Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's just part of in the zoning stuff. Uh so we're looking at two things. I I I know uh Mr. Lynn, you were asking, you said something about 32. Well, that's under a subdivision that's under an ordinance. That's not our code. Our code says 30. And um so I guess my concern is and and I've I asked them this. If your family's living in there and you're back in the back and they talk about 36 foot wide, uh I don't know if you've ever seen a 5- in uh fire hose laid across a street. There's no going across it. First of all, it's against the law. Second of all, you can't go across them unless you maybe have a four-wheel drive. There's there is no houses quote directly facing that street, but there's 11 houses at their their driveways and their garages face that street. And I can't tell you the number of times we have car fires that are in the garage that we end up now facing that it is on that street. So, it's very possible that street gets shut down. I mean, here uh when right before one of the meetings we were getting ready to have, we had College Street shut down due to a fire uh that they had to catch hydrants across the street. So, it's a it's a very pliable that that that's going to have to be, you know, it could happen at some time. But, it's not just fire. And I guess that's what I need to emphasize. you know, it's in our codes, but it's all emergency equipment. Uh if if you have a emergency domestic issue or something in there, but we're at the first of it, you know, you can't get police back in there, you're not going to get be able to get med units. If a family member, I mean, you know, heaven forbid that a uh someone's having a

heart attack and you can't get a med unit back in there. uh especially the further they get back. I mean you're looking at um another again he's saying yeah seven years uh well it's taken 20 this far to get this long that's hoping that with the economics that you know economy gets to being where they can do it in seven years. Okay. So that's my concerns. Uh again, it's it's it's nothing more than as far as public safety. Absolutely. Thank you. That's my question. Yes. Uh sir, you said you had many um meetings. Was that recent?

Yes, this year. This year with the with this group,

right? This is the first I've been involved with it. when it originally started. That's been two uh there were two previous fire marshals before me uh when it was originally started. But I will say this and I did bring it with me. We've been under the fire international fire codes since 2003 is when we the city adopted the international codes. We used to be under the southern building codes. And in 2003, uh, and again, I brought the 2003 book. Uh, the wording for single and dual family, uh, subdivisions is the very same thing. It states the very same thing. So, it hasn't changed now in 22 years. Uh, the codes for that, you know. Well, my I guess uh my question is numerous y'all had numerous meetings with this developer very recently, let's say in the past year over this extension.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions? I have a one, not a question, a clarity. So, you said if it's 30 or more homes, you have to have a second, you know, interest. Yes. You're supposed to have that second means of already in my opinion is overdue what they already developed. Yes. That's what you're saying. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Yeah. I have a question. Question. Yes, sir. How do you make it work?

Right now, that's, you know, we've we've tried to throw out some things like they said they're kind of in a in a situation. It's not like they could also say, "Well, let's just cut a road, you know, going to the west because they there is a canal." They they would have to basically put their main road in coming to the back and then going out the the bridge and road that was put in. Uh which is a good distance. That's I I've calculated I think it's around 25 2700 ft of road frontage that they would have to come down and cross over to connect. Uh otherwise it would be crossing back uh a drainage area there on the east side and tying back up to which is ultimately was the original plan was to come back up to Dishman. Uh but again they're going to have to do a bridge across what's there. not as and as ex you know extensive as the one that is over the canal but there still would have to do you know construction so I mean that's that's been part of our challenge is trying to come up with a remedy

u uh let me ask you a question I know u in previous developments we've done when we get to a culde-sac before going forward or I'm sorry. End of a street. The fire department has had us make what they call a temporary uh turnaround there. Correct. Just throwing out an idea. Would the fire department accept a temporary street, not necessarily a hard surface shell, something that would give you access and that they would maintain? Would this be an acceptable?

We we have talked about that. Um the deal is uh because of the apparatus weight uh their code requires it to to be able to withstand 75,000 lbs. And they felt like to build up a base and to have to come in with, you know, some type of, you know, crush rime rock or whatever they're going to use that it would almost be as costly for them to uh do that as concrete. Um but I that was a suggestion that we did or you know an idea that was discussed uh which I would be fine with you know if it was a temporary um just something that we could have access to that back section of the of the you know the development.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you sir. Thank you. Okay. You've had some opposition and you have a a limited amount to respond. Would you like to come forward and address that? I thank the fire marshall for his comments and concern. Uh but I did want to just if I could provide some extra information that we've come across in the city of Is that okay? Okay. So these are all different subdivisions around the city of Bmont. pass. There's eight copies.

These have all been in recent uh relatively recent development within the last 5 years as far as we know. And they have all my apologies. They have all been approved. Um I assume they've all been approved for the same waiver that we're requesting today. All of these subdivisions are either in development or have been in development and they all have over 60 uh lots with one exit. Um so that being the case, uh we uh figured that this would be a reasonable request given that we have two planned exits. And I do understand the fire marshall's concerned. Um, however, just given what we've seen and everything that has been done for this subdivision up to this point, um, we believe that it's a reasonable request.

Okay, that's all. Any other questions? Yeah, I'm I'm just curious. I mean, if you accelerated the building of an additional exit, wouldn't that provide opportunity for an acceleration of additional development?

It would help reduce that overhead. Um in theory, yes. However, just due to um uh how do I say this? The current population projection, if you will, uh it's just not economically feasible to do that just with the base cost of what that road would would be. and the fire marshall and and a a commissioner brought up the temporary road and that would be just as if not more expensive than to extend our road currently as a 36 ft collector street just due to the fact that it has to m uh withstand 75,000 lbs and a road of that stature would uh have to be designed and engineered as well as taken out. the removal process of that road is extreme. Um, so it would cost just as much if not more. Uh, in terms of going ahead and extending the road, uh, it just with with the economics changing every day. Uh, with what's currently projected, it's not feasible to to do that at this time all at once.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, sir. Say it's not economically. I mean it's a road that would be there for future development. Correct. Yes. Is it is that just something totally out of the picture? It Yeah. To the uh from what the developers told us. Yes. Do you have another solution? Currently, no. The solution is just to maintain development. Um and it will connect at at that bridge uh that crosses the LB in LNVA canal. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Yes. I'm sorry, Bill.

That bridge was accepted by the city after this development started. Correct. What was the original plan? The original plan was to go around and that's because it was approved originally to do so with the 36 foot wide collector street. And we believe that it was approved on the basis that that collector street can maintain 450 homes per the city ordinances for 450 uh residences can be built on a collector street according to Bumont city ordinances.

