Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oops. It's been a long meeting. No, it's not. I promise. I call to order the planning and zerting commission, city of Glenrose, Texas, on August 27th, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. If I can have everybody rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

All right. Ray Clanton, [Music] Megan Chalky, present. Rex Miller, present. Graden, we have a complete panel. We are in quorum. All right. Uh to begin our consent agenda with regarding the approval of minutes from the July 23rd, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting. Has everybody had an opportunity to review? Yes.

Any revisions? All right. If there's no proposed changes, is there a motion for action to approve the minutes for the July 23rd planning and zoning meeting? Second. Does that talk about the whole thing? Yeah. I got some revision. Okay. The last section needs to be taken out. public hearings. What are you asking to approve the overlay? No, no, no. It says this item is tabled for further review. Okay, I'm good.

Okay. Yeah, I just think

Yeah. No, thank you for clarifying, but no, we did not approve and nor are we tonight. All right, so motion's been made. Um, all in favor? That's five. Perfect. I'm going to pass that on to you so I don't think there's any. All right, we have got a number of public hearings. So, we're going to um go with the principle that we did in the last meeting. have a public hearing, have discussion on that item, vote on that item, and then move to the next public hearing.

Would you like us to correct the agendas moving forward to reflect that? Yes. Does that make sense to everybody?

All right. All right. I'm going to now open the public hearings at 5:33. This is regarding the request to reszone the property located at at 1113 Ren Street, acres uh 387, track C7 through 11, abstract A136, A136 Milm County School, track C711 from B2, general business, commercial business district to an R2 and two family district. So, first is there any persons here not affiliated with the project who would like to speak on this subject?

All right. What's the location? Where is it? This is at the corner of Bernard where you're coming around kind of Caddy Corner um from It's actually It's on the map. It's on the map. It's the It's that open lot right there coming around the corner. It's that open lot. There used to be a trailer on it. Okay. That looks like Is that a pickle ball court up in the left corner? I'm trying to gauge where So, do you know where So, right across from um You're actually right across from Big Rocks Park. You're coming around the corner. Okay.

So, you're hitting the straightaway that goes up Bernard Street to get to 67. Yes. as Okay. All right. All right. Anybody involved with this particular project? We'd like to hear from you. Sure. If you'll come up to the podium. Yeah. If you can state your name and address, please. Uhhuh. Yeah. So, my name is David Dickens. uh address. I guess my residential address is 1478 County Road 409 in Nemo. Okay.

And then yeah, so we're just proposing today to reszone 1113 Ren Street from B2 to R2. Uh so I Yep. I'm a owner and a principal for White Rock Homes and Design. And so we build residential homes. A lot of our a lot of our construction right now is in county. Uh this would be our first project in the city. Um so ideally we we purchased this lot and the vision for this lot was to um offer some some like a nice residential option for you know whether it's someone that already lives in Glenrose or someone that's looking to move to Glenrose that wants to live centrally located close to downtown. Um because ideally the property's little maybe like right under a half a mile walking distance from uh from the square itself. Um, so, uh, my experience, I built homes for David Weekly Homes, um, from 2015 all the way through 2022 before we opened up our own company. Um, there's some product that I built with them. Uh, it fits on a, it's a 25 foot wide by like 80 foot product. It's all alley garages, twotory homes. Um, has a really great looking front elevation. So, from the street, the homes would be, you know, pretty front elevations, whether it's stone, stucco, or brick. Um, and they'd be sideyard focused. Um, so ideally, yeah, we would split this lot into three lots. Three of those single family detached residential homes could fit on those three lots. They'd all be facing or fronting Bernard Street. We'd have an alley garage coming off of Ren Street. Um, and they're sideyard focused home. So, instead of having your traditional backyard, the uh the living space is going to be on the sideyard. Um, so it gives you a little bit of privacy from the neighbors and just kind of helps you maximize the lot. Um, so typically like in a more dense area, uh, this product tends to work very well. It helps us get our overall price down and offer a home at a little bit of a lower price once we put it basically put it to market. Um, and it's something that that typically works in a in a great location like this lot. Um,

where someone that's looking to be close to downtown or um, you know, wants to, you know, walk to Bates or, you know, go first part of this conversation is the zoning itself.

So, right now it is zoned B2, which is our general commercial. Um, when we go north to Robin, it's B2. When we go south from Ren Street to Menard, it's B2. When we go across Bernard Street, we are in R1's. So the first thing we have to look at from a perspective of zoning is can we allow a zoning to be made that takes from a B2 to an R1 and not be considered spot zoning. So Allison, I would like to hear your view on this. So, um, the proposal is to change it from B2 to R2. Um, the proposed, and as I wrote in the staff report, the proposed R2 zoning is inconsistent with the adjacent zoning. You'll see there is no R2 zoning in that area. Um, the R2 zoning is inconsistent with the general commercial designation of the future land use plan. The R2 zoning is inconsistent with the comprehensive plans designations of flood plane and waterfront. Um, and I can pull all that up if you'd like. And the proposed R2 zoning will be placed directly on a major collector route that is identified in the comprehensive plan as well.

Okay. Bernard Street is the major collector route. Yes. Okay. I can now just I didn't ask you to send that around because I was going to actually just let you kind of speak to it because you did some additional research and put some thoughts together that you could you share those. Well, just one of the questions I had is what's the access to the homes? So, in this case, it would be Ren Street. Ren Street. Yeah. Yeah. So, we'd have an alley. So, coming off Ren Street, there'd be a shared alley uh to service all the garages. Yep. So, if you guys are familiar with the I'm assume I'm going to make an assumption here, but um Jim, the plan development unit at college,

thank you. Hold in straight. Um, similar to those kind of similar. Yeah, these will be a little bit I think longer and larger but similar. Yeah, similar lot size. Yeah. Yeah. So, if you guys have ever been down by the junior high in the hospital, the back side of the hospital, there's a road Holden that has um four or five homes. They're kind of semiconnected, but they've got a back they've got a garage kind of a garage entrance in the back of the property and then they share a driveway out to the road. So that is similar to what he is proposing. Okay. But that is not relevant to the reszoning.

Right. Basic, you know, I've found the same things you did Allison in terms of it was inconsistent. One other concern was possible safety because it is a major road and then going in and out there.

So Alison, I will comment on that. We have had Stan, the city's attorney, comment on um spot zoning in the past. And in the past he had given us the um the opinion that if we're looking at residential to residential or business to business whether it's a B1 or a B2 or a residential R1 R2 that he felt in his opinion at that time that it wouldn't have been considered a spot zoning if you take and put an R2 near R1 ones and not have anything else. I'm not sure that in this particular case I agree with that, but that has been his legal opinion in the past.

So would the R1 across the street influence the ability to So if this did not have the R1 across the street, this would be something we couldn't even consider, right? But because there is an R1 across the street, based on our city attorney's past legal opinion, we can have the discussion, right? And so this isn't about the properties that he's going to build. This isn't about anything to do with a house at this point. This is simply to do with a zoning decision on whether or not we see the value and making that change from B2 to R anything. I'm just going to say it that way.

Sure. Yeah. Well, the case for it is we have a shortage of housing and affordable housing and housing downtown. So that's that's one of the one of the cases for it. Um it doesn't comply. The lot sizes can comply with R2. They correct? The proposed uh once we get to the plaque, the proposed R2 plaque does not comply.

Okay. So I guess the first question is um what's the priority? What what what's the primary goal? Is it for business to go down that road or is it for more housing? Can I read some from the uh the Glenrose comprehensive plan? This kind of gave us the idea.

Um so policy two 2B1 uh just to promote new development, redevelopment and retrofitting within downtown. Then here it just states. Downtown Glenrose encompasses more than just the downtown square and is a significant cultural and historical area with surrounding residential homes. There will be new development on some vacant properties downtown, but redevelopment and retrofitting will take place too. Some structures that are dilapidated may be renovated or their properties could evolve into new buildings and uses. And so that then the following are policy elements that should be incorporated to support zoning changes and development proposals that provide housing within downtown and to support developments that have innovative and or walkable mixeduse design. Um so obviously I mean it's up for y'all to interpret that but I I think that that would be a good fit for what the comprehensive plan is stating there. just it's a good redevelopment opportunity and then it would serve a residential need that our city definitely needs and especially if we can highlight it close to downtown.

Alison, what's what's the zoning on the other side of Lake View? Uh that's a plan development. It's a PD, so I would have to pull the agreement to know what the rules are. I am and and I can zoom out a little more. Is it business or is it residential in that? That's part of Oakdale, isn't it? Oh, that's that's part of Oakdale. Oh, you're looking down. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's Oakdale. Okay. Okay, Megan. Um I'm specifically coming to you because as we know, a lot of that area has been zoned B2. However, a number of those houses. Yeah.

That are currently in a B2 zone were grandfathered. They're residential sitting in B2s. Yes. They would be considered existing non-conforming. Correct. So they're considered So So I'm just I want all the facts out. So the block from where he is talking about while it's B2 on the legal planning, there's grandfathered residential homes. So he's lining up against residential properties. All those all all those properties on the other side of Lake View are all houses. houses in a church and a so they're all residents,

right? But even when you look between Lake View and Bernard, those are all residential. When you come up past Ren, it's res that. So you go where he is. Thank you. So Robin is residential and then you go up another block to college and now we get and out of the residential. So the housing right against Robin and right against um Ren coming up park that's all residential.

Yeah. It's just been grandfathered in to a somebody who made a B2 zone right there. Yeah, that's the strip mall. Lanes and that's the the strip mall right there. Right. So So you've got B2 on the other side of Ren. You have on the back side of the lot he's looking at, you have residential that's been grandfathered into somebody at some point in time changing the zoning of that street to B2 because it was originally residential.

You have R1 on the other side. Then you go another block past Robins going up to college. You're getting into the businesses and then from college on it is all business, right? So, just laying everything out so everybody knows what's what, right? How big is that lot? Uh, it's a little over point4 acres. It's a little over half an acres. That's where the R2M Yeah, those are those duplexes that were recently. Okay. Uh, we can do two to three if we did a 45 foot lot. Yeah.

Are you doing duplexes or it'd be single family duplex? We can't be having that discussion yet because we have to decide on the zoning first. That's true. Well, I figured that the type of housing that's going in there would probably depict the low-income housing units, which would I understand exactly the thought process, but by law, we're not allowed to consider any of that in this first decision. So we it it sucks that we can't look at the bigger picture, but by law we have to look at it in separate items because it's almost like you're wanting us to put a puzzle together, but we don't have all the pieces.

That's what the law does. And so it it trust me when I tell you but I think in theory you can talk about whether that could be an appropriate R our one or our two how has in your experience in other cities how has um spot zoning been interpreted? It varies widely. So our city attorney's thought process not out of the norm. It's not. If that's what our city attorney has advised us, then that's what I would go with. Okay.

So why was R2M changed from a B2? Is that not spot zoning and when when did that change? So it actually so because the we we allowed the R2M in because it was right next to the R1 and then across the street went because it was now next to the R2M. So they ended up getting both of those being tied to the R1 because to me those are closer to businesses versus this this area. Everything next to the PD in between the PD and Lake U drive. What is that row of houses? That's houses.

What's the zone though? It's not part of the PD. It's part The map shows it's part of the PD the plan development, but we don't know. Our map may not be accurate, but it would be I'm working on that. Yeah, it would be our it would it would have been an R1 at some point in time, right? Most of them were R1's and then somehow they got changed to B2s. So, I'm going to So, now that we've kind of discussed all the facts, does anybody have an opinion? Are you closing the public hearing? I guess I am. We're closing the public hearing. Were you gonna say anything? Oh, no.

Well, no, because he can still talk to us because he's the part of the development. So, I think it's R. Is it R2? The front lake view right now. It's all like the pink color at least on the future land use. So it's all R2. It's single and two family resial on the future land use. Yeah, that's all which is saying no to this. I think you say you you say no unless city council redefineses a strategy of that stretch. At some point they thought it was business. Okay. If not, if that's not the case and it's going to be residential, then we just reszone the whole.

