WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.439
This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum

00:00:03.439 --> 00:00:06.519
present. This is going to be our meeting for September the

00:00:06.519 --> 00:00:09.980
28th and I'm going to call our meeting to order at 5 o'

00:00:09.980 --> 00:00:10.500
clock.

00:00:10.500 --> 00:00:16.980
Our first order of business today is going to be to receive

00:00:16.980 --> 00:00:21.199
clarification of agenda items and before I recognize Menal

00:00:21.199 --> 00:00:25.089
to bring that forth, I understand we have a new associate

00:00:25.089 --> 00:00:26.500
planner with us today.

00:00:26.500 --> 00:00:29.829
Ms. Abbe-Riaz, welcome and thank you for your service and

00:00:29.829 --> 00:00:33.070
helping us this afternoon and in the future. Glad that you

00:00:33.070 --> 00:00:34.000
're here to join us.

00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:36.909
And with that, I will turn it over to Menal for

00:00:36.909 --> 00:00:39.500
clarification of our agenda items.

00:00:39.500 --> 00:00:42.469
Thank you, Chairperson Strange. We are going to start with

00:00:42.469 --> 00:00:45.770
a preliminary plaque for North Lake Shopping Center and

00:00:45.770 --> 00:00:48.000
Mike Bell is here to present that.

00:00:56.500 --> 00:01:06.500
Okay, thank you.

00:01:06.500 --> 00:01:09.989
All right, this is a preliminary plaque for five non-

00:01:09.989 --> 00:01:13.849
residential lots at the northeast corner of Bonnie Bray and

00:01:13.849 --> 00:01:15.500
Highway 380.

00:01:15.500 --> 00:01:18.370
The big anchor lot here and several kind of pad sites

00:01:18.370 --> 00:01:20.000
around the outside.

00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:23.650
It does meet all our requirements for utilities and

00:01:23.650 --> 00:01:28.629
infrastructure. So we are recommending approval and there

00:01:28.629 --> 00:01:33.500
will be a final plaque coming shortly.

00:01:33.500 --> 00:01:36.500
Anybody else? I have a question on this plaque.

00:01:36.500 --> 00:01:39.930
I noticed on the finished floor elevations on the, I guess

00:01:39.930 --> 00:01:43.290
the site that would be to the far northwest looks like it's

00:01:43.290 --> 00:01:48.500
682 and the lower finished floor elevation is 671.

00:01:48.500 --> 00:01:52.290
So it's about a 10 feet of difference in the height of

00:01:52.290 --> 00:01:53.000
those.

00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:57.939
It looks like there's a lot of common ingress, egress. Just

00:01:57.939 --> 00:02:01.500
curious how that will all tie together.

00:02:01.500 --> 00:02:04.730
Somebody a lot smarter than me may already have all that

00:02:04.730 --> 00:02:07.810
figured out, but it's a lot of grade change in two pad

00:02:07.810 --> 00:02:08.500
sites.

00:02:08.500 --> 00:02:14.409
I would look at the grading and drainage plans for part of

00:02:14.409 --> 00:02:20.560
the backup for the plant, but I will ask Roleskobar if he's

00:02:20.560 --> 00:02:24.500
got any more information on that.

00:02:24.500 --> 00:02:27.680
Those minimum finished floor elevations are just based on

00:02:27.680 --> 00:02:30.960
the FEMA floodplain elevation at those locations, but the

00:02:30.960 --> 00:02:36.000
terrain doesn't necessarily reflect the same amount of drop

00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:37.500
between those two elevations as well.

00:02:37.500 --> 00:02:42.500
It's pretty, I think it's a pretty flat area.

00:02:42.500 --> 00:02:47.210
So the, I guess the elevation at 671 I believe is not going

00:02:47.210 --> 00:02:51.229
to actually be, the actual building will not be at that

00:02:51.229 --> 00:02:52.500
elevation.

00:02:52.500 --> 00:02:55.259
It will be a lot higher because of the terrain being a lot

00:02:55.259 --> 00:02:56.500
higher at that point.

00:02:56.500 --> 00:02:59.219
Okay. Well, don't have the topo, just have the finished

00:02:59.219 --> 00:03:00.500
floor and it's a lot of difference.

00:03:00.500 --> 00:03:04.500
So thanks for the clarification.

00:03:04.500 --> 00:03:07.430
I don't know if this affects us too much, but that dam for

00:03:07.430 --> 00:03:10.110
the Northlake Park is just about on this property line as

00:03:10.110 --> 00:03:10.500
well.

00:03:10.500 --> 00:03:13.500
So maybe a bit of a slope from that dam.

00:03:13.500 --> 00:03:14.500
Okay.

00:03:14.500 --> 00:03:17.500
Thank you.

00:03:17.500 --> 00:03:18.500
Thank you, Mike.

00:03:18.500 --> 00:03:31.780
Next item is an ADP and Julie Wyatt is going to present

00:03:31.780 --> 00:03:35.500
this for us. It's ADP 160013.

00:03:35.500 --> 00:03:37.500
Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt.

00:03:37.500 --> 00:03:41.500
I'm presenting ADP 1613 for Aldi.

00:03:41.500 --> 00:03:45.500
I did put two letters on your desk regarding this.

00:03:45.500 --> 00:03:48.500
This isn't a public hearing item.

00:03:48.500 --> 00:03:50.500
There's no notification.

00:03:50.500 --> 00:03:53.500
This is an individual consideration item.

00:03:53.500 --> 00:03:57.419
But the neighborhood did send me letters, so we wanted to

00:03:57.419 --> 00:04:01.500
provide those to you today.

00:04:01.500 --> 00:04:03.750
So the request before you is to consider an alternative

00:04:03.750 --> 00:04:06.810
development plan for the construction of an approximately

00:04:06.810 --> 00:04:09.500
19,000 square foot grocery store.

00:04:09.500 --> 00:04:13.919
The subject property is located on the corner of University

00:04:13.919 --> 00:04:16.500
and Ector right here in yellow.

00:04:16.500 --> 00:04:18.500
The current zoning is NRMU.

00:04:18.500 --> 00:04:21.500
It's important to note that the use is permitted.

00:04:21.500 --> 00:04:26.870
However, there are design considerations that the applicant

00:04:26.870 --> 00:04:30.500
would like for you to consider tonight.

00:04:30.500 --> 00:04:34.689
And the request includes several deviations from subchapter

00:04:34.689 --> 00:04:35.500
13.

00:04:35.500 --> 00:04:39.810
NRMU is considered a pedestrian oriented district within

00:04:39.810 --> 00:04:41.500
the city of Denton.

00:04:41.500 --> 00:04:44.680
As such, there are additional site design considerations

00:04:44.680 --> 00:04:45.500
within that.

00:04:45.500 --> 00:04:48.490
One being at least 60% of the street frontage shall have a

00:04:48.490 --> 00:04:51.500
building within 10 feet of the front property line.

00:04:51.500 --> 00:04:56.800
There's a minimum floor to area ratio of 0.4 and they're

00:04:56.800 --> 00:05:00.500
proposing a 0.238.

00:05:00.500 --> 00:05:04.300
The parking area should be located behind the buildings or

00:05:04.300 --> 00:05:05.500
one or both sides.

00:05:05.500 --> 00:05:09.230
And then the building setback can't be more than 15 feet

00:05:09.230 --> 00:05:12.500
from the right of way unless there's a plaza area.

00:05:12.500 --> 00:05:15.839
The applicant would like to vary from these site design

00:05:15.839 --> 00:05:19.500
considerations and we're going to go over the site plan.

00:05:19.500 --> 00:05:24.500
First of all, they're proposing a sign on University.

00:05:24.500 --> 00:05:27.180
The code requires that they could have or permits that they

00:05:27.180 --> 00:05:29.500
could have a sign on both Ector and University.

00:05:29.500 --> 00:05:32.500
They're only proposing a sign on University.

00:05:32.500 --> 00:05:39.129
They do propose 72 parking spaces, which actually exceeds

00:05:39.129 --> 00:05:41.500
the 64 required by the code.

00:05:41.500 --> 00:05:45.019
But because they're exceeding those spaces, they are

00:05:45.019 --> 00:05:48.500
proposing to construct those with pervious surface.

00:05:48.500 --> 00:05:51.459
That actually meets the Denton development code

00:05:51.459 --> 00:05:54.500
requirements and is not a part of this request.

00:05:54.500 --> 00:05:56.899
But it was originally something that they thought they were

00:05:56.899 --> 00:05:58.500
going to do, so I wanted to bring that forward to you.

00:05:58.500 --> 00:06:02.500
So the excess parking isn't a part of this request today.

00:06:02.500 --> 00:06:05.449
It's just really that building orientation and where the

00:06:05.449 --> 00:06:06.500
parking area is.

00:06:06.500 --> 00:06:13.019
They are also proposing to the loading dock area, there's a

00:06:13.019 --> 00:06:14.500
wall that screens that.

00:06:14.500 --> 00:06:18.670
It's also proposed to go below grade to screen that and

00:06:18.670 --> 00:06:21.500
mute that for the neighborhood.

00:06:21.500 --> 00:06:24.500
There are some pedestrian connections.

00:06:24.500 --> 00:06:27.790
There's one pedestrian connection here from this sidewalk

00:06:27.790 --> 00:06:28.500
on Ector.

00:06:28.500 --> 00:06:31.680
There's also another pedestrian connection from this

00:06:31.680 --> 00:06:34.500
handicap parking spot to the building front.

00:06:34.500 --> 00:06:36.500
Yes, sir.

00:06:36.500 --> 00:06:37.500
Commissioner Beck.

00:06:37.500 --> 00:06:38.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:06:38.500 --> 00:06:40.500
How are those designed?

00:06:40.500 --> 00:06:41.500
Is it just marked?

00:06:41.500 --> 00:06:43.500
It's really just going to be paint on the...

00:06:43.500 --> 00:06:44.500
Okay.

00:06:44.500 --> 00:06:45.500
Yes, sir.

00:06:45.500 --> 00:06:46.500
Okay, thanks.

00:06:46.500 --> 00:06:49.500
What they're proposing is paint on the concrete.

00:06:49.500 --> 00:06:55.500
They are also proposing cart storage behind masonry walls,

00:06:55.500 --> 00:06:59.699
3 1/2 foot masonry walls, to screen that cart storage and

00:06:59.699 --> 00:07:01.500
just make it look really nice.

00:07:01.500 --> 00:07:03.500
They're also...

00:07:03.500 --> 00:07:05.500
They have proposed a landscape plan.

00:07:05.500 --> 00:07:10.810
They are proposing a 15-foot buffer on the south property

00:07:10.810 --> 00:07:11.500
line.

00:07:11.500 --> 00:07:15.420
This 15-foot buffer is only required in this portion next

00:07:15.420 --> 00:07:17.500
to this single-family home.

00:07:17.500 --> 00:07:21.779
However, they're proposing to extend that even against this

00:07:21.779 --> 00:07:24.500
adjacent NRMU zoning designation.

00:07:24.500 --> 00:07:29.449
They are also proposing to increase the vegetation within

00:07:29.449 --> 00:07:35.430
that landscape buffer to 10 large evergreen trees, 21 small

00:07:35.430 --> 00:07:38.500
trees, and then 80 shrubs.

00:07:38.500 --> 00:07:41.709
They're proposing an additional square footage of landscape

00:07:41.709 --> 00:07:43.500
areas, as well as tree canopy.

00:07:43.500 --> 00:07:47.740
They're also proposing planting islands and end caps within

00:07:47.740 --> 00:07:51.500
the parking area that exceeds what code requires.

00:07:51.500 --> 00:07:54.800
Now, the code does require these end caps and planting

00:07:54.800 --> 00:07:58.500
areas, but they only require one tree per planting area.

00:07:58.500 --> 00:08:01.680
So by adding the shrub, the low-water shrubs, it's

00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:05.319
enhancing it because the development code doesn't require

00:08:05.319 --> 00:08:08.500
any plantings other than grass and then trees.

00:08:08.500 --> 00:08:12.350
So any... those shrubs within that parking area is

00:08:12.350 --> 00:08:13.500
additional.

00:08:13.500 --> 00:08:17.290
They're also proposing some foundation plantings in front

00:08:17.290 --> 00:08:21.209
of the building along University, and then an enhanced

00:08:21.209 --> 00:08:24.500
parking lot screening area here on Ector.

00:08:24.500 --> 00:08:27.680
Parking lot screening at the right-of-way, if it's not in

00:08:27.680 --> 00:08:31.170
front of a building, requires one tree every 40 linear feet

00:08:31.170 --> 00:08:31.500
.

00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:36.000
They're proposing additional shrubbery in order to screen

00:08:36.000 --> 00:08:40.139
the parking lot or the car headlights and just visually

00:08:40.139 --> 00:08:42.500
improve that parking area.

00:08:42.500 --> 00:08:44.500
Here are the elevations they're proposing.

00:08:44.500 --> 00:08:48.840
I put some arrows just to make it a little shorthand for

00:08:48.840 --> 00:08:49.500
you.

00:08:49.500 --> 00:08:55.669
This elevation is proposed to be the Ector Street location,

00:08:55.669 --> 00:08:59.500
and you can see that is the dock area.

00:08:59.500 --> 00:09:02.519
This elevation here, I did not put an arrow because it's

00:09:02.519 --> 00:09:05.669
this one right here, and the arrows were getting a little

00:09:05.669 --> 00:09:06.500
confusing.

00:09:06.500 --> 00:09:09.500
So this is actually in this area.

00:09:09.500 --> 00:09:13.649
This is the University side of the building, and then this

00:09:13.649 --> 00:09:17.500
is the southern or the rear elevation to the south.

00:09:17.500 --> 00:09:21.500
So this would be next to that 15-foot landscape buffer.

00:09:21.500 --> 00:09:24.789
It's important to note the Denton Development Code doesn't

00:09:24.789 --> 00:09:28.230
have a minimum masonry requirement for commercial buildings

00:09:28.230 --> 00:09:28.500
,

00:09:28.500 --> 00:09:30.500
and they are proposing a masonry building.

00:09:30.500 --> 00:09:34.500
So that exceeds what the code requires.

00:09:34.500 --> 00:09:35.500
Oh, yes, sir?

00:09:35.500 --> 00:09:37.500
>> Question?

00:09:37.500 --> 00:09:41.299
>> Is the front screening for the shopping carts identified

00:09:41.299 --> 00:09:43.500
in that university elevation?

00:09:43.500 --> 00:09:45.500
You said there's a three-and-a-half masonry screening?

00:09:45.500 --> 00:09:49.500
>> Yes, it's a little difficult to see because it's flat,

00:09:49.500 --> 00:09:51.500
but it is for the University side.

00:09:51.500 --> 00:09:56.179
It's near these bollards right here, and then you can kind

00:09:56.179 --> 00:10:00.769
of see it on the Ector side, and then the flip side, you

00:10:00.769 --> 00:10:03.500
can see the University one here.

00:10:03.500 --> 00:10:05.259
>> So the masonry matches that bottom portion of the mason

00:10:05.259 --> 00:10:05.500
ry?

00:10:05.500 --> 00:10:06.500
>> Yes, sir.

00:10:06.500 --> 00:10:07.500
>> Thank you.

00:10:07.500 --> 00:10:09.500
>> Sure.

00:10:09.500 --> 00:10:11.500
>> Commissioner Tyler.

00:10:11.500 --> 00:10:12.500
>> Thank you, Chair.

00:10:12.500 --> 00:10:15.500
Going back to the landscaping along Ector.

00:10:15.500 --> 00:10:16.500
>> Sure.

00:10:16.500 --> 00:10:20.639
>> Is there existing overhead utilities, utility line

00:10:20.639 --> 00:10:22.500
running along Ector?

00:10:22.500 --> 00:10:25.500
>> There aren't any existing overhead utilities.

00:10:25.500 --> 00:10:28.500
We do have the plat, and I don't have it with me.

00:10:28.500 --> 00:10:31.019
I wish I had brought it, but there aren't any utilities

00:10:31.019 --> 00:10:31.500
here.

00:10:31.500 --> 00:10:35.960
There are utilities along University, which that's why we

00:10:35.960 --> 00:10:38.500
've got such a large area here.

00:10:38.500 --> 00:10:44.669
But these should be, and DME and engineering have looked at

00:10:44.669 --> 00:10:48.500
this, and they've said it's okay.

00:10:48.500 --> 00:10:52.500
So these trees will be okay in this area.

00:10:52.500 --> 00:10:55.039
>> Okay, I just want to make sure, because I'm fairly

00:10:55.039 --> 00:10:57.799
certain there is a power line that runs along the west side

00:10:57.799 --> 00:10:58.500
of Ector.

00:10:58.500 --> 00:11:01.200
So I don't know if it ends before this block, or if it's

00:11:01.200 --> 00:11:03.659
just out in the right of way and doesn't affect the

00:11:03.659 --> 00:11:04.500
landscape.

00:11:04.500 --> 00:11:07.750
>> I believe there's one pole that is at the corner of Em

00:11:07.750 --> 00:11:10.500
ory and Ector when you look at the aerial.

00:11:10.500 --> 00:11:13.500
You can see those, and there are some overhead lines.

00:11:13.500 --> 00:11:15.500
I don't know what they're for though.

00:11:15.500 --> 00:11:19.500
I don't know if they're power or, you do see them?

00:11:19.500 --> 00:11:21.500
Do they extend all the way up?

00:11:21.500 --> 00:11:26.500
Yes, they do.

00:11:26.500 --> 00:11:28.500
So we need to ascertain what those are.

00:11:28.500 --> 00:11:29.500
>> Okay.

00:11:29.500 --> 00:11:31.500
>> Regarding, and we can get that information to you.

00:11:31.500 --> 00:11:33.500
>> Sure.

00:11:33.500 --> 00:11:36.059
>> And if for some reason it couldn't develop the way it's

00:11:36.059 --> 00:11:38.500
proposed here, it would have to come back to you.

00:11:38.500 --> 00:11:44.740
So we have requested that the site plan and landscape plan

00:11:44.740 --> 00:11:47.500
be attached to the ADP.

00:11:47.500 --> 00:11:50.600
So we looked at the criteria for approval for ADPs, and

00:11:50.600 --> 00:11:52.500
that's in sub-chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code.

00:11:52.500 --> 00:11:55.500
First, that it preserves existing neighborhoods.

00:11:55.500 --> 00:11:59.740
Staff analyzed what they proposed and believes that this

00:11:59.740 --> 00:12:04.240
enhanced buffer on the south side of the property increases

00:12:04.240 --> 00:12:06.809
the compatibility between the proposed development and the

00:12:06.809 --> 00:12:07.500
neighborhood to the south.

00:12:07.500 --> 00:12:11.559
Assures a quality development that fits in with the

00:12:11.559 --> 00:12:13.500
character of Denton.

00:12:13.500 --> 00:12:16.159
You know, this is, and we were talking before, this is kind

00:12:16.159 --> 00:12:19.059
of a unique property in that it's on University, which is

00:12:19.059 --> 00:12:21.500
really an auto-oriented street.

00:12:21.500 --> 00:12:26.330
And so, but it is close to a neighborhood, so it kind of

00:12:26.330 --> 00:12:28.500
splits these worlds.

00:12:28.500 --> 00:12:32.309
And so we do feel that this proposal does fit within the

00:12:32.309 --> 00:12:36.399
commercial character of the University, but that the

00:12:36.399 --> 00:12:40.759
additional landscaping serves to soften this proposal and

00:12:40.759 --> 00:12:45.279
allows it to be more compatible with that neighborhood area

00:12:45.279 --> 00:12:45.500
.

00:12:45.500 --> 00:12:48.720
The criteria also states that we need to focus development

00:12:48.720 --> 00:12:51.820
on activity sitters to curb strip development and urban

00:12:51.820 --> 00:12:52.500
sprawl.

00:12:52.500 --> 00:12:55.019
So this is within the infill boundary and it's within

00:12:55.019 --> 00:12:56.500
existing road networks.

00:12:56.500 --> 00:12:59.500
It's not creating additional roads.

00:12:59.500 --> 00:13:05.019
The proposed location is near a residential and commercial

00:13:05.019 --> 00:13:06.500
area anyway.

00:13:06.500 --> 00:13:09.450
Ensure that the infrastructure is capable of accommodating

00:13:09.450 --> 00:13:10.500
the development.

00:13:10.500 --> 00:13:14.500
This was vetted during the plat approval.

00:13:14.500 --> 00:13:17.799
There was a re-plat that was administratively approved in

00:13:17.799 --> 00:13:18.500
August.

00:13:18.500 --> 00:13:21.600
And then ensure the developer's alternative proposal

00:13:21.600 --> 00:13:24.500
results in an overall high quality development.

00:13:24.500 --> 00:13:27.940
And staff believes that this enhanced landscaping does

00:13:27.940 --> 00:13:31.539
define the right of way and creates the visual interest for

00:13:31.539 --> 00:13:32.500
pedestrians.

00:13:32.500 --> 00:13:36.690
And you know, what these requirements are for, the building

00:13:36.690 --> 00:13:40.090
orientation, the floor to area ratio, the location of the

00:13:40.090 --> 00:13:40.500
parking.

00:13:40.500 --> 00:13:45.090
It's really to minimize the visual impacts of parking areas

00:13:45.090 --> 00:13:48.500
for someone walking by for pedestrians.

00:13:48.500 --> 00:13:52.500
So additionally, we want to define the street wall.

00:13:52.500 --> 00:13:55.500
We want to define that street area.

00:13:55.500 --> 00:13:59.820
And with the additional plantings, staff believes that this

00:13:59.820 --> 00:14:01.500
proposal does achieve that.

00:14:01.500 --> 00:14:05.710
That it does activate the pedestrian area and it does

00:14:05.710 --> 00:14:07.500
define the street.

00:14:07.500 --> 00:14:10.679
So based upon those recommendations or criteria for

00:14:10.679 --> 00:14:13.500
approval, staff does recommend approval.

00:14:13.500 --> 00:14:18.129
But with some conditions, one that the proposed development

00:14:18.129 --> 00:14:21.500
must substantially conform to the site plan, landscape and

00:14:21.500 --> 00:14:22.500
elevations,

00:14:22.500 --> 00:14:27.009
including those marked pedestrian areas within the parking

00:14:27.009 --> 00:14:31.269
lot, the enhanced type C buffer, the additional landscape

00:14:31.269 --> 00:14:35.500
area, as well as the additional tree canopy.

00:14:35.500 --> 00:14:39.070
The parking lot planting islands with that enhanced landsca

00:14:39.070 --> 00:14:42.220
ping, enhanced parking lot screening, Ector with the

00:14:42.220 --> 00:14:46.159
additional shrubbery, no ground signs to be permitted on E

00:14:46.159 --> 00:14:46.500
ctor.

00:14:46.500 --> 00:14:49.500
And then only ground signs would be on University.

00:14:49.500 --> 00:14:54.330
The screen cart storage and then the loading area must be

00:14:54.330 --> 00:14:58.610
at the rear, you know, below grade with that eight foot

00:14:58.610 --> 00:15:03.500
screening wall to mute those visual impacts of that.

00:15:03.500 --> 00:15:05.899
So if you have any other questions, I'll stand for the

00:15:05.899 --> 00:15:06.500
question.

00:15:06.500 --> 00:15:08.500
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.

00:15:08.500 --> 00:15:12.500
What are the dimensions of that sign on the front there?

00:15:12.500 --> 00:15:15.600
The sign for on University that they're going to be

00:15:15.600 --> 00:15:16.500
installed.

00:15:16.500 --> 00:15:18.500
Is that low to the ground?

00:15:18.500 --> 00:15:20.750
It would have to meet any of the sign requirements on

00:15:20.750 --> 00:15:21.500
University.

00:15:21.500 --> 00:15:24.500
So it would have to meet the height requirements.

00:15:24.500 --> 00:15:26.500
Let me see if I can. I can't see that.

00:15:26.500 --> 00:15:28.500
Don't mean to put you on the spot. No, no.

00:15:28.500 --> 00:15:32.500
It's a good question.

00:15:32.500 --> 00:15:36.049
You know, we haven't we don't have any sign elevations for

00:15:36.049 --> 00:15:36.500
it.

00:15:36.500 --> 00:15:37.500
The applicant will be here tonight.

00:15:37.500 --> 00:15:41.500
So you could certainly ask them about it.

00:15:41.500 --> 00:15:42.500
Thank you.

00:15:42.500 --> 00:15:44.500
And I just, I guess, like to make one comment.

00:15:44.500 --> 00:15:49.799
I think the applicant has done a good job to minimize the

00:15:49.799 --> 00:15:54.500
effect of putting those parking places out front.

00:15:54.500 --> 00:15:58.519
We seem to have gone through several requests here where we

00:15:58.519 --> 00:16:02.700
've acquiesced to, you know, leaving the parking places in

00:16:02.700 --> 00:16:03.500
front.

00:16:03.500 --> 00:16:06.200
But this this this particular project has done a good job

00:16:06.200 --> 00:16:08.500
of trying to minimize that with the buffer.

00:16:08.500 --> 00:16:13.509
But I just just wanted to raise that concern because I hope

00:16:13.509 --> 00:16:16.500
we don't get in the groove here.

00:16:16.500 --> 00:16:18.500
Commissioner Sullivan.

00:16:18.500 --> 00:16:23.000
Just my own edification, it appears that they're being

00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:27.610
asked to get a variance for the 10 foot setback for the

00:16:27.610 --> 00:16:28.500
building.

00:16:28.500 --> 00:16:31.850
And yet I don't see a single building on the university

00:16:31.850 --> 00:16:35.500
except Sherwin Williams that fits that description.

00:16:35.500 --> 00:16:39.350
And so I'm just curious as to why does all the fit into

00:16:39.350 --> 00:16:42.500
that criteria, whereas nobody else has.

00:16:42.500 --> 00:16:45.490
That is a good question. It has to do with the zoning

00:16:45.490 --> 00:16:46.500
district.

00:16:46.500 --> 00:16:49.929
So this property is located in a neighborhood residential

00:16:49.929 --> 00:16:53.500
mixed use zoning district per the Denton development code.

00:16:53.500 --> 00:16:56.870
That neighborhood residential family of zoning districts is

00:16:56.870 --> 00:16:59.500
considered a pedestrian oriented district.

00:16:59.500 --> 00:17:03.500
And so they have some different site design guidelines.

00:17:03.500 --> 00:17:07.039
All much of the of the zoning on university is community

00:17:07.039 --> 00:17:08.500
mixed use general.

00:17:08.500 --> 00:17:12.019
It isn't a pedestrian. Those aren't considered pedestrian

00:17:12.019 --> 00:17:12.500
oriented.

00:17:12.500 --> 00:17:15.410
That isn't a pedestrian oriented district and therefore it

00:17:15.410 --> 00:17:17.500
has different site design requirements.

00:17:17.500 --> 00:17:21.299
And front parking is permitted in CMG provided that they

00:17:21.299 --> 00:17:24.500
they screen it in accordance with the code.

00:17:24.500 --> 00:17:26.500
Thank you.

00:17:26.500 --> 00:17:27.500
Commissioner Rossell.

00:17:27.500 --> 00:17:29.789
Thank you. I have two questions that piggyback both the

00:17:29.789 --> 00:17:30.500
earlier comments.

00:17:30.500 --> 00:17:34.500
The first is the mention of ground signage.

00:17:34.500 --> 00:17:37.680
Am I missing something? How inclusive or exclusive is

00:17:37.680 --> 00:17:38.500
ground signage?

00:17:38.500 --> 00:17:41.450
Is there other kind of signage that they're allowed to use

00:17:41.450 --> 00:17:43.500
apart from ground signage on Ector?

00:17:43.500 --> 00:17:46.500
They could a wall sign on the building.

00:17:46.500 --> 00:17:50.630
They would still have to meet the setbacks for any illum

00:17:50.630 --> 00:17:52.500
ination for the sign.

00:17:52.500 --> 00:17:56.569
But but yes, we separate the indent and signs between wall

00:17:56.569 --> 00:17:58.500
signs and ground signs.

00:17:58.500 --> 00:18:02.500
So a ground sign would be a monument sign or a pole sign.

00:18:02.500 --> 00:18:04.500
Any anything that's not attached to a building.

00:18:04.500 --> 00:18:07.819
So apart from the building, if you're on Ector, the goal is

00:18:07.819 --> 00:18:11.500
to not have a visual sign.

00:18:11.500 --> 00:18:14.519
And that's what we discussed with the applicant to not have

00:18:14.519 --> 00:18:15.500
that sign on Ector.

00:18:15.500 --> 00:18:18.970
And the second question I have is in regards to the

00:18:18.970 --> 00:18:20.500
specific zoning.

00:18:20.500 --> 00:18:26.819
The FAR, Florida area ratio of 40 percent seems to

00:18:26.819 --> 00:18:28.500
encourage a certain amount of density.

00:18:28.500 --> 00:18:31.680
They're asking for a less dense application. Am I

00:18:31.680 --> 00:18:32.500
understanding that?

00:18:32.500 --> 00:18:34.500
They are.

00:18:34.500 --> 00:18:37.900
The intent of that higher Florida area ratio in pedestrian

00:18:37.900 --> 00:18:43.740
oriented districts is to encourage buildings and pedestrian

00:18:43.740 --> 00:18:47.369
people areas to take up more of the lot so that you

00:18:47.369 --> 00:18:50.500
activate more of the lot for people.

00:18:50.500 --> 00:18:54.640
So by going less than that, you're having less room for

00:18:54.640 --> 00:18:55.500
people.

00:18:55.500 --> 00:18:58.500
So that's why that's a part of the request.

00:18:58.500 --> 00:18:59.500
That makes sense.

00:18:59.500 --> 00:19:02.500
Thank you.

00:19:02.500 --> 00:19:03.500
Commissioner Ellis.

00:19:03.500 --> 00:19:04.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:19:04.500 --> 00:19:07.160
Julie, do you know anything about the lighting that's going

00:19:07.160 --> 00:19:07.500
in?

00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:29.490
They will have to meet all DDC requirements for lighting.

00:19:29.490 --> 00:19:29.500
And let me get my code so I quote it correctly.

00:19:29.500 --> 00:19:38.500
Subchapter 13.

00:19:38.500 --> 00:19:42.150
Light performance standards in subchapter 13 state that

00:19:42.150 --> 00:19:45.509
light cannot measure more than one half foot candle at the

00:19:45.509 --> 00:19:46.500
property line.

00:19:46.500 --> 00:19:49.599
And then any pedestrian has to have areas have to have one

00:19:49.599 --> 00:19:50.500
foot candle.

00:19:50.500 --> 00:19:53.539
So so they would have to meet the subchapter 13

00:19:53.539 --> 00:19:56.500
requirements for commercial development.

00:19:56.500 --> 00:20:04.799
If they didn't, they'd have to come back and ask ask you if

00:20:04.799 --> 00:20:08.500
they could vary from that.

00:20:08.500 --> 00:20:12.500
Any other questions for staff.

00:20:12.500 --> 00:20:17.500
Thank you, Julie.

00:20:17.500 --> 00:20:23.500
Julie, you might want to stay.

00:20:23.500 --> 00:20:29.440
Next discussion item is the 160016, which is a request by

00:20:29.440 --> 00:20:32.500
DSD for a public hearing for a change in zoning.

00:20:32.500 --> 00:20:33.500
All right.

00:20:33.500 --> 00:20:39.500
This request is the 1616 the ISD student services.

00:20:39.500 --> 00:20:44.160
I put some additional letters on your chairs about this one

00:20:44.160 --> 00:20:44.500
.

00:20:44.500 --> 00:20:48.910
There's some opposition and then letters in opposition and

00:20:48.910 --> 00:20:50.500
letters in favor.

00:20:50.500 --> 00:20:55.799
So the request before you is to consider a rezoning for two

00:20:55.799 --> 00:21:00.500
tracks from NR3 neighborhood residential three to and

00:21:00.500 --> 00:21:04.039
downtown residential two to downtown commercial

00:21:04.039 --> 00:21:09.500
neighborhood on approximately five point five acres.

00:21:09.500 --> 00:21:11.500
We're going to get to the specifics of this request.

00:21:11.500 --> 00:21:14.779
But before we do that, I kind of want to just take a

00:21:14.779 --> 00:21:18.299
broader look at the zoning in the area, particularly the

00:21:18.299 --> 00:21:19.500
area north of downtown.

00:21:19.500 --> 00:21:21.500
So this is the area north of downtown.

00:21:21.500 --> 00:21:24.500
Here's the courthouse down here.

00:21:24.500 --> 00:21:25.500
And this is the subject property.

00:21:25.500 --> 00:21:28.500
So you just keep that in mind.

00:21:28.500 --> 00:21:32.420
So this is the current land use of the property north of

00:21:32.420 --> 00:21:33.500
downtown.

00:21:33.500 --> 00:21:36.500
I actually did mark the courthouse right here.

00:21:36.500 --> 00:21:39.599
So you can see near the courthouse, this pink is commercial

00:21:39.599 --> 00:21:40.500
development.

00:21:40.500 --> 00:21:42.500
And this is our downtown core.

00:21:42.500 --> 00:21:44.500
And you can see it's a lot of pink.

00:21:44.500 --> 00:21:48.450
As you go north up Elm and Locust, you see you see a lot of

00:21:48.450 --> 00:21:52.569
pink and then it fades into the yellow, the yellow being

00:21:52.569 --> 00:21:54.500
single family homes.

00:21:54.500 --> 00:21:57.500
This area just north is a mix of uses.

00:21:57.500 --> 00:21:58.500
It's got single family.

00:21:58.500 --> 00:22:00.500
It's got some small apartment complexes.

00:22:00.500 --> 00:22:02.500
It has some office uses.

00:22:02.500 --> 00:22:04.500
It has some restaurant uses.

00:22:04.500 --> 00:22:07.500
You have TWU in this area.

00:22:07.500 --> 00:22:10.079
As you go north to university, that's where this auto

00:22:10.079 --> 00:22:11.500
oriented development.

00:22:11.500 --> 00:22:14.680
That's a lot of commercial development and you can see

00:22:14.680 --> 00:22:16.500
there's a lot of pink there.

00:22:16.500 --> 00:22:19.759
And then when you get in this area, you can see a lot of

00:22:19.759 --> 00:22:20.500
yellow.

00:22:20.500 --> 00:22:25.640
That really is an established single family neighborhood

00:22:25.640 --> 00:22:28.500
just adjacent to the request.

00:22:28.500 --> 00:22:31.140
And then when you look at the same vantage point with the

00:22:31.140 --> 00:22:33.910
zoning, you can see the zoning actually kind of reflects

00:22:33.910 --> 00:22:34.500
that.

00:22:34.500 --> 00:22:39.500
This dark green being the downtown development, that's DCG.

00:22:39.500 --> 00:22:42.500
That's our downtown core zoning district.

00:22:42.500 --> 00:22:44.500
We have DR2 north of that.

00:22:44.500 --> 00:22:47.380
That is one of our downtown zoning districts, downtown

00:22:47.380 --> 00:22:48.500
residential two.

00:22:48.500 --> 00:22:53.500
It does permit a mix of uses, some small scale office uses,

00:22:53.500 --> 00:22:58.480
some multifamily, single family residential as well as du

00:22:58.480 --> 00:22:59.500
plex, I believe.

00:22:59.500 --> 00:23:01.500
So it's got a mix of uses.

00:23:01.500 --> 00:23:03.500
Once again, TWU is here.

00:23:03.500 --> 00:23:08.279
CMG, we see CMG, one of our more commercial districts along

00:23:08.279 --> 00:23:09.500
university.

00:23:09.500 --> 00:23:12.950
And then our neighborhood residential three, that's

00:23:12.950 --> 00:23:16.609
reflected where that single family, where you saw a lot of

00:23:16.609 --> 00:23:18.500
yellow in the current land use.

00:23:18.500 --> 00:23:20.500
And R3 is one of our lower density zoning districts.

00:23:20.500 --> 00:23:23.500
It permits three and a half dwelling units per acre.

00:23:23.500 --> 00:23:29.190
So you can see our current zoning and our land use mirror

00:23:29.190 --> 00:23:32.500
each other to some respects.

00:23:32.500 --> 00:23:35.500
So now we're going to get specific to this request.

00:23:35.500 --> 00:23:39.839
It is on two tracks, the first track being here, or the

00:23:39.839 --> 00:23:42.500
first track I'm referring to.

00:23:42.500 --> 00:23:45.500
It's adjacent to Bolivar and Elm.

00:23:45.500 --> 00:23:49.420
Second is on the bottom, or on the southern part, and then

00:23:49.420 --> 00:23:51.500
third is on the north side.

00:23:51.500 --> 00:23:55.500
And then here's track two, which is between Locust and Elm.

00:23:55.500 --> 00:24:01.440
It's important to note, Denton ISD is coming to the city to

00:24:01.440 --> 00:24:04.500
rezone, not for use.

00:24:04.500 --> 00:24:07.720
Because it's Denton ISD, it's permitted in any zoning

00:24:07.720 --> 00:24:08.500
district.

00:24:08.500 --> 00:24:12.069
So we're not really talking about use, or in their specific

00:24:12.069 --> 00:24:14.500
case, we're not talking about use.

00:24:14.500 --> 00:24:19.240
They're actually coming to the city because of lot coverage

00:24:19.240 --> 00:24:22.849
, because the zoning districts that they're in have a lower

00:24:22.849 --> 00:24:24.500
lot coverage than what they need in order to redevelop.

00:24:24.500 --> 00:24:29.140
Also, before I leave this slide, once again I want to point

00:24:29.140 --> 00:24:32.500
out, you can see maybe more clearly this residential

00:24:32.500 --> 00:24:34.500
development pattern here.

00:24:34.500 --> 00:24:37.500
And then it becomes a little more mixed use in this area.

00:24:37.500 --> 00:24:41.500
You can really see the residential here.

00:24:41.500 --> 00:24:44.680
So when we look a little closer at the current zoning, we

00:24:44.680 --> 00:24:48.940
see that tract one is split down the middle with two zon

00:24:48.940 --> 00:24:49.500
ings.

00:24:49.500 --> 00:24:54.500
NR3 district and then DR2 district.

00:24:54.500 --> 00:24:58.500
This tract two is wholly within DR2 district.

00:24:58.500 --> 00:25:03.029
There is DCN adjacent, and that is part of the Denton ISD

00:25:03.029 --> 00:25:06.500
administration facility right here.

00:25:06.500 --> 00:25:09.500
And then DCG district is the dark green.

00:25:09.500 --> 00:25:12.490
NR3, as I said before, is primarily single family

00:25:12.490 --> 00:25:13.500
residential.

00:25:13.500 --> 00:25:16.049
It's lower density, three and a half dwelling units per

00:25:16.049 --> 00:25:16.500
acre.

00:25:16.500 --> 00:25:19.799
Maximum building height of 40 feet and then a max lot

00:25:19.799 --> 00:25:21.500
coverage of 50 feet.

00:25:21.500 --> 00:25:25.730
And as I looked at my staff report today, I realized I put

00:25:25.730 --> 00:25:30.500
30, the lot coverage is 30% instead of 50%.

00:25:30.500 --> 00:25:32.500
So that was an error on my staff report.

00:25:32.500 --> 00:25:37.500
But the max lot coverage in NR3 is 50%.

00:25:37.500 --> 00:25:40.599
Lot coverage within the city of Denton includes the

00:25:40.599 --> 00:25:43.500
building as well as any impervious surface.

00:25:43.500 --> 00:25:49.250
So all the parking areas, all of the sidewalks, all of the

00:25:49.250 --> 00:25:52.670
drive aisles, as well as the building, those all count

00:25:52.670 --> 00:25:54.500
toward lot coverage.

00:25:54.500 --> 00:25:56.500
DR2, so that's NR3.

00:25:56.500 --> 00:26:00.500
DR2 does permit moderate density residential uses.

00:26:00.500 --> 00:26:02.500
It permits small scale commercial uses.

00:26:02.500 --> 00:26:07.500
It has a maximum building height of 45 feet and then a max

00:26:07.500 --> 00:26:10.500
maximum lot coverage of 75%.

00:26:10.500 --> 00:26:14.500
Some photos I took of the surrounding area.

00:26:14.500 --> 00:26:17.599
Once again, I'm not good at taking photos, so don't expect

00:26:17.599 --> 00:26:18.500
great things.

00:26:18.500 --> 00:26:22.450
But here is Locust and you can see the development pattern

00:26:22.450 --> 00:26:23.500
in the area.

00:26:23.500 --> 00:26:28.349
It's primarily one and two story office buildings and then

00:26:28.349 --> 00:26:32.500
some of the multifamily do go up to three story.

00:26:32.500 --> 00:26:36.500
This is Elm.

00:26:36.500 --> 00:26:39.500
Once again, kind of the same development pattern.

00:26:39.500 --> 00:26:41.500
And then here is Bolivar.

00:26:41.500 --> 00:26:44.049
Bolivar is getting where you're more getting into the

00:26:44.049 --> 00:26:46.319
primarily residential area and you can see this is looking

00:26:46.319 --> 00:26:50.500
north and then this is looking south.

00:26:50.500 --> 00:26:54.500
The future land use designation.

00:26:54.500 --> 00:26:58.890
As we've talked about before, the future land use, it doesn

00:26:58.890 --> 00:27:00.500
't have hard lines.

00:27:00.500 --> 00:27:04.039
Those lines are kind of transitional areas and so we sort

00:27:04.039 --> 00:27:07.500
of look, so we can look at it more comprehensively.

00:27:07.500 --> 00:27:08.500
There are two tracts.

00:27:08.500 --> 00:27:10.500
So tract one is on the edge.

00:27:10.500 --> 00:27:13.539
It is in downtown compatibility area, but it is also on the

00:27:13.539 --> 00:27:15.500
edge of low density residential.

00:27:15.500 --> 00:27:17.319
So we wanted to make sure we looked at that comprehensively

00:27:17.319 --> 00:27:17.500
.

00:27:17.500 --> 00:27:20.500
So we looked at both of those future land use designations.

00:27:20.500 --> 00:27:24.710
Track two is in, wholly within the downtown compatibility

00:27:24.710 --> 00:27:25.500
area.

00:27:25.500 --> 00:27:28.359
The future land use designation for low density residential

00:27:28.359 --> 00:27:35.500
, its intent is to encourage single family dwellings,

00:27:35.500 --> 00:27:39.369
maximum of four dwelling units per acre, kind of a suburban

00:27:39.369 --> 00:27:41.500
style development pattern.

00:27:41.500 --> 00:27:44.529
The downtown compatibility area, future land use

00:27:44.529 --> 00:27:49.500
designation, its intent is to create a compatible form and

00:27:49.500 --> 00:27:53.500
uses that strengthen both downtown and adjacent neighbors.

00:27:53.500 --> 00:27:54.500
And that's important.

00:27:54.500 --> 00:27:58.259
And when you look at a larger future land use map, you can

00:27:58.259 --> 00:28:01.500
see this dark red, that's downtown Denton.

00:28:01.500 --> 00:28:04.500
That is a really intense district.

00:28:04.500 --> 00:28:08.400
But then we have this downtown compatibility area that

00:28:08.400 --> 00:28:12.500
comes out of that to the north and then here to the east.

00:28:12.500 --> 00:28:17.640
And you can see it really does buffer and it's a transition

00:28:17.640 --> 00:28:22.500
area between the downtown and the neighborhoods.

00:28:22.500 --> 00:28:26.960
Considerations we looked at when we reviewed this project

00:28:26.960 --> 00:28:30.670
was first tract one protrudes into an established single

00:28:30.670 --> 00:28:33.500
family residential neighborhood that's zoned NR3.

00:28:33.500 --> 00:28:38.150
We felt that this neighborhood derives protection from this

00:28:38.150 --> 00:28:39.500
existing zoning.

00:28:39.500 --> 00:28:42.539
And that DCN would increase the likelihood of a domino

00:28:42.539 --> 00:28:46.069
effect of encroachment into the neighborhood, potentially

00:28:46.069 --> 00:28:47.500
compromising its integrity.

00:28:47.500 --> 00:28:49.500
So what does that mean?

00:28:49.500 --> 00:28:52.500
All right. I have some animation, so let's hope it works.

00:28:52.500 --> 00:28:54.500
So let's go back to the current zoning.

00:28:54.500 --> 00:28:58.500
So here's our current zoning map.

00:28:58.500 --> 00:29:02.740
There's a really hard line between the existing NR3 and the

00:29:02.740 --> 00:29:03.500
DR2.

00:29:03.500 --> 00:29:06.500
And that's shown in that red line.

00:29:06.500 --> 00:29:10.990
And that really does protect that residential neighborhood

00:29:10.990 --> 00:29:14.500
because it only permits single family uses.

00:29:14.500 --> 00:29:18.019
It doesn't allow it to redevelop with multifamily or

00:29:18.019 --> 00:29:19.500
commercial uses.

00:29:19.500 --> 00:29:24.500
It really does protect that existing development pattern.

00:29:24.500 --> 00:29:29.500
And as you can see, it's also reflected in the land use.

00:29:29.500 --> 00:29:33.500
So when you put that hard red line there, you can see the

00:29:33.500 --> 00:29:38.009
yellow is in the NR3 side, whereas the part that's in DR2

00:29:38.009 --> 00:29:42.500
is developed to reflect what the zoning district permits.

00:29:42.500 --> 00:29:45.940
So when we get a little closer in to the project, once

00:29:45.940 --> 00:29:51.500
again, we've got our hard line on the NR3 and the DR2.

00:29:51.500 --> 00:29:58.259
If DCN moved forward and was approved, it would break that

00:29:58.259 --> 00:30:03.109
hard line and it would project into that residential

00:30:03.109 --> 00:30:04.500
neighborhood,

00:30:04.500 --> 00:30:09.240
potentially allowing adjacent properties to rezone and then

00:30:09.240 --> 00:30:13.170
affect that development pattern because they could be rede

00:30:13.170 --> 00:30:15.500
veloped in a way that isn't consistent with what's there.

00:30:15.500 --> 00:30:21.500
Because this is a cohesive, well established neighborhood.

00:30:21.500 --> 00:30:24.700
Our second consideration was that the proposed DCN district

00:30:24.700 --> 00:30:27.410
would create incompatibilities with the existing

00:30:27.410 --> 00:30:29.500
development pattern and land uses.

00:30:29.500 --> 00:30:32.140
As we saw in those photos, the current land use or the

00:30:32.140 --> 00:30:34.910
current development in the area really is kind of small

00:30:34.910 --> 00:30:35.500
scale.

00:30:35.500 --> 00:30:38.740
It's single family homes, it's offices, but they're one and

00:30:38.740 --> 00:30:39.500
two story.

00:30:39.500 --> 00:30:43.500
It's some small multifamily, maximum three stories.

00:30:43.500 --> 00:30:47.500
So it's kind of a small scale development.

00:30:47.500 --> 00:30:52.140
DCN's maximum height is 100 feet and the maximum density is

00:30:52.140 --> 00:30:56.099
72 dwelling units an acre, which is quite a bit different

00:30:56.099 --> 00:30:57.500
than what's existing.

00:30:57.500 --> 00:31:01.500
And let's compare some of the land use tables with that.

00:31:01.500 --> 00:31:05.349
So here's NR3, it's single family, it permits three and a

00:31:05.349 --> 00:31:07.500
half dwelling units per acre.

00:31:07.500 --> 00:31:10.500
DR2 permits 30 dwelling units per acre.

00:31:10.500 --> 00:31:15.609
DCN goes all the way to 72, so there's quite a big jump

00:31:15.609 --> 00:31:16.500
there.

