Oct 07, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2015-10-07 5:00 PM

The October 7th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting work session has been duly posted and we're ready to begin. We do have a qu orum. I think we have one missing that will be here shortly in about 10 minutes. We're going to start tonight with a review of our agenda. First item being does anybody have any questions about the minutes? Our next item will be our consent agenda and I'll ask Menal to see who's going to present and go through these items for us. Thank you Mr. Chair. The first consent agenda item would be the preliminary plat for West Park Industrial. Ross will go ahead and present that. Good evening Commissioners. The plat is for two lots on the northeast corner of Airport. Let me see. We just have a plat for two lots for non-residential development. This is in consideration for a part of a development, economic development project for Rush Enterprises. There will be completing a facility to customize truck vehicles for Peterbilt on this lot and then this lot will be a future phase with a future development. They haven't submitted the building permit yet for this yet so we're looking at the preliminary plat and a final plan will be issued when they when they get ready for construction. Any questions? Questions on this item? Thank you. Moving along to the next plat we have the plat for Cooke Children's Razor Ranch Edition and Sophie Hummer will go ahead and provide the description on this property and what is being proposed for development. This is the final plat for lot one block A of the Cooke Children's Razor Ranch Edition. This is lot one. The preliminary plat was approved earlier this year in May. You also approved a site plan for this project earlier this year and this is the final plat. Any questions on this item ? Commissioner Backer. What is Cooke Children's Razor Ranch Edition? It is a medical center. It'll be a pediatric clinic. It's going to sit in between the select rehabilitation hospital and what looks like on Google Maps. Are those what condensate tanks over there near Bonnie Bray? It's I guess it'd be the southeast corner of Bonnie Bray and didn't they do some drilling there? Yeah what and what's there now? Are those condensate tanks? Darren Groth, Gaswell Administrator. Hey, Darren Groth, Gas well Administrator. I know some of you have turned over since I've been here last but thought I'd introduce myself. The site at Bonnie Bray in Scripture has three wells on it. They do have some produced water tanks. They don't have any condensate tanks on that site but it's I don't know the measurement but it's to the east of this site. So water tanks that's all in. Produced water tanks. Okay. This meets the fire code and the debt and development code requirements. Okay. Any other questions on this item? Thank you, Sophie. Moving on to the next, we're going to actually skip Brubson Ranch to await Commissioner Brighill. She had some questions on that and had requested that she have the opportunity to do so. If we can go ahead and skip to the preliminary plat for Perfect Finish Landscaping. Julie White is going to present this on behalf of Mike Bell . All right. This is a preliminary plat for a to create one non-residential lot. They intend to develop the property with an office warehouse type development. Do you have any questions? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Beck. I was pulling up the plat myself. They're intending to develop the property with an office type and warehouse type development. It's in an employment center industrial zoning district. That's a preliminary use. So no industry, light industry, manufacturing? They haven't given any other level of detail for that. Any use that would go in would have to be a permitted use within the zoning district that's located in. Okay. It's close to homes on both sides. You've got the house on the west side, I believe, in the trailer park on the other side. There's been no... this doesn't conflict with that. They would have to meet the buffer requirements within the Ditten Development Code and if it was an industrial type development, I believe that's a type D buffer which is a 30-foot landscape buffer between them and any residential development. It is 30 feet. Yes, absolutely correct. Julie is correct with that. However, they did request, the applicant did request a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to reduce that buffer width to 20 feet which would still include tree plantings adjacent to the residential district. And that's okay with the home owner there? Right. So they went through public hearing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It was a public hearing notification was offered and to my knowledge there was no issue with the surrounding property owners either. Okay. Good deal. Thank you. Commissioner Hatchbeth. I have just a general question while this is here though. Regarding the preliminary plat, can you give me an overview of that process? How do we get to that? What does that entail in subsequent... obviously there's final plat and so you know so if I can get a timeline. To put it in... to give you a synopsis, the preliminary plat is more of a macro level. It could identify a large acreage, a large substantial piece of property that a developer potentially has intent to develop. However, it could be a phase development or a phase program and so through that they could carve out pieces within that preliminary plat that would enable them to final plat and provide full-blown engineering or civil drawings associated with that to make sure the infrastructure needs are met and addressed for that specific area. The preliminary plat gives you a schematic and conceptual layout as to engineering your street layout and as you move forward and fine-tune what exactly you're going to do, how much acreage you're going to use for that. So you could have a hundred acres for example that was preliminary platted and with that perhaps in phase one only ten acres came in. That ten acres would then become your final plot which would have a more thorough study, complete study on your infrastructure requirements which is your water, your sewer , your street. Drainage. So at what level is that scrutinized? I mean you know is it ... I think I understand your question. Yes. I think so. So I'm going to take the liberty to try and answer it without you completing it so I apologize in advance. The Development Services Department has a Development Review Committee. The Development Review Committee houses the planning discipline , the engineering discipline, FHIR, plans examiners which is your building inspection team and then when I talk about the engineering team we're talking about the entire engineering team which addresses utilities, which addresses your roadways, which addresses what the master thoroughfare plan and infrastructure plan requires and all those disciplines come together and they review the final plot such as this. So if you notice on this final plot it identifies easements as well. These easements are necessary to ensure that the site functions not just from an access point but when we talk about drainage. Is there water to the site? Is there sewer to the site? How do we... if it's not there how do we bring it there? What needs to happen to allow this site to function? You mean preliminary plot? I was talking about... well the preliminary plot is more schematic and then the final plot delves into that information more. Right. It's basically to make sure that the developers are on the right track before they have to bring forward serious engineering drawings for the final plan. Got it. That's the function of it and it's at the initial outset for the project. Okay. You have some follow-up questions? Well yeah I just don't... I still don't understand. For example if I if I'm if I'm gonna develop this the green area out front here and I... is there any scrutiny to that? Is there no that's not feasible? Are we cutting them off at the pass early saying hey that's not possible? Correct. Or can someone bring us a plan for anything and it passes the first preliminary step and then goes in the detail? I just don't know at what level so I understand the disciplines that go into the final... but the preliminary what is... and the same discipline evaluates from the onset. Let's talk about use. For instance Commissioner Beck brought that up. Can they do what they're doing in ECI with this one for example? Yes they can. The use is permitted. What are the zoning requirements in terms of lot width or lot area as we speak to residential? All those from a preliminary discussion standpoint are addressed. So you cannot proceed into a final without addressing your preliminary and you wouldn't go forward from your initial conversation. We enable initial conversation with our external stakeholders so we can understand their project and they can vet it with us prior to them even submitting their preliminary plat. Got it. There you go. Thank you. I'll add one more thing to that. There's a there's a preliminary step that you can do as a developer that even comes before a preliminary plat and it's called a development review committee or a pre-construction type meeting and it's a very inexpensive way to take a piece of property that you're unfamiliar with and it's I think it's a $250 fee that you present and to the board that... and I was talking about the the the DRC and the development review committee and all those departments will come and review that particular project. It's usually done within a couple weeks and it does exactly what she's talking about. It does a very preliminary say we have a six inch water line out in front there's a ten inch sewer line down here what are the easements what are your zoning's and kind of gives you a very quick snapshot without getting into a lot of engineering drawings to kind of y'all's point of what can you do this piece of property and what's involved before somebody starts writing big checks for engineers and civil engineers and surveyors and so you really go through and in my experience that's a no-brainer to go through first and get some feedback and if it is positive and you look like you can do what you need to do then you move on to your preliminary platting and then on to final plat so this is just a preliminary plat it's kind of would be a step to after somebody may have done a preliminary development review. So this will come back again for a final plat. Commissioner Dutta-Witts. I can just add that's why it's part of a consent agenda it's telling us it's already been through review processes and been vetted at that level for the preliminary stuff you know water lines and easements and things like that so it's pretty much you know understanding that that's been vetted and now we can move forward and get into other details as we get to final plants and then if there's any rezoning or other things that's when it really gets serious with us. Sit down and see if that makes sense. We've got Commissioner Brighill has joined us and I believe there was an item that we had skipped that do you need a few more minutes we'll go on to another item. We're going to move on to our next item which is going to be the sprouts edition. This might look familiar this is sprouts you've seen it before it was actually this this plat was actually approved by this this Commission previously however they've decided to instead of do underground detention they decided to detain on the site so it's changed a couple of things on the plat so in abundance of caution we've brought it back so you can look and see at it see it again. Any questions on this particular item? Commissioner Betk. I have questions though. Thank you. Again being Teasley like it is until this road gets fixed concerned about the flow of traffic I didn't see anything on the plan here and I just may not be reading it right but coming from down Teasley heading south when you want to turn into sprouts are they going to add a lane where you can do that off of Teasley and if not why not and do we have the right to ask them to do that? I'm going to call Earl Escobar up. Preach it to the choir. Earl Escobar engineering. The construction plans for sprouts are proposing two entrances off of Teasley Lane. One's located at the common property line between their site and the site to the north and then one is further north within the property to the north because that 's where the median opening will be upon the widening of Teasley Lane. Further north? Yes. Okay. But both entrances will have a dedicated right turn lane an additional lane to transition into their side. Okay that's what I was asking. In other words people won't have to start backing up when somebody's going to come in. And then the entrance to the north the off-site entrance will also have a dedicated left turn lane as well. This entrance that's located between the two properties that's only going to be a right in and a right out type driveway. Now is this purely an entrance or is it an entrance and exit? Both driveways are exits and entrances but the only difference between this one that's between the two properties and the one further north is that the one further north is a full exit. You can exit left or right as opposed to this one right here which is only a right out. Was there any consideration to making those purely entrances and letting the exit traffic go out Hickory Road there at the light and the reason I again unless there's a light there people are you know it's a challenge to get over in the other lane because you got cross traffic there. Was there any consideration that this would be a problem with exiting traffic out of there heading back north on Teesley? There was some concern on the first entrance the southern entrance to only make that an exit right to the right only as opposed to a left turn exit or a full entrance just because of a potential left turn movements into the site given the vicinity to the intersection of Hickory Creek Road and Teesley we didn't want traffic to back up into that intersection so we we require that to just be a strictly a right in right out. The one further north is quite a ways from that intersection so we were comfortable enough with that being a full entry. Okay. Thank you. Question? Commissioner Detowitz. While you 're up there have we seen any preliminary drawings from DOT because that is a DOT right away? Yes there are actual design plans for this project now they're scheduled to. I'm talking about the whole Teesley project not just this area. I'm not familiar with the whole set of plans there are a set of plans I just focus for this project. Because we've been we've been seeing additional sprouts and other other types of development from even further north in Teesley down from the library we have a senior citizen home we have I don't know how many homes are going up there at Ryan Road and now we have the neighborhood Walmart coming in and we have sprouts and then further further further all the way down and we've had some public interest about the traffic and all those and yet it's still a DOT project. Yeah the scope of the project is from it's from at the intersection of Teesley and Teesley or Lillian Miller that little corner there all the way down to 35. Right now they're working on 35 all the way to 2499 I believe somewhere in that area. But we have not seen their plans so how do we integrate our our designs of ins and outs and X's? Oh we've in there we've coordinated okay textile plants with this development and that's the reason why they had that that driveway to the north off site is located where it is is because that's where the ultimate median opening will be. Now secondary to that is is Hickory Creek Road and Ryan Road and all those roads that parallel. Those are city roadways. Those are city roads and we've been asking about where which the plans for traffic lights and traffic enhancing whatever they may be exits and entrances those developments that are coming in. Yes as part of the sprouts development they are going to be widening Hickory Creek Road I believe they are constructing three additional lanes because it's a six lane roadway and I believe there's already three lanes on the south side they're going to build a three on the north side along with turn lines as well along their frontage. And Ryan Road? Ryan Road the Walmart development is building I believe their frontage. What about the other end of it where the other developments are going in? The Country Club Road which is a stop sign now and people can't turn left or right because of the traffic on Country Club and Ryan. They are cost participating they're proportionate. What's the city planning to do at that? I would just like to make a point of order if we could just stick to the item that's specifically. I disagree I think this is this is relevant to the whole development of that area of traffic is incredible and if it doesn't flow down easily it's it's hitting the other the other arterials in there and it's backing up all kinds of traffic. So it's a discussion about traffic which was the question was raised. I guess to answer your question on Country Club and Ryan. There are also applies to Hickory Creek to where it bumps in. Right. Well Hickory Creek and Fort Worth Drive there's a textile project for Fort Worth Drive as well. I'm not exactly sure when it's slated to begin but there are going to be improvements to that or those intersections as well in terms of signalization of Country Club and Ryan Road. All we can ask them to do is cost contribute their fair share for those intersections whenever a development comes in within the vicinity of that intersection and it's just really up to the city to supplement it. So the city is saying that you 're looking to the developers to do something and you won't do anything until they participate? It's a requirement for them to cost participate towards those improvements. Okay. But unless it's a significant development and they are willing to go ahead and construct it like for example Razor Ranch, went ahead and constructed signals along. We have approved number of developments along Ryan and along Hickory Creek and we've not seen anything that suggests what's going to happen to the traffic of those additional home sites and developments on other city streets and it seems to be the vacant part of all the discussion. Well the city roadways, we analyzed the city roadways when those developments came in and they've named at the minimum level of service. It's the TechSot roadways that we have the problems with mainly because Teasley right now is a two-lane roadway. It's slated to be a six lane but we're at the mercy of TechSot schedule. I appreciate your answers. I did that for some of our new members because we've been having this discussion on traffic in Teasley and all that part of development there for at least my tenure on the Commission. So we still have a lot of answers that we need to get and it's just I believe the traffic is going to get worse and worse because of a number of homes and developments that we've approved in there without making any adjustments to the traffic flow. I agree. I mean I think once Teasley gets widened into the six lanes it'll alleviate a lot of that traffic at least from my thoroughfare standpoint. I'm on the main corridor there. I think we have another question. Commissioner Taylor? Just a brief follow-up. What is the expected date of completion of the TechSot widening of Teasley lane? Completion or start? Let 's start with the start. We'll start with the start. Start is I believe it's August 2017. From Lillian Miller to 2499 I believe is the scope of that work. Complet ion is about three to five years. So sometime between 2017 and 2021-22 this will be complete and you'll have a median and ride in ride outs. Commissioner Rossell? This might be for Miss Wyatt. Can you explain the change and the first plat in this plat you said is about detain ment? Can you elaborate on that? They originally were going to detain any runoff underneath the site. When they got the cost estimates of that they elected to go ahead and detain on site. So that's what's changed. Thank you. Any other questions on this item? Amber are you ready to? Yeah I am and thanks for waiting. We're one car family with two kids and a lot of after- school activities. So sorry I was late. Thank you. We're gonna back up then and catch the Robson Ranch item I think. Yes thank you. So I just had two questions. We haven't even had any talk on that. Who's going to present that? So this is a Robson Ranch unit 10-2. You've seen the preliminary plat. 10-1 which is another part of this unit 10 has been approved the final plat. So this is the final plat for 10-2 for residential development and open space lots as well. Commissioner Bugele? Thank you Chair. Miss Wyatt I have two questions. The first one is I see there are and I was looking for like a key or something. There are some letters with circles around them and some of these lots for example lot 63 has a letter I with a circle around it 28 has an H with the circle. 51 has got an I again. I thought I saw an E on there. I've just I've never seen that on these plats before and I was looking for a key. I was just kind of curious what those are the blocks. Oh thank you. It is somewhat unclear and if you'd like I could have the applicant add block to those if it wouldn't add more clarity to it. No it's fine. I was just looking I didn't understand why there were why that was there. I hadn't seen that. I can see how that would be unclear. Okay thank you and the second question is I'm curious I've seen on on other plats we're starting to now put in gas wells even if they're not specifically to that development but if they're in the proximity of the neighborhood they're kind of grayed out and we can see them and I know that there are gas wells at Robeson Ranch. I didn't see anything like that on this plat and I was curious is that because it's an MPC and therefore it's not required or clarify that. There is a gas well a gas park is what they're called in Robeson Ranch. It's adjacent to the property so it's not on this exact property so we didn't include it in the plat. But I've seen that even when it's not included on that specific development if there's a development nearby I've seen that grayed out on other plats just to show that there is something in the area. Am I I'm not imagining that we've seen that before. No I don't believe you are imagining that I think what we were talking of what we've seen in the past where you saw a an as built or shaded in location of an existing gas well in relation to the overall site. That's exactly in this instance we have a planned development district and we have a separate detail plan for the gas well park so the conditions that dictate both are different. Right so it's why you see it this way. It's not necessary it's not required. Right we're not in error with this plot nor we are in error with the other. Okay that answers my question thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Could you put that drawing back up there that showed the gas part? Okay. Right the proximity of that part to the area that's going to be developed seems pretty close is that within the back sets? It meets the requirements of the Robeson Ranch plan development. They have a separate set of rules for their gas parks and this does meet their requirements for separation. Okay so Denton's guidelines don't fall in here? I'm going to call up Darren Grove just so he can give you a little more background on it might make it a little clearer. Okay yeah the Robeson PD addresses set backs and so what we did here recently in August was adopt an ordinance that addresses if a master plan community or plan development were to change any of their zoning documents they would actually have to come in with a unified plan and address the setbacks with the gas well operator and the surface developer. Since this is still a plat and not addressing the zoning as we all pointed out in the last answer the plat isn't in conflict with our new ordinance because the previous PD would still apply and in that PD there was only a 100 foot set back so it definitely meets that. Right now we would have a different set of regulations if they were going through a zoning change and I think one of the examples was probably Sophie's case previously where the zoning ordinance actually required the plat to show those so again the zoning change would be the key here this is a plat that we're addressing. And the zoning change would come through this committee. Yes sir. Okay so my question so it's only a hundred feet then. Correct. And we've got minimum on new homes I believe is 500 feet when you're building a new area. A new home to an existing drilling and production site outside of a PD except for that unifying plan would be a 250 foot distance okay except for the structure to any pieces of equipment that would hold explosive liquids or gases that would be 300 feet. So are we gonna have problems with this when they start building homes then? Is this still outside the 250? It won't be a problem because of the set of separation standards that they will be developing under until Robeson were to come in and amend the plan development itself then we would get that unified plan that would address the setbacks either to today's 250 foot or even greater in some examples but the 100 foot distance is what they will develop under so it won't be a conflict with the ordinance because they're still going to be building under the initial Robeson PD that was adopted in 1999. Maybe this is not the place or the time to ask this question but again one of the concerns about when you're doing new developments and it has to meet this minimum requirement was there something about homeowners being notified when you go in and buy a new home in their new planned community that they're to be notified that hey you live within 250, 500 feet of gas well is that something we address here? Well that's correct and it's actually part of Robeson's management plan so they do notify homeowners of that again through the zoning but if that zoning were to ever be amended then we would have the opportunity to get a unified plan that the surface developer which I think is Robeson development and in this case the operator would would come in and set new setback distance and all of the new ordinance would kind of then be triggered. Thank you. I think maybe Darren can maybe clarify this I think maybe the issue is this because this is a master plan community even though it's a small section that's being brought before us it is just a small piece of something that was done many years ago and the rules and the guidelines for that were set in place so to your point even though we have new gas well regulations those affect new developments this is a old development that is a master plan development that has already got the criteria and it's already been pre- approved and I think maybe that's the distinction where is that why are we not doing it here and and there may want to even clear that even better than what I just stated. That's a good point Chairman and one of the things that will will possibly change is if that operator came in and it modified that large- scale development so again we're looking at one little piece that has pointed out so that's kind of part of the confusion. Because of the time frame on it our answers are still coming in. Well it's an existing project and so it kind of goes to unfortunately some of the new members may have missed some of the things that have to do with called vesting and I think kind of goes to Commissioner Hussbuss questions earlier as you go through the process once you begin the process these are the rules that you work under and so this project was begun a long time ago and the rules were set for it and there as long as they work under those rules and don't make a large change or a zoning change that would trigger them to come under the new rules they work under the rules when their project was originally approved. On new projects once those begin whatever the rules the laws that we have in place follow that at that time and same thing in the future and it's somewhat of a grandfather investing because existing properties you know if we make a new ordinance we can't go back so well you have to do an energy update on your home because new homes now have to be done this way and it's the same type of a principle on a development standpoint if that makes sense as to why it follows some places and others and it's taken the rest of us a while to understand why does it happen here and not at other places and that's the reason on this deal. I would just like to make a point for the record that that was just a general overview of our vesting process and may or may not apply to a particular piece of property and the chairman is not passing judgment on whether or not this particular applicant has vested rights. Thank you for the clarification. All right I think we have now addressed all of the consent agenda items. I think do we need to have any discussion about what we're doing on the individual consideration? No? Okay. I don't know how long presentations will be on these do we need to do food now or do we want to go ahead and get a few of these out of way and then do food? If I could make a suggestion not a recommendation but we have items 5a and 5b they're very straightforward standard replants they don't warrant discussion in my mind but if there are any questions that the team or the the Commission feels that they want to bring up we can do that however I would advise that we jump into our zoning change request and go through those they're they're pretty lengthy and I'd like to knock those out. I was thinking maybe if we could be done by 6 15 we would have 15 minutes of free time. Okay if we can if not then we can okay we'll go ahead and get whatever the pleasure of the Commission. We'll take your recommendation we'll go ahead and does anybody have questions on items public hearing a or b? No? Seeing none then we're going to go ahead and move on to item C and Man al who will make that presentation. Item C is a request for a zoning change from PD 12 to RCCD I'm going to ask Julie Wyatt to make that presentation on behalf of Mike Bell. Thank you Julie. Good evening Julie Wyatt associate planner with the city of Denton I'm presenting Z15-5 Toyota of Denton. The request before you is to consider rezoning the subject property out of PD 12 and into a regional center commercial downtown zoning district the site's approximately 15 acres. Just to orient you it is located on I-35 here is State School Road so it's south of State School and Post Oak is down in this area. A little bit of background the original PD 12 was created in 1980 and it originally encompassed 109 acres and you can see it there in the green. In 1986 the concept plan was amended for 74 acres and I know y'all went over PDs a couple of sessions ago but just to just to refresh your memory there's kind of a two-step process to the zoning of a PD would be the concept plan which kind of lays out the uses where those would go and then the second part is the detail plan which looks at more of a site specific where the parking would go where the buildings would go the open areas so the concept plan was for this PD was amended in 1986 to change where some of the uses would be and what those uses would be. The concept plan was then amended again in 87 for 43 of those acres and then in 2001 and 2004 detail plans were approved for both Toyota and Honda which are the sites in question tonight and the zoning map has changed since that time so so here is the original PD 12 here's what's left of it to the north adjacent to State School that was rezoned out of the PD in 1999 and then the property adjacent to the subject site was was zoned out of the PD in 2005. The site is located in a regional mixed-use future land use designation at per the Denton plan 2030 this area is intended to have high density residential urban form commercial development that's supposed to draw in people not just from its specific area but from the greater region so it's supposed to have a larger draw. The way the property has developed with the Honda and the D and the Toyota dealerships it really does meet this future land use designation require goal and intent. Back to the background in 2001 the detail plan for Toyota did also have some conditions those included conditions regarding lighting irrigation for landscaping the public address speakers and then some additional conditions regarding the construction of the site where the temporary sales office would be and then and then the trees. Honda also had some conditions also included lighting the public address speakers and then also addressed some future development in a detention pond on the site. So when staff analyzed this request we looked at some condition or some considerations. First the site is developed consistent with the RCCD zoning designation which they are proposing. It is also developed in accordance with the future land use designation so it meets those requirements. Second consideration was that the approval of this would remove the conditions that were set on the site with the approval of the detail plans. But when we look deeper at that we saw that four of the conditions were related to the original construction and really are no longer applicable. That lighting is now regulated with the dent and development code in sub chapter 13 and it really does meet the intent it shields the the adjacent property owners as well as the night sky those are the requirements of the dent development code. The noise is now addressed in the code of ordinances and the detention pond that was addressed is heavily encumbered by easements and if they were to develop that that plat what you would have to be replatted and that would come before this Commission. So the request does meet the criteria for rezoning in the DDC and that criteria for approval is is located in sub chapter 3 and first that the proposed rezoning meets the the future land use element in the dent and plan 2030 and that also the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer schools, other public requirements. Public notification was sent out. We have not received any responses in opposition or in favor. So based upon the considerations presented and the criteria for approval staff does recommend approval of this rezoning. I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Begg. Thank you Chair. And this is just a I guess a general question so this is land the owner is TT of Denton Incorporated? Is that that's what it's showing here? Yes sir. Okay and so Toyota and Honda are le asing from them? I'm not quite sure how how their business structure is set out. We have to make sure that the owner of the property is is requesting the rezoning so if the owner is requesting the zoning then the rezoning can move forward. Did he by any chance give any indication I mean why would want to rezone it? Has he got some ideas in mind? Well I spoke with the project manager on that because I thought that would be a question that I would get and you know these aren't a plan development and when those detailed plans were approved a site plan was tied to that as well as elevations and other specifics to the site. The sites have now been developed and in some cases they've they've done some tweaks and some redevelopment which is required because it's a PD to go back through the zoning process if they want to make changes to say elevations or change some of the parking area and so in order to simplify and provide a little more flexibility for the applicant the RCCD does meet the future land use element and it does conform to that zoning so you know we worked with them and felt like that was an appropriate way for them to move forward. Does that answer your question? I think so. He just indicated though that this opened up the opportunity as a regional activity center is considerably larger more diverse its land use it includes vertically integrated uses so we're talking about. He could it could redevelop in accordance with the with that zoning designation yes sir. Okay but he hadn't given us any idea. We have not been given an indication that that's what we have. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. I just wanted to add a little clarification on this too whenever we was it earlier this year or last year we had a case before us on adjusting the site plan and they wanted to change the shrubbery but that's a change to the site plan the way the PD was written they had to come to P&Z and I think I was among several members of the Commission who suggested it would be better to just rezone it out of a PD and into an appropriate zoning category. In my opinion a lot of times plan developments were used as a quick and easy way to get the use that a landowner needed or maybe they had a parcel of land and they wanted half of it in one use and half of it in another use they would put together a PD with a site plan and get it sold you know get it get it through planning and zoning back 10 20 30 years ago and they would build the project but then they wrote the PD so restrictively there is only one valid use it has things like shrubbery on the site plan it requires you know an application to move a tree things like that so often PDs were not well managed and now 30 years later or 40 years later you have something that's designed for 1980 and doesn't meet any of our current standards and by law they can't do anything about it they have to that's the only thing they're allowed to do. So this kind of changes keeps him from being hamstrung on every little change. Yeah and I feel personally I feel like this moves it into a more appropriate and they could they're probably not going to change the car dealership anytime soon but if they wanted to 10 years from now they could do put some of their use on there but they could change their shrubbery or move a building or you know things like that put up an entryway which would require an active. Well to add to that I think it it makes the developers project much easier to move it removes a step they still have to meet all of our ordinance from a building inspections and a construction standpoint so they basically skip coming before us and go strictly to building inspections and and make whatever change they need to make as long as it is in accordance with ordinances so it's just as a easier we're not having to see every single change because it's a PD. Any other questions on this particular item? Okay I'll move on to item D. Judy White still gonna stand there and make this one as well. All right this is Z1525 loves travel stop. This request is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning from regional center commercial neighborhood to employment center and commercial on approximately 15-16 acres. The subject property is located on the north side of the city it is here's I-35 and here's Bartold Road so it's on the north side. Some background originally the site was a truck stop car wash convenience store warehouse and truck storage as you might know it burned in 2008 the convenience store did so it's so it's been in that condition you know since then ready for redevelopment so in light of that staff met with the applicant in 2013 to discuss the redevelopment of the site into a truck stop which the uses would include a convenience store, gasoline sales, restaurants and also truck repair. Because truck repair is not permitted in the current zoning district staff at that time in 2013 recommended that they pursue an RCCD zoning district because it was consistent with the Denton plan 1999 that area was was considered to be a regional mixed-use area for that future land use map and so the RCCD fit within that but also permitted the vehicle repair. Fast forward in 2014 we approved the Denton plan 2030 and we changed the future land use designation of this property to business innovation and just a little bit of history on that this area was designated as a regional center in 1998 I'm sorry 1988 and it was one of two so it was there was Golden Triangle Mall and then there was this area so they were anticipating that this would grow in a regional way after that a third regional center was added at I-35 and John Payne in 1999 and Razor Ranch was then added in 2007 and then when you include downtown of that that's four regional centers and in doing the analysis for the comprehensive plan it was determined that Denton probably couldn't support four regional commercial centers so that's why they changed it to the business innovation and the changes or the differences are that the regional mixed-use which is what it was before was intended to promote high-density residential walkable urban area and a lot of commercial shopping areas. Business innovation changes that to be promote more employment centers but also keep that that commercial element in order to support those employment areas so it sort of takes out the the residential component. So then when we compare RCCN which is what it's owned as today to the proposed ECC both of them really permit the same commercial uses RCCN does permit the high-density multifamily whereas ECC permits light industrial but removes that multifamily so it's more consistent and in line with the future land use. So the considerations we looked at first this site has historically been a truck stop this area is ideal for this type of use it's the northern gateway to the city it's got it's got good access for the end user so it's it's an appropriate use for the area until the DDC is updated to be more in line with the new comprehensive plan. The ECC zoning is is consistent with that business innovation future land use element. The surrounding uses are primarily agricultural or commercial so it's not anticipated since there's no residential it's not anticipated that this use would would have an impact on the adjacent properties. Once again the criteria for appro vals in subchapter 3 first the rezoning must be consistent with the future land use designation of the property and that it must facilitate the adequate provision of transportation water sewer schools and other public requirements. It does meet both of those requirements for for criteria for approval. Public notification it was sent out we have not received I take that back I looked on Mike's desk today and there were we received one letter neither in opposition or in favor there is an adjacent property owner who maybe has concerns but they have not said favorably or unfavorably to the project. So based upon the considerations and the criteria for approval staff does recommend approval of this rezoning. Commissioner Dudowitz. Can you put up this slide with regard to the current zoning for that whole area up there? Okay all right and that's current? Yes sir. Okay across the road is TA which is a compatible I mean the same convenience store tire shop repair shop for trucks convenience store gas station. Yes sir. And that is now a RCCD. Okay so this would be consistent with that? Well RCCD was actually more in line with the previous future land use designation and that's why we did recommend that this applicant pursue that RCCD back in 2013 however with the new comprehensive plan RCCD really isn't kind of what we're getting to is again we're gonna have to address this for the other side of the road. Yes sir. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair. Miss Wyatt there's a there's a residential home near this zoning request is that correct? I am not aware. Maybe I'm confusing. To the left. Yep. I'm looking at Google map. Okay thank you . So I was curious to know what kind of buffering requirements might be between this new this new zoning request and that residents? Vehicle repair is considered a commercial use and so let me get my code I want to verify. Okay. I think it's a type C but let me just verify. So commercial to single-family is a type C which is a 15 foot planted strip 15 foot landscape buffer. Okay. How 15 foot high? No 15 feet wide. It would require a combination of six evergreen and deciduous trees and 25 shr ubs per 100 linear feet. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Tater. Thank you chair. Just wanted to clarify that there's this little finger off of the bottom of that parcel shape and looking at the map it doesn't appear that are they purchasing an easement or purchasing a strip of land? That's a part of the property. It does sort of wrap around. Just so I'm clear that's that wrap around part is right at the edge of Foster 's Western Ware? I believe so. Okay. All right. Well I think that's the little white box down there. It is. That's Foster's. Commissioner Rosale. So I have some concerns about traffic in the area specifically during workday mornings highway 1173 coming in from Crum. Any of the maps will work. There's a railroad track anyways on 11 71 heading backwards and I know for one of my employees says it's backed up on 1171 for individuals trying just to get on I-35 south above the loop. Is there a change of road suggested? What is that white line? Barthold Road is actually going to be realigned at some point and this is conceptual but it's going to line up with Elm at some point and I believe as a part of this development they'll be dedicating the right away for that. So it's actually going to hopefully improve the connectivity in the area in order to and Earl's gonna come up. Earl Escobar engineering. As part of the development when they come in for platting the requirement is going to be for them to realign Barthold Road to line up with the intersection of I-35 and 77 or Elm Street on the other side there. That's a signalized intersection there so and right now Barthold just kind of tees into the service road. And what is it doing back to the highway 1173 to the south there? You know what is it connecting back there? Eventually it's going to this road is going to become 1173 and Barthold will eventually be part of converge into 1170 the new alignment of 1173. So everyone coming in from Crum on highway 1173 would be rer outed up to that signaled light? That's correct. And not be having to wait? Not into that T intersection. So as part of the loves development they're going to realign Barthold Road up to this corner here of their property. They're going to abandon the existing Barthold Road and then then they're going to connect to the existing portion here. So essentially all the traffic will now be diverted into the signalized intersection and alleviate that traffic. So that partly addresses the issue because one of my issues is just the backup from warning traffic on 1173 from individuals from Crum heading either into Denton or through Denton down to Dallas. The other concern I have is I can't really tell on this map but I estimated at that T&A about 90 semi trucks which back up southbound on Elm. So when they all exit TA on Elm it backs up there and it's it's nearly impossible on average one to two trucks can get through that light to get on to I-35 south. Is there any thought of or is the I-35 expansion going to solve that underpass because that underpass is quite small? Unfortunately the widening project in this area is not going to happen until 2000 I say 2030. Right now the current widening project stops at 380. So part of me thinks that some of those 90 some odd trucks if they're heading south would just leverage the west side truck stop if it was available to them which could alleviate some of the traffic. It could alleviate now that they have a choice between. Exactly so I think there is a benefit to that but I am still concerned about individuals the thoroughfare from Crum to Denton is around that intersection and adding the potential increased traffic in restaurants I think we're gonna funnel even more traffic to that real small underpass. Well there's also an opportunity we haven't dived into the traffic studies as well as part of their plotting process but I think one of the comments was to analyze the need for a dedicated right turn lane for southbound Furnage Road on to I guess it's still be Barthol road to alleviate I mean if the trucks wanted to enter or be served by the site that right turn light would free up that traffic and alleviate that through lane or possibly even the turn lane. And I don't want to go on a rabbit trails traffic but is there any plans for loop 288 to help access Crum in the future I know it's dead in there but I don't know the future of loop 288. As is. Okay thank you. Commissioner Hatchbeth. Can you help we're right at the northern edge of the city or am I off? Where are we do you know generally where we are where are the boundary for city of? It's right here here's ETJ. Okay. There is some that goes up 35 but. Okay and again not to digress on traffic but it almost seems worse in my opinion to have through traffic under the underpass because it gives more options. Right now you have to turn left and from that intersection 1173 you don't have to wait for a light so you can turn right in rapid succession versus having to wait at a light for what it's worth down the road when that conversation comes. I just think options do I want to go straight do I want to turn and I think what is there one lane there currently I mean that that would be cumbersome. Thank you. Any other questions on this item? Okay we'll move on to this is going to be item E. Thank you I'm going to invite Ross Culbertson to make this presentation. Thank you Ross Culbertson senior planner. This is Pecan Park Z1524. This is a consideration before you for a rezoning to from neighborhood residential mixed use in our immune to neighborhood residential four on approximately 20 acres. To familiarize yourself with the site the zoning boundary under consideration is on the south side of East McKinney Street approximately 2,300 feet east of 4 Road which is here at this corner here in the north-south direction. Zoning request encompasses 20 acres of an approximate 80 acre tract which is intended by the applicant for a complete single-family developed subdivision so you can see the division of where the boundary is today and what interests the property owner has . This map also is a good map to take a look at the natural and site context as you can see this is in a rural area off east area of Denton where left there's very rural context with homesteads there's a existing mobile home park up this way ranchettes over to the east. I want to point out that this area has some substantial trees and natural tree stands in the middle and the concrete runs to the south with some floodplain here over on the south side. What we want to do to that tonight is look at the zoning which we want to the applicant wants to rezone the NRMU portion as you can see in red over on this map includes a lot of leftover strip on the north side of McKinney and the subject property in a little bit on the south side of McKinney with the intended in our four zoning that will effectively create one complete district one complete zoning district to NR4 which is more compatible for development. Again I kind of want to point out what the NRMU designation is this was completed and zoned this way with the 2002 zoning update which has not developed to this intensity since that time and as you can see the intent was to create more of a encourage high density residential with town homes and apartments create nodes of neighborhood retail office very kind of intense uses that would kind of support neighborhoods around there and this zoning district prohibits single- family units so that is a concern if someone was to redevelop single-family at this time. In our analysis we will look at the future land use plan and kind of see how that guides us. The future land use map indicates rural areas so I want to point that kind of the in-between boundary here between McKinney, McKinney Street and the Pekong Creek area is rural in nature. The current NRMU does not fit within the character of that existing low density residential and and so does we have to point out that the NR4 does not fit with respect to the low density rural context. We are going to make a case otherwise though. However NR4 is more compatible with the future land use uses in the area and more suited and more suited catalyst to spur future development. Essentially what we're looking at is we're not making any comprehensive plan map changes but essentially by rezoning this to NR4 we are kind of combining the the forces of residential development in this area which makes sense and staff is leaning is supporting that direction. This is the concept plan associated with the request we as a zoning we don't look at concept plans as guiding us but this is good information to show the intent of the development as a master plan community that is under a conservation and it shows effort towards a conservation development scheme a design idea which from the didn't plan encourages the cl ustering of lots reducing the full amount of developable area to maximize open space and since this property has beautiful pastoral areas that the applicant does find the need to maintain those areas and is designing a plan accordingly. So we create we consider that as a great great asset to the area. So under the considerations for you the NR4 zoning is more of an appropriate district to encourage low to moderate single-family units and to unify the entire property of the interest of the property developer. The land use pattern in this area has remained rural and has not necessitated the use uses permitted by NRMU zoning so logically we see that going through and then the conservation development design is a good response as a transitioning element for single-family development to be introduced in this area. We look at the didn't development plan sub chapter 3533 was list as in your backup report items A through E for criteria that do not conform to the future land use plan and and staff had assessed those items and really finds that each one of those criteria located by analyzing the land use pattern the density of the development to support the extension of city services to this area if it is rezoned and then if this rezoning does not isolate a certain district and by all means we're combining districts at this point. The other sub chapter for criteria will be the general guidelines for zoning amendments which again talk to the conformance of the land use element and facilitate the provision of city of services. Public notifications were made we received one in favor which is the major property owner on the north side and the applicant did a mail out themselves to see if they could solicit any extra information and none's been provided to me on any outcomes of that. So with that we are recommending approval as we see this as a positive for this area. Questions for staff? Commissioner Taylor. Thank You Chair. I actually have two questions. This so this rezoning is obviously anticipating development and we've in the past had discussion about post oak a mate the next major north-south arterial to the east. Will this as we're planning this are we leaving space for a major north-south arterial? I know at one point there was mention of the alignment of Trinity and this appears to basically take Trinity and tee it off and break it off into a subdivision. Consider that this alignment doesn't hit this property specifically it's closer to this area so it kind of swings I think it will go to or road in some way shape or form so it is kind of off this property but we are anticipating that this development needs to coordinate their points of access with that their affair for future development. I'll let Earl speak to that. Yes as part of the mobility plan amendment that PS Aurora has been I guess he made a couple of presentations to us already. As part of that amendment we are realigning post oak road actually to the west and it will intersect with 3 80 away from the site but whenever a development in this area comes in we will ensure that the right of way is accounted for. A majority of the property where post oak will come through is a city property also as well. Okay so that that 's good because the I think I know we've talked about a lot of options and the current map is from 1999 then I just had another question regarding future land use so right now blue is it's listed as government but that's also an industrial area it's water treatment plant and a landfill is that correct? I believe that's where that is. Government institutional I 'm not sure what the land uses were there before that they designated that. I believe I saw a treatment plant road which would be indicative. That's where the landfill is and then yeah. As an evaluation of future land use has that been evaluated to to make sure that these uses are compatible if that those are any necessary buffer will this prevent the full development of the landfill and the treatment plant or are they compatible? One of the things I think we need to asc ertain tonight is to determine it shows blue on future land use plan correct? Correct. And we know that there's a landfill out there I know that the landfill has a CIP program associated with it which there could be potential when we're talking about you know most issues are odor however related to setbacks and buffering those would have to be put into play adjacent to any residential development . And like I said I just want to make sure that at the beginning of the planning process here at the future land level. Yes. Any additional questions? Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair. Ross really when I when I saw this and I saw the conservation development design I got really excited because that was something that we approved like eight months ago when we approved the the comprehensive plan of the future this is the first time that I've seen that. So my question is and maybe this needs to be an item for future consideration or an item for a future agenda item but I'm wondering when are we gonna start seeing more of when are we gonna be updating that part of our development code so that we are seeing more of this conservation design I think it's a fantastic I think it's fantastic when are we gonna be seeing more of that? This was initiated by them the you know we can work with applicants whenever they come in into rural areas again it's kind of subject to the layering of densities from edges to edges and and if we find that it's appropriate we suggest it in our pre-application notes and due diligence in the beginning. So was this something that staff had encouraged the applicant to try and do or did the applicant come to the city and say I want to I want to do both issues there were things stated in our development because we had previous there was a previous preliminary plats for this project three to five years ago that allotted the whole development out and we had in our research found that that was kind of an inappropriate way to handle this piece of property with that we brought that information to the developer because they were looking for their background due diligence also and understood the context of you know the previous plans on this property and so they understood you know we could work with them on densities and I think that's something with conservation development we allow in our three in our four something that gives you what you need for lot counts but can vary that based on the amount of open space you're preserving okay and when so they were not required to have this conservation development even though it's in our comprehensive plan it's not in our development code yet so it's a respect it's a respect and a response to that and when when when will that be part of the development code that's something we'd have to add to code code amendment okay you'll be hearing from me at the end of tonight's session okay maybe because of what's there already Commissioner Dudowitz I'm sorry I'm just looking at the map there's a there's a lake or a pond there and it may be had been too expensive to develop there's these minutes there's a floodplain area so combination of things could have but I agree I think this is you know terrific in that regard too yeah we had I mean we had approved this as a city and this is the first time in eight months that we're seeing something like this so I just I'd like to see more of this come our way in the interim even though we don't have any and I apologize just jumped right in we don't have the development the Dent on Development Code and the comprehensive plan again we know that they're not talking to each other clearly understand that but we also know what elements of the comp plan are critical when we do meet we do impress upon our applicants the need for conservation development or the need for as much as possible but until we don't get to that point where we actually have an overhaul of the Denton Development Code and make sure that that point that's also addressed the future land use map and make sure everything is talking to each other right it 's a work in progress but I would I would like to see more of this come our way good to state it on record and get it out there in the public too. yeah thank you any other questions on this item? No I've got two comments Commissioner Dunlats. Two comments before you go can you put the concept plan back up please and I want to make an observation kind of piggyback ing on you that this is obviously a developer initiated you know they're not required to do this and a lot times in our Commission we're always concerned the developers aren't green they aren't trying to do anything this individual although not required is trying to do that and it prompted my thought process about an issue that I've had about concerns about our density being lot coverage and I believe I've pointed out before that as we move into this new plan we're going to have to address our lot coverage because as we have these green spaces they're going to get a density transfer a lot will be smaller and then when we put our lot coverage percentages on these you're going to end up with a limited footprint so I want to bring that to staff's attention you may already be aware of that as we go forward that is going to become a bigger issue that we're going to have to revisit and address and those are my two comments and it's 615 and we're going to close. Commissioner Dunlats. I have a question when we do have questions that are outside the agenda when can we bring them up? When you put them on a future agenda. Well it just may not be a question that requires a lot I'm just questioning things. Yeah as long as you've appr ised the public what you're going to speak about then that's fine you can take two seconds you can take an hour but we have to put it on the agenda if it's outside of the agenda we can't speak on it. Although we have concluded items and we have future items for agenda then is that when we can bring it up? I think bring it up and speak about it limitedly. Go ahead. Limitedly in order to place it on a future agenda but not discuss it. I just want to know the process for doing it. Sure. Could be a simple yes/no answer but that's the appropriate place to bring it up correct? Correct. Or if it's a specific issue you can just come to staff direct about it well another thing. I think it has applicability to all the commissioners. Okay. It's now 6 16 and I'm going to close the work session and we'll break for meal. Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton October 7th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present. Our first item will be to give a Pledge of Alleg iance to the US flag followed by the Texas flag. Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible. The next item on our agenda is going to be presentation of the minutes. Commissioner Taylor. I move approval of the minutes. Commissioner Bruegel. I second the motion. The first and a second. Any questions or discussion? If not we will move for a vote on the board. The motion passes 7-0. We'll move on to the consent agenda. Commissioner Bruegel. I move approval of the consent agenda . Commissioner Dudowitz. I second. Is there any discussion or questions? Seeing none, call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 7-0. Moving on to item four, items for individual consideration. The first item we have is to consider and appoint a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission chair and vice chair positions. We took that action two weeks ago in work session. The reason it's on our agenda is because it was not posted correctly publicly. So this is the first meeting that we've had that action posted publicly correctly. And do we need to formalize that or is it just in the minutes? I would just go ahead and do a motion to ratify if anyone would like to sponsor a motion to ratify. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. I move we ratify our previous election of Commissioner Strange as chair and Commissioner Bruegel as vice chair. Commissioner Rossell. I'll second the motion. Any questions or discussion? Seeing none, we will call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 7-0. It moves us to item five, our public hearings. And we have item A FR 15-0012 and I will ask Menal to bring that forward. Thank you Chair person Strange. I'm going to ask Sophie Humer with the Planning Department to go ahead and present this final replant for the Razor Ranch Town Center Phase 1 edition. Thank you Sophie. One point of order. We are now opening our public hearings at the beginning of the presentation so I would like to open the public hearing at this time. Good evening Commissioners. Sophie Humer, Associate Planner with the City of Denton. I will be presenting to you FR 15-12 the Razor Ranch Town Center Phase 1 replant. The request before you is to consider a final repl ant of lots 1R, 2R, 3R, 5R, 6R, 8R, 9R, and 10R of block A of the Razor Ranch Town Center Phase 1. The approximately 99 acre property is generally located at the southeast corner of University Drive and Interstate Highway 35. Section 212 of the Texas Local Government Code requires a public hearing for any replant or subdivision or part of a subdivision without vacation of the preceding plot. The purpose of this plot in particular is to amend lot lines and easements within the plot. This is the face of page one of the plot. This is page two. The technical requirements of the plot have been met and the plot is in order as submitted. The proposed replant complies with the requirements of the Denton Development Code and staff is recommending approval of FR 15-12. I stand for any questions. Any questions of staff? Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone here that would like to speak on this item, please come forward now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing on this item and the chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Beck. I move we approve FR 15. Commissioner Dudowitz. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 7-0. It moves us to item 5B. I'd like to open the public hearing for FR 15-0003. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a request for a final replant of block A for the mid-state's realty subdivision. Ross Culbertson with the Planning Department will present this replant. Thank you, Manal, commissioners. This is FR 15-03 for mid-state's realty subdivision of Ross Culbertson, senior planner. The request before you is for a final replant of block A lots 2R, 1, 3, and 4 of the mid-state's realty subdivision. The approximate 1.5 acre property is generally generally located on the west side of loop 288, approximately 800 feet north of Spencer Road within the Mary L. Austin Survey, abstract number 4. Per chapter 212 of the Texas Local Government Code, requires a public hearing of any replant of a subdivision or part of a subdiv ision without vacating the preceding plat. Subject property again shown graphically above. It encompasses the tractor supply, retail location, and adjacent out partial lots which are defined by the replant. Technical requirements of the plat have been met and the plat is in order as submitted. The proposed replant compl ies with the requirements of the DIN Development Code and staff recommends approval. I can stand for any questions. Questions for staff? Seeing none. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone here that would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. When you get to the microphone, if you'll state your name and address for the Commission, we would appreciate that. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Greg Edwards. I'm with Greg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Amanda Coart, Ponder, Texas. We represent John Mullen who lives in California. This is the tractor supply site. He has had a long-term lease with Tractor Supply le asing the property to have them for about three and a half acres of the property for several years and he wants to create two pad sites out in front of that for sale. I'm here if you have any questions. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing at this time and the Chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Taylor? I move approval as submitted. Commissioner Beck? I second the motion. I have a first and a second. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. This motion passes 7-0. I will move us to item 5C and I would like to open the public hearing for Z15-0015. Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm going to request Julie Wyatt with the Planning Department to make this presentation for a change in zoning from Plan Development District 12 to Regional Center Commercial Downtown. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Associate Planner and this is Z15-15 Toyota-Denton. The request before you is to consider a rez oning from Plan Development 12 to Regional Center Commercial Downtown on an approximately 15 acre tract. The subject property is located adjacent to I-35. It's south of State School and north of Post Oak Drive. Just a bit of background regarding the plan development. PD-12 was created in 1980 and it covered 109 acres and it is the area in green. In 1986 that concept plan for the PD was amended for 74 of those original 109 acres. In 87 the concept plan was then amended again for 43 of those acres. And then finally in 2001 and 2004 there were detailed plans approved for both Toyota and Honda at the site. This is how the zoning map looks today. The green part is the existing what's left of PD-12. The property to the north that is adjacent to State School Road it was z oned out of the PD in 1999 to RCCN and then in 2005 the property adjacent to it was zoned out of the PD to RCCD. The subject property is located in a mixed and a regional mixed use future land use category in accordance with with Denton Plan 2030. The proposal does meet the requirements of this future land use designation. Just a couple of other things to consider when the when the detailed plans were approved there were some conditions on those detailed plans. For Toyota the the the lighting was addressed in a condition as well as some lands and landscaped strip, public address speakers, and then some other conditions associated with the construction including the temporary sales office and and some tree protection. Honda also had some conditions on the detail plan. One being the lighting like like the Toyota and then also the public address speakers and then there is a detention pond on this site and there was a condition that future development would require an additional detail plan approval. So when we looked at the considerations regarding this rezoning request first of all we looked at that the site is consistent with the RCCD zoning designation as well as the future land use designation of the property. We also considered that the approval would remove the existing conditions that were put in place with the detail plan but when we dug a little deeper in that we looked at four of those conditions really were related to the original construction and are no longer applicable. That lighting is now addressed in sub chapter 13 and part of those requirements in sub chapter 13 do address the lighting of the adjacent properties as well as making sure that the lighting doesn't like the night sky so those are addressed. A noise is regulated by our code of ordinances and then the finally the detention pond it is heavily encumbered by easements and so if that did end up coming to develop it would have to be replatted. Furthermore the requirement does meet the criteria for or the the request does meet the criteria for approval and then didn't development code. That criteria for approval is outlined in sub chapter 3 first that the proposed rezoning meets the future land use element of the dent plan in this case it does and then second that the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water , sewer, schools, parks and other public requirements and it meets that requirement. Public notification was sent out and we received no letters in opposition or in favor so based upon the considerations and the criteria for approval staff does recommend approval of this rezoning case. Questions for staff? Seeing none. This is a public hearing anyone here that would like to speak on this item please come forward now. Seeing none I'm going to close the public hearing on this item and the chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Dudowitz. Commissioner Rozelle. I second motion. The first and the second is there any further discussion or clarification? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board. The motion carries 7-0. We'll move us to item 5D I would like to open the public hearing for Z15-0025. Thank you Mr. Person Strange. I will request Julie Wyatt to come forward and make this presentation for a zoning change from RCCN to ECC. Good evening this is Z15-25. I'm Julie Wyatt associate planner. The request before you is to consider a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning request from Regional Center Commercial Neighborhood to Employment Center Commercial on approximately 15 acres. The subject property is is located on the north side of the city. It is adjacent to I-35 and south of Bartold Road. Just a background on the site it was originally a truck stop car wash convenience store warehouse and truck storage. It what the convenience store did burn in 2008. So in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the site staff met with the applicant in 2013 to discuss how they move forward. They wanted to move forward with a convenience store, gasoline sales, restaurants and a truck repair. The current zoning of RCCN does not permit truck repair. So at that time based upon Dent Plan 1999 that future land use staff recommended the applicant rezone the property or pursue a rezoning to RCCD. That was consistent with the Regional Center Commercial future land use designation of the property at the time. However fast forward and a new comprehensive or an update to the comprehensive plan has been passed and that's Dent Plan 2030 and it changed the area from that Regional Commercial Center to Business Innovation for a future land use designation. And just a little bit of history on that. So this area was designated for Regional Center Commercial in 1998, 1988 sorry. It was it was this center as well as the mall. So there were there were two of them. Then in 1999 an additional Regional Commercial Center was brought in and that was at I-35 and John Paine. A fourth Regional Center Commercial was added in 2007 and that was the Razor Ranch development. So when you include include these these areas as well as downtown we're looking at at four regional centers and and during the analysis of the comprehensive plan it was just determined that was too many for Dent to support. So the end result was they changed this area to Business Innovation and really what that did was it changed it from that that desired high-density residential commercial that sort of urban center to a an area that is intended to promote large-scale employment areas offices with also the supporting commercial uses as well. So when we look at that in look at that in context of the zoning districts RCCN it both RCCN which is the existing zoning and the desired ECC permit a lot of commercial uses. However RCCN has a high-density residential use whereas ECC doesn't have that residential use but it has some light industrial so it can go more toward employment center. So the considerations we looked at first that the site has historically been used as a truck stop. This area is ideal for this type of use it's on the north side of the city it's sort of that gateway that travel center and it provides that access for for the end user. Until the DDC is updated in response to Denton Plan 2030 the ECC zoning district is is a consistent zoning designation with that business innovation future land use designation. The surrounding uses are primary primarily agricultural and commercial and so therefore the impacts to the adjacent properties are not there or minimal. And then when we look at the criteria for approval the proposed rezoning conforms to the future land use element it does that that that ECC does meet the requirements and the intent of that business innovation future land use designation and that the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation water sewer schools parks and other public requirements and convenience . It meets that requirement as well. A public notification was sent out we have not received any letters in opposition or in favor. So based upon the considerations and the criteria for approval staff recommends approval of this rezoning. And I believe the applicant is here so if you have any questions for staff. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. I have some significant issues or questions rather about the traffic flow that would be generated by adding additional truck stop looking at aerial maps the truck stop on the east side of the interstate is is quite full and I know from my own experience that underpass at that intersection is is already pretty tight and so I'm wondering the impact on traffic flow by adding another stop there. Well we typically address those specific traffic impacts during the platting phase so at this stage they've not done traffic impact and a traffic impact analysis so that would be addressed at the platting stage. And during the platting stage I would imagine that the traffic would be measured at Barthold streets but I'm also curious about the impact of highway 1173 just to the south which is the main thoroughfare into Crum from the highway. Would the traffic study or is it under the purview of this Commission to have the traffic study also measure the impact of that thoroughfare highway 1173. Let me call Earl up because he'll give me more information on what the analysis is for the traffic impact. Thank you. Good evening my name is Earl Escobar with engineering. As part of the development plotting process they're going to be required to perform a traffic impact analysis and as part of that analysis we'll establish the parameters of the intersections that they need to evaluate and I believe the intersection by 35 is already one of them and if PNC is concerned is the intersection 1173 and 35 I guess it'd be southbound service road then we can include that as well. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. This is a public hearing is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item please come down at this time. Please state your name and address for the record. Good evening names Jeremy Rees with Chippewa Engineering Group 4420 Jackson Street, Marianna Florida. Basically just here at where the site development engineers just basically here to answer any questions you guys might have from our standpoint and we just look forward to working with the city to provide you know clean up the site kind of provide a respectful development here and something we really look forward to having so thanks. Great any questions for the applicants represented? Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Good evening chairman on the board my name is Michael Oshos hoya. For the 981 battled I belong to the owners of the property that is just west of the proposed property. The question I have is when it gets to the platinum and development are there going to be ways to address pollution coming from that truck stop and noise especially since we bother the property to make sure whatever development goes on there this truck stop doesn't impact the future use of that. Thank you. I may be able to help with some of that. The city does have a noise ordinance that at the property line I don't believe that the noise can be greater than 65 dBA so so that is an ordinance that we have at the city and then I also believe and someone may correct me that we have an anti idling ordinance as well or an idling ordinance as well that might address some of the pollution as well. Thank you Mrs. Wyatt. I got my recognized Commissioner Hussbett you have a question for. Thank you chairperson. Yes I have a question for Mr. is it I'm sorry yes sir yes sir what I am so I've pulled up your address but how big is your property or how many acres? I believe is 12.3 I'm not too sure of the number. Okay yeah and is your understanding looking at the map that you're kind of at the back end of that yellow? Yeah the west side of that yes yes directly or is there property our property is just west of the yellow from the top there Barthold that's strip to where you have the detention pond. Okay thank you. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair so just to clarify you 're on the north side of Barthold? No south side of Barthold that's west of the proposed property. So where there's kind of like a parking in the in the aerial there it shows that kind of parking currently a parking lot area is that correct? No it's yeah it's parking lot area I showed in the area yeah. Yes yes. Just a second. Commissioner Detovits I don't have you on the board. There's a good there's a wing stop right there. Wing stop wing foot. Yeah. I believe it's kind of auto show. No no we I just belong to the church at home to property I do I don't have anything to do with that business. Any other questions? Thank you sir. This is a public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Good evening my name is Samuel Akin I belongs to the church as well the only thing that I want to address is the road to Barthold because that place is very very narrow I don't know whether they have any plan to make that place a little bit wider for us. Okay we'll see if we can get an answer for you. [inaudible] As part of this development what they're going to do is they're going to realign Barthold Road to line up with the signalized intersection of I-35 and as part of that as realignment they're also going to improve it to a wider section I believe it's going to be a four-lane divided roadway along their stretch here. Thank you. Commissioner Roselle. I have a question about the traffic flow sorry to I understand that the applicant would be rerouting Barthold to align with Elm Street on the east side that timeline would work with construction of the the travel stop what about on the west side connecting highway 1173 to Barthold it looks like you're kind of s-shaping that around what's the timeline for that redirection of that road? That timeline is unknown at this point this eventually will become 1173 which is a textile roadway and it's not in their near future radar. Okay thank you. Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Please come forward. I think this matter of the road is something that we need to address right away because right now if anybody is trying to go through the Barthold it's only one way something. Two vehicles cannot come across each other at all so we need to address that immediately. Okay thank you. Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this item? Seeing none we have one response that was sent in from Mr. Joseph Agbo at 3400 Marymount Drive in Denton. He did not have in favor a neutral or opposed his request we have a copy we'll have that attached for the record. I'm going to at this time close the public hearing and I'm going to recognize Commissioner Hutsboth. Before you do. Okay excuse me I will reopen the public hearing from this item. Thank you. I just the applicant representative can you staff has already given an overview but could you kind of summarize what your vision or your your clients vision for that property is just for clarity? Well basically a normal love site will have the regular travel center which will include two to three restaurants. In this case we're not really sure what the restaurants will be at this point. We're looking at probably one drive through and maybe a couple of smaller sit downs and there 'll be an auto fueling area and then in the back of that completely separate from the auto area will be the truck area and then they'll have the diesel b ays back there and then toward the rear of the property will be a tire building and that was the reason for the rezoning so we could have just the tire maintenance and fluid changes that sort of thing just some some light maintenance work but loves is a family owned company they you know take pride in everything they do all their developments so you know they put their name one they're gonna make sure it's gonna be you know up to code up to standard so. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. I was wondering if staff could address or to speak to what kind of barriers would be in place or what kind of buffering would would occur if we have a church or kind of a residential use next to a commercial use. Sure we have buffer requirements between the different uses. Let me go get my code so I make sure I. So a church would be an institutional use and then you have a commercial use adjacent. It doesn't look like the code requires buffers between institutional uses and commercial uses. If it was an industrial use then it would require a type B buffer but as it is right now there aren't any buff ers required. And so would this quote so the tire shop does not make it industrial? Is that it? Vehicle repair I believe. Let me verify. Vehicle repair is under our commercial land use categories so it's considered commercial. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Got a question for the and I think I know the answer is but I'm gonna ask it anyway. Is this a 24/7 operation this business? I believe it is yes. So there's something going on day and night. Right. Okay thank you. Commissioner Briggle. Miss Wyatt can you bring your code back up here please. Sorry I just didn't get to ring in fast enough after Commissioner Taylor's question because I had asked also about the buffers during the work session. So there's not currently a church on that property to the west. So what what buffer would be required for what the current property is? No buffers. There's no buffers. No ma'am. Okay and then on the south side where there's that residence just to clarify that would be. Now if it was against a residence. I don't want to misspeak. Commercial against single-family residential is a type C buffer which is a 15 foot planted strip that includes a combination of six evergreen and deciduous trees and 25 shrubs per 100 linear feet. And that 's 15 feet along the whole perimeter. Yes ma'am. Okay when the church is established to the west at some point would that the if the church wanted a buffer at that point they would be responsible for that. Okay thank you. I see nothing else on the board but I'm ask again are there any other questions? Seeing none. All done we're going to close the public hearing on this particular item and the chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Dudowitz. I approve or motion only make a motion to approve it. Thank you. Commissioner Hudspeth. I second. Okay have a first and a second. Is there any further discussion on this item? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board. The motion carries 7-0. Move us to item 5E. I'm going to open the public hearing for Z15-0024. Thank you. I'm going to request Ross Culbertson to come ahead and make this presentation. Commissioners this is a zoning request Z1524 for Pecan Park addition. Before I raise the consideration to make a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning request from a neighborhood residential mixed use district in RMU to a neighborhood residential 4 district on approximately 20 acres. Property before he is generally located on the south side of East Bikini Street approximately 2,000 feet east of Orr Road which is a north south road over here to the west. This slide provides a little more context for you. The zoning request encompasses 20 acres of an approximate 80 acre tract which the applicant intends to develop as a single-family subdivision. As you can see I've tried to delineate the 20 acres and the holistic nature of the property. This slide also provides a visual of the natural context and the vicinity of uses. This is a rural part of Denton to the east off of loop 288 and south south of McKinney Street. As you can see there's some very nice natural areas to be considered with future development particularly there's a area of tree stands in the middle there's property the 80 acres bounds to the south with Concrete which has some floodplain areas just in between that area. Right now we are just looking at the zoning for this portion only at this moment. Looking at the zoning maps side by side the intended request is to remove the red area shown as NRMU which is that 20 acres and rezoned it to NR4 and you can see the comparisons that the intent is to create a holistic rezoned property to NR4 for future development. I also want to point out the compatible area to the west property that is zoned NR4 that also has adjac encies to this property. When we look at the NRMU category and you can see the delineation on the on the screen per the 20 2002 citywide rezoning this area was rezoned to encourage uses but since that time uses have not developed to that intensity and this is a very kind of high intense zoning district that encourages high-density residential creates active nodes of neighborhood retail and office uses to support those neighborhoods and allows for multifamily with 30 units per acre and it does prohibit single-family. So in your considerations we look at the future land use map the future land use map guides through the didn't plan 2030 map of the intended growth patterns the future land use map indicates this area as rural area indicated in green the current NRMU district does not fit with the character of this low intensity low density rural context and to be honest the NR4 does not fit with respect to the low density rural character rural context. Staff is making a effort to to show that we support how the transition of these densities can be applied with the NR2 NR4 zoning. However the inner four is more compatible with the future land use map and more suited as a catalyst to spur future development and we look at that in how the land use patterns and the the blobs of yellow and orange may be able to accommodate residential zoning in this area. The applicant has submitted a concept plan just as a graphic illustration this has not been vetted as if you have with any plant activity but yet it shows NR4 zoning applying lots to NR4 zoning which represents a medium density. The concept plan speaks to a conservation development. Conservation development is a type of programming design within the DEN plan concept comprehensive plan to protect natural features and respond to a staged transition of growth between developed areas and rural areas. The applicant provided this as the intent of the development that they would be seeking with future plats this is not holding them to anything but they are introducing a concept of conservation development mainly to to work with natural site features and to develop according to those constraints. In the considerations within your report I want to point out the NR4 zoning is a more compared a more appropriate district to encourage low to moderate single-family units and to unify the entire property interests. The land use pattern in this area has remained rural and has not necessitated uses permitted by NRMU zoning and the conservation development design is a good response to the transitioning for introducing single-family into this rural context area. For you have in your staff report you have evaluation criteria stated in sub chapter 35 3 3 b 3 of the DEN development code which lists items a through g I believe which speak to items that do not actually conform to the future land use map but may be considered under analysis and that analysis from staff shows that we've looked at the land use pattern that the density of the development to support the extension of city services would be warranted and we are not creating with this rezoning any isolated districts. Additional criteria for review is found within DEN development code 35 3 4 b 2 which again speaks to conformance to a land use element and facilitates provision of city services with future development. We did do a public notice outreach and we received one notice in favor and that's included in your packet and shown on the screen. Based on the considerations presented and the requirements within the D EN development code staff recommends approval of this item and I may stand for any questions you have. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the presentation. I have a question about the future land use. Can you help articulate what the expectation of rural future land use is? Specifically does it necessarily include in our for zoning within the future land use of rural? I have to say no to that. There is no rural is designed for large lots. We have zoning categories in our RD5, RD, rural residential zoning districts that are more appropriate within that. The presentation indicates this development is under low to medium and more on the medium side but based on how they are applying the conservation and working with constraints of the property we can consider the densities they are approving but rural context is to maintain large lots under a rural character. So the expectation of the DEN 2030 plan was to have large lots in this property in this zoning? Correct . Any additional questions for staff? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone that would like to come speak on this item please come forth this time. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners my name is Rod Zilke with ZPS Consulting Engineers. I'm here representing the project tonight if you have any questions. Any questions? Commissioner Bruegel we do have a question. Mr. Zilke. Sorry. I'm not sure if you were in the in the work session or not. I'm sorry. I'm proud to be to my back. So I just wonder if you could speak a bit more about this conservation development plan. It's the first time that we've seen it as a commission in the eight months since we've adopted the 2030 plan, the comprehensive plan for the city in which the conservation development is a vision that we have for our city. Now you're the first developer to bring this to us and I didn't get to see your your mock-up in our backup so it's really the first time I 'm seeing it but it does excite me as a you know this is something that we approved as a city and it's good to see this. I just kind of want to hear about what was your what you're not required to do this conservation development and yet you're bringing it forward anyway. I just wonder if you could speak to that a bit and kind of what your experience was working with staff and why does you'd like to bring that piece to us now. Sure and keep in mind we're very preliminary stages this is just the zoning of the north portion and before we get into too much detail we want to be sure we have the whole piece of property to work with of course. The property obviously from the aerial photos has some significant trees and some natural features and some floodplain so it's conducive to a conservation type project and that in combination with the tree ordinance and the clustering of lots you know you can with the way ordin ances are now the tree ordinance and the conservation plan you can cluster smaller lots and preserve larger areas and this property just it's conducive to that I mean we have a nice contiguous tree area in the center of the property that has some some you know preservation type trees and that quite honestly we're kind of doing that on a couple of projects on you know a little further south and the passive tree area park seems to be popular right now with you know with home buyers as opposed to more active parks and you know lots of activity that less less activity is appealing I guess. I don't know if that answers your question. No it's very helpful. Yeah thank you. That's kind of where we're at on it. Yeah that's good thank you. Hold on just a second. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I'm sorry your first name was Rod. So this is this 20 acre development is going to be for single-family homes? It's 80 acres. The 20 is part of a larger tract. Okay. So we're working on the total 80 acres but before we could get too far into that we had to determine whether the NRMU portion could be. We need to focus our attention just on these two slides here showing the red is the zoning that we were under and they haven't designed any plans for phases phase one of this yet but we they need to look at it collectively to make their plan. So but I guess my question is the plan to build single-family homes on the 88. The plan is to build single- family homes on these 80 acres is that correct? Okay what percentage of these do you plan on building low-income housing for low-income families? Is there a percentage? Yes. Yes. Well right okay. Okay affordable housing is what I'm talking about for low- income families. There's a percentage or should I direct this at staff? Is this? I think maybe legal would want to weigh in on this. Yeah well we can discuss it off record as far as those requirements are concerned. I'm sorry was there an answer in there? I didn't. No. We'll have to discuss it with you off record. Okay gotcha. All right. Thank you Ron. Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none again this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to come down and speak on this item? Please state your name and address and we'll need a yellow card. Good evening. I'm Jeff Hargrave vice president of pipeline operations for Atmos Energy and I just wanted to bring the applicant to the applicants attention that we do operate a high-pressure natural gas pipeline that traverses across this entire 80 acre track about 2,000 feet and that to the west of this development less than 150 feet there'll be a gas well there and a gas storage facility that's located 800 feet it 's the industrial side colored there in blue we don't make opposition to the project we just wanted to be sure that staff the applicant are anxious to work we see that you preserved a green belt for that pipeline for high-pressure pipelines it was a very serious pipeline incident in Collin County today disrupted activities and we just want to be sure that staff is aware of that thank you so much excuse me sir just a second we have a question Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. So you mentioned that you have a gas well on that site could you describe the nature of that gas well ? Yes it's a natural gas storage well oh thank you can you can we point here if I do this kind of okay there is our there's our gas well right there can you I'm trying to move this guys I'm not real skilled at things. Hand-eye coordination it's a natural gas storage facility we've been in operation almost 50 years it serves the critical energy needs in North Texas it's a depleted reservoir there is no while there is gas drilling out there there is no fracking this reservoir does not require fracking it's very porous as it is and then if you'd like to know where the pipeline is let's see if I can pull this off one more time it originates up in this station I think you can see the right away is fairly well clear as it traverses it crosses about 2,000 feet across there and it's a high-pressure large diameter 16-inch pipeline sure. How deep is that? Commissioner Dedowitz. How deep? It's typically about 36 to 48 inches deep could be deeper in some locations there if the elevation hasn't been changed. So 2 to 4 feet? Approximately yes. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair and thank you for bringing that up I just wanted to be clear though from staff and from legal what we're looking at today is the simple rezoning request and not we're we're looking to approve or deny this rezoning request and not necessarily any specific development at this point so though that that mock -up of the conservation development is beautiful and appealing we're not looking at that as a commission we're looking at at the rezoning request am I correct in that? Right. Our charter is to evaluate I'm talking about the planning department the compatibility of an NR4 zoning district with the surrounding property as it relates to those 20 acres and the compatibility with. Thank you. Not the land use not the conceptual plan but just that zoning district and the use is permitted within that category. Thank you and so and this is all very helpful information that we will take into consideration I guess at a future point. I'll be back at planning. Thank you. Other questions? Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you sir. Again this is a public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair I move we approve Z15-00 24. Commissioner Dutton. I second the motion. First and a second. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair I just wanted to go on record and state that I think the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding areas however I am concerned about the future future land use if if there was a an approved plan that going forward that is to be rural then we need to take seriously what that was supposed to be for and what the expectation of that land actually is. Again the zoning issue I think to align with the other properties is an alignment however I just have some concerns about going against the specific future land use that's been approved by the city so I just want to go on record. You can have a first and a second is there any additional discussion or comment on this? Seeing none on the board I will call for a vote on the board please. The motion carries 7-0. That moves us to our final item on the agenda tonight concluding items. Commissioner Bribble. Actually I'm okay thank you. So going back to our previous conversation during the work session I'm very excited to see the potential for conservation developments coming to our community. It's not part of the Denton Development Code yet and I understand that is a huge undertaking so I'm certainly not expecting this to come to us next week but I was just wondering if I if we could even just get a preliminary kind of overview about where where we're headed with that so that we can see developments like this come to us a little more frequently. So thank you. Okay. Commissioner Taylor. Thank You Chair. I just wanted to reiterate the need for us to create a sub committee to look at the entire business innovation district and specifically the Mesa Drive area. I mentioned this last meeting and I'd like to get that on our next agenda just if we can just form the subcommittee then we can move forward at a later date but I think we really need to get the ball rolling. We have a lot of stuff happening in the northwest quadrant of the city. Okay. Commissioner Detovits. Yes going forward with my question and work session to staff and appropriate answers. In previous approvals we have made additions in the sense of we approve with conditions bike racks or certain signs of certain sizes whatever. What does city staff do to make sure that those things do get done? Because I'm in particular looking at the special sign district that we put in place for the mall and I'm seeing that certain things are happening but certain things are not happening and is that concluded or at what point in time do we say hey you have not complied with with our recommendations. There are a myriad of steps associated with let's talk about the I believe you're talking about Golden Triangle Mall the overlay district right. Once they submit for a permit that has to be cross-referenced with the conditions associated with that overlay district. Assuming everything is fine then their permits are issued to them and signs are installed and inspected so the different departments and the different teams that evaluate that. If something has been missed or you notice that there's lack of progress in some way and you've highlighted that to me I will follow up. With respect to let's take specific use permits as an example those are site plans with those site plans they our Commission has the ability to attach additional conditions to that. Those conditions become part of an ordinance as does the overlay district for signs special sign district. That ordinance is then attached to any permits that come through or that are submitted for that specific development and then they're cross-referenced from the planning team from the plans examiner building inspection team from our urban forest or in our landscape administrator as well. So everybody plays a role in evaluation of the program or the project. That timeline for that final write-off could be? Well typically we're talking about the first review is typically a 10-day time frame assuming that the application is in order as submitted and that all this all the pertinent documentation has been provided from your civil sets to your architectural site plan landscape plan all those your MEP plans for example because you're submitting for permit. More than likely I would suspect some sometimes there is a second review but we are talking every review cycle at least 10 days. We take no longer than 10 days to review. Commissioner Hatchbuth. Thank you chair. I 'm not sure I need help with directions. So I'd like for especially with the trees I'd like to try to quantify that in the information we get given a percentage. So let's say a heavily treed lot is going to lose X percent of its trees that sort of thing so that I can kind of get my head around what we're doing and kind of the it just helps me process so I don't know where that falls in in the process and then secondly so that's one thing. Okay. Is it okay? Now you're gonna have to remind me of the second question later. We'll do and so the other thing is I'd like to get information earlier in the process we talked in work session about things that come to planning I'd like to try to get a general list Excel anything just a simple this is what's coming in the pipeline almost like a activity report of some sort and I don't know if that's doable but that's just a wish list. Okay. I'll ask Manal to try to address your first question. The first question as it relates to a straight zoning request so a change in zoning from X district to Y district merely addresses the land use the proposed the compatibility with and that's the land use analysis. So it's difficult to quantify because a tree mitigation survey plan has not been provided a tree survey has not been provided because until the applicant is not to the point where they're ready to commit and know that they're going to get their zoning that information is not readily available sometimes it might be in the instance where it is we would provide that to you if a lot is heavily treed as we've mentioned today we work with the applicant to see what we can do but the numbers cannot be provided until let's say there's a detailed plan approval it was a specific use permit associated with that so in most instances if something goes straight to building permit that you don't even see then that you wouldn't be privy to those numbers just because of the way the process is not just in Denton but that's the typical development process. Second question what is in the pipeline and how can you be privy to it? There are some functions that go to the planning department there are some functions that go to the building inspection department and they all have a development function to it so if something is permitted by right it goes straight in for building permit. I can meet with our building official and I can meet with the planning team to see if there's something we can work out where there's a link of some sort that you can access off the website to know what is happening because my understanding is you want to know what's happening okay I 'll try and get you some information pertaining to that and I you know we can give it to the whole Commission at the next meeting if I have it. Was there a third question? No? Okay. I don't see anybody else so I'm gonna step in with mine. We had a lot of discussion this evening in work session and we've had it in some prior work sessions about traffic, street improvements and I think it would be a good idea for us to get on our future agenda hopefully maybe our next work session because we are spending a lot of time on this to get an update and get some definitions from staff about perimeter street paving so that we can all understand what a developer's responsibility is how that process works whether it's the city of Denton Road or a Tech Stock Road and what things we can ask developers to do or not do and I think it would help all of us in looking at all these projects because traffic is a big concern and there are limited things that developers are responsible for and I think it'd help us all so I'd like to see that as soon as we can get that before us. Commissioner Dudowitz. Commissioner we started this discussion a year ago and we asked staff specifically do we have someone that's liaison with DOT so that we can get answers about the impact to our streets and to our area of their projects and as we have with Teasley that's a DOT and we're asked what's you know we have some sort of idea but I'm also understanding that they have more specific plans and ideas that we may be privy to a liaison from staff to DOT they could present to us and or have someone from DOT come and speak to us with regard to what their plans are and then we can hear from the horse's mouth so to speak. Thank you. Anybody else? Sure. I have a clarification question Commissioner Taylor would you like us then or is it the wish of the Commission to have an item on the next agenda to create a subcommittee to assess those? Got it. Okay thank you. Last thing I'll throw out is I want to thank staff for the update on the matrix this is something I think has come before us in the last number of months and I think it's been a great help it's been a kind of an ongoing issue as I've turned on the Commission of questions coming back of things that have been asked and maybe not been able to be gotten to yet and I think this is a great way for all of us to keep track of the items that we've asked questions about and time frames and I just appreciate staff continuing to keep this updated and bringing this to us at a very frequent basis so good job and thank you. No other speakers from the Commission and then at 7 45 I'm going to close this evening's PNZ meeting. Thank you.