Nov 07, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:07]

OKAY. IT'S 5:30.

[CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM]

IF YOU'VE GOT A CELL PHONE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN IT TO VIBRATE.

OR WHATEVER. TURN IT OFF.

THIS IS FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER THE 7TH.

AND 5:30.

CALL TO ORDER IN ITEM NUMBER ONE, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS FROM OCTOBER THE 1ST.

[ITEM 1: Consider and take appropriate action regarding approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 1, 2024.]

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MOVE IT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY.

I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER TERRY BERUBE.

I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EILEEN CROSS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM GOING INTO ITEM TWO.

[ITEM 2: RP2024-06 Hold a public hearing and take action to make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to final plat Lot 4R, Block 26, Original Town of Decatur, being a replat of Lot 4, Block 26, Original Town of Decatur to the City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. The property is located at 406 N. Church Street. (Replat Application 2024-06—Brendan Mitchell)]

THE COMMISSIONERS WILL RESERVE ALL QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND THE DISCUSSION ITEM IS OPENED.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPENED AT 5:32 DEDRA.

GOOD AFTERNOON. I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T MIND IF I DON'T STAND UP.

STILL HAVING ISSUES WITH MY KNEE? AGENDA ITEM TWO IS REPLAT APPLICATION 2024-06.

THIS IS MR. BRENDAN MITCHELL'S REQUEST TO FINAL PLAT LOT 4R BLOCK 26 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF DECATUR.

THE PROPERTY IS AN APPROXIMATE 0.201 ACRE TRACT OF LAND.

IT IS A REPLAT OF LOT FOUR, BLOCK 26 ORIGINAL TOWN OF DECATUR.

THE PROPERTY IS BEING PLATTED TO DEDICATE ONE OF THE FRONT YARDS AS A SIDE YARD PER SECTION 7.1.17 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS HEADED UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL LOT DIMENSIONS.

THE PROPERTY IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 406 NORTH CHURCH STREET.

NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS A COPY OF THE PLAT EXHIBIT IN YOUR PACKET.

WE DID NOTIFY 24 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES BACK.

OPPOSED IN FAVOR OR NEUTRAL.

NEXT SLIDE.

THE PLANT DOES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF DECATUR ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REPLAT APPLICATION 2024-06.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BY CHANCE? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE? OKAY. HEARING NONE.

THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE.

ITEM TWO, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

IT IS NOW 5:34 COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS? YES. THE FRAMED GARAGE THAT'S OVER THE SIDE YARD.

I GUESS THEY GOT A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

YES THEY DID.

A SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I WILL MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

OKAY, I'VE GOT IT.

GO AHEAD. I'VE GOT.

COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE HAS MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, AND I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM MASON WOODRUFF.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. GOING INTO BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 5:35.

[ITEM 3: SUP2024-08 Hold a public hearing and take action to make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to allow a detached Accessory Dwelling in a SF-2, Single-Family Residential Zoning District, on approximately 0.22 acres of land located at 406 N. Church Street. (Specific Use Permit Application 2024-08—Mr. Brendan Mitchell) ]

ITEM NUMBER THREE IS BRENDAN MITCHELL'S REQUEST TO GRANT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING IN SF2 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

[00:05:02]

IT'S 0.201 ACRES.

THE PROPERTY IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 406 NORTH CHURCH STREET.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS AMENDED AND ADOPTED JULY 8TH, 2024, ARTICLE SIX USE REGULATIONS SUBSECTION 6.1.2, TABLE SEVEN OF THE PERMITTED USE CHART DOES PROVIDE THAT ACCESSORY DWELLINGS ARE PERMITTED WITH AN APPROVED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING THE SF2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING AND SITE PLAN ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH GRANTING THE SUP.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION SUP 2024-08.

THANK YOU. DEDRA.

YOU'RE WELCOME. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE? OKAY, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE.

THIS PUBLIC HEARING MEETING IS NOW 5:37.

AND I'LL OPEN IT UP.

COMMISSIONERS, Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. IF THERE'S. GO AHEAD.

ACCESSORY DWELLING.

THAT'S THE SAME BUILDING WILL WAS ASKING ABOUT.

YES. OKAY.

FOR A FAMILY MEMBER OR IS THAT WHAT THE CURRENT ANTICIPATION IS WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING? IS THAT GENERALLY FOR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOME CAREGIVER OR SOMETHING? IT. I THINK HE'S PROPOSING TO RENT THE PROPERTY, BUT AND MAYBE THAT PERSON WOULD RENT IT OUT TO A FAMILY MEMBER.

THE DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY DWELLING THAT IT.

OH, YES. IT'S SOME RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

NOT NECESSARILY.

IT'S JUST THE RESIDENTIAL SECONDARY BUILDING.

COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT RENTAL UNIT.

THAT'S UNDER OUR RULES.

YES. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.

I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE.

OKAY. I NEED A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY.

I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER EILEEN CROSS.

AND NOW I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. GOING BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS NOW 5:38.

