Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Thank you everybody for coming. If you did not have a chance to sign the speaking sheet, don't worry about it. We are going to make sure that anybody that has something to say is heard. This meeting is being broadcast on YouTube. So, I do want everybody to know there will be a recording of it as well. Right. With that said, I am going to call the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 5:30 p.m. on July 23rd. Yes, sir. So, the sound is though?

Yeah, it's on. The sound is on. Okay. Sound is on. No video. Video is on, too. Oh, it's on two now. Okay, we're good. All right. I know in most all your wrestling, this is going to be a a hard thing to do, but if everybody will please stand and join us in the pledge. I aliance 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. You may be seated.

Roll call. Rex Miller here. Megan Schulky here. Tony Gosden here.

Pam Streeter here. And unfortunately, we are missing our last member of the commission, Greg Clanton. Um, he had a his brother passed away this morning. And if we would like to take a few moments of silence just to be grateful that he's had opportunity to spend the evening with his family um over this time of loss. Thank you. With four commissioners present, we are in quorum and we are going to proceed with our consent agenda regarding the approval of the minutes from the June 25th, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting. Has everybody had an opportunity to review those?

Yep. Are there any revisions that any of you feel should be made? Okay, there's no proposed changes. Is there a motion for action on the approval of the minutes from June 25th, 2025? I move. Thank you, Rex. Do I have a second? Second.

All in favor? Thank you. The motion for the minutes has passed 40. [Music] We are taking a page off of how city council has been changing their meetings. Um we're going to announce the topic. We're going to give you background on the topic. Then we will um hold the public hearing. Um have a discussion, answer any questions. And it's only after that then we will move to Q&A. So if you guys will bear with us, we have a number of topics that are just very what we believe to be quick that we'd like to get out of the way so that we can spend the majority of the meeting discussing the reason you are all here and get a a good open dialogue on what the purpose is um and how we want to proceed as a community with the overlay district that was mailed out to everybody. So, if you will bear with us, um we are first going to be discussing the uh recommendations for amending ordinance 4.09.003b inspections, permits, fees, and 0.0905 distance regulations for mobile food vendors. This came before the planning and zoning commission uh because we've had some requests come in um for placement of mobile food trucks and that as we were going through the approval process, we found that there are rules for a mobile food truck such

as distance from a residential zone and background checks for mobile food truck vis. vendors that brick and mortar restaurants are not required to follow. And in discussion with several uh members of city council and our uh building office, we felt that um going ahead forward and updating our ordinance to remove the distance requirement from a residential zone. Um, and meaning that the food truck can be in a commercial zone with permission from the landowner, but it there is a 200 ft distance that it cannot be within to a residential zone. But if you look at the majority of Highway 67 or even 144, our commercial and residentials are right against each other. So it becomes impossible for somebody to have a food truck in the majority of locations in town. Since brickandmortar reserv brick and mortar restaurants aren't required those parameters, uh we felt that to be fair to all businesses, removing those parameters made sense. I'd like to open the public hearing on that discussion at 5:36. Does anybody have a want to talk on this? I will.

Okay. Jim Bob Hawthorne. So all this little thing is about is so you can put food trucks down here on the square or in surrounding areas of U B or live oak street or whatever like that. Actually no that's not what this is. Um it's not a question of we want to put food trucks anywhere. There was a request for a food truck to go at the ranch house, the country garden cafe. Okay. And they couldn't put it in without a variance from city council because of their proximity. Right.

And so that's what actually brought it to our attention. Um so it has nothing to do with it has nothing to do with downtown. Now with that said, a schedule of uses is in place and that dictates where food trucks can and cannot be. Okay. That's true.

Okay. But it came to our our attention because of the ranch house, the country, the country cafe. Um, and when we looked at it as an ordinance in its entirety and why we would require a background check or a distance from residences for that and not for a brickandmortar restaurant, we felt it was conflicting. All right. If there is no other public comment on the subject, we will close the public hearing on this topic at 5:38. Commission thoughts.

I think it's fair. Yeah. Any any concerns, any pros, cons that we need to consider? It's clear. I don't think so. All right. Then I would like to propose somebody make a motion to recommend the change to the ordinance as presented. Motion to make a change.

I'll second. All in favor? That'll be a 4 Z. All right. Our next topic is going to be uh recommendations for amending ordinance 3.17 fences including the definition of commercial fencing and privacy fencing. [Music] This again has come to us because of um some concerns that have occurred um between a business line and a residential line um or a businessto business. And that currently we have no definition for a privacy fence. Um and in realizing that that definition did not exist, we wanted to add a definition so that when a privacy fence is being required that an expectation is set. So, a commercial privacy fence is a type of barrier specifically designed and constructed to provide security, restrict visibility, and delineate property boundaries for commercial or industrial properties. Allowed materials for commercial fencing include wood, treated pine, cedar, or redwood, concrete, or masonry, composite materials in keeping with materials in the surrounding area. The minimum height of the fence shall be 6 feet. Additional height may be required based on site

plans. The other change in that ordinance is that um it states, let me get to that please. Uh that a permit here we go. Um it is under requirements number three. Commercial and industrial fences required for screening or protection must submit site plan and detailed fence plans and have them approved by the building official. We added the word privacy to that statement as well. So it is now reading commercial and industrial fences required for privacy screening or protection must submit site plan and detailed fence plans and have them approved by the building official. All right, I have a public hear. We're opening the public hearing on this topic. Would anybody like to speak?

Yes, sir. Does that make it mandatory for all businesses to put up if it's a current business next door to a residence? Absolutely not. So, it's grandfathered. Everything is grandfa anytime there is an ordinance change. any existing business is grandfathered in unless you have sold the business, you have made renovations on the property of more than 50% um or you have expanded your lot size by more than 50%.

Yes, sir. Can you read the last section on extended height based on site plans? Yes. It says additional height may be required based on the site plans and that's going to be according to the building officials correct requirement. So I would just encourage you guys to consider that the reason you're addressing this is to try to eliminate ambiguity. Correct. There's some right there. Okay.

Uh I think that leaves it very open to the building official. I think rules that are clear and set in place allow for things to be clear and not left up in the air. This doesn't show any requirements. What what would require more height specific that that is a fair statement. I think the reason anything would require more height is if the building that is the industrial or commercial building height um requires a taller fence. I can come up with wording for that. Can you? Yep. That'll be

Do we want to um motion this to approve as is and come back with a change or do we want to table this subject until we can have some additional wording for the subject? I say table. Table. Okay. Yeah, table it. I can have this in the next week for you guys.

All right. Perfect. All right. We will table the commercial fencing change until additional wording is provided and we will bring it back at our next meeting. Thank you for your feedback. All right. Our next subject is regarding recommendations for amending 14.02.042 R1 single family district related to setback requirements. This came up uh before council uh due to a uh an accessory building that our current ordinance had accessory buildings at different setbacks than um dwelling buildings. and it had a setback if you were putting an accessory building in over 200 square ft, but if you were under two square ft, you did not need to meet any setbacks. So, we are recommending an alteration to state that the minimum setback requirements for car parts and accessory buildings, which are detached accessory buildings, shall be located within the rear portion of the lot, and shall not exceed one story in height. Nor shall any structure be located closer than three feet to the main building, nor seven feet to the side lot, nor seven feet to any rear lot line, and not

closer than 10 ft to any side street. Small structures of 50 square feet or less may be placed anywhere in the rear half of the lot. So the idea is a larger shed barn needs to kind of follow the setbacks of the original dwelling, but something small like a tool shed, um, gardening shed, um, the setbacks would not apply. Would anybody like to speak on this subject? Yes, ma'am.

I have a question. We got to include a slab or a parking spot. This is building. This is a building. This is not about a cement slab or or parking spot. Okay, good. A carport a detached structure including a carport. But if it's the carport is less than 50 square feet, it can

Yeah, it has to be it can be anywhere. But no, a flat parking gravel or concrete pad would not be included in this conversation. All right, we're going to We haven't been opening and closing each public hearing properly. I apologize. So, um 6:45 this one opened and closed. 5:45

5 Thank you. I took my glasses off. I'm wishful thinking. All right. Any additional people want to conver conversate on this matter? Okay. Commission. I'm good. All good. Okay. May I have a motion? I move we approve. A second.

Second. All in favor. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Definitions big. That's a big topic. So, it isn't. It isn't. I'd like to take a stab at cleaning that up.

Okay. So, we will our next topic is a is recommendations for amending 14.02.05. Um, this again came to us quite frankly based off the same thing that came to that brought the setback requirements to us. Um, and that in uh in many of our zoning districts, we allow um accessory buildings. Um, in our R1 district, um, it was never the intent for an accessory building to be a second dwelling. Our one is residential, single family home. And while a cassita, a bath house, the small um, things of that nature, she shed, however you want, is is acceptable and welcome. um a second dwelling that is being used as income producing um is not the intent of R1. That would be an R2, an R3, R4. And so this definition ca change um came before us in order to help ensure that um the consistency of our ordinances um is matching the intent. So in this case um an accessory building use is defined as a structure that is subordinate to and customarily incidental to the main building or principal use of the property. An accessory building or use is located on the same lot as the principal use and serves as a supported

function. Examples: a garage shed or greenhouse on a residential lot. A detached guest house without a full kitchen, a home, office, workshop or storage area related to the primary use of the property and commercial or architectural context and out building for storage or equipment related to the main business. Key characteristics key characteristics of an accessory building is subordinate. It must not dominate the principal use. It's incidental. It will be a natural or customary addition to the primary use. Same lot, it must be located on the same lot as the main use or building and then nonrevenue generating. It cannot be used as a source of income. With that, we also had noticed that um in previous discussions about definitions, the following paragraph had been added that for the purpose of this article, certain words and terms are are hereby defined. Not all scheduled uses are defined, but the use type should be self-explanatory. If a use type is not defined, then no deviation from the exact wording of the type is allowed without permission by planning and zoning or city council. Those are the two changes. Yes, ma'am.

I have a question. Well, a comment um on the examples where it says a detached guest house without a full kitchen, a definition of full kitchen is needed. Okay. I think that that is easily explained that a full kitchen is uh water cooking uh or like if they're oven appliances or is it just like I can have a hot plate? No, see a hot plate. Hot plate would not be so it would typically be a stove oven. I guess we need to define that. We need to define because it will be a difficulty in Yeah. And improving.

So stove oven sink, refrigerator, and so if any one of those pieces are missing, it would not be considered a full kitchen. I think it would be stove and or oven. That's that's the key trigger is the is the oven. As as long as it's a clear definition, I think really the oven is trying to just get away from an Airbnb eating in somebody's backyard. Yeah, because there's many fridges and there's hot plates and there's microwaves, but the the big trigger is the oven. So, we want to say stove andor oven or just say oven.

Whatever. You also have vegetable ovens and all of that. So, you you need to define it very clearly what you're defining a full kitchen. Now, see, to me, cuz most of y'all know I'm by myself and I'm an out person who eats out. A full kitchen to me is a microwave, a refrigerator, and running water, and the coffee pot. Okay, that's that's a that's a kitchen. Even though I really know that it requires a stove, a refrigerator, running water, a dishwasher, washer. I mean, you're going to have to define it very clearly. I agree.

Okay. No livable space. Yeah. I mean, so we're gonna table this again and go back for some additional Y wording. Okay. Because I mean ultimately, I mean, is there anybody that wanted to talk to this because we're saying like if it's no generating revenue, that's like no Airbnb. That's not a something you can have in your right. Correct. Okay. But we still want to make sure right. So yeah, we appreciate the feedback and we will take this back and better define it. Okay. Okay. We also need to clean up these definitions.

Yeah, these definitions are just brain dead.

