Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Goat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] do it. Down it do it. [Applause] [Music] Heat up here. [Music]

[Music] [Music] Don't go. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music]

[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music]

Wonder. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music]

Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music]

Heat. Heat.

[Music]

Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Evening ladies. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now 5:34 p.m. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session of Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025. Did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed on the work session agenda?

There are no comments. Please proceed.

Thank you. All right. Uh, do we have any report on the city council meeting decisions of August 28th besides what was our packet? No. All right. Um, then we'll go on to the public hearing items. Okay, the excuse me, the first uh items are the uh consent agenda for approval, the minutes and plat 23 uh 2025-237. Uh there's one that has changed that is now it was item number four was originally for disapproval and it's now for approval. Uh nicely. It's in numerical order still. So, uh it's items 2, three, and four would be for approval now. Uh and then items uh five and six would remain for consent disapproval. Be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? No. Thanks. Okay. Uh next item is uh special fence plan 2024. Uh still working through these uh 411- SFP. And go ahead. I should say welcome everyone to Taco Tuesday PNC.

All right, good evening commissioners. Haley here with planning. So the first case is that 2024 411 SFP. Um we've kind of seen this in passing before. Um it's just the first time it was notified applicant wasn't present and then last time uh we accidentally put the wrong date. So but now they're it's finally come in front of you to be able to actually have a um have your recommendation for tonight. Um this is located at 806 South Loop 12. The request is a variance from section 33A-2 which is setbacks of the land development code. Um this is to allow an 8ft tall um R panel metal fence uh within the required 30-ft front yard setback along south loop well. After review staff finding um says the request does not meet the criteria listed um for a variance for the fence ordinance. Um in terms of public comments, there's been one in support and none in opposition. So this is the subject property future land usage is regional commercial surrounding zoning property owners that were notified and I believe the letter support came from number 10 right here and this is their site plan. Um so kind of to talk about the kind of some backstory about the case. Um there is existingly has been there a chain link fence um about 6 ft in height. It's been there since before 2001. So it's been there a very long time. Um but now there because of textile rightway acquisition uh they've now have to remove the they've lost some land and now have to remove the fence and then rebuild. So that's why he's here today. Um he wants to put it where it was initially which of course would be within that setback. Um the let's see and there is a stipulation too for um section 1510B which is talks about our fence. It's our fence

ordinance. Um it disc goes into how if it's in a let's see property located in a zoning district that designates outside storage as an allowed principal or accessory use which it allows on this property. um they can have a solid foot up to 10 ft in height. Uh provided that the fence is at least 10 ft away from the right of way. Um which is not meeting. So hence again why they're coming for the case. Um what they're proposing like I said it's going to be like a metal fence blind so you're not going to be able to see through it. And um they're wanting to put it on the north side 1.5 ft property from the property line. Then in the middle have like a gate, a motorized gate and then anything south of that that fence would be two and a half ft from the property line. So this is the subject property. This is south of subject property north and then west to that south route 12. And then I'm open to any comments or questions. Is it are they trying to put this to where the old fence has been?

Yes. It's just now they're going up in height and are now it's going to be metal and it's technically closer to the new what's now the new property line. So Okay. But that's because of text dots expansion. It's not a moving of the fence. Yeah. Okay. Was there a comment about it creating some sight problems? I think initially but I think that's uh it was the 2.5 ft. That's why in the south side because since it's they're going north on the highway, um that's where that 2.5 ft came from. And then the only other stipulation was for their uh for the gate was to make sure it either slid across or at least opened into the property and not go, you know, towards the road.

So there's no concerns about drivers not being able to see where they need to see for turns or anything like that. Unless Cody has anything additional? No. Okay. Yeah. No. Normally when we look at any type of fence, uh, they have to meet all the sighteline criteria outlined in our access management manual. So, we'll we'll double check the sight lines and that's probably where the 2 and 1/2 ft offset came into that just gives them outside of what we were. Okay. So, I noticed there's a barb wire on top as well. Does that does that uh include the six feet or 6 ft of fence and then there's like a slanted barb wire?

I believe Ker Johnson I can't remember. Is it does the barb wire is that included in the fence height or is it only the the post the top part of the post?

Yeah. Typically the barbed wire on top is is not part of that that height. Yeah. So, can we if we do approve it, can we restrict them from putting barb wire on top because then it will go even more higher. Is that is that a consideration or we're allowed to do that? I I believe so. Yeah, you probably could. I mean, they they do that for security obviously. Um might be a question. Hopefully, the applicant will be here tonight. Um just discuss it with him.

I don't know visually. you generally don't see barbed wire. I mean, it's it's it's a little more obscure. Um, but often they want it if they think they're going to have a security issue, but they have chain link now, so maybe it hasn't been a problem. Yeah, I I believe he has had much issue, but in ter until like kind of recently, um, but this was after he already put in his zoning case. Um, I mean, there hasn't been any mention of using barbed wire again since this is going to be higher and it's going to be a solid fence. But again, the applicant should be here to to see what he's actually planning if he is going to do barbwire or not. Can you go back to the slide showing the neighbor who has the solid fence? Okay.

All right. Commissioner Denny, you next or my my concern is if we move the fence in and don't give him the variance on the north side, if you could go back on the north side of the the prop. Nope. Back. This one. Back. Nope. One more. One more. This one. No, the the plat. The site plan. Oh, the sight plan. Sorry. Yeah. Is you're going to cut off all that space on the north side because he don't have that much room between his existing fence and the building now.

Yeah. So, if we don't figure out some way to give him a variance, at least up in that area, he loses all that other property up there that he uses for storage right now. Yeah. Yeah. I think we talked about that last time, too. Yeah. Commissioner Denny. So, is it correct that there's only one point of ingress and egress, and it's the frontage road? Correct. And so it was noted there's a concern about potential queuing on the access road. So I take it that's still a concern, right?

I think it had to excuse me. I think it had to do more with the gate. um as long as it's for it's enough in um I believe traffic I mean Cody um correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like as long as they weren't moving closer to loop 12 that it shouldn't be an issue and as long as it's the gate like I said kind of earlier like it either slides or it opens into the property that would give more room for queuing. So, so with with the textile expansion, does that mean they're losing space between the fence and where the right of way would be? Uh, so I believe this used to be

I think this used to be the old property lines and this is the new one that because we um had them get a new survey. So this is what has been taken out for the wide array between the dash line and the solid line. So this is a plan as with already taking into account that um so they're not because I think if if I was looking at the right picture they currently have space between the access road and the fence and that like for parking or but that's going to be taken away. I think it's just grassy area. Yes, it's kind of a grassy I don't know if this is formal parking or not but that's what that's right if it shouldn't be parking. Yeah. So,

well, but we're talking about potential queuing like that's space someone could wait. It's not going to be in flow of traffic, but so are we talking about that being taken away as part of So, that's still going to be there. Got it.

Ken, uh just go back to the question on the barbed wire. Uh going to that section of the fence ordinance. Uh basically it can't be put on a fence that's lower than six feet because you don't want people just rank into it. And uh it uh cannot be uh the overall fence height it says can be no higher than 10 ft. So in other words, you could have an 8ft tall fence and then 2 feet of barb wire on top of that. Any other questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you. All righty. Thank y'all.

Good evening everyone. Uh, next case is uh zoning case 2025-129-Z at 906 King Avenue. It's from R six to SP2 for R six uh with variances to minimum lot width and lot area. uh as determined by section 535. So, uh we have the it's a pretty large lot that's existing here on King Avenue and there's an existing house and uh it's currently zoned R six as are all these um most of these other properties through here is a couple with a site plan zoning but most of these are R six zoned. Uh the issue is that uh because they're all such large lots, we have the section 535 of the Unified Development Code, which is for neighborhood compatibility. Uh so where R six normally it would be fine to have a 50- foot wide minimum lot in a 6,000 square foot lot size, uh because of the average of the surrounding area, and I'll show you that graphic in a moment. uh the a the you have to 535 says it can't be less than 80% of the surrounding area. So 80% of the average of the surrounding area ends up being 59 ft uh and 11 thou a little over 11,000 square ft in area. So what they're proposing is basically to divide this into three tracks. Tracked one and two the two pink areas uh would be basically identical. 7,700 square ft, 55 ft lot width and 65 and then tract three would not need a variance. It's 65 ft wide. So that exceeds the minimum lot uh lot width and it' be 18,773

square ft. So that exceeds the minimum uh lot area. So really the variance is for these tracks one and two, the pink parts. They do intend to keep the house. uh they understand they're going to uh when they come to platting the property, they'll have to do something either maneuver the property line or take down this structure over here uh in order to basically have at least the 5-ft separation. So the calculation it's not a simple one. Uh you have to read the ordinance about six times and then go crossey and do it two more times. But it's basically you have uh it's three properties on either side and then whatever's across the street. So properties to the east you have one two and then you do cross the road. So this would be the third one over here and on the west side one two three and then across the street you have one two three. So the orange are what the and blue are what the existing those existing lots are. The pink are what uh are the lots that uh would require variances what they're um having then the 11440 sorry that should actually be 7700 square ft on these two lots here. Uh but so they have to have at least uh 59 again 59 this is actually should be 55 and 55 my apologies. Um the existing house again will remain. Uh you have the properties to the east and to the west. Uh north of the subject property. And again you have 55 ft wide lots 65. The the yellow is not a variance. The pink ones are um they do exceed the R

six but they don't meet the 535 requirements. Uh we did have uh two responses in support and seven unique responses in opposition and be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Commissioner Lightoot,

did you why did the applicant do a sort of hammerhead or tease lot on the big one? Why didn't he just take the pink ones all the way down? That' be a question to ask the applicant. Um, there are some sheds and other structures back here. Perhaps they wanted to keep those with the with the main house because remember the main house is staying. Yeah, it's just sort of it reminds me more of a flag lot type situation to a certain degree. Commissioner Denny,

just a question with those measurements. The way the ordinance is written, if he had split the this parcel into two lots instead of three, it looks like there would have been a way to comply with those minimum requirements. Yes, but he wants to keep the house and it's in the middle of the lot, so he couldn't really divide it down the middle and keep the house. So, there's probably a variance one way or the other.

Yeah. Yeah. Or I think the property that was just to the west, it had been divided up into three, but kind of like what Commissioner Lightoot was asking, it looked like they divided it all the way the length. So, there would have been a variance as to the the width, but I don't think there needed to be a variance as to the lot area. It probably still would be because again, they had they'd have to meet uh 11,000 square ft. I think they did if it on the chart, if you go back to the chart that shows the the other properties, I think those ones to the left. Well, if they came all the way down. Yeah, I see.

Yeah. Yeah. So, if they took the property to your right and they moved it over because you got 65 ft on that one lot, if you moved it over, you would be in compliance with no variance and you dropped it down, you would be in full compliance. You would not need a variance. The only one that would need a variance would be the one on the left at that point. And that would only be if you brought it all the way down, that would only be to the width of the lot by 3 ft. But you could bring the one on the right in compliance by moving it over a little bit and bringing it four feet. Yeah. And moving it down. The one on the

And then the middle one is already in compliance. So the only one would still be in compliance. And the one on the right if you brought it down, you would be in compliance by square footage, but you would just need a three-foot variance. So for the one on the left Yeah. The one on the left. Yeah. The one on the left would just need a three-foot variance across the front. Track one.

Yeah. Yeah. chart wall. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. I'll save Gina the trip on this one. Uh this is uh uh the staff is uh recommending to postpone this case to October 6 for uh renification when we are going through uh the review of this case. Uh we found that there was actually an extra uh variance that was going to be needed for this and that was after the advertising had passed. So need to happy I'm sure Jan be happy to go over it but no. Okay. Um, will we need to do a public hearing on it and then vote to postpone?

Yeah. And then postpone to that specific date. Okay. Okay.

Good evening, commissioners. Gina Castanza Grant with the planning department. Uh, the next case is 2025 242-Z located at 1306 West Growweller. Uh the request is to reszone the property from R75 to an SP2 or generalized site plan for R75 which uh is one of our single family districts with a variance to allow an accessory building with an indoor shower, a built-in HVAC system, natural gas connection, uh more than two rooms, and the addition of a closet. The staff does find that there's no unnecessary hardship. We did uh not receive any forms or any public comment forms in support. We did receive one in opposition and this is an aerial of the subject property future land use map zoning map property owner notification boundary and the proposed site plan. Uh the area that you see in green is the um footprint of the proposed accessory building. Uh it's proposed to be about 1,500 square ft located in their sideyard which is on their uh south side of their lot. The building is proposed to be about 12t 12 in tall and it will include uh the following rooms that you can see on their floor plan. They're proposing a fitness room, a relaxation and massage area, a sauna, a steam room, and a full bathroom. Uh because this type of accessory uh building does not fit into the typical uh requirements for

an accessory building, which in our city are more strictly for storage and uh you know perhaps a workout room or an office. Um they are requesting this variance to allow uh the building under what we would qualify as a dwelling accommodation. Under a dwelling accommodation uh it in the city's definition makes the unit livable and it has to have these uh six components. Uh, one of those is being a kitchen uh with an oven range, uh, an indoor bathtub or shower facilities, built-in heating, ventilation or air condition air conditioning, uh, natural gas service, more than two rooms in the building, and a closet in any room. Uh, this particular proposed building has all of those except for the kitchen. Um, regardless, the applicant did uh state that they are not planning uh to use it for any type of uh commercial purposes and they have uh they were willing to put notes on the site plan that limit uh the use uh as personal for the uh owner and occupants of the main dwelling. Uh they have also placed a note that uh the accessory building won't be used or rented for dwelling accommodation purposes and a note that states that there will be no separate utility meters on the accessory building. Uh other than that it does meet um all the other criteria as far as setbacks and height. Um, but since the owner could expand the existing home rather than uh adding a separate accessory building to the property that does not comply with the definition of dwelling accommodation, the staff did not find that there was a

hardship for the variances uh requested. And this is the subject property. This is looking to the west, to the east, to the north, and I am happy to answer any questions you have. Did you say that the restrictions that would be put in that the owner stipulated to would be written into it? Yes, they are on the site plan. Okay. Gina, did did they say why they just didn't do an extension to their home instead of adding a another structure? They did not.

Do you know anything about the concerns raised by the letter from the neighbor? Um, we just found those out within the past couple days. So, um we have been uh in contact with uh code compliance and they are here to answer any questions to that nature if you have them. Yeah, we would be we would kind of like to know if if there seems to be any merit to what's being said.

No. And while Shane comes up too, I wanted to add while they're saying that it will be for their use and that's that is what they're indicating. Um, a new state law effective on Monday, effective yesterday is more generous about the about home occupations and how someone can use their property and being a low impact and so it's it's be more difficult for us to control whether they use as a home occupation or not. So Wayne could or I'm sorry Shane could also expand on that if you had more questions about that. Okay.

Uh good evening chair and commissioners. Shane Giller, code enforcement director. Uh the opposition letter had mentioned some issues with uh greenhouse buildings in the back and some uh uh planters that had been constructed along with uh business or agricultural activity that they had had witnessed. uh code enforcement staff connected with the uh the neighbor who had sent the letter as well as visited the the property and have spoken with the applicant uh representative of the applicant and what we found was that there was a greenhouse building that was one single greenhouse building that was constructed in the back. It did not have a permit uh and we notified the property owner of that. Uh and we found uh about eight uh uh raised uh flower beds, if you will, uh some sort of growing beds in the backyard that had been constructed around the greenhouse. Uh they uh tell us that those are for personal use, just for for growing of of items and crops and stuff in the backyard. Uh the greenhouse is in the process of being dismantled and they intend to apply for the appropriate permit and have that uh reconstructed. That's something that uh can be built by right as long as the permit is obtained due to the dimensions of the building. Uh as far as the use of the property, we can't determine that uh uh there's any business use going on there. We haven't seen any. Granted, we've only been looking at this uh since the end of last week and then again today. uh and uh the assertion was that there was some sort of agricultural business uh being run from the home and trucks arriving with with supplies or equipment. Those could be related to the the the number the number of large uh flower beds that were built in the back as well as a greenhouse. It's also important to note I think that uh the state law preempts us from applying zoning regulation or most of our code

standards frankly to uh agricultural operations in Texas. And so even if they were operating some sort of agricultural business from the home, that wouldn't be something that would be preempted by our zoning code. What else can I answer? Do any of the other commissioners have questions for what could this property be used for? Let's say these people decide to sell it 10 years from now. You're talking about legally or conceivably? No, legally. Legally. Okay. Yeah. Leg legally. I mean, if we let them build this, I mean, 10 years from now, what could we be looking at if this property sold?

Assuming the legal framework is still in place 10 years from now as it is today,

the uh state law now preempts us from regulating any type of home business that isn't what's called an impact business. So, if it's a no impact business, meaning that it does not store or operate outside, meaning that it has uh ample on-site parking, and that it doesn't exceed the occupancy of the dwelling, then they can operate basically any uh business that isn't a uh specifically a sexually oriented business, uh some sort of of hazardous uh type business. if there's a a uh a fire code that triggers uh some sort of hazard there with chemicals or manufacturing, that sort of thing, uh they can't do anything alcohol related. There are some some constraints there, but it's fairly broad beyond th those limitations. And this property being the size that it is has ample on-site parking. Uh if we look at the number of bedrooms, uh right now that it has, it's it's got, according to DAD, five bedrooms. So, you'd be able to have two occupants per bedroom plus one on the property, meaning that you'd be able to have uh up to uh 11 employees andor client/c customers to whatever the business is operating on the property and all that would be legal.

So, this could be a fully functional spa to the public basically. It could be. Yes. Okay. I only want to make a comment that it is fully set up for occup occupancy occupation occupancy and while it doesn't have a kitchen, it's really easy to put in a one of those little convection

microwave combination burner elements. So, I'm not in favor of this as it stands as a separate building. Any other questions? Nope. Thank you very much. Any other zoning related questions? When was this house built? Very recently.

Um, it was it was pretty recent. I'm not sure if it was this year or 2024, but from what I understand, the original structure was demolished and this home is, I think, under a year old. So, I guess the new buyer is the one who's proposing this. That's what I would assume. I don't know uh when the ownership changed. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you.

I I showed that I'm sorry. I showed that it was built in 2023 at some point in time. That's what Dcad has that it was completed. That's what Dcad has. Wow. One last question. I'm sorry. Sorry. Just out of curiosity on the what's the square footage? It's pretty big. Uh, I want to say it's 5,000. Yeah. 4,074 square ft. How many bathrooms does we show there? Five, I think. Five bedrooms or

It is a pretty nice house. I mean, the Have you seen it? I mean, it's a really, really nice house. I mean, I'm not sure if really somebody's trying to build this uh for for a business in this nice of a property. It's probably one of the nicest one in in south of 183. And u but of course, if they sell it, that might be an issue, but at the same time, I'm not sure if somebody will buy this to convert into a business. So, I don't know. Mr. Mir. Yeah. My last question is, is this a homeowner or a business? Because it says Quantum Elite Elite Homes.

That's the applicant. Um, the owner, I believe, is Four Squirrels LLC. Okay. So, that's not a It is an LLC. Um, and that's how it's listed in DAD, but they were not representing themselves in any way on the application. and they had an applicant sign and was given permission to do that for them. Commissioner Ahmed, I think he was sorry. Um,

would it be any different if they um they decide not to do the bathroom and kitchen and they say, "Hey, we just want it for recreation purpose." At that time, is that still ADU and the same rules? Because I know like if there's no plumbing and no gas or kitchen, then it's different. What would it look like if if they came and they're like, "This is not looking good. We will remove shower and kitchen."

So, they would have to remove um the shower facility. Um they could have a toilet and a sink. So, they would have to take out the shower. Um they would have to remove any kind of built-in heating or air conditioning. They'd have to remove the natural gas service. They would have to make it all one room um or just two rooms but no closet. So would that be in compliance if that was their backup plan? Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. Sure. Sure. Okay.

Um for Squirrels LLC is related to um ACE. Where is it? ACE I just had it. Sorry. Ace Farming LLC. Sorry. Going back to the cat on there. It shows that it should show there a transfer date, a date transfer date. I mean, I want to make sure the property was sold or was this the builder uh who owns the property? because I don't believe there is MLS record of

it should at the top it should say like a date transfer date DCAD shows four little squirrels LLC 2023 24 and 25 and that's the kind of the year that it was built it looks like the construction probably started in 2023 or 24 uh Wade might be able to find the exact date of when it was completed. But um yeah, it doesn't show ownership prior to 23 and normally it does. That's what's interesting on I think it was I think it was platted. I think that's what happened. Interesting.

Yeah. Yeah, they did have a plat that was approved I think at 23 or 22 maybe. Any other questions? Thank you. All right, we ready for the next one? I think so.

Okay. Uh Gina Castanza Grant with the planning department again. Uh next case is 2025 252-Z located at 5000 West John Carpenter Freeway. uh the applicants requesting to reszone from SP1 CP or detailed site plan for commercial park uh and hotel uses to uh SP1 CP for uh a detailed site plan commercial park with a hotel and also variances to the hotel development standards. Those variances are minimum to the minimum front building setback, uh maximum lot coverage, maximum lot height, and to the minimum parking setback from State Highway 114. Uh the staff recommendation is no unnecessary hardship or finding is no unnecessary hardship. Uh public comment forms, we did receive uh one in opposition and none in support. This is an Ariel. Um, you may all remember this. This uh came before you last uh December uh 2024. The hotel was um demolished after a fire in 2022. So, you can see there the just kind of the footprint that's left, future land use map, zoning map, property owner notification boundary, and their proposed site plan. Um the original hotel uh was built in 1997 prior to the adoption of our hotel development standards. Um if they were wanting to rebuild in the exact same configuration as the original hotel with everything being the same on that approved site plan, they could do that.

Uh since they are requesting uh a new current design and a diff slightly different footprint um slightly different parking lot, they are required to uh be evaluated against those new hotel development standards that were adopted in 1999. Uh again in December of 2024, the council denied a previous request from the same owner and applicant. Uh since that time, the applicant has eliminated four of the previously requested variances. Uh those were for uh recreational facilities, a lounge area, uh minimum number of parking spaces, and the provision of a port cash. Uh so they are now providing all of those. Um however, three of the previous variances remain. Those are for the number of rooms, uh the minimum size of the required meeting space and the parking setback adjacent to state highway 114. Uh they have also added two additional variances. Uh in an effort to um enhance their outdoor uh recreation space, they would like to add a trellis for shade. Um also a barbecue grill and a fire pit. And because of the location of those in relation to uh the setback, they do need uh to request a variance from that. Uh the proposed hotel is um supposed to be four stories with 130 rooms extended stay. Um this chart summarizes uh the variances compared to the originally um approved plan and the current udc requirements.

So uh they have gone up in the number of rooms since the previous request. However, they are still not meeting uh the total of the 200 that's currently required. Uh regarding their meeting space, they are short um on that by about 3,800 ft square ft. Uh the outdoor pool and spa that was originally there um is not planned to be replaced. they are instead of uh the current udc requirement of 1,000 ft² proposing uh an exercise room that's 627 square ft. Uh they do actually have a lounge area. Um that's combined uh with their lobby. Uh the parking spaces are no longer requesting or needing a variance. Um and under the commercial park district, they're uh requesting variances again for lot coverage. Uh the number of stories maximum is three or 50 feet and they are proposing four stories. Um and the front yard setback again for the trellis, the grill and the fire pit. Oh, and the uh parking setback adjacent to State Highway 114. This is looking at the subject property and this is from Delos Drive just kind of looking into the site where the former building footprint was. And this is looking to the west, looking to the east along the access road at the corner of Dallasos and looking to the north. Um the new site plan again does include 29 more rooms and 132 square additional square feet of meeting space uh when compared to the previous hotel on the

site. However, um the applicant could choose to either build a hotel that meets the existing zoning site plan or request zoning for a hotel that meets all of the current hotel development standards. So staff does not find uh a hardship. And I'm happy to take any questions you have. I mean, you said that there is a lounge. Yes. But it looked like it was showing that they weren't having a Yeah, I think that was a typo in our chart. Okay. So, how what kind of variance are they requesting in regards to the lounge requirement? None. So, they don't need a variance on that at all. Correct. Okay.

Just a I guess a comment or question. I I know we've had discussions in the past about being mindful of the hotel standards that the city council has passed and that they reflect a certain um quality or type of hotel product that they're looking for the city. So do we have any guidance uh related to uh like say extended stay type hotels as opposed or is it purely just um staying within like some of these variance type of uh guidelines? The hotel standards do not distinguish.

Right. Is there anything you can tell us in terms of what what happened why it wasn't approved previously on the previous version of this? I'll let Jocelyn answer. Yeah, there was mostly, if I remember correctly, just concern about uh there because council had asked, are there any other properties along the frontage that because they're asking for the the setback encroachment, the you know, the the supplemental setback and uh so they they would be the only one encroaching because everybody else along the highway was going to be complying. Um and they also just weren't comfortable with the proposal, but the the setback was one of the issues. Um, and that's still what they're asking for now.

Yeah. I don't I don't believe the proposal has really changed from the original one. And if I recall being at the council meeting, a lot of it discussions that were being made was due to the amount of rooms.

Uh, council's pretty adamant about getting close to 200 rooms. There's been a lot of proposals throughout the city for different hotels. Um, Hilton has a bunch of products. Um, I mean the H2 homes, H2 studios, etc. But I think council is pretty adamant about staying close to their 200 200 rooms on this property. If they didn't if this doesn't get approved and they don't rebuild exactly as it originally was, which I take it they don't think that that's financially worthwhile to do. What else is this uh property zone to be able to have? What's the underlying zoning?

They would have to change the zoning because it is bound by that existing site plan for CP plus the hotel use. Okay. I believe the future land use plan has regional commercial. Yes, regional commercial. So some sort of regional commercial sort of use would be what would likely be there otherwise? Yes. One question I see it's uh applicants of Magnolia Hospitality Group. What's do we know what the brand of the hotel name is going to be? Yes. Um it's Hilton uh Hilton Lives Smart Studios by Hilton.

Okay. Gina, do we know if all of our extended stays meet that 200 requirement? I'm assuming yes, because the hotel policy came into effect in 1999.

I can't remember how many have been approved since that were specifically extended stay. The answer is probably probably no. Um in ter we've had three or four different sets of hotel development standards certainly um since the 200 room number went in uh probably no in terms of you know just just having the 200 rooms and having the ballroom spas has have any been approved uh with variances that allowed it? I I'm sure one or two probably have over the years. It's been about

18 years since the I think since the 200 room 5,000 square ft that level of it came in. So you're saying I was just thinking of the cuz there's an extended stay off of Royal. I can't think of the cross street but that one doesn't look like it's got 200 rooms in it. But you're saying for the most part, other than maybe a couple of exceptions, any that have they have been required, they all do have around 200 rooms.

Probably not. I mean, they have to go through the the site plan process anyway, so they figure, you know, while they're here, you might might as well ask for a variance. So, most of them probably do not have the 200 unit count. Okay. And then do we know um and I guess I can ask the applicant when they're here this evening, but the size of the rooms because a lot of times the extended stay rooms are bigger than some of the hotel rooms.

Any other questions? I have a a question. Didn't CVB provide a revision to the hotel standards? It had not been officially or formally adopted by council, but there is a different room count than 200 based on what CVB was bringing the standards more current. Before the pandemic, we had started that discussion initiated with CBB and they were okay with some flexibility, but they wanted to make sure if the bar was lowered that no variance would be granted. Correct.

And you can never promise no variances. And so CBB said if we can't promise no variances unless keep the bar high and then not then then that way they would have to continue to come in to ask for variances. So that that we changed the parking ratio uh require you know don't require restaurant anymore because we've got different ways to get food um but kept the uh meeting space high and kept the unit count high because people have the option to ask for variances. So they didn't want to lower the bar and have people lower the bar even more through variances. What was the room count on that um unofficial Oh gosh. Was it 150 170? 150. 150 I think.

Thought it was 150 I think. So

yeah. You know these these hotel projects cause me a lot of angst because honestly what else is going to be built there, you know, so putting in a new product in an area that has some really tired older product on the north side of the airport, you know, that part doesn't bother me that it doesn't meet um all the current standards. But it it does bother me that to your point, we've lowered the bar considerably even from what CVB potentially would have preferred or might have preferred. Oh, the previous proposal, how many rooms were they wanting to have?

They added I think it was 100 what was in the original building. Oh, the original building. Yeah. Was the hund about 100 was I didn't see up there. What the last proposal it had. Oh, the last proposal. Yes. The one that came before us a year ago. Yeah, they brought that room count up. It was a chart. No, I don't think it had it had the original building original, but does it had original building on the chart? But I want to know the last proposal, the one that got voted down by council. 29 more rooms there. What is 29 more rooms? Was that from the original though? Let's see.

It's on page. They're making it 130 now, but it was 101. It was 101 in the in the building that burned down. Right. Right. And then when they were proposing building a new building a year ago or less than a year ago, I want to say it was in the 120s, but I could be wrong. Okay. So, this is I seem to remember 120ish. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds right to me. If you'll remember the conversation when this was brought to us before, I was concerned about them even being able to rebuild at 101 and they said they were grandfathered in. If they use this to to build it, they could go back with what they originally had. Yeah.

Realistically, can they build 200 rooms with that amount of parking space? Have to go up. But what about the parking spaces? Probably not. I mean, yeah, even if they go up in floors, they would have to probably do some type of podium parking or something and do a level underneath. Um it's yeah it's a tight site. So you're correct. They probably would struggle getting additional parking on property. So exactly. So um so are we able to ask them to build 200 rooms if they really don't have the space for parking? Yeah. They'd have to do probably podium. Yeah.

Yeah. They'd have to shrink the footprint or go taller or both. Any other questions? Good. Thank you. So, it says no, we don't take any action. Does that mean we still have do we have a public hearing?

So, this one's a little different. Um, the case was determined to not be needed and therefore um it's moot. So, you can just go on to the companion zoning case. Okay. So, we don't have to do a public hearing or vote or anything. Not on this one. No.

Wonderful. All right. So, we're on 13. doing Harvey Planning. Uh this is zoning case 2025 253 ZC. It's located at 906 Oakland Drive. The request go from RMF2 to R six. Stack staff recommendation is for approval. Have there been no comments for public support our opposition. Here's an aerial of the view of the site. Uh future land use surrounding zoning the subject property itself. Uh, south of the prop subject property, north of the subject property to the west across the street. And yeah, the current house that was built on the property was built around 1949. According to DECAD records, the existing zoning was approved through a city initiative reszoning in 1974. Uh, single family is not permitted in RF2. Uh uh since the city initiated zoning in ' 74, there have been four surrounding properties on Oakland that have gone through the zoning process from R RFM2 to R six uh from the years 87 to 97. And there's any comments or questions?

Any questions? It doesn't look like it. Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon again. And the final case, transit oriented development detail plan. As the question marks go over your heads, uh transit development detail plan, 300 block of West Glass Cleans Boulevard. Uh the request is to approve the TOD detail plan in accordance with the previously approved TOD general plan and with the uh UDC section for transit oriented development and staff recommendations for approval. So uh this is the Wells Fargo property up to the north of it here. Uh this is the music factory over here across the street to the west. Uh the because this has never been actually uh uh platted, it didn't ever get an address other than the original DAD address which was 300 Western Carpenter which is way up over there. So that's why I said 300 block of of West Losas. Um the again it is zoned uh TOD. The way TOD works is basically you have a if you do you can do a general plan and a detail plan at the same time or you can do a general plan get that approved by council and that sets the zoning that's kind of sets the box for everything and then the to detail plan has to be everything has to fit within that box. So as long as you stay within that box it's not a reszoning. It's actually just a literally a detailed plan that requires approval by uh recommendation by PNC and approval by city council. So if they do try to go outside that box,

that necessitates variances which necessitates a whole new TOD general plan. What they're doing here, and I'll show you that in details in a second, is a detail plan that does conform to all of those requirements. So, this is the first floor plan, the seven stories. Uh, this is the residential on the outside here. Uh, you have a couple courtyards. You have the parking garage in the middle. And you have, uh, about a 7,300 uh, ft commercial space over here. Uh, this is what it looks like for the first two floors. And then floors uh, 3 through 7 basically connect. And you'll see us better with the elevation actually connects where the residential now comes over the top. And so these are not actually separate structures. It's more of kind of a tunnel in between. Um again requires PNZ recommendation and council approval. Uh must comply with the following. It must comply with the uh TOD section of the UDC. It must be in conformance with the TOD general plan. and must comply with all other codes including the urban business overlay district. So the TOD general plan said the minimum units was 40 units an acre, maximum 100. They're doing 77 units an acre. Uh minimum restaurant and retail uh within a residential building was 2500 or as much as 30,000 square ft. They're doing 7,300. uh for freestanding uh was either anywhere from 0 to 30,000. They don't have any freestanding buildings, so that's zero. That's fine. Uh height was between minimum of 45 ft, maximum 85 ft to the top plate line. They have it noted on their site plan as

a top plate line height of 81 ft 7 in. So all of these things do comply with the requirements of the TOD general plan. in terms of the parking that's actually more regulated by is regulated by the to general plan but also by the urban business overlay. Uh so basically the multif family if you take their unit and it comes out to 474 units if you take their projected unit mix it comes out to be 637 parking spaces required uh for the multif family. If it's retail or restaurant would affect the parking counts either 30 or 49 spaces. So if that commercial area goes retail, then they would need 667 spaces. If it went for a restaurant, it would need 686 spaces. They're planning on doing 737 spaces, including 728 in the parking garage. And uh just so you know uh in terms of surface level parking, most of these are actually handicap parking over here. There's a couple three or four teaser parking over here. Uh most of the parking for this commercial area is going to be in the first floor as you kind of come in and drive into the parking garage. So it'll be the first level will be relegated for the commercial portion. Again, 474 units, 7,300 ft². It's a full uh 7story. The original plans we had uh were partial six and seven story. They actually increased it to a full six and seven story. Uh there's also a landscaping plan. Uh landscaping plan includes two landscape courtyards and kind of a third oneish over here, but two full ones. Uh there's I'm sorry,

these are two courtyards. This is the pool courtyard over here. Uh there's some bicycle parking areas as are required by the uh to district. Uh there's a 4ft tall decorative iron private fence. Uh basically goes over here near the units just to have the privacy for those individual units there on the ground floor. Uh there's uh the required number of trees and they have approximately 32,000 square ft of combined uh open space and that includes the uh three courtyards and the pedestrian easement which of course has the um the walkway in there. This is the conceptual elevation we're provided by the applicant. So to orient you, you are fa this is if you're on Losance Boulevard and you're looking at this property. So remember uh so this would be the south end of the property over here on the right side of the screen. So you'll recall the commercial area looked like it was on if you're just looking at the first floor it was its own building and you see how now it's not because the residential floors 3 through 7 go on top of it. This area here, we confirmed it looks a little different, but we confirmed it is at this is actually residential here. Residential on the ground here. Uh, and again, you have the parking garage back over there. This is a uh rendering. Again, this is conceptual. We can't hold them to the actual uh colors and things like that, but uh this is what they provide to us. Uh, currently the site is vacant and near a tree to be found and you have the Wells Fargo buildings are going up next door and of course the music factory across the street and you have the um other apartment complexes

just to the south on the other side of the uh canal there. So again, uh they meet all the requirements of the TOD general plan and of the ordinance. Uh be happy staff's recommendation is for approval. Be happy to answer any questions. Question. How does this um correlate with the new multifamily standards that we put in place? Because this is showing, if I'm correct, five occupied floors. It doesn't actually have to.

So the zoning was in place for this one has been in place for a while, months. Um, and so it is, if you want to use word grandfathered, but we are, this is a continuation of an existing zoning process, an existing zoning entitlement. So this was not measured against the new standards and it will not be held against us on any standard, right? Because it was pre-existing. I'm going to defer to my turn. I'm sure somebody will try to one way or the other. Uh the other apartments around there, how many of them are this high? It didn't. It seemed like most of them were were not quite as tall as this.

This is this is an older apartment complex over here. Old older is relative, but uh it's about I want to say about four or five stories if I remember on this one. And a lot of the apartment complexes in the urban center itself that are uh newer were built at kind of the fivetory. Uh the Mustang was built uh actually is a partial sevenstory uh as well. Um this one is actually being built at a whereas the Mustang was a partial sevenstory. This is actually a full sevenstory. So that's we actually like that in the urban center. Isn't to have to be attached to transit?

There's a train on the other side. Say again. I'm sorry. Have you tried to walk in the heat of the summertime where there's no trees and no sidewalk? You walk through a field to get to the north to the line. Oh uh I mean is it I mean it's it's within a half mile but I don't know. Um I thought they a whole lot of Yeah. I I Yeah.

Yeah. TOD requires a half mile from a station. This one you kind of have to go around Wells Fargo to get there. But, you know, the tea of to doesn't isn't always doesn't always come to fruition, especially in this area. But it does it does meet the the letter of to the goal is to put another apartment building in that area. Is that what you're saying for TLD? And I I my my concern is one, it's yet another apartment building.

Two, I see that there's retail on there. So, how is it going to impact the retail and the restaurants that's at Toyota Music Factory as well as on the other side of Okconor, there's already retail that's empty. Exactly. And then a lot of those retail spaces on Lake Carolyn is empty. So how do we hold them accountable for making sure that those are even filled

there? There's actually we when we were talking with them earlier, we thought that the first floor would was going to be retail. So this is actually really complimentary to the music factory. It won't be competing with the music factory. So, there's a small We thought it was going to be a restaurant. That little that building kind of on the south side. Um, it may be retail. It may be a restaurant. It'll probably end up being a restaurant is our guess. Um, but they How do we hold people? We We never hold people and require them to fill something, but we can do our best to try to make them successful.

Yeah. And that's my concern is that a lot of these developers come in and say, "Oh, we're going to have all of this." And it doesn't happen. We have empty spaces

that they're not for the proportion of residential they have. This is not much in terms of being a mixeduse building. If we were holding them to that 10%, they wouldn't be anywhere close. But because they're across the street from the music factory, they are providing more of a demand. Part of the, you know, the the draw of being in this area is being in the energy of the music factory. So having those residential units there, we see very much to be complimentary to that area. And then of course you have Wells Fargo next door. So people who you know kind of the whole live, work, play thing could all happen right in that same area.

And Commissioner Reyes. Yes. Do we have a breakdown on like that retail restaurant space? Like is it just going to be one building? Have they mentioned anything to y'all? The applicant

it it's we we've asked they are not sure. have they're going to fill if it's going to be retail or restaurant or could be divided in two. It would be just this space right here as you're looking at. Again, it looks like when you just look at just the first floor that's separate. It's not. It's actually very smartly located u area of the property. Uh because again, you have the Wells Fargo up here. So, they have location here. It's got good views of of Lake Carolyn. If it were to be a restaurant or something like that, uh it's it's very appropriately located on the site.

Thank you. And again, just a reminder, this is not a zoning request. This is this is a detailed site plan. They the zoning was approved back in 2022. No, that that actually raises my question. So, we have these minimum maximum

in terms of I mean if it was just a matter of saying do they meet are they above the minimum and below the maximum or they within that range well then then all we would be doing is just um a ministerial function. So, I take it we're supposed to have some some recommendation in terms of judgment here, but I'm not clear on what what criteria we're supposed to be considering in looking at that if it's not a zoning case, what what are we supposed to be considering?

Couple things you're looking for. First of all, is to basically affirm that it's it's in compliance with everything, which we're we're helping. We're saying that yes, it does affirm. The other thing the discretionary part is if you don't like the mix of it or you know you you have that discretionary authority and Carolyn can talk more to to what level that would be in this case but uh you do have some discretionary authority to say no I want you know more or less of this or that. uh you have that ability a as a recommending body and council ultimately as the deciding body. Um what you could not do is say no I don't want any multif family there at all. Well the requirement is that for the zoning is actually to have a minimum of 40 units per acre. So there has to be some and then the maximum is 100 units per acre. So you the the multif family does have to fall within that range. You just can't say it's going to be 120 units an acre. You know, you can't or or that it's going to be, you know, nothing. So, we can't say, "Hey, we think this should be single family residential."

Correct. But but we could say seven stories is too tall and we think that's going to end up with too many too many units or we think there should be additional retail something along those lines. Is that is am I understanding correctly? You could. Yeah, that would be within within the scope of our authority in making a recommendation. Yes. One comment. Oh, you're off.

Excuse me. One comment, one question. with um concern about Toyota factory with 474 units and the additional number of people living there. I think it's only going to increase the business at the Toyota factory uh and would cause some people that would give second thought about putting in more restaurants along Los Cleans Boulevard. My question is, do we know based on this project uh what we're talking about in terms of school income from school taxes and and city taxes? No, we we don't do tax calculations with zoning. We're only looking at land use. The the the applicant might know, but we we don't run those. We don't run any type of estimations.

So, we could ask the applicant if if they've done that already. You could. Yeah. I don't know if they have or not. Yeah. Um is there another question? Yeah. Right. So, does this have to be multif family or if a a company came in, they couldn't build next to Wells Fargo? Not without reszoning. Not without reszone. Wait. Yeah. The way is currently zoned. There has to be a minimum of 40 units per acre. So, there has to be a minimum multif family component.

So, only multif family can go there. It has to be a minimum of 40 units per acre and minimum of 2500 square ft of commercial or a maximum of 100 units per acre of residential and maximum of 30,000 square ft of commercial. Uh yeah, just a real quick question in terms of obviously the idea would be that people living here would go to the music factory area and make use of some of those businesses, which I think Commissioner Pritchard's point. Uh but that's a pretty big street. Um what is there something that would be done in order to make that a safer They're not right at an intersection. There's not a light. There's not a crosswalk. There's recently been a crosswalk installed just north of this property.

Okay. With the rapid flashing beacons. Okay. That's in operation today. And that's the that's the edge of this property where this is. Um yeah, about the northern edge. Okay. Right between this and Wells Fargo. Okay. There are actually uh two access points onto uh West Los Coinus. One is uh over here and kind of lines up with the with the existing curb cut. And then there's another one down south by the where the commercial and garage and one of the garage entries is over here on the south end.

And then you can actually get in a third way by coming in through this and then driving around to the parking garage from this side. M Reyes.

Yes. I would just make the comment that I feel that the retail space and uh restaurant space 7,300 square footage that's that's tiny and like for this area I love the concept. I love the like the the mixed use element to it. But I would just mention that I feel that the commercial residential retail space could be like higher due to like just based on looking at that area and going there's not many um there's not like a a bodega or like a CVS like a Walgreens or something that you can go into and really utilize from like the two. So that would just be my only comment to really make this a strong multi-use to

any other questions. Um I may agree a little bit with that with the just the commercial space maybe a little bit small and if if we want to put commercial space cuz I mean 7300 I think it's a a restaurant just one restaurant and that's it and uh so I don't know um will this seventory will will the type of construction we talked about this last time would it be concrete and steel would it meet the high-rise guidelines or

yeah, based off of the the maximum heights that we've kind of already discussed in previous, they they would not be able to build this out of wood frame. That's correct. They can build the first two out of concrete and steel and then the top five out of wood. Yeah, because it doesn't hit that 85 foot mark. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We we Yeah, we've had different discussions. uh for setting the ordinance, but the the 85 foot mark that we uh this is not at the 85. So those those requirements aren't going to come into play. So they could build the podium kind of like we've talked about the the the twotory podium concrete

concrete still if I'm correct I think over six stories they can use heavy timber steel concrete. So there's still an element they could use it, but they still have to at the six story mark, they still have to start using a different type substrate. If I'm correct from what

there there is and and there is a a specific section within the building code for podium type construction. Uh and it it allows a little more than what is found in the charts and tables that we use. And I I believe it allows for a twotory podium, which again is going to be concrete. It's usually going to be a garage is usually the podium, but allows for five stories of wood frame over that. And that's just in that podium section. If they wanted to build a fivetory without a podium, they could not build the fivetory wood frame, but with in combination with that podium, they could. So right now they're at what? 75 ft.

They're at 81 ft. No. What? 81. 81 ft. 7 in. Can we request for 85 and then they meet the highrise standard? So they actually uh I believe they have I think 85 is the maximum height that they they say they have an agreement with Wells Fargo. They cannot go over that for the aerial. Yeah. The view shed. Yeah. So I don't think they could go over 85 ft with their private equipment. But the rule is 85. And that and that's their general the to plan it only allows up to 85.

Yeah. That that all being aside this this does not have to comply with those rules. I understand the nature of the question and how they build it will have to comply with the building code. Whatever form that takes. I think we can only make speculation is about what they think they might do. I think based on what we see, what they might do is do two floors of a podium and then do traditional wood building on top of that. You can't, as I understand it, greater than 85 ft requires a whole different type of construction for the entire building. The maximum height for this district is 85. They cannot go higher than 85. So we could not force them under the zoning that exists today to go higher than 85 which would result in a different set of rules governing construction. Does that does that make sense? Now if I'm correct and I'm reading this correct it's 85 ft to the top plate line. That does not factor in the roof line. I mean you could be another 12 16 ft. So this thing could actually beund and

however they build it and how well we'll have to comply with the building code and how height is measured in the building code is a very specific measurement. I think it talks about the average of the elevation up to the average of the middle of the roof or something like that. So whatever they do will have to comply. I I don't know exactly how it's going to turn out. I think our speculation is as what we've said.

Yeah. But again, this predates 840. It predates the city's rules. And 840 had a provision that said that projects initiated prior to September 1, today, or yesterday did not have to comply with 840. Conversely, this project initiated prior to the adoption of our rules that we have in place. And so, it can can continue under the rules that existed when the project was initiated. Sorry, Ken. Thank you. Any other questions? No, I think that's it.

That's it. Great. That was our last item on the public hearing items. Um the mentions on the agenda, proposed unified development code amendments, carports by special exception. Yeah, we will be postponing those. Council's still working through. Great. What that will be so we'll get back to you when we do. Okay. Any future agenda items anybody wants to mention for later for another meeting.

Commissioner Lightoot would like to ask for payraises. Being paid would be a good start, but I don't see that happening. All right. Well, then the work sess session is adjourned at 6:53 p.m. and we are actually on time to be able to start pretty close to 7 uh in the other room.

See y'all in there. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]