Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. At this time, we'll call to order the meeting um for the Planning and Zoning Commission, May 12, 2026. Um public comments are limited to three minutes. The Planning and Zoning Commission is not permitted to respond to public uh to comments from the public for the Texas Open Meeting Act. Oh, we doing the board of adjustment. Okay. Okay. At this time, we'll call to order the board of adjustments May 12th, 2026. Uh public comments are limited to two minutes per the board of adjustment. Uh members are not uh permitted to respond to the comments for the public meetings Texas Open Meetings Act. Number three, approve the meetings of March 10th, 2026. Do I hear a motion to approve?

I make the motion to approve. All in favor? I I second. I We got it all covered.

It's been a while. Agenda number four, BOA 20226-2-B, hold a public hearing to discuss and consider the request of Vega Jose Marie Maria for the approval of a variance from the zoning code section 15522 to reduce the requirements rear setback from 25 to 9 foot and a variance from zoning section code 15546 reduce the parking setback or carport setback from 15 to 8. Um, Mount Pleasant City block 174 lot 3745 acres also addressed as 272 East 3rd Street. John.

So, so um just to kind of go over the zoning real quick. So, this is SF2 zoning. So, the rear yard, as you can see right here, is required to be 25 ft off the rear property line. And the carport setbacks, it says that uh they may encroach the required front yard by at least uh but no more than 15 ft from the property line. So, this is an existing carport. This is kind of an exhibit of here. This is the existing carport right here. Um, and so basically all they want to do is rebuild that carport exactly where it is. Uh, and I'll show you some pictures here in a minute. It's kind of falling apart. So, which is the reason they want to build rebuild it. Uh, but see, you can see here the variance. So, it'll be 15 ft to 8 foot here in the front. And they're requesting a uh variance from 25 ft to 9 on the back. There's also this 10-ft alley from the neighboring property. So, technically from the neighboring property, it'll be 19 ft off the property line. But their actual property line it'll be 9 ft. So this is the existing carport. Um and so they actually want to take this car. They actually taken the carport down already. But when they rebuild it, they're going to make it match the pitch of the home and everything is going to look a lot better than this uh older two carport. And you can see from this pictures the the poles are kind of caved in and uh it's beginning to lean over and fall. So they're they're back here. Uh now they don't speak in English. So Alan, if if you want to if you can translate if they have any questions or if you have any questions for them. Um and they just basically want to put the carport back to where it was. We did receive one out of all the notice. I'm thinking he might have misunderstood the the the variance, thinking maybe it was a new business or something coming in, but it's it's not going to increase traffic. Whether the carport's there or not, they're still going to park in the driveway. Um, and his property doesn't

even actually abut um this property. This is on East Third and he's over on East First, but he's within the 200 foot notice, so we had to notify him. So, that's why he ended up getting a copy of it. But, as far as the city goes, we recommend approval. And if you got unless you got any questions or concerns for me or you can talk to the uh the homeowner as well. And the footprint is the same. Exactly. That exact same footprint. We're putting a better carport there.

Exactly. It's going to look way better and it's going to match the peak of the house. They've actually I didn't get pictures of it. I should have, but I went out there today to talk to them and I didn't notice, but they actually replaced all the siding on the back of the house as well. So ultimately, this is going to be a better look for the street and everything that's around there. Fore speech. Is it going to be like a gabled roof or a flat roof or what are they putting back? Have you seen a plan, John, of what they're putting back? Is it gabled or or flat? Have you did they need to pull a permit for this John?

That's how we found out about it. So when they pull a permit, they'll submit a plan. Okay. I mean, it's up to I'm just wondering if it's going to go a gable like like the house is or if it's going to be a gable from the street or it's going to be flat. Okay, that that's what I need to know. Matching the pitch of the house. Okay, very well. That's all I have.

Well, ultimately it's going to be an improvement in from your opinion, right? Yeah. Just just From what I can see, when I went out there today, because I just went out there today to make sure they came tonight and from what I can see, they put new siding on it and then they actually, they said metal, but it's framed up as wood. So, they started the framing of it as wood and it's going to look a 100 times better than this one. Anybody this car? Okay. At this time, we'll uh close the public hearing and make a motion to approve. Do I hear a motion to approve? I'll make the motion to approve. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor?

