Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


HELLO AND WELCOME TO

[00:00:01]

THE OCTOBER 17TH, 2022

[Development Services Committee on October 17, 2022.]

MEETING OF THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE.

I'M CHAIRMAN DI HEDRICK, AND WITH ME, I HAVE COUNCIL EDDIE MORRIS.

AND, UH, WELL, CAN WE MOVE WITH APPROVAL WITHOUT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BASS HERE? YES, WE CAN.

OKAY.

AND WE WILL HIT THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

AND LIKE I SAID, COUNCIL MEMBER BASS IS, HE'S NOT HERE AT THE MOMENT, BUT HOPEFULLY HE HOPE WILL JOIN US SOON.

THE FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2022 MEETING.

MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES.

MOVE APPROVE.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAIR? AYE.

RIGHT MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

MOVING ON TO OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

WELL, FIRST ITEM WE'LL HAVE NOW, UH, ADDED BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR COUNCIL POLICIES IS PUBLIC COMMENT, EVEN ON WORK SESSION ITEMS. SO I WILL ALLOW A MOMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HERE.

SO IF ANYONE EVER WISHES, COME JOIN US.

WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.

SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM TWO B, DOWNTOWN AUTOMOTIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT REVIEW.

AND MR. GARRIN IS HERE WITH US.

I IMAGINE YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR US.

UH, YES.

ACTUALLY I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO MISS VAN HORN FIRST.

I FIGURED IT WAS A DEVELOPMENT ITEM, THAT'S WHY I READ TO YOU, BUT OKAY.

I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

A COUPLE OTHERS.

AGENDA AND, AND YOU ASKED FOR, UM, SOME REVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORY AND COS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER, LOOKED AT THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND CAME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND, UM, SUGGESTIONS DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

SO, UM, I'LL JUST, UH, AND YOU GOT THAT, IT'S A SPREADSHEET.

IT'S GOT LOTS OF COLORS.

IT'S GOT THE, UH, ADDRESSES AND IT'S SIMILAR, LOOKS SIMILAR TO THE AUDIT, UM, INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED EARLIER.

SO, AND WHEN LOOKING THROUGH, UM, THE INFORMATION AND ALL THESE ADDRESSES THAT ARE PART OF THIS AUTOMOTIVE OVERLAY PROGRAM AND REVIEWING THIS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN HERE IN JUST A MINUTE, UM, WE'VE COME UP WITH, UM, I'VE COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, UM, POTENTIAL S U IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO THAT DIRECTION AND, AND THE APPROPRIATE SIZE BASED ON THAT CO INFORMATION.

SO IN THE, UM, THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN WHITE ARE, ARE, THERE'S FROM THE ORIGINAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM 2005, THERE ARE 42 THAT ARE IN WHITE.

UH, ON THE FIRST EIGHT OR SO PAGES OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE LOOKED AT, THE COS AND C CAME UP WITH THE, UM, CORRECT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

IT DOES MATCH THE AUTO, UH, OVERLAY AUDIT THAT WAS DONE.

WE HAVE TWO THAT ARE COLORED GREEN WHERE THERE'S NO U THAT'S NEEDED OR SOME OTHER KIND OF ACTION NEEDED LATER BECAUSE THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THE CRITERIA OF AN AUTOMOTIVE USE.

WE HAVE THREE THAT ARE IN PINK, WHICH IS MY EQUIVALENT TO A RED, WHICH MEANS THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED.

EITHER THERE WAS AN ILLEGAL EXPANSION OR THERE WAS A A, A LAPSE IN TIME AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THERE'S NO S U GRANTED IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU CHOOSE TO GO FOR THOSE, UM, BUSINESSES OR THOSE LOTS AND BUILDINGS.

UM, IF YOU WANNA SAY, SAY IT LIKE THAT.

AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO FIVE THAT ARE IN YELLOW, AND THEY ACTUALLY CURRENTLY HAVE AN S U UNTIL APRIL OF 20, UH, 25.

SO, UM, THEY'RE STILL UNDER THEIR CURRENT S U SO THE LAST THREE PAGES, UM, THERE'S A BLANK, THERE'S A WHITE SHEET SEPARATING THE TWO, BUT THE LAST THREE PAGES ARE, UM, THOSE PARCELS THAT WERE ADDED.

AND WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY WHEN THE MAP WAS EXPANDED AROUND THE TIME THE GDC WAS ADOPTED.

SO THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY CREDITS.

YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT FROM THE AUDIT.

SO WITHIN THAT, I HAVE KIND OF LOOKED AT THOSE AS WELL.

WE HAVE ONE THAT'S WHITE THAT MATCHES THE CO HISTORY AND IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU'D LIKE TO GO, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY CLEAR SIZE FOR AN S U UH, ONE GREEN WHERE THERE'S NO S U NEEDED.

THERE IS A BUSINESS THAT ACTUALLY HAS AN OFFICE IN A SMALL PORTION OF A BUILDING AND IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER IT WAS AUTOMOTIVE OR NOT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY AN OFFICE FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS.

THEY HAVE THEIR AUTOMOTIVE SECTION IN A DIFFERENT CITY, ACTUALLY.

UM, WE HAVE ONE PINK WHERE THERE'S, UH, NO, UM, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY ANYMORE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER FOR AN U P IN MY OPINION.

UH, AND THEN THERE ARE SIX THAT ARE COLORED BLUE.

AND, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU DECIDE TO GO AN U IS APPROPRIATE, BUT WE NEED TO TALK TO THE OWNERSHIP AND FIND OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THEY'VE DIVIDED THOSE BUILDINGS CUZ THEY HAVE MULTIPLE TENANTS AND WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DETAILED INFORMATION TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY SQUARE FOOT WOULD GO WITH EACH BUILDING.

SO WE COULD, YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WANTED TO GO WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THOSE BUSINESSES AND THE BUILDINGS.

SO IN ADDITION, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, DOING THIS RESEARCH THAT WAS INTERESTING, AND I

[00:05:01]

THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEVER ACTUALLY REALLY THOUGHT OF THAT KIND OF CAME TO LIGHT WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THESE, IS THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL LOTS THAT WERE CONS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IT, IT APPEARED THAT THEY WERE ADDED OR THE, THE, IT EXPANDED OVER TIME.

BUT I ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT GOOGLE, UM, STREET VIEW FOR THOSE WHERE I CAN GO BACK TO AND DEPENDING ON THE ADDRESS IT WAS, UM, 2007 OR 2008.

AND IN LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEWS, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH ALL OF THE LOTS THAT WERE UNDETERMINED ACTUALLY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXISTING BUSINESS NEXT DOOR FROM THAT TIME.

AND SO WE CAN'T BE EXACTLY SURE WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 2005 AND 2007, BUT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH IT'S POSSIBLE THE, THE CREDITS THAT WERE GRANTED MAYBE WEREN'T QUITE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE THE LOTS THAT WERE ADJACENT.

AND SO IN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'LL SEE THAT I HAVE NOTES THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'LL TALK ABOUT GOOGLE STREET VIEWS AND AS FAR BACK AS I CAN SEE, THEY WERE AFFILIATED WITH THE ADJACENT BUSINESS.

AND SO, UH, GOOD NEWS OR BAD NEWS, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE THE CREDITS WEREN'T QUITE RIGHT FROM THE VERY GET GO.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED THEN MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO, YOU KNOW, AND, AND COS HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THESE BUSINESSES AS TIME HAS GONE ON.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, ALLOCATING WHAT IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON WHAT WE CAN SEE HAS BEEN USED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T SEE BACK TO 2005.

EXACTLY.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE, OBVIOUSLY IT'S JUST MY, MY BEST RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE CO INFORMATION AND THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT I WAS ABLE TO SORT THROUGH AS I'VE GONE THROUGH THESE INDIVIDUALLY.

ALL RIGHT.

AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? PLEASE GO AHEAD.

MM-HMM.

.

YES.

AND, AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THE GROUNDWORK ON THIS.

SO, SO YOUR, YOUR BASIC RECOMMENDATION FOR THE, THE BIG OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS A BUNCH OF BUSINESSES EXPANDING OR COMING INTO, INTO EXISTENCE WHERE WE HAD SAID NO MORE, WHERE WE HAD SAID YOU REQUIRE A CREDIT, BUT THEY JUST GOT A CO ANYWAY.

SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS BASICALLY TO, AT THIS POINT COME IN AND PUT THEM IN A C S U P.

