Sep 09, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, 2025, 6:00 PM. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF MCKINNEY'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. THE COMMISSIONERS SEATED BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING HAVE ALL BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY ALL REQUEST THAT WE BE RESPECTFUL AND CONCISE ON THE ISSUES. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO THE ITEM BEING CALLED AND WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

PLEASE AND PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES. YOU MAY SPEAK ONLY ONE TIME ON EACH AGENDA ITEM. TONIGHT I WILL ADVISE YOU WHETHER AN ITEM WILL BE HEARD ONLY BY THE COMMISSION OR PASSED ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A FINAL DECISION. YOUR OPINIONS ARE IMPORTANT AND BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. ALL OF US WANT TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF MCKINNEY. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON NONPUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS? SEEING NO ONE, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

[CONSENT ITEMS]

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Request to Rezone the Subject Property from “PD” – Planned Development District to “PD” – Planned Development District, Generally to Allow for Single Family Attached Residential Uses and to Modify the Development Standards, Located Approximately 440 feet South of Standifer Street and on the East Side of Bumpas Street (REQUEST TO BE TABLED)]

THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. STUART STORY PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED AND PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 23RD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DUE TO THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION SIGNS NOT BEING POSTED. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS OF STUART. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DON'T BELIEVE OKAY. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISHING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS FIRST ITEM? I SEE NO ONE. ANY MOTIONS? I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING. THANK YOU.

GINA. SECOND. JESSE, I WAS LOOKING AT YOU. JESSE. SECOND. SORRY, DEIRDRE. THAT'S OKAY.

WHO IS THE SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? THANK YOU. THIS IS TO TABLE THE ITEM. THAT'S THE

[00:05:24]

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on Design Exception to a Site Plan (Custer Frontier Marketplace), Located on the Southeast Corner of Custer Road and Laud Howell Parkway (FM 1461)]

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS. ALL OTHER REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY WALL ON TOP OF THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, CREATING AN APPROXIMATELY 13 FOOT TALL SCREENING DEVICE AT ITS HIGHEST POINT. FROM THE BASE OF THE RETAINING WALL TO THE TOP OF THE MASONRY WALL. IN ADDITION, THE MASONRY WALL, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLANT EVERGREEN SHRUBS PLANTED EVERY THREE FEET ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, AS WELL AS CANOPY TREES PLANTED AT AN INCREASED RATIO OF ONE TREE PER 30 LINEAR FEET, EVENLY DISTRIBUTED WITHIN A 20 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. A TENT WHICH IS TEN FEET WIDER THAN THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT.

FURTHER MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT FOOT TALL MASONRY WING WALL DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE LOADING BAYS, AS WELL AS THE INSTALLATION OF RECESSED DOCKS RATHER THAN EXPOSED LOADING BAYS, WHICH WILL FURTHER REDUCE THE POTENTIAL NOISE AND VISUAL IMPACT ON ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WHILE THE LOADING BAYS WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 62FT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING BOUNDARY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY INCLUDES BOTH A LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND AN ALLEY. THESE ADDITIONAL SEPARATIONS INCREASE THE EFFECTIVE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LOADING BAYS AND THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO APPROXIMATELY 89FT. IN ADDITION, STAFF RECEIVED RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE OWNER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, INDICATING NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETBACK REDUCTION BETWEEN THE PROPOSED LOADING BAYS AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY HAS AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT. HOWEVER, NO FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE LOT REMAINS UNDEVELOPED. GIVEN THE APPLICANT'S COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION EFFORTS AND THE

[00:10:02]

QUESTIONS, PLEASE. STEWART I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO THE REQUEST IS FOR 60 FOOT DIFFERENTIAL COMPARED TO THE 200 YOU MENTIONED. THERE IS A LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND AN ALLEY.

AND THAT BRINGS THEM TO 89FT. CORRECT. OF THAT 89FT, HOW WIDE IS THAT ALLEY? SO THAT ALLEY, I BELIEVE IS I BELIEVE IS ABOUT 19FT, ROUGHLY. OKAY. AND WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE ALLEY? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEY? IS THAT REAR ALLEY ONLY SERVICES THOSE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. YEAH.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STEWART? OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. YES, YES. WOULD YOU ASK APPLICANT? COME UP PLEASE. HELLO. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DAVID PALMER, 3102 MAPLE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS. I I'M THE PARTNERSHIP THAT I'M INVOLVED IN IS DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION MAY RECALL 6 OR 7 MONTHS AGO. WE CAME IN TO AMEND THE PD FOR THIS 134 ACRES TO ADJUST RESIDENTIAL AREA AND COMMERCIAL AREA. WE WENT THROUGH AND AND GOT THE PD SUCCESSFULLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL. THIS IS THE FOLLOW UP THAT WE'VE BEEN DESIGNING WITH THE HAGGARDS, THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE COMMERCIAL. IF WE CAN GO. THE THE CONSEQUENCE, THE COMMERCIAL IS 22.5 ACRES. THE CONSEQUENCE OF ACHIEVING THE 200 FOOT SETBACK AS AS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES, WOULD MOVE THE GROCERY STORE TO THE EAST TOWARD CUSTER AND PROBABLY MAKES IT UNDEVELOPABLE AS A SHOPPING CENTER. IN TERMS OF THAT, THAT'S WHY IN WORKING WITH THE HAGGARD FAMILY, BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNING THE RESIDENTIAL. AT THE SAME TIME WE DID, THEY DID CREATE A BUFFER AND AN ALLEY. SO YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS SECTION THAT THE FIVE FOOT HIGH VANTAGE POINT IS AT THE APPROXIMATE BACK OF THE HOUSE. AND IT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIGHT LINE, EVERYTHING BECOMES INVISIBLE. AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THE SETBACK I THINK WE ACHIEVED, AND I KNOW WE WENT 60FT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DOCK IS IS FOUR LANES DEEP AND THE, THE, THE LANE CLOSEST TO THE RESIDENTIAL IS, IS ACTUALLY THE COMPACTOR. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY A 72 FOOT DISTANCE TO THE DOCK WHEN YOU ADD THE 30FT OF, OF BUFFER AND ALLEY ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, YOU'RE AT ABOUT 100FT AND YOU CAN SEE THE DOUBLE ROWS OF EASTERN RED CEDARS. AND THEY GROW VERY WELL IN THIS CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY, AS YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW, THOSE WILL BE UP TO 30, 40FT IN NO TIME. SO I THINK I THINK WE'LL ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE WITH THE STEPS WE'RE TAKING OF THE ORDINANCE AND WOULD REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF SAME, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. PALMER? I WAS JUST THE DESIGN OF THE RECESSED DOCKS. ARE THE TRUCKS GOING TO HAVE TO BACK ALL THE WAY DOWN THAT BACK ALLEY? ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE A RADIUS TO PULL IN THERE BY THE RETAIL AND BACK END? YES. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. YEAH. JUST TRYING TO THINK OF LOGICALLY HOW THAT HOW THAT WORKS. YEAH. YOU'LL SEE THE THE RADIUS THERE TO THE NORTH OF THE DOCK. OKAY. THEY CAN USE THAT LITTLE PARK UP THERE AREA. PARKING AREA THERE.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. PALMER. APPRECIATE IT. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE AT ALL WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THIS ITEM. OKAY, JAMES. THANK YOU. JAMES HAS A MOTION. SECOND.

DEIDRA HAS A SECOND. TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. THE VOTE IS 7 TO 0 TO

[00:15:33]

[Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on an Amendment to Chapter 150, entitled “Unified Development Code,” of the Code of Ordinances, City of McKinney, Texas, to: (a) Article 2 (Zoning Regulations) and particularly to Sections 203 (Procedures), 204 (Zoning Districts), 205 (Use Regulations), 206 (Development Standards), Appendix 2B (McKinney Town Center MTC), Appendix 2C (Regional Employment Center (REC)); and (b) Article 9 (Terms and Definitions) particularly to Section 902 (Definitions); to Chapter 150 (Unified Development Code)]

THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS HALEY ANGEL, AND I'M ONE OF THE PLANNING MANAGERS HERE AT THE CITY. AND I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT AMENDMENTS TO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AS A RESULT OF SOME CHANGES TO STATE LAW. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. AND I KNOW THAT WE ALL HAD A JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL, BUT JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANYBODY NEW WATCHING, I AM GOING TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL. SO THAT WAY THEY'VE GOT JUST AS MUCH CONTEXT. THE 89TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION DID ADOPT THREE PRIMARY BILLS THAT IMPACTED LAND USE AND ZONING. THE FIRST IS SENATE BILL 840, WHICH APPLIES TO MIXED USE AND MULTI-FAMILY USES. THE SECOND IS SENATE BILL 15, WHICH IMPACTS SINGLE FAMILY USES. AND YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THIS CALLED THE SMALL LOT BILL. BOTH OF THESE BILLS ONLY APPLY TO CITIES THAT HAVE A POPULATION OVER 150,000 AND ARE LOCATED IN A COUNTY THAT HAS A POPULATION OVER 300,000. SO ALL OF THAT TO SAY THAT THIS IMPACTS ABOUT 19 CITIES AND TRULY PRIMARILY IN THE DFW METROPLEX AND CITIES LIKE PLANO AND FRISCO ARE ALSO CONTENDING WITH THE SAME CHANGES TO STATE LAW. THERE ALSO WAS A HOUSE BILL, HOUSE BILL 24, WHICH PERTAINED TO ZONING PROTEST PETITIONS. SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY AS WELL. WE DID IN THIS AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDE CHANGES TO TWO IN RESPONSE TO TWO OTHER BILLS, ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOME BASED BUSINESSES OR HOME OCCUPATIONS, AND ANOTHER THAT REFERS TO A DWELLING UNIT OCCUPANCY. THESE WERE MOSTLY WORDING CHANGES. THERE'S NOTHING TOO SUBSTANTIAL THAT'S COME OUT OF THEM. AND WE MADE THOSE CHANGES IN IN WORKING WITH CODE AS WELL. THE CODE DEPARTMENT, WHO USUALLY HAS TO ENFORCE THOSE REGULATIONS. WHEN IT COMES TO RESPONDING TO CHANGES FROM STATE LAW. SOMETIMES WE JUST LOOK FOR COMPLIANCE. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR CODE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. OTHER TIMES, WE MIGHT HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT OUR REGULATIONS AS A WHOLE AND SAY, HOW DO WE ADAPT TO THIS NEW REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT? ARE THERE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS THAT WE CAN PROPOSE TO MAYBE HELP MITIGATE THIS NEW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR WORK SESSION? I DID TALK ABOUT HOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REALLY FORMED THE BASIS OF HOW WE CAME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PROPOSED REGULATIONS. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY REFERENCE THAT AGAIN. SO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2018 ON THE BACK OF A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. SO WE WANTED TO PULL FROM THAT, REALLY EMPHASIZING A LAND USE PATTERN THAT ESTABLISHES TRANSITIONS BETWEEN LAND USES. AND I THINK IN THIS CASE, THAT'S NOT JUST MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY TRANSITION, BUT ALSO COMPATIBILITY WITH NONRESIDENTIAL USES AND MULTIFAMILY USES, AS WELL AS CONTINUING THOSE EXPECTATIONS FOR EXCELLENCE IN DESIGN THAT THE CITY OF MCKINNEY HAS HAD FOR SO LONG. THE FIRST BILL THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT, I'VE KIND OF GROUPED THESE AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE BILL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND PROCESS, AS OPPOSED TO BY GOING SECTION BY SECTION. SO WE'LL FOCUS ON SENATE BILL EIGHT 41ST, WHICH IS MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE. THERE ARE THREE MAIN COMPONENTS TO THIS BILL. SO LAND USE REGULATIONS. WE AS THE CITY ARE NOW REQUIRED TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE. AND ANY ZONING DISTRICT WHERE OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL OR WAREHOUSE IS ALLOWED SEPARATE BUT CONNECTED TO THAT IS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO THE BILL ALSO LIMITED THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REGULATE DENSITY, BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE AND ANY ZONING DISTRICT. SO NOT JUST THOSE NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF PROVISIONS AROUND CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS TO MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE USES. YOU KNOW, MCKINNEY STILL HAS A LOT OF GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT AHEAD OF US. SO SEVERAL OF THE PROVISIONS THAT WE'VE PROPOSED TONIGHT WOULD ADDRESS THAT CASE. BUT IF ANYBODY HAS HEARD THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REQUIRE CERTAIN ENGINEERING STUDIES, THOSE ARE USUALLY IN RELATION TO CONVERSION PROJECTS. AND SO A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY WILL FOLLOW OUR TYPICAL UDC STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN MANUAL REQUIREMENTS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. ONE OF THE

[00:20:06]

THEY CAN STILL DEVELOP AT THE FULL 36 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THEY CAN STILL DEVELOP AT 45FT IN HEIGHT, BUT AT LEAST THERE WOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS THERE TO TRY TO MAKE IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. THERE ARE OTHER ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY HERE THAT WE CAN GET TO IN A MOMENT. AND THEN MULTIFAMILY TRADITIONAL IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO A TRADITIONAL RAP PRODUCT, OR, YOU KNOW, YOUR 3 TO 4 STORY MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT YOU MIGHT SEE IN OTHER PLACES. AND SO WE'VE PROPOSED THIS AS A USE ALLOWED WITH CRITERIA IN C3 AND O2. SO THOSE ARE GOING TO BE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WHERE MAYBE THAT SMALLER PRODUCT ISN'T AS COMPATIBLE. SO THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT THAT'S COMPATIBLE, WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SO MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE TAILORED STANDARDS TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY TO ADD SOME COMMERCIAL, SHOULD THE MARKET EVER HOLD. IT WAS IMPORTANT IN THOSE DISTRICTS.

WE'VE ALSO ADDED A LAND USE CALLED MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL. AND SO MOST OF THIS COMES DIRECTLY FROM STATE LAW. IT IS ANOTHER PROVISION WITHIN THERE. AND WE DO HAVE TO ALLOW THAT AND ALL OF THE DISTRICTS. BUT AGAIN THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE'LL TALK TO IN A MINUTE HELP CONTROL THAT BUILDING FORM TO HELP IT BE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES. BECAUSE THE CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXTEND NOT JUST TO MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE AND NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WE WANTED TO BE SURE WE LOOKED AT OUR MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS AND EVALUATED THEM, BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE TO ALLOW AT LEAST 36 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WHERE MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED. WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE NAME OF MF 30 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MF 36 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. AS YOU MIGHT GUESS, THE NUMBER IS A REFERENCE TO THE DENSITY. SO AS WE INCREASE THE DENSITY, WE WANTED THE ZONING DISTRICT NAME TO REFLECT THAT. WE'VE MADE A FEW OTHER CHANGES IN THAT DISTRICT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY SETBACK HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 25FT, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM WE AS THE CITY CAN REQUIRE. IN THAT CASE, WE ALSO ENDED UP SUGGESTING REMOVING THE FLEX RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND SO THIS ZONING DISTRICT WAS REALLY INTENDED TO HIT KIND OF A MIDDLE DENSITY AND A MIDDLE BUILDING HEIGHT, MAYBE NOT QUITE AS DENSE AS OUR MF 30 ZONING DISTRICT, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE THAN THE TR 1.8 DISTRICT. AND NOW THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL BUILDING HEIGHT OR DENSITY IN QUITE THE SAME WAY, IT BECAME A REDUNDANT ZONING DISTRICT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY THAT ACTUALLY USES THIS BASE ZONING DISTRICT, SO IT WAS AN EASY CHOICE TO TRY TO CONDENSE. YES, SURE. WHAT WAS THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY SETBACK? YES. IT DEPENDED ON BUILDING HEIGHT. SO AS THE BUILDING GOT TALLER, IT GOT WIDER. I BELIEVE AT ITS TALLEST.

I CAN LOOK THAT UP HERE IN A SECOND. I BELIEVE IT RANGED FROM ABOUT 25 OR 30 TO ABOUT 50 AS THE BUILDING GOT TALLER. SO IT IS A REDUCTION IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE TODAY. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE SOME STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER STANDARDS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE TO HELP ACCOMMODATE THESE NEW STANDARDS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO CHANGE BY STATE LAW, WE CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, SO THAT CHANGE IS REFLECTED IN THE CODE. REDUCING SETBACKS AND BUFFERS TO MATCH THOSE NONRESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. SO IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED IN A NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, GENERALLY SPEAKING IT HAS TO MATCH WHAT WE WOULD REQUIRE OF A

[00:25:04]

WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO BE IN A MULTI TIERED PARKING GARAGE, BUT THEY CAN BE REQUIRED TO BE COVERED. SO WHETHER THAT'S A CARPORT OR PERHAPS A DEVELOPER MIGHT CHOOSE A FULLY ENCLOSED INDIVIDUAL GARAGE, THOSE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THERE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE LIMIT ON NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN A SINGLE BUILDING. FOR THOSE LOWER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, A MINIMUM FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT OF 14FT. SO THIS MINIMUM FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT ALLOWS ENOUGH ROOM FOR THE MECHANICAL CHASE WORK FOR A COMMERCIAL USE TO BE INSTALLED.

SO EVEN IF THE BUILDING IS DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S STILL THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD IT EVER HOLD FOR IT TO CONVERT TO COMMERCIAL, WE CAN REQUIRE SOME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING FACADE OFFSETS. SO FOR THOSE LARGER BUILDINGS THAT ARE TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE, HAVING SOME OFFSETS TO HAVE THAT ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD STAND OUT ON THOSE PROPERTIES, AND OF COURSE, PROHIBITING BALCONIES FACING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SINCE THAT IS A SCENARIO WE MAY HAVE MORE OFTEN. WE TRY TO CONDENSE THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INTO ONE SECTION FOR EASE OF USE. AND WHAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU IS THE STANDARD FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN OUR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I REALLY WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM HEIGHTS. SO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE RED BOX ON THE RIGHT IS THE HEIGHT THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF C1. SO C1 HAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35FT. IF WE THINK OF A TYPICAL OFFICE CONDO, NOT VERY TALL. STATE LAW DOES REQUIRE US TO ALLOW THAT MULTIFAMILY TO EXTEND AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET ON TOP OF THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT. ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BUILDING FORM AND ABILITY TO ENSURE THAT THAT'S STILL COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT USES IS ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM HEIGHT FOR THIS USE IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. SO THAT IS THE COLUMN ON THE LEFT IN THE BOX. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SEE AS WE GET TO C3, WHICH IS THAT INTENSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, THERE WOULD BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR STORIES.

SO PERHAPS A SINGLE STOREY OR TWO STORY PRODUCT MAY NOT BE THE MOST COMPATIBLE WITH A MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE OFF OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, AND SO THAT MINIMUM HEIGHT HELPS US BALANCE THAT AND GEAR THE BUILDING FORM TOWARDS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO ADJACENT USES. WE ALSO REQUIRE AMENITIES AND SITE ENHANCEMENTS FOR ALL OF OUR MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT AS IT IS TODAY, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING OR RECOMMENDING THAT FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPED A NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL AMENITY AND SITE ENHANCEMENT REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE ALSO ADDED NEW AMENITIES. SO FOR DEVELOPERS WHO MAY CHOOSE TO PURSUE THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT WE CAN NO LONGER ENFORCE, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE PENALIZED FOR THAT. SO WE HAVE ADDED AMENITIES SUCH AS AN ENHANCED ADJACENCY BUFFER NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO PROVIDE GUEST PARKING ABOVE THOSE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, THEY CAN COUNT THOSE AS AMENITIES. AS WITH ANY CODE UPDATE, WE CAN READ IT 12, 20, 30, 40 TIMES AND STILL FIND SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CLEARER. AND SO SINCE POSTING, WE WERE DOING A FINAL READ BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, AND THERE ARE A FEW VERY SMALL CHANGES THAT WERE LEFT AT YOUR SEATS, AND I'LL CALL OUT HERE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU ALL MAKE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THOSE CHANGES FOR CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO SENATE BILL 840. THE ONLY ONE WITH THAT WAS ABOUT MANUFACTURED HOMES AND UPDATING THE PARKING TO REFLECT WHAT STATE LAW NOW REQUIRES US TO ENFORCE, WHICH IS THE ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT. NEXT BILL IS SENATE BILL 15. SO THIS IS RELATED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR THOSE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS ESSENTIALLY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS OVER FIVE ACRES OR MORE, THE CITY CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH WIDER THAN 30FT. A DEVELOPER CAN CHOOSE TO DEVELOP AT A HIGHER MINIMUM WIDTH OR A MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BUT WE CANNOT,

[00:30:05]

WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING AN R-3 ZONING DISTRICT. SO FOR A DEVELOPER WHO COMES IN AND WANTS TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY, BECAUSE WE AS THE CITY AND IN SOME CASES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REQUIRE STANDARDS HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'VE OUTLINED IN THE R-3 DISTRICT, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT OPTION WAS THERE FOR THEM TO PURSUE THROUGH AN APPLICATION TO YOU ALL, AND EVENTUALLY COUNCIL. SO THESE ARE THE STANDARDS FOR THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE IT PRETTY DIRECTLY MIRRORS WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO ALLOW. THE ONE NOTE I'LL MAKE IS THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ALLOW A MINIMUM OF THREE STORIES. BY THE TIME YOU ADD ON A ROOF PITCH TO THAT, IT GETS A LITTLE BIT TALLER. SO THAT'S INCREASED TO A 40 FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM. WE'VE ALSO MADE SURE THAT WE LOOKED AT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES PER LOT. AND SO INSTEAD OF DOING THAT BY ZONING DISTRICT WE'VE JUST MOVED TO LOT SIZE. SO NO MATTER WHAT ZONING DISTRICT YOU'RE IN AT A CERTAIN LOT WIDTH. YOU HAVE A CONSISTENT REQUIREMENT. SO AFTER AFTER POSTING, WE NOTICED TWO THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO RECOMMEND AS CHANGES THAT GO FORWARD TO COUNCIL. FIRST BEING MAKING SOME MODIFICATIONS TO TR 1.8.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PROPERTIES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ARE FOLLOWING THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, UNLESS THEY ARE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED BY SB 15. TR 1.8 GATHERED A LOT OF OUR LEGACY ZONING DISTRICTS, AND IT'S A IT'S A LOT MORE OF A MOSAIC THAN PERHAPS THE NORMAL TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE MIGHT THINK OF. SO WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THAT WAS CLEAR.

AND ADDITIONALLY, WE WANTED TO REWORD AND CLARIFY THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SINGLE PARKING SPACES, ONLY FOR LOTS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO SB 15. SO THERE WAS SOME REWORDING ON A FOOTNOTE THERE. FINALLY, WE DID TALK ABOUT ZONING PROTEST PETITIONS AT THE WORK SESSION, AND ESSENTIALLY THE MAJOR CHANGE HERE IS THAT TYPICALLY WHEN A RESIDENT GETS A NOTICE THAT A ZONING CASE IS OCCURRING AND THEY ARE WITHIN 200FT OF THAT PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO A ZONING CHANGE, THERE IS A ZONING PROTEST PETITION PROCESS WHERE IF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OWNERS PROTEST THE REQUEST, THEN IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AT COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST AT HAND. SO CURRENTLY THAT IS A 20% CALCULATION. 20% OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN 200FT IS REQUIRED BEFORE THEY CAN TRIGGER THAT SUPERMAJORITY. AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, THAT HAS CHANGED. SO WHEN THE ZONING CASE PROPOSES AN INCREASE IN DWELLING UNITS WITH A FEW OTHER SMALL CAVEATS, THAT IS NOW 60% OF THE LAND AREA. SO AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF ACREAGE HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS ZONING PROTEST PETITION. AND EVEN IF THEY CLEAR THAT THRESHOLD OF 60% OF THAT LAND AREA, IT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. SO WE'VE UPDATED THE CODE TO REFLECT THAT. WE ARE HERE TODAY. WE ARE BACK TO BACK AND GOING TO COUNCIL NEXT WEEK TO TRY AND MEET THE THE TIMELINES FROM STATE LAW. I'M HAPPY TO

[00:35:05]

SO ESSENTIALLY STATE LAW ALSO SETS OUT A PROVISION THAT WHEN THERE ARE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AND THAT IS AS DEFINED BY THE STATE, NOT NECESSARILY AS DEFINED BY THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY IN THOSE AREAS, WHICH INTUITIVELY MAKES SENSE. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE USED THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS TO LOOK THROUGH OUR USE CHART. AND WE'VE DETERMINED THAT THERE'S AT LEAST ONE USE IN BOTH I1, I2, AND AG THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE STATE'S DEFINITION OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP THERE. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO IT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? ANYBODY AT ALL WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, I SEE NONE.

IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO APPROVE ITEM. 2250004M ALONG WITH THE. AFTER POSTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 150 OF THE UDC TO INCLUDE THE STATE SENATE BILL 840 TO INCLUDE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, AND FOR SENATE BILL 15, A REWORDING OF THE FOOTNOTE. I DIDN'T CATCH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID. YOU ARE JUST FINE, AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SUM IT UP WITH SAYING MODIFICATIONS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC LOOKING. IS THAT SUFFICIENT? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 250004M WITH MODIFICATIONS. SECOND, WHO IS THAT? CHARLES? YES, WE HAVE A SECOND BY CHARLES. YES. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. TO OPEN. NOTES. NOTE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND REOPEN, THAT WE GOT TO GO BACK AND OPEN JUST THIS ONE. WE CAN GO BACK AND REOPEN THIS ONE.

AND YOU'RE DONE WITH THIS. THE MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THE ITEM IS APPROVED AND BE FORWARDED ON TO FINAL ACTION BY THE COUNCIL AT SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2025 MEETING. I MAY NEED SOME HELP ON THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REOPEN A CONSENT ITEM. THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 26TH, 2025. ITEM 2531 32. THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIRMAN, I WANTED TO WE SENT YOU ALL THE UPDATED MINUTES PREVIOUSLY, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NOTED THAT THE MINUTES THAT WERE SENT TO YOU VERSUS THE ONES THAT WERE ON THE AGENDA. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UPDATE THE MOTION TO SAY, APPROVE THE MINUTES THAT WERE UPDATED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR SINCE THE OTHER ONES WERE NOT CORRECT. SO WE NEED A MOTION. I DO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING NOTES THAT WERE UPDATED. SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY JAMES, SECOND BY TIM TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OUR 26TH AUGUST MEETING. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE. MOTION PASSES THERE ARE APPROVED WITH CHANGES 7 TO 0 VOTE. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY MATTERS? NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? NOTHING FROM STAFF. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE

[00:40:07]

SECOND. CHARLES. YES, CHARLES A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. I AYE, ALL OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY THE SAME. MOTION

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.