Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] I [Music] don't know. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] I don't know. [Music]

[Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] I want to find you. [Music] Heat [Music] down. [Music] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 5:30 p.m. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session of Monday, August 4th, 2025. Did anybody did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed on the work session agenda? We we do have um 2025137ZC for support fee Abuin and 2025 205 DVP Camden Property Trust DBA Camden

Simmeran and these are both in support for those cases. And then we have 2025 210 ZC. We have Glenn Engineering Corp. in support 2025 211ZC. JDJR Engineers and Consultants in support and 2025 215CP Winstead PC in support. 2025 214ZC has Winstead PC as well and 2025 218 and 217 have Morgan Group as um here in support and they signed up for the citizen comments as well as the planning or the public hearing. They signed up for the work session.

For the work session. Okay. So, anybody who signed up for the work session on any of the zoning cases, uh you certainly can speak now, but we'll really be having the the public hearing portion later in the evening. Um and so you're you're also welcome to speak then. Um but if you're just wanting to speak once, then uh that's really the public hearing portion of it. This is um intended for uh sort of before we get into hearing what the staff has to tell us about the the items on the agenda for this evening. So, um, if there's anybody whose name was called out who is wanting to speak now, you can go ahead and do so. Otherwise, if you want to wait until the evening session, then then that works out well, too.

Oh, it's turned off. Tommy man with Winston. All I really tried to do was upload our presentations on 18, 19, 20, and 21, not sign up for this. So, as long as you got that, I'll make them at the hearing. Okay. Yeah. Do we have those? his presentations. Okay, they'll check on that for you. I spoke with it like three times this morning and uploaded them, so Okay, they should be there. Yes. All right. Thank you. Great. Thank you.

All right. Was there anybody else who wanted to speak now? Nope. It looks like that's it. Great. Thank you. We will move on to the next item. Report on the city council meeting decisions of July 10th, 2025 and July 31st, 2025. Is there anything to report other than what was in our uh the memo we received? No, just u just the decisions from council. Okay. And then report on the planning and development committee meeting of July 10th, 2025. Do we have a report on that? Do either of you get to go?

I'll be really brief. Um one of the topics was on TIFF 2, which city council is the board of directors for this TIFF. So there was a lengthy presentation from Alda Spec about the a small developer workshop and how to take advantage of some funds that were left over from another uh study that was done. So that if you're interested in small developer workshop which really kind of affects more of the Heritage Square area um you might want to go back and take a look at that. Um, our fire chief spoke about fire code and improving ordinances um for uh day surgery recovery centers and electric vehicles. Um, those are really kind of so if either of those topics um are of interest, I would tell you to go look at that particular PND uh video.

Great. Thank you. The EV stuff was fascinating in terms of how dangerous they are. All right. Well, then we'll go on to the review of the public hearing items. We have um under the consent agenda, we have the minutes from the Monday, July 7th, uh 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting. Uh we also have several plat um for approval. if you have any questions about those. Uh, and we also have the the Monday July 14th as well. Oh, apologies. And Monday, July 4th minutes as well. Okay.

Um, so we do have several plats um for uh recommended for approval. We have four um recommended for disapproval. However, we do have uh one of those. It's item number six that has received all signoffs um in the time between when we posted the agenda and tonight. So, it is ready uh for approval and can be moved to the approval section of the consent agenda. Okay.

Any questions about the plats? No. Then let's go on to item number nine. I and I gather this one's being postponed. I was just curious why. Yeah. So, the first time it was postponed, it was because the applicant wasn't present. This time it's being postponed is because we saw kind of late last week that the Pins that was sent out. The date for PNZ, we accidentally put August 8th instead of 4th. And so since it wasn't notified correctly, that's why we're going to have to postpone. Okay. So,

Okay. Great. Then item 10.

Perfect. All right. All righty. And sorry again. Good uh good afternoon commissioners and Haley Rick with planning. So this first case or I guess second case is this 2025 91ZC. It is located at 323 Collins Drive. It's currently R six and they're one to go to SP2 for R six. So generalized site plan for single family residential 6 with an accessory dwelling unit. Um after staff review, our recommendation is for denial. Um, in terms of public comment, there was none in support or in opposition. So, this is the area where it's located. Traditional neighborhood as the future land use. And then the surrounding zoning. So, a lot of uh single families. So, R six. These are the property owners that were notified. And then this is the site plan. So, in March 2025, um, they did receive a code violation. Um it was due to illegal land use and um uh construction without a permit. Um the structure has been there since around 2005. Um though it can't be determined if it was used for if it was used for storage and ADU or if it's even the original unit. Um we can just see aerials that it's been there since about 2005 or there's been a structure back there since 2005. Um they're proposing or it's already existing. Like I said, it's around 485 ft and it's about 12t tall. Um, I'll show photos in a minute about from code enforcement, but it does have a kitchen. It has two rooms and a bathroom with a shower. So, they are far enough from the side and rear setbacks to where even though the height is taller, it is far enough away that they're not needing variances for that. It's strictly just for the um the ADU component. So, this is a subject property. And then this, you can kind of see through the fence, the structure in the back, that's the ADU. And then these are the neighbors. And then these are the photos that code

enforcement was able to get about like a week ago. So end of July. So at the outside of it. And this is the inside. So you can walk in and you go to the left and this is where the bathroom is and then these two rooms. So room one, room two, and then the bathroom with a shower. And I'm open to any comments or questions. Do you know how it was that this came to code's attention?

Yes. For um for this one, it was a um reactive um believed it was a tenant who was living there. Um they said that the unit was filled with mold and they contacted code enforcement. They went out and then um they're since then have moved out. Uh but that's kind how it came to be was the existing tenant was the one who complained. Did did they find any problems like that? There was I mean I didn't see any Yeah, I I the pictures. Yeah, it was um he did those kind of like after the cleanup, but um when I talked to Ricardo, he did say he did receive photos of the mold, but they were just very close up, so you couldn't really tell like where it was in relation to the room. Um but yeah, he confirmed that there was. So, but whether they fixed that,

it it seems like it looks like like these photos were just taken July 29th is what they're timestamped as. So, um, it looks like it has been done, but, um, again, and they're using them as rentals. It seems like that's what it was at that point. Okay. Since it's been 20 when it was first erected, we don't know, but when it came to our attention, it was used as a rental. So,

yeah. And how long is how old is the house in the front? Because that looked like it was fairly new development. Well, they recently uh be that was another part of the case as well. They were actually cited for the May residence as um substandard sub substandard building inspection. Sorry, I'm I'm getting jumbled up, but yeah, substandard building standards. Um yeah, so they the recently the I'll go back to the So this was new. It was initially like I think like a tan color. Um but they redid the roof, the siding, and the windows. So, this is all very new from within the last few months. So, is it a new owner?

No, I believe it's it's been the same owner. Um, I think since they got cited, then they just went ahead and made all the changes that they needed to comply with code enforcement. Okay. Any other questions? Um, just to confirm, did they need a permit for the work they did to the main house? Yes, they they did pull permits for that. Okay. So,

and was the back used as a single unit to be leased out or was it Airbnb or was it just two different tenants? It's from what I understand that I got from Ricardo and um the applicant should be here so they should be able to answer those questions more. But um it seemed like at the time it was a woman and then um children who were living there. It seemed like it was actually like a not a Airbnb situation but like they live there full-time. Um but in terms of what's happened before that or what their plans are after, I'm not sure. So and like you mentioned, so this whole structure was built without permit was just built and without any the city awareness. Yeah. So this Yeah. the the accessory dwelling unit, the structure, yeah, was built without permit and that's what they're one of the things they were cited for. So,

thank you. And it was built, you said it it may be that this structure has been there for 20 years possibly. There's through the aerials, it's it shows that there's sometimes been two buildings and then one kind of goes and the other one's there and then it's, you know, trying to, you know, do our aerials from 20 years ago, it's not the clearest. So if if they'd been using it this way consistently, that was in violation of the ordinance back 20 years ago as well. Correct. Yeah. Um real quick, so once we determine then the U code enforcement will go and make sure that it's structurally sound or has that already been determined because they did it without a permit. So we don't really know.

It kind of depends on I think how this goes. Um because if it's going to be considered an accessory dwelling unit, there's different standards like building standards that need to be in play compared to if it's just an accessory structure. So, if they're allowed to keep the plumbing and um the shower, the the heating, the cooking components, the AC, things like that, the those are very different if it's residential versus this is accessory structure because we don't allow cooktops and um shower facilities and stuff like that in accessory structures, but we do in ADUs or that's what's considered ADO is those things. So,

so what would they need to remove if if this isn't approved? Um, since this is outside, so they they don't need to move the building. Um, and since it's let me see how many square feet 45. Um, so yeah, as long as it's like not if it is if it's as long as it's okay with the lot coverage. Um, then yeah, they would just have to remove the plumbing and the cooktops. And then if it's since it does have the AC that's wired, they can have window units, but they can't have like built-in like central AC. So that would have to be removed as well.

So that's the case with accessory, right? or is that the ADU too for so if they want to keep the structure say they say they get denied by council and they want to keep the structure then yeah they would have to remove the things that make it habitable or livable which is that the plumbing and the the central AC so if ADU gets deni denied they can still use as an accessory unit yeah they'll just have to take out those components and then code enforcement will go in and verify that it is and um they can still use it as a storage shed or anything like that um or Even like you I guess you could use it as an office. Mhm. Yeah. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Is the main house a rental too?

Not that I'm aware of. That's something to ask the applicant. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Thank you. All righty. All right. On to number 11.

All right. And this is my case as well. So this is 2025 115Z. This is at 908 Sunset Drive. Um kind of same situation. They are currently R six and they're wanting to go to a generalized site plan um for single family residential 6 to allow an accessory dwelling unit. Um this one's a little bit different because they are asking for variance to the minimum rear and side setbacks. Um after staff review, we recommend denial. And then for public comments, um there was none in support, but there were two that in opposition. So the subject property a little bit more closeup and then the future land use is compact neighborhood. The zoning most of it is R six. The south is kind of like a public storage kind of community commercial. These are the property owners that were notified. And then number four is where one opposition was and the other letter of opposition was actually just outside the 200 foot boundary. So that's why it's not highlighted here. I go let me refer to my notes real quick. See? All right. And so, and I want to kind of bring up to the two letters of opposition. Um, there more concerns about what it'd be used for, um, and if it there's also kind of talk about if it's used for like a construction business or anything like that. So, um, in their letter of intent, it was talked about how they initially used it for their construction business as an office. Um but at one point it was used as kind of ADU for their son to live there you know early 20s kind of just for a a period of time. Um but they are wanting to continue the use to be as an accessory dwelling unit and not like a construction office. Um this has been around I believe since 2020. Sorry. And then the setbacks is for the accessory dwelling unit and then as well to the side and rear. So for the side it is the 4T um so a 2 ft variance and then

for the rear it's that 4 and 1/2 ft so 1 and 1/2 ft 6 in. Um again this is already existing. Initially it was smaller but looks like it was kind of built upon. But it does have uh just kind of this one open room a built-in closet and a bathroom with a shower and then a kitchen. So this is the subject property and then this is kind of that's the ADU and then the neighbors and you can see they kind of paved most of their backyard and then this is inside. So going through the door to the left that's where the main room is. If you go to the right that's the kitchen. So it has a stove top. No oven um and no dishwasher but does have those uh cooktop components, the sink, the microwave. And then this is the bathroom and then that built-in. So this is the built-in closet and this is the bathroom right here. And I'm open to any comments or questions.

So um was this built with the permit? No, this was also a code enforcement case. um same time that um March this year they were it was a proactive uh the last case was reactive as proactive so um I believe it was Ricardo as well he came across it and um that's when he realized it was here illegally so they were cited and how long have this one been there wasn't as long it seemed via aerial is about 2020 is when it was built so it's been there for a few years now so but it looks like it has it was there and then It looked like expanded. So, as you can kind of tell, those two different tones, colors. Yeah.

And they said they haven't been using it as an ADU for that entire time. Some of the time it was used as an office. Yes. Now, that still should have gotten variances. Yes. Yeah. It's it's one thing to be kind of a home occupation, but this was it seemed more as aerials. You could see trucks that were parked back there. Um, so it it seems to be more of people would come and park and then they would go out for the day or something like that. So, yeah, which we did talk to them about, but they said they'd rather just continue as a accessory dwelling unit instead of like a commercial office. So,

any other questions? [Music] Remind me what's the stand of the city with the ADUs? Yeah, it's up to you. We proposed some amendments last year about this time and um just different ways to look at amendments or ADUs if we're going to approve them, different considerations and it was decided not to proceed at that time. So we do not have any regulations regarding regulating ADUs today. So at this point ADUs are just subject to the same process. They have to be by permission from the council,

right? They're just considered uh on a one by one SP basis and just sight by sight whether they're appropriate. But was it approved or allowed at a time before? No, the guest they're called guest houses and servants quarters have been what was approved. So, those were by right for a little while and then uh council decided I think it was probably 2008ish uh where they were determined to need to be by SP. So, but they were never ADUs as a second dwelling unit. They were always an accessory building to the main structure.

Now, with this case, like um I think they mentioned they've been cited. Does that mean they there's a fine associated even if they get approved? Is there a a fine with this that it comes with it or or what's when they're cited codes approach is to try to correct it. They're not trying to send them to court. They're not trying to do anything. They're just trying to correct the situation. So they work with them. They give them time, let them get their permits, get them go through zoning if that's what they need to do. Um if for some reason they either get denied or they don't complete the process, then they'll take it the next step. But compliance is always the goal. Thank you. So, they may have just been notified that there's a code violation, not been cited for it. It could have been either way.

Yeah. And something I'd like to mention too with this one is due to the structure being um farther enough from the street per fire, they requested them to put in a fire lane. Um so that'll be on the the east side of the property. Um has to be 16 ft wide kind of as you see right here and then support the 75,000 lb. So for a fire truck. So um this would basically mean it would bring the truck close enough within 150 ft that it could be serviced in event of a fire. So um the applicant is aware and they have agreed to if they are approved that they'll build this. So

and Josha, my last question is was ADUs on the um the agenda in Austin this year? Yes, they were. And they did not I think they didn't get out of committee if I'm correct, but they were not passed. That's not in the special session currently, right?

No other questions? No. Let's go to the next one.

All righty. And then this is my last one for a little bit. So, this is 2025137 ZC. It's located at 1405 Lakeshore Drive. Um they're go they're currently single family residential 6 and they're wanting to go to an SP2. Um this is a variance to allow a second kitchen inside a primary residence. Um after staff review, we found no undue hardship. In terms of public comment, there has been one in support and then none in opposition. Uh this case was postponed from June 2nd um due to some notification issues. Um but then they're ready now to be to be seen. So this is where the property is located. Future land use is that traditional neighborhood. The zoning R six. These are the property owners that were notified. And then this is their site plan. So it's a 504 addition to the house. And I'll probably skip to this one. So this is what they're proposing. So this is the the blue is the main and existing kitchen and kind of eaten area. The red is what they're adding. Um the applicant says it's for a kind of a mother or mother-in-law suite or grandma suite. Um the difference is this is attached to a house, so they do have an entry here and they also have a door here. Um there's a kitchen, a full bathroom, and then a bedroom. Um this was provided by the applicant. So this conceptuals, so there's no oven, but there is a cooktop, a sink, and a um a hood and a fridge. And this is the front of the property. And then the neighbors and then again, this is kind of their site plan. So um really their variance is to allow a second kitchen within a single family residence. Is there any comments or questions? I just want this isn't being used as a uh Airbnb

from from what what has been submitted by the applicant. It's for um I can't I I can't remember who it is, but it's a their family member. It's like a their one of their parents um that they want to use this for. Um so it's kind of a kind of like a little apartment where there's some privacy it seems like, but um but yeah, they still have the access to inside the house and outside. So Okay. Yeah. Where's the bedroom in the main part of the house? It's a It's a two store. Oh, the bedroom. This is the proposed edition, but the rest are upstairs. They're upstairs. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I remember now.

Any other questions? If we remove the cook top from the equation, do they still need to go through this process or does that change anything? Yeah. What what can they have without needing a change in the zoning? The kitchen is kind of that trigger word and a kitchen includes cooking facilities and that we look that as the range with a 240 or gas connections. Um also a shower um is considered part of a dwelling unit and also a air conditioning if it's a air conditioning unit. So but but this one's all part of the same house. It's already built. It's the second kitchen.

It's the second kitchen is the trigger on this one. The second full kitchen. And the cooking facilities is the main part of that. Usually we'll see like they'll do what they call a kitchenet. Some kitchenetses are bigger than others, shall we say? Um, but it's the it's the cooking facilities that's kind of that trigger that crosses the line into a full kitchen. So, I guess my question is if they just put like um air fryer in there and like a microwave and stuff and they they have everything just like this and just remove the cook top. Um does that change? If I'm correct, we we talked with them about it and they wanted to have the full correct me if I'm wrong. They wanted to have the full cooking ability in there.

I'm just trying to see where's the compromise. If there were to be is that if they removed that cooktop then they wouldn't it wouldn't trigger. It'd be a really big kitchenette. Okay. Yeah, I see that in the comments.

Um, we had a case um last year really uh nice young couple whose mother they were helping with the mom. I think we'll for those of us who were on the commission then we'll remember because they came back a couple of times. They were going to do an ADU and then as they progressed through various PNZ meetings and city council, they ended up with an attached. Did that have an exterior entrance in that one? And and if you didn't have an exterior entrance, that makes this a little more palatable in my mind.

So the one without getting details, the one that you talked about, they couldn't make it work the way they needed to to to be a structural connection. So, they ended up not doing that. Um, this one, it's not the exterior door as much because we you can you can add on a bedroom, you can add on a bathroom because we had a lot of discussions with this internally among staff. Um, it was that kitchen. So, the addition wasn't the problem. It was the kitchen that kind of pushed it into being something a little bit different. So, that's why the the variances for the kitchen, the second kitchen. So, you can you can have exterior doors. Um, but it was it was the the ability for it to be a a living unit or you know the second kitchen was what we were concerned about.

And essentially they don't really have a garage for parking any cars in a garage. Correct. This one they have I thought okay so I've confused. Yeah. the first ADUs did uh did not, but this one I'm sorry, let me get to the So, they have a two-car garage and then this Yeah, thanks. What What's the square footage of the house? Of the addition or of the whole house? Both.

Let's see. The addition is um it's proposed to be about 504 square feet. In terms of the whole house, I am not sure, but it is two stories. So, um but they weren't going to they were under that's only the variance. They're not any setbacks and they're not doing any kind of lot coverage. They're not exceeding the maximum lot coverage. But that's something the applicant should be here. I'm hoping he can give you a better idea on how much the on how much the total acreage or total square footage is of the house. Phil is interested in three cases because let's say approving two cases the first two cases and denying that this one then

right correct correct yeah it it is not but let's say in the case they were decide to just go ahead and edu and then just come here for forgiveness seems like it might be easier and uh for them at this at this pace so some interesting cases Um, so real quick, just from a learning perspective, what's our concern with with having that second kitchen? What should we be? I'll let the director answer that one.

The main concern anytime we have a second kitchen is that it could become a full independent living unit. So, the difference between this one and ADU is this one was attached. So, it was more like an extension of the house, whereas an ADU is typically detached. They don't have to be, but they're typically detached. Yeah. And I I think a follow-up question that I had in mind is, is there anything that gives us warm and fuzzy that this will not become a secondary unit with an exterior entrance or side entrance? That's always hard to say, like looking at current plan.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean it it'd be harder um because if someone were to only use that exterior entrance, they'd have to go all the way, you know, way around the sideyard and get into it. Um but I'll never say never. Thank you. Just I have a question about So for for this area, I mean, do we have any data? Are there any similar houses with these kinds of like a second kitchen attached to the house in this area? Do we do we know anything like that?

Yeah, I don't we don't see a lot of second kitchens, especially sometimes more north Irving with the the cultural, you know, construction up there. People want more of a second kitchen, sometime more of a clean kitchen or a dirty kitchen. Um, but I don't even think there are any ADUs in this area from what we could tell in the neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Any other questions? No, no, no. I I just I felt like you know a lot of construction.

No. Basically, the concern that I had on the last case was it's not necessarily their intentions might be good what they're wanting to do. It's what happens 10 years from now if the house sells.

And um I think that removing the cooktop, if they want to do that, that's fine. It's a room addition at that point. um with a fancy kitchen kitchenette, but I think that leaving the cooktop in and having it where the way it's set up, it could potentially become an apartment in the future. Yeah, I think I I share the same concern because they may not be able to have a second front entrance, but a side entrance is very common and it's very easy to part that side of the house.

Any other comments, questions? All right, let's go on to the next one. Good afternoon. Dylan Harvey planning. Uh first case is development plan 225 205 DVP. Uh they're going from their second revision of their development plan to the third revision to remove three parking spaces. Staff finding of no unnecessary hardship. And for public comments, there's none support and one in opposition. The here's the aerial view, future land use, surrounding zoning, notification map, uh protest analysis map, and their development plan. The area circled in red is the three parking spaces they plan to remove. I would have note that the space has pretty much already been removed. They built a uh golf cart storage shed or maintenance shed, I believe, and they've built a ramp into that shed which removed the three parking spaces. Staff recommends um updating their proposed parking plan. Then any questions, comments?

Do you know how long ago it was they built that shed? Uh they did go for the permit in 2024. So they built it with a permit. Uh I believe so. Yes, they built it and then it was caught. It was realized that they had another uh building of such right next to it that was not built under permit. And I think this is how this came to our attention. Okay. And they they'll still be in compliance with the parking requirements, right? Yes. Uh our calculations, I believe they'll be well over 80 spots over parking.

Okay. Any questions? Thank you.

See, no other questions. Um subject east, southwest drone plan. Uh this one's also mine. This is zoning case 125208Z. They're going from SP1 uh community commercial to just straight community commercial staff recommend uh denial and for public comment there's none to support and one in opposition aerial map a closer view of the subject property future land use surrounding zoning notification map analysis map uh what the pro subject property looks Uh the residential house to the east of the property, residential house to the west of the property, a commercial business just to the south of the property. Yep. The property itself again.

Can you go back to the zoning?

Okay. So all those properties around it are zoned R six

are R six. And so when this was so presumably when this was approved it had started off as R six and was changed to this CC but no minor auto repair. Uh I believe so. And the current uh it has been used as an auto uh I believe a collision repair center since uh sometime 2017 2016. Uh that CO was appeared to be issued in error. Um they I believe have sold the property to the new owners and they are looking to remove the site plan to allow uh auto repair officially. But before the site plan, it was R six.

No, it was.

So, originally, to give you a little bit of history on this, familiar with this property, uh, it was a house. It was taken down and that building was built. That building was built as an air conditioning office. Arnold's AC and heat was there. Arnold sold it to Bill Watson, BMW Auto Repair, and BMW put in an estimating deal. So, the portion of this is office. It's all heated and air conditioning and it's got a little shop in it. And what they did was they would bring cars in for Geico and estimate them and send them out the way. Uh my biggest concern is is in the auto repair industry, you got to pretty much have lifts or something and you got to have room. There's not really enough room in this building to do that. A Yeah. B the parking there there's no room for customer cars or anything else. And uh both businesses that have been in there underneath this current zoning have been non evasive to the residents on each side. It's sort of a quiet operation. So maybe there was a good reason why they excluded minor auto repair when they approved this. Any other questions? Thank you. Go to the next one. Good evening, commissioners. Gina Castanza Grant with the planning department. The next case is 2025209 ZC located at 2323 Cheyenne Street. Uh also referred to as 2429 ERS Road. Uh they are currently zoned uh SP2 for R six uh generalized site plan for single family residential 6. They are also within the state highway 183 overlay and their site plan has a uh current variance for height of the building. Um

it is developed as a church which is permitted in a residential zoning district and with that site plan they also established uh greater side and rear yard setbacks in portions of the site. They are looking to reszone to amend their site plan uh to establish uh a rear yard setback that is smaller uh for a building that they want to uh an accessory building they want to place in the southeast portion of the site. The staff finding is no unnecessary hardship. There were no uh letters in support or opposition except the ones that we received this evening. I think we got two in support. Yes. Oh, okay. Those came in after the fact then.

Yeah, we didn't have time to update the PowerPoint.

Um, this is aerial view. As you can see, the subject site is developed as a uh a church. This is the future land use surrounding zoning uh notification map and this is their proposed site plan. Um the area in the bottom right corner is where uh they are proposing to put their accessory building. It's a 30 by 50 uh metal building uh in affiliation with their main sanctuary. The church also operates a food pantry. Uh they are constructing this accessory building for additional storage. Um basically is a large pantry for some of the food that they provide. um for their uh food pantry outreach and it is proposed to have not only storage for dry goods but refrigeration. Um they did note that there will be no um service where people come to the facility to obtain food. They have volunteers that um distribute it from the accessory building and from the church. So there is uh not any activity that where there would be traffic um coming to get food at this location. Um they are proposing um a 10-foot sideyard and rear yard setback just in that area um only for that building. The remainder of the property would still observe the existing 25- ft setback. This is a drawing they gave us showing what the building will look like. And that is their floor plan showing shelving units, refrigeration. This is the location on the site uh in the yellow circle where they're looking

to locate it. This is looking from uh the north end and this is looking at the same area from the west end. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Um, which part? I mean, you said changing the sideyard and rear yard setback because of the orientation of the property. I'm not clear which one's which. They have an existing 25 foot setback on this portion and also on this portion. So, it's basically treated the same. Okay. On all those particular sides where they jog in and out.

Okay. Did they have any reason why they couldn't um just do the 25 ft? I mean I I gathered from the memo that they have plenty of parking as Yes, they they have plenty of parking. They are overparked. Um they will be present tonight and I do believe they also have a presentation so they may be able to answer that for you. They did not provide any uh reasoning to us.

Is do you know if there is any particular reason why the setback is so high the 25 foot? Um I believe when the site plan was adopted um initially because they needed the variance for the height of the building they I believe voluntarily agreed to do larger setbacks um around the portion of the site because of the height of the building. But there in that area where the shed is proposed to be located there are non-resident residential uses on both uh boundaries of that property. So there are no residential structures um to the south or to the east. Okay.

So the 25 foot was really with the anticipation of the size of the large buildings I believe. So okay. Any other questions? Great.

Thank you. All righty. This next case is 2025 2110 DC. This is at 3131 North Okconor Road. Currently, the zoning is SP2 for R75 um with variance for a daycare center and private school. They're going to change the zoning to SP2R6. So that's single family residential six with variances to minimum lot depth and lot area. After staff review, staff can recommend approval. Terms of public comment, there's been none in support and two opposed. This might seem familiar. This was a case probably two rounds ago. Um they initially proposed town homes, but they they withdrew and now we're coming back for uh single family. So this is the property that future land uses traditional neighborhood. the zoning um it's mostly residential has some commercial and then the school kind of where this PO right here is going to be the fairing elementary school these are the property owners that were notified and then this is where the letters of opposition came in the letters opposition kind of were concerned about increased density safety and uh traffic um and this is the site plan they've submitted so they went to do um 14 single family homes Um, a variance that it that it goes across all lots is the minimum area. The required for R six is 6,000 square ft, but they are proposing 5,000 square ft. So, a,000 ft difference. And then for minimum lot depth, the lots that are up here, 9 through 14. Um, instead of the depth being 100t, they're requesting it to be 98. So, a two foot variance. And kind of a closeup. Um, and they're still keeping all the other setback requirements for R six. It's just those those two that they're requesting.

This is subject property. So, it's a Sloan school and then the kind of residential and this is kind of where the commercial is right here on the right. And there's site plan again. Is there any comments or questions? How many how many units did they originally propose? So, it was initially 23 town homes and now that's 14 single family homes. So, there's a little bit decrease in density. Commissioner Merrick. Well, I was just gonna say it still seems like it's very dense, but you've got the minimum standards up there. So, but I mean the the big cause of that density still is the thousand foot square variance. Yeah,

it's Yeah, that's the Yeah, it's just the area and then for um some of the lots it's that just two feet. Yeah, the two feet is not a big chunk of land. Thousand square feet that that's a lot of land. I always compare it to where I live in a zero lot line house. And you guys have heard me say this before. This is even smaller than what I live in. And I live in a tiny house on a zero lot line. It's like 10 feet 10 feet less depth than 10 feet less width. Not a lot. If they stayed with the 6,000 square feet, how many lots could they get in there?

Or is the street what's affecting the 6,000 square feet? It could be a street. I mean, because we since they're it's a culde-sac, they're having to for the fire truck having to do a certain radius. Um, but I'm not sure in terms of if they just went to R six, how many that would be it would be obviously less than the 14, but um yeah, it might be just because this is the existing turn turn in. So that's if it's in the middle there and they have to like reconfigure the street. I'm not completely sure. The applicant, the engineer I believe is here tonight, so he might be able to kind of give you a better idea, but unfortunately that's all I can kind of give you for that. They would just be shorter and fatter. Yeah. Yeah.

It would just it would just be a matter of each one would be a little bit wider. So like the eight on the bottom maybe would become six. Well, it might still be more than that, I think. Yeah. I mean, I think it would still be more than that probably, but maybe they would have to do those measurements. But yeah, I I'll just make an observation. It's it's my concern is not only the the density, but also that just the character of the neighborhood that it around it. I mean as as we can see from this the I mean the lots are not huge but they are what more typical um are six lots um I would think and um and that area I mean it's replacing what what I think of as a you know neighborhood professional type of area there on North Okconor. So it doesn't necessarily call for converting it to residential. Um so but if it was converted I would think it would need to conform closer to what's around it. [Music] question. Did I do I understand that they are they going to keep a school there or they turn the school building down?

It it seems like again I I hope the the applicant should be here in terms of why they're wanting to sell it, but it seems like the the school is no longer an option for them. I don't know and the reason for that, but it seems like they're just trying to sell a property, develop it, do what they can to Well, I still have concern about the the traffic and also the surrounding neighborhoods. And it says that they want to demolish the structure and redevelop it. I'm sorry. It says that they want to uh demolish the structure and redevelop the site. That's good. Yeah. Yeah, I was too. Yeah. I just Well, I don't remember them saying that. that was what they're going to do. Yeah. So,

yeah. Yeah. Their initial proposal was for town homes and then from due to kind of public feedback and feedback from PNZ, they decided to withdraw and kind of come back with a less dense solution that they thought would work. So, that's why we're here today. Question I have is for fire Derek. Is this okay for ingress and degress for fire trucks coming in and out and responding to emergencies? So, but they're able to build it at 6,000 square feet lots. It Yeah,

it's currently zone R75. So, those are 7500T lots. So, they don't need to reszone for 7,500T lots. They the lot depth would probably still be an issue. Um, if they get approved to go to R six, then yes, it' be 6,000 square foot lots. So then they require it's not 6,000.

Yeah, they could they could have a minimum of 6,000 by right, but they still have to have their lot dimensions. So he he still has the issue of trying to fit the right of way in there and having the 100 foot depth. So, you could you could approve it with the R six with the lot depth, but not the lot size, but that's even after approving R six versus the R seven5 that they're currently at, right? It it needs to be resone R six if you're going to do 6,000 foot lots. And the properties to the north and south, what are their what's their zoning?

Yeah, so the north is R six, south is R six. The only really some office this is I believe even R six. There's like this part right here that's commercial and then over here's where that Fen Elementary new school site's going to be. So the R six would be consistent with the surrounding residential, but the reducing it from 6,000 to 5,000 does not does not appear to be from looking at this Mhm. map. Okay. Yeah. I guess they will be losing I guess the 14,000 square ft if they go back to the 6,000 which will put them down about almost three houses. So they will be able to build I don't know maybe 12.

I don't know if they keep the $6,000. I don't know. Yeah, maybe maybe 10. I don't know something in that range.

Any other questions? All right. Thank you.

Good evening again. Gina Costanza Grant with planning department. Um the next case is located at 1230 East Airport Freeway. Uh they are currently zoned for CC Community Commercial and located within the State Highway 183 overlay. They are proposing to reszone to an uh detailed site plan for community commercial uh also within the 183 overlay but with variances uh to the minimum landscape and parking buffers required by the overlay district. Uh the staff finding is no unnecessary hardship and we did not receive any uh public comment forms in support or opposition. This is the aerial of the subject property. Um just take note where those structures are. Uh they are looking at scraping uh the entire site and starting over the future land use map, surrounding zoning, property owner notification map, and the site plan. Uh they, as I mentioned, are looking at um just scraping the existing buildings. Uh the convenience store has been there since the mid70s. They added a canopy in the late 80s. Uh they are looking to um build a new larger convenience store also with um a quick stop restaurant affiliated with the um with the convenience store and they are looking to have uh six gas pumps under the canopy. Uh because of some construction that took place with the improvement of State Highway 183. They did lose a little bit of rightway uh some years ago, but uh the existing structures are grandfathered for any uh setbacks and requirements that were adopted with the 183 overlay because they are uh

demolishing all of the structures and starting over. Any uh grandfathering is eliminated and they would be required to comply with uh the current standards. So, normally they would be uh required to have a 30-foot landscape buffer along 183 and a 15 foot landscape buffer along Carl Road on the eastern side. They are proposing a variable landscape buffer uh between 10 to 30 ft along 183 and a variable 7 12 to 15 ft landscape buffer along Carl Road. um they are compliant with their parking. Uh they need 27 spaces and are providing those spaces. Uh that's not counting the additional spaces underneath the canopy. Uh we did get one Google Street View shot uh because it was kind of difficult to photograph at this intersection. So that's the entire site with the current structures. This is looking at the subject property to the west, to the south. again to the west along the access road and looking to the north and the east. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Any questions? Doesn't look like it. Sorry, one question. Let's go first. All right. Um I apologize. So, the public storage that's next door to it seems to have a shorter landscape, uh, from what I can see. Is that the case or no? Uh, to the west. Yeah, that would be to the west. It It's very possible that they too were constructed before the 183 overlay requirements went into place. And so, they are probably legally non-conforming most likely. So, they're also taking down the canopy as well, like everything's coming down. Mhm.

And this is 18 and 19, right? Yeah. I was about to ask if you'd like me to go through both, please.

Okay. Uh this is compreh comprehensive plan amendment uh 2025 215 CP. They're going uh from business office to manufacturing warehousing. Staff recommends denial and there is no uh public comments and support our opposition. There's an aerial of the site future land use surrounding zoning notification map. And this is the criteria that uh staff looks at when assessing comprehensive plans. Uh from going from non-residential desire to non residential or to a different non-residential, the city of Irving should require the following. The development conforms with new standards and concepts, meets all uh standards for adjacent uses, and does not cause any negative impacts on the adjacent uses. Uh this map showed

Jos could

thank you if we tried to brief him on where we were with this. So uh as a reminder we in the past I guess in 2023 we had the business district future land use. We divided that in between the the business office and the manufacturing warehouse. Um, and then we had a few cases and so we looked at, okay, where should be the future land use line. This has not been approved, so we're still working through this, but we thought it was important to at least um have y'all see or remind you of what the discussion has been and then where this case falls into that discussion. So the property on the or the the outline on the left, the pink is the current uh business office which used to be business district. And then on the right, the purple is the area where uh we're having the discussions again on whether this should uh go to the warehouse uh the manufacturing warehouse because of the the zoning and the existing uses on the ground. Um this case property um is up on the upper right in yellow. Um that either way would not be within a boundary of where the future land use might change over to office or I'm sorry over to manufacturing warehouse future land use and then go ahead and go through the zoning case. The request go from commercial office to freeway. Again, staff recommends denial and there are no uh public comments in support are opposition. Aerial view future land use surrounding notification map. The subzip prop property uh north west or the office building right next right next to the lot to the west uh south property and the uh warehouse use to the east of the property. And yeah,

any uh comments, questions? Warehouse to the east or was that warehouse to the west? To to the west, please. That's the one over on the left hand side there. Yes. So on the west side. Yep. Okay. All right. Any questions? I was just going to say, is that business a warehouse? It didn't look like it was a warehouse to me. That one right there.

Yes. Um it's offices. It's a small team of about five or 10 people and they do um merchandising type, you know, uh specialty printing. So I'm sure there might be some, you know, light printing in there. But wouldn't you consider that flex warehouse?

I wouldn't. It's a It's not that big a building, but you know, I'm not a real estate person. So, and I can't imagine in a warehouse distribution across from that on this subject property. Got a lot of trucks perhaps coming in and out of that potential new property. Then right to the north of that is um office building. You see it in the white top left corner there. So, you're talking about tractor trailers coming past office buildings that are occupied.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Joselyn. Didn't we hear a case on the property next door to this? Yes. The one to the east. to tear down. Yeah. Warehouse.

Any other questions? No. Thank you.

And if you can do this one. Good evening.

Together. Yeah, we'll do these together. is a comprehensive plan and a zoning uh companion case. Uh first uh located at 11:01 West Royal Lane. The comprehensive plan amendment is requesting to change the future land use from business office to community village. Uh staff recommendation is for denial. Um no none in support and none in opposition. I'm sorry. approval. The aerial map, future land use map, surrounding zoning, notification map, and the criteria for uh future land use amendment. Uh when we change from a non-residential use to a another non-residential use or actually in this case mixed use, uh the current uh category is business office. Uh they are requesting to change to community village which is a pedestrianoriented mixeduse village with freestanding structures ranging from two to four stories. Uh should contain a mix of live and work opportunities with retail, entertainment and housing. Um ideally located near uh transportation options. uh we have these criteria that we uh typically try to follow when we are looking at uh a non-residential change to a primarily residential change. Uh that the area is physically appropriate adjacent to a residential neighborhood or residential use as part of a mixeduse development. Uh that the uh zoning will not result in a shortage of land designated for non-residential development. doesn't leave a residual tract of non-residentially zoned property and provides for an appropriate transition. And we will go ahead and go straight into the zoning case. If this does look

familiar to you, um you did see this uh same request several months ago. Uh the zoning is uh requesting to change from freeway district and state highway 183 overlay to a generalized site plan for mixed use um establishing standards for a mixeduse development. The staff recommendation is for approval and we did not receive any comments in support or opposition. again the aerial future land use zoning property owner notification and the site plan. Uh the site plan is since it is mixed use and we do not have any current standards in our code for mixed use outside of a transit oriented development or the heritage crossing district. Uh the site plan actually establishes uh the criteria for any mixeduse development for this one. Um it's located also within the 161 overlay which does permit uh mixeduse developments and it does have some criteria uh for that use. Um 161 overlay allows mixed use um as any combination of office, retail and dining, entertainment and residential uses in a unified development. Uh it does require that at least two of those uh are included in the initial phase and that minimum floor area of a use is not less than 10% of the unified uh development. This development as proposed does meet those requirements. Um and then if you're wondering because uh we usually would have something uh with a multif family concept plan that is uh proposing multif family uses which this is um we are not uh following the

multif family concept plan standards because they just cannot be applied in this particular mixeduse uh type of development. Um that being said, they do have a list of standards that uh they'reformational that are included on the site plan for the mix of multif family units that they're proposing and uh as well as establishing setbacks for buildings, parking, um landscaping, interior yards, uh minimum heights, maximum building lengths, um landscaping and screening of parking, and also parking lot landscaping. Um, so they're trying to mirror a lot of the multif family development standards that we would normally uh require, but not exactly uh to those uh requirements as they're specified in the multif family development standards. They are also uh proposing a walking trail uh along Hackberry Creek within the limits of the development. Um so again a majority of the development will be for multifamily but they will have uh live work units on the bottom floor of the multif family structures and they are also planning a large um entertainment restaurant uh facility on the premises. So they are uh hoping that with uh those mixed uses and the walking trail also the uh office development to the south that uh it will provide somewhat of a mixeduse feel um for that area and also possibly provide housing and entertainment and some shopping needs uh for both uh the people who will live there and also for the existing office uses. Um, since the uh,

excuse me, the since the mixeduse development is permitted in the 161 overlay and does exceed all requirements, it complements the surrounding uses and has no requested variances. Uh, the staff is in support of this and is recommending approval and I am happy to answer any questions you have. Um, is this proposal different than the one that we received last year? It is not okay. We recommended approval on that one if I remember correctly. So I and but then council denied it. That's correct. Do we have any sense of what the concerns that were involved there? Okay.

I think it was mainly just the basic loss of loss of office property. That's what we understand. Okay. All right. But I think it's worth going ahead and trying again. Obviously, things are a little different this year or this this time of year. Yes. Okay.

I I just had a question about the change in the comprehensive plan. Uh community village pedestrian oriented mixed use. When I when I think of that kind of use, I think of a broader area that might be more conducive to pedestrian traffic. Is is the vision that this area would become more conducive to pedestrian traffic or is it really just intended to be self-contained within this development?

So the 181 overlay and in this segment specifically allows mixed use as a use by right. So essentially this process is just setting those standards. Um there's not an overall change of uh future land use in the area too, community village per se. Um but this there's hotels around there. There's a lot of office around it and this complements some of the existing uses that may not be the same land use, but we see it as a a larger call it horizontal mixeduse for lack of a better word more complimentary to what's already out there. So the there there's not a change of land use proposed for the larger area. as much.

Got it. And the the trail that was mentioned, which it sounded interesting, but that's just within this development. There's not a a broader trail along this creek to date. Okay. I mean, there could be a larger one. Thanks. Now, if I remember correctly, the way that this this property was going to be designed, it was sort of that southeastern corner was going to be a restaurant and then the rest of it was going to be mostly residential plus some of the office, a little bit of office space, but it was mostly residential. So, I mean, while it's all one property and considered mixed use, they're really, except for that little bit of office space, it's it's kind of like a restaurant area next to

right multif family. the term has become horizontal mixed use as when you have uh mixed uses in a an area that uh don't necessarily uh mirror the kind of mixed use that you see um in heritage where you could possibly have retail on the bottom and residential on the top floors and things like that. So I got a question. So, how much is this um coming back more from the decisions that were made in Austin taking business property and changing it for residential? So, we will talk about that. We have one more item and then we will get be getting into that. Okay.

Yeah. I'll hold. The question I got is how much commercial did they increase if that was council's issue? Not enough commercial. So, how many more offices or office space percentage-wise or square footage wise did they add to this development? So, they're meeting the required 10% that the 161 overlay. So, it wasn't the amount of commercial within this development. It was just the larger concept of losing potential office development along 161.

Yeah. And this one to to to answer I think it was um Mr. Denny's question was there are that there there is a restaurant but the building kind of the west side of the multif family building does have uh commercial on the bottom that's where the commercial and some of the live work so there is it is a true vertical mixeduse on the the eastern part of the multif family building wasn't there some concern about entrance and exit from this property because there really isn't anything there along 61 access.

There's concern about traffic and the applicant will address all this um because they've they're you know they obviously paid attention the comments from last time. Uh Royal is a you know three lane with turn lanes. It's it's a very large street so the traffic quantity isn't the issue and just the the intersection with 161 is what it is. So they'll work with traffic to make sure that they're, you know, if they have deceleration lanes that they need. Um, you know, I don't know, I doubt any lights would be available here. Just depends on the spacing, but they'll work closely with traffic traffic to make sure their ingress and egress is safe. But the capacity of the road, it's it's a very large street. Yeah.

Any other questions? No, I was just say

but right down from that on RAW is the development of that new Fox studio. So, I mean, I know traffic will be looking at that, but [Laughter] Right. No other questions. Then on to 22. All righty. This is the last zoning item for tonight. This is zoning case 2025 219 ZC. This is located at 4441 and 4435 West John Carpenter Freeway. Um the current zoning is for SP1 RAB. So that detailed site plan for restaurant with attendant sector use for sale of alcohol beverages for on premises consumption and hotel uses. Um and they're wanting to keep the SP1 RAB plus hotel uses but um they're asking for a variance to the required setback um on their southern portion of the property. So after staff review, staff recommendation is for approval. Um in terms of public comments, there were none received in support nor in opposition. So this is the site and then the future land use the zoning. It's uh surrounded by a lot of either commercial other hotels and this is the property owners that were notified. And then this is their site plan. So currently existing is this hotel. Um they got a SP1RB in 1996. Um they want to keep it. It's technically two separately platted lots, but at this moment it's still the same ownership. Um but the proposal is is to build a church

on the southern portion of the site. Um the variance they're requesting is not because of the use. Uh technically churches are allowed in any zoning district. So even though it is that SP1 RAB a church is allowed the variance that they're requesting is for the setback um along um 114 there is a 30-foot setback. Um they're requesting a variance of um 13.5 ft or 54 ft uh to allow some parking spaces. Usually in setbacks uh we allow parking but per chapter 33A parking isn't allowed in this setback. Um so that's why they're requesting a variance. Um it seems to not be whole parking spots, but it seems to affect partial parts of five. Um but that's kind of the only variance. They are meeting the required parking um regardless if they do fixed seating or um non-fixed seating. So this is subject property. So that's where that double tree is. And then this is the southern lot. So this is where the church is proposed to go. And this is what's north gas station across the street. to that west south and then this kind of southwest frontage again that showing that lot a little bit more and this is the access that that church would currently have and um the only other thing I'd like to mention is from the other there's two departments so so CIP mentioned that detention will be required to develop and then for water they said development will have to resolve issues regarding encroachment of the existing DCDA and fire lane for the hotel um but again that's kind stuff at permitting. Um, but so besides that, they did send approval. They just want to let the applicant know which they are aware of. So,

do they need these parking spots that would that are creating the need for the variance? Do they need those in order to comply with the parking requirements?

I don't believe so. Um, I'm we did talk about it. I think it has to do with more there. Since it is a church, they're wanting to provide more just in case of hopefully, you know, they're hoping to expand. Um, but they're required parking. I can't see it on here, but they wanted to add 89 spaces. And I believe they're required depending on per our code if they do it's difference if they want to do fixed seating like pews or like stadium seats versus if they were just doing you know loose seating so just chairs or things like that. Um, it's around I believe it's 56 if it's for without fixed seating and then it's 89 or it's 86 if it's fixed seating. Again, I have to like it's on here. I just can't see it. So, but um but they are a few spaces over what's required.

Okay. So, uh and you said that normally these parking spots in the setback wouldn't be a problem. Why in this context? I mean, I understand that that's what the code says, but is there any particular reason why there's a change in this context? Jos, I don't know if you can speak on to why 33A talks more about not allowing parking along that or

33A um is it's not in the zoning ordinance per se. It's in the land development code. It just adds some additional protections for some of the larger highways or thorough affairs. So if this was on a smaller street, it wouldn't matter as much, but that the 30 foot is more of a protection to pull some of the uses off of the the highway frontage. So that's why typically on an average street, it wouldn't be an issue, but there's a list of streets in 33A where where it is. Now, they're not adding a new access to the entryway to the access road, right? No, they'll have to share the driveway with the hotel. It's already on an access road, so it's going to be careful.

So, has traffic looked at that? Because that's right on that service road, which is, you know, when people come off that service road, it's like get to the stop sign as quickly as possible. And I don't even think the hotel uses that exit at all. Most of the people go around the other way. So yeah, everything that's out there is already existing. They're not proposing to add anything new. Um, and if they did want to make any changes, they would have to talk to text dot since it's there right away. Uh, city doesn't really have too much say when it comes to what goes on the front roads.

Yeah. I don't know how church is going to be able to get people out. I mean that's always let's see what they any other questions. One question um they could build this without the variance. Correct. Yes. Technically they um if they yeah if they weren't encroaching to the setback I believe. So, and they and they could reduce the number of parking spots a few depending like I said depends on their seating and square foot again the options it's either one's based on square footage the other one's bas I think she was saying there was like five affected

but they're only three from being in compliance if you got pew seats cuz they got 89 parking spaces correct that's what they're proposing and they're required to have 86 so yeah so they could easily lose these parking spots and still be in compliance. They could lose three of them. Three of them. Okay. Yeah. But they could also do something.

No other questions? All right. Thank you very much. All right. Now we get to do the UDC amendments.

All right. So, I last week sent out a link to the city council's discussion. So, I hope y'all were able to take the time and um listen to that and read through it because I knew we'd be short on time tonight. So, we'll probably run over, but I will do my best here. Um, so I will go through the proposals and then if y'all have any comments or um recommendations for the city council, we will take note of those and make sure the city council um knows what your opinions are. So, as a recap, um Senate Bill 840 requires that it it was an amendment creating chapter 218. So, you're going to see that as well. Chapter 218 will be the permanent location of these regulations in the um the the legislative or the uh local government code um which requires that cities um must accept multif family and mixeduse residential development in mixeduse districts in most non-residential zoning districts. So the city can't require any discretionary approval. Um if people want to build a multif family or mixeduse residential in a commercial or most residential I'm sorry most residential most heav most industrial um areas heavy industrial is protected. So if someone wants to be within a th00and ft of a a heavy industrial then we would not approve that uh per the bill. Um 840 also preempts a lot of the typical zoning regulations, things like heights and setbacks, density, uh floor to area ratio. Uh we cannot uh regulate any of those kind of basic things that we would look at in a typical multif family use. There are also preeemptions for residential building conversions. So if they're converting an office to a multif family or to a mixeduse, um we cannot

regulate things like unit size, parking. So if a an office was parked in certain count and they converted to multif family, we cannot require additional parking. There's also um prohibitions of any type of traffic adjustments for the additional traffic demand. Um and these this bill is effective on September 1st. So um that's why we're asking for your recommendation tonight for the city council and it will come to the city council on August 28th. So, this is part of a a set of recommendations um and regulatory actions. This tonight we're going to be going over number one, which is essentially the zoning changes. Um the building codes were approved last week on July 31st. They are within a 30-day window right now uh that they have to be approved before they can become effective. So, those will be effective um August 30th, I believe. Um, we're also looking at amending the land development code for creating an adequate public facilities ordinance to identify the process about studying for the minimum capacity needed for these developments. And then the other departments, the water and traffic um, CIP for storm water. Everybody's looking at their codes to see if there's any scrubbing that needs to happen on their codes to set us up for September 1st. So, we're looking at adding some definitions. Uh, heavy industrial use. This definition is directly out of chapter 218. Um that refers to um any storage, processing, manufacturing use that has flammable or explosive materials, hazardous conditions or noxious or offensive from odors, smoke, etc. So we figured it was important if if we are able to regulate things that had that have hazardous conditions that we are very clear and objective as to what those are. So we spent some time on what hazardous conditions uh could be so

we can measure those if they come up. There's also u people are required to register with the it's it's our fire department, the EOC and essentially it's ultimately the state that the um TCQ this called a tier 2 chemical inventory report so that when the police department gets there they know exactly what's going to be on site and what they'll be working with. And then also we tried to define what noxious or offensive is um as to whether uh there's a use that might cross that line into being uh something that is um here is reasonly reasonably interferes with use and enjoyment of properties. So chapter 218 also defines mixeduse residential and multif family residential. So we're carrying those over into our ordinance. So, chapter 313, um, y'all have seen a lot of multif family concept plans, those are all in chapter 313. So, when you see all those charts and everything that typically Ken does, Gina's done several as well. Those are all all the details of 313. So, we took a a heavy scrub on 313 and these are some of the things that we're working through. Uh, we're adding for applicability. So, they apply currently, it's only to the multif family. We're making it apply to all multif family and mixeduse residential development. Uh the heritage crossing district is uh accepted from this because the Heritage Crossing District, which of course is our downtown mixeduse area, has its own set of standards. So there's no reason to um confuse them, but also the Heritage Crossing District was thought through and is very intentional with what they have. Um and then of course we have those conversions that have certain exceptions as well. We're reorganizing it. There's a a section in there that's actually pretty good. It's called review criteria since we don't have the criteria anymore. Uh we're we just we're moving uh that over into the the more of the beginning of the section and renaming it to recommendations and guidelines. Just a

lot of good things to think through when they're designing these. Uh a lot of good urban form thoughts in there. Uh currently there is a discretionary review process which y'all are a part of uh where they have to do a community framework plan and a concept plan that goes through PNC and council. Um and then through the same thing in the existing 3.13 then after it's approved at PNZ and council then it goes through the building permit process for the administrative review. Um the discretionary view part we cannot do anymore. Um but we are keeping in the ordinance just in case it we possibly are able to bring that back. We don't want to lose it completely. So um if if we either in the short term or the long term can't use the discretionary process uh we just will not we'll not use it. We'll ignore it. Um but what we have done is some of the items that were in the concept plan process that were not in the the detail plan review. So again the concept plan is more of the the PNC council. The detail plan is the building permit administrative process. Um, so we brought a few things that were in in the concept plan, brought them into the the detail plan and made sure that that was uh had everything in there that we were looking for. And then in the administrative review, if um the building permits meet all the standards, then they have to be approved. There's no discretion to it. Um, we'll go through all the standards right now, but if a building permit comes in and meets the standards, there there is no ability to deny those. So, a few of the concepts we were looking at, height is probably one of the ones that we've spent most of the time on. Uh, currently the minimum height, uh, TOD has a minimum of 45 feet or five stories, 65 ft. Um, we've proposed a few different options to the city council and again, if y'all watched the video last Thursday, you kind of saw the discussion, what we worked through.

Ultimately, council uh chose to have a minimum of six occupied stories. And the term occupied is to make sure that if they put any levels of podium, which is the concrete, basically a a parking structure, then the six stories begins to count once you are past that podium structure. So that's why we use the term occupied. Uh so it's six stories minimum. Um and if you're in a in a um multi multif family district it's also six stories a maximum and then in the urban business overlay in the high-intensity mixeduse districts um we have 120 foot minimum to have at least six occupied stories that is the uh what's preferred in the urban overlay and so we thought that would be a good standard to hold maximum height in the RMF districts were 24 to 36 feet urban business overlay again 120 ft um The proposed would just be whatever the base district is for uh overall heights higher than the minimum. So that would be say we're in the freeway district. Uh it'd be a minimum of six stories and then if the freeway district a lot of the districts have a half the distance to residential. So you know maybe they can be a 200 foot or 300 ft. And so it' be a minimum of six stories up to whatever that district allows which is typically a ratio of the distance to an R residential district. You look confused, Terry. Yes, that's the way it works. It is confusing. Um, for the unit size, we have currently square footages based on unit uh what one bedroom, two bedroom, threebedroom. We're proposing to keep those in the unit mix um in order to provide more of a variety for different types of households that if a development has more than 25 units that half of those um can have the same number of bedrooms. So

have a mix of onebedroom and two-bedroom larger complexes more than 50 units that we want 10% of those to be threebedroom again to give some more options to different types of households. So landscaping what we're looking at so you we have to uh allow no greater than a 25 foot buffer I a setback. So if we require a 50 ft we we in our in our zoning district we can't require any more than 25. So, we're saying that 25- foot buffer uh when it's adjacent to an R single family district, a zero lot line or duplex or townhouse district um is just a landscape buffer area. So, we want one uh 3-in caliber tree every 25 ft. And then that in that area, no parking, driveways, or basically any paved surfaces within that 25 ft. For street trees, um we would want a large street tree every 40 feet on center, ideally within 10 feet of the public sidewalk. Again, to help create, um shade for people who are walking along the sidewalk. Uh fencing, we would want an 8ft masonry wall again between the single family, zero lot duplex or townhouse zoning districts. for open space. Um we are looking at uh proposing 20% of the gross area of the site um which is less than what we have today but we have to be careful because the bill does not let us regulate floor area ratio which is essentially the size of the building. So we want to be very delicate about that. But we want want to do is lean into the uh amenities. So, we don't we've got some amenities that are required today, but we want to require that there's at least one pool and deck area, a dog park, a trail, and a playground with three pieces of equipment. And then optional, they could pick another pool or a ball court or something, but just to add a little bit more of the amenities to the site.

Again, we're looking at quality of the site. And so, the size of the amenities or the size of the open space isn't as important as the quality of the amenities and what is provided. Uh for those amenities, we want to make sure they're shaded through trees or shade structures. And those are especially important um along the trails or the dog parks or you know whenever the open space is supposed to be usable for the residents to be outside and and recreate um you know instead of having to go to a city park per se. Um and we want those to be comfortable and safe in the site furnishings, seating, waste receptacles and lighting in order again also to make those comfortable and safe. This is just a more recent um apartment complex that we thought was kind of typical of what we see today. This is it near the Blueest Star area at 114 and 161 is A Loscina. So you can see the pool here. They've got some various trails that go through um some open space. This over here in the the far west side is a dog park. This one happens to be on Hackberry Creek. You know, they don't own it obviously, but it has some open space. And again, they've um well, it doesn't look like a trail, but they've got kind of a various amenities for this property. And this one is all surface parked. There is no structure parking here. Uh for private outdoor space, uh we want we would like to have balconies, 60 ft, 6 feet in depth, 120 square foot fence patio area for the ground level units. Um parking, we do not want parking between a residential building and a street. That's just good form. uh half the spaces, half the parking space would need to be covered. Um no compact spaces. So typically within the UDC, you can have 10% of compact spaces. Um SB840 does not allow us to require any more than one parking space per unit. So we want to make sure that all those parking spaces are functional. So a parking a compact space um even though they'll try, you can't fit a big truck in there.

So we don't want to have any spaces that are too small. And then no shared parking. Again, the UDC allows if there is a a use within 300 ft that has excess parking that you can share that. Uh again, if we're going to have a minimum parking, we want to make sure that all that parking is on site. Um we think quality development needs to have bicycle storage and also to encourage bicycle use. If we're going to have reduced parking, uh so have some enclosed secure rooms within every four buildings. And then also uh there's some building code um and fire code process that are going through for EV charging. So we would like the uh EV charging to be provided or at least available um amenities. So the inside the unit or inside the structure laundry connections in each unit, gym, fitness center, clubhouse and a remote work center. and then have a list of two additional amenity options they can choose from um such as storage room, yoga room, architecture, the ground floor units. We would like to have um exterior features, stoops, covered porches, patios, and roof articulation just keep the change of plane because it does make for a more uh impressive visual effect. And then for density, uh the TOD and the urban business overlay districts are two places are the only two places that have a minimum density. So we're proposing to remove those so that we have some flexibility and uh default to the requirements of Senate Bill 840 uh which is the highest density in the municipality in the city or 36 units an acre. And then we we thought it was important to understand that if if we are requiring a six-story minimum building that the density could be increased. So that's why we removed some of the density expectations so that we

have that flexibility. So for residential mixeduse um for if if a u multif family is proposed in a mixeduse district um the Senate bill allows us to require um so we we have to allow at least 65% of those to be residential and therefore uh conversely we would like for 35% of those to be non-residential. So, if it's a multif family proposal in a mixeduse district, uh the city is allowed to require to have non-residential uses. And then we also want in a mixeduse building for those ground floor units be commercial ready. So, we want those to be of a certain height. We want um the interior to usually they build those as a shell and so uh have those be uh flexible and be prepared for restaurant hookups. um you know just have the door the windows um have everything b be set up to be uh commercial and not easily converted into resident into uh residential. Um we're also so here on the on the bottom we're looking at uh we are we have been working on for a little while a low density or low inensity mixeduse district and so that is something we need to get done. Um but for now we just have a few standards in this ordinance. So finally to close up um we are looking at creating so when people apply for their building permit we want to make sure they've gone through all the processes they need to. So just kind of have a a declaration of them saying they've completed all their studies they've done everything they've pro provided everything they need to do. Um so that would be kind of a form they would submit with their building permit. Um since we are not able to do the zoning process anymore where we send out notifications within 200 feet and we have the public hearings. So that is just not something that is an option. Um we still think it's important to let the uh people in the immediate area maybe

200 feet 300 feet whatever uh still send them notices and let them know that there's about to be something constructed near them because everybody knows you know if you start to see something built the city's going to be the one that gets that phone call that says what's going on even though the city uh didn't authorize it and the city had no control over whether it could go in. So, we wanted to make sure we were proactive in making sure that the neighbors knew what and why was being built. Um, we also like the idea of posting signage. So, we would send out notices to people, but then also, uh, have large signs that says this is what's being built. Um, this is, you know, and then they have to, as soon as they get their building permit, this would need to go up. It'd be what we're thinking about now is maybe a 4x8 or something very large. um and that it was built under Senate Bill uh 840 chapter 218 and uh when is intended to be complete but just again to let the public know uh what is being built and and why it's being built and then we're also looking at some adjustments in the fee schedule. So outside of the UDC, um, but just to update you, we're we're working at this on this adequate public facilities ordinance. All of the other departments, the water and and uh water wastewater is the same, traffic, CIP, which does the storm water, everybody has their processes, so everybody already reviews if somebody comes in and does a development. This just kind of coordinates it and brings it all into one location. Um and excuse me just clarifies that new development must be adequately served by the public facilities. Uh it says you know what the the developer needs to do in terms of doing their studies. Uh any any upgrades or improvements that they may need to do to get that minimum capacity would be the responsibility of the developer. Um look about uh look at a reservation entitlement process. Um so it kind of be almost a first come first serve. look at the time periods if somebody plat or gets a building permit

uh locking those uh locking that capacity in and then the next person we just have to think through making sure we don't over obligate just because somebody's not in the system yet. We have to make sure that we're accounting for um who who's using what and how much and uh you know when when is too much when when can we not serve anymore. um it will direct to the the plans and code requirements of the different uh facilities. So everybody has their own plans and their own codes and their own design standards and so making sure that this is kind of the central point and then um also formalizing the process to review and authorize the studies. And then finally, um, a few of these things, and this is what you're going to see on August 18th in our called meeting. Um, the two things we talked about, the overlay districts, uh, and the TOD, removing those minimum density requirements. Uh, just a minor, the heavy truck terminal is currently duplicated in the heavy and the light industrial section. So, just taking out of the light industrial. and then some amendments to the subdivision ordinance to um basically refer to the adequate public facilities that new chapter 53 because right now that the public facilities are more in the subdivision. Uh we want to um just take that out on the that let that new chapter uh regulate and then delete the section 5.6 storm water management because we're moving it out of the subdivision ordinance of putting into the land development code. Um, subdivision ordinance of course is platting. And if somebody doesn't need to plat, we want to make sure that they still have to go through all of their storm water and um all their calculations and and their requirements even if they're outside of the platting process. So we are here today on August 4th. Uh we will get together again in two weeks on August 18th and then everything will come together to the city council on August 28th. Um, building codes will be effective on the 30th and then the effective date of the bill is September 1st.

So, that was a lot. Be happy to answer your questions. All right, questions.

I have a concern. Um, one of my concerns with this is the height, the minimum height of the building. Y'all guys are saying six stories. Um my recommendation to council would be eight uh as the minimum height because it would ensure the construction of the property, protect the quality of life of the citizens, you know, the way it's designed and plus the safety of the people living in there because it would ensure a certain type structure to be built. Um and it would eliminate some of the heavy timber. It would either be concrete or steel. And I think that would be a lot more uh stable for these type developments. So I would recommend the council to go at least a minimum of eight eight stories.

I'm I just like to add to his comment. I totally concur with him. It's got be more of a safety factor for the family and for the you know owners and uh I have to support going to eight eight stories.

Oh it's uh two comments. One is I I heard some of the discussion was about uh there being certain additional uh protections or requirements whenever uh a proposal was near a residential area, but that may be just uh single family and zero lot line, not necessarily duplex or town homes. Um I so I don't know if you can uh speak to if if there is still that distinction or if it in all cases includes all all those residential type of use. Well, I would think single family duplex town homes. I don't know if I'm missing any because I I would think folks who live in those types of um districts would have a certain expectation to the integrity of their neighborhood and it would make sense to not just limit it to single family housing. Um the the the second comment is um the I I don't in ter in terms of making sure the if if we as long as it's not prohibited by the statute or regulation some of these additional burdens that are coming up. I I think it's a great idea to provide notice signage. I don't know if it's possible the costs of those things can be passed to the applicant. I I didn't see that specifically addressed but I would expect things like that to be passed on to the applicant. Yeah, we're proposing like for the mailed notice that that in the zoning process usually the fee is upfront, but in the building permit process, the fee is on the back end. So, what we will do is just pass on the actual cost of that postage. So, if there's only 20 mailouts, then it'll be cheaper than if there's 50. So, there'll be administrative fee and then just the cost of of the postage and printing.

Thanks. Yeah, under the current ordinance there's a um you on commercial properties there's there's various height limits as I understand from our discussion last time. So the different commercial districts and industrial districts all have their their own maximum heights. Um and but the proposal that the direction that we got from the city council was to set the the minimum of six stories. So and then up to whatever those districts might allow depending on their distance from residential.

So yeah. So that those height restrictions those maximum height restrictions are not being modified by this these amendments. Yes, they they may be modified by the statute in some cases, but not by these amendments.

So, we're we are pushing them up to the minimum of six stories. So, the answer is yes, they are being modified there. So, we're not we're not going through and amending each of the individual districts per se, but we're for the these uses, we're setting the minimum of six stories. So on a on a commercial district that currently you can't build anything over 50 feet, this is going to have the effect of making it where they can build something taller than 50 feet.

Yes, Philip, you didn't want to chime in, but feel free to chime in if you want to. We've spent a lot of time on height lately. The answer is yes. That that's the intent is that new mixeduse and multif family that are entitled under Senate Bill 840 the minimum height that they would have to build to is six occupied stories. That's the baseline. Now, if they could go higher if the district would otherwise allow for higher, but they could not go less than six occupied stories. The council changes that to eight, it would be eight. So, under under the current ordinance with the statute applying it, if the height limit was 50, 45 ft or 50 feet, that that would still be the limit, but this is making it where they're required to do even higher than that.

That's correct. under if we do not change anything, Senate Bill 840, chapter 218 would allow up to 45 ft, which is roughly four stories. We could not prohibit anything less than that. Our position is is that the taller multifamily structures because of the construction requirements as was mentioned make for a much sturdier, sustainable, longlasting quality building. And um so SBA4

Yeah, I have it on. So SB840 still allows us to put these requirements on the builder. We believe it's not prohibited by SB840.

Okay. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they uh the one of the reasons why we're doing this is if these things are going to be developed in certain areas, we just want to ensure that the quality, the safety of the citizens, safety of the neighbors, and everything else is taken into consideration. That's one of the reasons for the height requirement is due to the type of materials that are used to build these facilities instead of having wood structures that could possibly burn down and completely in the middle of the night.

I think that's a that's a correct assessment. Of course, we want to be in compliance with the law. That's our primary consideration. And and equally important is the sustainability and the quality of construction that occurs in the city. We we don't currently require multifamily to be six stories or have these better construction methods. No, we do not. No, we do not. And this this would only apply to Would this apply to all multif family or would

this would apply to all multifamily and mixed use that fit the definition of multifamily and mixed use that the state gave us? There's lots of things we don't currently do that the state is now saying we must do. So I I I was maybe I wasn't clear. Um so the statute seems to be focused on multif family that's being developed on commercial properties and my question was really about multifamily that's being developed on what is already multifamily. It would seem it's only yeah I I understand the question and and the point um the statute

has two components to it actually three components one is a broad preeemption that allows multifamily and mixed use to be built anywhere where retail commercial warehouse storage is allowed. The second component is it preempts many of the traditional development standards that you have for all multif family regardless of where they're built. So, and then the third component is it has additional preeemptions if you're converting a commercial building or an office building to a a um a residential multif family or mixeduse project. So,

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the multif family is that exists in Irving is not six stories or above. Correct. And and the reality is there are not and I I I'm going to I don't believe there are many if any existing multifamily entitlements that haven't been built. Which is why in most cases when you see a new multifamily development proposed it goes through a zoning process because we have 55% of our housing units are already some form of multifamily. We have built a lot of multifamily in Irving

and consumed most of the places if not all that where multif family is allowed. And so zoning cases are typically the way that the council would review for development quality to determine whether or not what is being proposed is contributo to the city overall. So hypothetically, if somebody was say tearing down an old multifamily that was in disrepair and wanted to build new multifamily, even if it had only been two stories or three stories, it would now be required to be six stories in order to do that.

It's conceivable. I think that's a fact question that we would certainly consult with the city attorney's office on, but that's conceivable. Will this apply to hotels? No, this is multifamily and mixed use comp mixeduse residential which is not a hotel.

Mr. Sanders, if you take the building that's US Bank building that's in um over on Greenway near this empty lot that we're talking about, that's an empty building. We've had a case in front of us before where they wanted to renovate that into a hotel. Is that the kind of property that SB840 we they could end up building multif family in that location even though it's commercial all around it? It's probable. Yes. Yeah.

Now, depending on how far it is from the airport, how far it is from if there's any heavy industrial uses that are in proximity, tests that we would have to run to see if they're qualified. But barring any disqualifica disqualifying feature, uh the office building could be either converted or you could scrape it and build new. Now, we have new development standards depending on the nature of the project. They would be be applicable provided we're not otherwise preempted by state law. And they would still have to comply with the new building code requirements. So, I mean, it wouldn't it wouldn't be they could just

have people move into offices. They would have to bring it into compliance for people to live in. That's correct. Yes, sir.

So, by us moving this on the council with all the recommendations of all the new building codes, the energy efficiency and everything else as far as people's quality of life, ensuring it's not a big drain on our infrastructure, um, etc. Would they be able to have if we settle on six or eight? I'm recommending eight, but if we settle on either which one, will they be able to come back before us for a variance by case-byase basis or would that be something that's just locked in for them? We we have the SP process in Irving that we use and if there were an occasion where they wanted to propose some variance to our development standards, they could avail themselves of the SP process just as they do today.

So theoretically, if somebody wanted to come in and say, "Hey, you know, I've got this old apartment complex. I want to replace it with something that's essentially the same but just newer." they could without having to do the six stories if they wanted to come before us and then council they could seek approval for for that. Yeah. Something just like that was approved last week by council. Yeah. Can we decide on the six or eight now? I mean I got the sense from the work session at city council that six stories was moved you into that higher quality. one of the council members here. Mark, what did you what what's your sense on it?

So, I would say that um first of all, thank you so much Philip and Jocelyn for all your work. I mean, you've heard all the detail that's gone into this. It's really very fast and and and and amazing. But, um so again, we had a very long uh council day on Thursday. We talked about a lot of things and leading up to that there was some been some discussion about 10tory minimum. Certainly six story was discussed. Walt talked about how that was going would ensure the steel construction as Ricky was talking about the quality construction that we want going forward. Um but we didn't really get into a discussion about six or eight and um we've talked about a little bit and um I I I think eight would be a better a better fit because there's still the danger of um having a lot of the smaller construction going around and the impact that that would have on the community and I think um we look at what's going on Okconor Ridge passed at the last council meeting that's 12 above above ground two beneath the Ritz is a 19 stories. So I think that we're, you know, council is trying to like move towards greater density that way with the higher quality construction. So I think um a minimum of eight would be in line with what we've been doing that way.

Skinner, uh just a procedural point of order. If the commission wishes to recommend that it be eight rather than six, I would just suggest you make that part of your motion um as you do with a variety of other changes where you recommend um that sort of thing to council because you are a recommending body. Yeah. And that's what we're doing tonight. We're making recommending on these issues. Yeah. But this is multif family. This is not condominium like um uh the place next to Carlton. Condominiums are multi. Those are those are multif family. Yeah.

Okay. So, we don't distinguish between condos and mult we we can't and as a matter of zoning distinguished between the financial structure of the units. Yeah. And the statute defines multif family pretty broadly too, right? It says including condominiums. Yeah. In the state definition. Councilman, please. Oh, I think it's been turned off again. On, please.

Uh, bottom line is this is really a great exercise for you all. You're going to earn your money. We all make a lot of money at this. You know that. No, I'm very serious about that because it's one thing when you see the things that you see like tonight and some of the things you've had in the past, but this is going to be very important for you all to get and roll your sleeves up because you got to help us too because we're going to deal with it. And if we do some things that are changing, it may be coming back to you. That's one of the things I think Philip is and Justin will say to you. At the end of the day, I just want to give you um a real opportunity to really get into this because if you don't, then you know, at the end of the day, don't be surprised. You want to be part of helping us get to where we got to get. And I will tell you what we went through with our last meeting and and the briefing that Philip and the rest of the team brought to us, they're struggling like we are because the state legislature, and I'm very hard on this one, are really changing laws or having laws that are changing the makeup and the character of our cities. And that's what you got to put in your head because you're a critical piece to all of this. And so I'm just trying to tell you that this is serious now, probably more serious than you've ever got into. So with that,

Mr. Chairman, I will I will tell what I told the council is that this is not a perfect ordinance. We had a very limited amount of time to think through a lot of different things. And what we found was when you pull on one thread, a lot of things begin to unravel. Um the state gave us a very blunt instrument. they didn't allow us a lot of ability to be flexible and think through the nuances. So, our response in some cases is fairly blunt because that's all the state will allow us to do. Um, and we didn't have a lot of time uh to think through every possible scenario. We do have the SP process which may afford some flexibility in an appropriate way depending on what's proposed. Um, but this is this is not our fault. It's not your fault. It's not the council's fault. This is laid directly at the feet of the state legislature who passed a bill without consulting, without thinking through the effect it would have on cities and we're trying to respond to that. Um, I fully anticipate that there will be a future day when we'll come and say, "Hey, we we need to change something because it's we didn't we missed something in review or maybe it didn't work out the way we anticipated." and that's okay. Um, but I think we've done a fairly reasonable job of trying to comply with the bill, comply with the law, and yet provide some level of protection and assurance of quality and sustainability for new development that we did not plan for. I think moving to eight is the more viable option because they have they have the option of coming back before us and then then we can look at and make sure the quality the safety etc. Uh it's sustainable building is going to be built properly. So, I think

pushing to a minimum of eight uh stories would um give us a little bit more regulatory as far as anything that's under that. And going above eight sort of regulates the materials and the stuff that's used to build these type buildings. So, it's going to ensure that the quality is there and the safety is there in case of a problem or an issue. We don't have to worry about it for years to come. Now, I I was under the impression that the the six levels, the six floors already shifted the construction over into the higher quality construction. It shifts it to steel, it shifts it to concrete, but it also allows for heavy timber, uh, which is wood construction. If you go above six stories, it will eliminate the wood construction, which could potentially be on that many stories. If you catch fire on the sixth floor, you could potentially burn all the way down. If you got a concrete structure or a metal structure, it's going to sustain that floor until they can get it put out or whatever. So, it would eliminate one of the the heavy timber type construction by moving up to eight.

So, what was the the thought in terms of the six because it was higher in the first round of our location? I think I think uh Ricky's um description is the thoughts that we went through in looking at the six stories where fundamentally the type of construction changes to either concrete or steel. There is an allowance for heavy timber. I am not intimate with the building codes to understand exactly how that works and Wayne unfortunately is out of town but um certainly something we can look at and advise the council when that topic comes up. Does that take it from mid-rise to high-rise? Six to eight? I thought they're both mid-rise. Six to eight or does that

take it from a sixtory to an eight story? Yeah. Does that change the classification of whether it's a mid-rise or high-rise? No, we triggers it. Is it the eight? What's the What triggers high-rise? Mid-rise and high-rise are terms in the fire code that deal with things unrelated to this issue. We don't we don't use those terms as a matter of zoning. Um they're so is the age floor is what triggers the material that's used? Again, I I would have to defer to our our building official to look at that issue specifically. I think by his comments on Thursday, it six floors starts triggering the type of materials that's used. And if you go up a couple more stories, it eliminates one

and requires the last two. I think what what Wayne had indicated when he talked to the council Thursday was just the longevity of the structure itself. Um by going to these different construction methods, they just last a lot longer. Um it is a better quality, more sustainable construction over time. How many what what kind of transition because that was a lot of discussion last Thursday as well is the transition from a residential area to this now what we're considering minimum height of eight stories. How much of an interface is that all through the city? Where where will the rub be if somebody wants to put an eightstory structure next to a residential area?

They would have to be set back 25 ft. Um we had I think initially proposed um a buffer of I think about 120 ft uh where the multif family and mixeduse residential could would be limited to the max allowed by the state which is the 45 ft. Um after discussing these types of issues the council felt like that that buffer was not something that they wanted to have in the final version of the ordinance. So this would be in every case uh where a yeah 25

but we put a but we put a significant buffer on the data centers that were over by Nema Marcus didn't we increase the buffer between the neighborhood and the data centers to mitigate the potential noise impact noise impact only not height right correct like let me reiterate one more time the the main thing with going higher is ensuring the safety yeah the safety of the residents not necessarily I mean you can make a wood structure look just like a steel structure the outside can be done any way you want to do it it's just the safety and the building materials that's used to create sustainability for the building for years to come

yeah I think as a side benefit though that also triggers a lot of other things like using premium material inside the apartment ensuring that we're not going to have bunch of small buildings and better uh um lesser buildings, more dense. So I agree with that.

I I think my hesitation is kind of the point that Debbie was the example she was giving the the prospect of a six or 8 foot eightstory residential building right next door to, you know, R six, R75. That that seems we don't have to do that. I I get the point about the the quality of the construction and that that makes a lot of sense. Uh and if there was a way to get that quality without having to go up that high that that would have been my preference, but I I trust the staff. That's these are certainly we wrestled with these issues, Mr. Chairman. Council

I think wrestled with them last Thursday and there's no perfect solution here. No, I mean, you know, the 45 foot isn't isn't perfect, but 45 foot sounds a lot better than to me than than eight stories. Yeah. Well, six stories right now is going to be 120 ft in the air. So, there's really not that much of a difference in No. No. No. The six versus eight. Yeah, I agree with you. I It seems to me that that moving past the 45 ft, it's already losing a lot. Uh, and I think that's that's really unfortunate.

Um, well, we'll probably also say the economics of it for any developer to build a six-story building. Um, that's actually the main impact I believe on this. Actually, it's really the the economic level of somebody building it and be able to afford the rent if they're going to be leasing it at how much whatever square foot is going at that neighborhood itself. So, I think that's the real the real point here. That's what I will take from this. Like, I mean, they're not going to build a six-story building in in an area where the rent won't support occupying it. So, one question I'm just thinking of the existing businesses, office buildings that we have. And so, um, back off of Greenway, there's I don't know, it may be six, seven stories. Is there a certain type of materials that those buildings had to be built with versus what we're talking about here today?

Yeah, there there when it comes to a building conversion, they're going to have to meet the building codes. So, whatever applicable building codes, there's a difference between what might be required for an office or commercial building versus now I'm making it residential. So, there are some things they would have to pay attention to and whether that's cost-effective to convert um without starting over. That's just an analysis whoever the developer is would have to look at. We had a building conversion that was approved last Thursday. Was it approved last Thursday?

Yeah. Um where it was a uh three stories Yeah. three-story structure that was proposed to be converted and they had a a a large 14story structure that was going to be built new next to it. So, um this would just have to be an analysis they would have to look at,

but building codes would be applicable. Many of our other codes would be applicable. Some would not because of the way that 840 was written. There are certain additional preemptions that apply to a conversion that don't apply to a a new build. And we would just have to look at that case by case and say, "Okay, make sure we're complying with the law. Any other questions?" Um, this is more of a suggestion. I don't know if this is possible and um I mean something I would like to see at some point. it's a if it can be added about 10% at least 10% green space uh for this for any of these developments or in the future as well because I feel a lot of the developments we see they don't really have any green areas and it's something I think that will help the city as well as to make it make it

well I have I have good news the minimum is actually 20%. Oh well perfect yeah thank you we've got you covered question. So, I I saw there was I I guess in a couple weeks there's another agenda item related to this, but is this the only opportunity we have to make recommendations on this set of um proposals? Yes.

Okay. C can I make one technical point? I because I'm reading through the the draft. I I saw in the amenities it says required amenities, optional amenities. the optional amenities are actually required. They just get to choose two. So I I would change that to something like required elective amenities or something like that. So it's because that just confuses me. It's not optional. Understood. Caroline is our chief director and we'll certainly have that conversation. I don't speak legal ease. So

any other questions? All right. In that case, that was our last item of the work session. And the work session is adjourned at 7:41 p.m. We will start up in the other room in about 10 minutes. [Music]