DEDRA. ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

[ITEM 4: SUP2024-09 Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to allow a day care in a SF-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning District, on approximately 7.56 acres of land located at 2601 S. FM 51. (Specific Use Permit Application 2023-09—Ms. Alexandria Gillispie, on behalf of Decatur Church of Christ)]

THIS IS ALEXANDRIA GILLESPIE'S REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE DECATUR CHURCH OF CHRIST TO GRANT A SPECIFIC.

USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DAYCARE IN AN SF ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 7.56 ACRES AND IT IS DESCRIBED AS LOT ONE, BLOCK ONE DECATUR.

CHURCH OF CHRIST ADDITION AND IS MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 2601 SOUTH FM 51.

YOU KNOW THIS IS THE WRONG REFERENCE.

THIS ACTUALLY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS ADOPTED THE REWRITE IN 2015, DOES PROVIDE THAT SPECIFIC USE PERMITS ARE PERMITTED IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS FOR DAYCARES, INCLUDING THE SINGLE FAMILY ONE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR A DAY CARE AND THE SITE PLAN ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH GRANTING THE SUP, AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUP APPLICATION 2024-09.

THANK YOU. DEDRA.

YOU'RE WELCOME. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SAY ANYTHING? NO. I'M GOOD.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SCARED ME A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU'RE OKAY.

I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 5:40.

OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY.

HEARING NONE. THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUP 2024-09 AS WRITTEN.

I'LL SECOND. CAN I PAUSE THIS FOR A MOMENT?

[00:10:03]

ALEXANDRA GILLESPIE. ATTORNEY.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS HERE.

A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH. ALL RIGHT.

ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE APPLICATION NUMBER? NO. I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT SHELBY MAY NEED TO RECUSE HIMSELF, SINCE HE'S A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH THAT SPONSORS THIS AND BENEFITS FROM IT.

JUST AS A TECHNICAL MATTER, I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

I DO KNOW OF ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY WHERE A SIMILAR SITUATION THAT CAME UP, AND I DON'T THINK THE ETHICS VIOLATION WAS SUSTAINED, BUT SOMEBODY FILED AN ETHICS VIOLATION.

SO JUST TO AVOID ALL OF THAT TROUBLE, I WOULD THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

OKAY, THEN. SHELBY, IT MIGHT BE BEST FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY STEP IN THE OTHER ROOM FOR JUST A MOMENT.

[INAUDIBLE] SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT IT SOONER, ACTUALLY.

YEAH, I WOULD OFFER A MOTION THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.

OKAY, SO I'VE GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF.

I NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TERRY BERUBE.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED.

DENIED. NEVERMIND.

[LAUGHTER] MOTION CARRIES.

BRAIN DEAD FOR A MINUTE THERE.

YEAH. SO YOUR MOTION WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL? YES, MA'AM. TO THE CITY COUNCIL? YES. CORRECT. GOT IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY.

GOING BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW FIVE.

OH, LET'S CALL IT 43.

DEDRA. ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

[ITEM 5: SI2024-04 Hold a public hearing and take action to make a recommendation to City Council regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to revise the minimum lot size in the SF-2, TH, 2F, MF, MHD, C-1, C-1A, C-2 and PD Zoning Districts. (Staff Initiated Application 2024-04—City of Decatur) ]

APPLICATION 2024-04.

THIS ITEM IS A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS.

AND IT WOULD BE IMPACTING SF2 ZONING DISTRICT.

TH ZONING DISTRICT 2F ZONING DISTRICT.

THE MF ZONING DISTRICT.

THE MANUFACTURED HOME DISTRICT, ZONING DISTRICT, C-1 ZONING DISTRICT C1 A C2 AND PD ZONING DISTRICTS AND BELOW IS IDENTIFYING WHAT THOSE REPRESENT.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW A MINIMUM OF 5000FT² LOTS.

THE CITY COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR US TO LOOK AT REVISING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 8000FT².

IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED ZONING DISTRICTS THERE'S GROWING CONCERN THAT THE DENSITY OF SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN DECATUR IS EXCESSIVE AND IT IS ADVERSELY IMPACTING THE CITY'S RURAL CHARACTER AND CHARM AND ESTHETICS.

PRIOR TO THE 2015 ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WAS 8400FT².

AND TERRY AND MASON ARE PROBABLY THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT REMEMBER THAT.

AT THAT TIME, MANY OF THE INNER CITY LOTS, WHICH WERE UNDER 8400FT², COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.

SO IN THE INTERIM, BEFORE THE 2015 REWRITE, STAFF CREATED AN INFILL OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH YOU COULD DEVELOP LOTS THAT WERE 5500FT².

WELL, WITH THE REWRITE, THAT INFILL OVERLAY DISTRICT WENT AWAY.

THERE IS A SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DOES TALK ABOUT INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THE PRESENTATION NEXT SLIDE.

THE ONE I INTRODUCED THIS MAP FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU.

WHEN YOU CHANGE THE LOT SIZE, THERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES.

ONE OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE NOT ALLOWING INFILL DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.

SO THERE ARE WITHIN A SIX BLOCK RADIUS OF THE DOWNTOWN SQUARE.

THERE ARE SOME LOTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR INFILL BECAUSE THEY ARE CURRENTLY VACANT.

NEXT SLIDE.

OF THOSE LOTS, 42.8 OF THOSE ACRES OR 1126 OR

[00:15:07]

THEY'RE BOTH VACANT AND NON VACANT.

OF THAT ACREAGE, 340 COULD BE POTENTIAL VACANT LOTS FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

IN ADDITION TO IMPACTING INFILL, LESS DENSITY, SMALLER SEWERS, LOWER PRESSURE AND WATER MAINS, SMALLER PUMPS ARE NEEDED FOR LARGER LOTS, THERE'S LESS AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC.

SOME WOULD ARGUE THERE'S LESS AFFORDABILITY FROM LARGE LOTS.

NOW, THESE LOTS AREN'T GOING TO BREAK THE BANK.

THEY'RE NOT VERY LARGE.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF THOSE IMPACTS.

SMALLER LOTS HAVE LESS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

THEY CONSERVE FOREST AND AGRICULTURAL LAND BY USING LESS OF IT.

URBAN SPRAWL INCREASES IN IMPERMEABLE SURFACES.

POOR RUNOFF MANAGEMENT OVERALL LEADS TO DOWNSTREAM FLOODING ISSUES.

SO THESE ARE ALL POTENTIAL IMPACTS ADVERSE AND NOT SO ADVERSE IMPACTS.

IT'S NOT THE CITY'S INTENT TO DISCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS AN IMPORTANT SMART GROWTH STRATEGY.

INFILL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES MAKE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE URBAN CORE PARCELS MORE ATTRACTIVE AND AFFORDABLE TO DEVELOPERS BY ADDRESSING COMMON BARRIERS SUCH AS INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, LENGTHY PERMITTING PROCESSES, OBSOLETE ZONING PROVISIONS, AND DIFFICULT PARCEL ASSEMBLY.

NEXT SLIDE.

IF THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTS STAFF OR SO CHOOSES, AN INFILL INCENTIVES POLICY COULD INCLUDE FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE INFILL EXCERPT THAT'S IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S THE DESIGNATION OF A SPECIFIC DISTRICT AS A PRIORITY FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT, SAY THE SIX BLOCKS IN EITHER DIRECTION OF THE SQUARE.

BUILDING PERMIT AND PLANNING, APPLICATION FEE REBATES, FAST TRACKING OR STREAMLINING OF PERMITTING FOR INFILL LOTS, REFUND OF WATER AND SEWER TAP FEES. TAX ABATEMENT LIEN WAIVERS.

PREPARATION OF AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT GUIDE TO HELP DEVELOPERS AND CITIZENS WITH INFILL DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, CREATION OF AN INFILL PROJECT REVIEW TEAM AND OR OFFERING GRANTS AND LOW INTEREST INFILL LOANS.

THERE'S A HOST OF INCENTIVES THAT COULD BE ADOPTED.

THESE ARE JUST A FEW.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE STAFF INITIATED APPLICATION 2024-04 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REVISING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FROM 5000FT² TO 8000FT².

NEXT SLIDE.

OH, WELL.

IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH TALKS ABOUT INFILL.

THEY ARE ABLE TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE LOT SIZE.

THE LOT WIDTH.

LOT DEPTH.

ANY OF THOSE ZONING REGULATIONS.

SO THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF DEVELOPING SMALLER INFILL LOTS.

THANK YOU. DEDRA. YOU'RE WELCOME.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

IT'S NOW 5:49, AND NOW WE'LL OPEN HER UP.

OKAY. DEDRA. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE INFILL DISTRICT THAT'S COVERED IN THE DARK GREEN ON YOUR MAP THERE, THAT'S WITHIN SIX BLOCKS OF THE DOWNTOWN SQUARE THAT IS STILL IN EFFECT.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO, NO, NO, IT'S NOT IN EFFECT.

THE DISTRICT.

THE. THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

OKAY. WOULD IT BE RETURNED TO EFFECT? COULD IT BE. SHOULD IT BE AS A PART OF THIS, IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE THE CONTINUED INFILL DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THE AREA WHERE WE HAVE THE SMALL LOTS.

THAT'S THE AREA WHERE WE HAD THE PROBLEM BEFORE.

THAT'S WHAT CAUSED ALL OF THE ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[00:20:02]

WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE CAN CREATE A DISTRICT THAT'S ABOUT SIX BLOCKS EITHER NORTH, SOUTH, EAST OR WEST.

THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE INCENTIVES IN WHICH WE'RE ENCOURAGING INFILL IN THAT AREA.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD JUST WE WOULD CALL IT AN INFILL OVERLAY DISTRICT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT ME FROM CALLING IT.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WAS WE CREATED THAT DISTRICT BECAUSE WE HAD 8400 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS FOR THE LOTS.

THEN WHEN WE REVISED THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE REDUCED THE MINIMUM TO 5000.

SO THERE WAS REALLY NO LONGER A NEED FOR THAT INFILL DISTRICT.

AND AND NOW WHAT THE COUNCIL I UNDERSTAND IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS NEW DEVELOPMENT REALLY OUGHT TO HAVE LARGER LOTS LIKE THE 8000 THAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO CONSIDER.

BUT WHEN YOU DO THAT, THAT RECREATES THE INFILL PROBLEM WE HAD BEFORE THAT THIS INFILL OVERLAY DISTRICT FIXED.

SO ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS IF WE'RE GOING TO RETURN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 8000, WHICH IS BALLPARK WHAT IT WAS BEFORE.

AS A PART OF THAT FIX, CAN WE NOT RECOMMEND THAT THEY AT THE SAME TIME RE-IMPLEMENT THIS INFILL OVERLAY DISTRICT AS A. I MEAN, THAT JUST SORT OF PUTS US BACK WHERE WE WERE A FEW YEARS AGO ON THAT.

AND IT WORKED THEN.

SO IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO WORK NOW.

IT KIND OF DOES. MASON BUT NOW THE ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO INFILL.

AND I CAN READ YOU WHAT IT SAYS.

RESIDENTIAL LOT DIMENSIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE EIGHT.

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AREA REGULATIONS.

ITEM A LOT DIMENSIONS, A LOT HAVING LESS AREA, WIDTH OR DEPTH THAN HEREIN REQUIRED, WHICH WAS AN OFFICIAL LOT OF RECORD AT THE TIME OF PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE, MAY BE USED FOR A ONE FAMILY DWELLING, AND NO LOT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE REDUCED IN SIZE BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH HEREIN, UNLESS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GRANTED.

THERE YOU GO. A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION MAY BE GRANTED WHEN AN INFILL LOT IS UNABLE, UNDER REASONABLE MEANS, TO MEET THE AREA WITH OR DEATH REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, AND THAT'S DONE THROUGH SOME VARIANCE PROCESS.

THAT WOULD BE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THERE YOU GO. I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.

YEAH. AND LIKE I SAID, AS IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF, WE CAN ALSO CREATE A DISTRICT IN WHICH WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE INFILL WITH THESE INFILL INCENTIVES OR WITH SOME INFILL INCENTIVES.

AND WITH THE CREATION OF THAT DISTRICT, IT WOULD HELP.

I'M ASSUMING PEOPLE GET THE APPROVAL THEY MIGHT NEED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

YES, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE THE GOAL.

WELL, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT SOME SOLUTION LIKE THAT BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THIS CHANGE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CHANGE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

GO BACK TO 8000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.

MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS INNER CITY DISTRICT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM THAT WE FIXED ONCE BEFORE.

YES. I LIKE THE IDEA OF THERE BEING A SOME SORT OF A DISTRICT DESIGNATED ALREADY IN PLACE FOR BECAUSE STAFF IS GOING TO CHANGE, COUNCIL IS GOING TO CHANGE, MEMBERS OF THESE BOARDS IS GOING TO CHANGE.

AND SOMEONE COMES IN WITH THIS PROBLEM.

AND I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT THE ONLY SOLUTION IS HUNTING DOWN THE PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS, OH YEAH, IF YOU MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.

IF IT'S IN A DISTRICT THAT'S PREDESIGNATED THE WAY THIS ONE WAS BEFORE THEN.

I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD FACILITATE THAT KIND OF SOLUTION TO THOSE.

SO YOU'RE JUST SUGGESTING THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A VARIANCE PROCESS? NOT NECESSARILY. BUT IF IT'S I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE IT'S CREATED AND HOW IT'S DESIGNATED.

BUT BUT IF IT'S DESIGNATED AS LIKE THIS WAS BEFORE AS THE THIS IS THE INFILL DISTRICT.

THIS IS THE AREA WE KNOW WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

AND THERE MAY BE A FEW LOTS IN THAT INFILL DISTRICT THAT ARE REALLY BIG ENOUGH NOW.

BUT GIVEN THE WAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS LAID OUT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THEY REALLY SHOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO GO IN AND DIVIDE THEM INTO THESE SMALLER LOTS.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF THERE'S A VARIANCE PROCESS, WHAT'S THE NEED FOR DESIGNATING A SPECIAL AREA? UNLESS YOU'RE UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS.

AND. WELL, YOU COULD SET THE INCENTIVES UP ANY, ANY WAY THAT YOU THINK WOULD BENEFIT THIS DISTRICT.

[00:25:03]

MAYBE IT'S JUST AN INFILL DISTRICT.

AND WITHIN THIS AREA, EVEN THOUGH INFILL IS ALLOWED ALL OVER THE CITY.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, WE EXPEDITE THE PERMITTING PROCESS OR WE GET A PRESUMPTION THAT WE WAIVE CERTAIN FEES. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT.

I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT THE WHAT THE NEED.

NEED WAS, BUT I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THEM CONTINUING.

TO GO. I JUST KNOW FROM, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, FROM THE EXPERIENCE, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND THERE'S A TURNOVER AND THERE'S CHANGE AND EVERYTHING WAS JUST GOING SMOOTHLY BEFORE, AND SUDDENLY THERE'S NEW MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, A PERSON COMES IN THE SAME EXACT PROBLEM HAPPENED TWO YEARS AGO, AND IT CAME UP OFTEN, OR IT CAME UP RARELY.

IT CAME UP OFTEN.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE HIS SUGGESTION IS VALID.

THEN WE'RE JUST REFERRING TO THE WHAT'S INSIDE THE SIX BLOCK RADIUS.

I'M JUST. YEAH, I'M BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE SAME EXACT AREA THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY THE INFILL DISTRICT.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO OVER THE HISTORY OF THIS BEFORE WE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, THIS AREA WAS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE LOTS WERE TOO SMALL.

IT WAS A PROBLEM GETTING THEM DEVELOPED.

SO THE SOLUTION THAT WAS THAT WE ALL CAME UP WITH WAS THE CREATION OF THIS DISTRICT.

THEN WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS REVISED, THE NEED FOR THIS DISTRICT WENT AWAY.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO REVISE IT AGAIN, WHICH WILL RECREATE THE PROBLEM.

AND IF YOU IF YOU REIMPLEMENT A SIMILAR SOLUTION, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE LOTS ARE UNDER THE 8000 CURRENTLY? I'M SORRY. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE LOTS ARE ALL UNDER 8000? OR HOW MANY OF THEM ARE UNDER 8000? I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION.

I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, AM I WOULD IT BE MOST OF THEM OR HALF OF THEM? IT IS PROBABLY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT.

OKAY. AND THAT'S THIS IS OLD ORIGINAL DECATUR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH ADDITIONAL STEPS TO DEVELOP WHAT'S ALREADY HERE CURRENTLY.

RIGHT. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT PROPERLY CURRENTLY? YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S 5000 SQUARE FOOT, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE VACANT LOTS THAT ARE THERE.

RIGHT. SO IF WE INCREASE IT THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE LOTS THAT WOULD BE UNDEVELOPED UNLESS THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS UNDEVELOPABLE DEVELOPABLE.

YES. YOU KNOW, HOUSE BURNS AND THEY NEED TO GET A PERMIT TO REPLACE IT OR SOMETHING.

WERE YOU COMING UP HERE IN ORDER TO VOICE AN OPINION? NO, SIR, I JUST I THOUGHT I MIGHT ADD THAT IN THE LAST BUDGET PROCESS, WE WALKED THROUGH POTENTIAL INFILL INCENTIVES WITH CITY COUNCIL AND DEDRA AND STAFF ARE RIGHT ON THE LIST THAT THEY'VE PUT TOGETHER HERE.

I THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU COULD DO, COMMISSIONERS, IS APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS INCREASE OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WITH THE REQUEST THAT COUNCIL INPUT SOME SORT OF POLICY OR PROCEDURE FOR INFILL WITHIN A SPECIFIC AREA FROM THE IMMEDIATE DOWNTOWN AS BUDGET ALLOWS. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL GRAPPLE WITH, LET'S SAY WE EXPEDITE PROCESSES OR WAIVE FEES OR CREATE SOME SORT OF TAX ABATEMENT THAT WILL IMPACT THE BUDGET OVERALL.

AND YOU I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW NOT ONLY THE PROCESS OF PREPARING THE BUDGET AND MAKING SURE THE FUNDS ARE THERE TO DO THAT, BUT ALSO AT SOME POINT OUR IMMEDIATE DOWNTOWN WILL BE INFILLED.

IT WILL BE FILLED.

SO THAT PROCESS COULD JUST BE RENEWED YEAR TO YEAR BASED ON THE PRIORITIES OF THE COUNCIL AND OF COURSE, THIS BODY.

THOUGHTS? SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF YOU ALL CAN COME UP WITH A WAY TO WORD THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL, I'M FOR IT.

BUT I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY.

COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT WE NEED SOME TOOLS IN OUR TOOLBOX TO COMPLEMENT THE INFILL PROCESS.

WE JUST REALLY HAVE NOT FOUND A GREAT WAY TO DO THAT JUST YET WITH A FULL PACKAGE.

AND THIS NEED ACTUALLY AROSE WITH MUCH MORE PRIORITY THAN FIGURING OUT THEIR INFILL DESIRES.

OKAY, HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.

IT DOES.

THE NEED YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE NEED TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZE TO 8000.

YEAH, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT'S ACTUALLY WHY I WAS LOOKING AT THIS AS THIS IS THE SOLUTION WE HAD BEFORE.

SO IF YOU JUST CLIP THIS ONTO THE CURRENT CHANGE AND REIMPLEMENT THIS SOLUTION WE HAD BEFORE, YOU STILL GOT THE SAME SOLUTION.

IT WAS WORKING FOR SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THIS CHANGE CAME UP.

BUT WHATEVER WORKS WORKS IF STAFF IS HAPPY WITH IT.

IF EVERYBODY'S RECOGNIZING THIS ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THIS OLD TOWN DISTRICT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND IS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS IT SOMEHOW, THEN I'M GOOD.

