Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I need a motion to approve minutes. Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor? [Music]

All right. One thing I'd like to do right now too, if somebody wants to make a motion instead of making uh the new business over the plant, wait for us to discuss the we can go ahead and reverse those and put new business before old. Somebody will make a motion to do that. I any discussion? All in favor? I. All right, then we will go to new business on a full preliminary. Mayor, do you want to do public comment just in case?

Oh, yeah. Is there any public comment at this time on the agenda items? I see Adam, would you like to come up and speak on your on the class? from house. Okay. That's all right with you. Y introduce yourself, Dave, please. Jton with project. You're gonna have a little

Sorry. JW on the engineer project. So what we've got seven proposed new buildings uh three and one that holds the schoolhouse is planned to be renovated 29 units for that um expansion of the existing parking lot there. This would be phase uh lot and the park expansion pension area would be but after the police department moves those buildings to fund out the rest of the lots one through seven uh would be phase one. So phase two is just your parking lot.

Uh parking lot lot eight and the detention and that's where the uh the existing police station is right now. And then the original building there, the the old school house.

Oh, yep. That's planned to be renovated uh into In your staff report on page two and three, it it goes over um the list of uh the water, sanitary sewer, all of those that are listed on the actual preliminary plat. He kind of breaks it down for you if you have any questions there. Um, she did she did just to reiterate, she did state that phase one is lot one through seven, uh, track A and they're commencing that in 2025. And then you said the, uh, phase two, lot A, um, track B would be after the, um, the other the police department building is is down. So that's too to be determined.

Yeah. So does uh I guess address you does um the new the blocks one through seven through seven. Um how are the setbacks and everything on that? Everything perfectly normal and the same as it would be without a PUD or is this

Yep. This is to our current code since the PUD is not approved yet. And we did send um the preliminary plot to our engineers to review a city code. So that's if you look in your packet um just after the staff report pages um you'll see the email with from Benheimes um from all state and um their the letter on all state letter home. So the first page is the the review letter that states that um the few things that were needed to be addressed and those my understanding those have been addressed by the applicant.

I did that. Yeah. I don't know letter. did the all state. You have that state engineering. Yeah. Yeah. I was talking about parking. Well, was it? That's correct. Anybody have any questions?

What is it that we need to do? We need to accept the plan the preliminary plan. Yeah. The zoning or anything changing there or

Nope. it's already um they're moving forward with the existing zone which is R3 and um so so per our ordinance they're required to submit the preliminary plat and then they'll submit a final plat once they've got construction plans and things like that kind of solidified. So the preliminary plat is required to show like contours and um that type of detail. So we just sent this to our engineers to make sure that all the details that are required of our ordinance was verified and was included in the preliminary plot. So the the biggest thing on here was that um the parking per ordinance parking spaces should be at least 20 ft in length and um so really a variance would be required for 18 feet long parking stalls. She said there's like 18

and then they um 18 foot in length and then item one was clarified by the applicant and has been updated. Okay. So they were going to have what two spaces per unit.

No. So that's what the um the next page um references. So and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I tried to just we just tried to kind of piece it together, but we counted 95 parking stalls and what would be required to do two parking stalls per unit would be um 100 I believe. So they're five parking stalls short. Um and so that's where the email behind that letter from All State. Um, so we just wanted to get clarification on that from them. And um, so that email is kind of stating his the engineer's thoughts on the five short parking stalls. Um, he references that since it is a senior living facility that that what we're what our code is requiring is pretty substantial. Um so he references in that email that um um Kansas City requ for senior living Kansas City would require um one parking sp stall for every three units. Um the city of Lee Summit requires one per unit plus one per employee on the maximum shift and the city of Blue Springs requires one and a half per unit. So

I don't remember is there on street parking around Um, it's pretty minimal for the

I think with that way. I feel like you know as we talked last week about parking and how that's an issue. I feel like that could be a big issue there even with seniors like you know they need you know friends will come over and family. Yeah.

Multiple family people. One of the things that I um just did some kind of research on was our existing senior housing that we have. Um I just kind of had to Google map it, but based on um my counts, it appears that the existing senior apartments onway have it looks very close to one um one parking stall per unit on the current senior apartment. So, how long were those? They've been there a very long time,

but also not somewhere that we see like major parking issues or anything either. So, this is this is at the the old junior high location, right? Is this all the property that we're seeing right here or is it Yes. I think we need more parking space for the place because I live on the street that there is so many cars that we can't see the sign.

Right. So our our code would only be requiring them to add five more parking stalls. Do they have room for that? Yes, we have room to uh expand the parking. We were just opting for a little bit more green space this time, but we could definitely expand that. I'm assuming that this guy and are going on down the line going to be asking for green space. Is there going to be any kind of green space in this or Yes. Once there,

we've got track A kind of in the situated in the middle between uh lots two and seven kind of the center of that courtyard. We've got uh everything that's not on blinds is all open green space. Um and then also part of the attention trapped to be green space. The way this is placed, it looks to me like that when you put it on here, it's like this here is a part of the parking. Is this part of the parking space there? Is there now? I believe if you're looking near I'm looking at

Yeah. 7 through six. Yeah. So, there's currently an existing playground look. So, that's what they're talking about. That's the one on the south side of the building. Correct. It's a It's a park right now. Right. I know where she's talking about. And then the existing drive that's there today would be where they would add um parking stalls. The 23 row of 23 parking stalls. Yeah, that's existing. Yeah,

I agree. Would the B coming out of the green space? Yes. Yes. What's more important? I don't know. I don't either. There should probably enough cars on that street already that they they don't park in their driveways. They're parking on street. Go up down first. You'll see.

I'm right. That's where I live. That's reason. So then is the board recommending it get sent back for yes or can we pencil that in that it needs that needs to be added and we can approve it with that being a um part of it

I can ask um Lindsay so if they're wanting they're wanting the five additional parking stalls to be included so how would the board um approve this agenda item wouldn't that Um, yeah, it's just on there as the preliminary plat for this parcel. Is that the only That's the only variant that we're looking at. Well, there's also the 18 foot versus 20 foot length.

There are two uh other variances that are listed in the in the corner of the plan. the lot area requirements for lots eight based on the code it's 8400 square ft plus 2,000 square ft for every unit over two. Um so don't quite do that for lot eight uh because of the detention and then lot one with there being 29 units it will be very large kind of lot and then the other variance is the sideyard interior setback from the existing building. So then the setbacks aren't really what our codes are right now

or lot one or just lot one only which is the 1912 building and we can uh move that lot line to provide the side back or side setback. It would just the lot line would be about in the middle of the driveway. We're trying to keep that as a trap. Keep which one is a tract?

