[00:00:09]
WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 8TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AS IS OUR CUSTOM, WE COMMISSIONERS START OUR MEETING WITH A PRAYER AND A PLEDGE. YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US WHETHER YOU DO OR NOT. NO WAY AFFECTS THE DECISIONS OF THIS COMMISSION OR YOUR RIGHTS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION. TONIGHT'S PRAYER AND PLEDGE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER DALTON. YOU CARE TO JOIN ME? OUR GRACIOUS AND LOVING HEAVENLY FATHER. WE COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING THANKING YOU FOR THE LIFE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US. WE THANK YOU FOR THE SEASON OF THE YEAR, THE HOLIDAYS, THE ABILITY OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO GATHER TOGETHER AND CELEBRATE LIFE AND CHRISTMAS AND THE BIRTH OF OUR SAVIOR. FATHER, WE ASK THAT YOU GUIDE US IN OUR DAILY ACTIVITIES. WE ASK THAT YOU, OVER THE ACTIONS OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AS WE DO THINGS THAT ARE BEST FOR THE CITY OF GARLAND. PROTECT THOSE THAT PROTECT US EVERY DAY, AND BE WITH THEIR FAMILIES IN THEM, AND SOME THAT ARE AWAY FROM HOME DURING THIS SEASON. THESE THINGS WE ASK IN JESUS CHRIST'S NAME, AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WELL, GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO TESTIFY ON A CASE TONIGHT, IF YOU PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THESE SPEAKER CARDS AND HAND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY. THAT WAY I CAN CALL YOU. CALL YOU UP PODIUMS RIGHT THERE WITH THE MICROPHONE. AND PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. AND WE GIVE PRESENTERS APPLICANTS. I'M SORRY. 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. OTHER SPEAKERS. WE ALLOW THREE. YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A GROUP SUCH AS THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. WE DO ALLOW MORE.E. AFTER ALL, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK UP AND AND FINALIZE ANY COMMENTS IF NEEDED. AND AGAIN, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BECAUSE WE NEED THAT FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALL RIGHT. GET INTO THE AGENDA, WHICH I MANAGED NOT TO PRINT OUT. ONLY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEM
[a. November 24, 2025 Plan Commission Minutes]
ONE A APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 24TH, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. SEE NOBODY JUMPING UP TO TESTIFY ON IT. SO, CAROL, TAKE A MOTION. OH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE PEOPLE IN ALREADY, COMMISSIONER CORNELIUS. HEY. GOOD. I DID NOT, BUT I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ANOTHER MINUTE. JUST. THANK YOU. OKAY. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CORNELIUS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. THIS IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. ITEM TWO A AND LET'S SEE IF I
[a. Z 25-38 Jerry W. Cook (District 5)]
CAN PULL UP THE TEXT FROM THE AGENDA. WHEN I WAS LEAVING THE HOME TONIGHT, I SAID, I WONDER WHAT I FORGOTTEN. YEAH. OH. ALL RIGHT. SORRY ABOUT THIS, FOLKS. OH, COME ON, IT'S NOT LETTING ME GO DOWN TO THAT. HERE WE GO. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF JERRY W COOK REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HEAVY MANUFACTURING USE AND A CONCEPT PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING HEAVY MANUFACTURING USES. SITE IS LOCATED AT 2945 MARKET STREET. AND I BELIEVE I HAVE A CARD FROM THE APPLICANT. CHARLES. OH THAT'S RIGHT, WE'VE GOT PRESENTATION. I AM A MESS TONIGHT. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. STUART STARRY, PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF GARLAND. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING HEAVY MANUFACTURING USE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOCATED ON 2945 MARKET STREET, IS 2.6 ACRES AND IS ZONED
[00:05:10]
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALL ZONED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AS WELL. TO THE NORTH THERE IS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE. TO THE WEST IS A OFFICE WAREHOUSE CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT. TO THE SOUTH IS A VEHICLE DISPATCH AND STORAGE USE, AND TO THE EAST ACROSS MARKET STREET IS A WRECKER SERVICE. USE. THE PROPOSED HEAVY MANUFACTURING USE ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS VISION FOR THIS AREA, AS IT IS AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYER WITH SIMILAR ADJACENT USES. THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS EXPECTED IN DESIGNATED INDUSTRY CENTERS SUCH AS THIS ONE. HERE WE GOT SOME OF THE PICTURES TAKEN FROM MARKET STREET. THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING AS WELL AS THE EXISTING PARKING LOT. AND THEN ON THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT YOU CAN SEE THE ADJACENT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS STILL UNDEVELOPED, WHERE THE EXPANSION IS BEING PROPOSED. AND THEN WE GOT A THIRD ANGLE AGAIN FROM MARKET STREET, BUT LOOKING DOWN FROM THE NORTH, AND IT'S AT THAT SAME PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE EXPANSION IS BEING PROPOSED. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. THE ORIGINAL CEO ISSUED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFIED THE USE AS MANUFACTURING OF WESTERN HATS. AT THE TIME, THE CODE DID NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LIGHT AND HEAVY MANUFACTURING AS IT DOES NOW, GIVEN THE USE OF RAW MATERIALS TO MANUFACTURE THE FINISHED PRODUCTS, IT IS CONSIDERED A HEAVY MANUFACTURING USE, WHICH, IN LINE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS, REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION. THE PROPOSED EXPANSION CONSTITUTES OVER 30% OF THE EXISTING BUILDING SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS WHY SCREENING, ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS WILL APPLY FOR THIS EXPANSION. STAFF WILL REVIEW THESE REQUIREMENTS AT THE SITE AND BUILDING PERMIT STAGES. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE ADDING THREE PARKING SPACES IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR NEW PARKING REQUIREMENT. OF 43 SPACES TOTAL, AS WELL AS ADDING PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING AND CANOPY TREES. PER OUR STANDARD REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A TIME PERIOD OF 30 YEARS FOR THE SUP. WELL STAFF RECOMMENDS A TIMELINE RANGE BETWEEN 20 AND 30 YEARS. GIVEN THAT THE REQUEST IS A CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING USE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE INDUSTRY CENTER AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REFLECTED ON THE ZONING MAP, AND THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP REQUEST. WE DID SEND OUT 47 NOTIFICATION LETTERS, AND WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST OF THE REQUEST. THANK YOU. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER JENKINS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD EVENING SIR. I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT MY CONCERN IS. FIRST, AND HOPEFULLY BY TELLING YOU WHAT MY CONCERN IS, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THE QUESTIONS MIGHT BE COMING FROM AND ANSWER THEM BETTER. I'M SORRY TO CATCH YOU BY SURPRISE. LIKE THAT.LIKE THIS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OVER ZONING. I DON'T THINK THAT THE INDUSTRIAL USE IS INCORRECT OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SPOT ON, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE TRANSITIONING BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION AS IT WAS WHEN THE THE USE WAS ADDITIONALLY INITIALLY CONTEMPLATED TODAY. SO WE NO LONGER HAVE INDUSTRIAL ONE AND TWO. WE NO LONGER CONTEMPLATE LOWER INDUSTRIAL USES AND HIGHER. IT'S ALL JUST KIND OF THROWN IN TOGETHER AS INDUSTRIAL. BUT MY MY QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO GO TO THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERIZATION OF HEAVY MANUFACTURING, BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT. I SUPPOSE THE APPLICANT CAN BE ABLE TO GIVE ME SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT WHAT THEIR WHAT THEIR USE IS. BUT BUT PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP HELP ME WITH THAT AS WELL. SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOWT MIGHT JUST BE THAT THE APPLICANT MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION, OR MAYBE CITY STAFF DID, HOW WE CAME TO THE SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION OF HEAVY MANUFACTURING. I DO HAVE THE DEFINITION OF THE USE. AND SO HEAVY MANUFACTURING.