All right. Um there are a few items in the schedule of uses that are um not related to the overlay district that everybody is here for. So what I would like to do is get those few items out so that then the majority of this dialogue is about um our last agenda item which will also come back to the schedule of uses as part of that last agenda item. So um we're going to discuss recommendations for amending chapter 14 appendix A which um the topic in in question on that is group home or community home allowed in an R1. It is currently not allowed, but we would like to add a um specific use permit to allow it. The reason for this is that we've had inquiries um at our building office about uh several individuals who would like to be able to take in um elder or um disabled um individuals and care for them within their actual home. And currently we cannot they cannot do that. Um and looking at the majority of other um small towns that is something um that many people um would rather have

their um their family members being cared for in a private home as opposed to large public facilities. or when there's public facilities not in existence that a private home would be better for them. So would anybody like to discuss this? But were you going to make or be lost? There is um up to three rooms does not require Wait, what did we decide they did?

I mean so assisted living is maximum of three. Correct. And they don't have to be licensed by the state. Correct. So you would have to also amend the use for assisted living to meet a use permit.

And then I'm not quickly finding a definition of community home, but group home definition says it does have to be licensed. more discussion on this. Go ahead. Oh, yes.

So, just to make sure that I understand. So, the amendment will allow for essentially residential assisted living within the city. However, the disc the discussion prior was to not allow Airbnb properties to exist. Airbnb property in an accessory building to a residential building for the purpose of with the purpose of having income income.

Correct. So if you are taking the main dwelling and utilizing that as a income producing property such as an Airbnb VBO that is allowed with a special use permit a specific use permit. If the the previous item was to say that an accessory building behind the main dwelling becoming a second dwelling within a single family home district would not be allowed. And if there is a um dwelling behind the main home, it could not become an income producing dwelling. The difference with this is that it would be in the primary residence which income producing as Airbnbs etc are allowed.

Okay, I know it gets complicated. So if we include the change the group home and community home S and include the assisted living S. So the assisted living is in section five of the table under educational and institutional uses.

Is it clearly defined? Assisted living facility.

You don't have wording for like group home, right? Assisted living facility. Yes. Is defined and it needs a license. Assisted living does not need a license. So according to our definitions, we just say a private facility that provides care for chronically ill aged or disabled persons who need health supervision related to care, not including hospital care. There is state law that says if it's four or more, you need a state license. If it's under four, you do not need a state license. So we're not saying either way. We're just saying abuse too of that. So yeah, but it's not medical care.

Um not medical care, right? I mean, but it's also why it's a specific use so that we can understand what all of the details are and then ensure that they are if they are going to need state licensing that they are told that in advance etc. Yes sir. On this current item and item four, we have language I'm sorry, item before we have language about non-income making. How does that apply to those who are being paid to care for their loved ones in their home or their existing well? Is that what you're discussing? That's what we just actually discussed with this question. I I couldn't hear from myself. Sorry. Okay. It's me. I'm

What was the result? Remember I can understand if it's in your house up to three people you can care for but we're not saying no no no no he's he's going back to the income producing we've said that the difference between the last item and this item is this is in the primary dwelling right where income producing as VBO or Airbnb is allowed but that in the other in the other subject it's the accessory building that not cannot become income producing, right? The primary building accessory building to take care of your mother

and you're being paid to care for your mother in the accessory building. That's not what this is addressing. It wouldn't be allowed under this definition. Yeah, but that's what I mean. Is that defined enough? That's what I'm suggesting. It's not defined enough. That's Yeah. So to define this, we simply need to add the words primary dwelling.

Yes. I would just be worried that someone would be like, "Oh, I'm going to take these three people in, take all their money, put them in the back, and you know, I don't want anyone to be hurt by that." Also, no. No. No. Absolutely. Absolutely. I I still tend to be, you know, the naive, innocent, rosecoled glasses person. And I'm quickly learning that I need to stop being that person. Have a question. Yes, ma'am. Um, on the you comparing the VBO business to the business of caring for someone. I am not. That was brought up by a question from the audience. So,

so, um, I remember when I got a VBA or whatever you called it, um, it I had to get a special use permit still required. Would that be along with that? Is that a special use permit to use to Yes. to house people? Yes. That kind of thing. Yes, we is what we were proposing. So, that's a Yeah, they'll have to come in front of us and ask for it. They still Yeah. No, they still would have to come in and ask for the specific use permit. They still have to then present their case. They're gonna have to So y'all would be aware of what home.

Absolutely. I mean, we may not be aware of the individuals, but we'll know that homes being used that way. And so that additional conditions would have to be met for those are just my concerns for this town. Like I want to make sure you know. No. And wouldn't be doing that along with the definition not having to be regulated by the state. My concern would be for the welfare of the people there. Yeah. So maybe that needs to be included in the definition that we want them to have to be regulated by at least have a health inspection or welfare inspection once a year. We can't override what the state law is. Um

I guess I would like to know more about what is in the state. You know, is that part of it? We're just not aware. I don't know. No. If they're less than four residents, then they do not need to be licensed through the state. So they're not subject to state regulations.

I know. And just from my own personal perspective, um when my grandmother was ill and recovering from a hospital stay and was not doing well, we did not the getting her into a full-blown assisted living center was not really an option. But leaving her in a nursing home we knew would personally be the the end of her desire to fight. And so we found a personal home with a caregiver who took on my grandmother and helped her um helped her bathe, helped her dress, helped do her hair, and it also gave her a sense of community with the other residents in the home,

right? Um do they require anything such as um the person who's doing the caregiving? um to be at least have a CNA license or something of that sort. Um because you're not talking about giving medical care. So you don't need somebody like me who's a licensed nurse. But you need if you're giving care a CNA, a medtech, I mean something of that sort or we just going to allow you to suddenly take three people into your house and take care of them. Not saying you're not qualified, but I'm No, that's that's what I I agree. I'm just a little more

there's no check at home. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm happy to say that the person applying will have to be have a CNA on duty 247, but I'm not sure. You can't do that. So, you either have to look at this. Are we going to allow three or less? Or are we gonna say they have kept four and follow the stay rate mandated? That's where you're looking at this. Okay. This is where I'm so glad this room has people here of all ages.

I What is What do you guys feel? What do you guys see? Is this something that we should be doing? Is this something we should stay away from? I mean, that's a slippery slope to go down. I know. I know. But I like I like opinions. So putting my mother in a situation where there's not regulations at least on certain of the home or especially of people and making sure that they're in a good healthy environment you're aware of and you would check on them. That's your due diligence facility to be able to keep up at least a certain standard. We've got we have Melissa back here and we had one in the back and then I'll come back up to you.

Yes. Right. I'm sorry. You um is this only going to be for assisted living like elderly people or will this be group homes, halfway homes? It would not be halfway homes. That is a different definition. So I see. So what about that? Yeah, that doesn't have the middle. So the this is why we're so glad you're all here to help us look at this in a different way more and more and look at it. Okay. I want to just come back around to the other people with with statements. Melissa,

I I personally think it was it's wonderful because there are a lot of elderly people that can pretty much take care of theirelves. They need a little bit of help and there are people that are willing to do that. I personally would love to see homes that would take free people in because you know that they're eating. You know that they're getting up and they're not lonely. So, how do you know if it's notated? I Okay. Well, that's but that's why we're that's why we're discussing that's all right. I agree with what said it's a wonderful cause. However, there was recently some situations in Fort Worth that was on the news that were unlicensed homes that nobody was checking on.

Yes. Okay. And it didn't turn out well. So, who's going to check? We don't want that. Yeah. Go ahead. There was someone else here in the middle. Yes. I was just going to reiterate what this gentleman said. My husband and my son are both firefighters in Fort Worth and they've made multiple calls to these homes and there are literally people living in the attic because people aren't checking on them. Okay. It's it's really not a good environment. It's not a good situation. These people are getting paid and they're stacked. Okay.

So, it may not be something that would be beneficial to the everybody thinks being taken care of and it's not necessarily the case. You have a lot of MHMR that's there and nobody They're on their own and there people that are not licensed, they don't care. They're getting a paycheck and they stack those people as big as they can get. Okay. That's Owen, you had a comment. I just think this matter requires a lot more research. Okay.

I I have questions about the number three. Um I'm in my mid30s and uh for most mid-30s people, most they may have two in-laws and their parents. By my math, that's four people that they may really appreciate the opportunity to care for. I don't know where that number three comes from. I think Lisa has a really good point. My big question on anything uh that goes in writing is who will police this? Okay. And I don't see that in here yet. I I think that also leads to more ambiguity. Okay. Putting it on someone else, which I think is what we're trying to avoid issues.

Yes. Oh, and you you the reason I brought this up is you're talking about you have two, you know, in-laws and your parents, that makes four. But if you took them to your home, that's a different This is we're talk they're talking about having it. No, we're talking about primary residents income for income producing. But what if I paid to take care of my parents later in their life? I've been in that situation. Yes. We need more research before it comes on your taxes. I got you. Yeah,

I think we just need four more. So then it's regulated, but it's got to be foreign. And now we got to talk about are they in private rooms? You know, the criteria comes under the special use. So we can define under the special

use but we can go down the rabbit hole of trying to look at every more research definition. See what other people are doing. Okay. All right. So, we're going to go ahead and table that. Our general idea is that we would if this was to move forward, we would be looking at it as a force. There is I don't think that's what we decided. I think we decided we would go back and research it. Okay. Yeah,

we are tableabling that. Okay, Megan, I'm happy to help you.

Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Okay. Um, we're here for the rest of the subject that you're all here for. Uh, so first I I would like to provide some background on this overlay idea. The planning and zoning commission was tasked with from um city officials of how can we um strengthen the commercial um area of the downtown district. Um taking what is the actual square and expanding the thoughts to the surrounding area. Um, in doing a lot of research, um, we found that, um, an overlay district was the best option. It takes into account the underlying zoning, which in the area that we're looking at is a B1, B2, B3, and R1. The only time the overlay zoning would replace what is the original underlying zoning if is there is a conflict and that the overlay zoning would take precedent. Um we have discussed this. We have gone back and forth with boundary lines. we have gone to counsel with it two different times um to discuss it with council so that this isn't just something that um we

took lightly and dreamed up. Um we have been working on this for at least six months. However, the late notice upon the mailings to our residents um and not providing you with additional information in the mailing um is something that uh needed to happen. And unfortunately, we had a staffing change in the building office that um left Allison um kind of under the bus. So, we apologize. Um we um understand why everybody is frustrated. Um and we are um just trying to take an idea that was presented in the um comprehensive plan um as well as the directives from city officials to come up with a plan that will strengthen the downtown district, which by our current zoning is very convoluted and that you've got B2, B1, B3. And by going through this idea of taking the district into an overlay, it unifies the different zoning.

Can you define B1, B2, and B3?

Sure. B1 is a uh it's called a restricted business district. um as we have as planning and zoning and and um Dennis Moore who was a previous chair of planning and zoning will tell you um the difference between B1 which is restricted business and B2 which is general um business is very minute. Um, B1 tends to be um, closer to our residential areas, but as you all know, our residential areas are right on top of everything. So, there's a few minor differences between a B1 and B2. Um, but they are they are just that minor. um over the years um and this the schedule of uses has been around for I can't even tell you it's been adopted back in the 70s and it's just it's evolved over time and so we have done a lot of work to try to clean it up. Um but um there's probably a lot more room to go to to help it. Um, and that's something that we as volunteers um, who have a passion for our community, um, are doing our best. But as you've just seen, sometimes having more people with opinions matters so that we can look at things in different ways and get opinions and ideas that um, we may or may not have thought about. So, um, that's kind of how this came about.

Excuse me. Yes, sir. Um, could you please reiterate on the definitions of the different zones because I didn't hear any differences. B1 by the actual description is restricted business. What's business? Can you pull up the I don't know.

It's a local local business serving goods and services integrated with nearby residents pedestrian friendly smallcale convenience stores, small offices, daycare, beauty salons, etc. B2, larger scale retail like a Dollar General um along arterial streets still accessible to residents, grocery stores, restaurants, auto service centers, event halls. B3, central business, interstate commercial, broadest commercial intensity community. That's actually not our community. That's not our B3 is the historic square.

Okay. So B3 is our historic square. B3 is the historic square. So you're going through all this explanation on why you're doing this. I think the people here want to know what you're actually doing because I agree. That's you're giving too much too much verbiage and stuff. Tell people what you're wanting to do here because I know where I live, sir. I don't I don't want to be a part of it. Okay. Okay. I understand because like I'm somebody that owns house right here close that's in the old historic district. Are things going to change for them? Okay. Can you let me are things going to change for them? Let us walk through.

But let me walk through everything. You're walking through. You've got all these people sitting here. You're right. Questions. But it's You're absolutely right, sir. And as I stated, I was going to explain why this came about and then I will take us through the exact thing. So if you will give me a moment, I will take you through everything. This is no, nobody is trying to take anything away from anybody. I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is people want to know what you're doing. They don't care how you got you. They want to know what you're going to be doing to affect them.

Okay. So, the downtown district overlay. The downtown district is intended to preserve and enhance a business district rich in history, historical agriculture, business activity, tourist activity, and significance as both a destination and a connector. It further aims to guide the downtown district's development into an area that serves existing and future business and property owners, both Glenrose residents and visitors and other vehicular and pedestrian travelers. The actual defines of the district is in essence going from the river up Herford Street to Vine, turning down Vine, going up and around uh the Whiskeywood property and the yellow house. um next to Whiskey Woods, which is the coffee shop, whatever they end up doing. Coming back down and lining and turning down basically Live Oak, going across to uh Storybook Cafe, coming down and following the property lines to the river, and going back to the Herford along the river line. The downtown district overlay standards apply. Development of any land for which there is not improvement at this timing. An increase of any existing commercial structure that is equal to or greater than 25% of the existing square footage or any new construction on a lot that is provides um an increase that is equal to or greater than 25% of the lot or track that is covered by permanent structures. Unless otherwise specified by the section, the base district zoning shall apply. Where there is a conflict between the standards of this subsection shall

apply. Special requirements orientation and scale of primary structures. Primary orientation for commercial buildings shall have their primary orientation towards a public street. said primary orientation shall include a main or primary interest that shall be designed to be attractive and functional unless otherwise approved by city council after recommendations by the planning and zoning commission. Primary entrances shall have a clearly defined highly visible commercial interest with distinguishing features such as a can a canopy or portico share or other prominent element of architectural design building. Can I do I think can I explain something maybe I mean do tear pam I don't want to interrupt gohead sorry okay so for example like does this Jefferson there's a lot of different similar size towns and they just use an overlay to protect their downtown historic and it could just be a couple of things like hey if you build a new building it can't be over this tall because all of our other buildings are this height or um it must be the same kind of brick color you can't build a pink house in the middle of town

that makes totally sense Yeah, that's why you have said list of what you all intend to hear. So, there was um what she was reading was kind of like the general idea of what we had been talking about, but um like I did I did some research looking at smaller similar towns and some of them are very simple and simplistic and they don't go into a lot of detail. They just want to really protect that historic downtown. Um you know, like she was saying one time, you know, if you sell your house, we're not going to move like a mobile home right here. Do you know what I mean? We want to kind of keep it for the um everything needs to be the way it is. Yes. Right. That's all we're saying and that's all you got to say.

Okay. I think that's we're all saying the same thing. Is that right, Pam? Am I out of ter? One of the things that was brought up is that um a committee, I don't know if it would be P&Z or the council would be allowed to pick and choose which business would be allowed in. There's nothing in there.

As long as it meets that zoning, then if you guys will allow me, we're not in a public hearing yet. If you'll allow me to finish reading this, and I know it's tedious, but it we're also going to go through the schedule of uses to kind of give you guys an idea of what changes are going to occur, but you will find really isn't that many. It's just about taking what is allowed on the square and kind of pushing that out a little bit further.

I think that's the problem though. We haven't known what's allowed. that hasn't been made public enough to people to know I can do this but I can't do that. You know, I didn't know there was an ordinance until I was told you can't put anything out on the sidewalk. You know, that has to do with your building. We didn't know that. Well, so that's the thing. We need to know what these ordinances are. Well, okay. They're available online. Okay. But not everybody's got online capabilities. Okay. All right. All right. So, you know that that is a lousy excuse. All right.

That ordinance was pre my time. The senior community here, the senior community here, a lot of them don't even know how to turn on a computer. They don't have an iPhone. Most of them still got a Nokia if they got one. So that's a lousy excuse and just like this meeting here tonight and I'm going to shut up and I'm going to leave. If you had provided decent information in this mail out half of these people wouldn't even be here. We agree. We agree created a circus. Sir, that was why I call me sir.

I'm sorry. I am a believer in showing respect for any individual but I don't know. That's fine and I I respect you. So, but the thing is you're not prepared for what you're doing and it shows this is embarrassing.

Well, we've all been here for an hour, so we'd like to continue. Pam Pam, could you read through the continue? with what you're reading so that we can get to the Q&A. I think that's what you had requested before information to us. All right.

I I think that for the majority of what you guys are asking, I'm going to skip to what the schedule of us is and then we can come back to the language. So our schedule of uses is divided into a number of different sections. There's industrial, there is um basic infrastructure excuses, there is educational and government, there's residential, there's commercial. Um what we have done is anything that was accessory, utility, government, institutional or or um incidental uses um it stays the same with what it has been. No changes have been made. So for an example, an ambulance dispatch station is permitted in a B1, B2, B3. it would be permitted in this new overlay. Um, a electric generating plant substation um is required to have a specific use permit. It is not allowed in a B3, but it is allowed in a B1 and a B2. So, we would still follow that. If you're if the land you own was subjected to a B1 or a B2 zoning and somebody wanted to put an electrical generating plant in, then the specific use permit that's already there would still apply. Um I can go through and give like a radio or a television tower. Um schools,

how about an office?

So that actually goes into um our commercial areas. Um, and what we are proposing, and keep in mind, we are just proposing this, this still goes to council for final voting. um things that have been allowed um in a B1 or B2 um that we're saying no do not belong um in this downtown district is a uh distillery a refractory um those are larger manufacturing facilities they're not um smaller private brew pubs etc Um we have said that um musical entrance in instrument stores are allowed in the square. Um that would actually continue to be allowed. Uh nightclubs and dance halls are allowed in B2, but their special use permit in B1 and B3. So, it would be a special use permit um in the overlay district. Uh if we go down to personal services, um those are allowed in B1, B2, B3. It would be allowed in the overlay. A pet grooming shop is not allow is allowed in a B1 and B2, but it's not allowed in the square. So, we said it would not be allowed in the overlay. Yes, somebody had a question. I was just gonna when you're saying personal service, you're talking about salons and all or are you talking about like

spa, tanning, massage therapy, permanent makeup, beauty or barber shops? Okay. Are allowed or not? Are what about on the square? That is under a specific use permit per our recommendation. We are stating it is currently not allowed on the square. We are actually saying that with a specific use permit, it may be allowed on the square or in this downtown district area. I have a real quick question. Sure. Um,

so normally whenever we an ordinance or change is being made, it's to solve an issue that's current. What is what would this solve today? If this was happening today, what would not be happening? I I just don't understand what's solving or is it just what we're trying to say?

Yeah, it's it's two things. There are two specific cases of things that have been requested by city leadership for us to resolve in what is considered this downtown area. And that to resolve that means that it would allow or disallow something from Highway 67 or 144 or any other of our other business arteries. One is the office building situation. Those are flagrantly allowed anywhere in our commercial zones, but it hasn't been allowed on the square.

Isn't a lawyer's office an office building? It was put in before the ordinance had been changed by city council. It was changed in what? 22 23 something like that. Yeah. 2223. They took the offices off the square. I mean if it didn't you couldn't have offices

and and that I will say that that was not the recommendation from from PNC. It was a council change vote. Um council has changed since then. So, we are resubmitting this asking for an allowance of an SUP for office buildings in this downtown area that has previously not been allowed on the square. But if I put a specific use permit on any type of offices without putting an overlay district in, then it means every office anywhere in town would have to have a specific use permit. And that's not our intent. We want everything. We want to watch. We don't want to put restrictions on things along 67 144 or some of the other arteries that are developing. But at the same time, this historic area, we need to allow certain things to occur, but we don't necessarily want to allow all of it to occur. So by creating an overlay, there's a bit more unification of all the zones right in this little valley. And that's the intent of this. The other one was uh was short-term rentals. Short-term rentals are allowed in residential zones. They are not allowed in commercial zones. If we turned it on and said, "Okay, we'll allow them in B1's and B2s." Now, you can have a short-term rental anywhere in town. That's not our intent. Our intent is short-term rentals belong in tourism areas. And this downtown Little Valley is a tourism area. Just one moment. I live in a section in the green zone. Eight houses. Three of those are

short-term rentals. I would love to have some neighbors. I think there should be a limitation on any particular area as to whether it's 10% 15% in other words you can't have seven out of eight houses short term and you know maintain a city atmosphere and so I said you know three of them out of eight there needs to be a limit each section

and there is a lot of lawsuits going on in jurisdictions all over the state about how that gets accomplished and right now no lawsuits have been finalized and so we're watching carefully. Um there has been and we do not have the legal means as a town to fight a lawsuit. Um, and we have tried to restrict some vacation rentals in the past. And I say we collectively, really city council. Um, and uh, and lawsuits were threatened if if the city council did not follow through with allowing it. So, we're trying very hard to look at everything from a community perspective. Um, that's slightly off topic for this subject, but thank you for that feedback.

Um, I have a question. What do you specifically say is the downtown square? So, specifically, we would be taking coming right along the citizen center up Herford to Vine coming down Vine towards the towards the square. The square itself is no longer just the square. Correct. Okay, just this extra couple of blocks around it. But right now the square is defined as

as the square is defined as the square B3 zoning. You then one block over you have both B2s and B1 zoning in each direction plus you have the residential zoning. So, for example, um the Vogue uh hair salon is in a uh B2. Riverhouse Grill is B2. Um in on the River is B2. Uh the Glenn Hotel is B2. But coming down um and coming down the street up to uh uh the uh corner where the building official office which used to be the CVB office that's B3 going down around to Sexton and all of that starts to become residential it's B2 B3. So, we're just trying and again, nothing in this idea um is going to change anything for residential properties. Everything that is current residential stays residential. Every use for residential stays residential. The only impact on this is related to commercial. And anybody that is currently commercial and is an open business stays the same. No changes occur to them. They're all grandfathered in. So this only occurs to anybody that is selling. The new owner would have to comply if something is being built in the open land um that exists within this zone. And

there is quite a lot more open land than people think. Um there's been um vacant buildings that we want to encourage their use. Um so this is helping with all that. At the same time um by having this overlay there is opportunities to apply for more grants so that we can um help other business owners. Um there's ways that we can look at um could we reduce fees if somebody wanted to make appropriate changes or things like that like cancel fees then

there's there's ways to to assist a business that that will take over some of this land and buildings um that are appropriate to resident usage and tourism usage because that's the key. Our even if you're not in the tourist industry, the sales tax is generated by tourists as well as residents. And when you look at the industries that this town has and where the funds to our general fund to our sales tax, it's primarily coming out of tourism. It's not to say that there isn't other industries in town. It's to say that when you look at retail, you look at our restaurants, you look at our hotels, it's tourism and it's outside money coming in that helps support our community and lets us do the things that we want to do to help our residents. So we have to take into account how can we help tourism keep but keep our town our town. And so by putting some limits into what happens to properties here in the downtown zone that helps keep Glenrose Glenrose. It keeps out some of the larger chain buildings. It keeps out some of the larger national chain businesses that belong on 67 and have found their way to 67. But it keeps fast food out of this little zone that belongs on 67. It keeps, and I'm just going to say

randomly, it keeps the chilies out of the middle of our downtown area and it lets our small business, locallyowned restaurants thrive here. That's the intent. Yes, it was a mistake that you guys did not get all the information in the mailing 100%. We're not technically in an open public hearing yet. So, we've allowed Q&A. Um, I am going to take us into a public hearing officially so everybody else can speak at will, but I'm going to take your question specifically, sir.