Um that that area. So if we take the side lot line on the interior of lot one and move that uh south the required 10 ft believe maybe 13 on this one. We could meet that. It would just have part of the main driveway. Can you show me real quick? There's the lot line on this. We can bring that down because our other lot is here and this is the track, but we can bring that down and just provide an easement for access through there. But it wouldn't change the

But today the the driveway goes is the driveway now go that close to the to the building. So, it's not changing anything from what's existing there today then in reality because the drive runs right along the side of that building or the old 1912 building. So it' really just kind of be on paper because they're not going to be able to move the road. Is there for fire in between these two through seven? So

Adam's a firefighter. How do we what are fire trucks doing to get to the So they are all fronting uh public streets and then also the private street would uh in the center there would be a essentially a fire line.

And so the lot area for your first variance lot area for lot one and lot eight and is that that's based on the R3 lot area requirement. Correct. It does. Looking at law eight again. Law eight does. Now, can we go ahead and pass that or does that have to go to a board of variance?

Now, how does that work, Lindsay? If there's variances on the preliminary plot, does it go to BZA or after approval or can how does this work? So we would if if there are three variances currently listed on the plat, those would have to be approved by BZA before this plaque can be recorded with the county recorder. We could you could recommend approval with the condition that there is another variance. Um I think I heard the parking requirement. So if if you would like to approve tonight with conditions, you can do so. So, you'd be you would be approving it tonight with the assumption that it would go to BCA before it's recorded.

Just real quick on the the parking, we're five spaces short. We can add the five spaces. Um

we can um personally I think I'd rather have the green space. Uh, I go in and out of a lot of parking complexes and the lots are never completely full in the instance that it is completely full. It's not ideal, but you can you can park on street there. Um, like I said, it it at that point it's not going to matter to us either way. Um, just think it'd be more attractive with green space and five, five, five parking spaces short. But if that's that's not an option, then we'll put it in. I just wanted to say that we would prefer the larger grant spaces. So, and and who are you, sir?

I'm Adam Couch. Sorry. Stupid question. Senior living, what does that mean? Does that mean anything different than apartment?

That so yeah, that that's actually uh our error that's supposed to come up. It's really just going to be the 1912. Um when we open it up, we're going to our preference is 55 and older, maintenancefree. It's not assisted living. Um it's not nursing care or anything like that. It's just maintenance-free living. Um but what we've discussed with the city is if we don't have enough applicants or there aren't applicants for 55 and older then we will open it up to general public same time. So

and if that happens how many how many bedrooms are these units going to be? It's the majority of the uh the apartments are onebedroom. I I looked at that's the ones that are going on two through seven. No, those are that's all lot one. So there's 29 units in lot one and that of school. But what about the other? Um those floor plans I don't do not believe have been completed or finalized yet. Do you know if you're thinking one or two bedroom on those on the the lots? Yeah.

Uh yeah, probably probably try to get mostly two bedroom. One and two bedroom. The the school building itself is one and two. So then if you open it up then you're not just going to have senior people who maybe have one car. You're going to open it up to people who will be having more company and more possibly two or three cars in their pos. Like I said, if if five is if five is the sticking point, then it's fine. But we'll have five more space. We were just discussing this last week. We were seeing a lot of where there's not enough parking in these places and then streets are being filled. So that's that's hard. Yeah. Yeah. I would just Yeah.

Do you have any concerns with the other variances that are listed? the 18 foot or as long as it's going to PCA then I'm okay me personally but I don't know how everybody else feels just as long as those those barriers are going to be addressed at some point I think my other question is do we have any code about how many successful parking spots there are like we do exceed the ADA requirements for this number of units.

I know the ADA is like bare minimal. Um, I'm just curious because, you know, with it being senior living and my sister's personally in a wheelchair, so I want to make sure that we're also taking that into account that, you know, we're talking about seniors and sometimes those are bigger cars and vans with lifts and, you know, we need to think about boats coming to take people to medical appointments and all those type things. So,

so that would be regulated by the building code and unless the city were to have additional requirements per our ordinance, then we don't really have the ability to um approve or deny based off of that

because of the codes. you know, we're we're not, you know, this follow, right? Right. And so those variances that are listed are things that are buried from what our code allows. No,

just curiously because I don't know. Sorry. I just don't know what like all the lines mean, but there is going to be like a safe like sidewalk or a path for them to get from their parking all like because they're you said they're going to be facing out. So, it's like I see they're going to park here and have to pull off. Yeah. So there is uh you can kind of see in the center there's going to be a network of sidewalks and they'll flow up to the each door. There'll be sidewalks around the perimeter of the parcel.

Um I believe there are existing sidewalks. Uh there is there like one sidewalk on that side street. Yeah.

Yeah. There is not. Okay. So the lot that's uh in front of the uh or behind what you want to call it next to between two and seven the lot there is that lot one between two and seven that is a open space. Okay. That open space is that where your sidewalks are that join all the lots.

Um yep. So that's kind of the central courtyard. Um there's a sidewalk that kind of goes around the perimeter as well as the courtyard in the center. And then from the outer sidewalk, there will be sidewalks for each individual building. Those are not shown because the locations of the I know that the you know parking spaces are pretty important, but well I heard it here tonight parking spots. You're going to get that out of your green space. It's the green space. If this is a PUB, what would we say? Would we say what are you going to give us if we don't, you know, if we make this uh this change?

Yeah, they would space. They would come to us with the argument that they are reduced by five parking stalls, but there's a an open green multiple open green spaces included. So it wouldn't be it'd be a little different than how you explained it, but they would come come to us with that proposal and that make it and if if we don't make them do the five, they'd still have to go to the right get that approved with all

Is there anything in the ordinance now say if there was a complex that there has to be so much green space. No, make a motion putting all that. So, are they is would the motion be for recommendation of approval with with on the condition that a variance is approved for whatever that variance requirement is.

Okay. So, you could recommend it tonight with with um with the condition that the four variances would be approved by BZA. If you're including the five parking stalls as a variance or if you're not including that at all, then it would just be the three. So would they need to go like bring it back to them with the five stalls added or can they do that? I if the variances are granted it would not have to come back to planning commission. No.

Right. But the there's the variance of the five parking stalls dependent on if this this commission is recommending that they add those. Would they need to add those and then come back to this commission I guess is what I'm saying. if it's not considered a variance. Oh yes. If if it is if they do not get a variance, they would have to add those five parking spaces and come back. Yes.

Yeah, that's what I guess that's my question. Can are are the five the them adding the need to add five parking is that a condition? How about if it is approval on the condition that either a variance is granted or the five parking spaces are added? Is that Did you guys hear that? Oh,

she said you could approve it with the condition that the there's a variance received from BCA for the five parking stalls or that the five stalls are added. Or you can just say that the five stalls will be added. the condition that the five stalls will be added. So, do you guys have consensus on if you want the five stalls to be added or if you want them to have the ability to go to BCA for a variance? I might have made that more confusing than it really was. I'm sorry. You either do it as a condition that they're going to do it or we can send it on as you know various or

correct order. Correct. So we can approve it based on those things happening. Yes. or not. I'm the condition. Do you want them added the condition or varies?

If we do it as a condition, then we're approving it on the condition. want to add those spaces. But if we do it as a variance, we're going to say then if BZA says it's okay, we say it's okay. looking.

No, I'm asking your opinion on that. I don't know. I I don't have problem with parking. Right. I like I like the green face because this is just one lot, right? or this is just so we don't the city is going to own the rest of it. Is that correct? The city the city would would only own what's north of this. Like where it says senior living at 1912, the city owns that to dry in. So this is all privately owned. Everything that you can see is privately owned except for the streets. So like over here where the soccer fields are where the soccer fields are is owned by the city and only that

across from the post office. Yeah. Yeah. Motion whichever way. I'd rather see the green space. I think the motion is going to be to add the to make it a condition. Somebody want to make that motion? If I make a motion and and another condition that the remaining three variances will

goes all in favor the existing three that are listed here.

Was that the Yes. [Music] Yeah. Let's go.

No. What is that? No, not not yet. Might try these. Okay, moving on to the UD, right? Yes.

I have some handouts. So, what you guys have in the uh what I'm handing out, I should say, is that what what you guys have here in the packet was provisions based off of our previous authorizations. And then I have legal provisions Lindsay's on the call, so she can help us a little bit through this. The two different ones. One is like what it would look like finalized with legal revisions. The other one is the red line from Lindsay's legal revisions.

Can you hear me better? I moved my microphone up a little bit. Talk a little louder, Lindsay. Can That's what I was asking. Can you hear me better? I moved my microphone. We'll just have to kind of repeat what you say. I think What about this? Does this help? It's about the same.

I'm the only one in the office, so maybe if I shout, does that help? That does help. That does help. That works.

Okay. So, this might take us a second. Ow. Okay. So, all right. So you can kind of see the difference here between I'm sure you guys all had a moment to take a look at everything and look at the yellow revisions. So those were kind of the language that I made the adjustments based on our previous conversation. So we talked, you know, about the height and we just had a few different things to add. Really not a lot of revisions were made. Um, most of Lindsay's concern if you look at the one with the red line that has the gray bar to the side. Um, so a lot of this goes back to so so a lot of what we added was a lot of discretionary clauses that gave planning and zoning discretion

page. Um, not right now.

Okay. But really what we're going to dive deeper dive into is the one that has the gray bar on the side. But um so a lot of the a lot of the things that Lindsay revised I I don't believe she she didn't take any of the integrity out of like what we were trying to accomplish. A lot of it was the the language. No offense to Lindsay, but that's what what they're good at is the words and switching them around on us. So, um, a lot of the things that we had added were things that said like at the discretion of planning and zoning or planning and zoning has the ability to review or planning and zoning has the ability to approve. And so her her main gist of of what she was trying to um how she was trying to approve the improve the ordinance was that it goes back to planning and zoning is a recommending body. So you guys have everything that's in here in here. You have the ability to say you know this will have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood but you can't deny it because of that. you have to recommend it to the board of aldermen for approval or denial. So that's where a lot of her it looks like she really read Marthur stuff, but a lot of it is just taking out that um the the language differential between the fact that you guys, yes, you have the ability to say to the applicant that um you think that this would have an adverse effect and then the applicant has the ability to say, "Okay, we're going to withdraw our application, fix these things and come back to you or you guys can say we do not recommend this

but it still has to go to the board of alderman after. So you would be basically recommending it for denial because you feel like these things have fallen short. So a lot of it was just we needed to take out some of the language where we said you guys have the say so you do have the say so but you you don't have the ability to approve it. Does that make sense? Because you're a recommending body.

So just like this preliminary plat like well it's not a good example because preliminaries don't go to the board right? If this was a final plat, you would be recommending the the final plat for approval to the board of alderman. So what you're approving is if it bounces to the board of alderman next, you're approving it for you're you're recommending you're recommending it to be approved by the board of alderman or denied by the board of alderman. So just I want to say that caveat before we get too deep into the weeds of this. Um, so let's just dive into the first item here on page two of the one with the gray bar. Um, so this one is is a little bit of that that language. So I had in here that the concept P plan and the PUD final plan must be approved by planning commission and the board of alderman. That's not true. Sorry.

What's true would be that it would be, you know, recommended by planning and zoning and approved by the portal. So, we just we take that that language out to clean it up a little bit. And same goes it for number six on that same page. So, we said as deemed appropriate by the planning and zoning commission. you still have the ability to speak just like tonight where you said um with the conditions of you have the ability to say this this this are things that we don't like but the applicant then has the ability to say we're going to we're going to take this we're going to withdraw this application and come back and fix some of the things you said or they can say thank you for your consideration we're going to take it to the board of alderman as is so we took that one out of six of number six on page two. A lot a lot of this is going to be that same thing. We there's we use the word review and approve a little too frequently when you're recommending body. So on page three the um what was removed there it was is the same thing. So we said the bang and zoning commission shall review and approve location design blah blah blah. So instead, we're saying the location, design, and type of open space shall be reviewed to ensure the open space aligns with the goals of the development and provides meaningful. So you're you're still reviewing it and you can still comment on it and you can say if it's good or bad, but then it it's either going to go it's either going to be withdrawn or continue on to portable. Um same goes it for number nine. It was the same thing. So, we said um we took we took the last line out of section 9 because um the language was a little too

said the commission can approve changes to road design including narrower streets and and rideway um if the plan keeps pedestri. So, what we're what that line is saying is that you have the ability then to vary and kind of create your own city code and and we can't necessarily do that. So we just deleted that part but it's the integrity of the se section is still there. So it says ped it reads as pedestrian path should be kept separate from vehicle roads as much as possible. Pedestrian overpasses or underpasses near schools, playground, shopping, shopping and other busy pedestrian areas may be required. So that the integrity of what we were saying is still there. It's just more of a legality of how we say the approval portion of it. So 10 was one that we really got dug into at our last meeting where we talked about um the the height requirements for R1, R2, or if it's close to R1 or R2. And one of the requests that you had was that we put in that discretionary clause. And so then that same issue came about by adding that discretionary clause. But we still have the ability to um it's still, you know, it's still saying the same thing that the PUD district uh or no structures within a PUD district that is located adjacent to residential R1 or R2 zoning district shall exceed 1 and 1/2 or 3 and 1/2 stories or 45 ft tall regardless of the proposed use. The planning and zoning commission may require additional setbacks, screening or transitional elements. But again, um if if there are requirements put on by the planning and and zoning, the applicant can either withdraw, bring it back with those things fixed, or they

can continue on to board of alderman. But when it comes to you from the when it comes if they decided to continue on and just go to board of alderman either way board of alderman's going to see it with your with your concerns I guess. So, they're going to get it and it's going to say planning and zoning. I don't know exactly how it would be worded or necessarily how it come, but planning and planning and zoning commission, you know, made a comment on the hype and in relation to the zoning and use or whatever. So, they would still see all of your reviewed items. I guess your recommendation. Yeah.

