[D. CONSENT AGENDA Any item may be withdrawn from the consent agenda and acted on separately. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the approval of each item in accordance with Staff Recommendations.]

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING, REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 23RD OF 2024, BEFORE WE CONSIDER THAT, I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE MISTER BELL. MISS CAESAR, MISTER RAVENEL, TO MY LEFT, WE HAVE MISS BROOKS, MISTER DEWBERRY, AND MYSELF, MISTER PUGH. SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. NOW, AGAIN, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 23RD, 2024. COMMISSIONERS HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OR OTHERWISE MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE MINUTES YOU'D LIKE TO SUGGEST AT THIS TIME? HEARING AND SEEING NONE. IS THERE A MOTION SO MOVED IT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MISTER RAVENEL TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. SECONDED BY MISS CAESAR. ANY UNREADINESS HEARING AND SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY I. I THOSE OPPOSED DO THE

[1. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to rezone a 9.547-acre tract of land legally described as being parts of Tracts 28 and 42 in the Jeptha May Survey, Abstract 860 (804 Kirnwood Drive) from Office-1 (O-1) to a Planned Development (PD) with base zoning of MF-18 for the development of multifamily with deviations. The applicant is Master Plan and the property owner is Baron Funding, LLC. Case Z-1523-24. (The applicant has requested this item be tabled to the August 27, 2024 Planning and Zoning Meeting Date)]

SAME. SAY NAY. AYES HAVE IT SIX ZERO. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS UNDER THE PUBLIC HEARING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A REQUEST ATTACHED TO IT, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT. IT'S UNDER E ONE. IT SAYS CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONDUCT, CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE A 9.547 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING, PARTS OF TRACK 28 AND 42, IN THE JEPTHA MAY SURVEY ABSTRACT 860, THAT'S LOCATED ON 804 KENWOOD DRIVE FROM OFFICE 101 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD WITH A BASE ZONING OF MF 18 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTI-FAMILY WITH DEVIATIONS. THE APPLICANT IS MASTER PLAN. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS BARON FUNDING AND LLC AND THIS IS CASE NUMBER Z-152324. AGAIN, AS I STATED EARLIER, THERE IS A REQUEST ATTACHED AND IT SAYS THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO AUGUST 27TH OF 2024, THAT IS ON THAT PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING DATE, HAVING READ THAT STAFF, IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY RELATED TO THIS ITEM? OKAY COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE HEARD THE REQUEST. IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM TO THE AUGUST 27TH, 2024 MEETING? SO MOVED. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MISTER DEWBERRY, SECONDED BY MISS BROOKS, ANY UNREADINESS HEARING AND SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY I, I THOSE OPPOSED DO THE SAME AND SAY NAY. OKAY THE EYES HAVE IT. THIS ITEM WILL BE TABLED UNTIL

[1. Discuss City Council's action (on May 7, 2024) of withdrawing Case No. Z-1514-24 and resubmitting the case back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for reconsideration. (i.e. The rezoning of properties within the new "Hampton Road Character Code" zoning area.)]

AUGUST 27TH OF 2024. THAT TAKES US TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM F ONE IS DISCUSSED CITY COUNCIL'S ACTIONS ON MAY 7TH, 2024 OF WITHDRAWING, CASE NUMBER Z-151424 AND RESUBMITTING THE CASE BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION, I.E, THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA, MR. BREWER IS ALREADY READY TO GO. SO GOOD EVENING TO YOU, SIR. AND MAY WE HAVE OUR STAFF REPORT? YES, SIR, I'VE MADE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION JUST TO HELP BRING SOME HISTORY. ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2024, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE SECTION. MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 1, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE REGULATIONS. AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY'S CONSULTANTS, HALF ASSOCIATES ON MARCH THE 5TH, 2024, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING SECTION. THIS WAS CASE NUMBER, TO WHICH IS THE TEXT AMENDMENT 005 DASH 24. MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHING THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE. ZONING REGULATIONS. ON FEBRUARY THE 20TH, 2024, THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICIALLY ORDERED THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0, TO CONSIDER THE REZONING OF ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA, THE

[00:05:03]

HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER ZONE CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA IS GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG A ONE MILE SECTION OF HAMPTON ROAD, JUST NORTH OF PLEASANT RUN ROAD, TO JUST SOUTH OF BELTLINE ROAD AND SECTIONS OF PLEASANT RUN AND BELT LINE ROAD. THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS AREA CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 425 ACRES, WITH 466 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES ON MARCH 26TH, 2024, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN ORDER FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE REZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE. ZONING AREA, WHICH IS ZONING CASE Z 1514 DASH 24 MOTION WAS MADE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE COUNCIL. HOWEVER THE MOTION FAILED TO. THE COMMISSION FAILED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL DUE TO THE MOTION RECEIVING THREE VOTES IN FAVOR, TWO VOTES IN OPPOSITION, AND IT TAKES FOUR FAVORABLE VOTES TO APPROVE A MOTION. ON APRIL THE SECOND, 2024, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER REZONING ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, 17 INDIVIDUALS APPEARED BEFORE OR PRESENTED PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH 12 INDIVIDUALS BEING IN OPPOSITION AND FIVE INDIVIDUALS BEING IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING PROPERTY REZONING CASE. A MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY THE 7TH, 2024. ON MAY THE 7TH, 2024, THE CONTINUATION OF THE APRIL 2ND, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME TO CONSIDER REZONING ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA. A MOTION PREVAILED BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0, TO WITHDRAW THE CITY'S INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROPOSED HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA, AND TO RESUBMIT THIS CASE BACK TO YOUR COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION. AN AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN PLACED ON TONIGHT'S MEETING AGENDA IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THAT ZONING CASE. DISCUSS THE CITY COUNCIL WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASE. DISCUSS THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTIVE FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THE CASE AND BEGIN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS OF ACTION ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. TO RECONSIDER THIS CASE BEING SCHEDULED AND ADVERTISED, AND JUST A FEW OF THE CONCERNS THAT STAFF HEARD DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. THE FIRST ONE, MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THEIR HOMES AND PROPERTIES BEING DESTROYED BY FIRE. THE ELEMENTS OR OTHER CAUSES, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS NOT BEING ABLE TO REBUILD. PER THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION 7.6 RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE STATES, IF A STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY A NON-CONFORMING USE IS DESTROYED BY FIRE, THE ELEMENTS OR OTHER CAUSE, IT MAY NOT BE REBUILT EXCEPT TO CONFORM TO THE PHYSICIAN PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. IN THE CASE OF PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE NOT EXCEEDING 60% OF ITS TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE, AS DETERMINED BY THE DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERMITTED, BUT THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR FUNCTION OF THE NONCONFORMING USE CANNOT BE EXPANDED. CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND SOME CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, ADUS, WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE. ZONING AREAS. SECTIONS 40.3 AND 40.4 OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED ADUS AS BEING PERMITTED USE IN THE A AGRICULTURE S.F.C. WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY COUNTRY, STATE AND A SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE. DISTRICTS AND ADUS CONSTRUCTED OVER GARAGES WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN THE SINGLE FAMILY, 20 SINGLE FAMILY, 15, SINGLE FAMILY 12 AND SINGLE FAMILY TEN DISTRICTS CONCERN FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND REFERENCE TO PROVIDING WRITTEN NOTICE OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF EACH OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ADOPTION OF OR CHANGE TO, A ZONING, REGULATION OR BOUNDARY THAT COULD RESULT IN THE CURRENT CONFORMING USE OF A PROPERTY BECOMING A NON-CONFORMING USE. THERE WAS A SENATE BILL PASSED. THE STAFF WAS NOT AWARE OF SENATE BILL 929 SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR THAT WENT INTO EFFECT MAY THE 19TH, 2023. MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH INCREASING THE DENSITY WITHIN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE AREA AND REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LANES WITHIN HAMPTON ROAD FROM PLEASANT RUN SOUTH TO BELTLINE ROAD FROM 4 TO 2 LANES. MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH INCREASING TRAFFIC WITHIN OTHER ROADWAYS WITHIN THIS AREA, DUE TO REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LANES WITHIN HAMPTON ROAD FROM 4 TO 2 LANES NEED TO CREATE AN INTERACTIVE MAP OR MAPS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE IN ORDER FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS TO CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHERE THEIR

[00:10:04]

PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED. WITHIN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA AND TO UNDERSTAND THEIR CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS NEED TO ENSURE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ARE INFORMED OF ANY FUTURE PRESENTATION OR OPEN HOUSE MEETINGS. STAFF RECOMMENDS AGAIN THAT WE DISCUSS THE CASE. DISCUSS COUNCIL'S WITHDRAWAL, DISCUSS COUNCIL'S DIRECTIVE FOR YOUR COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THIS CASE IN THE FUTURE AND BEGIN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS OF ACTIONS, ACTION ITEMS, STAFF AND THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER UNDERTAKING BEFORE OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECONSIDER THIS CASE. YOU HAVE 2 OR 3 OTHER COUNCIL I MEAN AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT THAT ACTUALLY START SOME OF THOSE PROCESSES WHERE STAFF IS ASKING YOU TO EITHER INITIATE OR NOT INITIATE, SOME TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES, YOU KNOW, DEALING WITH SOME OF THE OTHERS AND THOSE ARE YOUR OTHER CASES, STAFF WILL ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT THIS CASE IS BACK IN YOUR HOUSE, WE KNOW IT'S NOT READY AT THIS POINT TO BEGIN SETTING UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOU TO CONSIDER. AND THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAD, KNOWLEDGE ON WHEN YOU WERE CONSIDERING THIS CASE OR EVEN THE HAMPTON ROAD ZONING REGULATIONS. THANK YOU, MISS BREWER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BREWER, MR. RAVENEL? AND THEN MR. MISS BROOKS. GOOD EVENING, MR. BREWER. GOOD EVENING, SIR, THANK YOU FOR THE SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, MY QUESTION MAY BE FOR MISS BESTER, THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED, THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOWED THE CITIZENS TO COME. AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE BEEN THE PERSON THAT WAS OVER THAT. WERE THERE ANY NEW CONCERNS THAT CAME UP WHEN YOU AND HALF ASSOCIATES MET WITH THE OTHER CITIZENS THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF WHEN WE MADE OUR DECISION, ANYTHING NEW CAME UP NOT REALLY. OKAY, OKAY. AND HOW OR WHEN THE CITIZENS LEFT THE MEETING WITH YOU ALL, HOW DID THEY FEEL ABOUT THE INFORMATION THEY RECEIVED? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE MAPS, AND THEY DIDN'T JUST UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT HOW IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT THEM DOWN THE ROAD. HOW DID THEY FEEL AFTER THEY LEFT THE MEETING WITH YOU? ALL MOST OF THEM. AT LEAST THEY GOT SOME UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE. SO THEY WERE THANKFUL THAT WE HAD THOSE MEETINGS. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS ENOUGH FOR OTHERS TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS ON THE PROJECT. OKAY. AND IF YOU WERE TO TELL US WHAT YOU THINK THE OVERARCHING CONCERN OF THE CITIZENS WAS WHEN THEY LEFT, WHAT WAS THE MAIN THING THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT? YOU SAID ONE, 1 OR 2. OKAY, I WOULD SAY ONE MAJOR, ONE MAJOR, ONE WAS, THE REALIGNMENT OF HAMPTON, WHICH THEY WERE MIXING WITH, THIS REZONING. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS. YES. THEY ARE ALL, YOU KNOW, MAKING THIS PROJECT TO WORK. BUT THIS WAS JUST A REZONING. SO MOST OF THE PEOPLE WERE COMING AND TALKING ABOUT THE REALIGNMENT, HOW THEY DON'T WANT THE TWO TO THE ROADWAY TO BE CHANGED TO JUST TWO LANES. AND ANOTHER ONE WAS THE ISSUE ABOUT TRAFFIC ITSELF THAT, IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED, WHICH IN MY OPINION, I SAID IT WITHIN THOSE TWO EXTRA MEETINGS THAT WE HAD THAT THE TRAFFIC IS ACTUALLY NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT TO WORK. THERE IS A NEED FOR HIGH DENSITY. THERE IS A NEED FOR HIGH TRAFFIC, SO THAT THAT WAY THIS PROJECT WILL WORK.

