[5B. Consider a Variance request by Ryan Johnston to allow a monument sign setback less than the required five (5) feet from the property line. The applicant is appealing the Plan Commission’s denial of the request. The applicant represents Lavon Drive Baptist Church, located at 1520 Lavon Drive in District 2.]

ALLOW MONUMENT SIGN SET BACK LESS THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE PLAN COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE REQUEST.

THIS APPLICANT REPRESENTS LAVON BAPTIST CHURCH, LOCATED AT 1520 LAVON DRIVE IN DISTRICT TWO AND COUNCIL JUST A NOTE HERE.

WITH THIS APPEAL, IT REQUIRES A THREE QUARTER MAJORITY, WHICH FOR US IS SEVEN [INAUDIBLE].

SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS THE PROJECT AS REQUESTED.

THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1520 LAVON DRIVE, THE ACREAGE IS FIVE POINT SIX TO SEVEN ACRES.

THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN TEAL AND THIS IS LAVON DRIVE.

THIS FIRST IMAGE IS LOOKING AT THE MAIN CAMPUS BUILDING AN THE SECOND IMAGE IS LOOKING WEST ACROSS THE LAVON DRIVE.

THE FIRST IMAGE IS LOOKING NORTH ALONG THE SIDE AND LAVON DRIVE.

ON THIS LAST IMAGE IS LOOKING SOUTH ALONG LAVON DRIVE.

THIS IS THE OVERALL SITE PLAN.

A IS THE RENOVATION SIGN LOCATION B IS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION AND C IS THE LOCATION THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

THIS IS A POST VIEW OF THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE NEW SIGN.

[00:15:05]

THE APPLICANT [INAUDIBLE] TO REQUIRE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK CAUSES TO HARDSHIP DUE TO THE VISIBILITY OF THE SIGN FROM THE SIX LANE ROADWAY ALONG LAVON DRIVE.

AS WELL AS THE LOGISTICAL ISSUES WITH THE NEWLY INSTALLED LANDSCAPE ISLAND.

THE SETBACK REDUCTION TO SIX INCHES WOULD ALLOW THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN WHILE NOT CREATING AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE DRIVEWAY NOR OBSTRUCTING THE FIRE LANES.

AND THIS ELEVATION SHOWS THE SIX INCH SETBACKS.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE MONUMENT SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SEVEN FEET HEIGHT AND ALSO THE SURFACE AREA, THE GDC STATES THAT THE SURFACE AREA MAXIMUM IS 50 SQUARE FEET AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 27 SQUARE FEET.

ON DECEMBER THE 12TH OF 2020, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST VOTED FOR YAYS AND FIVE NAYS.

A THREE QUARTER MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN VARIANCE AS PER THE CHAPTER 4 ARTICLE FIVE OF THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

[INAUDIBLE] THE APPLICANT [INAUDIBLE] THIS REQUEST AND RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AN APPEAL FOR A CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FOR THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, A THREE QUARTER VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING IS REQUIRED TO OVERRULE A SIGN VARIANCE DENIAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE SENT OUT 82 NOTIFICATION LETTERS, WE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR WITHIN THE AREA AND ONE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM.

I SEE NONE I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, MR. JOHNSTON. YES SIR. IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

CERTAINLY. AND THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL FOR HEARING US TONIGHT.

MY NAME IS RYAN JOHNSTON AND ADDRESS IS ONE FIVE TWO ZERO LAVON DRIVE IN GARLAND, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE ZERO FOUR ZERO.

AND TONIGHT, WE JUST WANT TO COME BEFORE YOU AND ASK YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS SIGN VARIANCE THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR.

WE HAVE REALLY, AS A MINISTRY, BEEN SO EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BEAUTIFY OUR CORNER OF GARLAND.

AND OF COURSE, IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY THE CAMPUS ANY TIME IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, YOU'VE SEEN A LOT GOING ON AROUND THERE.

AND WE HAVE HAD AN AMAZING CHRISTMAS SEASON, AS WE'VE SEEN YEARS AND YEARS OF PLANNING AND WORK COME TOGETHER TO CREATE A NEW CAMPUS, LOOK AND FEEL THAT WE BELIEVE IS REALLY CONTRIBUTING TREMENDOUSLY TO THE AESTHETIC AND THE BEAUTY OF OUR PART OF GARLAND.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE WANTED TO DO TO KIND OF BRING THAT ALL TOGETHER IS TO PUT A NEW MONUMENT SIGN IN PLACE ON OUR CAMPUS.

OUR OLD SIGN WAS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LARGE GRASSY AREA IN FRONT OF OUR WORSHIP CENTER. BUT AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, WE HAVE DONE EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING IN THAT AREA, NEW TREES AND ENTIRE SMALL FOREST, IF YOU WILL, OF RIVER BIRCH TREES THAT THE HEIGHT AND THOSE TREES. AND WE'RE ALL OF THAT AS PLACE MAKES IT IMPRACTICAL NOW TO PUT A SIGN IN THAT SAME LOCATION.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN WANTING TO MOVE THAT SIGN ANY WAY MORE TOWARD THE MIDDLE OF CAMPUS.

IF YOU KNOW OUR CAMPUS FROM BEFORE WE HAD TWO MONUMENT SIGNS ON THE CAMPUS, ONE OF THEM PROMOTED GARLAND CHRISTIAN ACADEMY ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THEN THE MONUMENT SITE ON THE SOUTH SIDE PROMOTED LAVON DRIVE BAPTIST CHURCH.

AND IT CREATED A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION FOR DECADES, THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM WHERE PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CAMPUS WAS GCA AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CAMPUS WAS LAVON DRIVE WHEN IN FACT WE ARE ONE MINISTRY.

ONE TAX ID GCA IS A MINISTRY OF OUR CHURCH, WE ALL SHARE THE SAME FACILITIES.

IT'S ONE MINISTRY.

SO RATHER THAN HAVING A SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE, A SIGN ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WE TOSSED AROUND IDEAS OF HAVING TWO IDENTICAL SIGNS, ONE ON THE NORTH, ONE ON THE SOUTH.

[00:20:04]

BUT IT JUST IT JUST CLUTTERS THINGS UP.

AND WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE LANDSCAPING WHEREVER WE PUT THE SIGN SO THAT IT'S VISIBLE FROM THE SIX LANES OF HIGHWAY.

AND WE REALLY WANTED TO MAKE A PRIORITY OF BEAUTIFYING THINGS.

AND SO AS A RESULT, WE MADE A DECISION TO PUT THE SIGN RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CAMPUS.

AND IF YOU SAW THAT SITE PLAN, IT PUTS IT NORTH OF WHERE IT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PROPOSED, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THINGS.

AND THE ONLY CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP ALL OF THE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS NICE AND CONSISTENT ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE, WHICH, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, OUR FRONTAGE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THAT THE SIGN COULD NOT MEET THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK.

TO DO SO WOULD REQUIRE A SINGLE LANDSCAPE ISLAND AND THE WHOLE PROJECT BEING VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS.

IT WOULD EAT INTO A PARKING LOT SPACE, WHICH IS ALREADY AT THE LOW END OF ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SIZE OF OUR WORSHIP CENTER.

AND CUTTING INTO FURTHER PARKING COULD CREATE TRAFFIC ISSUES FOR OUR CAMPUS AND OUR ABILITY TO REACH OUR COMMUNITY THE WAY THAT WE ENVISION FOR YEARS TO COME.

ADDITIONALLY, BY EXPANDING THE ISLAND LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE SIGN TO BE WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE RECOMMENDED, IT WOULD ALSO CREATE A POTENTIAL TRAFFIC ISSUE FOR A FUTURE EXPANSION THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO TO OUR STUDENT MINISTRY BUILDING, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST AND IT'S THE BUILDING, CLOSEST TO AND ADJACENT TO WHERE THE SIGN WILL BE. WE ARE DESIRING IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE TO PUT A OUTSIDE PATIO ON THE FRONT OF THAT BUILDING THAT WILL CREATE OUTDOOR SPACE.

AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN AN ERA WHERE OUTDOOR SPACE AND OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE OUTDOOR GATHERINGS, DISTANCE GATHERINGS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

AND WHO KNOWS HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO GO OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO.

WE REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO CREATE AN OUTDOOR SPACE IN THAT AREA.

BUT TO DO SO, WE KNOW IS GOING TO EAT UP SOME PARKING AND SOME TRAFFIC WAY.

WE CAN PULL IT OFF THE WAY THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY PLANNING IN ITS DESIGN.

BUT IF WE HAVE TO GO ANOTHER FIVE FEET INTO THE PARKING LOT, THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR IT TO CREATE REAL ISSUES FOR THAT OUTDOOR SPACE.

THE OTHER SUGGESTION THAT THE COMMISSION HAD GIVEN WAS TO BASICALLY PUT THE SIGN BACK WHERE WE HAD ORIGINALLY HAD IT FOR YEARS, AND THAT IS IN THE LARGE LAWN RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR WORSHIP CENTER. THAT, AGAIN, TAKES US RIGHT BACK TO THE PROBLEM OF THE CREATING CONFUSION IN OUR COMMUNITY AS TO.

WELL WHAT'S ON THE NORTH PART OF THIS CAMPUS OUR BUILDINGS ARE SPREAD OUT OVER SUCH A LARGE SPACE THAT IT'S VERY CONFUSING AND WE WANT TO BE A MINISTRY AND A BUSINESS, IF YOU WILL, THAT IS IS ORDERLY AND MAKES SENSE AND IS WELCOMING AND INVITING BECAUSE OUR WHOLE PURPOSE IS TO SERVE COMMUNITY.

AND SIGNAGE IS SUCH A KEY PART OF THAT.

TO PUT IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE WORSHIP CENTER, SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE NORTH SIDE OF CAMPUS IS. WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO PUT A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN UP AGAIN.

AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE AGAIN IS THE LANDSCAPING COULD NOT BE AS VISIBLE IF WE GO THAT ROUTE. BUT THE OTHER ISSUE IS WE DO NOT HAVE A SPACE FOR OUTDOOR GATHERINGS IN FRONT OF OUR WORSHIP CENTER.

WE HAVE, OF COURSE, OUR SPORTS FIELDS, OUR FOOTBALL AREA.

BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY A AND ESTHETICALLY INVITING PLACE FOR SMALL GATHERINGS, FOR WORSHIP EVENTS, FOR SINGING, FOR THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE HAVE A VISION FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF GATHERINGS THAT COULD MAYBE MORE SAFELY AND MORE APPROPRIATELY TAKE PLACE AS NEEDED IN FRONT OF THE WORSHIP CENTER ON THAT LARGE LAWN AREA.

WE ENVISION THINGS AT CHRISTMAS TIME.

WE ENVISION THINGS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WHERE PEOPLE CAN GATHER AND MEET.

IF THERE'S A MONUMENT SIGN RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT VERY KEY PIECE OF REAL ESTATE THAT COMPLETELY DISRUPTS OUR ABILITY TO HAVE THOSE KINDS OF IN-PERSON OUTDOOR GATHERINGS.

AND REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY.

THE PRACTICAL MATTER OF WHERE WE'RE ASKING THIS SIGN TO GO, WE'RE ASKING FOR IT TO GO IN A PLACE THAT VISUALLY MAKES SENSE, IT'S THE MOST SENSIBLE LOCATION FOR IT.

IT IS BEING SIZED AT A WAY THAT IS APPROPRIATE AND VISIBLE FROM ALL LANES OF TRAFFIC.

IT'S NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THE SIZE OF OUR OLD SIGN, ABOUT 14 FEET WIDE.

OUR OLD SIGN WAS 14 AND A HALF FEET WIDE.

[00:25:03]

IT'S AN APPROPRIATE SCALE.

IT FITS IN THE LANDSCAPING.

IT DOES NOT ENCROACH ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.

TO THE AVERAGE PASSER BY IT WILL APPEAR TO BE FAR MORE THAN FIVE FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE BEYOND IT IS SEVEN FEET OF RIGHT AWAY, PLUS THE SIDEWALK, AND SO DO THE PASSER BY IT WILL APPEAR TO HAVE A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. WE, OF COURSE, KNOW THAT A FAIR AMOUNT OF THAT IS TURF RIGHT OF WAY THAT THAT WE TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TURF AND TO KEEP MOWED AND LOOKING GREAT.

AND SO I APPEAL TO YOU NOT JUST FROM A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE, FROM OUR POSITION AS A COMMUNITY LEADER, AS A MINISTER, IN REACHING AND CARING FOR PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

BUT JUST FROM A LOGICAL, PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE OF US ALL, JUST SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER, FRANKLY, IT JUST MAKES GOOD SENSE TO BE IN THE LOCATION WHERE WE HAVE RECOMMENDED.

SO, AGAIN, WE WE GREATLY RESPECT OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THEY THEY WERE FANTASTIC IN OUR DEALINGS, NOTHING BUT RESPECTFUL.

AND WE ARE NOTHING BUT RESPECTFUL IN RETURN.

BUT WE DO DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE AND APPEAL TO Y'ALL.

OUR SENIOR PASTOR, ROBBY GREEN IS ALSO ON.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD AT THIS POINT, BUT HE WILL ALSO BE HERE AND IS ON THE MEETING TO PROVIDE FURTHER INSIGHT AS NEEDED.

VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

I SEE WE HAVE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSTON, FOR BEING HERE.

I LISTENED AND I WATCHED THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IT SEEMED LIKE THE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DENIAL ON THE PLANNED COMMISSION WAS THAT THEY SEEMED TO THE IDEA SEEMED TO BE FLOATED THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO LEGAL WAY TO APPROVE THIS.

SO THIS WAS MORE OF A TECHNICAL ISSUE THAN ANYBODY THINKING THIS WOULD BE A BAD IDEA.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNS, I HATE SIGNS.

I AM IN FAVOR OF FEWER SIGNS.

SO YOU GETTING RID OF ONE ENTIRE SIGN AND NOT DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE OTHER SIDE, YOU KNOW, AUTOMATICALLY I AM LEANING HEAVILY IN FAVOR OF THAT.

I HAVE APPRECIATED THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE CHURCH HAS MADE ALONG LAVON DRIVE VISUALLY.

THAT HAS BEEN THAT'S BEEN HELPFUL.

SO THE QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND HOW MANY FEET, LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE THAT YOU HAVE? ALONG LAVON DRIVE.

YES, LET ME PULL THAT UP.

WE HAVE IT'S JUST OVER A THOUSAND, I BELIEVE.

BUT LET ME GIVE YOU THE EXACT NUMBER HERE.

WE HAVE A THOUSAND FORTY FEET, GIVE OR TAKE.

OK, AND THAT'S DIRECT, LAVON DRIVE FRONTAGE.

YES MA'AM. THAT DOES NOT COUNT THE FULL NORTH-SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE CASTLE. THAT'S BASICALLY FROM THE CREEK ON THE NORTH SIDE TO LANDERS PAWN SHOP, PARKING LOT ON THE SOUTH.

OK, ALL RIGHT.

AND HAVING DRIVEN PAST THERE A MILLION TIMES, I'M THINKING OF ALL OF YOUR ADJACENT BUSINESSES AND NEIGHBORS THERE.

AND MOST OF THEM ARE AT MOST, I WOULD THINK TWO HUNDRED FEET OR LESS WIDE, SO YOU ARE BY AND LARGE, A HUGE DISTINCT TRACT COMPARED TO YOUR BUSINESS NEIGHBORS.

AND AT THIS POINT, MAYOR MAY I ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION? CERTAINLY. MR. NEIGHBOR, ARE YOU THERE? HE'S HERE WITH US, OK? THERE HE IS. MR. NEIGHBOR, IS THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE VOICED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE CONCERNS THAT THIS VARIANCE REALLY COULDN'T BE GRANTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T A HARDSHIP, BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, TOPOGRAPHICAL ISSUES.

IT IS THE ENORMOUS SIZE OF THIS TRACT.

I THINK THE LAST TIME I LOOKED THIS UP, IT WAS CLOSE TO 18 ACRES, WHICH IS BY AND LARGE THE BIGGEST, THING IN THAT WHOLE AREA OF LAVON.

[00:30:03]

DOES THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO GRANT THIS? IS THIS SOMETHING WE LEGALLY CAN GRANT IS BASICALLY WHAT I'M ASKING YOU? YOU CERTAINLY CAN AND NOTWITHSTANDING SOME LANGUAGE IN THE GDC THAT TALKS ABOUT AN APPEAL OR VARIANCE COUCHES IT IN TERMS THAT SOUNDS SOMEWHAT LIKE WHAT OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAY FACE. IT'S A DIFFERENT CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COUNCIL HERE.

THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS PRESCRIBED BY STATE LAW.

IT'S VERY LIMITED.

WHAT YOUR DECISION HERE IS TONIGHT IT'S STILL A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.

YOU GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE STRENGTHENED OR PROVIDED STRENGTH TO THAT RECOMMENDATION BY PROVIDING A SUPERMAJORITY FEATURE.

THAT'S NOT A FUNCTION OF STATE LAW.

THAT'S A [INAUDIBLE] BUT IN TAKING THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU CAN YEAH, YOU LOOK AT UNIQUE FEATURES OF A TRACT OF LAND, AND THERE MAY NOT BE ANYTHING PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT AS FAR AS THE TOPOGRAPHY, WHAT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD LOOK AT SIZE, SHAPE AND SLOPE.

EVEN HERE, THOUGH, YOU HAVE SOME UNIQUE FEATURES, SOMEWHAT LIKE THAT.

IT'S IT'S A LARGE TRACT OF LAND IN THE MIDST OF SMALLER TRACTS OF LAND.

IT HAS GOT A LOT OF FRONTAGE.

AS YOU POINTED OUT THROUGH YOUR QUESTION, YOU HAVE A LOT OF THE DRIVE ENTRANCES THAT [INAUDIBLE] SET UP TO HANDLE THAT TRAFFIC.

AND SO I THINK I'M ASSUMING YOUR QUESTION HERE, ARE YOU CONSTRAINED TO LOOK AT JUST THE SIZE, SHAPE AND SLOPE LIKE OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD HAVE TO IF THIS WERE A TRADITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST? NO, YOU'RE NOT. AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THE FEATURES OF THIS TRACT OF LAND.

I THINK AND I'M ANTICIPATING ANOTHER QUESTION.

DOES THIS ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT OF SOME SORT FOR OTHER SIGN BEARING? AND PRECEDENT, IN THE LEGAL SENSE IS FAR DIFFERENT THAN PRECEDENT IN A LEGISLATIVE SENSE, AND AGAIN, YOU'RE FUNCTIONING HERE IN A LEGISLATIVE ROLE.

YOU'RE LOOKING TO SEE WHAT THE BEST POLICY DECISION IS WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE GDC, BUT WHAT THE BEST POLICY DECISION IS WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR SIGN REQUEST.

AND SO IT DOESN'T EXTRAPOLATE OUT THAT IT SETS A PRECEDENT IN A LEGAL SENSE FOR ALL OTHER SIGN REQUESTS. INDEED, I VERY MUCH DOUBT THAT YOU'D FIND ANOTHER SIGN REQUEST THAT WOULD BE EVEN CLOSELY SIMILAR, MUCH LESS IDENTICAL TO THE KIND OF SIGN REQUEST THAT YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT.

DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YOU DID, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU MR. NEIGHBOR. OK, AND MR. JOHNSTON, AGAIN, I WILL SAY I'M IN FAVOR OF LOSING AS MUCH VISUAL CLUTTER AS WE CAN.

AND IF THIS WAS A DIGITAL SIGN, I WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT ATTITUDE RIGHT NOW.

SO WOULD WE. BUT YEAH.

SO DON'T EVER GO THERE.

[INAUDIBLE] OK? ALL RIGHT. SO MAYOR I WILL GET OFF THE MIC AND LET ANYBODY ELSE WHO NEEDS TO ASK QUESTIONS ASK. I WILL BE READY TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AT WHATEVER POINT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DONE. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSTON, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS ASKED DURING THE PLAN COMMISSION.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND THAT THIS IS A SELF IMPOSED HARDSHIP HERE, THAT IT'S EITHER DUE TO POOR PLANNING OR CHANGES OR SOMETHING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS THAT HAPPENED THAT REQUIRED THE MOVE OF THIS SIGN LOCATION? ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S A VERY FAIR QUESTION.

THE REALITY IS, THAT IT IS SELF-IMPOSED IN THE SENSE THAT OUR CAMPUS IS.

SO THIS SUNDAY, WE CELEBRATE THE SIXTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF LAVON DRIVE BAPTIST CHURCH HERE

[00:35:01]

IN GARLAND. I THINK ABOUT FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PLANO.

THEY ALSO HAVE A LONG STANDING HISTORY IN THEIR COMMUNITY, BUT THEY HAVE MADE THE DECISION AFTER YEARS AND A CAMPUS AND FINDING THAT AS AS IS THE CASE WITH MANY CHURCHES AS THEY EXPERIENCE GROWTH, SOMETIMES GROW FASTER THAN THEY'RE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH IT.

CHANGES ARE MADE, RENOVATIONS ARE MADE, EXPANSIONS ARE MADE THAT DON'T BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE MINISTRY.

AND IN THE CASE OF FIRST BAPTIST PLANO, THEY HAVE MADE THE DECISION TO SIMPLY RELOCATE THEIR CAMPUS AND MOVE ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY GET OUT OF THE DOWNTOWN PLANO AREA.

WHEN WE FIRST MADE THE DECISION TO RENOVATE OUR CAMPUS AND SPEND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BEAUTIFY IT AND A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT IN THE EXTERIOR ESTHETIC, WE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF MOVING SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE WE COULD BEGIN AFRESH AND DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE UNDER PREVIOUS LEADERSHIP THAT IN MANY CASES I WASN'T EVEN ALIVE TO HAVE BEEN A PART OF.

TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, YOU KNOW, THAT WE COULD START AFRESH AND DO IT JUST THE WAY WE WANTED TO. THE REALITY IS, THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR 60 YEARS.

WE HAVE BEEN INVESTING IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 60 YEARS, MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN LIVES FOR 60 YEARS. AND IN THE PROCESS OF THAT, WE'VE GROWN WE HAVE REACHED MANY PEOPLE AND WE'VE ADDED BUILDINGS AND WE BUILT PARKING LOTS AND AND WE'VE DONE THINGS THAT WHEN WE LOOK BACK ON IT. ABSOLUTELY.

DO WE WISH THAT HAD BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY? YOU BET. OH, MY GOODNESS.

SITTING THROUGH SOME OF THE PLANNING MEETINGS FOR THIS ENTIRE PROJECT AND REALIZING WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST IS CRAZY.

BUT HERE WE ARE.

AND OUR GOAL IS TO TAKE THE HAND WE'VE BEEN DEALT WHICH I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL.

I HAVE THE MOST TREMENDOUS RESPECT IN THE WORLD FOR OUR LEADERSHIP THAT PAVED THE WAY FOR US TO HAVE A MINISTRY WE HAVE TODAY.

AND DR. GARY COLEMAN, WHO LED US FOR 50 YEARS, AN UNBELIEVABLE LEADER, AN INCREDIBLE AND DEAR, DEAR FRIEND AND WONDERFUL MENTOR, DID AN AMAZING JOB.

BUT AS WE LOOK BACK ON IT, THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE WISH HAD BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY.

WE CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT PAST.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MINISTER RIGHT WHERE WE ARE, WHICH WE ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHERE GOD DESIRES FOR US TO BE, WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO MOVE.

WE'VE OBVIOUSLY SHOWN THAT BY INVESTING MILLIONS INTO THE SPACE.

AND SO WE'RE WANTING TO MAKE DO.

AS WE OFTEN SAY, ESPECIALLY IN MINISTRY, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO DO THE BEST WITH WHAT YOU HAVE AND BE GOOD AT WISE STEWARDS OF THE RESOURCES WE'VE BEEN GIVEN, PART OF THOSE RESOURCES ARE THE LAND, THE FRONTAGE, THE SPACE THAT WE HAVE.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE BEST STEWARDSHIP OF OUR MONUMENT SIGN, I KNOW IT SOUNDS KIND OF CLICHE. THE BEST STEWARDSHIP OF THAT IS TO PUT IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAMPUS IN A SPOT THAT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.

AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE TO RELOCATE MASSIVE BRICK AND MORTAR BUILDINGS.

AND SO WE HAVE TO WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER AND I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, AND THIS ONE IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. MR. NEIGHBOR, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN PUT IN THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT THIS MONUMENT SIGN FROM BEING TURNED INTO A DIGITAL SIGN IN THE FUTURE? NO, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD STOP IT FROM NOT CURRENTLY FROM BEING A DIGITAL SIGN AS FAR AS CONVERTING IT. I WILL TELL YOU, WE HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS TO OUR DIGITAL SIGN PROVISIONS COMING UP TO YOU NEXT WEEK.

AND THAT COULD BE A WORTHY DISCUSSION TO BE HAD IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE ORDINANCE CHANGES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MR. MAYOR THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.

THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU, MR. NEIGHBOR. COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. MR. JOHNSTON, AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK IN THE COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY DURING THIS LAST YEAR.

AND I THINK YOU'RE A VERY VALUABLE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.

NOW, THAT DOESN'T GENERALLY DETERMINE WHICH WAY I GO ON SIGNS AND WHATNOT, AS PEOPLE KNOW. BUT AS WE TALK ABOUT IT HERE, WITH RESPECT TO DIGITAL SIGNS WE HAVE MANY CHURCHES, WITH DIGITAL SIGNS, I KNOW DIGITAL SIGNS ARE AN ISSUE NOW AND I HOPE WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT GOING FORWARD. BUT IF YOU GUYS DECIDE WITHIN THE CURRENT RULES THAT ARE OUT THERE

[00:40:01]

THAT YOU WANT A DIGITAL SIGN, THEN I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD COMPLETELY THEN YOU SHOULD ASK FOR THAT. IF THAT'S CONSISTENT, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH YOUR MINISTRY.

AND IN THIS CASE WHERE WE HAVE A SIGN THAT DOES NOT.

MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING THE MATERIALS IS THE SIGN IS NOT GOING TO ENCROACH ON SIGHT LINES. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THERE'S A VERY WIDE RIGHT OF WAY BECAUSE THIS IS A STATE HIGHWAY. SO THE PLACEMENT OF YOUR SIGN, IT'S STILL NOT GOING TO BE IN THE WAY OF ANYTHING. AND IN COUNCIL YOU KNOW, WE'VE NEVER REALLY PLACED SOME KIND OF BURDEN OF PROOF. IT'S ALL JUST FROM A LEGISLATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF IS THIS A GOOD THING OR NOT? IS THIS AN INSTANCE WHERE WE NEED WHERE THE RULES, SOMETIMES WE HAVE RULES THAT DO NOT WORK IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION OR THAT DO NOT WORK A PARTICULAR JUSTICE.

CERTAINLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE RENOVATIONS TO THE SIGN FOR SCOOTERS A COUPLE OF WEEKS OR A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF, OH, LET'S BALANCE WHO'S AT FAULT AND THIS AND THAT. IT WAS IS THIS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT? AND WHAT ARE THE FLIP SIDE CONSEQUENCES? AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, AS I LOOK AT THIS, I VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION.

AND, MR. MAYOR, I'D BE HAPPY TO THE SECOND THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEMS MOTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL, IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE CLEARED THE QUEUE AND WE ALREADY HAVE THE MAKINGS OF A MOTION AND A SECOND I WILL ADD THAT IT'S MY EXPERIENCE THAT MONUMENT SIGNS AND LANDSCAPING ARE OFTEN IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER PURELY BY OUR REGULATIONS.

WHEN YOU PLANT TREES AROUND MONUMENT SIGNS, THE TREES AND THE SHRUBBERY ARE VERY SMALL.

AND THEN WITHIN 10 YEARS, THE TREES ARE NOW OBSTRUCTING THE SIGN.

THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

ALL THE TIME. SO MOVING THE TWO THINGS APART FROM EACH OTHER.

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE SIGN.

I THINK THIS SIGN IS VERY APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE OVERALL AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE MESSAGES. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH.

SO WITH THAT DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IN THAT CASE, COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY RYAN JOHNSTON TO ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN SET BACK LESS THAN THE REQUIRED FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

I HAVE A MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS AN A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE VARIANCE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

GREATLY APPRECIATE IT MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU.

AND I KNOW PASTOR GREEN IS ON HERE AS WELL.

I JUST WANT TO SAY TO YOU BOTH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS, NOT JUST WITH THE RENOVATIONS TO YOUR BUILDING THAT I KNOW YOU'VE RECENTLY COMPLETED, BUT ALSO YOUR WORK IN OUR CITY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR PLEASURE. THANK YOU ALL.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. ALL RIGHT, THAT WILL MOVE US TO ITEM 5C COUNCIL, THIS IS A

[5C. Consider a Zoning request by Ocean Star Metals, Inc. to re-zone the property at 521, 523, 525 Shepherd Drive (District 6), which is used for recyclying operations, from Heavy Commercial (HC) District to Industrial (IN) District.]

THREE PART THREE PART ITEM.

AND AS WE WERE NOTIFIED EARLIER, THE 20 PERCENT RULE IS IN EFFECT ON THIS CASE.

THAT MEANING WE NEED A VOTE OF SEVEN TO APPROVE.

BUT AND AFTER DISCUSSING WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY, THAT ONLY APPLIES THE 20 PERCENT RULE, ONLY APPLIES TO THE ZONING PORTION.

SO ITEM FIVE C IS THAT.

BUT THAT'S.

JUST KIND OF AN ODDITY OF THIS CASE AND AND I KNOW SOMETIMES IN THE PAST WE HAVE IF THERE'S A MULTIPART ZONING CASE, WE HAVE TAKEN THE ITEMS, ALL AS ONE.

I'M GOING TO FOLLOW CHAIRMAN ROBERTS LEAD ON THIS.

AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THESE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

AND THERE IS A LOT OF UNIQUE FEATURES WE'LL SAY TO THIS FOLLOWING REQUEST.

SO WE WILL BE HANDLING THE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY.

WITH THAT ITEM FIVE C, CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST BY OCEAN STAR METALS INC.

TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT FIVE TWO ONE.

FIVE TWO THREE. FIVE TWO FIVE SHEPHERD DRIVE IN DISTRICT SIX, WHICH IS USED FOR RECYCLING

[00:45:02]

OPERATIONS FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

AND STAFF PRESENTATION.

IT'S ALREADY UP. THIS IS THE REQUEST, AS STATED.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED 521,523, AND 525 SHEPHERD DRIVE AN THE ACREAGE IS 0.947 ACRES.

THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP, THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN TEAL IT'S AT SHEPHERD DRIVE.

SHEPHERD DRIVE AND FOREST LANE, THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, WHICH CONSISTS OF SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES, PRINTING COMPANY, BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY, CATERING COMPANY AND A AUTO PART FACILITY.

THESE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THE AREA.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IMAGE IS THE AREA OF REQUEST.

SO IN 2010 FILE NUMBER Z 10-30 WAS APPROVED FOR OPERATION OF A RECYCLING CENTER FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, AND DUE TO THE GDC ADOPTION IN 2015, THE USE IS NOW CLASSIFIED AS A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD, WHICH INCLUDES OUTDOOR STORAGE AND REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ONLY.

AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD WITH UNLIMITED OUTSIDE STORAGE THAT WILL SPECIALIZE IN SCRAP METAL RECYCLING, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING THREE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.

THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE BUILDING.

AND THE OPERATION WOULD BE FROM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, FROM 8:00 A.M.

TO 5:00 P.M..

AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 17 PARKING SPACES ON THE OVERALL SITE, WHICH BRINGS THE SITE CLOSER TO THE GDC REQUIREMENTS FOR 18 PARKING SPACES.

THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC USE PROVISION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2010, THE APPLICANT PROVIDE 13 PARKING SPACES.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE BUILDING THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROVIDING BUILDING EXPANSION OR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION FOR THIS REQUEST.

HOWEVER, LANDSCAPING IS EXISTING ON THE SITE.

AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING A SIGNAGE WITH THIS APPLICATION.

AND THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDINGS.

THIS IS THE BUILDING AT FIVE TWENTY ONE.

THIS IS 523.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A CIRCULATION PLAN FOR THE BIG TRUCK CIRCULATIONS AND THEN ALSO THE AUTOMOBILE CIRCULATION ON THE SITE.

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION THAT I PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATION PLAN FOR RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD, THE CIRCULATION MUST BE ON SITE.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT EXISTING OPERATION AND CIRCULATION PLAN INDICATES INTERFERENCE WITH THE TRAFFIC LANES ON SHEPHERD DRIVE.

THE PARKING AS PER THE GDC IS REQUIRED TO HAVE 18 PARKING SPACES.

IN THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PROVISION WAS PROVIDED THE APPLICANT PROVIDED 13 PARKING SPACES AND NOW THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 17 PARKING SPACES ON THE OVERALL SITE.

IN REGARDS TO THE FENCE, A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE, MASONRY SCREENING WALL IS REQUIRED UNLESS ANOTHER FORM OF SCREENING IS APPROVED BY THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO KEEP THE EXISTING EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE TO SCREEN THE OUTDOOR

[00:50:02]

STORAGE AND THE PROCESSING AREA, AND THIS FENCE WAS APPROVED WITH THE PREVIOUS SUP.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION TO BE IN EFFECT FOR 30 YEARS, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT CONCURS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 10 YEARS.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION, DENIAL OF ONE, A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION TO ALLOW A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD WITH LIMITED OUTSIDE STORAGE USE, AND THREE, A PLAN TO ALLOW A YARD [INAUDIBLE] STORAGE USE.

GIVEN THE SMALL SITE THE OPERATION, DOES NOT APPEAR TO MAINTAIN TRUCK TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ON THE SITE PER THE GROUND DEVELOPMENT CODE, REQUIREMENT FOR RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD USES REQUIRES FREQUENT INTERFERENCE OF THE TRAFFIC LANES ON SHEPHERD DRIVE.

ON DECEMBER 14 OF 2020 THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED SIX TO THREE, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF SIX TO THREE, ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION TO ALLOW A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD UNLIMITED OUTSIDE STORAGE USE FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FURTHER RECOMMENDED THE OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE EIGHT FOOT EXISTING FENCE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED SIX TO THREE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE PLAN TO ALLOW RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD [INAUDIBLE] OUTSIDE STORAGE USE.

WE MAILED OUT 16 NOTIFICATION LETTERS FOR OR AGAINST WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA, AND ONE IS AGAINST OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

AND HAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COUNCIL MEMBER, VERA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

KIM. YES.

WHAT WAS THE NOTIFICATION YOU SAID I DIDN'T HEAR IT.

I'M SORRY, WE SENT OUT 16 NOTIFICATION LETTERS FOR OR AGAINST WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND ONE IS AGAINST OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

THANK YOU. THEY DON'T HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE IN THEIR AREA.

THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE STREET TO BACK UP.

TO GO IN THERE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, I HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN SO THEY DON'T HAVE AND ACCORDING TO THE GDC, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE.

THEY CAN'T JUST BACK UP AND BACK AND GO FORWARD.

CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OK, AND THEY HAVE 17 SPACES, NOT 18 SPACES.

THEY'RE ONLY PROVIDING 17.

SO THE GDC SAYS 18 RIGHT.

THAT'S CORRECT. OK, AND CAN YOU SHOW ME SOME PICTURES? YES.

OR WILL OR WHOEVER.

AVAILABLE BUT HAVE THEM AVAILABLE AS WELL IF SHE HAS ANY TROUBLE.

CAN YOU SHOW THEM TO THE COUNCIL.

THAT'S A 18 WHEELER THAT BACKS UP AND BLOCKS THE ROAD EVERY TIME THEY COME IN.

CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? THAT'S THE TRUCK.

OK, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? THAT IS THE SIX FOOT FENCE THEY HAVE AND IT'S NOT METAL OR SCREEN OR

[00:55:05]

ANYTHING, IT JUST THE REGULAR METAL FENCE.

THAT'S THE BIG THING THAT THEY COMPACT EVERYTHING AND THEN CAN YOU SHOW ANOTHER ONE OF THEM.

THAT'S THE GARBAGE, THAT'S ALL THE METAL STUFF THAT EVERYBODY CAN SEE IN THE BACK SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT, EVERYTHING ON [INAUDIBLE].

OK, CAN YOU SHOW THE PLACE WHERE THEY BACK UP THAT IS THE FRONT? THEY DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH ROOM IN THERE.

GO TO THE BACK WHERE THEY BACK IN.

THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE ON IT.

THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, THAT'S WHERE ALL THE 18 WHEELERS CAN GO IN BETWEEN ALL THOSE CONTAINER TRUCKS THAT ARE THERE.

SO. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE.

THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE. OK, THANK YOU.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED COUNCIL TO SEE IT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. KIM JUST ONE QUESTION.

WELL, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.

THE FENCING IS EIGHT FEET.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

CAN YOU HEAR ME KIM? YES, YES, I CAN HEAR YOU.

OK. IT IS 8 FEET.

OK? OK. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T [INAUDIBLE] OK.

AND THE TERMINOLOGY, UNLIMITED OUTSIDE STORAGE KIM.

HOW IS THAT DEFINED? I KNOW A PRACTICAL DEFINITION OF THAT, BUT.

I MAY BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS SIR.

YEAH, THE UNLIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE THAT IS ACTUALLY PART THAT'S IN THE NAME ACTUAL USE NAME OF THE RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD.

IT'S LISTED AS RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD.

AND IN PARENTHESES, IT SAYS UNLIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE.

WHAT THAT ESSENTIALLY MEANS IS THE GDC DELINEATES BETWEEN RECYCLING CENTERS, WHICH HAVE THEIR MATERIALS INDOORS ONLY VERSUS OUTDOORS.

SO THIS WOULD BE A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD, WHICH HAS THE OUTDOOR STORAGE SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE DELINEATION BETWEEN THAT.

AND THERE'S NO PARTICULAR THERE'S NO SQUARE FOOTAGE LIMIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO THE OUTDOOR MATERIAL IS THE ONLY LIMITATION WOULD BE THERE IS A PROVISION THAT SAYS IT SHOULD BE BELOW THE SCREENING OF THE SITE SO THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN LIMITATION.

OK, BUT ESSENTIALLY THERE'S ARE NO CAMPS OR RESTRICTIONS, BOTH VERTICAL OR LINEAR, AS FAR AS FOR CAPACITY, RIGHT? RIGHT. THERE'S NO CAPACITY LIMIT REALLY JUST BEYOND THE HEIGHT OF THE SCREEN, ABOVE THE SCREENING METHOD. THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE'S NO REAL CAPACITY OR SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THAT.

YES, SIR. OK.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR MCNEAL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND MR. GUERIN, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR.

MR. MAYOR, REGARDING IF THE ZONING IS CHANGED, ONE OF THE USES IN THERE, I BELIEVE, IS WOULD ALLOW SMELTERING OR EITHER MELTING.

IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? IF SO CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT, PLEASE? THAT IS CORRECT. THE DEFINITION OR THE ALLOWABLE FEATURES OF A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD DOES INCLUDE MELTING AND SMELTING.

YOU'RE CORRECT. YOU SAW THAT. CORRECT.

SO IF THE ZONING AND THE SUP FOR THE RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD ARE APPROVED, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE IN PREVENTING THAT FROM HAPPENING.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY THE APPLICANT'S INTENT FOR THERE OR IF THAT'S EVEN PART OF THEIR OPERATION. BUT YES, SIR, THAT IS PART OF THE ESSENTIALLY THE DEFINITION OF A RECYCLING SALVAGE YARD.

WHICH IS WHY THE PROPOSAL IS CLASSIFIED.

THANK YOU, SIR. AND THIS MAY BE FOR YOU, MR. GUERIN, OR EITHER FOR YOU, MS. HOPKINS, THERE WAS IN ONE OF THE NOTES THAT WAS REFERENCES TO FIRES.

[01:00:07]

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ORDINANCES WERE WHEN SOME OF THOSE PRIOR FIRES THAT OCCURRED? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ORDINANCE WERE? SO WE DID RECEIVE A REPORT FROM FIRE, BUT IT MAY TO BE SAFE HERE, I BELIEVE CHIEF LEE IS ON THE CALL. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

YES CHIEF LEE IS WITH US.

AND CHIEF I'VE OPENED THE LINE ON OUR END.

THERE YOU GO, SIR. MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AND PROVIDE A LITTLE INFORMATION FOR YOU. THERE WAS ONE FIRE IN AUGUST OF TWENTY NINETEEN THEIR PILE HAD CAUGHT ON FIRE, A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FIRE.

AND IT DID NOT INVOLVE THE BUILDINGS, BUT JUST THE PILE ITSELF.

THE ARSON AND FIRE INVESTIGATORS DID NOT COME OUT TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THAT PARTICULAR FIRE. WE SHOW ANOTHER FIRE THAT WAS MARCH OF TWENTY FIFTEEN THAT I BELIEVE IS THE SAME LOCATION.

THE ADDRESS WAS OFF 527 INSTEAD OF 521 OR 523 ADDRESS THAT FIRE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THEY WERE DOING CUTTING SOME METAL AND THEIR FORKLIFT HAD A SMALL FUEL LEAK.

THE SPARKS IN CUTTING METAL WENT OVER, IGNITED THAT FUEL WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CAUGHT THEIR PILE ON FIRE AT THAT TIME AS WELL.

AGAIN, NO DAMAGE TO THE BUILDINGS, JUST TO THE PILE ITSELF.

THANK YOU. AND, MR. MAYOR, MY FINAL QUESTION WOULD BE, AND CHIEF LEE, THIS MAY BE FOR YOU WOULD BE I'M SORRY MR. GUERIN THIS MAY BE FOR YOU.

WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY MATERIALS THERE THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY HARM TO OUR RESPONDERS, DO WE? THE MEMBER OF THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WAS THERE ARE NO KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON SITE THAT WOULD CAUSE THAT CONCERN.

CHIEF LEE MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE TO THAT OR CONFIRM THAT, BUT THAT'S THE RESPONSE WE DID GET FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

THAT IS TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IT'S A METAL OPERATION THERE.

THE TWENTY FIFTEEN FIRE, I BELIEVE HEALTH WAS REQUESTED TO EVALUATE THE RUNOFF WATER THAT'S LIKELY TO HAVE JUST BEEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF OIL.

THERE WAS NO REPORT OF A SPILL OR LEAK ESTABLISHED THERE.

SO TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NONE.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, CHIEF.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE AND WE'LL GO AHEAD.

IF WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.

YOU'LL NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

AND IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

JUDY WANG AT 523, SHEPHERD DRIVE, GARLAND, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE ZERO FOUR TWO.

OK, AND GO AHEAD.

JOEL WILKINSON ONE ONE EIGHT ONE SIX INWOOD ROAD NUMBER 105, DALLAS SEVEN FIVE TWO FOUR FOUR. OK, AND GO AHEAD.

OK, LET ME JUST SAY THAT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY COMING OUT ON ELECTION NIGHT TO LISTEN TO THIS STORY.

WE FIND THAT IT BASICALLY REVOLVES AROUND AN ISSUE THAT WAS NECESSITATED BY THE STATUTE CHANGE. ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS HERE AND THEN, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THIS WAS DOES NOT CHANGE THE BUSINESS.

THERE IS NOTHING GOING TO CHANGE, NOTHING ANTICIPATED CHANGING.

THERE ARE NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

I WANTED TO GET A CHANCE TO ASK THE FIRE CHIEF HOW MANY OTHER FIRES HAVE THEY HAD AT OTHER WAREHOUSES ALONG THE STREET.

AND BUT I THINK THE CRUCIAL ISSUE HERE, THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF THESE THEORETICAL COMPLAINTS AND THEY ARE HEARSAY COMPLAINTS.

THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC STUDIES.

THERE ARE NO FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

PEOPLE SAY, YEAH, I SAW A TRAFFIC JAM THERE ONE DAY AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS OUR TRUCK OR TRUCK BACKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

ANOTHER PART OF THE ISSUE THAT NO ONE IS DISCUSSED IT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE THERE'S TRUCKS CONSTANTLY BACKING IN AND OUT.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

THESE ARE 18 WHEELERS.

THEY COME ONCE OR TWICE A DAY AT THE MOST.

[01:05:01]

AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED WAYS TO DO THAT.

THERE'S NO PARKING ON THE STREET SIGN OUT THERE, WHICH WE HAVE FOLLOWED.

THERE'S ANOTHER BUSINESS TO THE NORTH OF US THAT VIOLATES THAT.

SOMETIMES WE'RE BLAMED FOR IT.

THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAVE ALSO, ONE OF THEM WERE OVER STOLEN PARTS.

THEY DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

THERE ARE ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO BUY THIS SITE IF THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD GET US OUT OF THE SITE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE ALL THAT WAY, BUT I THINK SOME OF THOSE UNDERLYING ASPECTS OF IT. THE FACT THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY ANYBODY THAT IS SPECIFIC IS DISTURBING TO US BECAUSE WE'RE FIGHTING, WE'RE FIGHTING SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. IF YOU TELL ME THAT YOU HAVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT OUR TRAFFIC, THEN COME TO US AND WE CAN COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS.

BUT NOBODY'S DONE THAT.

THE STAFF HASN'T DONE IT.

THE DISTRICT COUNCIL HAS NOT DONE IT.

NO ONE HAS DONE THAT.

THEY APPEAR TO WANT US OUT OF BUSINESS.

NOW IF WE HAVE TO RELOCATE AND GO OUT OF BUSINESS, IT'LL PROBABLY PUT US IN BANKRUPTCY.

BUT IT'S GOING TO COST AT LEAST TO TWO POINT SIX MILLION TO RELOCATE.

IF THE TRAFFIC ISSUE IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS A PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING I'VE HEARD HERE IS SOME VAGUE THINGS ABOUT A FIRE IN A BUILDING ONCE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY PUT IN A COMPLAINT, UNDERSTANDABLE, THERE ARE FIRES EVERYWHERE.

NOW, IF TRAFFIC IS THE ONLY SOLUTION, IF THAT'S THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT ANYONE HAS, THEN WE HAVE SOLUTIONS FOR THAT.

WE CAN REGULATE THE TIME.

WE ONLY HAVE THE TRUCKS COME AND PICK UP.

AND IF THAT'S IN OUR OPINION, IT'S ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A DAY, SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF THE DAY TO DO IT, TO REGULATE IT, IF WE WANT TO, IF IT'S ONE IF IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT WE KEEP IT OFF FROM PRIME TRAFFIC HOURS.

THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

THE ISSUE SEEMS TO BE THAT SOMEONE WANTS US TO NOT BE IN THAT BUSINESS, IN THAT LOCATION, AND I THINK IT HAS TO GO BEYOND TRAFFIC BECAUSE TRAFFIC IS EASY TO SOLVE IF NO ONE KNOWS HOW MANY TRUCKS ARE COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE, BUT THEY'RE SURE THERE ARE ALL THESE TRAFFIC JAMS, THEN I DON'T HAVE A TARGET.

I CAN SAY THAT IF I STRUCTURE THAT.

IF WE COME UP WITH A STRUCTURE, LET'S SAY THAT THE TRUCKS, CAN ONLY COME AFTER BETWEEN 8:00 AND BEFORE 12:00 OR AND BEFORE 3:00 OR 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON, YOU TAKE OUT ALL THE TIMES THAT ARE IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE MIGHT THINK, WELL, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LUNCH OR THEY'RE COMING TO WORK.

AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES ARE WE HAVEN'T EXPLORED OR SEEN A FEASIBILITY STUDY FROM THE CITY ON WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THE TRAFFIC LIGHT REGULATION.

YOU KNOW, IF THESE THESE OCCURRENCES ARE MINIMAL, VERY, VERY DE MINIMUS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE CITY, WE AREN'T REALLY ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN TO MAINTAIN OUR BUSINESS AS IT IS.

AND BECAUSE WE GOT CAUGHT IN THE REGULATION CHANGE BEFORE.

IT BASICALLY BOILS DOWN TO THAT, I THINK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I HEARD IT MENTION WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES BEFORE, BUT WE ADDED SOME SINCE SINCE 2010.

THERE WERE 13 THEN IS 17 NOW AND THEN SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THERE NEEDING TO OR THEY'RE PART OF THE GDC IS AT 18.

I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO IS FOR US TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN ANSWER SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

AGAIN, THERE ARE NO FACTS OTHER THAN WHAT THERE ACTUALLY IS AND YOU KNOW WE ONLY DO ONE OR TWO TRUCKS A DAY? IT'S KIND OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE, THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A DRASTIC ACTION BECAUSE OF THAT. OK, I CAN OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

ARE YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? YOU STILL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP? WELL, I THINK THE POWERPOINT SHOWS THAT.

GO AHEAD, MS. WANG WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE POWERPOINT.

KIM HOW DO I SHARE THE POWERPOINT OR YOU CAN HEAR THE POWERPOINT.

IF IT'S ON YOUR END.

IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE YOU'LL HAVE TO DO THAT.

OH, OK. I CAN SHARE THE SCREEN.

[01:10:06]

AND IF YOU CAN JUST GO.

GO AHEAD. SO THIS IS THE PICTURE WE TOOK WHEN THERE ARE CARS AND TOW TRUCKS PARKED RIGHT IN FRONT, THIS IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR SPACE OUR YARD.

AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A CUSTOMER FOR THE CAR DEALERSHIP AT 4502 FOREST LANE.

AND THIS IS THEIR TOW TRUCK HERE, ALSO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE REVOLVING KITCHEN AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR STREET.

AND THIS IS THE TWO TRUCKS WAITING FOR 30 MINUTES FOR GOING INTO 520 SHEPHERD DRIVE RIGHT IN FRONT OF US.

SO THIS IS NOT US THAT CAUSING THE TRAFFIC.

SO FOR US TO BE BLAMED, I WOULD LIKE NOT TO BE BLAMED FOR ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT HAS CAUSED. SO THIS IS JUST A PICTURE OF OUR YARD.

AND WHERE WE HAVE CUSTOMER PARKING SITE, OUR FACILITY, AND THIS IS THE VIDEO OF OTHER TRUCKS BACK UP, THIS IS BACKING UP TO ACROSS THE STREET AT REVOLVING KITCHEN AT 520 SHEPHERD DRIVE, AS YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE ALSO BACKING UP THE TRUCK AND WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE. THIS IS A WAREHOUSE AREA, SO EVERYBODY IS GETTING TRUCKS IN IN A WHOLESALE AREA.

THEY ARE BLOCKING THE TRAFFIC AS WELL. IT HAPPENS ALL DAY LONG. AND THIS IS BACKING UP TO 601 SHEPHERD DRIVE JUST TWO WAREHOUSE DOWN FROM US YOU SEE HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THEY HAVE CAUSED.

AND THESE THREE TRUCKS [INAUDIBLE].

THOSE ARE THE ONE OF THE PERSON THAT COMPLAINED, BUT THEY'RE THE ONE THAT GOT BLOCKED, NOT BY US IT'S BY 601 SHEPHERD DRIVE.

SO AND THIS IS YOU KNOW, WE CAN OF COURSE, WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, WE DON'T WANT TO CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS EITHER.

SO BASICALLY WE OPERATING THIS EXACT SAME BUSINESS AND THEY'RE SAYING THERE'S NO STREET PARKING SIGN IN PLACE AND WE HAVE NOT PARKED OUR CARS ON THE STREET.

SO, AGAIN, WHOEVER PARKED THERE IS NOT OUR CARS.

AND WE CAN LIMIT LARGE TRUCK DELIVERY AND PICKUP HOURS TO AVOID THE PEAK TRAFFIC HOURS.

AND WE CAN ALSO HAVE ONE PERSON OUT THERE DIRECTING TRAFFIC WHEN THERE IS A TRUCK BACK UP. SO THIS IS MY PRESENTATION.

OK, WELL, THANK YOU, IF YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND UNSHARE YOUR SCREEN FOR ME.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

OK, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT IS I'M LOOKING BACK AT HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND I'M LOOKING AT ONE AS RECENTLY AS NOVEMBER 18TH OF LAST YEAR.

AND IN THE AREAS YOU HAVE MARKED AS ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES YOU ARE PLANNING TO PROVIDE, THERE IS SCRAP MATERIAL IN THAT AREA, THESE PARKING SPACES THAT YOU PROVIDE.

ARE YOU PLANNING ON CLEARING THAT MATERIAL AWAY? YES THAT MATERIAL IS TEMPORARY? YES, THOSE ARE PARKING SPOTS.

BUT THE MATERIAL THERE IS TEMPORARY.

OK, AND ADDITIONALLY, IN THE FIFTH SLIDE, YOU SHOWED THAT TRUCK PARKING APPEARS TO BE PARKING IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND UP VERY NEAR THE CURB.

AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE IN ONE OF THE PROPOSED PARKING SPOTS.

AND MAYBE WE HAVE TO GET OUR PARKING ENFORCEMENT ON THAT AS WELL.

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PARKING ISSUES THERE, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE EMPLOYEES USING THE DESIGNATED PARKING SPOTS THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING THERE RATHER THAN DOUBLE PARKING OR EVEN PARKING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, VERY NEAR THE CURB LINE.

OK. OK, I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.

THANK YOU SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING TO THE APPLICANT AND BOTH THE APPLICANTS.

MY QUESTION THAT I ASK EARLIER ON THE REQUEST IS FOR UNLIMITED OUTSIDE STORAGE AND YOUR FENCING IS EIGHT FEET.

[01:15:01]

SO WOULD YOU TALK ABOUT TO WHAT EXTENT WILL YOUR ACTUAL INVENTORY EXCEED THAT, THAT THE HEIGHT OF THAT FENCE? AND IF NOT, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR STORAGE CAPACITY? WE ARE ACTUALLY WHAT WE DO IS DOESN'T ENCOURAGE US TO STORE ANYTHING.

AS MUCH AS WE COME IN.

WE TRY TO GET IT OUT AND GONE BECAUSE WE ARE, IN EFFECT, TRANSFERRING AND WHOLESALING THAT METAL SOMEWHERE ELSE.

IF WE HAVE A STORAGE, IT'S NOT A GOOD THING WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY STORAGE.

AND WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS UNLIMITED SPATIAL STORAGE OUT THERE, IT DOESN'T HELP US.

WE HAVE TO MOVE THINGS.

WE CAN'T KEEP THINGS STORED THERE.

AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, BUT WE DON'T PLAN ON DOING IT, SO.

OK. IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

I HOPE I DID. I THINK THE QUESTION WAS THE MATERIALS BEING VISIBLE ABOVE THE FENCE.

JUST ABOVE THE FENCE LINE.

CORRECT, MR. MAYOR. RIGHT THOSE, AGAIN, IS TEMPORARILY IT'S WE HAVE TO KEEP GOING ON EVERY DAY, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S THERE AND WE ALWAYS TRY TO KEEP IT BELOW THE 8 FOOT FENCE. CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT? YOU SAID IT HAPPENS EVERY DAY BECAUSE YOUR REQUEST DOES INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR TO THE GENTLEMAN THERE, IT SAYS PART OF REQUESTS FOR UNLIMITED OUTSIDE STORAGE.

SO I ASSUME THAT THAT'S THERE FOR A REASON.

SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUT AND LOOKING AT YOUR FENCES.

I JUST WANT YOU TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR ME THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOUR STORAGE WILL EXCEED FOR YOUR FENCING. I'M SORRY, COUNCILMAN.

THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT STATEMENT.

WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT UNLIMITED.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT I WANTED YOU TO DESCRIBE, GIVEN THE FENCING,[INAUDIBLE] TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD YOUR STORAGE EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF YOUR FENCING.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON.

YOU WILL NOT. YEAH. YOU WILL NOT.

NO YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THE FENCE, THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE.

OK, SO YOU'RE SAYING AT NO TIME WILL YOUR INVENTORY EXCEED THE HEIGHTS OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS OF THE FENCING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IT SHOULDN'T BE. IT WILL NOT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING.

WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS OK. ALL RIGHT.

OK, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU SIR. COUNCILMAN MCNEAL.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND I CONCUR WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE MOVING MATERIALS THAT WAY BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO CARRY INVENTORY, AND THAT DEFINITELY MAKES GOOD BUSINESS SENSE.

THE QUESTION WOULD BE IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS, ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT YOUR MATERIALS WILL BE MOVED MAYBE ON THE THURSDAY OR FRIDAY SO THAT ESTHETICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THAT IF YOU DID EXCEED THAT, HEIGHT OF THE FENCE? OR WOULD THAT BE THE SAME FOR HOLIDAYS? ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT YOUR MATERIALS WILL BE MOVED OUT BY THE END OF THE DAY SO THAT THAT IS NOT UNATTRACTIVE? YES, YES. WE MOVE OUT EVERY DAY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ONE OR TWO TRUCKS A DAY TO MOVE THOSE OUT.

OK, SO AFTER YOUR LAST EXIT OF THE MATERIALS OF YOUR PROPERTY, THERE'S NOT ANOTHER TRUCK COMING IN LATER THAT DAY. YOU'RE STILL TALK ABOUT THE TWO A DAY? YEAH. RIGHT. THAT'S HISTORICAL, THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT WE GET AND THAT'S HOW MUCH WE SCHEDULE AND IF THERE'S MAYBE WE HAVE OTHER SMALLER TRUCKS THAT CAN HELP AND RELIEF THAT INVENTORY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMAN VERA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR FENCE.

THAT'S NOT A WOODEN FENCE OR A BRICK FENCE, IT'S A CHAIN LINK FENCE, EVERYBODY CAN LOOK IN THERE. THAT WAS APPROVED AT THE PRIOR SUP, AT THE EXISTING SUP, I MEAN, IF IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED THAT WE ARE, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO CHANGE THAT.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM CHANGING IT.

OK, ACCORDING TO OUR GDC, IT HAS TO BE COVERED.

SURE. WHERE PEOPLE CAN NOT SEE THAT.

[01:20:04]

WHAT ABOUT THE CIRCULAR DRIVE THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE ACCORDING TO OUR GDC. RIGHT.

SO THAT'S HOW THE TRUCK CAN GO.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT IS.

IT HAS TO GO INTO YOUR PROPERTY AND CIRCLE AROUND ONE WAY AND COME OUT ANOTHER WAY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT IS THAT THE 18 WHEELERS THAT ONCE OR TWICE A DAY THAT BACK INTO OUR LOADING DOCK. THAT'S THE ONLY EXCEPTION.

WE DO HAVE CIRCULATION FOR SMALLER TRUCKS.

THEY CAN COME IN AND GO THROUGH AN 18 WHEELER CAN'T MAKE.

WE DON'T THINK THE 18 WHEELER CAN MAKE IT COMFORTABLY IN AND OUT OF THERE.

AND THAT WOULD CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.

WELL, ACCORDING TO OUR GDC, THAT WAS PASSED IN TWENTY FIFTEEN, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE AND APPARENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE, ACCORDING TO OUR GDC.

THANK YOU MAYOR. OK, WE APPEAR TO HAVE CLEARED THE QUEUE, JUST ONE OBSERVATION I HAVE ON THIS, AND IF MY MEMORY SERVES, I WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED 10 YEARS AGO, THAT IN THIS TIME SPAN, OBVIOUSLY, YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR CAPACITY HAS PROBABLY GROWN.

SO WITH THIS CHANGE, YOU ARE NOT CHANGING YOUR BUSINESS MODEL.

IT IS OUR REGULATIONS THAT HAVE CHANGED, THAT ARE CREATING A CONFLICT.

IS THAT CORRECT, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING WHAT YOU'RE DOING FROM 10 YEARS AGO, MAYBE YOU'RE DOING MORE OF IT, BUT YOU'RE NOT CHANGING YOUR BASIC OPERATIONS, CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY THE SAME, MR. MAYOR. HASN'T CHANGED. OK.

I MEAN, THERE ARE I WATCHED THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND LISTENING TO EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONS TONIGHT. I MEAN, I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT THE STORAGE OF MATERIAL BEING ABOVE THE FENCE, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, TO THE TRUCKS, OBVIOUSLY.

I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN IN AND OUT OF THAT AREA.

I'M GUESSING WHEN THAT AREA WAS DEVELOPED, EVEN THOUGH IT IS INDUSTRIAL, I WAS PROBABLY NOT ANTICIPATED THAT SEMIS WOULD BE COMING AND GOING, CERTAINLY AT THE VOLUME OR FREQUENCY THAT THEY DO NOW.

AND AGAIN, YOU'VE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IT'S NOT JUST YOU.

THERE ARE COUNTLESS BUSINESSES ALONG SHEPHERD DRIVE THAT USE THEM.

YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY REGULATING THE TIMES WHEN YOU BRING YOUR TRUCKS IN WOULD CERTAINLY BE A BENEFIT. BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO IF THIS IS APPROVED.

CORRECT. YES MR. MAYOR. THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, WE HAVE CLEARED THE QUEUE ON THIS ITEM, AND JUST AS A REMINDER, AS FAR AS THE TWO THIRDS THE 20 PERCENT RULE BEING IN EFFECT IN THIS ITEM NEEDING SEVEN VOTES IF IT IS TO BE APPROVED.

WITH THAT, I AM OPEN FOR A MOTION.

COUNCILMAN VERA ARE YOU? THERE YOU GO, SIR. OK, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY ACCORDING TO STAFF [INAUDIBLE].

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA FOR TO DENY THE ZONING REQUEST CHANGE FOR ITEM FIVE C.

AND I DO NOT SEE A SECOND ON THAT.

OH, SORRY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS IS THE SECOND.

AND AGAIN, COUNCIL, THE MOTION IS TO DENY, UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL, YOU COULD VOTE.

SO THE MOTION IS TO DENY.

SO A YES IS IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

[01:25:05]

COUNCILMAN VERA YOU'RE SHOWING A NO.

OH, I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY TO DENY.

THE MOTION IS TO DENY.

AND THAT MOTION FAILS, WITH.

WE GOT THREE.

WITH COUNCILMAN VERA DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS AND COUNCILMAN AUBIN IN FAVOR OF THAT.

SO THE MOTION TO DENY FAILS.

SORRY, I KNOW THAT'S CONFUSING, AND I PROBABLY DIDN'T STATE IT VERY WELL ON TOP OF THAT.

SO THE MOTION TO DENY HAS FAILED, BUT WE DO NEED I BELIEVE AN AFFIRMATIVE MOTION.

[INAUDIBLE] COUNCILMAN HEDRICK? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, I'M ALWAYS SYMPATHETIC.

USUALLY WHEN OUR REGULATIONS CHANGE, AS OPPOSED TO WHEN A BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE.

AND FOR THAT REASON, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ZONING CHANGE.

OK, LET ME BACK UP REALLY QUICK HERE.

I WASN'T SEEING THAT.

ALSO, COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH VOTED TO DENY AS WELL IT'S FOUR FIVE.

SORRY, SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

NO PROBLEM. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCNEAL.

AND I'VE GOT SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE HERE REAL QUICK, COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, SORRY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I GUESS IT'S A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.

IF WE CHANGE THE UNDERLYING ZONING, THEY WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN LEGAL, NONCONFORMING, CORRECT? USUALLY.

YES. SO, HOWEVER, WHY ARE WE I GUESS, WHY ARE WE VOTING ON AN SUP? DIDN'T THEY HAVE ANOTHER PERMIT THAT HAD EXPIRED? NO, I THINK THEY HAD AN SUP THAT EXPIRED IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT CREATURE.

OK, SO IT DIDN'T EVER HAVE THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

AS OF RIGHT.

IT WAS ONLY EXCUSE ME, I MISSPOKE.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY ZONING AS OF RIGHT, THE UNDERLYING ZONING COULD BE GRANDFATHERED, BUT NOT UNDER AN SUP IF IT EXPIRES THAN THAT AUTHORIZATION EXPIRES AS WELL. THERE'S NO NONCONFORMING STATUS [INAUDIBLE] SO THE IDEA OF LET ME SEE IF I CAN PHRASE THIS CORRECTLY, VERY SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK JUST SAYS, I DON'T WANT TO PULL THE RUG OUT FROM SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A WHILE, BUT IF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THAT PERMIT WAS A FIXED AMOUNT OF TIME. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING ANYTHING THAT IS UNREASONABLE WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS ITEM, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S A SUBJECTIVE QUESTION.

I APOLOGIZE. LET ME RESTATE IT.

LET ME RESTATE IT. SO THERE WAS A PERMIT.

IT WENT 10 YEARS THAT PERMITS EXPIRED.

WE'RE CHOOSING WHETHER OR NOT TO RENEW A PERMIT.

AND THE ZONING CHANGE IS KIND OF INCIDENTAL TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE EXAMINING A PERMIT.

THIS IS REALLY A QUESTION OF AN SUP.

LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO VESTED RIGHTS TO AN EXPIRED SUP.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, IT DOES.

OK, WHETHER WE CALL THEM NONCONFORMING RIGHTS OR ANYTHING ELSE, THAT AUTHORIZATION, THE TIME LIMIT IS UP IT'S EXPIRED, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE NEW AUTHORIZATION.

OK, SO WE ARE NOT JUST, HEY, WE CHANGED THE ZONING AND WE'RE YANKING THE RUG OUT FROM UNDERNEATH YOU. THERE WAS AN SUP.

IT EXPIRED. THIS IS A RENEWAL.

THAT'S THE DISCUSSION.

AND OH, BY THE WAY, WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME ZONING CHANGES TO GO ALONG WITH IT IF WE WANTED TO RENEW THIS. DID YOU WANT ME TO CONFIRM YOUR ARGUMENT.

PLEASE, SIR? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET IT TECHNICALLY CORRECT HERE.

[LAUGHTER] YES. OK, SO AGAIN, ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT WHEN THIS TIME LIMIT WAS IMPOSED SOME YEARS AGO, IT HAD A MEANING.

AND WHEN THAT TIME IS GONE, THEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK.

AND I AGREE, NOT SO MUCH A LEGAL MATTER, BUT THEY DO BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN THE

[01:30:04]

[INAUDIBLE] AND THE GDC, THERE ARE SOME INCIDENTAL CHANGES TO THE ZONING.

BUT THE BIG HURDLE HERE IS, IS THAT THE SUP HAS EXPIRED.

BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT THEY'RE NEEDING TO MOVE ON HERE, OK, AND THE REASON THAT THERE IS A ZONING CHANGE ATTACHED TO THAT IS BECAUSE THIS ZONING IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW US TO ISSUE THAT TYPE OF SUP.

I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT STEPPING A LITTLE FAR OUT OF MY KNOWLEDGE, BACK HERE WILL CAN PROBABLY SPEAKERS] THAT IS CORRECT.

COUNCIL MEMBER, ALONG WITH THE RULE CHANGES IN THE GDC, THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT DID CHANGE TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL DOES NOT ALLOW RECYCLING SALVAGE YARDS AT ALL. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST TO INDUSTRIAL, WHICH ONLY ALLOWS RECYCLING SALVAGE YARDS BY SUP.

GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.

IF WE'RE IN DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE, I WILL CONTINUE TO OPPOSE.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE REALLY PULLING THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER THESE FOLKS.

THIS IS YOU KNOW, THE CLOCK HAS BEEN TICKING THIS WHOLE TIME.

AND I THINK THAT THAT ZONING, BASED ON WHAT ELSE WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE CITY, IS WRONG FOR THAT AREA.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND STAFF.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR US.

THANK YOU SIR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, WERE YOU IN THE QUEUE? I THINK I MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY KICKED YOU OUT OF THE QUEUE.

YES. YES, SIR, I WAS.

GO AHEAD. OK, OK.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, FIRST, I [INAUDIBLE] SUPPORT THE MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN HEDRICK, BUT I BET A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH ALL OF THE CHANGES AS IT RELATES TO THIS.

THE CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED REGARDING THE VISIBILITY OF THE STORAGE INVENTORY AND THE DISCUSSION OF WHERE THE I THINK IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FENCING CHANGE TO MAKE THAT TO SHIELD THAT STORAGE.

AND AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT SHE WAS WILLING TO DO THAT.

CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INCLUDE EITHER AS IT IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT REQUIRED TO COUNCILMAN HEDRICK'S MOTION TO DO THAT OR CAN WE INCLUDE THAT IF HE ACCEPTS IT. AND I NEED YOUR GUIDANCE ON THAT.

BUT YEAH, IF YOU THE MAKER OF THE MOTION COUNCILMAN HEDRICK WANTS TO INCLUDE SOME CONDITIONAL [INAUDIBLE], WE CAN CERTAINLY DRAFT IT UP.

YOU'LL SEE IT WHEN YOU GET THE ORDINANCE BACK FOR APPROVAL.

OK, SO DO I NEED TO OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO COUNCILMAN HEDRICK'S ACCEPTING THAT? I THINK YOU JUST HAVE.

[LAUGHTER] OK, WELL, I WILL SO DO IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE BY COUNCILMAN HEDRICK.

OK, I'VE GOT QUITE A FEW PEOPLE HERE.

I MEAN, WHEN THE APPROPRIATE TIME COMES.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OK, COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AS I IT'S VERY MUCH DENOVO IN THE SENSE OF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN SUP IS THAT THEY'RE TIME LIMITED SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

AND SO THERE IS NOT ANY, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND ANY KIND OF RIGHT TO CONTINUE.

WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE.

WE'VE EXAMINED SUPS FOR ALL KINDS OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

AND IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE EFFECT OF RENEWAL THAT SUP IS WARRANTED. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK, AND JUST A REMINDER RIGHT NOW ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGE.

OKAY SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK, BACK TO YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WOULD ASK COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS TO RESTATE HIS MOTION WHEN IT COMES, BUT I HAVE A STATEMENT FIRST OR HIS AMENDMENT I'M SORRY.

FIRST MY STATEMENT IS THAT THIS IS A CASE LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SEE OFTEN AND

[01:35:02]

WITH THESE GDC REVISIONS THAT ARE JUST SIX YEARS AGO, LITERALLY AN EDGE CASE WHERE THIS IS AN EDGE BETWEEN HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE GDC REVISIONISTS GOT RIGHT OR NOT WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT THAT? YOU LOOK ALL ALONG, SHEPHERD, JUST SOUTH OF THAT THERE IS INDUSTRIAL ZONING RIGHT THERE. SO IT'S QUESTIONS LIKE THIS WE GET SOMETIMES THAT ARE THESE EDGE CASES, DO THEY JUST [INAUDIBLE] THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL VERSUS THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THIS? AND, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT THEY PERHAPS DIDN'T LOOK AT THE USE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OBVIOUSLY AT LEAST 10 YEARS.

THEN IT APPEARS THAT THAT ZONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ZONED INDUSTRIAL FROM THE CHANGES IN THE GDC. SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT.

AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS RESTATE HIS AMENDMENT IF IT'S WHENEVER THE TIME COMES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SIR.

THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF MORE PEOPLE TO CIRCLE AROUND TO.

COUNCILMAN VERA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS FOR COUNSEL, BRAD.

I'M SORRY I MISSED.

FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. OK, GO AHEAD.

BRAD.

HE'S HERE. OH, OK.

IF THE OWNERSHIP CHANGE.

DON'T THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SUP. A NEW ONE.

NO, WE DON'T TIE THE SUP'S TO OWNERSHIP.

YOU MEAN THE PRIOR.

NO THE COMPANY.

IF IT CHANGES OWNERSHIP.

THE SUP WOULD BE FOR THE LAND NOT THE PEOPLE.

YEAH, NO, NO, BUT.

GO AHEAD. I THINK WHAT THE COUNCILMAN IS SAYING, WE USED TO HAVE A PRACTICE HERE OF TYING SUP'S TO OWNERSHIP IN MOST CASES.

WE DID AWAY WITH THAT WITH THE GDC AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WAS PROBLEMATIC TRYING TO TRACK OWNERSHIP. SOMETIMES OWNERSHIP CHANGED ONLY A NAME.

NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.

ANY WAY WE BACKED AWAY FROM THAT PRACTICE.

IT'S NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT IN THE GDC.

IF YOU'RE ASKING COULD IT BE DONE TIE THE OWNERSHIP OR THIS SUP TO THAT, IT COULD BE MADE A CONDITION THAT IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD PRACTICE.

OK, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT, MS. WONG, ARE YOU THE OWNER OF THIS COMPANY? YES. HAVE YOU BEEN THE OWNER FOR A LONG TIME? YES, FROM THE BEGINNING.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, AND SIMILAR TO COUNCILMAN HEDRICK'S STATEMENT.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING OF THE APPLICANTS DOING RIGHT IT'S BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY OUR PROCESSES HAVE CHANGED, OUR RULES HAVE CHANGED.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DID.

AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AS IF SHE DID THIS KNOWINGLY.

AS LONG AS SHE'S CONTINUING TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AS SHE'S BEEN DOING THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT MAY BE A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT IN THERE WHERE SHE IS.

HOWEVER, THIS WAS NOT HER DOING RIGHT.

AND THEREFORE, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT MATTERS, WHETHER SOMETHING IS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE OR SOMETHING THAT MAYBE, AGAIN, WHEN THE GDC, WHEN THEY WERE REVISING THAT, THAT THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.

SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT IS JUST IN A SPOT RIGHT HERE.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION, THE ORIGINAL SUP FROM 10 YEARS AGO DID WAS ONE OF ITS REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MATERIALS STAY BELOW THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN ITS EXISTENCE STATE WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME.

BUT WAS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MATERIAL STAY BELOW THAT LEVEL PART OF THE ORIGINAL SUP? YES, COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS, IT IS IN THE EXISTING SUP'S ORDINANCE AND THE CONDITIONS THAT

[01:40:03]

STATES THAT ALL MATERIALS STORED OUTDOORS SHALL BE PROHIBITED TO BE STORED ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. AND WE HAVE CARRIED THAT OVER IN THE DRAFT SUP CONDITIONS FOR TONIGHT'S CASE. RIGHT.

SO I SAW THAT AND I ASSUMED IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL SUP.

AND FRANKLY, THIS IS PART OF MY DENIAL.

I AM ALWAYS SYMPATHETIC WITH BUSINESS ALWAYS, AND I AM ALWAYS PRONE TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO TO SEE THEM SURVIVE AND CONTINUE, BUT.

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PHOTOS WE SAW THAT THE RULES THAT WERE SET DOWN 10 YEARS AGO HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT.

THEY'VE NOT BEEN KEPT. THERE'S MATERIAL STACKED WAY UP HIGH OVER THE FENCE.

IT'S UNSIGHTLY. THERE'S MATERIALS, AS COUNCILMAN HEDRICK POINTED OUT, STACKED IN SPACES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PARKING SPACES.

OKAY. AND IT IS NOT A GOOD USE FOR THAT AREA LONG TERM WITH OUR PLANS, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT HOW WELL THE APPLICANTS HAVE, IN FACT, COMPLIED WITH OUR PREVIOUS RULES AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WHAT WE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT IN THE FUTURE.

SO I AM REGRETFUL TO STAND ON THE SIDE OF DENIAL WITH THIS, BECAUSE I FEEL FOR THE APPLICANTS, BUT THIS IS NOT A GOOD USE AND NOT A GOOD LOOK.

THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT, AND I'M TROUBLED BY THAT.

I'M TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT IT HASN'T BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND I'M TROUBLED WITH JUST ACCEPTING PROMISES THAT EVERYTHING'S SUDDENLY GOING TO CHANGE NOW, IF WE GRANT THIS SO, MY DENIAL WILL STAND.

THANK YOU MAYOR. MAYOR MAY I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? I'M ALSO ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES NO, WE HAVE MOVED ON FROM THAT FOR THE MOMENT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S FINE.

I WAS GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WAS POSED, BUT I UNDERSTAND.

I THINK WE'VE GOT COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE COUNCIL, I GUESS, WITH MR. NEIGHBOR THAT REGARDLESS OF ANY CHANGE IN.

THE CHANGE IN UNDERLYING ZONING IS, IN SOME RESPECTS, IMMATERIAL TO THE FACT THAT THIS APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT.

EVEN IF THE ZONING HAD NEVER CHANGED, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE HERE FOR A RENEWAL OF THE PRIOR SUP.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OK, SO IN THAT REGARD, NO INJUSTICE HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE CHANGE OF ZONING ITSELF.

IT HAS JUST REQUIRED THAT THIS APPLICATION BE BROKEN INTO THREE PIECES.

AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO CHARACTERIZE ON THE INJUSTICE PART, BUT IT'S THAT FACT THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE PIECE WHERE WE'RE JUST APPROVING THE SUP, IT IS HERE IN THREE PIECES TONIGHT, IS THAT ROUGHLY ACCURATE? AGAIN, WITHOUT MAKING YOUR ARGUMENT FOR YOU AND PERHAPS WILL CAN VERIFY HERE, BUT THE ZONING CHANGE IS INCIDENTAL TO THE NEED TO GET THE SUP RENEWED.

THAT'S THE CONTROLLING FACTOR HERE.

RIGHT. I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT HAD THE ZONING NEVER CHANGED, THEY WOULD STILL BE HERE TONIGHT ON THE SUP.

IF THE GDC HAD MADE NO CHANGES AT ALL, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO COME IN FOR RENEWAL OF THE SUP. OK, THANK YOU MAYOR.

THANK YOU MR. NEIGHBOR. ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMAN VERA ONE LAST TIME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF WE APPROVE THIS THING I HAVEN'T SEEN THE APPLICANT DO ANY PLANS, LIKE PUT IN A NEW FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY.

I HAVE NOT SEEN NO SIGNS OF MARKING THE PARKING SPACES THERE, ALL NOT MARKED, SOME OF THEM ARE, SOME NOT.

THEY HAVE NOT DO ANY IMPROVEMENTS.

I HAVE NOT SEEN NO IMPROVEMENTS.

AND IS THAT GOING TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL THIS IF THEY APPROVE IT?

[01:45:07]

ARE WE JUST GOING TO APPROVE IT AND NO NOTHING.

WELL.

THERE IS AN AMENDMENT PENDING ON THE FENCING.

OK, AND WHAT ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES.

I BELIEVE THEY ARE DEFICIENT BY ONE PARKING SPACE? NO, NO, NO. I MEAN PAINTING THE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT'S REQUIRED AS FAR AS OUR REQUIREMENTS, I'M NOT SURE.

I CAN DO THAT. I MEAN, THEY THEY CAN MARK THE SPACES, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT IS.

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S PART OF THE ZONING ISSUE.

NOT THE ZONING ISSUE, BUT THE OTHER ISSUES.

WELL. AND THAT'S WHY I DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON IT WAS ALL THREE OF THEM JUST ONE TIME.

OK. I MEAN, I'M OPPOSED TO THAT.

OK. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMAN MCNEAL TRYING TO GET US GET US BACK AROUND THE HORN IF WE CAN GO. GO AHEAD.

YES, REAL QUICKLY, JUST TO COUNCILMAN AUBIN'S QUESTION, JUST TO MAKE SURE IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY. SO IF YOU TAKE OUT THE ZONING PIECE AND I THINK COUNCILMAN AUBIN, YOU WERE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE SUP APPROVAL, CORRECT, MR. NEIGHBOR. THAT IS CORRECT.

RIGHT. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE SUP IS TIME LIMITED, CORRECT? SO THAT'S JUST THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS.

CORRECT. OK.

OK. ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, IF I COULD GET YOU TO RESTATE YOUR AMENDMENT AND WE WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE.

OK, SIR, IF I CAN SAY THE SAME THING THE SAME WAY TWICE, I'LL GIVE IT A STAB [LAUGHTER].

OK, MY AMENDMENT IS THAT THE APPLICANT ERECTS A FENCING THAT SHIELDS THE INVENTORY FROM PUBLIC VIEW.

AND I'M NOT GETTING INTO MATERIALS AND THAT KIND OF THING, BUT THE KEY THING IS THAT THE APPLICANT ERECTS FENCING THAT SHIELDS THEIR INVENTORY FROM PUBLIC VIEW.

OKAY AND I'LL CLARIFY WITH WILL, THAT IS AT EIGHT FEET HIGH, CORRECT IS THE REQUIREMENT.

YES, MAYOR, AND I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE SUP CONDITIONS THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THERE AS WELL A MINIMUM, EIGHT FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE IS HOW THE EXISTING SUP CONDITIONS READS.

I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS IS SOMETHING TRULY OPAQUE.

I BELIEVE THE EXISTING SITE HAS KIND OF A MESH, SOME TYPE OF MESH FABRIC MATERIAL ON THE [INAUDIBLE] SO PERHAPS SOMETHING MORE OPAQUE IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

YES, AND MR. GUERIN THE GDC, I KNOW IT DOESN'T GET INTO THE KIND OF MATERIALS, BUT YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, ON INTENT FOR MY AMENDMENT IS NOT FOR SOME KIND OF FABRIC MATERIAL, BUT SOME KIND OF SOLID MATERIAL THAT CLEARLY THAT NO PEEPING HOLES WHERE YOU COULD WALK UP, YOU KNOW, NO VENETIAN BLINDS AND THAT KIND OF THING, BUT A SOLID FENCE THAT CLEARLY SHIELDS THE INVENTORY FROM PUBLIC.

THAT'S WHAT I'M OFFERING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, AS A CONDITION TO COUNCILMAN HEDRICK'S MOTION, IF YOU'LL ACCEPT THAT.

BUT IS THAT NOT ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE REQUIRED.

WILL? RIGHT, AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE, THE GDC IS MORE SPECIFIC, I'M MAINLY RIGHT NOW LOOKING AT THE SUP LANGUAGE, WHICH THEY'VE BEEN FOLLOWING, OR AT LEAST THE PER THE CONDITIONS SHOULD BE FOLLOWING.

IT REALLY JUST SIMPLY SAYS SOLID, PERHAPS IF THAT IS THE MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, [INAUDIBLE] AMENDMENT AND IT'S APPROVED ACCORDINGLY, PERHAPS MR. NEIGHBOR HAS SOME STRONGER LANGUAGE BEYOND JUST SOLID.

SO OPAQUE IS KIND OF A COMMON TERM WE SOMETIMES USE.

AND THAT WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF WOOD OR MASONRY, SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A MESH THAT YOU CAN

[01:50:01]

STILL SEE THROUGH. OK.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH, YOU POPPED INTO THE QUEUE SIR.

YES, SIR. JUST WANTED INFORMATION IS THIS FOR AMENDING THE MOTION FOR ITEM C, D OR E RIGHT NOW WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH ITEM C, WHICH IS THE ZONING CHANGE.

BUT OK, WOULD WE HOLD THE FENCING REQUIREMENT FOR D OR E OR IS THIS SUPPOSED TO GO INTO THE ZONING AS WELL? UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

I THINK IT SHOULD PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT FENCING AND THE ZONING ARE ONE IN THE SAME . OK, I'M GOOD HOWEVER IT GOES.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE CONSIDERATION CORRECT.

RIGHT, THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUP BECAUSE THAT TIED TO A CONDITION . OKAY. SO TO BRING THIS THING COMPLETELY, FULLY ENCIRCLED, THE MOTION THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS FOR ITEM FIVE C, WHICH IS THE ZONING REQUEST CHANGE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCNEAL. AND AS A REMINDER, THIS ITEM NEEDS AT LEAST SEVEN VOTES TO BE APPROVED.

AND NORMALLY I WOULD ASK IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY.

GO AHEAD, MR. NEIGHBOR.

YEAH. THERE'S A TECHNICAL PROBLEM HERE, ACTUALLY.

[LAUGHTER] YOU COULD APPROVE OR MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE TONIGHT, THE 20 PERCENT RULE IS REALLY GOING TO KICK IN, THOUGH, WHEN THE ORDINANCE, ASSUMING THERE ARE VOTES, ENOUGH VOTES IN FAVOR, EVEN A SIMPLE MAJORITY WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR APPROVAL, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE SUPERMAJORITY TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.

THAT'S THE KIND OF THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, BUT.

SO TO CLARIFY, THIS ITEM COULD BE APPROVED WITH FIVE VOTES TONIGHT, BUT WE'LL NEED SEVEN WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

THAT IS CORRECT.

AT WHICH CASE I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS SAME DISCUSSION AGAIN.

SO BUT YES, THANK YOU SO YES, THIS ITEM CAN MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT WITH LESS THAN SEVEN, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO SEVEN.

THAT'S CORRECT. YES, THANK YOU.

OK, COUNCIL, WITH THAT, PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE.

AND THAT MOTION IS APPROVED AT THIS LEVEL AT.

SORRY, EVERYBODY'S.

I SEE FIVE IN FAVOR.

NO, YES, I SEE FIVE IN FAVOR WITH COUNCILMAN VERA, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH AND COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN IN OPPOSITION.

SORRY I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME NOTES HERE.

I'VE ALMOST RUN OUT OF ROOM IN THE MARGINS OF THIS PAPER.

OK, SO THAT ITEM, ITEM FIVE C IS APPROVED FIVE, FOUR.

AND JUST TO REPEAT, WHEN THIS COMES BACK FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE, THIS ITEM WILL NEED SEVEN VOTES TO MOVE FORWARD.

NOW, MOVING ON TO ITEM 5 D CONSIDER A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION REQUEST BY OCEAN STAR METALS

[5D. Consider a Specific Use Provision request by Ocean Star Metals, Inc. to continue operating a metal recycling facility for a period of ten (10) years. The property is located at 521, 523, 525 Shepherd Drive in District 6.]

INC. TO CONTINUE OPERATING A METAL RECYCLING PERIOD FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS.

THIS PROPERTY IS AT FIVE TWO ONE FIVE TWO THREE FIVE TWO FIVE SHEPHERD DRIVE IN DISTRICT SIX. THIS ITEM IS THE ACTUAL SUP.

AND COUNCIL I THINK WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS.

I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING LEFT TO DISCUSS, I GUESS IS MAYBE, BUT AT THIS POINT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO A MOTION.

MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK.

WELL, I AM HAPPY TO DEFER TO THE COUNCILMAN'S DISTRICT.

THAT'S IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.

[01:55:02]

I MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERA TO DENY THE SUP ON THIS ITEM. AND I DO NOT SEE COUNCILMAN AUBIN IS A SECOND.

AND AGAIN, TO REPEAT THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE SUP.

PLEASE VOTE. THE MOTION TO DENY THE MOTION TO DENY FAILS FIVE FOUR WITH COUNCIL MEMBER VERA, MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS, COUNCILMAN SMITH AND COUNCILMAN AUBIN IN FAVOR.

YEAH, I'M SORRY I KEEP DOING THAT BACKWARDS, I APOLOGIZE.

SO THE MOTION TO DENY FAILS AND I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE AND I WOULD LIKE AND BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE, I'D LIKE TO SEE CLARIFICATION ON THE SOLID WALL.

IT APPEARS THAT SOLID WALL IS ALREADY IN THE SUP.

I'D JUST LIKE THAT SOLID WALL DEFINITION PERHAPS IN THE FINAL LANGUAGE OF THE SUP EXPANDED UPON WITH EITHER BOARD ON BOARD FENCE OR SOME KIND OF SOLID WALL STRUCTURE RATHER THAN THE OPAQUE MATERIAL THAT WE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT.

OK, WILL, YOU'VE HEARD THAT IS THAT.

YES. OK. YES SIR.

OK, SO CURRENTLY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMAN HEDRICK.

COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE.

YOU ARE MUTED SIR.

I'LL SECOND IT AND COMMENT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME MR. MAYOR. OK, SO MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. I HAVE NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, SIR.

IS THERE COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO ECHO COUNCILMAN HEDRICK'S COMMENT REGARDING THE FENCING AND MR. GUERIN I'D LIKE FOR THAT TO BE CLEAR AND WITH CONCISE LANGUAGE IN THERE.

SO THERE'S HOPEFULLY NO ROOM FOR MISINTERPRETATION ON EITHER OUR PART OR THE PART OF THE APPLICANT. OK, VERY GOOD.

WE WILL GET THAT, SIR.

THANK YOU. AT THIS POINT COUNCIL, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION IS TO APPROVE.

THAT ITEM IS APPROVED FIVE FOUR WITH COUNCILMAN VERA, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS, COUNCILMAN SMITH AND COUNCILMAN AUBIN IN OPPOSITION.

MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE E CONSIDER A SITE PLAN REQUEST BY OCEAN STAR METALS INC.

[5E. Consider a Site Plan request by Ocean Star Metals, Inc. for an existing metal recycling facility located at 521, 523, 525 Shepherd Drive in District 6.]

FOR AN EXISTING METAL RECYCLING FACILITY LOCATED AT 521, 523, AND 525 SHEPHERD DRIVE IN DISTRICT SIX. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THIS LOCATION.

I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERA. I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY IT.

OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY COUNCILMAN VERA.

AND I CURRENTLY DON'T SEE A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BY COUNCILMAN VERA A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN AUBIN.

WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADO, THE MOTION IS TO DENY, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM FAILS WITH MAYOR PRO TEM NICKERSON, THE MAYOR, COUNCILMAN HEDRICK COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS AND COUNCILMAN MCNEAL IN OPPOSITION.

[02:00:04]

I THINK I FINALLY DID THAT IN THE CORRECT ORDER.

I GUESS THAT PROVES THE THIRD TIME'S A CHARM.

COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK.