2. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF 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. (KRISHNA RAJ JOSHI, PROPERTY OWNER) SUP-26-0001.

[2. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF 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. (KRISHNA RAJ JOSHI, PROPERTY OWNER) SUP-26-0001.]

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND APPENDIX B ZONING OF THE COURT OF CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.55 ACRES. YES, SIR. LISA HANNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

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

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

THE REQUEST IS FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GASOLINE SALES.

SO THE CONVENIENCE STORE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

BUT THE GASOLINE SALES IN A RESTRICTED BUSINESS C ONE ZONING DISTRICT DOES REQUIRE THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED UPDATED STORE OPERATING HOURS, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN.

SO AS PART OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 5.2.5 ALLOWS FOR CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THEY CAN APPROVE IT, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY IT.

SO THE FINDINGS STAFF FINDS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

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

SO THE PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2023, BUT THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION EXPIRED, WHICH HAD THE PLAT EXPIRE AND ANY OF THE OTHER APPROVALS EXPIRE.

SO THEY ARE STARTING OVER WITH SOME OF THE APPROVAL PROCESSES.

THE REPLAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-1 RESTRICTED BUSINESS AND THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE GASOLINE SALES WAS CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 12TH.

HOWEVER, IT DID NOT GARNER ENOUGH VOTES. IT HAD TO BE 75% OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE IT.

HOWEVER, THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE BEER AND WINE SALES FOR OFF PREMISES CONSUMPTION WAS APPROVED AT THAT CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

SO, AS MOST EVERYONE KNOWS THAT BETWEEN 1995 AND 2014, IT HAD A CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE PROPERTY THAT HAD GAS SALES ON THERE. IT WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE IN 2014 AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEMOLISHED.

THIS DEVELOPMENT CAME ABOUT IN 2023 TO RE RE DEVELOP THE SITE.

A VARIANCE AT THAT TIME WAS REQUESTED FOR PARKING.

HOWEVER THAT WAS TABLED. THEY CAME BACK IN 2025 TO US WITH NEW PLANS.

THEY REVISED THE SITE PLAN BY REMOVING ONE OF THE GAS PUMP ISLANDS SO THE PARKING IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ALL LIGHTING IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE.

THERE'S NO LIGHT SPILLAGE PERMITTED FROM SITE TO SITE.

SO A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR CIVIL PLANS ALONG WITH THE BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S REQUIRED BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND HAS TO BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY.

AND AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE REVIEWED AT CIVIL PLAN SUBMITTAL AND BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.

SO THESE ARE JUST SOME ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THEIR ENGINEER.

ONE OF THE PREVIOUS CONCERNS WAS CROSS ACCESS TO THE NORTH.

HOWEVER, THEY'RE ADDING CURBS AND BOLLARDS TO THAT.

SO THAT GENTLEMAN WAS SATISFIED WITH THOSE CONCERNS BEING MET.

THEY DID HOLD A NEIGHBORHOOD INTERACTION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 5TH TO HELP INVITE THE COMMUNITY IN AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SO PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATIONS, THERE WERE NINE PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED WHICH WERE IN THE 200FT.

THAT'S STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ALONG WITH POSTING OF THE PRPERTY.

WE DID RECEIVE FIVE OPPOSITIONS. THAT PUTS US AT 35.02%.

SO WHEN THIS IS CONSIDERED FOR A FINAL VOTE, IT WILL REQUIRE 75% APPROVAL VOTE BY CITY COUNCIL.

SOME OF THE REASONS CITED WERE DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES, SAFETY, TRAFFIC, PARKING AND DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO WE GOT A PETITION TODAY. DROPPED OFF AT THE OFFICE.

SO WE HAD A MAP MADE UP. AND YOU CAN SEE EVERYBODY IN THE RED HAS SIGNED THE PETITION AS OPPOSED,

[00:40:07]

BUT NOT ANY ADDITIONAL ONES WITHIN THAT 200FT WERE ADDED TO THIS.

AND AGAIN MOST OF THE SAME REASONS WERE CITED.

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY NOISE AND BRIGHT LIGHTS LITTER PUBLIC BEHAVIOR EXISTING CONDITION OR CONGESTION IN THE AREA.

SO UNDER CONCLUSIONS, THE APPLICATION IS AN ORDER.

ALL THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.

AS FAR AS NOTIFICATIONS A CONVENIENCE STORE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

IT'S THE GASOLINE SALES THAT REQUIRES THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

AGAIN, THE REPLAT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

STAFF BELIEVES THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND ANY BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION.

REGARDING SOME OF THE PARKING CONCERNS, PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT NOW IS PERMITTED.

BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS OR SIDEWALKS, HOWEVER, IS PROHIBITED.

EVENT PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS PERMITTED NOW AS WE GO, LIKE WHEN THE FAIRGROUNDS HAS EVENTS.

SO WE BROUGHT UP ADDING NO PARKING SIGNS ALONG JOHN AVENUE TO FIRE AND POLICE.

HOWEVER, THERE'S CONCERNS THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY PUSH PEOPLE FURTHER UP INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY TO PARK IF YOU DON'T ALLOW THE PARKING ALONG THAT RIGHT OF WAY.

SO CITY COUNCIL CAN PLACE CONDITIONS ON ANY APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, AND THOSE CONDITIONS COULD BE ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE AND BE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY, AS LONG AS THE BUSINESS IS CONTINUING.

SOME OF THE CONDITIONS COULD INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS OF THE HOURS OF THE STORE OR THE GASOLINE PUMPS.

BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THOUGH OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS AND PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THE MARCH 30TH MEETING 6 TO 0. AND THIS IS NO ACTION, BUT IT IS PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS POINT? DO YOU KNOW THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF CASA TORRES, AND ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON CASA TORRES? THERE ARE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS ON CASA TORRES, I DON'T KNOW.

WE CAN LOOK UP REAL QUICK HOURS OF OPERATION.

ARE. I'M NOT SURE. BUT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'VE THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON CASA TORRES. OKAY.

THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR CHIEF. SO COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE INSIGHT ON WHAT YOU PREDICT FOR TRAFFIC, SINCE THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS? SO WAYNE AND I DISCUSSED THIS A FEW WEEKS BACK.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER IS EXACTLY WHAT LISA TALKED ABOUT IS CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW YOU CAN PARK ON.

I MEAN, YOU CAN PARK ON THE SIDE OF ANY STREET.

IT'S A PUBLIC STREET. YOU CAN PARK ALONG THOSE.

ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IS, IS IF YOU START PUTTING UP TEMPORARY, NO PARKING ALONG THERE THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STILL WANT TO PARK. SO ACTUALLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO IS PUSH THAT BACK INTO THE, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS IS THAT IT'S GOING TO PUSH THEM BACK INTO MORE WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AT CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK ON THERE, THOSE ARE FAIRLY OPEN, LIKE LARGE LOTS.