I I I. Motion passes. Agenda number five. Thank you.

All right. Agenda number five, BOA 2026-3. held a public hearing to discuss and consider the request from Cruz Jose Victor for the approval of a variance from the zoning code section 155.22 to reduce the minimum lot area from 7,000 to 6,000 on Mount Pleasant city block 191 lot 5A. It's a 304 acres, also addressed as 703 Chalkaw. So, this particular lot, it's located on Chalkaw. Uh, it's an SF2 zoning, so it does require a minimum lot area of 7,000 square ft. Um, and these are the two properties. So, they have this house here and this house here, and I think it's been existing a while. Well, what happened was is we ended up seeing them doing some remodeling on this particular property and uh I think they used it as a house before, but in order to make it right and make it legal, um we told them to split the lot in two, which they'll do right here. Um both houses will meet the setbacks. That won't be a problem. This lot will be about 7,20 ft and this lot will be about 6,500. The minimum is supposed to be 7,000. Um with also doing this, he'll replat the lots into two lots. They'll also be required to put in the concrete parking and driveways, the two parking places for each property. So, it's going to clean up the street and um it's gonna this one's going to stay legal. This one won't change. And then this one will uh be given its own lot. It'll just be about 500 square feet short of the requirement.

So, we're requiring him put in a parking lot, but not a carport. Correct. Yeah. No carport. He's just going to put in the uh paved parking on each lot. He'll put the two parking pave spaces on each lot. And so these are the properties here. So this is the one house that they were remodeling. This is the house. And so they'll straight it uh split it, put in the driveways, and it'll look like two separate properties at that point. And because it's existing, doesn't require carport or garage. Correct. Right. Yeah. We're just going to have them put in the parking that way. They have the concrete and it kind of separates it out so it identifies as two two different properties.

Yep. And they're basically just doing this so that they can make it legal.

The property owners here if you have any questions. Okay. At this time, we'll um open it to a public hearing. Would you like to speak um on your property? I'm just back to my number one concern and that is uh any piece of property we want to improve the property correct in some cases get closer to the code if we're marginal

but uh the key is this is ultimately bottom line an improvement from from your department yeah will be the the one house on the corner that complies, really nothing will happen to that house. But he is remodeling the other house. And so we'll do inspections on that one. Make sure everything's built to code. And then we will also be getting the concrete driveways where currently there's nothing. It's just dirt. So it'll certainly improve the neighborhood as well as improve this particular property here. All right. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and go ahead and make a vote. Do I hear a motion to approve?

Make a motion to approve. I hear a second. I second. All in favor? I I I. Number six. Can I hear a motion to adjurnn? I'll make the motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi.

Hi. And at this time, we'll call order uh the planning and zoning commission meeting. uh May 12th, 2026. Uh public comments are limited to three minutes per the planning and zoning commission is not permitted to respond to comments from the public per the Texas Open Meetings Act. Agenda number three, consider approval of the minutes from March 10th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and take any action necessary. Do I hear a motion to approve minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve. All in favor? Do I hear a second? I second. All in favor? I I I.

All right. Agenda number four Z-2026-01. hold public meeting and consider the request from the applicant Jill Johnson Camo on behalf of the owners Iva and Juan Jabon to reszone Mount Pleasant City block 156 lot 3B from general retail GR to multifamily MF zoning district address as 206 East 9th Street Lyn

good evening um the planning commission. Mr. Chairman, so we're we're on a theme of housekeeping tonight. We had two on um on the ZVA and we're working on this for um the planning as well. So, this is a property that has an existing structure already on it. Um, however, it's vacant and it is a one lot reszoning because the structure that is there is not compliant um with our zoning code to get a permit. So, again, we're doing clean. We're making sure we have everything our eyes dotted into te's cross. So, they want to uh remodel an existing duplex. At one point I think it had a business underneath and a apartment at on top and then it became two. Um but duplexes are not allowed as a use in general retail. There's multifamily however across the street. Um so this is the property. There's 9inth Street um and you can see Jefferson off to the left. Um the yellow block is not a zoning. I just indicated it is in the general retail pink. Um I indicated it so you could see it through the pink that that is the property we're talking about. And you know um on the area map you can kind of see where it's located as well. It's next to commercial that has uh some of warehouses on it and stems back to industrial and then along that street are duplexed all the way to the intersection with the uh property across the street is zone multif family

but it is empty nothing there yet. So this is the property probably a lot of people recognize it because I think it it's maybe one of the only structures um like it in the city. So the person that saw it wanted to buy it and make it improved. So again, we're kind of on the improvement bandwagon here. Um the intention is to take all the dilapidated shed things. I don't know if you call them bar whatever they are down the metal buildings and um remodel this. She could get a permit and she actually won't be able to get a CFO because it act it has to have a slight zoning um tweak too because we have something in our code. This is top and bottom duplexes are not allowed. This will do with it one thing at a time. First it has to be compliant for duplex at all. So that's where we are. There's a shot of the existing neighborhood um kind of uh looking up from NIA back to Jefferson and this uh is her rendering of the proposed model that she intends to put in. So the notification map got went out to the 13 property owners around the property. We did not re receive any responses. I know there is a property owner here tonight um who may or may not to speak, but there we have not gotten any official responses yet. Staff is recommending approval of reszoning to to multif family um due to the current land use um that is compatible with the original tent and development understanding that that entire line of buildings all the way to Jefffords and they're all duplexes. They're all in general retail and they

would all require the that are not occupied. If anybody wanted full building permit or whatever, they're going to need the same thing. But she doesn't own she wants to buy just one. She doesn't own the rest of them, so we can't just take it. Um, utilities are available. There wouldn't be any detrimental impact on existing uses. Um, and it is adjacent to multifamily district across the street if at such time someone would develop that for multi Any questions? And at this time, we'll open this subject up for a public hearing. If you like to speak Oh, perfect. Great. Here's an improvement. If you go back to the map where it shows the property, so they can see. So, I'm the owner of the property 10 952 and 10 951. Uh, so those offices uh there's a family just I'm just mentioning this for you consideration whenever you make a decision. So, there are offices behind that. multi family uh proposal uh and there is also Edward Jones office and my office um I have talked to the other owners and they're going to come on the 19 meeting uh they couldn't make it to get today so uh our response uh we have an architectural committee for those four properties

uh we are not opposed but right now we don't have any the city doesn't have any standards for quality or or what kind of to control the improvements. Basically, they just go by the code. So, um I know the city has plans for for having its own standards for future proposed downtown east, but right now we don't have any. So our only concern as owners is that nobody's going to control the quality and we would like just to see what this uh investor has done in the past to see what kind of projects they have done to see if it's going to be a quality project for the area. So that's basically we're not opposed but we would like to see if there's you know what kind of investment it's really going to add to our area behind that property that's the Mutaba family uh uh clinic and so there a lot of people park there. So how that will you know interfere with their daily the day of break that's just something to keep we're not as that they have like a good plan for the improvement and that's all.

Um, Lyn, do you have a Can you give me that front shot again on that? I mean, where where's the parking on this um for this house? Is it in the front right there? It will be Yeah. Where that that metal building behind it, that is going to be taken down. That's directly behind it. Okay. um she's going to put parking there and parking on the side. So, they are required to have four parking spaces. She knows this and has to comply with um our code in all respects as far as

all that that they're not going to enlarge or change that structure other than to remodel it and make it safe. Apparently, she um has had a structural engineer look at it to make sure that it's savable. Um I I talked to her about I mean pretty substantial um investment to remodel the building as some of you all know. Um but apparently it's in good shape whereas the others um are not. And I just kind of wanted to voice on Linda's concerns. I mean, she's going to have to put a two-hour separation between the top and bottom. So, the place is going to have to be gutted. Not only that, she's going to have to put in two electrical services, one for the top, one for the bottom. So, it's going to have to be rewired. Um, at that point, I mean, she's putting in new windows. We'll make sure the insulation, you know, meets the minimum energy code and the wiring and all that. So, it's it's basically a gut job from top to bottom. And then now the quality of fixtures she puts in and, you know, those type of things. We can't really control like cabinetry and that kind of stuff, but we can at least make sure it's supposed to go.

