* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:05] STILL THE GAME'S AT NINE. WE, WE MAY WANT TO GET OUTTA HERE BEFORE THEN. OKAY. [1. Call to order and roll call of members ] LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND, UH, MOVE FORWARD. WE'LL HAVE FIRST FIGHTING, WE WOULD HAVE ON THE, UH, AGENDA WOULD BE THE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS. PAM ARNOLD IS HERE. HERE. FRANK DOMINGUEZ HERE. ANGIE MERTONS IS NOT YET. PAUL MAYS IS HERE. JOEL DICKERSON HERE. MATTHEW HYDE. HERE. JAMES WABA HERE. AND RUTH MORRISON. IS, IS RUTH GONNA BE HERE? SHE WOULD'VE BEEN HERE IF SHE WAS GONNA BE HERE. SHE, SHE WOULD'VE BEEN HERE BY NOW. SO, ANYWAY. WE'LL, UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'LL CALL A MEETING TO ORDER. [2. Approval of September 22, 2025 minutes ] FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVE IS THE, UH, APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 22ND MINUTES. AND YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED COPIES OF THOSE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR CORRECTIONS, WE'LL ENTERTAIN THOSE AT THIS TIME. IF NOT, WE'LL JUST, UH, ASSUME THAT THEY'RE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS. THAT WOULDN'T BE YOU. DOES THAT MEAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD? WE WILL. YOU WANT TO COME UP HERE? OKAY. [4. Public Hearing and Action Items ] OKAY. UH, NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ACTION ITEMS. ITEM A HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUP 25 0 0 1 3. HOME TO SUITES HOTEL TO ALLOW RESIDENCE HOTEL USE ON 2.0159 ACRES ZONED COMMERCIAL MIXED USE, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PINNACLE PARK DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET EAST OF BROOK PORT DRIVE. VINCE, YOU'RE GONNA DO THIS TODAY. UH, YES, SIR. UM, THIS, UH, SUP IS FOR THE HOME TWO SUITES HOTEL. UH, THIS, UH, NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A MAP SHOWING THE, UH, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, IN. UH, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS AN AERIAL PHOTO THAT SHOWS WHERE THE, UH, HOTEL WILL BE, UH, LOCATED IF APPROVED. UH, IT'LL BE LOCATED, UH, ADJACENT TO THE FAIRFIELD INN IN SUITES. AND IT IS, UH, SOUTH OF THE BALLPARK AT LEAK CITY AND TO THE EAST. THERE ARE RESTAURANTS ALONG, UH, THE INTERSTATE 45 FRONTAGE ROAD. UH, THIS SLIDE IS A, UH, A, UH, SHOWS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE LAYOUT OF WHAT THE, UH, UH, PROPERTY WILL LOOK LIKE IF APPROVED. UH, THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE, UH, ELEVATIONS OF WHAT THE, UH, FACADE IS PROPOSED TO BE. UH, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED. THE, THE USE IS ALLOWED IN THE, UH, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE ZONING, UH, WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN SUP. UM, ALSO, UM, THIS, UH, USE, UM, FITS IN WITH THE, UH, THE FUTURE OF LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, AND IT WILL ALSO FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE, UH, OTHER, UH, BUSINESSES IN THE AREA. AND ALSO, A LETTER OF SUPPORT WAS, UH, PROVIDED FROM THE LEAGUE CITY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU, UH, INDICATING THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. UH, BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, UM, UH, IF THIS IS APPROVED, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE, UH, USE PERMITTED, UH, BY THE SUP WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE, UH, RESIDENCE HOTEL. ALSO THAT THE, UH, SITE LAYOUT SHALL BE, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO, UH, UH, WHAT IS, UH, PRESENTED TO US THIS EVENING. UH, AND THAT THE, UH, SITE AMEN. UM, THERE'S ALSO A LIST OF SITE AMENITIES SUCH AS, UH, OUTDOOR POOL AND ROOFTOP GARDEN THAT WE WOULD, UH, RECOMMEND BE PART OF THIS APPROVAL. UM, AND ALSO THAT THE, UH, LANDSCAPING, UH, MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE, UH, WATER SMART PLANTS. UH, AND THIS ALSO THE STREAMING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. AND ALSO, UH, THAT THE, UH, UH, FREESTANDING SIGN BE, UH, LIMITED TO SINGLE MONUMENT SIGN WITH THE BASE, UH, MATCHING THE CHARACTER AND DESIGN OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. WOW. OKAY. UM, THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AT, UH, 6 0 4. AND IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. [00:05:03] OKAY. THAT BEING SAID OR NOT SAID, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6 0 4 AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OF, UH, EVENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT? GO AHEAD. I JUST HAVE ONE. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT THE OCCUPANCY IS OF THE CURRENT FAIRFIELD INN SUITES. UH, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE, UH, CURRENT OCCUPANCY OF THAT, UH, PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT, UH, THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE, UH, 88 ROOMS AND IT APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR IN SIZE. IS IT CO-OWNED BY THE, SO THE FAIRFIELD INN AND SUITES ALSO OWNS OWN TWO SUITES, OR NO, THEY, ARE THEY SEPARATE ENTITIES? UH, I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THE, UH, OWNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT. JUST WONDERING HOW THEY, THEY'RE SHARING PARKING? YES, SIR. UHHUH , THAT'S PART OF THE LONG ONE TIME. YEAH. TYPICALLY FOR LIABILITY REASONS, THEY'LL SET SEPARATE 'EM. BUT I MEAN, IF IT'S THE SAME OWNERSHIP, IT'LL BE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES. YEAH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, UM, PROPERTIES THAT ARE, UH, ZONED THE SAME WAY FOR THE RESIDENTS AND THE LONG TERM STAY? UH, WELL, THERE IS THE, UH, PROPERTY IN THE AREA THAT'S ZONED, UH, COMMERCIAL MIXED USE. BUT, UH, SUP WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED, UH, IF ANY OTHER, I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER HOTELS THAT MEET THE SAME CRITERIA, THE ONES BEING PROPOSED? UM, I WOULD HAVE TO, UH, AND THE MAIN QUESTION IS, IS HOW DO YOU MONITOR THAT? RIGHT. SO, THANK YOU, SIR. UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER RESIDENCE HOTELS OF THIS TYPE OF HOTEL IN LEAD CITY. THERE ARE SOME IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES THAT ARE HOME TO SUITES AND, AND WEBSTER JUST UP THE ROAD. UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY HERE IN LEAD CITY. AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP, UM, MR. PATEL IS HERE, WHO DOES OWN THE FAIRFIELD, UM, AND HE WILL ALSO OWNER ANOTHER ENTITY, BUT, UM, WITH HIM IS OWNERSHIP. UM, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, HE CAN COME UP HERE AND, AND ANSWER THOSE. WHAT, WHAT DETERMINES A RESIDENCE HOTEL? WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN? SURE. SO IT'LL HAVE UNITS THAT HAVE LIKE KITCHENETTES IN IT, UM, FOR POTENTIAL LONGER STAYS THAN JUST A FEW NIGHTS. YEAH. IT KIND OF, IT KIND OF LOOKED LIKE CORPORATE HOUSING, TEMPORARY CORPORATE HOUSING IF YOU WANTED TO. IT COULD BE YES, SIR, FOR WORKFORCE, STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT ALSO YOU CAN JUST GO STAY THERE JUST LIKE A NORMAL HOTEL AS WELL. SO I HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING, AND I THINK THEY RAN ABOUT NINE, NINE SLOTS SHORT OF BEING CON UH, CONFORMING TO THE RULES. YES, SIR. AND HE, UH, MR. PATEL ALLUDED TO A, UH, AN AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, FAIRFIELD IN AND SUITES WHO EVIDENTLY HAVE EXIT. DO THEY HAVE EXCESS PARKING? SO IT MEETS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AS WELL? UM, BETWEEN THE TWO. THE HOTELS GENERALLY DON'T, THEY DON'T RUN AT A HUNDRED PERCENT CAPACITY. UM, THEY ALSO PROVIDED PARKING INFORMATION SHOWING THAT THEY DON'T NEED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES, REQUIRES. AND SO THEY, THEY'RE DOING THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, UM, TO HELP MITIGATE THAT. UM, 'CAUSE THERE'LL BE EXTRA PARKING SPACE FROM WHAT THEY ACTUALLY NEED FOR THE HOTEL. OKAY. AND SO THAT IT CONTINUES TO BE CONFORMING THIS, UH, THIS PARKING AGREEMENT WITH FAIRFIELD BRINGS IT UP TO WHERE THEY HAVE ENOUGH SPACES, RIGHT? YES, SIR. IS THAT A DOCUMENTED, UH, A FILED DOCUMENTED IT WILL BE, YES, SIR. INSTRUMENT, OR IS IT JUST SOMETHING THAT, HEY, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS FOR YOU AND, BUT WHEN FAIRFIELD SELLS MM-HMM . OR CHANGES OWNERSHIP MM-HMM . IT'LL BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY, THEY COULD TAKE A WHOLE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DEAL. SO IT'LL BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY, AND IT WILL BE BASED ON THAT PROPERTY. AND SO WHOEVER, IF, IF MR. PATEL DECIDES TO SELL THE FAIRFIELD TOMORROW OR AFTER THIS IS BUILT, UM, THAT AGREEMENT WILL, THAT EASEMENT WILL STILL BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY, AND THERE WILL BE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE THAT WOULD COME UP ON A TITLE REPORT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO IT WILL BE BINDING WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE OWNERSHIP. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? YES. UH, SINCE THE OWNER APPLICANT IS HERE, UH, COULD WE GET THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION? WHAT IS THE OCCUPANCY RATE OF THE FAIRFIELD INN? YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. IT'S VERY GOOD. VERY, VERY GOOD QUESTION, ACTUALLY. UH, AND CHRIS AND I, WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT, UM, BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED. BUT, UH, FAIRFIELD, UM, UM, LAST YEAR IT DID EXTREMELY WELL. UH, 74, 70 5%. [00:10:01] UM, THIS YEAR WAS JUST UNDER 70, SO IT'S STILL DOING EXTREMELY WELL IN OCCUPANCY. AND, UM, THE DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF EXTENDED STAY HOTEL IS DIFFERENT THAN A DEMAND FOR FAIRFIELD. SO IT'S NOT GONNA WITHDRAW FROM ANY OF THE, UH, THE CLIENTELE THAT WOULD COME TO THE FAIRFIELD. SO IT'S A VERY COMPLIMENTARY, AND I THINK I WAS MENTIONED ON HERE AS WELL, A LOT OF THE GUESTS THAT COME FOR THE BALLPARK, THEY ACTUALLY STAY, UH, LONG TERM FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, AT LEAST A WEEK. UH, AND THEY REALLY APPRECIATE THE, UH, EXTRA, UM, AMENITIES IN THE TOWN IN, UH, UH, HOME TWO SUITES, WHICH ARE, UH, A KITCHENETTE, UH, OR FULL-SIZED FRIDGE CABINETS, DISHES. SO, SO THAT, UM, THEY CAN FEEL MORE AT HOME. THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED HOME TOO, I GUESS, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT, YEAH. THE NAME RESIDENCE HOTEL, IT'S KIND OF A MISNOMER BECAUSE IT'S NOT TYPICALLY LIKE CORPORATE LODGING THAT YOU MENTIONED, BECAUSE THE GUESTS TYPICALLY STAY LESS THAN A WEEK. UM, MOSTLY FOR, UM, ON AVERAGE THE STAY IS PROBABLY FIVE DAYS. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS LAST LONGER AND THEY COULD STAY OVER OVER A MONTH. BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT'S, UH, A WEEK LONG STAY. THANKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. AT THIS POINT THEN, UH, WE'LL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO THE, UH, TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR, FOR APPROVAL. I'LL, UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION SUP 25 0 1 3. OKAY. MOTION MADE BY DICKERSON. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. . ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY YE AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION IS CARRIED. WHO'S GONNA DO THE NEXT ONE? CHRIS, ARE YOU GO? ALRIGHT. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE SIX ENTITLED, PROVISION OF PARKLAND. HEY, GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. UH, MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER SIMS. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR LAKE CITY. AND WE'RE GONNA TALK TONIGHT. UH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ITEMS FOR YOU. THE FIRST ONE IS THE PARKLAND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, AND IT IS AMENDING, UH, CHAPTER 1 25, AND IT IS ALL NEW ADS. SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING WHAT'S IN THERE, WE'RE ADDING STUFF. I'M GONNA GO REAL QUICKLY THROUGH THAT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY. SO THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH OUR WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN INITIATIVE, UH, THAT GOT APPROVED BY CITY, WELL BY BY PNC, RECOMMENDED BY PNC AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN MAY. UM, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH OUR PUBLIC RELATIONS PORTION OF THAT INITIATIVE, WE RECEIVED OVER 1400 COMMENTS, EITHER THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ONLINE SURVEYS OR THROUGH A VERY WELL ATTENDED OPEN HOUSE. UM, THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT EVERYONE SAID WAS MORE PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE. UM, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY, IT BROKE OUT EVEN FURTHER. YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC WANTED ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PARKS. THEY WANTED THE TRAILS AND, AND, UH, WALKABILITY, YOU KNOW, CONNECTIVITY, UH, FAMILY FRIENDLY AMENITIES WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT SCORED VERY HIGH. AND THEN PROTECTION OF GREEN SPACE. SO, IF YOU RECALL, WHEN WE WERE PRESENTING THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN, WE LOOKED TO WHERE WE COULD LOOK TO AMENITIZE, UH, DETENTION, KIND OF DOUBLE USE LAND WHERE POSSIBLE. UM, SO THIS IS KIND OF JUST THE NATURAL NEXT STEP IN THAT. AND, AND I'M GONNA WALK AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE. I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT LOUDER, BUT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS, UH, DRAWING HERE, THIS WOULD BE LIKE, IF YOU THINK ELEANOR TINSLEY PARK IN, UH, HOUSTON, SEE HOW THEY HAVE A RECREATIONAL SHELF RIGHT HERE. SO THE, THE CHANNEL IS GONNA STAY AT A CERTAIN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION. THIS BECOMES USABLE SPACE. WHEN THE HEAVY RAINS COME, THE FLOODING STARTS, IT FLOODS UP, IT OVERTAKES THE RECREATIONAL SHELF, AND THEN THIS EXTRA AREA ACTS AS ADDITIONAL DETENTION BEFORE IT OVERFLOWS OUT INTO, UH, COMMUNITIES, NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHATEVER. SO WE LOOKED AT, AT IMPLEMENTING, UH, AMENITIES SIMILAR TO THAT, WHERE WE CAN GET DUAL USE. ALL RIGHT, SO WHY UPDATE THE ORDINANCE? LIKE I SAID, IT, IT KIND OF CAME OUT OF THE [00:15:01] WEST SIDE OF MA UH, MASTER PLANNING INITIATIVE, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD A, A FULL ORDINANCE UPDATE, UH, IN SEVERAL YEARS. IT WAS 2020 WAS THE LAST TIME WE DID IT. UM, WE ALLOWED FOR ONE ACRE OF PUBLIC PARKLAND TO BE DEDICATED FOR EVERY 75 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING, UH, DEVELOPED. AND THEN THERE WAS A 10 ACRE MINIMUM DEDICATION. WE ALSO ALLOWED FOR SOME AMENITIES, BUT IT WASN'T A VERY STRONG, UH, AMENITY PACKAGE FOR PRIVATE PARKS. AND WHAT WE SAW AS OVER THESE PAST FIVE YEARS IS IT'S JUST A LITTLE INFLEXIBLE FOR THESE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, UH, COMING IN. AND, AND THEN FOR THE MEDIUM SIZED DEVELOPMENTS, YOU START SEEING THEM KIND OF PAY THE FEE IN LIEU OF, INSTEAD OF GIVING US THE PUBLIC LAND. AND, AND WHAT THAT'S DONE OVER TIME IS IT'S SHRUNK WHAT WE MASTER PLANNED FOR PARKS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT OUR MASTER PARKS AND TRAILS PLAN, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT 15 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK LAND FOR EVERY THOUSAND RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN LAKE CITY. IF YOU LOOK WHAT'S BEEN DONE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE'RE STILL OVER 14 ACRES, UH, PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS. BUT THE TREND IS DEFINITELY GOING DOWN. AND IF YOU TOOK WHAT WE'VE SEEN AND YOU APPLIED IT TO THE WEST SIDE, WE WOULD BE PROBABLY BELOW 11 ACRES, A LITTLE BIT BELOW 11 ACRES WHEN WE WERE FULLY BUILT OUT. SO NOWHERE NEAR OUR 15 ACRES THAT WE WANTED PER A THOUSAND RESIDENTS. AND THEN AGAIN, WE WANTED TO TAKE THE INFORMATION WE GOT FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE HIGHER QUALITY AMENITIES AND IMPLEMENT SOME VERSION OF THAT. SO WE STARTED LOOKING. SO IF YOU, IF YOU RECALL, I KNOW Y'ALL, Y'ALL HAVE SEEN THE PUDS, BUT I'M GONNA STEP AWAY AGAIN. OUR WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN DID INCLUDE ALL OF THIS LAND OVER HERE TO THE EAST. THIS IS WESTLAND RANCH. IT INCLUDED THE LLOYD PUDS THAT Y'ALL JUST RECENTLY LOOKED AT AND APPROVED AS WE WERE DEVELOPING THE WEST SIDE. THE LLOYDS CAME ONLINE. THEY ADOPTED A LOT OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS AMENDMENT. IT'S IN THIS, UH, PUD ALREADY. SO IN ESSENCE, WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GONNA CREATE A PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE REMAINING 32, 3300 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE. SO PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING UNDEVELOPED WEST OF WESTLAND RANCH, THAT IS GOING TO, UH, TIE BACK TO OUR MASTER PLAN. IT'S GOING TO GET US THE 15 ACRES PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS FOR SURE IN THAT 3,300 ACRES. AND THEN IMPROVE OUR, OUR CITYWIDE AVERAGE. AVERAGE, OH, I'M SORRY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DIDN'T SAY. SO, INSURERS LAND FOR LARGER COMMUNITY PARKS OVER THE YEARS. WHAT, UH, OUR PARKS DIRECTOR CHEN HAS, HAS KIND OF TOLD ME IS THE 10 ACRES IS TOO SMALL. IT'S HARD TO PROGRAM. IT ENDS UP BECOMING A PASSIVE PARK. AND, AND IT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE FOR THEM. HE NEEDS SOMEWHERE IN THE 15 ACRE RANGE FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING THAT HE CAN CONSISTENTLY PROGRAM THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. ALRIGHT? SO PUBLIC PARK COMPARISON FROM WHAT IS INSIDE THE POD, WHICH IS A PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT VERSUS WHAT'S OUTSIDE. SO THIS IS ASSUMING EVERYTHING FLIES THROUGH, THIS AMENDMENT GETS ADOPTED, AND I'M GONNA TELL YOU THE, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO. ALRIGHT? SO IF WE'RE OUTSIDE THE, THE POD AREA, SO EVERYWHERE ELSE IN LEAGUE CITY, YOU WOULD STILL FOLLOW THE NORMAL CRITERIA, ONE ACRE OF PUBLIC PARK FOR EVERY 75 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. BUT IF YOU'RE INSIDE THAT 3,300 ACRES, IT'S ONE ACRE, I'M SORRY, THREE ACRES FOR EVERY 75 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. SO IT'S A, A TRIPLING, UM, OUTSIDE THE POD, YOU'RE LESS THAN 75, 750 UNITS. THERE'S A 10 ACRE MINIMUM DEDICATION, OR YOU'VE GOT THE ABILITY TO PAY THE $3,000, UH, PER UNIT FEE IN LIEU OF, ONCE YOU GO INSIDE THE, THE POND. WE CHANGE IT FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO PEOPLE. YOU'VE GOT THE 2.69 PEOPLE PER RESIDENCE IS, UH, UH, THE AVERAGE THAT WE HAVE IN LEAGUE CITY. AND WE'RE GONNA SAY FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE LESS THAN A THOUSAND RESIDENTS, YOU CAN STILL PAY THE 3000. BUT IF IT'S MORE THAN THAT, WE WANT TO SEE A 15 ACRE MINIMUM DEDICATION, UM, OUTSIDE THE POD. IF IT'S GREATER THAN 750 UNITS, IT'S 10 ACRES MINIMUM. OH, LET ME GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT THIS JUST FOR A SECOND. SO, A COUPLE OF THINGS. I KNOW I GAVE A LOT OF ATTACHMENTS WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM. UM, IT ALLOWS FOR OUR PARKS DIRECTOR [00:20:01] TO KIND OF DETERMINE HOW THE PARKS ARE GONNA BE STRUCTURED. BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT, UH, THE LLOYD EUD, FOR EXAMPLE, IT NEEDED ABOUT 34 35 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK LAND. JIM WANTED IT ALL AS ONE. HE WANTED THE BIG 32 ACRE PARK LAND THAT WE CAN PROGRAM THERE. AND THEN WE GOT ANOTHER FOUR AND A HALF ACRES FOR A FUTURE FIRE STATION. SOMETIMES IT MIGHT BE TWO 15 ACRE PARKS, SOMETIMES IT COULD BE A 25 ACRE AND A 15. IT DEPENDS ON THE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S NEEDING TO BE DEDICATED, AND THEN WHAT CHEN BELIEVES HE NEEDS IN THOSE AREAS AS FAR AS PROGRAMMING FOR FUTURE, OKAY, PRIVATE PART. SO WHERE WE TOOK A LITTLE ON THE PUBLIC, WE'RE GONNA GIVE A LITTLE ON THE, THE, ON THE PRIVATE SIDE. SO AGAIN, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE POD, IT DOESN'T CHANGE. IT'S ONE ACRE PER 75 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. IF YOU GO, UM, AND START LOOKING AT A MAGNETIZATION, THERE'S NO SET MAGNETIZATION CRITERIA TODAY. WHAT WE WANT TO DO INSIDE THE POD IS CREATE THAT MINIMUM AMEN CRITERIA. THAT'S THE POLICY THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THIS ITEM. WHAT IT DOES IS IT SAYS, HEY, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US A SIX FOOT WIDE TRAIL AROUND THROUGH YOUR, YOUR PRIVATE PARK PLAN. YOU'RE GONNA PROVIDE THAT CONNECTIVITY, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO AMENITIZE THE PRIVATE PARK ONE POINT FOR EVERY HALF ACRE OF PARK. AND THE POLICY THAT WAS PROVIDED HAD A AMEN SCHEDULE ON THERE. AND DIFFERENT AMENITIES WERE WORTH DIFFERENT POINTS. ALL RIGHT. DETENTION MAGNETIZATION OUTSIDE THE POD, 25% IS THE MAX YOU CAN GET. AND AGAIN, THERE'S NO REAL THRESHOLD OF WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO GIVE. UM, INSIDE THE POD, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE WAYS TO GET UP TO 50% CREDIT. SO IF YOU NEEDED 16 ACRES OF PRIVATE PARK, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A WAY THAT YOU COULD HIGHLY AMENITIZE EIGHT ACRES INSTEAD OF THE FULL 16. OKAY? OUTSIDE THE POD, THE FEE IN LIEU IS STILL ALLOWED INSIDE. IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IF IT'S FOR A HALF ACRE OR LESS. SO IF YOU HAVE TO DEDICATE A HALF ACRE, WE'LL LET YOU, WE'LL LET YOU PAY THAT, THAT FEE. ALRIGHT, SO I JUST MENTIONED THE, THE POLICY THAT WAS ATTACHED. THIS IS A, A, A CLIP FROM THE POLICY ITSELF. SO AGAIN, ONE POINT FOR ONE AMEN POINT FOR EVERY HALF ACRE OF PARK, THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE YOUR AMENITY CENTER. YOUR AMENITY CENTER IS STANDARD. SO IT'S OUTSIDE THOSE, THAT FRAMEWORK. BUT IF YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER PARK KIND OF LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND FEET FROM YOUR AMENITY CENTER OR WHATEVER, AND YOU WANNA PUT A BASKETBALL COURT THERE WHERE YOU CAN GET FOUR AMEN POINTS OUT OF THAT. SO IT JUST LOOKS IN. SO IF I'VE GOT TO AMENITIZE A THREE ACRE PARK, I KNOW I GOTTA GET SIX ACRES. IF I PUT A BASKETBALL CARD ON THE, A BASKETBALL COURT ON THERE, I GOT FOUR. AND THEN I'M GONNA PUT PARKING SPACES, SIX PARKING SPACES, I'M GONNA GET SIX AND MY PARKS, AMEN. COST. ALRIGHT, WE'RE STILL GOING TO ALLOW THE FEE IN LIEU. UH, THE MINIMUM SIZE DID CHANGE, BUT NO MATTER WHAT, THE DEVELOPER HAS OPTIONS, THEY CAN CHOOSE NOT TO AMENITIZE ANYTHING AND JUST DO PRIVATE PARTS LIKE THEY DO TODAY, OR THEY CAN AMENITIZE AND FOLLOW THIS COURSE. UM, WE'LL ALLOW UP TO 50%. SO THAT'S A WET BOTTOM POND, A DRY BOTTOM POND. WE'RE CENTRALIZING YOUR PART. SO IF YOU LOOK AT, AT OUR MASTER PLAN, OUR MASTER PARTS PLAN, THERE'S SOME WORDING IN THERE. I'M GONNA BUTCHER IT. SO, SO DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS ONE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT RESIDENTS SHOULD BE WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A PARK. SO THE THOUGHT WAS, IF YOU CENTRALIZE YOUR PARKS, THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. THEY'RE A HIGHER QUALITY PIECE OF LAND, BECAUSE NORMALLY WHAT YOU SEE IS YOUR AMENITY CENTER ON A DECENT PIECE OF LAND, AND THEN YOUR OTHER PARTS KIND OF SPREAD OUT THROUGH, AND THEN MAYBE ON THE FAR REACHES OR MAYBE NOT THE BEST QUALITY LAND. SO YOU BRING THEM IN, YOU CENTRALLY LOCATE 'EM, SO YOU GET THE MAJORITY OF YOUR PEOPLE WITHIN THE HALF MILE RADIUS AND YOU GET AN ADDITIONAL, UM, A MAGNETIZATION CREDIT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE SUPER HIGH LEVEL, UH, WALKTHROUGH OF THE, OF THE POLICY OR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. UM, WE BELIEVE IT REFLECTS THE PUBLIC WISHLIST. IT ENSURES THAT WE HAVE THE COMMUNITY SCALING THAT JIM BELIEVES WE NEED FOR OUR PUBLIC PARKS. [00:25:01] WE'RE PROVIDING HIGHER QUALITY PRIVATE PARKS, AND THEN WE'RE STILL PROVIDING DEVELOPER FLEXIBILITY. SO IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. UH, FOR PRIVATE PARKS, PUBLIC PARKS, THE, THE INCREASE WOULD BE THERE. ONE THING THAT I DIDN'T, UH, MENTION WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS, WE DO HAVE A STATEMENT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE POD, IF YOU ARE DEVELOPING AND CAN MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN ADOPT THAT AS WELL. IF YOU START LOOKING A ACROSS THE CITY, IT'S GONNA BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF 45 TO, TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. UM, MORE THAN LIKELY THERE'S JUST NOT LARGE ENOUGH CHUNKS OF LAND THAT'S THERE. THERE COULD BE IF SOMEBODY BUNDLES 'EM TOGETHER, BUT IT, IT'LL BE DIFFICULT. BUT WE WANTED TO GIVE THEM THAT SAME ABILITY. I THINK IF YOU START LOOKING ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE THE AREAS THAT AREN'T, UM, ARE, ARE NOT PART OF THE POD LAND, LIKE I SAID, THE LLOYD'S ALREADY ADOPTED IT, UH, THROUGH THE POD FOR THE MOST PART. THE, UM, UH, WESTLAND RANCH HAS ALREADY PRETTY MUCH GONE, FAR TOO FAR TO, TO LOOK TO ADJUST. UH, LEGACY THOUGH IS ONE THAT ACTUALLY MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS TODAY. AND I WOULD EXPECT IF THIS PASSES THEM TO COME AND ASK TO, TO FOLLOW THIS AMENDMENT VERSUS OUTSIDE THE POD. SO AGAIN, TONIGHT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. WE'LL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER THE 18TH WITH A SECOND READING ON DECEMBER THE 16TH, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. CHRIS, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN JUST A SECOND. YES, SIR. WE'LL GO AHEAD AT THIS POINT AT, UH, 6 26 AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE, UH, AN OVERFLOW CROWD THAT WANTS TO TALK. SO WE'LL CLOSE THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AT 6 26 AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OF, UH, MR. SIMS. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE DO HAVE A, UH, OUR COMMISSION LIAISON TO, TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON THIS IS, IS RIGHT, RIGHT HERE, MR. DOMINGUEZ. AND, UH, FRANK, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR, UH, NO. OR, OR MOTION OR WHATEVER? WELL, I, I JUST, JUST TO SAY THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT ON BY THE COMMISSION COMMITTEE. UM, A LOT OF VERY SMART PEOPLE THAT WERE WORKING ON THIS. I DON'T THINK I COULD IMPROVE UPON ANYTHING THAT MR. SIMS HAS ALREADY OUTLINED. UM, IT, IT LOOKED LIKE IT MADE COMMON SENSE TO BE ACTUALLY IMPROVED. IT IS TOO BAD WE CAN'T TAKE SOME OF THOSE, UH, UH, REGULATIONS OR AMENDMENT PIECES AND MOVE 'EM OVER ON, ONTO THE EAST SIDE. BUT, UH, I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THANK YOU. AND, AND I'M, I'M SORRY. AND I, I ACTUALLY FAILED TO MENTION THAT THIS DID GO TO OUR, OUR STRATEGIC, UH, ACTION COMMITTEE, UH, THAT CAME OUT OF THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN. SO, UH, MENEZ, OUR, OUR, WE HAD DEVELOPERS, WE HAD ENGINEERS, WE HAD, UM, OTHER STAFF ALL ON THERE. THEY WERE GIVEN A CHANCE TO REVIEW AND MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, AS WELL. IT WAS A VERY OPEN PROCESS. THANK YOU. WELL, VERY GOOD. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WAS THERE A, A MOTION DEEP SEATED IN THERE, ? WELL, OKAY, I'LL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, THE PASSAGE OR THE APPROVAL OF THE, UH, PROVISIONS OF PARKLAND, UH, AS, AS DESCRIBED TODAY. VERY GOOD. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THAT MOTION. WE DO HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? NOT RECALL THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. I'M AND ABSTAIN. YOU'RE ABSTAINING. OKAY. WILL SHOW MS. ARNOLD IS AS ABSTAIN. ABSTAINING. SO WE, BUT WE DO HAVE, UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, WHAT IS IT? FOUR. WE HAVE FIVE, FOUR, AND ONE ABSTENTION. THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHRIS. THANK YOU. NOW, ARE YOU GONNA DO THE NEXT ONE AS WELL? I'M GONNA DO THE NEXT ONE. YOU GET A DOUBLE DOSE OF ME TONIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS, UM, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1 25 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE SEVEN ENTITLED, TREE PRESERVATION, MITIGATION, AND MAINTENANCE. OKAY. SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A ROBUST, UH, CHANGE. WE'RE NOT JUST ADDING STUFF, WE'RE, WE'RE [00:30:01] ACTIVELY CHANGING SOME OF THE CURRENT, UM, LANGUAGE IN, IN THE ORDINANCE. UM, THIS IS ONE THAT IS KIND OF TWOFOLD. UM, CHRIS AND I ARE, ARE CHALLENGED EVERY YEAR TO REVIEW ORDINANCES, MAKE AMENDMENTS AS NEEDED, THINGS LIKE THAT TO MAKE SURE THEY STAY CURRENT. UM, AND THEN THIS WAS ONE THAT WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, UH, STRATEGIC PLAN. UH, SEVERAL DEVELOPERS REALLY FEEL LIKE, UM, THE TREE MITIGATION FEES PREVENT, UH, PROPERTIES FROM BEING DEVELOPED, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, NOT WHAT WE WANT. YOU, YOU GOT, THERE'S A FINE LINE BETWEEN MAKING SURE YOU PROTECT THE TREES AND ENSURE THE MITIGATION VERSUS A TAKING. SO YOU, YOU WANT TO, TO WALK THAT LINE CAREFULLY. UH, CHRIS AND I MET WITH SEVERAL DEVELOPERS TALKING ABOUT THIS, UH, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS WELL AS WE WERE WINNING, WALKING THROUGH IT. I ALSO, UH, WHEN I WAS PUTTING IT TOGETHER, LOOKED TO SEE HOW OTHER SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES HAD THEIR ORDINANCES SET UP. UM, WE WERE, UM, PROBABLY, I LOOKED AT SEVEN COMMUNITIES AND I THREW SAN ANTONIO, UH, IN, SO A LOT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND THEN SAN ANTONIO IN THE MIX AS WELL. UM, OTHER THAN SAN ANTONIO, WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE MOST, UM, PROTECTIVE OF OUR, OF OUR TREES. OUT OF ALL THOSE ORDINANCES, UH, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS STILL VERY PROTECTIVE. YOU'LL SEE WE DON'T MAKE HUGE ADJUSTMENTS, UH, BUT WE DO TWEAK IT SOME. AND WHEN YOU RANK THEM OFF OF THOSE CITIES THAT I LOOKED AT, WE MOVED FROM, YOU KNOW, SEVEN OUT OF EIGHT AS FAR AS BEING, YOU KNOW, RESTRICTIVE TO KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE. ALRIGHT, SO AGAIN, LAST UPDATED IN 2020. UM, I WAS THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AT THAT TIME. I SEEMED TO RECALL. WE HAD A FEW BAD ACTORS THAT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE CITY, CAME IN CLEAR, CUT A BUNCH OF LAND, UH, DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TEETH IN OUR ORDINANCE. COUNSEL ASKED FOR TEETH. UM, MR. HOOVER, WHO WAS IN THIS POSITION AT THAT TIME, PUT IN A LOT OF TEETH AND, UH, WE WANT TO GO BACK AND MAYBE, MAYBE SOFTEN IT JUST A LITTLE BIT. ALSO, WHEN YOU READ IT, IT'S, IT'S A, A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S COULD BE A LITTLE BIT CLEANER. UM, AND THAT'S EASY TO SAY WHEN YOU GET TO LOOK BACKWARDS, BUT NOT, YOU KNOW, BUT IT, IT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT CLEANER. UM, AND THEN THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS THERE'S NO CAP. SO YOUR FEES COULD FAR OUTWEIGH THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY, UM, WHICH IS WHERE YOU START GETTING INTO THE TAKING ARGUMENTS AS WELL. AND THEN IT CAN, UH, CONSTRAIN THE LAND OWNER'S ABILITY TO USE THEIR LAND. SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND, AND I JUST KIND OF SHOWED THESE AREAS JUST AS, AS TALKING POINTS MORE THAN ANYTHING TO POINT OUT. ONE THING. LET'S SAY I OWN, I'M GONNA WALK AWAY AGAIN. LET'S SAY I OWN THIS PIECE OF LAND RIGHT HERE AND I'M DUMB, OR I PLAY DUMB AND I GO AND CLEAR CUT EVERY BIT OF THAT. THE WAY WE ESTABLISH THE PENALTIES AND THE RESTITUTION IS OFF OF OUR CANOPY, NOT THE DIAMETER OF THE TREES. IF YOU START LOOKING THIS POTENTIAL PROPERTY HERE AND YOU JUST DRIVE AROUND, THIS IS LEE CITY PARKWAY. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS WOODCOCK. YOU START DRIVING AROUND, THERE'S PROBABLY NOT A LOT OF PROTECTED TREES THERE. SO WE, WE HAVE THAT TYPE OF THING THAT WE WANTED TO POINT OUT AND, AND KIND OF CLARIFY TO SOME EXTENT. ALL RIGHT, SO THE NOTED CONCERNS WHEN WE WERE TALKING WITH DEVELOPERS, UH, THE, THE FEE IN LIE, I'M PAYING THE SAME RATE. IF IT, IF IT'S A SIX INCH PROTECTED TREE OR IF IT'S A 12 INCH PROTECTED TREE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S DIFFERENT SPECIES. ONE'S A SMALL PROTECTED TREE, ONE'S A LARGE PROTECTED TREE, UM, NO CAPS. SO I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD AT LEAST TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE TREES. NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY WERE JUST OVERRUN, IT'S JUST WHERE THEY WERE AT YOU, YOU COULDN'T REALLY PUT ANYTHING OF, OF DEVELOPABLE USE ON THAT PROPERTY. SO THE FEES WERE, WERE WEIGHING IT DOWN. UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE 38 INCH OR LARGER OAKS AND PECANS CAN'T BE REMOVED UNLESS THE LAW ALLOWS. UM, AND THEN THE APPEAL PROCESS IS LONG AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ALMOST PUNISH YOU IF YOU WANT TO GO [00:35:01] THROUGH AN APPEALS PROCESS BY SAYING WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE FINES OCCURRING WHILE THE APPEALS IS GOING ON. UM, AND THEN RESTITUTION FOR VIOLATIONS, UM, IT'S $250 AN INCH. THAT'S ABOUT 200%. SO YOU'RE GONNA PAY THE BASE FEE, WHICH IS THE A HUNDRED PERCENT, AND THEN A 200%, UH, RESTITUTION FEE. ALRIGHT? SO WE WANT TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT LOOKS AT A WAY TO ESTABLISH COST PREDICTABILITY. WE, WE IMPROVE OUR PROCESS EFFICIENCY, UH, WE ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY IN, IN THAT DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THE PENALTIES ARE A LITTLE BIT FAIR, MORE FAIR THAN THEY ARE TODAY. ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT'S CHANGING? SO AGAIN, KIND OF THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE JUST DID WITH THE, WITH THE PARK. I'VE GOT A CURRENT ORDINANCE, AMENDED ORDINANCE. SO CURRENT ORDINANCE TODAY, THE FEE IN LIEU IS $250 AN INCH REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF TREE. UM, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT TO TIERED. WE'RE GONNA RECOGNIZE THAT THE IMPACT, REMOVING A SIX INCH TREE IS NOT THE SAME AS MOVING A 15 INCH TREE. SO IT'S TIERED ANYWHERE FROM A HUNDRED DOLLARS TO $200, NO BASE REMOVAL IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. FEES START WITH THE, AT FIRST TREE YOU REMOVE. WE WANT TO BUILD IN A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY AND WE'RE SAYING, HEY, 10 INCHES OF THE TOTAL CALIPER, I'M SORRY, 10% OF THE TOTAL CALIPER INCHES, UH, OF A PROTECTED TREE CAN BE REMOVED BEFORE THE FEE STARTS. DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THE TREE SURVEY, STILL HAVE TO DO THE TREE SURVEY. YOU JUST GET TO REMOVE 10% BEFORE YOU HAVE TO START ANY RESTITUTION. ALRIGHT? TODAY, NO SIGNIFICANT TREE VARIANCE EXCEPT THROUGH CITY COUNCIL. UM, WE WANT TO KEEP THAT LARGELY INTACT, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOW ADDED AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A PORTION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE REMOVED, GIVEN CERTAIN CRITERIA. AND THEN AGAIN, I JUST TALKED ABOUT THE RESTITUTION TODAY IS CAPPED AT 300%. THERE'S NO CAPS, YOU KNOW, FEES COULD EASILY EXCEED THE LAND VALUE. WE WANT TO CAP IT AT 200% FOR RESTITUTION. WE WANT TO CAP THE MAXIMUM FEE AT 30% OF THE UNIMPROVED LAND VALUE WITH ONE IN. EXCEPT IF YOU DO WHAT I SAID I WAS GONNA DO ON OUR VERY FIRST SLIDE, I GO IN AND I CLEAR CUT EVERYTHING, IT'S GONNA BE CAPPED AT 50%. OKAY? SO IF I DO IT WRONG, I DO IT WITHOUT THE PERMIT. THAT MAXIMUM RESTITUTION IS 50% OF THE LAND VALUE INSTEAD OF 30. ALRIGHT, SO I MADE ME SOME NOTES OVER HERE. I APOLOGIZE, I'M GONNA READ 'EM A LITTLE BIT. SO WHY A 10% BASE REMOVAL? IT ACKNOWLEDGES OUR SITE REALITIES. IT ALLOWS FOR JUST, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, UTILITIES, DRIVEWAYS, GRADING AND DRAINAGE, JUST THE MINOR STUFF JUST TO KIND OF MAKE SURE YOUR SITE DOESN'T DAMAGE PROPERTIES BESIDE YOU OR YOU CAN SAFELY GET IN AND OUT. THOSE TYPE THINGS. THAT'S WHERE THAT 10% CAME FROM, IS TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. IT REDUCES THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN. HEY, I KNOW WHEN YOU'RE SUBMITTING AND YOU'RE SHOWING A THOUSAND INCHES, BUT YOU'RE GONNA KEEP 900 OF IT. OKAY, I'M GOOD. IT JUST TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF PRESSURE OFF AND, AND IT ALLOWS FOR THAT BURDEN TO, TO BE REMOVED AND THE TREE PROCESS TO GO A LITTLE BIT MORE SMOOTHLY. SMALL PROJECT FAIRNESS, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPORTIONALITY. WE'RE GOING BACK TO, UH, THE SIX INCH VERSUS 12 INCH VERSUS 18 INCH DIAMETER TREES. AND THEN PREDICTABILITY. WE DON'T WANT THE NICKEL AND DIME ARGUMENTS. THIS IS THE FEE WE'RE, WE RECOGNIZE IT'S A SMALLER TREE. IT'S A SMALLER FEE, BUT THIS IS THE FEE. UM, SO AGAIN, WHY, WHY DOES A TIERED FEE MAKE SENSE? REFLECTS THE TRUER COST. IT ENCOURAGES THE PROTECTION OF THE LARGER BIG CANOPY TREES. UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FAIR FOR DEVELOPMENT, I BELIEVE, AND THEN IT'S PREDICTABLE. IT, IT GIVES SOME PREDICTABILITY STANDARDS THAT EVERYBODY CAN BASE THEIR, UH, COSTS OFF OF. ALL RIGHT, SO I TALKED JUST A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT TREE VARIANCE. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE, WE'VE MODIFIED IT A LITTLE BIT AND, AND CHRIS, AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW [00:40:01] ONE SIGNIFICANT TREE OR 10% OF THE TOTAL SIGNIFICANT TREE CALIPER INCHES TO BE REMOVED IF ONE OF THESE THREE CRITERIA ARE MET. SO IF THERE'S A SITE CONSTRAINT OR HARDSHIP, THE SITE CAN'T BE DEVELOPED UNLESS A TREE IS REMOVED. UM, SITE MUST MAINTAIN 75% OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT CANOPY LEVELS AND MITIGATION IS AT LEAST 1.5 INCHES PER INCH REMOVED. HE CAN, HE CAN AUTHORIZE THE REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE. UM, PUBLIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE TREE POSES A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, UTILITIES, CONFLICTS, YADA, YADA, YADA. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IN THERE TODAY. IT'S, EXCEPT I BELIEVE THAT IS A COUNCIL ACTION TODAY. IS IT? IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE. IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE. OKAY. SO THAT STAYS THE SAME. THE OTHER NEW ONE IS PUBLIC BENEFIT COMMUNITY AMENITIES. SO WE PUT THIS IN, BUT THIS IS KIND OF A PIE IN THE SKY. I'M NOT SURE YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE THIS EVER BEING IMPACTED. BUT PUBLIC BEN BENEFIT COMMUNITY AMENITIES, DEDICATION OF AT LEAST 10% OF THE SITE, A MINIMUM OF 15 ACRES IS MADE AS A PUBLIC GREEN SPACE. SO YOU COULD SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENING. UH, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN VERY OFTEN. AND THEN IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE THAT IS MORE THAN 10%, THE ONE SIGNIFICANT TREE OR 10% OF THE TOTAL CALIPER INCHES, IT STILL HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL. WHEN COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE UP TO 25%. THERE'S NO NO REMOVAL IF YOU'RE OVER THE 25%. ALRIGHT, SORRY, LEMME GET BACK TO MY NOTES AGAIN. WHY CHANGE THE RESTITUTION FROM 300 TO 200? UM, AGAIN, I, I'M, I'M A BROKEN RECORD. I GOT THE FAIRNESS AND PROPORTIONALITY, I GOT THE PREDICTABILITY. IT'S ALSO GOING TO HELP IMPROVE COMPLIANCE, I THINK. SO SOME PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE MORE PRONE TO ROLL THE DICE AND HOPE THEY DON'T GET CAUGHT. WHERE IF IT'S MORE REASONABLE, YOU, YOU'LL SEE PEOPLE WANTING TO, TO OWN UP A LITTLE BIT. MAYBE THAT'S A LITTLE POLLYANNA ME, BUT, BUT THAT'S THE WAY I THINK. I THINK YOU'LL SEE IT, UM, Y CAP AT 30%. SO CLEARLY IT, IT PREVENTS DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS. IT GIVES US A BETTER LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO SAY YOU OWE A MILLION DOLLARS IN FEES IF YOUR PROPERTY WORTH $600,000. THAT'S A LITTLE, LITTLE, THAT'S A HARD ARGUMENT TO MAKE. UM, IT ALSO BALANCES A PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT TO DEVELOP WITH OUR TREE PRESERVATION. AND THEN, UM, AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED, IF YOU'RE UNPERMITTED, SO YOU JUST GO IN AND BLINDLY REMOVE EVERYTHING IS CAPPING IT AT 50% OF THE LAND VALUE. OKAY? SO I WANTED TO JUST GIVE A VERY ROUGH EXAMPLE. ALL RIGHT, SO PROPERTY'S BEING DEVELOPED, IT'S GOT 1900 CALIBER INCHES OF PROTECTED TREES ON SITE. 650 INCHES OF THAT IS FROM 10 PECAN TREES THAT ARE 38 INCHES OR BIGGER. UM, AND THE OWNER WANTS TO DEVELOP THE SITE. HE WANTS FILLS THAT PROTECTING OWNER FILLS THAT PROTECTED TREES ACCOUNTING FOR 750 CALIBER INCHES WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED TO MAKE HIS SITE VIABLE. SO THAT 750 IS SPLIT 450 INCHES OF SIX TO 12 INCH DIAMETER TREES, NOT SIX FOOT, SIX INCH TO 12 INCH TREES, UH, 150 INCHES OF 18 INCH TREES, 150 INCHES OF 20 INCH TREES. SO EVERYTHING IS BELOW THE 38 INCH EXCEPT FOR, UM, THOSE 10 PECAN TREES ON OR CAN MITIGATE 50% OF THAT. AND THEN WE'LL USE, UH, PAVEMENT IN, IN LIEU OF FOR THE OTHER 50%. HE'S ALSO REQUESTING TO REMOVE 1 45 INCH CONTRARY DUE TO LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY NEAR THE ONLY ACCESS POINT. CERTIFIED ARBORISTS IS DOCUMENTED THAT THE CONTRARY WOULD NOT SURVIVE IF THE DRIVEWAY WAS PUT IN AND WOULD CREATE A LONG-TERM SAFETY HAZARD. SO THIS MEANS THE REMAINING 1,105 CALIBER INCHES OF PROTECTED TREES WOULD REMAIN ON SITE. ALRIGHT, SO UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT'S REPLANTING 50% OF THE TREES ON SITE, THEY'RE PAYING $250 PER INCH FOR 375 CALIBER INCHES, PLUS THE SURCHARGE FOR THE PAYMENT IN LIEBE. SO ALL OF THAT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S 30 PER 20% FOR SIX TO NINE 30 FOR 9.1 TO 1230 FOR 18, 40 FOR 20. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S $120,000 IN FEES. UM, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 45 INCH, UH, [00:45:01] VARIANCE TO REMOVE THE TREE UNDER THE AMENDED ORDINANCE. STILL REPLACING THE SAME THING, BUT THE, THE PAYMENT IN LIEU HAS REDUCED A LITTLE BIT. SO IT'S 20% FOR SIX TO 12, IT'S ACTUALLY 20% FOR UP TO 18. AND IF YOU'RE GREATER THAN 18, IT'S 40. SO THAT BY ITSELF, THAT PAYMENT IN LIEU REDUCES THOSE FEES FROM, WHAT WAS IT, A HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE, A HUNDRED TWENTY TO 52,000. SO 70 ISH THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SAVINGS RIGHT THERE. THE REMOVAL OF THE 45 INCH DIAMETER PER CONTRARY IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL SIGNIFICANT TREE CALIPER INCHES. CHRIS SIGNS THE ADMIN VARIANCE TO HAVE IT REMOVED AND THIS MOVES FORWARD. OKAY, SO BEFORE, I KNOW THIS IS PRESENTATION, BUT ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT EXAMPLE? 'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S A BIG, BROAD EXAMPLE ALL, OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND I GOT, I GOT JUST A LITTLE, LITTLE BIT MORE, SORRY. OH, YOU DON'T NEED TO . ALL RIGHT, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL BE QUIET AND LET YOU GO. I, I'M SERIOUSLY IF WE CAN CLOSE IT. THIS IS JUST AT, IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS, WE, WE HAVEN'T OPENED IT YET. SO YOU'RE STILL GONNA BE TALKING IN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. ALRIGHT. IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS. YES SIR. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, AND OPEN THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AT, UH, SIX FORTY SIX AND CALL ON ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANYBODY. SO WE'LL CLOSE IT AT 6 46 AND YOU'RE BACK ON MR. SANDS . SO WHAT, WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS, YOU KNOW, TYP, TYPICALLY THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD EXPECT, UH, TO HEAR THAT WE TYPICALLY HEAR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TREES IS, YOU KNOW, DOES, WILL OUR AMENDMENT REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR EVERY REMOVE TREE? NO. IT, IT WON'T. IF IT'S ADOPTED, IT ALLOWS THAT 10%, UM, BUFFER. WHAT IF PRESERVATION ON SITE IS NOT POSSIBLE? WE ALWAYS WANT PRESERVATION ON SITE WHEN POSSIBLE. WE ALWAYS WANT THEM TO REPLANT ON SITE WHEN POSSIBLE. BUT SOME SITES IT'S NOT GONNA BE ALLOWED. SO IN THAT, IN THE CASE, THEY CAN PROVIDE ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND THAT THEY CAN PLANT ON AND, AND WE WOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF ASSURANCE THAT THOSE TREES WOULD REMAIN OR THEY CAN DO THE FEE IN LIE, MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE GONNA DO THE FEE AND LIE. THEY'RE NOT GONNA LOCK UP ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND. UM, WILL THIS SLOW DEVELOPMENT IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK IT ACTUALLY SPEEDS IT UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S VERY MUCH PARALLEL TO WHAT WE DO NOW. WE'RE NOT, WE GREATLY IMPACTING THE PROCESS. WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING IT. WHO DETERMINES IF A TREE IS HAZARDOUS CERTIFIED? ARBORIST CITY CAN GO OUT AND LOOK AND, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. BUT THE CERTIFIED ARBORISTS IT IS WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION? AND THEN HOW ARE OUR COLLECTED FEES USED SO THEY CAN BE USED REESTABLISHING PLANNING IN ANY PUBLIC, UH, GATHERING PLACE LIKE A PARK OR ALONG OUR ROADWAYS LIKE, UM, WHAT T HAS BEEN DOING WITH US ON THE GREEN, UM, I FORGET WHAT'S CALLED MAYBE ATTORNEY FEES. YEAH, YEAH. SO, SO THAT'S HOW, HOW THEY COULD GO ANY OF THOSE. AGAIN, P AND Z IS TONIGHT WE'RE ASKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT. WE'LL TAKE THIS TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE 18TH AS WELL WITH A SECOND READING ON THE 16TH. THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY GOOD PRESENTATION. THANK YOU CHRIS. APPRECIATE IT. UM, YES SIR. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. SIMS? THIS IS A HOT BUTTON RIGHT HERE. THIS IT IS. AND JUST LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, IT'S AMAZING THAT ANYBODY WOULD DEVELOP A WOODED PIECE OF PROPERTY . IT'S TOUGH. UH, LIKE, LIKE WE DID WITH THE PARTS AMENDMENT. THIS WENT OUT TO OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ACTION COMMITTEE. IT ALSO WENT OUT TO SEVERAL DEVELOPERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT WERE NOT PART OF THAT. UM, THE ONLY COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED NEGATIVE WAS ASKING FOR MORE, UH, LEEWAY THAN, THAN WHAT WE WERE GIVEN. RIGHT. UM, BUT WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS, WAS APPROPRIATE AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. BUT, AND THIS IS, THIS IS ONLY ON THE PROTECTED SPECIES OF TREES, RIGHT? YES SIR. YES SIR. PINE TREES DON'T COUNT. YEAH, NO SIR. PINE TREES DON'T COUNT. AND WHEN YOU LOOK, WE DID NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE TREES, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SAMPLE ORDINANCE I PROVIDED, YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE TREES IN RED. THEY WERE ACTUALLY MISSPELLED THE FIRST TIME. SO WE JUST CLEANED UP THE SPELLING. YEAH, JUST CURIOUS. THE, UH, SUBDIVISION OR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE JUST APPROVED OVER ON 5 28, THAT IS ALREADY MM-HMM . THE IN, IN, UH, HARRIS COUNTY. DID [00:50:01] THIS, DOES THIS COME UNDER THAT? IF IT'S ADOPTED? IT WOULD BECAUSE IT, I MEAN THAT'S FULLY WOODED. YEAH. YEAH. SO THERE, WE, WE MET WITH THEM. UM, WELL WE, WE'VE DONE THIS WITH ALL THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE ACTIVE. THEY KNOW THIS AMENDMENT IS COMING, YOU KNOW, SO WE'VE LET 'EM KNOW, HEY, IF YOU CAN'T WAIT, GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT AND WE WILL MOVE, MOVE FORWARD UNDER THE OLD OR ORDINANCES. IF YOU CAN WAIT A COUPLE OF MONTHS, THIS MIGHT GET ADOPTED AND POTENTIALLY SAVE YOU SOME MONEY. YES. THEY WOULD NEED TO DO THAT. YES, SIR. BUT WE, WE PUT IT BACK ON THEM AS THEIR CALL HOW THEY WANNA PROCEED. GOTCHA. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. ARNOLD? YOU'RE THE DEVELOPER, , IT SOUNDS, UH, LIKE A BIG IMPROVEMENT TO ME. YEAH, AND I MEAN IT DEFINITELY IS. IT'S, IT'S STILL VERY COMPLICATED. UM, AS FAR AS LAND USE IS CONCERNED OR, ANYWAY. AND WE'LL, OKAY. NO OTHER QUESTIONS THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'LL, UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT, UH, REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1 25, THE UNIFIED CODE ARTICLE SEVEN, TREE PRESERVATION, MITIGATION, AND MAINTENANCE. OKAY. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE DO HAVE A SECOND. MOTION MADE AND SECOND DONE. LIKE A TRUE COMMITTEE PERSON . YES. GOOD JOB. SO ANYWAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIED. FIVE, UH, FIVE ZERO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHRIS. THANK YOU. STAFF COMMENTS? NO COMMENTS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING? OKAY. VERY GOOD. UH, THAT BEING THE CASE THEN AT, UH, SIX, UH, 52, WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED. ALL RIGHT. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.