IF YOU LOOKED AT A LARGE MAP. AND SO THERE'S NO LIKE HOUSES OR NOTHING THAT'S PUSHED RIGHT UP ONTO THOSE AREAS.

SO IF MY OPINION IS THAT IF YOU WANT PEOPLE PARKING IN A CERTAIN AREA, THAT IS PERMISSIBLE NOW THERE ARE OPTIONS ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE THAT IF THINGS BECOME PROBLEMATIC, WHICH WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST ON THE BACKSIDE, LIKE ON REUNION ROAD, WHEN WE HAVE REUNION, WE CAN BY ORDINANCE, PUT UP SOME TEMPORARY PARKING, NO PARKING AND THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES. BUT THE CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE WOULD BE IS IF YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK THERE, PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO PARK ON THE STREETS FURTHER BACK.

WHEN, WHEN IS THIS A PROBLEM? WHEN THE PARKING ON THE STREET.

SO USUALLY THE PROBLEMS WE RUN INTO IS WHEN YOU HAVE LARGE EVENTS AT THE FAIRGROUNDS.

THAT COULD BE ANY TYPE OF LIKE FOOD TRUCK CHALLENGE WHEN YOU HAVE THE SWAP MEET REUNION, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT AS OFTEN WITH REUNION, BUT ANYMORE, BUT SOMETIMES YOU GET THOSE WITH THOSE LARGE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE AT THE FAIRGROUNDS.

AND THEN, IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT EFFECT OF PUTTING THIS GAS STATION THERE IS IT GOING TO HAVE ON THE PARKING FOR THAT? SO I BECAUSE I'VE WORKED HERE WHEN THAT GAS STATION WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY BACK AND I WAS ON PATROL THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE ISSUES

[00:45:08]

THEN PEOPLE WOULD STILL PARK ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AT THOSE TIMES.

BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ISSUES THEN. NOW OBVIOUSLY I WILL ADMIT WE HAVE GROWN A LOT SINCE, YOU KNOW.

06, 07, 08 THROUGH THAT TIME PERIOD, BUT IN THOSE, SO IN THESE EVENTS ARE PEOPLE PARKING WHERE THE GAS STATION IS, IS GOING. AND SO THAT HOLDS, WHAT DO YOU THINK 20 VEHICLES? DEPENDS ON HOW PEOPLE PARK. YEAH. SO 20 VEHICLES.

SO YOU'RE YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND EVEN WITH THE 20 VEHICLES PARKED THERE ARE THERE IS THAT ROAD STILL LINED? YES. SO REGARDLESS THAT WHETHER THAT THIS BUILDING GOES THERE OR NOT, WHETHER THIS GAS STATION GOES THERE, THE GAS THE GAS STATION IS GOING THERE. SO THE CONVENIENCE STORE HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.

SO ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS GAS SALES.

SO DO WILL GAS SALES AFFECT PEOPLE PARKING ON THAT STREET WHATSOEVER.

IF YOU'RE ASKING MY OPINION, NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED SO FAR? I DON'T THINK PARKING WOULD, I DON'T THINK THAT GAS STATION WOULD EXACERBATE PARKING.

I THINK WE'VE ALL BEEN TO A CONVENIENCE STORE.

RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU GO, YOU'RE TAKING THE $200 TO GO FILL UP YOUR DIESEL TANK OR WHATEVER HAVE YOU.

BUT I'M IN AND OUT LIKE A ROBBERY IN TWO MINUTES AT A GAS STATION.

I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED WITH THAT FUTURE. GAS STATION WORRIED ABOUT REUNION PARKING, ANYTHING GOING ON IN THE FAIRGROUNDS. I DON'T THINK THAT PARKING WHERE THE RED LINES ARE ARE GOING TO BE MUCH OF A CONSIDERATION.

ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT'S SIGNED UP TO TO TALK ABOUT THIS? SUSIE? COUNCILMAN HAYES, YOU'RE, AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

CASA TORRES'S HOURS ARE 11 A.M. TO 8:30 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND 11 A.M.

TO 9 P.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY CLOSED ON SUNDAY.

BUT NO CITY RESTRICTIONS ON HOURS OF OPERATIONS.

OKAY.

WAYNE, THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR LIGHTING EITHER BECAUSE THEY LEAVE THEIR LIGHTS ON ALL NIGHT.

ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THERE ARE THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY CANNOT BLEED OVER ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES.

THEY STILL HAVE TO, TO COVER THOSE SO THAT THEY DON'T SCREEN THEM SO THEY DON'T BLEED ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES.

MR. MAYOR? YES. WHEN WE'RE HAVING PUBLIC COMMENT IN THIS SESSION, ARE WE ALLOWED TO RESPOND WELL, DURING, DURING THE IF THEY'RE SIGNING UP FOR THEIR THREE MINUTES, IT'S NOT TO BE INTERRUPTED.

BUT IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING CLARITY OF, OF WHAT THEY'RE STATING, OKAY.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WE CANNOT RESPOND TO CITIZENS COMING UP.

CORRECT. OTHER THAN TO CLARIFY A QUESTION OF UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SUSIE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT IS SIGNED UP ON THIS ONE TO? MR. COLIN SPAIN. ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU COME UP STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

MY HEARING IS NOT GREAT, SO I WASN'T SURE YOU WERE CALLING ON ME.

BUT THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AGAIN.

AND ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. SINCE THE LAST TIME WE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY, THE OPPOSITION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS GROWN CONSIDERABLY, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PETITION. IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE PETITION WHERE IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

BUT I WANT TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO COUNCILMAN EDDIE ALLEN AND JAKE HAYES THAT VOTED TO RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE LAST TIME WE MET, THEY VOTED NO TO AGAINST THAT PROJECT.

AND IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE NEIGHBORS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT FROM THEIR BACKYARDS, FROM THEIR DRIVEWAYS, FROM THE FRONT YARDS. IT'S THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES, DISRUPTIONS THAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAPPEN. THE THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE PART OF THAT IS GOING TO ISSUE GOING TO GOING TO PART OF THE TRAFFIC GOING TO EMPTY OUT ON JOHN ROAD, WHICH IS GOING TO PUSH IT RIGHT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE A IT'S GOING TO BE A CUT THROUGH A CONVENIENCE THAT THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.

[00:50:03]

IT'S EASY TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT IN YOUR BACKYARD, BUT IT IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN OUR BACKYARD.

AND I HOPE THAT THAT YOU WILL RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THE [INAUDIBLE] ADDITION AND VOTE TO STOP THIS PROJECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SUSIE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO COMMUNICATE? MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL, ASK YOU A QUESTION REAL QUICK, PLEASE.

WAYNE, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THIS AGENDA ITEM WE'RE VOTING FOR THE SALE OF GAS.

CORRECT. THE THE CONVENIENCE STORE IS ALREADY APPROVED.

