Dec 14, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-12-14 5:30 PM

session for December the 14th this meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting order at 531 our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items and I will ask Chandra to turn it over to her for presentation of the items tonight okay we have two items on the consent agenda a final plat and a prelim if there's any questions we can call up the case managers if not we'll go to the public hearing items. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair I just had one and I don't know if it's a big deal or not there's a typo in in the prelim plot I don't know if that's important to know but yeah it's in the notes line too okay it just says that the R is missing from ground. Thanks for helping us get it right. Okay and so we have two items for public hearing the first is a zoning case for the country club of states and I'll invite Haley Zagurski up. [Page turning] All right this is case Z1625 for country club road of states and the request is to hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately 15 and a half acres from neighborhood residential 2 to neighborhood residential 3 as well as to rezone approximately 20 acres from neighborhood residential 4 to neighborhood residential 3. The subject property is comprised of four parcels of land three of them have frontage on country club road the fourth is currently landlocked they're located on the east side of country club road approximately 265 feet south of Regency Court and to give you a little bit better view of where this is at the very top you can see the Fort Worth drive and country club road intersection as well as how this relates to Hobson Lane. Some of the surrounding properties the Bent Creek estate subdivision is located east or west across country club road Regency Oaks is immediately to the north of this property and the El Paso addition is to the east of it and there is a tributary of Hickory Creek that runs north to south across the property. So as I mentioned currently 15 and a half acres which is roughly 43 percent of the property is zoned NR2 a little over 20 acres or about 56 percent is zoned NR4 and the proposal is to rezone all four parcels to NR3. Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair. Go back that little strip out there is that that road is that all that is that little panhandle? Oh yes I believe that's their access. Okay. So the future land use designation for the property is low residential and this designation allows for single-family residential areas with a density of up to four units per acre. It encourages new single-family developments that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and it promotes a variety of housing styles types and price points. So some of our considerations for this rezoning to NR3 is not inconsistent with the surrounding patterns it's not an immediate continuation of anything adjoining the property but there is other NR3 across country club road from the property. The permitted uses within the NR3 district are consistent with the surrounding development primarily single-family dwellings or what's permitted there. Multi- family and duplex uses are not permitted in the current or the proposed zoning district and NR3 is consistent with that future land use designation of low residential. Overall this provides for a decrease in the intensity of the current zoning because over half of the property is currently NR4 and it would be reduced to NR3 and NR3 is kind of an intermediate in terms of density and scale from what's currently there so that would provide a more logical transition between the existing NR2 zone neighborhoods and what is being proposed. So just to give you a look at that the NR3 regulations that they would be subject to if this is approved are circled in yellow in the middle so it's kind of an intermediate in terms of the density that's allowed in the zoning districts as well as in the lot coverage and the other criteria and so this rez oning would consolidate the development in the future from having two different sets of criteria that it would have to be looked at with when they go to Platte and develop to just one set of zoning criteria. The existing zoning with the two different designations would allow a maximum of 111 lots on the entire property. The proposed zoning would permit up to 124 lots or 124 dwelling units per acre to be exact. The applicant has stated that their intent is to develop between 73 and 78 lots and that is reduced and depend the final configuration and number of lots will depend on the physical constraints that are imposed by the current floodplain and alternative ESA that runs through the property so they have an application in for an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan and depending on how that is worked out would basically determine what configuration of lots they could achieve here. Notification was sent out for this case. 46 notices sent to properties within 200 feet, 126 sent to the 500 foot radius. We received two in opposition, one in favor, one neutral, and one that I placed on your desk today was received and they were kind of undecided on how they felt about the case. All of the other notices or responses that I received were included in your backup with the notification map. So staff recommends approval of this request as it's compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning pattern and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030 and I 'll stand for any questions if you have them. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. I have I have several questions some pertain just to this project and some are just just general questions on a development that might have a mixed zoning. So can you back up to the area the two more I think two more back not the area one one forward I'm sorry with the floodplain. So those houses that are already built on Country Club Road those are on individual fairly small parc els those are kind of like an about an NR3 or NR4 density right now aren't they? There's ten total houses that front Country Club right now they're actually all on one parcel of land. It's not individual lots. Oh okay so if they were parceled out it would I'm like just looking across the street is NR3 and they're a little bit tighter together than the NR3 are. So okay. Again I believe just to clarify the subdivision across the street is NR3 but it was developed before that zoning designation was put in place so I think it is actually a higher density than NR3. Okay all right and my other question is this is probably a good map to do it on they're they're aiming for 75 ish lots how does density transfer work in a development if you actually had a development with two zon ings in it like some of our larger developments have in our three at the front and our six at the back or something like that can you density transfer is it only within the the boundaries of the zoning district okay. Hey Alex so I'm just looking at this and trying to figure out because you get a bunch of you know 25% of that or 20% of that or something is in a floodplain so you'd get a bunch of density transfer anyway so it seems like you could still build 75 lots really easily so I'm just trying to understand you know and I understand there might be like they probably want the same zoning across the entire project and there might be those side yard sizes and things like that that as to why the developers doing it I'm just trying to trying to understand for my own education. Yeah I believe a lot of the intent was to consolidate it under one set of regulations there because the way it's configured now that NR4 would lead to smaller lots kind of in the back of the property and larger lots on the edges and so I think just to simplify moving forward they were hoping to consolidate that but I believe the applicant will be here at the public hearing later if you have any questions. And then the hatch ed orange here are those areas that have been are being removed from the ESA or what's the designation there do you know? The hatched areas are historic Lomar. Oh okay so not really. Yeah the blue area is the current floodplain . All right thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. I'm sorry the hatch marks are historical what? Lomar I'm not sure. Earl would probably be able to better answer questions about what that designation is. Okay. Earl? Question? They're wondering what the hatched areas. Could you explain that a little bit more? The hatched area is the historical floodplain. Oh okay. That's what the floodplain used to be because it was unstud ied. Yeah. And so when the Regency development to the north came in they performed a letter of map revision to establish where the floodplain actually is by studying it and that's where the blue shade comes in. Okay so the historical little hatch marks. Yeah that layer should have been turned off. Gotcha. Thanks . Commissioner Hatchbeth. I don't know if this is another Earl question but I don't even know if I can ask it if it's germane to what we're considering today. Has anyone considered the ins and out of the property? Can we consider that at this point or no? This is since this is a zoning matter there we can't really take. Definitely gonna have access to Country Club and then there's a street stubbed out from the east and our code requires them to connect to that. I believe we also require connectivity to the south and I just don't I don't recall how many connection points you had on Country Club. At least one. One to the south and one to the east. Just one. Lee do you want to I think have a little more of a conversation if you want to come up and maybe you can answer some questions . Thank you. I'm sorry Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group. Appreciate the visit to opportunity to visit here briefly. We do have a concept plan that'll be in my presentation this evening. It does include connection to the east and a connection to the west of Country Club Road and it does cross the floodplain in the developed portion or the developed floodplain portion of it and so the connectivity will be there. We've had some discussions about going to the south but I think because of the gas well and other reasons we thought we may not but that's not necessarily a closed discussion at this time. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I was gonna wait until the public hearing to act just but since we got you up here the egress or ingress from the east which is the metal land? Metal I think so. Okay is that gonna extend all the way across the property to Country Club? It's gonna wind through the property to Country Club. Okay. So in our concept plan and I'm gonna ask the attorney for comment I'm not sure how much it's appropriate for me to speak up now. We should wait until the regular session in order to go through that. I think we're staying in this room tonight because there's construction in the chamber. I'll be glad to answer any other questions that are appropriate for me at this time. Thank you. Thank you Lee. Any other questions? I'd have one and we may get into this a little later. Are they gonna be coming back with doing some type of a letter of map revision or or Clomore or something to narrow that flood plain as well and that I know that's extra beyond what we're talking about with zoning but they will they will have to submit for a conditional letter of map revision of Clomore and Lomar just because there's a street that's gonna be proposed across that creek and so that being said they're gonna have to reduce that flood plain to be contained within a pipe system at the road crossing. Okay great thank you. Any other questions for staff on this item? The next item is the specific use permit for the QT on Carroll and I'll invite Julie Wyatt up. Hi I'm Julie Wyatt. The request before you is to consider making recommendation to City Council regarding amending an SUP for the QT at Carroll and Eagle to allow them to add 16 more parking spaces to the site. The subject property is located on the corner here at Eagle in North Carroll. It's in a downtown commercial general zoning district. This zoning district does require a specific use permit for the use which is quick vehicle servicing. That SUP was approved in 2002 by the City Council and that that development included a 5,000 square foot retail building, 12 fuel pumps, 26 parking spaces, a little over 58,000 square feet of impervious surface and then 25,594 square feet of new tree canopy. Yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair because I'm gonna get in part of this later but the 26 parking spaces does that include where the pumps are at or they consider parking spaces? Those are not considered parking spaces. Okay thanks. And here is that site plan associated with that with that SUP. Here's the I don't know what the black lines are. Here is the here's the building the gas pumps. They had access they have access to Carroll as well as Eagle and Myrtle. And then here is the landscape plan associated with it. They had street trees and some some landscape islands out by by the right of way. So here's what they're proposing. With this request they're proposing 16 additional parking spaces and those are in the yellow. A pedestrian crossing to connect to this sidewalk on Carroll to the the retail building. In order to meet the screening requirements in the Denton Development Code there 's a proposed three-foot masonry wall here that to match the the retail building. And then an inlet filter here which I'll go over in just a minute. Deborah might have additional information. And all of these proposed improvements would result in an impervious surface of 63,963 square feet which is 68%. Just to note that is that meets the Denton Development Code requirements for DCG which which permits a maximum of 85% lot coverage. So to go a little further into that inlet filter what this is it's it's it's a it's a bucket like structure that they put inside and in the existing curb inlet and as water during a rain event flows into that inlet a portion of that water will