[I. Call to Order]
[00:00:06]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE CITY OF TYLER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, MAY THE 6TH. WE WELCOME ALL OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES TO THIS PUBLIC MEETING. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL.
MARINA, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL FOR US, PLEASE? YES, SIR. CARLENE DARBY'S PRESENT. CLINT CHILDS PRESENT. PHILIP HUMBER HERE. CHRISTINA DAVIS, PRESENT. MICHAEL CARMICHAEL HERE, ROY MARTINEZ, PRESENT. AND DAVID HUDSON, PRESENT. WE HAVE WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. WE HAVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HERE FOR THIS MEETING. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY ITEM APPROVED TODAY WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 28TH, 2025, COMMENCING AT 9 A.M. IF YOU RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING, YOU HAVE ALSO RECEIVED A NOTICE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IF ANY ITEM IS DENIED, THE APPLICANT HAS TEN CALENDAR DAYS TO FILE A WRITTEN APPEAL WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE APPEAL WILL THEN BE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST AN ITEM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, COMMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS, ALTHOUGH EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE GRANTED BY THE CHAIR UPON REQUEST AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS MEETING. IF WE GET A BOAT TO HELP US, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORK SESSION ACROSS THE STREET AT THE TYLER DEVELOPMENT CENTER, ACROSS THE STREET AT 423 WEST FERGUSON AND THE LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM. AND LIKE ALL OF OUR MEETINGS, THAT MEETING IS
[IV. Consideration of minutes from the Commission meeting of April 8, 2025]
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA IS MINUTES FROM THE COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL THE 8TH, EIGHTH, 2025. COMMISSIONERS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES. ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED. SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THOSE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR[V. PD25-003 GENECOV WEST MUD CREEK, LLC (8751 PALUXY DRIVE)]
AGENDA IS A TABLED ITEM FROM OUR LAST MEETING. PD 25 TO 0 ZERO THREE JENICO WEST MUD CREEK, LLC. THAT ITEM WAS TABLED, SO WE NEED A MOTION TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE. IS THERE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE, WE REMOVE PD 20 5003 FROM TABLE. SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM THE FROM THE TABLE. ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM. STAFF. WHO'S YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THIS. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYBODY HERE. THIS CASE IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN TABLED LAST MONTH. I'LL KIND OF GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. THIS ZONE CHANGE IS FROM ON R-1, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO A PER PLANNED UNIT RESIDENTIAL. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE TO DEVELOP A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH PRIVATE STREETS. THE FUTURE LAND USE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. THE APPLICANT HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON APRIL 24TH AT THE FALCONER PARK POLICE STATION, AND APPROXIMATELY 25 NEIGHBORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE. THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE REVISIONS TO THE SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A COMPLETELY NEW LAYOUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT YESTERDAY. NOT ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, HAVE NOT HAD THE ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THE NEW DATA FOR THE NEW SITE PLAN THAT WAS GIVEN TO US. OF THE NINE NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. FIVE WERE RETURNED IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. AT A TOTAL PROTEST CALCULATION OF 21.15%, THE OPPOSITION CONCERNED PRIVACY, TRAFFIC AND DENSITY. STAFF HAS ALSO RECEIVED NOTICES FROM NEIGHBORS WITHIN WITH OUTSIDE OF THE 200FT MAIL NOTICE NOTIFICATION AREA AND PROTEST OF THE REQUEST AS WRITTEN PROTESTS EXCEEDING 20%. A FAVORABLE VOTE OF THREE FOURTHS. MAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL WILL BE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW AND FINDS THAT IT IS GENERALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE SITE PLAN THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN US TO US PRIOR. THANK YOU. ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? WHAT I WHAT DO YOU FIND[00:05:09]
INCONSISTENT? THERE WERE SOME OF OUR SOME OF OUR REVISIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED. WERE THE PROPOSED PHASES THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO. THEY DIDN'T LABEL THEM IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER. THEY DID INCLUDE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE EAST TO WEST STREET THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN. SO THE EAST TO WEST ON THE SOUTH SIDE WITH THE SITE PLAN IT NEEDED TO SHOW, EVEN IF IT'S PUBLIC STREETS, THEY NEEDED TO PROVIDE IT ON THE SITE PLAN. THEY DID GIVE US A NEW LAYOUT. SO IT'S HALF OF WHAT THIS SITE PLAN IS RIGHT NOW. SO THERE HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS TO REVIEW TO SEE IF THE REVISIONS THAT WE REQUIRE THEM HAVE BEEN MADE. AND SO IF WE TAKE ACTION TODAY, IT'S ON ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US, NOT THE NEW PROPOSED ITEM, WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR THIS SITE PLAN TO DENY, NOT FOR THE NEW ONE THAT THEY'VE GIVEN US, BUT IF WE IF WE DENY THIS ONE, IT CAN'T COME BACK AGAIN FOR SIX MONTHS. IS THAT ACCURATE? WITH THE NEW LAYOUT, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REAPPLY WITH A WHOLE DIFFERENT LAYOUT WITHOUT WAITING THE SIX MONTHS. GOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANNA? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. BUT BECAUSE IT WAS POSTED FOR A HEARING, PERSONS WHO WERE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST, ARE WELCOME TO DO THAT, BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION. WE'VE JUST HEARD THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. ARE THERE PERSONS HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CHRIS MCNERNEY AND I REPRESENT THE JENIKOV GROUP AT 1350 DOMINION PLAZA HERE IN TYLER. FIRST, I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. AND SHE IS EXACTLY RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE DID HOLD A COMMUNITY MEETING ON THE 24TH THERE. FAULKNER PARK HAD A GREAT OUTREACH OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAME IN. WE ANSWERED LOTS OF QUESTIONS, HAD REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK. SO COMING BACK TO THIS, PER WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE ON THE TABLE OR ON THE ON THE SCREEN HERE IS INACCURATE OF THE CURRENT LAYOUT. THE CURRENT LAYOUT SHOWN IS ABOUT A 50 ACRE DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE GOT THAT DOWN TO ABOUT 20 JUST UNDER 29 ACRES. SO JUST OVER HALF. AND WE'VE WE'VE CHANGED. WE'VE CHANGED SOME OF THE ROADS, SOME OF THE LAYOUT. WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY LATE AND DID NOT GIVE THEM ADEQUATE TIME TO, TO REVIEW THE FINAL LAYOUT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WE WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO AND WE THINK WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING SQUARED AWAY. LIKE I SAID, WE'RE JUST WAITING ON THE CITY COMMENTS TO COME BACK SO WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE. SO WITHIN THIS NEW LAYOUT, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS. THE INITIAL COMMENT FROM THE CITY WAS THE LENGTH OF THE CUL DE SAC EXTENDED BEYOND THE VARIANCE OF SIX, 25 625 LINEAR FEET.CURRENTLY, THE LAYOUT THAT WE'VE GOT THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT IS NOT SHOWN IS A IS ROUGHLY 1100.
SO WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE IN THAT ASPECT. JUST WANT TO BE CANDID AND UPFRONT WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US THAT EXCEED WELL OVER THAT ONE BEING SENTINEL, WHICH IS OFF A LEGACY. BEING THERE IN HOLLY TREE, IT HAS A CUL DE SAC OF 1450 45 LINEAR FOOT. HIDDEN CREEK PARK THREE, WHICH IS WILDERNESS COVE, IS 1825 SO. SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP TO THE TO THE COMMISSIONERS ATTENTION. SO BUT AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE APPLICATION TABLED FOR ANOTHER MEETING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? ALL RIGHT. AGAIN THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST? YES, SIR. YES MR. NADER. THANK YOU. JIMMY NEESHAM 1113 CUMBERLAND ROAD.
THIS IS THE ONLY ITEM THAT I HAVE SEEN. THAT'S BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
YESTERDAY I FOUND OUT FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER THAT THEY HAD FILED SOMETHING YESTERDAY, SOMETHING NEW. I WAS NOT AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, BUT I HAVE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT
[00:10:02]
WERE. AND THERE WERE MANY, MANY QUESTIONS. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IN TALKING TO THESE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, THAT WERE UNANSWERED BY THE JENIKOV GROUP. AND UNLIKE WHAT CHRIS JUST SAID, I DON'T THINK THINGS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT. WE OPPOSE, OR AT LEAST I OPPOSE, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I EXPOUNDED ON AT THE MEETING IN MARCH. ANY REZONING THAT WOULD POUR MORE TRAFFIC ONTO CUMBERLAND ROAD THAT'S ALREADY CONGESTED. I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT VARIANCES THEY'RE ASKING FOR, BUT I WOULD SO THAT IT WILL KEEP US FROM HAVING TO COME BACK UP HERE MONTH AFTER MONTH. I WOULD ASK THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FOR THIS SITE PLAN BE DENIED, JUST LIKE MISS LUCAS REQUESTED. SHE INDICATED THAT THEY DO NOT APPROVE THIS AND THAT THEY BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE DENIED. NOW IF THEY NEED THEY BEING THE GENCOS NEED MORE TIME TO GET THIS TOGETHER. I WOULD SUGGEST TO BE MORE THAN 30 DAYS. I WOULD ASK FOR SIX MONTHS AND I THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH DENYING WHAT THEY'VE HAD UP HERE FOR THREE MONTHS STRAIGHT. AND THAT WAY THE RESIDENTS AREN'T ALWAYS COMING UP HERE MONTH AFTER MONTH AFTER MONTH. AND IT ALSO WILL GIVE THE GENCOS TIME TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE DENIED AND IT BE RESET IF THEY WANT TO FILE ANOTHER SITE PLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU MR. NIGAM. ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. NIGAM? IF NOT, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. ARE THERE OTHERS? YES, SIR. I'M JIM CLARK, 1418 CUMBERLAND ROAD. THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE. THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THEY HAD SHOWED A GATED COMMUNITY GOING DIRECTLY TO WILDER TRAIL. ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT WITH LIKE 70 SOMETHING LOTS. WE WANTED THEM TO HAVE THE MINIMUM ONE ACRE LOTS, WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT NORTH CUMBERLAND ROAD, ANYTHING NORTH OF IT, ALL OF THOSE LOTS ARE MULTI ACRE LOTS. THERE'S A FEW THAT ARE ACRES, AND THERE MIGHT BE 1 OR 2 THAT ARE THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. SO WE WANT SOMETHING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE WHICH WOULD BE ONE ACRE LOTS MINIMUM. WE DO I, I PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD LOVE IT IF IT WAS ALL WOODS FOREVER. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO IF THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT, I DID LIKE THE PLAN THAT THEY ORIGINALLY HAD OF THE GATED COMMUNITY STARTS RIGHT THERE AT WILDER. WILDER TRAIL. NOW THEY HAVE A ROAD THAT GOES JUST A LITTLE WAYS, THEN TURNS LEFT. THEN THERE'S THE GATE AND THEIR NEW PLAN. THEY JUST SPLIT THIS IN HALF, YOU KNOW, AND THEY HAVE SOME ROADS THAT ARE GOING TO END THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, OH, WE WANT 30 MORE LOTS AND CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT. PIECEMEALING THIS, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO APPEASE US. OH, WE'RE ONLY DOING 30 LOTS. WELL, I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID AT THE FIRST MEETING. WE WANT TO SEE THE TOTALITY OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT SO WE KNOW WHAT OUR IMPACT IS FOR OUR, OUR COMMUNITY TO PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON CUMBERLAND ROAD, THE PEOPLE THAT CONNECT TO CUMBERLAND ROAD, WE WANT TO SEE THE FULL DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY'RE JUST WANTING TO DO HALF A DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW WITH A ROAD THAT THAT DEAD ENDS, AND THEN THEY HAVE ROOM THERE TO MAKE A THROUGH ROAD TO GO TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND THEN TO COME ON TO THAT WILDER TRAIL ROAD. AND I'VE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, IF YOU GO DOWN WILDER TRAIL AND YOU'RE COMING OUT AND YOU TURN RIGHT ON CUMBERLAND ROAD, THAT ROAD JUST DIPS AND YOU CANNOT HARDLY SEE THE TRAFFIC COMING. AND I MENTIONED THAT AT THE MEETING. AND CHRIS'S RESPONSE IS, THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM. THAT'S TYLER, TYLER, THE TRAFFIC PEOPLE. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT DO ALL THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SAYING Y'ALL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S SAFE. SO IF YOU DO THAT[00:15:08]
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME BIG, HUGE DEVELOPMENT ANYWAY. MY THOUGHTS ARE IF THEY WOULD GO AHEAD AND SHOW US THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE 51 ACRES, NOT HALF OF IT, LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO DO NOW. AND DO 40 LOTS, MAYBE 45 ONE ACRE LOTS, AND YOU WOULD HAVE OUR APPROVAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MR. CLARK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN? IF NOT, ARE THERE OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY. IS THERE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE, WE DENY PD 25 003 SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY COMMENTS? IF NOT. MARINA, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? YES. CARLENE.DARBY, I. CLINT CHILDS, I PHILIP HUMBER I CHRISTINA DAVIS I MICHAEL CARMICHAEL I ROY MARTINEZ I DAVID HUDSON I THIS APPLICATION IS DENIED. THANKS FOR EVERYBODY WHO'S PARTICIPATED
[VI.1. Request that the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Airport Zoning Commission, consider recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Tyler City Code Chapter 12 by establishing airport hazard area zoning regulations for Tyler Pounds Regional Airport, establishing and defining the authority of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals regarding such regulations, and providing definitions; and also amending Tyler City Code Chapter 10 by requiring a notation on Subdivision Plats located in Airport Height Hazard Zoning Districts.]
IN THIS IN THIS PROCESS. THE NEXT APPLICATION, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACT, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION, CONSIDER RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 12 BY ESTABLISHING AIRPORT HAZARD AREA ZONING REGULATIONS FOR TYLER POUNDS REGIONAL AIRPORT, ESTABLISHING AND DEFINING THE AUTHORITY OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REGARDING SUCH REGULATIONS, AND PROVIDING DEFINITIONS AND ALSO AMENDING THE CITY TYLER CITY CODE, CHAPTER TEN BY REQUIRING A NOTATION ON SUBDIVISION PLATS LOCATED IN AIRPORT HEIGHTS. HAZARD ZONING DISTRICTS. YES, SIR. WE HAVE. WE'RE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR HERE. HE'S GOING TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION. DID YOU WANT TO KICK OFF KYLE? YES. I JUST WANT TO START REALLY QUICK. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. SO THIS IS BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BECAUSE THIS BODY IS ALSO THE AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION. AND SO THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT THAT THIS ACTING IN THIS CAPACITY THAT THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS SEEN. SO I'VE GOT STEVE THOMPSON HERE. HE'S OUR THE CITY OF TYLER AIRPORT MANAGER FOR TYLER POUNDS REGIONAL AIRPORT. HE'S GOING TO START OFF WITH KIND OF DISCUSSING KIND OF HOW HOW WE GOT TO THIS, HOW WE GOT HERE AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. AND THEN I'LL TAKE IT OVER AND KIND OF GET INTO WHAT SOME OF THE FINER DETAILS AND THEN OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION. SO. AGAIN, WOW. JUST HAD TO THINK PROGRESS SLIDE AND I DID IT. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME TO LISTEN TO OUR CONCERN TODAY. PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK AND GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. I THINK YOU ALL AGREE THAT TYLER POUNDS AIRPORT IS A TRUE ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. IT'S JUST A IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT RESOURCE FOR US. BEYOND THAT, IT'S A RESOURCE, A VITAL, CRITICAL RESOURCE FOR ALL OF THESE TEXTS. IT MAY BE 6 OR 8 MILES OUTSIDE OF TOWN, BUT I THINK WE'LL ALL AGREE THAT THAT WE HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT THIS AS A RESOURCE.AND AGAIN, AS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE. AS SUCH, WE HAVE A DUTY TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF MECHANISM TO ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THIS AIRPORT. LONG, LONG BEYOND MY TENURE, LONG BEYOND WHAT WE CURRENTLY OPERATE TODAY WITH OUR AIRLINES AND LOCAL AIRCRAFT THAT ARE BASED THERE, WE REALLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE, EVEN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, THAT THIS AIRPORT IS A VIABLE RESOURCE. SOME OF THE REASONS WE NEED TO DO THIS, THIS OR TAKE THIS ACTION IS TO PREVENT THE CREATION OF AIRPORT HAZARDS. OBVIOUSLY, ANYTHING THAT'S BUILT THAT WILL BE A HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION, A HAZARD TO ARRIVING OR DEPARTING AIRCRAFT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO AVOID ON THE OTHER SIDE IS PROTECTING RESOURCES, PEOPLE AND OBSTACLES ON THE GROUND.
THERE'S ALSO A DUTY TO NOW PROTECT AREAS THAT ARE PRONE TO LOTS OF AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC OR POTENTIAL INCIDENTS. SAFEGUARDING INVESTMENTS IN AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. AS YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH EVERY YEAR WE INVEST A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY. WE USE LARGE GRANT
[00:20:03]
OFFERINGS TO CONDUCT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OUT THERE, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS, WE AGAIN WANT TO SECURE THE FUTURE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS AND THEN FINALLY, TO PROVOKE COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND PROXIMITY TO THE AIRPORT. SO THIS MAY BE SEEN AS A LIMITATION, BUT IT'S REALLY THAT COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF AIRPORTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT IN AND AROUND THOSE AIRPORTS. THIS IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THAT DOES CONTINUE AROUND OUR AIRPORT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES OF THAT AIRPORT. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DRIVERS OF THIS IS THAT WE RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS. OBVIOUSLY, THE LION'S SHARE OF OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE DONE THROUGH FAA GRANTS, TYPICALLY A 9010 SPLIT WITH THE CITY. SO AGAIN, THE LION'S SHARE REALLY COMES FROM THOSE GRANTS. IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE GRANTS WE HAVE RECEIVED AND THE FUTURE OF THOSE GRANTS, WE HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED GRANT ASSURANCES. THERE'S A, I BELIEVE, 35 IN TOTAL. BUT ONE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT SPONSORS SHOULD TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT AGAINST LAND USES THAT INTRODUCED INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT WITH RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES. RPGS.YOU'LL HEAR US REFER TO THAT GOING FORWARD. SO RPGS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF THE AREAS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ADDRESS. BUT THE RPG IS A MORE CRITICAL ZONE CLOSER TO THE END OF THE RUNWAY AND REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT MORE. I WOULD SAY, CONTROL OF WHAT'S DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA. SO THE DIFFERENT USES THAT ARE DISCOURAGED WITHIN THESE ZONES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND INDUSTRIAL. THE WAY I DESCRIBE IT TO FOLKS IS REALLY THE CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE. THESE ARE AREAS RIGHT OFF THE END OF A RUNWAY. IF THERE WERE TO BE AN INCIDENT THERE, THE MORE LIKELY AREAS TO HAVE AN INCIDENT. AND AGAIN, IT'S THOSE CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE. NOW, WHAT I'VE OBSERVED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO CREATE A DOCUMENT THAT COVERS ALL POTENTIAL USES. SO AGAIN, THINKING OF IT AS CONGREGATIONS OF PEOPLE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ABSOLUTELY CAN BE NOTHING IN THOSE AREAS. FRANKLY, WE HAVE 64 GOES RIGHT THROUGH OUR IPXE. WE HAVE PEOPLE TRANSITING THAT THAT RPG EVERY DAY. BUT WHAT WHAT MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO AVOID PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE THERE ON A CONSTANT BASIS, OR A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, SUCH AS A GROCERY STORE OR A SCHOOL. SO MORE TO COME ON THAT THIS DIAGRAM JUST KIND OF INDICATES THE BREADTH OF THE ISSUE. WE DO HAVE THREE PIECES OF PAVEMENT, BUT EFFECTIVELY WE HAVE SIX RUNWAYS BECAUSE EACH PIECE OF PAVEMENT IS USED IN EACH DIRECTION. SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS SIX ZONES WHERE YOU HAVE ARRIVING AND DEPARTING AIRCRAFT.
AND THOSE RPGS THAT I MENTIONED, EACH OF THESE ZONES, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE RUNWAY AND THE TYPE OF AIRCRAFT THAT ARE EXPECTED TO USE THAT RUNWAY, EACH OF THESE AREAS CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT OR A LITTLE BIT VARIANCE IN SIZE AND SCOPE, SO THAT IT CAN'T REALLY TAKE A UNIFORM APPROACH TO THE END OF EACH RUNWAY. AND I'LL ALSO SAY THAT THE FUTURE OF THE AIRPORT MIGHT LOOK DIFFERENTLY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE AIRPORT GETTING LARGER OR EVEN GETTING SMALLER, YOU KNOW, SIX PIECES OF SIX RUNWAYS IS VERY GENEROUS FOR AN AIRPORT OF OUR SIZE. SO THERE WILL BE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS THE FUTURE PLANNED AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN. AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST A GUIDE. THERE'S NO SET TIME ZONE FOR THAT. BUT THIS IS WHAT WE THINK THE FUTURE, ROUGHLY 10 TO 20 YEARS IN THE FUTURE MIGHT LOOK LIKE WITH WITH THE SIX RUNWAYS THAT WE HAVE. BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO KYLE TO GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS, I'M KIND OF THE WHY GUY. HE'S THE HOW AND WHEN WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. BUT ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYTHING I PRESENTED UP TO THAT POINT. ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL OKAY. SO. SO LIKE I MENTIONED THE THIS BODY IS THE AIRPORT ZONING BOARD. THIS IS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE STATE STATUTE, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER TWO 241. AND THAT ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS CITIES TO OVER 45,000, WHICH THE CITY OF TYLER IS. TO ENACT. HAZARD REGULATIONS AND LAND COMPATIBLE LAND USE ZONING OUTSIDE OF THE WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. AND SO AND THAT'S THAT'S JUST THE MUNICIPALITY CONSIDERS THE AIRPORT TO BE ESSENTIAL TO A PUBLIC PURPOSE, WHICH WE DO. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS AUTHORITY IS DERIVED. AND SO SOME OF THE THINGS TO ACCOMPLISH, WHAT STEVE WAS DISCUSSING EARLIER ARE, IS, IS THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEEN DRAFTED TO ESSENTIALLY ENACT A LOT OF THE, THE THINGS ON THE FAA ALREADY REQUIRES AND GIVES THE CITY A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERSIGHT OVER ENSURING THAT THERE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THESE.
WHAT WE'RE TASKED WITH DOING UNDER FAA. ASSURANCES. AND SO THE FIRST IS TO ESTABLISH A
[00:25:07]
HEIGHT PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THROUGH THE AIRPORT. AIRPORT MANAGER. AND THAT WOULD ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR ANY POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES. THIS WILL ESSENTIALLY CREATE FIVE ZONE ZONES THAT ARE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. DIFFERENT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR EACH ONE. THOSE REQUIRE AN FAA AIRSPACE STUDY, WHICH SHOULD IN THIS AREA SHOULD ALREADY BE DONE PER THE FAA. AND WE'LL HAVE TO PRODUCE A DETERMINATION OF NO OBSTRUCTION OR HAZARD. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, AND I'LL GET TO THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. ACTUALLY I'LL JUST DO IT NOW. SO THESE ARE THE ZONES THAT WE HAVE. THE APPROACH ZONE WHICH IS IN BLUE. THOSE ARE OFF THE ENDS OF THE RUNWAYS.TRANSITIONAL ZONES IN IN GREEN. AND THE HORIZONTAL ZONE IN YELLOW. AND THEN ALSO THE ZONE IN PURPLE. AND THEN THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES WHICH ARE IN THE BLACK HATCHED AREAS THERE.
EACH OF THESE AREAS HAVE DIFFERENT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. AND THE HEIGHT STANDARDS WILL BE ESSENTIALLY IF FAA COMES BACK AND THERE'S NO DETERMINATION, THEN THERE'S NO ISSUE. THE PERMIT, ANY PERMIT WOULD ONLY PERMIT WOULD ONLY BE APPLIED IN THIS THIS AREA HERE, WHICH IS WITHIN THE TRANSITIONAL AREAS WITHIN GET TOO TECHNICAL. BUT EVERYTHING IN THIS AREA HERE WHEN, IF THERE'S ANY, ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TO PRODUCE A AIRSPACE STUDY AND PROVIDE THAT TO THE TO THE AIRPORT MANAGER. SO IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE AREA. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LARGE SPACE ON THIS MAP AND THERE'S A ON THE WEST SIDE OF, YOU KNOW, SMITH COUNTY, BUT GENERALLY IN THE AREAS THAT YOU'D EXPECT TO KIND OF BE WORRYING ABOUT HEIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS IS WHERE THIS WOULD APPLY. IF I GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE TALKING ABOUT ESTABLISHING COMPATIBLE LAND USE STANDARDS AND THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES, AND THESE ARE IN THE FAA GUIDANCE. LIKE STEVE MENTIONED, THE INTENT IS TO. ESTABLISH COMPATIBLE LAND USES, WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY ONES THAT DON'T HAVE A LARGE CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. AND SO THESE ARE WHERE THESE USES WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE IN THE RFP'S WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVALUATION. SO THESE ARE AGRICULTURAL USES, SURFACE PARKING AND THEN UNDEVELOPED LAND. AND THESE ARE AFTER REVIEWING RESEARCH IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. THIS IS COMMON FOR LAND USES. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS WITHIN RPGS. I WILL NOTE THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT NOT EXCUSE ME, NOT RETROACTIVE. SO IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN WHEN THE RPGS AND ONE OF THESE AREAS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO REMAIN. THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY DEMOLITION OR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND SO IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE. AND THEN THE ORDINANCE ALSO ALLOWS A ESSENTIALLY A RELIEF VALVE OR PROCESS FOR ANY VARIATION OR EXCEPTIONS. THOSE WOULD GO THROUGH THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR ANY ESSENTIALLY ANY VARIANCES TO THE USES THAT WE HAVE ON THIS SCREEN HERE. AND WITH THAT, THE ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE THAT THERE IS SOME FAA DOCUMENTATION THAT THERE'S BEEN A DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE AREAS. BECAUSE AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS ALL INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT CREATING A RISK TO HUMAN LIFE. LIFE AND PROPERTY. AND SO THIS, THAT THAT IS THE FOCUS. AND SO.
I SAY ALL I HAVE THOSE WHERE WE HAVE THOSE THREE, THREE LAND USES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, PERMISSIBLE WITHOUT ANY OTHER FURTHER REVIEW. BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT DOES COME UP THAT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THOSE CATEGORIES, THERE IS A PROCESS TO HAVE THAT AS WELL. AND THEN FINALLY, THE RESTRICTIONS ON ANY ACTIVITY. THIS IS, I THINK, COMMON SENSE AND PROBABLY IN FEDERAL LAW ALREADY, BUT IT'S ANY ACTIVITY ACTIVITY THAT INTERFERES WITH ANY AIRCRAFT
[00:30:03]
COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION, VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS AND ANYTHING THAT CREATES FOG OR SMOKE OR DUST. I THINK THAT WILL THAT HAS A ACTUAL IMPACT ON VISIBILITY. AND SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE NONE OF THIS IS IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE CITY CODE RIGHT NOW. AND SO THERE FAA IS EXPECTING US OR EXPECTS THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT SPONSORING THE CITY TO BE DOING THESE THINGS. AND THIS ORDINANCE WILL ACHIEVE THAT. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSAL HERE IS BECAUSE PART OF THIS OR A LOT OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE SOME AWARENESS TO PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MIGHT BE AROUND THE AIRPORT. AND SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT PROPOSED HERE THAT IF THERE'S ANY SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN WITHIN ANY OF THESE ZONES, THAT THERE WOULD BE A NOTE PLACED ON THE PLAT THAT COMMUNICATES TO. LENDER OR BUYER, FUTURE OWNER, ALL PARTIES THAT OR EVEN THE DEVELOPER AS WELL, THAT THERE ARE SOME STANDARDS THAT MAY APPLY NOW OR OR IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT'S PART OF THE COMMUNICATION, THE AWARENESS THAT I THINK THAT'S ALSO A BEST PRACTICE WITHIN OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THESE REGULATIONS. I WILL ADD THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THIS COMMISSION PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT ANY, ANY SUCH REGULATIONS, AND ALSO REQUIRES THAT THIS BE REVIEWED BY THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD, WHICH IT WAS ON MARCH 24TH, AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS. THESE PROPOSALS, AND THEN ALSO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWED THE ESSENTIALLY THE INTENT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY THE AMENDMENT TO THE UDC. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NOTE BE PLACED ON PLATS. AND THAT GROUP WAS ALSO IN IN IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDATION. SO PART OF THE PROCESS AS WELL IS THAT WE OR THE CITY MUST PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN IN THE NEWSPAPER, WHICH THE CITY DID DID PROVIDE THAT. AND ALSO AS A COURTESY, THE CITY PROVIDED MAILED NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES THE DISEASE THOSE AREAS IN BLACK. AND THOSE 2424 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT RECEIVED THAT COURTESY NOTICE AND THAT IS INTENDED PARTIALLY TO PROVIDE AWARENESS OF WHAT'S GOING ON. AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE ACTUAL KIND OF LAND USE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED HERE, THAT THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF. AND I'M GOING TO BE IMPOSED HERE TODAY. SO, AND PART OF THAT NOTICE WAS TO, YOU KNOW, ASK QUESTIONS OR PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK THAT THEY HAVE. AND SO THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING I THINK IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST THAT'S SCHEDULED. BUT IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT CAN BE PART OF THE PROCESS. BUT SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING I GUESS. AND SO THE, THE RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION, APPROVED THE RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS.THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CARL. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF OR THE AIRPORT MANAGER? STEVE, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE CURRENTLY ANY VARIANCES SITTING IN THOSE RPGS THAT WE MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH LATER AS PRECEDENT IF SOMEBODY DOES COME APPLY FOR SOMETHING? THERE ARE THERE IS SOME DEVELOPMENT IN THE IN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN RPGS. SOME OF THEM ARE HOMES. I THINK MAYBE SOME OTHER USES AS WELL THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THAT. BUT YES, BUT LIKE I MENTIONED, IF THEY THIS IS NOT RETROACTIVE AND SO THERE'S NO CHANGES NECESSARY TO ANY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND IF THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT RIGHT NOW, THEN IN THE FUTURE, IF, IF THAT DIDN'T COME UP, THERE IS A PROCESS TO CONSIDER WHAT'S THERE NOW. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY,
[00:35:03]
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. JUST PUT THIS ON YOUR RESUME THAT YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION. ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. IF YOU IF YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CHARLES REED ON THE RV PARK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 64 SPRING CREEK RV PARK. SO LOOKS LIKE THAT ZONE COVERS MAYBE HALF OF IT. I CAN'T REALLY TELL BY THAT PLAN, BUT MY CONCERN WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD BE RESTRICTED FROM. WOULD WE BE ABLE TO HAVE PARKING, RV PARKING, OR RV STORAGE, WHICH SOME RV STORAGE LOOKS LIKE? IT'S DEFINITELY IN THAT ZONE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. OUR OFFICE IS IN THAT ZONE. I MEAN, WHAT I KNOW WE WOULD NOT BE ASKED TO REMOVE ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT FUTURE PLANS, WHAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE? BE ABLE TO HAVE RV PARKING THERE IN THE FUTURE FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE? IS THAT WITHIN THE BLACK PATCH AREA? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S NOT. YES. A PART OF IT IS IN THE BLACK. AND SO WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS ESTABLISHED, THESE ALLOWABLE PERMISSIBLE USES BY. RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME SURFACE PARKING LIKE PARKING LOT. SO IF, IF THE SITE WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE ANY SURFACE PARKING IT COULD BE IN THAT, THAT AREA. BUT LIKE I MENTIONED, IF THERE'S A IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ANY USES THAT DON'T FALL WITHIN THIS, THERE IS A PROCESS TO. WELL, WHEN YOU SAY SURFACE PARKING, IS THAT SURFACE PARKING FOR AN RV OR IS IT JUST FOR A VEHICLE, UNOCCUPIED VEHICLE AND THE UNOCCUPIED. SO NOT FOR RV USE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. NOT IF IT'S OCCUPIED.OKAY. WHAT ABOUT RV STORAGE BUILDINGS? THOSE STRUCTURES AND LESS THAN 75FT. IS THAT THE RESTRICTION OR DEPENDS ON THE ELEVATION ABOVE THE RUNWAY? THE HEIGHT IS ONE ASPECT OF THAT? PROBABLY NOT. NOT AN ISSUE. BUT AS AS IS PROPOSED RIGHT HERE, ANY ANY STORAGE BUILDINGS ARE NOT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE AS A COMPATIBLE LAND USE UNLESS THERE WAS, LIKE I MENTIONED, SOME KIND OF FAA DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD SUPPORT THAT. AND THEN THAT COULD BE THAT COULD BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? FAA APPROVED THAT FOR LIKE A HANGAR. IT WOULD BE APPROVED SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR SIMILAR. A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO. YOU KNOW, ALONG THE WHAT'S CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH. WITH FAA GUIDANCE WOULD COME FROM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW STEVE YET KIND OF KIND OF A CONTEXT. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION COMPLETELY. AND WE'VE NEVER HAD TO GO DOWN THIS PATH. THIS IS NEW. MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE CAN ASK THE FAA TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH, READ A COUPLE CASES.