WELL, I THINK, UM, AS OF THE LAST MEETING THERE WERE SOME IDEAS THROWN ABOUT, ABOUT HOW THIS COULD BE CHANGED OR MODIFIED THIS PROGRAM MM-HMM.

GOING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UP TO YOU HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT.

AND U IS CERTAINLY ONE OPTION AND I KNOW THAT, UM, OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THAT MIGHT BE DONE.

YOU, YOU COULD CONSIDER CHANGING THE PROGRAM, YOU COULD CONSIDER OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, THIS S U ROUTE IS I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, JUST FOR EASE OF MANAGEMENT OVER TIME.

YOU'RE DOING, I KNOW TIME IN IT, IT JUST, IT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD CREATE A TIMEFRAME.

I KNOW FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON, UH, BACK IN AUGUST WE TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY CAN WE PUT AN U ON AN EXISTING BUSINESS AND THEN YES.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT EX WHAT PERIOD WOULD WE PUT ON TO EXTEND TO MAKE SURE THEY GOT THEIR RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT BACK.

AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THAT, WHETHER IT WAS 20 YEARS OR 15 OR 10 YEARS OR WHAT WOULD THE APPROPRIATE TIME BE FOR THAT.

BUT I GUESS THAT'S REALLY THE FIRST QUESTION WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS DO WE WANT TRY TO GO WITH A CREDIT PROGRAM OR SCRAP THAT AND GO WITH A S U P PROGRAM OR WHAT DO WE WANT THAT TO LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD? CAN I ASK YOU MA A MAYBE A EVEN BROADER QUESTION YEAH.

BEFORE YOU, CUZ THAT'S THE NEXT BROAD QUESTION.

BUT EVEN THE ONE BROADER QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT IS YOUR POLICY DECISION? WHAT'S YOUR LONG TERM GOAL IN THE AUTOMOTIVE IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT? IS IT TO EXCLUDE AUTOMOBILE USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 10, 15, 20 YEARS OUT? OR IS IT TO LIMIT IT? OR WHAT IS YOUR ONGOING GOAL? CAUSE THAT'S REALLY, IF WE CAN DETERMINE THAT, THEN WE CAN GIVE YOU BETTER OPTIONS ON HOW TO DO THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE KIND OF NEEDING IS WHAT THE LONG TERM GOAL IS.

I THINK OUR, CERTAINLY OUR FIRST GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE IT EXPAND PAST WHERE IT IS.

I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON THAT NOW, WHETHER WE WANTED TO SLOWLY DISAPPEAR, GO AWAY IF WE TALK ABOUT THAT.

SO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON, UH, YEAH, AND, AND SLOWLY, UH, GRADUALLY SHRINK AND EVENTUALLY END I THINK WAS THE WHOLE GOAL.

NONE OF US WERE HERE THEN.

BUT WHEN THIS, UM, CREDIT LAND CREDIT, UH, PROGRAM WENT INTO EFFECT, THAT WAS A STATED GOAL WAS THAT THE AUTOMOTIVE USES WOULD GRADUALLY GO AWAY.

MM-HMM.

.

AND CERTAINLY, I MEAN, I, I LIVE IN DOWNTOWN AND I HEAR HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AS DEFINED PEOPLE WANT THE AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESSES TO DIMINISH AND EVENTUALLY BE GONE.

SO I WOULD SAY FROM A, THAT'S NOT A CITYWIDE THING.

AND THAT WAS ANOTHER THING WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IS DO

[00:10:01]

WE WANNA MAKE THIS CITYWIDE OR DO WE WANNA HAVE SPOTS? UM, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING JUST DOWNTOWN, I CERTAINLY THINK THAT'S THE GOAL IS TO SEE THEM GRADUALLY DIMINISH.

OKAY, THERE'S A, THERE'S SOME ALTERNATIVES ON HOW WE CAN DO THAT.

AND, AND, AND WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THOSE LAST TIME ABOUT GRANTING SUS TO CURRENT USES, THEN PUTTING EXPIRATION DATES.

AND THEN THE COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE CAN THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE TO CONTINUE.

HOWEVER, KEEP IN MIND, IF THEY'RE A CURRENT USE, EVEN IF WE GRANT THEM AN U RIGHT NOW, IF THEY DON'T TERMINATE THAT USE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS.

SO ALL THAT MEANS IS ONCE THE U EXPIRES, THEY CAN STILL OPERATE AS LONG AS THEY HAVEN'T TERMINATED THEIR USE AT THE, OR REBUILT OR EXPANDED THEIR USE.

UM, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN ACTUALLY SET A, A DATE CERTAIN TO WHERE ALL USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, ALL AUTOMOBILE USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT ARE EXPIRED.

AND, AND DO THAT 10, 15, 20 YEARS OUT AS AN AMORTIZATION.

SO TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY THAT HAS INVESTED IN THEIR PROPERTY COULD GET THAT MONEY OUT.

AND BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN AUTO USES 10 YEARS IS PROBABLY SUFFICIENT.

IF YOU WANNA BE SAFE, YOU COULD GO 12 OR 15 AND IF YOU WANNA BE REALLY SAFE, YOU COULD GO 20.

BUT WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS IT MEANS IN 20 YEARS OR 10 YEARS, WHATEVER THEIR TIME PERIOD IS, THAT COUNCIL DOESN'T TAKE HAVE TO TAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, IT JUST DISAPPEARS.

THE USE IS GONE AT THAT POINT.

AND IT'S NOT A, THEY CAN NO LONGER LAWFULLY OPERATE, BUT THE, UM, AUTOMOBILE USE AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE NOT A NON-CONFORMING USE.

THEY JUST, THEY'RE, THEY'RE UNLAWFUL NON-CONFORMING USE IS WHAT THEY ARE AT THAT POINT.

SO THAT'S JUST AN OPTION.

I KNOW WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE ATION THAT MUCH LAST TIME, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PROVISION, WHICH I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT IN THE GDC THAT ALLOWS US TO DO THAT.

CURRENTLY, I WOULD, WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A DATE CERTAIN AND HAVING THAT HAPPEN WHERE IT WOULDN'T BECOME A POLITICAL BREW, HAHA, IN 15 OR 20 YEARS MM-HMM.

.

UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S, IF WE'RE TALKING JUST THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, UM, OVERLY RESTRICTIVE.

WE HAVE A LOT OF AUTOMOTIVE USES IN THIS TOWN AND IN OTHER AREAS OF MY DISTRICT AS WELL.

SO MY OPINION, I MEAN, I'M GOING TO, UH, I'M GONNA DEFER TO YOU ON THAT.

UM, OF COURSE I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN I'VE SEEN THE AUTOMOTIVE USES DOWN THERE, BUT YOU'RE MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THEM THAN I AM.

SO I, I WOULD DEFER TO YOU.

AND THAT I DO AGREE HOW, HOWEVER, THAT, AND I LIKE THAT YOU FOUND AN ALTERNATIVE.

UM, I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, US WITH SUS JUST, JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ISN'T NECESSARILY GONNA SOLVE IT IN THE FUTURE.

SO I LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE MORE FINITE.

SO I, I LIKE THAT SOLUTION OF THE EXPIRATION DATE TIMING THEN IF THAT'S WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHAT, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT TIME-WISE TO BE AS GENEROUS AS POSSIBLE.

I, I I WOULD SAY 20 YEARS THAT OUR, IF WE WANT TO GET RID OF THESE TYPE OF USES, I DON'T THINK 10 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH IT, OUR ATTORNEY SAYS THAT'S A POSSIBILITY TO HAVE THAT TIE, WE'D WANNA PUSH IT TO BE REALLY SAFE.

YOU SAID TO GO FURTHER OUT.

I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT 20 YEARS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING, BEING BEYOND, UM, HELPFUL TO THE BUSINESSES AND GIVING THEM MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO PLAN FOR IT AND TO SEE IT.

NOW THE QUESTION IS, IN 20 YEARS, WHO'S GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? BUT WE WON'T BE HERE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

COUNSEL.

THE, OF COURSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, WE CAN'T, UM, BIND FUTURE COUNSELS SO THEY COULD TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO EXTEND IT MM-HMM.

, BUT WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO JUST LET 'EM JUST DISAPPEAR, WHICH, UM, WITH SUS AND THEM JUST A, A STRAIGHT U WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF AMORTIZATION PERIOD, IT WOULD REQUIRE COUNSEL TO TAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO HAVE 'EM, CUZ OTHERWISE THEY'D BE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING.

