Apr 12, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-04-12 4:30 PM

Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session for April the 12th, 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I'm going to call us to order at 435. Our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items and I will turn it over to Shandria for presentation. Okay, good evening. The first item is the minutes. Do we have any discussion on the minutes from, we don't have the minutes yet. Never mind. Okay, we have a final plaque on the consent agenda for the Basinger addition. Any questions on that? Okay, we have a final replat for Guyer High School. Any questions or comments? Hey, Haley Zagorski. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Seemed when we dealt with this last, I didn't know they were gonna build anything on it. I think there was some potential there, but now is there actually a plan to build something there? Yes, sir. So previously it was this large lot was what they had plotted and that's where the existing school is. They have submitted site plan applications to do some expansions to the school building itself and then to put new parking lots on these southern two portions that they're now taking in to this lot and I think that's for band practice and things like that. Just curious because like say last time we dealt with that, I don't remember, you know, other than them wanting to get it zoned or they could potentially do so. I didn't know anything. So that's it. Thank you. The next item Z1701 is a request to amend the DENT development code related to self storage use and I will call Julie Wyatt up for a presentation. Good evening. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. So tonight I'm presenting Z1701 self-service storage. So the request before you is to consider a proposed revision to the Denton development code and that's specifically to amend subchapter 5 pertaining to the self storage use. I just will clarify that this request is from an outside party, it's not actually staff requesting this amendment and I forgot the applicant so if you want to expound. Yes, absolutely and Chandrine is correct. So we were approached by Mike Coker a few months ago in order to pursue a Denton development code amendment regarding the self storage use and in particular they wanted to amend it so that self storage could be permitted in CMG and we said you know if you want to pursue that go ahead and do that the the background research and propose something to us and we'll discuss it. So that's how we got to today. It wasn't staff initiated, it was actually initiated by an outside group. To let you know what's currently required in the Denton development code, self-service storage by definition is the structure used for dead storage mainly of excess personal property of an individual or family but also small amounts of goods or merchandise for businesses or individuals. Currently the code permits it in ECC, ECI, ICE and ICG and these are zoning districts that are typically either employment or industrial use zoning districts and in fact the self storage use currently is in the industrial land use category within subchapter 5 of the Denton development code so it follows the industrial site design standards. So the applicant has made a proposal regarding the the Denton development code and through this process we've been in discussions with them and the proposal has changed some and we'll go over that but what they're proposing is to relocate the self-service storage from the industrial land use category to the commercial land use category in all zoning districts. They've also proposed a limitation 35 that pertains to self storage use and I'll go over those that all sides of the facility must be 100% masonry stone, architectural concrete block with integrated color, a stucco or concrete tilt wall colored or stamped. The limitation on exterior materials is exclusive of fenestration such as doors, windows, or glass or entryway treatments and glass may not account for more than 70% of the exterior wall area. No overhead bay doors and/or storage unit doors are permitted to be visible from adjacent property or the public right of way. No outdoor storage is permitted. All proposed fencing materials are limited to masonry or wr ought iron and then landscape buffers should be in accordance with sub chapter 13 of the Denton development code. Finally the proposal is to permit the self storage use in CMG district within SUP and limitation 35. Also with our discussions with them we added in to modify the ECC and ECI districts to require the SUP and the L35 for self service storage. Currently that use is permitted without any limitation. So the considerations that staff looked at when we looked at their proposal is first of all we looked at what is CMG intended for. So CMG is a commercial mixed use zoning district. It's intended to provide the retail, the employment, the service uses that the community needs. It's typically found on arterial roadways, larger roadways, and also the intersection of local roads and arterial streets to provide adequate access . When we look at the actual use and we look at how it functions and what kind of things happen on that on in association with that facility we determined that that use you know typically doesn't produce substantial nuis ances such as light, noise and traffic but it can have visual impacts and so in particularly in commercial areas and so that's where that L35 comes in that it the enhanced in exterior building materials the the commercial site design standards the screening the buffers to mute those potential impacts and then also the SUP because those would be would then look a little deeper in each specific request and potentially result in site specific design and use conditions in accordance with subchapter 6 of the development code. Excuse me. When we look at the expansion of the SUP and the limit and the L35 requirements to the ECC and ECI districts we looked at we looked at where they're located so and here's a map here and the pink shows the CMG the blues show the ECC and ECI and then the kind of purple or that are the industrial districts the ICG and ICE so as you can see where the blue is it's often located and some of our gateway corridors or some of those really highly visible commercial corridors it's also located particularly here in the Shady Oaks area if I can get my mouse to work adjacent to some residential areas so so we thought that it would probably be a good idea to go ahead and apply those the the limitation and the SUP to the use in these areas so that they develop in a way that's that is aesthetically complimentary to the area and what we want to see in these corridors and as I said before the use is currently permitted by right when we also we also looked at one other addition to the limitation and it's a recommendation we're actually making today so CMG district as I said is a mixed use commercial district but it is intended to develop with kind of a in a cohesive manner in a cohesive manner with pedestrian family mixed use character and that includes a compact compact development pattern often when you see the self-service storage you see kind of a larger footprint of that development with with long rows of the facility so people can access those those individual storage units so in order to meet the intent of what CMG and what we want our commercial centers to look like staff is request or is recommending a condition on the on the approval in that L35 also include that all individually leased storage units are contained within a larger climate control building we we believe that this would encourage a compact development pattern that meets the intent of these commercial areas. I've got a question for you on that. Yes sir. With that limitation that any storage unit would have to be all of it within have to be climate controlled? Yes within within CMG and within the ECC and ECI in ICG and ICE those would remain said would remain the same the use would be permitted no limitation no SUP requirement. So if they wanted to do one of those the whole thing has to be climate controlled not just a portion of it? Yes sir. What what's besides trying to make it compact is there some reason that if it's climate control you feel like it's gonna make it smaller just makes it taller? Yeah I think the climate control part is the wrong emphasis. The idea is to get it all in one building as opposed to being spread out over the whole lot. We can if we can pull up an example of what that building type looks like you can take a few minutes but that's the intent. CMG typically goes like Julie showed on her map earlier it's usually next to residential areas and so instead of we want to keep the land use and the scale compatible with the residential areas and so we feel like this type of design fits more appropriately at those areas than those huge warehouse type developments. Well while she's looking that's kind of where I'm going is it the ones that I've seen when they do climate controlled then they're smaller and taller and I don't know what the height restriction is and if we're painting ourselves and now this has been an issue here recently before this Commission about height that we're looking at this instead of having single-story cell storage now we've got five-story cell storage buildings because we have to be climate controlled so is there a height limitation? CMG should be a hundred feet right? 