AND I DIDN'T INTEND TO CONFUSE ANYBODY.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE INCENTIVES FOR INFILL, SO THAT YOU WOULD REST ASSURED THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DISCOURAGE INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

[00:30:07]

IT WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 380 TO THE NORTH.

WELL, THERE ARE LOTS.

THERE ARE SMALL LOTS.

THERE ARE SMALL LOTS. WHATEVER.

WHATEVER THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT PREVIOUS DISTRICT WERE, THOSE BOUNDARIES WERE CREATED BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE INFILL PROBLEM LOTS WERE.

AND AND I.

MY CONCERN IS NOT THAT COUNCIL AND STAFF AND THIS BODY DON'T CURRENTLY RECOGNIZE THIS PROBLEM.

MY CONCERN IS PROSPECTIVELY GOING FORWARD, PUTTING AS MANY POLICIES ON PAPER IN PLACE THAT NEW STAFF AND NEW COUNCIL AND NEW BOARD MEMBERS WILL COME ACROSS AS THIS PROBLEM RAISES ITS HEAD.

5 OR 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND GO, OH YEAH, WE HAVE A FIX IN PLACE FOR THAT.

AND IF THE POLICY IS THERE IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, THEN THAT WILL EXPEDITE THAT SOLUTION.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

MASON I WOULD ALSO SAY NEW CITIZENS AND NEW DEVELOPERS AND THOSE FOLKS WISHING TO DEVELOP THOSE LOTS, THEY WOULD NEED POLICY TO LEAN ON AS WELL. YES.

NOW WE'LL OFFER THAT WE WILL HAVE A PROPERTY COMING FORWARD THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE AS KIND OF A STANDARD FOR HOW WE PLAN ON MOVING THIS FORWARD. WE'VE GOT A LOT THAT IS THAT HAD A HOUSE ON IT.

IT WAS IN VERY BAD SHAPE.

IT'S SINCE BEEN REMOVED.

THE ENTIRE LOT IS ONLY 3600FT².

AND WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IDENTIFIED A WAY TO TO GET A HOUSE ON THERE.

THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.

THEY WILL BE PLATTING THAT PROPERTY, NOT WITH ENCROACHMENTS FOR THIS, BUT FOR ACTUAL PLATTED LOT LINES THAT ARE LESS THAN WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THE CURRENT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT YOU'LL SEE BEFORE COMING BEFORE YOU, PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH TO TWO MONTHS. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF GOING TO BE OUR STANDARD AND OUR OUR GUIDE AS WE MOVE THROUGH THESE, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE OF THESE.

WE'VE HAD MORE AND MORE OF THESE SMALLER LOTS COMING TO US WANTING TO DEVELOP, WANTING TO REBUILD, WANTING TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILD, AND COMING UP WITH THAT PATH IN ORDER TO GET THEM TO THAT, THAT POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION ON THERE.

OKAY. I HAVE A MORE GENERAL QUESTION, IF I'M SURE.

AND IT'S SO THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY AFFECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, RIGHT? PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS OR IT DOES.

IT DOES. OKAY. SO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CAN NOT HAVE LOT SIZES UNDER 8000.

OKAY. IS THIS A COMMON WAY TO.

I MEAN, I'VE HEARD TALK OF THIS, OF INCREASING LOT SIZES BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF SUBDIVISIONS GET PLATTED AND THEY'RE ALL SMALLER HOMES.

AND OF COURSE, WE WANTED THAT BECAUSE WE WANTED AFFORDABLE HOMES, AND NOW WE'RE BUMPING THAT BACK UP.

IS THIS A COMMON THING FOR CITIES TO DO, TO KIND OF GO UP AND DOWN AND UP AND DOWN AND UP AND DOWN TO TRY TO GET THE SORT OF BALANCE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR OR IS I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S UNCOMMON.

I THINK AS COUNCILS TURN OVER AND CHANGE, PERSPECTIVES CHANGE, THE CULTURE CHANGES.

WHAT WAS IDEAL, YOU KNOW, TEN YEARS AGO MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE OR MAY NOT BE AS IDEAL NOW. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S UNCOMMON.

WILL. OKAY.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

YEAH. I HAVEN'T HEARD OF, YOU KNOW, CITIES KIND OF GOING UP AND DOWN LIKE THIS.

AND SO AND THERE ARE OTHER EXCUSE ME, THERE ARE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS LIKE TOWNHOMES OR SOMETHING THAT COULD ALLOW FOR SMALLER, SMALLER LOT SIZES, RIGHT.

IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ALL OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT I IDENTIFIED EARLY ON AS OF TWO TWO FAMILY TOWNHOMES.

OH, SO IT DOES AFFECT TOWNHOMES AS WELL.

MANUFACTURED HOME DISTRICTS, TOWNHOMES, TOWNHOUSE, RESIDENTIAL.

IF I CAN INTERJECT THERE, IT DOES AFFECT THE THE TOWNHOME DISTRICT FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED NOT FOR TOWNHOMES. OKAY.

OKAY. THOSE RESTRICTIONS OR THOSE LOT SIZES HAVE NOT CHANGED FOR TOWNHOMES.

