[00:00:01]
OKAY.[Planning & Zoning Briefing 08252025]
WELCOME TO THE STAFF BRIEFING OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.A MEETING OF AUGUST 25TH, 2025.
CHERYL SMITH, CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF BRIEFING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
MEETING IS HERE BY CALL TO ORDER.
ON 13 PORTION OF THE MEETING IS GOING.
THE STAFF READ THE COMMISSION, THE CASES ON COMMISSION.
MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THAT AND FACILITATE THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION OF CASE.
NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE BRIEFING.
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE REGULAR MEETING, WHICH WILL BEGIN EARLY THAN 6:30 PM ILL, I'LL CONDUCT A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS TO THE PRESENCE OF FORUM AND RECALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE.
HERE, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR TY CHAPMAN AND JANIE MENDEZ.
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FOR DISCUSS AT EXECUTIVE SESSION? STAFF? YOU READY TO PRESENT? ALRIGHT.
UM, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER TWO, ZONING CASE, UH, ZERO N 2 5 0 6 0 0 2 1.
THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR A FUNERAL HOME LOCATED AT THREE 10 SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY, UM, AN ITEM THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ALL SEEN BEFORE.
IT CAME BEFORE AS A ZONING CHANGE.
WE HAVE NOW BROUGHT IT BACK AS A, UM, PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT BASED ON CITY COUNCIL, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
SO, AS I MENTIONED, UH, THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED MULTIFAMILY ONE, MF ONE.
UM, AND WHAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DO IS TO HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUING TO HAVE THE BASE ZONING OF MULTIFAMILY ONE, BUT ADDING FUNERAL HOME AS A USE.
THERE'S THE, UM, LOCATION AGAIN, THREE 10 SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET.
AND BASICALLY THE APPLICANT WISHES TO, UH, CHANGE THE EXISTING CHURCH AND TURN IT INTO A FUNERAL HOME.
THIS IS KIND OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION.
YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S SURROUNDING.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING CHURCH THERE, UM, OFF OF DALLAS AND THIRD STREET.
AND AS I MENTIONED, HE WILL BE CONVERTING THE EXISTING CHURCH INTO A FUNERAL HOME, UM, WITH LIMITED INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS.
UH, BASICALLY JUST CHANGING IT TO ADD, YOU KNOW, UH, THE ADDITION FOR STAGING, VISITATION AND TRAVEL SERVICES.
UM, ALL INTENSIVE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS, INCLUDING REMOVALS, EMBALMING, AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WILL BE CON CONDUCTED AT THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING LOCATION, WHICH IS IN IRVING.
SO NONE OF THIS WILL TAKE, UH, PLACE AT THIS LOCATION.
UM, THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT SEEKS TO ADD A FUNERAL HOME AS AN APPROVED USE TO THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ONE ZONING.
THIS CHANGE WILL AVOID A FULL REZONING, UM, WHICH COULD OTHERWISE ALLOW, ALLOW FOR A VARIETY OF MORE INTENSIVE AND UNSUITABLE USES FOR THIS LOCATION.
UM, AND STAFF BASICALLY RECOMMENDS TO APPROVE IT.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS? MR. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I, I HAVE.
UM, WAS THERE ANY, UM, LETTERS OR NOTICES THAT WENT OUT AND WERE THERE ANY BROUGHT BACK? SURE, YES.
THERE WERE, UH, NOTICES THAT WENT OUT.
I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE
AND AGAIN, WE'RE SEEING THIS AGAIN FOR A SECOND TIME.
SO IT HAD COME THROUGH AS A ZONING REQUEST CHANGE AND NOW WE'RE TAKING IT AS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT CHANGE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AND WE DID TABLE.
I'M SO HAPPY THAT THAT HAPPENED.
'CAUSE THE, UH, ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS WAS HERE BEFORE.
SO I'M ASSUMING, WAS THERE A GENERAL MEETING WITH ALL THE HOMEOWNERS OR WAS JUST JUST THAT ONE LADY AND, UH, THE, UH, OWNER? UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT WAS JUST THAT ONE THAT HAD COME.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE.
I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS I'VE EVER SEEN THAT, THAT THEY TOOK THE TIME TO, TO WORK THROUGH EVERYTHING AND TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS, SO MM-HMM
ACTUALLY IT'S NOT FOR HENA THOUGH.
IT'S MORE FOR RASHAD OR GENERAL.
SO WHEN WE DID THIS BEFORE, RIGHT.
AND WE WERE ALL IN SUPPORT OF IT.
WAS IT CITY COUNCIL THAT CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF DOING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF US? YES.
SO STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, THAT'S OUR TYPICAL
[00:05:01]
RECOMMENDATION.WHENEVER SOMEONE WANTS TO DO A SPECIFIC USE TO A PD, AS IT ALWAYS BECOMES A CONCERN AT COUNCIL LEVEL AND OTHER GIRLS LEVEL AS WELL.
NOW ADDITIONAL USES, IT COULD BE ALLOWED.
THIS IS THE WAY TO KIND OF SHOEBOX IT IN FOR FUNERAL HOME ONLY, NOT CHANGE IT OWN.
I THINK WHAT ALSO TRIGGERED THE INTEREST IN CHANGING IT BACK TO NOT ALLOWING IT TO BE, UH, GENERAL RETAIL AS A BASED ZONING DISTRICT IS SB EIGHT 40, WHICH IS SENATE BILL EIGHT 40.
THAT ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND OTHER USES WITHIN, UM, GENERAL DETAILS.
KEEP IN MIND, MULTIFAMILIES ALREADY THE ZONING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, THAT THE ZONING WAS ALREADY MULTIFAMILY, BUT EITHER WAY IT DOES LIMIT THE NUMBER OF USES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED IF STATE OR WAS CHANGED TO GENERAL RETAIL CATCH UP AFTERWARDS.
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTANDABILITY FOR YOU, BUT THAT DOES LOOK, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP EVERY TIME HERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT STOP WHILE, SO IS THIS THE FIRST ENCOUNT USING THIS OR HAS IT BEEN USED? WE HAVE, USE THIS THE WAY IT'S SET UP WITH THE EPD.
SPECIFICALLY JUST ON THE ONE PIECE? YES, MA? YES.
SO WE HAVE A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE HERE ON LAKE RIDGE.
