Dec 02, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission

[CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM]

[00:00:06]

GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

IT IS TUESDAY, DECEMBER THE 2ND. IT IS 5:30 P.M.

[ITEM 1: Consider and take appropriate action regarding the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 5, 2025.]

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? HEARING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT OR DENY.

I MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT. OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO ACCEPT FROM COMMISSIONER EILEEN CROSS.

I NEED A SECOND. SECOND. GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. OKAY, NOW, ITEM NUMBER 2, WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING INTO A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[ITEM 2: RP-25-0013 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a replat application for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Delgado Place, being a replat of Lot 5, Block 11, Devereux Addition, portion of Lot 4, Block 10, Devereux Addition, abandoned portion Elm Street, abandoned portion alley in the Devereux addition, located in the City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. (505 N Lane Street – Rogelio Delgado) ]

IT IS NOW 5:32. LISA. GOOD EVENING. LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

I'D LIKE TO ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 2. REPLAT-25-0013. 505 NORTH LANE STREET.

IT CAN BE LEGALLY PLATTED. IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

THEY ARE SPLITTING THIS PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS.

SO IT WILL REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A NON-CONFORMING SETBACK ON THE EXISTING DUPLEX ON THE NORTH LOT, AND IT WILL REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROPOSING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACK STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTH LOT, AND THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO MINIMUM STANDARDS TO BE HABITABLE.

SO IT'S .81 ACRES. IT HAS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AND EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH THEY'RE WISHING TO CONVERT INTO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING, AND THEN AN EXISTING DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON THE NORTH LOT.

THESE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE CONDITIONS. THIS IS FROM GOOGLE EARTH.

SO THINGS COULD HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE STRUCTURES ARE STILL THERE.

SO WE DID NOTIFY 16 RESIDENTS AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES AS OF THE 26TH WHEN THIS WAS PUBLISHED.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RP-25-0013.

013, CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING WHICH IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST, WHICH WILL BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AT THE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR US? AND WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

CAN YOU TURN THAT BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SCREEN? YEAH, LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE. YEAH.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 5:35 COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? THE HOUSE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. WILL THEY HAVE ENOUGH ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY ON THAT DRIVEWAY? YES. OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PRETTY NARROW IN THE SURVEY.

GET BACK TO THE SURVEY. SORRY. YEAH. THEY SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH.

YES, SIR. OKAY. ARE THE GREEN LINES ON HERE LIKE EXISTING GIS? WE DON'T KNOW. SO THE GREEN LINES THAT ARE ON THE AERIAL, IT SHOWS THAT SPLIT ALREADY INTO TWO LOTS.

WE DON'T KNOW WHY WISE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER SHOWS IT THAT WAY, OR APPRAISAL DISTRICT SHOWS IT THAT WAY.

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS CAME IN, THE RESEARCH SHOWED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN PLATTED.

SO ALL OF THE RESEARCH BY THE SURVEYOR SHOWED IT HAD NOT BEEN PLATTED.

SO THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO LOTS.

SO. THERE'S NO NON-CONFORMING SIDE OR FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR THE SOUTH LOT.

ALL THOSE STRUCTURES ARE IN COMPLIANCE. THE ONLY NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IS THE NORTH LOT.

THAT DUPLEX, WHICH HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 90S, HAS AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK.

OKAY. MY CONCERN AND CONFUSION IS ALSO THE GREEN LINES THAT WILL'S TALKING ABOUT.

ARE YOU SAYING THOSE GREEN LINES COME FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT?

[00:05:04]

NO, SIR. THE PROPERTY LINES ARE DRAWN ON THE SURVEY.

OKAY. THAT'S THE LEGAL PROPERTY LINES. THESE ARE JUST DRAWN BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS SOME COORDINATES.

OKAY. GREEN PENCIL. YEAH. AND A RULER. IN MOST CASES, THEY ARE THE PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE RECORDED.

HOWEVER, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE COULD NOT FIND ANY INSTANCE WHERE THIS LOT HAD EVER BEEN SPLIT.

WELL, I NOTICED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE, THE GREEN LINE COCKS UP SO THAT THE LITTLE BUILDING IN THE BACK IS NOT PROTRUDING BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE.

THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THEN.

THOSE BUILDINGS ARE GONE NOW. IF THEY'RE NOT GONE NOW, THEY WILL BE GONE.

OKAY, SO THERE IS NO PROTRUSION. CORRECT. OKAY.

THAT IS CORRECT. AM I CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE PROCESS OF PLATTING THIS WILL CORRECT THE GIS? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY, SO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WILL HAVE ACCURATE GREEN.

THEY WILL HAVE. ONCE THE PLAT IS RECORDED THEY'LL HAVE THE ACCURATE LOT LINE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEFORE BUT THIS IS THE DEVEREAUX EDITION, SO IT'S PRETTY OLD.

YES. OKAY. THAT IS CORRECT. WILL THEY BE REQUIRED TO DO CURBS AND GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS WITH REPLAT.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STATING THAT THEY WILL.

OKAY. YEAH. IT WOULD BE UNUSUAL THERE. OH THAT'S COMING.

YEAH. IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THERE ARE CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALKS ON ANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AROUND HERE, SO NORMALLY THEY DON'T REQUIRE IT, IF THERE'S NONE ADJACENT TO IT OR AROUND IT.

YEAH. I DON'T THINK. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE HOUSE? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR CURBS.

I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE AERIAL. SO GENERALLY THE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IS PART OF YOUR BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

THERE'S NO BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S BEING PULLED ON THIS TO CONSTRUCT ANYTHING NEW.

THEY'RE GOING TO REHAB AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE.

THEY'RE NOT BUILDING A NEW HOUSE OR DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ON THIS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. TURN THAT BACK. THERE, RIGHT THERE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND OR DENY APPROVAL OF RP-25-0013 CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE SUP BY P&Z AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. SO MOVED. OKAY, I'VE GOT A VOTE TO APPROVE OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE.

I'LL NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

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

WE'RE GOING ON TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER 3.

[ITEM 3: RP-25-0016 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a request to Replat Lot 2R, Block 17, South Decatur Addition, and being a replat of Lot 2, and part of Lot 3, Block 17, South Decatur Addition, to the City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas. (801 S Trenchard Street – Jorge Alberto Garcia Ramirez)]

LISA. YES, SIR. LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD BY REFERENCE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

SO AGAIN WE HAVE ANOTHER REPLAT REQUEST FOR 801 SOUTH TRENCHARD STREET.

IT CAN BE LEGALLY PLATTED. IT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

THERE'S NO NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED HERE. IT WILL REQUIRE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ON THE EXISTING PORCH ON THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE CARPORT. THOSE ARE RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS REPLAT AND WILL BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AT THE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING.

SO IT'S 0.344 ACRES. IT'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS ON THE FRONT OF THAT STRUCTURE AND FOR THE EXISTING CARPORT STRUCTURE.

AND THAT, AGAIN, IS RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS PROCESS.

18 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED. WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES AS OF NOVEMBER 26TH, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RP-25-0016 CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

I'LL LEAVE THAT UP. YES, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING MEETING.

IT IS NOW 5:41. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS?

[00:10:08]

AND IN ORDER TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR IT, THEY HAVE TO REPLAT THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN PLATTED, AND THEN WE FOUND THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING FRONT SETBACK ON THE FRONT PORCH STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE AS WELL.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND OR DENY APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL ON RP-25-0016, CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

SO MOVED. OKAY, I'VE GOT A VOTE TO APPROVE OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF.

I NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

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

GOING TO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER 4. WE'RE GOING BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARING.

[ITEM 4: SUP-25-0005 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance to allow a Detached Accessory Dwelling in an SF-2, Single-Family Residential Zoning District, on approximately 0.403 acres of land located at 505 N Lane Street, Decatur, Texas. (505 N Lane Street – Rogelio Delgado) Continued from the November 5, 2025, meeting.]

WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO THIS IS THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE 505 NORTH LANE STREET FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

YOU HEARD THE REPLAT JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. SO ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.2.5 ALLOWS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

SO AGAIN, THE REPLAT IS IN PROCESS. THE PROPERTY´S ZONED SF-2.

IT IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. THEY'RE NOT BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE.

AND THE EXISTING LAND USE IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO NO DEVIATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO THIS EXISTING STRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, IT WILL REQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS TO BECOME HABITABLE, AND SO PROPER BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY BODY INHABITING THE STRUCTURE. 16 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SUP-25-0005, WITH THE CONDITION THAT PROPER BUILDING PERMITS ARE OBTAINED AND INSPECTIONS ARE APPROVED.

THANK YOU, LISA. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? OKAY. HEARING NONE.

THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 5:44 COMMISSIONERS? SO I GUESS FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT JOHN HAS ASKED, DOES THAT MEAN WHEN THE PERMITS ARE PULLED THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE CURB AND GUTTER? NO, BECAUSE IT'S.

SO IF YOU EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT OR IF IT'S YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING NEW, THEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER IT.

AND THERE ARE NEW SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED THAT ADDRESS CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK WHERE PUBLIC WORKS IS ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S A STAFF DECISION. YES.

YEAH, I LIKE THAT BETTER, ANYWAY. I HAVE A QUESTION.

ARE THERE TWO BUILDINGS ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT? YES, MA'AM. THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE.

AND THEN THIS IS THE LITTLE ACCESSORY BUILDING IN THE BACK.

THE ONE TO THE RIGHT IS THAT EXISTING DUPLEX THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE NORTH LOT WITH THE REPLAT.

I SEE IT, I JUST WONDERED IF BOTH WILL HAVE FAMILIES IN THEM.

BOTH BUILDINGS. SO BOTH BUILDINGS ON THE LEFT ARE PROPOSED TO HAVE HABITANTS OR, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PROPOSED TO BE DWELLINGS. THE ONE IS THE PRIMARY SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE.

THE ONE CLOSEST TO THE FRONT, THE ONE IN THE VERY BACK IS JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NOW.

THEY'RE GOING TO CONVERT IT TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE IT. PARDON ME? THEY HAVE PLUMBING IN BOTH HOUSES? THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT HABITABLE. YES, MA'AM.

YES, MA'AM. WE'LL HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR HABITABILITY.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. HEARING NONE. THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF

[00:15:04]

SO MOVED, I'LL MAKE THAT. OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE.

I DO NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EILEEN CROSS.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. MOVING INTO PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5.

[ITEM 5: SUP-25-0006 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance to amend Appendix “B,” “Zoning” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Decatur, to grant a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow a convenience store with gasoline sales, in a Restricted Business (C-1) Zoning District, on an approximate 0.55-acre tract of land being legally described as Lot 15R, Block 1, Lipsey Addition, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, also known as 2806 S FM 51. (Decatur Gas Station and Convenience Store)]

LISA. GOOD EVENING. LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR 2806 SOUTH FM 51.

THEY ARE REQUESTING A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GASOLINE SALES IN A RESTRICTED BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS A C-1 DISTRICT, AND THAT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

AGAIN THE ZONING CODE ALLOWS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THE REPLAT IS IN PROCESS ON THIS. PLANNING AND ZONING HEARD IT ON THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

IT WILL BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 22ND.

THE PROPERTY ZONED C-1 RESTRICTED BUSINESS. THIS PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY HAD A CONVENIENCE STORE ON IT BETWEEN, SAY, 1995 AND 2014, BASED ON THE AERIALS AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT I GATHERED FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

THE EXISTING LAND USE IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, WHICH ALLOWS THE PRIMARY LAND USE OF RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE NOTIFIED NINE RESIDENTS AND FOUR PROPERTY OWNERS WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES.

BOTH WERE OPPOSED. ONLY ONE PROPERTY FELL WITHIN THE 200 FOOT ZONE THAT REPRESENTED 8.97%.

THE REASONS THAT THEY LISTED WERE DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY, NOISE, TRAFFIC LIGHTS, DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES AND A FEW OTHERS THAT I COULDN'T FIT ON THERE.

SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT IS A PERMITTED USE WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THEREFORE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 25-0006.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION? NOT YET. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? ALAN, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? YES I DO.

COME RIGHT ON UP. AND IF YOU WOULD, NAME AND ADDRESS.

ALAN ARNOLD. I LIVE AT 3002 SOUTH FM 51, WHICH IS JUST A BLOCK NORTH.

ACTUALLY, ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT NORTH. I'VE JUST BUILT A HOUSE THERE OVER $400,000. FOR THAT REASON, I OBJECT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE TO BE COMING IN IN THAT AREA.

ALSO, I UNDERSTAND THE USE PERMIT THAT YOU'RE BEING REQUESTED WILL ALLOW THEM TO SELL LIQUOR, THAT LIQUOR LICENSE AND A BEER LICENSE. I'M NOT SURE I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

QUESTIONS FOR COUNSEL? DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER ARNOLD? OKAY. WELL, ONE OTHER OBJECTION I HAVE IS THAT I HAVE GRANDKIDS AND GRANDKIDS WILL BE COMING AND VISITING FROM TIME TO TIME, AND WE'VE GOT ENOUGH TRAFFIC ON 51 AT THAT POINT THAT IT'S REAL OFFENSIVE TO BRING ANY MORE IN, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'VE BEEN THERE VISITING WITH SOMEBODY AT THE P&Z OR THE CONVENIENCE STORE, AND THEY'RE HALFWAY LIT UP WHEN THEY LEAVE. SO THAT IS MY OBJECTION.

I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY A REASONABLE, BASICALLY, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? NANCY? OH. NAME AND ADDRESS. NANCY ARNOLD. AND MY ADDRESS IS 3004 FM 51 SOUTH.

[00:20:02]

MY REASON IS, WHILE I SUPPORT A GAS STATION, WE DEFINITELY NEED ONE ON OUR SIDE OF TOWN.

I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE RIGHT AFTER CASA TORRES.

AND THE REASON I THINK THAT IS BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC FLOW IS ALREADY VERY, VERY, VERY POOR, TURNING INTO CASA TORRES. SO TO THEN DOUBLE UP ON THAT AND THEN TURN INTO THE GAS STATION WHERE THEY ALSO SELL LIQUOR, ESPECIALLY IN THE PROXIMITY OF LIPSEY ADDITION, IT DEFINITELY IS A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DEFINITELY OPPOSE.

THANK YOU FOR HEARING. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MRS. ARNOLD? OKAY. THANK YOU, NANCY. I WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT IN CONSIDERING THESE SORTS OF REQUESTS, YOU ARE BOUND BY LAW TO CONSIDER THE USE, NOT THE USER.

AND SO YOU CAN CONSIDER NEUTRAL FACTORS SUCH AS TRAFFIC, BUT OTHER FACTORS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YES, SIR. JOHN KACHER, WE OWN THE OFFICE THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THIS ADDRESS.

ADDRESS? OH, 2804 SOUTH FM 51. THANK YOU, JOHN.

AND I GOT THIS LETTER. I WAS HERE MAYBE A YEAR AGO, AND WE HAD PLANS AND EVERYTHING FOR THIS CONVENIENCE STORE.

AT THE TIME, THEY WERE ASKING FOR VARIANCES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING SPOTS FOR THE SIZE BUILDING THEY WERE GOING TO PUT ON THERE.

IT WAS 4500 SQUARE SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING. AND ANYWAY, IT REQUIRED SOME STUFF, AND I HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING ELSE, BUT IT WAS TABLED THAT NIGHT. YOU KNOW, MYSELF AND A COUPLE OTHERS TALKED ABOUT, AND MY CONCERN IS PRIMARILY PARKING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OUR LOT´S RIGHT NEXT TO THAT. AND IT HAS A, A DELI AND A LITTLE RESTAURANT I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT ALL.

AND JUST LOOKING AT THAT DEAL, THE VARIANCE WAS LETTING THEM PUT A BIGGER BUILDING.

BUT NOBODY APPROVED. HAS IT ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, OR.

I MAY NOT KNOW FOR SURE WE CAN ANSWER. OH, OKAY.

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK WITH A SMALLER FOOT OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO, BUT I JUST. AND SO I GUESS I'M HEY, I'M JUST A CASUAL OBSERVER, OKAY? MAYBE THEY'VE ALREADY APPROVED THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU JOHN.

THAT'S OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? SO THIS WAS A APPROVED, IT WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS A YEAR AND A HALF OR SO AGO.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE BACK. THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN OVER THE PARKING AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.

THEY WENT BACK, THEY REDESIGNED SOME OF THIS.

THEY DO HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT. THEY DO HAVE A LARGER PARKING FOOTPRINT FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THIS LOCATION.

IT WENT DORMANT THERE FOR A WHILE DURING THIS REDESIGN PHASE.

AND THAT'S WHY EVERYTHING HAD COME BACK FOR APPROVAL FOR THE REPLAT AND GOING THROUGH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS AGAIN.

THIS HAD ALL BEEN APPROVED AT ONE POINT. THEY HAD IT APPROVED FOR THE SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

IT DID COME BACK. WE DID TABLE IT AT THAT TIME.

THEY CAME BACK WITH A REDESIGN AND IT WENT THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS AT THAT TIME.

HOWEVER, WHAT HAPPENED IS THEY PUT IT ON THE SHELF BECAUSE THEY WERE WAITING ON TXDOT AND THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN THAT WAS IN PLACE WITH TXDOT. DURING THAT TIME, EVERYTHING EXPIRED ON WHAT THEY HAD SUBMITTED.

SO NOW THEY'RE STARTING OVER AGAIN, BASICALLY COMING BACK IN WITH THE SAME PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED TO BEGIN WITH ON THIS.

JOHN, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? COME ON UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. YOU CAN TELL ME IF I'M OFF ON THIS.

WHEN WE DID THIS BEFORE, THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO ME.

BECAUSE TXDOT, THEY HAD TO BE 130 OR 60FT FROM THE DEAL, WHICH PUT THEM ON MY LOT AND WANTED ME TO GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO DRIVE THROUGH MY LOT INTO THE INTO THE GAS STATION. YOU MAY. YES. AND THEN, BUT I AND I THOUGHT, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE A CONVENIENCE STORE PERMISSION JUST TO DRIVE. IN FACT, IF IT COMES IN, I'LL HAVE TO DO CURBS OR SOMETHING TO CURB A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE, WAS DOING THAT. AND THE REASON, UNLESS THEY'VE CHANGED SOMETHING, THE TURN IN IS TOO CLOSE TO THAT STOP SIGN.

THEY WON'T LET YOU. I FORGOT WHAT IT WAS. SO THAT'S THAT IS REALLY MY CONCERN, YOU KNOW, WITH THE WHOLE THING IS THE PARKING AND THEN HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET IN THERE

[00:25:07]

YES, SIR, SO.

YEAH. THAT'S THE NEW SITE PLAN, AND I'LL.

CAN WE PUT EXHIBIT THREE ON THE SCREEN? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO YOU NOT HAVE IT? IS THAT WHAT THAT IS? CAN'T TELL EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES.

WHAT STREET IS THIS? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M GUESSING.

EXHIBIT THREE IS UP ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU.

NO, THAT SHOULD BE GOOD.

SO MAYBE AFTER THE MEETING'S OVER, Y'ALL CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? CAN I HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? CAN I ASK ONE REAL QUICK QUESTION? NO, NOT YET. ALL RIGHT. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN ISSUE I'D LIKE TO RESOLVE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, AFTER YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. TAKING A SHORT RECESS.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW.

IT IS 6:00, STRAIGHT UP AND DOWN. AND WE'RE GOING TO EXCUSE OURSELVES FOR JUST A MOMENT.