OTHERWISE, WITHOUT THE DENSITY AND THE, AND THE TRAFFIC, A LOT OF TRAFFIC, THIS PROJECT WOULD ACTUALLY NOT WORK. SO TRAFFIC ISSUES. ANOTHER ISSUE WAS, TAXES , BECAUSE PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T WANT THEIR TAXES TO GO UP. SO THOSE ARE THREE THAT ARE COMING TO MIND RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THEN FOR YOU, MR. BREWER, YOU WERE STATING THAT THE SENATE BILL THAT WENT INTO EFFECT. STAFF WAS NOT AWARE OF IT. IS THAT THE REASON THAT WE'RE RECONSIDER IT AND STARTING OVER SO THAT WE CAN PUT IN PLACE ALL OF THE SENATE BILL, ITEMS THAT STATE HOW WE HAVE TO APPROACH IT. I MUST STATE I WAS NOT A PART OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

OKAY. BUT I DO KNOW IT'S A PART OF, A NEED THAT CAME UP AFTER YOUR PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THAT THEN THAT EXPLAINS WHY WE'RE BACK HERE TODAY.ND THE OVERALL. AND LASTLY, THE

[00:15:06]

CITY COUNCIL IS ASKING US TO RECONSIDER IT. IN OUR FIRST DECISION, WE WERE GOING BASED ON ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GIVEN. ARE WE GOING TO BE RECONSIDERING OUR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING? IS THAT GOING TO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A START. BUT THERE MAY BE MORE THINGS THAT YOU AS COMMISSION REALIZE WHEN YOU WAS CONSIDERING THAT MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN INTO CONSIDERATION OR ANY ACTION DONE ON IT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS BROOKS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

HE ASKED QUITE A BIT OF A FEW OF MY QUESTIONS, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, THIS CASE THAT IS COMING BACK TO US IS ONLY THE ZONING PIECE. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ROADWAY RECONFIGURATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. AND MOVING FORWARD ON HAMPTON IS THAT CORRECT? THE ACTION BY COUNCIL WAS TO REMAND, REMAND, REMAIN ON REMAND. THE ZONING CASE BACK TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. THE ZONING CASE ONLY? YES. OKAY, CAN YOU REMIND US OF THE VOTE? I KNOW IT'S IN THE MINUTES, AND I CAN LOOK FOR IT, BUT CAN YOU LET US KNOW HOW WE VOTED THE 3 TO 2? JUST SO WE. YES, THAT WAS ONE OF MY EARLIER PRESENTATIONS. I MEAN, THE EACH ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, HOW DO WE VOTE ON THAT CASE? ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DO THAT OR DO I HAVE TO LOOK FOR THIS IN THE. I CAN GO BACK AND GET IT FOR YOU, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT, PERSONALLY, RIGHT NOW, I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. IF YOU WANT ME TO SIT ON, AT THAT PARTICULAR MEETING, MISS CAESAR HAD EXCUSED HERSELF. MR. BELL WAS ABSENT. THE PERSONS WHO VOTED YAY WERE, CHAIRMAN PUGH, YOURSELF AND ME. THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED NO WERE COMMISSIONERS TO KELLY AND COMMISSIONER DEWBERRY. OKAY AND ONE OTHER QUESTION ON I BELIEVE IT WAS ON SLIDE SIX. REGARDING THE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, CAN YOU, DEFINE WHAT SF, C AND SF WOULD THOSE ARE? WAS GOING TO SPECIFICALLY GO INTO MORE DETAIL, SINCE THAT'S ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. I CAN WAIT IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL. YES, MA'AM. OKAY OKAY. THANKS ON THAT, MR. BREWER. WAS IT OKAY, MR. BREWER, THE FIRST TIME THAT I EVER HEARD CONCERN ABOUT THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WAS IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND IT NEVER CAME UP TO US. I DON'T REMEMBER IT EVER COMING TO US AS A CONCERN WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND IS IT JUST THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS ON THE ON THE BACK, OR WHAT WAS THE MAJOR CONCERN? THEY DON'T WANT THEM OR THEY WANT THEM, I NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD, WHAT WAS THE MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IT WAS MENTIONED BY FOR SURE, ONE COUNCIL PERSON, BUT TRULY KNOWING THAT PERSON'S CONCERNS WITH IT, I DON'T THINK I CAN GIVE YOU AN ANSWER ON THAT. IT WAS JUST A CONCERN ON OF ALLOWING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PER THIS ZONING DISTRICT.

SO IT WAS NOT A CONCERN OF CITIZENS, BUT THIS BECAME A CONCERN THROUGH COUNCIL MEMBER.

DID IT COME UP BY ANY CITIZEN? NO. I DON'T RECALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT SCOTT. I KNOW I THINK THAT WAS. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY I DON'T REMEMBER ANYBODY ELSE. THANK YOU. MISS, JUST A LITTLE BIT. I THINK I REMEMBER HER RAISING THAT ISSUE BASED ON. AND DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS, BUT BASED ON THE IDEA AND THE FACT THAT MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE WANTING MULTI-GEN GENERATIONAL HOUSING, I THINK THAT'S WHERE SHE WAS GOING WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I THOUGHT IT WAS OPPOSITION OF IT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK TO, YOU KNOW, FOR DISCUSSION. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IN REVIEWING THE CASE, YOU HAD A GRAPH THAT SHOWED WHERE THESE ADUS WERE, ALLOWED. AND EVEN IN THE CAMDEN CHARACTER CODE, IF I REMEMBER, IT WAS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION. IS THAT CORRECT? WERE THERE ALLOWED? YES AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM TO TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER DOWN ON THE AGENDA. BUT THERE WERE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOWED IT WITH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. OKAY, OKAY. AND IN OUR OUT WHEN WE GET THERE, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER

[00:20:05]

QUESTIONS FOR MR. BREWER? ALL RIGHT, MISS BURKE, LET ME ASK YOU AS FAR AS HALF ASSOCIATES IS CONCERNED, THEY'VE BEEN PART OF THESE FOLLOW UP MEETINGS AS WELL , WHAT ARE IF, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THEIR PLANS HAVING HEARD THE CITIZENS CONCERNS UNDERSTAND THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS BASICALLY CHARGED US TO RECONSIDER. IT IS HALF ASSOCIATES, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, TAKING THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND GOING BACK AND REVISING THEIR PLANS OR . NO, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. NOT SAYING THAT THEY WON'T BE ASKED. THEIR CONTRACT HAS ACTUALLY CONCLUDED. WE HAD TO DO A CHANGE ORDER NUMBER THREE IN ORDER TO HAVE THEM PARTICIPATE WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS, I'M NOT SURE IF OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACT. SHOULD NOW, KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING A NEW CITY MANAGER IN JULY OR WAIT FOR THAT PERSON TO COME ABOARD. BUT RIGHT NOW, NOTHING IS BEING HAPPENED. WE HAVEN'T MET WITH THEM, BUT WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE A FOLLOW UP MEETING WITH THEM SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED OF WHAT ACTIONS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AND WHEN. OKAY MR. MOONEY? YES. AFTER. AFTER THE MEETING, THEY CHOOSE THE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS.

THEY DID COME BACK WITH, A SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED AND THEY WOULD GIVE AN ANSWER, CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. SO THEY HEAD THAT, KIND OF RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAD.

WE CAN WE CAN ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, LIKE MR. BREWER IS SAYING, THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES. BUT TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE COMING UP.

OKAY. OKAY. MR. REVENUE I'M GOING TO ASK THIS QUESTION NOW. IT MAY FIT BETTER HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I READ IN THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE PROVIDED IS THAT THERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME. AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE TAKE THIS CASE ON, WOULD IT BE TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO HAVE THE COUNCIL AND THE ZONING COMMISSION TOGETHER AT THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS SO WE CAN KIND OF UNDERSTAND, HOW OTHERS ARE THINKING AND THE APPROACHES TO EVERYTHING BECAUSE I FOUND MYSELF LEARNING WHEN I ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND JUST HEARING HOW THEY THINK AND THE VARIOUS THINGS. IS THERE A OPPORTUNITY IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THIS MOVES DOWN THE ROAD OF US HAVING JOINT, PUBLIC MEETINGS? BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ANYTHING THE CITY HAS EVER DONE BEFORE, BUT IN THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT TO US, IT SAID THAT YOU COULD HAVE JOINT CHARTER PUBLIC MEETINGS. YES. OKAY. YES. THE ONLY THING REALIZING THAT FOR SURE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE BY YOUR CHARTER, BY YOUR ORDINANCE, YOUR TASK TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM SO IF YOU DID A JOINT MEETING AND TRY TO CONCLUDE EVERYTHING IN THAT MEETING, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SECTION OF THAT MEETING WHERE YOU ARE MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATION BY YOUR VOTE, AND IT'S GOING TO THEM, OKAY. THEY HAVE TO ACT ON ACCORDINGLY. AND MAYBE BEFORE THAT, PUBLIC HEARING, THEY ALSO I JUST SENT AN EMAIL LATE THIS AFTERNOON. YOU ARE GOING TO ALSO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. AND AS OUR STAFF IS VARIOUS OF OUR ASSOCIATES, TO JUST GET INTO THE WEEDS OF THIS, WHEN THE NEW MANAGER COMES ON BOARD, THEY ARE LOOKING INTO THAT. YES THAT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED YET. OKAY ALL RIGHT. SO MR. BREWER, I KNOW PART OF WHAT, STAFF IS SEEKING IS TO BEGIN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS OF ACTION ITEMS, STAFF AND COMMISSION SHOULD BE CONSIDERING BEFORE ESTABLISHING THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARINGS, LET ME ASK YOU, MISS BROOKS ALLUDED TO IT, AND I'M JUST ASKING, MAYBE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT OBVIOUSLY, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, THE REDUCING IT FROM FOUR LANES TO TWO LANES, THAT WAS A VERY BIG CONCERN FOR MANY OF THE CITIZENS IN TERMS OF THE CONGESTION THAT WOULD BE CREATED, NOT ONLY THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR STRETCH OF ROAD, BUT ALSO POSSIBLY, TO OTHER STRETCHES OF ROAD. YOU KNOW, AS ALTERNATIVE ROUTES. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, BEFORE WE START CONDUCTING? YOU KNOW, THIS RECONSIDERATION, BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM HALF ASSOCIATES WAS BASICALLY TO HAVE ONE LANE GOING ONE DIRECTION, ONE LANE GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION, AND THEN HAVE A DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, MY RECORD. GO AHEAD, GO. I SEE THE WHEELS SPINNING. GO AHEAD. HALF IS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN. OKAY, THERE HAS BEEN PRIOR STUDIES FROM A 2005 STREETSCAPE PLAN TO PRIOR PLANS THAT TOOK US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. SO WHEN HALF'S CONTRACTS,

[00:25:04]