go into that bucket and through a filter. So it will then filter out as Deborah said floatable so anything that floats as well as any other pollution that's in that water. So that that's what that that filter would do. And the point of that is to reduce the pollutants particularly that are caused by the additional impervious surface. And then yes sir. Commissioner Beth. Thank you Chair. That area where they put the new parking spaces is way back there away from that drainage. Is everything pitched in that direction or? That's a really good question. No. It 's an existing curb inlet and and as we were working with them and as we were talking with them this location you're right this does not necessarily drain here but this area the the pump area would drain there. So we can kind of infer that that's going to be an area that may see a lot of pollution and so since this infrastructure was already there it made sense to put that filter there to have a greater impact on on the runoff and the pollutants suspended within that runoff. But it's actually not going to help the 16 new parking. It won't help that but what it will do and let me I'm gonna show you this is schematic it is not where here this may help because I had the same question. So this is something that the applicant put together I said what is actually draining in there because it's I think it's a good question and and this is this yellow area is what they're showing would would actually potentially drain in that area which does take up some existing parking as well as those pump areas. So yes the the new parking area wouldn't necessarily flow in there but it would accommodate an impervious surface that is equal to or greater than what they're proposing as far as new pervious surface impervious surface . So those parking spaces wouldn't flow in there but other impervious surface on the site which one would imagine could get equally as polluted or have equally as many things drip on it would would flow through that area. This is kind of a what would you call it again say look we can't affect this area but look what we're doing to the area that is disinherited and it's doing much better than it was before. Essentially that is what they're proposing and and this is an existing infrastructure this is where the storm sewer goes to so that that's why it made sense for that location. Okay thank you. The proposal also would reduce the the existing tree canopy down to 25% to 23,800 square feet and here and here's how that's made up. These four trees would have to be actually relocated as as a result of this request and I'll show you those locations in a moment but they're proposing to relocate these four trees. These these trees they are proposing would have to be taken down as a result of this request and there's the location for those those relocated trees. This is kind of just a rendering of what they're proposing part of the reason for this request is that they are adding that side door adjacent to Carroll so they're they're wanting additional parking spaces next to that side door. The considerations that staff looked at since this proposal is purely a modification of an existing use it really is just to renovate an existing commercial use not adding an additional use to the area. It doesn't substantially affect the existing scalar form and it also complies with the with the the impervious cover and and and the building envelope for the governing zoning district for DCG so the impacts on the adjacent properties would be minimal. The inlet filter would address some of the pollution issues that are associated with additional parking so that that would that was a consideration that staff looked at and the request does comply with all of the criteria for specific use permits within subchapter six. Based upon that staff does recommend approval of the request but we do have it subject to some conditions. First that the proposal does substantially conform to the attached site plan, landscape plan, and grading plan is submitted and that includes that five foot REM Triton curb inlet filter with a replaceable REM fog media pack. It should be installed and maintained in the northwest corner of the site as depicted on the site plan. The applicant must submit three reports per calendar year to the planning division demonstrating that the curb inlet filter has been inspected and maintained a minimum of three times per year or when the debris or an accumulation reaches 80% of filtered capacity. Additionally the reports must confirm must provide confirmation that the REM, I think I have a typo there, FOG replaceable media has been replaced at least once per year when the media pack is 50% coated with contaminants. They have to provide that marked pedestrian connection as depicted on the site plan and also maintain relocate those four trees that they are proposing to relocate as shown on the landscape plan. In addition to that staff has one more recommendation and that is for four additional trees to be planted on the site. As a result of this proposal as I discussed the tree canopy would be lowered from to that 25 %. In order to maintain the existing tree canopy on the site we're we're proposing a condition that they do plant four two-inch caliper trees to be planted in accordance with the landscape and tree canopy requirements in subchapter 13 . Yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Did you show us where those four new trees were going? No that would be, yes they would need to be planted as a part of the site plan process and building permit. How many trees are we pulling out? This is the tree survey and I believe it's in your backup as well. I think there are one two three four five trees that were that were being removed some larger and some smaller and I didn't I didn't suggest we didn't suggest five trees because we looked at the overall canopy and so we wanted we wanted to maintain or get close to maintaining that existing canopy. Okay thank you. Sure. Commissioner Hatchbeth. Can we go back and look at whatever you would purport to be your best slide depicting where I'm trying to get my head around exactly where the I have a general idea where the parking space is going but I want to have questions of where the driveway is I'm just not real clear and where the driveway currently is that so I guess it would be the one that it's most south. Yes sir it is this one right here on Carroll. Okay and then so where are the new? It's in the yellow right here. Okay. So there's there 's some behind it and then on the side adjacent to the retail and then and then and then here adjacent to Carroll. Okay and are there no concern I mean because it's pretty difficult to get in there as is right because you're on Carroll and so you're like 45 ish and you slide in and you're gonna have people walking across there which then backs up on to Carroll you get maybe what three cars before so if someone's backing out you know and they're not at all comfortable with it or this I know I mean is that a concern at all? Engineering has reviewed it and and it meets the criteria for approval for for the transportation and for the stacking. Okay thank you. And Earl will come up. It met our I'm sorry it met our minimum stacking requirements from a public library that's our main concern is really backing up into Carroll with these parking parking spaces that you know the car has to wait for a car to back out and exit will that result in a stacking back into Carroll Boulevard and that's those parking spaces are far back are into the side enough to prevent that from happening. Continue sure. Yeah so what is that walk me through I mean because I don't just my experience with that filling station so you have where the crosswalk is you'll have the air station is just to the north of that which in and of itself causes a little bit of a backup and then so most people avoid that second driveway near that crosswalk and they would opt to pull into that back one there and so I just no no the yes right there so I think most people coming on to the site use that entrance and it 's almost before you see the gas station so it's kind of almost like a second thoughts like oh I'll pull in here type thing and so I'm really I'm just curious how many cars you you will stack there I guess is the simplest question if if someone's backing out let's say in the first base of the yellow nearest the building how many cars can you get waiting before it gets on the Carol if a car was in these spaces and happen to block the traffic from entering the site yes how many cars would it would it take to back in the Carol yes sir it is four vehicles four okay thank you commissioner Taylor thank you chair so I noticed on the original site plan there is an area of pervious paving yes and that's approximately where the parking spots are now behind to the yeah so that's and it's ten feet off the building and it's 20 feet wide so if you go to the the new the new site plan that's basically just exactly where those yellow spots are and why was that pervious this is all it was for fire access for fire access so that was not used for so normally nobody volunteers for pervious paving so I was wondering if there was a requirement if they were using per vious paving because they were exceeding some other I am not sure because they don't they don't get close to the the maximum lot coverage so I'm not really sure why they elected to do those pervious there instead of pavement and I guess that that is the most significant addition of concrete is that 34 by 70 is basically all new yes sir that's where most of the 10,000 square feet of new pavement is okay I'll ask some questions and I guess nobody else currently they're at 68 and they're permitted to have 85 percent coverage there they're there as proposed it would be 68 I believe it 's 46 percent how they are now they're way under though from what they could be there have it after this they'll have a 25 percent tree canopy they're only required to have 20 yes so why are they having to plant four two-inch trees and why are they putting in that filter out there when their site is in compliance it seems like they're doing extra things that aren't required they actually are exceeding our required parking and because they're doing that staff worked with them instead of going through the ADP process we actually did work with them on doing an ADP for the excess parking because they are exceeding the the permitted parking so but in the end we said let's just move forward with the SUP because that you know that will be backed up by ordinance so and it's it's approved by City Council so they're actually doing those additional things because they are exceeding our maximum parking with imper vious surface okay so it's the number of parking spaces not not the impervious not the impervious okay great thank you sure Commissioner Beck just one general question is the applicant gonna be here he will be okay he's on his way I hope thank you thank you Julie okay I'm going to that's the last item we have for clarification on our work session so at 6 o 2 we're going to close our work session and we were going to reconvene in this room tonight due to construction and City Council chambers back in this same work session room at 630 thank you good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 14 2016 this meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 635 our first order business this evening will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag honor the Texas flag under God one indivisible there's just a point of order tonight we do not have minutes tonight so I'm going to move on to our consent agenda and since we're in our the council work session meeting tonight we will not have electronic voting will just be doing hand votes tonight so with that on our consent agenda the chair would entertain a motion or if there'd be discussion Commissioner Beck thank you chair I move we approve consent agenda okay second okay I have a first from Commissioner Beck and a second from Commissioner Taylor for approval any discussion or questions seeing none I'll call for a hand vote all those in favor raise your hand right hand all those opposed same sign passes unanim ous six to zero that will move us to our public hearing section and I'm going to open the public hearing for item a which is z 16 - zero zero two five and I will call on Haley for presentation on that I don't have any cars let me announce that just as a second I appreciate everybody bearing with us tonight since we are not in our normal room and we do have cards if you would like to speak I don't know if they're just outside the door tonight if you'd like to speak please fill out a card you can there are cards that will be marked if you'd like to speak and there are cards if you would just like your opinions or questions heard and not wishing to speak there's cards that you can do that if you'll just hand those up here to us we'll take those in and then call on you here as we get into the particular items that your questions or cards are for so with that announcement I'll turn back to H aley to for presentation on this item yes since we have a little bit of a crowd I'll go ahead and run through the presentation from work session so this is case z 16 25 for Country Club Road estates the request was to hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately 15 and a half acres from neighborhood residential 2 to neighborhood residential 3 and to rezone approximately 20 acres from neighborhood residential 4 to neighborhood residential 3 the property is comprised of four parcels of land located on the east side of Country Club Road just south of Regency Court some just for a reference the property is you can see the Country Club and Fort Worth Drive intersection at the north side of the map to give you a reference point there the Regency Oak subdivision adjoins it to the north the Alp aceo addition adjoins it to the east Bent Creek Estates is located just across Country Club Road and then a tributary of Hickory Creek runs north south through the property so as I mentioned earlier currently 15 and a half acres are z