Okay, that's my opinion. It has to be. Unfortunately, we can't resone the whole thing. We can only resone owner by owner, right? So, so what is it? That's the question. City council, what's your strategic vision here that I've heard that I don't know that we should. Okay. So, we we got a one push it off to city council. Well, okay. But we get them. I mean, so here's the two ways to look at it. If we say theoretic, well, realistically, R1 is on the other side of Lake View. R1 is on the other side of Bernard. You've got this B2 patch in the middle. And we we say it's a jump ball.

And that's an R2 patch right there. Yeah. All this is R2. All that's R2 right here. Yeah. So, so it's really it's really spotted those. So, I don't know. I could go either way, but I just think Yeah, we got to be consistent. We're going to wind up going and doing this over and over. So, let me ask a different a different way. So, hang on. I've got two opinions over here. Tony, what where's your where's your general opinion at this point? Are we still on the public hearing or No, we've closed. What time did we close public hearing? We closed the public hearing at 5:50. Thank you. I don't have a problem with it. Okay. I don't have a problem with not a problem. Not a problem. I don't have a problem with it. Push push. Not a problem with it. Push up the city council.

Well, it it forces the issue to talk about what is the purpose. It does. Um, so here's I'm going to I'm going to come in at this and ask you guys my next question. and having gone through the dialogues about another business backing up and across the street and next door to a lot of residences. If it was left as a B2 and a volatile business came in, there would be a lot of limitations that we couldn't stop it, which is what we've experienced already.

And you could still experience that right now in the corner. You're right. We could, but that corner piece faces away from the residences. And it's potentially surrounded by other businesses in the future. But as of right now, yeah, they're all if it's going to be houses that people who buy the house are going to understand that, right? So you should you are correct that we are we are then sur you know surmising that people read as far as drive the neighborhood the city's plans what he's wanting to do coverage right so

other things we want so so we've got some opinions do we do we have somebody who would like to make a motion whether it is to approve or recommend commend approval or do we have a motion to not recommend approval? I I move you recommend. Second. Okay. All in favor? We are going to recommend that that become an R2. Awesome. Thank you.

That's that's only the foothill you've gotten over the next first one at a time. Right. All right. So, just to clarify, our recommendation will go to city council. There will be it will then be brought out as another public hearing at city council. Um, and you will have to again do your presentation on why it should be B2 or not B2, R2. Yes. And then only again once they have agreed to the zoning change can you have discussions about the plats and anything else. Got it. Okay. Now, I would recommend updating the map that you show to show all that residential, all the R2 more clearly.

The future land use map that sucks. That future land use map. That's all we have then. Yeah, we didn't provide that, but yeah, that's understandably a hand. I understand but that was that was part of the brewhaha we had last time is that the map is not clear. Okay. And that was a different situation. I understand but same so you can do your own own version from for presentation purposes. Okay. Yeah. No sounds good.

Okay. All right. We are now going to open the public hearing at 556. for regarding a request to replplat on the property located at 1113 Ren Street as submitted by Terresa McGee, Texas Surveying and Engineering Inc. acres 387 track C711 abstract A1 136 Milm County track C7 through 11. Is there anybody not involved with this project that would like to speak on this subject? Okay. So, technically I'm supposed to close the public hearing now at 5. We'll call it 557. And now, David, if you would like to come back up or if there's somebody else coming up to speak on behalf of this Hi. How are you guys doing today? Good or this evening? Sorry. Um, we're proposing three lots. We

give your name. Oh, sorry. Teresa McGee with Texas Surveying and Engineering Incorporated at 104 South Walnut Street, Weatherford, Texas 76086. We were proposing three lots and that was dependent upon the zoning, the reasonzoning going through. um they would be for residential usage and of course we would seek variances on the lot sizing as um as well as the other features that do not meet current standards if we do get approval for the reasonzoning specifically.

All right. So take me through um your plan and highlight where you're going to need a variance. Um, lot sizing specifically, it says 60 feet and we're proposing roughly 45 feet, a little bit more on the south lot where it's in a zone A E flood plane. Um, the so that would basically be the lot with itself. The length is fine. We're proposing all access for driveway purposes only off of Ren Street and that would be dedicated through the plat itself. And then we have a green space easement area that would be for the side view housing as well. So from what I believe it would be for the overall square footage of the lot which is supposed to be 6,000 square feet as well. Um so we would seek a variance for the square footage as well as the lot size.

What's the size of the green space? Uh the green space we have 14 feet that shares on both sides. Okay. R2 Allison.

Can a triple be added into an R2? Oh, they're not they're not attached. No. Okay. So, they're individual. Yes, ma'am. They're single family detached. There's a 7 foot green space easement on each side of each lot. Okay. Yes.

What is our current easement for between and R2 side? They would meet the the 7 foot side back. So it's simply the property frontage. It's the frontage instead of the 60. Correct. So of the property and total square footage per property. And what is our max square footage per property? I'm sorry. My computer crashed yesterday.

Yeah, we can. The minimum lot is 6600 square feet. How do you see the people getting to like the the lot one? I know there's that utilities you're talking about being the the alleyway. How many how many car parking do you see on each lot? Yeah. So, there would be an attached twocar garage. Um you'd have an approach coming off of the alley to get into the garage. And so the the homes themselves will be about 80 feet total length. Okay. So you got about 140 ft of length on the line.

All right. So you do have a garage anticipated. Yeah. Two cars. Gota. So the square footage for an R2 loft for a single family 6600 ft for the lot size. And it said 7500. Scroll. Can you scroll back down? 7,500 for duplex. That's for duplex. For duplex. Okay. But for the single family 66. Single family 66. And then a requirement of 60 foot width. 60 foot lot width. Okay. And and then 25.

Do we have a do we have a based on that 6600? What's the maximum square footage of building on it could be? Do we know that? No. They're not going to push the maximum at all. Okay. They have a requirement for a minimum square footage of 800. That's what I got it. Um flood plane. Let's talk about that. Yes, ma'am.

It touches the U proposed lot three block 100. And from what I understand, we would be avoiding building in that area altogether, which is acceptable. Okay. And you can clearly see on the map the blue line that cuts across the corner of lot three, that's the that's the flood plane line. So if they build outside of the flood plane line, they're fine. Okay. Well, I see that lot three. Yes, lot three right there. And I'm looking at the wavy blue line coming across. They've got building line in it. That's their setback lines that they're showing where their buildable area is on the property. Okay. So, you are going to

So, they would be building on the back this lot to avoid that flood plane line. Okay. Which is why it's just a little bit wider than the other two lots that are proposed. Finished floor 614. Shouldn't that be fun?

But to build within that blue line, then they have to do an elevation certificate and everything. If they're stay out of the blue line, they're they're much easier as a person in the line and it affects their insurance and everything if they're within that line. It does. Yeah. Massively. Jim, can I have your public works hat on? Do you have any thoughts on this from street access water? Water water anything.

Um I mean we we'll be bringing water from cross Bernard Street for water service would be probably from the alleyway out. Okay. torque in any concerns? No, but I have a question about on a corner lot. Is there is there setback further on on both streets? They they have addressed that in their plan. So, is it is it 7 ft? No. On that corner lot? Yeah,

because they are I think I have marked that on the comments that they have to show a different setback visibility typically. Yeah, safety, right? Uh R2 zoning will require a 20 foot 25 foot sideyard set back on the corner lot three. So I have addressed that in the comments to them. This is not their final plan. Just out of curiosity, knowing that, do you have a plan? Um, we have another plat that's been proposed and then we have another layout that is proposed as well. Okay.

That would bring it to two lots to increase buildability for the area specifically. So, thank you, Jim, for bringing that out because if I'm looking at this current plat, what is your setback off Ren Street on that lot three? We're currently showing it as 7 foot building.

And if we go up to the other side on lot one, you're seven feet there. I would like to add that this lot is slightly unique in that zoom up a little bit. This property is slightly unique in that it is set back further than the neighboring lots. So this this property line right here on lot three is not at Ren Street. It is set back from Ren Street. It's almost 15 20 ft. I don't know how the lot lines got like that over there. Somebody's going out.

Yeah, that's that's that 25 foot setback that they are required from Ren Street. Um it it would be worth a discussion to include part of this area out here as that 25 foot setback because that's just dead space out there. It's it doesn't line up with the other lots and it does not line up with Ren Street. Right. And that was per the deed. That's the RLS findings as well. that area was not included when this was deed and initially created. Yeah, there there is an issue over there that needs to be addressed in their favor.

Okay. So, that solves the problem on that side, but it doesn't solve the problem on the other side. The other side is neighboring another lot, so it doesn't need seven feet. Yeah, that's another that's another property when we're looking at this line comes over here. So line is like over here and then there's another property right here before it hits the street if that's included. This is all this is res.

All right. Does anybody have thoughts on a plat of this nature? So, is it two or three? I heard two. No, this is a three. I I if we got shut down for three, we're going to rework some plans. Yeah, we're going to rework some plans if that happens. Okay. So, Allison, yes. If that part of Ren Street that seems to be no man's land this area up here. Yeah. Demilitarized zone. Yeah. Um if that's included, do does it meet the requirements or

do you happen do you anybody know what that dimension is down here? It's 21.2 feet. So 21 + 7 we would mean 28T. PO. So it's possible. So proving that with the conditions that that can be but they're asking for a variance, right? And it does not meet the definition of a variance. Correct. And right now the city owns that property in the rightway. So I don't know who owns that. We'll have to look. I would assume it's right away because it's not delineated with property lines.

Yeah, that's what we discovered is it was at one time created for. So if let's come back and let's say that it turns out that somebody actually does own that. The setback if that is owned by another owner, they only need the seven foot setback. Right. Correct. Correct. Okay. Because it's no longer a corner lot.

Because it's no longer a corner lot. Okay. Okay, I I'm because we are looking at this now as the plats and we're talking about the number of houses and the we get further into this with you know what kind of housing is this going to be pricing etc. Does it meet our city's needs? So ballpark a range. If this was a three home lot, what would be kind of your asking price for the homes?

What's the size of the homes? It's about 1,900 square feet, paper condition, not including the twocar garage or the porches. Um yeah, twotory home depending on the level of finish out on the interior probably starting like quite low 400s. Okay. Um be a pretty nice product and we try to match the exterior facade with some of the store stuff you see.

There's no two stories anywhere in that area. I would have a problem with two stories. [Music] [Music] I see that you've provided what looks to be a second option that's with the B2 for the B2 zone.

Yeah, they were covering the bases in case the res. Yeah, those would be those would have to be two stories if we build the the four lot condominiums on that second option just to get the square footage and a garage attached on that lot. So, I'm going to speak a two story, but there is there's a neighbor. I used to live over there. Okay.

So, I'm gonna speak from my own opinion. I am not representing, you know, lending and zoning right now, but my concern um is when we talk about and you're using, you know, the housing need and Glenn Rose from the comprehensive plan, a $400,000 home is not what our community needs. We need a We are a tourist community. We have hourly workers um who um are making 15 18 at the most per hour and they're not the ones that would be buying these homes. um a $400,000 home. We're talking about a white collar commuter who um has a lot of options for that pricing of a home in our community in a less controversial area. Um

yeah, we could definitely build that type of housing as well. Um it would just unfortunately have to be on a different different piece of ground just based on the cost of the the dirt itself up there to make it economically feasible. You know I I I completely can understand your dilemma. I'm simply as I was saying speaking my mind not for the commission. Gotcha. So commission what is your thoughts? I don't think 400 is purely a white collar. Okay. But

speaking from my own mind, so you're right. It could be. I mean, cost of building houses these days, it's it's expensive. You're right. That's So then I affordable. So then I come back to what's our best use for this land and we've already just agreed to reszone it. in weeks

with the consideration of the extra 20 foot, however many variances that takes, be all right with it. Okay, Megan, I'm okay with it because of the neighborhood area. And then I can see that I feel like some of the houses behind it might eventually come available and maybe I could see more development there possibly. Some of those houses are a lot older and I don't know how long they'll I don't know. Okay. I mean, there are some pretty cute remodeled houses. There are. Yeah. And then

I agree. Some, you know, eventually might have a lot of space and where we can do more. Okay. Reps. I'm just doing some calculations. Okay. Great. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's it'd be a $2,100 mortgage payment on a $400,000 home. be more than that. Oh, if you put 20% down. Yeah. And even the consideration doing the three lots versus the two, that helps us lower 80,000.

