Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

and workshop development workshop agenda uh to order at 4:30 p.m. Uh roll call certification of quorum for city council. Uh madam secretary I'll certify u city council has a quorum as all members are present with the exception of member Patel. I've not heard from him today so I'm assuming he's on his way will not be here. Okay. All right. Uh with that, we'll turn to the U commission. Thank you, Mayor. Uh we have uh everyone present except one commissioner, Commissioner Hendricks. She will not be in attendance, but we do have a quorum. Thank you.

All right. Any citizens comments? None. All right. We'll move to the regular agenda discussion regarding the Unified Development Code UDC update. With that, we'll turn to staff. I guess Vance, take it away.

Yes, sir. Thanks, Mayor Cole, council, members of, uh, PNZ. So, following our last workshop, there was a technical issue on the website. And with that, um, after some feedback and talking about it as a group, we wanted to give everyone a moment just to redigest the information and then come back and cover those items together as we move through the 50% draft. Still, still lots of opportunity for input as we move through this. Uh, but no, want to want to thank everyone for another chance to to get together. And with that, I'll hand it over to design workshop. All right, thanks Vance. Um, good evening everyone. Thanks to council planning and zoning commission staff and community members for being here tonight. I'm Claire Hemple with Design Workshop and this is our continuation of workshop number four from December. We're revisiting the 50% draft content this evening to ensure that everyone has a clear and shared understanding of the material partic particularly given the volume and importance of what's included at this stage. Tonight's presentation will walk back through the major topics at a high level, clarify how the draft is structured and highlight where we're specifically looking for your direction before moving into the 90% draft. Our goal is to make sure that no one feels like they're reacting to the code without sufficient context. So, I'm going to go through the next few slides pretty quickly so we can get right to the the meat of what we'd like to review today. Um, let's go. Uh, yeah, here. So, just a quick overview of our scope. Um, this is uh we're at task 3.2, so the 50% draft update um which included parts of the reddrafted UDC, some diagrams, um that we're working through, updated zoning and overlay maps, the schedule. Um so, here we are in midFebruary. Um we are aiming to complete or get this started through adoption in late spring, early summer. Um and so we have one more uh workshop and uh with the public and council and

PNZ um which we may end up breaking that apart depending on um how city leadership would wishes to um work through the approval process. Um but we are you know roughly in the the 60% stage right now. Um, all right. So, as [clears throat] you're aware, the full 50% draft UDC is available at paralympicud.com. The online version is fully public and markable, meaning you can click directly into the draft, highlight, text, and leave comments that everyone can see in real time. Council, the commission, and the community still has an opportunity to review the draft online and share comments as we move towards the 90% version. To ensure consistency, every topic in the draft followed a common framework that has been used to get to this point. The topic or what aspect of development itffects, the goals, what the city intends to accomplish, the issues, what's not working today, the recommendations, what should change, and the code updates, which is the actual proposed language. This helps to ensure that every update is transparent, intentional, and traceable back to Parland's adopted policies. We've also categorized recommendations into the three types shown here. There's simple and structural. It's on the blue on the left. Um this is simply um more simple edits like improving clarity, reducing redund redundancies and reorganizing some of the chapters. In the yellow we have process and enforcement which clarifies procedural steps, streamlines decision-m and updates authority roles. And then in the red or the orange on the right, a new policy concepts. These are introducing incentives, housing tools, and modern standards that align with the 2040 comprehensive plan. And so we keep those colors consistent on all of the slides so you can follow along. [clears throat]

We're now going to introduce the main topic areas covered in the draft. These are the areas where you'll see the biggest changes and where we'd like your direction when moving forward. So that includes the UDC structural changes, zoning districts such as housing redevelopment and infill incentives and the PD tiers, the land uses including the matrix categories and cups and the Broadway expansion and nonconformities. And then additional topics if we have time for them um include uh landscaping, signage, parking, hotels and food trucks. [cough and clears throat] The first major category um is structural updates which primarily touches chapter one of the UDC. The key changes include centralizing all procedures such as zoning, subdivisions, relief mechanisms, public hearings into a single easy to navigate chapter. Adding charts and tables to clarify reviewer responsibilities, notices, hearings, and approval authorities. also developing process diagrams which are in process um for every major application type and converting definitions from alphabetical order to topic based groupings. All in all, these improvements significantly increase the usability of the UDC for applicants, staff, and decision makers. Moving on to zoning districts, which is a big part of chapter 2. We wanted to first take a moment to explain how we approached consolidating the zoning districts. We essentially asked three questions of each district. One, does it allow uh does it actually create a different development pattern? Does it allow meaningfully different uses or building forms? And three, does it support the future land use direction in the comprehensive plan? If the answer was no to any of those, that was usually a signal that districts could be

combined. That approach led to a simpler structure. Residential districts organized by low, medium, and high density. Commercial districts that distinguish neighborhood scale from corridor or regional scale activity. And employment districts that separate innovation and clean uses from more traditional industrial uses. The intent was to simplify the system and make it easier to understand and administer, not to change Paralan's overall development direction. For residential districts, many have similar standards which created inefficiencies and enabled only single family products and not a lot of quality and variety in residential homes. So we consolidated them into clearer categories like R1 or low residential lowdensity residential. This consolidates similar largescale suburban districts. R2 or general residential is a typical suburban fabric. that supports infill and minor redevelopment and maintains compatibility through common setbacks. MD is medium density residential which expands middle market housing allows for shared open space and clustered lots with pedestrianoriented design. MDHR or mediumigh density residential bridges town home and multif family scales supports two to three story apartments and mixeduse transitions along corridors or HDR or highdensity residential which encourages corridor redevelopment and urban infill and suggests active frontage and open space standards. This supports a more predictable development outcome and reflects what we heard in the comprehensive plan process. On this slide and in the supplemental handout, um you can also see sideby-side comparisons of existing and proposed

standards with graphics that clarify where standards have been reduced, increased, or remain unchanged. So, this was a graphic that we um made since we heard the feedback at the December meeting to hopefully um clarify the combination of the districts that we um are recommending here. On the commercial, mixeduse and industrial side, we applied the same simplification approach for the residential districts. We clarified the purpose and intent of each district so it's clear what type of development is expected. We also refined standards related to building form scale and intensity which helps ensure consistent character along corridors and activity centers. Additionally, we removed overlapping or repetitive districts and addressed cross district inconsistencies that made the current code harder to administer. The result is a much more intuitive set of commercial and mixeduse districts with clearer expectations and fewer one-off exceptions or variances. As an example, on the commercial and mixed use side, we streamline districts by removing overlaps and clarifying intent. The GC and GB are combined into a single general commercial district with consistent standards. We also now distinguish between horizontal mixeduse areas like traditional shopping centers and vertical mixeduse districts that support residential or office above retail with build two lines transparency and activated street frontages. For industrial areas, the former spectrum district is consolidated into clear categories emphasizing entertainment oriented uses, research and development or R&D and high quality industrial. This is the existing zoning districts map which you all are familiar with and

this is the proposed zoning district map. These map comparisons illustrate how the consolidated zoning districts are organized spatially across the city. They show how today's many residential, commercial, and industrial districts are simplified into a more intuitive set of categories. Importantly, this is not a resoning action. These maps simply demonstrate how the new district framework functions citywide and ensure the structure is clear and administratable. A simplified district structure also brings the benefits of reducing confusion for applicants, residents, and staff by creating a cleaner, easier to navigate map and improving consistency in how development standards are applied across similar areas of the city. To support ease of use and overall measures for this section, the draft includes clear visual site design standards and graphics that are shown in the supplemental handouts for the consolidated residential and non-residential districts. These standards outline size limits, design compatibility, placement on the lot, setbacks, and adjacencies. In parallel, the draft establishes density thresholds that align with existing infrastructure capacity, including roadway networks, utilities, and school enrollment zones, while also accounting for future growth projections and housing needs. For ADUs, the draft provides clear direction by defining an ADU as one fixed habitable structure with full facilities per lot. ADUs would require a conditional use permit ensuring case-bycase review for compatibility. As we refined the development review tools in the UDC, we also took a close look at the plan development process, which can sometimes feel overly complex

for small projects, yet not flexible enough for large or creative ones. To address this, the draft introduces a two-tier PD system that scales the level of review to the complexity of the application. [clears throat] The tier 1 PD provides a simplified streamlined path for smaller single-use or infill projects with minimal deviations from the bay zoning. [clears throat] These are developments that generally align with the community expectations and require only limited adjustments so the review process can be more efficient. The tier 2 PD is intended for the more complex projects such as mixeduse developments, larger coordinated sites or proposals that integrate incentives or performance-based standards. These application benefit from a more detailed review to ensure compatibility within the development in alignment with Perilan's broader goals. We've heard in our recent conversations that there is interest in additional planning and zoning commission review and notice requirements for those higher impact projects. Um tonight we would welcome further input on this and we'll refine the tier 2 process accordingly as we move towards the 90% draft. This restructured approach ensures that simple projects move quickly while larger or more innovative projects receive the level of attention they need. aligning PD complexity with the review expectations we heard from both staff and development stakeholders. Building on that flexibility framework, the draft also introduces a set of public space incentives. These are voluntary tools, not requirements, that allow limited flexibility like narrower setbacks, less parking, or additional height. In exchange for meaningful public benefits and higher quality site outcomes, these incentives can be applied to things like enhanced open space like pocket parks, courtyards, or usable community gathering areas, improve storm

water performance, including green storm water infrastructure or dualpurpose detention areas. Trail connections and pedestrian linkages that align with broader mobility goals. healthy tree growth which is supported by adequate soil volumes or innovative tree management practices and activated or enhanced frontages which improve the public realm and overall character of or of the corridor neighborhood. [clears throat] Each incentive is intentionally narrow in scope. The idea is to create options that uplift the quality of development while maintaining the city's standards and avoiding overflexibility. They provide an opportunity for developments to go above the baseline while benefiting both the city and residents. Here's an example of a landscape outcome for setback reduction. So let's say a commercial project installs a 100% drought tolerant plantings. All shrubs, perennials, and ground cover selected from the city's drought tolerant list. Because this significantly improves water efficiency and long-term maintenance outcomes, the project becomes eligible for a 25% setback reduction. It's a simple voluntary exchange, higher quality, climate appropriate landscaping in return for modest design flexibility. Another example of this would be um uh focused on tree health outcome that reduces long-term maintenance and um more resilient tree um for increased lock coverage. So a commercial developer provides 1,200 cubic feet of soil volume per tree which supports longived healthy canopies and better storm water absorption. In return, the project qualifies for a 10% increase in lot coverage. And this incentive would encourage investments in tree health while offering limited

predictable flexibility for additional development area. So, I will pause here for any questions or comments. I know I just covered a lot of material. That's all good information. Uh, we'll start with the commission. Mr. chairman. Yes. All of this I'm happy with. It looks good and I don't want to beat continue beating a a dead horse, but in in the infill and the uh redesign or if you will the re rebuilding of a present home. There's still nothing that I read that we're we're pulling out anything for any specifics on rebuilds. We have several older neighborhoods that are beginning to have houses tore down and new ones put in. And we still are they're all encompassed in in the same restrictions and the same code as a new development. And somehow someway we we need to allow areas that have redevelopment in to have a way of continuing to to build with the old code of especially drainage because in green tea with with the new codes of draining from the back of the yard to the street when it's designed to be 50% 50% 50% to

the back 50% to the front. It it it's is causing so many more drainage problems because we don't have a way of identifying well this rebuild this this subdivision is built and designed for this type of drainage and our new code doesn't permit that. So, we need that somehow in there before we get too far along and we just h have a taste on hand. We're we're draining on everybody's property, our neighbors property and all this. So, we need need that. And I I really don't want to continue being a dead horse, but I will until I see something because this is most frustrating. We have Wood Creek. We we have sha shady oat. We have um Green Tea, we have Oldtown that new development or redevelopment, should I say, is already happening. And if there's no way for us to our permit people to give permits and allow people to build as per designed when the subdivision was built. So, we need that to come in.

Thank you for that comment. And I I remember the the case that was brought up at our December meeting um which helps illustrate the issue there and um we've noted that and are working on changes from this effort that will also need to be updated in the criteria manual. So thank you.

Um I don't really have any comments. I have a question or clarification on so we're reducing the R1 or we combining R1 with several residential existing residential districts. What's the um what's the the requirements for R2 general residential that we currently have 70 foot lot seven 7,000 square feet so 70 by 100 [clears throat] 15 foot sideyard set by aggregate.

And then just to reference it, uh you should have a handout. It's page two has R2 on it just if it's easier.

Let me let me give you a little history on our sideyard setback and those types of things as well. The sideyard setback historically in Periland is an aggregate 15. Inside this document, it says it's 7 and 1/2, 7 and 1/2. The the technical is I think it's minimum five on one side, it could be 10 on the other, but the aggregate has to be 15. Um, but most developers just did it seven and a half, seven and a half. Um, so it that was put in the code I mean decades ago before the UDC. It was in our subdivision ordinance. [snorts]

uh and it was really a mechanism to limit density. So even if you had an 80 foot lot or if you had a 70 or certainly you got down to 60 a 60 foot lot would automatically become a 65 and and that's that's how it was viewed. So a 50 foot lot an R4 automatically became a 55 foot lot and and and so it was used to limit density uh along the way. Um, and again, if we want to change from that, that that's that's up to, you know, these bodies to figure that out. But wanted to give you the history behind that. Um, and and Chad, I've I've got questions about how, what, and where we combine these these districts. What does that look like?

Okay,

that's all for now. Thank you. Um, I appreciate your comments, Mr. Mayor, and also for me when when you say that that that, you know, a builder will come in and say, "Well, I've got a 40ft product, but I've got to buy a 50 foot lot." Because first off, he doesn't know if he can get a 40 foot lot in this in this town, right? But but you can change it from 50 to 60 as well. It's just an extra 10 feet of of space that has the developer and therefore the consumer and therefore the city when they redo it. There's 10 more feet of water. There's 10 more feet of sewer. There's 10 more feet of road and all that's going to have to be um refurbished at some point at a cost greater cost to the city. So those kind of rules, those extra five feet that you're talking about, builders don't have lots for 45s. They may have 50s and they may have 60s. So they'll put they'll put the smaller size in there. It also decreases the AV per linear foot that the city could have in their, you know, as a tax base. So agree 100% with that. Um my comments for my thoughts as we went through it's the uh the R4 to town home and then the town home to multif family. Those pages and I don't have page numbers at the bottom. I apologize, but the R4 to town home um is going to go to an MD1 and that's 5,000 square ft. It that doesn't work for a town home. So, I'm not sure why we're going to lump it in there. Now, in all fairness, town homes linked to the next page, which town home to multif family, it says minimum lot of 4,000 square feet. So,

we've gone we've gone from 3,000 square ft to a town home now up to 4,000 square ft. Um, I guess for me what I was hoping for in the UDC rewrite is the the product that we are receiving from uh oh, Sullivan Brothers in Oldtown site. I'd like to duplicate that all over town. I don't know that these rules are going to get us there and and I say I'd like to see it all over town. I know that that those already were small lots, but the product itself is a beautiful product and I what I what I was hoping and what I thought we had a gap of that we would address was um uh what do we call those detached town homes, which is really just a small lot, but a very nice product in a small lot. And I I certainly would like to see that as we try to infill some some locations in town. That might be a a benefit for us uh and a benefit for development. Um and then page 17, I think it was the PD light um versus the PD or it's my words, not not what was on the page.

Tier one and tier two.

Yes, ma'am. I I thought of the tier 2 PD, right? So, in in my opinion, one of the goals for PNZ, I always thought, was to give give council uh you know, the first blush at this at at APD so that you all didn't have to spend so much time on it. um maybe give some uh some forethought um and address some issues so that you had a clean uh PD by the time it got to you. Staff does a fantastic job. And maybe the answer is staff's doing such a good job. You don't need us to look at some of these things first. And that's fine if that's your if that that's your thoughts, but otherwise I thought we took a first blush so that you guys didn't have to spend as much time because y'all have a hundred other things to think about besides just zoning cases. So, uh, those were my comments.

Okay, turn it over to you, Mayor.

All right, good deal. I' I'd like to camp a little bit on this process because I think we've all we've all kind of talked about the process for PD. I think the PD light um seems um straightforward. I kind of I kind of like what's in here. It's it's the PD heavy that [clears throat] we get to. And I think one of the con one of the comments that we've talked about and and Henry has kind of hit on it is we've got the legal notification of 200 ft. So we have that uh and we and we we can't get around that. That has to be the legal side of things. Uh but we've talked about is do we do something in addition to that? Do we do something at the workshop setting? And so if I'm looking at this, you know, I I I see application, I see a PNZ public hearing, then there's a notification, and then there's a planning and zoning and city council joint workshop. So, I'm I'm I'm questioning that workshop typically now is is early on. So, there's an application, then there's a workshop. So, we're going to I mean, the way this is lined out right here, and I don't know if it was meant to be this way or not, but uh it seems like we're having a PNZ public hearing before we even have a workshop on it. And again, part of our purposes for having a workshop early on is if it's just an absolute no, we can tell them no and they haven't spent, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars designing and layout and everything else, you know, and and we we've talked about it. We we want it to be it's going to be no. We want it to be as cheap and quickly as possible. So I don't know if this is meant to be this way or or not. So comment on that. And then secondly, if we do that that joint workshop, we've

talked about having a uh early on. Let's say we do the application and we have the workshop is what would be an appropriate if any u catchment area that we would send a notification to? And I and I readily admit this is going to be borne by the developer. This it's additional cost because you're going to have a cost for that that catchment area and then you're going to if it moves on, you're going to have the actual zone change application which again could be the 200 ft. I get that. I don't I don't think we should necessarily move away on a zone change from the 200 ft because we start doing that we get into why didn't you make it 250? Why didn't you make it 450? Why didn't you make it that? So, I I I get that part of it, but on these um when we get into a PD, what would be appropriate? 500 ft, 1,000 ft, that could all be relative. If you're talking about an area in Chatter Creek or what of what have you, you could be having a thousand homes, you know, in a in in a thousand feet. So, uh may need to have some questions and and then what are we trying to accomplish if we do that? And I think what we're trying to accomplish is we want not necessarily we can't notify the whole city, but we want something greater than the 200 feet getting notifications so we can get input early. They can come to a workshop. They have the ability to come to the workshop. We've talked about where we've sent developers go talk to the next door HOA and they go talk to the board, but we don't know if the board has even engaged the rest of the community or anything else. And then here we are at, you know, first reading or second reading and the house is full with 20 25 people and, you know, we we've now turned something down that otherwise we might have been in favor of kind of along the way. So I I I think this is something we have the opportunity to get right and I don't

know that we will get it right tonight, but I think I'd like to hear feedback on that as to where we want to go and give staff that direction uh in putting this policy together. And then I do have some others, but I I wanted to camp out on that for just a second. So, um I'll open it up.

Oh, okay. That's fine. Yeah. No, no, no, that's fine. No, uh I'm I'm with the mayor on that. Um it's it's one of those deals. Uh what's right, what's wrong? I mean, currently we put it in the paper, we put a sign on the property. So, I mean, there's notification to the public um for, you know, that that's kind of born on the citizen for being engaged. If you want to have your head in the sand and not pay attention, well, that that's fine. Um, we've heard plenty of times where they come up here, well, I just heard this, you know, yesterday, the day before, whatever. Um, yet that's, you know, back then, that's when we got it. It was a Thursday before. I mean, and we didn't have one thing. we had hundreds if not thousands of pages to prepare for me. Um, so you know that that's one of the deals that uh having it in a public notice, having it in the property, you know, you've got to be engaged. If you're not, well, then so be it. Um, but what, you know, do we go from 200 to 500? I don't know what that number is. uh you know because then you go to 500 then the goalpost's going to move to well you know I'm 1,000 ft out and I didn't get a notification so um right now I guess we're tied to state law is is how we do it. Um so you know what's right what's wrong in that that realm I'm I'm not so sure. Uh but uh continuing doing the public notice uh both paper website uh property address. I think all that's, you know,

well, it may be that we do the 200 foot notice, but we do it at the workshop and then we turn around and we do the when they when they pull the string and move forward on a zone change it. Yeah. It does that. So that so that they have that first step before. Yes. And you can establish those communication, you know, opportunities between the developer and the neighbor right there. Yeah. That that that sounds good.

Y Thank you, mayor. Um, and I know typically we communicate, you know, if there's a joining HOA, then they typically own an easement or some common area and they get notified. But, um, I think making sure we we trigger that to get the HOA board because they've got a responsibility to notify their residents as well. Um, yeah, and I completely agree. If you stop at x many feet, it's going to be x many feet plus one. Y

um but it simultaneously that's part of the developers work too.

Like if if if they want 100% sure thing, then they they can they can work through that and and figure out, hey, this there's this neighboring community and they're they're at 10 feet out, but we're going to proactively reach out to them. And so, I don't know that we necessarily have to to write that in, but it's somehow communicate that to them. Um, I I think that would go a long way to getting that cheap no, cheap fast no versus uh dragging it out and then killing it on the second read. Share.

Thank you, mayor. So, I know legally it's 200 feet, but I am in favor of looking at expanding that. I mean, we're not going to hit everyone, but I think we need to look at expanding that beyond 200.

Real quick, um I don't know if Joel's in here or not. I know Lawrence, there was a bill, and I don't know what happened to it. And I know it didn't pass, but I know there was a bill to increase making it mandatory, increasing that distance from 200. I want to say 1,500 was the number. I don't I don't recall. Do you remember that? And we you can maybe look it up and find out what happened to it. My guess is something like that may come back um along the way. And I know there was a bill in addition to that that required uh get this uh it was 1,000 or 1500 feet and it required certified mail. So now your zone change just went from,000 or 1500 to you know minimum five grand and it it died. But I mean that was in there. So I'll let Lawrence look that up. But I I think it'd be kind of good to know what has been has been filed in this last session because it probably will come back. [clears throat]

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um [snorts] I think as far as notification that that we require the developer to do, best thing to do for us is to just stay within the law because that's not arbitrary. we start picking 400, 500, 700, 900,000, there's like like has been said, we're going to end up with a well, why didn't you pick me? Um, type conversation. So, we're we're covered in the sense of we operate within the the law and if the law says it's 500, then we do 500. The law says it's 200, we do 200. Um, you know, as far as these these processes are concerned, um, to Henry's point, the the concept with the PD light, I see recommendation by by PNZ here. I don't know if that needs to be made a box rather than a dotted line because I do think we still want PNZ involved in the process.

It's just supposed to be a shorter, easier process

for things that make a little bit more sense and aren't as complicated. Um, so maybe we we alter that a little bit. And then on the PD2, it hadn't just been clearly stated, so state it this way. Move the first notice to right after the application, just like in PD light, and move the workshop to right after the first notice. Um, just just reorder that situation. I think the biggest the best thing we can do to improve this process for the community is put the notice out earlier. that that seems to be the biggest hurdle, right? So, we put the notice out earlier, like member Kosa said, you get the mailer, you've got the sign on the property, it's it's on our website, it's in the paper. Um, you know, we're following the law and and I think that that's that's the best thing we can do is can be consistent with saying we're following the law. Um, trying to look and see if there's anything else as far as this is concerned. Um, no, I think that was it on on this. Lance has a

Yeah, and apologies to interrupt everyone, but just to just to share a little bit following the last legislative update regarding how the meetings are posted. So, um, four items that go to planning and zoning, there the sign on site, the public hearing website, and the letters are all mailed 19 days before PNC. And so, 19 days before it goes to planning and zoning for first reading, there's been a sign on site. the public hearing website has been updated and letters have been sent. More just sharing that for the content just for the process, right?

I know. Thank you, mayor. Um, [clears throat] last time we talked about this, I think it was council member Carbone that said something about this um changing the way we did it or changing the notification and whatever he said. I don't remember what it was though, Tony. Um, it was it was it was smart. Um, adding a time limit or adding an [laughter] whatever it was. Of course, it was it was right.

It was right. But, um, I do think this order is a little bit um a little bit crazy. So, I and two adding a little bit more to uh distance does make sense. And um but it seems like it if it's rushed um on on the second u when we when we have the public hearing then it's people are it's there's a lot of people here and then um maybe not but maybe not everybody that um doesn't get a chance. You know what I'm saying? And Tony, I wish I could remember what it was you said. It was smart though.

She said it twice. I'll go back, Mr. Fernandez. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I don't really have too much to add. I I think we we pretty much uh there's a lot that I agreed upon. Uh the notices rearranging a little bit. Um Member Carbone talked about the uh notification of HOAs. Uh I had that down. uh there there's just you and I think o overall I think we've kind of hit it so I don't have any more additional information to pass out. Thank you.

Okay, real quick. And and Vance has let me know this is a typo on the slide. So there's actually but there is two notices. There's a notice to the planning and zoning and then there's a second notice to council or is it just one notice? So there's there's a single notice that goes out to planning and before the planning and zoning public hearing. And so the the typo is this workshop should be application then workshop then notification P&Z public hearing notification or no there's only one notification. So that notification by the time it gets to council uh they've had it for yeah a month plus. And I I think what we're saying though and I know that I'm I'm just saying this slide is

it's a little out of order. Right. But to your point that does bring up something interesting. If we wanted to try to engage the public more, move the first notice to before the workshop and do a second notice before the council hearing, which was going to be something I was going to ask Councilman PNZ to give some direction on because we do get we are hearing consistently from enough that we need to talk about it. And that is do we want would you like us to draft up an option where we're and I know you all say yes to that but where we're noticing workshops.

Yeah. I noticing I I think I think that's part of our answer because it's it's it's engaging the public earlier and to to member Kosa's point. This is a two-way street. the the the community has to react and respond and go and if they're not showing up to some of the public even the workshops are engaging us on some of this and they're waiting till council because a lot of times they've had the notification and sometimes you get a lot of people that show up. Sometimes you have virtually no one show up for your public hearings and and then but then they they wait and get the council and and so there there's a it you know it it's I've I've seen it go both ways. I've seen it where it

at P&Z it dies and then nobody shows up and it kind of shocks you and then you see it grow from P&Z to us. So I mean I've I've seen it both ways and at the same time we have people show up here for first reading or second reading a lot of times second reading and the questions and comments have been fully addressed in the development. Right. And yet it's it's kind of a last minute you know

thing. Well it or it they don't know what they don't know right? they come up, they assume this is what it's going to be and you know the build line's going to be at my back fence and all that and and and they really haven't gone through it. And so to be fair and to be you know candid I think earlier the better. I think you're hearing you know get the notice out early and and and again I think that notice is that the saying 200 uh or do we look at something different but then there is a notification for an actual zone change and that's in the hands of the developer. Right. So that would be a second notification of when there because it might be we've seen workshops and then we've seen the actual public hearing two, three, four months down the line. It it's not always immediately. Sometimes it's two or three four months. So in in fairness, that's when the actual legal notification of the zone change goes out. So I think that could that could stay in there. Here's some other questions I had. I think

Mayor, may I interject one thing? uh you know and we all know this but the bottom line is I think that the public looks at it from the standpoint is P&Z we don't answer to them per se because we're we are assigned by y'all to serve in that committee and uh they know that if they're going to have a chance of getting a a big cluster of people out it's better used on city council because But quite honestly, they're voters, right? And uh and they're hoping to get get some uh leverage because of that. That's fair. That's part of why I like it at the workshop because we're all here. We're all here. Correct.

Right. Correct.

And and and I think we've got as we talk about the future of our city and our community and and what we're trying to attract in our community, both with additional residents and retail and industry and everything else. We've got to be sensitive to that also that we don't go through a workshop and a notice and they've had it for a month and two hearings and then we get down to the very end and we kill them because people just decided to show up when it is a two-way street and we've we we can't I don't think it's reasonable to expect to expect council or P&Z or staff for that matter to track down everybody that might have an input on a topic. You know, at some point there's got to be a limit that we said we've done everything we responsibility everything we can possibly do. You know what I mean? I mean, it it's got to go both ways and it can't be just incumbent upon us to figure out how to educate everybody.

I would like to say something about that because I don't think 200 feet meets the community. I'm sorry because you had people here in council that did not receive that notification. So, I happen to disagree. I think we need to increase the 200. That that that's fair. And that just goes to the question is what number do we pick? And and why what number do we pick and what and why do we pick it? Yeah. And the 200 is the mandatory number by state law.

We can go more than 200. We just can't go less than 200. And and I think and I've just I've always just kind of had the thought it if if we're not doing 200 then what's appropriate and whatever is appropriate may be different from project to project. But I think we need to set a limit on that if it's not going to be 200. You know what is that number? Is it we're just going to set 500 as the number and I'm just using that arbitrarily. Um you know if that's the case and it's 500 on every zone change. It's going to be that that way no matter what. We're not going to go back and forth on, you know, on from development to development. Mr. Car,

we got the experts back there that we're paying big bucks to. What What are other communities setting above the 200 foot? Right. Yeah. I think 500 is u a round number. Um a typical city block is about 350 feet. So um it's about a block and a half. Um, that's probably on the more uh the the lower side. Um, but I I haven't really seen it stretch beyond that in in most cases. [clears throat]

At at a followup, however you want to get to us, if maybe we can see a couple of of recent cases with the 200 foot notice and then just a map showing a 500 foot just so we can look at it and it's not completely arbitrary. And along along that line, I think we also need to see what uh costs are associated. I was fixing to say the same thing. What does that cost look like? And again, that's going to vary depending on what it is. But but I agree. What's that what's that zone change cost going to change to you? And then on that note, and just cuz as staff, I took it this way, but I want to make sure it's clear. I mean, we would charge the applicant those mailing fees. This wouldn't Okay. Yeah. No, that's what Yeah. I mean, that's what we're doing right now. But I mean, what's it going to cost the applicant?

Well, and apologies. I meant for the workshop. Like if we start noticing workshops, we would charge they would pay to mail those letters, right? Well, if if we're doing one, you're still going to have just the one. It's just coming sooner. It's a matter of if you're going to go from whatever 200 feet is to 500, if it doubles, triples, you know, whatever that mailing is, that's what's the cost. I had a question if I may. Yep. Regarding that, if it's 500, what happens if that doesn't hit anyone? I mean, we change it 500 or whatever is kind of being used elsewhere in our community. What happens if that doesn't hit anyone? We're not noticing the public or does it?

It It's 500 ft though from your boundary, not from a point. It's a property boundary of the lot, right? But there could be instances and I've seen it before where it's hit like three homes. The the 200 feet has hit three homes. So has and that's statutoily what we have to do but that didn't even so I mean I think there should be

I think I think and I think the 500 is addressing that if the if the two if the 200 only hit you know three neighboring properties I would hope that 500 hits you know half that or double that you know six or more I think what we'll find is we'll hit more we're certainly going to hit more properties or the opportunity I guess there's rural enough areas where if you did 500. It might not touch anyone. I think that's going to be super rare, but I it could happen. And I think we we cross that bridge if it happens. But I mean, if you're down off of five uh County Road 100 with one of those properties down there and you do 500 ft, you you you might you're still going to be north of 100 and you're going to hit something. Um you know, when that happen, but most of that's out of the city on the other side. So u I don't think we're sending notices to people who are in our ETJ. Correct. Right. So but I think so Vance, do you have direction on some of this topic at least to come back with some options?

Yeah, I think so. We'll we'll bring a 200500 example and we can show those number increases. That's that's not a problem. It sounds like we do have a consensus about noticing for workshops. Um one item I do want to say is my understanding is the not there would be two notices if we did that. that there'd be a workshop notice and then there'd be formally when they submit to go to B and Z.

Okay. I think that was what everyone because because there may be a time span of of X as we do that. All right. Uh I I did want to have a good discussion on that because I think our process on that can help uh in the future. Real quick, uh I think it's slide 12. There was two 12elves. There was a 12 12 and then it went to 14. So one of them should have been um renamed. Talking about the lot sizes. Um I think even the one right there. So if we're going to change from the I I I do agree maybe you know changing some of our um residential districts. It would be interesting to know uh on the re SR-15 and SR12 when we put that into the code. Um it it was again it was done just to encourage and have more you know larger larger lots which under an R1 you could still go larger none of this it's all minimum you could um I I I would wager a guess that you can count on one hand developments that fell into RE SR15 and SR12 I don't I don't

and and even R1 yeah well you you R1 would you know we got R1 R1 was 1970

I was going to say 40 years years ago, you know, you you had some R1 subdivisions and and since then it's it's it's gone smaller. So, I I think I think coming uh with fewer uh districts is going to be a good thing, but how do we if it's raw land today, not not a subdivision, let's take you an R2 subdivision is there today. I'm sure with deed restrictions and others, something's happened. We're not going to go smaller. Other words, we're going to grandfather somehow someway what's there today. But let's take a 5 acre track, a 10acre track that's sitting out there and it's zoned R12 um or R15 and and and Lawrence, is there any investmentbacked expectation that would change if we change that? Um, I would think if we go more dense, I don't know that people would com again, they can still go larger. You can always go larger than what's on the plan.

That's not been the trend. Oh, it's not been the trend. I I readily admit that. I'm just saying they can go larger. But if we do a map amendment and we if the if the land is vacant, I don't think it's going to hit the investment back expectations. state requirements focus on if you create something that is non-conforming

and it triggers new notices and it affects those expectations and then the city's regulations could I would be surprised if our city ever chose to do it. Um but you could actually phase somebody out kind of like how people do with billboards now. Um and you can say okay by this date you have to be gone but then we have to pay for that. Again, I don't I've never heard anybody on city council suggest that we take that type of approach, but that's how I have seen the bills written based on how other municipalities have proceeded. I just wanted to make sure that we talked about that because somebody has zoning. We're changing that zoning and you know, ultim ultimately there'd be a zone change there. So, that's that was that. And then on the mixeduse districts, um walk me through that again. I I want to make sure I understand what are we trying to do away with the mixed use districts or are we trying to modify it? Um this is Ishad Gosh with design workshop planner. Uh with the mixeduse district uh we are mainly trying to departmentalize it within two typologies where mixed use horizontal is something which is more towards commercial retail going horizontal mixes whereas mixeduse vertical would have the option of having live work and other uh residential uses along with commercial at the ground level.

So, we just combining them and bringing it in those districts.

Okay. Because I I do think um again history there these were just areas that we annexed that was in the county. We brought them in and you had homes and you had businesses, you had this type of thing that were coexisting and we were trying to not create, you know, nonconformity u but instead trying to to put some some rhyme or reason to it. I think now it's a little more cumbersome to where we are right now with the mixeduse district. So, I think anything that we can do to make it easier in those areas. Uh I think we're still going to have some mix of uses because there's businesses and homes uh that are coexisting, but you know, how we do that and and not make it necessarily more ownorous on a business or or whatnot. I think some of those types of things would be good. Um, as we move that move that forward, I'll open it up to to council. I just wanted to make sure that I had those on the on the table.

So, so uh looking at this for me, um, when I look at the, uh, the R1 and R2, um, [clears throat] basically we're increasing density in our smaller or what we used to have larger land. Now, we're going to have less land. Then we go into the multif family, if that's what you want to call it. We're lowering density. This this plan is kind of odd to me in the fact that uh we call it low density residential and we're actually increasing density. I don't I don't understand that because you're going to go in an R1. I mean, granted, we're not going to see R1s or at least we haven't. Um but you go to suburban development district, you're almost 3:1. So the density is not low. Um we're we're eliminating what we used to call single family and basically by verbiage it's with throwing in ADUs. It's multif family the the whole plan. Um, so to me it's kind of I don't know if it's oxymoron, but it's it's going in the wrong direction in my opinion. Um, because we're taking our our single family and we're throwing it out the door and we're making it higher density and every time we have higher density developments here, we get people in here in our community, they're unhappy. So, it's kind of odd to me to see the verbiage that's used and the lot sizes that go with it. So, um that um and then you made a comment about ADUs. Um something about one structure per lot um when you were talking about that. What exactly did you mean regarding that?

Um I just wanted to clarify regarding multif family we are not proposing that until mixed medium density residential too before that it's all single family uses all R1 R2 MD2 these are all single family uses

okay well it doesn't it doesn't say that it just says low density residential so where we're taking what used to say single family R1 R2 R3 R3, R4. Uh, that's in this layout here. It doesn't say that, but not to get lost in the semantics of it, uh, the the trend to me where you have increased density and a low density, that's kind of misleading. And then you get into a higher density, you're going less density. Um, it's counterintuitive to what I'm looking at. Um but my my question in regards to the ADU uh because that's where it'll take single family residential. Um we have no way of enforcing it when uh when that propertyy's sold uh we're going to we're going to take our single family and make it multif family. So what did you mean when you said uh on the ADU one structure per lot? So for ADUs we have written a language about it won't be more than one structure for additional for dwelling unit specifically accessory dwelling unit because right now in the code there's nothing specifically written about accessory dwelling unit to be one that is the first thing that we've added and we've added language about what needs to be there other than that adus would not be approved without going through a cup process.

Well, we we haven't shot one well, we shot one down, but for the most part, we haven't shot any down uh because it comes into where we're concerned about uh family members. It's we're not concerned about what the future of our community looks like. Um so, we're we're concerned about one uh giving situation and we're not concerned about our community moving forward. And so that's that's where my concern is is once that property sells. Uh it it kind of reminds me if you go downtown to to a baseball game and you look at uh one of the elevations it says you can't live underneath the bridge. State law. Um I I've never seen a state police officer come arrest a homeless person. Um so we're sitting here saying, "Hey, you have to be related by blood. You have to be related this way." And then when I ask the question and legal says there's no way to enforce it. So we're we're creating something with no enforcement mechanism. So what we're doing is setting up the city for the future to have multifamily and single single family residential zoned areas. So somebody that buys into a single family residential and turn into multifamily because what we did today blindly. And and if I may on that, member Kosa and design workshop, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe a part of this was actually to be preventative towards some recent legislation that was was proposed and doesn't affect us, but that was going to allow multiple ADUs on a lot. And so this was I believe a step towards saying you can only have one and that multiple would not be allowed.

Well, that that that failed. And I mean, if state comes in and says, "Hey, you can allow two or three," it's going to go out the door anyway. Uh that so yeah, I get that you're you're going to try and prohibit it, but if they come in and allow that, that that's gone. Yeah. And and part of it was just to try and address that and get ahead of it, but at the same time, a CUP will still be required for all of them. No, I I I get that, but we haven't denied Well, like I said, we denied one.

I I mean, I do see trying to take these classifications, all of those, and moving them R1. We kind of change some of the things up for R1, but we do change that and taking R2 and R3 and making it R2. Um R4 and town home, making it medium density residential, town home and multif family, which um I don't know that we have vacant multif family land. Well, and if and if I may on that, just want to relate and happy to revert back to using single family language if that's a direction we prefer, but at the same time trying to knock the dust off of a 20-year document with trends that are actually happening and not saying land use sizes that aren't ever going to be seen. It's just something I would table to the group.

Any other questions, comments? We've got more presentation. Go on. Sorry.

Um, yes. Sorry, I didn't um we wanted to do a quick clarification on the town homes. So, with both the medium density residentials that we have suggested, the lot areas uh actually has asterisk. So we have actually downsized the town homes to about like 2,250 ft and that will be showing up in the 90% draft. Thanks. Let's move to the land use categorization slide. So a town home becomes an R4 lot. Yes, that's correct.

So you've just done away with town home designation. Really? That's correct. I mean Yeah. Yeah.

And and I guess the question is, is that what we want? Because at the end of the day, we we do encourage um compact, you know, compact housing, compact residential. Compact residential is not a 5,000 foot lot. It's going to go to something that that's 2500, 3,000 foot lot. So I don't I mean I and again do we want to do it by right or encourage that through some PD form? That's why I was trying to [clears throat] do the math because under an R under the proposed change combining R1 through SD into R1 that results in 5 and a half dwelling units per acre. putting R2 and R3 into R2 is eight and a half dwelling units per acre. I don't know how to

No, there's no way that that that math's wrong then. I'll tell you math's wrong. 426. You go you go with a you go with a an 80 foot lot. There is no way you get five and a half. I I'll just somebody prove it to me, but you cannot get five and a half units to the you got to put you got to factor in streets. You got to factor in detention. You got to factor all that.

So the way our so the way our cluster plan development used to be, if it was an R1, it was 3.2 units to the acre and R2 was four. And I even think those numbers are wrong. You couldn't get that many to it. But um so by the time you you factor in true setbacks in the market, um you're at even an 80 foot lot, you're probably at about 2.8. for the Okay, which is fine. I'm just doing square footage divided by that's the only numbers in it. But that ultimately, I mean, we keep talking about rooftops. We keep talking about having single family homes, wanting more single family homes and whatnot, but we're going to try to stick to we talked at the beginning of this that these existing designations, we don't see subdivisions come for those lot sizes anyway. Why would we keep them? We

No, I I I'm not I'm not disagreeing with that. I We haven't seen it uh yet. I built a subdivision on an R1 and they're all larger than an R1. Yeah. They sold and I mean there is a market. It's just not big market. Exactly. But developers for the most part aren't willing to go that route because they want to maximize their their profitability on Correct. cramming as much as they can on a piece of land. Correct. Like Alexander, that's going in on 35. Any one of them. Yeah.

That gets to your point is where are we trying to go? I mean, the the documents that I've seen with the comprehensive plan and the prosperity plan and everything else seem to point more towards this than the old way of doing anything of doing things. We're not trying to at least the documents we have that are guiding us so far is not trying to have large lots and reduce density. So it's it's it's got to be one of the two.

Exactly. Exactly. And I mean like I said, anytime we go more density is when we get more constituents in the door. Well, we only get the constituents in the door when it's apartment high density neighborhoods, single family homes. We don't seem to have that objection. It's just when it's as much when it's an apartment complex as much. Yes. Any other questions, comments? All right. Continue on.

Thanks, Mayor. Next, we want to revisit the updates to the land use matrix, which is one of the most frequently referenced parts of the UDC. We reorganized the matrix using APA's landbased classification standards as a decision makingaking guide, and APA is the American Planning Association. [clears throat] So, this provides a clean, widely recognized framework for grouping similar uses. This helps with consistency across definitions and makes the matrix easier for applicants, staff, and residents to navigate. The updated matrix now provides clear groupings of similar uses, reducing ambiguity, consistent definitions across the commercial, civil, civic, industrial, and food service categories, a clear separation between types of mixeduse, residential, public, and industrial activities. Reduced reliance on cups by allowing more uses by right where impacts are predictable. and overall a more predictable structure that improves efficiency and review. Um [clears throat] we've reduced uh by reducing reliance on cups. This allows more uses by right um sorry this shift also supports the updated zoning district framework we showed earlier and the goals of the comprehensive plan. So here's an example you can see of the table um just a snippet of where in the green um we've consolidated some categories um that made sense under one header um and we've really been studying the conditional use permits and the permitted by right very carefully but [clears throat] welcome any feedback on this. Um okay next slide. So um this is where we'll pause and talk about the land use matrix if you've had a chance to review and have any thoughts on the cups and permitted by right.

All right, we'll open up with the commission and I we're probably going to hit this uh this workshop on this question and then move to the other workshop um out of fairness to to the applicant. So um I think we're all good. Okay. Any other uh from council's perspective, any uh questions on that piece of it? Okay.

Thank you, Mayor. Does this uh restructuring the land use allow any new um use by right? It does. And we can pull those. Okay. I would like some more information on that. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? I think we'll um and I know the design workshop had a lot more to go or Yeah, a lot more to go. Um it was the what we were calling additional topics if we had time. So, Broadway nonconformities, food trucks.

Okay. Well, we're gonna we're going to cut it so we can move to the other um the other workshop to be fair to our applicant. So, uh we can do Oh, real quick. Thank you, mayor. Um one one that I did have that kind of falls under this as far as uh existing structures and whatnot. Um we we have situations where uh triggers are set. uh currently if you go over 15% any of this type stuff it can uh trigger other things is that going to be staying in place or is that something that how does that work out? So the triggers table we do have some um updates proposed to we can I can pull it and share it with you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. So with that we will go to discussion number two. Request by Thomas forner applicant on behalf of Perland Storage LLC and Ald Coker owners for plan development workshop is required by the unified development code regarding a proposed light industrial development on 13.147 acres of land south of Nap Road east of Main Street Fairland. Um we'll open it up with staff report. Thanks, Mayor Cole. For this one, I'll hand it over to Katie.

Morning or good afternoon, council and commissioners. Um, as was just read into the record, tonight's request is for a PD workshop for the property that is south of Nap Road, east of Main Street here in Perland, Texas. Um, the purpose of this workshop is to discuss and provide feedback related to a proposed distribution facility containing a single 1,700 I'm sorry, 173,100 square foot building with approximately 112 parking spaces, two drive and doors, 38 docks on approximately 13.5 acres of land. Um, the intent is to reszone this from general commercial to planned development with the base zoning of M1. If this feels a little bit familiar, it's because it was recently heard. Um, it went to council where the application was heard and the vote unsuccessful by a vote of 0 to6. Direction was given at that council meeting that the consideration for a conditional use permit or a planned development in order to um restrict some of the uses that may be appropriate in some areas that are zoned M1 but not this specific area could be removed from the zoning request. and um a PD light or or an M1 light be proposed in this location. Um so the applicant has brought forward the request um the request that you're seeing tonight has a lot of similarities to the handover PD which is directly not directly I guess is nearly directly to the north. Um so on the screen this would be where that handover PD is. A lot of the um information that you have received in your packet is very similar to that. Um so this is the property here with frontage on both Nap Road and Main Street. Um it's in the general commercial zoning district. Currently it has a little bit of M1 zoning to the south there. Um but generally it's M1 surrounding this property. On the future land use plan is identified as the manufacturing

district. So you can see that it's set in that with public use on a few sides and then manufacturing to the north there. The applicant has provided a design plan. Um it has a driveway access on both Main Street and Nap Road. And then they have provided a list of deviations. Um in addition to the deviations that you see on your screen, they provided a similar list to that which you saw during the handover PD review that has the um list of uses that have been struck. I included that in your staff report, but it does not fit very pretty on the screen. I'd be happy to discuss that in further detail um if you'd like to or any of the deviations you see on the screen. For the most part, the deviations would re be related to the height, um the required landscaping areas for it, screening, um fencing, interior to plantings, uh I'm sorry, interior to parking planting requirements, and then um illumination and building materials/articulation for that corridor overlay district, which would be the main street portion of the site. Um in addition to those deviations, they did provide some additional information related to the vehicular circulation and truck circulation of the site um which is on the screen in front of you and has been provided for in your packet. So you can take a look at that. I have made this a very brief presentation and would be happy to go through any of the deviations in depth. However, with it being very similar to that which you've seen um just recently, as well as being at the direction of council to look at this through the cup or plan development process, um since the conditional use permit would not allow them for the scope of uses that they are looking for in this, they have opted for this plan development, which is why they are here before you. They are here to present on behalf of the project, and I will turn it back over to you, Mr. Mayor, unless you have questions.

Okay. Uh do you guys have a presentation? All right. Uh good evening. Thank you for having us back today. Um so as Katie said, uh this will look very similar to what we presented at city council. Um I guess it was about a month ago now around that time frame. Um and at uh the council's direction, um we've decided to come back for a um a PD. We explored the cup process and the PD. I think just given that we're speculative development uh or a speculative development and we don't know which tenants going to come in, I think the PD gave us the most flexibility to be able to kind of um transition into whatever tenant is um going to come and occupy this building. Um but this presentation uh is very similar to what I um presented um back in uh very early or late January, early February. I won't recap our um our resume here just you know we've got a lot of experience doing this and I've got uh three buildings right now going on just outside the Parland city limits along the beltway. Um just did a little work on our site plan. Um we kind of updated it. Um uh the planning and zoning and the EDC's been uh amazing and helping us kind of get up to speed and get in this PD process. Um, so we took what I think has already been approved with handovers and we kind of incorporated some of that here. Adjusted our setbacks a little bit to match uh the main street uh overlay um corridor there. Um you know, we don't we're not really interfering with residential. So we kind of looked um you know and uh made some judgments there with setbacks under our adjacent um uh commercial properties. But um bottom line, this is kind of an updated site plan. Same concept, just a little bit of the uh handover PD information implemented into this to, you know,

hopefully um allow this to kind of seamlessly fall in line and pass through. Uh here's a blowup of the site plan. Um so um you know, we understand that there's um setback requirements and that there are landscaping requirements along Main Street, that there's an overlay corridor there. Um we're achieving in this plan those setback requirements. the landscape, you know, as we get into design and development, we'll incorporate all of those landscaping elements into that design when we go for permitting in that. Uh, no change to the base concept that we presented a few weeks back. Um, still 173,000 foot front load industrial distribution building. Um, access off of 35 and then secondary access uh off of Nap Road. Um and in subsequent slides I'll show we're still outfalling to Hickory Sloth. Uh and we are still intending to detain for Mr. Coker um and provide detention for his site uh Parland alternator to bring him in compliance with BDD4 and Parland um current regulations. Uh and that will all be achieved um in these two detention ponds. [snorts] And this flows from plan north uh to kind of east uh and outfalls in Hickory Law. Um and then just want to back up and uh touch on a few things here. Uh we're set off 35 ft from Nap Road. Um and then we're set off 25 ft from um Main Street. Uh we're understand that uh there's one shade tree per 30 feet along um Main Street. We've got sideyard setbacks um at 25 [snorts] ft given that we're not a budding residential there. Um and then again we will you know develop a full-blown landscape plan for submission as permitting when

uh this is kind of the same traffic flow um pattern that I presented at the last meeting. Um just you know kind of talking about congestion and how we see uh flow on the site working. Um again we are currently zone general commercial. Um although our you know vehicle type um will go up to 18 wheelers, we anticipate our trip counts going down significantly over general commercial. Um with this site, um again, we're looking at still about 19 trucks per day and 35 cars per day. Our tenants typically operate on a normal um business cycle, 7, 8 in the morning, five, six in the evening. Uh this type of building is typically not a 24-hour a day uh flow in andout um distribution facility. Uh this is a you know product comes in, stores for a a period of time and then um then moves out. Um none of our docks are facing residential. Um, and then I think we have um in here a rendering also to kind of give an idea of what we're going to look at look like on the front there facing nap or excuse me facing um Main Street to kind of comply with the overlay corridor uh and the glass requirements that are there. Then I left this in just because I know there were a few questions in the previous one about detention in the area. I know that's always uh or you know flooding in the area. Uh I've highlighted here u the light blue uh section is Mr. Coker's parland alternator and the other building he has there. Um just you know the key point that I want to um you know tray here [snorts] is that we're going to detain for Mr. Coker. It's part of our agreement with um purchasing the NAP road site from him. Um that detention is going to be provided in the main pond. It'll flow uh souththeast and into the secondary pond then out to um Hickory Sloth and then on down to the Clear Creek channel. Um

Then I don't think we put a rendering. We brought some um some hard copies of it uh as well, but um a separate rendering, but um that's a you know, a draft rendering of the building. Um uh and part of the genesis of asking for a little bit of a height variance on our PD. Um you know, [snorts] this building is going to have a 32 foot clear height. I think there the the current M1 zoning caps it at 45. when we have, you know, joist and the roof on top of that, we're at about 40 42 and then, you know, just to give us a little bit of ability to make some panels taller or shorter and provide a little bit of aesthetics to the building. Um, we're asking to kind of go above that 45. Uh, not necessarily because we want to build a, you know, taller building than 45, but just to break up the front facade a little bit if if um if you know, as we're going through permitting that some of that's asked of us during the [clears throat] And with that, I think that kind of completes our um presentation. I guess I can open it back up.

Yeah, we'll open up for questions. We'll start with our planning and zoning commission. Uh and we do thank you guys for coming back through this process. I think what we wanted to do was instead of just open M1, you know, make it a little bit more um closed, if you will, kind of set. And so I I appreciate you guys coming back through this. We'll open it up to Commission I I I recall we had some of some of the questions and they've been addressed. Um, and I appreciate him coming back. I I think it's a good-look building. Uh much prettier than the flea market down the road, if I could say that.

Yes, it is. Hi. I was just wondering, you had stated that you anticipated 19 trucks per day and I was just wondering how you came up with that number. Yes, ma'am. Um, it's a balance between what the TIA, you know, looking at this from a civil engineering perspective and then what historically our tenants that we get in our buildings, um, you know, are doing on a per day basis. Uh, a lot of them and then that's kind of an average of that. A lot of them are actually lower than the 19 per day. Um, but we kind of looked at what the TIA states and then what historically our tenants um have done and that 19's where that's okay. Thank you. I think TIA specifically on this site for us is dictating like 36. [snorts]

I wasn't present for the uh original presentation, so I apologize if this was addressed already, but are there any um roadway improvements for Nap Road? Yes, NAP road scheduled to be improved by the EDC. So, handover, right? Because of the handover. Well, it it was it was in the works even without handover, but yes. What's the time frame on the on the Matt? What's the time frame on it? 18 months. Thank you.

Yes, sir. And I I've tied in pretty well with um Matt and his team and that kind of lines up because we were, you know, offering to kind of participate in that before handover came uh along. And that ties in pretty well. I mean, I [snorts] think by the time we get this um uh PD and then we go through all of our permitting and bidding and start construction, that road construction will be either underway or complete before we're, you know, ready to start implementing uh any or put any tenants. Yep. [clears throat]

Thank you for your presentation. I I have a few questions and and concerns. One question would be is when you brought it PNZ, you said the nap road entrance exit would only be used on on an emergency or very little. Um, then it looks like it's now going to be an access point. Of the 19 18-wheers, how many of those 18 wiglers would you anticipate using the NAP road?

Um, that's kind of tough for me to predict, but what Nap Road essentially does, because if you know the median here, um, the texttop median in on 35 is a raised median with hooded protected turn lanes. and we know already that we're not going to be able to modify that. Um so NAP road access um will provide access for trucks um coming from the beltway south to the site without having to go try to make a Uturn or you know do something or you know reverse traffic flow like through Mr. Coker's um entry. Um so I would I would say probably 60 to 70% of those trucks will be coming from the north from the beltway. Um just given knowledge of of you know logistics flow within the city and in this area and what makes it attractive for a a front load distribution center. Um we have still um the same as in our PNC meeting, we're still restricting it down to uh one lane of traffic so that it doesn't become a a two-way street. Um, our intent would be that trucks flow in uh via that road if they need to coming from the north, but everybody still exits uh via uh 35 and either goes north. If they have to go south on 35 for some reason, then they would exit out to Nap Road, turn, hit the light, and then turn south.

Okay, thank you. I foresee very few trucks going south on 35.

Okay, thank you for that. Now, the other comments, questions on your on your PD, you're asking for 60 feet height. I'm a little a little concerned about the 60 ft because with you asking for 60 ft with modifications, someone may want to build 60 ft. So, I'm I'm I've got a little reservations there. as well as on your landscaping, you want to include your your dry detention as part of your 15% of landscaping. Um I'm I'm just not sure what precedent this that would open up. So I have concern about that. But [clears throat] one thing I would like for you to uh expound on just just a little and that is in your application I believe you had six to seven different accepted um by right and then I believe uh you had over 35 of non-exceptions. What is your thinking on the non-exceptions versus your short list of accept of acceptable?

Are we uh businesses businesses that would inhabit it?

So, what we're trying to capture here in this PD is traditionally in our buildings uh it's either going to be a distribution facility or some sort of very light manufacturing and that's what we're going after, right? Uh we've also seen kind of recently um and this is newly developing but uh trampoline park for instance I think was one that was called out specifically well we've actually had um a company come in and lease out space from us to put something like that together. Um, so you know, we're we were trying not to limit our because this is a speculative develop de development, trying not to limit our pool and our common tenants like that, but also be receptive to the fact that nobody wants a, you know, a concrete batch plant put here um in the middle of the city. Um, so when I was coming up with that list, I was trying to eliminate those things that I think cause concern for the citizens and for the council uh around, but then leave our, you know, leave our space open to where, you know, if a trampoline park does want to come or somebody wants to come in there and do um, you know, some sort of showroom or something. Um, I think one of them was like ATV showroom or something like that. I don't suspect that that would ever happen in a brand new class A industrial spec building, but I was just trying to leave the option open and then eliminate the things that caused, you know, what I felt like genuine concern for the um the citizens. And then I can comment on the 60oot too uh if you'd like. Um you know, as I was saying, this building, you know, if you're looking at these parapits right here in the front of this building, these are probably at about 47 feet 48t for a parapit like this. uh over this building when we do 32 foot clear height. So, I was just trying to provide a little bit of flexibility for the front facade of the building to be able to be built up if you know during the design process or during the permitting process. Um we've received comments back that we need to change some of this uh to meet uh 35 overlay corridor requirements. That's all. But as you see this building right here, those parapits

are probably if they're not over 45, you know, they're they're 44 to 46 somewhere in that neighborhood for that. And thank you so much. [snorts]

I'm just curious, have you reached out to any of the homeowners or the business owners that are up and down uh Nap Road to kind of cut off any controversy this next time? I do believe um so we haven't reached out to any homeowners because we're not abuing any residential um we're buying this site from Mr. Coker um and he's our next door neighbor. We're buying the nap road site, Mr. Coker. So uh he's keenly aware and um very excited for us to come along and do this and get him out of uh BDD4's hot seat. Um, we have talked to the shop, the HVAC shop that's just south of us because, um, just one thing that we're kind of looking at doing or we were talking about doing is trying to maybe see if we can go after a shared access um, drive there because they do have a hooded protected turn lane off of 35 into their um, their site. I don't know if that's really going to go anywhere because, you know, we're negotiating with another private business on that over and and, you know, have to make sure the economics work for the site for that access. Um and it's my understanding that um you know one of the uh concerned business um from uh the last meeting uh has sold that business and that uh real estate and it's no longer there. Um so we've talked you know to those in the area and have not received any the only feedback negatively that we got was at that last city council meeting over the congestion alone.

Okay. So you u the gentleman that showed up that that had the statements to make you you've contacted him. Okay, that's it. Mayor,

open up for questions, comments, Mr. Cousin. Thank you, Mayor. Um when I was looking at Google Earth, um your access off of 35 um from the beltway um you hinted to a little bit um it's only going into Parland alternator or air specialist. So your access into this piece of property from 35 is only coming from the south. So what that's going to do uh unless text dot has allowed you to break the median. Uh have you had any discussions with Tex? Uh yes sir. Um they they are not going to allow us to modify that median. That that's the purpose for the NAP road um entryway is to provide that south.

Okay. So they're not interested in letting us that's that's what I assume. So, now that now that we know that, um, what that's going to do is that's going to make Nap Road your entrance and exit for the majority of it. That's that's your main access to this property. Yes, you'll have some come off of 35 if they're coming from the south. Uh, they're not going to be able to come from the beltway and and go east on that. So, NAP is now it. Um, so, uh, Matt, can you get to a microphone? While Matt's coming up here, I know just one last thing. I did check in. I remember you had to comment. All of our taxes are paid up and

Yes, I was going to thank you for that and and I appreciate that. I talked to Mike Darlow and he said that you've handled the the taxes and the uh the penalty. So, I appreciate that. Um, so Matt, the the uh rework of Nap Road, what are we looking at doing there? Uh, so it would be uh two-lane road. It'll be it'll be the same profile that we've just recently built on both Hock and Rice Dryer. So I can't tell you the actual fee, but it'll be sidewalk, lighting, storm, sewers, the whole works. Yeah. No, I was about 32 They're about 32 plus feet. Yeah, I mean we're looking at at one way in, one way out with a lefthand turn, I assume. Yeah, it'll probably have a lefth hand turn lane definitely up at at the at the intersection.

Yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no. That's what that's what I assume because basically looking at this, their main entrance and exit, their secondary is off 35. They're inbound. They're outbound will be able to go obviously out to 35 and go straight north. Yeah, exactly. But I mean, they're they're inbound. So, you've got half of it. Yes.

Off an app road and through the last with handover uh the neighborhood and uh Mr. Ukraine both at issues as Commissioner Heisenberg uh highlighted uh that uh he is highly concerned with the traffic on Nap Road. I've had several discussions with him regarding this. Um so uh this is going to dump uh more traffic onto Nap Road than probably what uh would otherwise uh you know does a two-lane road work, I guess, is what I'm asking. So, um, wi with that being said, I think that's one thing we need to look at, um, is, uh, do we need to go to more lanes on NAP road because, uh, when we start increasing, I think his truck circulation said 37 trucks if I remember correctly, um, per day. Um, I can tell you recently I had five trucks sitting on my property and I had two council members on me asking me if I was in the business of selling uh 18 wheel rigs. Um, I I I fully understand the amount of vehicles and what they can do and this neighborhood is very sensitive to that right now. Even though you don't abut them, they are in the neighborhood. Um, so that that is an issue with them.

Mr. Carbone. Thank you, Mayor. Um in the PD you have a vehicle circulation. Um can you walk me through on u what is on both vehicle vehicular and truck um says if the southbound traffic misses the nap road turn.

Oh yes sir. Um, so, uh, one thing I think we were asked to put in there is, okay, if, um, you know, if a vehicle or a truck is coming southbound on, um, on 35 from the Beltway area and they miss Nap Road, uh, what is their, um, current, uh, circulation plan or how are they going to get back? Um, I, you know, what we put in there is that they'll proceed down to, I believe it's Mard Road. uh they'd head west out on Mard um come back up north to Nap um to I guess it's westnap road that is already a truck trailer you know a truck route and then come back down nap and come into the site that way. So uh just you know we'll add the necessary signage um that tech wants us to add but just to ensure that they're not going to go past the site the HVAC companies uh you know trucks don't try to come in that turn a U-turn and come back they're going to have to circle around and come back down that road. Have you driven that? Uh, I have. Yeah. Okay. Mayor, do you have something?

Yeah. Um, NAP doesn't connect to Macau Road. So, that that crossover, that train track crossover has been closed for 30 years. Oh, well, I drove down. It'll it'll be Old Alvin. You'll you'll come down to Mard Old Alvin up to Nap. That part of Nap is is even worse than what we're talking about right now. Yeah. Yeah, I apologize if I got the the I'm just trying to go off. If you're going west on Mard, u the first street you come to is Macawa. Okay. [clears throat] And you're going to turn right on Macawa and go back to the beltway. Um so you you can't you can't turn right onto Nap. That

that's been closed for 30 years. Um incidentally, it was the deadliest train track crossing in Texas at one point. Uh, and you get back to um Beltway, you you you can't get onto the beltway and turn right. [clears throat] You you've got to you've got a big big loop to go back around because you can't get on the beltway there to come back. Yeah. I mean, you're you're going to have to come down to Mard. You're going to have to go east on Mard to Old Alvin. Then you're going to come north. Then you're going to come back around. I mean, that that Pardon me.

That's not going to work. And that will not work because Old Al's not a truck road. you're going to open up a couple other neighborhoods that are going to have problems with it. So, I mean, that that's what I'm saying. The the logistics of getting around this from not having text access is a circle that's going to be a problem. So, inside our packet, it it shows the access on 35, and I don't know if it's accurate or not. Um, it's in the packet. Vance, are y'all able to go to that real quick? And it t that's it. Um, nope. That's not even what's it's different from what's in my packet. A hooded left is what's in is what's in my packet into this property.

So, if you go to Google Earth, that's where I was able to that's where I was able to pick up where it went into. No, I I I know. I don't know why this one I I understand. No, I I understand what you're saying. That's why I Yeah. Yeah. I think uh Mr. Mayor, the hooded left is into U Parland. If if we're coming south, we're talking south off the beltway, a hooded lefthand turn would be either into the HVAC shop that's just south of us. Correct. Or Mr. Coker. Uh that's just north. Alternator. Correct.

So, what what's in our pack? It's not accurate then. Okay. Right there. They're pulling it up. That's not accurate. Correct. That is correct,

Mayor. There is a hooded left there that way, but it just goes into the alternator spot. So, I think it's just off a little bit there. Uh, but you got to realize the one on the left goes into the cemetery. So, that is probably accurate. And we did ask them to move their driveway farther south so not to encourage anyone to try to go into the alternators left in and do that. So, the problem with this property, whether it's these guys or anybody trying to develop it, has this exact same problem. Um, there is no southbound access to this property. And that's why it is vacant. Yeah. And if you look on Google Earth, you can see where it goes into South South Park Cemetery Drive, that hooded left as you're going north on 35.

Okay. And [clears throat] the way we've tried to position uh as Matt was saying that drive aisle is one to meet text dots requirements and spacing from Mr. Coker um but also discourage somebody from trying to hit that cemetery that turn going north left in the cemetery and use it to reverse into our site um you know to cross the median there. Try to discourage unwanted traffic patterns as much as possible around um that spot. And the idea is to discourage people from going crossing three lanes of traffic and then trying to go in the opposite direction without a controlled traffic signal. So that's it's it's for safety that it's like this. Sharia,

thank you, mayor. I know we're running out of time. Um, real quick, fencing. Um, you didn't talk about that and I know it's proposed a chain link fence, but I believe staff um indicated that that's not permitted. So, can you enlighten us on that? Yes, ma'am. I think what I was um what I was uh going for was a chain link with slats. Um if that's not permitted um just because some of our tenants ask for full sight fencing um around the site. Um but if that's not permitted, we can make an update to that and go with uh a a more permissible use whether it's stone or wood. Um we just get a lot of tenants that ask for full sight fencing to be able to secure the their you know uh their buildings. Yeah,

the corridor overlay's not going to allow that. So, yeah. Any other questions, comments? I know Miss Kate had one. I have two things real quick. Um, on page eight, it says number five, flood plane area should not be encroached upon by future development unless there's compli uh, wait a minute, we go unless there is compliance with stringent flood plane management practices. In other words, they follow our criteria to mitigate it. It's very it's I mean is there is is there criteria written somewhere what stringent is equal to are they follow meeting that advance I guess is for you

so that's a requirement or the comprehensive plan of when council should consider a zone change and no so at this point we wouldn't have that information but they will have to meet any EDCM requirements related to flood plane hickory slooh is a right so whatever area any flood plane area would have to be appropriately mitigated or or avoided Okay. And then um also it says uh no truck queuing will be permitted on any public roadway including Main Street and Nap Road. How are you going to

Yes, ma'am. Um well um so that's kind of the reason for that long entry off of NAP like that. Um to prevent trucks from queuing. U we won't have any, you know, any fencing along NAP road that would stop them from turning in. they'll use that long drive if they do come in and have to queue and set up. And then on the main street drive, um you know, they're turning directly in the truck court there. So, uh there wouldn't be any queuing on that lane. Um they'll come into the truck court. Um we put signs up. Um with the floodway, um there's no flood plane on this site, but Hickory Sloth is a floodway. Um and we are out of that floodway for um via this site plan. just I don't know if that that helps at all, but um we have avoided the floodway with both uh detention and um uh and building paving everything's out of the floodway.

That does help. And there's room for you said 19 trucks a day. There's room for 19. If they all came at the same time, there'd be room for them to all fit in there. Um yes, ma'am. I mean, that's that's highly unlikely that we'd get 19 at the same time, but yes, ma'am, they can. I mean, I think we are at 38 docks here. So, uh there's room for them to proceed on. The other action that could be done, I mean, you know, I know we want to avoid uh using Nap Road, um in all instances, but if for some reason 19 trucks came from the south at the same time, they could proceed to NAP and come down and queue on our um entry lane there um versus stay stacked up on 35. All right. Thank you.

Questions, comments? Um, yeah, two two very quick things. U, obviously, we've talked about your traffic flow. That's going to be a big challenge. And I kind of off-handedly said said it, but Old Alvin is not a truck road. It's not going to be a truck road. It can't be a truck road. And I don't know how you're going to manage that because truckers are going to take the shortest route they can get to where they want to go once they're past your facility. How are you going to manage that? But they it's not built for that. And that I guess eastern end of NAP is that right in the corner. Yeah.

Is not not getting improved like the western end is. And it so it's not a truck route either. So managing that is going to be something that's got to be figured out um before this can go forward. The other thing is it's a very cool looking building. The only question I have um on that is it looks a lot like the handover building and the development a little further down the street. and the development on the same side of the road a little further down the street and the development a little further than that. So, it's kind of getting a little cookie cutter and um I don't know if if there's some interest in a little bit of variation where it doesn't look like once you turn into Parland off of 35, it's just same building 17 times before you get to 518. Just my thoughts.

You anything? Thank you, mayor. I I just want to say that I'm going to echo what everyone has told you. I'm concerned on the traffic 18 wheelers, how they're going to come in. They added a flow on Nap Road. Um, you know, I I I see the map. I I'd like to see if there's any alternative suggestions, ideas. Uh, the whole purpose is for discussion. Um and so I am concerned on the flow on uh that type of volume of 18 wheelers coming coming to the site. Thank you.

Yep. Um I think u staff do you guys have direction maybe

yeah push them? I know um this is a PD that uh at the end of the day could be uh could be an example of a light PD uh rather than a heavy one. So uh that I think that's something that we can use and look forward to. Um I'll tell you from the from the height in my perspective I think what you're what you're talking about especially the parapit and those type not necessarily the whole building but a portion of it to do that. uh we can probably with staff and legal come up with good language on how that is and that may alleviate Tommy's question and concern on the height of the building that we're talking about the parapits we're not talking about necessarily a whole building plate you know going up 60 ft uh but how we do that um I think some real look at how we get in and out of this is certainly going to be uh warranted here um so I think it's headed in the right direction I think what you called out as far as uses and non-uses is probably a great place to start. I think that's a good uh representation of where we need to land. U probably dig into it a little bit more when it comes back, but u that's all I had. Uh last call u advance staff nothing. Mr. Chairman, anything? Oh, okay. Mr. Cousin,

I just want to let you know I'm in favor of this, but you got a tall mountain to climb. So, it's one of those deals that we've got to work out some issues. So, I I didn't want to put a pessimistic view on it for you, but just want to let you know it's a tall mountain to climb. Yes, sir. All good. All right. Uh seeing no one else, we will uh close this docketed um workshops at 6:19. With that, uh, we will break real quick, go grab something to eat, and