00:31:16.500 --> 00:31:20.410
As far as commercial districts, NR3 doesn't permit

00:31:20.410 --> 00:31:24.500
commercial, it is a residential zoning district, DR2.

00:31:24.500 --> 00:31:27.500
Permits the small scale, under 5,000 square feet.

00:31:27.500 --> 00:31:30.710
When you get to DCN, retail and offices could go up to 25,

00:31:30.710 --> 00:31:35.500
000 square feet per lot, so they're quite a bit different.

00:31:35.500 --> 00:31:40.950
And then industrial and institutional uses, just as an

00:31:40.950 --> 00:31:45.500
example, the elderly housing isn't permitted in NR3 or DR2.

00:31:45.500 --> 00:31:48.500
It could go up to 55,000 square feet in DCN.

00:31:48.500 --> 00:31:52.500
So it's just the scale of development is different.

00:31:52.500 --> 00:31:55.789
And then when you look at the building envelope, what part

00:31:55.789 --> 00:31:59.069
of the lot a developer could actually construct a building

00:31:59.069 --> 00:31:59.500
in?

00:31:59.500 --> 00:32:03.099
When you look at NR3, the maximum lot coverage is 50%, the

00:32:03.099 --> 00:32:09.500
maximum building height is 40 feet, DR2 is 45 feet.

00:32:09.500 --> 00:32:13.500
Maximum height in DCN goes all the way to 100 feet.

00:32:13.500 --> 00:32:18.529
So although the current applicant isn't proposing to build

00:32:18.529 --> 00:32:22.500
something that high, when we look at a rezoning,

00:32:22.500 --> 00:32:25.200
we have to look at all of the uses that are permitted in

00:32:25.200 --> 00:32:28.500
that zoning district and how it could potentially develop.

00:32:28.500 --> 00:32:33.609
And when we look at how DCN could potentially develop, it

00:32:33.609 --> 00:32:39.339
really could dwarf what is existing there and would really

00:32:39.339 --> 00:32:43.500
be out of scale for what's in the neighborhood.

00:32:43.500 --> 00:32:45.500
We also looked at Denton Plan 2030.

00:32:45.500 --> 00:32:49.500
DCN doesn't meet the intent of low density residential.

00:32:49.500 --> 00:32:52.450
It is a commercial and a mixed use zoning district, so it

00:32:52.450 --> 00:32:55.670
doesn't meet what we consider to be low density residential

00:32:55.670 --> 00:32:56.500
in the city.

00:32:56.500 --> 00:33:00.069
Downtown compatibility area, DCN could be appropriate for

00:33:00.069 --> 00:33:01.500
this future land use.

00:33:01.500 --> 00:33:03.650
And I want to make that clear because it could be

00:33:03.650 --> 00:33:04.500
appropriate.

00:33:04.500 --> 00:33:08.259
However, when we look at the character of the immediate

00:33:08.259 --> 00:33:10.500
area and the surrounding area,

00:33:10.500 --> 00:33:13.680
it really wouldn't balance the protection of the

00:33:13.680 --> 00:33:17.500
neighborhoods with the commercial needs of downtown.

00:33:17.500 --> 00:33:20.930
DCN district would probably be more appropriate to the

00:33:20.930 --> 00:33:23.500
south, closer to downtown.

00:33:23.500 --> 00:33:26.690
So it could be that buffer, be that bridge between the

00:33:26.690 --> 00:33:29.500
downtown development and the neighborhoods.

00:33:29.500 --> 00:33:32.109
And that expanding DCN district in this area could

00:33:32.109 --> 00:33:34.500
potentially create a new commercial hub.

00:33:34.500 --> 00:33:38.500
And just to show you the map.

00:33:38.500 --> 00:33:40.500
So there is DCN existing here.

00:33:40.500 --> 00:33:44.690
But by expanding that, you're kind of skipping over this

00:33:44.690 --> 00:33:49.000
sort of lower scale development to potentially creating a

00:33:49.000 --> 00:33:53.500
new development pattern here within the neighborhood.

00:33:53.500 --> 00:33:57.859
And staff doesn't really feel that that's an appropriate

00:33:57.859 --> 00:33:59.500
land use pattern.

00:33:59.500 --> 00:34:03.349
Final consideration, the DISD central offices have been in

00:34:03.349 --> 00:34:05.500
this location for many years.

00:34:05.500 --> 00:34:09.949
Staff feels like this is a great infill and it's good in

00:34:09.949 --> 00:34:11.500
this location.

00:34:11.500 --> 00:34:14.500
And it presents a desirable opportunity.

00:34:14.500 --> 00:34:17.469
So we don't have issue with the use or actually what they

00:34:17.469 --> 00:34:18.500
're proposing.

00:34:18.500 --> 00:34:22.659
However, we do feel that the zoning district that they are

00:34:22.659 --> 00:34:26.219
proposing is incompatible with the existing development

00:34:26.219 --> 00:34:28.500
pattern and zoning pattern.

00:34:28.500 --> 00:34:32.570
And that we want them to redevelop, but we'd like for them

00:34:32.570 --> 00:34:36.570
to take a more conservative approach, possibly approaching

00:34:36.570 --> 00:34:38.500
ZBA for variance for the lot coverage.

00:34:38.500 --> 00:34:40.500
Because their use is permitted.

00:34:40.500 --> 00:34:42.500
We did send out a public notification.

00:34:42.500 --> 00:34:47.539
We've received a couple or three in opposition and one in

00:34:47.539 --> 00:34:48.500
favor.

00:34:48.500 --> 00:34:51.500
I'm sorry, two in favor.

00:34:51.500 --> 00:34:54.489
So based upon the considerations and the criteria for

00:34:54.489 --> 00:34:57.670
approval in the development code, staff does recommend

00:34:57.670 --> 00:35:00.500
denial of this request and Manal would like to add.

00:35:00.500 --> 00:35:01.500
Actually, I have a question.

00:35:01.500 --> 00:35:02.500
Yes, ma'am.

00:35:02.500 --> 00:35:05.679
Would you please elaborate a little bit on what DISD is

00:35:05.679 --> 00:35:06.500
proposing?

00:35:06.500 --> 00:35:09.789
I believe they're expanding their facility or are they

00:35:09.789 --> 00:35:11.500
raising and rebuilding?

00:35:11.500 --> 00:35:12.500
They are.

00:35:12.500 --> 00:35:14.500
Because this is pertinent then to.

00:35:14.500 --> 00:35:20.349
And the applicant is here and I'm sure they'll provide

00:35:20.349 --> 00:35:22.500
their site plan. But yes, they are.

00:35:22.500 --> 00:35:23.500
This is probably good.

00:35:23.500 --> 00:35:26.579
What they're actually proposing, this building right here,

00:35:26.579 --> 00:35:28.719
I don't know if you can see it very well, they intend for

00:35:28.719 --> 00:35:29.500
that to remain.

00:35:29.500 --> 00:35:30.500
That won't change.

00:35:30.500 --> 00:35:32.500
And that's the part that's in NR3.

00:35:32.500 --> 00:35:36.369
They are proposing additional parking for that in order to

00:35:36.369 --> 00:35:38.500
accommodate the employees.

00:35:38.500 --> 00:35:41.500
So this is the NR3 portion.

00:35:41.500 --> 00:35:43.500
This can only be 50 percent lot coverage.

00:35:43.500 --> 00:35:44.500
It exceeds it now.

00:35:44.500 --> 00:35:49.679
So they would need to either rezone or go to ZBA in order

00:35:49.679 --> 00:35:51.500
to expand that.

00:35:51.500 --> 00:35:56.139
There are also some structures on this site that they would

00:35:56.139 --> 00:36:01.500
like to tear down and build a new facility here.

00:36:01.500 --> 00:36:05.969
They've actually, this map doesn't reflect it, but they

00:36:05.969 --> 00:36:09.070
have abandoned Gary Street and are actually creating a

00:36:09.070 --> 00:36:10.500
pedestrian walkway.

00:36:10.500 --> 00:36:14.500
It looks great.

00:36:14.500 --> 00:36:18.019
So that the people who work in this facility have a safe

00:36:18.019 --> 00:36:20.500
place to cross between buildings.

00:36:20.500 --> 00:36:24.449
They're working with TextDOT in order to get some sort of

00:36:24.449 --> 00:36:28.860
light or something to accommodate that pedestrian crossing

00:36:28.860 --> 00:36:29.500
here.

00:36:29.500 --> 00:36:32.500
So that's actually going there.

00:36:32.500 --> 00:36:35.219
And honestly, I can't remember, but I'm sure they can tell

00:36:35.219 --> 00:36:37.500
us what they're going to do in this location.

00:36:37.500 --> 00:36:39.500
So there is some rebuilding.

00:36:39.500 --> 00:36:41.500
There's some redevelopment.

00:36:41.500 --> 00:36:46.500
It's a rather comprehensive package.

00:36:46.500 --> 00:36:47.500
Commissioner Taylor.

00:36:47.500 --> 00:36:49.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:36:49.500 --> 00:36:55.070
Could you pull up a closer up aerial or maybe a Google Maps

00:36:55.070 --> 00:36:58.500
image or aerial just zoomed in?

00:36:58.500 --> 00:37:02.500
Let's see if I can.

00:37:02.500 --> 00:37:04.500
Go back to Google Maps instead of Google Maps.

00:37:04.500 --> 00:37:05.500
I know.

00:37:05.500 --> 00:37:06.500
It's so much better than my picture.

00:37:06.500 --> 00:37:15.500
It's zoomable.

00:37:15.500 --> 00:37:19.500
We might have to flip back and forth to answer my question.

00:37:19.500 --> 00:37:20.500
How about that?

00:37:20.500 --> 00:37:22.500
Yes.

00:37:22.500 --> 00:37:25.710
So we're looking at the two red roofed buildings, this

00:37:25.710 --> 00:37:28.860
thing over here, and then these two silver roofed

00:37:28.860 --> 00:37:31.500
commercial buildings right there.

00:37:31.500 --> 00:37:36.610
And the current thing marked independent school district,

00:37:36.610 --> 00:37:38.500
that's already DCN.

00:37:38.500 --> 00:37:39.500
Yes, sir.

00:37:39.500 --> 00:37:40.500
Okay.

00:37:40.500 --> 00:37:44.239
And so the density on or the lot coverage just south of

00:37:44.239 --> 00:37:47.500
Gary is already at like 80 or 90%.

00:37:47.500 --> 00:37:48.500
It is.

00:37:48.500 --> 00:37:49.500
It's already completely.

00:37:49.500 --> 00:37:53.349
And then the two red roofed lot buildings, those are at

00:37:53.349 --> 00:37:56.500
probably at least 80%, looks like.

00:37:56.500 --> 00:37:59.500
There's a little bit of grass back in the north side.

00:37:59.500 --> 00:38:01.500
Well, they actually, this is a public alley.

00:38:01.500 --> 00:38:07.760
Once their intent is to replat all of this, abandon this

00:38:07.760 --> 00:38:12.500
public alley, and all of this would be one lot.

00:38:12.500 --> 00:38:13.500
Right.

00:38:13.500 --> 00:38:18.309
I'm just trying to understand the history here because

00:38:18.309 --> 00:38:21.500
these were developed in the 80s.

00:38:21.500 --> 00:38:25.610
And they were built at a much higher lot coverage than like

00:38:25.610 --> 00:38:27.500
twice what's allowed.

00:38:27.500 --> 00:38:29.500
You know, almost 100% lot coverage.

00:38:29.500 --> 00:38:30.500
Okay.

00:38:30.500 --> 00:38:32.750
And then those, there used to be some little single family

00:38:32.750 --> 00:38:36.500
homes, I believe, down along third, I remember a few years

00:38:36.500 --> 00:38:37.500
ago it seems like.

00:38:37.500 --> 00:38:40.829
So those lots, they just bought empty lots or bought and

00:38:40.829 --> 00:38:43.500
demolished some old rental properties.

00:38:43.500 --> 00:38:44.500
Okay. Thank you.

00:38:44.500 --> 00:38:45.500
Sure.

00:38:45.500 --> 00:38:47.869
I just want to jump in on your comment, Devin, just for

00:38:47.869 --> 00:38:49.500
some of our newer commissioners.

00:38:49.500 --> 00:38:52.070
I think one of the reasons why we are having this lot

00:38:52.070 --> 00:38:55.090
coverage reform is because of the change in the definition

00:38:55.090 --> 00:38:57.500
of how the city determines lot coverage.

00:38:57.500 --> 00:38:58.500
Right.

00:38:58.500 --> 00:39:00.500
It didn't used to be all impervious.

00:39:00.500 --> 00:39:03.420
It used to just be essentially the structure, the sidewalks

00:39:03.420 --> 00:39:05.500
, the parking lots were not included.

00:39:05.500 --> 00:39:08.500
That changed a number of years ago, five?

00:39:08.500 --> 00:39:10.500
2000.

00:39:10.500 --> 00:39:12.500
2000 and something, I believe.

00:39:12.500 --> 00:39:14.500
But a number of years ago, absolutely right.

00:39:14.500 --> 00:39:17.429
And so that's why I just want to say for the record that

00:39:17.429 --> 00:39:20.699
DISD didn't build something that is not in compliance with

00:39:20.699 --> 00:39:21.500
our code.

00:39:21.500 --> 00:39:22.500
Correct.

00:39:22.500 --> 00:39:26.219
City of Denton changed the definition of lot coverage and

00:39:26.219 --> 00:39:28.500
now that's created this issue.

00:39:28.500 --> 00:39:29.500
Correct.

00:39:29.500 --> 00:39:31.500
So just to add on to that clarification.

00:39:31.500 --> 00:39:32.500
Commissioner Rozelle.

00:39:32.500 --> 00:39:34.500
Thank you.

00:39:34.500 --> 00:39:38.449
The Northeast building, DISD, has that recently come before

00:39:38.449 --> 00:39:42.239
the commission for rezoning to DCN or what's the history to

00:39:42.239 --> 00:39:43.500
get that to DCN?

00:39:43.500 --> 00:39:46.360
It was approved during the city or it was done during the

00:39:46.360 --> 00:39:48.500
citywide rezoning in 2002.

00:39:48.500 --> 00:39:51.269
Is there, this might be a very difficult question to answer

00:39:51.269 --> 00:39:51.500
.

00:39:51.500 --> 00:39:55.760
Is there a reason that that was DCN but the other seemingly

00:39:55.760 --> 00:40:00.150
same interested buildings was not put into DCN at that time

00:40:00.150 --> 00:40:00.500
?

00:40:00.500 --> 00:40:01.500
I could guess.

00:40:01.500 --> 00:40:05.730
But my guess is that DISD was there and so they just, they

00:40:05.730 --> 00:40:09.500
zoned it in accordance with what was existing.

00:40:09.500 --> 00:40:12.070
I don't know why other properties, I don't know why others

00:40:12.070 --> 00:40:12.500
were left out.

00:40:12.500 --> 00:40:14.500
So it's a good question.

00:40:14.500 --> 00:40:17.110
The other question, maybe not even a question, concern I

00:40:17.110 --> 00:40:19.960
have is you brought up a couple times with some sweet

00:40:19.960 --> 00:40:21.500
animations a hard line.

00:40:21.500 --> 00:40:24.500
That hard line's not even on a road for my estimations.

00:40:24.500 --> 00:40:27.059
It was just put in at the end of where single family

00:40:27.059 --> 00:40:28.500
housing happens to end.

00:40:28.500 --> 00:40:29.500
Yes.

00:40:29.500 --> 00:40:33.030
So it seems like a convenient lines to put in but it's not

00:40:33.030 --> 00:40:36.500
an actual road delineation between those two zones.

00:40:36.500 --> 00:40:39.760
And it seems like the current construction already breaks

00:40:39.760 --> 00:40:44.639
that hard line, making it not really a hard line at all in

00:40:44.639 --> 00:40:45.500
my estimation.

00:40:45.500 --> 00:40:47.500
Because their property already crosses it.

00:40:47.500 --> 00:40:49.500
That line is not on a road.

00:40:49.500 --> 00:40:52.309
It comes down, kind of does a jig-jag around their property

00:40:52.309 --> 00:40:53.500
and then continues.

00:40:53.500 --> 00:40:54.500
There's an alley there.

00:40:54.500 --> 00:40:56.500
I can address that.

00:40:56.500 --> 00:40:57.500
For a couple blocks, yeah.

00:40:57.500 --> 00:40:58.500
Right, you're absolutely right.

00:40:58.500 --> 00:41:02.590
The hard line is not a physical separation by a right of

00:41:02.590 --> 00:41:04.500
way or specific uses.

00:41:04.500 --> 00:41:07.710
In fact, that hard line is specific to zoning designation

00:41:07.710 --> 00:41:08.500
hard line.

00:41:08.500 --> 00:41:10.909
That zoning designation that you see on this subject

00:41:10.909 --> 00:41:14.050
property, the subject property is split and has two zoning

00:41:14.050 --> 00:41:17.500
categories, the NR3 and then the DR2.

00:41:17.500 --> 00:41:22.670
So in terms of the analysis of the fundamentals, really, if

00:41:22.670 --> 00:41:26.309
we were to get down to it, was we completely understand

00:41:26.309 --> 00:41:27.500
what's on this site.

00:41:27.500 --> 00:41:32.500
We completely see the vision that DISD has.

00:41:32.500 --> 00:41:34.889
We understand that and the expansion would, in fact,

00:41:34.889 --> 00:41:36.500
enhance the property, no doubt.

00:41:36.500 --> 00:41:42.440
However, the change in zoning for tract one or portion of

00:41:42.440 --> 00:41:44.500
tract one, which is the NR3,

00:41:44.500 --> 00:41:47.880
could domino into piecemeal zoning requests that would

00:41:47.880 --> 00:41:51.500
follow that red hard line or to the west of that hard line.

00:41:51.500 --> 00:41:55.030
And there have been, in fact, we have received some comment

00:41:55.030 --> 00:41:58.500
from adjacent property owners who felt that this, you know,

00:41:58.500 --> 00:41:58.500
great.

00:41:58.500 --> 00:42:01.769
Now I can go ahead and rezone my lot and do whatever I want

00:42:01.769 --> 00:42:02.500
with it.

00:42:02.500 --> 00:42:04.500
So this was a very difficult zoning case.

00:42:04.500 --> 00:42:08.400
Although it seems really simple, in reality, we're dealing

00:42:08.400 --> 00:42:11.500
with a split zoning on a property that is already developed

00:42:11.500 --> 00:42:14.739
and is wanting to redevelop or, you know, reestablish and

00:42:14.739 --> 00:42:16.500
refine what they have.

00:42:16.500 --> 00:42:20.110
Yet we've got to grapple with the, or we've got the

00:42:20.110 --> 00:42:24.260
fundamental question that as planning staff, we have to

00:42:24.260 --> 00:42:28.440
answer is, would this truly be a detriment to the adjacent

00:42:28.440 --> 00:42:31.500
built out, well established, older neighborhood.

00:42:31.500 --> 00:42:35.079
And yet we understand that to the west of that, to the east

00:42:35.079 --> 00:42:38.500
of that hard line, there are a number of mixed uses.

00:42:38.500 --> 00:42:41.679
And therefore, if we go back to Julie's recommendation or

00:42:41.679 --> 00:42:45.130
prior to her recommendation, her final consideration, that

00:42:45.130 --> 00:42:47.500
there is an alternative avenue available.

00:42:47.500 --> 00:42:51.099
And that's to seek a recommendation, a favorable

00:42:51.099 --> 00:42:55.489
recommendation from the zoning board of adjustment to allow

00:42:55.489 --> 00:42:59.500
them to build on an increased lot coverage premise.

00:42:59.500 --> 00:43:04.210
And again, a very difficult question to answer because we

00:43:04.210 --> 00:43:08.619
have to now ensure the integrity or protect or limit the

00:43:08.619 --> 00:43:12.489
dilution of that residential neighborhood because that's

00:43:12.489 --> 00:43:15.929
one of our charges is how do we maintain the integrity of

00:43:15.929 --> 00:43:17.500
these neighborhoods.

00:43:17.500 --> 00:43:18.500
>> Sure, that makes perfect sense.

00:43:18.500 --> 00:43:23.139
I guess, I guess my point or my perspective is, DEN ISD is

00:43:23.139 --> 00:43:25.500
not asking to encroach on a line.

00:43:25.500 --> 00:43:26.500
They're already past the line.

00:43:26.500 --> 00:43:29.869
They're just asking to further develop beyond the line they

00:43:29.869 --> 00:43:31.500
're already been passed.

00:43:31.500 --> 00:43:32.500
>> You're correct.

00:43:32.500 --> 00:43:36.449
So DISD is saying we already, and I'm speaking for DISD, so

00:43:36.449 --> 00:43:37.500
I'm paraphrasing.

00:43:37.500 --> 00:43:42.349
DISD is situated on a site or is their siting has two

00:43:42.349 --> 00:43:44.500
zoning districts.

00:43:44.500 --> 00:43:48.449
Let's assume that they were able to or they chose to expand

00:43:48.449 --> 00:43:51.579
under the existing parameters of the, because it's a split

00:43:51.579 --> 00:43:52.500
zoning.

00:43:52.500 --> 00:43:55.289
Wherever they were developing and whatever the crossover of

00:43:55.289 --> 00:43:58.500
that development were, if it were contained within the NR3,

00:43:58.500 --> 00:44:00.849
they would have to comply with the NR3 development

00:44:00.849 --> 00:44:05.630
regulations, which would hamper their ability to be able to

00:44:05.630 --> 00:44:08.500
use the lot to their liking.

00:44:08.500 --> 00:44:12.289
The same theory then applies to the DR2 component to the

00:44:12.289 --> 00:44:15.300
east where the hard red line is, where the hard line is,

00:44:15.300 --> 00:44:17.190
and they would have to comply with those lot coverage and

00:44:17.190 --> 00:44:18.500
building height requirements.

00:44:18.500 --> 00:44:20.500
Obviously, that's not conducive.

00:44:20.500 --> 00:44:24.210
On the other hand, if there was a crossover of buildings

00:44:24.210 --> 00:44:27.130
over that red line, so to speak, crossover of zoning

00:44:27.130 --> 00:44:30.250
district, then they would have to comply with the most

00:44:30.250 --> 00:44:32.500
restrictive zoning regulation.

00:44:32.500 --> 00:44:37.699
And so back to fundamentally, are we re-zoning, enabling a

00:44:37.699 --> 00:44:42.590
re-zoning on this property could cause dilution or could

00:44:42.590 --> 00:44:47.510
hamper the NR3 district to the north and to the south and

00:44:47.510 --> 00:44:52.909
eventually, as Julie showed in her sweet animation, to the

00:44:52.909 --> 00:44:53.500
west.

00:44:53.500 --> 00:44:57.929
However, there is an opportunity available, and that is the

00:44:57.929 --> 00:45:02.170
Zoning Board of Adjustment, so that they can then request a

00:45:02.170 --> 00:45:06.429
variance to their lot coverage requirements and allow them

00:45:06.429 --> 00:45:10.510
to go higher than what is permitted in the zoning district

00:45:10.510 --> 00:45:14.500
of NR3, for example, or DR2, for example.

00:45:14.500 --> 00:45:18.670
And that single change would suit the needs of the proposed

00:45:18.670 --> 00:45:21.500
reconstruction or redevelopment?

00:45:21.500 --> 00:45:25.500
I believe building height and lot coverage, correct, Julie?

00:45:25.500 --> 00:45:27.500
I don't even know if it's building height.

00:45:27.500 --> 00:45:29.500
It may just be lot coverage.

00:45:29.500 --> 00:45:30.500
Okay.

00:45:30.500 --> 00:45:37.500
But then again, there's no guarantee to the recommendation.

00:45:37.500 --> 00:45:38.500
Thank you.

00:45:38.500 --> 00:45:39.500
Commissioner Back.

00:45:39.500 --> 00:45:40.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:45:40.500 --> 00:45:44.860
Regarding this variance that they would seek, it wouldn't

00:45:44.860 --> 00:45:46.500
change the zoning.

00:45:46.500 --> 00:45:48.500
It would still be NR3.

00:45:48.500 --> 00:45:49.500
Right.

00:45:49.500 --> 00:45:51.500
Okay.

00:45:51.500 --> 00:45:54.469
It's my understanding, too, that what they want to do on

00:45:54.469 --> 00:45:57.500
the NR3 section, if you can go back to your Google map.

00:45:57.500 --> 00:46:01.500
Yes, sir.

00:46:01.500 --> 00:46:04.500
Where they want to do parking up there, is that correct?

00:46:04.500 --> 00:46:05.500
On that corner?

00:46:05.500 --> 00:46:08.769
That's just parking, no buildings going on there, is that

00:46:08.769 --> 00:46:09.500
correct?

00:46:09.500 --> 00:46:10.500
Correct.

00:46:10.500 --> 00:46:11.500
Okay.

00:46:11.500 --> 00:46:12.500
That's our understanding, yes.

00:46:12.500 --> 00:46:17.360
And DCN, is it a mixed use thing where housing can go in

00:46:17.360 --> 00:46:21.500
with that, or is that purely commercial?

00:46:21.500 --> 00:46:24.500
No.

00:46:24.500 --> 00:46:26.500
I'll go back.

00:46:26.500 --> 00:46:29.239
DCN doesn't permit single family uses, but it does permit

00:46:29.239 --> 00:46:31.500
some residential uses, multifamily duplexes.

00:46:31.500 --> 00:46:33.500
So it does permit a mix of residential uses.

00:46:33.500 --> 00:46:34.500
But not single family?

00:46:34.500 --> 00:46:35.500
No, sir.

00:46:35.500 --> 00:46:38.260
And again, the discussion, and I apologize, but the

00:46:38.260 --> 00:46:40.829
discussion goes back to, you know, when we look at the

00:46:40.829 --> 00:46:41.500
zoning change,

00:46:41.500 --> 00:46:43.539
we look at the site comprehensively and future redevelop

00:46:43.539 --> 00:46:44.500
ment of the site, too.

00:46:44.500 --> 00:46:47.500
Therefore, those fundamental questions have arisen.

00:46:47.500 --> 00:46:48.500
Right.

00:46:48.500 --> 00:46:49.500
Okay.

00:46:49.500 --> 00:46:50.500
Thank you.

00:46:50.500 --> 00:46:51.500
I want to jump in a second.

00:46:51.500 --> 00:46:53.500
I follow the logic on zoning.

00:46:53.500 --> 00:46:58.500
I tend to be very, as you know, pro on allowing these.

00:46:58.500 --> 00:47:03.150
My question would be more on the alternative for a variance

00:47:03.150 --> 00:47:03.500
.

00:47:03.500 --> 00:47:07.190
I know there are specific criteria that you have to meet to

00:47:07.190 --> 00:47:09.500
be able to be granted a variance.

00:47:09.500 --> 00:47:13.599
Would this property meet those threshold requirements to

00:47:13.599 --> 00:47:15.500
qualify for a variance?

00:47:15.500 --> 00:47:21.349
And if so, would staff be willing to recommend for approval

00:47:21.349 --> 00:47:25.500
a variance that if we turn this down this evening

00:47:25.500 --> 00:47:30.239
or follow staff's recommendation that a variance would be

00:47:30.239 --> 00:47:33.500
assured to DISD that they're not totally shut down

00:47:33.500 --> 00:47:35.500
and no longer can move forward?

00:47:35.500 --> 00:47:39.110
You're pointing at me to answer that question, and I will,

00:47:39.110 --> 00:47:40.500
actually happily.

00:47:40.500 --> 00:47:43.139
If you recall, we've clearly stated that the use and the

00:47:43.139 --> 00:47:45.500
expansion is something that we're in favor of.

00:47:45.500 --> 00:47:47.500
In fact, it is in field development.

00:47:47.500 --> 00:47:53.059
But because of the associated zoning districts, it makes it

00:47:53.059 --> 00:47:54.500
a very difficult decision, I believe,

00:47:54.500 --> 00:47:57.239
not just on the planning department's planning division's

00:47:57.239 --> 00:47:59.500
part, but also yourselves when you're sitting here

00:47:59.500 --> 00:48:03.500
because you've got some fundamental issues to answer.

00:48:03.500 --> 00:48:05.840
However, when you look at the criteria of the Zoning Board

00:48:05.840 --> 00:48:06.500
of Adjustment,

00:48:06.500 --> 00:48:08.750
and I hope I'm not digressing from the agenda topic, but

00:48:08.750 --> 00:48:12.500
there are several criteria that are listed in there.

00:48:12.500 --> 00:48:16.150
And primarily, there are some physical constraints on that

00:48:16.150 --> 00:48:20.500
site which hamper the ability for it to redevelop

00:48:20.500 --> 00:48:23.500
or to develop or to accommodate expansion.

00:48:23.500 --> 00:48:26.679
And first blush, I would say that we should not have an

00:48:26.679 --> 00:48:29.500
objection, staff should not have an objection

00:48:29.500 --> 00:48:32.829
recommending favorably to the Zoning Board of Adjustment

00:48:32.829 --> 00:48:34.500
for this type of request.

00:48:34.500 --> 00:48:36.460
And we've had several requests in this manner that have

00:48:36.460 --> 00:48:37.500
gone forward in the past.

00:48:37.500 --> 00:48:41.500
Okay. So, Chair, I'm going to continue down this line.

00:48:41.500 --> 00:48:46.610
If, for example, in hypotheticals, if staff feels like

00:48:46.610 --> 00:48:49.059
based on what you described that we could look at a

00:48:49.059 --> 00:48:49.500
variance,

00:48:49.500 --> 00:48:53.059
would it be possible for us to table this, give the

00:48:53.059 --> 00:48:56.190
applicant an opportunity to apply and get their hopefully

00:48:56.190 --> 00:48:56.500
variance,

00:48:56.500 --> 00:48:59.489
and if for some reason there was an issue, this could then

00:48:59.489 --> 00:49:00.500
come back to us.

00:49:00.500 --> 00:49:03.599
I would actually like to defer to Aaron on just one

00:49:03.599 --> 00:49:04.500
question.

00:49:04.500 --> 00:49:08.300
Can we continue? And then depending on if the Zoning Board

00:49:08.300 --> 00:49:10.500
of Adjustment does not recommend favorably,

00:49:10.500 --> 00:49:13.250
I just want to verify if there's a time constraint or a

00:49:13.250 --> 00:49:14.500
time limit on that.

00:49:14.500 --> 00:49:16.500
I've always been of the opinion that you can do that.

00:49:16.500 --> 00:49:19.380
We don't necessarily have done that in the past here in the

00:49:19.380 --> 00:49:21.500
City of Denton and other Texas cities.

00:49:21.500 --> 00:49:25.340
I'm having practice in another state, doing the same kind

00:49:25.340 --> 00:49:27.500
of work that was very common.

00:49:27.500 --> 00:49:29.500
There's nothing that prohibits us from doing that.

00:49:29.500 --> 00:49:33.539
But the ultimate decision on whether or not that should

00:49:33.539 --> 00:49:36.500
occur would lie with the applicant.

00:49:36.500 --> 00:49:38.500
The applicant can choose to say, I don't want to go to ZBA.

00:49:38.500 --> 00:49:40.500
I want to take my chances and go forward here.

00:49:40.500 --> 00:49:45.610
So it is possible, but it takes the applicant also to join

00:49:45.610 --> 00:49:47.500
in that decision.

00:49:47.500 --> 00:49:49.500
I understand, please.

00:49:49.500 --> 00:49:51.500
Commissioner Ellis, I think you were next.

00:49:51.500 --> 00:49:52.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:49:52.500 --> 00:49:55.269
Yeah, I just wanted to go with what Munal was talking about

00:49:55.269 --> 00:49:55.500
.

00:49:55.500 --> 00:49:59.599
It's really the future when we do make this type of zoning

00:49:59.599 --> 00:50:00.500
change.

00:50:00.500 --> 00:50:05.070
If DISD down the road chooses to sell the lot, it does open

00:50:05.070 --> 00:50:09.500
the door if we make this change to a world of possibilities

00:50:09.500 --> 00:50:13.369
that the people along Bolivar and Second Street in

00:50:13.369 --> 00:50:15.500
particular do not want.

00:50:15.500 --> 00:50:20.500
I take this route twice a day on my way to Denton High.

00:50:20.500 --> 00:50:24.849
There are at times that this building does impede on the

00:50:24.849 --> 00:50:27.500
neighborhood often with parking.

00:50:27.500 --> 00:50:31.030
And I do understand the need for expansion, and hopefully

00:50:31.030 --> 00:50:33.500
maybe that would alleviate some parking down the road.

00:50:33.500 --> 00:50:36.920
If they could expand currently where they are and take it

00:50:36.920 --> 00:50:38.500
off the street because it is dangerous right now,

00:50:38.500 --> 00:50:43.530
I will tell you that any time that they're doing a large

00:50:43.530 --> 00:50:45.500
education there.

00:50:45.500 --> 00:50:48.400
But I think it's for the future that I would have to

00:50:48.400 --> 00:50:51.500
definitely agree with Staffan Boatnoh on this.

00:50:51.500 --> 00:50:53.500
Commissioner Tyler.

00:50:53.500 --> 00:50:54.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:50:54.500 --> 00:50:58.300
I was going to go back to the procedural question of

00:50:58.300 --> 00:51:01.500
potential options to push this to ZBA.

00:51:01.500 --> 00:51:06.980
Would that be a new case, or would this case be transformed

00:51:06.980 --> 00:51:07.500
into --

00:51:07.500 --> 00:51:09.500
It would be a new application.

00:51:09.500 --> 00:51:12.250
It would be a specific application for the Zoning Board of

00:51:12.250 --> 00:51:13.500
Adjustment process.

00:51:13.500 --> 00:51:17.159
So they would have to reapply, and we can determine the

00:51:17.159 --> 00:51:20.500
associated fees and what have you with that.

00:51:20.500 --> 00:51:22.500
Thank you.

00:51:22.500 --> 00:51:23.500
Commissioner Shelton.

00:51:23.500 --> 00:51:29.670
You know, to echo the concerns about parking, you mentioned

00:51:29.670 --> 00:51:33.500
that the northern part would be pretty much parking a lot.

00:51:33.500 --> 00:51:35.929
What's going to happen, I guess, on the east side where the

00:51:35.929 --> 00:51:38.500
structures remain that they're going to be tearing down?

00:51:38.500 --> 00:51:40.500
Is there going to be additional building?

00:51:40.500 --> 00:51:45.500
And if so, is that then going to mean more parking spaces

00:51:45.500 --> 00:51:47.500
or more people coming to work,

00:51:47.500 --> 00:51:50.519
which now all of a sudden they've run out of parking spaces

00:51:50.519 --> 00:51:52.500
so they're back out on the street?

00:51:52.500 --> 00:51:54.500
And would that alleviate their parking issues?

00:51:54.500 --> 00:51:58.369
The applicant is here, and I believe they are prepared to

00:51:58.369 --> 00:52:00.500
discuss the numbers of employees,

00:52:00.500 --> 00:52:05.500
how their proposal will affect the parking situation.

00:52:05.500 --> 00:52:08.269
So if you don't mind, I'm going to defer to them because

00:52:08.269 --> 00:52:10.500
they're a lot more well-versed on that.

00:52:10.500 --> 00:52:11.500
Sure.

00:52:11.500 --> 00:52:12.500
Okay.

00:52:12.500 --> 00:52:14.500
How about this next?

00:52:14.500 --> 00:52:15.500
Commissioner Roseau.

00:52:15.500 --> 00:52:16.500
Thank you.

00:52:16.500 --> 00:52:21.809
It seems often that it comes back, in my opinion, about

00:52:21.809 --> 00:52:24.929
future land use versus current use and the difference of

00:52:24.929 --> 00:52:25.500
that.

00:52:25.500 --> 00:52:28.940
It's been explained to me explicitly that future land use

00:52:28.940 --> 00:52:31.500
specifically has a gray blurred line.

00:52:31.500 --> 00:52:32.500
Is that what we call it?

00:52:32.500 --> 00:52:34.500
Fuzzy lines.

00:52:34.500 --> 00:52:38.730
This is the first time I've ever seen from staff present a

00:52:38.730 --> 00:52:42.699
hard line, specifically against all the blurry lines that

00:52:42.699 --> 00:52:43.500
we do see.

00:52:43.500 --> 00:52:46.190
And I'm wondering, is the reason that we're specifically

00:52:46.190 --> 00:52:49.059
calling out this hard line, for the first time in my

00:52:49.059 --> 00:52:50.500
experience,

00:52:50.500 --> 00:52:55.059
for the protection of those houses, because it seems like

00:52:55.059 --> 00:52:58.500
it's supposed to be a transition zoning.

00:52:58.500 --> 00:53:02.449
And that is the difference between the future land use and

00:53:02.449 --> 00:53:03.500
the zoning.

00:53:03.500 --> 00:53:04.500
So you're right.

00:53:04.500 --> 00:53:07.599
The future land use does have that fuzzy, and we can kind

00:53:07.599 --> 00:53:08.500
of look at it.

00:53:08.500 --> 00:53:11.800
We can analyze it both in the low-density residential as

00:53:11.800 --> 00:53:14.500
well as the downtown compatibility area.

00:53:14.500 --> 00:53:17.500
But when we get to the zoning, that's when the hard line,

00:53:17.500 --> 00:53:19.500
because that's when we get parcel by parcel.

00:53:19.500 --> 00:53:20.500
So you're right.

00:53:20.500 --> 00:53:23.500
The hard line is not with the future land use.

00:53:23.500 --> 00:53:25.500
The hard line is with the zoning on that.

00:53:25.500 --> 00:53:28.409
And to impress further upon that, Julie, if you go back to

00:53:28.409 --> 00:53:31.500
that map where it shows the blurred areas,

00:53:31.500 --> 00:53:35.989
when we talk about the downtown compatibility area, really

00:53:35.989 --> 00:53:40.619
it's to make sure that we strengthen both the downtown and

00:53:40.619 --> 00:53:41.500
adjacent neighborhoods.

00:53:41.500 --> 00:53:44.599
And that's where then the analysis gets a little, we do a

00:53:44.599 --> 00:53:46.500
deeper dive into the analysis.

00:53:49.500 --> 00:53:51.500
Commissioner Begg.

00:53:51.500 --> 00:53:52.500
Thank you, Chair.

00:53:52.500 --> 00:53:57.659
And I would just add that transition is definitely what we

00:53:57.659 --> 00:53:58.500
want.

00:53:58.500 --> 00:54:02.630
But this change would create a transition that is kind of

00:54:02.630 --> 00:54:06.889
outside the parameters of what I think is there and wants

00:54:06.889 --> 00:54:07.500
to be there.

00:54:07.500 --> 00:54:08.500
That would be my main concern.

00:54:08.500 --> 00:54:11.389
You're looking at, if we go to DCN, you're looking at

00:54:11.389 --> 00:54:13.500
possibly a seven, eight story building there.

00:54:13.500 --> 00:54:17.730
And that would be a deep concern for me and the

00:54:17.730 --> 00:54:19.500
neighborhood.

00:54:19.500 --> 00:54:21.500
Commissioner Taylor.

00:54:21.500 --> 00:54:23.929
So just exploring the philosophy that Commissioner Rozelle

00:54:23.929 --> 00:54:26.500
brought up, I think it's important.

00:54:26.500 --> 00:54:30.909
You know, I found, I find in my own viewing of the future

00:54:30.909 --> 00:54:35.989
land use map is that in green filled areas, in areas that

00:54:35.989 --> 00:54:38.500
haven't been developed,

00:54:38.500 --> 00:54:40.900
you might have lots or you might have open land that is

00:54:40.900 --> 00:54:43.409
potentially going to become parcels for single family

00:54:43.409 --> 00:54:45.500
development or commercial development.

00:54:45.500 --> 00:54:49.050
And I feel like those areas, those boundaries can move a

00:54:49.050 --> 00:54:52.500
lot more because there isn't a clear expectation.

00:54:52.500 --> 00:54:58.500
In a case like this, you have 50 or so single family homes.

00:54:58.500 --> 00:55:00.500
Every single lot has a home on it.

00:55:00.500 --> 00:55:04.500
They've been there for 60 to 80 years.

00:55:04.500 --> 00:55:07.389
You know, I think there's a clear expectation that there is

00:55:07.389 --> 00:55:08.500
a boundary there.

00:55:08.500 --> 00:55:11.710
So I think that's another part of this fuzziness is

00:55:11.710 --> 00:55:16.000
whenever it's a vacant lot or something that's been demol

00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:18.590
ished or doesn't have anything across the street from it or

00:55:18.590 --> 00:55:19.500
those types of things,

00:55:19.500 --> 00:55:22.940
there's less expectation that it's going to stay exactly

00:55:22.940 --> 00:55:24.500
what it's designated.

00:55:24.500 --> 00:55:28.570
But whenever you have 50 parcels in a row, you know, a

00:55:28.570 --> 00:55:32.400
quarter mile or more in a pretty dense area, completely

00:55:32.400 --> 00:55:33.500
developed.

00:55:33.500 --> 00:55:38.500
You know, if you go back to, is it one map back?

00:55:38.500 --> 00:55:43.500
The one with the actual uses, sorry, forward.

00:55:43.500 --> 00:55:45.380
You know, there's, you can see a lot of purple mixed in

00:55:45.380 --> 00:55:46.500
with the yellow over here.

00:55:46.500 --> 00:55:48.500
All these little commercial uses kind of sprinkled in.

00:55:48.500 --> 00:55:52.840
But then there's this clear line, you know, down Bolivar

00:55:52.840 --> 00:55:57.500
and, you know, up at, what is that, about Westway or so.

00:55:57.500 --> 00:56:01.500
There is nothing commercial in this big, big block.

00:56:01.500 --> 00:56:05.260
So, and all of those, every single one of those lots has

00:56:05.260 --> 00:56:06.500
been built out.

00:56:06.500 --> 00:56:09.599
So I think that's where you might get a clear, clearer,

00:56:09.599 --> 00:56:13.610
brighter lines as opposed to, you know, areas where there

00:56:13.610 --> 00:56:14.500
are open lots.

00:56:14.500 --> 00:56:16.840
Where then you might say, ah, this can move over 100 feet

00:56:16.840 --> 00:56:19.940
or, you know, you could do, these two parcels could go more

00:56:19.940 --> 00:56:24.489
commercial or more residential or, you know, in some cases

00:56:24.489 --> 00:56:27.500
we designate an intersection and say,

00:56:27.500 --> 00:56:30.469
we're going to put 50 acres of commercial here, well it's

00:56:30.469 --> 00:56:33.230
cow pastures now, and it turns out that the commercial

00:56:33.230 --> 00:56:35.500
developer wants the next intersection over.

00:56:35.500 --> 00:56:38.210
And so we end up putting 50 acres of commercial there and

00:56:38.210 --> 00:56:40.829
this 50 acres of commercial up here gets developed as

00:56:40.829 --> 00:56:41.500
residential.

00:56:41.500 --> 00:56:44.929
Because those are just kind of, those are plans on a map as

00:56:44.929 --> 00:56:48.500
opposed to, you know, well developed expectations.

00:56:48.500 --> 00:56:50.500
Yeah, I appreciate the insight.

00:56:50.500 --> 00:56:51.500
Commissioner Rossell.

00:56:51.500 --> 00:56:52.500
Thank you.

00:56:52.500 --> 00:56:55.059
I appreciate the insight and I, clearly the lines are

00:56:55.059 --> 00:56:57.699
evident, the lines break down is where their building

00:56:57.699 --> 00:56:58.500
already is.

00:56:58.500 --> 00:57:01.469
There's, so yes, there's a line at Westway, there's clearly

00:57:01.469 --> 00:57:05.070
a line at Bolivar, but there's not a hard line through that

00:57:05.070 --> 00:57:08.500
alley because it's interrupted by their current building.

00:57:08.500 --> 00:57:12.500
And so, pardon me, I understand exactly what you're saying.

00:57:12.500 --> 00:57:16.170
The, the, to me the biggest issue is rezoning them, selling

00:57:16.170 --> 00:57:19.340
the property, and then we're out of control over that

00:57:19.340 --> 00:57:20.500
development.

00:57:20.500 --> 00:57:25.050
But to say there's, there's this hard line, I don't think

00:57:25.050 --> 00:57:29.500
is a correct assertion because they already are there.

00:57:29.500 --> 00:57:31.989
Like there's, there's not a hard line where it's pink and

00:57:31.989 --> 00:57:35.710
yellow, there's kind of a hard line north of it, there's

00:57:35.710 --> 00:57:38.500
kind of a hard line south of it, but not where they are.

00:57:38.500 --> 00:57:40.889
And so I guess that's the internal struggle I have is, I

00:57:40.889 --> 00:57:43.269
understand the long term, but I also understand it's been

00:57:43.269 --> 00:57:46.500
there since the 80s, so those houses have been living this,

00:57:46.500 --> 00:57:48.500
with us for 40 years.

00:57:48.500 --> 00:57:52.730
And so it's not, to your point, we're not going into cow

00:57:52.730 --> 00:57:56.070
pastures, granted, but we're also not, they're not going

00:57:56.070 --> 00:57:57.500
and tearing down family homes.

00:57:57.500 --> 00:58:00.929
They're, they're working on a building that's already been

00:58:00.929 --> 00:58:04.500
in that neighborhood as a known quantity for 30 years.

00:58:04.500 --> 00:58:06.929
And that was our struggle too, because the use has been

00:58:06.929 --> 00:58:09.440
there and they're, you know, a good neighbor and we want

00:58:09.440 --> 00:58:11.809
them to develop and it really, it really was a struggle

00:58:11.809 --> 00:58:13.500
that we had internally as well.

00:58:13.500 --> 00:58:15.500
Sure, no, I understand it.

00:58:15.500 --> 00:58:18.010
I'm going to throw one other thing before we close this

00:58:18.010 --> 00:58:20.619
item and take a break, get food, and then we'll start on

00:58:20.619 --> 00:58:21.500
razor ranch.

00:58:21.500 --> 00:58:24.360
This is a thought just to throw out for commission to

00:58:24.360 --> 00:58:27.489
consider and maybe DSC to consider between our break and

00:58:27.489 --> 00:58:28.500
when we meet.

00:58:28.500 --> 00:58:33.539
I believe our board has a purview to zone down rather than

00:58:33.539 --> 00:58:38.099
zone up, so we could take a look at the possibility of, on

00:58:38.099 --> 00:58:42.500
the one tract, give them the DCN that they're looking for.

00:58:42.500 --> 00:58:47.230
And on the track that is the NR3, we could do that as a DR2

00:58:47.230 --> 00:58:52.170
, which gets them close to where they want to be for tonight

00:58:52.170 --> 00:58:52.500
.

00:58:52.500 --> 00:58:54.500
It may not be exactly where they would like to be.

00:58:54.500 --> 00:58:57.739
And if they need to go from 75% to 80, they could look at a

00:58:57.739 --> 00:58:58.500
variance.

00:58:58.500 --> 00:59:02.190
But I think we have the purview to down zone versus up zone

00:59:02.190 --> 00:59:02.500
.

00:59:02.500 --> 00:59:04.539
And I don't know if that's something that staff has

00:59:04.539 --> 00:59:06.690
discussed with the applicant or the applicant wants to

00:59:06.690 --> 00:59:07.500
consider it.

00:59:07.500 --> 00:59:10.679
Maybe the commission may or may not want to consider it,

00:59:10.679 --> 00:59:13.780
but just as Chair, we'll throw that out as another option

00:59:13.780 --> 00:59:17.550
we may be able to put before us tonight, depending on what

00:59:17.550 --> 00:59:20.639
the applicant would like to consider based on where things

00:59:20.639 --> 00:59:24.280
seem to be going so far tonight on kind of trying to get a

00:59:24.280 --> 00:59:25.500
consensus here.

00:59:25.500 --> 00:59:29.500
So with that, Julie, thanks for your presentation on this.

00:59:29.500 --> 00:59:33.730
And I'm going to call a recess in our work session at 6 o'

00:59:33.730 --> 00:59:34.500
clock.

00:59:34.500 --> 00:59:36.929
We'll take a quick break and get some food and try to come

00:59:36.929 --> 00:59:37.500
back in.

00:59:37.500 --> 00:59:39.949
I think our next item is going to be at least 20, 30

00:59:39.949 --> 00:59:40.500
minutes.

00:59:40.500 --> 00:59:46.500
So we're going to kind of start running.

00:59:46.500 --> 00:59:47.500
Thank you.

00:59:47.500 --> 00:59:50.500
We're going to reconvene our work session at 6 o'clock.

00:59:50.500 --> 00:59:54.010
I believe the next item on our agenda to receive

00:59:54.010 --> 00:59:58.260
clarification on is going to be in the public hearing for

00:59:58.260 --> 00:59:59.500
razor ranch.

00:59:59.500 --> 01:00:03.500
Mike Bell.

01:00:03.500 --> 01:00:04.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:00:04.500 --> 01:00:06.500
This project is the 1613.

01:00:06.500 --> 01:00:11.500
It's the razor ranch zoning plan.

01:00:11.500 --> 01:00:14.340
The request before you tonight will be to consider an

01:00:14.340 --> 01:00:17.670
amendment to the razor ranch overlay district to reclassify

01:00:17.670 --> 01:00:20.900
approximately 10 acres from a south mixed use sub area to

01:00:20.900 --> 01:00:23.500
the south or to separate and I'll get into that.

01:00:23.500 --> 01:00:26.500
I do want to clarify 10 acres is an overstatement.

01:00:26.500 --> 01:00:28.500
This is changing an exhibit.

01:00:28.500 --> 01:00:29.500
It's not a meets and bounds description.

01:00:29.500 --> 01:00:32.079
So it's actually probably more like four or five, but we

01:00:32.079 --> 01:00:36.500
just want to overestimate for notification purposes.

01:00:36.500 --> 01:00:40.070
What this would entail is an amendment to two exhibits of

01:00:40.070 --> 01:00:43.480
the district with the exhibit B1, which is the concept

01:00:43.480 --> 01:00:46.500
schematic plan and before, which is the zoning overlay.

01:00:46.500 --> 01:00:51.500
We provided both of those in your backup.

01:00:51.500 --> 01:00:53.800
We do have some new members since last time a razor ranch

01:00:53.800 --> 01:00:54.500
item came up.

01:00:54.500 --> 01:00:57.949
So I want to give a brief kind of overview, very general

01:00:57.949 --> 01:01:01.880
overview what razor ranch district is the overlay itself

01:01:01.880 --> 01:01:06.500
includes 410 acres highlighted in the area in yellow.

01:01:06.500 --> 01:01:10.739
It's as we all know, it's on 380 between Bonnie Bray and I

01:01:10.739 --> 01:01:11.500
35.

01:01:11.500 --> 01:01:14.500
The district itself was originally improved in 2007.

01:01:14.500 --> 01:01:18.030
And since then, there have been a number of amendments that

01:01:18.030 --> 01:01:22.500
the two two big ones, in my opinion, in 2008 and 2010.

01:01:22.500 --> 01:01:26.760
When we're working with now is essentially the 2010 version

01:01:26.760 --> 01:01:30.050
of the ordinance with some modifications that we made

01:01:30.050 --> 01:01:31.500
earlier this year.

01:01:31.500 --> 01:01:35.170
The overlay district contains three major components that

01:01:35.170 --> 01:01:38.579
are specific to this area, one being zoning restrictions

01:01:38.579 --> 01:01:41.500
and we limit some of the uses in this area.

01:01:41.500 --> 01:01:43.670
Then there's the map, which is the exhibits that we're

01:01:43.670 --> 01:01:44.500
talking about.

01:01:44.500 --> 01:01:47.760
It also has specific site design criteria in terms of

01:01:47.760 --> 01:01:50.500
architecture, landscape and signage.

01:01:50.500 --> 01:01:52.500
And then there's a special process for site plans.

01:01:52.500 --> 01:01:57.510
So what y'all do see site plans for razor ranch when they

01:01:57.510 --> 01:02:02.539
come in, you know, they'll see one at the next meeting

01:02:02.539 --> 01:02:03.500
actually.

01:02:03.500 --> 01:02:05.889
And then I want to give kind of a breakdown of how razor

01:02:05.889 --> 01:02:08.449
ranch has broken up in terms of zoning and in terms of site

01:02:08.449 --> 01:02:10.500
design because they're a little unique.

01:02:10.500 --> 01:02:13.500
There are two major areas in razor ranch.

01:02:13.500 --> 01:02:16.500
There's the marketplace on the north side of 380.

01:02:16.500 --> 01:02:20.500
It's called the south campus on the south side of 380. I do

01:02:20.500 --> 01:02:20.500
want to call this out.

01:02:20.500 --> 01:02:23.500
This is the 10 acres, the five acres we're talking about.

01:02:23.500 --> 01:02:26.000
I want to keep it in context of our conversation here so

01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:28.500
you know where it is in terms of these boundaries.

01:02:28.500 --> 01:02:32.030
But it's this double black line is the subject property we

01:02:32.030 --> 01:02:33.500
'll be talking about.

01:02:33.500 --> 01:02:37.500
It should stay there as I move through the slides.

01:02:37.500 --> 01:02:41.449
Within the marketplace on the north side, there are three

01:02:41.449 --> 01:02:43.500
areas that are R2 and R3.

01:02:43.500 --> 01:02:47.079
And there's a residential area north of where the Sands and

01:02:47.079 --> 01:02:50.500
Academy between that row of buildings.

01:02:50.500 --> 01:02:53.280
On the south side, it's divided into five or six categories

01:02:53.280 --> 01:02:53.500
.

01:02:53.500 --> 01:02:57.500
RR1 is the town center, the formal town center.

01:02:57.500 --> 01:03:01.829
RR2 is the pad sites along 380 and I-35 where you see the

01:03:01.829 --> 01:03:06.500
chiles, the multi-tenant building, the raising canes.

01:03:06.500 --> 01:03:10.920
Then the south mixed use district is everything kind of

01:03:10.920 --> 01:03:14.610
roughly east of Heritage Trail and then between that and

01:03:14.610 --> 01:03:15.500
the town center.

01:03:15.500 --> 01:03:19.170
Then there are three kind of outlying areas, the substation

01:03:19.170 --> 01:03:24.900
, the gas fill pad, and Cooke Children's have their own

01:03:24.900 --> 01:03:27.500
specific regulations.

01:03:27.500 --> 01:03:32.500
So that's the zoning and that's the uses, the regulations.

01:03:32.500 --> 01:03:35.400
But then there's also some design standards categories that

01:03:35.400 --> 01:03:37.500
group some of these districts together.

01:03:37.500 --> 01:03:41.099
So for the marketplace, the entire marketplace follows

01:03:41.099 --> 01:03:42.500
exhibits C, D, and E.

01:03:42.500 --> 01:03:45.500
C being architecture, D being landscape, E being signage.

01:03:45.500 --> 01:03:49.500
And then the residential north of the Sands to Academy,

01:03:49.500 --> 01:03:54.260
those standards haven't been approved yet, but they will be

01:03:54.260 --> 01:03:57.500
in C, D, and E.

01:03:57.500 --> 01:04:01.269
The second major section of design standards is the town

01:04:01.269 --> 01:04:04.500
center and the south RR2 in this area here.

01:04:04.500 --> 01:04:07.500
Those follow exhibits C1, D1, and E1.

01:04:07.500 --> 01:04:11.500
Those are part of the ordinance today.

01:04:11.500 --> 01:04:14.500
And then there's the south mixed use district.

01:04:14.500 --> 01:04:18.500
And those have exhibits C2, C3, D2, and E2.

01:04:18.500 --> 01:04:21.880
And those C2, D2, and E2 have not been approved at this

01:04:21.880 --> 01:04:22.500
point.

01:04:22.500 --> 01:04:24.750
It's always been the intent that as Razor gets to this

01:04:24.750 --> 01:04:27.000
phase of development, they'll come in and write those

01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:29.500
standards before any development occurs on the site.

01:04:29.500 --> 01:04:34.900
And then there's also C3, which is specific to multifamily,

01:04:34.900 --> 01:04:38.500
and we'll get into that in the next item.

01:04:38.500 --> 01:04:41.150
So getting into specifics of this request, what they would

01:04:41.150 --> 01:04:43.500
like to do, on the left you see the existing map.

01:04:43.500 --> 01:04:47.500
It's part of that south mixed use district on I-35.

01:04:47.500 --> 01:04:51.500
This is where Panhandle will be.

01:04:51.500 --> 01:04:54.500
They would like to change that into the south RR2 district.

01:04:54.500 --> 01:04:59.050
So the same as the Basing Canes, the Wynn Code, the multi-

01:04:59.050 --> 01:05:03.500
tenant buildings that you're seeing go up right now.

01:05:03.500 --> 01:05:05.500
And what does that mean? What are the changes that happen?

01:05:05.500 --> 01:05:07.960
Well, these are the uses that are permitted in both

01:05:07.960 --> 01:05:10.500
districts, and they're entirely commercial.

01:05:10.500 --> 01:05:13.300
What you'd expect, hotel, retail, restaurants, movie

01:05:13.300 --> 01:05:14.500
theaters, offices.

01:05:14.500 --> 01:05:18.570
Those are all permitted in both districts, the existing and

01:05:18.570 --> 01:05:19.500
proposed.

01:05:19.500 --> 01:05:21.730
What's different is in the existing district, there are

01:05:21.730 --> 01:05:23.500
some residential uses that are allowed.

01:05:23.500 --> 01:05:27.500
Town homes, multifamily dwellings, single-family dwellings.

01:05:27.500 --> 01:05:30.599
That if this request were approved, those residential uses

01:05:30.599 --> 01:05:31.500
would go away.

01:05:31.500 --> 01:05:34.500
They would no longer be permitted.

01:05:34.500 --> 01:05:38.030
In terms of the general regulations, they're basically the

01:05:38.030 --> 01:05:38.500
same.

01:05:38.500 --> 01:05:41.599
The south mixed use has some additional requirements for

01:05:41.599 --> 01:05:42.500
single-family.

01:05:42.500 --> 01:05:44.840
Because single-family is not allowed in the proposed use,

01:05:44.840 --> 01:05:46.500
they're not present on the right side.

01:05:46.500 --> 01:05:50.500
They're roughly the same for both districts.

01:05:50.500 --> 01:05:53.210
And then where we get to the difference, the big difference

01:05:53.210 --> 01:05:55.500
and why, the primary reason they're here tonight,

01:05:55.500 --> 01:05:57.539
is that the current zoning does not have the design

01:05:57.539 --> 01:05:58.500
standards approved.

01:05:58.500 --> 01:06:00.500
C2, D2, and E2.

01:06:00.500 --> 01:06:03.500
Those are always intended to be inserted later.

01:06:03.500 --> 01:06:05.969
The district they're going to would then follow standards

01:06:05.969 --> 01:06:09.500
that have already been approved, the C1, D1, and E1.

01:06:09.500 --> 01:06:12.929
So really their request is to, they have a retail use in

01:06:12.929 --> 01:06:13.500
mind.

01:06:13.500 --> 01:06:15.500
The retail use is permitted in both districts.

01:06:15.500 --> 01:06:18.460
They want to go ahead and follow the design standards that

01:06:18.460 --> 01:06:21.500
have already been approved for 380 and 35.

01:06:21.500 --> 01:06:22.500
And what does that look like?

01:06:22.500 --> 01:06:24.610
Some of the new members just want to show some of the

01:06:24.610 --> 01:06:27.500
recent elevations to give you an idea of what those

01:06:27.500 --> 01:06:30.500
architectural standards require.

01:06:30.500 --> 01:06:32.969
And so you see there's kind of a generally consistent theme

01:06:32.969 --> 01:06:34.500
in terms of materials and color.

01:06:34.500 --> 01:06:39.320
That would be the requirement for this site, should it be

01:06:39.320 --> 01:06:40.500
approved.

01:06:40.500 --> 01:06:43.389
And again, what it really boils down to is this change is

01:06:43.389 --> 01:06:44.500
two major things.

01:06:44.500 --> 01:06:45.889
One is the day it's a residential uses and it changes the

01:06:45.889 --> 01:06:46.500
design standards.

01:06:46.500 --> 01:06:48.500
That's really what it boils down to.

01:06:48.500 --> 01:06:51.679
And realistically, residential is probably not ideal along

01:06:51.679 --> 01:06:52.500
I-35 anyway.

01:06:52.500 --> 01:06:55.599
So we don't see that loss as being detrimental to the

01:06:55.599 --> 01:06:57.500
integrity of the district.

01:06:57.500 --> 01:06:59.900
And ultimately we don't foresee the eventual design

01:06:59.900 --> 01:07:02.500
standards in C2, D2, and E2 being,

01:07:02.500 --> 01:07:04.619
for non-residential being all that different from what's

01:07:04.619 --> 01:07:05.500
already approved.

01:07:05.500 --> 01:07:08.010
What will be different in C2, D2, and E2 are those design

01:07:08.010 --> 01:07:10.670
standards for the single family, the multi-family, townh

01:07:10.670 --> 01:07:11.500
omes, things like that.

01:07:11.500 --> 01:07:13.550
So in terms of design, probably not going to be too

01:07:13.550 --> 01:07:14.500
different anyway.

01:07:14.500 --> 01:07:18.500
We did send out a notification.

01:07:18.500 --> 01:07:20.500
We didn't receive any replies.

01:07:20.500 --> 01:07:22.619
I did get a number of phone calls, but nobody wanted to

01:07:22.619 --> 01:07:23.500
return a notice.

01:07:23.500 --> 01:07:27.500
And we will be recommending approval.

01:07:27.500 --> 01:07:29.260
So with that, I'll stand for any questions that you may

01:07:29.260 --> 01:07:29.500
have.

01:07:29.500 --> 01:07:31.500
Commissioner Rosell.

01:07:31.500 --> 01:07:33.500
You said you did get phone calls?

01:07:33.500 --> 01:07:34.500
Yes.

01:07:34.500 --> 01:07:35.500
What were the phone calls?

01:07:35.500 --> 01:07:37.019
It was most of the businesses around wanting to know what

01:07:37.019 --> 01:07:37.500
was going on.

01:07:37.500 --> 01:07:41.500
Okay. There wasn't any residents and outcry or anything

01:07:41.500 --> 01:07:41.500
like that?

01:07:41.500 --> 01:07:43.500
No.

01:07:43.500 --> 01:07:44.500
Commissioner Ellis.

01:07:44.500 --> 01:07:46.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:07:46.500 --> 01:07:48.750
On that note, I think it's because in the buffer region for

01:07:48.750 --> 01:07:52.500
notifications, there aren't any single family homes.

01:07:52.500 --> 01:07:55.500
Question for you.

01:07:55.500 --> 01:07:58.500
Is this just to begin development?

01:07:58.500 --> 01:08:01.199
Is that why they want to do this, just so they can begin

01:08:01.199 --> 01:08:02.500
development sooner?

01:08:02.500 --> 01:08:05.389
Yes. There's a user in mind and they have a site plan in,

01:08:05.389 --> 01:08:06.500
they're ready to build.

01:08:06.500 --> 01:08:09.079
But to do that, under the current zoning, they have to get

01:08:09.079 --> 01:08:11.500
those standards approved, those design steps.

01:08:11.500 --> 01:08:13.420
And they're not ready to do that just yet for the entire

01:08:13.420 --> 01:08:14.500
south mixed use district.

01:08:14.500 --> 01:08:16.500
Okay. We're just not ready to do that yet.

01:08:16.500 --> 01:08:19.500
So by doing this, this allows that development to begin.

01:08:19.500 --> 01:08:20.500
Correct.

01:08:20.500 --> 01:08:21.500
And it's 10 acres.

01:08:21.500 --> 01:08:24.600
It's, like we overestimated, it's probably more like four

01:08:24.600 --> 01:08:25.500
or five acres.

01:08:25.500 --> 01:08:27.500
Four or five acres, is all?

01:08:27.500 --> 01:08:30.500
We don't have a legal description of this boundary.

01:08:30.500 --> 01:08:32.260
Typically in a zoning case, we would get a legal

01:08:32.260 --> 01:08:33.500
description and it's set in place.

01:08:33.500 --> 01:08:35.899
But because all this is is changing an exhibit and an

01:08:35.899 --> 01:08:37.500
ordinance, just one little map,

01:08:37.500 --> 01:08:40.500
we didn't have them go out and survey the exact site.

01:08:40.500 --> 01:08:41.500
Okay.

01:08:41.500 --> 01:08:43.260
But for public notification requirements, if we under

01:08:43.260 --> 01:08:45.500
notice, there are legal implications of that.

01:08:45.500 --> 01:08:47.500
So it's less than 10 acres.

01:08:47.500 --> 01:08:49.500
So we went ahead and went over it just to be safe.

01:08:49.500 --> 01:08:51.500
Okay. Understood. Thank you.

01:08:51.500 --> 01:08:54.500
Commissioner Sullivan.

01:08:54.500 --> 01:08:57.090
Trying to get some background on the Razor Ranch, I found

01:08:57.090 --> 01:09:01.579
that there's been a lot of issues regarding changes that

01:09:01.579 --> 01:09:02.500
are always being made.

01:09:02.500 --> 01:09:09.840
And my concern is that in the original plan that Razor

01:09:09.840 --> 01:09:14.699
Ranch people got tax incentives, rebates, abatements, and

01:09:14.699 --> 01:09:15.500
all kinds of things,

01:09:15.500 --> 01:09:18.939
how does the changing from non-residential or from

01:09:18.939 --> 01:09:22.979
residential to non-residential, how does that affect any of

01:09:22.979 --> 01:09:23.500
that?

01:09:23.500 --> 01:09:26.500
It shouldn't affect it at all in terms of the tax state.

01:09:26.500 --> 01:09:28.789
And the applicant can speak to that probably more clearly

01:09:28.789 --> 01:09:29.500
than I could.

01:09:29.500 --> 01:09:31.500
But my understanding is it does not affect any of that.

01:09:31.500 --> 01:09:35.500
It's just the design standards and the use is permitted.

01:09:35.500 --> 01:09:38.020
Well, but when you have residential, you have property

01:09:38.020 --> 01:09:38.500
taxes.

01:09:38.500 --> 01:09:41.850
And if it goes to commercial, are they still going to get

01:09:41.850 --> 01:09:45.500
the same tax treatment as the other parts of Razor Ranch?

01:09:45.500 --> 01:09:48.500
Forgive me. I'm really not an expert on the tax level.

01:09:48.500 --> 01:09:49.500
Okay. That's fine.

01:09:49.500 --> 01:09:50.500
I think the applicant could probably answer that question.

01:09:50.500 --> 01:09:52.500
That's fine. Okay. Thank you.

01:09:52.500 --> 01:09:53.500
Well, I'll chime in.

01:09:53.500 --> 01:09:55.970
You'll still get your property tax on the commercial, but

01:09:55.970 --> 01:10:00.159
you should also get sales tax that you wouldn't receive in

01:10:00.159 --> 01:10:00.500
a residential.

01:10:00.500 --> 01:10:03.500
Application and I agree with you.

01:10:03.500 --> 01:10:07.319
I don't know that residential was ever a great use there

01:10:07.319 --> 01:10:08.500
along I-35.

01:10:08.500 --> 01:10:11.060
And I think certainly now with the convention center in

01:10:11.060 --> 01:10:13.500
there, I think it makes a whole lot more sense to have

01:10:13.500 --> 01:10:16.699
commercial out in front of that to serve and support that

01:10:16.699 --> 01:10:20.090
convention center than some type of residential stuck out

01:10:20.090 --> 01:10:21.500
there along 35.

01:10:21.500 --> 01:10:23.500
So I think it's a good idea.

01:10:23.500 --> 01:10:26.699
And I like seeing the consistency of the standards that we

01:10:26.699 --> 01:10:29.770
already have in place and eliminate some of that mix and

01:10:29.770 --> 01:10:32.760
match that's been before our commission before about

01:10:32.760 --> 01:10:36.500
different colors and all those kinds of discussion.

01:10:36.500 --> 01:10:38.500
So I think it's a good idea.

01:10:38.500 --> 01:10:39.500
Let me ask you this.

01:10:39.500 --> 01:10:40.500
Mr. Sullivan.

01:10:40.500 --> 01:10:45.850
The, now what is the, I guess the difference between the

01:10:45.850 --> 01:10:51.500
tax incentives for sales taxes versus property taxes?

01:10:51.500 --> 01:10:54.680
My understanding is that there would be no incentive

01:10:54.680 --> 01:10:56.970
necessarily from a property standpoint, property tax

01:10:56.970 --> 01:11:01.170
standpoint, since the owner pays that and not raise a ranch

01:11:01.170 --> 01:11:01.500
.

01:11:01.500 --> 01:11:04.949
Whereas if you have sales taxes, then that's where their

01:11:04.949 --> 01:11:08.550
reimbursements, abatements, or what have you would come

01:11:08.550 --> 01:11:09.500
into play.

01:11:09.500 --> 01:11:13.500
And there are residential along 35 just south of there.

01:11:13.500 --> 01:11:17.020
I'm not sure that that's a legitimate concern just because

01:11:17.020 --> 01:11:20.289
there are already town homes and apartments not too far

01:11:20.289 --> 01:11:21.500
into the south.

01:11:21.500 --> 01:11:24.539
Well, I wasn't into specifics of, I guess maybe what your

01:11:24.539 --> 01:11:27.670
question, I was just making a general statement that they

01:11:27.670 --> 01:11:29.500
both will pay property taxes.

01:11:29.500 --> 01:11:31.500
A residential won't pay a sales tax.

01:11:31.500 --> 01:11:33.909
There won't be commerce going on there and there won't be

01:11:33.909 --> 01:11:35.500
sales taxes taking place there.

01:11:35.500 --> 01:11:38.109
In a commercial setting, if it's another fast food

01:11:38.109 --> 01:11:41.119
restaurant, there'll be sales tax there that would come to

01:11:41.119 --> 01:11:44.369
the city that would not come there if it was, to your point

01:11:44.369 --> 01:11:45.500
, a town home.

01:11:45.500 --> 01:11:47.500
There will be no sales tax collected there.

01:11:47.500 --> 01:11:48.500
That was my statement.

01:11:48.500 --> 01:11:51.500
That may not be the point you were asking.

01:11:51.500 --> 01:11:58.579
Well, I guess my concern was where would the city gain more

01:11:58.579 --> 01:12:05.229
tax revenue from residential or after the rebates or

01:12:05.229 --> 01:12:10.500
reimbursements or whatever, how the incentives are set up.

01:12:10.500 --> 01:12:12.500
Or would it come from sales taxes?

01:12:12.500 --> 01:12:15.939
And that's what I'm, I guess I'm wondering what's the

01:12:15.939 --> 01:12:19.779
overall benefit to the city by changing it from residential

01:12:19.779 --> 01:12:21.500
to non-residential.

01:12:21.500 --> 01:12:24.500
This isn't what you're, give me one second.

01:12:24.500 --> 01:12:27.220
This probably isn't exactly what you're getting at, but I

01:12:27.220 --> 01:12:29.939
do want to make it clear that commercial is permitted there

01:12:29.939 --> 01:12:30.500
today.

01:12:30.500 --> 01:12:31.500
They could do retail.

01:12:31.500 --> 01:12:32.500
Both of them are permitted.

01:12:32.500 --> 01:12:35.500
They're only removing the ability to do residential.

01:12:35.500 --> 01:12:38.029
So in terms of what they could have done before and after,

01:12:38.029 --> 01:12:39.500
it's essentially the same.

01:12:39.500 --> 01:12:42.500
It's just the design standards.

01:12:42.500 --> 01:12:44.500
OK, so residential was not required.

01:12:44.500 --> 01:12:45.500
It was just an option.

01:12:45.500 --> 01:12:46.500
That's what I was going to say.

01:12:46.500 --> 01:12:47.500
Gotcha.

01:12:47.500 --> 01:12:50.500
Thank you for the clarification.

01:12:50.500 --> 01:12:55.500
Other questions?

01:12:55.500 --> 01:12:57.500
Great.

01:12:57.500 --> 01:13:01.500
We have the next item, which is also Rage Ranch.

01:13:01.500 --> 01:13:03.500
Mike Bell.

01:13:03.500 --> 01:13:04.500
All right.

01:13:04.500 --> 01:13:05.500
This is Z1622.

01:13:05.500 --> 01:13:09.500
This is the Rage Ranch multifamily standards.

01:13:09.500 --> 01:13:11.500
I do have a long version and a short version.

01:13:11.500 --> 01:13:14.500
I'll leave it up to you which one you want to hear.

01:13:14.500 --> 01:13:17.930
But essentially it's a request to amend the exhibit C3 that

01:13:17.930 --> 01:13:21.130
we talked about in the last presentation, the multifamily

01:13:21.130 --> 01:13:25.500
standards that are specific to the south mixed use area.

01:13:25.500 --> 01:13:32.500
And it would amend that exhibit C3, B3, excuse me.

01:13:32.500 --> 01:13:35.500
I'm sorry, that's a mistake.

01:13:35.500 --> 01:13:37.500
It's C3, yes, as it is here.

01:13:37.500 --> 01:13:39.500
C3.

01:13:39.500 --> 01:13:42.279
So multifamily, this is the only area multifamily is

01:13:42.279 --> 01:13:44.500
permitted in the south mixed use area.

01:13:44.500 --> 01:13:51.500
So these standards are specific to this area.

01:13:51.500 --> 01:13:53.039
Just to give you an idea of how these standards were

01:13:53.039 --> 01:13:55.500
developed, these are the Afghans proposed standards.

01:13:55.500 --> 01:13:59.029
But what we did recommend is they use subchapter 13, which

01:13:59.029 --> 01:14:02.500
is our citywide standards as a baseline and go from there.

01:14:02.500 --> 01:14:05.220
And so in your backup, I have provided kind of a comparison

01:14:05.220 --> 01:14:07.960
chart between the citywide standards and how they compare

01:14:07.960 --> 01:14:09.500
to the proposed standards.

01:14:09.500 --> 01:14:12.310
But generally it's all the same sections that you would see

01:14:12.310 --> 01:14:15.489
in any other site design criteria manual, the site design

01:14:15.489 --> 01:14:18.619
orientation, architecture, and regulations, landscaping,

01:14:18.619 --> 01:14:21.390
lighting, open space, all the stuff you're typically used

01:14:21.390 --> 01:14:24.500
to seeing in a zoning regulation, site design regulation.

01:14:24.500 --> 01:14:27.000
And with that, I will leave it up to you whether you want

01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:28.500
me to go through these or not.

01:14:28.500 --> 01:14:30.909
If you have questions, otherwise I can jump to it at the

01:14:30.909 --> 01:14:31.500
very end.

01:14:31.500 --> 01:14:33.560
There's kind of a real world example of what we have an

01:14:33.560 --> 01:14:35.500
application in that meets these standards.

01:14:35.500 --> 01:14:37.500
And I can show you what that would look like.

01:14:37.500 --> 01:14:38.500
Won't you please do that?

01:14:38.500 --> 01:14:40.500
And if we have some questions, we can come back.

01:14:40.500 --> 01:14:45.039
As you'll see, it's pretty wordy as they go through the

01:14:45.039 --> 01:14:46.500
long version.

01:14:46.500 --> 01:14:50.500
OK, so this is the site plan application we have in now.

01:14:50.500 --> 01:14:53.539
It will be coming before you at the next meeting should

01:14:53.539 --> 01:14:55.500
these standards be approved.

01:14:55.500 --> 01:14:58.500
And essentially what it is is a multifamily development.

01:14:58.500 --> 01:15:00.500
This would be, north would be to your left.

01:15:00.500 --> 01:15:03.500
The WNCO is right here.

01:15:03.500 --> 01:15:04.500
This is Heritage Trail.

01:15:04.500 --> 01:15:07.500
It's a arterial roadway.

01:15:07.500 --> 01:15:10.840
And it requires the buildings be set up to the front of the

01:15:10.840 --> 01:15:14.350
street, just like we normally require for citywide

01:15:14.350 --> 01:15:15.500
development.

01:15:15.500 --> 01:15:18.869
One of the exceptions, though, is it doesn't require it

01:15:18.869 --> 01:15:20.500
along private streets.

01:15:20.500 --> 01:15:23.680
Again, if you looked at a master plan of Razor Ranch, this

01:15:23.680 --> 01:15:26.500
is all just a big parking field, primarily anyway.

01:15:26.500 --> 01:15:31.840
But we did want to encourage the building to be set up

01:15:31.840 --> 01:15:34.500
along public streets.

01:15:34.500 --> 01:15:37.500
I'm missing a slide here.

01:15:37.500 --> 01:15:41.060
And then in terms of elevations and color materials, it's

01:15:41.060 --> 01:15:44.409
pretty similar to what you've seen in the other parts of

01:15:44.409 --> 01:15:45.500
Razor Ranch.

01:15:45.500 --> 01:15:48.710
However, we did not, the applicant did not wish to include

01:15:48.710 --> 01:15:52.579
like a pallet or building material samples specifically for

01:15:52.579 --> 01:15:54.500
multifamily development.

01:15:54.500 --> 01:15:58.029
So those are different from what you're used to seeing in

01:15:58.029 --> 01:15:59.500
the other exhibits.

01:15:59.500 --> 01:16:02.500
But we did specify the materials that they could use.

01:16:02.500 --> 01:16:06.670
So it does narrow it down a bit more than the citywide

01:16:06.670 --> 01:16:10.500
standards in terms of building materials.

01:16:10.500 --> 01:16:11.500
Commissioner Beck.

01:16:11.500 --> 01:16:12.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:16:12.500 --> 01:16:14.500
Go back one, Mike.

01:16:14.500 --> 01:16:16.500
Yeah, right there.

01:16:16.500 --> 01:16:19.500
It seems clear what are the apartment buildings.

01:16:19.500 --> 01:16:21.500
What are the little cube areas around?

01:16:21.500 --> 01:16:23.500
Are those apartments, too, or townhomes?

01:16:23.500 --> 01:16:25.500
These are garages.

01:16:25.500 --> 01:16:27.500
OK, OK, great.

01:16:27.500 --> 01:16:29.500
And we require them to match the building.

01:16:29.500 --> 01:16:31.899
They have high masonry standards and building materials

01:16:31.899 --> 01:16:32.500
standards.

01:16:32.500 --> 01:16:34.500
They're not allowed to be out in front of the buildings.

01:16:34.500 --> 01:16:36.500
They have to be at the side or the rear.

01:16:36.500 --> 01:16:38.500
That's what you're typically used to seeing.

01:16:38.500 --> 01:16:42.199
And I did, again, I want to stress that I outlined all this

01:16:42.199 --> 01:16:42.500
.

01:16:42.500 --> 01:16:43.500
Again, that's very wordy, too.

01:16:43.500 --> 01:16:46.500
So I'm happy to hit the highlights if you wish.

01:16:46.500 --> 01:16:51.500
But it is more strict than our citywide requirements.

01:16:51.500 --> 01:16:54.500
Commissioner Taylor.

01:16:54.500 --> 01:16:56.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:16:56.500 --> 01:17:00.500
So this is an update to C3.

01:17:00.500 --> 01:17:06.500
Can they build if we don't have D2 and E2 defined?

01:17:06.500 --> 01:17:07.500
Yes.

01:17:07.500 --> 01:17:09.500
No landscape standards?

01:17:09.500 --> 01:17:10.500
Yes.

01:17:10.500 --> 01:17:13.819
The C2, D2, and E2 will be for the non-residential and the

01:17:13.819 --> 01:17:14.500
single family components.

01:17:14.500 --> 01:17:18.020
The ordinance specifically calls out that multifamily shall

01:17:18.020 --> 01:17:19.500
follow Exhibit C3.

01:17:19.500 --> 01:17:22.500
So everything else is subject to C2, D2, and E2.

01:17:22.500 --> 01:17:28.500
So C3 is completely inclusive of landscape and everything?

01:17:28.500 --> 01:17:29.500
Absolutely.

01:17:29.500 --> 01:17:30.500
Okay.

01:17:30.500 --> 01:17:31.500
I understand.

01:17:31.500 --> 01:17:34.020
I was curious about that when I just saw that one of three

01:17:34.020 --> 01:17:35.500
standards being approved.

01:17:35.500 --> 01:17:39.609
And this also, the material requirements, they match the

01:17:39.609 --> 01:17:43.729
material requirements, material and color requirements of

01:17:43.729 --> 01:17:46.500
the rest of Southside Razor Ranch?

01:17:46.500 --> 01:17:50.770
No, there are no pallet approved like you've seen with the

01:17:50.770 --> 01:17:52.500
non-residential.

01:17:52.500 --> 01:17:55.989
So the, what you see on 380 being built has a color pallet

01:17:55.989 --> 01:17:58.500
associated with it and material pallet.

01:17:58.500 --> 01:18:01.500
This does not have that, but we are requiring 40% masonry.

01:18:01.500 --> 01:18:05.390
Everything else, we're capping secondary materials to 30%

01:18:05.390 --> 01:18:09.500
each so you're not going to have 40% MESO and 30% stucco.

01:18:09.500 --> 01:18:11.500
It'll be primarily masonry.

01:18:11.500 --> 01:18:14.489
And we've limited the materials to specific materials that

01:18:14.489 --> 01:18:15.500
we'd like to see.

01:18:15.500 --> 01:18:20.329
Not color, not a specific brand of stone, but we would say

01:18:20.329 --> 01:18:22.500
stone, for instance.

01:18:22.500 --> 01:18:28.500
Thank you.

01:18:28.500 --> 01:18:31.500
Anybody else?

01:18:31.500 --> 01:18:32.500
Thank you, Mike.

01:18:32.500 --> 01:18:33.500
Short version it is.

01:18:33.500 --> 01:18:39.500
Yep, short version.

01:18:39.500 --> 01:18:46.500
And with that, let's see, back here to the front.

01:18:46.500 --> 01:18:49.500
That is all the items we have on our work session agenda

01:18:49.500 --> 01:18:50.500
this evening.

01:18:50.500 --> 01:18:53.500
So I'm going to close our work session at 625.

01:18:53.500 --> 01:19:11.079
And if we can hurry, we can try to reconvene on time at 630

01:19:11.079 --> 01:19:15.500
if possible.

01:19:15.500 --> 01:19:18.170
Good evening and welcome to the City of Bend Planning and Z

01:19:18.170 --> 01:19:21.500
oning Commission meeting for September the 28th.

01:19:21.500 --> 01:19:25.560
We have a quorum present and our meeting has been duly

01:19:25.560 --> 01:19:26.500
posted.

01:19:26.500 --> 01:19:29.500
And I'm going to call our meeting to order at 635.

01:19:29.500 --> 01:19:31.569
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the

01:19:31.569 --> 01:19:37.500
pledge to the U.S. and Texas flag.

01:19:37.500 --> 01:19:52.500
And to the flag of the United States of America.

01:19:52.500 --> 01:19:56.800
Honorable Texas, Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the

01:19:56.800 --> 01:20:12.500
Texas, Texas, Washington, and under God, one, indivisible.

01:20:12.500 --> 01:20:16.420
Just as a point of order, we will not have a minutes for

01:20:16.420 --> 01:20:18.500
our meetings this evening.

01:20:18.500 --> 01:20:22.850
That will be in our next meeting and that will take us to

01:20:22.850 --> 01:20:24.500
our consent agenda.

01:20:24.500 --> 01:20:34.500
And our first item will be PP16-0001.

01:20:34.500 --> 01:20:43.500
Chair would entertain a motion.

01:20:43.500 --> 01:20:47.500
Commissioner Batt.

01:20:47.500 --> 01:20:48.500
Commissioner Rossell.

01:20:48.500 --> 01:20:49.500
I second.

01:20:49.500 --> 01:20:50.500
Okay.

01:20:50.500 --> 01:20:51.500
We have a first and second.

01:20:51.500 --> 01:20:54.500
Any discussion?

01:20:54.500 --> 01:21:16.500
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:21:16.500 --> 01:21:31.500
Motion carries 7-0.

01:21:31.500 --> 01:21:35.710
We'll move us to item three, our individual consideration

01:21:35.710 --> 01:21:36.500
items.

01:21:36.500 --> 01:21:46.500
First item will be A, which will be ADP16-0013.

01:21:46.500 --> 01:21:49.829
And I'm going to call on Julie Wyatt, sorry, for the

01:21:49.829 --> 01:21:51.500
presentation on that.

01:21:51.500 --> 01:21:55.500
It's on part of a page.

01:21:55.500 --> 01:21:56.500
Good evening.

01:21:56.500 --> 01:21:58.500
Would you like for me to go over the site plan again?

01:21:58.500 --> 01:22:00.939
I know we went over it in work session, but because we've

01:22:00.939 --> 01:22:02.500
got a lot of audience members here.

01:22:02.500 --> 01:22:03.500
Please, thank you.

01:22:03.500 --> 01:22:04.500
Who may not have had an opportunity.

01:22:04.500 --> 01:22:05.500
Okay.

01:22:05.500 --> 01:22:11.090
The request before you is an alternative development plan

01:22:11.090 --> 01:22:12.500
for an Aldi.

01:22:12.500 --> 01:22:15.500
The request is to construct an alternative development plan

01:22:15.500 --> 01:22:17.500
to construct approximately

01:22:17.500 --> 01:22:19.500
19,000 square foot grocery store.

01:22:19.500 --> 01:22:25.500
The subject property is located on University and Ector.

01:22:25.500 --> 01:22:27.500
And it is in our MU zoning district.

01:22:27.500 --> 01:22:30.529
The use is permitted, however, there are site design

01:22:30.529 --> 01:22:32.500
considerations that the applicant would

01:22:32.500 --> 01:22:35.500
like for you to consider this evening.

01:22:35.500 --> 01:22:39.539
There are some portions of subchapter 13 that the applicant

01:22:39.539 --> 01:22:43.500
would like to deviate from.

01:22:43.500 --> 01:22:45.970
One being that 60% of the street frontage shall have

01:22:45.970 --> 01:22:47.500
buildings within 10 feet of the

01:22:47.500 --> 01:22:48.500
front property line.

01:22:48.500 --> 01:22:52.500
The minimum floor to area ratio of four tents.

01:22:52.500 --> 01:22:54.899
That the parking area should be located behind the

01:22:54.899 --> 01:22:56.500
buildings or on one or both sides.

01:22:56.500 --> 01:23:00.640
And that the building should be set back not more than 15

01:23:00.640 --> 01:23:02.500
feet from the right of way unless

01:23:02.500 --> 01:23:03.500
it was a plaza.

01:23:03.500 --> 01:23:08.010
So those are the site design considerations that they would

01:23:08.010 --> 01:23:10.500
like to deviate from tonight.

01:23:10.500 --> 01:23:13.500
So we'll look at those in relationship to the site plan.

01:23:13.500 --> 01:23:24.159
And actually, because Commissioner Taylor asked during the

01:23:24.159 --> 01:23:27.500
work session about the easements

01:23:27.500 --> 01:23:31.500
along Ector, I went ahead and pulled up the plat.

01:23:31.500 --> 01:23:34.079
There is an easement, a public utility easement on the

01:23:34.079 --> 01:23:36.500
property to the south of the property.

01:23:36.500 --> 01:23:38.500
There isn't a public easement.

01:23:38.500 --> 01:23:40.899
So if there are any polls there, we could do additional

01:23:40.899 --> 01:23:42.500
research, but there's not a

01:23:42.500 --> 01:23:44.500
public utility easement in that location.

01:23:44.500 --> 01:23:48.500
So just wanted to answer that question for you, sir.

01:23:48.500 --> 01:23:49.500
So sorry.

01:23:49.500 --> 01:23:50.500
Sorry for the detour.

01:23:50.500 --> 01:23:51.500
Okay.

01:23:51.500 --> 01:23:52.500
Back to the site plan.

01:23:52.500 --> 01:23:53.500
All right.

01:23:53.500 --> 01:23:57.500
They're proposing one sign along University Street.

01:23:57.500 --> 01:24:02.500
They are also proposing 72 parking spaces.

01:24:02.500 --> 01:24:05.859
Now, the debt and development code requires 64 parking

01:24:05.859 --> 01:24:07.500
spaces for this location.

01:24:07.500 --> 01:24:10.869
It also states that if an applicant wants to exceed the

01:24:10.869 --> 01:24:12.500
parking requirements, those

01:24:12.500 --> 01:24:16.500
parking spaces have to be constructed of pervious surface.

01:24:16.500 --> 01:24:20.220
And the applicant has elected to develop the parking lot

01:24:20.220 --> 01:24:22.500
with those pervious surfaces.

01:24:22.500 --> 01:24:25.500
So if you'll see the pink area, those are parking spaces,

01:24:25.500 --> 01:24:27.500
but the parking spaces that

01:24:27.500 --> 01:24:30.600
exceed the 64 that are required, but they are proposing per

01:24:30.600 --> 01:24:31.500
vious surface.

01:24:31.500 --> 01:24:34.500
So that meets the debt and development code requirements.

01:24:34.500 --> 01:24:37.500
Some additional site design considerations.

01:24:37.500 --> 01:24:41.930
They are proposing three and a half foot walls, masonry

01:24:41.930 --> 01:24:45.500
walls to screen the carts to reduce

01:24:45.500 --> 01:24:47.500
that visual impact of the carts.

01:24:47.500 --> 01:24:51.420
They're also proposing some pedestrian connections from the

01:24:51.420 --> 01:24:52.500
sidewalk to the building here on

01:24:52.500 --> 01:24:57.500
the Ector Street side, also a pedestrian walkway here.

01:24:57.500 --> 01:25:02.609
And then their loading dock area is proposed to be below

01:25:02.609 --> 01:25:05.500
grade, screened with an eight

01:25:05.500 --> 01:25:09.220
foot masonry wall to reduce the visual impacts of that

01:25:09.220 --> 01:25:10.500
loading area.

01:25:10.500 --> 01:25:13.689
When we look at the landscape plan, there's a little more

01:25:13.689 --> 01:25:14.500
to look at.

01:25:14.500 --> 01:25:19.050
First of all, normally a 15 foot type C buffer would be

01:25:19.050 --> 01:25:21.500
required in this location.

01:25:21.500 --> 01:25:25.010
However, they've extended that buffer and actually added

01:25:25.010 --> 01:25:26.500
additional landscaping within

01:25:26.500 --> 01:25:30.539
it in order to beef up that buffer between the proposed

01:25:30.539 --> 01:25:32.500
commercial development and the

01:25:32.500 --> 01:25:34.500
neighborhood to the south.

01:25:34.500 --> 01:25:38.300
They're also proposing some foundation plantings here along

01:25:38.300 --> 01:25:40.500
University in the front of the

01:25:40.500 --> 01:25:41.500
building.

01:25:41.500 --> 01:25:43.500
They're landscape islands.

01:25:43.500 --> 01:25:47.090
They are meeting the landscape island and NCAP requirements

01:25:47.090 --> 01:25:48.500
of the city of Denton's

01:25:48.500 --> 01:25:51.500
subchapter 13, but they are enhancing that.

01:25:51.500 --> 01:25:55.539
Subchapter 13 requires only one tree in those landscape

01:25:55.539 --> 01:25:56.500
islands.

01:25:56.500 --> 01:25:59.000
They've actually proposed not only those, but some low

01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:00.500
water usage shrubbery in order

01:26:00.500 --> 01:26:05.500
to provide some enhanced landscaping.

01:26:05.500 --> 01:26:10.289
And then this parking lot here on Ector, they're proposing

01:26:10.289 --> 01:26:13.500
additional screening for that.

01:26:13.500 --> 01:26:16.500
The code only requires one tree every 40 feet.

01:26:16.500 --> 01:26:20.539
They've actually proposed to add shrubbery and to reduce

01:26:20.539 --> 01:26:22.500
the visual impacts of that parking

01:26:22.500 --> 01:26:23.500
area.

01:26:23.500 --> 01:26:27.600
All of this combined includes an additional 4,600 square

01:26:27.600 --> 01:26:29.500
feet in landscape area that's

01:26:29.500 --> 01:26:33.239
not required by the code, as well as additional tree canopy

01:26:33.239 --> 01:26:35.500
at maturity of over 6,000 square

01:26:35.500 --> 01:26:38.500
feet.

01:26:38.500 --> 01:26:40.500
Here's the elevations.

01:26:40.500 --> 01:26:44.390
Just to give you a little shorthand, this elevation is

01:26:44.390 --> 01:26:45.500
proposed to be on HIC on the

01:26:45.500 --> 01:26:46.500
site.

01:26:46.500 --> 01:26:53.399
So on Hector, this is the elevation that will be on this

01:26:53.399 --> 01:26:54.500
side.

01:26:54.500 --> 01:26:58.500
This is the university side of the proposed building.

01:26:58.500 --> 01:27:03.000
And then this is the side that will face the south end of

01:27:03.000 --> 01:27:04.500
the property.

01:27:04.500 --> 01:27:07.500
This is 100% masonry structure.

01:27:07.500 --> 01:27:09.500
Well, not 100%, I'm sorry.

01:27:09.500 --> 01:27:10.500
That's incorrect.

01:27:10.500 --> 01:27:12.500
It is predominantly masonry.

01:27:12.500 --> 01:27:17.010
There are some additional elements in this area that are

01:27:17.010 --> 01:27:19.500
going to be a metal element.

01:27:19.500 --> 01:27:23.500
The considerations for ADPs are in subchapter 13.

01:27:23.500 --> 01:27:27.020
First, they need to preserve existing neighborhoods, assure

01:27:27.020 --> 01:27:29.100
quality development that fits within

01:27:29.100 --> 01:27:32.430
the character of Denton, focus new development activity

01:27:32.430 --> 01:27:34.500
centers to curb strip development

01:27:34.500 --> 01:27:37.199
and urban sprawl to ensure that the infrastructure is

01:27:37.199 --> 01:27:39.500
capable of accommodating the development,

01:27:39.500 --> 01:27:42.600
and ensure that the proposal results in an overall high

01:27:42.600 --> 01:27:44.500
quality development that meets

01:27:44.500 --> 01:27:46.500
the intent of why we have these requirements.

01:27:46.500 --> 01:27:49.500
And when you look at why we have these requirements for

01:27:49.500 --> 01:27:52.500
building orientation and parking location,

01:27:52.500 --> 01:27:56.289
it really is to enhance the pedestrian experience in these

01:27:56.289 --> 01:27:58.500
pedestrian-oriented areas.

01:27:58.500 --> 01:28:02.909
Staff worked with the applicant to get additional landsca

01:28:02.909 --> 01:28:05.500
ping to in effect work the same way

01:28:05.500 --> 01:28:08.029
a building in that area may in order to reduce the visual

01:28:08.029 --> 01:28:09.500
impacts of the parking area to

01:28:09.500 --> 01:28:13.460
define the street wall and to provide visual relief for

01:28:13.460 --> 01:28:15.500
pedestrians walking by.

01:28:15.500 --> 01:28:19.500
It will provide a nice visual atmosphere.

01:28:19.500 --> 01:28:23.199
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff does

01:28:23.199 --> 01:28:25.500
recommend approval of the request with

01:28:25.500 --> 01:28:27.500
some conditions.

01:28:27.500 --> 01:28:30.800
First, that the proposed development comply with or

01:28:30.800 --> 01:28:32.500
substantially conform to the attached

01:28:32.500 --> 01:28:35.500
site plan, landscape plan, and elevations.

01:28:35.500 --> 01:28:37.449
And that includes those elements we talked about, the

01:28:37.449 --> 01:28:39.500
pedestrian connections, the enhanced

01:28:39.500 --> 01:28:42.600
buffer, the additional landscaping and tree canopy,

01:28:42.600 --> 01:28:44.500
enhanced landscaping areas in the

01:28:44.500 --> 01:28:48.770
parking islands and on screening, the prohibition of ground

01:28:48.770 --> 01:28:50.500
signs on Ector to reduce the visual

01:28:50.500 --> 01:28:53.899
impact of the commercial development, to screen that cart

01:28:53.899 --> 01:28:55.500
storage, and then also to make sure

01:28:55.500 --> 01:28:58.680
that that loading area is below grade so that it will

01:28:58.680 --> 01:29:00.500
reduce the visual impact.

01:29:00.500 --> 01:29:02.539
I'll stand for any questions, and I know the applicant is

01:29:02.539 --> 01:29:03.500
here and would be prepared to

01:29:03.500 --> 01:29:05.500
answer any questions as well.

01:29:05.500 --> 01:29:07.500
And make a presentation.

01:29:07.500 --> 01:29:08.500
Okay.

01:29:08.500 --> 01:29:09.500
Answer any questions.

01:29:09.500 --> 01:29:10.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:29:10.500 --> 01:29:14.270
Just curious, what determined where these pervious parking

01:29:14.270 --> 01:29:15.500
spaces would go?

01:29:15.500 --> 01:29:18.500
Did it have something to do with how they drained or?

01:29:18.500 --> 01:29:21.270
You know, that would be something that you would, you might

01:29:21.270 --> 01:29:22.500
want to ask the applicant.

01:29:22.500 --> 01:29:25.170
When they, you know, that was initially something because

01:29:25.170 --> 01:29:26.500
they did have a neighborhood meeting

01:29:26.500 --> 01:29:30.100
and that was initially something that they were considering

01:29:30.100 --> 01:29:31.500
is putting that within this

01:29:31.500 --> 01:29:36.500
ADP to construct those with just regular concrete.

01:29:36.500 --> 01:29:39.899
And they've elected since then to do those with pervious

01:29:39.899 --> 01:29:41.500
pavement in order to meet the

01:29:41.500 --> 01:29:43.500
Denton Development Code requirements.

01:29:43.500 --> 01:29:44.500
So.

01:29:44.500 --> 01:29:45.500
Okay.

01:29:45.500 --> 01:29:46.500
I'll pick their brain when they come up.

01:29:46.500 --> 01:29:47.500
Yes.

01:29:47.500 --> 01:29:48.500
Yes.

01:29:48.500 --> 01:29:49.500
Thank you.

01:29:49.500 --> 01:29:51.500
Any other questions for staff?

01:29:51.500 --> 01:29:53.500
Thank you, Julie.

01:29:53.500 --> 01:29:54.500
Sure.

01:29:54.500 --> 01:29:56.500
I'm sorry.

01:29:56.500 --> 01:29:57.500
Commissioner Tyler.

01:29:57.500 --> 01:29:58.500
President Light.

01:29:58.500 --> 01:29:59.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:29:59.500 --> 01:30:01.500
Sorry, I was slow on the button there.

01:30:01.500 --> 01:30:07.220
So I'm looking at the ADP request has four things that are

01:30:07.220 --> 01:30:09.500
within the change.

01:30:09.500 --> 01:30:13.939
As you said, floor area ratio, the setbacks, and then

01:30:13.939 --> 01:30:15.500
parking for the building.

01:30:15.500 --> 01:30:20.800
So this lot works in development, meeting all the

01:30:20.800 --> 01:30:24.500
requirements that it develops.

01:30:24.500 --> 01:30:27.720
If they didn't require an ADP, they just file a project

01:30:27.720 --> 01:30:29.500
that met those requirements,

01:30:29.500 --> 01:30:32.500
put in the building permit and start construction already.

01:30:32.500 --> 01:30:33.500
Yes, sir.

01:30:33.500 --> 01:30:34.500
The use is permitted.

01:30:34.500 --> 01:30:36.500
And so can you pull up the site plan?

01:30:36.500 --> 01:30:37.500
Sure.

01:30:37.500 --> 01:30:40.500
Just to get an idea of what that would look like.

01:30:40.500 --> 01:30:44.810
They would have to have the buildings not more than 10 feet

01:30:44.810 --> 01:30:46.500
from Exeter Street?

01:30:46.500 --> 01:30:48.500
Well, the building actually fronts university.

01:30:48.500 --> 01:30:51.500
So the building would have to be slid up toward university,

01:30:51.500 --> 01:30:55.500
either toward this corner or potentially

01:30:55.500 --> 01:30:57.500
in the middle here within the parking centered in the back.

01:30:57.500 --> 01:30:58.500
It wouldn't have to face both streets.

01:30:58.500 --> 01:30:59.500
It would only have to face university.

01:30:59.500 --> 01:31:00.500
Just one.

01:31:00.500 --> 01:31:06.500
And then it would have to front at least 60%.

01:31:06.500 --> 01:31:07.500
Oh, sorry.

01:31:07.500 --> 01:31:08.500
Can you make sure your mic is on?

01:31:08.500 --> 01:31:09.500
Sorry about that.

01:31:09.500 --> 01:31:10.500
Okay.

01:31:10.500 --> 01:31:15.649
So and then it would, if so it would front university and

01:31:15.649 --> 01:31:16.500
it had to be at least or not

01:31:16.500 --> 01:31:19.500
more than 10 feet from university.

01:31:19.500 --> 01:31:24.500
60% of the property line would have to have buildings,

01:31:24.500 --> 01:31:26.500
built structure within 10 feet

01:31:26.500 --> 01:31:27.500
of the property.

01:31:27.500 --> 01:31:33.229
So say for Granz, if this was 100 feet long, 60 feet of

01:31:33.229 --> 01:31:34.500
this would have to have a building

01:31:34.500 --> 01:31:37.500
within 10 feet of the front property line.

01:31:37.500 --> 01:31:40.270
They couldn't actually do it in this area because there's a

01:31:40.270 --> 01:31:41.500
20 foot utility.

01:31:41.500 --> 01:31:42.500
Is that where you're going?

01:31:42.500 --> 01:31:43.500
It was good.

01:31:43.500 --> 01:31:44.500
20 foot utility easement.

01:31:44.500 --> 01:31:47.680
So they would just have to be, you know, adjacent to that

01:31:47.680 --> 01:31:49.500
20 foot utility easement.

01:31:49.500 --> 01:31:50.500
Okay.

01:31:50.500 --> 01:31:52.939
And then the floor area ratio, we're saying a minimum

01:31:52.939 --> 01:31:54.500
recommended floor area ratio of

01:31:54.500 --> 01:31:57.500
0.4 and they're at like 0.23.

01:31:57.500 --> 01:31:58.500
Yes, sir.

01:31:58.500 --> 01:32:00.970
So they would have to build a 32,000 square foot building

01:32:00.970 --> 01:32:02.500
instead of a 19,000 square foot

01:32:02.500 --> 01:32:03.500
building?

01:32:03.500 --> 01:32:06.220
So the areas and pedestrian areas can actually be

01:32:06.220 --> 01:32:08.500
considered as a part of the floor to area

01:32:08.500 --> 01:32:10.500
ratio in the zoning district.

01:32:10.500 --> 01:32:16.239
So you could potentially have a, you know, a gathering

01:32:16.239 --> 01:32:19.500
space or some sort of plaza area

01:32:19.500 --> 01:32:22.500
that could count toward that floor to area ratio.

01:32:22.500 --> 01:32:24.500
So it wouldn't necessarily just be building.

01:32:24.500 --> 01:32:29.500
It could be building and that people place.

01:32:29.500 --> 01:32:31.500
And this is NRMU.

01:32:31.500 --> 01:32:33.500
Yes, sir.

01:32:33.500 --> 01:32:37.210
So it allows grocery stores up to 25,000 square feet,

01:32:37.210 --> 01:32:40.500
general retail to 5,000 or so, and restaurants

01:32:40.500 --> 01:32:42.500
up to something 4 or 5,000.

01:32:42.500 --> 01:32:43.500
4,000, I believe.

01:32:43.500 --> 01:32:44.500
4,000.

01:32:44.500 --> 01:32:47.500
And then, you know, apartments with a mixed use.

01:32:47.500 --> 01:32:48.500
Or SUP.

01:32:48.500 --> 01:32:49.500
Yes, sir.

01:32:49.500 --> 01:32:52.500
Or an SUP, but not single family homes.

01:32:52.500 --> 01:32:54.500
I don't believe.

01:32:54.500 --> 01:32:55.500
Let me check.

01:32:55.500 --> 01:32:56.500
I believe it's multi family.

01:32:56.500 --> 01:32:57.500
I don't think so.

01:32:57.500 --> 01:32:58.500
Are you correct?

01:32:58.500 --> 01:33:01.600
So like a fourplex could go in, an apartment could go in

01:33:01.600 --> 01:33:02.500
with an SUP.

01:33:02.500 --> 01:33:05.710
You could have retail with apartments above without an SUP

01:33:05.710 --> 01:33:07.500
with just a building permit.

01:33:07.500 --> 01:33:10.500
As long as it met the mixed use development requirements.

01:33:10.500 --> 01:33:11.500
Yes, sir.

01:33:11.500 --> 01:33:12.500
Okay.

01:33:12.500 --> 01:33:13.500
Thank you.

01:33:13.500 --> 01:33:14.500
Sure.

01:33:14.500 --> 01:33:16.500
Any other questions for staff?

01:33:16.500 --> 01:33:19.500
Thank you, Julie.

01:33:19.500 --> 01:33:21.500
Thank you.

01:33:21.500 --> 01:33:26.279
This is not a public hearing, but it is an individual

01:33:26.279 --> 01:33:28.500
consideration item.

01:33:28.500 --> 01:33:31.500
As such, so far, the public is welcome to speak on this.

01:33:31.500 --> 01:33:33.500
You will have to fill out a card.

01:33:33.500 --> 01:33:35.850
The difference between a public hearing and an individual

01:33:35.850 --> 01:33:37.500
consideration is instead of having

01:33:37.500 --> 01:33:40.029
four minutes like you will in a public hearing, you'll have

01:33:40.029 --> 01:33:40.500
three.

01:33:40.500 --> 01:33:43.710
So if anyone would like to speak on this, you can certainly

01:33:43.710 --> 01:33:46.500
give comment as an individual consideration.

01:33:46.500 --> 01:33:48.500
You will need to fill out a card, though.

01:33:48.500 --> 01:33:50.500
So far, I have two cards.

01:33:50.500 --> 01:33:58.500
The first card I have is for Brigid Corbett at 1220 Ector.

01:33:58.500 --> 01:34:01.050
Would you like to speak or would you just like your card

01:34:01.050 --> 01:34:01.500
read?

01:34:01.500 --> 01:34:02.500
I'd like to speak.

01:34:02.500 --> 01:34:04.500
Okay.

01:34:04.500 --> 01:34:07.010
Please state your name and address for the record and you

01:34:07.010 --> 01:34:08.500
're speaking in opposition.

01:34:08.500 --> 01:34:09.500
Yes, I am.

01:34:09.500 --> 01:34:10.500
Okay.

01:34:10.500 --> 01:34:11.500
My name is Brigid Corbett.

01:34:11.500 --> 01:34:19.500
I'm at 1220 Ector, Denton, Texas, 76201.

01:34:19.500 --> 01:34:21.500
I'm a resident of the city of

01:34:21.500 --> 01:34:22.500
San Diego.

01:34:22.500 --> 01:34:24.500
I'm a resident of the city of San Diego.

01:34:24.500 --> 01:34:29.500
My concerns are twofold.

01:34:29.500 --> 01:34:34.090
And one of my concerns, I think that the way things are set

01:34:34.090 --> 01:34:39.500
up with the city, these things are not usually

01:34:39.500 --> 01:34:41.500
addressed together.

01:34:41.500 --> 01:34:45.449
I had tried back in May, I sent an email to a city employee

01:34:45.449 --> 01:34:47.500
and asked her to forward it to some other

01:34:47.500 --> 01:34:49.500
city.

01:34:49.500 --> 01:34:51.500
And she said, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

01:34:51.500 --> 01:34:52.500
I'm sorry."

01:34:52.500 --> 01:34:54.500
I'm feeling my concerns are not addressed.

01:34:54.500 --> 01:34:58.090
But what my concerns are, number one, is the variance in

01:34:58.090 --> 01:34:59.500
the parking.

01:34:59.500 --> 01:35:03.500
Because this site abuts a neighborhood, I feel like the

01:35:03.500 --> 01:35:07.500
current zoning that's in place is in place to

01:35:07.500 --> 01:35:13.500
protect our neighborhood from the scale of business.

01:35:13.500 --> 01:35:17.279
And so to do a variance on that seems to me to put our

01:35:17.279 --> 01:35:19.500
neighborhood character at risk.

01:35:19.500 --> 01:35:23.449
And I think that that ties in also with traffic concerns

01:35:23.449 --> 01:35:27.500
because there are things that are going on with

01:35:27.500 --> 01:35:32.539
Ector Street that, for instance, the street was recently

01:35:32.539 --> 01:35:35.500
repaved, even though it had been repaved in the

01:35:35.500 --> 01:35:37.500
not too distant past.

01:35:37.500 --> 01:35:41.149
It's a very short street, but it is yellow striped, which

01:35:41.149 --> 01:35:43.500
gives the impression that there's a higher

01:35:43.500 --> 01:35:45.500
speed limit than it is.

01:35:45.500 --> 01:35:51.140
And when I sent my email back in May to express concerns, I

01:35:51.140 --> 01:35:55.500
asked about any kind of traffic calming

01:35:55.500 --> 01:35:58.880
practices that are done routinely in larger cities like

01:35:58.880 --> 01:36:00.500
Austin, for instance.

01:36:00.500 --> 01:36:02.500
And there are numerous things that can be done.

01:36:02.500 --> 01:36:07.609
One of those is speed bumps, also texture on the road, stop

01:36:07.609 --> 01:36:08.500
signs.

01:36:08.500 --> 01:36:12.369
The response I received back today that had actually come

01:36:12.369 --> 01:36:15.500
out in June but didn't reach me until today when I

01:36:15.500 --> 01:36:21.500
asked about it addressed only speed bumps.

01:36:21.500 --> 01:36:23.890
And it directed me to speak with someone in the engineering

01:36:23.890 --> 01:36:24.500
department.

01:36:24.500 --> 01:36:26.500
And I'm happy to do that.

01:36:26.500 --> 01:36:29.680
But I think that if there is zoning that affects a

01:36:29.680 --> 01:36:32.500
situation like this where it's a business that's right next

01:36:32.500 --> 01:36:37.279
to a neighborhood, you can't fully address it without

01:36:37.279 --> 01:36:40.500
addressing the traffic concerns.

01:36:40.500 --> 01:36:45.149
And I had also said that with the variance in the parking,

01:36:45.149 --> 01:36:46.500
I'm opposed.

01:36:46.500 --> 01:36:50.029
If the plan came in with the parking that's already allowed

01:36:50.029 --> 01:36:52.500
in the zoning, I would be fine with it.

01:36:52.500 --> 01:36:53.500
Thank you.

01:36:53.500 --> 01:36:56.500
We have a question for you, Commissioner Beck.

01:36:56.500 --> 01:36:57.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:36:57.500 --> 01:36:59.500
Ms. Corbett, thanks for coming in and speaking to us.

01:36:59.500 --> 01:37:01.500
Appreciate it.

01:37:01.500 --> 01:37:05.779
This traffic you're concerned about, do you see -- how much

01:37:05.779 --> 01:37:08.500
of it do you actually see coming down, Hector,

01:37:08.500 --> 01:37:10.500
as opposed to University?

01:37:10.500 --> 01:37:13.810
We don't have a whole lot of traffic on our street, but

01:37:13.810 --> 01:37:18.500
there are people who drive much faster than 30.

01:37:18.500 --> 01:37:19.500
I agree.

01:37:19.500 --> 01:37:22.500
And the speed limit there now should be 30.

01:37:22.500 --> 01:37:24.500
Okay.

01:37:24.500 --> 01:37:27.819
Your concern is that this is going to be violated more

01:37:27.819 --> 01:37:31.500
often now because if this grocery store goes in?

01:37:31.500 --> 01:37:36.500
Well, our street is deemed a collector street.

01:37:36.500 --> 01:37:37.500
Right.

01:37:37.500 --> 01:37:41.890
In larger cities, collector streets still have traffic

01:37:41.890 --> 01:37:45.500
calming strategies because you can't just say,

01:37:45.500 --> 01:37:48.109
well, now that this is a collector street, we're going to

01:37:48.109 --> 01:37:50.500
ignore that it's a neighborhood street as well.

01:37:50.500 --> 01:37:54.350
And it's my impression that we are getting away from

01:37:54.350 --> 01:37:57.500
concerns for the integrity of the neighborhood

01:37:57.500 --> 01:38:02.500
and moving towards making traffic easier.

01:38:02.500 --> 01:38:07.619
The response that I got today was, let's see, our

01:38:07.619 --> 01:38:09.939
engineering department checked with fire regarding

01:38:09.939 --> 01:38:11.500
installation of speed humps on Hector Street.

01:38:11.500 --> 01:38:14.930
Unfortunately, they don't support it as it is designated as

01:38:14.930 --> 01:38:17.500
a collector in the city's mobility plan.

01:38:17.500 --> 01:38:20.880
Additionally, this segment of Hector is approximately 30

01:38:20.880 --> 01:38:23.500
feet wide with frontage roads on either side.

01:38:23.500 --> 01:38:27.500
That's some of us here live on Hector.

01:38:27.500 --> 01:38:29.500
That's where we park our cars.

01:38:29.500 --> 01:38:33.500
In no way are those roads, makes it sound like a freeway,

01:38:33.500 --> 01:38:36.960
wide enough to provide access and space for parking

01:38:36.960 --> 01:38:37.500
vehicles.

01:38:37.500 --> 01:38:42.069
As such, the street design enables vehicles to pass at a

01:38:42.069 --> 01:38:45.500
higher speed due to the reduced friction,

01:38:45.500 --> 01:38:49.500
which I'm sorry, but that really didn't make sense to me,

01:38:49.500 --> 01:38:51.500
reduced friction.

01:38:51.500 --> 01:38:55.149
Well, I agree there's probably going to be some increased

01:38:55.149 --> 01:38:59.210
traffic coming down Hector and some calming devices would

01:38:59.210 --> 01:39:01.500
be a sensible thing to do.

01:39:01.500 --> 01:39:05.500
So I don't know what we can do here with that today.

01:39:05.500 --> 01:39:08.680
Well, I'll be contacting the engineering department, but I

01:39:08.680 --> 01:39:11.140
would hope that in the future there would be collaboration

01:39:11.140 --> 01:39:11.500
between departments

01:39:11.500 --> 01:39:15.039
because obviously something like this affects more than

01:39:15.039 --> 01:39:16.500
just the lot itself.

01:39:16.500 --> 01:39:17.500
I understand. Thank you.

01:39:17.500 --> 01:39:18.500
All right. Thank you.

01:39:18.500 --> 01:39:21.500
Another question for you, please. Commissioner Rossell.

01:39:21.500 --> 01:39:25.270
Thank you. It's actually more of a clarification from staff

01:39:25.270 --> 01:39:28.500
regarding Ms. Corbett's comments about parking.

01:39:28.500 --> 01:39:31.819
Is the parking currently a minimum and they're going above

01:39:31.819 --> 01:39:35.529
and beyond or is it a maximum and they're actually asking

01:39:35.529 --> 01:39:37.500
for variance to put in more parking?

01:39:37.500 --> 01:39:38.500
Can you clarify that?

01:39:38.500 --> 01:39:41.500
Sure. Sure.

01:39:41.500 --> 01:39:44.229
The original neighborhood meeting that they had did say

01:39:44.229 --> 01:39:46.909
that they wanted to exceed the parking and construct it

01:39:46.909 --> 01:39:48.500
with impervious surface.

01:39:48.500 --> 01:39:52.739
The Denton Development Code allows developers to exceed the

01:39:52.739 --> 01:39:56.539
parking maximums if they construct them with pervious

01:39:56.539 --> 01:39:57.500
surface.

01:39:57.500 --> 01:40:00.210
So since they have come back and said, no, we want to do it

01:40:00.210 --> 01:40:02.810
with pervious surface, that actually meets the code

01:40:02.810 --> 01:40:06.479
requirements and therefore is not a part of this ADP

01:40:06.479 --> 01:40:07.500
request.

01:40:07.500 --> 01:40:10.760
They actually with parking, with the parking numbers, they

01:40:10.760 --> 01:40:12.500
meet the code requirements.

01:40:12.500 --> 01:40:16.500
Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

01:40:16.500 --> 01:40:18.500
I have another card.

01:40:18.500 --> 01:40:27.500
Amber Briggle, 529 Malone Street, speaking in support.

01:40:27.500 --> 01:40:29.500
It's good to see you back.

01:40:29.500 --> 01:40:30.500
I missed y'all.

01:40:30.500 --> 01:40:31.500
Yeah.

01:40:31.500 --> 01:40:32.500
Thank you, Chair, commissioners.

01:40:32.500 --> 01:40:33.500
My name is Amber Briggle.

01:40:33.500 --> 01:40:37.149
I live just north of this proposed development and I work

01:40:37.149 --> 01:40:38.500
just south of it.

01:40:38.500 --> 01:40:41.500
So I'll give my work address, 529 Malone Street.

01:40:41.500 --> 01:40:46.489
I have a bit of history with this case, being that I served

01:40:46.489 --> 01:40:49.500
on the Planning and Zoning Commission for three years.

01:40:49.500 --> 01:40:53.250
I know that previously this case, there was a proposal for

01:40:53.250 --> 01:40:55.500
a zoning change on this corner.

01:40:55.500 --> 01:40:59.300
They wanted to put in drive-through fast food and the

01:40:59.300 --> 01:41:02.500
neighborhood came out vehemently opposed.

01:41:02.500 --> 01:41:04.500
And I thought it was a terrible idea.

01:41:04.500 --> 01:41:06.500
And so we did reject that proposal.

01:41:06.500 --> 01:41:08.500
I think this is a much better idea.

01:41:08.500 --> 01:41:10.600
Commissioner Beck and I were at that neighborhood meeting

01:41:10.600 --> 01:41:11.500
several months ago.

01:41:11.500 --> 01:41:13.500
I am in favor of this.

01:41:13.500 --> 01:41:16.500
I know I saw in y'all's backup some of the considerations

01:41:16.500 --> 01:41:20.500
why it required that the ADP were, for example,

01:41:20.500 --> 01:41:22.500
item 1A and item 1C.

01:41:22.500 --> 01:41:25.680
1A said it's set a little closer to the neighborhood and

01:41:25.680 --> 01:41:27.500
set away from University Drive.

01:41:27.500 --> 01:41:30.909
And the parking was going to be on the front and on the

01:41:30.909 --> 01:41:31.500
side.

01:41:31.500 --> 01:41:35.130
I think that's great because if we're in our Gentin 2030

01:41:35.130 --> 01:41:37.500
plan wanting to do more multimodal transportation,

01:41:37.500 --> 01:41:40.850
for example, cycling and walking, you want the structure to

01:41:40.850 --> 01:41:42.500
be closer to the neighborhood.

01:41:42.500 --> 01:41:43.500
And in this case, it is.

01:41:43.500 --> 01:41:46.500
So I think that that's a good idea.

01:41:46.500 --> 01:41:50.199
I also think having more parking spaces means that there

01:41:50.199 --> 01:41:52.500
will be less parking on the street,

01:41:52.500 --> 01:41:55.500
which was a concern that the neighborhood had.

01:41:55.500 --> 01:41:57.529
You may recall, Commissioner Beck, they were very concerned

01:41:57.529 --> 01:41:59.500
about parking on Ector and possibly on Emory.

01:41:59.500 --> 01:42:03.300
I think having more parking spaces on site is going to

01:42:03.300 --> 01:42:05.500
reduce on street parking.

01:42:05.500 --> 01:42:08.500
I am in favor of the pedestrian access.

01:42:08.500 --> 01:42:11.500
I'm curious to see where the bike racks are.

01:42:11.500 --> 01:42:14.500
I think it is required now.

01:42:14.500 --> 01:42:16.500
You're smiling at me.

01:42:16.500 --> 01:42:20.500
But you know I'm going to talk about bike racks.

01:42:20.500 --> 01:42:23.500
I think it's required now in our parking requirements.

01:42:23.500 --> 01:42:26.500
I was just kind of curious to see where those were at.

01:42:26.500 --> 01:42:31.090
A couple of questions I had were the extra 5,000 feet or so

01:42:31.090 --> 01:42:32.500
of landscaping.

01:42:32.500 --> 01:42:35.020
I'm kind of curious to know if Bermuda grass is included in

01:42:35.020 --> 01:42:35.500
that.

01:42:35.500 --> 01:42:37.500
Staff has heard me talk about this before.

01:42:37.500 --> 01:42:38.500
I am in favor of more.

01:42:38.500 --> 01:42:42.369
If we're going to be asking for accommodations from

01:42:42.369 --> 01:42:43.500
developers,

01:42:43.500 --> 01:42:47.500
I think we need to be encouraging more zero scaping.

01:42:47.500 --> 01:42:50.500
And they can certainly put Bermuda grass on their property,

01:42:50.500 --> 01:42:53.720
but I think if we're going to be counting this landscape

01:42:53.720 --> 01:42:55.500
requirement that they're going above and beyond,

01:42:55.500 --> 01:42:57.899
I don't think it should be with something that's Bermuda

01:42:57.899 --> 01:43:00.500
grass that requires a lot more water to do.

01:43:00.500 --> 01:43:03.920
So I would again encourage and urge staff and the Planning

01:43:03.920 --> 01:43:04.500
and Zoning Commission

01:43:04.500 --> 01:43:10.670
to look at more zero scaping requirements in the cases of

01:43:10.670 --> 01:43:12.500
SUPs and ADPs.

01:43:12.500 --> 01:43:14.500
Bike racks, okay.

01:43:14.500 --> 01:43:17.770
Oh, and I'm also curious to know if the applicant did a

01:43:17.770 --> 01:43:19.500
traffic study on Emory.

01:43:19.500 --> 01:43:21.539
The last time that this lot came to us, a traffic study on

01:43:21.539 --> 01:43:22.500
Emory was not done.

01:43:22.500 --> 01:43:26.029
And I think that that's important to look at since it's a

01:43:26.029 --> 01:43:28.500
straight kind of east-west road.

01:43:28.500 --> 01:43:32.050
And also we talked at the neighborhood meeting about

01:43:32.050 --> 01:43:36.500
possibly putting up a sign showing the trucks,

01:43:36.500 --> 01:43:39.500
that there was no truck traffic going down Emory or Ector.

01:43:39.500 --> 01:43:42.500
They wanted to do a one-way in and out on University.

01:43:42.500 --> 01:43:45.060
I just want to make sure that that's included in this as

01:43:45.060 --> 01:43:45.500
well.

01:43:45.500 --> 01:43:50.720
And regarding the citizen who spoke before me, I thought

01:43:50.720 --> 01:43:51.500
you had some very good concerns.

01:43:51.500 --> 01:43:55.500
I'm concerned also about the speed on Ector a lot.

01:43:55.500 --> 01:43:59.279
And I think if we were to continue working on our bike plan

01:43:59.279 --> 01:43:59.500
,

01:43:59.500 --> 01:44:04.500
I think striping Ector to include a designated bike lane

01:44:04.500 --> 01:44:06.500
would not only narrow the lanes,

01:44:06.500 --> 01:44:09.500
which would kind of create this psychological --

01:44:09.500 --> 01:44:12.060
kind of make you feel like you've got to drive a little bit

01:44:12.060 --> 01:44:14.500
slower because it's a shorter, smaller lane,

01:44:14.500 --> 01:44:16.500
but also encourages more multimodal transportation.

01:44:16.500 --> 01:44:18.840
For example, the students coming up from UNT, they lost

01:44:18.840 --> 01:44:19.500
their sack and save.

01:44:19.500 --> 01:44:22.710
Now they've got to ride their bikes across University to

01:44:22.710 --> 01:44:26.500
get to Albertsons, Sam's Club, Walmart, and Kroger.

01:44:26.500 --> 01:44:30.500
This is on the correct side of the road.

01:44:30.500 --> 01:44:31.500
I'm wrapping it up.

01:44:31.500 --> 01:44:36.430
But if we could get some striping on Ector, it would slow

01:44:36.430 --> 01:44:39.500
the traffic and encourage more cycling.

01:44:39.500 --> 01:44:40.500
That's it. Thank you.

01:44:40.500 --> 01:44:41.500
-Question for you. -Yes, sir.

01:44:41.500 --> 01:44:44.069
-Commissioner Rossell. -Thank you, Mr. Rolfe, for being

01:44:44.069 --> 01:44:44.500
here.

01:44:44.500 --> 01:44:46.500
I think the city uses the word "friction,"

01:44:46.500 --> 01:44:48.989
so maybe the bike lanes would create friction to slow down

01:44:48.989 --> 01:44:50.500
traffic to the e-mail's point.

01:44:50.500 --> 01:44:52.500
Maybe that's what they're talking about. I don't know.

01:44:52.500 --> 01:44:54.970
But maybe the bike lanes would help with that sort of

01:44:54.970 --> 01:44:58.500
friction to encourage slower traffic down that road.

01:44:58.500 --> 01:45:01.500
-Sure. -I support that theory completely.

01:45:01.500 --> 01:45:05.640
I was wondering if the applicant or Julie could speak to

01:45:05.640 --> 01:45:08.500
the bike racks for clarification.

01:45:08.500 --> 01:45:11.789
I'm going to have the applicant come up and show you where

01:45:11.789 --> 01:45:12.500
they are.

01:45:12.500 --> 01:45:20.500
Perfect.

01:45:20.500 --> 01:45:22.500
Good evening. My name's Brian Berger.

01:45:22.500 --> 01:45:25.500
I'm with Berger Engineering, 17103 Preston Road.

01:45:25.500 --> 01:45:28.520
The bike racks will be up underneath the front canopy of

01:45:28.520 --> 01:45:29.500
the building.

01:45:29.500 --> 01:45:31.760
They're not shown on that side plan, but the bike racks

01:45:31.760 --> 01:45:33.500
will be underneath that front canopy.

01:45:33.500 --> 01:45:36.500
-Thank you. -Thank you.

01:45:36.500 --> 01:45:38.500
-Thanks. -Great. Thank you.

01:45:38.500 --> 01:45:40.500
Thank you.

01:45:40.500 --> 01:45:44.590
Our next speaker will be Mark Mitchell, 1215 Hector,

01:45:44.590 --> 01:45:54.500
speaking in opposition.

01:45:54.500 --> 01:45:57.500
I really just have-- I'd like to start with an equation.

01:45:57.500 --> 01:45:59.500
Will you state your name and address, please, for us?

01:45:59.500 --> 01:46:03.500
-Mark Mitchell, 1215 Hector. -Thank you.

01:46:03.500 --> 01:46:09.729
I live just a couple hundred yards from the site to the

01:46:09.729 --> 01:46:10.500
south.

01:46:10.500 --> 01:46:15.279
And I attended the previous meeting they had in the

01:46:15.279 --> 01:46:16.500
neighborhood,

01:46:16.500 --> 01:46:20.500
and I've spoken with Ms. Wyatt a couple of times,

01:46:20.500 --> 01:46:24.279
and I wrote a letter and asked her to pass it on to the

01:46:24.279 --> 01:46:25.500
commission.

01:46:25.500 --> 01:46:30.500
I just would like to know if any of you all have seen that.

01:46:30.500 --> 01:46:35.279
Okay. Well, that's all I need to know, because all my

01:46:35.279 --> 01:46:36.500
concerns are in there.

01:46:36.500 --> 01:46:39.500
So thank you.

01:46:39.500 --> 01:46:41.500
I have a question for you, sir.

01:46:41.500 --> 01:46:42.500
Commissioner Tyler.

01:46:42.500 --> 01:46:43.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:46:43.500 --> 01:46:47.770
So Mr. Mitchell, I noticed in your letter you said-- I'm

01:46:47.770 --> 01:46:49.500
trying to find the exact sentence.

01:46:49.500 --> 01:46:52.340
You said basically that you know that this is going to

01:46:52.340 --> 01:46:53.500
develop commercial,

01:46:53.500 --> 01:46:56.060
but you didn't feel that this was an appropriate type of

01:46:56.060 --> 01:46:57.500
commercial development.

01:46:57.500 --> 01:47:01.500
What would be a better one for this quarter?

01:47:01.500 --> 01:47:05.500
I think I gave a couple of examples there in the letter.

01:47:05.500 --> 01:47:17.029
Just to-- in general, a business which has less traffic and

01:47:17.029 --> 01:47:21.500
not open until 9 at night.

01:47:21.500 --> 01:47:25.909
So something like an office that closes at 6 p.m. or doctor

01:47:25.909 --> 01:47:26.500
's office?

01:47:26.500 --> 01:47:30.710
Yeah. One example I stated in there was, you know, like the

01:47:30.710 --> 01:47:31.500
paint store

01:47:31.500 --> 01:47:33.500
that's a couple hundred yards down the street.

01:47:33.500 --> 01:47:38.810
That's a-- you know, they don't have 80 parking spaces, and

01:47:38.810 --> 01:47:40.500
they close at 6.

01:47:40.500 --> 01:47:44.720
So I just think that there's going to be an awful lot of

01:47:44.720 --> 01:47:46.500
traffic and activity

01:47:46.500 --> 01:47:50.500
with something like a grocery store.

01:47:50.500 --> 01:47:52.500
Thank you for the clarification.

01:47:52.500 --> 01:47:54.069
I actually didn't see the reference to the paint store, so

01:47:54.069 --> 01:47:54.500
thank you.

01:47:54.500 --> 01:47:55.500
You see it now?

01:47:55.500 --> 01:47:56.500
I do, yeah.

01:47:56.500 --> 01:47:58.500
Okay. All right.

01:47:58.500 --> 01:47:59.500
Thank you, sir.

01:47:59.500 --> 01:48:04.500
Appreciate your comments.

01:48:04.500 --> 01:48:09.500
Next speaker will be Jesse Davis at 1228.

01:48:09.500 --> 01:48:15.500
Hector looks like speaking in support.

01:48:15.500 --> 01:48:18.500
Hi, I'm Jesse, Jesse Davis at 1228, Hector.

01:48:18.500 --> 01:48:21.500
I checked the support box because there are only two boxes,

01:48:21.500 --> 01:48:23.640
but I want to explain a little bit of my thought process in

01:48:23.640 --> 01:48:24.500
getting there

01:48:24.500 --> 01:48:27.130
because we spent a lot of time as a neighborhood talking

01:48:27.130 --> 01:48:28.500
about this lot.

01:48:28.500 --> 01:48:30.500
Some of the commissioners know the history there,

01:48:30.500 --> 01:48:33.500
what this lot was intended to be developed as,

01:48:33.500 --> 01:48:36.720
when the houses were built years ago, when the street was

01:48:36.720 --> 01:48:37.500
platted.

01:48:37.500 --> 01:48:39.500
It was originally going to be a church.

01:48:39.500 --> 01:48:41.550
There's going to be another couple different kinds of

01:48:41.550 --> 01:48:42.500
community building.

01:48:42.500 --> 01:48:46.500
The last thing we had was a proposal to build a Burger King

01:48:46.500 --> 01:48:48.500
and a Popeyes there,

01:48:48.500 --> 01:48:51.149
and we all saw very easily that that was not appropriate

01:48:51.149 --> 01:48:52.500
for our neighborhood.

01:48:52.500 --> 01:48:56.500
Now, as you look at this proposal for a grocery store,

01:48:56.500 --> 01:49:00.130
there was a time in our city's history where neighborhood

01:49:00.130 --> 01:49:01.500
grocery stores were all over the place.

01:49:01.500 --> 01:49:03.789
Itty bitty little things, you get your dry goods or

01:49:03.789 --> 01:49:04.500
whatever.

01:49:04.500 --> 01:49:07.170
The Art Alley building, now Vintage Blue, was a grocery

01:49:07.170 --> 01:49:08.500
store right in the middle of the neighborhood.

01:49:08.500 --> 01:49:10.970
That's not really appropriate to the way that we shop for

01:49:10.970 --> 01:49:13.500
groceries and the way we live now.

01:49:13.500 --> 01:49:17.500
That's the opposition part of what my neighbors, I think,

01:49:17.500 --> 01:49:18.500
are saying.

01:49:18.500 --> 01:49:23.170
The things I agree with my neighbors about, Bridget is my

01:49:23.170 --> 01:49:24.500
neighbor right next door,

01:49:24.500 --> 01:49:28.760
right across the street from me, and I really do agree with

01:49:28.760 --> 01:49:30.500
their concerns about traffic.

01:49:30.500 --> 01:49:33.500
I think Ector is going to be where that traffic goes.

01:49:33.500 --> 01:49:35.500
I think University, even when it's finished,

01:49:35.500 --> 01:49:38.100
is not going to be able to handle the kind of traffic that

01:49:38.100 --> 01:49:39.500
this side is going to see.

01:49:39.500 --> 01:49:41.920
You don't even have the parking lot buffer like you do with

01:49:41.920 --> 01:49:43.500
Albertsons a little further down,

01:49:43.500 --> 01:49:46.210
and you certainly don't have next-door Albertsons

01:49:46.210 --> 01:49:47.500
residential homes.

01:49:47.500 --> 01:49:50.909
Here's the support part. Here's the reason why I checked

01:49:50.909 --> 01:49:51.500
that box.

01:49:51.500 --> 01:49:54.859
There is a developer entitled by right in this zoning to

01:49:54.859 --> 01:49:56.500
build a grocery store.

01:49:56.500 --> 01:49:59.500
They are not entitled to do it in quite this way,

01:49:59.500 --> 01:50:02.500
but I think it's important that we encourage our developers

01:50:02.500 --> 01:50:05.500
when they meet resistance from the neighborhood.

01:50:05.500 --> 01:50:09.500
These developers behaved in a way 180 degrees differently

01:50:09.500 --> 01:50:11.789
than the guys who wanted to build the Popeyes and the

01:50:11.789 --> 01:50:12.500
Burger King.

01:50:12.500 --> 01:50:15.500
Those people were not concerned with our development code.

01:50:15.500 --> 01:50:17.350
They were not concerned with the people in the neighborhood

01:50:17.350 --> 01:50:17.500
.

01:50:17.500 --> 01:50:20.000
They wanted to build what they wanted to build and do it in

01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:21.500
the way they wanted to do it.

01:50:21.500 --> 01:50:23.619
There are some other people in some other industries I'm

01:50:23.619 --> 01:50:24.500
not going to go into today

01:50:24.500 --> 01:50:28.159
who did the exact same thing and really ran afoul of this

01:50:28.159 --> 01:50:30.500
city by not working with residents

01:50:30.500 --> 01:50:33.489
and found themselves in the news for not working with the

01:50:33.489 --> 01:50:34.500
people of that.

01:50:34.500 --> 01:50:37.500
The only reason I'm checking the support box on this

01:50:37.500 --> 01:50:40.600
is because I want to encourage developers to work with

01:50:40.600 --> 01:50:42.500
neighborhoods in the future.

01:50:42.500 --> 01:50:44.500
They really have done a lot in this ADP.

01:50:44.500 --> 01:50:46.500
You'll see their landscaping is way above requirements.

01:50:46.500 --> 01:50:49.600
You'll see that some of the things they did to address,

01:50:49.600 --> 01:50:51.500
like the impervious services you heard about from Julie,

01:50:51.500 --> 01:50:54.500
they did a lot to address our concerns.

01:50:54.500 --> 01:50:57.810
Really not quite enough and Aldi is not really the neighbor

01:50:57.810 --> 01:50:58.500
that I want.

01:50:58.500 --> 01:51:00.500
That is not the neighbor that I want,

01:51:00.500 --> 01:51:03.680
but I think that they're entitled to build a grocery store

01:51:03.680 --> 01:51:04.500
in this zoning,

01:51:04.500 --> 01:51:06.949
and I think they're doing everything that they can to make

01:51:06.949 --> 01:51:09.500
their business model fit in this spot.

01:51:09.500 --> 01:51:12.520
One thing that was discussed that I'm glad Amber brought up

01:51:12.520 --> 01:51:13.500
was the trucks.

01:51:13.500 --> 01:51:15.500
The way that this site plan...

01:51:15.500 --> 01:51:18.500
Could you put the site plan back up, whoever's running?

01:51:18.500 --> 01:51:20.500
Okay.

01:51:20.500 --> 01:51:23.300
The way the site plan is supposed to work, as we've been

01:51:23.300 --> 01:51:24.500
told by the developer,

01:51:24.500 --> 01:51:26.069
is that these trucks are supposed to come in from

01:51:26.069 --> 01:51:26.500
university,

01:51:26.500 --> 01:51:29.500
because that's their route from their distribution center.

01:51:29.500 --> 01:51:33.449
They are supposed to go out head first into Ector Street

01:51:33.449 --> 01:51:34.500
and come out just a few feet

01:51:34.500 --> 01:51:39.500
and back down to that below grade loading dock.

01:51:39.500 --> 01:51:41.500
If there's any way possible...

01:51:41.500 --> 01:51:43.500
The developer talked about signs.

01:51:43.500 --> 01:51:45.529
I don't think there's anything specifically that can

01:51:45.529 --> 01:51:46.500
address this in an ADP,

01:51:46.500 --> 01:51:49.500
but that is key for the folks in the neighborhood,

01:51:49.500 --> 01:51:53.050
that those trucks aren't rumbling up and down Ector Street

01:51:53.050 --> 01:51:54.500
making deliveries.

01:51:54.500 --> 01:51:57.500
I think though, to your point earlier, Commissioner Beck,

01:51:57.500 --> 01:51:59.500
there is going to be a substantial increase in traffic.

01:51:59.500 --> 01:52:01.500
People are going to want to get to this store,

01:52:01.500 --> 01:52:03.260
and I think they're going to want to get to it from the

01:52:03.260 --> 01:52:03.500
south,

01:52:03.500 --> 01:52:05.500
from the north, from the east and the west.

01:52:05.500 --> 01:52:07.539
I think eventually the city is going to have to put a light

01:52:07.539 --> 01:52:08.500
at Ector Street,

01:52:08.500 --> 01:52:13.500
which is not really the kind of street that we have now.

01:52:13.500 --> 01:52:18.500
Commissioner Beck, any question?

01:52:18.500 --> 01:52:20.840
I don't disagree that there's going to be some increased

01:52:20.840 --> 01:52:21.500
auto traffic,

01:52:21.500 --> 01:52:26.279
but it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the

01:52:26.279 --> 01:52:27.500
neighborhood

01:52:27.500 --> 01:52:29.500
to have something in close proximity to where they live,

01:52:29.500 --> 01:52:31.500
where they can walk and bike.

01:52:31.500 --> 01:52:36.500
University students could go either way on that,

01:52:36.500 --> 01:52:41.500
but I would suspect that there's a propensity now to bike

01:52:41.500 --> 01:52:43.500
in a lot of instances like that.

01:52:43.500 --> 01:52:48.500
So I understand the concern of a neighborhood

01:52:48.500 --> 01:52:52.029
and a type of business to come in that would detract from

01:52:52.029 --> 01:52:52.500
that,

01:52:52.500 --> 01:52:55.729
but of all the businesses that we've dealt with so far and

01:52:55.729 --> 01:52:56.500
everything,

01:52:56.500 --> 01:52:58.890
and as you mentioned, they've been most amenable to the

01:52:58.890 --> 01:53:00.500
concerns of the neighborhood.

01:53:00.500 --> 01:53:02.539
You know, having a grocery store within walking distance,

01:53:02.539 --> 01:53:04.500
anyway, for me personally,

01:53:04.500 --> 01:53:07.500
they just built that new law as TECA down the road for me,

01:53:07.500 --> 01:53:09.500
and it's a big plus for me.

01:53:09.500 --> 01:53:12.489
I enjoy that instead of trying to fight what little traffic

01:53:12.489 --> 01:53:13.500
I have to get to Kroger.

01:53:13.500 --> 01:53:17.500
But I do understand your concern about traffic coming up

01:53:17.500 --> 01:53:17.500
down Ector.

01:53:17.500 --> 01:53:22.050
I'm just thinking that we're probably going to see a good

01:53:22.050 --> 01:53:24.500
deal of pedestrian and biking traffic

01:53:24.500 --> 01:53:26.500
as opposed to auto traffic.

01:53:26.500 --> 01:53:28.960
I think, Commissioner, you make a good point about the

01:53:28.960 --> 01:53:30.500
proximity of --

01:53:30.500 --> 01:53:33.500
one of the problems with the other proposals was that it

01:53:33.500 --> 01:53:33.500
was not good,

01:53:33.500 --> 01:53:35.500
wholesome food, that we're in the news right now,

01:53:35.500 --> 01:53:37.630
we read a lot about food deserts and getting good, wh

01:53:37.630 --> 01:53:39.500
olesome food, easily accessible.

01:53:39.500 --> 01:53:42.500
This is the opposite of that.

01:53:42.500 --> 01:53:45.029
In fact, my wife and I have had conversations about whether

01:53:45.029 --> 01:53:46.500
I'm allowed to take the carts back

01:53:46.500 --> 01:53:49.060
across the street to our house, or if I have to load the

01:53:49.060 --> 01:53:50.500
car up and drive back to our house.

01:53:50.500 --> 01:53:52.930
She says I'm not allowed to take the carts across the

01:53:52.930 --> 01:53:53.500
street.

01:53:53.500 --> 01:53:57.329
To your point about traffic, though, you have to remember

01:53:57.329 --> 01:53:58.500
all the houses behind us.

01:53:58.500 --> 01:54:00.500
Ector Street's a straight shot.

01:54:00.500 --> 01:54:03.680
It's easy to think of it as just that one neighborhood, but

01:54:03.680 --> 01:54:04.500
it is a collector.

01:54:04.500 --> 01:54:08.140
Everything from Malone over, and people cutting over on Mal

01:54:08.140 --> 01:54:08.500
one,

01:54:08.500 --> 01:54:11.890
cutting over on Emory, coming right back by my corner, and

01:54:11.890 --> 01:54:13.500
coming into the Aldi.

01:54:13.500 --> 01:54:16.210
You have to remember all the folks on Stan Lee on over to E

01:54:16.210 --> 01:54:16.500
ctor,

01:54:16.500 --> 01:54:19.899
and remember there is a major development, partially

01:54:19.899 --> 01:54:22.500
residential, going in just to our west.

01:54:22.500 --> 01:54:25.109
There will be a substantial amount of traffic, and those

01:54:25.109 --> 01:54:26.500
folks in the eventual

01:54:26.500 --> 01:54:29.020
mixed-use development, Razor Ranch, they're not going to

01:54:29.020 --> 01:54:29.500
want to come down all the way to university

01:54:29.500 --> 01:54:32.859
through their development, turn on university, and come up

01:54:32.859 --> 01:54:33.500
into this Aldi.

01:54:33.500 --> 01:54:35.899
They're going to come through our neighborhood, down

01:54:35.899 --> 01:54:36.500
scripture.

01:54:36.500 --> 01:54:40.029
So to the extent an ADP can address traffic, or to the

01:54:40.029 --> 01:54:41.500
extent that you hear our neighborhood

01:54:41.500 --> 01:54:44.369
in front of you again as part of a small area plan or

01:54:44.369 --> 01:54:45.500
something similar,

01:54:45.500 --> 01:54:47.979
and you start hearing from us more often on traffic, please

01:54:47.979 --> 01:54:49.500
remember those things,

01:54:49.500 --> 01:54:52.500
that we are not just the straight shot, like Brigid said,

01:54:52.500 --> 01:54:53.500
painted like a highway,

01:54:53.500 --> 01:54:55.500
that there's a lot more going on there.

01:54:55.500 --> 01:55:00.189
But don't you think residents over in Razor Ranch are more

01:55:00.189 --> 01:55:01.500
apt to shop Winko,

01:55:01.500 --> 01:55:03.500
and even Walmart, they're closer?

01:55:03.500 --> 01:55:05.500
Aldi doesn't think so.

01:55:05.500 --> 01:55:08.500
Anybody else?

01:55:08.500 --> 01:55:10.500
Yes, a couple more questions.

01:55:10.500 --> 01:55:11.500
Commissioner Hespeth.

01:55:11.500 --> 01:55:15.500
Well, so I appreciate your insight, and it's well laid out.

01:55:15.500 --> 01:55:19.640
So I want to ask you, I have a question, two questions and

01:55:19.640 --> 01:55:20.500
a point.

01:55:20.500 --> 01:55:28.500
So my point is, I think the benefit here is that Aldi is,

01:55:28.500 --> 01:55:28.500
like you said,

01:55:28.500 --> 01:55:31.100
a good neighbor on this project, in addition to they have

01:55:31.100 --> 01:55:31.500
the warehouse,

01:55:31.500 --> 01:55:33.500
and that's expanding, growing.

01:55:33.500 --> 01:55:36.130
So they're invested in the city, so I think they're

01:55:36.130 --> 01:55:38.500
invested in being a good neighbor,

01:55:38.500 --> 01:55:42.750
multifaceted, and I see the location on Luke 288, and it

01:55:42.750 --> 01:55:43.500
does very well.

01:55:43.500 --> 01:55:48.800
My question is, my two questions, one is, how many, I don't

01:55:48.800 --> 01:55:49.500
know the schematic,

01:55:49.500 --> 01:55:51.500
but I know the schematics of that neighborhood.

01:55:51.500 --> 01:55:55.500
So how many people are, is it 80% owned, 20% rentals?

01:55:55.500 --> 01:55:57.500
What is your feel for that?

01:55:57.500 --> 01:56:01.029
I think conservatively on Ector Street, I think it's about

01:56:01.029 --> 01:56:01.500
70/30,

01:56:01.500 --> 01:56:04.500
70% owner occupied, about 30% rental.

01:56:04.500 --> 01:56:06.949
I think you start going further out from there, it's hard

01:56:06.949 --> 01:56:07.500
to tell.

01:56:07.500 --> 01:56:12.500
On the streets, the streets between Ector and Bonnie Bray,

01:56:12.500 --> 01:56:14.500
and maybe some of my neighbors can speak better to this,

01:56:14.500 --> 01:56:18.500
I think you're closer to like a 60/40 owner occupied.

01:56:18.500 --> 01:56:22.630
And as you go towards Malone, you're probably about 50/50,

01:56:22.630 --> 01:56:23.500
depending on,

01:56:23.500 --> 01:56:26.109
now remember you've got a big split between the smaller

01:56:26.109 --> 01:56:27.500
houses to the south in that block,

01:56:27.500 --> 01:56:31.500
and then you've got the owner occupied houses on Emory,

01:56:31.500 --> 01:56:34.500
Westchester, Crescent, Cordell.

01:56:34.500 --> 01:56:35.500
Okay.

01:56:35.500 --> 01:56:38.500
And then lastly, have you considered the fact though that

01:56:38.500 --> 01:56:41.500
Bonnie Bray will be almost doubled in size?

01:56:41.500 --> 01:56:43.500
I mean, it is going to be significant.

01:56:43.500 --> 01:56:46.390
I think that lowers, at least I think those that are

01:56:46.390 --> 01:56:49.500
familiar with Denton may use that as a cut through.

01:56:49.500 --> 01:56:54.500
But I think the traffic on that road becomes less inviting

01:56:54.500 --> 01:56:57.500
when university is done and Bonnie Bray is done.

01:56:57.500 --> 01:56:59.500
I mean, again, Bonnie Bray twice the size.

01:56:59.500 --> 01:57:04.500
There's no signal lights from university to I-35, right?

01:57:04.500 --> 01:57:05.500
I mean, no, at Oak.

01:57:05.500 --> 01:57:06.500
Yeah.

01:57:06.500 --> 01:57:08.500
So, I mean, it's a pretty straight shot.

01:57:08.500 --> 01:57:12.350
If it's widened substantially, I think it'll eat a lot of

01:57:12.350 --> 01:57:13.500
the traffic.

01:57:13.500 --> 01:57:16.680
It just, you know, if I'm just understanding the area as

01:57:16.680 --> 01:57:17.500
well as I do.

01:57:17.500 --> 01:57:20.500
So I think it'll fix some of that.

01:57:20.500 --> 01:57:24.029
I think your concerns are legitimate on the 18-wheelers and

01:57:24.029 --> 01:57:24.500
the path,

01:57:24.500 --> 01:57:27.500
and that they don't get lazy and they follow instructions.

01:57:27.500 --> 01:57:30.760
But I think some of the just the pass through traffic, it

01:57:30.760 --> 01:57:34.500
almost becomes, unless you're turning right on university,

01:57:34.500 --> 01:57:38.510
it comes to make a left on university from actor would be a

01:57:38.510 --> 01:57:39.500
nightmare, you know.

01:57:39.500 --> 01:57:42.500
And so I think that'll fix a lot of it.

01:57:42.500 --> 01:57:45.470
I think you're right to an extent, however, if you ever sat

01:57:45.470 --> 01:57:49.500
at that light northbound on Bonnie Bray and stacked back 20

01:57:49.500 --> 01:57:50.500
or 30 cars,

01:57:50.500 --> 01:57:52.850
you turn onto Emory as soon as you can because now that Em

01:57:52.850 --> 01:57:54.500
ory is open, it didn't used to be.

01:57:54.500 --> 01:57:56.500
Twenty years ago, that was, there was a barrier there.

01:57:56.500 --> 01:58:00.920
You can now take Emory all the way through to Malone, and

01:58:00.920 --> 01:58:02.500
people do.

01:58:02.500 --> 01:58:06.079
The people, the elementary school traffic, the people go

01:58:06.079 --> 01:58:09.130
into other businesses there, the Piccadilly Square business

01:58:09.130 --> 01:58:10.500
there.

01:58:10.500 --> 01:58:12.500
And people use Emory quite a bit now.

01:58:12.500 --> 01:58:14.970
And since there's been the construction on university, that

01:58:14.970 --> 01:58:16.500
's become kind of a thoroughfare.

01:58:16.500 --> 01:58:18.630
So I think there still will be substantial traffic coming

01:58:18.630 --> 01:58:19.500
off of Bonnie Bray.

01:58:19.500 --> 01:58:22.729
They may take Bonnie Bray north as far as Emory, but they

01:58:22.729 --> 01:58:24.800
're going to come down Emory through our neighborhood behind

01:58:24.800 --> 01:58:26.500
the funeral home and the paint store.

01:58:26.500 --> 01:58:29.340
They're going to take a left onto Ector and turn in that E

01:58:29.340 --> 01:58:32.300
ctor entrance, and then they're going to leave again on E

01:58:32.300 --> 01:58:35.500
ctor to go back south wherever they came from.

01:58:35.500 --> 01:58:39.500
So they may end up on Bonnie Bray for part of their trip.

01:58:39.500 --> 01:58:41.500
They're going to end it on Ector Street, Emory Street.

01:58:41.500 --> 01:58:42.500
Got it.

01:58:42.500 --> 01:58:44.500
More question for you.

01:58:44.500 --> 01:58:45.500
Commissioner Ellis.

01:58:45.500 --> 01:58:46.500
Thank you, Chair.

01:58:46.500 --> 01:58:48.500
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

01:58:48.500 --> 01:58:50.500
My question is probably more for staff.

01:58:50.500 --> 01:58:55.939
Since this was all done before my time on commission, was

01:58:55.939 --> 01:59:00.500
there a traffic impact study done for Ector?

01:59:00.500 --> 01:59:03.500
Project specific or just generally for Ector?

01:59:03.500 --> 01:59:05.500
Specific for the Aldi project.

01:59:05.500 --> 01:59:06.500
For the Aldi project?

01:59:06.500 --> 01:59:12.500
I don't believe one was done for the Aldi project.

01:59:12.500 --> 01:59:15.500
The applicant can speak to that.

01:59:15.500 --> 01:59:22.500
The applicant, please.

01:59:22.500 --> 01:59:24.500
There was a traffic study completed for Aldi.

01:59:24.500 --> 01:59:27.819
I don't know if it went back and studied at Ector further

01:59:27.819 --> 01:59:28.500
south.

01:59:28.500 --> 01:59:31.390
I know we did a study for the intersection at Ector and

01:59:31.390 --> 01:59:34.670
University and the impacts of our drive approaches, but I

01:59:34.670 --> 01:59:36.500
don't believe we went back into the neighborhood.

01:59:36.500 --> 01:59:39.229
Because when you do a traffic analysis and you look at a

01:59:39.229 --> 01:59:41.680
commercial driveway, there's going to be so many -- when

01:59:41.680 --> 01:59:44.500
you run the numbers, there are going to be so few turns

01:59:44.500 --> 01:59:44.500
going right.

01:59:44.500 --> 01:59:47.430
That it doesn't really warrant that study because those

01:59:47.430 --> 01:59:50.350
numbers are so small, everyone is going back to the main

01:59:50.350 --> 01:59:51.500
collector road.

01:59:51.500 --> 01:59:58.439
But we did do a study and engineering has reviewed it and

01:59:58.439 --> 02:00:00.500
approved it.

02:00:00.500 --> 02:00:03.500
Commissioner Huthbist, the button is still not working.

02:00:03.500 --> 02:00:04.500
Way big.

02:00:04.500 --> 02:00:10.670
To Commissioner Brigham's point, have you looked at landsca

02:00:10.670 --> 02:00:16.300
ping, can you expound on what your thoughts are, what the

02:00:16.300 --> 02:00:17.500
plan is?

02:00:17.500 --> 02:00:21.500
There is Bermuda grass, there is sod, but in a lot of the

02:00:21.500 --> 02:00:25.449
landscape areas we did do a lot of zero scape and drought

02:00:25.449 --> 02:00:28.500
tolerant plants to decrease the need for irrigation.

02:00:28.500 --> 02:00:31.380
So we have kind of done a combination of those types of

02:00:31.380 --> 02:00:34.500
materials, but there is a lot of zero scape in there.

02:00:34.500 --> 02:00:35.500
Okay. Thank you.

02:00:35.500 --> 02:00:36.500
You're welcome.

02:00:36.500 --> 02:00:37.500
Another question for you. Commissioner Babbitt.

02:00:37.500 --> 02:00:38.500
Thank you, Chair.

02:00:38.500 --> 02:00:39.500
And I'm sorry, what was your name again?

02:00:39.500 --> 02:00:40.500
My name is Brian Berger.

02:00:40.500 --> 02:00:42.500
Brian, thank you, Brian.

02:00:42.500 --> 02:00:45.500
Just while you're up here, two quick questions.

02:00:45.500 --> 02:00:48.159
What are the signage dimensions for that sign you're going

02:00:48.159 --> 02:00:49.500
to put out on University?

02:00:49.500 --> 02:00:51.500
Are we looking at something?

02:00:51.500 --> 02:00:53.500
No, it will be a monument sign.

02:00:53.500 --> 02:00:55.500
We do not have the exact size yet.

02:00:55.500 --> 02:00:57.500
We're not that far along.

02:00:57.500 --> 02:00:59.500
We'll probably have that here in the next few weeks.

02:00:59.500 --> 02:01:02.000
Are we looking at something like maybe six foot by three

02:01:02.000 --> 02:01:03.500
foot or something like that?

02:01:03.500 --> 02:01:05.500
It will be whatever is allowed by code.

02:01:05.500 --> 02:01:08.390
Probably eight foot tall or six foot tall, whatever is

02:01:08.390 --> 02:01:09.500
allowed by code.

02:01:09.500 --> 02:01:10.500
Okay.

02:01:10.500 --> 02:01:14.170
And then the question I asked after, what determine where

02:01:14.170 --> 02:01:18.090
the previous parking places you're going to, what determine

02:01:18.090 --> 02:01:19.500
those locations?

02:01:19.500 --> 02:01:23.640
The problem we have with pervious pavement is it's not as

02:01:23.640 --> 02:01:26.500
durable as impermeable concrete.

02:01:26.500 --> 02:01:29.770
So the spaces I selected, and it was solely based on my

02:01:29.770 --> 02:01:32.829
opinion, was as far away from the front door as possible so

02:01:32.829 --> 02:01:35.979
that they will take the least amount of traffic and wear

02:01:35.979 --> 02:01:38.500
and tear and maybe they'll hold up a little bit better.

02:01:38.500 --> 02:01:41.319
It has nothing to do with how much water will run across or

02:01:41.319 --> 02:01:42.500
won't run across it.

02:01:42.500 --> 02:01:44.869
I just selected the spots that were furthest away from the

02:01:44.869 --> 02:01:45.500
front door.

02:01:45.500 --> 02:01:46.500
Okay.

02:01:46.500 --> 02:01:47.500
Thank you.

02:01:47.500 --> 02:01:48.500
I'll have you here.

02:01:48.500 --> 02:01:49.500
I'm going to ask you a question.

02:01:49.500 --> 02:01:53.659
We've got some conditions when we get down to looking for a

02:01:53.659 --> 02:01:54.500
motion.

02:01:54.500 --> 02:01:57.310
Were there any questions on any of those or is the

02:01:57.310 --> 02:02:00.500
applicant okay with the conditions for approval?

02:02:00.500 --> 02:02:02.500
No, I think we're fine with all the conditions.

02:02:02.500 --> 02:02:03.500
Fine with all of them.

02:02:03.500 --> 02:02:04.500
Yes, sir.

02:02:04.500 --> 02:02:05.500
Thank you for the clarification on that.

02:02:05.500 --> 02:02:07.500
I have no other questions for you.

02:02:07.500 --> 02:02:08.500
Thank you.

02:02:08.500 --> 02:02:09.500
All right.

02:02:09.500 --> 02:02:10.500
Thank you.

02:02:10.500 --> 02:02:12.500
I do have one other card.

02:02:12.500 --> 02:02:16.979
Michael Hinnan, he did not wish to speak at 724 Thomas

02:02:16.979 --> 02:02:20.500
Street, and he was in support of this item.

02:02:20.500 --> 02:02:23.789
Again, this is not a public hearing, but if you would like

02:02:23.789 --> 02:02:25.500
to speak, it's an individual consideration item.

02:02:25.500 --> 02:02:28.220
You're welcome to come up and speak on this item, and then

02:02:28.220 --> 02:02:29.500
please fill out a card.

02:02:29.500 --> 02:02:32.500
So kind of a final invitation.

02:02:32.500 --> 02:02:34.500
Again, it's not a public hearing, so no.

02:02:34.500 --> 02:02:37.500
[inaudible]

02:02:37.500 --> 02:02:39.500
Let me ask for clarification on rules from staff.

02:02:39.500 --> 02:02:43.500
I think there's just one opportunity to speak.

02:02:43.500 --> 02:02:45.500
Sorry, we have one opportunity.

02:02:45.500 --> 02:02:46.500
Someone sitting next to me.

02:02:46.500 --> 02:02:50.500
[inaudible]

02:02:50.500 --> 02:02:53.449
Someone sitting next to you is welcome to come speak if

02:02:53.449 --> 02:02:55.500
they'd like to share your points.

02:02:55.500 --> 02:02:57.500
We have a question.

02:02:57.500 --> 02:02:58.500
Oh, you have a question.

02:02:58.500 --> 02:02:59.500
That's another solution.

02:02:59.500 --> 02:03:06.500
Commissioner Hussbuth.

02:03:06.500 --> 02:03:09.500
Did you happen to send a letter with your concerns?

02:03:09.500 --> 02:03:12.300
I sent my letter almost four months ago, and I understood

02:03:12.300 --> 02:03:15.310
it was printed out today when I prompted and asked about it

02:03:15.310 --> 02:03:15.500
.

02:03:15.500 --> 02:03:17.500
I do hope that you have that.

02:03:17.500 --> 02:03:20.880
But Mike, I just wanted to add an additional comment that

02:03:20.880 --> 02:03:24.500
Aldi presented this not as a little neighborhood grocery

02:03:24.500 --> 02:03:24.500
store,

02:03:24.500 --> 02:03:28.710
but as a flagship store that they advised us they thought

02:03:28.710 --> 02:03:32.500
would bring business from Oklahoma and from all over the

02:03:32.500 --> 02:03:32.500
place

02:03:32.500 --> 02:03:35.489
that employees at other Aldi stores would come to this

02:03:35.489 --> 02:03:37.500
store to see how things are done.

02:03:37.500 --> 02:03:40.060
So it's possible and likely that there will be more traffic

02:03:40.060 --> 02:03:42.500
at this store than there is at the store on the loop.

02:03:42.500 --> 02:03:43.500
That was all I had to add.

02:03:43.500 --> 02:03:44.500
Thank you.

02:03:44.500 --> 02:03:49.500
Thank you very much.

02:03:49.500 --> 02:03:51.500
I see no other cards to speak.

02:03:51.500 --> 02:03:54.500
So again, this is an item for individual consideration.

02:03:54.500 --> 02:03:59.279
So I'm going to turn back to commissioners for a motion or

02:03:59.279 --> 02:04:01.500
discussion amongst us.

02:04:01.500 --> 02:04:03.500
Commissioner Taylor.

02:04:03.500 --> 02:04:05.500
Thank you, Chair.

02:04:05.500 --> 02:04:08.939
So I believe Ms. Corbett brought up some really valid

02:04:08.939 --> 02:04:12.500
points regarding traffic flow and traffic calming.

02:04:12.500 --> 02:04:16.300
I've had my own disagreements with city engineering about

02:04:16.300 --> 02:04:17.500
traffic calming.

02:04:17.500 --> 02:04:21.939
And I think Ector Street is a perfect example of a place

02:04:21.939 --> 02:04:25.850
where not using speed bumps, but using road narrowing

02:04:25.850 --> 02:04:26.500
techniques.

02:04:26.500 --> 02:04:30.609
If the intersection comes down to a 20-foot wide gap with

02:04:30.609 --> 02:04:34.500
trees on little islands, it dramatically slows down speed.

02:04:34.500 --> 02:04:37.069
You're not going to go through those intersections that don

02:04:37.069 --> 02:04:39.500
't have stop signs at 40 or 45 miles an hour.

02:04:39.500 --> 02:04:41.500
You're going to slow down to 25 miles an hour.

02:04:41.500 --> 02:04:44.159
It provides a little cover for people who are walking their

02:04:44.159 --> 02:04:47.500
dog or pushing a stroller or riding their bicycle because

02:04:47.500 --> 02:04:51.609
people don't tend to wander into that open, wide open 15 or

02:04:51.609 --> 02:04:53.500
20 feet of space that they have.

02:04:53.500 --> 02:04:56.600
They know that there's a bump out coming and they stay to

02:04:56.600 --> 02:04:59.500
the middle of the road and leave the edges safe.

02:04:59.500 --> 02:05:03.020
So I personally would like to see that on Ector and several

02:05:03.020 --> 02:05:06.869
other streets, including Windsor and other neighborhoods in

02:05:06.869 --> 02:05:07.500
town.

02:05:07.500 --> 02:05:10.500
It does fall outside of our purview as planning and zoning.

02:05:10.500 --> 02:05:15.010
We really just handle a very specific handful of cases like

02:05:15.010 --> 02:05:17.500
zonings, ADPs, and plats.

02:05:17.500 --> 02:05:21.500
And I know that this isn't the perfect development.

02:05:21.500 --> 02:05:26.500
I strongly opposed the fast food proposals.

02:05:26.500 --> 02:05:28.500
Was that eight months ago?

02:05:28.500 --> 02:05:30.500
I believe in January or so.

02:05:30.500 --> 02:05:32.750
Because I thought that that was an encroachment on the

02:05:32.750 --> 02:05:33.500
neighborhood.

02:05:33.500 --> 02:05:36.119
This converting to a commercial zoning right there at the

02:05:36.119 --> 02:05:37.500
corner.

02:05:37.500 --> 02:05:42.020
Open till 2 a.m. or later, you know, driveway directly

02:05:42.020 --> 02:05:44.500
across from a private residences driveway that's open late.

02:05:44.500 --> 02:05:48.500
And I don't think that this Aldi is perfect here.

02:05:48.500 --> 02:05:50.500
But I do think it will service the neighborhood.

02:05:50.500 --> 02:05:53.729
I think it will provide a walkable destination within a

02:05:53.729 --> 02:05:55.500
four or five block radius.

02:05:55.500 --> 02:06:00.380
And I think it will also provide a nice drivable and bicycl

02:06:00.380 --> 02:06:05.500
able destination to the to the immediate neighborhood.

02:06:05.500 --> 02:06:09.539
And the I think most traffic that isn't somewhere between

02:06:09.539 --> 02:06:13.500
Bonnie Bray and Malone is going to take university.

02:06:13.500 --> 02:06:16.029
There aren't any streets that go directly all the way

02:06:16.029 --> 02:06:20.960
through without lots of stop signs and ditches across them

02:06:20.960 --> 02:06:26.500
like Crescent that beyond Malone and Bonnie Bray.

02:06:26.500 --> 02:06:30.500
So I wish we could address the traffic situation more.

02:06:30.500 --> 02:06:32.500
But like I said, we can't.

02:06:32.500 --> 02:06:36.300
We the neighborhood can approach engineering and see about

02:06:36.300 --> 02:06:37.500
those changes.

02:06:37.500 --> 02:06:41.210
But for these reasons, I think Aldi is a good enough option

02:06:41.210 --> 02:06:41.500
.

02:06:41.500 --> 02:06:45.500
I think it's it's it meets the needs of the neighborhood.

02:06:45.500 --> 02:06:49.500
It doesn't provide a tremendous burden to the neighborhood.

02:06:49.500 --> 02:06:51.500
It meets the 80.

02:06:51.500 --> 02:06:54.720
This ADP is tiny compared to a rezoning that allows much

02:06:54.720 --> 02:06:58.149
higher densities or late night uses or alcohol to be served

02:06:58.149 --> 02:06:59.500
or things like that.

02:06:59.500 --> 02:07:03.729
So for those reasons, I move approval with staff's

02:07:03.729 --> 02:07:05.500
recommendations.

02:07:05.500 --> 02:07:07.500
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.

02:07:07.500 --> 02:07:11.899
And I'd just like to echo most of what Commissioner Taylor

02:07:11.899 --> 02:07:16.500
said to change is inevitable no matter what happens.

02:07:16.500 --> 02:07:18.850
And one thing that's definitely going to change with the

02:07:18.850 --> 02:07:21.300
city didn't we're going to grow population is going to grow

02:07:21.300 --> 02:07:21.500
.

02:07:21.500 --> 02:07:24.489
Traffic is going to increase one way or the other, whether

02:07:24.489 --> 02:07:26.500
there's an Aldi store there or not.

02:07:26.500 --> 02:07:28.420
I am very sympathetic to the fact that this is a grand old

02:07:28.420 --> 02:07:29.500
neighborhood over there.

02:07:29.500 --> 02:07:31.500
I love it myself.

02:07:31.500 --> 02:07:34.859
But Hector is even though it's a collector's street, it's

02:07:34.859 --> 02:07:39.130
it's it's it's it collects to it connects to a lot of other

02:07:39.130 --> 02:07:40.500
things, too.

02:07:40.500 --> 02:07:46.500
My hope and belief is that we especially if we do some

02:07:46.500 --> 02:07:50.500
markings on the street to narrow the lanes and open it up

02:07:50.500 --> 02:07:52.500
for bicycling,

02:07:52.500 --> 02:07:58.020
that that will not only slow the traffic down, but that

02:07:58.020 --> 02:08:03.500
should generate a lot of the customer base for Aldi.

02:08:03.500 --> 02:08:07.659
It's kind of hard to expect the ideal situation to come

02:08:07.659 --> 02:08:08.500
along.

02:08:08.500 --> 02:08:10.500
And it may not or may not for a long time.

02:08:10.500 --> 02:08:14.260
And in the meantime, the property owner has to deal with

02:08:14.260 --> 02:08:17.609
that and pay taxes on it while it sits there and does

02:08:17.609 --> 02:08:18.500
nothing.

02:08:18.500 --> 02:08:26.380
So considering all that, I am for this project to second

02:08:26.380 --> 02:08:28.500
the motion.

02:08:28.500 --> 02:08:29.500
OK, thank you.

02:08:29.500 --> 02:08:32.500
We have a first and a second.

02:08:32.500 --> 02:08:37.500
Any discussion?

02:08:37.500 --> 02:08:38.500
Seeing none, just clarification.

02:08:38.500 --> 02:08:42.619
We have a first and a second for approval with all the

02:08:42.619 --> 02:08:47.520
conditions listed in our backup agenda, which will be items

02:08:47.520 --> 02:08:50.500
a through I.

02:08:50.500 --> 02:08:53.500
So with that, I will call for a vote on the board.

02:09:08.500 --> 02:09:15.500
Motion carries seven zero.

02:09:15.500 --> 02:09:16.500
Thank you.

02:09:16.500 --> 02:09:20.569
That will move us to our public hearing section of our

02:09:20.569 --> 02:09:22.500
agenda this evening.

02:09:22.500 --> 02:09:24.920
The first item that we're going to have before us this

02:09:24.920 --> 02:09:28.500
evening, I'm going to open the public hearing for item A,

02:09:28.500 --> 02:09:32.500
which is Z 16 dash zero zero one six.

02:09:32.500 --> 02:09:40.500
And I'll call on Judy White.

02:09:40.500 --> 02:09:43.109
Would you like for me to go through the presentation again

02:09:43.109 --> 02:09:48.500
or just the.

02:09:48.500 --> 02:09:50.500
Just the summary.

02:09:50.500 --> 02:09:53.779
I did the summary, if you don't mind, on the current zoning

02:09:53.779 --> 02:09:55.500
and what's being proposed.

02:09:55.500 --> 02:09:57.260
And then we'll I'm sure have lots of questions to go from

02:09:57.260 --> 02:09:57.500
there.

02:09:57.500 --> 02:09:58.500
Thank you.

02:09:58.500 --> 02:09:59.500
Sure.

02:09:59.500 --> 02:10:01.500
All right.

02:10:01.500 --> 02:10:05.960
So the request before you or I'm sorry, this is Z 16 16

02:10:05.960 --> 02:10:08.500
that ISD services, student services.

02:10:08.500 --> 02:10:14.319
The request before you is to consider a rezoning from NR

02:10:14.319 --> 02:10:19.500
three and DR two to DC or to DC and on two tracks.

02:10:19.500 --> 02:10:23.500
The applicant and owner is Denton ISD.

02:10:23.500 --> 02:10:30.359
The property is located on ball between Bolivar and Elm and

02:10:30.359 --> 02:10:33.500
then between Elm and Locus.

02:10:33.500 --> 02:10:37.500
Just to look at the existing zoning.

02:10:37.500 --> 02:10:39.909
There were considerations we discussed at work at work

02:10:39.909 --> 02:10:40.500
session.

02:10:40.500 --> 02:10:42.500
I'd be happy to go over those again.

02:10:42.500 --> 02:10:46.449
But staff is based upon those considerations and the

02:10:46.449 --> 02:10:48.500
criteria for approval.

02:10:48.500 --> 02:10:51.500
Staff does recommend denial of this request.

02:10:51.500 --> 02:10:53.500
So I'll stand for any questions.

02:10:53.500 --> 02:10:55.739
The applicant is here and I'll be happy to go over anything

02:10:55.739 --> 02:10:58.500
you'd like for me to.

02:10:58.500 --> 02:11:01.500
Any questions for staff?

02:11:01.500 --> 02:11:03.500
OK.

02:11:03.500 --> 02:11:12.500
Again, this is a public hearing.

02:11:12.500 --> 02:11:13.500
I'll do that.

02:11:13.500 --> 02:11:16.029
This is a public hearing and I'm going to call on the

02:11:16.029 --> 02:11:17.500
applicant to come first.

02:11:17.500 --> 02:11:20.319
And then I know we have some other cards of people to speak

02:11:20.319 --> 02:11:24.079
and hopefully you will be able to maybe eliminate some

02:11:24.079 --> 02:11:25.500
questions with your presentation.

02:11:25.500 --> 02:11:33.500
So thank you.

02:11:33.500 --> 02:11:42.500
Right there.

02:11:42.500 --> 02:11:44.500
I just want to start by introduce myself.

02:11:44.500 --> 02:11:47.439
I'm Keith Cummins with Corgan and Associates and this is

02:11:47.439 --> 02:11:48.500
Robert Talbman.

02:11:48.500 --> 02:11:51.850
I'm with Glenn Engineering, Civil Engineering Consultant

02:11:51.850 --> 02:11:55.500
for the district at 105 Decker Court, Irving, Texas.

02:11:55.500 --> 02:12:08.539
What we'd like to start off a little bit is we have a

02:12:08.539 --> 02:12:18.500
little bit of a project narrative.

02:12:18.500 --> 02:12:21.600
What we want to talk about a little bit here is that our

02:12:21.600 --> 02:12:25.020
project narrative that obviously our site is located in Bol

02:12:25.020 --> 02:12:28.250
ivar, just to 3rd Street to the north, 2nd Street to the

02:12:28.250 --> 02:12:31.810
south, and we extend all the way to Locus on the east, Bol

02:12:31.810 --> 02:12:33.500
ivar on the west.

02:12:33.500 --> 02:12:35.890
One of the things we want to talk a little bit about is the

02:12:35.890 --> 02:12:37.500
historical perspective of our site.

02:12:37.500 --> 02:12:40.529
This actually started to be the Stonewall Jackson

02:12:40.529 --> 02:12:44.500
Elementary School that was built in the early 1920s.

02:12:44.500 --> 02:12:47.069
So the school district has been here approximately 100

02:12:47.069 --> 02:12:47.500
years.

02:12:47.500 --> 02:12:50.350
In the early 80s, part of the building was tore down of the

02:12:50.350 --> 02:12:51.500
Stonewall Jackson.

02:12:51.500 --> 02:12:54.100
As you can see up here, this is actually the current

02:12:54.100 --> 02:12:56.500
location of the administration building.

02:12:56.500 --> 02:13:00.579
It was tore down, part of it was tore down in the early 80s

02:13:00.579 --> 02:13:04.579
and the administration building was also built in that same

02:13:04.579 --> 02:13:05.500
location.

02:13:05.500 --> 02:13:08.390
Along with that, this district started to purchase some of

02:13:08.390 --> 02:13:10.500
the properties in and around the area.

02:13:10.500 --> 02:13:12.500
So we've been there for 100 years.

02:13:12.500 --> 02:13:14.409
The other option that we also want to make sure, as you

02:13:14.409 --> 02:13:16.510
understand, is we are the school district and for the fact

02:13:16.510 --> 02:13:17.500
that we've been there 100 years,

02:13:17.500 --> 02:13:21.449
we plan on actually putting another $29 million onto this

02:13:21.449 --> 02:13:24.500
site to be there for a long time to come also.

02:13:24.500 --> 02:13:27.680
So while we have a great past in this neighborhood, we also

02:13:27.680 --> 02:13:29.500
are looking for a great future.

02:13:29.500 --> 02:13:32.130
One of the things that was brought up earlier in the

02:13:32.130 --> 02:13:36.500
presentation was the amount of commercial or the impact,

02:13:36.500 --> 02:13:39.699
the areas that are in purple that I'm kind of highlighting

02:13:39.699 --> 02:13:40.500
with the area.

02:13:40.500 --> 02:13:43.220
As we've talked about, they had what they called the hard

02:13:43.220 --> 02:13:46.470
line of the differential between what exists today and what

02:13:46.470 --> 02:13:47.500
the zoning is.

02:13:47.500 --> 02:13:53.050
Currently, we're occupying a building that is, I was hoping

02:13:53.050 --> 02:13:56.500
I could get it,

02:13:56.500 --> 02:13:59.319
is the building that is located here, the professional

02:13:59.319 --> 02:14:00.500
services building.

02:14:00.500 --> 02:14:04.649
It is currently 90% what you call the coverage as far as

02:14:04.649 --> 02:14:08.500
land use, including the building and the paving.

02:14:08.500 --> 02:14:13.119
We're about to tear down these buildings, get rid of the

02:14:13.119 --> 02:14:15.329
gravel that is in the back, clean this up, there's some

02:14:15.329 --> 02:14:17.500
site, and we're proposing a new building on that.

02:14:17.500 --> 02:14:22.960
So along with that is a lot of cleaning up in the

02:14:22.960 --> 02:14:27.500
neighborhood to clean up the area.

02:14:27.500 --> 02:14:30.729
I skipped through a lot of what we presented as far as the

02:14:30.729 --> 02:14:32.500
streets and the adequacy.

02:14:32.500 --> 02:14:35.680
One of the things we want to talk about a little bit more

02:14:35.680 --> 02:14:39.020
is some of the joining uses that we have currently around

02:14:39.020 --> 02:14:39.500
us.

02:14:39.500 --> 02:14:43.789
This is an aerial of TWU campus. It's just immediately to

02:14:43.789 --> 02:14:44.500
the north.

02:14:44.500 --> 02:14:46.899
The very bottom of our screen is the administration

02:14:46.899 --> 02:14:47.500
building.

02:14:47.500 --> 02:14:50.710
At the very top and sort of the right is the new student

02:14:50.710 --> 02:14:52.500
housing that's up there.

02:14:52.500 --> 02:14:55.069
One of the things we wanted to point out is that it is also

02:14:55.069 --> 02:14:56.500
a three-story structure.

02:14:56.500 --> 02:14:59.520
It's located on the same street we are in a very similar

02:14:59.520 --> 02:15:01.500
manner what we're proposing.

02:15:01.500 --> 02:15:04.300
This is a view from the street that shows about the same

02:15:04.300 --> 02:15:06.500
type setback that we're going to have.

02:15:06.500 --> 02:15:09.449
This is our professional development center that's existing

02:15:09.449 --> 02:15:12.930
today that we're talking about right here and the need for

02:15:12.930 --> 02:15:14.500
our rezoning.

02:15:14.500 --> 02:15:18.500
As you can see currently, it's basically a nice concrete,

02:15:18.500 --> 02:15:21.810
well-maintained parking lot with a building that's set back

02:15:21.810 --> 02:15:23.500
two stories in height.

02:15:23.500 --> 02:15:26.489
And right on the other side of the street is the current

02:15:26.489 --> 02:15:27.500
residential.

02:15:27.500 --> 02:15:32.189
Another view. This is looking from 2nd Street looking north

02:15:32.189 --> 02:15:32.500
.

02:15:32.500 --> 02:15:36.500
With that we'll go if you can load up there.

02:15:36.500 --> 02:15:38.529
So to give a little historical perspective, we've been

02:15:38.529 --> 02:15:39.500
there for a long time.

02:15:39.500 --> 02:15:42.939
We've been a good neighbor. The building that we're talking

02:15:42.939 --> 02:15:46.500
about has existed since the early 80s.

02:15:46.500 --> 02:15:49.380
And with that, we just want to run through again some

02:15:49.380 --> 02:15:52.829
information just for clarification and in case you have any

02:15:52.829 --> 02:15:53.500
questions.

02:15:53.500 --> 02:15:58.500
Just the general location in proximity to downtown and TWU.

02:15:58.500 --> 02:16:01.840
The site in question that we're looking at, majority of the

02:16:01.840 --> 02:16:05.500
renovations, the new building, excuse me, taking place.

02:16:05.500 --> 02:16:09.590
This is a site plan showing the new proposed site plan for

02:16:09.590 --> 02:16:10.500
the site.

02:16:10.500 --> 02:16:14.189
As you can see in the site plan, this is the proposed

02:16:14.189 --> 02:16:18.329
actual new building that we are working with the district

02:16:18.329 --> 02:16:19.500
to propose.

02:16:19.500 --> 02:16:22.079
This is a renovated parking lot. There's an existing

02:16:22.079 --> 02:16:24.500
parking there that we're looking to renovate.

02:16:24.500 --> 02:16:28.960
Some new parking to the north of the existing PDC, which we

02:16:28.960 --> 02:16:30.500
are not doing any work to.

02:16:30.500 --> 02:16:33.500
That building is staying intact as it is.

02:16:33.500 --> 02:16:36.889
You can see here the main central focus of this is this

02:16:36.889 --> 02:16:38.500
pedestrian walkway.

02:16:38.500 --> 02:16:41.069
We actually have a couple other slides that will focus on

02:16:41.069 --> 02:16:41.500
that.

02:16:41.500 --> 02:16:43.629
When talking with the district, that was something that was

02:16:43.629 --> 02:16:44.500
very important to them,

02:16:44.500 --> 02:16:48.450
is to form a campus out of these separate buildings that

02:16:48.450 --> 02:16:52.500
were separated by different streets in this area.

02:16:52.500 --> 02:16:57.809
The concept that we decided on was the central walkway that

02:16:57.809 --> 02:17:00.559
really ties this into more of a campus feel for their

02:17:00.559 --> 02:17:01.500
facilities.

02:17:01.500 --> 02:17:05.079
The last piece that we had identified is this to the bottom

02:17:05.079 --> 02:17:05.500
right,

02:17:05.500 --> 02:17:08.360
which was an existing building that is just being taken

02:17:08.360 --> 02:17:11.500
down and new parking added with,

02:17:11.500 --> 02:17:17.500
as you can see, buffers to Locust Street as well.

02:17:17.500 --> 02:17:19.590
With that, I wanted to talk in just a couple of minutes

02:17:19.590 --> 02:17:21.500
about the impervious area that we talked about.

02:17:21.500 --> 02:17:24.280
While we're trying to create this nice looking pedestrian

02:17:24.280 --> 02:17:26.500
way, we're going to talk about how it looks and what we're

02:17:26.500 --> 02:17:26.500
doing.

02:17:26.500 --> 02:17:28.530
We're putting some zero-scaping in, some trees, they're

02:17:28.530 --> 02:17:29.500
going to have benches.

02:17:29.500 --> 02:17:33.450
We have bike racks at both facilities so that our employees

02:17:33.450 --> 02:17:35.229
that live in the neighborhood or in the area can come to

02:17:35.229 --> 02:17:36.500
work, bike to work.

02:17:36.500 --> 02:17:39.329
Also, we have a lot of TWU students that would be able to

02:17:39.329 --> 02:17:42.500
bike over here and do some of the facilities that we have.

02:17:42.500 --> 02:17:45.350
But in the impervious calculations, the way we calculate it

02:17:45.350 --> 02:17:48.500
, it's no longer landscaping, it counts against us.

02:17:48.500 --> 02:17:51.149
One of the reasons that we're talking about needing the rez

02:17:51.149 --> 02:17:55.149
oning is that the activities that we want to have in action

02:17:55.149 --> 02:17:55.500
here

02:17:55.500 --> 02:17:58.840
actually are a detriment to what our facility is in their

02:17:58.840 --> 02:18:01.500
impervious calculations into land use.

02:18:01.500 --> 02:18:10.950
I wanted to talk a little bit about the hard line that we

02:18:10.950 --> 02:18:13.500
talk about.

02:18:13.500 --> 02:18:19.379
It actually exists in this alleyway that is the separation

02:18:19.379 --> 02:18:24.379
right here is between the two zonings of the NR3 and the DC

02:18:24.379 --> 02:18:26.500
N or the DR2.

02:18:26.500 --> 02:18:36.500
That's the magic line that we've been talking about.

02:18:36.500 --> 02:18:41.500
Again, I wanted to reiterate this pedestrian walkway.

02:18:41.500 --> 02:18:43.899
It's something that we feel is really tying this campus

02:18:43.899 --> 02:18:44.500
together.

02:18:44.500 --> 02:18:47.500
It's a central focus of the site.

02:18:47.500 --> 02:18:50.370
This is just a rendering that we've done of how this site

02:18:50.370 --> 02:18:55.500
might be activated by producing a central passageway here.

02:18:55.500 --> 02:18:59.370
To continue with this, these are some shots that we were

02:18:59.370 --> 02:19:00.500
looking at.

02:19:00.500 --> 02:19:02.899
You can see what is being proposed as a three-story

02:19:02.899 --> 02:19:03.500
building.

02:19:03.500 --> 02:19:06.379
I know there was some question on occupancy of the site and

02:19:06.379 --> 02:19:09.500
how that's going to affect the surrounding neighborhood.

02:19:09.500 --> 02:19:12.729
What this facility actually is, is not actually bringing

02:19:12.729 --> 02:19:14.500
new staff into the location.

02:19:14.500 --> 02:19:17.850
It's actually, as the district has grown, they've become

02:19:17.850 --> 02:19:21.500
more and more crowded in the existing facilities they have.

02:19:21.500 --> 02:19:26.000
What we're doing is actually taking current employees that

02:19:26.000 --> 02:19:30.170
are on the facility in the campus and just giving them more

02:19:30.170 --> 02:19:32.500
workspace in this opportunity.

02:19:32.500 --> 02:19:34.969
There is a little bit of room for growth, but at this

02:19:34.969 --> 02:19:37.879
current state status right now, we're actually using the

02:19:37.879 --> 02:19:40.799
building for the existing staff that is on the campus

02:19:40.799 --> 02:19:41.500
already.

02:19:41.500 --> 02:19:44.069
Don't forget, we're also demoing four buildings that are on

02:19:44.069 --> 02:19:46.500
the campus also that have current staff occupying.

02:19:46.500 --> 02:19:50.420
So that will also be moved into, this is just a view coming

02:19:50.420 --> 02:19:51.500
from south.

02:19:51.500 --> 02:19:55.670
The way the building was oriented, just back to the

02:19:55.670 --> 02:19:59.270
original site plan, one thing that we were very concerned

02:19:59.270 --> 02:20:01.500
with was the actual location to the street.

02:20:01.500 --> 02:20:04.469
So as you can see, we located the building as close as we

02:20:04.469 --> 02:20:07.489
could to the existing structure and gave it the max

02:20:07.489 --> 02:20:10.500
distance away from actually Elm Street.

02:20:10.500 --> 02:20:13.680
We understand this is a three story building, but that's

02:20:13.680 --> 02:20:17.069
why we positioned it next to an existing two story building

02:20:17.069 --> 02:20:20.159
to give a little bit more relief to the immediate street

02:20:20.159 --> 02:20:20.500
there.

02:20:20.500 --> 02:20:23.500
And nothing directly adjacent to the residential area.

02:20:23.500 --> 02:20:26.909
This is completely inside an existing facility that is

02:20:26.909 --> 02:20:29.500
being used by the district currently.

02:20:29.500 --> 02:20:31.670
>> With that same thing, the other reason to go to three

02:20:31.670 --> 02:20:33.500
stories is also to reduce the footprint.

02:20:33.500 --> 02:20:36.129
The space needed if we go to two stories then takes up more

02:20:36.129 --> 02:20:38.500
of the lot and we also reduce our lot coverage.

02:20:38.500 --> 02:20:42.209
So the three story building, similar to what they did at TW

02:20:42.209 --> 02:20:45.250
U, is actually helping us in where we're trying to achieve

02:20:45.250 --> 02:20:48.500
is to get as much landscaping as possible on our site.

02:20:48.500 --> 02:20:52.790
>> Just quickly through the floor plans, it is, like we

02:20:52.790 --> 02:20:56.799
spoke, an office facility with entry on the side of that

02:20:56.799 --> 02:20:58.500
pedestrian pathway.

02:20:58.500 --> 02:21:02.110
The idea of that is to really energize that walkway and

02:21:02.110 --> 02:21:06.049
make it a space that is really active and used, and again,

02:21:06.049 --> 02:21:08.500
to reinforce that campus feel.

02:21:08.500 --> 02:21:12.370
The stories are actually pretty much a match as you go up

02:21:12.370 --> 02:21:16.579
in the building with offices in the center with workst

02:21:16.579 --> 02:21:20.500
ations around the exterior of the building.

02:21:20.500 --> 02:21:23.530
Finally, this is just some interior renderings of the

02:21:23.530 --> 02:21:26.670
facility just to let you see what we're envisioning for

02:21:26.670 --> 02:21:27.500
this space.

02:21:27.500 --> 02:21:31.500
This is the entry coming in off of that pedestrian walkway.

02:21:31.500 --> 02:21:34.989
It's a two story volume lobby and the third floor would

02:21:34.989 --> 02:21:38.500
actually be utilized for conference room spaces.

02:21:38.500 --> 02:21:43.280
Again, this is just the open field of the workspace and the

02:21:43.280 --> 02:21:46.500
existing, or the design building.

02:21:46.500 --> 02:21:50.500
So with that, we can get back to the landscape plan.

02:21:50.500 --> 02:21:51.500
>> Got some questions for you.

02:21:51.500 --> 02:21:52.500
Commissioner Beck.

02:21:52.500 --> 02:21:53.500
>> Thank you, Chair.

02:21:53.500 --> 02:21:56.309
Thanks, gentlemen, for your presentation, and either one of

02:21:56.309 --> 02:21:57.500
you can answer this, but --

02:21:57.500 --> 02:21:59.100
>> Commissioner Beck, can you pull your mic from closer to

02:21:59.100 --> 02:21:59.500
the time?

02:21:59.500 --> 02:22:00.500
I'm having a hard time hearing you.

02:22:00.500 --> 02:22:01.500
>> How's that?

02:22:01.500 --> 02:22:02.500
>> That's better.

02:22:02.500 --> 02:22:05.500
>> Okay.

02:22:05.500 --> 02:22:06.500
The plans are great.

02:22:06.500 --> 02:22:08.750
I mean, this is going to be an awesome look in development

02:22:08.750 --> 02:22:12.370
when it's done, and I think it will be an enhancement to

02:22:12.370 --> 02:22:14.500
the neighborhood, too.

02:22:14.500 --> 02:22:18.969
I -- when I was going to North Texas in the early '70s, I

02:22:18.969 --> 02:22:23.149
lived on the corner of Bolivar and Crescent there, so I

02:22:23.149 --> 02:22:25.500
love that neighborhood.

02:22:25.500 --> 02:22:28.500
My question to you is, why go this route?

02:22:28.500 --> 02:22:33.500
Why didn't you go the variance route with the zoning board?

02:22:33.500 --> 02:22:34.500
Because -- okay.

02:22:34.500 --> 02:22:36.500
>> And I'd like also some clarification.

02:22:36.500 --> 02:22:39.149
The reason -- the way we understand the variance is when

02:22:39.149 --> 02:22:41.500
you go to ZBA, you have to prove a hardship.

02:22:41.500 --> 02:22:43.899
The way I understand a hardship is you can't create the

02:22:43.899 --> 02:22:44.500
hardship.

02:22:44.500 --> 02:22:49.729
When we practice into one lot, the one lot is everything

02:22:49.729 --> 02:22:54.500
from Elm Street to Bolivar, so we have that whole block.

02:22:54.500 --> 02:22:58.389
We would -- we're unable to meet the land or the impervious

02:22:58.389 --> 02:23:02.170
calculation with the buildings that we have currently

02:23:02.170 --> 02:23:04.500
because it's 50/50.

02:23:04.500 --> 02:23:08.569
So leaving the existing buildings as they're intact, we can

02:23:08.569 --> 02:23:09.500
't meet it.

02:23:09.500 --> 02:23:12.219
So if we -- what they -- what I'm afraid ZBA is going to

02:23:12.219 --> 02:23:15.049
tell you is you can't create a hardship, so they'll just

02:23:15.049 --> 02:23:16.500
tell us you can't build the building.

02:23:16.500 --> 02:23:19.500
You can leave what you have, but you can't add to it.

02:23:19.500 --> 02:23:21.500
And that's the way I understand ZBA.

02:23:21.500 --> 02:23:23.500
You can't create the hardship.

02:23:23.500 --> 02:23:25.500
You can't do it with the current hardship.

02:23:25.500 --> 02:23:26.500
>> Okay.

02:23:26.500 --> 02:23:29.680
Well, I can understand your reasoning there, and I couldn't

02:23:29.680 --> 02:23:31.500
answer that either, but I guess --

02:23:31.500 --> 02:23:33.500
>> That's where we've been perplexed.

02:23:33.500 --> 02:23:34.500
>> Okay.

02:23:34.500 --> 02:23:35.500
>> And we've gone back with staff.

02:23:35.500 --> 02:23:38.500
We've talked about that, the ZBA route.

02:23:38.500 --> 02:23:42.180
And that was our first update, but as we talked about it

02:23:42.180 --> 02:23:46.500
more, we realized that probably it wasn't the best avenue.

02:23:46.500 --> 02:23:50.040
I do sort of have a compromise if we're into those words,

02:23:50.040 --> 02:23:50.500
but --

02:23:50.500 --> 02:23:51.500
>> Please.

02:23:51.500 --> 02:23:53.959
>> I think what we've talked about a little bit is what I

02:23:53.959 --> 02:23:56.500
heard from staff is they were looking for a buffer.

02:23:56.500 --> 02:24:00.350
And I think what we'd like to offer up is that we would

02:24:00.350 --> 02:24:04.729
like to continue the DCN use up to that magic hard line and

02:24:04.729 --> 02:24:07.500
then switch over to the DCN for the strip.

02:24:07.500 --> 02:24:10.059
And basically what it used to be is these were all platted

02:24:10.059 --> 02:24:10.500
lots.

02:24:10.500 --> 02:24:16.120
So the old alleyway that is their hard line, then we would

02:24:16.120 --> 02:24:21.500
have the difference between the DCN and the NR3.

02:24:21.500 --> 02:24:30.500
So we go from DCN to DR2 to NR3.

02:24:30.500 --> 02:24:34.129
So it's puzzling because while we talked about that use,

02:24:34.129 --> 02:24:37.610
and I heard several of the councilmen, it didn't -- that

02:24:37.610 --> 02:24:39.500
hard line didn't really physically exist on the ground.

02:24:39.500 --> 02:24:41.500
It was a line on paper.

02:24:41.500 --> 02:24:44.799
And when they rezoned several years ago in the early 2000,

02:24:44.799 --> 02:24:47.340
our buildings existed, but they weren't taken into

02:24:47.340 --> 02:24:48.500
consideration.

02:24:48.500 --> 02:24:51.239
The administration building was, but the church that's

02:24:51.239 --> 02:24:54.440
beside us, one of the reasons we replatted, because we didn

02:24:54.440 --> 02:24:56.500
't meet the fire requirements.

02:24:56.500 --> 02:24:59.159
So we've gone through a lot of stuff to try to get all of

02:24:59.159 --> 02:25:02.540
our buildings up to code to meet it with all of the abandon

02:25:02.540 --> 02:25:05.500
ment of alleys and the increased spaces.

02:25:05.500 --> 02:25:08.129
So we're working very hard on getting to where we need to

02:25:08.129 --> 02:25:08.500
be.

02:25:08.500 --> 02:25:09.500
Okay.

02:25:09.500 --> 02:25:11.500
Well, I empathize with you.

02:25:11.500 --> 02:25:12.500
I really do.

02:25:12.500 --> 02:25:16.370
Let me just kind of try and convey a concern that I'm sure

02:25:16.370 --> 02:25:19.500
people in the neighborhood would have.

02:25:19.500 --> 02:25:23.290
Because this kind of falls on an unpleasant experience the

02:25:23.290 --> 02:25:25.500
city dealt with with Buc-E's.

02:25:25.500 --> 02:25:27.959
It was zoned for that, and rightfully had a right to go

02:25:27.959 --> 02:25:28.500
there.

02:25:28.500 --> 02:25:31.100
But I think, you know, nobody ever conceived that something

02:25:31.100 --> 02:25:32.500
like a Buc-E's would be there.

02:25:32.500 --> 02:25:35.500
Not that you're anywhere close to that, please.

02:25:35.500 --> 02:25:37.750
But -- and I was glad to hear you say you've been here for

02:25:37.750 --> 02:25:40.500
100 years, and as far as you know, you'll be here another

02:25:40.500 --> 02:25:41.500
100 years.

02:25:41.500 --> 02:25:44.149
And unless you can put that in blood and on paper and

02:25:44.149 --> 02:25:46.700
everything like that, I think people are always going to be

02:25:46.700 --> 02:25:48.500
a little tentative of what can happen down the road.

02:25:48.500 --> 02:25:52.879
And the idea that you rezone this DCN and the potential for

02:25:52.879 --> 02:25:57.440
a seven or eight story building going there, I think unner

02:25:57.440 --> 02:25:58.500
ves people.

02:25:58.500 --> 02:26:02.500
I don't know how you would assuage their feelings on that.

02:26:02.500 --> 02:26:04.530
Sure, just guaranteeing you're never going to move or

02:26:04.530 --> 02:26:05.500
something like that.

02:26:05.500 --> 02:26:14.500
So anyway, that's my two cents worth.

02:26:14.500 --> 02:26:16.500
Commissioner Taylor.

02:26:16.500 --> 02:26:17.500
Thank you, Chair.

02:26:17.500 --> 02:26:22.870
So I didn't quite understand your answer to Commissioner

02:26:22.870 --> 02:26:28.500
Beck's question about compromise in rezoning some.

02:26:28.500 --> 02:26:30.500
Could you run through that again?

02:26:30.500 --> 02:26:31.500
I think I got --

02:26:31.500 --> 02:26:35.100
We talked about a little bit of how we could buffer the

02:26:35.100 --> 02:26:38.500
area between the -- let me slow down again.

02:26:38.500 --> 02:26:45.379
The NR3, which is the residential that is across the other

02:26:45.379 --> 02:26:47.500
side of Boulevard.

02:26:47.500 --> 02:26:50.500
Which is where the PDC currently --

02:26:50.500 --> 02:26:51.500
Right.

02:26:51.500 --> 02:26:52.500
The PDC here.

02:26:52.500 --> 02:26:54.500
It's already a two story building.

02:26:54.500 --> 02:26:59.329
The reason that we had difficulties with the DCR2 is it

02:26:59.329 --> 02:27:04.139
only was restricted to 45 feet in height, but our building

02:27:04.139 --> 02:27:07.500
that's currently on that site is only two story.

02:27:07.500 --> 02:27:10.500
And it's 80/20 or 80/75.

02:27:10.500 --> 02:27:12.500
No, 75/25.

02:27:12.500 --> 02:27:17.000
So what you're proposing is basically west of the alley, DR

02:27:17.000 --> 02:27:19.500
2, east of the alley, DCN.

02:27:19.500 --> 02:27:20.500
Yes.

02:27:20.500 --> 02:27:23.170
And that meets the requirements that we're able to keep the

02:27:23.170 --> 02:27:24.500
elevations that we need.

02:27:24.500 --> 02:27:28.500
We'll meet the landscape requirements at the 80/20 and the

02:27:28.500 --> 02:27:31.500
75/25 with our existing conditions.

02:27:31.500 --> 02:27:32.500
Okay.

02:27:32.500 --> 02:27:34.500
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.

02:27:34.500 --> 02:27:38.329
Yes, and it provides that buffer so that we're not encro

02:27:38.329 --> 02:27:40.500
aching into the magic area.

02:27:40.500 --> 02:27:44.500
And this facility currently is that zone currently.

02:27:44.500 --> 02:27:45.500
Yeah.

02:27:45.500 --> 02:27:47.500
Which is adjacent to it.

02:27:47.500 --> 02:27:51.500
Any other questions for the applicant?

02:27:51.500 --> 02:27:52.500
A couple.

02:27:52.500 --> 02:27:54.500
Commissioner Sullivan.

02:27:54.500 --> 02:27:57.500
I'm confused.

02:27:57.500 --> 02:27:59.500
Where is the new building going?

02:27:59.500 --> 02:28:04.500
It is this white space right here, and that is the only --

02:28:04.500 --> 02:28:06.500
So you're going to maintain the old building.

02:28:06.500 --> 02:28:07.500
Maintaining the old building.

02:28:07.500 --> 02:28:09.500
We're not touching the old building.

02:28:09.500 --> 02:28:12.680
And then you're going to tear down some of the outlying

02:28:12.680 --> 02:28:13.500
buildings.

02:28:13.500 --> 02:28:17.909
Yes, there's two older abandoned houses on that site that

02:28:17.909 --> 02:28:18.500
were --

02:28:18.500 --> 02:28:21.729
And so how many employees are there now and how many will

02:28:21.729 --> 02:28:22.500
there be?

02:28:22.500 --> 02:28:23.500
In the current complex?

02:28:23.500 --> 02:28:25.500
In the current complex.

02:28:25.500 --> 02:28:27.500
I would have to give you the exact current complex.

02:28:27.500 --> 02:28:29.500
Well, I mean, just approximate.

02:28:29.500 --> 02:28:33.770
All I have been informed is that we are planning for some

02:28:33.770 --> 02:28:36.500
future hiring of the facility.

02:28:36.500 --> 02:28:39.729
But currently, as is, it's everyone that is on the site is

02:28:39.729 --> 02:28:43.500
going to get a spot in the new building or the existing

02:28:43.500 --> 02:28:44.500
buildings.

02:28:44.500 --> 02:28:47.500
So we're not adding any new people to the site.

02:28:47.500 --> 02:28:51.020
We are factoring in, I believe, there is about 10 new

02:28:51.020 --> 02:28:54.500
spaces per floor in the new building for future growth.

02:28:54.500 --> 02:28:57.680
So approximately 30 more people could potentially be on the

02:28:57.680 --> 02:28:58.500
site itself.

02:28:58.500 --> 02:29:01.520
Because it looks like there's a whole lot more parking that

02:29:01.520 --> 02:29:04.500
's going to be there eventually than what's there now.

02:29:04.500 --> 02:29:05.500
Correct.

02:29:05.500 --> 02:29:08.229
And to me, that would indicate a lot more people parking in

02:29:08.229 --> 02:29:09.500
those parking spaces.

02:29:09.500 --> 02:29:10.500
Sort of.

02:29:10.500 --> 02:29:12.250
And I see where you're going with that, but a lot of what

02:29:12.250 --> 02:29:14.450
we've heard in the neighborhood and what we've experienced

02:29:14.450 --> 02:29:16.500
on there is that there's inadequate parking today.

02:29:16.500 --> 02:29:18.500
Currently, we're trying to meet those.

02:29:18.500 --> 02:29:19.500
Yeah, we're trying to meet our current needs.

02:29:19.500 --> 02:29:20.500
So you're putting those off the street, basically.

02:29:20.500 --> 02:29:22.610
Right, you get everybody off the street and out of the

02:29:22.610 --> 02:29:24.500
neighborhood a little bit and more on site.

02:29:24.500 --> 02:29:26.500
That's the purpose for a lot of this.

02:29:26.500 --> 02:29:28.530
Also, we have a little bit of a joint use with the church

02:29:28.530 --> 02:29:30.770
that's on the other side that when we tear down our

02:29:30.770 --> 02:29:33.700
building, it's going to provide some adequate parking for

02:29:33.700 --> 02:29:35.500
all the neighbors in the area, too.

02:29:35.500 --> 02:29:37.500
So it's helping us during the day.

02:29:37.500 --> 02:29:39.639
And it's also going to be the side benefit is it's going to

02:29:39.639 --> 02:29:41.500
be able to help others in the neighborhood.

02:29:41.500 --> 02:29:44.930
We met with the neighbors last week, and that was a concern

02:29:44.930 --> 02:29:49.500
was actually the church, not the actual school facility.

02:29:49.500 --> 02:29:52.459
And that was something they were relieved to see was some

02:29:52.459 --> 02:29:55.500
additional parking that maybe can help relieve that.

02:29:55.500 --> 02:29:58.500
Thank you.

02:29:58.500 --> 02:30:00.500
Commissioner Rosale.

02:30:00.500 --> 02:30:01.500
Thank you.

02:30:01.500 --> 02:30:04.370
This is more for staff to clarify some of the things that

02:30:04.370 --> 02:30:07.239
have been brought up just so I can ponder and understand

02:30:07.239 --> 02:30:09.500
the reality or the potential reality.

02:30:09.500 --> 02:30:11.959
One, is there any clarification that we could get on the

02:30:11.959 --> 02:30:13.500
option that they have with ZBA?

02:30:13.500 --> 02:30:17.500
Is their understanding of it requiring a hardship correct?

02:30:17.500 --> 02:30:19.500
That's first question.

02:30:19.500 --> 02:30:23.219
Subchapter three of the debt and development code outlines

02:30:23.219 --> 02:30:23.500
ZBA.

02:30:23.500 --> 02:30:28.500
And ZBA can provide, may grant a variance for lot coverage.

02:30:28.500 --> 02:30:33.930
The criteria of which, where literal enforcement of the

02:30:33.930 --> 02:30:37.159
regulations will result in unnecessary hardship, where the

02:30:37.159 --> 02:30:40.500
variance is necessary to develop a specific parcel of land,

02:30:40.500 --> 02:30:44.639
which because of site shape, size, or topography differs

02:30:44.639 --> 02:30:48.379
from other parcels in the same district and it cannot be

02:30:48.379 --> 02:30:51.149
developed in a manner commensurate with the development

02:30:51.149 --> 02:30:52.500
allowed for other parcels.

02:30:52.500 --> 02:30:55.680
It does say the variance shall not be granted to relieve a

02:30:55.680 --> 02:30:58.930
self-created or personal hardship or to relieve a purely

02:30:58.930 --> 02:31:00.500
financial hardship.

02:31:00.500 --> 02:31:05.350
Staff would take, I know Manal talked about in the work

02:31:05.350 --> 02:31:10.549
session, that staff would take a look at the request and do

02:31:10.549 --> 02:31:13.500
an analysis on that variance.

02:31:13.500 --> 02:31:15.500
It is existing.

02:31:15.500 --> 02:31:21.709
There is an existing condition on the site which definitely

02:31:21.709 --> 02:31:27.500
lends itself to a favorable review of that analysis.

02:31:27.500 --> 02:31:31.329
We have had prior discussion and maybe there was a cross

02:31:31.329 --> 02:31:37.420
line somewhere, but we have intimated how viable a Zoning

02:31:37.420 --> 02:31:42.500
Board of Adjustment request or variance would be prior to

02:31:42.500 --> 02:31:44.500
proceeding with a zoning case.

02:31:44.500 --> 02:31:46.500
So there's a couple of options available.

02:31:46.500 --> 02:31:49.399
As it relates to the ZBA, Zoning Board of Adjustment

02:31:49.399 --> 02:31:52.670
application, they meet once a month, so we would have to

02:31:52.670 --> 02:31:56.100
revisit the application, revisit the schedule and see where

02:31:56.100 --> 02:31:59.040
they would fit in that, which could potentially mean on

02:31:59.040 --> 02:32:02.969
your part a continuance or should you choose to make an

02:32:02.969 --> 02:32:04.500
alternative recommendation.

02:32:04.500 --> 02:32:06.500
That's your purview.

02:32:06.500 --> 02:32:08.500
Thank you for the explanation.

02:32:08.500 --> 02:32:13.239
Second question, kind of along those lines in terms of

02:32:13.239 --> 02:32:18.250
looking at options, is it possible the way the agenda item

02:32:18.250 --> 02:32:23.190
is presented to us to split track one into a DR2/DCN split

02:32:23.190 --> 02:32:28.809
as they had suggested, or is that an entire new application

02:32:28.809 --> 02:32:30.500
to change that?

02:32:30.500 --> 02:32:33.600
I believe there was some discussion earlier on if you're,

02:32:33.600 --> 02:32:36.670
for the lack of a better phrase, down zoning or looking at

02:32:36.670 --> 02:32:39.750
the zoning that's not more restrictive than what's already

02:32:39.750 --> 02:32:40.500
there.

02:32:40.500 --> 02:32:42.500
Aaron's already chimed in.

02:32:42.500 --> 02:32:44.500
He's ready to speak.

02:32:44.500 --> 02:32:46.500
I can answer that question.

02:32:46.500 --> 02:32:49.860
I think that the way this has been posted, they've asked

02:32:49.860 --> 02:32:53.430
for a zoning that is of a higher classification, jumping up

02:32:53.430 --> 02:32:55.500
two spots if I'm not mistaken.

02:32:55.500 --> 02:32:58.219
You don't necessarily, because of the way it's posted with

02:32:58.219 --> 02:33:00.940
the request, you can give them something less than what was

02:33:00.940 --> 02:33:03.719
posted and requested, or you can make the recommendation to

02:33:03.719 --> 02:33:04.500
offer that.

02:33:04.500 --> 02:33:09.500
That's where the DR2 would be between the NR3 and the DCN.

02:33:09.500 --> 02:33:13.030
So it is possible for us tonight with this presented to

02:33:13.030 --> 02:33:16.750
take what's west of the alley that butts up against Bolivar

02:33:16.750 --> 02:33:20.530
and zone that DR2 and what's east of that alley that butts

02:33:20.530 --> 02:33:23.500
up against Elm approve the DCN request.

02:33:23.500 --> 02:33:26.739
That is correct, because the entire area on both sides of

02:33:26.739 --> 02:33:29.500
the alley are currently requested to be DCN.

02:33:29.500 --> 02:33:30.500
Okay.

02:33:30.500 --> 02:33:31.500
Yes, sir.

02:33:31.500 --> 02:33:32.500
Thank you.

02:33:32.500 --> 02:33:33.500
That's very helpful.

02:33:33.500 --> 02:33:37.500
I just wanted to clarify.

02:33:37.500 --> 02:33:41.670
I know that the question on the variance came up, and just

02:33:41.670 --> 02:33:45.860
so that this board isn't confused, there was a statement

02:33:45.860 --> 02:33:49.500
made with regards to a self-created hardship.

02:33:49.500 --> 02:33:53.909
I just want to correct, to make sure everybody understands

02:33:53.909 --> 02:33:56.500
what a self-created hardship.

02:33:56.500 --> 02:33:58.840
That's one of the things that a ZBA looks to to make sure

02:33:58.840 --> 02:34:00.500
the applicant doesn't create it.

02:34:00.500 --> 02:34:04.360
The best example that I give to the ZBA, or used to get the

02:34:04.360 --> 02:34:07.409
ZBA when I was their counsel, is when somebody, a developer

02:34:07.409 --> 02:34:11.500
, starts with a fresh, clean slate, green field development,

02:34:11.500 --> 02:34:14.680
and then decides that they want to maximize, build

02:34:14.680 --> 02:34:18.209
something bigger than what's allowed, and they come in to

02:34:18.209 --> 02:34:19.500
get a variance.

02:34:19.500 --> 02:34:20.500
Well, that is a self-created hardship.

02:34:20.500 --> 02:34:21.500
They're creating it themselves.

02:34:21.500 --> 02:34:23.500
They have the opportunity to cure it.

02:34:23.500 --> 02:34:28.280
As opposed to what is present in this location, you have

02:34:28.280 --> 02:34:32.500
existing structures and impervious surface.

02:34:32.500 --> 02:34:35.790
That is a different situation than the typical scenario of

02:34:35.790 --> 02:34:37.500
a self-created hardship.

02:34:37.500 --> 02:34:40.690
So I wanted to make sure that that doesn't impact your

02:34:40.690 --> 02:34:41.500
ability.

02:34:41.500 --> 02:34:45.940
I just want for you all to be clear that what was described

02:34:45.940 --> 02:34:49.500
is not a self-created hardship, per se.

02:34:49.500 --> 02:34:50.500
Commissioner Beck.

02:34:50.500 --> 02:34:51.500
Thank you, Chair.

02:34:51.500 --> 02:34:56.610
So you're saying then that there is a condition there that

02:34:56.610 --> 02:35:00.500
they could conceivably get the variance,

02:35:00.500 --> 02:35:03.000
that there isn't going to be a problem with the hardship

02:35:03.000 --> 02:35:03.500
issue?

02:35:03.500 --> 02:35:07.059
What I'm saying is that the statement that was made is not

02:35:07.059 --> 02:35:10.500
a true self-created hardship that the ZBA would then deny,

02:35:10.500 --> 02:35:14.329
because they're putting everything on one lot, and they're

02:35:14.329 --> 02:35:17.500
trying to get an increase what is allowed.

02:35:17.500 --> 02:35:21.770
They have what is called under the zoning theory, as well

02:35:21.770 --> 02:35:25.069
as under our code, a nonconforming structures that already

02:35:25.069 --> 02:35:25.500
exist.

02:35:25.500 --> 02:35:29.680
They're only building one lot, and of course, because they

02:35:29.680 --> 02:35:34.000
are doing site development, repaving the sidewalks and all

02:35:34.000 --> 02:35:34.500
that,

02:35:34.500 --> 02:35:37.500
it's treated as if they're exceeding what they had before,

02:35:37.500 --> 02:35:39.500
even though it was already in place.

02:35:39.500 --> 02:35:42.489
So their argument at ZBA, as much as I hate to tell what

02:35:42.489 --> 02:35:44.500
the applicant, what their argument is,

02:35:44.500 --> 02:35:48.040
is not that we are starting afresh and creating a new

02:35:48.040 --> 02:35:50.500
surface or paving a new surface.

02:35:50.500 --> 02:35:54.020
We are basically doing over or rebuilding over existing

02:35:54.020 --> 02:35:58.500
surface that we have, but for the change in the zoning.

02:35:58.500 --> 02:36:00.500
Can I ask how that applies to our building height then?

02:36:00.500 --> 02:36:02.280
Please step to the mic if you'd like to get a clarification

02:36:02.280 --> 02:36:02.500
.

02:36:02.500 --> 02:36:05.489
The question that we have the two-fold problem with this,

02:36:05.489 --> 02:36:08.500
it's the lot coverage, which I understand now clearly that

02:36:08.500 --> 02:36:09.500
it looks like that,

02:36:09.500 --> 02:36:12.790
but the other self-inflicted is the building height,

02:36:12.790 --> 02:36:16.500
because in the existing height requirement, we exceed.

02:36:16.500 --> 02:36:18.500
That is a different scenario.

02:36:18.500 --> 02:36:19.500
Okay.

02:36:19.500 --> 02:36:21.500
It's only addressing what is on the ground physically.

02:36:21.500 --> 02:36:22.500
Okay.

02:36:22.500 --> 02:36:26.500
That's fair.

02:36:26.500 --> 02:36:29.680
I think Commissioner Rosell, it was Commissioner Beck, now

02:36:29.680 --> 02:36:32.500
we're back to Commissioner Rosell, I'm sorry.

02:36:32.500 --> 02:36:33.500
Keeping up with the questions.

02:36:33.500 --> 02:36:34.500
Go ahead.

02:36:34.500 --> 02:36:37.719
That last statement might clarify my question here, but it

02:36:37.719 --> 02:36:40.670
's my understanding that if there was an option to

02:36:40.670 --> 02:36:42.500
potentially table this item

02:36:42.500 --> 02:36:45.760
and wait for them to go before ZBA, the applicant would

02:36:45.760 --> 02:36:48.500
also have to be in agreeance for us to be able to table

02:36:48.500 --> 02:36:48.500
this

02:36:48.500 --> 02:36:54.500
to a date in the future, or we can do that?

02:36:54.500 --> 02:36:58.670
Ultimately, if they want to go, we can't force them to go

02:36:58.670 --> 02:36:59.500
to ZBA.

02:36:59.500 --> 02:37:01.940
Ultimately, the applicant would have to do, we have to make

02:37:01.940 --> 02:37:03.989
that decision, because the applicant would then have to

02:37:03.989 --> 02:37:04.500
create new drawings,

02:37:04.500 --> 02:37:07.540
go to the engineer, have them redraw what they want to do,

02:37:07.540 --> 02:37:10.500
the architect, there's one involved, and then pay the fee

02:37:10.500 --> 02:37:12.500
for that ZBA process,

02:37:12.500 --> 02:37:14.500
which I don't know what that fee is.

02:37:14.500 --> 02:37:17.500
Ultimately, they have to agree to do that.

02:37:17.500 --> 02:37:21.200
There's not a mechanism that we force them to do that route

02:37:21.200 --> 02:37:21.500
.

02:37:21.500 --> 02:37:23.850
So I guess my question would be to the applicant, if the

02:37:23.850 --> 02:37:28.500
commission was to entertain the idea of tabling for ZBA

02:37:28.500 --> 02:37:29.500
decision,

02:37:29.500 --> 02:37:33.340
would that be something you all would be open to, or would

02:37:33.340 --> 02:37:36.500
you rather a vote be apart from a ZBA option?

02:37:36.500 --> 02:37:39.500
I'm still fudging on the ZBA and our health requirement,

02:37:39.500 --> 02:37:42.500
because I don't believe we adequately address that.

02:37:42.500 --> 02:37:47.500
I understand the lot coverage, I think we're fine in that.

02:37:47.500 --> 02:37:49.579
The height now is the other, we have two folds for ZBA, it

02:37:49.579 --> 02:37:52.500
's the lot coverage and the height.

02:37:52.500 --> 02:37:55.299
I can't answer that question. What I was doing was clar

02:37:55.299 --> 02:37:57.020
ifying a statement you made so that they wouldn't be

02:37:57.020 --> 02:37:57.500
confused.

02:37:57.500 --> 02:38:00.500
This commission, who I do represent as your legal counsel,

02:38:00.500 --> 02:38:04.270
you're asking one that is not a statement or cause

02:38:04.270 --> 02:38:06.500
confusion, it would cost me to correct it.

02:38:06.500 --> 02:38:09.940
That would be something that I would recommend you

02:38:09.940 --> 02:38:13.989
coordinate with the legal counsel for the school district

02:38:13.989 --> 02:38:16.500
who could answer that question.

02:38:16.500 --> 02:38:18.500
Commissioner Ellis.

02:38:18.500 --> 02:38:23.319
Thank you, Chair. For the applicant, I'm sorry, you just

02:38:23.319 --> 02:38:24.500
sat down.

02:38:24.500 --> 02:38:26.879
I guess a question for the site plan. This is a

02:38:26.879 --> 02:38:29.500
professional development site, correct, currently?

02:38:29.500 --> 02:38:30.500
Correct, yes, ma'am.

02:38:30.500 --> 02:38:33.540
And is that what it's remaining or are there future plans

02:38:33.540 --> 02:38:36.500
with this expansion for it to become other things?

02:38:36.500 --> 02:38:41.500
No, ma'am. It's all on staff, professional development.

02:38:41.500 --> 02:38:44.409
Excuse me, it's professional development and support

02:38:44.409 --> 02:38:48.069
services, so it houses their accounting departments, their

02:38:48.069 --> 02:38:53.729
in-staff that manages, so it's both currently, both are

02:38:53.729 --> 02:38:58.000
housed in the professional services building, excuse me,

02:38:58.000 --> 02:38:59.500
professional development building.

02:38:59.500 --> 02:39:01.750
This is actually going to allow them to keep the

02:39:01.750 --> 02:39:04.799
professional development building more intact with that and

02:39:04.799 --> 02:39:07.670
pull out the support services staff into a support services

02:39:07.670 --> 02:39:08.500
building.

02:39:08.500 --> 02:39:10.500
But on this campus?

02:39:10.500 --> 02:39:12.500
Yes, yes, this building, so it's all staff.

02:39:12.500 --> 02:39:15.680
And with this, because this is really an expansion for what

02:39:15.680 --> 02:39:18.430
you have now, are you bringing other things that are

02:39:18.430 --> 02:39:21.500
happening elsewhere in buildings in the district?

02:39:21.500 --> 02:39:25.450
There has not been a clear indication of that. Currently

02:39:25.450 --> 02:39:29.170
what we've had have identified are staff that's on the

02:39:29.170 --> 02:39:30.500
campus itself.

02:39:30.500 --> 02:39:34.500
I guess what I'm getting to is other activities.

02:39:34.500 --> 02:39:35.500
Oh, yes.

02:39:35.500 --> 02:39:39.069
Because you do, I mean you have many educational services

02:39:39.069 --> 02:39:42.719
for your teachers throughout the year, certainly over the

02:39:42.719 --> 02:39:45.500
summertime, you have workshops there.

02:39:45.500 --> 02:39:49.500
There is none planned. This is strictly office space for...

02:39:49.500 --> 02:39:50.500
As it's being used now.

02:39:50.500 --> 02:39:54.500
As it's being used now. So no additional, I guess, perks.

02:39:54.500 --> 02:39:55.500
Okay, understood.

02:39:55.500 --> 02:39:56.500
Or opportunities.

02:39:56.500 --> 02:39:57.500
Thank you.

02:39:57.500 --> 02:39:58.500
Okay.

02:39:58.500 --> 02:40:03.500
Great. I see no further questions. Thank you, applicants.

02:40:03.500 --> 02:40:08.250
This is a public hearing. As such, if you would like to

02:40:08.250 --> 02:40:12.500
speak, please fill out a card and turn those in.

02:40:12.500 --> 02:40:14.969
I've got several cards and I'm going to start with our

02:40:14.969 --> 02:40:15.500
cards.

02:40:15.500 --> 02:40:20.500
I have Barney Cosimo at 1107 Bolivar.

02:40:20.500 --> 02:40:22.899
As you come forward, if you'll please state your name and

02:40:22.899 --> 02:40:25.500
address for the record and you'll have four minutes, sir.

02:40:25.500 --> 02:40:26.500
Thank you.

02:40:26.500 --> 02:40:30.129
Okay. My name is Barney Cosimo. I live at 1107 Bolivar and

02:40:30.129 --> 02:40:34.379
I also own rental property directly across from the

02:40:34.379 --> 02:40:35.500
development.

02:40:35.500 --> 02:40:39.120
As I understand it, the existing buildings are going to

02:40:39.120 --> 02:40:42.819
remain. That is the main building that was formerly the

02:40:42.819 --> 02:40:46.149
Catholic Church educational building and the church

02:40:46.149 --> 02:40:48.649
building and the other buildings are going to be cleared

02:40:48.649 --> 02:40:49.500
from the site.

02:40:49.500 --> 02:40:53.190
Just looking at the plan, it looks like it will

02:40:53.190 --> 02:40:57.500
significantly enhance the aesthetics of the area.

02:40:57.500 --> 02:41:02.500
I don't think a three-story building on Elm is going to be

02:41:02.500 --> 02:41:06.090
overly intrusive on Bolivar. It would be nice to get that

02:41:06.090 --> 02:41:07.500
area cleaned up. It is pretty much a haphazard mess.

02:41:07.500 --> 02:41:11.420
Right now there's a portable building serving as a support

02:41:11.420 --> 02:41:15.489
building and a field that is not developed, but it also

02:41:15.489 --> 02:41:18.500
collects water when it rains.

02:41:18.500 --> 02:41:23.610
It would be nice to have that developed and cleaned up and

02:41:23.610 --> 02:41:28.290
nicely landscaped. I can support it. I'd rather have that

02:41:28.290 --> 02:41:30.500
than some of the other things that have been proposed for

02:41:30.500 --> 02:41:31.500
that area in the past. Thank you.

02:41:31.500 --> 02:41:33.500
We have a question for you. Commissioner Beck.

02:41:33.500 --> 02:41:36.360
Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry. Mr. Cosimo, did you say you

02:41:36.360 --> 02:41:38.500
did live directly across the street from it?

02:41:38.500 --> 02:41:44.670
I live just a little bit south at 1107, but I own rental

02:41:44.670 --> 02:41:49.299
property directly across from that. You live at 1107 Boliv

02:41:49.299 --> 02:41:51.500
ar? 1107, yes. Thank you.

02:41:51.500 --> 02:41:59.670
Thank you, sir. Our next speaker, request to speak, will be

02:41:59.670 --> 02:42:04.250
Kate Lamas at 1120 North Locust and your card is marked in

02:42:04.250 --> 02:42:05.500
opposition.

02:42:05.500 --> 02:42:10.010
Hi, it's actually Kate Linus. Linus, sorry. That's all

02:42:10.010 --> 02:42:15.979
right. I live at 1120 North Locust. I also work at the cour

02:42:15.979 --> 02:42:20.090
thouse on the square at 110 West Hickory. I work for Denton

02:42:20.090 --> 02:42:20.500
County.

02:42:20.500 --> 02:42:26.069
So I would like to say that I did go to the neighborhood

02:42:26.069 --> 02:42:32.659
meeting that the DISD offered on the 22nd and that was very

02:42:32.659 --> 02:42:38.469
good. I am in support of the idea that DISD is trying to

02:42:38.469 --> 02:42:40.500
form a campus.

02:42:40.500 --> 02:42:44.420
I love that idea. I had understood from that meeting that

02:42:44.420 --> 02:42:47.610
not only was it going to be every employee that was

02:42:47.610 --> 02:42:52.500
currently on those different blocks, but in addition, they

02:42:52.500 --> 02:42:56.700
were moving staff from the building that is currently off

02:42:56.700 --> 02:42:57.500
of university.

02:42:57.500 --> 02:43:01.450
And so that would actually increase the overall numbers.

02:43:01.450 --> 02:43:05.860
But again, it's that idea of the campus. I also support the

02:43:05.860 --> 02:43:08.500
idea of the pedestrian crossway.

02:43:08.500 --> 02:43:13.020
I would like to mention, however, that Elm and Locust are

02:43:13.020 --> 02:43:17.530
text dot roads. They are highways, Highway 77 and Highway

02:43:17.530 --> 02:43:22.299
377. And without the agreement of text dot, there is no way

02:43:22.299 --> 02:43:26.219
that there can be a pedestrian walkway across Elm Street or

02:43:26.219 --> 02:43:27.500
any other one.

02:43:27.500 --> 02:43:32.149
If the ISD, the city, text dot and everybody else involved

02:43:32.149 --> 02:43:36.459
actually agrees to a pedestrian walkway on Elm Street,

02:43:36.459 --> 02:43:40.540
please move it all the way across on Locust so that you

02:43:40.540 --> 02:43:45.000
have neighborhood all the way to TWU and people cannot go

02:43:45.000 --> 02:43:49.500
55 miles an hour down Locust and in front of my house.

02:43:49.500 --> 02:43:54.889
But I'm speaking in opposition to the rezoning request. I

02:43:54.889 --> 02:44:00.159
don't agree that there's any need to rezone these pieces of

02:44:00.159 --> 02:44:05.500
property in order to build this campus that they want.

02:44:05.500 --> 02:44:10.280
I think that they can work within the ideas of staff staff

02:44:10.280 --> 02:44:15.639
recommendation, which actually is a denial staff recommends

02:44:15.639 --> 02:44:19.969
denial of the request as it is incompatible with the

02:44:19.969 --> 02:44:24.809
surrounding land uses uses and development pattern and is

02:44:24.809 --> 02:44:28.500
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton

02:44:28.500 --> 02:44:28.500
plan.

02:44:28.500 --> 02:44:32.809
I think that's a very important point to note in the

02:44:32.809 --> 02:44:38.250
resolution, which is to make the zoning district consistent

02:44:38.250 --> 02:44:43.500
with the comprehensive plan and the future land use plan.

02:44:43.500 --> 02:44:57.569
Three stories, not three stories. That doesn't bother me so

02:44:57.569 --> 02:44:59.719
much. The look isn't really wonderful for the neighborhood

02:44:59.719 --> 02:44:59.979
because the neighborhood has a whole lot of older buildings

02:44:59.979 --> 02:45:00.500
. My particular home was built in 1928. I just got recently

02:45:00.500 --> 02:45:02.500
the historic landmark.

02:45:02.500 --> 02:45:07.149
That's okay. My house is brick next door is a Denton wood

02:45:07.149 --> 02:45:11.989
house next to it is a fake brick colonial. I mean, there's

02:45:11.989 --> 02:45:16.860
all kinds of development. It's modern looking. That's not a

02:45:16.860 --> 02:45:17.500
problem either.

02:45:17.500 --> 02:45:24.280
It is huge. If you just go back and look at the pictures,

02:45:24.280 --> 02:45:30.799
the site plans, it is so much bigger than anything else

02:45:30.799 --> 02:45:33.909
around it. Maybe bring the three stories size down a little

02:45:33.909 --> 02:45:36.430
bit instead of being monumental architecture. We make it

02:45:36.430 --> 02:45:37.500
human size architecture.

02:45:37.500 --> 02:45:45.700
It doesn't have to be huge buildings like around TWU campus

02:45:45.700 --> 02:45:51.120
with the big multi story buildings. It should fit in to the

02:45:51.120 --> 02:45:54.379
neighborhood. And I think that it can fit into the

02:45:54.379 --> 02:45:55.500
neighborhood.

02:45:55.500 --> 02:45:58.610
Some of the building they have right now is the old

02:45:58.610 --> 02:46:02.549
elementary school. I mean, they were talking about you can

02:46:02.549 --> 02:46:06.450
actually see parts of it in the rough. That's fantastic.

02:46:06.450 --> 02:46:09.790
But fit into the neighborhood so it doesn't have to be

02:46:09.790 --> 02:46:12.500
quite so extensive. That's it.

02:46:12.500 --> 02:46:16.579
Let's make a clarification for you. In our work session, I

02:46:16.579 --> 02:46:20.379
know everybody wasn't able to be there. One of the main

02:46:20.379 --> 02:46:24.340
concerns that the commission had with the zoning request is

02:46:24.340 --> 02:46:29.520
with the DCN, the height is 100 feet. With the DR2, the

02:46:29.520 --> 02:46:31.500
height is 45 feet.

02:46:31.500 --> 02:46:34.540
So it's a substantial difference to go from the DCN to go

02:46:34.540 --> 02:46:38.020
back to DR2. That's one of the things we'll be talking with

02:46:38.020 --> 02:46:41.170
the applicant here in a minute after we close the public

02:46:41.170 --> 02:46:44.409
hearing and how we move this forward. Does that make a

02:46:44.409 --> 02:46:47.500
difference to you if it goes from 100 feet down to 45?

02:46:47.500 --> 02:46:56.680
I don't know that you can do a three story building in 45

02:46:56.680 --> 02:47:05.540
feet. I don't know. I don't know enough about it. They

02:47:05.540 --> 02:47:05.829
would have to in that zoning. One of my concerns with

02:47:05.829 --> 02:47:06.139
changing the zoning in that way as opposed to doing the ZAB

02:47:06.139 --> 02:47:11.719
, which was the staff recommendation, is I have a house that

02:47:11.719 --> 02:47:15.809
I'm going to have for a very long time with very old trees

02:47:15.809 --> 02:47:16.500
around it.

02:47:16.500 --> 02:47:20.670
I would love to not have the falling down building. That

02:47:20.670 --> 02:47:24.500
used to be my church when it was a Catholic church.

02:47:24.500 --> 02:47:27.500
Something that's going to clean it up, that's fantastic.

02:47:27.500 --> 02:47:32.100
But 100 feet right there? I don't know that that's

02:47:32.100 --> 02:47:35.500
appropriate for the rest of the neighborhood.

02:47:35.500 --> 02:47:42.229
I think that needs to be kept in mind. What is appropriate

02:47:42.229 --> 02:47:47.600
for the rest of the neighborhood? Thank you. We have a

02:47:47.600 --> 02:47:48.540
question. Commissioner Roselle? You brought a good point.

02:47:48.540 --> 02:47:53.899
Not a question for you. Sorry. Is it possible to build that

02:47:53.899 --> 02:47:56.500
building under 45 feet?

02:47:56.500 --> 02:48:01.549
It's something we can look at. Currently the parapet height

02:48:01.549 --> 02:48:06.549
is at 49 feet, so we're very close to it. The complications

02:48:06.549 --> 02:48:09.780
come in, of course, with our mechanical and structural, if

02:48:09.780 --> 02:48:12.750
it works within the system. It's something we can go back

02:48:12.750 --> 02:48:14.500
and reevaluate and see.

02:48:14.500 --> 02:48:17.729
There are additional mechanical screens that we have

02:48:17.729 --> 02:48:21.159
currently on the rooftop, which would add some height to

02:48:21.159 --> 02:48:24.540
that. I would have to get clarification if that zoning

02:48:24.540 --> 02:48:28.100
restriction is for parapet height or for actual mechanical

02:48:28.100 --> 02:48:30.500
screens would be a factor as well.

02:48:30.500 --> 02:48:33.159
I'm going to ask this question. I'm going to steal it from

02:48:33.159 --> 02:48:38.780
Commissioner Hudspeth. Is it possible to go down? Can you

02:48:38.780 --> 02:48:41.500
office down?

02:48:41.500 --> 02:48:44.489
Okay, perfect. That's ignorant speaking. I was curious.

02:48:44.489 --> 02:48:48.500
Thank you.

02:48:48.500 --> 02:48:53.159
Okay. Again, this is a public hearing. The next speaker I

02:48:53.159 --> 02:48:58.799
have a card on is Michael Hinnon, 724 Thomas Street,

02:48:58.799 --> 02:49:01.500
speaking in opposition.

02:49:01.500 --> 02:49:12.440
Do you still like to speak? I'm sorry. You're correct. I

02:49:12.440 --> 02:49:14.190
have it mixed in with the others. We've got a stack of

02:49:14.190 --> 02:49:18.500
cards. I apologize.

02:49:18.500 --> 02:49:23.799
I'll make sure I have the rest of them correct. Okay. I

02:49:23.799 --> 02:49:30.379
apologize. The next speaker then would be Lori Davis, 1502

02:49:30.379 --> 02:49:33.500
Bolivar, and question mark.

02:49:33.500 --> 02:49:49.129
Okay. That's fine. My name is Lori Davis, 1502 Bolivar, 76

02:49:49.129 --> 02:49:49.729
201. I was worried about the traffic flow going in and out

02:49:49.729 --> 02:49:51.000
of Bolivar because I've lived there for 15 years now, and

02:49:51.000 --> 02:49:54.500
actually 16 years.

02:49:54.500 --> 02:49:59.420
People fly up and down Bolivar Street like it is one of the

02:49:59.420 --> 02:50:03.680
highways. They really do. It's scary. And I was just

02:50:03.680 --> 02:50:05.149
wanting to know if they had done traffic studies about this

02:50:05.149 --> 02:50:08.829
because if there's an increase in people going to this

02:50:08.829 --> 02:50:12.600
building, how it's going to affect just backing in and out

02:50:12.600 --> 02:50:15.500
of your driveway every morning or every evening.

02:50:15.500 --> 02:50:20.209
That's all. We can certainly ask the applicant to answer

02:50:20.209 --> 02:50:24.500
that question for you if they have done any of that. Okay.

02:50:24.500 --> 02:50:27.079
We've not done a traffic impact analysis, but we have

02:50:27.079 --> 02:50:29.829
looked at what happens on our site in a regular basis, and

02:50:29.829 --> 02:50:32.639
that's one of the reasons for getting more on-site parking

02:50:32.639 --> 02:50:35.500
is to get one of the things that the district has been

02:50:35.500 --> 02:50:38.500
aware of for a long time is the on-street parking issue.

02:50:38.500 --> 02:50:41.489
So by getting those people off the street, we're hoping to

02:50:41.489 --> 02:50:44.250
be able to clean up the neighborhood and get more of our

02:50:44.250 --> 02:50:47.500
staff in parking. Okay, great. Thank you.

02:50:47.500 --> 02:50:50.819
Again, this is a public hearing. I don't have any more

02:50:50.819 --> 02:50:54.979
cards wishing to speak. I have a couple of comments that I

02:50:54.979 --> 02:50:59.500
'm going to at least acknowledge and read in the record.

02:50:59.500 --> 02:51:03.350
Anyone else that would like to speak is welcome to come

02:51:03.350 --> 02:51:07.479
forward and you can fill out a card. We would like to hear

02:51:07.479 --> 02:51:11.750
from you. In the meantime, I do have a note from Tommy Toul

02:51:11.750 --> 02:51:14.500
ouse, looks like at 1408 Bolver Street.

02:51:14.500 --> 02:51:19.500
He is in favor of the request.

02:51:19.500 --> 02:51:24.040
I also have a comment here from Samuel Smith at 1508

02:51:24.040 --> 02:51:28.579
Village Estates Drive. He is opposed to the request, and

02:51:28.579 --> 02:51:32.659
those are all the cards or comments that we have at this

02:51:32.659 --> 02:51:33.500
time.

02:51:33.500 --> 02:51:37.399
Again, it's a public hearing, so anyone who would like to

02:51:37.399 --> 02:51:40.500
speak, please come forward at this time.

02:51:40.500 --> 02:51:44.340
Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing

02:51:44.340 --> 02:51:48.500
and I'm going to open the floor for discussion or a motion.

02:51:48.500 --> 02:51:50.500
Commissioner Hussbuth.

02:51:50.500 --> 02:51:56.530
Thank you. So I wasn't here, so I'm going to try to keep it

02:51:56.530 --> 02:52:01.229
short. I was watching online and yelling at my seat, but I

02:52:01.229 --> 02:52:03.500
couldn't, you couldn't hear me.

02:52:03.500 --> 02:52:11.690
So my thought is I have two chief points. One is to start

02:52:11.690 --> 02:52:20.049
to try to be consistent within half blocks is a bit onerous

02:52:20.049 --> 02:52:22.500
, in my humble opinion.

02:52:22.500 --> 02:52:27.040
So if we're talking to, I don't know, you can call this an

02:52:27.040 --> 02:52:31.549
alley. We'll call it an alley. But our city has bigger

02:52:31.549 --> 02:52:34.500
zoning issues than half blocks.

02:52:34.500 --> 02:52:40.149
And then if I look forward to the future land use, it also

02:52:40.149 --> 02:52:45.909
backs that point that it uses Bolver as a meshing point for

02:52:45.909 --> 02:52:48.500
those two districts.

02:52:48.500 --> 02:52:52.290
This body, if we're going to start splitting half blocks,

02:52:52.290 --> 02:52:55.500
it's going to be a whole bunch of late meetings.

02:52:55.500 --> 02:52:58.790
It's a terrible precedent to sit, in my humble opinion. And

02:52:58.790 --> 02:53:02.500
then it also, looking forward, as I look at the future land

02:53:02.500 --> 02:53:03.500
use,

02:53:03.500 --> 02:53:07.010
it also points out something that we should probably

02:53:07.010 --> 02:53:11.170
consider, and that is that TW is not too far away. And they

02:53:11.170 --> 02:53:13.500
don't have to ask for much.

02:53:13.500 --> 02:53:17.350
So as that university grows, and it's stated that they have

02:53:17.350 --> 02:53:21.500
housing need issues, and they're growing exponentially.

02:53:21.500 --> 02:53:25.909
So you're talking about taking a project and taking

02:53:25.909 --> 02:53:30.010
something out of your control and putting it in the state's

02:53:30.010 --> 02:53:31.500
control in the near future

02:53:31.500 --> 02:53:36.069
if we're not careful about how we manage things. And so I

02:53:36.069 --> 02:53:38.500
just, I think it all flows.

02:53:38.500 --> 02:53:42.909
I mean, I'm using the future land use and reality as a

02:53:42.909 --> 02:53:44.500
guiding light.

02:53:44.500 --> 02:53:47.780
Reality is we can't be consistent in zoning within half

02:53:47.780 --> 02:53:55.500
blocks. And two, the future land use says it fits.

02:53:55.500 --> 02:53:59.420
And then logic says they're not going to sell a building in

02:53:59.420 --> 02:54:02.500
the middle of their other two buildings.

02:54:02.500 --> 02:54:06.030
I mean, if it's on the edges, I get it, maybe. But you're

02:54:06.030 --> 02:54:09.020
not going to have an existing building, build a new

02:54:09.020 --> 02:54:09.500
building,

02:54:09.500 --> 02:54:12.600
and then have another existing building, and then sell the

02:54:12.600 --> 02:54:15.709
one in the middle so that you can build some magical,

02:54:15.709 --> 02:54:18.500
mystical, eight, seven story building.

02:54:18.500 --> 02:54:23.219
That just defies logic. So for me, those are the things

02:54:23.219 --> 02:54:27.110
that really perplex me is I don't want to, as a body, for

02:54:27.110 --> 02:54:28.500
the time that I'm sitting here,

02:54:28.500 --> 02:54:34.409
start managing half blocks. I just think that's, it's hard

02:54:34.409 --> 02:54:38.870
for me to process that if you, because again, we're looking

02:54:38.870 --> 02:54:39.500
at the entire city.

02:54:39.500 --> 02:54:43.020
So citywide, are we going to start looking at every alley,

02:54:43.020 --> 02:54:46.500
every half block, and try to be consistent within them?

02:54:46.500 --> 02:54:50.920
That makes for a lot of late Wednesday nights. What is

02:54:50.920 --> 02:54:54.500
today? Today Wednesday? Yes. All right. Thank you.

02:54:54.500 --> 02:55:00.500
Okay. Commissioner Taylor. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair.

02:55:00.500 --> 02:55:04.010
So for the benefit of the audience who might not have been

02:55:04.010 --> 02:55:06.500
following along in our work session,

02:55:06.500 --> 02:55:13.430
we had a lot of conversations about the building facing Bol

02:55:13.430 --> 02:55:17.610
ivar. It's been there for probably 30 years, something along

02:55:17.610 --> 02:55:19.500
30 years or more.

02:55:19.500 --> 02:55:23.500
And it, it's, so it's been part of the neighborhood and the

02:55:23.500 --> 02:55:27.139
neighbors have accepted it as much as they may or may not

02:55:27.139 --> 02:55:31.500
like the parking and additional traffic it might bring.

02:55:31.500 --> 02:55:35.020
However, it's zoned NR3, which is a three house, three and

02:55:35.020 --> 02:55:38.540
a half houses per acre residential zoning, a very kind of

02:55:38.540 --> 02:55:41.500
low density suburban type zoning.

02:55:41.500 --> 02:55:44.270
And the concern isn't so much that, you know, this is, if

02:55:44.270 --> 02:55:47.079
we rezone it, the school district's going to build a 10

02:55:47.079 --> 02:55:49.500
story tower and loom over the neighborhood.

02:55:49.500 --> 02:55:54.600
The concern is we begin to, to erode the line that forms

02:55:54.600 --> 02:56:00.020
the boundary between the neighborhood and the commercial

02:56:00.020 --> 02:56:02.500
area on Elm and Locust.

02:56:02.500 --> 02:56:05.790
And so we were, we've been trying to figure out ways

02:56:05.790 --> 02:56:09.239
because if the school district re-zones this piece,

02:56:09.239 --> 02:56:12.840
somebody who owns a couple of rental properties on the

02:56:12.840 --> 02:56:16.229
other side of Bolivar or a half a block up or half a block

02:56:16.229 --> 02:56:20.260
down could say, you know, there's already DCN on this block

02:56:20.260 --> 02:56:20.500
.

02:56:20.500 --> 02:56:24.819
I want to put in DCN on my three lots, plathem together and

02:56:24.819 --> 02:56:29.409
build a nice little five story apartment building with, you

02:56:29.409 --> 02:56:32.500
know, 15 units, pretty small.

02:56:32.500 --> 02:56:34.350
But that's obviously a dramatic change for the neighborhood

02:56:34.350 --> 02:56:34.500
.

02:56:34.500 --> 02:56:40.159
It's, it's, you know, this, this beginning erosion of, of

02:56:40.159 --> 02:56:42.500
the zoning boundary.

02:56:42.500 --> 02:56:46.329
And so we were, that's why the ZBA approach keeps the

02:56:46.329 --> 02:56:50.500
existing zoning, you know, keeps it in our three.

02:56:50.500 --> 02:56:55.610
It's still a nonconforming use and you just get your height

02:56:55.610 --> 02:56:59.500
changes and your pervious cover changes.

02:56:59.500 --> 02:57:02.680
But I also realized that that, that's a ton of work for the

02:57:02.680 --> 02:57:03.500
applicant.

02:57:03.500 --> 02:57:08.799
It's the height, there might not be an easy way to do it or

02:57:08.799 --> 02:57:11.500
it might not pass the ZBA.

02:57:11.500 --> 02:57:15.629
So, so we don't know that that's a guaranteed solution

02:57:15.629 --> 02:57:16.500
either.

02:57:16.500 --> 02:57:19.760
You've brought a beautiful site plan and this is a struggle

02:57:19.760 --> 02:57:23.850
for me because this is a rezone and site plans can't be

02:57:23.850 --> 02:57:25.500
bound to a rezoning.

02:57:25.500 --> 02:57:26.500
In theory, this is unlikely.

02:57:26.500 --> 02:57:30.059
The district could rezone all this, bulldoze it all and

02:57:30.059 --> 02:57:32.500
sell it to an apartment developer.

02:57:32.500 --> 02:57:33.500
You know, it's not going to happen.

02:57:33.500 --> 02:57:36.440
But that's, that's something we have to consider with rez

02:57:36.440 --> 02:57:39.319
ones as opposed to the ADP earlier today where we can make

02:57:39.319 --> 02:57:40.500
the site plan binding.

02:57:40.500 --> 02:57:42.870
They want to change the color of the brick, they have to

02:57:42.870 --> 02:57:43.500
come back.

02:57:43.500 --> 02:57:46.819
They want to put in one less tree on that, that buffer,

02:57:46.819 --> 02:57:48.500
they have to come back.

02:57:48.500 --> 02:57:51.010
If it would rezone, it's, it's permanently rezoned and if

02:57:51.010 --> 02:57:53.829
something changes in the disposition of the property, you

02:57:53.829 --> 02:57:56.500
now have a new set of rules.

02:57:56.500 --> 02:58:00.500
And that's also the challenge that the neighbor is on.

02:58:00.500 --> 02:58:02.500
Locusts have brought up.

02:58:02.500 --> 02:58:05.500
You need 49 feet instead of 45 feet.

02:58:05.500 --> 02:58:09.500
But our next zoning category is 100 feet of height.

02:58:09.500 --> 02:58:11.530
And, you know, I don't think you all are going to build a

02:58:11.530 --> 02:58:12.500
100 foot tower.

02:58:12.500 --> 02:58:15.500
But that's, that is a huge difference in scale.

02:58:15.500 --> 02:58:20.059
So we're trying to find a way to allow this really great

02:58:20.059 --> 02:58:23.889
project that's walkable, integrates into the neighborhood

02:58:23.889 --> 02:58:24.500
pretty well,

02:58:24.500 --> 02:58:27.840
provides walkable employment and a nice pedestrian plaza

02:58:27.840 --> 02:58:30.500
that was a benefit to everybody in the area,

02:58:30.500 --> 02:58:32.260
takes parking off of the street and puts it on your parking

02:58:32.260 --> 02:58:36.500
lot, shares parking with the neighborhood, etc.

02:58:36.500 --> 02:58:40.290
Without eroding the protections of the neighborhoods to the

02:58:40.290 --> 02:58:43.500
, to the west and without, you know,

02:58:43.500 --> 02:58:47.850
opening up a whole other can of worms with future zoning

02:58:47.850 --> 02:58:51.500
changes in the neighboring area or, you know,

02:58:51.500 --> 02:58:55.100
this kind of God forbid scenario where somehow the property

02:58:55.100 --> 02:58:58.500
changes ownership and something else gets built there.

02:58:58.500 --> 02:59:03.500
And I, I'm, I'm worried about the ZBA solution.

02:59:03.500 --> 02:59:06.489
In the work session, I was really leaning toward the ZBA.

02:59:06.489 --> 02:59:07.500
If we could table this, you know,

02:59:07.500 --> 02:59:12.659
set a post-mortem date until the application is changed or

02:59:12.659 --> 02:59:15.500
results of ZBA are finished.

02:59:15.500 --> 02:59:18.500
But I do think that that's, it's going to add a massive

02:59:18.500 --> 02:59:19.500
amount of delay.

02:59:19.500 --> 02:59:24.450
And I like the DR2 on Bolivar because that provides

02:59:24.450 --> 02:59:27.500
protection toward Bolivar.

02:59:27.500 --> 02:59:29.500
DR2 is still a residential zoning.

02:59:29.500 --> 02:59:33.290
You know, it gets you your 75% lot coverage, 45 foot height

02:59:33.290 --> 02:59:36.569
, so you can't add a third story, but you're not going to

02:59:36.569 --> 02:59:37.500
anyway.

02:59:37.500 --> 02:59:42.860
But then that does make the rest of it, everything toward

02:59:42.860 --> 02:59:48.819
Elm and Locust, BDCN with 100 foot height, 72 units per

02:59:48.819 --> 02:59:49.500
acre.

02:59:49.500 --> 02:59:51.750
So I'm still not convinced, I'm not comfortable making a

02:59:51.750 --> 02:59:55.370
motion on that yet because, because it still sounds like it

02:59:55.370 --> 02:59:57.500
's, it's too much the other way.

02:59:57.500 --> 02:59:59.969
So I guess those are, those are my comments and thoughts at

02:59:59.969 --> 03:00:00.500
this point.

03:00:00.500 --> 03:00:02.969
And I'd like to see what everybody else on the commission

03:00:02.969 --> 03:00:03.500
thinks.

03:00:03.500 --> 03:00:05.500
Commissioner Ellis.

03:00:05.500 --> 03:00:08.680
Thank you, Chair. I have to echo a lot of what Commissioner

03:00:08.680 --> 03:00:09.500
Taylor said.

03:00:09.500 --> 03:00:12.600
My, my concern is the zoning change. I think the site plan

03:00:12.600 --> 03:00:13.500
is beautiful.

03:00:13.500 --> 03:00:17.120
I think Denton ISD has been a fabulous neighbor in that

03:00:17.120 --> 03:00:21.379
spot and has been there, as you stated, and showed us for

03:00:21.379 --> 03:00:22.500
decades.

03:00:22.500 --> 03:00:26.020
But when we make a zoning change like this, we really do

03:00:26.020 --> 03:00:29.610
have to think about what those unintended consequences

03:00:29.610 --> 03:00:30.500
could be.

03:00:30.500 --> 03:00:33.719
CISD doesn't have any plans that we know of to sell down

03:00:33.719 --> 03:00:34.500
the road.

03:00:34.500 --> 03:00:38.399
But if it does, as it continues to grow and it's going to

03:00:38.399 --> 03:00:41.500
outgrow that site and further building,

03:00:41.500 --> 03:00:45.530
it does set it up to be sold to someone who is going to

03:00:45.530 --> 03:00:49.500
develop it and could put the 100 foot building in,

03:00:49.500 --> 03:00:51.899
could put a bar, could put a restaurant, could put

03:00:51.899 --> 03:00:55.879
something that's not compatible with those homes that, that

03:00:55.879 --> 03:00:57.500
are around there.

03:00:57.500 --> 03:01:01.500
It is just hard for me to support the zoning change.

03:01:01.500 --> 03:01:04.799
I love the plan of the campus. I love the plan of more

03:01:04.799 --> 03:01:06.500
parking, getting it off the street.

03:01:06.500 --> 03:01:09.680
I love the plan of getting rid of the temporary trailer

03:01:09.680 --> 03:01:11.799
that's on it, which is kind of an eyesore for the

03:01:11.799 --> 03:01:12.500
neighborhood.

03:01:12.500 --> 03:01:15.500
That is all really, really good.

03:01:15.500 --> 03:01:19.500
I would love to be able to come up with another way that we

03:01:19.500 --> 03:01:24.659
can help accomplish this without putting the residents at

03:01:24.659 --> 03:01:25.500
risk.

03:01:25.500 --> 03:01:28.229
And I really do think the zoning change puts the

03:01:28.229 --> 03:01:30.500
residential neighborhood at risk.

03:01:30.500 --> 03:01:35.500
And I just can't get behind that.

03:01:35.500 --> 03:01:36.500
Commissioner Rosell.

03:01:36.500 --> 03:01:37.500
Thank you, Chair.

03:01:37.500 --> 03:01:40.819
I brought this up in work session, but I feel obliged to

03:01:40.819 --> 03:01:44.500
bring it up again and maybe ask a more specific question.

03:01:44.500 --> 03:01:47.530
Generally speaking, when we see a transition from one zone

03:01:47.530 --> 03:01:51.620
to another zone, there is a distinct buffer or kind of an

03:01:51.620 --> 03:01:54.500
understood barrier that would separate the two.

03:01:54.500 --> 03:01:58.559
Is that generally correct? And what the city tries to do is

03:01:58.559 --> 03:02:02.500
have some sort of road or land that buffers two zones?

03:02:02.500 --> 03:02:05.500
No, it's not a general premise.

03:02:05.500 --> 03:02:08.790
However, in terms of land use analysis, you look at the

03:02:08.790 --> 03:02:12.219
existing zoning, you look at the zoning pattern, you try

03:02:12.219 --> 03:02:15.500
and study that and see how that's evolved over the years.

03:02:15.500 --> 03:02:17.850
And then you look at the surrounding land use pattern and

03:02:17.850 --> 03:02:20.250
you determine the cohesiveness of what's being proposed

03:02:20.250 --> 03:02:21.500
against what's out there.

03:02:21.500 --> 03:02:24.809
So the physical separation that you're speaking of, those

03:02:24.809 --> 03:02:27.500
are factors associated in decision making.

03:02:27.500 --> 03:02:33.500
So they could be a fence, a tree line, a right of way mason

03:02:33.500 --> 03:02:35.500
ry screen wall.

03:02:35.500 --> 03:02:38.500
All those factors come into consideration when we assess.

03:02:38.500 --> 03:02:43.950
Sure. And I guess my point in that question is there's the

03:02:43.950 --> 03:02:49.500
zoning change between DR2 and NR3 is some say an alley.

03:02:49.500 --> 03:02:53.500
If that is an alley, it runs three blocks.

03:02:53.500 --> 03:02:55.500
But above that, there's not an alley.

03:02:55.500 --> 03:02:59.500
So it seems the way current zoning is on Elm Street,

03:02:59.500 --> 03:03:01.500
someone could go in right now and build a 45 foot building

03:03:01.500 --> 03:03:05.500
and their backyard being NR3 property.

03:03:05.500 --> 03:03:08.340
To me, that's not much of a buffer. It seems like the

03:03:08.340 --> 03:03:10.500
natural buffer would be Bolivar Street.

03:03:10.500 --> 03:03:14.450
Sure. So if I'm looking at this and I say the natural

03:03:14.450 --> 03:03:18.340
buffer between two zones would be Bolivar, then there's

03:03:18.340 --> 03:03:19.500
zero encroachment.

03:03:19.500 --> 03:03:23.450
And to Commissioner Hudspeth's point, we're getting into

03:03:23.450 --> 03:03:27.860
half blocks where neighbors have different rights to what

03:03:27.860 --> 03:03:31.500
they can build on their property as it is now.

03:03:31.500 --> 03:03:36.500
I apologize.

03:03:36.500 --> 03:03:37.500
I'm asking a question or?

03:03:37.500 --> 03:03:40.110
Well, I feel like Julie's going to say something I want to

03:03:40.110 --> 03:03:41.500
give her the opportunity.

03:03:41.500 --> 03:03:45.040
I just brought up the map. And I see what you are saying

03:03:45.040 --> 03:03:48.530
because here is that line that you're talking about,

03:03:48.530 --> 03:03:49.500
correct? Right here?

03:03:49.500 --> 03:03:51.540
Yes. Yeah, there's a line between the yellow and the green.

03:03:51.540 --> 03:03:53.500
And part of it is separated by an alley.

03:03:53.500 --> 03:03:57.170
But most of that hard line, as we discussed earlier, is a

03:03:57.170 --> 03:03:58.500
backyard fence.

03:03:58.500 --> 03:04:02.489
You're right. It is. It is. So the houses that front Boliv

03:04:02.489 --> 03:04:06.170
ar have the NR3 zoning designation and then the houses that

03:04:06.170 --> 03:04:09.500
front Elm have the DR2 zoning designation.

03:04:09.500 --> 03:04:11.540
And so it was brought up earlier that there might be, if we

03:04:11.540 --> 03:04:16.500
rezone this property, there might be zoning creep or

03:04:16.500 --> 03:04:19.500
someone could come back and say, my app just crashed.

03:04:19.500 --> 03:04:22.489
Someone could come back and say, oh, they just rezone that.

03:04:22.489 --> 03:04:23.500
I'm going to rezone mine.

03:04:23.500 --> 03:04:28.500
But just north of Third Street on Bolivar, it's zoned NR3.

03:04:28.500 --> 03:04:32.069
They have a case to zone that DR2 right now because their

03:04:32.069 --> 03:04:33.500
backyard is DR2.

03:04:33.500 --> 03:04:36.299
And so I feel like the entire east side of Bolivar could

03:04:36.299 --> 03:04:39.350
probably state claim if they wanted to change that to DR2

03:04:39.350 --> 03:04:41.500
because their neighbors are DR2.

03:04:41.500 --> 03:04:46.659
The threat of zoning creep across Bolivar becomes less of

03:04:46.659 --> 03:04:51.590
an issue because Bolivar actually seems like a logical del

03:04:51.590 --> 03:04:54.500
ineation between the two zones.

03:04:54.500 --> 03:04:59.399
And so I guess to Commissioner Hudsworth's point, we're now

03:04:59.399 --> 03:05:03.500
in half lots. And yes, we could rezone this.

03:05:03.500 --> 03:05:05.110
They could raise the entire thing and probably make a

03:05:05.110 --> 03:05:07.500
profit. And that does concern me.

03:05:07.500 --> 03:05:10.319
But if they do build a $29 million complex made for offices

03:05:10.319 --> 03:05:12.799
, the likelihood of them selling that to someone who's going

03:05:12.799 --> 03:05:15.500
to tear down that to build a massive apartment complex

03:05:15.500 --> 03:05:18.500
probably doesn't make financial sense.

03:05:18.500 --> 03:05:22.049
So I guess the only concern I would have is this lingering

03:05:22.049 --> 03:05:26.950
idea that they could get this rezoned and then DNISD could

03:05:26.950 --> 03:05:32.500
turn a profit by just wiping out all of that.

03:05:32.500 --> 03:05:35.870
Is your staff going to pass? I didn't necessarily present a

03:05:35.870 --> 03:05:37.500
question. I understand that. But those are my concerns.

03:05:37.500 --> 03:05:41.899
I really appreciate what you've just raised. And perhaps

03:05:41.899 --> 03:05:45.399
there was lack of clarity in staff's analysis or

03:05:45.399 --> 03:05:49.500
presentation. Julie, I'm speaking of myself.

03:05:49.500 --> 03:05:53.879
When we talk about zoning creep, as you've mentioned, and I

03:05:53.879 --> 03:05:56.739
do like that phrase, the intent was not to say that we're

03:05:56.739 --> 03:05:58.590
looking at a half block and are we going to continue to

03:05:58.590 --> 03:05:59.500
look at half blocks.

03:05:59.500 --> 03:06:03.329
We have to look at each zoning case request as a separate

03:06:03.329 --> 03:06:07.610
entity, as an individual element and see what the potential

03:06:07.610 --> 03:06:08.500
risk is.

03:06:08.500 --> 03:06:12.989
We completely, in our analysis, said we are very supportive

03:06:12.989 --> 03:06:16.120
of what Denton ISD is proposing, the structure of their

03:06:16.120 --> 03:06:16.500
building.

03:06:16.500 --> 03:06:18.059
We completely understand that they're not going to go

03:06:18.059 --> 03:06:21.190
anywhere. And the reality is they will not more than likely

03:06:21.190 --> 03:06:22.500
raise the building.

03:06:22.500 --> 03:06:25.860
But down the road, over the years, and as you've seen the

03:06:25.860 --> 03:06:29.290
land use pattern that's been evolving in the city of Denton

03:06:29.290 --> 03:06:31.659
, we want to make sure that we protect that to the greatest

03:06:31.659 --> 03:06:32.500
extent possible.

03:06:32.500 --> 03:06:35.600
And as a result, the fundamental principle, again, that's

03:06:35.600 --> 03:06:38.500
what was raised, is the fundamental principles here are

03:06:38.500 --> 03:06:41.979
what would happen when, because we have actually been

03:06:41.979 --> 03:06:45.569
approached and have received conversations that state that,

03:06:45.569 --> 03:06:47.959
oh, great, if that happens, now I can go ahead and do my

03:06:47.959 --> 03:06:49.500
property and rezone my property.

03:06:49.500 --> 03:06:52.510
And so when does that stop or when do we stop it or do we

03:06:52.510 --> 03:06:56.020
stop it, you know, do we start assessing that mid-block or

03:06:56.020 --> 03:06:59.799
do we start assessing that when you see a trend of 20 or 30

03:06:59.799 --> 03:07:02.500
properties with pockets of NR3 in there.

03:07:02.500 --> 03:07:06.540
So back to the principle of the fundamental issue is, alley

03:07:06.540 --> 03:07:10.500
or no alley, there is a split zoning on that property.

03:07:10.500 --> 03:07:14.049
We understand that a DCN component of this DISD property

03:07:14.049 --> 03:07:17.809
was already zoned. We also understand that there is a split

03:07:17.809 --> 03:07:18.500
zoning.

03:07:18.500 --> 03:07:21.329
If we had a crystal ball to see what happened in the past,

03:07:21.329 --> 03:07:24.360
that would definitely alleviate some of the questions that

03:07:24.360 --> 03:07:25.500
are raised today.

03:07:25.500 --> 03:07:29.750
And unfortunately we don't. But our goal or our priority at

03:07:29.750 --> 03:07:34.500
this point is to protect a well-established neighborhood.

03:07:34.500 --> 03:07:37.530
Some of these homes are receiving historic landmark design

03:07:37.530 --> 03:07:40.120
ations as well. So we don't want to deter that element as

03:07:40.120 --> 03:07:40.500
well.

03:07:40.500 --> 03:07:44.399
Yet we don't want to deter DISD either. So we're trying to,

03:07:44.399 --> 03:07:48.500
again, this is the land use analysis associated with it.

03:07:48.500 --> 03:07:51.680
But now what do we do to facilitate DISD to be able to go

03:07:51.680 --> 03:07:52.500
vertical?

03:07:52.500 --> 03:07:55.069
I appreciate that. And believe me, there's an internal

03:07:55.069 --> 03:07:57.860
struggle of understanding that we're making decisions that

03:07:57.860 --> 03:08:00.870
are really impactful 40, 50 years down the road that we

03:08:00.870 --> 03:08:02.500
have no ability to foresee.

03:08:02.500 --> 03:08:06.969
And I certainly understand that a fundamental zoning change

03:08:06.969 --> 03:08:10.979
can open doors later on. I value that and the internal

03:08:10.979 --> 03:08:13.500
turmoil about this decision.

03:08:13.500 --> 03:08:19.030
When I look at it today, I see there's DCN there. Based on

03:08:19.030 --> 03:08:23.799
the scale of this map, there's DCN to the east by about 250

03:08:23.799 --> 03:08:24.500
feet.

03:08:24.500 --> 03:08:30.190
Past that is TWA, which their master plan creeps west. And

03:08:30.190 --> 03:08:34.250
I think they've presented again, to Commissioner Taylor's

03:08:34.250 --> 03:08:36.500
point, we can't go off site plans.

03:08:36.500 --> 03:08:40.270
But it seems as though they're trying to cultivate the area

03:08:40.270 --> 03:08:46.250
to beautify it. I think, in my opinion, raise the quality

03:08:46.250 --> 03:08:49.500
of what's existing there.

03:08:49.500 --> 03:08:54.000
And if I can just echo one, not echo, but just iterate, one

03:08:54.000 --> 03:08:58.500
point is that let's assume that the commission recommends

03:08:58.500 --> 03:09:05.500
to rezone the NR3 component or the NR3 district to DR2.

03:09:05.500 --> 03:09:10.500
And then the property just east of that would retain, would

03:09:10.500 --> 03:09:13.500
be rezoned to DCN, for example.

03:09:13.500 --> 03:09:17.829
If there is any overlap of building on that lot that shows

03:09:17.829 --> 03:09:20.959
that split zoning, or there's an overlap on the boundaries

03:09:20.959 --> 03:09:24.500
of the zoning or overlaps onto a different zoning category,

03:09:24.500 --> 03:09:27.329
then the more restrictive zoning category applies as it

03:09:27.329 --> 03:09:30.940
relates to the development standards. And again, back to

03:09:30.940 --> 03:09:34.500
that same struggle, how do we address this?

03:09:34.500 --> 03:09:38.409
Yeah, I guess it's for the record, maybe for the commission

03:09:38.409 --> 03:09:42.559
's edification. I'm leaning towards approving this. I'd be

03:09:42.559 --> 03:09:44.500
open to the DR2/DCN split.

03:09:44.500 --> 03:09:49.719
If that would potentially limit that creep to the west, it

03:09:49.719 --> 03:09:55.500
sounds like there's a minimal understanding on DISD's part.

03:09:55.500 --> 03:10:00.500
So that's kind of where I'm at.

03:10:00.500 --> 03:10:04.500
Okay. Thank you for that.

03:10:04.500 --> 03:10:06.540
I've got three others, so I'll hit you on that.

03:10:06.540 --> 03:10:08.500
Commissioner Hussbett.

03:10:08.500 --> 03:10:10.260
Yeah, I think I pushed my button first. It just doesn't

03:10:10.260 --> 03:10:10.500
work.

03:10:10.500 --> 03:10:11.500
It's not showing up.

03:10:11.500 --> 03:10:16.610
No, it's broken. But so to answer the Monal's question, I

03:10:16.610 --> 03:10:21.250
think, me personally, and I'm very linear. I don't do much

03:10:21.250 --> 03:10:22.500
outside the fringes.

03:10:22.500 --> 03:10:26.100
So my answer to that question is, when do you start to make

03:10:26.100 --> 03:10:29.909
those decisions? I think the answer is when you can enforce

03:10:29.909 --> 03:10:32.500
them consistently. That's the whole thing.

03:10:32.500 --> 03:10:35.000
I think a builder, a developer, anyone, if they can

03:10:35.000 --> 03:10:37.819
approach and understand that we are consistently applying

03:10:37.819 --> 03:10:41.200
statutes, and I don't think that we can consistently

03:10:41.200 --> 03:10:42.500
protect alleys.

03:10:42.500 --> 03:10:46.649
And so that's my answer to that. And I think from

03:10:46.649 --> 03:10:51.819
everything else I've heard, it's the troubling thing for me

03:10:51.819 --> 03:10:56.709
is we're going off on what-ifs and maybe this and

03:10:56.709 --> 03:10:59.500
potentially that and a person called about that,

03:10:59.500 --> 03:11:02.680
whereas we have an active proposal in front of us, and we

03:11:02.680 --> 03:11:06.159
can take those other instances as they come. And I would

03:11:06.159 --> 03:11:09.500
take it, but I'll step into the what-if category.

03:11:09.500 --> 03:11:13.709
So what if BISD says, hey, fine, we'll sell the property

03:11:13.709 --> 03:11:16.500
because we'll go build our campus.

03:11:16.500 --> 03:11:19.690
We've got to understand this is a school district that

03:11:19.690 --> 03:11:23.540
stretches from Denton almost to Little Elm, south almost to

03:11:23.540 --> 03:11:27.500
Carrollton, Louisville area, has four high schools,

03:11:27.500 --> 03:11:31.229
and they've never expanded but four in this particular area

03:11:31.229 --> 03:11:34.500
. I mean, to me, that's exemplary of a good neighbor.

03:11:34.500 --> 03:11:40.500
And someone that has used extreme conservative principles.

03:11:40.500 --> 03:11:44.500
We've had two superintendents for as long as I've known.

03:11:44.500 --> 03:11:49.500
And so I really, I struggle with, one, the consistency.

03:11:49.500 --> 03:11:53.049
That's big for me. I just, I think as builders, and even if

03:11:53.049 --> 03:11:55.500
you take the neighborhood in consideration,

03:11:55.500 --> 03:11:58.680
everyone says their neighborhood needs to be cleaned up.

03:11:58.680 --> 03:12:01.500
And if you look at the people that spoke today, you have

03:12:01.500 --> 03:12:04.500
two in favor and three if you count his rental property.

03:12:04.500 --> 03:12:08.370
And then you have two against and one in the middle based

03:12:08.370 --> 03:12:10.500
on traffic. So we're trying to protect the neighborhood,

03:12:10.500 --> 03:12:13.879
but the neighborhood has spoken and they're about middle of

03:12:13.879 --> 03:12:14.500
the road.

03:12:14.500 --> 03:12:18.940
And so for me, it really is hard to get behind anything but

03:12:18.940 --> 03:12:23.389
moving forward just because it takes a lot of imagination

03:12:23.389 --> 03:12:25.500
to get somewhere else.

03:12:25.500 --> 03:12:29.750
And if I use my imagination, you can, I mean, they have

03:12:29.750 --> 03:12:33.500
four high schools. They're going to need the office space.

03:12:33.500 --> 03:12:35.389
So either they're going to build or they're going to move,

03:12:35.389 --> 03:12:39.500
but something's got to give. You can't force them to stay.

03:12:39.500 --> 03:12:42.090
And then are you excited about your neighborhood that's

03:12:42.090 --> 03:12:44.500
coming in? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

03:12:44.500 --> 03:12:47.409
And I think if I look at the map, just to the north of

03:12:47.409 --> 03:12:50.819
there, there's apartments, at least one or two on Bolivar

03:12:50.819 --> 03:12:51.500
there.

03:12:51.500 --> 03:12:56.040
So you're telling me the apartment complexes are better

03:12:56.040 --> 03:13:01.500
than office building with office park. I disagree.

03:13:01.500 --> 03:13:06.069
So that's where I really get hung up is if you look at that

03:13:06.069 --> 03:13:10.379
area, even the homes are businesses. You know, it's like

03:13:10.379 --> 03:13:12.500
you can't it is it is very interesting to me.

03:13:12.500 --> 03:13:19.500
But thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair.

03:13:19.500 --> 03:13:23.260
So I just wanted to point out that we started referring to

03:13:23.260 --> 03:13:27.000
as half blocks as zoning boundaries is really common,

03:13:27.000 --> 03:13:29.500
especially in this neighborhood.

03:13:29.500 --> 03:13:32.909
If you go over to Westway between Westway and University

03:13:32.909 --> 03:13:36.500
Drive, you have CMG, which is an extremely high density

03:13:36.500 --> 03:13:39.500
commercial sharing a back fence with N.R.

03:13:39.500 --> 03:13:43.500
three. And that's, you know, 40 or 50 houses in a row.

03:13:43.500 --> 03:13:46.930
If you go to Ector, which we just had a zoning case on

03:13:46.930 --> 03:13:49.500
earlier tonight, Ector is N.R.

03:13:49.500 --> 03:13:54.500
one. It's only the houses that directly face Ector are N.R.

03:13:54.500 --> 03:13:59.500
one. All of the back fences are N.R. four and N.R. three.

03:13:59.500 --> 03:14:01.760
You know, you can do this around the historic district all

03:14:01.760 --> 03:14:02.500
over on campus.

03:14:02.500 --> 03:14:06.500
Back fences are a really common zoning boundary.

03:14:06.500 --> 03:14:12.500
So to say that we can't zone on back fences or half blocks,

03:14:12.500 --> 03:14:14.500
that's that's pretty dangerous, especially when you're

03:14:14.500 --> 03:14:18.500
looking at the street where the entire six or eight blocks,

03:14:18.500 --> 03:14:22.629
ten blocks of the street is split on that half block. And

03:14:22.629 --> 03:14:26.250
it's very consistent. There aren't any businesses in the N.

03:14:26.250 --> 03:14:26.500
R.

03:14:26.500 --> 03:14:31.110
three area on Bolivar. There are a lot of businesses in the

03:14:31.110 --> 03:14:31.500
D.R.

03:14:31.500 --> 03:14:39.500
two area and the D.C.N. area on Locust and Elm.

03:14:39.500 --> 03:14:43.799
But that zoning stands whenever we had the use map up

03:14:43.799 --> 03:14:48.500
earlier, there were a whole lot of pink things on Locust

03:14:48.500 --> 03:14:49.500
and Elm. There weren't any on Bolivar.

03:14:49.500 --> 03:14:53.139
But again, D.R. two to me is almost N.R. three. It's very

03:14:53.139 --> 03:14:53.500
close.

03:14:53.500 --> 03:14:57.059
So I don't I agree that N.R. D.R. two would would probably

03:14:57.059 --> 03:14:58.500
be appropriate on Bolivar.

03:14:58.500 --> 03:15:05.059
Then the next question is, is D.C.N. appropriate on Locust

03:15:05.059 --> 03:15:06.500
and Elm?

03:15:06.500 --> 03:15:11.500
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair.

03:15:11.500 --> 03:15:15.600
I guess my point is, is just because we look at the current

03:15:15.600 --> 03:15:19.500
zoning doesn't mean it's all such the right thing.

03:15:19.500 --> 03:15:23.170
And we do to echo Manal's point, we do have to take each

03:15:23.170 --> 03:15:25.500
request very specifically.

03:15:25.500 --> 03:15:28.680
Nobody is saying again that Denton ISD has been a bad

03:15:28.680 --> 03:15:30.500
neighbor. They really haven't.

03:15:30.500 --> 03:15:36.200
But truly, if you go to the corner of Bolivar and and third

03:15:36.200 --> 03:15:39.500
, it's it it does look out of sorts for the neighborhood,

03:15:39.500 --> 03:15:40.500
the building.

03:15:40.500 --> 03:15:42.260
I know it's been there forever. And when it was a school, I

03:15:42.260 --> 03:15:43.500
'm sure it was a little more appropriate.

03:15:43.500 --> 03:15:47.500
It does look odd. It is a residential neighborhood with

03:15:47.500 --> 03:15:51.000
historic homes on it that people are actually rehabbing and

03:15:51.000 --> 03:15:54.500
selling for, you know, three hundred thousand plus.

03:15:54.500 --> 03:15:59.010
It's to change the zoning again, just to reiterate my

03:15:59.010 --> 03:16:04.780
earlier point, we do set up possibly bad things for the

03:16:04.780 --> 03:16:05.500
neighborhood.

03:16:05.500 --> 03:16:08.270
And that is our responsibility to think about. No, we don't

03:16:08.270 --> 03:16:11.670
have a crystal ball for the future, but it is something we

03:16:11.670 --> 03:16:15.159
have to take into consideration when we're making a zoning

03:16:15.159 --> 03:16:18.040
change, because we could have something there one day that

03:16:18.040 --> 03:16:19.500
doesn't need to be there.

03:16:19.500 --> 03:16:26.500
OK, Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Chair.

03:16:26.500 --> 03:16:30.159
As I take a walk through Google map going around the

03:16:30.159 --> 03:16:36.500
neighborhood, what I see is a lot of trees, grass areas,

03:16:36.500 --> 03:16:40.399
low profile homes, first one story homes, low profile

03:16:40.399 --> 03:16:41.500
buildings.

03:16:41.500 --> 03:16:45.920
The ISD is probably is the two story, one of the few. And I

03:16:45.920 --> 03:16:50.079
try to imagine a three story building going into that in

03:16:50.079 --> 03:16:51.500
the same area.

03:16:51.500 --> 03:16:55.110
And since you mentioned earlier, you're really separating

03:16:55.110 --> 03:16:58.290
out two distinct services in the building that this is

03:16:58.290 --> 03:17:01.670
going to be for support and not necessarily what the other

03:17:01.670 --> 03:17:02.500
one was.

03:17:02.500 --> 03:17:06.750
I can't recall. And so I just keep thinking, why here out

03:17:06.750 --> 03:17:10.909
of all the property the ISD has and what's available in the

03:17:10.909 --> 03:17:12.500
in the in Denton?

03:17:12.500 --> 03:17:17.219
Why this location? Because I just don't see how it would

03:17:17.219 --> 03:17:19.500
fit in with the I mean, the architecture.

03:17:19.500 --> 03:17:23.020
It looks great. I don't think it would look good here,

03:17:23.020 --> 03:17:23.500
though.

03:17:23.500 --> 03:17:28.629
And I think that that would be my concern is that it would

03:17:28.629 --> 03:17:33.739
stick out like a sore thumb and not be conducive with the

03:17:33.739 --> 03:17:38.500
the older homes and the low profile buildings.

03:17:38.500 --> 03:17:41.500
Commissioner Oso. Thank you, Chair.

03:17:41.500 --> 03:17:46.500
I want to just take advantage of clarifying, Mr. Taylor.

03:17:46.500 --> 03:17:51.510
Are you saying that since there's been other times in which

03:17:51.510 --> 03:17:56.250
we've zoned half blocks, that's the ideal we should be

03:17:56.250 --> 03:17:57.500
going for?

03:17:57.500 --> 03:17:59.500
So I don't think it's an ideal.

03:17:59.500 --> 03:18:03.239
Thank you. I don't think it's an ideal, but I think it

03:18:03.239 --> 03:18:04.500
clearly works.

03:18:04.500 --> 03:18:07.879
There's there are successful neighborhoods, a budding

03:18:07.879 --> 03:18:11.500
commercial properties and that back fence is the border.

03:18:11.500 --> 03:18:14.399
And personally, I would rather share a back fence than a

03:18:14.399 --> 03:18:16.500
side fence or face across the street.

03:18:16.500 --> 03:18:19.680
I don't want my I would rather have my back fence next to

03:18:19.680 --> 03:18:23.180
an apartment or a commercial development than my front door

03:18:23.180 --> 03:18:23.500
.

03:18:23.500 --> 03:18:25.899
So unless there's like some kind of tall light or something

03:18:25.899 --> 03:18:27.500
like that shining in the backyard.

03:18:27.500 --> 03:18:30.239
Yeah, gotcha. And we've we've said the same commission and

03:18:30.239 --> 03:18:32.850
done that with backyards and understanding where front

03:18:32.850 --> 03:18:33.500
doors face.

03:18:33.500 --> 03:18:38.200
And so I agree with you that it can happen. I'm not against

03:18:38.200 --> 03:18:38.500
it.

03:18:38.500 --> 03:18:44.860
My point rather in time with the half blocks was to say

03:18:44.860 --> 03:18:48.500
that in within a block, there's already two zoning.

03:18:48.500 --> 03:18:52.760
So I don't know if changing the zoning for this is going to

03:18:52.760 --> 03:18:56.500
necessarily promote or start advocating for that zone creep

03:18:56.500 --> 03:19:03.500
more so than these half blocks that are zoned differently.

03:19:03.500 --> 03:19:05.500
Commissioner Tyler. Thank you.

03:19:05.500 --> 03:19:09.149
Yeah, no, I agree that there's there are questions of how

03:19:09.149 --> 03:19:10.500
big a deal is this?

03:19:10.500 --> 03:19:13.600
But, you know, and I think your initial statement might

03:19:13.600 --> 03:19:16.930
have it sounded very broad to me, like we shouldn't be

03:19:16.930 --> 03:19:19.500
splitting half blocks by zoning.

03:19:19.500 --> 03:19:23.840
And so if you say that, then all of the east side of Boliv

03:19:23.840 --> 03:19:27.500
ar immediately becomes like ready to be D.R.

03:19:27.500 --> 03:19:31.370
to then the subcommittee starts working much harder to

03:19:31.370 --> 03:19:35.500
align. Yeah, you mentioned that you believe D.R.

03:19:35.500 --> 03:19:38.500
to is not too far off from N.R. three.

03:19:38.500 --> 03:19:44.170
Are what are your thoughts on making the property that

03:19:44.170 --> 03:19:47.500
faces or a but Bolivar D.R.

03:19:47.500 --> 03:19:52.500
two and the Elm side D.C.N.

03:19:52.500 --> 03:19:59.500
So I I think that D.R. two would be appropriate on Bolivar

03:19:59.500 --> 03:20:00.500
without much problem.

03:20:00.500 --> 03:20:03.200
It's it's it allows higher lot coverage and like a five

03:20:03.200 --> 03:20:04.500
foot higher roof line.

03:20:04.500 --> 03:20:06.500
But it's primarily a residential zoning.

03:20:06.500 --> 03:20:09.500
The problem is D.R. two isn't quite high enough.

03:20:09.500 --> 03:20:12.500
It's five feet short of what they need for their building.

03:20:12.500 --> 03:20:16.500
And then that's where the concern about I mentioned D.C.N.

03:20:16.500 --> 03:20:22.500
on Oak and I'm sorry, Elm and Locust.

03:20:22.500 --> 03:20:25.680
Then that becomes the rezone risk really is the only risk

03:20:25.680 --> 03:20:26.500
of that one.

03:20:26.500 --> 03:20:29.500
I think that that solves the encroachment risk.

03:20:29.500 --> 03:20:33.040
And then we just have to consider kind of the new builder

03:20:33.040 --> 03:20:36.500
or change of property ownership risk.

03:20:36.500 --> 03:20:39.500
No sense. Thank you.

03:20:39.500 --> 03:20:41.500
Commissioner Hussman.

03:20:41.500 --> 03:20:46.500
Sorry, I would like to hear from someone.

03:20:46.500 --> 03:20:48.500
Anyone.

03:20:48.500 --> 03:20:50.500
First, let's start this.

03:20:50.500 --> 03:20:54.350
I'd love to hear the summary of the thought and the future

03:20:54.350 --> 03:20:55.500
land use map.

03:20:55.500 --> 03:20:59.500
Right. So someone put time effort thought into that.

03:20:59.500 --> 03:21:01.500
I'm assuming Manal is that right.

03:21:01.500 --> 03:21:03.500
I mean, generally. Absolutely.

03:21:03.500 --> 03:21:09.500
OK. So the future land use map says that half block

03:21:09.500 --> 03:21:10.500
included all the way up to

03:21:10.500 --> 03:21:15.500
university as far as I can see is consistent in the future

03:21:15.500 --> 03:21:17.500
that we're trying to predict.

03:21:17.500 --> 03:21:21.500
And so I'd love to hear from I've heard conversations,

03:21:21.500 --> 03:21:25.020
but I've not heard anyone speak to why we should ignore the

03:21:25.020 --> 03:21:26.500
future land use map.

03:21:26.500 --> 03:21:28.500
Well, we're not. OK.

03:21:28.500 --> 03:21:31.729
And I think this is a great opportunity to bring that slide

03:21:31.729 --> 03:21:32.500
forward.

03:21:32.500 --> 03:21:35.500
Julie, the slide where you've got the underlined component.

03:21:35.500 --> 03:21:39.670
Let's talk and let's talk about the we're going to talk

03:21:39.670 --> 03:21:41.500
about the future land use map.

03:21:41.500 --> 03:21:44.500
We all know what low density residential is,

03:21:44.500 --> 03:21:47.500
but I think Julie encompass the language as it relates to

03:21:47.500 --> 03:21:48.500
downtown compatibility area,

03:21:48.500 --> 03:21:50.500
and I won't do it justice.

03:21:50.500 --> 03:21:53.500
But what does that encompass the downtown compatible?

03:21:53.500 --> 03:21:56.680
Again, the future land use map is not reflecting zoning

03:21:56.680 --> 03:21:57.500
districts.

03:21:57.500 --> 03:21:59.500
So now let's break that down.

03:21:59.500 --> 03:22:02.020
Julie, you had a really good phrase that you had used

03:22:02.020 --> 03:22:02.500
earlier.

03:22:02.500 --> 03:22:06.500
I actually borrowed it from Mike.

03:22:06.500 --> 03:22:09.809
But the downtown compatibility area isn't necessarily one

03:22:09.809 --> 03:22:11.500
particular zoning district.

03:22:11.500 --> 03:22:15.469
It could encompass a lot of them and DCN could be one, DR1,

03:22:15.469 --> 03:22:17.500
DR2.

03:22:17.500 --> 03:22:21.450
But what we have to do is look at the individual character

03:22:21.450 --> 03:22:22.500
of that area

03:22:22.500 --> 03:22:28.409
and make sure that that the zoning districts are compatible

03:22:28.409 --> 03:22:29.500
next to each other.

03:22:29.500 --> 03:22:31.959
So when they're adjacent to each other, there's an

03:22:31.959 --> 03:22:33.500
appropriate transition.

03:22:33.500 --> 03:22:38.500
And so in relationship to this case, when we look at DCN

03:22:38.500 --> 03:22:41.500
and then the adjacent zoning districts,

03:22:41.500 --> 03:22:44.500
we see there's a lot of incompatibility with scale.

03:22:44.500 --> 03:22:47.680
So it's not necessarily DCN isn't compatible with the

03:22:47.680 --> 03:22:49.500
downtown compatibility area,

03:22:49.500 --> 03:22:55.489
but it's not appropriate in this location because of the

03:22:55.489 --> 03:22:58.500
intent to make sure you strengthen

03:22:58.500 --> 03:23:01.790
not only the downtown development pattern, but the

03:23:01.790 --> 03:23:03.500
neighborhoods as well.

03:23:03.500 --> 03:23:06.600
And so it's meant to transition from that downtown to the

03:23:06.600 --> 03:23:07.500
neighborhoods.

03:23:07.500 --> 03:23:12.620
And so DCN could be appropriate, but it's not all in every

03:23:12.620 --> 03:23:13.500
case.

03:23:13.500 --> 03:23:14.500
Did that answer it?

03:23:14.500 --> 03:23:15.500
Continue.

03:23:15.500 --> 03:23:16.500
Yes.

03:23:16.500 --> 03:23:18.500
So yes.

03:23:18.500 --> 03:23:27.250
And so under this future land use, single family houses fit

03:23:27.250 --> 03:23:27.500
?

03:23:27.500 --> 03:23:29.500
In downtown compatibility area?

03:23:29.500 --> 03:23:30.500
Yes.

03:23:30.500 --> 03:23:34.500
Well, that would depend on the specific area.

03:23:34.500 --> 03:23:35.500
Probably not.

03:23:35.500 --> 03:23:42.500
I mean, this is on the edge of the low density residential

03:23:42.500 --> 03:23:43.500
in the downtown compatibility area.

03:23:43.500 --> 03:23:46.500
So we can't just look at that future land use.

03:23:46.500 --> 03:23:50.500
We have to look at that transition between the two.

03:23:50.500 --> 03:23:52.899
So that's where you get that NR3 because there's a

03:23:52.899 --> 03:23:54.500
transition between those two.

03:23:54.500 --> 03:23:58.260
And then we have to look even deeper at what the character

03:23:58.260 --> 03:23:59.500
of that area is.

03:23:59.500 --> 03:24:04.530
So this is the overarching ideal and goals, but you have to

03:24:04.530 --> 03:24:06.500
really drill down to the details as well.

03:24:06.500 --> 03:24:10.500
That can't inform everything.

03:24:10.500 --> 03:24:11.500
Continue.

03:24:11.500 --> 03:24:12.500
Sure.

03:24:12.500 --> 03:24:13.500
I agree.

03:24:13.500 --> 03:24:17.479
But the property in question using your picture is in the

03:24:17.479 --> 03:24:21.500
middle far -- not far, just to the outside of the blend.

03:24:21.500 --> 03:24:26.069
So if I'm looking at low residential being single family

03:24:26.069 --> 03:24:29.670
homes is outside the blend, then you have the blend where

03:24:29.670 --> 03:24:31.500
you're going to bring those two uses together.

03:24:31.500 --> 03:24:32.500
Right.

03:24:32.500 --> 03:24:34.500
Then you have the proposed property.

03:24:34.500 --> 03:24:40.049
And so based on just what you said, not holding you to it,

03:24:40.049 --> 03:24:44.540
but using it, a single -- we're trying to protect single

03:24:44.540 --> 03:24:47.659
family houses in a future land use area that doesn't

03:24:47.659 --> 03:24:49.500
support single family houses.

03:24:49.500 --> 03:24:51.870
And I understand where you're -- I understand what you're

03:24:51.870 --> 03:24:52.500
looking at.

03:24:52.500 --> 03:24:55.500
I think you're looking too -- you're looking too narrowly.

03:24:55.500 --> 03:24:59.030
You've got to go up a little higher and say that these are

03:24:59.030 --> 03:25:00.500
the general areas.

03:25:00.500 --> 03:25:03.149
And that's why those blend areas look like water was built

03:25:03.149 --> 03:25:06.299
on the future land use map is because we didn't want those

03:25:06.299 --> 03:25:10.590
hard parcel lines because it really doesn't often -- it

03:25:10.590 --> 03:25:12.500
doesn't always reflect what's going on in the ground.

03:25:12.500 --> 03:25:15.500
So that's why we wanted that blending area.

03:25:15.500 --> 03:25:17.500
It's not a hard and fast line.

03:25:17.500 --> 03:25:20.500
It is -- there's a fluidity there.

03:25:20.500 --> 03:25:22.500
Yeah, and I understand.

03:25:22.500 --> 03:25:24.500
So I'm going to switch gears now.

03:25:24.500 --> 03:25:29.969
So as it's zoned currently, if DISD sells it and someone

03:25:29.969 --> 03:25:35.360
else moves in, they're free to build whatever uses are

03:25:35.360 --> 03:25:37.500
currently there.

03:25:37.500 --> 03:25:39.500
I mean, they're free to build those things.

03:25:39.500 --> 03:25:41.909
Whatever is currently permitted in the zoning districts,

03:25:41.909 --> 03:25:42.500
yes, sir.

03:25:42.500 --> 03:25:43.500
Right.

03:25:43.500 --> 03:25:44.500
Okay.

03:25:44.500 --> 03:25:45.500
Thank you.

03:25:45.500 --> 03:25:46.500
Sure.

03:25:46.500 --> 03:25:52.500
We have a question for the applicant.

03:25:52.500 --> 03:25:54.500
You've heard all the discussion.

03:25:54.500 --> 03:25:57.500
We're kind of all over the board here.

03:25:57.500 --> 03:26:00.500
Yes, sir.

03:26:00.500 --> 03:26:04.030
My concern as chair and sitting through these meetings over

03:26:04.030 --> 03:26:07.510
many years of trying to do, well, maybe variance, maybe we

03:26:07.510 --> 03:26:10.540
'll kind of mix and match the zoning and come up with a

03:26:10.540 --> 03:26:11.500
compromise.

03:26:11.500 --> 03:26:15.549
It's my experience in the past when we do that, a lot of

03:26:15.549 --> 03:26:19.170
times the feedback is we made a boo-boo because we did

03:26:19.170 --> 03:26:22.809
something a little quicker and didn't have as much time to

03:26:22.809 --> 03:26:24.500
study all the facts.

03:26:24.500 --> 03:26:27.770
I know this item has been pulled more than once from our

03:26:27.770 --> 03:26:28.500
agenda.

03:26:28.500 --> 03:26:32.940
And I don't know if you're open to having this continued

03:26:32.940 --> 03:26:37.680
and to give not only yourselves but staff an opportunity to

03:26:37.680 --> 03:26:41.930
make another run at this and come back to us or if you'd

03:26:41.930 --> 03:26:46.500
prefer us to move forward here and let the cards follow

03:26:46.500 --> 03:26:47.500
some way.

03:26:47.500 --> 03:26:51.049
I think we'd like the opportunity to work with staff and

03:26:51.049 --> 03:26:54.579
perhaps again look at the ZBA process and see which way we

03:26:54.579 --> 03:26:55.500
can go.

03:26:55.500 --> 03:27:00.500
So I think we would ask, request, propose you to postpone.

03:27:00.500 --> 03:27:01.500
Okay.

03:27:01.500 --> 03:27:03.500
Well, continue.

03:27:03.500 --> 03:27:04.500
Continue.

03:27:04.500 --> 03:27:07.600
And that's my sense as well because I think we've had a

03:27:07.600 --> 03:27:10.889
really good discussion of a lot of the different facts we

03:27:10.889 --> 03:27:13.500
've heard from citizens and neighbors.

03:27:13.500 --> 03:27:16.290
And I don't feel like there's really a place where it's

03:27:16.290 --> 03:27:19.500
really clear after all the discussion, all the impact.

03:27:19.500 --> 03:27:22.500
Well, I think everybody's formed a consensus over here.

03:27:22.500 --> 03:27:26.770
I'd like to go ahead and make a motion then that we

03:27:26.770 --> 03:27:28.500
continue this.

03:27:28.500 --> 03:27:30.500
What would be a reasonable timeframe?

03:27:30.500 --> 03:27:35.500
I'm going to ask for some input from staff.

03:27:35.500 --> 03:27:40.209
In order to place the item, I don't have the ZBA schedule

03:27:40.209 --> 03:27:42.500
in front of me right now.

03:27:42.500 --> 03:27:43.500
End of October.

03:27:43.500 --> 03:27:46.500
So November would be the first ZBA meeting.

03:27:46.500 --> 03:27:50.030
The first Monday in November, if I'm not mistaken, or the

03:27:50.030 --> 03:27:53.600
last Monday in November would be the first meeting for ZBA,

03:27:53.600 --> 03:27:57.829
which gives sufficient time for us to talk, receive

03:27:57.829 --> 03:27:58.500
application.

03:27:58.500 --> 03:27:59.500
Did I get the date wrong?

03:27:59.500 --> 03:28:00.500
I apologize.

03:28:00.500 --> 03:28:02.500
Last Monday of October.

03:28:02.500 --> 03:28:04.500
Last Monday of October, I apologize.

03:28:04.500 --> 03:28:06.899
So I believe we still have an opportunity to hit that

03:28:06.899 --> 03:28:07.500
meeting.

03:28:07.500 --> 03:28:10.500
Let's -- we will -- I'm sorry.

03:28:10.500 --> 03:28:12.500
You have a publication deadline.

03:28:12.500 --> 03:28:13.500
I'm thinking about publication.

03:28:13.500 --> 03:28:16.500
I know it's going to be very tight to meet the October.

03:28:16.500 --> 03:28:19.600
In order to hit that, we'd have to actually send out

03:28:19.600 --> 03:28:23.500
notification, if I'm not mistaken, by Saturday or Monday.

03:28:23.500 --> 03:28:24.500
So we can look at that.

03:28:24.500 --> 03:28:27.770
Please -- we will coordinate with you first thing tomorrow

03:28:27.770 --> 03:28:28.500
morning.

03:28:28.500 --> 03:28:29.500
Okay.

03:28:29.500 --> 03:28:31.260
And then we will establish the timelines associated with

03:28:31.260 --> 03:28:31.500
that.

03:28:31.500 --> 03:28:37.500
So I would give some leeway, and I would say 60 days.

03:28:37.500 --> 03:28:38.500
60 days.

03:28:38.500 --> 03:28:51.500
Are you okay with that?

03:28:51.500 --> 03:28:54.100
While it's not exactly preferred, I do believe it's going

03:28:54.100 --> 03:28:55.500
to be the method we choose.

03:28:55.500 --> 03:28:58.500
Well, there's certainly more certainty there.

03:28:58.500 --> 03:29:00.500
But the way it sounds like it's going right now.

03:29:00.500 --> 03:29:01.500
Yeah.

03:29:01.500 --> 03:29:04.409
Well, each day that passes, most unfortunately, inflation

03:29:04.409 --> 03:29:06.500
continues, and it's one of those things.

03:29:06.500 --> 03:29:08.500
I'm very anxious to get started.

03:29:08.500 --> 03:29:09.500
Our drawings are complete.

03:29:09.500 --> 03:29:10.500
So this is very exciting.

03:29:10.500 --> 03:29:12.620
If this can get resolved, then we'd be able to see it

03:29:12.620 --> 03:29:13.500
sooner than that.

03:29:13.500 --> 03:29:15.750
We don't want to set it for too soon and not give you the

03:29:15.750 --> 03:29:18.870
opportunity to explore all the options that maybe you can

03:29:18.870 --> 03:29:19.500
get this resolved.

03:29:19.500 --> 03:29:21.500
Yes, sir.

03:29:21.500 --> 03:29:22.500
So 60 days.

03:29:22.500 --> 03:29:25.500
Is that where we're within 60 days?

03:29:25.500 --> 03:29:28.500
It should be done within 60 days.

03:29:28.500 --> 03:29:31.500
Do we need to do a date certain or just 60 days?

03:29:31.500 --> 03:29:33.850
I would continue it to 60 days, and then we'll make sure

03:29:33.850 --> 03:29:35.500
that it's on the subsequent agenda.

03:29:35.500 --> 03:29:37.500
It could be plus or minus a few days.

03:29:37.500 --> 03:29:38.500
Yes.

03:29:38.500 --> 03:29:39.500
Agreed.

03:29:39.500 --> 03:29:40.500
Okay.

03:29:40.500 --> 03:29:41.500
So rather a date certain.

03:29:41.500 --> 03:29:42.500
Okay.

03:29:42.500 --> 03:29:46.500
Well, thank you for the feedback and the consideration.

03:29:46.500 --> 03:29:50.020
With that, the Chair is going to make a motion that this

03:29:50.020 --> 03:29:52.500
item be continued for 60 days.

03:29:52.500 --> 03:29:56.860
And we look forward to either seeing it back here or having

03:29:56.860 --> 03:30:01.500
it resolved another way in as timely a matter as possible.

03:30:01.500 --> 03:30:03.500
With that, Commissioner Beck.

03:30:03.500 --> 03:30:04.500
I second the motion.

03:30:04.500 --> 03:30:05.500
Okay.

03:30:05.500 --> 03:30:07.500
We have a first and a second.

03:30:07.500 --> 03:30:13.500
Any further discussion?

03:30:13.500 --> 03:30:31.500
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.

03:30:31.500 --> 03:30:33.500
Motion carries 7-0.

03:30:33.500 --> 03:30:45.500
Thank you for a great presentation.

03:30:45.500 --> 03:30:47.500
I'm going to let the room clear.

03:30:47.500 --> 03:30:51.500
And I think as we've gone now for a little over two hours,

03:30:51.500 --> 03:30:54.500
I think we're going to take a short break.

03:30:54.500 --> 03:30:59.500
And then let's reconvene in 10 minutes.

03:30:59.500 --> 03:31:12.500
I'm going to call a recess at 845 and let's try to get back

03:31:12.500 --> 03:31:12.500
.

03:31:12.500 --> 03:31:13.500
Okay.

03:31:13.500 --> 03:31:18.500
I'm going to call our PNC meeting back in order at 855.

03:31:18.500 --> 03:31:22.500
And we're going to continue with our public hearings items.

03:31:22.500 --> 03:31:27.629
And I'm going to open the public hearing for item C, Z16-00

03:31:27.629 --> 03:31:28.500
13.

03:31:28.500 --> 03:31:36.500
I'll call on Mike Bell for that presentation.

03:31:36.500 --> 03:31:38.500
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.

03:31:38.500 --> 03:31:39.500
Again, it's almost 9.

03:31:39.500 --> 03:31:41.500
I'll ask if you want the short version or the long version.

03:31:41.500 --> 03:31:42.500
Let's try the short.

03:31:42.500 --> 03:31:45.500
I thought you might say that.

03:31:45.500 --> 03:31:46.500
All right.

03:31:46.500 --> 03:31:48.889
So the request is to consider an amendment to the razor

03:31:48.889 --> 03:31:52.889
ranch overlay district to change less than 10 acres, but no

03:31:52.889 --> 03:31:56.500
more than, from a south mixed use sub area to the south R2

03:31:56.500 --> 03:31:57.500
sub area.

03:31:57.500 --> 03:32:01.329
And this requires a changing of two exhibits in the

03:32:01.329 --> 03:32:02.500
ordinance.

03:32:02.500 --> 03:32:05.239
So an overview, the area in yellow is the 410 acres that

03:32:05.239 --> 03:32:06.500
includes razor ranch.

03:32:06.500 --> 03:32:08.500
But at the bottom left, you'll see a double black line.

03:32:08.500 --> 03:32:15.329
That's the roughly 10 acre, less than 10 acre property that

03:32:15.329 --> 03:32:18.500
we're considering tonight.

03:32:18.500 --> 03:32:21.700
What that change includes is the -- this property here, you

03:32:21.700 --> 03:32:25.500
can see it would be going from the south mixed use sub area

03:32:25.500 --> 03:32:26.500
to south R2.

03:32:26.500 --> 03:32:30.540
Which is an extension of what is already present along I-35

03:32:30.540 --> 03:32:34.500
and U.S. 380.

03:32:34.500 --> 03:32:37.500
Additionally, we have site design standards.

03:32:37.500 --> 03:32:39.500
I don't want to bore you with the standards.

03:32:39.500 --> 03:32:42.500
This here is a razor ranch overlay and all the exhibits.

03:32:42.500 --> 03:32:44.500
It's about as big as a development code.

03:32:44.500 --> 03:32:50.409
But essentially, it has sets of architectural standards

03:32:50.409 --> 03:32:53.500
broken up by sub districts.

03:32:53.500 --> 03:32:56.520
And what this would do is keep all the commercial uses that

03:32:56.520 --> 03:32:59.100
are permitted, currently permitted, they would be allowed

03:32:59.100 --> 03:33:00.500
to keep doing those.

03:33:00.500 --> 03:33:03.260
But what it would do is eliminate the ability to do any of

03:33:03.260 --> 03:33:06.860
the residential uses, single family, multi family, town

03:33:06.860 --> 03:33:09.500
homes, things like that, would be eliminated.

03:33:09.500 --> 03:33:11.500
And again, there's no requirement for mixed use.

03:33:11.500 --> 03:33:14.680
They could do pure retail or pure residential if they

03:33:14.680 --> 03:33:15.500
wanted to.

03:33:15.500 --> 03:33:19.500
But under the new proposal, it would just be commercial.

03:33:19.500 --> 03:33:21.500
General regulations are about the same.

03:33:21.500 --> 03:33:24.500
And again, the real crux of this is the design standards,

03:33:24.500 --> 03:33:27.500
the architectural landscape and signage standards.

03:33:27.500 --> 03:33:30.040
They currently do not have standards for the district they

03:33:30.040 --> 03:33:30.500
're in.

03:33:30.500 --> 03:33:32.500
They would like to go to the RR2.

03:33:32.500 --> 03:33:34.500
It's a logical extension.

03:33:34.500 --> 03:33:37.500
And it would allow them to use existing design standards.

03:33:37.500 --> 03:33:41.420
And again, this is kind of the idea of what's been approved

03:33:41.420 --> 03:33:45.670
in the past under these C1, D1, and E1 to give you an idea

03:33:45.670 --> 03:33:47.500
what that looks like.

03:33:47.500 --> 03:33:50.500
Going over the considerations we did in work session.

03:33:50.500 --> 03:33:52.549
It really just boils down to the residential uses being

03:33:52.549 --> 03:33:54.500
removed and the change in the design standards.

03:33:54.500 --> 03:33:57.680
And as we've outlined, we really don't think that's a cause

03:33:57.680 --> 03:33:58.500
of concern.

03:33:58.500 --> 03:34:01.500
For that reason, we will support the request.

03:34:01.500 --> 03:34:03.500
We did send out a notification.

03:34:03.500 --> 03:34:06.500
Received nothing in favor or in opposition.

03:34:06.500 --> 03:34:08.500
And with that, I recommend approval.

03:34:08.500 --> 03:34:12.500
The applicant is here, and I'll stand for any questions.

03:34:12.500 --> 03:34:16.500
Any questions for staff?

03:34:16.500 --> 03:34:19.500
Thank you, Mike.

03:34:19.500 --> 03:34:22.500
The applicant is here and would like to speak?

03:34:22.500 --> 03:34:23.500
No?

03:34:23.500 --> 03:34:24.500
Okay.

03:34:24.500 --> 03:34:25.500
This is a public hearing.

03:34:25.500 --> 03:34:26.500
I have one card.

03:34:26.500 --> 03:34:29.500
And it looks like it has two agenda items on here.

03:34:29.500 --> 03:34:31.500
It would be Michael Hinnan.

03:34:31.500 --> 03:34:36.540
He is marked in opposition requesting he would like to

03:34:36.540 --> 03:34:37.500
speak.

03:34:37.500 --> 03:34:40.500
Okay, Mr. Chair, I think I marked item C and D.

03:34:40.500 --> 03:34:42.500
Yes, we're on 4C.

03:34:42.500 --> 03:34:45.500
Oh, we were on B. I'm sorry.

03:34:45.500 --> 03:34:49.500
That item has been -- I apologize, I didn't announce it.

03:34:49.500 --> 03:34:51.500
It's been withdrawn.

03:34:51.500 --> 03:34:52.500
Should have clarified that.

03:34:52.500 --> 03:34:53.500
I apologize.

03:34:53.500 --> 03:34:56.500
So we are on 4C.

03:34:56.500 --> 03:35:00.500
Michael Hinnan, 724 Thomas Street in Denton.

03:35:00.500 --> 03:35:04.500
My comments actually go to 4C and to D.

03:35:04.500 --> 03:35:08.809
And I noticed in the exhibit B1 that was in our materials

03:35:08.809 --> 03:35:09.500
tonight,

03:35:09.500 --> 03:35:12.500
if you could call that back up again where I could --

03:35:12.500 --> 03:35:16.500
as I'm speaking, that would help be helpful.

03:35:16.500 --> 03:35:17.500
Which page is it?

03:35:17.500 --> 03:35:18.500
I'm sorry.

03:35:18.500 --> 03:35:21.500
B1, exhibit B1.

03:35:21.500 --> 03:35:26.500
Show us that.

03:35:26.500 --> 03:35:30.049
You know, this is the first schematic I've seen in these

03:35:30.049 --> 03:35:30.500
exhibits.

03:35:30.500 --> 03:35:33.069
I'm sure it's been out previously, but it's the first time

03:35:33.069 --> 03:35:33.500
I've seen it.

03:35:33.500 --> 03:35:38.840
Looking down into the -- and I don't have an objection to

03:35:38.840 --> 03:35:40.500
the specific item.

03:35:40.500 --> 03:35:44.770
I do have questions and objections that relate to the

03:35:44.770 --> 03:35:45.500
entire project

03:35:45.500 --> 03:35:49.500
that may be coming before you in subsequent meetings.

03:35:49.500 --> 03:35:55.500
And down in the far southeast corner of the exhibit,

03:35:55.500 --> 03:35:59.780
you see the gas wells that exist at Bonnie Bray and

03:35:59.780 --> 03:36:01.500
Scripture Street.

03:36:01.500 --> 03:36:06.709
And I noticed that the current zoning map, the existing and

03:36:06.709 --> 03:36:07.500
the proposed,

03:36:07.500 --> 03:36:12.670
show some uses that I think are incompatible with our

03:36:12.670 --> 03:36:14.500
current gas well ordinance

03:36:14.500 --> 03:36:20.500
in terms of the setbacks, the single family, the hotel --

03:36:20.500 --> 03:36:24.500
possible hotel use, multifamily uses.

03:36:24.500 --> 03:36:29.500
I believe this zoning map in general shows that those are

03:36:29.500 --> 03:36:30.500
incompatible

03:36:30.500 --> 03:36:34.500
with the setback requirements for reverse setbacks.

03:36:34.500 --> 03:36:37.500
It could be 250 feet or it could be 300 feet,

03:36:37.500 --> 03:36:40.500
depending on what's on the gas well property.

03:36:40.500 --> 03:36:45.500
I wanted to bring that to the commission's attention

03:36:45.500 --> 03:36:53.500
as you start to consider future use of that property.

03:36:53.500 --> 03:36:57.500
Just for clarification, my understanding of the gas wells

03:36:57.500 --> 03:37:02.500
are on the corner of Bonnie Bray and Scripture.

03:37:02.500 --> 03:37:03.500
Yes.

03:37:03.500 --> 03:37:07.030
And the single family stops at Panhandle, the extension of

03:37:07.030 --> 03:37:07.500
Panhandle.

03:37:07.500 --> 03:37:09.500
Is that what you're talking about?

03:37:09.500 --> 03:37:10.500
That's part of it.

03:37:10.500 --> 03:37:14.450
You'll also see that down just to the west of the gas wells

03:37:14.450 --> 03:37:14.500
,

03:37:14.500 --> 03:37:18.500
you'll see what is in blue that has hotels,

03:37:18.500 --> 03:37:21.500
which are protected use under the gas well ordinance.

03:37:21.500 --> 03:37:25.649
And I believe it also has MF, which I suppose is multif

03:37:25.649 --> 03:37:26.500
amily.

03:37:26.500 --> 03:37:30.500
And so residential uses are protected, as I understand it,

03:37:30.500 --> 03:37:34.209
under the gas well ordinance and require at least a 250

03:37:34.209 --> 03:37:35.500
feet setback

03:37:35.500 --> 03:37:37.500
for the land use owner.

03:37:37.500 --> 03:37:40.500
300 feet if the property on the gas well contains

03:37:40.500 --> 03:37:44.500
certain kinds of flammable items on it.

03:37:44.500 --> 03:37:47.500
So that's what I'm drawing attention to.

03:37:47.500 --> 03:37:51.030
I believe that the surrounding areas--and it's hard for me

03:37:51.030 --> 03:37:52.500
to read the scale there exactly,

03:37:52.500 --> 03:37:56.989
but they look like they're within the 250 foot or 300 foot

03:37:56.989 --> 03:37:57.500
lines,

03:37:57.500 --> 03:38:00.690
even the single family to the north of there is within that

03:38:00.690 --> 03:38:01.500
distance.

03:38:01.500 --> 03:38:03.870
So I wanted to bring that to the attention of the

03:38:03.870 --> 03:38:04.500
commission,

03:38:04.500 --> 03:38:05.500
and that's my concern.

03:38:05.500 --> 03:38:06.500
Okay.

03:38:06.500 --> 03:38:09.500
Thank you for your input, and we'll certainly--SAAF is here

03:38:09.500 --> 03:38:10.500
to hear that,

03:38:10.500 --> 03:38:13.500
and I'm sure they can get with the applicant and clear up

03:38:13.500 --> 03:38:15.500
any discrepancies there are

03:38:15.500 --> 03:38:17.500
where there might be a problem with that.

03:38:17.500 --> 03:38:21.500
So thank you for bringing that to our attention.

03:38:21.500 --> 03:38:24.500
Again, this is a public hearing.

03:38:24.500 --> 03:38:27.500
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?

03:38:27.500 --> 03:38:30.500
I do not have any other cards on this item.

03:38:30.500 --> 03:38:33.500
Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward.

03:38:33.500 --> 03:38:36.500
It looks like Mike Bell may have a comment for us.

03:38:36.500 --> 03:38:40.500
I just want to clarify for the gentleman who just spoke.

03:38:40.500 --> 03:38:42.500
We are looking at a general development plan application.

03:38:42.500 --> 03:38:45.840
We have had the conversations with Gas Wells, and the

03:38:45.840 --> 03:38:46.500
property owner--

03:38:46.500 --> 03:38:48.530
the Gas Wells division of the city and the property owner

03:38:48.530 --> 03:38:49.500
will be addressing that

03:38:49.500 --> 03:38:51.530
with the general development plan, and that will come

03:38:51.530 --> 03:38:52.500
before the board,

03:38:52.500 --> 03:38:55.500
so you'll see the resolution to that very issue.

03:38:55.500 --> 03:38:58.500
Okay, so very aware of it and working on it to address it.

03:38:58.500 --> 03:38:59.500
Yes, sir.

03:38:59.500 --> 03:39:00.500
Great.

03:39:00.500 --> 03:39:02.500
Thank you, Mike.

03:39:02.500 --> 03:39:03.500
Let's see.

03:39:03.500 --> 03:39:05.500
Anyone else that wishes to speak?

03:39:05.500 --> 03:39:10.500
I'm going to close the public hearing on item C, Z16-001,

03:39:10.500 --> 03:39:13.500
and I'm going to open that for a motion or discussion.

03:39:13.500 --> 03:39:16.500
Looks like a motion from Commissioner Rozelle.

03:39:16.500 --> 03:39:21.500
I move that we approve item Z16-13.

03:39:21.500 --> 03:39:23.500
Commissioner Hussbuth.

03:39:23.500 --> 03:39:24.500
Yes, I'm back.

03:39:24.500 --> 03:39:25.500
All right.

03:39:25.500 --> 03:39:26.500
I can see you here.

03:39:26.500 --> 03:39:27.500
Thank you.

03:39:27.500 --> 03:39:28.500
Second.

03:39:28.500 --> 03:39:29.500
All right.

03:39:29.500 --> 03:39:31.500
We have a first and a second for approval.

03:39:31.500 --> 03:39:38.500
Any further discussion or comments?

03:39:38.500 --> 03:39:50.500
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.

03:39:50.500 --> 03:39:53.500
Motion carries 7-0.

03:39:53.500 --> 03:39:55.500
We'll move us to item D.

03:39:55.500 --> 03:40:01.500
I will open the public hearing for Z16-0022,

03:40:01.500 --> 03:40:05.500
and we'll call on Mike Bell to present that item as well.

03:40:05.500 --> 03:40:07.500
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

03:40:07.500 --> 03:40:09.500
We'll get to the meeting, the item here.

03:40:09.500 --> 03:40:11.500
This is Z16-22.

03:40:11.500 --> 03:40:14.500
This is for the razor ranch multifamily standards.

03:40:14.500 --> 03:40:17.500
The request is to amend the overlay district

03:40:17.500 --> 03:40:21.049
to provide design standards and criteria for multifamily

03:40:21.049 --> 03:40:21.500
development

03:40:21.500 --> 03:40:24.500
in that south mixed-use sub-area,

03:40:24.500 --> 03:40:29.000
and it would require an amendment to exhibit B3 of the

03:40:29.000 --> 03:40:30.500
ordinance.

03:40:30.500 --> 03:40:34.120
As we've talked about, the district is divided into three

03:40:34.120 --> 03:40:34.500
major areas

03:40:34.500 --> 03:40:36.500
in terms of design.

03:40:36.500 --> 03:40:38.500
This would be for the south mixed-use area,

03:40:38.500 --> 03:40:43.500
and it is exhibit C3 specific to south mixed-use.

03:40:43.500 --> 03:40:46.500
In general, we've used the citywide standards as a baseline

03:40:46.500 --> 03:40:46.500
,

03:40:46.500 --> 03:40:50.709
and enhanced them from there, specific for razor ranch,

03:40:50.709 --> 03:40:52.500
unique identity.

03:40:52.500 --> 03:40:54.500
We've provided these sections.

03:40:54.500 --> 03:40:56.840
I provided them in your backup with a comparison to subch

03:40:56.840 --> 03:40:57.500
apter 13.

03:40:57.500 --> 03:41:00.030
Be happy to go through any of those provisions if you'd

03:41:00.030 --> 03:41:00.500
like.

03:41:00.500 --> 03:41:03.489
I also do want to call attention, particularly for

03:41:03.489 --> 03:41:03.500
Commissioner Hudspeth,

03:41:03.500 --> 03:41:05.500
who was not here in the work session.

03:41:05.500 --> 03:41:08.500
I handed some pages out on your chair.

03:41:08.500 --> 03:41:12.500
That is a site plan that has been under review

03:41:12.500 --> 03:41:16.819
that we've reviewed for these proposed criteria and meets

03:41:16.819 --> 03:41:17.500
those criteria.

03:41:17.500 --> 03:41:20.760
So this is the type of development that you would see under

03:41:20.760 --> 03:41:21.500
these standards

03:41:21.500 --> 03:41:23.500
or would be allowed under these standards,

03:41:23.500 --> 03:41:25.500
and you'll be seeing that at your October 12th meeting.

03:41:25.500 --> 03:41:28.110
I just want to give you an impression now what this would

03:41:28.110 --> 03:41:28.500
look like

03:41:28.500 --> 03:41:32.500
in case there were any hesitations.

03:41:32.500 --> 03:41:36.500
Just there for your convenience if you need them.

03:41:36.500 --> 03:41:40.030
This is, again, an idea what those buildings would look

03:41:40.030 --> 03:41:40.500
like.

03:41:40.500 --> 03:41:43.780
We did send out a notification, as this is an overlay

03:41:43.780 --> 03:41:44.500
amendment.

03:41:44.500 --> 03:41:48.500
We received no responses in opposition or in favor,

03:41:48.500 --> 03:41:50.500
and staff recommends approval.

03:41:50.500 --> 03:41:53.500
I'll be happy to stand for any questions.

03:41:53.500 --> 03:41:58.500
Any questions for staff?

03:41:58.500 --> 03:42:01.500
Thank you, Mike.

03:42:01.500 --> 03:42:03.500
I'm calling the applicant.

03:42:03.500 --> 03:42:06.290
We don't have a card from you, but we'd be happy for you to

03:42:06.290 --> 03:42:06.500
speak

03:42:06.500 --> 03:42:10.500
and then fill out a card for us, please.

03:42:10.500 --> 03:42:12.500
Thank you, Commissioner.

03:42:12.500 --> 03:42:14.500
Chairman, my name is Scott Wagner.

03:42:14.500 --> 03:42:18.500
I reside at 1 East Washington in Phoenix, Arizona.

03:42:18.500 --> 03:42:20.500
I've been here for several years.

03:42:20.500 --> 03:42:23.239
I'm here in town about every week or two the past six years

03:42:23.239 --> 03:42:23.500
.

03:42:23.500 --> 03:42:25.600
I'd like to say thank you to everybody for the

03:42:25.600 --> 03:42:26.500
considerations,

03:42:26.500 --> 03:42:29.680
and at any time during a meeting or in between meetings or

03:42:29.680 --> 03:42:30.500
when I'm in town,

03:42:30.500 --> 03:42:34.030
I'm happy to meet with any of you new members to go through

03:42:34.030 --> 03:42:34.500
the project,

03:42:34.500 --> 03:42:36.979
go through the progress, the history, a little bit about

03:42:36.979 --> 03:42:37.500
where we're going,

03:42:37.500 --> 03:42:39.500
what we're about at Razor Ranch.

03:42:39.500 --> 03:42:42.500
We're very excited about the projects.

03:42:42.500 --> 03:42:48.500
These zoning cases are necessary to set the stage for

03:42:48.500 --> 03:42:50.500
applicants to come in soon,

03:42:50.500 --> 03:42:52.500
so we're excited to see some new projects.

03:42:52.500 --> 03:42:55.799
You'll see those site plans and have more detail forth

03:42:55.799 --> 03:42:56.500
coming.

03:42:56.500 --> 03:42:59.319
So at any time if there's any questions, please let me know

03:42:59.319 --> 03:42:59.500
.

03:42:59.500 --> 03:43:00.500
Again, thank you.

03:43:00.500 --> 03:43:01.500
Great. Thank you.

03:43:01.500 --> 03:43:05.500
Any questions for the applicant?

03:43:05.500 --> 03:43:06.500
Thank you.

03:43:06.500 --> 03:43:08.500
Again, this is a public hearing.

03:43:08.500 --> 03:43:11.819
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come

03:43:11.819 --> 03:43:14.500
forward at this time.

03:43:14.500 --> 03:43:18.610
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing for Item D, Z

03:43:18.610 --> 03:43:20.500
16-002,

03:43:20.500 --> 03:43:26.500
and we'll open the floor for discussion or motion.

03:43:26.500 --> 03:43:28.500
I apologize.

03:43:28.500 --> 03:43:31.700
Mr. Hinden, would you like to speak on Item D as well, or

03:43:31.700 --> 03:43:32.500
did you cover that in Item C?

03:43:32.500 --> 03:43:34.500
I apologize.

03:43:34.500 --> 03:43:35.500
I do not.

03:43:35.500 --> 03:43:36.500
Okay. Thank you.

03:43:36.500 --> 03:43:39.540
We will leave this item closed, and thank you for the

03:43:39.540 --> 03:43:41.500
clarification.

03:43:41.500 --> 03:43:43.500
Commissioner Beck?

03:43:43.500 --> 03:43:46.500
I move approval of Z16-0022.

03:43:46.500 --> 03:43:48.500
Okay.

03:43:48.500 --> 03:43:50.500
Commissioner Ellis?

03:43:50.500 --> 03:43:51.500
Chair, I second.

03:43:51.500 --> 03:43:52.500
Okay.

03:43:52.500 --> 03:43:53.500
I have a first.

03:43:53.500 --> 03:43:54.500
Thank you.

03:43:54.500 --> 03:43:55.500
I second.

03:43:55.500 --> 03:43:56.500
Great.

03:43:56.500 --> 03:43:57.500
Thank you.

03:43:57.500 --> 03:43:58.500
I call for approval.

03:43:58.500 --> 03:44:04.500
Any discussion or comments?

03:44:04.500 --> 03:44:21.500
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.

03:44:21.500 --> 03:44:25.500
Motion carries 7-0.

03:44:25.500 --> 03:44:29.149
That will move us to our final item this evening, our

03:44:29.149 --> 03:44:30.500
matrix,

03:44:30.500 --> 03:44:34.500
and any concluding items that we have.

03:44:34.500 --> 03:44:37.500
Commissioner Rosell?

03:44:37.500 --> 03:44:39.500
Thank you, Chair.

03:44:39.500 --> 03:44:42.680
I have a question, and part of this is just to continue the

03:44:42.680 --> 03:44:45.500
Commissioner Brighill legacy here a little bit.

03:44:45.500 --> 03:44:46.500
It's about bikes.

03:44:46.500 --> 03:44:48.500
No, I'm joking.

03:44:48.500 --> 03:44:52.500
It's about landscape requirements.

03:44:52.500 --> 03:44:56.680
She had brought up during her tenure this zero scape idea,

03:44:56.680 --> 03:44:59.500
and seeing tonight the Aldi proposal,

03:44:59.500 --> 03:45:02.790
I really like that they're making these parking islands

03:45:02.790 --> 03:45:04.500
more than just a single tree,

03:45:04.500 --> 03:45:07.500
and actually adding some foliage underneath it.

03:45:07.500 --> 03:45:11.110
But is there -- what is the steps, or how does that look

03:45:11.110 --> 03:45:11.500
like,

03:45:11.500 --> 03:45:17.680
as you start progressing those general requirements to

03:45:17.680 --> 03:45:22.500
promote or to incentivize zero scaping?

03:45:22.500 --> 03:45:25.500
What does that look like?

03:45:25.500 --> 03:45:26.500
Thank you, Commissioner Rosell.

03:45:26.500 --> 03:45:30.500
At this point, if you recall, we are currently looking at

03:45:30.500 --> 03:45:33.500
revising the tree code that's currently underway.

03:45:33.500 --> 03:45:35.889
In fact, we're going to have several workshops associated

03:45:35.889 --> 03:45:36.500
with that.

03:45:36.500 --> 03:45:41.809
Subsequent to that, and almost after a few works, a little

03:45:41.809 --> 03:45:43.500
bit of resolution associated with the tree code,

03:45:43.500 --> 03:45:46.500
we're actually revisiting our landscape ordinance as well,

03:45:46.500 --> 03:45:49.229
which will be accommodating some of these elements that we

03:45:49.229 --> 03:45:51.500
've already heard about, discussed,

03:45:51.500 --> 03:45:53.030
and that we've encouraged, because currently as the

03:45:53.030 --> 03:45:56.500
ordinance stands, it encourages or allows zero scaping.

03:45:56.500 --> 03:45:58.950
But in this instance, we want to evaluate and see the

03:45:58.950 --> 03:46:01.500
opportunity to actually incorporate those and see if there

03:46:01.500 --> 03:46:01.500
's --

03:46:01.500 --> 03:46:05.540
a lot of communities do have incentive programs associated

03:46:05.540 --> 03:46:07.829
with that, and it'll come before you as an amendment to the

03:46:07.829 --> 03:46:11.500
tree ordinance, the landscaping requirements.

03:46:11.500 --> 03:46:12.500
That's great news.

03:46:12.500 --> 03:46:16.969
Would that potentially impact current development that they

03:46:16.969 --> 03:46:20.500
could transition to a more zero scaped model?

03:46:20.500 --> 03:46:24.590
We can create the ordinance or fold language into the

03:46:24.590 --> 03:46:27.850
ordinance that would encourage or enable current

03:46:27.850 --> 03:46:28.500
developments

03:46:28.500 --> 03:46:32.799
to then try and accommodate in being consistent with the

03:46:32.799 --> 03:46:36.430
current or revised ordinance requirements as it relates to

03:46:36.430 --> 03:46:37.500
zero scaping.

03:46:37.500 --> 03:46:38.500
Thank you.

03:46:38.500 --> 03:46:44.500
Commissioner Hesbeth.

03:46:44.500 --> 03:46:48.850
Along those lines, it's not really a matrix issue, but is

03:46:48.850 --> 03:46:54.680
there a way to add a line item to the reports that we

03:46:54.680 --> 03:46:55.500
receive,

03:46:55.500 --> 03:47:00.110
the overall of each project that kind of haywards, if he's

03:47:00.110 --> 03:47:02.500
had an input on -- so, for example, Aldi,

03:47:02.500 --> 03:47:06.059
I know someone had mentioned that they were maintaining

03:47:06.059 --> 03:47:07.500
trees or the groves,

03:47:07.500 --> 03:47:10.600
but is there a way to add a line item just if he has

03:47:10.600 --> 03:47:14.500
something, or even if he doesn't, just to know that he's --

03:47:14.500 --> 03:47:20.209
I just don't know where that would fit in that summary of a

03:47:20.209 --> 03:47:21.500
project.

03:47:21.500 --> 03:47:25.930
Or I guess I'd better say I'd like a specific line item for

03:47:25.930 --> 03:47:28.500
Hayward to have his input to say,

03:47:28.500 --> 03:47:32.500
hey, I looked at the trees, or -- because how would we know

03:47:32.500 --> 03:47:36.500
if there's a particular endangered tree that he was in

03:47:36.500 --> 03:47:37.500
disagreement with?

03:47:37.500 --> 03:47:40.500
I'd like to have a category for that.

03:47:40.500 --> 03:47:43.030
I understand what you're saying, and it could be applicable

03:47:43.030 --> 03:47:46.500
to some of the cases, such as our alternative ESAs,

03:47:46.500 --> 03:47:49.159
or if you have an ADP associated with that, if it's a

03:47:49.159 --> 03:47:52.079
straight zoning and there's a site plan, obviously there's

03:47:52.079 --> 03:47:52.500
no review.

03:47:52.500 --> 03:47:55.500
However, if you have, for instance, an overlay district

03:47:55.500 --> 03:47:56.500
where there's some amendments to that,

03:47:56.500 --> 03:47:59.930
or potential future other types of zoning overlays or plan

03:47:59.930 --> 03:48:01.500
development districts,

03:48:01.500 --> 03:48:05.500
then we have an opportunity to provide that input.

03:48:05.500 --> 03:48:09.280
In the instances where we have those elements as I iterated

03:48:09.280 --> 03:48:11.500
, alternative ESAs and ADPs,

03:48:11.500 --> 03:48:14.350
we do have an opportunity to include, and I think in the

03:48:14.350 --> 03:48:17.059
past we have, where the urban forester has looked at the

03:48:17.059 --> 03:48:18.500
mitigation and preservation requirements,

03:48:18.500 --> 03:48:20.500
which is also applicable to the plats.

03:48:20.500 --> 03:48:22.889
However, when you read the plats, we say all technical

03:48:22.889 --> 03:48:25.549
requirements have been addressed, and that's why that's not

03:48:25.549 --> 03:48:26.500
included in there.

03:48:26.500 --> 03:48:29.399
But definitely if the situation does arise where we know

03:48:29.399 --> 03:48:32.760
there's a potential, where we should look at something that

03:48:32.760 --> 03:48:33.500
you need to --

03:48:33.500 --> 03:48:35.850
you, the commission, needs to be apprised of, we will

03:48:35.850 --> 03:48:37.500
include that, reflecting that the --

03:48:37.500 --> 03:48:42.729
because the urban forester is part of the planning division

03:48:42.729 --> 03:48:47.500
, so all those elements are reviewed and analyzed.

03:48:47.500 --> 03:48:49.500
I have one.

03:48:49.500 --> 03:48:55.040
It's been a while since we've talked about I-35, and I'm

03:48:55.040 --> 03:48:58.739
curious if it's far enough along yet for us to get an

03:48:58.739 --> 03:49:04.500
update on the Buc-Ease area of Loop 288,

03:49:04.500 --> 03:49:08.290
the Brinker Road extension under 35, and May Hill to see

03:49:08.290 --> 03:49:12.799
where that stands and what the current time frame for that

03:49:12.799 --> 03:49:14.500
is with TechStat.

03:49:14.500 --> 03:49:18.930
You may -- Earl may -- he may already be gone, have an idea

03:49:18.930 --> 03:49:20.500
on where that is.

03:49:20.500 --> 03:49:24.020
I know it's been talked about, and it was a big concern at

03:49:24.020 --> 03:49:27.020
that particular item with Buc-Ease, and it looks like work

03:49:27.020 --> 03:49:29.500
has begun over there on that area.

03:49:29.500 --> 03:49:33.690
And I'm just curious to see where the road improvements

03:49:33.690 --> 03:49:34.500
stand.

03:49:34.500 --> 03:49:37.219
We will coordinate with our engineering team and get you

03:49:37.219 --> 03:49:38.500
some answers to that.

03:49:38.500 --> 03:49:40.500
Great. Thank you.

03:49:40.500 --> 03:49:43.500
Anybody else?

03:49:43.500 --> 03:49:45.500
Commissioner Ellis.

03:49:45.500 --> 03:49:46.500
Thank you.

03:49:46.500 --> 03:49:49.440
Not that you need more workmen, all, but -- and this may be

03:49:49.440 --> 03:49:53.739
somewhere in the matrix in the past -- but notifications,

03:49:53.739 --> 03:49:56.500
specifically on undeveloped pieces of land

03:49:56.500 --> 03:49:59.610
that is going to go to a public hearing for a zoning change

03:49:59.610 --> 03:50:00.500
, perhaps.

03:50:00.500 --> 03:50:05.620
I find the way it's posted now inadequate, especially on a

03:50:05.620 --> 03:50:07.500
high-speed road.

03:50:07.500 --> 03:50:11.530
One in particular I passed probably a dozen times, and I

03:50:11.530 --> 03:50:13.500
still couldn't read it.

03:50:13.500 --> 03:50:15.750
You know, it's a small piece of paper with a Sharpie

03:50:15.750 --> 03:50:16.500
written on it.

03:50:16.500 --> 03:50:18.649
I had my daughter take a picture of it as we slowly went by

03:50:18.649 --> 03:50:20.500
, but it's a 50-mile-an-hour road.

03:50:20.500 --> 03:50:22.500
I still never figured out what it was.

03:50:22.500 --> 03:50:26.030
Actually, I asked Commissioner Taylor what it was down the

03:50:26.030 --> 03:50:26.500
road.

03:50:26.500 --> 03:50:29.680
But if there's a way we can maybe get an update on that, we

03:50:29.680 --> 03:50:32.500
can discuss it just for better signage

03:50:32.500 --> 03:50:35.510
so people can actually know of a public hearing and what's

03:50:35.510 --> 03:50:37.500
happening, that would be great.

03:50:37.500 --> 03:50:40.909
I really appreciate you bringing that back to our attention

03:50:40.909 --> 03:50:42.500
, Commissioner Ellis.

03:50:42.500 --> 03:50:46.790
What we're looking at is revising our entire notification

03:50:46.790 --> 03:50:49.500
process, not just as it relates to posting the signs,

03:50:49.500 --> 03:50:53.500
but also who we send to and how we send to.

03:50:53.500 --> 03:50:57.739
And we have state local government code requirements, and

03:50:57.739 --> 03:50:58.500
then on top of that,

03:50:58.500 --> 03:51:01.239
we have slightly more restrictive requirements as it

03:51:01.239 --> 03:51:03.500
relates to our Denton Development Code.

03:51:03.500 --> 03:51:08.280
Just food for thought is a lot of communities now have the

03:51:08.280 --> 03:51:10.500
applicant post much larger signs

03:51:10.500 --> 03:51:13.500
and sign an affidavit that they've posted a zoning change

03:51:13.500 --> 03:51:15.500
or an SUP sign on the property

03:51:15.500 --> 03:51:18.040
or any public hearing item, and those are some of the

03:51:18.040 --> 03:51:18.500
recommendations

03:51:18.500 --> 03:51:20.889
we're going to bring forward to the Planning and Zoning

03:51:20.889 --> 03:51:21.500
Commission.

03:51:21.500 --> 03:51:24.739
Hopefully sooner than later, and we've actually been

03:51:24.739 --> 03:51:26.500
talking about it internally,

03:51:26.500 --> 03:51:28.870
and we're very keen to bring this back to you very, very

03:51:28.870 --> 03:51:33.510
quickly in a matter of a couple of meetings, hopefully, for

03:51:33.510 --> 03:51:34.500
discussion.

03:51:34.500 --> 03:51:36.500
Thank you.

03:51:36.500 --> 03:51:40.500
Okay. Anybody else? No?

03:51:40.500 --> 03:51:47.309
Okay. It is 9.15, and I'm going -- do you have Commissioner

03:51:47.309 --> 03:51:47.500
--

03:51:47.500 --> 03:51:49.500
I'll be on there. I just have one question for Manal.

03:51:49.500 --> 03:51:51.500
Well, you were going off, and I'm sorry I missed your back.

03:51:51.500 --> 03:51:55.649
Manal, can you -- I need to write down your new title and

03:51:55.649 --> 03:52:01.850
congratulate you, but can you -- what is your new title now

03:52:01.850 --> 03:52:02.500
?

03:52:02.500 --> 03:52:03.500
The Director of Development Services.

03:52:03.500 --> 03:52:04.500
Outstanding.

03:52:04.500 --> 03:52:06.799
Thank you, Commissioner Hardsmith. I appreciate it. Put me

03:52:06.799 --> 03:52:09.500
on the spot, but thank you so much.

03:52:09.500 --> 03:52:15.500
Thank you for that. Anybody else?

03:52:15.500 --> 03:52:20.059
Congratulations, and I'm going to close our PNC meeting at

03:52:20.059 --> 03:52:22.500
9.16. Thank you, everybody.