65 feet. Okay I've gone the wrong way we're now in the United States. I was so close. All right hold on I've heard its feelings now let me try again I'm just going to start over. I was going there next. Let's see if I can. Right there on the railroad tracks. All right so here is a cell storage use this is in one of our communities nearby in Denton County and it is contained in a in a structure all of all of the those those individual units. Can you do since you 're in yeah I was just saying can you give us a perfect because I looked at it earlier it's not fully built but you can kind of see what it when it's gonna look like. It is yes sir. Commissioner else was next. Thank you chair. While I was gonna kind of echo some thoughts I understand where you're trying to go with it with a smaller footprint but it seems to to not be a good thing if we're talking about CMG being near these houses then we're really requesting with your amendment to to the applicants request having these buildings be forced up which doesn't seem complementary to a residential neighborhood in my opinion. This particular structure I know exactly where this is and what it looks like I think it's a monstrosity first of all it sticks out like a sore thumb to me but it's also the houses are across the street maybe those are the closest ones but the ones behind it are not that close to the structure. Well I get there's well okay yeah yeah okay yeah those right there it's a big structure this is a bigger structure than I would feel comfortable building in in front of someone's home. And the grain at CMG already allows the 65 feet and that's typically about five stories maybe. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair so this isn't I don't really feel like this is a very typical example it's a very small parcel and a wedged in in a residential area most of the time CMG we try and it's often 10 or 20 or 40 acres at a time. Can we look at the the storage unit out on 380 I believe it's a climate controlled and I think it is like five stories it's a pretty tall one near 380 and Pal oma Creek, Navajo Road area. It's huge. Yeah and again this is this is probably an even larger one just for scale if you zoom in right there. It does. Oh my goodness. I'm so sorry. Try it. See if we can get the address. 26 740 East University Drive. I just do it by address. What was it 24? 26 740 East 380 Aubrey. And then straight view. So I do feel like this would be a more typical installation it's got like the Walmart and the strip center nearby that would be what we're aiming for in a CMG zoning district. It didn't get okay. And so that's the it's a tall building it isn't looming over houses here though and it is you know surrounded by strip centers and retail. There's one more on University I'm sorry Fort Worth Drive and 35 in Denton. It's also four or five stories I think. Yeah the U- Haul. Is it just three stories? And so in this case this one is I believe mostly masonry. The one on I-35 is metal building right. My understanding is if I remember it 's a metal building. So these are kind of the standard form. If you don't have just a sprawling you know long rows of buildings kind of like this stuff around the all storage there. The standard form is a probably a three or four story kind of big concrete block building. So I don't know that if the goal is to avoid these sprawling long row buildings like is visible here you know I think that that climate control does do it. It kind of does it indirectly by by forcing them into an efficient design in one big building. But this isn't atypical. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Yeah I think the other thing too that we have going for us is the SUP. So if we get into a neighborhood neighborhood I think the SUP would put limits on height. We could do that is that correct? But the CMGs tend to be I think as you mentioned along major arterials. So yeah you're gonna have one area where you're gonna have tall buildings anyway. It's it's kind of set up for that though there may be houses behind it but like this one seems appropriate because it is run along 380 where you're gonna have businesses that it's probably z oned where it would allow 60 and 65 foot heights. So but I think if we got into just a pure neighborhood if a CMG was there and I'm not sure I see that on any of these right here but I hadn't looked closely then I think the SUP would be protective of that neighborhood. Just some thoughts. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Well I'll respond to that Commissioner Beck. I think the issue with that is it may not make the project feasible for an applicant at that point. We could ask the SUP to come down but if their footprint is so small and it has to be all climate controlled and enclosed then their project might not work if we don't let them build it to a specific height to have the number of units they need to make their project work. Julie I guess I want to ask how you came up with this requirement. I mean other than the smaller footprint can you elaborate a little bit more? It really is because you know CMG districts I think it was Commissioner Taylor that these are typically 20 to 40 acres they're intended to be mixed use and to provide lots of different uses within it so that someone within the community could go there and park once and walk around and and do their shopping and do the things that they need. So we want to make sure that the design standards and that it that it's designed in a way that permits lots of uses within it and that also shrinks that footprint . So that was really the intent was the how we want these commercial mixed use centers to develop in going forward. Yeah that's correct and then to emphasize we want to keep them walkable too so if you start sprawling out with these with the individual units it makes it a little bit more difficult to design it in that way. Well on that note though it I mean you can't really walk to a storage facility I mean you're gonna have to bring your car and I mean if you're if you're bringing things out of it or delivering things to it you're gonna have a vehicle so that I'm not sure walkability with a storage unit I mean I understand that it's part of the CMG I guess with this type of development I don't think that really. Sure but in thinking of that development as part of a larger development so that it wouldn't be like a standalone it would it would be part of a larger center. But this the requirement does I mean it does force the building up higher effectively to make a project work. Yes ma'am. Commissioner Hussbuth. This may be a legal question do we can we ask the applicant questions I mean because traditionally or not that I don't know if it's applicant or the genesis of the whatever it is but can we ask them questions in this environment normally we would in a if staff or that originated something then we'd ask staff questions at this point to find out before we go into open. Since this is just a clarification item it would be better to have that in regular session. I'm assuming they 're going to be in attendance. Yes the applicant's here. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you. So I think for compatibility in CMG this is going to be next to Kroger or in the strip center or right behind the strip center maybe and I do think that those you need a more compact use it's really easy to park real estate with a storage unit a set of storage units because you get a nice little cash flow pretty cheap to build and you know you can have it parked there for 10 or 20 years with cash flow and then when you have a real purpose or a real buyer for your property you can you can easily demolish the one-story metal or masonry buildings and you know sell it for some other retail use and I don't think we want to encourage that in CMG. I think that honestly the EC I the blue area off Dallas Drive there that's an artifact of that used to be an industrial area of town that's right next to residential so saying we want to have that protection there where most of the time ECI is rather industrial in nature commercial at least you know you've got a power plant the area around the hazardous waste treatment facility the you know those are all surrounding the dark blue but they're all that ECI EC whatever the other category ECE ECC so I could see it being more appropriate to have the single- story non air conditioned units out off Mayhill Road or out off University near safety clean I think of anywhere that is CMG now it's it's going to eventually be a neighborhood shopping center and that's where you don't want 10 acres of one story on air-conditioned cement block buildings you know you want you want probably a nicer retail look there to keep the value in the area and you know keep from being this thing that the neighborhood like like the Kroger on University I don't think you put storage units and you were there because it's so built out but people do walk to that Kroger or to that shopping center to the movie Tavern from the neighborhoods and if they had to walk past 10 acres of squat buildings it would just it would be an impediment to getting to the movie Tavern or getting to the Kroger so those are my thoughts on on this limitation Commissioner Roseau thank you I have a couple points of what's been discussed but before that I had some questions about the requirements initially on here it says number two glass may not account for more than 70% of the exterior and then the very next point is no overhead bay doors may be visible from an adjacent property or the streets it seemed contradicting and when I looked through the other attached applicants applications that the applicant provided they've never done that before they never suggested both of those be on the same one so McKinney has a requirement that no one should see a bay door but they don't have a glass requirement and flower mound like we just saw has a glass maximum but no unit visibility requirement and the two that we've seen tonight you can see storage unit doors in both those so the one on flower mountain 249 and 380 and the u-haul on I-35 you can see right through the glass to the unit so I'm trying to wonder how in the world can you build a building of 70% windows and not see a bay door maybe I should clarify it can be up to 70% windows so they could if they've got a if they've got an entrance feature on the front where somebody walks in they can have 70% windows on that front facade but but it couldn't be none of the bay doors interior could be face out from there so they would have to they would have to design their building so that any of those bay doors could not be facing toward the street through those windows okay maybe it'd be helpful if the applicant could show just helpful to me a McKinney project that there's no visible doors it seems like it just be a brick wall facing the street I can't visualize a self- service storage that doesn't show the bay doors to the street there's no windows on the upper stories I guess I was thinking more than a day thank you I was thinking more on the ground level the doors so I don't know if yeah I guess if you're saying you're looking through a window and seeing a door was that prohibited they would have to design their their project so that no doors could be visible through those windows I guess that's limitation would have put I just it seems like a pretty strange limitation for self storage units that I've never seen before and I haven't seen an example of one I don't know the aesthetics either way but this wouldn't even with an SUP wouldn't it doesn't so I guess we could override bay doors being visible it just seems odd to me when I was reading that because I've never I've never seen that before I don't know how aesthetically it looks to make that requirement and again they've never the applicant hasn't done that in the city prior to put both of those seems like they're encouraging a lot of windows but he had the same time I don't know where you put those windows in the project but going to what has been talked about a little bit more in terms of the zoning I had a question did the applicant come to the city with just the CMG requests or did they also did they request the ECC or ECI in staffs discussion with the applicant we suggested we recommended the ECC and ECI due to the location of those zoning districts on a lot of our gateway corridors and and and in some of our high visibility areas so that was that was something with our discussion with the applicant yeah I guess going back to my thoughts from last meeting about city looking for opportunities just add SUPs to zoning areas I'm not I'm not for someone coming in and saying we want to kind of free up CMG category so we can do some more things in that in the city like oh well now that we've done this we can kind of shoehorn in it seems more requirements for SUPs to be put into other zoning requirements where by right they can go ahead and build and to Commissioner Taylor's point it seems like it's a decent use case to have used to call them squat buildings you know I know I'm sorry the one-story metal buildings on ECC and ECI so I'm not totally on board with the city just deciding that we should go ahead and add more SUP requirements to zoning so those were my thoughts on this thus far well I'll echo Commissioner Roselle's comments I was going to come back to the SUP requirement being added and in several of these zoning categories it's almost like where we were last meeting in the multifamily of we're kind of painting with a broad brush that everything is an SUP over the top of it I would be in favor of doing the SUP but I am concerned about the L35 because I think it's going to create some of the very things that this Commission has had a big issue with the last several meetings about having very tall structures right next to residential areas and so I think it's almost contradictory that we require them to be air-conditioned to make some tall and then they're right next to residential and we have an SUP and then people are gonna be I don't want a 65 story or 65 foot tall building looking in my backyard we required to be air-conditioned and then people want to say well I don't want it to be three stories I want over 35 feet tall well to Commissioner else's point then it's not feasible to build and how do we get around all of this stuff versus you just have an SUP on it you get to have a say in the design and the aesthetics of the building without the L35 so give me some feedback on if we pull the L35 out and just keep an SUP on that if that gives the potential applicant a little more flexibility without that requirement that is certainly something that you could have as part of your recommendation and these were these were the limitation was designed based upon somewhat other cities have been done based upon the benchmark analysis it was also something that the applicant many of those were things that they had as part of their requests so so we felt like the L35 allowed the property or required the use to develop in a more commercial way less industrial use less industrial look particularly since if it was going in a commercial area we would want it to look be designed in a way that was that was in a commercial aesthetic so so that was the intent of L35 in order to encourage those those facilities to to be able to fit in with the character of what a commercial area is intended to look like. But we can 't do that with the SUP? Well and I think the SUP is then is an additional layer that would look as I think Commissioner Beck said is look at as a site specific and so if there was something unique to the character of that particular area there would be there could be additional conditions but just as a baseline to have it develop in a commercial way was the intent of the limit. I think I'm gonna quit asking questions I can see that then you can tell I'm getting nervous. I can see you're getting nervous. I just want to make a point of order in that. We need to save this for public session because this is getting a little bit further in or a lot further in then clarification is on the agenda. Commissioner Rossell do you have a clarification we have deeper discussion. I had a question for you and then maybe legal can stop me my tracks it's it seems it seems like you were asking or potentially suggesting remove the L35 as a way to ease the the pushback of height requirement but there's no high requirement in L35 so when we still have the same kind of pushback when we have the SUP hearing. Well I guess can we discuss this you want to talk about it in public? I think that we should talk about this in public. Okay. This is something they'll want to argue. Sorry to get us off track. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Let me just throw something out there you know for the concerns here about looks and everything. How many times have you driven past the one on 380 35 and the other one and it bothered you that you saw what you saw there did you even think about it also just I understand the concerns there and there probably would be some concerns with neighbors but I 've driven past those facilities and never thought about them twice the way they are so just just for what it's worth. Any other questions for Julie? Thank you. The next two items C and D have been post well actually item C has been withdrawn by the applicant and then item D is being postponed there's a request from the applicant to postpone it to the April 26th meeting. So I guess with that we have item E which is a Zahni request for the cube properties. All right this is Z 1630. Okay so the subject property is located on mid-block on Neff Street just north of Greenlee. It's situated south of UNT campus between UNT and I-35. The request is to consider a rezoning from downtown Residual 1, DR 1 to DR 2 district. The subject property does have a zoning designation of DR 1. The proposed use is multifamily and it's not permitted within DR 1 so the applicant is requesting to rezone to DR 2. So when we look at the subject property and and the adjacent land uses is in zoning within a kind of a 200 foot boundary so if we zoom in close to the subject property and what's around it we can see that as I said before the property is is mid-block on Neff Street and it is surrounded by DR 1. The properties to the north to to the east and to the west are in south are all DR 1 and they're developed with single-family homes and also duplexes. A little further out you have DR 2 district along Avenue A and you have that's being currently being developed with multifamily and then you also have DCG district with it which is developed with multifamily. When we zoom out a little further so around 500 feet from the subject property the surrounding neighborhood comes a little more into focus and as you can see so once again here's the subject properties you can see the streets surrounding it have a zoning designation of DR 1 and it's a pretty consistent zoning designation within the heart of the neighborhood. On the edges there have there is zoning as I said the DR 2 and the DCG which which do have multifamily development also along I-35 there's some commercial development also an institutional facility. And then when we look at the larger area we see now now UNT comes into view as well as that highway corridor and you can see how all that zoning fits together so we've got this this area right here that has the DR 1 zoning with the subject property the the DR 2 and DCG along Avenue A along as in also on the on the larger corridors near UNT. But at the block level it is it does have a really consistent zoning pattern of DR 1 and when staff looked at it we felt that DR 2 would introduce a new zoning district into that existing cohesive pattern. I mean it would break the continuity of the zoning and create an isolated zoning district. This could potentially result in some in incompatible development at the block level and on this particular street. When we looked at the future land use map this is neighborhood university compatible area I know we're all getting very familiar with this area and and this is one of those areas that we want to see compatible form between that serves the university as well as the neighborhood areas and that density and commercial development within this area are often appropriate and something that that we want to see within this area. However because of this really consistent zoning around this subject property and and the fact that it's developed consistent with that DR 1 DR 2 would introduce that new development pattern and potentially compromise the integrity of this existing neighborhood. So really that current zoning pattern and just how cohesive and compatible is really lends itself to maintaining that DR 1 zoning district. I'm looking at some of those uses I know there's a comprehensive list of uses in your backup we'll just look at the at the variations. DR 1 is I tend to think of it as kind of an urban single-family zoning district because it it does permit the single-family zoning doesn't permit multi-family so I tend to look at it as an urban neighborhood zoning district. Commissioner Bec. Thank you Chair. On that then are you saying DR 1 wouldn't allow du plexes? It does permit duplexes and so maybe and maybe I maybe I should have added that in so yes DR 1 does permit duplexes and DR 2 also permits duplexes which is why I netted it out of the table because those are similar uses within the two. Would four plexes be stretching in a DR 1? A four plex is actually considered multi-family within our development code. Three or more dwelling units on a single parcel is considered multi-family. Okay but your density is for DR 1 is 8 that's 8 units per acre is that correct? Okay and a unit is what a bedroom or an entire apartment? It would be an entire living, eating, bathroom and sleeping so it would be a unit is an entire dwelling unit so. Okay it wouldn't be an SRO type thing. No a dwelling unit would include all of those things that it would take to to live there. Okay but now in the DR 2 the maximum density is 30 per acre and we're talking about less than a half acre there so we conceivably 15 people could live there and that would be violating because it couldn't have any more than 15 if we're we're saying the density is 30 per acre. Well and I think and I think I think I know where you're going so DR 2 does permit does calculate density based upon number of bedrooms so in DR 2 as well as DCG and I know y'all seen limitation 5. Limitation 5 is that each bedroom equals one half dwelling unit so that a two- bedroom apartment would be one dwelling unit a four-bedroom apartment would be two dwelling units. One bedroom apartment would be half a dwelling unit. That's what I was trying to get. Yes so that really doesn't change the definition of what a dwelling unit is within the development code it's just how they how they calculate it within those districts that have limitation 5. Okay. Clear as my. Thank you. So DR 2 does permit multif amily with limitation 5. DR 2 also permits some commercial uses so those neighborhoods serving commercial uses it permits retail sales and service and professional services and offices those things that you want to see in a neighborhood at a small scale and permits veterinary clinics and then it you know this the scale of the of the develop of the two zoning districts are are somewhat similar. When we looked at the mobility of the area so in the yellow is generally where the site is it's it's a little zoomed out so so it's a little larger than but it's generally where this the site is. The area has a lot of per the mobility plan has collector streets that help residents of the area move through the area so Eagle is a collector you've got Collins Bernard Welch Avenue a so those those collectors help you move through that area. The green circle is a is about a five to ten minute walk depending on how fast you walk it's about a quarter mile so as you can see it's it's it's within walking distance of the UNT campus. It's also served by transit facilities and as well as some existing and proposed by bike routes. So based upon that that that land use analysis the the looking at what's around the subject property staff has recommends denial of the request because of the fact that the request would create an isolated zoning district which could impede the development of the of the area and and potentially prevent it from developing in a cohesive manner so I'll stand for any questions. Oh sorry one more notification like wasn't quite finished here we set out public notification we've received one letter in opposition and that's it. I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. Could you pull back up the the full neighborhood zoning map? So in this one okay that goes to Eagle. There it's really hard to tell what's dr1 and dr2. Those grains are very very subtle yes. Yeah so this is D this this that's dr 2. And then there's one that faces Fannin and there's two facing Collins over I think over a little like east east of Avenue A just barely like one parcel east of Avenue A. Collins and Avenue A so right here. Fannin and Avenue A. Fannin and Avenue A. Yes right here. Yeah no go a little bit east right there. Okay so that so you have dr2 in the middle of the block there but it's across the street from dr2 and then it backs up to dr2. These have these have been done you know yeah piece by piece. We we haven't ever really looked at rezoning this area categorically but I think I've probably seen six or seven cases. The apartment complex up on Eagle was a rezone. The one on Cleveland was a big rezone. You know there there have been a bunch of these little two or one or two or four parcels just in the neighborhood going dr1 to dr2 or dr2 to you know DCG usually and I think that DCN was also a rezone at the corner of Bernard and Fannin. So it seems like what we've been allowing to happen is is the piecemeal rezone into denser more dense categories and it hasn't been consistent it hasn't been one parcel at a time. It'll be the middle of the block and then the block behind it and then it'll fill back in and cover the entire you know the the entire block or there will be a large development that'll pick up three or four different zoning categories and rezone all of them in order to you know build their large development. Is there any plan to make a cohesive long-term rezoning of this area? There's actually a small area plan for kind of this entire ring around campus that's in Chandria maybe I'll speak better about this that is I think moving forward so I think I think yes you're right and there is there is a beginning of a process to really look at this entire ring around UNT comprehensively to determine what is what is the vision for the area are there are there smaller character areas and and and how it and how it needs to move forward in terms of zoning and use. And that process has been ongoing since December of 2015? Actually we just kicked off the RFQ on Monday or was it Monday two days ago. It's a big project. It's actually underway it 's currently underway but I do want to speak to the issue about the piecemeal zoning even though we've done that in the past it wasn't appropriate and we would not want to encourage that and I don't think we can eat we can legally do it at this point. If it's city initiated then we have to be careful that we 're not spot zoning which we're all familiar with I know we had a training on that earlier so but absent that if we have a legitimate interest in rezoning a property for a specific purpose like we want it in compliance with our future land use map or whatever like we have that subcommittee that you were on Commissioner Taylor then that is legal that wouldn't be considered spot zoning. So just to clarify if we if in this case they could rezone this one parcel and being compliance with state law? Yeah they're making the request correct? It's not a city initiated zoning. And as long as it complies with our all of our requirements then yes. Okay and I think it would be a challenge I think it would be a stretch to say DR 1 next to DR 2 is spot zoning because they are very similar. 150 uses only like six differ so I don't think we have to worry too much about that. Yeah you would look at the surrounding adjacency and our flume and all of those things and the comprehensive land use plan . Right and it is consistent with all those. I want to point out while we 're on the subject of which zoning categories the property in the southwest corner this block is actually DCG. So we have even a higher zoning category you know not even one full lot away from this particular site and we also have the DR 2 up in the northwest corner that's in this same block so I'm with you I don't think it's a big stretch to bump it up to DR 2 if that's where the Commission sees fit. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. So on the corner I think it's Norman and Greenlee. Right here? Yeah so I mean so that's DR 1 so I think there they've they've pushed the limits of how they've developed that particular corner because it certainly looks like multifamily but what it must be is multiple duplexes but it's certainly more than one in it they all kind of look the same and seem like they are a group. As well I think to the north on Neff I want to say on a corner Collins and something. This one right here? I feel like it was on the east side but I think similar right I think they're they're multiple duplexes then just on separate lots which is yeah so so I guess I'm trying to get to I don't see this as a big stretch of what they're requesting I mean I understand you know in your presentation of why you want to deny but there's an awful lot going around on that block that looks and feels like multif amily and just isn't. I want to go on the kind of I think where Commissioner Ellis is going we had a lot of conversation with Park 7s about what looks like single family that actually has multiple meters on it and all that do we have any idea of what some of the actual uses are around this particular site even though we have multifamily or duplexes scattered around at some of the homes I don't know where they've been converted or there a traditional family in there or it's got four meters on it do we even know that for additional background clarification? I'm not aware of how they are each end of the or how those individual structures are being whether they are whether they are being used as single family or as or as multifamily you know converted to multif amily. Okay any other questions for Julie? Thank you. Thank you. Okay with that I will close our work set close our work session at 525 and we'll reconvene at 630 in council chambers. Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April the 12th 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I'm going to call our meeting to order at 630. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the US and the Texas flag. One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas One State, Under God, One and Indivisible. Just as a point of order we do not have any minutes to be approved this evening so that will move us to our consent agenda. Commissioner Beck? I move we approve consent agenda. Okay Commissioner Oselle? Second. Okay we have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion or questions? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six to zero. Again as a point of order we don't have any individual consent items or consideration items so we'll move on to public hearings and I want to announce and we don't have very many people here this evening that we have item C has been withdrawn for this evening. I will move us to item A. I'm going to open the public hearing for FR 16 - 0029 and call on Haley for presentation. Good evening so this is a final replat for the Teasley Lane High School edition. The purpose of the plat is to take one lot that was formerly platted and two unplatted parcels and create a single lot for the purposes of expansion at the high school and I can answer any questions. Any questions for staff? Thank you Haley. This is a public hearing so is there anyone who would like to speak on this item this evening? I have no cards and seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion. Commissioner Hudsworth? Move approval of FR 16 - 0029. Okay Commissioner Ellis? I will second. Okay 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. Move us to item B. I will open the public hearing for Z 17 - 001 and I will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the City of Denton. Would you like to go over the full presentation again or did you want to do just a short version? Okay all right so this is Z 17-1 self -service storage. The request is to amend sub chapter 5 pertaining to the self-st orage service the self-service storage use based upon the the considerations that we discussed in work session. Staff does recommend approval with a condition that to add an additional limitation to L 35 that states all individually leased storage units must be contained within a climate controlled building and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Tabin. So to continue the discussions we're having in the work session so L 35 has has a lot of other requirements. Can you pull up the list of all the requirements? I think we've just to review for everybody that might have missed the work session we've identified a few different kind of conflicts here. The first is these limitations the these limitations here maybe it's the next page is the next slide so this this page requires that no doors be visible from adjacent properties right-of-ways. The slide before it has restrictions on glass but leans toward a glass fronted kind of facade that would probably allow you to see the doors. L 35 also has the air conditioned