>> YES, SIR. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:04] >> IT'S A WORKSHOP, AND WE'LL CALL THE 7:30 MEETING TO ORDER LATER. BUT THE WORKSHOP IS TO RECEIVE A REPORT, [WORKSHOP] HOLD A DISCUSSION, PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING UPDATES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. UNDERSTAND. ORONO, YOU HAVE ANY INTRODUCTIONS YOU WANTED. >> NO, YOUR HONOR. MATTHEW BOYLE WILL DO THE PRESENTATION. >> MATTHEW BOYLE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS INDEED AN UPDATE, RELATIVE TO THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOST RECENT SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS AND ADOPTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS IN 1993. IN RECENT MONTHS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS BEEN EXAMINING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND IS CONSIDERING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. OUT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, A QUESTION WAS RAISED RELATIVE TO A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 211.004, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THAT REQUIRES THAT ZONING CHANGES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE QUESTION AROSE THAT IN THE EVENT THERE WERE EXISTING LAND USES IN PLACE AT THE TIME A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS BEING CONSIDERED, HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THOSE EXISTING USES THAT WOULD THEN BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT AND LOOKED AT HOW YOU COULD MAKE THAT MATCH BETWEEN THE DESIRE TO PROTECT THOSE EXISTING USES THAT WERE IN PLACE AS COMPARED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 211.004. WE WERE ASKED TO AND DID PREPARE A DRAFT CAUSE THAT YOU WILL FIND IN SECTION 3 OF THE SHELL ORDINANCE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, AND THE RELEVANT SECTION FROM THAT SECTION 3 IS AS FOLLOWS. FOR ANY LEGALLY COMPLIANT EXISTING LAND USE, WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE OWNERS CAN APPLY FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, OTHER THAN A CHANGE IN ZONING CATEGORY AND MAKE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PURSUANT TO THE FORMER FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THAT CAUSE, AS DRAFTED, WOULD EFFECTIVELY GRANDFATHER THOSE USES FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS, BUT NOT FOR PURPOSES OF A STRAIGHT ZONING CHANGE. THEY CAN MAKE THE APPLICATION FOR THINGS LIKE A SIGN PERMIT OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMER FUTURE LAND USE MAP WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE REVISED LAND USE MAP. I WILL TELL YOU AT THIS POINT, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, THERE ARE NO FINAL RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SO THIS IS EFFECTIVELY AN INTERIM UPDATE AND AN ITEM TO PRESENT THIS CONCEPT OF A POSSIBLE GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE, AND TO GET FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM THE COUNCIL AS TO THAT CONCEPT. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT THE LONG STORY SHORT IS THAT, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT REVISIONS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP MAY MAKE EXISTING USES INCOMPATIBLE WITH REVISIONS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND THE CLAUSE THAT WE HAVE DRAFTED IN THE SHELL ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 3 WOULD EFFECTIVELY GRANDFATHER THOSE USES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, SAVE AND EXCEPT FOR A STRAIGHT CHANGE IN ZONING. >> CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE IT WOULD BE OKAY AND WHERE IT WOULDN'T? >> SURE, I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, AND THE ONE THAT'S BEEN ASKED TO ME A FEW TIMES ARE THE RANADA SALONS ON COLLEGE STREET. THE RANADA SALONS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP UNDER A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS INCLUDED THE POSSIBILITY OF THEM RECOMMENDING THAT THAT DESIGNATION BE CHANGED FROM COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. OBVIOUSLY, THE RANADA SALON IS NOT A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE. IN THE EVENT, IT WOULD REQUIRE TWO THINGS FOR THIS TO BE APPLICABLE. BUT IN THE EVENT, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO MAKE THAT REVISION, AND THE COUNCIL ADOPTED IT BECAUSE IT IS A TWO STEP PROCESS. FIRST, A RECOMMENDATION FROM P&Z, AND THEN SECONDLY, ACTION AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL. IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, AND YOU INCLUDED THIS CLAUSE, THEN THE RANADA SALONS WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE THEN FORMER DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. >> WHAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION TO BEGIN WITH FROM P&Z? >> WHILE I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE P&Z, I WILL TELL YOU, I BELIEVE IT STARTS WITH THE FIRST THING I MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE DATE OF 1993, [00:05:01] AND THE FACT THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE MAP SINCE THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME BITS AND PIECES THAT HAVE EVOLVED AND CHANGED. THE CONCEPT WAS, WELL, IS IT TIME TO DUST THAT OFF AND GIVE IT A LOOK? I THINK YOUR P&Z LIAISON MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INPUT ON THAT, BUT THAT'S MY OBSERVATION, IS THAT, THE P&Z WAS LOOKING AT IT AND SAID, IT HASN'T BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED IN A WHILE, AND THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO BEGIN THAT EXAMINATION. >> WELL, I LOOKED AT IT, AND I CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CLEANING UP THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. MY HOUSE, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON WALL STREET SHOWS ALL COMMERCIAL. >> THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING? [OVERLAPPING] IT'S A CLEAN-UP PROCESS. IT'S AN UPDATE PROCESS. THEY'RE REVIEWING THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. THEN THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AT VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT IT CAN ALL BE COMPATIBLE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THINGS ARE OUT OF SYNC, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IT IN GOOD SHAPE AS WE GO FORWARD, AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON IT. THIS CONCERN CAME UP FOR THE VERY REASON THAT MR. BOYLE STATED. THERE IS A DESIRE TO RECOGNIZE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES AS OLD HOMES, WHETHER THEY HAVE A BUSINESS IN THEM OR NOT. THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT, AND THAT'S HOW THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED. THEY DON'T WANT TO, AND I CONCUR, AFFECT A BUSINESS THAT IS IN A HISTORIC HOME. BUT IN THE LONG RUN, DOES THAT HISTORIC HOME NEED TO BE RETURNED TO RESIDENTIAL IF THE OWNER CHOOSES TO, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE? THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO REZONE ANYTHING. WE'RE NOT GOING THERE. IT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. IT'S STRICTLY GETTING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN IN SYNC WITH EACH OTHER AND CLEANING THINGS UP IN THE PROCESS. ALL OF THIS WILL COME TO COUNCIL. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. PAUL, IF YOUR HOUSE IS ZONE COMMERCIAL AND YOU'VE GOT A HOUSE ON IT. >> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS IT COMMERCIAL. [OVERLAPPING] I WAS LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. >> THEN IT'S ONE ISSUE, BUT THAT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED ANYWAY. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO WOULD ALLOW YOU TO EXPAND OR TO PUT A SIGN OR TO DO OTHER THINGS, THAT THE GRANDFATHER WOULDN'T GRANT. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, IS IT NOT? WITH THE ZONING, THE USE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED, BUT THIS GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGHTS THAN THE GRANDFATHERING, BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO ADD ON TO THE HOUSE AS A NON-CONFORMING USE OR GET ASSIGNED. IS THAT REALLY THE DIFFERENCE? >> THAT IS IT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, MR. MAYOR, IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. >> IT'S GRANDFATHERED, ANYWAY, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF MESS NOW, BUT IT GIVES THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE RIGHT TO CONTINUE THAT USE. >> WELL, I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING, WAS THAT, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN MODIFIED IN SUCH A LONG TIME, IT'S ADJUSTING SOME OF THAT FUTURE LAND USE. AGAIN, FUTURE LAND USE IS WHAT WE ANTICIPATE THIS TO BE IN THE FUTURE. WHO KNOWS HOW MANY YEARS THAT IS, BUT THAT'S HOW WE ENVISION THAT LAND TO BE USED WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AS THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTY USES HAVE MODIFIED OVER THE YEARS, THIS GETS EVERYTHING RE-SYNCED, SO THAT IT KEEPS US CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING APPROVALS THAT WE'RE MAKING. THE PROPERTY OWNERS KNOW WHAT TO ANTICIPATE WHAT TO EXPECT, AND HOW TO PLAN FOR THEIR PROPERTIES, AND THOSE THAT ARE AROUND THEM A LITTLE MORE CONSISTENTLY. IS THAT A FAIR WAY OF LOOKING AT IT, MATT? >> YES, SIR. [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS OF THIS WORKSHOP TONIGHT TO JUST LAY THE FOUNDATION. THIS IS A LARGE DISCUSSION. I FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS A LOT MORE DISCUSSION. >> WELL, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING THE ORDINANCE. >> I WOULD THINK THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE, IF IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION OUGHT TO COINCIDE WITH THAT LAND USE. WHAT WE HAVE IS SOME TRANSITION AREAS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS OLD, AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF TIME. WE HAVE SOME AREAS LIKE THAT ALONG DALLAS ROAD, AND THEN SOME OF THE OLDER PART OF TOWN, PROBABLY. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE CAN TRY TO GET AS MUCH OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE GROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AT SOME POINT, OTHER THAN THOSE TRANSITION AREAS. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE P&Z IS LOOKING AT AND TRYING TO DO. IT'S A PART OF THE EVOLVING CITY PLANNING PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. THESE THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN TWEAKED AND ADJUSTED ALONG THE WAY. THERE'S JUST A COLLECTION OF THEM NOW, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON ALL OF IT. OF COURSE, AS I SAID, IT'LL ALL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. [00:10:02] BUT THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT, MATT, IF I UNDERSTAND IT PROPERLY, IS TO SAY THAT THIS IS GRANDFATHERING LANGUAGE AT ALL. IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A TOOL FOR THE P&Z TO BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, AND THE EFFECT THAT IT COULD HAVE ON PROPERTY OWNERS THROUGHOUT TOWN. THEY'RE BASICALLY AT WAITING FOR SOME ASSISTANCE FROM THE COUNCIL TO SAY, YES, THERE WILL BE A GRANDFATHERING TYPE CLAUSE IN THE MASTER LAND USE PLAN WHENEVER WE ADOPT IT, THAT WAY, THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THEIR WORK. >> I THOUGHT WHEN WE GRANTED A ZONING CHANGE THAT WE WERE CHANGING THE LAND USE MAP AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE IT COORDINATED, I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE CREATING A MONSTER THAT WE WERE CHANGING THE ZONING WITHOUT CHANGING THE MAP. >> WELL, ALSO TO THAT, IS THERE A SCHEDULE PLAN TO TRY TO KNOCK THIS OUT OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME OR HOW ARE YOU GOING, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A BIGGER PROCESS THAN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. >> THE P&Z IS RELUCTANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF IT UNTIL THEY GET SOME ASSURANCE THAT THIS WORDING WILL BE IN THE UPCOMING DOCUMENTS THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ADOPT. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THAT ASSURANCE, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WORDING THAT MATTHEW HAS CRAFTED WILL DO. >> THIS WORDING JUST BASICALLY PROTECTS OUR EXISTING LAND OWNERS RIGHT. >> THAT'S ALL IT DOES. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT DOES. IT PROTECTS OUR CURRENT LANDOWNERS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TOWN. >> BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO THROW A BUNCH OF PEOPLE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. THIS IS SOME CLEAN-UP THAT WE'RE DOING HERE NOW. >> THEY'RE NOT REZONING ANYTHING. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, BUT WITH THIS WORDING, IT SAYS, YES, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT THIS WAY WHENEVER WE ADOPT IT. BUT WITHOUT THAT ASSURANCE, P&Z SAYS, WELL, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE THIS IS GOING TO TURN OUT THE WAY WE WANT IT TO, AND SO THERE'S A BIT OF RELUCTANCE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD. BRUNO, HAVE I CATEGORIZED THAT FAIRLY SUCCINCTLY AND CORRECTLY? >> I THINK YOU HAVE. THEN, LINDSAY, CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION? YOU MIND COMING TO THE PODIUM. THE QUESTION THAT THE MAYOR ASKED ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP RELATIVE TO AN EXISTING ZONING CHANGE. LET'S TAKE PAUL'S HOUSE, AND LET'S ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT HE IS CORRECT ABOUT WHAT HIS EXISTING ZONING IS, AND WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAYS, IS THERE EVER A PROCESS BY WHICH WE GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SO THAT WE CAN FIX THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO RECONCILE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING OR IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, IS TO BEGIN TO FIX THOSE ISSUES? >> I THINK THIS IS MORE FIXING THOSE ISSUES. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WE HAVEN'T GONE BACK TO THE FUTURE LAND USE. IT'S EITHER BEEN COMPLIANT OR NOT WITH THE EXISTING USE IN THERE. >> THAT'S REALLY THIS PROCESS SHOULD BEGIN TO FIX SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. >> YES. >> THEN I THINK, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE ORIGINAL PART, THE GENESIS OF THIS WAS THAT, WE HAVE, LET'S TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL THAT'S IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT COULD EASILY CONVERT AT SOME POINT IN TIME. SOME OF IT ALREADY IS JUST ORGANICALLY AND NATURALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, PAUL, YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL ALONG WALL STREET IS GOING, WHICH IS NOW NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, IS CONVERTING TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS PROCESS, AT LEAST IN PART, IS TO BEGIN TO ESTABLISH THAT IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN A WAY THAT IT IS NOT TODAY, AND IN A WAY THAT'S ANTICIPATED IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL USE GOING FORWARD. AND, MATTHEW, MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS THAT, ONCE YOU IDENTIFY THE HOUSES OR THE PARCELS, AND YOU HAVE THE OLD FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE NEW FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BUT THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THOSE PROPERTIES, THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED. THEY CAN DO THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE MAP, NOT THE FUTURE ONE THAT COULD BE ADOPTED, THAT COULD CHANGE THE USE FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY TO WHAT IT'S ANTICIPATED TO BE, IS THAT CORRECT? MATTHEW, DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION? >> I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THINGS HARDER, BUT THE FACT IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, ONE THAT'S ADOPTED NOW, AND ONE THAT'S THE OLD FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT ALLOWS THE USE FOR THE CURRENT OWNERS. >> THE ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION IS, YES, UNDER THE SCENARIO OF THIS CAUSE, YOU WOULD HAVE STAFF CHARGED WITH MAINTAINING TWO FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, THE CURRENT ONE AND THEN THE REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WOULD, CONCEIVABLY BE ADOPTED AT A FUTURE DATE. THE ONLY REAL ISSUE, AND IT'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE. THE QUESTION THAT'S BEFORE THE COUNCIL TONIGHT IS, AS THIS PROCESS GOES FORWARD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT DRAFT CLAUSE THAT I READ [00:15:02] EARLIER AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN SECTION 3 OF THE SHELL ORDINANCE? YOU ARE RIGHT, BOTH YOU AND THE MAYOR, OF COURSE, THAT EXISTING USES ARE GRANDFATHERED, BUT THE QUESTION CAME UP WAS, IF AN EXISTING USE WAS IN PLACE THAT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BUT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRAFT REVISED FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WOULD THAT PROPERTY OWNER BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? APPLICATION UNDER THEIR EXISTING DESIGNATION OR THEIR REVISED DESIGNATION. THIS CAUSE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO APPLY UNDER THE ORIGINAL EXISTING DESIGNATION. >> I BUILD OUT. NEARLY ALL EXISTING ZONING SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IF IT'S NOT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP GOT TO BE CHANGED TO BRING IT IN COMPLIANCE. THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A GAP WHERE WE'VE GOT A TRANSITION AREA. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED WHERE SOMEBODY'S EXPOSED TO THIS. THE WHOLE PURPOSE ONE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS IS TO BRING THE MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONFLICT. WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS, SINCE WE DIDN'T, WE CAN DO IT. TOWN. MOST OF THE TOWN. >> WE AGREE. >> WHATEVER IS DEVELOPED ON THE GROUND IS GOING TO STAY THERE, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OUGHT TO SHOW IT UNLESS IT'S A TRANSITION AREA. >> I SUSPECT THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE. >> TRANSITION AREAS, I WOULDN'T THINK. >> I EXPECT THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE SITUATIONS THOUGH THAT EVEN AS WE MAKE ZONING CHANGES, THERE WILL BE IMPACTS ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAT WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS FROM A LAND USE MAP RETROSPECTIVE TO DO THE CLEANUP AND MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT ACROSS BROADER SWATHES OF LAND, INCLUDING THOSE THAT MAY NOT BE PART OF A ZONING APPLICATION. >> WELL, IF IT'S IN A TRANSITION AREA, IF IT'S NOT, IT'S GOING TO THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS PROBABLY GOING TO STAY THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME UNLESS THE BUILDING IS USABLE FOR DIFFERENT. >> TRUE? >> TYPE OF USES. SOME COMMERCIALS, THEY COULD VARY IN DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. BUILDING COULD BE USED FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT MIGHT BE. IT'LL BE THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. >> THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER AREA WHERE WE DON'T MAKE IT PERFECT. BUT I THINK WE CAN ELIMINATE A LOT OF THE CONFLICT BY THE MAP. BRING IT IN COMPLIANCE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY HEARTBURN ABOUT WHAT MATTHEW IS TALKING ABOUT DOING? >> NO, SIR. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IF YOU WISH TO. >> COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THEN, I THINK THE STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO HELP THEM DEVELOP A MAP OF WHAT IS ZONED AND WHAT THE MAP SAYS SO THEY CAN SEE THAT. >> STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THAT IN COMBINATION WITH ERICA'S GROUP AND THE FINE FOLKS AT GIS. THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING BOTH OF ALL THREE OF THOSE, WHERE IT IS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHERE IT IS ON PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND WHERE IT IS ON ZONING. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IN THE EVENT THAT YOU WISH TO FORMALIZE AND MAKE IT CLEAR AND TRANSLATE AND COMMUNICATE TO THE PNZ, YOUR INTENTION TO INCLUDE THAT CAUSE. AT THIS TIME OR LATER ON, DURING THIS WORKSHOP, YOU MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MOTION. A MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSED GRANDFATHERING CAUSE AS PART OF THE ADOPTION OF ANY FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS. >> I SO MOVE. >> A IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE. THAT CARRIES ONE OTHER THOUGHT. I'M TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE COMMERCIAL AREAS WHERE WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S USED UNDER ONE AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT ANOTHER USE AND THEY HAVE TO GET A ZONING CHANGE IN A DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL CATEGORY. WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AMENDING THAT ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THAT SOME OF THOSE USES IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES TO PREVENT THOSE ON CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK RIGHT TO HAVE A USE MAP WITH THIS CHECKER BOARD OF DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF COMMERCIAL. >> MAYOR, I THINK THE PNZ IS LOOKING AT THAT AS WELL. >> LOOKING AT THAT. >> I BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THAT. YES, SIR. >> THAT'S ANOTHER PROJECT FOR ANOTHER DAY. >> YES, SIR. IT'S A BIG PROJECT. WE'VE GOT TO DO IT. ALL THIS IS IS CLEANUP WORK, AND IT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN A LONG TIME. >> OKAY. >> IT'S GOT TO GET FINISHED. >> ANYTHING ELSE ON THE 7:00 O'CLOCK? >> NO, YOUR HONOR. >> MOTION TO, I GUESS, ADJOURN THE 7:00 O'CLOCK MEETING IS IN ORDER. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. COUNCIL IS ADJOURNED UNTIL 7:30. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU READY? >> YES, SIR. >> I BELIEVE IT'S 7:30. [2. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Beth Tiggelaar] WE'LL CALL THE 7:30 MEETING TO ORDER, ASK YOU THE RISE, THE INVITATION AND PLEDGE, COMMISSIONER BETH NICKLE. >> LET US PRAY. [00:20:01] >> DEAR GOD, WE GATHER TOGETHER INTENT ON DOING GOOD WORK. WE SEEK TO REPRESENT FAIRLY AND WELL THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN US THIS TASK. MAY OUR EFFORTS BE BLESSED WITH INSIGHT, GUIDED BY UNDERSTANDING AND WISDOM. WE SEEK TO SHOW RESPECT FOR ALL. MAY OUR PERSONAL FAITHS GIVE US STRENGTH TO RACK HONESTLY AND WELL IN ALL MATTERS BEFORE US. AMEN. >> I THINK YOU SEE THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> I LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO OUR MEETING TONIGHT. WE HAVE JOINT PUBLIC MEETINGS BETWEEN THE PLANNING LONING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL ON ITEM 3, 4 AND 5, AFTER WHICH TIME THE PNZ WILL RECONVENE IN A SEPARATE MEETING AND CONSIDER THEIR AGENDA. THE PROCEDURES FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE THAT WE'LL DECLARE OPEN INDIVIDUALLY EACH CASE. WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. ANY GUEST PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THE REQUEST NEEDS TO REGISTER WITH TARA BROOKS. SHE WILL CALL YOU IN THE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH HER. WE INVITE YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE A PART OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TONIGHT TO PARTICIPATE. AFTER THAT, THE COUNCIL HAS ITS AGENDA AND WE'LL CONSIDER IT. WE BEGIN BY DECLARING OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CU [3. Conditional Use Permit CU24-12 and Planned Development Overlay PD24-04 (Floor & Decor) - City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Philip Cochran requesting a conditional use permit to amend the previously approved site plan CU06-16 (Ordinance No. 2006-35) that allowed for a planned commercial center to allow for the development of a 45,000-square-foot fitness/workout center. This request is specifically to allow a 71,461-square-foot retail store for building materials and supplies. The applicant is also requesting a planned development overlay to deviate from, but not be limited to, a reduction in the required parking from Section 56, Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, No. 82-73. The subject property is located at 3200 Grapevine Mills Parkway and is currently zoned "CC", Community Commercial District. The applicant has requested to table this item.] 24-12 AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT OLAY PD 2404. THE STAFF ERICA MORONIC WILL INTRODUCE THE REQUEST. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A REQUEST ON THIS ONE TO TELL YOU? >> YES, HONORABLE MAYOR. >> THE APPLICANT, MR. PHILIP COCHRAN, LAND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER WITH FLON DECOR, HAS SUBMITTED A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE SALES FOR BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, AND ALSO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO VARY PARKING STANDARDS FOR THEIR PROPOSED STORE WITHIN THE FORMER LA FITNESS LOCATED AT 3,200 GRAPEVINE MILLS PARKWAY. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO TABLE THESE REQUESTS TO A LATER DATE TO YOUR AUGUST 20TH, 2024 MEETING IN ORDER TO REFINE THEIR REQUESTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE. MR. PHILIP COCHRAN IS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YOU'VE HEARD THE STAFF'S REPORT AND THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT. IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE? >> MOTION TO APPROVE TABLEING CU 24-12. >> SECOND. >> AUGUST 20TH, 24. >> TO AUGUST 20TH, 2024. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. NOT OPPOSED. >> MOTION [INAUDIBLE]. >> I'LL MOVE TO TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED THE MOTION CARRIES. THAT THIS ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER DATE. IT'S ONLY NOTICE THAT WILL BE GIVEN. BEFORE WE DECLARE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CU 24-20, [4. Conditional Use Permit CU24-20 (Texas Gun Experience) - City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Urban Strategy requesting a conditional use permit to amend the previously approved site plan CU17-24 (Ordinance No. 2017-80) that allowed for a single-story, 34,566-square-foot structure for retail gun sales and an indoor shooting range. This request is specifically to allow for a 4,755-square-foot expansion to the existing shooting range for additional training space. The subject property is located at 1901 South Main Street and is currently zoned "CC", Community Commercial District.] ERICA MORONIC WILL INTRODUCE THE REQUEST. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THEIR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH CONDITIONAL USE 1724 FOR RETAIL GUN SALES AND AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.81 ACRES LOCATED AT 1901 SOUTH MAIN STREET, AND IS PRESENTLY ZONED CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS REQUEST IS SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW FOR A 4,700 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING SHOOTING RANGE AND FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING ROOM SPACE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE STORY INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE, WHICH ALSO FEATURES OFFICES AND RETAIL SALES OF FIREARMS. OWNER PLANS TO EXPAND THE EXISTING 34,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING BY ADDING 4,700 SQUARE FEET TO THE NORTH, BRINGING THE TOTAL AREA OF THE BUILDING TO 39,320 SQUARE FEET. THIS EXPANSION WILL ACCOMMODATE AN ADDITIONAL 11 EXTRA LANES FOR SHOOTING AND A CLASSROOM FOR TRAINING PURPOSES. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE 26 LANES. THERE WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 37 LANES IF APPROVED THIS EVENING. SEVEN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED EAST OF THE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION. THIS WILL BRING TOTAL PARKING TO 119 SPACES WITH THE EXPANSION, 118 ARE REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT, MR. JOSEPH STANYAR, WITH TEXAS GUN EXPERIENCE IS HERE THIS EVENING. HE'S PREPARED A PRESENTATION AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSIONER OR COUNCIL MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. >> ERICA, MAY I ASK A QUESTION PLEASE. OUR MEMO SAYS THAT THEY'RE ADDING SEVEN PARKING SPACES TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY. YOU SAID BUILDING. MAY I KNOW WHICH ONE OF THOSE IT ACTUALLY IS? BECAUSE IF IT'S EAST OF THE PROPERTY, THAT TELLS ME IT'S GOING TO BE ON AN ADJACENT TRACK THAT THEY DO NOT OWN, PROBABLY. [00:25:02] >> IT'S EAST OF THE BUILDING. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE STAFF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. STANYAR. >> GO EVENING, EVERYONE. LOTS OF FAMILIAR FACES. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY BEEN FIVE YEARS SINCE WE OPENED. TIME HAS REALLY FLOWN. I'M JOSEPH STANYAR FROM TEXAS EXPERIENCE, BY MY BROTHER, JARED, OVER HERE IN THE CROWD. AS SHE SAID, IT'S MINIMAL IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE FACILITY. IT'S GOING TO ADD 11 LANES FOR US. IT'S GOING TO GIVE US SOME TRAINING ROOM. WE FOUND OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS THAT IT'S JUST WE HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC ON THE INSIDE, JUST IN THE SHOOTING LANES, AND PEOPLE ENJOY TAKING THEIR TIME SHOOTING THAT WE NEED MORE ROOM TO TRAIN. I WOULD TAKE A TRAINED SHOOTER ANY DAY IN OUR TOWN, AND SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE SPACE AND TO FOCUS ON THAT SIDE OF IT. YOU'LL SEE JUST A SMALL ROOM THAT WE CAN DO A LITTLE BIT OF DIDACTIC INSTRUCTION THERE AND THEN MOVE RIGHT INTO HANDS ON TRAINING. IT'LL BE EASY. OF COURSE, EVERYTHING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THINGS IS GOING TO FLOW. WE'RE VERY PLEASED WITH THE BUILDING AND FACILITY THAT WE HAVE, WE'LL MAINTAIN THAT MOVING FORWARD, IF YOU'LL ALLOW US TO, HAPPY TO FIELD ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS. >> NO. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. >> GROWTH IS A GOOD THING. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS. >> DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? >> NO, YOUR HONOR. >> ANY CORRESPONDENCE? >> NO, SIR. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> WE NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. >> COMMISSION CLOSED A MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL. >> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN ON ZONING CHANGE 24-6. ERICA MORONIC. [5. Zoning Change Z24-06 (Peach Street Rezone) - City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application requesting a zone change for 1.87 acres located at 237, 235, 233, 231, 229, 227, 225, 223, 221, 219, 217, 215, 213, 211, 209, and 207 West Peach Street from "R-MF-1", Multifamily District to "R-3.5", Two-Family District; and 2.75 acres located at 503, 511 North Main Street, 217, 211, 205, 125 and 119 Hall Street; and 212, 206, 128, 122, 112 West Peach Street from "R-MF-1", Multifamily District to "R-5.0", Zero-Lot-Line District to realign zoning regulations with current land uses, duplexes and single-family detached residences.] >> ON MAY 21ST OF THIS YEAR, COUNCIL CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.6 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF WALL STREET, EAST OF NORTH SCRIBNER STREET, WEST OF NORTH MAIN STREET, IN BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF WEST PEACH STREET. THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO REALIGN ZONING REGULATIONS WITH CURRENT LAND USES. THE BLOCK OF PROPERTY NORTH OF PEACH STREET IS DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES AND IS ZONED RMF1, MULTI FAMILY DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THE BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PEACH STREET IS DEVELOPED WITH DUPLEXES AND ATTACHED PRODUCT AND IS ALSO ZONED RMF1, MULTI FAMILY DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THIS RMF DISTRICT CURRENTLY PROHIBITS BOTH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES AND DUPLEXES AND HAS BEEN ON THESE PROPERTIES SINCE THE 1984 CITY WIDE REZONING. A REZONE TO R 5.00 LOT LINE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES NORTH OF PEACH STREET, AND R 3.52 FAMILY DWELLING FOR THOSE PROPERTIES SOUTH OF PEACH STREET WILL ALLOW THESE PROPERTY OWNERS TO BOTH EXPAND OR MODIFY THEIR RESIDENCES, LESSEN THE CHALLENGES IN OBTAINING FINANCING AND REFINANCING FOR THEIR PROPERTIES TO IMPROVE THEM AND REMOVE BARRIERS TO INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT FOR THE GENERAL AREA. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. ANYBODY HERE. >> NO. >> WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. APPARENTLY NONE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? >> NO, SIR. >> DO WE HAVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE? >> THERE IS ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT IN FRONT OF YOU. >> VERY GOOD. MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES WE NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. NO OPPOSED. >> MOTION CLOSED THE MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL. >> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. >> PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE ALL COMPLETE NOW. THE PLAN ZONING COMMISSION WILL SEPARATE. IS THE PUBLIC MEETING, YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL REMAINING SESSION WILL BEGIN WITH CITIZEN COMMENTS. CITIZEN COMMENTS IS A SECTION WHERE [CITIZEN COMMENTS] ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA MAY ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON UNDER [00:30:01] CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEM BY COMPLETING A CITIZEN APPEARANCE REQUEST FORM WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TONIGHT? >> SIR, I HAVE ONE. >> OKAY. A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM ON BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR OR UPON THE CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL. CITIZENS MAY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE CITY COUNCIL IS RESTRICTED AND DISCUSSING OR TAKING ANY ACTION DURING CITIZEN COMMENTS. WILL YOU INTRODUCE THE SPEAKER, PLEASE? >> YES, SIR. MR. SAL DI ANGELO, 1944 NORTHPORT COURT. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP ONE SUBJECT, AND IT HAS BEEN HANDLED AND I'M MOST APPRECIATIVE MR. COY AND MR. RUMBLO. WE HAD A MINOR ISSUE WITH ONE OF THE VENDORS UP THE STREET AND WITH TRACTOR TRAILERS COMING THROUGH RESIDENTIAL. AT THIS POINT, IT'S BEEN HANDLED, AND AGAIN, MY NEIGHBORS AND MYSELF ARE MOST APPRECIATIVE FOR THEIR EFFORTS AND THEIR PROACTIVENESS IN THIS SITUATION. ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU, SIR. BUT I DO HAVE ONE REQUEST, AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THIS IS THE FORMAT FOR IT, BUT I'LL ASK ANYWAY. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT A SIGN CAN BE POSTED WITH GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT OR AXLE LIMITATIONS? THE BUSINESS KNOWS IT'S THERE AND THEY CAN'T SAY, WE DIDN'T KNOW OR THE BUSINESS DIDN'T WARN US, SO WE COULD KEEP THESE TRUCKS OFF THE STREETS. >> THERE IS. [OVERLAPPING]. YEAH. >> AGAIN, IT'S MOST APPRECIATED. AGAIN, THE PROACTIVITY AND THE WAY YOU HANDLE IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THAT IT? ALL RIGHT. COMPLETE CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM SEVEN. [7. Consider Ordinance No. 2024-029 to amend the Grapevine Code of Ordinances, Chapter 23, Traffic, Article IV, Pedestrians by adding to Section 23-52, relative to pedestrian safety, and take any necessary action. This item was tabled at the April 2, 2024 regular meeting.] CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE 2024-029 TO AMEND THE GRAVIN CODE OF ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 23 TRAFFIC, INVOLVED ARTICLE FOUR PEDESTRIANS BY ADDING SECTION 23-52, RELATIVE TO BET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. MR. MATTHEW BOYLE, THE CITY ATTORNEY. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL. THIS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND RIGHT OF WAY SAFETY ORDINANCE IS BACK BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, HAVING BEEN REFINED TO CLARIFY THE APPLICABILITY AS TO THOSE MINOR AND MAJOR ARTERIALS THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO THE ORDINANCE IS CRAFTED TO PROTECT BOTH PEDESTRIANS AND DRIVERS AT SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTIONS AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN THE CITY FROM UNSAFE INTERACTIONS IT PROVIDES FOR AND ESTABLISHES SAFETY AND CLEAR ZONES IN THOSE AREAS TO PROTECT THOSE PERSONS. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AND CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS YOUR APPROVAL. >> CONSIDERATION IS IN ORDER. >> MOVE THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 8, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU 24-16 SECOND READING. [8. Conditional Use Permit CU24-16 (Office/Warehouse) - City Council to consider the second reading of Ordinance No. 2024-048 relative to an application submitted by Don Stone requesting a conditional use permit to allow outside storage and to revise building elevations. The subject property is located at 942 Minters Chapel Road and is currently zoned "LI", Light Industrial District. The public hearing and first reading of this item were held at the May 21, 2024 meeting.] CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE SECOND READING ON ORDINANCE 2024-048, RELATIVE TO APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DON STONE, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE AND TO REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS, 70 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 9:42 MINUTES CAPITAL ROAD AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED LT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING AND WAS ON MAY 21ST, ERICA MORONI. >> YES, SIR. THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST WAS APPROVED ON ITS FIRST READING BY THE COUNCIL AT YOUR MEETING ON MAY 21ST, 2024 WITH A CONDITION FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL MOBILE LIQUID CONTAINMENT TANK THAT HAS APPROXIMATELY 376 SQUARE FOOT CAPACITY. THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO SOUGHT AND RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT. DUE TO EXISTING BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS AND NOT MEETING MINIMUM OPEN SPACE AND MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SPACE FOR THE LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND DESIGNATED. THE BOARD APPROVED THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST AT THEIR JUNE 3RD MEETING EARLIER THIS MONTH. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE CU 24-16 ON THE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AND TAKE ANY NECESSARY ACTION. THE APPLICANT AND OWNER, MR. DON STONE IS ALSO PRESENT THIS EVENING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT. CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND READING IS IN ORDER. >> I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF CU 24-16. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES. [00:35:01] WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE, ALREADY FROM THE PLANS ON COMMISSION. ITEM 26. [26. Conditional Use Permit CU24-20 (Texas Gun Experience) - Consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Ordinance No. 2024-054, if applicable, and take any necessary action.] >> CU 24-20 WAS APPROVED SEVEN. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE ITEM 27. [27. Zoning Change Z24-06 (Peach Street Rezone) - Consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Ordinance No. 2024-055, if applicable, and take any necessary action.] >> Z 24-06 WAS APPROVED SEVEN. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 28. [28. Final Plat of Lot 1, Block 1, 942 MCR Addition - Consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the application submitted by Don Stone to final plat the existing building. The subject property is located at 942 Minters Chapel Road and is currently zoned "LI", Light Industrial District.] >> FINAL PLAT FOR MCR ADDITION WAS APPROVED SEVEN. >> ALL RIGHT. >> HAVE A MOTION. >> I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS IN THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT ONE BLOCK 1942 MCR EDITION. >> SECOND? >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE. MOTION CARRY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL RETURN TO ITEM 9. [9. Consider an amendment to the firework permit for the City's 2024 Fireworks Show that will be held on July 4, 2024, and take any necessary action.] IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FIREWORK PERMIT APPROVED THE LAST TIME FOR JULY 4TH OF MR. RUMBLO. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE THING THAT WAS MOST APPARENT WHEN WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION LAST TIME WAS THAT OBVIOUSLY, THERE WOULD BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD THE JULY 4TH FIREWORKS AT THE LAKE. STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING SINCE THAT TIME TO FIND A LOCATION THAT WOULD GIVE MAXIMUM VIEWING VISIBILITY, GIVE US THE ABILITY TO FIRE LARGER SHELLS AND TO REALLY DO THE KIND OF JULY 4TH SHOW THAT WE'RE USED TO PUTTING ON AND THAT PEOPLE ARE USED TO EXPERIENCING. HAVE TWO OPTIONS THAT I WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT. WHEN I SAY PRESENT, REALLY, ALL I MEAN IS THAT THERE ARE TWO LOCATIONS THAT WILL WORK WHERE WE BELIEVE THAT IF Y'ALL GIVE US YOUR CONSENT, THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL, THE FAA, AND THE LANDOWNER, WILL WORK THROUGH TO GET THE CONSENT OF THOSE OTHER PARTIES. THE FIRST LOCATION IS THE CLEARSONE AREA AT HANOVER AND TRINITY, WHICH, OF COURSE, IS JUST TO THE SOUTH OF WHERE OUR EXISTING CONVENTION CENTER IS. THAT'S ON DFW AIRPORT PROPERTY. THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE AIRPORT STAFF, AND IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED BY AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION, THE FAA HAS ALREADY APPROVED THAT LOCATION. THAT'S OPTION 1. THE REASON THAT IT IS OPTION 1 IS BECAUSE THE VISIBILITY, THE ABILITY TO SHOOT THE LARGER SHELLS, THE ABILITY TO HAVE PARKING LOTS, AND VIEWING AREAS THAT WOULD BE AS SUBSTANTIAL AS WE COULD GET REALLY ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. THAT'S ONE. THE SECOND LOCATION, WHICH, AGAIN, IF WE NEED TO SWITCH TO OPTION 2, WE'LL DO THAT. YOU ALL REMEMBER FIVE YEARS AGO, WE HAD A LAUNCH SITE AT THE CORNER OF TEXAN TRAIL AND STATE HIGHWAY 26 ON THE GREAT WOLF CORNER, IF WE NEED TO GO BACK THERE BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THE CONSENT OF THE AIRPORT AT HANOVER AND TRINITY, WE WILL DO THAT, TALK TO THE FOLKS AT GREAT WOLF TODAY. THEY'RE AMENABLE TO THAT. AGAIN, WE GO BACK THROUGH. IN THAT CASE, WE COULD GET THE LANDOWNER CONSENT. WE'LL SECURE FAA CONSENT, STATE FIRE MARSHAL CONSENT. WE'VE GOT A MOTIVATED FIREWORKS COMPANY WHO KNOWS THAT WE WANT A GREAT JULY 4TH SHOW. THOSE ARE OUR TWO OPTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL TODAY A STATUS REPORT AND UPDATE, IF YOU WILL, AND TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE WILL GET THERE. WE WILL HAVE A JULY 4TH FIREWORK SHOW AT ONE OF THESE TWO LOCATIONS, YOUR HONOR. >> CAN WE JUST MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE EITHER R AND GIVE CITY MANAGER OF THE PART THE AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE? >> YES, SIR, MR. MAYOR. >> ALL RIGHT. >> CAN WE JUST MAKE A COMMENT? >> IS THAT ALRIGHT? >> MOTION IS IN ORDER. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM A PARKING LOT PERSPECTIVE, AND I MEAN PARKING LOT THAT WAS CREATED BY THE HUGE PARKING CROWDS WAS THE GREAT WOLF LODGE LOCATION IS NOT THE IDEAL LOCATION IN MY ESTIMATION, JUST BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC AND IT WAS A NIGHTMARE. >> I AGREE. >> I THINK THE OPTION A IS THE PREFERABLE LOCATION, BUT IT'S A FAIR BACKUP. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WE NEED A BACKUP. YEAH. BECAUSE WE MIGHT NOT GET THAT APPROVAL. WE MIGHT BE RIGHT BACK TO GREAT WOLF LODGE. AND IF WE [OVERLAPPING]. >> MAKE IT WORK. YEAH, EXACTLY. >> 114 WE'LL PROBABLY BE AT A STANDSTILL BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WANTING TO WATCH IT. >> YEAH. WELL, THEY CAN BUDGET FROM 114 EVEN IF GREAT WOLF LODGE. THAT'S TRUE. ALL RIGHT. >> I'LL MOVE FOR MOTION. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO USE WHICHEVER LOCATION HE NEEDS. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR. [00:40:02] ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 10, CONSIDER ORDINANCE 2024-051 TO PROVIDE FOR [10. Consider Ordinance No. 2024-051 providing for the issuance and sale of City of Grapevine, Texas Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2024 in a principal amount not to exceed $36,700,000; awarding the sale thereof; levying a tax in payment thereof; authorizing the execution and delivery of a paying agent/registrar agreement; approving the official statement; approving a bond counsel engagement letter; and take any other necessary action.] THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE CITY OF GRAYVN TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 2024, AND THE AMOUNT OF 36,700,000 AWARD THE SALE THEREOF AND LEVY A TAX AND PAYMENT THEREOF, AUTHORIZING THE EX DELIVERY OF A PAY AGENT, RESTORED AGREEMENT, APPROVING THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT, APPROVING A BOND COUNCIL ENGAGEMENT LETTER, AND TAKING ANY NECESSARY ACTION, MR. DEF STRONG. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. BEFORE YOU IS AN ORDINANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION APPROVING THE SALE OF THE 2024 COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. ON APRIL 16, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $36,700,000. FUNDING FROM THOSE BONDS WILL BE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND REPAIRS TO THE SERVICE CENTER, WHICH WAS DAMAGED IN THE DECEMBER 20, 2022, TORNADO. I'M PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE SALE OCCURRED THIS MORNING AT A COUPON RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 5% WITH AN EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE OF 3.75% FOR 20 YEAR BONDS AND INCLUDED BIDS FROM NINE DIFFERENT PARTICIPATING ENTITIES. THE SUCCESSFUL SALE WAS ACCOMPLISHED DUE TO THE CITY'S STRONG FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, RESULTING FROM THE CONTINUED GUIDANCE OF THIS COUNCIL AND THE EFFORTS OF CITY STAFF, WHICH IS ALSO EXHIBITED IN THE AFFIRMATION OF THE CITY'S BOND RATINGS, WITH DOUBLE A ONE FROM MOODY'S AND AA PLUS FROM STANDARD AND POOR'S. REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY'S FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND BOND COUNCIL ARE ALSO HERE AND PLAYED KEY ROLES SUPPORTING THE SALE OF THE BONDS. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> CONSIDERATION IS IN ORDER. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? A LOT OF MONEY. >> LOT OF MONEY. >> [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR.. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 11 THROUGH [CONSENT AGENDA] 25 OR NOT SCHEDULED OR ANY COUNCIL DEBATE. ANY GUEST PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANY OF THOSE ITEMS MOVED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. YOU CAN RESPOND AT THIS TIME. DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS. ANY FROM THE STAFF OF THE COUNCIL? ITEM 11 THROUGH 25, CONSENT, THE MOTION IS IN ORDER. >> I MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 11 THROUGH 25. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES. THAT COMPLETES THE CONSENT. IT COMPLETES THE AGENDA. A MOTION TO ADJOURN IS IN ORDER. >> ALL MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSE COUNCIL STANDS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.