WE'RE CALLING THIS LAKERIDGE ONE, UH, THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY, I BELIEVE IT'S 5,300 BLOCK OF LAKE RIDGE.
UM, CITY HAD PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY TO DEVELOP IT AS A POTENTIAL SITE FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER OR, UM, A HERITAGE CENTER.
UM, BUT PER CITIZENS INPUT DECIDED NOT TO PROCEED WITH THAT.
SO BEFORE WE PUT IT BACK OUT ON THE MARKET, UH, CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO ASSURE THAT SOME SPECIFIC USES WEREN'T ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONE GENERAL RETAIL UNDER PD 2 67 A.
UM, SO WE CREATED A PD THAT WOULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF USES ALLOWED ON THAT PROPERTY.
UH, THE FLUME IS CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE, SO THE PD CONTAINS DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS SIMILAR TO WHAT'S IN THE UDC.
JUST ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY DUE TO THE, UH, UNIQUE ORIENTATION OF THE LOT.
UM, AND THEN THE LAND USES CAN BE FURTHER RESTRICTED BY DEED IF WE NEED TO.
AS COMMISSIONER FKO MENTIONED, SB S 40, SB EIGHT 40 DOESN'T ALLOW FOR US TO RESTRICT MULTIFAMILY TYPE USES IN GENERAL RETAIL ANYMORE.
IT NEVER WAS ALLOWED, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE COMPONENT OF SB EIGHT 40.
SB EIGHT 40 NOW ALLOWS SOMEONE TO DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY IN GENERAL RETAIL INDUSTRIAL OFFICE AND EVEN CONVERT EXISTING STRUCTURES INTO THAT.
UH, SO IF THIS STATE GENERAL RETAIL WE SAY SOLD, SOLD IT TO A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER, KEEP IN MIND THE LIMITATION OF THE SITE PROBABLY WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR IT.
BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE EXCLUDE MULTIFAMILY AS A A USE.
SO SB EIGHT 40 THOUGH SAYS YOU CANNOT IMPOSE AN ORDINANCE THAT RESTRICTS THIS, BUT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A DEED RESTRICTION.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO DOING.
BUT JUST IN CASE, UM, WE'RE GONNA PUT IT INTO ORDINANCE TOO, UM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT PROBABLY LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, BUT WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW UP WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION.
SO THAT'S MORE BACKGROUND ON SBA 40.
UM, AND YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THIS REMAINDER OF THE YEAR, FISCAL YEAR 26 MORE REQUESTS FOR THOSE VACANT PARCELS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT MIGHT, UH, OPEN THE DOOR FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
I, WE'VE ONLY BEEN APPROACHED BY ONE OR TWO SO FAR.
UM, THOSE THAT HAVE APPROACHED US, THEY HAD APPROACHED US PREVIOUSLY, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE ZONE CHANGE PROCESS.
SO, UM, IT'S NOT CATCHING US NECESSARILY OFF GUARD, BUT THIS DOES OPEN THE DOOR TO OTHER LOCATIONS.
UM, WITH THAT, WE DID RECEIVE SOME LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FOR THIS ZONE CHANGE.
MANY OF THE LETTERS NOTED THAT
[00:10:01]
THEY DID NOT WANT, UH, APARTMENTS.KEEP IN MIND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH APARTMENTS.
I, I THINK THEY'RE JUST, UH, MAYBE WE'RE MISUNDERSTOOD, UM, WITH ANOTHER CASE THAT IS PENDING AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE NEXT ITEM.
BUT, UM, JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT HEADS UP.
AND WITH ALL THAT SAID, DEVELOPMENT, UH, REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
COMMISSIONER, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UH, YOU MENTIONED, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS TO POSSIBLY FOR THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES, RIGHT? YES.
ARE WE ALLOWED TO SAY THAT? I DON'T KNOW.
WE CAN DE RESTRICT ANYTHING WE WANT.
JUST LEMME MAKE SURE ION YOUR
SO NOW SEND SENATE BILL LATE 40.
SO HOW NEW IS THIS THING? WELL, IT WAS ADOPTED ON THE LAST, UH, LEGISLATURE.
COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD, PART OF THE, AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE TEXT AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO SOME OF THESE STATE LAW CHANGES.
I WILL BE GETTING AN OVERVIEW OF EIGHT 40.
BUT TO GO TO YOUR MAIN POINT, IT OPENS UP PANDORA'S BOX OF ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ZONED FOR GENERAL RETAIL NOW IS OPEN TO MULTIFAMILY.
YES, I DO WANNA MAKE A COMMENT.
AND THAT'S MY DISTRICT, DISTRICT COURT AND I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED WE WON'T HAVE A REC CENTER 'CAUSE THAT'S, I KNOW THAT THE NUMBERS DON'T SPEAK TO IT AS FAR AS OVERALL, UH, RESIDENTIAL PARTICIPATION, BUT, UM, IT'S JUST, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE REALLY TO GO.
I MEAN, THE, IN DISTRICT SIX, THEY HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PROPERTY.
I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UH, CLUBHOUSES OR WHATEVER, THEY, THEY HAVE ENOUGH ROOM OVER THAT, BUT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT.
SO I REALLY WISH THEY WOULD CONSIDER A PLAN B.
NOW I'VE BEEN TALKING TO COMMISSIONER LOPEZ ABOUT THAT AS WELL, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING AS KIDS DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO, TO GO AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BOY SCOUTS, GIRL SCOUTS, RETIRES, WHATEVER.
THERE'S REALLY NOT ANY REAL PLACES TO MEET THAT STILL COULD BE AN OPTION.
BUT NUMBER ONE, WE STILL WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I KNOW THE NUMBERS DON'T, DON'T SPEAK, BUT, UH, THIS IS WHY I'M HAPPY UNHAPPY HERE.
YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS HAVE ISSUES.
THE NEXT ITEM, WE ACTUALLY DECIDED TO WITHDRAW THIS CASE AND, UH, UH, AMENDED A LITTLE BIT.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY, UM, THIS IS AT ENGLAND AND, UH, LAKE RIDGE.
SO IT'S A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH.
THIS WAS THE OTHER LOCATION FOR A POTENTIAL REC CENTER LIBRARY.
UM, SO THAT, AGAIN, BASED BASED ON THE CITIZEN SURVEY, MANY SAID THEY DID NOT WANT IT.
SO BEFORE WE PUT IT BACK ON THE MARKET, WE WANTED TO DO ITS OWN CHANGE TO OPEN UP THE DOOR FOR A POTENTIAL, UH, DEVELOPER.
UM, SOME OF THE USES THAT WERE CONSIDERED WERE SINGLE FAMILY TOWN, HOME SINGLE FAMILY, ONE SINGLE FAMILY, TWO SINGLE FAMILY THREE, WHICH WERE ALL INCLUDED IN THE PD.
THE ISSUE THAT CAME ABOUT WAS WE ALSO INCLUDED HYBRID HOUSING, WHICH A SINGLE FAMILY BILL, BILL TO RENT.
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BILL TO RENT THE WAY WE HAVE IT IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS STILL DEVELOPED JUST LIKE FOR SALE PRODUCT BECAUSE WE WENT TO THAT EXTENT TO MAKE IT MAKE IT THAT DETAILED.
UM, BUT THE CITIZENS STILL FEEL STRONGLY THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THAT USE.
THEY SEE THAT AS APARTMENTS BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED.
SO WE'RE JUST GONNA REMOVE THAT AND BRING IT BACK.
SO, MR, GOING BACK TO THE OTHER ONE IN CASE I GET ENOUGH PEOPLE IN, BUT YOU BRING IT BACK.
MY, MY RIGHT CENTER ON
THE ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS ACTUALLY A JOINT ITEM FOR A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, THIS IS CPA 2 5 0 7 0 0 15 4 1 18 NORTHEAST 11TH STREET.
SO THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ATTACHED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
IN ORDER TO GET THE ZONE CHANGE APPROVED, THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET THE FUTURE LANE USE MAP TO ALIGN WITH THEIR REQUEST.
[00:15:01]
WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IS TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE DESIGNATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.UM, LET ME JUST COVER NUMBER SIX AND I'LL COME BACK TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT ITEM.
SO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS HE OWNS THIS PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT, BUT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE LOT IS CURRENTLY EMPTY.
WE SEE A EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BEING THERE AT ONE POINT IN THE HISTORY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED.
HOWEVER, RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THE ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UM, HE CANNOT CONSTRUCT IT UNTIL THE ZONE CHANGE.
SO WHAT HE'S COMING AND ASKING IS TO CHANGE THAT ZONING TO A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.
THE REASON I WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS NORTHERN AREA IS, AS YOU CAN SEE DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, THERE'S ALREADY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AVAILABLE THERE.
THEY ARE PART OF TWO F ZONING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE OLDER ZONING DESTINATION THAT ALLOW FOR DUPLEXES ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A DUPLEX.
WHEN HE SAYS A DUPLEX, HE HAS PROVIDED A SAMPLE PHOTO FROM HIS ACTUAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT HE IS PREPARING FOR THIS OPERATION WHERE HE WILL HAVE A SINGLE STORY DUPLEX GO.
GOING BACK TO THE CPA STAFF IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE USE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE LINEAGE MAP.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT ONE, THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
TWO, THE PROPOSED USE IS GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING LINEAGE TO THE NORTH INTO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL REQUIRE TO BE REPLA BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE ZONE CHANGE ITEMS, UM, ZON 25 0 7 0 0 2 4 STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT STAFF IS ZONING.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT BECAUSE OF THE MISALIGNMENT WITH THE FLUME.
HOWEVER, WE NOTE THE SAME THAT THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY SINGLE FAMILY AND THEIR USE IS COMPATIBLE AND THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPL.
THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT APOLOGIZES HIS TRAVELING FOR BUSINESS REASONS TODAY AND WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE, BUT HE PLANS TO BE HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? PERMISSION.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT TWO ITEMS, WHICH ARE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AND ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS ALSO A JOINT ITEM FOR A CONCRETE HE PLAN, AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS CPA 2 5 0 7 0 0 14.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING AT 1106 WEST SHADY GROVE.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WEST SHADE GROVE, IT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED ALL ON 1 61, WHERE WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF JUST, UM, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS ALL ALONG ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.
UM, CURRENTLY THE FUTURE LINE USE MAP THAT MADE THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL ON OFFICE, BUT THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CHANGE THAT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG ARTERIAL THROUGH AFFAIRS APPROXIMATELY TO FREEWAYS, OH, SORRY, THIS IS A, UH, FUTURE LANE USE MAP DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE CANNOT SUPPORT THE, UH, AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT ALIGN WITH FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
HOWEVER, THE REQUESTED CHANGES MATCH THE PREDOMINANT USE OF THAT AREA.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THIS MORE IN THIS ZONE CHANGE REQUEST.
SO, UM, IF THE ZONE CHANGE IS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
HE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A CON SHOP, CONTRACTOR SHOP, WHICH WILL BE ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL, UM, WAREHOUSES, WHICH IS ALREADY IN THAT AREA.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS, UM, ACROSS THE STREET THERE ARE ALREADY, UH, STANDARD UTILITY, WHICH ARE A CONTRACTOR SHOP WITH SOME OUTSIDE STORAGE WORKING ON UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY EXISTING, UM, TO THE SOUTH.
UM, THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THIS STRIP OF LAND THAT HAPPENS TO BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AGAIN.
UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER PLANS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND, UH, BUILD A OFFICE WAREHOUSE.
IF THIS ZONE CHANGE WAS APPROVED, THEY WILL COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN.
SO STAFF IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ALLOW FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT THE REQUEST MADE, UH, CHANGES MATCH THE PREDOMINANT USE OF THE AREA.
SO ONE OF THE THING, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE, UM, ARE NOT OPPOSED TO IT IS BECAUSE, AS YOU HAVE NOTED, THIS AREA ALREADY IS PRETTY, UM, LARGELY, UH, INDUSTRIAL USES CURRENTLY.
IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO
[00:20:01]
BE LOCATED THERE SO THAT, UM, STAFF IS NOT TOTALLY OPPOSED TO SMALLER SCALE WAREHOUSES BEING ADDED AT THAT LOCATION.THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSION, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
AND IT'S JUST MAINLY THIS, UH, BEING AN OBSERVATION.
I'M WONDERING AND ASKING YOU THE REASON WE HAVE SO MANY FOLKS WANTING TO COME DO INDUSTRIAL YES.
IS BECAUSE OF THE, A LOT OF THE IN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSES WE HAVE ARE OLDER AND, UH, NEED REFURBISHING AND THAT THE NEWER ONES ARE, ARE MORE ACCOMMODATING TO WHAT THE FOLKS WANT.
SO I BELIEVE ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES THAT THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE HAS AT THIS LOCATION, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE NORTHERN EDGE, IS THAT WE HAVE DAY 1 61, WHICH IS FAIRLY NEW AND DUE TO A LOT OF EXISTING AND NEWER DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA, OUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN IMPROVING A LOT OF OUR ROADS.
I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE ATTRACTION AND TO JUST THE VISIBILITY AND JUST ACCESS, QUICK ACCESS TO DFW.
I'M SURE THAT THOSE ARE SOME OF THESE, UH, REASONS FOR THE ATTRACTION FOR THESE.
I JUST REMEMBER ONE OF THEM SAYING A WHILE BACK THAT A LOT OF THE WAY THEY'RE SET UP AND THEY'RE MUCH OLDER, THAT THEY'RE NEED A LOT OF UPGRADES AND TO RECTIFY THAT THEY JUST COME IN AND START OVER FROM SCRATCH.
I BELIEVE THE DUNCAN PERRY PROBABLY CASE WAS THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, THE SURROUNDING AREA HAD A SMALLER WAREHOUSES, HOWEVER THEY, WERE THEY CORRECT, THEY WERE NOT MODERNIZED ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THESE, UM, NEWER LOGISTICS OPERATIONS? YES, MA'AM.
JUNE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WHEN A CONTRACTOR STOP WITH STORAGE IN A WAREHOUSE? YES, SIR.
SO A WAREHOUSE CAN BE USED BY A CONTRACTOR.
HOWEVER, TYPICAL WAREHOUSES THEY CAN USE FOR WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION WITH THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I BELIEVE THE, UH, APPLICANT ALREADY HAS A POTENTIAL TENANT.
THEY WANNA ACTUALLY HAVE A MAIN OFFICE, BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO HAVE AN AREA TO STORE THEIR FLEET.
AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE MORE WHEN THE SITE PLAN COMES THROUGH.
UM, RIGHT NOW THERE'S ON A CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY WANT THAT ZONE CHANGE TO BE FINALIZED BEFORE THEY PROCEED.
ANY OTHER CONCERNS? THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS NEXT ITEM IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SEVERAL ARTICLES IN THE UDC.
WE'VE GOT 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 22, 23, 26, 30, AND A NEXT W UH, THIS REQUEST IS TO ALIGN OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH RECENT CHANGES TO STATE LAW.
UH, SO SOME OF THE HIGH LEVEL BULLET POINTS INCLUDE MIXED USE AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, UH, ZONING, PROTEST AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, REGULATION OF HOME-BASED BUSINESSES, SMALL RESIDENTIAL LOT DEVELOPMENT, HUD CODE MANUFACTURING, UM, APPROVAL OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND IMPACT FEES, AND THEN CONVERSION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS TO MIXED USE AND MULTIFAMILY USE.
UM, SO YOUR PACKET INCLUDED A SUMMARY TABLE THAT KIND OF INCLUDED THE, THE BILL, A SUMMARY OF THAT BILL, AND THEN A SUMMARY OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CHANGES.
UH, MANY OF THE BILLS NECESSITATED CHANGES IN MULTIPLE ARTICLES.
I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THIS CHART.
UM, BUT RATHER I'M GONNA START BY FOCUSING ON TWO OF THOSE BILLS, WHICH, UM, REQUIRED MORE CHANGES TO THE UDC AND, AND COULD BE MORE, UH, IMPACTFUL TO OUR LAND USE.
AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE CHANGES BY EACH ARTICLE.
AND SO THE FIRST IS SB EIGHT 40.
UH, I WANNA SHARE KIND OF THREE TAKEAWAYS THAT ARE REALLY GONNA BE IMPACTFUL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN GRAND PRAIRIE AND KIND OF OUR PROCEDURES.
UH, THE FIRST IS THAT A MUNICIPALITY SHALL ALLOW MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT AND A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT ALLOWS OFFICE COMMERCIAL RETAIL WAREHOUSE OR MIXED USE OR DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALLOWED USE UNDER THAT CLASSIFICATION.
SO PREVIOUSLY MULTI-FAMILY WAS ONLY ALLOWED IN MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS THAT HAD THE MULTI-FAMILY ZONING OR PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT INCLUDED A MULTIFAMILY.
UH, THIS CHANGE OPENS, UH, THAT UP, UH, TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY IN GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICTS AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OR COMMERCIAL.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE KEY TAKEAWAY.
UH, THE SECOND IS THAT A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE ZONING RESTRICTION OR OTHER REGULATION THAT IMPOSES A LIMIT ON THE DENSITY, HEIGHT, OR SETBACK OR BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
THAT IS MORE THAN WHAT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE STATE LAW.
UH, WE CAN'T REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT OR A MULTI-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE.
UH, WE CAN'T RESTRICT THE FAR.
YOU CAN'T REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO CONTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.
UH, SO THE THIRD TAKEAWAY FOR THAT IS THAT IF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER TWO 18, THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE PERMITS OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION AND MAY NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ACTION BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY.
[00:25:01]
SO THAT IS GONNA CHANGE HOW, UH, WE HAVE TO PROCESS SOME OF THESE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS.ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? YES, SIR.
DOES THAT MEAN NUMBER THREE MEAN THAT IF THEY GO THROUGH AND DON'T REQUEST ANY VARIANCE AS IT DOESN'T COME IN FRONT OF THIS BODY OR THE CITY COUNCIL? CORRECT.
THEIR SITE PLAN WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT THAT'S ONLY BUT THEY REQUEST A VARIANCE AND THEY LOSE THAT PRIVILEGE, RIGHT? YES.
AND I WILL GET TO THAT IN SOME OF OUR CHANGES WHERE WE CLARIFY THAT THAT PROCEDURE WATER IS HELL.
UM, SO THEN I WANTED TO ADD IN, IN TERMS OF NUMBER TWO, THAT, UM, WHETHER WE CAN ENFORCE OUR ORDINANCES AND ALL THAT, THAT IS NOT JUST ON MULTI-FAMILY IN THOSE NEW DISTRICTS, UH, OFFICE GENERAL RETAIL, IT'S MULTI-FAMILY ANYWHERE.
THIS IS LIKE THE WILD WILD WEST AND HOUSTON.
WHERE IT SAYS ITEM BULLET ONE, IT POSES THE LIMIT ON DENSITY, HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE LIMIT? SO IT DOES SPECIFY, AND I'VE GOT A SLIDE THAT I'LL JUST PULL UP.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE CANNOT LIMIT DENSITY TO THE GREATER OF EITHER 36 BUILDING UNITS OR THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE MUNICIPALITY.
UH, FOR THE HEIGHT, WE CANNOT LIMIT HEIGHT TO THE GREATER OF EITHER 45 FEET OR THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT WOULD APPLY TO AN OFFICE COMMERCIAL RETAILER OR WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED ON THAT SITE.
UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PROPERTY IS OWNED GENERAL RETAIL, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE MAX HEIGHT FOR GENERAL RETAIL BUILDING, COMPARE IT TO THE 45 FEET AND WHICH IS UP, WHICHEVER IS GREATER WOULD APPLY.
UH, THEN THE THIRD IS THE CANNOT REQUIRE A SETBACK OR BUFFER THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE LESSER OF 25 FEET OR A SETBACK OR BUFFER REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD APPLY TO AN OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, OR WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED ON THE SITE.
UM, SO THE NEXT BILL THAT I'LL I'LL HIGHLIGHT VERY QUICKLY IS SB 15.
AND THIS APPLIES TO ATTRACTIVE LAND THAT WILL BE PLOTTED AND, UM, LOCATED IN AN AREA ZONE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT'S FIVE ACRES OR MORE AND HAS NO RECORDED PLA.
AND UNDER THIS, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ADOPT OR ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A RESIDENTIAL LOT TO BE LARGER THAN 3000 SQUARE FEET, WIDER THAN 30 FEET OR DEEPER THAN 75 FEET.
ADDITIONALLY, WE CANNOT REQUIRE A SMALL LOT TO HAVE A SETBACK GREATER THAN 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT, 10 FROM THE BACK, OR FIVE FROM THE SIDE.
CAN'T REQUIRE COVERED PARKING.
WE CANNOT REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT.
WE CANNOT REQUIRE MORE THAN 30% OPEN SPACE OR PERMEABLE SURFACE.
UH, CANNOT REQUIRE IT BE FEWER THAN THREE FULL STORIES NOT EXCEEDING 10 FEET IN HEIGHT.
UH, WE CAN'T REQUIRE MAXIMUM BUILDING BULK OR WALL ARTICULATION.
SO NOW I'M GONNA GO THROUGH, UH, MANY OF THE ARTICLES FAIRLY QUICKLY, UH, AND THEN SPEND MORE TIME WITH ARTICLE FOUR SIX AND APPENDIX W.
SO THE FIRST ARTICLE, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES, UH, WE REQUIRE THAT APPLICANTS POST SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN A PROPERTY IS BEING REZONED.
UH, NEW CHANGES IN STATE LAW HAS A MINIMUM SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS.
AND I'VE GOT AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IN CHAMBERS THAT I CAN SHOW YOU DURING THE MEETING.
UM, AND SO BASED ON THAT, WE ARE CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT POSTING.
SO NOW WE ARE REQUIRING ONE SIGN PER STREET FRONTAGE USED TO BE MORE SIGNS EVERY, DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT'S 300 FEET OR 400 FEET, WE'RE JUST DOING ONE PER STREET FRONTAGE.
WE'VE ALSO ADDED LANGUAGE REQUIRING LEGAL NOTICE TO BE PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
SO RIGHT NOW WE SEND OUT LEGAL NOTIFICATION TO THE FORT WORTH STAR TELEGRAM.
UH, WE'LL NOW ADD THAT TO OUR WEBSITE.
UH, AND THEN WE UPDATED OUR ZONING PROTEST LANGUAGE TO ALIGN WITH STATE LAW.
ARTICLE SEVEN SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
WE'RE REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONCEPT PLAN FOR PDS WITHOUT A CONCEPT PLAN, AGAIN, TO, TO ALIGN WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES WITH STATE LAW AND THEN KEEP PROCEDURES CONSISTENT ACROSS DEVELOPMENT TYPES.
ARTICLE 10, PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS.
AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE, UH, RESTRICTED FROM REQUIRING MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT.
SO WE'VE UPDATED, UH, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPED UNDER SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS UNDER SUB CHAPTER D CHAPTER 21 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TO REQUIRE ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE THAT IS ACCESSED FROM THE REAR LOADED ALLEY.
SO IT'S GONNA BE OFF OF AN ALLEY.
UH, THE DRIVEWAY IS OFF OF AN ALLEY, THE PARKING SPACE IS OFF OF THE ALLEY.
UM, I'LL, I'LL BRING THIS UP AGAIN IN, UM, ARTICLE 23.
UM, WHAT WE DID HERE IS WE ALSO, UM, KEPT OUR PREFERRED PARKING
[00:30:01]
STANDARDS FOR OUR MULTIFAMILY.SO RIGHT NOW, UH, WE REQUIRE ONE AND A HALF SPACES FOR ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
WE REQUIRE TWO SPACES FOR, UM, TWO PLUS BEDROOM UNITS.
WE'VE LEFT THAT IN, BUT WE'VE, UM, ADDED IN PARENT, THIS IS OUR PREFERRED PARKING STANDARDS.
UM, THEN WE ADDED OUR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED PARKING STANDARDS, WHICH HERE IS THE ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT.
UH, WE SPECIFIED THAT TANDEM SPACES SHALL NOT COUNT TOWARDS THAT REQUIRED PARKING.
UM, WE'VE ADDED A CLUBHOUSE PARKING REQUIREMENT, UM, ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET IN BOTH OF THE PREFERRED AND THE REQUIRED.
WE'VE ADDED A LEASING OFFICE TO CALCULATE THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT SEPARATELY.
ARTICLE 12, SUBDIVISION AND UTILITIES, WE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS IF YOUR PROPERTY'S GONNA BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED TO ADD LANGUAGE TO IT.
THAT SPECIFIES EXACTLY WHAT STATE LAW ALLOWS.
UH, THIS IS TO ASSIST WITH, UM, PLAT REVIEW AND THEN BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW WHEN THAT COMES IN.
UM, WE ALSO ARE REQUIRING THAT SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENTS INTENDED FOR FIVE OR MORE LOTS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF A 35, 31 FOOT WIDE STREET WITH AN ALLEY.
AND AGAIN, UH, THE ONE PARKING SPACE THAT WE CAN REQUIRE IS GOING TO BE ACCESSED OFF OF THAT ALLEY.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT, UM, 30 FOOT WIDE LOTS AND DRIVEWAY SPACING, THAT CREATES A CONCERN WITH, UH, PARKING ON THE STREET AND BEING ABLE TO GET EMERGENCY VEHICLES THROUGH THAT.
SO THIS IS, UM, WHY WE HAVE REQUIRED THAT.
UM, ALLEY AND THE REAR ACCESS OF PARKING.
ARTICLE 13 BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.
WE'VE ADDED SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE, UM, WITH THE STATE LAW.
IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THESE BUILDING PERMITS HAVE TO BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY NO ACTION BY THE GOVERNING BODY.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THAT BEFORE YOU GET TO YOUR BUILDING PERMIT, YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE STEPS EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ADMINISTRATIVE.
NOW ON OUR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ARTICLE 16, WE'VE, UH, HAD PROVISIONS FOR SITE PLANS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL, UH, SHALL BE REVIEWED AND ACTED UPON BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OR DESIGNEE UPON A RECOMMENDATION BY DRC.
UH, PURSUANT TO OUR PROCEDURES, AND WE STATE CLEARLY THAT SITE PLANS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE UDC, UH, EXCLUDING WHAT'S PERMITTED UNDER STATE LAW, UH, SHALL BE DENIED.
AND THEN A ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN REQUEST SHALL BE REQUIRED.
UM, SO IF THEY WERE NOT MEETING THOSE STANDARDS THAT WE CAN REQUIRE UNDER THE UDC, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN.
ARTICLE 22 IS OUR FEE SCHEDULE.
WE HAVE MODIFIED THE SITE PLAN FEE TABLE.
UM, TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MULTI-FAMILY ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLANS IS THE $1,000 PLUS 40 PER ACRE.
A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS CHANGES TO A SITE PLAN OR MODIFICATIONS, UH, ARE DONE BY OR REVIEWED BY AND CAN BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
AND THEN OUR, OUR TRADITIONAL SITE PLANS, UH, KEEPING THAT FEE THE SAME, WE HAD A COUPLE OF DUPLICATE FEES THAT WERE REMOVING THOSE TABLES.
AND THEN WE HAD A, A FEE, UH, FOR STAFF FILING OF PLATS THAT WE'RE REMOVING.
THIS IS NOT A SERVICE THAT THAT STAFF OFFERS.
UH, WE ARE ADDING A $50 FEE FOR ZONING SIGNS.
SO IT'S $50 PER SIGN, AGAIN, WITHIN THE SIZE THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO POST BY STATE LAW, UH, IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THE SIGNS WE'RE DOING NOW AND MUCH MORE COSTLY.
AND THEN WE ARE ALSO, UM, UPDATING OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEFINITION TO MATCH STATE LAW.
PREVIOUSLY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SERVED AS PART OF THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
STATE LAW SAYS NOW THAT IT, IT, THE P AND Z CANNOT BE.
UM, SO THAT THAT COMMITTEE WILL BE SEPARATELY APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
IN ARTICLE 23, OUR MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN, UH, THE STATE LAW PREVENTS US FROM REQUIRING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR, UH, PROJECTS INVO INVOLVING THE CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO WE'RE STATING THAT A TIA IS NOT REQUIRED IN THIS CASE.
ARTICLE 26, MOBILE MANUFACTURED MODULAR HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE REGULATIONS CURRENTLY HAVE A SUP REQUIREMENT FOR A MOBILE MANUFACTURED HOME WITHIN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT.
UNDER STATE LAW, SINCE WE ALLOW A TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, UH, BY RIGHT IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, WE MUST ALSO ALLOW A MOBILE MANUFACTURED HOME BY RIGHT IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
SO WE ARE MOVING THAT REQUIREMENT TO THE SUP AND ANY REFERENCES TO THE SUP PROCESS OR CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED DURING THE SGP.
IN ARTICLE 30, WE HAVE UPDATE OUR DEFINITIONS, UM, TO, UH, HOME-BASED BUSINESS.
WE'VE HAD A DEFINITION FOR HOME
[00:35:01]
OCCUPATION.WE HAVE MARRIAGE STATE LAW, AND THAT DEFINITION IS ON THE SCREEN.
UM, WE, WE ARE ALSO, UH, LIMITED IN HOW WE CAN REGULATE, UH, NO IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS.
AND SO WE'VE MADE THOSE MODIFICATIONS TO OUR DEFINITION AND OUR USE CHARTS AS WELL.
AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED THE SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT INTO THE DEFINITIONS AS WELL.
OKAY, SO ARTICLE FOUR OUR PURPOSELY USES THIS, HAS THE ALLOWABLE USES OUR LAND USE CHARTS.
WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE FOR MULTIFAMILY.
UH, SO A SNIPPET OF THAT IS ON THE SCREEN.
UM, SO SAYING MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE PERMITTED IN CERTAIN DISTRICT DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO 18 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IS AMENDED PROVIDED SUCH USES HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE BEEN LAWFULLY PROHIBITED OR WAIVED.
UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE NOT ADDRESSED, UM, BY THAT STATE LAW, UH, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF MF THREE SHALL APPLY FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE SHALL APPLY FOR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL.
UH, TO THE EXTENT STATE LAW PROHIBITS REGULATIONS OF ANY DENSITY OR DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND SUCH STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE LAWFULLY PROHIBITED OR WAIVED STATE LAW CONTROL, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN.
UM, SO WE'VE UPDATED OUR LAND USE CHARTS TO REFLECT THE STATE LAW AND SOME OF OUR, UM, FOOTNOTES.
SO WE'VE ADDED, UH, THE MULTIFAMILY, UM, THE MIXED USE AND THE THREE AND FOUR FAMILY AND HYBRID HOUSING.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE A, A FOOTNOTE THAT REFERS BACK TO THAT, UH, NOTE ABOUT THE STATE LAW IN ARTICLE SIX, OUR DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE FOR THAT SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT IF IT IS FOR, UM, FOR FEWER LOTS, IT WILL, UH, FOLLOW SF SIX FOR ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS THAT THE STATE LAW DOESN'T INCLUDE.
IF IT'S FIVE OR MORE, UH, WE REFER TO APPENDIX W FOR ANYTHING THAT THE STATE CITY CAN STILL CONTROL.
UH, WE ALSO ADDED A COLUMN IN OUR SUMMARY FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY, A SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE AGAIN FOR THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL REFERENCING THAT STATE LAW AND MAPPING IT BACK TO THE, UH, APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE REGULATIONS THAT WE CAN STILL CONTROL.
UH, APPENDIX W IS OUR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
AND SO THE APPROACH WE TOOK HERE IS AGAIN, AT FOUR, FIVE OR MORE SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT.
UH, WE ESSENTIALLY TOOK OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND APPENDIX W FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND MOVED IT OVER, THEN EXCLUDED ANYTHING THAT WE CAN NO LONGER REGULATE AND UPDATED IT TO REFLECT WHAT STATE REQUIRES.
UM, WE ALSO MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE, UH, REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT'S NOW GOING TO BE VERY CHALLENGING, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO FIT, YOU KNOW, THREE TREES ON A LOT.
UM, FOR THE, LET'S SEE, MULTI-FAMILY, UM, WE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ESSENTIALLY IF YOU'RE IN A COMMERCIAL OR GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT THAT FALLS WITHIN OUR CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
REMEMBER THOSE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO MEET THAT APPENDIX, APPENDIX F HIGHER STANDARDS.
WE'RE SAYING NOW THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET THOSE, UH, DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE.
THEN WE ALSO MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO OUR INCENTIVES.
UM, RIGHT NOW WE USE OUR AMENITIES, UH, TO TRY AND INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO MEET OUR DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'VE MODIFIED THAT TO SAY THAT UH, NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT MEET THE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS AND OUR PREFERRED PARKING STANDARDS THAT WE'VE ADDED TO ARTICLE 10, UH, SHALL PROVIDE FEATURES FROM AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING THREE CATEGORIES AND A CLUBHOUSE OF AT LEAST 3000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
UM, SO IF YOU'RE NOT MEETING OUR DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, YOU'VE GOTTA PROVIDE CATEGORY OR THREE AMENITIES FROM ALL THREE CATEGORIES AND YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT LARGER, LARGER CLUBHOUSE.
SO WE'VE TRIED TO PROVIDE SOME INCENTIVES TO, UH, GET DEVELOPERS TO, TO PROVIDE OUR PREFERRED PARKING STANDARD AS WELL AS OUR DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION VERY QUICKLY.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONER.
UM, DID YOU, UM, COVER ANY OF THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE COVERED, UM, DURING THIS UM, SESSION AS FAR AS LIKE, UM, PROXIMITY TO AIRPORTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? I DID NOT, NO.
SO, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WITHIN, YOU KNOW, AN AIRPORT OR MILITARY BASES, THERE'S A 3000 FEET, UM, BUFFER, UH, IN THAT REGARD.
AND THEN ALSO FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONES, UH, PROPERTIES ALREADY ZONED FOR
[00:40:01]
HEAVY, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ARE EXCLUDED AS WELL AS A THOUSAND FEET OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES EXEMPT.SO WASN'T SURE IF YOU NEED TO ADD THAT ANYWHERE OR NOT.
THOSE, THOSE DO NOT IMPACT OUR, UM, CHANGES WE'RE MAKING.
STAFF IS AWARE OF ALL OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS AND WILL, UM, PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.
COMMERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. MR. ADVISOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REMEMBER A COUPLE TIMES A YEAR WE WOULD HAVE ENGINEERING PRESENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES OR IMPACT FEES.
AND SO P AND Z PLUS SOME INDIVIDUALS EQUALED THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
THIS CHANGE IS NOW SAYING THAT THAT P AND Z IS NOT A PART OF THAT.
SO WHO'S ON THAT WILL BE APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL? IS IT THOSE TWO GUYS THAT CAME IN LAST YEAR? YES.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION AND MAYBE IT, MAYBE I'M NOT GONNA FRAME IT CORRECTLY, BUT ALL THESE NEW STANDARDS AND THE LAW AND BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, HOW IS THAT GONNA AFFECT HOW THE FUTURE LAND WE MAP LOOKS? ARE WE GOTTA BE ABLE TO KEEP UP OUR STANDARDS? LIKE WE NORMALLY THEY GOT, IT'S GONNA BE ALL A HOT MESS OR HOW IS THAT GONNA WORK BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THEY'RE SAYING WE CAN'T DO ANYMORE.
AND WHAT THE FLU AS IT BEAUTIFULLY DONE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? WELL IT'S ALMOST PERFECT TIMING ACTUALLY 'CAUSE WE'RE STARTING THAT PROCESS NOW.
UM, SO MANY OF THE PARCELS THAT WE'VE SEEN VACANT FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS GENERATE RETAIL PARCELS.
WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE DOOR TO OTHER OPPORTUNITIES ON THOSE PROPERTIES, BUT DEFINITELY GET CITIZEN INPUT ON WHAT THEY WANT BUT ALSO CLARIFY WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
SO, UM, TRY TO GET BUY-IN FROM THE DEVELOPER.
UM, DURING THIS PROCESS, WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THESE KEY PARCELS, UH, INVOLVED THEM IN THE PROCESS.
SO WE GOT ANOTHER NINE, 10 MONTHS OF THE COMP PLAN UPDATE.
SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO FACILITATE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS PART OF IT AS WELL.
SO LET'S TRY TO KEEP IN MIND FUTURE LANGUAGE.
SO WE CAN SAY, I WAS CURIOUS HOW THAT YEAH.
WORKED IN BECAUSE NOT SO MUCH WORK TO TRY TO PUSH THAT A POSITIVE WAY FOR GRAND PRAIRIE, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS AND EVERYTHING AND THEN ALL OF THIS NONSENSE STATUES AND EVERYTHING, THEY, THIS IS JUST MY THOUGHTS.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UH, REMOVING RED TAPE THAT THEY SEE OUR PROCESSES BUREAUCRATIC EVEN THOUGH OUR PROCESS IS SPECIFIC TO EACH CITY WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE DEVELOPED IN THEIR CITY.
SOME CITIES, SOME PROCESSES ARE HARDER THAN OTHERS.
OTHERS, OURS IS FAIRLY YOU DEFICIENT EASY AND WE'VE BEEN TOLD WE SEE THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING.
WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS. WE'RE NOT IN THE NEWS NOT THROWING OTHER CITIES UNDER THE BUS.
I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY INCLUDED CITY STAFFS AND PART OF THIS PROCESS.
IF THEY DID, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ALL THIS.
LOBBYISTS WERE THE ONES WHO REALLY PUSHED THIS AGENDA AND IT WAS GARNERED FROM THE IDEA THAT THIS IS A OPENING DOOR.
WE HAVE LIMITED HOUSING, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOMES.
PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO AFFORD WHAT'S BEING BUILT.
BUT I STILL BELIEVE MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS THAT EVEN WITH THESE SMALL LOTS APARTMENTS, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE SAME SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES.
'CAUSE THESE DEVELOPERS ARE GONNA BUILD HIGH DOLLAR HOMES.
I MEAN, UNLESS THEY JUST THROW UP ANY AND EVERYTHING.
UM, OUR STANDARDS ARE OUR STANDARDS, PRICES OF THE MATERIALS OR THE PRICE OF THE MATERIALS.
SO YOU'RE GONNA END UP, EVEN WHEN WE TRIED TO DO IT DOWN HERE ON SOUTHWEST THIRD, YOU KNOW, HOME WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO GET UNDER 200,000, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND THE TINY HOMES, I SAW THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE YES.
WELL, I MEAN OTHER CITIES, SOME CITIES, EVERY CITY HAS ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
SOME HAVE SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
IT'S JUST FORCING ALL TO DO IT.
UM, AND I WON'T SAY FORCE, IT'S JUST UH, OPENING A DOOR FOR THAT OPTION.
THE ISSUE IS THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE SUBDIVISION OF SMALL LOT HOMES.
IT COULD BE A POSITIVE DEPENDING ON THE LOCATION, INFIELD PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SET VACANT.
UH, ESSENTIALLY GET A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME ON
[00:45:01]
A TOWN HOME LOT.UM, BUT WHAT IS THAT NEXT TO EXACTLY? THAT WAS MY WHOLE QUESTION.
NOBODY'S CONSIDERING ANY OF THAT TO YOUR POINT AND EVERYTHING.
CAN WE LOOK AT ARTICLE 26? YEAH.
ARE WE TALKING CONTAINER HOMES? ARE WE TALKING TRAILERS? ARE WE TALKING, UH, FABRIC? WHAT SPECIFICALLY? ALL OF THAT MOBILE HOMES IN A MANUFACTURED HOME.
AND SO I WILL SAY IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALLOWING IT EVERYWHERE.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT IT HAS TO BE ON A, A LOT THAT'S 20 ACRES.
SO THAT KIND OF CHANGES WHERE IT YES.
A LOT OF THIS SAYS THAT WHERE WE ONCE REQUIRED AN SUP, IT'S NOW A
JUST THAT'S, YOU'RE ACHIEVING THEIR GOAL TO MAKE IT MORE STREAMLINED.
I MEAN THE STANDARDS ARE STILL A STANDARDS THOUGH.
BUT, UH, THE AG, WE HAVE A FEW POCKETS OF AG THROUGHOUT THE CITY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY 20 ACRE REQUIREMENTS LIKE THAT OTHER THAN ANY BTJ.
JUST USING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS ALL TO ON SAVANNAH.
YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH THAT.
PROBABLY LOST A LOT OF SLEEP TRYING TO GET THAT
I WAS ON THE FRONT END WITH DONNA, UH, LEGISLATIVE OFFICIAL.
GOING BACK AND FORTH, SENDING IN TESTIMONY ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL JULY AND THEN ALL THIS STUFF IS COMING.
SO SINCE THEN, SAVANNAH AND JULIE, KUDOS TO THEM FOR GOING THROUGH EACH ARTICLE AND SEEING WHERE WE CONFLICT AND THIS IS WHAT THE RESULT IS.
SO BASICALLY IT'S THE MUNICIPALITIES AGAINST THE LOBBYISTS, BASICALLY THE LOBBYIST FOR THE, FOR THE DEVELOPERS.
I MEAN, I WON'T POINT ANY FINGERS, BUT I MEAN, WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT'S DEVELOPING.
THE DEVELOPERS ARE MAKING THIS, UH, MORE EFFICIENT FOR THEM TO, WELL, MORE EASIER FOR THEM TO DEVELOP.
UM, COULD IT BE SOME POSITIVES? SURE.
THERE COULD BE SOME AFFORDABLE HOMES DEVELOPED IN THIS PROCESS, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE THAT RIGHT NOW UNDER OUR CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS FOR COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE TARIFFS AND EVERYTHING ADDED TO IT.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WHY DID THEY BREAK IT DOWN BY POPULATION DO YOU THINK? MEANING THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE POPULATION BEFORE THEY WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS MORE DENSE CITIES OR LARGER CITIES, UM, THAT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE INFILL PARKING AREAS.
UM, MANY OF THESE BILLS FROM MY EXPERIENCE, COME FROM ONE OR TWO SITUATIONS.
ONE OR TWO CITIES, AND THEN SOMEONE CONTACTS THE SENATOR OR THE LOBBYIST DOES, I HAD AN ISSUE HERE AND THEY CREATE A BILL THAT'S BLANKETED ALL OVER THE STATE, WHICH OF COURSE I SAID, WHY DON'T Y'ALL JUST ISOLATE TO THAT CITY? BUT AGAIN, I'M ON MY, I'M ON MY SOAPBOX.
I MEAN, BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S IMPORTANT.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.
WE'RE JUST LAY PEOPLE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AS, AS, AS HOMEOWNERS AND AS TAXPAYERS.
WE'LL SEE THE RESULT IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
'CAUSE THOSE SMALL CITIES ARE GONNA TRY NOT TO GROW EVEN HARDER NOW,
WELL, THAT BEING SAID, THAT THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
THIS, UH, BRIEFING IS ADJOURNED AND WE'LL RECONVENE AT 6:30 PM.