requirement and an air like in a climate controlled storage requirement. That's staff's recommendation to add to it. Yes sir. Yeah and so and that that necessarily makes the shape of the building kind of smaller and taller just for energy efficiency and so I think I the way I see through this is in CMG which is our retail zoning grocery stores and strip retail I think that the climate control restriction might be appropriate. I think that the seeing the doors visible maybe on ground floor but having a window where you can see through a window and then see a door is I don't think that 's necessary at all I think that's that doesn't really make sense it's not not really an eyesore. I like the masonry restrictions that was the first very first one and the outdoor storage and fencing I think that's all fine. I do also think we need to separate ECI and ECC some of those happen to be near residential areas but they're kind of intended intended for commercial use and I think in a commercial area we don't need the climate control and I don't know that we necessarily need the SUP I don't know who else's thoughts are on that. Those are all my comments. Anyone else? Well I'll speak then I'll chime in with Commissioner Tedder. My concern is adding the SUP requirement on top of just across the board these three areas. I'd like to have some more discussion this evening and I'm leaning towards the possibility and I don't know if there's a time crunch on this that we continue it and have some of these things addressed and cleaned up and let staff do that and then bring this back in two weeks or 30 days I don't know how long the time would be to that it can have those few little tweaks and changes and then brought back is there a time crunch that there's a project that's pending waiting on this or now the applicant is here and and so he may be able to answer that okay great Commissioner Roselle I might defer my time after public hearing if the applicant speaking so maybe I'll is the applicant planning on speaking this evening I believe so thank you Judy thanks do you have one card this evening Michael Coker you'd like to come forward give your name and address for us and as the applicant we'll have 10 minutes thank you mr. chair Michael Coker 31 11 Canton Street Dallas Texas anyway that's my address and my name I'm the applicant in this case and let me give you about a two-minute review of how we got where we are my client identified a piece of property between gay and Georgetown on the north side of 380 backs up to a neighborhood single-family detached and it's about five and a half acres all in but we lose about an acre because there's a creek that runs from northwest to southeast across it and there's a Taco Bell on the corner of Georgetown and that property has been available for a long time for CMG uses but nobody has stepped into that and I think a lot of it has I'm a land planner by trade has to do with the fact that it's separated from 380 by that Creek and the parts that were developable adjacent to 380 have been developed that said we met with the staff in June to see what our options were because it was clear that the zoning that was on the property didn't meet our requirements because we wanted to do self-service storage so we talked to the staff and I really thought about changing the comp plan and but that wasn't going to get me where I wanted to go because it didn 't make any sense to put industrial zoning next to the neighborhood and so we worked with the staff over the intervening eight months now or so to come up with a recommendation and we'd research surrounding communities to find out how they dealt with self storage facilities and we kind of synthesized out of that research a set of rules that we submitted to the staff and and that's where you get things like the 70% glass not to not more than that but other other jurisdictions have that kind of restriction so we worked with your staff and actually you've had a change of staff in the interven ing eight or nine months and Julie's been a pleasure to work with I do not like her last recommendation though and I'll tell you what that's about we get to where we've been working with the staff and out of the staff recommendation there's a change and it has to do with single building everything enclosed client control I mean climate control well our market research in Denton tells us that the percentage of folks that we think are likely to use our facility are from the neighborhoods and they've got multifamily and there's some businesses but it's mostly people like us that pull up with their pickup or their their trailer and they want to unload it and put it in the unit and and go home I work in Dallas and they just built one of these three or four story units close to my office and you cannot drive up and unload it and put it in your unit you've got to drive up unload it put it in an elevator unless you happen to be on the first floor and take it up to the level that you're at unload it again then carry it off to the to the unit where you're going to store it we don't have any problem with that as a portion of our of our approach so with that we would like you to consider three things to modify the staff now the 70% part that came from other jurisdictions the fact that SUPs for other zoning districts we were really looking at CMG the staff asked us to include the other ones so to the extent that I did what they asked me to do I don't have a dog in that hunt but I do have one on this little piece of property with five acres there are three things that I'd like you to consider as you move this through the evaluation first thing is change the language that the staff has put under staff recommendation on page two of three number one a should read all individually least storage units must be contained within a climate controlled building comma however when adjacent to residential zoning districts comma self service storage facilities shall not exceed one story to height and shall allow drive-up access when located within 120 feet of the residential zoning district boundary line and the storage units need not be climate controlled that's the first thing so what we're doing is we 're taking this what the staff recommend to have climate control for everything and saying however if you're within 120 feet of a of a residentially z oned district that you're going to protect those property owners where there's multifamily single-family townhouse cluster housing you're going to keep that low to one story for 120 feet there's there's buffering requirements and things like that but we think that that when I sit in my in my backyard and I look out the last thing I want to see is a three-story self storage unit there if I can avoid it and I don't mind looking at the top of my neighbor's house which I think you get the effect and as you get closer to 380 in our case the height can go up we're actually proposing maximum of two stories on the part of our property that is closest to the creek which is closest to 3 80 the second thing we'd like you to consider is the first level of multi -story self-service stories buildings may have exterior non climate controlled drive-up units now this works pretty well with the fact that one of the things that Commissioner Taylor talked about was that the disparity between the 70% glass and you can't see him from the public way or from the neighborhood this we're we're going to put in a masonry wall that completely screens the ground floor so what's happening on the ground floor won't be seen from from our neighbors or from the public way and so we think that having the drive-up capacity which is consistent with our market research makes perfectly good sense and miss Ellis there's one last thing that I put it in since I talked to you the other day the last thing is that we do think that second level glass on an architectural feature that you can look through and see one of the storage unit doors or multiple storage unit doors is not disadvantageous and we'd like you to consider that as well so with that mr. chair members of the Commission I'm glad to answer any questions that you might have as long as I can actually answer them got a couple questions for you Commissioner Hudson do you envision turning in looking at the I don't know can we pull up the Google map of that I can give you the address if you want it let me see yes so what's you can let's see we get your better address if you go 1801 gay drive no the the actual property yes is that okay excellent 1801 gay street and that's a department drive and if you click that square at the yeah while we're looking up the address I notice we've had a couple people come in a little late after we started we announced at the beginning of our meeting that the Kroger project has been well I don't know that that's correct and we're getting ready to do that yeah we announced that there was a withdrawal of item 3c yep and we haven't discussed Kroger we're getting ready to okay my apologies we'll get back to that in just a second okay the access will it come from gay street will it be passed through between Georgetown and gay how do you and how do you envision that functioning at least at the outset we envision the access to come if come in off of Georgetown which is on the right hand side of the picture yes that's actually the neighborhood the access into the neighborhood but no access from the neighborhood into this into our property gay street dead ends at the boundary line of the single-family that's just to the north of us there I miss something turn you'll be able to turn in from Georgetown yes sir and then exit gay street or no no I exit will go on to in and out off of Georgetown okay got it okay and so a follow-up is how do you envision protecting the back of those homes because if you if you where I'm going is if you put a wall there and there's any space between that wall in the neighborhood now there's opportunity for someone to hide back there if you shine a light back there now you shine a light in the back of someone's house so how do you envision that kind of those two worlds coming together seamlessly I don't think it's seamless but I do think that we have an answer to the question excellent first of all there's a utility easement that already runs at the back of that property and that's 10 feet it's 15 feet wide and so it runs from east to west at the south side of the residential zoning district we intend to put an additional 20 feet of landscape buffer between the utility easement and the back of our wall and on top of that in I don't want to have lights shining into the to the neighbors yards so any lighting that we put in there is going to be focused back toward us with whatever overflow does not adversely affect the neighbors and in addition to that our intention is to have cameras that are monitored on a regular basis so that we can see what's going on in that landscaped area between the back of our buildings the wall and our neighbors just as a point of order we're talking about really ordinance issues and we're kind of starting to get way into very specific items on one particular site versus what's on our agenda consider tonight as overall so I'd like to try to keep us as best we can on what we have before us tonight and to that point that's a great I'm gonna speak in amongst us not a question but I I don't understand the broad stroke I guess that's for an individual and with the project in mind I don't understand the need for the giant stroke I'm missing so I 'll just wait and listen and maybe I'll pick up on it okay thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair well just to I think answer Commissioner Hudspeth it would be they can't build a storage unit on this lot because it's CMG no no CMG lot can be built with self storage and I think for the applicant it didn't he wasn't gonna be able to get a zoning change here for you know to up zone it to industrial or employment centers which are the only two that the city allows right now so I think I think that's how we got here so right to do this we have to we have to change the entire code right this way correct I mean now not necessarily these exact words but we have to write something into the code to allow it in CMG correct correct and that's what's before us this evening that's a global zoning issue versus a site specific application and I just wanted as chair to try to keep it at the global versus specifically some of the things that we were the direction that we were starting to go down so Commissioner Taylor thank you chair yeah I definitely echo your concerns about we don't want to get too far into a single case we're looking at rewriting the entire ordinance there are some good examples out of this though I think because storage there are all kinds of storage units all over Denton because they used to be allowed in almost every commercial zoning category and so they were they're just sprinkled about there's some on Bell there's some on Locust there's some on North Locust there's some like in East Dent in Southeast Denton they're just tucked all through the neighborhoods and that was why they got zoned out of everything but industrial like 2000 or 2001 and I do think they could fit in CMG but CMG often is a situation like this where CMG is the retail that serves the neighborhood and it's going to be close to the neighborhood or back up to the neighborhood and I think that Commissioner Hutzpeth's concerns illustrate why an SUP process might be necessary especially in the CMG districts and honestly this is this conversation has made me come around on the maybe an SUP for ECI or ECC I really do think we're going to need a work session on this unless if if a two-week delay doesn't adversely affect this applicant sure so would it would a two week or four week delay significantly impact your project? Since we can't make application for anything unless it gets changed. Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you chair. So I have a lot of thoughts on this and I have a pending question for chair that I'd like to formally put into public session about the height that she brought up in the work session so I wanted to that's how I'm going to end my statement but before I end it one of the three things you're asking for was the single-story amendment with some feet requirement as it pertains to boundary and residential access and I have I have an issue with that as a code amendment because if you get to a property that's super small then they can just build a single-story self- service unit because they won't have the actual width or depth of the property to build up they if it's a skinny lot then all the property could be within 120 feet of residents and now you you're now allowing a single-story self-service in the CMG which it seems like we're trying very hard not to allow that's not to say I'm opposed to using both climate controlled buildings and single-story we looked in work session of a property on 380 that that was doing just that where provided the option for indoor storage for some but also had the outdoor access that you're talking about driveway access for the other part of the project and I think that is a workable solution depending on the property so that to say that sets up perfectly for an SUP for the CMG in which we don't have to codify that the single story is allowed or permittable within 120 feet because I think that is too big of a brush for the code but it brings us back around to simply allowing self storage units in CMG with an SUP and then we have staff in the Commission to actually follow through on that and I'm unsure if we have the SUP procedure why we need L35 at all when we could it seems place any or all those requirements within the SUP so the redundancy there is I think an unnecessary the other things that you talked about the driveway access had been covered my first point in the second story window that just makes sense I was it didn't make sense to not allow for it looked like you were going off some other cities that do that but I'm not that doesn't make any aesthetic sense to me so I agree with you on allowing second third fourth story windows being able to see into the the ramp but I guess one I still have a question for the chair about you and work session you'd mention that you would like to reduce L35 and just add an SUP to fight the height restrictions that might be have pushback on the city can you walk me through the rationale because wouldn't the height issue either way through an L35 or the SUP still present the opportunity for some height pushback it seemed like that is what you were fearing can you help me out with that well my concern in first-plus was that if we required it to be a hundred percent air condition that that forced it to be tall that the city was pushing it that direction and my concern with it coming for our Commission being against neighborhoods because we've had a lot of discussion about that in the last several months and in other projects that have come before us it's been the height in neighborhoods and so my concern with making it a hundred percent is that we're almost pushing projects to become tall and then we're gonna be right back here going well I don't want a 65 foot tall storage building looking in my backyard okay and so that's why I was thinking that we may want