AND SO, UM, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN TWO STEPS THIS TIME AROUND.

NUMBER ONE, GRANT THE EXISTING USE OF SUVS, BUT MAKE IT CLEAR IN THAT GRANTING OF THAT U THAT THEY ARE GONNA BE AMORTIZED OUT IN A 20 YEAR PERIOD.

I'M HAPPY WITH THAT MR. CHAIR.

MM-HMM.

AND I, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE COUNCIL CAN LOOK BACK AND AND BLAME IT ON US, UM, POLITICALLY, BUT I THINK THIS IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND SENSIBLE.

THE SUS FOR NOW MAKING SURE THEY'RE ALL OPERATING LEGALLY, UM, INSTEAD OF OUR MISTAKES FALLING ON THEM.

UM, WHAT ABOUT, ONE OTHER POINT I THINK THAT, UH, YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IS THE ONES THAT EXPANDED WITHOUT PERMISSION, ARE WE GONNA JUST LET 'EM JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE 'EM THE S U FOR THOSE EXPANSIONS AND JUST SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA LET 'EM STAY WHERE THEY ARE NOW, BUT IN 20 YEARS IT ALL GOES AWAY.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, BECAUSE WE WERE THE ONES WHO MADE THE MISTAKES AND DIDN'T ENFORCE IT.

SO I THINK, I THINK CERTAINLY THE GREEN ONES WOULD BE

[00:15:01]

FALLOUT.

THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LIST THAT WE HAVE HERE.

RIGHT.

ONLY THE ONES WHO ARE ACTIVELY OPERATING RIGHT NOW IN AUTOMOTIVE RELATED BUSINESSES, SO, OKAY.

MM-HMM.

, LOGISTICALLY, HOW WOULD THAT WORK THEN AT THE END OF 20 YEARS? WOULD THERE HAVE TO THEN CLOSE OPERATIONS OF THE CAR SALES AND THEN OPERATE ACCORDING TO WHAT THE BASE ZONING IS? MM-HMM.

? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND WE WOULD SEND OUT, SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE TO REMEMBER TO DO THIS IN 19 AND A HALF YEARS.

I WON'T BE HERE BY THE WAY, .

UM, UM, BUT WE'LL SEND OUT NOTICE PROBABLY I WOULD GUESS, UM, EITHER 12 MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS, PROBABLY 12 MONTHS, AND THEN PROBABLY ANOTHER SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE AND JUST TELL 'EM TO, UM, UM, THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER OPERATE AS AN AUTOMOBILE USE AT THIS DATE.

AND BRIAN, DOES THIS ALSO INCLUDE A GDC AMENDMENT WHERE WE'RE, ARE WE REMOVING AUTO USES FROM THE DOWNTOWN? YES.

WELL, WE'LL AT LEAST PUT AN ASTERISK AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE'VE DONE.

YES.

ACTUALLY THEY'VE ALREADY MOVE REMOVED FROM THE MATRIX.

IT'S JUST THE DOWNTOWN AUTO OVERLAY RIGHT.

SECTION OF THE GDC THAT WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND.

RIGHT.

WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL PROHIBIT THE USE EXCEPT BY U THAT WAS ISSUED ON OR BEFORE WHATEVER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO THE EFFECTIVE DATE.

YEAH.

AND, UM, THAT WAY NO MORE USES CAN COME IN.

AND THAT'S HOW WE CAN DO THAT.

AND THAT MEANS THE FIVE THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SUS WILL EXPIRE IN 2025.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

DO Y'ALL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND EXTEND THOSE, THE ONES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SUVS THAT ARE EXPIRING IN 2025? OR HOW DO YOU WANNA DO THAT? THEY'RE ON THE FORCED.

THOSE ONES, THOSE ONE SEEM TO BE OPERATING.

THEY WENT FOLLOWING THE RULES AND YEAH, WE DON'T WANNA THEMSELVES, I KNOW SEAN, SO I MEAN, I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO, TO EXTEND THOSE AND ARE ONLY TALK.

RIGHT.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, ARE WE ALSO TALKING ABOUT GARAGES OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT JUST SALES? THAT'S, WELL, I THINK IT'S ANY AUTOMOTIVE USE, AUTOMOTIVE USE.

OKAY.

THESE AREN'T ALL SALES.

THERE'S A LIST OF, UM, YEAH, REPAIRS.

OKAY.

SO WE WANT THE REPAIRS TO BE YEAH.

MOST OF THESE AUTOMOTIVE USES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE WITH, WITH JEFF, IF THESE GUYS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE RULES, LET'S NOT PUNISH THEM AND LET'S JUST PUT 'EM ON THE SAME TIME CLOCK AS EVERYBODY AND BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.

EASIEST REP.

YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE, UM, THE ONES IN THERE IN PINK, THERE'S ONE THAT EXPANDED WITHOUT A PERMISSION CO BACK IN 20 2016, WHICH IS ON PAGE, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS? 2 22 LEVON MM-HMM.

.

UM, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT BEING DONE.

YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GO EITHER WAY WITH THAT ONE.

YOU COULD LET THEM HAVE THE ENTIRETY OF IT OR, OR JUST SAY, LISTEN, YOU NEVER HAD APPROVAL FOR THAT EXPANSION.

WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE VACANT, AND I WOULD SAY IF THEY'RE VACANT NOW, THEY'RE, WE'RE DONE.

WE'RE DONE.

SO THERE, THERE ARE A FEW THAT ACTUALLY CAN GO AWAY AND, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT HAVE COME OFF THE LIST.

SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE VACANT ONES? YES.

HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'RE VACANT AND HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'VE BEEN VACANT FOR 180 DAYS? I THINK THEY'RE VACANT CURRENTLY, AND I'D HAVE TO CHECK BACK ON'S, CREDIT RECORDS.

FINE.

THAT'S, THOSE ARE, WE'LL, WE'LL CONFIRM THAT FOR SURE.

TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE OKAY.

AND AS FOR THE, THE ONE, UM, 2 22, UM, LEVON MM-HMM.

THING IS HOW WE APPARENTLY WERE IN SOME, UH, DISARRAY ABOUT EVEN TALKING WITH BUSINESSES AND GIVING, EVEN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THEM.

I, I AM MORE PRONE TO SAY, OKAY, THEY EXPANDED INTO THE ADJACENT AREA.

WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM PERMISSION, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BECAUSE WE WERE ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OR WHATEVER.

I WOULD GIVE 'EM ALL THE SAME THING EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT ARE VACANT.

UM, MAKE IT CLEANER.

YEAH.

MM-HMM.

, SAME RULES FOR EVERYBODY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THEN ARE WE IN AGREEMENT THEN WE'LL HAVE CROSS THE BOARD 20 YEAR APPLICATION OF REALLY A EXPIRING S U IS THAT WHAT IT IS THEN? YES, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SAY IT.

EXPIRING U IN 20 YEARS.

SO IF WE MAKE IT, I DON'T KNOW, JANUARY 1ST, 2023, THEN JANUARY 1ST, 2025, THEY CAN HAVE 20 YEARS FROM JANUARY ONE TO OPERATE.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WITHIN THOSE 20 YEARS, IF THEY STOP BECOMING AN AUDIBLE BILL USE, THEY WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO BE AN AUTOMOBILE USE.

NO, NO, NO.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY WE HAVE PROVIDED IN OUR U CAUSE ONLY QUESTION I

[00:20:01]

ASK IS WE OWN THE LAND LIKE RIGHT WILL IN THE U THAT WE GRANT THEM.

UM, WE'RE GONNA, WE WILL, AND I WORKED ON SOME LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE IN OUR GENERIC FORM, UM, THAT TALKS ABOUT TERMINATION OF THE USE AND OPERATION OF A DIFFERENT USE AND, AND HOW THOSE RIGHTS WOULD TERMINATE.

OKAY.

SO HAPPY WITH THAT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

THEN ARE WE CLEAR THEN EVERYTHING YOU HAVE, RIGHT? MM-HMM.

.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THEN.

VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS ONE.

YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.

OUR NEXT ITEM, CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UM, DO Y'ALL WANT US TO BRING BACK THE FINAL FORM FOR, OR THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE FORM BEFORE, BEFORE WE GO TO CO COUNCIL AS A WHOLE? YEAH.

IF WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT STARTING IT UNTIL JANUARY ONE, THERE'S TIME.

OKAY.

YEAH, I CAN, I CAN GET THAT.

I CAN WORK WITH THEM AND WE CAN GET THAT TO Y'ALL.

YEAH.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUT AND THOUGHT ON THIS CUZ THIS WAS A TANGLED MESS WHEN WE SAW FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.

YEAH.

THE, THIS MESS WE CREATED.

SO.

ALL RIGHT.

THEN THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM TWO C, FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS.

ALL RIGHT, WELL GOOD AFTERNOON.

LOVE IT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

WELL, YOU BET.

SO THE LAST TIME THAT WE MET, THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS OR A FEW THINGS THAT YOU WANTED TO SEE FROM US.

UH, ONE WAS, UH, INFORMATION ABOUT FIREWALLS AND HOW EVERYBODY SEES THOSE.

ANOTHER ONE WAS THE SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THE OTHER, UH, CITIES REQUIRE.

AND THEN TO UNDERSTAND BASICALLY A RUNDOWN OF THE CHART AND THE BUILDING CODE AND WHAT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ARE THERE AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED.

I'M GONNA LET BRITA DO THAT.

, I GET TO DO THAT FIRST, I GUESS.

YES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

SO, UM, I HATE TO BORE YOU WITH CHARTS AND TABLES, BUT IT'S A GOOD WAY TO ILLUSTRATE IT.

I ALSO WROTE A LITTLE BIT OF NARRATIVE.

IF YOU WANNA REVIEW IT LATER, IT KIND OF GOES THROUGH THE LOGIC, BUT, SO IN YOUR INFORMATION, YOU SHOULD HAVE A CHART THAT ON PAGE TWO LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

OKAY.

SO OPTION A, THAT THE, THE COGS OPTION A IS ESSENTIALLY FOLLOW THE CODE.

SO THIS IS INFORMATION RIGHT FROM THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO HOW YOU DETERMINE THE SIZE WITH AND WITHOUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

SO, UM, THE, IT'S ALWAYS, IT'S NEVER EASY CUZ WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME CONFUSING OURSELVES WITH THESE CHARTS.

BUT ESSENTIALLY THE WAY IT WORKS, AND I'M GONNA SEND YOU TO PAGE THREE WHERE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED SOME THINGS, IS THAT, SO IN THIS CHART, THE TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE ON THE RIGHT TEND TO BE MADE OUT OF WOOD OR SOMETHING THAT'S MORE COMBUSTIBLE AND NOT PROTECTED.

THE, THE ONES ON THE LEFT, WHICH ARE STARTING AT TYPE ONE, THE FARTHER YOU GO TO THE LEFT, THE MORE NON COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS THE BUILDING IS MADE OUT OF.

AND ALSO THE MORE FIRE RATINGS THAT ARE APPLIED TO ALL OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.

SO IT MAKES THE BUILDING INHERENTLY MORE FIRE RESISTANT.

AND SO THAT'S HOW THIS CHART IS STRUCTURED.

AND THEN ALSO THE USE, WHICH IS UNDER THE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION COLUMN.

REALLY THE USE OF THE BUILDING ALSO IS, HAS INHERENT HAZARDS.

SO IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EVACUATE THEMSELVES OR YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S GOT LOTS OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL IN IT, THOSE ALL PLAY INTO THIS, THIS TABLE BASICALLY AND GIVES YOU ALL THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF HOW TO USE THIS.

SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE M MERCANTILE LINE, WHICH IS THE THIRD ONE DOWN, AND YOU LOOK AT THE NS, WHICH IS NON SPRINKLER LINE, AND YOU GO ACROSS, YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE VERY RIGHT HAND SIDE, A BUILDING THAT'S MADE OUT OF WOOD OR SOMETHING THAT'S VERY COMBUSTIBLE CAN BE 9,000 SQUARE FEET WITHOUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

AND THEN ON THE VERY FAR END, UM, A BUILDING THAT'S A TYPE ONE A BUILDING, WHICH IS THE MOST FIRE RESISTANT, CAN BE UNLIMITED IN SIZE.

AND UM, SO THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY OF OPTIONS THEN IN BETWEEN AND WITHIN THOSE, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO BUILD THE BUILDING.

AND SO WHEN A DESIGNER IS DOING THE DESIGN, THEY USE THIS CHART TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT THE IDEAL SOLUTION AS FAR AS COST AND WHAT THE CUSTOMER NEEDS.

THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF FACTORS THAT, UM, DRIVE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM SUCH AS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU NEED A SPACE THAT'S LARGE AND WIDE OPEN WHERE YOU CAN'T COMPARTMENTALIZE IT, THAT MIGHT BE ONE REASON.

OR YOU HAVE A, A SPACE WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF OCCUPANTS IN IT AND YOU KNOW, YOU GET OVER AN ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SPRINKLE A BUILDING.

SO, OR YOU HAVE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE IT AND PUT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN EACH COMPARTMENT, WHICH DOESN'T WORK FOR ALL BUSINESSES.

CUZ YOU KNOW, A CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT HAVE A BIG SANCTUARY WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE IN IT.

YOU PRETTY MUCH NEED A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT BUILDING.

SO WITHIN THIS CHART, THERE ARE A LARGE VARIETY OF OPTIONS THAT DESIGNERS CAN CHOOSE TO, TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY WANT TO SPRINKLE THE BUILDING, WHAT THEY WANNA MAKE THE BUILDING OUT OF,

[00:25:01]

WHAT THE, WHAT THE CUSTOMER'S GONNA USE IT FOR, AND HOW TO ESSENTIALLY, UM, WORK WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR THEM.

IN THE OPTION B, WHICH WE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT MORE, BUT IN THE OPTION B, AS IT'S PROPOSED BY THE, THE, THE COG IN ALL OF THESE LINES THAT ARE NS OR NOT SPRINKLED, YOU WOULD BASICALLY INS INPUT 6,000 ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND THAT'S HOW THE SAME CHART WOULD PLAY OUT IN OPTION B.

SO, BUT CURRENTLY IT'S 5,000 FOR, FOR, FOR THE CITY WE'VE ADOPTED A, AN AMENDMENT TO THAT WHICH IS 5,000.

SO, AND THEN ALSO JUST GOING BACK TO THE OPTION A AGAIN, UM, ANOTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU BUILT A BUILDING TO THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE TABLE, YOU COULD BUILD A FIREWALL AND THEN YOU COULD BUILD ANOTHER BUILDING RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND BUILD A FIREWALL.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE FIREWALL PROVISIONS COME INTO PLAY AS WELL.

SO DOES THAT HELP ILLUSTRATE IT FOR YOU? IS THAT ANSWERING SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS IS HELPFUL, YES.

TO SEE VERY HELPFUL.

RIGHT.

AND JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SO THIS, ALL OF THESE CHARTS ON ALL THESE PAGES ARE ALL OPTION A? YES.

THIS WHOLE, THIS WHOLE PACKAGE PACKAGE IS OPTION, OPTION A.

UM, ALSO JUST IF YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA RECHARGE BEFORE YOU GO TO BED OR IF YOU NEED TO PUT YOURSELF TO SLEEP, UM, THE LAST PAGE IS THE ACTUAL TE TABLE THAT TELLS YOU WHAT KIND OF FIRE PROTECTION RATING NEEDS TO GO ON ALL THESE COMPONENTS.

AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S TECHY AND YOU DON'T NEED TO GET TOO WRAPPED UP IN THAT.

BUT YOU, YOU'LL SEE THERE AGAIN WHERE YOU KNOW THE TYPE ONE A COLUMN YOU HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, THREE HOUR RATED WALLS, WHICH IN MANY CASES ARE WHERE YOU SEE THAT SPRAY APPLIED FIREPROOFING.

IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.

YOU SEE IT IN HIGH RISES.

PEOPLE RARELY USE IT IF THEY CAN AVOID IT.

SO THERE ARE REASONS FINANCIALLY WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SPRINKLE OUR BUILDING OR SOMETIMES NOT SPRINKLER BUILDING.

UM, BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO THAT CATEGORY WHERE YOU GET TO UNLIMITED SIZE BUILDINGS, A LOT OF TIMES IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE AND YOU HAVE TO REALLY WANNA BUILD A LARGE BUILDING AND MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

SO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THAT.

OKAY.

SO THIS LAST PAGE, SO BASICALLY THERE'S, THERE'S 10 TYPES, RIGHT? ONE THROUGH FIVE AND THEN A AND B OF EACH OR NO TYPE FOUR ON ONE.

THERE'S NINE.

SO NINE.

OKAY.

THERE'S NINE.

OKAY.

UM, OKAY, SO TYPE FIVE B DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE THINGS ON IT.

CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

I JUST WONDER I B IS, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE TYPICALLY IT'D BE A BUILDING THAT'S MADE OUT OF WOOD AND IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY FIRE PROTECTION IN ADDITION TO THE WOOD FRAMING AND THE FINISH MATERIALS.

THERE'S NO FIRE RESISTANCE ASIDE FROM, IT'S JUST MADE OUT OF ANYTHING WE CAN BURN.

SO WE ALLOW WOOD FRAMING ON COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.

WE DO.

AND WE SEE A LOT OF IT BECAUSE, WELL, WE SEE A LOT OF IT NOW BECAUSE THERE'S NO FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BUILDING THE HIGHER TYPES.

CUZ IF YOU GET A BIGGER BUILDING, YOU'RE SPRINKLING IT.

SO YOU'RE BUILDING IT CHEAPLY AND PUTTING A SPRINKLER IN TYPICALLY, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE, THERE'S A FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BUILDING IT WITH CERTAIN MATERIALS JUST BASED ON COST.

YEAH, PLEASE.

OKAY.

UM, SO SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT, THAT WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED, WHICH IS WHY I REALLY WANT US TO LOOK HARD AT, AT EASING THE VERY RESTRICTIVE, UM, ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE.

IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BUILDING FROM SCRATCH, THEN YOU CAN DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED AND PICK AND CHOOSE AND ALL.

BUT IN A LOT OF THIS TOWN BEING 130 YEARS OLD, IT ISN'T BUILDING NEW BUILDINGS FROM SCRATCH.

IT'S COMING IN WITH OLDER BUILDINGS AND THEN TRYING TO RETROFIT THEM FOR NEW MODERN PURPOSES.

UM, AND GOING OVER THE, THE FIRE CODE AND OPTION A THAT LETS YOU BE MORE FLEXIBLE, UM, DEPENDING, YOU KNOW, NOT TREATING AN OFFICE THE SAME AS A RESTAURANT OR JUST HAVING A DIFFERENTIATION THAT'S MORE SENSIBLE TO ME, MORE PRACTICAL.

UM, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THAT.

IT, IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO CONTINUE TO BE INFLEXIBLE, UM, WITH THE OPTION B, ESPECIALLY WITH 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

UM, AND I I, I SAID LAST TIME, WE'VE ALMOST LOST SEVERAL BUSINESSES, VERY VIABLE BUSINESSES IN THIS TOWN BECAUSE OF THIS VERY THING, THIS, THIS LEVEL OF RESTRICTION THAT WENT KIND OF BEYOND, UM, WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES RIGHT NEXT TO US DO.

SO I SEE THAT RICHARDSON, UM, RICHARDSON AND ROCKWELL BOTH HAVE THE 5,000 SQUARE FEET LIMITATION, UM, AND FRISCO, BUT THE REST

[00:30:01]

OF THE CITIES EITHER ARE 6,000 OR OPTION A.

SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN STEP WITH SURROUNDING CITIES WITH THIS.

SO ANYWAY, THE, THE DIFFICULTY OF RETROFITTING OLDER BUILDINGS AND HAVING IT BE COST EFFECTIVE WHERE SOMEBODY BUILDS IN GARLAND, REDEVELOPS IN GARLAND VERSUS GOING NEXT DOOR, UM, THIS IS A DISADVANTAGE AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THAT THIS IS A PURELY A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE CITIES SMALLER THAN US HAVE THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT.

AND I THINK WHEN THIS REQUIREMENT OF 5,000 WENT IN, HOW MANY, HOW MANY FIRE STATIONS DID WE HAVE AT THAT TIME? WE SURE DIDN'T HAVE 11.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA BRING.

WE HAVE NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT THAT'S, YEAH, THERE WERE QUESTION.

I WANT TO GUESS PROBABLY EIGHT WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED MADE.

YEAH.

I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH, WE ARE IN BETTER SHAPE THAN THAT NOW.

WELL, Y YES AND NO.

WE HAVE MORE STATIONS, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF STAFFING OR A LITTLE BIT MORE STAFFING.

BUT WE'RE NOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING DOUBLE COMPANY STATIONS, YOU HAVE SINGLE COMPANY STATIONS.

SO WE STILL HAVE TO GET THAT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON SCENE FROM FURTHER AWAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY WENT TO THE SINGLE COMPANY STATIONS.

THAT ALLOWS THAT FIRST END TO GET THERE A LITTLE QUICKER.

AND IF WE CAN GET A QUICK KNOCKDOWN, THEN THAT'S GREAT, BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, PAST THAT, THEN YOU GOTTA WAIT FOR HELP TO COME AND HELP YOU OUT THERE.

SO.

UM, SO DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR BRITA? I'M SORRY I DIDN'T, I GUESS THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF US DISCUSSING IT AND SEEING THIS, THIS CHART IS SUPER HELPFUL.

APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY.

SO ON THE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPARISON CITIES, UH, ONE THING THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF WERE THE TYPICAL COMPARISON CITIES THAT WE USE.

SO I ADDED, UM, WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS, I FOUND OUT THAT WE NORMALLY DO ALLEN AS A COMPARISON, CITY DENT AND GRAND PRAIRIE IN LOUISVILLE.

SO I WENT AHEAD AND ADD THOSE IN HERE MM-HMM.

, AND, AND YOU'VE ALREADY NOTICED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON HERE, UH, AND EVERYBODY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FRISCO, IF THEY'VE DONE OPTION B OR AN OPTION B DERIVATIVE, I SAY DERIVATIVE BECAUSE IT GETS, I MEAN, THERE ARE SO MANY LITTLE TWEAKS THAT EVERY CITY DOES THAT.

EVERY ONE OF 'EM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FRISCO, DOES NOT, UH, ALLOW THE USE OF A FIREWALL TO SEPARATE BUILDINGS.

OKAY.

UH, FRISCO, WHEN I, I VISITED WITH THEM CURRENTLY, THEY DON'T ALLOW IT.

I MEAN, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT RESTRICTS IT, BUT WHEN I TALK WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL OVER THERE, HE SAYS WHEN THEY ADOPT THE NEWEST CODE, HE'S ONLY BEEN THERE ABOUT A YEAR, HE'S GONNA GO WITH THE COG AMENDMENTS AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO GONNA NOT USE FIREWALLS.

SO THAT'LL BE THE SAME ON ALL OF 'EM.

MM-HMM.

.

AND THEN ON HERE WE HAVE THE, THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS HERE.

AND OF COURSE OPTION A, UH, IS THE CODE IS WRITTEN, A COUPLE OF THESE FOLKS LIKE GRAND PRAIRIE AND DENTON ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR LOCAL AMENDMENTS.

UM, AND DENTON, I FOUND IT FASCINATING.

THEY DO 75, UH, TO 10,000, AND THEN YOU HAVE AS RESTRICTIVE DOWN HERE TO LOUISVILLE THAT DOES 3,600.

SO THEY'RE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN US.

BUT, UH, UH, THE OTHER THING TOO, WHENEVER WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S NON-CONFORMING IN THE CITY, UH, WE DO TRY TO WORK WITH THEM IF WE CAN.

AS LONG AS, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY IS SIMILAR OR LESS HAZARDOUS FROM A, A RISK OF FIRE OR LIFE SAFETY, WE TRY TO WORK WITH FOLKS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO PUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT CASE.

SO WE DO TRY TO WORK WITH FOLKS, IT JUST, IF YOU COME IN AND YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, STATE FARM BUSINESS OFFICE, AND NOW YOU'RE WANTING TO MAKE IT A CHURCH AND CRAM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THERE, SORRY, YOU GOTTA PUT A SPRINKLER IN THERE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MORE HAZARDOUS, I'VE GOTTA DO IT.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH RIGHT NOW.

SO WE DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN AND I DO TRY TO HELP FOLKS GET THE YES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

OKAY.

I ACTUALLY, I AGREE WITH YOU CHIEF LEVI, WHERE YOU'RE BASICALLY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING RISK BASED

[00:35:01]

AND THAT THAT'S HOW I FEEL WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT.

AND, AND I THINK THE OPTION A GIVES US A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE IT RISK BASED.

UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT JUST CUT AND DRY, YOU KNOW, UNDER THIS NUMBER, OVER THIS NUMBER.

YOU KNOW, I'D PREFER TO SEE SOMETHING MORE RISK BASED AND IT LOOKS LIKE OPTION A GIVES US THAT FLEXIBILITY.

WELL, FROM MY STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS STANDPOINT, I'M ALWAYS GONNA WANT SPRINKLERS.

YES.

I MEAN, THEY'RE, AS WE TALKED LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S INGRAINED IN ME FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS STANDPOINT, THE SPRINKLER IS THAT UNWAVERING ALWAYS ON DUTY IS GONNA PUT, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE OUT AS LONG AS SOMEBODY DOESN'T SABOTAGE IT OR SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH IT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I DO, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHERE I'M COMING FROM TOO, FROM A LIFE SAFETY AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST FROM CITIZENS, FROM CUSTOMERS.

AND, AND AT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING WHEN OUR FOLKS ARE RUNNING INTO THE BURNING BUILDING, IT'S NICE TO KNOW THAT THAT SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS THERE.

YEP.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND I, I, MY POSITION FROM LAST TIME HASN'T CHANGED BASED UPON WHAT THE CHIEF HAS SAID ABOUT THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THESE FIRES IN THESE SITUATIONS, THAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO BURN DOWN, YOU'D LOSE A LOT MORE THAN IT WOULD BE THE COST OF INSTALLING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

AND WITH THE SINGLE COMPANY STATIONS THAT WE HAVE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO, TO REALLY, I MEAN, GO ABOVE THAT 5,000.

I MEAN, WE MIGHT TALK ABOUT GOING TO 6,000.

I'D BE WILLING TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION.

WOULD THAT, IF IT WOULD RAISE THOUSAND FEET, WOULD THAT HELP THOSE BUSINESSES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT NEEDING TO GO TO SOMETHING EVEN HIGHER? BUT I DON'T WANNA GO TO STRICTLY OPTION A BECAUSE WE DON'T, AREN'T LIKE THE BIG CITY DALLAS OR FORT WORTH WHERE THEY HAVE MORE COMPANIES THAT CAN RESPOND TO A FIRE IN THAT CASE.

WELL, LIKE I SAY, HONESTLY, I MEAN, I'D, IT'S JUST, I'D HAVE TO THINK WE'RE IN BETTER SITUATION NOW, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS RESPONSE GOES THAN WE WERE, UM, WHEN WE MADE IT 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO, I'D BE WILLING, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT AN, UM, OPTION B AT 6,000.

I MEAN, I THINK SOMETHING'S BETTER THAN NOTHING.

RIGHT.

SO, UM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WOULD EVEN, AND, AND JUST LOOKING AT THE, AT THE CHART FOR OPTION A, YOU KNOW, I MEAN OF COURSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MORE YOU DO, THE MORE WORK IT IS.

UM, I WOULD HONESTLY, I MEAN I THINK SOME OF THESE, SOME OF THESE NUMBERS IN HERE I THINK ARE EXTREMELY GENEROUS.

RIGHT? UH, I THINK THAT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, MODIFY THESE NUMBERS TO FIT OUR CITY.

UM, AND I KNOW THAT WOULD TAKE WORK, BUT IF WE DID, THEN THAT WOULD BE RISK, MORE RISK BASED UPON THE USE OF THE FACILITY.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE OPTIMUM THING TO DO.

UM, AND I DON'T MEAN CAUSE ON OPTION A, WE CAN CHANGE THESE NUMBERS, RIGHT? WELL, YEAH, YEAH.

WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT WITH WITHOUT CHART ON OPTION A.

RIGHT.

YOU CAN DO IT.

THIS COMES FROM THE FIRE CODE, THE BUILDING CODE IS WHAT IT FROM.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

I'VE ALREADY DONE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LOOKING AT THOSE SITUATIONS AND LOOK AT THAT RISK.

AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, YEAH, THESE ARE FINE, BUT WE ONLY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO LESS THAN THAT IN MANY CASES.

RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

YEAH.

SO THAT, THAT'S, I MEAN, IF YOU, WE'D GO OUT LOOKING AT THESE, I THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS A LOT OF THESE WOULD ACTUALLY COME WAY DOWN FROM WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH IS FINE.

BUT THAT, I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S RISK BASED BASED UPON THE USAGE TYPE AND, AND THE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION.

THAT, THAT WOULD BE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOT NECESSARILY.

I I, I MEAN I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIVE OR NOT RESTRICTIVE.

I'M TALKING ABOUT RISK BASED.

RIGHT.

I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE, I THINK THAT, THAT IT SHOULD BE, AGAIN, I THINK IT SHOULD BE RISK BASED, RIGHT? AND THAT'S, AND THE LEVEL OF RISK IS ON THIS CHART RIGHT HERE AND IN THAT BRAIN RIGHT THERE.

UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT I'VE LEARNED IS NO MATTER WHAT LINE IN THE SAND THAT WE DRAW THIS LINE, SOMEBODY CAME UP WITH THIS NUMBER, SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME IN HERE WITH A, LET'S SAY EVEN IF WE WENT TO THIS CHART, LET'S SAY TYPE FIVE B AT 9,000, THAT THAT SHE HIGHLIGHTED, SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME IN HERE WITH A 9,100 SQUARE FOOT AND GO, WHAT? YOU'RE MAKING ME PUT A SPRINKLER IN IT.

WHATEVER LINE YOU DRAW, SOMEBODY'S ALWAYS GONNA HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

UM, SOMETHING ELSE THAT I DID, DID WANNA POINT OUT TO IS, IS, FOR EXAMPLE, PLANO ON HERE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY'VE GOT 6,000, BUT THEY ALSO RIDE WITH FOUR PEOPLE ON THEIR ENGINES AND TRUCKS, YOU KNOW, AND THEY HAVE SOME MULTI-COMPANY STATIONS TOO.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND.

ALSO, MR. CHAIR, I, I WOULD SUPPORT THE TAKING US BACK TO WHERE WE UNDID THIS GOING BACK TO

[00:40:01]

6,000, WHICH IS WHERE THE OPTION B STARTED, AND THEN IT WAS REVISED DOWNWARD.

I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, SUPPORT STAYING WITH OPTION B TAKING IT TO 6,000.

IT IS AN INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AND THAT IS ENOUGH, UH, ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET THAT IT WOULD'VE SAVED A LOT OF DRAMA AND NEARLY LOSING AT LEAST ONE OF MY BUSINESSES.

SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

I SEE YOU.

SAME.

I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT OPTION B AS AS WRITTEN HERE, GO, UM, GOING BACK AT THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, JUST WHEN TO ME KNOW, IDEALLY, I MEAN, IT'S, FOR ME IT'S, IT'S ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, RISK BASED, RIGHT? IDEALLY OPTION A GIVES YOU THE MOST, MOST, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT RISK BASED.

HOWEVER, I WOULD BE WILLING TO, YEAH.

LET'S JUST SAY OPTION B TO 6,000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THE THING ABOUT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GO INTO 6,000 SQUARE FEET WHEN THOSE PEOPLE DO, YOU KNOW, COME AND PROTEST, HEY, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE FOLLOWING NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

SURE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING.

SO WE HAVE THAT TO FALL BACK ON AS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY WE'RE DOING THAT, AS OPPOSED TO, WELL, WE'RE BEING EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN RECOMMENDED.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT.

YOU, SO I'D, I'D BE FINE GOING BACK TO JUST OPTION B AS WRITTEN.

I'M FINE TO TAKE IT TO THE COMMITTEE WITH A SPLIT DECISION, CUZ I STILL DISAGREE.

I THINK 5,000 IS THE NUMBER, BUT I'M HAPPY TO BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR DIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS POOL, OUR, OUR FIRE CAPABILITIES AND, AND DECISION ON WHAT OPTION B SHOULD, SO I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND THEN REPORT IT AND BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL AS, AS THAT THEN.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

MM-HMM.

REALLY APPRECIATE JOE'S WORK ON THIS.

YES, YOU BET.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

MR. CHAIR, AM I CLEAR IN SAYING THAT YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT? I THOUGHT A MOMENT AGO YOU SAID YOU WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH, I SAID, I'M WILLING TO HEAR OPTION B AND 6,000.

I'M WILLING TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION, BUT I'M STILL NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH IT BEING 6,000.

YEAH.

SO DO WE NEED TO MAKE THIS A VOTE? SO YOU SURE.

LET'S, LET'S TAKE A VOTE THEN.

AND, OKAY.

FOR OFFICIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, COUNCIL, YEAH.

OKAY.

MM-HMM.

.

SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE, OH, MAKE A MOTION IF YOU WILL.

THEN I MOVE THAT WE MOVE THIS BACK TO OPTION B WITH 6,000 SQUARE FEET AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, COUNSEL, LADY MORRISON BASS AND THE CHAIRS POSE.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

GOOD CATCH.

ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 2D AMENDING SCREENING REQUIREMENTS NEXT TO COMMERCIAL USES OR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS.

MR. GARRIN, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YOU'LL SEE THAT, UM, THAT I'VE GOT SLIDES AVAILABLE IF YOU NEED ME TO RERUN THROUGH AGAIN, WHAT OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE.

UM, THIS OF COURSE REGARDING BOTH, UM, COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, THAT SCREENING REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS, UM, THOROUGHFARE, UM, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

UH, BUT THE COMMITTEE LAST TIME ASKED TO, UM, UH, FOR STAFF TO COME BACK AND, UH, SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE ARE DOING AS FAR AS THESE PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS GOES.

SO I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT.

UM, STARTING WITH ROULETTE, UM, THIS IS OF COURSE THE COMMERCIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WHEN IT'S ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL, UM, ZONING DISTRICT.

UM, THEY KIND OF BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO NON-RESIDENTIAL, SO TO SPEAK.

SO FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UM, UNLIKE GARLAND AND SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES, UH, AND ROULETTE FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE SCREENING, UH, ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY.

UM, HOWEVER, FOR COMMERCIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT, THEY REQUIRE EITHER A MASONRY WALL OR LIVING SCREEN.

UM, AND ONE NOTE THERE IS THAT THEY, UH, UM, EVERGREEN PLANTINGS MUST BE EIGHT FEET PLUS AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.

SO THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.

WE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UM, IN THE LIVING SCREEN, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS MORE OF YOUR TRUE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A HEDGE OR A, A VERY CONTINUOUS SOLID, MORE OPAQUE VERSUS KIND OF JUST TREE SHRUB, SHRUB, SHRUB TREE SHRUB, SHRUB.

SO, UM, WANNA NOTE THAT.

UM, AND THEN FOR, UM, INDUSTRIAL OR UTILITY USES LIKE SUBSTATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY DO REQUIRE MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY.

AND THEN THERE ARE TREES THAT THEY, UM, THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, UH, PLANTED ALONG THESE, UH, SCREENING AREAS OR MASONRY WALLS.

UM, HAVE TO BE 35 FEET.

UM, ON CENTER, UH, 35 FEET APART, I BELIEVE IN GARLAND IT IS, UH, OH, 25 FEET.

OKAY.

YEAH.

UM, AND THEN FOR ROUTE, STAYING WITH ROUTE, THE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY THOROUGHFARE SCREENING, THEY DO REQUIRE MASON AND WALLS, UM, FOR, UM, SIDE AND REAR YARDS ALONG RIGHTS OF WAY JUMPING TO PLANO, UM, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT, UM, UH, USES,

[00:45:01]

UM, A MASONRY WALL.

THEY KEEP IT PRETTY SIMPLE.

MASONRY WALL IS REQUIRED.

UM, HOWEVER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER A LIVING SCREEN, UM, UM, THROUGH A VARIANCE REQUEST.

UM, NOW WITH PLANOS, UH, THOROUGHFARE SCREENING, IT'S A BIT MORE COMPLICATED.

THEY'VE GOT A WHOLE CHART, WHICH, UM, I MAY NEED SOME TIME.

I PRINTED THEIR ORDINANCE.

IF ANYONE REALLY, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO SEE IT, I'M NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING IT, BUT JUST IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET KIND OF DIVE INTO PLANOS ORDINANCE A LITTLE MORE, UM, I'VE, I'VE GOT SOME HARD COPIES AVAILABLE, UH, BUT I TRY TO PICK OUT KIND OF THE HIGHLIGHTS AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

UM, IT SAYS MASONRY WALLS ARE NOT, WELL, I GUESS TO STEP BACK, IT SEEMS THAT THE, THE HIGH LEVEL, UM, DEAL HERE IS THAT THEY GIVE THEIR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, UM, SOME, SOME AUTHORITY OVER, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ROD IRON OR ANY KIND OF TRANSPARENT OPTION, THEY REALLY LEAVE IT TO THEIR PZ COMMISSION VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, WHICH OF COURSE IN GARLAND WE DO HAVE AS AN OPTION, AS A REMINDER.

UM, BUT JUST SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS, MASONRY WALLS ARE NOT, UM, THEY USE THE WORD ENCOURAGED, UH, FOR TYPE D THOROUGHFARES AND SMALLER, UM, SO FORMER LOCAL AND KIND OF SMALLER COLLECTOR ROADS.

THEY, UM, ENCOURAGE OTHER SCREENING OPTIONS.

AND OF COURSE, AS A REMINDER IN GARLAND, IT'S REALLY TYPE D THOROUGH AFFAIRS IN LARGER WHERE WE HAVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.

OTHERWISE, STANDARD BACKYARD FENCES ARE, ARE ACCEPTABLE.

UM, HOWEVER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND PLANO MAKES THE DECISION ON ROD IRON.

UH, THEY'VE GOT A FEW OPTIONS HERE.

UM, THEY MAKE THE DECISION ON ROD IRON OPTIONS WITH BRICK FENCING.

UM, THAT'S WITH THE BRICK COLUMNS.

I'VE WORDED THAT A LITTLE ODDLY, BUT ROD IRON WITH BRICK COLUMNS, UM, METAL ORNAMENTAL FENCING WITH THE LANDSCAPE SLOPE AND, UM, BERMS WITH RETAINING WALL OPTIONS.

THEY'VE GOT KIND OF VISUALS FOR THESE TYPES OF OPTIONS, BUT THOSE, THOSE HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING, UH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.

UH, AND THEN LIVING SCREENS WITH A FENCE, UM, ARE ACCEPTED.

IT'D BE A LIVING SCREEN WITH LIKE A METAL ORNAMENTAL FENCE KIND OF BEHIND IT.

UH, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE WHEN THERE'S NOT AN ALLEY PROPOSED BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

AND THEN FINALLY, RICHARDSON, UM, FOR COMMERCIAL USES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, MASONRY WALL, UM, IS REQUIRED.

AND THEN, UM, FOR THEIR THOROUGHFARE SCREENING, UM, THEY REQUIRE A, UH, SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OR A LIVING SCREEN, UH, WITH, UH, A LANDSCAPE BUFFER OF AT LEAST 20 FEET IN WIDTH OR A COMBINATION, UH, THEREOF, UM, CAN BE CONSIDERED.

UM, HOWEVER, THE ONLY INSTANCE WHERE THEY ALLOW KINDA THE MORE TRANSPARENT ROD IRON WOULD BE IF IT'S, UM, USED TO ALLOW SOME VIEW INTO SOMETHING SUCH AS A LANDSCAPE FEATURE, LANDSCAPE MEDIA IN A COMMON AREA, CUL-DE-SAC, SOMETIMES YOU SEE CUL-DE-SACS WITH A LITTLE PEDESTRIAN OPENING AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE DOWN THE STREET.

SO, UH, SO THEY DO HAVE SOME LIMITED ALLOWANCES FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S, UM, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

AND I, I'D PUT A MEDICINAL NICE CHART TO TRY TO ORGANIZE IT.

THIS, UH, DOESN'T HAVE QUITE AS MUCH DETAIL AS THE SLIDES I JUST WENT THROUGH, BUT, UM, IN CASE YOU KIND OF WANNA, UM, LOOK AT THAT, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'LL KIND OF STOP THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

AND, UM, AND I'VE GOT GARLANDS OF COURSE, UM, UH, CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE GDC RIGHT THERE ON THAT RIGHT, RIGHT HAND COLUMN.

UM, SO I'LL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KAREN THEN? NO QUESTIONS.

STILL READING? OH, YEAH.

SEEMS LIKE FOR THE MOST PART WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT.

FEW RESTRICT THE USEFUL ORNAMENTAL OFFENSE, BUT MASON MARIE WALL SEEMS TO BE AN OPTION IN ALL OF 'EM.

OPTION OR, OR REQUIRED OR, YEAH.

OPTION OR REQUIRED, RIGHT? CORRECT.

YEAH, WE'RE, UM, WE'RE A BIT MORE FLEXIBLE THAN, YEAH, THAN I WOULD THAN OTHER CITIES, I WOULD SAY.

UM, IN TERMS OF KIND OF ALLOWING THE OPTIONS ADMINISTRATIVELY, UM, THEY'VE GOT, IN SOME CASES THEY'VE GOT OPTIONS, BUT THEY'RE A BIT STRICTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UM, KIND OF METAL ORNAMENTAL OPTION, ROD IRON, THAT SORT OF THING, ALLOWING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S ANY KIND OF TRANSPARENCY INVOLVED.

SO, GO AHEAD.

YES.

THANK, THANK YOU.

WELL, UM, SURE.

YEAH.

SO THE, THIS, THIS ITEM THAT WAS REFERRED TO US IS TALKING ABOUT, UM, ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND, UH, COMMERCIAL USES NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL.

AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE, UM, WE ARE FAR MORE FLEXIBLE IN THOSE OPTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT THE, UM, THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD FROM ANOTHER DEVELOPER WHO HAS DEVELOPED A LOT IN GARLAND TO SAY, UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL, UM, THERE SHOULD BE SOLID, RELIABLE SCREENING ALONG THOROUGH AFFAIRS, AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN A STREET AND LOOK INTO THE BACK,

[00:50:01]

THE, THE BACKYARD AND BACK WINDOWS OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES, MANY OF THEM BEING HOA THAT DON'T ALLOW THEM TO PUT UP A FENCE.

AND, AND I, I AM STILL IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

SO I WOULD, AS FAR AS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THOROUGH AFFAIRS, UM, THERE WAS ONE OF 'EM THAT IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER THINGS, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE AND THE BACK, UM, REQUIRED A MASONRY WALL.

MM-HMM.

, I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE THAT WAS.

UH, YES.

WAS THAT, IT MAY HAVE BEEN ROULETTE, IT WAS A FEW SLIDES BACK.

DR.

ROWETT, UH, BACK, UM, SIDE AND REAR YARDS.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERSONALLY.

MASONRY WALL REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARDS ALONG RIGHTS OF WAY.

UM, BUT I DO LIKE RICHARDSON'S EXCEPTION WHERE THERE COULD BE FLEXIBILITY IF THAT WALL WOULD BLOCK THE VIEW OF A LANDSCAPE FEATURE.

AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD EVEN NEED TO BE WRITTEN IN, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE ARGUED, UH, TO PLAYING COMMISSION INTO US, UM, AS AN EXCEPTION.

SO I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE MASONRY WALLS REQUIRED SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THOROUGH AFFAIRS.

WAS THERE ANY INFORMATION ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THESE WALLS AFTER THEY WERE BUILT THE PROPERTY OF HOA OR THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER? AND IF SO, IF ONE GETS DAMAGED, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING IT AND MM-HMM.

FOR MASONRY WALLS SPECIFICALLY, THAT'S MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ROD IRON FOR SURE.

IT IS.

YEAH.

IT COMES UP MORE OFTEN.

AND I KNOW RICHARDSON HAD A BOND PROGRAM WHILE BACK.

HE WAS IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE, UM, WELL, YEAH, SOMEWHERE AROUND 20 2005, 2010, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE THEY, UM, THEY PUMPED SOME BOND MONEY INTO THAT EXACT ISSUE.

YEAH.

THE MASON WALLS.

AND THEY BOUGHT ALL THEIRS.

THEY DID A, I KNOW ALONG ARAPAHOE THEY HAD A LOT THAT, THAT WERE GOING IN AND WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS THAT THEY FINALLY BUILT.

YEAH.

YEAH.

UM, NO, BEYOND THAT I DID NOT, UM, LOOK AT THE MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS, UM, FOR THE MASON WALLS IN THESE CITIES, JUST KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE KIND OF SCREENING ASPECT OF IT OR THE OPTIONS.

SO TO THESE REGULATIONS SHOW THEN ARE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION THEN? IS THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS WHAT I ASKED ABOUT IN AFTER THEY, SOMEONE RUNS OFF THE ROAD AND NEXT TO THOROUGHFARE AND TAKES THEIR CAR THROUGH, ARE WE GOING TO REQUIRE THE OWNER TO FIX THIS? AND UH, I KNOW IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE WHERE YOU CAN'T FIND THE TYPE OF BRICK ANYMORE AND WE'LL HAVE A HOLE IN OUR FENCE FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE THAT.

IT'S REALLY THE RESPONSIBLE OF THE HOMEOWNER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY OWN THE WALL IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT GO AROUND THAT WITH REPLACING IT ONCE IT'S BEEN DAMAGED, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT IN AN HOA THAT SPELLS IT OUT, RIGHT? MM-HMM.

, THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN GARLAND THAT AREN'T IN HOAS.

MM-HMM.

.

BUT THAT IS A VALID, UM, THAT IS A VALID CONCERN.

IT'S, TO ME, IT'S ALSO A VALID CONCERN TALKING ABOUT GREEN SCREENS.

I MEAN, THE ICE STORM LAST YEAR, UH, A GREAT MINI SOLID EVERGREEN HEDGES ARE DEAD AND GONE.

SO, UM, THAT IS ANOTHER DIFFICULTY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY STAY FOREVER ANY MORE THAN MASONRY DOES.

UM, WE CURRENTLY, THE SCREENING WALLS, OUR POSITION HAS BEEN, OUR SCREENING WALLS ARE OWNED BY THE HOA.

I THINK IN SOME OF THE LATER DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE ACTUALLY REQUIRED IN THE PD THAT NOT ONLY IS THE HOA RESPONSIBLE, BUT ALSO THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER IS SEPARATELY RESPONSIBLE AS WHERE IT AS WELL MM-HMM.

.

SO WE COULD GO AFTER EITHER OF THE HOA BEC, UM, GOES BANKRUPT, THERE'S NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE.

UM, BUT, UM, I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD TO WRITE LETTERS TO HOAS TO HAVE THEM REPAIR THE SCREENING WALLS.

AND WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PD SAYS, OUR POSITION IS THAT THEY WERE GRANTED A, UM, SCREENING WALL EASEMENT OWNED BY THE HOA, AND THEREFORE THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

AND IF IT'S, UM, IF IT'S A NUISANCE WHERE IT'S FALLING DOWN, THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY GO AFTER 'EM EITHER THROUGH, UM, ZONING VIOLATIONS OR THROUGH, UM, A CIVIL VIOLATION.

WE COULD ACTUALLY SUE 'EM.

WE'VE HAD TO THREATEN TO DO THAT BEFORE.

MM-HMM.

, WHATEVER REQUIREMENT WE DO, DEVELOPERS ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO ASK FOR VARIANCE IF THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR IT.

SO I THINK, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CHART SHOWS ALL THAT? ABSOLUTELY.

IT IS AGAIN.

YEP.

THANK YOU.

PART OF THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE NOW IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS GOING IN THAT REQUIRE THESE TYPES OF SCREENING.

WELL, WE'LL HAVE SOME COMING IN THE FUTURE, BUT NOT A LOT.

MOST OF THAT'S BEEN BUILT OUT MM-HMM.

AND GOING BACK AND FIXING

[00:55:01]

THE ONES, ESPECIALLY THE OLDER ONES WHERE WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT EITHER IN THE PD ITSELF, OR THERE'S A QUESTION IN THE PLAT AND WHO OWNS THE SCREENING WALL.

UM, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT PROBLEM, THERE'S REALLY NO REMEDY FOR THAT, QUITE FRANKLY.

MM-HMM.

, BECAUSE, UM, IF IT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED EITHER BY THE PLAT OR THE PD, UM, UM, THEN WE, NO MATTER WHAT WE PASS AS FAR AS THE GDC GOES, IT'S NOT GONNA APPLY TO THEM ANYWAY.

MM-HMM.

AND BRIAN, DOES THAT INCLUDE, UM, THE ISSUE THAT, ONE OF THE ADJACENCY ISSUES THAT I THINK TRIGGERED THIS DISCUSSION AS FAR AS, UM, I THINK A FENCE, YES.

AN ORNAMENTAL FENCE WAS ALLOWED TO, SO IF THEY BUILT THE, ORIGINALLY BUILT THE FENCE, UM, UM, UNDER A CERTAIN SET OF REGULATIONS, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO, WE CAN CHANGE IT, WE CAN CHANGE THE ORDINANCE LIKE WE DO ANY OTHER ORDINANCE AND MAKE 'EM, UM, LEGALLY NONCONFORMING.

AND THE FA PORTION OF THAT FENCE, A LARGE ENOUGH PORTION HAS