* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. WELCOME TO THE STAFF [00:00:01] BRIEFING OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE MEETING OF JUNE 9TH, 2025. I'M CHERYL SMITH, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THIS STAFF BRIEFING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING IS HEREBY CODE ORDER AT 5:30 PM THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS WHERE THE STAFF BRIEFS THE COMMISSION AND PREVIEWS THE CASES ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAY FACILITATE THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASES. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE BRIEFING. PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE REGULAR MEETING, WHICH WILL BEGIN NO EARLIER THAN 6:30 PM I'LL NOT CONDUCT A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. AND I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE. CHERYL SMITH. HERE. TY CHAPMAN. MICHELLE MADDEN. HERE. CHRISTOPHER OLEY. WHO? FRANK GONZALEZ. JAMIE MENDEZ. AKARI. SHE'S HERE. SHE'S UH, VICTOR MEDINA. HERE. JOHN FEDCO. ANGELA LUCKY OBAMA. HERE, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR TY CHAPMAN, FRANK GONZALEZ AND JOHN FEDCO. I THINK WE HAVE TO TECHNICALLY, UH, SAY THAT MS. OH, NOT HEARING SHE, BUT TECHNIC. WELL, I THINK SHE, SHE, SHE'S JANIE I'M GONNA CALL YOUR NAME. JANIE MENDEZ. ARI, ARE YOU HERE PRESENT? THANKS, JAN. HERE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSED EXECUTIVE SESSION? NO, MA'AM. OKAY. STAFF, ANYTHING READY TO PRESENT? YES. THAT'S PRETTY FINE. JANE . ALRIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. GOOD EVENING. UM, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS FOR PRESENTATION ARE RELATED. UM, SO I'LL PRESENT THEM AT ONCE. UH, THE FIRST COMPONENT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AT 2033 GALVESTON. UM, THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT'S CURRENTLY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED FLUME DESIGNATION IS MEDIAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS ACCOMPANYING A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. UM, SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. UH, THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTH ARE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST. ON OUR COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE, STAFF'S UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST 'CAUSE THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. SO THE SECOND ELEMENT IS THE ZONING CHANGE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY SIX, UH, TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THEY DESIRE TO CONSTRUCT A, UH, DUPLEX OR SINGLE TWO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS AT THIS LOCATION. UH, IF THE ZONING CHANGE IS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SFA ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS SUMMARIZED ON THE SCREEN. UH, STAFF'S UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGE 'CAUSE THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. UM, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. YES. UM, CAN YOU TELL ME THE OVERHEAD VIEW? I, I WANTED TO SEE WHAT'S NEXT DOOR OR CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT'S NEXT DOOR TO THE EAST? THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THERE WAS AN ACTUAL HOME THERE. IT LOOKS LIKE A VACANT LOT TO THE EAST. YEAH, YOU ZOOM IN THERE, THERE'S A HOME. OKAY. YES, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS EMPTY FROM HERE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. COULD COMMISSIONER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I, I HAVE ONE QUESTION. MAYBE I, IT'S JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THOSE ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEY WANNA COME IN THERE WHERE THIS PERSON IS TO MAKE, GET A DUPLEX. CORRECT. IS THAT NORMAL? HAVE YOU HAD THAT TO HAPPEN BEFORE? SO TYPICALLY WE'VE SEEN REQUESTS TO REZONE PROPERTIES TO SINGLE FAMILY SIX TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. UM, THIS IS THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT I CAN RECALL WHERE IT'S THE APPLICANT'S COME FORWARD REQUESTING TO DO A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ZONING DESIGNATION. WHEN THEY SAY ATTACHED DUE PARTS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO PROBABLY USES FOR RENTAL POSSIBLY INSTEAD OF, UH, UM, JUST ONE FAMILY. SO THERE WOULD BE TWO UNITS ON THAT SINGLE LOT MM-HMM . WOW. AND I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE. NOW ALL THE TIME I'VE BEEN HERE, THEY DID IT ON MY STREET. REALLY? MM-HMM. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? RECENT REALLY? HOW IS THAT RASHAD? I DIDN'T THINK THAT IT'S NOT OUT OF THE NORM. YOU TYPICALLY SEE IT, UH, IN URBAN AREAS. DALLAS IS HAVING A LOT OF THAT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. UM, I THINK WE'RE JUST SOMEWHAT, I WON'T SAY BEHIND, BUT A LOT OF, UH, REQUESTS NOW ARE, THEY'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THEIR DOLLAR FOR THE LOT. UM, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE FOR SALE OR NOT, UM, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBDIVIDED AGAIN AS IT'S PROPOSED. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE FOR RENT. UH, SO I CAN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH THE ISSUES WITH HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, WE'RE SEEING A LOT MORE OF THESE REQUESTS. BUT AGAIN, THERE'S, IT REALLY, IT'S MAYBE SOLVING AN ISSUE WITH HOUSING ACCESSIBILITIES, PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO GET A, A HOUSE, BUT, RIGHT. I DID HAVE, I HAVE [00:05:01] HEARD THAT AND, AND I READ SOMETHING IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS ABOUT HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY. THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THEM TO CHANGE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT, YOU KNOW, AS TO WHAT YES. IS REQUIRED. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT IT APPROVED OR NOT. THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TOO. UH, IT'S PENDING. OH, OKAY. IT'S PENDING GOVERNOR SIGNATURE, BUT, OKAY. UH, I'LL SAY THAT THIS, IN THIS INSTANCE, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BE DETACHED. THIS WOULD BE KIND OF A SPOT ZONING TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE WE TYPICALLY WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT MM-HMM . UNLESS THIS AREA WAS INTENDED TO TRANSITION INTO MORE. SO WOULD THERE BE LETTERS GOING OUT ON THIS? WERE THERE LETTERS GO OUT FOR THIS TYPE OF YES. FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS? YOU DIDN'T GET ANYTHING BACK? WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION. THAT'S INTERESTING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER QUESTION. YES, GO AHEAD. UM, IN, IN THAT AREA, IT'S ALREADY MIXED USE, I MEAN, RIGHT. UM, A BLOCK AWAY THERE'S APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THEN, UM, SEVERAL BLOCKS. THERE ARE DUPLEXES IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA. UM, AND TO THE, WOULD LIKE TO BE WEST OF THAT PROPERTY. THERE'S LIKE TWO STRUCTURES THAT'S ALREADY GONE UP. AND I THINK THOSE WERE HOUSES THAT WAS, UM, BUILT TO SELL. THAT'S ONE AT $1,000. BUT ALLOWING THIS IF, DO WE KNOW THE APPLICANT ATTENTION? LIKE ARE THEY GOTTA BE I WOULDN'T I OR WHAT IT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR PZ TO ASK. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT IF THE LETTERS WENT OUT TO THE, WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE FOLKS AROUND THERE, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE IF THEY, WE HAD OPPOSITION LETTERS RIGHT NOW, I WOULD BE REALLY SUPER CONCERNED BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S GONNA BE RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOUSE OR RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. SO THAT'S A LITTLE INTERESTING. AND DO THEY PUT UP THE, THE A SPEC, UH, BOARD OR SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED? 'CAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER. THERE'S SIGNAGE THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE POSTED AT THE PROPERTY WHEN, UH, BEFORE THE PUBLIC. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, CONCERN WISE, WHAT, WHY CONCERN? LIKE, WHY, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND LIKE IF THERE'S, I HEARD THE WORD RENTAL GET THROWN AROUND, BUT I MEAN, HOUSES CAN GET RENTED ALL THE TIME, WHETHER THEY'RE BOXES OR NOT. SO THE ONLY CONCERN I HAD WAS JUST THE, UH, THE FLOW OF THE, OF THE COMMUNITY. YOU HAVE ALL THESE, UH, SINGLE RESIDENCE HOUSES AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS ONE DUPLEX. TO ME, THIS KIND OF THROWS THE WHOLE THING OFF. I WOULD BE CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. IT JUST, TO ME, IT, IT'S ODD. IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T, WOULDN'T ANYBODY NEEDS TO HAVE A HOUSE, NEEDS TO HAVE A HOUSE. BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT'S JUST A LITTLE ODD TO HAVE THAT DUPLEX RIGHT UNDER THE END. AND ALL THE REST OF THE ENTIRE, UH, SUBDIVISION IS RESIDE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL. JUST A POINT OF ORDER. UH, IF WE COULD SAVE THE DISCUSSION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE BRIEFING SESSION REALLY INTENDED, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST. UM, SO IF WE COULD SAVE THE DISCUSSION OKAY. FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT. NEXT CASE. NEXT CASE. GOOD EVENING CO . GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UM, SO THE ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A PD CON 25 0 4 0 0 1 4. SO THIS IS A REQUEST TO, UM, AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD THAT'S PRESCRIBED IN PD 1 52 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 26 FOREST OAK. UM, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME HERE. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THEY'RE PROPOSING A NEW STANDARD FOR THIS PARTICULAR LAW. UM, LET ME ACTUALLY START OVER HERE. SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, WHEN THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, THE LOT WAS CREATED TO HAVE A 40 FOOT WIDTH LAW. HOWEVER, THIS PORTION HERE, UM, OUTSIDE OF THIS RED BOX, WAS SOLD TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BY MEETING BOUNDS. SO THE APPLICANT CANNOT BUILD A HOME WITHOUT ONE GETTING SOME VARIANCES FOR TO THOSE CURRENT PD STANDARD. AND TWO, IT WILL REPL TO CLEAN UP THE LOT LINES. SO THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE FIRST STEP OF, UM, REQUESTING A, UH, NEW STANDARD FOR THIS SLOT. OTHERWISE, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOME ON THERE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TABLE, UM, IN GENERAL, THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH, UH, MOST OF THE REGULATIONS. ONLY THING THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT IS THE LOT WIDTH. AGAIN, THAT LOSS SUBDIVISION HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS WE DON'T REALLY KNOW EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED, BUT SOMEONE ELSE ALREADY BUILT A HOUSE ON THAT PORTION. UM, ANOTHER THING THAT, UM, BECAUSE THE LOT IS SO LIMITED, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE TWO CAR GARAGE PARKING. UM, THEY HAVE ABOUT 16 FOOT, UM, OUTDOOR [00:10:01] DIMENSION THAT'S AVAILABLE. TYPICAL GARAGE DOORS ARE, I BELIEVE STANDARD SIZE ARE LIKE 20 FOOT WIDE AND YOU PROBABLY NEED A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN THAT. SO AGAIN, UM, THEY'RE REQUESTING A ONE CAR GARAGE. THEY'LL PROBABLY DO ONE CAR GARAGE WITH SOME EXTRA STORAGE ROOMS. BUT, UM, STAFF FEELS THAT THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN SUPPORT. SO AGAIN, UM, WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IF YOU KIND OF GO THROUGH THEM, ARE SIX VARIS. THEY'RE ASKING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LIVING AREA MINIMUM LOT AREA BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REDUCTION. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK TO BE, UH, REDUCED TO 19.1 FEET MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE CURRENT PD ACTUALLY HAS EIGHT FOOT REQUIREMENT ON EACH SIDE. SO IF THEY WERE TO MEET THAT EIGHT FOOT OUT OF THE 30 FOOT, THEY'LL LOSE GOOD 16 FOOT. SO THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT TO BE REDUCED TO SEVEN AND A GARAGE PARKING SPACE REDUCTION. AGAIN, STEPH BELIEVES THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS LOT DEVELOPABLE AND WE DO NOT OPPOSE THIS REQUEST. ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS INFORMATION? IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THIS NEXT ITEM IS A ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR 2,800 WEST CAMP WISDOM ROAD. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW ON THE SCREEN. UH, THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY USE TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR GENERAL RETAIL. DO WANNA NOTE THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING, UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE LOCATION. UM, IN 2024, THE CITY RECEIVED A COURT RULING THAT STATED THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY WAS SINGLE FAMILY USE. UM, SO THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERAL RETAIL. UM, AND THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN REFLECTS THE EXISTING BUILDING, WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE, UH, OF THAT LOT AND THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. UM, SO THE PROPOSED LAND USES AND STANDARDS ARE TAKEN FROM THE PREVIOUS PLAN DEVELOPMENT ONE 30, UM, THAT WE WERE THEN TOLD WAS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. UM, AND ATTACHING THAT AS THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. UM, SO WE, UH, RECEIVED TWO, UH, WRITTEN OPPOSITION, UH, REPRESENTING ONE UNIQUE ADDRESS, UH, NO LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, BUT WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AGAIN. UM, THIS PROPERTY WAS BEGAN TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER GENERAL RETAIL ZONING. UH, WE RECEIVED THAT COURT RULING AND NOW THE APPLICANT IS COMING IN, UH, TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERAL RETAIL TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT. UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE, THE PICTURE AGAIN? 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT WHAT IS WHAT UP THERE, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY CLOSE TO MY HOUSE. WHAT, WHAT IS THE, SO WHAT'S ON THE, UH, ON THE LOTS EXISTING STRUCTURE? THERE'S AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING. IT HAS MULTIPLE, UH, TENANTS IN THERE. THERE'S SOME, I THINK I BELIEVE IT AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT, UH, DIFFERENT RETAIL ONE ACROSS THE, THE THE BUILDING ACROSS THE, ACROSS THE STREET OF LYNN. 'CAUSE LYNN, THERE'S A SUBDIVISION RIGHT THERE. CORRECT. SO IS THE, THE LAND TO THE RIGHT OF THAT ACROSS THE STREET ARE ON THAT SAME BLOCK? IT'S WHERE ITALIAN RESTAURANTS, YES. YOU SEEM LIKE IT'S BIG ENOUGH TO DO ALL THAT. YEAH. YEAH, I KNOW WHERE IT IS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE ENOUGH TO DO, YEAH. TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE UP THERE. THEY'RE NOT, SORRY. I WAS GONNA SAY THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE USE. UM, IT'S GONNA BE THE SAME GENERAL RETAILER. OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S, THIS IS NOT A NEW USE THOUGH. THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER USE, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE RESIDENTS OVER THERE. I THINK THEY WERE GUNG HOME NOT HAVING, UH, UH, APARTMENTS OVER THERE. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER ZONING CHANGE IN CONCEPT PLAN FOR 3000 WEST BARDON ROAD. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW ON THE SCREEN. IT IS AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. UH, THE PROPERTY ZONING IS CURRENTLY PD ONE 40. UH, THE COMMERCIAL OR THE TRACT IS DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL, BUT ALLOWS SOME RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THAT. UH, NAMELY, UH, CONDO HIGH-RISE. UH, SO THIS PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED UNDER THAT CONDO HIGH-RISE USE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AN ALLOWED USE. UM, SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO AMEND PD ONE 40 TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY. UM, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS DEVELOPED UNDER CONDO HIGH-RISE, BUT HAS BEEN OPERATING AS A MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE GOAL OF THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ADD THAT MULTIFAMILY USE AND TO BRING THE CURRENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS INTO COMPLIANCE. UM, SO THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED, UH, AND AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, IT WAS INTENDED TO [00:15:01] BE CONDOMINIUMS WITH THE DWELLING UNITS TO BE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED, BUT IT'S BEEN OPERATING AS MULTIFAMILY UNIT WITH UNITS FOR RENT. AGAIN, THIS, UH, ZONING CHANGE IF APPROVED, WOULD BRING THAT PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. UM, SO THE, THE TWO THINGS THAT THIS AMENDMENT ACCOMPLISHES, IT ADDS MULTIFAMILY AS AN ALLOWABLE USE AND IT ADJUSTS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO MATCH WHAT IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. SO WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED UNDER CONDO HIGHRISE, IT MET ALL THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. HOWEVER, MULTIFAMILY HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS AND REQUIRES SOME ALTERATIONS, NAMELY, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT TO 75 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY TO 35 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. UH, SO THE, THE DEVELOPMENT INTERVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. WHAT, UM, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IT DID NOT MESS? WHAT WOULD THEY DO? UH, THE APPLICANT IS, IS HERE AND, AND IT'S UP TO THEM TO EITHER CONTINUE OPERATING IN NON-CONFORMING AND, AND WHATEVER THAT RISK MAY BE, OR TO CONVERT IT SO THAT IT MEETS THE EXIST OR THE ALLOWED USE UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT SEEMS A BIT ODD THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO OPERATE, UH, AND IT'S NOT IN, IN IN COMPLIANCE. HOW, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? I MEAN, WHAT WHEN WAS THAT? TO ME, THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM. HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN OPERATING OUT OF COMPLIANCE? SO THE CONSTRUCTION I THINK BEGAN IN, IN 2019 AND WAS FINISHED AROUND 2000, UH, 2020. UM, SO SINCE THEN. SO IF, IF THEY DIDN'T BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW OR HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO THE, THEY BROUGHT IT THIS REQUEST FORWARD BECAUSE, UH, THE CURRENT OWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND THE NEW ON OWNER WANTS TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE. OTHERWISE, WE WOULDN'T KNOW, WHICH IS REALLY A SCARY THOUGHT. THAT'S REALLY NOT GOOD. IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO KNOW THE INTERNAL OPERATIONS OR HOW THEY, YOU KNOW RIGHT. AND HELP GET IN THEIR BOOKS AND THEIR EXPENSES AND EVERYTHING. EXACTLY. ARE THEY FINED OR ANYTHING WHEN, UH, YOU FIND THEIR ARTICLE COMPLIANCE? NOT AT THIS POINT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THEM IN COMPLIANCE. SO THIS, THERE'S A LEGAL ROUTE. INTERESTING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? THANK YOU. SO THE NEXT ITEM IS ANOTHER, UM, ADOPTION OF THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR A A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PD. SO THE DEVELOPER, UM, RECENTLY CAME AND GOT A CONCEPT PLAN ADOPTED FOR, UM, THESE THREE DIFFERENT SETTINGS. I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT SHOWING. YES. UM, SO YOU MIGHT RECALL APPROVING THESE CON PLANS. THE, UH, BASED ON THE CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CHANGE, UM, ADOPT THIS NEW, UH, ADDITIONAL CON PLAN WHERE THEY ONLY HAVE TWO VERY LONG BUILDINGS RATHER THAN MULTIPLE BUILDINGS. AND AS PART OF THAT, THEY'RE, UM, PROPOSING TWO INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES AND REQUESTING THE PARKING TO INCREASE. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE EXCEEDING THE PARKING MAXIMUM OF 1 0 4 SPACES. SWIFT DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTION TO THIS BECAUSE THERE, UM, PARKING IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION. THEY ASSUME ONLY 10% OF THE TOTAL BUILDING WILL BE USED FOR OFFICE SPACES. AND WE OFTEN SEE INCREASE WHEREIN THEY'RE COMING BACK FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BASED ON THE END USER. SO STEP DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE VEHICLE PARKING INCREASING HERE. THEY HAVE PROVIDED A CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN. SO AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THEIR LANDSCAPE BUFFER. RIGHT NOW, UNDER THE APPENDIX X STANDARD, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE 30 FOOT OF LANDSCAPING BEFORE STARTING ANY PARKING AREAS ON ALL THREE SIDES OF THE STREET. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL FRONTAGE ON ALL THREE SIDES, WHICH LIMITS THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP. SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAD THE DIFFERENT CONCEPT PLANS WITH THE INTERNAL COURTYARD AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO THEY ARE COMING BACK WITH THIS. SO WHILE THEY'RE STILL REQUESTING REDUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO 15 FEET ALONG THE HIGHWAY 1 16 1, IT WILL BE 20 IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING TWO, BUT IT WILL BE REDUCED TO 15. BUT, AND THEY ARE ALSO REQUESTING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE HARD ROCK TO REMAIN AT 20 FEET INSTEAD OF 30 FEET. SO AS A RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS, THEY HAVE PROVIDED OVERALL AREA OF THE LANDSCAPE BEING 20% MORE THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED. ALSO, THEY ARE PROVIDING, AS THIS KIND OF SECTION SHOWS [00:20:01] SOME, UH, LIVE SCREENING WITH EVERGREENS ALONG BOTH 1 61 AND HARD DROP. SO THERE ARE VARIANCES REMAINS THE SAME AS THE PD 4 62, EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING VARIANCE OF TO ALLOW THE PARKING TO EXCEED THE PARKING MAXIMUM. SO THE VARIANCES, UM, INCLUDE A LANDSCAPE OF A REDUCTION FROM 30 FEET TO PROVIDE 15 FOOT ALONG, UH, SOUTH ALONG HIGHWAY 1 61 AND 20 FOOT ALONG HARD ROCK. AS DEPICTED IN THE CO UH, CORRESPONDING LANDSCAPE PLAN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY, WHERE THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE 20 FEET, THAT WILL STILL PROVIDE A 20 FEET. AND THE SECOND VARIANCE IS THE TRUCK DOORS ALONG THE HARD ROCK. UM, THIS IS A, THIS WILL NEED TO BE A VARIANCE TO HAVE THE TRUCK DOCKS FACING ONE OF OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND WE WILL HEIGHT REDUCTION. THIS WAS APPROVED WITH THE PREVIOUS CONCEPT PLANS. THE COUNCIL DID NOT HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE APPROVED SIMILAR VARIANCES AT OTHER WAREHOUSE LOCATIONS AND THE PARKING MAXIMUM TO ALLOW 166 PARKING SPACES. TOTAL STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE SIMILAR CONDITIONS AS THE PD, UM, THAT WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. ONE IS THAT THE DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION MUST BE PROVIDED. OUR TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER REQUIREMENTS IN APPENDIX X. A LINE OF SITE DRAWING SHALL BE PROVIDED DURING THE SITE PLAN TO CONFIRM THAT THE HEIGHT OF A WING WALL, WE EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE TRUCKS, A NOISE STUDY. UM, SO THIS WAS A CONDITION FROM PUBLIC HEALTH. UM, THEY ARE IN APPROX, UH, IN A CLOSE, CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A EXISTING MOBILE HOME. SO THE, UH, PUBLIC HEALTH WANTING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF A NOISE STUDY WILL BE JUSTIFIED DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE ENGINEERING COMMENTS, UM, WHICH CAN BE HANDLED DURING THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN. ONE IS TO PROVIDE A DRAINAGE STUDY OR DETENTION AND TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A EXISTING ONSITE DRAINAGE THAT CUTS THROUGH THIS PROPERTY, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE NOT INCREASED. OTHERWISE TECH STOP PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? YES. COMMISSIONER MADLEY. DO YOU HAVE, UM, AN ARIEL OTHER THAN THIS THAT'S CROSS STREET BECAUSE I'M LOOKING IN UNLESS I'M YES. SO MAYOR, UH, AT THE SCREEN YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE, UH, 1 61 HERE. SO ROCK ISLAND. ROCK ISLAND AND HARD ROCK. AND WHAT'S THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE? 1 61? YES, THIS IS 1 61. THIS IS ROCK ISLAND AND THAT'S THE HIGH ROCK. THIS IS THE EXISTING, I BELIEVE, ENCORE LOCATION. AND THIS IS WHERE WE APPROVE THE LARGE WAREHOUSE ORDER, UM, DATA CENTER CONCEPT. MM-HMM . WHAT IS ALL OKAY? YEAH, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. MM-HMM . OF COURSE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSION, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, JUDGE. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE RELATED TO THE SAME REQUEST. UH, THE FIRST COMPONENT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, UH, TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. UH, THE CURRENT DESIGNATION IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE SLASH DRAINAGE. AND THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THE TOTAL, UH, AREA TO BE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO, UM, YOU'LL SEE THE OUTLINE OF THE WHOLE REQUEST, UM, WITH THE ZONING. UH, THE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE PORTION OF THAT REQUEST THAT'S GOT THE FLUME DESIGNATION OF OPEN SPACE DRAINAGE. UM, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THEIR CONCEPT PLAN UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS THE GREEN DESIGNATION THAT JUST A BIT OF THE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED KIND OF CLIPS THAT, THAT OPEN SPACE DRAINAGE. SO THIS REQUEST IS TO, TO AMEND THAT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECT LOCATION HAS THE PROPER FLUME DESIGNATION. UH, THIS IS JUST TO CHANGE THE BALANCE OF THAT. UM, SO WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST NOTING THAT THE MULTIFAMILY IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY THE EXISTING ZONING AND MOST OF THE SITE IS ALREADY HAS A FLUME DESIGNATION OF THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THIS BRINGS US TO THE ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN PORTION OF THE REQUEST. UH, SO THE EXISTING ZONING THERE ARE SPLIT PRETTY EVENLY BETWEEN TWO ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO ADMINISTER THOSE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO THE MAJOR DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS REQUEST IS TO BRING THE PROPERTY UNDER A SINGLE, UH, PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, WHICH WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL. UH, SO THE EXISTING ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY AND PD 29 FOR SPECIAL COMPLEX, WHICH INCLUDED APARTMENTS. UH, SO THIS OVERALL REQUEST, UH, THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING MULTIFAMILY WHERE THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE THAT MULTIFAMILY RIGHT. AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY [00:25:01] DWELLING UNITS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD. UH, SO IT'S REALLY TO BRING IT UNDER A SINGLE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MULTIFAMILY USE AND THEN ADOPT THE CONCEPT PLAN. SO THE OVERALL PROPERTY IS ABOUT 31 ACRES. YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, CONCEPT PLAN LOCATED, UM, ON THE SCREEN. THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS OFFICE OF SARAH JANE PARKWAY. IT'S ABOUT 343 UNITS AND 14 BUILDINGS. AND THEY, UM, ARE PROVIDING THE TYPICAL AMENITIES SUCH AS A CLUBHOUSE, POOL, AND DOG PARK. THEY'RE PROPOSING MULTIFAMILY TWO IS THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT WITH, UM, SOME MODIFICATIONS. THEY ARE REQUESTING A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 65 FEET. AND THEN THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO PROVIDE PARKING GARAGES WITH FOR 60% OF THE UNITS, WHICH IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT, UH, CURRENT, UH, APPENDIX W REQUIRES. UH, THESE ARE THEIR CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, UH, NOTING THAT THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY BY RIGHT AND THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY HAS THE FLUME DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. SO, UM, THE GARAGES, ARE THEY NOT ATTACHED? I'M JUST CURIOUS. ARE THEY IN THE BUILDING OR ARE THEY DETACHED? THEY ARE, ARE ATTACHED. THEY ARE ATTACHED. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, CAN YOU REMIND ME AGAIN WHAT THERE WAS, UM, THE PD THAT THEY WANT TO SWITCH OVER TO MATCH UP? IT WAS, WHAT DID IT HAVE IN IT AGAIN TO, IT HAD SPECIAL COMPLEX INCLUDING APARTMENTS. WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ELSE DID THAT INCLUDE? ORIGINALLY, SPECIAL AND COMPLEX INCLUDES A VARIETY OF USES SUCH AS GENERAL RETAIL. UM, IT FOLLOWS GENERAL RETAIL, UH, LAND USES, BUT ADDS IN OTHER USES SUCH AS APARTMENTS. THANK YOU. YOUR HAIR ON, CAN YOU GO AHEAD. SO DO I UNDERSTAND THIS, THAT THEY WANT TO GO HIGHER THAN THEY'RE ALLOWED BY? RIGHT. BUT AS I'M NOT SAYING AS COMMON SENSE, BUT THEY'RE ALSO SAYING THEY'RE GONNA PUT IN MORE PARKING SPACES THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE OBLIGATED TO. SO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IS THE SAME. THE TYPE OF PARKING SPACES THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO A LOT OF GARAGES WHEN WE DON'T REQUIRE THAT MUCH. OKAY. SO THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE. MR. THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST HAD ONE, YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAND DRAINAGE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PIECE. SO I GUESS THAT'S BEEN, UH, DONE OVER AND OVER AGAIN AS FAR AS, BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE IS WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WITH DOING, PUTTING MUCH MORE INTO AN AREA THAT YOU WEREN'T GONNA USE. SO AS FAR AS THE REQUIRED DRAINAGE THAT'S REVIEWED DURING THE, THE SITE PLAN AND THEIR CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW, UM, YOU CAN SEE, UM, ON THIS SCREEN THIS KIND OF DESIGNATES THE, THE FLOODPLAIN AREA, WHICH THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING. UM, REALLY THE ONLY PORTION IS, IS THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, WHICH WAS, IS DESIGNATED FOR OPEN SPACE DRAINAGE BY THE FLUES. BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN PRIOR, UH, DEVELOPMENTS, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT SOMETIMES THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE'S FLOODING BECAUSE THERE THERE'S SO MUCH BUILDING UP AND THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THE WATER TO GO. SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU WON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE. CORRECT. WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW WHERE THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CALCULATION OF RUNOFF AND HOW MUCH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT'S GONNA GENERATE. AND THEY HAVE TO, TO, TO A ACCOUNT FOR THAT IN WHATEVER, UM, IMPROVEMENTS THEY, THEY PLAN TO DO. AND MAYBE I GUESS WHAT WE HAD IN THE PAST WERE REALLY OLDER ROLES SUBDIVISIONS THAT THAT OVERFLOWED BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT'S BEEN A WHILE. A WHILE IT SEEMED LIKE WE HAD ONE THAT THAT HAPPENED THOUGH. SO THE, ALL THE WATER WAS AN OVERFLOW OF THE DRAINAGE. IT HADN'T BEEN THAT LONG AGO. AND THE OLDER, OLDER, OLDER, UH, DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO SOMETHING ELSE OR SOMETHING? NO, MAYBE I'M JUST THINKING OF SOMETHING ELSE. BUT I REMEMBER SOMEBODY TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE BEING AN ISSUE. WE A RESIDENT ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE, BUT SINCE AMOUNTS, UH, POINT ANYTHING BUILT, IT CAN'T INCREASE THE FLOW UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM. SO WHEREVER IT'S DRAINING ENGINEERS, OUR ENGINEER TEAM LOOKS AT THE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SURE CERTAIN THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN MONITORING THAT? SO NOTHING'S GRANDFATHER. HOW LONG HAVE THEY THEY BEEN MONITORING THAT? I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. YEAH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THIS PROJECT HAS A SIGNIFICANT AREA ASSIGNED RIGHT NOW. UH, WE'LL SEE HOW IT COMES OUT AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE, BUT THREE ACRES OF IT IS SHOWN TO BE THE DETENTION, UH, UTILITY, UH, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. SO YOUR ACCOUNTING FOR [00:30:01] POTENTIAL NEED FOR DRAINAGE AND DETENTION POSSIBLY. BUT THAT'LL BE FINALIZED AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE. AND YOUR MOM, Y'ALL THAT THE WHOLE WAY ANYWAY, RIGHT? OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS, YES. STOP ENGINEERS. OUR ENGINEERS WILL LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? THANKS SAVANNAH. ALRIGHT, THIS LAST ITEM IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 16, OUR LODGING FACILITIES. AND SO THE REQUEST IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. UH, WE'RE AMENDING THAT PORTION, WHICH APPLIES TO HOTEL MOTELS. UH, WE ARE PROPOSING TO DECREASE THE MINIMUM POOL REQUIREMENT FROM 3000 SQUARE FEET, UH, TO 1000 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN DO A, A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING, UH, KIND OF REORDERING SOME ITEMS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHICH AMENITIES APPLY TO WHICH PROJECTS. UH, BUT REALLY THE IMPETUS FOR THIS CHANGE IS TO, UH, BRING THE POOL REQUIREMENT MORE IN LINE WITH THE INDUSTRY STANDARD. UH, WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL HOTELS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH, UH, SINCE THE, UM, HOTEL REQUIREMENTS WERE IN, UH, ADOPTED BACK IN 2018 OR 19. AND NONE OF THOSE HOTELS HAVE MEET, MEET, UH, THAT POOL REQUIREMENT, UM, WHICH WE'VE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPERS THAT THIS IS JUST VERY UNREASONABLE. UM, SO THE GOAL IS TO KIND OF RIGHT SIZE THAT REQUIREMENT. SO WE ARE STILL HAVING A STANDARD WHERE THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT. UM, BUT IT AGAIN IS, IS MUCH MORE REASONABLE, UM, BASED ON INDUSTRY STANDARDS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. YOU HAVE EVERYBODY CONCERNED. UM, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE FINISHING THE BOARD BRIEFING AT EXACTLY 6:02 PM I GUESS WE'LL RECONVENE. UM, WELL WE HAVE UNTIL SIX 30. 6:30 PM THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.