Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] One minute. [Music] [Music] [Music] Good evening, ladies and Gentlemen, it is now 5:32 p.m. Welcome to the planning and zoning work session of Monday, July 7th, 2025. Did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed on the work session agenda? We have Megan Lash with 2025144 CP. And we also have Jose Diplin and Trevor John for 2025 145ZC and Brian BS for 2025 169Z and Megan Newman for 2025 180ZC and Kimley Horn and Associates uh for 2025 187ZC. They all signed up to speak on specific zoning cases. Did they sign up for the work session as well? Okay. Are y'all wanting to speak at the work session or during the public hearing? Okay. The Okay. We normally do that end at the work at the public hearing in the evening session. So, if there's anybody who's who signed up who's wanting to speak um at the work session, we don't we don't ask questions of you at this time. uh is just a chance for people to speak during the uh as a public comment section. Um so if there was anybody who wanted to speak in that context as opposed to in connection with uh your specific public hearing, you're you're certainly welcome to do so. Is there anybody? Um you can give it to the staff. any copies between sessions. Yeah. Great. All right. And I think um April's going to work on getting copies for us of the materials that were just passed so we can have a chance to look at those before the evening session. Thank you, sir. All right. Uh since the there is anybody else who'd like to speak during the public comment section, um we will go on to next item on our agenda, a report on the city council meeting decisions of June 12th and June 26th. Is there anything further beyond what was in our packet? No. All right. Report on the planning and development committee meeting of June 26th. Was there anybody here who was at it who could report on it? I believe Debbie attended, but she's obviously not here tonight. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, we'll get to hear from her about that later. All right. Well, then we'll move on to review of the public hearing items for this evening. Uh we do have two plats that are being uh moved from the consent agenda for disapproval to the uh consent agenda for approval. Those two plats are um 2025 127PL. The name is Malaria North Main Street Edition. And Haley, can you give me a nod to confirm? Is the other one Central Center Park? Okay. Apologies. These were very, very late resubmitts this afternoon, but they are in good shape. They've been double checked and checked. So, the uh second one is 2025-201-PL Center Park Estates. Okay, great. Right. Did anybody have any questions about the specific plat? No. All right. Then I think we can go on to the individual items. Mr. Chair, our secretary is not here tonight. I don't know if she was going to be attendance or not. So if not, you may want to select someone else to be the secretary for tonight and read the plats. Okay. We can do that later. Yeah. I mean, hopefully she'll be able to make it. Uh, the first case is um 2025 144 CP or excuse me 411 SFP and I believe that's Haley. So this is item number nine, right? Sorry, Ken's out tonight, so we're all pinch hitting. What's going over presentation. Can't see This is not It's not over yet. It's It's working on it. Sorry. Sorry y'all. It's a big one. Do you want us to go off for maybe five minutes or It's at 65%. So you can go in the Just go to the item on the right hand side on the right. Go down the little There you go. Okay. It's got all the It's got the slides there. Oh, it does. If you keep scrolling. Okay. It'll be ready here. And then close both sides. Good. Okay. All right. Sorry about that, y'all. Um, name is Haley Rick Pler here. Um, I'll be going over our first case. So, this is the 2024 411 SFP. This is located at 806 South Loop 12. Um, they are requesting a special fence plan. Um, as you can see, this is where they are located in the vicinity. So, pretty much that South Irving area. Yeah. Is that better? Okay. Um, southern area. Here's more of the closer up area where it is for the future land use. We got regional commercial and this is the surrounding zoning. These are the property owners that were notified. And then this is the plan that they're proposing. So they've had an existing chain link fence along uh loop 12 for many years. Uh recently Tex thought um acquired some of that right ofway so which made them have to take down their fence and now they're just wanting to rebuild a new one. Uh they are wanting to do it 1 and 1/2 ft and 2 and 1/2 ft from the property line. Um we got to this because traffic had some concerns about uh concerns about sight. So that's where the one and 1/2 and the 2 and 1/2 ft come into play. Um the fence is going to be 8 foot our panel screening. So it's going to be a full f metal fence. Um it will have a gate. It'll be an electric sliding gate, but the gate itself will be out of iron rod. So, you can have that visibility through there. Let's see. The fence that they're wanting to build, would it be in the same space place where the current one is mostly? Um, it's a little bit closer in. Um, and that's kind of where the variance is because of since it's a basically how we have it is they need a 10-ft setback. Um, but looks like there's 18 here. So, if they were to do the 10 ft, it would cut off a bunch of it. So, that's why they're requesting power up. Okay. Go ahead and talk. Okay. But they're they're not gaining space by building the fence. They they're actually going to be losing some. Yes. Yeah. This is just um Yeah, they lost some and so they're just trying to put as much as keep as much as they can that's existing. Um and the gate itself, there was a gate before there. It's in the same location. And it's just new materials and slightly higher. Believe it was 6 foot before had chain link and barb wire on the top. And now, like I said, it's that R panel just flat with the gate. And if they were to move the you said the the minimum distance is the 10 foot set back. If they were to move that fence 10 ft to the east on that western side of the property, there's a building there. It looked like they're able to go back and forth along there and they would they would lose that that access, wouldn't they? They would yeah they would lose like let's see this this line right here has 18 feet. So if you put 10 feet then it'd be pretty close and then this would be really close the building would be really close to the where the fence would be. Um they're currently a well they have been for many decades a auto repair um shop and so they keep use a lot of this for their outdoor storage of vehicles while they're being operated or you know being fixed and everything. So that's kind of why he's wanted to keep the land as well so he has more room for more cars. Yeah. But they would they would lose that access effectively in terms of being able to drive through there on that right right there where your pointer is. I see what you're saying now. Yeah, right there possibly. Yeah, unless he just immediately turns that way and then and like goes around, but yeah, it'd be Yeah, it'd be pretty tricky. Okay, so question for you. by putting up the metal fence that they're doing. This would also bring them in compliance with code enforcement and stuff like that, right? As far as outside storage being behind a blind fence and everything else. Yes. They would no longer be non-conforming compliant because the thing's been there forever. So, yeah. And that's what the properties down south of them have. They have the the metal fencing, it seemed like. Not all of them. Um here let me show the so this is what this is we had to do Google street view for these but this was what the fence was existing. Um so the south so this one does yes have a blind fence but the one to the north of it they have a screening fence but they are also closer from loop 12 or farther from loop 12 and then this is the loop 12. though. Any questions? Looks like no. Thanks. All righty. Good evening. Gina Castanza Grant, senior planner in the planning department. Um, I will be presenting all of Ken's cases tonight. So, if you see any staff reports with his name, um I will be presenting on his behalf. Uh the next case is 2025 144 CP. It's located at 1415 West Airport Freeway. Uh there's a um zoning case and multif family concept plan that is also a companion case to this. So, we'll kind of go over them uh together. The master plan or uh future land use plan portion of the request is uh asking to change the designation from traditional neighborhood to mid-density residential. Uh staff recommendation is for approval. We did not receive any uh comment forms from surrounding property owners in support or opposition. This is an aerial view of the subject property. the future land use map and the surrounding zoning map, property owner notification map. And this is just a brief description of each of uh the both the existing and proposed future land uses. Uh the traditional neighborhood is typically your uh mix of single family type homes um including uh duplexes and mid-density residential is uh strictly a multif family product uh with our RMF1 RMF2 zoning districts as the primary uh zoning categories for uh criteria for change. Uh what we look at when we are changing from one non-residential district to uh a primar another primarily residential use uh we would require the following that it is physically appropriate uh adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Uh residential use is part of the mixeduse development that it will not result in any shortage of land designated for non-residential development. uh that the resoning does not leave a residual tract um of non-residentidentially zoned property. Uh the resoning provides uh appropriate transition between the uses. This is the related zoning case ZC 2020 or 202554-Z multif family concept plan is 2025 143 MFCP. Uh this particular case they are asking to change the zoning from RMF2 um or multif family residential 2 that also uh includes Yes. Is this the companion case? Correct. Yeah. I guess just the map's wrong. Uh, apology. Yeah, the text is correct. The map is not. Okay. Sorry about that. Um, the existing zoning is RMF2. It also lies within the state highway 183 overlay. Um, they are basically changing it to the same exact district. Um however requiring a site plan because under the new standards um they do need some variances in order to comply with the multif family development standards. Staff is recommending approval. We did not receive any comments uh in support or opposition. Uh just to kind of explain what they're doing here with the uh aerial view, they are going to be completely scraping the existing structures and rebuilding uh with a completely new layout. The number of units is staying exactly the same. So the density is not changing in any way. It will just be um in a different form uh that is modernized and they are needing several variances just due to the layout of the site and the new requirements for uh multif family development standards. Again, this future land use map surrounding zoning notification. This is their proposed site plan. Uh some of the uh variances are listed in the table on the right hand side. Um the required density is 18 units per acre. Um they are looking at uh 37.6 units per acre. However, again they are recreating the exact number of units that they've already got. Um maximum lot coverage. they're uh requesting a variance or not requesting a variance. And for lot coverage um by parkings, buildings and driveways uh maximum permitted is 70%, they are asking to go to 79. Uh in another category of variances, uh they are requesting uh parking variances for the different uh different types of units. Uh the space requirements are based on whether it's a studio, onebedroom, two-bedroom or threebedroom. Uh they are required to have 201 spaces. Um they are proposing 154 so a variance of uh 23.4%. And how many spaces do they have right now? Um the report shows it's increasing 20 parking spaces from the existing development. So Okay. So more parking. Yeah, right. It's still providing more. It's just a tight space and trying to fit everything in. That's why there all the various are necessary. Okay. Thank uh this is uh another set of tables uh listing the additional variances. Uh I'm not sure if you want me to go over them uh individually. Uh, the only one that really caught my attention was the the three stories. Um, it looked to me like I mean most of the structure currently is two stories, but it did seem like there was a part of it that was had a third story or I was a little bit confused by how that building. Um, worked. I guess in order to um keep the same number of units and also get the variances they're proposing to go higher with a portion of the building. Do we have a sense of what how much of the building would be three stories? Um I am not positive. They are not required to submit um elevations. So I do not know. I know this wasn't your case. Do you happen to know what the the part of their structure that looks like a third story is? Uh, let's see if they have I want to see if they have any. Yeah, you could see it just a second ago. You know, one right there. The for next one just before that. No, be the other direction. Yeah. I'm just looking to see if they have any. They keep skipping over it. I'm sorry. I'm trying to see if they have any. You can see it in the back there on the right. Yeah, it's Yeah, everything else is two stories and then there's another third story there. piece. I was trying to see if they did have any um proposed uh illustrative drawings, but I am not seeing any. No. Were the any of the other variances anybody wanted to ever speak to? I had I had a question. I I don't know if you I saw as part of the background that there was uh tax credit funding I guess that's been approved for this. So are any of these like how they've proposed to build it or maintaining the density? Was that part of them getting the package they got or can you can you speak to what what that represents? I think we'd rather let the applicant I mean it's this this does have to match what their proposal was to the state. So it it should have been consistent the whole way through. Um I I we don't know the the details of it but I they they can give you that information but typically those what what they propose and what they get the credits for have to be consistent. Thanks. And do we have a chart that shows how these variances are different than what we they currently are doing? We we don't we talked about that, but there were so many we weren't able to get all the level of of detail. Um but because there are so many variances, we actually discussed that among staff is kind of showing the before and after. We we'll try to get that for council. We just didn't have time to get that for PNC. Okay. We can go ahead and just go quickly through the site photos. Uh just looking at the subject property with the channel that's to the east. Uh subject property and adjacent uh property to the west. Residential property to the north uh on the interior of the site. And again, back to the site plan. So, any other questions that anyone would like to discuss? Any other questions? No. Great. Thank you. Okay. This all righty. Hello again. I'll be speaking about uh zoning case 202558ZC. This is located at 861 Hope Lane. Um the currently it is zoned generalized site plan for single family residential 6 and I wanted to do another generalized site plan for single residential 6. Um this will be a variance to the reorder setback. After review uh the staff finding is no unnecessary hardship and in terms of public comment there's been one letter in support and none in opposition. This has been a case that was um heard last time but since applicant wasn't here we postponed it. So this is the an aerial that where the house is future land use is that traditional neighborhood again the existing zoning. These are the property owners that were notified and this is the site plan. Um I don't know if you guys remember about this case but the current site plan has it to where the lots are smaller in area uh but still have the same setbacks as R six. So, smaller lots, bigger setbacks in proportion to regular R six lots. Um, what they have done is it's already built or almost completely built. Um, it's a into the rear rear yard setback is a kind of covered patio with an addition of a storage room. So, this is the subject property and then this is pictures that were provided by the applicant. So, this is where kind of more of the patio is and this is where the room is. Um, they submitted that around June 19th. Um, I believe they've halted construction uh till the case has gone through. Um, but I'm open to any comments or questions you have about this case. And this one, most of the other houses in that little chunk have similar patios or storage whatnot back behind them that encroach on the setback, right? Yeah, there has been the varying degree of how much um I would say is definitely different, but yeah, a lot of them do have some kind of patio or and I don't know if that's something the they did the subdivision or the developer did long ago and didn't realize it was, you know, but the a lot of them have had them for a long time. So, this wouldn't be out of keeping with the houses there in that block in terms of like having addition. Yes. Um, it wouldn't it wouldn't be different in terms of how far they're encroaching into the setback might be a little bit of a different situation, but in terms of having a covered patio in their backyard is not unusual for that area. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? This is strictly out of curiosity. Um, for like new additions, does P does it go through PNZ or the planning development? If it encroaches into the rear yard setback, it's supposed to. Um, it's if they can build it and they're not in their setback, then they just have to go to permitting. Um, but a lot of especially since these, let's see, I believe it's six these six homes right here. Um, since they're smaller than our six, but they still have that like 20 and 25 foot setbacks, you know, front and rear. So, um, so it makes things a little bit more smooshed so they don't have as much to work with. Um, but I apologize. I think you just answered that. I am so sorry. No, no, you're fine. Sorry. No, it's a it's a very interesting P&Z today, so you're good. Any other questions? Right. Thank you. All right. This is items 13 and 14. Yes, that's correct. Uh the next case is uh 2025-64-CP and it also has uh a companion multif family concept plan and a development plan. Um, we did see this uh I think it was a full presentation during the May meeting. They then postponed to June. At June, they postponed to July. So, it's been a while. I don't know if you want me to go through another full presentation again or if y'all just Are there any changes in their proposal? There are not. And I I did notice we do now have some letters in support and opposition. Correct. Uh we received a few more. Um, in total, four in support, in total seven in opposition. Uh, they did, uh, apparently have two meetings with different uh, homeowners groups during the last month. Um, they did not provide me with a lot of detail and I said that was fine. They they would be able to present that to you tonight uh, just to let you know what the what the feelings were from the adjacent homeowners. Is does Would anybody like a refresher on this one? Yeah. Okay. This is the residences, right? They're trying to convert. Yeah. Oh, so that the office building that they want to convert and then they want to build the what 14story building. Oh, yeah. That's right. Yeah. Do you want to sort of go through it? No, I I remember you do. Okay. But anybody everybody else Okay. All right. Then I think we're we're ready to go. Okay. That's good. I think the next one is Haley again. Let's see. All right, hang on. This is Ken's. And I do promise we tried to get a crash course, but when you don't carry the case from beginning to end can be a little challenging. Uh the next case is 2025-145-ZC located at 3431 Finley Road. Uh the request is to change the zoning from CN or neighborhood commercial and an uh generalized site plan for CN and self- storage uses to uh the same SP2 for CN uh with self- storage and an accessory uh indoor storage. Uh the staff is recommending approval. There are no comments uh in support or opposition. This is the aerial photo, future land use map, surrounding zoning, uh notification map, boundary, and this is their proposed uh site plan. They are asking for uh several variances. Um the first one is regarding um self- storage uses not being permitted in the CN district. So they are um in an effort to keep a less intense zoning district and just adding that use of uh self storage with the ability to uh allow up to 75,000 square ft of self- storage uses. um for their parking designation. Um they also need a variance. The reason I have highlighted uh the one space per 350 square feet in your staff report there was a typo. It said uh one space per 350 spaces. So um just wanted to clarify that's a that's a slight uh increase from the 300 square ft. One space for 300. They're asking for one space for 350 square ft. Uh and then uh for the self- storage and indoor uh storage, they're asking to uh have one space per 7,500 square ft. They are also asking a variance for uh the loading area. Um they're going to have loading areas for all units. Uh rather than one per 70 and the uh shelf storage maximum height self storage maximum height of 25 ft um they're asking to go to 40 with all the other buildings being 30 ft. Um oh could you go back one second on the self storage? What's normally required? What is the one space per how how many feet? Um we don't really have a requirement. So they are basically establishing it. Okay. So it says variance but there isn't currently a requirement. Yes. Correct. And the variance is is for the the office portion I guess more so because that actually does need a variance. The other one is actually establishing. Okay. Uh again, this is their uh more detailed or illustrative plan, but um since they are asking for a generalized plan, this is just for uh uh an idea of how the site will be laid out, but um not for approval tonight. Um this is just a chart that basically shows what uses um would be permitted uh versus prohibited per the site plan. So they have um prohibited certain uses such as convenience stores, uh restaurants, indoor amusement, event centers, private clubs, um public and private recreational areas, hospitals, nursing home, pharmacy, parking lot, government buildings, and public utility uses. This is looking at the subject property from Finley Road and the property to the west. Looking at the property from Country Club, and this is residential property that exists to the east, commercial property to the south, uh multif family also to the south, and I would be happy to answer any other questions that you have. So, this is a I know there's a storage facility that's on that same block. So, is this just adding a second one in that vacant space there? Um, I believe the one that you're referring to is just to the south of it. So, yes, it would be an additional facility on the same block. Yes. Was there any particular reason why they needed the the various variances? I think it's just because of the shape of the site. Triangular sites are always pretty challenging. Um, but I will I'll I'll leave that to them to explain in further detail once we get to the public hearing. And how many stories would this end up being? Um, I'm not sure how many stories. Three stories. So, the mini warehouse would be three stories and all the retail or commercial would be one. Okay. But we don't know where those different portions would be. I mean, I know this is illustrative, so they could put them wherever. They're proposing the single family um or I'm sorry, the single story along Country Club and the threetory back here and then another single story over here. Are are they bound by that or is that just illustrative for us? That is just illustrative. Yeah, they're proposing to have it kind of internally oriented, but if they choose, if they look at it closely and and make it more of a typical strip center where you've got the building in the back and the parking in the front, they would be able to do that. I mean, that the variances would just give them some flexibility, but if they don't need all the variances, that's that would be okay, too. They could still build to that. And how high could they build it without the height variance? I believe like two stories. Is it CN? I think 25 in CN. I think believe it's 30 feet. 25 or 30 feet. 25 to 30. Well, and actually they would they would be they would have to comply with the self- storage maximum height which is only 25 because that overrides whatever's in the CN district if this gets approved for the use. Right. Right. Done with the commercial. Any other questions? Yeah. Uh, just for my own benefit, I when they list the permitted uses and prohibited uses, is is this something that's required when designated neighborhood commercial or is this their effort to to limit uses to what they want? I understand the discussion was based around the parking because they were they had minimal parking. They wanted to take out some of the restaurant and some of the retail uses that were a little more uh had a little more traffic. So, I understand that's where the discussion started as to why they even had some, you know, even listed some of the ones they wanted to remove. There you go. Any other questions? Looks like that's it. Thank you. So, item 16. [Music] All righty. So, this next case is going to be for 2025 166 ZC. This is located at 105 South Main Street. This is the D Rozanis. I'm sure some of you guys are familiar with it. Currently, the zoning is um Heritage Crossing District for a quarter mixed use and they're going to change the zoning to detailed site plans for the restaurant with a tendant accessory use for the sale of alcohol beverages for on-remise consumption. Um after staff review, we recommend approval. In terms of public comment, there has been one letter in support and none in opposition. This is the aerial The future land use being Main Street downtown surrounding zoning. These are the property owners that were notified and this is their site plan. Um they aren't asking for any variances at this point in terms of the use. Um they've been in an existing restaurant for many years. Um they're just now wanting to add that alcohol consumption to their to their property. And so this is subject property. So you can see to the north and to the south are those two businesses. So you have an event center. To the south and to the north it looks like it's a law office or some kind of offices. This is across the street. Um Google has it as big state. I believe that's now the rocking crab which is also an RAB. Um and I'm showing you this because um we have a the 300 ft um door to door from protected uses. So that would be schools, churches, and um residences. Um it was discovered that kind of late last week that there was a church. This is the picture of the church. It's about 250 ft away from door to door. Um we we kind of had some questions on if it was an actual operational church or if it was, you know, this used to be the old pigeon hole location. Um, so there's been some tenants kind of in and out throughout the years and so, but anyway, we did um make contact with the um the person who's leasing out the person of the church and he said it is active. Um, the applicant's aware that it would be a separate variance request um for that distance. Um, but he just wanted to go ahead and have it shown tonight. Um, you guys are more than welcome to request a postponement. um if you want to have them both together, but um the applicant what would rather just have the zoning case done first and then come back for the variance for the distance and this distance variance would not be would not go through PNC. We go straight to city council. I just wanted to Oh, the one from the from the church, right? If if they if they for the alcohol distance variance for their TABC license would would just go straight to city council. Okay. Okay. So, if we if we postponed then it would it would still have to wait on us to get to deal with it before then the council could consider that. It's not like we would then be considering them both issues together, right? It would just give time for us to sub, you know, send the notices, get the applications, send the notices, just processing time. Okay. One quick question because there's an event center that's next to uh the restaurant. Are they do they already have a a license to serve alcohol? Let's see. Yeah, it doesn't look like it. But the restaurant across the street from does and it's also within the distance. Yeah. So, and yeah, that's the thing. It's rocking. It must have popped up within, you know, we don't know when the church really I believe it was CO was like either end of last year, beginning of this year. That's when the CO was issued for that location. And this might have ZC14. So this was done years ago. So it was before that church came by. Did the restaurant previously have like the uh alcohol like Bob permit or is this just entirely new alcohol? I thought I thought I thought so. They're not sure. I know the applicant's here so he could um answer that. Um but yeah, I'm not sure about the the BYOB but yeah. Any other questions? Thank you. Item 17. The next case is 2025-169-Z located at 2432 West 6th Street. The applicant is uh currently zoned R75 um single family residential 7.5 and they are requesting a generalized site plan uh for the same with uh variance for paving and uh fence in the yard. Uh the staff finding is no undue hardship and we did not receive uh any comment forms in favor or in opposition. This is the property under consideration and the future land use map surrounding zoning map property owner notification. And this is uh the site plan. This case uh did come about as a code enforcement uh citation. So uh code enforcement noticed um the driveway um and how the concrete extended uh beyond what is typically permitted. So uh they attempted to contact the owner. Eventually, they were in contact with the owner and uh maintained that if they wanted to keep the concrete in its current location, they would need to um get a building permit for it. Uh they then proceeded to our inspections department for a permit. And uh once the permitting department reviewed the proposed or the existing uh driveway for zoning requirements, uh it was realized that uh the pavement is not in accordance with uh the driveway requirements for residential driveways on a corner lot. Um when we have a corner lot, there is an additional uh setback of concrete required within the first 10 ft uh due to um uh traffic manual requirements. So uh there's just an additional uh setback for this concrete right here that would normally not exist or be approved as part of a permit. Um the applicant does maintain that uh the reason they constructed uh the driveway um and the related retaining wall because the elevations on that part of the lot are quite uh high. So they they also installed a retaining wall to support that additional concrete. Uh the applicant does maintain that they have had several accidents um at that intersection. uh he was unaware that a permit was required and so he just uh did the work um himself. Uh during the review we also noted that uh there is a 6ft wooden fence that um is in this portion of the property here. This particular lot is a reverse frontage lot which is when the rear yard back here is um adjacent to a front yard of another home. Uh there is an unimproved alley here um at the bottom of their uh property line. However, the alley is not considered um a barrier for not uh observing that that rule for the set the additional fence setback on this portion of the property. Uh just from uh visual uh inspections on Google Maps, uh years ago there was a 4 foot chain link fence here on this side of the property. And sometime around maybe 217 2017, it was uh improved also without a permit um to a 6-ft fence uh solid wood fence on this portion of the lot. um we just informed the applicant that it would be wise to go ahead and request the variance for that um at the same time that they were requesting the variance for uh the driveway expansion. Uh this is the subject property. You can see this is the driveway um addition in question here. This is looking to the east, to the north, across the street, uh, northwest caddy corner. And this is the side where the retaining wall was installed. You can see here up until that um, fence in the rear yard begins. And this concrete extends uh, the full length of um, that proper. it goes exactly to the property line. We're not positive, I don't think, if um because it was done without a permit. We're not sure if the retaining wall is actually um on the property line or slightly over and falls within the rightway. Uh a survey of the actual improvements would um help indicate that. Again, another look at uh the entrance of the driveway. And these were just some photos that code enforcement um submitted and I am happy to answer any questions you have. Can you go back to the photo of the property? This caddy corner. So that has a retaining wall there fence seems pretty similar in terms of the boundary lines to this one. I mean, and it seemed like several of the other properties, the one behind it, the one right across the street, I think similarly the fence lines like that are not set back. In this particular instance, they do have two rear yards that are directly adjacent. So, this is this one is not backing up to a front yard here. Um, we do allow retaining walls up to 2 feet without a permit. Um if they go beyond that, a permit and some engineering is required. Okay. So that retaining wall was installed without a permit and wasn't presumably didn't need to have a permit. It is very possible. Um we usually do not investigate unless a complaint has been made and the owner does maintain that he believes there are other situations in the neighborhood that exist like that. What's the height of that retaining wall that they built? Um, he did not give me an exact number, but he said it's between 3 and 1/2 and 4T. So, if they were to have built a 2T rather, and this would not trigger correct for permit or that's correct. However, they still would have to remove some of this concrete here so that for the first 10 feet that concrete doesn't go all the way to the property line. Explain me one more time. Sorry. How's that different than the property across? Because I see they have very little um uh setback on that one too. Um so, whoops. The one that's apologies. So, they don't have the driveway on the corner side. they have their driveway on the interior side. Um there are just additional requirements for driveways when they are close to the right of way like that. Um Cody might be able to shine a little bit more light on why that is. Yes, we're talking about driveways. I think um so our access management manual that we keep in traffic goes over location of driveways, geometry, sizes. Once you get on to the private side where they've extended, they did not touch their approach in this case. Um the private side improvements are governed by the the city ordinance under the residential driveways section. Um, and I think the reason more for that that 10 feet is really not to encourage people to one drive on the sidewalk. Um, have some maneuvering room when they get into their approach to to actually turn. So, they start turning. As soon as that, they're driving over the sidewalk. Um, I think that's kind of the reasons behind it. But, um, can you go back to the the property that's right across the street? that one. Okay. So, there is a a further gap there. They have they have the wide driveway, but it's it's much further away from the property. Much further away in terms of where it's set, but they clearly expanded their driveway beyond what normally would have been. I mean, it goes beyond the the normal driveway entrance area. Gina, can you go back to the other picture? Just have a question. this one or the actual house? The actual house. Uh, one more that shows the sidewalk. So, are we talking about that lip piece that falls into the sidewalk is where you said they may have to Yes. tear the concrete up because the entryway into their driveway is away from the curb. Yeah. How much of that would they have to tear out? Yeah. So the the ordinance on the private side improvements, I believe everything they reference is from the property line. So it' be 10 ft from the property line. Um you got the green space and then you have the sidewalk and then essentially the property line is about the edge of the sidewalkish maybe edge of the sidewalk. Yeah. So the far edge or or the the the far edge is typically one foot past the far edge of the sidewalk into the property is where it typically is. We had to look at a survey to know exactly where it is. So they might have to remove like five feet or so of the concrete. It would be approximately 11 ft from the back of the sidewalk going into the property. So basically the line would have to come 10 ft from from this property line here, the green line. They'd have to come back 10 ft and then have this curve right here. Do we know by any chance if that retaining wall h was engineered at all? I do not know, but I know the applicant is here, so I'm sure he could answer for you. Do we know what was there before that retaining wall was there? Yes, just grass. Just grass. Mhm. Okay. Any other questions? Um, real quick, sorry. No, it's okay. What's triggering this cause? Is it the retaining wall or is it that is attached to the driveway? So, if their driveway was away just like the other houses, then this would not have been the issue or they would have still have to go back on their concrete. Um, correct. If the concrete had been um if permit had been obtained, we would have gone through that process with the owner to explain what the design needed to be. And if um with that driveway needing that retaining wall, we would have also required the permit for uh the retaining wall to support the driveway further into the property because of that height difference. Okay. Thank you. If they had done the driveway on the other side of their long-term drive, would they needed a zoning variance for that or it's just been a permit? just a permit. But they would have had to made sure that the apron the the mouth of the driveway was the same width as the driveway is. They couldn't have stayed with that 12t. They couldn't do what the people across the street from them did because theirs extends theirs extends beyond the the mouth of the driveway. Well, they go that picture because it's you're supposed to have if you have a twocar driveway, you should have a a twocar. Yeah, theirs goes over past where and this is Cody can comment. This is we kind of went up and down the street a little bit. It's it's pretty common. This is one of the better ones, but at least it's wider than the just one single car driveway. It It's also hard to to know. the the wording in the code states that the driveway can't been be any wider than it needs to serve whatever doors are in the garage and a lot of these homes have just had garage conversions over the year. So over the years it's difficult to know where the original doors may have been and I know he he does have um safety concerns. I know that was part of the reason why he explained uh the the height of the retaining wall, but I know he is prepared to explain uh those reasons to you in the public hearing. So, just to summarize the the variance they're needing variances they are needing in order to leave things as they are would be for the fence for the portion of the driveway that comes up close to the road, but then also for the retaining wall. Yes. Well, the variance doesn't necessarily need to apply to the retaining wall. They just should have had a permit for it. Yeah, but I mean that's not something we're deciding. But I mean, like, are they needing a variance for the rest of the driveway that goes up to the property line or just the portion that comes down to the sidewalk? Just the portion that comes down to the sidewalk. So, it's just two variances. a fence variance and for the portion of the new driveway that comes that slopes down and gets close to the intersection. Correct. They only need the permit for the retaining wall and but we but we don't have any authority over that part. No, but part of it might need to be taken out if the determination is that the driveway needs to be redesigned. Yeah. He can't get the permit unless as to what he's done unless the zoning changes for those two things. Correct. Well, another challenge could be because it's a corner lot is the spacing of the driveway approach to the corner. So, even if he does widen it, can we get a twocar essentially apron back close to the intersection? And that, you know, again, might be a Cody question, but being a corner lot is what really kind of threw a lot of this into into haywire. Yeah. But that is that an a component of what we're voting on today? You're not voting on it per se, but you could you could allow the 10 foot pavement to stay, but you still may not be able to get because once we get past the property line, then we're into traffic code. We're in right of way and so we still may not get the permit to widen the driveway to the point that it needs to be widened. So then what happens? They tear it out. I mean, yeah. Well, yeah. Exactly. What would happen then? I mean, because Cody could probably Cody could probably agree with this from a concrete guy standpoint. You'll never get your radius on that corner to the property line. So, you'll never you'll never get a twocar approach. Yeah. Yeah. So, as it stands now, we consider this driveway grandfathered since our codes were officially adopted in 2019. Okay. So, if they are to rebuild the whole thing, um there's a 10-foot separation that's required from the end of the radius, which is where it becomes straight with the road. You go 10 feet and that's where they can begin their new radius. So, that's that's the minimum on residential lots. So the whole driveway if they wish to build a whole new approach would have to shift away from the corner but not get but as it is right now they don't have to do that like they if we approve what they have you know on the zoning side of it if we approve these two changes or really the the concrete one here they don't then for traffic purposes have to come back and fix the rest of it at this time. Now, our our manual just governs the approach itself. Nothing on the private side. Um, so a residential driveway can be anywhere between 12 and 24 ft. So, they can be anywhere in that range and meet it. Now, what they do on the private side, our manual says you can widen it, but it also has to meet the residential driveway section of the ordinance is where this But he would never be able to do that. So, I mean, he wouldn't be able to widen it, but he would he wouldn't have to pull it out. If we approve this, he's not going to then have to break it up anyway. What they're saying is permitting can make him take it all. Well, see, that's why I was trying to clarify is it sounded like he was saying Cody was saying that it's grandfathered. If it's grandfathered, then then permitting wouldn't make him have to tear it out. Yeah. Just just the approach itself. So, in from the sidewalk to the street, that little ride ofway section Mhm. is grandfather perco private side our code doesn't really go into the variance would be to the the ordinance section of the residential driveways that that spell out that 10 foot um so I think you can have an expansion on site without doing the approach but you had to have that that 10 foot offset so it's really the first 10 feet that is getting the variance that but if we give the variance then he's got that that that's why I'm trying Like I don't want to end up in a situation if we were to approve this that then we approve it and he goes down the road to get the permit and they're like, "Ah, no, you don't get to do it anyway." That's that's a pretty lousy deal. If if we if we know it's not going to get approved regardless, uh that that's certainly would be relevant to me to know. But if it is if if if we approve the variance, is he going to get to keep it? Will building inspections follow our recommendation? I guess that's the easiest way to answer that. Well, when it comes to the driveway, it's it's traffic. So, traffic would be the one that would make that determination. The concern I know that's why I keep pointing at Cody. That's where this this this Will you follow our recommendations, Cody? The the concern is I just wanted to add the concern and we we didn't we had a a picture that didn't make it the slide. is they're going over the curb. So once if that 10 foot stays, they're essentially driving over the curb and driving over the sidewalk in lie of expanding the driveway and they can't expand the driveway because it's too close to the corner. That that's the catch 22 that we're in. Real quick, sorry. So what if that new part that they built was not being used as a driveway and they actually put a separator between the two with either gravel or grass or something in between and it is no longer attached to the driveway because this initial concern was safety not the use of the driveway. So, if there was a one or two feet of space with either gravel or grass in there, now it's no longer attached to a driveway. Well, like I said, you're that it's no longer traffic's concerned, right? Yeah. Like I said, the the private side improvements aren't really governed by my manual. Um, so as far as my manual goes, they they can do what what they said. Okay. But like I said, the variance would be to the ordinance side. The ordinance side that I don't control. Yeah. No, I Well, I get that the variance side of it is our problem and then the council's problem. I just want to make sure that there's not another problem that the property owner would get hit with even if we and council or council especially uh approved the variance. I think it's going to take some special consideration on this from the city's part because there is no way and you could probably agree Cody there's no way to bring this thing in compliance on the corner. There's no way at all. No, not where it currently sits today. No. Yeah, I had a similar pro problem. I just made foot and a half space and put gravel in there. It was no longer connected to driveway. Any other questions? All right, on to the next one. All righty. This is for zoning case 225173ZC. This is located at 8350 North MacArthur Boulevard, sweet 120. They're currently um PUD for SP1RAB and they're wanting to do another SP1 RAB, but they're wanting to have a variance to the required parking. Um after staff review, there was no undue hardship. In terms of public comment, there was one in support and then in opposition. Um this was a case that was heard earlier this year. Um they did get approval for the RAB. So that tradition future land uses business office surrounding zoning and then property owners that were notified and this is their site plan. Um initially when they were going through their initial rebc process um they thought that the amount of parking spaces that they had would allow the amount of seats. Um but then after kind of getting the approval and kind of moving forward with their plans they realized that they'd really like to have more seating inside the restaurant. Um so they want to add additional 25 seats and because of parking for it is for a restaurant is one space for every 2.5 seats. Um so that mean them needing more parking. Well with this site um it's there's no there's no leftover parking. Um if anything it's kind of overparked. Um and the amount that they have they're maxed out. And so that's where that 25 or 26 spaces comes from. That's what they are allotted right now through inspections. Um, but they're requiring a 36 or a variance to 36 spaces. So, um, 10 spaces is what the variance is. And then this is the suite. And then this is northwest of the subject property. And this is south of the subject property. East and north. And I'm open to any comments or questions. Any questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you. All right. Item 19. All righty. And this is mine as well. Um, so this is for special fence plan. So 2025 178 SFP. This is located at 506 Collins Drive. Um, the request is a variance to allow a 6ft tall solidwood fence. Uh that's with an acquired 15- foot streetyard setback on a reverse frontage lot. Um after review, uh staff finding was no undue hardship. In terms of public comments, um at the last minute there was one there was none in support and then there was one in opposition. And so this is the subject property. And then the green is kind of where the majority of the new fence would be for that location. future land use traditional neighborhood surrounding zoning property owners that were notified and then this is their site plan. Um so we did get signoffs from all departments. Um one concern initially was from traffic in terms of a the site triangle or sight lines. Um, that's why on this side it starts about five feet from the property line, but as it goes further down like towards the back of the property along Fifth Street, it gets closer and closer to the property line. There is also a retaining wall on part of this property. Um, and per Gary and CIP, it would have to be on the other side of it. So, it would have to be between the retaining wall, then the fence, and then the rest of the property in the backyard. Um, let's see. So this is subject property. They're neighbors to the south, neighbors across the street at the west. And this is that fifth street. So along kind of where that fence is going to be. You can kind of see how right now they have a a chain link fence with some shrubs. Um there was also a comment about um from water about possibly needing an encroachment agreement into the utility easement. Um, after talking with Ashley, she said that there shouldn't be issues in terms of that being granted. Um, since there looks like there's no actual uh utilities running in that location right now. Um, but if there's any comments or questions, I'm more than happy to answer. Uh, you said that there was one in opposition. Correct. Was that one of the neighbors? Yes. Um, trying to remember which nine. Yeah. So this kind of triangle lot. Did he mention Oh, go ahead. I was gonna say you have a form. She she had concerns about the the curve and some the visibility. So I wanted to make sure to point that out. Just a note, I was out there on Saturday and yesterday. I didn't see any of our signs at all. Yeah, special fence planes don't need signs, I believe. Yeah, right. Yeah, special fence planes don't need them. It's just a special Yeah. Yeah, it's kind of it's kind of weird. Yeah. Um that's the the one that doesn't get a sign, but um they were notified through the the newspaper. So, this would follow where that defense basically is currently and all the shrubs. It seemed pretty I mean, it doesn't show it there, but it you can't see it super well, but it was pretty dense. I Yeah, it wasn't clear to me how this was going to change the visibility. The only difference is the reason why it was okay initially was because it was chain link and it was four feet. So that visibility, but I mean but the bushes are so dense the I couldn't it seemed I mean it was much the same. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. And so in terms of this they initially wanted to put it on the property line but since it was six foot on top of retaining wall CIP was like no we're not going to do that. So um they moved it to just on the other side of the retaining wall. So, Haley, will you go back to that the picture with the chain link fence, please? It must be this way. This one? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And this would move the fence a little bit more in that that edge, right? Yeah. It would start off a little bit more in here and then as it goes back it'll start to get closer kind of taper closer closer to that property line. Um but it'll always be behind that retaining wall and that that from from traffic side of it that would adequately deal with any line of sight issues. Yeah. Though those have to when it comes in we'll make sure it's outside of our required sight lines with fifth fifth street. It's kind of a wide street so we look at the first lane of oncoming traffic. So, we're looking to cross two and a half lanes. So, that that helps them a little bit there. Any other questions? Thank you. All right. Now, item 20, right? Or 20, I think. Almost there. Hello council. Uh Dylan Harvey, plan department. Uh this first case I've presenting you. So new face. Welcome. Uh this is zoning case 2025 180Z. It's located at 2022 2233 Biscane Drive. They're currently zoned R six. They're going to a journalized site plan for R six. staff finding that there is no undue hardship and there's been no comment for support on our opposition for this. Uh here's an arrow view of the subject property future land use traditional neighborhood uh surrounding zoning notification map uh the subject property itself the house to the east to the west and to the north. Uh, and here's the site plan with the variance they're asking for. Thank any questions or comments. Any questions? Back behind it is a park, right? Yes, there's a I believe it's Bear Creek Running Park or something along that name. Yeah. Okay. Looks like that's it. Cool. All right. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Item 20 or 21. Uh the next case is 2025-186 ZC located at 361 Regent. Uh it's suites 140 and 150 within the uh an existing retail building. They are requesting uh to reszone from SP2 for CC or community commercial uh and hotel uses. Uh there is also another SP1 RAB on the site. Um they are requesting to reszone their space for SP1 RAB or a detailed site plan for a restaurant with alcoholic beverage sales. Uh the staff recommendation is for approval. Uh we did not receive any uh public comment forms and support or opposition. The red line uh outlines the lease space within the building. This is the future land use map surrounding zoning property owners that were notified and this is their overall site plan. Um the shaded area right here is the area in question. They are um an existing restaurant that is wanting to expand into the adjacent space. Uh they actually have a kitchen that is located here. So the kitchen will be able to serve both restaurants. However, um each restaurant is proposed to have their own or each space is proposed to have their own independent uh access and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Um any questions? No, doesn't I do have one. Is the entire property the development zoned for hotel and then that space is what was the hotel portion? Yes. So, if I'm correct, it was it's an old zoning district that allowed various things. It was just kind of a it was it was intended to be set up for a large development and hotel was just one of those. So, it's it was a kind of a remnant zoning. Yeah. So, it wasn't really the site. Yeah. Covers this whole piece, but I believe there's only a hotel on one small portion of the site. Gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions? On to number 22. Okay. Uh, the next one is ZC or excuse me, 2025-187-Z located Um, one second. Is that what the the packets that were handed in earlier? Um, yeah. Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and give them to us now? Hey, thank you. Great. Sorry for the interruption. No, no problem. You're fine. Uh there are quite a few addresses associated with each parcel, but basically uh it's a about a 9 acre piece of property located south of West 6th Street, east of Hilltop Drive and north of Rendy Street. Um the property owner is uh requesting to reszone from CN. There are several different uh zoning categories on the entire site. One of those is CN or neighborhood commercial. Sorry. Sorry. These packets, these don't relate to this one. They relate to the to to the to the one with the uh the driveway issue, I think. Right. Okay. Okay. Sorry, I misunderstood you. All right. Okay. Great. Great. So, there are uh just a few different zoning categories on the overall site. Uh CN, neighborhood commercial. uh RMF2 which is a multif family 2 category and R six or uh single family 6. They are requesting to bring the property into the heritage crossing district. So that zoning category would be uh heritage crossing NMU or neighborhood mixeduse. The staff is uh recommendation uh is for approval. We have public comment forms that were mailed in. There are three in support and one in opposition. This is a aerial view of the subject property. Uh you can see there are a few parcels with some existing structures. Those would be uh demolished and the property would be eventually replplatted uh to be developed. This is the heritage crossing district and the property uh highlighted in blue on the southwest portion uh is its uh proximity to the heritage district. This is the future land use map, overall zoning map, property owners who were notified and this is uh the overall uh map of Heritage Crossing District. It was uh adopted in 2017. It is a formbbased code. So it is not traditional uh zoning as we typically know it with minimum lot sizes and um uses uh that are limited to one particular parcel in a formbbased code. Uh they do allow uh mixed uses sometimes in single buildings. But for this particular property uh they are asking to bring it into the subd district that's called neighborhood mixeduse. And that is one of the district's uh subd districts that only allows residential uh uses. Again, that's uh the neighborhood mixeduse section highlighted there in uh yellow. And this property being brought into Heritage Crossing would be for that same uh district. It provides for residential uses uh compatible with the existing homes, but also allowing flexibility in housing types. uh it does not allow for any higher density residential. Uh the applicant for this particular parcel is looking to do a zero lot line single family home style product. This is their illustrative plan. Um it is not something that uh would be adopted should this be approved because they are just requesting straight zoning, no variances. Uh so it would comply with all of the the standards of the neighborhood mixeduse uh category within Heritage Crossing. Um it is showing um a design that will include for additional overflow spaces for guests. Um each home will be required to have a garage. The garage will be uh accessed where you see the little um triangles indicating uh where the garage doors will be. And the property will also have uh what the designer has called as uh muse or public spaces that will be uh along the the front side of all the units providing um hopefully some more of a neighborhood type uh feel. uh public places where the neighbors can gather um on those green spaces. Uh it was a little difficult to get photos because the site is so big. This is looking uh at the property from West Sixth Street. Um just one shot looking down uh Hilltop towards the east and the subject property from Rendy Street and West 8th Street. And I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. Our housing department has also been um very uh intricately involved with this project and so they might have some comments to offer. Gina, oh go ahead. Sorry. Um you can start you sir. Gina, uh you mentioned the garage. Is that something the city is um requiring or like the a the housing? Where does a garage thing come into effect? Uh it's two spaces are required in the heritage district for a single family structure. So they're providing the two parking spaces in the garage. And then additionally is um so I Google maps and stuff it some of the addresses is it leading into like Centennial Park? Is it a development that's kind of in that open space as well? Well, you can see the the flood plane. I mean, they'll they'll have to the part of the street. They'll have to to engineer that. So, it's not you can't develop into a park. It is property adjacent to it. And they'll be putting in a a trail and and connecting to and being part of that. Okay. But no, you you can't develop into a park. Okay. Got you, Mr. Denny. Yeah. So, I I have a couple questions just on the scope of what we're deciding. So, I I was looking at the the chart that has the the red rectangle. So, is is that what's proposed for the the what could be 760 lot line homes or is it this illustrative plan which seems to go all the way up to the street, you know, all the way closer to the river? I What what what are we approving? Yes, this is this is the boundary in red here. So, anywhere you see a red line is the actual boundary. And we do have a specific legal description that follows that path. Um we have those anytime we don't have a site plan with a physical drawing, we have that legal description that outlines that boundary very specifically with a boundary survey to go with it. Yeah. The So why why was this provided? Do you know what I'm talking about? This area. I'm looking in the packet and I see so the packet. Yeah. It was a there there should have been newer map that was noticed correctly. The the maps um there was a legal description that was submitted first and then a second legal description. And so the maps that got picked up for the packet were the ones that were were the first legal description for the smaller ones. But it was the larger property is the one that is being reszoned. So it was noticed correctly that but the packets that we had the maps were inaccurate. We apparently the the older maps got picked up and put in the packet. Mhm. Okay. So, yeah, it's a lot more property than those two two parcels. So, it looks like the undeveloped parcels that are adjacent to these red squares are they're owned by the city or this this uh other entity or both. So the the person the developer the risk theory owns these two uh rectangle parcels that you see in your packet and the city owns the rest of it. So the city is a partner in it. Well, not a partner but that part of the the development and there's will be a development agreement um or I believe a develop agreement has been approved for this property. So but part of that is they have to get it reszoned in order to allow it. Yeah. So it would be jump it would be connecting all the way close to the creek then the development. Yes. But it's not part of the park. This is the property the city's parking. Yeah. The city's property goes up to the creek. Um the city would sell the property and then they would develop that. Uh so then at that go ahead. I'd actually lost. Would there be a are were you saying that there would be a trail built on that side of the creek then or? No. I'll let him get into the details. This has been our Good evening. Aldis spec um housing and redevelopment senior manager there. As part of the agreement that we have, they would be building a uh creek that would then connect down mean a trail. Uh sorry, a trail that would connect down to the sidewalk here. And I guess going back to that one aerial, you'll see that there's this is the trail that connects over to Center Park. kind of that might be what you're referring to. Um, but this trail that would be built would connect to the sidewalk which then allows residents now to be able to get from Sixth Street on this side of the creek over. Is that your question? Well, Centennial Parks further up this way. So, this trail here will be here and they can it leads into center. Are you Are you Sorry, Amela. Are you a part of the city? I'm Yes, I'm with the housing and redevelopment division. Okay. Apologies. I'm sorry. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. And if uh if you want I just wanted just in terms of understanding what we're deciding. I there was a map that showed the heritage district, but it looked like this was right next to that district. Yes. So it's just so it's just to the uh southwest of the district. So it's this part. Are we are we deciding to designate it something that that applies to the heritage district. Correct. So, we're essentially expanding the district. Correct. So, the this map is uh this orange is the neighborhood mixed juice, the one that has the lowest uh intensity, if you will, a residential intensity, and it would be just applied right here. So, just be coming to the southwest corner of if you were looking at the district that way. At this point, it does kind of just seem like it's using the heritage name just to market for it because it's pretty separate from actual heritage. In regards to development wise, we consider this whole area when we're looking at redeveloping downtown. But for the zoning portion, this is heritage crossing districtbased zoning. But in regards to the overall here just district redevelopment, we um look at residential projects in this area to support that. So a little two two efforts. Why not just change the zoning on this property rather than putting it in the heritage district? I don't I don't understand what the um it is. It's changing the zoning but using the base zoning of heritage crossing district market. So versus a site plan zoning, it's using the base district of Heritage Crossing. I'll let Jocelyn kind of talk more about that. Well, in the Heritage Crossing is a formbbased code. Mhm. That's a and and the the heritage district, it's it's currently designated in the downtown area, but as the area grows, the heritage crossing district, the the qualities of the formbbased code is they're higher qualities than what would be in a typical zoning district. So, as we were working through this process, we we like what the Heritage Crossing District offers in terms of the the forms and the the walkability and and what it's looking for, which is why we chose this. I I guess what I'm asking is so you're talking about reszoning it so that it'll allow for zero lot line homes and how is it going to be different putting it in the heritage district versus just reszoning it for zero lot line homes like what what are the differences between those two options if we just did straight zoning because you're talking about essentially straight zoning to heritage district overlay or straight zoning to zero lot line homes. So if this were one or the other. If this were anywhere else would probably be an SP2 because of the the acreage, but it fits in what is encouraged and permitted in the heritage district. And that's that's why we thought this would be a good fit because it is in an area where this form this type of housing development is preferred. But does it change what their options are? I mean, this because this is a city on site, they are tied to a development agreement. So, they can't just take the heritage, you know, the the what's allowed of the neighborhood mixeduse district and do something else. They are tied to this site plan as part of the development agreement. Oh, I thought that that site plan was illustrative. The Well, that the the site plan is not tied to the zoning. It is tied to the development agreement. Okay. Do that site plan is Yes. Okay. Yes. Will the developer be here this evening? Yes. So, we will be able to ask them questions. And then based on y'all's knowledge, is this planning on being a private development, meaning that there's going to be an HOA in a gated community? It It's not gated. It's there will be an HOA. So, this is uh built to be similar to the Delaware Creek phase 2, which is right across the street. Also, it's an SP1, but again, what we're looking for is You mean the one right across the Sorry, across the creek. But the Delaware Creek phase one is across the street here. Phase two um had what I would say corrections done to it of things that um didn't go well in phase one. So, phase this is supposed to be very similar to phase two where you have the access to the garages and the alley um the muse streets where you have the front facing the green area. Um but so there will be an HOA that will maintain all the common spaces. Yes. Is it similar as in the same developer as the Delaware Creek? Different developer. Um just for context, the city had a development agreement for all of these lots and we worked with a different developer on phases one and two and they did not take their option to do phase three. So we went back out and uh have a agreement with a new developer. Oh. So this plan has been planning for a while now. Yes. Okay. And so now the construction of the new park, do we have plans for that? So there's not a park be cut. So there's Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. There's not So Centennial is up here. Um what they're doing in regards to public access is just uh redoing the trail along the creek. So now you can actually ac uh access um the creek down here uh from Sixth Street down to Rendy and be able to cut over to Center which is right here. So Centennial's up here. So there's no park development. It's just a trail for access and walkability. The pavement. Yeah. To have a continuous because there's you know some trails up here on on the phase one side. There's a trail on the phase two side. And so this would allow people to be able to cross over this way and connect over to center. Has the city also planned on expanding since the heritage district to make it linear and to where like the other houses and residential properties are able to rep the benefits of being in the heritage district versus an outside parment like parcel away from the heritage district but being in the heritage district. So, a little bit more context and history of how we got to Heritage Crossing District. So, there used to be a much larger overlay um that went from Pioneer down to Shady Grove, MacArthur Nursery. And um you weren't really seeing the fruits of your labor of having that overlay. And so, they made the Heritage Crossing District much smaller to concentrate the type of form and development that they wanted. Okay. So we could eventually as as it expanded and was successful could um reszone properties into that just like this one as an case. So I can't say we have overall plans for always expanding. It's going to as we hopefully succeed in redeveloping downtown and the surrounding area that would make sense for it could potentially be expanded out more. Okay. And that's why we thought it would be appropriate on this piece of property. Now the the agreement that you all have with the developer, it would they would not have direct vehicular access to Randy. It would only be cars coming out on on the west side. That is correct. So that is part of the discussion that we had is and with comments from the various departments there, they did not want access um off of Rendy for any type of cutthroughs. So that's why you only have a hilltop and six street access to cut that cut through off. Okay. Commissioner, and correct me if I'm wrong, this location of this property is actually within the buffer of the heritage district, the much larger heritage district like with the neighborhood planning efforts that's going on. Yes, that is correct. That's why that's what I was referring to earlier. You have the heritage crossing district zoning which is much smaller than what we think about in the redevelopment efforts. Okay. Any other questions? No. All right. Thank you. Okay. So, we are already after seven. I know we had a couple more items on our agenda unless anybody thinks that we need to address them tonight rather than wait for a night when we have more time. Uh then we will postpone on that. Um, in that case, the work session uh is adjourned at 7:10 p.m. and we will have about 10 minutes, then we'll start up in the other room. [Music] [Music]