meeting for January 25th 2017. This meeting has been duly
posted and we do
have a quorum present and I'm going to call our meeting to
order at 11 after
4. This will be our work session and we will begin with
clarification of agenda
items and I will turn it over to Shandria for presentation.
Good evening.
The first item is the approval of the PNZ meetings from
meeting minutes from
January 11th. If anybody has any discussion on that we'll
open it up. Okay.
Do we want to have a clarification about the item that's
going to come later just
so everybody else has an idea on 4A or just handle that at
that time? Okay. We'll leave that alone then.
Anybody have any questions on the minutes? No changes? Okay
. Okay. On the consent
agenda we have two plats both are for the razor-wrench
phase three and I'll
invite Mike Bell up to do a presentation if you guys have
any questions. Does
anybody have questions? Okay. For the for the final plan I
did pass out an
updated version. Two minor tweaks, the labeling of the lots
, they went from
block one to block A and there's a corner clip designation
at Panhandle
in 35. So those are the two changes from what you got from
your previous backup.
And under individual considerations we have two items. The
first item for A,
this is the one that chair was referring to, we are going
to have to postpone the
action on that item until we can repost it to actually set
up the committee. So
we have to set up the committee first and then we can nom
inate commissioners.
All right. And then 4B is a site is a request for approval
of a site plan in
the razor-wrench overlay district and if anybody has
questions, well Mike will do a
presentation on that.
So this project would be SP 16-3, it's a retail building,
143,000 square foot
retail development in the RR 1 area of the razor-wrench
overlay district. As
normal it has to comply with the site plan landscape plan
and elevations have
to comply with the exhibits of the ordinance. To show you
kind of where this
project is in relation to the overall town center, this is
380 on the north
side and 35 and the subject property is this area here. So
it forms a major
anchor of the town center just south of the in-and-out and
the chiles that have
been built. And to the right is just a blow-up how that
site will work. This is
the northern half of that lot, the landscape plan, see
plantings meet code
requirements for landscape islands and screening. The same
for the south half.
And then this exhibit is the hardscape plan, plaza space is
required with the
razor ordinance. They have met their plaza space
requirements at the
entrances, they provided seating and as well as a
substantial amount of
landscaping around the building. And in addition there will
be this kind of
courtyard as from the entrance to this door into the town
center area. So at
some point there will be some additional plaza space there.
And I've shown two
elevations here that represent the four sides. So the top
view is what you'd see
from I-35 and then this would be what you'd see from the
north or the south.
They're very similar elevations. I've outlined the criteria
for approval in
the backup. I'm happy to go through that and we will be
recommending approval.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you Mike. The first item under public hearing is a
request for regarding
the historic landmark designation and I'll invite Roman Mc
Allen up for a
presentation.
Hello. This item is historic landmark designation for
property at 2106 North
Bell. The request is to hold this public meeting and
consider making a
recommendation to City Council regarding an application for
historic landmark
designation of 2106 North Bell Avenue which is on the
southeast corner of
Bell Avenue and Sherman Drive. The home was surveyed in
1996 as part of the city
wide historic resources survey and at that time it was
labeled as a high
priority structure in the in the Tudor revival style. This
is an image from that
survey. A summary of why this these items come before you
is that the historic
landmark is from per the code the historic landmark
Commission makes a
recommendation to the planning and zoning Commission which
then considers
it and makes a recommendation to the City Council who makes
the final
ordinance decision. Doing this designating historic
resources has to do
with the comprehensive plan in various ways and one of them
is that element 4
of that plan calls for the preservation maintenance and
creation of character
areas within the city and then element 7 calls us for the
city to be proactive in
neighborhood conservation and using historic designations
as a defense
mechanism to some some development in those areas where
there are historic
properties. So then there are 13 criteria you only need one
to be a designated
historic landmark and I just chose three the applicant had
submitted also
several others. One in this case is that is one is it says
character the
home or the property has character interest or value as
part of the
development heritage or cultural characteristics of our
city. So this one
meets that in in a couple of ways it's very prominently
located on Sherman and
North Bell so whether you're coming from the north down
south you know you're
sort of entering the historic core of the city and if you
're going north you
you experience that same knowledge because this is a really
prominent home.
When it started out it was a little smaller two-story is
represented here in
the early 30s and then it was added on to and the chimney
was shifted to the
south and the property was picked up and so it sits really
prominent at that
intersection. And then with respect to that style I just
want to point out the
Tudor style is represented in many ways throughout Denton
it's like the second
most popular home style that you think of in the United
States after in the in
the early 20th century. Here are two other ones in the Oak
Hickory
historic district these are brick versions and this is a
more typical Tudor
style with the brick or the masonry work and then sort of
the half timbering that
you see in those two gables the gable on the house on your
left over the door it's
kind of stucco and that it's called half timbering. And
another version this
property just recently got historic property of the month
and surveyors back
then also called this a Tudor style although here it's not
half timbering
those are actually pretty massive structural timbers that
hold up the
front porch. Another so I talked about that another is the
specimen that so is
this a good specimen and the home is a great specimen now
the current owners
have fully restored I believe they removed a synthetic form
of siding or
something that had been on it when they acquired it and
they may be here this
evening. They even went that's their notes on the lower
right they went so
far as to find the redwood and have the redwood milled into
the right siding for
any repair work that they did. Then finally another
criteria meets is
association with a significant person in or civic person to
the city or to the
state and I just threw a couple this home is stately enough
that who knows
this is a neighborhood probably birthday party on the left
and a lot of faces
that were part of the city. On the right I believe this is
probably the judge
although the owners will be here later the Judge Boyd and I
saved this image
just having a little fun the child the children there you
won't see this too
often they're pretty rug in front you turn that rug around
and something
you're not going to see much more these days is a big polar
bear rug on that
carpet. So the judge coming back to the judge and who that
was Judge Ben Boyd
and Ida Boyd owned the house in from 48 to 63 they were
distinguished members of
Denton Society. He was an associate justice of the Second
Court of Civil
Appeals in Fort Worth for ten years and then held some
district county
judgeships as well. He here's just an he gave an address
here at the 1940 in
1946 at the UNT. Here's a couple newspaper articles the one
on the left
just about a case a prominent case that the judge handled
and on the right is
some information about Mrs. Boyd's position with the Texas
Women's
Federation. So we've sent out notices to the neighborhood
we've gotten just a
couple of notices back and they were favorable and we would
not recommend
approval for this property. I'll take any questions.
Commissioner Rosell. Thank you I
actually have several questions. First just my own
notification every time I
hear Tudor style I think brick, half timbers, what outside
of that can you go
over that how do you define the Tudor outside of that is it
's a steep pitch
roof or the steep pitch and I think often they talk about
the facade having
you're looking at the gable and so it's it's not a side g
able house typically
you're looking at how do you refer it's not a hip roof so
you're looking at the
gable in the facade and here you got actually three if we
go back we've got
kind of three gables that we're looking at and I would say
the pitch roof the
gabling is really what's going to get you there and you're
it is unusual that
it's not stone that sort of the Bible on this topic McAll
ister's book he almost
every examples brick or masonry but you can't deny when you
hold this up to the
others it just does that so this one these on these so you
see the pitch roof
on the left is right this one's a little bit long this
house on the right looks a
little like a Swiss chalet I mean you can try to figure out
what's going on
but again same same thing both of them have the curve
entries and you know it
is a highly subjective feel and the sort of eclectic
versions of them but I think
in a way this is sort of an eclectic version of it the
other thing that's
unusual in this house or above that front door the three
square windows
normally the front facade of a Tudor will have elongated
windows almost all
the way across some sort of rectangular elongated when the
other thing is a very
substantial fireplace is the norm to kind of anchoring one
side the other
question has is you mentioned element seven says to pro
actively the city's
charged to proactively look into these can you tell me how
does that manifest
itself how's the city practically doing that is there
applications that are
streamlined for this or how can citizens do how can we do
more of this in terms
of proactivity that's a really good question I'm glad you
asked it well one
way and I've there's been a citizen led movement on this
for some time is
there's a fee associated with with this is two fees the fee
for the application
is I want to say it's $60 where they combine fees end up at
265 with the
paying for the mailing is allegedly the other reason I
personally think we should
waive be waiving those fees it's such a minimal part to the
city's budget but
it's at least one little incentive that we're offering to
someone work we're
honoring their home and that place and and people are
really proud of it in
this case this home is owned by the the the second chair or
someone on the
historic Landmark Commission but the the other way we do it
for example is we
just did a historic property the month was just something
we just came up with
just to have public relations and as I do that almost every
time someone says
well I want my home to be designated and so I had a guy
walk in this week and
he's already submitted the application so I think it's a
matter of just getting
out in the community and talking to people and the dent and
television doing
a little promotion of the property the month helps and
people make people aware
of it we also of course can designate whole neighborhoods
and that's fine too
either one either you know when the community does that but
I would say
that's the main thing one we probably ought to be looking
at that fee and even
if we do decide to remove that just publicizing that
because a lot of people
would like that but that's a pretty big thing the other
thing is then once you're
designated you do qualify for a tax credit if you've spent
ten thousand dollars and
within two years of that designation then you can receive
half off of your city
property taxes I could I'm probably leaving out another way
we could really
promote that but they seem to be coming in a good stream
now I think there are
two files on my desk of people who didn't want to pay the
fee and that was
before I arrived here and then I have at least two pending
I think that property
the month on Egan is interested as well thank you very much
the last question I
have is more from a commission standpoint there's some
items that come
to us that we kind of rubber stamp through like consent not
a consent but
the final class and stuff what would cause what should I be
looking forward to
deny this if it's I mean if it's coming towards from us
from their review I want
to know I'm filtering this decision properly because I don
't want to
question their work it seems like we're good to go I didn't
know if that's kind
of what we should do or if there should be things we're
looking at
you're absolutely right when you look at this you're
looking at a dual public
hearing process associated with this the historic landmark
Commission provides
their recommendation to you to the planning and zoning
Commission to then
forward your recommendation to the City Council and
sometimes it looks like an
extra step or an extremist step however the advantage to
that is that the
planning and zoning Commission basically has the
opportunity to provide more
insight or more input and typically the planning and zoning
Commission is the
recommending body to the City Council on zoning matters
because the historic
districts are in the Denton Development Code the DDC and
their special purpose
district or overlay district the special purpose districts
any changes or
amendments or additions to that warrant than the public
hearing process because
we also have an H designation with historic landmark design
ations and
that's why although sometimes it does seem like an extr
aneous step it actually
just follows the critical path so to speak without the
criticalness associated
with it when it comes to an approval so it would be a bit
of a yeah that makes
perfect sense so this is actually a zoning overlay change
to that specific
process or the property so because we have the overlay
district or the
historic districts already established when we or when
there is a request to
the city to secure a historic landmark designation that
historic landmark
designation with the eight simple symbol is placed on that
property and as a
result in order to follow the notification process and
transparency
those elements then go through the public hearing process
it's a public
hearing not necessarily a change in zoning it's just
follows the dual public
door public like a zoning case but it's not a zoning case
by law so you do have
discretion there's no ministerial type authority it's a
current discretionary
okay as to whether or not it meets the designation
requirements that are laid
out in your AIS and that's why Roman explained those
factors or those
criteria associated with it and what fit this category
perfect thank you
sure okay thank you and the next item is we're actually
going to take item C
before item B and I will invite Haley's deGrasse up to
present
good afternoon so this is case DCA 17 one it is a code
amendment proposal for
the development codes compatibility buffer requirements so
the request
before you is to hold a public hearing and consider a
proposed revision of the
development code specifically to amend the requirements in
subchapter 13 that
pertain to compatibility buffers a little bit of background
on this last
April the development review committee and members of the
lean government team
had a process improvement event and as part of that event
they developed
several recommendations for areas within sub chapters 13
and 14 the design
criteria and the development code that we could improve
primarily to eliminate
routine waiver requests that come before us and before you
all and time did not
permit them to further flesh out those code amendments and
what they should be
so we're doing that now so this proposal for the buffer
code amendments was
formulated based on their those recommendations as well as
a benchmark
survey of several comparable cities requirements so just to
clarify
landscape buffers or compatibility buffers are required to
minimize
nuisances such as noise light glare you know that things
generated by parking
and general activity at a site and provide a physical
separate separation
between potentially incompatible uses so these photos are
just a couple of
examples in the one on the left you can see there's some
commercial developments
that backs up to a neighborhood so there's a little bit of
a buffer there
comprised looks like of a fence and some trees and things
like that that just
provides a separation between those and then the same thing
on the right you can
see a single-family property adjoining a multi-family so
there's a bit of a
buffer between them to help minimize you know nuisances
that could be generated
on the more intensive side just a couple more examples here
this is an industrial
use adjoining a single-family use so you see a bit more
width there in the buffer
those are fairly new plantings in the aerial photo so they
haven't you know
reached their full capacity yet to buffer between there and
then that's just
a head-on photo to let you see you know how that physical
separation looks so our
existing code requirements specify what type of buffers are
required in
situations where your uses adjoin each other but it does
not specify who's
responsible for installing the buffer so this is our
existing buffer matrix you
can see if you have a single-family use adjoining a
commercial use a type C
buffer would be required but it doesn't specify which one
of those parties has
to install that buffer and then once you've determined what
type of buffer is
required between your two properties those four types are
further defined in
our requirements so type a and you can see these in the
diagram on the right
there type a is a six foot high opaque fence of approved
material type B is a
little bit a little bit wider there a 10 foot planting area
is required with a
combination of five evergreen and deciduous trees and 30
shrubs for every
100 feet type C is then a 15 foot area with six trees and
25 shrubs and type D
is the most intensive buffer and that's a 30 foot planting
area with eight trees
and 20 shrubs so the intent of this amendment is to help
further streamline
the development review process by eliminating the need for
frequent waivers
that we get to these buffer requirements some examples of
that would be people
that were you know want to use a fence or a wall on their
site in place of some
of those planting materials or often in the downtown area
we get requests to
wave the buffer entirely because lots are so small and cr
amped and there just
isn't room on a site for you know say a 15 foot planting
area on the side of
your property and currently in the code an alternative
buffer can be approved by
the director of development services and or often if there
are other waivers
needed we roll it as part of an ADP that comes to you all
so our existing buffer
width and composition requirements through the benchmark
analysis showed to
be generally similar to what other nearby cities require
however since we
do receive these routine waivers we feel that that
demonstrates a need for
greater flexibility in our requirements so the main
components of the proposed
amendment that you have in your backup are to clarify the
party responsible for
installing the buffer maintain the existing width
requirement since they
were found to be comparable however we want to allow more
flexibility in how
buffers are designed and to do that we've introduced a
point system that
I'll discuss in a little more detail and then we also want
to continue to promote
infill and redevelopment by maintaining the current waiver
for buffers within the
infill special purpose district and extending that to waive
the need for
buffers within the entire downtown University core zoning
district so to
show you what that looks like the areas in green there are
the downtown
University core so that's dr1 dr2 DCN and DCG districts and
then you can see on
the red boundary there would be the infill boundary so
there is a lot of
overlap between them but we just want to you know make sure
all of the downtown
area is covered so I mentioned a point system so within the
proposed amendment
once the use is assigned a width based on you know the 10
15 30 foot rules that
we discussed earlier and within that buffer yard width a
property has to earn
a designated number of points so you can see here single-
family and agricultural
require 10 points multifamily would be 20 30 for commercial
commercial and
institutional uses and then 50 for industrial to acquire
those points
there is a second table that provides different options for
buffer elements
and different point values assigned to them so the more
intensive elements would
obtain you more points there's options for fencing masonry
walls providing
additional buffer width and then several options for
providing combinations of
shrubs and trees and there is a provision that if a buffer
requires two
or more elements if it's doing plantings we need to see a
combination of trees
and shrubs to provide variations in canopy height so to
give you an example
of how this would work if we have a commercial use that's
developing
adjoining a single-family use and say they have 200 feet of
shared property
line under the existing code they would be assigned a type
C buffer requirement
so they would provide a 15 foot wide area with a
combination of six trees and
25 shrubs and that would equate to of course 12 trees and
50 shrubs total for
the width or for the length under this proposal they would
we maintain that 15
foot width requirement but they would have multiple options
for how they can
pose that buffer to obtain the 30 points that would be
required and so there are
several potential combinations I've listed three of them
here that would be
possibilities for them so you can see it gives a little
more flexibility and what
they put in that if a wall better suits their site versus
you know a large
combination of trees and shrubs they could do that or it
could be all
planting materials and would just provide variations in
canopy height to
provide full coverage and so just to give you an example of
what these
elements look like all put together just this diagram shows
you know how a
fencing and variations and planting heights could provide
an effective
buffer between two uses so that photo kind of shows the
same thing as the
diagram there just to give you an idea of what all of that
could look like
together and we did send up public notification about these
through the
newspaper earlier this month and at this point I will say
we recommend approval
of this and answer any questions you might have.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Hi Haley. How with the
point system do they
have to be approved with how they put that together or are
we just letting
them put that together and come up with their own points?
During their site plan
they would submit what they're proposing to meet those
points requirements and
then the planners would review that with the landscape
administrator and make
sure that it seems like a workable combination of things
that they've put
together there. So it's part of this the site plan approval
at that point? Okay. I
think I had another I made several notes as I was reading
this. Biggest one is is
the last state the last statement on page four of the
proposed rewrite seems
really confusing to me that paragraph. I you know we're set
to clarify these
buffers and then we put in this paragraph that says but if
you want to
circumvent this here's an option for you. I was can you
tell me how that came to
be written in there? Yeah so that is a provision that's in
something very
similar to that statement is in the current code and so all
that would be an
instance is where you know if the width couldn't be met or
something like that
an alternative could still be proposed you know say if they
can meet the point
requirements but they can't give us the full 30 foot of
width or something like
that it provides a provision for us to be able to approve
some alternative so
long as it meets the intensity that we're seeking with this
. Does that make
sense? It makes sense it just it's just well it's set up
for yeah to circumvent
the whole thing I think the way it's written. Yeah we can
take another look at
that but that that is a statement that we currently have in
the code and that's
how alternative buffers are proposed is by bringing in
their best effort to meet
the code and if they can't do that then we'll take a closer
look and you know
the director can approve some alternative. Yes yes member
Ellis could
you tell me again for the record what page that was on? It
's on the
proposed copy in our material so it's on on page 4 of that
PDF and it's item 4.
Yeah because on the screen it's different from what's in I
believe online
for people to look at at home. I can read that out if that
would be helpful.
Yeah that would be great. Okay so it's would be item 35 13
8 e 4 it says for developments
with required buffers an alternative buffer may be provided
with the
authorization of the director of development services or
designee if the
proposed width and combination of elephant elements meet
the intent of
mitigating or minimizing potential nuisances as described
in the purpose
statement in this section. Commissioner Roselle. Two
questions you mentioned that
it seemed like our current structure is is in line with
what other cities use is
that correct? Yes generally the the requirements we have
for width and the
items that go in a buffer are generally consistent there's
a lot of variation
across cities but in general you know ours fell in range
with what other
cities were doing. Are any other cities doing a point
system? Yeah this was
formulated based on Austin and Fort Worth both have very
similar systems and
so we devised a variation of that that we thought would
work here in Denton. And
then if I understood the current is a matrix so if it's a
residential to
industrial that's a A, B, or C, A, B, C, or D the new one
doesn't have a matrix. Is that correct? No it designates
just based on the type of use what style of buffer would be
required.