LIKE I SAID, I BELIEVE THERE'S A GOLF COURSE THAT WAS APPROVED. SO IT'S KIND OF WEIRD ON THE WORDING. THE FAA DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, BUT THEY CAN RECOMMEND OR NOT RECOMMEND. SO IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT AND YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FALL NICELY IN THOSE THREE BUCKETS, WE WOULD ASK THE FAA FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION. THEY WOULD LOOK AT YOUR PROPOSAL AND THEN SAY EITHER WE DON'T RECOMMEND IT OR WE DO. SO WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BLACK ZONE OR IN THE BLUE BLUE, JUST THE BLACK BLACK ZONE. MOST RESTRICTIVE. THOSE THREE CATEGORIES ARE JUST THE BLACK ZONE. THE OTHERS ONLY DEAL WITH THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR PRESENCE HERE. THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO. HAVE COMMENTS OR WOULD ASK QUESTIONS? YES, SIR. IF WE COULD COME TO THE MICROPHONE. HELLO, MY NAME IS JUSTIN CARNEY, I KNOW YOU, I JUST WANTED TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT I DISAGREE WITH THIS. THERE'S A COUPLE REASONS WHY THE LAND THAT I REPRESENT IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD JUST NORTH OF THE AIRPORT. IT'S ACTUALLY SECTIONED
[00:40:02]
OFF IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT NAMES. THE NAME ON RECORD THAT YOU HAVE IS CARNEY LAND INVESTMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. REALLY, THERE'S JUST A SLIVER OF LAND IN THE RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE THAT AFFECTS ME. A COUPLE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT IT. AND REALLY, I JUST KIND OF WANT TO NOTE IT FOR PUBLIC RECORD. BUT THAT LAND IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE THAN THE AIRPORT ELEVATION. I THINK IT'S AN EXCESS OF 25FT LOWER. SO IF I WAS HELD TO THE SAME 75 FOOT RULE, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR OTHERS THAN IT WOULD BE FOR ME. THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING PLAT. SO TO ADD TO THAT PLAT WOULD BE THE VARIANCE QUESTIONS THAT YOU THAT YOU PRESENTED. AND I WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE LAST THING I'LL SAY OF ONE OF THE REASONS I OBJECT IS I WAS ASKED BY THE CITY OF TYLER TO PUT IN A VERY EXPENSIVE ROAD, DUKE PLACE, AND THIS RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE GOES RIGHT ALONG IT, ELIMINATING ME TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THAT ROAD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IF I WAS LIMITED ON DOING ANYTHING SUCH AS LIKE SURFACE PARKING OR I MEAN SURFACE PARKING, STUFF OF THAT NATURE IS NOT REALLY GOING TO PAY FOR THAT ROAD. OUR INTENT WAS NEVER TO REALLY DO RESIDENTIAL AND PUT HOMES THERE. IT JUST WASN'T IN THE PLAN. BUT THAT LAND IS CURRENTLY LISTED FOR SALE FOR COMMERCIAL USAGE. AND THE LAST THING THAT I'LL SAY IS THAT THROUGH OUR ENGINEER'S OFFICE, WHICH IS BRANDON CORPORATION, WE'VE BEEN TOLD SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE ARE LIMITED ON WHAT WE CAN DO FOR HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE AIRPORT, AND I'M FINDING OUT TODAY THAT I SUPPOSE I COULD BE WRONG, BUT THERE'S NO PREVIOUS RECORD OF HEIGHT RESTRICTION. THIS IS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION THAT WE WERE PREVIOUSLY TOLD THAT WE HAD, AND IF WE WERE NOT UNDER A HEIGHT RESTRICTION PREVIOUSLY, WE COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING WITH THAT LAND. AND NOW, AFTER HEARING MR. REED SPEAK, IT SEEMS LIKE MY HANDS ARE GOING TO BE TIED ON BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THAT ROAD THAT WAS REQUIRED OF ME TO PUT IN BY THE CITY OF TYLER. SO THAT'S THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS PROCESS GOES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO STATE MY OPPOSITION.SO THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. MR. KING, DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY RESPONSES TO THAT COMMENT? WELL, I'M SAD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT ACROSS THAT PROPERTY THAT THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED. SO I THINK THAT WAS THE HEIGHT. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS WHERE THAT WAS COMING FROM. SO THAT THAT I BELIEVE THAT'S IN PLACE ALREADY, THAT'S AN EASEMENT ACROSS THAT PROPERTY FOR HEIGHT. THAT. REFLECTS ANY, ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF. JUST FOR CLARITY, IF THIS IS PUT INTO ACTION. SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS GOING TO BE THE PATH THAT AN OWNER WOULD GO THROUGH. AND THEN SO IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THROUGH P AND Z LIKE SPECIAL USE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S GOING TO BE AN ACTUAL VARIANCE OR ADJUSTMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. YES, SIR. IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU'LL COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE I'M SORRY WE WE'LL MAKE SURE WE CAN HEAR YOUR COMMENTS. SO THAT THAT EASEMENT WOULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE FAA OR SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IF YOU REQUEST AN EASEMENT OR VARIANCE. VARIANCE THE VARIANCE WOULD BE THROUGH THE CITY. OKAY. BUT. WITH ANY VARIANCE THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR SOME SOME IMPORTANT FACTORS TO, TO HELP THE BOARD DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE WITH, WITH THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THAT CONVERSATION WITH WITH FAA AND GETTING THEIR THEIR GUIDANCE. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK STEVE CAN, YOU KNOW, CONNECT YOU IF NEED BE. THAT WOULD HELP SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, ANY VARIANCE BASED OFF OR FOR ANY LAND USE THAT'S NOT LISTED HERE. BUT MY QUESTION IS WHO DO YOU GET THE VARIANCE FROM? YEAH, IT'S THE CITY BOARD AND THE CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ANY
[00:45:07]
OTHER QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. HELLO. MY NAME IS EDUARDO. I'M THE PASTOR OF PLEASANT RETREAT METHODIST CHURCH. QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE JUST DEALING WITH THE RFP'S, WHICH IS THE BLACK AREA ON THE MAP. BUT I MIGHT UNDERSTAND, AS I LOOK AT THIS MAP, THAT THE YELLOW AND PINK AREAS WILL ALSO HAVE RESTRICTIONS INVOLVED IN WHAT CAN BE BUILT ON THOSE PROPERTIES, BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE'RE WE HAVE 13 ACRES IN IN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN ONE OF THE ZONES. NO, THE ANY COMPATIBLE LAND USE RESTRICTION IS JUST THE BLACK HATCHED AREAS. THE OTHER AREAS ARE RELATED TO HEIGHT. AND I'LL GO BACK TO THIS RIGHT HERE.GENERALLY IF IT'S IF IT'S UNDER 75FT, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WITH THE HEIGHT. SOME THERE'S SOME VARIATION. IF THE IF THE LAND WAS, YOU KNOW, REALLY IF THE TERRAIN WAS REALLY HIGH AND YOU PUT A SMALLER BUILDING ON THE HIGHER TERRAIN, THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE. BUT IN THIS AREA, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT NOT LIKELY. THE PROPERTY IS ON YOUR OWN OR PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT ISSUE. AND SINCE I'M UP HERE, A SECOND QUESTION, WHICH I THINK IS SELF-APPARENT, YOU KNOW, ONLY A SLIVER OF OUR LAND IS IN THE RPG, SO THAT'S WHEN THEY DEPART. IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE REST OF THE LAND. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. ARE THERE OTHERS? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. I'M LEE COSTELLO AND WE'RE WITH VIKING READYMIX, WHICH USES THE PROPERTY AT PEARLY LLC JUST OFF OF DIXIE DRIVE OR SPUR 1143. THERE'S JUST A LITTLE TRIANGULAR SHAPED END OF THE RPG ZONE THAT IS OVER PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE OPERATE ON. AND THANKFULLY, BACK IN 2017, IN MARCH, WE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED A DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR GATE AIR NAVIGATION DOCUMENT BACK FROM THE FAA AFTER A DETAILED APPLICATION WITH MEASUREMENTS AND COORDINATES TO WHAT WE HAD HOPED TO ERECT THERE. SO THAT APPLIED TO TALL SILO THAT WE ERECTED FOR OUR PORTLAND CEMENT PLANT. SO THAT WAS DETERMINED TO NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO THAT RUNWAY. AND I, IN TALKING TO KYLE AND THOMAS EARLIER THIS MORNING AND YESTERDAY, I UNDERSTAND. BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF ENSURE THAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO OUR TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING FROM WHICH WE BATCH THE TRUCKS, WHICH IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO BE RIGHT THERE OVER THE PLANT OR ANY OF THE LITTLE STRUCTURES AROUND THERE WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, A AN AIR PURIFICATION SYSTEM, AGGREGATE BINS AND SUCH. WE'VE GOT SOME SMALL AREA WHERE WE HAVE ADMIXTURES. IF ANYTHING HAPPENED, I THOUGHT I JUST IN THINKING ABOUT OUR CONVERSATION, KYLE, EARLIER, IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO ONE OF THOSE STRUCTURES, IT MIGHT HAVE TO BE UP FOR CONSIDERATION AGAIN. SO IF WE ARE TO REMAIN TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS ZONE, WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT THE ASSURANCE THAT IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO OUR TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING THAT ACTUALLY CONTROLS THE PLANT OR ONE OF THE SILOS THAT WE HAD THE ABILITY TO REPLACE IT, JUST AS IT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO FUNCTION. THAT BUILDING IS MADE OUT OF ICF BLOCK CONSTRUCTION, AS WE TALKED ABOUT. SO WE DON'T WE HOPE IT DOESN'T CATCH ON FIRE OR SOMETHING. IF A HURRICANE HITS IT, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THERE. BUT IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'D BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED AND BUILT THERE. BASED ON THAT DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD FROM THE FAA. SO WE WOULD BE FINE WITH THIS COVERING THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY. IF WE CAN GET THE ASSURANCE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE BASICALLY AS WE ARE NOW, IN THE EVENT THERE WAS AN ACT OF GOD OR SOMETHING THAT AFFECTED THOSE STRUCTURES. WOULD THAT WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED FAVORABLY IN THE EVENT ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN, OR ARE WE ABLE TO GET THAT ASSURANCE AT THIS POINT? I. I THINK THE ONLY ASSURANCE WOULD BE IS IF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
[00:50:11]
WERE TO INCLUDE MAYBE YOUR, YOU KNOW, OFFICE. YOU KNOW, CERTAIN IN A CERTAIN SCALE, THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK GENERALLY THE FAA, YOU KNOW, THEIR THEIR OPINION IS THAT THERE'S ANY CONTINUED CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE WHICH AN OFFICE WOULD BE. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFICS. I THINK IT'S A SMALLER, SMALLER OFFICE SPACE. THE ONLY, THE ONLY, THE ONLY GUARANTEE WOULD BE TO ADD ADD SMALL OFFICE AND KIND OF DETAIL WHAT, WHAT THAT WOULD BE TO THE INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE.WITHIN THE ORDINANCE. OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE AGAIN IT WOULD BE THROUGH THAT, THAT SITE SPECIFIC THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS THROUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS TO SIMPLY REBUILD WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE EXISTING IN THE EVENT SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS.
ARE YOU SAYING IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S NOT DETERMINED IN THE ORDINANCE TO BE A COMPATIBLE LAND USE BY RIGHT, THEN YES. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT FOR ME? YES. IF IT'S NOT LISTED, YOU KNOW, ON THE SCREEN HERE WITH ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES, THESE ARE THE BY RIGHT. YOU KNOW BY RIGHT. AS IN ALWAYS ALLOWED LAND USES. IF IT'S NOT LISTED ON THERE, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A VARIANCE PROCESS TO REBUILD IT. IF IT'S NOT ONE OF THESE THREE CATEGORIES. ALL RIGHT.
EVEN EVEN THOUGH THE LETTER STATES THAT IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE. SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR US TO REQUEST THAT ANYTHING THAT'S EXISTING NOW WOULD BE ABLE TO BE MAINTAINED IN A WORKING MANNER OR REBUILT IN THE SAME SPECS IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS NOT LIKELY. BUT IF IT DOES DETERMINE OUR ABILITY TO OPERATE OR NOT, WHICH IS A PRETTY BIG CONSIDERATION FOR US TO REQUEST THAT THERE BE ASSURANCE FOR THAT AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. YOU ALL HAVE GONE BEYOND MY EXPERTISE, STEVE. THE STRUCTURES ARE NOT. I THOUGHT THOSE STRUCTURES WERE BEYOND OUR. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO TELL RIGHT WHERE THE DIAGRAM IS DRAWN, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S AN OLDER GOOGLE MAP THAT WAS USED. WE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE TWO STORY BUILDING AND THE SILO ARE WITHIN THAT ZONE, WITHOUT IT BEING MEASURED OFF ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE FROM THIS DRAWING. OKAY. WE CAN LOOK CLOSER AT IT. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS REASONABLE, BUT TO KYLE'S POINT, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT RACE RULES IS IF SOMETHING WERE TO BE LOWERED BY ANY REASON, YOU CAN ACTUALLY ASK FOR TAKING THEM TEMPORARILY. AGAINST THE PROCESS TO THE DIRECTOR, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROVED AT ONE POINT AND YOU DID SOMETHING SIMILAR. YOU KNOW, POWER. YOU PROBABLY HAVE A GOOD CASE, BUT I THINK WHAT KYLE SAID WOULD PROBABLY BE THE LETTER OF THE LAW. BUT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS WITH THE CITY. AND THAT'S WHY THIS. YEAH. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT AS A MECHANISM TO, TO, TO HAVE A PROCESS TO, TO REVIEW THAT, BUT WITHOUT LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THOSE STRUCTURES, I'D HAVE A HARD TIME GIVING YOU REALLY GOOD GUIDANCE ON THAT. BUT SO IF WE HAVE A TANK THAT IS I'M SORRY. I'M I'M SORRY SIR, I'M SORRY SIR, WOULD YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SORRY THAT YOU KNOW. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IF A SILO NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WITH A SILO, ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, OR WOULD THAT NOT BE A GIVEN? GIVEN THE VARIANCE ALREADY DETERMINED BY THE FAA? THAT THIS IS LEVEL? WHICH IS YOUR PROPERTY ASSESSMENT? SO. THAT MUST BE THE FOCUS. BUT IT'S. YEAH I CAN'T ANSWER THAT WITH A DEFINITIVE NATURE, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE TAKEN AND THE FAA WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. IS
[00:55:01]
THAT PERMISSIBLE? USE IT. AS I MENTIONED, IT'S NOT A CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT BUT IF IT'S SLIGHTLY INSIDE, IT WOULD PROBABLY. AND ANOTHER POINT IS THE RPGS CAN CHANGE IN SIZE AS WE CHANGE THE USE AND THE MIX OF AIRCRAFT TO A RUNWAY. THOSE RPGS MAY ADJUST AS WELL. BUT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD GIVE ANY KIND OF A BECAUSE IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE AS WE DISCUSSED, BUT TO HAVE IT GRANDFATHERED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH THAT. FUTURE IN-KIND DEVELOPMENT OR JUST MAINTAINING WHAT WE'VE GOT IS THE BASIC QUESTION, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR TAKE ON THAT. YEAH. AND I'LL TAKE WE CAN TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AFTERWARDS TOO. I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DISCUSS. OKAY. VERY GOOD. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PRESENCE. I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT THIS LET ME JUST SAY TWO THINGS. ONE IS WE DIDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP AFTER A BAD DREAM SOMETIME. I MEAN, THIS IS THIS. WE'RE THE WE'RE VERY DEPENDENT AT THIS AIRPORT ON THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND ON FINANCING. YOU KNOW, 90% OF WHAT HAPPENS OUT THERE IN TERMS OF FINANCING IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND SO WE'RE VERY DEPENDENT ON THEM. AND I THINK THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL HAZARDS. AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO ALL THIS ORDINANCE, PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO DO IS TO ADDRESS THOSE POTENTIAL HAZARDS SHOULD A SHOULD A PROBLEM ARISE. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR CONCERN AND YOUR YOUR COMMENTS. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD OCCUR WHERE YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER PROCESS ANYWAY. AND WHETHER YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION IS ONE OF THOSE OR NOT. I'M REALLY NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER, BUT I THINK WITH SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR AIRPORT MANAGER, WE YOU MIGHT I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD GET SOME A SENSE OF SECURITY ON THIS ISSUE. ARE THERE OTHERS? MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE 75FT HEIGHT. WHERE DOES IT WHERE'S THAT STARTING FROM? JUST BECAUSE. IS IT FROM THE RUNWAY UP OR YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT GIVEN THAT THERE'S CHANGES IN TOPOGRAPHY OBVIOUSLY FROM THE YOU'RE THE EXPERT. BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE FIELD ELEVATION IS 544FT. SO I BELIEVE ANYTHING WOULD BE BASED ON THAT ELEVATION. SO YES, IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING IN A HOLE AND ITS HEIGHT ABOVE THAT, SO EVERYTHING WOULD BE BASED OFF ITS OBSTRUCTION IN REFERENCE TO THE AIRPORT ELEVATION OF 544. RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND IF I COULD JUST PIGGYBACK, SIR, FOR A MOMENT AND KIND OF SUMMARIZE MY COMMENTS, BECAUSE I THINK YOU JUST SAID IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER, EVEN THIS DOES A REALLY INTRODUCE ANYTHING NEW? THE NEED TO DO AN AIRSPACE STUDY IS NOT NEW. WHAT YOU ALL DID IN 2017 SOUNDS TEXTBOOK AND I THINK THE BIGGEST PIECE, THERE'S TWO BIG PIECES OF THIS DOCUMENT. THAT ONE IT INCREASES AWARENESS. AND ANYONE THAT DOES DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF AN AIRPORT, IF THEY DO THEIR HOMEWORK, HAS AN OBLIGATION TO DO AN AIRSPACE STUDY. AND THEN THE FAA WILL DETERMINE IF THAT'S AN IMPACT OF THE OPERATION. WE DON'T THE CITY WON'T DETERMINE THAT. THE AIRPORT MANAGER DOESN'T DETERMINE THAT, THAT THE FAA WILL SAY, HEY, YOU, YOU CAN'T BUILD THAT THERE, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE THE RUNWAY, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE AN APPROACH TO THAT RUNWAY. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN. BUT AGAIN, THIS WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING OR CHANGING. IT WAS MENTIONED, WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE REQUIREMENT AS FAR AS HEIGHT GOES. WE'RE JUST BRINGING AWARENESS TO THE AIRSPACE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE DONE FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE VICINITY OF AN AIRPORT. THAT AWARENESS IS JUST KEY. AND THEN IT GIVES US THE MECHANISM TO LOOK FOR A VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S PRETTY GENEROUS TO SAY THAT. YEAH, THESE IT LOOKS LIKE SOME BLACK AND WHITE AREAS. BUT IF THE FOR THE GREATER GOOD, WE ALL DECIDE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CELL PHONE TOWER OFF THE END OF THE RUNWAY, IT PROVIDES THIS BOARD AND A MECHANISM TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE WILL MAKE THE CHANGES THE FAA REQUIRES AND WE'LL FOR THE GREATER GOOD, PUT THAT CELL. THAT'S AN EXTREME EXAMPLE. BUT I THINK FOR SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS OUT THERE, AT LEAST THERE IS THIS MECHANISM T, YOU KNOW, LOOK FOR THAT VARIATION IF AND WHEN THAT'S NEEDED. SO I HOPE THAT HELPS. AND AGAIN THIS IS YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LOT OF CITIES TO LOOK AT WHEN WE STARTED DOING OUR HOMEWORK. AND WE'RE I'LL SAY WE'RE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEW THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOME KIND OF GUIDANCE OUT THERE. SO WE'VE GOT A LOT OF EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW. AND I THINK KYLE AND TEAM DID A GREAT JOB PULLING FROM DIFFERENT CITIES OUT THERE. SO WE'RE NOT JUST MAKING THIS UP FROM SCRATCH. IT'S BEEN DRAWN FROM OTHER CITIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE GUIDANCE. AND I THINK WE TOOK THE BEST OF WHAT WE COULD FIND OUT THERE AND, AND LOOKING FOR[01:00:01]
INPUT BECAUSE WE, WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD NEIGHBORS OUT THERE AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST THAT COMPATIBLE LAND USE AND TO YOUR POINT, IT'S NOT A NEW REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST AGAIN INCREASING THAT AWARENESS. AND IF FOLKS ALL KNEW WITHIN A COUPLE MILES OF THE AIRPORT YOU SHOULD BE DOING AN AIRSPACE STUDY, LIKE HOW DID YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT THAT? HOW DID YOU ALL KNOW TO DO THAT? WELL, WE WE'LL PUT UP A SIGN THAT WAS 100FT TALL. SO WE NEEDED TO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T GOING TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR APPROACH TO THE AIRPORT. RIGHT. AND SO WE APPLIED TO THE FAA, AND YOU SHOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE WITHIN SIX FEET OR SOMETHING OF MAX HEIGHT, NOT REQUIRING A LIGHT ON THE TOP. SO Y'ALL DID YOUR HOMEWORK. AND BUT THERE ARE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT MAY NOT KNOW THAT. AND YOU WOULD THINK JUST BEING CLOSE TO AN AIRPORT, BUT THERE'S A 14 CFR PART 77.9 THAT SAYS IF YOU PROPOSE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION, YOU MUST FILE NOTICE WITH THE FAA AT LEAST 45 DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. AND IT LISTS OUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS. YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU'RE ON THE AIRPORT, IT DOESN'T MATTER THE HEIGHT YOU GOT TO DO IT. BUT THERE'S A BUNCH OF REQUIREMENTS.AND I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS OUT THERE AREN'T AWARE, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT OFF THE END OF A RUNWAY, THAT YOU COULD CREATE A HAZARD. SO HATS OFF TO YOU, FOLKS FOR THINKING THAT WAY. AND AGAIN, THIS THIS DOCUMENT CREATES THAT AWARENESS FOR FOLKS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND WE ARE NOT BEING ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT THE FAA WOULD RECOMMEND BY ANY MEANS. SO IF THAT CREATED ANY MORE QUESTIONS, I JUST HAVE ONE MORE AND MAYBE A SILLY QUESTION, BUT HAS THE CITY CONSIDERED PROTECTING THESE RPGS BY ACQUIRING THE LAND? YES, YES, AND IN SOME CASES DONE THAT AND STILL CONSIDER IT SO THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO PROTECT THESE AREAS. AND IDEALLY, YOU KNOW, I CAME FROM AN AIRPORT THAT HAD 53MI■!S AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS. WE OWNED OWNED ALL THE LAND. SO IDEALLY YOU WOULD HAVE THAT.
THERE ARE OTHER AIRPORTS THAT THE FENCE LINE IS RIGHT AT THE END OF YOUR RUNWAY. SO WE HAVE A MIXTURE OF THAT WHERE WE DO OWN A LOT OF LAND IN OUR RPG AND SOME OF THESE OTHER AREAS, BUT THERE ARE EFFORTS TO EITHER ACQUIRE THE LAND CREATING EASEMENT THAT PROVIDES A LEVEL OF PROTECTION, WHICH WE ALSO HAVE OVER SEVERAL AREAS. AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THAT THIRD TIER OF PROTECTION. IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO NECESSARILY ACQUIRE ALL THOSE PIECES OF LAND. SO THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL AVENUES OF PROTECTION. AND ONE MORE TIME THE COMPATIBLE LAND USES AND THE RPGS, THOSE ARE DEFINED BY FAA OR BY THE CITY, LIKE THE UNDEVELOPED AGRICULTURAL AND SURFACE PARKING. WAS THAT SOMETHING THE CITY OF TYLER CAME UP WITH FOR OUR COMPATIBLE LAND USES? YES, BUT IT FOLLOWS THE FAA. I ASK IF WE EVER WANTED TO ADD A COMPATIBLE LAND USE. THERE'S A MECHANISM IN THE FUTURE IF IT COMES UP AFTER. YEAH, IT IS. AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WE SEE AND AGAIN, THIS IS THIS IS THE FIRST. SURE. GO HERE. AND SO YEAH, IF OVER TIME THERE IS A CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN CLEARED BY FAA, BY THE CITY OR BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE KIND OF KIND OF FOLLOW THE TREND ON VARIANCES FOR USES IN THIS AREA. I MEAN, THAT CAN BE THAT CAN BE ADJUSTED. AND I'LL MENTION KYLE AND I HAD A CONVERSATION JUST THIS MORNING THAT WE BOTH WANTED TO BE COMFORTABLE, THAT THERE WAS A PROCESS FOR VARIATION BECAUSE THOSE SEEM VERY CUT AND DRY. AND MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF THINGS OUT THERE IN RPGS THAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REALLY, TRULY COMPATIBLE. AND I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS GREAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T ADDRESS EVERYTHING, AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE THAT THAT THAT PROCESS IS THERE TO SAY, HEY, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE A COW FARM, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS AGRICULTURE, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A CURVE BALL THAT I BELIEVE YOU AS A, AS A GROUP COULD CONSIDER AS A DEVIATION. YEAH, I WOULD SAY ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS IS THAT THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, AS IS COMPATIBLE LAND USES. OBVIOUSLY IF THERE'S A VARIANCE FOR ANOTHER ONE OR DIFFERENT TYPE OF LAND USE THAT'S NOT COVERED HERE, THAT'S WHY I'M THE INPUT FROM THE FAA IS CRITICAL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IN THIS SCENARIO WHERE THERE IS A REQUESTED LAND USE THAT, YOU KNOW, NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AND THE FAA SAYS, YOU KNOW, NO, WE DON'T FIND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A RISK TO SAFETY AND TO THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS. THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, NOT GOING TO WORK. BUT THEN ALSO THAT'S THAT'S SOME INDICATION AND VALIDATION THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAA. EXPECTATIONS THAT, THAT, THAT THEY HAVE ON, ON THE CITY TO, TO OPERATE IN THE AIRPORT. WELL, I THINK WE'VE HAD A.
[01:05:09]
INTERESTING DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL. AND IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.YES, SIR. MR. MY NAME IS HILLARY. SO OUR HOME, OUR FOUR ACRE FOR ACRE LOT AND RESIDENTIAL HOME IS WITHIN THE WITHIN THAT RPG THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HIGHWAY 64. SO WE LIVE THERE. WE CURRENTLY LIVE I'VE BEEN THERE FOR ABOUT 11 YEARS. SO WITH IT BEING COMPLETELY, ALMOST LIKE 80%, 85% COVERED BY THE RPGS, IS THAT GOING TO CURRENTLY AFFECT OUR LIVELIHOOD? ARE WE, YOU KNOW, STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESIDE THERE FOR THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FUTURE? OR ARE WE GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO SELL THAT TO THE CITY OF TYLER, THE AIRPORT? IS THAT GOING TO IMMEDIATELY AFFECT OUR LIVELIHOOD AS OF RIGHT NOW? NO, THERE'S NO EXPECTATION TO SELL TO THE CITY OF TYLER. THERE'S THAT THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS NOT BEING RETROACTIVE, THAT IF THIS WERE TO PASS, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO MOVE OR TO, TO REMOVE THE STRUCTURE YOUR HOME. AND SO THIS THIS ESSENTIALLY SAYS IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY REDEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT THAT REDEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE EITHER CONSISTENT WITH ONE OF THESE THREE CATEGORIES OR UPON FURTHER EVALUATION, SOMETHING THAT IS DETERMINED TO BE ALSO COMPATIBLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU KNOW, YOUR YOUR HOME IS, YOUR HOME IS AND SOME OF THE OTHER FACTORS THAT I MEAN, I AGAIN, I CAN'T PROVIDE ANY ASSURANCES, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE IF SOMETHING DID HAPPEN. BUT DID I ANSWER YOUR YOUR YOUR ACTUAL QUESTION IS NO, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO DO ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE HERE TODAY. ARE THERE OTHERS? IF NOT AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE HAD A PRETTY INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THIS PUZZLE OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS. HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? IF NOT, IS THAT WE'RE THIS IS LIKE REALLY ALL THE WORK THAT WE DO IS A RECORD. WE RECOMMEND ITEMS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND SO IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION, A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TYLER CITY CODE, CHAPTER 12 ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT HAZARD AREA, ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF TYLER. MR. CHAIRMAN, CHAPTER TEN. I'M SORRY, DID I SET YOU UP? 12 AND TEN, 12 AND TEN.
THANK YOU. CHAPTER 12 AND CHAPTER TEN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER TEN AND 12. THANK YOU.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND MOTION'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. I GUESS IT'S SIX TO 6 TO 1. IS THAT THE VOTE?
[VI.2. Z25-008 MD DIVINE HOMES LLC (2921 NORTH BORDER AVENUE)]
THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS APPROVED. NEXT IS Z 35 TO 0 ZERO EIGHT M DEVINE HOMES LLC.THIS IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 TWO FAMILY DUPLEX TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF WEST 32ND STREET AND BROADWAY AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST ARE ZONED R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. IN OUR DEVELOPED, THERE'S A PUBLIC PARK THERE AND. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED
[01:10:05]
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ZONED PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN IS DEVELOPED WITH A DAYCARE FACILITY AND A COMMUNITY FOCUSED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. THIS REQUEST WOULD AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE GUIDE TO SINGLE FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY. THAT'S THE PROPERTY THERE THAT IS ON THE CORNER. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA UNDER THE EXISTING R-2 ZONING CLASSIFICATION, TO OPTIMIZE THE BUILDABLE SPACE ON THAT LOT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONING TO R-1 D, WHICH PROVIDES A MORE FLEXIBLE SET OF PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ALIGNS WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE MOST HOMES SITUATED ARE SIMILARLY SIZED LOTS AND HAVE AN AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LESS THAN 1800 SQUARE FEET. OF THE TEN NOTICES MAILED, NO NOTICES WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
STAFF HAS PERFORMED A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR SHEILA? IF NOT, IS THERE APPLICANT HERE? ANY PERSON HERE? WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR OR AGAINST APPLICANT? NO. I THINK YOU KNOW QUESTIONS FOR SHEILA. WE'RE ALL GOOD. IS THERE A SITE PLAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHARED A SITE PLAN WITH US AT THIS TIME. ALRIGHT COMMISSIONERS. YOU'VE HEARD THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE? ITEM Z25008. SECOND MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. ANY DISCUSSION, IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.