Um, that one continues. So in evaluating height, it now reads, "In evaluating height, aesthetic design, architectural style, and potential adverse effects on surrounding properties may be considered, and height may be allowed or restricted according to achieve a cohesive and context sensitive development. Are you guys comfortable with those revisions in 10?" There's quite a few ambitions there. And your the one that I handed out without u the gray bar on the side would be the kind of the final copy. If you need to read it without the red line, it would do that. And I can read I'll just read it. So, no no no structure within a PED district that is located adjacent to a residential R1 or R2 zoning district shall exceed 3 and 1/2 stories or 45 ft in height regardless of the proposed use. The planning and zone zoning commission hold on. Yep. The planning and zoning commission um may require additional setbacks, screening or addition or transitional elements for taller structures to ensure compatibility with adjacent development in evaluating height, aesthetic design, architectural style and potential adverse effect on surrounding properties. Um it in evaluating high aesthetic design, architectural style and potential adverse effects on surrounding properties may be considered and height may be allowed or restricted accordingly to achieve a cohesive and contextsensitive development. Does that still read as what you all intended?

And the the intention was that this is when we had the conversation about, you know, larger buildings being next to residential, but if, you know, an R3 came in along 40 highway, then it it could be allowed or even a commercial PUB. Okay. Um so 11 um so I added when when it referenced high-rise buildings so I added the as defined as structures greater than three and a half stories or 45 ft. Um, one of the, um, legal changes that were kind of made was, uh, it lists that yard set back, lot size, dwelling unit type, building height, frontage, and use restrictions may be modified from the standards typically required for the type of use proposed. So this this one is kind of tied to 12 a little bit because in 12 what we were trying to say was we want you to quantify what you're varying by and a kind of an amount of what you're varying by in relation to how much open space you're providing. But in order to do that you have to start somewhere, right? Even though this is its own district and it's not you're not saying this is a district that's overlaying on top of an R3 for example, you have to you have to be able to determine what you're you're bearing from in order to say you need to provide X amount. even though there's not necessarily numbers, but for you all to be able to determine

how much is being varied in order to say you need to provide more or less open space. So, we added that the line that says uh those restrictions may be modified from the standards typically required for the type of use proposed. So, kind of like how on tonight's uh they have the the the numbers listed on the left hand side of their preliminary plaque where it says R3 and things like that. They would list out what their, you know, lot sizes are, what their setbacks are, and and then it'd be very clear to you all where where this is like how it's shrinking, I guess. comfortable with that. Um, continued on in 11. So, again, we had an as approved by planning and zoning commission. So, again, you guys are not necessarily approving those items, but recommending them. Um, the section below that, so I double I two I's. Um, that one also had the same same language. Um, we really just put instead of planning and zoning may require, we just had this kept the same language and added may be required at the end. And then section 12 um this is where we we're also talking about that um kind of quantifying what's being reduced as a as opposed to what's being provided. Uh so we we just again took out some of the as determined by planning and zoning commission

and the subject to approval by planning zoning commission. But again, it's not taking away your ability because you're still able to comment on all of these things and it will be documented and included. Okay, moving on to 13. Again, some more of that language change. Um um going to Okay, so this this area talks a little bit about phasing. So, we had a quite a big discussion on phasing and Lindsay can help a little bit with this um conversation, but um what we took out was the failure to complete the required elements of an approved phase may result in enforcement actions or withholding of subsequent phase approvals or permits at the discretion of the planning and zoning commission. So legally there's there's a line that you know we can't really exceed beyond. So we're only allowed to you know enforce or um stop anything disciplinary wise within what's within our own purview of our city code. So, um, this one we just needed to reel it back a little bit from what our original language was. So, it just says each phase shall be completed in accordance with the PUD concept plan and in compliance with all city code provisions prior to initiation of the next phase.

Why was it necessary to take out the failure to compute the requirement elements of an approved phase? Does that say the same thing?

It's it's instead of saying like we will we will move forward with enforcement actions, it's saying that we can only move forward to the extent of our city code. It goes back to the discussion that we were having about um you know the completion of one phase and ensuring that they move to the next phase legally. It's still there's still private private companies, private developers. We don't have the ability to force their hand in any way to complete the project. And to an extent we just we just don't have the ability to do so. And if that scenario were to happen, then um we'll do everything we can within the extent of our of our um legalities, but there's not then you have then you're going into more like building building code issues or um safety issues or code enforcement issues, but within zoning, it's that's the it's just not the right place to address it. Can you hear me, Lindsay? Did does that make sense?

Yes, that was a good explanation.

Okay.

Okay. Um so the next section, the city shall bear no cost for infrastructure and improvements necessary to serve a PUB district. Um PED concept sh plan shall not be approved unless adequate facilities such as water lines, sanitary sewer lines and major streets exist in sufficient capacity to serve the development without overloading existing systems or creating undue traffic impacts on local residential streets. I think that language still with the revisions we just took out. Approval shall not be granted and changed it to PUD concept plan shall not be approved. It's that's just a language difference. It's saying the the same thing still. Um we did add a section here at the end though that says if public facilities are included in the PUD, the facilities shall comply with all applicable city code and standards for public infrastructure. The city shall require a payment bond, performance bond, and maintenance bond in the amount equal to the value of the public infrastructure and public facilities to be constructed. The bonds shall be required prior to work beginning on the facilities. So legally, we don't have the ability to require payment bond and things like that beyond what they're doing with city infrastructure. So for the streets, the water, the sewer, etc. But we cannot do that for the entire project because of public versus private. Can

I go back to something? Sure. On the double eye, are we saying they have to have everything completely done on that first phase before they can start the second? Um, no. Okay. I don't think so. Well, I kind of bring it like that too like Debbie and I thought we had talked about

because as somebody who's done developments and things when you're getting close to finish, you want to go ahead and start getting that infrastructure in for your next phase and you know working on it so that as soon as you're done with that one, you can start. While in the previous section we say no face shall be approved unless it contains a proportionate share of the required o common open space public improvements and infrastructure necessary to serve that phase independently or in conjunction with completed phases. Let me see what we have here before. Okay. So 13 is just covering the infrastructure. That's what you're saying.