But it only you only do that if the adjacent zoning was
different correct? Yes.
So if someone is building an industrial property regardless
of the different
zoning around it it requires 50 points period. Yes yeah
that's that's what we're
proposing it would be a commercial next to single-family
multi-family or you
know a different type of use category. Can you show the
grid what would an
industrial to commercial be right now is that a type D? So
in that situation
they're having to double the requirement? The width yes
would double and that
would be a case where we can consider an alternative if
they if they chose to go
that route. So that brings up a maybe a concern I have is
we have a matrix that
seems pretty sufficient for different uses because it makes
sense to me if
industrial is going to get single-family D but industrial
to commercial being B
also seems to make sense to me because it's it's not a
single-family property
but now under the current system it's not gonna be that way
and it almost sounds
like it's built in well previously we could do a B so we'll
just go ahead and
do an alternative and Commissioner Ellis's point it's kind
of built in we
can we can go ahead and downgrade those and if we're
already thinking about or
if I just brought up and the thought is now being talked
about that in that
situation we can go ahead and downgrade to a B then I have
some concerns about
not continuing the matrix it seems like I just lost it
there is five different
point rows that it's not loading yeah there's five or point
rows now and there
was four different types it seems like maybe we should have
five types and
continue with with a matrix and have well even two of those
are ten points so
it seems like we can send you with an ABCD okay matrix and
if it's a it's ten
points B it's 20 points and so forth rather than already
kind of having this
built in well if it's industrial versus commercial 50 seems
it is seemed like a
lot that seems counterintuitive to streamline in this
process certainly we
can we can consider that
Commissioner Sullivan thank you looking at the applic
ability and number one
where says the mode the more intensive use category must
provide the buffer
when two or more go back to the first of the sentence with
two or more
non-residential uses from different categories a joy and
the more intensive
use category must provide the buffer so that would seem if
a less intensive
business category wants to come in and develop property
with a category that's
already there that's going to require the people the people
already there
provide the buffer no the the existing property wouldn't be
required to provide
a buffer retroactively but that's not what it says is there
am I reading it
wrong are you looking at just to make sure on the same page
a one is that the
correct item a one yes yes the last sentence seems to
reflect that the most
intensive of the two are going to be required to put the
buffer in it yes
that would be the case yeah and that would be if a property
is vacant so this
is for developing properties not you know we wouldn't be
retroactive to
existing developments this would be if say an industrial
use is coming in and
the adjoining property is vacant and zone commercial then
the industrial use
would provide it rather than waiting for the other property
to develop I'm
confused if I mean so we already know what the category is
going to be
whenever a business comes in or can they come in with the
opportunity to change
that category well it's based on the zoning designations
would be at like an
industrial zoning next to a commercial zoning is what the
use is based on so
let me jump in so for example if you have two vacant pieces
of property and
you want to develop one industrial and one commercial the
if say and you're
doing the industrial first they would put the buffer in to
buffer for the
commercial development but say you have an already
established multifamily unit
and then a single-family residence wants to come in next to
it then the single
family would put the put the wall in because they came in
later does that
make sense so the okay I just want to make sure the
existing business or
structure is not required to do something just because
somebody decides
to move in and build something next to them correct okay I
just it just seemed
like that wasn't what that said so if that's what it says
okay all right
thank you and run sure I think Commissioner Tyler was next
thank you
chair so I wanted to echo some of the concerns that
Commissioner was all
pointed out I am this this point system doesn't allow it
requires the same
buffer industrial a single family as industrial a
commercial and a lot of
times commercial can be very close to industrial and we
probably don't need a
very large vegetative barrier with fences and walls and so
forth so so I do
think a matrix of points or you take your points and you
subtract the points
of the thing next to you and so industrial a commercial
equals 20 points
or something I don't know I don't know how complex you want
to make it or if
you just want to stick in a little a little grid just to
kind of keep the
fairness to not require because industrial the single
family is very
different from industrial to a commercial use that could be
pretty close to
industrial certainly we can we can look at a way to use the
current matrix and
modify it to meet the system yeah and I wanted to just
clarify that that last
clause that the waiver clause the exempt the exemption
clause right now you said
that's being used pretty frequently because a development
might not be able
to build a class C and so they have if they're five feet
too narrow they have to
apply to the waiver to the yes sir and do you have an idea
of about how many
cases a month or year right now they're processed kind of
you know just as a part
of the site plan or something like that so we don't have a
way of tracking those
because they're not a specific type of application that we
could you know pull
a report for so I wasn't able to pull that data but just
anecdotally we have
you know discussing it with other planners and people that
have been in
the department for a while it is a frequent issue that
arises and so this is
like you're going through your site plan approval it's
impossible to meet your
required class C buffer and so now you have to do it write
a separate letter
basically to the head of development services and say here
's why can I please
have a waiver yes and that gets approved so kind of puts
you back a couple weeks
it does yeah because it takes a while you know they they
bring us their best
effort and you know if it can't work sometimes they do they
write up a letter
or send in some sort of proposal to us and we have to take
it to the director
and get that approved or it gets rolled in with an ADP if
they're requesting
other waivers so this isn't going to be any different than
that like it just
hopefully they'll have a menu to pick from and they'll run
into the problem
less often that's our goal is providing more options would
lessen those requests
and one final question on the the trees for example on this
on industrial
buffers that require lots of points could they do something
like two lines
of large trees in their 30-foot buffer and get ten points
for this one and ten
points for that one yes they could you know kind of mix and
match that as they
need to and we would just have our landscape administrator
you know look at
that and make sure it seems like those could both grow to
their full potential
and have enough room there if that's what they chose to do
okay thank you
Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I just wanted to
circle back to Commissioner
Sullivan's questions I don't make sure I understand this
currently if the
property is being built and there is a vacant lot next to
it with a different
category is that development required to put in a buffer at
construction is that
currently procedure they put a buffer onto a vacant lot or
between their
property in a vacant lot we require a buffer at that time
yes the current code
says when an abutting property is vacant the land use
category designation of the
vacant abutting property will determine the type of buffer
required on that side
of the property at the time of development it's the current
clause and
that is under a four in the red line version okay I just
want to make sure
that's currently happening so we don't get into a situation
which a less
intensive unit comes in and the more intensive property is
being retroactively
required to put in the buffer but that's our new code that
's perfect any other
questions
then we've had a lot of questions we might have to have
some more around this
let's get some this cleared out but anyway thank you for
your presentation
so we're back on item 5B and I'll invite Julie White to
talk about parking
all right I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city and
I am presenting to you
some proposed code amendments that relate to parking so the
request is to
consider a proposed revision of the DDC to specifically
amend sub chapters 13
and 14 as they pertain to the parking requirements so
during that same process
improvement event some some issues with the parking
regulations came up and at
this time we're now working through those so just a little
bit of background
about how the DDC works parking is addressed in sub
chapters 13 and 14 sub
chapter 13 mostly deals with the design requirements of
parking lots the
landscaping and that sort of those sort of issues and then
sub chapter 14
discusses the parking ratios the the location some of the
location of the
parking and then how the specific parking is is put
together so so it's
spread out over two chapters sub chapters and then further
more in sub
chapter 13 parking requirements are kind of sprinkled
throughout the sub chapter
so they're there in site design and then they're in some
some access areas so
it's kind of sprinkled throughout sub chapter 13 the intent
of these
amendments is to provide clarity to critical portions of
the DDC that are
subject to routine variance requests and you're probably
familiar with those
those are those are those alternative development plans
that give the Planning
and Zoning Commission discretion on some of the design
considerations in sub
chapter 13 the intent is also to improve the process by
allowing some structured
administrative approvals so thereby reducing the time for
development so
putting into some of the design considerations elements
from those ADPs
that we see so that it allows staff to approve those and so
they can move forward
more quickly we formulated these based upon some benchmark
analysis of similar
cities and evaluation of the current review process and
then an examination
of what kind of ADPs we see so we're going to go over a
summary of what's
what's before you so when we're in terms of sub chapter 13
where the proposal is
first for flexibility for parking in front of commercial
buildings in
suburban areas and that includes the parking lot screening
to require storm
water runoff treatment through ice swim techniques on all
new parking lots and
expanded parking lots to modify the parking lot landscaping
requirements to
be less vague a little more certainty and where we want the
plantings and and and
what they should look like and then to make sub chapter 13
function a little
better by relocating all of those general parking lot
design requirements
to one sort of central location within sub chapter 13 in
sub chapter 14 we're
proposing to clarify the CBD parking exemption also add
some specificity to
the parking requirements for residential development in the
CBD to remove the
maximum parking provision while addressing those concerns
that so often
come before you and then increase the permitted distance
between development
and off-site parking from 300 feet to a thousand feet and
then require bicycle
parking for all new development so we're going to talk
about our
considerations we're going to talk about and then I'm going
to try to show you
what what that means I know the red lines sort of make
everyone's eyes go
crossed so we're going to work through it together and if
you have any questions
we'll we'll address those so here we go so the variances to
address sub chapter
13 requirements and and for front parking are routinely
approved by the
PNZ and the analysis points that we look at when we when we
're when we're
going through the review process of those is first of all
environmental
concerns and then second of all the visual impacts when we
look at an
alternative development plan we try to look at the intent
of why those code
requirements are there why is the parking maximum there why
are with why
is there a prohibition against front parking and and those
are the two the
two elements we look at most often when we're talking about
parking maximums
we're looking at pollutants within the storm water that are
created by the
excess parking and then for visual impacts large parking
areas do have
visual impacts particularly when they're adjacent to the
right-of-way so so those
are the two elements we typically look at with the ADPs
this proposal just goes
ahead and codifies those common conditions that we put on
those ADP
approvals so we have these issues that we want the code to
address we're just
going to go ahead and and put in the code what we want to
address those issues
so so how we're proposing to do that is to go ahead and
require iSWIM be be
implemented in all new parking areas and their parking
areas that are subject to
subject to the expansion applicability table and that that
includes treating
the first endeavor of may correct me the first one and a
half inches of water
quality volume during a rain event so we didn't specify
what those iSWIM what
what technique they should use land development and each
parcel is somewhat
different and we don't necessarily know what iSWIM
technique would work for
which parcel so we've kind of left that up to the developer
of how they want to
treat that water quality volume but we do require that it
be treated and they'd
be maintained in accordance with the industry standards and
the best
practices and then we're also proposing that they ensure
adequate landscaping to
mute those visual impacts of the of the parking areas so
let's just take a look
at iSWIM these are some of the things that could be
implemented as part of the
iSWIM as part of the stormwater treatment y'all may have
heard us talk
about gray and green solutions with iSWIM green being the
plantings and the
way the site is designed in order to for the the landscape
areas to filter the
water so those are the green solutions and and for that we
see areas bioswales
we see we see sawtooth cuts in the curbs where the water
can drain to the
landscape areas and provide filtrate natural filtration for
the stormwater
and then we also see gray solutions we see technological
solutions to these
recently you saw QT add the inlet filters the buckets that
filter the
water we've seen other developments use other types of
technological solutions
so that would be up to the development and that would be
reviewed at the site
plan process as a corollary to the to the the landscaping
that we want to mute
the visual effects of parking we want to make sure that we
are clear about what
kind of landscaping we want and where we want it our
current code states that
seven percent of the parking area has to be landscaped and
15 percent has to be
under tree canopy but and it says it's got to be
distributed evenly throughout
the parking area but that's that's kind of vague and it's
you know where's the
where's that dividing line between parking lot landscaping
and other types
of landscaping so it's it can make it difficult can create
additional reviews
for for site plan process or building permit it can just
provide uncertainty
for the developer so we wanted to be more specific and in
that case we're
looking at propose we're proposing parking lot landscaping
islands every
seven parking spaces that are sufficiently sized in order
to
accommodate two trees and we've determined that as kind of
a short hand
two parking spaces so the landscape island needs to be the
size of two
parking spaces and that it's got to be planted with two
trees and you can see
here this is actually in the proposed amendment that they
can they can
configure those parking spaces what works best for their
site they can either
do them long ways or wide but that would a permit permit
them to plant the large
canopy trees so we can get sufficient tree canopy in the
parking areas while
providing where we actually want it also within the
proposed amendment so here
would be a depiction of what those parking lot landscape
islands would look
like there's also a provision in your backup and the red
line that they could
instead of the parking lot islands provide a landscape
median and that
median would be eight feet wide once again to provide
sufficient room for
those trees to grow to their potential it would need to be
a permeable surface
so rainwater could get through it and it would be
considered a landscape area and
then they would need to plant a large canopy tree every 30
feet in order to
provide sufficient canopy for that parking lot area in
addition to those
just like the current code now in caps would be required in
order to control
the access throughout the development if they do want to
count those in caps as
landscape islands there would need to be sufficient area
within those in caps in
order to support the trees and what does that look like so
what what's what are
we wanting to accomplish here and these are these are
parking lots that do
have parking lot can it or a tree canopy and landscape that
is kind of what we'd
like to see and here's another here's a a development that
has the landscape
islands you can see there the they're the dual like we're
proposing they have
two trees and then here is here's one that doesn't so you
can see the visual
difference and and what we want to see and then you know
how it could develop
if you don't have specificity on where you want the parking
lot islands to go
and I should I should I should just state the current code
does require parking
lot islands every 10 parking spaces if you have front
parking but if you have
side parking or rear parking there is no requirement for
landscape islands so we
want to make that a requirement for all parking areas
another proposed amendment that we're putting forward is
currently we if if a
development does want to install parking in front of a
building they have to
screen that parking with a 15-foot landscape area when when
the
development is on a text dot right-of-way that has to be
located outside
of the public utility easement we have a lot of text dot
roads within the city of
Denton and our our requirements is that our requirement our
code requires a 20
foot PUE outside of the right-of-way on a text dot road so
you would have the
right-of-way line you would have a 20 foot public utility
easement and from
there you would start your 15 foot landscape area so that
takes 35 feet out
of developable area and it pushes it pushes the development
back away from
the street and really what we want is the development to
come forward and
define that street edge that's the kind of good design we
want to see but this
requirement is kind of pushing it further back so we're
proposing to to
remove that minimum landscape area and more in favor of a
like the buffer system
like the buffers that are proposed a point system where we
get the screening
we get the the the planting material we want that defines
the street that
screens the parking but they can do it in a in an area that
is sufficient for
that planting and not necessarily on a specific amount of
property so let's
just take a look and see how that functions so here's a
property within the
city of Denton if they did want to develop it is on I-35 so
that's a text
dot road and it would require a 20 foot PUE in front of it
and then from there
they would have to have the 15 foot landscape area so all
this area in pink
would be dedicated to that and could not be developed so it
would it would
inhibit the ability for this smaller parcel to to develop
in a way that would
that would make sense for them so what we're proposing is
for for properties is
to take away that 15 feet and have the screening elements
that each property
when they develop they have to get 20 points out of the
screening elements in
order to appropriately screen the property parking lot
these are the same
things that are currently included in that 15 foot area
within the DDC they're
modified a little bit and I can point those out to you but
they're they're
really the same things they're just they can compact them a
little bit reclaim a
little more a bit of their property you still get you can
still get something
like this where it defines the street edge it looks great
and it screens the
parking area but they can do it in a little more compact
way those screening
elements include a landscape berm large canopy tree planted
every 40 linear
feet and this can also count toward their street tree
requirements of three
small accent trees clustered every 30 feet a three foot
high hedge of evergreen
shrubs this is one one change right now it could be it
could be a monoculture it
could be all the same head shrubs we're proposing that only
50% can be of the
same species and so they would need to to to change that up
a little bit and
then or they could put in a wall a three foot high wall
either of wrought iron
masonry or stone if it is wrought iron the current code
today as well as what
we're proposing requires that vines be planted on that so
you actually get that
opaque so you actually get the screening effect
and then proposed amendments to sub chapter 14 right now
there is within
sub chapter 14 an exemption for parking for commercial
development in the CBD it
has a word additional on there and that that has created a
bit of confusion so
staff is recommending removing that word additional in
order to clarify that CBD
parking addition we are also clarifying that residential
parking requirement
within the CBD right now it states that any residential
development that has
more than 10 dwelling units has to provide parking we kind
of felt like we
wanted to be a little more specific and have it relate to
to what our parking
requirements are so we we had maxed it at 20 bedrooms
because you could have a
10 dwelling unit apartment complex and each dwelling unit
has four bedrooms and
that's a lot of people and we want to make sure that there
is adequate
parking for the residential development downtown so we've
actually moved it to
that bedroom requirement instead of dwelling unit
requirement we've
increased the allowable distance between a primary use and
a shared parking site
from 300 feet to a thousand feet and then we've we've added
in a requirement
for bicycle part parking so it will can we can accommodate
in our development
multiple modes of transportation right now we have a
parking sub chapter 14
includes bicycle parking but it's not a requirement so we
're actually modifying
that in order to require the bicycle parking and let's talk
about that just
for a minute so here's a map this red line is the CBD
boundary and that is the
area that has that parking exemption all of the area in
green not all of the area
it's it's pretty close it's there there's a couple of areas
around the
courthouse that it's actually in the green and it shouldn't
be but but most
of the area in the green is is actually parking within the
CBD which is about
30% of our land area within our CBD is parking is dedicated
to parking lots and
so so we looked at that when we analyzed this proposal and
and to make sure that
there was adequate parking downtown we also kind of looked
at well can you walk
to all those parking because we want to make sure that you
know if there is
adequate parking that everybody can get to it and you can
see this blue dot
right here this is actually about a 10 to 15 minute walk
from the courthouse so
there's a lot of parking within our CBD that is actually
within a walking
distance from all of those areas that people like to go and
then we also when
we looked at this proposal we looked at other some
benchmark cities around us to
see you know how they address parking in their core areas
and most of the areas
around us and McKinney being one of them and their their
square they don't require
any parking within their within their square their their
core so this is
really in line with what other areas are doing it really is
just a clarification
of what's existing in the code I'm in the bike parking our
dent plan 2030 you
know has a goal of multimodal transportation and
sustainability we
have a bike plan within the city of Denton and so we really
want our new
developments to to engage in the biking and provide parking
for for our bikes
and so so that's a part of the code amendment to require
bike parking one
space one bike parking space for every 5% of of the
required parking so when you
figure a hundred if you if you're building something that
requires a
hundred parking spaces you're really looking at five bike
parking so it's it's
you know it's it's a step in the right direction of
providing for multimodal
transportation and we also did a benchmark on this or bike
peg
coordinator did and and you know there's a lot of once
again the benchmark cities
around us require bike parking bike parking just as a
course of development
Dallas for instance requires bike parking so so it's really
in line with
what other communities are doing a public notification was
sent out staff
does recommend approval and I will stand for any questions
what I do
Commissioner Sullivan thank you store the last first I've
gone how many do you
have me bicycle racks parking there is at the square I don
't our bike peg
coordinator should be here later and so she may be able to
answer that but I am
not sure how many are on the square it is the square our
downtown area is
actually exempt from the bike parking requirement which
might seem
counterintuitive but a lot of those a lot of those
buildings are pulled right
up to the right-of-way so they may not have space on their
property to actually
provide for the bike parking so I know they're on every
corner and there and
there are some in public areas as well the point I'm making
is that and I've
come downtown various times of the day various days of the
week and I have made
a point to see how many were ever in use I've never seen a
time when every
back right back rack was in use ever and most of the time
it's maybe at the most
half used it's I'm just curious why this attachment to
bicycle parking when I
don't think I see very many people you know with the bag of
groceries riding
anywhere any distance at all I'm just curious this fetish
about bicycles well
it is a part of our comprehensive plan that we do provide
for these other modes
of transportation it's a good question Julie is supposed to
be here later on
this evening and so she might be able to provide more
statistics for you as far
as what kind of ridership we're seeing within the city but
it is something that
is a part of the plans that we've adopted and so we're
trying to
incorporate that within the code I see a lot more bicycl
ists out on the highways
you know taking up land the traffic do you know coming down
to the square I'm
just you know my observation sure sure I'll follow up on
that is there any
point system or credits that you get for doing bike things
like you do with the
other landscape well there is and I've got these in here
but I didn't just on
the slide just beat y'all up so well so our our bicycle
parking proposal there's
not a credit there is there is a proposal within this that
if you provide
bike parking in excess of what's required you can reduce
your your vehicle
parking by 5% so if you did add additional parking bike
parking you
could reduce your your surface parking but as far as
credits for just providing
it we're proposing that it just be a requirement for all
development to go
ahead and provide I'll make it optional but if you want to
buy cracks at your
business you can put them in and you get credits against
other things versus
they're required and there's no credit currently it is
optional so that's that's
what we have currently we we see it a lot it was
specifically like with ADP's
where we say hey add bike parking in you know it's a
college town there's a lot
of kids on bikes let's go ahead and add that in so we felt
like this was
something that we could just codify it would be something
that you know all
developments would require it's something that you know I
sat in a in a
development meeting with a developer and I said if you want
you could add bike
parking said okay well Dallas requires it I'm like we're
not that so so it is
something that you know it you know we feel that it would
would encourage that
type of you know multimodal behavior so well I'm gonna get
off topic I've
listened to the both the presentation before here and I'm
as a developer and
the only one on this Commission I wonder who pays for all
this and these are all
some of these are great ideas and they sound good and
somebody came up with them
but somebody has to pay for all this stuff and when you
change parking spaces
from 10 to 7 on the islands it's just more cost and all
these things are more
more more and I'm gonna echo Commissioner Sullivan I know
sometimes
these are ideas that people would like but the practicality
of some of them and
who's gonna pay for it and how much it costs I wonder if
there's discussions
with staff to go okay when we're gonna change all this on a
typical site that's
ten thousand dollars fifty thousand dollars is there any
number crunching
that goes into what are the cost impacts for these things
we don't have the
information to do that the number crunching but part of
this part of the
the impetus for this is because so often our developments
that the site plan
approval process or the review can take quite a few reviews
and quite a few
quite quite a long time and we also know time is money so
we're trying to we're
trying to standardize some of the things that that come up
over and over again
particularly with that front parking with the 15-foot
landscape area that
takes a lot of property out of development and we think it
's probably a
little much and so so you know although we don't have the
information necessarily
to crunch the numbers I think we are cognizant of of the of
the effects on
the development community and we want to make sure that we
we are specific in in
what in what the requirements are and that so we can try to
shorten that
review time and and and allow them to develop as much of
the site as possible
so I'm a follow-up on your you know I don't want to
dominate the conversation
here but so how many meetings have you had with the
development community to
review all these to get their feedback on cost and so forth
on this we have not
met with the development community regarding this we felt
like these were
were kind of more administrative fixes things that we could
move forward you
know quickly so we haven't met with them well to that to my
point we're talking
about going from islands from 10 to 7 so that means
essentially 50% for every
essential 20 spaces you've now got to have another island
we're requiring I
swim now on the projects we haven't done that in the past
your example with I
think the QTO there on the corner of Carroll and Eagle that
was something the
city required of them they didn't offer to do that in
regards to get there I
think their SUP for their extra parking spaces in the back
I don't know if
there's any studies that have been done that the ice swims
are more effective
in parking lots versus out in the roadways themselves where
we've got
15,000 cars a day going up and forth and they're sitting at
traffic lights maybe
it's more effective that the city put in ice swims in those
areas versus
businesses putting them in parking lots so I'm just curious
and we put all these
ideas up and say my question is how much time is put into
addressing really what
the issues are and then who's going to pay for it and
whether it's public
people that are going to pay for it or private developers
that have to pay for
all these things I'm concerned about as long as I've been
on planning and zoning
the long list of additional costs cost cost cost and at
some point that becomes
a big concern I think for business owners and people that
want to do
business in our community Dallas may have requirements for
a bicycle we're
way different than Dallas in our community much different
on trying to
take bikes out Luke 288 go grocery shopping and all these
types of things
where as these things come into play I don't know how
practical they are to be
used every day versus they look good on paper and somebody
paid to put them in
so I'm going to open the floor for some other questions I
think I'm going to go
Commissioner Rozelle and we'll come back over here thank
you chair some of the
things I have might be redundant but I feel go ahead and
speak them but I wanted
to start back at bikes real fast because that's where my
notes start to
Commissioner Sullivan's point I work downtown my brother
owns a business
downtown the bike stands are on the interior a lot of times
with a square
not next necessarily the businesses so if you go like
during morning coffee and
check out Jupiter house or West Oak bikes are littered but
they're not going
to the corner to lock their bike up and then going back to
the businesses so it
might be a placement issue not necessarily use issue which
is an issue
nonetheless but I think there are a lot of bike traffic on
the square it's just
the placement of those is not necessarily most convenient
to like an
interior shop like Beth Marie's or West Oak where they're
not near the corner
staying with bikes we have a bike plan as you mentioned and
it seems like the
bike plan is to encourage certain bike traffic through town
and so I would like
to see it's a the Commissioner's point earlier if we know
where bikes where we
want bikes to be then maybe we should incentivize those
businesses to have the
bike stands more prevalent than others so a new Home Depot
out on the loop or
something may not require we don't maybe not get bikes they
're not hauling lumber
home with that however if we know they're traveling we know
that we travel
on Sherman because we're making that a new thoroughfare
then maybe we should
incentivize more strongly bikes there so that in tandem
with where we're wanting
to put bike paths and bike traffic we can leverage
businesses to help
incentivize that bicycle growth and to the chairs point in
that situation if
they're on the path then I think a credit should be given
to parking to
further incentivize the use of bikes it doesn't seem like
there's a necessarily
a tandem credit system with running bikes but it seems like
we I guess we can
reduce parking by 5% but it's still a requirement so I have
some maybe some
issues about that in regards to the parking if I'm
understanding this
correctly the increase to parking islands does not decrease
the required
overall parking spots for the property is that correct
correct okay so their
real estate is now being more used by parking spaces if
they want a hundred
spots and they're not to use more property to get those
hundred spots now
yes they would the size of their of their parking area
would be larger but
there's there would be more pervious material within the
parking lot so yes
it would take up more space just as a whole yeah so with
encouraging bike
traffic and then I am so sorry Commissioner Beck's not here
because he's
done the research about the necessity for even more parking
because to
Commissioner Sullivan's point if you drive around Denton
count the number of
empty parking spots at any given time in any business yet
we have a requirement
to have parking there and those are not being used if you
go to Medical City
Denton it's it's just a concrete jungle out there so I'm
saddened to see that
we're increasing the developers number of islands but not
decreasing the parking
requirements so now to chairs point they're having to
leverage more of the
property for parking that most likely will not be used for
this and then I
guess lastly it's surprising to me that we did consult I
think on two different
occasions the I don't know their name the downtown
development group about
trees they've been very involved in tree canopy processing
but they weren't
involved in what I think is significantly going to change a
lot
developments in town so I would encourage that conversation
to take
place that we can get feedback about the actual legitimate
impact that these
changes are going to have because I personally don't think
it's just
administrative it seems a little more invasive than that it
's all I got
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I guess my question is
we're planning to
rewrite the DDC correct yes ma'am so are we planning to
address this chapter
which I would think would be yes it will all be then if if
this moves forward it
would all be then incorporated in with the the DDC rewrite
well because it
sounds like with a lot of concerns we have we need more
discussion on it so it
would seem like a lot of this should wait in my opinion
until the sub
committee and the rewrite of the DDC is moving forward I
don't understand you
know taking the time to rewrite this when there are things
left open on the
table to discuss with entities in the business that it
directly affects to
consider I'm not sure why we would want to do something
like this now when we
have that looming before us and we discussed that
internally and we felt
like some of these issues particularly the front parking
screening particularly
the parking maximums that those things were so so part of
just every
development review that we felt like this was something
that needed to go
forward more quickly so that so that the development
community you know we can we
can remove that ADP that extra layer that extra step of
process for them as
quickly as possible so that's why why we went forward with
these that they were
just just something that tends to over and over affect
development within
within the city and and we were trying to minimize the the
pain of some of
those processes so that that that's why it went forward
before just as a point
of order if at the time that this item comes up during the
regular session the
Commission feels like they want to go ahead and delay it
until they have more
information and more opportunity to review the item then we
would just need
such a motion to put the postpone it and it can be indefin
ite or it could be to
date certain and so long as that second it and voted on we
can go ahead and and
not make decisions tonight did you have a follow-up to that
to your point well
Mr. Ellis thank you chair well now I have a follow-up to
that so do we have to
vote on this tonight as it's written as it's proposed is
that well it's an
independent I'm sorry an individual consideration item so
it is ripe for a
vote but if you feel like you need to move it you can so
that would be your
motion okay well I do have a follow-up to Julie I have a
specific question to
one of the proposals on here if you have the floor and I'll
come to Commissioner
Sullivan next thank you okay so it is chapter 14 okay 14
for a one and the way
I'm reading this I'm just very confused with relation to
parking spaces for
residential uses and the line the number of spaces for
single-family duplex
attached single-family dwellings must not exceed the
required number of spaces
which is two so what happens if somebody wants a three-car
garage the garage would
be different than the outside so okay so the required
spaces for a single
family can you describe that to me what what we require for
single-family is to
parking spaces not in the garage it has to be on a parking
pad right now the
code requires additional spaces for duplexes for that have
that more than
three bedrooms those tend to get then we want to make sure
that we minimize the
maybe the the amount of parking that is associated with
that residential use so
we wanted to keep the parking maximum for residential right
now we have a
parking maximum for everything and so we maintain the
parking maximum for
residential so that those parking lot lot areas for
residential didn't get
enormous but removed it for the commercial and industrial
are you
talking you're talking carports then would be part of this
no I mean a car
port would be an accessory structure so that that's a
little different okay
thank you for the clarification sure I want to follow up on
your clear faith so
the maximum is so if you have a three-car garage you can
only have two
spaces outside you can't have three and if that's something
that y'all wanted to
that wasn't something that you wanted to move forward with
the proposal you could
certainly I don't know how you have access to the third
garage then
I'm just trying to draw a visual picture of a site plan in
my mind of how you do
that who determines whether it's a parking space or a drive
space what would
you say Shandrine I'm sorry I don't think that that was the
intent so we
would have to revisit the requirement if you wanted to
allow three spaces per
unit then we may need to increase it to three spaces for a
lot thank you for
your patience Commissioner Sullivan yes on the the front
screening of the front
parking screening yes if I understand you correctly at the
curb since we're
gonna take away the requirement past the utility easement
is that what we're
talking about so that the screening is gonna be closer to
the curb it won't on
text dot roads it won't be closer to the curb you'll still
have that 20-foot PUE
what we want to do is minimize that landscape that 15-foot
landscape area
because it's rather large and to require the the same
amount of vegetation the
same amount of screening we know we want that to be screen
ed but just to allow
them to shrink that space if they can or if they want to to
accommodate their
development so it still would be moved back because of the
PUE and if it's not
text doc road is the front screening still going to be
required yes sir and
how far from the curb would that be it would just it would
have to be out of
the right-of-way so wherever the right-of-way line is we're
on when that
lots of my concern is when you I've been a lot in a lot of
shopping centers and
you pull out and you can't see because the shrubbery there
there would be
visibility clips that they would have to meet they couldn't
they couldn't okay so
somebody's gonna regulate shrubbery yes sir it couldn't it
would and that's
something that we have to look at now because you're right
you don't want
someone to have an accident because of a shrub or maybe
just not have shrubs a
certain distance from the driveway make them trees so that
you don't have that
issue that somebody's not driving around checking the yard
stick whether or not
it's sure in the line of sight sure yes sir we already
include the street the
site visibility triangle for street design so they the
plannings would have
to stay out of that area that we designate for that okay
Commissioner Rozelle this last thing can you give an
example of the benefit or
situation in which parking would be moved from 300 to a
thousand feet I'm
just trying to figure out the use case for that absolutely
okay so I have I
have a specific all right so we have a we have a business
so you can see the
boundary of the CBD it really doesn't include what all we
think of as
downtown right because you're kind of here's Hickory right
here and it's
leaving off substantial blocks so it really doesn't doesn't
conform to what
we think of as downtown so these buildings right here don't
have that
parking exemption but yet they don't have any parking so
what they have to do
is they have to they have to demonstrate that they can meet
their parking
requirements and what they do is they a nearby landowner
somebody who has excess
parking they communicate with them and see if they can
lease spaces or how they
you know how they or rent whatever they have to do and 300
feet that 300 feet is
measured leaving the door of that business and walking in a
pedestrian way
to that first parking space and 300 feet when you think
about walking down the
sidewalk and finding a crosswalk and going is a pretty
short distance so the
1,000 feet allows them to go a little further to find the
necessary parking in
order to meet their parking needs you know if they can meet
their parking
needs without having to pour another you know tear down a
building to pour
another parking lot then that that just makes sense and so
it just allows them
to meet their parking needs a little more easily. Thank you
.
Commissioner Sullivan. So would it be possible for say in
the area that you
just represented there that there may be three businesses
that all are counting
the same parking lot as their off-site parking and so how
would that be the
square footage and how many spaces available? That actually
because our code
is somewhat vague on that it really does it says they have
to be evidenced by
deed or some other similar instrument but it's not really
clear and it's not
really clear that the that the the giving spaces have the
capacity to give
them so what we have put into into the proposal is saying
adding a sentence
that those that giving parking lot has to have excess
capacity and it has to be
evidenced by that deed or some other similar written
instrument and recorded
with Denton County so that it is a public record who you
know what spaces
are being used for whom and it has to be for the duration
of the use that's using
those parking spaces so right now we really don't have
something that that
would that would allow us to have a good record keeping of
who's keeping who's
using what and and we're we're we're trying to correct that
by adding a
little more specificity within there. Does the parking lot
that they are using
as the off-site parking do they need do they get permission
from that business
owner or it would have to be it would have to be who owns
that parking lot and
who does use it as their CEO and once again they would have
to provide evidence
that they meet the parking requirements in the DDC and that
if they have any
additional spaces that they could then sell. Yes. Rent.
Okay thank you.
Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. So overall I was
pretty impressed by this
the parking standards have always been hard to follow. I'm
sad to see two
things go but I understand why the maximum parking hard cap
I always thought
that was a good way to prevent over parking which if you
drive down University
Drive you know Denton Center just a lot of places around
just always
have see a sea of empty parking lot and it's it's it makes
the entire development
less attractive makes you not want to shop there it's a
good place to do
donuts when you're in high school you know it can go about
45 miles an hour
across that parking lot it's so much is good whenever
universities under
construction because there's a nice straight path from from
Hinkle all the
way to to Carroll you know with all you have to do is cont
end with Kroger at the
very end so the the removal of the maximum maximum parking
like I said I
understand why why that's been done but I as kind of sad to
see that one go and
the permeable parking which nobody ever builds but I always
liked that we had
that in as as the requirement for over parking if you want
to over park you
need to put in permeable parking but I swim now kind of
replaces that and I was
I was curious if you know or if maybe engineering knows how
many cities now in
the DFW area use ice swim standards well Deborah is here
and she can tell you
about she has a presentation I'm going straight to this
line right now I
believe there
these are all the cities that are ice swim city right now
and two four
that one's right there six eight ten twelve fourteen
fifteen cities and those
are the one who actually have applied to be called ice swim
cities just keep in
mind that I should have three components of it and many of
the cities have
already adopted some portion of it but those are the one
who have adopted most
of the ice wing components which is blood control stream
bank protection and
water control and water quality control and I do I do think
that it would it
would be unfair to require developers to meet these
standards whenever the city
itself does not but I hope this is the first step in the
city moving from an
old-fashioned pave over everything stream solution to to
using you know
environmental solutions for drainage and flood water and
stream banks and so
forth so I understand there might be added costs for
developers and I I do
hope that city engineering follows very soon and all of our
streets are built to
these standards as well and my my last comment is on the
bike parking
requirements today you can go to Kroger and there are
probably two or three bikes
chained to trees because there's no bike parking on Kroger
on University and
here are the Walmart on University and there are always
several bikes parked
there if you go over to where the freebirds and the yogurt
places there's
always a bike or two chained to a trash can or a bench or a
tree and those very
well might be employees that work at the nail salon or at
the little you know
freebirds burrito place or whatever but there is nowhere to
park there because
nobody thought about it and it wasn't required and so it
didn't get put in the
cost of a bicycle staple rack which is the little one that
comes up and goes
down it's pretty stylish they're about $189 plus a little
concrete plus about
10 square feet of you know landscape area so the cost on
bike parking is
minimal compared to you know potentially these other costs
and landscaping and so
forth but there's already already definitely demand you
know I have ridden
to 288 my bicycle and gone to Target and gone shopping and
I have gone to Home
Depot and with a backpack or peneers you can you know I'm
buying a five pound box
of drywall screws is not a problem you might not be going
home with you know a
back yeah enough to build a back deck or something but
there there is some
traffic in those ways and Denton does have if I remember
correctly before the
bike plan was implemented we were at like a three and a
half percent mode
share of bicycles which is really high especially for Texas
and that was
whenever we had one and a half miles of bike lanes in the
entire city so
encouraging this especially you know apartments downtown
and apartments even
out on 288 that might be a student that rides the rail
trail up to class or to
downtown you know five percent they're really cheap to put
in take up very
little space I think it's a really great idea that we're
and the bus but you can
take your bike on the bus in the city of Denton too so you
could if you have
barriers to riding your bike like on if you're I would not
ride my bike on loop