WHICH ARE TWO SEPARATE CONTRACT, IT'S GOT ESTABLISHED IN, I THINK IT WAS APRIL 2022, THEY WERE TASKED WITH HOW ONE SECTION OF THEIR GROUP WERE GOING TO BE HIRED TO DO THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, TO RECONSTRUCT HAMPTON ROAD FROM FOUR LANES TO TWO, AND THEN THE GROUP Y'ALL HAVE MET, THROUGH THE CHARACTER CODE, WAS TO CREATE THE CHARACTER CODE REGULATIONS, AND WE HIRED THEM THROUGH A CHANGE ORDER TO HELP US WITH THE REZONING. OKAY. SO IT WAS DEFINED TO HAVE WHAT THAT ROAD DESIGN WAS GOING TO BE BY AN EARLIER STUDY, WHICH I THINK WAS BACK IN 2005, A STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN. SO NOW I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID. OKAY AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A WHILE, BUT AND AGAIN, I AM NO EXPERT, BUT I JUST BELIEVE AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS TRAVELED THAT ROAD, YOU KNOW, TAKING KIDS TO SCHOOL AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, CAN IT BE CONSIDERED INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE AND HAVING IT AS A THROUGH LANE, JUST BASICALLY HAVING THE FAR RIGHT LANE AS A THROUGH LANE AND A TURN RIGHT SO YOU CAN GO THROUGH OR TURN RIGHT, HAVING THE LANE, THAT'S TO THE LEFT AS A THROUGH LANE INSTEAD OF A DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE. THE WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS IF YOU HAVE A DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE ONLY, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE ONE LANE THAT CAN GET FROM ONE PART OF THE HAMPTON ROAD CORRIDOR TO THE OTHER SIDE. AND BASICALLY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO TURN RIGHT, THEN BASICALLY THAT'S GOING TO CREATE EVEN MORE CONGESTION, BECAUSE IF A STOPLIGHT STOPS YOU AND I'M TURNING RIGHT, AND THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT JUST BE TRYING TO GET THROUGH WHO ARE GOING TO BE STUCK IN THAT RIGHT TURN LANE. SO WHAT I'M SUGGESTING, AGAIN, WE MAY BE TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD FOR THIS TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED, BUT TO DEDICATE THAT LEFT LANE AS A THROUGH LANE, IF I JUST WANT TO GET TO ONE SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT TO THE OTHER SIDE, I CAN STAY IN THAT LEFT LANE. THAT LEFT LANE DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO TURN LEFT, SO THERE'S NO LEFT TURNS, SO YOU WON'T HAVE THAT DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC. BUT WE'RE GETTING STRAIGHT THROUGH. I THINK THAT MIGHT ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THERE BEING A BOTTLENECK OR ADDITIONAL CONGESTION IN THAT AREA. AGAIN, IF YOU'RE TELLING ME IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED, IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED. BUT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING. SINCE WE'RE RECONSIDERING THIS WHOLE THING, I WANT TO BRING TO THE TABLE AND REMEMBER, WHEN WE SAY RECONSIDER THE WHOLE THING, WE ONLY RECONSIDERING THE ZONING. NO, NO, I GET IT. I NO, NO, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE CITIZENS, THEY DON'T MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. THE CITIZENS ARE SAYING WHETHER YOU'RE CONSIDERING ZONING OR SOMETHING ELSE, ALL WE KNOW IS ULTIMATELY, IF YOU FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHAT'S BEING CURRENTLY PLANNED, THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM. SO I'M JUST SAYING I UNDERSTAND MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE FORM, BUT JUST AS IN TERMS OF ME RELAYING AN OPINION TO PLANNING, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE REVISITED. AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THE ANSWER IS IT CAN'T BE OR IT CAN'T OR IT CAN BE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT PUT IT ON THE FLOOR. BUT DEFINITELY THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL, BECAUSE COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO DRIVE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO REOPEN THAT DESIGN PHASE ON A ON A PROJECT THEY HAVE ALREADY AWARDED TO A CONSULTANT TO DESIGN MR. JUST JUST TO HIS POINT, WHAT I HEAR THE CHAIRMAN SAYING IS WE CAN MAKE ALL THE ZONING CHANGES AND RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF THE TRAFFIC FLOW IS THE MAIN ISSUE AND A GREAT CONCERN, PERHAPS WE DEAL WITH TRAFFIC GETTING THAT WORKED OUT FIRST BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. THEN MY OTHER THOUGHT WAS WHEN I HEARD YOU SAY IT WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY FROM 2005, I WOULD LOOK AT MY COLLEAGUE MISS BROOKS AND ASK HER, IS THAT TRAFFIC STUDY TOO FAR OUT? SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A, A MORE A, YOU KNOW, A MORE RELEVANT OR, A REPORT DONE CLOSER TO THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON? MAY I INTERJECT? I DID NOT SAY THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE IN 2005. I SAID THAT WAS A STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN THAT WAS DONE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. I'M NOT QUOTING WHEN THE STUDY WAS DONE, WHEN THE, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WERE DONE, TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. YEAH, I AGREE, AND WE DID GET A COPY OF THAT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND IT WAS DONE ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO. I DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT OLD, AND EVEN IF IT WAS DONE IN 2005, IF THERE HASN'T BEEN A LARGE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED IN THAT CORRIDOR, IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS THE TIME WHERE STAFF IS ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AS ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. THINGS TO CONSIDER AS WE RESTART THIS PROCESS. SO I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE ROAD. MR. BELL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BRING TO THE TABLE THAT YOU THINK STAFF REALLY NEEDS TO FOCUS ON, THIS

[00:30:05]

TIME AROUND AS WE PLAN TO RECONSIDER THIS AND KIND OF GET THIS OFF THE GROUND AGAIN. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, NOTHING NEW HAS COME BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION. SO IF STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT US WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS OR OPTIONS THAT WE COULD CONSIDER THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. BUT IF, IF WE CAN'T VISIT THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, WHICH IS THE MAJOR ISSUE, AND I EVEN HAD AN ISSUE WITH IT MYSELF, IF WE CAN'T VISIT THAT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE CHANGING, THAT IS GOING TO SATISFY BY THE CITIZENS AND ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD. IF IT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD IN THE BEGINNING. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. BELL. MISS CAESAR, I AGREE WITH, MY COLLEAGUE, MR. BELL, THAT I NEED TO HEAR WHAT STAFF IS, RECOMMENDING, ISSUE BY ISSUE, POINT BY POINT. I THINK WE WENT OVER FOUR POINTS IN THE BEGINNING OF MR. BREWER'S DISCUSSION. I NEED TO SEE THOSE AGAIN, PLEASE, SIR. I'M SORRY. AREN'T AREN'T YOU ASKING ME? OKAY ON SLIDE SIX, ONE OF THE FIRST ONE, TALKS ABOUT NONCONFORMING, AND THAT IS WE ARE BEING POSITIVE AND COMING TO YOU TONIGHT WITH SOMETHING DEALING WITH, NONCONFORMING. SO THAT THAT WAS ONE THERE AND THAT'S REFERENCING PEOPLE HAD CONCERN THAT IF THIS DISASTER OCCURRED AND NOW THEY HAVE BEEN REZONED AND ESTABLISHED BY NONCONFORMING CITY, YOUR REGULATIONS SAY THERE'S MORE THAN 60% OF THAT VALUE. I CAN'T REBUILD. THAT WAS A MAJOR CONCERN. WE HAVE DONE AN IN-HOUSE RESEARCH WITH OTHER CITIES, LET ME BACK UP. WHEN I FIRST WAS STUDYING THIS, I THOUGHT 60% WAS A STATE STATUTE, LOOKED INTO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND I DID NOT SEE THAT 60% THRESHOLD THERE. SO I HAD MY STAFF TO DO A RESEARCH OF WHAT OTHER CITIES WOULD DO. AND WHEN WE GET INTO THAT AGENDA ITEM, I THINK IT WILL SHOW YOU WHAT THEY HAD FOUND. CITIES ARE DIFFERENT.

SOME ARE 50, SOME HAVE ZERO. OR ALLOW YOU IF YOU GET TOTALLY DESTROYED, YOU CAN COME BACK AND BUILD. BUT THAT WOULD BE YOUR ONE OF THE OTHER AGENDA ITEMS. SO WE BRING THAT BACK TO YOU TONIGHT AS EASE OR TO CODE. I'M A LET BESTER WHO DID THAT REPORT EXPLAIN HER HER FINDINGS. WHEN WE GET TO THAT AGENDA ITEM, THE NEXT ONE, TALKED ABOUT ADUS. THAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, NOT ASKING YOU TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT ON THAT, BUT WE WANT TO START THOSE DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, SENATE BILL 929, I SPOKE WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY, AND HE HAS ADVISED ME THAT ANYTIME A BILL IS PASSED, CITIES DO NOT HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY PUT ALL OF THOSE REGULATIONS IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE. IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AS THE DIRECTOR, I HAVE, I HAVE FELT THAT SECTION ONE OF THE TWO SECTIONS OF THAT BILL SHOULD BE ADDED. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT DURING THAT AGENDA ITEM. AND AND. I THINK THAT'S IT. AT LEAST WE STARTING WITH THOSE. OH, AND ALSO WE TALKED ABOUT, CREATING A THE INTER INTERACTIVE MAPS STAFF HAS ALREADY MET WITH OUR GIS TO GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT GOING. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. THANK YOU. MR. ALL RIGHT, MR. RAVENEL, ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. MISS BROOKS. SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS, I KNOW THE DEFAULTS HAPPENED TO YOU. DESTRUCTION OF THE UNIT AND NOT BEING ALLOWED TO COME BACK AND BUILD WAS A HUGE CONCERN. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD AS WELL, BUT THIS OTHER CONCERN THAT WE DIDN'T TALK MH ABOUT, THE SECOND BULLET ON THE SLIDE, YOU HAVE UP, THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE INCREASING DENSITY AS IT RELATES TO THE TRAFFIC ALONG HAMPTON ROAD. AND AGAIN, I KNOW WE ARE NOT RECONSIDERING, THE ROADWAY RECONFIGURATION, BUT ARE WE

[00:35:04]

RECONSIDERING THE DENSITY IN ANY OF THE DISTRICT SUBDISTRICTS, ANY OF THE DISTRICTS STAFF, STAFF WISE? NO BUT IF THAT IS A REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION, THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS YOU NEED TO BRING UP AND HAVE US TO LOOK INTO. OKAY. BECAUSE JUST CONFIRM . IS IT UNLIMITED DENSITY? DO WE HAVE A CAP ON THE DENSITY CURRENTLY IN THE IN OUR IN THE MULTIFAMILY SECTIONS? I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID. DOES THAT RING A BELL TO YOU? MR. YOU MY MICROPHONE, PLEASE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBERS, RIGHT? YES YEAH, WE DO HAVE BECAUSE IT SAYS MF 18, WHICH MEANS 18 UNITS PER ACRE. OKAY. I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT UNLIMITED DENSITY IN THE MULTIFAMILY. YES. ON THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR. NO NO, I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING GENERALLY IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR, TO KNOW THIS. NO. OKAY THERE'S NO CAP ON DENSITY. SO, COLLEAGUES AND MR. BREWER OR ME AND MY COLLEAGUES ARE ABLE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE OR CAP THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY. AND MAYBE SOMETHING THAT HELPS WITH THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT. I'M JUST SAYING NOT TRUE RIGHT THERE. LIKE I SAID AGAIN, THE DENSITY NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT TO WORK. I THINK IT CAN WORK WITH SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AT, AND MORE OF A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSES. THIS IS DESOTO, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S LOOKED AT AS A POSITIVE CHANGE.

CURRENTLY WE PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE SOME BABY STEPS AND EASE INTO THE DENSITY A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WE'RE DOING WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE. MR. ZUBER. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE SAT THROUGH ALL THE MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THE CITIZENS AND, MY BEST SUGGESTION RIGHT NOW TO STAFF WOULD BE TO SHELF THIS PROJECT. I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING TO GET IT TO WHERE THE CITIZENS WILL ACCEPT IT. AND, I DON'T DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO STUFF IT DOWN THEIR THROATS. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY OPINION. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, MR. BREWER, AS IT RELATES TO THIS EVENING AND THIS AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO GET STARTED? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BEFORE WE MOVE ON? NO, SIR. NO, SIR. OKAY DO WE NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHETHER TO DO WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING WE DO OR NOT DO OR DO WE JUST DO IT? NO AS IDENTIFIED IT WAS DISCRETIONARY PIECES, ALL OF THEM. ALL FOUR WAS DISCRETIONARY. AND YOU'VE DONE THAT. OKAY, MISS BROOKS, SO WILL STAFF BRING SOME THING BACK BASED ON THE CONCERNS WE'VE JUST IDENTIFIED? SURE. HERE. OKAY ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM? ALL RIGHT. HEARING AND

[2. Discuss and consider initiating the amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 10 Changes and Amendments To All Zoning Ordinances and Districts and Administrative Procedures in association with the passage of Senate Bill 929 (SB 929).]

SEEING NONE. WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER F TWO ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA IS DISCUSSED. AND CONSIDER INITIATED THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION TEN CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO ALL ZONING ORDINANCES. OH, NO NO, NO. THE ONE PUBLIC HEARING WE HAD GOT TABLED, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER INITIATING, THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION TEN CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO ALL ZONING ORDINANCES AND DISTRICTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 929, WHICH IS SENATE BILL 929, MR. BREWER, MAY WE HAVE OUR STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YES, SIR. DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREA, OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ADVISED STAFF THAT A NEW BILL HAD PASSED THAT REQUIRES THE GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY OR GOVERNING OR ZONING COMMISSION TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ADOPTION OF OR CHANGE TO, A ZONING, REGULATION OR BOUNDARY THAT COULD RESULT IN A CURRENT CONFORMING USE OF A PROPERTY BECOMING A NON-CONFORMING USE. THIS BILL IS SENATE BILL 929. THIS BILL WAS RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF

[00:40:02]

SENATE ON FEBRUARY THE 14, 2023 SIGNED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE ON MAY 8TH, 2023, SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR ON MAY 19TH, 2023, AND BECAME IEDIATELY EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ON MAY 19TH, 2023.

THIS BILL ALSO ESTABLISHES THE COMPENSATION THAT THE OWNER OR LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN NONCONFORMING USE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE. IF THE NONCONFORMING USE IS REQUIRED TO CEASE OPERATION DUE TO BEING A NON-CONFORMING USE. AN AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN PLACED ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT IN ORDER TO DISCUSS ADDING FROM THE DIRECTOR'S POINT OF VIEW, SECTION ONE OF SENATE BILL 929 TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION TEN. WITH THE PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 929, SUBSECTION EIGHT ONE WAS ADDED TO SECTION 211 .006 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SUBSECTION EIGHT. DASH ONE STATES, IN ADDITION TO ANY NOTICE REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION OR SECTION 211 .007 THE GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY OR A ZONING COMMISSION, AS APPLICABLE, SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ADOPTION OR ADOPTION OF OR CHANGE TO A ZONING, REGULATION OR BOUNDARY UNDER WHICH A CURRENT NON-CONFORMING USE OF A PROPERTY IS A NON-CONFORMING USE . IF THE REGULATIONS OR BOUNDARY IS ADOPTED OR CHANGED, THE NOTICE MUST, NUMBER ONE BE MAILED BY U.S. MAIL TO EACH OWNER OF REAL OR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHERE THE PROPOSED NON-CONFORMING USE IS LOCATED, AS INDICATED BY THE MOST RECENTLY APPROVED MUNICIPAL TAX ROLL, AND EACH OCCUPANT OF THE PROPERTY NOT LATER THAN THE 10TH DAY BEFORE THE HEARING. DATE NUMBER TWO CONTAIN THE TIME AND PLACE EXCUSE ME ABOUT THE MISSPELLING OF THE HEARING, AND THREE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TEXT IN BOLD 14 POINT TYPE OR LARGER QUOTE UNQUOTE. IN THIS CASE, THE CITY OF DESOTO IS HOLDING A HEARING THAT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE USING YOUR PROPERTY FOR ITS CURRENT USE. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. WE. STAFF RECOMMEND YOU DISCUSS THIS SENATE BILL 9 TO 9 AND BY MOTION INITIATE ARE NOT. INITIATE THE PROCESS TO CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION TEN OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALIGN WITH THE SENATE BILL 929. RIGHT NOW, THE CITY'S CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE ONLY REQUIRES US TO GIVE THE WRITTEN NOTICE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ZONING , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WHAT WE DO IS STAFF IN THAT ONE NOTICE. WE ALSO IDENTIFY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THE PROPOSED OR ANTICIPATED DATE OF WHEN THAT CASE WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ALSO OUR REGULATION CHAPTER TEN ONLY REQUIRES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING IS THAT A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS PLACED IN THE CITY'S PAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION. THE CITY HAS ALSO, EXTENDED THE AREA OF WHERE NOTICES ARE SENT OUT. STATES STATUTE IDENTIFIES 200FT. THE CITY HAS 200FT, PLUS THE 200 400 FOOT DISTANCE. SO THIS ONE REQUIRES THAT, THAT WE'RE SAYING IS CRUCIAL TO BE ADDED. SO STAFF GOING FORWARD, EVEN AFTER MY TENURE ENDS WITH THE CITY, WILL KNOW THAT IF A NON-CONFORMING USE, A CONFORMING USE IS BEING CONSIDERED, THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE IT TO NONCONFORMING USE.

THEY HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE MAIL OUT TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS, GIVING NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE YOUR COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. AND ALSO IN THAT LETTER IN BOLD PRINT 14 INCH FONT, HAVE THAT COMMUNICATION THERE. AND THAT'S A STATE MANDATE THAT STAFF DID NOT KNOW ABOUT UNTIL AFTER YOUR HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS BREWER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BREWER? MR. BELL? MR. BREWER, IS THIS REGULATION ONLY APPLY TO FROM CONFORMING TO NON CONFORMING? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND A COPY OF THAT BILL HAS BEEN PLACED IN YOUR ORDINANCE TO LET YOU READ FROM BEGINNING TO END. MISS BROOKS, ANY CLARIFICATION? SO DOES THE PROPERTY BECOME NON-CONFORMING IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE OF THE ZONING CHANGE? NO WELL, LET ME BACK UP. TEXT AMENDMENT VERSUS REZONING A PROPERTY. THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE WAS CHANGED BY TEXT AMENDMENT AND NOW BECOMES A SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. COUNCIL THEN TOOK THE NEXT ACTION. WELL RIGHT BEFORE THAT, THEY TOOK THE ACTION TO INITIATE THE REZONING OF ALL

[00:45:04]

PROPERTIES. THAT WAS THE PROCESS WAS GOING THROUGH FOR THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS. IF THEY WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS GOING TO OFFICIALLY REZONE THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD HAVE COME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY TO WHERE THAT OLD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WOULD NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHATEVER THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD REZONING, ONE OF THOSE FIVE DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE BEEN. SO IT BECOMES OFFICIAL ONCE COUNCIL APPROVES THE ORDINANCE FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OF PROPERTY, NOT BECAUSE OF THE TEXT GOT CHANGED, WHICH WE ARE. PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING. CORRECT. WITH THIS, YOU ALREADY HAVE. IT'S ALREADY COME THROUGH YOU FOR THE REASON. TWO THINGS. IT CAME TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE. LET ME BACK UP. OKAY. WE'RE JUST MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. LET ME MOVE ON TO COUNCIL. ONCE COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT, IS THE ZONING AUTOMATICALLY CHANGED? NO THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING AS WELL, WHICH IS THE PROCESS. WE'VE JUST UNDERTOOK THE TWO DIFFERENT DATES OKAY. SO IF THAT ZONING IS CHANGED, HOW MANY UNITS WOULD IMMEDIATELY BECOME NON-CONFORMING? WE'VE GONE THROUGH A COUNT, DO YOU HAVE YOUR FINAL COUNT? OKAY. WE HAD TO DO A DRAFT BY EVERY STREET TO LOOK TO SEE IF, IN THE OPINION OF THAT PERSON DRIVING BY COULD TELL IF THAT USE WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE. AND IF THAT USE WAS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT IS GOING TO BE. WE HAVE CREATED A LIST FOR ALL OF THOSE FIVE DISTRICTS TO SAY WHAT USE APPEARS TO GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED AS NON-CONFORMING WHEN WE GO TO THE PROCESS AGAIN, WE WILL SEND OUT THE SEPARATE LETTERS TO ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES. DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY PROPERTIES THAT IS? WE HAVE IT, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE IT AT THIS POINT. I CAN BRING YOU THAT BACK AT YOUR NEXT THAN 20 UNITS. OH YES MA'AM, IS IT MORE THAN 50 UNITS? I CAN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LIST, SO WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE MAKING A WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN IN DESOTO FOR THIS IS EVEN MORE STRICT THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT THE RULE WAS REGARDING A FIRE. AND FOLKS REBUILDING. THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE NON-CONFORMING. UMMING. RIGHT. ONCE THAT ZONING IS CHANGED AND IT'S PRESENTLY WRITTEN IN OUR TEXT, IF A FIRE OR DISASTER HAPPENED AND IT DESTRUCTED MORE THAN 60% CURRENTLY, THEY COULD NOT REBUILD. AND THAT'S THE AGENDA ITEM THAT ALSO HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT TO CONSIDER. WHEN WE HAD THESE FOLLOW UP MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE COMMUNITY, WERE THEY AWARE OF THIS NEW BILL, THIS SB 929? MRS. MAYOR, GO AHEAD. YEAH, I'M INTERJECT A LITTLE BIT AND THEN I CAN MAYBE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, LET'S BE SURE TO STAY ON TOPIC AS TO THE PARTICULAR. I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE HARD AS TO THE PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM THAT WE'RE ON AND NOT GO BACK NOW TO ITEM NUMBER ONE, JUST BECAUSE OF COMMISSIONER CAESAR DOES HAVE TO RECUSE HERSELF FOR ANY CONVERSATIONS IN REGARDS TO THAT. I'M TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SB 929. I KNOW, BUT I'M I'M ADDRESSING COMMENTS BEFORE AND LIKE I SAID, I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY ON TOPIC. OKAY? JUST SO SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME IN AND OUT, IF WE WANT TO GO BACK TO TOPIC, ITEM NUMBER ONE, THAT'S UP TO THE CHAIRMAN.

BUT LET'S KEEP THESE AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE LIKE. THIS ONE'S FOR WHETHER Y'ALL WANT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT REGARDING SB 929, THE NEXT ONE WILL BE WHETHER Y'ALL WANT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT FOR NON CONFORMING USES, AS TO YOUR QUESTION NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS WHAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WERE AWARE OF THIS BILL. I'M NOT SURE. MAY I ASK STAFF? THEY WERE A PART OF THE MEETINGS . RIGHT. MISS BESTER, YOU WERE A PART OF THOSE MEETINGS. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? SB 929 YOU GUYS MADE THE COMMUNITY AWARE THAT SHOULD THE ZONING CHANGE, THERE WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY NONCONFORMING? WHAT CAN I SAY SOMETHING AS WELL? OKAY, THIS JUST CHANGES NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. THE IF THAT REZONING WAS DONE PEOPLE ARE LEGALLY NON CONFORMING. THIS JUST CHANGES WHAT MR. BREWER IS TALKING ABOUT IS A NOTICE

[00:50:04]

REQUIREMENT. IT'S CHANGING THE WAY NOTICE MUST BE DONE. THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE BILL IN REGARDS TO IF THE CITY IMMEDIATELY MAKES YOU CEASE THAT USE COMPENSATION. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. BREWER. CORRECT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CITY WAS TRYING TO DO. THEY WERE SAYING YOU CAN HAVE AN ILLEGAL, NONCONFORMING USE. ONCE THAT USE IS STOPS PER THE ORDINANCE, THEN YOU MUST CONFORM. THIS ITEM IS PARTICULARLY A NOTICE REQUIREMENT. I GUESS SO BACK TO MY QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS ABOUT THE NOTICE. YOU'RE NOTIFYING THEM THAT THEY ARE NOW NONCONFORMING, RIGHT? BUT EVEN IF YOU DON'T NOTIFY THEM, THEY ARE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING, CORRECT? CORRECT YEAH. THAT'S SCARY. SCARY THOUGHT. EXCUSE ME, MR. BROOKS. AND ATTORNEY. I DON'T MIND RECUSING MYSELF IF MISS BROOKS HAS FURTHER QUESTIONS, SO JUST LET THAT BE KNOWN, YEAH. I THINK IT'S ALL RUNNING TOGETHER, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN NOT HAVE ONE OF THESE, WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE CASE. IF WE'RE BEING ASKED TO RECONSIDER IT. THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE TO WHAT WE APPROVED. WELL, THIS DOESN'T AND THIS DOESN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. MRS. NO, NO, SIR. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF AT THIS TIME, MISS CAESAR. THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE TEXT. WE'RE YOU DON'T HAVE TO. MR. MISTER SMITH WILL LET YOU KNOW IF YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF. YOU DON'T NEED TO. I DON'T THINK YOU DO AT THIS POINT. YEAH, AND AS LONG AS WE STAY ON TOPIC, I DON'T THINK YOU DO. OKAY NO, LET ME LET ME JUST SAY LET ME ASK THIS, JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, SENATE BILL 929. MR. SMITH, YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR THE ONLY THING ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. AND IF WE NEED TO GO BACK TO F1, THAT'S FINE. BUT RIGHT NOW ON F2, THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED IS IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS GIVEN THE CITIZEN MORE PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED. YEAH. AND THIS IS ALREADY LAW. WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY UPDATES THEIR ORDINANCE OR NOT. THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW THIS, THESE STEPS. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO UPDATE THEIR ORDINANCE, THIS IS MORE STRICT THAN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CONFLICTS. AND I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK IT DOES. THIS CONTROLS STATE LAW IS GOING TO CONTROL. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN STATE LAW THAT AREN'T REGURGITATED IN A CITY'S ORDINANCE. SO WHETHER ACTIONS TAKEN ON THIS OR NOT, WHETHER Y'ALL DECIDE TO DO A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THIS OR NOT, THIS HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. THIS IS JUST A NOTICE REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST ESSENTIALLY MAKING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALREADY THAT 200FT REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? FOR NOTICE YOU MUST GIVE OF A PUBLIC HEARING OR A REZONING. THAT'S STATE LAW. IT'S ALSO REGURGITATED IN THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER WE WANT TO REGURGITATE THIS IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE AND HAVEN'T HEARD THAT. WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? IS IT BETTER SINCE IT IS STATE LAW? WE DO HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. IS IT BETTER TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT LANGUAGE MIMICKED IN THE LOCAL MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, OR TO SIMPLY JUST SAY, HEY, IT'S STATE LAW, YOU GOT TO FOLLOW IT ANYWAY. BUT WE DON'T REALLY PROVIDE NOTICE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, UNFORTUNATELY, MY OFFICE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ONLY HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS GOING TO BE AMENDED, AT THAT TIME, WITHOUT DOING A DEEP ANALYSIS IN MY OFFICE TO SEE WHAT IF ANY, THIS WOULD CONFLICT WITH, WE DID ADVISE, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T REGURGITATE ALL THIS. I THINK I AND THIS WAS ALSO WITH JOE. I WAS ONLY KIND OF IN A SIDE CONVERSATION, SO I MAY BE MISSPEAKING. I APOLOGIZE IF I AM. I BELIEVE HE DID ADVISE. WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THIS AMENDMENT, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE ALREADY HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. AND HE'S 100% CORRECT. STAFF WHO HAS TO ADMINISTER THIS EVERY DAY IS SAYING WHETHER IT'S FOR BREWER UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION OR THE FUTURE DIRECTOR, IT WOULD BE A GOOD, IDENTIFIABLE PIECE IN OUR TEXT SO THAT IT IS NOT MISSED BY SOMEBODY IN THE FUTURE WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THAT GOVERNMENT CODE BOOK UPDATED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. SO STAFF'S REQUESTING THIS DEFINITELY 100. AS I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT, EVERY REGULATION THAT IS IN THAT BOOK THAT CHAPTER IS NOT IN OUR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE. IT'S THOSE THINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO HELP US DO OUR JOBS. IS PART OF SOME OF THESE REGULATIONS WE PUT

[00:55:03]

IN THERE AND STAFF IS ASKING YOUR CONSIDERATION TO PUT THIS IN THERE, BECAUSE WE THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SEEN. BUT AGAIN, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION ON STAFF IS SAYING INITIATE OR NOT INITIATE. MISTER. MISS BROOKS, SO COULD THIS JUST BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE IF NO, IT HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO US FOR A VOTE NO TO INCLUDE IT. IF IT'S GOING TO BE A TEXT AMENDMENT, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE ONLY THREE WAYS TO CHANGE PROPERTY ZONING ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL, INITIATED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, OR PROPERTY OWNER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS ON THE COMMISSION , BUT WHEN WE HAD THE DRIVEWAY CONSIDERATION, WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU TO SEE IF YOU WANTED TO INITIATE THAT RESIDENT WANTING TO ADD DRIVEWAYS IN THERE FRONT WHEN THEY HAD A REAR YARD. YEAH. SO STAFF CAN'T AMEND THE TEXT. IT'S INITIATED BY YOUR BOARD, ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PROPERTY OWNER. ALL RIGHT. SO JUST JUST TO SUMMARIZE REAL QUICK, HERE'S WHERE WE ARE, MISTER SMITH AND MISTER BREWER BOTH BOTH, TELL US THAT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. REGARDLESS, THIS IS STATE LAW. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. HOWEVER EITHER MR. BREWER IS SAYING FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS ADMINISTRATION OR ANY FUTURE PLAN ADMINISTRATION, WHETHER WE'RE TEN, 20, 30 YEARS FROM NOW, HE IS ASKING FOR OUR CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE THIS PROCESS SO THAT HIS SUCCESSOR OR ANY FUTURE SUCCESSOR WON'T NECESSARILY MAKE A MISTAKE, BUT MAYBE NOT BEING AWARE OF THIS PROVISION AND BASICALLY HAVING TO REDO A PROCESS OR HAVING TO BE, REACTIVE INSTEAD OF NOW BEING PROACTIVE. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. SO IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION QUESTION? THERE'S A QUESTION, SO, MISTER RAVENEL, MISTER DEWBERRY, YOU'RE NEXT. I JUST HAD A QUESTION.

RELATIVE TO THE OCCUPANTS. YOU MENTIONED THAT ANY OCCUPANT WOULD NEED TO BE. AND MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS ON DCAD. YOU KNOW WHO THE HOMEOWNER IS, BUT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHO THE OCCUPANTS ARE, ARE AS WELL AS IF THERE IS A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING SITUATION APARTMENT OR SOMETHING THAT'S THERE. THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED. HOW ARE YOU THE PROCESS IN WHICH YOU GET TO KNOW ALL OF THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEND THOSE OUT TO? I WOULD JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, AND YOU 100% CORRECT THERE. AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO SHOW IT. THE LANGUAGE IS HERE AND MEANS IN CONJUNCTION EACH OCCUPANT OF THE PROPERTY CLEARLY WRITTEN. SO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IS THAT WE KNOW THE ADDRESS. WE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT THE CURRENT WATER BILLS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET AN ACCOUNT. I MEAN, GET ANY NAME AND IF WE CAN'T GET A NAME, IT'LL PROBABLY GO OUT AS RESIDENT IN THAT ADDRESS, BUT IT WILL BE SENT TO THAT, TO THAT LOCATION AND NOT IN A CONJUNCTION TO AN OFF SITE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT IT'S WRITTEN BREWERS NOT MAKING THIS UP. OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND EACH OCCUPANT OF THE PROPERTY. ALL MISTER BELL, MISTER DEWBERRY, YOU STILL HAVE A QUESTION? I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. MAYOR, MAKE A MOTION. OKAY, BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION, MISTER BELL, YOU'LL GET THE FINAL QUESTION.

OH, THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ONE. OKAY, SO, MISTER BELL, MISS CAESAR, AND THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR. SINCE THIS IS STATE LAW, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, REGARDLESS IF YOU MAKE THE TEXT AMENDMENT OR NOT, THIS MAIL WILL GO OUT TO THAT RESIDENCE AND THIS TEXT BLOCK WILL BE INCLUDED IN YOUR NOTICE. CORRECT. IF STAFF AT THAT TIME KNOWS THAT REGULATION. RIGHT? YES, SIR. ASSUMING IT'S YOUR ADMINISTRATION. YES, SIR.

ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR. OKAY. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU, MR. BREWER, A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. SENATE BILL 9 TO 9 AND SECTION TEN, IS THIS THE SAME THING? NO SECTION TEN, IN YOUR PACKAGES, I INCLUDED A SECTION TEN. IT WON'T BE ON YOUR DESK IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGES THAT WE MAILED TO YOU.

SECTION TEN. EACH ONE OF YOUR ZONING HAS A SECTION. SECTION TEN, YOU KNOW, DEALS WITH ALL THE CHANGES AND REGULATIONS. THESE WERE TAKEN FROM THE STATE STATUTE. IT TALKS ABOUT THE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT. ALSO SO WE AMENDED IT, EITHER

[01:00:09]

LAST YEAR OR YEAR BEFORE THAT EXTENDED IT FROM 300. THAT COUNCIL DID BEFORE TO 400. BUT THESE ARE THE REGULATIONS THAT STAFF ARE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW. AND THEN WHEN A RESIDENT OR BUSINESS OWNER WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE RESIDENT, LIKE TO KNOW THE REGULATIONS THEY WILL GO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND LOOK AT THE SUBDIVISION REGULATION OR THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WASN'T MAKING THE CONNECTION OKAY? YES, I WOULD, JUST PROVIDING YOU WHAT THE SECTION CURRENTLY LOOKED LIKE. SO YOU'D KNOW IT FROM, SEE IT FROM BEGINNING TO END. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MISS DEWBERRY, ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONCUR WITH. INITIATE THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION TEN TO MAKE THE VERBIAGE CONGRUENT WITH SENATE BILL 929. MOTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY MADE. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND IT'S BEEN MADE HAS BEEN MADE BY MR. DEWBERRY, BEEN SECONDED BY MR. BELL. IS THERE ANY UNREADINESS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY I. I THOSE OPPOSED DO THE SAME. SAY NAY. AYES HAVE

[3. Discuss and consider initiating the amendment of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 7 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Subsection 7.6 Restoration of Nonconforming Structures.]

IT. SIX ZERO. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER F THREE. ON THE AGENDA IT SAYS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER INITIATING THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION SEVEN NON-CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES. SUBSECTION 7.6 RESTORATION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. MISS BREWER, MAY WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? YES. THIS IS GOING TO BE A TAG TEAM APPROACH. OUR PLANNING MANAGER, MR. WILL BE UP TO TALK ABOUT HER STAFF'S, HER AND HER STAFF'S RESEARCH OF WHAT THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT NON-CONFORMING, I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER, I DID READ THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THAT SECTION, TO SEE IF I SAW ANY WORDING IN THERE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT SPATIALLY ESTABLISHED AT 60% THRESHOLD, AND I DID NOT SEE THAT. AND BESTER WILL TALK ABOUT HER ANALYSIS, WHICH SHOWS OTHER CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS.

SOME SAID 50. SOME WILL ALLOW YOU TO TOTALLY REBUILD IF THAT FIRE ELEMENT ESTABLISHED. BUT RIGHT NOW, OUR SECTION OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE HAS IT ESTABLISHED A 60. SO SINCE STAFF HEARD THAT A LOT DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT ZONING, WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT YOU CAN INITIATE OR NOT INITIATE. DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING AREAS, CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED BY PROPERTY OWNERS IN REFERENCE TO THEIR HOMES AND PROPERTIES BEING DESTROYED BY FIRE. THE ELEMENTS OF OTHER CAUSE, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS NOT BEING ABLE TO REBUILD. PER THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 7.6 RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE STATES. SECTION EIGHT IF A STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY A NON-CONFORMING USE IS DESTROYED BY FIRE, THE ELEMENTS OR OTHER CAUSE, IT MAY NOT BE REBUILT EXCEPT TO CONFORM TO THE PHYSICIAN'S PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. IN THE CASE OF PARTIAL DESTRUCTION OF A NON-CONFORMING USED STRUCTURE NOT EXCEEDING 60% OF ITS TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE, AS DETERMINED BY THE DALLAS COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE PERMITTED, BUT THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR FUNCTION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE CANNOT BE EXPANDED. AN AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN PLACED TONIGHT TO SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE 60% THRESHOLD NUMBER. I'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO BUSTER IN ORDER FOR HER TO GO OVER HER FINDINGS WITH YOU FROM THE 7 OR 8 CITIES THAT SHE RESEARCHED. THANK YOU. OKAY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SUMMARIZED TABLE THAT WE DO HAVE ALMOST LIKE EQUAL NUMBER OF CITIES THAT DO HAVE THE 60, SET OF DISORDER, SET OF, OF PLANO CITY OF CEDAR HILL, THOSE ARE THE THREE THAT ARE SAYING 60% OF THE PROPERTY VALUE. AND THEN WE DO HAVE FOUR CITIES THAT ARE SAYING 50% OF THE PROPERTY VALUE, WHICH IS CITY OF FERRIS, RED OAK, GRAND PRAIRIE AND LANCASTER. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE TWO CITIES THAT ARE SAYING, AS LONG AS, YOU COMMENCE THE COMMENCING IN 12 MONTHS, YOU CAN BUILD TO THE STANDARDS WHICH WE WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY ON THE PROPERTY, SAY IF IT WAS SF TEN AND WITHIN 12 MONTHS, YOU YOU BUILD YOUR YOUR STRUCTURE ACCORDING TO SF TEN, NO PROBLEMS . IT ONLY BECOMES A PROBLEM AFTER 12 MONTHS AND NOTHING HAS STARTED HAPPENING ON YOUR PROPERTY. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE OPTIONS 60, WHICH IS CURRENTLY WHAT WE DO HAVE 50 OR 12 MONTHS

[01:05:04]

TO COMMENCE. THE CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU, MISS MUNYARADZI, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I SEE MISS CESAR. AND THEN MR. RAVENEL, MR. BREWER, YOU MADE MENTION OF, RE BUILDING, BUT NOT EXPANDING. YES, THAT'S WHAT OUR REGULATIONS. ESTABLISH, THE VERY LAST SENTENCE OR NEXT TO LAST. BUT THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE IF YOUR HOUSE HAD A, 3000 SQUARE FOOT PAD. ADD THE EXISTING SQUARE. FOOTAGE OF THE NONCONFORMING USE CANNOT BE EXPANDED, AND YOU CANNOT COME NOW, BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE. YES OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. RAVENEL? YES. IN OUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, ARE WE ABLE TO LOOK AT INCREASING THAT OR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE 60, LET'S SAY, TO 75, OR ARE MOVING IT TO BEING ABLE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED WITHIN 12 MONTHS, OR A COMBINATION, WHAT EXACTLY? HOW CAN WE LOOK AT THIS THIS EVENING? YOU HIT IT. EXACTLY. COMMISSIONER THE REGULATIONS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT I READ DID NOT ESTABLISH A THRESHOLD. IT DID NOT ESTABLISH A NUMBER OF MONTHS OR YEARS TO DO FOLLOWED OTHER CITIES. IT APPEARS THAT CITIES REGULATE THEIR NONCONFORMING DEFINITIONS. AND SO WE'RE SHOWING THAT IF THE CONCERN. IS IF A FIRE OR DISASTER WHICH WE'RE WHICH WHICH WE'RE ESTABLISHING TAKES AWAY A PERSON'S HOME, THERE ARE TWO CITIES THAT SAYS YOU CAN REBUILD WITHIN THAT 12 MONTH TIME PERIOD. I HAVEN'T DONE ANY ANALYSIS OF IT, BUT I WILL WHEN BEST TO SHARE THAT WITH ME. IT KIND OF MADE SENSE TO ME. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A WIDE OPEN BECAUSE THEY COULD LEAVE THAT BURNT HOME THERE FOREVER. YEAH, BUT THEY MAY NEED TIME TO DEAL WITH THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY TO DEAL WITH THEIR CONTRACTORS. I'M MAKING AN ASSUMPTION HERE, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY THE CONSISTENCY OF 12 MONTHS, THOSE CITIES FELT WERE A FAIR TIME FRAME, BUT IT COULD BE LESS. IT COULD BE MORE. WE CREATE THE TEXT AMENDMENT THROUGH YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL'S ACTION. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY SECOND QUESTION TO MISS BESTER. IF YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS TO SEE WHY THEY CHOSE 12 MONTHS, IS THAT DID THEY? IF ANYONE GAVE YOU AN INDICATION, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S ENOUGH TIME TO DEAL WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES TO GET REPAYMENT SO THAT THEY CAN BEGIN REBUILDING OR. NO, NOTHING WAS SAID TO ME. MOST OF IT WAS THROUGH TEXT. BUT HOWEVER, A CITY LIKE PLANO, THEY ACTUALLY HAD IT AT 75. BUT FOR SOME REASON THEY DECIDED TO COME DOWN TO 60. SO SO IF WE WERE TO ASK ME, IT WILL BE MORE FOR THE 12 MONTHS IS MORE OF YOU DON'T WANT THAT SIDE TO BE AN EYESORE FOR MORE THAN YOU KNOW FOR A WHOLE YEAR. AND THEN PLUS SO BUT A LOT OF THEY, THEY DIDN'T HAVE HISTORY AS TO WHY THEY, THEY DECIDED THE 60, 50, THE 12 MONTHS, NONE OF THEM, MOST OF THEM, OF COURSE, IS MAY BE NEW STUFF AND STUFF. BUT WITH PLANO, SINCE I WORKED THERE BEFORE, I TRIED TO GET INTO IT, BUT THEY DIDN'T STILL HAVE. IT HAPPENED 2015 WHEN THEY CHANGED IT FROM 75 TO, TO 60, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR REASON WHY IT WAS CHANGED. THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR YOU, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MANY OF THE CITIZENS RAISED WHEN THEY CAME INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES DID YOU CONTINUE TO WAS THERE CONCERN THAT 60% WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH OR A BIG ENOUGH THRESHOLD FOR THEM, OR THEY JUST THEY JUST WERE AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR HOME, THE ABILITY TO LIVE IN THEIR HOME. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT. THERE WASN'T MUCH TALK ABOUT 60. IT WAS THIS THE IDEA OF BECOMING NON-CONFORMING. IT WAS JUST BEING NON BEING TOLD THAT YOU ARE NOW NON-CONFORMING, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE LEGAL. BUT NON-CONFORMING WAS JUST, A WORD THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR. MISS BROOKS, DO ANY OF THESE CITIES DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES AS COMMENCE? I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE TO DO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF RECONSTRUCTION OR JUST START THE RECONSTRUCTION? WELL AT LEAST START COMMENCE, JUST LIKE THE

[01:10:07]

MEANING OF THE WORD COMMENCE, WHICH JUST BEGIN. AT LEAST SHOW THAT THERE IS ACTIVITY WITHIN 12 MONTHS. OKAY? YEAH AND THERE'S NO DEADLINE ON WHEN IT HAS TO BE COMPLETE. IF THEY START WITHIN 12 MONTHS. NO, THEY THEY THEY ISN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE A DEADLINE, BUT AT LEAST THEY EAT SOMETHING ELSE TO START. OKAY. LET ME LET ME ADD SOMETHING HERE IN THE CITY OF DESOTO THROUGH OUR BUILDING INSPECTION OFFICE, OUR BUILDING PERMITS, ONCE THEY ISSUE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CALL FOR INSPECTION WITHIN A SIX MONTH PERIOD. BUT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY DEFINABLE SAYING IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT DONE BY A YEAR, YOU COMPLETED IT. AS LONG AS YOU'RE CALLING IN TO HAVE DIFFERENT PHASES INSPECTED, IT WILL CONTINUE. SO IF THEY HAVE NO CALL FOR INSPECTIONS AFTER SIX MONTHS, THEN THAT PERMIT HERE WILL BECOME VOID. AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER, IF THEY DON'T MEET THE 12 MONTHS, IT'S JUST NONCONFORMING AND IT FALLS BACK TO THE NONCONFORMING USE AGAIN.

I DIDN'T DO THE RESEARCH, BUT I WOULD INTERPRET THEY COULDN'T REBUILD. YEAH, AT LEAST THEY COULDN'T REBUILD TO THE STANDARDS. SAY IF IT WAS SF EIGHT AND YOU ARE NOW NONCONFORMING AND YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING IN 12 MONTHS, THEN YOU CANNOT JUST GO BACK AND BUILD IT AS SF EIGHT. YOU NOW HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW STANDARDS. OKAY. SO IT WOULD DEFAULT BACK TO THE 60% TO THE NEW STANDARDS, WHATEVER THEY GOT IT TO THE NEW STANDARDS. YEAH.

BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THE NEW REGULATIONS DID NOT ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY IN SOME OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. BUT IF THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY THERE NOW THAT'S ALREADY NON-CONFORMING, THAT IF THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE A CATASTROPHIC EVENT AND THAT DISTRICT SAID THEY CAN'T BE A SINGLE FAMILY, THEY COULDN'T REBUILD, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO BUILD TO WHATEVER THAT NEW STANDARD IS. OKAY, SO TO COMMISSIONER RAVENEL, WE WILL BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON WHICH OF THESE PERCENTAGES OR THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND. YES. WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU. WE'RE TONIGHT IS ACTUALLY ASKING YOU TO INITIATE THE PROCESS. OKAY TO CONSIDER IT AND WOULD BRING YOU BACK, YOU KNOW, THE WE'D HAVE TO SET UP THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SEND OUT A NOTICE, YOU KNOW, TO RECONSIDER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE READY TONIGHT WITH THIS SHORT CONVERSATION ON TO GIVE US A NUMBER. YOU KNOW, YOU MAY TELL US, YOU KNOW, PUT IT BACK ON THE NEXT AGENDA SO WE CAN REALLY DISSECT IT. MORE TO COME UP WITH SOME NUMBERS. STAFF MAY NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK WITH THE WORD, COMMENCE MEETINGS WITH THE OTHER CITIES. YEAH AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO BY THOSE.

YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT ANOTHER CITY IN THE FUTURE WILL GO BY. DESOTO REGULATIONS.

YEAH. I JUST I KNOW AFTER HEARING THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT BECOMING NONCONFORMING FROM AN ACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY, ANY CONTROL OVER FIRE OR SOME OTHER ACT OF DESTRUCTION, I THINK THIS WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE TO OUR CITIZENS. RECONSTRUCTION COMMENCING WITHIN 12 MONTHS. AND THEY CAN BUILD EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD. AND THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU. YOU SAY WE SAW AND HEARD SOME THINGS THAT WE THINK WE CAN ALREADY START, NOT WAIT FOR MONTHS FROM NOW, BUT SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE COULD BE PUT IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. YEAH, BUT STAFF CAN'T INITIATE IT. EVEN THOUGH WE INITIATED BRINGING IT TO YOU. YOU HAVE TO FORMALLY INITIATE IT. THAT IS A, TEXT AMENDMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER. OKAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. BELL, GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT SOME CLARITY ON THE NONCONFORMING PIECE. THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY WILL ALREADY BE IN A NONCONFORMING STATUS. THEY JUST WILL BE GRANDFATHERED INTO THE LOCATION THAT THEY WERE ALREADY IN. RIGHT? THEN IF SOMETHING CATASTROPHIC HAPPENS, IF IT'S MORE THAN 60% OF DESTRUCTION OF THAT PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, CHANGE TO THE NEW REGULATION , BUT THEY'LL ALREADY BE NONCONFORMING, RIGHT? IF THEY ARE NONCONFORMING, IF THEY DETERMINE THAT. RIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY YEAH. THE ORDINANCE THAT TEXT IS ALREADY WRITTEN THAT ESTABLISHES, THAT SIX MONTHS ABANDONMENT AND WHAT WE USE, WITH CITIES THAT I WORK WITH, WE JUST KIND OF CHECK TO SEE IF THE WATER BILL, HAS BEEN ACTIVE. WE SAY IF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, IF THEY HAVEN'T HAD WATER FOR SIX MONTHS, THEN THEY ARE NOT, IT'S NOT INHABITANT PLACE. SO SOME ASSUMPTIONS ARE MADE, YOU KNOW. YES, THAT IS UNDERSTO, SO, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST GIVE MY OPINION, THIS IS ONLY DIRECTED AT THE HAMPTON STREET CORRIDOR, AND SO IF WE MAKE A CHANGE HERE. NO NO NO NO.

[01:15:05]

RIGHT. NO, NO NO, SIR. NO, THIS IS ACROSS THE BOARD. THE LANGUAGE SAYS NEW HAMPTON ROAD.

OR MAYBE I, I MISREAD IT, SO THIS WOULD BE FOR THE WHOLE CITY. WE WOULD BE CHANGING THIS FOR THAT SECTION OF THE CODE. YES, SIR. I SEE, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVING MY OPINION. I THINK WE COULD INITIATE JUST BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD USE AN ADDITION THAT SAYS THAT, THE RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT I OVERALL THINK THIS IS A FAIR ORDINANCE. AND IF WE DID NOT HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN PLACE, AND YOU KNOW, THE CITY WANTED TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF AN AREA, I UNDERSTAND THE PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNS, BUT THE CITY WOULD NEVER CHANGE IF WE JUST GAVE IN TO THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO UPDATE THEIR PROPERTY. TO MEET THE NEW CODE THAT WE'VE CHANGED. SO THAT IS MY OPINION. I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY INITIATE THIS CHANGE TO ADD SOME MORE LANGUAGE, CLEAN IT UP, AND MAKE IT CLEARER. BUT OVERALL, I THINK IT'S A FAIR ORDINANCE. THANK YOU ALL RIGHT COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR. RAVENEL? GO AHEAD. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD INITIATE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS. I'M NOT SURE WHICH IS BETTER TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OR TO GIVE THE, CITIZENS A AMOUNT OF TIME IN ORDER TO REBUILD. BUT I DO I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER INITIATING DISCUSSION AND MAYBE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE PERCENTAGES OVER TIME AND VARIOUS THINGS LIKE THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN, MISS DEWBERRY, MY ISSUE WITH RECONSTRUCTION COMMENCING 12 MONTHS IS IF BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY, IT GOES TO LITIGATION. THAT COULD PUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY COULD KEEP IT TIED UP IN LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. AND THEN IT'S GONE. I THINK THE 60, ALONG WITH THE INSPECTION INTERVAL OF EVERY SIX MONTHS, IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO GO. THAT'S MY FEELING AT THIS TIME. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I STAND. MISS BROOKS, I THINK CLEARLY IN RESPONSE TO WHAT I HEARD AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MOVING THIS TO, ALLOWING CITIZENS TO RECONSTRUCT THE HOME THEY LIVE IN WITHIN 12 MONTHS BEFORE THEY'RE CONSIDERED, NOT BEFORE THEY'RE FORCED TO ONLY DO 60% OR WHATEVER. SO I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MOVING THE RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE FOLLOWING, TWO OF OUR CITIES IN THE AREA. BALCH SPRINGS AND DUNCANVILLE. AS MR. JUBAYR REQUESTED. OKAY. YES, SIR. MR. DEWBERRY, WOULD YOU GIVE ME JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT, TO THE 60% PLUS THE BUILDING INTERVALS? EXACTLY WHAT WHAT WERE YOU SUGGESTING ON THAT? WELL, IT'S LIKE MR. BREWER SAID EARLIER, ONCE YOU APPLY FOR A PERMIT, YOU'RE UNDER A SIX MONTH INTERVAL TO HAVE INSPECTIONS DONE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN INSPECTION, YOU DON'T CALL FOR AN INSPECTION UNTIL, SAY, THE SEVENTH MONTH. YOU'RE YOUR PERMIT HAS ALREADY BEEN VOID FOR A FULL MONTH. SO THE INSPECTION PROCESS WOULD KEEP THAT MOVING FORWARD. THE 12 MONTHS, IF THERE'S LITIGATION, THEN THOSE PEOPLE MAY LOSE EVERYTHING THEY OWN BECAUSE AFTER THAT 12 MONTHS IS GONE, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING. IF IT STAYS TIED UP IN LITIGATION THAT LONG. BUT THERE AGAIN, THAT'S AN IF. BUT I THINK THE 60% IS FAIR. AND I THINK THE PERMIT PROCESS AND THE INSPECTION PROCESS WILL KEEP THE PROJECT MOVING ALONG. MR. MISTER BREWER, SO PRESENTLY AT 60, IF A PROPERTY IS DESTROYED AT 60% OR LESS, THEY CAN JUST START REBUILDING OR AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME PERIOD. THERE'S NO TIME PARAMETER WHEN THEY HAVE TO RE INITIATE THE BUILDING OF THAT PRERTY. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. WE DON'T HAVE A TIME FRAME ON NONCONFORMING, SO BASICALLY RIGHT NOW IF A BUILDING IS AT 60, IT COULD SIT THERE FOR THREE YEARS AND NOT BE

[01:20:08]

REBUILT. IT BECOMES AN EYESORE. WELL, PROBABLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE MY BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD HAVE PROBABLY TAKEN ACTION WITH THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION AND LOOKED AT ESTABLISHING THAT DWELLING AS, A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S AN INHABITABLE. AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT? AN INHABITABLE AND INHABITABLE. BUT MISTER SAID THAT AGAIN. PLEASE NO. WHAT WHAT WHAT DO YOU. YES, I WAS JUST AGREEING WITH WHAT MR. BREWER WAS THINKING. OKAY, OKAY, BUT MY QUESTION IS, WE COULD INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE AND ADD A TIME FRAME IN THIS TEXT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS CONCERNS? ALL RIGHT. CLEAR AS MUD. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, MR. CAESAR, MR. RAVENEL, WOULD YOU CONSIDER OR WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE SINCE THIS WAS BASICALLY YOUR QUESTION OF, CONCERN, IT REALLY WASN'T A CONCERN OF MINE. I WAS MORE CONCERNED FOR THE CITIZENS BECAUSE. SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO. AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED MISS BESTER. WERE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT THE 60? SHE SAID NO, IT WAS JUST THE MATTER OF BEING ABLE TO REBUILD THE HOME. SO IF I TAKE WHAT SHE SAID, WHAT I'M HEARING, I MAY BE MORE PRONE TO ALLOW THEM TO REBUILD REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S TOTALLY DESTROYED, BUT THEY HAVE TO START WITHIN 12 MONTHS. THAT MAY BE THE DIRECTION I WOULD GO, BUT I ALSO SEE THE ADVANTAGE OF A COMBINATION AS WELL, INCREASING THAT THRESHOLD AS WELL. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING TO NOW, BRINGING UP YOUR SECOND POINT, CAN YOU THINK ABOUT AND PROPOSE A TIME FRAME WHEN THIS SHOULD COMMENCE? I THINK A YEAR I STILL FEEL LIKE A YEAR IS ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM TO COMMIT. BUT THEN WHEN MR. DEWBERRY BRINGS UP THE POINT, IF IT DOES BECOME INVOLVED IN LITIGATION WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THEN SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MEANS BY WHICH TO START SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY NEED THE MONEY FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY. SO THEN THAT GAVE ME A LITTLE THAT GAVE ME PAUSE TOO. AND IT'S JUST IT'S A IT'S A HARD DECISION TO MAKE. BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TREATING OUR CITIZENS PROPERLY. I WOULD PROBABLY BE IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE AND, BUT ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE START. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE EYESORE THERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AS WELL. I AGREE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE PERCENTAGE AND ADDING A START TIME, MR. CHAIR, AND COMMISSION, MR. BILL, MAY I ASK WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU HAVE IN MIND? I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE 60, BUT I COULD ALSO GO WITH AN INCREASE TO SATISFY MR. RAVENEL'S, DESIRE TO, PLEASE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, OUR CITIZENS. I DON'T MEAN TO BE FUNNY, BUT MR. RAVENEL IS OKAY WITH 60. I JUST WOULD WANT TO MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE TO THE CITIZENS. I THINK THE NUMBER THAT CAME TO ME WHEN I WAS READING THIS TODAY AND THINKING ABOUT MR. BELL WAS 75. THAT'S THAT'S JUST WHAT CAME TO ME WITH 75. IF WE WENT ONE WAY, IF WE WERE TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE, I WOULD HAVE GONE WITH 75. BUT IF WE WENT WITH THE ONE YEAR, I'M GOOD WITH ONE YEAR, OKAY, AGAIN, I THINK THAT 60% IS FAIR.

PERSONALLY I AGREE WITH MR. DEWBERRY, AGAIN, HE GAVE ME A CONSIDERATION THAT I HADN'T CONSIDERED, WHICH WAS THE FACT THAT LITIGATION COULD HOLD UP THE FUNDS TO, START THE RECONSTRUCTION, AND THAT COULD BE A CONCERN TO ME, IN MY MIND, 60% IS JUST AS GOOD AS A TOTAL LOSS. I DON'T THINK ADDING AN EXTRA 15% TO THAT MAKES MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE, OTHER THAN GIVING PERHAPS THEY THE PROPERTY OWNER, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO REBUILD ON THAT LAND. BUT IN, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND, IF A TORNADO CAME THROUGH AND HIT,

[01:25:04]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 60 AND 75% IS NEGLIGIBLE. I MEAN, IT'LL PROBABLY BE A TOTAL LOSS.

ACCORDING TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY REGARDLESS, SO WE'D JUST BE TALKING KIND OF SEMANTICS ON NUMBERS, AT THAT POINT. SO, ANOTHER THING I THINK THAT WE COULD CONSIDER IS PERHAPS, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT ON THE COMMENCEMENT. AND I BELIEVE THAT AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT STARTS THAT THEPERMIT PROCESS WOULD KEEP THE PROCESS GOING. SO IN AN EFFORT TO KIND OF GIVE THE HOMEOWNER MORE RUNWAY, MAYBE WE COULD ADD TIME TO THE COMMENCEMENT DATE. SO INSTEAD OF 12 MONTHS, MAYBE 16 MONTHS, MAYBE 24 MONTHS, BUT 60, 18 MONTHS OR 24 MONTHS, I THINK WOULD BE IDEAL IN THE MOST FAIR WAY TO PROCEED. JUST MY OPINION. THANK YOU. OKAY ANY OTHER COMMENTARY, MISS SMITH? LET ME LET ME ASK YOU JUST A QUICK QUESTION. AS IT RELATES TO WHAT BARK SPRINGS AND DUNCANVILLE IS DOING, THE RECONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF DESTRUCTION AND TAKING IN MR. DEWBERRY'S CONCERN, INTO CONSIDERATION, IS THERE SOME ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE THAT YOU COULD THINK OF THAT WOULD GIVE THE HOMEOWNER SOME PROTECTION? LIKE, BASICALLY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LAWSUIT GOING ON, THEN WE NEED YOU TO GET THIS STARTED IN 12 MONTHS. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE ENGAGED IN LITIGATION, THEN MAYBE THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE THAT COULD PROTECT THE PERSON WHILE THE LITIGATION IS ONGOING. YEAH. YOU COULD YOU COULD PUT IT IN EXCLUSION, IF THERE'S A PENDING CIVIL CASE, THIS IS EXTENDED UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THAT CASE OR SOMETHING LIKE, I MEAN, YEAH, YOU COULD YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. SO THEN YOU COULD LEAVE IT AT WHATEVER AMOUNT OF MONTHS AND JUST PUT THAT EXCLUSION IN THERE WHERE IT WOULDN'T APPLY. IF YOU HAVE A PENDING LITIGATION, YEAH. YOU COULD DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CONCERNS OR COMMENTS? OKAY ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IS THERE A MOTION? MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE INITIATE THE CONVERSATION OF CONSIDERATION OF MAKING THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR, FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. OKAY OKAY. THAT'S THE MOTION TO INITIATE THE CONSIDERATION. DO WE HAVE TO GIVE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION TODAY OR WE JUST INITIATING THE CONVERSATION. SO WE'RE JUST INITIATING THE CONVERSATION OKAY. OH AFTER ALL THAT DISCUSSION I THOUGHT WE WERE READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. WELL NO OKAY. SO NO. SO BASICALLY NARROW. SO YEAH. SO MR. BILL AND, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. STAFF SO WE'RE JUST INITIATING THE CONVERSATION. SO MR. BELL HAS PROPERLY MADE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND TO HIS MOTION TO INITIATE THE CONVERSATION? MISS CAESAR IS SECONDED THAT MOTION. OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, MISS BELL, YOU HAVE SOME UNREADINESS. I MEAN, NOT MISS BELL, MISS BROOKS. SORRY. I'M. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

SHE LIKE, YOU KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. NO, NO, NO, MISS BROOKS, SORRY ABOUT THAT. GO AHEAD, MISS BESTER, MR. BREWER, HEARING THE, INCREASE OF THE PERCENTAGE, IN YOUR OPINION, DOES THAT SATISFY THE CONCERNS? AM I CROSSING OVER, MR. SMITH? DOES THAT SATISFY THE CONCERNS THAT OUR CITIZENS HAD ABOUT THE 60? INITIALLY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN RESPOND TO THAT. HONESTLY, I THINK THEY'RE JUST RECONSTRUCTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS WOULD CLEAR A LOT OF MINDS FROM WHAT? THE 60. I MEAN, TO JUST SAY YOU YOU CAN BUILD, REBUILD WITHIN 12 MONTHS, I THINK, FROM, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE MEETINGS AND HEARING PEOPLE TALKING, I THINK IT WILL SHIFT SOME BURDEN. BUT ONCE WE START PUTTING ANOTHER NUMBER AND THAT WILL SOMEONE WILL JUST STILL FEEL LIKE I'M STILL BURDENED. YEAH, YEAH, I COMPLETELY AGREE. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE RESPONDING TO THE CITIZENS CONCERN. WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT, THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY PERCENTAGE. THEY WANT THE ABILITY TO REBUILD THEIR STRUCTURE AS IT WAS WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, ANY ISSUES. SO, MISS BREWER, I'M IN LINE WITH YOU ON THAT AS WELL. SO DO YOU THINK 12 MONTHS, I MEAN. WELL, YEAH. WELL, WE GIVE HER, WE GIVE HER ALL KIND OF NAMES TONIGHT. I'M SORRY, MISS BROOKS, I'M IN LINE WITH MY HUSBAND. YES, YES, YES. MR. BROOKS, IF YOU'RE WATCHING, WE'RE SORRY HE'S NOT WATCHING. AND WHAT ABOUT. AND WHAT ABOUT MY WIFE? I CAN'T GO HOME NOW.

OH, YEAH? AND MISS BROOKS, MISS BREWER WAS HARD TO USE AS WELL. GO AHEAD. YEAH. YES, MISS BELL?

[01:30:03]

MISS? YES YES, ONE OF THOSE BEES? YES. NO. I MEAN, I'M I'M ALIGNED WITH YOUR THINKING. DO YOU THINK 12 MONTHS IS GOOD? I DO, I THINK IT WILL SHOW THAT WE'VE LISTENED TO THE CITIZENS, AND WE CAME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S MORE PALATABLE TO, THEIR CONCERNS. WHAT ABOUT, HAVING THE LANGUAGE ADDED? IF CORRE. CITIZEN IS IN LITIGATION, WE THEY CAN EXTEND THAT TIME TO FOUR ADDITIONAL MONTHS OR 16 MONTHS. DO YOU THINK THAT IS? YES OKAY. OKAY. I HOPE WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND ALSO THE FACT THAT THIS IS JUST NOT FOR HAMPTON. IT'S FOR THE WHOLE CITY. WELL I MEAN, I'VE HAD A HOUSE DESTROYED AND SET IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FOUR YEARS, SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO SAY COMMENCE THE RECONSTRUCTION IN ONE YEAR AND NOT JUST DRAG IT OUT, INDEFINITELY. BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE THEM SOME TIME TO DO ALL THE LEGAL THINGS THEY NEED TO DO WITH THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY IF THEY HAVE INSURANCE. BUT AGAIN, WHEN SHE SAYS COMMENCE IS NOT DEFINED, THAT CAN BE VERY MINIMAL, THINGS TO CLEAN UP STARTS OR SOMETHING HAS TO START TAKE PLACE. MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? THIS IS JUST. IS THAT HOME IN DESOTO THAT HAS SIT THERE FOR FOUR YEARS? WELL, AND THAT'S BEEN YEARS AGO. PROBABLY TEN YEARS AGO. OKAY. YES. AND THE ONLY REASON I'M ASKING THAT, BECAUSE IF WE'RE BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SAID IT WOULD BE DEEMED INHABITABLE. SO SOMETHING WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE. I WOULD ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DID SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT SOMETHING IS I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE A HOME SITTING NEXT TO ME THAT'S DESTROYED FOR 2 OR 3 YEARS. YOU KNOW? AND I THINK THAT COULD CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR OUR CITIZENS IF THEY THINK A HOME CAN SIT NEXT TO THEM FOR YEARS, YEARS, YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO GO HOME TO LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER YOU DEFINITELY TAKE ANOTHER ROUTE TO AVOID SEEING IT . YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO, COMMISSIONERS, TO BRING US FULL CIRCLE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, MR. BELL HAS MADE A MOTION TO INITIATE THE CONVERSATION. NO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, BUT JUST TO INITIATE THE CONVERSATION, I WILL MAKE THAT CLEAR. MISS CAESAR HAS SECONDED THAT MOTION.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR ANY UNREADINESS ON THAT MOTION? OKAY. HEARING AND SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SAY I, I THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT SIX ZERO. WE'LL MOVE ON NOW. SO WOULD YOU LIKE THIS ON YOUR NEXT AGENDA IN JUNE OR JULY OR AUGUST OR SO. SO BASICALLY, MR. BELL, LET'S JUST GO DOWN THE ROAD. MR. BELL, WHEN DO YOU WANT TO SEE THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA, NEXT MEETING WOULD BE FINE FOR ME, MISS CAESAR. MR. MR. RAVENEL, MISS BROOKS, YOUR NEXT MEETING IS MISS DEWBERRY. JUNE,

[4. Discuss the City's Zoning Ordinance in reference to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).]

PLEASE. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

DISCUSS THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE AND REFERENCE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. ADU'S MR. BREWER, MAY WE HAVE OUR STAFF REPORT, PLEASE? COMMISSION. THIS IS DISCUSSION ONLY. WE'RE NOT REQUESTING YOU TO INITIATE IT BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY THINKING THIS IS GOING TO NEED A LOT MORE DISCUSSION ON IT. BUT INITIATING THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER ZONE AREA CONCERNS ARE EXPRESSED CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. ADUS, SECTION 40.3 OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY STATES ACCESSORY BUILDINGS UNITS IN THE A, WHICH STANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND LET ME ALSO ADD THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR AN AGRICULTURAL LOT IS THREE ACRES IN THE SFS, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY COUNTRY ESTATES WHERE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 43,560 OR 1 ACRE, AND THE SINGLE FAMILY E, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY ESTATES, WHICH ALSO HAS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 43,560FT■S, OR ONE ACRE DISTRICTS, SHALL BE ALLOWED AS AN INCIDENTAL RESIDENTIAL USE OF A BUILDING ON THE SAME LOT AS THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT, AND USED BY THE SAME PERSON OR PERSONS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY, AND MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS. NUMBER ONE, THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE REAR OF THE MAIN BUILDING, SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN DWELLING. NUMBER TWO. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ONLY WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE MAIN STRUCTURE. NUMBER THREE. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT MAY NOT BE SOLD SEPARATELY FROM SALE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT, AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBLET OUT. NUMBER FOUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE. NUMBER FIVE ACCESSORY

[01:35:03]

DWELLINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT THE MAIN OR PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THE NEXT SECTION IS CURRENTLY SECTION 40.4 OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE STATES. ACCESSORY DWELLINGS AND UNITS CONSTRUCTED OVER A GARAGE ARE PERMITTED BY A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USE CHARTS, SECTION 36, AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE HEIGHTS LIMITATIONS OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. WHAT SECTION 36 IS THE CHART THAT HAS THE X'S AND THE BLANKS AND THE S. THESE TWO SECTIONS ARE JUST SHOWN GRAPHICALLY IN THAT SECTION. WHEN YOU GO THERE, IT YOU LOOK AT THE EXCEL TAB. IT STARTS OUT AT THE VERY TOP LETTER A, A THE LARGEST DISTRICT WOULD BE THE SFC, C, E, S, F, E, THEN SINGLE FAMILY 20 AND GOES DOWN. WHAT THE CHART SHOWS IS THAT FOR A S F C E S F E, IT IS A USE BY RIGHT. AND I HAVE TO MAKE THE STRONG ASSUMPTION THAT THAT CONSIDERATION IS BECAUSE OF HOW LARGE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS. AGAIN A AGRICULTURAL PLATTED LOT, NOT PLATTED, AN AGRICULTURAL LOT IS THREE ACRES AND SF C AND SF E ARE MINIMUMS OF ONE ACRE IN SIZE. THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE ADDITIONAL SF 20 SF, EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND. SO BE SURE I'M TELLING YOU CORRECTLY. WHAT ARE THOSE AGAIN? 15, 12 AND TEN. YES. 2015 1012. REALIZING EACH ONE OF THOSE NUMBERS, DESIGNATE THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT SF 20 20,000FT■S SF 15 15,000FT■S SF 2 12,000FT■S AND THE SMALLEST ONE WHERE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT COULD BE ALLOWED. IF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING WAS GOING TO GO ON TOP OF A GARAGE, WOULD BE SF TEN, BUT 10,000FT■S IN THE CITY'S NEW HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE ZONING REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 7TH, 2024. SECTION 2.2.1 USE TABLE INTERPRETATION AND SECTION 2.22 PERMITTED USE TABLE STATES ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE ALLOWED WITH APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR AND SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS IN THESE TWO ZONING DISTRICTS. ONLY IN THIS HAMPTON ROAD URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, UN AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION NT ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER ZONE AREA, THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN PLACED, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. THIS ITEM IS FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. THANK YOU, MR. BROOKS, COMMISSIONERS, MR. BELL, I SEE YOUR HAND. GO, GO FOR IT.

SO IN THE NEW CHARACTER CODE, THERE'S NO LIMIT ON LOT SIZE WITH RESPECT TO ADUS, RIGHT? OR AM I MISTAKEN ON THAT? WELL. MAY YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE. IN THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR, THE PROPERTIES IN THERE, LIKE FOR THE REST OF THE CITY, THE, ADUS HAVE TO BE ON LOTS IN A SFS OR SF, RIGHT? AND THE HAMPTON ZONE, THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR. THERE WILL BE NO LIMIT ON LOT SIZE AS IT RELATES TO THE ADU. YOU CAN PUT IT ON ANYTHING YOU DOESN'T SPECIFY. I DON'T THINK IT DOES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE MAP ITSELF, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GOLD COLORED REGIONS AND YOU SEE SOME ARE LARGE LOTS, SOME ARE SMALL LOTS. AND THESE ARE THE PARTICULAR LOTS THAT RESIDENTS CAME AND VOICED CONCERNED ON THAT. WE'RE OPENING UP RIGHT NOW FOR TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLINGS IN AN AREA THAT IS NOT AT LEAST AN ACRE IN SIZE. YEAH THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE MY QUESTION IS GOING. IT'S SMALLER THAN THE CURRENT STANDARD. PEOPLE COULD PUT AN ADU ON THERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MISS CESAR? YES, BUT IT'S RESTRICTED TO, THE UN AND THE TRANSITION URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE TRANSITION

[01:40:06]

AREAS. CORRECT CORRECT. THOSE FEW DISTRICTS, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS THE GOAL, AND THE ORANGE, WHICH IS URBAN TRANSITION. URBAN TRANSITION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IS IT, MR. BRUNO. THE SAME THING HERE. WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE IS GOING TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CITY. OR ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT THE ADUS FOR HAMPTON CORRIDOR? WELL, RIGHT NOW WE DO HAVE IT IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS. AS I WAS INDICATING FIRST, THE FIRST ONE IS 40.3 AND POINT AND 40.4, AND IT IS ESTABLISHED NEWLY IN THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE IN 2.2.1. SO IT APPEARS TO BE DIFFERENT. THE ZONING DISTRICTS. OKAY, SO IF THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION DACIAN NOT TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, COULD THAT BE MADE OR. YES, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER ZOOD ZONE TEXT DEALING WITH UN AND NT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, CORRECT? YES. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT CHART WILL HAVE IT REMOVED. OKAY. SO IN RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BECAUSE THE LOT SIZES FOR THESE HOMES, TOWN HOMES AND THINGS ARE GOING TO BE MUCH SMALLER AND PERHAPS IT DOES BECOME A LITTLE BIT MORE UNSIGHTLY IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF DO WE CONSIDER JUST NOT MAKING THEM. IT'S NOT LEGAL TO HAVE ONE THERE OR. OR WHAT? OR DO WE RESTRICT JUST THE SIZE BECAUSE IT DID HAVE DIFFERENT SIZE THAT YOU HAVE TO CONFORM TO CORRECT. I THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME DIDN'T HAVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT BUILDING SIZES LIKE 200FT■S OR SOMETHING. I THOUGHT YOU SAID I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING I READ IT, YEAH. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.

MR. RULE. DO WE KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS? THE URBAN TRANSITION OR THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD? APPROXIMATELY OR THEY VARIED. I THINK WE'RE SAYING THERE ARE NOT MINIMUM LOT SIZES ESTABLISHED FOR ANY OF THOSE DISTRICTS. IT'S JUST A DISTRICT THAT HAS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT REGULATIONS. BUT RIGHT NOW, AND I GUESS I WOULD USE EXAMPLE OF THESE HOMES WHERE THE U-SHAPE IS RIGHT OFF OF PLEASANT RUN. YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN ESTABLISHED AREA. THE LOT SIZES ARE WHAT THEY ARE. AND IF THAT REZONING WERE TO OCCUR WERE IF THEY GOT REZONED TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN ONCE THAT ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT, IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE A, A DETACHED GARAGE, WELL, A DETACHED GARAGE WITH A ACCESSORY DWELLING ON TOP, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOUR BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL. SO EVERY CASE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR BOTH OF THOSE TWO DISTRICTS. THE GOAL AND THE ORANGE. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS FOR THOSE AREAS? I DON'T KNOW. THAT INFORMATION, BUT NOT YET.

AND AGAIN, WE ARE GOING INTO THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR THE WHOLE CITY. NOT JUST THIS. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CAESAR OKAY? YES. MISS BESTER, YOU SAID FOR THE WHOLE CITY. BUT MR. BREWER WAS TALKING ABOUT A TWO PARTER. THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE URBAN TRANSITION. SO, YES, IN THE IN THE NEWLY, REGULATIONS FOR THE HAMPTON CORRIDOR. YES, YES. OKAY BUT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO GO BACK TO 40.3 AND POINT 44.4, WHICH IS ALL OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS IN THIS CITY. IT ESTABLISHES THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE AGRICULTURAL SFQ SFB. THEY COULD ALSO GO INTO SF 2015, 18, 12 AND TEN WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WHICH WOULD

[01:45:07]

REQUIRE A ZONING CASE. SO THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE. THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. THE HAMPTON ROAD WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF IT GOT REZONED TO URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OR NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSITION. RIGHT. BUT THE PROBABILITY OF THE HAMPTON ROAD CHARACTER CODE, THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND URBAN TRANSITION, THEY PROBABLY ARE GOING TO FIT SOMEWHERE IN SIDE THE TEN, 12, 15 OR 20. I CAN'T SAY THAT HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT WE CAN BRING THAT BACK TO YOU AGAIN, THIS IS A DISCUSSION I'D LIKE TO KNOW. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM? REMEMBER THIS IS DISCUSSION ONLY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT.

HEARING AND SEEING NONE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE LAST ITEM. COMMISSIONER, MAY I ASK, SO WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU IN JUNE, JULY, AUGUST OR NEXT YEAR? JUNE. JUNE THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OH, YOU KNOW WHAT? WELL, LET'S GET THROUGH THE REST OF THE AGENDA, AND THEN I JUST WANT TO ASK SOMETHING FOR CLARIFICATION, BUT WE CAN DO IT AT THE END, THE

[5. Discuss and consider the start time for Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting. (Follow-up discussions from April 23, 2024 as requested by Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman.)]

NEXT ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA IS ITEM F FIVE. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE START TIME FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING, FOLLOW UP DISCUSSIONS FROM APRIL 23RD OF 2024, AS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND COMMISSION CHAIRMAN. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, I ASK THAT THIS BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA BECAUSE JUST WANT TO GET EVERYBODY'S FEELING IN TERMS OF HOW YOU LIKE THE START TIME OF 6:00, FOR OUR REGULAR SESSION. SO I'LL JUST KIND OF QUICKLY GO DOWN THE ROAD, MR. BELL, HOW 6:00, REGULAR SESSION. HOW'S THAT WORKING FOR YOU? SEEMED LIKE IT WENT JUST FINE TO ME, MISS CAESAR. IT WORKS TO ME, MR. MR. RAVENEL. OKAY MISS BROOKS AND MISS DEWBERRY, I'M FINISHED WITH MY NAP BY THE END. YEAH. OKAY. WELL, ALL RIGHT, SO, MR. BREWER AND STAFF, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH THE 6 P.M. REGULAR SESSION MEETINGS. ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, DID YOU HAVE A CARD, YES, BUT THAT'S FOR CITIZEN APPEARANCES. SO MOVING ON TO

[G. CITIZEN APPEARANCES The Planning and Zoning Commission invites citizens to address the Commissioners on any topic not already scheduled for Public Hearing. Citizens wishing to speak should complete a "Citizen Comment Card" and return it to the table prior to the meeting. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot take action on items not listed on the agenda. However, your concerns may be addressed by City Staff, placed on a future agenda, or responded to by some other course. Anyone desiring to speak on an item scheduled for a Public Hearing is requested to hold their comments until the Public Hearing on that item]