Loading...
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 08/14/2024 MINUTES PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION August 14, 2024 PRESENT: David Cook *Chairman Jeremy Woodward •Vice-Chair Steve Wood *Member Blake Haney •Member Michael Grassi •Member Noros Martin •Member Doug McCulloch •Member Matt Marrs •Member Wayne Pharries •Member Councilor Bobby Whiteley *Council Liaison Mark McBurnett •SAFB Liaison James McKechnie, Legal Department •City Staff Terry Floyd, Director of Development Services •City Staff Russell Schreiber,Director of Public Works •City Staff Fabian Medellin, Planning Manager •City Staff Tyson Traw,City Engineer •City Staff Cedric Hu, Planning Technician •City Staff Robin Marshall, Admin Assistant •City Staff ABSENT: Brady Enlow *Alternate No.1 Alan Sizemore *Alternate No.2 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Cook, at 2:00 p.m. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Cook asked if there were any comments from the public for any items not on the agenda. With no response, Mr. Cook closed public comments. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner, Jeremy Woodward, made a motion to adopt the July 10th, 2024, minutes. Commissioner, Noros Martin seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously, 9-0. Planning and Zoning 2 August 14, 2024 IV. CONSENT AGENDA P 24-30 WinCo Foods Addition, Lots 1-4, Block A— Final Plat P 24-32 Short Track Motor Sports Addition, Lot 1A, Block 1— Final Plat Chairman Cook asked if there are any items on the consent agenda that should be moved down to the regular agenda. Mr. Fabian Medellin stated that there are not any items that should be moved to the regular agenda. Chairman Cook asked if there is a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Woodward made the motion to approve the consent agenda, and Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion. The motion passed 9-0. V. Regular Agenda 1. Case C 24-19 1417 East Cortez Drive Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow for the development of a duplex in a Single-Family 2 Residential (SF-2) zoning district. Owner: Mindy Holbrook Address: 1417 East Cortez Drive Chairman Cook asked if there was a motion to approve the case. Commissioner Michael Grassi makes the motion and Mr. Marrs seconded the motion. Cedric Hu presented the case and stated that the applicant met with staff to discuss allowing a duplex at 1417 East Cortez Drive. Mr. Hu stated that an approved conditional use permit would be required to allow a duplex in a Single- Family 2 Residential zoning district. Mr. Hu presented slides of the location and stated this property is located on the NW side of town, just NE of City View Elementary. Continuing showing aerial views, slides of the applicants site plan, and a map based on the applicants site plan, Mr. Hu stated that the duplex would have a total of 1916 square feet and the proposed site does meet all of the setback requirements in the ordinance.The entirety of the property sits within the SF2 zoning district. As part of the conditional use process, we have notified all properties within the 200-foot radius. We have mailed out a total of 31 notices and have received one response back, which was in favor. Mr. Hu stated after taking everything into consideration, staff does recommend approval of the conditional use for a duplex, with the conditions that four parking stalls be provided that meet the design standards of Section 6200 Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was present and would like to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Cook put the motion to vote, and the motion passed 9-0. 2. Case C 24-20 4208 Iowa Park Road Planning and Zoning 3 August 14, 2024 Consider taking action on a conditional use to allow for the development of a manufactured home in a Residential Mixed Use (RMU) zoning district. The applicant: Russell Moore Address: 4208 Iowa Park Road Commissioner Cook asked if there was a motion to approve the case. Mr. Woodward made the motion and Mr. Marrs seconded the motion. Cedric Hu presented the case, and he stated: "The applicant is seeking a conditional use approval in regards to this property to place a manufactured home in this property that is zoned as residential mixed-use. City ordinance does require a proof of conditional use to place a manufactured home inside residential districts, which is why we are here today." Mr. Hu displayed a location map and aerial views, pointing out that the property is located in the northwest side of Wichita Falls,just west of the intersection with Iowa Park Road/Wellington Lane. He showed the applicant's proposed site plan for the manufactured home, and stated that the building will be 28 feet by 58 feet with an approximate total of 1475 square feet. It will be a four-bedroom, three-bathroom model and stated that the actual parcel is about 118 by 1,838 feet, which will exceed all setback requirements. Mr. Hu continued to present a variety of slides showing different views of the property and provided the zoning and land use map of the property, stating the subject property is located next to other residences, primarily within the residential mixed use zoning district. And just West and East of the property are various other residential uses in both the RMU and a single-family one zoning districts. Mr. Hu stated that the Planning Dept. sent out notices as part of the conditional use process, notifying 11 properties in total, and have received one response back which was in favor of the proposed manufactured home. After taking this into consideration, the staff does recommend approval of this conditional use for a manufactured home with the following conditions: 1) The home must meet the requirements of Section 5600 for infill manufactured housing. 