[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] feel. Hey Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] Hey, hey, [Music] hey. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] [Music] [Music] Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat [Music] up here. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Ladies and gentlemen, it is now 5:33 p.m. Welcome to the planning and zoning work session of Monday, May 5th, 2025. Did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed on the work session agenda? No one signed up. Please proceed. Right. Thank you. All right. Uh, next item on the agenda is report on the city council meeting decisions of April 10th and May 1st. Um, is there anything I think that the packet had indicated we might get some more information or was that what was just handed to us? You should have uh should be passed out. So the one the packet is blue and the new one is orange. So all right. Was there anything else other than what's in the the materials have been provided? Okay. All right then. and um re um okay, next item is review of the public hearing items. So, we'll just go on to that. Okay. Uh a couple of things on the consent agenda. Uh you have uh revised version of the minutes for Monday, April 7th. Thank you, Josh. Uh for the uh pointing out the uh reflects the uh going into executive session. So, that's uh on there. So when you make your motion, please uh make it for the revised minutes for April 7th as well as of course the March 17th and then also so should we do that one separately then as a separate motion for the minutes. This is just news to me so I will look at it and let you know. Okay, great. Thanks. And then uh one of the items that was on disapproval uh num item number 4202579PL uh is now uh ready for approval. So you can add that one to the consent agenda approval. So 2, three, and four will actually be the items for approval and items five and six will still be for disapproval. I'm happy to answer any questions on that. Any questions on those? And just a clarification, the the issue on the minutes for the planning and zoning work session um from our last meeting was that it didn't mention that we had gone into close session. So that was I just asked that that be added into that. So that's in your packet that we got today. The there's something that's tabbed um flagged there. So that that's where it indicates the one change to those minutes. Anything else? No. I think we're ready to go on to item seven. Item seven is conditional use permit 2024-447- CUP. Uh you saw this last time. It did go to P uh city council. It was postponed and then readvertised. So now you get to see it again. So all righty. Good evening. Haley Rick here with planning. Was it on? Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Um, so like Kim was saying, this is for conditional use permit 2024 447 CUP. It's located at 2700 North Oconor for suite 124. So they are requesting for an event center within 500 ft of our single family residential district. Also for the event center being over 2,000 square feet and then a variance to the required parking. Um after review, staff recommendation is denial. And in terms of public comments, there have been none in support and 22 in opposition. Um 21 from tenants of a neighboring suite within the shopping center and the other from a um nearby residence. And so this is the aerial of the property. So you can see that there's two properties on this uh two buildings on this property and it's the southern one. Then the future land use map which is local commercial the zoning and then this is the not uh property owners that were notified within 200 ft and then this is where the opposition was. Um so in terms of the actual property owners it was this one right here. Sorry. And then this is their site plan. So, as I kind of mentioned earlier, um since it is zero feet from property line to property line of single family residential, it triggers a conditional use permit. Um also that size um for it being over 2,000 square feet also triggers it. And they're going for 38 3,897. And then for the parking, um what's required is that one space per 100. So based on their square footage, it comes out to 39 parking spaces. But um when taking away from the previous tenant or use of that suite and then comparing it to it, looks like there's a um a 20 parking spaces. So like 19 uh parking spaces variance is what they're looking for. Um let me see. Oh, another thing I want to mention. The site also did have the whole reason for the postponement last time was to kind of verify the amount of parking that was on site. Um because we were kind of getting different numbers from varying sources. Um it seems like in 2012 there was rightway dedication. So it took away um parking that was on that site. So that's also why they have less and then kind of makes the space makes the site a little that's basically why we needed the var or the postponement was just to kind of verify what we were showing y'all was accurate and we had an accurate variance for y'all. So for CU approval criteria, you guys have probably heard this before, but I'll just go over it briefly. Um, city council may permit a conditional use permit subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when the council finds that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan is compatible with existing and adjacent uses. Um, is compatible with and preserves the character of the adjacent development in the neighborhoods. Um, any negative impact has been mitigated and the proposed use is uh not material detrimental to health, safety and welfare. And then for CUP limitation options, um, city council may stipulate conditions and limitations of based on the approval of a CUP in the interest of public welfare. These include but are not limited to time limits, building sides and height, enhanced loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, sidewalks, things like that, placement, orientation of buildings and entryways, buffer yards, landscaping, and signage and restriction design. So this is the subject suite and this is the west side of the shopping center with the residential to the south. So on the this side is where the residential is and then I'm open to any comments or questions. Any questions? Yeah, go ahead. Uh, did they say how they plan on circumventing the parking situation? Um, in terms of like trying to provide the parking, um, they did not. Um, I believe they said that and they're here tonight and they'll have like, you know, talk and answer any questions at the hearing. Um, they were talking about how they've take, I believe, pictures from other different times a day to kind of prove like there is usually adequate parking. Um but in terms of on the site plan there's no they just are requesting the variance. So and then there's also a residential behind them. Is that consideration to I know you're talking about single family homes in the front. Is that a problem too? The residentials in the back? Well, it's not necessarily a problem. It just what has made them have to do a conditional use permit. Um because in our in our code it's if it's within 500 ft of single residential then it triggers the conditional use permit. Um, if it's an event center and it's not over the 2,000 and it's not 500 feet within residential, then they can do it by right. But what about the fence that's behind the property? Does that negate it or that's still a concern? That's still a concern, right? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. And one of one of the people we have uh objecting to it is from that neighborhood there. Correct. Yes. It's um one of Let's see. I'll go back to the Yeah. Yeah. So, this is where the building layout. It's kind of like this. And so it's kind of across this alley. I believe this is like Brock Bank. Yeah, this Brock Bank alley. Any other questions? I was reading that it says something where that shopping center lost about I think like 20 parking spots or something because a right away. Where was that right away? It was on this side right here. Um I believe it was there was some parking here. Sorry, it was a part of the Okconor expansion. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, it was it was some right I believe it was right here and then right here as well is where the it got the road was expanded and so those parking spaces had to go away. Um, by reading the letters, a lot of the complaints were saying like, "Was this was one of these spaces used to be an event center before?" That's what when I talked to the um I did talk to one of the tenants that were mostly of that salon uh that where a lot of the opposition is coming from, they said at one point there this suite used to be in Vins Soer. um I don't believe seen record of it, but it could be another suite or it could have been before our requirements of CUP and everything. Um they didn't have a great experience it sounded like with the previous event center in terms of noise and traffic and things like that. Um I don't believe it's the same people, but I'm not that's something you'd have to ask the applicant who's here tonight. Thank you. Can I ask what is your recommendation based on after staff review? It was it's for denial. What criteria did like struck that caused it to be a denial? Mostly because it doesn't meet these what's in our code. So a lot of times if it doesn't when we try to do recommendation we look at like the future land use. If it doesn't then we usually um will say you know denial. It's basically really based on our code or can if you want to jump in for sure. And main additionally the the uh parking variance is even uh with everything else the parking variance is significant and we can't support that. Often when we have a parking variance we'll look to see what's around it. So if somebody's not going to be providing enough parking where would that overflow go? So if you were in a commercial area or an area where they are kind of confined to themselves they'd be causing their own problem. But when we have single family or other residential around where people can park on the street, that is definitely something we consider when we're looking at denial. Any other questions? Great. Thank you. All righty. And then I also have this next case. So this is zoning case 20255Z. It's located at 2525 West Linda B. Johnson Freeway. Currently the zoning is SP1 for RAB. So that detailed site plan with restaurant with attendant accessory use of the sale of alcohol beverages for on preference consumption. Um they're requesting the same zoning uh but with addition of a variance to the required parking. Um after review staff recommendation is for approval in terms of public comments. There was one in support and then none in opposition. And this is the subject property current zoning and this is the future land use. So it's that regional commercial and then the property owners that were notified and then this is their site plan. Um, so they're basically what brought them in is because they're wanting to expand the restaurant. Um, which then is increasing the amount of seats and so the RAB needs to be altered since it is adjusting the square footage and then also since they are having more seats it makes them require more parking and since they already have their established parking they kind of need a variance for it. So the main one is um right now it's required to have 122 spaces for the additional seating that they're proposing and they currently have 114 spaces. So, or they're providing 114 spaces. So, it' be an eight parking space difference. Um, they did also mention that there is a parking agreement that they're trying to work with on the property to the east of them. Um, it's like a kind of small retail center. They're currently have plenty parking, more parking than they're needing. Um, so they have the applicant has talked about executing a parking agreement with them. Um, but we just think since it's we have a site plan, if we allow this variance, it doesn't create an issue for the the property to the east of them to have to ask for parking variance down the line if they go into this parking agreement and then those retailers are then needing more parking. Um, and this is their and this was an existing case in 2016. So, you can see that right here the new proposed is they're adding compact spaces. um they maxed out on how many compact spaces they can have to try to work towards that required parking and then this is where the addition is. So this will be an addition of 492 ft which would bring to 303 seats in the restaurant overall. And so this is subject property. And then this is the east of it, the one I was talking about with the parking agreement. And then to the west and then the south, so just the highway. And then I'm open to any comments or questions. Any questions? Yeah. I just want to say the applicant is being basically they're being proactive in trying to ask for the very they can they could do the expansion and open up with the parking agreement on the adjacent property. Right now that would be fine. Uh they're trying to be proactive to not put the n the adjacent property in a bind if somewhere down the road they do something. So, it it it's actually very nice what they're what they're doing. But you said we're only talking about eight spots. Yeah, it's a eight spot variance. Yeah. Okay. And how many spots are there overall in the parking lot? I think they had 120. Let's see. 114 is what they're proposing. So, with the compact it comes out to 114. Okay. No, the adjacent site right now has in excess of 23 spots that they were are working with the parking agreement for, but if they change uses in the future, they want to make sure that they're not encumbered. No, but their their their portion already has 114 or un on this plan. So, we're just talking about eight eight spaces difference here. Yep. And at least temporarily, they anticipate being able to work with the near next door property owner. which has currently plenty of space. And to the north there is a Home Depot and you have very similarly nobody's going to want to park that far away from the Home Depot if they don't have to. Yeah. Yeah. But you know, Texas Roadhouse, so you know, Haley, I think there might be a discrepancy with the number of parking spaces because when you restripe to the compact, they gained one. So I think it's it was unclear whether it was actually seven or eight with the um because the note said seven. Just FYI, the the staff me or the staff notes. Okay. Okay. You have to I I'd have to double check that. So, do we need to have that clarified before we're making a recommendation? It looks like there's 11 compact spaces and they're allowed to have 12. Well, no. I is that what I think the question was what exactly is the variance they're asking for? Are they asking for an eight parking space variance or a seven parking space variance? And do we need to have that ironed out before we vote? You guys can move on. Let me just see if I can find if you give then that includes seven. So if we approve eight or recommend eight then then we know we're we're we're good one way or the other. Great. Okay. Any other questions? Right. Thank you. And before Gina takes a stand here, um I want to introduce somebody who's lurking in the corner there. If you would stand up, Dylan. This is Dylan Harvey. He is our new planner. Uh so, um he's taking um the space that Jace was in after Jace moved on. So, um, so Dylan will be is is trying to ramp up and learn as fast as he can. So, you'll see him on a regular basis. Welcome. Good evening, commissioners. Gina Castanza Grant with the planning department. Uh the next case is 202564-CP located at 251 Okconor Ridge Boulevard and this is a uh request to amend the future land use map from business office to mid-density residential. Uh the staff recommendation is for denial and we did receive uh some public comment forms. Two were in support and five were in opposition. I believe we may have received one more um in opposition that we handed out tonight. This is uh the aerial of the subject property and this is the future land use map. You can see there's uh business office uh adjacent to it to the east uh green space and single family to the west and south and some local commercial uh on the south. This is the surrounding zoning map and the notification map. Um, this is a description of the uses that they're requesting to go from and to uh with business office, which is what it's uh currently designated as. It's typically flexible uh use area for retail office and commercial uses, multi-story structures with a mix of surface and structured parking. um and typically uh office oriented with some support services. Um it also lists the likely compatible zoning categories and the the base zoning category is for MFW or the modern-day equivalent of freeway. We will be discussing the companion cases which uh reszone after this. Um, but just to give some light on those subzoning categories that that fit into those land use categories, the uh request that they're asking for is for mid-density residential. Uh, this is medium density uh typically five stories or less new structures uh to be high quality and cited near public transportation nodes, arterial streets or in proximity to mixed use areas. uh the net units per acre typically 18 to 50 and those are the zoning categories that they are compatible with. The staff recommendation um based on these criteria here is for denial. Um the criteria that we uh balance the the recommendation on are these five. Uh the first one being that the site is physically appropriate. Um the second one that it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood when you're going from a residential a non-residential land use transitioning to a residential land use. Um also that the residential uh is also possibly part of a mixeduse development. Uh the third is that the the change will not result in a shortage of land designated for non-residential development, that it does not leave a residual tract of non-residentially zoned property, and that it provides for an appropriate transition between residential and non-residential uses through separation uh by distance, screening, or land use. And again, uh the staff did not believe that the uh criteria were were met for this. So the recommendation is for denial and we will go ahead and uh loop into the development plan and the multif family concept plan uh cases 2025-65- DVP and 202566- MFCP again located at 251 Okconor Ridge Boulevard from uh PUD 1 with a base zoning of freeway um with also planned unit development number one for freeway uses. They are requesting to change the zoning to PUD one for RMF1 which is multif family residential one and also have a uh multif family concept plan that uh requests variances to the multif family development regulations in section 3.13. The staff recommendation is also for denial. The public comment forms we received uh are also two in support and five in opposition. And this is the aerial of the subject property again, future land use, zoning map, notification map, and the development plan. Um as you can see, the development plan looks more like a boundary survey. Uh the main purpose of that document is simply to change the acreage in the pud. uh when the PUD was originally established, it uh set caps for acreages of each different uh zoning category that could be applied as property was developed. Um in 2001, the council actually decided to cap the multif family residential acreage. Um that cap was set at 95 acres and in 2008 there was an ordinance that approved a slight increase to 102 acres to allow for the development of the residences which is on the south side of OKConor. Um so at this point no multif family uh residential acreage remains. So this development plan if approved would reallocate that acreage from the freeway district to the multif family category so that it could be uh established for multif family uses. Um the development plan also is uh required to request any variances from the base RMF1 district. And um the tract on the left that's larger they're calling tract one. The smaller tract here is track two. The tract on the on the left is uh currently developed with a three-story office building that has been vacant for quite a while and they are actually uh requesting to remodel that building to accommodate um multif family units. So it would have multif family units approximately 34 or a maximum of 34 units and related parking. Some of that will be underground and some of it will be surface. Um on the tract on the right they are proposing a 14story tower a condo tower with 42 units and that particular parcel um does exceed the density for that RMF1 district. Um so that is the reason for the uh other request to vary the density for the development of track 2. Tract one will not exceed the density based on the number of units uh they have proposed currently. And then we move on to the multif family concept plan. This is where more of the details are established and also um any exceptions from the multif family development standards which are apart from the base zoning district are requested um to be varied. So, there are quite a few. Um, I know your staff report for this one was really long and a lot of it was uh charts with the variances. So, I'll kind of um ask you if you want me to go over each of those in detail or just kind of touch on them. Um I don't want to Why don't you just touch on them for now and then as people have questions, we'll be able to delve into the details more. All right. So uh again the the density is uh one of the biggest variances. They carried that through on the multif family concept plan. Um the other big uh variances are for lot coverage. Um, tract one complies uh the way they've laid it out, but again, track two, which is the one with the proposed uh condo tower, um would not comply with the um coverage and they are needing a 9.2% uh decrease in uh variance for that one. Um, regarding open space, um, tract one is, um, actually in compliance. No variances are needed for any of the open space requirements for track 2. There are, uh, variances requested for the open space. We have three different categories of open space that they're required to meet. Um, one is the the total gross area. Uh, the second is usable open space. So that would be in the form of parks, um playgrounds, swimming areas, anything like that. And then um also a percentage that is reserved uh for children and youth oriented activities. Um for this particular tract with the tower, uh the variance uh required um or the the establishment for open space required is 30% of the site area and the applicant is requesting for 20.8%. 8%. Uh for the usable open space, uh they're required to have 25% of the net total floor area. Uh they are not able to provide any. So um they need a variance for that one. And the same thing for the open space uh for youth oriented activities. Um on this particular chart we have variances for um parking building length, maximum building height, uh maximum building setbacks from the street right ofway, minimum building setbacks from a private drive, minimum side and rear yard setbacks. And did you want me to go back? No, you can keep going. Okay. Um and then additional uh those were for track one. Uh for track two uh maximum height, minimum building setbacks from street rightway, minimum building setbacks from a private drive, uh minimum side and rear yard setbacks and landscaping requirements. Uh the applicant did provide some illustrative drawings, so those uh help give a little bit more of a uh idea of how it would look. And this is another view. And these are the site photos. So this is looking at the subject property. This is the portion that has the existing three-story office building. And this is uh the portion where the um tower would be constructed. This is looking uh to the east. This is looking to the south and this is looking to the west and uh I am happy to answer any questions you all have. Questions? I do have one. Um when I first joined planning and zoning commission, the property to the north, which is the view, and then directly across um or between the view and 114 is the new um Rosewood Properties development. And we took commercial out of land use for those two projects and built residences. So now it appears you're there's an ask for even more residences and the only other company or or commercial there is Kimberly Clark which is a huge property. So is the in I hear that what I'm seeing is that we want more residential. It's surrounded by residential. Someone's coming in to take commercial and make it residential. Is that the intent for the land use over a period of time or is that are we just looking at this one project after another when they come up? I think that kind of gets the staff recommendation is denial on this, right? Yeah, correct. And sort of I assume that means it does not fit well with a comprehensive plan. Yeah, that's where the future land use discussions come in to have those highlevel what do we want where, what's appropriate. So when we go through now, we do it annually to to look at these different areas um to to to be able to rethink. It gives an opportunity for y'all to give us guidance or for us to propose something to you and you say yes or no. So in this area, it's still primarily office and unless we're told to do otherwise, it's going to stay office as a future related use and therefore that's going to be our basis. In regards to the open space, I was a little bit confused about um I I thought like this the pool will count it as open space, the swimming pool. It it can um typically it is not um on a deck. Typically the open space for most typical apartments is, you know, um a courtyard area with a pool and the related deck. So, it's possible, I guess, to consider it as open space, but it is part of the building. It's part of the second floor of the building, and it's a deck that extends from the main tower. So, it's not the typical landscaped pool that you would find at ground level, which is common with like high-rise buildings. That is correct. We do not have um as many standards for that in the typical MF1 and MF2 districts that are more, you know, fivetory max. Typically you would see something like that in the urban district overlay. Um so and then in terms of the of the variances because there are several variances that I don't know if I understand them all of them and on the building like on the the setback where where should it be and where it is right now like that's something I would like to know as well as the parking. I read something about underground parking and um also that they don't meet the you mentioned that track one does meet the open space right uh tract one does so if they wouldn't if they wouldn't be separating the land they will meet open space we did offer that as an option that might gain them uh more open space but they did make it clear that The uh goal was ultimately to subdivide the two pieces and so because of that each tract has to stand on its own for the regulations. Okay. And then the going back to the setback where where what should be the line and where it is what they're proposing is that on the on that graph. Uh yes. So it's it's not huge for uh the the building on tract one. It's uh the required is 40 ft um or 35 ft plus 5t for every story um above two. So at 35 ft and three stories um they would need a variance of 5t. Okay. Um, in regards to the building height for track 2, is there a variance? Yes. Uh, the max is three stories or 36 ft. Um, at 14 stories and 193 ft, they are needing a variance to add 11 stories and 157 ft in height. Is that because it's a multif family or were they could they build an office tower there because it's They could have an office some for office. Is that a possibility? They could have an office. Um yeah, depending on which zoning category it would be. Um I cannot remember offhand that the max height. Ken, can you look for a freeway to see what that max height is? Thank you. Yeah, it's the MFW. Oh, was it MFW? Okay. MFW, yes. Okay. Yeah. So, it's and I don't believe it was varied in the development plan. So I think it would default half the shorest distance half the shorest distance between the structure and the nearest developed single family lot. So I thought the question was about the height the height for yeah that yeah they literally base the height on the distance you would take the distance of that tract um and measure it to the nearest single family as the crow flies. Okay. and just say it was 100 feet till you hit the nearest single family lot, then it would be a 50-ft height for the building. Okay. So, approximately what kind of height would they be able to build on two? Ken, can you do an as the crow flies measure? I mean, the residential is just to the I guess kind of the southwest across Ok. So it's probably 60 maybe 70 ft would be the width of the street. So half of that would be 35 ft. So they couldn't do so about three stories, right? So even if they were doing it as office, they really couldn't build it any taller than than what they could what would be the required for the residential not in this particular area. So and what's there next to it? I mean the existing building is three stories. So it's basically they could build something similar in height to that. Okay. The urban district overlay which is you know around the lake Carolyn in that area we do have a different set of standards that does allow for a lot more height and a lot more density. It's just they don't uh apply in this area. So we we the only ven venue to get that variance is through amending uh the standards. Other questions? No, doesn't look like it. Thank you. Okay. Now we're on to item 11. Okay, that's mine as well. All right. Uh this case is 2025 95-Z located at 1018 East Union Bower Boulevard. Uh the applicant is requesting to change the zoning from R75 single family to SP2 or generalized site plan for R 2.5 which is a four family res for family residential zoning with variances. The staff recommendation is for approval. We did not receive any uh responses in support and we did receive one in opposition. This is aerial of the um property in question. There is an existing single family house on the eastern portion of the lot. And this is the future land use map. It does designate the area for compact neighborhood which does allow uh for some of the uh more dense single family type uh duplex triplex and quadplexes. This is the surrounding zoning map. These this is the notification map and this is the proposed site plan. Uh the applicant is proposing um eventually to subdivide the two tracks. So again, we have a situation where they have to kind of think ahead and uh design the development standards for the site plan um as it would ultimately be developed because they are trying to develop the um eastern tract first with the quad quadplex. Um they are trying to retain the existing single family home which also has this garage here. Um it's a detached uh garage. So they are showing that they will uh jut the property line in that area to maintain the setback. And ultimately their goal is to demolish the single family home and the garage on the western track as well. These are some of their illustrative drawings that they provided. And this is uh looking at the subject property. You can see the existing house on the west and or I'm sorry on the east and the um vacant portion that they want to develop with the forplex on the right. This is uh looking to the north of the subject property looking to the west looking to the east and I am uh happy to take any questions that you might have. questions. Yeah. Do you have the map that shows the percentages of the area that y'all had before? Uh showing the other parts, the percentage of the partials compared to it. You know, when we were looking at English Street, y'all had a doesn't come into play. Doesn't come into play. Oh, okay. for the uh the neighborhood protection ordinance does not um affect when you are uh developing for a forplex zoning. Okay. If it did affect it, what would what would be the consequences? Um that would be only if they were develop a single family home. Um it would if they were developing a single family home then it would re be required to be within 80% of the lot width and the lot area of any other single family lots beside it or across from it of the largest of those or are those on average? Uh we take the size of each one um three to the right, three to the left, and whatever's directly across. We add the square footage together and divide it by the number of lots to come up with the average. Then they have to meet 80% of that average. Can you go back to the slide that shows the surrounding lots? Sure. Um, and that one directly to the south, is that still single family? Uh, this one right here. Yeah, I believe that's a church. A church. Oh, yes. It's zoned single family, but it's developed with a church. And then these are duplexes, I believe, on the west side. And this is a single family house. These are apartments, single family house. Um, these might be small lot. They they don't look like uh single family. They're single family. Maybe R six. Let's see. We can look. Yes. So, here's the zoning. When you pass Apple Tree, then we're all big lots down through there all the way to Irving Heights. Yep. Yeah. Once you get over the other side of the the school, both sides of the street, it's all big lots. So, Gina, how is this oriented on this? I'm just looking at this drawing. How is this building oriented? Are they taking the entire lot [Music] for looks like four multif family homes or is it Yeah, there would be uh a forplex on each lot. So, two forplexes. Yes. And and which the plan is to build the one on the right first and then to build the one on the the left. So, it's going to be a total of eight. Total of eight palms, correct? How are they oriented, though? Which way are they facing? Yeah. So, north is actually south on the on the bottom of this. So, yeah, it's flipped. It's flipped. Why they did it that way, I don't know. So, does the illustration show that? I'm so sorry. So, does the illustration show that? How is it oriented with the map? Um, I believe the side would have to face the street just because of how narrow it is and they would have a driveway um, going down the side. We did have a pre-development meeting several months ago and that's kind of the design that I remember. So, what we're looking at the side of the illustration, you were to go back. So, the building would be oriented this way with a shared uh fire lane access easement to this point. Um, they're proposing having parking on the back. So, from the street view, they would uh you would see the side of the building. I believe so. That's my understanding. Oh, can you put your microphone on? the handout that came this this evening that shows the orientation pretty well. I think that and the applicant thinks the the applicant will be here so I know she'll be able to answer some of your questions in better detail with a side along the Yeah. There's something in the packet that shows the space age. It's okay. It's the back page of that few pages. Y So, just a new guy's question. Is that a concern having a side view of a building facing the street? It's not the No, it's not the side view. It's it's actually the front view facing the street facing Union Bower there is the front. Okay. Yeah. Now the parking's in the back. I don't think it's in and they have the circular drive in the front. But this is just illustrative though. Correct. We can't hold them to that. Yeah. So they could they could do it with the side view like you were talking about that this is they're not bound by this. Have to move it. Yeah. Yeah. It could be this doesn't actually work. I mean, we try to get them to think through those things so they don't get caught up at building permit having to redesign the whole site plan. But and Gina, out of curiosity, what are the parking requirements for a forplex? Um, it's based on I believe the number of bedrooms I remember when they had um was it two spaces per unit? Two spaces per unit. And and that's just per unit. That's not even considering how many bedrooms there are in there for a forplex. Yes. It's treated more like a single family home. Oh, thank you. Once we get into the multif family, then it's based on the number of bedrooms. And so what we'd be looking at making a recommendation on is really a proposal to be able to have two forplexes. Correct. Because we're reszoning the entire property for that zoning. Yeah, the existing single family home will be legally non-conforming until they take it down. Okay. Any other questions? Can you go back to the graph showing the area and No, another one. Yeah, probably that one. This is the future land use. So the property to the west I guess that one. So there are that could be considered I mean that's four duplexes. So like two forplexes I guess. Right. Yeah. They're all in one structure though, right? Right. All in one structure in a smaller lot. Yes. Well, yeah. It would be divided in half by I don't know if this is up to scale but at least Yeah, this would be divided down the middle. Yeah, Jan, they've had a few pre-development meetings already with fire and and traffic and stuff already. Correct. Yes. So they are very well aware of um all the obstacles that you know that they were looking at before they came up with the design and and isn't isn't that part of why they are showing at least in their conceptual materials having the building being in front of the main parking having the they have a turnaround drive but the main parkings's back behind the building because they can't have the building too far away from uh from from the roadway because of the the fire. Correct. Yeah. And eventually should they replplat? They can plat um you know up here as as that document shows in your um packet, but it it is illustrative. that if they were to go forward and eventually replplat, they could um once they demolish the single family home, if they wanted to provide a shared uh U access and it would meet um you know the requirements for the turn radius or the you know radius for the firetruck to get in there and all that, they would be fine doing that. They could they could add it um when they plat or replplat. [Music] Can you go back to the variances? Um I don't I don't think I have the table here. I do have the the only variances for the lot is is like a foot or like a half foot variance for the lot width. Yeah, the the lot width is the back is 150 ft, but the front of the lot is 149 point something. So, if they divide it in half, um either one of the lots or both of the lots is going to be slightly short of that frontage. Okay. So, it's it's less than a foot. Okay. Just want to add the future land use in this area is compact neighborhood. So, you go a little further to the east, it is more the traditional neighborhood, the larger lot, single family. Um, this is also part of the nursery neighborhood plan area and we're finishing that up. We're proposing to present it to the planning and development committee at the end of May. And so hopefully we'll get it to y'all in June. Um, so part of that is relooking at some of the land uses we went through with the neighborhood. We had a a public meeting a month or so ago. Um but just to we talked about the future land use a couple minutes ago about another case. So this is compact neighborhood in this area at this time. Do you have a sense of what is likely to be recommended or suggested in regards to this area going forward? I believe in this area we're keeping it compact neighborhood. a lot of the the north nursery, especially around Guather and nursery itself. Um they went to the community village, there were some apartments up there trying to relook at, you know, kind of reinvision the area to more of a mixeduse type use, but uh down here a little bit further south, I believe they kept it as the compact neighborhood. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Item 12. All righty. So, this is for special fence plan. This is 2025103 SFP. It's located at 800 Lwood Drive. The current zoning is R six. So, that single family residential six. The request is to allow a 6- foot tall board on board fence within the 20 foot required front yard setback along Mimosa Street being 0 feet from the property line. Um after review staff finding is no undue hardship in terms of public comment. There were two in support and none in opposition. So this is the aerial future land use. So it's the traditional neighborhood zoning property owners that were notified and so for special fence project plans the criteria is it must be determined that all the following findings are made. The requested variance does not violate the intent of the chapter uh will not adversely affect surrounding properties will not adversely affect public safety and special conditions exist which are unique to the applicant or property. um after review staff believes that it does not uh meet all the criteria for approval. So this property is it is zoned R six, but it does have a duplex on it. It's from it was built in 1952, so it's consider considered legal non-conforming. And this is the part of the fence how this kind of came to us. Code enforcement had discovered it. Looks like panels were replaced and after, you know, further investigation that there was no active permit for the replace of it. And since this is the property line and this is Lwood and then Mimosa, it's considered double frontage. So the setback of 25 ft for Lwood also applies to Mimosa. So technically they're really supposed to have it there. But um the applicant mentioned this is a fence that have been here forever and you know off through aerials what we can it has been there a long time. It looks like it was constructed between like 2003 2005. So it's been there a very long time. Um but now it's kind of come to our attention. So they're asking for that variance. So um they basically just replaced the panels that were there but didn't move it closer to the road. And so this is what uh the pictures from code enforcement. So you can see the the new edition and these photos are from uh Google Street View. So this is before. So you can kind of tell that there hasn't been a change in the location. And uh I can happy to answer any comments or questions. So So you're saying that it's the fence has been there for over 20 years. Um was it in violation when they installed it? Yeah. Um, it's it's a thing where it it was a it's a obviously an older neighborhood and the Mimosa Street, so the street where this is on and right here, it had an expansion. Um, so, you know, they wind the road a little bit, built it up. It didn't really affect the property line of this neighborhood, but it looks like, can uh correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's the neighbor to the south. So, this neighbor used to have a fence almost in like that same location, but when the rightway was obtained um they had to take their fence down. Um but this has remained um after review from all the departments there had there was any concerns unless you know Cody unless there's anything I'm missing there. But well, so the the neighbor had a similar fence, but I mean was it in violation when it was built? Not not did it end up as a problem because there was an expansion of the right of way. that that seems like a different issue. So, I mean, expansion of the right away, it seems like the fence was probably fine when it was built. So, that that's what I'm trying to get clarity on. The fence that was on that on the property to the south that you see here with the driveway, uh, we don't really have a good picture like from the ground of it. All we know is from the aerial hose, we can tell there was a fence there. I can't I could not tell you the exact materials and and height of that fence, but there was one there. Uh the one for the subject property. Um can you go back to the Yeah. So there's been a fence there uh for at least 20 years and it would have been the the corner lot setback issue for a fence has not changed during that time. So whenever it was originally built 20 years ago, 30 years ago, uh it would have been technically in violation of of the fence ordinance at that time, but the right of way didn't have an impact on if anything, it makes it uh better because instead of the road going the road used to go straight right there and it was a weird bad intersection. I think maybe Cody can talk to more, but uh they redid it so it actually curves. So there's a little bit better of Go to the arrow photo if you would. I don't know if it really shows it, but Okay, go something that doesn't have the thing. Okay, there you go. So it it kind of curves now. So it's it's they they kind of smoothed out Lwood so it wasn't just a like zigzag kind of kind of thing and they smoothed it out and curved that road. So now the fence is actually not really as as bad even as it was originally because of the curve of the street. The only thing it would impact potentially would be the property owner to the south and they've been living with it for again for without complaint for however many years. Yeah. And this only came to the city's attention because they were fixing the fence basically. Okay. Question. When y'all guys take out roads and y'all redo them and do all the infrastructure and everything else, y'all typically take pictures, video, everything of everybody's properties. And y'all normally go through and if it affects anything, y'all bring it up to code or building inspections and say, "This is not in compliance, but we're going to do it." Was that the case possibly with this one? Walt, can we refer defer to you on that one? And normally when we do um as as a procedure we we we uh photograph and document the existing conditions before the project uh starts. Um I'm not sure about this particular case. So trying to understand this. So really the right now there's not really an issue with the fence. There hasn't been any complaints and then review from the other departments. There haven't been any like outstanding comments or concerns about it ex existing where it is today or how it has been. So the only problem is really the the the set back from the street which is about how much then the the setback uh 25 ft and so the applicant that's also why they requested it because they're uh what they're using you know the area as a backyard would be severely limited at that point. So that's why they're kind of running across it since it's been there and they want to maintain the the backyard that they do have. Um yeah. Can you show us the property and what actually moving the fence would result in? It's It's not um moving. It's just allowing it to um Well, like if they had to tear down that fence and put a fence up where the 25 ft I mean how much it would be like around here. So they would have like Well, they're so if this is to scale this is 19 ft. So we'll say like that. Yeah. So and then this is their since it's a duplex this is the their neighbor or the other unit. So they wouldn't have much of a a backyard at that point. Correct. That's if if they fenced it in, but I mean, most people want their backyards fenced in. So, could they do something else along Mimosa? Um, a different type of fence, maybe a 4 foot with visibility through it. That would be more yeah if they wanted Yeah, they they are allowed to have a 4 foot or it's not to exceed 48 inches and 50% visibility is what they can do on Mimosa if they wanted to keep it at the property line. I guess my Can you go back to the picture of the fence that they installed? Um I guess my only issue is really looks as looks. I mean, why can they not complete it all the way? Oh, like complete the like replace the whole fencing. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I mean, don't do it halfway. I mean, the just do it all the way, right? No. Yeah. I mean, that's something you can ask the applicant. We don't Yeah, I'll ask you. Is that back part there or is that back part as in like this part? Yeah. Oh, yeah. This is like their the front of their property. So, this is where See if I can get a better photo. So this is where the new panel is and then that photo that where that cone is. See? So this is the front of the property or kind of the side. So that's where Yeah. So go back this one. Yeah. Okay. So measuring it out roughly on the aerial photo. The fence would have to go basically inside right there. So it be way inside. Mhm. as if they wanted to do the six feet board on board. I mean, my my thoughts on this is like, yeah, they I mean, I don't have much of a problem with it, but just that the whole fence is replaced. I mean, this is a huge space they're gaining on the backyard that a lot of neighbors may not be getting in it. So, I think the whole fence will have to be replaced. Any other questions? No. All right. Uh, one second. Um, we are on to item 13. So, I need to step out for a minute. Turning it over to Vice Chair Hack for this for item 13 and then I'll be back. Good evening again. The next case is 2025104-Z. It's located at 1901 West Irving Boulevard. Uh they are requesting to reszone from professional office to commercial office. Staff recommendation is for approval. We did receive uh one uh letter of uh opposition and none in support. This is the subject property. Um the reason for the request to change to um the next zoning up basically is because the applicant is wanting to uh rent one of their lease spaces to a trade and vocational school. Uh that school is uh involved in teaching repairs for HVAC equipment and commercial refrigeration units and uh the professional office district does not allow for those types of schools. They allow for dance studios and um karate studios, gymnastics, that kind of thing. Um for the next uh zoning category up, commercial office. Um they do have a category that will show in a later slide that does permit a business like a trade or vocational school. This is the uh future land use map. They are in compliance with the future land use even with the zoning change. Uh this is the surrounding zoning map and the notification map. And uh this is just a list of the additional uses that would be permitted um going uh from professional office to commercial office. So commercial office will permit any use in the district they already have. Plus uh it would add day nurseries and kindergartens, nursing homes, uh hospitals and professional and business services and offices completely within an enclosed building uh excluding any type of hotel or motel operations. So that is the category uh that would accommodate a uh for-profit technical school. And this is the subject property. So this is the the building right here. And one of the lease spaces in that building is one of the is where they want to locate the school. And this is looking uh to the west. This is looking to the south across Irving Boulevard. And this is looking to the east. Since the property does side um on Alden, this is from the parking lot of the subject property. uh looking east along Alden and this is on Alden Street uh looking at the property boundary between the subject property and the adjacent residential to the north and I am happy to take any of your questions. Just as anformational comment, um traffic and transportation did uh make the comment that at the time of CO um certificate of occupancy, should this zoning get approved, they would discuss whether a traffic management plan would be required. Um that is very typical of any type of uh school. What what other businesses are is in that building? Uh I believe there is a barber training school in there as well. I am not sure of the other occupants. I I know the applicant uh will be here so they could answer that for you. Yeah, there's a medical clinic. That's one of their primary tenants is a medical clinic. Um just from educational perspective, why is the HVAC vocational school different than others? Is it because of the equipment they use? Yes. Okay. So, if they bring a HVAC school, they'll be bringing commercial equipment and commercial cars and stuff in there. Yes. Well, it's it's a vocational school. So, it's not it's not like a university or a public school. It's it's a business school vocational school. So, that's it's looked at differently than what you would think of as a school system type of setup. If that's your question. Oh, sorry. I don't understand. Well, it's it's a it's a it's a business school. It's an adult school. It's for it's to learn a trade, which is different than just a normal university or, you know, a fouryear or two-year school. But you already have a trade school in there teaching barber. Yeah. No longer there. Okay. This is her. He's our chief building inspector. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I was just going to say vocational school is different cuz you have to have that equipment in there teaching people hands-on training. So, it's not necessarily just like a classroom school. And that's what I'm wondering. It's heavier equipment and hands-on mechanics. Like if you were learning to repair X-ray equipment or medical equipment, things like that, that would be more of a vocational type school. Is that land owned by one owner? All of that land? Yes. So, if we change this, I'm going to parrot Mr. Denny. Looking down the road, then if the owner decides to sell that property, you can put a nursing home on there, a hospital, some of those other uses. I don't know that the size would support a hospital. It could maybe support an outpatient type facility for sure. Um it it is not that big though, but it could be a rehab or clinic or you know some you said nursing home. Yes. I mean it could be a small rehab facility that somebody could put in there. And when you say traffic study, Gina, I noticed there was only I I felt it was a little awkward getting into that property off of Alden because you had to go all the way past the building and then turn in. So when you say a traffic management study, is that what you mean in terms of how you manage I'll uh let Cody Hi Cody take that one. So traffic management study is really not a too in-depth study like a traffic impact study would be that looks more at the driveways. Just really lets us know how the school is going to operate to make sure that we don't have any queuing issues essentially. Um, as far as the driveways go, unless they really tear down the building, um, those those are grandfathered the way that they are and would just remain and operate as they do today. So, a vocational school, I'm guessing, I don't know. That usually means traffic in the evenings because you're teaching people trade after their regular job, I'm sure. So, ne not necessarily. Okay. Mo most HVAC schools, I can tell you from experience, I mean, you're normally 8 to 6 Monday through Friday. It's either a two-eek course or you got a 10-week course. 10E courses are typically on Saturdays from like 8 to 6, 8 to 7. So, they're crash courses every Saturday. So, that's basically you'll have a little bit of traffic going in in the morning. Most of the time you get like 20 minutes, maybe 30 minutes for lunch. you eat real quick, so there's not a lot of traffic leaving. People normally bring their lunch because the classes are so fast-paced. And they're putting one in diagonally across from that at the old YMCA. That's where the new CTE building is going for the Irving Independent School District. And so when they put that in, they'll also have HVAC classes for high school students and everything else right there. Any other questions? Okay, moving on. Think we're done. Our next item, discussion of possible amendments to planning and zoning commission rules of procedure. Just as a refresher, this issue came up was suggested to us by one of the council members. Um, so sort of we got the the rules, our rules and their rules to compare last time, but we at least a lot of us thought, you know, it might be helpful to have a presentation from the staff sort of explaining some of how the rules work. Uh, we don't have an an action item on this topic tonight. So, we aren't taking any action on this at all tonight. We're really just getting a chance to have a sort of a refresher on how our rules work and to be able to begin to think about whether we think there are any changes that might be useful um uh as we look at it. I mean, I think it sounds like it's been a long time since the rules were originally drafted. So, uh could be that there there might be changes that that could be warranted at this point. So, but we thought this was the first step in that process. Uh and if if we think it's worth pursuing further, you know, we would just ask that it um be put on an agenda for uh further discussion at probably, you know, a later meeting uh whenever there's time. So, all right. Yeah. So, what he said. Um so, what we did actually we're trying to use AI a little bit. So, what we did is we took the rules of procedure for council and PNC and tried to compare those. Um, so that's what we did is is we tried to summarize um and and try to give a one to one in terms of what the two rules are. Um, there were a lot of places there weren't there wasn't a whole lot of overlap, but um, so I I can go through these really quickly, but the main thing I know that kind of brought it up is the decorum discussion and is there anything from uh, what council had done I believe was in 24. So they just did it last September. um yeah, here September 24 um that they did in response to some of the experiences they had had and to think about if there's uh anything that y'all might want from the experiences that we've recently had. Um so they just kind of talk about the meetings uh both regular and special meetings who can call those meetings. Um if y'all stop me if you want to discuss anything. Work sessions as well before the meetings. Attendance. Um we have our regulations. This is a November 21. Um council did subsequently adopt some regulations. We call it kind of the 75% rule where they do expect you to attend 75% of the meetings. So every month, April keeps up with the attendance and we do report that to the city secretary's office. Um, it would be up to the council if anybody starts having a lot of absences and they want to, you know, relook at somebody. You know, they can appoint or unappoint anybody any time of year, but um, I'd be very surprised if they ever did that, but that is under council's prerogative. Council of course doesn't have similar attendance requirements. Um, a quorum. This is interesting. We're a little bit different there. So, for both council and PNZ, uh, five members is a quorum. for PNZ a majority of vote um of those president is needed to pass motion. So if we have seven people you can do a 43 council can't do that. So if they have seven people and you do a 43 that you have to have five to approve that's actually in the charter because that came up a few months ago and so that was interesting. So for council you have to have at least five people vote for approval no matter how many people are there. So if you only have five people there, everybody there has to vote in order for something to be approved. Um cancelling meetings, you know, and the chair, vice chair or staff can cancel a meeting if need be as long as we notify everybody. Uh exparte communications, we do have a section and we revised ours in 21. Um that's basically just making sure that you you limit the amount of conversation you have among each other. Um, and you know, you don't want to, we I think you've already all had the ethics. You don't want to be communicating by text and eventually essentially do a walk-in quorum. Um, on that one, it's talking about communications among commissioners or communications with somebody else because like a couple of times, you know, I think you all even sent, you know, somebody had contacted you, wanted to talk to one of us, something like that. I mean, which kind of situation is this addressing? This is among commissioners. Okay. So, you're you're you're always welcome to talk to someone in the public. We just when when we send that when people will because like if people work in Dallas, they're directed to talk to the the PNZ. They are recommended talk to the PNZ. For us, we don't release any of your information. So, if they get your information, I can promise you they didn't get it from staff. Um, but if somebody does say, "I want to talk with somebody," that's your prerogative. If you want to reach out to them, if you want to respond, if you want to release your information, we're going to let you know that request was made. Um, and if if you do, please let us know and let us know what that discussion was. If you don't, that's your prerogative as well. But that that's that's when you get that email. Just letting you know we got Oh, yeah. So, it's just if we were if some of us were talking, you know, run into one of the commissioners and talking about something that's coming up before us or something like that. What about but not members of the public? I didn't read the rule that way. So, that's why I was a little bit concerned. I read it the same as you do, uh, Chair Skinner. I, uh, when we drafted this, the idea was there are certain, um, cases that come before you that are solely within the purview of the commission. And so if you are having communications with applicants or property owners or neighbors um outside of the meeting um the the rules say that you should inform staff and the reason for that is just to have everybody on an equal playing field when you're making the decisions. You know if somebody can't come speak at a meeting but has spoken to you, you know, then everybody is aware of that. That's the purpose of that rule. Okay. Would that apply then to um uh like a council member reaching out to somebody about something that was in their district. If if it's a case before you Yes. that has we're getting ready to vote on, right? Then um you the the rules say that you should forward those communications to staff to be able to distribute. Certainly, you know, any conversations occurring, you guys are are aware of your ethical responsibilities. Um, this largely has to do with if you're receiving individual communications, particularly in writing, but um, you just that you forward those on to staff for everybody to be aware of. Okay. And for something that's already passed us, like one time I think somebody had reached out to the staff, they wanted to talk with me about something that we'd already voted on. I I don't think I had a chance to visit with them anyway, but would that have been something I would have needed to report back if I had talked to them about it? No. No, I it wasn't it's not something you'd be currently voting on. Okay. So, you're just discussing at that point as long as it's not going to come up again, but you can't predict that. Okay. Or like somebody who comes up and says, "Hey, you just wanted to get a better sense of why you were in favor or opposed or something like that." That that would be fine. Okay. How about if we meet not on P&Z topic though, like like me and Debbie, we're on a different board as well, so we work together. Yeah. Yeah. It's just as long as you're not communicating about any case something that you might be voting on and it's not if two people are communicating it's not an issue it's just it's sometimes it doesn't stop there unintentionally. Yeah. Um quickly got about five minutes. So minutes of course both PNZ and council keep minutes. Uh staff we serve as the secretary for the commission. agendas and notices are the same. Basically, 72 hours is the required posting. I don't think the legislature is trying to tinker with that. There's some other minor things like impact fees and things that they are, but that's irrelevant. Um, withdrawal of applications when we amended this in in November 21, we did try to put some specifics in here for PNZ uh when people withdraw so that you don't have to take action on each of those. So when they submit their request to withdraw depends on whether you need to take action or not. So if we've already sent notice, then that is when you have to take action. Other than that, um if they don't want to move forward with the case, it's not like we're going to force them to move forward with the case. So that's what that section is. It just kind of puts the criteria as to when uh you would actually need to take action. on the bottom part of that, if I'm reading it correctly, it says that if they submit the withdrawal after the notice has gone out, still on the agenda, but no public hearing is held, but I thought we did hold a public hearing on the ones that were on the agenda. The the intent was that we put it on the agenda and saying it's been withdrawn. I don't know that that's been our action that we've been doing. Um because if if somebody is no longer requesting something, then it's status quo. There's really not any discussion particularly to be held. But if it's on the agenda, don't we then have to I mean typically we will like do a a motion to postpone or something. But before we can do that, we have to have the public hearing. If somebody went to the effort to come, then they have the right, you know, they may not understand. I mean, the notice went out and it listed it. They've showed up to speak on the topic. Okay. So they can be heard. I don't know if it'd be a public hearing, per se, but they can be heard because they've been there because there's if they've withdrawn, there's not a there's nothing to discuss officially, but they want to be heard. What about if they um want to postpone and they don't show up? I'd like some clarity about that because we postpone we we voted to deny a case um at our last meeting when the applicant did not show up and I thought that was a little unfair particularly because there was a miscommunication with the applicant. I would rather us be very specific here that if the applicant is not here we just allow a postponement. I think that's the polite thing to do. Or or does withdraw mean entirely withdrawn like it's entirely off the tip? not postponing to this is not postponed. Yeah. Okay. So, it probably the comparison we did we didn't pick that up because council doesn't have anything similar. If somebody postpones it's not a I mean if somebody doesn't attend it's not a requirement to postpone. When we did the amendments we made it as an option because there were times where PNZ said we just don't want this to move forward with it. You know we don't want to waste our time on whatever it is anymore. So it is definitely PNZ's prerogative. It's not a requirement to postpone. If you want to postpone, you can postpone. If you want to act on it, you can act on it. So that is So the fact that the person didn't come and you you wanted to postpone to give them that time, that was completely appropriate, but it's your choice to do that. You don't have to do it. But we actually voted to deny the case, right? And that's your prerogative as well is to take action on it. So you just feel like it's unfair to deny a case when the applicant isn't here and that's the that's the commission's choice to do. Yeah. It's just before it was it had to be postponed and this gives you that choice because sometimes again there's there's cases that you just don't want to see again honestly and that that's that's why it allows you to just say just move it on to council. will let council do what they're going to do versus having to take it back. Um, suspension of rules. So, with the unanimous vote of uh the PNZ president at the time, you can suspend the rules of the the rules of procedure. If you want to amend the rules, uh you can introduce any amendments, but they cannot be acted on until the next meeting. And then, of course, the consent agenda is basically the same between uh PNZ and council. So the public hearing procedures just touching on these real quick. Um PNZ is a little bit shorter because it is you are recommending body and council is the the final determination of the cases the kind the final district disposition. Um so of course PNZ applicants have five minutes to present and that's all the applicants everybody who's representing the case. people in support or in opposition have five minutes and then the applicant has five minutes for rebuttal. Um, and here there's some language about, you know, the chair being able to interrupt and redirect people if need be. Uh, determine if people are out of order. Um the chair can also fix uh lengths u to how long people can appear and have some other u parameters if there's a lot of people and try to get them to combine and and compile their uh comments. So council similarly we have five minutes at PNZ for the applicant council has 10 and that was accent just recently reduced from 20. So they used to have 20 minutes for the applicant. Um the people in opposition or support have three minutes where again PNZ has five and then the uh rebuttal for the applicant they also have five as well as PNC. So trying to compare those a little bit. The mayor also has the ability of course at council to u if there's multiple speakers um on the same topic then they can encourage people to reduce those be a little more concise. [Music] uh voting procedures basically the same. Um we updated ours our just our terminology a little bit in November. We also did some adjustments to meet some of the requirements of the subdivision as chapter 212 um of the state uh local government code. So that's why our terminology is a little bit different but the actions uh obviously are similar. So into decorum and debate. Um, we're running out of time so I don't want to spend uh too much time, but I think that the story here is we have four items in P&Z. Basically, we want people to be nice and behave themselves and council got a lot more specific again to due to some of the experiences they had. So, what we um we wanted to provide all this so that you could think about if there's anything that you wanted to carry over from council into PNZ um or not, but we think it's helpful to have these kind of side by side to decide what types of, you know, hopefully we won't need them. Um, but if there's anything that you wanted to address, uh, something that at council that they, uh, saw what PNZ went through and said, "We don't want people to have signs." So, they limited the amount of signs and and what they could bring in. So, for council, if some of y'all were here, they had the big digital signs outside telling people, "Don't bring your signs in." So there are things like that that um council learned through PNZ's experiences what they did and didn't want to see happen again. So I will leave it there unless there's anything that you all want to get into in detail. Any questions you all have for staff on this or could you share this um sideby-side comparison with us so we have a chance to digest this and then it's in your packet. I'm not it completely. Oh, it's at the beginning. I went right to the case notes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. One question is you said that each applicant has five minutes, correct? Yes. In PNC. Okay. That's per case, correct? Yes. Okay. So, if you have a comp plan case and a zoning case, then and that's y'all may not notice it, but that's often what we do is we will give them 10 minutes. Yeah. So, everybody will come and and that's fine. I was just curious about the incident that we went through and you know you had a application but we had you know seven hours of testimony. Yeah. And that was really in the public hearing portion and that's the each person in support opposition gets five minutes under our rules. They only get three minutes under the council rules but we had two items. So we technically had two different public hearings in our evening session. Now, most of the speakers were in the first of those public hearings, but then we also had a work session that day, which we hadn't originally planned on, and they got to speak during the citizen comment. So, potentially a lot of people could have spoken three times. I don't know that anybody or not much of anybody spoke all three times, but um but there were definitely some people who spoke twice. And on this we have the uh basically if we you know look at it as council does we can after a certain number of speakers we can limit the speaking time. Well council did at the beginning of the council meeting it applied to all the zoning cases that night is they reduced uh the three minutes down to two. So no matter what the zoning case was all the speakers had two minutes. So that's one way council got through it faster as well. Okay. people to be to be clear in regards to to communication. So anything we talk to anybody in regards to a case pending case we have to let staff know ideally right because that way everybody knows the same information that it's including city council as well if if it's something that could be pertinent to the decision that you're making but we can talk among any we can talk about any case after we have already um made a decision but even if it hasn't gone through city council. Carolyn, I don't know if you want to You can always We It's It's not our place to tell you whether you can talk to city council or not. Um No, no, no, no. Us meaning like it talked about the case either among us or with someone else, even if we have already made the decision, but it hasn't gone through city council. Yeah. You don't have to if you if it's already gone through P&Z, you don't have to particularly tell us because it's not information that we would need to disperse anymore to everybody else because what it's no longer pending before us, right? So, what we're trying to do is like if you talk to a neighborhood is that that's more that's more our thought is if you if you're talk to a neighborhood and they've told you some history about the area or something, then that could be helpful to share with everybody. But we want to be able to do that neutrally versus you communicating with everybody one-on- one. But yeah, it seems like it would apply to talking to a council member before our PNZ but not after our PNZ meeting. All right. I'll just Yeah, I'll just make one I I think the nature of these questions does raise that the technical language of this rule seems over broad. Um like for example, I mean like just the question about whether or not we can talk with councilmen, you know, to get their perspective and and council doesn't have a similar rule. Um so I think it's something to consider if if this comes back to us. Any other comments for tonight? Is there an interest in having this as another discussion item in the future? I don't know about discussion item, but I think there some of them are worth looking at what council adopted. Yeah. Um in case we run into similar issue again, at least we have something to lean back on. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, sounds like if you could put it on the agenda ideally next time, unless the schedule is too, we can always adjust it uh to prepare like council has. Uh it doesn't necessarily mean we need to use it. Yeah. But it's here and available to be used if need be. Yeah. I specifically like the decorum the meeting um signs and stuff like that. So, what we'll look for from y'all next time we bring it back. We do have a heavier load next month of cases, but they're not real complex cases, so we don't know how fast we'll get through them. Um but what we'll look we'll look to y'all for direction in terms of what uh specifics you want to pull over into your rules of procedure and then we can start drafting that. But we we'll need to know the details of what you're looking for. Okay. I I just had one question about the time limit who the five for us is that something that we have just adopted as like a commission like where did that number come from? It is. Is that something that we could adjust or Yes, we can talk about. Okay, cool. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um any the only other item here any future agenda items besides the one we just talked about? No. All right. Then the work session is adjourned at 7:06 p.m. and we will meet over there shortly. Heat. Heat. [Music]