Out of curiosity, if we had said no on the zoning change and went with the four lot option, where would that have landed? Um, for like the attached fourpack type product, I'd have to put pen to paper, but it'd still be it wouldn't be quite as much as a single family detached, but it would still be close. Okay. Just with our construction costs and cost. Sure. Real estate. Have you looked at how fast these types of houses are moving in this area? It could be. Okay. Um really this is a kind of a unique product but I know they had a couple off the hold industry. Yeah.

And they seem to have done pretty well. Um obviously that was a while back that they were built. I think it makes sense in this kind of general area. Okay. I've got a concept photo of the of a plan that we build if y'all can not pay attention to the color of it. Sure. But we can do that. Yeah. My legs falling asleep. Well, this is kind of general idea of what those that type of product looks like. You can do them with or without balconies. That saves you some money if you don't do a balcony, but yeah, it all fits like on a 25 foot lot. Yeah, it's nice looking. Sideyard focused. Yeah, it would be So, are you helping to already have a possible buyer interest before you build something?

Not necessarily. Yeah, we probably start them and then list them for sale. Yeah, that's very similar to my like a house down the street from me where they built this. Yeah, they were tall. Yeah, very popular in in more urban markets. It was because that was at the you know down came a lot or is King Arthur there's a smaller lot. All right. So, if you guys have discussion wise kind of are all in favor is somebody going to make a motion? I'll move. I'll second. The motion was to approve. Yeah. Can you say that? To approve. To approve.

Okay. Second to approve. Move to recommend. Yeah. Move to recommend. Okay. All in favor? It'll be a 41.

All right. Um so again what this means is that um we will be providing the recommendation for approving this first first plat to city council. Um the next city council meeting is September 9th. So, and at 5:30 um here in these offices. So, you will need to be present and make your presentation to them for the final approvals to move forward with everything.

Thank you for your consideration. Absolutely. All right. Public hearing number three. Yes. Let me put that over here. Got it. Just keeping track of my my notes. All right. Public hearing number three is at 6:18. You guys are free to stay or if you choose to not vacate.

All right. So this is a public hearing regarding recommendations for amending ordinance 3.17 fences to include definitions for the commercial privacy fencing. This was a tabled topic from last month that we went um and took a lot of the feedback from the audience at that time and um had a separate workshop um amongst ourselves to kind of talk through everything and have come back with um some recommendations that I basically took your document ment and kind of just streamlined it a little. Um, so does anybody have questions, concerns, thoughts publicly that is out there wanting to talk?

What's the subject? The Oh, the privacy fencing that I just announced. The privacy fencing. No, everybody's good. We're going go into discussion. All right. Public hearing is closed at 6:19. All right. Um, did you guys have a chance to read through this? Do you think I captured the general essence of what we wanted? Yeah, I just provided some different word in that document.

Yeah. Do you want to kind of go through some of that? Yeah, I can. Is there a way to There's no way to pull it up. If you if you email it to me, I can't screen share. Tony, when you looked and read this, did that kind of meet the standards that you had built to?

Okay. I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. [Music] Also, I don't think I have your A L I S O N C O U.

Okay. And just a a a note of clarification because I was a descending vote on that. I will like the Supreme Court give a descending opinion. Oh, that is if any of you also do a descending vote, you will be given that opportunity to give council your why so that you they can understand your viewpoint of why you didn't feel it was appropriate to move forward. So just FY.

Okay. [Music] Did you send it? I did. I do not have it yet.

Okay. Well, we're still It's the Pony Express version of email. There we go. [Music] Okay. All right. All I did was just make it easier to read so that if the public were to read it, they wouldn't get confused like I did originally. Um, yes, reading codes.

Yeah, ordinances are tough. So, the city of Glenrose has rules for fences so that neighbors neighborhoods look good. Businesses stay attractive and drivers can see safely around corners. Here's the simple breakdown. Number one, you need a permit. For building a fence, you must get a fence permit from the city building city's building official. Small fee applies. See the schedule. Number two, what you c what you can build with. Fences must be made of normal materials like wood, vinyl, chain link, brick, other approved types. If your property is in the historic preservation overlay, the fence materials must be approved by the preservation commission. Number three, residential front yard fences, solid fences, no gaps up to 30 in high. chain link or partially see-through fences up to 48 inches high. Raw iron fences up to 60 inches high with post at least 8 ft apart. No fence may block a public ride of way. Corner lot visib visibility. Fences and corner lots can go up to 72 inches high, six feet, but they must not block visibility within 30 feet of an intersection or driveway.

I'm just take I'm just taking what was provided and just tried to make it

easier to read. The city has a drawing exhibit A that shows the sighteline commercial and industrial fences. Businesses that want privacy screening or security must submit a site plan and detailed fence plans for approval. Commercial privacy fences, this is a new definition. These fences are for security and screening around commercial industrial properties. Allowed materials: treated wood, pine, cedar, redwood, concrete, masonry, or approved composite materials. Minimum height 6 feet taller only if approved. Um, structural rules apply. Post size, depth, spacing, rails, and picket thicknesses to make sure fences are safe and sturdy. Penalties. Breaking fence rules can mean a class C misdemeanor with fines up to 2,000 per day until fixed. Bottom line, if you're putting up a fence in Glenrose, you need a permit, follow the height and material rules, keep corners clear and visible, and meet strict and meet stricter standards for businesses. So, it's kind of the

the gist. my my simple which I actually like the idea that we have the full ordinance but then we also have kind of the plain speak. Yeah, that's the the ultimate goal of the building department is to create handouts for individual items like this. This is flows right in with that. Great. Perfect.

I do have a couple of quick comments questions. Um just a couple of language cleanups um in the in section A. Um historic pres preservation overlay should be historic preservation overlay district. Add that district to the end and then must be approved by it should be historic preservation commission to keep that language consistent throughout the code of ordinances. Okay. Um I noticed that and this came up um in my first month working here. We we are not limiting the height of fences. If somebody came in and wanted to build a 20- foot tall residential fence in their yard, I don't have a height limit. I have to tell them, yes, you can build a 20 foot tall fence in your backyard. Our only height limit currently is the front yard.

Oh, that's a good point. Good. Does anybody have a preference on a backyard height? I will tell you, I'm just saying um building code height right now, um without a building permit is maximum seven feet tall. Once you go over 7 feet, then you need a building permit and construction plans and all of that. I think that sounds like a perfect limit for us. Is that residential only? That's all fence heights in the building code and commercial. Yeah. So commercial says six feet minimum, but no maximum. Maximum. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, no, because it's not maximum. Because if it is a highly industrial area and they want a 10 foot fence and they need a 10-ft fence, they need to be able to do the 10-ft fence. They just have to follow. Then they would have to follow the building code for plans for above that. Correct. Okay. So, that's fine. I just wanted to address that we have no maximums in. Yeah. No, on commercial, I don't believe a maximum should happen. on residential. I'm 100% in favor of the maximum. So,

and then I I just the the structural standards that were provided um there's some some comment back to the building code. The building code does not have requirements for fences. Um so, any reference to the building code requirements for fences, that should be removed. And you do have in the pickets section um you have listed a spacing. So a 4-in sphere cannot pass through that that's only a code requirement for uh guard rails in the building code. That's has nothing to do with fences. Um it's your option if you want to keep that in there. I just want to you guys to understand that that's not building code at all.

Come come back to me really quick. when you made the comment that building code in here any reference to following building code where oh so general materials got it but then all of this stuff about a 10-in diameter pier 2 foot deep for the footings if you guys came up with that from somewhere else just understand that's not in the building code we do not regulate that in the building

okay so the plastic okay all wood is construction grade two or better treated or naturally resistant metal is hot dipped galvanized steel. Plastic must meet manufacturer standards specifications and city building code approval. So you're saying the word code is where the problem is. Yeah, there's no building code for fences. So if we just take the word code out, so city building official Okay. approval. And then um also just want to know if you guys are requiring grade two lumber. Usually fence lumber is not even grade two lumber. So, you are requiring grade two lumber. You That's a step up from what you go to Home Depot and get for fence pickets.

Tony, I'm looking at you. Do you not feel my beating eyes on you? I'm used to it. What? What? I don't know that a lumber grade is important for fencing. Yeah, for most residential long as it meets the materials not necessarily grade. Okay. So if we just simply say all wood is con all wood is construction grade or all wood is treated or naturally treated or naturally.

Got it. Any other suggestions? Just back to that 4 in sphere in the pickets. That's not a building code requirement for fencing if you guys want to include that. But now you've made it so that nobody can have wide picket fencing. Rod iron sometimes it's much larger than 4 in sphere. So I I agree with you on that. Um it's more of a privacy than standard.

Yeah. I I I think we can just strike that whole spacing issue out. and leave the minimum one inch thickness as the picket or do we want to take the picket out all together take it out all together. Okay. Yeah, that sheet I gave you for Okay, that's fine. What about covering on the fence? That was on one of the things because I know somebody that has that but it's on addressing it, right? I'm sorry, what? If I cover my fence. I don't think we addressed that at all. But it wasn't the other in your So you're talking about like if they're putting um

chain link with a mesh on it. Chain link with mesh or something. Um thoughts. So it was in here chain link or solid space material covering. Uh wait wait wait. So our kind of our goal here is to take away chain link from any commercial, right? Residential. So this was just straight commercial. Well, so is all of this structural standards supposed to be part of the commercial privacy fence definition? Yes.

So nothing in this structural standards has anything to do with a residential fence? That's this is all commercial fence. Those are down there. Okay.

Where it says partially see through. I think maybe we need to step back and revise it. Take the residential part out. Well, we have to because this is the whole fencing ordinance, right? What we were attempting to do was to provide a much more detailed idea of what the commercial privacy fence was because that was the missing definition that we wanted to solve. So that moving forward we had it handled right. Well, there should be two sections for residential and commercial privacy or not.

Well, I don't know that I would ever call a fence in residential privacy. Oh, there are people that absolutely want a residential privacy fence. They have a neighbor with a camera in the backyard looking in their backyard. They absolutely want a privacy fence. We're going to ret this and go back to the drawing board again because I'll say thinking of that same situation, there is a camera facing that yard. Okay. Now, this point. Okay. Well, I've got notes on this. I was thinking about that when you were talking about the height of the fence.

Okay. So I have some notes that we're going to go back and then now so what we would like to do this next round is clarify residential versus commercial rules. Did I am I expressing this right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Do commercial construction standards and residential construction standards. Okay. Yeah. I am on board. We got closer.

But the whole idea of us taking our time and getting this right um I think matters more than the speed. All right. So um with that note, we are tableabling this again. Somebody motion to table commercial. We also need to consider I don't think we have a motion to table. Security. I think you do. Okay. We're going to motion to table. I'll motion to table. Second.

I All in favor? Okay. Okay. And moving on. All right. We are opening the public hearing for item number four at 6:36. This is the public hearing regarding recommendations for amending 14.02.05 definitions. Anybody in the audience have discussions, thoughts, ideas that they want to share?

Unrelated but still related. Why do you close the public hearing before we hear any discussion on the matter? Public hearing is strictly when there's a public speaker that might divulge more information on the matter and that might arise other questions in the crowd or concerns. It's two separate issues. We have a public hearing which allows the public to speak. We close the public hearing then we open the item for the discussion and the public can still come up and discuss at the discussion as well. I haven't once heard her say it's open for discussion yet today. I've heard uh public

Oh, I I apologize. We don't always run as tight of a strict Robert's rules. So, if you have any comments, what time, whatever, we have a formal public hearing piece. And then, as you've seen, we do include you guys in the the dialogue. So, feel free to speak up. Okay? Even if I had forgotten to say anybody would like to be a part of the discussion. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't quiet on a couple things because you already closed it. Did you? No, we don't need to revisit back. Are you positive? Yes, ma'am. Because I'm happy to let you speak. No, ma'am. I will wait.

I am very sorry that that was not We only run a very strict Robert's rules when it gets unruly in here. Beyond that, we try to be actually very open and back and forth dialogue. So, my apologies that that was not made obvious to you. Okay. So, with nobody having anything to formally speak about in the public hearing, the public hearing is now closed at 6:38, at which point we are now opening the items for discussion and allow anybody that would like to speak to speak. I went through this again based off of our back and forthing. Um I highlighted the changes on the document. Um the one that uh had come up at great length during our prior um meeting that tabled this change was the idea of the accessory building.

Right. Yeah. So, and I provided kind of a if we scroll down a little bit more. Now, this is not again not meant to be an ordinance. It's meant to make it a cheat sheet. Yeah. So, I'm going to I'm going to come back for one second before you submit to that.

Um because I do want to just state since this is not a whole entire ordinance. An accessory building is a single family residential district is a subordinate structure located on the same lot as the principal single family dwelling intended for use by family members of the occupants of the main dwelling. Such a building may provide limited living accommodations for family members but must not be used for short-term rentals such as vacation rentals, Airbnbs or transient lodging or for long-term rental by non-family members thereby ensuring occupancy is limited to relatives and preventing commercial or unrelated residential uses. I think that when we came up with that idea of statement, we addressed the majority of the concerns that the previous audience in our last meeting had, which is stating they can make no income from it. We have not stated that. We've simply stated that you can't make it a true second dwelling by unrelated family. Well, I think one of the things we did say is that it can't be short-term rental.

True. And that, right? Okay. So, with that, would you like to uh do your cheat sheet? Yeah. So, it's up there. We I still have this because I was just trying to look at this like how can we lawfully restrict it to family only because it's only R1 one single family home. But how do you like there's not an enforcement method from a code enforcement standpoint and the fair housing and property like I just don't want to get into. So the issue is So the issue is that you are allowed to have a and I'm just a pool caban legally enforce it, right?

I can't. Okay. Okay. So from an R Okay. So from an R1 standpoint, our definition is a single family home. What you are not by the definition of R1 allowed to do is have a second dwelling on the property being used as a second home. I just think we open it up and say that a family member can rent, you can easily get sued because anybody can technically rent that, right? So, the whole thing that we were trying to solve, and I'm not arguing with you, I'm just I'm just stating it all out.

The whole thing that we were trying to solve was when we stated you can make no income, right?

There was a near riot. So, we were trying to get to the same way of stating make no income without meaning that a family member couldn't stay in a pool cabana and if the family member was under the table giving money to somebody, what are we going to do? But this is where I come back. The whole thing is N1 and accessory building cannot be a dwelling.

Period. The end. Right. We were trying to be We were trying to be a little bit more flexible in that definition. I just don't know if you can legally, right? Am I Well, sure you can. You can you can restrict. We can legally say you don't get anybody living in your accessory building. What were you? Well, here's and what I asked you was meeting was we needed to change this definition from accessory building because that's a storage shed, that's a pool house. You needed to change it to accessory dwelling unit. Okay? Because right now we keep calling it accessory building and that's that's a shop. That's a that's a garage. That's a storage shed.

And we have two other definitions in the code already of accessory buildings. So, by utilizing an accessory dwelling unit, I mean, because I'm just looking at like, yeah, a rule such as this from the Fair Housing Act could be seen as discrimination against unrelated individuals. And I mean, I feel like you're I would just run it through a lawyer. Oh, no, we can do that. That's not a problem. Or I would Yeah, that's not a problem. You You were going to speak. I was asking what brought this discussion to the table. I know the last meeting did. I was here at the last meeting but right what originally brought into discussion and it's just a matter that you're supposed to dissolve yourself from because it's not the interest

no this is not the matter that the overlay is it is I know the overlay is a separate thing but this is the reason this was brought up trying to stop I'm not trying to stop people's properties correct I am not trying to stop Airbnbs but that was discussed just now in this ordinance correct

you're right and I allowed to have discussions. Okay, here is what we are actually trying to do. What came about was that we have a home that has built a she-shed and that turned it into a second dwelling against our ordinances and yet their property, but it's an R1 property which is only allowed to have start telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property. As an R1, you can only have one dwelling per property. Period. The end.

And we can make it as simple as that. But we were trying to be kind that a lot of people would like to be able to have a guest house that allows them to help care for elderly family members or other people. This is nothing honestly in my book had nothing to do with short-term rentals. But because that feedback came in from the last meeting,

we were trying to explain that you cannot have a second dwelling in an R1 on the same lot. Period. The end. And yet a lot of our residents and community has done that. Yeah. So, we can either be mean and go into every single one of those properties and check the code and shut them down. Sounds like, you know, a lot of people that hire a lawyer together and come after the city.

You're right. Which is why we don't want to do that. So, what we've been trying to do is find a balance to prevent new happening. That's all we're trying to do. And so because the feedback from the audience was very much about my mother-in-law, my brother-in-law, my this, my that, we came back and tried to include that as an option. Can I ask what's so bad about the thought of it? Like what's so what's the turnoff? The turnoff of having a second dwelling. Yeah. You need to reszone to an R2. Period. The end.

Right. It's zoned one way. If you're zoned as an R1, it is one dwelling. There's setback rules. There's frontage rules. All of them are doing it. Wouldn't that kind of tell you that maybe there's a need for it if you find so many of them doing it? I I didn't necessarily say we found so many. We had we had people speak up when if we looked at every single house in this community,

I'm sure we'd find a small percentage of it. What we're trying to do is find a solution that preserves what R1 is. R1 is a single family residential home. No other dwellings on the property. And that is the ordinance,

right? We're trying to be flexible in the ordinance and loosen it up just a little bit to accommodate an aging population to accommodate some of the needs that we see and by allowing that if you look at Texas Senate Bill 1412 we can't the local government cannot determine you can't discriminate against you cannot say who can be right we're going back to there is no dwelling allowed There's either a yes or a no. Yeah. Delete the parentheses. Oh yeah. You have to Yeah. And just

So by by doing that, we violate what an R1 is. So if that is what the state law is, then we don't allow a second dwelling at all on anybody's R1 property. If they need to build a second dwelling, they have to reszone. And that would be the way that we solve this. Or Yeah. Or we change it. Now you can have one and an R1. Where's the special use permit? Well, then it's not an R1. Then it's not an R1. So it's not like we need to consult with legal before we move any further with this. Yeah. So I I've got Texas Senate Bill 1412 political subdivisions like cities or counties. This isn't even a consult with an attorney. This is a straight up. We just leave R1 R1. Okay.

Yeah. You say based on employment relationship familial status. So R1 is R1. We delete any concept of a definition of a dwelling unit. Accessory buildings cannot be used for living. So there's no accessory dwelling unit. That's not a normal one. Accessory buildings by definition cannot be used as a dwelling. That simplifies it. Okay. Um because we are not making that change on that particular subject item, we will move on to the next subject item that we came up with under here. Yes, sir. A quick question based on that is um how hard is it to get converted to R2?

Because you're an R1 again from the conversation we had earlier tonight. Um because our city attorney has previously given us a legal opinion that R1 R2 does not create a scar a a spot zoning. It's simply a matter of filling out the paperwork, filling paying the fee, and coming before the hearings. So, they just have to come before y'all. They have to come before us and they have to go to city council. Yes. I'm just curious.

Yeah. I mean, that's if that's what is the legal option for us to follow, then that's what has to happen. All right. Um, one of the things when we were talking about the overlay and kind of what types of businesses that we were going to be seeking. Um, one of the, um, thought processes and we talked about was like artisanbased businesses where somebody may have a skill and is demonstrating the skill um, but is also selling the product. And so I simply wanted to make sure we had an added definition to that um that is not currently in existence in our definitions. Um so that's what this one is and you raised your hand. Nope. Okay. So the idea was that an artisan retail shop is a retail establishment where skilled crafts people known as artisans create, display, and sell goods that are typically homemade or made using traditional techniques rather than mass production. These shops often feature unique highquality products that may be functional or decorative such as jewelry, clothing, pottery, home decor, furniture, and art. The hallmark of artist artisan shops is the originality and craftsmanship of the item, often reflecting personal creativity and attention to detail. Artisan retail shops emphasize supporting local talent, preserving traditional skills, and offering customers the opportunity to connect with the makers and learn about the inspiration and techniques behind their products. They are distinct from regular retail outlets that stock mass-roduced goods, fostering a sense of community and investment in small business growth. We're add just adding it as a definition

so that as we go to schedule of uses, we can discuss that as a allowable business type in wherever zones we want to put it. Does anybody have a problem with adding that definition? That's good. Can I have a motion to approve the addition of that definition? A motion to approve.

Second. Second. All in favor? All right. We had a lot of discussion about assisted living facility um that came up and through our discussions and the feedback from the audience the allowing it in a residential home concern was allowing less than four which didn't require the state. So assisted living facility which can include a residential home is defined as establishment that provides food and shelter to four or more persons who are unrelated to the proprietor of the establishment. Such a facility offers personal care services and may include the administration or supervision of medication. It may also provide limited skilled nursing skills, including coordination of care, assessment of residential resident needs, and temporary skilled nursing treatment for minor illnesses or emergencies. Key elements of assisted living in this residential context include furnishing food and shelter to at least four unrelated residents. Providing personal care services like assistance with feeding, dressing, moving, bathing, and other personal needs, administration or supervision of medication by licensed or authorized persons, potential provision of limited skilled nursing um services as defined by state regulations. emphasizing per personal dignity, um, autonomy, independence, and privacy while supporting residents to age in place with varying levels of care based on their needs. This is governed by the state law, specifically health and safety code chapter 247, which sets out these definitions and the regulatory framework for assisted living facilities.

a second. Second. All in favor. Thank you. Okay. Just double checking.

Yep. That one. Okay. Again, a brand new definition that has not existed in the past. Um, gun manufacturing is defined as a business or activity of making firearms or ammunition suitable for use, typically involving assembling individual firearm components so that they become functional weapons. It includes processes such as machining, molding, casting, forging, and addit and additive manufacturing to create firearm frames or receivers or to make them suitable for use in a firearm designed to expel a projectile or buy explosive action. The activity usually requires a license if performed as a regular business for the purpose of sale or distribution. It also covers manufacturing actions like building firearms from parts, modifying firearms in ways that alter their performance or durability, and preparing firearms for resale. Manufacturing is distinguished from gunsmithing and that the latter typically involves repairing or modifying firearms for for customers without the intent of commercial sale. Whereas manufacturing is done primarily for livelihood and profits through sales or distribution. So you can have a gunsmith that also sells firearms at most do

or they sell collectibles or things like that. Now they're not manufacturing them. I would say that that would fall under our artisan definition. Okay. All right. You may need to clarify. I think you could add a gunmith definition as per um ATF definitions. Um but I think for the purposes of this gun manufacturing is not I think you have fit covered it. Yeah. For the manufactur. Okay. So where where's my list for?

So we need to add add list for gunsmith. We're going to post this as is and then add a gun smmith later. Or if you would like to modify a motion to say including gunsmithing definition per ATF law or we can pass it all at once. So, whoever would like to make that motion, can you state how you want us to handle that motion

to uh to to approve the manufacturing? Is that what we're And do we want to add the gas and add the gun to the ATF definition? Yeah. As a separate Do I have a second on that? All in favor, [Music] ice cream truck.

I was about to say had someone else. Who did this come up? They exist. It was brought forward. It was brought forward that our mobile food truck does not actually qualify um that ordinance for the mobile food truck would be mobile to be mobile um is not inclusive of what an ice cream truck needs. Yeah. The mobile food truck is specific to or the mobile food truck ordinance is specific to stationary. Yeah. So it gives definitions of food carts and ice cream trucks and all that. So I move it and I stay here later. An ice cream truck. So ice cream truck.