2) The proposed home must comply with all codes and ordinances at the time of construction permitting. Chairman Cook asked if the applicant was in the audience and would like to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Cook opened it to the entire audience, but no one wished to make a comment. Chairman Cook took the motion to vote, and it passed 9-0. 3. R 24-04 5135 Ditto Lane, 5126 & 5150 Henry S Grace Freeway Public hearing of a request to rezone +/- 13.98 acres of land located at 5135 Ditto Lane, 5126 Henry S. Grace Freeway, and 5150 Henry S. Grace Freeway (Lots 1,2-A,and 9, K.C. Gray Estates)from Light Industrial(LI)to General Commercial (GC) zoning district; and amend the Land Use Plan from Light Industrial to Planning and Zoning 4 August 14, 2024 Commercial to allow for an expansion of allowed uses including multifamily residential. Chairman Cook declares the public hearing at 2:10, and stated that no action would be taken at this time. The Applicants: Omer Farooq Asad Farooq One Eyed Moose Ventures, LLC. Address: 5135 Ditto Lane 5126 Henry S. Grace Freeway 5150 Henry S. Grace Freeway Mr. Fabian Medellin presented the case and stated that this was only a request to change the land use and zoning designation. There is no particular proposed development at this time—only an opportunity to expand the allowable uses on the three properties. Mr. Medellin stated that the One-Eyed Moose Ventures, LLC representative met with staff regarding the Ditto Lane property and discussed the zoning designation, Light Industrial. Staff told the representative that rezoning the property in question would not be possible because of the geographical location and the zoning designation of all the properties surrounding it, which are Light Industrial. Staff informed the representative that a joint application could be submitted to extend the neighboring General Commercial zoning over the neighboring property and their own. The representative met with those adjacent lot owners, the Henry S. Grace Freeway property owners, and they decided to apply together for all three properties to convert them from Light Industrial to General Commercial. The purpose was to expand the uses to include those multifamily uses prohibited in the Light Industrial Zoning District. The subject site is located south of Kickapoo Airport on Henry S. Grace Freeway and Ditto Lane. Mr. Medellin presented the location map to indicate the approximate site and showed that the land is undeveloped. He then pointed out a couple of the neighboring land uses. There are a few rows of homes on Ditto Land that are non-conforming and stated that they are all within the same Light Industrialized zoning district. North of Kickapoo Airport are a few more residential uses to the Northwest and the Southwest, and directly to the South is a kennel/pet daycare. The property immediately to the South of the airport is undeveloped. In discussing airport zoning regulations, Mr. Medellin talked about some approved new developments and went through the process. One is under construction, and the other has been issued a CO, Spare Feet Storage, which is Planning and Zoning 5 August 14, 2024 Southeast of the airport. Mr. Medellin said, "We take a look at every aspect of the actual proposed developments, everything from the building placement, the height of the buildings, trees, landscaping because that could potentially have impacts to the airport, lighting, signage, anything that can potentially even create electrical interferences that can interfere with communication devices for the airplanes. All that's taken into consideration at the time of a project proposal when we are sitting down reviewing that site. Included with that is an FAA review. For those two projects to move forward, they had to provide us with a clearance letter from the FAA, a determination of no impact, which they did provide. Then, after we approved their permits, they went away to construct their projects." He then continued to point out some developmental impacts to the site that will limit the ability to develop when it comes to height. Mr. Medellin said, "Here we have invisible layers that dictate the height allowances around the airport. The primary surface covers the runway strip and is set at a thousand feet above sea level. Everything is based on elevation from that runway. Then, we have a couple of other zones. The one directly south is the approach departure zone. In our ordinance, we outline a set distance of 34 feet. A foot of height is allowed for every 34 feet at the end of the primary surface or the runway zone. For every 34 feet out, they can go one foot higher. Based on some measurements, we just wanted to outline some of those heights allowed within that light pink area in the approaching departure. In the 5126 Ditto Lane, the approach departure, you're looking at a maximum height of about 28 feet. And, like I said, that's based on elevation from the runway. The same is true:the further you get from the runway, the higher you can go. That's the furthest north portion of the property. The furthest south border of those properties is about 48 feet. Now, 5126 and 5150, they're split. They're also a part of what's called the transitional zone. There, the height loss is measured a