Yeah. Hold on. Yeah, I think we did have we did have discussion on that. I don't know that this is saying that anymore. I think that lost that component.

If I can add Shauna. Yep. They have to be in compliance with city code, but if they if they have an open building permit on a building, that doesn't mean they're not in compliance with city code. They are in compliance because they're working and have an open building permit. Yeah.

So, they have to complete it. They they'd have to be in compliance with their current plan and be in compliance with city codes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have that previous plan completely completed. Well, and I think that's where our discussion was at at our last meeting was can we can we ensure that they have x amount completed of phase one prior to moving on to phase two? And what we discussed was um possibly the ability to have um at at minimum the public infrastructure completed on the first phase before they move on to the second phase.

The other thing to think about is that I don't think we've said how they have to split phases. So phase one could be all of the infrastructure and then phase two is the vertical development. It doesn't necessarily have to be split between two different lots or something like that. Mhm.

Approximate the phases. I'm thinking I'm thinking of this type of building and then we're going to move on to this type of structure where she think is now saying that it could be that phase one is just putting in your infrastructure and then the next phase you're building up whatever. That's true. That is what she said. Yeah, I was thinking more of like there would be section one and there would be straight and then they'd start on section two streets. Yeah, town homes are over here and now we're going to start on the apartment buildings. And it could be like that. That could be how they divide the phases.

Yeah. I think that what's important to to consider is that every applicant may want to do things a little bit differently. So in reality, we're approving phases as they propose them because someone could want to do all infrastructure first or they could want to do partial infrastructure, start buildings, then the next infrastructure, start buildings, and so on and so forth. Is there a way that you could just build down there that like our recommendation would be like we would prefer it to be like you know once you finish one phase or get close to finishing one phase the infrastructure starts on the second before you start building the second but the infrastructure was the first phase for everything. So

yeah, it's kind of hard. I think I think break it up. You don't know what they're going to propose. But I think that's where we got hung up last time was we didn't want them to like come in and start everything and finish nothing. Yeah. Like, oh, they put in, you know, we wanted to make sure there was sewer and water and then it's like they started straight. We're just gonna It's like, yeah, we're done, you know? They're going to have it in concept plan that

uh no the phasing the phasing a phasing plan would come at the final. They would present it at the final. I personally, my opinion, I I go back to um we we just don't want to be too restrictive on you know if financially it doesn't make sense for them to do all the infrastructure first because that could be that could that's

a very expensive part of the project. So they might need the the flow of it to allow for building first before they go to additional infrastructure. So I don't want to make it too restrictive and just this phasing section alone to where now they can't proceed with the project. Yeah, that's the way I was reading this like you're not doing anything till you get this done. Yeah.

Is that not what it's saying? I think because it's using to me I think we're using the word may so it's like optional but we want to we want to make sure that you're providing us with a thorough plan that or phase that makes sense

just in the first paragraph off. But yeah, maybe that is too too much of a request. Lindsay, what do you think? Do you think that the section is is too restrictive on the phasing plan? section 13.

I don't think so. Um, if somebody has a concept plan that says, I'm going to put in half of the sewer in phase one and the other half of the sewer in phase two. Is that a problem or do we want all of the sewer completed in a single phase? I'm worried that it's saying you have to put in public public infrastructure plus your open space plus your um public improvement or what else did it say? Um because it says in a manner that the improvements infrastructure open space and amenities um for the phase are sufficient and standalone. So, I'm I'm worried that it's saying that you're we're requiring too much of everything in each phase to where it would be more expensive or cost prohibited.

Yeah. I think one of the things we talked about is that the tree I'm not tree hugger, but the green space, you know, we talked about that that if you had a development, you had three different phases. Well, what would keep them from you just going to the second one or the third one and not doing anything with the green space, you know, that that's, you know, fulfill the obligations or of what was said before we moved to the next. I think that's what we were trying to get accomplished. Do you think that this is saying is that this is restricting too much or not?

Well, I I want to take it just a step back for just a second. So, let's just think of this as a subdivision, just a regular subdivision. There's no PUD. We approve a plant, they start putting roads in, they start putting sewer in, and they leave town and never build all those homes. That is always a risk that can happen. And that's the same kind of risk here. That that is a risk that can happen. I understand the concern of you built your two phases and not your open space.

We could say that you are required to have your open space in phase one. if they don't ever complete their concept plan, if I should say if they don't complete their final plan, they don't complete their improvements, that final plan will lapse and no development will happen at that area until either a new plan is approved or the area is totally reszoned to a different zone and there's no need for a PUD. Does that I don't think help any concerns, but does that help explain sort of the understanding behind the ordinance?

Yeah. So, basically, she's saying that there's we we can't there's not a way to write this to avoid failure to complete the project. There's not a way to write it to avoid that. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. Yeah,

that wasn't my concern. My concern was just that we were calling them, you can't do even start anything on part two until you've got this completely done. I think we need to reel it back to just you're allowed to propose a phasing plan and it needs to provide, you know, as much detail as possible, but you know, we can't restrict what you're going to do in phase one or what you're going to do in phase two, but they need to come to us with a clear and, you know, concise phasing plan if that's a route that they're wanting to go. And I

sorry I was just going to say I understand the concern of a half completed development. I I understand that but like we were just talking about there are separate codes to deal with that. This is zoning plan but there are also building codes. There are dangerous building codes. There are other nuisance issues. So this is plan development not necessarily how do we get you if you are in violation of city code other city codes.

Yeah. So, can we just reel it back and just say that basically define what would be required what you'd be provide provided to required to provide to seek approval for a phasing plan and just keep it as simple as that. Like if you're going to propose a phasing plan, these are the details we need to know in order to be able to approve it or not, right? And then just see what kind of what we get. wording like till it meets all elements of like the do what that like the phasing plan I'll just make sure that you know meets all the elements of and

well and we we're we're just requesting that you tell us exactly what you're going to do in phase one phase two estimated time frame that type of thing because we're not going to see it here but you guys no you'll see it at the rolling it. You'll see it at the final. Oh, staff, you know. Yeah, after the final. Yeah. And you got kind of have a whatever obligation to require that they uphold that plan, right? So, you can at least check it off to say that we we've done this.

Okay. I think we'll clean that section up a little bit. So you you are you saying that uh that section two or the IIO 13? Yeah, 13 I needed or

I think it's a a good clause to have in there, but um it doesn't change how the phases would work or anything or how we would approve it really. Okay. So, I'm going to make it more of like an administrative type of section and make it more so this is what's required to propose a phasing plan. what we want to see out of your phasing plan unless you know that subject to approval that language and like um where it says um you know no phase shall be approved unless it contains a proportionate amount of blah blah blah. take out some of that language that's saying if you don't then you're not getting approved and make it more just you can propose a phasing plan and if you do here's what we would like to see in order to move forward with a recommendation.

That's a better way to do it.

Yeah. And you have a pencil. All right. 14. We kind of we started this one a little bit and we went back. So uh um city shall bear no costs for infrastructure and improvements necessary to serve a PUD district. PD concept plans shall not be approved unless adequate facilities such as water water lines, sanitary sewer lines, and major streets exist in sufficient capacity to serve this development without overloading existing systems or creating undue traffic impacts on local residential um streets. If such facilities do not currently exist or are insufficient, the applicant shall be responsible for installing or upgrading them at their own expense to ensure the PUB is properly served. All storm water management facilities shall be designed by applicable city and state standards to prevent adverse impacts and on adjacent properties or public infrastructure. Um, if public if public facilities are included in the PUD, the facilities shall comply with all applicable city code and standards for public infrastructure. The city shall require a payment bond, performance bond, and maintenance bond in the amount equal to the value of the public infrastructure and public facilities to be constructed. The bond shall be required prior to work beginning on the facilities. This is we kind of talked about this one, but this is where we don't have the

ability to provide any of those financial kind of securities, if you will, on anything but what would be public infrastructure. And that's just saying that basically if you fail to complete the public infrastructure components of this, the payment bond would then pay out and we could we could have it completed outside of that original out. Um so we didn't talk about this one at our last discussion. We did talk about it but um reverted back a little bit on this one. So it says in no case shall a PD district be less than 2 acres in size. And I took out or no less than 5 acres in size if commercial or industrial uses are included. So, I was just trying to kind of come up with examples of properties in Odessa that would could be an area where a PD could be applicable but are less than five five um acres and those do exist in town. So, I didn't want to restrict us from being able to use this on some of our kind of prime commercial real estate like along 40 highway and things like that or even along Second Street. So, I did feel like the five um the five acres would could be too restrictive. And kind the prime example of where I consider this would be um on 40 highway next to BP gas in front of Lake Venita. That's like 4 some odd acres, 4.42 acres or something. But it's kind, you know, that's a prime commercial lot in reality and you wouldn't be able to use a PUD with that language.

Have any objections to that? I don't remember talking about that type of thing. Yeah. Yeah, I think we're all good with it. Okay. So, it would just So, the two acres would be the only minimum requirement overall period. We lower that, do you think? Is there a time that you could see that like a one acre being necessary for this? Um, a fast food place or something that Yeah.

Yeah. But I don't think that um a fast food place they would just they should be able to just use our existing city code process. So they could just they would it would just be zoned commercially and they would abide by the commercial zoning requirements that we have today. Yeah. Within what's in our city code. So whatever we have in there for setbacks and and things like that would still hold true. They had to have a variance. That's what we have now, right? Yeah. They have a variance on that.

Yeah. They could still go through that same process and have a bezier. I mean, you're not going to you're not really the city's not going to want to seek out open space from Taco John's, you know?

I mean, that'd be cool if there was a park at Taco John's, but Okay, moving on to the next section 50-556 planned unit development review. So this is what's required for uh this is what is required for the applications when they submit. So we obviously have our filing fee, legal description, blah blah blah, all those things. Nothing's changed there. On number nine, we we staff were kind of looking at this. So, it said um proposed lot lines and plot plot designs or plot plans are required is what this section's saying. But then it's saying in industrial and commercial portions of the PUD, the final lot lines and plot plan requirements may be waved. So, our concern from from staff's perspective was what's the what's the difference? Why is why is it allowed to be waved for industrial and commercial but not anything else? So with the idea behind the fact that the PUB is to be flexible, we felt like it should be that right should be equally dispersed through any type of zone or use the change.

I took I I'm taking out where it says industrial and commercial portions. So prior to it, so this is section nine, right? But it's it's that both times.

No. Yeah. So I'm I'm deleting the striketh through of the words industrial and commercial portion. So instead it'll just read in a PUB district the final lot lines and plot plan requirements may be waved. It's on page seven. That sound okay? All right. Moving in to page eight. Um the last line there. So um just this is just a language thing. Proposed timeline and if applicable phasing plan for um development for the development would be a requirement only a couple. Okay. Moving on to page nine. section three under procedure um letters I I I um so this goes back to the board the planning and zoning commission being a recommended body this is just clearly kind of stating that and shoring it up so it's in the PUD it's very clear moving forward that this body is recommending to the board of alderman for approval or denial so the way it reads is upon receipt of the planning and zoning commission's recommendation. The board of alderman shall review and consider the application. The board of alderman may approve, deny, or approve the application with conditions. The board of alderman may alternatively remand the application to the planning and zoning commission for further

review. So, that's kind of an extra step. you guys are able to um recommend it for approval or denial, but you all or but once it goes to the board, they can actually kick it back to you guys one more time for another round of review if necessary. Really didn't change there. Uh it added that last sentence for the remand. So the board of alderman may alternatively remand the application to the planning and zoning commission for further review. So these are the these are the same, right?

This is the final one with legals revisions.

Yeah, because we added it. If we subtracted it, it wouldn't have been in this one. Okay. Um so page 10 the proposed so the proposed storm water man or yeah storm water management plan adequately addresses both storm water quantity and quality in relation to the PUD and adjacent properties and complies with applicable storm water ordinances. So, this was uh kind of legal language revision there because we didn't want to um the using the word protects adjacent properties was kind of um a liability issue there. So, we've changed the language to um remove that word protects. And then lastly here, we added the section that says withdraw. So an applicant may withdraw an application for a PD concept plan at any time.

Yeah, this is the not

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Does anyone else This is the final one that's not changing. This is the final one. Okay. So page 10, we added withdrawal. So this goes back to, you know, you guys can make your um comments. Um if there's a lot of those comments, the the applicant then has the ability to withdraw, fix them, and come back or they can withdraw in total. We just needed to be able to give them that opportunity to um take a step back if they want to. Um on page 11 procedure um for the final plan review says upon receipt of a completed application the community development coordinator or their design shall review the application for compliance with chap this chapter and the PUB concept plan. So again, we just wanted to make sure we're we're tying that final back to the concept. Um, and it gives us the ability to kind of um make those comparisons um in that kind of window before it comes to you guys. So that the final plan will come to us.

Um staff can kind of um make their total review. Um and then the community development coordinator at Christy will place the application on planning and zoning commission's agenda within 60 days of verification of an application in compliance with this chapter as long as such placement on the agenda allows for adequate public notice. So we talked about that one a little bit at our last one. It's just adding that we're not just we're not just going to make sure that it complies with the chapter, but also complies with complies complies with what was previously submitted on the concept. All right, page 12. Um, so again, this is all referencing the final plan. So um we have this effective approval lapse of approval um approval of a PD final plan shall constitute a reasonzoning and shall confer upon the applicant the right to develop the sub the subject property in accordance with the approved PUD final plan. The right to develop the in accordance with an approved PD final plan shall lapse and be of no further effect if all development shown on the PD final plan is not complete within the time completed within the time frame including the timeline for phases. So we're just adding they propose a timeline to you overall and if they're doing phasing they're going to propose a phasing timeline. So both of those things need to be in compliance with and then again the ability for them to withdraw the final plan at any time that they see fit. Um

so we added have last time we added the section about major modifications that some modifications could be amended administratively major modifications would need to come back um to the planning and zoning and board of alderman. So Lindsay added um major major amendments also include modifications relating to changes to the number or order of phases timelines or scope of requirements and improve required improvements or scope of required improvements. So again referencing back to the phasing and the timelines to solidify those. And then this one is the one. So we had we talked about phasing just ever so slightly earlier and then we have a section at the end for phasing of the development. So this is where my brain has been working the most over time is this section. So for let me just read how we have it written and just tell me if you like it. So for PUDS and now I'm concerned that since we made the changes earlier that that might make changes here but we'll see. Okay. So phasing of development for PUDs proposed to be developed in phases. The applicant shall submit a detailed phasing plan as part of the PUB concept plan application and the PUD final. See that conflicts now, doesn't it? Cuz didn't we say earlier that it's just the final? Okay, I'll come back to that. For pe proposed to be developed in phases, the applicant shall submit a detailed phasing plan as a part of the PUD concept plan application and the PUD final plan application. The plan shall include the reasons for requesting phasing,

a timeline, the scope of improvements for each phase, and an explanation of how each phase will function both independently and in conjunction with other phases. The phasing plan shall be reviewed based on the adequacy of proposed sequencing, public infrastructure delivery, and overall coordination with the city's development goals. Each per approved phase must be constructed in accordance with the final approved plans and completed within the timeline set forth in the phasing schedule. Completion of infrastructure prior to the next phase. All so this is where I added when we had the discussion about they need to do all the public infrastructure first. This is where I added that. So now I think we need to delete it again. Um, all public infrastructure improvements to be dedicated to the city, including roads, water, sewer, and storm water, must fully be constructed and accepted by the city prior to the commencement of construction on any subsequent phases. Exceptions may be considered only when necessary for construction sequencing and only if sufficient financial guarantees are provided. So Lindsay, can you help me understand why how this section is different from the previous section that we talked about when that reference phasing section 13?

I'm scrolling up to that section and I don't think it is that different. Can we delete 13 and just move forward with this one and take out the last section? Because I think that's still that's saying what we were saying earlier where if you're going to do phasing, you need to tell us what your game plan is and then we go kind of go from there.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, there's no need to repeat it. It could be either in this section on phasing and I actually kind of wonder like you mentioned Shauna if this phasing section could be kind of redistributed through the rest of the ordinance maybe now um after review. But you just either way they have to complete their public infrastructure and they have to have that sufficient financial bonding for the infrastructure for the public infrastructure only.

What do you guys think or see as issues here? I we clearly have it duplicate duplicative in two places and it's not that's it's not how we want it to be presented. [Music] We're saying it has to be completed with a timeline set. I thought I told do that. Yeah, that's where I mean we it's in two places. So I it it conflicts with each other those two areas. Yeah.

I personally think that sections one, two, and three are what we need of this of page 12 and page 13. And Shauna, I think this might be what could just be the administrative part like you were saying. Yes. Above. Yeah. Can we delete section the section 13 on page five?

I think so. So they're they're just a little bit different. This section is more saying that infrastructure has to be fully constructed before the next phase. The other section, section 13, is saying that if you have public infrastructure, whether it's in a in two different phases or just the one plan, you have to have bonding. I think we remove number four though on page 13 after the discussion we've had tonight. Yeah. That we don't want to require all infrastructure up front.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. I think it makes sense to have to have infrastructure done. to the face you're working on before start the construction going up but I don't think otherwise for like the whole development

I agree I think page five should be deleted the section 13 on page five and then the paragraph on section more. Yeah. So, yes, I agree with that. So, delete all of section 13 on page five and delete section paragraph 4 on page 13. But really it just turns into the administrative discussion that we had where it just reads that um if you are going to do phases it does require it to be done to be notified um at the concept and the final and then we're asking them to provide an explanation of the reason which that's one of the things we added last time. The reason for requesting the phasing, the timeline, scope of improvements for each phase, and an explanation of how each phase will function both independently and in conjunction with other phases. So, we're not stipulating you have to do this, then that, then this. We're just saying you have to tell us that you're going to do this, then that, then this, and it has to make sense. Okay.

I was say my other question about deleting four is the language that comes after about dedicating it to the city. Do we have that anywhere else?

Well, it doesn't it's not saying that it has to be dedicated to the city. It's just saying that the the infrastructure that would be dedicated to the city needs to be completed. So if you're going to have any public infrastructure um it any public infrastructure no matter what based on our code would have to be dedicated. So with that as they're doing these things you're going to be inspecting and making sure everything's up to code anyway.

But any any public infra if someone wanted to build a private street then that's their kind of prerogative. But anything that's going to be public infrastructure has to be dedicated over legally and on paper and and whatnot. It goes in front of the board of aldermen. So I don't think that that would hurt anything to not have that that language. Okay. But where we are, where we are right now is this this one plus um really there's only one change. It's the phasing change. There's two changes. No, there's just one change. It's the phasing changing the deleting the 13, deleting four. Um, yeah, those are the only two only two changes that unless I'm for unless I miss something.

So, what do you what would you like to see? Well, technically I I would my opinion, my preference, I would like to see it approved tonight. What should happen though, technically speaking, is that it needs to be approved at our next meeting with a public hearing because we've technically done a public hearing on this, but it was in April. So to be after it's approved that we sent it to the board of alder. Yes.

The alderman. Yes. So, I would really love for it to be approved tonight, but I do think that the right thing to do is to to have another public hearing because we've made so many changes. Are you in agreement with that, Lindsay? Yes.

I think we're all Yeah. Any further discussion or thoughts or just what's on your mind? I'm ready for

I want to I don't want to wait that far, but copies of this. Okay. I mean, how many versions? How many versions? Quite a bit. Um, there's been a lot done on this since the last time it was sent to all. Yeah, we don't want to send it back. That's true. That would be very difficult. We did address most of their concerns. I think we addressed all of their concerns.

Okay. So, no vote is necessary tonight. We'll bring it back at our next meeting as a public hearing and we'll do public notice and all of that over the next few weeks. Okay, good.

Any staff reports?

Um, we were going to do I just wanted to do a quick zoning conversation as opposed to our zoning workshops that we've been holding. um mostly because of time. And two, we're kind of in a weird place right now with the the zoning work that we've already done because um half of you guys weren't there for the whole process. So, I don't want us to lose sight of the work that we've done, but I also understand that we need to get everyone back on the same page. And that was we put a lot of work into getting everyone on the same page and same direction when it came to our zoning changes that that we were working on. So, um I we do need to continue our zoning workshops. Um I guess I think since you three are here that are new, it would it I'll just explain where we've been and how we got to where we are. Um, so we did have we had a training, right? Did we have Looper come in and do a training or did we not do that this time? We didn't. Um, so the way our our zoning currently works is that it kind of builds upon itself. And um meaning that if you have a commercial commercially zoned lot and it's completely vacant, you're able to build anything from R1 to whatever commercial zone you have. So um the the purpose behind the the zones is that if you have a commercial lot, there's regulations or commercial use that you're trying to build. um there's

regulations and zoning requirements per that type of use and there's requirements per residential types of use and so on and so forth. So when you blur those lines there's some negatives that can come about from that. Um, one of the largest things, if Marty was here, if you could add lib a little bit, but one of the largest things that really came kind of bubbled to the surface and we had a realization and what was really happening here was that, you know, we have currently today x amount of commercial property and a lot of that commercial property that we have residential or multif family is being built on that commercially zoned property which is causing the amount of commercially zoned property that we have to dwindle. And um one thing that I personally think is that Odessa doesn't have not even talking about zones and what they're lots and what they're zoned at, but just the amount of commercial businesses that we have is not very high in comparison to maybe some of our neighbors. And so really commercial and industrial property is something that um we are striving towards growing and the way our zoning is structured it makes it a little bit difficult to do that. Um, it also makes um the jobs that we do internally as staff, it makes it a little bit more difficult for us to be able to and planning and zoning. You guys exist, so you can kind of vet these things and make sure that things are being done in a in a way that makes the most sense. Well, a lot of times whenever someone's trying to build residential on a commercial lot, they there's no there's no it's just um they don't have to come before you at all. um

because there's no need for them to reszone because they're able to do not just residential on this lot, but you're able to do any of these things on this lot. So, it kind of makes the options for them endless, which can be seen as a pro to some people and a and a con to some people. Um, and it's kind of weighing what we've done in the past zoning meetings is kind of weigh those pros and cons to determine um, what makes sense for Odessa is you know what Marty likes to say, you know, is it right for Odessa. So um, we've done a lot to build to where we are today and we but we still have a lot long way to go. Um, one of the things that we were proposing to do, you know, we put we put the flip chart paper up on the wall and we put R1, R2, R3, and then we took the different uses from other cities cuz our uses are not the most well- definfined, but um we took different uses like, you know, senior living or um um like, you know, multifamily or or

cemeteries. cemeteries, literally any any of the uses. And we just started kind of mapping them out and saying, "Okay, it makes sense for a cemetery to be in any of these areas or it makes sense for a multifamily um housing unit with greater than x amount of houses or units. Um, it makes sense for those to be in R3, but there could be a scenario where it does make sense for them to be in C1. So we we kind of just tack those up to where to what made sense. And then what we were working towards was a Z what's called a use table. And it has all of those different uses listed and then it has all the different zones listed and it's a matrix system where um lists the use and then it has a checkbox under each zone that that use is allowed to be in. So, as opposed to um the way our structure is written where it kind of builds upon itself and the the pots just kind of get bigger and bigger and what's allowed to happen gets bigger and bigger. This is a little bit more defined where it's this is what you want to do. Well, you can do that in this one, this one, or this one. Um, so it it's it doesn't to me it makes it it it gives you guys the ability to decide if it's if you want to make it a restrictive a more restrictive use or if it's a use that could be something that's a little bit more open. You just put it in the different buckets at that point. Um, but it gives us the ability to look at each of those uses and say what makes sense as opposed to does it just can it just drop into the next bucket. Does that make sense?

Okay. So, all I'm saying is that I don't want to lose sight of what we've done so far, but I also I want to make sure that we continue to work on it, but I also don't want you guys to feel like, you know, others are 10 steps ahead of you. So, um all this to say, I want to continue working on the initiative that we started. Um there we're also entering kind of another era of uh development for Odessa. We have a lot more larger scale projects, a lot of of single family developments that have happened that are in the process of happening and that are coming down the pipeline. And quite frankly, I think that there's a lot of our the zoning ordinance alone is something that really needs to be taken a look at and needs to be improved upon. And whatever that improvement looks like, it needs to be improved upon. Um, but there are other ordinances too that need to come before you guys. You know, at our last meeting, we I mentioned numerous different areas of our code that I felt like were lacking. I I would like to bring those to you guys and we start I I hope that it maybe the beauty is a little different because it was a brand new ordinance and it was something that we were really starting from scratch on and bringing completely new to Odessa. But there are some simpler ordinances that I do think for um the the the benefit of our development climate overall in Odessa, we need to be able to make these improvements to our ordinances so we don't damage the our business in the in the end of the day. You know what I mean? Um like like the commercial losing commercial that's damaging to our future. um allowing certain things to to

go through without um the proper requirements through um the development process, those are damaging to our future. Looking at things like sidewalks, curb and gutter, the um quality of the the street uh materials that are used when building our streets. So we don't have, you know, we have a lot of streets to maintain and we are trying everything that we can to maintain those streets, but if a new street's being built, we need to make sure that it's built to a quality that's not going to just add to our our problems that we have. So those are the types of things I want to bring to you guys. Um, I want to prioritize zoning first, but I also think that there are some smaller ordinances that maybe um need to be looked at simultaneously. So, all this to say, um, I'd like to with your help make these improvements and bring them in front of you. Okay, that's my speech for the night.

Yeah, throttling it. Okay, we got this. We just need like one tonight. Yeah, every meeting just start throttling. Yeah, maybe even two. I mean, let's go big and go three so we can get through. If not, we'll move to the next one. Yeah. Okay. Any questions for any of you? [Music] Then this need a motion to motion to Oh, any discussion? Not one favor. Thank