We already talked about fire code and all. Yeah. Okay. Very well.

All right. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and do a vote. Um, do I hear a motion to approve? I would approve. Motion to approve. Second. I second. All in favor? I I. Motion carried. Okay. Agenda number six, planning director's report. Oh, I have Oh, I'm sorry. Did we not Did I skip one? Yeah.

Oh, I sure did. Number five, Z2026-02. hold the public hearing and consider the request from owner Jose De La Rosa to reszone Mount Pleasant City block 124 lot 1C from single family SF2 to general retail GR zoning district property ID 10774 located the north across the alley from his property at 107 North Miller So, you can see we're on this theme um of cleaning up issues that have uh occurred um due to previous locations perhaps not being compliant necessarily. Um, this is a another one lot reszoning request and it is an existing vacant property that he using as parking overflow for his business next door. The business next door is zone general retail. There's a a small alley that separates this property from his. Um, he had been using it for that use for some time and then purchased it from the original owner for that and continue using it. But our we're trying to clean up our code. It's out of compliance and the way to make it compliant is to resone it to match the B business. So um this is the case map. The cemetery is across the street. Um his business is uh where all the cars are located. Um that is his existing auto repair business. Those are um

cars under under repair there. It's not It look hard to tell from uh overhead, but it's not junk yards. Those are actually cars that he's working on. And the other property has um his overflow stores that he's moving people's cars in and out to work on them. The area map kind of gives you a better view of exactly where it is. You can see where B Street is in the cemetery. Um the zoning map again kind of shows it's right there on the dividing line. So that is a um residential lot. It's I don't know that it ever had a house on it. Certainly it's just dirt and grass now. Um in order to be compliant with zoning code in order to have a parking lot, he knows that he has to pave it and fencing up um to separate the the house that is uh to the north. There is a house, an existing house. You have to um fence all commercial property from residential property. And then the lot to the rear is empty, but it is residential. So again, um it there's a house that kind of has that as its property. So he would be be uh fencing in two sides of the property. um in order to be compliant to develop the property if it gets reszoned. So, we're in the process of that. He understands and is is fine with it. So, this is a current photo. You can see that the existing house um that would have to have the fence um the screening fence erected um to the right and his business is across the alley to the left. Um another view you can see in the background a little bit better. where his business is. Um that alley I does

have a house that is on it. So it can't be um uh you know sold to him because it is access to someone that's behind. So uh otherwise they would be contiguous and of course the cemetery it's pretty big across the street. Um I again I colored it yellow but it is an existing um single family but I to to indicate where the property is. We did notify the 12 property owners um and got no response either in writing or by phone which surprised me a little bit but nobody weighed in on it. So, we're recommending approval of it of this lot to general retail from single family too. Um, due to the fact that the current land use is an overflow parking lot and has been for quite some time. Apparently, this is not something that somebody just moved in and started doing. Um, there's no detrimental impact on any of the existing uses. Uh, he has agreed to pay the lot, which it's a separate issue from the zoning, but he has to comply with the code and he's already aware that that we're going to come after that part of it at that time and he would get his permit paid. And then um he also understands that you are not allowed to do any outside storage. So that would mean no bumpers uh parts stuff like that is allowed on general retail. So a car parking lot is allowed but having having storage of

items that are like um pieces of equipment that belong to, you know, if you were gonna do tires or bumpers or something like that on the property. So, um you we don't allow outside storage that would be um that but he does not use it for that. He only uses the Nobody's here. They're going to all come to I think I think.

Okay. All right. I was just kind of wondering by the picture there, it's not a wrecked car. I guess it's just a car that's missing some windows and stuff, but that would be considered storage. Would that be a correct statement or no? Um, it would not be store. So, outside storage would be items versus a car parking lot. So, they're not wrecked and it's not a junkyard. They all run and he's working on. Okay. We we talked to at because this is kind of a code.

