Planning & Zoning Commission - workshop

Welcome to the City of Pearland City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission joint workshop for September 14, 2026. I'll call this meeting to order at 4 PM. I'm going to do a roll call like we do normally. So we'll start from position one. Roll call. Present. Present. House number two, Mayor Pro Tem Chavarria is not here. Mayor's here.

Laney Cade, I'm here.

I'm present. I do believe we have a quorum, so if planning is zoning, if you could also certify that there's a quorum.

Sure, we do have a quorum. It looks like right now Mr. Haskins is out, but he is expected to be here.

Thank you for that.

He's walking in right now.

All right. count them all right so now that uh roll call is uh is is done moving on to um i don't think there's any citizen comments but uh next item on the agenda is a discussion regarding the udc update and before we turn it over to staff i will just really set precedent here there's a lot of information And I know it's going to be a robust discussion, so what I'll ask is that as we cover each topic, that we limit our conversations to 20 minutes at best, including P&Z and Council, and then we'll move to the next item where we'll keep our conversation total to 20 minutes, and then the final 20 minutes as well for questions. If we do need added time, we'll make accommodations. But just for the sake of a robust conversation, make sure staff has what they need, present the information necessary. I'll just ask that we do that. And if there's any objections, please let me know because we'll extend the time. But setting that as a precedent, Matthew, I'll turn it over to you or Vance.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. So before I turn it over to Katja, I just want to take a moment and emphasize that this is a working draft still. Staff still has a bunch of comments. And with this, again, just to refresh, PNZ and City Council, y'all are the steering committee for this. And so this is a real workshop where y'all are going to actually be part of some of the sausage making of the Unified Development Code. And with that, I share it just because the draft isn't perfect and the intent is for us to go through it together and for us to see things we don't like and polish things we want to make different. And again, more wanted to refresh on it because it is a large project. undertaking to update this portion of the code and it impacts almost every it impacts everyone who is here and isn't here and so again just refresh this is a brainstorming session it's truly a working workshop where we're in this together to look for things and continue to polish together and similar to before once we get those polishes made we'll go back to design workshop with our comments and the comments from tonight's input design workshop will fold those into the draft and then we'll come back to refresh on where things land with that gotcha go ahead

Okay, good afternoon everyone. All right, so kicking things off, we have decided to move forward with the more focused workshop format as we have over the last few workshops. So we're going to be going over just a selected few topics rather than multiple, multiple topics. And so I do want to share that we started this process in November of 2024, and we've had state legislative changes as well as membership changes. And we are continuing to identify inconsistencies and opportunities for overall improvement of the Unified Development Code. And so tonight's workshop is an opportunity to confirm policy direction for the zoning framework before further refinement of the Unified Development Code continues. And as Mr. Wiley said, this is a working document right now. I do want to recognize that we have shifted some of the slides a little bit since the posting of the agenda.

So I just wanted to share that.

All right. So we currently have 28 zoning districts, which some of them have little variation in a range of permitted uses or conditional use permits and a little variation in development standards. And so we have a goal of creating a simplified, consistent user friendly list of zoning districts by reducing redundancy, resolving inconsistencies and consolidating districts with similar purposes and standards. And so, as stated, we have discussed some of these items before from our kickoff in 2024. We discussed zoning districts, land use and housing. And some of those comments are that we wanted to consolidate zoning districts that have similar land use matrix, either by right or conditional use permit requirements, reviewing the Cullen mixed use zoning district and the Garden O'Day mixed use zoning district to determine if there is another more appropriate zoning district. wanting to target the quality of development rather than affordability of product in denser districts that allow for multifamily townhomes or cottage courts, and requiring a conditional use permit or a plan development even in multifamily districts, and requiring ownership in townhouse developments. There were mixed thoughts on a reduction of lot size and setback requirements and specifying a maximum density for all housing types. And of course, questions came about regarding the State Bill 840 and State Bill 15. And there was overall support for a PD light and a PD heavy and sending public notices for joint workshops at the developer's cost. And so I want to share some of the things that we have incorporated thus far. Accessory dwelling units are continuing to be a conditional use permit. We have added conditional use permits for multifamily with supplemental standards in our MF districts. Office warehouse is now allowed by right in lower intense commercial zoning districts. Driving schools are allowed by right in our commercial zoning districts. Again, we are currently drafting a PD light and PD heavy process, and we are continuing to work on the hotel standards, but the direction has been made clear. And so some thoughts and some questions to consider before we go ahead and dive deep is, is the proposed district structure generally headed in the right direction? Are we comfortable with combining the office professional, general business, and general commercial district? Do they cover too much of a wide range of uses? Are the proposed lot sizes and housing types appropriate? Are we comfortable with the possible changes to where uses are allowed by right or require a conditional use permit and how those uses are grouped? And finally, are there uses or districts where additional conditional use permit review or development standards may be appropriate? So when the consultants and staff were looking at zoning district consolidation, we asked three questions. One, does the district create a distinct development pattern from the others? Does the district allow for building forms that are different from others? Does the district support the comprehensive future land use plan? And if the answer to one of those questions was no, it's likely that the district could be considered to be consolidated. And so with that, some of the outcomes are that we now have residential districts that are organized by density, low, medium, and high. We have commercial districts that distinguish a neighborhood scale, corridor scale, versus a regional scale. And we decrease the zoning district count by 10. On the screen is the proposed residential district consolidation. The intent is not to simply have fewer districts. The intent is to dissolve districts that substantially overlap, make differences between districts more meaningful, and to make the zoning framework easier to understand and to administer. Diving deeper into the new R1 and the new R2 category, the new R1 single family residential is a consolidation of the similar low density large scale suburban districts. And on the screen you can see the current similarities when you see the existing zoning districts on the top and the new zoning district on the bottom. The new R1 matches the existing R1 except for the front yard setback and the side yard setback. This does not prohibit someone from wanting one large acre property in Pearland. This simply establishes the new minimums. And the place type from the comp plan for the new R1 aligns with established residential estate and traditional residential. Shifting to the new R2, this is a combination of our current R2 and R3 zoning district, supporting detached single family homes on smaller lots, as well as infill and redevelopment opportunities. There are more changes as this is a blending of our R2 and R3 district. However, what is remaining the same is lot depth, lot coverage, front yard setbacks, and the max height. The place type from the comp plan in the new R2 aligns with compact residential. Next, let's look at the new R3, which is the current R4. This expands the middle market housing, allowing for detached single-family homes, patio homes, and detached townhomes on individual lots by right. The place type from the comp plan for the new R3 aligns with compact residential. Next is the multifamily one. This zoning provides options for different scale of multifamily as MF is proposed to be a broader housing type rather than being synonymous with apartments. Supporting courtyard housing, patio homes, duplexes, triplexes, and even town homes. And small scale multifamily projects will be allowed by conditional use permit only. The place type from the comp plan for the new MF1 aligns with urban living. Next is our multifamily two district. This new district has a one acre minimum for lot size and allows for duplexes, triplexes, live work units and attached townhouses by right with larger scale multifamily complexes requiring a conditional use permit and having higher development standards. The place type from the comp plan for the new MF2 aligns with urban living. Finally, manufactured home district is remaining unchanged. And overall, the results of these new and improved residential zoning districts is intended to create a more predictable development outcome and reflect what we have heard during the comprehensive plan process. I know that was a lot. So I'm ready to take a break and hear some of the questions and discussion from the group.

Thank you for that. So at this particular time, I'll take it over to Planning and Zoning to provide some comments, insights.

Trey, do you have anything?

Can you go back to the slide where you had the lot size? So those, when we looked, did we make some of these, and you did show us quite a lot, these new zones smaller in lot size, potentially smaller in lot size? Okay. So I don't know if we have engineering here, but if they were to put a typical house, would that change any of the detention requirements? I mean, it's still going to be, what, the 50%? They can't go over 50% as far as, like, the house?

It's difficult for you to probably see, but the third or fourth line down, it shows lot coverage of 60%. Max. Yeah, that's consistent throughout.

So the 60%, that's what they're allowed before they have to do detention, as opposed to now we have a 50%?

I think they'll still have to do detention, but not individual parcels.

I think he's going to answer. Oh, there we go.

Roger's got it.

No, I think if you go over 50%, you have to do detention, right? Okay.

Sorry, can you repeat the question, please?

So they modified some of the lot sizes, but the 60% lot coverage, I think right now it's currently you cannot go over 50%, and then you have to do detention. So now is this bumping it up to 60%? We'll change that detention rate?

No, detention rate probably not change because it will be based on the, this is the subdivision, so it will be based on minimum .65 acre feet per acre. Sorry, not the rate.

What triggers for them to do on a single family residential, what triggers in the new detention if you do it?

If it is a part of original plat and there's a single one lot remaining, then that time we will honor up to 7,500 square foot without detention. And that is also if it is outside of 100-year floodplain. If it is in 100-year floodplain, then full mitigation is required.

So, for example, on R1, the 8,800 square foot, they can do, regardless, it's up to 60%. I guess that's planning. The UDC. That's the most that they can put on that lot, correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. No other questions?

I'll try to be brief here. The R1, R2 jump, I think we went to R2, which is smaller than the, is that smaller than the current R4, or is that the same size? I see R3 there, but I don't see R4. But I guess the question is, if we're trying to get to the affordability, What I'm hearing in the development world is that some of these affordable homes now, the 300,000, the 290,000 to 350,000, those are in a 40-foot linear foot lot. So if we're trying to get to affordability, if that is one of our goals, there a variance process we could put in or a cup for for the r4 i'm sorry for the new r2 to get us that 40 foot lot and i i think i'm about to get an answer so what i think i hear you saying is we almost didn't go far enough with the new r2 you'd like for it to be smaller Yes, ma'am, inclusive of the 40-footers or to get a variance process. Maybe that's not what we want to do, but the marketplace is there. Do we want to perhaps put a second look like a CUP on something like that, that they could perhaps, a variance process to where they could come in, a developer could come in and say, I'd like to do 40-foot lots and we find it acceptable or we don't find it acceptable.

Member Fuertes, I think great point, and I would be curious, so would the proposed R3 change, check the box that you're mentioning right now, because the R3 proposed would allow for 3,500 square foot and a 30-foot lot width.

Is that more for townhomes, or is that going to be patio homes? Will a single family would be allowed there? Yes. Let me scratch this one out then.

Thank you. I didn't see it on that next page.

And then the multifamily one and multifamily two, both are going to be under a CUP process?

So the multifamily one and two allow for options. They allow for more more multifamily style housing without being synonymous with the word apartments. So we have our duplexes and our triplexes. And so the multifamily within multifamily one and two continue to require a conditional use permit. However, there are going to be allowed uses by right that allow for that multifamily component such as a duplex or a triplex that do not require a conditional use permit.

So just so I'm understanding, someone could come in here and say, I want to put in a 300-unit typical multifamily apartment complex. They would need a CUP. But if they did the 20 acres worth in a duplex and triplex slash townhomes, that would be allowed by right if they had that zone. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes. Duplex is allowed by right in the MF1 category.

Just wanted that clarification. Thank you.

And something, you know, not to jump ahead, but also I think it is important context as we move through the conversation. So through the UDC process, whatever zoning districts get adopted, we'll go through and we'll do a rezone for the community once those are adopted, right? So and nowhere in town would allow rezone. MF1 or MF2 by right based off of current development trends. And so these are zoning districts to be prepared for certain requests and MF1 would allow that duplex or triplex request, but none of this would allow a by right 300 unit apartment complex, just to say that for the record.

Okay, the only thing that, I mean, I agree with some of the others here, but one thing I wanted to bring up is the ADU units. I still think that that's a waste of our city council's time. I think that if we put the regulations in there, And they have to submit what the deed restrictions are with their HOAs and stuff like, you know, the proper documents in order to go forward with it. I think it's better to handle it with the staff instead of handled with P&Z and handled with the council. But that's all I got to say. It's just my opinion on the things.

I will send it back to you, Mayor.

Thank you for that. We don't have to use up all the time you have left, but I'll leave it to council. Any questions at this particular point, Councilmember?

Thank you. You might have answered this and I missed it, but why isn't R4 included with R2? Is it the same? It looks like the same.

This is our first introduction to having subcategories within the new highest R district before we get into our multifamily districts. And so we want to continue to establish our R1, which is primarily detached single-family homes, as well as R2 is the same except on smaller lots. And so R3 introduces single-family homes, patio homes, and townhomes, that Texas townhome, so on individually plotted lots by right. And so it essentially is that highest density R district.

Not at all. OK, so R1 is, you said those are the minimums. There's no maximum. I mean, it goes all the way as high as it did in the past.

Yes, ma'am. So if someone came in and they had a one-acre tract that was zoned R1, they wouldn't have to zone change it or anything like that. It would still be buildable as is under R1. Okay.

I don't understand the R4 exactly, but thank you. That's my only question. Thank you.

Member Cosa?

Thank you, Mayor. Got a couple questions here. One on the ADU aspect, Commissioner Heisenberg kind of hit on it. As far as, I don't see anything in zoning. We have Baker's Landing over on 35 that, when it was built, had pretty much an ADU in the homes. Where would that fit in this area? Zones, new zoning, proposed zoning.

So just to make sure I understand, so if someone came in and wanted to do a community of homes that have an ADU included in them? Correct.

Because, I mean, Baker's Landing is that way. They don't have the oven, but when you walk through some of the homes, they are already existing. So there's a multi-generational... Um, if you want to call it that zoning that exists in Baker's Landing so that when people purchase property in there, they know that's what they're getting.

I think, I think good question. Um, and then, and my first blush at that would be probably be a PD. Um, to come in and intentionally say, I've got this acreage and I'm going to, on the front end, establish here's the primary home with ADUs across them or built in or accessory to, however you want to phrase it. I think that would be a PD.

Okay, I'm just, you know, I didn't see it in here, and it's something that I think, you know, if folks want that and they want to live in a neighborhood with that, they should be able to do that. It's just, you know, it's not spelled out here. And then when Commissioner Eisenberg was sitting there talking about ADUs, as far as with neighborhoods, if there is... If it's allowed through the deed restrictions, how would that, how do y'all envision that being handled?

I would say at this time we haven't received explicit direction on getting involved with any deed restrictions or anything like that. I know we've had some discussions on it and glad to get that buttoned up. However, at this time it would still be a CUP from staff's perspective.

Okay, so if it is handled that way, I mean we've had ones come before us whether they were accepted or denied, they've had both, with deed restrictions that said they're not allowed in the neighborhood, yet the city approved it, and some were built, some were not. So you're setting up a landowner for a lawsuit or a potential lawsuit by having that approved.

Sorry, I was just confirming. I know there's been discussion about working the deed restrictions into a checklist when they submit to city staff, if that's what you're alluding to. I think from a department level, we just want to get it right, but we would have no aversion to, I think, just working in a checklist or something to sign off on that you've visited with your HOA to confirm your neighborhood allows ADUs.

Okay, would there be a checklist as far as having them bring a letter in or having them show their deed restrictions either or?

Yes, sir, and I don't, and we could visit with Mark or consultant on it. I'm not sure that that would go into the UDC. It seems like more of an administrative checklist that would go into the application. But happy to get that built in wherever appropriate.

Yeah, I'm just curious to see how that's handled. And then you talk about once we finally say, okay, we're ready to roll with this, you're going to go back and rezone the different areas, obviously, because there's less R1 through MH. What happens if an existing landowner gets a zoning that they don't like? How will that be handled? And that would be residential, commercial, I mean any one of it.

There's a process outlined in Chapter 211 for the notice that's required if a city is considering zoning changes that could impact individual landowners in a negative way. And so part of that process is having public hearings and giving them the opportunity to respond and share their concerns and things like that. So I mean, theoretically, if someone is unhappy with the zoning they are assigned, I suppose there could be civil litigation that ensues. But there is a process that we would have to go through as a city before we make any actual changes that could negatively impact property owners where use is currently permitted and then might become either prohibited or only permitted by conditional use permit.

Okay. Because, you know, when you say in a negative way, I guess I'd have to use the definition of negative way because . . .

Well, that's the eye of the boulder.

One landowner could say, hey, I view this as a negative way.

Right.

Because they don't want it changed.

Right. And so that's the idea behind the public hearings is the property owners, their neighbors may all have very strong feelings, both directions, as we've seen in chambers many times before. And so it would be a question of having the public hearing and then the appropriate officials making the assessment on what changes will happen.

I was just curious to see how that handled. Thank you.

Mr. Reckles? Gotcha. On the ADUs, I will go on records to say that I oppose ADUs in R1 where there's deed restrictions that prohibit it. However, I'm wondering if we're not getting the cart ahead of the horse because what I'm hearing on the new session that there is some legislation that is attempting to go in that allows ADUs by right in any R1, which I have problems with that, because if you're in a single family neighborhood, you want to maintain it single. The minute you put the ADU in it, you're no longer a single family. Even if they are intrafamily, they're still two different families. A child and a spouse is different from a mother and a father. It's two different families by statute of tax. a statue of our Constitution. So I think on the ADUs, we have to have some flexibility there. But now let's look at the second question. Let's see, I guess it's slide 13 on the possible UDC language on the lower part. The R2, the one that's showing here. I think we just have a mathematical problem here. If we are locked with minimum 50 feet maximum and locked depth 90 feet, if you put a 50 by 90 foot lock there, you're at 4,500 square feet. So if we have a minimum width and length that's only 4,500 square feet rather than 5,000 square feet. And I'm curious, since we're blending R2 with R3, and R2 and R3 having 7,000, 6,000 concurrently there, for us to take it down another 1,000, we're really going into what could be an R4 ultra-small compact. So my thing is, if we're going to keep it 50-90, I think we should change that lot area to 4,500. So that's the only thing I have. But good job so far. I'm happy with what I see.

Thank you, Member Echols, for bringing up the state legislative session potential. We'll definitely look into that and see what we can potentially add into our UDC.

Just one last thing in the time we're kind of hitting on that. I just want to recognize Murr Patel as part of the forum as well. And then just real quick, because Vance, you said something. No zone changes would allow by right. That's what I thought you said. Yes, sir. I want to make sure.

Yes, sir.

District, okay. I just want to make sure we're clear.

And then real quick, Member Echols, so if you'll notice, none of the zoning categories, the lot width and dimension and depth ever add up to the actual size of the category. So like 80 by 90, 50 by 90, those never actually add up to the minimum square footage. And that's just to allow for the developer to have some play when it comes to their actual width and length. It just sets the minimums.

Thank you, Vance.

If you look, I'm sorry, just an R1. It says $8,800, and it's the minimum listed there. R2, it says $5,000, but that's not the minimum listed there on top. You see what I'm saying? It says $6,000. It just seems off.

The idea, I think, is to have alternative ways that people can build their lots. And they have to meet all of the minimums. So you could have 50 foot by 92 foot. But you have to meet the 50 feet and the 90 feet and the 5,000 square feet for it to be a proper R2 lot.

It's the lot area that mathematically is weird. Right.

And we may have misunderstood. Are you saying that R2 and R3, the smallest is 6,000, but the proposed R2 is 5? Right. Okay. No, and that's fine. If there's consensus to make the R2 6,000, we just need to hear that today. This was just the proposed language to say where things could land.

And then the proposed for R3 is, and the existing is 5,000, and the proposed, the largest is, what, 3,500? I don't know. It just...

No, good comment, and I think what I would say from staff and the consultant's perspective, and I hope this resonates as far as the truth, we're seeing development trend towards more density, and so the effort is for us to reduce CUPs, reduce planned developments, and have our community develop in a consistent, buy-right way, and this is just the first take at that. And so if we're uncomfortable with 3,500 and we want to make it 4,500 for here, or if with R2 we want to up that to be the 6,000, we just need head nods, and that's the direction we're looking for. Okay.

Member Patel, I see you.

Andre. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, Vance, I think 5,000 square foot, I mean, how big of a house would they be able to put on there? I'm just curious. 1,500 square foot?

Depends if it's one-story or two-story, but 50-foot lots, you can still get a 2,500-square-foot home very easily.

With no backyard, I'm assuming?

Well, they're going to go stacked vertical. Sure. Two stories. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I'm with Member Cade. I think 5,000 just seems a little too small of a lot. And I understand we're trying to squeeze more density in here, but I would be more in favor of the 6,000. Yeah. Okay.

Member Fernandez? Thank you, Mayor. Kicking back to the commissioners, what is y'all's initial thoughts when y'all see 5,000? I don't know if y'all addressed that. I mean, are y'all comfortable with that 5,000 for the R2?

It is a minimum, and somebody could build bigger. My concern is if we're going to revise existing zoning, take Ravenwood, for example, and if we change Ravenwood into an R1 at 8,800 square feet, those are three-quarter acre lots. Could somebody say, I'm going to subdivide my property and now put four houses on there?

And I don't know, is this for new houses?

is this for new or is this for new builds or is this for existing as well? Are we going back to change and retrofit? If it's new, that's great. In 5000, in Pearland, the issue we have really is the seven and a half foot setback on each side for each home. Most towns are at five feet. And so A 5,000-square-foot lot that's 50 foot wide, you're already five foot shorter. It's really a 45-foot lot to a builder. So they're going to put a 40-foot product because they don't have a 45-foot product. So we're going to see a lot more gaps between homes and non-utilization of the land the last little bit we have. That's my concern. I don't think I answered your question, though.

No, you did. I just wanted to get, I wanted to hear from y'all again on this, and kind of, y'all see this all the time, and I just wanted to get y'all's input. Thank you.

All right, Kathy, please, or Lance, please proceed to the next item.

I was just going to say, I'm sorry, but just on the math real quick, everyone. So we were intentional with the R1 being 8,800 because if you look at SR15, RE, or SR12, the only, like if it was in a zoned area that was SR15 and it became R1, they still couldn't make that two lots because it would have to be 17,600. And the square footage just doesn't allow that if you track that with your eyes. And so even if it was an existing RE track that became the proposed R1, they could still only get two lots where a previous would have been one. And it was trying to minimize that impact.

Okay. Let's move on to commercial. On the commercial mixed use and industrial side, we applied the same simplification approach as we did with the residential districts, clarifying the purpose and intent for each district so it is clear which type of development is expected. We also refined standards related to building, scale, intensity, and this ensures a consistent character along our corridors. Let's dive deep. Starting with the new Lower Kirby District, this is being dissolved from our current spectrum districts. The LK-1 district is a mixed-use entertainment district supporting retail, commercial, housing, and hospitality. The place type aligning with the new LK-1 is professional services and mixed-use center. And our lower Kirby 2 district is our light to medium industrial district, supporting warehouses, distribution centers, and manufacturing. And the place type aligning with our new LK2 is professional services and manufacturing and warehouse. Next is old town districts. Currently we have three districts in our old town and combining the old town general business and old town mixed use zoning district will allow for future development to better align with the old town revitalization plan and results in a more predictable development pattern. Old town residential is remaining unchanged except for the setbacks. And the new Old Town Mixed Use District is revising the lot depth, setbacks, and increasing building height. The place type for Old Town aligns with compact residential as well as mixed use center. Next is the NS District. The NS District is bringing in the Cullen-McDeuce District. As you can see here on the right side of the screen, or the left side, excuse me, of the screen, Cullen-McDeuce District currently has 23 parcels left within a 1.5 mile stretch between Broadway and McHard Road. Out of those 23 parcels, nine of them are currently undeveloped. And the zoning along this major thoroughfare is currently either a planned development, general commercial, or general business. The Cullen mixed-use district's purpose is intended to provide a district that allows for the continuation and limited growth of specific non-residential land uses. And along this stretch, there are three single-family homes along Cullen. And to continue to respect these residents, The Neighborhood Service District felt like the best district to reclassify the remaining 23 parcels as the NS District is intended to permit a limited area of service establishment and retail for the benefit of adjacent and nearby residential development without impacting the character. The place type with the NS District aligns with commercial center. Next we have the Garden O'Day Mixed Use District and this district is one district with two subcategories. We have our Garden O'Day Mixed Use Residential and Commercial. This area of Pearland continues to have a significant amount of acreage along with developed and undeveloped parcels. Staff and the consultants felt it was best if it remained unchanged except for a reduction in the front yard setback for the residential. The place type along the Garden and O'Day Road is a mix of our residential place types and our mixed-use center. Next is BP-288. It is remaining unchanged, and the place type that BP-288 aligns with is commercial center and business park. And finally, our current NS district is also remaining unchanged except for a reduction in the front yard setback requirement. The NS aligns with commercial center. And with this page, I'm actually gonna start from the right side of the page. So we're gonna start with our new district, our mixed use district. This district is intended to support infill and redevelopment efforts. There will be no zoning assigned with the mixed use district. Developers will come to council and ask for a zoning change to the mixed use district through the PD light or PD heavy process. Next, we have our light industrial and heavy industrial districts, and they're getting a name change. Because funny enough, there is no M in the zoning name of light industrial or heavy industrial. We thought it would be great to have the letter combo and the name of the district complement each other. And so we have the new light manufacturing district and heavy manufacturing district. The place types that align with these new districts are the manufacturing and warehouse. Finally, we have our new General Commercial District. We have proposed a combination of General Commercial, General Business, and Office Professional to remove similar overlapping development requirements and land uses. The development standards of the new GC are not changing, but the General Business and Office Professional District will be dissolved and reclassified. The place type that aligns with the new GC is commercial center. And now showing maps to reflect this change to assist with the why behind this action. Let's see if we can pull this off.

And so just a quick introduction on this. Shout out to GIS for getting this map created today. We're going to try and get them side by side. And the intent is just so you can see the areas we're talking about. If you want to go back a slide just to show the consolidation. And the intent is just to show the areas we're talking about consolidating. We're going to get this link shared with everyone and up on the UDC website. Again, I got it just about an hour before the workshop, but wanted to show it to y'all. And just because I think whenever you see us consolidating districts, sometimes it's hard to visualize exactly the areas we're talking about or how big the impact could be. And so with this, just to show everyone, for example, so here, HARD TO SEE, BUT THIS IS THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF AREA THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED OFFICE PROFESSIONAL IN TOWN. AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO CONSOLIDATING IT, AND JUST TO HELP US WRAP OUR HEAD AROUND, YOU KNOW, AND AT THE BOTTOM, IT SUMMARIZES THE TOTAL ACREAGE. AGAIN, THANK YOU, GIS, VERY MUCH. JUST THE ACREAGES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO CONSOLIDATING OP, OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND GENERAL BUSINESS TOGETHER. GO AHEAD. GOT YOU. SO, OH, AND I'M SORRY. IF YOU WANTED TO STAY ON THE ONE CONSOLIDATION, I mean, with the land uses and everything together. The lot sizes. Yeah. And so those three categories, the GB, GC, OP, and so as we walk through that and what it means to consolidate them, the OP would all become part of this category. And now we turn on the GB. So this would become part of the category. And then the GC. GC. This would all become one zoning district. And I think overall, when you look at it, you can see how it is primarily located across certain corridors. And something else that I think is important for the conversation is say that we do identify some one-offs out here. Like, why is this GC? Why is that GB? Through this process, we don't have to just make those what they are today. If there's polishing that needs to occur across the zoning map, we can do that to get more appropriate zoning categories. at these parcels that are not necessarily on these big corridors, just in case we do have heartburn with a particular lot or like, man, that should not have been GC, we can do some cleanup through this as well. But again, just to kind of wrap our head around, what does it mean to consolidate office professional? Well, it's just these few tracks. And again, this is a tool, we're gonna get it shared with everyone so you can click through the zoning districts and start trying to see where things are and what consolidating really means. But again, just wanted to share that. Sorry, gotcha, go ahead.

Here's some pictures of those maps as well. Here's the current OP, GB, and GC, all three of them. And here's, again, what that new GC would look like across town. And I'm open for comments and discussion.

Okay, planning and zoning.

Just one, on the new mixed use, so the process there would, we change that zoning or we allocate new Are existing areas around town to represent mixed use, or they have to come in and get that, and then by right, through mixed use, there are certain things available by right, or are they choosing at that time what then to develop that as?

That's a great question. And I think with this new district bringing this group more information as we find out more through additional workshops, I think will be helpful for all of us to understand the mixed use zoning district. Our understanding thus far is that a developer will come in and request that zoning through the PD light or PD heavy process in order to establish a mixed use product type with commercial on the bottom and residential on the top. And the mixed use district will be used as their base district to create that plan development where they can craft their own stipulations and development regulations.

Okay, so not that long ago we had a developer come in and they wanted to build kind of a mixed office warehouse. And I think this is more geared towards like plumbers, electricians, people that service the community, but they need somewhere to keep their trucks and or their products and then they need office. But we had a really hard time with this particular track. It was behind the dollar, is it dollar store on Bailey. And it seemed like a very good ideal location because one, you're not going to see the doors, the garage doors, because it was behind a commercial development And the only way that it could work for them is that they rezone the land GC, which none of us were comfortable doing, because that opened up the doors for too much. So I think the mixed use would have been a great product for this. So is this something that the city is considering that, I mean, obviously people that service our community, they need a place to go to have their store in their products. And they're kind of not, I mean, they're not going to be right on 288 or 35. I don't think GC is the ideal location for them. Is this what we're thinking we can use MU for?

My understanding of the new mixed use zoning district is that it is truly that mixed use of commercial and residential on the same parcel. And the use that you're describing, we actually do have a land use category called office warehouse that was going to fit that proposed development. But the zoning of the current GC is where The request ended up failing, but potentially with our land use matrix that we're going to talk about next is where we do have office warehouses a part of the discussion.

And what I would say on that particular request, this would not fix that. No. That area is zoned residential. The future land use plan has it zoned residential. And I have this up here just to show, and I do think we have consensus, and if we don't, I'm about to figure it out, that office warehouse should be allowed by right in general business. And so with that, if that is the truth, all this area would allow office warehouse by right. That particular parcel in question is not zone GB. The GB request was denied by council, and the future land use plan shows that as a residential area. So that particular request, no, this update wouldn't fix. However, to the overarching comment of office warehouse by right, this would do that. Go ahead, Katja.

Yeah, I think that the reason why we didn't think residential would go there is that because I'm not sure anybody wants to have a home, there needed to be some type of buffer on this track. So I think we should look at those tracks that someone's not going to put a home behind the dollar store or whatever that was there on Bailey. But that's what I was kind of hoping. Well, and I know we're going to get into it in the next conversation on the MU, is that would have been another alternative. That's it for me.

I really don't have a question, more of a comment. I just wonder with combining these three districts, if we are eliminating any thing that falls in the middle. We have it now, but does that eliminate any type of development that kind of falls in the middle?

So great question and just I had a similar concern and that's why we wanted to get this map created or this resource created. And what I would say is just whenever you look at the map for the lack of office professional zoning district we have, it's not being used anyways. And that's just what I see whenever I look at this map. I mean to have 149 acres across all of our community that's zoned office professional. I would say that lends to evidence that we're not using that district. That said, the uses within the district will move over and stay in what would be the new GC zoning category. So you would still have the right for all of those options. You would just be able to build them in more locations.

So I couldn't agree further with you, Mr. Wiley. Office professional died with COVID, essentially. There's excess land for office in every town, I think, and allowing another use is great, but My suggestion after our last meeting, I was actually going to try to get support from one of my P&Z members that we take a look at the future land use plan and go parcel by parcel instead of the 10,000-foot overview that we gave it during the comprehensive plan. My concern with making everything GC and all the uses allowable in that GC, if I'm understanding it correctly. Am I understanding that correctly?

Not exactly. So it would all become GC, but it would be a combination of by right and still CUP uses. And now office professional into the GC category, I think it's safe to assume a majority of those would be by right still, but it's not the other way. So all of GC would not be by right on what's currently GB. It would still be a combination of conditional use permits. And that's the second part of the presentation.

Well, then I'll save my comments, because my concern, just real quick, was that we have not zoned things GC and down-zoned to GB, and I can think of the things along McHard and right there at Cullen, just to the right, or to the east. We thought about things real carefully and said, you know, this fits more for a GB or an NS, not a GC, and if we combine them all together, those We'd have those same transition problems between a hard GC versus a next-door residential. So that was my concern. Thank you.

I just want to say thank you for getting that map together. It looks good, and it answered the questions that I have. And I don't mind the name changes, the LM and the HM. I like that. It goes in hand. It makes us understand it better. So thanks. Back to you, Mayor.

Thank you. Just tying into that, before I kick it back to you, take it over to some of the council members here. There was a consolidation amongst the three, GB, GC, OB, and to GC. And if you're looking at the new ones, LM, HM, would we benefit from even just doing away and just going with one? And the reason I ask is I don't know the... What risks that we would incur are what we would be subjecting ourselves to if we just consolidate? Because I'm looking at the differences between the two. And the only thing that changes is the height restriction. Based on the height restriction, if we just set a minimum between the two instead of having two categories and just have one, what would that do for us?

Yeah, glad to evaluate it. I think good comment on especially when it comes to the consolidation mindset. And the truth is the line that we all need to be comfortable drawing is just where there is a significant or an intensity difference that warrants a separate district. And just so light manufacturing, you know, is that threshold between light manufacturing, maybe more indoor or clean processes where you transition over into external or more dirty processes or noise? Is that significant enough to need... district separation, and more when it comes to allowing things by right or CUP. But I'm happy to look at it.

Sure, and then I don't know if this question is preemptive, but I think Commissioner Fuerte said this, but is there a way, at least highlight some areas where the district changes would trigger those CUPs, and we'd be able to see what those would be, so we have an idea of what that looks like. Is that next?

Yes, sir. Absolutely. And that's, jumping ahead a little bit, and sorry to steal some thunder from the presentation, Katja, but one of the feedback points we got from the stakeholder meeting is to put together just a resource that shows the CUPs and by-right changes in one place.

Yeah, so... read it, but I'll pause. I'll wait. But any other questions from council members? Member Koza, yes sir.

Thank you, Mayor. Kind of to talk a little bit about LM versus HM or M1 versus M2 to kind of give you a little history on it. We've got a chemical company here in town that fits in the hard M2 right now. And if you were to incorporate that, you would expand the ability for those type businesses. We also had one that kind of shocked me. chroming company that wanted to come in and the chemicals that they use internally, they had to have all type of equipment to cleanse the water that left their facility as well as we were going to have to have additional backups. to keep from chemicals ending up in our community so um you know it's it's one of those deals where if you have heavy industrial it's best to try and keep it in areas that you don't want to mix with other places to just but the question is is to accomplish that do we do it by a height restriction or is it a variance or some other thing within the district

So I would say it comes down to the conditional use permit. I would say, are they similar enough to where you can allow the heavy industrial items to be allowed where you're comfortable with light industrial by right without making them all CUPs? And so it's that mix between... no, all heavy have to have a CUP or are there heavy industrial uses to where we're okay with them being by right as long as they're in the right areas of town. And so I put the map up here side by side. So the light purple is M1 light industrial and then the darker purple is the M2 areas. And so when you see that, are those areas where we're comfortable with a heavy industrial user coming in by right. And like Member Koza mentioned, as far as the chemical usage or the type of, or the water that they put back in their system that we have to treat. I think both work. It just comes down to trying to not do a bunch of CUPs.

I mean, that's, you know, just to try and make it where we're okay. If you want to buy this piece of property, you might have a chance, but not open it up to everything you see right there. And you could build here, here, here with a CEP. So it just kind of makes it, hey, here's where we're okay, but you still might have hurdles to go through.

All right.

Any other questions? They're doing great with time.

Sorry, Mayor. Oh, man. Can you go to deck number 17? I'm just kind of curious about heights. On these, I guess you guys have put a four-story. Is there a reason you guys didn't put feet on there instead of saying four stories? Because it can vary a lot.

This is our current spectrum district, and we absolutely can agree that having the story count is a little bit different because you can have a 10-foot single story, 14-foot single story. Our goal would either be to have no max height for our lower Kirby districts or to establish a height limit if that makes everyone comfortable just having a number associated with it. But as far as the story goes in the current spectrum district, that's something that we do want to get away from.

Okay. And I guess no height also kind of... Because if it's close enough to a residential, you're going to have a bunch of angry residential coming in, right? And I understand this is for the lower Kirby only. And I don't know, I mean, again, I don't know how deep it goes or how close it is to Shadow Creek Ranch. But again, or apartment complexes are out there. So when you look at this in a layout, can you show me the map about where this district is?

And then also to make sure we're all on the same page, so the current language has the stories. Got it. Agree. The new language would not have any stories. It would have no Macs. Okay. Yeah, and then in the blues are the different spectrum districts, and they're only in this northwest corner of town. Just to show that.

Okay. And then you mentioned something about mixed use earlier, and you said your definition of mixed use was... Remind me, residential on the bottom.

Commercial on the bottom, residential on the top. Okay.

So, you know, that word is very loosely used when developers come in here. So, because let's talk about the development on Oak Road. That developer came in and said, it's a mixed use. And all he was proposing originally was 5,000 square foot. But all it was is two separate tracks. So, would that be considered mixed use? According to this news, so how are we going to make them understand, don't call your project mixed use? I mean, I guess they can call it that, but how do we make sure that, hey, that doesn't qualify as mixed use?

That's a great comment. I'd say the overall development plan would be a mixed-use development plan, but specifically having that mixed-use development of residential on the top and commercial on the bottom, I think we can absolutely have a definition that establishes what developer mixed-use when you have a 13 acre parcel and four acres is dedicated to commercial and the remainder is Dedicated to residential versus that actual stacked mixed-use residential product I think we can develop some definitions to make that clear for everyone Yeah, because look you can go to Ivy district and they technically built something which is a very small Right, and it's I don't think it's occupied yet and so

What is the definition? Are they allowed to build commercial on the bottom and shell it and then say, hey, this is mixed use? Because, again, are you going to require the entire first floor to be commercial? And so it kind of, I think definition needs to be provided, right, on that. When I hear mixed use, it's a very different understanding in my world what mixed use is. And real quick, I know PNZ said, hey, we voted down the Bailey project, and I'll tell you why. I voted it down is because the developer came and proposed something and once they got the change, it was my understanding they could not move forward with that development. So that came with some concern, and we gave them alternatives. So supposedly they're working with staff. So just that's the reason. Council didn't want to just give them a GB and then they can go do whatever, right? I mean, they tell us a lot of things. And I'll tell you there is a GB that's been given a while back ago that may become a car dealership at the corner of Beltway and 288 behind bombshells. The council approved it as GB several years ago because they said they were going to build a sports complex. And guess what? It's happening. It's going to be a car dealership. So that's why I am very careful about people coming here and saying, hey, give us a GB so we can build these fancy things. Art renderings are great, but reality is they can't always guarantee it.

Any other feedback from council?

That is a wonderful segue into our land use matrix. So we have talked about zoning districts, establishing where and how development occurs. We're about to go into establishing what uses may be built. And so because the land use matrix contains a significant number of individual uses, we wanted to walk through all seven pages as a group together so you can see the full matrix. And we'll move through it by category. with staff highlighting a few items along the way. And as we go, if you all see anything that you'd like to discuss, question, or have us treat differently, we can absolutely pause and go through it. And again, the materials that we're about to show you remain a working draft, and the staff continues to see refining possibilities and perfecting opportunities as well. So all comments are welcome. Okay, let's start with, can everyone see that? Perfect. So primary agricultural uses is our very first category. We have P's all across the districts as there are some state law requirements to have P's across ag uses. Next, we're looking at primary residential categories. But actually, let me go one slide. Let me show you what we're actually going to be looking at. So here is a sniff on the left side of what the land use matrix is going to look like. And on the right side is kind of that legend. So the green text shows new uses or consolidation of land uses. The red text with the strike through means that it's being removed. P permitted, C conditional use, T equals temporary, an asterisk equals there's a special requirement, blank equals prohibited or not permitted, A red C or P means that it has been changed from a P to a C or a C to a P. And then also with the residential component, I have a bold P and a bold C, which means it is new to the district, meaning we currently don't have this as a P or a C, but it is proposed to be. Okay, now let's talk primary residential uses. So looking at the left side of the screen, we have our categories and our land uses. And then on the top, we have our zoning districts. This is the proposed zoning districts. And so that Texas townhouse, that detached townhome is in green, meaning it is a brand new land use that we're adding to the land use matrix with being permitted in our R3 district, our MF1 district, requiring a conditional use permit in MF2, requiring a conditional use in LK1, and permitted by right in our Old Town Mixed Use District. Let's look at our lodging and group living. Something that we talked about in a UDC workshop is hotels, and we are still working on refining them. So I think when we come back for our next workshop, which is an update to the topics we've previously discussed, we can talk about hotels a little bit further because the direction was about providing more options related to boutique hotels extended stay, and having some design standards added in. So we'll talk about that at our next workshop, but I did want to share that currently we do have it as a single line. Next is our accessory and incidental uses. And here we have accessory dwelling with a C across the board. In some districts it's prohibited. Next we have our entertainment and recreational uses. And again, the red means that it was a C or a P and it's being changed. We're adding a food truck park and food truck plaza. We'll provide you all more details on what that means at a future workshop. And here's the very first land use where we have combined some of the land uses. So religious, educational, philanthropic land uses. Currently we have church, temple, place of worship, and covenant or a monastery as separate land uses. And so we've combined them in order to decrease the amount of pages dedicated to our land use matrix. And similar to the ag uses by state law, we need to have a conditional use permit allowed in all of our zoning districts.

Can I ask you?

Yes, sir.

What was the reason to remove tennis or swim club?

I'm just curious.

Because, you know, on McLean, there's a pickleball going in, and I think that's just going to become a new trend. So where would they fall into this then?

I think that's a wonderful point, and we probably need to add pickleball.

I mean, to me, there's no difference between tennis or pickleball, right? You can change the course either way. So I'm just curious what the reasoning was behind that.

And I don't think I have a good answer to share with you, that answer. But I definitely think adding a pickleball line item, as well as a definition, as there are differences between tennis and pickleball. And so I think having a clear definition for each would be important.

Member Patel, I would even go to say we've got Coastal Swim over on Dixie Farm. So whether you fold it into something, you know, same type of thought process.

Wonderful point, Member Goza.

Well, I have a question. What's the recreational center for then if you're going to spell out other things specifically?

Yeah, and that's what I was looking for, Commissioner Knight. I believe it's just getting consolidated. I think tennis and swim being on their own is just repetitive when it needs to fall into either the recreation center or indoor amusement or something along those lines. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Just fold it into something.

I didn't know where.

And then even within recreation center, we can have sub-definitions to describe the types of land uses that can be added into rec centers. Pickleball, tennis, swim.

And then just to refresh, we kind of broke the ice here. Before this portion of the presentation, please do interject as you see things. I mean, if you have a question, don't just let us scroll past it, please. We do have an opportunity for questions at the end. But again, as you see something, please feel free to say something.

The only thing I would recommend for the future when we print these out online or, you know, you can refer to it, that top line there in the, what is it, yeah, header line, if we could have that on every page. Oh, you're already shaking your head.

Absolutely. That is something we are going to incorporate. I apologize that that is not implemented right now. This is just a simple PDF. Here's our commercial office uses. And here is where we have the office warehouse. It is included in our office all other office category. And so we have a P noted in our NS district, as well as our GC, our BP 288, our LM. And then the only C is our LK2 district. Next, we have our commercial retail, where we have removed astrology, psychic arts, and a cigar shop, retail only. The cigar shop retail only can be included in our general retail category. And here's where we really see the consolidation occurring. You can see the food prep and sales off-premise, bakery, catering. These items and following, these are all separate land use items in our current land use matrix. And that's why our current land use matrix is so long, is because each of these are its own line item. And they generally are the same, conduct similar business practices, jewelry shop, pet shop,

Real quick, just to add it to the mix, so breaking items out that are grouped together is also part of the scrub. So if you see a use that you think needs to be its own or should be regulated in a different group, that's also part of what we'll be scrubbing for as well.

The only one I would say is liquor shops. I didn't see it when I was looking through it. I know you see microbrewery, but TABC, I mean, that's a different license, but still...

It's at the end because there's special uses that are attached to liquor stores.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

The massage establishment, should that be in with? That's permitted by right, but you need a CUP for a church? That seems weird to me. Can massage establishment be pulled out?

Absolutely. We can do that. Okay, next is commercial caretaking services. Moving on, we have our utility and related service uses. We have our telecommunications facilities and utilities. Now we're working our way into our industrial and related service uses. We have added data center with an asterisk with a conditional use permit for supplementary standards and requirements to be added at a later time that we'll go over with you all. And here where we get into our large grouping of categories, we have our light manufacturing, heavy manufacturing, industrial storage and retail with outdoor storage components. We have our automobile related services only in industrial areas. And we may need to look at the agricultural uses to be in line with state law. And next is our automobile related service uses. And this is where we see some of the biggest changes with the new GC zoning district. As a lot of the auto related uses in our current GB district require a conditional use permit and may or may not require a conditional use permit in our current GC. And so we want to respect The idea that if there is support to combining our GB GC and office professional use we may want to have some additional conditional use permits in our New GC district not only to respect the corridor and the development pattern But also just wanting to ensure that we're not allowing all of the auto uses by right to ensure that you know we can still have that control in the new GC as it is a combination of these three land uses, or these three zoning districts, excuse me. And we are adding electric vehicle charging station as it is not currently in our land use matrix. And I do want to recognize that we do have auto wash full service detail and self-service currently in our land use matrix, but they are separated into two categories. And so the proposed is to add them into one category. Next is transportation. Not a lot changing in this category. We have our temporary uses, like garage sales, outdoor amusement, with a whole bunch of T's. Then finally, we have our special uses. And from the third one from the bottom, Member Patel, you'll see that liquor store. And so a lot of these have requirements in addition to the conditional use permit. So for example, if there is a road restriction, you can only operate this land use on a specific roadway. There will be, you can't even ask for a conditional use permit unless you are on that specific roadway to be able to ask for the CUP. So that's an example of a special use that these land uses have. Can I ask a question?

Yes. Vape shops, did I miss that somewhere? Do we have a category for that and how is that controlled?

It's right in front of you at the second to bottom, the second to the last line. Thank you. And so just like I stated, we have a conditional use permit plus supplementary standards that a developer or business owner could not even ask for a vape shop unless they met the criteria within supplementary standards in our current code. Can I ask a question?

Yes ma'am. I was just trying to understand the thought process behind putting the data center in with the heavy manufacturing. My thought was just if we had that as a standalone, we could regulate like the power demand, the generator, the noise, the water usage, and those things. So in my mind, When I think of the category you put it in, I don't know. That's just, in my mind, it doesn't fit that category. We can regulate it more if we give it its own. It's just my thought.

Yeah, maybe we add it into the special uses category so they have supplementary standards in order to ask for a CUP. You have to ensure that you've met these three criteria before coming to P&Z, before coming to Council. Sounds good, thank you.

And Commissioner Orton, I believe since we've published that, we did pull it out to be its own use.

Okay, awesome, thanks.

Go up one slide. On the electric charging stations, I'm noticing more and more restaurants, more and more shopping centers, as well as more and more gas stations, convenience stores such as Bucky's are putting charging pods in their parking lot. So to just have the parking or the electric vehicle charging station on its own, Do we need to really consider putting this into other entities such as grocery stores, malls, gas stations, restaurants? Great point. That's the only thing that I see that we may need to.

I'm happy to be wrong. I'm wrong a lot. But my understanding is the electric vehicle charging station is the largest

the desired land use not three or five parking spaces dedicated to charging stations speaking of batteries and charging um i ran into a another city that had had a proposed battery plant um and it's their key in texas didn't know learned a lot but uh rather than having a solar plant, you know, a bunch of solar things. They were huge batteries. Tesla is one of the manufacturers of those kind of things. And then they have these containers. It can take, you know, two acres. It could take 10 acres, depending on what's needed in the area. But they actually do good for the electrical grid, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have something like that available. Or if it's just a line item under utilities, that's fine, too. But we should accommodate for that good infill.

I think, Mr. Frangez, I think Angleton has those. Tesla has them installed in their large batteries, exactly what you're talking about.

Vance, I'm curious. Do we have to have data centers on here? We don't have any spots in Pearland big enough really to accommodate a data center. I wouldn't mind not accommodating data centers at all.

So for now, we could regulate them however we want. This is one of those areas where the legislature may make changes next year, and we may have fewer regulatory options moving forward. For now, the city still has flexibility on whether we permit them, where we permit them, in what circumstances they would be permitted or not.

And then, like anything with technology, they tend to get smaller. And so we're not sure if, in fact, the current land estimates may stay valid in the next 15,

And to that end, Member Cade, apologies. What I would say, though, staff would support it being its own call-out. That way we just have a specific use for it. However, if there's consensus to not let it be allowed anywhere, we can remove the C. So right now, just to confirm, the data centers are only in the heavy manufacturing category, correct? Yes, by conditional use permit as well.

So we've already limited them to just that area along 35, which is pretty much developed out, correct?

Yes, sir. And even then, they would have to come in for their CEP.

So we've got some boundaries set in place, sounds like. And then the second thing I had is, why is the EV charging station under accessory buildings for residents? Because that's just by permit. If you put one of those in, you've got to pull it. Your electrician will come in and pull a permit for it. Why is that there?

I believe it's just to give staff a category that it would classify as if someone did come in to install their charging station. It's permitted by right in all regular residential districts.

Again, I mean, if that's the answer, then why have it?

Similar to, like, a swimming pool or something like that. I mean, we just have use categories to label what goes on in the community. More of a labeling item for staff is what I would say. But, I mean, just like a storage building, those things, those have use categories.

Okay. I think we might be done. I can move on?

Sure. Okay. Please.

Okay.

And Ms. Katcha, you heard me say this a thousand times, so pardon me one last time. The office warehouse use, will we be able to do that now in the GB category that's going to go away?

Yes, I have it highlighted on the screen, and you can see it is a P pretty much across the board, except for one of our zoning districts, which is our lower Kirby district number two. The other commercial districts, you can see Ps.

Member Fuertes, on that, what I would say, I'd advocate for office warehouse to get pulled out on its own, and then probably be a C in neighborhood service. Yes, and then it would be by right in the new district. GBGC category.

OK, I'm going to move on to state law impacts. I'm kind of going off of what Member Cade and Ms. Linegar were talking about, state law impacts. Let's talk Senate Bill 840. This is multifamily mixed use permitting multifamily and our mixed use housing by right in commercial, office, retail, or warehouse zones without requiring rezoning or a conditional use permit in cities with populations over 150,000. this has been a common comment that has been made at our discussions regarding the unified development code so we wanted to share that some of our districts are potentially affected by 840 and the districts are below plus any other districts that ultimately may or may not land within the land use matrix as 840 is triggered by the uses allowed in the district not just the name and so i do want to share that we have garden o day mixed use in purple as we are currently looking into the land use matrix as there is um an unusual industrial use provision in this district that currently exists. So we wanted to add it for transparency purposes. But right now, we're not sure if it is going to be affected by 840. And so what I wanted to ask the Council in the Planning and Zoning Commission is, should the UDC establish development and design standards for multifamily development, if allowed by state if required by state law in non residential zoning districts? And then

Yeah, and I was gonna jump into this. I think the answer to that question is yes. And what's here is just some potential criteria we can establish in order to be prepared if there was a change that made us susceptible to 840. And so, the criteria here, we would write in a way that it applies to any multifamily project that wouldn't go into a PD. So, if it went into a PD, it'd be what we're used to. However, if 840 did impact us and we had zoning districts that multifamily became allowed by right because of state mandate, These are some of the items we would write to ensure we get the best products we can. And so items like building on design and orientation, making them have enclosed corridors, working through pedestrian connectivity. We can establish minimum, similar to like what we talked about on hotel standards, we can do minimum types of amenities. So maybe we provide a list of 10 amenities and they have to choose seven of them or they have to have all of them. And that can range from dog parks and pools and exercise areas. enhanced parking and shade, enhanced landscaping, how they configure their outdoor space as far as maybe on this use particularly, we don't let folks count a three acre pond as outdoor space, detention areas and things like that. And again, just in that effort to ensure that if it is a buy right option in the future, we do still get as best product as we can. Residential compatibility, so where if we had a GB zoning district and a multifamily became allowed by right, You know, we want to be cognizant of the neighbors around it. So we're at a Butts residential having enhanced buffering and landscaping. And then the same thing for operations when it comes to dumpsters or other operational items they have on site, making sure those are screened appropriately. And so we're going to continue to iron out the exact language, but wanted to share some of the concepts that we are able to regulate and write in. So where if 840 did impact us, we have good standards to make it as compatible with our community as possible.

One second, one second, one second. So are we going to maintain the same standard as you're going to finish, and then we ask questions, or is this open? Because we're looking at time.

So there's only one more state law slide if we want to cover it, and then I think we can wrap up. Just hold on, yeah.

Similarly, Senate Bill 15, which is the small lot residential prohibiting cities from enforcing minimum lot sizes on unplatted residential tracts of land over five acres, allows residential lots as small as 3,000 square feet and restricts cities from imposing front, side, or rear yard setbacks and off-street parking rules in cities with populations over 150,000. So we have three of our new districts that are potentially affected. And so overall, staff and design workshop, our consultants, are still working on this possible criteria. Senate Bill 15 is a very prescriptive bill regarding what local municipalities can even do. But we wanted to present this to the group to see if there's anything that we could consider with this new unified development code. And then finally, we do have a stakeholder group. The stakeholder committee was formed by members of the community suggested by both city council and staff to provide feedback on this process. We met with them last Tuesday. And overall, they shared support for the zoning district and land use matrix proposal. They did support the 25-foot lot with minimum for detached townhome products in R3. and they would like to have a summarized land use matrix identifying the changes from what's going on today versus what's proposed. And again, I'll end with the questions that we started with and open up for discussion. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So I saw Member Patel, Member Cade, so I want to get to your questions first.

Thank you, Mayor. So, Vince, I just want to understand something. Can you go back to the 840 thing? What you're saying, go back down a slide, what you're saying that if we tighten up the language now and the 150 is hit, they would still have to follow these requirements.

Yes, sir, that would be the intent, working with Design Workshop and making sure we're within legal bounds, but just to have this criteria that would help us be as comfortable with it as possible.

So because multiple times I've heard that we will have no control and they can build the cheapest apartment they can.

So, so right now eight 40 is not written that way. And that's why we said that about Senate bill 15. So Senate bill 15, the small lots, it basically establishes small lot zoning category. There's not much we could write in, but for eight 40, they don't have that criteria yet. And so if we can, as long as we can require enclosed corridors, certain amenities, we want to write that so that if we do become susceptible to it, we get as best we can.

Okay. And I know we'll talk about it because later tonight I have a feeling it's going to be a long meeting. But, okay. And I do apologize, Mayor. I'm going to go off the subject from this real quick. A couple of things I want to kind of.

Before you do that. Okay. I'm going to go off topic. I prefer if we stay. Sure.

Yes, sir. That's fair. Thank you.

Oh, on this one, it says smaller parking field. What is that? How's that? Can you explain that to me right quick?

Yes, ma'am. And so the intent there is not to require an insufficient amount of parking. It's more not to just have a huge concrete parking lot, but have it broke up with landscaping and shade structures. And usually it just looks better.

And then it says residential compatibility orientation adjacent to single family.

No. And so we do have zoning districts where 840 would work. allow multifamily, if it applied to us, and it doesn't right now, but if it did, it would potentially be next to existing single family. And if that was to occur, we just need to be intentional on the front end to have as best criteria as we can when it comes to setbacks, landscape buffers, screening in place to do the best we could. Okay.

All right. Thank you. That's my only question.

Member Koza. Thank you, Mayor. I'd give my consensus on tightening that up to have the best multifamily development we could have.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to the entire community development team, thank you for bringing this to us today. Just want to be cognitive of what cities north of Dallas has done that Legislation is looking at closing some of those loopholes that north of Dallas cities have been able to do. And I would like us not to get into that same situation. category that we're being looked at underneath microscope on some of these things. However, I am for these. I give you my consensus. I like that. Now then, on Senate Bill 15, the question I have on Senate Bill 15 is that if our new R3 is minimum 5,000 and Senate Bill 15 is talking about 3,000, Where are we at with our town homes? And what is the minimum lot size now in the Ivy District? What were those small garden homes, town homes that are not having the same interior wall? What are those lot sizes in the Ivy District now that's just south of Ivy I?

I think Katya's looking at you, Vance.

Yes, sir. I was just trying to get to it. So when it comes to the proposed district, R3 would still be larger than the SB15 requirement by 500 square foot. That said, SB15 had criteria for where it was applicable. You may recall the gentleman from TML stated that it would need to be tracks over five acres, undeveloped, and even referenced infrastructure. And so, you know, they would have to be qualifying tracks for SB15 to apply to them. R3 currently would be larger than those, but SB15 is not about attached products. It's about detached products. And so a little bit of a difference between a townhome there. And then I'm trying to get to the Ivy District question. It may take me a moment if we want to continue.

That's okay. You can give me that answer later on. I just wanted to be cognizant because those lot sizes are similar to other detached townhomes, should we say garden homes, that I've seen and I've liked. And if we can keep that as the minimum, I would like to see that. I'm totally comfortable with what I've seen in the Ivy District in their compact family dwellings. Thank you.

Thank you. While you're looking for that, just maybe if it's not too heavy a lift, there were some visuals that were put up in the GIS as you were able to click and click through some things. How heavy a lift would it be to visualize where 840 and 15 would trigger in what district so we can kind of see where that is?

Yeah.

That might help with visibility.

Is it possible to create a separate call out that says SB 840 and 15, you click it and then all of them light up?

Yes, sir, and I believe we have that resource drafted from a year or so ago. We created... some estimates on what we thought the impact potentially could be acreage-wise. And I'm just giving this a once-over. And so currently, and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone from staff, but I believe it would go into planned developments. It would be a large impact. And so the this kind of greenish color are the planned developments across the community. And so it would come down to the exact uses listed in the PD, but say Shadow Creek, for example, would be susceptible to 840 is my understanding. And so, but this is a, Rough, I wouldn't want to quote it exactly, but live in the moment, this is a rough area where 840 could impact, assuming the lots were undeveloped and met the criteria.

Yeah, I appreciate the call out, but I was just asking, generally speaking, how impactful it would be across the city so we can get an idea of who and where we'd be getting calls from.

Yeah, and I would just say, fortunately, we are towards the latter end of our development life cycle, so that would limit some of the impact. However, as written, you know, going into areas where commercial, retail, office is allowed by right, it's a substantial amount of most communities.

And then I know I want to come to you. Are there any other questions pertaining to? So then I can, Member Patel.

Thank you, Mayor. Vince, this is a great map. If you could, I'm assuming all these are five-acre track?

Oh, no, sir.

This is... So I guess the question then would be, how many of this track here are over five acres and undeveloped?

If you could just kind of... And I can't do that here, but we can get that pulled.

So that's just for curiosity. Larger than five acres and undeveloped. Mayor, before we close out, first of all, let me apologize for being late. Personal reasons, but anyway. One of the things I would ask, and Vince, I don't know if this is the place, but I'll give you my feedback. I always look at Henry because I feel like Henry's been here the longest. Several years ago, the council talked about traffic impact fees, and I don't know if that's something there's an appetite for. I know it was a hot topic issue because we were very undeveloped. But I think with this amount of apartments or small lots that we're looking at, I think it may be worth revisiting whether traffic impact fees are feasible to kind of consider for some of these developments, especially when you're talking about dense development. The other thing I would also say, I think there's been a confusion regarding workshops. And it was my understanding that the developers had to pay for workshops. But then I was told they don't have to pay for workshops and they can request it. So I think the amount of time you guys probably spend, and what's been frustrating to me, we have denied two projects and they keep coming back. within such a short span. I would like to see if there is an appetite to say if a project has been denied and there is no significant change to that project, they are not allowed to come back for 12 months. And there should be a fee because there is staff time that there is a cost. We are always arguing about I shouldn't argue, are talking about, discussing, thank you, Member Fernandez. We're always talking about net neutral. We tell all our departments that, hey, we want to have a net neutral. And I think if we're not charging developers for your fee and they keep coming back for the same project and you guys are doing a workload and putting other projects in the rear, I don't think that's fair. So I think it's very important that we revisit and consider charging a fee that's reasonable for your time and effort. And I think that should, of course, help developers reconsider that. And so those are the two things that's real important, or three things, that I think I want to visit. And if there's appetite among council, I think we should consider that. Thank you, Mayor, for letting me speak.

Absolutely. Any other comments or questions? None?

We have some over here. I'm sorry, yes. That's okay. Please. Go ahead.

Can you go back to the SB 840 multifamily impacts? So if the rules were to kick in, it wasn't this slide, it was the other one. The UDC rewrites, oh yeah, building and design, building design and orientation. How does the state law, when you're asking for UDC facade and I'm not sure what identifiable entrances are, but how is that with the state law currently? If this were to go into place, like, are we allowed to enact?

For now, yes.

For now. And is that on anything? Because I thought that there were restrictions on facade requirements.

So the, there are limitations on facade in state law for single family. Right now, we still have, the city still has the ability to regulate those on multifamily and make no promises after the 90th legislature meet.

So even if the SB 840 kicked in tomorrow, we could still, as long as they haven't changed the law, we could still regulate the facade requirements?

These would still be permissible regulations.

Thank you for that clarity. And then what is identifiable entrances? I've just never seen that.

I'm sorry, say one more time.

Identifiable entrances.

I'm going to defer to the planners on what that means.

My interpretation of identifiable entrance is that you can see it clearly and it is welcoming and you don't have to search the parking lot to find where to enter the building.

Okay, thank you. I'm good.

And I just had one comment, the same slide. The residential, well, I would call it adjacencies. If there's residences adjacent, we've always been cognizant of an adjacent homeowner being overshadowed. The example we always give is that hotel that was outside of the city limits. I think it still is over there near the Sunrise area. on the north side of 518, and that hotel feels like it's somebody's backyard. And we wanted to avoid that. So with a multifamily, what I would recommend, what we came up with back in 2007, I think, 2006 or 2007, was we stuck it in the retail node, which no longer exists, but it was a chart that said the first, count the fences six feet or eight feet, From that fence, you can go every three feet horizontally, you can go up one foot, three feet, one foot. So it was a triangulation, and that building couldn't go above that. So we didn't care if it was a 25-foot setback, or they did put it on the 25-foot setback, or if they did it on the 100-foot setback. They couldn't violate that triangle line of sight. And I think these guys even used it. I remember the hotel that was a multifamily that we allowed on the town center, the southern portion. I think Southgate was that community to the south. And they used that sight line to prove that they were underneath that sight line. So I felt better about it because they included that.

So specific to building height, there are restrictions in Senate Bill 840 about how much a city can restrict and how we can limit the building height. But that would be, I mean, again, it doesn't apply to us right now. But that would be something that if in a bill at whatever point it applies to the city, we would have some restrictions coming from that state.

I got one question. Councilman Arushi kind of brought this up a while ago. What prevents us, I mean, what can these two bodies do as far as a developer comes in and gives us a dog and pony show and makes this really look, you know, something that we could get behind And then after we give them the zone change, they go in there to do something totally opposite of what we had said because it fell in those restrictions. To me, it's almost like we're engaging in a contract with them, and they tell us we're going to put a sports complex here, and then to help fund that sports complex, behind it we're going to put in storage units, la, la, la, la, la. And everybody got behind that because we understand that a sports complex might be – You know, it might be kind of hard to get off the ground. But then he comes in and he puts in a cotton picking car lot. You know, what can we do to keep them from doing garbage like that? And I know I've been given the excuse before that if we try to do anything more, it's called spot planning or spot zoning. But, I mean, to me, this commission is called planning and zoning. It should be looking at we have a plan here. to help develop this city and make it in a certain way that we want it. And then you have the zoning also, which, I mean, I've heard time and time again, you're zoning the dirt. Yes, but if you're zoning the dirt, why even have a planning and zoning committee? You sit there and you write the regulations, and if it meets that, then you rubber stamp it. And I don't think that anybody in here wants that because you go over to Pasadena or go to Houston or stuff, and it's just horrible. I mean, the way that they got their... There is no planning to a lot of those. If it's got vacant land, they can stick what they want to in there. But what can we do to somebody that does something like this? I mean, right now we can do nothing. But what can we do going forward?

I would say a couple of things to that. When it comes to certain use changes, if it's allowed by right, it just kind of is what it is. But when it comes to PDs or CUPs, if we need to get more specific or clear with criteria or conditions, the products they use, we can do those things. But at the same time, something that I think is a constant battle, and I think it's in tune with the workshop request piece, is property owners have the right to come in and ask for something. And that is our job is to Staff's job is to bring it to the voting bodies, and the voting body's job is to vote. And so part of it is, if you own private property, you have the right to come in and ask for a rezone or ask for a CUP use. And it's just the nature of the beast.

And I understand that, but to me, if it's done deceptively, there ought to be something that we could do about that. I mean, you sit there, and I'm talking about one specific guy right now, but we've had it happen to us before where they come in there and they tell us we're going to build this, we're going to do this, and it gets everybody on there. Where if somebody had come in there and said, well, we want a zone change because we want to put a parking lot, car lot in there. I don't know if we would have given the zone change for that.

One second. Very thoughtful discussion and I know we're trying to do the best we can to make sure that people coming in are living up to the things that we asked them to do. I would just ask Commissioner Eisenberg that maybe there's an added conversation outside of this to help mitigate some of these things. I think If I'm not mistaken, there are no other items based on what you've all provided based on the discussion today. So with all due respect, I would ask, are there any other questions? If there's no other additional items on the agenda and outside of the conversation, P&Z, is there any other discussion or comments? Okay. Okay. Seeing none and seeing no further items, I would like to adjourn this meeting at 5.49 p.m.