But there's other needs other requirements of a collector street other than just fire. Correct. That's only one of the criteria. We just Yes sir. We believe that it was approved the whole the master plan was approved on the basis of that though. Okay. Thank you. Yes sir. Have you discussed it with the county and do we know what their opinion is? Um we haven't really discussed this with the county. Uh no sir. No sir. Sir in order to speak you have to Yeah. We're not ready for you yet. So, hold on one sec. Okay. There are any other questions of this gentleman? I have a question. Yes.

In the event that the request is denied, what's your contingency plan? There is no contingency plan. This would very well halt all development of this property. It's it's just not feasible to develop it. Um if these um this action has to be taken to to extend that road all the way either back around to Dishman or down to Keith. It's just it's not feasible to the to the developer. Okay. Any other questions?

I have a question. Um, would you would you or your developer be amunable to on the east side, I'm sorry, west side of this development. I believe that's West Sage. So, this is the area I'm talking about. Um, would you be interested or agreeable to do something not necessarily on phase five, but future phases to have the same kind of loop connection back to the main collector road?

I believe that could could be an option. Yes. Um, and then I guess a secondary question uh would be to the fire marshal if he would be amanable to um something like that to allow for the development to continue on um if we were able to do a loop connection. I believe uh there was a part in the in the uh staff memo though talking about uh the water supply and I believe the uh Mr. Brussard was uh agreeable to loop that water line and please correct me if I'm wrong in that. Um so that that will be a water uh supply um issue that that will be addressed in phase five. Um but that's just something I was I was wondering if you guys would be agreeable to and then also subp part if the fire marshall would be agreeable to.

Yeah, I believe that would be an option for sure. Yes. When you say loop, you mean the street would loop. Yeah. Can you show with the cursor please?

Yeah. The idea behind it, right? If a fire were to occur right here, right? Then um and let's say that someone had a heart attack down here. So, right now, a fire could could or may not be able to get through right here, but they could loop around here to then get to this person down here. Um so, that would be within the spirit of the ordinance, although would need a waiver like I said. Um, but if we could also do possibly build this out right down here and then do a loop on the east side somewhat similar to west stage and of course I will leave that to um the uh designer to come up with that or the engineer to come up with that but somehow do a loop down here should that same exact deal happen. Um it just provides for better interconnectivity throughout the subdivision. Um, of course this is not ideal, right? Um, they should have a a double outlet, but um, it's just an idea that I was thinking of um, to hopefully uh, move uh, move the development forward um, should it be okay with all parties?

Okay. And thank you. And should they agree to that, we're going to need to address this as is and they would need to come back or no, we can address it now. We could address it now. I did prepare some um some conditions based off the feedback I got from other departments throughout the distribution um of this, but I think we should hear from the developers or uh the fire marshall if they would want something like that. Question. Thank you. Do we need to table this and let them get together? I think so. You could that's an option. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I think that's

okay. Uh, is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or opposition? None heard. Public hearing is now closed. You didn't want to speak. I was just going to answer your question about you have to come forward if that's what you want to do. Okay. If you'll give us your name and address, please. My name is Troy Whitehead and I'm with Shamberg and Pope 8865 College Street. Um, we did have a meeting that I'm sorry. You may need to reopen the public hearing. Yeah, you closed it. You closed it. I closed it. Okay. Public hearing is open again. Yes, sir. May we get your name and address, please?

Yes. My name is Troy Whitehead with Shawn Berg and Pulp, 8865 College Street. Uh, and I just wanted to address the question about uh the commissioner uh in the county. Uh in one of our prior meetings we did the commissioner was in that meeting with us and I believe Philip was absent that day. Um so uh they had early on when we started this development uh when the city annexed it, they did not annex Dishman Road. Uh and there was some agreements in there early on that the developers uh would put in a lift station. The lift station is sized to hold uh serve all four corners of the intersection of Keith and Dishman. Um the the wet well and everything was designed big enough to do that. Uh they also ran a water line from the Dishman tank all the way out to Keith Road. Um a large diameter water line uh which is later since just a few years ago. I think the city came in and connected that down to uh a larger water line that was on Highway 90, which created a big loop for that side of town. Uh and the commissioner was uh at that meeting in his concerns was he was wanting the city to um them, the county, and the city to get renegotiate and get back into negotiations for the city taking over Dishman. Um, that was the only

okay the only thing that was brought up by the council and I think they agreed to open those discussions up again and I have not been involved in those discussions any further. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or opposition? The public hearing is now closed. Okay. Do we have a discussion or a motion? I make a mot excuse. I make a motion that we table it. Second uh through further uh design. It's acceptable to all parties. I second it. Okay. See, we have a motion to table and a second. All in favor say I.

Any in opposition? Okay. We're moving on to the next one.

Okay. Uh for staff report PZ 20225-314. Access Surveyors requests approval of a replat of lot 22 River Ranch Edition section 2 Bumont Jefferson County, Texas into lots 1A and 2A Loore edition number one Bowmont Jefferson County, Texas containing 37 acres more or less. This property is located within the city's ETJ and meets the minimum city standards for subdivision for subdividing. The intent of the plat is to divide one track into two residential lots. Staff does recommend approval of the request. We sent uh 35 property owner notices. We received five in favor and zero in opposition. The area outlined in red is the area under review. And again, no zoning would be out here because this is in the ETJ aerial image and replat. And I believe we have the applicant present.

Okay. Any questions of staff? Okay. Is the applicant in the audience? Hi, if you'll give us your name and address, please. Good evening, commission. My name is Colobby Bracken with Access Surveyors. Our address is 11025 Oldv Road here in Bowmont, Texas. Okay. Is there anything you'd like to add to this? I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you, commission. I forgot to ask, how many do we have in favor in opposition on this? Five in favor. Uh they didn't give any uh justification other than just circling yes in favor.

Thank you. Okay, public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or opposition? Public hearing is now closed. Do we have a discussion or a motion? I wish that I move that we accept the proposal. Okay, we have a motion to approve

and a second. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, staff PZ 20225-342. Access Surveyors requests approval of a replat of portions of block 8, 9, 10, and 11 of oil city subdivision, first edition, Bowmont, Jefferson County, Texas into tracks 9A and 10A, Oil City subdivision, first edition, Bulmont, Jefferson County, Texas, containing eight uh 8 acres more or less. This property is located within the city's extr territorial jurisdiction, ETJ. The intent of the plat is to divide one track into two. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions. Number one, this is from the Jefferson County Engineering Department. The school district note shall be updated from Harden Jefferson ISD to Hampshire Finete ISD. And number two, pri prior to final recordation, the access easement shall be clearly designated on the final plat as a shared access and utility easement. Uh property owner notices were mailed to 17. We received 17 owners. We received zero in favor and zero in opposition. area outlined in red is the area under review aerial image and the plat and we do have the applicant present.

Okay. Any questions of staff? Okay. And if the applicant will please come forward and one more time your name and address please. Definitely. My name is Colobby Bracken with Access Surveyors. We're located at 11025 Old Both Road here in Bumont, Texas. Okay. Any additional information? I have noted the exception. U I've not I've notated the conditions and we comply 100%. Okay. Any questions of applicant? I have a question. These these two tracks are now very strange shapes. Are these going to be residential or what is this going to be?

They are residential. Yes, ma'am. Just kind of an odd kind of an odd shape. I I believe track one was want wishing to go further south. Uhhuh. But due to Crystal Lake Drive being a private roadway, that would make where track 2 is labeled now basically landlocked. And to meet the city uh minimum standards, we have to be 50 foot wide and touch a public roadway. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you.

Public hearings now open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? None heard. Do we have a discussion or a motion? A motion to approve with the two conditions. Second. Second. Okay, we have a motion to approve and a second with the two conditions. All in favor say I. Any oppose? No. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. PZ 2025-348, please. Demi

Fitzen Shipman is seeking approval of a replat of lot 2 Actar at Keith Bowmont Jefferson County Texas into lots 2 A 2B and 2C actars at Keith Bowmont Jefferson County Texas containing one or more one acres or more or less. The intent of the plat is to divide the existing lot into three total lots for new residential structures. It should be noted that the the tie-in to city services for sanitary sewer services will occur through an existing private grinder pump which shall be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain. The grinder pump and associated connection shall be installed to meet minimum standards acceptable to the water department. Planning staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions being that number one, the property must receive an approved reszoning from AR, which is agricultural residential to RS, residential single family dwelling to conform to the city's zoning code prior to final recordation of the plat. Um, and that's to meet the uh lot density requirements. Um, staff sent eight property owner notices and received five in favor and zero in opposition. This is the area outlined in red that's under review. As you can see, they have um they already have some residential uh lots built out. Um they did a previous plat I believe in 2016. And this is the plat and I believe the applicant is present.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Thank you. And is the applicant in the audience? Never mind. No. Okay. Public hearings now open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? None heard. Public hearings now close. Do we have a motion or discussion? A motion to approve with the one condition. Second. Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Motion carries. Okay, we are now moving with you, mayor, to the joint session. May we have roll call, please? Mayor West,

present. Mayor Prom Turner, absent. Council member Krenshaw, here. Council member Durio, here. Council member Hillyard here.

Council member Sherwood absent. Council member Williams absent. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Staff PZ 20224-250.

Good afternoon, Commission and Council. The city of Bowmont recommends approval to amend section 28.03.023 permitted uses and adopt section 28.04.009 short-term rentals into the city of Bumont code of ordinances. The proposed ordinance establishes regulations to protect occupant safety, protect neighborhood character, and ensure proper collection of hot tax from all lodging operations, including short-term rentals. As online lodging platforms such as Airbnb, Verbbo, uh, or VBO, Guestie grow in popularity, short-term rentals have become an increasingly common accommodation choice. The proposed ordinance um introduces annual permitting, safety inspections, and operating standards consistent with be best practices across Texas municipalities. It's estimated that the city has approximately 100 uh short-term rental units uh that currently operate within the city. So, what is a short-term rental? Uh basically that is a dwelling um unit that is occupied for less for consecutive less than 30 consecutive days. It does not include a hospital, sanitarium, uh nursing home, other housing facilities. Um common examples are Airbnb, VRBO, but it's certainly not um limited to just that. Um and then of course I added the uh authority to regulate at the bottom of this slide. So, the STR permit requirements that are in the proposed ordinance, uh you would have to show proof of hot tax registration, which is hotel occupancy tax, um with the state. Uh you'd have to pass a city inspection. So, just making sure that the the um structure doesn't have exposed wiring, um deteriorating uh elements, it is in compliance with the 2021, uh International Property Maintenance Code. Um the annual registration permit uh would need to list a local point of contact. Um you

wouldn't be able to have more than two persons per bedroom. Uh no uh property could exceed more than 10 people without it and should they want to um have more than 10 people like if there's a large mansion or something like that. Um there's a couple in Bowmont. They're hidden but um you know they could get a approved or they could get a SUP and if it's approved they can exceed the 10 people maximum. um parking uh minimum of one off- streetet parking space per unit. So, if it's a four bedroomedroom home, um they would have to have at least uh spots for four people to park. Um there would be a yard parking prohibition for specifically to STR sites. So, you couldn't park on the grass or landscaped areas. Um it would have to be on paved surfaces. Um life and safety. So, making sure carbon monoxide, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers are present. again compliance with the 2021 IPMC uh proposed fees uh is $100 for an annual registration. We already have it in our codes um that's identified as $75 for inspections. Um I would propose or suggest or recommend um that all STRs must register within 60 days of the passing of the ordinance. So uh beyond the planning commission, it would have to go to city council. Um so they would be looking at that. um uh beginning of December um following any revocation of a of a STR permit, the site would be ineligible for reissuance um for a period of 12 months. So, they couldn't operate as an STR for a period of 12 months should they have their permit revoked. Uh proposed zoning regulations for this. Um, so of course there's uh grandfathering. So existing STRs prior to adoption of the ordinance that's before you um would be grandfathered at their location uh but it would not exempt them from the annual registration

requirement which they would have to do within 60 days should the ordinance be approved. Um new STRs uh could not be located within the within 300 ft of an existing STR or short-term rental. Um the purpose of that is to really make sure that we're preserving our neighborhood character. Um and making sure that you know who your neighbors are and everything like that. Um there's some areas where or the goal would be um to prevent a block um because 300 ft is typically a city block. um prevent a entire block being owned by a company or um rental company that would then um take away from the uh the character of the neighborhood essentially. Um so on the chart up there uh there's a bunch of S's and P's um with all of our uh zoning districts up top. Um S stands for specific use permit. Uh P stands for permitted by right. um where there's blanks, uh short-term rentals would not be allowed in. Obviously, um saying all of this before you guys, you guys can recommend any um addition, revision or anything like that. Um same for council. Um so with that, uh I would like to City of Bmont was the applicant. So, if you guys have any questions for me, um,

how did you identify these and how will you identify the new ones, especially these things like how do you know if there's only two people in a bedroom and how are you going to do that? How are you going to identify and monitor?

So, we So, right now, um, the CVB uses a company called NUMO. Um, and that's for their hot tax collection. They also, um, and that's through, uh, short-term rentals as well. Um, so they have a a built-in database and should this be um passed, we would enter into um an agreement with them to help us regulate um regulate these uh zoning stipul or these uh STRs. Sorry, I'm tripping over my words. Um so we would have them as a company be researching, you know, Airbnb, VRBO, Guesty, all of those sites, and they would then um be be sending out a letter on our behalf for them to register. should they not? Then that's when um code enforcement steps in um to you know uh send a letter and identify who the property owner is to try to bring them into compliance.

So that company identifies them and notifies you. Yes. Okay. We would have we would have access to the database. Okay. So I have a question about the 300 uh foot rule. Uh majority of the ones in Bulmont that I've seen are in apartment complexes or they're in the you know town homes that are all over Bulmont. They normally for economics of scale they'll rent four or five apartments from somebody or rent or buy two or three town homes in the west end or whatever it might be. How are you going to accommodate for that?

That's a good point. So really the measurement would be property line to property line right now. Um but we could always add a provision in there that would carve out um you know apartment complexes. Um, well, I don't know if it would necessarily be apartment complexes, but it would be condos, right? Um, we could do a carve out where condos could be exempt. I mean, you can an SU or something for that as well, right? You could. Yes.

So, will there be a public available registry of who's on the SDR? How would pro prospective investors that maybe want to buy a property for a bed and breakfast type VBO, how would they find out if they're if that property would be prohibited by this 300 ft? So, STRs and um bed and breakfastes are identified as separate. So, it's actually not on um this um bed and breakfast. You would have the property owner there, right? That's the difference between an STR and a a bed and breakfast. Well, um,

so, pardon my use of the language. So, let's say you have a prospective investor of an SDR. How would they find out if the property that they're looking at would not be available for this registration because there's already one on the block? They So, anytime someone tries to bring any kind of business to Bowmont, they should always call the planning department. That should always be step one. planning department would then have the database when we could also um probably do a map. It's all through GIS. So, we could probably do a a public facing map, too, to show um where those properties already are. Um but they should call planning so that we can check those distances for them. I mean, I'm assuming when you do the application, you guys would

of course would I mean, anyone who's doing business, they're going to go do the steps properly. you know, I'm going to go apply for this permit to do the rental on on there. If you can't get the permit, you won't lease it or buy it or whatever. You should always, it's always encouraged to do due diligence before you buy a property. Um, always call the planning department, but if you'd like, we could always do a a GIS uh public interfacing. We do it with like our code cases. Um it's on it's available online and that would show where code cases are essentially and we could do it for STRs.

I mean I would recommend that because you know just what the landmark historic commission experienced people don't do their due diligence. So I I think if you're going to put that type of restriction in there then there needs to be more of a public access to that information. Sure. Okay. And Timmy, we need to do a public hearing on this. Yes. Okay. Uh, any other questions of staff?

Okay. Public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? None heard. Public hearing is Yes, sir. Okay. You know your name and address, please. Okay. Uh Colobby Bracken with Access Surveyors 11025 Old Both Road. Um I mainly have a question. I'm not for or against it. It sounds like the STR zoning would be some form of spot zoning. Uh it would not.

It would not. So it doesn't. So if you look at uh the permitted use table up at the top, you see where all of the existing zonings are, right? So then you apply that to the map where our zoning map is already at and it basically just tells you where the STRs can be located. So there's overlap. Yeah, it's a overlay. Okay, that's it. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, anyone else? Public hearing is now closed. We have a motion or discussion. May I ask another question?

Sure. So, I understand the reasoning for all of these, you know, restrictions that it's safety and, you know, regulation, all that kind of stuff, but I know a lot of people that that register their houses or their condos or whatever to be these short-term rentals, they're doing it as a source of income. So, doesn't this dampen that when they have to go through and pay fees and registrations and all bring it up to code and have all these things done? Aren't you dampening the incentive? So,

STRs should always remit hot tax. That's all that's a thing. They should always remit hot tax. Um, for the $100, I wanted to keep it low.

Um, to make sure that we're not impacting, but we are also covering the ability to take a car, put gas in it, take a a code enforcement officer, we pay wages and benefits um to cover those costs to enforce an ordinance such as this. Um, the main one of the main reasons for even considering an ordinance like this, and I think you said it, is is life and safety, right? making sure that um neighborhoods are preserving their character um so on and so forth. But we did want to make sure that we keep the uh the cost of the annual permit low. And it's it's a onetime fee per year. Um I believe and I know I don't think Miss Willard is here with the CVB, but I believe that the average nightly cost uh for an STR in Bulmont right now is about $115 um more or less. Sorry. Oh, sorry. $85. So, just to kind of keep a perspective of what what our uh annual registration fee would be versus what the average uh nightly cost is here.

Okay. Thank you. I'm curious uh if you know how many are locally owned versus out of town people that own them. That I do not have offh hand. No, I would have to well I would have to check JCAD for um each of the for each property. Um there's about a hundred, but um something I could find out for you guys if you want. Um but it would take some time. I wouldn't have it today.

I mean, I'll tell you, I have some experience in this. What people do, they don't buy it ever. They're going to lease it from somebody else and then they're going to go subleasase it for this purpose. That's what they do. So you'll have a local person here or their grandmother owned the house or something. If you go look at majority of these things that are in town, Weston Apartments or it's going to be the houses that are on the old town. It's not going to be in Montro side or anything like that. It's going to be mostly on the West End Glattis Apartments or you know on that side. Gota

Okay. Any other discussion or a motion? So, I actually have a question before we do any motions. So, are we are we voting to approve the ordinance as it sits or because uh one thing I I recommend is adding that SUP permit on there. Uh some of the you know existing or if you want other people like you know tomorrow somebody from Lamar wakes up they want to do SUPs uh especially with the residency program coming to uh you know Baptist and expanding and growing. A lot of these people who are coming here, some of them can't afford, you know, to do uh, you know, pay for hotels or whatever and it's a good option for them or some people are here to, you know, do USML less or whatever it might be. The reason I'm saying that is a lot of these you look at them, they're at Lamar by Lamar University as well just because of the testing center. So, you don't want to deter what Lamar has going on as well.

And I mean, any revenue that's coming to Bulmont is great in my opinion. Well, and correct me if I'm wrong on it, but I do have a carve out for uh like this would not apply uh to any dormitories or properties owned by higher education. Um so it wouldn't apply to Lamar. However, if it's not either of those, um kind of just thinking on it, I could certainly add I can certainly think about it to add some amendments to it um for whatever you guys want to recommend. Um, but I do have it already in the ordinance where no site, which is a property, no property may exceed 10 people in total without an approved SUP. So, let's say that it's um there's it's an apartment complex and we know that there's four STRs in there and they have four bedrooms um that they've signed up for those STRs, then we have so many and and planning would have that data to know that. Um you already have so many within that that property that anything that were to exceed 10 people would automatically kick in the necessity of an SUP.

I got you. But like for example, town homes, each town home's going to have their own address and it would not be in 300 foot. Typically, town homes have their own um property, right? Like they have their own like their uh it's cluster housing. So you they already have their property lined out. Um so it should still still stand. But if you would still like me to research a little bit more, I can.

I would definitely say do that for that. So, who would be conducting the annual inspection and where could we find a a list or where could the public find a list of what those requirements um are for an inspection to pass to pass an inspection?

So, typically and and this is just the last one that uh planning did was uh for the game rooms. We actually had a website that was dedicated for de game rooms where it had your checklist, it had um the paperwork that you needed to print out to to sign XYZ um all the kinds of ways to sign up. And I know that we would be working with NUMO to make sure that we have a website that um details all of those those things like the requirements so that it's it's very upfront. But again, any questions, you always call the planning office and we'll have all of that information. Okay. Any other discussion? Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion. I make a motion we approve file PZ 20224-250. Second.

All in favor say I. Any oppose? No. Motion carries. Okay, moving on to PZ 2025. I just have a question real quick. So, if she comes up with information and they decide they're going to amend it, you come back again. If we were to amend based off of what you guys just approved, yes, I would have to come back to the planning commission.

Okay. Uh staff PZ 20225-317. Stephanie Chapman is requesting a reszoning for half an acre property at 45 I'm sorry 5430 Concord Road from residential single family to GCMD general commercial multiple family or a mo more restrictive zoning district. According to the comprehensive plan that property is located within a stable area and the existing residential zoning district and the existing surrounding uses align with the designation of the comp plan. The property previously operated as a beauty salon and professional tax service in 2019. The structure sustained substantial damage from a fire and was demolished by the owner. The city staff has had multiple discussions with the property owner in past regarding potential redevelopment of the site. However, nor for no formal application was submitted um until till now. The if the owner intends to construct and operate a combined tax insurance office at this location or the owner intends to construct and operate a combined tax and insurance office at this location if the resoning is approved. If this if approved, this resoning could result in spot zoning by introducing a higher density commercial use into a predominantly single family residential area of Concord Avenue. Approval of this request may violate chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code. Due to the potential violation of state law, planning staff recommends denial of this request. Staff sent 18 property owner notices and we received one in favor and zero in opposition. The area outlined in red on the screen is the area under review. So, they want to take the yellow um the yellow colored lot and turn it to uh purple essentially for GCMD. Um, this is an aerial image.

This is the subject property properties to the north, to the east, west, and south. And I am unsure if the uh the applicants are here. The applicants are here. Uh Jimmy, how close was the neighborhood to this location? That larger neighborhood right behind it. Yeah, it's it's directly to the uh north. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff?

Yes. Um and I think we've run across this before with the spot zoning issue and um it seems like this is where we're back again. Uh where it violates charter. Well, it wouldn't be the charter. It would be a a potential violation um through state law, chapter 211. And because there is that potential violation of state laws, planning staff does recommend denial of it. But it was already a business before,

it was in 2019, and it was um in our ordinances. It does allow for non-conforming uh uses given that um it doesn't go longer than a a 2-year period. Um, some of the case law even goes back to uh, and Shay could probably talk better on this than me, but some of the case law even expands it to five. Right now, um, since it happened in 2019, it's going on to six years. Um, a reasonzoning would be necessary for them to do a tax insurance office there. Now, of course, by right, they could build a single family home. They could come back to you guys for a specific use permit for a duplex. Um this we're also going through the uh process of a comprehensive plan update. Um you know that some of these uses while largely surrounding uses and I can go through again are showing residential single family around there. This is on an arterial street. Um but again just due to the potential of a state violation that's why planning um staff is uh recommending denial. But going to the surrounding uses. So obviously the subject property you can see the sign is still there residential all around. And of course we do have the applicants here too.

Question. Uh sorry. I guess it's going to be because I'm thinking both these properties and you showed a vacant lot that was previous business. they were grandfathered in from before, but I guess it's the use change that once that business was no longer there, it goes back to the residential.

So when we have our legal non-conforming uses, um, so basically it outlines that, you know, if there was a business there and like let's say that they closed the doors and a couple months later they come back with the same business but new owner, we can allow that to go in by right because it's grandfathered. Um, now these obviously it was damaged by fire. So what they could have done at the time in 2019 is built back in that same footprint for the purposes of what the business was when it when the fire struck. Um, act of God. Um, so they could have come back with that, but at this point it's been six years since doors have closed technically. Um, maybe longer. Um, but we know uh six years for sure. Um, it's exceeded the length of nonconformity use. And so now it would have to come into um it would have to conform to our zoning code, our current zoning code.

One other question, uh it says staff has had multiple discussions with the property owner in the past. Was that like this year, last year? Can you give me a little more information on that? I'll let uh our planner uh two speak on this. We've spoken with her a couple of times. Um I think there's documentation of conversations um early 2020 then COVID happened and we didn't hear anything and then 21 22 and this is the first time we've got an application to move anything forward. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Okay. Uh is the applicant in the audience? Applicant.

Yes sir. if you'll give us your name and address, please.

