[CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM] [00:00:09] TODAY'S TUESDAY, JUNE THE 1ST? JULY THE 1ST I'M SORRY, JULY THE 1ST. YEAH. YOU NEED TO SCROLL UP THE SCREEN A LITTLE BIT OKAY, FIRST THING ON ITEM 1, WE NEED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE P & Z MINUTES FROM [ITEM 1: Consider and take appropriate action regarding the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 3, 2025.] JUNE? JUNE 3RD MEETING. JUNE 3RD. YES, SIR. CAN YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT OUR MINUTES. I'VE GOT A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER. I NEED A SECOND. SECOND. GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOVING TO. MOVING TO. PUBLIC HEARING . MOVING TO ITEM PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TWO. [ITEM 2: RP-25-0007. Consider an extension request regarding a request to replat approximately 0.590 acres, Lot 1R, Block 9, revised Plat of Lipsey, an Addition to Wise County, Texas, being a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 9, revised Plat of Lipsey, as recorded in Cabinet A, Slides 81-82, Plat Records, Wise County, Texas, also known as 3301 S Murvil Street, Decatur, Texas. (Extension Request for Replat – Davie Ray Murphy)] YES, SIR. OKAY AND WHEN WE GO INTO A PUBLIC MEETING OR PUBLIC HEARING , THE COMMISSION WILL MOVE. THE COMMISSION IS NOT ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS, RESPOND TO QUESTIONS OR COMMENT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING . EXCUSE ME. THE COMMISSIONERS WILL RESERVE ALL QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE, THANK YOU, AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND THE DISCUSSION ITEM IS OPEN. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN IT IS 5:37 PM, LISA. YES, SIR, LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD. WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD BY REFERENCE. HOWEVER, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ANOTHER 30 DAY EXTENSION. WE'VE GOT SOME OTHER OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS WITH THEIR SURVEY. AND SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING, I APOLOGIZE THIS SHOULD BE ON THE AUGUST 5TH AGENDA. NEXT. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION REQUEST. SO IT'S AN ACTION ITEM WE DO NEED YOU TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST FOR ANOTHER 30 DAY EXTENSION. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT AUGUST 5TH MEETING WILL PUT US PAST THE 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK. SO WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR THIS, WHETHER THEY GET THEIR APPLICATION COMPLETED, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, OR WE HAVE TO FILE FOR ANOTHER 30 DAY EXTENSION. THE NEXT P&Z MEETING WILL BE OUTSIDE OF THAT 30 DAYS. OKAY. I CAN'T SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? PAM, DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT THAT? SO. DID YOU SAY YES? WHAT IS THE OPTION RATHER THAN HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING? CAN THEY TAKE ACTION TO DENY WITH REASONS? IS THAT PAM? SURE THEY COULD REQUEST OR THEY COULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE 30 DAY REQUEST AND DENY THE REPLY. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN RESUBMIT A REPLY APPLICATION. CORRECT, CHERYL? YES. YES. OTHER OPTIONS CAN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ? YES IT WOULD. OKAY. CAN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ? IS THERE NOBODY? CAN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ? OKAY MY QUESTION IS WHAT PAM WAS ASKING ABOUT. IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO GRANT A LONGER THAN 30 DAYS? LIKE A 50 DAY EXTENSION OR SOMETHING TO GET US TO THE NEXT MEETING? YOU CAN'T DO THAT. NO, SIR NOT ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS A 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK BY STATE LAW. DO WE KNOW WHAT DAY WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING? IT WOULD BE THE WEEK BEFORE THAT. SO IT WOULD END UP BEING THE 29TH OF JULY. MY CONCERN IS THEY WON'T BE READY THEN EITHER. CORRECT. CAN WE ASK WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE NOW THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET? THERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH THE SURVEY AND THE CLOSURE REPORT AND HOW IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO STAFF. IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLATTING. THERE'S A RIGHT OF WAY CLOSURE? NO, THERE'S NO RIGHT OF WAY CLOSURE THERE'S NO CHANGING ANY LOT LINES. [00:05:01] IT'S JUST OUR STANDARDS ON HOW THE PLAT IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK, WITH THE VERBIAGE AND THE CLOSURE REPORT, ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ON THERE. WE HAD MEETINGS WITH THIS APPLICANT PROBABLY TWO MONTHS BEFORE SUBMITTAL. WE GAVE THEM EVERYTHING, AND THEY'VE NOT TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM AND THEIR SURVEYOR AND HAVE THEIR SURVEYOR TALK TO OUR ENGINEERING STAFF, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY MORE IT'S A SURVEYOR WE HAVEN'T USED BEFORE SO WHEN THEY REQUEST ANOTHER 30 DAYS, WE BRING THAT FORWARD. WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN? SUBMISSION? YES. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THE ORIGINAL PLOT WAS SUBMITTED, CHERYL? I DON'T HAVE THE APPLICATION OKAY, RIGHT. SO THEY'VE HAD TIME IT WAS ON THE JULY. I MEAN, IT WAS ON THE JUNE AGENDA FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION. AND THE SURVEY WAS NOT RESPONDED BACK TO THEM AS THE ISSUE OKAY, THEIR SURVEY IS NOT RESPONDING BACK TO THE APPLICANT. SO YOU'VE GOT REALLY NOTHING NEW IN THE PAST 30 DAYS? NO, SIR. SO IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S THE APPLICANT'S FAULT IT'S THEIR SURVEYOR'S FAULT THAT'S WHAT THE DEAL SEEMS TO BE. SO I HATE TO PUNISH THEM, BUT. NO. SO I'M JUST MAKING THAT OBSERVATION SOMETIMES IT'S THE APPLICANT'S NOT TERRIBLY RESPONSIVE TO US. AND IN THAT CASE, I WOULDN'T MIND SAYING WE'LL THROW IT OUT AND THEY CAN RESUBMIT. I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUNISH THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST NOT YET [LAUGHTER]. YEAH, I THOUGHT PAM SAID SHE HAD SOME CONCERN THAT THEY MIGHT NOT MAKE THE NEXT 30 DAYS, I DON'T KNOW. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY RESPONSE FROM THE SURVEYOR, IT'S ALWAYS THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY DON'T PROVIDE WHAT WE NEED. AND IN THAT CASE STAFF WOULDN'T RECOMMEND A 30 DAY EXTENSION, WE WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED ON APRIL 22ND. AND SO WE'VE HAD THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE IT HAS BEEN FOR ONE 30 DAY EXTENSION. THIS IS THE SECOND 30 DAY EXTENSION. I MEAN I'M SORRY WE DON'T STILL THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING. IT DEPENDS IF THEIR SURVEYOR IS THERE ANY ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARTICULAR SURVEYOR ? AND HAD A LONG HISTORY OF THIS SURVEY OR NOT BEING ABLE TO DO? OKAY. IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S INSURMOUNTABLE OR IS IT JUST A SIMPLE DOCUMENTATION ISSUE? SURVEYOR SUBMITTED A SURVEY WITH A PLAT. OH, WELL THAT'S NOT YEAH, THOSE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. RIGHT. SO YEAH, THERE'S MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH IT. BUT THE MAIN THING WAS THAT THEY SUBMITTED A SURVEY FOR THE PLAT AND OF COURSE THE CLOSURE REPORT IS NOT CLOSING AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THOSE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. DO WE KNOW WHETHER THEY HAVE CONSIDERED THE OPTION OF HIRING A DIFFERENT SURVEYOR LOCALLY? WE'VE GIVEN THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS COMMISSIONERS? OKAY HEARING NONE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT OR DENY OR RECOMMEND. YOU CAN EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 30 DAY EXTENSION, DENIAL OF THE 30 DAY EXTENSION, OR DENY THE PLAT. I WOULD OFFER A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 30 DAY EXTENSION. WE JUST APPROVE IT THAT'S CORRECT. WE DON'T HAVE TO RIGHT. WE RECOMMEND. I MEAN, WE EITHER APPROVE THE 30 DAYS OR WE DENY THE 30 DAYS. CORRECT. THOSE ARE I'LL SECOND . I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. GOING ON NOW TO ITEM 3. [ITEM 3: ***Discussion of front yard fences and permitted materials] SO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM THAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU FOR FENCES AND FRONT YARDS. ARE WE STILL IN PUBLIC? IS THIS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM? NO. OKAY. NO, SIR IT IS JUST A DISCUSSION, ITEM. I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH TALKING WITH CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING FOR FRONT YARD FENCES. AND WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT OUR ORDINANCES ON THAT, IT'S A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION AS TO WHAT IS ADOPTED AS [00:10:05] TO WHAT OFFENSES CAN BE ALLOWED. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT HERE IN JUST A SECOND. SO WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THIS WITH CITY COUNCIL TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR DESIRE AND DIRECTION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO IS ON THIS AND SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE ADOPTED WITH A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT WAS MOVED FORWARD AND APPROVED IN 2021 BASICALLY ALLOWS CERTAIN FRONT YARD FENCES. IF YOU HAVE A LOT WITH MULTIPLE STREET FRONTAGE, IF IT'S UNPLATTED SIDE YARDS AND IT PROVIDES FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND A SETBACK OF TEN FOOT FROM THE STREET AND FOUR OR FIVE FOOT FROM SIDEWALKS. THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT 2021 CODE AMENDMENT FOR FRONT YARD FENCES LOOKS LIKE. AND SO WHENEVER WE STARTED BREAKING THIS DOWN AND LOOKING AT THIS, WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS, IT SAYS THAT EXCEPT ON SHOPS, LOTS WITH MULTIPLE STREET FRONTAGES IN WHICH A SIDE YARD HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A PLAT, IN SUCH INSTANCES, NO FENCE OR WALL GREATER THAN SIX FEET SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD, FACING A PUBLIC STREET TO WHICH A RESIDENTIAL LOT IS ADDRESSED. SO IT ALLOWS FOR FRONT YARD FENCES, BUT ONLY FOR CORNER LOTS, AND THAT SIX FOOT CAN CREATE AN ISSUE OFF OF THERE. SO IN LOOKING AT THIS, WE CAME UP WITH SOME INFORMATION TO TAKE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO GAUGE THEIR DIRECTION, THAT THEY'D LIKE TO GO ON THIS AND BASICALLY GAVE THEM THE OPTIONS THAT WE SAW MOVING FORWARD, WHICH WAS TO MAINTAIN THAT CURRENT ORDINANCE AS IT IS, TO PROHIBIT FRONT YARD FENCES OR TO REVISE THAT REGULATION FOR FRONT YARD FENCES. AND SO AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT CITY COUNCIL WE LOOKED AT THIS AND SAID YOU KNOW, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE THESE FRONT YARD FENCES? THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. AND SO WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL DIFFERENT REGULATIONS ON THERE AND PROVIDED SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR HEIGHT EASEMENTS AND MATERIALS. AND SO THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH ON THAT. AND CITY COUNCIL, THE REGULATIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE WAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 36IN IN THE FRONT YARD, MAINTAINING 50% VISIBILITY THROUGH THAT FENCE SO THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH IT. IF SOMEONE'S COMING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, PULLING OR DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, BE ABLE TO SEE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY. MATERIALS, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON MATERIALS, AND WILL STILL BE WORKING THROUGH THAT AS WE REVISE THIS ORDINANCE. CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS DECIDED THAT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO SEE IN FRONT YARDS ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL GRADE FENCING SUCH AS GOAT FENCE OR HOG PANELS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE DO HAVE SOME OF THOSE IN CERTAIN PLACES IN TOWN, AND WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE ON THEM. WE'D LIKE TO MAINTAIN SETBACKS A MINIMUM OF 10' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT LESS THAN 5' BEHIND A SIDEWALK, BUT ALSO BEHIND ANY EASEMENTS THROUGH IN THAT FRONT YARD. SO IF YOU HAVE A UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S IN YOUR FRONT YARD, IT WOULD BE BEHIND THAT. MOST UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE RIGHT AROUND TEN FOOT ALONG THOSE AND SO WE'D MOVE THAT FENCE BACK BEHIND THERE. WITH THAT, WE ARE WORKING ON A REVISION TO THIS ZONING ORDINANCE. SO IT WILL BE COMING BACK BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I'M SORRY, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. WITH THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU HAD ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR THOUGHTS MOVING FORWARD? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. THE DEFINITION PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF A FRONT YARD FENCE. YES, SIR. HOW ARE WE DEFINING THAT? BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE A FENCE THAT FACES THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY SORRY, I FORGET THAT. BUT IT'S ALL THE WAY BACK. IT COMES OFF THE CORNER OF MY HOUSE, OVER TO MY SIDE BUT IT'S A FRONT FACING FENCE. YES. SO THAT'S SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT IN THE DEFINITIONS? IT WOULD BE ANY FENCE THAT IS BUILT IN FRONT OF THE FRONT BUILD LINE OF YOUR PROPERTY. SO FROM THE FRONT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE OF YOUR HOUSE FORWARD TO THE STREET. [00:15:04] OKAY, I HAVE A THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. YES SIR. I MEAN, LIKE, AGAIN, MY HOUSE HAS GOT A, I THINK, A 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET TO HAVE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. YES, SIR. IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME THAT THAT LINE WOULD BE IDENTIFIED, RATHER THAN WHERE THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY BUILT. IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT, FOR WHATEVER REASON BUILDS THEIR HOUSE 30FT FROM THE STREET WHEN THEIR ONLY REQUIREMENT IS 25 AND THEIR SIDE YARD GOES UP FIVE FEET FROM THE HOUSE AND OVER AND BACK, YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL 25FT WHERE THE HOUSE COULD BE. SO I WOULD THINK THAT THE BETTER DEFINITION, RATHER THAN SAY, WHERE THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED, I MEAN, MINE IS ACTUALLY A FEW INCHES. YOU KNOW, IT COMES OFF THE CORNER, IT GOES A FEW INCHES TO GO OVER TO THE SIDE. SO I THINK FROM THE ACTUAL NOT THE CONSTRUCTION LAND, BUT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. 25 FOOT AND SO WHAT WE LOOKED AT WAS WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A FRONT YARD IS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S WHERE THAT IS YOUR FRONT YARD BEGINS AT YOUR FRONT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. WHO SAYS? THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DEFINITIONS. I DON'T SHARE I MEAN, I THINK THE WAY I GUESS THE COUNCIL HAS PROPOSED IT , IT WOULD BE MY VIEW AS WELL. IT SHOULD COME OFF AN ARCHITECTURAL PART OF THE HOUSE NOT NECESSARILY THE SETBACK. ALRIGHT. YEAH. THAT'S, RIGHT NOW, THAT'S THE FRONT YARD IS DEFINED AS THE FRONT, ANYTHING FROM THE FRONT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE OF YOUR HOUSE OUT WOULD BE CONSIDERED YOUR FRONT YARD. I HAVE. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. 50% MEANS THAT YOU JUST BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH 50% OF IT. CORRECT IF YOU HAD A TWO BY SIX PICKET MATERIAL, IT WOULD BE A SIX INCH PICKET. EXACTLY. SIX INCH OF OPEN SPACE. IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO A MASONRY WALL? THEY WOULD HAVE TO BECOME CREATIVE IN THAT. YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'VE DRIVEN THROUGH SOME NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE MASONRY WALLS LOOK REALLY, REALLY NICE. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE WOULD NOT. WELL, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WHAT'S THAT? COULD YOU PERMIT IT IF IT WAS? A MASONRY WALL, IF IT WAS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S A REASONABLE? HIGHER THAN. WE DO HAVE A SECTION IN THERE THAT WE'VE STARTED WORKING ON ON THIS. AND IT DID ADD FOR A SIX INCH CONCRETE FOOTING THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. ABSOLUTELY. I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO THINK THROUGH THAT. MAYBE WE COULD PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR. RAIL FENCES AREN'T PRECLUDED AT ALL? NO. OKAY. NO, IT WOULD BE A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING ON THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM IT WOULD BE THE CHAIN LINK FENCES OR AGRICULTURAL GRADE FENCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. YEAH I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING FRONT YARD FENCES. I THINK WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS SUGGESTED AND WORKED THROUGH IS GREAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH JUST MAKE SURE THEY THOUGHT OF IT IF WE KEEP IT BELOW A CERTAIN HEIGHT, BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR A MASONRY FENCE. CAN I AT LEAST RECOMMEND? BACK TO THE ISSUE I WAS TALKING ABOUT INITIALLY ABOUT IT COMING OFF OF A WHAT'S THE TERMINOLOGY? CONSTRUCTION. THE SETBACK? YES. OR FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE? ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT NOMINAL, LIKE SIX INCHES CLOSER TO THE STREAM THAN THE NEAREST FEATURE, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING PITCHES AND TYING ON TO A HOUSE, SOMETIMES YOU'VE GOT TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO PUT A JUST SOME NOMINAL AMOUNT LIKE THAT SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T GET IN TROUBLE BECAUSE THEY BUILD A FENCE THAT STICKS OUT THIS MUCH FROM THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE BEFORE IT GOES OVER TO THE SIDELINE THAT WOULD BE. I THINK THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THAT, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT [00:20:01] IF THEY BUILT A FENCE TO FENCE OFF THEIR SIDE YARD, BUT IT WAS BUILT AT OR IN FRONT OF, JUST IN FRONT OF. JUST IN FRONT OF THE MASONRY. YEAH. I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT WITH OUR CURRENT STAFF THAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON THAT. BUT I CAN SEE WHERE WE CAN'T PLAN FOR CURRENT STAFF WE HAVE TO PLAN FOR FUTURE. EXACTLY. SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THAT. LET ME PLAY WITH SOME LANGUAGE ON THAT BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK TO YOU. WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE THIS BACK BEFORE YOU ON THE 5TH OF AUGUST. WHENEVER WE HAVE YOUR REGULAR NEXT MEETING. WE WOULD BRING BEFORE YOU A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THIS ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, THIS SECTION ALSO COVERS SCREENING AND BUFFERING. AND WE HAVE SOME CHANGES THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE BROUGHT FORWARD ON THAT TO PROVIDE FOR SOME MORE STAFF APPROVAL OF SOME OF THE BUFFERING BETWEEN PROPERTIES. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION . IF SOMEBODY WANTED A VARIANCE AROUND LIKE LET'S SAY WE JUST LEFT IT AS IS AND MASON WANTED TO BUILD HIS FENCE THE WAY HE WANTED TO DO. COULD HE COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE? ABSOLUTELY THAT WAS I COULD BUT THERE WAS A THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT LET THE CITY COUNCIL KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF WE PROHIBIT FRONT YARD FENCES, SOMEONE COULD REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM THAT AND BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WELL, I THINK THAT'S GOOD RIGHT LOOKING SPECIAL, MAYBE THEY HAVE A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY ALL RIGHT. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IT ONLY APPLIES TO CORNER LOTS? YES, SIR. A NON CORNER LOT IS NOT ADDRESSED? IT IS NOT. WELL YEAH THAT IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. YES, SIR. THAT'S WHY WE, ONCE WE FOUND THIS, AND LISA WAS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT FOUND WHERE THIS WAS AT, AND DID NOT I WAS NOT EXPECTING THAT THAT DAY WHEN SHE BROUGHT THIS TO MY ATTENTION AND WELL, OUR ORDINANCE DOES SAY THAT, DOESN'T IT? [LAUGHTER]. SO THAT'S WHY WE STARTED ON THIS AS SOON AS WE FIGURED OUT THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM HERE AND SO. I DO AGREE WITH WILL THOUGH, THAT A LOW MASONRY WALL CAN ADD, YOU KNOW, UP TO TWO FEET CAN BE A LOT OF VALUE, VERY ATTRACTIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S NO REASON TO PROHIBIT THAT, I WOULDN'T THINK. WE'VE GOT SOME FOLKS THAT ARE WORKING THROUGH SOME FLOODING ISSUES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE WANTING TO BUILD THESE LOW WALLS IN THEIR FRONT YARD, WHICH ARE SOLID. SO IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF EXCEPTION FOR THAT AT A CERTAIN HEIGHT. AND SO WE JUST GOT TO COME UP WITH THAT HEIGHT AND BRING IT FORWARD. OF COURSE, WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE ANY CHANGES AS WE BRING IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND THEN ON TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE RECOMMEND OR CHANGES TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. BUT WE JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS BEFORE YOU SO THAT YOU'D BE THINKING ABOUT IT KNOW THAT IT'S ON THE HORIZON. LOOK AT BEING ABLE TO LOOK AT IT BY THE NEXT MEETING, SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION. MAYBE IT'S OKAY IN YOUR MIND, BUT MAYBE YOU NEED TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RETAINING WALL VERSUS AN ACTUAL YES. MASONRY FENCE OKAY MASONRY WALL. WAYNE, WHO IS WE? THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. OKAY YEAH. THERE'S SEVERAL OF US THAT WORK THROUGH THAT. LISA HAS ALREADY STARTED WORKING ON THE ORDINANCE THAT GOES THROUGH IT. I'M REVIEWING WHAT SHE'S GOT IN THERE RIGHT NOW. WE'LL GET TOGETHER IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS AND START. I ASSUME, ALSO CONSULTED WITH PAM WITH REGARD TO TERMINOLOGY. IT WILL GO TO PAM ALSO, AND SHE'S BEEN VERY INVOLVED WITH THIS. AS A MATTER OF FACT IT WAS ONE OF HER RECOMMENDATIONS TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AHEAD OF TIME. NOW EXISTING FENCES ARE THEY GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED? THEY WOULD BE, YES. YES. OKAY. WHAT'S NEXT [00:25:04] ON THE AGENDA? WHAT WAS THAT YET? ITEM FOUR, THANK YOU WAYNE [ITEM 4: Discussion of future agenda, new business items, staff requests, and potential specialcalled meeting and/or workshop requests: a. As of the agenda posting, the August 5, 2025, meeting currently has three (3) Planning applications. The submittal deadline is July 7, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. ] I THINK [LAUGHTER]. SO RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON THE NEXT AGENDA THAT COULD THAT'S SUBJECT TO CHANGE. SUBMITTAL DEADLINES NOT TILL MONDAY. LATE JULY. PARDON YES AND ANOTHER ONE LATE JULY UNLESS THEY WITHDRAW IT. YEP DO NOT MAKE ANY PROGRESS. OTHER COMMISSIONERS Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE MEETING? OKAY HEARING NONE THEN WE'RE CLOSING THE P&Z MEETING AT 6:00 PM. MEETING IS ADJOURNED. A FEVER GAME IS STARTING * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.