WANT TO START?. SOMETHING. ONLY IN YOUR PLAN. RIGHT THERE. SOMETHING THAT I JUST DISCOVERED THAT I WAS CONFUSED BY THAT MAY SAVE SOME TIME, THAT YOU MAY HAVE THE SAME CONFUSION IS, ON THE NEXT EXHIBIT THREE.

ONE OF THEM IS AN ARCHITECTURAL PLAN AND THE OTHER ONE IS A CIVIL SITE PLAN.

BUT UPON CLOSE INSPECTION, THEY DO MIRROR EACH OTHER.

THEY'RE JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN PRESENTATION.

WHERE IS YOUR PROPERTY IN TEXT OF THIS PICTURE IS ON, THE TOP OF THE PICTURE WHERE THAT DRIVEWAY IS? YEAH.

WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED? THIS IS FOR STAFF, I GUESS.

[00:30:04]

IF HE HASN'T GRANTED ANY CROSS ACCESS, THEY CANNOT ACCESS HIS PROPERTY.

IF HE HASN'T GRANTED ANY CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER, THEN NO, THEY CANNOT BUILD ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.

THEY CAN'T BUILD A DRIVEWAY OR ANY INGRESS EGRESS.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A WRITTEN RECORDED DOCUMENT.

OKAY. THEIR INGRESS EGRESS IS GOING TO BE OFF OF JOHN STREET AND OFF OF FM 51.

OKAY. 51. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THERE WAS A CONVENIENCE STORE HERE. YES.

SEVERAL YEARS BACK, MY MEMORY. DID IT BURN DOWN? I THINK SO. THAT'S WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS RELAYED TO ME, THAT IT HAD A FIRE AND THEN WAS DEMOLISHED.

OKAY. WE HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY VARIANCES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED OR UNDER WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY.

FOR THIS PROJECT, THERE HAS BEEN NO VARIANCE.

AGAIN, BACK, I THINK IN 2023 THEY HAD REQUESTED IT.

THEY CAME BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, REDESIGNED THE BUILDING TO MAKE IT SMALLER SO THEY WOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING ON SITE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE 12 PUMPS ON HERE, IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN IT'S STILL A GAS STATION, CORRECT? STILL A GAS STATION.

I DIDN'T SEE THE DOTS, SO I'M ASSUMING THERE ARE PUMPS ON THE SITE PLAN.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S. NO, NO, I THINK THERE'S THREE PUMPS.

THREE ISLANDS. OKAY. OR JUST. SO THAT'S THE SAME AS WHAT WAS BEFORE, RIGHT? OR DO WE KNOW. MULTIPLE SPEAKERS. WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.

OKAY. YEAH.

BUT I DO REMEMBER COMING THROUGH, LOOKING THROUGH SOME OF THIS.

THAT WAS WHAT WAS TABLED WAS THEY WERE ASKING FOR THAT VARIANCE FROM THE FROM THE PARKING JUST FOR PARKING.

AND IT WAS TABLED AND THEY WENT BACK AND THEY REDESIGNED THEIR SITE PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. THIS IS JUST AN SUP FOR. WELL, THE HISTORIAN CAN PROBABLY GIVE YOU MORE.

SO CHERYL, WHO IS OUR ASSISTANT PLANNER HAS SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION.

THERE WERE FOUR PUMPS THAT WERE PLANNED ON THIS.

THEY COULDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PARKING.

THEY WENT TO THE VOA AND THE VOA SAID, NO, YOU HAVE TO GET THE PARKING.

SO THEY REDUCED IT TO THREE PUMPS INSTEAD OF FOUR, AND THEY GOT THE PARKING.

OKAY. AND THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE PARKING ON THE PEOPLE PARKING ON THE OTHER LOT ALSO.

BUT THEY DID GET ALL THE PARKING ON THIS LOT BECAUSE THEY CAN COUNT THE PARKING FOR THE PUMPS ARE ALLOWED TO BE COUNTED AS THEIR PARKING. CORRECT. AND THIS IS JUST AN SUP TO ALLOW GASOLINE SALES.

THIS IS NOT BEER AND WINE. THAT WILL BE THE NEXT ONE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WAYNE, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO HERE WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED AND IT HAS SIMPLY EXPIRED DURING THE DELAYS. THERE WAS NOT AN SUP THAT WAS REQUESTED FOR THE GASOLINE SALES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT INFORMATION DISCONNECT CAME IN.

THERE WAS AN SUP FOR BEER AND WINE SALES AT THIS LOCATION THAT WAS GRANTED PREVIOUSLY AND EXPIRED WITH ALL OF THE BUILDING PERMITS. HOWEVER, A SUP FOR GASOLINE SALES WAS NOT SOUGHT WHENEVER THIS CAME IN BEFORE.

BUT IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. I MEAN, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME THEY WERE PUTTING IN GAS PUMPS, RIGHT? THEY SHOULD´VE BEEN. OKAY. OKAY.

AND JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, BEER AND WINE ONLY.

WELL, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE, BUT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. GO AHEAD, EILEEN.

WILL THEY BE INSTALLING NEW GAS. THANKS. THANK YOU.

THE UNDERGROUND TANKS? YES. YES, THEY WILL HAVE TO.

[00:35:01]

OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THIS IS A CLEAN SITE.

IT'S GONE THROUGH REMEDIATION. AND IS HAS BEEN HAS BEEN PASSED BY TCEQ.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS? OKAY.

HEARING NONE. THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR SUP-25-0006.

I WILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUP-25-0006.

OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE.

I DO NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

[ITEM 6: SUP-25-0007 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance to amend Appendix “B,” “Zoning,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Decatur, to grant a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow the sale of beer and/or wine for off-premises consumption, in a Restricted Business (C-1) Zoning District, on an approximate 0.55-acre tract of land being legally described as Lot 15R, Block 1, Lipsey Addition, City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas, also known as 2806 S FM 51. (Decatur Gas Station and Convenience Store)]

IT IS 6:10. LISA. YES. LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO AGAIN, IT IS A CONVENIENCE STORE AND A C1 RESTRICTED BUSINESS.

THEY ARE REQUESTING BEER AND WINE SALES, NOT A PACKAGED LIQUOR STORE, JUST BEER AND WINE SALES FOR OFF PREMISES CONSUMPTION, WHICH REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. AGAIN, OUR ZONING CODE UNDER ARTICLE 5 ALLOWS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND ALLOWS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.

AGAIN, THE REPLAT IS IN PROCESS. IT WAS HEARD AND APPROVED OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE NOVEMBER 5TH MEETING, WILL BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE DECEMBER 22ND MEETING.

PROPERTY ZONED C-1 RESTRICTED BUSINESS. AGAIN, IT PREVIOUSLY HAD A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE PROPERTY.

WE WENT BACK TO AERIAL´S BEGINNING IN 1995 WHERE YOU COULD SEE ANYTHING WAS THERE TO AROUND 2014.

THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR BEER AND WINE SALES IN 2023 WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE JUNE 6TH MEETING.

IT EXPIRED WHEN THE PLAT AND BUILDING PERMITS SUBMITTAL EXPIRED THIS YEAR.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE STARTING FRESH WITH EVERYTHING.

SO THE EXISTING LAND USES COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, PRIMARY LAND USE IS RETAIL COMMERCIAL.

SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CITY'S 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE NOTIFIED NINE RESIDENTS. THREE RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED.

ALL WERE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST. ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, WAS INSIDE THE 200 FOOT.

THAT REPRESENTED 8.97%. THE OTHER TWO THAT WE RECEIVED LETTERS FROM WERE OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT ZONE.

AGAIN, SOME OF THE SAME REASONS FOR OPPOSABLE WAS DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY, NOISE, TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES.

THIS DOES MEET THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S CODE, WITH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ALLOWING THESE TYPES OF SALES, AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SUP-25-0007.

THANK YOU, LISA. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? ALLEN, I THINK THAT YOUR. CARRIES OVER TO THIS AS WELL.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WHO ARE YOU? WHO IS THIS? THIS IS IVAN. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT IT WAS NOT ON RED.

I'M THE OWNER OF 2809 SOUTH STREET.

HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE. JUST A MOMENT.

CAN WE TURN UP THE VOLUME, BY CHANCE? CAME THROUGH REAL LOUD FOR JUST A SECOND.

OKAY. RESTATE YOUR NAME AGAIN. WE DID NOT HEAR ANY OF THAT.

OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER? OH A LOT BETTER.

YES SIR. OKAY SIR. SO I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT BEHIND THE PROPOSED GAS STATION, 2809 SOUTH LIPSEY STREET. OKAY. YOU'RE FADING OUT ON US AGAIN.

WE CANNOT HEAR YOU. AND WE NEED HIS NAME. LET ME TRY SOMETHING ELSE.

AND ALSO RIGHT THERE. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. AND WE ALSO NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN.

YEAH. MY NAME IS IVAN OSORIO. I'M THE OWNER OF 2809 SOUTH LIPSEY STREET.

[00:40:01]

I'M THE HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND IT. OKAY. I'M THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND IT.

OKAY. SO MY ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT MY DRIVEWAY IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN JOHN STREET.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG OF A PARKING SPACE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO OBSTRUCT WITH MY DRIVEWAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T PARK ANYWHERE CLOSE.

BECAUSE WHENEVER THERE'S AN EVENT ON THE FAIRGROUNDS, I GET REALLY HEAVY TRAFFIC ON MY DRIVEWAY. SO, I MEAN, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT MY DRIVEWAY BECAUSE I'M LIKE 30FT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THAT'S MY DRIVEWAY. THAT'S MY ENTRANCE FOR MY DRIVEWAY.

SO I'M RIGHT ON THAT STREET WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A, I MEAN, I'M GUESSING PROBABLY AN ENTRANCE TO THE GAS STATION.

YES. WELL, I THINK THAT THE ENTRANCE TO THE GAS STATION WILL BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN FROM YOUR.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NOBODY PARKS KIND OF ON MY STREET AND INTERFERE WITH MY DRIVEWAY AND JUST HOW MUCH FLOW OF TRAFFIC I'M GOING TO HAVE JUST FROM FROM THAT GAS STATION BEING THERE.

OKAY. WAYNE, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT? SO THEY ARE PROPOSING 23 PARKING SPACES ON SITE FOR THIS GAS STATION. THERE ARE STILL ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS NOT TO BLOCK A DRIVEWAY FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR FOR ANY PROPERTY.

NOW, PARKING ALONG THE STREET, THAT IS ALLOWED UNLESS IT'S PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN AREAS.

AND IT WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED IN THIS AREA. HOWEVER, THEY THEY STILL WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BLOCK HIS DRIVEWAY.

CORRECT. DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR WAYNE.

I'M COUNTING 17. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOU.

WE COUNT THE PUMPS. OH, YOU COUNT THE PUMPS. OKAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SAME THING. SO NOT COUNTING THE PUMPS, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? 17. 17. NOT COUNTING THE PUMPS. OKAY.

OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING THERE FOR PEOPLE NOT TO TRY TO PARK OUTSIDE OF THE GAS STATION AND PARK, BECAUSE I MEAN THAT THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH MY DRIVEWAY.

I FEEL LIKE I ALREADY ENCOUNTERED THIS WITH THE.

YES, SIR. AND THEN ANOTHER THING, ALSO I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE WITH THE EVENTS GOING ON THE FAIRGROUNDS.

I KNOW WHENEVER THERE'S EVENTS THERE, I GET A REALLY, REALLY HEAVY TRAFFIC, LIKE ALL IN THE AREA.

I GET A LOT OF LITTERING ALSO WITH THE BEER BOTTLES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ALSO A MAIN THING BECAUSE, I MEAN, I ALREADY GET SOME BEER BOTTLES HERE AND THERE WHENEVER THERE'S A BIG EVENT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO IMAGINE BEING AN EVENT IN THE FAIRGROUNDS AND HAVING A LIQUOR STORE RIGHT THERE, SO CLOSE BY AND JUST A LOT OF TRASH. I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IN MY HOUSE AS WELL. YES, SIR. WELL, WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, AND WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

I'M SO SORRY ABOUT ALL YOUR LITTER. YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S NOT TOO BAD BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT'S.

OKAY, JUST WHENEVER THERE'S AN EVENT GOING ON, BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY REASONS I'M OPPOSED TO IT AS WELL.

I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. SIR. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE ONLINE? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

IT IS NOW 6:18. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THERE IS AN ALLEY BEHIND THIS. IS THIS. YEAH.

[00:45:01]

AND WE DID AMEND OUR SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. IT'S NO LONGER A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY FENCE.

THERE IS SOME DISCRETION WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE SOMETHING THAT WOULD APPROPRIATELY SCREEN THAT, WHETHER IT IS A MASONRY WALL OR IF IT IS SOME TYPE OF OTHER FENCE, ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING THAT IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT.

OKAY. AND THERE WAS AN SUP PRIOR FOR BEER AND WINE SALES.

BUT THAT SUP HAS EXPIRED. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THEY WERE SELLING BEER AND WINE THERE BEFORE.

WELL I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PREVIOUS STORE, THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED, THAT STORE NEVER GOT BUILT.

OKAY. BUT THEY DID HAVE AN APPROVED SUP FOR BEER AND WINE SALES.

THAT WAS THE SAME OWNER? YES. STILL OWNS IT. IT'S JUST THAT THERE WERE DELAYS IN THEIR PROCESS THAT COST THEM.

I'LL JUST STATE THAT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S STAFF'S DISCRETION ON THE MASONRY WALL.

I WOULD THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MASONRY WALL.

BUT I KNOW IT'S NOT MINE. I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE.

AND AT THE TIME.

PLANS. OKAY. SO, MR. CHAIR, JUST WITH THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME OUT OPPOSED THAT ARE IN WITHIN OUR 200 FOOT RADIUS FOR NOTIFICATION, THAT BRINGS IT TO, WAS IT 33? 32.46. 32.46%, WHICH WILL REQUIRE SUPERMAJORITY OF THE VOTE OF THE SITTING COMMISSION.

AND OF THE COUNCIL ALSO? YES. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? OKAY. HEARING NONE. THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND OR DENY APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL ON SUP-25-0007. I'LL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUP. OKAY. I'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER WILL KLOSE.

I DO NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. I CAN'T SEE.

OKAY. JUST TO MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT IN ADDITION TO THAT.

I MEAN, THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER. HE'S BEEN THROUGH THIS. HE'S BEEN APPROVED BEFORE. I CAN'T FIND A JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGING THAT SUDDENLY AT THIS POINT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE RESIDENTIAL OWNERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS PROPERTY THAT IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL TO ME TO BE A CONVENIENCE STORE.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I SECOND THE MOTION. I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. OKAY.

[ITEM 7: PD-25-0004 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2023-08-23, and Appendix B, “Zoning,” of the City’s Code of Ordinances and the City’s Official Zoning Map to provide for amendments to the current zoning regulations on a tract of approximately 89.64 acres, Vista Park Planned Development, to update the Planned Development’s development standards. (Vista Park)]

IT IS NOW 6:23. LISA. YES, SIR. LISA HANNON, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

SO I'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD BY REFERENCE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR VISTA PARK.

THEY ARE UPDATING ONE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ORDINANCE 2023-08-23, IN AUGUST OF 2023.

THE ORIGINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT HAD A SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 10% OF THE LOT WIDTH.

THEY ARE REQUESTING TO AMEND THAT TO HAVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF FIVE FEET ON ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

THIS WILL STILL CREATE A TEN FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION FOR ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS.

SO THIS IS GOING TO HELP WITH THE CALCULATION WHEN WE HAVE SOME ODD SHAPED LOTS LIKE CUL DE SAC LOTS AND PIE SHAPED LOTS AND SUCH.

SO IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A FLAT OF FIVE FEET FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK.

WE'VE NOTIFIED 65 PROPERTY OWNERS. WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES.

THE EXISTING ZONING AND PROPOSED ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE JUST MAKING A MINOR MODIFICATION. THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE LAND USE.

AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF PD-25-0004.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT I DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL ON THIS FROM COREY.

OH, JUST A PHONE CALL. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT, I APOLOGIZE.

FORMAL RESPONSE. I FORGOT ABOUT THAT ONE. I'M SORRY.

[00:50:11]

IT IS NOW 6:25. COMMISSIONERS. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE.

THERE'S NOT ANYTHING BEING REPLATED. THIS IS NOT ADDING TO THE NUMBER OF LOTS.

NO, NO, WE'RE JUST CHANGING, THEIR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SAID IN THEIR PLAT, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH A NEW FINAL PLAT PROBABLY NEXT MONTH, BUT IT'S NOT CHANGING THE LOTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S JUST CHANGING THE SETBACK ON THE LOTS. RIGHT NOW.

INSTEAD OF 10% OF THE LOT WIDTH, WHICH IS HOW IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR PD, THEY'RE CHANGING IT TO FIVE FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK.

IT'S STILL GOING TO CREATE THAT TEN FOOT BUILDING SEPARATION BETWEEN EACH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

THIS IS GOING TO HELP WITH SOME OF YOUR ODD SHAPED LOTS.

WHEN YOU HAVE A CUL DE SAC OR A PIE SHAPED LOT, OR A KEY LOT, IT GETS A LITTLE COMPLICATED WHEN IT COMES TO THE SETBACKS.

CHERYL. YOU NEED TO FILL OUT.

COME RIGHT ON UP, PLEASE. NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU BET.

TROY LEWIS, DECATUR VP, LLC, 180 STATE STREET, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS.

SO THE EASY WAY TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE DID THE ORIGINAL PD, WE HAVE A STANDARD 50 FOOT WIDE LOT.

SO A 10% SETBACK IS A FIVE FOOT SETBACK. BUT WHEN WE HAVE A PIE SHAPED, LIKE LISA WAS SAYING, IT GETS WIDER AS IT GOES FARTHER BACK, IT REQUIRES A WEIRD SETBACK BECAUSE OF THE 10%.

IF WE MAKE IT A FIVE FOOT, IT'S STANDARD ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE ENTIRE LOT.

SO THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION. 10% WAS THE SAME AS FIVE FEET, EXCEPT FOR THOSE LOTS THAT AREN'T PERFECTLY RECTANGULAR.

ISN'T IT LIKE 10% AT THE FRONT SETBACK? ISN'T THAT HOW YOU FIGURE IT? RIGHT. AS TO WHAT THAT IS. AND IT MAY BE 51.

YES, 0.65. EXACTLY. AND IT CREATES FOR SOME VERY ODD SETBACKS ALONG THE SIDES.

AND SO THIS WILL ACTUALLY SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS MAINTAINING THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN ALL PROPERTIES.

OKAY. LET ME CLARIFY. SO NO PROPERTIES WILL BE BUILT CLOSER THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED? WELL A FOOT MAYBE. CORRECT? SETBACKS WILL CHANGE.

YES. RIGHT. BUT NO PROPERTIES WILL BE BUILT CLOSER THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY.

CLOSER TOGETHER THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

WELL, IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE, BUT ONLY ONLY A NOMINAL AMOUNT.

ONLY A NOMINAL AMOUNT. AND ON THE ODD SHAPED LOTS.

RIGHT. LIKE YOU SAID, YOU MIGHT HAVE 57 FOOT FRONTAGE AT THE FRONT BUILD LINE ON A CUL DE SAC.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE MADE IT HAVE TO HAVE A 5.7FT SIDE YARD SETBACK THERE, CHANGING IT TO A FLAT FIVE FOOT.

IT STILL MAINTAINS THAT FIRE BUILDING SEPARATION OF TEN FEET BETWEEN STRUCTURES.

OKAY. IF I'M CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND.

THE FIVE FOOT MAKES SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT SHIFTING HOUSES, MOVING THEM BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS, TRYING TO FIT THEM IN THERE. THIS IS GOING TO CLARIFY A LOT OF THAT.

IS THAT MEASURED TO THE FOUNDATION OR TO THE DRIP LINE ON THE EAVE?.

VERTICAL MEMBER. TO THE VERTICAL WALL. WITH A TWO FOOT OVERHANG ON EACH HOUSE, REALLY THEY'RE SIX FEET APART INSTEAD OF TEN FEET APART. WELL, THE TWO FOOT GENERALLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TWO FOOT OVERHANG ON THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE A FOOT, BUT IN GENERAL, NO, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE.

YOU'VE GOT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK THERE. THERE ARE CODES THAT ALLOW FOR THAT EAVE TO OVERHANG INTO THAT AREA. AND ONCE IT GETS CLOSER NOW YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME FIRE PROTECTION ON THAT EAVE.

BUT NONE OF THESE WOULD MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

OKAY. UNTIL WE START GETTING DOWN INTO THE LESS THAN THREE FOOT BETWEEN PROPERTIES IS ONLY WHEN THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE.

[00:55:07]

MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. GOT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

I JUST NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER EILEEN CROSS, COMMISSIONER SHEA.

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

OKAY. BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 8.

[ITEM 8: PD-25-0005 – Public hearing, discussion, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2023-06-16, and Appendix B, “Zoning,” of the City’s Code of Ordinances and the City’s Official Zoning Map to provide for amendments to the current zoning regulations on a tract of approximately 47 acres, Deer Park (aka Nouvelle Terrace) Planned Development, to update the Planned Development’s development standards. (Nouvelle Terrace)]

SO THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE NOUVELLE TERRACE DEER PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE UPDATING SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY REDUCING LOCK COUNT AND CHANGING LOT SIZES.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME DEFICIENCIES IN THE APPLICATION.

WE ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, SO STAFF IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO THE JANUARY 6TH, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THIS ONE.

OKAY. SO WE DO NEED A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT, OR MOTION.

SINCE IT WAS ADVERTISED, THAT WAY, IF WE CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN, IT WON'T HAVE TO BE RE-ADVERTISED.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? WE DO HAVE ONE? WE DID.

BUT HE'S NOT SAYING ANYTHING. GOTCHA. OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUT PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS NOW 6:32 COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL ON PD25-0005.

I WOULD OFFER A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS MATTER UNTIL THE MEETING ON JANUARY 6TH, 2026 TO TAKE UP AT THAT TIME.

I SECOND THAT. OKAY, I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE FROM COMMISSIONER MASON WOODRUFF AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY. WE DIDN'T NEED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL ON THAT ONE, EITHER. OKAY. NO MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ITEM 9.

[ITEM 9: Discuss and approve 2026 Meeting Schedule]

BUT SOMETHING MAY COME UP LATER. ON THE FIFTH? ON THE FOURTH? ON A TUESDAY? COMMISSIONERS Y'ALL GOT ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS THAT YOU CAN SEE TONIGHT? DO YOU NEED A MOTION? YES. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION.

I'M SORRY. THE P&Z SCHEDULE FOR 2026. I GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER JOHN LANIER.

NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHELBY HICKS.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. OKAY. OKAY.

[ITEM 10: Discussion of appointment of a Planning and Zoning Commissioner to replace Ms. Terry Berube, and the appointment of two alternate commissioners. ]

SO, AS WE KNOW, MISS TERRY BERUBE HAS SUBMITTED HER RESIGNATION.

SHE HAS BEEN STAYING ON UNTIL WE GET A REPLACEMENT.

WE RECEIVED THREE APPLICANTS AND STAFF REVIEWED AND SCORED THOSE APPLICANTS.

THE CITY CHARTER, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.03, SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL APPOINT A REPLACEMENT MEMBER TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING APPLICANT TO BE APPOINTED AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONER, AND THAT IS SAMAR MOHAMED. ALL THE APPLICATIONS AND RESUME, ALL THE APPLICATIONS AND THE SCORING SHEETS WERE IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

[01:00:07]

HOWEVER, THIS GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF A SUCCESSION PLANNING FOR OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ALLOW THEM TO SIT IN DURING SOME OF THESE MEETINGS AND THE AUDIENCE AND LEARN AND GET A LITTLE MORE ADJUSTED AND, YOU KNOW, GAIN SOME EDUCATION AS THEY GO THROUGH THAT. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING THOSE TO BE PLACED AS ALTERNATES.

PRESENT? IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT IT, AND THEY COULD IF YOU APPOINT THEM, IF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS THEM WITH THAT AUTHORITY.

OKAY. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US OR ANYTHING? BECAUSE THIS WILL BE ON THE DECEMBER 8TH, NEXT MONDAY'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE DON'T HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, DO WE? I DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY OF THEM HERE. I WOULD JUST SHOW FOR THE RECORD THAT SAMER IS S-A-M-E-R, NOT A-R. MY TYPO. SO I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS, THE LAST TIME WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE EVALUATED. YEAH, YEAH, IT WAS A MESS.

WE EVALUATED THE APPLICATIONS AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION.

IT SOUNDS LIKE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, THE CITY CHARTER HAS BEEN AMENDED TO CHANGE THAT PROCESS? SO. IT'S NOT A CHARTER. OR WHAT? BUT I THINK THERE WAS A CHANGE IN PROCESS.

YOU ALL CERTAINLY COULD CONTINUE TO DELIBERATE THESE APPLICANTS AND MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO COUNCIL.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WHAT IS PUT BEFORE YOU.

WE'VE TRIED TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD PROCESS FOR APPOINTING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THERE'S A APPLICATION PROCESS, A POSTING PROCESS THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THIS IS HOW SEVERAL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN POPULATED OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, AND THE PROCESS HAS BEEN VERY WELL RECEIVED AND WORKED VERY WELL. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE THAT AS A STANDARD PROCESS ACROSS THE BOARD, FOR ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION IN THE CITY, RATHER THAN HAVE EACH EACH BOARD AND COMMISSION HAVING THEIR OWN PROCESS.

THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S BEEN AN OBJECTIVE OF THE CITY MANAGER, THAT THE PROCESS FOR APPOINTMENT TO SUBCOMMITTEES IS LIKE OTHER APPOINTMENTS TO OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES, THAT WE FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS FOR THOSE APPOINTMENTS.

I KNOW THAT STAFF AND CITY WOULD MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE I'S ARE DOTTED AND T'S ARE CROSSED ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW I GOT IN HERE, BUT.

WE DON'T EITHER. THAT'S BEFORE THEY HAD ALL THESE PROCESSES.

THAT'LL BE FINE. IT WAS YOUR GOOD JOKES, SIR.

COMMISSIONERS, HAVE Y'ALL GOT ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT? ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION, YES, SIR. YEAH. OKAY, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF SAMIR.

IS IT PRONOUNCED SAMIR, SAMER? IT'S SAMER. SAMER.

SAMER MOHAMMED. AND BRAD MORGAN AND MELINDA WRAY AS ALTERNATES.

DO WE NEED TO DESIGNATE THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY'RE THE ALTERNATES? YOU COULD IF YOU CHOOSE, BUT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO.

WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE A VACANCY ON THAT AND THEY'RE BOTH HERE? WHO SITS? THAT'S HOW IT GOES WITH THE OTHER, THE BOE AND THE BSE ALL THE TIME.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DECIDE AMONG THEMSELVES WHO WILL ACTUALLY SIT.

SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RANK THE ALTERNATES, YOU CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT.

DOES THE STAFF HAVE A RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO THE ORDER OF THE ALTERNATES? WE DO NOT.

YOUR TOP PICK? YEAH. SO, SAMER CURRENTLY SERVES ON OTHER BOARDS THAT ARE WITHIN THE

[01:05:09]

HE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THIS TYPE OF BOARD, AND THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST RELATIONSHIP TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WOULD BE YOUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

AND HE WOULD HAVE TO STEP DOWN FROM THAT BOARD TO SERVE HERE, WOULD HE NOT? IT DOES NOT STATE THAT HE CAN'T SERVE ON BOTH.

REALLY? NO, SIR. WE COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING THAT SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT SERVE ON BOTH BOARDS.

THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE P&Z. THE PERSON CAN SERVE ON BOTH, BECAUSE THAT, FRANKLY, DOES NOT STRIKE ME AS A GOOD IDEA. I HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED INTO THAT QUESTION, SO I WILL LOOK INTO THAT.

IT MAY BE REQUIRED THAT HE STEPS DOWN, IT MAY NOT.

OKAY, SO I'D HAVE TO PULL THE CHARTER, THAT SECTION UP.

BUT WAYNE AND I BOTH LOOKED AT THAT WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS AND REVIEWING THIS, AND IT SAYS ONLY IF THEY BECOME A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR A RUNNING FOR A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER.

DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY CAN'T SERVE ON ANY OTHER ADVISORY BOARD OR ANY OF THE OTHER BOARDS.

I'M NOT QUESTIONING WHETHER IT SAYS THAT NOW.

I'M QUESTIONING WHETHER IT SHOULD SAY THAT. CORRECT.

UNDERSTOOD. AND IN MY OPINION, IT SHOULD. AND I'LL BACK THAT UP.

I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE CASE AS WELL.

I MEAN, I SAW HERE THAT HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND MY NATURAL INCLINATION WAS THINKING THAT HE WAS GOING TO VACATE THAT AND MOVE JUST LIKE I DID.

AND I DID. OKAY. YEAH. YOU COULD MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION, I WILL BE SURE OF THAT ANSWER BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

AND THE COUNCIL THEN WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION IF I.

SAMER SHOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND. SAMER SHOULD.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IF COUNCIL AGREES WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING, THEN HE HAS A CHOICE TO MAKE.

IN WHICH CASE YOU WOULD NEED TO MOVE DOWN THIS LIST.

SO I'M NOT SURE HOW TO ADDRESS THAT WITH REGARD TO A RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW TO THE COUNCIL.

IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS STAFF HAS PUT FORWARD, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST RANKING THEM IN CASE SAMER DOES NOT BECOME THE PRIMARY CHOICE. WELL, THAT WILL BE MY NEXT QUESTION IS, SINCE YOU INTERVIEWED THEM, DO Y'ALL HAVE A RANKING OR SOME KIND OF SCORING SYSTEM YOU'LL UTILIZE? THE SCORE SHEETS ARE IN THE PACKET. RIGHT. YES.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, SAMER, THEN MEINDA AND THEN BRAD.

OKAY. OKAY. SO SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT TWO ITEMS TO VOTE ON.

IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE WE CAN'T VOTE ON BOTH OF THEM, CAN WE? AT THE SAME TIME.? I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION FOR YOU TO MOVE TO APPOINT A COMMISSIONER AND ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS IN THIS ORDER.

SAMER MOHAMED, AND I DON'T REMEMBER MELINDA'S LAST NAME.

MELINDA WRAY. AND THEN. MELINDA WRAY AND THEN BRAD MORGAN.

AND AS AN ADDENDUM TO THAT, I WOULD ADD TO THAT MOTION THAT WE SUGGEST THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE THOUGHT AS TO WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO SIMULTANEOUSLY SERVE ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THIS BOARD.

AND IF THEY CONCUR WITH WHAT I'M SAYING, THEN.

YES, SIR. AGAIN, SAMER HAS A CHOICE TO MAKE. AGREED.

SO MOVED. OKAY. I'VE GOT A MOTION, I THINK FOR APPROVAL OF SAMER AND APPROVAL. OKAY. FLIP IT. OKAY. MY MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY APPOINT SAMER MOHAMED TO FILL TERRY'S SPOT ON THE P&Z AND ALTERNATES MELINDA WRAY AND BRAD MORGAN IN THAT RANKED ORDER. AND ALSO THAT IT BE RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER IN ESTABLISHING A REQUIREMENT THAT AN INDIVIDUAL NOT SERVE ON BOTH THE P&Z AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

AND IF FOR ANY REASON SAMER MOHAMED DOES NOT SERVE AS P&Z COMMISSIONER.

THEN IT WOULD FALL DOWN TO THE ALTERNATES IN THE ORDER STATED.

YES. THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD MOTION. FIRST BRAD BEING SECOND.

[01:10:04]

YOU JUST NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE. I DID UNDERSTAND THE MOTION.

ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. CONGRATULATIONS TO SAMER, MELINDA AND BRAD.

SAMER. SAMER? SAMER. SAMER. SAMER. SAMER. MOHAMED.

YEP. OKAY, MOVING ON TO. I´LL MISS TERRY. ITEM 11.

[ITEM 11: Discussion of future agenda, new business items, staff requests, and potential specialcalled meeting and/or workshop requests: a. As of the agenda posting, the Tuesday, January 6, 2026, meeting currently has seven (7) Planning applications. The submittal deadline is December 8, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. ]

OF COURSE, THAT CAN CHANGE BASED ON OUR DEADLINES, NOTIFICATION DEADLINES, AND EFFICIENCIES OF THE APPLICATIONS.

THE ONE THAT WE EXTENDED THE TIME ON THIS EVENING DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL MEETING? NO, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A PLAT.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PLAT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. IT IS NOW 6:45.

OH, MAN. THAT WAS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.