oned in our two that's about 43% of the property 20.1 six acres are zoned in our four that makes up about 56% of the property and the proposal is to take all four parcels to the NR3 district the future land use designation is low residential so that allows for single-family subdivisions up to four dwelling units per acre in density this designation encourages new single-family residential development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods and promotes a variety of housing styles types and price points some considerations for this rez oning to NR3 is not inconsistent with the surrounding pattern there is NR3 located across Country Club Road to the west of this property the uses that are permitted within the NR3 district which are primarily single-family dwelling units are consistent with existing development in the area multif amily and duplex uses would not be permitted in either the current or the proposed zoning districts and NR3 is also consistent with the future land use designation of low residential so for comparison here's the general regulations that would apply subdivisions greater than two acres don't have minimum lot sizes we go by a density so NR3 allows up to three and a half dwelling units per acre in comparison the NR2 portion would allow two and our four would allow four dwelling units per acre you can see that in the other criteria and our three is an intermediate between the two existing zoning districts so it kind of provides a smoother transition in scale and density between the current in our two subdivisions that surround this and what's being proposed currently under the two existing zoning districts it would allow for up to a hundred and eleven lots or dwelling a hundred and eleven dwelling units per acre and the proposal would allow for a hundred and twenty four lots or a hundred and twenty four dwelling units per acre the applicant has stated that their intent would be to develop between 73 and 78 lots in this area depending on the final physical constraints that are imposed on the area based on floodplain that exists as you can see here in blue that's the existing floodplain that surrounds that tributary to Hickory Creek and notifications were sent about this we received two in opposition one in favor one that was neutral and one that was undecided and staff is recommending approval of the request because of its compatibility with the surrounding land uses and its consistency with the objectives of the Denton plan 2030 so I'll stand for any questions any questions for staff of the Commission thank you Haley we have some cards while I'm going through the cards I think we have the applicant here who wishes to speak and let him go ahead and call on Lee Allison the applicant or representing the applicant or some additional information and we'll go through cards the public and ask you all to come as well just a reminder since you do represent the applicant you'll have a total of ten minutes and if the applicant would like to speak as well they have ten minutes for a total of 20 between all of you representing the applicant thank you I'm do my best to keep it to three or four my name is Lee Allison with Allison engineering group I'm here representing this project Kent Key could not be here this evening Lance Holdorf our project manager from Allison engineering is with me as well we are for the moment calling this country club estate spending another name at another date I'd like to just supplement the staff comments there's some rumors and concerns that have been going around we heard an indication that somebody thought there was going to be apartments out there well that's absolutely not the case none of these zoning card categories allows apartments at all there had been discussion in some of the comments turned in about a drainage plan well the drainage plan is currently underway we've already started an alternative ESA application we had hoped to bring that through tonight with the zoning but we've learned we have to have an approved preliminary plan so we're working on that and that'll be coming to you hopefully in the near future on the same agenda discussions about traffic of course there'll be traffic that's why the city has a traffic master thoroughfare plan this works well with that I don't think we're punched punching the density enough to affect that and we'll be paying impact fees that will help the city implement its thoroughfare plans one neighbor I believe to the east mentioned some drainage problems and as I read through their comments to the city they sound like some significant drainage problems however that is upstream or uphill from us so we're not draining on to their property nor contributing to those problems at the same time if there's any way that we could work along with the city on our project to leave the problems we will I think Earl can testify at a recent project Meadows Oaks we learned about some far downstream drainage problems after we already had approved construction plans and we went in and redid the street grading on those to avoid that so we're ready to work with those kind of things as that happens the NR2 zoning some concern well there's actually a very awkward zoning situation here as you've seen earlier we got an NR4 in the tan color and NR2 in the yellow the NR4 allows four homes per acre and the NR2 allows two homes per acre it's kind of a weird split with this being over a two acre site we're not subject to the minimum lot dimensions so we could squeeze all the lots in or somebody can squeeze all the lots in as they intend to oops I'm going wrong now I'm really in trouble some have already jumped to our concept plan we mentioned that I know the concept plans are not part of the zoning consideration but our initial concepts if we reclaim the part of the ESA would give us about 73 lots we've put a maximum of 78 Kent wants to have 16,000 square foot lots minimum to the east of the drainage area and about 12,000 square foot lots minimum to west which is much greater than what the code requires again as we go through the ESA and the preliminary plan we'll get to that this is an aerial photograph of the site one thing I want to point out here primarily is all the houses that front Country Club Road the intention is to move those off and get rid of those driveways onto Country Club Road which I think would be an enhancement to the traffic situation let me go back me and this mouse are not getting a question Commissioner Beck thank you chair so are you talking about the houses on the property that face Country Club Road all those what are you gonna what you're moving those he's got a development out in the county somewhere I'm sorry I don't know the locating I can't disclose it I don't know it it's okay but he plans to move those they're still structurally in pretty good condition but they don't fit in with the neighborhood that he's wanting to develop plus all the accesses to Country Club Road and the fact that they all would need individual lots and it just wouldn't work well yeah well that's good news thanks Lee and why in the world can I I'm sorry I may need all ten minutes just to work these power points all right it worked they let me turn on and close all the kid as long as I close without saving okay all right there we go and there was the concept planet this one we're showing a access from I'll try and use the pointer to the east on metal and road to come through and across across the ESA up here because it's developed floodplain and then come back out to Country Club Road we've discussed with staff previously and access to the south however with the master thoroughfare plan and the arterial coming across there were some issues with it but that's not a closed discussion at this time and that shows the extent of the ESA and we're preparing an alternate ESA for to be able to bring that in but not get in not get into the stream buffer ESA just to be able to narrow the the floodplain ESA and recover some property there that's really just primarily mowed grass we're staying outside of the tree line and outside of the floodplain ESA I mean stream buffer ESA but again that's for further consideration and not for consideration tonight just give you an idea where we're headed I'll pause and be available for questions at this time if you have any oh I did want to bring up I'm sorry because it wasn't in my slides the zoning ordinance I think it's always good to look at it comprehensively we're real quick to look at density like how many homes each one allows but at the same time nr3 has a maximum coverage of 50% while nr4 has a maximum coverage of 60% and nr2 of course has maximum of 30 % but you can still put a 3,000 square foot home in nr2 on a 9,000 square foot lot as long as you don't have more than X number lot so even without recovering the flood planes so you could develop in accordance with these existing zones and not get into them but you'd end up with much smaller lots and much smaller homes and a very different appearance than if we can keep the spread out a large lot appearance that Kent is trying to carry through and transition down to the Country Club Road now I'll stop wait for any questions or comments Commissioner back thank you chair you had mentioned in our background information we mentioned that you intend to utilize area around the creek as urban green space within the neighborhood so could you and I know we're dealing with a rezoning issue here but we've touched on the development aspect that can you just detail are we looking at maybe a park or just leaving it open as pure green space basically according to the didn 't development code this area in here would be its own individual lot that would be a green space it would be also for drainage purposes but it could have walking track bike paths through there if it should be continued through other neighborhoods that's a potential if not it's still a green space for this area to utilize individually thank you Commissioner Roselle thank you chair thank you mr. Allison for your presentation just so I'm I'm understanding you correctly this project could go forward with the split zoning the the reason y'all have chosen to come for rezoning is so that the east part of the property would not be forced to be developed denser you want a less dense development on the east side am I understanding that correctly that is correct I'm getting a little better at this basically within the area that's colored tan we'd have to put four lots per acre to get our density out of that with the stream buffer that goes through there and you can kind of see where the creek falls that means let's say there's 20 acres we could get 80 homes in there but we'd be putting all 80 homes in this area right here I don't know that would even get 80 but you know we could pack it in on five six thousand square foot lots on in our four thank you and we're not wanting to do that somebody could not I'll ask a question at this point that property is already zoned in our four yes you all are basically wanting to rezone the whole entire property to in our three yes I think in our four allows in certain instances that you can have duplexes in the site I'm understanding correctly so currently the way it's on somebody could come in and and do duplexes on the in our four part if they wanted to under in our three that's not permitted has to be single-family home so it's almost if you're a neighbor to the east and if you're concerned about the development I would see that the in our three rezone would probably be an enhancement and more of a protection against the possibility what could go in there the way it's owned as is that first statement or that's a very fair statement even though I know people are always concerned about things being developed it is already zoned in our four and actually you're down zoning that portion of the property and asking for an up zoning on the front part from in our two to our three so you're going down against existing neighborhood and going up against country club road okay any other questions for the applicants representative okay thank you Lee appreciate it and I'm not going anywhere so something comes up no did you want to okay I have sir if if you want to if you want to speak you can fill out a card but you can't address the individuals at the podium okay sure you want to have any come back on it's probably a question for okay Earl would you come up and then we've got a question so my question is about traffic routing and the disarray that country club road currently is in and I understand that the applicant was saying that removal of those homes might reduce driveways access to country club but we're also introducing a lot of homes directly on the country club did the city look at what will happen to the neighborhood to the east because I live in the area and my first thought is individuals that want to get down to 24 99 and Geyer they could bypass country club Ryan Hobson and all that mess by just going through the existing neighborhood was that looked at and studied and if so what was the outcome it's really hard to tell because you know traffic depending on where you're going you can assume a split but that's that's what it is it's just an assumption you could head east which then head south to get you to I believe it's Ryan right and that can get you either way either back to country club or to Teasley or you could head north on country club to get the 377 textile is currently going to begin construction on 377 from the highway all the way down just south of country club road they're gonna widen that to six lanes and they're also gonna do some improvements on FM 18 30 which is country club road from Fort Worth Drive to Hobson they're gonna widen that the four lanes just to improve that intersection you know country club road is FM 1830 is a textile roadway the city has in the past applied for signal at Hobson and country club road and was denied by textile because of its vicinity to the intersection with the US 377 we've also performed weren't a signal weren't analysis over at FM 1830 and Ryan as well as 1830 and Hickory Creek and they both did not