[00:35:04]

I'M SORRY.

YES. SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED FOR 2F DUPLEXES.

OKAY, BUT THERE IS STILL A A SMALLER LOT SIZE FOR TOWNHOMES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. REMAINED.

ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD OFFER THAT IN MY.

EXPERIENCE AND READING POLICY LIKE POLITICS HISTORICALLY IS A PENDULUM THAT SWINGS. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DOING.

I'M CURIOUS HOW IT AFFECTS THE ONE DOWN SOUTH OF SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH.

AND BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY MAYBE BEEN PRELIMINARILY PLATTED.

AND SO IT WOULD STILL BE OKAY OR YEAH.

HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THE ONE OUT EAST OF TOWN THAT I MEAN, ARE THOSE THOSE TWO SUBDIVISIONS IMPACTED BY THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE OR PLANTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRELIMINARILY APPROVED ARE NOT AFFECTED? YEAH, BUT THE SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH, THE FINAL PHASE THAT HASN'T.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH.

THE ONE SOUTH OF THAT CREEK.

OH. MEADOW CREEK. YEAH.

YEAH, IT'S GOING TO NOT AFFECT IT.

YEAH. IF IT'S THE PLAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

SO THEY CAN BUILD ACCORDING TO THEIR PLAT.

ANY PLAT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PRELIMINARILY APPROVED IS OKAY.

YEAH. OKAY.

BUT DOESN'T. I'M.

I'M IN FOR.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? WHAT WAS IT CALLED? MEADOW. WHAT MEADOW? MEADOW CREEK. MEADOW CREEK.

DOESN'T THAT EXPIRE IF THEY DON'T? FINAL PLAT? NO, IT DOES EXPIRE.

YEAH. IT EXPIRES. DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T OCCUR.

YEAH. OR A FINAL PLAT? YEAH. HASN'T BEEN APPROVED.

INTERESTING. OKAY. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.

HAS THE FINAL PLAT BEEN APPROVED FOR MEADOW CREEK? OKAY. AND IF IT EXPIRES, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE NEW.

ABSOLUTELY. READJUST THEIR PLANS.

OKAY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S AN INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO HURRY UP, GET IT DONE.

ARE THEY AWARE OF THAT? ARE THEY AWARE OF THIS ISSUE OF THE PLAT EXPIRING? OR THEY ARE AWARE OF THE PLANT EXPIRING BUT NOT CHANGE? I MEAN, THE IMPACT THAT THIS WILL HAVE ON WHAT HAPPENS IF THEIR PLAT, [INAUDIBLE] IF THEY'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT.

I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SOME DUTY TO TELL THEM.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH I AGREE.

I MEAN, IT ALSO RELATES TO THE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO LET THE PLAT EXPIRE ON THE IS THAT THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S BEHIND WALMART AND HAVE THEM RESUBMIT BECAUSE THAT ONE HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THAT ONE'S YEAH. THAT'S BEEN FINAL PLATTED.

YEAH. OKAY. THEN AND THERE'S ENOUGH WORK THAT'S GOING ON ON THAT PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE OKAY.

OKAY. BUT THE ONE THE ONE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS YEAH, THERE'S PROBABLY A DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN ABOUT WHICH ONES HAVE BEEN FINAL PLATTED VERSUS PRELIMINARILY PLATTED.

AND YEAH, NOTIFYING THOSE DEVELOPERS, JUST AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WITHIN SIX BLOCKS OF.

NO, THAT'S JUST THE INFILL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THAT'S ALL WE WERE DISCUSSING TODAY.

NO, THE INFILL INFORMATION THAT I PROVIDED WAS SECONDARY TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER TONIGHT.

THAT'S JUST CHANGING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 8000FT².

AND THAT WOULD BE CITY WIDE.

YES. OKAY, OKAY.

CAN I OFFER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER MAKING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHANGE, RATHER THAN IMMEDIATE PUSHING IT OUT A LITTLE BIT IN ORDER TO NOT TERRIBLY FAR, BUT JUST PUSHING IT OUT FAR ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE, LIKE WERE DISCUSSING IN THE DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING.

TIME TO RESUBMIT.

I'VE BEEN I KNOW, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN EXPECTING.

THIS WILL BLINDSIDE THEM AND THEY WILL NOT BE HAPPY.

AND. AND IT MAY, MORE IMPORTANTLY, MAY LOSE.

I MEAN, A CHANGE LIKE THIS COULD MAY LOSE THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THEY MAY JUST SAY FORGET IT.

YEAH. SO AND THEY'RE DELAYED LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHERS, IT'S NOT ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT BECAUSE THERE ARE OIL AND GAS PIPELINES INVOLVED.

THAT'S REALLY THE BIG PROBLEM.

AND THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT THEY CAN DO WITH THAT.

AND THEY CAN'T MAKE AN OIL COMPANY AGREE.

YEAH. THEY CAN GO IN AND CHANGE WHERE THEY PUT THEIR STREETS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PIPELINES AND THAT, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

AND THAT MAY BE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.

BUT THEY NEED TO BE AWARE THAT THIS CLOCK IS TICKING.

