Heat. Heat. All right. I will now open the regular city council meeting for love city council for January 27th, 2026. The city council will now recess into executive session in accordance with Texas Government Code section 551.071 to consult with and seek the advice of city's legal council section 551.072 to discuss the purchase, exchange or value of real property. The city council is now recessing at 10:01 p.m. All right. Good to see everybody here today on this beautiful day. Glad everybody made it made it here safely as we en enjoy a little precipitation of the white form. And uh I think it's we can report that we got through wintertorm fern pretty well here in Lach. I want to commend our city staff for being on the job and taking care of everything. They did a phenomenal job of uh getting out there sanding and salting our streets, keeping our maid thorough affairs plowed where necessary uh keeping us safe and operating the emergency operations center uh night and day. So, I want to thank uh everybody for doing that. We have incredible employees, staff committed here working in tough weather. Also got a lot of good reports from our uh from folks around town on our LPNL staff and how quickly they responded to power outages to getting people back online. So, uh uh it's just a testimony to how hard working our people here in Love are, how committed they are to taking care of our citizens. So, we're fortunate to get through this. Um, and we always prepare for the worst and are happy when that doesn't come. So, it didn't we were able to enjoy it and uh, so glad to see you here today. Um, we will now convene in open session and we will take up our ceremonial items. I'm going to call first on senior pastor Michelle Schubert with our with New Hope Church here in Love to lead us in our invocation and after that I will have a special proclamation followed by our pledges of allegiance. So let's stand for our invocation as you are able. >> Thank you so much for having me. It's always a privilege to be here. If you feel compelled, would you bow your head with me? Heavenly Father, we pray for our district leaders, Mayor McReer, city council, and managers a blessing as they give their time to the service of this city. We honor their commitment and ask for your favor through their wisdom as well as flourishing in their lives as well as that of their families. Lift up their work here today as they seek to act on behalf of those made in your image across the city of Levik. Help all of us to remember as these leaders facilitate the needs of this city and as citizens respond that there is more that unifies us then divides us. Help us to remember your humility of service for mankind. As we each move in actionable love toward neighbor today, may these proceedings glorify you and honor your purpose for this place that we hold dear. May it be so in love as it is in heaven. In your name, amen. To the flag of the United States of America to the stands nation. liberty for all state. want to take an opportunity uh on this special day. This is uh National Holocaust Remembrance Day across our nation. And so uh I wanted to take an opportunity today to recognize that here in Labok. I've invited uh two uh rabbis who serve our uh Jewish citizens here in Labok. uh for this proclamation. Uh couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to uh be a part of a number of mayors who were invited from around the world to Israel and we were there for an occasion to learn a lot about the different kinds of industries and AI stuff that was uh developed in Israel. But we were also invited to be uh guests of the government there. And while we were there, we had an opportunity to visit the Holocaust memorial. We also visited some of the sites uh for that were attacked on October 7th a couple of years ago. Um you know the the phrase we always say is never forget and the reason we have to say that is because the threat of anti-semitism never goes away. Uh it's always ready to raise its ugly head time and time again. And so uh today I want to take an opportunity to read the special recognition and then I'm going to invite uh Rabbi Salman Brawn and RA uh Rabbi Dr. Stephanie Shine to come forward and make some uh comments. So whereas January 27th is recognized as international holocaust remembrance day commemorates the anniversary of the liberation of Ashwitz Burkanau the largest Nazi concentration and extermination camp. This year marks the 81st anniversary of the liberation of Awitz Burkanau and we pause to reflect on one of the darkest chapters in our human history. And whereas on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we honor and remember the six million Jews systematically murdered by the Nazi regime regime as well as millions of other innocent victims who were dehumanized and targeted for persecution and extermination. And whereas International Holocaust Remembrance Day stands as a solemn reminder of the dangers of hatred and bigotry towards different races and religions and underscores the vital importance of education, vigilance, understanding, and action to ensure such atrocities are never repeated again. And whereas the city of Lach reaffirms its commitment to human dignity, tolerance, and mutual respect while standing firm firmly against anti-semitism and all forms of hatred and discrimination. It's our shared responsibility to preserve the lessons of the Holocaust as a cornerstone to our collective memory and to honor the resilience and courage of the survivors who rebuilt their lives and communities. Now therefore, we the mayor and city council of the great city of love do hereby offer special recognition to international holocaust remembrance day and call upon all our residents to join us in solemn remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust and to educate ourselves about the history and lessons we can learn from the Holocaust and recommmit ourselves to building a more just, tolerant, and compassionate society free from anti-semitism and hatred of any kind. mandated this 27th day of January, 2026. And I'd like to call us now just to have a moment of silence uh to remember those victims uh of the Holocaust. And then I'll call the rabbis up. All right. Thank you very much. uh call up Rabbi Stephanie Shine of Congregation Sheriff Israel here in Leva. Come forward and I have a proclamation for you and invite you to make your comments. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mayor McReer, and thank you for elevating me to the status of rabbi. >> I'm president of Congregation Sheriff Israel. We do have a rabbi in the room who will speak next. >> You do a little teaching. I'm sure >> do a little teaching. That's that's fair. Rabbis are teachers. >> Honorary rabbis >> indeed. Thank you. And on behalf of Congregation Sheriff Israel, thank you for the special, beautiful recognition of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Remembering is deeply important. I'm going to read some words by a rabbi, Rabbi Barry Doof Katz. These words were written after October 7th. The story of Noah is too hard to bear. But at least there was an ark to include, protect, and save from the flood. Now we are the ones who need an ark to save us from the flood. We all need gopher wood and pitch for our souls. We all search for the window to feel the sun on our faces and to see the horizon. There is no ark. We will be the ark together. When we are in distress, may we build together an ark of love, assistance, and support. An arc that has in it a hug. An arc that has room for all of the tears. May we together be an ark facing each and every wave in the flood and storm. Help us to be an arc of mutual friendship so that in this narrow place full of pain and anger, we will not become enemies. That we will understand that our future and fate are one. Give us the strength to be an ark of listening, an ark that is spacious and has room for all. Do not let the flood enter the holiness of our communities. Remember the ark that Miriam placed gently and hopefully on the water. Protect our loved ones. Protect the wounded. Guard us from evil. Since there is no ark, we will be the ark. May we soon know that the waters have receded from the earth. Fulfill for us that which is written, there will not be another flood. And the rainbow appeared in the clouds. and let us say amen. >> Now I'll call up an actual rabbi, Rabbi Zman Braun, who is u uh serves the Kawad of Labok at Texas Tech. Rabbi, you'll come forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for inviting me here today. It's really my honor and privilege to be here representing the Jewish community here in Levik and the Jewish students at Texas Tech University. By divine providence, tonight on the Hebrew calendar marks exactly 76 years since the Rabbi Rabbi M. Schneerson assumed the leadership of the Kabal movement in 1950. And this was merely a few years after the destruction of the Holocaust when Jewish communities all around the world were in a state of despair, of devastation, and looking to rebuild their lives. And the Reb made it his mission from the first day to not just focus on rebuilding our own community, but to rebuild the Jewish communities all around the world to ensure that any Jew in any place in the world will have a community, will have a home, will have a way to connect to his Jewish identity. To date, there is Kabad centers in over 100 countries in all 50 states. It is my greatest honor to be the Reb's representative here in Lavik and to make sure that every Jew will always have a home. But it's not just about the Jewish community. You see, one of the things that the Reb made a strong emphasis on was the seven noight laws that God gave to Adam at the dawn of civilization reiterated to Noah after the great flood, which are the belief in one God, not to serve idols, not to murder, not to steal, not to have immoral relations, not to be cruel to animals, and the establishment of justice courts, which is what you all do best over here, right here in this room. And this is one of the most important reflections that when we think about the Holocaust is to make sure that we ensure to educate our children that it's not just about learning and studying and being smart. It's about having moral values and to make sure that the world is truly a civilized place. A place that God wants to call us home. And may till we come to the ultimate time, the world will be only a place of goodness and kindness with the coming of Mashia may be speedily in our days. Thank you everyone. >> Appreciate Yeah, I think we all are reminded the Nazis followed the law. A law without a strong moral underground uh undergrounding. It's based in the law, I think we all learn from God and respect for one another and love for one another. Without that, law is worthless. So yes, we try to do the law here as best we can. But in serving this community, I think all of us here do recognize our ultimate responsibility uh to God for what we do here. So, thank you all both. This is the place which we normally take up citizen comments, but I understand we don't have any today. All right. So, normally you would have an opportunity to come speak to us on any item on our agenda. Um, and we give you three minutes. And we always want to remind people who are watching or who might be here. If you ever have any uh subject matter that we're discussing that day on our agenda you want to address the council, please uh let us know before we begin our meetings at 2:00, uh sign up and we will put you u in the queue to speak to us on whatever matter uh you wish to speak to us on that's part of our agenda. This is part of uh trying to be accountable to our citizens. So, we'll take up now agenda item 4.1, minutes from our December 9th, 2025 regular city council meeting and the December 11th, 2025 special council meeting. Uh those uh minutes have been in your packets presented to you. So, is there a motion to approve item 4.1? >> Is there a second? >> All right, we have a motion, a second. Is there any discussion or any amendments to be made to those uh minutes? I see none. All right. All in favor let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. So that motion to approve carries unanimously. All right. On our consent agenda. Um there's not been any request today to pull any items from the consent agenda for a separate vote. Um so I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. But I believe we are going to have a discussion about one item. But let's get a motion first and then during the discussion we can discuss that one item. Is that appropriate? All right. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? >> All right. Do I have a second? >> All right. We have a motion and a second and I believe Mr. Collins, you had a question. Uh you wanted some information uh presented and I believe we're prepared to do that. >> I did. Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor. Um item 5.05 105 is a resolution to approve and make some changes to our investment policy and investment strategy. These recommendations came from our audit and investment committee. And so I was hoping that the city manager uh could provide us some additional information as to what may be changing there, the role and purposes of the audit and investment committee uh and maybe give us a little clarity on on what dollars that this um this group overseas for us. >> Thank Mr. Amager. >> Thank Thank you, sir. Um, Councilman, if it's all right, I'm going to ask our CFO, Joe Jimenez, to come up and he and I will kind of walk through this. Your audit and investment committee is a small but very important group. You see the results of their work when we come in to budget each year talking about how your investment earnings track different benchmarks and where we achieve that. Uh and of course also as we prepared what is now called the annual consolidated financial report or your city audit. Um Joe and his team work directly with audit and investment committee. So we'll let him start and I'll fill in if I can. >> Good afternoon mayor and council. As Mr. Atinson me mentioned I think one of the biggest roles of our audit investment committee is the annual comprehensive financial report is which is your basically your financial year ends. Um, so what we do, we give them a draft, they review it, they make a recommendation to city council. We will be taking this draft to February 11th to that audited investment committee and then to council on the the second meeting in February, which I believe is February 27th. So we'll bring that to y'all for final recommendation. Uh, just a little bit about them. U, the it's a five member board. Um, currently, Miss Teresa Clark is a chair. She's a CPA. Uh, Mr. Keith Man, he's the vice chair. U, Mr. Eddie Schultz is the electric board representative. Uh we have Mr. Brandon Kidd and Mr. Cooper Cunningham. So again, we meet with them quarterly. Uh we provide them any internal audits that have happened between that period and the investment report. As Mr. Atinson said, we have about a $72 million investment portfolio which we bring which we give monthly it's in the monthly management report. So you all can see that. But we take it to the investment committee. uh especially we have some um expertise on that board and so they provide us with recommendations on you know the market or what they think we should invest in. Again for fiscal year 25 we made about 17.1 million in our investment pool. Um the prior year was 21.1 million. It's a little less but remember that that's market rate driven. So as interest rates were higher we made more money as interest rates come down the same. Again, this is money, the cash that we have on hand in our departments and all the uh proceeds we have from the bonds that we've issued. Of course, when those bonds are sitting there once we issue the debt and haven't expended those funds, we're investing them. You know, we're trying to be the best stewards of the public's money as we can. So, again, that's a high level overview of what the audit and committee does for us. Again, it's a five member board. Um, it requires one CPA. requires at least two who are investment, banking, audit, financing, and then one member at large and then one member uh from the electric utility board. So, happy to take any questions on that. >> Mr. Collins, >> did I hear you say that um we have approximately $700 million invested and and these funds make up funds from all of our city departments? They're reserve funds, I assume. >> Yes, sir. the these funds are also uh the funds that are required to be held to support uh their bonding uh or borrowing that they have to do to continue with the work of the city. >> That is correct sir. You know we issue the dip all at one time. We for those bonds we get the whole issuance of course you spend that over a period of 12 months. So whatever we have uh have not expended or paid out that's invested in into our portfolio. >> Okay. So I guess the point of my you know my question is to draw attention to those folks and the work that they do to draw attention to the fact that we have citizens who are overseeing the work of the city in in terms of managing our reserve funds. Uh and and this action happens to be a a what I would call a pullback uh referred to as a pullback. We're restricting uh some of the investments away from u commercial paper. Could you >> Yeah. So, so commercial paper at one point we had increased that it had been 10% of our total investment portfolio. Uh we went to 30%. But we've been averaging about 6.4% in commercial paper. So it made sense. It's a lot more risky and the city you know they want to be risk adverse. So we never really went to that 30% threshold. So I thought it was a good opportunity to come back to the 10% that we had uh prior and and again we h average about 6.4% of our total portfolio in commercial paper. So, it makes sense to bring it back to, you know, set some lower parameters on there. Uh, and so we brought that to council based on, uh, the recommendation from the audit investment committee to bring that down to the 10%. Well, I again I appreciate the opportunity to thank you for the work that you do, to recognize that we have citizens that are overseeing that, those that are capable and understand um um you know, the zeros, if you will, but there that that we have citizens who are helping uh watch over these large sums of money uh that the city's responsible for. So, thank you uh again and thank you for your time, Mayor. >> So, you you're congratulating these getting these people because they know how to do math in public, right? because I think you always say you don't know how to do it. So, these are people who know how to do math and and some great people on that committee. So, uh yes, uh Mayor Pro Tim, did you >> I was just going to ask who was our atlarge representative? >> Well, it's not at large. They're just not required to be and I should have misspoke, but they're just not required to be a auditor or a financial person. So, >> who is that? >> That is uh let me see here. I believe that is Mr. Cooper Cunningham. >> Okay. >> Yes. and he is it's just one opportunity and he is in the banking industry but it's just one opportunity for to get somebody who is not in that focus but I think it does help that we they all have a background in finance for this committee >> sometimes they ask the most interesting questions >> they do they keep us on our toes that's for sure >> there you go and so and my question to you is with what happens with that $7.1 million >> so it it really we just reinvested uh so it's money that that's available out of u that interest earning And so if we need it, we'll reinvest it. I mean, if we can, we'll reinvest it. If we need it to to cover some of the expenses we do, but again, it it's kind of like your your savings account. You get money, you get interest on that, and you'll reinvest those funds to to make more profit on them. >> All right. Any other questions for Joe while we got them? I see none. All right. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate it. All right. Since we have a motion and a second and if there any other discussion. All right. If there is none, I uh let's all in favor of approving item 4 uh one the excuse me 4 point one the consent agenda. Is that right? Got the right number here. Yeah. Five. Item five. Sorry. Item five consent agenda. Please let me know by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. All right. Let's move on to our regular agenda. All right, on our regular agenda, we're going to take up zoning case 3540, which actually encompasses agenda items 6.1 to 6.3, but we will take up each item uh relating to this zoning case separately. First, we'll conduct a public hearing for uh agenda item 6.1, which encompasses a request for numerous zoning changes in council district 1 being proposed by our staff, except for the properties listed in agenda items 6.2 and 6.3. As a reminder, the purpose of the public hearing is to hear from applicants and members of the public. The council may ask questions during the public hearing, but no discussion of the merits will be conducted by the council during the public hearing. and I'm going to call on Kristen Sager, our director of planning, to provide a brief summary of this zoning case subject to the public hearing. >> Good afternoon, mayor and council. As she stated, item 61 is zone case 3540. It is being brought by the city. This is a result of the zoning map analysis that was completed at the end of last year, which we contracted with Safeuilt to complete our consultant. And so, these are their recommended zone changes from that analysis. We're starting with district one. The map on your screen is the entirety of district 1. We are not asking to reszone the entirety of district 1. This is just to give um our citizens a good idea of where this is located. It goes all the way to Utah Street down to 50th west to North Udica and east to Northville. So very large district. The request is for a zone change from SF2, MDR, HDR, AC, HC, IP, and LI to SF2, AC, IP, LII, and GI. And we'll go through those a little more in depth. We did mail 798 notifications to property owners within 400 ft of the subject properties. We received 16 in favor and nine in opposition. Three of the nine in opposition are from property owners whose property we are asking you to reszone. Those three are item 62 because they require a super majority. Item 63 is a property two properties where the planning and zoning commission recommended denial. So again, those are a separate item for you to vote on, but you'll get an overview of all of it in this item. So as a reminder, this is a result from our comprehensive plan which we updated in December of 2018. This is kind of the last piece of the puzzle. We updated the comprehensive plan. We adopted our new unified development code in 2023. Now we've completed the zoning map analysis and we are asking council to make those recommended zone changes. Again, we are going to go through this district by district starting with district 1 in January. And here's just an idea of our of our schedule for this and going month by month through the districts. Here's an aerial view of some of the properties. The majority of the properties are along Interstate 27. This includes our airport which is currently zoned residential lowdensity SF2. There's some additional properties at the Clovis Highway and Quaker Avenue. There's a parcel on the North Loop west of North University actually adjacent to Burl Huffman which the city owns but is zoned industrial. And then further south along MLK, there's some area that is currently zoned industrial park. We're not asking to change that. It's adjacent to other properties zoned residential that we're asking for a zone change. Additional properties include part of our Canyon Lake system south of Erskin west of the interstate. There's two properties on East 4th which were annexed in 2023. A petition annexation from Lita for the intent of putting an industrial use bringing an industrial business to that property. and then some additional properties at 34th and 50th in university. Current zoning along the interstate, the majority of the properties are currently zoned lowdensity single family SF2. This is also a result of our annexation practices. When property is annexed, it is automatically given the most restrictive zoning designation, lowdensity single family. And then we have some additional property along MLK currently zoned industrial park. These maps do include all of the properties studied in the analysis. We are not necessarily recommending a zone change on all of them. But again, you have you can see it's difficult to see three parcels there zoned SF2 and auto urban commercial where we are recommending a zone change to industrial park because it is surrounded by industrial. The recommended zoning for the majority of those properties along the interstate is general industrial. There is one office complex where the consultant is recommending auto urban commercial and then industrial park along MLK and then along the Canyon Lakes area we are recommending SF2. It is currently zoned industrial. It's a recreational area. There are some utilities but we're asking that be taken back to SF2. Future land use plan along the interstate is public semi-public uses as well as industrial. The current zoning on the north loop is industrial and then the properties at Clovis Highway and North Quaker are currently zoned SF2 but have some commercial industrial uses on some of the properties. Current zoning for the area of the Canyon Lakes is industrial recommended. Again, we're asking for lowdensity SF2 south of Erskin, low density SF2 North Loop, and then light industrial at Clovis and Quaker. Future land use plan actually recommends industrial at Clovis and Quaker and then commercial on the North Loop, but again, that piece is actually city-owned adjacent to Burl Huffman. Future land use plan recommends parks for the Canyon Lakes area. current zoning at 34th in university and 50th in university. You have medium density residential and highdensity residential at 34th. And then you have highdensity residential and heavy commercial at 50th. At 34th, we're actually only recommending one of those parcels be changed. The one at the hard corner of 34th and University be changed from its current medium density residential to auto urban commercial. The other existing uses are medical or office type uses which can remain in their current zoning. And then at 50th in university asking that be reszoned to auto urban commercial. Future land use plan designates commercial along 34th and 50th. The pro the two properties on east 4th currently zoned low density SF2. Again they were annexed in 2023. So they came in as SF2 zoning. Recommended zoning is for general industrial. And these are the two properties that you'll actually be voting on in item 6.3. This is a map showing the properties we re the notifications we received in favor. The 16 in favor. Majority are along the interstate. Opposed. Thought it was a little easier to just show you one by one. So 2601 East Kent. This property was just in the notification boundary. We are not asking you to reszone this property. The property owner stated they wanted the zoning to stay as it is. Same with 21101 East Regis. We are not asking you to reszone this property. 10903 North Avenue P and North County Road 2300. The majority of this property is outside city limits. Only the portion that will eventually be North Avenue P is inside city limits. The uh responder stated they did not want to be annexed. This will not annex any property. 8907 North High 27. Again, they were in the notification boundary. They are outside city limits. They did not provide comment on their opposition. 1511 Baylor Street. Um in the notification area for the property in the Canyon Lakes area that we are asking you to down zone to SF2 did not provide comment on their opposition. And with that, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by unanimous vote. Um, and and the only properties you are not voting on in item 6.1 are the ones listed in 6.2 and 6.3. So, with that, I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> All right. Are there any questions? >> I see none. All right. Thank you very much. All right. I'll now hold a public hearing. Open the public hearing for agenda item 6.1. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this zone case? No one in favor. Is there anyone here speaking in opposition to this zone case? If so, please come forward. You come forward. Please give us your name and your address if you wouldn't mind and uh speak to this is a large um zoning case. So if there's a particular part you're wishing to speak to just let us know. Thank you. >> I need to make sure that we are speaking about 6.1 the uh zone case 3540. >> We are speaking about 6.1. Yes. And 35. >> I am in favor of some what is on there. But I wanted to make some comments. Uh, mayor, uh, when you started the meeting, uh, you made reference to public comments. I did come in early to sign for the public comments, but I was told that since, and I had my three minutes uh, paper, but I was told that since it was a line item here on 61 that I didn't need to sign up. Is that correct? >> Well, you get your opportunity to speak. If you had wanted to speak both times, you you certainly could. Okay. uh speak both times but uh we'll give you your opportunity to speak to it >> now. Speak to it now at this point. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Dora Cortez, >> you don't actually have a a limit now, so Okay, speak to it. So, >> thank you, Mayor. Dora Cortez, I live at 217 North Avenue O and I am also representing the North and East Luck Coalition as a co-director. I am here today to discuss case uh zone case 3540 in particular the plots of land being considered today that are north of the canyon on lake number three. But before I get into that, I would like to ask why the plot of vacant land east of University and north of Erskin uh Love uh County Appraisal District number R86622 was not included for a zone change to single family when and while these other sites for reszoning were being considered. Last time I was here, someone on the dasis asked what changes I'd like to see. Not in those exact words. I suggested that the council fulfill a promise and this promise is a word that I'm using that uh fulfill a promise they made to residents of north and east love. That promise was to consider downzoning or reszoning any vacant land held by the city lita or urban renewal from industrial to single family. Don't get me wrong, this zone case seems to address part of that issue, but these are not the big changes I had hoped the city would consider. I would like now to address the fears and concerns our residents have regarding the daily dumping of concrete slabs, rocks, asphalt, and debris that come down from the north slope from the concrete bash plants onto city property that is north of Lake number three. I have spoken with city employees who have told me that since these companies are in compliance and while these aggregates do not affect the storm water drainage system of Lake Number Three, there is nothing the city can do. This is unacceptable. The city must not allow these aggregates to encroach onto city property and not do anything until the storm water system to lake number three is affected. At what point it will be at that point it will be too late. This is a public nuisance and we want our lake to continue to be accessible to its residents and the community and we need the city's help. We need city inspectors to evaluate, access, or come up with a solution that will prevent these materials flowing down that north sto north north slope into city property causing harm to the land and to the lake. Thank you. >> Let me just be clear. So your your uh concern is about um is it about the zoning or that this was not downzoned or is it more about uh environmental factors you are concerned about? I I think uh mayor that it is more environmental factors that the slope when there there's a slope there because you got the canyon and then you've got the the lake and the debris that comes down it's already down to where the city property is at and it's gone beyond that point and we don't want to see that debris going into beyond the city property. We want something to be done to prevent that. >> All right. Thank you. But my understanding is this particular piece of property is not part of this zoning. >> Yes, it is. Yes, >> it's not, Miss Agar. It's not, is it? Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? >> Hello everybody. >> I've sent y'all some emails recently. I don't know. Anyway, my name is Fabian Mata. I live at 211 North Avenue M right by the canyon. Yeah, I agree with Dora. Basically, I noticed that the ordinances are light industrial, heavy industrial, all this confusing thing. But, uh, what I don't like is general industrial. Why don't I like general industrial? You all know what goes in general industrial, don't you? Everybody. Okay. Wrecking yards, concrete plants. Let me get to my notes here. Custom industrial activities. I wonder what that would cover. Custom industrial activities. Whatever the heck they want to do in general industrial. That's custom industrial activities. And y'all are going to allow that. Whatever they want custom. I'll go out there and kill some cows, behead them, and turn them into art and bleed down the street. That's going to be allowed. That's GI. That's GI, General Industrial. That's what we're talking about. That's why we have concrete plants in the canyon. And there's an ordinance that says, and Jay I consider should have got y'all should have gotten that email. It clearly says, "I got to dig it out because y'all something happened to the plat this 1972 ordinance. Plat this, plat that. It doesn't apply. No more green around the canyon, especially where Mexicans are." Yeah. We don't want it said 15% greenery. All of a sudden we have a concrete plant 2009. What the heck happened? And then where where is the lady who was in charge of PNZ where they finally sent me an email and they said that it was platted before this day or platted before that date. Therefore a concrete PL plant is allowed right there next to the canyon. 1972 after the tornado hit that city council said no like commercial 15% trees and grass. Y'all got to change that. And then and I'll tell you why I don't want GI. Okay. I've been involved with the Texas Commission Environmental Quality uh for over a year now. And one of you guys, I don't know it may not be any of you all, but you said heavily regulated by the state. Oh, it's going to be okay. that dump site over there in South Lev heavily regulated by the state. It's going to be wonderful heavy regulation. Dejour and de facto. I sent you all emails. Dejour basically means this is a law and what's really going on is I'll tell you what's been going on. I've been you know triple C concrete just found out they don't have a storm water uh permit. They've been operating for years and you all are saying that's okay. I just found out I talked to TCQ this morning. They confirmed they should have had it for years, for decades, and then they lost their their their permit last year, a year and a half ago, 2023, end of I called them and say, "Hey, by the way, they're operating without a permit." They shut him down. They're trying to get it again. And you know what? I got the legal document here. They pretty much ignored us and said, "Well, you you don't live 440 yards there. I do walk my dog. I live 600 yards from there, so so I don't have standing." But they did say, "Well, the city council has an ordinance. Apparently they this ordinance says they can be there. So TCQ can't do anything about it. They can do that behind Carmona Elementary School. That's within the 440 yards. Y'all are allowing pollution next to an elementary school. And you want more GI? No. A shame. Shame of Lukak. You want more stuff. And then let me give you a list of businesses that are out there now that are specifically regulated by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality. You know, their mission is, you all know their mission, look it up if you don't know, to protect the environment, citizens health. These are some of the businesses out there right now. You know, sand and gravel pits, asphalt, concrete, rock quaries, auto salvage yards, recycling centers, wastewater foundaries, chemical manufacturers. Oh, by the way, my neighborhood was evacuated in 2013. hydrogen something cotton seed bay or whatever. Yes, nearby. They evacuated it. Gandies leaking ammonia every once in a while. I guess we're getting used to the smell. We can only complain so much they don't do anything about it. I pointed out that they lost their permit. TCQ did nothing. And there is an ordinance that says that you guys you guys need to coordinate with TCQ. There's a city ordinance. Let's get code enforcement involved with this. I'm getting sick of this. Okay. Here are some of the names of the businesses in north and east that are regulated by TCQ. Liprinos East 4th and I guess their wastewater is on East 4th and then the the plant is on East 19th. We're going to have to check out the wastewater. JMBB Industrial Northeast Loop 289 Hydra Chemical Company East 66 Diamond Plastics Marshall Street Farmers Co-op Compress Southeast Drive Wilkerson Storage Industrial Storage E66 Beckno Wholesale East 44th O2 Industries on Urskin Republic National Distributing I don't know where they are but they're definitely north or east. Yano Logistics MLK MLAN High Plains Loop 289 Grady's Asphalt Bayer Crop Science Peran Basin Materials that's that's right by my my house North Avenue K. Oh, and per basin. Uh, I did get the city involved. The the the county, I mean, the TCQ didn't want to do do the thing. I haven't hit him on the water stuff. They're going to get hit. The the previous director, he retired early. Jason's a director now. Anyway, I'm still hitting them. Uh, I'm glad the city did go out there and but there's no enforcement. They recommended you all need to the BM that's supposed to be a fizz is full of concrete and dirt. Shouldn't have concrete. TCQ shirt on that one. And uh they said, "Well, we recommend a little fence, you know, that hose the dirt in when it rains." Cuz it's all over Avenue K. Y'all go over there. The stuff is all over the city street. Concrete and dirt. Go over there. You'll see it. Every time it rains, you'll probably see it. Little gullies coming down this the 12oot thing. It should have been a fence. By the way, that complaint was filed in 2018. They did nothing. TCQ did nothing. They said, "Oh, occasional watering of the yard is okay." I think you all got those emails. I don't know. If not, you I'll send them to you. Anyway, we go on uh triple C concrete on Earthin Pico. Oh, Pico. That's on the edge of district one. My point is this. You cannot add any more GI at all. At all. Nothing. We've have enough. Put it in South Le. Be fair. Empathy and compassion. Do you all have any of that? Y'all pray a lot. Do you have any empathy or compassion? Put yourself in other people's shoes. You really have none. And that PNZ thing that we got rid of the what the heck did we get rid of the data center? Really? Y'all you probably saw that. Yeah. 900 acres some houses out there. The poor people out there. Yeah. Our groundwater. We still get our water from Wales. Oh, that's okay. We need a data center to hell with your groundwater. >> But that's not on our agenda today, Mr. Ma. So that's not on our agenda today. So >> Oh, it borders district one. GI it's GI general industrial is it not GI was it what what what the data center industrial light what would have been my point is we don't want all of that stuff >> residential inside the loop >> and let me go further >> just please confine your comments to uh district >> to property that is uh being zoned today and not environmental concerns because we're not really here to discuss that today I know you have them, Mr. M and you've communicated them, but we're really talking about zoning changes today. >> So now you're aware of why we don't want him. So Jean, I >> I think I hear you. >> Right. Environmental. That's the whole point. If it wasn't polluting, then it'd be okay. The whole point is environmental. Our health, the school's health, that's the whole point. The water, GI pollution and water, that's the connection. If y'all can't get it, maybe we need some people replaced out here. That's a connection. GI, we don't want that anymore. I can go on further, but I'll send y'all emails. Y'all have a good day. We're not through, by the way. We're not through. We just begun. All right, council. I am looking at a map and you indicated when I came up that that was not included. I have a map from the planning and zoning that was the K3540 and I think I had asked you to bring that map up at one point when we were at the other meeting and it does we are talking about a property that is a zoning change which I am in favor of by the way from uh industrial to single family but I want to point out that no um you had indicated that that was not part of the what we're discussing today. And it is I want I want to let you know that it is on the map. It is part of the 3540 recommended zone change. Thank you. >> Miss Sager, can you give us a little clarification on that, please? Thank you. Well, so I'll go to a different map, but this area here south of Erskin is Canon Lakes area. Here's the current industrial zoning. So, we are asking you to reszone this industrial zone property down to SF2. There are not any existing concrete batch plants in this property. >> That's what I wanted the clarification on. I know your concern was about the concrete batch, but it's not one of the properties that's being requested for resoning today. >> Correct. Correct. >> Thank you. All right, >> Mayor Pro Tim. >> Clarification. It is not in there, but it is near there. And I think that's what our citizens are referring to. >> Mr. Rose, >> I just had a question for Kristen for um clarification. Is there anything else in this um this large swath of of redistricting? Um is there anything that's going uh to uh GI? >> So the areas that we are requesting to reszone to general industrial are located along the interstate these properties here. So the on this map the lighter gray is general industrial the darker gray is industrial park and then there is some light industrial recommended at uh Clovis Highway in Quaker and then general industrial recommended here on East 4th. Okay. >> And and Kristen, that last one is item 63. It's not in the >> by itself right now. Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other uh comments in opposition? >> I can say >> Well, Mr. M, if you're going to come back up, please make sure you're speaking to an item on our agenda on a piece of property that's being considered right here. All right. Don't want to get off track. Oh yeah. Well, she mentioned, you know, G the one that I don't want that we don't want, you know, and Councilman mentioned that it's nearby and, you know, when when the PNZ meeting was there and I I pointed it out cuz it's right around the canyon, right around this and she just kind of said, "Well, well, you know, this kind of sherking, we don't like that. We don't want like nearby." Well, we can put this nearby and all that. It's still going in there. We don't want any of this stuff, anything regulated by TCQ. You know, it's obvious what y'all are trying to do. We get a little business over here. Oh, we zone over here, this corner over here. Maybe we can get this other one, Geral Industrial, right next to it, next to the house. You know, that's the way you all operate. We're getting tired of it. >> Okay, I understand. Disgusting. But again, we got to stick to the items that we are discussing today. >> All right. If there are no other people here today to speak in opposition to this item. I will close the public hearing at 30:02. And is there a motion to approve uh agenda item 6.1? >> Do you have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I see none. All in favor let be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. Hearing none, that motion passes unanimously 6. Now we'll take up item 6.2 two of zoning case 3540 which is a request to change the zoning from low density single family district which is SF2 and auto urban commercial district which is AC to industrial park district IP and light industrial district L1 at 272 North Quaker Avenue 2704 North Quaker Avenue and 382 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Miss, can you provide us a briefing on this uh zoning item? subject to our public hearing. >> Thank you, mayor. These are three properties that were part of zone case 3540 where the city is recommending a zone change, but the property owner submitted opposition. So, since the property owner is opposed to the requested zone change, it requires a super majority of six out of seven votes from city council in order to be approved. The first property is 2702 North Quaker Avenue. Current zoning is low density single family SF2. Current use appears to be warehousing. 2704 North Quaker Avenue immediately north of the prior property is currently vacant. Also zoned SF2. We are recommending LI zoning on both of these properties. And then 382 North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Current zoning is SF2 and AC. There is a green uh heavy highdensity residential parcel in within this property that was not included in the recommendations of the analysis. So we are just looking at the SF2 and auto urban commercial. That zoning was approved in 2016. It is still currently vacant surrounded by industrial park zoning. So we are recommending industrial park as well. So again, um, PNZ recommended approval with a unanimous vote that we would need a supermajority from council in order for these to be approved. >> Mr. Bashing, you have a question. >> It appears that the existing land use matches the the zoning classification. Why was the owner opposed to the zone change? >> He did not provide any comments. >> Have we reached out to the owner or talked to him about it? No. >> The opposition we got, is it just one of those forms? Are they Mark X opposed? >> Yes. >> And if that person's here today, they can come and and speak. I'm not sure if they're here or not. Yes. So, >> I believe he I don't know if it was this owner or another owner in the area. Someone did have some comments in terms of concerns of traffic in the area, but given that the existing use is already a commercial and you have other commercial and industrial uses in the area, I don't think it's going to affect the traffic. >> Yeah. Continue. >> Yeah. Well, this is just more of a comment that I would be very hesitant to uh to change a zone over the property owner's objection, but this would actually bring their land in compliance with their existing use. I think it would be doing them a favor. Um, and so I I'm kind of inclined to go ahead and do the zone change, and if the owner feels strongly enough about it, we can look at reverting it in the future. >> All right. Anyone else have any questions? Mayor Pro. Um, Kristen, what is the closest I know based on this the closest residential property to this I'm familiar with this area. >> Mhm. >> This is near the dairy, right? >> Um, >> this is qu uh Quaker Quaker and Clovis Highway. >> You go over the tracks, >> right? Yes. So I guess north of the green square that is residential. Is that a trailer? An RV trailer >> manufactured home park. >> How many feet away from that is this particular? >> I I don't know. Um I could get that measurement for you. blocks about 300. >> I mean, even looking at the current photo in the left corner, it's obviously already being treated. I mean, it doesn't look like it is going to appeal or bring any um residential to that area, >> right? >> But the traffic is a concern. Here's here's the other thing I and I hear this from folks all the time. We just don't want any more industry like this. And and I don't blame them. I've spoken to several staff members that no, I want to see more housing things that are more appealing. We can't just keep getting all the junk, if you will. >> But in this particular case, that property is being used as a light industrial already. So all we're doing is just changing the zone, but if that person wanted to appeal, they could come back and we could possibly consider turning that back. Right. >> Absolutely. So uh not only would you need a supermajority today, if approved today, you'll still need a supermajority on second reading at your February February 10th council meeting. And as you stated, the zone change will actually bring them into conformance. As they're currently, they're non-conforming. They could not expand. They could not change the use unless it was something allowed in SF2. >> And was did we invite them to come and be here to speak today? >> We they received a letter. >> They received a letter. >> Is that person here by chance? >> Doesn't appear so. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from Miss Sager? All right. Okay. Um, we're we're doing a public hearing. >> The previous public hearing was specific to all the items of agenda item 6.1. You're having a public key hearing now for item 6.2. >> Right. >> For that. So, >> okay. So, we're we're now going to call a open a public hearing on this particular item 6.2. two. If anyone is here wishing to speak in favor of this particular zone case, please come forward. And if anyone's here wishing to speak in opposition to it, please come forward. Thank you. Da Cortez to 17 North Avenue O. As a resident of district 1 and a co-director of the northern east lab uh coalition, I am opposed to any change in district 1 from single family to any other type. That is one of the things that we are trying to let the council know that we do not want any type of industrial in our neighborhoods anymore. We've got so many. That is one of the things that we are trying to get the council to see that we are already inundated with all of these industries in our neighborhoods. We don't want anymore. I it doesn't matter if if it's a light industrial, we don't want it anymore. So, I am opposed to this uh 62 U zone change. Thank you. >> Thank you. I left my phone up here. I'm sorry, guys. Anyway, you know, my question, you know, looking studying all this, I'm kind of new at this, but um who why who is asking for these zoning changes? What businessmen, what corporation is asking for this? They just come out of the air. Oh, there's residential over here, but we might need some room for industrial in case somebody's interested in putting a business in there. Who what who talked to Miss Seager and say, "Hey, we might we suggest that we uh turn this into a that's what I want to know." That's where corruption and greed comes in. We'll find out if this passes. We'll find out who who asked for it and then we will deal with it. Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? I see none. So, I'll close this public hearing at 3:11. And again, we'll note because of the percentage of opposition in this zoning change, it will require an affirmative vote of all council members present today uh to approve this change. So, is there a motion to approve agenda item 6.2? >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this item, Mr. Gusheen? >> Sir, to answer your question about what uh prompted the review of the zone change, if at the beginning of the presentation, you may have seen that this is part of a larger citywide review that we're doing of all land that's out of conformance with uh the zoning and kind of some general updates from the UDC. So, this was done in collaboration with an outside consultant in our own planning and zoning department. UC all residential residential. >> I just wanted to to try to answer that question for you. >> All right. I respond. >> Anyone else? >> All right. No further discussion on it. Um all in favor let be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. Is there one nay? >> All right. So that motion fails for lack of a supermajority. Thank you. >> All right. Now we will move on to agenda item 6.3 zoning case 3540. I request to change the zoning from low density single family district SF2 to general industrial district GI at 4609 East 4th Street and 451 East 4th Street. Miss Seager if you will provide us a brief uh summary of this zoning case subject to our public hearing. Last two parcels part of this case. These are two parcels located on East 4th east of the loop. Current zoning is lowdensity single family SF2. Staff is recommending a zone change to general industrial. As a reminder, this property along with the property immediately east of this one were annexed in 2023. It was a petition annexation request from Lita um with the intent of bringing an industrial business to both of these properties and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. PNZ did recommend denial by a unanimous vote. Even though they recommended denial, council has amended the unified development code and only a simple majority is required for this to be approved. >> Thank you, Mr. Collins. >> Kristen, a couple questions. um and and hearing the conversation and I I have to agree industrial basically means whatever. Um give us a breakdown of things that could be done in you know slightly lesser um zoning industrial park. What can you do in a in industrial park that we couldn't do in general industrial >> that you couldn't do in general industrial? >> Well, help us to understand >> the differences the difference please. So, General Industrial, of course, is our least restrictive district out of all of the districts where you're going to allow heavy manufacturing and you're still going to have warehousing and storage and things like that that are allowed in the industrial park, even heavy commercial districts, warehousing and storage. Um, I did want to let you know that any concrete batch plants require specific use. They are not allowed by right anywhere. So any new ones even if they need general industrial zoning would still need approval from council for that specific use requirement. So GI is not open to anything and everything. There are still some limitations. Industrial park um like I said is more I it's more restrictive. It's geared toward more warehousing and storage distribution. We have our love business park boulevard. That area is zoned industrial park. So those types of businesses, um, indoor operations, things of that nature. >> So could you, if if a zoning was industrial park, could you then circle back uh with a specific use that that fits into that that maybe may be something that the neighbors would would object to? What I mean, if I were going to come I don't want to build a batch plant, I promise. But if I were going to come and build a batch plant and I've got to have specific use, I've got to have spec specific use in GI. Yes. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And so I can't get specific use for a batch plant or some really heavy industrial manufacturing. I'm assuming LRO is is is general industrial. So I can't come to you in a industrial park and get a specific use that's two steps up the ladder. >> No, you cannot. Okay, I think that's that's a second question. Um before I turn loose to the microphone, we have now provided a pathway for annexation with zoning connected. >> That's correct. So the two processes can run parallel at the same time. And so once the annexation is completed, your zone change may be completed at the same time. >> And that was that was done in 25. I mean, that's a brand new thing. So, so when Lita came forward with this pro property to annex, they didn't have the pathway to um set a a a zoning for that land when they came in. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for Sager? >> All right. I don't see any. Okay. Thank you. will now open the public hearing uh for agenda item 6.3. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this zone case? >> Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. John Osborne, 1500 Broadway. Uh I work with Lita and we are um hoping to change the uh the zoning on this. Um we did uh petition to have the or make application I should say to have this be in general industrial but um uh we've been checking with city staff and would like to amend that um this this afternoon to be uh industrial park zoning and uh which would still allow us to have distribution type facilities that might be over there. um that's most likely what would want to go on that piece of property um given its location and also the uh oil well and the and the pump jack that are located on that piece of property. Um and so uh we think that um a business that would need general industrial would not even want to locate in on that piece of property. And so we'd like to make that amendment if that's possible, please. >> Okay, we'll take that in consideration at the point we take up uh the vote on it. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Anyone here today wishing to speak in opposition to uh uh item 6.3 again >> Dora Cortez 17 North Avenue O and also a co-director for North and East Lava Coalition. Uh item 63 I am opposed to the zone change on that item as well. Um, again, even though it went from GI, it was amended to P uh industrial park. I still oppose the change from a single family district. Thank you. >> Anyone else here? Are you >> um well say Lita came up you know a while back Lita obviously has an input on zoning clearly he just stated you know so that needs to be brought up because you know it's taxpayer money it's funding it and and once again I'd like to know who is influencing Lita you know the buddy system, there's oversight and incentives. You know, they pay people to come in and build this thing. That's something that needs to be scrutinized. Mayor Robertson a long time ago kind of wondered like the budget was 8 million and they were giving away $1 million to incentivize people coming into businesses. I think leader needs to be scrutinized because they have a heavy input in GI zoning and this and that. Y'all need to look into that heavily. Seriously, if y'all won't, I will. It's not that hard. It's crazy how I find myself at this podium. Sheila Patterson Harris, 2303, love of Texas, USA. I uh I used to serve in that state. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right over there. And and as I be and as I began to look at this piece, it really bothered me because I was reminded of the fact that one of the primary focuses for this piece of property right off of East was in case we needed that property for LRO. As life would have it, LRO did not need such property and so it remained even though it had been annexed, it remained SF2. During that time when we were looking to even change the the doing the annexation for the property to the south of this actual actual location, we had some push back from those residents who live both to the west and to the east of this actual piece of property. So there are residences folks who live in that area even though they are not a part of the city of luck. There are people who reside in those places and so my concern would be is now and was then. But because they were willing to allow us to do what we need to do with LRO, I think it's more than right that we definitely look out for them at this moment and not allow that we disallow the changing of this zone from SF2 to GIR2 Industrial Park. either one. Either one would cause a huge separation of these two pieces of living areas. And I don't think it would serve that neighborhood well. Even though they are not citizens, they're still people. And I would uh would be willing to bet you $5 to a nickel that if you ask them if you ask their representative that they would still say they rather not that that type of indust industry be in that area. So I would ask that we would that each of you would bear if this were in your districts and your citizens said hey man that this is not this does not serve us well. Nobody wants a big industrial park or industrial anything anymore within or that near to residency. So I call upon each of you to think sensibly and compassionately and do not allow the change of zone from SF2 to GIR industrial park if that's what is decided later. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? All right. If not, I'll close this public hearing at 3:23. So, first we'll need a motion to approve agenda item 6.3. Is there a motion? >> Got a motion. We have a motion and a second. Uh, now we'll open up for discussion or an amendment. Sir, Mr. Collins, Mayor, I think, you know, we're we're faced with a number of challenges as we examine these zone cases, particularly in North and East Loach, and and you know, I feel I feel somewhat torn because we look at photographs of properties that uh I think we can all say that, you know, no matter the district, um that property needs to be improved. that property needs to be cleaned up. Uh and we have no control to do that. Uh we just failed a motion a moment ago for such a property, I think. But when I look at new parks built and we mentioned um the industrial park that Lita controls, actually two of them, and you look at those properties and the and the type of businesses that are there and the vision that is there and and the appearance of those properties, what I think we went through a great uh deal of conversation about all of the setbacks and the landscaping improvement and etc. that has to be done with um light industrial and more in particular industrial park. These are good neighbors in LITA has been a good neighbor. The requirements that Lita puts on businesses to build in those parks uh is very stringent and and I don't think there's any change to that um in in Lita's stance on the things that would have to be done. certainly don't see any changes in planning and zoning for the consistency in the uh handcuffs that are put on those businesses to build quality, nicel lookinging properties that serve our community well. And so I I think with that uh being said, I would move to amend agenda item 6.3 to change the zoning for these two properties from GI to an industrial park district. Have >> you heard the motion? Is there a second to that motion to amend? >> Excuse me. >> It ask your original um mover if he would accept that as amendment to his motion. >> Will you accept that, Mr. Goshi? He accepts that. All right. So now a sec. Do we need a second? If he accepts it. Still need >> Yes, you still need a second. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Parliamentarian. Uh do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All right. any further discussion of this matter. Uh, Mayor Ban. >> Thank you, Mayor. You know, I like a lot of the residents from North and East Suk, we get tired of driving down a road near a resident where there is constant dust from a concrete batch company or uh water runoff. And I know this doesn't have anything to do with the zoning, but I on this particular case, I think what also concerns me is did y'all have were you saying something to me? Thank you. Um there's two oil um wells nearby. I can't see anybody really wanting to build near an oil well. And I think that, you know, for me is a little bit of a game changer because I mean it's not to me I wouldn't want to put my children near that but it exists and some of these I've in that area they've not been wellmaintained. We've got the oil wells and I think something like an industrial park might not be a bad thing. I know we don't always agree with these types of things. Um, I know John is in the audience. Can I ask a question of John? Can I do that? >> That's up to the council and to you, mayor. >> Certainly. >> John, can I ask you that property, does it already belong to Lepro? >> No. No, it doesn't. At the original time that we purchased it, um, LRO was not looking to put water into Lake to clean the water and then put it into Lake Six. They were going to do land applications similar to what the city does on the far east side. And so, we had acquired some property in order to um help them through that process. At some point in time, it didn't make sense to move forward with that uh line of of um uh conversation and we were to make adjust were able to make adjustments to where LRO then put their um water treatment facility on site and now we're able to put the clean water into Lake Six. So that land had already been acquired and um we were then seeing that that might be a good opportunity for a future distribution center either associated with Lepro or for Lepro and um and while that's not necessarily been needed um we we knew that there was just not a lot of um areas over uh near LRO where something like that could happen. There's a little bit of land on the west side of the east loop, but it's it's a much closer to some housing and we saw envision more retail along that loop and then you'd have um kind of a light commercial area that might be behind it because of how close those residents are. So, we've really not kind of tried to sell that land at all for distribution type uh operations. So there's just not a lot of land available in that area to to supply a distribution center, which is what we primarily looked at uh for for going into this particular area. >> But you're saying that more than likely you would use it for commercial use. >> Um the theund roughly 10 acres that you're talking about here. There's actually two parcels, 105 and another 5 acre parcel. Um those uh together would be for likely for a distribution center. Um we still think that uh ultimately over the next you know decade that if LRO doesn't need it, somebody's going to need it um uh for for distribution and we see that um that's something that um is is uh good for our community and easy access to the loop. >> I just have to say this. I believe that Lrino has been a good neighbor. And what I want to know from you is if we did do ind changes to industrial park, would you be like super attentive to make regulating and making sure that if they chose not to do this that it would be a company that would follow or be conscious of being a good neighbor? >> Yes, ma'am. We um have worked real hard to try to make sure that the companies that we're working with and are coming into our community um are good fits for not just uh our entire community but also for the area that they're going into. Um we specifically um went um with LRO to their Gley Colorado plant where there's some residents nearby and just you know smelled the air. We listened to what what the sounds were like. We tried to make sure that it was not going to be um negative uh impact on those surrounding residence areas. And um I know a distribution center is really primarily just for the movement of goods. It's not really meant for the process of something that where there might be gases emitted or anything like that. And so we think that that'd be the most conducive to be next to these uh to the oil well and the pump jack and um yet still be allowed to go in near residents. uh most heavy industrial does not want to be near residents at all and so we can't imagine that that they would um be actively looking to go on that piece of property. They would more likely want to go on the far outskirts of the community >> and I can tell you that most residents don't want them. >> That's right. >> We also don't want data centers near there. >> So just letting know. But I appreciate I I think that's a more solid understanding. So thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Rose. >> Uh Kristen, can you tell us um B&Z on what what their vote was just so we can >> The planning and zoning commission recommended denial by unanimous vote? >> Unanimously. >> Mhm. >> And what was kind of the conversation? >> It it was we had opposition. We had citizens speak in opposition at the planning and zoning commission meeting um stating the same as what you've heard here today. not wanting industrial near the existing residential areas. Uh the PNZ did not consider any other zoning. They were only looking at the general industrial. >> Okay. >> Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you, Mayor Chrissy. I apologize. I was asking Brig ask that same question. Probably wasn't trying to speak over you. Uh Kristen and or John. So there's no current plans for needing this property to be industrial at the moment because the thought was likely LRO might need it in the future, but they don't need it right now. >> Correct. Laprino's told us that they don't need it at this moment in time. Our big challenge on it is the marketing of the property. So when companies uh contact us or when we're contacting companies about particular sites and and the such, one of the questions that they always ask is what's the zoning of that particular site or does it need to be annexed and re and zoned? And um in this particular case, it comes across, it used to come across as transitional, which was the same as single family residential, but the transitional at least didn't say residential on it. And so our clients could kind of get through that pretty easily. Um but now that um it says single family residential, um they know that that's a big change between resident, that's a lot of restrictions to no restrictions if it goes to general industrial or some restrictions as it goes to industrial park. So from a marketing perspective, we lose out. The company doesn't want to even consider coming to a particular piece of property that's not going to be conducive for uh if they don't feel like there's a good chance that it can actually um uh material make happen. >> Okay. Um and I definitely understand that about the marketing aspect of a piece of property. U I I do have some concerns, you know, with the the Chapel Hill neighborhood that's directly north of there, you know, just a generalized change in zone which I know we're trying to clean up our zoning. So nothing against Lita and nothing and I mean I love Lino if we had a plan for it. Um I do worry with that neighborhood abudding right up there to East with just blanketing saying that we're going to zone something now knowing with that marketable capacity what could come right there. Um and I never try to use a crystal ball because I think this council's been very amanable to any industrial companies and companies likewise coming in and changing zoning. So, I definitely wouldn't be opposed to just holding temporarily until you can find something. That's great because I do think that that neighborhood is very important. And I do think that we would want to know what's going to be put there. That way, if something is going to be there, we could create a good enough buffer between that neighborhood and something else and not just doing a blanket change right now. So, I I'm a little wary about that at the moment because you when you put such a large zone, anything could come. And from your perspective, I understand, but I also understand from y'all's perspective that, you know, it it could just open it up to anything that might want to come in. And then it takes away the discussion from both them if it's already zoned that way and it takes the discussion away from council. And it may not be this council. It may be a future council that may not be developed for 20 years. But I hate taking away the discussion aspect of it because I think that takes away kind of the voice from both. And so I'm not sure I can support it right now. Not saying that I couldn't support it in the future if it's the right project that we knew something could be there so the neighborhood could still have a good uh voice in that discussion. >> Anyone else? Any other questions? All right. Um I and again I guess what I would say on this is you know what I think we try to look for is the um the best use of a a tract of land and what's it likely to be used for u and often times what we imagine the best use of the land to be is not something that in reality it can ever be. I think one of the challenges with this land uh for people who would love it for it to be residential is the presence of the oil wells on it and um and so that's for people who have a hope that somehow the u infilling between two residential areas one on the west one on the east will be residential I don't think that's really likely uh to happen uh because of the presence of the oil well so then it becomes you know what do we do with it and as a city we annexed it and at some point. You know, our concern for our entire city is to um develop property that we have within the city because as property is developed, it brings in property tax money to the city and that's what we need to operate and run our city. It's it's not good to leave a piece of land um unutilized for a long period of time. when we uh annex this and again the the single family residence was just the default um zoning anything brought in through annexation is unless now they come in with the annexation and request the zoning at the same time but up till now that's just what it was and then you had to come and ask for that zoning to be changed so it's not like this was ever uh necessarily intended to be SF1 single family residential property that's just what it is automatically zoned. So, I believe that's our our concern. Um, I understand your concern too about how you market it, that residential designation. I think that can be explained uh to people uh at the same time that you uh they request a proposal, request information, you know, answer it in that way and so that they know that um that is not necessarily the designation that will remain on it. Uh it's just a default designation. But I think our planning and zoning committee gave this some very careful consideration. Um they saw issues with it. Uh we don't have to defer to them. We get to vote on it. But I don't know the point of having them if we don't listen to them in some way, form or fashion. Um so um I I certainly want to see the piece of land developed, but um I think I got a little problem of doing it now. I appreciate the opportunity to upzone it. I guess that's the proper uh uh word for it. And that's probably its best use is an industrial park at this point. Um but I think we'll have an opportunity to make that decision maybe at a a better time in the future. So any other questions? Any other concerns? >> I have a you know you talked about >> Well, we're not we no longer have the public comments. Okay. That's just that's we're now for discussion. Miss Ma, this is for discussion among the council now. Okay. >> On Saturday, South and West residential. >> Okay. I'm gonna ask you to quit speaking. Mr. Ma, >> you got my point. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, we're discussing this now as a council. Okay. Um, any further discussion? Mr. Gosh, >> may I ask you to pull up the satellite view of the property, please? My concern with leaving this property as residential is that it it's never going to be used as a residential property. And um do we have the satellite view available? >> Well, it's it's a very zoomed out map from our original zone case. I apologize. I don't have a more zoomed in aerial from it. I don't >> Councilman, if you give me just a moment, I think we can do that. >> Okay. >> We have to do it from a different computer. But as I was studying this, yeah, this one helps a little bit. But looking at it, I think the satellite view helps show why this is never going to be used as a residential property. Uh because you have the two oil wells which which occupy a large amount of the space on the tract and then you have our existing industrial uses adjacent to the property as well. Um >> do we see where those hills are? >> Those those pads, those brown pads are the oil wells. And so, um, I imagine there is that a tank battery up on the north side as well. >> Excuse me for interrupting, but yes. Yes, sir. That is, uh, right there on the left and then that's where the trucks enter and come in and go around. >> So, you're always going to have um oil field service trucks using that road and going there um either to service the well or to pick up the the oil and gas produced there at the at the tank battery. And because of Texas law and and the way that the mineral estate is superior, you there's nothing that any land user could really do to stop the minerals from from being exploited there. So, this is never going to be developed as as any sort of residential use. Um, with the adjacent industrial uses as well, I think it it's appropriate to make this some sort of uh industrial, whether it's light industrial, whatever the specific recommendation, you know, for example, Councilman Collins had. Um, and we've already put the work into studying the issue. Now, we know what the problem is. We know what the zoning needs to be in the future. If we wait for a specific project and then decide based on the specific project, that's not really the appropriate way to make zoning considerations because we don't make zoning decisions on a a specific use basis, but on a a category of uses. So, if we all understand and agree what the category of us is that are appropriate for this property, I would say that it's the time to do it. Now, Mr. Osborne, you had something to say. >> Yes, sir. I apologize for interrupting, but um the other five acres is that that kind of swath of land right in between the kind of the homes and the and the commercial area that that's due south of the uh other uh oil well. Um that would be a road that would come into the property. So the so it might actually help those uh trucks going to the oil wells to utilize the road going into the property versus the residential streets that are nearby because the only other way that they can access that is through those other residential streets. >> Right. You could shift the traffic onto fourth instead of the the back roads. >> Yes sir. And then additionally because of where those oil wells are located, it's really difficult to actually um develop the western portion of this property. So likely any building that would take place would actually be as far away from the residential area to the east um to to enable um a building to be in there. The the land to the east of this uh on the other side of that road right there. Yes, thank you for doing that. Um is where Plant Act Systems is planning to go with their green houses. So this would be an adjacent distribution facility next door or to those green houses. And that's not showing on the satellite yet, but this is going to be the the green houses that are there to the to the east on this um to the area with the pivot and south. >> That's correct. Yes, sir. That that land is um currently uh with plant egg systems. They have plans for construction later this year. That's another sort of I don't know this the specific term under the UDC for that, but I would consider it a light industrial use to have the green houses and it it makes sense that the adjacent property would would have that use as well. >> U Mr. Albury, you just raised an important point for consideration about the oil wells. You said that and that was going to my question. Is there any chance of subdividing this? But your point is it's not really useful as a subdivided. It would only be useful as an entire tract because the oil wells would really prevent much in the way of development or building on the western side. Is that right? >> That's correct. And uh the council, former councilwoman Sheila Patterson Harris was mentioning to me that there are some subdivisions where homes kind of go near um oral wells. There's very very few of them in our area and they're they're um not necessarily what people highly desire to to do. It's usually because of either a school district or a particular area that's um highly desirable to be in. I just don't envision that more homes are going to want to go in right next door to um a tank battery and and pump jack. Um I've I've talked to a lot of moms in my years of doing economic development and it's pretty rare for them to want kids to be able to be out near a pump jack. >> I I know a friend of mine who lost his arm on a pump jack. So, uh yeah. There. Well, so again, again, you're raising an important point here. That western part of it is not likely to be developed at all. >> No, it'll likely just be a park the entire something like that. >> If you do a a distribution facility or maybe even two uh on this 100 acres um or might even be able to get three, but there's a portion of it that won't actually be developed. But we could actually have it set up to where as we if it ends up being subdivided that a portion of that remains with one of the properties so that it has to be maintained but it doesn't necessarily become developed. >> Okay, that kind of changes my I wasn't really focusing on those wells and where they're located. >> They're more on the western side property. >> Okay. All right. Mayor Pim Are these um these oil wells are still active, right? >> Yes, ma'am. >> In the this is what I understand based on once you cap an oil well, you still can't build anything on it, can you? Because now the land is contaminated or it I mean that's my understanding. Is is that not right? >> If the land was contaminated then the oil company or whoever did the contamination would actually have to clean it up. Um the uh once you cap a well um the uh it's my understanding that you don't build on top of it because uh the owner of the rights of that well still may have to go in and and do something to it or maintain it or at least um be uh they're still responsible for it. And so, um, uh, to the best of my knowledge, that's not, and I'm and I'm not an oil and gas attorney by any stretch of the means, uh, but to the best of my knowledge, that's how those, um, that's what happens with those wells. This is a really tough case and I kind of wish that I mean we knew that we were going to use it now but it's just and I appreciate that you are being proactive but >> um there's just still a few little questions for me. So >> I mean I I like the idea of an an industrial park but >> there's still homes near here and you know I'm hearing what folks are saying. So, I'm I'm kind of I'm not going to lie right now. I'm kind of really uncertain about this whole item. >> We we tried to still have still allow for what we thought might be willing and able to go in there and so having it be the most restrictive of that type, which would be industrial park and um it could be one big distribution center, it could be a couple of smaller ones. Um but nevertheless, we see that changing of the road access would be um would be best uh for that property. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Rose. Thank you, Mayor. And this is my last comment on this. Looking at the property itself, I mean, to be frank, there's there's not going to be any developer that comes in here and develops some sort of a neighborhood. I mean, I I look around to the left and to the right. I see junkyards and all sorts of industrial that's going on. Um, my problem with it is that the planning and zoning, I mean, they unanimously voted this down and I there's a lot of people I trust on the planning and zoning commission. Um, that's that's the problem I I have with it. if it's something that we want to look at um you know an industrial park u maybe turn around and we'll bring it back to planning and zoning but the fact that pling and zoning um turned it down unanimously really um really changes the way I look at it. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to probably, you know, even though we don't have to have a unanimous decision, I'm probably generally going to lean toward what planning and zoning has recommended. Uh, and I want to just ask a question here. Is there a limitation if we vote it down today? Is there a time limitation on which it could be brought up again before the PNC to discuss it for uh the purpose that that we've amended it for or discussing that amendment today? >> It would all No. Well, first this is staff initiated. So, it's city initiated zoning change on it and depending on I wouldn't think so assuming that it would come back as a different type of zoning change. >> So, it could be right through PNZ again uh with a request for it to be reszoned to Industrial Park then. >> I would think that it could be. Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. All right. Any other questions? Uh Mr. Collins >> very quickly. Um because we are we have made the change in our motion. Uh we are talking industrial park and and and I agree PNZ has not weighed in. They voted unanimously to deny general u general industrial but I think and and something that I'm asking uh we see that this property is is surrounded by um properties that are outside the city limits. I think Miss Patterson Harris said that uh but given the new annexation rules uh that we that we have statewide today, every individual property that we see uh on the screen today would have to voluntarily and and proactively request annexation. Is that correct, Mr. Wade? >> Yes, sir. So, so no one is going to we are not as a city going to gobble up any of these other >> Let me let me rephrase there. There is a mechanism for there to be a percentage of property owners to come together to request annexation that would require a vote in the area that may not then be every single property owner, but there would have to be a majority and an election. But the general rule is it has to be all voluntary annexation to come into the city. the city could not initiate the annexation without their consent. >> So like we had with um our neighborhood in south of town, they had an HOA. They had a great deal of organization behind them before they came as a group to annexation. Um and so for for this to happen here, that would have to happen. These these folks would have to develop an HOA. they would have to have a neighborhood vote and and then come to the city to request annexation based upon the neighborhood. Uh which which to my point is it's very unlikely that any of these properties maybe the vacant property to the north, vacant property to the northwest um would would come with a voluntary annexation of a plat large enough uh that that would make a difference in this. Um, John, the the zoning for uh plant as is is general industrial. >> Uh, I honestly don't know. I have >> estates. It's still >> Oh, this is an odd one. Yes. I'm going to let >> This is an odd one. It's residential estates, but that is only because it is indoor crop production. So, residential estates is where you have your a uses. I'd rather do math in public mayor than to do zoning zoning in public's words. >> Maybe it is. >> Maybe just to complicate things just a bit more. If we added the flood plane, it's a pretty significant portion of the northeast part of that. >> Can you do that for us? >> I know that you can. >> I fear I have angered the GIS. If you'll give me just a moment. Councilman, to answer your question, we went had long discussions with city staff trying to figure out on plan AS because those are not small little tiny green houses. They're actually million square feet each. And so, um, still a greenhouse. >> Yeah, there's still a greenhouse. And so, ultimately, that's what they came to. We all scratched our heads, but uh, nevertheless, that's what they decided. >> So, there's the flood plane on it. So the middle portion is really the kind of the area that will end up being developed. >> So you know I guess when when you look at that and in the possibility of maybe reclaiming as much as 30% of that uh is all that you have if you developed a a storage facility somewhere on the property. Um you know the the original intention when you bought this was good. uh today. I think I think you have a you you've got a I don't know what you've got there. Uh you you've just got an issue. But but back to my original point, the likelihood of this neighborhood to the west uh becoming a part of our city and and is is is very very small. Uh I think the likelihood of the property coming uh on the far east side of plan as again uh much the same very very small. um probability of that. So, uh just just wanted to point those things out. Thank you. >> Plan AS is in the city. >> Yes, it is. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Any other questions? >> I'll make one other comment. just I think it's important then when we're doing the zone changes to to balance the interests of neighbors but historically we've also given less weight to the preference of uh those who reside outside the city and if you want to be a part of the city then you you get to participate with a greater degree in in these sorts of uh processes and deliberations and so I'm I'm also uh I think it's important that we prioritize city uses within the Thank you. Thank you. Now, my preference is just to run it back through the uh BNZ again with a different zoning request. So, all right. Any further discussion? All right. Uh so, we have a this is on the amendment, right? >> It was it was accepted by the main mover and seconded. So, this is your main motion. So this is the main motion now for industrial park. That's how that works. All right. So it is the main motion now to change it uh the zoning to IP. That's right. All right. So all in favor let it be known by saying I >> I Okay. Two. All oppose say nay. Nay. Okay. That's four to two. So that motion fails. All right, the council will now take up agenda items 6.4 to 6.9. And without object objection, we will conduct a consolidated public hearing on these zoning cases. Miss Sager, if you could give us a brief summary of those zoning cases subject to a public hearing. >> Item 6.4, zone case 112H. The request is a zone change from neighborhood commercial to auto urban commercial. We sent out 49 notifications, receiving no response. This property is located in district 2, north of 50th, east of Avenue U. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There are other commercial businesses along 50th Street with residential to the north. Current zoning is neighborhood commercial. There is additional neighborhood commercial, auto urban commercial, and heavy commercial along 50th with medium density residential to the north. Future land use plan designates this property for commercial land uses. Here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. The future land use map designation is for commercial land uses which is consistent with the request. The zone change is compatible with the zoning ordinance and appropriate in this location. The property fronts 50th Street which is a principal arterial. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with the unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Are there any questions from Miss Sager? I see none. All right. All right. I'm gonna Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. Who did I hear somebody speak? >> Do you want me to continue through the rest? >> You Yeah. Okay. We're going to take them all up at once. You going to run through all of them? >> That'd be great. >> Okay, let's do it. >> Okay. Item 65, zone case 1391J. This is a request for zone change from medium density residential to auto urban commercial. We sent out 77 notifications receiving one in favor, zero in opposition. This property is located in district 4, south of Loop 289 east of Indiana Avenue. Here's a response map showing the one in favor. Here's a subject property. There is a commercial business to the west with residential to the south and the loop to the north. Current zoning is medium density residential. There is additional medium density residential and lowdensity residential in the area with heavy commercial, neighborhood commercial and auto urban commercial at the intersection. Future land use plan designates this property for commercial land uses. Here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. Future land use map designation for commercial is consistent with the request. The zone change is compatible with the zoning ordinance and appropriate in this location. It fronts south Loop 289 which is a freeway. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Mr. Rose, >> just out of sheer curiosity, do we know what's going there? >> Not yet. >> Okay. >> Zone case 3546. This is zone change from lowdensity single family SF2 to auto urban commercial. We sent out 51 notifications receiving two in favor. This property is located north of 130th future leap 88 west of Quaker Avenue in council district 4. Here's the map showing the two responses in favor. Here's an aerial view of the subject property. There is residential to the northwest with some additional commercial to the south fronting onto future leap 88. Current zoning is low density single family SF2. There's additional single family SF2 zoning along leap 88. Um again as a result of annexation and then a mix of office, commercial and other residential uses along Quaker Avenue. Future land use plan designates this property for residential lowdensity land uses. Here's some photos of this subject property and surrounding area. This is a site plan provided by the applicant. So this case and your next case 3547 the two properties are being developed together on this site plan that is shown here. The future land use map designation is for lowdensity residential land uses. So while the request is not consistent with that designation, it is appropriate in this area, especially given that a will be developed with the property immediately to the south that will front on Tulip 88. The zone change is compatible with the zoning ordinance and appropriate in this location. Again, is along Quaker Avenue, which is a principal arterial and it will be developed with the property immediately south along Blue 88, which is a freeway. Staff has no objection to the request and the plan and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Any questions? >> All right. >> Zone case 3547. Again, a zone change from SF2 to auto urban commercial. We sent out 16 notifications receiving one in opposition. This property is also in district 4 at Quaker and Leap 88. Here's the response map showing the one property in opposition south of loop 88. Aerial view of the subject property again is immediately south of the uh case I just presented. There is additional commercial uses already existing along loop 88. Current zoning there is auto urban commercial and heavy commercial along 130th loop 88. Future land use plan designation is for commercial land uses. photos of the subject property and surrounding area. The site plan again showing a multi-use development. The future land use map designates this area for commercial land uses. So the proposed zone change is in conformance with the designation. The zone change is compatible with the zone with the zoning ordinance and appropriate in this location. Subject property is along Quaker Avenue and 130th Future Leap 88 principal arterial and freeway. Staff has no objection to the request in the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions? Sorry about the noise interference. All right, proceed. >> Zone case 3549. This is a zone change from low density single family SF2 to heavy commercial. We've sent out 10 notifications, receiving one in opposition. This property is located in District 4, north of Loop 88, west of Quaker Avenue. This is west of the two cases we just saw. Here is the response map showing the one property in opposition. Again, that property is south of Loop 88. Here's the aerial view of the subject property. There's already an existing business on this property. Current zoning is loaden city single family SF2. There is a property immediately adjacent already zoned heavy commercial with auto urban commercial along loop 88. Future land use plan designates this property for commercial land uses. Here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. Future land use map designation is for commercial land uses which this request is consistent with. The zone changes in conformance with the zoning ordinance and appropriate in this area along future loop 88 which is a freeway. Staff has no objection to the request and the planning and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Are there any questions? Dr. Miss, this is just a clean up, right? That that they're just trying to become inconform. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's what >> All right, last case. Zone case 3550. This is a request for a zone change from lowdensity single family SF2 and uh auto urban commercial to heavy commercial and office. We sent out 73 notifications receiving no response. This property is located in district 5 south of Lead 88 east of Slide. Here's the aerial view of the subject property. It is currently vacant, pretty much surrounded by vacant land. There is a neighborhood to the southeast and then some commercial uses on the north side of Lite 88. Current zoning is auto urban commercial and single family SF2. It is surrounded by other SF2 and auto urban commercial zoning with some additional heavy commercial to the north. Future land use plan designates this property for residential low density as well as commercial land uses. Here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. Here's a graphic provided by the applicant. This shows you the split where the bulk of the property is asking they're asking to reszone to heavy commercial and in the portion immediately adjacent to the residences to the south they are asking for office to provide that buffer. Future land use mat designation is for both commercial and lowdensity residential land uses. So while the request is not consistent with the designation for residential, it is appropriate in this location at the intersection of two of a freeway and a thorough affair and the office zoning will create a buffer between the residential and heavy commercial. The zone changes in conformance with the zoning ordinance and compatible with the surrounding area. It is along slide road as well as future leaf 88. Staff has no objection to the request and the plan and zoning commission recommended approval with a unanimous vote and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. >> Any questions? >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Sager. There's a lot of activity in district 4, Mr. Rose. >> All right. Uh well, I'll now open the public hearing on consol items uh 6.4 to 6 uh nine. Uh, and is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of these? Will >> good afternoon, council. My name is Will Stevens with AMD Engineering at 651568 Street. Uh, I'm here on agenda item 6.5, 6.8, and 6.9. So, I'd be happy to answer any specific questions that you may have for those those items. >> Are there any questions? >> And I know Braden um Mr. was asked about uh item 6.5. There are no there are no specific plans right now. It's kind of a there's a lot of flood zone issues that we have to work through before we can really um know how much land we can like truly develop. So, yeah. All right. Any other questions? >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of of any of these zoning cases? Anyone here today wishing to speak in opposition to any of these zoning cases? Okay, I see none. So, I will close the public hearing at 407. Is there a motion to approve agenda item 6.4 to 6.9? >> Is there a second? >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. Any oppose say nay. I hear none. That motion passes unanimously. 6. And there being no other items on our agenda, this meeting is adjourned.