CONVENIENCE STORE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. IN A C-1 ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THE ONLY THING THAT WE WILL BE VOTING ON IS TO FOR THE SUP FOR SALE OF FUEL.

CORRECT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE DISCUSSING. SO THE PROJECT IN THEORY IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH OR WITHOUT THE SALE OF FUEL.

IT CAN. YES, SIR. AND AND WE'VE ALREADY AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PERMITTED FOR BEER AND ALCOHOL SALES.

IS THAT BEER AND WINE SALES. MISS ASUCENA. BRIAN STACEY.

AGAIN, PLEASE JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. I'M BRIAN STACEY FROM 2804 SOUTH LIBERTY STREET.

MY COMPLAINTS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT SKEWED BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

YES, IT HAS ALREADY APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S I'M UNDERSTANDING IT'S APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT YET. AND I'M HOPING THAT ALL OF OUR OPPOSITION WOULD HAVE YOU ALL RETHINK THEM BUILDING THIS STORE THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN OTHER COUNCIL MEETINGS WAS THAT YOU ALL, ALL REMEMBER WHEN THERE SOME, SEVERAL PEOPLE REMEMBERED WHEN THERE WAS A STORE THERE BEFORE AND THEY LOVED HAVING THAT STORE THERE. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST AS OFFICER STATED, I'D VENTURE TO SAY THERE WAS MUCH LESS TRAFFIC UP AND DOWN 51 WHEN THERE WAS A STORE ON THAT CORNER.

ALSO THE ENGINEERS CAME AND MET WITH US AND THEY SAID THE ONLY REASON THIS DIDN'T GET BUILT WAS BECAUSE THE DOT RECORDS, THEY WERE WAITING ON A DOT REPORT, WAITING ON A DOT REPORT.

WELL, DOT IS ONLY LOOKING AT 51 AND CHECKING THE TURN LIMITS AND THE PARKING SPACES COMING IN OFF 51.

IT IS NOT LOOKING AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.

DOT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. AND THEY DID HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING BECAUSE IT WAS MENTIONED LAST TIME, AND THEY HELD THAT MEETING AT 2:00 ON A FRIDAY WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE AT WORK.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT MY BIGGEST CONCERN, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW NICE OF A GAS STATION AND HOW NICE OF A CONVENIENCE STORE YOU BUILD THERE, THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE ON US WITH THE TRAFFIC.

WE ARE IN A SEASONED NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE WALK UP AND DOWN THE STREETS.

OUR KIDS WALK UP AND DOWN THE STREETS, GRANDPARENTS WALK UP AND DOWN THE STREETS.

AND JUST AS YOU'VE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH DON'T WANT TO BE AFFECTED.

SO YOU MADE THEM PUT IN A HUGE CURB AND BOLLARDS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN'T GO TO THE NORTH.

WHAT THAT DOES IS FORCE ALL OF THE TRAFFIC TO COME ON WEST JOHN STREET OUT THE SOUTH ENTRANCE.

SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS WHOLE PROJECT ISN'T WHAT THEY'RE SELLING, ISN'T WHAT THEY ARE.

IT'S THAT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE COMING TO THAT GAS STATION, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE CUTTING DOWN JAMES AND GARLAND AND LIPSEY AND ON TO JOHN STREET TO COME IN THAT SOUTH ENTRANCE. AND WHEN THEY GET READY TO LEAVE THAT STORE OR THAT GAS STATION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PLAY FROGGER TO JUMP OUT ON 51.

THEY'RE GOING TO CUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AND ZIP BACK UP TO PRESCOTT TO GO OUT AT THE RED LIGHT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT WAITING ON TRAFFIC TO PLAY FROGGER.

SO WHAT'S HAPPENED IS, IS IF YOU'RE HAVING A CONVENIENCE STORE, ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND THERE ARE GOING TO USE IT AS A CONVENIENCE AND USE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AS A CONVENIENCE TO SLIDE THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET TO THAT STORE THAT REALLY ONLY HAS ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING TRAFFIC TO IMPEDE ON THE NORTH NEIGHBORS, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWING TRAFFIC TO IMPEDE ON THE SOUTH, NEIGHBORS COMING RIGHT UP JOHN STREET AND UP ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.

SO WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR OKAY BY ORDINANCE OR NOT, I WOULD LIKE FOR ALL OF YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLEASE CONSIDER, DO YOU LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? AND IF YOU LIVED IN THAT QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU ENJOY WALKING UP AND DOWN THE STREET, WOULD YOU WANT ALL OF THOSE ADDED CARS COMING UP AND DOWN YOUR STREET? BECAUSE THERE IS NO QUESTION IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE TRAFFIC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT, SUSIE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR. IVAN OSORNIO. GOOD EVENING, I'M IVAN OSORNIO. I'M SORRY. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

IVAN OSORNIO, 2809 SOUTH LIBERTY STREET. I'M THE HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND IT.

I WANT TO SAY THAT I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE ONLY HOUSE IF THIS GAS STATION GOES THROUGH TO BE THE CLOSEST TO A GAS STATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER HOUSE IN DECATUR.

THERE'S GOING TO BE, LIKE, FEET AWAY FROM IT.

JUST SEPARATION WITH A FENCE. I KNOW THERE'S PROBABLY I THINK THERE'S ONE WHICH HAS A STREET IN BETWEEN,

[00:55:07]

BUT I THINK MY HOUSE IS NOW GOING TO IF THIS GAS STATION GOES THROUGH, IT'S GOING TO BE THE CLOSEST TO A GAS STATION OR CONVENIENCE STORE.

BUT. AND THEN I WANT ALSO TELL YOU AND THE OWNERS TO GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER THIS, BECAUSE THIS LOT IS THE SIZE OF MY HOUSE, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THIS IS GOING TO GET.

I MEAN, THIS IS 51. THIS IS GETTING MORE TRAFFIC.

WE JUST SAW THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE BUILDINGS BEING BUILT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING COMING THROUGH.

THIS IS NOT 1995 ANYMORE. WHENEVER, WHENEVER THAT OTHER STORE OR WHENEVER THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT, I MEAN, THIS IS 2026. THIS IS TEN YEARS ALREADY FROM WHENEVER THE LAST ONE WAS CLOSED.

THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC, THERE'S MORE PEOPLE AND THE SPACE IN THERE, THERE'S NOT A LOT 0.55 ACRES ON A GAS STATION.

I, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER MAYBE A DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THERE.

THERE'S PLENTY OF LAND. I MEAN, IN 51, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY STILL WANT THIS ONE, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE TOO SMALL FOR THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE, I MEAN, YOU'RE GETTING CASA TORRES, YOU'RE GETTING WHENEVER THERE'S AN EVENT THERE, THERE'S PEOPLE GOING TO GO THERE. AND I MEAN, YOU'RE GETTING ALL THE RANCHERS WITH THEIR BIG TRUCKS TRYING TO GET INTO THAT THAT SMALL AREA. I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO MAYBE CONSIDER A DIFFERENT PLACE FOR IT, WHICH DOES HAVE A BIGGER SPACE.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER, BETTER IDEA AND BETTER PLANNING.

I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE AGAINST THEM. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

SUSIE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP? YES, SIR.

ROBERT TALLEY. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

ROBERT TALLEY, 2908 SOUTH GARLAND AND LIVED THERE SINCE 96.

OLD ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE YOU SAID, PEOPLE WALK IN THERE.

PARENTS, KIDS, KIDS RIDE BICYCLES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO EXPAND IT MASSIVELY. AND THERE'S FOUR GAS STATIONS WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF.

WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ONE IN THERE. WE JUST DON'T NEED THE TRAFFIC.

THANK YOU. SUSIE. THE OTHERS ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER THREE.

OKAY, SO NO OTHER ITEM, NO OTHER SPEAKERS FOR ITEM TWO.

CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION FOR FOR WAYNE? WE DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO STOP THEM FROM BUILDING ANYTHING.

NO, THIS IS ONLY FOR FUEL CELLS. OKAY. SO WE HAVE NO WAY TO STOP.

SO. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. QUESTION. YEAH.

I GUESS THE THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT IS IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RETAIL.

COMMERCIAL. COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL USE. THE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES UP AND DOWN 51.

OR CAN YOU GIVE US AN INDICATION OF WHAT WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THOSE PROPERTIES? SO ALONG ALONG THAT ROUTE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CASA TORRES ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.

THAT WESTERN SIDE OF THE STREET IS ALL SINGLE FAMILY OR.

I'M SORRY, IT'S ALL RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL C-1 ZONING DISTRICT.

AND ACROSS THE STREET AT THE FAIRGROUNDS IS C-2.

SO DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET THERE WOULDN'T EVEN BE A REQUIREMENT FOR AN SUP OR ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

AND THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK AS FAR AS JUST FOR AN IDENTIFICATION OR PURPOSES OF GO AHEAD, THE PEACH COLORED AREA RIGHT THERE, THAT IS ALL C-1 RESTRICTED.

AND THEN THE RED IS C-2. OKAY. AND WAYNE, JUST I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S BEEN ZONED THAT WAY? SO I KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN ZONED THAT WAY SINCE AT LEAST 2015.

PRIOR TO THAT, I COULD DO SOME RESEARCH TO LET YOU KNOW.

BUT, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT ZONING HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE 2015.

RIGHT. AND IF, IF THERE WAS A PRIOR GAS STATION AT THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT ZONING AT THAT TIME, OR IT WAS POTENTIALLY THE SAME ZONING WITH AN SUP.

WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ZONING AT SOME POINT. RIGHT.

[01:00:03]

WHEN THE BUILDING TO THE EAST ON 51, IS THAT WHERE THE THE VETERANS BUILDING IS? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S THE ONE. SO THERE IS ONE C-1 RESTRICTED ON THAT SIDE OF THE STREET.

GOT IT. AND THAT'S WHERE THAT VETERANS BUILDING IS AT.

AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS ON SOME OF OUR CASES ON THIS, AND I'M NOT SEEING ANY ZONING CHANGE THAT GOES BACK AS FAR AS OUR RECORDS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THE THE LARGE PIECE THAT IS SOUTH THAT HAS THE ELECTRICAL.

IS THAT JUST A RIGHT OF WAY LANE? IT IS IT'S A IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY FOR AN ELECTRIC UTILITY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S BRAZOS. OKAY. APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH RIGHT OF WAY DO THEY HAVE THERE? AS FAR AS THE WIDTH ON IT. I MEAN I SEE IT GOES WAY BACK.

IT'S NARROW AND THEN IT IT WIDENS AT THE CLOSER TO THE ROAD IT LOOKS LIKE.

AND THAT'S NOT. THAT'S JUST THE PROPERTY LINES THAT FOLLOW ALONG THAT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ACTUAL WIDTH ON. THAT I'M SHOWING ON THIS, I CAN FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THIS WIDTH IS THAT IT'S SHOWING FOR THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SHOWING A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S IN THERE.

IT DOES WIDEN OUT. AND SOME OF THOSE AREAS ARE JUST THEY'RE TOO SMALL TO DO ANYTHING WITH ON THAT.

BUT I'M SHOWING A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. I THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX THAT THERE WAS ANY WAY THAT COULD BE UTILIZED TO HELP THE SITUATION.

WELL, TO CIRCLE BACK, I GUESS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS OR WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED? THIS IS THE SUP FOR SALE OF GAS. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WELL, HEARING, HEARING NOTHING ELSE.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS COMMENT? WE'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AT 07:03.

AND THIS IS A FIRST READING. SO COUNCIL ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM THREE AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:03.

[3. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.067-ACRE TRACT OF LAND IN THE PROCTOR ADDITION, IN THE J. PROCTOR SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 683, IN THE CITY OF DECATUR, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO SINGLE-FAMILY (SF-2) ZONING DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS 600 E US HWY 380 BUSINESS. (CLIFFORD BRANNON, PROPERTY OWNER) ZC-26-0001.]

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.067 ACRES.

YES, SIR. LISA HANNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A REZONING REQUEST FOR 600 EAST U.S.

HIGHWAY 380 BUSINESS. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE IT TO SINGLE FAMILY'S F-2.

YOU CAN SEE IT IS ADJACENT TO SF-2 PROPERTY, A LITTLE OVER AN ACRE.

IT HAD, THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL MARCH 23RD.

SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE.

THE UNDERLYING LAND USE IS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH THE PRIMARY LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL.

SO 23 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED PER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

AND SINCE IT'S A ZONING CHANGE, THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO POSTED.

WE WE RECEIVED THREE OPPOSITION LETTERS. THE PERCENTAGE IS 17.35%.

SOME OF THE REASONS CITED WERE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPERTY LINES AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.

SO WE LOOKED AT THAT ON HOW THE WISE CAD HAD THE LOTS DRAWN.

SO THE LOTS ARE SURROUNDING THIS LOT AND TO THE TO THE WEST HAVE NEVER BEEN PLATTED.

AND ACCORDING TO THE WISE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THESE LINES ARE ARBITRARY UNTIL PLATTING OR SURVEY DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED.

THEY EVEN HAVE A DISCLAIMER ON THEIR WEBSITE STATING THAT FACT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESEARCHED BY THE SURVEYOR, WHO THE PROPERTY OWNER HIRES TO DO THE RESEARCH TO GET THEIR LOT LINES WRITTEN OR PLATTED OUT. THEY LOOK UP ALL THE DEED DOCUMENTS, LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS BASED ON THE DEED RESEARCH, AND THEY OFFER US A CLOSURE REPORT. IT'S STAFF'S JOB TO REVIEW THE CLOSURE REPORT TO CONFIRM THAT ALL THE LINES CLOSE ACCORDING TO THE MEASUREMENTS, AND IT'S BASED ON THE CLOSURE REPORT THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE SURVEYOR.

[01:05:01]

SO OUR GIS ANALYST TUCKER DOES OUR CLOSURE REPORTS.

ANY TYPE OF PROPERTY LINE OR OWNER DISCREPANCY IS A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN EITHER THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND OR THEIR SURVEYORS.

SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6 TO 0 AT THE MARCH 30TH MEETING.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS I CAN TRY TO ANSWER.

CAN YOU BRING UP THE CURRENT ZONING MAP IN THAT SECTION? SO THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.

TWO PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

AND WHAT IS THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

OKAY, SO WE'RE CHANGING IT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY.

SO AS OF. RIGHT. YEAH. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING, IF OUR ALL OF OUR PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE LEFT, THEY COULD SEE WHAT WE GO THROUGH HERE TO FIGURE ALL THIS STUFF OUT.

SO WE CHANGED THAT TO SF-2 IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO GET RIGHT INTO THE SITUATION WHERE WE'VE JUST ARGUED ABOUT, BECAUSE NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY COME IN AND TRY TO DO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ALL THE WAY AROUND THIS SF-2, AND THEY BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY. AND WE HAVE LIKE THE ONE GENTLEMAN SAID, HEY, WHY ARE YOU LETTING THIS HAPPEN? WE, WE HAVE A HOUSE HERE NOW. YOU'RE GOING TO LET THEM BUILD A BIG INDUSTRIAL BUILDING RIGHT NEXT TO US.

SO THEN NOW WE'RE FIGHTING WITH THIS, AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES BUILT RIGHT HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO A RAILROAD TRACK.

I DON'T IT'S, I'M NOT A, I'M NOT HERE FOR FINANCIAL ADVICE, BUT WHOEVER'S DOING THIS IS PROBABLY NOT MAKING THE MOST SOLID FINANCIAL DECISION FOR RIGHT NEXT TO A RAILROAD TRACK. BUT I'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS ISSUE.

BUT NOW JUST GOING WHAT WE WENT THROUGH, I MEAN, WE CHANGED THIS TO SF-2 AND THEY BUILD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHICH THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE HERE AND NOW WHOEVER OWNS ALL THE PROPERTY AROUND IT COMES IN AND BUILDS THIS INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. AND NOW THEY'RE BACK IN HERE COMPLAINING THAT WHY DID WE LET THEM DO THIS? WHY WOULD WE LET THEM DO THIS? SO I'M ALL FOR PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS.

I THINK IT'S ONE OF MY CORNERSTONES. BUT I MEAN, AT WHAT POINT DO WE HAVE TO PUT OUR FOOT DOWN AND SAY IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST IDEA FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO BE HERE? SO I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN HIS FAMILY SINCE THE 1940S.

HIS GOAL IS TO RETIRE DOWN HERE AND BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

BUT HE IS HERE. AND HE CAN EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE.

OKAY, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT. AND OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON THIS, OF COURSE, IS OUR COMP PLAN AND OUR LAND USE THAT'S ON THERE.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THE LAND USE FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THERE IS A COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IF THAT'S. WEIRD, I KNOW I'M TRYING TO GET IT TO GO GREEN.

YOU'RE GREEN NOW. THAT. THAT'S OUR COMPREHENSIVE OUR 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YES. THE OWNERS THAT ARE ALREADY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY UNLESS THEY SELL IT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY.

CORRECT. AND I I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I MEAN, IF YOU OWN AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO THE RAILROAD, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO KEEP IT INDUSTRIAL.

IT JUST MAKES COMPLETE SENSE. SO THIS IS THEORETICAL AND I BELIEVE IN THE 2050 PLAN.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT PLAN FOR THE MOST PART. BUT JUST LIKE WHEN WE WERE PLANNING THE 2050 PLAN, THAT'S A LIVE DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSISTENTLY ADDRESS.

SO. I DON'T. VERY GOOD. YEAH. AND THE THE PURPLE ZONING.

WHAT DOES THAT REPRESENT? MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTION.

THAT'S THE LAND USE. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED? ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE HAVE SOME FOLKS THAT WERE SIGNED UP FOR COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS.

YES. MR.. KEVIN HANEY. YEAH. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

KEVIN HANEY 203 WEST WALNUT DECATUR. AND ALSO RELATED TO THIS MATTER I HAVE WITH ME TONIGHT, JEFF SEEKING, WHO'S ALSO HERE IN THE AUDIENCE.

AND NOT TO BE OUTDONE BY WASHINGTON DC WITH HAVING ENGLISH ROYALTY IN THE HOUSE.

WE HAVE THE ESTEEMED FORMER CITY OF DECATUR, CITIZEN OF THE MONTH, MARK MORAN, HERE WITH US ALSO.

[01:10:05]

HE'S GOT HIS HEAD DOWN. BUT ANYWAY, THE THREE OF US, THROUGH ENTITIES THAT WE OWN, OWN THE THREE RED LIGHTS YOU SAW A MOMENT AGO WHERE WE HAVE OPPOSED THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. WE BELIEVE THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING CHANGE WILL NEGATIVELY, NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH I THINK MR. HAYES KIND OF ALLUDED TO THAT A MOMENT AGO. AND WE ALSO DON'T THINK THAT HAVING A RESIDENCE AT THIS LOCATION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF HOW THIS CORRIDOR OF BUSINESS 380 DEVELOPS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS LOT'S BEEN IN MR. BRANDON'S FAMILY FOR A WHILE. I KNOW BASED ON THE DEED RECORDS, HE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 1999.

AT THAT TIME, IT WAS INDICATED THAT HE OWNED THAT HE LIVED IN LANSING, MICHIGAN.

I DON'T HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS TODAY, BUT THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MR. BRANNAN, DID HAVE A MICHIGAN ADDRESS.

SO I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S BEEN HERE LATELY TO SEE HOW THIS CORRIDOR ALONG BUSINESS 380 HAS DEVELOPED SINCE 1999, WHEN HE FIRST OWNED THIS PROPERTY.

BUT WITH THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHWAY 380 EAST OF DECATUR, PALOMA AND THOSE OTHER AREAS.

AND IF YOU GO TO DENTON, YOU SEE WHAT'S HEADED THIS DIRECTION, THIS CORRIDOR COMING IN OFF OF 380 AND 51 TOWARD DOWNTOWN, IS GOING TO KIND OF BE THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY THAT PEOPLE SEE AS THEY COME IN.

AND I THINK BECAUSE OF THAT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE.

MY FEELING IS THAT WE HAVE BUSINESSES. BUSINESS USES ALONG THIS BUSINESS 380 SECTION OF ROADWAY HERE THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT VISION OF THIS BEING THE GATEWAY TO OUR CITY.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS INDICATED THAT THIS SF-2 ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT PLAN, BUT ALSO THE CURRENT ZONING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS PROPERTY ALONG HERE HAS A COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD PLACE TYPE UNDER THE PLAN, AND THERE IS A LONG LIST OF COMPATIBLE USES UNDER THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD PLACE TYPE, INCLUDING CIVIC, SCHOOL, RECREATIONAL AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES.

SO AS CURRENTLY ZONED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. MR. BRANNON'S PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NOT ONLY IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE.

I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME IS UP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SUSIE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT'S SIGNED UP? MR. JEFF SEEKING. AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS JEFF SEEKING. MY ADDRESS IS 2220 COUNTY ROAD 2224, HERE IN DECATUR.

LIKE KEVIN SAID, I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF AN LLC THAT OWNS 3 OR 4 PROPERTIES THAT TOUCH MR. BRANNON'S PROPERTY AS WELL AS A COUPLE ACRES THAT'S DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF IT, JUST SOUTH OF THE YELLOW OR ORANGE ON THE MAP HERE, WHERE THE JUST NORTH OF THE DECATUR GLASS FACTORY.

SO BETWEEN THE THREE OF US AND OUR LLCS WE OWN.

YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SAY ROUGHLY 3 TO 4 ACRES IN THERE.

SO A BIG CHUNK OF THAT WHOLE AREA. THE COUPLE THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO MENTION IS, FIRST OFF, I JUST DON'T THINK A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD QUALIFY AS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF MR. BRANDON'S PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE, THE LAND THAT WE OWN THERE.

SECONDLY, I FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF BUFFER BETWEEN A HIGH VOLUME, HIGH TRAFFIC STREET LIKE THIS AND A RESIDENTIAL HOME JUST BECAUSE AND THAT'S WHAT I FEEL LIKE THE, THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING WILL CREATE IS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE HIGH TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, STREET AND THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE PROBLEM WITH HIS LOT IS IT ONLY FRONTS ON 380.

SO THERE'S NO WAY TO PUT A BUFFER IN THERE. IT'S IT IS, YOU KNOW, ON THE, ON THE THOROUGHFARE.

AND I THINK LAST, I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT COUNCILMAN HAYES SAID.

[01:15:01]

IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASE WE JUST SPENT, YOU KNOW, THE LAST 30 MINUTES TALKING ABOUT BEFORE US, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE A HOUSE BEING BUILT THERE.

THEN WE GO TO PULL A PERMIT OR DO SOMETHING COMPLIANT WITH OUR CURRENT ZONING.

AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT BEING, YOU KNOW, OWNERS OR RESIDENTS IN THAT, YOU KNOW, HOME OR PROPERTY, THEY COME AND COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET AHEAD OF A PROBLEM BEFORE WE CREATE ONE.

SO THANK YOU GUYS. ASUCENA ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP ON THIS ITEM? MR. CLIFFORD BRENNAN. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.

I'M CLIFFORD BRENNAN, AND MY ADDRESS IS 2721 HYDRA DRIVE, LANSING, MICHIGAN.

ALTHOUGH I LIVE CURRENTLY LIVE IN MICHIGAN. I AM ON MY WAY BACK TO TEXAS.

TEXAS IS MY ORIGINAL HOME. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY SIBLINGS AND MY.

I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS THAT LIVE IN THE TEXAS AREA AND ONE LIVES IN IN KELLER, TEXAS.

AND I HAVE SOME SIBLINGS IN WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS.

AS THE GENTLEMAN STATED, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN MY FAMILY FOR THE LAST WELL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, SINCE 1943. AND IT USED TO BELONG TO MY GRANDFATHER.

WHEN MY GRANDFATHER PASSED AWAY, IT WENT ON TO MY MOTHER, BUT AND THEN EVENTUALLY TO ME.

AND SO WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS I WAS TRAVELING, GOING, BEING A WORLD TRAVELER.

BUT AS I EVENTUALLY DECIDED TO COME BACK TO THIS AREA.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT HOUSE THERE USED TO BE A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY.

AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, SINCE IT HAD BEEN VACANT AND NEGLECTED FOR A WHILE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACTED ME BY WAY OF MY SISTER ASKED ME IF THEY COULD USE IT TO AS PRACTICE TO, YOU KNOW, JUST TO HELP THE CITY FOR TRAINING PURPOSES.

YES. AND BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PEOPLE HERE IN DECATUR ARE CAPABLE.

AND I'M SORRY IF I OFFENDED ANYBODY BY WANTING TO COME BACK HOME, BUT I'VE BEEN AROUND THE WORLD, AND THIS IS FULL CIRCLE. THIS IS THIS IS IT'S GOING TO BE MY HOME.

UNLESS AS, AS I DISCUSSED WITH SOMEONE IN THE PAST.

IF I RECEIVED THE REMUNERATION, THAT WOULD BE COMPENSABLE ENOUGH FOR ME TO LOCATE A LEGACY PROPERTIES PROPERTY SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEN I WOULD GLADLY CONSIDER THAT.

BUT YOU KNOW, LET'S NOT TRY TO PUSH ME OUT RIGHT NOW BEFORE I GET HOME.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SUSIE, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR THIS, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE.

YES. GO AHEAD. I'M JUST GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION.

DO WE KNOW? I'M SO SORRY, SIR. I'M JUST GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION, AND THEN I'M GOING TO LET YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION.

SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:19. GO AHEAD SIR.

MY APOLOGIES. MORE HISTORY. WAYNE. DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT GOT CHANGED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL? NO. NO. OKAY. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THAT ON HERE.

AND AS FAR BACK AS I CAN SEE, I DO NOT SEE A ZONE CHANGE ON THAT PROPERTY IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

SINCE AT LEAST 2015. SO BUT PAST THAT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE PAPER RECORDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK UP INTO THAT.

BUT I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING. DO WE HAVE THOSE PAPER RECORDS? I KNOW GREG HAS. GREG HAS A LOT OF TIME. HE COULD GO THERE AND CONVERT THEM TO DIGITAL.

THIS IS STILL. MY PLANNING ASSISTANT JUST SENT ME AN EMAIL. SO YEAH, IT'S FOR 2806. IT'S FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY.

IT WAS THE IT WAS THE CHANGE OF ZONING ON THE OTHER.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL HAS ON THIS? THIS IS A FIRST READING. OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT FOR THE DISCUSSION.

[01:20:01]

NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN WE WILL CLOSE THIS ITEM AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM.

[4. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO REPLAT AN APPROXIMATE 0.61-ACRE PARCEL, DESCRIBED AS LOT 1R, BLOCK 111, SOUTH DECATUR ADDITION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 4, BLOCK 111, SOUTH DECATUR ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DECATUR, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS, ALSO KNOWN AS 1600 S COLLEGE STREET. (QUINT BURKS, ON BEHALF OF ERIC KAVICKY, PROPERTY OWNER) RP-26-0001.]

ITEM FOUR WILL OPEN AT 7:20. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO REPLAT AN APPROXIMATE 0.61 ACRE PARCEL.

YES, SIR. LISA HAHN AND PLANNING DIRECTOR. WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO THIS IS A REPLAT REQUEST FOR 1600 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE.

IT DOES MEET ALL OF OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, 0.61 ACRES.

THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND A CARPORT THAT WAS DESTROYED BY THE ICE STORM.

SO AS THEY WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, WE FOUND A SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WERE NEEDED FOR THE EXISTING POOL HOUSE STRUCTURE, AND THOSE WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AT THE APRIL 13TH MEETING.

SO A NEW CARPORT IS BEING PROPOSED. AND DUE TO THE SIZE OF THAT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE MAY 5TH, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING, AND THEN IT WILL BE AT THE MAY 26TH MEETING FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST READING.

SO 17 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.

AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RP-26-0001 AND PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? AND THIS DOES SHOW TAKE ACTION.

MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RP-26-0001 SECOND.

SO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES. AND BY WAY WE WILL CLOSE THAT ITEM AT 7:22.

THANK YOU EVERYONE. ITEM FIVE WILL IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[5. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO REPLAT LOTS 11R1 AND 11R2, BLOCK J, MRS. E.O. CATES ADDITION, BEING A REPLAT OF LOTS 11 – 113, BLOCK J, MRS. E. O. CATES ADDITION, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DECATUR, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS, ALSO KNOWN AS 201 AND 203 S CATES STREET. (CLIFF SPENCE, ON BEHALF OF SPENCE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) RP-26-0002.]

WE'LL OPEN THAT UP AT 7:23. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION.

AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST TO REPLAT LOTS 11 R-1 AND 11 R-2.

YES, SIR. LISA HANNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR, WILLING OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

SO THIS IS A REPLAT REQUEST FOR 201 AND 203 SOUTH CATES.

IT DOES MEET ALL THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

SO AT 203 SOUTH CATES, THAT WILL BE THE SOUTHERN LOT.

ORIGINALLY, THE PROPERTY, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ACROSS THE PROPERTY LINE.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S OUTLINED IN RED, THE LITTLE DOTTED LINE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY LINE.

SO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO PLAT BOTH PROPERTIES AND CLEAR UP ALL NON-CONFORMITIES.

SO 201 SOUTH CATES IS 0.10 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY 4353FT².

A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS PROPOSED AND AGAIN 203 SOUTH CATES IS 0.11 ACRES, 4640FT², AND THERE IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SO 201 SOUTH CATES IS ONE OF OUR INFILL PROPERTIES.

SO IT'S ONE OF OUR INFILL APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.

SO IT REQUIRED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR THE LOT WIDTH AND THE LOT AREA.

AND BOTH OF THOSE WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AT THE APRIL 13TH MEETING.

AGAIN. THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE IS PROPOSED.

THERE'S A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

203 SOUTH CATE'S EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE.

A COUPLE OF SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR FRONT YARD SETBACKS, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND LOT AREA.

AND THOSE WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ALSO AT THE APRIL 13TH MEETING.

25 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REPLAT REQUEST AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS AGAIN A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

SUSIE, IS THERE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR THIS? NO, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS FOR ACTION.

MR. MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. RP-26-0001.

SECOND. SECOND. FOR CLARITY. DO YOU WANT TO READ THE READ BACK ON THE RP? NO. IT'S JUST ONE, BUT IT'S. I'M SORRY, MR. MAYOR.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RP-26-0002.

[01:25:06]

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES AND WE WILL CLOSE THAT 7:26. ITEM SIX IS AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[6. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE FOLLOWING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD (TN) TO COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) ON AN APPROXIMATELY 0.409-ACRE TRACT OF LAND, DESCRIBED AS LOT 3R-2, BLOCK 116, SOUTH DECATUR ADDITION, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS, ALSO KNOWN AS 1707 S HATCHER STREET. (CONNIE WEAVER, PROPERTY OWNER) CP-26-0001.]

AND WE'LL OPEN THAT AT 7:26. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP ON APPROXIMATELY 0.409 ACRES OF TRACT OF LAND. YES, SIR. LISA HANNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

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

SO THIS IS 1707 SOUTH HATCHER STREET. THIS IS THE PROPERTY WHERE OUR OLD WATER TOWER USED TO BE.

IT'S THE LOT THAT WE SOLD BACK IN NOVEMBER. SO THE NEW OWNER IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

AND THE EXISTING LAND USE IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE IT TO COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR DUPLEXES.

SO THEY WANT TO DEVELOP A DUPLEX THERE. SO A REZONING WILL BE REQUIRED.

IT'S RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING LAND USE AROUND THE AREA.

AND THEN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THIS. SO THIS WAS REPLATTED IN 2025, THE COUNCIL APPROVED.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ESPECIALLY THE GENERAL GROWTH TRENDS AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND ADDITIONAL HOUSING OPTIONS. THIS HELPS REDUCE SPRAWL AND KEEP IT COMPACT WITHIN OUR CITY INSTEAD OF EXPANDING IT INTO THE COUNTY.

SO 14 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED WITHIN 200FT AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CP-26-0001 AND PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT, SUSIE, ANYONE SIGN UP FOR THIS? OKAY, COUNCIL.

ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

WELL, THIS IS FIRST READING. YEAH. VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. AND SO WE WILL CLOSE THAT ITEM AT 7:28.

AND ITEM SEVEN IS A OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE'LL OPEN THAT AT 7:28

[7. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.409-ACRE TRACT OF LAND BEING DESCRIBED AS LOT 3R-2FROM SINGLE-FAMILY (SF-2) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2F), ALSO KNOWN AS 1707 S HATCHER STREET. (CONNIE WEAVER, PROPERTY OWNER) ZC-26-0002.]

DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.409 ACRES.

YES, SIR. LISA HANNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. I WILL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD BY REFERENCE IN ITS ENTIRETY.

SO THIS IS THE ZONING CHANGE FOR 1707 SOUTH HATCHER.

AGAIN, THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD BY THE CITY AND THE NEW OWNER IS DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED SF-2 SINGLE FAMILY. A DUPLEX IS PROPOSED SO THEREFORE IT NEEDS THE ZONING NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO 2F WHICH WILL PERMIT DETACHED OR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY HOMES.

SO THIS IS THE SURROUNDING ZONING. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OF INTEREST.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LITTLE LIGHT GREEN THAT IS SCATTERED AMONG THE MAP, THAT IS 2F PROPERTY ZONING THAT IS MIXED IN WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. IT'S BEEN A CONSISTENT A CONSISTENT PRACTICE WITH THE CITY OF DECATUR TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS STILL A RESIDENTIAL USE. SO THE EXISTING LAND USE AGAIN IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ONLY PERMITS SINGLE FAMILY, AND WE ARE RUNNING THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WHICH WILL ALLOW IT FOR COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE REPLAT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER BY CITY COUNCIL.

AGAIN, THE ZONING CHANGE IS CONSISTENT REGARDING HOUSING OPTIONS AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

SO 14 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED SINCE IT'S A ZONING CHANGE.

THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO POSTED AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT, SUSIE, ANYONE SIGN UP FOR THIS? ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS? AGAIN THIS IS A FIRST READING.

THAT WE WILL CLOSE THIS ITEM AT 730 AND CONCLUDE THAT ITEM.

ITEM EIGHT IS A NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, SO WE WON'T OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING.

[8. A VARIANCE REQUEST BY KARL KLEMENT, PROPERTY OWNER, REQUESTING TO REMOVE AND REPLACE A BILLBOARD SIGN AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE AT 402 N US HWY 81 287, DECATUR, TEXAS. OFF-PREMISES SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS ARE PROHIBITED. THIS IS A VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE CITY OF DECATUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 15, SECTION 15-21. PROHIBITED SIGNS, SUBSECTION (6) OFF-PREMISES SIGNS/BILLBOARDS. V-26-0001.]

ITEM EIGHT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST BY KARL KLEMENT.

PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING TO REMOVE AND REPLACE A BILLBOARD SIGN.

YES, SIR. LISA HANNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. AGAIN, WE'LL ENTER OUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE.

STAFF RECEIVED A SIGNED VARIANCE REQUEST TO FROM MR.

[01:30:05]

KARL KLEMENT TO REMOVE AND REPLACE AN EXISTING BILLBOARD ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITH THE SAME SIZE AND IN THE APPROXIMATE SAME LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY. SO PER OUR SIGN ORDINANCE, SECTION 15-67 COUNCIL CAN GRANT SIGN VARIANCES. CRITERIA MUST BE MET. SO WE'LL GO OVER THE FOUR CRITERIA.

THE FIRST CRITERIA IS THAT GRANTING A VARIANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT ENJOYED BY OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED OR POTENTIALLY SIMILARLY SITUATED.

THIS BILLBOARD HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LITTLE OVER 31 YEARS.

IT'S NOT REQUESTING TO PUT A NEW BILLBOARD IN A NEW LOCATION, IT'S REMOVING AND REPLACING THE SAME PROPERTY, APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS LETTER OF INTENT STATED THAT THERE WAS WIND DAMAGE, RUST, AND THAT THE BILLBOARD HAD SOME BOWING AND BENT TO IT.

THE NEW BILLBOARD, OF COURSE, WOULD BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND ENHANCE ESTHETICS.

CRITERIA NUMBER TWO THE VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT PREVENTS ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNS ON THE SITE.

CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF A SITE, INCLUDING ITS DIMENSIONS, LANDSCAPING AND TOPOGRAPHY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S KIND OF ON A HILL THERE.

THE SIGN ORDINANCE DOES. HOWEVER, THE SIGN ORDINANCE DOESN'T PERMIT BILLBOARDS ANY LONGER.

SIGN ORDINANCE, BUT IT DOES ALLOW FOR CITY COUNCIL TO GRANT VARIANCES BASED ON THE CRITERIA.

AGAIN, NOT A NEW BILLBOARD. IT'S REMOVING AND REPLACING AN EXISTING BILLBOARD ON THE SAME PROPERTY IN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE EFFECT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

REMOVING AND REPLACING IT WILL BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND, ESTHETICALLY PLEASING.

NOT REQUESTING A DIGITAL BILLBOARD, JUST REQUESTING A REGULAR BILLBOARD.

CRITERIA FOUR THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER.

SINCE THE SIGN ORDINANCE DOES PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS, IT PROHIBITS DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND BILLBOARDS AND OFF PREMISE SIGNAGE.

THE REQUEST IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE ADOPTED SIGN ORDINANCE.

SO THE SIGN HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR APPROXIMATELY 31 PLUS YEARS.

THE REPLACING IT IN THE SAME SIZE AND FIGURATION, NOT DIGITAL.

SINCE THE SIGN ORDINANCE PROHIBITS BILLBOARDS, THE SIGN ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR AN APPLICANT TO APPLY TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A VARIANCE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IT DOES NOT MEET ALL FOUR CRITERIA. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF CAN'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF IT.

HOWEVER, COUNCIL CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE APPLICATION AND THE STAFF REPORT.

IF APPROVED, A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND A NEW SIGN PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE BILLBOARD.

ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? YES. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN? I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD IT ENOUGH TONIGHT [LAUGHS]. YOU GUYS ARE TIRED OF ME TONIGHT, I KNOW. NO, MA'AM. NEVER IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS.

MR. MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VARIANCE 26-0001.

SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

THAT PASSES. ITEM NINE. CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF DECATUR,

[9. CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF DECATUR, TEXAS, TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER/AUTO THEFT RAPID RESPONSE INITIATIVE. RESOLUTION R2026-04-07]

TEXAS, TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER AUTO THEFT RAPID RESPONSE INITIATIVE.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING. I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY THING I'LL TALK TO YOU TONIGHT ABOUT THIS THIS OPPORTUNITY CAME UP THROUGH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO FUNDS THAT THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALLOWS FOR USING SPECIFIC TO THESE THEFT DETERRENT GRANTS. SO THE MEMO THERE GIVES YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW.

BASICALLY, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN ALLOWING OUR POLICE FORCE TO GO AND APPLY FOR THIS GRANT.

IT'S A COMPETITIVE GRANT. THE ONE THING THAT I FAILED TO PUT IN THE MEMO, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE RESOLUTION SPEAKS TO AS IT IS AN 80/20 MATCH.

SO IF AWARDED, WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 20% OF THOSE MATCHING FUNDS.

AND AS OF THIS PRESENTATION TONIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE A TOTAL COST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T STARTED THE GRANT PROCESS.

THIS RESOLUTION ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR DEFLECT THEM OVER TO CHIEF IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.

CHIEF IS I'VE, SIR. I'VE NOT HAD TO REPLACE A CATALYTIC CONVERTER.

ARE THOSE WHAT IS THAT A PREVALENT COMPONENT OR PART OF A VEHICLE THAT'S COMMONLY STOLEN?

[01:35:04]

SO YES. SO CATALYTIC CONVERTER THEFTS HAVE BEEN A A BIG ISSUE, PARTICULARLY IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA OVER THE LAST I'D SAY 2 TO 3, FOUR YEARS. AND ON THE SAME NOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, WE JUST FOUND OUT TODAY THE LAST RESOLUTION YOU APPROVED FOR $71,000 GRANT. WE GOT NOTIFIED TODAY, WE WILL RECEIVE.