Yeah. Thank you. It's not a question. I'm human. I think I spoke to you. Yes. I contrary to some of the things I've heard, you put together an incredible information package. Unfortunately, didn't get to the residents in the way that they needed it.

Well, hey, you know, that happens. Um, and I think as as you said, I moved out three years ago, bought a house outside of downtown down down on the creek that feeds into the flood. I'm an attorney, okay? But I'm not practicing law much. But in going through this, the the vision that you have for downtown, I'm telling you, I've been to a lot of squares around Texas, going to the courouses and things around the square. The vision that you have is incredible that to preserve the heritage of the downtown.

Thank you. And I and I I just wanted to say that there's you can always provide I'm a lawyer. You know, you can put it in 40 sheets of paper or you can put it in 500 sheets of paper. It's never going to be enough. But what you're doing here, I'm I'm full in support of it because everyone can ask their questions. They can come to you and figure out how we're going forward in this beautiful little city.

Thank you, sir. I have one quick question. I don't have a business. Uh it's a residential section. So the only reason or the only way it would really affect me was if I was to sell the property, the buyers would be if they wanted to put a business, they would have to come under these rules. But that would occur no matter what because you're a residence. And so the R1 zoning, if they wanted to change that to a business zone, they would have to apply for a zoning change anyways. Even though we have business in front of us, we have a business to the side of. If your if your property is zoned residential and they wanted to turn that property to business,

they would still have to apply for the zoning change underlying the overlay. Okay. Yes, sir. What about currently E2 properties going back to R1 in this overlay? Would that be possible?

If you apply for a um a zoning change, you absolutely can. It's not restricting anybody from changing what their their property uses. It's not ex it's not restricting anybody whose existing property use. It is if the property use does not meet what the new plan is by change of ownership by um construction of more than 25% that's when they would have to follow the new ordinance. If you continue to own the property and make no changes to it, there is no you're grandfathered in. nothing changes for you. But if you want to make a business owned property a residential, you have to apply for the zoning change. Has nothing to do with the overlay. Okay. Officially, I'm going to get this public hearing open so that we can have open dialogue um and be uh compliant with state law. So I am opening the public hearing officially at 6:45 p.m. Owen,

can you repeat that? You mentioned if if there's a said something about% repeat that

if so the the language and again this this is a proposal if we're open to discussion. This isn't locked in stone. So none of our ordinance as a community is ever locked in stone. Have you seen bias want you know saying hey we found a need to change something in some of the previous ones. So what this says is that development of any land for which there is not improvement at the time of construction and increase an existing commercial structure that is equal to or greater than 25% of the existing square footage or any new construction on a lot that provides for an increase that is equal to or greater than 25% of the lot or track. that is covered by permanent structures.

Thank you both.

Okay. All right. Now that we're actually an open hearing, anybody can speak. Stand. Yes. I graduated from college in 68, moved to San Antonio. My daughter ended up going to Denton Texas University. So we have picked up 67 281 300 miles to the current for a long time. I think sign on the city street down there in ' 67 is visit the town square. I did not see the town square until many years after that about 10 or 15. I came up 144 went to look at my mother-in-law's family's cemetery in it Springs and we turned right and found a house for sale on the river petrified wood $76,000. So we got that in 2002. I've been here solidly for the last six years. I've seen the property next to the restaurant at Herford in uh Bernard Street for sale all during that time. The sign comes down quite a bit. I think that would be an excellent location for the city to build a two or three story whatever your height limitation is for the city for free parking a sign on the 67 that says come see our town square. We have free parking on in our luxury building and upstairs. The problem that I have encountered is working at the museum that the regulations that y'all have put in requires building heights on the ceilings or the additions that you may do. We have land next to that where we

can build it. I have visited all the homes on the east coast and the west that historical Johnson's property. You go any of these two homes in Louisiana on the Hudson River up on the Columbia River and that's where restrictions are required on something that we may have 800,000 million visitors a day. I mean they're the apartment people of the presidents Thomas Jefferson and all those things but to imply what you can do with a building that you want to build and a certain height ceiling etc is not called for that person wants to do a business they have to approve the building but we you know we can have a high limit on you know two or three stories going up and looking different but the require require that it be rock or wood. I don't think that's important.

Thank you. Good. Next

on on that. Um and I do agree. I own the building across the streets. Piece of junk. I know I'm kind of in the middle of that. Um Mike, what what you guys are trying to do, it seems to me, is to make regulation. We already have things in place. There's already there's already restrictions on how big of a building we can build downtown in the historic district. that's in the historic preservation and so the secretary of the interior says it it has to be to the scale of what's already there. So there's already regulations for that. It has to be out of the same materials, those types of things. Um as far as what kind of businesses go here, we use the schedule of use for that. Um if you don't want an office like in my building, you just take it off the schedule of use. If you want it allowed in being three in office, you put an S. So, it really, and I may be the only one here that doesn't quite understand what the purpose of the overlay is other than to take rights away at some point. May not be to me. It may be to the future owner. Um, you know what? I may be a future owner of a building on the square, but I also see a little bit of an overreach up to the up to the highway. I saw and again, I'm I'm assuming that you guys want to expand to the green. Is that is that correct?

No, the green is just the 200 ft radius around the expansion of downtown. Okay, that's clear. I appreciate that. Um, but but ultimately it it seems like we already have a lot of regulations in place that can protect us and is protecting us. So, I don't know what an overlay is going to do except make it more restrictive for the current owners at some point and future owners. Again, it just was the overlay is the way to unify the uses between the B1's, the B2s, and the B3s that are all within this small downtown district area. That that's what it is. I

I guess I don't understand what UN I understand what the word unify means, but how is that different than the schedule of uses? That's

the schedule of uses says that you can have these types of businesses on a B1, these types of uses on a B2. Those use those buildings and those uses are appropriate for anywhere on Highway 67, 144, anywhere else that a commercial business district is. If we get a bypass, it would allow things there. But some of those types of businesses um coming into this small, you know, basically six block by six block area, not all of them are appropriate down here, but the underlying zoning B1's and B2s have to follow what's allowed anywhere in town. And so by creating the overlay, it allows us to say what's good in B3 is good everywhere, but not everything in B1 or B2 will be allowed down here. That's why it is. And then behind Ann. And then I'm sorry, I don't know everybody's names. Uh the gentleman over here in the blue shirt,

the pink area which is the historic downtown. Is that correct? It it is the it is the blocks from from where? From it's coming up Herford going down Vine going around the yellow building next to Whiskey Woods and Whiskey Woods. Okay. So expanding from the original historic Yes. The original

the original historic downtown according to the ordinance is you go up here to um Grace and back here Walnut. Grace and walnut. Grace and walnut. You come across walnut to vine. You go vine to um sorry the one behind it. You go

to um cuz it includes 206 back here. So you go um down there to uh Betty Perry's house, Barbara Perry's house and you go back across go down and then out Bernard out Bernard. It picks up goes all the way and pick it. It goes across Bernard to Grace and comes back up Grace.

It doesn't include the original downtown. Did not include the Glenn. Did not include in on the river. Did not include Bernard's Mill. Those were all brought in under the fact that they are landmark. They're recorded places and they're part of the National Historic District. So that's all part of the historic preservation overlay. That's the historic preservation. This goes a block. Yeah, that's what I was trying to figure out. This goes an extra block to out to Herford and then this goes an extra block out to story book. Okay, hang on. Okay, one person at a time, everyone, please, we have an order.

Overlays are more. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Their overlay sits inside our overlay. So, we're saying two over lanes. You're worried about And then the green My question was, so is the green area just the 200 yard notice that was required to say that you're near the overlay. Okay. So, they will not the green area will not be part of the overlay. Correct. Not part of the proposed, right? Not part of the proposed Okay, everybody. We We're trying to do this in an order. I I'm sorry. I know your name and I cannot remember it. Yes, you.

Um, what about the river and the river? Does that have anything to do with any of that? No. I mean, we're using the river line as the boundary, but it's at the line. So, anything that's within the property that falls in. But again, no impact on anything residential. Everything on the other side of the river, right? Okay. I said over here, sir. Yes. Going back to your answer to the gentleman over there, you said the overlay

would mean some of the businesses would be inappropriate for downtown. Who would who would make that decision as to what businesses inappropriate? So in the proposed schedule of uses, what we have done is taken what was already in place for the B3 business district and applied that to the surrounding blocks that would become a part of this overlay. We then looked at what is the types of businesses allowed in 67144 and what of those is not in keeping with what is currently allowed on the square. So it's in the schedule of use proposal that would be it per all of this dialogue and city council's dialogue that would define what is appropriate or not appropriate. Oh.

Oh, this guy here. Yeah. In in the middle there. You. Okay. I have I just got a little bit more question about on the square. If you own a building and let's say or you and you close your business down, you want to rent it. Everybody wants to put in retail, but someone wants to rent his office. You're saying they can't do that. No, I'm saying that we're proposing a specific use permit would be required to allow an office. Right now it is not allowed. We're proposing it be allowed with a specific use permit. You know, if we get a recession or something time absolutely,

but it's already not allowed. It's not. So, this is what we're proposing is you can submit a special use permit if that's what you Yeah, we're actually adding that back as an option. Well, but we're expanding the opportunity. That's what it's for. Now, the the intent of the overlay as as it was discussed, I understand it doesn't do anything. The zoning's already here,

right? Yeah, but but there was a discussion about there's some parts of the town that logically fit within the field like in on the river and and so it was how do we protect those areas that go over the story story book and what vehicle can we have because it's already just an organic part of the downtown. So that was the discussion that led to well can we use an overlay district to make a better definition of what's already here and what we already want to protect. So that was the conversation.

Okay. So let me ask you this. So city where they put it offices. Exactly. And event center. Yeah. And event center. Community center. Yeah. But that's but government offices are already allowed.

Government offices are allowed in the B3. So that doesn't change what they're doing. We're opening up the ability for other people to use their buildings as as commercial offices. I see fit. Okay. So, what's the order here? We've got this here. And then we have we have Genie and then Owen again. Genie. And after hearing a little bit more, I'd like to visit Mr. Wayne's first question again. Um because I heard the same thing that he heard. Um but now that I know all B3 is still allowed. Are you proposing that all B2 and B1 need special use permits? Not all of it.

Just certain ones. Just certain ones. Okay. and follow and some in B1 and B2 would not be allowed to be honest. There are things that my business was told I wasn't allowed to be here. What? Help me give an example.

On the tattoo shop, but I was told I wasn't allowed to be on the square or not on the square anywhere in this district. But to revisit what you were reading in there, you allow beauty salons, spas, permanent makeup. Um permanent makeup is tattooing. Um, and usually it's being done by somebody that had no real education in tattooing. They paid $2,000. Um, took a quick class and now they're trusted to tattoo pieces. I've been tattooing 18 years. Correct.

I I I was not a part of stating that. So, I understand what you're stating. Yeah, I understand what you're stating and but it's still tattooing. It's tattooing faces and uh like I said, they don't really get much education. Okay. I think that that that is a consideration that we'd have to look at in the schedule of uses. How would that be added in to be addressed before this carries on? Just asking. we have to go back and look at the definitions that we have in place um for those services. Okay.

And then determine um how the definition would need to change to allow or not allow. Right now tattoo colors are its own definition outside of spas. Even though they I hear you I I but the point is important because uh tattoo parlors are not is currently not allowed

in a general description. We've got a schedule of uses that in many cases is really out of date. Okay.

So that's recognized. I read through it and I said, "Boy, some of these are pretty old." And since, you know, remote work and all of these other things, there's really some work that needs to be done to go back through, but these are things that have been in place for a long time. and recognizing that there's a lot of it that needs to be updated, needs to be easier to understand. I mean, I'm been in the business 46 years and I read through it and some of it was to be readressed or redefined here within our own and and if so, well, then should that not be addressed first? Um, well,

yeah, we're working on the overlay right now, but I'm taking in what I'm hearing and and just saying, yeah, there's work we need to do on the schedule as well.

There's work we need to do in every single ordinance that this town has because the ordinance have been developed over 40, 50, 60 years. In a lot of cases, ordinance were written and added in one spot, but it conflicts with an ordinance in another spot, right? And so one of the things that is that is being looked at by city leadership is can we bring some people in to really take our ordinances and and not rewrite them but to clarify them and work with planning and zoning and our building offices and trying to get so that we don't have conflicts. Huh?

Well, and that's why we've so so I actually have thought that I right there with you because this has been talked about bringing an outside company in. I said they cannot change the ordinances. They can clean up and say you've got conflicting arguments here and here. Which is the right argument? So you want the ordinances audited basically, right? And if that if that's what they're doing, then we're all in. But to have somebody come in and rewrite our ordinances that has no no standing in community here that doesn't understand anything, we're we're like, "No, that that's not what we people that don't live here to do."

So anyways, all right. I know we've had some other people. Let's come back. Jeannie, you had something? Yes. He's he's currently in business. He's grandfather. Correct. Well, he's actually not on the square. He's on 67. There was a tattoo parlor that was cheaper than where I'm at now. And that's where I wanted to go. I promise. Is there currently something? Yeah, it's it's in the schedule. in the over.

Okay, everybody, please. We're We're trying to get all the feedback. We're trying to get all the feedback. So, he has valid feedback that we're going to go back with. We're trying to get everybody else's feedback so that we can make any alterations so that we can go back to the drawing board so that we can something. So sir, actually Jamie was next. Okay. I just wanted to make one comment. There are some twotory buildings. Yes.

Basically one of these buildings could be used for rentals would be short-term. We have included that as a factor in the overlay are I guess an office. I think I think structure rentals bring security downtown but if people there at night um they they would be your restaurants etc. So I just wanted to make that statement. We've had a vacant upstairs building on the square for years. So I just wanted to make that.

Nope. Nope. That was actually one of the considerations in the overlay to allow that. And there is an expansion you said of the old historic district. Is Sexton Mill now in it? So the historic district is separate from this overlay. It's not Jamie. It's not standing the historic. So it is not in over. Sex would fall in the overlay but not in the historic district.

Okay. Yeah, the preservation board's overlay and then our overlay. This theirs is this. Ours is just a little bit under these ordinances will be in your overlay. And that's where I feel like we need as the overlay. The overlay is not strictly allowing just B3. It is allowing B3 plus things from B1 and B2 that are appropriate to this area. Owen,

uh clarification. Um it primarily concerns uh commercial properties outside of the historic dis uh district lines, the historic whatever preservation lines. Okay. Um, so under under this overlay, and you kind of mentioned it before, for any other commercial business uh that does remodeling, addition to uh building on their existing property where there's buildings, uh, does that then come to PNC for approval for their design? How does that work?

No, the permitting process still follows the current permitting process, which it goes to. permit request are um go through the building office. Now if it if it is a historic then it still goes to preservation but if it is outside and not considered a historic building preservation is not involved. Now if it needed a special use permit it would come to us. Correct. So what what would cause it to need a a use permit, special use permit?

If the type of business that they are moving to requires a special use and that they are doing based off of the parameters that we had, then they would need to come and get a specific use permit. I'm talking about specifically if there's a commercial property that's going to continue in their regular use, correct? But they're doing a remodel, an expansion, if the expansion is more than 25% of their current um floor plan of their current floor plan or of their property because I think earlier you

So there's two. So one is if they are a,000 square foot property and they do they wanting to add an additional 25% to that property that would trigger them following having to follow the guides of the new ordinance. If they were adding 10% it wouldn't. If they were on a lot and it was they were building in the building of the Say this for me because I'm trying to typing out. I'm saying outside of the preservation district. Outside of the preservation but within the overlay.

But if they're outside of preservation but in the overlay, they do not go to preservation for any permitting approvals, etc. and they do not go to Z. Correct. Okay. It's in other words, what I'm trying to say is this is not an extension of or u another name for an additional historic district. No, that is not what this is. That is not what this is. I know she's been she's dying right there. Please wait. Two two people. Which one were you going to? I know she's been holding her hand back there for Yeah. I was about to fall off. She's like, "All right, back then forward." Green not affected at all.

Green not affected at all. Okay, easy first question. Second question. Why does this say that you may lose the right to continue using your property for that is state required language. That is the most hideous thing in the world. But that is required by the state. Yeah, that that is where had we Okay. But because it But it's true. It's true. You're exactly right. And and my fear is that we're giving a small group of people the right to say with my property, you can or you cannot have that business there.

But you've already done that when the original zoning was put in place. But we don't trust the current administration's idea of what they want and what we feel comfortable with. We feel like our businesses are threatened because we know that our present city administrator has his own ideas of what's appropriate and what's not. And y'all are the ones stuck with that. I'm sorry. Okay. And although Thank you for just speaking the truth there. Although I tried may not be corrupt, but perceived or actual corruption can involve in this later on down the

are you going to recuse yourself even though you don't have to but from the perspect from a perspective because this immediately your building is in this area. Yes, it is. So are you going to recuse yourself from Yes, I am. Okay. I'm trying to lead the dialogue because I was intimately involved in all of the the gathering of the material and I don't feel that it's fair to let this group have to tackle everything on their own. But no, I am in the overlay. You're in the overlay. So, you will recuse yourself. I will. Okay. All right.

Last, it may have been said already. I may understood, but can you tell us what the quote unquote results were of the the mail in or the approved? We haven't gotten that far yet. So, I will tell you I I don't have the exact counts and we're just I'm not going to sit here and he does. Yeah, I have it. Okay, go ahead, Alison. Okay. So, as to your question,

let me see. 178 property owner letters went out representing 178 properties. 53 letters we were confirmed as received. We received the green signature card back. Um two favorable responses were returned. 41 opposition responses were returned. What that means is to reach a 20% protest, we needed in the 200t radius, the green properties, we needed 8.6418 acres of protest letters. We only received 7.547. So, we did not meet the 20% in the radius. Wait, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. Let her finish, please. In the pink in the zone, we required 6.0386 acres to meet a protest. We received 7.762 acres. So, we have a protest. So, what that means is 34 of a vote of the entire board, whether they're here or not, has to vote affirmative to pass this on to city council. So that means all four members here today because we're missing one have to vote in the affirmative to move this to city council. Okay. So before we get down that road some more, what I have said openly on Facebook in responses to all of this is that we know that this is controversial. We know that you guys did not have enough time to gather information and understand all of this and we apologize. There was supposed to be a lot more pre-work that was given to people, but because of changes

in our building office, some of that work didn't get done. I asked that we continue having this meeting because everybody got their letters. Everybody has an opinion and that we wanted to use this as a time to actually talk and explain and get your feedback. If we feel we need to go back based on your feedback and redefine and rework this, we can do that. We can we do like we tabled other topics. We can do that. or if we feel that a general consensus has been reached and that we want to let council weigh in on this, then we can bring this over to council. So, I'm listening to the concerns that people have. I am there are some very specific things related to some definitions or uses that people have questions about and I don't feel comfortable taking this to council without giving everybody else more time to read through the schedule of uses to look at this more in depth and to have a better understanding of the goal. You are right there is a lot of mistrust I am not the one that is trying to create mistrust. I I am the first one to tell you that I truly take my position on this board very seriously that we look at everything from a lot of perspectives and we go around and we ask questions and we try to make the right decisions and when we don't think that we've got it right, we go back to the

drawing board over and over again until we feel like it's the right answer for the community. But that's what we're trying to do is do something for the community. And maybe we're doing it in a way that you don't necessarily understand or like, but it was the way that I in researching all the other communities around found that this would actually achieve the majority of the goals without disrupting a lot of the businesses. Now, with that said, we're going to go one, two, three, four, five, six. Okay,

you're six. Okay. One was pink. On the letters that were sent out in the forms, like there is no um date due for that form letter to be returned. August 12th, but you said we had to have it turned in for the Yes or no? So, August 12th is for the city council meeting, but again, having an idea where everybody stands now helps us. I thought you're saying,

well, we already have received enough pro enough opposition that for us to say that this can go to council, we have to have a vote of a super majority. I just know people I know some people currently that didn't turn in you're fine and based on what I understand most of those will come back as oppositions as well too. So it's okay this lets us have a dialogue and so I'm glad that you are all here helping us have a dialogue. Okay. two

curious on your map a couple of times tonight you've explained coming from Herford down by Whiskey Woods and I'm assuming that goes Anna up then to Jackson Street. We actually dropped below Jackson.

Okay. Because my question was going to be why did y'all meander around three lots on Jackson Street that you see? So in order to do and get some preciseness, there were some lots that were residential lots that split right where the line had it been drawn straight across it would have split a residential lot. And defining the boundary is difficult. So we dropped below those lots so that we're following property boundary lines per the CAD. That's why it it trust me this was some of the most difficult line drawing that I've had to do ever for any thing that I have done in my career of life. So we wanted to keep everything based off boundary lines so there was clear definitions of who was in and who was out. Okay. up here.

Yes, I am pointing to you. Um, again, you had to send this out. The state made you color it like this and send out. Why? Why was the green even put in there? For our sake, you have that the state makes us do is anybody that would have been in the boundary and then anybody whose property is within 200 ft of the boundary have to be notified. That's a state. So we The letter then says that you may lose the right to use your current. You you are correct. That is also state language.

But you're in green, which means you will not lose it. That I I get it. And I can only apologize so many times to say that wow, we screwed up how the letter got sent out without putting more detail in that. And I can only in hindsight apologize profusely that it has caused this much tumultuous. That was never the intent. I'm the one said you should have written the letter. I I I could have understood.

I I apologize. and the green on there. So the green well because from a tracking standpoint of who's within the 200 feet so that we understand what is the protest or not protest that was how the the map got drawn so that we all understood who in and out and yes it's confusing and yes once again I am going to apologize

I I am only one person who had a lot on my plate trying to get this this far. And again, with the change in the building office, it it wasn't done the way we had hoped it would be done. And it's nothing against the people that are left behind in the building office. They had a deadline. They needed to meet it. We were under pressure to get this pushed out from other people. And so, we just did the best that we can do in the way that it got done. And we are sorry. all of your efforts and your time because I know it's not fun and you're not paid to do it. So,

all right, Brenda, did I have you back in with a question? No. Okay. I just feel bad that y'all are reaping some of the re repercussions of the distrust for the current administration. uh be when you take how the verbiage of this was done and feeling like we don't have the support of the city administration when it says you may lose the right to use your property. That riled a lot of us up. I understand

and I'm sorry that y'all are reaping the re, you know, some of the repercussions of that, but I appreciate the fact that we could come and talk about it and that y'all have listened and that hopefully you understand why we're upset. Absolutely. I would be

and I I I will state that we I mean like I said we have been working on this for six months and changing thought processes and wording and what should and shouldn't and it this this we didn't come to this lightly. Um and this is why you know Ann will tell you that at other city council meetings we had the scope bigger we've had it smaller. This is kind of where we all Can I tell them so that they realize that it was it at one time it went all the way to River down to Big Rocks

down to Big Rocks and then in that same meeting George didn't feel comfortable and it and it came back to the Palpsy apartments where the senior living is and to Oakdale and then and they voted that that was kind of going to be and then all of a sudden and I don't know when this one happened because it didn't go through go to city council. I don't know when the discussion happened to change it to this.

So because we hadn't done any official notifications, we were allowed to change it through discussions one- on-one with individuals. So people made this the y'all made the decision to change it because and I know the notifications weren't done correctly the first time around. So you changed it to this sent out the notifications in a halfaphazardly and hurrieded way because of changes at the building of office and they didn't not everybody got the information and I kept saying well we should we meaning Bernard's mail we should have got it because I knew what the boundaries previously were and I had to go to building and make sure that you hadn't mailed ours to the street address instead of the PO box.

I'm going to I'm going to ask that any more discussion about how badly the mailing was handled be curtailed at this juncture. We all get it. We all know it was horrible. I have apologized profusely. I can only state in hindsight, I wish it had been done differently and I wish I had taken a stand to be more engaged in the letter going out, but unfortunately we serve at the pleasure of council and there was a push to get this moving along and so everybody did what they needed to do. I apologize. Can we not bring that part up anymore? Can we all agree that that's beaten?

I think you got five, six, and seven over here. I do. Four. Okay, you're up.

I am going to talk about mailing, but it's not about how poorly it was done because I'm not even in the mailing zone. I get that you're only required to push mail out for um a certain parameter to be in compliance, but with an ordinance that's going to affect maybe businesses that were on 67 that have been waiting for a spot to come downtown. I know, not my business personally because I know I'll never get down, but maybe a restaurant or the flower shop or something was waiting to come down here. Um, from what I see, everybody from the general consensus that I've gathered, everybody wants the best for Glenrose. Everybody wants the best for their downtown district and their small businesses. Would there be a way that when it's something this drastic that it could potentially affect those businesses, which is there's not that many businesses in Glenrose. Could a letter get sent out to everybody?

Is this kind of public notice thing? Yeah, it was public notice in the paper. It's a public notice in the paper. I I it's certainly something I mean who Yeah, the state requires that in the zone or in the 200 feet around the zone certified letters go out. I understand that's whats everybody wanting the best interest of Glenrose and the small businesses in Glenrose and wanting to keep that

big business out which there's a lot of people well there's some people trying to push small business out in Glenrose you'd think the people that want best for Glen Rose would want to communicate to all the small business so what I can do is come back to council and ask seek permission Maybe not certified to the rest of the businesses in the community, but at least a mailing to them, but that is a council decision. That is not us, but I will bring the idea to them. Yeah, I agree. I think I mean that. Okay. Who is five?

Okay. So, I have a residence in the proposed overlay change. Um clarify on that residential properties within the within the the downtown overlay change zero change not affected in any way in any way. Okay. Renovation wise doesn't even affect you. Okay. Going back to the the short-term rental part that's that's currently allowed in residential correct with a specific use permit in that state. Right. And is or is not in B3? It is not currently in B3, but it doesn't matter anyway if

correct. State law states that a short-term rental um is allowed in an R1, which is what all the residential zoning within this area conforms to. Now, we require a specific use permit and we are looking at what is the impact of short-term rentals on housing on other things, but that's a much bigger topic that has nothing to do with this overlay. Owen,

I'm sorry. I think there was a six before. Who is number six? Oh, that's right. Oh, is Melissa. All right. Oh, you then. Okay. I'll take my time. Okay. I'm six. You're six. Okay. Ma'am, and I'll go back to what I said before. Um, apology accepted for whatever the reasons are. You put a lot of work into this and everyone's put a lot of work in and I appreciate that you got to continue, but I appreciate the work and addressing everyone's concerns. We hope so. I y'all are doing a great job. And you know one thing,

you can't get fired from a volunteer job. Oh, yes you can. And I'm happy to be fired. Yeah, you can. Oh, yes you can. And so I I if anybody wants to push that through. I support it. Uh Melissa, you or Owen?

I I just have a quick question about the the conforming uh the buildings downtown with the overlay, new businesses coming in. Anything new? Um I I know that you said nothing too tall, nothing too wide, nothing too this, nothing too blue, nothing too whatever. Um, my concern is I'm going downtown and I'm seeing the signs are the same color. They're the same size. It looks like everybody is conforming. We're really trying not to make it that. Okay. Because I don't want I mean, okay, clean off your sidewalks. Don't anybody put your stuff away.

It's not even clean off your sidewalks. It's It's And I want to be clear because we did alter that. There was an ordinance in place that said absolutely nothing in front of shops and with shop owners. We came in as planning and zoning and made suggestions that no, you should be allowed to have something out. You just can't make it look like a flea market where you're blocking the entire sidewalk but you can't block the sidewalks. And that's what was happening.

I'm going to boldly disagree on all of that, but that's not my topic. My topic is about conforming with signs and shape and the colors and the wording. Is is that part of I mean is it everyone's going to have to have the same no we we we are not in any form or fashion trying to stepford wife this place. That takes away Glenrose. Good. Good.

The one thing that we had stated was that brand new metal structures, modern metal structures, not a historic metal structure like Sexton, but if you were to come in and build a brand new metal structure on the mi in the middle of this area that looks like a metal shed, said it would be frowned upon. But would that be fun or just frowned upon our exact Noity?

I I'm all over if they want to or something that looks individual and uniquely their own if it's their store. Let me page 76. Thank you. Item seven. Did it ladies as you're leaving was there any comments that you wanted to make? No, we were really just concerned with the your business may not be okay.

I'm trying I'm trying to find Here we go. Okay. So, I will state in conversation about the height of a building. We did say um the minimum height of a one-story building shall be 15 ft. We did suggest that no structure should be built taller than the base of the Koopa on the courthouse square. We did state that no structure should obstruct the line of sight of the historic Glenrose water tower. Um and we said that the interior height that the first floor of a commercial use structure should be a minimum of 10 ft from finished floor to finished ceiling. We talked about building setback um that needs to fit within zero shall be zero for 80% of the width of the building on the front street and 30% of the building's facade on the stride street. Um we said structures on infill lot should match the build two line of the existing adjacent building that is built closest to the property line. The maximum depth of an infill lot should be no wider than the widest existing building on the block face. Loading and service entries shall um may not face the street for any building or buildings undergoing substantial renovation. Here's where you are. Exterior building materials should reflect the traditional materials materials of similar buildings and grows. wood signing, horizontal lap or novelty sighting, limestone, petrified wood or field stone in traditional dimensions and tooling or brick in traditional dimensions. Metal buildings are permitted as long as the metal facade on all sides of the

building are clad in the approved exterior metal uh building materials that are traditional materials in the downtown district such as woodsiding lines, petrified wood, or field stone. Thank you. That's all. So no, not trying to step forward our community. That is absolutely against what the mission statement has been, which is unique. I talked to the administrator. He said we just don't want that building out there. Well, we have stated metal buildings, they just need to be clad. Yes. addition.

As long as you're building an addition is added, it doesn't go above the Koopa. Well, yeah, you've got you're under the preservation, so it's out of my hands.

Okay, we should not have a limitation. I know.

Yes. I think she's just saying that it's not up to us. It's up to preservation for that one specifically. Well, except that I probably need to change this. Okay. Well, we need to merge it with preservation. So 15 ft or if in within historic preservations guidelines. Yeah. That being said, uh can I or do you want

section D? Can you explain that kind of explain that to me a little bit? Unless otherwise specified by this section, the base district shall apply where there is a conflict between the standards of this subsection shall apply. What does that mean? Hang on, let me get back to that. Your section D under the initial. So basically what it is saying is whatever is the base underlying district if the overlay states whatever the overlay states if the overlay states something is allowed but the underlying says it's not then the overlay wins. What about

if the historical or preservation there needs to be more description? Yeah. Okay. They need to add especially historic accepted. Okay, we'll go back and find that out, too. All right, Owen. Oh, yeah. Owen, a quick question. It's a numbers question. Um, pardon me, two questions. Two numbers questions. Okay. Earlier, um, we talked about so far what's been turned in, uh, and and requires a three4 vote of this body. We're currently missing one member.

Correct. And I'm abstaining. So we can't do vote. Yeah. No, that's not what I'm asking. Okay. But I'm just telling you we can't that we can't pass this to council because I have to abstain and so we're still gathering information from you guys so that we can go back to the drawing board.

Thank you. That clarifies my first question. That answers my first question. My second question in the letter when we talk about the 20% it's in paragraph three. Uh I'm going to skip ahead to the uh to the second line. It says provide written notice of their objection to the changes to the downtown district. Instead of a simple majority will require a vote of threearters of all the governing body members to approve this request. Correct. There's a mention of this body in this letter. There's a mention of the city council in this correct included in that all members.

If we move this on to council based on the number of opposition, council also has to have the super majority, a three/4er majority. Correct. In which how how is a uh extension counted? Oh, takes takes a vote away. Takes a vote away. Okay, that clarifies. But just I mean the bottom line is we're not passing this on I understand in the future it'll be passed on but but still when it's passed on in the future if the research is done

if if the oppositions come back because for us to pass this back through we have to do a new mailing which will be a lot better. We'll have to do a new mailing. We will have to um have opposition in favor letters again. Okay. And then we have to have the public hearing. Everything that we've done this time we will do again. Okay. With better information going in the letter. So that so that clarifies for me that this vote with the abstension then means we're going to go back have the opportunity to protest or I think that's the language in here. Yeah. Protest or or support. I know what you mean.

Um, I think that answers my question. Thank you.

Okay. I have some very specific questions I would like feedback on. And since you guys are still here and you don't mind, I would like to ask you guys just kind of a a h a hands up hands, you know, hands up that yeah, you would think that change would make sense or hands down no you don't like that. so that I know certain sections we need to go back and adjust or remove or rethink in its entirety. Okay. So, we have stayed. So with you heard me read the exterior building materials and the things about the metal buildings would is that is everybody in favor with that language or would you rather not have anything like that? So, in favors of language on buildings being built that are in similar materials to what we already have in existence in Glenrose area. Nobody's in favor of that.

Okay. Yeah, I am too. I want to just clarify for everybody what this says just in in simpler terms is that you can build a metal building, but you have to cover all sides of the metal building with similar donations. All sides or just the facade? All sides. All sides. This says all sides. This says all sides. Just the downtown area. No, no, just the down just this downtown area. Just this proposed district. But you know that that conflicts with this has facade the metal buildings are allowed with the metals facade on all sides. Delete all sides street facing sides.

Okay. because you you said earlier that if you pass this overlay that the underlying district which is the historic district in some cases. Okay. But you said that the new overlay would take over where the conflict is with the historic district. Except we also said that we are going to write in more definition to the uh conflict to ensure that the historic if you're in the historic preservation that overrules the overlay.

Okay. Okay. So, did Tony just change that to street? He's suggesting that we just use street facing facade and my hand would go up. Okay. And we talked about that metal building for like an hour and a half. We did. We were going back and forth. We haven't we we haven't taken any of the

It was like in December, but it was whenever it was. We talked about it for a long time. So from a the preservation would override the overlay in anything that preservation is um responsible for. So architecture preservation district right. So so architecture etc. All of that, all of that preservation would override anything that the overlay states. Their overlay matters more. I know it does.

I know. I mean, that's what I think it should. Okay. Right. Exactly. Tell me how you feel. Um, sidewalk shall be a minimum of 5 ft in width or the width of the adjacent existing sidewalk if the width is greater than 5T. Is that okay? Say that again.

Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet in width or the width of an adjacent existing sidewalk if the width is greater than five feet. So if there's a spot and really if you're looking because now we're building sidewalk from Grace down, but if you're going this way, um there's a sidewalk that takes you all the way down to Hurford on one side, but there's not a sidewalk on the other side. And I'm not saying that there would have to be one because they're only requiring sidewalks on one side of the street. But if there was to be a sidewalk added, the new sidewalk, like cutting in front of Riverhouse, just as an instance, would have to be five feet unless it's connecting to a sidewalk that is wider than five feet. Is everybody okay with that concept?

Even narrower. Yep. If it's existing narrower, can you read that line one more? So, it has to be five feet. Is that new or is that new sidewalk has to be five feet unless it's connecting to an existing sidewalk that's wider than 5T. But what happens if it's less? Nothing. It has the new sidewalk has to be 5T. Even if it looks funny. Yes. Connecting up to another one. If the other sidewalk is three feet or two feet or four feet, the new sidewalk has to be five feet. We would do some sort of transition. just wouldn't we do some Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Um we have stated that the use of chain link fences is prohib prohibited. Any problems with that? Okay. We have also state Yes, ma'am. You said any opposition to that. Okay. So, you're in opposition to the chain link fence requirement. Not on res. Not on residential. just on commercial. I have a vacant lot down here that we don't know what we're going to do with yet. So, I've got three lots and I'm guessing that's permanent chain link fence, not during Yes. build anything.

No, no, no. Construction chain fencing is absolutely that falls under construction fencing. Okay. So, we need to look at the chain link fence situation. Not saying it's going to change, just saying we need to look at it. The use of bobbed wire or razor wire fencing is prohibited. Agree. Okay. Just need to state these things.

Okay. Don't say it. They do. At some point, common sense has got to keep walking. Not so common. I know that. I was just

All right. The key elements as far as the schedule of uses. um anything under accessory utility government um instructional or incidental uses uh follows B3 um architectural or ar agriculture god I can't even speak anymore agriculture and related uses um we've said community garden which is currently not allowed in B3 we would allow in the overall district with a specific use permit Um, we did say fairgrounds, uh, rodeos or arenas, um, would not be in the district. Uh, farm implement sales, um, meaning large combines, tractors would not be allowed in the district. That is allowed in B2. Hatcheries would not be allowed in the district. Livestock auctions would not be allowed in the district. Um, ranch, farm, orchard, or truck gardens would not be allowed in the district. They are allowed in B2. They are also allowed in B1 with a specific use permit. Um, commercial stables, uh, private stables, um, stockyards and slaughter houses and vine and vineyards would not be allowed in the downtown district. when we go into industrial uses. Huh. Yes.

That's not an orchard. That's three fruit trees. An orchard is a commercial growing facility. It probably has those definitions somewhere in there. Yeah, I'm sure it does. If not, we will add it. um distribution warehouses, manufacturing of brew of breweries and this again. Oh, okay. Fix orchard. Okay, sorry. Thank you. Um growing fruit trees commercial.

Okay, we need to add the word commercial. Got it. We got it. Okay. Um home,

retail package stores, which is um you know, beer, wine, cigarettes would not be allowed uh re for alcoholic purposes. off- premise retailers um and would not be allowed, but on premise retailers um would be a specific use permit. Off-remise beer and wine um retailers and on and off per um premise beer and wine retailers um as well as wine only package stores would not be allowed.

So I have a question about that. So, we got Blue Lion right here in downtown. Correct. Does that qualify as any of this? What? Why would it not? What did you say? Okay, hang on. Hang on. Let me think this through. Hang on. So, they sell Okay, that's a change. So, on and off premise retailers would need to be a specific use permit, which is what it is in B2. but it's not allowed in B3. So, we're carrying the B2 specific use permit over to the overlying district which would allow it on the square

in keeping with what our intent has been.

I think it's a positive thing on the square first. Okay. But, but so, yeah, I'm still trying to do the math, but I I believe you know the math and you did it. Just I'm trying to catch up with you. So, thank you. The intent is that if somebody is just walking in and buying alcohol and leaving such as H&H, such as uh Circle V, that that type of business belongs on 67 and other places. that on the square we want it to be a more lingering impact where people might be able to taste, consume, and purchase, which is you are correct what Bull Lion is. That was a typo on my part. So, thank you for helping me catch that.

I just think it's a positive thing on So, that's what's here now. You would still allow. So, right now, that's actually not allowed in the B3. It's allowed in the B1 and B2 which is how Bull Lion is here. We're saying what we are saying now is by putting an S on it that could now go onto anywhere within this downtown area. I'm just thinking of places like Fredericksburg and many other places that that drives great business downtown.

But your language of tasting and that would be correct. So we need to define on off premise a little bit better. Animal shelter. Um it's allowed in B2, but we would say no in the downtown area. Um an auction houses an animal shelter. I'm sorry. She said smelling. I said loud. Both of those things.

Um, we've said art galleries would be allowed. Auction house, um, which is allowed in B2 would which is not allowed in B3, but allowed in B2, we would say would not be in the downtown. uh wholesale commercial bakeries would not be that's actually only allowed in industrial right now. So that's even a mute point. So um but a retail con bakery or confectionary would be allowed. It is currently allowed in B3. It's currently allowed in B1 B2. So it would be allowed in the in the overall boat sales, boat storage, building material sales, lumber yard, etc. would not be allowed. A business office, as we've discussed multiple times. Um that so we actually learned that we've got business office in a couple of different places. So, we're going to actually scratch the generic business office because we've got it better defined further down in our lists. Um, Christmas tree sales. We would allow um a cigar bar um or a smoking room such as what used to be uh where is now the Glenrose um coffee that it used to be the um

used to be here. There we well that hearsay is their off was their Stevenville name but yeah that um okay that we say um is a specific use wait no

that's a specific use permit um because it is currently allowed um in B1's and B2s we did say employment agency would not be allowed but an event center and a retail hall um which is a specific use permit and be in restricted residential but wide open and um general res or not residential restricted business it's a specific use general business it's allowed so we said in the downtown area it would be specific use exterminator office would not be allowed um the farmers market is obviously allowed a feed store with no animal sales and this is one that I'm actually going to ask your guys's opinion because it was brought up to me by somebody. Um, it's allowed in general business, but it is not allowed in restricted business or in B3. Somebody asked me, well, what if Sexton's wanted to go back to being in its original use as a feed store? I said, okay, I guess we'll address that at the time. I I have no idea.

It ain't never going to happen. So don't worry about it. I'm with you. But so I have it as a not allowed, but I am open to the time arises we can reimpress, right? Okay. We'll all be dead. Yeah. Say we got bigger problems. That's a long time. Yeah, it is. For you anyway. All right. uh firewood sales is allowed in restricted business and general business but not on B3. So we did say no not allowed even farmers market farmers market has its own federal rules of what's down there. So that would be

but it's a it's farmers markets has its own or correct. So I think us saying that an individual setting up a fire would stand not within the farmers market we're saying no to again the likelihood of anybody doing it is slim to none but slim to none has burned me before. I said common sense and they told me there wasn't any.

All right. uh flea market inside we have said it it's always been a specific use permit so we kept that flea market outside is a specific use permit in B2 but we've moved it to a no in the downtown area market in the downtown the flea market an interior an indoor flea market such as Bonanza is allowed but if you were doing something on the exterior Exior flea market. It would not be allowed. What was that name? An exterior flea market. An open air flea market is not allowed.

Flea an exterior flea market. An open air flea market. But not a building that's permanent. No. Open air. Open air. No, not garage sale. That's different.

Yeah, I got you. Flora shop is allowed. Furrier is not would not be allowed. A game hall would be a specific use. Um gun range indoor would not be allowed. Uh grease trap and drain vacuum service offices would not be allowed. Um heating and AC offices would not be allowed. Heavy equipment cells would not be allowed. Um, so here's an interesting one. And this is one that because it is my personal business, I'm going to let um Rex read. So, it's the hotel motel in. So, it's currently allowed here, but not allowed in the um three. So, I moved it to S. So you heard it.

Yeah. Read it out. What? So what what are these columns though? Because that's that's the challenge following it. This is Okay. So this is overlay. Yeah. All right. This is B3 B2. All right. So hotel motel it in. It is not allowed on the square. It's currently D2. It is allowed in the general business district. What I have suggested that in the downtown area and was that we allow it with a specific use permit. That's right.

The reason that I say specific use is because we have to address parking issues. Yeah, that's the right way to do it. Yes, Steuart. So, the Glenn Hotel would need an SUV. It would

because unless unless they have already pulled their permitting to start their work because if your permits have been pulled at the time this passes, then you're grandfathered in. But remember, we're not actually able to pass this to go to city council this month. So that has to move forward. What page are you on? Uh, this is on 58. Yes, sir. I think that might

but so he owned the construction, right? Construction and that little office he was in, it's about thousand square feet. I want to say my office right there and then there's like 4,000 square feet but uh I'm doing that all so I'm doing the inside first and I don't think I'm as far as like being grandfather I don't think I'm actually

I told the city you know I don't know what I'm going to do over there and I'm still working over here so I don't know if I've actually have like their certificate of either one of them so I know the building it was all good in the beginning, you know, but u I don't know what the future of it is going to be, you know. I mean, I don't know what the the new side's going to be. I mean, I want to do it something that will help the city, you know, the universe and all that, but uh yeah, I'm sorry that the building I bought my invest, you know, work hard for bought. Um I just want to make sure I'm good to go. And the outside of it, I don't like the outside of it. So, I want I want to But does he have parking? He does have parking.

The old cheerful heart warehouse. That's the way we all know it because that's what it was the longest. Yeah. I'm new and I don't I don't I don't know where I stand. because I don't know if I'm kind of so if the permit is pulled for the use for any use other than demo correct the date whatever is in the ordinance the date that the permit is pulled is the ordinance they follow

so there's two separate things okay a building permit is for construction and remodeling of the building, right? A certificate of occupancy is for the use of the building. But when the ordinance would so the ordinance that follows is based off the building permit, not the certificate of occupancy permit is what I have always been told. to to open a business if you have if you need a construction permit for remodeling that's separate from the certificate of a correct for the business the ordinance but the ordinance that they follow the the version of the ordinance I believe the it's a building

is if a B is a building permit or if no building permit was pulled it's the occupancy permit I would have to look at that but let's double check that because I'm with you yeah it's the building permit but if No building permit was pulled. It's the occupancy permit because you have to know what ordinance you're building to.

Yeah. But I think that you're going to say I mean it when you read through this I mean I know this is a lot and I know everybody's getting tired but we really did say okay if it was allowed in B3 we would want to allow it everywhere else. It was the things that are questionable on is it best for the residents and tourism in a walkable downtown area. That's what we started to kind of say, eh. And then if it was something that was larger in use that needed parking or some special other things, we said, "Okay, well, let's just put a specific use permit on it so that at least there's a dialogue about it." Now, this all this documentation is currently on the city website under the agenda. You will be able to see it tomorrow under archived agendas. It will you will be able to pull up this entire packet, read its in entirety. And anybody has thoughts, ideas, questions, concerns, call me. Come over to the end. I posted on Facebook my personal cell phone number.

Danger. I am I I am not the one making the indecisions. That's what this commission is for. It's all of us taking into consideration all of the feedback that everybody provides us and then presenting our best ideas to city council and we've taken a lot of city council feedback and brought it into this already. So I don't want anybody to Yes. The way that the letter went out was horrific. As I've said, I can only apologize. I can't change the past, but any future material going out will be much richer in detail when you get it.

Will that statement be on the new It will because that's a state law. Oh, it's in writing. It could happen. Anything can happen. Yeah, that's the part we don't trust. Yeah, that's what everybody's worried about.

I mean, again, so I get it. But if you look through what we're proposing as the ordinance and the schedule of uses, the only way that that can get changed is by more public hearings by more. So once we settle on what we're proposing, it can't just be changed willy-nilly by a city administrator just doing it behind everybody's back. It has to go through the public hearings. It has to go through planning and zoning. It has to go through city council. It can't just get changed without all of this dialogue. But that's the same thing with right now what is allowed in zoning in your underlying zoning. I mean your underlying zoning schedule of use could get changed by a public hearing. Not even a public hearing. It can get changed by a publication in the newspaper without a public hearing. So, but it still can't be changed but by a city employee without commissions and city council involved. But a general change to the schedule of uses that is affects everybody in B1 or B2 or R1 or R2 does not require the mailings. The reason that this mailing occurred was because we were creating a new zone of zoning. So, I personally think you're [Music] as long as we do this right, there shouldn't be in there shouldn't be hanky Panky without

people being aware that Hanky Pank is trying to happen and we move forward with meetings and we make sure that if a mailing didn't have to be mailed, we make sure that people know, hey, something's coming up on the agenda. You guys should show up. You need to know about it.

Okay. Comment. We're just talking. I know of a recent event where a business that is currently in business wanted to move to another building. They were told they couldn't. Now, I don't know if they were told by someone in the city or if they were told by the owner of the building. And that's their right to see who they want to rent to. Trust their building. That's their right. But that's the type of thing we worry about because I know that happened. Yeah. But

I know that happened. Well, without knowing what actually happened, then then it's a concern that unless we know the facts behind what happened and it could just be the lease wasn't right, the owner didn't have it. So, so were they told they couldn't move buildings? They were told that that's not what we want here. That's not what we want here. So that's But I don't know who the Wii is. Yeah, that's a big guarantee. I guarantee you we know who the Wii is. No, I mean I I don't I truly do not know if it was someone from the city or if it was the owner of the building. All right. So that that's kind of the schedule of uses off topic.

The schedule of uses is the only thing, right? A city employee cannot tell a business that they are not allowed to have their business in a building if the schedule of uses allows it. But I would think that it would have been the owner's decision then. That we can't control. No, you can't. That that's what I'm saying. No, I I when you hear things like that, look, those are the things that make the business owners concerned. It just stirs up problems.

I understand and I know that there has been a city person who has made it known in many cases that they don't necessarily like some of the businesses that we have in Glenrose, including mine apparently. So, I get it. I and that's why I said even with all the opposition and that we knew we wouldn't be able to pass this today. Having this dialogue and not just cancelling this meeting was important to me so that we got this kind of conversation and the feedback and that we were able to refine things and go back and make tweaks and things. But understand, none of us here want to see any of our businesses,

right? Well, I think just like I said, the verbiage and the conditions. I get it. It is why you got all this and and and I and I I wasn't because of of y'all specifically. It's a perfect storm. It really was. Everything kind of hit together. But the good part is and and we've got to go forward with it. you're here, we're listening, you're getting a sense of what we want to try to do and we appreciate

and uh and we can't do it. You know, a lot of times we're in a vacuum here. There's maybe one or nobody and this is the first time we've had the opportunity to really hear what people want, take it to heart, go back and say, "Yeah, you know, there's a lot in here that's confusing and we need to clean it up." Granted, we're volunteers doing this, but we will we will do it. We'll come back to you with something better. Not perfect, but better. Um, we have a clearer understanding of the intent of the overlay, not crystal clear, so we got to work on that as well. Um, and the the encouragement for me sitting here is that um you can contact any of us and we'll listen. Um

Rex Miller. Yep. He lives he lives in the old farmhouse on Puxy on the coast. There you go. The holding place. Yeah. Right. Megan and yeah, they knew it. And so so so the productive part is to come and talk. Uh, the thing I think hurts us as a community is when we talk outside and amongst ourselves and get stirred up when we don't have all the information. And that hurts us, I think. And you know, that was just it here. We didn't have all the information. I agree. I% know what to vote for when you don't know what and you're conditioned to assume the worst, right?

I agree. Yeah, I agree with that. But y'all were stuck with it. I understand that now. I appreciate it a lot more. We're all stuck together, right? Well, and is there a rush on this? I mean, can we take a few We're going to have to table it today. I mean, we should probably workshop this there. There again more. Yeah, we should workshop it and work through what we've heard today. Yes, I have a question.

Yes. Hang on. I actually Owen first then back to you. So as you mentioned uh going forward and that needs to be the focus and going forward together and sharing our opinions and then we all get to live together which is I mean not together but together separately that's what I you must have a big house. Yeah,

big house. Um, without uh mention of the negative because you've asked and I I honor that to not be focused on the negative of what was mailed out or anything like that, but in the positive as as this is readressed in the future, can we please have a different map? Yes, the map has I tell you I have done navigation and all kinds of boy boy scout stuff. My wife had to write the streets on here for me and mark exactly where my buildings were. I got this is I didn't know that was the river because it's not I got you labelled. So I appreciate that. Also we'll have a real map.

I want a real map this big. Actually I'm kidding. Right. Uh the other the other comment it's a comment. Um, uh, I mean, I'm wearing my my title here, uh, but I'm really not sure that a nonprofit church who owns their property should be included in the Okay, I would like for y'all to consider that.

Okay. That's also spirit one church. I'm not going to assume that's going to be a hard I need to look at how we do that a continuous I need to I need to look at that. I'm not saying yes. I'm not saying no, but we'll certainly look at it. I I I that might actually be a question because when that lease is up, are leases then subject to these overlay requirements? Yes. When they're made again? So

when I get you I get you speaking against any other na I gota um we got to do some research on because that that's in a lot of ways that's considered spot zoning and that's illegal. So we need to look at how that would work in this. But making an exception would also be spot zoning, would it not? Yes. Right. If by removing them from the overlay, them I'm not talking about you because there's a way we could probably draw around your church and keep a continuous line. They would be a spot zone. So we need to look at that difference too. Someone else stated it. I stated it carefully. Yes. I said there's a major difference

between an owning the building and a lease. Yes, I understand. I I understand. Historical. So that takes the precedence anyway. But that's they only have architectural. This overlay provides the schedule of use that historical doesn't have any control on. We have the they're they're in the historic district and we have the exterior of the building. So that's the key difference between this overlay and that overlay use. what you do with the building to the exterior

to the physicalness of the building is preserv so physical of building in the historic is preservation usage of the building and physical outside of historic is this so if they say a church there's no consequence to them there wouldn't be so build a new building they couldn't build it because of preservation because of preservation. I used to own it. Okay. Which is still good. All right.

Okay. Okay. You talked about the overlay. The purpose of the overlay is to preserve our area as we know it and keep it unique and to keep possibly chains such as chilies out of this downtown area. How does this overlay keep a chilies out of a downtown area as opposed to the Swiss Woods and there's different restaurants?

We put a we put a special use permit required for restaurants for a couple of reasons. One, it allows us to look at the restaurant. Um, two, restaurants require um uh they require trash service that is different than just a a green bin normally. They require parking. So, we did suggest that restaurants in this area have a SU moving forward. I'm thinking

when you have more than one single restaurant to build a chain versus an individually owned. We can't actually outlaw chains. I'm really not understanding still how you can how you can keep the chilies from coming in unless just the five people on the board say we're not going to have chilies. And so we vote because there's nothing would be in there that you couldn't have.

It's the requirements that the chilies would have. They would have to meet our ordinances. And if you see like the special use permit, the definition says we kind of have the right to say does it fit this area? Does it fit down here? Like it's kind of I mean I don't know where's the definition. That's in a completely separate ordinance that I don't have in front of me.

There's some restaurants. How can you say something versus a chain without having it listed that way? I mean, I'm not going to have a chain either, but I don't see anything in the No. Can you say chain? No. No. Because I guess but by a specific use permit there is a dialogue and that chains have standards that they have to meet to be a chain restaurant that we can control through the specific use permit. What would we allow the chain standards to be met in this area? But can we not do that without the override?

Oh

no. And here's why. Because let's just say, and I'm just going to take my property. My property is B2 general business. If my property was flooded out and the building no longer existed and future land use maps didn't exist or other things didn't exist and a chain restaurant wanted to come in and build on my property because my property is B2 and we allow chains and restaurants of any sort on 67 it would be allowed down here. What the overlay does is it says it doesn't matter that you're a that it's B2 down here. We have this blanket on this area of town that has different rules than what the generic B2 rule is.

Okay, I get that. But you didn't I didn't hear you disallow restaurants. it it so it I'm sorry we haven't gone through the whole list. Okay. So it's in there. It's not that I disallowed them. It's that we put a specific use permit on it. So basically you just vote whether to accept that particular restaurant. We make a recommendation. City council votes. Does that apply to popup locations of chains? Let me just let me explain.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm defining a popup as a food truck setup for an existing business. Mama Mia is a good example. In Walnut Springs, they have a popup expression of Mamame Mia. Well, that would be a food truck. That would be under the food truck ordinance. So, we do have there is an ordinance for for food truck. But I I'm I was thinking that the ordinance was or the changes were primarily about the background check requirements and the distance from residential. Those are but there's other there's a

there there is a rule about a food truck within a dis 200 feet of another brick and mortar restaurant and we did not remove that. But there's no there's not a special use permit required for that. Hang on, let me come back to what I've got here.

I asked that question because specifically there's been one not Mama Mia. I love Mama Mia. One of my favorite places to eat. Uh but there's been a specific restaurant of a certain type that Oh, what we need to do is we just need to get them down here on the square on a popup right in in one of these locks down here. That's currently empty. I I believe it's still currently empty. That kind of conversation has happened, but I think that might be against what we're trying to do and preserving like you're talking about the overlay of our current downtown. Okay. So, we need to take that.

I I I would you guys more to see what that would look like. Sure. Yeah, but if you if you're saying no chains, is that considered Well, we're not saying no chains because we can't say that. I'm saying no, I got you. I got you. To have a special requirement. Yeah, it's an interesting scenario. We need to we we're going to need to go back and look at that. Yeah. All right. I'm gonna ask you guys, do you want me to keep going line item by line item? No. Throw that bin at you. Or do you guys now know where to find it? You can go through and you all know how to find any of us. How many pages left? How many pages left there are? That's why I say we should work.

There's one I'm waiting on and it's on page 59. The young man that was here about the tattoo shop I think should be added to Yeah. Okay. Wrote that down. I agree. I wrote that down too. Okay. Can you make one comment by one of your first ordinances way back on the on the one with the accessory buildings not allowing income producing and an R1 as a secondary building? My question is if I had a mother-in-law cabin in the back and she pays me so utilities and rent I think that should be allowed. It's I would be producing income. So, it's you want your mother-in-law in the back. Oh, Stuart, this one's you.

Well, I think that we need to change the wording on income producing that. I don't know what I talking about CNA. So, I I think that breakfast [Music] or your grandmother living on your property to have her I think that Well, I think that's not a short-term rental, right? No, that would be a long term. So instead of income producing, we need to say no short-term rentals. No. Yes. Maybe that's where we Yeah. Because unless she gets mad, decides to leave. Yeah. Short term if he's going to move all four of his parents' in-laws and all into his house. So excited to hear about it.

I I understand what you're saying. So we will refine some language because unless it's your No, I it I get it. I get what you're saying. Paying utilities is not exactly income producing. It's not like you're making a profit, but they're they're paying you, but it's not a business. It's not a business. That's really what it is. The intent was I got you. The wording the wording excluded. So, we'll fix the wording. Okay. Question on section K down in the descriptions. Item five. There was

variance authority. So this is actually something that we um we did some initial research as a way to um speed up the SUP process. we are having to get a lawyer's opinion on whether or not that we are actually allowed to do that

to um so the idea was that right now if somebody's going for an SU um that's a two hearing which means based on timing could be a two to three month process if the state allows us to cut down to a one hearing Could we do that in special circumstances? Not everybody, but in special circumstances, could we allow it to go to a one hearing so that we're speeding up the process of an

I know. And and so as I listen to Brenda's concerns, I say, "Yeah, maybe that's not what we want to put out there." But we're not even sure that it's legal because we're waiting on a a legal opinion from the city attorney first. So, okay. If no further discussion, keep your hand down. Joking. I the only discussion I have is a special request that you would allow me to pray for you following the meeting just so we I would love that. Yes, please. Appreciate that. Yes, sir. But that's not part of the meeting. So,

so yeah, I'm going to if no other discussion before the planning and zoning commission, we are going to adjourn the meeting at 8:30. Do you have to close the public hearing and vote on this item? We table the item, but you got to table it. Oh, sorry. We're officially tableabling this item. Okay. I also closed the public hearing at 8:30. all the things. We try to be by the rules. So, what did we miss? I got it. T-shirt next week. Okay. [Music]

All right. I think it be a great t-shirt. What t-shirt? What t-shirt? Try to go by the rules. We try to go by the rules. You ready to Okay, we've closed the public hearing. We have tabled this topic. I am ready to adjourn this meeting at 8:31 p.m. with no further business before PNZ. If everybody would like to stay and have a much needed prayer to adjurnn. Yeah. No, we adjourn. We don't have a vote to adjurnn. Yeah, she just