How y'all doing? My name is Arthur Chapman, 4127 Santillo Lakes Drive. Um, just listening to young lady and uh when it goes back to 2019 after the uh tragic fire we had, uh I wasn't aware of anything dealing with resoning. I wasn't given. All I All I did is called the zoning department and I asked them I wanted a permit to put a portable building so my business could continue uh obtaining and I was told that it was over 60% damage so I couldn't they wasn't going to give me a permit for it and so I co happened. Uh I had my wife to do some phone calls and I asked them also she did the same thing. She called and they said it it was reszoned. I never received a letter if y'all can present certified letters showing me that it was reszone. And the reason why we uh we have other other businesses and we end up rening another from another location and after we was told that we couldn't uh have it zoned back. We just we we didn't know where to start. We done talked to the mayor. We done talked to different people, but we didn't get no response. They just told us that they was going to work on it. So, we didn't give up. we just um we're just waiting on a response and that's why the 2019 until now now um as we continue with our business and uh different things we just we don't want the property sitting there and um we've been there a long time. It used to be a store long time ago. So it's it was commercial way before we even uh bought the building. And there is a commercial there's more than one commercial buildings. The pictures don't show counter corner. There's a commercial building uh that does commercial. Matter of fact, that building right there to the left is a cabinet. It was also commercial. Um when y'all put in the fourlane, they was um he I think he battled with the uh city cuz they wanted uh put him residential,

but he used to build cabinets and his his lot was commercial. Right now, you as you can see that right there is a uh he's renting. Uh he's making money. um is not Airbnb is I don't know if he came and reszone and got the permits for it, but right across from him is a a place that um fix on um um small engines. That's a commercial. Go down the street as a there is a um a man that fix tires. So, it's commercial right now. Keep going. You got Target. So, we're not trying to get into the residential. We're just trying to service the neighborhood cuz we've been there for so long and everyone knows us and uh we just been always there and want to service um Bowmont and Okay,

that's all I have. If you have any other questions, just let me know. Mr. Chapman, how long have you owned that property? That property? Uh how long? Man, it's been a long time. My wife, she uh she bought it from the previous owner. So, it's been 20. Okay. And then after the property burned down. And then where did you move your new location? We moved to 11 Street. Uh um what's the address? It's okay. I don't need it. You say you moved to 11 Street and you've been there for how long? 10 years. Okay. 11 Street. But I I my wife, she'll come tell you to check you know more about that there. About about 10 years. I'm familiar. He I know this guy right here. We rented from him. Okay. That's who rents the building.

Hang on one second. Any questions of Mr. Chapman? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. If we could get your name and address, please.

Stephanie Chadman, 4127 Sautello Lakes Drive in Baytown, Texas. Um, when this happened, I was devastated. When I bought that property, it was commercial. I purchased a commercial property. Um, that's all I did at the time. I didn't work no job. I worked hard to get where I was. That was not my fault of what happened. It happened. And when it happened, I had a my business was I was full. I couldn't take any more workers. I was successful. They all had to leave. They had to nowhere to go. So, I lost all my employees. I called the city. I asked if I could put a portable so we could keep working till we get something done. I was always turned down. I never stop. I did pause because I just didn't know what to do. And every time I'm getting to know, I'm feel like, well, this is what it's going to be. I talked to the uh mayor that was in there um last year. I think I've talked to other people. No results. No results. So I said, "Okay, I come down to the city. I was treated ugly. I was I left. I left it alone." And I said I talked to my husband and I said I prayed about it. I want to see what I got to do to get my property back. And then that's when I called and um they told me I went well I called. They told me they was going to call me back. Nobody called me back. I went back down there and this was just recently. I went back down there and then it was a little young lady. She told me what the um she talked to her supervisor and her supervisor told me what to do. So I did that. That's how I got an application in. I didn't know what to do. It wasn't paused because I didn't want it. I just didn't know what steps to take. Okay.

I'm a minority and I would love to have the opportunity as a minority to reopen my business. I have insurance agency. I do taxes. I I do a few different things. It's not a lot of traffic. I don't cause problems. I problems don't come to me. We just had a situation. Okay. So, I mean, I did what I was supposed to do and I did come right in and I was turned down even for a portable of Miss Chapman. Thank you. And no, one more thing. Nobody called me. How I knew it was zone residential. I went down there asking about the property again. Nobody contacted me. It was just done.

Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like in favor in speak in favor or in opposition? Yes, ma'am. And we've got a three minute limit on this. I'm sorry. May we get your address? Your name and address, please. My name is Francis Bowman, 5415 Concard Road. Thank you, M. In Bulmont, Texas. Could you put the my home up on the screen, please? Is it that one? Which one's your home?

That's it. I live directly across from the shop. When I moved there in 2000, I used her beauty salon. There was no problem with that salon there. I've been there 25 years. Those she is a minority woman who has aspired to own her own business. There are fine people. Never gave that house any problems. No policeman's other than when she had the tragedy. I'm here today as a citizen to request that they be given an opportunity to restore their business and to be in the community. The last time I checked on Corn Card, there were 18 Willer truck stops. There were call washes. There were lawnmower places to be repaired. And there were empty lots. Before you get to my house, there's a chicken place. There's a Walgreens that's closed. And I thought I was moving into a community where I could walk to the store, walk to Walgreens, and then across the street from my house, I had a beauty shop. How convenient.

But something happened. Put the gray house up, please. This house was a residential and business place. The part that comes out was a workshop. It was hidden from the city. And also the remodeling was hidden from my city until they found out what was going on and then they cut the wires.

And Miss Bowman, I have to interrupt you. Your three minutes are up, but thank you for for your comments. I'm in ch I'm in favor of the young lady and her husband getting property back. All right. Thank you very much, Miss Lincoln. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? None heard. Public hearing is now closed. Do we have a discussion or a motion? Yeah. Yeah. Jimmy,

what is the real downside to a spot zoning in an area where you have other businesses? I mean, the downside to the city of Bumont. I think it might be more of a question for legal, but that's okay. Um the the purpose is so you have a comprehensive plan um that that area is designated as a stable area, which means it's free of uh blight. And again, let me preface this comprehensive plan was um adopted in 20 or 2002. Nonetheless, it's the one that's in effect now. Your comprehensive plan um controls your zoning map. Okay. So, with the zoning map, uh, back then they identified that area to be residential. Um, now some of the areas that they were talking about next, so this map has been in effect since 1981 that that it's always been reszoned. However, that area u may have been operating as a commercial space, but the zoning on top of it was always residential. But they've always come come through with uh the same uh business for the most part um or similar business as it relates to intensity. Um so the air the property this one uh came before commission a few months ago. Um it was found it was turned in um that they were completing remodeling work without the benefit of a permit. Uh they were trying to turn it I believe into a quad plex. Um but that area as we know is zoned as residential single family. Um came before planning commission. Planning commission denied their application for a reasonzoning uh to accommodate a quadplex. Um so the most that they can have is a duplex. Um regarding the shop and everything, I'll be sending code enforcement to check in on that.

Okay. Um we'll also need to check up that to make sure that they're using as a duplex. Um, but there's there's precedent in the past um to denying reszones of this area. Again, planning staff is recommending denial because it could violate chapter 211. What comes of that, I'm not going to say. Um, but what comes of that is is going to be a determination of um what planning commission wants in council. Um, but planning staff does recommend denial to air on the the side of caution. I have a question with that. Um on I know in previous times uh spot zoning was a issue because it was actually one particular uh structure that was out of place. And in this one this one structure is really not out of place with the area that it's in. And I'm ask I'm trying to find out is this something that y'all need to sit back and talk about again and bring or do we just need to vote on this and then let's just go to council.

So I think it's important to understand the timeline. So at the time that some of these other existing businesses that are commercial were created it preated the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2002. So if they were already in existence prior to 2002 and consistently operating their business, then they were able to maintain their status. So what that means is that that tire shop had been in existence for several years with ongoing operations, then they were allowed to continue and be in existence. Even if that tire shop changed ownership, if it still maintained their commercial status, they would not have been interrupted in their business status. Why? because that section was grandfathered then and it allowed for that. Post 2002, anyone who ceased to operate a commercial business in that area, that property then reverted back to its original status, which was com which would not be commercial, it would be residential because that's how the comprehensive plan designed it. So although there are other businesses that are operating in that area as commercial, they've been operating continuous without any gaps, which means they would maintain their status as commercial.

Is there any room the fact that an act of nature of fire stopped this that would override this time period? That falls back under our non-conforming uses. So the time period um I believe well the time period that's identified is two years. Um but we always try to to to make sure that we're aligned with case law and right now it the property has been closed to that use um obviously because the fire happened and demolition happened. It's been closed to that use since 2019 which is over six years now. because of extenduating circumstances. Is there a possibility of a waiver for the timeline?

No sir. No sir. The their option is to get it reszoned. Um that's their option. But again, planning staff is recommending denial because it's the I'm airing on the side of caution. Um it could violate 211, but it's now the decision of the of the governing bodies to to see if what what's best for the city of Bumont or the interest of the city. Can you tell me again what 211 is? Yeah, that's um the like the name of the chapter. No, I mean what does it say? Uh the local government code, the state law. State law. Thank you. And when you use the word could, that's pretty much not definite, right?

Planning staff recommends to dial. So staff report is based on whole thing is because they didn't do anything

historical references relates to case law and so for my other attorneys and I'm looking at commissioner Mason who are on the board you know that case law varies based on the specific facts. So there's no way to determine whether or not it could be. So there's not a definite this isn't a situation where the law says no. For example, we know if you shoot someone in the head point blank without justification, it may be murder, right? Unless you have a justifiable reason to have done that, right? The person was charging you with a knife, a gun, or whatever. So, there's never a clearcut thing to say that you shouldn't be. We also know that there's some extenduating circumstances to why you could maybe get out of a speeding ticket or a ticket for not wearing your seatelt. But we also know that that's a complunch. The law says you have to wear your seat belt and the law says you have to drive under the speed the posted speed limit, but there are some exceptions. So the law is very clear as it relates to what a violation could look like. However, there is some exceptions that could be made or some concessions that could be made by a judge. This commission has the ability to determine whether or not the waiver isn't appropriate for the city. Staff made a determination based on historical precedences in case law.

What I wish that there was is the opportunity for a specific use permit, but right now our ordinances don't accommodate for that. But I'm hopeful that um through uh public input um through the comprehensive plan process that we're undergoing now, which is a year and a half long process that maybe the it'll come with some recommendations to our zoning code to modernize it. Is an overlay not an option like you were talking about earlier? No. Well, I guess

not in the not to not for this instance. um an overlay could accomplish like conservation districts, design overlays, those kinds of things. But in this instance, a reasonzoning would be the appropriate route, which is what has been recommended for the applicant to endure. However, because of the facts, planning staff recommends denial. Again, it's just a recommendation, but that's why we recommend it. I have two follow-up questions for that. So, in the past, we had we had asked for a zoning study on a limited scope. Is that possible here? You can and would there be a different zone that might accommodate what they're trying to do like neighborhood commercial or would that still be some or or is anything that's not RS going to be spot zone?

So if you do choices if you do a resoning typically you're obviously canvasing the existing uses of those properties and what would um what would look look right or adhere to the goals of the the city council planning commission um city ordinances. Um but a reszoning study is something that could happen if uh if we were directed to do so. When the individual stated that they had some question about having not received the proper knowledge or the information about the project and they were unaware. Does that come into consideration as well?

This property has been zoned as residential single family since 1981. Um, now it may have operated like Shereé had said, it may have operated as commercial because it predated 1981, um, as commercial property. Um, so so long as they continue to do that, their legal non-conforming status continues. But because it was closed for 6 years since two 2019, the legal non-conformity or grandfathering is no longer at play. And so now they would have whatever is built there would have to conform to the current zoning ordinance. if they wanted to build a tax insurance um office there, they would have to get a reszoning.

So to answer your question, had the city did a comprehensive plan that changed that area from residential to general light industrial or something to that nature, we would have been required to give notice because it would had to come before you and they would have been able to speak on that. But because there was no change in the actual zoning of the property, notice was not required. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it's not a case that the zoning changed, it's a case that the use changed.

So, no, not exactly. So, when a property in when property is reszoned, it comes before the commission and we're required to send notice to individuals that that property is being considered for reszone and the citizens come and speak about it. In this case, the actual zoning for that area has always been residential commercial. So, it was just grandfathered for a non-conforming use. Okay?

And so, when it ceased to be operating as commercial, it reverted back to its original condition, which was residential. So, there's no notice because there was actually no change in the status of the property. So, the grandfathering of of the property, as long as the continued use is commercial, that property could have been sold. As she says, she brought it as commercial. And that's a fact because at the time it was commercial and she continued to operate as commercial. And had she sold the property um within the two years, it would have been sold as commercial and anybody could have used that property as commercial. It's the non-conforming use that when it stopped being operated for a continued period of time, it reverts back to its original use. Uh think of it as someone with curly hair, if you stop straightening your that wears their hair straight. When you stop straighten it, it reverts back to its natural curly state.

Okay? Um, I just wanted to clarify that because there was some confusion in the language of how people were talking about it that it had changed. No, it didn't change. It was just being used for something else. Correct. I mean, if we did approve GCMD, suppose we did that, does do they have to get a specific use permit then? No. Would this be the final thing? This would be the final thing.

But if that were approved then and they chose to leave, that's wide open for anyone else to come in and do something else. Correct. that is there is the option of so it was written or advertised um you know the reasonzoning for RS to GCMD or a more restrictive zoning district should planning commission want to move forward you could always recommend uh GCMD2 which would uh which would necessitate a uh specific use permit um but that's to yours and council's discretion

and I have a question for our attorney so when we are talking about well this might be in violation of state law who and you said, "Well, there's different circumstances. You know, this is what the law says." Who makes that final decision? Well, that would be a judge, right? So, somebody would actually have to challenge it and file a lawsuit against it. Um, I don't know that we had anybody in opposition, but anyone around could say, you know, I disagree with that and file a lawsuit to challenge it. Okay. I'm sorry, the public hearing's closed. Okay. We've had a lengthy discussion. Um, do we have a motion? Yes. Yes. I would can I make a statement before I make motion? Go for it.

Okay. Um I know the purpose of zoning is to protect the public and part of the public are property owners uh and business owners and I think this is an extenduating circumstance. Um the same property owners have owned this property for an extended period of time to no fault of theirs. their business ceased and I hate to see them penalized and caught in a trap in a legality that punishes them in the name of protecting the public. And so as a result, I would like to make a motion that we approve the uh reszoning. Um I'm open to um

a second that wait to be two two. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, would you like to clarify your motion, please? Yes. I make a motion that we um approve this as a GMC2 um reszoned property. GCMD2. GCMD2. Okay. Second. We have a motion. Is there Okay, we have a motion to approve as a GCMD2. All in favor say I. I. Any in opposition? Yay. The motion carries. Good luck to you. I believe you had two members abstain. Could you Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that. The next one. Okay.

Okay. Not this one. Okay. Staff 2025-346. I'm not sure who the second was. I don't know if it was me or Bill. Did you? Okay. Got it.

Somebody else. Kyle Mulvy of Pape Dawson is requesting approval of a resoning from RS to GCMD or a more restrictive zoning district for properties located at 3209, 3211 and 3213 Shannon Avenue. The intent of the reszone is to allow for commercial development of a quicks service restaurant. According to the comprehensive plan, this is located within a conservation revitalization area. Commercial development along this corridor is appropriate with its proximity to Lamar University and connection from Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway. It should be notice noted that this site is in close proximity to the existing residential homes to the west and south. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the reszoning from RS to GCMD2, not GCMD, GCMD2. Um, the GCMD2 district will require an approved specific use permit prior to development of this site. staff sent 24 property owner notices and we received two in favor and zero in opposition. The area outlined in red is the area on your screen. As you can see, this property abuts GCMD existing zoning districts. Um, which is why staff can support this zoning district. But because of its proximity to the neighborhoods to the west and and potential neighbors to the south, obviously those are not built up yet to the south, I recommend that this should be reszoned as GCMD2. This is the aerial image subject property and east to the west northwest to the north

and to the south and I believe the applicant is present. No yes applicant is present. Okay. Are there any questions of staff? None heard. Okay. The public hearing's now open. Is the applicant in the audience? Yes, sir. Please come forward and give us your name and address. Good evening. My name is Kyle Mulvy with Pape Dawson. Uh we are located at 21107 City West Boulevard, Houston, Texas.

Okay. Mr. Mulvy, is there anything you'd like to add to this information we already have? No, I'm just here to answer any questions that the commission or council may have. Okay. Sure. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have anyone who would like

Located at 12430 Keith Road? Mr. Actar seeks to change the zoning from AR to RS uh to divide a singular lot into three residential lots for the existing subdivision. According to the comprehensive plan, this property is located within a low density rural area. The prop the proposed residential zoning district and existing surrounding uses appear to align with the intent of the comm plan. Um planning staff recommends approval of this request. Staff sent eight property owner notices. We received five in favor, zero in opposition. Um, for uh reference, this was uh in pair with that replat um earlier in the regular agenda. This is an aerial image. Subject property in north, east. It's actually a very cute little subdivision they have out there. West South and I believe that the applicant is present. No, I'm sorry. No applicant is present.

Okay, I'll do better next time. Any questions of staff? Okay, thank you. Uh, public hearing is now open. The applicant in the audience, just to verify. Okay. Anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? Public hearing's now closed. Do we have a motion or discussion? Motion to approve. Second. A motion to approve and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any oppose? No. Motion carries. Thank you. Staff PZ 20225-353.

All right, last one. Uh Jamie Goodman is requesting approval of a specific use permit to allow a new construction of a duplex within the residential single family dwelling district located at 690 Shell Street. According to the comp plan, this property is located within a stable area. Um the construction of duplex of d a duplex appears to align with the comp plan and would be a good opportunity for infield development. As such, stack staff recommends approval of the request with the following condition. Construction plans must meet all requirements by water utilities for water and sanitary sewer services, including any requirements of the city's backflow, pre-treatment, and/or fog program. Staff sent 32 property owner notices. We received zero in favor, zero in opposition. The area outlined in red is under review. And again, this is for a duplex. Aerial image site plan subject property to the west to the east and to the south. Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. Is the applicant in the audience?

Yes, sir. If you'll give us your name and address, please. Uh, hi Musman and if you got uh 20 2365 Rener if you have any questions. Okay, Mr. Gooseman, how how long have you owned the property? Uh, probably uh three or four years ago. Two two or three years ago. Okay. And it's just been vacant. Mhm. Okay. Have you built duplexes before? Any other buildings? No, just houses. Just houses. Okay, that's it. That works. Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition? Public hearings now closed. Do we have a motion or discussion? Move for approval with one condition. Second. Okay. We have uh a motion to approve and a second with the one condition. All in favor say I. I. We oppose. No. Motion carries. Yay, mayor. Thank you. The real was like nothing.