot 1, Block 1, C.W.C. Enterprises Unit No. 1, Lot 2, Block 1, C.W.C. Enterprises Unit No. 2 and vacated alley right of way, all in Section 74, Block 2, AB&M Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: Interstate 40 & Loop 335/Lakeside Dr.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Racetrac, Inc.)]

C.W.C. ENTERPRISES UNIT NUMBER 3. AND THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

IT IS A REPLAT OF LOTS 2.,B, 2.C .BLOCK 1 X ON ADDITION 2, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, C.W.C.

ENTERPRISES 1 AND LOT 2, BLOCK 1, C.W.C ENTERPRISES, UNIT 2 PLUS VACATED ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THIS IS IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 40 AND LOOP 3:35.

THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR RACETRAC, INC..

AND I'LL REMIND YOU ALL, YOU ALL HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN THIS PLOT BEFORE.

THIS IS FOR THE PROPOSED RACETRACK AT I-40. AND LAKESIDE DRIVE.

THEY HAD A CHANGE IN SURVEYORS FROM THE TIME THAT THE PLAT WAS CONSIDERED ORIGINALLY.

SO THAT IS WHY IT IS BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY. THEY JUST WENT WITH A LOCAL SURVEYOR TO HELP THEM GET THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

AND WE TECHNICALLY HAD TO HAVE Y'ALL RECONSIDER IT.

IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TYPICAL CITY DEPARTMENTS AND UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WAS FOUND TO CONFORM WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, EXCEPT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE NOT YET BEING COMPLETED FOR A MAIN EXTENSION OR SURETY BEING PROVIDED FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO WITH THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PLOT AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT EITHER SURETY IS PROVIDED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS COMPLETED AND THAT CORRECTED ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED.

OKAY. THANK YOU BRADY. DOES ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE. THAT REALLY THERE WAS NO CHANGE ON THIS FROM THE LAST TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED OTHER THAN THE SURVEY COMPANY.

THAT'S CORRECT. THE PLAT IS ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO WHAT Y'ALL CONSIDERED BEFORE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MOVE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

JOSH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, CINDY AND LANDON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. MOTION APPROVED.

ITEM 4.F. YES. 4.F. IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING.

[4.F. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning 2026-188-Z Rezoning of 51.94 acres of unplatted land, located in Section 183, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Agricultural District to Moderate Density District 1. (VICINITY: Moon River Rd. & Honeybee Ave.; APPLICANT/S Betenbough Homes for 87th Street Partners, LLC)]

2026-188Z. THIS IS THE REZONING OF 51.94 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND.

THIS IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF FARMERS AVENUE AND GEORGIA STREET.

OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, MOON RIVER ROAD AND HONEYBEE AVENUE.

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNDING STREETS, ALLEYS OF PUBLIC WAYS FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT 1.

AND THE APPLICANT IS BEATEN BOW HOMES FOR 87TH STREET PARTNERS LLC.

AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITH 308 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES UTILIZING MODERATE DENSITY 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REGARDING THE CITY PLAN 2045 PLACE TYPE. IT IS THE RESERVE CATEGORY AND THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING 308 HOMES IN THIS AREA THAT IS BOUNDED ON 3 SIDES BY EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, SATURN TERRACE, THE MEADOWS AND FOX RIDGE.

AND ON YOUR SCREEN NOW IS A SLIDE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT SHOWS THEIR DRAFT LAYOUT AND THE PRODUCT THEY INTEND TO UTILIZE FOR THIS AREA.

JUST FOR YOUR REFERENCE. BUT WHILE MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT 1 DOES ALSO ALLOW FOR DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES BY RIGHT.

THEIR PLAN IS TO DEVELOP THIS EXCLUSIVELY WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES THAT WILL UTILIZE LOT MINIMUMS THAT THAT ARE ABLE TO UTILIZE LOT MINIMUMS OF 40 BY 85 BY RIGHT, WHICH COMES OUT TO 3400FT².

THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A MIX OF LOT WHAT'S THAT RANGE FROM 40 TO 50FT WIDE AND A MIX OF LOT DEPTHS THAT WILL RANGE FROM 85 TO 115FT DEEP.

REGARDING THE CITY PLAN PLACE TYPE THE PROPERTY IS IN THAT RESERVE CATEGORY, WHICH 1 OF THE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THAT CATEGORY IS TO HOLD UNDEVELOPED AREAS FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WHILE PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY FOR POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS.

AND THE CATEGORY FOCUSES ON CREATING CREATIVE AND APPROPRIATE TRANSITIONS.

ONCE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR AN AREA AND TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN USES.

[00:20:06]

THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED WITHIN A SECTION OF LAND THAT IS PRIMARILY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS THE PRIMARY USE.

AND ONE OF THE GOALS OF CITY PLANS IS TO CREATE VIBRANT NEIGHBORHOODS THAT FEATURE A RANGE OF HOUSING PRODUCTS TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE CREATING COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT OFFER A RANGE OF HOUSING PRODUCTS FOR THE CITIZENS. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE WESTERN PERIPHERY OF THE REMAINING TRACT OF VACANT LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THIS SECTION, ADJACENT TO A FLOOD HAZARD AREA.

SUCH AREAS, GIVEN THE LOCATION AND EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, ARE CERTAINLY SUITED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHILE HIGHER DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY OR 2 FAMILY DEVELOPMENT COULD BE AN APPROPRIATE ADDITION TO THIS REMAINING TRACT OF LAND ON THE PERIPHERY OF THESE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. SUCH A PROPOSAL COULD ALSO MEET THE GOAL FOR APPROPRIATE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY, AS CALLED FOR BY CITY PLAN AS WELL. THE PROPERTY IS WELL SUITED TO UTILIZE EXISTING STREET WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE 3 OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND REPRESENTS, IN THE OPINION OF STAFF, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR APPROPRIATE INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS, 1 COMMENT IN OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED.

THE COMMENTER WAS CONCERNED THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD LOWER THE PROPERTY VALUES OF HIS HOME IF APPROVED, AND WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM.

AND I'LL ALSO NOTE WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEVELOPER HERE TODAY AS WELL THAT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU BRADY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? GOOD AFTERNOON. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M WITH BETENBOUGH HOMES, 8780 HERITAGE HILLS PARKWAY.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO COME UP HERE AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONING CHANGE.

AND ALSO TO PROVIDE A VISION FOR THIS ZONING AND FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE WE ARE PLANNING RIGHT NOW 308 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND ON THE EAST SIDE, WE ARE PLANNING TO MONETIZE THAT AREA.

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT AREA SLOPES. IT'S PROBABLY A 30 FOOT DROP ON THAT EAST SIDE.

AND THEN AS BRADY MENTIONED, ANYTHING ALSO WEST OF OUR COMMUNITY IS ALL FLOODPLAIN.

SO WE REALLY PLAN TO JUST UTILIZE THIS INFILL SITE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE PROVIDE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

1 THING I'D LIKE TO MENTION, I DON'T KNOW IF THE SLIDE IS UP HERE, BUT WE ALSO DEVELOPED THE MEADOWS AND SATURN TERRACE, WHICH ARE THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THAT OPPOSING COMMENT AND OPPOSITION I'LL JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DEVELOP THESE SAME HOMES THAT THEY LIVE IN NOW.

SO IF ANYTHING, WE FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT INCREASE VALUE JUST BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, COST, CONSTRUCTION COST AND INFLATION.

AND BEING THAT THE HOME VALUES ARE SET BASED ON SALES COMP.

SO WE WOULD SET THE NEW COMPS AT THIS HIGHER VALUE.

BUT YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS.

I GOT ONE. IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT NORTH AND SOUTH OF YOU ALL HAVE ALLEYS.

ARE YOU ALL GOING TO BE REQUESTING A ALLEY VARIANCE AS WELL ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.

YES, WITH THE PRE-PLANNED, WE ARE HOPING TO THEN PUT IT IN FRONT OF Y'ALL ONCE WE WORK THAT OUT WITH THE CITY STAFF FOR A WAIVER.

WE BELIEVE THAT'S ALSO A PART OF THIS MD-1 ZONING.

YES, FOR STAFF HAVING ALLEYS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT HAVING AN ALLEY, NO ALLEYS IN THE MIDDLE.

IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR TRASH PICKUP? SO ONE THING I'LL ALSO NOTE IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH DOES HAVE ALLEYS.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE 1 TO THE EAST THERE, THE MEADOWS ACTUALLY IS A NO ALLEY SUBDIVISION AS WELL.

SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IN FOR REVIEW RIGHT NOW.

AND THE INITIAL COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC WORKS WAS THAT THEY WOULD SIMPLY JUST ADD TO THE ROUTE THAT SERVES THE MEADOWS.

SO THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF SOLID WASTE TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THIS.

SO ULTIMATELY, THOUGH, THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU ALL AS AN ALLEY WAIVER HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION MIGHT NOT BE RELEVANT, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK IT ANYWAY.

ON ON THE BOLD RED LINE MAP THAT THAT YOU ALL SHOWED US THERE IS SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE SOME SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. YOU MENTIONED A SLOPE, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THAT IS.

DOES IT GO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS? YEAH. SO THAT SLOPE ON THE EAST SIDE, IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.

LET ME FLIP TO THAT REAL QUICK FOR YOU. OH THAT'S JUST PHIL FROM WHENEVER THEY.

OH OKAY. YEAH. ON, ON THAT CENTER OF THAT BOUNDARY.

THAT'S JUST THE DIRT THAT THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

OH, OKAY. ARIEL. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS AN AERIAL OR TOPOGRAPHICAL.

[00:25:04]

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AS WELL.

SO THE PRIMARY ENTRANCES WILL BE JIM AND I OFF OF FARMERS THERE AND THEN MOON RIVER.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE FANNIN, MAYBE DOGLEGS OR.

YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW IN THIS PRELIMINARY CONCEPT, WE HAVE 2 INGRESS AND EGRESS OR ACCESSES TO THIS COMMUNITY, WHICH IS FANNIN ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND THEN ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY, GEMINI TRAIL ON MOON RIVER, WHICH IS ON THE EAST JUST BECAUSE OF THAT TOPOGRAPHY.

WE, INSTEAD WE PLAN TO MONETIZE THAT AREA INSTALLING WALKING TRAIL AND TREE.

AND THEN, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A STUB OUT THERE.

THAT'S MORE SO JUST ACCESS AND PEDESTRIAN PARKING THAT WE'LL HAVE THERE.

BUT YEAH, BUT THOSE ARE THE 2 ACCESSES THAT WE PLAN FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER RIGHT OFF OF FANNIN, THERE'S A PRETTY LARGE CULVERT AT THE END OF THAT.

THAT SOUTH SIDE OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE'S ACTUALLY A DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THIS AS PART OF THEIR PLANS FOR WHENEVER THEY SUBMIT FOR THE STREET INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS BRIDGING OVER THOSE 2 CULVERTS.

SO BUT YEAH, THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE ON THE SOUTH END AS WELL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT, THAT SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH.

SO SO THEY WILL HAVE TO PROPOSE APPROPRIATE CROSSINGS FOR THOSE CULVERTS.

OKAY. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I THINK FANNIN ACTUALLY HAD A BRIDGE ACROSS THE EXISTING CULVERT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOX RIDGE WHEN THEY CONNECTED PHEASANT RUN.

BECAUSE THEY, WHEN THEY CONNECTED FANNIN ALL THE WAY THROUGH, THEY HAD TO BUILD A BRIDGE. SO I WOULD IMAGINE IT'S SOMEWHAT SIMILAR. YES.

YEP. THEY'LL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS? I'LL MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. THANK YOU.

NOAH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU. DICK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY AYE.

AYE. MOTION APPROVED. THANK YOU. ITEM 4.G. THANK YOU.

[4.G. Consideration of Public Utility Easement Vacation 2026-131-V Vacation of a 0.02 acre portion of a 10-foot wide public utility easement, located within Lot 1A, Block 8, Western Express Addition Unit No. 27, an addition to the City of Amarillo, in Section 229, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Randall County, Texas. (VICINITY: Interstate 27 and Western Street; APPLICANT/S: OJD Engineering, LLC for Agustin Santoyo Canyon LSI LLC)]

YES, WE'LL MOVE ON TO 4.G. THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION.

CASE 2026-131-V AND THIS IS THE VACATION OF A 0.02 ACRE PORTION OF A TEN FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. AND THIS IS LOCATED IN LOT 1.A, BLOCK 8, WESTERN EXPRESS EDITION 27.

