[00:00:02]
WELCOME TO THE STAFF BRIEFING OF THE[Planning & Zoning Briefing 101424]
CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH A MEETING OF OCTOBER 14TH, 2024.I'M CHERYL SMITH, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
THIS STAFF BRIEFING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING IS HEREBY CALL TO ORDER AT 5:30 PM THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS HEREBY THE MEETING IS WHERE THE STAFF BRIEFS THE COMMISSION AND PREVIEWS THE CASES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAY FACILITATE THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASES.
NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE BRIEFING.
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE REGULAR MEETING, WHICH WILL BEGIN EARLY AT 6:30 PM I'LL NOW CONDUCT A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS TO CONFIRM THE PRESS OF THE QUORUM AND RECALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE CHERYL SMITH.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR TY CHAPMAN, MICHELLE MADDEN AND VICTOR.
UH, JAMIE, BUT ARI AND VICTOR MEDINA ARE ANY ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION? NO MA'AM.
STAFF, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT? YES.
SO THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
IT IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF AUTO PARTS USED, LOCATED AT 3 2 0 1 JEFFERSON STREET.
IT IS LOCATED OR IT IS ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND IT'S FOR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE OF 2000 SQUARE FEET.
SO JUST SOME BRIEF HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ON THE SITE.
SO THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY HAS TWO EXISTING COS ALREADY FOR THE SAME USE AT THE SAME LOCATION.
SO IN 2014 THEY WERE ISSUED A CO FOR THE AUTO PARTS USE SALES FOR SUITE 1 0 1 AND IN 2016 FOR SUITE 1 0 2 AND THEN DECEMBER OF 2018, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH CHANGED OUR USE CHARTS AS IN ARTICLE FOUR, WHICH MADE IT WHERE AUTO PARTS FOR USED PARTS NOW REQUIRES AN SUP, WHEREAS BEFORE IT WAS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
SO ESSENTIALLY THOSE TWO SUITES THAT ALREADY HAVE THE CO, THEY'RE NOW CONSIDERED LEGAL NON-CONFORMING.
SO YOU KNOW, WE DON'T MAKE THEM CEASE OPERATIONS.
THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS, BUT ONCE YOU EXPAND A ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE, YOU, YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT DOING THE SUP NOW.
SO WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS AN EXPANSION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE, WHICH IS TRIGGERING THE SUP REQUIREMENT.
SO THE ORIGINAL COS THEY HAD DID NOT REQUIRE AN SUP, BUT NOW IT DOES.
SO THIS IS THEIR SITE EXHIBIT THAT WAS PROVIDED.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE SUITE 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2.
SUITE 1 0 3 IS A RESTAURANT, WHICH IS NOT A PART OF THIS REQUEST TODAY.
AND THEY WANT SUITE 1 0 6, WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH OF THAT PLAN THERE.
SO THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION ARE MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, 10:00 AM TO 5:00 PM AND AGAIN, SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL SUITE REALLY IS MAINLY GOING TO BE USED TO HOUSE STOCK AND INVENTORY FORCE.
THE, UH, RETAIL PORTION OF THAT SUITE 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2.
SO NO SALVING OR MECHANICAL WORK WILL BE DONE ON SITE.
AND THIS SITE IS MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING ANY VARIANCES.
13 NOTICES WERE SENT TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
ZERO RETURN IN FAVOR AND ZERO RETURN.
DRC RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
SO FIRST THE BUSINESS SHALL BE OPERATED AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL STATE, FEDERAL, LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
AND THE BUSINESS SHALL OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND A RB PERMIT.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE? IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY LOOKS LIKE TO ME.
SO THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING BY RIGHT? MM-HMM
WELL, SO THEY'RE LEGAL NONCONFORMING NOW, BUT THEY, THEY WERE, THAT USE WAS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
AND THAT'S ONLY DISTRICT, I GUESS MAYBE BEFORE 2018 OR WHATEVER? YES.
SO THERE REALLY IS NO RECORDS THAT YOU GUYS WOULD'VE KEPT TO SEE IF THEY WERE OPERATING PER THOSE HOURS AND ONLY SELLING USED AUTO PARTS.
IT'S NOT LIKE OTHER SUVS WHERE, SO I MEAN THEY, WE DO PART OF THE A RB UM, YOU KNOW, PROGRAM WE HAVE IN THE CITY IS THAT THEY DO GO DO YEARLY CHECKS ON THE SITE AND IF THEY'VE GOTTEN ANY CODE COMPLAINTS AND OR WE WOULD'VE GONE TO INVESTIGATE.
BUT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMPLAINTS FROM CODE FOR THIS SITE THAT I'M AWARE OF.
THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
SO, OH, THE INSPECTIONS THAT THEY DO AND THEY LIKE SPOTTED INSPECTIONS OR ARE THEY PLANNED? SO THEY'RE YEARLY INSPECTIONS THAT THEY, THEY SO THEY'RE PLANNED.
SO THEY, THEY'RE GETTING READY FOR, THEY DON'T, SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING HANKY THANKY, WE WOULDN'T KNOW MM-HMM
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
THE ITEM NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN ARE UM, COMPANION ITEMS. THE FIRST IS A ZONE CHANGE AND THE SECOND IS AN SUP.
SO BASICALLY FOR THIS ZONE CHANGE, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE CURRENT PD TO
[00:05:01]
ALLOW A COMMERCIAL CELL TOWERS.SO THIS IS FOR A COMMERCIAL PROP UH, COMPANY.
THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE COVERAGE IN THAT AREA AND THEY ARE REQUESTING TO BE LOCATED AT 1355 EAST SETON ROAD, WHICH IS CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY ZONE PROPERTY WITH A CHURCH OCCUPYING THE LOT.
SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, UM, HERE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE IS THIS RED.IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE TOWER KIND OF FAR AWAY FROM THE PARKING LOT.
THEY WANTED TO GET AS CLOSEST UH, POSSIBLE TO THE LAKE AREA SO THAT THERE WILL BE LESS HINDRANCE TO THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA.
SO THEY ARE BUILDING 125 FEET TALL CELL TOWER.
THEY WILL HAVE A SMALL 50 BY 50 PAD THAT IS SCREENED WITH SIX FOOT MASON WALL FINISHED WITH STUCCO.
SO IF YOU WERE TO VOTE APPROVAL OF THIS CASE, WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWING IS YOU'RE SAYING, UM, WE ARE OKAY WITH THE CELL TOWER USE BEING ALLOWED WITH AN SUP APPROVAL IN THIS PARTICULAR PD, PD THREE 18 B.
SO IF THE ZONING WAS APPROVED, THEY CAN REQUEST A SUP FOR THEIR CELL TOWER.
SO THE SECOND REQUEST IS FOR THE CELL TOWER.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE SAME LOCATION.
IF THE THREE PD THREE 18 B CAN ALLOW THE CELL TOWER WITH AN SUP, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN SUP REQUEST FOR THE CELL TOWER.
THIS KIND OF COMMUNICATES HOW TYPICAL CELL TOWER SITE IS LAID OUT.
THEY'LL HAVE A TOWER IN THE MIDDLE AND THE CENTER, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE ELEVATIONS AND THE RENDERING AND THEY WILL HAVE A SCREENING WALL AROUND IT.
UH, THIS KIND OF REPRESENTS THEY COULD CO-LOCATE IN THE FUTURE FOR, BUT FOR NOW THE APPLICANT ONLY NEEDS THE TOP ONES FOR THEIR SERVICES.
SO WE KIND OF COVERED THE CELL TOWER REQUIREMENT THAT THEY NEED TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY FROM CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO AS THE MAP SHOWS THEY ARE ACTUALLY MORE THAN 600 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY, UH, ZONED LOTS OCCUPIED BY A HOME.
HOWEVER, THE CHURCH ITSELF, THEY ARE THE PD, PD THREE 18 IS ACTUALLY SINGLE FAMILY ZONED
SO THEY ACTUALLY GET A, HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE TO BE ZERO FEET BECAUSE THEY ARE SITTING ON A LOT THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PROPERTY.
SO IF THEY WERE A NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING, THEY WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT SITE ITSELF, THEY STILL HAVE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE.
THE SECOND VARIANCE THEY'RE ASKING IS THE BRAVO DRIVE.
SO, UM, THE ORANGE LINE REPRESENTS THE PATH WHERE THEY CAN HAVE THEIR, UH, MAINTENANCE VEHICLE TRAVEL ONCE THE POWER IS CONSTRUCTED.
AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT GONNA REQUIRE A LOT OF REGULAR MAINTENANCES UNLESS THERE'S SOME CHANGES IN THE, UM, ACTUAL TECHNOLOGY.
SO THEY ARE ASKING, HEY, THIS IS PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY LONG.
CAN WE DO THAT AS A GRAVEL? STAFF CONSIDERED IT AND STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THAT VARIANCE REQUEST.
SO AGAIN, THE SUP IS FOR THE CELL TOWER.
THEY ARE REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
UM, THE APPLICANT DID REACH OUT TO THE HOA AND SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY WILL BE HERE TO PRESENT ON IT.
BUT BASICALLY IN SUMMARY, THEY SAID MOST PEOPLE THAT THEY'VE SPOKEN WITH WAS OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE IT WILL IMPROVE THE COVERAGE IN THE AREA.
AND HERE'S THE COVERAGE MAP THAT THEY PROVIDED.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE LEFT, THEY'RE LACKING COVERAGE IN THE PROPOSED LOCATION, WHICH IS REPRESENTED WITH THE BLUE CIRCLE AND A RED DOT.
AND IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD A TOWER THAT WILL IMPROVE THE RED SHOWS THE AREA THAT THAT WILL HAVE THE ADDITIONAL COVERAGE.
WE DID SEND OUT A NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION.
SO I DON'T KNOW KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE WELL, BUT UM, THERE'S THIS HOUSE WITH GREEN, BUT ONE THING I WANNA KNOW IS, UM, THE GENTLEMAN WHO SUBMITTED THE LETTER SAID, HEY, I'LL BE, SO IT'S ACTUALLY THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE.
THEY SAID, WELL I'LL BE LOOKING AT A TOWER FROM MY BACKYARD.
BUT JUST TO POINT OUT, THEY'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT THE BACK OF THE CHURCH WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.
AND IF YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THIS, UM, GRAPHIC HERE.
SO THIS PHOTO IS TAKEN FROM ACROSS THE STREET OF THE SETON ROAD.
SO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE IS, HEY, THEY HAVE THIS LIKE REALLY LARGE UTILITY LINES THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING AND OUR TOWER IN COMPARISON WOULD BE VERY SLIM DESIGN.
SO IF YOU KIND OF LOOK AT UH, WHERE THE EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS HERE FROM THIS RESIDENT TO THIS POLE AND FROM THIS RESIDENCE TO THIS NEW CELL TOWER WILL BE ABOUT THE SAME DISTANCE.
SO AGAIN, STEPS, JUST WANTING TO CAPTURE THE OPPOSITION BUT WANTING TO SHOW YOU THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT, UM, CURRENTLY THE CHURCH IS, UM, LEASING PORTIONS OF ITS SITE TO THE CITY OF MANSFIELD SO THEY CAN
[00:10:01]
COMPLETE SOME OF THE STREET WORK ON THE SETON ROAD.UH, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T STAY THERE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, CELL TOWER, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO TRY TO USE THE
SO THIS IS MORE FOR THE CLEANUP OF THE SITE, BUT, UH, NOTHING, ANY UM, SPECIAL WITH THE CONDITION.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS, MR. ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS AN INTERESTING CASE.
UH, I SAW THE, I'M SO GLAD YOU DID THE EXTRA FOR THAT ONE HOMEOWNER.
BECAUSE HAD, HAD I NOT, THEY NOT HAD THE OF A UTILITY POLE, I WOULD ASSUME THAT HE MAY HAVE HAD CASE MM-HMM
BUT THAT DID I CASE THAT HELPS THAT.
BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT ROAD, GO BACK TO WHERE THAT ROAD, THAT THE ORANGE ROAD? YES MA'AM.
IS THAT A TEMPORARY, I MEAN, SO HOW ARE THEY GONNA ACCESS THAT GOING BACK AND FORTH IF THAT'S JUST A TEMPORARY? SO AGAIN, ONCE THE TOWER IS CONSTRUCTED, IT WILL JUST BE THERE.
UM, ONLY TIME THEY'LL NEED TO REALLY DO ANY WORK IS IF THEY WANNA DO REGULAR CHECKBOOK OR MAINTENANCES, BUT THERE'S NO REGULAR UH, TRAFFIC THAT'S GENERATED.
SO THEY'RE SAYING HEY, WE JUST WANNA PAY, UM, PUT A GRAVEL THERE SO THAT WE CAN DRIVE OUR TRUCK OVER IT.
BUT THEY DON'T REALLY ANTICIPATE ANY FREQUENT TRIPS ON THAT ROAD.
SO THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION, BUT I'M GONNA ASK YOU, IT'S OKAY.
THEY SAID THERE WON'T BE ANY NOISE FACTORS COMING FROM THE, THE TOWER FOR ANY REASON.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU KIND OF LOOK AT THE AREA, THEY ARE PRETTY WELL SCREENED BY THE VISITING CHURCH AND ACROSS THE STREET IS SCHOOL AND TO THE SOUTH IS THE LAKE.
THE TOWERS THEMSELVES DON'T PRODUCE SCHOOLS.
AND IN REGARDS TO ACCESS, THEY'RE PROBABLY GETTING A MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH THE CHURCH AND ALLOW THEM TO CREATE A DRIVE OR THEY'LL JUST USE IT FOR MAINTENANCE AND THEY'LL PROBABLY GIVE NOTICE WHEN THEY GET READY TO COME THROUGH THERE.
JUST AT THE CHURCH, NOBODY ELSE IS AFFECTED BY IT.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? MAY MAYBE? SURE.
IN ECONOMICS, I'M ASSUMING THE CHURCH IS LEASING PART OF THAT LAND TO THIS COMPANY? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO JUST CURIOUS TO SEE ONCE YOU, ONCE WE ALLOW THIS, DOES IT MEAN THAT THAT POWER STAYS THERE FOREVER?
WE'RE TYING DOWN TO THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION WITH THAT SPECIFIC DESIGN.
SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE ELSE CAN COME IN AND BUILD ANOTHER TOWER, BUT THAT TOWER, IF THEIR LEASE EXPIRES, THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE RIGHT.
TO CONTINUE THAT WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? UM, DO ONE QUICK QUESTION.
CAN IT BE LIMITED JUST TO THAT ONE OR COULD THEY SAY, HEY, THIS IS WORKING FOR US ECONOMICALLY, LET'S GET THREE MORE.
SO AGAIN, UM, THE SECOND ELEVATION SHOWS, SO TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE ONE TOWER, WE KNOW WE DON'T, WE RATHER THE COMPANIES CO-LOCATE ON ONE TOWER THAN TO HAVE MULTIPLE TOWERS.
SO ALTHOUGH THEY HAVEN'T SPECIFIED HOW MANY USERS THEY ARE SHOWING IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD POSSIBLY HAVE MORE CO-LOCATING COMPANIES THAT CAN LEASE THE TOWER TOO.
HOWEVER, THEY CANNOT INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER OR THEY CANNOT ADD ANOTHER TOWER STRUCTURE.
DID THEY COME WITH WINDOWSILL? NO, IT DOES NOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THERE IS A TRICKY QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY DECIDE TO LEASE OUT 'CAUSE THEY MAY NOT PRETTY MUCH WOULDN'T NEED ANYMORE EQUIPMENT.
IT'S JUST THAT COMPUTER STUFF IS ALL THEY NEED, RIGHT? RASHAN, RIGHT? JUST LIKE SHE'S SHOWING EACH ONE OF THOSE, JUST SHOWING THAT METAL, THE MIDDLE ELEVATION IS A DIFFERENT CELL PROVIDER PROBLEM.
UH, RIGHT NOW ON THE RIGHT, THAT'S THE ONE CELL PROVIDER.
THE OTHER ONES WOULD BE AT T OR WHATEVER.
SO THOSE PROVIDE YOU WITH LEASE FOR THAT LOCATION.
SO THEY, THEY PROBABLY BUILD IT, UH, BIG ENOUGH OR THEY CAN COMPENSATE FOR THAT, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND USUALLY THEY NEED THE HEIGHT TO REACH THE COVERAGE AREA.
AND WE HAVE A SIMILAR TOWER ON BELTLINE.
LIKE RIGHT AFTER YOU PASS THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, YOU WILL SEE IT ON THE RIGHT.
BUT UNLESS SOMEONE LIKE LOOKS FOR IT, IT'S KIND OF, IT'S KIND OF EASY TO MISS.
AND THIS IS, WE CAN, I THINK THAT'S IT.
NO MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.
SO THE NEXT ITEM IS A, UM, UNIFIED SIGNAGE PLAN FOR THE GOODLAND AREA.
SO AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE GOODLAND SUBDIVISION ARE DEVELOPING KIND OF TOWARD THE SOUTHWE, UM,
[00:15:01]
SOUTHWEST, ALONG THE PRAIRIE RIDGE BOULEVARD.THIS IS THE PRAIRIE BRIDGE AND 2 87 WHERE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SOME OF THESE PRAIRIE RIDGES PHASES ONE THROUGH, UM, EIGHT UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION AND UNDER COMPLETION.
SO THEY'RE REQUESTING VARIANCE THROUGH THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
SO BASICALLY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IS BUILD TWO ENTRY SIGNS.
SO THIS IS KIND OF COMMONLY SEEN IF YOU PASS THROUGH A SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND SOMETIMES, UM, CITIES WILL PUT LIKE THIS IS A GATEWAY OR THIS IS THIS ENTRY TO THIS.
UM, SO COLON ON COLONY, IF YOU PASS 1 21, THEY HAVE THE MEMBER RA MARKET AND ALL THAT AREA AND THEY CALL THAT A SPECIAL AREA.
AND THEY HAVE THE SIMILAR ENTRY SIGNS.
SO WHERE THEY'RE REQUESTING IT TO BE LOCATED IS RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE 2 87 AND PRAIRIE RIDGE.
AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE RENDERING OF HOW IT WILL APPEAR ACTUALLY ONCE IT'S CONSTRUCTED.
THIS KIND OF SHOWS THE TWO LOCATIONS, UM, THAT WILL BE LOCATED ON, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PRAIRIE RIDGE.
SO OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE ENTRY SIGNS TO BE EIGHT FOOT TALL AND 50.
SO THIS USELESS NOT BE A PART OF A SIGN ORDINANCE.
I THINK THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WE MADE BECAUSE WE REALIZED A LOT OF SUBDIVISIONS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED IN THE INTERSECTION OF, YOU KNOW, CAMP WISDOM OR COLLECTOR STREET WITH THE LOCAL STREET.
SO THEY DON'T REALLY NEED TO BE VERY, VERY TALL.
SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY KEPT AT EIGHT FEET.
HOWEVER, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR LOCATION, THEY'RE ACTUALLY UH, PROVIDING AN ENTRY SIGN AT 2 87 WHERE THE CARSS ARE TRAVELING MORE 70 MILES RATHER THAN 35, 40 MILES AN HOUR.
SO THEY ARE SAYING, HEY, THIS WILL REALLY HELP IMPROVE THE VISIBILITY BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO TURN RIGHT AS THEY'RE EXITING ON THE SERVICE ROAD OF 2 87.
SO THEY ARE REQUESTING, UH, ONE THE HEIGHT TO BE INCREASED TO 30 FEET AND THE SIGN AREA TO BE INCREASED TO ONE 30.
SO AGAIN, UM, STAFF DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS REQUEST IN DRC RECOMMENDS, UH, APPROVAL.
ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? MR. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? IS THIS SIMILAR TO THE EPIC? KINDA LIKE KI KIND OF LIKE, IT'LL BE PROBABLY SHORTER I WOULD THINK.
'CAUSE EPIC WAS PROBABLY 40 SOMETHING TALL.
SO WOULD THIS BE CONSIDERED KIND OF GRANDFATHERED SORT? ALMOST.
THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
THIS ONE IS TO ARTICLE 11 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ON-PREMISE ALCOHOL STANDARDS.
SO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO ARTICLE 11.
IT REVISES ON-PREMISE ALCOHOL STANDARDS IN SECTION 12 AND IT ESTABLISHES ON-PREMISE ALCOHOL STANDARDS FOR SMOKING LOUNGES.
UH, THERE IS ACTUALLY AN ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT TO OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, UM, THAT WILL BE GOING TO COUNSEL AT THE SAME TIME.
AND SO THIS AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REMOVES BEVERAGES AND ICE FROM THE DEATH DEFINITION OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS.
SO WHEN WE'VE HAD SMOKING LOUNGES COME THROUGH FOR THEIR SUP, WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT YOU CANNOT OPERATE, UH, FOOD ESTABLISHMENT WITH THAT SMOKING LOUNGE.
UH, THIS AMENDMENT THAT'S TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WILL TAKE ICE AND WATER OUT OF THAT DEFINITION.
UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BACKGROUND.
THERE ARE TWO AMENDMENTS ON THIS SAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
THIS ONE WE'RE TALKING TO ABOUT TONIGHT IS TO THE UDC.
UM, SO THE CHANGES UH, CHANGES THE MAXIMUM ALCOHOL SALES FOR RESTAURANTS FROM 60 TO 75% TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ARTICLES IN THE UDC.
IT ALSO ADDS SMOKING LOUNGES AS A PLACE WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MAY BE SOLD FOR ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION.
SO WE DO HAVE A LIST IN ARTICLE 11.
THIS ADDS SMOKING LOUNGES TO THAT LIST.
IT ALSO ESTABLISHES A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS.
SO THE FIRST IS THAT AT LEAST 51% OF ALL ON-PREMISE SALES ARE FROM THE SALE OF TOBACCO OR SMOKING RELATED PRODUCTS.
AND THEN THE OWNER OPERATOR OR WHOEVER IS IN CONTROL OF THAT ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO PROVIDE SALES TAX INFORMATION TO THE CITY THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT ON APRIL 1ST OF EACH YEAR.
SO AGAIN, UH, TWO AMENDMENTS THAT ARE SOMEWHAT RELATED TO SMOKING LOUNGES.
THE SECOND, WHICH IS NOT REVIEWED BY PNZ BUT WILL BE ON THE SAME AGENDA IS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
UM, SO THIS IS THE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT CHANGE IS CHANGING.
UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE RELATED TO THIS, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE CHANGING THE TEXT AMENDMENT.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PORTION OF IT? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
SO THEN THIS IS SLIGHTLY RELATED TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A CLEANUP FOR AN EXISTING SUP FOR ZAZA HOOKAH LOUNGE.
[00:20:01]
UH, SO THIS IS A CITY INITIATED SUP AMENDMENT AND IT IS TO HELP, UM, MATCH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UDC AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCE.SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, UM, THE FIRST IS TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM AMUSEMENT SERVICES TO SMOKING LOUNGES.
UM, SO PRIOR TO HAVING A DEFINITION AND A SEPARATE USE FOR SMOKING LOUNGE, WE PUT SMOKING LOUNGES OR HOOKAH LOUNGES UNDER THE CATEGORY OF AMUSEMENT SERVICES.
SO WITH THIS CLEANUP TO THEIR CONDITIONS, UH, STAFF IS PROPOSING WE MAKE THAT CHANGE SO THAT ANY HOOKAH LOUNGE THAT HAS AN SUP IS UNDER A SMOKING LOUNGE.
AND THAT'S PURELY TO HELP OUT THE APPLICANT AND AVOID ANY FUTURE CONFUSION.
THE SECOND CHANGE IS TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE OR MATCH THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UDC AND THAT'S TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS.
UM, SO THERE'S CURRENTLY A CONDITION THAT SAYS THAT, UH, ALCOHOL'S NOT ALLOWED ON SITE.
SO WE'RE REMOVING THAT SO THAT COMPLIANCE WILL REFER BACK TO THE UDC.
UM, SO THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGES WE'RE MAKING.
UH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THESE CONDITIONS.
THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN EFFECT RIGHT NOW.
AND THE SECOND CONDITION IS HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONE WE CHANGED WHERE WE REMOVED NO ALCOHOL ON SITE.
I, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME UNLESS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MY GENERAL KNOWLEDGE.
I'VE LEARNED WHAT AN EIGHT LINER IS.
ARE THEY LEGAL? ANYTHING?
SO EIGHT LINERS CAN'T BE LEGAL.
IT DEPENDS UPON HOW THEY'RE PROGRAMMED.
IF THEY'RE PROGRAMMED SO THAT NOBODY WINS MORE THAN 10 TIMES THEIR BET ON A SINGLE PLAY OF THE GAME, THEY'RE LEGAL.
NOBODY PLAYS THOSE SO THEY DON'T HAVE THEM.
UM, BUT TECHNICALLY YOU CAN DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS, THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO GO IN AND THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO UNDERCOVER PLAY THEM TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN WIN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THAT DEFINITION OF GAMBLING DEVICE UNDER STATE LAW.
BUT SO IT'S LIKE A SLOT MACHINE, A SECOND ELECTRIC SLOT MACHINE.
IT'S A SLOT MACHINE JUST WITH A 10 X MAX PAYOUT.
IF YOU WANT BE LEGAL UNDER 10, UNDER 10 TIMES OR $5, WHICHEVER IS LOWER.
THE ONLY CONCERN ASKING FOR A ONLY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE LIKE A CLUB STATUS WHERE YOU WERE BRINGING IN ALCOHOL AND THE SMOKING AND NOT NECESSARILY WE HAVE, IF YOU COMPARE US TO OTHER CITIES, WE'RE VERY UNIQUE IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE SMOKING LOT JUST DON'T ALLOW DRINKING SODAS, NOTHING.
SO THIS IS JUST BE GETTING US ON PAR WITH THE MARKET AND OUR ABILITY TO HAVE LEGITIMATE SMOKE ALLOWED IS LIKE A CIGAR LOUNGE.
YOU GOT YOUR, YOUR, YOUR LIQUOR GOING ALONG WITH THAT NICE CIGAR.
THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE ISSUES.
BUT OTHER, OTHER, OUTSIDE OF THESE OTHER SMOKE S THAT ARE ALREADY IN IN USE, THEY STILL HAVE THE SUP PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
SO YOU STILL GET TO SELECT AND CHOOSE WHICH ONES ARE APPROPRIATE OR NOT, BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF LEVERAGE THE PLAYING FIELD FOR THE OPERATIONS OF I UNDERSTAND.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? THE, IS THAT IT FOR US? ONE MORE.
UH, THIS CASE 24 10 BRADY LANE CAME BEFORE YOU IN JULY.
SO THIS IS VERY RECENT, WAS APPROVED IN UH, AUGUST BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS ANOTHER SMOKING LOUNGE.
UH, AND THIS IS TO AGAIN ALIGN WITH THE TAX AMENDMENT THAT'S PROPOSED.
AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS MODIFYING THEIR OPERATIONAL PLAN, UH, AND THAT THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SELL BEVERAGES.
CURRENTLY THEIR OPERATIONAL PLAN PROHIBITS THEM TO DO THAT.
UH, THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AGAIN, ALL THE EXISTING CONDITIONS STILL APPLY.
UH, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE TO THIS ONE IS THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A YEARLY REVIEW.
UH, GO THROUGH COUNSEL, UM, PNZ AND COUNSEL FOR APPROVAL FOR THAT.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
PLEASE LEMME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.
[00:25:01]
IS ANOTHER TEXT AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX IN HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE SLASH MAPS SLASH AIRPORT ZONING MAPS.AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO UPDATE THE STANDARDS AND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE MIDC CITIES JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD.
SO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE UDC HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY THAT BOARD.
ALL THIS REQUEST IS DOING IS UPDATING THAT ARTICLE TO REFLECT IT.
SO, UM, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE PERMITS A CITY TO INCORPORATE A JOINT ZONING, A JOINT AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 20, EARLY 2023.
AND SO THIS IS CLEANING THAT UP AND UM, ADOPTING LANGUAGE THAT REFLECTS THAT IN OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
ERS ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
THAT BEING SAID, I GUESS WE'RE FINISHED WITH THE BOARD BRIEFING AT, UH, 5 57 RECONVENE, 6:30 PM THANK YOU.