The only issue I have is are we creating now another problem for the the next landowner in this residential area. Then we've all of a sudden put a commercial operation next to his property. Is that is that what we're doing? And when that guy comes and wants something,

it is it is when when a zoning district is connected, I guess, lack of a better term, fair game to be considered. If this property was somewhere else further um not contiguous to where general retail already is it could be uh considered for resoning. Um again this is an existing use. I don't even know how long it has been this way. He's had that business a while. Um, and I think even maybe even before he had it, they that had been SwepCo's property, they were I don't know if they were using it for SwepCo uses, which of course is not residential, but they were letting him park his cars there for quite some time. um John in I talked to him probably a couple years ago and so um or talked to Swepco and said, "Hey, this is an a residential and they he's I guess they indicated, okay, so they just sold the property to the man who was using it." Fast forward, I'm we're trying to clean up these issues and make them compliant versus I mean because we're working really hard on getting our code lined up with what conditions are and what's best practice um from a zoning standpoint. Um is is anybody going to ever build on that property? I don't know. Probably not. you know, we have lots all over town. So, um, it helps an existing business out have the parking area and it has already been used that way. I understand where you're coming from.

The the problem that I have is that the property owner of 10747 and 10776, if they come and want to go commercial or retail, then you're gradually going towards two blocks up the street.

Um, you know, each each one of those would be on its own merits if you were going to ask for a general retail reasoning of of the house, for example, that's directly to the north. um at that time that would probably you know kind of you need to talk about why anybody would want to do that. I don't know how far it is from the school but from this is an existing use otherwise we are having to take action. It's only two options to be fair is to make him stop using that property and he has some history of using it for commercial property reasons and so it get can get pretty difficult if this avenue is closed to him. So that's why

I'm just saying if I own 10776, you can bet you and I are going to be in the courthouse. If you tell me I can't sell it for commercial use or all of a sudden uh it's still in the residential category when you've let somebody else do something.

So this is a reszoning and it takes his property um this particular property is zoned uh single family 2. It's currently not being used single family 2, but it would be compliant then. But anybody else's property has to go through a reasonzoning for each time. And to my knowledge, although I I I can't vouch for the people that live in those houses. I assume they live there. They look like houses. They're not businesses already. So, they would have to get reszoned before they could ever change it. you do not have a vested right to be reszoned just because you're next to somebody or in this case even that you've been using the property for a while. However, it becomes pretty messy because I don't know how long he's been doing it if there was any enforcement for a long time from the city standpoint. This is a clean way to support an existing business and it obviously the chance for people to come and say no, we don't want somebody parking this close to our houses. Nobody has. He's actually going to improve the property, put up a fence and pave the lot. Um whereas now it's it's what it is. So we have a code fight which means court and you have the I mean it's not it's not we the city can't snap its fingers and make him go away. So there's a there would be a long process to force him to leave the zoning. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I understand. I'm just saying that at some point in time you have to say we're not going to do this correct. Why would you do it for him and this guy and then all of a sudden you don't want to do you know I'm I'm maybe confusing the matter. I'm all for the code and the zoning, but if you continually uh do, you know, go out of that, then you got there's got to be a stopping point somewhere, you know, right?

So, u I think maybe the justification here would be that it's currently being used commercial, whereas those properties beside it are currently being used residential. I think it would be harder for me to turn a residential property into a commercial property if it had been used as a road. I mean, that's kind of the way I see it.

What did it for years, but nobody told him that they could I don't know. And and then he started parking cars there because they let him. And you know, I mean, it's just been kind of cascading. We're trying to make things fit. Um, but I I get what you're saying. That's what the future land use plan and obviously you don't want to in areas you want commercial areas to take over your residential housing shop willyell. Um but we don't really have that pressure here on its own merit. You can't you don't have some kind of understanding that oh well they did it I can do it too. Zoning doesn't work that way. So um

yeah but judge a judge might work that way. I mean you can't say you can't do it because they didn't do it. Well now a judge might say well you can't let this guy do it and then not let the next guy

well a legal a judge has no say no precedent at all in zoning. The judge I was talking about would be if he doesn't get the zoning that allows him to have a commercial use on a residential piece of property, if he vote it down and council votes it down, then our next step is to force him to stop using it. And that if he doesn't do it when we ask him, our next step would be to go to court with all of that. Well, believe me, I'm not I don't want to penalize the guy and I'll vote for it. I think it's an improvement. But I think I understand.

Well, we're just going down the road until we're finally going to get somebody that's got enough money and enough clap to take a break. No, you know, or I'm going to do what I want to do. You've allowed it. Uh I guess so my real concern is you're creeping towards the school and there's got to be some zoning requirements uh about school. I know there's things about uh a liquor store can't be within like 800 or something.

So you can have a school that's not like certain things like Right. Well, I'm not interested. I've already done all that. I'm not interested. All right. Uh, do I need to open this for a public hearing? Since there's no one around, I'll open it for a public hearing and I'll close it for a public hearing. At this time, we'll vote. Do I hear a motion to approve? I make the motion to approve.

Mayor second. All in favor? I I

and planning director's report

and it is going to look like it's very long, but it isn't. So, um, since we met last, um, I gave two recent presentations to city council that did have as you know there's any ordinance action or any land use. However, it has been um taken for staff for me to talk to council about things coming up to give them um kind of uh advanced warning and heads up and the kind of knowledge that CDC already understands. A lot and technical issues associated with that. City council, not so much. And so they got told about upcoming changes or that I've talked to you about. And then we also went over the downtown reszoning overview, kind of sort of a timeline, but I I wanted y'all to see it because the next time it comes forward, it's going to be in here for action for you to recommend. So, I wanted to go through it real fast. It um obviously this uh took place in April. Um we talked about what codes are and the fact that we were going to bring six what I consider low hanging fruit to the zoning order do y'all know all this stuff. So, these are the six fencing material. So, um and I've touched on most already residential building screening materials. In other words, you cannot use tarps and whatever to cover your code out of code compant code items all

over your carboard. Um that you actually if you're going to screen items with then it has to be an approved site. Um parking paving requirements for non-residential right now are only pavement is allowed by code of concrete. There are many times when asphalt is either been existing and you want to go back and overlay it or improve it where it's you know over 25 30 years it turns gravel when somebody want their parking lot are we going to make them do concrete or can they depends on the use obviously heavy trucks in industrial park lot Um but that is one of we're going to bring forward. Um the city manager um and uh our street public um works director um are all for concrete only for city. So, right now, our code doesn't allow asphalt parking lots, but it does allow asphalt streets, which streets um have a lot of maintenance issues that cost the city money when they fail. And so, concrete last a lot longer. And so, that that's one of them. Um many storage parking requirements, we didn't really have them. They were only uh according to what a warehouse would be. warehouses, you know, have people working in them and all kinds of things reasons to have parking. A mini storage, there are no people. There's nobody there. And the only the only parking that's happening is when you go to your own unit, there's no parking lot requirements. So, um and then the last

one is because the zoning did for whatever reason. Uh we aren't quite sure probably from predated even 1987. I don't know if it was there before that. Somebody in the city decided they didn't like a duplex one on top of another. Perhaps the old building code thought it was unsafe. Currently, it is allowed in building code. You have to do fire separation between the top and bottom units and all that in order to get your building permit. You have to do all that. So, it's compliant. Um, but our code says you can't have and lower unit for a duplex. Even though apartment buildings are built that way, I don't know why, but it's in there. And so, um, and to my knowledge, the one we just looked at tonight may be the only one in city that met that now. I mean, I don't know why it was like that. So, in order to make that allowance, plus if you go to Austin and some of the other cities that are being re rejuvenated, rejuvenated and um that is a model that allows you to go up and kind of more urban sort of a downtowny feel. Um well, our code doesn't allow us to do it. So even when we do our downtown zoning to get that extra vibrancy and maybe do a little bit of density that's not side by side duplexes but something that looks kind of older and more um kind of trendy for that and puts the parking sometimes behind and around. You know it's not the same duplex look um because that we have to have a so that's what that is. So there's some other um There's some pretty pictures. This is why we

want the fencing because we don't have any fencing material requirements right now. And these are a list of what will be in the code. So when somebody comes in and wants a fence um a fence permit, it has to be this. It can't be old that they got off currently. We don't have any way to stop that. So um and this this is also more prohibitions just kind of talking to council they would understand um when you could have barb wire be allowed but only where it made sense um razor wire only where it made sense electric fencing only where it made sense those sorts of things will be in the code right now we don't have um residential screening this is what I'm talking about um So they become an eyesore. Um here's more. So we want to um make that very clear that those are not allowed and that if you want a permit to screen your material or clothing your carport, you have to have permits. Um this is the one on the parking lot and uh illustration of concrete streets many storage one space for 50 units plus one for any each on-site employee. Most of them most of the modern ones don't have any but this is a standard we found in cities that actually have a parking requirement and it makes sense. So we want to integrate that into our code and then to allow vertical duplexes. So there are allow by building code.

Um this is the picture that she wants to do. So that kind of we talked about what chapters in the ordinances would be revised and so we're going to bring it probably in June to you to be adopted by them legally. Um and we talked also a little bit about more codes what what we would be doing in the future. Um most of these you and I have already so they not they not heard. So the second one is was downtown zoning. Um we seem to be getting a uh more understanding small pieces of information to council where they are not required to make a decision. They just suggest and understand. So that's what this is. And again y'all have already been through all this. What the fact that we have all the different zonings in place. Um I met with Linda was on that committee too. In fact, I thought she might stay. Um, we went through uh multiple meetings for probably four or five months with the main some uh some folks on the main street committee to charge them with do you want the same main street now? Do you want it bigger? Do you want smaller? What do you want? And so they are wanting to expand it. Um, this isn't actually any proposal yet. Talking to council about why we're doing it. Sort of basic stuff. You know, we need to create the boundaries and all the things that that does. Um, when you have a downtown zoning district and, you know, they they don't they've never seen this information. Y'all have. So, I want

me to stop. I will, but this is just what they saw. um why we're doing it, what's the part of it, why are what are the pieces? Um we did the research already. The next pieces are going to be the discussion of public hearings. I have one in here. Um and the the discussion may start with at council the boundary because the boundary where is that line going to be? It sets the tone for everything else. You gonna make it one row over, are you going to make it two streets over or up? And so that kind of that that discussion will happen first and then the adoption once they kind of have hammered out where they are willing to support that. Then I'll bring to you the ordinance zoning what we're going to do. You'll see the whole thing. Um, again, it's more the same explaining to them where we're coming from and where we're going. They really don't know. Um, whereas y'all do there's a town line that kind of gives you, you know, the boundary discussion will be next. It won't be here. Um, it'll be in county. So, I I if you feel strongly um there should be a particular boundary or not. Um, feel free to weigh in. You'll get multiple chances. You will be weighing in on it ultimately anyway, but this is a way to have the main street basically say why they picked. I'll let them do what they kind of had a vision.

A lot of our shareowns that we do for code enforcement are to the north. So pushing up towards 12 and over to the west where some of the dilapidated housing stock is. Um we are tearing multiple houses down for dilapidated. We have our dilapidated here and stuff and they are that is a very ripe area for um kind of reinvestment reaging close to downtown the mixes. model some some of the if there were bigger houses or nicer sort of nicer places, you could make a tea house or um you know coffee shop or something and then also have some mixed use kind of uh vibrant multif family or top and bottom duplexes something like that in there. Um that would have kind of expand the downtown field in that property for reinvested similar to your town home but in a bigger closer to downtown area very similar. So that that discussion is going to happen probably over a couple of meetings were and then of course the uses that go downtown should have different uses than the rest of the city. Um what those are you know they'll have to weigh in on that and vote. You'll get to all this, believe me, when it's ready. Um, if you have you want to come to the we'll we'll publicize the downtown meetings and I'll let um and then the development standards, same thing to what Linda was talking about. Um, nicer can do materials and

niter standards in in a downtown main street area not allowed to. Anyway, that's it in a nutshell.

Thank you, Lyn. When the meetings are okay, very well. All right. I hear a motion to adjurnn. Make the motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor? I I I