Mar 22, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-03-22 4:30 PM

Commission meeting for March the 22nd 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I will call our work session to order at 434 and I will turn it over to Shandria for clarification of agenda items. Okay. Good evening. We have one item. Well, actually do we have any comments or questions about the minutes from March 8th? Okay For the consent agenda, we have one item. It's a final plat for Ryan Meadows if there's no questions or there is a question. Julie Wyatt up just in case. Okay. Thank you chair. Okay Concerned about the roadway access in this area. We've got the what is it Creekwood Drive. Now as this development is going up it'll eventually connect up there by Ryan Elementary, right? Yes. And on the north end then on the south end it'll connect to where Creekwood dead ends. Okay. This road though, it's a connector line. What is the right- of-way width for a connector there? Is this something that can be since this is the only main road for all these other feeder roads to get people out there? Would that be a double lane or a four lane or would it be a two lane with a center strike? Are you referring to Creekdale? Yes. Yes. Creekwood Drive. It's 85 foot right away. It is 85 foot. That's what I'm saying. You know, I don't have engineering here to see just how that roads going to be designed. Okay. That's what I was curious about if we knew if that was going to be wide enough to handle, you know. Engineering has reviewed it and has released it to be so it does meet that that road right away with does meet the technical requirements in order to accommodate the traffic flow that is anticipated through development. So if I can run my roll down he could probably give me a better answer. Yes sir. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Sullivan. Maybe I'm confused with another plat en. Doesn't isn't there going to be a Hickory Creek is going to be coming south of this or is it further south? When you were talking about that, you know, one of the few entrance and exits going into this division subdivision. Where is Hickory Creek coming in below? I thought it was. Earl Escobar just walked in. So I may call upon him. Let me pull up a map and then maybe we can look at it together if that's And we can see Earl we're talking about the Ryan Meadows Plat and they have questions regarding the design of Creekdale Drive. I'm going to make sure I'm getting in the right spot. Ryan Meadows is actually further to the west. So this is Ryan Meadows phase two to the south here and if I turn on the mobility plan, it should show Creekdale actually continuing further south and then to the east and connect to the existing portion, which is I believe somewhere in this area. Commissioner Sullivan is the red dot. Is that the proposed Hickory Creek? That should be so that you got some So you do have another out to the south of Creekdale coming down to the proposed Hickory Creek. Right over here. Change. Yeah. There's a feature collector that connects Creekdale to Hickory Creek Road. So that would relieve some of the pressure off of the traffic going on to Ryan Road or mainly going on to Ryan Road. And this outlet over here should already be existing. It is . So there is already an outlet that connects Creekdale to H ickory Creek. Just want to make sure I was thinking of the right area. That's all. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for pointing that out. Commissioner Sullivan, I wasn't even aware that we were going to have that little jump in there, but that's futuristic. As this development gets done though, it will connect to Ryan, come down to Creekdale and hit a street there I can't think of that will bring it down to Hickory Creek. We can call it Larry Beck Boulevard. But we've got no idea when Hickory Creek is going to even be started doing. My question for you guys in here is how wide is Creekdale going to be? Is that going to be like a four lane or a two lane with a center turn? It'll be a two lane road with parking on either side. It's a residential collector. Okay. Considering it's a main road that will be pulling a lot of those people out there, I would have thought it would have been a little bit, it would have allowed for more traffic flow one time. But no, just two way would. We could strap it either way. It gives us flexibility depending on traffic volumes right now. The standard cross sections, two lanes, one lane in either direction with parking on the side. We'd also stripe it three lanes with a one lane in each direction with a turn lane, continuous turn lane. Okay. It's wide enough though where in the future if we need to, we could probably add another lane on each side then. If we need to. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. What's happening to Ryan Road? I mean during school mornings and afternoon, Ryan Road getting on to Country Club is a real disaster. And when you add all those houses right there, dump it into Ryan Road, is Ryan Road going to be widened at some point or when and what's the... There is no definite time frame for the widening of Ryan Road. It is slated to be a four lane divided roadway. We did apply for a signal at Ryan and FM 1830, Country Club . It was denied by TextDOT because it did not meet their war rants. And unfortunately TextDOT, in order to meet TextDOT war rants, it has to be based on actual traffic counts. So you really need, the development has to come first before the signal can... Create chaos. In order for it to then get solved. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Julie on this item? Okay. Under public hearing, we have four items and I will note that two have been postponed until the April 12th meeting. And those are items B and C. Okay. And then items B and C under public hearing have been postponed until April 12th. And then I'll invite Haley Zagorski up to discuss item Z16 28, which is a rezoning request for MSGSB Limited property owned by that group. Alright. Good evening. So this is case Z1628 for the Harris property. Alright. So the request was for us to hold a public hearing and consider a request for rezoning approximately a half acre from DR2 districts to a DCG. That's Downtown Commercial General. The property is located at 1604 West Hickory. It's currently developed with four duplexes. The two that you see on the back portion of the lot are connected by a breezeway carport there. And it's approximately 85 feet east of Avenue C to give you a little point of reference there. I want to point out some features in the area. There is currently multifamily to the north and the west of this property. That's across the street apartments and the lights apartment complexes. CVS is located there at the corner of Avenue B in Hickory. The two properties in between the subject property and CVS are actually owned by the same entity that owns the subject property. It's currently developed with the Jackson Chang apartment office and then they have a couple of residences next door that are used for multifamily as well. And then of course the UNT campus is located directly across Hickory Street. So currently this property is zoned Downtown Residential 2 and the proposal is to rezone this to DCG. And as you can see there are two properties that adjoin this one to the east are currently zoned DCG. So their intent is to put all three properties under one zoning district to help facilitate future redevelopment. So the future land use designation for this property is neighborhood university compatibility area. As you're all probably familiar by now that is a designation applied to areas that adjoin our two university campuses to help transition from that campus and form and land use into the surrounding established neighborhoods. So you can see here this one like I said is directly across the street from UNT's campus. And that neighborhood university compatibility area extends pretty far to the north of this property before you get into those lower residential areas. So some of the considerations that staff looked at for this was that the rezoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern. There's already a mix of DCG and DR2 within this block. And as I mentioned before the two adjoining properties that this owner currently has are already have the DCG zoning designation. This district is consistent with the future land use designation. The neighborhood university compatibility area calls for densities and services to be provided in close proximity to the college campuses to promote walkability in the area. And to give the area character and versatility. And as I mentioned previously this would consolidate the zoning designation for these three properties that are under the same ownership to allow for more cohesive future development under one set of zoning regulations. Another consideration is that this allowing this redevelop ment for denser use potentially in this area does promote transportation efficient design. And what that means is that it's providing resources and potentially housing in a close proximity to UNT that would then promote bicycle and pedestrian activity near this campus. And that in turn would limit students vehicle trips to and from campus. And eventually could limit parking in the surrounding neighborhoods by providing them areas to live and get the resources that they need close to campus. And just to give you some idea of how these two districts compare, DR2 has a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. DCG would substantially increase that to 150. The lot coverage is fairly comparable. It would increase from 75% to 85%. And then decrease the landscaping from 25% to 15%. And this would allow for the building height on this parcel to increase from a maximum of 45 feet to a maximum of 100 feet. Notices were sent for this case and we received no written responses. I did pass out the one response from the neighborhood meeting that was held back in February. And as you can see that person was neutral to this request. And with all that being said, staff recommends approval of this request because of its compatibility with the surrounding established zoning districts as well as its consistency with that future land use designation. And I can answer any questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Haley. I read in the backup that the subject property is not pl atted currently. I believe that's correct. And is the other property, is that platted, the other property that this person owns? I don't believe so. They expressed an intent to potentially plait the three lots together at some point in the future. Okay. And that's probably where my concern lies with this is repl atting it and then we're going to have a footprint for a gin ormous development request. So I do have concerns. Another question I have is where is the Frye District overlay and coming west? Let me see if we still have that map pulled up here. So let me turn off a few layers here and get us to the right area. Got a little bit of lag time here between the mouse and the computer. All right. So. Should have a layer four. Yeah, so looks like the Frye Street area goes up to Avenue B. So it would not be, it would not count for this particular property? No. Okay. Okay. That was my fear. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. On that, what about West Oak Historical? Where is it in coming from the west? And West Oak is there in blue. Okay. Okay. Is the applicant going to be here for this? I believe so. I believe he intends to be here for the hearing tonight. I have a question too for him. In the background material under site data points out one way secondary major arterial requires 66 feet of right of way and designed to accommodate approximately 10,000 vehicle trips per day. And then it says West Hickory is not currently built to the second major arterial standard. So what does this entail? Are we going to have to widen that or add some things to it to get it up to speed? And if so, does that mean this is going to affect Hickory probably all the way from Carroll to Bonnie Bray? I'll actually let Earl answer that question if he knows future plans for Hickory. Hickory and Oak Street are considered one way couplets. It's basically two lanes for each roadway in each direction . Right now Hickory is a two lane roadway. And so capacity wise you're really not going to increase any capacity into that since it's already two lanes. So the maximum capacity for that roadway is about 10,000 vehicles per day. The additional right of way is going to be mainly for the parkway where your sidewalks are going to be located. So that would bring Hickory then up to this secondary major arterial standard. Earl, do we have traffic counts for Hickory? I'm sorry? Do we have traffic counts for Hickory? Yes, there's currently about 6,000 vehicles on that roadway right now. Okay. Yeah, it shouldn't increase that much. But again, what has to be done here to bring it up to the second major arterial standard? If we're not there yet, it's indicating we're going to have to. I'm just curious, what does that entail? Well, when we say it's not actually a secondary major arter ial. A secondary major arterial is two lanes divided, four lanes divided, two lanes in each direction. And that's not going to be the case with Hickory. Okay. Okay. So you're not saying it has to be brought up to that. But I don't, just the fact that it even raised that indicated that we were going to have to make some changes to Hickory. But you're saying we don't. Right. I think if you combine Hickory and Oak, it kind of gives you the same concept as a secondary arterial. Okay. With the two lanes in each direction with the block in between serving as your median. That makes sense. And I'm assuming the speed limit will be unchanged. Yeah. But the 66 foot right away right now, it's not currently 66. It's probably more in the neighborhood of 60. So that additional six feet is just accommodate a wider parkway for your sidewalk. Okay. Do we know, let's maybe go back to, do we actually know the actual acreage of these, was it three parcels combined? Thank you, Earl. Do we have a full acre there? Let me see. I believe I have both, information for both of their properties. So the subject property is 0.55 acres. The other two lots are 0.68. So it would be just over an acre combined. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you. Commissioner, back to some of my questions, but I wanted to follow up on one of them. Generally speaking, when we look at a rezoning like this, how does the current infrastructure in terms of traffic play into the process of approval? More thinking generally to help me out going forward, but also specifically here, where you have the potential for a massive building to go in. City says the current street is not built to the standards in which the current street is supposed to be. Does that play into any hesitation in the approval process? Like if we had a gravel road there, but it was zoned DCG, would city be like, okay, well it needs to be this. And because it can be this, I just want to know how traffic plays into the decision process, because it wasn't, it doesn't seem like it was a big enough deal to not be overcome in this situation. But there has to be a tipping point at some point where the traffic's a real consideration. I'm wondering the thought process behind city staff in determining that. Well, Earl might be best suited to answer that. I know we do reserve the right to request a traffic impact analysis with each case. In this case, they weren't very specific in what their future intent is. So I think that played into why that wasn't done at this point, but I can let you speak more to Federal. Yeah, we've noticed over time lately that traffic has become an issue for a zoning case. And so now what we've done is started to require a traffic analysis. If the area that they're trying to rezone is a, I guess a sensitive area in terms of traffic, unfortunately. But this one, it's already currently developed. And so depending on, and it's really speculative. They don 't even know what they're wanting to put in there based on their narrative. So the traffic study comes in when there's actually some plans drawn from potential construction? Right. Okay. Because we don't know if they were going to combine this lot with the lots adjacent to it and make it one big lot, or is it, they were just going to develop as individual lots. So that's why we couldn't really pinpoint a traffic study to determine if this was feasible. That makes sense. I think that's all I might have for you. But I have one more question regarding the project. Because of the zoning across the street, would the potential project on a DCG in this specific area have any residential slope requirements? The residential proximity slope? Yeah. No, so that's dependent on the adjoining properties. And in this case, they have multifamilies surrounding them to the north and the west and then the university across the street. So at this point, it doesn't look like that would apply. If there was a single family residence on any surrounding side , then that could come into play. But it doesn't look like it would here. Okay. Thank you. We'll follow up on the traffic. Since we've done the traffic impact fees now, the burden for the streets now pretty much shifts to the city and they pay the fee versus the old way of if the road is not improved in your site, you're doing perimeter street paving. That has gone away now with the traffic impact. Is that correct or is that not exactly how that works anymore? It depends. If the development is going to create such a negative impact on our existing road infrastructure, they should actually mitigate for that. And now whether or not they'll be eligible for credit just depends on what those mitigation measures are. On deals like this, it shouldn't be. That's going to be like razor ranch and large projects like this, not smaller infield type projects. And we have a clause in our ordinance as well with infield developments that if they're not proposing a development that's 10 times greater than the previous use. I don't know what the current use is now. It is currently developed. But as long as they're within that 10 times threshold, then they wouldn't be subject to road impact fees to help promote infield development. Do we have any general guidelines, say for instance the road just physically can't handle traffic such as Commissioner Roselle's example, or the roads not there yet, what are our criteria in those cases? Because you can't really pay into a fund to get access if it doesn't exist. Well, if the roads not there, they have to build that road. And so, and then they would be eligible for those right away credits if it's in our either on our mobility plan or if it's in our roadway CIP plan. Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. I guess that this is a disframatification. How are we to vote on changing the zoning if we don't know what the plans are to go there? I mean, I kind of see this as a game of Pac-Man where we're starting to chomp away and pretty soon we're coming up to next door to the historic district, and we've got 110 foot structure going to be built and everybody's going to say, why don't y'all do that? Well, that's sort of the nature of zoning. It requires a little bit of, I guess, foresight. And the way you were basically zone in the dirt, not the use. So we're thinking about what could go in that spot and if, if what could go in that spot will work or not. And so those are the questions that you would need to ask yourself what's possible under the zoning that you allow to go in this space to be built in those are the questions you would have to weigh as a commissioner. Thank you. If I could jump in real fast. Thank you. To Commissioner Sullivan's point, early on that was a contention I had and Commissioner Taylor really helped out in helping me through that. It often convolutes the zoning case and we actually know what the applicant is because then we think, okay, well it's just going to be an apartment complex, let's approve it, but they could just flip it, sell it, put a movie theater in or something like that. So it's, it's ideal, in my opinion, not to know what the specific use case use case could be. So when we look at all these possible potentials we actually think through, which should these be any of these should be in this area. So it's helpful to actually bifurcate those out completely. So we're looking at zoning, we shouldn't shouldn't take into consideration what someone's saying they might build because they could sell the property they can build whatever they want once it's zoned. So it has to be taken independent of the actual potential use being built. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair and just to piggyback further on that, that is my concern with this, just to put food for thought, they can replat all of these that they own once this is done and they can sell it. And we could be having an issue that we've had on multiple occasions already in this area with a large scale development, high density large scale development. So that's where my concerns lie with this because we never know changing zoning what it's going to be even even if they come to us and say this is what we're going to do. I mean, it's not tied together so it helps I guess yes to your point not to know but at the same point we need to consider really what all that could all that it could be in doing want all that it could be. So thank you. Any other questions for highly. Thank you. So the final item under public hearing is development code amendment related to multifamily dwellings, and I'll invite run the Gita up for a presentation. Later this evening. Thank you Chair members of the Commission members of staff. This is a great segue on the discussion that we just had a few seconds ago. The item that we have today is a consideration for a sup requirement for zoning districts D. Are to DCN and DCG. The code amendment is to add a specific use permit to these zoning districts when multifamily development is proposed. So for definition purposes or the definition for multif amily is a structure that contains three or more dwelling units so any development. That has three or more units on a single lot would qualify as a multifamily development and if that is proposed say a fourplex they would fall under this requirement for a specific use permit as well. So just to clarify and define what multifamily is it could be a four unit it could be a hundred unit it could be whatever as long as it's more than three. Three or more. For your for the DC. These are the zoning districts that permit multifamily. Either with a sup or with a limitation. You see here on this side here it's listed up what an RC and an RMU 12 DC and DCG and so forth. The three that we're going to be focusing on or is under consideration is are these three zoning districts here. And currently these are the only three zoning districts that don't require a either an sup or the limitations that you see here L4 or L6. L4 requires that a multifamily be permitted with either the following if they fall under the following five criteria or five categories here. If they obtain a specific use permit are part of a mixed use development or as part of a massive plan development existing. If it was received if they received a development approval back prior to 2005 and also if it's part of a small area plan. So if they meet any of those then they meet the limitation of L4. L5 for the three that we see here limitation there is related to density. So what it states here is that within this district the density of an apartment will calculate as one bedroom equ ating to half the unit. So for example if there is a four bedroom unit that unit actually equates to two units because each bedroom is half a unit. So that's the limitation. Limit number six, limitation number six states that if a proposed multifamily is proposed in any of these zoning districts that have a L6 associated with it. Must have a non-residential use on the ground floor if it is along an avenue collector or an arterial street. Otherwise it would not be permitted. So those are the limitations under each of these zoning districts that allow for multifamily. So before I move on does anybody have any questions related to the requirements or the need for multifamily as it falls under these zoning districts? Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. So for clarification then L6 you can't build multifamily on the ground level. It's got to be above a commercial. Correct. As long as it falls or is along an arterial collector and an avenue street. Okay thanks. Commissioner Hitchwith. Are those, let's see so we have office, retail and commercial. Is there a working definition tied to the document in and of itself somewhere or does someone make a judgment call on those? As well as, yes. So like last week we had a conversation, I say last week, last week a conversation about single home, I mean single family, multifamily. So who makes those kind of decisions if it's iffy on a commercial or if it's iffy on retail. Who kind of is the tiebreaker? Well the DRC administrator and ultimately the planning director can make those determinations as far as the type of use it is. Typically if it's non-residential in the sense it falls under the commercial land use categories, then those will qualify as commercial uses. And we also have definitions in the DDC that explain what each of the uses entail. Office, retail. But then development code. I have a question. Rather than a question I'll say maybe an observation. The criteria that we have L4 through 6, those three design ations, DR2, N and G, effectively those are the only three z onings that you can by right go build multifamily in. Correct. Or as, yes. Or if they will use L4 as an example, if it's a mixed use then yes. But if it's plainly multifamily you are correct. That's the only three that were permitted by right. But currently if you're going to do multifamily outside those three zones, you have to fit the box with review. Those three are the only ones that if somebody buys properties that I want to build an apartment unit and it's zoned that way and it's in a small area plan I can go out and start building apartments and I don't have to have go through all of the. Public hearings or what not. Stuff. Just to clarify that, the other thing is obviously to comply with the L5 which is the density limitation. But other than that, you're correct. It would be permitted by right. Thank you. That's all I'm going to make at this point and go on with your presentation. So just to give a little bit more background on multifamily and specifically these three zoning districts, what would be required and what the requirements are in regards to set backs, maximum building heights, and maximum lock coverage. As we continue to discuss these proposals for multifamily, we often ask ourselves, well what's the height limit, right ? And so DCG, we'll use that as an example, DCG has a 100 feet maximum building height. It requires up to or requires up to 85% lock coverage. As far as setbacks, there are none. However, we know that the fire department requires certain setbacks if it's adjacent to a fence or another structure. So these are the regulations that we look at when we review a multifamily development that comes in, again, under the DR2, DCG. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Just, and I should know this, just for clarification, we're talking about lock coverage. We're talking about what that building is going to be sitting on. Right. Yes, the way we define lock coverage is just at Commissioner Beck, but also any impervious material. So the driveways would count as lock coverage. Okay. And parking. Okay. Right. So would I be right in saying that the more, the greater the lock coverage, the higher the density? Is that what those two fit? Technically, you can, yeah, you can build more with the higher lock coverage. Okay, thank you. We also have design standards, which is in sub-chapter 3513 . Again, another set of provisions that we look at when we review developments of multifamily. And you all have seen this proximity slope, but in that section it also includes orientation, building materials, open space requirements, architectural requirements, and any other. If it belongs, or it's within a special overlay district, those will also have additional criteria or additional standards. But generally, if a development comes in for multifamily, these site design standards are under the section 3513. Parking. This is the ratio required. You see we've got different categories for dwelling units, and efficient, which is defined as 600 square feet or less. And that is 1.25 per unit. If it is a one bedroom or an efficiency that's over 600, they're required to provide 1.5 space per unit. Two bedroom is 1.75. Three bedrooms is two spaces. Four bedrooms would be one per bedroom. And then a retirement or senior living facility would be one space per unit. So again, these are what we look at when we review a multif amily development that comes in for development. Commissioner Sullivan. Where do the infamous SROs stand in this diagram? Good question. SROs, we do not have a separate use that's classified or categorized as SROs. We categorize them as multifamily at this point. So they would fall under multifamily. But I mean, would it be one and a quarter space per unit or ? It would depend on how many bedrooms they are proposing. Again, if they have three bedrooms, they would be required two parking spaces. If they were four unit, a four bedroom unit, then they would require one space per bedroom. So they would fall under the same requirements that you see here. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Rizal. Just so I'm, excuse me, clear. A three bedroom unit, that's a three bedroom unit is one unit? Correct, with three bedrooms. So if an apartment has three bedrooms, the requirement is two spaces per that one apartment door. Correct. But if it's a four bedroom unit, you have to have four spaces. Correct. I'm wondering why the difference, because on one it's two thirds per bedroom and then it jumps up to one per bedroom. And it's the only one that has a per bedroom. Can you help me out with that? Yeah, I think going back, I'm sure there was a code amendment. I'm not 100% sure exactly when that was. But I think that was to address the four bedroom units that were being developed in primarily student housing, I'm guessing, on that. And that's why that required up the parking requirements for that particular type of unit. Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Going back to you answering Commissioner Sullivan with regard to the collegiate type housing projects. So you're saying like in their typical development, let's say it would be like a four quad with the living in the center. Right. So that would be treated as a four bedroom, right, needing four spaces for that particular unit. Yes, we treat them the same as a multifamily and the bedroom count is transferred as well to this ratio. Okay. Yes. Thanks. Just real quick, I know you have this in your backup, I just wanted to go over really quick and maybe potentially answer any questions that you may have. We do have a section in the DDC that's specific to specific use permits. It discusses the procedures. It goes through the planning and zoning and then ultimately to city council for their approval. It is approved by ordinance. There's an approval criteria that lists compatibility, capacity levels, and all the good things that need to be in conformance. It also has submittal requirements. Typically we request a site plan if applicable, a landscape plan and/or elevations as well. With that, we can, when I say we, the staff, the planning, zoning commission, and city council can also impose conditions to make, to ensure that the proposed use conforms with the approval criteria that's stated in this section. And ultimately if it is approved and there is a change in the site plan or the conditions that were approved by city council, it would have to go back to the same process as it was approved and that being planning the zoning commission and city council. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Ron, when I was reading through this particular section in the code, it mentioned the word approval authority. I assume that's city council, right? They're making the final decision as it runs through the process, but they're the approval authority on an SUP. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Ultimately the city council approves the SUPs through ordinance. So with all that, we're here again to propose a code amendment to add a specific use permit for the three zoning districts, as was pointed out earlier, don't require a specific use permit at this moment. The three zoning districts are the DR2, DCN, and DCG. And how we came to that is you see here in the urban core that's shown on this map, the majority of the zoning districts that are adjacent to our established neighborhoods, our historic districts, and our special overlay districts, but these zoning districts in the form of either the DR2, DCN, or DCG. And staff's recommendation is that we add this specific use permit to provide that additional analytical tool to bring forward, not only with the applicant and discuss what we can do to address any potential impacts, also but to the planning zoning commission and ultimately city council as well, to identify what mitigation or conditions we can use to minimize those potential impacts. And that could be the height of the building if it is too high for that particular area, and so on and so forth. There's a number of conditions that can be placed. And this is really the tool that can be used to address those concerns that we have. And when I say we, I say that in general, the citizens, the planning zoning commissions, and the city council. Ultimately, there are options to provide other requirements . Again, I said parking, building height, and we can also talk about sustainability in the form of some specific site design requirements. So all those can be folded in to the approval of a specific use permit as a condition. I kind of went over this already briefly. The staff obviously is bringing this forward and we're recommending approval as the specific use permit will serve as an analytical tool to review land use as far as massing and scale to surrounding areas, surrounding properties, to address compatibility. And again, it's consistent to our comprehensive plan in the form that it is within the compatibility area, the neighborhood university compatibility area. And it's in this area that we feel that we really need another level of review, and that is through a specific use permit. So with that, that concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any further questions. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Okay, Ron, so how did we get here? I have a feeling like from what I understand, this started because we wanted a definition, or council wanted a definition, or the city as a whole wanted a definition for SRO collegiate housing. How did we go from there to here? Was it just too hard to define and put into another, I guess, code requirements for that type of development? Because my only fear with this is, are we negatively affecting other types of multifamily by adding this other layer and expense for developers and developments? And so I want to know where your brain was in the think tank room that we got to this. >> Sure, we started this several months ago. We've had several meetings with the city council. Obviously, the issue, if you want to call it a concern, was we were seeing these development pressures in the form of SROs that were impacting the area in various aspects. So we started looking at how we would address these types of developments. We talked about defining a specific use or come up with a use within itself as a SRO or collegiate housing, is what we were calling it. And identifying where that use would be permitted in a zoning district. So similar to adding a use to the development code, identifying a zoning district and potentially adding additional design criteria for that particular use. We had a work session with city council and the council couldn't come up with a unanimous determination or direction to move forward with that particular proposal. So we came back after that and staff kind of went over what our other options are and what we can do to address the issues that we were dealing with on these development pressures. And we felt that the SUP would address those issues, give the community the opportunity to discuss and hopefully come up with solutions. Give the staff the tools needed to propose options or conditions. And ultimately have city council and the planning zoning commission hold public hearings to further that discussion. Because, as you know, if a property were to develop in the DCG, and I understand your point Commissioner Nowles, we talked about small multifamily to large and it does encompass that . And that was my first comment on my first slide. And I wanted to make sure that was clear. It does affect those multifamily from small to large. So did you have discussion though about the negative effect on, like somebody let's just say building a fourplex on a typical lot? Because now they have a much larger timeframe, right, before they can commence development, right? Because would it be one public hearing here or two? Two, one from PNZ and one from city council. Just one at city council? Correct. Okay. Good afternoon commissioners. I just wanted to add on to some of Ron's comments and statements. The SRO discussion was prompted by council directed staff, meaning the planning division, to evaluate the implications or perhaps lack thereof of SRO development. We conducted benchmark analyses to discern what that would be and we went to talk about collegiate housing through that discussion. When that item was presented to the city council, ultimately there was consensus with the council to in essence review the multifamily development standards as it relates to areas that could potentially have a greater impact as it relates to denser uses and the associated residential or well established neighborhoods and what have you. And that is why when we went back, because initially we had our discussion with council where we did discuss collegiate housing and explained how that would be included in the definition. But more importantly, when we speak about SROs, the other question was this doesn't address some of the single family homes that are also being converted for multiple dwelling uses, for the lack of a better phrase. So what we did is we evaluated as Ron indicated the core, which is your Ds, your DCGs, your DRNs, your DR2s and those districts and also evaluated what else is around that area as it relates to the built out environment. You have proximity to historic districts, you have older residential neighborhoods that are well established and you also have some neighborhoods that are in need of a makeover as well as some areas that are in need of a makeover. So the intent of the specific use permit is not to create obstacles or hurdles for anybody who is coming in to perhaps revitalize an area or perhaps look at an area in proximity to an established residential neighborhood. The intent of the specific use permit is purely a tool to evaluate the use and its adjacency to the surrounding land use pattern. And what measures can be provided from an aesthetic measure or from building material or spacing, massing your spatial design and analysis. How would that play into that? And the specific use permit is a dual public hearing process. So it would come before you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the recommending body and then move on to council and then your roles would be depending on community input, how you wanted to proceed with that SUP. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you Chair. I have several questions. Hopefully they make logical sense. I was kind of jotting them down as I was thinking about them. This seems to be prompted by collegiate housing SROs several months ago. Has there been any project thus far in the city that by rights? They took advantage of the, I mean, I guess what I'm saying is, is there any precedent, apart from individuals coming and asking to build SROs that we've seen in the city? Has someone taken advantage of current by right zoning that 's affected neighborhoods or the city? Do we know of any projects like that? Or are we just not wanting SUPs and these to continue coming on the north side of UNT? We've had, I mean, you've seen several zoning cases come through. I'm trying to think of some developments. The one on Eagle, I'm blanking on the name, I believe that 's zone DCG and that was permitted by right. And there may be some variances that were required, maybe an ADP, but the use or the zoning did permit that use. Again, Eagle and Bernard, the south corner. I actually have a photo of it. That's fine. It means dead center in the urban core green. I was just trying to think if there's been an actual project that would make this a precipice other than the city PNZ council thinking about, well, this could be an issue or we get a lot of requests for this. So I was saying this is reactive or proactive and if it's proactive, what is it necessarily based on? I don't know if there's a good answer for that. Have we gotten any feedback from the citizens or the city in regards to to moving forward on this or is this just internalized from staff and council? This has been, we actually posted it for tonight's public hearing. We've received several input from folks after hearing the work session at city council. Some of them were in favor and some of them were in opposition. I would just add to that. I think probably the impetus was the normal inscription projects that keep coming up. They have that same business model. So we've seen it before and we, I guess we want to figure out a way to allow those in the community, but to do it in a way that is compatible with the neighborhoods. And so finding that happy medium is, I guess, this is the first step. Right. Is there a way to on a use case have a boundary from conflicting zoning so that SROs couldn't be built within 500 feet of any conflicting zone? Have we thought about just kind of creating around this green block just a buffer? Because it sounds like the city is not against SROs because it might be just easiest to ban them, but it seems like we 're okay with them in some places. And if that's the case, then can we not just better tell S RO developments where they're friendly to them in the city? Right. I mean, well, I mean, the zoning right now as it is would permit it, but I think what is important to note that is there are also existing established neighborhoods that would be affected as well. And those areas are throughout the area that we're talking about as well. So this would serve to help protect those established neighborhoods. Again, the proposal that we've seen have been in the north. We've seen some zoning cases come through around the southern part of the university, but we haven't seen them develop except for maybe this development right here. Now, this particular development, there are single families to the back of it, and if there were a specific use permit, maybe there would have been an opportunity to address some of the impacts that they may be feeling or having at this time. And I guess my last point is to Commissioner Ellis's point. It seems as though a small minority of projects are going to create a lot of work for a lot of good projects, especially considering all the different zoning requirements we have. We have three zoning that disallow by right and we're just going to remove that. So it seems like effectively anyone who wants to build a multifamily development in Denton has to go to P&Z and council. That's in effect what would be happening through this, and that causes me some concern to try to be, we already generally have a reputation about not being business friendly. I don't think everyone's trying to fight that, but I don't know how this helps that fight and saying, if you want to build apartments in Denton, you have a dual hearing process . And it doesn't necessarily end up just wanting to regulate SROs or you wouldn't be discussing the increased design criteria or other things. So it seems like an opportunity for the city to not just regulate SROs, but also put any other criteria they want. Senator Bill there, we would really like you to use this material and make it look like this, and I just don't think that gives a lot of control or autonomy to the project coming in. So I wish there was a better solution. If this is all about SROs, then I think it would be better just to define SROs out so that other projects aren't so affected by this. >> Right, and like we discussed earlier, we tried that. I think when we looked at this, this was not just SROs, these would be multifamily developments, your traditional multifamily developments. Again, what we're looking at is established neighborhoods, their historic districts, and our special overlay districts as well would be potentially impacted by multifamily, not necessarily just single room occupancy development. >> I definitely understand that, but also, so if we're not talking about SROs, it seems like we have a zoning of DCG. And someone by right can come in and build 100 stories. Well, now we have a measure to stop that. Now we're like, oh, right there, we don't want 100 stories. So now we can almost spot, zone every piece of property. So we have this DCG, 100 feet, but if they come in with 100 foot, we can say, actually, in this area, it would be more applicable to be 45 feet. And so it doesn't, I don't feel this is a solution, SROs, it's a solution to provide oversight that I think is beyond what is necessary or helpful to business. And if we're not okay with DCG in some locations being 100 feet, for example, then I think it's on us to, for us to go back and pinpoint. And I don't know if it creates small area plans or overlays or new zoning districts. But if there's areas we know we don't want 100 feet, then let's rezone it and give them parameters before they come in with a project in which the city is like, okay, but we want these limitations on it. That doesn't compute with me. No, take it. Thank you. I'm going to concur with Commissioner O'Zell. I'm concerned that we're just putting a whole level and I may be fitting a larger blanket. It's almost like we're down zoning without really down zoning by putting the use of an SUP on here. Under the current environment, the consensus, at least at this commission, has been even trying to compromise. If somebody wants to do 100 feet, we can't find a compromise even below what they can do. And this is just going to be another opportunity to have to go through a hearing process to take somebody's ability to build by right what they can and minimize that. So I'm concerned about it and it is a very large area of our city. It's not to Commissioner O'Zell's point, just around North Texas in the historical district. You put the map back up there. It's a huge area of our city , and it will affect small projects, large projects. And I guess the other concern I have with it, and I might take exception with the 2030 plan, is that the whole gen esis of the 2030 plan, my understanding is for it to be dens er and for it to be inside the loop. And so we've drawn the plan to do that, and now we're going to do other things to have the possibility of limiting that . And I think it just continues to be more and more burdens ome, more timely as far as time consuming for going through all that process, more expense. And at some point I think there needs to be some place that you can look and go, you know what, if I want to build X building, I can go out there and go build that versus, well , I guess I need to look and see what the favor of P&Z and council is going to be as to whether I even want to mess with providing, taking an opportunity to put some money on the table and put forth a project. My concern is a lot of people will look at that based on the public testimony that we've had, not even going to do it, whether it's a fourplex or SRO. Because again, the words that we say here on this board, city council, people that come up and testify and make their opinions known about projects, people look and watch those meetings and say, you know what, it's too much hassle , it's too expensive, and it's too much uncertainty. I'm going to go somewhere else to do my project. And that's my concern that this is a pretty heavy handed response over a very large area of our city in my opinion from what it sounds like to borrow Commissioner Rosell's term, the SRO issue. And I think if it's an SRO issue, you need to deal with that. And I think there needs to be an area that's set aside. You know, if you want to go build that type of project, you can go build it. Everybody keeps talking about they want it west of UNT, set it up and fix it that way. And then I would look at being more favorable to doing something like this, but just to do blanket over the whole thing and not have any opportunity in other places. I'm concerned about it. I think it sends the wrong message to people. Well, what I can agree is that it will take obviously more time because it has to go through the dual public hearing process. But what I would like to add is that there is approval criteria for a specific use permit. So although it will take longer to get through the process, the commission can make a determination or recommendation to city council that there be no additional conditions placed on it. Again, so that's what this commission can do. Ultimately, city council can do the same thing. And if there isn't a need for a condition, they can approve the SEP without a condition. And that would not lessen the density, that would not less en the design as long as it meets our approval criteria. And what we're trying to do here is to find a solution, like you all were saying, to address those concerns that we all have. And we felt that what the city feels that the department feels that that is through the specific use permit. The only concern I have with that to follow up is that currently by right, you don't have to go through all the concept drawings and put all of that together, spend all the expenses to come and look and go. We like your design. We like the height. We like the color of the brick and the percentage and all of the things that you have to do to even be able to come and bring it for an SEP. Correct? Correct. And so that's my point is you'll have to, everybody will have to go through that step before they even get an opportunity to come present to say, can I even do my project or not? Versus you can look at it and go, you know what, I can go build over here on the corner. And as long as I build under the development code, I can build my project. And that will not be the case here. All of those steps I just mentioned will have to be gone through on every single opportunity that somebody wants to take to do a project, all that expense, and cross their fingers like the gentleman did two weeks ago. I hope they like it. And I guess I'm going to find out after spending a few hundred thousand dollars whether they do or not. And I think that's a difficult place that we're going to put people in that want to come to Denton and do business there. And I think that's a big heavy burden that we really need to think about and talk about before we move this forward. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Chair. First of all, can we get a copy of the presentation? Because there's some good information here that I would like to have for my personal use. But I guess I'm trying to decide, are we trying to encourage something or discourage something? And that's where I'm getting confused because it seems to me like Commissioner Rozelle and Chair Strange is that we 're concerned about one type of project. I don't know, and I haven't been here very long, but I can 't think of a two story or a three story project that had any, you know, vote, any negative vote. That all the discussions that we've had, the time that we took is all centered around the SRO issue. And if that's what we're trying to avoid and trying to solve and trying to figure out how to deal with, I agree with Commissioner Rozelle, is let's just say we can't have them in certain places. And here's an area where you can build your SROs to the world's level. I mean, I think that again with Chairman Strange is that we 're affecting a whole lot of the city for very few projects, although very impactful projects that raises the ire of everybody that's around it and it puts us in a position to where, you know, yeah, it's a great idea, just not there. And I'm trying to decide if this had been in place two weeks ago, would we have still gone to one o'clock in the morning? Would that have alleviated, you know, would this SUP allevi ated all of that? Or would we have more one o'clock, you know, in the morning meetings because every stinking project has to go through this process. You know, that's, I'm just trying to figure out, are we trying to solve a problem or are we producing a problem? Well, I think we're trying to solve a problem, but we do have those situations where those smaller developments that may not have a potential impact, again, we have to go through the process of obtaining an SU P other than, obviously, the time that would be the only set back for those developments. But other than that, we have the option or the opportunity to address a larger issue in that sense, in the sense that we can mitigate some of those potential developments that cause impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Well, I mean, I have similar concerns because I know, again , this all initiated, like I said before, with the colleg iate housing issue. And I'm not even sure that this really addresses that in the sense that we'll have the public hearing and we'll possibly deny it. And in the end, city council can approve it. I mean, even if we deny it, they can still approve it three quarters of the way. So in the end, I mean, I wish your direction was different from council. I wish it was city-initiated zoning in a particular area that these keep coming up, that we keep going until one in the morning and getting the community in an ire, and say you can't do this here and figure that part of it out, as I think many of us have said. I just, I feel like this negatively affects people. It doesn't need to negatively affect. Commissioner Ellis, completely understand where you're coming from. Chairperson Strange, Commissioner Rozelle, we do understand what you're explaining. In fact, when we did go to council initially, we went with a definition for collegiate housing/SROs. We talked about location, zoning, where they would fit, where they wouldn't fit. The discussion that stemmed from there was really the city council, from what I understand, and that's why we're here before you tonight, was is the issue collegiate housing, SRO, or is the issue more the density and building height and parking ratio requirements associated with multifamily development? And if that is the case, should we not revisit the multif amily development standards and that we, I'm speaking collectively, visit those requirements and come back with a revised schedule of uses requiring a specific use permit, so that the public would have the ability to voice their opinion on specific multifamily development. As it relates to our benchmarking study, we researched a number of communities, college towns, college cities, to determine how do they address collegiate housing. I think there were two, maybe three actually, that had definitions for collegiate housing and pretty much did require the SUP requirement associated with them. And they defined what that SRO was. And we went to the extent where we provided a draft ordinance related to collegiate housing for the council. But our direction was different and we were asked to come back with an ordinance. The opportunity that you have before you now is to, you could say that you are comfortable with it and would like to proceed. Or you could say, well, you're not comfortable with it and you can deny it and request a further study. Or a new DDC amendment associated with collegiate housing. Or you could ask for a continuance. I think, hold on a second. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Can you tell me what was wrong? I didn't see that particular City Council meeting. When you came to them with the definition and they gave you this direction instead, can you tell me what the concern was with the definition or the problem? I think that, to say concern might seem too onerous on the council, but I think their viewpoint was that really probably the concern shouldn't be collegiate housing. It should be more of the density as it relates to multif amily development in specific areas, especially in the university core area. But do you think as a development staff that we have an issue with that? I mean, other than the development de jure of the SRO projects in college towns, do we have a problem with the other developers who are going to come in with their more typical type multifamily projects? If I can preface with discussion of an SUP, a specific use permit, in the little bit of experience that I have with SUPs, they can actually prove very favorable to a developer if we have the appetite for that. And what I mean by that is you can do some really wonderful design and deviate from the Denton development code or any code to provide the ability to do that. It could be increased height, it could be greater density, it could be surface parking or garage parking. I'm just speaking very simply, very plainly here. So it is an opportunity. Yes, it is time intensive, and absolutely it does cost a little -- I'm going to say a little bit more money, but it does cost a substantial amount for the developer to bring their project forward. But I think it also gives the opportunity for the community to see and understand that this project indeed is a good fit. Now, there will be times where we have conflicting zoning as we've discussed earlier, where perhaps we can look at the city-initiated zoning option, which we've been talking about at length where we can evaluate these arenas too. Also keeping in mind that we have the Denton development code update that is online. It's already kicked off. It's initiated. And we will be reevaluating the schedule of uses, the permitted uses within the Denton development code in the specific zoning districts. And perhaps there will be a general requirement to add SUP for all multifamily development. I'm just giving an example that is not mixed use, just something to discuss or whet your appetite with. So if we look at -- from my perspective, who is responsible for the permanent development services, this SUP may not be as onerous as it seems at this point. However, from the other angle of, but we're not addressing what the original discussion was about, which was colleg iate housing, then that is something the Planning and Zoning Commission can push or recommend that staff move forward with that. But I would, to be very candid, request a recommendation from the PNZ. I would agree. I think we need to move it forward to council and they get to decide. Commissioner Rozelle. No, if I could pick your brain just for a couple more minutes. Not much left. Is there a reason in these helpful charts here that say what's permitted, limited by zoning, that we couldn't just have a row of single occupancy resident -- could we just have an SRO? Commissioner Rozelle, we would have to create that definition. So we would still be amending the Denton development code. We would have to create that definition for single room occupancy or collegiate housing. And that could be included or incorporated. That's fair enough. I guess to your point, the project that was here two weeks ago, it was very tough for me as a sitting commissioner to understand if the city feedback was because of SRO or if it was because the building was very tall, the normal, the scripture, that project. Was it two weeks ago? Right. It was hard for me to determine, to your point, if the issue is collegiate housing or if the issue is how tall it was and the density and traffic and wherever it was going to park. I understand that it might be a mixture of both in terms of the city concern. And so I definitely see that. I don't know if it's just a collegiate housing issue as a blanket concern. But that nevertheless still brings me to my point about making a buffer zone where there could be less dense, less tall buildings that are also not collegiate housing. So there could be a true transition from the DCG. Right, a vertical planning perspective or a development perspective. One other thing, when you do speak about collegiate housing , and I know we're using both terms loosely, SRO and colleg iate housing, they're actually, they could be deemed as two different things because we have the SRO concept with our single family homes right now where they are converted. So those are two separate issues that I wanted to raise as well. Definitely noted. I guess the last thing that I would say is I also have seen SUPs that can be worked favorably to the applicant. But to Chair's point earlier, the amount of questions still in place and if there's going to be another appointment to a commissioner or council, it just leaves a lot open. And we, somewhere in years past, we decided that DCG can allow these things. And now it seems that we're trying to spot correct that rather than maybe look at the overall zoning. And I'm going to use an example that it's a case in progress. So Trey, please correct me if I overstep the parameters of this discussion from a legal perspective. The Park 7 discussion for the property at Normal and Scripture, the request for change in zoning to consolidate the zoning, that was what was before you. Obviously, you had to factor in what the community had to say from a planning division perspective, from staff's perspective, that zoning change was appropriate and we recommended favorably. And if we did not factor in the use, we factored in the schedule of uses, all the potential uses that could be permitted in the DCG district. And that was our analysis. Our analysis was based on that. The SRO discussion, the collegiate housing discussion, and now the multifamily amendment discussion that is before you was initiated, if I'm not mistaken, late last year or early this year. So I don't know if this specific project was the impetus, but the impetus was there from other projects. Absolutely. Thank you. I'm glad you brought that up because I was getting ready to bring it back up about staff supporting Park 7 because from a planning standpoint in the zoning map, from staff's, all of its experience, felt that was an appropriate rezoning, even with knowing what we all knew at that point. And tonight we have a similar case that we've all talked about that's taking a very different approach instead of trying to come and be very forthcoming. Here's what we're planning to do and show everybody. We're going to go the other way and say, is this an appropriate rezone? And you guys figure out what we're going to do with it. And to staff's point, that is supported and push for or push but suggested for approval. So to me, this is again, some of this goes away from planning to somewhat of political views of what we think are appropriate or not appropriate versus what is appropriate planning. What is already been drafted in our 2030 plan and what staff feels like is appropriate uses to very specific concerns about things that are way outside of what's appropriate planning. And that's the concern that I get is that when we do these things in response to political issues, they're then in place, things change, and then there's a very different view of what's appropriate to be built in a zone and what's not. And sometimes to some groups it may be great that, you know what, the only thing that will be approved is two stories. And then other places, some other group may say 100 feet, well, 120 feet because it's so beautiful. And so I think this commission and city council obviously will make the final call and that's going to be my push tonight as this moves forward to city council to let them decide is that it's kind of the old political deal is sometimes you think you're going to get something and it works for a little while and the ball swings the other way. And then you've got a very different situation to deal with and that's my concern on such a large area that we're responding to fairly specific issue. They may have some very large implications over a long period of time as things change in our city. Commissioner Sullivan. I guess my concern is the idea of using the term multif amily and collegiate housing as if they are the same people. In my mind, they are not the same people multifamily meaning man woman child doesn't care about living across the street or within a 15 minute walk of the university. They're looking at where we're going to live where the school is going to be how can I get to work, those kinds of issues. A single 19 to 21 year old cares about how close it is to the school. Can I buy it? Can I get a bus or what have you? And when I go 377, there are a couple of apartment complexes where you and T buses run all day long. Breaker kids standing there at the curb waiting for the bus to come. And so again, I'm going back to the same point that if we're trying to limit the 18 to 21 year olds who have a bedroom only because for whatever reason, they think that's cool. Then we limit to where that can be. And where it's a big open space and they can have it 10 stories, and nobody cares, because it doesn't interfere with the single family or the duplexes that are on a nice street that's tree lined and it's just a great neighborhood. And so when we start disrupting that neighborhood effect I think that's where the problem is so again I'm going back to the same issue and that is, if we're trying to limit where the collegiate housing is, let's just limit where the collegiate housing can be. Leave the multifamily people alone. If it's a two story apartment. Again, I don't know of a single time that that's come up and it's been an issue. And so this I think is creating far more problems than what we've talked about is the three or four cases we've had in the last six months. And I appreciate that comment because I guess the question we need to ask ourselves then from a philosophical standpoint is, had the project had a certain project in an area that was requesting a zoning, if it were not an SRO and it was multifamily and it could go up to 100 feet, would that still be an issue? Chair. Well, I don't understand the question. What was the question? The question is that understanding that collegiate housing perhaps that needs to be revisited in terms of actually defining the use and what have you. But the question is then, for example, if a property is z oned DCG in close proximity to a well established single family residential neighborhood, then if multifamily zoning is permitted there and a developer develops a hundred foot multifamily complex, not an SRO or not a collegiate housing facility but just a multifamily complex, would there still be concern related to that use? Absolutely, but I don't know too many multifamily properties that would be going 10 stories in the middle of a residential area. I just don't see that happening. I don't see the promotional advertisement that would go along. This isn't New York City. I don't disagree with you. So I don't think that people are looking to live with families in a 10 story building. That's not our world. And again, just I wanted to put that out there because what I'm trying to explain is that as we evolve with our zoning patterns and our land uses and you have a mixed use, I'm not talking about multifamily and residential to a retail with that top bottom floor issue, but just having a plethora of uses within a very confined area, then you might have that opportunity crop up. So I'm just saying as we think ahead, this might be something you want to park and think about and digest and see how you want to move forward. Commissioner Hatchbuth. Thank you. I'm not going to say it all because I need an audio book. But I want to point out that I stand and sit here, the only person that voted for the development on Fry Street in the middle of downtown, I mean university-ish area. I'm the only person that voted for that and then also voted against it being on the edge of what would be a transition area. And so I feel like I have a pretty good record in not being anti-multifamily. I'm anti-building multifamily on the edge of what would be a transition. And so I challenge anyone to give me a good reason. I don't let my kids play on the edge of the curb by the street. I don't jump off the edge of anything. Edges aren't for big, risky stuff. That's just not where it should go. My humble opinion. On topic with this, I think I struggle as well but for a different reason. Because when you talk definitions, the cable industry has been, and the movie industry has been trying to get in front of pirating since the beginning of time. And I'm going to sit here and tell you that no matter what you title it, no matter how you write it up, a developer is going to take his pencil and say, okay, you can't have a kitchen by itself, okay, well I'll draw this and make that happen. You'll go change the definition. They'll change the design just a touch just to get outside of that scope. You're chasing your tail at that point to try to come up with, hey, we're going to box them into a corner. No, you're not. That doesn't work. They move faster than we do. So then it becomes a matter of a bigger issue. The same council's direction says for more public input, for more opportunity to speak. Well, council routinely ignores the public. You know, so I don't get that. That doesn't affect change. And so for me, I think the glaring issue and everything, everyone said, no one's mentioned the stakeholders. No one's mentioned we talked to developers and they said. That's the problem. We sit in a vacuum and try to make a decision. And so this board or this body needs to create, you need two sets of lab rats, right? You need a lab rat that sits on P and Z. You need, so that we don't have to have the meeting restrictions. So we grab two or three people from P and Z and two or three people from a development community. And you bounce those ideas off of each other. You have a conversation. But I just think no one's mentioned that they talked to the developers and got their input on that. And so I think that that to me is troubling that we, it just, you're not going to get in front of it by definition. You're going to freeze them out, which is going to be a problem by just in its basic premise. And then it just doesn't, you're not giving the citizens any extra input or that input has not been acted upon. And so for me, I think it's silly to talk about definitions because that's not going to cause them. And even this project before this, I'm going to digress a bit. So we're talking about, just before you get to CVS, about this development going in and if they're saying something and if they don't, none of that matters. Traffic on that road, are you, you get past, what is that? The giant apartments on the corner, what street is that? Is that Welch? Yeah, you get past Welch and that street is so deplorable, you're going to go one mile per hour no matter what it is, right? So you're talking about increased traffic upstream on a one way that we're all doomed to fail once you cross Welch. And so for me, it really, this conversation lacks reality because it's not talking to the stakeholders. It's not taking into consideration that you're not going to get in front of it definition wise. And so I'd love to see something that has a touch of reality to it. So I don't feel like we should, right now I don't think we should send it to council as is. I think they need, we should send direction on our input and I don't think definition is the way to go. I think it should be, because I think developers will reach out and they'll say, hey, what do you think about this? Where is this going? And so I think there needs to be a smaller body that can meet with a small body of developers that would negotiate or speak in earnest. And then those four people, those six people sit down and have a conversation. And maybe you mix in, you put in three citizens. So you have nine people that sit down and have a real conversation versus this, which is, hey, we're going to come roll this downhill on you. And they're going to skirt it and we'll have to redo it all over. We're not going to be able to write the development code faster than they can take their pencil and make two k itchens. So now there's one general kitchen and one kitchen tied to this room, so now it's multifamily. So I just don't think that's a good path. Sure. Call on Laco. Just a quick comment. Reaching out to developers, I can see as a good idea and want to get their input. I cannot recommend that you purposefully pick a less than half number of your group to meet with them to try to skirt the quorum rules, just for the record. Well, I think it's not really to skirt the quorum rules. It's to take in the fact that time is money, regardless. And I think if you ignore that fact, then that doesn't make it go away. So I think if ultimately you come back to the full body, then I think it ultimately satisfies that because you can meet twice in a week. You meet three times in a week. You can meet, you know, you can satisfy and get a consensus and get things done, which I know is a scary premise to actually get stuff done, but it's really cool. And so I think that's kind of my point is what are we doing productive that moves us along and moves us in a good direction, that realizes citizen input, realizes our developer input, and makes them feel as though we're listening and we're trying to find a consensus. And I think that's where you'll get people negotiating in earnest and doing due diligence versus trying to find ways to get around our code that we can't amend fast enough to beat the curve. That's my thought. If I can interject and provide some feedback from a planning perspective, from the planning discipline, from a land use perspective, the intent of a specific use permit is not to be onerous, number one. That's not the intent. It's actually a level of evaluation that let's assume that a use is not permitted unless a specific use permit is provided. Let's look at the flip side. That provides an opportunity for a developer to actually look at opportunities that are available to them. The goal from the planning division is never to exclude any party. We do have an obligation to our community and our citizens to ensure that we have as to the greatest extent possible sound planning principles. So when it relates to, for instance, a development code update, that will not be done in a vacuum. There will be citizen outreach. There will be community engagement associated with that. As it relates to this specific request that is before you tonight, this came forward, and again, by the council. So we are presenting this to you. Staff has reviewed and analyzed opportunities or options that are available when it comes to multifamily development within proximity to certain areas or within specific zoning districts. And that is why it's here before you. The PNZ does have the opportunity to even deny this, and it would move forward to city council. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. And if I start rambling here, it's because I'm trying to put everything together. I'm going to let everybody ramble mode tonight. Well, I want to be as concise as possible. When I first saw this, to me, it looked pretty simplistic. So I appreciate everybody's input to show me that there's more -- it's a little bit more complicated than I thought it was. But to me, it was the perfect tool, I think, that if we'd had it a couple of weeks ago, we could have resolved the issue with the Park 7 thing. And I think when you look at this entire area that it could affect, there's only one area that we're really going to be dealing with. And it's going to be the sensitive neighborhood areas on the north side of UNT. All these other areas, they're not a problem with SROs and high rises so much. But it is more than just collegiate housing. It is height. It is density. We had the situation where DISD wanted to build a higher building over off of Bolivar, I think it was, right across the street from the neighborhood. So it is more than that. And I think what this tool does is protect those kind of neighborhoods. And if you look around the green area and everything, you 're not going to see many sensitive neighborhood areas that are going to be impacted here. Now, the fact that an SUP is required, yes, means the developer's got to do a little bit more. But I think, like Manal was saying, that this could be to their advantage as well. So I thought this was a good idea. I'm not opposed to the idea that as we've got the DDC under revision that maybe we could stipulate SROs in specific areas. I'm not opposed to that. But to me, this would be a good tool to protect just a few sensitive areas in this city. And mainly, to me, it's just the areas north of the UNT campus. So I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But then that's me. Politics, there's politics in everything. You try not to. We want to try and work within certain parameters. But there's always going to be a political element in just about any decision any city, state, or federal government employee has. So that's just the nature of the beast. But anyway, to me, it seemed like a good tool. I would have promoted it. But yeah, if we need to maybe push it up a little bit and look a little bit closer, I'm not opposed to that either. Any other questions for staff on this item? Thank you all. I think-- Commissioner Beck. I did have one question. It was so small compared to what we were dealing with here. But since I've got it, let me ask, in considerations on page 3, number 9, it says, if applicable, an SUP application may require this to middle of a site plan, landscape plan, or architectural elevation. That surprised me when you said, if applicable, it's a reservation. I would have thought that had been automatic, that those kind of things would have been required with an SUP. Not all SUPs. There are some uses that are not so site-specific. So that's the reason why there's a may. All right. Thank you. OK. That's it. That will conclude our working through our agenda here at work session. So at 6.07, I will close our work session, and we will reconvene-- Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for March 22, 2017. This meeting has been dually posted, and we do have a qu orum present. And I'm going to call our meeting to order at 6.35. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flags. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll move us to our second item this evening, which will be to entertain a motion for our minutes for March 8. Commissioner Rozelle. I move to approve. Commissioner Sullivan. I second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6 to 0. That will move us to our consent agenda. Chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I make a motion to approve our consent agenda. Okay. Commissioner Beck. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6 to 0. We'll move us to our public hearing section tonight. I'm going to open the public hearing for item A, which is Z 16-0028, and call on Haley for presentation. All right. Good evening, this is case Z16-28, and I'll run through the presentation briefly for the benefit of our audience. So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone approximately a half acre from downtown residential 2 to downtown commercial general. The property is located at 1604 West Hickory. As you can see from the map, there are existing multifamily developments to the north and the west. Properties, two properties directly to the east of the subject property, outlined in red on the map, are under the same ownership as the subject property. You can see that UNT is located directly across Hickory Street from this property. As I mentioned currently, it's zoned downtown residential 2 . The proposal is for downtown commercial general. The future land use designation of the area is neighborhood university compatibility area. This designation is generally applied to the areas surrounding our two universities in town, which are affected by their proximity to that university. And the goal of this designation is to allow for compatible form and land use to develop in these areas to create a transition from the campus to the established surrounding neighborhoods. Staff's considerations. First, the rezoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern. You can see from the map here that there is currently a mix of DR2 and DCG within the block that this property is on. This designation is also consistent with the future land use designation because that designation calls for density and services be provided near the campuses to promote walk ability and a versatile character for these areas. And that could be accommodated with the DCG district. This would also consolidate the zoning for all of the properties that are under the same ownership here and therefore allow for more cohesive future development under a single set of zoning regulations. This request would also allow us to promote transportation efficient design by providing a higher density of resources and living spaces within close proximity to UNT that would then promote pedestrian and bicycle activity and could potentially alleviate some vehicle trips and parking through the surrounding neighborhoods. It also helps to promote more compact design by allowing that higher density near the campus. To give you a comparison, DCG does allow for a substantially higher density than DR2, would also allow for 100 foot maximum building height as opposed to 45. So it does have some increases there in terms of the scale of development that would be permitted. Notices were sent out. We received no written notices in response to that. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting on February 15th. One person attended and was neutral to that request and I passed out their response that was provided at the meeting to you all before the work session. With that, staff is recommending approval of this request because of its compatibility with the surrounding zoning districts as well as its consistency with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030. And I can stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Haley. And I believe the applicant is here. I have three cards to speak. First card I will call on will be the applicant, Gary Chang , to be followed by Kim McKibbin and Paul Messler. Please state your name and address for the record and since the applicant has 10 minutes. Good evening. Gary Chang. I live at 3608 Lake Country Drive, Denton, Texas, 76210. I represent MSGSB and here's a little background. We are a locally owned property management company. We operate under the name Jackson Chang Apartments. We've been here since 1982. I'm here to request that our lot be up zoned from DR2 to DC G such that it will be congruent with the adjacent lots which we own. The subject lot, which consists of four duplexes, has been under our ownership since 2003. The adjacent lots, which consist of our leasing office and two rent houses, have been owned since 1988. We have been operating our leasing office out of 1600 West Hickory since 1998. We feel that it is time to redevelop the area into a new le asing office and multifamily apartment complex. The buildings on site are near the end of their economic usefulness and would be better served being redeveloped. So tonight's agenda is to request zoning be changed to be congruent with our adjacent lot. Once that is accomplished, we will commence drawing up rede velopment plans under DCG zoning. Thank you. I can take any questions. Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chang, for your presentation. In our background material, it states that your intent is to redevelop the site with office and multifamily uses. So this zone change, then, is this in lieu of constructing a building between the height of 45 feet and 100 feet? Yes. Okay. And would you -- is this going to be multifamily in the sense that it will accommodate families who want to set down roots, or is this going to be more accommodating for students? Well, given the proximity of our site with respect to the University of North Texas, we would cater towards student housing. Right. But we lease to anybody who is qualified. Right. But as an SRO, it's not necessarily family-friendly. And it's your property. You're free to do what you want. Please don't misunderstand me. It's just my concern is there's an abundance of SROs, and it seems like they're continually growing, and Denton has a real need for family, affordable family, affordable housing for families. So I just lay that out there to encourage you to think about that, because down the road, there will be a need, even in close proximity to the University. But one other question is how do you plan on dealing with parking? That's a rough area for traffic anyway. So your design, how will it allow for parking? We will have a parking garage, and we will also have just on-site parking. Okay. Yes. You don't plan on street parking being a factor? Well, if shared parking is allowed, we would take that into consideration for credit. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Sullivan. I think my concern is what I would call zone creep, where right now on the properties that you have that allows for 100-foot buildings, the other property that we're talking about tonight allows for a 45-foot building, I would think that since you're just about a block away from a historical district, that that would be a good transition for a 45-foot building to be in the subject property this evening, and then going up to a 100-foot building on the property that you already own that already has that designation. And I would think that that would be more conducive to the overall neighborhood of taking into account the fact that you could still do some of the things that you want to do, just not to the 100-foot level. And so that's my biggest concern is not necessarily what you do, but what's going to happen to the property to the west of that, and then again goes into the zone creep issue . My response to your concern would be that our lot is surrounded by apartment complexes as well as the CVS, and I believe that would provide enough of the transition that would, for our lot, what we're talking about. I can't control what happens in the neighborhood, but for our lot, I think it would be appropriate, because we already have two-story apartments. We're surrounded by two-story apartments as well as by the CVS as well as the chemistry building. So our lot should not affect if we were able to develop up to 100 feet. We shouldn't affect the neighborhood. And that would be my response. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. The next card I have requesting to speak is Kim McKibbin. Good evening. My name is Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory, Denton, Texas. I am here to ask you to very seriously consider opposing this rezoning simply because we do not have a clear idea of what the use is going to be. We've talked over and over again for the last three years now, some of you were here when I got started with this and some of you weren't, that the transition zone between the university and the northern part of the camp, or the northern sections of those, particularly there along Hickory Street and down in what used to be the Fry Street overlay district, parts of that still are, is a place where the university is supposed to transition slowly into the surrounding community. A hundred foot building is not a slow transition, which we have discussed on multiple occasions. Now, yourself, Chairperson, mentioned two weeks ago, there needs to be some compromise. And I think that there is a possibility for a compromise that comes in here. But to make this approval for another half acre that is z oned to allow a hundred foot building with unbelievable density in a place that already has density that prevents parking and causes pedestrian problems and causes bicycle problems is to be considered. Even if this, they say they're going to develop this, once this is, you know, parceled out and zoned the way they want it, the developers will be beating on their doors. They're after this property. They're after any property that they can make a profit out of. I think there is a zone creep element to this that you need to realize and needs to be taken into consideration because what you decide here is going to make a very significant difference on what gets decided in several other places. When was this these other two lots zoned the way it is? Has that been something recent? Was that something that was originally planned? So overall, I disagree with planning people that this is compatible with the 2030 plan because it does not fit the character, the walkability and the livability of the situation that's in that surrounding area and moving north. We have a very huge apartment building down the street. Sometimes it's full. Sometimes it's not full. It does cause problems not only for the historic district, but it's caused problems for other places in the region. So I think that it's important to very carefully consider this. And I would ask that you delay making this decision until some other things are basically known and situated out about the Denton zoning things. What are we going to do about SROs? Why do we need any more of those? Everybody needs a place to live. And the students use the SRO as a jump off place. They get out of the dorms into there and as soon as they can get into a private apartment, private apartment, they're moving in there. I have no problems with multifamily housing that has adequate parking and has adequate green space. What I do have problems with is the potential of building a hundred foot apartment building with whatever might be in it and then them coming and say, oh, we don't have places for people to park and oh, we want to come all the way to the curb so we don't have to plan anything. So please delay this decision until some other decisions are made in the city that can better define this specific use. And that's what I would ask you to do tonight. I have some questions for you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your thoughts. Do you have a vision of what you would see there, you know, knowing you 're not against redevelopment there, you're not against multifamily? What do you think would be appropriate? Well, the buildings that are surrounding them that he's talking about, apartment buildings, they're two and three story buildings. I don't think it's economically feasible to build a two story apartment building, although there are a whole bunch of those down on West Street, brand new on the west side. Brand new ones. I mean, nice brick buildings that I wouldn 't mind living in. But when when you start talking about what fits in that area, maybe a four story building. But I can't see anything much higher than that. It sits at the top of the hill and it will tower over a whole bunch of things as you come down the hill. So the the concept of what's on the other side, like the chemistry building, that's the university. That's the university. I don't even think that should be considered as part of the. The community. Well, it is part of the community overlay, but that's the university and they do their thing. But we have the potential to direct the type of development that is on the other side of the street that is part of the city of Denton. And yeah, maybe something that's somewhere in between those back to a compromise. How can we find a compromise with the people that want to responsibly develop their property and be good stewards to the community without allowing something that's totally inappropriate in the space? Because we still have to worry about the infrastructure. We 've got to worry about the sewer. It was right in front of this property that there was a ge yser just a few months ago. I mean, the big gaping hole in the middle of the street where a sewer line busted or a water line busted. But I think that if we find some way to work with these people and to satisfy what really is the intent of the 2030 thing, the intent of the the zone between the university and the neighborhoods, because like I said, all those apartments surrounding all those buildings surrounding them are about two stories tall . Even on one of these lots, there's a two story of rock building. But to take it up to much more than four, you're going to be overpowering and dominating it. And what kind of materials are they going to build this out of? Is it going to look like the stuff that's there now, which is aesthetically pleasing? Not pleasing. I mean, they're kind of like they said at the end of their usefulness, but still there is a brick and mortar feel to that particular area. It's not aluminum. It's not, you know, different kinds of things that makes that the feel that's in there. And we really are as a community down there trying to bring people into the community, down to the businesses, down to the things that are there. And students aren't going to do that. They're going to be there. They're going to be gone. So my I would, you know, I would love to see efficiency apartments that would suit graduate students. I would like to see one and two bedroom apartments that would would work effectively, not be outpriced or out of the price zone. My children have lived in these people's properties. So I know that they're there. They've been there for a really long time. I just don't want a mistake to be made that we can't back up with. And I think that you don't have all the variables in place right now to make the decision. I mean, that's just my opinion about it. Any other questions? Thank you for your comments. Paul Missler. It's Paul Meltzer. Meltzer. My apologies. 1914 West Oak Street. And how do I get it so I can see the desktop here? Anyone? OK. Tech help on the way. All right. I'm going to share with you a presentation I was pleased to make at the candidate forum on Monday at Stoke. And I think it sort of 85 percent applies and I think will be helpful. And it addresses the area of north of UNT and west of UNT. I call it a plan for peace and prosperity in downtown District 3 because you certainly heard kind of no end of lack of peace on this sort of part of town. And there is an opportunity for a lot of prosperity for developers here. But the part that I thought was particularly relevant that made me want to share this with you today is that I hear Denton 2030 plan evoked kind of like the Bible and everybody can get their own interpretation out of it and say, by golly, that's what Denton 2030 plan says. And it actually says some opposing things. And let's just at least be clear about the fact that it doesn't just say one thing. It does talk about growing compactly, as you referred to. And a couple of other things I've noted here are just things I tend to hear in meetings like this that I think are persuasive that we need dense infill. Otherwise, we have sprawl that sprawl creates traffic, contributes to poor air quality. I do see the logic of the fact that it's next to UNT. So you could there I can understand the desire to have student housing near where students go to school. I hear that. We also see in Denton 2030 the goal of maintaining and strengthening neighborhoods, that single family neighborhoods should be protected from abrupt contrast of scale and intensity. We also have a goal of identifying character and protecting Denton's historic character areas through thoughtful preservation and integration of new development. And specifically in relation to this neighborhood university compatibility area, as the previous speaker mentioned, it talks about compatibility and gradual transition in scale, use, character, and intensity. So that's your 2030 plan that we keep on quoting. Gradual transition in scale, use, character, and intensity. No part of a 100 foot tower would meet that thing that is in the Bible of Denton 2030. So both of these impulses conflict in the UNT area, but they're both addressed in 2030 plan. So what guidance can we get? Well, we have the future land use map and we also have comments in the Denton 2030 plan that says this isn't every answer to every problem. That we need small area plans. In fact, it says we need many small area plans. Well, what I would suggest to you is that even though all of the light blue areas are called university compatibility , they're not all the same. Let's look at the area north of UNT. Here we're not talking about obviously Hickory Street. So this, I really had the kind of scripture project more in mind. But take a look at the pictures, all of y'all. You looking? So, you know, that's kind of the character of that area north of UNT. Not on Hickory, but just, you know, this will help us in future conversations too. Many single family well-treated historic structures, traditional neighborhood feeling. This is what west of UNT looks like. It has the same designation on the future land use map. Does it look the same? I submit to you it does not. It's treeless, multifamily, serves a very important use. And it's all two story and I have no idea why. I'm sure it made sense at some point. It was probably protecting some transition at some point, but whatever it was, it's all transitioned now. So, you know, we look at that and say what's really appropriate to each of these areas. I suggest that there are two neighborhood appropriate SAPs that should be considered. In the west, it's all multifamily. Let it be urban. Call it university city instead of cement city. Let that go from DR2 to DCG. Open up tremendous economic development opportunity for people like the applicant and anyone else is willing to invest in Denton that way. There you can have heights up to 100 feet and I'd say plan it intelligently with first floor retail, with garages, with green space. Make a percentage of it affordable so you're not entirely displacing the community that's there now. You could triple the area housing units that are adjacent to campus and you'd have your dense infill. A huge amount of dense infill. Great economic development opportunity. And looking at the difference between the north and the west, I'd say go historic district compatible there. Any questions for our speaker? Commissioner Hussbeth. So, do you have more slides? Well, an inappropriate campaign slide because as you know I 'm running for city council from district three and I am the only representative, the only candidate for district three here today. Outstanding. Okay. So my question, you're awesome. My question is this though. If we have a realistic conversation, using your words, gradual decrease, right? Gradual transition. Yes. Transition, right? So you got to start at the apex, right? And then you're going to gradually descend. Is that fair? You're going to have some point that you're going to descend from. There's got to be some point that's higher and then you kind of are used, that's higher and then you kind of gradually go to lesser use. I guess I think of it the opposite way. You're transitioning from a single, you know, it is essentially a single family neighborhood and then you've got a kind of, you know, low elevation commercial area there. So I'd say, you know, you're going to go up in increments from what's there. Perfect. Okay. Well, then I have a hard time and help me reconcile it. If the, if ultimately, if you're ascending and its highest point is just before the end of the trip, if you will, which is the university, how is that counterintuitive? If I say everything after whatever they put on this lot is lesser than, so I'm going neighborhood, I'm going two story and then I'm going whatever they put there, right? You're ascending and that's kind of what you described. Well, I mean, I don't know if we're getting a little tangled up here without needing to be. I mean, we're, you know, what we can see clearly is there's nothing close to a hundred foot there. And it's, you know, council member, a council member on a previous project near this one talked about the fact that if you stand facing the university, a hundred foot looks okay. If you stand facing the neighborhood, it looks completely out of character. So, you know, I guess, you know, it's a hard in shades of gray to define exactly where you need to be, but you can see that, you know, somewhere in between the two would be transitional. Okay. And so my, my, absent this body, you know, absent the detail, right, because they don't have to provide that and absent, I'll assume that the people that own the apartments in Seamont City and around the adjacent area, the two story areas, are doing pretty well financially. And I'm assuming there's a premium on those properties if I want to buy them and uproot them. And so I think if you have an opportunity in this property that they can build and realize that and not, I mean, it's, I'll tell you, let me just get to it. It's hard, they're surrounded by apartments. Behind them, apartments. Not even in the same block, the next block over , there's apartments but for the house on the side. There used to be some sort of frat house or something, I think. There's businesses, there's a CVS. I just, candidly, and you talked me out of it, I have a hard time voting against something right across the street. Like, if I can't put an apartment complex right across the street from the university, across the street from a monster building surrounded by apartments, I don't know where else I can put a complex in Denton. Just, I just, I'm looking at a Google aerial map and I, I'm , I don't, if I can't put it here, then I don't see the rationale in putting it in Seamont City. I do see the rationale. I just think those people are financially doing pretty well and it's going to cost you and then you get out of the scope of this body. I can't become a business consultant at that point either, you know, so. So I got to look at the use of the land and if it fits. What that use is, they don't have to disclose. Do you allow me to respond then? Sure, yes sir. We, we may assume, and I have no way of knowing, that the area west of UNT is maximized financially within the constraints that the city's placed upon it. That has no bearing on whether you would unleash tremendous economic opportunity by removing those constraints. So, you know, that, that's unknown. Although it seems, you know, evident on the face of it that if you permit the opportunity to have triple what's there, somebody's going to want to realize that opportunity. As far as the use, you know, directly north of UNT on this, on this proposed site, really the issue comes down to scale . There is, there are not 100 foot towers there and I realize that they are permitted by right on the adjacent lots. But they're not there now. And if I were to give more specific guidance to this body, I'd say you might consider, you know, two options that I think would be palatable. One would be doing nothing because you're not obligated to change zoning just because somebody asks you to. That's already agreed upon law. An alternative that I think would probably be palatable in the nature of compromise would be to go with the, remind me what it's called, DCG, the requested zoning, but with an overlay that doesn't allow 100 foot tower. Commissioner Sullivan. Yes, let me help you out a little bit because Commissioner Hatsbeth, I think the way I'm looking at this is that next door to the subject property is a two story apartment. Across the street is the chemistry department. I don't judge heights very well. So I'm assuming that since it's three stories, 30 feet. Is that right? I don't know how tall is the chemistry building. I think it's three stories. Is it more? I mean, I'm asking that, you know. I guess it's more than 30 feet. Is it? Okay . I don't know how that works. So, but I guess the point that I'm looking at is that under the current zoning, that if you have a two story apartment complex going east, that would then go to 45 feet, which is zoned now, to then go to 100 feet, which is zoned now. Then you get into commercial, CVS, Jack in the Box, Ori ental Garden, Vortmans, and all of that business. To the north, you've got apartments, and you go maybe a block and a half before you start getting into single family or maybe duplex type situations. And so I see that this lot is really the transition area where you're going from two story to 45 feet to 100 feet. Just like we spent way too much time two weeks ago trying to figure out how could we get that 100 foot space and trying to work out a compromise at 45 feet. And that's really what this is already doing for us is kind of what I'm thinking. And I think that, you know, somebody that could go in and develop a portion of this at 45 feet, a portion of it at 100 feet, while I don't know that 100 feet is necessary, it 's allowed by current zoning. So it'd be okay. And so I think that's where that transition phase is. I'm going from the private residences moving into the commercial area. That's kind of the way I'm looking at it. Commissioner Roseau. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Meltzer, I appreciate you being here. Can I just ask a question? You said that you're opposed to the 100 foot height. You mentioned specifically having an overlay to protect against 100 foot height. Is that your single contention on the change to DCG? Yes, and I think that's what you heard from the previous speaker as well is that the scale is incompatible. I appreciate that. And to the Commissioner Sullivan's point , the transition is not only happening from east to west, it also is happening from north, from south to north. And to Commissioner Hussman's point, the south is university. So that by definition that we all can agree on, that property is on the transition. And if we look at just the scope of transitioning, it's as close to the original apex as Commissioner Hussman said to anything else. It's literally across the street. So if there was like this transition of height, it wouldn't be at the 20 foot level because it's not close. It would have to be at the upper end of that transition, whether that's 100 feet is obviously up for debate. But it certainly by proximity would be at the very, very most dense classification of transition because it's literally across the street from the university. That chemistry building is way taller, 30 feet. But more over, we can't assume the applicant is doing anything with that property. We can't assume they're putting 100 feet. And by density rule, I can't in my mind fathom how 100 foot even make any sense or if it's possible. It's very difficult for me to kind of fathom if that's even possible. But if we look at other uses, maybe they just want to put a restaurant there. They can't put a restaurant there now. And so if we look holistically about the possibilities that they can do or anyone else if they sell the property or whoever takes control of it, we're looking at what they can do. And so it seems as though as staff has has diagnosed this, that it is in accordance with the future land use map, the 2030 plan as part of that transitioning down. And so those are my thoughts. I appreciate your feedback and your being here. Yes, as I indicated before, the debt in 2030 plan calls for multiple small area plans. And the essence of my presentation was that the fact that all of these areas today have a common designation fails to realize the distinctions within those areas. So I believe you're in the work session and I engaged in that discussion to segment those areas out. I 100 percent agree with that. But it seems as though the yes, no decision on the table tonight would be the reason. I'm not I don't show it's in our purview to start introducing small area plans in this meeting, although I would love to entertain that conversation going forward. No, no, no would be a way to buy time as well. And I propose that alternative way to rather than to merely say no, that I'm learning from from attending and paying attention to all that. Sometimes you can do things with conditions that the only choices are not. Yes or no. In fact, the lack of of compromise you may feel is because you present cards that say oppose support. Those are the choices. And you'll see on the next one. I I chose a different alternative. You know, you want a more creative exchange with the community. Sure. So and this but as far as your suggestion that it could be a restaurant or a commercial use, I don't I'm not here presenting any objection to that. It's just to scale. And if you are at the very upper end of matching off to the chemistry building, you might be gradual from that end in terms of achieving gradual transition. But then you're not gradual in terms of the surrounding area. And as far as whether it's feasible for them to put a hundred foot tower on the property, that isn't the decision before you. The decision before you is whether you will permit that, because if you just say yes with no further elaboration or condition, you are saying yes to that possibility. Thank you. Thank you, sir. See no further questions. And this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Anyone wishing to speak? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I have to close the public hearing yet, so I was going to give you the opportunity if you had another question. Well, I wanted to see if we bring the applicant back now. Sure. I'm going to ask him a question. Thank you, Mr. Chang. And let me just kind of reiterate what I said before, but point out you've been in business here in Denton for looks like about 30 years. Is that about right? Yes, we are a family owned business. We've been here since 82. Right. So you're committed to Denton. That's obvious. And we're glad you're here, too. We love Denton. We need more people like you. So based on what you've heard tonight, my reservation here is more the type of dwelling it is. The height is important, too, but, you know, it would be more it would be more critical if we were closer to historical neighborhoods. But again, being a part of it as you are and want to see Denton's future in a progressive way, do you see any advantages to developing your property in a way that would accommodate units that aren't supportive of a transit population like students? In other words, multifamily dwellings, four and five stories high, probably. But then accommodate residents who are probably going to sit down roots here, be here for a long time and contribute something to Denton's future as opposed to a transit population like students. So the question is, do you see any development in the future of this? You mentioned it's going to be with your office, your real estate office and multifamily uses. So do you see your development excluding SROs and being something that's more family oriented? Does that make sense ? Am I? You're asking me if I'm going to exclude SROs from any thinking. In light of the fact that it deals with the transit population, yes, I am. I think it impacts the way a neighborhood develops over time. And in my opinion, a transit population is good in some areas, but for future growth, I think it hurts more than helps. Yes. We've had that under consideration. We have not had any plans, whether SRO or just but we mainly deal in multifamily where people stay and go through four years. We've developed here before. We've built 24 unit apartment complexes here before, as well as a 20 unit apartment complex. So we are in the business to keep people staying. OK, that's the sense I wanted to get because from a business perspective, it helps you where you don't have a lot of turnover. That's right. It seems with the transit population like students, you're going to have a lot of turnover. So just again, speaking hypothetically here, it seems like it would serve your interest as well as the interest of Denton's future growth that we do avoid SROs where we can. It's a situation that could get worse over time and we could actually overbuild on SROs. So just throwing that out there and for something for you to consider in the future. Yes, we will have that under consideration. OK, all right. I have one more question for you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Mr. Chang. Hearing some of the citizens concerns today, would you be amenable to any kind of overlay if this were to be approved by scaling down the height of the building? We would be open to that. But at the same time, I'd like to comment that I've been following this Park 7 and Park 7 is maybe two blocks away. And there's already been a lot of struggles with the PNZ and the neighborhood. And they already have 10 stories that they can just build like that. And we, on the other hand, we're right across the street from campus. And if I haven't said how many stories we haven't had any plans yet, but if we can't build it, how can they build it? I don't see what the logic would be in that. And we are not we even we have not had 100 foot planned yet . We haven't had any development plans yet. But we just want to get the zoning change such that we can proceed with the plans. Great. I see no other questions. Thank you, sir, for coming back up. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Hutzbeth. Chair, I'm going to ask. Use your expertise to give me some round numbers. So I think we were talking approaching two acres or so. This this property all total around there a little over a little over an acre. Okay. So my question to you is, can you give me generally not not hypothetical the footprint needed for what? Like when you're talking when you're building multifamily type building, just hypothetical and you have and assume you have a little less than two acres and assume it's in a dense area. How much what does that square foot look like? I mean, you have to how does that stack up or how how do you use that space? How much space does it take per story per parking? Can you give me some sense of that? I can't specifically other than just to say that an acre is forty three thousand five hundred and sixty square feet. How many forty three thousand five hundred and sixty. Okay. So that's the maximum footprint on an acre and then whatever falls inside that. So if it's an acre and a quarter, it's one point two five times forty three five sixty. And then whatever the setbacks are. So I mean, you can cover a lot of property with it. Okay. Structure. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. This is a tough one. Obviously, the concern here for height and density close to the sensitive neighborhoods is always going to be an issue with me. And I, you know, I have an ear and a heart for the people that live in that area. If I were to vote for this, I would do so reluctantly and and hopefully maybe take the same in a direction where an overlay could be applied here to at least ameliorate that concern of height and density. By right, the applicant, you know, has the right to, you know, at least on those two parcels to build something up to a hundred feet and something up to forty five feet on the other one. And design wise, I would think that what you've got now, you could accommodate that. But anyway, just need to put out there that this is a tough one for me. I'm sorry if I find myself voting for it. I do so reluct antly with the hope that we can still address the issues that concern the neighborhood. Commissioner Ellis. And just to further the discussion, I'm having a hard time with this as well as I addressed in work session. Just, you know, we've got unplatted property and I understand staff's recommendation and the applicant's desire to make all of these properties one. But when it is replatted, it's a considerable large piece of property with and with D.C.G. zoning does allow a very large development there. We keep coming back to the same area north of the university. This particular area is not covered by the Fry Street overlay, which was clarified in work session, but just a block away it is. If this does get approved and we've got a hundred foot building on on that footprint, you know, Burtman's that's still out there. Council has kept that alive. That's just a block away. I mean, I think that brings them back. I think it opens up to what Commissioner Sullivan said. And that whole area is just going to kind of trickle down or up with with this case. So I think we as a city needed to find what this transition needs to be. What does it look like? I understand what the future land use map looks like. But but I mean, that's that's a living document. That's something that we still have to study because we keep coming back to the same area. We keep coming back with this desires for these large scale developments and we keep finding ourselves, at least I do for sure, on this commission, find myself wondering if that's really what we want in that transition area of the university. Putting a student housing project in there, I know it's across the street from the university, but perhaps that's not the best use between two historic districts. We don't address use for staff, faculty at UNT or graduate students, older students, other developments might be more appropriate there. And so I'm having a hard time getting behind this and the DCG and what it allows. Commissioner Hussbuth. Thank you, Chair. Well, again, I can't reconcile anything if we can't put an apartment there. One, I'm not a builder and I can't get the information I need on the fly. But simple math says I don't even think it works there. And even if it does work there, I would strongly advocate for them to contact Park 7 and lure that thing closer to the university and save the neighborhood. I think it transitions to the neighborhood. And so I'm going to move that we approve this because if we , again, if you cannot put an apartment complex next to across the street from the university, then that puts us consistency wise in a real tough area. And there's no family I know. I respect the thought of a family living there, but it's a one way street, 20 miles per hour, around a whole bunch of kids and there's no parking. That's not utopia for any family I know. That's not a goal of any family I know. Again, you can't go out. You have to go towards CVS, make a left, then make another left to get out of your neighborhood every day. You can't just say I'm going to go right or left. It's not conducive to a family environment. It's 20 miles per hour. So I'm going to move approval and we'll see. Thank you. >> Commissioner Osello. >> Thank you, Chair. I have a couple points here and then to spoil the end, I'm going to second this. First, I agree with Commissioner Ellis that there is needing to be maybe a more clear definition of what transition looks like. But I don't know if that's necessarily for staff to present to us and just telling us. But I think it needs to go down to a zoning level or an overlay level or a small area plan level in which there's not staff coming and saying this is designed to be a transition. We get that. What's lacking is what's actually permitted, what's limited , what actually does the transition look like? And so I think that's the ongoing conversation that we're going to have and even more so later tonight. But in regards to this property, I think Commissioner Ose llo also mentioned it's the same area that keeps on coming up. This is the same area as Park 7 in that it is not part of a historic district on either the historic, the West Oak or H ickory side. It is this weird peninsula of transition in which if you just look at a future land use map and point to this property and say that's going to be an apartment complex, in my mind, I reconcile it. It looks like a piece of property that is an apartment complex. And moreover, that's got to be the most prime location for a chemistry student possible. I mean, it just screams science student living there. But additional to that, the Park 7 development was on almost two acres of land. We saw their 100 story design and I just cannot reconcile that that would even fit on less acreage and even a skin nier plot of land. So I just don't, I'd be impressed if there's 100 feet possible. But regardless of that, I'm not making my decision on that. I just, food for thought. I don't think 100 feet is possible. But my main point is this, we see developments come in here all the time for SROs or apartment complexes and a recurring theme previously that hasn't been brought up in a while, these outside companies coming in, they build up and then they sell. When they have one manager there or they're just kind of a fly by night that come in able to build and then they can get out of here. This is not the case. They've been here 35 years. I feel like they're invested in the city. I don't feel that they're going to do something that determines one, their business or their property value. They don't have any current SRO projects. It doesn't sound like it sounds like they're all multif amily projects. So we're making assumptions that they're going to build 100 foot SRO that I think is maybe presumptuous and further not to the point of this rezoning case. And so as staff has recommended, I second Commissioner Huts pitz move to approve. Commissioner Ellis, we have a first and a second. Thank you. I would just like to comment on Commissioner Hutspitz and Commissioner Roselle. First of all, I never said multifamily. I can't see here. It's my fear of what DCG allows and what it could be. And it's absolutely no disrespect to the Chang family. I understand how long you've been here and I walk by your properties every single day on Bernard Street. And lovely complexes. This is not against you and what you do in this city. I appreciate the developments that you have. This is a protection thing for me. We make the zoning change. We replat it. It just opens up a door that I'm not comfortable with. And I do think that it will have a trickle effect. I'm not against multifamily here. Maybe it belongs to a chemistry student. Maybe it belongs to a more grown up person at UNT. Maybe that's what that zone should be between these historic districts. I don't know. I would love that discussion and I would love us to come up with what this transition point north of the university should look like. I would like that definition. But I'm not against this developer and I'm certainly not against the multifamily project here. I'm against the scale that this allows when we make the zoning change. Commissioner Sullivan. I'm in agreement with Commissioner Ellis from the standpoint that has nothing to do with the people involved. In fact, we talked about this in our work session that we can't look at what's here now. We've got to look at what's the general use and when is that going to happen and how could it happen and what would happen in the future. And I think that's my biggest concern given the fact that in both designations, fraternities, sororities, dormitories , multifamily housing, all of that thing is the same for both of these designations. Granted, you can't have a bar or restaurant under the current designation. But again, I don't see that being at that area anyway. And so I'm not thinking about what necessarily the Chang family would do. I guess I'm thinking about what if we change this and then somebody comes to them and say, hey, have I got a deal for you? I will buy your property. And they're here to make a living and we all understand that. And somebody gives them something they can't refuse, then they sell it. And now the next SRO group or something goes in that is 100 feet all the way across the acre and whatever it takes. So that's I think that's my biggest concern is the what ifs . And that's kind of what I was struggling with earlier in the work session. But more from the standpoint is, gosh, I wish we had a set of plans to know what they're planning on. That would make it a little bit easier. And so I just I just can't see in the future well enough to know or to trust what could happen if the Chang family were to sell out. And another Park seven or whoever comes in and does the same thing as we're dealt with a couple of weeks ago. So I'm going to be supporting the motion that we have before us. One reason is because staff has recommended it. That's been on the last two issues before us that I think is an appropriate use for the area. I also think that there's probably not a more appropriate use right across the street from the university. It is not in either one of the overlays of the historic districts. Part of the property is already D.C.G. And so they have another parcel that allows them to do a more uniform development. They don't know that it will be 100 feet tall across the whole thing. It may be like what was brought before us a couple of weeks ago that it's 48 feet or whatever and neither parts 50 something. And it allows them I think probably the opportunity to do a a better overall design. That was my concern with Park seven is that we were going to cut off our nose to spite our face for pushing them to build the maximum. They can build in some areas versus a compromise. You know what? They probably are going to build that tall overall and give them the flexibility to do something less scale. I don't think there's a better place walkability wise right across the street from the university. And so for that reason, I'm going to be supporting the motion. I think it's a good rezone for the area. I'd love to see it redeveloped into something new and nice and the fees and the taxes that would come off of that and a nicer place for kids to live. And so for that, I think it just makes sense. And I think it's a a good decision by staff. And I'm going to support staff's recommendation and the first and the second before us. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Just a question before we take this to the vote, probably should go to legal, I guess. Can we attach an amendment to this that deals with an overlay? You can. I mean, the applicants here, if the applicant is amenable to an overlay, that is something you can recommend. OK. And I guess we need to get him back up here. I thought he said he was open to it, but if Mr. Chang, would you mind one more time confirming or. Yes, we would consider it. OK. I want to approve this to with just the reservations I have . But I think I saw you kind of nod your head when Commissioner Rizzo said I was saying, you know, you guys weren't gung ho about SROs. And I like that. So those are my concerns. I think that's the concerns of the neighborhood, too. But so if you're amenable to that, then, yeah, I would like to approve this with the amendment that we apply an overlay to it. I will say at the moment there is a motion on the floor that it has been seconded to approve it as is. OK. So I've got to take that up first. All right. OK, so. So how does this work then? If it gets approved, do I then come in and suggest an overlay at that point, an amendment to it as approved? If it fails. Pardon me? If it fails, then a new motion could be made and the motion could be made with a overlay on it. OK. Otherwise, no. Right. OK. Thank you. I think I could ask for a friendly amendment if you want to have some discussion about that, too. Well, I would rather go there rather than vote no and then start discussing from that point. So, yes, a friendly amendment. Can we discuss that? Do you have a height you want to throw out for friendly discussion purposes? I don't think it can accept 100 feet either. But if we could see kind of a build down from the east to the west from, say, a five story to a four story, that seems like a practical move and may allow you to, you know, get the economic benefits that you want by redeveloping that property. Is that specific enough? I don't think it's a height because right now the DCG allows 100 feet. Right. And the other is 45. So I would assume that the applicant would want something between 45 and closer to 100 and less than 100 if they're going to agree to allow that to be imposed on their property. I'll call on staff to give us some direction and help on this, Manal. Can you see me? Thank you, Chairperson. That's strange. I do want to add that the request before you is for one specific lot. Are you looking at the entire development once it's brought together? Because the zoning request is for a change on one specific lot. So your overlay that you're proposing would be specific to that. To just the lot. Exactly. Okay. Thank you. You still have the floor. How about a height of 60 feet? A height of 60 foot for the subject lot we're talking about today. Right. I think that I would need to talk it over. But I think it's pretty close. How about 70? We will be building what's feasible. Right. Whether or not it's 50 feet, 60 feet, 70 feet. But whatever's feasible, I don't know if we would even get up to 70. But I don't want to fence us in. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Hussbuss. I don't want to put staff through the exercise, but if you can close your eyes and imagine with me a Google Maps aerial view of Denton. And then just kind of go with me on where first we're over stepping our duties by a mile. Right. And then if -- I'm big on consistency. So this body, to be consistent in its applications and its decisions. Mind you, coming from the person that voted by himself on the lot just down the street. So the absolutely epitome of consistency in my own humble opinion. But take an aerial view of Denton in your Google Maps mind. Where are you going to put -- where is there no building, no neighborhood, nobody that's okay with building? And then who is the builder willing to put the infrastructure there to put the building? I mean, you know, really you got to -- somehow this body is not -- we're not business consultants. We're not apartment managers. We make decisions on what fits where generally. And for us to overstep those bounds today means we have to continue to do so going forward. And that's just a slippery slope for me to go down. I just don't want to be inconsistent in that regard because I don't think it's fair to anyone that would come before us to wonder if we're going to be -- if we're going to get a hint of what someone's going to do with their property and then try to impose our will on that . That's just -- that's not our duty. So the conversation is -- I'm not going to -- no friendly amendment. I think they have a good point. They have a great piece of property that -- and I don't think it fits. I think that's the whole point, that you don't have to put a cap on it. It caps itself. And then so my question for legal is what is the end result ? So 3-3 is what we're projecting. That goes to counsel. Does that require a super majority or no? Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if that would require a super majority. I can look through the stuff and see if I can find an answer for you. Thank you. Just wanted to clarify, wouldn't the motion fail then? We haven't taken a vote yet. I'm just saying that as you do your research, if you could look into that. Yeah, the motion would fail. 3-3? I think so. I think it's 4. Okay. It's not going to go either way. You still have a 4. 3-3 either way. We're at impasse. So then where do we go? Right? So if it fails, someone else makes a new motion. Same three hold the line. The other three hold the line. We're at impasse. So what then? So where are we? That's I guess my -- We'll see where this goes. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify to Commissioner Huntsman that I'm consistent too, and it's that we need to redefine this area . Any other discussion before I call for a vote on the motion to approve? Chair. Sorry. Commissioner Beck. I'm going to reluctantly go along with this with the understanding that if we do an overlay, I agree this thing isn't going to take 100 feet. And if I agree to 70 feet, it probably wouldn't even take that. If it did, it would be right under it. So it's a no-game situation there. Again, at heart here is, you know, the precedent this sets. But we're dealing with a family business that has a tradition here and I think has the interest of Denton's future growth in it. So for that reason and because staff has approved of it, I 'm going to reluctantly go along with it too. Okay. Any further discussion before I call for a vote? Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board. The motion before us is a motion to approve. That motion carries four to two. That will take us to our, kind of these together? I think we have to do it individually. We have, I will take us to our next one. I'm going to open the public hearing for Z17-0002. And I believe this item has been postponed until April the 12th, 2017. And we will look for a motion then to continue this till that time. Commissioner Rozelle. I move to continue Z17-002 to April 12th. Commissioner Hussbuth. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second to continue. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries six to zero. We'll take us to item C. I'm going to open the public hearing for Z16-0030. And the applicant has requested that this item be continued to April the 12th, 2017 as well. Commissioner Beck. I move we continue this till April 12th. April 12th. Okay. Chair will second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries six to zero. That will move us to item D. And I will open the public hearing for DCA 17-0005 and call on Ron McGee for a presentation. Thank you, Chair, members of the commission, members of staff. I'll brought forward to you today is a consideration for a recommendation to city council on a request to add a specific use requirement for the DR2, DCN and DCG zoning districts. By way of definition, multifamily is defined as a structure that contains three or more dwelling units as part of the development. As we discussed in our work session, these are the following zoning districts that permit multifamily either by right, through an SUP or through limitations. The limitations here are L4, L5 and L6. General regulations for multifamily specifically, I'm sorry , for all development, including multifamily, in the DR2, DC N and DCG are shown on this particular slide. The height for DR2 is 45, DCN is 100, as well as DCG. Setbacks are shown here and a lot of coverage as well. Site design standards for development, and this in particular design standard 3513 for multifamily. There are specific requirements in regards to orientation, proximity slope, building materials, open space, architectural requirements. And as noted, there are also, if a multifamily is within a special purpose overlay district, they also have special design standards. Parking requirements for development in multifamily development that is, is shown here. We have two bedrooms at 1.75 space per unit, three bedrooms , two space per unit, and four bedrooms is one space per bedroom. Specific use permits for background is covered under 35136, covers procedures on what is required to obtain a specific use permit. It requires a dual public hearing process that comes to the Planning, Zoning Commission for recommendation and ultimately to City Council for their approval. There are requirements for submittal. As discussed, conditions can be placed with a specific use permit and it's outlined in this section. And also, a specific use permit, if approved and later altered, either the specific use or the conditions, it has to go through the same process as it was approved. What staff is recommending is a code amendment to add, again, a specific use requirement for the DR2, DCN and DCG to address multifamily proposals in the DIN core. And that core is identified on this map. The DCG, as you can see, is the darker green. DCN is the one with the hatching. And then DR2 is the lighter green. And I wanted to point out on this map the areas that we are trying to protect with this proposal are the established neighborhoods, the historic districts, as well as the special overlay districts. We've got West Oak here, Oak Hickory. We've got a Bernard neighborhood here. Some neighbor here to the east of the railroad tracks. We've got the Stroud neighborhood shown in this lighter yellow. And we also have some clusters of residential development here, single family, that's also in that core area that we 're proposing. The SGP allows for the opportunity for not just the council , but the Planning and Zoning Commission and the community to come together and address any potential impacts that may arise from a proposed multifamily development. And that could be looking at the parking ratio, the building height, as well as any design standards to conform to compatibility matters, again, that would be adjacent to established neighborhoods. Stafford's recommending approval of this request as we are bringing this forward. It is a land use analysis tool. Again, repeating myself here, addressing massing and scale compatibility. And again, it's consistent with the Dem Plan 2030. With that, that concludes my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions. Questions for Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Hey, Ron, when would this take effect if this did get approved by council? We are scheduled tentatively scheduled to PNZ, I'm sorry, to City Council at their next meeting. I believe it's April 4th. If that were to go on the April 4th, City Council, and if again, if they approve this code amendment, I believe it's 14 days after April 4th, so mid to late April. And would it exclude any projects? How would that go? My understanding is that if the zoning is in place, and Shannon, you may help me out here. If the zoning is already being considered, I don't know if they would be vested or if the platting would vest them in a project. They wouldn't vest with zoning, they would vest when they file the plat. So the plat is considered the first permit. Vesting doesn't occur with zoning of a property. It occurs with the plat, which is typically the first permit. The plat or the first permit, but the plat is typically the first permit. Thank you. Continue. Thank you. Okay, so on that same note, so anything that's got its first plat and would not, this would not apply to them, then it would play anything new going forward at that point . So if they've already been platted in the zoning changes, then they're vested under the old requirements. Does that make sense? Right, so they would not require an SUP if they're at that stage. It would only be something new coming forward then after whatever you said, 14 days after approval. The April 4th, again, that's a tentative City Council meeting. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? You have another question? Actually, I'm sorry. That's okay. Commissioner Ellis. I'm sorry. It's on the same note. So is that in just a request for platting or is that an approved plat? Actually, it's the application. If they show intent to develop the property in that manner, by submitting an application, they actually can prove v esting with just that action. Okay, so like -- The state law is a little bit unclear, but it's been tried in that manner. Okay, so trying to wrap my head around what just happened. So that particular zoning change we just made, if he quick turns an application in tomorrow for a plat, doesn't apply, or even the day of this or 14 days after this is approved, if he just submits the application for that, then this would not apply to that particular property. If they indicate intent to develop that property in that manner, then yes. And it would not apply then? Right. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Ron? Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing, and I have two cards for questions to speak. Kim McKibbin, followed by Paul Meltzer. Hello again. Kim McKibbin, 1306 West Hickory Street. I was not going to comment on this, but after hearing some of the work session, I did want to mention that the special use permit might be a step in the right direction. I put a question mark on whether or not I agreed with it simply because I did listen to what you guys said in the work meeting. And at some point, someone has to take responsibility for the planning of Denton. Now, nobody wants to ruffle any feathers or get anybody upset or anything like that. But if you people do not make some decisions about what you are going to allow and what you are not going to allow in certain areas, there is going to be a lot of trouble very quickly. Denton is not the same Denton it was in 1981 when I came here. It's all over all these places about the best place to retire, the best place to do this, the best place to do that. And people want to come here. And in wanting to come here, you have to be prudent in what you allow to be developed and how you allow it to be developed. Now, I'm not saying I'm an expert in that. I came up here, I bought a business, you know, I want to invest in the community. I want to see good things happen and I want to see it continue. Now, you know, one of the things that we keep talking about is the overlay districts we talk about, the transition areas. And I think that perhaps my idea about the transition area from the university is that the university is the tallest point and it goes down from there. I know some other people think that it ascends up to the university. I think the university is the peak and it ascends down. And what you're looking at are two story, three story buildings surrounding the university. And we need to be aware of the developers will continue to come. They will continue to try to ask for special treatment or understanding about, well, this is zoned, you know, for single family, but I really want to do this with it. And if we start at the university and go out, you know, as the compatibility area goes down, not starting at 100 feet and then turning up at two stories several blocks away. But you start at two stories and you end up at 100 feet several blocks away. So a little bit different way to look at what that compatibility area is. But I am really asking you guys, the special overlay district may not be the optimum solution to this, but somewhere somebody is going to have to just kind of step off this cliff and see what we can do to preserve the parts of Denton that are really, really what make Denton what it is. If people want to do certain things in certain areas that really don't fit with the zoning and that does not fit what the overall community that surrounds that area is looking at, we once again, where's the compromise? Where can we compromise between the communities and the developers in finding housing for Denton and making it someplace that continues to be livable and desirable? So I'm asking you to step off that cliff or maybe get a little closer to the edge by considering this or whatever you're going to do with this. Something's got to start somewhere. And if it is special use permits for certain areas, that might be what it is. I do disagree with the fact that there it just needs to be the core. There are certain areas right on the outskirts of this core that are going to be impacted and have been in the past by apartments being built inappropriately. I have a question for you. Yes, sir. I appreciate your comments, and I think they're with merit. And I would agree with you that a key to successful development for our community, in my opinion, is here are the rules, and then you leave them and people then can abide by them. I think the difficulty comes is when we want to keep adding things and changing things. The uncertainty is what creates the problems. And I'd like to respond to I appreciate you've been here at a number of our meetings. I know you and I may not look eye to eye on some issues, and that's okay. And so I would share back with you that as a longtime Dent on resident also, there have been a number of things that have been done for communities. So that's why the Fry Street overlay is there, the Oak, the Hickory Street overlay. Those are all there, and they were put in there for exactly the reason that you said, to protect particular areas. And the issue sometimes that I have a difficult time as a commissioner, because you're right, we do have to make a decision. It's a yes or a no, is that even when we have those districts and all of the discussion and all the work that has gone into those, we then still have areas that are outside of those that then we say, well, it's close to this area or it's two blocks down the street. And so we have to do all these other things. And I'm torn between the position of what we have put those in for special protection of those areas. And to the west of this is zoned in R3. And so it's not going to creepy crawl over there because that is a very low density zoning in our city. And so I would appreciate kind of the same thing back. We do the very best we can with a lot of different circumstances that come. And we try to look, or at least I try to look at what's been done in the past, what the overlays, what the districts were, and try to come up with, I hope, a reasonable decision and then say that usually it has to be a yes or a no. So thank you for continuing to come out. Thank you for your feedback. It's nice to have some reasoned discussion versus just getting kind of thrown at you. And you're just kind of like, well, I don't know what to do with that, but take it. So thank you for your reasonable discussion and your feedback to this commission. So with that, Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you, Chair. And I'll take my notes back that you're reading from me just then. But I'll be redundant, I guess. I'll have to be. Well, you and I swap with that once in a while. I was, I mean, bullet by bullet, apparently. One, I wanted to thank you, Ms. Givens, for coming out. You've been consistent with anything that happens with Hick ory and Oak. And so it's you and Mr. Meltzer who stay late nights with us and have decent dialogue to help us think through these processes. So I wanted to thank you for that. And the first part of your presentation, I wholeheartedly agree. I think there needs to be, I think you said, an allow and not allow provision. I think to Chair's point, once we have the box, then a developer or anyone who buys the property can say, this is what I'm allowed to do. And I think I would disagree that SUP is a start in the right direction because I think an SUP just adds more questions to that allow and not allow. And so I agree with you in that. I think there needs to be some measures. I think the conversation is how does that look? Is it an overlay district? Or what can we do to provide greater direction and some black and white measures to encourage or discourage certain developments from happening in certain places? And so I think we're thinking along those same lines of what to do to protect areas that need to be protected, not just in the core, but as you mentioned, in other areas. What I also had for you is you mentioned that you feel that everything should work down from the university. I imagine you meant in height and density, but mostly height. UNT doesn't have a lot of tall buildings. It's not like TWA where you can get like 150 story building or 150 foot building. But to that point, it seems as though there is general consensus about high rises or tall buildings on the west side of campus. But you didn't mention that necessarily. So I'd love to know your thoughts on if you were here for the earlier presentation. Maybe you're not in favor of 100 foot on Hickory, 100 foot building on Hickory. Are you OK with 100 foot story or 100 feet tall building west of campus? How do you feel about that? OK, I'm not from Texas. So when you say west of campus, I think going down Hickory Street is east. That's correct. OK, so a lot of that stuff that's out that direction on out . I think the University Boulevard and then from University Boulevard kind of towards the hospital area where there's a lot of there's a lot of two stories. Two stories. There's a lot of older things. Well, when you say Cement City, I think down off Eagle, that is the apartments that I moved in when I moved here in 1981. Sure. So it's a different concept. I think that if you if you choose an area and you say to developers, this is where you can build this, but you can't build that here. You know, I can understand that. I certainly understand the concept of taking a section and really working with all the people that are involved in the development to develop it into something that has walk ability, bicycles, green space, those kinds of things. So if you're asking me if I thought there's a place for a hundred foot apartment building down that direction, I'm not sure everything down there right now is three story. And that's about as high as it gets. A hundred story building is the first state bank building on the square. That's a hundred foot. At least that's pretty close to it from what I understand. I don't I haven't seen much apartment buildings in Denver or in downtown Dallas or any place where there's a need for density that are that tall. I really have not. Down around the hospital districts in Dallas, they're building Max four. In Denver, they're building Max five. And those are the two areas that I'm familiar with. So I would have to, you know, really look at what the plans is. Is it something that's still and goes straight up out of the ground? Does it gradually move around? But I think that if you if you have something that says people can build a hundred foot building, they're going to push it. They're going to push it to a hundred feet. And then they're going to ask you for 10 more feet for the air conditioning units on top. So why is it a hundred feet? You know, why is there not something between forty five and a hundred? Will the will the fire department even be able to service a hundred foot building? Do we have the ladders and all of that kind of stuff for that? I mean, I don't even know. And it would be terrible to have the buildings outgrow what the city can provide. Sure. So I don't have any objection to a certain area being designated that way. I would like to see some of the areas, the more blighted areas. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but there's some places that that need to be redone. We need to be revitalized. And it's the it's the single family houses that get torn down to get these things put up that that disturbs me in a way. I appreciate the feedback. Thank you. OK, I'm sorry. I couldn't be more direct. That helps. I can't even think of a hundred foot. How many stories is that? Nine, ten, eight. I can't even I can't even envision one of those except in in right in downtown Dallas is the only place I'm seeing around the American American Pavilion Center. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate them. Anybody else? Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you for coming out again this evening. You're welcome. Mr. Melcher, since you raised the plan that I presented, I 'll just touch on that briefly that you could you can look at the presentation to a large community. I can just share with you that I've had universal positive response to that notion of making a more urban area in that area that does kind of beg for redevelopment and equally strong reaction. I'm just sharing with you presented this to lots of people in large rooms and I think you'll find I think you'll find it rewarding and interesting to ask that question to many other people. And I think you'll find that that people resonate with it specifically on this. I think there's a medium term issue and a short term issue. Medium term, clearly we collectively as a community are not done yet actually planning. I mean, I would agree with the previous speaker on that. And, you know, really making some decisions and that's going to make life easier, certainly for this commission. And it's the nibbling away like ducks, you know, bite by bite that that kind of destroys any sense of planning or well-ordered community. And yet that's sort of the only mechanism we have is nib bling away bite by bite as each project is brought forward. So the idea of of SUPs is kind of more of the same. But but I recognize the value where we do have these outs ized projects, at least viewed by some as outsized projects in some of these sensitive areas that, you know, I respect the impulse to try to give the community at least some opportunity. You know, to share their views with you routinely on those concern raised at work session was you're just going to catch too many dolphins with the tuna. And, you know, every you have to go through this process on everything that wouldn't otherwise need it. So my simple recommendation to you would be to put some kind of a, you know, some kind of a floor on it that, you know, every multifamily project with more than I'm making up a number of people. I'm making up a number 30 bedrooms needs to go through an SUP. And then I think it meets the objective of saying until we have an actual plan, we'll talk about each one. But by each one, we only mean the big ones. That's what I suggest to you. Thanks. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else wish to wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. We're back. Thank you, Chair. Got a question for legal and then would like to make a statement. Who initiates overlay districts or SAPs, small action or small area plans? The small area plans? Well, or the SUPs. And overlay districts. Does that start with somebody at city level or is that somebody out in the community? It can. It can be city. Right. It can be either. It can be city or it can be -- right. Or citizen initiated. Okay. Who within the city then would initiate it? Mostly -- Our long-range planning department. Ron Mingito is going to speak today. That would be me. Okay. So you would do it based on somebody's recommendation or -- Yeah. We have, as you know, we have an existing small area plan, the Friday Street overlay. Right. I'm sorry, Friday Street small area plan. Yeah. And just a quick note, we have started the process of the small area plan study for this area. We just haven't gotten it kicked off yet. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Regarding the SUP, I'm for it, really. Now, there's probably something we can do better, but I think staff has looked at this pretty differently. And I think maybe some here are overthinking this a little bit because when I first read it, I thought here's the perfect tool to control the very situations we ran into two weeks ago. As I mentioned in the workshop, I realize we're dealing with a large area here, but I don't think there's going to be hardly any challenge for somebody who wants to build something with high density and large heights, pretty much anywhere close to this area, except for a few neighborhoods, obviously, north of UNT. But it's a good tool to at least step in and protect a sensitive neighborhood when we've got nothing else. When it's already zoned and if that were in place tonight, I wouldn't have had an easier time voting yes on this, knowing that with an SUP, we could have some restrictions on it. So I think the staff has looked at it critically. I think if you overthink this too much, it'll make it probably more complicated. So I think it's a good plan, and I would vote for it. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this and wanting to approve it because I'm just still so confused on how we got here. You know, the discussion started with counsel talking about SROs and a definition and then gave you direction that I wish they didn't give you, and I understand that's what you had to do. That's what you're tasked with, and that's what we're tasked with today. I just think, you know, contrary to what Chair may believe about me, I'm really not anti-development. It's a specific area that I've had issue with. And I do think that this steps on toes of, you know, areas that, you know, and hinders development where it doesn't need to be hindered and it doesn't really address the issue at hand, which were these collegiate housing developments in specific areas. So I guess my question for Ron on this is you talked about small area plans. Did you talk to counsel about that? Did that come up in this discussion? [ Inaudible ] Addressed during those discussions, during work session. And yet they still gave you direction? Right. Again, the timing probably was the main issue to get a small area plan. We're still in the initial stages. What is the -- I know there's no specific time, but I mean, is there a ballpark figure that you gave them that scared them or -- We actually, as I mentioned earlier, we haven't officially kicked it off, but we anticipate getting it started soon. And as you know, it will take some time before a study can be completed. So there was not an immediate timeline that we presented to them. As that's being discussed, is there a way for the city, if there -- let's take this area, for example, north of the university that we've been discussing today and a couple of weeks ago and a month before that, if we were discussing a small area plan, if you all were initiating that discussion, can some kind of stoppage on building be done at that point? Can the city do something like that or do things just continue as is until this gets done? Correct. Unless there's direction from counsel to do something like what you just suggested. So yeah, I'm just trying to follow counsel's mind on this. Is that what they were trying to do by doing this blanket SUP thing that, again, I don't really think does what perhaps they set out to do in November and it got kind of convoluted. Because honestly, an SUP -- I mean, I don't even think addresses a collegiate housing project because, number one, we already know from talking to the developers that it has to be a certain size for it to even work. It's all based on numbers for those types of projects. So even if they went through the expense and we went through the discussion, I still don't think we would ever get to terms. We didn't certainly on the discussion a couple of weeks ago . So it seems like such a waste of expense and time for not only developers but staff, too, and unnecessary for a good portion of this downtown urban district, these D zones that aren't necessary. Did that come up with your discussion with counsel, the -- readdressing the D zones and its criteria? There was some discussion. The mayor did bring up, you know, smaller developments and how that would be affected. I believe he asked about timing and cost, and we provided that information and still went forward with the direction to move forward. I see. Okay. Thanks. I'll let other people talk. I'll respond back. I appreciate your comments. And, yes, I respect that sometimes we may agree on one item and the next we disagree, but at the end of the night we just continue on and each do what we think is best. So I appreciate that. And respect that from you. I have a lot of concern about this. In listening to our staff presentation, it sounds like this is about the third or fourth attempt from counsel's direction on how to address a very specific issue, and let's just call it what it is, the SRO issue. And it's a very global approach over a very large area of our city. And I'm very concerned about how that will impact very small projects that are not really what the problem is. And I think the cost and the time involved, to your point, are very well taken because I think there will be a lot of dolphins that get caught in the tuna net, to use another analogy here this evening. And I think it doesn't send the right message to the people that are coming to our city to do business, that if there's a particular issue in one area and we're not able to deal with it, we might just throw a blanket over the whole thing . And I think it sends a very -- I don't think it sends the right message to people that want to come and do business here in our city. And yet I also understand that, you know, our board is a recommending board to city council, and this is a city council directed issue. And I think this needs to be moved on this evening rather than continued and kicked around and talked about and let city council get to the bottom of this. At the end of the day, they get to decide. They're the ones that are held accountable voting-wise, and we find folks here get appointed and serve at the pleasure until we're not at the pleasure anymore or we're term-limited out. And so with that, I'm going to go ahead and get a motion on the table here, and I'd like to have some further discussion. And my motion is going to be for denial to move this on to city council, and then they can take it up and they can discuss it further, and hopefully they can come up with a resolution with staff's help and guidance that addresses the issue that really needs to get addressed rather than a -- what I think is an over kill issue to a very specific problem that I think will have and could have a lot of unintended consequences. And so with that, my motion is for denial on this. Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you, Chair. I just have a decent point and probably a less decent point , admittedly. But the first one is we talk tonight about zoning creep, that if we change this property, then we can go ahead and change the next property, the next property. And I see some similarities in terms of the power trying to be given over to this commission and to city council. I don't know the logical end, but if we're now saying any commercial area can't be built by rights, where's the next step in which council or this commission wants to put on SUP requirements for some building in the future? There starts to be a creep of the control in which we would like or the council would like to add input and remove the by right building. Does this creep into residential neighborhoods? Should we now start getting SUPs for basic houses because we want to check the roof pitch? I don't know what the logical end is, and I am speaking hyperbolically here, but nevertheless, it seems like this is authoritative creeping in terms of the power that we should have in regards to the zoning that's been established. That's my first point. The second one is I know staff was saying that there is benefit to having the SUP process because sometimes it benefits the applicant. And not to mix metaphors too much, but if I'm not speeding and I get pulled over by the police officer, that police officer gives me an opportunity to defend myself, but I'd much rather not have been pulled over for speeding when I wasn't speeding to begin with. And so I don't see a massive dissimilarity when someone comes in by right to build and we're like, well, we just want to check everything out, get approval by a rolling commission that then gets moved on to council by a rolling council to then get approved. I'd much rather go ahead and second this motion, put it to council to come up with a more definitive solution than having an SUP be very arbitrary from project to project. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you. I'm looking through the information we have here. 49,000 dwelling units, 42% multifamily is 20,580 multif amily housing units. The city this year, I believe it was, lost $500,000 in government money due to the lack of affordable housing. And here we are using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into preventing collegiate housing that in no way could be converted to multifamily housing. It in no way brings affordable housing because I don't really think that's too affordable housing, it's not very affordable housing. And so I just don't see that subjecting such a large area of the city to get more regulation, more questions, more cost when the council has it within their authority to simply say yes here and no there. I sit on the charter review committee and one of the things we've got to talk about is they don't understand the word may and shall. So we're going to change the charter so that they will hire an auditor, not a, you know, that's what it says, you shall hire. And so I think that I would like to send a message to council, y'all need to put a stop to this stuff. You know, say this is where it needs to go, this is where it can't go. End of story and move on with life. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, chair. And again, I just, to Commissioner Rosell's point, you know , I appreciate him defining it as hyperbolic. Again, we can overthink this thing and that's nothing against my good friend Commissioner Rosell at all. We're just agree to disagree. But this is a very specific agenda. It deals strictly with multifamily dwellings. I think intent to me anyway was pretty clear, this allows us some control when these multifamily dwellings go into sensitive neighborhood areas and they turn out to be SROs. I thought that's all it was. I think that's all it will be. I could, of course, be wrong. But I'm going to go ahead and still vote for it. But I don't have any problem if it doesn't make it through, you know, and gets to council where they have to make a decision to. But just again, I think it's specific enough and its intent is clear enough where I don't have a problem voting for it. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, chair. I absolutely am in support of denial of this because I absolutely don't think it addresses the true issue. So my hope is that council denies it as well and gives you different direction. Because I think the direction is you need to address the collegiate housing issue definition, where it's allowed. Let's talk about DCG zoning or maybe something needs to be in between the 45 and the 100 feet. Let's talk about city initiated zoning, especially between the historic districts. There's issues that I hope council will see need to be addressed that will address the specific issue of cont ention in this city right now. This doesn't do it and it unfortunately, it just -- it's not working on the right problem. So I certainly can't support it as it's written. Okay. Commissioner Hussmuth. Thank you, chair. Briefly, I think what's missing -- I think it does reach a bit far, but I also would like to renew my point from work session that it needs citizen input. It needs stakeholder and the developer input to it. And such that this particular version does not have that input. It's all kind of internal while thoughtful. It just -- I think it would be better -- it's just better if it's more diversely represented and there's more input, which by its very nature maybe takes it longer to roll out. But I don't want to -- I think -- an SUP requires citizens to come up and talk. And then they may or may not be -- that conversation or those comments may not be weighted properly. So I think to have their input on the front end where they 're shaping it, they're crafting it, where they know they're getting representation is a better product than what would happen in a hearing where they stand before a, again, mig rating body that then may or may not receive their comments well. So thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Just a quick comment on Commissioner Hudspeth's discussion. I don't know that we'd ever get a developer who would want an SUP because it's just -- it's another layer for them and more expense and more time. So I don't know what their input for this particular thing is. I do know that when staff puts together and we as a recommending body and city council as a voting body and decision maker, you know, we have to put these things in place that are best for our city, not necessarily best for the city. Not necessarily best for the developer per se. So I'm not sure we'd ever get them on board with an SUP discussion anyway. That's just my thought. Commissioner Beck. I'm going to let Commissioner Hudspeth go ahead and speak because I know he wants to reply directly. If that's okay, then I'll follow him. Sure. We'll recognize Commissioner Hudspeth. That's so kind of you. You're awesome. No, I think your point is valid, but I think also that's where as a council and as a body I think we miss it, right? So if I extend the invitation and you reject it or you don 't negotiate in earnest, then I can say I extended the invitation and I tried to earnestly deal with you and you did not. Versus them continuing to say we don't ever loop them in. I can say I always loop you in and you always come up with answers that aren't realistic or you're not willing to engage. You know, that to me puts a city and it's a better representation of our city to me that hey, I tried to include you in all earnestly, but you just would not. And that's okay. But I just at least want to at least send the invitation and then you can they can decide if they want to engage or not. But I tried. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. This is probably a question for either legal or excuse me illustrious director of planning up there. This thing is probably going to go down in flames despite that I'm going to vote for it anyway, but if it were to go through. I mean, just as because I see it as a good tool, how different once it's and got passed by City Council. How difficult is it to turn it back around if we do see enough problems with it that it's not serving the purpose that at least I think it will. Let me just make sure I understand your question. If City Council does what with it. If if if it didn't go down in flames and made it to City Council and they approved it to this this agenda item. How difficult would it be to reverse this if we know it came to light to people like me to be the same process we 're taking now would be a it would be an amendment to the to the code like we're doing now so we're in the same world that we could turn it around if we. I'll leave that to your your fellow commissioners to define but no no it's it's the same process it's just a code amendment process so I mean. I just want to interject just a little bit. If this does by some miracle pass and you decide that this isn't what you want to do. We are doing the DDC rewrite. And so there's an opportunity to fix these to write these wrongs if you will. Next year. That's a good point. Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the floor for a denial of this. I'm going to call for any other questions or discussions before I call for a vote. My house so it was Commissioner strange on the motion and result in the second. Okay seeing no other requests for discussion again the motion before us is a vote or is a motion for denial. So a vote for is to deny this on to city council. Okay. So with that I will call for a vote on the board. And the motion carries five to one that will move us to our final item on our agenda this evening which is going to be our project matrix. I am taking any requests for more information to add to our matrix. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Well this is probably piggybacking on one that's already there but it has to do with signage on lots. I know we've had this discussion. I need an update of where are we because there's no improvement. I drove by the property that that was postponed today with in off of thirty five there. Those signs are so small you absolutely still cannot read them. And I also had a neighbor come to me on the hops and country club one and she said she tried multiple times to try to read it take pictures of it. She just couldn't do it. So need an update on where we are for that for improving that because we desperately need that improved. Just to be clear this is for signage for zoning and rez oning for public right. Our postage on these these lots for for a public hearing for zoning change. Yes. Anything else. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you. Maybe it goes the same but I wanted to make it official. I would like to know the next steps in the small area plan for that north university campus peninsula that sits between the historic district and the Hickory historic district. It seems to be the hotbed of of activity. And so I for one don't necessarily want to wait or know the process for council to protect that area. So I would like to know the steps in order for this commission to move forward with a small area plan for that specific area for protection. Okay. Commissioner has with. Just following up on. So there's no identifying number but my request for the developer workshop and builder workshop. I again I think that insight is just critical for me to make decisions. I got to understand a day in their life so that I can then factor it in either to make help me make better decisions or dispel myths rumors you know fake news. You know I need to I need to understand that better so just renewing that request. Commissioner back. Thank you. Just on my only two contributions here, the review parking space requirements that's been on hold indefinitely and I never did get a definitive response on why so I would like to get a definitive response on where we're at and if we're going to move forward on that for not why not. And my other contribution that is marked as completed and I agree we did have the presentation about it, but this one deals with providing information right to the notifying the public. We nothing's actually been set in motion. We've had a presentation, but nothing's been set in motion on this yet so just where we are with that. Tackle with the DDC rewrite since this already kicked off. So we'll roll that into that project that's already going on. Okay. And then as far as the notification requirements to signage. We are working on that actually we met this week, and we'll be bringing something forward to City Council in the, in the near future, in the near future. Couldn't be date specific. April 25. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. That it. Okay. With that I will close our meeting this evening at 834. Thank you everyone for coming out.