[00:40:03]

I THINK THEY DEVELOPERS, JUST LIKE OIL COMPANIES, ARE STUBBORN AND THINK THIS PROBLEM WILL JUST GO AWAY AND THEY'LL BE LEFT ALONE.

DEVELOPERS THINK THAT THIS PROBLEM WILL SOLVE ITSELF AND THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES.

PERFECT. SO DO WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A TIME FRAME? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING DEFINITE IN WELL, I MEAN, WHEN ARE WHEN ARE WE ANTICIPATING THAT THEY'LL EVEN ACT ON THIS AND ADOPT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING? I'M SORRY.

THE WHEN DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ACT ON ADOPTING THIS? OH, ON TUESDAY.

WELL, THE SECOND READING WOULD BE THE 25TH.

SO THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND A FIRST READING ON TUESDAY.

AND AND NORMALLY THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEN WOULD BE AT THE DATE OF THE SECOND READING.

IT WOULD BE AFTER THE PUBLICATION.

OKAY. THE ORDINANCE I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT THEY PUSH THE AND THEY CAN SET THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHENEVER THEY WANT TO.

I'M JUST SUGGESTING THEY PUSH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OUT 30 TO 60 DAYS LONGER, SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE, LONGER THAN IT WOULD NORMALLY FALL.

I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO POP UP IN THAT TIME FRAME.

I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT DOING SOMETHING TO BE REASONABLY HELP OUT THIS DEVELOPER, AND WE REALLY NEED TO REACH OUT TO THEM DIRECTLY TO LET THEM KNOW THIS.

WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS.

JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, IN TALKS WITH THEM, THEY'RE AWARE THAT THEIR PRELIMINARY PLAT EXPIRES IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR OR OF NEXT YEAR.

AND BUT THEY DON'T.

WELL, THEY. YEAH, BUT SOMETIMES THAT'S JUST TALK AND SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO THAT'S TELLING US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR.

THEY NEED TO BE TOLD DIRECTLY.

IF YOU DON'T, WE'RE PUTTING A NEW ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT'S GOING TO UNDERCUT EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT PLANNED SO FAR.

AND YOU MAY HAVE TO START FROM SQUARE ONE AND THEY MAY GO, WHAT? YES. AND SO THAT'S JUST A CONVERSATION THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE HAD, RATHER THAN COMING IN AND SAYING, WELL, WE ASSUME WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.

WE ASSUMED IT WOULD. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WE JUST NEED TO BE PROACTIVE IN TRYING TO AVOID A CONFLICT LIKE THAT.

AGREED. COMPLETELY.

YEAH, I AGREE, I AGREE 100%.

COUNSELOR. HAVE YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE? I MEAN, COMMISSIONER, ME? COUNSELOR. [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER? NO, I GOT NOTHING ELSE.

OKAY. I'M GOOD.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? OKAY. HEARING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

TO APPROVE OR DENY.

TO RECOMMEND.

I WOULD RECOMMEND TO OFFER A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE COUNCIL, WITH THE PROVISO THAT THEY EXTEND THE EFFECTIVE DATE ABOUT 60 DAYS OUT LATER THAN IT WOULD NORMALLY BE, AND WITH THE CAUTION TO STAFF THAT THEY GET A HOLD OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER AND LET HIM KNOW ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL ISSUE.

OKAY, I'VE GOT A COMMISSIONER, MASON WOODRUFF, A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON ALL THAT STUFF, ON ALL THAT STUFF. HE SAID, I NEED A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY.

I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TERRY BERUBE.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES.

OKAY. GOING INTO A NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[ITEM 6: CONSENT AGENDA]

DEDRA. ITEM SIX IS A CONSENT AGENDA.

THERE'S A AND B, A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE SAME PROPERTY IT'S CONSIDER, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT.

LOT ONE BLOCK ONE LUMBER YARD ADDITION.

THIS IS AN 8.61 ACRE TRACT IN THE J.

ALDRIDGE SURVEY. ABSTRACT NUMBER 17.

AND THEN THE FINAL PLAT.

SAME APPLICANT, SAME LOCATION, 8.61 ACRES.

THE PLATS DO MEET OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONERS, Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL ON ITEM SIX A AND B.

I WILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE.

A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE.

I NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.

GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TERRY BERUBE.

ALL IN FAVOR?

[00:45:01]

[ITEM 7: Discussion of future agenda new business items, staff requests and potential special-called meeting and/or workshop requests: a. As of agenda posting, the December 3, 2024, meeting currently has no (0) new Planning applications. Submittal deadline was November 4, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.]

THE DEADLINE WAS NOVEMBER 4TH, SO WE WILL BE MEETING IN DECEMBER.

AND THEN AT THAT TIME, WE WILL ALSO HAVE THE 2025 SCHEDULE MEETING SCHEDULE FOR YOU GUYS.

OKAY. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR GOOD GOOD THINGS TO SAY.

ANYTHING BAD? GOOD. SO THIS MEETING OF P&Z IS CLOSED.

IT IS NOW 6:17.

SORRY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.