[00:10:03]
MANUFACTURING USE IS DEFINED AS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, ASSEMBLING, RESEARCHING AND DEVELOPING, PACKAGING, SHIPPING, STORING, SERVICING OR OTHER SIMILAR ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW AND TYPICALLY INVOLVE THE PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURE OF NON-CONSUMABLE PRODUCTS FROM RAW MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT MEET STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE DEFINITION OF LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL OR MANUFACTURING USES, AND SO GIVEN SO, THE OR AT LEAST THE USE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND OF COURSE, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE USES THAT GO ON. BUT THEY ARE MANUFACTURING HATS OUT OF RAW PRODUCTS AND THEY ARE PACKAGING THEM IN, ASSEMBLING THEM AND SHIPPING THEM OUT. SO THAT IS I MEAN IT THE THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING, THE DIFFERENT USES THAT THEY'RE DOING ALL KIND OF FALL INTO THIS DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE IN THE PDC. I HAD A CHANCE TO TOUR A HAT FACTORY HERE IN GARLAND BEFORE, AND SO I'VE SEEN KIND OF THAT PROCESS. IT CAN BE VERY INTENSIVE. IT CAN BE VERY ONEROUS. IT CAN BE VERY CAN CAN HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE DOING THE WORK AS OPPOSED TO TO MACHINERY. AND I SUPPOSE AGAIN, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THIS EXPANSION IS FOR STORAGE SPACE RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE ORGANIZATION. SO WAREHOUSE CAPACITY, CAPACITY FOR THE TRUCKS TO COME IN. IS THERE GOING TO BE A LARGER INDUSTRIAL FOOTPRINT I SUPPOSE AS WELL. BEHIND THAT. DO WE KNOW THAT. YEAH, I MEAN IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WILL MAINLY BE FOR STORAGE AND SHIPPING.HOWEVER THESE ARE BOTH JUST ANCILLARY COMPONENTS OF THE HEAVY MANUFACTURING USE. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE JUST CONSIDER IT AN EXPANSION OF OF WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING. I EVEN I MEAN, I WENT SO FAR AS TO EVEN PULL UP STATE LAW AND LOOK AT HOW STATE LAW CHARACTERIZES HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, USAGES. EXCUSE ME. AND IT IT REALLY FOCUSES ON HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS OR NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE SMOKE OR ORDERS, EXCUSE ME. OR PROCESSES THAT DEAL WITH A LOT OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS. WE'RE 1000FT AWAY FROM SHILOH, FROM FROM A RESIDENTIAL AREA, YOU KNOW. AND SO MY MY QUESTION IS, AS YOU'RE MOVING, I GUESS, EAST TOWARDS THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA WITHIN THAT THOUSAND FOOT RANGE, DO WE WANT TO HAVE THINGS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE HAZARDOUS TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS, OR IS THERE A WAY THAT THIS IS CATEGORIZED AS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND THERE'S NO NEED TO TO, AGAIN, GIVE SOMEBODY A FUTURE DATE AND TIME THE CAPACITY TO PUT SOMETHINGNG TH COULD BE OFFENSIVE OR NOXIOUS AT A LATER DATE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, MY COMMISSIONER JENKINS, IF I MAY TRY TO ANSR THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT. SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM FROM A GENERAL PERSPECTIVE OF HOW THIS USE IS BEING CLASSIFIED AND CATEGORIZED INTO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL INSTEAD OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR HEAVY MANUFACTURING INSTEAD OF LIGHT MANUFACTURING. THE DEFINITION, THE DIFFERENCE DISTINCTION OF THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS PER OUR GDC, NOT STATE LAW FOR OUR GDC, IS MOSTLY FOR LIGHT. IT'S MOSTLY ASSEMBLY OF FINISHED PRODUCTS FOR HEAVY. IF YOU'RE USING RAW MATERIALS, AND IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, AS LONG AS IT'S USING RAW MATERIALS TO CREATE TO MANUFACTURE PRODUCTS, IT'S CONSIDERED AND TRY TO
[00:15:48]
DIFFERENTR US TO BE CONSIDERING. PREECLAMPSIA, IF IT'S SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT COULD BE. IF IT'S JUST ASSEMBLING. YES, SIR. PLANNING COMMISSION CAN COME UP WITH AN IDEA? THANK YOU, THANK . NO, MISS CHARLES VOID. IF HE'S HERE. JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW HARD ORDINANCES AND LAW ARE TO WRITE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND PLANNING COMMISSION CHARLES VOIGT WITH CHAIRMAN VOIGT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS REPRESENTING APPLICANT JERRY COOK. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ARE SIMPLE AND NOT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DEFINITIONS. SO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU. I SEE NONE EXCEPT I THINK I'VE GOT ONE OF STAFF FOR ARCHITECT ARCHITECT. IN CONSIDERING THE ARTICULATION WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING AND THE SETBACK THEY'RE CREATING, BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE ARTICULATION. OR IS NEW BUILDING HAVE TO BY ITSELF COMPLY WITH THE ARTICULATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL STAY AS IS THE EXPANDED THE NEW BUILDING. THE EXPANDED PORTION WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE GDC. WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO USE THE EXISTING BUILDING AS PART OF THE ARTICULATION OF THE OVERALL BUILDING? YEAH, YEAH. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, WE'RE ARTICULATING IT FOR THE CODE AND EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING WE'RE USING AS A SETBACK AND EVERYTHING. YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JENKINS. IT'S OUR PROMISE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION ABOUT DEFINITIONS. I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT USE. DO YOU KNOW ABOUT. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE PROCESS? AND THE USE IS LIKE LIKE A SHE WAS INDICATING THAT IT'S MAINLY FOR, FOR MAINLY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AREA OR RECEIVING AND DISTRIBUTION AREA. SO MAINLY A WAREHOUSE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. BUT NOT INCREASING THE NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. NO. OKAY. OKAY.THANK YOU. SEE. NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE? WELL, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE. SO COMMISSIONERS.
OKAY. COMMISSIONER GABLE, THERE YOU GO. I WILL. YEP. THERE WE GO. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED WITH A 30 YEAR TIME PERIOD MOTION BY COMMISSIONER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON TO APPROVE THIS SHOP FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS IN THE SITE PLAN MOTN IS TO APPROVE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. ITEM TWO B HOLD A
[b. GDC Amendment ORD 25-08]
PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO SEVERAL GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS AS IT RELATES TO SENATE BILL SAYS HERE 840 MULTIFAMILY AND VARIOUS OTHER STANDARDS. THANK YOU CHAIR. WE'LL WAIT FOR THE PRESENTATION TO BE PULLED UP AND THEN HAVE THE PACKET UP.AND THEN WE'LL ALSO HAVE THE PRESENTATION. SLIDE. SO A COUPLE A MONTH AGO, I THINK I CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PROVIDED A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT SENATE BILL 840 DOES AND WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO TO ADDRESS IT. SO AGAIN, IN A NUTSHELL, WHAT SENATE BILL
[00:20:04]
840 SAYS RIGHT NOW IN OUR NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE COMMUNITY OFFICE, NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, COMMUNITY RETAIL, INDUSTRIAL, THINGS LIKE THAT, MULTIFAMILY IS NOT PERMITTED. WHAT SENATE BILL 840 DOES IT SAYS ANYWHERE OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, WAREHOUSE, RETAIL. THOSE USES ARE PERMITTED. MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE HAS TO BE PERMITTED. IT DOES EXEMPT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. AND WE JUST TALKED ABOUT INDUSTRIAL USES. SO OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. SO BY DEFINITION SENATE BILL 840 DOES NOT APPLY TO OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. ALL THE OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MULTIFAMILY CAN NOW GO BY. RIGHT. THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL FOR REZONING. SO DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE TAKEN DIFFERENT STANCE ON IT. DIFFERENT CITIES ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.SO A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THE SENATE BILL DOES, AGAIN, FOR DENSITY PURPOSES, IT SAYS WHATEVER DENSITY THE CITY HAS, WHATEVER THE HIGHEST DENSITY IS WITHIN THE CITY, THAT DENSITY WILL APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY IN OUR U, R AND UB DISTRICT, WHICH ARE DISTRICTS WHICH ARE OUR MIXED USE URBAN DISTRICTS, WE HAD 80 DWELLING UNITS. SO BY DEFINITION, BY SENATE BILL, OUR DENSITY, OUR MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED HAD BECOME BY SENATE BILL EIGHT, 4080 UNITS PER ACRE.
SO WE LOOKED AT IT AND WE THOUGHT, OKAY, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO? SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THREE SEPARATE MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS IN OUR IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND A BIG DISTINCTION IN THOSE THREE IT'S MF ZERO. MF ONE MF TWO. THE BIG DISTINCTION IS DENSITY. BUT IF 80 UNITS PER ACRE IS THE MAXIMUM ACROSS THE BOARD, THERE'S N NOT NECESSARILY A REASON TO HAVE THREE SEPARATE MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO ONE THING THAT WE DID WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS IS TAKE THOSE OFF AND JUST HAVE ONE ZONING DISTRICT FOR MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS MF, AND THEN WE WE HAVE TO ALLOW 80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING FOR US BECAUSE, AGAIN, GARLAND'S 97% BUILT OUT THE THE LAND THAT WE HAVE LEFT. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ADDING MORE DENSITY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICES, TO BE ABLE TO DO THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DO. SO WE ARE TRYING TO KIND OF THINK OF IT IN A POSITIVE MANNER. ANOTHER THING THAT SB 840 DOES, IT SAYS THE CITY CANNOT RESTRICT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO BE LESS THAN 45. SO WE LOOKED AT IT AND WE TRIED TO SEE WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING TO DO. THIS BILL IS REALLY TRYING TO SOLVE A HOUSING ISSUE, RIGHT? HOUSING PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE STATEWIDE. SO 45FT COULD BE 3 TO 4, PROBABLY FOUR STORIES. SO WE LOOKED AT IT AND WE THOUGHT, OKAY, WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THIS? OKAY. THE MAXIMUM COULD BE 45, BUT THE MINIMUM CAN STILL BE 25. AND PEOPLE CAN COME IN.
DEVELOPERS CAN COME IN AND DEVELOP TWO STORY GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY SPEAK URBAN, SPEAK QUALITY, SPEAK DENSITY, AND THINGS LIKE THINGS THAT THE SENATE BILL IS ASKING FOR AND TRULY GARLAND IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION MAY NEED. SO OUR THE WAY WE TRY TO ADDRESS IT IS THAT WE UPPED OUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 60FT, WHICH COULD BE 5 TO 6 STORIES. AND WE ALSO ADDED A MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR 40FT, WHICH IS WHICH COULD TRANSLATE TO 3 TO 4 STORIES. BUT WHAT IT DOES IS THAT IT KIND OF DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM COMING IN AND TRYING TO DO THOSE OLD STYLE, REALLY SPREAD OUT, GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS THAT, IN OUR CURRENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT, MAY NOT SERVE OUR BEST INTEREST ANYMORE.
SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE TRIED TO DO WITH THESE AMENDMENTS PARKING, PARKING, SENATE BILL ALSO PUTS SOME RESTRICTIONS ON OUR PARKING RIGHT NOW ON OUR PDC, WE HAVE OUR MULTIFAMILY PARKING BASED ON BEDROOMS. WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. SENATE BILL SAYS IT HAS TO BE ONE PARKING PER UNIT. SO OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT. WE'RE HOPING THAT WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND THEY'RE PROVIDING A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT, THEY'RE PROVIDING 203 TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS. THEY KNOW THAT THEY MAY NEED MORE THAN ONE PARKING UNIT PER PARKING SPACE PER UNIT, AND THE MARKET WILL PROBABLY REGULATE IT SOMEWHAT. BUT PER THE BILL,
[00:25:07]
WE HAD TO UPDATE IT TO HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. BUT WE WANTED TO SEE HOW WE CAN CHANGE THE WAY THE SITE WORKS TO HAVE A MORE URBAN EFFECT, HAVE A BETTER INTERACTION BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE BUILDINGS. SO RIGHT NOW, A LOT OF THE OLDER APARTMENTS HAVE THE PARKING AROUND THE BUILDING, LIKE CLOSER TO THE STREET. SO IF YOU'RE TRAVELING ON A CORRIDOR, YOU MAY SEE A LOT OF PARKING SPACES THAT BELONG TO THOSE APARTMENT COMPLEX. IF WE TRY TO GET SOME EXAMPLES FROM SOME OF THE MODERN APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN GARLAND AND NOT JUST GARLAND IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND THE METROPLEX, WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY TRY TO BUILD, PUSH, PULL THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE STREET. THAT WAY THERE IS A MORE INTERACTIVE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET, AND PARKING GOES BEHIND THE BUILDING. THAT WAY YOU'RE SEEING THE BUILDING, YOU'RE SEEI THE ARTICULATION. IT'S A MORE URBAN ENVIRONMENT, THE ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU SEE IN DOWNTOWN WHERE THE BUILDING IS CLOSER TO THE STREET, AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY FIND YOURSELF IN A SEA OF PARKING. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S ONE OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IN, LIKE IN TERMS OF SITE DESIGN, WE WANT PARKING TO BE BEHI THE BUILDING. WE DO UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES IF IT'S A COMPLEX, THERE MAY BE THEY MAY WANT TO HAVE SOME PARKING ALONG THE STREET FOR VISITORS OR PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING TO THE LEASING CENTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE DID BUILD A 5%, 5% EXCEPTION TO IT. SO YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 5% OF YOUR REQUIRED PARKING VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET, REQUIRING KIND OF WIDER SIDEWALKS. AGAIN, THIS BILL IS AN URBAN BILL TRYING TO SOLVE AN URBAN PROBLEM. WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT WITH URBAN SOLUTIONS. SO WE WANT WIDER SIDEWALKS. WE THEY WANT LESS PARKING SO THAT PEOPLE ARE LESS CAR ORIENTED. OKAY. LET'S PROVIDE WIDER SIDEWALKS SO THAT PEOPLE ARE MORE ENCOURAGED TO WALK FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.WE HAVE PROVIDED A LOT OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL VERTICAL, VERTICAL BUILDING ARTICULATIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, BECAUSE WE WANT TO FOCUS ON HOW THOSE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE WE DON'T WANT AGAIN, IF THE BLDING IS BEING PULLED CLOSER TO THE STREET, WE DON'T WANT A BOX LOOKING BUILDING THAT LOOKS LIKE A BOX, HAS NO ARTICULATION, HAS NO EMBELLISHMENT, AND WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE VIEW FROM OUR PUBLIC STREETS. SO TO HAVE MORE INTERESTING ARCHITECTURE, WE HAVE INCLUDED A LOT OF ARTICULATIONS AND WE HAVE RESTRICTED UNATTRACTIVE ROOF LINES, THINGS LIKE THAT. WE HAVE ALSO ADDED A LOT OF DIFFERENT SITE DESIGN CRITERIA, INCLUDING BLOCK BLOCK LENGTH, BUILD TO ZONES. SO AGAIN BUILD TO ZONE IS SIMILAR TO SETBACKS BUT WORKS IN A IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MANNER. SO SETBACKS ARE GENERALLY MINIMUM SETBACKS. THE BUILDING HAS TO BE SET BACK 15 FOOT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WHEN WE INTRODUCE BUILD TO ZONE, WE SAY THE THE BUILD TO LINE IS BETWEEN 15 TO 30FT, WHICH MEANS THE BUILDING CANNOT BE 40FT AWAY FROM THE STREET, WHICH MINIMUM SETBACK CANNOT ENSURE THAT. SO THAT WAY WE CAN ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING IS SOMEWHAT IN A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO THE STREET. WE HAVE INCORPORATED ROBUST AMENITIES LIST. THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WE SEE ALMOST EVERY MONTH DURING OUR PRE-SUBMITTED MEETINGS. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A 800 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL REQUIREMENT FOR ALL MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS. AS YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE URBAN BUILDINGS, SOME OF THE SOME OF THE APARTMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN DOWNTOWN, THEY MAY NEED A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AMENITY. THEY MAY NEED A BIGGER BIKE RACK OR SOMETHING THAT ENCOURAGES THE DOWNTOWN LIFESTYLE. AND A SWIMMING POOL MAY NOT BE NEEDED. SO WHAT WE DID, WE INTRODUCED A POINT SYSTEM. WE SAY, OH, IF YOU ARE 20 UNITS, YOU NEED TO HAVE TEN POINTS. IF YOU ARE 20 TO 75 UNITS, YOU NEED TO HAVE 30 POINTS, AND THAT 30 POINTS YOU CAN ACHIEVE BY HAVING A COMBINATION OF THOSE UNITS. YOU CAN HAVE A POOL. YOU CAN ALSO HAVE A DOG PARK, A GRILL AREA, DINING AREA, A CLUBHOUSE, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE IT'S A MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE MODERN AND ROBUST AMENITIES LIST IN OUR OPINION. AND THEN OF COURSE THE PACKET WAS THERE. I HOPE YOU ALL HAD A HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PROPOSED, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER KIND OF BROADER THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO DO, BECAUSE NOW MULTIFAMILY CAN GO IN ANY NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT EXCEPT INDUSTRIAL. WE WANTED TO BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAVE A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING IN GARLAND. THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT OUR HOUSING STUDY HAD INFORMED US. SO WE WANTED TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY, IF MULTIFAMILY CAN GO IN
[00:30:07]
THERE WITHOUT ZONING. BUT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO TOWNHOMES INSTEAD, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT TYPE OF HOUSING, ALSO CAN PROMOTE URBAN CHARACTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW, IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER FOR SOMEONE TO GO IN THOSE SITES AND DEVELOP AS TOWNHOMES BECAUSE THEY WILL NEED REZONING, ALTHOUGH MULTIFAMILY WOULDN'T. SO WE WANTED TO PROPOSE THAT WHEREVER MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED, TOWNHOMES BE PERMITTED AS WELL, SO THAT WE CAN ENCOURAGE AIX OF HOUSING OPTIONS. ANOTHER BIG THING THAT HAPPENS WITH MULTIFAMILY ZONING IS THAT WE GET A LOT OF INPUT FROM THE RESIDENTS. WE IF IT'S NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, IF IT'S NEXT TO ANY OTHER KIND OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE SEND OUT THE NOTIFICATION LETTERS. THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK UP WITH LACK OF ZONING FOR THESE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS, THESE RESIDENTS ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF CALLS IF SOMEONE KNOWS THAT, HEY, THIS SITE IS ZONED COMMUNITY RETAIL. WHY SOME BUILDING MULTIFAMILY HERE? WE WANT TO BE PROACTIVE AND WE WANT TO REACT. WE WANT TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PUT A CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGN THERE THAT SAYS THIS SITE IS BEING DEVELOPED PER SB 840, AND KIND OF TACKLE THAT. WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT WANT TO KIND OF TACKLE IT A LITTLE BIT BEFOREHAND. ALSO, THERE IS A CONVERSION PIECE ON SB 840. IT SAYS IF YOU'RE CONVERTING AN OFFICE SITE TO MULTIFAMILY, THINGS LIKE THAT, WE CAN'T REQUIRE TIA. AND IT'S A LOT OF THINGS FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER. ONE THING THAT WE WANTED TO DO, WE WANTED TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE IF IT'S BEING CONVERTED, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CAN SERVE FROM A WATER WASTEWATER PERSPECTIVE. AND CURRENTLY OUR DEFINITION DIDN'T ADDRESS CONVERSION PROJECTS. SO WE UPDATED WE ARE PROPOSING TO UPDATE THE DEFINITION SO THAT WE CAN REQUIRE A WATER WASTEWATER STUDIES TO MAKE SURE THESE UNITS CAN BE SERVED WITH WATER AND SEWER. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE BIGGER AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. IF YOU ALL DON'T MIND, GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I DID WANT TO DIG INTO A COUPLE AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. THIS IS A LITTLE THIS IS THE LIST OF THE AMENITIES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. FOR EXAMPLE, IT NOW HAS A BUSINESS CENTER. IT HAS GAME AND LEISURE ROOM. SO PEOPLE HAVE A FLEXIBILITY TO PICK FROM THESE AND MEET THEIR POINTS BASED ON THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO. AND THEN ALSO ON THE RIGHT SIDE YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE ARE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS. SO IF IT'S A 50 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, WE DON'T REALLY THINK IT NEEDS AN 800 SQUARE FOOT POLE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE NOT DEFICIENCIES, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS IN OUR CODE THAT WE KNOW DOESN'T WORK ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SECTION. AND THIS KIND OF CAME FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. WE WE ARE INCLUDING SOME ENTRYWAY STANDARDS. AS YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SEE THOSE BUILDINGS, IF THEY HAVE THEIR ENTRYWAYS PULLED FROM THE STREET OR THE SIDEWALKS OR THE PLAZA, THEY DO CREATE THAT MORE INTERACTIVE SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PEOPLE. SO WE ARE REQUIRING SOME OF THAT. BUT ALSO WE WANTED TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY.IT'S A LITTLE VAGUE AND IT IS INTENTIONALLY KEPT VAGUE BECAUSE I ALSO WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO WRITE CODE THAT'S GOING TO COVER EVERY POSSIBLE FUTURE SITUATION. WE KNOW WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT REQUIRES MULTIFAMILY TO HAVE HIGHER QUALITY AND HIGHER STANDARDS. BUT WE KNOW ONCE WE TRY TO APPLY TO A PROJECT, WE MAY FIND THIS WORKS. THIS DOESN'T WORK. IT'LL BE GOOD TO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE IN THERE.
SO I FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT ONCE WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE, WE ARE APPLYING IT TO A COUPLE PROJECTS. WE'LL LEARN SOME FROM THOSE, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND ADDRESS THOSE BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS WE WANT TO DWELL ON IT FOR A YEAR, WE IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO TRY TO SOLVE EVERY POSSIBLE FUTURE ISSUE THAT A PROJECT MAY HAVE. BUT WHAT WE TRY TO DO HERE, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE WE ARE REQUIRING A LOT OF BUILDING ARTICULATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS IF THEY ARE PROVIDING ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, IF THEY'RE DOING ENHANCED GLAZING, OR IF THEY'RE DOING UNIQUE OR
[00:35:04]
DISTINCT STANDARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, MURALS. WE KNOW GARLAND IS SO BIG ON ART. SO IF A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WANTS TO INCORPORATE A MURAL, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO COME AND ASK FOR A WAIVER FROM ONE OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS. SO THERE'S A BALANCE BUILT IN THERE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WORK WITH UNIQUE AND DISTINCT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTS. NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN ANOTHER BIG CONCERN WAS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THE HEIGHT, AS LONG AS IT'S UP TO 45FT, BECAUSE 45FT IS WHAT THE STATE SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO ALLOW. BUT BEYOND 45, IF IT'S NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ARE REQUIRING THAT RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE OF 45 DEGREES. SO THEY CAN'T BUILD A 60 FOOT TALL BUILDING NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY CAN BUILD UP TO 45, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO CREATE THAT. THEY HAVE TO IMANE, DRAW THAT LINE AT 45 DEGREE ANGLE TO BUILD THE REST OF THE 15FT OF THE BUILDING VERTICALLY. NEXT SLIDE. OH NO, THE PREVIOUS ONE. ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION AGAIN, BECAUSE ADJACENCY BECAME AN ISSUE, BECAUSE 45FT BECOMES BY RIGHT THE HEIGHT BECOMES BY RIGHT. WE ALSO ARE PROPOSING THAT THE PERIMETER SCREENING REQUIREMENT FOR THE WALL CURRENTLY IT'S 6 TO 8FT. WE ARE REQUIRING IT TO BE 8 TO 10FT JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT BETTER PROTECTION. IF THAT APPLIES. LASTLY, FROM THE TIME THE AGENDA PACKET WAS PUBLISHED, WE RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS. WE WANTED TO KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS AS WELL THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE IN YOUR IN YOUR PACKET. SO THE CHAIR HAD BROUGHT SOMETHING TO OUR ATTENTION ON OUR OTHER NON OTHER DISTRICTS DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS. THERE ARE TWO DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THE HEIGHT AS ANY LEGAL HEIGHT. ONE IS INDUSTRIAL, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT PART. AND THAT DOES NOT REALLY INTERFERE WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL IS EXEMPT FROM 840. BUT COMMUNITY OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT IN THAT TABLE HAS ANY LEGAL HEIGHT. SO WHAT SB 840 DOES, IT SAYS, OH, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW AT LEAST 45FT OR WHATEVER THE HEIGHT THAT AN OFFICE BUILDING CAN BE BUILT ON THAT SITE. SO IF ON COMMUNITY OFFICE, ZONING DISTRICT, A PROJECT COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO ARGUE THAT, OH, WELL, AN OFFICE BUILDING COULD BE E ANY LEGAL HEIGHT, THERE'S NO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, THEN THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING ALSO PER 840, DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. SO WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. AND THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION. AND I COUL'T QUITE TELL WHY. COMMUNITY OFCE, WHICH IS A MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LESS INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT THAN CR AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. WHY DOES THAT ZONING DISTRICT HAVE ANY LEGAL HEIGHT AS THEIR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS? BUT AGAIN, I'M SURE THERE WAS A POINT WHEN THAT WAS THOUGHT THAT IT WAS NEEDED. THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THERE. BUT WE WORK WITH THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WE WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT THAT CHANGES TO 35, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE AND COMMUNITY RETAIL. WE ALSO WANT TO BECAUSE OUR DESIGN ELEMENTS ARE PRETTY COMPLICATED THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. WE ALSO WANTED TO INTRODUCE OUR REGULAR SIX DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. JUST AS ANOTHER LIST OF LIST OF DESIGNS THAT PEOPLE CAN PICK FROM. AND THEN ONE OTHER THING THAT HAS COME UP IS THAT NOW THAT THE BUILDING'S GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE STREET AND THE BUILD TO LINE ZONE IS 15 TO 30FT, AND IF SOMEONE'S BUILDING THE BUILDING IS PLACED AT 20FT AND WE HAVE A 16 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT.WE'RE WORRIED THAT ALL THESE BIG TREES IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS GOING TO MAYBE INTERFERE WITH THE BUILDING ITSELF, BECAUSE IT'S THAT CLOSE TO THE BUILDING. AND THE REASON BEING, WE HAVE OUR PERIMETER LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, BECAUSE IN THE PAST, THE WAY THE CODE WAS WRITTEN, TREES WERE THERE, THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING TREES WERE THERE TO HIDE THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE THEY WERE THEY WERE BEING SERVED. THEY WERE SERVING AS THE BUFFER. BUT NOW WE DON'T WANT TO HIDE THE BUILDING. WE WANT THE BUILDING TO INTERACT WITH THE STREETS MORE. BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE TREES. SO WE WANT TO HAVE A FLEXIBILITY BUILT IN THERE THAT IF THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE BUILD TO LINE ZONE, WE WANT TO JUST ADD A PROVISION THAT THERE COULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY
[00:40:05]
BUILT IN THERE. AS LONG AS SOMETHING LIKE WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT ON SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WHERE THEY COULD DO SOMETHING ELSE, MAYBE, AGAIN, A REALLY NICE BRANDING SIGN THAT CAN TAKE INSPIRATION FROM THE CITY'S BRANDING AND WAYFINDING IDEAS. AND THEN WITH THAT, WE CAN KIND OF WAVE SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE TREE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SPEAKS TO THAT. AND THEN THERE'S PAGE 30 ON THE PACKET.CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS GOING TO PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THAT PAGE CAME FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. LET ME GET YOU LIVE THERE. OKAY. GOOD TO GO. OKAY. PAGE 30. THE PACKET THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT REFERENCES. IT'S SECTION 2.52 30 SECTION SUBSECTION 39 B LITTLE I IT IT READS IN THE PACKET. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY SHALL BE 36 UNITS PER ACRE.
WHEN WE GOT THE QUESTION, WE LOOKED AT THAT AND BASICALLY DETERMINED THAT'S THAT'S INCORRECT. AND SO AS IT WILL READ GOING FORWARD AND WHAT YOU'LL VOTE ON TONIGHT. 2.52 39 B LITTLE I WILL READ THE MAXIMUM DENSITY SHALL BE THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY DENSITY ALLOWED WITHIN THE CITY. AND THAT THAT GETS THIS TO COMPORT WITH THE THE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE, THAT WERE PUSHED THROUGH OR THE THE LAW THAT CAME THROUGH WITH SENATE BILL 840. AND SO THAT CHANGE WILL BE MADE GOING FORWARD ON THIS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL BE VOTING FOR, VOTING. VOTING ON TONIGHT. AND ALSO AND ALSO TO CLARIFY THAT SHE MENTIONED IT. THERE'S ONE OTHER CHANGE. AND THAT'S TABLE 2.5. ON TABLE 2.5. IT HAS THE NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS TABLE FOR THE CO DISTRICT. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT CURRENTLY READS ANY LEGAL HEIGHT SUBJECT TO YARD PROVISIONS IN SECTION 2.43. MOVING FORWARD THAT'S GOING TO BE 35FT SUBJECT TO YARD PROVISIONS IN SECTION 2.43. I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY AMENDMENTS THAT I'M AWARE OF AT THIS POINT. YES, SIR. OKAY. WELL, WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER DALTON, THEN COMMISSIONER JENKINS, IN THE CHANGES WE ARE CONSIDERING NO PARKING IN FRONT OF A BUILDING UP TO 90, UP TO 5% COULD BE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR NOT IN THE FRONT YARD, BUT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET. WHAT DOES THAT DO TO SITUATIONS SUCH AS WE HAVE AT FIFTH STREET, WHERE WE HAVE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BUT THE HOPE WAS TO HAVE SOME RETAIL AT THAT POINT.
DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT WORK OUT IN THE NEW SITUATION? IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE PARKING AWAY FROM A BUILDING, WHAT IF THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE FIFTH STREET? THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THOSE FLEXIBILITY BUILT IN. THEY CAN COME IN AND REQUEST THAT. THEY CAN SAY, WELL, I'M DOING THIS. I'M DOING A MURAL. THAT'S MY FAVORITE PIECE. THAT'S WHY I KEEP REFERRING TO THAT. BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE AND ASK FOR A WAIVER FROM THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT. JUST DEAL WITH IT. THAT WAY THEY CAN.
THAT'S NOT WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT PEOPLE TO DO IT. THE IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE WILL NOT BE PROVIDING PARKING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, BECAUSE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR DOES NOT. WE DON'T WANT THAT. BUT IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO GO BEYOND 5% IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THEN THEY HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY BUILT IN THE CODE AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THIS. CORRECT? CORRECT. THESE THESE WILL APPLY TO NEW NEW NEW SITES MOSTLY. ALSO I GUESS CONVERSIONS TO IF THEY'RE DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS ON THE SIDE AND BUILDING IT AS MULTIFAMILY, THOSE WILL APPLY TO I DON'T THINK IF THEY'RE JUST CONVERTING AN OLD BUILDING TO MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING SB 840 SPEAKS TO. IN THAT CASE, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY MESSING WITH THE SITE ITSELF. RIGHT? I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, BUT MAYBE NOW BEFORE COMMENTS ARE MADE. I LIKE THE IDEA OF A POINT SYSTEM OR SOMETHING OF AMENITIES. I'VE HAD THE FORTUNATE IN WORK GOING INTO MANY OLDER APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND NEWER ONES THAT
[00:45:02]
ARE BEING BUILT ON THE PARKING GARAGE IN THE MIDDLE, SURROUNDED BY THE APARTMENTS.AND TO SEE THIS BUILDING HAS GOT A WORKOUT CENTER. THIS BUILDING HAS A MEETING ROOM.
THIS BUILDING HAS A BUSINESS OFFICE, THEY HAVE A PARK. AND I'M SEEING THIS ALREADY IN SOME OLDER COMPLEXES IN THE GENERAL AREA. THAT'S A GREAT IDEA TO GIVE THEM THAT FLEXIBILITY I LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. THE PROVISION ALSO IN THE CODE ALLOWS APARTMENTS TO SHARE AMENITIES IN THAT VERY SAME WAY THAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT. AND I BELIEVE ABOUT ON STREET PARKING SECTION H TWO ALLOWS ON ON STREET PARKING SPACES. AND MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THEY COUNT TOWARDS THE REQUIRED. BUT THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THERE TO ALLOW ON STREET PARKING. I WOULDN'T COUNT THEM TOWARD THE REQUIRED ONE PER UNIT. MY INTERPRETATION IS ONE PER UNIT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY VERY, VERY LOW ON THE LOWER SIDE. THAT HAS TO BE ON THE SITE ITSELF. YOU CAN HAVE THE ONSITE PARKING AND THAT COULD BE YOUR VISITOR PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T COUNT THAT FOR REQUIRED PARKING. OKAY. MAKE SENSE? COMMISSIONER JENKINS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER DALTON JUST SAID. I THINK THE POINT SYSTEM IS REALLY IS REALLY GOOD. MY QUESTION I HAD HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE. THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. I HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE THE JUNE 21ST, 2025 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MEETINGS AND WORK SESSION MEETINGS AND LISTEN IN AND REACHED OUT AS WELL TO COUNCILWOMAN BEARD ABOUT THIS QUESTION. THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT. YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL, IT SOUNDS LIKE, FOR A DEVELOPER TO COME IN AND PLACE AN 8080 UNIT PER ACRE APARTMENT COMPLEX NEXT TO AN AREA THAT IS PROBABLY, FOR THIS SCENARIO, NOT WARRANTING FOR SUC YOU KNOW, SUCH A USE. WHY NOT GO DOWN IN TERMS OF THE THE DENSITY DESIGNATION FOR YOU ARE TO POTENTIALLY COUNTERACT THE IDEA THAT YOU COULD HAVE SUCH, YOU KNOW, LARGE, INTENSE USES IN AREAS THAT THEY MAY NOT MAY NOT BE NEEDED. AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I'VE GOT THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BUT I FELT LIKE GOING AT IT AFTER SB 840 WAS PASSED, COULD BE CONSIDERED TRYING TO GET AROUND THE BILL, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME WE DID HAVE 80 UNITS PER ACRE. BUT ALSO IN MANY WAYS WE IF THEY'RE MULTIFAMILY, WE DO WANT IT TO BE HIGHER DENSITY. I DON'T THINK LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY IN GARLAND'S 91ST, 97% BUILT OUT ENVIRONMENT WORKS ANYMORE, SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO MESS WITH THAT NUMBER TOO MUCH.
WE WANTED TO SEE HOW WE CAN JUST COMPLY WITH THE SENATE BILL AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT IN SOME WAY OR FASHION. YEAH, WE I PRESUME WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN TRYING TO TO GET AROUND THE STATE AND THE THE AMENDMENTS WE'RE MAKING TONIGHT ARE NOT MEANT TO TO GET AROUND ANYTHING. IT'S MEANT TO, TO ALLOW US TO WORK WITH THE STATE. I GUESS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE DURING THE I BELIEVE YOU MADE THE COMMENT INITIALLY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, SUCH AS AGING INFRASTRUCTURE YOU MENTIONED AS WELL THIS EVENING, THE STORMWATER CONCERNS. HEY, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF BALLS IN THE AIR. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE YOU'RE TRYING TO TO KEEP IT ALL, KEEP IT ALL TOGETHER. AND I HOPE IT WORKS. AND THAT IS A CONCERN THAT FROM A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE, THE DENSITY, THE DESIGN, THESE THINGS ARE FOR GOOD QUALITY DEVELOPMENT. BUT FROM A BASIC SERVICE STANDPOINT, WATER WASTEWATER IS A BASIC SERVICE THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE TO OUR RESIDENTS. SO THAT'S WHERE WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT THIS BILL AND WHAT IT DOES. SO IN THAT SITUATION, IF THEY CANNOT PROVE THAT THAT SITE WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S AVAILABLE, THAT CAN'T SERVE UP TO 80 UNITS PER ACRE, THEN THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. OF COURSE, IT'S SO MUCH, SO MUCH EASIER TO KEEP THE CAT IN THE BAG BECAUSE ONCE IT'S OUT, YOU KNOW, TROUBLE FOR EVERYONE. BUT LIKE I SAID, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ALL ARE JUGGLING A LOT OF DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT THINGS AT ONCE. AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO IT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER? TO THE EXTENT THAT WE TRY TO REDUCE DENSITY, WE
[00:50:08]
LOOKED AT IN LOOKING AT HOUSE BILL, SENATE BILL 840, THE WAY IT READS IS THAT WE CAN ONLY THAT WE'VE GOT TO ALLOW UP TO THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE MUNICIPALITY. SO IF ONE IS ALREADY ALLOWED AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, IF WE ALREADY HAVE SOMETHING THAT HAS 80 UNITS PER ACRE IN THE CITY, THAT'S AS LOW AS WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKEHEM BECAUSE IT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE CITY, IT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED FOR IT TO SAY ALLOWED BY ZONING, WHICH MAYBE WE COULD HAVE HAD THE FLEXIBILITY TO LOWER IT IF WE ALREADY HAVE ONE. THAT'S UP TO 80 UNITS PER ACRE. BUT THE WAY IT READS, WE'RE LIMITED TO, IF IT EXISTS IN THE CITY AT A CERTAIN DENSITY, WE HAVE TO ALLOW ANYBODY ELSE TO BUILD UP TO THAT DENSITY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY A FAN OF THAT, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT READS. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S AN INTERESTING INTERPRETATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A NON-CONFORMING USE BE, YOU KNOW, THEN WHAT DETERMINES THE OUTCOME FOR ALL FUTURE WELL USES ON THE SITE? WE HAD WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION IN NON-CONFORMING USE. IT'S STILL IT'S ALLOWED TO EXIST IN THE CITY. AND SO EVEN AS A NON-CONFORMING USE, POSSIBLY THERE WOULD BE A GOOD ARGUMENT. WELL, BUT IT'S STILL ALLOWED. AND THEREFORE IF IT'S ALLOWED IN THE CITY. RIGHT. WE WANTED TO READ IT. PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. NO, I UNDERSTAND WE WANTED TO READ IT LIKE YOU AND DISCUSS NON-CONFORMING USE AND SAID, WELL, IS THAT ALLOWED OR IS THAT SOME KIND OF SPECIAL DISPENSATION? THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S ALLOWED.IT'S JUST WE'RE LETTING IT SLIDE HERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THAT IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ALLOWED. IT'S WHAT WE FINALLY CAME DOWN ON. ALTHOUGH I THINK I THINK YOU COULD EASILY SWAY A MAJORITY OF THOSE THAT WERE INVOLVED WITH THE DISCUSSION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT ONE. AND I THINK STAFF HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT TONIGHT, OR PERHAPS, MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO TO CRAFT THIS SORT OF STUFF. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE ALL EVENTUALITIES. AND SO IT'S A IT'S A GOOD EFFORT AND YOU'VE GOT SOME GOOD THINGS, GOOD THINGS IN IT. SO THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS COMES UNDER THE HEADING FROM THE STATE. WE'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU. COMMISSIONER DALTON. SOMETHING CAME TO THOUGHT FOR ME JUST A SECOND AGO. WE MENTIONED ARTICULATION BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY. THERE IS A APARTMENT COMPLEX IN DISTRICT FOUR AT THE JUNCTURE OF DISTRICT THREE AND FOUR. YOU. I THINK YOU KNOW, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT HAS THE NECESSARY NUMBER OF ARTICULATIONS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY CAME IN WITH AN OFF WHITE PAINTBRUSH AND PAINTED A BUILDING. THEY STILL FOLLOWED THE LAW. IT STILL HAS THE ARTICULATION, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE A FLAT FRONT BUILDING. WHAT WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER NOW, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT. GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT SOMETHING LIKE THAT ENDING UP IN A SIX STORY BUILDING THREE BLOCKS LONG. WE PUT SO MANY STANDARDS TOGETHER. THAT'S WHEN WE THOUGHT OF PUTTING IN SOME FLEXIBILITY, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT COULD BE TOO MANY STANDARDS. BUT IF THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE STANDARDS, THERE'S NO WAY THEY CAN PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOGETHER. OKAY. AS LONG AS WE DON'T LOOK LIKE THAT BUILDING. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, STAFF, ALL OF Y'ALL, WELL DONE. IT'S, YOU KNOW, AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK WHAT THE STATE'S DONE TO THE MAJOR CITIES. AND THERE'S SOME CITIES OUT THERE THAT ARE DOING EVERY WAY THEY CAN TO CIRCUMVENT IT IN A WAY THAT WILL PROBABLY BRING THE STATE DOWN ON US HARDER. BUT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW JUST GOING FOR SOME BETTER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND IT'S TOTALLY WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE STATE LAW. I LOVE THE 45 DEGREE SLOPE. IF YOU ALL RECALL THAT. APARTMENT DOWN IN SATURN I KNOW. YES, SATURN I THINK WAS THAT BACKED UP TO THE RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT WENT ON FOR OH 2 OR 3 MEETINGS. THIS THIS WOULD HELP ADDRESS THAT. OKAY. YOU GOT THAT ONE. OH, ONE THING I WOULD AND SOME MIGHT BE POINTED OUT JUST MAYBE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ON THE PARKING GARAGES. WE'VE GOT SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING BASICALLY IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT GARAGES SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO OBSCURE THE FRONT END OF A CAR, SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. IT ADDRESSED CABLES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT I KNOW
[00:55:01]
OTHER CITIES HAVE THIS. I'VE DEALT WITH THIS BEFORE. ON A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WHERE WE'RE GOING FOR WIDER WALKS. THERE'S A PROVISION IN THERE WHERE EXISTING WALKS COULD STAY, BUT IN PARTS OF THE CITY THEY'RE FOUR FOOT SIDEWALKS OUT ALONG THE STREET, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT LEAST A MINIMUM SIX FOOT SIDEWALK IF THEY'RE DOING A CONVERSION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF A SITE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT SIX FEET, AND THAT COULD START REWORKING IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. VERTICAL ARTICULATION, ROOFS ENTRY. SOME OF THESE ARE JUST INTERPRETATIONS. SO ONE GRAPHIC HAD BEEN REMOVED LAND USE TABLE. OKAY. LAND USE TABLE. THIS IS A PRETTY HEFTY IDEA HERE, AND MAYBE NOT EVEN FOR US TO CONSIDER, BUT APARTMENT ZONING CAN GO IN THESE OTHER AREAS. WE WANT TO ADD TOWNHOME ZONING IN THESE OTHER AREAS, AND FOR THE GENERAL AUDIENCE REASON, WE'RE GOING FOR MORE DENSITY. IT'S NOT THAT WE ALL LOVE APARTMENTS, BUT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH THE FACT THAT FINANCIALLY, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DO NOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES. AND AND ALL THAT THE CITY HAS TO PROVIDE WERE MULTIFAMILY DOES, HIGHER DENSITY DOES. BUT THERE WILL BE SOME OF THOSE CASES WHERE MAYBE THERE'S A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER BACKING UP TO RESIDENTIAL, AND THERE'S AN OLD ZONING CONCEPT CALLED CUMULATIVE ZONING. IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICE BUILDING, ANY USE LESS THAN THAT, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY, TOWNHOME, QUADRUPLEX, DUPLEX, SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT ZONING THAT WENT AWAY 20, 30, 40 YEARS AGO. I THINK WE COULD GO BACK TO THAT, BUT IN A LITTLE DIFFERENT MANNER. AND I'M THINKING OF THIS FOR THE CONVERSIONS WHERE SOME OF OUR OLD SHOPPING CENTERS ARE REDEVELOPED, WHERE THEY'RE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY, WHY NOT ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY IN THESE SAME AREAS FOR CONVERSIONS WITH AN SUP? IT WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM BY RIGHT, BUT IT WOULD INDICATE TO A DEVELOPER THAT THE CITY IS WILLING TO CONSIDER SINGLE FAMILY USES. SO MAYBE A NEIGHBORHOOD COULD JUST EXPAND ITSELF. I DON'T KNOW IF I STATED THAT PROPERLY, BUT I'M I'M THINKING OF CUMULATIVE ZONING, BUT WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY AND POSSIBLY DUPLEX DUPLEXES BEING UNDER AN SP, WHICH IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU GO, OKAY, SP, THAT MEANS YOU'RE WILLING TO CONSIDER IT. IT MAY BE WORTH A SHOT, OR IF IT'S NOT SHOWN AT ALL, I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE ZONING PROCESS TO TRY TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY THERE. AND. OKAY. AND I THINK AND YOU ALL PICKED UP ON THE OTHER COMMENTS I HAD, I THINK THAT PRETTY WELL PICKS UP. OH, YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT THE UNLIMITED HEIGHT, HOW THAT GOT TO BE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE. THAT WAS WHEN WE HAD THE GRAND DREAMF 190 BECOMING ANOTHER LAS COLINAS, AND WE WANTED TO GIVE THE OFFICE BUILDINGS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE, AND IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN RIPPED OUT IN 2015, BUT IT WASN'T. YEAH. AND, COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE AMENITIES PAGE FOR. ITEM F THERE DINING ESTABLISHMENTS? DOES THAT MEAN IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE OF THE COMPLEX, OR COULD THERE BE A RESTAURANT IN THAT COMPLEX? NO, IT COULD BE LIKE A CAFE. IT COULD BE A LITTLE CAFE THAT IS PART OF IT. BUT IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE CONCEPT. SO THEY COULD THEY COULDN'T LEASE OUT, THEY COULDN'T BUILD IT AND LEASE OUT TO A RESTAURATEUR, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED AN AMENITY. OKAY, THEY CAN DO THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE USE ON A SEPARATE LANE FOR THEM TO BE, TO CONSIDER IT AN AMENITY AND GET THE POINTS. THAT HAS TO BE PART OF THE COMPLEX. PART OF THE COMPLEX.BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION CAN BE PART OF THE COMPLEX, BUT WHO IS THE USER OF OF THAT SPACE? THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT COMPLEX? I'M I'M THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX HERE, I LIVE THERE, I WANT TO I HAVE A LITTLE BAKERY I LOVE TO BAKE. OH YEAH. THOSE BAKERY THERE.
ABSOLUTELY. THOSE ARE THE MIXED USE PROJECTS THAT ARE ALSO PART OF SB 840. SO THOSE ARE WHAT WE WANT IN OUR URBAN BUSINESS AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. AND ALSO WITH UNDER SB 840, IT'S NOT JUST MULTIFAMILY. MIXED USE PROJECT CAN ALSO GO BY RIGHT IN A COMMUNITY OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. FOR THOSE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS COMPLETELY PERMITTED BY RIGHT AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S JUST NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX PROJECT. THANK YOU. THAT BROUGHT UP ANOTHER ITEM THAT I HAD IS IN
[01:00:06]
TERMS OF AMENITIES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WALKING TRAILS, BIKING TRAILS, EVEN WITHIN THE COMPLEX OR LINKED AMONG DIFFERENT COMPLEXES INCLUDED. SOME KIND OF POINTS FOR PUTTING THAT IN. WE'VE HAD SOME COMPLEXES GO IN OVER BY THE MALL WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO LINK INTO THE TRAIL DOWN THAT'S ALREADY DOWN THERE, SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME REWARDS FOR DOING THAT BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS CAME BY. NOT ONLY IS IT A NICE AMENITY FOR THEIR THEIR CLIENTS, BUT THEY SHOULD GET POINTS FOR LINKING IN AND IMPROVING OUR TRAIL SYSTEM.YEAH, PRESENT FOR THAT. OKAY. DO YOU MIND MAKING IT PART OF THE MOTION? SURE. WELL, I DON'T MAKE MOTIONS. I GUIDE THEM A LITTLE BIT FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT I HAVE NO OTHER. I NEVER ASKED IF THERE'S ANYBODY. WELL, WE WERE JUST DOING STAFF PRESENTATIONS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LET ME ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS. OH COME ON. YEAH OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS PASS THIS ON WITH ANY OF OUR COMMENTS OR. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. COMMISSIONER DALTON, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF STUFF IN HERE, AND WE COULD SPEND ALL NIGHT GOING OVER EVERY LITTLE LINE AND EVERY MARK OUT, EVERY CROSS OUT, EVERY ADDITION THAT HAS BEEN PLACED IN FRONT OF US. BUT I TRUST OUR STAFF AND THE ONES THAT HAVE WORKED ON THIS EXTREMELY HARD. I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL OF OUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WITH. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE 1 OR 2 ITEMS YOU WANTED TO ADD, ONE BEING WALKING TRAILS. YEAH. IS THAT IT? IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU HAD? YEAH. WE COULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER OUR DISCUSSIONS AND WHAT CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER OUR DISCUSSIONS. THAT WOULD BE ALL INCLUSIVE AND MUCH EASIER. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JONES. HE WAS CLOSER. OH, OKAY.
COMMISSIONER ABEL. COMMISSIONER JONES, YOU MUST BE A VENTRILOQUIST BECAUSE IT CAME RIGHT OUT OF YOUR. THE MOTION IS TO MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE GDC TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 840, WITH THE INCLUSION OF TRAILS AS APPROVED AMENITY WH POINTS AND CONSIDERATION OF OUR DISCUSSION OF ALL THE TOPICS. COMMISSIONER. OKAY. WHOEVER RAISES THEIR HAND. YEAH, I LOST CONTROL OF THIS 20 YEARS AGO.
AND VOTED. FOR MORE SCREEN. AND YOU VOTED IN IN FAVOR. OH, IT'S SHOWING NOW. OKAY. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYBODY. THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. AND THIS IS OUR LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR. BECAUSE OUR NEXT MEETING BECAUSE IT'S FOR THREE DAYS, FOUR DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS HAS BEEN CANCELED. AND I PERSONALLY WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION AND STAFF FOR EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE THIS YEAR. AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE STAFF, WE'D LIKE TO WISH EVERYBODY OUT THERE A SAFE AND WONDERFUL CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR. HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY. AND SO IT IS NOW. 734 SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF JANUARY 12TH, 2
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.