WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.120 good afternoon welcome to the planning and zoning special called work session 00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:12.060 for Wednesday February 27th 2019 seeing that we do have a quorum I will call 00:00:12.060 --> 00:00:17.920 this meeting to order at 411 the only item on the agenda is to receive a 00:00:17.920 --> 00:00:21.820 report from staff regarding the development code and draft zoning map so 00:00:21.820 --> 00:00:37.920 I'll turn it over to Scott Ron several more of these to walk through each and 00:00:37.920 --> 00:00:45.440 all of the chapters within the proposed development code as well as the draft 00:00:45.440 --> 00:00:52.400 zoning map staff continues to host some public open houses so we've had one this 00:00:52.400 --> 00:00:57.880 week we've got another one tomorrow night and hope to see some of you there 00:00:57.880 --> 00:01:05.080 we saw some individuals Monday night we're going to continue to have 00:01:05.080 --> 00:01:10.120 stakeholder meetings so we'll get with various community organizations provide 00:01:10.120 --> 00:01:16.240 presentations to civic organizations and wherever it is that we can what we're 00:01:16.240 --> 00:01:20.600 going to talk about is kind of following up on where we were at with the last 00:01:20.600 --> 00:01:25.040 meeting following up on Clarion's overview of the code getting a little 00:01:25.040 --> 00:01:29.440 deeper dive getting a little bit more granular on some of the topics and 00:01:29.440 --> 00:01:33.840 trying to make sure that we understand the smallest of details of what we're 00:01:33.840 --> 00:01:38.920 trying to do I know some of the major comments and concerns that we've been 00:01:38.920 --> 00:01:43.840 addressing lately have to do with the landscape and conservation ordinance 00:01:43.840 --> 00:01:49.560 which is running on a separate track that will come before this body next 00:01:49.560 --> 00:01:57.880 Wednesday we have a work session with council on Tuesday we also have some 00:01:57.880 --> 00:02:03.680 changes to the zoning map which Ron is going to get to here shortly so I'll 00:02:03.680 --> 00:02:09.400 hold off on that just short of saying that the council committee has been 00:02:09.400 --> 00:02:14.000 meeting on Fridays met last Friday as of last Friday there were some 00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:20.000 discussions that took place regarding the split zoning and we were trying to 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:25.460 address how best to rezone those properties and as we were doing that we 00:02:25.460 --> 00:02:31.280 decided that it might be best for us not to change the zoning so I think as an 00:02:31.280 --> 00:02:36.600 interim step we will be putting those into a overlay category and then we'll 00:02:36.600 --> 00:02:41.800 come back and evaluate those on a case-by-case basis so we we wouldn't be 00:02:41.800 --> 00:02:46.960 getting bogged down into the details of what use might be most appropriate on a 00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:53.920 piece of property as we were doing that we also brought reference to the RD 5x 00:02:53.920 --> 00:03:01.680 so the RD 5x is a placeholder zoning and initially when we crafted the zoning 00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:07.080 map we had worked through that and ultimately assigned some zoning 00:03:07.080 --> 00:03:11.140 categories to them where staff thought it was most appropriate so it might be 00:03:11.140 --> 00:03:19.200 an rr might be an r1 r2 r3 maybe even r4 and as we met with the council 00:03:19.200 --> 00:03:25.080 committee the development review committee excuse me it was determined 00:03:25.080 --> 00:03:33.080 that those should be placed as an rr or the the least impactful so we ultimately 00:03:33.080 --> 00:03:39.080 were wanting to get the map corrected so I asked that the map be pulled down make 00:03:39.080 --> 00:03:42.480 those corrections anticipated that would be done Friday it was not and it wasn't 00:03:42.480 --> 00:03:49.320 back up until Monday but again Ronald Ronald highlight the changes with that I 00:03:49.320 --> 00:03:54.760 think that overall we've we've garnered positive support and and we continue to 00:03:54.760 --> 00:03:58.600 listen to the stakeholders to make sure that we're getting what it is that we 00:03:58.600 --> 00:04:03.640 have in place and I think with that if there are any questions as far as just 00:04:03.640 --> 00:04:11.280 kind of a broad overview so did you say you're getting rid of the RD 5x and 00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:15.480 then you're just gonna bring in bring them in directly like a with a rr is 00:04:15.480 --> 00:04:18.320 that what it is correct okay okay because I know that was one of the 00:04:18.320 --> 00:04:31.640 questions okay any other questions right now okay with that just a recap of what 00:04:31.640 --> 00:04:38.800 we discussed at our last work session we talked about sub chapters one and two we 00:04:38.800 --> 00:04:43.800 went through that so that is what we will not be talking about and also a 00:04:43.800 --> 00:04:46.760 list here that you see behind me you know we're not gonna talk about the 00:04:46.760 --> 00:04:49.720 tree code as you already mentioned we're gonna be discussing that at a later work 00:04:49.720 --> 00:04:54.320 session the dormitory again later and then the downtown design standards will 00:04:54.320 --> 00:04:59.080 all come as a separate discussion so today's work session continuing our 00:04:59.080 --> 00:05:04.440 efforts in reviewing the development code update is sub chapter 3 and I know 00:05:04.440 --> 00:05:12.840 we we discussed it last work session a very introductionary of the zoning 00:05:12.840 --> 00:05:17.080 districts I went through it fairly quickly I remember you know going 00:05:17.080 --> 00:05:22.040 through each of those zoning districts highlighting some of the minimum lot area 00:05:22.040 --> 00:05:27.720 requirements the minimum setbacks and minimum you know heights and all that 00:05:27.720 --> 00:05:31.380 other dimensional standards associated with each zoning districts but I think 00:05:31.380 --> 00:05:35.560 it's it's important that we look at the purpose of each of those zoning 00:05:35.560 --> 00:05:40.360 districts because you know as you all know we have a number of existing zoning 00:05:40.360 --> 00:05:45.240 districts over 28 zoning districts and if you look at the sheet that's in front 00:05:45.240 --> 00:05:49.960 of you that I passed out in place in front of you the middle column is or are 00:05:49.960 --> 00:05:54.760 those existing zoning districts close to 28 zoning districts what we're trying to 00:05:54.760 --> 00:06:00.200 do is consolidate those and make it more easier to understand there's there's a 00:06:00.200 --> 00:06:03.800 number of zoning districts that just either are the same and just have the 00:06:03.800 --> 00:06:08.760 same development standards which really doesn't really help us for example the 00:06:08.760 --> 00:06:14.880 ECI and the ICE really what's the difference between the two so the way 00:06:14.880 --> 00:06:18.400 we're looking at is we're going to transition that into the LI which is 00:06:18.400 --> 00:06:30.480 light industrial the thank you so what you what you have in this chart is what 00:06:30.480 --> 00:06:35.760 we are looking at or have prepared as far as a draft zoning map that's 00:06:35.760 --> 00:06:42.120 currently published so what you see as listed in the middle column is what you 00:06:42.120 --> 00:06:46.960 will see in the draft zoning map again that is published online all of those 00:06:46.960 --> 00:06:55.040 are taken right from this chart prior to Friday we had taken another step we we 00:06:55.040 --> 00:07:00.720 took another step and actually looked at the area and if there was an existing 00:07:00.720 --> 00:07:04.680 area that was more suitable for a particular zoning district we gave it 00:07:04.680 --> 00:07:09.200 that zoning district gave it a little bit more context to to what is not just 00:07:09.200 --> 00:07:12.960 okay this is what it is and we're gonna transfer it over to here but rather we 00:07:12.960 --> 00:07:16.840 took it another step and we gave it what we feel was the appropriate zoning 00:07:16.840 --> 00:07:22.620 district again as you heard from Scott the direction is that we we step back 00:07:22.620 --> 00:07:28.720 and get as close to the existing zoning map as we can there are a few 00:07:28.720 --> 00:07:36.180 exceptions the areas around the TW area around downtown as well as around the 00:07:36.180 --> 00:07:42.360 University of North Texas area we looked at those area more specifically and 00:07:42.360 --> 00:07:47.040 gave it an assigned zone district that may not match this transitional chart so 00:07:47.040 --> 00:07:56.120 those areas we kept with what we feel is appropriate in those in those cases in 00:07:56.120 --> 00:08:04.240 addition the PF which is the public facilities those we kept from previous 00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:12.120 draft so all of the governmental institutional and other properties that 00:08:12.120 --> 00:08:17.120 are associated with governmental and institutional are given a proposed PF 00:08:17.120 --> 00:08:21.560 zoning district Ron can I see a quick question yes sir it's my understanding 00:08:21.560 --> 00:08:29.920 that the DC RC was going by area by area through the map to look at alignment and 00:08:29.920 --> 00:08:33.840 it sounds like there's a lot of time and effort spent looking at different areas 00:08:33.840 --> 00:08:37.280 whether it be the UNT or cement city or right business innovation all those 00:08:37.280 --> 00:08:40.880 different the kind of districts of the town to see what like you said take that 00:08:40.880 --> 00:08:44.360 extra step and it seems if I'm understanding correctly at this point 00:08:44.360 --> 00:08:49.040 that's been rolled back and so there's just an alignment column a to column B 00:08:49.040 --> 00:08:58.880 except for a few designated areas like TW UNT in downtown why those three did 00:08:58.880 --> 00:09:04.400 we keep this proactive kind of thought and if those were highly examined to 00:09:04.400 --> 00:09:08.760 feel confident that a progress I'm gonna call it progressive a progressive rezone 00:09:08.760 --> 00:09:15.800 was possible what has the DC RC been doing that the other areas have not been 00:09:15.800 --> 00:09:19.200 also looked at with such scrutiny to keep that progressive rezoning it's a 00:09:19.200 --> 00:09:23.600 good question and I felt to mention that we asked we've been meeting with the DC 00:09:23.600 --> 00:09:29.000 RC almost every week I think I counted 29 meetings since we started this effort 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:34.000 and we asked we have after we went through the entire book almost page by 00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:39.280 page chapter by chapter we forwarded those comments that we received to 00:09:39.280 --> 00:09:43.440 Clary on and of course they made the revisions and it was now time to look 00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:48.280 at the zoning map and so the last few meetings with the plan with the DC RC 00:09:48.280 --> 00:09:56.000 was select study areas is what we called them committee we would like to see we 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:59.520 like to see this area zone this way what are your thoughts give us some of your 00:09:59.520 --> 00:10:05.960 input we also looked at some split zoning as Scott mentioned a parcel that 00:10:05.960 --> 00:10:11.160 has multiple zoning districts well how do we zone that if you know one or two 00:10:11.160 --> 00:10:14.840 or three zoning districts exist so we were going through that exercise and then 00:10:14.840 --> 00:10:20.320 we got to that discussion to answer your question related to those specific areas 00:10:20.320 --> 00:10:25.480 the TW area the downtown and the University of North Texas area the reason 00:10:25.480 --> 00:10:32.280 why we focus on that in the draft that we put out was I made a meant I made 00:10:32.280 --> 00:10:37.080 mention of the DS the downtown commercial general and if you look at the 00:10:37.080 --> 00:10:45.120 chart it shows that DCG and DCN is going to go to MD and if we read the purpose 00:10:45.120 --> 00:10:52.080 of an MD it's primarily for downtown so we know we have some zoning districts 00:10:52.080 --> 00:10:58.200 that I'm sorry some DCG and DCN throughout the TW the downtown and the 00:10:58.200 --> 00:11:03.960 University of North Texas area that don't fit that purpose and so we were 00:11:03.960 --> 00:11:09.920 told or we were directed that in those areas if it doesn't a DCG does not fit 00:11:09.920 --> 00:11:17.800 we should look for a similar zoning district that fits DCG I'm sorry MD was 00:11:17.800 --> 00:11:21.800 not the appropriate zoning district and it should just be for downtown and that's 00:11:21.800 --> 00:11:27.920 why we kept those areas what we had prior to Friday was there any split 00:11:27.920 --> 00:11:34.560 zoning cases left in the UNTWU downtown area because it sounds like those are 00:11:34.560 --> 00:11:38.640 split zoning we're not touching all of those are not being touched are there 00:11:38.640 --> 00:11:42.640 any of those in those three areas I'll have to look I think there may be a few 00:11:42.640 --> 00:11:48.960 that have split zoning and Cody can help us identify which of those parcels 00:11:48.960 --> 00:11:53.600 within those areas that have split zoning I know we have a lot outside of 00:11:53.600 --> 00:11:59.080 the city but if if you'd like Cody can pull that up on a map and identify which 00:11:59.080 --> 00:12:04.920 of those parcels within the downtown area TW and UT that have split zoning I 00:12:04.920 --> 00:12:10.600 guess the the the the reason for my questions is how to communicate to the 00:12:10.600 --> 00:12:15.600 city because if I understand this correctly we have a citywide new zoning 00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:20.600 map but we're not proactively rezoning we're aligning except in some areas we 00:12:20.600 --> 00:12:24.680 are proactively zoning unless there's a split zoning within those specialized 00:12:24.680 --> 00:12:29.400 select study areas we're not going to touch those split zonings and so it 00:12:29.400 --> 00:12:35.400 seems ambiguous on what was the condition in which my property got a 00:12:35.400 --> 00:12:40.160 certain zoning and so having all these are in levels that I'm trying to work 00:12:40.160 --> 00:12:46.520 through I don't hopefully can encourage some clarity when we present to a city 00:12:46.520 --> 00:12:52.600 how how the city came to those decisions the only thing I wanted to add I think 00:12:52.600 --> 00:12:57.260 would also pose the challenge particularly with the MD is in that in 00:12:57.260 --> 00:13:04.560 that conversion from from DCG there was this and it wasn't necessarily a zoning 00:13:04.560 --> 00:13:08.880 overlay it was sort of a sort of an overlay but there was there were 00:13:08.880 --> 00:13:12.800 specific requirements or provisions but if you were within the central business 00:13:12.800 --> 00:13:19.880 district that granted you the ability to parking not provide parking for 00:13:19.880 --> 00:13:22.960 commercial not provide parking for residential if you're under ten units 00:13:22.960 --> 00:13:26.640 and there were some other items and so it was hard to kind of last so that that 00:13:26.640 --> 00:13:31.240 that area around one where it really wasn't representative of what the what 00:13:31.240 --> 00:13:36.600 the downtown was and so that was sort of that the impetus for really honing MD 00:13:36.600 --> 00:13:42.600 into only the down the downtown if that helps it does a little bit and I guess 00:13:42.600 --> 00:13:48.120 secondary to that rather than making assumptions was there public feedback 00:13:48.120 --> 00:13:53.640 and pushback regarding this or is it in more internal fear or hesitation to do 00:13:53.640 --> 00:13:59.520 like the the rezoning of the split zoning or more progressive zoning was 00:13:59.520 --> 00:14:03.520 was there actual feedback from the city saying well I have questions or is it 00:14:03.520 --> 00:14:08.920 more of an internal conversation well I think I think it's important to just I 00:14:08.920 --> 00:14:14.400 think remind the Commission that the Development Review Committee is made up 00:14:14.400 --> 00:14:17.480 of three council members and three planning and zoning Commission members 00:14:17.480 --> 00:14:22.960 and they're they're really the steering committee for staff so staff is meeting 00:14:22.960 --> 00:14:27.960 with them weekly and we have legal counsel representing as well so we have 00:14:27.960 --> 00:14:33.440 our legal staff plus we have a land use attorney that we've contracted with and 00:14:33.440 --> 00:14:38.360 so as we meet we're talking through all of these issues well they're steering 00:14:38.360 --> 00:14:43.600 the direction that this is going so when we're when we're taking it to planning 00:14:43.600 --> 00:14:49.720 and zoning and a council that it should streamline the process the intent is is 00:14:49.720 --> 00:14:54.360 certainly to be transparent and the intent is is that we're getting probably 00:14:54.360 --> 00:14:57.560 what we think is the product that will be able to get over the finish line 00:14:57.560 --> 00:15:06.000 rather than it being a surprise to either body if that helps and that 00:15:06.000 --> 00:15:09.160 certainly helps but I don't know if it answers the question there was public 00:15:09.160 --> 00:15:15.340 feedback concerning progressive rezoning or there it was just the DCRC and staff's 00:15:15.340 --> 00:15:20.960 conversations no I think I think what what had happened with the the review 00:15:20.960 --> 00:15:25.520 committee is as we went through this week by week the conversation took place 00:15:25.520 --> 00:15:29.960 when we talked about conversion of zoning districts and the zoning map is 00:15:29.960 --> 00:15:35.760 that we minimize those impacts so it was trying to be cognizant of those that may 00:15:35.760 --> 00:15:40.800 not be aware and as we're as as staff were we're very much aware that most 00:15:40.800 --> 00:15:45.320 people don't necessarily pay attention right and and and the council committee 00:15:45.320 --> 00:15:51.880 was very sensitive to the fact that we didn't want to rezone properties that 00:15:51.880 --> 00:15:56.360 people that would be adjacent to it wouldn't be aware so we were minimizing 00:15:56.360 --> 00:16:01.760 any change so we know consolidating we would have change this was designed to 00:16:01.760 --> 00:16:07.340 minimize those changes so as we had this conversation on a couple different 00:16:07.340 --> 00:16:14.000 topics as Ron has referenced that that direction from the the review committee 00:16:14.000 --> 00:16:19.160 was for us to proceed forward as we as instructed and what's represented on the 00:16:19.160 --> 00:16:22.800 map and and again that's why we're putting out to the public for for 00:16:22.800 --> 00:16:30.440 feedback so I think I heard a important port an important point to me in there 00:16:30.440 --> 00:16:35.120 so I just want to clarify when we redo the zoning map everyone gets notified in 00:16:35.120 --> 00:16:39.360 the city we're gonna send out 35,000 locations right that's actually just 00:16:39.360 --> 00:16:42.320 notifying the property of their own changes they wouldn't actually 00:16:42.320 --> 00:16:47.840 necessarily know their neighbors changes where if we did a city initiated rezone 00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:53.040 they would have the 500 foot correct correct and and that's and and that's 00:16:53.040 --> 00:16:57.760 been the catalyst for most of this is to make certain that people wouldn't be 00:16:57.760 --> 00:17:01.840 aware of what that change is so trying to minimize anybody's potential impact 00:17:01.840 --> 00:17:08.080 whether there is benefit to a property owner or detriment to a property owner 00:17:08.080 --> 00:17:12.240 that may get rezoned we certainly don't want to give those unintended 00:17:12.240 --> 00:17:16.080 consequences of rezoning a piece of property with someone not having their 00:17:16.080 --> 00:17:23.240 opportunity to to express their concern or support so unless it's in a typical 00:17:23.240 --> 00:17:27.760 in a typical rezoning process right giving that as you indicate the 200 or 00:17:27.760 --> 00:17:32.080 500 foot notices so where it is that we could come back later and make those 00:17:32.080 --> 00:17:35.480 recommendations that are more aligned with a future land use map but we could 00:17:35.480 --> 00:17:40.200 target those to say hey we're talking about this area and we think that it 00:17:40.200 --> 00:17:44.160 should be rezoned this way we can literally go door knock we can provide 00:17:44.160 --> 00:17:47.360 that notice and say the city is initiating a rezoning we'd like to 00:17:47.360 --> 00:17:51.320 change the zoning of this this is going to impact you because of this rather 00:17:51.320 --> 00:17:55.480 than taking this you know that the complete corporate limits and say hey 00:17:55.480 --> 00:17:59.560 everybody's getting rezoned and here's what happens to you they wouldn't know 00:17:59.560 --> 00:18:05.200 what's happening adjacent properties except for the the in the current 00:18:05.200 --> 00:18:10.960 published zoning map there are parcels across the city that will be provided a 00:18:10.960 --> 00:18:16.880 more liberal use category by the consolidation of zoning districts and 00:18:16.880 --> 00:18:21.920 those neighbors won't know about that either I think that there there's there's 00:18:21.920 --> 00:18:25.880 the possibility that somebody may have more liberal and somebody may have more 00:18:25.880 --> 00:18:30.720 restrictive but I think it's incredibly minimized okay so it's it's trying to 00:18:30.720 --> 00:18:35.840 minimize any of those impacts when you take on a project as significant as 00:18:35.840 --> 00:18:40.040 rezoning the entirety of a city and and we recognize that there were some 00:18:40.040 --> 00:18:44.160 problems that with this that happened in 2002 and the problems that that that 00:18:44.160 --> 00:18:48.400 occurred in 2002 was was probably some of that of being a little bit too 00:18:48.400 --> 00:18:52.400 aggressive in rezoning properties and not getting that the necessary feedback 00:18:52.400 --> 00:18:59.560 so being cautious being proactive but but still trying to be responsible and 00:18:59.560 --> 00:19:05.000 ended the decision-making awesome sorry to stop down there no that's that's 00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:10.000 perfect we want to make sure we address all your questions and concerns Cody has 00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:14.440 pulled up a map just kind of go back to your original question of those parcels 00:19:14.440 --> 00:19:19.440 in red those are red are within the general area that we're talking about 00:19:19.440 --> 00:19:26.120 that have split zoning so we have to be able to identify what zoning we assign 00:19:26.120 --> 00:19:30.120 that because unless we go in there and split the parcel in which we're not 00:19:30.120 --> 00:19:34.640 going to we're gonna work with the property owner we're gonna try to get 00:19:34.640 --> 00:19:39.440 those address sooner than later in a sign in a zoning district that again fits 00:19:39.440 --> 00:19:44.480 you know within the area but those are the parcels that currently have split 00:19:44.480 --> 00:19:55.080 zoning there count on those do we have a number 370 split zoning sorry go to that 00:19:55.080 --> 00:20:10.880 Mike doesn't work about 15 or DCN or DCG split so and so going forward the 00:20:10.880 --> 00:20:14.100 correction of these is individually bring each of these properties to P&Z 00:20:14.100 --> 00:20:19.920 and council for city rezone the the idea is to we can do that or we can try to be 00:20:19.920 --> 00:20:25.280 try to get it before the timeline that's that's it depends on how much we can get 00:20:25.280 --> 00:20:30.560 through but the intent is to put a zoning map that has a zoning map a 00:20:30.560 --> 00:20:35.200 zoning district on them if we are not able to we'll have to follow that up 00:20:35.200 --> 00:20:41.360 throughout the period between adoption and effective date is we I don't know 00:20:41.360 --> 00:20:48.200 if that was discussed earlier on but we will have an opportunity to have a 00:20:48.200 --> 00:20:53.440 transition between adoption date and an effective date so we've got some time to 00:20:53.440 --> 00:20:57.880 work with property owners I guess my question is is P&Z about to hear 370 00:20:57.880 --> 00:21:06.280 individual items to correct split zoning no I was gonna speak sort of different 00:21:06.280 --> 00:21:11.720 because I think even if you look on on this map the largest parcel I believe if 00:21:11.720 --> 00:21:22.560 I'm not mistaken is the TWU golf course can we turn that mic on or I'm gonna get 00:21:22.560 --> 00:21:37.760 oh you took the cable go for it thank you Scott yeah the reason this one is 00:21:37.760 --> 00:21:43.600 highlighted and we turn on our current zoning here is this tiny piece right 00:21:43.600 --> 00:21:49.680 here so all that gets highlighted for that Wow so I think these are sort of 00:21:49.680 --> 00:21:59.960 when you really look at it there they're very mind they're very small and keep in 00:21:59.960 --> 00:22:04.480 keep in mind we're certainly trying to make this as simple as possible and I 00:22:04.480 --> 00:22:11.380 assure you we do not intend to bring you 300 plus but we we want to try to fix as 00:22:11.380 --> 00:22:15.840 much as we can and making certain that most all the citizens that can be 00:22:15.840 --> 00:22:19.640 notified will be notified so some of this may have to come individually but 00:22:19.640 --> 00:22:25.120 they may come in blocks so theoretically we could come with with a group of ten 00:22:25.120 --> 00:22:28.800 split zonings to say hey we've talked to the neighbors we've got an 00:22:28.800 --> 00:22:32.080 understanding here's where it's at people have an opportunity then to come 00:22:32.080 --> 00:22:36.520 before the Commission and then ultimately counsel to to make certain 00:22:36.520 --> 00:22:41.400 that they're aware of what's happening and just for clarification because that 00:22:41.400 --> 00:22:45.200 makes more sense I appreciate that I know if there are small things like this 00:22:45.200 --> 00:22:51.080 it seems like we might want to do a more progressive rezone for that that seems 00:22:51.080 --> 00:22:54.800 like a not to diminish the property owners but maybe a waste of time to go 00:22:54.800 --> 00:22:59.160 through a massive public hearing for that single quarter acre piece of 00:22:59.160 --> 00:23:03.680 property but when that comes through with ten I don't know the process of a 00:23:03.680 --> 00:23:07.160 city-wide rezone but if you were to bring a block of ten would that be an 00:23:07.160 --> 00:23:10.520 item with one public hearing it seemed like you'd have to have a plug here and 00:23:10.520 --> 00:23:15.760 for each item for the citizens purposes do you know well there's there's a 00:23:15.760 --> 00:23:21.640 couple of pieces to this and and Ron alluded to a portion so if we take if we 00:23:21.640 --> 00:23:27.160 take a liberal approach to this so if we take a very conservative means to move 00:23:27.160 --> 00:23:33.880 forward and we say here's the draft zoning map minimum impact we have 00:23:33.880 --> 00:23:40.040 let's say the effective date of the map versus the adoption date so if we 00:23:40.040 --> 00:23:47.080 adopted today for example and then we said six months before it's in effect all 00:23:47.080 --> 00:23:50.360 the while we're going to continue to work on it and it wouldn't be that we 00:23:50.360 --> 00:23:55.680 couldn't come back to isolate a group of properties and and we're trying to work 00:23:55.680 --> 00:23:59.800 through that between legal and process and understand kind of some of the 00:23:59.800 --> 00:24:04.400 ramifications as we get into the detail we want to minimize that we don't know 00:24:04.400 --> 00:24:08.680 that so again just taking a very conservative approach to making sure 00:24:08.680 --> 00:24:13.680 that we're minimizing impact to adjacent property owners okay 00:24:13.680 --> 00:24:18.600 Michelle thank you chair just a couple words on this I think this is a missed 00:24:18.600 --> 00:24:22.320 opportunity by us to fix split zoning I think split zoning is a terrible idea 00:24:22.320 --> 00:24:25.840 and and this was a great opportunity to fix it and I'm sorry that we're not 00:24:25.840 --> 00:24:30.120 going forward with fixing it now because I think it'll be more complicated later 00:24:30.120 --> 00:24:34.840 we've got plenty of public notification going out we have multiple months 00:24:34.840 --> 00:24:39.480 involved here to have this map out and get comments so I'll just go on the 00:24:39.480 --> 00:24:44.040 record saying I think it's crazy that we have 300 plus split zoning properties 00:24:44.040 --> 00:24:50.720 in the city that we're not fixing and I appreciate that and I'll also say that 00:24:50.720 --> 00:24:54.260 we obviously are meeting each Friday with it with the council committee we 00:24:54.260 --> 00:24:58.520 continue to meet with the development review committee so not to say that we 00:24:58.520 --> 00:25:02.880 can't continue to have that conversation and adoption of the map would be in 00:25:02.880 --> 00:25:06.640 conjunction with adoption of the code which is April 22nd so we have an 00:25:06.640 --> 00:25:10.800 opportunity to continue to work through this we're soliciting public feedback on 00:25:10.800 --> 00:25:17.720 both the zoning map as well as the development code so we welcome that and 00:25:17.720 --> 00:25:24.920 I think that you know there's utility in it yeah just to just to chime in a 00:25:24.920 --> 00:25:30.060 little bit yes we're actually still in the draft note mode right so I know that 00:25:30.060 --> 00:25:36.720 there's a lot of people that I've spoken to in the last couple days that have 00:25:36.720 --> 00:25:42.760 provided me their input so we encourage input from the public again Scott 00:25:42.760 --> 00:25:47.680 mentioned we we had a meeting on Monday we will have a meeting on Thursday 00:25:47.680 --> 00:25:52.000 tomorrow we continue to have office office hours like I said I've been 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:55.680 meeting with individuals myself individually but we have every 00:25:55.680 --> 00:26:00.600 opportunity for the public to provide input if they have any to provide us we 00:26:00.600 --> 00:26:05.240 collect comic cards and so on and so forth in the month of March we'll 00:26:05.240 --> 00:26:10.080 continue to have more public meetings so all of which is available online on what 00:26:10.080 --> 00:26:17.440 days and times those are so and I think the city's doing mr. else's point a ton 00:26:17.440 --> 00:26:22.440 of work to involve the city but it seems like what I'm understanding is the city 00:26:22.440 --> 00:26:26.320 is still not comfortable with the amount of feedback that we potentially could 00:26:26.320 --> 00:26:31.300 get from the city city residents so we're doing a lot but in your 00:26:31.300 --> 00:26:35.400 estimation it's still not enough to ensure that we have enough public 00:26:35.400 --> 00:26:38.520 feedback to go with more progressive rezoning am I understanding that 00:26:38.520 --> 00:26:47.340 correctly go ahead I would say that it's most most people may not be aware of 00:26:47.340 --> 00:26:52.200 what's occurring and may not be paying attention and so I think that is 00:26:52.200 --> 00:26:57.000 somewhat of the concern of the elected leaders of the city to say that that we 00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:00.640 want to make sure that we're not unless they specifically know something's 00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:07.320 happening adjacent to them okay okay mr. Pernitta and if I could just get an 00:27:07.320 --> 00:27:12.120 idea of what the benefit is of going with the split zoning as opposed to you 00:27:12.120 --> 00:27:15.640 know taking an individual property and making it some kind of mixed use or 00:27:15.640 --> 00:27:20.400 something is there I know I know we're talking about 370 so I don't want to get 00:27:20.400 --> 00:27:24.600 too granular into what the idea would be I'm just curious as to why we would 00:27:24.600 --> 00:27:30.840 address it this way knowing that we'll have to come back again well that was 00:27:30.840 --> 00:27:35.680 um that was our attempt before Friday was to address those splits only knows 00:27:35.680 --> 00:27:39.760 that was our next step we were looking specific special study areas and in our 00:27:39.760 --> 00:27:45.920 next step would have been to look at the split zoning too I think we've got some 00:27:45.920 --> 00:27:51.160 time between now and April 23rd for the map and as Scott mentioned we do have an 00:27:51.160 --> 00:27:56.400 opportunity with you know with the community to get input with the DC RC 00:27:56.400 --> 00:28:01.600 and with staff we're gonna bring we're gonna bring that up I think that will be 00:28:01.600 --> 00:28:07.360 the one of the topics we'll discuss to give a property a zoning because right 00:28:07.360 --> 00:28:14.520 now those split zone properties will won't get a mixed use right now it's 00:28:14.520 --> 00:28:19.680 still unknown what they would get we are gonna look at the area I think 00:28:19.680 --> 00:28:24.080 specifically the area how they were split no one really knows and obviously 00:28:24.080 --> 00:28:27.800 that causes some issues when you think about development if you have a parcel 00:28:27.800 --> 00:28:31.280 that has split zoning where do you draw the line so we want to make sure we 00:28:31.280 --> 00:28:36.680 address those as soon as we can but to your point what why are we I think we 00:28:36.680 --> 00:28:44.760 still are I think we still I think we still have an opportunity okay thanks 00:28:44.760 --> 00:28:48.800 is there any other question I wanted just like I said we went through in our 00:28:48.800 --> 00:28:53.920 last work session in my opinion fairly quickly I want to just introduce the 00:28:53.920 --> 00:28:58.000 zoning districts we went through the dimensional standards one of the things 00:28:58.000 --> 00:29:03.640 that I wanted to go over if the Commission is willing is this really just 00:29:03.640 --> 00:29:10.840 to start with the RR and kind of go over the purpose so if you have your your 00:29:10.840 --> 00:29:27.480 draft in front of you if it's if you do it's on page RR starts on page 114 so 00:29:27.480 --> 00:29:34.800 our art is the lowest intense zoning district residential rural is what it 00:29:34.800 --> 00:29:40.160 stands for instead it is intended to provide and maintain the rural use of an 00:29:40.160 --> 00:29:47.720 area and it's meant to look at farming environmental and scenic areas of the 00:29:47.720 --> 00:29:53.520 city and you see that our draft zoning map is primarily identifying them along 00:29:53.520 --> 00:30:00.720 the periphery of the city north of the loop west of I-35 but mainly and there 00:30:00.720 --> 00:30:07.960 are some parts in the city that are currently RR and when a property is 00:30:07.960 --> 00:30:12.920 annexed the other application of an RR is when a property is recently annexed 00:30:12.920 --> 00:30:18.520 it's not zoned it's just given a designation until it is zoned with a 00:30:18.520 --> 00:30:25.040 zoning district so the idea here is to give it the RR as the zoning so it'll 00:30:25.040 --> 00:30:30.800 actually have zoning and when that property is developed as we talked about 00:30:30.800 --> 00:30:36.600 earlier and there is a need for a zoning change that will be through the dual 00:30:36.600 --> 00:30:42.760 public hearing process so this is what again the purpose of the RR it is to 00:30:42.760 --> 00:30:50.360 assign areas that are rural in nature along the periphery of the city but also 00:30:50.360 --> 00:30:56.600 serves as that initial zoning for a recently annexed area and we have a 00:30:56.600 --> 00:31:01.880 number of those that we did back starting in 2010 so does everybody 00:31:01.880 --> 00:31:06.960 Commissioner Sanchez why would you make a distinction between the RR and that 00:31:06.960 --> 00:31:11.200 you've already given it that actual designation as opposed to a property 00:31:11.200 --> 00:31:16.360 that you bring in and you're still waiting for it to have change it's a 00:31:16.360 --> 00:31:25.320 designation kind of like you have what is it though the you have the five what 00:31:25.320 --> 00:31:31.240 is it already five already five and then you have the already five won't X X X 00:31:31.240 --> 00:31:35.040 yeah so you have a kind of a distinction when you get it why don't you do 00:31:35.040 --> 00:31:40.520 something like that on that particular it's really it's really just a 00:31:40.520 --> 00:31:46.480 nomenclature you know already five and already five X they kind of say have the 00:31:46.480 --> 00:31:52.760 same purpose when when a person has an already five or an already five X there 00:31:52.760 --> 00:31:57.760 they're they're reviewed against the already five design or dimensional 00:31:57.760 --> 00:32:02.600 standards so they're they're they're reviewed against that already five so 00:32:02.600 --> 00:32:06.240 what we're saying is we're getting rid of the already five X's mm-hmm and we're 00:32:06.240 --> 00:32:10.440 just gonna call it our our okay okay but what I'm saying is if you have if 00:32:10.440 --> 00:32:14.120 somebody comes in and say they're looking at a particular area and they 00:32:14.120 --> 00:32:17.940 said okay I'm RR right okay they're gonna they're gonna look at that and 00:32:17.940 --> 00:32:21.640 say okay this is this is my zoning right now I don't want you to change it as 00:32:21.640 --> 00:32:27.680 opposed to if I looked at one I said okay this is our - one I would I would 00:32:27.680 --> 00:32:31.680 understand that that was a holding position and that's not necessarily it's 00:32:31.680 --> 00:32:35.560 it's designation as opposed to looking at somebody that might be looking from 00:32:35.560 --> 00:32:44.640 outside wouldn't know the difference yeah it's it's it's no longer a place 00:32:44.640 --> 00:32:48.640 holder anymore it will have its own zoning district and again we're not 00:32:48.640 --> 00:32:53.640 going to carry for the RD 5x no no no no I know I understand that okay I guess my 00:32:53.640 --> 00:32:57.720 question was I thought you had said that when you bring in a property from you're 00:32:57.720 --> 00:33:02.560 gonna give it a kind of a holding position it can be either RR or it can 00:33:02.560 --> 00:33:06.760 also be in a holding position and it will also have RR is that what you said 00:33:06.760 --> 00:33:12.080 no that's that's what we are trying to get away from when we annex property 00:33:12.080 --> 00:33:17.320 back in say 2010 when we first started the citywide annexation we annexed it 00:33:17.320 --> 00:33:21.960 but we'd never zoned it so moving forward what we would like to do any 00:33:21.960 --> 00:33:27.680 property that is annexed we're gonna zone it immediately after that so assign 00:33:27.680 --> 00:33:30.840 it a zoning district obviously the property owner is involved in all this 00:33:30.840 --> 00:33:37.200 process so okay so moving forward we will when we annex and that's when and 00:33:37.200 --> 00:33:44.000 if we will follow that up with a zoning of that property and at that point we 00:33:44.000 --> 00:33:49.160 will either give it an RR an MN or whatever it is that the property owner 00:33:49.160 --> 00:33:55.240 and the city and ultimately City Council decides that zoning to be so we're trying 00:33:55.240 --> 00:33:59.600 to get away from the RD 5x right right I understood that I would just I was 00:33:59.600 --> 00:34:04.320 making just a comparison because when you bring property in it seems like you 00:34:04.320 --> 00:34:08.760 may not know what that at that point what you want to do with it I mean some 00:34:08.760 --> 00:34:13.740 of the properties that were brought in that I that we that we talked about have 00:34:13.740 --> 00:34:17.800 been brought in years ago and then they were sitting there until either 00:34:17.800 --> 00:34:21.920 development occurred there or you know as the city expanded then you started 00:34:21.920 --> 00:34:26.080 making decisions on what what actually you want to do with it you bring it in 00:34:26.080 --> 00:34:31.200 and you know especially it's somewhat rural you're gonna give it that RR 00:34:31.200 --> 00:34:34.880 right away five years from now you don't know where the city's going to be at or 00:34:34.880 --> 00:34:38.520 what's gonna happen and you're gonna have to go back and rezone that so 00:34:38.520 --> 00:34:44.680 there's there's what I'm looking at is it's it's a good idea to have a when you 00:34:44.680 --> 00:34:51.680 bring property in and it's especially somewhat rural is to hold it until you 00:34:51.680 --> 00:34:57.320 see what developments how development is moving I don't know so the the RD 5x 00:34:57.320 --> 00:35:01.200 was truly just a placeholder it was right right element now there now they 00:35:01.200 --> 00:35:06.000 have an entitlement of RR so ultimately you're you're there and ready anyone can 00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:09.680 come in at any time and ask for a rezoning on those properties they choose 00:35:09.680 --> 00:35:14.120 to develop differently this just this is a cleaner simpler way of getting there 00:35:14.120 --> 00:35:18.560 and we shouldn't be doing any annexing anymore anyhow so it really it's gonna 00:35:18.560 --> 00:35:22.360 be we're gonna get the request for annexation we're not going to be going 00:35:22.360 --> 00:35:28.360 out in the annexing property that that's kind of the reality for us 00:35:28.360 --> 00:35:34.400 Mr. Burnett and I think what Commissioner such is kind of asking and or maybe not 00:35:34.400 --> 00:35:40.040 but my clarification is this so right now already 5x is a placeholder we're 00:35:40.040 --> 00:35:45.160 moving all those automatically to to our are do we have anything that is 00:35:45.160 --> 00:35:57.680 currently RD 5x that doesn't look like a rural yes yes so then in effect I guess 00:35:57.680 --> 00:36:05.240 my question is if we have things in RD 5x that that don't look like an RR is 00:36:05.240 --> 00:36:09.040 there a reason we wouldn't be proactively going ahead and zoning those 00:36:09.040 --> 00:36:14.840 according to what they would fit with otherwise I think the simple answer 00:36:14.840 --> 00:36:23.200 there is that we want to have that go through a public hearing process okay to 00:36:23.200 --> 00:36:31.720 zone it whatever that zoning is not through this citywide rezoning that's 00:36:31.720 --> 00:36:38.440 the simple answer okay let me marinate on that one just to give sort of an 00:36:38.440 --> 00:36:42.600 example of that that you could have an art well we do have some RD 5x that 00:36:42.600 --> 00:36:49.080 might be surrounded by low low or higher residential and so that's where we want 00:36:49.080 --> 00:36:53.020 to be cautious that we're not all of a sudden changing the zoning on it where 00:36:53.020 --> 00:36:57.500 the residents have no idea that all of a sudden it went from a field to 00:36:57.500 --> 00:37:06.560 Christian Ellis thank you chair staying on this topic knowing we're making all 00:37:06.560 --> 00:37:13.440 RD 5x is now our a lot of them don't make sense tell me this do we have them 00:37:13.440 --> 00:37:18.400 that are under five acres yes all right so that really doesn't make sense 00:37:18.400 --> 00:37:25.320 because that doesn't even fit into the parameters of an RR so effectively it 00:37:25.320 --> 00:37:31.760 just makes no sense it can't be developed I think based on the feedback 00:37:31.760 --> 00:37:38.800 that we're hearing we'll continue to explore what what transpired as far as 00:37:38.800 --> 00:37:48.360 making certain that we evaluate what went from RD 5x to RR and provide our 00:37:48.360 --> 00:37:53.100 recommendation if we see those areas that could make improvements and we'll 00:37:53.100 --> 00:37:57.640 bring that forward to the to the review committee so that the development code 00:37:57.640 --> 00:38:02.720 review committee for recommendation yeah because I mean it if we're setting 00:38:02.720 --> 00:38:09.080 these parameters in the new code and then we're in assigning zoning and they 00:38:09.080 --> 00:38:14.000 don't fit into the parameters that were that we've written here I don't disagree 00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:18.480 Commissioner Ellis absolutely and and I'll make certain that we do thank you 00:38:18.480 --> 00:38:24.240 Mr. Ellis brings an interesting point are there other zoning cases out there in 00:38:24.240 --> 00:38:29.280 which we're rezoning to a classification that doesn't meet the standard of that 00:38:29.280 --> 00:38:33.840 classification because new code says an RR lot has to be five acres but we're 00:38:33.840 --> 00:38:38.720 not abiding by that in some cases it sounds like are there other instances in 00:38:38.720 --> 00:38:44.720 which apart from RDX RD 5x or RR that we're moving from a DCG to an MN in 00:38:44.720 --> 00:38:50.000 which there we were rezoning standards yeah not necessarily conform to that 00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:54.880 zoning yes is that happening elsewhere I would say the short answer is yes and we 00:38:54.880 --> 00:38:58.520 haven't really fully analyzed that we did look into the question that 00:38:58.520 --> 00:39:02.720 Commissioner Allen's asked and we did find quite a number of parcels that were 00:39:02.720 --> 00:39:07.160 less than five acres I believe that we if we looked at the R1 which we can go 00:39:07.160 --> 00:39:15.320 next to is minimum lot area is 3,200 and if there are some properties that are 00:39:15.320 --> 00:39:23.080 less than that or you know however they they would also be not conforming to the 00:39:23.080 --> 00:39:29.080 new R1 and so some of those were trying we were trying to fix but you're right 00:39:29.080 --> 00:39:34.000 there will be other examples throughout the rest of the zoning districts that may 00:39:34.000 --> 00:39:40.520 may not fit the the lot minimum area okay but the distinction on the single 00:39:40.520 --> 00:39:44.040 family is that's where we have that provisioning in chapter or sub chapter 00:39:44.040 --> 00:39:50.280 1 where no single families is considered non-conforming as a result of lot size 00:39:50.280 --> 00:39:55.240 but it may not it may be different but it's not considered non-conforming we 00:39:55.240 --> 00:40:00.240 have that now when it when we initially changed from 2000 for residential yeah 00:40:00.240 --> 00:40:03.800 but but yeah for for for those zoning districts that don't need it and they 00:40:03.800 --> 00:40:08.640 are unplatted if they do come to plan they don't meet the minimum lot area then 00:40:08.640 --> 00:40:14.520 obviously they won't be able to plot so that's that's a good point to make so 00:40:14.520 --> 00:40:19.660 those will be those would have to be rezoned in order to plot the way they 00:40:19.660 --> 00:40:24.240 want to plot because again they have to meet the minimum lot area given given 00:40:24.240 --> 00:40:30.800 estimate the already 5x going to our under 5 acres believe we were looking at 00:40:30.800 --> 00:40:37.320 800 parcels maybe I need to clarify because that sounds astonishing there are 00:40:37.320 --> 00:40:43.500 800 RD 5x parcels in the city that are less than 5 acres that are less than 5 00:40:43.500 --> 00:40:49.640 acres correct that will be going to our are that is the estimate that I was 00:40:49.640 --> 00:40:55.280 given this morning okay it seems like we are potentially setting up P&Z and 00:40:55.280 --> 00:41:03.160 council to hear over 1,100 cases between split zone in RD 5x alone to try to 00:41:03.160 --> 00:41:14.600 write zoning parcels am I my miss into my math here no I think and again I and 00:41:14.600 --> 00:41:20.320 I don't I hadn't heard that number I don't know that number and that's why I 00:41:20.320 --> 00:41:23.280 say let it let us please do some research try to put something together 00:41:23.280 --> 00:41:28.480 we'll bring that back as as you know more information is available or 00:41:28.480 --> 00:41:32.200 provided we can give that to the development review committee for at 00:41:32.200 --> 00:41:37.600 least input and have that dialogue I think it's fruitful I just don't know 00:41:37.600 --> 00:41:41.600 that we continue to explore this because I don't know that we're going to have 00:41:41.600 --> 00:41:47.200 any answers are going to provide you valuable feedback I understand if I can 00:41:47.200 --> 00:41:51.040 just add those sort of looking forward I really don't think it's going to be an 00:41:51.040 --> 00:41:57.240 issue since we can no longer involuntary annex areas just think of the last two 00:41:57.240 --> 00:42:04.160 annexation cases that we had stark farms and Lakeview Ranch that right after they 00:42:04.160 --> 00:42:08.440 were annexed that very next day they submitted a rezoning application for 00:42:08.440 --> 00:42:11.640 their property and so moving forward I don't think that that's really going to 00:42:11.640 --> 00:42:15.760 be that much of an issue because why would you want to fall you know you're 00:42:15.760 --> 00:42:20.600 not going to voluntarily annex into the city and then do nothing when all of a 00:42:20.600 --> 00:42:23.920 sudden you'll have a number of limitations where if you're in the ETJ 00:42:23.920 --> 00:42:29.280 the only thing you're coming to the city for is a final plan I I agree with 00:42:29.280 --> 00:42:34.720 future annexation properties but as it stands now to Commissioner Pernette's 00:42:34.720 --> 00:42:40.360 point I'm not holding on to the numbers but say of the 800 half of them met our 00:42:40.360 --> 00:42:46.600 one standards we could proactively get those down instead of our art our one 00:42:46.600 --> 00:42:49.900 which would align it with the neighborhoods and things and save the 00:42:49.900 --> 00:42:55.040 potential for 400 properties to come to PNZ that's not few I mean I understand 00:42:55.040 --> 00:43:01.720 the future I'm saying the current property owners if we can I definitely 00:43:01.720 --> 00:43:07.080 appreciate neighbors who live next to a field and it's a certain zoning not being 00:43:07.080 --> 00:43:11.440 aware that all of a sudden they have two houses on that acre next to him I 00:43:11.440 --> 00:43:16.520 validate that and I think it's it's it's a worthy concern of the city to have but 00:43:16.520 --> 00:43:19.080 from what I'm hearing and from what I've been involved with there's a lot of 00:43:19.080 --> 00:43:23.960 meetings out there to try to let them know and it saves the city a ton of time 00:43:23.960 --> 00:43:33.080 which is money to to look at those as best we can to align them to again kind 00:43:33.080 --> 00:43:36.600 of be proactive to Commissioner Pernette's and Commissioner Ellis's 00:43:36.600 --> 00:43:42.400 points and I thank you mr. chair and we'll do that I think it's a worthy 00:43:42.400 --> 00:43:46.000 conversation yeah I think if we look at this I'd like to drill it down much 00:43:46.000 --> 00:43:49.840 further because even if you look at just sort of in that look in the in the 00:43:49.840 --> 00:43:55.080 north the northeast up around 428 a lot of those little those little specks 00:43:55.080 --> 00:44:00.680 through there I wonder how much of those even though they're even though 00:44:00.680 --> 00:44:08.920 they're they're they're less they're less than five acres a lot of times what 00:44:08.920 --> 00:44:14.600 you'll see in these areas since they're not platted they carved out these this 00:44:14.600 --> 00:44:18.520 was my aunt so I carved this out for her homestead so they may be part of a 00:44:18.520 --> 00:44:23.360 larger ownership so while it shows it's only an acre it might be part of a 20 00:44:23.360 --> 00:44:27.880 acre tract that's owned under one and so I think once we kind of drill that down 00:44:27.880 --> 00:44:31.880 and filter that out I think it's going to be much a much smaller much smaller 00:44:31.880 --> 00:44:41.120 number right and just for conversation purposes we do also see single family or 00:44:41.120 --> 00:44:44.720 families that want to develop a single-family home and they don't get to 00:44:44.720 --> 00:44:50.440 meet those minimum they won't be able to plat and so we've seen those zoning 00:44:50.440 --> 00:44:54.200 cases come through the planning zoning Commission Cody do you have a count on 00:44:54.200 --> 00:45:01.320 that you just pulled up under five acres okay oh I see it there 00:45:05.800 --> 00:45:11.840 okay great thank you Ron so next one is the RR and I think the next few ones are 00:45:11.840 --> 00:45:15.860 going to be fairly easy to understand because really they are carryovers from 00:45:15.860 --> 00:45:22.000 the existing zoning districts the NR one as you see in your chart will be an R1 00:45:22.000 --> 00:45:28.000 and R1 the main function there is a single-family large lot minimum size 00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:35.640 thirty-two hundred sorry three two thousand square feet just flipping over to you are - 00:45:35.640 --> 00:45:40.720 Chris Charles thank you chair excuse me Ron I just want to make sure everybody 00:45:40.720 --> 00:45:44.560 knows that there's a summary table as we're going through these that is just 00:45:44.560 --> 00:45:47.440 one of the best things I think in this new code is to look at all of these 00:45:47.440 --> 00:45:53.200 these types you know all together in a chart so just as we're going through it I 00:45:53.200 --> 00:45:56.560 just want to make sure that you you all know so it's page 128 for this 00:45:56.560 --> 00:46:01.440 particular group of zoning just all the residential and they're all in a table 00:46:01.440 --> 00:46:05.200 side-by-side it's it's a really nice comparison as we go through these so I 00:46:05.200 --> 00:46:10.880 just want to know that's great thank you and additionally it's obviously the 00:46:10.880 --> 00:46:14.560 graphics on each page and I think it's important to point out and that's why 00:46:14.560 --> 00:46:19.480 we're excited about the draft code that we have the graphics that clearly 00:46:19.480 --> 00:46:24.400 articulate what those setbacks are on each of those zoning districts and then 00:46:24.400 --> 00:46:27.440 to get into the table to be able to see it very concisely so if you're 00:46:27.440 --> 00:46:32.680 considering something you have that ability in fact the the table is keyed 00:46:32.680 --> 00:46:37.960 by letters which reflect back to the graphic which has the letters assigned 00:46:37.960 --> 00:46:45.560 to it as well so very good point commissioner Alice are two is primarily 00:46:45.560 --> 00:46:51.240 single-family again neighborhood minimum lot size 16,000 and again now I went 00:46:51.240 --> 00:46:57.520 through this the are three the same a single family a little bit more denser 00:46:57.520 --> 00:47:03.240 because there are smaller lots minimum lot area there is ten thousand square 00:47:03.240 --> 00:47:09.800 feet and you can see from the graphic that the lots themselves get smaller the 00:47:09.800 --> 00:47:15.440 are four is your NR four which is again you're looking now at an array of 00:47:15.440 --> 00:47:21.560 different housing types on the are four zoning districts it is to encourage more 00:47:21.560 --> 00:47:27.100 walking neighborhood servicing retail amenities nearby again a character of 00:47:27.100 --> 00:47:34.240 your established single family that we see here in and then existing the are 00:47:34.240 --> 00:47:40.760 six a little bit more denser minimum lot size is 6,000 you see a lot of the 00:47:40.760 --> 00:47:46.280 zoning that we see recently proposed to be around in our six zoning districts so 00:47:46.280 --> 00:47:52.680 this would follow in those examples are the are six is again to accommodate a 00:47:52.680 --> 00:47:58.000 variety of housing types designed for walking and to neighborhood servicing 00:47:58.000 --> 00:48:03.960 retail and other amenities again to resemble the established neighborhoods 00:48:03.960 --> 00:48:09.760 that we may have seen early in the century when when those homes were a 00:48:09.760 --> 00:48:15.600 lot smaller okay so now are seven that's that's one of the big significant 00:48:15.600 --> 00:48:19.560 changes does anybody have any questions I want to pause there on the are one 00:48:19.560 --> 00:48:27.920 through our six before okay so the are six I'm sorry the are seven is a new 00:48:27.920 --> 00:48:34.680 zoning district and what that zoning district compiled into the are seven is 00:48:34.680 --> 00:48:41.680 the dr1 dr2 our CR 1 our CR 2 and there's a there's one mf1 there that was 00:48:41.680 --> 00:48:45.600 a carryover that was not addressed but essentially is those four zoning 00:48:45.600 --> 00:48:51.420 districts and I know that we've gone through this with the DC RC explained to 00:48:51.420 --> 00:48:55.840 them why we're doing this essentially the dr1 and dr2 they're not that much 00:48:55.840 --> 00:49:01.360 different there may be a difference in density from 8 to 15 I believe the are 00:49:01.360 --> 00:49:09.000 CR 1 are CR 2 a little bit more intense but all in all they fit within the 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:13.200 definition or the purpose of an are seven and that is it's intended to 00:49:13.200 --> 00:49:19.000 accommodate a variety of housing types so you're starting to see duplexes town 00:49:19.000 --> 00:49:24.040 homes a little bit more different types of homes permitted in the are seven I 00:49:24.040 --> 00:49:29.520 believe multifamily is permitted in the are seven with a specific use permit so 00:49:29.520 --> 00:49:36.760 it's kind of like the bridge between the NRM you to the MN you know to to what we 00:49:36.760 --> 00:49:43.440 currently have we call you know the NRM you and the are six area so are seven is 00:49:43.440 --> 00:49:51.200 that bridge between residential and the mixed-use districts Ron of the five 00:49:51.200 --> 00:49:54.920 current zoning districts being consolidated which is the least 00:49:54.920 --> 00:50:00.880 intensive use the are one the are one I'm sorry are one is that what you're 00:50:00.880 --> 00:50:05.720 referring to no no the dr1 dr2 those five oh I see I see that are moving are 00:50:05.720 --> 00:50:13.160 seven which is the least intensive use dr1 dr1 and what's the the change and 00:50:13.160 --> 00:50:20.180 use broadly speaking between a dr1 and are seven how much more liberal are we 00:50:20.180 --> 00:50:27.360 getting in their ability to use that land from a dr1 to an are seven question 00:50:27.360 --> 00:50:32.520 I don't have that in front of me we do have a chart that I felt to bring with me 00:50:32.520 --> 00:50:36.720 and we will make sure to provide that at our next work session okay well I can go 00:50:36.720 --> 00:50:41.000 back and look at the code I was curious on the consolidation of five areas how 00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:45.840 much I don't use the word up zoning yeah yeah but how much of that's happening 00:50:45.840 --> 00:50:53.280 when we had this presentation to D to the DC RC we did prepare a presentation 00:50:53.280 --> 00:50:58.840 and I felt to put that to me I'll make sure that chart that does look at those 00:50:58.840 --> 00:51:04.320 differences in lane uses between the dr1 our CR 1 and our CR 2 are provided to 00:51:04.320 --> 00:51:10.040 the Commission prior to our next meeting great thank you Ron it might just be 00:51:10.040 --> 00:51:20.800 multi right I think dr1 does not allow multi-family RCR does but by SUP but I 00:51:20.800 --> 00:51:25.560 think heights are about relatively the same but we can yeah I'm just thinking 00:51:25.560 --> 00:51:30.440 about I think it's really the only yeah that'd be interesting to know because I 00:51:30.440 --> 00:51:34.080 know we've brought the specific example about their neighbors all of a sudden 00:51:34.080 --> 00:51:36.680 having apartments next to them right which it seems like if someone's a 00:51:36.680 --> 00:51:41.880 neighbor to a dr1 this rezone without neighbors knowing can automatically have 00:51:41.880 --> 00:51:45.480 an apartment next to him so the the actual example given about the fear of 00:51:45.480 --> 00:51:50.560 neighbors having an apartment next to them would legitimately exist in this 00:51:50.560 --> 00:51:54.680 consolidation of zoning and then right and then the DC RC did express that 00:51:54.680 --> 00:51:59.720 when we did bring this forward to them earlier in the process but again we were 00:51:59.720 --> 00:52:05.080 trying to consolidate this may be one of those where we we we looked at and we 00:52:05.080 --> 00:52:11.280 we were able to receive input that we can move forward the R7 and again that 00:52:11.280 --> 00:52:15.640 chart I think would be helpful and again I feel to provide that to the 00:52:15.640 --> 00:52:18.880 Commission and we'll make sure to bring that again at our next work session 00:52:18.880 --> 00:52:26.800 thanks Ron okay so our seven and as Commissioner Alice mentioned on page 00:52:26.800 --> 00:52:33.040 128 is a summary of all of the residential zoning districts that have 00:52:33.040 --> 00:52:41.920 their dimensional standards and you can see from the lot area it's going from 00:52:41.920 --> 00:52:47.160 the minimum lot area five acres down to 4,000 square feet and I think it's 00:52:47.160 --> 00:52:53.360 important to note that what you don't see in this chart is a density 00:52:53.360 --> 00:53:00.440 requirement maximum density requirement that is the idea here is that we will 00:53:00.440 --> 00:53:07.600 use the dimensional standards the minimum lot area the minimum lot width 00:53:07.600 --> 00:53:15.120 and depth and setbacks to manage density I think that's an important significant 00:53:15.120 --> 00:53:25.400 change from what we currently have today in our current code okay moving on to 00:53:25.400 --> 00:53:33.560 mix-use zoning districts there are three zoning districts the MN the MD and the 00:53:33.560 --> 00:53:42.160 MR and you can see under the chart that you have in front of you the DCN I'm 00:53:42.160 --> 00:53:48.520 sorry let me start with the NRMU 12 and the NRMU we are looking to transition 00:53:48.520 --> 00:53:57.480 those into MN and I don't know if Cody has those up on the screen these are all 00:53:57.480 --> 00:54:05.000 of the proposed MN zoning districts that would be converted as part of the draft 00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:10.180 zoning map so you see there's a there's a number of them within the core of the 00:54:10.180 --> 00:54:16.880 year within the city the purpose of a MN district is really to provide 00:54:16.880 --> 00:54:23.840 compatibility of a higher intensity mix-use area where adjacent residential 00:54:23.840 --> 00:54:30.920 and commercial areas are compatible as much as possible the districts that this 00:54:30.920 --> 00:54:35.720 district that however is a vibrant environment for both pedestrians 00:54:35.720 --> 00:54:41.880 bicyclists and other residential neighborhood servicing uses as explained 00:54:41.880 --> 00:54:49.080 in the purpose statement the MD and this is what we were talking about earlier 00:54:49.080 --> 00:54:56.160 this is primarily mixed use downtown core the MD district is provided to allow 00:54:56.160 --> 00:55:02.560 for a variety of uses contributing to the economic viability of downtown Den 00:55:02.560 --> 00:55:08.040 and that is I think a key there the purpose is primarily for the downtown 00:55:08.040 --> 00:55:13.760 it's not to extend along the highway it's not to extend into neighborhood 00:55:13.760 --> 00:55:20.280 areas but primarily downtown and as we get into chapter 6 or sub chapter 6 as 00:55:20.280 --> 00:55:29.160 Richard mentioned there are provisions that are waived or given exceptions to 00:55:29.160 --> 00:55:35.280 if you were that you you are within the MD zoning district so we wanted to make 00:55:35.280 --> 00:55:41.480 sure that those that are converted to MD are truly within the downtown area and 00:55:41.480 --> 00:55:47.000 that's how we got to where we are with the draft map in making sure that that 00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:54.560 doesn't affect those other areas and DCG we had a case at P&Z last 00:55:54.560 --> 00:55:59.840 Wednesday of a subject property wanting to go from MRMU 12 to an MRMU and the 00:55:59.840 --> 00:56:05.480 city denied that the recommendation because it was a too quick of an 00:56:05.480 --> 00:56:13.400 aggressive transition but it seems like now the city is saying MRMU 12 and 00:56:13.400 --> 00:56:19.040 MRMU basically the same can you help me as a commissioner over the next between 00:56:19.040 --> 00:56:23.960 adoption and effective date understand that current city staff believes there 00:56:23.960 --> 00:56:28.160 is a distinct difference between MRMU 12 and MRMU to the point where they're not 00:56:28.160 --> 00:56:32.320 going to recommend cases to the point where after the effective date we see 00:56:32.320 --> 00:56:36.440 them as the same how how are we guided as commissioners to kind of walk through 00:56:36.440 --> 00:56:43.120 what looks to be diametrically opposed positions on those two subjects sure I 00:56:43.120 --> 00:56:50.440 think I know you're referring to it if I'm mistaken on the case of Audra Audra 00:56:50.440 --> 00:56:59.680 and no right west of Luke 28 oh I see I see your sign Audra and maybe we can pull 00:56:59.680 --> 00:57:07.120 that up Audra and McKinney I think was McKinney knows north news north of that 00:57:07.120 --> 00:57:11.640 near Audra and Luke 28 yeah they own the retirement facility that's gonna be on 00:57:11.640 --> 00:57:15.600 the loop I'm just just to recall I believe that the reason why we were 00:57:15.600 --> 00:57:19.400 recommending that was really the purpose of what they were trying to do was just 00:57:19.400 --> 00:57:24.080 lot coverage I think and so we have to look at not just the density because 00:57:24.080 --> 00:57:27.800 that's what we currently have it's also what are they were they're trying to do 00:57:27.800 --> 00:57:32.400 what was really the purpose of their rezoning request and Richard I don't know 00:57:32.400 --> 00:57:38.280 if you know that that was correct I mean that that's one they were still below 00:57:38.280 --> 00:57:42.240 the density but it really had to do with just the amount of you were you were 00:57:42.240 --> 00:57:50.760 essentially going from a 40 percent pervious area to 20 percent so to answer 00:57:50.760 --> 00:57:57.240 your question commit chair Roselle now we have the ability with that with the 00:57:57.240 --> 00:58:02.360 design standards development standards there are options where you know they 00:58:02.360 --> 00:58:06.800 can take advantage of certain flexibility so maybe that rezoning would 00:58:06.800 --> 00:58:11.360 not even mean not even be brought forward to the Commission because there 00:58:11.360 --> 00:58:17.360 are options and built-in flexibility to adjust in those certain situations it 00:58:17.360 --> 00:58:21.320 may not be true for everyone but there there are the ones that that could 00:58:21.320 --> 00:58:25.000 manage through through those processes and Cody just brought it up that's the 00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:32.720 exact one I'm talking about thank you I guess my question is MRM you 12 MRM you 00:58:32.720 --> 00:58:38.880 they're gonna be consolidated so when we look at a case of in the next six to 00:58:38.880 --> 00:58:41.760 eight months when we look at a case from someone saying they want to go from 00:58:41.760 --> 00:58:47.000 MRM unit to MRU 12 what basis do we have from a city to deny that request if 00:58:47.000 --> 00:58:53.120 they're going to be aligned imminently but because that was we the city denied 00:58:53.120 --> 00:58:56.520 that rezoning case but it seems inevitable that they're gonna be merged 00:58:56.520 --> 00:59:00.280 anyways does that make sense my it does it does and I just want to stress that 00:59:00.280 --> 00:59:06.280 we may be merging the districts and but remember we're also amending other parts 00:59:06.280 --> 00:59:10.720 of the code that affect that district in the sense of like say density we don't 00:59:10.720 --> 00:59:14.280 have density so now they're gonna go primarily on the parking requirement the 00:59:14.280 --> 00:59:19.040 landscape area the lot coverage so we're pairing those down so it may not be all 00:59:19.040 --> 00:59:25.120 NRM you as it is it may it may seem to like that but really we're pairing that 00:59:25.120 --> 00:59:31.120 down and lessening the develop ability or you know intensity by doing that so 00:59:31.120 --> 00:59:37.040 but you're right there will be certain areas or certain zoning that will expand 00:59:37.040 --> 00:59:42.720 their intensity but remember we're also amending other parts of the code that 00:59:42.720 --> 00:59:46.280 would hopefully bring that back and so the other option I was telling you are 00:59:46.280 --> 00:59:51.200 trying to explain for example the PD is another option if they chose to not do 00:59:51.200 --> 00:59:55.680 that we will be referring them to a PD and that's that's another option that 00:59:55.680 --> 01:00:02.220 they can have if again it was a lot coverage issue not necessarily a use 01:00:02.220 --> 01:00:07.400 issue after adoption though they would have the potential option to go with the 01:00:07.400 --> 01:00:13.120 new zoning districts anyways is that is that true so the the concept is what 01:00:13.120 --> 01:00:19.480 we're hoping to propose and that will be passed is that we would have an 01:00:19.480 --> 01:00:23.640 adoption date give the opportunity for the code to be out there for for six 01:00:23.640 --> 01:00:28.680 months a person would be able to select either code not mix and match like either 01:00:28.680 --> 01:00:32.000 code sure all the while we're going to be continuing to look at if there's 01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:37.140 anything that we need to modify a third component which I don't believe I 01:00:37.140 --> 01:00:42.320 mentioned is that truly I think that we'd like to look at this at a year 01:00:42.320 --> 01:00:46.640 really open it back up and say okay rather than making minor changes along 01:00:46.640 --> 01:00:49.680 the way is that we just look at it holistically and say how is this working 01:00:49.680 --> 01:00:59.680 thank you thank you and I think I just wanted to add to that too there's 01:00:59.680 --> 01:01:03.600 certain standards for different types of businesses too that we were building to 01:01:03.600 --> 01:01:07.600 this code too so that's going to play a role I think in development of lots as 01:01:07.600 --> 01:01:13.560 well even even though it's gonna maybe have the same zoning district and I 01:01:13.560 --> 01:01:19.380 might also say and Richard may wish to speak to this that I think staff is 01:01:19.380 --> 01:01:24.320 being diligent and not only looking at the draft code but as we're evaluating 01:01:24.320 --> 01:01:29.040 cases for approval or denial is really kind of the philosophy of where we're 01:01:29.040 --> 01:01:32.760 going and okay and does it does it meet the intent and I don't know if you want 01:01:32.760 --> 01:01:37.360 to speak to that or yeah you know this one was really challenging and part of 01:01:37.360 --> 01:01:41.520 it is again it's going back to where we're attached single families permitted 01:01:41.520 --> 01:01:45.300 and and that's really been you know part of the issue we've had with with the 01:01:45.300 --> 01:01:51.000 current code because it just doesn't it really doesn't fit it's you know that 01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:54.800 that's where you the one size fits all really affects the most and so that's 01:01:54.800 --> 01:01:59.040 where we're trying to just pull that pull that out and it probably would be 01:01:59.040 --> 01:02:02.880 more appropriate I don't know if it would be an r7 or something along those 01:02:02.880 --> 01:02:09.640 lines even as opposed to the I got you and just again as we're discussing this 01:02:09.640 --> 01:02:14.280 there are other cases that we've seen recently as well you know where we were 01:02:14.280 --> 01:02:18.240 looking at this you know as we move forward and then when we're talking to 01:02:18.240 --> 01:02:23.800 the applicants you know we are advising them that this is a proposed but you 01:02:23.800 --> 01:02:28.240 should consider you know either hold off or pursue this and if you do pursue this 01:02:28.240 --> 01:02:33.360 this is what you potentially will be zoned as or in the future and also it 01:02:33.360 --> 01:02:37.960 helps it has helped us in our analysis when we are making recommendation 01:02:37.960 --> 01:02:43.280 because you know we are looking at this somewhat you know in our analysis to 01:02:43.280 --> 01:02:49.560 make sure that when we get to the approval we're not going to flip it back 01:02:49.560 --> 01:02:54.520 to whatever this transitional zoning is and get it closer to what it should be 01:02:54.520 --> 01:02:57.920 yeah that makes sense I mean it at the time on Wednesday was helpful for 01:02:57.920 --> 01:03:00.760 Claire's kitchen because it looked like some of that was gonna go empty now that 01:03:00.760 --> 01:03:04.840 was a map that got pulled I don't know if that looks the same as it does now 01:03:04.840 --> 01:03:08.600 but to your point it does help inform kind of the direction of the city 01:03:08.600 --> 01:03:14.120 although pending and it did change it did it provided hopefully some context 01:03:14.120 --> 01:03:24.520 of future thoughts right okay so moving on to MR which is the mixed-use regional 01:03:24.520 --> 01:03:32.160 this is your golden triangle mall area your razor ranch to a certain degree 01:03:32.160 --> 01:03:39.320 regional you know where you are looking at a more of an urban regional draw 01:03:39.320 --> 01:03:45.320 development may include national retailers employments and restaurants so 01:03:45.320 --> 01:03:54.480 that is why we chose our CCN and our CCD as the MR transition and however there 01:03:54.480 --> 01:03:58.280 are other areas in the city that currently have an RCC and in our CCD 01:03:58.280 --> 01:04:05.360 specifically to the north of the loop in that area I think back in 2002 there was 01:04:05.360 --> 01:04:12.200 a idea that that would be a third or maybe a fourth regional center we 01:04:12.200 --> 01:04:17.240 haven't seen that of course the loop is not complete and it could be completed 01:04:17.240 --> 01:04:22.160 in the next 15 years and if it does the possibility for a regional draw could be 01:04:22.160 --> 01:04:28.720 there so we're going to carry forward those areas as MR and again the MR is a 01:04:28.720 --> 01:04:36.680 mixed-use regional zoning district okay there are no any questions on the mixed 01:04:36.680 --> 01:04:40.680 use we'll go into the non-residential I'm sorry the quarter I skipped quarter 01:04:40.680 --> 01:04:49.320 quarter districts now these this is partly from the den plan 2030 as you 01:04:49.320 --> 01:04:53.920 all know there is a preferred growth concept map that we used when we 01:04:53.920 --> 01:04:58.400 analyzed looking at a preferred growth concept one of it was a corridor 01:04:58.400 --> 01:05:03.760 concept that being said we have a number of corridors throughout the city 01:05:03.760 --> 01:05:12.480 specifically the suburban quarter I the loop University Drive Teasley Fort Worth 01:05:12.480 --> 01:05:18.640 those are your major corridors so the attempt here is to try to zone those 01:05:18.640 --> 01:05:25.640 appropriately but again looking at our existing zoning map we have CMG 01:05:25.640 --> 01:05:30.520 community mixed-use general and community mixed-use employment if you 01:05:30.520 --> 01:05:34.640 know what with that those zoning districts are and those are primarily 01:05:34.640 --> 01:05:41.600 commercial if you read the purpose for SC it's intended to provide moderate to 01:05:41.600 --> 01:05:48.040 high commercial uses office and retail along high traffic corridors and again 01:05:48.040 --> 01:05:54.560 those scores I listed are just examples University Drive has a number of CMG CME 01:05:54.560 --> 01:06:00.920 you see primarily along the Fort Worth area Fort Worth Drive area Teasley has a 01:06:00.920 --> 01:06:07.160 lot of CMG as well and this SC district provides elevated building and 01:06:07.160 --> 01:06:11.120 landscape design obviously these are where visitors are driving through and 01:06:11.120 --> 01:06:16.120 we want to make sure that those areas are well designed primarily it's a 01:06:16.120 --> 01:06:21.760 auto-oriented zoning district that accommodates the commercial uses and 01:06:21.760 --> 01:06:28.720 looks to provide pedestrians and other mobile mobility that is the cyclist as 01:06:28.720 --> 01:06:35.440 well for those areas the other corridor district is the highway corridor this is 01:06:35.440 --> 01:06:44.840 intended to be your I-35 zoning areas we we have identified a number of them Cody 01:06:44.840 --> 01:06:49.200 has it up I appreciate Cody sharing those with the Commission gives you a 01:06:49.200 --> 01:06:54.800 little bit more context as to where they are in the areas that are currently 01:06:54.800 --> 01:07:01.040 zoned CMG and CME that are along the highway along I-35 we've given it the 01:07:01.040 --> 01:07:08.520 HC and and in some cases where there are zoning districts such as the DCG which 01:07:08.520 --> 01:07:14.680 is not really intended for the highway we've also given that an HC again we 01:07:14.680 --> 01:07:19.520 wanted to make sure that the MD which would have gotten it specifically be 01:07:19.520 --> 01:07:26.440 only in downtown well along the highway we give it an HC Cody can you turn on SC 01:07:26.440 --> 01:07:32.280 and change a different color both of them I just wanted to see one thing that 01:07:32.280 --> 01:07:43.240 I thought my eyes saw but yeah so why is there any blue on I-35 here why is there 01:07:43.240 --> 01:07:50.520 wouldn't that go to highway corridor if that's the same if CMG and CME are both 01:07:50.520 --> 01:07:55.120 being moved over to suburban core and highway corridor I'm wondering why I'm 01:07:55.120 --> 01:07:59.720 not seeing red on both sides of the highway that's full worth drive is one 01:07:59.720 --> 01:08:06.120 area so that's why we kept it on the south side by 35 I'm not sure what that 01:08:06.120 --> 01:08:11.080 is on the other because if I haven't seen the comparison but I think this is 01:08:11.080 --> 01:08:14.440 one of the changes that was made from Friday to Monday's map right and I'm 01:08:14.440 --> 01:08:17.680 wondering if this is just an alignment of uses where the city didn't feel 01:08:17.680 --> 01:08:24.960 comfortable and proactively rezoning or no we we we converted the where we felt 01:08:24.960 --> 01:08:31.200 the corridor which is not the highway it's forward drive we kept it SC but I 01:08:31.200 --> 01:08:33.880 see what you're talking about I see forward drive but west of Fort Worth 01:08:33.880 --> 01:08:40.600 Drive east of Fort Worth Drive I mean I get the forward drive and yeah I'm trying 01:08:40.600 --> 01:08:54.840 to recall why there's like there's a hospital there's an outback there we 01:08:54.840 --> 01:08:57.720 can yeah we can certainly look at that and going back to what we talked about 01:08:57.720 --> 01:09:03.200 earlier anything that is CMG and CME along the highway we should have as HC 01:09:03.200 --> 01:09:06.520 yeah and I think this goes back to maybe a point I've brought up or I've 01:09:06.520 --> 01:09:10.960 certainly talked to city staff about it is part of my hope in this zoning map 01:09:10.960 --> 01:09:15.040 was to provide clarity of the city like when you look at our current zoning map 01:09:15.040 --> 01:09:20.400 there's 26 different colors just looking crazy and then we have this opportunity 01:09:20.400 --> 01:09:24.920 to make this really nice good-looking thoughtful zoning map and right off the 01:09:24.920 --> 01:09:28.240 top we have suburban quarter on a highway when we actually have a zone 01:09:28.240 --> 01:09:34.160 named highway corridor and so this might echo Commissioner Ellis's point earlier 01:09:34.160 --> 01:09:39.720 about missed opportunities this is not a question but more just maybe a statement 01:09:39.720 --> 01:09:48.280 on record that this is I don't think fully taking advantage of the opportunity 01:09:48.280 --> 01:09:54.080 to make a zoning map presented to developers and cities that is a massive 01:09:54.080 --> 01:09:59.520 step in the right direction in terms of the opportunity we have no I appreciate 01:09:59.520 --> 01:10:02.560 that comment I think and I'm not gonna make excuses I just know that we are 01:10:02.560 --> 01:10:08.740 working to get it converted to the transition zoning and so we may have just 01:10:08.740 --> 01:10:14.040 overlooked those those areas that you see there that's shown in blue yeah I 01:10:14.040 --> 01:10:19.480 think that's an honest response my initial gut reaction to the word 01:10:19.480 --> 01:10:24.720 overlook makes me think a lot more meetings because what else to be not 01:10:24.720 --> 01:10:29.200 lower look and I don't want to be on a tangent here but how many of the 370 01:10:29.200 --> 01:10:33.000 split zonings do we need to look at individually from either a subcommittee 01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:39.520 council staff perspective how many of the 867 already five X's that are less 01:10:39.520 --> 01:10:44.680 than five acres need to be looked at how many of these opportunities need to be 01:10:44.680 --> 01:10:52.000 looked at that word overlook I think is honest and I think probably accurate but 01:10:52.000 --> 01:10:59.320 to me it's it's a this truck just got stuck in the mud type language and I 01:10:59.320 --> 01:11:10.780 felt like we were on a faster track than that okay so any other questions on the 01:11:10.780 --> 01:11:19.120 corridor districts we can move on to the non-residential so now the first 01:11:19.120 --> 01:11:24.240 non-residential zone district is your geo general office and those are intended 01:11:24.240 --> 01:11:31.180 to be as you can see it from the exhibit more of office employment research 01:11:31.180 --> 01:11:37.600 development type related uses as well as some supporting uses provides the 01:11:37.600 --> 01:11:41.560 flexibility for office space and encourages the establishment of 01:11:41.560 --> 01:11:45.800 research and development enterprises startups and opportunities for business 01:11:45.800 --> 01:11:51.920 innovation and I want to just express that the then plan 2030 talks a lot 01:11:51.920 --> 01:11:55.720 about business innovation and this was the zoning district that would be used 01:11:55.720 --> 01:12:03.580 to encourage or implement that designation of business innovation you 01:12:03.580 --> 01:12:11.800 see them there now those are the Geo's using the conversion chart your Geo is 01:12:11.800 --> 01:12:22.880 essentially your ECC employment center commercial so those are our Geo the next 01:12:22.880 --> 01:12:27.760 one is light industrial and it speaks for itself that is intended for 01:12:27.760 --> 01:12:32.840 industrial employment uses such as light manufacturing assembly fabrication 01:12:32.840 --> 01:12:38.440 warehousing and distribution includes indoor and outdoor storage and a wide 01:12:38.440 --> 01:12:46.120 range of commercial use activities intended to be more in light as far as 01:12:46.120 --> 01:12:52.080 intensity that allows for transit bicycle and pedestrian uses as well while 01:12:52.080 --> 01:12:57.040 there are other zoning district following this is the heavy industrial 01:12:57.040 --> 01:13:05.440 and this is primarily around the airport the more intense industrial uses it is 01:13:05.440 --> 01:13:11.000 intended to provide suitable locations for development for outdoor recreation 01:13:11.000 --> 01:13:16.420 distribution and manufacturing uses again this is the highest intense zoning 01:13:16.420 --> 01:13:24.440 district that we have because it allows for a number of high heavy industrial 01:13:24.440 --> 01:13:33.940 type uses again right close to I-35W and your then Enterprise Airport and the 01:13:33.940 --> 01:13:44.000 area that you see down there is the Acme we're getting to the last one and 01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:49.760 that is the PF this is a new zoning district and I mentioned this earlier in 01:13:49.760 --> 01:13:55.640 the presentation that this will cover the public and quasi public community 01:13:55.640 --> 01:14:03.480 uses it includes your parks your your regional parks your civic buildings your 01:14:03.480 --> 01:14:11.260 institutional schools and the like now we do have a number of smaller parcels 01:14:11.260 --> 01:14:18.300 that are governmental we did not give it a PF we felt that those would be already 01:14:18.300 --> 01:14:21.840 permitted in those existing zoning districts so we left it as is but we did 01:14:21.840 --> 01:14:28.300 identify the larger groupings and larger parcels and gave those a PF so the 01:14:28.300 --> 01:14:35.800 airport the the landfill the universities the Discovery Park to north 01:14:35.800 --> 01:14:39.840 some water treatment plants that are fairly large and so we made sure that 01:14:39.840 --> 01:14:45.800 those were given the PF zoning district where the small ones left off because of 01:14:45.800 --> 01:14:49.680 liquidity issues too in terms of city wanted to sell the property no it was 01:14:49.680 --> 01:14:54.200 just more if we if we kept it it would have been all these blue dots because we 01:14:54.200 --> 01:15:01.840 have so many you know so we just we made sure we've spoke to DISD or I'm sorry 01:15:01.840 --> 01:15:13.040 that yeah DISD the DCTA UNT and TW and other the county and if their property 01:15:13.040 --> 01:15:19.400 was in use already and or have future uses we we shared with them the zoning 01:15:19.400 --> 01:15:23.280 district and so we didn't feel that they needed to be a PF in those instances but 01:15:23.280 --> 01:15:26.760 not necessarily because we didn't want to see a bunch of blue dots throughout 01:15:26.760 --> 01:15:31.720 this throughout the map that's probably the simple answer and since they're not 01:15:31.720 --> 01:15:35.360 being rezoned PF they would have to align with dimensional standards design 01:15:35.360 --> 01:15:39.120 of right and in most of them are already developing we that's one reason we 01:15:39.120 --> 01:15:45.680 left it as is great and that's that's a new zoning district and that captures 01:15:45.680 --> 01:15:52.440 all of what we have and again on page 150 is the summary of all those zoning 01:15:52.440 --> 01:16:00.840 districts that you can see there. The next if there are no other questions on 01:16:00.840 --> 01:16:06.000 the zoning districts we can move into the latter part of subchapter 3 and that 01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:12.920 is again I don't know if we want to go through the table but you can see that 01:16:12.920 --> 01:16:18.240 the they have lot area of dimensional standards minimum the setbacks in the 01:16:18.240 --> 01:16:23.760 building heights. There's a there's a couple hundred feet tall buildings that 01:16:23.760 --> 01:16:28.160 could potentially begin that's the maximum height for those areas and these 01:16:28.160 --> 01:16:34.080 are intended to be on purpose to be able to accommodate large tall buildings 01:16:34.080 --> 01:16:41.520 such as in the geo or the HC and then PF if there are any governmental buildings 01:16:41.520 --> 01:16:48.040 or institutional buildings that exceed that want to get up to 100 feet. So the 01:16:48.040 --> 01:16:52.840 other important piece to this is really your your measurements and exceptions 01:16:52.840 --> 01:16:57.200 that I'm not going to go through you can read here but they're essentially given 01:16:57.200 --> 01:17:02.600 giving you what we already have in regards to how we measure things and 01:17:02.600 --> 01:17:09.240 what's neat is that there are exhibits that are provided to help explain some 01:17:09.240 --> 01:17:16.160 of those measurement standards. If there are no other questions on the zoning 01:17:16.160 --> 01:17:22.360 districts I'd like to introduce the chapter subchapter 5 which is our use 01:17:22.360 --> 01:17:26.200 regulations. I'm going to skip four we'll come back to that they'll be in a later 01:17:26.200 --> 01:17:31.580 work session. I wanted to come to subchapter 5 and specifically the table 01:17:31.580 --> 01:17:38.320 of allowed uses these are really where the rubber hits the road when it comes 01:17:38.320 --> 01:17:42.920 to what's permitted. Now that we have a general understanding of the zoning 01:17:42.920 --> 01:17:47.760 districts we can now understand what uses are permitted so if you refer to 01:17:47.760 --> 01:17:53.320 page 201 it's really the beginning of a series of table or it's a table with 01:17:53.320 --> 01:18:01.400 series of pages that cover the the uses and just for the benefit of the 01:18:01.400 --> 01:18:06.920 Commission when we get a later version or later draft of this you won't see 01:18:06.920 --> 01:18:11.440 these footnotes these will go away these are just for our benefit to 01:18:11.440 --> 01:18:16.440 understand how we got to what we have today our later version will be without 01:18:16.440 --> 01:18:21.840 these footnotes so the table will fit more and so you won't be this long but 01:18:21.840 --> 01:18:27.640 let's let's kind of focus on the residential uses. You see that the P 01:18:27.640 --> 01:18:34.360 stands for permitted by right there are no use specific standards those that 01:18:34.360 --> 01:18:39.200 have a plus assigned to it you have to refer to the use specific standard which 01:18:39.200 --> 01:18:45.680 is listed in the on the far right column. The S stands for specific use permit I 01:18:45.680 --> 01:18:49.480 think everybody knows what a specific use permit here is and again if there is 01:18:49.480 --> 01:18:53.600 a plus in addition to a specific use permit you are required to follow the 01:18:53.600 --> 01:19:01.840 use specific standards that are that are outlined as shown here on the table. 01:19:01.840 --> 01:19:08.280 Those that are blank signify that it is not permitted in that zoning district so 01:19:08.280 --> 01:19:12.680 let's let's start with multifamily I think that's a probably a good one to 01:19:12.680 --> 01:19:17.120 bring up and I want to make sure that we're clear on where they're permitted 01:19:17.120 --> 01:19:22.100 and where they're permitted and how. Multifamily the first one that you see 01:19:22.100 --> 01:19:28.800 is R7 so any multifamily that is proposed in the R7 is required to have a 01:19:28.800 --> 01:19:38.360 specific use permit and a use specific standard which is 533 C if you want to 01:19:38.360 --> 01:19:46.600 look over and I'll find the page so that I can direct you all 533 C maybe Scott 01:19:46.600 --> 01:20:05.920 can get there quicker. 211 533 C 2 212 again C multifamily not many 01:20:05.920 --> 01:20:11.320 essentially what it's saying that if it's in a mixed use district the ground 01:20:11.320 --> 01:20:17.480 floor that's fronting a public street shall have a ceiling height of 12 feet so 01:20:17.480 --> 01:20:24.440 that we have a higher first floor for intense for for intending to be if water 01:20:24.440 --> 01:20:27.880 if it were to can be converted to commercial use in the future it does not 01:20:27.880 --> 01:20:31.840 have to be commercial it just has to be a height of 12 feet so if and when a 01:20:31.840 --> 01:20:36.900 commercial use comes in they're able to have that higher ceiling but does not 01:20:36.900 --> 01:20:42.240 mean that that has to be a commercial use and then it says that each 01:20:42.240 --> 01:20:46.720 individual dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 400 now we haven't touched 01:20:46.720 --> 01:20:54.680 this yet but the minimum today is 500 the proposal is to go down to 400 01:20:54.680 --> 01:21:04.520 minimum square feet so again those apply to all of the zoning district I'm sorry 01:21:04.520 --> 01:21:09.720 those that have the pluses for multifamily you must comply with those 01:21:09.720 --> 01:21:15.760 two zoning districts I'm sorry those two specific you specific standards but 01:21:15.760 --> 01:21:24.480 again in the r7 you required a specific use permit on the under the mixed use 01:21:24.480 --> 01:21:30.840 districts M and MD and MR they are permitted by right so think about where 01:21:30.840 --> 01:21:35.440 those zoning districts were you we were looking at earlier and if they're in man 01:21:35.440 --> 01:21:44.680 MD or MR they would be permitted by right with those two you specific 01:21:44.680 --> 01:21:54.080 standards moving forward to SC HC and geo multifamily are permitted with a 01:21:54.080 --> 01:21:59.600 specific use permit outside of those zoning districts multifamily would not 01:21:59.600 --> 01:22:05.480 be permitted so I gave you that as an example and I think it's important 01:22:05.480 --> 01:22:09.520 because we deal a lot with with that type of use and we want to make sure that 01:22:09.520 --> 01:22:14.400 we understand moving forward with those are or they would be permitted another 01:22:14.400 --> 01:22:19.920 thing I want to highlight is we are introducing triplexes and fourplexes 01:22:19.920 --> 01:22:25.360 currently triplexes and fourplexes are considered multifamily however we've 01:22:25.360 --> 01:22:32.960 broken them out and you can see that starting as early as r3 they are 01:22:32.960 --> 01:22:36.520 permitted triplexes are permitted that is and there is a definition of what a 01:22:36.520 --> 01:22:42.000 triplex is is primarily a three unit on a single lot and that's that's a 01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:48.960 triplex and fourplex of course is four units on a single lot r4 and you see 01:22:48.960 --> 01:22:53.880 there where they're permitted are six they're permitted by right and then 01:22:53.880 --> 01:22:59.360 again the use specific standards are covered under 533 B are there any other 01:22:59.360 --> 01:23:02.160 I mean under residential I'm highlighting things that I think is 01:23:02.160 --> 01:23:05.840 important but if the Commission would like to discuss this is the opportunity 01:23:05.840 --> 01:23:11.840 we can take notes we can take your recommendations we can receive your 01:23:11.840 --> 01:23:16.880 input good or bad really we want to make sure we want to make sure that you are 01:23:16.880 --> 01:23:23.480 aware or informed of what is being proposed so that when we move this where 01:23:23.480 --> 01:23:29.840 we're all on the same page the only question I have I think this table is a 01:23:29.840 --> 01:23:38.040 supreme upgrade for we currently have I mean most of this is there are some 01:23:38.040 --> 01:23:40.640 things that he said at the beginning on the onset of your presentation that we 01:23:40.640 --> 01:23:43.600 are not going to be addressing because it's being addressed elsewhere or later 01:23:43.600 --> 01:23:49.520 specifically like dorms correct how does that apply when dorms are listed here 01:23:49.520 --> 01:23:55.760 with attributable things to them but yet we haven't really approved that can you 01:23:55.760 --> 01:23:59.600 walk me through what's happening with dorms in the interim so as you all know 01:23:59.600 --> 01:24:05.800 we've had a number what we didn't have a number we had a work session and we're 01:24:05.800 --> 01:24:08.960 gonna be bringing that back to the Commission that we received direction 01:24:08.960 --> 01:24:14.000 from the Commission and we're gonna be addressing that will it be before we get 01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:19.400 this code update is really unknown currently though rent by the bedroom 01:24:19.400 --> 01:24:24.280 developments are still under the multifamily so we're not we're having 01:24:24.280 --> 01:24:31.120 addressed that to date we're trying to and we will again it may be after the 01:24:31.120 --> 01:24:37.600 code update or soon soon after or I don't think we'll be able to get to it 01:24:37.600 --> 01:24:44.360 before it honestly yes we currently have standards that we use now that are 01:24:44.360 --> 01:24:50.360 falling in multifamily is just trying to find a definition a use that would fit 01:24:50.360 --> 01:24:55.840 the current dormitory has a definition and if and it's it's in this code it 01:24:55.840 --> 01:25:01.440 carried over so those that fit that definition will be able to develop under 01:25:01.440 --> 01:25:06.880 that use of a dormitory but again the rent by the bedroom that we're talking 01:25:06.880 --> 01:25:12.720 about currently falls under multifamily and is gonna be carried forward until we 01:25:12.720 --> 01:25:16.920 get to the dormitory discussion and code amendment and it will continue to be 01:25:16.920 --> 01:25:22.080 multifamily just realize thank you chair and just to clarify a little bit you were 01:25:22.080 --> 01:25:26.840 out of town for that discussion and that was when we were discussing dormitory as 01:25:26.840 --> 01:25:33.000 the collegiate type facilities not dormitory as I guess we currently have 01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:41.520 dormitory right I had the privilege of watching that video the short answer is 01:25:41.520 --> 01:25:45.320 there are standards that are in place today we're running with those standards 01:25:45.320 --> 01:25:51.800 not to say that that we can't talk about dormitories as they exist in this draft 01:25:51.800 --> 01:25:56.520 code but we are also proposing some updates which are not part of the 01:25:56.520 --> 01:26:00.400 discussion today just because we're carrying under separate cover similar to 01:26:00.400 --> 01:26:04.000 that of the the tree what's known as a tree ordinance but really it's the 01:26:04.000 --> 01:26:11.200 conservation landscape easement ordinance and and some other pieces so it does 01:26:11.200 --> 01:26:14.720 exist in here today we're just carrying forward what we have in the existing 01:26:14.720 --> 01:26:19.840 code and then I imagine there's a process to add uses so if we came up with a 01:26:19.840 --> 01:26:24.480 student purpose-built was the language they all used purpose-built student 01:26:24.480 --> 01:26:29.520 housing that would be a potential new land use does that go through the same 01:26:29.520 --> 01:26:35.120 P&Z review process to add a land use to this code that's correct it'd be a code 01:26:35.120 --> 01:26:38.800 amendment it'll follow the same dual process public hearing and if that's the 01:26:38.800 --> 01:26:42.360 case it would be another column or another row here that we would be adding 01:26:42.360 --> 01:26:48.680 under residential great the only thing I not to keep going on on this item but I 01:26:48.680 --> 01:26:51.600 think that was that's a challenge and really what we learned I think that 01:26:51.600 --> 01:26:56.000 night at P&Z is it's not just it's even though we're calling it student purpose 01:26:56.000 --> 01:26:59.560 built or purpose-built student it's not just students who are living there right 01:26:59.560 --> 01:27:05.520 it's a number of individuals and even the project that we saw last week I mean 01:27:05.520 --> 01:27:10.400 that's one where right next to it that's how they advertise it they target 01:27:10.400 --> 01:27:14.320 students even though they're on individual lots each of those four 01:27:14.320 --> 01:27:18.080 bedrooms are rented by the bedroom 01:27:21.200 --> 01:27:27.800 so we also have group living I'm gonna I'm gonna go past residential unless 01:27:27.800 --> 01:27:32.560 you all have hot household living unless you all have any other uses that we you 01:27:32.560 --> 01:27:40.840 like for us to clarify a group living and there's dormitory under 202 that's 01:27:40.840 --> 01:27:47.840 that's the carryover that you'll see be permitted there are seven in the MN with 01:27:47.840 --> 01:27:51.920 a specific use permit and it permitted by right under the MD but again that 01:27:51.920 --> 01:27:56.360 has a different definition that it's not what we're talking about right with 01:27:56.360 --> 01:28:04.520 related to collegiate housing not much yeah the public institutional and civic 01:28:04.520 --> 01:28:11.400 uses we added a couple of new zone a couple new uses airport city-owned 01:28:11.400 --> 01:28:16.880 cemetery city-owned but primarily these are the same uses that you see currently 01:28:16.880 --> 01:28:22.000 in our development code it's organized a little bit better in the sense that it's 01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:26.840 now broken to other categories educational facilities the same there 01:28:26.840 --> 01:28:35.520 health care health care facilities I think under the commercial uses one 01:28:35.520 --> 01:28:41.280 interesting one to add to highlight is that we have a community garden in an 01:28:41.280 --> 01:28:46.720 urban garden and I'm trying to remember what the difference between the two are 01:28:46.720 --> 01:28:54.200 but we have definitions and they're in chapter 8 if you guys are interested I 01:28:54.200 --> 01:29:00.840 can read those definitions if not drive on drive on Ron keep going 01:29:00.840 --> 01:29:07.320 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I do have a question in following this use 01:29:07.320 --> 01:29:13.360 table where musician studios lives so we've got it to where we have you 01:29:13.360 --> 01:29:17.760 specific standards but we don't have any use specifics specific standards 01:29:17.760 --> 01:29:25.560 written so I'm that confused me yes so you you're absolutely right and I will 01:29:25.560 --> 01:29:29.920 make a note of that we do have the plus that you see that we do but when you 01:29:29.920 --> 01:29:33.360 yeah then there's no page reference but so then when you further you know read 01:29:33.360 --> 01:29:38.600 along it just it has it under specific use standards but there it's blank 01:29:38.600 --> 01:29:44.040 information so I didn't know if we are taking that out or if there's standards 01:29:44.040 --> 01:29:51.360 going in we were we were in the process of putting it together and it's still in 01:29:51.360 --> 01:29:56.880 it's still in draft and we work we plan on having you specific standards okay so 01:29:56.880 --> 01:29:59.640 that's information that needs to go in there that still needs to be in there 01:29:59.640 --> 01:30:03.560 yes I bought yes it's not it's not included and we will make sure that we 01:30:03.560 --> 01:30:13.080 do include that in the next draft okay one thing I want to just highlight also 01:30:13.080 --> 01:30:18.120 RV Park we currently do not have that listed in our current zoning district 01:30:18.120 --> 01:30:22.000 it's actually mixed in with the manufacturer housing development we're 01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:26.480 pulling it out and giving its own use and its own use specific standards so I 01:30:26.480 --> 01:30:32.800 think that's a clean up that we wanted to make sure we do we already talked 01:30:32.800 --> 01:30:43.320 about musicians studios the payday lending it's to be determined I know 01:30:43.320 --> 01:30:49.680 Jerry and our attorney Brenda McDonald we've had some discussion about how we 01:30:49.680 --> 01:30:54.800 address that I know that City of Irving has a an example that we're looking into 01:30:54.800 --> 01:31:11.120 so that too needs to be further contemplated we get to retail uses or 01:31:11.120 --> 01:31:15.520 retail sales I kind of skipped the personal services when we're retail 01:31:15.520 --> 01:31:22.160 cells we now have a breakdown of retail cells less than 5,000 between 5 and 15 01:31:22.160 --> 01:31:28.960 and greater than 15 this is to help differentiate some of the higher or 01:31:28.960 --> 01:31:36.000 larger square footages versus the smaller mom-and-pop stores lodging 01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:41.680 facilities probably the important one there is the short-term rental we do not 01:31:41.680 --> 01:31:49.320 currently have that we do have a you specific standard for that and that's 5 01:31:49.320 --> 01:31:55.480 3 5 q and you can see that your your short-term rentals are permitted in all 01:31:55.480 --> 01:32:01.240 zoning district residential zoning districts and then the MN and MD with 01:32:01.240 --> 01:32:07.880 the new specific standard and really what that is it's just as of how long a 01:32:07.880 --> 01:32:17.440 person can have a short-term rental lease what page is that Scott 223 01:32:19.320 --> 01:32:35.760 Q so so we're well the first one is a property owner shall register a 01:32:35.760 --> 01:32:43.040 short-term rental with the city of then which means we got to have a registration 01:32:43.040 --> 01:32:48.560 form and making sure that we manage that it talks about taxes associated with 01:32:48.560 --> 01:33:01.920 that and then no more than 30 days for a rental by paying guests okay I'm just 01:33:01.920 --> 01:33:07.520 gonna go through this unless you all have other ones I think travel Plaza on 01:33:07.520 --> 01:33:13.880 page 206 under the vehicle and equipment vehicles and equipment I think that's 01:33:13.880 --> 01:33:22.240 important to make sure we that's a new use that we've added and then I'm looking 01:33:22.240 --> 01:33:28.640 as I'm going through here to else thanks chair one thing that had stood out at me 01:33:28.640 --> 01:33:32.080 because you brought up travel Plaza so right under that is the adult 01:33:32.080 --> 01:33:38.560 entertainment things so we have a lot of highway or a high industrial parcels out 01:33:38.560 --> 01:33:43.080 there so I'm hoping that the use specific standards for that business is 01:33:43.080 --> 01:33:49.960 strong enough to understand where I'm going yeah yeah well if you look at page 01:33:49.960 --> 01:33:56.600 starting at 225 it is because I think it was only allowed in like a rural 01:33:56.600 --> 01:34:01.360 commercial area or something back in the past and I mean those were I think few 01:34:01.360 --> 01:34:05.120 and far between so now that we're moving it into high industrial we we've got a 01:34:05.120 --> 01:34:09.640 lot of high industrial parcels I think I think I mean I could be wrong but I 01:34:09.640 --> 01:34:13.240 think they're permitted to ICG with a specific use permissive that's why that carried 01:34:13.240 --> 01:34:20.560 over as H I the note says otherwise it says currently allowed as a specific use 01:34:20.560 --> 01:34:27.520 in rural commercial sorry I said corrected so if you look at starting at 01:34:27.520 --> 01:34:35.360 page 225 it's one two three four four and a half pages just under that you 01:34:35.360 --> 01:34:45.280 specific standard so there's a lot of standards that they must follow in order 01:34:45.280 --> 01:34:51.520 and there's there's there's references to Texas local records too so there's 01:34:51.520 --> 01:34:59.040 there's and mainly I bring it up because I know we have particularly down on Jim 01:34:59.040 --> 01:35:05.920 Crystal we have on the draft map H I in there and literally across the way is 01:35:05.920 --> 01:35:12.900 going into rural residential so that was my concern there that the that the you 01:35:12.900 --> 01:35:19.720 know parameters there particularly for distance would be enough right and with 01:35:19.720 --> 01:35:25.880 the with the yes that means a specific use permit and I'm sure there are some 01:35:25.880 --> 01:35:30.140 references to let Texas local government code that have distance requirements 01:35:30.140 --> 01:35:42.000 that are important to comply with that's a good good point I really don't I don't 01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:45.120 want to skip anything I just want to make sure that we if you have questions 01:35:45.120 --> 01:35:48.920 and then this won't be the last time and I want to make sure that it's clear we 01:35:48.920 --> 01:35:53.520 will be we'll be bringing back this discussion at a next work session I 01:35:53.520 --> 01:35:57.680 really feel that this is really the meat the Commission needs to really 01:35:57.680 --> 01:36:02.280 understand along with the development standards but the use because we often 01:36:02.280 --> 01:36:07.520 refer to this in our review of zoning in our review of SUPs I think it's important 01:36:07.520 --> 01:36:12.560 that we focus on on this chapter and again in my opinion but you guys can tell 01:36:12.560 --> 01:36:17.800 me otherwise and then the last I mean the really the last two pages are public 01:36:17.800 --> 01:36:23.160 and semi-public utility uses which is our substations and whatnot and then we 01:36:23.160 --> 01:36:30.600 also have our accessory and temporary uses listed in the table after the take 01:36:30.600 --> 01:36:35.960 yes mr. Sanchez I was just kind of looking through this now if there's 01:36:35.960 --> 01:36:40.880 something that isn't covered I'll just think like a cremation facilities I think 01:36:40.880 --> 01:36:47.360 I saw something under funeral facilities and but is that also include cremation 01:36:47.360 --> 01:36:53.520 facilities that's a good question let me let's let's do you if you can point you 01:36:53.520 --> 01:37:08.920 let me help me find work where you saw 202 202 cemetery Oh cemetery funeral and 01:37:08.920 --> 01:37:12.880 interment facilities that does that include a cremation facility so let me 01:37:12.880 --> 01:37:18.520 let's let's go you know so let's go to chapter eight and I'm gonna look for it 01:37:18.520 --> 01:37:28.920 I'll give you a page number so you can it's a good question or 41 so it does 01:37:28.920 --> 01:37:44.400 include so it does include it okay any other questions so verification is this 01:37:44.400 --> 01:37:47.880 me dismiss meeting have an end time were you trying to get out by six or is this 01:37:47.880 --> 01:37:50.920 just I think we're shooting for six okay perfect yeah we're shooting for six 01:37:50.920 --> 01:37:57.360 great but again I'll be want to make sure that we have ample time to answer 01:37:57.360 --> 01:38:01.560 questions and like I said we want to give you as much time as possible we 01:38:01.560 --> 01:38:06.400 will be bringing back sub chapter five and introducing sub chapter six at our 01:38:06.400 --> 01:38:10.040 next meeting so please know that this is not the only time you can provide 01:38:10.040 --> 01:38:14.480 comments so if you have additional uses that are not included or have question 01:38:14.480 --> 01:38:17.840 on specific uses please let us know I just know Commissioner Alice my need to 01:38:17.840 --> 01:38:22.040 sneak away so if there's handouts I'd love to get those passed out yeah 01:38:22.040 --> 01:38:24.880 Michelle's yeah thank you I will have to sneak out it that we don't lose our 01:38:24.880 --> 01:38:28.960 quorum but so you guys can continue but if there's anything I need I am going to 01:38:28.960 --> 01:38:36.280 sneak out here in about two minutes okay we do have we do have handouts we do 01:38:36.280 --> 01:38:44.400 have handouts the handouts that Scott's passing out are the map that was before 01:38:44.400 --> 01:38:53.440 Friday and then the map that is currently online we also have a map that 01:38:53.440 --> 01:38:59.140 shows the changes where where they changed after Friday a little bit more 01:38:59.140 --> 01:39:08.240 highlighted in the fact that that differentiates the two maps there so I'm 01:39:08.240 --> 01:39:11.360 not pass this out as well 01:39:23.480 --> 01:39:26.600 thank you Ron 01:39:26.600 --> 01:39:39.880 is this it there's an after change right there's just one of the after am I 01:39:39.880 --> 01:39:49.040 missing one there's three handouts right okay four after a change ah there 01:39:49.040 --> 01:40:05.400 you go that's perfect I don't want to complicate things 01:40:19.040 --> 01:40:27.720 let me take this opportunity to say that I applaud staff Ron and Cody have done a 01:40:27.720 --> 01:40:33.320 bang-up job of really trying to highlight these changes make the 01:40:33.320 --> 01:40:39.600 changes based on direction now we've got more work to do we'll continue to do 01:40:39.600 --> 01:40:46.100 that we'll do some of the the analysis that we heard today and we'll bring that 01:40:46.100 --> 01:40:50.560 back and and ultimately we'll talk about what we can on Friday of whatever it is 01:40:50.560 --> 01:40:55.200 that we learn I will tell you that Cody has put an immense amount of time into 01:40:55.200 --> 01:41:00.800 gathering data he has heard what was said today and has already been assigned 01:41:00.800 --> 01:41:06.040 more work to do so just with that being said I just I want to applaud them for 01:41:06.040 --> 01:41:09.920 the work that they've done and I appreciate it absolutely thank you all 01:41:09.920 --> 01:41:16.160 so just to wrap up I know we're gonna cut it short here we will continue our 01:41:16.160 --> 01:41:22.360 discussion on sub chapter 5 towards the end but be introducing sub chapter 6 and 01:41:22.360 --> 01:41:27.320 also talking about sub chapter 4 4 is really an overlay district we're carrying 01:41:27.320 --> 01:41:31.320 forward all of the overlay district not many changes in sub chapter form that's 01:41:31.320 --> 01:41:35.360 why I didn't really feel that we need to talk about it but we will make sure we 01:41:35.360 --> 01:41:40.360 touch on it next week again and then start introducing the development 01:41:40.360 --> 01:41:45.440 standards great thanks Ron and one more thing mr. chair I don't know if there's 01:41:45.440 --> 01:41:48.840 anything in particular from you or the rest of the Commission that we could 01:41:48.840 --> 01:41:52.120 bring forward anything that would be helpful as we go through this process 01:41:52.120 --> 01:41:55.640 we've got a couple more weeks that we're going to continue to run through this 01:41:55.640 --> 01:41:59.680 and I know people have to continue to digest we're just trying to hit some of 01:41:59.680 --> 01:42:04.400 the high points of what we've heard and what we know and certainly our work 01:42:04.400 --> 01:42:08.800 continues on this daily so we're much more familiar and we don't want to take 01:42:08.800 --> 01:42:12.640 it for granted what it is that you may want to hear have a little more 01:42:12.640 --> 01:42:18.920 information on the only request I'd have is just and you've been doing this fine 01:42:18.920 --> 01:42:22.880 this is just a reiteration just to keep us updated on a timeline if if this 01:42:22.880 --> 01:42:27.680 slows down or changes timelines just keep us posted on on those type things 01:42:27.680 --> 01:42:36.040 we anticipate bringing the code and the map to you for recommendation on April 01:42:36.040 --> 01:42:40.080 the 5th so that's excuse me 10th I keep saying the fifth and I apologize for 01:42:40.080 --> 01:42:44.880 that the 10th and we're anticipating we're gonna do everything possible to 01:42:44.880 --> 01:42:49.560 keep that that timeline okay great does anyone else have any questions or 01:42:49.560 --> 01:42:56.520 requests to examine next work session when this comes back and if I might 01:42:56.520 --> 01:43:03.080 mention one more no it's off top no it's not off topic we have the landscape and 01:43:03.080 --> 01:43:10.680 conservation code coming forward to you next Wednesday that is in the 01:43:10.680 --> 01:43:15.240 development code what is in the development code today is kind of one of 01:43:15.240 --> 01:43:20.600 the earlier drafts we've had some some modifications with that at the request 01:43:20.600 --> 01:43:27.880 of the city manager we've met with that a member of the COE as well as with the 01:43:27.880 --> 01:43:31.880 mayor and we're kind of refining that we're gonna put it to a council work 01:43:31.880 --> 01:43:35.960 session to make sure that we understand their direction very clearly and that 01:43:35.960 --> 01:43:41.960 will be coming back and to you at PNC for recommendation next Wednesday so 01:43:41.960 --> 01:43:47.880 that Richard has Richard and Haley have worked immensely on that that's been 01:43:47.880 --> 01:43:52.240 another one of those daily I'm truly trying to get us out of kind of this 01:43:52.240 --> 01:43:55.640 crisis mode that we're in and so we can begin to do the planning work that we 01:43:55.640 --> 01:43:59.840 need to do and then on the comp plan and future land use map that's great the 01:43:59.840 --> 01:44:02.960 only question I had I noted it at the very beginning I just wanted to if there 01:44:02.960 --> 01:44:09.160 is a quick answer maybe just to throw it out there this is my first time I've 01:44:09.160 --> 01:44:14.840 ever done a city rewrite guys surprise so I'm ignorant in a lot of these things 01:44:14.840 --> 01:44:20.560 but one of the things that has come up and I just would like maybe some 01:44:20.560 --> 01:44:25.160 understanding is there's a lot of work done and rewrite and updating it but it 01:44:25.160 --> 01:44:29.480 seems like we're pulling out a lot so some of things like razor ranch storms 01:44:29.480 --> 01:44:33.720 landscape parking which has been talked about split zoning potential future city 01:44:33.720 --> 01:44:39.680 wide rezoning case putting in overlays of the split zonings and there's other 01:44:39.680 --> 01:44:43.640 things I'm sure I'm forgetting of things that we are not addressing currently 01:44:43.640 --> 01:44:49.280 how how much of a completed project are we trying to adopt and put into effect 01:44:49.280 --> 01:44:54.440 are we we're putting forth a 70% completed project with 30% left to be 01:44:54.440 --> 01:45:00.560 done and is this normal for a citywide code rewrite to have such to me 01:45:00.560 --> 01:45:08.680 significant pieces just being addressed ancillary to the focus let me let me 01:45:08.680 --> 01:45:14.920 try and that was a lot I will say that you have a complete document before you 01:45:14.920 --> 01:45:19.720 okay we have a number of things running in parallel because we're trying to make 01:45:19.720 --> 01:45:27.560 improvements so this process started truly in 2013 it stalled for any period 01:45:27.560 --> 01:45:32.840 of time we have been working on it very diligently for the past maybe 18 months 01:45:32.840 --> 01:45:40.920 in that no different than well with any luck word we're adopting this in April 01:45:40.920 --> 01:45:47.120 so I don't anticipate any new situations arising but when we talk about something 01:45:47.120 --> 01:45:51.000 for example we have dormitories in the code today right we're running with that 01:45:51.000 --> 01:45:56.880 we're continuing to have that but as we see changes in land use and we see other 01:45:56.880 --> 01:46:00.200 communities doing something successful we don't want to sit on our laurels and 01:46:00.200 --> 01:46:04.320 wait like we did with this code for 17 years to say well we should update our 01:46:04.320 --> 01:46:09.600 code so we're running it parallel not not that to bog the process and it 01:46:09.600 --> 01:46:14.200 doesn't mean that it won't be completed and put into this it's just if we can 01:46:14.200 --> 01:46:20.540 continue to work on those processes we're not rushing them so a perfect 01:46:20.540 --> 01:46:24.320 example is is the landscape code that we went ahead and incorporated some 01:46:24.320 --> 01:46:29.400 components in here as we work through those final iterations but but rather 01:46:29.400 --> 01:46:34.320 than specifically talking about those in this work session you'll have another 01:46:34.320 --> 01:46:40.120 opportunity to talk about those to incorporate it into the code so I guess 01:46:40.120 --> 01:46:43.920 I have to say that we're gonna have a very complete code we're not bringing 01:46:43.920 --> 01:46:49.320 you an incomplete code it's just rather than mixing issues and talking about the 01:46:49.320 --> 01:46:53.520 tree code on two different occasions is that we talk about it one time so best 01:46:53.520 --> 01:46:58.240 use of your time I understand but it's my understanding as well that this code 01:46:58.240 --> 01:47:02.400 might be complete but there's addendums that will not be complete at the time we 01:47:02.400 --> 01:47:07.640 vote on this is that correct the razor ranch addendum I'm thinking 01:47:07.640 --> 01:47:12.240 specifically that's what we will not have that as part of this document that 01:47:12.240 --> 01:47:16.040 will be a part of this document the difference is it will not be included in 01:47:16.040 --> 01:47:20.840 the document so we're gonna take because and I don't know the exact number so 01:47:20.840 --> 01:47:25.320 please do not quote me on this but but the mere fact of when that was created 01:47:25.320 --> 01:47:31.820 and there are some 13 or 15 ordinances that amend that that development the 01:47:31.820 --> 01:47:36.480 amendments cross different versions of what our development code might look 01:47:36.480 --> 01:47:41.640 like okay and so there's no simple way to say we'll just incorporate it into 01:47:41.640 --> 01:47:46.080 this book so we're gonna take those versions of the code the reference is 01:47:46.080 --> 01:47:51.800 there too and and it creates a a separate document if you will which will 01:47:51.800 --> 01:47:57.980 can be complete it's just not going to be a part of this development code what 01:47:57.980 --> 01:48:02.840 documents are not going to be part of this code but also germane to this code 01:48:02.840 --> 01:48:07.320 so there's razor ranch landscape will be part of this code so we go to April 10th 01:48:07.320 --> 01:48:11.360 will have the landscape and preservation in here is there any other documents or 01:48:11.360 --> 01:48:16.560 addendums that are working in parallel that are not part of this no razor ranch 01:48:16.560 --> 01:48:20.680 is the razor ranch will be an appendix reference in the code as Scott mentioned 01:48:20.680 --> 01:48:25.780 is just be a separate document because it's such a large complex great I was 01:48:25.780 --> 01:48:30.080 worried there's there's more and then just just to just add real quickly we're 01:48:30.080 --> 01:48:33.840 trying to simplify the code there's a lot of stuff in there a lot of the stuff 01:48:33.840 --> 01:48:39.400 that you know may not necessarily be be in the code will be transferred or 01:48:39.400 --> 01:48:44.440 carried over into a criteria manual or manuals and so that's where we're 01:48:44.440 --> 01:48:47.640 working with the other departments to make sure that we do that we're also 01:48:47.640 --> 01:48:51.280 cleaning up the the muni code or I'm sorry not the muni code but the code of 01:48:51.280 --> 01:48:56.760 ordinances where there's a lot of conflicting duplications we're cleaning 01:48:56.760 --> 01:49:01.300 that up and that is all gonna be part of this effort so when at the end of it we 01:49:01.300 --> 01:49:05.680 hopefully will have a development code that's more concise and clear for 01:49:05.680 --> 01:49:09.240 everyone to understand perfect it's clear and also helping with criteria manuals 01:49:09.240 --> 01:49:14.000 or is that fully in-house with a portion the administrative manuals the other 01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:18.880 criteria managed have already been adopted by council great any other 01:49:18.880 --> 01:49:25.320 questions for city staff this evening Ron Scott thank you for the presentation 01:49:25.320 --> 01:49:29.840 most helpful at this time we'll close the meeting at six o'clock