little bit differently. As the name implies, it is measured perpendicular to the runway strip. Now, for every seven feet out, you can go one foot up. But if you look at the diagram, we would measure east-west with the runway. It is so, measuring out east in line with the runway. That frontage portion is minimal as far as the north part is concerned. It's only limited to about 16 feet, and that's everything on top of the building. So that's parapets, any kind of HVAC equipment, that's all taken into account, and it has to be below that height allowance. But the further east you go, the higher you can build. So that leads up to 62 feet. That transitional plane leads up to what's called the horizontal plane. And that's a flat 150-foot limitation that goes about two miles around the airport. All of this is based on elevation." The elevation around the area is flat, and there is not a lot of change, but for the most part, there's a few feet difference. He stated that someone could still change the grade of their site to go lower so they could work within those allotted height maximums. Mr. Medellin showed some views of the subjects' sites and stated that staff is proposing to change just the land use of those three properties Planning and Zoning 6 August 14, 2024 and extend that general commercial designation from the East to encompass the subject sites, as well as the land use plan. Mr. Medellin discussed the other site, stating that it was annexed in 1968, and zoning here started in 1985. The site has essentially remained the same for 40 years. Mr. Medellin said, "When we hear the proposal, we always weigh the options, weigh out the benefits, benefit to property owners, benefit to potential businesses, benefit to the city and the public. After weighing out all the options, we determined that classification hasn't helped out a lot because it's remained vacant for forty years." He continued, "Change is sometimes necessary to spur development. In 40 years, we've only gotten a couple of storage facilities adjacent to the lot or south of the lot of the airport. We felt that we could recommend it. But as part of our process, we do engage the public. We do reach out to neighboring properties. Mr. Medellin explained that the Planning department is only required to send notices within 200 feet of the subject sites, so 12 notices were sent out for these properties. The responses were one in favor, four opposed, and one undecided. A few were also received via email, both from airport tenants and a couple of other neighboring properties. Some of those notices came in at the last minute, so the Commissioner's books were updated this morning with those two loose notices opposing that proposal.The staff weighed all the options, considerations, potential impacts, and the still requirements for in-depth review at the time of construction permits; staff did feel that we can recommend this approval for zone request for the 13 acres located at 5135 Ditto Lane, 5126 Henry S. Grace Freeway, and 5150 Henry S. Grace Freeway." Chairman Cook asked if the applicants were present and wished to speak. The applicant for Ditto property did not want to speak. He then opened it to the audience. Mary Latimer stated that she has been a pilot for over 50 years and operated out of Kickapoo Airport on and off for that time. She cited FARs from the FAA and said, "Federal Aviation Regulation 77.9 says that the FAA has to evaluate a 1- 100 ratio for any height obstructions within 20,000 feet of the runway. So, 1 to 100 will require an evaluation by the FAA. The hangers and other objects will be approved, but anything off that extended center line will be a problem." Ms. Latimer then explained that as an instrument-rated pilot, when bad weather is in the area, the approach plate for pilots over the proposed location is somewhere between 500 feet above the ground and 250 feet above the ground over the top of the proposed buildings, which would be a noise problem for those in the apartments. She spoke of the possible dangers if there was a mechanical emergency, stating it is a safety issue for the pilots and a safety issue for any Planning and Zoning 7 August 14, 2024 tenants of a proposed apartment complex. Ms. Latimer also indicated that it would affect those who fly large airplanes into that airport who own businesses in our community and said if houses are built there, there will be a displaced threshold. Also, it will shorten the available usage of the existing runway, which would not meet the accelerated stop distances for their giant airplane and would not be able to land at Kickapoo Airport. She felt that it would have an economic impact on our community. Commissioner McCulloch discussed the Light Industrial businesses to the north end of the airport with Ms. Latimer and how it is okay for businesses and housing to be near other airports in other cities. Ms. Latimer said that the firms to the North of Kickapoo Airport are not along the center line, so the center line is clear. They then discussed the noise problems for tenants if an apartment building was built there. Mr. McCulloch stated that the renters would choose to live there. Ms. Kimberly Jackson came forward to speak, stating that she is a commercial pilot and the squadron commander for the Civil Air Patrol, which has emergency services bases at Kickapoo. She said, "Predominantly out of Kickapoo, you have general aviation, commercial aviation, and then, of course, you have the Civil Air Patrol,which is an auxiliary of the Air Force operating emergency services out of the base." She stated that the proposed development is less than 1,200 feet from the departure end of the active runway. She added, "according to some statistics that I found online, approximately 25,000 general aviation or commercial aviation operations happen out of that airport. The predominant winds will put most of those operating, taking off to the south. Taking off to the south at a low altitude will be a loud disturbance for any resident. And that's why the FAA has developed several documents discussing compatible usage. The land is currently at light industrial warehouse storage units.Those are compatible uses. Multifamily housing is not compatible with the use of the FAA, according to TXDOT. One of the documents Ms. Latimer referred to was the Advisory Circular 150-5190-4B. It's called the Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning, which outlines runway-safe zones. Another document that discusses compatibility issues would be in the federal regulation code, Title 14, Part 77, which also includes safe, efficient use and preservation of navigable airspace. From operating out of that airport, I can tell you you have a whole housing community on the east side. Kickapoo gets several complaints about noise because the predominant direction of traffic is flying over that neighborhood. That would only accelerate if you had houses on the south end with low-altitude aircraft because, over the houses on the downwind, we're a thousand feet above the ground. Taking off from the runway, we'll be 100 feet climbing." Density altitude is going to lower that. It depends on how quickly the aircraft has the performance to climb out. But I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the Planning and Zoning 8 August 14, 2024 city has received federal grant money. With that federal grant money to develop the airport hangers and ramp,you signed an assurance with the FAA, particularly Assurance 20 and 21. I'll quote this: The FAA obstacle evaluation study must be completed, but more importantly, any kind of residential development is not considered compatible with the airport, particularly under the final approaches, with safety and noise being the primary concerns. This rezoning would certainly raise flags with the FAA and TXDOT and whether the city has adequately protected the airspace and the airport per the federal regulation grant assurances you signed. I'm happy to discuss anything further, and I can share those documents with you and elaborate on any of them. One document that I want to express also is that I spoke with the FAA. I had lunch with him this morning, and he is a safety advisor, but he looked over the approach plate Mary had discussed. His opinion was that the approach would go away. They can't modify the approach by raising those minimums for aircraft operating a general commercial operation. They won't be able to increase the. It's a 3% glide slip that comes in. The FAA's opinion would be that that approach would go away." Mr. Andrew Holly stepped up to the mic and stated that he is the Airport Administrator with the city of Wichita Falls, and said, in the opinion of the Airport's Department, that any rezoning that would allow for any future residential occupation of any land within the prescribed area would most probably violate our grant assurances with the FAA. I am responsible for both the regional airport and the Kickapoo Airport. Commissioner Grassi asked Mr. Holly to describe the grant in more detail. He stated that the FAA grants allow them to build facilities at the airport, make renovations, and provide maintenance. TXDOT provides the airport with a maintenance grant of$100,000 annually, and they utilize those funds yearly. Mr. Holly continued by saying that the airport operations are currently revenue- neutral to the city budget. If they lost any of their grants, that would become extremely difficult to maintain. Mr. Grassi asked if Mr. Holly knew the percentage of that grant as far as the budget was concerned, and Mr. Holly stated that he did not. Commissioner Pharries asked if Mr. Holly was saying that rezoning the property, not necessarily building anything, just the act of rezoning, would endanger the grant, to which Mr. Holly replied that it would be possible. It said it would cause the FAA to look closely at it. City Attorney James McKechnie added that the FAA grants are dense and complex and require multiple reviews by both the city manager's office and the Planning and Zoning 9 August 14, 2024 city attorney's office, as well as the Department of Transportation within the city. Chairman Cook stated that any further talks about this now are unnecessary as the grants need to be reviewed how this could impact the grant with the FAA since the departments mentioned above have not yet reviewed it, and that a review needs to be done before any further discussion on the subject. Chairman Cook asked if any in the audience favored the rezoning, and Mr. Sanders, a representative for Mr. Shallenberger, said what we are discussing is all preliminary. They may end up just putting in single-story fourplexes or something that won't affect the in and out of the runways. He said the only purpose of this meeting was to see if they could develop that land for the future instead of just letting it sit there. Chairman Cook Closed the public hearing at 2:38pm. Chairman Cook asked if there was a motion to table to bring the case back at the September 11th P82 meeting. Mr. Pharries motions to table the case, Mr. Marrs seconded the motion. Chairman Cook takes the motion to vote and it passed 9-0. 4. TA 24-01 Subdivision and Development Regulations Amendment- Public Hearing Discussion and possible action on the City of Wichita Falls Pavement Manual Detail 2000, specifically 6 inches of pavement versus 5 inches of pavement. Commissioner Cook opened the public hearing at 2:39 pm, and stated that there will be no action taken at this time. Mr. Russell Schreiber, Director of Public Works, presented the case and said we believe the current standard is correct. The local engineers also think they were in the right place with those standards. Mr. Tyson Traw presented a PowerPoint summarizing the book sent to the commissioners. Mr. Traw reiterated some of the points from past presentations in this PowerPoint. Note that the proposed changes ranged from 6-inch to 5-inch concrete, and the reinforcement was reduced to 3 bars on 18-inch centers. Both are about a 40% reduction in steel reinforcement and about 17% reduction in concrete thickness. Then, examples of distress and failures were shown through slides. He discussed crack spacing, delamination, spalling, faulting, and using patching to fix some of those issues temporarily. He continued about erosion, and when water gets into the material beneath the pavement over time, you lose the support of the base material. It creates a void underneath the pavement. Crack width plays an essential role in this. Planning and Zoning 10 August 14, 2024 Mr. McCulloch questioned the placement of the rebar, and Commissioner Noros Martin stated it looked like it had been placed close to the surface, with little concrete coverage. Mr. Traw admitted that concrete cover is a big problem that we face. They continued to speak about the rebar's placement and spacing and discussed how they are placed during construction using "chairs" to hold the rebar up. Mr. Pharries asked if there has been any investigation on some of the streets while being built to verify proper placement/work and if any core samples have ever been done on the sites to test the concrete depths. Mr. Schreiber responded that they perform core samples, and the subgrade can vary slightly since the concrete is not placed on a perfectly flat surface. Generally, the samples are five-inch results. Mr. Traw then presented a list of cities in our state that are compared. Some cities listed have no standards; those cities generally require asphalt/pavement for residential streets. He states the depth of concrete, PSI, and spacing between rebars compared to what we currently use. Those listed used six or more inches of concrete. The cost analysis was discussed and stated for pavement; it's typically on a per-square-yard basis, shown on a unit price basis. Looking at similar work, six-inch concrete and eight-inch concrete were reviewed for comparison. Mr. Traw found a difference of around $1000, but it can change slightly depending on the added assumptions. He broke down material, labor, excavation, soil stabilization, design, and construction management costs. Mr. Traw spoke about the concrete pavement design manuals that are used, listing the Federal Highway Administration Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement manual in 2016 (which he said has the best practices for continuously reinforced concrete), Federal Highway Administration's Performance and Best Practices of the Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, and TXDOT has a grand pavement manual. In the packet provided to the Commission, a project summary and how it works was provided. The streets of Wichita Falls are considered to be continuous reinforced concrete pavement. Mr. Grassi asked why traverse saw cutting of pavement is done here. Mr. Traw explained that it is done so you can create a spot where that crack will occur, and you can better maintain that pavement after the fact. When cracks form, we can see that and then fill it back with a sealer. Chairman Cook opens the platform to anyone in the audience that wants to speak. Mr. Stephen Garner states that as a layman doing his research, he believes the depth of concrete for our streets should be six inches in the long term. He felt Planning and Zoning 11 August 14, 2024 going to five inches would be taking a step backward and trying to save a little money. Mr. Randy Wachsman came forward and stated that he felt the problem was more with the laying of the rebar being too high to the surface, causing issues in the streets. He also said he disagrees with the city's definition of failure. Mr. Tanner Wachsman said he believes the construction of streets is "more uniform, more continuously uniform, increasing the strength. We are using better concrete, better testing methods, better placement methods, and weather prediction methods. We are using better chemical additives. We are using better designs on the street. We are getting it right more often, and our streets now are better than they were." He feels there should not be a comparison of work done in the past to what is done now. He disagrees with the cost models. He stated that in 2018 the 6-inch depth was forced on them, and the cost was significant because they used 20% more concrete. Chairman Cook closed the public hearing at 3:26 pm. Mr. McCulloch states that the thickness and the PSI play a role in this and whether to stay at 3,600 PSI or drop back to 3,000 PSI. He also wanted to verify that size and placement are factors that will influence what they will be voting on today. Mr. Traw stated that it is part of today's vote. He said, "It's my understanding that the previous recommendation was to go from 6-inch, which is the current thickness, to 5, and the reinforcement was also reduced from number 4s at 18 inches each way to number 3s at 18 inches each way." Mr. McCulloch then asked if weather conditions affect the outcome of the poured concrete. Mr. Traw said they do and stated we go by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, at least for the city projects. We also rely on the American Concrete Institute for their recommendations. They do have recommendations on both cold weather and warm weather concreting." Then, talking about the sub-base, Mr. McCulloch stated, "If the sub-base fails, everything's If it's going to fail, I don't care if it's 6 inches or 8 inches. If they put the rebar too high, if it's going to fail, it doesn't matter if it's 6 inches or 8 inches. I'm more like myself; I'm more concerned about the applications than I have the actual how much concrete. I know more concrete will add more to the cost, but it will still fail if we don't put the steel in the right place. It will still fail if the subgrade hasn't done well, and it will still fail if we don't have the correct aggregate. We're poured in ice weather or too hot weather, and the hydration is going to be sucked right out of it or what." Mr. Schreiber said, "it's a North Central Texas Council government specification. So, all municipalities in North Texas typically adopt those and use those practices." "If their concrete reaches the 3,600, we typically Planning and Zoning 12 August 14, 2024 take that. We don't ever modify their designs for their particular pavement. The amount of coarse aggregate versus fine aggregate versus the Watt cement ratio, that type of thing. We don't modify those." Mr. Schreiber, speaking of the depth of concrete, said, "The standard was changed because we don't think the streets are thick enough because we don't think we're getting the right embedment of the steel. The 6-inch street will be a better product for our community." Chairman Cook talked about quality control and asked, "What is the city's process in that to ensure that from the time they're on site to start pouring these streets to the time it gets signed off by city inspectors saying, yes, that was poured, two code, two specs, whatever. What is the process for the quality assurance of the construction?" Mr. Schreiber stated, "I can tell you that our inspectors now check the depth of the concrete. They pull the strings across the forms to see if the depth is there and check the rebar spacing.They take concrete samples or tests. They pull the cylinders. I think it's one or two set over 40 cubic yards or something like that. Then we go, we break the concrete." Commissioner Steven Wood motioned that we remain with the current standard of the 6-inch paving with the 4-inch at 18-inch on centers each way. lito Mr. McCulloch seconded the motion. Chairman Cook asked if there was any additional discussion by the commission. Commissioner Grassi added, "This is from Texas A&M, the Texas Real Estate Research Center. For every $1,000 we add to the cost of a home, we price out $24,000 households."And then stated, "For every$1,000 in Texas, you price out 24,000 households." Chairman Cook asked if there were any additional comments, and there were none. Chairman Cook took the motion to a vote, reiterating that the Commission was voting on maintaining the 6-inch concrete depth and number 4 rebar. All in Favor: Steve Wood Doug McCulloch All Opposed: Blake Haney Wayne Pharries Noros Martin Jeremy Woodward Planning and Zoning 13 August 14, 2024 Michael Grassi Matt Marrs David Cook The motion fails. 2-7 Chairman Cook asks the Commission if anyone has a motion for a different proposal. Mr. Grassi asked about if we have pavement management, and how if we manage pavement elements after they have been installed, and Mr. Traw stated that we do. He continued that we spend about two and a half million on all of our street rehabs, typically over the last fifteen years. Mr. Traw said, "Generally, our concrete rehab, which is the type of street we're talking about here, we spend around a million dollars to repair. We have about 560 centerline miles of street or road. Just to be frank, that million dollars doesn't go very far." Mr. Schreiber stated that we have a company that comes in and evaluates them and scores the streets. Mr. Grassi responds that that would be pertinent information for the Commission to see. 41110# Chairman Cook asked if there was a motion that this case will be sent back to council as presented previously. Mr. Michael Grassi makes the motion and Noros seconded the motion. Chairman Cook takes the motion to a vote. Those in favor: Blake Haney Wayne Pharries Noros Martin Jeremy Woodward Michael Grassi Matt Marrs David Cook Those opposed: Steve Wood Doug McCulloch The motion passes 2-7 Planning and Zoning 14 August 14, 2024 VI. STAFF UPDATE Mr. Medellin made the staff update, and stated that the Parks Board is not meeting again until September, which we hope to get the Commission and the Parks Board together when they get back from their summer hiatus. To make the Conditional Use Permit process improved, we are setting up QR codes and Google forms, so hopefully next month we will have a beta version for you to test out. VII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Cook adjourns the meeting at 4:01 ( -.- 7/1/71 `I Sae ::�:'- - : •• • -Sere.+., ceoK, Vice Char Date -mot _ -- 9 (t i (2. y T Floyd, Director of Development Date