Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Body. Hey, hey, hey. Happy birthday. Heat. Heat. around. 30 p.m. Welcome planning and zoning commission the work session of Monday February 2nd 2026. We have citizen comments on the items listed on the agenda. Did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed? >> We have Mr. Darren Furbush. >> Thank you, Mr. Furbush. We'll hear from you in the public hearing then. >> Thank you, sir. Um before we get started on the agenda items, I did want to point out that in front of all of you, you have a wonderful um description of our newest um exceptional employee recipient, which is Kenneth Bloom. He received a um a wonderful recognition and appreciation by the city staff last week during um work session. And I really want to thank you that we're so excited that you were recognized. We all appreciate your devotion, your professionalism, your intelligence, and and institutional knowledge. Ken, thank you. You make all of us look good. >> And I also did not realize that April run won last year. So, April, I'm sorry I didn't know that, but I'm equally not as not surprised. Thank you all very much. Um, moving on then to the report on the city council meeting decisions of January 14th and January 29th. Um, those uh, votes are in your packet. Does anyone have any questions about any of the votes and the cases that were approved or disapproved last in these last two meetings? No. So, we will move on to the review of the public hearing items first. So we'll let you all get started with that. >> Okay. Uh passed out to you. We have a slight change in the agenda. Um that uh item number four which was under consent agenda disapproval can now be for approval. Uh so that'll be so for consent agenda approval now be the PNZ minutes and 2026-6-PL. Also want to point out that at the bottom of the agenda, items uh let's see 17 and 20, excuse me, 17 and 19 actually go together and uh I accidentally stuck item number 18. I was looking at the numbers. Uh I accidentally stuck 18 in between 17 and 19. So just know that tonight uh probably take 17 and 19 together and then go back to to 18. Okay, be happy to answer any questions. >> No questions. So, we can proceed to the individual cases. >> All right. Then the first individual item is 2025-365. >> I'll let you introduce it. Um and this is uh for SP2 for generalized site plan um with some variances and um this is a uh case that the city is uh has um city council's already looked at in terms of um partnership with and I'm going to let uh Al Despec uh kind of kick off the presentation here. Good evening. I'm Eldest Beckham, senior manager of housing and redevelopment. So, the first part of this presentation, I will give you some background on the associated uh development agreement that goes or I should say subreient agreement that goes along with this zoning case. So, this is at 3801 uh Pleasant Run. Here you can see it's a remaining track to a multifamily project. So, in um some background as to how the city got to the um agreement that they've approved is in April of 2024, the city uh approved an agreement with Dallas County to receive $5 million uh targeted at increasing the supply of affordable housing. This was a part of Dallas County's ARPA funds that they received um through COVID. With those funds, the city identified the two priorities in regards to address affordable housing was to one increase the amount of single family home ownership opportunities um as well as uh substantially rehabbing a existing multifamily development. Due to the timeline rest, I should say deadline restrictions of expending these funds through the federal government, these funds would be used just for acquisition only. So, in May of last year, staff put out an RFP, a request for proposal to solicit uh responses to for the use of these funds. And in September of last year, we presented the two recommended projects to council, both of which they supported to go forward and finalize agreements um that have both been approved. So, this is for one of those projects at the again 3801 Pleasant Run. It's in partnership with Housing Channel and Soul Development. The city has awarded 1.735 million to the project for acquisition costs. They are proposing to develop 62 affordable single family homes of which they'll uh divide between households that are at 80% of the area median income, majority of those units going towards that um income restricted population and then the remaining 35% at 81 to 120% AMI. The development would include green spaces, dog parks, and walking trails. Um it is a co- uh le co-develop excuse me partnership between housing channel and soul development with housing channel serving as the lead. The city has worked with housing channel on various projects um specifically through our HUDfunded uh programs um and they've developed seven different projects here in Irving. as part of the agreement um uh they have to acquire the property by August 31st of this year again in order to meet the funding deadlines uh of the ARPA funds. We have that they will construct a minimum of 50 single family uh home ownership units. That was the goal that we put out with the RFP, but then capping it at that 17 units per acre to get them to the 62 of which they propose. This flexibility between the 50 and the 62 is just as once they get into the design phase and civil review, if any of the units have to be removed due to utilities or infrastructure, this gives them that flexibility without um messing up the agreement. We'll also have deed restrictions through the agreement. So, they will be uh it's called an affordability period. So they'll be um deed restricted for households at 120% of the area median income for up to 12 years. And then we in order to ensure that that affordability stays if there was any um home if anyone sold their homes during those 12 years, we also put in resale restrictions. So if anyone were to sell the homes during the 12-year period, they would have to sell to another household at 120% AMI. And then we also capped the resale value to ensure that the affordability stayed with that unit. Um during the 12 years there will also be a restriction on any uh third-party rentals of the property. So you will not be able they would not be able to rent the property out again ensuring it's the home principal home of the owner. And then ability to recapture any of the funding from the uh developer or for seller non-compliance. This is the proposed layout of the 62 units. Um, so they will be home ownership. Um, so it's a condoized regime. So that's there, excuse me, they are keeping the multifamily zoning but condoizing the units. So you will see buildings with three to four attached single family homes. Each of the units will have porches with landscape streets, open green spaces, and some um outdoor areas for the dog dog park and recreation. The next two slides just show the proposed elevations. So, some of these are uh the single units and then once they're attached, um so the a two-story product made to look like one unit. And then here's a three-pack on the left side that shows it's a it's a threeunit but made to look like one home. And then here are the proposed uh elevations. So what it would look like once constructed each of the units having a different elevation so you can tell the difference between the units. Um and this will all this is all included within the development agreement of what they have to deliver. So with that I'm going to hand it off to uh Haley to go through the zoning case and I'll come back and give you a timeline. All righty. Thanks, Alda. Haley Riddick with planning. Um, like Kylie said, the existing zoning was SP2 for RMF2 and they're just going again to SP2 for RMF2 obviously for the variances for the updated 3.13 standards that happened um late last year. This is their conceptual site plan, similar to what um Mela showed you. This is their landscape plan. And then these are their variances. So um most of them have to do with landscaping and I'll kind of read through a little bit with you. The first one which I think a lot you know understanding that it's only two floor units that they're doing. Um so that minimum of eight stories is one of the variances. Uh the landscaping adjacent to buildings um usually you know 12 foot landscape area. Um and there's some trees that are required per square footage of those areas. So um they're proposing to have you know none provided for the buildings adjacent to the perimeter buffer buffer and improved green spaces. So that a variance of 104 trees perimeter buffer um they're supposed to do um eight trees but they're doing 20 large and 20 um ornamental. So they're meeting that requirement. Uh the landscape planting planting and open space. Um they're providing 11 trees, nine large and two are ornamental but they're still down about 10 trees. So, they're closer to meeting the requirement, but not quite. For shrubs, um we require 14 shrubs per first floor unit. And since all the units are going to be first floor, um that would require them to have 440 shrubs, um they're going to or sorry, 858 shrubs, but they're want they're going to provide 440, so about half for required outdoor amenities. Um, kind of what Emlda said earlier, they're going to do the walking jogging trail, the playground with at least three pieces of equipment, the dog park. The only one that they're not uh that they're asking to be buried from is the swimming pool with a deck area. There we go. Um, and kind these are like the last ones. So, the private outdoor space usually would require a 120 uh square foot. They're willing to do 75. Um, again, kind of you would get that with the porches. Uh, the covered parking we usually do if it's surface level that half of it be covered, but they're requiring none or requesting for it for none of it to be covered. Bicycle storage. Usually we how it's rent is that we would provide bicycle rooms or lockers per how many buildings there are, how many units. um they're so instead of having actual lockers or rooms, they're wanting to provide um basically storage space in each unit to have a to have the bike. And then finally, the amenities. So, usually you would see this with traditional multifamily. So, the clubhouse, the gym, uh business and remote work centers. Since this is more of a single family kind of townhouse product, they're um requesting to not have to have those. Um so, this is miden residential. the future land use. Since technically the base zoning is not changing and it it matches what the request is, they didn't have to do a future land use change surrounding zoning. Um up here is that existing uh multif family, but there's actually multif family to the south here and here um to the west and then there is a school I believe to the to the east. These are the property owners that were notified. In terms of public comment, we did receive one letter in opposition. Um, it was actually just someone who said it was down here. The it was very brief. It just said it would disrupt their property, but considering this is also multif family, you know, that's, you know, that's up to y'all decide. Um, but then there was also a letter of support that was given, I think earlier this week or late last week. Sorry, it's Monday. um uh that was a property owner for not not in this area but like down the street that who owned he was the owner of three different apartment complexes within like half mile area um who wrote a letter of support. So we'll go back here. So in regards to timeline uh the agreement was approved this uh January 14th. So they're coming to you tonight for consideration of the zoning case. Um then it would go back to council for the zoning case uh consideration on the 12th. Um if all goes well, they'll go forward with acquisition between the March and April of this year hitting our uh deadlines in regards to the Dallas County ARPA funds and then they'll start their um review and engineer um engineering plans and get those submitted to the city by the end of this year. looking to start construction uh in April of next year and starting to deliver the first phases at later in um the end of the first phase at the end of 2027 through June of 2024. Sorry, 29. Any questions? >> Um just one question. The packet indicated that this were was a multif family project, a condominium town houses. Are they condos or are they town houses? So, it's a it's multif family in the zoning, but it will be a condoized financing structure. So, they're attached units of three three to four attached units. Once they become three units, yet it's considered multif family, but they're condos in order to be a forell product. >> Thank you. Aldo, are there any HOA fees associated with this? >> Yes, they'll have um HOA fees in order to keep up with the common property. Okay, thank you. We appreciate the city >> finding a way to provide some financing through ARPA funds. Okay, going on to the next case. >> Hi there. Good evening. Uh, this is zoning case 125429 ZC is located 815 Durham Street. They're going from R six to SP2 for R six for a variance for a carport to encroach 20 ft into the 30ft uh front yard setback. Uh staff finds no unnecessary hardship and there's been one comment in support and none in opposition. Here's a aerial view, future land use, zoning, uh notification map, carport map showing the surrounding uh carports within about a quarter mile area, uh their site plan, and then the subject property itself. uh to the west uh just south of it, so in front of it if you're looking from the street and then to the east and then yeah, a little bit of background on this one. Uh this application came in in November 20 uh 2025. So before the new BOA, social accession, whatnot was uh enacted. Um that's why we have this case today. Uh the proposed carport would be again 10 ft from this uh front yard property line. uh the applicant letter of intent. They state that when they bought the house, half the garage was already converted to expand the living room and then after it was bought, it was uh the other half was converted to a home home office because I believe the uh uh owner works at home most of the time. Um yeah, not any questions. They're going to be 10 feet from the property line, correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Dylan. Next case, please. >> Thank you. This one's also mine. Uh, this is zoning case 2025 441Z, located at uh 1551 Corporate Drive, Sweet 175. You're going from ML2A to SP1 for RAB to allow a restaurant that sells alcohol on premise. Uh also indoor recreation and state highway 10 161 staff recommendation is for approval and no comments and support are opposition. uh the aerial of the site, future land use, uh zoning map notification, uh their site plan, the uh office kind of building itself, the lease suite space that they'll be um occupying, which sits over in this corner over here, uh just east of it, north 161, and west of the property. And yeah, a bit background on this one. The applicant filed for a alternation uh permit with the inspection department on December 30th. Uh part of this alteration of the suite is to include a restaurant/gathering hall uh and a kitchen. It's located in this area over here. Uh the intent is to allow them to sell alcohol on premise as um for the uh curling uh facility that they plan on um or what they're currently doing the alterations for. Uh let's see here. Uh the restaurant will also be operated by the same entity. So the DFW curling club um and I believe the it will only be open for when they do events, practices or whenever the applicant is here. They'll be able to give better detail on that. And any questions? >> All right. >> Thanks. Seeing no questions, we'll go on to zoning case um uh 442Z um which is a there's also a companion case for the CUP 443. So Gina, if you can present both together, that'd be great. >> Absolutely. Um, Gina Castanza Grant with the planning department. Um, I was on vacation at the last meeting that this was uh postponed from and Ken was kind enough to take care of it for me at that meeting, but I did want to clarify how much more you wanted to go over. I wasn't sure how much y'all got into the presentation at the last meeting. So, do you want me to start from scratch? I'm happy to do that. >> I I would. And uh I think the biggest question was power and where the power was going to be coming from and two >> hopefully we have some answers for you. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Uh the first case again is uh 2025442-Z. It's located at 2701 East Growala Road. The applicant is requesting to reszone from MFW or freeway district and highway uh state highway 183 overlay to ML20A which is our uh one of our light industrial districts. Um and also keep those state highway 183 overlay uh conditions. The staff is recommending approval. Uh there were um no uh letters sent in support or opposition. We did get a letter uh provided to us uh just on Friday that was related to the CUP. So, um we did not include that one with the zoning case because their their only concerns were truly related to the CUP. Um, this is the site of the former Excella Technologies company that has uh been vacant for several years. And the applicant is requesting this reszoning in order to uh in the current zoning which is MFW, uh data centers are not permitted and their ultimate goal is to develop a data center if that zoning is approved. And uh the next category that would be the least intense but also allow a data center but with the conditions of a cup uh would be the ML20A district. Uh as you can see it's about 400 ft south of 183 and the entry quarter to the city on that portion of the city. Uh there is some residential to the west uh that consists of a mobile home park that has been there for a very long time. There are also some residences down here that are legally non-conforming. Uh their zoning is actually community commercial and uh the remainder of the properties around the site are developed mainly for uh light industrial type uses uh or vacant. This is the future land use plan. Uh the area is designated uh if any changes are to occur for industrial and this change would be uh compliant with the future land use plan and the zoning map, the notification boundary and some uh photo photos of the subject property. This is looking at the subject property from Maryland Drive. All the existing buildings of course are planned to be raised. Uh this is looking at the subject property from East Growaler. This is looking at the property from uh at the subject the residential property to the west across Maryland Drive. And these are some of the existing residences uh that are on the west boundary of the property adjacent to Maryland Drive. Uh again, those are zoned for community commercial. This is looking uh at the property from the south across Growler. And back to the zoning map. Um because this uh zoning request is not um asking for any variances to the bay zoning district. They're just asking for the conditional use permit. There is no site plan affiliated with the zoning. So if you want I can go ahead and proceed to the cup next. Uh the next case 2025 443 cup. Uh staff recommendation is for denial. Um the requested use is uh conditional use for a data center. We did uh as I mentioned receive one uh letter in opposition uh on Friday and we have provided that to you this evening. again the aerial future land use zoning property owner notification and this is the site plan that they have submitted with the conditional use permit. Um they are proposing these three main buildings um that will house all the servers. They consist of approximately 128,000 square ft each. Uh the area on the eastern portion of the property is proposed to be uh a power infrastructure area or possibly a substation uh to uh substantiate kind of uh supplement their their power from the existing uh power lines. And then the area on the southern portion of the property is proposed uh as a utility yard. The letter that we received um just so you know is from the the person who owns the property on the eastern boundary. I did have a lengthy conversation with them. Um so if you have any questions about um anything they stated, I might be able to shed more light on it. Um we pro um provided a map that shows um based on the 300 ft distance requirement from residential areas to to any buildings that might be on the site. Um the blue shaded areas are where that boundary would be. So, um the only ex the only building proposed uh that it might affect is that southernmost one and also the um the little corner of the utility yard on the southern side next to East Graveler. uh based on some of the concerns that were uh provided by staff on the uh ba relative to the existing single family uses especially on the west side of Maryland and the existing single family homes on the east side of Maryland. The applicant did provide um a landscape plan that they are willing to commit to as part of the conditional use permit. Um they're showing a variety of uh shade trees, uh ornamental grasses and uh ornamental trees, uh evergreen hedges that would line the entire boundary of that side of the property to uh help shield uh the adjacent residential uses from from what they would like to do here. Um in addition um we have the criteria for the identification of data center locations. Uh location proximity to encore transmission lines. Location and proximity to electrical substations. Adjacency to DFW airport property uh typically industrial warehouse. Uh adjacency to other industrial warehouses. uh not near residential uses, generally not on highway frontage frontages, especially if existing office buildings are serving as a buffer. Um and additional considerations that can be made on a site by sight and case by case basis uh for the provision of water cooling. Um I know that was a big concern last time. We did have a meeting with uh the applicant and uh also our water department where the applicant did commit to using a uh air chilled cooling system. And so basically because of using that kind of system uh it it does take a one-time water fill to fill all the lines the cooling lines that are used to uh to cool the center but it is much less water intensive than a water cooled system. So, uh that is something that they are willing to commit to and uh staff does recommend that if the commission wants to recommend approval that that be a condition added as part of uh their conditional use permit. Um this is the uh general area that area five that it's located in near uh the eastern portion of the kind of gateway into the city. Um the criteria for uh proximity to the KW transmission lines. Um the two substations, one is to be expanded. Uh there are ex existing uh industrial uses with no residential proximity and existing and future future data centers. Uh this is a map showing uh the subject property and then identifying the existing residential areas in blue that you can see here, here and here. Uh again for CUP approval criteria uh the proposed use uh is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is compatible with existing and adjacent uses. Uh the proposed use meets all supplemental use standards specifically applicable to the use as set forth in chapter 3 performance standards. It is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of the adjacent development and neighborhoods and any negative uh impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated. Um and the proposed use is not material materially detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or may result in uh material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. Um again, that's those are things that the council may permit uh a conditional use to be subject to um when they find that it's valid to approve one. Uh CUP limitation options. Uh we also allow in our cup section that the council can stipulate conditions and limitations on the approval in the interest of public welfare. These may include but not limited to the limitation of building size and height. enhanced uh loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, curbing, sidewalk vehicular access and parking improvements, uh placement or orientation of buildings and entryways, buffer yards, landscaping and screening. Uh as well as signage restrictions and design. Again, uh these are the site photos surrounding area and again uh resting on the site plan for the conditional use permit. Uh if there's anything else I can provide additional information on, I'm happy to answer any questions y'all have. >> The question I got is isn't there a mobile home park across the street from this? >> Yes. To the west. We don't classify mobile home parks as a single family dwelling when it comes to our data center ordinance. >> Well, the issue is that it is a residential use, but the property is zoned for ML20. >> Okay. So, we go off the zoning necessarily. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Not the existing use, but what it's zoned for. And just to um elaborate a little bit on uh staff's recommendation, um staff's recommendation for denial is uh based on consideration of the city's um concerns uh expressed uh regarding Dennis data centers in the recent past. Uh the preferred location has been stated to be south of Growweller uh at that identifies an area that's a little bit more intense uh for industrial uh rather than along our state highway 183 front 183 frontage which um also again serves as a primary eastern gateway into the city. Um it is just only uh 400 ft south of that. Uh, additionally, the proposed route for the uh, extension of the electric transmission lines uh, to serve the site um, is likely to uh, be along that southern state highway 183 rightway right across uh, from the former stadium site um, that's proposed for redevelopment. So any new lines would likely be um, very visible um, from the highway uh, at this location. Um the the applicant has worked uh with staff to address many of the concerns and the effects on the city's water system. Um but nevertheless, because of the other conditions, uh the staff uh is not supportive of the request. Again, happy to answer any other questions. Is there any new data um that might be able to guide us in regards to the energy consumption and its impact to a city by a data center? >> No, I mean it's a it's a moving target. I mean we all read these articles and we know that there's no way to pin that down. Um we also can't control it. we can't control the routing of the transmission lines. Um, when it came to this one, there were a couple different options and we talked through those with the applicant and so they know of our concerns about fronting on 183 versus maybe going down Growiler. Um, but we as a city don't have any input into where those actually end up. But the the overall um energy consumption is such a larger discussion that addresses so many data center users that and that's why a lot of them are this one's connecting to the grid but a lot of them are actually connecting to uh their own gas sources and creating their own mini uh electric generating processes to be completely off-rid. Now, one of those properties mentioned where the power lines may go through was I think by owned by Tex, >> it's a property that was acquired when 183 was expanded and I believe Tex used it as a layown yard. Now that 183 is done, um they're probably putting it on the market. I know they've talked with the city about options. So, it's currently owned by Tex. Probably one day it will be developed into something else. Thank you. >> Can you go back to the landscape plan? >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, nothing to the north and screening that empty part of the property between the developed proposed data centers and up here. >> Yeah. Nothing there. No, >> there's actually a big topography difference. I think it goes down if I'm correct. Yeah. So, and then we don't know what will be there. So, whoever and they own it that the developer the the you know that the same entity owns it. Um so, I'm sure it'll be something compatible. Originally was going to be part of this project and through discussion they understood that it was probably not good to include. And how do you get to that northern section of the of this property? >> You can do it both from Maryland and from the access road. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But it's I think there's about 20 ft of topography difference there. And the CUP um can we can uh if we so choose to make a motion to approve this, the CUP can require the water cooled system that recycles the water in the building. >> Absolutely. >> Air cooled. >> Air cooled. Thank you. >> Yes. >> So, two questions. They can't take uh was there discussions about possibly taking the transmission lines underground >> to hook onto the grid? Yeah. Yeah. That's another thing that we we can't it's it's incredibly expensive and that is not something that we have any jurisdiction. >> I know we don't have jurisdiction. I just didn't know if there was discussions on that. >> It's always we we didn't get into that in detail just because we don't have any authority over it. Um you know it we'd love for it to be underground but it's not something we can control >> due to the aesthetics and put six and everything else that y'all guys were talking about. uh is the option there for them to do a self-generated power system? >> Um they would have to have a gas, you know, source of of natural gas. So, you know, I I don't know. That would be a question for them >> in terms of the size of the property and and if they're able to do something to get some off the electric grid. >> Okay. Do you have a view or a photo of where the power lines will likely go through? >> So, this will be something else the applicant can talk to. When we asked them when we were originally evaluating it, they said there's a couple different routes. one would be because when she showed you a map earlier the in fact go to the map that's got the um I guess it's the future land use there's the one that has the that showed the um I'm trying to think of the substations anyway so the substations are in the far southeast so they're basically down at the river and 12 and so those are the main substations so they have to pull up the transmission line um up 12 and then do they come over on 183 or do they come over guiler so those are the two what's yeah there you go thanks Gina um so you can kind of see down at the bottom left of this there's a whole so very large where that's coming through is a very large substation so they have to come off that substation and then come up up and over to feed this site so the two options that we were given was either come up and go over at 183 or come up and go over Growler so those are the two routes that their consultant was looking at. Any other questions? Thanks, Gina. We can move on to case uh item 10 on the agenda 2025444 CZ. Dylan Harvey uh presenting zoning case 2025 444 ZC. It's located >> Yeah, sorry. It's located at 4201 North Beltline Road. Uh they're going from proposing to go from CN neighborhood commercial and state highway 161 overlay to SP2 for CN and state over one uh state highway 161 overlay with a variance to the required parking setback. Uh staff finding uh no unnecessary hardship and there's been no comments and support our opposition. Here's a aerial view of the site. future land use uh zoning map notification their site plan and a red circle where the um proposed variance is for uh a the site itself it's currently undeveloped the apartment buildings across north belt line the CVS just to the south that it shares a uh mutual access agreement um with and then north of property which is pretty much just uh flood flood plane Okay. >> And then their site plan and their variance uh are requests to um the 30 foot setback requirement. Uh some additional information about this case in this red circle here. These spots right around here are within that 30-foot setback. Uh the regulation states that if there's no pavement besides sidewalk between the building uh face and the rightway, it could be a 20ft setback for the building. But they are proposing a parking here. So we push it back to 30 and uh all these spots would be in that 30 ft. Let's see here. Additionally, the letter of intent received from the applicant uh they state they need this parking here to uh have convenient and adequate parking. Uh the property is located in the 161 overlay which has a less strict uh parking requirements than our general parking requirements. If they're currently proposing a 1100 uh 11,600 foot square building, if it were to all be retail square fa uh square footed space, we would require them to have 47 parking spaces. If it was a restaurant that didn't serve alcohol, that parking requirement would go up to 93. On this site plan, they're uh proposing 75 approximately if the variance is approved without the variance. And if they didn't have the 24 spots in the front right here, they could still have these 18 spots right here. And they'd have a total of 51 spots. Um yeah. Any any questions? Sorry. Can you can you uh I didn't quite catch. If there's a sidewalk in front, what was the rule there again? >> So, the uh chapter 33A requirement states that if there's no uh pavement besides a sidewalk between the rideway of North Belt Line and the building itself, it could be 20 ft of space between the building for the building setback. Um, since they're requiring this or they're requesting this parking here, the uh requirement p pushes it back to 30, which they do meet for the building itself, but it also states there can't be any pavement. So, it's essentially a a parking uh not a parking bar, a setback requirement. Isn't this pretty common along belt line for the the parking to come up closer to the road? >> Uh, not quite sure. Ken or Joel, do you have any insight on that? >> I don't know. I haven't looked. I'm not sure when 33A came in. 33A is where it has some additional setbacks to provide buffers some of the to some of the larger streets. So that's why it includes belt line. So it doesn't apply everywhere. It just applies to some of our bare streets in town. >> 33A came into effect. It was actually the city's original landscape ordinance. That's where actually now there's no landscaping in it, but because we've replaced it. Um but the original landscape ordinance was in 1986. So anything built pre1986 is going to be, you know, probably right up to the property line in all likelihood. Anything after that would have to build after 1986 would have to comply and uh a lot of it does. I mean there's been some variances through the years but um a lot of the new properties do comply with it. >> Um how will this variance defer to CVS current parking situation? >> I wouldn't affect it. meaning not affected. Meaning like is it identical to CVS current parking situation? >> Uh there's this text bubble here, but it looks like um they I believe they have an SP zoning. Check that. Yeah, SP SP2 zoning. Um I didn't uh quite look into this what their variance is for. It may be for it. Um but you as you can see on this aerial here uh it does look like their parking uh kind of does encroach that 30 foot there along the north belt line >> per but I believe like their their letter of intent indicates that it's a >> it's about the same or the same as CVS. >> So they're not >> Yes. I believe if the uh request was approved then it would be about the same as the the CVS. So this part what they're requesting it will match pretty much CVS what they have as as parking as well >> from the letter of intent. Yes. That would that would be what we would think it. >> So it would be based upon your map it would be consistent with what's in the area as far as commercial >> based on the letter of content or letter letter of intent. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, no other questions. We'll move on to uh agenda item 11, which has a companion case and 12. >> All right. >> I'm sorry. before she starts. I just looked up the Walgreens the the CVS whatever property and it was approved with a parking setback of 15 ft. That was one of the variances for that one. Good. Yeah. All righty. So, um my next case is 2026-15 CP. This is at 103 East Pioneer Drive. Currently, the future land uses business office. They're requesting to change it to traditional neighborhood. After staff review, we recommend approval. In terms of public comment, there was none in support or in opposition. So, this is a subject property. Here's that future land use. So, that business office um to the south is transit oriented development and then to the west is that main street downtown. And here's the zoning. So CC property owners that were notified and then if it's okay can I just go ahead into the zoning case. Perfect. So for the zoning um currently the it is CC so that community commercial and they're wanting to uh change it to R six. After staff recommend or after staff review we approve or we recommend approval sorry. Um and the same for public comment. There was none in support or in opposition. And here's this. And I want to say for zoning, um, a lot of this besides this one is kind of it's all single family. So R six. So it's a lot of residential and then kind of more industrial and then industrial here. Right here is the railroad property owners. This is the subject property. How this kind of came to be initially was a plat application. Um they wanted to just split the lot straight down the middle here, sell it off the the west part and um this is a single family house. It's been that way for a very long time. Um but they existed on one lot. Um unfortunately since the base zoning for the whole property is CC and there's a carport here or and there's a kind of behind this light pole there's a window. So per CC standards they couldn't meet the sideyard setback without removing the carport. Um, so they elected to change half of the zone the zoning for half the property. So, and I'll show you here. I'll just skip real ahead real quick. So, they're not asking for any variances. So, there's not a site plan, but they did provide this. So, this is where the proposed property line would be. Um, so if they're wanting to make the section R six and then keep the side CC. Um, if they do it R six and the carport is outside 5T from the sideyard, so that wouldn't be an issue. So they'd basically do R six so they can keep the use and also it would allow them to plat properly and so they wouldn't have to ask any they wouldn't have to do like a zoning case for CC. Um they could just do straight zoning or like a site plan zoning for CC. My apologies and I'll go back a little bit. Um so this is the west. So like I said I was talking about that railroad and this is east. So this is kind of where the single family starts and this is south. So across the street from them those industrial uses. Um, so that's kind of that's all I got for you uh for this one. Is there any comments or questions? >> So, basically they're want to take one lot, divide it in half, keep one as residential, and keep the other as commercial. >> Mhm. Correct. >> Yeah. Thanks. No more questions. We can move on to the next cases. >> All righty. and I'm going to be the next the case manager for the next two. Um, these are they're different properties, but it's the same applicant and owner and it's the same request. So, I'll probably go into more detail for this one. Um, but a lot of it applies to the other one as well. So, uh, this first one is actually this little typo, but it's, um, 819 Bluebird Drive. So, that zone in case 2025 456 CUP. Um, currently their zoning is that for family residential. The request is to do a conditional use permit to allow for an assisted living facility. Um, after staff review, uh, we recommend approval. In terms of public comment, there's been none in support or opposition. Here's the subject property, the future land use. So, that compact neighborhood and the zoning. So all of this kind of this area is all forplex or that R2.5. This is R six, but this is Lively Park. So there's no single family um abuing to that. These are the property owners that were notified. And then this is their site plan. Um they're not asking for any variances. So but since it is conditional use per they have private a site plan. Um what they're wanting to do, they're wanting to basically keep the structure pretty much as it is. It has obviously it's a fourplex so four units. Each unit has two bedrooms. So there'd be eight bedrooms total. Per their site plan and their leent. They're only they're trying to have a max of 10 residents. Um so that's a little bit more than like one per bedroom across the the forplex. Um they're providing six parking spaces. One that's included to be um a van ADA space. In terms of fixes they want to do, um, of course, since it's for assisted living, they're wanting to do, you know, make ADA compliant interior and exterior, so adding a ramp, making altering the kitchens and bathrooms so they can fit wheelchairs, um, things like that. But overall, they're not making huge structural changes. They're are also wanting to add a gate at the front uh to kind of because if they have memory care patients to kind of for just security measures and safety and then let me see. And in terms of other staff um comments, other department comments um there was no objections. Um there were the stipulations that these uh the property had to be fire sprinklered and that for inspections it was that accessible parking space which is what they're showing um and that at time of building permit all units need to be a type B and then drainage for this one CIP did say it must go to the street so as long as they do that it's fine. Um, in terms of what kind of assisted living kind of what they'd be doing on site, sorry, per their LOI, it would be staff will assist residents with daily tasks such as meal preparation, medicine distribution, laundry, daily group activities and coordination assistance with travel to doctor's appointments. Um and then per kind of the within the Texas health and safety code what would be defined as assisted living facility would be something that provides personal care uh services administration of medication. So kind of like we were talking earlier provide assistance um for medication um provide skilled nursing services coordination of resident care. So kind of talking about making doctor's appointments, um delegation of personal care services and provide health maintenance activities. Um so this is not going to be kind of like a clinic or anything that's very intensive in terms of medical use. Um seems like needs that are kind of lighter uh compared to um assisted living. Let's see. And then for CU, I know Gina kind of recently, you know, just went over this with the the data center case, but you know, I'll just briefly run through it. Um, city council can permit uh conditional use uh subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when the council finds that it's comp uh consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with existing adjacent uses, compatible and preserves the character integrity of the neighborhood. Um, any negative impact has been mitigated and is not materially detrimental. And of course the CUP limitations. So that if they want to approve the time limits, building size and height, loading and parking requirements, landscaping, uh placement orientation buildings, buffer yards, landscaping, and signage restrictions. So this is the subject property. This is to the west, so their neighbor to the left, which is also a forplex. To the east, which is another forplex, and then to the south, and this is a forplex, and then there's actually another forplex. Um, I believe it was demoed and is being rebuilt as a forplex. Any comments or questions? >> Are they going to open them up as one facility? I mean, they're going to have access to the other ones or they planning on having them individual units or what? >> I believe the intention is to keep the walls so to maintain it as separate units as possible. But I believe and the applicant should be here tonight. Um there might be like doorways just for the staff to be able to like hop from unit to unit, but I think the intention is to keep it as much as a forplex as possible. So it gives more of your roommates with one or two or other people instead of the whole complex or the whole forplex. But that's something you can ask the the applicant. Um, will the cup stay with the property or the owner? >> The cup is is a use allowance. So, it stays with the property. So, as long as nothing in what if there are any conditions on the cup, um, any time limits, anything like that will stick with the property no matter who owns it. >> So, yeah. So they can do this and then sell it a year later and someone else will will stay. >> They could, but they have significant state licensing requirements as well that are that regulate these types of operations. >> So they own the whole building and then they will rent these out to residents >> or does the resident buy their single unit? >> I believe it's by renting, not buying. Yeah, >> I think what you find since I've had many years of experience with assisted living homes with family members, um, one company owns it and then you rent you rent out your room. So, in case you pass the next day, they, you know, so it's the it's very well regulated by the state, too. >> How often do they um require inspections for this to ensure that I state >> annually. >> Inspections are annually unless a situation comes up or complaint or something they may come in and they are subject to maybe you've had your annual inspection three weeks later they can surprise you and come right back in. So it's it it's very well regulated. It just depends on how the owners how well they take care of this. But even if you got pill management, the individual that does the pills has to be licensed. They can't can't just be a an employee. They got to be licensed like a nurse. They're not a nurse, but they they have to be certified for for for uh medication distribution. And so drug >> if we allow this uh to go through is building inspections going to go through this thing and ensure that it meets the criteria for this type of development >> I believe. I mean, in terms of building permits, if yeah, if it's going to be ADA compliant, there's those things and then the type of housing it is housing um yeah, they would and they're also planning on doing um enhancements to it anyway, like kind of was mentioning earlier. So, they would need a permit for that and then for the state, they have certain regulations they need to make. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> I would in terms of where they're it's controlled by the state, they have to get licensed by the state to open it up as an assisted living. So they come in, they do the inspection. That's I felt very comfortable. My mother was on one for seven years here in Irving. So it was very well ran. >> So we have other places like this in Irving. And you're recommending an indef indefinite time period. >> And that's not unusual. >> I'm draw center. Yeah. PS. So the requirement for a conditional use permit to to we just recently defined residential assisted living so that we had a place for it until then it was kind of in no man's land and then um made the conditional use permit required for residential assisted living with the understanding that it still has the time limit of revocation if for some reason it needed to you know be controlled in that way. So any of them we have out there today are not under the conditional use permit. Um they're operating maybe as boarding homes. They may just be operating under a state license. Um but this way we have a process to at least have this review discussion and have the control that the conditional use permit gives us. So it's so new that we don't have a lot of history yet. So >> is is there is my mic? >> Is there something that stops us from putting a limitation on this instead of just >> indefinitely? Yeah. >> And that's your your prerogative, yours and council's prerogative um to discuss that. And you'd have to think of what the benefit would be to that to having them come back. Again, one of the benefits of the conditioning use permit is even if you go indefinite, if for some reason there are code issues or if there are any other issues, then you still have that revocation option. It's not a full reszoning change. >> Jo, the city of Irving doesn't have any at this point any guidelines or restrictions or rules governing assisted living homes. We didn't want to get into the state's territory. So, we just and that's why we literally referred to the state chapter and the state definition of assisted living. We just we wanted to say where they were appropriate because they're a little bit different. They're not just residential. They're not just, you know, group homes. Uh that the medical component is is a little bit different. So, we just wanted to say where they might be okay and be able to have a discussion like what we're doing today and let the state take over from there. Okay. Jessine, can you um on that revocation, can you tell me how that how that would work or what the criteria and who's who's overseeing that? We would I don't have the condition use permit up here, but basically if they uh are not complying with their uh parameters of their conditioning use permit if they you know if they expand or if they're just doing something different um if they have any code issues you know imagine that would also roll over into state code problems. So if for but again the state will take care of those. Um, but basically if they're not complying with the approval conditions of their conditional use permit, then we would be able to do that. And it essentially is the same process of as a resoning. You go through the public hearing process, goes to planning and zoning commission, the city council for consideration. >> Once this gets built, how do you ensure that these are actually assisted living residents as opposed to >> anybody that's coming in to rent? Yeah, I mean that's we wouldn't particularly, you know, knock on their door and see it's the approval, you know, but then again, that's again a conditional use permit item. If it's not operating as an assisted living as defined, then that's in violation of their conditional use permit. I can tell you pretty sure way you can tell the difference the price >> because right now a one a one-bedroom assisted living uh which they provide the food and all that in Irving is between five and $7,000 a month and the insurance doesn't cover it. Okay. So, um uh someone's not going to want to rent in that area for anywhere near that. That's my opinion. >> Any other questions? >> I got I got one other question. Um, if they're in violation of state, if something happens and the state pulls their permit to operate an assisted living facility, does that automatically vacate their cup? I mean, I could defer to legal maybe, but if they are the the definition of residential assisted living, which is what they got their conditional use permit for, directly defers to the state as to what that is, and which requires the medical component and the license. So, if they lost their license, they would essentially no longer be residential assisted living, which is what their conditioning use permit was approved for. So yes, if they lose their license, I would see them in violation of the conditional use permit >> and do we have communication with the state on stuff like that? Do we know that or how does that done by an honor system or how's that done? Yeah, we we don't keep up with the state and their licensing per se. Um probably I know like fire and and you know there's a lot of annual inspections like a lot of the issues we have with restaurants we catch through the health inspection process. So there's there's typically types of inspections that the city would annually go in and eventually realize this is not what it was supposed to be. Okay, move on to the next case. Item number 15. All righty. Um, so this is my last one. So it's kind of like I said earlier, same use, same owner, applicant, just different location. Um, they're kind of just around the corner from each other. Um, so this is um, z case 2025 457 cup. This is at 811 Redbird Drive. The zoning is that for family residential. Again, the request is the same for that uh assisted living facility. Um staff recommendation is still for approval. Public comments is the same for this one. Not in support or in opposition. So, this is location. And then that uh bluebird one, I believe it's like it's one of these. So, they're pretty close to each other. And same uh future land use that compact neighborhood. The zoning is the same. It's um besides this one is completely surrounded by forplexes. Property owners that were notified. And then site plan, of course, since it's a little bit just has a little bit different um parking layout. Theirs is kind of in the rear um and there's like an alley compared to the other one was you'd kind of drive through on the side and then it's in the back. So, um same everything, same letter of intent, um same level of care. Um I didn't know you know I don't want to same cup um approval and limitation options. Um this is the subject property. Uh this is to the east. So there's a school but also another kind of forplex. To the west or to the left of them is another. And across the street is another forplex. So is there um I know we had a kind of lengthy conversation for the la the previous one. So is there any other additional questions I could help out with or comments? Um, everything does look the same, but the I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, but but the owner >> Oh, maybe the owner is different. >> Oh, it does. >> Oh, for some reason on mine it has it the same. >> So, the the applicant is the same but not the owner. >> Okay. But for some reason on my memos, my apologies. >> Correct. I don't know. I forgot my >> Yeah. >> Yeah. 13 or 14. >> Well, I think it got mixed up a little. Kim, was this the one that got moved around or something or Yeah, my memos are the same, but >> yeah, let's decatch or something different. Is that right? >> On the agenda, it's different owners, same applicants. >> Yeah, we're >> in the binder. They're saying it's the same >> applicant but different owner. >> Same applicant. >> Okay. Um Yeah, we're looking to it right now. >> Yeah. Just to clarify, they are the same owner, correct? >> That's what we're looking at. >> Okay. Okay. >> Is it the same? And I I guess the question that comes associated with that is it do you are any of these if it's one owner or two owners and do they currently operate any facility like this in the city of Irving or do we know if they have any other facilities like it somewhere else? >> Um I didn't see in their letter of intent if they said that they have previous experience. That's something that you can ask them tonight. They they might, but that's just something I don't really know at this moment. >> Thank you. Um, but for some reason if they're not the same owners, they do have owner authorization forms. We don't get it this far unless the owner has signed off on it. Um, in my memo it has it as the same, but I don't have my computer right now, so I can't check to see if Dcatchet shows something different for some reason. But, um, I don't know if that was just a mistype on our agenda on our pack. >> I believe when I looked them up also on the MLS, I think they I think it was different. I don't know. I looked it up very quick, so I don't know. um after this that's something I could clarify um before the hearing starts if I need to. Okay. >> Okay. Now moving on to item agenda items 15. >> Uh this is zoning case 2025 458 ZC. It's located at 1510 Whispering Trail. They're going from our uh single lot line to SP2 for single lot line with a variance to the minimum side door set back for the patio. Uh staff finds no unnecessary hardship and no comments in support are opposition. Say a view. It's uh part of this little subdivision here. That's a multiple subdivision or sub zero sub lots. the future land use uh current zoning notification map and their site plan. Here's a picture of the subject property. The covered patio is located over on this side to reference. Uh here's just east of the property. So the the side where it has the minimal uh sideyard setback. Here's the west of the property which is located. Um, again, this is where the covered patio will be. So, where the 10- foot sideback set. Yeah. Then north of the property, so across the street. Uh, here's a picture taken by code enforcement uh on November 20th, uh, showing the the current status of the covered patio. Uh, the if the a plan was approved, it would, uh, cut this back to about this beam right here. and then a extended view towards the rear of the property. Again, it would be reduced to about right about here. Um, yeah, that's what they're asking. Uh, for a little more background on this case, it was on or around October 15th in code enforcement on a proactive call went to the site and this is when the uh covered patio was discovered. The um applicant had built it without any permits and so that's how we got to the zoning case. There were two that on the property, one in the rear, so right out here, and then one for the side. Um, they believe they agreed to remove and or reduce uh the rear one to 5T. The applicant is here. They can confirm that uh during the public hearing. The let's see here the again the covered patio would be reduced to here to stay out of the access easement to allow to get to the easement with uh the encore easement back here the utility easement. Uh they do have a letter and correspondence from Encore uh to agree to cut the rear covered patio um down to five feet, but again on their site plan they don't show it. So um they are proposing to remove it for uh per the zoning case. Then the uh applicants letter of intent state they were required this covered patio for um an outdoor space that's shaded um so family activities outdoor whatnot. >> Any questions or comments? >> Going back and looking at the satellite map, how long has this thing been on there? uh Ariel shows it was around uh maybe late 2024 early 25 around the area. Again, the applicant is here and we'll be able to uh confirm that. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, if I can, uh, eliminate something. Um, we've had multiple discussions. I I personally have had multiple discussions with this applicant at the counter, um, uh, explaining the situation, explaining, uh, that the the, uh, patio cover, the rear uh, you know, and the side would both require variances and neither could be in utility easements. Uh the version that we got that came in here uh was only asking for the variance to the sideyard setback. understand as of uh well as of during this meeting since this meeting started uh that it appears the applicant uh wants to keep the uh five have a 5-ft rear encroachment for their uh they they did the same thing on the rear that they did on the side. They built it all the way to a property line. Um and and they need to cut it back at minimum to 5 ft to get out of in the rear in the ca that case it's encore utility easements on the side it's the access easement for the benefit of of lot 8 over here. Um so if the applicant confirms that that's what they want to do then we'll need to just indefinitely postpone this case. There's no point in postponing to a specific date because we'll need to get a new site plan and readvertise and renotice this case. So, I just wanted to clarify that now. >> So, what we'll do is take a motion to postpone indefinitely if the homeowner is looking for the rear variance. >> Correct. if they're if they're going to remove the rear because there's a 10 there would be a 10- foot setback is what's required on the rear. So any patio cover on the rear if they wanted a 5ft on the rear it's just like on the side they they would need a variance for that but that was not advertised nor was it shown on the site plan nor was in any of the materials that were subsequent to the to the submittal of the application. And just to clarify for this 5- foot access maintenance easement where the uh it's shown not to have a covered patio. I think we've had discussions in the past about approving certain things in easement areas but with the knowledge that they might have to remove it if a utility needed access. Is this the situation where the city's position is like they cannot build anything in that five foot access maintenance easement? >> Correct. There there's the situation on the side is an issue or is that that is an access maintenance easement for the property on on law 8 adjacent. So if there's a covered patio there and they need to do you know any sort of repair on that side of the house foundation repair anything they physically can't they're blocked they cannot get to it. So that we we can't allow that at all. >> Does the concrete have to go too or just the cover patio? >> Concrete's fine. >> Okay, moving on. Next case, um 476. >> Well, Gina is coming up. I want to clarify on the the ownership question we had a minute ago. So on one of the applications, they had put their LLC. The other one, they just put their name. So, one has a name and the LLC. One of them just has their name, but it is the same applicant. >> Thanks. >> Next case. 2025476-Z located at 5224 North Oconor Boulevard, suites 110 and 116. applicant is requesting to reszone from a transit oriented development district with an SP1 RAB um or a detailed site plan for a restaurant uh that has the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-remise consumption um to the same thing basically to with SP1RAB they are just uh simply asking for an expansion uh staff recommendation for is approval we did not get Any letters in support or opposition? This is the aerial with the highlighted area in red, subject property on the land use map, zoning map, surrounding uh or excuse me, property owner notification, and the site plan. Uh you can see the existing suite right here for uh the Cork and Pig restaurant uh is looking to expand into the adjacent suite which has the uh slanted hash marks. Um so they are just uh literally expanding their existing RAB. It's a couple thousand square ft. um they have adequate parking spaces available um from a shared uh parking agreement through that center and they are not requesting any variances. Uh just looking at the site just did a quick slide across the street. They face the square with the mustangs and the staff is recommending approval. I'm happy to take any questions you might have. Okay, next case. Uh, next case is 2026 uh 13CP. It's a comprehensive plan amendment uh at 101,200 and 300 North Rogers Road. They are requesting to change the land use from regional commercial and local commercial to manufacturing warehouse. The staff recommendation is uh for denial. We did receive uh one letter in opposition this afternoon that I believe we have uh physically distributed. This is the uh aerial view. This is the site on the western side of the southern junction. Uh it's a kind of a event center dance hall and the property on the right hand side of North Rogers has always been in a zoning plan uh with it for uh auxiliary parking. This is the future land use map. Um you can see the the surrounding property that's all on the east side of North Rogers is local commercial. The surrounding land use for all the properties on the west side of North Rogers is regional commercial. Um the idea behind that designation was that the local commercial would be uh more retail in nature, probably serving uh the adjacent residential neighborhoods. While the area on the west side of uh North Rogers, should it ever de redevelop, um had some more uh heavy commercial uh very light industrial uses adjacent to it um that it would be more compatible with. This is the zoning map, property owner notification and again the future land use map. Uh we do have certain criteria that we consider when we are uh weighing the pros and cons of uh changing the future land use. Um for the reasons that uh we stated before because of the area on the east side of North Rogers being uh a kind of gateway into our Heritage Crossing District via Main Street. Um we are not in favor of um moving that category to a uh manufacturing or warehouse type category. Um and the same for uh the west side. Uh we feel that that should stay in a regional commercial um zoning category that would be more compatible with the existing uses. This has a related zoning case um that I will segue into. Um the related zoning case is 2025478. Uh they are requesting to reszone the uh detailed site plan for the RAB which also has uh a public event center and an outdoor market uh affiliated as uh adjacent uses that can be conducted within the southern junction. And then there's a small parcel on the east side of West Rogers that's also commercial warehouse. They are uh wanting to take all those parcels and reszone those to uh a site plan, a generalized site plan for ML20A with uh outside storage as a principal use. Um again, the staff is recommending denial. Uh we didn't get any letters in support. We did receive one in opposition. again the aerial future land use map zoning notification and these are their site plans. Uh there are two separate sheets because they are um on opposite sides of the street. Um this is the property on the east side of North Rogers. This is the area that um they specifically referred to for the possible use of a layown yard. um the city does not have that as a defined use um in our code. However, we did do some research and um it is typically something that's affiliated with more of a um industrial type zoning especially due to the outdoor storage. Um there are adjacent parcels on the west side um that have some heavier commercial uses, maybe even bordering on light industrial, but none of those um involve outside storage. So, um, again, the applicant is requesting, um, ML2A with outdoor storage to be permitted as a primary use, and the staff, um, does not feel that that is an appropriate uh, use, especially for that corridor um, on the east side of North Rogers uh, where it is adjacent to uh, State Highway 356. This is looking at the subject property on the west side of uh North Rogers. This is the adjacent parking lot. This is looking uh to the other portion of the property that's on the east side of North Rogers. It's uh largely vacant uh except for that one building there. And this is just to the south of that parcel. This is looking north of the subject property up uh Rogers Road. This is looking to the south of Southern Junction adjacent to the railroad. Um again, this is the site plan. The only condition they have uh is to uh allow ML20 uses with outside storage as a primary use. And I am happy to take any questions you have. So, I was hoping you could help me understand to me this is kind of similar to the um the data the data center one because you're there the data center is looking to reszone to light industrial and it's sort of in the gateway to put 6, right? And this you're saying is the gateway to the heritage district. So, and surrounding uses are maybe not all light industrial but they're auto shops and and things of that nature. So maybe you can talk to me a little more about why you differentiate the two and and more why you don't think it's appropriate here for not not so much about the um outdoor storage but just why the light industrial the ML20 is you feel it's not appropriate >> you want to talk >> so for this one that the outdoor storage was a significant consideration um that the the first consideration was that this it was It's originally lumberyard. It's always kind of had a commercial component to it. Commercial component has a public aspect where the whether it's retail and and the people can come in and get a service. Um so to to take that away would be a little different. Even what's there now the the the club and then the restaurant is still a public service. So it would be a big switch. Um the consideration today is to allow outside storage as a primary use. Whenever we do light industrial, the one that we talked about with the data center, it's very different when all the activities on the inside of a building because it's not affecting anybody around it. Once you start doing things outside, people who drive by, people who live nearby, lights, noise, dust, whatever might be can affect people who are around it. So if you're inside a building, it's all enclosed. Once you start having activity outside, then it's a little less confined. So those were kind of our big criteria. So um are there any hazardous uh materials involved on this >> or what? I'm sorry. >> Any hazardous materials? >> Oh, hazardous materials. >> Oh, this is it's speculative. So they when we've talked to them, they've talked to a lot of people for commercial uses and that's why they're proposing this is because a lot of people have been interested in doing some type of light industrial use here, but we don't know who the user is. >> What was the zoning on this property uh Cole back in the day when it was originally a lumber yard? It's been zoned um an SP2 for ML20 or it was for a long time before that to the best of my research. it was kind of ran ran into a dead end at some point with the previous zoning cases, but I believe it was actually in a site plan with this property uh to the rear and then eventually got separated out when they became the RAB and I think that was in 2016. All set everybody. Okay. >> This Yeah, this was one of my first zoning cases in the city. So, I apologize. I don't my memory is not going back the full 20 years at the moment. Um, but turning it turning it to Silverado Ranch, which became something else, which became Southern Junction. I think I have that order right. Um, so I would have to go back to the 2005 case file and and locate that to give you a definitive answer. So, well, I just know at one point, um, I knew the people or the person who owned the property, I guess it would be north of it, the two big buildings. Um, uh, you know, this was a lumber yard at one time. It's been used for different things. Now, the property across the street, if I'm not mistaken, that was used by the electric company for training at one point or something like that. It had poles out there and everything else. They used it for training at one point. Um, that propertyy's just pretty much been the way it has, but that other one has, you know, it now, like you said, it's been Silverado Ranch or whatever it's called now. Um, but Southern Junction, but at one point it was utilized as an industrial property. The property across the street, as far as I know, has never been utilized as industrial property. And what was the reasoning for putting both properties in one planning and zoning case? They needed the parking >> and that was supposed to be their uh >> yes >> secondary parking. >> So they're wanting to change it to a ML20 >> A and keep Southern Junction >> open. >> That's not my understanding. Yeah. No, it would be to completely reuse the building either for one user or attendant space, whatever. They'll have to explain, you know, again, they may not not know. They may not know yet. It just depends on who who's interested in the space. And then um I don't know if they have a user for the layown yard or if that they just want to keep their options open. They would have to answer that question for you. But >> but they're asking us to make a decision on the lay down yard portion of it now versus doing them separately so we can look at the gateway and everything else that's being done. >> Yeah, the request is to allow outside storage as a primary use in addition to the ML20. >> Thank you. >> And just so you know, it has been difficult. They've tried to reszone part of one half without the other, but because they're tied and the parking for the southern junction to continue operating is on the east side of the street, it's really difficult to pull them apart separately. So basically they could reszone the eastern portion and then Southern Junction just wouldn't be able to operate within its CO for required parking. Let's move on to the last case number 18, which um I think I'd like to move in front of this uh 17 and 19 and have the special defense plan come before 17. Okay. >> Correct. >> Mhm. Okay. >> So, yeah. Um, >> this is a special fence plan case 125 47 477s. Um, they're requesting a fence and a reverse frontage lot uh to be 8 ft tall with a board-on board fence within 15 ft uh along Lily Court. Their current zoning is SP2 for R six. Staff does not find uh this meets all conditions for variance and there's been no comments and support our opposition. Here's an aerial uh view of the property. So since the rear property its neighbor fronts Lily Court, the sideyard or the front yard setback is extended into uh this sideyard of the subject property. So instead of being the standard sideyard um for this uh R six or SP24 R6, it's extended to 15 ft. Here's the future land use map, surrounding zoning notification map, uh where the proposed fence uh would be, the subject property itself, uh the subject property from the rear on Lily Court. So, uh there would be a sliding gate right here and then a fence in this general area that would go right around here uh north of the subject property. So that front-facing property on the Lee Court that uh helps to get where this situation we're in today. East of the subject property. So across from the Leort south on Waters Drive and the west and the property to the west. Uh let's see. The applicant again is uh wanting to a 8ft fence uh within the 15 ft uh reverse front sideyard here. Uh there this request is uh happening because they have a looks like an expansive pool right here and they just want more uh yard space for family activities, um safety, whatnot. And then there is one property within a quarter mile radius of this property that does have a special fence plan case that's similar to this one. Uh it's on I believe 13 316 Coby Drive. And then any questions or comments? Seeing none. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, Dylan. Just real quick. So, the next case is your consideration. So, we did a present presentation on this at the last work session. Um, and this is to this is referring to the tobacco related retail businesses. So, we are creating a new section 3.23 23 for performance standards. Um the main topics on this main items on this is to prohibit the this is for retail. So this is not when there's smoking on premise. This is just for the sales. Uh they'd be prohibited when the thousand ft of a school or a public park and we're defining schools. Talk about that in a second. Measurement would be property line to property line when they're on separate properties or doortodoor if they're on the same property. Uh we also are adding parameters for uh legal non-conforming existing businesses. So any of the businesses that are operating legally today will continue indefinitely until they choose to cease. Um so this does not affect any this is for again this doesn't affect convenience stores. This is for people uh businesses that are only um or 51% of their operation has tobacco related products. Um so we are separately defining tobacco related retail businesses from general retail. We're indicating that they are allowed in the CC community commercial district as long as they are not within a thousand ft of a school or public park. Um, so we're making changes to the non-residential land use code in the CC community commercial district. Here's a map. So the areas that are uh in the lighter blue and lighter green are the areas that will be affected by this. So any again any new tobacco-reated retail businesses would not be allowed to get a CO. Um the word prohibited means they can't even go through the zoning process to ask. We'll be creating also new definitions of a school uh to clarify it's which is similar to the the private school definition we have today um where we have one more grades through kindergarten through 12 more than 100 students enrolled. We break we're bringing over the tobacco product definition from our smoking ordinance and then we're specifying a tobaccof related retail business as a retail store that has at least 51% of the total sales revenues being the tobacco uh products which also includes vaping products. Uh we did send notifications to approximately 2600 um business owners uh operators and um BPP so business personal property. Um, we did that around January 13th and we also created a web page. So, we had 25 to 30 hits on that web page. We also had several emails and phone calls of people asking just how will this affect us. U, most of which were from convenience stores to make sure that they understood, you know, if that would be an issue with them. So, uh, we're here today for your recommendation and we'll bring it to city council next week on February 12th. Coincidentally, this morning I read an article that the Fort Worth City Council is reviewing exactly this. Although they included churches, daycare centers, universities, and hospitals. I don't want to mess with your fancy map there, but would there be any reason to look at some of those other types of businesses to include them in this ordinance? >> So, we looked at churches. A lot of it is the the legal non-conforming notification that the state gave us the last legislative session. Um it's extensive. So I I I don't know what kind of notifications they're doing. They said they're going to do full notification. It's huge. It's almost the whole city, I imagine. So I I don't know what that looks like. Um but we did we did look at churches and the main areas of concern are where youths will be by themselves primarily, which are going to be the schools and the parks. Um the assumption was that with churches they're probably with family, but we we did look at those. >> Council considered them as well and this was the policy direction that staff received. >> Right. >> Sounds good. Thanks. Any other questions? So you're looking for a motion this evening to move this to um city council consideration on the 12th >> for recommendation. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Right. Moving on to the uh item on our agenda for North Nursery Corridor Neighborhood Plan. Since there's no action on this, can we move this to a different meeting? Okay. Um you and I can talk about when maybe the one two weeks from now. >> Yeah, we could look on the 16th. That might be a full agenda. We talked about that. If not, we'll just do it to the next March meeting. >> Okay. Um future agenda items. Um, we haven't covered uh planning and development um meetings, which is uh one of the committees that the city council has. Um, I've got some notes from the 14th and the 29th. Normally, we also elect a representative. Do you want to do that tonight or you want to move that to the >> Well, we'll put that on the agenda for March. Yeah. >> Okay. March. Okay. >> Yes. >> Um, any other questions, future agenda items, folks? No. Okay, great. Seeing none, u we are adjourned at um 7-Eleven. We'll see you in the uh public hearing room in about six minutes. 10 10 minutes. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat