Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

that seem am I on track with that? Mhm. So it it doesn't the zone does not give you permission to just say, "Well, I'm going to build this." Not without going through all the hoops of meeting that concept plan, right? And then it comes here for preliminary approval. Okay? And then there's a final plan. Okay? and and if it all flies, then it goes to our elected officials and they would say yes or no. So, all we're doing is approving the zoning change. It might be in an R R1 zone where there's flood being proposed. Okay? Maybe it's in an R2, maybe it's in C3. It it we don't know. All we're doing is by creating this PUB zone is saying we could do this in a certain place provided these things are met. Okay? Doesn't mean doesn't mean it has to be approved. It means we could approve. If there are things this commission doesn't like in the concept plan because we we don't think it fits that area, okay, then the commission would have the right to say we're not going to recommend approval to the city. Okay. and and so then you would make a motion saying just that that we're not recommending approval. Okay? And that would go forward to the city persons and they would have the right to say we agree or

we disagree. We're going to approve because they are the elected officials. There's his final points. Did I do okay on that? You did a good job. What about conditional approvals? What do you mean conditional approvals? When you've in the past approved things, but said it has to have a list of this, this, and this change for the board. They didn't need if they agreed that they're going to change. If they agree to that, that's staff's job to see that those conditions are met. Yes. Okay. Could it could it occur? Sure it could. But we want to make sure that it's in the concept plan. Yes. So the plan has to be revised to show that included in the plan. But you if you don't like the location of this, you don't like the height of this wall or the location of this tree and they agree to change it, it doesn't have to be rejected. So to answer that question, so under procedure item three, it says honor upon receipt of planning and zoning commission's recommendation. Oh, this is for the board of alderman, but I think it repeats it for planning and zoning. Yes, it does. So, number two, um, planning and zoning commission shall make a recommendation to the board of alderman to approve, deny or approve with approve the application with conditions and then the board of alderman can do the same. So, that would be your conditional uses. So, the answer is yes. And and there is also the ability for planning and zoning to deny for XY reason allowing the applicant to go back and submit a new concept and revise it. Yeah.

Yeah. The the key here that that helps you all as a zoning commission in reality is the concept plan's got to go through the filter right before it ever comes here. Does that make sense? So it's it's been filtered out before it ever comes. So staff can say yes, it meets the concept plan those steps have all been. But that doesn't mean exactly. The commission can say okay I'm good, but I can I want to see some conditions here. That's this commission's right to do. Does it mean that it would necessarily go to the council at that time? Probably not. I think what we want is a clean item going through the process. And there's other areas within our existing code where you're able to do the same thing where you can approve or deny with conditions. Um some of the things I from the board of alderman I feel that some of the things were that um because of because it's kind of a blanket uh proposal that's coming from the developer um should there be some levers if you will within the PUD to uh kind of put some more guidelines around it so it's not just a fluid type of proposal and there's some structure around what is allowed and what's not allowed. So, some of those suggestions I've taken the the suggestions of um Bruce Witet who he emailed me then post our meeting our last board of alderman meeting um and some of the things that were suggested I put into the um attachment that Christie or the handout that Christy gave you guys and they're highlighted. So under

development standards, so your the structure of this is, you know, it starts with the purpose. It starts with where you're able to use the PUB and then it goes into your like basic ground rules, if you will, on if you're going to submit this, you need to follow these basic requirements and that's the de development standards of section C. So there's a few different ones. explains that this is a floating zone, which is basically saying that, you know, you're not, if you are currently R3, nothing within R3 is going to carry over. You're you're going into a new zone by going to a PUD. Um, so that's what that's explaining. And then, um, it explains the approval of the final PUD shall constitute a reszoning of the PUD district. It states applications for PUB concept plan and final plan shall be submitted by each applicant for PUD zoning in accordance with the provisions and conditions outlined herein. Um unified control the the proposed plan development district shall be limited to the parcels that are under single control of an entity who is responsible for completing the proposed development. This provision shall not prevent a transfer of ownership or control after the development has been completed in accordance with the PUD final plan. Uh it also states the PUD concept plan in the final plan shall be general be in general conformity with the spirit and intentions of this chapter and then the PUD shall not have a substantial adverse effect on the developments of the neighboring areas. Um so we have that statement. We I'm what what Bruce presented was um the pink one number nine uh that relates to density and that density shall not exceed the following

units per acre for developments adjacent to residential zones. So, um, that's a the intent behind that is should PUDs have like a density maximum that we don't want, you know, a 25 foot or 25 story building that's going to put 100,000 people on one parcel. Um, and so the the intent behind it was to put some type of density lever. Uh the problem with putting it in with R1, R2, R3, and then four units per acre, eight units per acre, 16 units per acre is that it it's a little bit restrictive in what that could look like because we're this is intended to be used for a lot of different types of development. So like R3, we know that R3 is generally multif family, but this could be used for R3, it could be used for commercial, it could be used for a um office space, it could be used for numerous things. So it's a little bit difficult to put calling a unit. I'm sorry, what are we calling a unit? So each building. Yeah. Okay. So like in in in 9-3 R3, we're at 16 units per acre. So there couldn't be more than 16 apartments. Is that right where I'm going? Apartment buildings or apartments. That's my building. Okay, that's Let me understand that. Is that where you were going with that, Bruce? Yes, that's how it works. The the way that this this is written though, it's saying that it's adjacent to the residential zone. So again, remember when you're going to a PUB, you are changing your zone. So the R what you previously were does not is not relevant. So it's saying if you're moving into a PUB into next to an R3,

you're allowed 16 units. If you're moving in next to an R1, you're allowed 40 units per acre. So the I think that there's ways that we can make sure that we don't end up with these massive buildings that are next to a single family home. And so the way that I felt like we could do that was number seven and number eight um limiting the height of the building which we've done in numerous other zoning codes um in our existing chapter using the same language. Um so there's two options here within a PUB district. No structure with residential units shall exceed three and a half stories or 45 ft. And then we have um after that no PUB districts adjacent to a residential zone shall exceed um three and a half stories or 45 ft and doesn't include well no I think it should. So my question to you is do you feel that height is enough to help us balance density? And also remember though that density is not necessarily addressed in our current domain. I my my two cents is this. It helps um because 45 is old. And and that may be too much. That's fine. At least my comfort might that might be too much. Uh I I would say you can have a 32 foot structure in a three-bedroom single family, you know, threetory single family. Okay, that's possible. I'll be honest, I don't

know what the like what each story's height is. Typically a story if you figure 10 foot. Okay. Commercial, they figured 12. Okay. But typically it's figured at 10 feet per story. So 32 feet not unrealistic. You know, when if there's decorations, what have you. Yeah. And I didn't know if the roof line would that would that's part of that height. Yeah. Okay. So, and and that's where I come back to. I don't know how everybody else is, but I'm almost that 45 too much. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's how it reads in our R3 zoning chapter or zoning code. It reads R3 has a height restriction of no more than three and a half stories or 45. Did you have a question? Yeah. So Carla was gracious enough to leave so that me and Bruce can now talk. We couldn't talk because we had a form. So we couldn't even answer any questions from it. So now we can now speak. But my intent on Monday's meeting was to have these discussions um like heights, density, parking requirements, things like that. But maybe we do want to restrict some of that stuff. talk about some scenarios of what could happen, what couldn't happen. How do we navigate some of that stuff? What are our feelings about that? So that we give some guidance not only to the city of what you're willing to approve and not approve, but also to a developer of well, they're they they're willing to look at this stuff. Um cuz you're right, we have hyper restrictions in every district. When we look when when you create this pod, the way this is written, it says the intent and spirit of section 50. They're not required to do anything in section 50. Right now,

they can negotiate what they want. This is a starting point, but they can negotiate every one of these away if the city feels they are okay with it. I'm not saying they will, but they can. And sometimes it might be appropriate to throw some of these out for what they're doing. Well, and again, I'll go back to statement I made earlier. regardless of the zone as is current prior to getting a PUD approval. You want to build build residential, you want to build commercial, you still have to comply with codes and ordinances in existence. Now, hear me out. I'm here. I'm here. Just listen. Don't listen to respond. Listen to hear because that's the difference. he the a developer they say he it could be a she a developer comes in and says I want to propose this okay so here here is our filter can it get through this they have to understand they're building the commercial zone okay it's going to be built to the commercial standards what exceptions what are you looking to get in a a variance of change da da da and what are you going to give for that? It be it a park deal, be it whatever. Okay, what is that going to you're giving back to the city for this variance or for this exception. Okay, doesn't mean they're getting approval to build it outside of the the quote codes and ordinances for that particular zone. They're asking, "Can I do this? What's your concept? What's your plan? Let's put it down. Let's see if it goes through our filter." If it doesn't go through our filter, you're going to have to modify it to get it through the

filter first. Okay. Height restrictions, stuff like that. Uh, is there adequate parking? You bring it up in commercial. Um, you know, could I put a could I put a wedding venue downtown? Uh, where am I going to get the parking for that? Where am I supplying the parking for that? Okay. I mean, it's a great concept, but can I rely on Mary and Steve, Joann's businesses to provide me parking so their customers can't get to their business? Seem a little unfair to me. What are you doing to provide for this? And that's part of that filter that's got to fall through. There are certain requirements in those codes and ordinances right now that says for a business of this size, you got to provide this. That doesn't that should that's going to be looked at to meet that concept plan. If it doesn't meet that concept plan by the code, how do you shake it through the filter? Does does PUD come in? The PUD says it's a planned unit development zone. Okay. Okay. It's not a construction thing. It's a zone. It says and it's not we're not going to go out here and throw out right this area and see PUD's here. No, this is by request only, which means there would be a a public hearing. Okay. um to allow for input from the citizens. There would be the staff going through it before they ever got to that point. Okay, we've shook it through the filter.

It meets the concept plan, you can now have a public hearing. Okay. So then that would be established and then it would come to this commission and this commission could say okay it's made it through the filter. However, there's a filter up here that says I don't like this. And so so that the filter you're referring to would be the PD concept plan review criteria which is on page six. So it says that the plan represents an an improvement over what could have been accomplished through strict applications of otherwise applicable base zoning district standards based on the purpose and the intent of this chapter. The PUD concept plan is in is in conformance with the PUD standards of the section and the existing and proposed utility services are adequate for the proposed development. The development is consistent with and implements the planning goals and objectives of of the city as contained in the city code and any other adopted policies. And then the PUD concept plan is in consistent is consistent with good general planning practices and the development will promote the general welfare of the city. But what's been added was suggested by Bruce and then I worked with our attorneys to kind of wiggle it around just a little bit. that the PD concept plan does not negatively affect the aesthetics, vehicular traffic pattern and pedestrian use uses of the users and uses within adjacent districts. So putting that's your filter. Yeah. In reality of does does it make an improvement and does it or does it negatively impact its neighbors? And so that it fall it creates a catchall of um

if there's something if there's something there that we are not comfortable with and we see it as a negative it's going to fall under does it negatively affect the aesthetics vehicular pattern traffic pedestrian uses of the users and uses within adjacent districts. Bruce Bruce, if I may, he he I think he gave the example of a wall. Yeah, great example. That aesthetically doesn't fit there. But it also may be an issue for traffic. Can they see a round wall? Is it safe with that wall being there? And and that's where that falls, right? Okay. That that what where we're going there Sean? I believe so. Was the 45 ft was that in the past? Is that because of fire protection? I couldn't speak to I don't know. I typically No, Steve. When when you look at other areas, they typically look at that as aesthetics. Oh, yeah. So, we're not having Yeah. I just want clarification. Yeah, it's really to prevent the just large buildings that don't kind of aren't cohesive with the existing buildings in Odessa that are no more than three stories tall. It's probably not a good example, but in Towers up there 24 is a prime example for me. drive along and all of a sudden yours says I'm that doesn't fit here. But it would be the same thing if I wanted to go in and build a fivetory apartment building if I got the space to do

that. Okay. So I want to build an apartment that doesn't make qualify for a PUD. What in that plan would allow it to qualify for that PUD? It's a mixed use. In reality, if someone wanted to build over three and a half stories in Odessa, they could not. I don't believe that it's allowed in any of our zones. I don't I don't think so. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. Um, but this gives the power to the city to negotiate to where they could if you gave them green space or pedestrians. That's what I'm saying. But it's okay. Is it is they could it it could. But here's here's the next catch to that. It's got to get past two more groups and 5,500 people. Well, we know how that goes. I'm just saying they all have a voice. Whether or not they choose to use it, we can't control that. Understand? But but the point is a lot of these folks sitting right here at these tables listen to their neighbors and their neighbors say you can't let that happen. Okay. Would you please come to the meeting and say you can't let that happen but tell us why we can't let that happen. Well, who wants that cactus stuck in the middle of the rainforest? Probably not a good example, but it it doesn't fit. So, that's where I'm at. Does it fit? Just because I want a building doesn't mean I can't. Okay. The next question is, does are there sufficient utilities to support that structure? Well, probably not going to fall through the plan because maybe it is where they want to build it at.

Okay. Sorry. Can't do her there. There's not enough support. You want to you want to put that in for us? We'll let you. Yeah, I agree. But so on your nine, not ours. That's why the the parts in there about it cannot adversely affect the city. We're not paying for that development. And we've added that um the city shall bear no cost for infrastructure and improvements that are necessary for the development. Yeah. and and that was an addition after it went to your zoning board. You guys have already approved it. It it could have been. Yeah, but I I guess the way I look at it is we need the codes and ordinances are already in existence. It's got to get past those, too. It's not just because it's in here. It's got to get through that. That's part of that concept plan. It's got to get through that. So one exceptions in the codes and the ordinances existing and this is trying to say here well these will will work a little bit but you got to have a plan and it's got to be right and we do have codes that reference that we cannot pay for infrastructure for development. In reality, the the thing that is allowing them to negotiate on at this point is what are what's listed under area regulations? What page? Well, this is in our actual code. So, like when you go to R3, like what you're changing is the zone. you're changing from X zone to P to PUD zone because what's in X zone does not work for your development. So

then that leaves you with what's in your original zone to be able to wiggle on. So, what that leaves you with is it excludes uses permitted and uses permitted on review and it would include the area regulations which is the front yard, sideyard, um rear yard, lot width, intensity of use, which is the um like the size of the square footage of the lot itself. And then the coverage. So for example, this says main and accessory buildings shall not cover more than 35% of the lot area. And then the height requirements and the parking requirements. So th those are really the only things that are out like everything else would fall under a different area within our code. So therefore, this this PUD is telling them that they have to follow everything else but those things. And then instead of following those things, you need to propose a new suggestion that will then go through your filtration system. So, can we list that in this ordinance? These are the only things that you have the ability to negotiate on because that's not clearly stated here. And if it was, then I believe that your intent that you're explaining to me would be realized by the law. Right now, it's not. Right now, it just says everything in section 50 is on the table. But if there are parts of section 50 that are not on the table because they could be covered on another ordinance or whatnot, we need to call that out and say these are the only ones that you can negotiate and these are the ones that are non-negotiable because that's not clear in this PUB right now. And if that's the

intent of it, we need to change that. I guess the other things that would apply would be there's regulations on manufactured homes, signs, non-conforming buildings and structures and uses that doesn't apply. So, we need to list that those things don't apply. And then I think your intent that you're saying becomes more real and more clear. because I've read this a hundred times and that intent did not come through in this language and I don't believe an attorney would read it that way either. If we were get to get sued because we turned someone down or approved something and a different attorney interpreted it some some way different, we would we would have lawsuits on the city for this. So you're saying to include where it says well you've got your when when you say in development standards this is where you talk about their starting point and the criteria you say it's a floating zone so you create it can go anywhere in the city. Okay that's fine. You're saying you're creating a new zone once you've established that it's going to go there. Okay. So that you aren't beholden to any other requirements in that district. It's your own zone like an HOA type thing. Then you're saying that the POD plan can be submitted. Okay. You're talking about process there. I think the process is pretty good to go through the approvals and let people see it. I that's good. Then you're saying unified control. they can sell it when they're done. Um, but the only real requirement you

say is the PUB concept plan and PUD final plan shall be in general conformity with the spirit and intentions of this chapter. Well, the chapter in reference is chapter 50. So, anything in chapter 50, as long as it's in the spirit and intention, you can negotiate it. So, if there's things in chapter 50 that we're saying are non-negotiable, we need to list that because you're saying all of chapter 50 is on the table. I think you're saying the opposite that you're saying basically we need to say that um area regulations, height regulations, and off- streetet parking are negotiable. If that's what we're saying, because right now we're saying everything in chapter 50 can be negotiated. But there's nothing else in chapter 50 besides signs that's applicable to building regulations. But you just listed a bunch of them but that that are applicable to this to a development. You only the only other things that you have are everything in chapter 50 is zoning. So everything this is a new zone. So everything in chapter 50 is going to apply to a new zone. What a personal. Yeah, I'm okay with the negotiating signs. Yeah, because you because this and maybe we're just thinking that this is only going to be used for residential because they want a different step back, but you've got commercial, you've got you've got every type of use that we allow in the city can be done in the pud, right? Rightfully so. We want that opportunity, but that means everything in chapter 50

can also be because those are requirements for every use. signs, parking, setbacks, heights, restrictions, they're all requirements for any use. Well, that's what SE section 50 is. So, those are all they're able to propose all of those. They're they are able to you just said that they are not some are not applicable, but they're still But you don't if they're not applicable, let's let's say it here. say these because you don't say parts of chapter 50 or applicable parts of chapter 50. You're saying spirit and intentions of chapter 50. That's chapter 50 as a whole. So if there are parts that are not applicable, we need to say these are not applicable to this. So there will be no negotiation period. No, I think we have places we want to negotiate. What's not applicable in my brain right now is like the def definition of manufactured homes where where areas where manufactured homes are permitted temporary homes. I don't I just don't know that. But right now they could propose a plan to put a manufacturer home and if the city liked the plan you could approve it whereas our zone says you can't. If if someone came in and had a manufactured home development, we would want them to go through the PUD process because we want we would want to have that oversight. Okay. But you're saying that that process that the manufactured homes don't apply right now. So I think the entire chapter 50 applies if you're proposing a a flood concept

plan be in an R1, R2, R3, C1, C2, C3 or an industrial zone. The first thing is you have to understand is you have to comply with what's in that sum. That's not what this says. This says you have to comply with anything in section 50. They're not saying you have to start with the R1 that it's that's at. And you could say that if you're if you're proposing to change an R1 zone to a pod, then we start with the R1 zone codes. But you don't say that. It says anything in chapter 50. You're still going to negotiate what your R1 codes are, like your setbacks and different things because that's the whole deal. Your HUD, you're you're wanting to put a denser population in a smaller place. So, you're going to have to negotiate on those things and they all have requirements for a reason, but you didn't tell the developer to start there. So he could come and propose even though it's R1 he could propose industrial and start with that. No according to he could he could if he is going to build an industrial type complex. Yeah. It would start in industrial. That's why we're trying to redo the what's allowed in these zones so that you can't just come in here and say, "Well, two or three, you can't put a higher zone in it anyway. The density is already That's not what this says." No, he's that's correct. This is saying that you are moving from example R3 to PUB. So everything

that was in R3, it doesn't matter because you're starting fresh in a new zone. And the intent was that they would bring to us what they need because none of the current zones fit what they're trying to do or they're trying to do something outside of the box that they were already in. So they're supposed to come to us with a complete brand new set of rules, which I think is a good tool, but like you guys are saying, they're starting here. Well, we're not giving them a filter. Our filter is all of 50. It's not starting with R1, right? So, are there things in here that we want to think about like the height that we want to say no matter you're starting with a clean slate, but no matter what, we don't want you to go over 45 ft, right? Maybe and maybe it's because of aesthetics. Maybe it's because we don't have a ladder truck calling them to put out fire or rescue somebody. But those are the discussions that I want to start to have and I'm willing to walk through every code if we need to and say is there a minimum or do we or is this truly not applicable and we need to just leave it off the table because we want this tool. Yeah. But exactly what you're saying. Say what I say now. Yeah. Okay. So if the goal is to set parameters for negotiations, would it maybe be helpful instead of inventing the wheel there to have a line in here that um deviations from the requirements for the zones that exist for the primary use be justified? That's what you are referring to, but it doesn't say they start there. That would be a very easy way to start of you're going from original zone. What are your deviations from that? That wouldn't have anything to do with what the property was before it was PUD. But if you're putting a residential saying, but you

want some, you know, you're doing a high density residential, but it's different somehow that you justify what it is that's been rented. Um so again you're justifying with uh low density residential those sets but it sets the intent behind it not being that way is because it's there's a an option to use this for mixuse. So if you have if you're going to put in something like the rants and landing we keep using that for an example. What what base does it start with? What regulations do you start with? We want them to propose what they need. And I think just saying you just have to justify still gives them they can justify it because of the issues. If you're asking for to me that to me I I looked at the concept is you're asking for a bud. Okay. Where is it you want to put that? I put it right here. Okay. What do you plan to put in that Pa D not going to fit? And that comes back to based on what requirements. If you tell somebody no, we haven't given them requirements in here that they can't sue us over if we tell the next guy yes. So the problem with defining the starting point with your PD PUB is that that PUD can include residential and business and industrial all rolled into one PUD. Yes. Correct. So how do you define which zoning rules you start with? You can't until you have that combined concept plan.

And that's where I talked about the minimum requirements of okay, no matter what they give us, they can give us that mixed use, but we will not let them build anything over 45 ft. Anything under 45 ft. Cool. Give us your concept plan. Or we won't let them stack buildings closer than 5T to the to the exterior or their exterior perimeter needs to match what the next zone is is. Their interior can change, but their exterior needs to at least match the zone of the setbacks because we talked about aesthetics. If you've got an R1 and they can only go two and a half stories and then all of a sudden we've allowed a 45 foot building right next to it. If aesthetics is what we're worried about, we just shot ourselves in the foot. Now, I'm not saying these are things that I recommend, but these are discussions I think we need to have and set those minimums of what we think is okay. Within the development standards there, item five and six give you at- attorney or not, our attorneys wrote this, so they wouldn't really set us up for failure in that sense. So, but item number five and number six, you can set if if someone's going to put a skyscraper in the middle of Odessa, you say that that generally does not conform with our zoning. Period. And then you can follow that up with saying that that will have a substantial adverse effect on the development of the neighboring areas. Well, the key for here for me was the bud concept plan and BUD final plan shall be in general conformity with the spirit and intentions of this chapter and any other adopted policy resolutions or ordinances which would be the building. Okay, that that goes to the heart of what you're talking about. Correct. But

here's the clause that counteracts that. The district allows variations of the zoning regulations contained within chapter 50 in exchange for open and green space pedestrian friendly improvements to the district. So it means even though our current codes say they can't build a skyscraper, if they give us something we want, we can approve it unless we specify in here we can't override that right now. We can and my question is are there anything we want off of the table that we cannot override no matter what they give us? So that those items that we can't that cannot be overrid no matter what is under is what's listed under development standards which is why we added the three and a half stories there. Um the no cost to infrastructure and I did number 11. And I wrote that backwards, but it should be um has to be a minimum of two acres, not cannot. Yeah, I wrote it backwards. But is that all of them? Because that's the question that we're trying to ask the zoning board. That's where I was going with this. So, I've added in the ones that Bruce selected. So from this point on, is there anything else that you feel like would be necessary? I have suggestions if you'd like to hear them. Sure. First one, parking requirements. We have very specific parking requirements. I think that Can we let them address these three and then address the Oh, yeah. If you want to address the three that she has listed. Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't. So number seven, 8, 10, and 11. And then we also I don't know. I can't remember now if I explained it,

but I think so. Are we going to include nine? Well, nine is the one that I don't necessarily think that the way that that's written will allow for the PUB to function with the density count on it. I think if you guys if you think that there are ways that we could apply density or we can add them in but I I felt number 11 reading no district will be less than two acres. Yes, that's yes that's how it's intended. That should go to help Is that a typo? She wrote that backward. Yeah, that should go to help your density thing I think. I think that's Yeah, because I think I talked about that the other night at the meeting that I like that because in other words, you you want to build that or 316 unit, it's got to be at least two acres. Cuz if it's not, how are you going to take care of the parking? How are you going to take care of this? Okay. All you're asking for in this zone is can we can I get permission to go outside of these zones or the bu the regulations codes and ordinances of the city and when I build it and if if that's if that things like that are there then the answer is no right and to answer the question that you asked earlier about the um the R1 one with no more than four units per acre. Yes, you're correct. My concern is that someone doesn't build a high-rise next door. And you know, many homes are kind of getting to be a thing, too. Yeah. I don't want someone with a an R1

home to have a bunch of mini homes that's placed right next to them. Also, totally agree. Uh and and there have been folks that have taken in certain communities taken the cake cod style and shrunk them. They done almost the same thing you're talking about where their their sideyards you can well we could probably shake their clos. Okay. and and and in some places that might be appropriate in a downtown and it might be okay in a in a PUB assuming the infrastructure there, the utilities, the water, the the sewer, all that is large enough to support that higher density or they're willing to upgrade it for us or or they're willing to spend their dollars to make our system better, which which is a great bargaining chip That that that's a great bargaining chip. It is expensive and not many of them want to do that. True. But that's okay. Then that says, okay, you got nothing here on your table that says that's good for Odessa. I agree with number nine. Number I don't think number nine went to Shauna. That takes a lot of the versatility out of it. I I think we need to figure out a different way to say it because Okay, so let's use the example that we know is going to come, the 1912 building. We have a high-rise that is going to be zoned different or would have different requirements and then we know he's going to put homes or things around it. Well, really those fit in two different categories. So they need a pud to coexist on the same lot, right? So how do we blend those together for the density? Well, for for lots of other things because he'll need other

variances for certain things. Well, the parking there, we I think we all agree with that and so so is the infrastructure there to support it utilities. Okay. That that's got to go. That's part of that. It's got to get filtered through this. And I'm just it either does or it doesn't. You know, if it doesn't get through it, your plan, you got to refine your plan because it's not going to filter through this. Correct. But how do we how do we structure something to allow a developer like that to put homes around and still be able to do those things where we're building the zone together? H for the density sake. How many is too many? How close is too close? How tall is too much? The closeness is some one of my concerns. How fast do you allow? Can because we're creating a new zone and we're creating new variances. Can we allow the justification of putting them with a sidewalk in between them? Are we willing to allow that? Um I think what we're my opinion is right now is if you put too many regulations on it, you're taking away the flexibility of it. If you're going to put all these regulations on it, then you might as well just create a general mixed tractor. But the purpose behind this is for the flexibility. So they're supposed to come to us and say, "I need 7 foot, I need 4 foot, I need two foot, I need zero, whatever it is." But if they come to us and say zero, they're going to have to cough up some other things to be able to allow us to do that. And if it comes to this this that may change how their building is constructed. Are they willing to make

that bullet too? You understand that? Yeah. The one thing I want to point out though is she just admitted that if they give us the right stuff, we'll give them what they want. She said if you want a zero setback, you got to really give us something worth it. which means it can which means there is no minimum and that's what I'm trying to figure out what is the minimum that they can't no matter what they give us we we have to say no and draw the line well there's fire codes on how far the buildings have to be set apart from each other and we have zero setbacks in some areas of town well setbacks might not be the best example but what about height well we're putting that in here Yeah. Okay. Okay. The other option that I think could apply to density is the coverage. So like the example that I'm just pulling from a different zone says main and accessory building shall not cover more than 35%. Um accessory building shall not cover more than 30% of the rear yard. So, if we put a coverage minimum on there where you're not your building cannot cover or you can't vary more than I don't know if they're different for each one, but you could put a cover some type of coverage language on there. Yep. How much green space the point? Yeah. The point is that you have open space. So, if you're going to go back on coverage, then you're taking away open space, but what that's also doing is allowing for higher density for with higher coverage. be the the 35% coverage is anything that is not green space. Driveways, patios, accessory buildings, primary

structure because you can't and that goes back to the water runoff. Your storm water can't adversely affect your neighbors and that's already in existence. Not an addition. It's already there. So that doesn't Are you willing to give that up? Not me. Okay. And that's not in the zoning chapter though. And and it's not in the zoning chapter. It's in the building chapters. Okay. That goes, are you willing to give that up? Not me. I'm a victim of that being allowed. Doesn't make any difference. I'm not going to fix it. I'm not going to get it changed. Okay. So, do you guys think a coverage some coverage language should be added for density purposes on the density? [Music] Uh we have somebody comes in and builds a hotel that's adjacent to a residential zone. Are they such to 16 units per acre? Yeah, that's that's how that one would read. Yes, that's the issue. That's what we're trying to figure out. How do we how do we fix that? We we don't feel like that way that's written is what is flexible enough to different scenarios. like it it could be flexible to uh multif family but then if you go talk commercial then it maybe doesn't apply as well. So is there other ways we could um cap density or or control them density using other language? So what I've seen because remember my experience with PUB goes back to when I was in college and I reported directly on a PUB

project that was very controversial in Colombia. The way they did it is you had to have a like that was one of the report the figures that was mandated to have a report on it when it went before um the concept plan. So that had to have a report on what the density was and kind of that calculation and um if there's things that went into that such as if you've got a mixed residential so you have one area that has really high but other areas that have low um you know having that overall density and then having that specificity. Um and then the board was able to consider that report in the context of the neighborhood of the surrounding of the desired densities which Colombia is a place generally much more open to higher densities in the first place. but to consider that and it was a consideration that they could go for a no recommendation based off of the density calculation before them itself. So rather than it being a control figure going in, it could just be considered holistically but a required report. Which one you get information just great concept for me? What what you're talking about is John Hawk Village. They got apartment buildings. They got forplexes, duplexes, single family. scattered

all and have walking trails and miniature golf and da da da but there are things for the community to do but the density is greater. [Music] So what I dealt with was a student apartment complex. So, it was kind of a unique situation where each of the three units within one house which would otherwise be a threebedroom house was figuring as a unit instead of the house. Yeah. And that's what that's what this is is 16 units and have more than 16 rooms in your hotel on this. Yes. If a hotel came they necessarily do it. They just go to an area that zone for build their hotel and right now that's very true. Yeah. Okay. With this they wouldn't. Yeah. They're going to go along the highway and they're going to build most of you know location where they're visible. Well, Al Creek could build a hotel. They're not in the city. They can build a hotel. Their problem might be water sooner. Yeah. But they can do it. And then you have that ability to have that mini homes um RV uh parking and what have you that exists but it's not in the city. That's a that's an example of something where are we willing to take that what's happening here? Is there enough green space that makes it okay? I I think the concept on what are we willing to allow a coverage I think that density ought to be there that percentage

what does other communities do that's a that's a big question there's so many different cities that have these and they're all just ever so slightly different in in reality u but I have seen like what Hannah's talking about where they're requiring more of a report. I think what we're what I'm hearing from this from everyone in the room is that we need to we don't need to necessarily restrict density, but we need to make sure that we have the ability to safely reject it if we don't feel like it's a good fit. Knight's just not a good fit concept. The density thing is like based on what says it's it's pretty they do talk about it. So number three, don't put a whole lot of detail in it, but that's what's So would you want to have residential PUDs and industrial PUDs or or different sections or is it just one PUD? That it's a PUD, but it's a PUD. Again, I'll go back to what I earlier said. I want to put my PUD right here. Uh, okay. What's your concept? What do you want to put in your PUB? What do you want? Well, I want to put uh single family homes. Well, number one, that's an industrial zone and we're not going to let you. That's if it's zoned. It's zoned. If everything in town has to be zoned, even if it's agriculture, it has to be zoned. But we're throwing the zoning out once we call the DP. We're

throwing the regulations out. We're throwing that right. Yeah. We're we're going to allow change to the regulations. Okay. But we still have the right to say that's not a fit there. Right. Okay. In the in that this won't this won't go by even the big bird can't carry this one by commission. They're not going to let this fall because it's not a good fit for that area of our community. Um, so what they moved to was an agricultural area that somebody came in to propose. I guess they they have to have the zoning change to get to build anything there. Yeah, they technically have to have a zoning change no matter what. But the question is is if they're going to to reszone to like if they're if they're building an apartment complex, are they going to rezone just to R3 and just follow the rules that are in R3 or are they or do those rules not necessarily work for the special kind of project that they're working towards? So they could use the PUB instead, but A is going to have to reszone no matter what if something substantial is built on it. Besides ad uses, it's a little bit difficult to I mean, we're we're trying to work towards a more structured zoning ordinance code overall. Overall, it's a little bit difficult to see how this can fit in because of the current code that we have. Yep. Because our co current code is very very very very loose.

So it's hard to it's hard to say this PUB is going to provide flexibility when our entire code already lets anything and everything fly. Y it makes it very challenging. Madam Chair, I'd ask that you have a take it back and refine it, bring it back to the commission. Yeah. Um I was just going to read here the Sidelia one. So um is I don't know off the top of my head if Sidelia is a floating or floating. It is floating. Most of them are. Yeah. Um, so under the design, want me to read the two that were circled? No, number number three is a specific one. Okay. About building density, building spacing. Each development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping shall be used as appropriate for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property and the privacy of its occupants. screening of objectable views and uses and reduction of noise. High-rise buildings shall be located within a PUD in such a way to as to dis dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining low-rise buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such low-rise buildings. Yard setbacks, lot size, type of dwelling, unit height, frontage requirements, and use restrictions may be wavered for the PUD provided that the spirit and intent of zoning are complied with in the in the total development plan as determined by the commission. If topography, if topographical or other barriers within 50 foot of the perimeter of the

development do not provide reasonable privacy for existing uses adjacent to the development, the commission shall impose either of the following requirements or both. And then it says structures located on the perimeter of the development must be set back in accordance with the provisions of the zoning district controlling the area. Um, so yes, structures located on the perimeter of the development must be well screened in a manner which is approved by the commission. I like that highrise. And take note, this is Sidelia, so a little different than what we would need here. And I don't I don't want to incorporate that in ours. Yeah. Personally, I don't think we have a need for Iris. So then that goes back to our just no more than three and a half stories. Yeah, I I will make motion it goes back to staff and refine it to include that in come back to the commission. Have a second. You just made a motion to uh take the revisions and have staff bring them back at the next meeting which would also include that selia. Yep. because that does go with the intent of meeting the height requirements that we already are set forth and the density. Well, not less nothing can be less than two acres. It speaks to what Bruce added too about um the no PD concept plan does uh or the PD concept plan does not adversely affect

the aesthetics, vehicular traffic and pedestrian uses of the users and uses within adjacent adjacent districts. And we're including that two places. Why? So you can't miss it. Yeah. I would recommend finding other ones. Me and Bruce have done a lot of research. There's multiple out there just so you can benchmark what other people have done and read them. This was Sidelius and it was an idea. It can be modified or thrown out, whatever you guys determine, but read what other people have done in other areas to see what what we like. Staff, aren't you? Yeah, staff were Oh, I thought you were talking to them. No, I'm not. Well, they're the ones that have to make the recommendation, right? We already did. We made a motion and voted on it to send it back to staff to clean that up. you as an elected official would like to submit that information to staff. I'm with you now. Okay. Land out. Okay. We we're asking for revisions. Okay. Yeah. This is a great time for any of our older persons that want stuff in that to get that to you. So maybe we can get this thing cleaned up when we see it again. We can say, "Oh yeah, that's much better." Yeah. I can I can give recommendations to Sean, things to look at, right? And I don't mind researching it, too. I've done some. We We do, but So, moving on to the next item on the agenda if we're if we would like to push

it to our next meeting week. We could do that last the last we've given ourselves a cut off of 8:30. Okay. On our last zoning workshops, right? Do do you think it would be appropriate to give make these available? We can do that. This is one I want. Oh yeah. Make it. I made a couple. Yeah. Uh should we carry on? Do I have a motion? Do you want to uh stay and work on the zoning or do you want to put that off till the next meeting? Work session. The work session. I really don't care. No difference. I ain't got that going. It is. We can move it to Well, it's And we've kind of went longer than we normally do. That's why typically we want to be out here typically by 8:30. So do you want to hang around for 13 minutes and play with this or put it off to the next meeting? I think we just start fresh at the next meeting and we hopefully have a full full body full full board and uh our new our new members will be here too for that. So Did we get a motion? I would make a motion to take item nine, the work session, and postpone it to our next second meeting. All in favor? I

I I passes. Madam chair. So then there's one more. I would make a motion. Second. Second. Second. All in favor. All right. I want I want public to make this clear. Thank you. Thank Thank you for coming. Yes. Amen. Yeah. Thank you. Your input means a lot to this commission. Thank you for serving because it it really really really helps. You guys have a fullition. Yeah, we're good. Okay. Y, but they they were gonna come tonight. So, we had them on the agenda and they both I think he works like Wait a minute. Maybe they are. Maybe maybe these I guess I should shut this off. I'll have to look at my size. Yeah. Because I know those three. These three right here.