THIS IS IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF I-27 AND WESTERN STREET.

AND THE APPLICANT IS OJ D ENGINEERING LLC FOR AGUSTIN SANTOYO CANYON LSI, LLC.

AND THEY THERE IS A PROPOSED GROCERY STORE FOR THIS SITE THAT IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WHERE THEY WANT TO PLACE IT WOULD BE OVER THIS EASEMENT THAT IS NO LONGER IN USE.

SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST TODAY. AND THAT EASEMENT USED TO SERVE A STRIP OF LOTS THAT RAN DOWN THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD, BUT SINCE THEN THIS HAS ALL BEEN REPLANTED AS A SINGLE LOT, SO THERE REALLY IS NO LONGER A NEED FOR THAT EASEMENT, AS THAT WAS SIMPLY TO SERVE THE BACKSIDE OF THOSE LOTS WITH THE CITY WATER AND GAS FROM ATMOS.

THIS WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND OUR LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES.

AND THAT EASEMENT WAS FOUND TO ONLY CONTAIN EITHER ABANDONED UTILITY LINES OR LINES THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ABANDONED.

AND GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTY HAS SINCE BEEN COMBINED AND REPLANTED UNDER THAT SINGLE OWNERSHIP, THAT NEED FOR THAT EASEMENT NO LONGER EXISTS.

AND NOAH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION WERE EXPRESSED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES OR THE CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR OUR UTILITIES.

THE APPLICANT, AS A REQUIREMENT OF THIS SUBMITTAL DID PREPARE AN APPRAISAL AND DID PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE EASEMENT TO THE CITY, WHICH WAS $850 AS DETERMINED BY THE APPRAISER ON THIS EASEMENT.

WITH ALL THAT THOUGH, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE REQUEST DOES MEET OUR POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VACATION OF AN EASEMENT, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VACATION AS PRESENTED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL? MR. CHAIRMAN. I MOVE TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CINDI. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. JOSH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, SAY I.

MOTION IS APPROVED. ITEM 4.H. YES.4.H. IS A CONSIDERATION OF

[4.H. Consideration of Variance/s Associated with Preliminary Plan 2026-160-PP West End Village 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 West End Village, approximately 88.43 acres of unplatted land, in Section 61, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: Interstate 40 and Loop 335 (Helium Rd.); APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data, Inc. for the Marsh Trust)]

[00:30:06]

VARIANCES ASSOCIATED WITH PRELIMINARY PLAN 2026-160-PP ALSO KNOWN AS WEST END VILLAGE.

THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.

AND THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 88.43 ACRES OF LAND.

AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 40 AND HELIUM ROAD OR ALSO KNOWN AS LOOP 335.

AND THE APPLICANT IS GEOSPATIAL DATA INC. FOR THE MARSH TRUST.

AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM 4653 B, WHICH STATES THAT TYPICALLY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ALLEYS FOR ALL SUBDIVISIONS UNLESS WAIVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL LAND USES AS THEIR PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY.

AND TO GIVE YOU A BETTER FRAME OF REFERENCE, THIS IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOMESTEAD SUBDIVISION WEST OF SAM'S CLUB THERE.

AND THEN KIND OF WRAPS AROUND THAT DOCTOR'S OFFICE FACILITY THAT WAS BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

AND WHEN CONSIDERING A REQUEST FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION, WE JUST HAVE TO ENSURE AS A CITY THAT THE SERVICES AND UTILITIES THAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE PROVIDED IN ALLEYS IS BEING PROVIDED IN OTHER MANNERS, WHICH IN THIS CASE, A DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE THE UTILITIES WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY, AND ACCESS TO THESE COMMERCIAL LOTS WILL EITHER BE FROM WESTGATE PARKWAY OR THE ADJACENT TXDOT ROADWAYS, IF APPROVED BY THE STATE AT A LATER DATE. REGARDING THOSE ACCESS POINTS TXDOT HAS STATED THAT ACCESS FROM THE ADJACENT ROADS WILL BE HEAVILY RESTRICTED AND THAT THE USE OF SHARED ACCESS EASEMENTS WILL LIKELY BE NEEDED, BUT THEY WILL DETERMINE THOSE AT A LATER DATE AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS.