2026-10-05 - Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session

00:03[music]

00:08[music]

00:10Heat.

00:15[music]

00:17Heat.

00:21[music]

00:23Heat.

00:30[music]

00:35Heat.

00:37[music]

00:42[music]

00:44Heat. Heat.

00:51[music]

00:56[music]

01:56Heat. Heat.

01:59[music]

02:05Heat. Heat.

02:15Heat. Heat. N.

02:25Heat. Heat. [music]

02:31[music]

02:36[music]

02:45[music]

02:54>> [music]

02:57>> Heat.

03:00Heat.

03:16>> [music]

03:19>> Heat.

03:21Hey, Heat.

03:29Heat. Heat.

03:39Heat. Heat.

03:45[music]

03:55>> [music]

04:01[music]

04:14[music]

04:25[music]

04:26>> Heat.

04:29Heat.

04:31[music]

04:38[music]

04:42Heat. Heat.

04:50[music]

05:01>> [music]

05:05>> Heat.

05:07Heat. [music]

05:15Heat.

05:17[music]

05:28[music]

05:30Heat.

05:36[music]

05:41>> [music]

05:47[music]

05:53[music]

05:57>> Commission work session of Monday 5th of

05:59October 2026.

06:01The purpose of our work session is to

06:03prepare commissioners on cases we have

06:05to take action on in the public hearing.

06:08You're welcome to provide comments

06:09during the work session, but we also

06:11encourage you to speak at the public

06:12hearing for the case. Did anyone sign up

06:16to speak on any item listed on the work

06:18session agenda? Claudia,

06:20>> Madame Chair, no one did. Please

06:22proceed.

06:23>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, so our

06:26first uh item today, are there any

06:29changes to the consent agenda items and

06:32the disapproval for approval and

06:33disapproval?

06:34>> No, ma'am.

06:35>> Okay, so you're good.

06:37Um, so the first case tonight is

06:39Haley's. It's uh 2026132-C

06:431701 Landmark Road, which is a case we

06:47saw in August that has come back to us.

06:54All righty. Good evening, commissioners.

06:56Haley Rutical Planning.

06:58So, yes, this one is 2026132Z.

07:01It's at 1701 Landmark. They are

07:03currently straight um R75 and they would

07:06like to go to a generalized site plan

07:08for R75. Um this is to allow for a guest

07:10quarters, but variance to the seex

07:13height and um it being in front of the

07:15primary structure.

07:17After review, the staff recommendation

07:19is for denial. In terms of public

07:21comments, there was none in support but

07:23there was in opposition.

07:26So this is aerial future land use of

07:29traditional neighborhood

07:31the zoning which all developed around it

07:33a single family

07:35property owners that were notified

07:39and then the opposition

07:42and then the site plan. So there's like

07:44a few things I want to kind of go over

07:46since it's been a little bit. Um, so

07:48this house was and the detached garage

07:50were permitted and built in 2004. Um,

07:53the detached garage is about 760 square

07:56ft. It's two stories um being at 21 ft

07:59and about 2 in. So what kind of started

08:02this in May of last year um they got

08:05received a notice of violation from code

08:06enforcement for operating a short-term

08:08rental. Um later that month, the

08:12applicant said, "Okay, well I'm not

08:14doing short-term rentals the 30 days.

08:15I'm doing longer." So, a property

08:18standards case was then opened for the

08:20garage conversion to make it habitable.

08:22In February of this year, uh they tried

08:25to apply for a permit to have a walkway

08:27to attach the main structure, like the

08:30house with the detached garage to make

08:32it part of the primary structure, but

08:34per our UDC, we don't consider that um

08:36as it a house addition. Um and then they

08:40submitted for this case April of this

08:41year. Um, so when it was a detached

08:44garage, it did conform, but now since

08:46it's a guest quarters, kind of like I

08:48said, they're now have new request

08:49variances due to the location and size

08:51of it.

08:55So this is the existing floor plan that

08:56was provided by the applicant

09:02and then the excuse me subject property

09:06kind of a zoom in. So this is the that

09:09was the detached garage but is now

09:10requesting to be a guest quarters

09:13east of the subject property west and

09:17south which is across the street. The

09:18letter opposition I believe came from

09:20this house.

09:22Um what's kind of new is that they did

09:24provide this um for city council last

09:26time. Um however I would like to mention

09:29one it's not approved. It wasn't

09:31approved by inspections and two it still

09:33has this as storage and garage not

09:35labeling it as habitable at all.

09:39So, also what you're about to see is

09:41kind of before and afters. So, we

09:42compared the listing that we found on

09:44Zillow with what we found on a rental um

09:49website before they took it down before

09:51the last city council. So, this is the

09:53Zill posting from 2019. This is the

09:55first floor

09:57and this is what they transitioned it

09:59to. So, a living area,

10:02um the little dining area, which is in

10:04that same area, half bath,

10:08the kitchen, and this does include um an

10:12electric cooktop. It's just missing a um

10:16an oven and a dishwasher. Those aren't

10:18included.

10:20And then this is the upstairs. So, this

10:21is what it was in 2019.

10:24The other side of the room.

10:26And then this is what um has happened

10:28since then. So, it's turned into a

10:30bedroom. This is their full bath.

10:35Again, Zel posting from 2019. They do

10:37have a um a separate garage that was

10:39built with the um with the house.

10:43And then they just kind of made some

10:45conversions there. Um I am believe

10:49that's all I have. I'm open to any

10:50comments or questions.

10:57Can you go back to the original Zillow?

11:00>> Uh, which one?

11:02>> Uh, the not the one for the I guess the

11:05listing for rental, but the uh Yeah, the

11:07original one.

11:08>> Why the first floor or second floor?

11:10Like this one?

11:11>> Yes.

11:11>> Okay.

11:13>> Okay.

11:15Is that a bathroom? Do you know of in

11:17there?

11:18>> I believe it's a toilet here and then

11:22the sink. Um, again, I don't think any

11:24of that was permitted. Um, it was

11:26included in these plans. So, you can see

11:28there's a powder, so it looks like a

11:30toilet, and then the sink right here.

11:33Um, and then up here, what's not

11:34included on these plans, but you can see

11:35in the ZIL pictures, there's a sink here

11:37as well.

11:39>> Okay. If I recall, the applicant said

11:43that they still have the garage and I

11:46guess everything's finished out

11:48upstairs.

11:49>> So, it's two stories. So, the Let me

11:52see.

11:53So, this was two-car garage. What they

11:56did is I believe this part is still

12:00um So, right here is where they still

12:02have a garage. Here is the living area,

12:04dining nook, half bath, kitchen, and

12:08then it goes upstairs to the bedroom.

12:10So, they have one slot, but for a for a

12:14cart in there, but it's that's not the

12:16same issue.

12:17If I recall correctly, the applicant

12:20said all they did was add a wall and do

12:23some sheetrock. Am I correct on

12:26>> Yes.

12:28>> Okay. Thank you,

12:32>> Haley. Those pictures you showed, is

12:34this the same location, right?

12:36>> At the 1701 landmark. Yep.

12:38>> Okay. [laughter]

12:39in your packet. There is also um I think

12:42the first photo that was put in there.

12:44It did have the I didn't want

12:47necessarily put these in for the the

12:48presentation, but I did screenshot at

12:50the very top where it does say 1701

12:52landmark and it has the when it was

12:54listed and when it was taken off and

12:55sold and all that kind of stuff. So,

13:03>> um can you repeat why are we seeing this

13:06case again? So they're not allowed to

13:08one they did it illegally. They didn't

13:10get any permits for the modifications

13:12from

13:13>> Oh, why we're seeing it again?

13:15>> Oh, so it was randed from council. So

13:16basically when the applicant came up, um

13:19they said some of the things that they

13:20wanted to show weren't included and they

13:22had permits and all these things showing

13:24that it was permitted, which what we got

13:28were kind of these pictures, just uh

13:31street photos with just showing the

13:33driveway. Um and then

13:36uh this uh preliminary site plan but not

13:39permit.

13:41>> Yeah. The applicant said they had

13:42additional information. So they wanted

13:43to make sure that PNZ was able to see

13:46anything that was new.

13:48>> So nothing new? [clears throat]

13:49>> Not really.

13:50>> No. The what what they had submitted

13:52were the little pictures and things

13:54you've seen. We've also followed up with

13:56them a week or two ago to ask if there

13:58was anything else and we didn't receive

13:59anything else.

14:01So to to clarify, sorry to clarify, we

14:04do not have no permit. We do not have no

14:07original plans that was stated during

14:09the council meeting. We don't have none

14:11of that that was supposed to be

14:14represented to us. Correct.

14:16>> You you see everything that they

14:18provided to us. Okay.

14:20>> So yes, correct.

14:21>> Yeah, cuz I recall at the council

14:22meeting they there was original set of

14:24plans to the house when it was built

14:26that way and etc. and some new permit

14:30information and was going to be

14:33presented to us tonight.

14:34>> Yes.

14:35>> Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.

14:37>> Um, so the applicant has the option to

14:40convert this back to a garage.

14:42>> Correct.

14:42>> And no variances will be needed

14:44>> if it's a detached garage. No. Um, they

14:47will have to take all the things that

14:48make it habitable out of it. So, kind of

14:51like our past ADU cases, how it's not

14:53necessarily the structure that's the

14:55issue. Um, but it's the the air

14:58conditioning, the the appliance, the

15:00kitchen appliances, the bedrooms, the

15:02closets, the showering facilities, that

15:05kind of stuff.

15:06>> And who will make sure that happens?

15:08>> Code enforcement.

15:10>> Thank you.

15:11>> And people can have accessory yoga rooms

15:14or office or things like that, but what

15:16they can't do is have a dwelling unit, a

15:19guest house, you know, a short-term

15:21rental ADU. that that that's been our

15:23struggle for so long as people turn

15:24these into separate units, but you you

15:28can have a place that is extension of

15:30your home and and that's kind of where

15:33the line has to stop.

15:36>> Question for staff, have y'all checked

15:38and see if it's still listed on Airbnb

15:41like it was the last time it was

15:42presented us?

15:44>> I believe it was taken I haven't checked

15:45since city council, but it looks like

15:47they took it down like right before city

15:49council. Okay. So yeah,

15:52>> I had two questions. One that says site

15:55plan dated March 2004.

15:57>> Do we know what I mean? Does this date

16:00back from 2004?

16:01>> The house was originally built in 2004.

16:03There is a it's not as um glamorous, but

16:07there is inspections was able to

16:09eventually find um the like microfilm,

16:11which is a scan of this the thing. Um

16:13and but it just had the the house and

16:16then it did have the detached garage to

16:18the side. So back in 2004 it was

16:21approved for having some sort of half

16:24restroom you know in the garage

16:27>> that I'm not sure of the the structure.

16:30So how it looks like on the permit is

16:32like the

16:34let me go back to the site plan.

16:38So it kind of looks like this but not as

16:40detailed. So it shows this structure and

16:43then it shows this and that's it. It

16:45doesn't show anything that's inside of

16:46it. It didn't provide floor plans. Um,

16:49>> so that that p that uh image that you

16:52were showing us that says 2004 in it

16:54that where does that come from?

16:55>> That came from the applicant. So I don't

16:57know if that was the previous owner.

16:59They had plans to do this and that's

17:01what the contractor drafted up and then

17:03as far as I know there were no permits

17:05for that either. So

17:08>> do we know that it wasn't originally

17:09built that way? I mean, I that that's

17:12what seemed to be implied in the 2004

17:15notation. Like, would we know

17:18>> if it had been originally built with a

17:20restroom on the first floor?

17:22>> Well, there was just a sink on the first

17:25floor per the Zillow photos. So, these

17:27were taken in 2019, so many years.

17:29>> Room into a restroom. It was tiled like

17:30a restroom.

17:31>> That would be permitted. Just a restroom

17:34with a toilet and a sink the way they

17:37had it would have been permitted at that

17:38time.

17:39>> Okay. All right. Um, okay. I think that

17:42effectively answers my question. Um,

17:46the other question was in terms of what

17:48structurally they've done to change it.

17:50I mean, obviously it looks a lot nicer

17:52in the new photos because they put

17:54furniture and paint and, you know,

17:56pictures up and whatnot.

17:57>> They've made it a condo.

17:58>> They Yeah, they've clearly made it into,

18:01you know, something you could rent out

18:02and somebody could live in. But

18:04structurally, I mean, I think if I

18:06understand correctly, they said what

18:08they did was they put in drywall. I

18:10mean, it seems like they did just kind

18:12of put a wall across the middle.

18:16>> Is is that not accurate? I mean, I I'm

18:19not sure if I'm not seeing it in the

18:20images.

18:22>> So,

18:22>> I hate to attribute to them that they're

18:24misrepresenting something to us if if

18:26they're not. So if we go off this plan,

18:30there's a wall that's here because this

18:32is a galley kitchen now, right? So in

18:34this part's still the garage. This is

18:35now the living room. Dining nook is

18:37right here. And then you go upstairs.

18:39The half bath is right here. So I think

18:40what they did was they converted this.

18:44They put a little sink in here to make

18:47it a full powder. They use this sink to

18:49be part of the kitchen. So cuz you have

18:51the the fridge here, the cooktop, the

18:53counter here, you have a wall. This is a

18:56still an existing garage. Then you have

18:58the living area nook and that's when you

19:00go upstairs. So per you can see per the

19:02Zillow photos. So walls were done. They

19:06moved plumbing to put the the thing in

19:08here. They did a full bathroom upstairs

19:09which originally was just a utility

19:11sink. So and then those also had walls

19:13to build in to make a full bathroom. Um

19:17so yeah.

19:18>> So okay. So I I misunderstood from the

19:20pictures.

19:22Which one of those garage doors is still

19:24a garage?

19:25>> I believe it is.

19:27>> I had assumed it was I think the other

19:29one then.

19:30>> Yeah, I assume.

19:31>> Okay. See, this is like So, if you take

19:33the the left here is where I see what

19:35you're saying.

19:35>> Yeah. So, that's So, they put a wall

19:37here to make it a galley kitchen. This

19:38is where the the same utility is. This

19:41door is where the existing toilet was.

19:44>> So, they put a sink in there and then

19:46this is the general area. And then they

19:48put a wall here. So, right. So if you

19:49were to kind of go past this wall here,

19:51>> that's where the garage is. And if you

19:53go around the corner, that's where the

19:54living room.

19:54>> The living room. Okay. So they did a

19:55wall there enclosing in the garage off

19:58from the living space, obviously.

20:00>> Yeah. They pretty much like converted

20:02like I would say about half of the

20:04garage space into

20:05>> Yeah. Go back to the 2019 picture. The

20:09one of the garage

20:11>> uh the first floor one.

20:12>> Yes, ma'am. Sorry to interrupt you, Joe.

20:16So you can see kind of where that sink

20:17is and this bathroom and then So that's

20:19why I'm kind of thinking this is where

20:21>> Yeah. No, I think I think you're right.

20:22Yeah.

20:23>> Okay.

20:28>> So you are allowed to have a full

20:30bathroom in a garage.

20:31>> No, you can have a toilet and a sink. So

20:35no showering facility. So no bathtubs

20:36and no showers.

20:39>> And that's where they they've now added

20:40a shower into there.

20:41>> Yes. On the first floor is the full

20:43bathroom

20:44>> on the second floor. Yes.

20:45>> So, in the second floor, there's now a

20:47rest like the if they were to undo what

20:49they can't have.

20:50>> The second floor restroom would more or

20:53less have to go.

20:54>> But the bottom but the bottom floor one,

20:56would that still be okay?

20:58>> Yeah, it's it's a powder room. Yeah.

21:00>> Okay. So, that one's not a problem. It's

21:01just the second floor one because of the

21:03shower.

21:04>> The Yeah, the the shower also there are

21:07more than two rooms, the closet, and

21:10then the cooking facilities. So,

21:12>> so more than two rooms on the same floor

21:14or

21:15>> in the in the structure period.

21:17>> So, it needs to be

21:19one open area in the bottom and one open

21:22area up the top.

21:23>> Mhm.

21:24>> And then they could have half baths on

21:26each floor, I guess.

21:28>> Jos, would we allow two half baths or is

21:31it just one half bath?

21:32>> I mean, I don't know that anybody can

21:33walk.

21:33>> I haven't come across that. So, I don't

21:34There's nothing that says you can't.

21:36It's just if you don't have a shower,

21:37it's not a dwelling unit. I mean, you

21:39could use the hose or something, I

21:40suppose, but if they wanted to use the

21:42upstairs. Yeah, [laughter]

21:44>> but like if they wanted to use the

21:45upstairs as a as an office.

21:47>> Yeah.

21:47>> You know, I mean, still might want a

21:49half bath up there for an office. One

21:51big open space. So, it's still just one

21:53room plus a half bath on the second

21:55floor.

21:55>> The the listing of what is a dwelling?

21:57The shower is the demising.

21:59>> Yeah. So the the question I got is you

22:03said there was a utility sink upstairs

22:06and utility sinks are typically inch and

22:10a half 2 in 2 in code. Now

22:12>> hang on a second

22:12>> as far as the drain.

22:14>> Hang on. She's trying to get some

22:16clarification.

22:18>> No, go ahead. Get get your [laughter]

22:19get your clarification. It's okay. He's

22:21trying to ask a question, but I wanted

22:22you to get

22:23>> Oh, sorry. We were just talking about

22:25the um the AC as well. So, it seems like

22:29per these photos, there was some kind of

22:30AC that was built in. Um, at least on

22:33the second floor, but again, that wasn't

22:36necessarily legal. Um, so you can see

22:38it's built in here. Um, and then

22:41obviously they in their unit now, they

22:43still have it. So, usually when it's a

22:45we're converting it, that's something

22:46that we would consider no built in. They

22:48can have window units or the portables,

22:50but they can't have built-in like it is

22:52here. Um, so that's something that we'd

22:55probably ask them to remove. So even if

22:59the previous owner did put it in place.

23:02>> Okay. The question I got is you said

23:04there was a utility sink upstairs.

23:06Correct.

23:07>> Mhm.

23:07>> Typically by code that's a 2-in drain,

23:10inch and a half, 2 in depending upon the

23:12age. Toilets are 3 in. So there's been

23:16modification done at some point to the

23:19toilets, heating and air, electrical.

23:23We don't know nothing. And based upon

23:26the amount of lighting, based upon if

23:29the plugs are correct and the load

23:31calculations,

23:32where's it getting its power? Does it

23:34got a separate meter or does it feed off

23:37the house? Uh, a 200 amp original

23:39pounder box off of whatever amperage

23:42breaker that is. The applicant said that

23:44they share they don't have a separate

23:45meter for it.

23:47>> Okay. So you you got you got all that

23:49additional load calculations that's

23:52applying

23:53electrical draw and that's typically

23:56could be a a fire because you only have

23:58so much size wire that feeds your home

24:01from the transformer. And then you got a

24:04200 amp discon or a 200 amp panel. They

24:08might have a three but say a 200 amps

24:11typical. And then they're going to feed

24:13off another breaker to it which is going

24:15to heat up. We don't even know nothing

24:17about the size of the wire, how the

24:19electricity went there. If it was just a

24:20garage, it could have a simple

24:2340 amp depending upon if it had a

24:26welder's plug or whatever electrical

24:28service. But with this type of load

24:30calculation, that's definitely a fire

24:32hazard.

24:33>> Well, I mean, they would still need to

24:34get approval from [clears throat]

24:36>> from getting building permit to approve

24:38what they've done or what gets changed

24:40to, right? If this were approved as

24:42requested, they'll have to get the

24:43building permit and go through all of

24:45those kind of as we see all the time,

24:47kind of a retroactive building permit.

24:49And and even if they wanted to retain

24:51some of the things they've done that

24:52weren't in the original design, they'd

24:55still have to come back like there was

24:56no restroom on the second floor. If they

24:58want to return retain that, would they

25:00still need to get that approved?

25:01>> Yes. Everything would have to be

25:02included permit.

25:03>> So yeah, it would it would still get

25:05looked at. That's not that's not our

25:06problem to deal with, but they're going

25:08to have to deal with it one way or the

25:09other.

25:14Does the applicant live in the house?

25:18>> I'm not sure. That's something you have

25:19to ask the applicant.

25:27>> Okay. And um Miss Rita, is that was is

25:30that you over there?

25:33>> I'm I'm Skinner.

25:34>> Skinner, I'm sorry. Um are you the

25:36owner?

25:37>> Yes, ma'am.

25:37>> Okay. I'm sorry that we can't accept any

25:39comments at this time.

25:41>> You could you could have come in earlier

25:43and signed up to provide citizen

25:45comments, but you will have an

25:47opportunity obviously in the public

25:48hearing to present your case. You've

25:50heard our questions, so you might want

25:51to be thinking about answers at that

25:53time during the public hearing.

25:54>> Okay. I don't have all the technical um

25:57information. Okay. I can All right.

25:59>> All right. Thanks, Miss Jenner.

26:03Okay. Okay, we're moving on to the next

26:05case which is Tanners 2026-246-ZC

26:15and and this is recommended for

26:17postponement. So, do you want to present

26:19just a few details so we've got it in

26:21our mind?

26:23>> I can give you uh just quick notes on it

26:25if you'd like. Um this is at 1451 East

26:30Northgate. It is currently zoned uh

26:33we're looking at a specific um the

26:35zoning that we're looking at is for a

26:37private easement on a larger private

26:40school property and currently that

26:42easement is zoned for SP1 for R40

26:45detailed site plan single family

26:47residential 40 for a monocross

26:49telecommunications tower and they are

26:52reszoning to change that designation to

26:54a mono pole telecommunications tower and

26:58to expand the canisters at the top of

27:00the pole. Uh staff recommends approval.

27:03Um and we have no uh no comments in

27:06support and two in opposition. Um that

27:10creates a 73%

27:12uh opposition rate within 200 ft. So it

27:15would require a super majority city

27:16council vote for approval. And as you

27:19mentioned, the applicant is requesting

27:21postponement.

27:24Um the subject property is roughly about

27:29here. It is just a 20 by 30 private

27:31easement

27:34future land use property notification

27:38opposition map.

27:40And here's the site plan with the

27:43existing

27:45Got it blown up more here. The existing

27:47uh mono cross pole and the proposed

27:51monopole.

27:53Um the tower is located right here on

27:57the easement.

28:01Here is the proposed new top canister at

28:0445 in as opposed to the prior 30 in.

28:09Here are some photos of the site as is.

28:16The original tower was approved in 2007.

28:21>> Yeah. Okay. Um any other questions?

28:28So the reason for postponement is the

28:32tower owner, tower operator has the

28:35right to apply for the zoning case

28:38within the easement. That's the language

28:39in the easement. The property owner is

28:41in opposition,

28:43which is the the the nonprofit that

28:45operates the Highland School. So they're

28:48asking for postponement to work through

28:50whatever they need to work through

28:51during that time. So, they could still

28:53potentially change the size of the

28:55canister, but leave the crossbar so that

28:57the neighbors

28:57>> Yeah, that the crossbar is is the catch

28:59because obviously there was a a reason

29:01that it was approved that way 10 years

29:04or so ago.

29:05>> Okay, understood. Thank you. Appreciate

29:07it. Tanner, uh the next two cases are uh

29:11one's a CP and one's a zoning change.

29:13Haley has both of those um 2026-301

29:17CP and 261-Z.

29:21Hey, we are also um requesting

29:23postponement for these two cases. Um if

29:25you want, I can go over just very brief

29:27information. All right, so the request

29:30is um they are wanting to do per the

29:34applicant, they're wanting to do a

29:35foster home. What's kind of different

29:38is, you know, if it was considered just

29:40a family who lived there and they had

29:42foster kids, we would consider consider

29:43that under the definition of family.

29:45this seems to be more of a facility

29:47where there's going to be multiple

29:48children kind of and then with like 247

29:50caretaker. Um and so kind of what we

29:52want to postpone is to kind of

29:53reevaluate their

29:56their application in terms of do we

29:58think the future land use and the zoning

30:00that we initially told them to do is

30:02appropriate. And so we kind of want time

30:04to work with the applicant on that so we

30:07can best represent their case.

30:11So, this case is going to be a foster

30:15home for like teenagers or

30:17>> um just any minor. Um she didn't

30:20clarify. She didn't specify an age

30:22group. So,

30:23>> and how many kids are we talking?

30:25>> Um it's a Let me see. I can probably go

30:28through. Sorry. Let me get to the zoning

30:30[clears throat] case because there's a

30:31floor plan and they're also in um permit

30:35with inspections currently to add a

30:36walk-in closet and bathroom. So, this is

30:38the addition. Um, so it's a

30:41three-bedroom house. Um, she was saying

30:44up to seven children, but I know state

30:46has the regulations. I know code has the

30:48regulations.

30:49Um, but she kind of specified, you know,

30:52children needing home. So, I guess it's

30:53one person 24/7 providing services for

30:57them. So,

30:58>> okay.

31:00So you'll let us know whether this is um

31:02when you go through the case whether

31:04it's licensed by the state and whether

31:06there's requirements that they have to

31:08follow and

31:09>> yeah if that would happen if

31:10>> they would be they would have to

31:12>> yeah yeah it would have to be licensed

31:13it's um

31:14>> like this like the senior one that we

31:15did

31:16>> like an assisted living you do we were

31:18foster parents I mean we didn't just be

31:20foster parents we had to be licensed

31:22>> so yeah I mean it's

31:24>> the house gets inspected

31:26>> but this but you were the foster parent.

31:29This is a

31:30>> Yeah, but they'd be they'd still there's

31:33not less regulation for them.

31:35>> Okay.

31:35>> Yeah. Either way, they would still have

31:36to be licensed. It's just and that's

31:38something that we are eventually going

31:39to have a conversation with Carolyn

31:41about is, you know, group homes and

31:43protected classes and all that kind of

31:45stuff. So, we just want to make sure

31:46that we're being, you know, we're

31:48presenting this appropriately. So,

31:49that's why we're kind of asking for the

31:50additional time.

31:51>> And are they okay with the postponement?

31:53>> I did let them know. I haven't heard

31:55anything. Um,

31:56>> they haven't said they're opposed to it.

31:58>> No. Correct.

32:00>> So, this proposed zoning change, the uh

32:03RXF, that's the one that allows the

32:06boarding houses. Correct.

32:07>> Yes.

32:08>> Right. And if I'm reading it correctly,

32:09if they if they want to, there's nothing

32:12we can do to stop them from if they stop

32:13operating this

32:15>> Yeah.

32:15>> Uh there's nothing to stop them from

32:16operating a boarding house.

32:18>> Correct.

32:18>> In a single family neighborhood.

32:20Correct.

32:20>> That's one of the main reasons we're not

32:22proceeding with it as proposed.

32:24>> Okay. Thanks.

32:26And I think I'd like to understand the

32:28difference between this and like Buen a

32:30Vista House as well when when the city

32:32was invested in Bua Vista.

32:35>> Okay. Yeah. So we've and we also have

32:37had a lot of inquiries too. So just as

32:40planning staff we do just like to have a

32:42better understanding of all the ins and

32:44outs of it. So

32:46okay, any other questions folks?

32:50Okay. Uh Haley, you're up again for um

32:532026-262

32:55CUP.

32:57All righty. So, this is um our first

33:01short-term rental case since it's been

33:02approved by city council for them to go

33:04through the CUP process. Um so, it's

33:07zoned R six. Um after staff

33:10recommendation, we say if you guys

33:12decide to recommend approval, we um have

33:14some like three little stipulations that

33:16we would um we would like we recommend

33:18for it in terms of the approval. Um for

33:20public comment, there has been a lot um

33:23there was none in support. There were 64

33:25in opposition. Um this came from there

33:28was duplicates. There's a lot from the

33:29same house. There's some that were from

33:31other parts of town. Um but still uh

33:35within 200 ft 44.4% 4% were in

33:38opposition.

33:40So this is the subject property

33:43and then the future land use sub

33:45traditional neighborhood

33:47and this is the notification map and

33:49then these are the property owners

33:50within 200 ft that were opposed.

33:54Um code provided us some like a map

33:58showing the other active STRs that are

34:00in the area. So you can see there's a

34:02few that are around. Um, and actually my

34:04next case, there's one that's being

34:06proposed right up here on Sam Hill.

34:11All righty.

34:14See,

34:16um, and when it comes to cups for

34:19short-term rentals, um, they have to go

34:22to code enforcement first. Um, they have

34:24a few criteria that is required of them

34:27before they can even apply for a cup.

34:29Um, if they don't meet that criteria,

34:30they can't apply. Um I there's three of

34:33those. One is that the application or

34:36the applicant um did not have any kind

34:38of registration revoked from that same

34:40short-term rental within 12 months. Um

34:43on the block face uh does not have more

34:46than 10% of other single family

34:47properties that are registered as a

34:49short-term rental. And then also they

34:51must provide off- streetet parking of at

34:53least either four vehicles or one space

34:55per bedroom, whichever is greater. So at

34:57least a minimum of four spaces need to

34:59be accounted for off off streetet.

35:04And then this is kind of the staff

35:05recommend recommended conditions what I

35:07was kind of talking about on the the

35:08intro slide. So these below right here

35:11are the traditional language you see on

35:12all of our cups and all of our site

35:14plans for CPS. These three are the ones

35:17that are different. So we say the CP is

35:19valid for um only the owner as

35:22identified on the application. So if

35:23there's a change in ownership, they'll

35:24have to reapply for a cup. The second

35:27one being we um it'd be a period of 2

35:29years. um we feel like that's kind of

35:31enough out enough time to kind of see if

35:32they're a good player um but not super

35:35soon to where they just turn around and

35:37have to reapply again. Um and then third

35:40that the CP is valid as long as they

35:42have the city registration remain. So as

35:45long as they're working with code to

35:46make sure the registration is current.

35:50So this is um no longer active online

35:52but this is what they initially had. So,

35:54it does have a a pool

35:57set of property neighbor to the north,

36:01east, so they're neighbor or next door

36:04neighbor, and then to the west, their

36:05other next door neighbor. And then I'm

36:07open to any comments or questions.

36:10>> I have a just one question. Um, did the

36:13applicant say anything or give any

36:15indication that there was some

36:16particular reason why this area was

36:20particularly appropriate for having a

36:22short-term rental?

36:23>> No.

36:24>> Okay.

36:25>> So, um, but it just seemed I mean, I'm

36:28speculating, but it seems like that

36:29might have been the intention of buying

36:30the property. It looks like they bought

36:31the property in August. Um, and then we

36:34received P's or letters of opposition

36:36and stuff. um before we even sent out

36:38the P letters. I think some there

36:40they're doing some interior work and

36:42then neighbors kind of so anyway that's

36:44word of mouth kind of got

36:45>> Yeah. No, I mean I realized I mean

36:46obviously they they may have bought it

36:48with the intention of turning into a

36:49short-term rental, but I don't mean

36:50that. I mean like there's just some

36:52particular reason why this area of town

36:53or this neighborhood or this this

36:56particular part of Irving they thought

36:59would be particularly appropriate for a

37:00short-term rental.

37:01>> No.

37:01>> No. Okay. Thank you.

37:03Can you go back to the opposition map,

37:06please?

37:08[clears throat]

37:13>> Okay.

37:16>> Yeah.

37:20>> It does. That's enough.

37:22>> Okay.

37:22>> This is just a dead end street that you

37:25got to go down, kick around, and come

37:27back every time. Yeah. Correct.

37:33Daniel,

37:35>> thanks. Uh, you mentioned

37:36[clears throat] this was uh the first

37:38case since the the cup ordinance was uh

37:42enacted.

37:43>> Are there any um

37:45>> factors we're supposed to consider in in

37:48whether or not recommending approval of

37:50this uh or not?

37:56>> Yeah. Yeah. No, it was just they the

37:59council wanted to use the conditional

38:01use permit process so these could be

38:02looked at on a case-by case basis, but

38:05it's not like a special exception or

38:07something where they tell you what you

38:09need to consider. But since it is a

38:10conditional use permit, you do have you

38:12and council have the prerogative to add

38:14conditions to it if it is a use that you

38:17wanted to allow. But they didn't adopt

38:20anything for you to consider. It's just

38:22is this an appropriate use in this

38:24location?

38:26>> Okay. Thanks. No, this strikes me as a

38:28the reason the cup ordinance was enacted

38:31is it's a single family neighborhood

38:33that uh doesn't have short-term rentals.

38:37It seems like it would be a terrible

38:39place to put one. So, thanks.

38:44>> I'm sure I should remember this. Um what

38:46was the renewal process um for

38:51after the cup expires?

38:54they will get notice from us within 6

38:57months or so. We're working on setting

38:59that up with MGO. Um and they would go

39:01through the resoning process. So, it

39:03wouldn't if they let it lapse, it would

39:06expire, but it's still if they are up

39:08for renewal, it will be the same public

39:10hearing process, same zoning process,

39:12and just is this something that you want

39:14to continue or not?

39:16And um what were the guidelines for

39:19revocation of the cup if they weren't

39:21good good neighbors and weren't and you

39:24had to get code enforcement involved?

39:26>> Yeah, just typically if they're

39:27violating city codes, CUPs often have

39:30issues and and and Chain can speak to

39:32this, but issues of noise and parking

39:34and and you know hours and things like

39:36that. So if they violate any of the city

39:39codes, then that would be grounds for

39:41revocation. um the the issue would first

39:45be because registration is much more

39:47specific than the conditional use

39:48permit. So if if they are not meeting

39:51all of their expectations in their

39:53registration, then the registration it

39:56would be the first step and once the

39:57registration is gone now the conditional

39:59use per process would be revoked.

40:02>> And how fast is that revocation process?

40:05Um because I know it can take a while

40:08sometimes for things to work their way

40:09through an enforcement process.

40:23Good evening. Uh Shane Diller, your code

40:25enforcement director. The process we

40:27have for revocation uh is really on a

40:30case- by case basis. Uh so as far as

40:32knowing how quickly it would proceed, it

40:34would honestly deter it would be

40:35determined by how frequent and to what

40:38severity the violations we're tracking

40:40are. So, if we have something especially

40:44egregious, it can be revoked uh just off

40:47of that first occurrence and then they

40:50would have the opportunity to appeal.

40:51That typically takes about 45 days to go

40:53through a process of notice and hearing.

40:55Appeals of revocations go before the

40:58construction board of appeals and then

41:02uh their ruling is is finite. So, there

41:06wouldn't be an appeal after that. Uh we

41:08just had an appeal process go through

41:10for one that we denied and from start to

41:14finish it ran about 45 days.

41:17>> Are they allowed to continue to rent

41:19while it's during that process of

41:21appeal?

41:22>> Yes. Typically during an appeal process

41:24we stay enforcement until the uh uh the

41:28final ruling is made.

41:29>> Right. I'm not sure this is a question

41:31for you Shane, but um what's the lease

41:36is responsible for the security of the

41:38property? Do they are they required by

41:41Airbnb or VBA or whomever to

41:45um do a background check on who is the

41:49house is leased to?

41:53>> I don't believe so. Um, I can tell you

41:55that I've stayed in some short-term

41:56rentals uh for research purposes of

41:59course and um the and and I don't other

42:04than my initial application where I sign

42:06up on the platform and stuff I I never

42:09had uh a background done on on me. I'm

42:12sure I would have passed it and probably

42:13been rented to, but uh I don't recall

42:15anything uh terribly in depth. So, no, I

42:17don't I'm not aware of any further

42:19scrutiny of the guests uh beyond

42:22qualifying for the platform itself, the

42:23host platform.

42:24>> Yeah. I mean, I'd like to know that's a

42:26high school. MacArthur High School is

42:28right there at the end of the culde-sac.

42:30And there's people there's traffic that

42:31goes pedestrian traffic that will often

42:34walk between the high school and those

42:36houses.

42:38It makes me nervous that somebody could

42:40be renting a place that may not have the

42:44um most noble of intentions.

42:46>> [clears throat]

42:47>> So,

42:49um, that's all the questions I had.

42:50Anybody else?

42:51>> Yeah, I got one for, uh, staff on the

42:54street. You're showing [clears throat]

42:55the letter of opposition. How many? Cuz

42:58we just got a bunch of them when we got

43:00in.

43:01>> Yeah.

43:01>> So, do you know the number of houses?

43:04There's what I [clears throat] think I

43:05counted like 34, I think, or something

43:08like that.

43:09>> Mhm.

43:09>> How many of them houses actually turned

43:12in opposition? Do you know?

43:16outside the 200 foot mark.

43:21>> I would have to go into my Excel and

43:23look. Um,

43:26basically just let's see if there's

43:28>> We don't map outside the 200 ft. I mean,

43:30we have some from Valley Ranch. I mean,

43:32they're all over. Sometimes I don't know

43:34if we got in this dispatch. Sometimes

43:35you get them from outside the city. So,

43:37we just we give you what the state law

43:40trigger would be, which is this, and

43:42then the total number. Um, but once we

43:46get out of 200 feet, we have staff that

43:47every time one comes through, he checks

43:49to see is it in the 200 feet or not. If

43:51it's not, it's just kind of added to the

43:53list of opposition. We don't analyze all

43:55of the opposition.

43:56>> Well, my qu my the reason why I'm asking

43:58because it is a deadend street. So, I'm

44:00just curious,

44:02you know, even though we do a 200t

44:04radius, [clears throat] pardon me,

44:06everybody on that street due to the dead

44:08end, one way in, one way out is going to

44:11be affected by anything on this.

44:14Whatever we decide tonight, they're all

44:16going to be affected down that street.

44:18So, I didn't know if we knew how many

44:21other residents that turned it in that

44:22necessarily is not counted within the

44:24radius, but they're still an effective

44:26party.

44:27>> Specifically on Cox, is what you're

44:29looking for? specifically on Cox.

44:30>> Okay. I mean, that would be easier than

44:31the

44:32>> That's what I'm asking cuz we we just

44:33got a bunch, you know, a bunch of the

44:35stuff in this evening. So, I'm curious

44:37how many is specifically on Cox that was

44:41actually

44:42uh turned in the number because

44:44everybody's affected one way or the

44:46other.

44:46>> If it was down on the other end, it

44:48might be a different story, but it's on

44:51the very far end of the Culverac. So,

44:53I'd be interested to see how many people

44:55are actually on Cox that turned in.

44:56>> We wouldn't have those numbers tonight.

44:58the only way would be to postpone it and

45:00so I don't know you know that would just

45:02we couldn't we couldn't pull those

45:03through you know for you tonight

45:05>> I was just curious if you had them

45:07>> there have been a decent amount on Cox

45:09Drive though Cox Drive [clears throat]

45:11handover and Northgate there's been a

45:13lot even plantation and fine so really

45:16there's been a decent amount from this

45:17whole area but yeah in terms of a hard

45:20number I couldn't give that to you right

45:21now

45:23>> can I just get a real quick refresher on

45:26the the implication of the percentage of

45:29the area that protests.

45:33>> So when you send out property

45:35notifications, it's within 200 feet. So

45:38this number, this 44.4 means out of the

45:40people within 200 feet, 44 said we don't

45:42want this. Um there has been a a change

45:46in state law that I believe it's what's

45:49the supermajority is it the percentage?

45:52>> Yeah. Yeah. So it's the amount of

45:55property within the 200 ft. So if if

45:58somebody has, you know, you see all the

46:00full lots, you count into the center of

46:02the street or you may have somebody

46:03across the street that's just a little

46:05bitty sliver. So it's proportionate to

46:07the amount of property inside. The state

46:10law that had changed was if you are

46:13adding additional residential units, the

46:16threshold goes from 20% to 60%.

46:19and it goes from a supermajority to a a

46:22simple majority which is the standard

46:24anyway. This is not adding additional

46:27residential units and therefore the

46:29supermajority applies

46:31>> and if there is a a supermajority

46:35then it it's rejected without going to

46:38P&Z or

46:39>> no you you will still make a

46:41recommendation. Okay. And then the

46:42supermajority is the supermajority of

46:44the governing body. So city council se

46:46so 75% seven of nine of the council

46:50members have to vote to approve. Yeah.

46:52Okay.

46:52>> So they could council could deny it a 54

46:55but in order to approve it would have to

46:56be seven.

46:57>> And so what a simple majority is

47:00required here in order to require a

47:02supermajority at city council.

47:05>> Yes. Just like any case in order for you

47:07to if you wanted to recommend approval

47:09or recommend denial.

47:10>> No, I'm sorry. a simple majority of the

47:12home of the area like protesting like

47:17what threshold of area protesting do you

47:19need?

47:19>> 20% as your threshold.

47:21>> Oh, so it's met that. Okay.

47:22>> Yeah.

47:23>> All right. Thank you. Sorry.

47:28>> And I did have one more question. What

47:30is the percentage of short-term rentals

47:33that we agreed

47:36if the next application come in it would

47:38it would be denied because we'd already

47:40reached that capacity

47:42>> I believe or do you want

47:43>> I can because it's a little uh so it's

47:48>> the ordinance was adopted in May limited

47:50it to 10% in a block phase so I'll step

47:54over

47:56now this isn't going to go with me so

47:57I'll just talk loud real

48:00So this would be considered a block face

48:02on this side of the street from here to

48:04here and then one block face from here

48:06to here. So you'd have 10% allowed in

48:09each of those. So you'd have one

48:11basically with the numbers you have on

48:12the street on the court here. One on

48:15each side of the street would be the max

48:17that the uh the ordinance would allow.

48:20And so as code enforcement receives

48:22applications for short-term rentals, we

48:24screen for that first because if they

48:27exceed that, then uh it it's a mood

48:31point. You couldn't grant them a

48:32conditional use permit. And so we would

48:36uh we would we would deny automatically

48:38anything assuming this were approved on

48:41that side of the street after this one

48:44would be approved. But one could be

48:47adopted on the uh the other side of the

48:51street in that block face.

48:53>> Um Haley, can you go back to the map

48:55that shows where those yellow boxes were

48:57for the existing short-term rentals?

48:59>> Yes.

49:02>> Obviously, it's outside this

49:05>> this way. Sorry.

49:06>> It doesn't meet the criteria.

49:08>> Okay.

49:09>> Yeah. So, it looks like there's one up

49:11here, one fur on West Gate. So, and I'm

49:14assuming if I'm right, from here and

49:17then to here would be a block face.

49:19>> Correct.

49:19>> Okay. So, but yeah, that's on a separate

49:22street. So, they're around, but yeah,

49:24not there's not any on the same block

49:26face.

49:26>> Correct.

49:27>> And the other one on Sam Hill is not on

49:30the same block face.

49:31>> Correct.

49:32>> Thank you.

49:34>> Okay. Nice job, you guys.

49:36>> Thanks.

49:38>> All right.

49:39>> Any other questions?

49:43Okay. Uh Tanner, uh you have the next

49:45case. 2026-264

49:48ZC.

50:00Hello again everyone. Presenting 2026

50:03264ZC at 1413 South Story Road. They are

50:08requesting to reszone from SP1 for CN

50:11generalized um detailed site plan for

50:14neighborhood commercial with a height

50:16restriction of 17 feet in that site plan

50:19to neighborhood commercial just straight

50:22zoning. Uh the staff recommends approval

50:24and we have one letter in support.

50:30Here is the subject property along

50:33Southtory Road here.

50:37future land use map. Uh most of the area

50:41is

50:43local commercial

50:44surrounded by traditional neighborhood

50:46and some compact neighborhood.

50:50Notification map.

50:52Uh here's the subject property across

50:54our story road. It is a bronze and has

50:56operated as such since it was built in

50:581997.

51:01Uh here is the existing face of the

51:04building and uh the purpose of this

51:07reszoning is to get over the 17 ft cap

51:10in the site plan as they want to expand

51:13the entryway uh to this tower. Uh their

51:16plans would be allowed in just normal

51:18straight CN zoning.

51:22some other angles of the proposed plans.

51:25Uh north is subject property,

51:28south uh is a duplex neighborhood.

51:32Uh west of the subject property,

51:35and here's the site plan again.

51:38As I said, uh it was built in 1997 and

51:41has been a bronze since. Um they're

51:44looking to remodel

51:46um and need the reszoning to allow for

51:47the higher tower in the entryway. Uh CN

51:50zoning is compatible in the local

51:52commercial future land use map

51:55and reszoning would eliminate the

51:57restrictive [snorts] existing site plan

51:59zoning.

52:01It is compatible with the neighborhood

52:03surrounding and the neighborhood to the

52:05south already has an existing 8ft

52:07masonry wall to screen it from any other

52:10commercial developments that may come in

52:11there.

52:13Um, since it is since neighborhood

52:15commercial uses are appropriate to

52:17provide surfaces to the surrounding

52:18areas and it's compatible with the

52:20adjacent uses, staff supports this

52:22request. Any questions?

52:30>> Thank you.

52:31>> All righty.

52:32>> Um, Abby, you have uh two cases together

52:36if you'd like to present them together.

52:382026-302-CP

52:41and 2026-272-Z.

52:52>> Oh, okay.

52:55>> Should we let her go or do you want

52:59>> That's what she said. That's fine.

53:00>> Okay. Here.

53:03>> Oh, [laughter]

53:05sorry. We're

53:07That's fine.

53:08>> Yeah, that's fine.

53:09>> 302.

53:10>> Okay. Sorry. Thanks, Haley.

53:17>> Good afternoon. I will be going over

53:20zoning case 2026 302 CP and it is

53:24located on 2100 South Beltline Road. It

53:27is going from open space to

53:30manufacturing warehouse. The stack re

53:32recommendation is for approval and

53:35public comment forms were none in

53:37support and one in opposition. Uh I just

53:39want to address the one opposition. It

53:42was a property owner with across the

53:46street from the subject property in

53:48Grand Prairie. He believed that the

53:50zoning change was happening to his

53:53property and there was a bit of

53:55confusion there, but it's we have the

53:58warranty deed and all the proof that the

54:01current owner owns the property.

54:07Right here is the aerial view of the

54:11subject property. Uh the subject

54:13property is a 14 acre lot of undeveloped

54:16land that borders the city of Grand

54:18Prairie to the west. Um you see Bay

54:20Creek to the east and uh to the south.

54:24Um and uh running alongside the property

54:28is

54:30um all the rightway goes to South Belt

54:32Belt Line Road which is a major arterial

54:35road that handles constant commercial

54:37and truck traffic.

54:40Here is the future land use map. Uh the

54:43current design designation is for open

54:46space and to the west we see some

54:49regional commercial to the south some

54:51industrial.

54:55The current zoning is an SP2 for various

54:58uses including uh ML2A. This is a

55:02companion case uh for a zoning change

55:04where the applicant is requesting to

55:07change it to ML20 to allow for the

55:10development of warehousing distribution

55:12and logistics facility. While ML20

55:17is consistent with the surrounding uh

55:19zoning land use, it does not match with

55:22the future land use designation as open

55:25space uh which is more for recreational

55:28purposes such as uh parks, golf courses,

55:32etc.

55:34And this is why manufacturing warehouse

55:36is being requested.

55:40Here we have the property owner

55:42notification map. And with that, I can

55:45segue into the zoning case.

55:51Here we have zoning case 2026 272Z

55:55on 2100 South Belt Line Road. It is

55:58going from SP2 generalized site plan for

56:01various uses listed below to an SP2 ML20

56:06generalized site plan for light

56:07industrial 20 with variances. stack re

56:11recommendation is for approval and then

56:14um we had none in support and this is

56:17and as I addressed earlier the one in

56:19opposition

56:21here again is the aerial view map

56:27here is the future zoning land use map

56:32the surrounding zoning map and I also

56:35wanted to mention that um it does it is

56:37consistent with the surrounding zoning

56:39including a FedEx freight facility to

56:42the south. So, it still has those light

56:45industrial uses

56:49and then the notification map.

56:52And then here, this is just for context

56:54for the site plan. Uh this is a FEMA

56:58flood plane map of the subject property

57:01and um it is located within a flood

57:03plane and the property owner is aware

57:06that they will have to do some flood

57:08plane management before they decide to

57:10develop the land.

57:17Right here is the site plan. The

57:20previous site plan was approved in the

57:211980s. The original site plan has a

57:24large number of varied uses that were

57:27never developed as planned. Uh the

57:29zoning change will clean up the list of

57:32zoning uses and provide a simplified uh

57:35ML20 zoning base.

57:39And uh if the approved if the zoning is

57:44approved, the applicant plans to

57:45subdivide the property into two lots as

57:48you see right here. Uh the future

57:50warehouse facility will be built to the

57:52south while the northern pro portion

57:55will be reserved as a drainage and flood

57:58plane easement.

58:02And then here's the illustri to

58:05illustrate the warehouse and then the

58:07ement

58:11along with the um along with the zoning

58:15change. There are two variances

58:17requested. So the first one is going to

58:19be the building setbacks and then the

58:21second one is the off- streetet parking

58:23requirements. Uh the in the applicant's

58:26letter of intent, it explains that the

58:28property has a 40 foot wide area that

58:30was dedicated to Texot for the expansion

58:33of South Beltline Road which um

58:38was about I believe 40 ft. The applicant

58:41is it's required to have uh 30 ft for

58:44the setback and the proposed is 10 ft.

58:48And then secondly, the applicant is

58:51requesting one parking space for 1,000

58:54square feet of building area while and

58:56then the proposed is one spot per 2,000.

59:01So there will be the variances for will

59:04have less parking which we support

59:08because we recognize that the changes in

59:10technology and consumer habits have

59:12created a trend in fewer operational

59:15employees needed. So less parking may

59:18need required.

59:22Here is the subject property looking

59:24east from South Beltline Road. North of

59:27the subject property looking east from

59:29South Belt Lane Road. The subject

59:31property looking southeast from South

59:34Belt Lane Road. And then the south of

59:37the subject property also looking east

59:39from South Beltland Road. It's a Encore

59:42electrical station.

59:45and then west of the subject property.

59:50And then going back to the site plan and

59:53the illustrious plan. Does anybody have

59:56any questions for me?

1:00:03>> Okay,

1:00:04>> just a quick one. Sorry. Maybe can can

1:00:07you talk a little bit more about the

1:00:11parking? So, the parking is one per

1:00:14thousand and you're cutting that in

1:00:16half.

1:00:18Um,

1:00:21what are there other developments in

1:00:23this area that have similar parking? I

1:00:25know it's probably in Grand Prairie, so

1:00:27you may not know, but I guess I'm just

1:00:30trying to understand that

1:00:33why that's going to be enough parking

1:00:35when it's significantly different from

1:00:38our code requirements.

1:00:41I can answer that um for you. We have

1:00:44had quite a few requests for parking

1:00:47variances for these ML20 sites in the

1:00:50last few years. Um that is mainly due to

1:00:54the fact that our parking calculations,

1:00:57our parking portion of the code is very

1:00:59old and it was created at a time when

1:01:03manufacturing had a much higher presence

1:01:06of workers on site. that has lessened

1:01:10significantly. Uh we did do quite a

1:01:12amount of research for about 10 of our

1:01:15sister cities surrounding us and we did

1:01:18find that that 1 to2,000 ratio is a

1:01:21little bit [clears throat] more

1:01:22realistic. So um until we can get our

1:01:26code amended to reflect that we are uh

1:01:29in favor of these requests to amend that

1:01:32parking variance.

1:01:34>> Thank you.

1:01:34>> Mhm.

1:01:36Do we know what kind of manufacturing

1:01:38this is going to be?

1:01:42>> I think it's just a spec building. Jim

1:01:44Dwey will be here tonight, but I'm

1:01:45pretty sure it's just a spec building.

1:01:47>> Okay. I mean, cuz we don't know how many

1:01:50employees it's going to have, and we

1:01:51don't know what kind of company it is.

1:01:54>> It may also be just distribution and

1:01:56warehousing,

1:01:58which is typically also not a lot of

1:02:02employee parking.

1:02:06But I'm sure Jim can clarify that for

1:02:08you

1:02:08>> how we feel about all that parking in

1:02:10the front of the building. Two, you

1:02:12know, it's a it's a double row of

1:02:14parking there. It's a lot of cars. It's

1:02:16not a great visual. Like I know I drive

1:02:18past FedEx and I know it's kind of

1:02:20similar with a lot of parking out front

1:02:22and around. It's not super attractive,

1:02:25but

1:02:26>> in this particular area, it is

1:02:27permitted. Um he does have the 30-foot

1:02:31setback requirement which because the

1:02:34ride ofway is so large in that area and

1:02:37they do have that huge greenway that

1:02:40will serve as a little bit of a buffer

1:02:42but we do typically at least require

1:02:43that 30-foot buffer with landscaping to

1:02:46kind of mitigate that.

1:02:48>> And this buffer will be located along

1:02:50this line right here.

1:02:52>> Oh, good. Thanks for pointing that out.

1:02:56Any

1:02:59other questions on these two cases?

1:03:04Okay, Gina, you have uh 2026-276-Z.

1:03:12Yes, ma'am. Good evening, commissioners.

1:03:14Gina Castanza Grant with the planning

1:03:16department

1:03:19and uh my case is located at 1311

1:03:23Meridian Drive. The current zoning is

1:03:26SP1RAB,

1:03:28um, which is our detailed site plan for

1:03:31a restaurant to sell alcoholic beverages

1:03:33with on premise consumption. Uh, they

1:03:36also allowed for hotel and freeway uses

1:03:38and fall within the 161 overlay. Uh, the

1:03:42request to reszone is exactly the same

1:03:45category. Uh, however, they are shifting

1:03:48the boundary lines or requesting to

1:03:50shift the boundary lines between uh, two

1:03:52adjacent lots. um both with that same

1:03:55zoning and also request a variance to

1:03:58the minimum uh parking requirements.

1:04:01Uh staff recommendation is actually

1:04:03denial. Apologies for the error in the

1:04:05slide. And we did not receive any uh

1:04:09comment forms in support or opposition.

1:04:12And this is an aerial of the subject

1:04:14property. Y'all may know it as the

1:04:17Sandman Hotel site that is developed on

1:04:20this southern portion. and the new

1:04:23Sutton Place Hotel uh is going on the

1:04:26northern portion, but they are two

1:04:28distinctly separate lots.

1:04:31This is the future land use plan, the uh

1:04:35existing zoning,

1:04:37the property owner notification

1:04:39boundary,

1:04:41and this is I'm going to go through

1:04:44several exhibits of the site plan just

1:04:46because of how closely they are related

1:04:49and the minor shift in the line. It's a

1:04:52little bit uh confusing to understand.

1:04:55So, we'll try and go through it with uh

1:04:56these color-coded maps. Um this is the

1:05:00existing site plan highlighted in uh

1:05:03yellow of the

1:05:06north lot. So, the lot that's

1:05:08undeveloped. However, they did have this

1:05:10site plan approved earlier this year for

1:05:12the hotel. Um the intent was for them to

1:05:17have a restaurant on premise. um they

1:05:20confirmed that that would be the case.

1:05:22However, they are now looking to

1:05:25actually expand the footprint of the

1:05:27building to add the restaurant in this

1:05:30area of the property. So, um it's not a

1:05:35problem to extend the building except

1:05:37for the fact that it has a domino effect

1:05:40on some other things. Uh first and

1:05:42foremost, it takes out a huge chunk of

1:05:45parking in this area. And um related to

1:05:49that, they also have a porticochair here

1:05:52that was required as part of their hotel

1:05:55approval that they could not redesign

1:05:59without falling over the adjacent

1:06:01property line. So this zoning request is

1:06:04twofold. It's to adjust the boundary uh

1:06:09that'll be followed up with a replat to

1:06:12move the property line up here to

1:06:14accommodate this portico

1:06:17and come down this way. As a result, the

1:06:21existing Sandman Hotel is losing a small

1:06:24sliver of property up here to

1:06:27accommodate the portico.

1:06:29So, they are losing parking and the

1:06:32Sandman um or the excuse me, the North

1:06:36Lot, the Sutton Place Hotel is reducing

1:06:38their parking. Uh they did not have a

1:06:41deficiency at first, but they will now.

1:06:44Um so again, uh this is the approved

1:06:47site plan for the existing Sandman Hotel

1:06:50on the South End. This is the at the

1:06:53time was the proposed Suten Place Hotel.

1:06:57This is their current proposed site

1:07:00plan. So, this shows that whole area of

1:07:03the new restaurant that's being added in

1:07:05this portion of the site. Um, this red

1:07:08circle just kind of highlights in

1:07:11general the area that's changed the

1:07:12most. They've had to reroute um the

1:07:16circulation aisle here because they they

1:07:19had another uh drive aisle with parking

1:07:22that cut through that corner of the

1:07:24building.

1:07:25um tried to outline the shift in

1:07:28property line up here in yellow. This

1:07:31kind of zigzags now to accommodate uh

1:07:34that portica share over here, but again

1:07:37allocates more parking spaces to this

1:07:39site while removing them from the

1:07:42adjacent site. So this I tried to

1:07:45compare side by side. Uh this is the

1:07:47area in question kind of highlighted in

1:07:50yellow here. Um this is what's approved

1:07:52currently on the left.

1:07:55And this is how the property line will

1:07:57shift on the right. So it'll shift a

1:08:00little bit to the left and a little bit

1:08:03up top to take in those additional

1:08:06parking spaces and again reduces the

1:08:09parking uh further reduces the parking

1:08:12on the existing Sandman Hotel site.

1:08:17Um we've got uh a table that summarizes

1:08:22the parking variances.

1:08:25So on the existing Sandman uh site, they

1:08:29already had a variance for uh 57 spaces.

1:08:34So that was a deficiency of 57. That has

1:08:37now increased to a deficiency of 70

1:08:39spaces. Um on the proposed Sutton Place

1:08:43hotel site, which is on the north, the

1:08:45one that hasn't been constructed yet,

1:08:48they did not have a parking deficiency.

1:08:50In fact, they had a surplus of 26 spaces

1:08:53originally, but now with the addition of

1:08:56uh that large area of square footage. Um

1:08:59they're also including more banquet

1:09:01space on the interior of the hotel. They

1:09:04are now at a 15 uh space deficit. So,

1:09:08uh, a total of 85 spaces across the two

1:09:12lots who were intending to share some

1:09:14parking.

1:09:16Uh, this is looking at the subject

1:09:18property.

1:09:20You can see the existing Sandman Hotel

1:09:22and on the left here is the proposed

1:09:25Sutton Place Hotel. This is uh on the

1:09:29property looking south from one of the

1:09:31interior drives.

1:09:34This is looking to the north from

1:09:36Meridian Drive.

1:09:38And these are the small uh shopping

1:09:41centers to the northeast,

1:09:44the southeast

1:09:46and the east.

1:09:49Um since the staff uh or the staff has

1:09:52evaluated uh the request since it is

1:09:55creating uh an additional shortage, we

1:09:59are not uh in support of the variance

1:10:02request. And I'm happy to take any

1:10:04questions you have.

1:10:07>> [clears throat]

1:10:07>> on the Sandman property, the one on the

1:10:09south, have they had any problems with

1:10:13lack of parking? I mean, do or do we

1:10:16know if there's been any issues in

1:10:17regards to that? I mean,

1:10:18>> we have not heard anything in the zoning

1:10:21department. Um, it's also relatively uh

1:10:25a new shopping center. They could be

1:10:27cross parking in some of the other

1:10:29little center spaces, but um we have not

1:10:32heard anything yet.

1:10:37Part of their uh reasoning for the first

1:10:40variance was uh based on the fact that

1:10:43uh they would be um having a hotel

1:10:46shuttle for a lot of the occupants that

1:10:48a lot of people staying there would be

1:10:51co-using the restaurant and that a lot

1:10:53of people also use Uber uh for those

1:10:57stays.

1:11:00>> It seemed like there we have two things

1:11:01that we're being asked about. One is the

1:11:03is effectively the change on the parking

1:11:05requirements for Sandman.

1:11:08>> Correct.

1:11:08>> And that's really separate. That's about

1:11:10the Porter Casher. You said that they

1:11:12have to build for the other one.

1:11:14>> Correct.

1:11:15>> So, so like is that one a what happens

1:11:18if we don't approve that part of it?

1:11:22>> They would have to go back and ask for

1:11:24variance to not have the portica share.

1:11:28>> Okay. So, it would require a variance

1:11:30one way or the other. Correct.

1:11:32>> In order for them to build the second

1:11:34hotel.

1:11:35>> Correct. [clears throat]

1:11:36>> As to that part of it.

1:11:38>> Yes.

1:11:39>> The parking for Sandman, the parking for

1:11:42sudden,

1:11:44that's really a result of the the change

1:11:47in where they want to locate the

1:11:48restaurant.

1:11:49>> Correct. The large expansion of the

1:11:51building footprint and the fact that

1:11:52it's an exterior facing restaurant that

1:11:56is possibly serving a lot more people

1:11:59than just those at the hotel.

1:12:01um

1:12:02>> that wasn't accounted for.

1:12:04>> I think just one more question on

1:12:05Sandman. There was a pretty significant

1:12:07parking variance already

1:12:12in comparison. The parking variance

1:12:14that's being asked for sudden doesn't

1:12:15seem like all that much. So I was

1:12:17curious what was the reasoning or do we

1:12:19know what was the reasoning for why a 57

1:12:22space variance was approved? Because I

1:12:25mean a 15 space variance doesn't sound

1:12:28like much in comparison. So, I'm curious

1:12:30if there was some sort of like we were

1:12:32talking about earlier that maybe the

1:12:34parking requirements aren't

1:12:37>> aren't as accurate. And that's what part

1:12:38of what I was wondering is was there was

1:12:40an anticipation that they were going to

1:12:41be sharing and there was going to be

1:12:42extra or or was it a determination they

1:12:45didn't really need what what the code

1:12:48would have required

1:12:50199.

1:12:51>> I should have probably listened to the

1:12:52council minutes, but I didn't. I did

1:12:55read the last staff report and all the

1:12:58rationale was the same based on um the

1:13:02fact that it's a hotel, dual uses, lots

1:13:05of Uber using um uh the shuttle service

1:13:09provided by the hotel itself and the

1:13:12fact that it would be a common uh

1:13:13destination.

1:13:14>> So was it was that modification

1:13:17recommended by staff at that time?

1:13:20I

1:13:21am trying to remember if staff

1:13:23recommended approval of that one. I

1:13:27don't remember if they did,

1:13:28>> but [clears throat] that was, as you

1:13:30understand it, that was those reasons

1:13:32were the reason that presumably council

1:13:33approved it.

1:13:34>> Yes.

1:13:35>> Yeah. Okay.

1:13:42So it used to be one if I understand

1:13:46this correctly one vehicle per room and

1:13:49now it's 7 per room.

1:13:52>> Correct.

1:13:55>> Now are is it the same ownership?

1:13:58It is the same parent company, but I

1:14:01believe they're developing the hotels

1:14:04under two different um

1:14:08sub

1:14:09LLC's. I think the applicant may be able

1:14:13to answer that for you, but they are two

1:14:16distinctly separate lots and the I think

1:14:20the parent company name is the same on

1:14:23DAD,

1:14:26but we were we were made to understand

1:14:28that it was very important to them for

1:14:30each hotel to have their own lot.

1:14:37And have you heard anything I guess from

1:14:39the Sandman Hotel?

1:14:41>> No.

1:14:44>> Well, it's the same.

1:14:45>> It's the same,

1:14:46>> but both of them are being revised. So,

1:14:48since we're having to shift

1:14:50>> the zoning line over the legal

1:14:52boundaries of the zoning districts,

1:14:54we're having to shift for both of them

1:14:56>> and then the parking for both of them.

1:14:58So, it's the same owner, but it's part

1:15:00the the the Sandman is part of this

1:15:02case.

1:15:03>> Yes. the same parent company signed the

1:15:06application on behalf of both

1:15:08properties.

1:15:10>> Okay. So, it's

1:15:12all right.

1:15:17I would say um so I would say it's not

1:15:21really appropriate to recommend the

1:15:23Porcachare going away at Sutton Place

1:15:26because it's a it's a solid upper

1:15:28fourstar brand and they're not going to

1:15:31want people walking in the rain to enter

1:15:34the hotel. So um is there been any

1:15:38discussion that maybe they could do a

1:15:40shared parking arrangement with the

1:15:41retail next door?

1:15:44We did. I know I at least offered them

1:15:47that option. I don't know whether those

1:15:50property owners would be interested, but

1:15:52we did absolutely um suggest that. Um we

1:15:56can't usually recommend

1:16:00um approval based on that because there

1:16:03are so many moving parts with those

1:16:04types of um agreements and they do have

1:16:08to be filed with the county. both owners

1:16:10have to sign them and usually it's done

1:16:13uh when they're at their building permit

1:16:16stage or certificate of occupancy stage.

1:16:19>> And then I recall that when we approved

1:16:22Sandman,

1:16:25there was no variance for meeting space

1:16:28reduction which is typical in hotel

1:16:30cases. So, they they agree to the hotel

1:16:34ordinance on the meeting space in both

1:16:36these places because they haven't asked

1:16:38for variances, which says to me that

1:16:42they might need the parking

1:16:45if you've got conference people coming

1:16:48in for a day meeting as opposed to their

1:16:51hotel guests coming in.

1:16:52>> I'm pretty sure that the Sandman did get

1:16:56a variance for the smaller amount of

1:16:58meeting space. They had it, but it was

1:17:01not the full 5,000.

1:17:02>> Okay.

1:17:03>> But this one is actually going above

1:17:065,000 for their meeting space.

1:17:16>> Okay. And can you go back to the case

1:17:18notes at the very beginning, the very

1:17:20first page? I could have sworn it said

1:17:22approval and yet the notes.

1:17:24>> Yes. I I apologize. Yes. It was It

1:17:27should have been denial.

1:17:28>> Thank you. Apologize for that.

1:17:29>> No, no, no. That's okay. I missed that

1:17:31completely. Thank you. Any other

1:17:33questions, folks?

1:17:36Okay. Um, we're down to our final case

1:17:40then. 2026-20278

1:17:43CUP. That's Haley.

1:17:56All righty. This is the other short-term

1:17:59rental case at 910 Sam Hill Street,

1:18:01currently zoned R six. Um, in terms of

1:18:04staff recommendation, it's kind of we're

1:18:06that same three conditions that we

1:18:07recommended for the previous one. We're

1:18:09recommending for this one. In terms of

1:18:12public comments, there was one in

1:18:13support and aid in opposition.

1:18:16Here's the subject property. And so the

1:18:19other STR is right around here.

1:18:22future land use of traditional

1:18:23neighborhood property owner

1:18:26notifications.

1:18:28Um, here's ones that were in opposition

1:18:29and I believe the letter support came

1:18:31from this 14 here on the map.

1:18:35STRs in the area. So, looks like they're

1:18:37not so as condensed as it was the last

1:18:39time, but you can see the there's one

1:18:41here and then a few over here.

1:18:44And here's the site plan. Um, there's no

1:18:46variances and it's the same notes um

1:18:49that you'll see here. So again, these

1:18:51are the generic ones that we have on all

1:18:53um conditional use permit site plans and

1:18:57these are the three. So again, that make

1:18:59sure it's with the owner um the same

1:19:02owner. We recommend a two years and make

1:19:05sure they have a valid city registration

1:19:07for the short-term rental.

1:19:10Um this one also has online

1:19:11advertisement. This one was actually

1:19:13caught by code in July of this year. um

1:19:18they were operating without a license

1:19:19and so now they're trying to come

1:19:20through and um get the conditional use

1:19:23permit.

1:19:25So subject property

1:19:27to the north,

1:19:29east, west,

1:19:32and I'm open to any comments or

1:19:34questions.

1:19:37>> I have essentially the same question. Is

1:19:39there anything the applicant indicated

1:19:41or said to indicate that this is this

1:19:43area, this street, this, you know, is a

1:19:47particularly appropriate place to have a

1:19:48short-term rental?

1:19:50>> Not that I recall.

1:19:51>> Nothing distinctive about it that makes

1:19:52it appropriate to have here as opposed

1:19:54to elsewhere.

1:19:55>> No, unless it was mentioned as letter of

1:19:56intent, which I kind of forgot to look

1:19:57at before the meeting. So, but it's in

1:19:59your packet, but if not, the applicant

1:20:01should be here tonight.

1:20:02>> Okay, great. Thank you.

1:20:04>> How long have they been operating as an

1:20:06Airbnb?

1:20:08that I'm not sure. Um,

1:20:11not very long.

1:20:14Oh, sorry.

1:20:28Shane Diller again, your code

1:20:29enforcement director. It's It's hard to

1:20:31be precise on how long. uh the system we

1:20:34use uh typically catches them when they

1:20:37come online and funnels to us. So it's

1:20:40typ it's not typical that they're

1:20:41operating for very long, but we have had

1:20:44some where for one reason or another it

1:20:46took the company we work with to data

1:20:48mine the internet time to identify the

1:20:51specific address and get it to us. But

1:20:54we're not in a position to be able to

1:20:55say definitively how long prior to them

1:20:58us being notified it was operating that

1:21:01they would have been open that the

1:21:02applicant may be able to provide

1:21:04something in greater detail.

1:21:06>> Any complaints?

1:21:08>> No.

1:21:09>> Um can you tell me for

1:21:14for anybody to get their registration

1:21:17what criteria do they have to meet? So,

1:21:20in order to register in in a single

1:21:23family home, they would have to provide

1:21:26a floor plan for the home, they would

1:21:29have to provide us the websites that

1:21:31they're operating on. We would then go

1:21:34through a process to look to make sure

1:21:35that they had the adequate parking on

1:21:37site, meaning they had four spaces

1:21:39minimum or one space per bedroom of

1:21:41on-site parking. Uh we would then look

1:21:44to make sure that there were no other

1:21:46STRs operating the block face and if

1:21:48there were that granting this one

1:21:49wouldn't exceed 10%. And then now as of

1:21:52October 1st they would go through an

1:21:55inspection with the department to where

1:21:57we would inspect both the interior and

1:21:58the exterior of the property to make

1:22:00sure that there were no present code

1:22:01violations before granting a

1:22:03registration.

1:22:04>> So did the two properties that we're

1:22:08going to be seeing today did they meet

1:22:10that criteria? Yes, they both meet those

1:22:12criterias. You won't see a property that

1:22:15does not pass the statutory screening of

1:22:17meeting the four four plus parking

1:22:19spaces, the less than 10% in the block

1:22:22phase, uh that sort of thing. Yes.

1:22:31>> Thank you.

1:22:38>> Sorry, one more question. Sorry, one

1:22:40more question. Um, have you had other

1:22:42cases filed that didn't meet the

1:22:44criteria?

1:22:45>> Have we had other cases filed that did

1:22:47not meet the criteria? Yes, there have

1:22:48been some since uh these uh restrictions

1:22:52were put in place that have not uh that

1:22:55have been denied their STR registration.

1:22:58>> Thank you.

1:23:02and Shane. So, right now, to your

1:23:04knowledge, the uh this Sorry. Oh, no.

1:23:06You're [laughter] good.

1:23:07>> This uh so this location is not

1:23:09operating as a short-term rental

1:23:11currently.

1:23:12>> The last time we checked their ad, they

1:23:14have blocked they they've taken down the

1:23:16ability. They basically you keep the ad

1:23:18up, but you block out the dates. And so,

1:23:20our last check of the ad was that they

1:23:22still had the dates blocked out and

1:23:23we're waiting for the uh approval.

1:23:30I was just going to add so we one of the

1:23:32ones that Shane and I were working

1:23:34through because it is not a UDC

1:23:36regulation that 10% rule that is not

1:23:39something that you can vary and so I I

1:23:42don't know if that person followed

1:23:43through. Was it construction board of

1:23:45appeals? Is that what they were going to

1:23:46have to do?

1:23:47>> Yes. Yeah. So, one of them was denied

1:23:49for the 10% rule uh had appealed the

1:23:52denial with the construction board of

1:23:53appeals and the construction board uh

1:23:56found in staff's favor and affirmed the

1:23:58denial that in fact the math was

1:24:00correct.

1:24:02>> So, that would be the first step. So,

1:24:04y'all won't even see it until those

1:24:06things are cleared.

1:24:13>> Thank you folks. was a good uh

1:24:16presentation this night tonight. Uh

1:24:18before we adjourn, I just wanted to

1:24:20cover a couple of quick things. Um Texas

1:24:22APA is next week. If you haven't signed

1:24:26up, I don't know if it's too late to

1:24:28sign up, but I there is uh there are a

1:24:31few uh sessions next week. I wanted to

1:24:33point out specifically the opening

1:24:35session on Wednesday is with our mayor

1:24:37and city manager. So, I don't know if

1:24:39you have an interest in maybe hearing

1:24:41directly from the mayor and city

1:24:43manager. Um but that would be at 8:30 on

1:24:45Wednesday. Um at 10:30 in the morning,

1:24:49um the LCA is actually presenting uh a

1:24:52case or they're have they're they're

1:24:54guiding a session on Los Kolinus assoc.

1:25:00Um 3:30 is a student legacy project

1:25:05regarding the Plymouth Park

1:25:06neighborhood. Um Jocelyn, you want to

1:25:09give any highlights because that's not a

1:25:11typical work session. Now, it's kind of

1:25:13a neat project. So, for every state

1:25:16conference, whatever city they're in,

1:25:19they all the universities get together,

1:25:20I think there's seven, and they find

1:25:22they pick what's called a legacy

1:25:24project. They they work with the cities

1:25:25to identify an area that needs to, you

1:25:27know, be looked at. And um so Plymouth

1:25:31Park immediately came to mind. We just

1:25:33there's Plymouth Park is just so many

1:25:34great things that could happen. Uh so we

1:25:36did reach out to the owner. The owner is

1:25:38on board. He's thrilled to see, you

1:25:39know, what the students come up with.

1:25:41Um, so that's what they're going to be

1:25:43working through there. You know,

1:25:44different ones will be looking at the

1:25:46development and the financial and

1:25:47there's there's like there's several

1:25:48different aspects. All of the different

1:25:51universities will be working on their

1:25:53own topics and then they'll all be

1:25:54presenting. They're doing posters and be

1:25:56presenting at the same time. So, um, we

1:25:59think it'll be really cool to see what

1:26:00the the young minds um, come up with for

1:26:03Plymouth Park. you know, it's it's got

1:26:05some struggles and it's got some

1:26:06potential and um but that's what the

1:26:08legacy project will be on Wednesday

1:26:11afternoon at 3:30.

1:26:13>> Thanks. Um the next session uh 10:30 on

1:26:16Thursday is with our own Abraham Zerillo

1:26:19and he's um he and another uh colleague

1:26:23will be presenting on new urbanism. So

1:26:26Abraham has a great passion for that

1:26:28project. You might be interested in that

1:26:30as relates to Irving as well. Um Josh

1:26:33and I were talking earlier before the

1:26:35meeting started that uh the app for the

1:26:39program is a we both found it deficient.

1:26:42So if you really want to look at the

1:26:44various work sessions that are taking

1:26:46place next week if you haven't signed up

1:26:48and may we might have piqu your interest

1:26:51tonight um go to the website agenda and

1:26:54just search Texas APA 2026 conference

1:26:57and you'll eventually get to the agenda

1:27:00for the for the program next week and

1:27:03it's at our Irving Convention Center. So

1:27:05you're in for a nice treat there at at

1:27:08our own convention center.

1:27:11just talk about

1:27:12>> the the the ones that relate

1:27:14specifically to us. Sure. Happy to do

1:27:17it. Um we'll take care of that.

1:27:19>> Um

1:27:20>> I think you can sign up for those.

1:27:22>> Uh uh I don't know. I think you don't

1:27:24have to sign up for the sessions. So on

1:27:27you just go through and you decide you

1:27:28set your own schedule. You decide which

1:27:30ones you want to go to. There are eight

1:27:32or so mobile workshops if y'all are

1:27:35interested in those. Those are usually

1:27:36halfday workshops. Um, we're going back

1:27:39out to QTS, which y'all have already

1:27:40seen. We just went out there a couple

1:27:42hours ago when we were working through

1:27:43kind of some of the processes. Um,

1:27:45there's Carolton in Grapevine. There's a

1:27:48mobile workshop in um, Oak Cliff area.

1:27:51Um, airport if you'all want to see the

1:27:53new terminal at the airport and and just

1:27:55hear from DFW airport directly on some

1:27:57of their activities. Um, so there's some

1:27:59really cool mobile workshops that that I

1:28:01I helped put together and then other

1:28:02people brought their own ideas. Um, so

1:28:04you can also I'll send the link out

1:28:06again to everybody so you can see um,

1:28:09even if you don't register, I think you

1:28:10can still see what the sessions are and

1:28:12if something interests you and you can

1:28:13do a single day if you don't want to

1:28:15commit to the two and a half days. If

1:28:17you want to do a single day, if there's

1:28:18something that you want to to sit in on

1:28:20or a mobile workshop to go to, let me

1:28:22know and I can register you for those.

1:28:27>> Yes, you did. if you've already

1:28:28registered.

1:28:31>> I think it's only for the mobile

1:28:33workshops, but I might be wrong.

1:28:34>> Yeah. Yeah, that those are the mobile

1:28:35workshops. So, you would have to go back

1:28:37in and I'm I'm happy if there's one that

1:28:39you want, you just have to go in and

1:28:41register, you know, go back into your

1:28:42your login and register.

1:28:45>> Um lastly, um the fourth of our

1:28:49quarterly workshops is scheduled for

1:28:51November 16th. Um Joselyn has invited

1:28:55Mark Wiggins who's our city legislative

1:28:59uh guru and he'll present um some of the

1:29:03highlights as they relate specifically

1:29:04to planning and zoning in terms of what

1:29:06legis legislative updates might be

1:29:08coming up uh in the next session in the

1:29:11new year. And then Justin, we're having

1:29:13Abraham Zerillo also talked about

1:29:15formbbased code that night. Yeah, if we

1:29:18haven't agreed on that yet, but but I

1:29:20would we'd love to start introducing the

1:29:23concepts of the the low inensity the

1:29:25mixeduse patterns. Uh forbased code is

1:29:28just a way of of getting those mixeduse

1:29:30patterns and just start to have that

1:29:32discussion of what these are. Um so as

1:29:35we start to codify that, you know, what

1:29:37locations they're appropriate in. So

1:29:39it's just starting that discussion,

1:29:40answering any questions.

1:29:43>> Yeah. Yeah, and that was one of the

1:29:44topics that was of interest um when you

1:29:46all did the survey earlier this year.

1:29:48So, we're closing we're closing the year

1:29:50out on

1:29:52>> um hopefully the topics that interested

1:29:55everybody during

1:29:56>> it's also one of the city managers

1:29:58priority areas for us as well.

1:30:01>> Good to know. Thank you. All right.

1:30:03Anything else tonight, folks? Okay. We

1:30:06are adjourned at 6:54 p.m. We'll see you

1:30:08outside in about five minutes.

1:30:13>> [music]

1:30:19[music]

1:30:22>> Heat. Heat.

1:30:25[music]

1:30:31[music]

1:30:37>> [music]

```*