meet text odds warrants but as soon as it as soon as it does then we'll begin design and construction of those are those warrants explicitly detailed or we all applying trying to figure out what those warrants were how we know we're in rat that threshold text dot has certain thresholds they have eight warrants that we have to meet and and we did not meet those and I know that text dots working in 2017 for the 377 and also that Teasley Lillian Miller is what's the do you know the schedule on 1830 and or Ryan is there any schedule for improvements on those two roads there are no planned improvements pass Hobson for country club at this time but 1830 from Hobson to 377 slated for February 2017 Teasley is I believe it's June of next year okay thank you Commissioner Beck as well no no I have a question for Earl before we move on I was going to offer something to Commissioner Roeville that might alleviate the concern because I I kind of looked at that too how metal land comes in and connects country club to areas East but probably the only people that would use that would be the people in the new development because it does some zigging and sag ging and if you wanted to get a place quick to the issue I think more likely take Hobson or Ryan Roe but that's just an opinion of course I did have a follow-up question for how long ago was a study done on the warrants for Ryan last year last year is that so that did they take into consideration all the new developments that are going in currently on Ryan or is it just a actual traffic it was actually on the ground counts okay and that's what text dot will they will not permit a signal unless it's based on actual on the ground counts okay so we know warrants so when those subdivisions come in the city can go back and do a new train account that's correct with all the new traffic that will be on there and see now if those intersections would meet the criteria possibly for a signal but not until the homes are built the people are in it and the traffic is even worse than it is now and I think we performed a count before last year sometime and it actually did me more and then we went back last year to re-perform those counts at those intersections and it didn 't meet counts I think our traffic department thought there was maybe some redirectional traffic because of 2499 possibly or I guess 2499 to completion 2499 was done recently so okay this may be one more level of detail do they do the count just for the the day or is it during certain times of the day how precise is account because it's a 24-hour count again text out has eight warrants we have to meet the peak our warrant we have to meet a four-hour warrants and an eight hour one okay I know during depending on when what time you 're getting there around school time and work time getting out of those neighborhoods the traffic backup on Ryan and Hobson is extensive during those times later middle of the morning it's not as bad I don't know if there's a particular time that they do or it's not time sensitive it's not time sensitive okay great thank you any other questions for Earl or another staff member actually kind of a comment bringing in some history on cut-through traffic okay sure Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I was just going to say the the master the mobility master plan since the at least the late 1980s had had El Paseo as an arterial connecting from 1832 Teasley and that had not been a popular idea and it finally got removed from from that role about four years ago or so so in theory you know on our 20 year ago plan El Paseo would have come through probably just on the very south side of this property been a major arterial all the way across to Teasley and on both ends there were people fighting it so it won't connect and that does prevent this from being a good way to get to Teasley because if you do manage to get over into the neighborhood on El Paseo you can't really you can get to Montecito but you can't really get out of that neighborhood so you know it does does really limit the amount of cross traffic here as opposed to if El Paseo did connect on the Teasley side you know this would any outlet on this side would immediately become a highway thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Earl I'm sorry I just want to try to understand what you said earlier as far as meeting the war rants you said we met some but not all can you elaborate on that at all no no what I've met was we performed a warrant analysis prior to last year and it actually did meet warrants but there were some questions on the numbers and accounts so we read that we performed those numbers just last year and discovered that it didn't meet warrants okay and do and we don't have a plan to do it again we don't think there's gonna be a significant change from and within 12 months so no plan in place it right now we can I mean whenever we want to it's just there hasn't been a significant amount of development since the last 12 months to to warrant additional traffic okay thanks okay any other questions for staff or I'm going to start calling some of our folks that have requested to speak first card I have is from Donna Zelisco McLaughlin I think 3300 Belmont Street and she is in opposition if you would please come okay if you'll give us your name and address and then that's okay okay Donna Zel isco McLaughlin live at 3300 Belmont Street in Denton I'm also speaking for Rick and Kelly Wisenhunt there are new neighbors at the 3306 Belmont Street house they did not receive a notification of this hearing and they are also in opposition I'm going to read my notes please okay we're all opposed to this proposal for the zoning change for the following reasons one changes in the landscape environment and the property generally located on the east side of Country Club Road and directly west of our property to increase density of the land will enhance the probability of continued flooding of our property we moved to this property in June 2007 our house was the fourth house built on this side of Belmont our property experienced flooding at the time it was built in doing two other rainy storms over the years since then the house south to ours which is the 3306 Belmont Street was built two years before ours had experienced water problems prior to our house being built and also continues to have backyard water issues during extreme rains we have built two French drains and a major retaining wall on the south side of our house in order to control water damage to our property and to the 3306 Belmont property on the north side of our house in order to allow water to flow freely to the street we have not landscaped beyond putting in a lawn the extraordinary amount of water on the north side of the house is the result of higher elevations of the developed properties north of us and from water that flows west of us water continues to drain to Belmont Street on the north side of our house even on days after it stops raining and all you have to do is come and you will see the water coming underneath the front of our lawn going into Belmont Street any environmental or watershed protection protector team should be able to identify this problem area from Belmont Street also if you came during the storm you would see from Belmont from the north side of Belmont Street where the cul-de-sac is it g ushes down so forcefully during an extreme rain that the drain draining cannot empty out from the French drains because the power from coming down Bel mont is strong water has flooded our yard and has reached our back door beside the back door of the house through our patio despite efforts to direct water away from the house there is a distance of approximately 40 feet from our west boundary where a grove of trees also provides a barrier to any kind of water flow since Belmont Street has water gushing from the cul-de-sac which is the north end and because the north end of the street is greatly elevated the backyards in the middle of the estates of El Paso decision that's the homes that are between Belmont and Preetness which is that whole neighborhood of the new development also have had flooding issues due to the natural flow of water in the area when it's extremely rainy the same time when there was flooding in the downtown Denton area which is why all the work was being done in downtown is when we were aware that the neighbors across the street between Belmont and Preetness had backyard flooding issues our neighborhood is zoned in our two the neighborhood occupies the land that the original ranch occupied when it rains a lot funny became a real issue is what we were told by the developer decreasing the available natural environment for runoff that is the rainfall that is not absorbed by the soil will aggravate the existing flooding problem don't matter how many houses if it's cemented over we're going to have worth flooding problems do not change the zoning to increase density in an area adjacent to ours and therefore decrease the property value of the existing homes on our street removal of any of the trees and our for area will matter your four minutes is up okay thank you for your comments I have a couple questions for you Commissioner Rozelle this first thank you chair community Commissioner back next mr. Glockland I appreciate you you coming and speaking tonight my mother actually lived on the east side of Belmont and I'm very familiar with the rain waters that come from the north down everyone's backyard in the center she had a great center fence to allow the water to flow through it's my understanding that that water for the for those houses including your own is from the high elevation of the property to the north and that the property to the west is actually a lower elevation is that correct not front if you come and look at the side the north side of our house between our home and the hills home we were told okay we will originally wanted to put a driveway there we were told we could not because of how the water was coming from the lot that wants to be rezoned okay and if in this is where we're getting water on that side of the house even after it stops raining and and it did yes if there's an elevation on the north but there also is it's not as extreme as the one on the north but waters coming from west from west because our fence line even though we've built up the backyard to the fence line it's still the only thing to do is walk out there and how soggy marshy it is after it rains and then another point not question is the area to the west is actually trying to rezone to a less dense area this evening they're not trying to increase density behind your property I'm not sure if you're aware of that but the the request of the applicant yes that was my next statement you mentioned that you didn't want them to increase zoning that isn't happening tonight that's not even proposed what's proposed is to decrease the density behind your home they want to put more development back there and I'm concerned that the fact we're gonna lose the land that's on the branch that's got the growth the growth of trees and the open land that absorbs water that if it's you know it has residences and driveways and concrete it's the absolute absorption of the water will make our situation worse I understand thank you Commissioner Beck thank you chair thank you miss let's go and clothland let me kind of help me kind of wrap my head around all this now as Commissioner Rossell pointed out you really are getting less density behind you you mentioned yes but there's still gonna be development in there which there will when y'all bought that house did you ever think there wasn 't gonna be any development in there no okay we were told that Meadowlands was probably gonna be extended between where it is now to Country Club and we went back there and we looked at the homes that are in that little a long Country Club room no a long Country Club and you go how do you have to get to that ranch it looks more like somebody's driveway yeah okay and we went back in there and checked it all out okay so we were aware that they were probably gonna be changed so inevitably the development is gonna happen in and really there's not much we can do about that if we leave it like it is though and a developer does come in then they will build in more density directly behind you now mr. Allison explained that drainage shouldn't be an issue with their development he could elaborate on it if he wants to but I would think the fact that you're experiencing heavy flooding right now you know naturally when a development comes in doesn't automatically mean the drainage will increase it could improve because they have to meet certain criteria to to ensure that wherever they develop it doesn't drain on to somebody else's property and again I understand that is a perfect world scenario but nonetheless it could actually get better than worse I'm aware of that but I just believe that I need to have my say and the record concerns are because I'm aware here in Denton where there's been other development that issues have come up granted where there weren't issues okay very good thank you then thank you next speaker is Robert McLaughlin at 3300 Belmont to be followed by Diane Garcia as she's coming the microphone this is a public hearing so anyone that would like to speak on this item please fill out a blue card if you do not want to speak you can fill out a white card but we will need a card for anyone who does wish to speak you'll have can I bring this path I don't know if we have that capability tonight because we're not in our normal it was up a moment ago okay great in the slide packet great thank you my mistake will get back to that slide I thought you had something you wanted to put on the overhead camera , okay. I see okay. Okay. I'm Robert McLaughlin under 3300 Belmont Street. I wanted to read a statement that's included in your packet of information here that said the purpose of the neighborhood residential zoning districts is to preserve or protect the existing neighborhoods and to ensure that any new development is compatible with the existing land uses patterns and design standards. I would contend that we haven't met that compatibility requirement because the vast majority it doesn't show on this map well but the vast majority of the existing neighborhood is the Forest Ridge-El Pasayo area which incorporates several hundred acres to the east and city staff has identified the small Bend Creek Estates area it's the NR3 area as a cross country club as the area that we're comparing to so I'm kind of like we've got a tree but we're comparing it to a single leaf the El Pasayo area is much much more established and I think is the area that we should be comparing to so my point would be I recognize the fact that the NR3 development or designation is somewhat of an improvement from NR4 but I feel like you haven't asked them to go quite far enough if you want to preserve the El Pasayo Forest Ridge designation and how it's all put together this lot should be all NR2 and then as it's developed it was going to be much more compatible with what we have there I think you would have somewhere between 65 and 70 homes I understand from mr. Allison's presentation that they're producing 78 73 to 78 what worries me is if if mr. Loughlin could we get you to speak in the microphone because they're having a hard time hearing you in the back we record the meetings thank you quite all right my concern with the NR 3 designation is once that's granted is there anything which would impede or prohibit the maximum development of that land which would be up to about 125 homes okay I didn't think so so my request would be that I think that in our two designation is much more appropriate to this property and that I would urge you to reject this request from the developer and ask them to represent it as an NR 2 and to preserve the forest region El Pasayo area thank you Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I appreciate your feedback I currently live in the NR 2 that you're speaking of and I appreciate the considerations that that you're making mr. Allison and his presentation said that to the east of the floodplain area there are going to be lots of 16,000 square feet which is 0.36 acres which is the roughly the current size of the lots to the west of Belmont and then certainly into forest rich proper 0.36 acres is on par with the forest search development correct we're close but not quite there in the sense of yeah there are parts of forest ridge that do have some smaller lots than the 0.5 acres but an NR 2 would give us the larger lot size less coverage on the lot and we would be more compatible with several hundred homes which exists there I understand that the NR 2 though the actual property wouldn't be half acres when you actually consider roads drainages coverage so the density for foresters although in our two I don't know if there's any half acre properties in forest rich proper you know old phase one phase two of forest ridge they're going to be less than half acre lots so even if we had in our two designation which you might be proposing they wouldn't achieve a half acre designation for clarification all right I don't know if that would be a possibility well I can only speak for my home and certainly partly from my neighbors but we have half acre lots there along Belmont Street so we knew that this area would be developed as you had pointed out that was no surprise but we had always been led to believe that when it was developed it would be a continuation of the Alpacao development and would be developed in the same residential zoning capacity or I'm not sure which one I'm looking for there and so the NR 3 is a bit of a surprise and kind of a rude surprise it's not what we were expecting to have happen sure thank you any other questions thank you sir appreciate your comments next speaker I have is Diane Garcia speaking in opposition to be followed by Paul Wadley hello I'm Diane Garcia I live at 120 West Alpacao which goes is the intersection with Belmont and I am quite concerned about this proposal I'm concerned about the traffic flow and the fact that people wishing to make the connection with Meadowlands is going to come are going to come assuming they'll help us say I'm to make the current the turn I really ask and I'm sure this has been considered but has it been seriously considered that all accesses be off Country Club Country Club is already a mess and so this would just be part of it I'm also concerned about the density rating and as most of the McLaughlin said I would I appreciate the lowering from in our four to three and I would appreciate more serious concerns toward the in our two for this great thank you thank you for your comments any questions thank you ma'am next speaker will be Paul Wadley followed by Lisa Hill thank you everyone for allowing me to speak I live at 801 Regency Court which is on the northern border of the proposed development and we've kind of been in our own little world for a long time just kind of houses right off of Country Club and we've seen developments go up directly across Country Club and it affected the traffic significantly there are times of the day where you look to my left and there's cars backed up from hops and for miles my concern is traffic number one on a more selfish concern the back my backyard is lined by some very tall lovely trees I would hate to see those go for me to look at another neighborhood think it would significantly affect all the value of the properties on that northern border and kind of our own formerly isolated land on the plus side I think moving those houses on Country Club sounds like a stellar idea there's currently heavy metal music played from one of those houses till 1 2 a.m. most nights of the week so having that gone would be phenomenal but I'm concerned about the trees mostly traffic secondarily and would mostly just like to talk to mr. Allison about the plans for preserving natural beauty of that line thank you commissioner Hesbeth what just so I can get I'm gonna look afterwards what is your address again you know one Regency right there on Country Club where it's become quite busy thank you sir sure thing Commissioner Beck thank you chair I was hoping Commissioner would ask but can you point out where your property is located you were concerned about trees this is my property here okay right on the corner and our backyard line is lined with trees that are pretty impressive tall trees I see cranes live in those trees but I looked and they're not protected species or anything so I can't get away with that okay great thank you before you go hey would you raise your hand mr. Watley may want to get with you about his concern about trees that's our specialists here in the student with trees that can tell you how our tree code will kick in on this property so maybe that be a we love trees you may want to friendly after the meeting or maybe telephone call and he can tell you how those trees will have to be preserved yeah that would be lovely thank you okay our next speaker will be Lisa Hill to be followed by John Pimento good afternoon my name is Lisa Hill and we live right next door to the McLaughlin so I concur with everything they both said when we moved into the neighborhood we knew that there would be development in the back but I concur because we want the neighborhood to be consistent with what it is now and I know development does happen different things does come in but as far as to keep you know as far as the property values to keep everything now I wasn't aware because I didn't have a chance to really study everything you mr. strange you had made a because we're right now it's going to be zoned but in our form it's currently in our four is going to be three that's correct okay it's going down but we prefer to if at all possible but anyway bottom line is to keep the nature of the beauty the trees the flooding and I do know what they're speaking of because we did see we had the city to come out and it is I mean yeah it's a lot of flooding there so I would ask them to take that in consideration we would like to keep it at level zoning to fit all possible thank you okay thank you next speaker will be John Pimento he is in support and then followed by Troy Johnson did I get I'm sorry somebody's handing cards I apologize that we've we got you're correct it is 3b my mistake some of these are marked and some are not our next speaker will be Troy Johnson that's the last card that I have here requesting to speak okay and I want to thank the city the staff can you just in the microphone for the guys like will you give your name and full address sure please Troy Johnson 3200 Belmont thank you sir all right it'll be brief since I guess I'm the last one in between this gentleman here maybe thank you for a careful consideration I don't have a lot to add because I think many people have said many things good things about development we certainly understand that that's the nature of where we live in the excitement of our area also important things about scenery about wildlife about mr. widely I look forward to getting to know him and maybe work with him some I hope you're you're also mindful maybe one of the things I didn't hear about is is school density and impact on schools as you continue down this path of development and the readiness for the school districts to be able to manage especially if there are 120 or so homes if that's what I heard versus 50 fewer homes which is a lot fewer children as you might expect I do agree with a lot of my neighbors there the traffic patterns are going to change and I'm glad that you understand that neighborhood well and I know all of you have probably driven through there some time or another that will become a good thoroughfare especially with ways the mobile app that helps us find shortcuts that's a good being on it and that track that stop sign is going to get run and it's going to be a dangerous kind of intersection the way that it curves and s is right there and so I appreciate a lot of thought from us on a part of city planners developers as we move forward to get that right for the safety of children that are walking home from the school bus it's quite a ways down or just people that are walking their dogs during the day and at night and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have Commissioner Hedgesmith so if I were to put you on a spot and say give me a number of houses that use that fit in that square what number comes to your mind that's a fair amount of homes to fit in that that marked area no I'm on the frontier my knowledge on that one so you got me there but I do like the discussion about lot size being somewhat comparable being in that 70 range you know the lower the lower certainly feels like it's commens urate with the development of the community and what what's what's all around that particular lot I thought there was a really good summary about what the nature of that kind of area is and so something that's kind of commens urate or matching in that so great answer if I may and so if I were to represent to you that the developers talking round numbers point three six of an acre and the bulk of those houses on Belmont are point three eight so we're talking about point oh two difference for the majority your your property is about point four seven there's one about point five on that street but all all total we're right about point oh two let's round it up point oh four difference of an acre that's that's consistent and do you agree or do you think point oh four matters that's a that's a great question the thing that I would be curious about is whether that point three six is an average or if it's a minimum size you see there's a difference because point three six could mean you have some that are point five and some that are two point two five and point two five lot is a very different size lot than a point three six and so most of these I think the smaller you might have mentioned was point three six I think some of my neighbors probably have about that and so I would say it kind of depends what your point three six really represents but if it's in that range then you know we're talking pretty commensurate but if you're getting down a quarter acre size and such and even a third of an acre you know that would represent smaller I think smaller than the smallest in that area so you see where I'm coming from okay thank you sure thank you yes thank you for your comments thank you all for your time again this is a public hearing anyone who wishes to speak please come forward at this time and then you can fill out a card I have one email from Andrea and Steve Shula at 601 Regency Court and quote they are not completely for or against it so I'm going to put them down as a neutral and their major concerns are traffic and drainage if there's anyone else that would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time before I close the public hearing if we have a question you can come back up do we have a question I believe mr. McLaughlin has a question for me that we didn 't get answer previous okay commissioner Beck and you may have a question for you please come back to the microphone because our rule is you get one opportunity and we kind of sometimes can do get around that with a question mr. Mc Laughlin did you have a question for me I had an answer or a question whichever you need the question was posed did we have an idea of how many homes would be the optimum number and that would be not to exceed 70 and 60 would be better commissioner has but do you have a question yes sir so the overall acreage I don 't have it in front of me but round numbers I mean can we agree that we're talking in your numbers where eight houses different from what's proposed okay so I 'm not saying eight houses eight houses don't matter I just wanted to normalize the conversation to make sure I mean and that's fair I mean I noted your answer before and I was just trying to get the poll the other neighborhoods other people who live in neighborhood to see if that number resonates with everyone so that that was the purpose for the question but but thank you thank you appreciate it thank you seeing no one else wishing to speak I'm going to close our public hearing at this time and I'll open the floor for discussion or emotion mr. Taylor thank you chair I just want to I think everybody on the commission's aware and hopefully most of the audience is but I'd like to bring up two things we are talking about a development that is suggesting 73 to 78 houses and you know Allison engineering is reputable we have dealt with them a lot they work on a lot of projects in town but we can't see unforeseen circumstances so we really do need to think about this as the maximum possible because if you know the landowner goes bankrupt or another financial crisis happens or any number of things leads to this piece of property being sold it can be developed at whatever the zoning is that exists the second point is this property can be developed right now at the zoning it exists at now and we can't even even if tonight we tried to rezone it to NR to the developers already applied for an application and so they get to follow the regulations of the date that they applied for their application they filed their application so they could come in if we change it to NR to right now they could build at NR for density so we can't really turn back the clock or roll this to NR to the the the choices we have are make it in our three and make it consistent or leave it the way it is basically so I just want to I just want to bring that up that that we we don't want to talk too much about 70 or 73 or 78 and we don't we can't really feasibly talk about all of this as if it were in our two with 71 houses allowed in our two densities because right now it's in our four and that allows about 112 or 113 total houses so just wanted to bring up those two points in our discussion did you have Commissioner Ellis now come to you Commissioner I think you're here I actually was hoping to ask mr. Allison a question absolutely can we bring him back up yes thank you mr. Allison is there a way you can elaborate for us why you you cannot do NR to hear how that would affect your your project and why you are requesting NR three could could you elaborate that point for for us in our audience I can get back to trying to get to my presentation I can't find it I'm somebody else's apologize I'll do my best to try and explain for mr. key that's one of the reasons we brought this slide in as well we weren't trying to to disguise anything we feel like that in our three less is too close to what we can do today Kent really doesn't want to do the smaller lots at the same time he's got an investment there and needs to get a return on the investment and the NR three allows up to 124 but to go to NR two would just put him way too low compared put him down into the into the 70 range and believe it or not three or four more lots can make quite a bit of difference so he is looking for that as mr. Taylor pointed out what's there can be done these densities you need to look at because it is correct another reason we brought this chart up is you 've really got to look at the zoning and how that affects the overall site but I also wanted to point out with the ESA limits and the proposed ESA alternate ESA if we come back I'm taking a long time to answer your question I apologize but with this it's very difficult to get even with the NR for that high density in this area because of the lot coverages and the set building setbacks and those kind of things so the NR three seemed like a good compromise and an overall upgrade compared to what was there relative to what's over here and with his plan that we've come up and we're sticking with the the I mean this plan shows 73 I don't really see it it changing but we said 78 to give us a little wiggle room as we go through the processes with the city one thing we might consider and I'm not sure how best to do it would be to eliminate this piece of road right here we could have two entries well we've got two shown here now we could move it down here and keep it there this side wouldn't be a problem this could be an issue because of emergency access and more than needed and maybe we build that as an emergency access only for some reason not keep it open one of the reasons we put the z-shaped road in here was to discourage the through traffic the cut through traffic and it was our understanding that even though not as an arterial and maybe I misunderstood but I thought Alpacaille was still shown as a collector coming all the way through so it may not be going through as an arterial but will be going through as a commercial collector which is essentially what it is today and that's what's really going to take the cut through traffic in the future and when you look at the amount of money you put in for p aving and different things to go with the infrastructure he's just trying to find an economically feasible number here but he's also looking to keep these lots on the higher side and also back here to help transition from the bigger lots through bigger lots to a little bit smaller on this side and again I think when we come back with the ESA if we come back with an ESA and try and look at doing 120 lots that's where you say you don't get the ESA so you're kind of stuck with some physical constraints that keep us you know sometimes it's the practical limitations not the actual specific zoning numbers that that minimize or determine what we can really do on the site so when you look at the zoning along with the existing environmentally system of areas it 's it's tough to even do the NR4 out there I mean still be done but it'd be even uglier than all but if we get the ESA and do this this will be a nice site. Well you're up there Lee if you don't mind I'm glad you have this map up this is a topo map essentially that you have on there as well as can you speak on your professional opinion as to how with the essentially two cul -de-sacs that you have coming up on the east side of your property how that will pick up water and the city requirements for I believe it lots have to drain to the streets how that may improve some of the drainage issues that we've heard about this evening. Yes I can our focus has been primarily on the floodplain itself but as we look at this topo map there is a ridge along here and you can see there is a small area that does drain back to the east and that would go into the yards that are having some complications with these cul-de-sacs here we'd be cutting down and we can make sure that all of these areas drain into the cul-de-sacs and into the creek and away from those homes additionally we'd have probably some storms so we're maybe not this far back but if there are some other problems that our development doesn't directly solve we might work with the city to extend some storms who are to resolve some city problems in that area possibly I don't know we haven't studied it but there's potential there. Okay. Commissioner Rossell. This is more clarification maybe for own edification but it fits here if this was an NR2 zoning the spaces in which they can't develop they can displace that density elsewhere do you know off the top your head what the lot sizes would be condensed down to an NR2 I mean wouldn't it be I'm just thinking it'd be point four and change. Well if we were to develop with this ESA and the whole things NR2 would probably bound in the 12,000 square foot per lot by the time you allow for streets and things if we get an alternative E SA and we're in the NR2 probably more than 14,000 square foot average per lot again as I think you were pointing out earlier and I'm gonna be off the chart here but you know 35 acres NR2 70 lots we could make this one lot and we could make this 69 lots you know just to help shift it around because the code when you 're over two acres doesn't doesn't set a minimum lot size it basically sets an average and the number of lots is based on the gross acreage of the development that you know NR2 doesn't mean a half acre lot it's probably more in the point four acres some of these lots I did look earlier depending on you found some more in the point four point three six range there were some out there further away that are more like into a point five but it varies thank you I 'll make one other comment one of the issues that probably has not been discussed it's gonna be the lot coverage and depending on whether it's an NR2 or an NR4 or a compromise in the middle of NR3 you're gonna get a difference in the lot coverage to on on these and that's part of the issue I assume from what I know about the developers is one of the driving issues on this is to make this a little more of a consistent development and then also because a lot coverage to make the lots be essentially buildable lots and I think that's another issue that will probably be brought to us and discuss maybe in more detail when you all come back for preliminary platting in your ESA but I think that 's just for the Commission that's another big issue that's going to come before us as to why this is where Quest was made to begin with any other questions for mr. Allison thank you again our public hearing is closed so we 're in discussion or motion commissioner back thank you chair just some comments and then I'll make a motion I have heard the concerns of the citizens around that and I understand that course increased traffic drainage issues is a legitimate concern honestly feel though any changes we have in traffic is to distinguish between and in our to development and an NR4 you know is is not going to be that consequential if we're looking at road development on Hobs on that's going to expand it and Ryan Road eventually you know those are going to be the default roads to get from Country Club to the Teasley and all that the way this is set up it's going to actually discourage any cutting through is my opinion the developer if we get in once we get into that I'm vaguely familiar with them they're very eco-friendly I think that the concerns people have about trees and everything will be a laid once we see what the developer has in store he's been before us on several occasions and he's expressed a genuine concern for environmentally sound areas keeping things intact as they are so as difficult as it may be you know to cross paths with the homeowners that oppose this I'm going to move that we approve this okay the motion for approval I have a second second Commissioner Taylor second any discussion Commissioner Hesbeth yeah I just I struggle with the options Commissioner Taylor pointed out and I think the most encouraging thing for me is Mr. Allison's willingness to meet those concerns so really I've boiled those concerns down to the traffic on Country Club Road which we as a city have no control over so assuming he works with the neighborhood to mitigate the water assuming he works with the neighborhood to to preserve trees where he can and he's articulated those things he's articulated the willingness to shift she streets around to make it less cut through friendly if you will I really I mean there's nothing we can do about this body can do about Country Club Road and so just just thinking out loud I think that that's why I'm at peace with it is just because he's touched all the concerns of the neighborhood and did not go where we've seen some go worse just hey here's my project here's what I 'm gonna do and and everyone can pound sand I mean he's he's shown a willingness to to be pliable and I think that's that's that's commendable so anyway I think I think he mitigates the concerns of the neighborhood and removes that in our for label that's hanging out there currently and then we don't have any say so and what goes there so I want to take advantage of that why we can Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I just wanted to thank everyone for coming out and helping us have this conversation and dialogue through this and bring up points that help contextualize this I can say living in the neighborhood if there is individuals that cut through I'm gonna I'm gonna be a victim to it I'm gonna have to deal with El Paseo that stop sign where it's run often and I'm sure I've seen most people that spoke tonight in my passing on the way to work or coming home so I'm familiar with the area and I and certainly will be interested in anxious to see the new traffic patterns and hoping that tech stock can can approve some stoplights but I think based on just the flood plane going through someone mentioned earlier that we're looking at a tree or leaf not a tree and I feel to some extent that might be true except that it it seems that the floodplain in existence kind of forces these lots to be kind of capped at a certain size this doesn't seem I don 't see the economics of putting half acre lots in their unit of his NR two and there's an opportunity right now to make sure duplexes are not built on that property and so for the reasons independent of what Mr. Taylor saying of the development going in this still secures this property to a point that encourages I think a higher level of development that then it currently stands and so for those reasons and with great hope that the traffic is resolved for the approval of this nobody else any coming I'm gonna make comments to you I'm echo what I said earlier and Commissioner just Rosal just said is that currently this is in our four and so we don't typically get a lot of down zoning cases here before us and I think it's for the neighborhood to the east this is a great opportunity for it to be down zone from what could go there right now as in our four to NNR three I think gives a neighborhood a lot more protection than what you could face within our four and really no say so about it and so for that reason alone I'm I'm going to support this this evening I also believe that because of the design that has been put before us which were they're not bound to this is a concept but familiar with the developer and other projects that they've done that I'm sure they have taken that into account to make it more difficult to get in and out of that neighborhood versus just a straight shot do West that might make it more of a cut through that I think that is a good first step we'll have an opportunity look at that when they bring it back and the final reason I'm gonna support it is because I have heard the neighbors concerns about the drainage and I think when the streets get in here sooner rather than later and they have to meet the development code to have those slots drained to the street that some of your issues will get addressed that right now if this doesn't move forward you may be having to contend with those for some time longer so for those three reasons I'm going to support this as well and unless anybody else has a comment I'm gonna call for a hand vote this evening all those in favor please raise your right hand all those opposed same sign and the motion to approve carries six to zero thank you all for coming out this evening that will move us to our item 3b and I'm going to give them we can I exit your presentation give the room just a couple more minutes to kind of clear since we're kind of small and then we'll open our next item here I know I'm like somewhere we're kind of having a de facto break here you want me just to call it for five minutes here I tell you what we've got a few more people trying to clear the room and I think a couple people needed to take a quick break I'm a caller recess at 750 I'm Julie Wyatt this is s 16 6 quick trip do you want to go over the whole presentation again or do we want to do the summary okay all right we'll do the summary all right the request before you is to consider a modification of an existing approved SUP to permit 16 additional parking spaces at the quick trip location at the corner of Carroll and Eagle staff has reviewed the request and compared it against the criteria for approval and does recommend approval and let me get down to the with conditions that the proposed development substantially comply with the site plan landscape plan and grading plan as they have been submitted which includes and I'll summarize the installation of a curb inlet filter with an irreplaceable REM fog media pack at the northwest corner of the site and that it should be three reports should be submitted to the planning department per year demonstrating that it is being maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions that they place a marked pedestrian connection between the the sidewalk on North Carroll and the retail building that they do relocate those existing trees on the site that can be saved and staff also recommends an additional four two inch caliper large canopy tree trees to be planted in accordance with sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code I can stand for any questions and the applicant is also here so thank you chair hi Julie hi hey just a question back about that filter in the reports what is in those reports or how did we come up with three a year would would do and are we as a city we're just in trusting them to do that or we're gonna look at these filters or just elaborate on sure that's based upon the manufacturers specifications for maintenance and yes they would be submitted to planning if if for some reason they didn't work as they were supposed to or they did not maintain them in accordance with this SUPs can be revoked by the City Council so there is some some checks and balances with that do the reports come from the manufacturer or telling them what to put in they would come from the applicant just just reporting to us that they have maintained that's all that that's really gonna say is we've done it here's the date we've done it yes ma'am yes ma'am but we're not gonna check it well and hopefully we don't we we don't always have the manpower to go out there and do the inspections we 'd like to and and and Deborah's here and she may be able to add she knows a lot about the I swim and best management practices for that good evening the Robiera with environmental services and sustainability pretty much what we have is a control that is trying to deal with two aspects the floatables and the pollution in the water they the media the filtering media that they're using is for fog which stands for fat oils and grease and pretty much what they're collecting is all the oils that my wash out from from that parking surface and then they will call that also the floatables this is a site that they're pretty much retrofitting they only have one curb inlet on site so that's what they're using those controls are good as long as they're maintained properly according to the manufacturer so it would be upon the the applicant to actually keep them up it's my understanding that the QT corporation have a maintenance division who deals with this type of controls these controls are not new to them they have using in other facilities as well so they're familiar with it so with the history of maintenance and knowledge about it staff feel comfortable that they will be able to proceed and do the maintenance accordingly and we don't have anything as a city that that checks checks on these at all we currently don't however when we don't see when when those controls are start malfunctioning it would be visible people will start complaining about it so at that time probably is when stuff will be able to go in and check for those the other thing is most of the time when we move from the design a stage where the engineers put them all those controls is up to the manager or the owner of that business to actually know about it perform their maintenance and so on so I think that it's a learning process not only from the design you know you have this you have for now on to follow up and that's I believe is why staff is required all those conditions to be put on the ordinance as a reminder of what is needed to be done thank you chair I was just curious how many other I guess sites or developments in Denton currently have do some kind of reporting every six months or years well actually the razor range who have some specifications about the reporting of the BMPs that they have put in place the other businesses that they have controls like bio life they have a skirt inside the inlet that is intended to filtrate chewy have also a similar device on the parking lot they are not required to put controls I'm sorry they're not required to provide reports of it however as again in those instances where we have seen malfunctioning or evidence that they are not being properly maintained we most of the time approach whoever is the manager and as long as we tell them hey do you know that you have an alternative development plan or you have something that makes you maintain them they act on it sometimes because they they don't know and so right now you said razor ranch that that would be is that an MPC no the razor range is actually an overlay district okay so the so an overlay district ADP or SUP are those those are or maybe an ESA those are the only types of his little of instruments that would require this or do some general drainage plans are not actually it will be most of the time for example you can have excess parking as long as you use pervious surface okay so is in those instances when you don't provide the previous surfaces that you go through some sort of alternative mechanism so in this case have been overlay districts could be NPCs master plan communities specific use permits alternative development plans any other questions for Denver thank you Julie I think you were going through some I think we got to the first two conditions I'll just repeat and then the marked pedestrian connection we would require that as part of it can as a condition to relocate those existing trees where those proposed parking spots would be and then staff also is recommending that they plant for two inch caliper trees in accordance with our sub chapter 13 requirements in order to to maintain the tree canopy that that's similar to the tree canopy that exists today commissioner Tyler thank you chair so when you say relocate you mean relocate that exact tree not okay was that hey is that a preferred solution or was that just what the applicant offered or that's what they offered and I know Haywood talks to applicants about that a lot that you can that you can reloc ate trees if you if you do it correctly and and make sure that you take care of it so they can save them and and they don't don't have to go away so that was something that they proposed normally we see shall be mitigated with or shall be replaced by so when it said relocated I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the right commissioner better monkey and on that so if trains planning any of those they die within a set period of time we can make them replace it our our landscape code does require that they maintain them and I believe it 's for a period of three years that three years they're looked at and that they have to irrigate them and make sure that they stay alive okay thank you I'm good if I'm current on that any other questions for staff thank you Julie thank you I have one card for speaker I've got it right now I think John Piment el if you'll give your name and address and looks like you're in support and you 'll have four minutes are you the applicant yes I don't have to do a car got ten minutes or okay perfect I go with the four John Pimentel address is 3708 Beatrice Drive here in Denton I'm a real estate project manager for a quick trip the reason why we're wanting to do this is we're going back to our sites our number one complaint and it's kind of sound it's a good problem to have but it's we're just too busy particularly here in three out of our Denton three out of four of our Denton stores is top 20% in DFW I worked at stores for nine years and I worked at both stores that were this one and hopefully next month the one on 35 there's busy stores and recently we don't have any here in then unfortunately but we have some of the sites with four entr ances this one has one so we just kind of causes a lot of congestion problems in the store and if you ever been to the store the 135 is just the lot circulation is very poor just don't have enough parking spaces and again that's our number one complaint that we received for these two stores and with that I just really want to open up to any questions you may have okay Commissioner Burke thank you chair thank you for your presentation fair warning I'm an opponent of more and more parking spaces I'm in fact I've tried to encourage city staff to review didn't development code and consider eliminating the required parking space so justify 16 parking spaces for that particular site keeping in mind I realize you'll have that door on one side but you've got a lot of student population there that's gonna ambulate you know they're not gonna drive so taking that into consideration do you really think it's gonna require 16 parking spaces to handle what you suspected is gonna be oh absolutely yes sir if we could possibly put more you probably would we do get a lot of foot traffic at this door from the college students but we get a lot of car traffic as well and we're experiencing issues now with actually parking at the pumps when they're not actually needing to get gas I'm including those college students who don't need to get gas and they'll just park there and it's just holding up parking or a spot or a fueling position for our customers okay thank you yes sir Commissioner O'Zell thank you chair Commissioner Beck I've frequented this quick trip and so I can tell you at about 740 745 in the a. m. I am frequently parking at a pump or leaving this location because it is slammed packed and so I can totally I understand and I'm typically with you at the reduction of parking a lot of places but I can certainly see a need for this because they're certainly missing out on business because their parking situation is really it's bad in the mornings it is crazy and I would like to say we actually would not want to add more parking you know just cost extra you know but it's just again dictated by customer feedback and need and this is actually as busy as it is we have two other den stores that are far busier than than this one so the one on May Hill is our best store in Dallas Fort Worth that is not a travel center so Commissioner Hespeth yeah I just want to add one nugget I am concerned a little bit about and I know you're adding an entrance there so maybe it'll fix it but just for to add a note I'm curious about the security features from behind the building because you have the yeah the day labor center you have the people I mean I mean the homeless population in Denton is just growing right so so they kind of hang out so if you're looking at the front door they hang out to the left there on the side of the ice machine and so now you give them access around a building and so if I have college students walking up let's say or someone from the laundry mat down I just I would just I don't know what that's what that looks like in practice I would just say hey I am generally concerned about parking around back if there's not lighting or some other things done to try to and again there's gonna be entrance there so it's gonna be going in and out sure I just I do have some concern not enough doesn't rise to the level where I'm against it it just is a concern no it's a valid concern and actually I'm happy you brought that up because about two years ago we went through a whole 50 million dollar security project and every square inch of the store is filmed and monitored I think in Tulsa and I think one per every ten stores or so is being watched at same time and it's it's and I'm not exaggerating it's the best in retail the Federal Reserve actually came to us and asked us how we can go about it for banks we hired a former general who running our security team and it's bar none of the best security system there so we're bragging about that but it's it's absolutely true no and I don't disagree but this is a little pet peeve of mine sure I'm going to tangent you can go you can go to the post office and you have great pictures of people are looking for finding them is a tricky part so so the fact that you capture on video you know you got I mean I wanted to be more preventative then we have a video of them and if you see them call us yeah and I'm not saying that's your practice I'm just saying I don't I take little comfort and when people I mean it happens often but it and so I'll say it's a pet peeve of mine but people say hey I have a video system and there's pictures of them but you can't you know you got to get them and so I just want to I just want to I think y'all are on top of it and that's great to know because then I wanted to champion you know what y'all are doing and for our community that I think so I appreciate that commissioner back it wasn't brought up but we you'd be adding lighting in the back there yes sir okay thanks any other questions for applicant thank you sir for your presentation since there's no one else in the room I'm gonna take it that there aren't any more speakers and I'm gonna close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Hesbuth I move approval with the conditions yes with the the conditions that staff is as laid out okay Commissioner Rozelle second okay we have a first and a second for approval with the conditions that are in the backup and that staff has read into the record with the first and second on any discussion or other questions the only question I have is when I meant to ask the applicant when you were up you can just shake your head were you okay with all the criteria that we had for approval conditions if you don't mind if you've got comment if you 'll give it to the mic I'm sorry thank you I thought about saying something on my way back to the seat we can comply with all of them the only one I would I would ask maybe to deviate from is to add the four extra trees the only reason I say that kind of goes to your concern as if you kind of look at the site plan back there we kind of have a bunch of trees there and with the kind of long crew problem that we have at that store we kind of don't want them hanging out behind in that area specifically not only that but in in for the future if we want to expand even more kind of expand to more so our current store if we're able to acquire more land it just would kind of make it easier on us just kind of make it easier for us to be able to develop and not have to remove those trees as well I'll follow up I think we have somewhere in here about moving some existing trees you know what size the existing trees are approximately I do not not off the top my staff would know how big the existing trees are okay so you're moving for six inch trees you don't have a problem with that you're asking about for two inch trees adding those yeah absolutely and really I just wanted to state that even with their removing some trees were still five and square feet of square feet over the canopy on the parking area and 48 hundred square feet as a whole for the entire development so well over other what dent requires okay I'll ask motioning Commissioner if you want to amend your motion for the four two-inch trees or leave as is can I call Hayward up was that absolutely yeah mr. Hayward does eight inches of tree matter what which give me give me your thought on you like that awesome I'm proud of me well the additional trees of course as canopy to the city being an area where there's a lot of traffic a lot of emissions they help you know to purify their clean air so of course it matters because it's this future tree canopy for the city there are a number of mature trees on the site of alone that believes the south boundary one thing when you're looking at managing trees you look at you know having a diversity of age of your your trees on a site or in a city so as some of those older trees are dying off you have some of the younger trees to take their place so it's kind of a circle of life type thing we're having discussion have you got a military finish have you got another follow-up or comment with Haywood no so I'm just thinking out loud I'm gonna leave the four trees but I would be willing to have Hayward in the applicant discuss location because I think his point is valid and I take him at his word that if they're expanding if they're doing something to kind of place them where it's it 's user-friendly and easy on them and still doesn't lower the requirement or a request okay so you were not going to amend the most we're gonna leave it as is I think the site plan had a designation for the trees went to I believe the four trees have removed yes but I'm saying if that if that location does not work for the applicant and there is a different location that the applicant then is more at peace with than they they can work that out okay I don't know if that's we have any concerns legal the site plan for consideration by council thank you okay no then I'll leave it as is and just leave it okay thank you do we have any other discussion we have a motion and a second for approval with all the conditions that were listed as as in the backup and per staff am I correct on your motion that is correct and I welcome discussion okay any discussions before we take a vote on the board you know Commissioner else thank you chair I'll just say what I was going to say but I'm glad you're not changing your motion just you know what we need the trees here I mean we were just you know graded as one of the worst heirs in DFW I mean we need trees you know so the suggestion by staff I think is a good one to to add the trees and I hope you can do that and thank you Commissioner Taylor thank you chair and I do think there are opportunities but I'm just looking at the the landscape plan as it is now and the species isn't specified so they could be smaller they could and there are places along the road frontage you have a pretty steady canopy but there are gaps in the canopy and around the new parking area there's a big island it's about a 15 or 20 foot diameter island put one over there and I mean I just feel like there are places to put to plant four trees of a medium variety without adding to the forest behind the building necessarily so those were going to be my comments on it okay Commissioner Rizzo to both Mr. Ellis and Commissioner Taylor's point I I would might ask Commissioner Hussbett to make an amendment to free up it's my understanding that the the motion on the table right now would actually define those trees are placed correct not the new trees just the ones that are being relocated so the way the motion has been placed these four additional the site plan only delineates where the trees are to be relocated but the four new trees it does not have a space for correct it does it does it's actually eight trees total it's four moved and then four new those in the side plan that those are the relocated trees yes sir those are the relocated so the new trees they have discretion yes sir okay then I take back everything I I did want to staff did in there in our yes yeah okay my only comment is I'm gonna go ahead and vote for approval with the conditions but I do want to bring up for the applicants point they're still 25 percent and they're only required 20 so they're above and beyond what's required and I know the reason for that was because of the parking number of parking spaces but as far as a minimum they are already above so with that I'm going to call for a vote hand sign all those in favor of approval with conditions please raise your right hand all those opposed same sign seeing none motion carries six zero for approval with the conditions congratulations and good luck with your project that will take us to our project matrix and conclud ing items okay I did get the request from the last meeting and I have communicated that information to Deborah Vieira in Earl's so you should expect an update sometime in the near future on the ESA request and also the the street improvements I'm gonna I want to gauge your interest for Trico because that is going to be coming back not for discussion but just for scheduling purposes we've we are trying to plan an additional work session before we bring the item back for consideration and I'm wondering do you guys want to do that on a regularly scheduled work session or would you be open to a special call just for trees I'm just gonna suspend the rules just we'll do discussion yeah so my primary thought on that is we need to in the legal world you take a deposition to nail down people's testimony right and I think so I parallel that to the tree ordinance I just I don't care when we meet my only requirement and request is that we nail down a meeting with the certain number of developers and get their thoughts captured because last time they came and talked to us and they were all over the place they didn't agree with each other and I just want to try to solidify that at least get it some sort of record get them on record before we have to then listen to them tell us how crazy we are and and and and it's not based on anything so I would like for staff to meet and Heyward to meet with them and pin them down and then at least we have some sort of record to say well on Tuesday you said and now that somehow that's changed but I just the fluidity is in my opinion the problem that they kind of vacillate so more we could pin them down and whatever that number is it is but just to get them static and then we can kind of move forward so I'd like for staff to meet with whatever developers to kind of get a feel for their thoughts and then before it comes to us I'm personally with Christian Oats mith I can meet any time it needs to be a special call it seems to make sense to me just to do it on a Wednesday before maybe it's selfishly but I have the calendar of my kind of Wednesdays afternoons blocked off but if I mean given lead time special calls fine okay okay yeah my preference would also be just a work session item instead of a special meeting okay and and we if we know it's coming and it runs over our hour and a half or whatever we might have I'd also I would prefer just to come in at 9 you know stay after the meeting go back into work session at the end then spread it out over a month or two okay so you all want a special session workshop and then you are wanting a regular work session I guess to clarify I'm just prefer to be on a Wednesday if we need with the work session up to four to accommodate that's on a regularly scheduled day not yes yes but I'm with the Commissioner Taylor I'm fine pulling a late night if if the Commission needs to meet at five and on a whole can 't meet earlier yeah I think I'm the same and I think if we do some stuff on the front end it'll shorten a lot of the the conversations well having looked at a preliminary draft of it it's quite lengthy so we may need to do that several times or we can knock it out with just a special call workshop okay like we did the oil and gas so it's up to you all yeah I would think two hours two hours and so if it's okay we can just go ahead and do a full background for Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Sullivan at that meeting and then pick up where we left off the last time does that make sense or do you guys have any preference so so is it so is it dramatically changed or is it similar to what we saw in the summer it's changed okay and so we're gonna have to reintroduce it to the DCA the developers is it what's the anagram for it BCDA thank you in order to get some feedback from them and then we'll bring it forward and and do a page turn like we did I think that would be helpful a page turn don't you okay so do like a three-hour work session on a Wednesday okay I think that would be more beneficial that way you're not coming back again and again and having to stay late again and again in just one work session not a series well yeah and we'll see how we stand at that point if we can get through it okay y'all I'm able to do a special call and try to get through it not December right this would be it's next year I can see your mind twirling no we're not gonna interfere with vacations so maybe a Wednesday where you don 't have a regularly scheduled meeting but you know between go ahead and do a special session and this be after first year sometime January or February right we need some time to present it to DCDA to present to them or present to us okay so special call sometime in January maybe towards the end of January between our second and fourth like the third Wednesday that way maybe the first part you can get with DCDA and does that talk about calendars is where I want to get their calendar out right quick and kind of see what that looks like that would be and help me with that that would be January when are our meetings in January they said the 18th is actually not good for me yeah don't we have a joint session that's trying to happen with council in January - do you have the new meetings on your schedule I think and the January didn't she said 11 okay so we could do it the 18th or the first I have a conflict on the 18th at 6 p.m. we could do it February 1st and that'll give us the whole month of January to get with developers and get go back and forth on it well I think it 's reasonable okay tentatively February 1st is probably gonna be a problem for me so I'm sorry if we cannot it's my daughter's 18th birthday it would be really tough for me to be here talking about trees which I love trees but that would be a tough day for me February 1st but everyone else is okay so could we could we just not have anything contentious on the January 25th agenda and so well it's just that council only has one meeting in January and so there's gonna be a race for everybody to get recommendations here to go to council so I 'm just thinking ahead that we might have an issue so we'll get with you more than likely sometime unfortunately sound like maybe February and not the first and we'll let you guys get some dates and figure that out just one comment if I could sure can we get an update on the staff list there's a few changes in there including this Jarvis so we could get an update on changes so you need an updated contact list for staff anything else for our project matrix commissioner matrix but Merry Christmas and happy new year absolutely last meeting here a good call okay with that seeing none others I'm going to close our meeting this evening at 830 thank you everyone and again Merry Christmas happy new year