288 because I'm a chicken but but you could you could put
it on a bus and and
get over that barrier to biking just to speak to your
parking maximum I kind of
I kind of like you know I kind of held on to it pretty
tight because as
planners we like to see the the right parking in the right
spot you know
that's that's what we like to see and and and the parking
maximum has an
effect on that but but when we looked at it and we looked
at just how often
people were coming to us for additional parking and and
particularly in our in
our maybe our highway development or more regional center
development and
then what we asked for you know parking lots can have all
kinds of effects heat
island or pollutants are all and and by introducing the ice
swim and the tree
canopy it would mitigate some of those elements with the
the parking lots and
so it was kind of it was kind of a give-and-take regarding
that so
it doesn't always increase the cost to do your development
because if you
properly design integrate the low-impact design techniques
it can help to treat
your water and meet the needs that you have engineering
wise and be cost
effective so it's I think what we have to do a better job
of is educating our
development community on how to use that and how to
integrate it into their
projects so that it's not so it's not a difficult concept
to grasp and it's not
so difficult to implement so I think there may be a little
bit of the
hesitancy that we've seen but overall we've already have
projects around the
city that's doing it that is integrated into razor wrench
the new fire station
will have elements of low-impact design and you'll see it
more and more around
the city so it's not completely new to them
I'm chiming on that this is upper I'm open to those things
I get concerned
when we put all this stuff out and nobody can say if we
vote on this
tonight it moves forward and we can't get a question
answered as it costs
$5,000 or $10,000 as anybody even asks the question that's
a concern to me that
I'm a businessman and so that that's just the language that
I speak when we
start talking about changing all these things well how much
does it cost if
we're gonna do a building for a client and they call it me
up and say hey I'm
thinking about buying this piece of property tell me what
these things cost
that's the first question that's asked and need to know the
answers to those
things and so it concerns me as as a commissioner and as a
city as a typical
business thing that those things are not even in the
discussion when these things
come before us versus we've had meetings we've talked about
it we've done several
different designs it doesn't create any additional cost it
's $20,000 that to me
just is sound business principles that may just be my way
of looking at things
and it's not the way the rest of the Commission or the rest
of this body does
but that that's how I look at it and that's why I'm
concerned when I hear all
these things and yet there's there's no backup to come and
be put before us of
what the cost is to do all this if it's nothing that's a
great piece of
background information to say we've looked at this and we
don't think
there's a cost impact or we've looked at it and we think it
is so much per acre
or per thousand square feet some quantifiable thing to come
so when
people ask us how you voted for that and it's going to cost
$25,000 on my project
well you know it's nice to know that on the front end when
we're going to vote
on these matters what is the impact or not and so same
thing to follow up like
on the ice when I don't know whether that's a $5,000 deal
not only how much
is it cost to put it in but it's got to be monitored and
you got to submit the
reports whatever it is three times a year so what is the
cost impact of that
for a ten-year period do you have to replace it after two
years or five years
or six months and what does it cost so to me if we're going
to continue this
this would be the vote the voice of the Commission but when
it if it is
continued and we are going to hear it again I'd like to
have those kinds of
items added to the presentation to come back and say we
would like these things
to be implemented and this is what we see is a cost factor
of those things and
that's just my my perspective on this coming back so does
anybody else have
question Commissioner Hesbeth. Thank You Chair just one and
I think it may go
legal but are we at all contractually tied any time
requirement with I swim are
we is it just we can start stop there's no connection with
them as far as being
ice when certified or as far as using their product or
recommend a product for
any time or okay thank you thank you
so the other two items have been withdrawn and just for
clarification
item E is a proposed with a proposed amendment related to
building materials
it was noticed incorrectly so we're going to pull that for
now okay with
that I'm going to close our work session at 545 and we will
reconvene in council
chambers at 630
good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and
zoning Commission
meeting for January the 25th 2017 this meeting has been du
ly posted and we have
a quorum present and I'll call our meeting to order at 634
our first order
of business will be to stand to give the pledge the US and
the Texas flag
stands
next item of business will be to consider approval of the
planning is
only Commission meeting minutes for January the 11th
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I will make a motion to
approve the
minutes Commissioner Sullivan okay we have a first and a
second for approval
any discussion seeing none will call for a vote on the
board
motion carries five zero with one recuse I move us to our
item three which will be
our consent agenda Commissioner Taylor I move we approve
our consent agenda
Commissioner Roselle I second the motion okay we have a
first and a second for
approval any discussion seeing none will call for a vote on
the board
motion carries six to zero that will move us to our items
four which will be
individual consideration on our item a which is PZ 17 - 024
we have a clerical
error on that it was not noticed correctly so we will not
be hearing that
tonight and it will be renoticed and come back before this
Commission with
that we will move on to item B we'll call on Mike Bell for
presentation
thank you chair members of the Commission this project is
SP 16 3 it's
for a retail building at razor ranch town center the
request is for a hundred
and forty three thousand square foot retail development it
's located in the
RR 1 sub area of the razor ranch overlay district like all
razor projects it's
required to comply with the design guidelines of the
ordinance and requires
a site plan landscape plan and elevations to be approved by
the
planning and zoning Commission on the left you'll see the
overall site plan
for the the town center area of razor ranch south of
University Drive there's
an University Drive to the north I-35 here on the west the
subject property is
located in this area here and on the right is the is a blow
-up it is located
just south of the in-and-out and the chilies on University
Drive and will be
there will be three entrances to the side or four inches
excuse me on all
four sides as well as an entrance into the what will be the
town formal town
center in the center of the project this plan shows the
northern half of the side
and the landscape plantings that comply with the code
requirements in the
exhibit this is the southern half of the landscape plan
these two exhibits show
the hardscape plan requirements for razor ranch and notice
that there are
plaza areas at the entrances as well as some seating areas
and significant
amount of landscaping around the perimeter of the building
these are two
elevations for the property this top one is with the view
from I-35 and the south
is this one on the bottom would be similar to the north and
the south sides
they're very similar this is the north elevation the
criteria for approval are
listed here outline them in your backup I'd be happy to go
through that if you
wish based on this criteria staff will recommend approval
of the site plan and
I will stand for any questions any questions for staff
thank you Mike do
you have one card in on this item to speak looks like
Dustin Gibbs
please come forward and state your name and address Dustin
Gibbs my address is
300 Washington Street suite 400 Monroe Louisiana and I'm
with architecture plus
for the architects for Dillard's and we weren't really
wanting to speak but just
answer any questions that come up about the building elev
ations or design okay
when to have any questions thank you thank you for your
card and support
appreciate it again this is an individual consideration
item it's not a
public hearing but if there's anyone else that wants to
speak on this item
you may certainly do so otherwise we will move forward this
time seeing no
one else
Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I did have a question
of staff mr. Belfort
come back I'm trying to remember the there there's some
limit about the the
amount of kind of flat wall that can face you know a
parking lot or publicly
viewed area in razor ranch and does this does that apply to
this building and how
does like what what mitigating features are there that
break up the front of the
building there are that requirement however there's also
provision that you
can use trees in place of that and there's a significant
amount of trees
along the front to meet that requirement okay so that's and
that's why it's it's
it's a fairly flat facade because of because of the landsca
ping thank you
Commissioner Tyler I move that we approve this site plan
Commissioner Ellis
thank you chair I'll second that okay first and a second
for approval any
discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board
motion is going to carry six to zero that will move us to
our public hearing
section tonight at this time I'm going to open the public
hearing for item a
HL 16 - 0 0 0 6 and I will call on Roman McEllen for
presentation good evening
everyone this was a request for a designating his local
historic landmark
and specifically the property at 2106 North Bell Avenue the
owners are here
this evening and today we want to hold a public hearing and
consider making a
recommendation to the City Council regarding this
application and the
properties on the southeast corner of North Bell Avenue and
Sherman Drive and
I'll answer any questions yeah
questions for staff did a good presentation work session
thank you
Roman thank you do you have a card that wishes to to speak
in support be Gary
Hayden at 2106 North Bell Avenue please give your name and
address when you come
the mic and you'll have four minutes hi thanks for hearing
me okay yes Gary
Hayden 2106 North Bell Ave Denton Texas okay you'd like to
hear a little bit
about the history but I'm gonna keep it short the land
around there seem to have
come from Governor Reynolds and a land grant he was one of
the governors
between Texas Republic and the CSA Mr. Albert Woodrum is
the fellow who built
the house and I was told he was a self-made man it seems
that he was an
early service stations around here and he added on to the
house about six or
seven years after he built it and we have some indication
that he might have
been prosperous because we have a photo family photo of a
bear rug in front of
the fireplace and it's a polar bear rug so he we think he
did okay
Judge Boyd moved in next he was very well respected he was
in the house about
20 years his wife was very active in women's federations
around Texas and so
my home was a hotbed of I don't know tea parties and garden
parties and things
like that okay we know the house was used for Sunday school
Denton precinct
meetings Democratic precinct meetings dr. Weathers lived
there for a little while
about 20 years we had some other folks in there one of the
things that when Deb
and I moved in her wife Deb Conti is here the other owner
when we moved in it
wasn't long after that Peggy Caps and the city Main Street
came to us and said
gee wouldn't be nice to have an historical district here
and so the
first meeting for the Bell Avenue Conservation District was
held in our
house and the neighbors got together and that's now reality
so unless you have
any other questions about the history I thank you very much
just make a comment
we saw pictures in the work session of your home and it's a
beautiful home so
congratulations and I've done my hard work on it thank you
very much you got
and this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to
speak on this item
please come forward at this time seeing none close the
public hearing and open
the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner Rizel
thank you chair I just
wanted to say thank you for the hard work you put into the
house and providing
us the history it's always at least for me on the
Commission fund to see those
come through and it's a joy to to be able to put those
forth to the council
for approval and so thank you for being here and thank you
for your home and
Denton with that I motion to approve this agenda item
Commissioner Ellis and
I will second that and also would like to say I'm thrilled
to support this this
home has caught my eye every it does every time I'm at the
intersection so
it's always made me smile and it will make me smile even
more now with the
designation we have a first and a second for approval any
discussion seeing none
we'll call for a vote on the board motion carries six to
zero congratulations
that will move us to item B and I've read a question okay
under item B and C
we had quite a bit of discussion in our work session so
before I open those
public hearings I don't know if there was a commissioner
that wants to make a
motion before we open these for continuance Commissioner R
izel as you
said thank you chair because of the discussion I would
motion I'm not sure
if these need two separate motions so I just motion for
clarification from legal
separate or one together they were both have the same I
would go ahead and make
them separate motions separate okay another motion item DCA
17 3 to be
continued to a date uncertain that would be postponed inde
finitely until it comes
back onto your agenda then I motion for it to be postponed
indefinitely
Commissioner Ellis I will second them second that okay have
a first and a
second to postpone indefinitely any discussion Commissioner
Taylor thank you
chair so I don't know if anybody in the audience is
following this issue the
this was a cleanup of our parking standards but it also
included several
nuanced changes to parking islands landscape coverage etc I
personally feel
like this this proposal is moving in the right direction it
's going to make
parking lots nicer in Denton it provides for bike parking
it removes a few of the
old kind of restrictions we had that led to a lot of ADPs
for rather minor
requests like a maximum parking that we used to have in the
old code is being
removed so now there isn't a maximum parking requirement
for pervious paving
that in my time here I think I've seen just maybe two or
three projects in the
last five and a half years that did the previous paving and
everybody else came
in and asked for a variance to not do previous paving so as
much as I'd like
to see previous paving it obviously wasn't feasible and so
we do have some
questions about cost and some details of implementation but
I do think this is a
step in the right direction Commissioner Roselle thank you
chair I just mostly
probably want to echo Commissioner Taylor's points I think
this is moving
in the right direction what I'd like to see when it comes
back is more
information about the real costs as well as I brought up in
work session thoughts
about aligning bike stand incentives with the bike plan
that we have in place
to maybe join those together to further incentivize bike
traffic where the city
has already kind of thought through where bikes would be so
hopefully when it
comes back those two things as well as some discussion from
the Dinton
development group would be helpful to getting even more
context to the impact
of these changes have Commissioner Hussbeth thank you chair
so I want to
make sure kind of a note for staff that I do like the
provision for the bike racks
only in that we have quite the active community in that
segment of our
community and I think it's important for us to be sensitive
to to their thoughts
and and desires and so I think there's a there's a meeting
of the minds to be had
but I do want to see that provision stay in some capacity
because I I agree the
cost is is not that significant and it's going to be asked
of every project
anyway so we should probably be on the front end of that
and then I think the
other thing that jumps out at me is that I think there were
some fair questions
about the clarity of how to read the charts the graphs that
type thing I'd
like to see some some different options as far as how to
combine those matrices
to to make sure that that's user-friendly and then lastly
if we
could just as I said before in the development code I do
want to meet
with the building community but I want to hold their feet
to the fire so I
would encourage staff to have specific notes because if
there is if there are
developers that just continue to vacillate and won't give a
number and
won't lock in then then I think the record should reflect
that going forward
so that we can we can lend proper weight to those
individuals and those that are
willing to come to the table and negotiate in earnest then
that carries a
different weight in my eyes but I want to have transcripts
that then kind of
clearly line out those individuals that just refuse to to
lock in and those
that just will perpetually vacillate so that we can we can
I personally can
account for that so thank you I've got some comments as
well I had a
number of questions in work session along with Commissioner
Taylor I know
there are some things in this cleanup that are probably
overdue I did have
some concerns and brought those up in work session about
some of the costs and
the changes that were made and my concerns really stem from
standpoint of
not having impact from the stakeholders and the people that
will be asked to
make these changes and comply with these new regulations I
think once those
answers are provided and some of the costs associated I
think we can have a
productive discussion in our next work session and have
this item back
hopefully fairly soon Commissioner Ellis thank you chair
and one thing I just
wanted to add when this does come back before us is maybe
we can have you know
a workshop session in our work session then you could take
a lot of our
suggestions maybe and hear them and then maybe implement
them and then bring it
back to us I think that would that would help since since
many of us had concern
on clarity and and and questions and needed more than was
given to us today I
think that would be appreciative when it does come back any
other comments okay
with that we have a first and a second for continuance to
date certain and
we'll call for a vote on the board do we not have a second
just for my clarity
do we have a first and a second on this item okay great
okay with that a first
and a second call for a vote on the board
motion carries six zero to continue indefinitely I will
record on this item
it was a public hearing since we've continued it prior to
opening the public
hearing whenever it's put on the agenda in the future we
would have to re-notice
it just so that the public is aware and if anybody came to
speak on that item
today obviously we won't have those speeches today okay
that will move us to
our item C we had some similar discussion in our work
session and so
prior to opening the work session I'm going to open the
floor here to see if
Commissioner would like to offer a motion to continue this
item as well
Commissioner Tyler again this is this is kind of similar to
the last one where in
general the I think the code is good we I had a concern
about the fixed rate of
points needed per type as opposed to kind of the old matrix
style where
industrial next to commercial needs less buffer than
industrial next to
residential and I would I would prefer it go back to the
the older style matrix
and I do really like the point system and it makes it a
little more complex and
somebody's got to work a little bit harder to maybe to it
isn't just as
clean read of here's a type a buffer you shall have a tree
every 20 feet and a
shrub every 16 feet or whatever it is but it does give a
lot more flexibility
and I think in general this is good but because of the
changes and other
concerns I believe the Commission has I move to postpone
this item
indefinitely Commissioner Ozel thank you chair as I
mentioned the work session I
would like to see a merge between the current grid system
for buffers with the
ABCD and the new point system I do think the point system
is a step forward but
as I brought up in work session there seems to be some
built-in loopholes
already there so I'd love to see those point systems 10 20
30 50 I think up to
50 correlated back to an ABCD type matrix or whatever the
solution might be
with that though I second this motion to postpone inde
finitely okay I have a first
and a second to propose to continue this item indefinitely
any other discussion
or questions I can't speak seeing none I'll call for a vote
on the board
the motion to continue indefinitely passes six to zero that
will move us to
item D and I believe on a clarification from legal we're
gonna open this and
then continue it rather than continue it's gonna same
motion okay on item D I'm going to
open the public hearing for Z 16 - zero zero one and this
item has been
requested to be postponed so the chair would entertain a
motion for it to be
continued to February the 8th Commissioner Roselle I motion
for this
item to be postponed to the February 8th planning zoning
meeting okay
Commissioner Hussman second okay we have a first and a
second any discussion
seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board
motion carries six to zero and I want to make an
announcement on this item the
clarification from legal that says this item has been
opened and continued that
anyone who's posted a card at this time will be able to
come and speak we don't
have any cards on this item I'm sorry but if if when this
item comes back it
will be a public hearing and anyone would that would like
to speak may come
forward at that time and then that will move us to item E
and we have a
clarification on that this was noticed as building
materials and it has been
postponed indefinitely these are the same items in regards
to the didn't
development code and the building materials notice it was
posted didn't
record Chronicle just will make that clarification for the
record and it has
been postponed indefinitely and we'll be taking no action
on that tonight this
will move us to our project matrix and concluding items and
first item I have
as a note here is that Mike Bell is going to be leaving the
city of Denton
and we wish him well in his endeavors and want to thank him
for his service
here at the city has always been a great person to go to
for questions and very
knowledgeable and you will be missed so congratulations and
good luck on your new
opportunity and plan will miss you and with that we'll open
the floor for items
to be put on our agenda for in the future
are there any items to be added to the future agenda's
matrix yeah I have
something to bring up by it and Rowan McAllen's talk today
we asked him about
proactive ways to incentivize or to help with the fitzl its
facilitation of
the stork applications what process needs to happen in
order to look into
those fees that he talked about specifically is it in our
purview to
bring up the discussion about waiving that $265 I don't
think it's be added to the
matrix or followed up offline but I'd love to see what we
can do to if he has
two applications that are not happening because of $265 I'd
like to see how we
can help out that process
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I don't know if this is
for the matrix
certainly a concern and and you can tell me where it needs
to go we had some
confusion last meeting about discussion at work session and
what should be
discussed at work session and what should hold off till the
meeting in
chambers I'm thinking can we have maybe discussion on that
I feel like
sometimes yeah at work session I do feel like sometimes the
public is left out
because we if they don't watch the work session I know it's
being recorded so it
is available certainly but sometimes when we get to this
point I guess yeah if we
could discuss that further that would be appreciated okay I
guess the only item
nobody has anything else is I appreciate it getting the
handout last meeting
about Ryan Road I didn't see anything on Mayhill and I've
actually had now a call
from somebody wanting to have an update on that and wanting
to know what I know
about it so is that plan to come before us or we're just
going to get a handout
on that I know we've been brought up now I think three or
four meetings so the
actual the memo for may he'll was prepared in October it
came as an email
to the PNC so we can be send that if we need to I missed it
okay we'll we'll
rescind that okay thank you I wouldn't have kept asking
about it if you just
said hey you just gotta check your email thank you anybody
else okay with that I
will close our meeting this evening at 7 o 5 thank you
everyone and thanks to the
public