Where is somebody who would like to? So we have to figure out so that we can allow them to drive down the street and have food ice cream truck. We had to add a definition. I think that's charming. Honestly, it looks it's right up the alley of a of a tourist town.

It's nostalgic. Yep. An I an ice cream truck is a motorized vehicle from which ice cream and other frozen desserts are sold, often while moving through neighborhoods or parked in areas where people gather, such as parks. The vehicle usually contains a commercial freezer and a sell serving window for selling prepackaged or sometimes soft served ice cream products must apply for a permit through the mobile food truck ordinance. That's how I came up to word this. Yeah, that's fine. And I think that when you change the use table further on in the discussion, then that adds an ice cream truck to the use table. So, we're golden.

Okay. A motion to add. Thank you, Megan.

All in favor? bubble gum house to I was and just for clarification I don't dream up this stuff it all comes to us it all comes because somebody called me and asked and so we therefore when we open up that part of the ordinances we try to fit all of it in that we can restaurant it has come to our attention that our definition of restaurant did not include outdoor seating at a restaurant, it was all indoor seating. Yes.

And yet almost a lot of our restaurants include the ability for outdoor seating. So we needed to update the definition of restaurant. An eating or drinking establishment where the preparation or serving of food is the primary business of the establishment, including cafes, beastro, cafeterias, and other fast food and drive-in food establishments. Indoor seating at a restaurant refers to dining areas located inside a fully enclosed building where customers sit at tables or booths within the within the indoor environment of the establishment. Outdoor seating conversely is located outside the enclosed building such as on a patio, sidewalk, rooftop, front porch or backyard area adjacent to the restaurant. Did that qualify us? Okay. to approve. I like your

I mean this is all open for discussions by the way if anybody needs to pipe in and I haven't said that. I'll second you approve it. Yeah. First second. All in favor?

One of the glorious things about having Allison and a fresh set of eyes that has not lived in our community and been involved with all of these documents for years is that she finds the gap and then she says, "What did you want it to be?" We're like, "Great. Let's go fix the wannabe." my every email to Pam. What was the intention?

So, we are we are blessed to have her as she helps us find how to make the town better. All right, that is the end of the discussion on 14.02.05 definitions. We are leaving with one tabled everything else passed. Okay, we are now opening the public hearing at 7:02 regarding the recommendations for amending chapter 14 appendix A schedule of uses. specifically this conversation, but we can talk about a few other things. Um, is to include but not limited to short-term rentals all being allowed in the B3 district. The general consensus from our previous meeting is that it's a yes with the condition um that it had to be on second floor. Is that correct?

Right. Mhm. Okay. Um um we also then went to ice cream truck and we added it allowed in absolutely every single zoning district that we have. Yeah.

Without any special use permits. If you want to drive your truck anywhere, it would be allowed unless it's on private property and therefore you would have to have permission from the private property owner. Everybody good with that? Good. Okay. What about being in close proximity to another ice cream truck? That's just really funny. They get competitive. You know what? The music gets louder and louder. Well, I guess it' just be like a a mobile truck,

you know, but the difference is that a food truck is stationary for the entire day selling from one location and it can't be within 200 f feet of a brickandmortar restaurant. An ice king truck is constantly on the move, so we would never know where it was. So it's food truck. We had two or three and it was just whoever came to our neighborhood first. I always live where there's ice cream trucks like first come first serve because there is no way in heck that we can monitor trucks movement.

Quick question places like right here in the square or over by a grounded where we do have familyowned ice cream shops. And we are business is correct. Ice cream. No, no, you're right. You bring up a good statement. I would just Can we look at another town's ideas? I have never seen an ice cream truck regulated anywhere. I my experience is they have not been limited to well to me to residential districts.

I mean the only thing we could do I do see a lot of kids come down here on the square after school. I know Shoefly is a very popular spot. So the only thing we could do is say let's take it out of B3. We couldn't take it out of B2 or B1 because that's that's half of our residents. I've seen it to where they have to be continually in motion and they're only allowed to stop when they are flagged down to sell ice cream. So that so keeping it out of the square so that because they couldn't sit in the square and wait for people they would have to drive around to said hey well and I think it just wouldn't even be safe for them to be like circling this you know you have

so we can take it out of B3 that takes care of the square but I mean we can sit here and take it out of business one and business two so that it's not impacting sweet crearyy or um but I'm going to be honest, sometimes those shops aren't open when I want ice cream. I was just sitting here thinking I have a a salon on the square and it would be great for us for after school when we do have some kids that are inside. Yeah. You know, and even me, I want a sweet treat every once in a while. Can you make them stay mobile until waved? Yeah, we can do that. Other than sticking to the same

Yeah. ordinance says the food trucks staff have to park 200 foot away from any other commercial business. Yeah, we can add that to the definition and say that they are not allowed to stand and wait for customers within 200 ft of a food establishment unless they're driving. But they would be allowed to drive and stop for a waved stop. We can put that in. I mean, again, it would be up to the business owners to call the police and say there's a problem. Yeah. Just not be in that spot for very long. You know, if you're camped out for longer than 30 minutes, you got to move along. Yeah.

Again, the only option because nobody's policing that. So, the business owner who sees it would have to call would have to call the police. It would be the only option. I mean, I get I I I truly do get what you're saying. It just feels too too opaque, right? And okay, so I can make that as a note in the schedule of uses or we can go back to the definition and add it there or do both. I think or we add it to mobile food truck ordinance.

My personal opinion is it would be better in the definition. Um the more notes you keep adding to the schedule of uses, it just muddies up the schedule of uses. Okay. May I have a motion to move us backwards to the ice cream truck definition? A motion to revise the ice cream truck definition.

A second. [Music] All in favor of revising. Okay, let me go backwards. One minute. Okay. So you cannot stop and loiter within 200 f feet of a food establishment, which is the same ordinance rule that we have for traditional food trucks. And I'm going to call it loitering.

Devil's advocate, what's your definition of loitering? Oh gosh. I'm just in there. You're right. So, it's great. Yeah. Well, the word stop seemed pretty gray, too. So, all right. The word loitering by Oxford is stand or wait around idally or without apparent purpose. But do we have one already for our city? Like if somebody has like a no loiter, there's not. Okay. Nope.

So, but apparent no apparent purpose becomes loitering is not a word we can use. Correct. Because their purpose is to stop and sell ice cream. Correct. So, loitering is out. No stopping. Except when we when requested to sell to a customer. We can look up other cities definitions and clear that up. No stopping except when waved. When approach I whistle, does that count? Flagged. Flagged. See now what's the definition of flagged? We can look at another

I'm sorry. I know that this sounds funny, but I mean this is where we're being forced into. So except when I need a word, guys. And I know we'll go back and and clarify. Except when we when requested by a customer. Okay. Is that requested by a customer? And they can future flag. They can holler. Yeah. By a future customer, potential customer.

If you're flagging them, but you haven't actually entered their space, are you a customer? Just trying to be okay. No stopping except when requested by a customer. Period. The end. You always have to be on the move unless a customer stops you. Everybody good with that? I think they should be allow be allowed to park somewhere and not okay, you know, eat up their fuel all day. Parking, they need to be held at the same state.

Okay. So, no stopping within. So, now I'm back to the no stopping within the 200 ft. So, uh there ordinances on peddlers or solicitors? These are selfed. How long a vehicle can remain parked standing or stop while leaving customers pooling or staging standing or idling? I think so. Here's some language from one. We got rid of that background check. One is to put a distance restriction ice cream truck with you know what driving around the school which seems to be a common thing recently from a few news clips I've seen the past couple weeks up north

if you're going to add background checks back to the ordinance the building department should not be responsible for performing background checks well above our agreed so here here's some here's some language from some others You can use a distance restriction from other food establishments. Okay.

Uh cannot park directly in front of adjacent to a food establishment. Uh time limit or stops. You can have time limits of stop 5 to 10 minutes. Certain downtowns or historic districts restrict ice cream trucks to designated vending zones. One example is Chicago has strict rules on that. Um, so those are I would also say that they can't park in front of the school. Yeah. Yeah. School zones period. Yeah. It's a safety issue for one.

I'm okay with that. Right. I don't know if any of y'all have ever done parent pickup at the elementary, but no, there's no way they could even make it there. And so I'm going to say they cannot drive through a school zone during active active zoning years. Okay. You want ever. So a school zone by definition is 7 to three or 7 to 9 and then okay within three to five school. Okay. Oh you gota be careful. You got res by that. Yeah, that big neighborhood or add background checks.

We can't add a background check because who's going to do the background check? Walked in one location for more than five minutes and must actively engage in a transaction. That's good garbage. Yeah, the devil's advocate. Yeah, I understand, Tony. I really do. And I'm not upset. I'm just trying to find the way to get us. So, you're not even saying wave down or anything. You're just saying actively engaged. Okay. I mean, I don't know. I'm just That's good. Throwing something out there. Okay. So, can they drive through a school zone and not stop? I mean, technically, who are they going to get from

Well, I'm just saying. I mean, my my my I respect I'm the one who threw the school out is you can't stop in front of school. I have no problem with that. But when I sit here and look at streets and as you're trying to go through neighborhoods, sometimes you have to pass into a road that becomes a school zone during morning and afternoon hours because you set it up in a way where it's like you can't do it between these times. You just can't sell in a school or We can do it that way. You cannot sell at a school zone during the school day. Yeah. Between these times. Yeah. Because there's a lot of businesses that even have signs that say no deliveries during these hours for that reason.

It's the same because I mean honestly it's that's unsafe. First of all, we should never have kids outside of our building. That's we also don't want taken off running after we say 6:30 to 4. No stopping in a school zone at all from the hours of 6:30 to 4. 6:30 a.m. to 400 p.m. On school days. On school days. Yes. Okay. Because you also don't want high school kids walking across the street stopping being late from class. So summertime that wouldn't apply. Do it anytime during the summer. Yeah. Or weekends. Or weekend. We want to say 6:00 a.m. or 6:30. I would say 6 a.m. Okay. I mean,

would would that apply to snow cone trucks? Because I see them parked at the school during like football games. It would because that's what we just defined an ice cream truck as. But if they're usually but they're invited by the school for an event, that would be different school on school grounds. They're invited. So they'd be covered under the umbrella of the school and everything. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Okay. No stopping 6:00 a.m. to 400 pm Monday through Friday in a school zone. Yeah. So like if we had a build day and I called this ice cream truck and said set up here, you know, right? I will say unless with permission from the school

on private property. Yeah. GM, do we have a snow cone truck? Uh there's funky monkey. There's several. Jurassic. Yeah, Jurassic. I knew we had the funky monkey, but that's really stationary. There's the other one. Um Oh, no. They've got a truck, too, that they'll do it for. Yeah, there's some Kona. Yeah, occasion you can get it to come here. Yeah, they came to one of our day events, too. We try to use all those different places when we can. Okay. Unless with permission by private property owner.

Yeah. Okay, I may words smmith this a little bit better, but the gist of this Y. Are we good? Everybody kind of on board with where we're going with this one? Yes. I want What you say? Any any other ideas that we need to be careful about in this particular definition? All right. Do we have a motion to reapprove this definition? Yes. Motion to second. Okay.

Okay. So, crossing that one out. We're now here. Okay. All in favor. Okay. All right. So, now going back to the schedule of uses with the concept of the ice cream truck. We had said in everywhere all areas including B3 the square. So now that we think that's okay if do we want to take the square out or do we want to leave it all in because we now they can't actually stop and park and lure customers away from our current businesses.

That's what I'm thinking. I think it's fine. I think it's I think it's fine for now. If we recognize a problem, then we can address them in the future. And the good news is that they have to have a permit. So, we can pull the permit if we find that a particular truck is violating our intent. Okay, we good.

