Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Hey.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 5:32 p.m. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session of Monday, December 1st, 2025. Did anyone sign up to speak on any items listed on the work session agenda?

We have Michael Walsh, Mike Tilman, and Alfredo Valdez, and I believe they'd like to speak at the regular session, but they wanted to make it a point to add themselves for the record. Okay. Um, are you wanting to speak now or at the later session or both? Uh, I speak. You're not speaking your name? Alfredo Valdez. Alfredo Valdez, but you're not speaking at all this evening. Okay. All right. Ma'am,

okay. You might have signed up for the evening session. That's when we actually have the public hearing portion. So if you sign up for a specific case, those are really primarily in the evening session portion. Yeah. No. Um but this is the the work session. Uh so the people who signed up are allowed to speak. But if you were just really here to speak about a particular case, then then you can also wait until the evening session.

Okay. Yeah. Waiting for the for the public hearing would be great. Appreciate it. All right. Mike Walsh. Mike Walsh. Okay. Same. All right. Wonderful. All right. Well, then let's let's keep going. Um, we have the swearing in of new planning and zoning commissioners, Mr. Khan and Mr. Frer. repeat. I is I do solemnly swear

solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the duties that I will faithfully execute the duties as a member of the planning and zoning commission as a member of the planning and zoning commission of the state of Texas of the state of Texas

and will the best of Great. Thank you. All right. So, next up is the election of officers. We have pos um the open positions of course or is as is always the case. Chair, vice chair, and secretary. Um and so we'll open up for nominations. Um I'd like to make a nomination. Um uh I'd like to nominate um uh well now currently vice chair hack to be the chair um for the for the subsequent year but I also want to open up generally for for nominations starting with for chair

second. All right any other nominations? No. Well then let's go ahead and vote on that one. All in favor please raise your hand. Everybody raise their hands. So the vote is unanimous. All right. you will get to take over shortly. I was told that just get through the elections and then and then uh Okay. then you can run the meeting from from then on. All right, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion

uh the nomination for vice chair. I'd like to nominate April Mrick as vice chair for the work you've done in the last couple years as secretary and so Okay, I'll second. I'd like to make a motion to Oh, can you put yours? I'm sorry. I'd like to make a motion to nominate Ricky Lightfoot as vice chair.

Do Should we have each candidate make a statement? Um, yeah. I was just going to see if we had any other nominations first. Uh, do we have any other nominations? No. Um, do either of you want to say anything? I was surprised. You put your microphone on if you're gonna speak. I appreciate the nomination, but I'm actually going to withdraw my name. I I'd like to serve another year as the secretary um when that nomination comes up. So, um

Okay, Ricky, it's yours. Yeah. So, Ricky, you want to say something? I mean, you're now the only candidate, so it's a little bit easier. I'd appreciate um I appreciate the vote of confidence you've given me to take this position and I hope I have y'all support moving forward with this position. Great. All right. There being no further nominations for vice chair, everybody vote. We only have one candidate. All in favor of Ricky, please raise your hand. Anybody opposed? No. No opposed. Uh so passes unanimously. Ricky, you are now the vice chair. Then our last position is for secretary. Uh, do we have nominations for secretary?

I'd like to nominate April for secretary. All right, we have a nomination for secretary. Any other nominations? No. All in favor of April for secretary, please raise your hand. Looks unanimous. Anybody opposed? Not hearing anybody. It passes unanimously. So, April, you could be secretary for at least another year. All right. Well, we appreciate you taking it on. All right. Well, that is the end of the election of officers. And at which time are are you prepared to take over or do you want me to do a little bit more of the work session? We didn't really talk about that. We didn't want since you were there at the seat. Go ahead. Okay. Maybe you can take

us flip. Maybe we can switch it for the evening session. Okay.

All right. Okay. and we'll keep going for the work session for now. Um, next item on the agenda is report on city council meeting decisions of November 6, 2025. Is there anything other than what was in the report that we received in our packet? No. Okay. All right. Then we go on to the review of the public hearing items. Okay. Good evening, commission. Uh, there's only one uh item on the consent agenda for approval. It's the minutes and the one item for disapproval. Uh, one plat uh, and is still for disapproval. Be happy to answer any questions you have. And seeing none,

I don't see any. Yeah, let's go on to the individual items then. Okay, next one. Uh, so first individual item is zone case 2025-360-ZC. There we go. There you go. Hey, Dylan Harvey planning. It's still pretty weak. Dylan Harvey planning. That's better.

Okay. All right. Lean in. Yeah.

Continue on. Uh this is zoning case 2025 360 ZC uh is located at It's pretty high. It's got

this any better? Yeah.

Okay. All right. Take three. This is a zoning case 2025 360ZC. It's located at 3 3880 Irving Mall. Uh they're going from community commercial and state highway 183 overlay to SP2C journalized site plan community commercial and state highway overlay. Uh with outdoor storage and accessory use of outside motorcycle training. Staff recommen recommendation is approval and there have been no comments in support or opposition. Here's the aerial view future land use surrounding zoning notification map. Uh here's the site plan. the are proposing an outdoor motorcycle training be permanent as an accessory use and then also outdoor storage is a permanent to the accessory use of motorcycle outdoor training. Here's a photo of the uh training area. A different angle uh looking towards the Dillards, the storage unit that would be on site, the outside storage. North of the property where the some of the housings are and then west of the property is also some the more residential. And then yeah, they are want to do an outside motorcycle training. The applicant has said that they have been in a suite in the mall since 2020 and they've been using the uh outline area, the student training area since about 2014. The outdoor storage unit has also been sitting there since 2014. It takes out about six parking spaces. And any questions?

So just to make sure I understand you, you said they've been using it for this purpose since 2014. Yes. is and also from aerials. It seems like the storage unit has sat in the same spot since 2014. Okay. So, it's been there for over a decade, but there have have there been any problems? Staff has not found any uh complaints through code enforcement. No records of it. But it would have, I presume, been a violation of the code. That would seem to be implied by the fact that this case is here. The fact that a case is here. Yeah. I mean, they had they had the CO in the for for the spaces in the mall. Yes.

Um the part that was outside, I think apparently, you know, was in the back there and apparently nobody. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Lightoot, um I got a call today from a concerned resident. They're not going to be blocking the drive or anything the pass through that goes through there now. Correct. They're just going to the side of it. Yeah. and they um when we were out there taking photos for the site, they were uh doing the course um and they made a note to specifically allow for enough space for people to go through the drives. They're not taking up any of the drive aisles. Um there's there's plenty of space for

Yeah, cuz a lot of the residents, I guess, from Grand Boulevard or wherever, they come out of that area and go through the back of the mall to the restaurants and all that stuff. So, side road right here. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And this isn't expanding what they've already been doing. No, this is this is what they've been doing since about 2014. Okay. Commissioner Denny,

I didn't know if there was um obviously Irving Mall is not what it used to be. I and I don't know if there is there any useful context either discussions among the staff or if it's been at the city council level where um I mean ordinarily this would be like not a good use of of mall space but because it's there's a lot of vacancy and the parking is not used I can understand why there's a tenant like this but is there any direction about what what the future of Irving Mall is because this this would strike me as an odd interim use.

So, the majority of the mall is is well, it's all privately owned. Dillards owns theirs and you know, the theater and Macy's there, you know, the the the large um department stores tend to own their own properties. So there's about four or five different owners there. But the mall itself and most of the parking lot, not all of it, most of the parking lots are owned by an entity that leases out the mall for someone else to operate. Until they decide that they're ready to develop or redevelop, then the city doesn't have you. We can have our We've had discussions with them on and off in the past. Um, but until they choose that it's time for them to redevelop, it seems to be working for them and profitable for them at the time.

Well, it strikes me that if if if uh if we're going to vote in favor of this, it's it's not helping any efforts to to redevelop the area for it to allow for these kinds of odd uses. So, I I just find that where it is taking up a huge portion of the parking lot, it it it's I mean, that's just not what malls are designed for. And it is and it is right next to a neighborhood where there is there actually is still traffic there. Um uh like the comment that was made. Any other questions for staff?

Yeah. Can I can I understand what happens to that zoning once that tenant is no longer occupying that space? So the zoning is tied to the use. So it's not tied to the operator. So it is the if this is approved, it would allow a motorcycle training with one storage, you know, unit on the site irrelevant of who's operating it. So that's all this would allow is exactly what's being requested. Okay. Thanks. And on the storage, I saw elsewhere that there's like a fence requirement. Is that does that apply here?

Yeah. No, it's there's no screening that the the the storage is just the container itself. So there's no screening requirement for that here. uh if they moved their training facility somewhere else, would they need to do anything change the zoning back in order to be able to just go back to using it as normal parking or something like that? No, I mean that it's just allowing it's adding the training use on it. Okay. Um yeah, if they left it would just be zoned for that. They could undo the zoning if they wanted to, but they wouldn't have to.

So the the what they're requesting is a zoning that would still allow for what it was designed for. Commissioner Jenny's Commissioner Jenny's point, you know, it's designed to be parking for them all. Yeah. And and when they're not training, all that's out there is a container. So, when they're training, they just put some cones out and and they can explain more tonight how often they do it. Um, but generally, it's just a big parking lot with a container. Okay. I I would assume that if the mall decided to redevelop, it's going to probably be brought before us anyway as far as the development goes. So, at that point, it would probably be something that would be changed at that point if it went under a redevelopment.

Yeah. In the comprehensive plan, this is one of our catalyst sites and there's some, you know, dreams of what could be at the mall, a more of a mixeduse, you know, reuse of part of the property. Um, we've had conversations with the owner about that, but until such time that they're prepared to do it, it'll just be part of our plan. So, it's uh they've been operating basically in this parking lot for the last 11 years and we've not really had any complaints. It's just they're not legal and so we're just trying to make them conforming at this point. That way they can continue on their business. Okay.

Did you have a question? I do have a couple of questions. Commissioner Pritch Pritchard raises a good point. I'd like to maybe investigate putting a screening wall around that mobile trailer and at Walmart and Kroger whenever they put up a storage units, you know, it's a temporary use. Um, seeing this as a mobile trailer and that's permanently installed, I would think we'd want to ask them to do something to screen that. Is that acceptable?

It's It's in the middle of a parking lot. I know. Like for the Walmart on ERS, they've screened that entire kind of southern parking lot because that's what they're doing is storing the containers there. There's really not any boundaries here. There's not any clean property boundaries that would be screened. Put it. Yeah. They they don't have anything outside of the container. They just just the container. They're not storing anything outside. I don't know what they're doing at Walmart, but um you can talk with them tonight, but it'd be hard to define what actually we're screening and they would have to kind of impale into the surface pavement in order to get that installed.

Okay. And we'll note that the subdivision the the homes themselves have their own fences that are the subdivisions at the back could go the next two. So they're, you know, they're there's they're screened from it. And it is not one of those really tall giant trailers. It's was one of those smaller ones, relatively speaking.

Um, we hold carnivals all the time in this. It's usually further down on the beltline corner. Would that be um I'm sure the motorcycle people check the calendar and they're not going to host a training session during a carnival. How does that work?

Oh, Christine can correct me because she can she does deals with these carnivals all the time. Uh but generally speaking, they don't operate on that particular site. I imagine if they did the mall is the pro in this case the mall is the property owner of that pro of that site. So if they wanted to have their tenant not operate during for three weeks then that would be between them and and the train and and the train company and yeah it' be for

and most of these training I've been through one of these training sessions. It probably surprises all of you but I have been through them. They're they are held after hours in a classroom on a week night and then your your actual physical training on a bike takes place on a Saturday. So, it's not as though there's going to be a lot of congestion with competing uses at that end of the property. But again, the owner of the business may have uh a different timing than what I'm used to for those kinds of uh easy rider classes. And it's also my only other comment would be it's my understanding as Joselyn said and I'd like to reiterate that this mall is owned and has operated profitable profit to bully. So until there is something else that's proposed um I think it will continue to operate as it is with these kinds of businesses and I think the training facility is a good option for it. Do we know what they're storing that they need this outside contain? Oh,

cones and they don't have space inside their own store. They're probably using they might have some small bikes in their electric. They probably don't want to have to carry it. Yeah. Move it routinely.

Yeah. Right. And and the ball did to to their credit, they did, you know, set this off in a area that is u you know, look at the again look at aerial photos. This is I call this a a a Black Friday parking lot. You know, it's about the only time of of the beard that that's used cuz it's kind of cut by that you have to take a bridge o two bridges over the channel to get to it. Um, it's it's if you're going to the back end of the mall, uh, or coming in from the side, I guess, uh, but it's it's never been a heavily used portion of the parking area. Right. Any other questions for staff? No. All right. Well, let's go on to the next one. Moving on. This is a zoning case 2025 396cc located 3615.

I can't I can't hear you.

Lean back in here. Uh 2025 396cc located 3615 block drive. Uh they're going from SP2 freeway and state highway over 161 overlay with uh two variances. Um they are going to uh SP2 freeway state highway 161 with the variance listed above and plus the envir environmentally sensitive land use of aircraft engine assembly disassembly and repair. Staff recommendation is approval and there have been no comments in support or opposition. Here's the aerial the site. The aerial shows a blank piece of land. Uh there is a shell building that has been recently constructed on there. future land use surrounding zoning notification map. Uh and then the site plan. This is takes a uh over here would be the um bay doors where they would unload and load trucks. Um over here is looking towards the west of where would the bay doors be. Parking would be over here and there'd be parking in front of the building as well. Uh when considering an environmentally sensitive land use, these are the criteria that staff look for. Um not really uh the subject property. North of the subject property is the apartments. West of the subject property is a another warehouse building. South of the subject property is a very similar building. And then east of the property is the state 161 highway. here. Any comments or questions?

Questions. Sure. Yeah. I had a question about um the uh the operator had mentioned that in their current locations that they require to use awnings uh to screen the things they're going to store outside. Um and so I was just curious what the plan was here. Uh they do plan on having some uh sort of mechanical outdoor storage uh towards the west here where the docking bays are. The applicant is here tonight so they'd be able to uh provide insight onto that.

Okay. And this this may also be a question for them, but um do we have do you have any knowledge of whether there have been environmental issues at the three locations they currently operate at in Irving? No, there uh there haven't been uh to our knowledge certainly. Um it's it's one of those the environmentally sensitive land use is something that kind of encompasses it's other cities would probably call it more like heavy industrial or something like that and it is it's kind of a um almost a scary term that we have in our our zoning. Um but it is used for everything from um the the term is used from everything from nuclear waste handling to recycling and everything in between. So um this kind of fell into it because technically they are taking items that are not produced on site, refurbishing them and putting them either back on or or sending them off. Well, that's technically by the definition a recycling type of type of operation. So, it it kind of falls into that and it's it's sort of jet engine, but it's not really the whole engine. It's part of the engine. So, it kind of fell into a a gray area that was close enough that we felt it was important to to at least call it out as as potentially, you know, that kind of a use. um they have operated in in other locations in Irving for about 20 years um and they've um you know without an to your earlier question on the screen most of the things that they want to have outside would be kind of mechanical type of things stored big giant you know gas storage tanks like you know I'm not sure

you'd have to ask them what kind of gases but um but they Uh but anything like the storing of uh crates or pallets or anything would have to be behind a blind fence uh and have to be uh one foot below store stored 1 foot below the top of fence. That's in our ordinance. So uh and they've been made aware of that. So um if they I don't know if they plan to actually do that or not, but they are aware that if they do that that's what they would have to work out. Um, I had two questions. Uh, one of them, it's a new building. Why does it need a parking variance already? I mean, is it are they changing the setup or is it because it's a different use? I mean, why I would have assumed the parking would have been either a zoning modification, a variance on that would have been done ahead of time before building the building.

Yeah, it was. what this is just carrying it over because you don't want to reszone it and take that and forget to put that back in. So all of a sudden it's non-conforming on that. Okay. So that's not a that's not a change that we're that's really just keeping the same that that's just keeping everything that was approved before and then doing this. Okay. All right. Um and then the actual repair work is that being done inside the building? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Inside. Mhm.

I initially had some concerns about this until I realized that they this is an MRO um for engine parts. It's not for engines themselves. So, um I was really glad to see a distinction with that. Um I don't know for engine parts, do they bring those in for on a tractor trailers? And will there be multiple tractor trailers many times throughout the day? And if so, how, you know, are they stacked up waiting to get into that or is it a more I'll let the applicant explain it because they could explain it far better than I ever could. So, any other questions for staff? No. All right. Oh, yes, we do.

Does the city at any point require any kind of phase one or phase two study? No. even after purchase maybe 10 years down the road unlike I mean if it's considered like a like a heavy industrial technically is there any study like that that

yeah the city does not I I would imagine I'm probably a little bit over my skis on this but if there's any type of concern or any type of of chemical use or something that needs to be regulated to that level it probably has some type of state license and that would be at a state level um in terms of any complaints or studies or anything that has to be done. So, it wouldn't be a municipal review. It would be more of a state review. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions? All right. Let's go on to item number seven. I need to talk louder. Let me know. Is this okay?

Okay. Sorry. Okay. But also talk this way. That's okay. All righty. So, um, good evening, Haley Riddick with planning. Um, so the case I'm presenting tonight is 2025 398ZC. It's located at that 3322 William Brewster Drive. Um they're currently R six, so that single family residential, they're wanting to go to an SP2 for R six for a carport. Um after staff review, we found no unnecessary hardship. Um in terms of public comments, there's been four in support and then none in opposition. So this is the location. Future land use is traditional neighborhood. Surrounding zoning, it's R six. And then here's the carport map. So, within a quarter mile, there's been at least 17 approved carport cases. Um, there's also, as you can see in the yellow up to the north and to the west, uh, these are carport blocks. Um, these are something that were done briefly that these areas were allowed carports by right. Um, but these were repealed in 2009. Um, so anyone any carports that exist in them, if there's not a case, they're legal non-conforming, but there weren't really many built in those carport blocks. So you can see the blue obviously is the subject property and then these are the surrounding ones and then these are the property owners that were notified and then this is their site plan. So kind of some history. This is a house that was built in 1958 and had a onecar garage. Um about early 2000s around 2008 they expanded the north side of their driveway. Um so kind of this portion here and then they expanded on the south side. So over here um around 20 between 2023 and 2025 um we haven't been able to find any permit on file. Um but in terms of the actual carport, they're wanting to do it 10 ft high at the highest point

and then 20 by 20 which is within the standard, you know, 400 ft of carport. They're wanting to have a two-foot gap between the house and the carport. Um, applicant states that they want to do that for to build gutters or have room for the gutter system. Um, but are not intentionally they're not trying to attach it to the roof line. Um, in terms of the driveway, that's another variance that they're needing. Um, as you can see on their plat, it was originally that 10 ft, but with the expansions, it starts at 19 ft and then at the wide widest width goes to 20 ft. So, in terms of their variances, the front yard setback, which you see a lot with carports, um since it's an established, it's 30 feet instead of the 25. So, that's why the variance is greater. Um the sideyard setback, um it's usually 3 ft required for carports. Um but they're requesting half a foot um or 6 in. And then um for the driveway, again, since we're just trying to make this all compliant, um it'd be 10 foot um minimum or maximum, but they're requesting 19 ft. So this is the subject property. And so you can kind of see, so this is where the first addition was made and then the second addition of the driveway. and then their neighbor to the north, neighbor to the south, and then their neighbor west across the street. I'm open to any comments or questions.

And Haley, just to clarify, this is uh not going to be attached to the house, correct? Yeah, they're not Yeah, they're not tied to the the roof line. The question I have is for Christine. Um, the way the driveway is poured, um, in order to utilize the access to the add-ons, I don't have a problem with the width, but you have to, you still got a narrow approach. So, the approach would have to be necessarily widened because you would be driving over curb and city sidewalk to utilize that portion of the driveway. Correct. That's true.

Okay. So, um, there would need to be approach as far as the permit on the flat work. I guess depending upon when he done it, the city really didn't push a lot of flat work permits as far as adding it. Am am I correct on that? That's fairly recent on on flatwork stuff on the property itself. Um, I I have an issue with it because it still does not meet our 10-ft criteria from the back of the property line like we've talked about in the past. So, the city could do whatever improvements that needs to be done. Um, the width, it could be worked out, but I that's my concerns with it.

Denny. Well, and if I I I I also have I have similar concerns and also the with the sideyard setback instead of it being three feet, it's.5

and because it is true that because at first I was thinking the carport lined up with the side of the house, but it's looking like it extends to the property almost to the property line. So, is that right? So, it looks like the property line would be it's like right here. So, um because they're really again the applicant's here so he can clarify during the hearing, but uh what it seems like is they're trying to cover most of this concrete so they can fit the two vehicles. So, I believe one of them has a truck, so those are naturally bigger vehicles. Um, but yeah, no, it is very close to the their neighbor right here.

And do do we typically look for those um sideyard setbacks for access to to get the rear yard? Would that be a reason to to maintain that? I don't I mean that's not necessarily us. Um I mean it's one thing if they had a fire lane to go back here, but I mean again that maybe fire I don't Yeah, Haley shaking her head. I don't think that's an issue. If they had another structure back there like that might be different. It's more about maintaining the character of the neighborhood and having those those distances. Correct. For this case. Yes. And drainage as well. That's another consideration when you're that close to the property line.

Can you show the map where the other carports are located? The Yeah, the carport map. This one. That's the approved ones, right? Yeah. So, these are all zoning cases approved within a quarter mile. I mean, we started at half a mile, but there were a lot of cases. So, carports are relatively common in this area. Yeah. So, like I I thought I saw one closer than those that's showing. Yeah. I mean, from what I when I went through Google and stuff, I could I mean, I found a handful, but I think the majority of them are legal. Okay. at least for but you know when you're just going through it just trying to eye it it I can miss some

but when you say legal the there have not I think I read there have not been any approved within the last 15 or almost 20 years is that right yeah so all these carports are are older um like in the memo I believe it's mostly between 1998 and 2006 so these people did zoning cases that far back ago um so I mean The city has approved carports just not in this neighborhood. No, these are these are all have zoning cases. Yeah, in within the past 15 years just this neighborhood. Yes. Yeah.

Do you have a um outline of the property line? I mean, we have this this one. If if you're looking for something more close up, probably not. Okay. I was just wondering because you know when he expanded on the left hand side did he already go across the property line? Um I mean we go based off of what surveys and unfortunately in this case you know kind of it's an older survey so it was just really working with him to see how far it is. I I believe he measured but again there it's not as formal as a survey you're going out and doing it. So, okay,

Jocelyn, I got a question for you on this. Uh, I know the carport, but on the driveway, are we circumventing building inspections by us approving that uh allowing it to be driven over the sidewalk or whatever for the approach? or is that something that building inspections will need to uh will need to exclude so they can address the approach issue?

Well, so the approach up to the property line is actually traffic. So, anything in the right of way and the concern about the curb and the the structural integrity of the curb is is traffic. um it for permitting if it's in the unified development code they would have to get a variance before it could be permitted. So that's why they're they would have to come here first to get that variance otherwise it wouldn't be just that they couldn't Yeah. But they're getting a variance for a flat work, not necessarily for a width of approach. And we're we're approving the width of the approach the way this is written.

Mhm. So, that's what I'm concerned about. Are we circumventing traffic or building inspections or whatever by us approving this? If we approve it. If we approve it. I'll let Cody chime in and then we'll Yeah. So, our access management manual from the traffic side is a little bit different than what the ordinance says. Okay. All ours say is that the driveway on the private side as soon as you cross rightway wide rightway line can flare to greater or lesser in width. That's the extent of what it says. Okay.

We don't get into how far back and that's that's in the the ordinance what they're asking the the variance to. But as far as our book, it it doesn't make them do a a width of approach the same as the driveway. They they can flip it. Yeah. Christine, well, the requirement is in the UN unified development code. So, if they get a variance here, then they would still come to us to get a permit and we would go with whatever gets approved. So it's not in the building code, it's in the unified development code.

So they would still So even if we approved it and they went to get the permit for the driveway, which would probably the driveway y'all would probably approve as far as the width, but y'all would then address the approach. Correct. That that is exactly what they're asking variance for is to in the unified development code, it says that the the driveway has to be the same width as that approach for the first 10 ft in and then it can flare out. Mhm.

What Cody was saying is all their manual says is you can flare out. The first 10 ft in is a unified development code. So if they get the variance for the driveway, then then they're allowed to keep it the way you're it's shown right here where it's, you know, the apron is 10 ft, driveway apron's 10 ft, and then it's extends out to 19 or whatever. Yeah. Because you can't on the one side that's closest to the neighbor where they're wanting uh that's only the half foot right there. Yeah. I mean, you couldn't even widen the approach to that point because your turn radius would be into your neighbor's neighbor's property line. Yeah.

So, okay. Um we have on our agenda looking at these, you know, proposed amendments on carports. How does this map on to that if at all? You would not see these anymore. These would go these would go to the board of adjustment as a special exception. Okay. But they it would just go straight these variances they're requesting. They would just get to decide on those. Yes. So actually the way it would work is the front setback would be a special exception. Any other standards they can't meet would would be a variance, but they would both be heard through the board of adjustment.

Okay. But if the board of adjustment were evaluating under the criteria being proposed, this would not meet that criteria. I think is which was really what I was Yeah. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any other questions?

No. Then let's go on to the next one. Zone case 2025 399cc located at 1400 Ethan Drive. They're currently SP2 for R six uh generalized site plan for single family with var with multiple variances. Uh they're going to SP2 R six uh generalized site plan for res single family resol 6 with the additional v variants listed. Does that microphone not move up closer? Is this any better? A little bit better, I think. Just speak up. Yeah, speak up. Yeah, if you just speak up. Yeah, that that might work, too.

Your inside voice. Apologies. Your outside voice.

Uh staff finding is no necessary hardship. Public uh comments. There's non support and one in opposition. arrow view, future land use, uh surrounding zoning notification map, uh the uh number 27 there is where the uh letter of opposition came from. The previous variances of include minimum front yard setback of 15 feet and then garage door setback of 20 feet, minimum lot depth of 75, and then rear sorry rear yard setback of 15. uh they the applicant uh plans on complying with uh B through D. Um and then E would is part of the new variance uh they would go from that 15 ft to 10t 4 in. And then another variance they're requesting is maximum lot coverage uh which is required 40% they are asking for 43.6%. Here's the first uh floor plan. First, the red dash line right there shows the amount of area of the house. It's mainly a covered patio and it looks like part of their dining room that would encroach into that 15 yard uh front rear yard setback. Uh the top image shows what's currently allowed per UDC, the 215. There's a house right behind it. This proposed development. Uh currently they it would be about 30 feet from uh edge of wall to the other property edge of wall. Uh this is what they're proposing. A 10T4 for the rear yard and then 15 to the other. So it' be shorten it by that much. This is the subject property. The subject property looking on through

uh Ethan Street, Ethan Drive. The property right next to it is also a vacant lot north of the property west which is across the street on Valleywood. And then any comments or questions? Were there any other properties in the nearby area that have these kinds of variances? Uh no. The property is part of uh 10 lots or so that are under the same current zoning that was approved by I believe in 2001 2002. Uh looking at the other records didn't look like they required any other special variances.

Any other questions for staff?

No. All right. Let's keep going. No one will ever accuse me of not speaking loud enough. Uh, next case is uh 2025-400. It's a 519 Chaffrey going from R six to CO commercial office. Staff recommendation is for denial. Uh, we have no comment forms in support. We have six responses uh of for in opposition as of this afternoon. Uh so the subject property is about 3/4 of an acre. It's uh been used uh historically as a single family house. Um the applicant's uh narrative description states that they want to reszone to allow for adaptive reuse of existing residential structure for low inensity office or community purposes. Uh you see it's shown here on the future land use map as business office but the area was in a low density residential category uh going all the way back to the 1954 comprehensive plan. staff believes that this lot was unintentionally included in the business office uh in the 2017 comprehensive plan future land use map uh for since all of these properties here are single family including this property right here. And so for that reason, staff feels that uh reclassification of this lot to uh either traditional neighborhood or to compact neighborhood uh due to its proximity to the heritage district would be more appropriate with a future update of the com comprehensive plan uh future land use map. As you know, uh for those that haven't been here, we tend to do

those about once a year in a package of anywhere from 15 to 25. So again, you have the surrounding zoning. It's zoned R six as is all the property around it to to the uh east and to the north of the um notification map. This is uh the current uh opposition map. Again, just kind of see you can see just on the blow up of the aerial here the uh how the um you have the single family homes. You can just see them a little more better up here. Uh this is the subject property. Uh the property to the south is commercial. Um across the street you have residential. To the north you have residential. Uh again um because of the historic uh nature of this being uh residential in this area. Uh re really does commercial does not go further north than this property right here to the south. Uh for that reason, staff uh does recommend denial of this case. Be happy to answer any questions. Um wasn't this the property that came through here maybe about a year ago that they wanted to I don't know build like different rooms to have some type of um Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Wasn't Yeah. This came through originally uh or about a year ago I should say um as a there was a request to change the conference of land use to mid-density residential and to have a uh reszone essentially to allow a group home. Um the uh ultimately the uh comprehensive plan amendment was denied at city council and so the zoning case was moot and so no vote was ever taken on the zoning case itself. applicants coming back in now asking for commercial office. Is it the same applicant? Yes, it is.

Some of the protest letters indicated that there have been some problems with that property that maybe they have been using it the way that they'd requested a year ago. Do we know anything about that? Uh it is currently being investigated. Okay. Any other questions? No. Right. Thank you.

Okay. Next item is zoning case 2025-41. This is at 6029 campus circle drive west. Uh from ML28 to uh general a site plan for light industrial 28 and commercial electric vehicle storage and repair. Staff recommendations for approval. We have not had any comment forms in support or opposition. Uh so this is about a 162,000 square foot building. They want occupy about some of the outside area as well as about uh 31,000 square ft of the building itself. Uh they want to uh basically do um service, maintenance and repair of new and pre-owned electric vehicle semi-ra and and electric semi-ractor units. Uh so that is something that is that repair of the heavy vehicles is something that we would consider to be a trucking terminal in our ordinance and that's not allowed in the MO2A. So, they're coming in rather than changing it to ML20, they're changing it to ML28 and just adding that one use because ML2A is a is a much um is basically a cleaner district than just general ML2A or excuse me, general ML20. Uh so, they're coming in with a generalized site plan and they're not asking for any variances. The only thing they're asking for is for the use of the um of the facility for the electric vehicle uh repair and uh service. The anything that was um everything all repair work is going to be done inside. And uh this the way the zoning site plan is written, it would not allow just a general trucking terminal or general

service and repair. So if they somebody if the applicant uh left and then somebody wanted to that had just gas or diesel engines wanted to move in and uh do service and repair they would not be able to because it's very specifically written for electric vehicle and to us that is a difference in terms of the cleanliness and the uh of the uh operation. So here you have the building itself. Uh this is the other end of the building over here. Again, this is just kind of the warehouse flex office kind of area uh near the airport here. Uh we'll note that uh uh fire department had number of comments uh they'reformational only. Um but they're uhformational. They'll be uh regarding the electric vehicle uh the the electric batteries and everything and how that will affect be affected by the fire code. But that'll be at the building permit stage. It's not affecting the zoning itself. So, um, staff's recommendation is for approval. Be happy to answer any questions. When I went by, it looked like there were vehicles stored there. Um, is how is this different from the vehicles that I mean they look like all from one company?

Yeah. Some sort of service rescue. Yeah, maybe. So I don't remember what the label was on them. Not sure. They're they're again they're only occupying a portion of the building. So part of it may be from uh people that are using it for Okay. the other. So some other tenants because they're the the vehicles they use for their business. Yeah. They're use it. It's it's 31,000 ft of 161,000t building. So could be from other people, not from the applicant. Okay.

Any other questions? Okay. No. Zoning case 2025 404 ZC located at 1445 North Beltline Road. They're going from SP1 for CC to CC. So just a straight zoning case. Staff recommendation is for approval and there have been no comments in support our opposition is the aerial view map future land use surrounding zoning map notification and this is just a cons conceptual plan. Uh it's not what's really being voted on. It's a straight zoning case. Uh this is just something the applicant has provided to show what could be there. the subject property itself, east of the subject property, so across from uh belt line, south of the subject property to the north and then to the west. And yeah, any comments or questions. Have any questions? They're wanting to get rid of the drive-in portion of this allowance and just have it as just a setting restaurant or what are they wanting?

Drive-thru. A drive through. No, they're getting rid of the drive like drive in like a where you just go and park like a Sonic. It was a former Sonic and through a traditional driveth through sitin kind of restaurant. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? No. All right. That looks like that's it on the individual cases.

Then we go on to the UDC amendments. All right. So, what he's passing out now is the draft ordinance hot off the presses. Um, just it's important that when we do amendments that we get these to y'all first. Um, we never want to or never will give you any type of amendment. Speaking more to the new guys, um, an amendment that you haven't seen and had plenty of time to ask about or um, at least digest a little bit. So, um, we've been working actually many years on this, but um, the last few months for sure with this proposal. So, we'll get through it and um we will answer any questions and um take it from there. So, what we're prop what we're proposing today is to discuss the amendments that need to be completed in order for the board of adjustment to hear uh cases uh for carports in the front setbacks by special exception. So, all building all carports require a building permit prior to construction. Uh as you all know that doesn't always happen but a building permit is required for any structure. Uh carports that do not encroach into the front side or rear setbacks and if they meet the requirements of the carport section includes size height over overhangs the eaves and surface material can be approved through a building permit and constructed. These are some of the ordinance amendments or ordinance requirements that were done. I believe it was in 2015 for the most part. Um, number one talks about carport design. We leave that in here. We cannot enforce it because the state has u taken away our ability to regulate any aesthetics.

I know that was one of the uh big factors that the city was relying on in the past is the quality of it, how it ties into the house, how it looks, the same materials. Uh unfortunately, that is something I believe was in 2019 that that was taken. So this is still in our ordinance but we do not enforce it because we are not allowed to enforce it. Um the carport cannot be nearer than 3 ft from the side or property line. The case that we just had the question about the 6 in the primary purpose for that is most eaves even home eaves are no more than three feet typically within for a house within a 5ft setback so you can handle your runoff from your house on your property. um that can also be handled through gutters as well which is typically the case. One of the newer amendments um or newer requirements was number three that cannot exceed 400 square ft and that's typically a 20 by 20 can't be used for the storage of anything other than vehicles uh RVs travel trailers and has to be open on three sides. Uh the area underneath the roof has to be paved the concrete or asphalt. Uh the driveway has to be paved with concrete or asphalt. The carport can't overhang uh or intrude into a public utility or drainage easement. The height uh shall not exceed 10 ft, but it can be taller than 10 ft as we come that step back from the side property line up to 18 feet uh with a as long as there's a side or rear set back of 11 feet. So, the 18 ft was also one of the newer amendments that was recently completed a couple years ago with the uh thought about RVs or travel trailers. People were needing to construct carports in order to protect their camping equipment. Um, and so we were getting some variances for that. So, the council asked us to at least consider how we could allow those to be by right. So, uh

you can do a taller carport, but you do have to have that setback further from the property line and therefore further from your neighbor. And then number eight, again, you have to have a gutter system or drainage that drains toward the street and not onto the adjacent property. So I want to go through those in detail because you've seen so many just to kind of touch base on how we come up with the variances that we do. So current regulations do require that if it does encroach into any front side or rear setback, that has to be processed through an SP2, a generalized site plan, which is typical on a residential property. Um the requirements do the the expectations of the SP2 uh does have all the building materials and illustrations again because we can't regulate aesthetics. We are not as stringent on making sure we get those. We'd like to provide those to you so that you at least know what it will look like but it's something again that we cannot enforce. And then uh C this is interesting that in this was obviously older but carports that were constructed after a certain date had to be demolished before they could get a zoning change and uh there's actually a fee um in order in addition to that. So this is trying to um I guess be a little more difficult for people who are asking for forgiveness over permission um but we don't find that's really an effective way and nor has it been enforced. So part of our proposed amendments are to remove that requirement. So the state does allow the board of adjustment to make special exceptions. There is a a clear um allowance or a clear entitlement in state law for cities to appoint and empower board of adjustment to grant special exceptions. Um, but the cities can the the city councils can make rules in the ordinance that the board of adjustment would be required to follow and that's what we're

doing today through this proposal. So, in order to use the special exception, the ordinance isn't really set up well for that um at this time. So, there are a few tweaks that we have to do inside it in addition to making those criteria. So, we have to amend section 1.15 um to allow the board of adjustment to review this the carports by special exception. We're creating procedures and requirements. Um it would also include the public hearing and notice. So, it'll be similar to going through the zoning process. Uh we will notify the property owners within 200 ft. Um there's not a supermajority requirement for uh any type of variance or special exception, but there will be a public notice. Um, and then we would also revise the section 318, which is a carport section under the accessory requirements that would allow the uh carports that encroach in the front yard to be considered by the board of adjustment as a special exception. And there's also criteria for the board of adjustment approval. Believe we're putting that under section 1.15 in your ordinance. Um, but those criteria are very specific. So those criteria and this is what council had worked through for a while that the board of adjustment may approve a car a carport that encroaches in a front setback if it finds that the carport is 10 ft or more from the front property line. The carport complies with all the other regulations that we just went through a second ago. that the primary dwelling was originally built with a onecar garage or no garage or there is there are other legally permitted uh or non-conforming carports on the block that encroach in the front setback. So the thought here was as the case that you just saw a minute ago a lot of the homes that are requesting their carports are doing so because the homes are smaller. So, if they had a onecar garage or no garage or typically post-war homes um that are probably have a smaller square footage and therefore they've

used that garage for additional living area. So, that pushes the cars outside. Um and those garages weren't very big anyway. So, they couldn't fit a truck in today's trucks or some of today's cars in the first place. Um, but that's why we put in here about the one car, no garage or so that that there was uh some um acceptance that those homes probably needed a little more property or a little more um square footage for living space. And then the other item about the whether there's any non-conforming carports on the block is just understanding kind of the map that y'all saw today as well. Is there already kind of a penetration into the front setback? Is it already is there is the viewshed already broken or are we starting to do it with this first carport? having the carport blocks I believe was in the 90s was some of that thought of let's let's focus where the carports are in these same areas instead of having them scattered around so that it's understood that um maybe the the front setback the viewshed of this block you know was already broken where the next block if it's not in a carport block it wouldn't be the carport blocks were rescended about two or three years later they didn't last very long but that to me that's probably what the intention was is to just focus um that penetration in a in a more limited area versus spreading those around. So some other considerations on whether there is access to the rear of the property through an improved alley. So, instead of having a front yard carport, if they're able to park in the rear, if they have an alley in the rear, or uh if they can number five, if they can get between the home and a side property line, if they can drive toward the back, then having a rear carport is a better alternative than having a front yard

carport. Um, so if they can get to the back, we would encourage them to use the back before having a carport in the front yard. Um, and that's uh number four, five, and six are very similar is whether you can get around the back or if you can have the carport on the side of your house. Again, we'd rather have it on the side than in the front yard. And then number seven is just if the size, height, and location would not have a detrimental impact on adjacent properties. It's a little more subjective, but that's where the public hearing comes in. So, it's really important that this is a public hearing process. Your neighbors are the ones that would be living with the carport if it's installed. So, it's important that those neighbors have input and have the ability to communicate with the board of adjustment as to whether this is something they want to live with or not. Um, we'll also finally need to amend just the board of adjustment duties section to clarify um the the appeals and the variances and special exceptions that they can handle. Those are already in there. It just needs some cleaning up. Um, we're also proposing just a couple other cleanups that allow some of the larger lots greater than half acre could have up to two carports as long as only one is um this is assuming the the house is further back. Um that only one house is toward the front of the house and the other carport could be in the rear. Um and then also what we talked about a minute ago about the demolition and fee uh just removing those because that again was intended to be more punitive for people who built um before getting a permit. Um so we are here today on December 1st presenting and then we the schedule would bring it back to you for public hearing and recommendation on January 5th and then to city council for action on consider consideration and action on the 14th. So, I'll be happy to answer any

questions. Any questions?

I had a question. I I noticed in the new um amendment, uh it looks like there's still a a design component that's in the new amendment. So, is that does the board of adjustments have the ability to decide that or is there another reason it's retained? So, we just when the state statute came through in 2019 that said we couldn't regulate aesthetics, we didn't go through and scrub those with the hopes that one day we will get the ability to regulate aesthetics one day, but we don't enforce them. We know we cannot enforce it. So, we we didn't take it out intentionally, but we do not enforce it as well.

We can't enforce aesthetics, but we can regulate, correct me if I'm wrong, Haley. Uh we can uh look at fire concerns and stuff like that. Absolutely. As far as the neighbors, so public safety, we can still absolutely building code, everything still applies. It's just anything that is just for the appearance and you know quality, but anything that is not structurally and health and safety related is what we can't regulate. Christine, how does this affect the 10-foot fire requirement on putting structures closer than 10t of a property?

Are you talking residential or commercial? Residential. Um, the closer you get to the property line, then the code has a way depending on how it's constructed. If it's wood, then it's got to be protected. So, it would have a 1 hour uh wall, a fire barrier. So that's the way the code allows you to build on the property line. You just have to rate it. Okay. So we can't necessarily regulate the how it's built, but we can make sure it's safe for the public in case there's a problem or an issue.

Right. And I'm seeing them require maybe a metal carport instead of a wood if it's too close. So there's things that they can do to make sure that that it meets fire code and meets building code. Okay. for the safety component. I mentioned in the planning and development committee meeting that we had a case last April on steeplechase in Fox Glenn. It was case uh 202535 DVP where the homeowner's family was um uh disabled and both the wife and their son. So they wanted a a carport installed. I don't recall what Fox Glenn Hoa did about it. I don't I don't know what they did, but we did approve it. And I think that we need something in this um ordinance revision to accommodate people who may have some disability or special needs.

Yeah, we we looked at that after PND. And so if that is part of what you want to move forward to council, then y'all could include that as part of your recommendation, then Carolyn and I would work together to uh you know see what that language might be and then add that to the city council proposal and see what they want to do. Yeah, we do we and that's that was only one example. There were there's been a few others where people indicate their family members need some extra protection from the elements. Um I think the case you were talking about is more of a port. It was more of a

port type but we've had other disability. I I think there needs to be some consideration and how you and how you prove that that family actually does have a a true need.

And normally when we do anything through zoning or through a building permit, we're we're looking at what it is. We're looking at what we can touch and what we can permit what is there permanently. So it's it's harder to build something based on who um because once that who changes then what do you do with the with the what you know because then what what do you do with the structure? Um but that's something that that but but it's very real as to they have a a hardship a reason why they need to have those. So that's something we can work through and we can discuss that with council and how they want to approach it. I mean, Caroline would know better um than any of us if there's any legal ramifications if we don't allow that and and um Board of Adjustments just automatically denies it when there actually might be a disability need

and those are always very fact-specific questions and I'm sure if the issue arose um the board of adjustments attorney would advise them on any risks associated with that um as we have all had conversations before as well. But again, it's so fact specific that um you know that that federal law applies one way or another whether there's something articulated in the ordinance or not. So I take it we don't need to specify it in the ordinance.

You're still certainly if that's something important as far as a um criteria to be evaluated um that certainly can still be feedback that Joselyn provides to council as proposed. it's a it's an and so everything on the list um has to be the case but like she was saying if if that's something that's important to you collectively if there's a consensus for that we can work on where that might make sense um but whether it's there or not um certainly that is um I think Joselyn had kind of brainstormed somewhere that that might make sense but if that's important we are happy to keep working on it

uh on on that topic would this be the only way to get approval for a carport. Could they still come even if they couldn't meet all of these requirements? Could a property owner still try and get permission by coming to PNZ and council whether for a disability reason or some other reason? So part of the ordinance proposal because an SP is for a use. It's not for a variance in in the UDC as it stands today. The proposal would be that for a front setback it would be by special exception. Anything else would be by variance which is a hardship measure measure both of which would go to board of adjustment and the the SP would not be an option.

Okay. So this would be the exclusive remedy for somebody wanting a carport. That's that's the way it's we've drafted it today. I agree with Debbie. There should be some form of process when we run AC when they run across the board of adjustments as far as uh special concerns or special needs that need to be met either for veterans or either for you know disabled people etc. that way but there should be some kind of process where it could be uh reviewed and looked at. That's one of the criteria.

Yeah. And the other thing is is if they fail the board of adjustments, do they still have the right to appeal back to council? No. No, not as drafted. Okay. So, there's no appeal process to this once it's done. Their appeal process would be to district court.

District Court. Yeah. But then they would have to show that they met all of these requirements, which if we're talking about somebody who's trying to do it for say a disability reason, it may be that they can't meet all of these requirements, but they're requesting it anyway. Well, well, I I originally hit my button because I was going to raise similar concerns that uh Mr. Skinner raised in terms of um whether there was discretion and and what the appeal process might be. I one of the advantages of having this go through P&Z and city council is that there is an opportunity for uh a certain amount of discretion for special cases. And I think the idea here is that we're we're having specific guidelines that a board can make decisions on which I I can see the wisdom of that too. I but I am persuaded that I think there needs to be some category of um discretion espec regarding especially related to special needs. Um, so I I would be open to fi finding um if we're going to go down this direction of having the board of adjustments be the correct entity to make decisions. I would think there would need to be some discretion there.

Just understand. So this isn't the case they want to build one. What about if they have already built one and they want to ask for forgiveness? Who do they go through? Same process. Same. Yeah. just just like today. It's it's they actually if they've built it and they get approval and they get double feed at the time of building permit. So they have to pay twice the fee for the fact that they've already built it. But that is just cuz it's built doesn't mean that it's automatically it automatically remains. Y'all see cases all the time where things are built and they come back and and maybe they knew they were supposed to get a permit, maybe they didn't. You know, we we get both and both are very real. Um, but either way, it still has to meet the regulations.

Carolyn, do I remember from my very first meeting, you told me that there was a a risk and having these cases come through planning and zoning and that there was really truly the appropriate path was to board of adjustments for legal reasons. So I'm happy to expand on that in legal advice in an executive session, but I will say that um you know through the years we have had many discussions to that effect and that state law provides that this process that's being proposed um is the appropriate process. Irving has um in our ordinances this alternative process. Um but you know at the direction of councel and you know reviewing with staff in our office um this is the proposal coming forward. Now

if the board of adjustment approves a property for a special exception but it doesn't even though it doesn't meet the requirements who can challenge that? Any person agreved um including the city council. Okay. So the city can correct and in terms of person agreved that would be like nearby property owners. Correct.

Okay. Any other questions? So for the next step would be bringing this back to y'all in January. So, I guess we would look for consensus direction tonight if you wanted us to draft some language and then regarding disability consideration to put in the ordinance and then that would be part of your recommendation to the city council for their consideration in January. Yeah, I think at least seeing some language along those lines how that might work. Do we have a full consensus?

At least five. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Got four. I think I think there's at least a majority. Agrees. That's all. We got five. All right. We'll get that and and we'll bring it to you in January then.

All right. So, the last item I'm going to turn over to Ken. Good evening once again. Uh so uh UDC amendments for cemetery regulations. Now some of you all that were here about a year ago may remember some discussion on this uh was kind of put on hold at the city council level uh because there was some thought that some legislation was going to go through this time at the state level. Uh it was proposed but ultimately didn't make it out of committee. So uh here we are again. Uh so uh there are a few cemeteries in Irving. The biggest one of course being Oak Grove, but there's a few others. They're uh kind of legacy cemeteries throughout here. Um but generally speaking, cemeteries weren't allowed in urban areas until the law changed in 2023. uh and the Texas Health and Safety Code uh changed to allow uh them to be located in a county with a population of more than 750,000 and said that would allow for an application but it's not an entitlement. Cities may approve or disapprove in the interest of the public health safety and welfare. So said they could apply for it. Didn't say that they had to be granted. uh did also say that uh the a new cemetery must be a perpetual care cemetery. However, there are two gigantic exceptions to this. The first is that uh if the new cemetery is under 10 acres, it does not have to be perpetual care. The second being if it's owned by quote a church, a religious society or denomination, which is a very broad category, um then in those cases it does not have to be a perpetual care.

So we're land use planners. We don't deal with cemeteries very often. So we we went to the Texas Cemetery and Crematory Association that were the the professional experts on this in the state of Texas for a lot of the background information here in next three slides. Uh there are um a few types of burials, single interament, double interment, one over the other uh and then a couple of uh cremation and green burial. The average size of cemetery space is 40 in by 89 in. uh density uh is actually about give or take a thousand burials per acre. Now this can be less if there depending on the internal roads great drainage if there's u irrigation maintenance areas and it can reduce that size and can also be increased if there's use of double internment. It just depends. Um, there are some financial considerations if you're starting wanting to start a new cemetery. Uh, there are high upfront costs. You have to do the roads, the the roads, the grading, the drainage, the irrigation. All of that has to be in place before you um put the first person in the first plot. Um, the you must be able to fund an ongoing maintenance. Uh, not that's basically irrigation, landscaping, etc. uh that can be a significant cost. And the TCCA says starting size of less than 10 acres would likely only be large enough for one generation and therefore would not be able to generate a new funding source. So their recommendation is actually for a sustainable long-term cemetery uh that be actually 25 acres as a minimum size. Other considerations, a perpetual care

cemetery, uh you have the cost is they usually build in a about 10 to 20% uh for the uh continuing um care. Uh and then it's also it's regulated oddly by the Texas Department of Banking. So if there's a default uh if the if some the for some reason the people rang the cemetery in perpetual care and they go uh out of business go bankrupt somehow um the state actually takes over the cemetery um and they will continue to run that cemetery until such time if or when they find somebody to take over it over from them. If it's owned by a church or religious society, uh it cannot or it's under 10 acres, I should add, it cannot by law be regulated as a perpetual care. You can't even ask for it if you wanted to. Uh some cemeteries have endowment funds, but these are not the same thing as perpetual care because they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the Texas Department of Banking. And if it's in default, generally speaking, cities or other nonprofit groups generally are the ones that are left taking care of the cemeteries. So what we have here, again, the you're required to have a process and our process is the SP2 zoning process and the uh what we have here is a set of standards for um consideration of whether a cemetery should be approved or not. So plat uh and these are all in the ordinance, but so I'll just run through these quickly. Um first requirement is that must be platted with access onto a public street. Uh minimum lot width is 80 ft. This is basically the same uh minimum width as you would have for a commercial typical commercial lot um of that kind of size. minimum setbacks and

these are for all internments, mausoleiums, calarium, principal and accessory buildings be 50 feet for many public rideway and that allows for room if in the future a road next to it wants to widen. They don't have to worry about the cemetery being in the way and not being able to do the widening or being able to do the extra utilities and so forth. uh 20 ft from a property line uh not located in any public or private easement for the reasons I just suggested and then to have 10 ft between the internal driveway or parking space and any interments mausoleiums or colariums. Typically there's not parking lots per se in the cemetery. Uh typically if people go uh they are parking along the side of the little 10t 12t 24 ft road uh you don't want to be parking on top of somebody else's tomb. So that's the reason for the the spacing requirement there. Uh maximum height again we're treating this kind of like as if it were our residential zoning if it's adjacent to it. 25 ft plus one additional height for each 1 ft additional setback to a maximum of 35 ft. And if it's any other zoning adjacent to any other commercial district, it could be uh 35 ft in height. Minimum lot size, we do uh agree with the TCCA uh should be a minimum size of 25 acres. fencing and screenings. Uh basically no fencing or screening between a public or private utility easement and the public rideway. Again, you don't want to have to have uh public utility trucks driving onto a cemetery and saying, "Yes, it's in our easement, but they're disturbing everything going on that somebody may be having a service or something in the cemetery." Permitted accessory buildings would be your

administration and maintenance buildings. a committal shelter, which is often uh used, a caretaker residence, which is sometimes used, uh, and a funeral home is allowed. I'll get to the parking requirement for that in a moment. Uh, lighting generally not an issue with cemeteries, but should be faced down. Funeral homes, we actually already have a parking requirement in our ordinance. It's one space per 50 square ft. We would just continue that. So, the funeral home portion of it would have a parking requirement. the rest of the cemetery would would not. Internal driveways should be designed to be either a one-way driveway with a passing lane being a minimum of 20 ft wide face to face of curb or 24 ft wide edge to edge with no curb or a two-way driveway being a minimum of 24 feet with or without curb. Basically, so that if you're parking along the side, somebody else can get by. Um and then all driveways will be paved with either asphalt or concrete. The terms of the application procedures any new cemetery again would be an SP2 generalized site plan process. Additionally, the site plan would have a uh a concept plan with it that would have the proposed locations of the internal driveways and that's so it could be evaluated for uh how the driveways and how the layout of the cemetery would be. Uh and then definitions uh cemetery uh just you see here uh pretty self semi uh explanatory colarium uh is basically a durable structure containing niches for the if you have a you know basically if you have crema ashes and mausoleum is uh used for the intumment of human remains. This can be for either, you know, one family or

sometimes you'll see these in cemeteries where there's literally they're, you know, two stories tall and they have literally hundreds of spaces in them and that's how people choose to be buried. So, the timeline, we're discussing it today. You have the draft ordinance. Uh, we'll take any comment. Um uh next steps will be plan zone commission uh potentially on January 5th and city council potentially on January 14th. So with that I will be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Any questions? It's not looking like it. Thank you. Okay. All right. Was there anything any future agenda items anybody wanted to bring up for meeting down the road? No. In that case, that was the last of our items. Our work session is adjourned at 7:02 p.m. We will meet in the other room shortly. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat.