[1. Call to order and establish a quorum is present.]
          [00:00:02]
          ALL RIGHT. IT'S NOW 3:00, SEPTEMBER THE 21ST,
2026, AND THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE AMARILLO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER. THE COMMISSION CONSISTS OF SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS,
SEVEN OF WHICH ARE PRESENT TODAY. 
          AT THIS TIME, ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH REGARD
TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA CAN DO SO, OR YOU CAN ALSO WAIT UNTIL YOUR AGENDA ITEM COMES UP ON THE,
ON OUR AGENDA. 
          YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION,
NOT CITY STAFF. 
          OKAY. MOVING ON, ITEM NUMBER THREE ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          NO ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR TODAY. OKAY. ITEM 3.B, ANY UPDATES ON CASES THAT WE'VE FORWARDED OVER
TO COUNCIL? 
          [3.B. Updates on cases forwarded to City Council by the Planning and Zoning  Commission;]
YEAH, JUST A COUPLE FOR TODAY. TOMORROW WE'LL HAVE A COUPLE CASES GOING FOR A SECOND
READING WITH THE COUNCIL. 
          ONE OF THEM IS THE TINY HOME VILLAGE OFF OF COLTER AND 77TH. 
          AND THE OTHER IS THE MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION OFF OF WASHINGTON AND 46TH. 
          I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING THE TINY HOME VILLAGE WAS APPROVED FOUR ZERO. 
          AND THE MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED FIVE ZERO. 
          SO I KNOW ON THE TINY HOME VILLAGE THERE'S ONE ABSTENTION. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THAT WAS FOUR ZERO. BUT THOSE WILL BE SECOND READINGS TOMORROW. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR UPDATES THAT ARE
NEEDED? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. 
          [4.A. Consideration of Plat Case 2026-193-P The Vineyards Unit No. 15  An addition to the City of Amarillo, being an unplatted tract of land, in Section 191, Block 2.  A.B.& M. Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: Temecula Creek Blvd. & Vineyard  Blvd.; APPLICANT/S: OJD Engineering, LLC for Vineyards Amarllo, LLC) ]
ITEM 4.A IS CONSIDERATION OF OUR WE DON'T HAVE THE MINUTES ON HERE. 
          THAT WAS A MISTAKE ON MY PART. OKAY. WE'LL APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS. YEAH. WE'LL DOUBLE UP NEXT MEETING,
SO. 
          OKAY. YEP. SOUNDS GOOD. ITEM 4.A, THEN BRADY. 
          YEAH. SO 4.A IS CONSIDERATION OF PLAT 2026 193P THE VINEYARDS UNIT 15. 
          THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO. THIS IS IN POTTER COUNTY,
TEXAS, IN THE VINEYARD SUBDIVISION IN THE VICINITY OF TEMECULA CREEK BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS OJD ENGINEERING LLC FOR VINEYARDS AMARILLO,
LLC, AND THIS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING 102 LOTS FOR ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES IN THE VINEYARD SUBDIVISION. 
          AND THIS PLOT DOES HAVE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS,
AND THIS IS THE REASON IT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION. 
          THE STAFF AND LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES DID REVIEW THIS PLAT AND FOUND THAT IT CONFORMS WITH
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, EXCEPT FOR 21 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY STILL BEING IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REZONED,
AND THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION NOT YET BEING COMPLETED. 
          REGARDING THAT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY, THE SOUTH 21 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY IS STILL ZONED
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, AND THEY DO HAVE A CASE SUBMITTED THAT WILL BE ON THE UPCOMING AGENDA,
THE REZONE, THE REST OF THE PROPERTY, THE R3. SO THAT THIS PLAT WOULD HAVE TO WOULD BE UNABLE TO BE FILED UNTIL THE ZONING CASE
IS CONSIDERED BY THE CITY AND POTENTIALLY APPROVED. SO, SO APPROVAL, THE PLAT TODAY WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON ZONING
BEING APPROVED AND CONTINGENTLY APPROVING THIS PLOT, I'LL JUST MENTION DOES NOT OBLIGATE AN APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE. 
          SO THIS IS JUST THE ORDER THAT THE ITEMS WERE RECEIVED BY THE CITY. 
          SO AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE,
THE DEVELOPER CAN EITHER OPT TO COMPLETE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS OR PROVIDE SURETY FOR THE COMPLETION. AND AS OF THIS REPORT NEITHER HAS OCCURRED. 
          AND PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PLAT, ONE OF THOSE TWO ACTIONS WILL NEED TO TAKE PLACE. 
          AND ALSO WE WILL NOTE THAT THE CORRECTED ORIGINALS STILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED AS WELL. 
          SO WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THE PLAT AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE
REZONING IS APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY THAT EITHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS COMPLETED OR SURETY IS PROVIDED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT THE CORRECTED ORIGINALS
ARE RECEIVED. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU BRADY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR ON
BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, BRADY, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE,
THERE WAS NO STRATEGIC REASON FOR THE ZONING TO FALL AFTER THE THE PLAT APPROVAL. 
          CORRECT. YEAH. WE'RE UNSURE OF WHY IT WENT IN THE ORDER THAT IT DID. 
          BECAUSE ONCE A PLAT SUBMITTED, WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO ACT ON IT PER STATE
LAW. 
          SO THE REASON THAT THEY DID THIS IN THIS ORDER THAT'D BE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER
ULTIMATELY, BUT WE LET THEM KNOW THOUGH THAT THAT ZONING WOULD BE A KEY ELEMENT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE
WRAPPED UP FIRST. 
          SO THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE. IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED,
WITH THE, WITH BEING SUBJECT TO EITHER THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE BEING 
          [00:05:09]
COMPLETED OR A SURETY PROVIDED AND CORRECTED ORIGINALS. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. CINDI. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. BEFORE WE MOVE ON, CINDI, DO YOU ALSO WANT TO ADD THE CONDITION ABOUT THE
ZONING AS WELL? YES. AS STAFF RECOMMENDED. YES. OKAY. STAFF RECOMMENDED. 
          SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JOSH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR,
RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. AYE. MOTION IS APPROVED. ITEM 4.B YES. ITEM 4.B WAS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND 
          [4.B. Public Hearing and Consideration of Plat Case 2026-203-P Quail Creek Addition Unit No. 42  An addition to the City of Amarillo, being a replat of Lots 30 and 31, Block 10, Quail Creek  Addition Unit No. 8, in Section 25, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Potter County, Texas.  (VICINITY: Lost Canyon Dr. & Canyon Crest Dr.; APPLICANT/S: OJD Engineering, LLC  for Amber Doden and Alfredo Hernandez) ]
CONSIDERATION OF CASE 2026 203 P QUAIL CREEK ADDITION UNIT NUMBER 42. 
          THIS WAS THIS IS IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE VICINITY OF LOST CANYON DRIVE AND CANYON
CREST DRIVE. 
          APPLICANT WAS OJD ENGINEERING LLC FOR AMBER DODSON AND ALFREDO HERNANDEZ,
AND THIS WAS A REPLAT OF LOTS 30 AND 31 BLOCK TEN QUAIL CREEK EDITION, UNIT NUMBER EIGHT. STAFF NOTES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THIS PLOT TO BE WITHDRAWN
FROM CONSIDERATION DUE TO A UTILITY ISSUE THAT WAS DISCOVERED DURING THE REVIEW OF PLAT OF THE PLAT AFTER THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT. AND I'LL JUST QUICKLY EXPLAIN WHAT THAT ISSUE
WAS. 
          SO CURRENTLY THE LOT 31 CONTAINS AN EXISTING HOME. 
          LOT 30 WAS A VACANT PROPERTY AND THEY WERE GOING TO PROPOSE A HOME EXPANSION. 
          HOWEVER, THERE IS A SEWER LINE EASEMENT AND A SEWER LINE THAT STRADDLES THAT PROPERTY LINE
BETWEEN THOSE TWO LOTS, AND THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO BUILD ACROSS THAT WITH A STRUCTURE. 
          SO THEY THAT IS THE REASON WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THE WITHDRAWAL. 
          THIS PLOT AND THAT WAS DISCOVERED AFTER SUBMITTAL HAD OCCURRED AND REVIEW WAS DONE BY CITY
STAFF. 
          SO SO THEY ARE REQUESTING THE WITHDRAWAL THIS PLOT,
AS THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE PLANS THAT THEY HAD FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ALONG TO ITEM 4.C OR DO WE NEED A MOTION ON THAT FOR. 
          LET'S DO A MOTION AND I GUESS WE TECHNICALLY DID NOTICE THIS AS A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL. 
          SO LET'S I WOULD RECOMMEND GOING AHEAD AND DOING THAT AS WELL. 
          JUST GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE HEARING PROCESS. SURE. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE
AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, COMMISSIONERS. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW? I GUESS APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL? IS THAT WHAT IT WOULD BE? SURE. YEAH, WE CAN GO WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. SO MOVED. SO MOVED. THANK YOU. CINDI. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THANK YOU LANDON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPROVED. ITEM 4.C. 4.C IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF PLOT
CASE 
          [4.C. Public Hearing and Consideration of Plat Case 2026-206-P The Woodlands of Amarillo Unit  No. 19  An addition to the City of Amarillo, being a replat of Lot 1, Block 3, The Woodlands of  Amarillo Unit No. 2, in Section 23, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Potter County, Texas.  (VICNITY: Fairway Dr. & Coulter St.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for  Christ Lutheran Church of Amarillo)]
2026-206P THE WOODLANDS OF AMARILLO, UNIT NUMBER 19. 
          THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO. THIS IS A REPLAT OF LOT ONE,
BLOCK THREE, THE WOODLANDS OF AMARILLO UNIT TWO IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF FAIRWAY DRIVE AND COLTER STREET. 
          THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AMARILLO,
AND THIS PLAT CURRENTLY IS A SINGLE LOT THAT CONTAINS AN EXISTING CHURCH IN EXCESS PROPERTY,
AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING THE CHURCH TO A NONPROFIT THAT WILL BE LOOKING TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY IN THE NEAR FUTURE. 
          AND THEN THAT PLANS FOR THAT NONPROFIT ARE THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY SELL THAT EXCESS
PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE FOR POTENTIAL HOME DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO THEY ARE JUST WANTING TO GET THE PROPERTY SEPARATED WITH THE CHURCH AND THE SITE
IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT SOUTH LOT, AND THEN THE EXCESS PROPERTY ON THE NORTH. SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS REPLAT. 
          AND SINCE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT, IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICES AS WELL. 
          AND WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS ALONG WITH THE LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES,
AND FOUND THEY CONFORMED WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, EXCEPT FOR THE CORRECTED ORIGINALS NOT YET BEING RECEIVED. 
          AND WITH THAT ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS A MEETING TODAY,
AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT CORRECTED ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED. OKAY. THANK YOU BRADY. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE,
COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? JASON, I AM GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS ITEM. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. LANDON. I MOVE TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU DICK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JOSH. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR,
RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. MOTION TO APPROVE. MAKE THAT RECORD THAT LANDON MORELAND ABSTAINED. 
          [4.D. Consideration of Plat Case 2026-204-P Amarillo Medical Center Unit No. 26  An addition to the City of Amarillo, being a replat of a portion of Lot 3 and the remaining  portion of Lot 4, Amarillo Medical Center Unit No. 6, in Section 26, Block 9, B.S.& F.  Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: Evans Dr. & Wallace Blvd.; APPLICANT/S:  Geospatial Data, Inc. for The Bridge and Northwest Texas Healthcare System, Inc.)]
ALL RIGHT. ITEM 4.D. YES. 4.D IS THE CONSIDERATION OF PLAT 2026-204P AMARILLO MEDICAL
CENTER, 
          [00:10:06]
UNIT 26. THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO. 
          THAT IS A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF LOT THREE AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF LOT FOUR,
AMARILLO MEDICAL CENTER, UNIT SIX IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF EVANS DRIVE AND WALLACE BOULEVARD. 
          THE APPLICANTS ARE GEOSPATIAL DATA, INC. FOR THE BRIDGE AND NORTHWEST TEXAS HEALTHCARE
SYSTEMS INCORPORATED. 
          AND THEY ARE CREATING TWO LOTS WITHIN THE AMARILLO MEDICAL DISTRICT. 
          ONE OF THE LOTS CONTAINS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND PARKING LOT,
AND THE NORTHERNMOST LOT WILL CONTAIN THE FUTURE LOCATION FOR THE BRIDGE LOCAL NONPROFIT. 
          THEY'RE LOOKING TO RELOCATE AND BUILD A NEW BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES AND WAS FOUND TO CONFORM
WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE,
FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT IS DIFFERENT UPON A PUBLIC STREET AND ALSO DUE TO THE, AND ALSO THE OTHER ITEM WE FOUND WERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION WAS
PENDING FOR A WATER MAIN EXTENSION THAT WAS NEEDED TO SERVE ONE OF THESE LOTS. SO IT IS ALSO A FINAL PLAT WITH ASSOCIATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. 
          A LOT 4.D, WHICH IS AT NORTHERNMOST LOT, IS PROPOSED TO ACCESS EVANS DRIVE VIA A PROPOSED
SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT. 
          THAT IS TO BE DEDICATED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT PER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SURVEYOR. 
          THE EASEMENT IS CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED AND WILL ADDRESS THE TYPICAL ELEMENTS WE LOOK FOR, SUCH AS ACCESS, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST IF NEEDED,
SUCH AS DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES AND WILL BE PROVIDED TO STAFF AND FILED PRIOR TO THE PLAT BEING FORMALLY APPROVED AND FILED. THE PROPOSED SITES WILL SHARE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND
DRIVE AISLE OFF OF EVANS DRIVE, AND THEN THEY WILL SPLIT INTO TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS TO THE TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN THE PLAT BOUNDARY. 
          AS TO THE STATUS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS FOR THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION,
REVIEW OF THE PLANS IS ONGOING WITH THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER. 
          ONCE APPROVED, THE DEVELOPER WILL EITHER NEED TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS OR PROVIDE
SURETY FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PLAT. 
          AND AS OF THE MEETING TODAY, NEITHER OF THOSE ITEMS HAS OCCURRED YET. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AS PRESENTED WITH THE NOTED VARIANCE AND WITH THE
CONDITIONS THAT CORRECT ORIGINALS ARE RECEIVED, THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ARE COMPLETED, AND EITHER CONSTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
OCCURS OR SURETY IS PROVIDED FOR COMPLETION. 
          AND ADDITIONALLY, WITH THAT CONDITION ALSO THAT THE SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT IS DEDICATED
AND PROVIDED THAT WILL ADDRESS ACCESS TO LOT 4D. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU BRADY. MICROPHONE. I APOLOGIZE. IS THAT GOING TO BE A PUBLIC EASEMENT OR A PRIVATE EASEMENT? SO IT'LL BE A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY
AN EASEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES WITHIN THIS PLOT THAT WILL ALLOW EACH OTHER AND PARTIES THAT ARE VISITING EACH OTHER'S PROPERTY TO UTILIZE THAT DRIVEWAY. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY, IT DOES ALLOW THE PATRONS OF THESE PROPERTIES AND THE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTIES TO UTILIZE THAT DRIVE AREA, BUT IT WILL NOT BE A PUBLIC STREET OR A PUBLIC ASSET,
THOUGH. 
          INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE OF IT THERE. YES, THAT EASEMENT WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS HOW
MAINTENANCE IS GOING TO BE SPLIT BETWEEN THE PARTIES INVOLVED. 
          BRADY I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. THE VARIANCE IS THE SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT. 
          YES. OKAY. WHAT OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE STATES IS THAT TYPICALLY LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO
FRONT UPON A PUBLIC STREET DIRECTLY. 
          SO I KNOW OVER THE YEARS THAT THERE'S A HANDFUL OF EXAMPLES AROUND TOWN WHERE EASEMENTS
ARE UTILIZED TO FUNCTION AS THAT, PROVIDED THAT THOSE CRITICAL ELEMENTS, SUCH AS MAINTENANCE AND OTHER ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED
WITH THE SEPARATE INSTRUMENT. 
          THANK YOU. WHEN I READ IT, IT LOOKED AS THOUGH THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER VARIANCE,
BUT THAT IS THE VARIANCE. 
          YES. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. OKAY. IN OUR AUDIENCE,
IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. I THINK COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALREADY ASKED SOME QUESTIONS. 
          IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL SUBJECT TO
ALL THIS. 
          I MOVE THAT IT BE APPROVED WITH THE NOTED VARIANCE AND THE CONDITION CORRECTED [INAUDIBLE]
RECEIVED, THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS ARE COMPLETED AND THE CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE IS COMPLETED OR
SHORTLY PROVIDED, AND SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT IS DEDICATED THAT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE ACCESS. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU NOAH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. CINDI. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. AYE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED. ITEM 4.E. YES,
WE'LL MOVE INTO REZONINGS NOW. 
          [4.E. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning Case 2026-171-Z   Rezoning of Lots 4, 5, and 7 through 12, Block 1, Town Square Unit No. 1, an addition to the  City of Amarillo, in Section 63, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey, Randall County, Texas, plus one half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from Planned Development  District 373A to Planned Development District 373E to allow all Alcohol Sale Related Uses  without a limit on the number of such uses per building. (VICINITY: Town Square Blvd. &  Union Sq.; APPLICANT/S: Tim Ruse for Texas Residences at Town Square LLC) ]
          [00:15:05]
FIRST ONE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF REZONING 2026-171-Z. 
          THIS IS THE REZONING OF LOTS FOUR, FIVE AND SEVEN THROUGH 12 BLOCK ONE TOWN SQUARE,
UNIT ONE. 
          THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO IN RANDALL COUNTY,
TEXAS, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNTY STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC WAYS TO CHANGE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 373-A TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 373-E TO ALLOW ALL ALCOHOL SALE RELATED USES WITHOUT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF SUCH USES PER BUILDING,
AND THIS IS LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF TOWN SQUARE BOULEVARD AND UNION SQUARE. 
          AND THE APPLICANT IS TIM BRUCE FOR TEXAS RESIDENCES AT TOWN SQUARE LLC,
AND THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING A CHANGE IN ZONING TO ALLOW AN UNRESTRICTED NUMBER OF ALCOHOL RELATED LAND USES WITHIN THE FOUR MIXED USE BUILDINGS IN
THE CENTER OF THE TOWN SQUARE SUBDIVISION AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. 
          CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ONLY ONE BAR PER BUILDING IS
ALLOWED. 
          IN ADDITION TO ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE BY RESTAURANTS,
OFF PREMISE ALCOHOL, BEVERAGE SALES AND TEMPORARY SALES, AND ON THE SCREEN THERE IN THE RED BOX ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE THE,
IS THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS REQUEST. 
          AND JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE FOUR LARGE BUILDINGS THERE IN
THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO JUST TO PROVIDE A FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR THIS. 
          THE TOWN SQUARE SUBDIVISION AND PROPERTY IN QUESTION FEATURES FOUR LARGE MIXED USE
STRUCTURES THAT CURRENTLY ALLOW FOR GENERAL RETAIL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDINGS AND APARTMENTS ON THE UPPER FLOORS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, IN 2015, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWED ONE BUSINESS PER EACH OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ON PREMISE PRIMARY USE,
SALES AND SERVICE OF ALCOHOL OR, IN OTHER TERMS, A BAR WELL KNOWN BY MOST. THE DEVELOPER IN RECENT YEARS HAS STATED THAT
SEVERAL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD EITHER BE ON PREMISE, PRIMARY USE IN SALES OR ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE SALES AND SERVICE BY A NON RESTAURANT
HAVE APPROACHED THE OWNERS ABOUT LEASING SPACE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. UNDER THE CURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL SALES BY NON RESTAURANT ARE NOT ALLOWED AND THE PRIMARY SALES ON PREMISE ARE RESTRICTED TO ONE ESTABLISHMENT PER BUILDING. 
          IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS NOT A RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT OR THE BUILDINGS. 
          MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ALLOW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BLEND RESIDENTIAL,
COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES AS AN INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT AND CAN PROVIDE RETAIL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL SERVICES FOR BOTH RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          IT IS NOTED THAT WHILE MANY PEOPLE ASSOCIATE ON PREMISE PRIMARY USE SALES OF ALCOHOL BARS, OTHER ON PREMISE PRIMARY USE SALES CAN ALSO INCLUDE BOUTIQUE BARS,
WINE BARS AND MICROBREWERIES, MICROBREWERIES, TO NAME A FEW. EXAMPLES OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN
INCIDENTAL USE SALES AND SERVICE BY NON RESTAURANT WOULD INCLUDE BUSINESSES SUCH AS INDOOR GOLF SIMULATORS, POOL HALLS, POOL HALLS AND ARCADES THAT ALSO SERVE ALCOHOL AS A
COMPONENT OF THEIR BUSINESS. 
          IN 2015, THE COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT THE TOWN SQUARE DEVELOPMENT WAS COMPOSED OF MANY KEY
ELEMENTS OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND BELIEVED THAT ON PREMISE PRIMARY USE SALES OF ALCOHOL COULD BE INCORPORATED AT AN AMOUNT OF ONE PER BUILDING AND STILL BE COMPLEMENTARY
TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING THE CHANGE IN ZONING TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER
OF ON PREMISE PRIMARY USE SALES OF ALCOHOL, AND TO ALSO ALLOW FOR INCIDENTAL USE, SALES AND SERVICE BY NON RESTAURANTS. 
          GIVEN RECENT INQUIRIES FROM PROSPECTIVE TENANTS THAT DESIRE TO LOCATE WITHIN THE TOWN
SQUARE AREA, DUE TO THE MIXED USE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE NUMBER OF ENTERTAINMENT TYPE USES
FEATURED WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITHIN TOWN SQUARE. 
          REGARDING CITY PLAN 2045, THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE CATEGORY. 
          THE STATED INTENT OF THIS CATEGORY IS TO PROVIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE,
EATING ACTIVITY AND AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN MIXED USE AND NON RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPES AND THE RESIDENTIAL PLACE TYPE. THE TYPE CALLS FOR A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND LOWER
DENSITY RETAIL, OFFICE AND OR SERVICE USES, OFTEN UTILIZING VERTICAL MIXED USE. 
          CITY PLAN DEFINES MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AS A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT,
WHERE MULTIPLE USES ARE INTERMIXED EITHER HORIZONTALLY OR VERTICALLY. 
          MIXED USE REFERS TO A COMBINATION OF HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL USES,
SUCH AS OFFICE, STOREFRONT, RETAIL OR SERVICES, AND RESTAURANT HOSPITALITY. 
          STATED GOALS OF CITY PLAN ARE THE PRIORITIZED MIXED USE CENTERS AND DESIRED ACTIVITY NODES
TO INCORPORATE MIXED USE AREAS STRATEGICALLY TO SMOOTH THE TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND MORE COMMERCIALLY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT IS NOTED THAT THIS MIXED USE AREA OF TOWN SQUARE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SECTION AT THE
PERIPHERY OF THE SACHSE ROAD AND HILLSIDE ROAD CORRIDOR, 
          [00:20:05]
AND THE SINGLE FAMILY AREA AS A TOWN SQUARE TO THE WEST AND NORTH. 
          THE DEVELOPERS OF THE OPINION THAT THE REQUESTED CHANGE WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF
THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE DEVELOPER WILL ULTIMATELY RETAIN CONTROL OVER WHO IS ALLOWED TO LEASE SPACE WITHIN EACH OF THE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY,
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED AN UPDATED SITE PLAN AS AN EXHIBIT WITH THE REQUESTED CHANGE. AND THIS IS READY FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          AND I WILL NOTE THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AS OF THIS MEETING TODAY. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. BRADY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR
ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM? IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS IN THE CITY. 
          YES. COLTON WILDER, 27 CRENSHAW DRIVE, AMARILLO,
TEXAS. 
          I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? MR.. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY FOR THE DEVELOPER,
BUT I DO HAVE ONE FOR STAFF. 
          IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO ASK THAT NOW? SURE. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE BETWEEN JUST I
MEAN, BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN BARS AND I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT ALL THE RESIDENTIAL
ACTIVITY THERE AND THE INVESTMENTS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN AND AROUND THE TOWN SQUARE AREA. SO IF WE DO THIS REZONING,
THEN ANYTHING THAT CONSTITUTES A BAR WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. YES. 
          AND WITHOUT THE RESTRICTION OF ONE PER BUILDING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. 
          AND IT WOULD ALSO ADD THE ABILITY FOR THE INCIDENTAL SALES AND USE AND CONSUMPTION BY NON
RESTAURANTS AS WELL. 
          AND I THINK WHERE I'M GOING WITH MY QUESTION AND I MIGHT REDIRECT TO YOU SIR ON THAT,
BUT I THINK WHERE I'M GOING WITH MY QUESTION IS THAT THE INCIDENTAL SALES SITUATION SEEMS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER,
BUT JUST OPENING BARS, ALL IN ALL, THAT VACANT SPACE, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT MIGHT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE REST OF
THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOU KIND OF GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT? YES, MA'AM. I THINK IT CAN FURTHER BE EXPLAINED THAT THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS INSIDE
THE DEVELOPMENT THAT PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE STOREFRONT AFTER MIDNIGHT. AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPER,
IN MY OPINION, TO GO THROUGH AND CONTROL THE USERS INSIDE OF THE SPACE TO TO PROVIDE AND MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THE REAL ESTATE AND THE USERS OF THOSE REAL ESTATE COMPONENTS. 
          AND IT'S BEEN CONVEYED TO ME THAT THE INTENT IS THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED AS THEY CONTINUE TO
DEVELOP AND PUT PEOPLE IN THOSE SPACES IS THAT THE, THE ENTERTAINMENT SIDE OF THE EQUATION IS CONTINUALLY EVOLVING. 
          AND THEIR CONCERN IS, IS IF YOU GET A VIRTUAL GOLF LOUNGE IN THERE,
WHAT THEIR PRIMARY INTENT TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR FOLKS TO DO VIRTUAL GOLF, WHO THEN HAVE A SUBSEQUENT CELLS AND ALCOHOL IS THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OF WHAT THAT RATIO OF
CELLS ENDS UP BEING. 
          AND SO THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY BE BOXED IN ON THE REMAINING VACANCIES. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THEN THAT THAT LEADS ME BACK TO YOU,
BRADY. 
          AND THAT IS IS THERE ANOTHER PATH TO DO THAT THAT WOULD BE LESS BROAD? AND WAS THAT EXPLORED AND DID IT JUST NOT WORK? JUST BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER THIS WAS THE WAY THAT THEY WANTED TO GO
WITH THIS REQUEST, WITH THE AGENT FOR THE DEVELOPER THAT WE WERE COMMUNICATING WITH. 
          THANK YOU. BRADY. DO YOU EVER TAKE YOUR SHOPPING CENTER RULES AND RECORD THEM OR ATTACH
THEM TO THE FILES? CAN YOU SPEAK MORE DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC? SORRY ABOUT THAT. DO YOU EVER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE SHOPPING CENTER RULES? MOST SHOPPING CENTERS HAVE A LANDLORD'S RULES. 
          THESE CAN BE AMENDED, BUT DO WE EVER TAKE THEM IN ON THE FILE AND MAYBE KEEP THEM A
RECORD? SO WHEN IT COMES TO DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE DEVELOPER MAY PUT
ON THE PROPERTY, THE CITY IS NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE, NOR ARE THOSE ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY. 
          SO WE'RE STRICTLY CONCERNED WITH AND LOOK AT IT FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE SIDE OF THINGS
SINCE DEED RESTRICTIONS CANNOT BE ENFORCED OR USED BY THE CITY. 
          SO SURE, JUST TRYING TO GET SOME MORE LIGHT ON IT. 
          IF IF IT'S NOT AN OBSTRUCTION OR AGAINST YOUR RULINGS TO ATTACH THOSE TO THE PACKAGE WOULD
BE HELPFUL FOR US AS A COMMISSION TO SEE THOSE RULES, TO GET A GLIMPSE OF WHAT THE LANDLORD AND WHAT I WILL SAY. 
          SPEAKING OF LIKE HOURS OF OPERATION, FOR EXAMPLE,
THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IF YOU ALL SAW FIT, THAT MAYBE YOU WANTED TO RESTRICT THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE PRIMARY
SALES ON PREMISE TO A CERTAIN TIME RANGE WITHIN DEVELOPMENT. 
          OR YOU COULD LOOK AT MAYBE GOING UP FROM ONE,
BUT NOT GOING UNLIMITED. 
          [00:25:01]
SO AS A COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF CHOICE HERE IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION
YOU COULD GO WITH THIS OR CHANGES YOU CAN MAKE TO THIS OR, OR PROPOSE TO THE DEVELOPER. AND THEN WE COULD COME BACK. SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT
DIRECTION YOU ALL WANT TO GO WITH IT ULTIMATELY. 
          IT'S ULTIMATELY A WAY FOR DEVELOPER TO STILL CONTROL HIS CENTER AND US NOT TO HAVE
OVERREACH. 
          COMMISSION AGREES. AND I THINK TO YOUR POINT,
JOSH, IT'S FURTHER IDENTIFIED IN TERMS OF HOURS OF OPERATION, OF WHAT THE TENANT MAY BE ABLE TO OPERATE WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS INSIDE THE LEASE
AGREEMENT AS WELL. 
          OTHER OTHER BUILDINGS, THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION AND THE COMMERCIAL OWNED BY ONE ENTITY OR
IS IT DIVIDED SOMEHOW OR OTHER? THEY ARE OWNED BY ONE ENTITY. OKAY. AND THAT'S YOU REPRESENT THEM AND AND I SUPPOSE
REPRESENT THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES. 
          SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. YEAH. YOU'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMERCIAL. 
          BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER AS A WHOLE. 
          SO I GUESS I WAS THINKING THE SAME WAY. SO I GUESS WE,
WE WOULD, WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING DETRIMENTAL TO HIS TENANTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THAT'S CORRECT. 
          YEAH. BRADY IS. I I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. BRADY. 
          AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE APPLICATION WOULD BE UNLIMITED AT ONE TIME. 
          IT WAS TO ONE PER BUILDING. YEAH. SO BACK IN 2015 BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WHEN TOWN SQUARE WAS
ESTABLISHED, IT WAS BASICALLY JUST GR USES IS WHAT, BUT THEN AT THAT POINT,
BACK IN 2015, THEY WANTED TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL ABILITY TO MAYBE HAVE THE YOU THAT PRIMARY ON PREMISE SALES AND SERVICES ADDED. AND BACK THEN,
THE CONCERN WAS ABOUT HOW FAR DO WE GO WITH THAT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? SO STAFF AND THE P AND Z AT THE TIME ARRIVED AT,
THEY FELT LIKE ONE OF THOSE USES PER BUILDING WAS APPROPRIATE. 
          SO IN 2015 IS WHEN THEY ADDED THAT USE ABILITY TO THE PROPERTY. 
          BEYOND THAT THOUGH, IT'S THE REST OF THE USE IS ALLOWED ON THAT RETAIL AREA. 
          IS JUST THOSE USES ALLOWED IN GR. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MY APOLOGIES. I'M REALLY TRYING TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE I FEEL GOOD ABOUT
THIS, BUT AT THIS POINT I'M JUST NOT THERE. I HAVE TWO THINGS. 
          ONE, ARE YOU EXCEEDING NOW OR NEEDING TO EXCEED NOW WITH A SPECIFIC REQUEST,
THE ONE PER BUILDING THAT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE? DO YOU HAVE BUILDINGS WHERE YOU ARE,
ALL YOUR BUILDINGS I GUESS, DO THEY ALL HAVE ONE? AND NOW YOU NEED TO GO TO TWO. YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT QUESTION FOR
ELENA TO ANSWER. 
          SHE'S SHE OVERSEES THE LEASING FOR THE DEVELOPER. 
          YOU WOULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF. HI, MY NAME IS ELENA PERPICH. 
          SO WHAT A DEVELOPER WANTS IS NOT TO BE LIMITED FOR ONE BAR PER BUILDING,
BUT NOT TO EXCEED FOUR BARS. 
          SO IF HE NEEDS TWO BARS FOR ONE BUILDING AND THEN ONE BUILDING WITHOUT A BAR,
AND THEN ANOTHER TWO WITH ONE EACH, BUT TOTAL OF FOUR JUST NOT LIMITED TO ONE PER BUILDING. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF IF ANOTHER, IF ONE BUILDING HAD FOUR OF THEM IN IT,
THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE FOUR. 
          EXACTLY. OKAY. AND I GUESS WHERE I'M, I'M THINKING RIGHT NOW THAT,
THAT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER MIGHT NOT ALWAYS OWN THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND WHILE HE'S BEEN A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND DONE EVERYTHING,
WE HAVE TO KIND OF THINK BROADLY THAT IT'LL TRACK WITH THE PROPERTY. 
          AND I WOULD FEEL MUCH BETTER ABOUT WHAT YOUR INTENT IS AND WHAT YOUR ASK IS IF IT WAS
SPECIFIC, AS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AS OF THIS MINUTE,
I'M, I'M, I'M TRACKING MORE TOWARD ASKING YOU TO PRESENT IT LIKE THAT RATHER THAN A FULL REZONING. THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT I,
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, AND I AM CONCERNED THAT WHILE YOUR PROPERTY IS INCREDIBLY UNIQUE,
I SPEND A LOT OF TIME THERE AND I FREQUENT THOSE BUSINESSES, BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH JUST A BLANKET REZONING. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND CINDI,
THE THE BLANKET MANNER OF JUST OPENING IT UP TO UNLIMITED AMOUNT ANY ALCOHOL TYPE USES. YEAH. AND, AND THE INCIDENTAL USE FOR ME SEEMS DIFFERENT THAN JUST ANY BAR ANYTIME,
ANYWHERE OF ANY KIND. 
          AND WHAT I'LL SAY WITH THIS BEING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST YOU ALL,
AS A COMMISSION COULD TWEAK OR AMEND THE PROPOSAL IN ANY MANNER YOU ALL MAY SEE FIT. 
          [00:30:03]
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THIS,
BUT FOR AN EXAMPLE, MAYBE YOU COULD SAY IF YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE INCIDENTAL SALES BY NON NON-RESTAURANT, YOU COULD OPEN IT UP TO THAT AND THEN LIKE SAY,
FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT THEY WERE MENTIONING IF INSTEAD OF DOING ONE PER BUILDING,
MAYBE FOUR PER THE BOUNDARY AS A TOTAL JUST THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF OPTIONS YOU ALL HAVE WHERE THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
YOU HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY AND ABILITY TO KIND OF SHAPE THIS OR PROPOSE SOMETHING ELSE AND SEE WHAT THE DEVELOPER THINKS. SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THAT
ABILITY WITH THIS REQUEST. 
          SO. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE WOULD FIND PALATABLE IN THAT VEIN? I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST KEEP THE NUMBER OF BARS AT FOUR IN TOTAL THAT ALLOWS THEM
TO HAVE THE DISCRETION TO CONTINUE TO SEEK NEW TENANTS AND RETAIN GOOD TENANTS. AND COMMITTING TO THE,
TO THE GOOD FAITH OF HOW THEY ORIGINALLY PRESENTED IT OF ONE PER BUILDING. 
          SO A TOTAL OF FOUR. AND I MIGHT ASK STAFF FOR A FOR HELP WITH WORDING THAT PROPERLY,
BUT THAT I WOULD. 
          WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING I COULD SUPPORT. AND OBVIOUSLY I'M JUST ONE COMMISSIONER,
BUT THAT WOULD GET ME WHERE I NEED TO BE. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE WAY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS WORDED IS THAT IT IS ONE BAR PER
BUILDING, ESSENTIALLY, OR ON PREMISE PRIMARY SALES USE SERVICE. 
          SO YOU ALL COULD CHOOSE TO AMEND THAT, THAT REQUIREMENT TO INSTEAD OF BEING ONE PER
BUILDING BEING FOR, FOR THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY. AND THE DEVELOPER CAN THEN DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO DISTRIBUTE
THAT. 
          IT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE AMONGST THE
BUILDING. INSTEAD OF SAYING IT'S ONE PER BUILDING, IT'S FOR FOR THAT WHOLE BOUNDARY THERE IN RED. AND WHAT I'LL ADD A LITTLE CONTEXT TO THIS TOO,
BECAUSE FROM SPEAKING TO MR. ROOS, WHO HAS BEEN, WHOSE STAFF HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH,
I KNOW THAT THEY HAD A APPLICANT FOR A LEASE SPACE IN THERE THAT WAS GOING TO FALL INTO THAT INCIDENTAL SALES CATEGORY. THAT WAS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE THAT
TRIGGERED THIS CONVERSATION TO BEGIN WITH, WITH STAFF A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO. SO THE INCIDENTAL SALES ASPECT OF THIS,
I THINK, IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS LOOKING TO ADDRESS AS WELL. 
          AND YOU ALL CAN SPEAK MORE TO THAT IF YOU WANT. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE THE OVERALL THEME HERE IS,
IS OBVIOUSLY MAKING SURE WE'RE ATTRACTING GOOD TENANTS, NUMBER ONE. BUT THEN NUMBER TWO IS THE, THE SWING AND SWELL OR THE CELLS IS OUTSIDE OF THE
DEVELOPER'S CONTROL, RIGHT? AND SO FROM A ENTERTAINMENT PERSPECTIVE,
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN GOOD TENANTS. SO SO IS WHAT I'M HEARING CORRECT? THAT PART OF THE,
ONE OF THE SLIDE ISSUES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE IF WE DO THAT, WHERE WE LIMIT IT TO JUST FOR, FOR THE WHOLE AREA,
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS MEANT TO BE INCIDENTAL, BUT THE CELLS HAPPEN TO SHIFT, MAYBE TEMPORARILY,
WHERE THEY END UP HAVING IT, WHERE A MAJORITY OF THEIR CELLS FOR A GIVEN TIME PERIOD ENDS UP OVER 50%, THEN THAT WOULD MAYBE LIMIT POTENTIAL PEOPLE WHO LIKE,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE VIRTUAL GOLFING, IF, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ONE MONTH, THEY HAPPEN TO BE REALLY GOOD WITH THEIR ALCOHOL SALES. 
          THIS WOULD MAYBE KIND OF BOX THEM OUT OF BEING ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO MAYBE ONE IDEA I WOULD HAVE IS MAYBE INSTEAD OF SAYING
FOUR FOR THE WHOLE AREA TO MAYBE GIVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY, WOULD MAYBE SAYING INSTEAD OF LIKE ONE FOR BUILDING WHAT
WE HAVE NOW OR JUST FOUR FOR THE WHOLE AREA WOULD MAYBE LIKE SIX FOR THE WHOLE AREA BETTER WORK WITH THAT LIMITATION OR. 
          I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THE DEVELOPER FROM THAT STANDPOINT. 
          BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS ALWAYS TO BE AT FOUR IN TOTAL OF BARS DEFINED. 
          RIGHT. AND SO I THINK THE THE REQUESTED REVISION HERE TODAY WOULD BE FROM ONE PER BUILDING
TO A TOTAL OF FOUR THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO SO WOULD THAT/ BECAUSE WHAT I'M THINKING IS LIKE IF IT'S SOMETHING LIKE A
VIRTUAL GOLF COURSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A BAR, IF WE LIMITED IT TO FOUR,
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A BAR, IF THAT VIRTUAL GOLF COURSE SOMEHOW ACCIDENTALLY EXCEEDED THAT, THEN THAT WOULD. THE ISSUE I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS IF THAT WOULD
THEN BLOCK A BAR FROM BEING ABLE TO EXIST. 
          SO WE'LL USE THE GOLF SIMULATOR BUSINESS AS AN EXAMPLE. 
          IN THIS CASE IF THEIR ALCOHOL SALES DON'T EXCEED 50%,
THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A BAR. 
          THEY WOULD FALL INTO THAT INCIDENTAL SALES AND USE CATEGORY BY NON RESTAURANT. 
          SO AS THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT EXISTS TODAY THEY CAN HAVE THE FOUR BARS AND THEN USE BY
RESTAURANTS AND THEN THE TEMPORARY AND OFF PREMISE. 
          [00:35:05]
BUT THAT INCIDENTAL SALES, WHICH WOULD POTENTIALLY BE THAT GOLF SIMULATOR,
WOULD STILL TECHNICALLY NOT BE ABLE TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THERE. 
          BECAUSE A BAR IS DEFINED AS AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT THE SALES OF ALCOHOL ARE GREATER THAN
50%. 
          SO THOSE INCIDENTAL USES LIKE A POOL HALL OR A GOLF SIMULATOR TYPE DEAL,
WHERE MAYBE THEY'RE AT 30, 25%, BUT THE REST OF THE SALES ARE MADE UP BY USING THE GOLF SIMULATOR,
THEN I THINK YOU WOULD ALL HAVE TO STILL ADDRESS THE INCIDENTAL SALES BY NON RESTAURANT ASPECT OF THIS AS WELL. YES. IF IF WE WANTED TO MAKE THIS AS WOULD THIS BE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OR HOW WOULD WE STRUCTURE THAT? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT AS THE
AMENDMENT. 
          IF IF WE CAN. SO WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE ON THE TABLE THAT WE CAME TO THE
MEETING WITH TODAY WAS TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ESSENTIALLY ALLOW ALL ALCOHOL SALE USE CATEGORIES WITHOUT A RESTRICTION OF ANY KIND ON THE NUMBER. 
          Y'ALL CAN TAKE THAT AND REFINE THAT IN A WAY THAT Y'ALL SEE FIT IF YOU WANT TO COUNTER
THAT. 
          AND SO YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND WHAT THE REQUEST WAS AND ADD ANY CONDITIONS
Y'ALL SEE FIT TO THAT. 
          AND CURRENTLY THE DEVELOPER HAS NO PROBLEM JUST HAVING THE FOUR ALLOWED BARS AS IT IS
CURRENTLY TODAY. 
          AS LONG AS THEY CAN DO IN ALL FOUR THROUGHOUT THE COMPLEX,
RATHER THAN JUST ONE PER BUILDING. 
          WE HAVE AN INCIDENTAL SALES TAX PROBLEM OR. ZONING ISSUE. 
          INCIDENTAL USE CATEGORY ISSUE. I JUST GOT ONE COMMENT. 
          TYPICALLY, MY UNDERSTANDING THE PLANNING AND ZONING,
WE NEED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENCES THAT ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED AGAINST SOME NEW BUSINESSES COMING IN. YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPERS GOT A MULTI MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR
DEVELOPMENT. 
          HE OWNS ALL THE, ALL THE ADJACENT STUFF. SO ARE WE PROTECTING HIM FROM? HIMSELF? IS THAT A, IS THAT A SOMETHING THE PLANNING AND ZONING NEEDS TO BE DOING? WELL, I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE TECHNICALLY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE WEST THERE, THE TOWNHOMES AND THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST. SO
TECHNICALLY THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED TO THE WEST THERE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD,
AND THAT'S THAT AREA IN ORANGE AND THE BROWNS AND YELLOWS BACK TO THE WEST THERE THAT BORDER THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE. SO BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING,
YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPICALLY A COMMISSION WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IS THE IMPACTS TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. 
          SO BUT THE IMMEDIATE AREA IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE FRONT DOOR OF WHAT WOULD BE A BAR. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THE PARKING LOTS ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE TOWNHOMES IMMEDIATELY TO
THE WEST THERE. 
          IT'S DEFINITELY IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. BUT LET'S BE CLEAR,
AREN'T WE? WERE WE ON THE SAME PAGE? THEY'RE CURRENTLY APPROVED AT FOUR BARS. 
          WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE. THERE'S JUST AN ISSUE WITH THE INCIDENTS,
INCIDENTAL CATEGORY. 
          RIGHT. IF YOU'RE A GOLF SIMULATOR. WHAT I UNDERSTOOD OUR SPEAKER TO SAY IS THAT RIGHT NOW
THOSE FOUR BARS ARE LIMITED TO ONE PER BUILDING AND THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT LIMITATION OFF. GOTCHA. AND THAT'S THAT SIMPLE. 
          OKAY. AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE,
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT AMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          LET'S HOLD UP JUST ONE SECOND. AND IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM, SINCE WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET? OKAY. SEEING NONE. 
          ALL RIGHT. MAKE A GOOD SHOT AT IT. AND I'M LOOKING AT CITY STAFF AND LEGAL OVER THERE. 
          SO YOU CAN SAVE ME FROM MYSELF IF I DON'T GET THIS RIGHT. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE PROPOSED REQUEST TO ELIMINATE IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY, ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO LOCATE ONE OF THE FOUR BARS IN EACH OF
THE SEPARATE BUILDINGS, AND ALLOW THE FOUR BARS TO BE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. 
          AND ON THAT BASIS, WITH THAT AMENDMENT, I MOVE TO APPROVE WITH ALONG WITH THE OTHER
REQUIREMENTS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED. 
          OKAY. SO LET ME PULL UP THE WORDING HERE. LET ME CLEAN IT UP. 
          FIX IT. YEAH, SURE. NO. THAT'S GOOD. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT? INSTEAD OF BAR, I WOULD LET'S. ON PREMISE PRIMARY SALES USE AND SERVICE. 
          THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT TO SAY. ON PREMISE PRIMARY USE AND SALES. 
          YEAH. SO BASICALLY WE WANT TO TAKE. SO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE RESTRICTION THAT IT'S ONE PER
BUILDING TO JUST FOUR FOR THE OVERALL BOUNDARY THAT TO BE LOCATED AT THE DEVELOPER'S 
          [00:40:02]
DISCRETION. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. 
          THAT'S HOW I HEARD IT OR MEANT TO SAY. AND THEN REGARDING THE ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL SALES
AND SERVICE BY NON RESTAURANT. 
          THAT'S THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT I THINK THE DEVELOPER ULTIMATELY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT TODAY. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT OR I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU ALL
THOUGH. 
          SO, SO MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD. I THOUGHT THAT THE,
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY PERMITS INCIDENTAL SALES WHEN THEY HAVE THAT 50% RATIO. 
          SO THE, SO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY WAS GR USES,
WHICH FOR ALCOHOL, THAT WOULD BE THE ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE SALES AND SERVICE BY RESTAURANT, OFF PREMISE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES AND TEMPORARY SALES ON OR OFF PREMISE. 
          IN 2015, THEY ADDED THE ABILITY TO DO ONE PER BUILDING OF THE ON PREMISE PRIMARY SALES,
USE AND SERVICE. 
          THE 2015 AMENDMENT, THOUGH, DID NOT ADD THE ABILITY TO DO THAT ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE
AND SALES BY NON RESTAURANT. 
          SO WITH THE AMENDMENT AS IT IS CURRENTLY THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED,
IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE ON PREMISE USE OF SALES BY NON RESTAURANT STILL. SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON WHERE THINGS STAND AT THE
MOMENT. 
          AND THAT WAS MY INTENT TO ALLOW THAT AS WELL. 
          SO SINCE THE FIRST ONE DID NOT HAVE A SECOND,
MAY I OFFER A SECOND STAB AT IT? SURE. SO I MOVE THAT WE AMEND TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION THAT THE ON PREMISE PRIMARY SALES BE LOCATED ONE PER BUILDING TO ALLOW THOSE TO BE LOCATED,
THE SAME NUMBER FOUR TO BE LOCATED THROUGHOUT AND TO PERMIT THOSE USES THAT INVOLVE INCIDENTAL SALES. 
          SO ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE SALES AND SERVICE BY NON RESTAURANT. 
          BY NON. ALLOWED. YES. REAL QUICK ARE YOU AMENDING THE. 
          IT'S ME OVER HERE. OH YES. CODY. SORRY. YOU'RE GOOD. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. IT'S LIKE IS THAT YOU. ARE YOU ARE YOU AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OR ARE YOU
AMENDING THE THE ORIGINAL PD. 
          AND I, I THINK IT WAS THE PROPOSAL. THE PROPOSAL WAS MY INTENT,
BUT I THINK I, WHEN I, WHEN BRADY DESCRIBED WHAT WE WERE DOING, I WASN'T SURE. I THINK THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION. 
          AM I AMENDING THIS PROPOSAL OR ARE WE CHANGING EVERYTHING AND DOES IT NEED TO COME BACK? YES, MA'AM. YOU CAN AMEND THE PROPOSAL. SO IF MY THOUGHT IS THE PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW HAS THE
INCIDENTAL USES. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE UNLIMITED PRIMARY USES. YOU WANT TO PROBABLY AMEND THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT
TO FOUR PRIMARY USE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY, NOT LIMITED TO A SINGLE STRUCTURE. 
          YES. SO THAT WOULD TAKE US BACK TO MY FIRST ONE REFERENCING THE PROPOSAL,
NOT THE THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 
          YES. THAT IS CORRECT. HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WHO'S LISTENING UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE INTENT IS IF
WE CAN JUST GET THE WORDING RIGHT. 
          AND JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THE ON PREMISE INCIDENTAL USE SALES AND SERVICE BY NON
RESTAURANTS, YOU'RE PROPOSING TO ADD THAT USE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF RESTRICTION. 
          NO. TRUE. YES. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YEP. THAT'S RIGHT. 
          YEP. THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE'RE WE'RE GOOD. SO I. 
          WE DIDN'T GET CLARIFICATION ON THE RECORD. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YES WE DID. 
          I DIDN'T HEAR IT. SAYING THAT THE PROPOSAL ALREADY HAS THAT ADDRESSED IN IT. 
          YES. OKAY. WE'RE JUST MODIFYING YOUR, YOUR MOTION IS TO JUST MODIFY THE PROPOSAL TO LIMIT
PRIMARY USE, SALES AND SERVICE TO FOUR WITHIN THE BOUNDARY. 
          NOT LIMITED TO A SINGLE STRUCTURE. THAT IS IT. 
          YES. THANK YOU. AND I'M SORRY. THAT WAS I TRIED TO MAKE A CAREER OUT OF THAT MOTION. 
          I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          SO THIS MOTION WOULD BE TO MODIFY THE PROPOSAL. 
          BUT US VOTING ON CHANGING THIS PROPOSAL WE WOULD THEN NEED TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON WHETHER OR
NOT TO APPROVE THAT OR WOULD VOTING ON THIS AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSAL ALSO COUNTS AS VOTING TO APPROVE THE ACTUAL ITEM ITSELF. 
          YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY, BUT I'LL LET YOU CAN DO IT EITHER WAY. 
          SO EITHER THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE WITH THAT MODIFICATION OR THE MOTION IS TO MODIFY IT. 
          YOU MODIFY IT AND THEN YOU APPROVE IT. SO AND AND THE MOTION AS STATED ORIGINALLY WAS TO
APPROVE WITH THAT MODIFICATION THE PROPOSAL. 
          YES. SO YOU CAN DO IT THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE MOTION. 
          OKAY. SO WE HAVE THAT MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. JOSH. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MODIFIED MOTION AS STATED RAISE
YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          [00:45:01]
AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I WAS GOING TO ASK BEFORE I CAST MY VOTES. 
          WANTED TO CLARIFY FROM THE DEVELOPER, THE REPRESENTATIVE,
IF THAT IS THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE LATE LAST WEEK. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN AGREEABLE OUTCOME FOR THE DEVELOPER. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I WOULD CAST MY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION IN FAVOR. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO DICK, DID WE GET A VOTE FROM YOU OR YOU? YEAH. VOTED. OKAY. GOOD. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. MOVING ALONG. ITEM 4.F BRADY. YEAH. 
          [4.F. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning Case 2026-197-Z  Rezoning of 17.78 acres of unplatted land, located in Section 65, Block 9, B.S.& F. Survey,  Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to  change 1.38 acres of land from Agricultural District to Moderate Density District 1 and 16.40  acres of land from Agricultural District to Residential District 3. (VICINITY: Soncy Rd. &  John Thomas St.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for P DUB Land Holdings  LTD) ]
SO 4.F IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF REZONING 2026-197-Z. 
          THIS IS THE REZONING OF 17.78 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND. 
          THIS IS LOCATED IN RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF SONCY ROAD AND JOHN THOMAS
STREET. 
          THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE 17.78 ACRES, 1.38 ACRES OF WHICH WOULD BE FROM AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT, AND 16.4 ACRES OF THAT WOULD BE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THREE,
PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BUILDINGS, STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC WAYS. AND THE APPLICANT IS FIRM AND LAND SURVEYORS INC. 
          FOR P DUB LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED. AND THIS CHANGE IS TO FACILITATE THE NEXT PHASE OF THE
HERITAGE HILLS SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION. 
          AND IT WOULD FEATURE A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND ATTACHED HOMES. 
          AND THE AREA WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN THAT THIS REQUEST IS FOR IS ON YOUR SCREEN,
OUTLINED IN RED THERE. 
          THE CITY PLAN PLACE TYPES FOR THIS IS NEIGHBORHOOD LOW AND NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM,
WHICH THIS REQUEST WOULD CONFORM WITH. 
          AND THIS WOULD BE THE NEXT PHASE OF THE HERITAGE HILL SUBDIVISION. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE
REQUEST FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN, AND THIS WOULD CONFORM WITH THAT. AND IT IS ALSO IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLAN 2045. 
          AS OF THE MEETING TODAY WE HAVE HAD NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM AND IT IS READY FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. IS ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF THIS
ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. 
          COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDS. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. JOSH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. LANDON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. MOTION APPROVED. 4.G. YES. 4.G. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF REZONING 
          [4.G. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning Case 2026-198-Z  Rezoning of 9.07 acres of unplatted land, 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  Residential District 3 to Moderate Density District 1. (VICINITY: S.E. 46th Ave. & Stoney  Fork St.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for PEGA Development, LLC)]
2026-198-C THE REZONING OF 9.07 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND IN SECTION 173,
BLOCK TWO OF RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNDARY STREETS,
ALLEYS AND PUBLIC WAYS TO CHANGE FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THREE, THE MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT ONE IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHEAST 46TH AVENUE AND STONEY FORK
STREET. 
          THE APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR PEGA DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING THIS CHANGE IN ZONING FOR AN UPCOMING PHASE OF THE TREATMENT SQUARE SUBDIVISION AND THE CHANGE FOR TO MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT ONE WOULD ALLOW FOR A
SMALLER BASELINE LOT SIZE AND WOULD ALLOW FOR OTHER RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS, SUCH AS DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES. AND REGARDING THE CITY PLAN 2045 PLACE TYPES,
I WILL NOTE THAT IT IS THE RESERVE AND PORTIONS OF IT ARE THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT OR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CATEGORY. 
          AND THIS IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE TRADEWINDS SQUARE SUBDIVISION THAT IS CURRENTLY
UNDER DEVELOPMENT. 
          IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THREE AND FEATURES AN ODD SHAPED AND IS ALSO
LOCATED TO. 
          ADJACENT TO AN UNBUILT STREET RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS INTENDED TO BE VACATED IN THE FUTURE
AND GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS AT THE PERIPHERY OF THE SECTION AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DENSER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE FORM OF SMALLER
BASELINE LOTS OR TOWNHOMES ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE SUBDIVISION WOULD POTENTIALLY BE RECOMMENDED AND WAS WHAT WAS INDICATED ON THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY
PLAN THAT'S BEEN THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY FOR THIS AREA. 
          THOSE LOTS THAT HATCHED OUT THERE WERE INTENDED TO BE REZONE MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT. 
          AND ANALYZING THE ADJACENT ZONING LAND USE PATTERNS,
THE PROPOSAL WOULD ESTABLISH A TRANSITION AND ZONING AND USES THAT WOULD TRANSITION FROM MORE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES TO A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH THIS HIGHER
DENSITY PRODUCT IN THE MIDDLE. 
          AND REGARDING CITY PLAN 2045, WE DO NOTE THAT THE REQUEST TECHNICALLY DOES NOT CONFORM
WITH THAT PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DEFINITION DESIGNATION, AND IT APPEARS, BASED OFF OF OUR RESEARCH AND LOOKING BACK AT WHEN THOSE CATEGORIES WERE
ESTABLISHED AT THIS AREA, MAY HAVE BEEN SIGNED AT CATEGORY AND ERROR, AND WILL BE CORRECTED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
UPDATE AT A LATER DATE. 
          [00:50:06]
AND REGARDING THE RESERVE CATEGORY, THAT IS TYPICALLY A PLACEHOLDER UNTIL DEVELOPMENT
TRENDS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR AN AREA, WHICH IN THIS CASE THE DEVELOPMENT TREND THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED IS SINGLE FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE REQUEST WOULD HELP ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF CITY PLAN,
INCLUDING INCREASING THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING PRODUCTS AVAILABLE WITHIN A SUBDIVISION AND ESTABLISH A MORE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT PERTAINS TO THE COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD
SCENARIO. REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY AS OF THE MEETING TODAY. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. BRADY. IS THERE ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF
OF THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT'S KIND OF INCIDENTAL TO THE DISCUSSION HERE REGARDING THAT. 
          A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR THE,
I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT KIND OF REGULARLY REVISITING AND LOOKING AT UPDATING IT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD GO TOO DEEP INTO IT SINCE IT'S NOT
AN AGENDA ITEM, BUT COULD WE MAYBE GET AN UPDATE AS TO LIKE WHERE THAT PROCESS IS OR KIND OF WHAT THAT
PROCESS IS PLANNED TO LOOK LIKE? WE COULD DEFINITELY DISCUSS THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. 
          DEFINITELY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD. BRADY. 
          I'M ON THE SAME TRACK RELATED TO THE PARK COMMENT. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE OF IN ITS CATEGORY OR PLACEMENT IS WRITTEN CURRENTLY FOR PARK? WHAT IS IT A PERCENTAGE? SO WHAT'S UNUSUAL ABOUT IT AND WHY STAFF THINKS IT MAY HAVE BEEN
AN ERROR. 
          THAT'S SIMPLY THE STRIP THAT THE ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW. 
          THOSE LOTS THAT ARE HATCHED OUT IN THAT MANNER,
THEY ACTUALLY FOLLOW THAT EXACT SAME SAME BACKWARDS L SHAPE. 
          AND IT LEFT EVERYTHING BACK TO THE WEST OF THAT AS THE RESERVE CATEGORY. 
          SO IT DOESN'T IT'S NOT LIKE THEY HAD THIS WHOLE AREA BLOCKED OUT AS A POTENTIAL PARK. 
          THEY JUST FOLLOW THAT LITTLE STRIP LIKE THAT. 
          SO WE'RE NOT SURE WHENEVER THAT CONSULTANT THAT DEVELOPED THAT MAP,
IF THAT WAS JUST AN ERROR WHERE THEY INTENDED TO MAYBE USE ONE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DENSER NEIGHBORHOOD CATEGORIES,
AND IT JUST DIDN'T GET CAUGHT BEFORE IT WAS ADOPTED. 
          BUT BASED ON THE WAY IN WHICH IT'S PRESENTED ON THE MAP,
WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY ACTUALLY INTENDED THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A PARK SPACE. 
          WE FELT LIKE MAYBE A CATEGORY JUST GOT ASSIGNED AN ERROR TO THIS PROPERTY,
GIVEN THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED ON THE MAP. 
          BUT IN MODERATE DENSITY, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR GREENSCAPE AND PARK LIKE AMENITIES THAT
WOULD COVER. 
          YEAH. SO WHENEVER, FOR EXAMPLE, WE ANNEX PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY,
THERE IS A PARKLAND REQUIREMENT WHERE THERE'S A RATIO AND CALCULATION THAT WE DO, ESPECIALLY WHENEVER WE ANNEX AND BRING NEW PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY,
ESPECIALLY. 
          SO. SO THAT'S THE TIMES THAT WE, WE REALLY LOOK AT THAT IS WHENEVER WE'RE BRINGING NEW
PROPERTY IN. 
          THANK YOU BRADY. NO PROBLEM. ANYBODY ELSE. IF NOT,
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS? I MOVE TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. DICK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. 
          THANK YOU NOAH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. MOTION IS APPROVED. 4.H. 4.H IS A CONSIDERATION OF REZONING. 
          [4.H. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoing Case 2026-199-Z  Rezoning of 24.81 acres of land, in Section 107, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter and  Randall County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to  change from Residential District 1 to Residential District 3. (VICINITY: Eastern. St. & S.E.  29th Ave.; APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Christolie Limited)]
2026-199-Z. THIS IS 24.81 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND LOCATED IN POTTER AND RANDALL COUNTY,
TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF EASTERN STREET AND SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST 29TH AVENUE. 
          APPLICANT IS FURMAN LAND SURVEYORS, INC. FOR CHRISTOLIE LIMITED,
AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNDING STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC WAYS FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ONE TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THREE. 
          AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITH 130 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES THAT
WILL BE BUILT TO R-3 STANDARDS. 
          AND YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER THIS. WE CONSIDERED A ALLEY WAIVER FOR THIS NOT TOO LONG AGO WITH
THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAN. 
          SO THE LAYOUT THAT'S PROPOSED IS ON THE SCREEN CURRENTLY AND IS LOCATED ALONG EASTERN
STREET AND IS ON THE FAR SIDE OF A SECTION OF LAND THAT IS LARGELY UNDEVELOPED, EXCEPT FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALONG THE I-40 FRONTAGE,
AND THIS IS WITHIN THE APPROVED CAPROCK LANDING PRELIMINARY PLAN BOUNDARY, AND IT WOULD CONFORM WITH THE PLACE TYPE IDENTIFIED FOR THE PROPERTY OF NEIGHBORHOOD LOW. 
          GIVEN THE ANTICIPATED DENSITY OF 5.24 UNITS PER ACRE AND IN THE OPINION OF STAFF,
THAT DOES MEET THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF CITY PLAN 2045 BY INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL HOUSING TYPES. 
          TO THIS PORTION OF THE CITY THAT ARE LARGELY ABSENCE FROM THE AREA. 
          THAT BEING DENSER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AT THE
PERIPHERY OF THE SECTION, HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS AND NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES ARE TYPICALLY RECOMMENDED
IN SUCH LOCATION. 
          [00:55:05]
AND WHEN EXAMINING THE EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS FOUND IN THE AREA,
STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE REQUEST COULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA GIVEN THESE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS. REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT,
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ON THIS ITEM AS OF TODAY. 
          AND WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY IN OUR AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR ON BEHALF OF
THIS ITEM? IS THERE ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE,
COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SO IN IN READING THE ANALYSIS IS THAT EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY? IS THAT AS FAR EAST AS THEY COULD GO WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE AIRPORT OVERLAY? SO THERE IS ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS THAT COULD BE
DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS. 
          IT'S MAINLY THAT EASTERN THIRD OF THAT SQUARE MILE SECTION. 
          OKAY. THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SECTION WHERE YOU START RUNNING INTO THOSE ISSUES AT THE
AIRPORT ZONING OVERLAY. 
          BUT THIS PROPERTY AND SOME OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY AROUND IT THEORETICALLY COULD STILL
BE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES BEFORE YOU START BUMPING UP AGAINST THAT AIRPORT OVERLAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE ANY ANYBODY WANTING TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE AS REQUESTED. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. CINDI, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. 
          THANK YOU. FRED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. MOTION APPROVED. ITEM 4.I. BRADY. YES. 4.I IS ANOTHER REZONING AND PUBLIC 
          [4.I. Public Hearing and Consideration of Rezoning Case 2026-200-Z   Rezoning of 355.40 acres of unplatted land in Section 93, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter  County, Texas, plus one-half of all bounding streets, alleys, and public ways, to change from  Agricultural District to Light Industrial District. (VICINITY: Lakeside Dr. & N.E. 24th Ave.;  APPLICANT/S: Furman Land Surveyors, Inc. for Happy Horizons Properties LP) ]
HEARING OF CASE 2026-200-Z. AND THIS IS THE REZONING OF 355.4 ACRES OF UNPLATTED LAND
LOCATED IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE VICINITY OF LAKESIDE DRIVE IN NORTHEAST 24TH AVENUE. 
          THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, PLUS ONE HALF OF ALL BOUNTY [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC
WAYS. 
          THE CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND THE APPLICANT IS
FIRM AND LAND SURVEYORS INC. 
          FOR HAPPY HORIZON PROPERTIES. AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES. 
          WHILE EXACT DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED FOR THE PROPERTY,
THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ZONE THE PROPERTY TO CONTINUE THE EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS PARK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ANCHORED BY THE AMAZON WAREHOUSE ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THERE AT
THE INTERSECTION OF NORTHEAST 24TH AND THE LOOP 335. THE CITY PLAN 2045 CASE TYPE IS THE RESERVED CATEGORY,
AND THIS IS LOCATED IN NORTHEAST AMARILLO, ADJACENT TO THE CENTER PORT INDUSTRIAL PARK ALONG LOOP 335 AND NORTHEAST 24TH. 
          A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED WAS SOLD AND DEVELOPED AT THAT AMAZON
WAREHOUSE, AND THE REQUEST FOR THIS REZONING IS TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON
THE PROPERTY. 
          INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT DID INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING THE ZONING
FURTHER WEST FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY, BUT DUE TO THE EAST RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF WHITTAKER
ROAD, THE DEVELOPER, UPON CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF,
WAS AGREEABLE TO LEAVING THE WEST 600FT OF THE PROPERTY OUT OF THE REQUEST UNTIL A MORE DEFINITE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT PLAN COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT PROPERTY. 
          THAT WOULD ESTABLISH AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION AND ZONING BETWEEN EAST RIDGE AND THE
INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTY. 
          SO THERE WILL BE A 600 FOOT GAP THAT'S LEFT ZONED AG BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE EAST
RIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, AS NOTED, IS BOUNDED BY NORTHEAST 24TH LOOP 335 AND A RAILROAD
RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY VIEWED AS
APPROPRIATE FOR HIGHER VOLUMES OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD TYPICALLY SERVE AN INDUSTRIAL OR BUSINESS PARK. ADDITIONALLY, GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED ON SEVERAL SIDES BY
INDUSTRIAL ZONING AND OR USES, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA WOULD ALSO BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE REQUEST,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A ZONING AND LAND USE BUFFER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT A LATER DATE. LIKE I MENTIONED, THE PLACE TYPE FOR THIS CATEGORY,
THIS PROPERTY IS THAT RESERVE CATEGORY WHICH IS TYPICALLY UTILIZED AS A PLACEHOLDER UNTIL THAT GIVES FLEXIBILITY UNTIL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
AND PATTERNS CAN BE BETTER DEFINED. 
          AND IN THIS INSTANCE, GIVEN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AMAZON WAREHOUSE AT THE CORNER OF
NORTHEAST 24TH IN THE LOOP, ALONG WITH THE ABUTTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AROUND THE PROPERTY,
IT IS THE OPINION OF STAFF THAT THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA WOULD SUPPORT EXPANSION OF INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES TO THIS PROPERTY. 
          OTHER GOALS OF CITY PLAN THAT THIS REQUEST WOULD BE IN LINE WITH INCLUDE FACILITATING THE
GROWTH OF AMARILLO AS A REGIONAL DESTINATION FOR RETAIL, TRADE AND LOGISTICS, AND STRATEGICALLY DEVELOPING LAND AROUND THE AIRPORT AS AN IMPORTANT
EMPLOYMENT CENTER IN EAST AMARILLO. 
          [01:00:04]
THE REQUEST, BY ALSO INCORPORATING THAT 600 FOOT BUFFER WOULD ALSO PROTECT THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE USES, AND WOULD ALSO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL AREA FROM ENCROACHMENT BY POTENTIAL NON-COMPATIBLE
USES. 
          SO WITH THAT PUBLIC COMMENT WISE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS AS OF THIS MEETING
TODAY. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. BRADY. 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? MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ASK BRADY. SO I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE THAT
BUFFER. 
          CAN YOU GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT BUFFER MIGHT BE UTILIZED IN THE FUTURE? IF, IF IT WERE TO CONVERT FROM AG? SURE. SO LOOKING AT OUR CITY PLAN CATEGORIES,
I THINK THAT BUFFER WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IDEAL FOR THAT MIXED USE DESIGNATION WHERE MAYBE WE, INSTEAD OF BEING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES,
YOU LOOK AT SOME MIXED USE WITH MAYBE SOME RETAIL MULTIFAMILY ITEMS LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF THE FULL BLOWN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TYPE USES. 
          SO. SO IT'S WOULD I BE CORRECT IN SAYING BECAUSE OF THAT AIRPORT OVERLAY,
IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL USE AT ALL. 
          EVEN. I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE NOISE MAP. BUT IF THAT,
IF THAT 600 FOOT GAP WAS ENCUMBERED BY THAT NOISE BUFFER NOISE BOUNDARY OF THE ZONING OVERLAY FOR THE AIRPORT, THEN IT COULD NOT BE THINGS SUCH AS SINGLE FAMILY,
MULTIFAMILY TRAILER PARKS, THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. SO AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE LIMITED POTENTIALLY TO
NON RESIDENTIAL USES OR TRANSIENT TYPE USES, WHICH ARE HOTELS, FOR EXAMPLE. SO. BUT YES, YOU ARE CORRECT THOUGH THAT IF THAT AREA IS IN
THE NOISE OVERLAY, THEN THAT WOULD RESTRICT ITS ABILITY TO BE SINGLE FAMILY OR ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL
PRODUCT FOR THAT MATTER. 
          OKAY. SO IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THAT WILL REMAIN AG USE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. 
          YES. AG USE OR MAYBE MAYBE A MORE RETAIL TYPE ORIENTED AREA PERHAPS,
OR OFFICE AREA. 
          BECAUSE THE NOISE BOUNDARY DOES NOT PROHIBIT NONRESIDENTIAL USES. 
          IT JUST THERE'S SOME ENHANCED BUILDING CODE ITEMS THAT ARE NEEDED TO DAMPEN THE NOISE. 
          BUT RETAIL, OTHER TYPES OF NONRESIDENTIAL USES WOULD BE ALLOWABLE THOUGH WITH CERTAIN
CONDITIONS. 
          THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM. THAT STRIP OF LAND IS NOT WITHIN THE NOISE BOUNDARIES. 
          OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ONE QUESTION I HAD AND I MIGHT BE MISREMEMBERING IS THAT AREA TO THE NORTH OF 24TH WHERE THE NEW HIGHLAND PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAMPUS IS SUPPOSED
TO BE? THAT IS CORRECT. YES. I KNOW THE. SO THAT'S THE PROPERTY THAT HIGHLAND PARK OWNS. 
          YOU'RE CORRECT. I KNOW THE SOUTH THIRD OF THAT PROPERTY. 
          THEY WERE INTENDING TO GO MORE NONRESIDENTIAL RIFF,
BUT NORTH OF THAT THIRD IS WHERE THAT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT SCHOOL IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. I THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS IT FOR ME. 
          I WAS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT HESITANT TO ASK THAT QUESTION,
BECAUSE I KNOW THE IDEA OF IF WE PUT A NEIGHBORHOOD THERE MIGHT KIND OF MAKE MORE WORRIED ABOUT PASSING. OF COURSE, I'M A FREE MARKET GUY. 
          SUPPORT ANY REZONING, BUT I JUST HAD TO ASK THAT BECAUSE. 
          ANYBODY ELSE? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. CINDI. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LANDON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR,
RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. 
          AYE. MOTION APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. BRADY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US THIS AFTERNOON? NOPE. THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. 
          OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. IT IS 4:05 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.