Okay, just I want everybody to agree that we're on the right track. And if we're off the right track, then we need to talk. Okay. Um so the other change did not change anything about what scheduled uses were allowed in what um zones. I just simply changed that restaurant on a cafe now says inside and outside dining. That's all we changed. Okay. Yep. Are we good with that? Okay. We did the gun manufacturing.

Uh, no, we have not. It was right above ice cream truck. I missed it. I missed it. Sorry. I see it. Okay. It needs to be special use permit or gin. Yeah. Okay. Those are just for industrial, right?

Uh, yeah. I just realized that it had when I was looking through all of this, I realized it said that they could do it and that would be something that we would absolutely want some control over. Okay. So by the new definition of gun manufacturing what zone should we let this be in? Industrial. Yeah, industrial.

Okay. But now that we have added the gunsmithing, do we want to add a line and schedule of uses specific to gunsmithing, which is what we should do? Well, there is. There is. Where? Right above. You have gunsmith shop, then you have manufacturing guns, and you have manufacturing artisan guns. Okay. I'm that good. Did I not even remember it? Yeah, it's not.

Okay. Gunsmith. Here we go. It's actually right above writing ice cream trucks. Okay. So, let's come back. So, gun shop we have allowed in actually gunsmith was already in there. Okay. You did not add that. That was already in the Okay. And the gun Yeah, the gunsmith. So, right now gunsmith is allowed in industrial and in B. Um, yeah. My my version doesn't have that. It's uh on page 62 62.

If you come up from the ice cream truck, you've got guns gunsmith. [Music] Okay. Okay. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, okay. Okay.

So, okay. So, gun smmith we have in B2 just allowed without any special specific use permit. Gunsmith shop permit. Okay. Yeah, the gunsmith shop following this right. Right now it is allowed in B2 without any specific use permit. It is allowed in industrial without any specific use permit.

The column that says S is the potential overlay that we have not talked about. So that does not exist yet until we get further along in that discussion. So, gunsmithing B2 industrial. Do we want to add gunsmithing to any other areas? Do be like an artisan. Well, I have the artisan manufacturing artisan guns. Okay. Down below. Manufacturing and that we're allowing in B2 and B3 by specific use permit. Kevin, I think we I would see the same for gunsmithing.

Oh, you're right. Did we We didn't finish the definitions. Gunsmithing. We said we're taking the word straight out of ATF. Oh, that's right. Oh, so we happen to What is that word? [Music]

A fair question. [Music] person who has a business repairs firearms or makes or fits special barrel, stocks or trigger mechanisms to firearms. ATF regulation 27 CFR 478.1 I'm in gun smithing sounds the same as manufacturing partisan guns

except one is a tutorial and one just someone they must okay so they have to have a federal firearm license one dealer firearms which includes gunsmithing

and person and one is ATF defines a gunsmith as a person engaged in a business of repairing or customizing existing firearms, which is slightly different than manufacturing new, which involves activities like fitting special parts, modifying, embellishing, or refurbishing them for customers rather than manufacturing or selling them. Gunsmiths typically operate under a dealer's license, type one FFL, to perform these services, which is different than a manufacturing license. Yeah. and they are making new firearms for stellar distribution. So there's your there is the difference.

Yeah. Repairing, modifying, customizing versus making new in two different licenses. Correct. So right now gun smithing is B2 and industrial. Knowing that that is a repair and modification shop and not a manufacturing, do we want to extend that to any other zones

any any business? So it could be a retail shop, it could be even an artisan shop. I know downtown Haiko There's a gun shop right there street right on the square. Okay. So, we want to add gunsmith shop to B3. Do we want a specific use permit for it or we just want to allow it open? It's a good question because the intent if it's in B3, the intent would be that it would be something that would be a tourist attraction,

correct? That people would want to come and see. It would have some interaction and some engagement with it. But not every gunsmith shop is going to be like that. That's that's why I'm saying that's why I'm saying which is why we then had the manufacturing artisan guns which that would imply that they're doing more work in Okay. So we got two distinctions between gunsmithing and artisan. Yeah. I think the one of the things we have to actually change manufacturing artisan guns should actually be artisan gun smithing. Okay. So, gunsmith shop under the assumption that this is not

an interactive engagement. We leave out of B3. Yeah. That would be like the shop up on 144, right? Where? Okay. Manufacturing guns stays in industrial and because manufacturing manufacturing guns not gun smithing has a lot more regulations to it and is mass producing. We are stating that that stays in industrial with a specific use permit. Agree. Why does it need specific use? Does it need the use permit or can you just allow it in the industrial zone? I'm asking. That's what it is right now. So, I'm asking.

Yeah, I don't think it needs to. Okay. So, we're gonna flip that from S. Oh, no. I'm sorry. I read that wrong. That actually is just allowed. Okay. Okay. We're going to change the word manufacturing artisan guns to artisan gunsmith. And um ATF doesn't have a definition for artisan. I mean obviously we know what we're saying but we define artist then as a Yeah. So to me a artisan more custom working in front of customers teaching that wouldn't require special use I would say so

well we allow a gunsmith shop in B2 or B1 I would say that an artisan gunsmith would also be allowed in B2 without a special use permit but debris in B3 I would say it needs to have a special use permit. Correct. Specific use permit an S. Are we all in agreement? Yeah, I I agree with that. Okay. Any feedback? Confirming that you're manufacturing guns. Just plain manufacturing guns. You're going to change that from an S to an X. Yes.

Okay.

I am. I'm going to do that. I think that Oh, wait. Um, okay. So, it seems like we have gun fact manufacturing in here twice. So, I'm going to remove it from that. So, as I was looking and going through this with a gun, we I stumbled upon grainy or gen and it was just an X. So I am suggesting that it be turned into specific use and the reason is because a grain reorgan has a lot of dust and so when we've talked about beer manufacturing in industrial we did put specific use permits on that. Correct. because of the exhaust systems and everything else that are required that it was something we felt like we needed to kind of be a little bit more engaged. But I can leave it in the industrial zone.

In the industrial zone, I'm fine with leaving it as an X. It was just something that I noticed that that particular type of manufacturing grainery that it tends to be a bit more volatile. But in reality, all the rules, but other businesses, other industrial businesses could also could also. Okay. So, we're just going to ignore that I put that as an S and leave it back as the X and be done.

Okay. The one thing I realized I did not put in here um in the residential section based on our new definition of assisted living here. I did do it and I just missed it. So assisted living in a private residence would be allowed in an R1 as an civic use permit. Right. Yes. Um,

but we allow single family dwellings in other zoning districts. Correct. What's that? We allow single family dwellings in other zoning districts. Okay. So, do we want to extend that to the other bars, residential districts? If it's a single family dwelling, I think it should be what zoning district it's in. Okay, that's fine. So, we'll put And it's by the way, you've defined it as four or more. Almost nobody will be able to do it anyways, right? Because that would mean they'd have to have five bedroomedroom house, right? There we go. Okay. So, I'm taking assisted living private residents to specific use permits R1, R2, R2M, R3, R4.

Just to be safe. I actually don't think it needs to be an R4. I don't think you can have a single family home in an R4 multi family res.

But would we put it in a manufactured home? You're not going to have a five-bedroom manufactured home. Yes, there are. There are a few. Now, maybe double wides that are joined together. But there is some manufacturing homes that have five bedrooms. I only know that because I have employees that live in them. I've seen them.

Yeah. I would rather be overcautious and say it's in all the residential zones and find out that they can't. But okay. Okay. All right, that is all of the changes. Oh, except the one specific that we have not necessarily addressed. So, no, we did we talked about that in the very beginning that we are going to allow short-term rentals in D3 on second floors. Where are we specifying the second floor? because I had a customer ask me and um we are referencing I believe it's note five. I mean the only way we could do that is under the notes.

Okay. Because a definition if we put a definition in the short of the short-term rental in the short-term rental definition then it ruins it for it ruins it for a regular. Right. Okay. So I have I really do feel is it has to become a note. Okay. And I understand what you're saying about not getting too many notes. So we we have a note already regarding residential and correct. And I think we align with that. Okay. That note is where it will align into. We'll just clarify some wording. So because I think right now we state that this is for business owners and business managers, residents only.

So that so we need to let's talk about this guys. So someone's confused about what the second floor is. No, they were wanted to know. They had heard that we were going to limit short-term rentals to the second floor only. Yeah. And so when I was reading through the proposed packet, there was there's no language clarifying that it's second floor only. So residential living quarters are allowed as mixed use in a um different building if the property has more than three. That's a different I don't know how we Where the heck did that come from? You want to look at number five. Yeah. Okay. We need to look at number six a different day. Yeah, that's

residential living quarters are allowed as a mixed use within the same building in the commercial use provided it represents no more than 50% of the total flare area of the development and thus not be storefront or first floor if the second floor is available. This is for business owners. So, we need to strike this is for business owners or business manager residents only and well, you would need to create a new note specific to short-term rental because if you strike this, this note five is used in multiple locations. Okay. So, what is our note number? We're on five.

No, no, no. The note to add a new note, we're on 10. No, no, we're on You'd be on number 14.

Okay. So the note for 14 would be that short-term rentals are allowed um on second floor only. Um and then it still follows the specific use permit and it's B3. Is that good for everybody? Okay. thesis. Okay, we've got that. Okay, so all of these changes that we have made in the schedule of uses, we need a motion to ex to um recommend all of these to council.

I'll move to recommend them to council.

Second. I will second. All in favor? Okay. All right. With that, we were going to come back and discuss in a workshop. So, this is not a decision making. This is a workshop. But we are open to all dialogue. Um the key things that came out of our last um public hearing um and comments that have been made since um and what we have discussed in our other workshop was that the math app was going to be redrawn to eliminate as much residential as absolutely possible. So coming down Bernard Street where we were going from Grace to the river, we would actually cut between Bernard Street and Grace at property lines. And then when we hit basically Sexton Mill is when we drop down to the river and cut across the river and back around.

Does that make sense to everybody? I'm having a hard time visualizing what that is. Okay, so I had to blow this up for my own self. So we're right here. This is Storybrook. So we have property lines that come across like this to um walnut. Then we would come down to the road. So pretty much the So we would keep these are businesses on the Bernard Street side. Yep. But we would come back down here

where the residences are budding that they face Grey Street. We would take those out. So this is this is in essence what it would look like. So this is Yes. Can I ask why why is the city wanting to do this? What's the purpose?

So we are a complicated downtown zone. We have more than just the historic square that is regulated and zoned for business. We have blocks on sides of the square that are actually general business or restricted business. When we look at the town's primary industry today, it's tourism. And so our tourism draw is in this downtown valley along the river, you know, from Heritage Park trying to get people to walk around the square and not just the square but the businesses around the square. There are businesses which you just heard us talking through in the schedule of uses that we would happily allow and a B1 or a B2.

But is it appropriate to be in this downtown tourism area? So, we want to take what is currently B3, the historic square, and expand it. But we can't reszone all the businesses that are under B1's and B2s because they have their own definitions of what they need from setbacks and regulations D. But what we can do is take an overlay and place it on top of the businesses in the larger zone that takes into account B1, B2, and B3. And we can unify what we want to see in this area. So basically the city's wanting to control who comes in and what businesses are allowed in that area.

No, that's not what we're trying to do of people to make that decision. I own property that's in this do not and will not agree to this because it's got to restrict businesses. I don't think it's fair to a property owner. That's right. That a small group will pick and choose who can come in and this is not a who sir. No, this is not a who. If you listen,

this is not a who and it's the exact same thing. It's a roundabout conversation. No, it's it's to achieve an aesthetic. every curb property controlled by not controlled by us. How else would you achieve the aesthetic if you're not the ones controlling it and it doesn't all properties are grandfathered in. All existing properties unless they want to sell which limits who they sell to the deal with my property personally. Okay. Okay. Sir, I'm going to ask that you actually provide your name and address. Do I need to stand? Yes, you do. just so that we can actually understand and make this

Yeah, I understand. It's I'm Dwayne Griffin. Uh I own the property on Vine Street. It's currently a beauty shop. Uh it's my wife's. Um I actually I'm sorry. Vine and what? It's um I can't think of the address. 207 Dying Street. Okay. It's right behind City Hall here. Okay. Uh it's just around the corner still. Sure. So, um, at some point, yeah, it's going to change ownership. Okay. Uh, and my fear, and it said so on the the writing that I received,

you you are correct, is that at the time we either decide to rent or sell, then the city has the right to determine what can be rented or sold to I'm going I'm going that I'm going to there is

Thank you. There is a I think if we do this in a different way, I I want I I can sit here and try to explain this and I understand why this is confusing and hard to understand and I don't want anybody to think that we're actually trying the city has no interest in taking control of who you can and can't do things with that that

and why is this whole thing in in in talk I'm going to come through the schedule of uses and give you some examples and I want you guys to tell me, do you want that in the downtown valley or does it belong on 67? Let me schedule you in this overlay. I know because I had to go through all this. I was told there's no way I was going to be able to come down here. So there's already a process to be able to come to the downtown square district where you'd have to apply for permits and everything. So why do an overlay restricting more businesses?

Okay. Can can because the overlay actually will let us unrestrict certain businesses. So I know that that seems a misdemeanor or you can add a business to a specific zone. Okay. So if I simply you want to try I just want to clarify something real quick for Mr. Griffin. Uh per the sounding map, y'all are at R1 and we're taking residential out, right? Yes. Okay. She said limiting residential earlier, not taking it completely out, but shrinking the overlay to limit the residential that was in the I let me where is he discussing? But

where is he? Our last workshop. My recommendation right there uh was to take all residential out. Okay. So unless we're coming up here in the future they wanted to be reszoned as business. All of this residential is coming out. What?

So we would be coming down. So, we're coming up Herford to Vine. There is a corner property that is an R1 that we are going to walk around and not include it. We're going to go onto the business side of zoning B1 and B3. Go over to basically where the yellow house is on Vine. That is going that's part of the Whiskey Woods complex. Go up and around Whiskey Woods. Come back down to Vine. Remove all residential on I can never remember if this is the nor I'm going to say the north side, but the but the 67 side of Vine. Remove all that residential. Come down around the con. the church has asked us to remove them from it and we're going to work on that. And so we're really trying to draw a new map that is absolutely eliminating residential unless there is a residential home that is currently sitting in a reszoned area but is grandfathered in.

Okay, that's the only thing I can't tackle. I got a question. So, I own studio 208, which is between Masonic Lodge and the Green Pickle. Correct. I have a home behind me. So, the studio the studio 208 would fall in. Your home would be out based on what we were proposing as the new launch. So, then y'all could pretty much just say if I get ready because I'm looking at retirement before long and I would like to do something with my building. Okay. Can I come back through and explain? I I I I understand the fear. This is not supposed to be fear that we're trying to Well, it's very scary because Gabe can't sell his business. He can't sell his building on the square. Yeah. That has nothing to do.

That's my fear. Okay. Yeah. Let's Gabes is a whole different thing. Please don't use Gabe as an example. But he's right down the street from me. You're right. But this has nothing to do with Gabe. I'm not saying that. But I'm just saying the the situation is very similar. So it's very similar. I am going to go through from a commercial district standpoint items that are allowed in B1 and B2. What am I considering? You're B3, right? What you saw? B1.

Oh, B1. She's a B1. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yeah, she's a B1. Okay. No, B3. No, she's B3. Okay. Yeah, you're B3. B3. So, you're already under whatever. And so, I I also I have a few more questions. I don't want to get anybody off track, but I do have a few questions about when was this whole overlay done and when was this Oh, it's not this overlay is not done. So, the historic already has an overlay. Historic overlay is already this is not in place. Do we know when that happened? The historic overlay in 1985. 85. Okay. I wouldn't.

Okay. This was uh thought by somebody and the city council asked us to look into it. So this is Yeah. And there is and I'm going to say if you actually read in the comprehensive plan, this is the suggested way to move zoning. And when we look at other major historic not major other historic cities such as Wasahashi, such as Manfield, such as Fredericksburg, they have moved to overlay zoning so that like businesses are together regardless of their underlying

so an animal shelter is allowed in the B2. A and not and let me say this, an animal shelter is allowed on a B2 but not allowed in a B3. So this is how we're looking at it. We have zoning within this overlay that's B1 and B2. So all we're really trying to do is take things and state Art gallery would be allowed. Um, auction houses is allowed in a B2 but not in a B3. A bakery or confectionary would be would remain being allowed. Boat sales are allowed in a B2 but are not allowed in a B3. Boat storage is allowed in a B2 but not allowed in a B3. Uh, I'm just coming down and looking. Exterminators are allowed in a B2, but not in a B3. This is the kinds of things that we're saying. Is this the kinds of businesses that in what we are as a city, a collective trying to boost the economy for all of our residents by making this particular area a tourist area and a residential a benefit to our residents? Is this taking the concept of the historic downtown and just going a couple of blocks further and saying that

there are types of business that truly belong on 67 or 144 or on Bo Gibbs that isn't necessarily the kind of business you want in such a tight quarter of residents and businesses together. But I will say I think most of us agreed that we thought your business could be downtown. I think it'd be great downtown. Yeah, we we we're have actually been working towards making that allowing that to happen. I want all business to to thrive down here. You know, you don't need a head shop downtown and get it.

We all do. But a boat storage area right now would be allowed in this in this downtown little valley when they have to apply for a specific use. No, it doesn't have a specific use. So some things don't have it right now. And I had to apply for one. You're right because your particular business use required it. A boat storage and a B2 is open. There is no specific use permit required. Is there any B2 in the downtown district? Just that one block. Did we ever determine if I was B1 or B3? B3. B3.

Just the senior citizen center. No, me and Glen Hotel right here between this is me. So the citizen center, the Glenn Hotel which is right there. Me. this plot right here. So, we were talking about opening up things more, but I know if you're a B3, ultimately historic has the overall say over No, they do not have say of what types of businesses go in. Okay. So, it's just whatever their overlay is. Their overlay is strictly about architecture. Okay, there you go.

Architecture and looks. They have no control over the types of businesses. And so, but that was something we were looking at was allowing some that aren't allowed right now in Yes. by creating the overlay, opening up this area to other types of businesses, but also being realistic about some of the types of businesses that truly belong on Highway 67. Who determines that? A collective, including you. because these are public hearings where everybody is invited in the entire town to give feedback line item by line item

because I'm thinking I mean the American dream if you can buy a business then you should be able to do with it what you want within legal reason but right now you have a business in B3 you are limited in B3 I know I am

but by looking at this differently By not saying I'm only allowed the businesses that are allowed in B3, by creating the overlay, we're opening up for other businesses that make sense for this area. All I'm say, and look, this doesn't have to pass. This doesn't have to become a thing. We're trying to work it all out because we were asked to and we actually believe in the concept of it. I think does everybody kind of believe in the concept?

Y'all really do think that this downtown area has a potential to be like Fredericksburg. Y'all really think that? I don't think we want it to be like Fredericksburg. We want it to be Glen Rose. Yeah, but look at what Haiko's done. I do believe there is growth. There's been growth just since I've been here. Um, and I I know there will continue to be growth here and people visiting and more tourist attractions coming. Um, I I get the concept and the facade of it making the downtown area a better place, but there is still verbiage in that overlay. That is unacceptable and it does restrict business owners and property owners. Okay. That, as we've stated is not actually the verbiage in the overlay. Oh yeah,

that was a statemandated. No, it's on paper. It's actually state code. I looked it up. It's state code that or not. It's state code. State code. Put that wording. That is not anything that we were doing. What we're doing is trying to be realistic and surround the square and the business areas unrealistic to somebody that owns that because Yes. Okay, we're gonna stop. Hang on. I need to define this one more time. Come back.

That verbiage is simply a statement by the state that says you need to understand that your city is looking. It doesn't mean that they are restricting anything. It does not mean that any changes are going to happen. It is verbal law. There's no way it can't be enforced if if somebody because it said states in there, you know, certain percentages of renovations. Schedule of uses is the entire thing. No, I am sorry. You guys are fighting something that you keep trying to say and we're trying to clarify that. So, instead of letting me finish,

okay, go ahead. If somebody wanted to renovate one of these buildings or sell it, turn them, just we'll go back to the renovations because there is to a certain degree that you guys can stop it because of that verbiage. No, not that verbiage. That verbiage doesn't give any control to stop anything. All of that is the zoning and the schedule of uses. That verbiage is a scare tactic by the state to make you read what is the city actually doing. That's all it was. can be enforced if it's on paper, but nothing is enforced until the schedule of uses is defined. That's what I'm trying to tell you. That verbiage simply means be aware.

The schedule of uses doesn't matter to somebody that's selling it. It matters to the buyer. No, the schedule of uses is what's going to help a person buy or sell or enable. Okay, we're going to take the lane building as an example. All right. Because while the city currently is in the possibility of of is in the process of of renovating it, let's say that the city realized it was going to cost too much to renovate and now that its champion isn't here or they give up and somebody wants to buy it and they want to put Wait, let me let's see here. Uh they want to put

boat storage. Um well, sure. boat storage right there. Or uh manufactured home sales. That's another fun one. They're going to put that in the lane building. Do you really believe that that's going to help the value of the properties on the square? Do not the way everything is written in I can't help how the state makes it to be written. That's not my writing. That was the state's writing. Well, so so the only way that we can get through this that exists whether there's an overlay or not maybe I'll reread everything and then no prepare my

don't read the letter that the state required us to send because that's not giving you any information at all because we were required to require. So what you want to look at what you want to look at is under the public agenda the packet for this meeting tonight. Okay. You will see what is some of the proposed schedule of uses that we're trying to open up in this overlay.

All right. But we can't get to the overlay and discuss what schedule of uses are until we all agree on what the actual outline is. So we have taken the feedback of everybody and basically said because we have no intent to do anything with any residential unless there is a residential home that is in the middle of a now zoned B1 or B3 that has been grandfathered in. I can't spot that one out of the overlay, but we are going around the boundary of this downtown area and anything zoned R1 is being removed from the potential overlay potential overlay. The other things that were discussed was things such as if you are in the historic preservation overlay, they still control any of the architectural design has nothing to do with us.

I agree. But if you are outside of that o if you're outside the historic preservation overlay, we would like the architectural design to be in keeping

with what is in this area already. Not even telling you what it has to be, but just say it has to be in keeping. The key thing that we are really trying to focus on with this particular overlay is focusing on the types of uses for the land in this area. And that means opening up some uses to the square itself. And that may mean saying no, that use really belongs on 67. Yeah.

But the legal the document that was mailed out that had that wording that said they're changing things was a statemandated bylaw document. It did not actually provide you with what we're talking about. it did not provide you with what the details are that we're looking for. That's what our public hearings here are about. So that we can have these open discussions, but we can't have an open discussion if you keep focusing on the verbiage provided by the state that says you're not going to get to do what you think you get to do because that's not what we're trying to do.

It is scary to read though.

I'm not saying it's not scary. And in the last meeting, I apologized 15 million times that there wasn't a better letter that went with that mailing. I will apologize once again that the person in the building office that we were I was working with for that particular mailing no longer was in the building office and there was a deadline of mailing that we had already posted agenda. We had already spent money on the newspaper and we wanted to get the topic out in front of the population of Glenrose so that we can start gathering the feedback so that this isn't just a decision being made by five volunteers. It is a decision that is being made in concert with everybody. We don't want to hurt anybody's business. And if you hadn't noticed as we went through all these things today, we very much listened to all the feedback and absorbed it and tried to address it. But part of our role as the volunteers who have then been approved and appointed by city council is we have to do the research so that we're providing information to council so that they can make the bigger decisions and that they can guide because they're elected that they can guide how it actually enacts. Nobody is trying to ruin anybody, but at the same time, we have to make decisions for the community as a whole that one person may not benefit from. But when you have a town of nearly 2900 people and only it it benefits 2900 and one is pissed off, sometimes I have to take the beating.

That's my job. I don't want to get in a debate about verbiage, but as we've seen tonight with how many definitions were changed, verbiage is everything. I agree that verbiage is everything and that's why we have these meetings with public hearings so that we're not taking the definition written by a single person, but that we're taking the feedback. That's why the state requires these public hearings and we are we have to listen. And some jurisdictions don't give a crap what you guys say and they do what they want anyways. We don't. We care. We actually want your feedback. And we went back and made some adjustments because we listened to you.

So, we can sit here. You have a better process. Yeah. Great. You don't want us to do it. So, Oh, do I have a better process? I thought you said, "Am I processing this better?"

No, no. So the question, you've got five volunteers that listen and you heard us debate back and forth, get some clearer understanding. Um, I came in with different impression of that Ren Street thing based on what I read, but then I heard different things. So we are no different than you guys. None of us are experts at doing this. We depend on people who really have a dog in the hunt. You know, it it affects you and then it's no longer abstract when we listen to it. And then you've heard changes, rethinking, questioning coming up and saying, "Okay, let's let's go forward with this." Um, I think most of us thought going in that that development process wasn't you know, we didn't know where the parking was going to be. We were concerned about Bernard Street. I think our initial impression was h probably not a good idea. So, I'm just hoping that you understand that we do put time in this. We're not the experts. We h we depend on you guys showing up telling us what your concerns are, what you want to see and then trying to keep it in consistent with the vision of the the community and with the master plan because those are the guiding documents that we have to work with. Um, it's unfortunate that the state document has been the thing people have fixated on because that's there whether we issue the whether we go forward with an overlay district or not. That's a fact. That's just a a state

a state provision or state law. We have no control. But it doesn't govern how we operate and it doesn't govern what we're trying to accomplish. I'll refrain from any more questions until I see the full outcome of what wants to be the overlay. I don't know what y'all's but I mean to me this is going to be a long long long process. I don't think we should ever make any quick snap a votes on anything. I think we I think it needs to keep coming back to the table and keep coming back. Every month we're going to have a workshop on this and look at it a little bit better until we feel and get more every time we get more input then we change and change.

Maybe if you want to have I think it's a long pointed specific subjects for each workshop instead of just an overall here's the whole plan maybe each workshop is is a certain subject. I agree. Yeah. I and I really appreciate that you guys came out and have the input and have strong opinions about it. Um, all I would ask is that uh we work together on it and have a conversation um and not attack us. I'm always up for conversation. What's that? I'm always up for conversation. Yeah. Well, I mean it like

doesn't have to get but but when you attack us and talk about a few people making decisions, taking control, I think attack is a strong word to use in that situation. That's exactly what you guys said that that this was a grab. This was socialistic. I I think I Marx Marxism communism. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So, how is that not an attack on what we're trying to do? as you start controling people's businesses. What I'm I'm afraid of even whether I get to come down here or not, that's regardless is if you know there's strong changes down here, they start to spread throughout the city and then it does affect my business and other businesses because oh, we got

I think you're getting way ahead of what what we're I mean sometimes you have to think ahead. Well, okay. But that can create a doom loop that's not reality. If you watch Yeah. still doesn't negate the fact that it's a possibility. Well, there's lots of things that are possibilities, but there there's a possibility that we can come in and reszone absolutely everything and every and change the schedule of use for everything and don't even have to have a a a notice being mailed to you on a schedule. Scary though, on a schedule and I'm just trying to say on a schedule of use

that can just be changed without we have to give a public hearing. We have to put the notice in the newspaper. But by doing this as the overlay, we actually are required to provide you guys with the mailing with the information. We're required to give you guys more so that we can get that feedback. The other thing is and and I know you don't know me from Adam but I have sat in this town for quite a number of years now and I am the last person that has ever tried to hurt anybody else's business to the degree that I've hurt my own. answer to be told. Sorry. It's fair. I I would just like to share why I'm concerned. A couple months ago, my wife was approached by a spouse of a city person and the spouse told my wife, "I've always wanted a shop and I would love to have your property." Now, in my mind, that could be used as a land grab by a city employee that I just see that if the city gets too much control,

then they can say what goes into that property, what doesn't go into that property. And that the city already has that power through the current schedule of uses. The city already has that power. I just need you to know that this isn't changing that. So that city employee could go and grab my property by right now. So here's here here's what it is. Right now you are you are zoned a particular zone whether it's a B1, B2, B3, R1, R2, all those are zones.

Okay. The city as it speaks right now, no changes, has rules about what's allowed in that zone. Okay? The change to anything that's allowed in that zone has to be published in the newspaper to tell you that we're talking about it. It has to be ha held here in a public hearing where if you read the agendas that are available online, look at the city calendar in front of the city hall to know that there's a meeting of the planning and zoning or city council. Then you can come in and hear what the changes would be. Then through whatever process, whoever sits on the planning and zoning commission, not us, but anybody that sits up here can make a recommendation to change the use of a zone and then send it on to city council. City council is made up of elected officials that the public voted for. the 2900 residents of Glenrose who bother to vote then pick who what they trust to represent them. It is only when city council makes the final agreement that yeah, we're going to change that use could something happen. A city employee does not have the ability to change a use of a property at all. Period. The end. They don't have the power to make a change to a use or a zone. They

can request that people look at it, but it goes through two groups of people before that happens. And that there's two public hearings where feedback from the public is provided before the change can happen. your the city employee whose spouse did that did not do it with the authority of city council at all. City council is the only one that has the authority to do that. We are here as volunteers because we volunteered to believe that our community means something and that we want to help guide it. protect it. Yes. Grow it to whatever degree that means. You watched me abstain or actually veto the vote for that development because I actually don't think that twotory houses at 400,000 belong on that corner. That's my personal opinion. I am one voice. I agree. The other four decided they're okay with it. So, we take that information to city council. We provide the reasons that they are okay with it and I provide the reason I'm not. City council decides. They're the elected officials. They are the final authority of everything in this community except things that are actually law. That's the police or the sheriff depending on where you are. So, we're trying to have open dialogues to discuss what the future of

our community can look like that will help our community as a whole. That's what our dialogues are. That's what every single one of us has agreed to put our personal business aside and look at this as a collective for the community. I'm sorry if I sounded tense or tears. I apologize. I should have been better. I didn't think you were addressed at all. Yeah, you know, we want your help and we can do it effectively or we can do it combatively.

And I apologize if I come off Chris if I just I'm pretty monotone, right? And it just

well using words like Marxism and think those are trigger words that I don't think are needed in the conversation. Um we we all want similar things. We want a Glenrose that we're proud of that will stand the test of time that leverages the historic uh nature that we've got. We all want those things. How we get there, that's where we're trying to figure it out. We don't have the answers, but if you and other people that you know have these concerns, then come come and get involved and have the conversation. You've seen we go back and forth. Oh, I thought it was this. No, it's it's clear here. I don't know the things you know or you know about what's important and your area. And you've seen us go to the map say, "Oh, let's take a look at the map. Let's understand this. Let's get the context." So, we're not here trying to shove anything down anybody's throat.

We're not here for a land grab. We're not here to But we're trying to create something that gives us guidance for smart growth and focusing on who we are as a tourist town. How do we get there? And you guys can help us figure that out. And um and I hope you do.

We do. And I will say I do appreciate you the last meeting because that we talked all about that for a while and you know like I said thought there was no reason that those taxi parlors should not be downtown. We we 100% agree that that's something that should be and so I appreciate that. I didn't even know that was something that wasn't allowed because I mean there's so many there is so many schedules of uses and things. So you know Stevenville has one. Everybody does. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I didn't I didn't like the the verbiage everyone's upset about, but good thing was it got everyone involved. It really did. We had so many good conversations. We've never had that many people come and give input before and it really

we stopped and had a whole week, you know, a Saturday workshop based on trying to synthesize what we heard. Turn out. I was hoping it was going to be at least half of that here today, but Yeah. It's helpful. It really is. Well, and that's how I got on the board because I was in your seat not very long ago. Dwayne, did you get your question answered? You're right. Because Megan was sitting on that side and she was very upset about something and she personally attacked me on Facebook and I finally got back. I was

I'm I'm not a Facebook person. I want to come to your face. I'm okay with that. I want to get answers. But she she got very very upset with me and said some stuff that I took to heart. And I then told her if she didn't like the way I was doing it, she should get on the damn board. And here she is. So there you go. And now I work with her in a collective way and I listen to her and I hear her and I try to give her my point of view. And so we're going to have seats coming up at the end of the year. Yeah.

So it's not a high bar to get in. You don't like you don't like what we're doing, write your application and tell the city. There's a few of us that we keep having meetings like this. I might quit. So, is the proposed I guess that's what you call it. The proposed overlay y'all are looking at is it in the package that's online because all I've read is what

the schedule of us is. No, the schedule because we weren't talking any as a workshop. We were just having some other discussions about how we were changing the boundary. we because we had listened and we were coming up with what the new boundary would look like and so it was something that we didn't have in the packet because it's a workshop. It wasn't it wasn't a voting discussion so it wasn't in the packet. It was an internal dialogue that we wanted to bring to this meeting so that we could get some feedback on where we were going. But the schedule of uses that is in the packet that we were just going through does have a column for the overlay district because we wanted to kind of start laying in what made some sense. It is

I can find that on the website. You can find that on the website. If you go to the homepage of the city of Glenrose website, click on agendas. Yeah, it starts on page. Okay. Yeah, if you go click on agendas, I'm getting there. So, if you go to the homepage and then you go to government, go down to agendas and minutes, then go you will go to after tonight you will go to uh yeah, tonight it's on the upcoming meetings.

It will go to the recent meeting. But after that, you'll click on the tab to the right for recent meetings and then you'll see everything like what what the what the packet has and I just want to make sure everybody knows if you're going to go and look. So what you're going to see is everything that we have been discussing that we have made all the notes on um that has altered based off all the dialogue. You will then get to everything a document like this. Yeah.

Okay. This chart document you will see where it it's the third column from the far left is kind of there we go a concept. This is not what we've we've never even talked about this as a group yet. We threw some stuff in this just to kind of say where do we start the dialogue? So the actual where it says downtown overlay, it's the third column. If you scroll through all of these use types,

we would love for you guys to kind of go through and go, "Yeah, this should be in the square. I can kind of see why that doesn't," you know, go through all of it. Give us the feedback. We just found three errors in it, right? Or three very confusing areas ourselves. This is so you need to understand that these ordinances have been worked and reworked over the last what 50 years probably probably more like 35

35. And so every time somebody has an idea, every time the city has a new mayor or a new city council person or a new city administrator or anything, these things have been updated and changed and it hasn't always done been done in a concise clean manner. That has been a project that we have been undertaking to try to get conflicting items out of these ordinances where one document says it in this place and another document says it in this place but it's totally different. That's a long project and it really wasn't until about last year that we really had the people in place of city employees who could take that and work with us in getting it better so that there wasn't confusion. And so what you see in this packet is not in this part in that particular column has never been discussed with us as a group. It was a cut and paste job that we haven't even gotten to that dialogue yet in the concept of the overlay.

Yeah. The biggest problem was we were trying to vote on something last time and we shouldn't have. That's why everybody got the letter, right? We were it's not time to vote and it's not going to be time to vote I feel like for a very long time. And that see that letter again. And that was not us pushing to do the vote. I mean, personally, I was not going to vote for it anyway. That was not us pushing the vote. We were we were we were required to bring it out to the public for a vote because we were on behalf but we got feedback.

Absolutely. And I'm glad that we brought it out and that we did that letter, even as crappy as the letter was, because this was never going to be something that we wanted to do in a vacuum. So, I'm honestly glad that the ugliness of that letter went. I just want us to move the conversation beyond the ugliness of the letter now so that we can actually have working conversations. And I promise not to break down in tears again. But with all that said, if there is no further business, we're out of here. Yeah.

Before this commission, then I am calling it quits for the night at 8:29. And if anybody wants to join me for a drink and have a one-on-one conversation, the bar will be open.