to pull that out and kind of sound like the direction you're going you have an SUP and all of those things that are being proposed here can be proposed in an SUP if it's appropriate for the site but it can be somewhat I think each site on initial thought is that each site thing can be kind of customized and whatever this site specific issues or problems access design criteria it 's against the neighborhood it's against other you know commercial uses you have the flexibility to design versus we have kind of where you were going a broad brush these are all the things that you have to do and they may be appropriate in some places and they may not be appropriate in others and that's where I was going with the L35 requirement is it seems to be pushing things all kind of into one box versus an SUP purposes to give us flexibility for each individual site so that's where I was going I don't know if that answers your question where I was going yeah it answers me perfectly I appreciate that so my leaning would just be a simplify this and and allow self storage units in zone SMG by SUP I personally would would leave off the ECC CI requirement for SUP I don't see that as a need right now but I think this might might be well simplified just to the amendment be SUP for that on the commercial CMG zone that's where what I would be leaning considering all the things we've talked about this far I think that's reasonable any other questions for the applicant and then we can move on to maybe more discussion here on the Commission yes thank you sir thank you Mr. Chair with that this is a public hearing is there anyone who would like to come forward and speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion Commissioner Beck thank you chair again it seems to me the concern about a tall building in a neighborhood is a legitimate concern if we're looking at a park 7 situation but when you get into an area where you're along a major arterial and you're in a zone anyway CMJ allows 65 feet was it okay so you're gonna you're looking at four or five stories anyway when you're looking at tall buildings near neighborhoods if you've got height or it goes down into the neighborhood our problem with at least mine was with the park 7 thing is that it was going to be among these one and two story level buildings it wasn't at a major arterial and it was odd for that reason but most of the CMG districts I'm seeing here are long major arterials where as a commercial area you're gonna have some tall buildings anyway they're gonna be allowed by right so I really don't have a problem with tall buildings within a certain proximity to neighborhoods and maybe that 's something we should consider if the CMG is deep enough say from the main road to the neighborhood that maybe there could be a hundred foot set back or something like that where they can't get any closer than that but again it 's not so much tall buildings per se it's just tall buildings in the middle of surrounded by small buildings where if you're an area or a strip of land where tall buildings have or can be there by right then I'm not sure what the argument is so just some thoughts there okay Commissioner Hussbeth question for legal for the amendment to the code can we add I don't know what the wording is specifically but what I'm targeting is we're talking about storage units and we're talking about a propensity for people to break in for people to leave stuff outside for the ability for code enforcement to get in what are the what are what is our what are the city's options in that regard so code enforcement drives by a facility and there's a couch laid out by the dumpster and looks unkept can code enforcement go on that property or is it just they take a picture from the street normal process how does that kind of work to maintain a gated facility well I know that if they see and in violation from the public right-of-way then they have a right to go up on the property or the curtilage if there is a no trespass sign or a gate then they have to seek consent from the owner generally speaking unless there's an emergency situation and I believe on all of the gated lock or the gate locks that they're required to give the code over I think that's the case but I can't say for sure but either way they would contact the owner make contact and issue a notice of violation or try to get voluntary compliance okay thank you well I'm just gonna throw out for discussion I think initially we were talking about wanting this to come back with work session is that the direction that the Commission would like or after discussion are we comfortable to talk about this and just clean up maybe some of this language and move forward with a motion yeah Commissioner Roselle as far as I can see it I don't know what a work session would add to clarity if there's a commissioner that might be able to enlighten me on what a work session would add to this I'd be happy to try to percolate that in my mind but as far as I see it I would I would go ahead and motion that we move forward with this code amendment but I would I would put forth that we make the amendment that self storage units would be permitted in CMG by SUP only and that'd be my full motion I would I would exclude the recommendation for ECI and ECC and just leave it simply at that so that's where where I am okay Commissioner Ellis I'm gonna go ahead and second that because that's actually where I am too I think we talked so much about the code being big and bulky and I think L 35 makes it big and bulky and I think it gives us the opportunity do you have something to say Julie use category to commercial land use category is that something I did you want to okay I'm sorry thanks for the clarification having an SUP allowing it in CMG and then having the SUP does give the opportunity for it to be crafted for whatever the lot is this particular lot that the applicants talking about is not gonna is not gonna be able to carry a fully enclosed you know huge storage building like some of the ones we discussed in work session you know it's not even it's not the kind of lot that we would want to put that on so having the SUP on it would allow us to to bring it down to you know a single story or two story or whatever and crafted around that neighborhood so I'm I'm I'm comfortable with with exactly that allowed in CMG with an SUP Commissioner Tyler thank you chair so I do think that storage units have a propensity to attract crime debris there's a reason why they were zoned out of every single category that wasn 't industrial and that's because you can look around in you know over off of Fort Worth Drive sorry Dallas Drive where they're they really damaged the value of the neighborhood the damage of the appearance they keep areas depressed if they're unattractive and poorly maintained it's hard to force maintenance it's hard to force security so they do lead to you know crime and debris and so I think I think that's an important thing we consider here especially we just you know open it wide open part of the reason why we want additional cosmetic and feature things like the climate control is it it leads to a better development requiring the masonry wall guarantees that you know in an SUP in maybe a neighborhood that doesn't have a strong community to come out and argue at the SUP doesn't get a metal building with a wood fence around it with no cameras and you know lights that shine in backyards and stuff like that I really do think that this is one of the one of the most potentially damaging types of development to to a neighborhood if it's put done wrong so I think we do want to have a baseline that says you know full screening at the ground level masonry construction ground level doors not visible to the street or from adjacent properties I like some climate controlled aspect to it in CMG because CMG is a retail use like this isn't like out out in the middle of an industrial park sure you can just have acres and acres of squat metal buildings but I think in you know when we're talking about next to grocery stores and next to retail we we want to make sure that it's a high quality development and I don't know if it is a certain percentage should be climate controlled or if we can word it so that here's what you need here's what we recommend but you can deviate that from that with an SGP I know like on site development plans we basically have ADPs that allow you to to break some of the rules but you have to come justify why you think you should have no climate control or less than 30% climate control or whatever and so all of these issues make me lean toward a work session because I think I would I want to have some protections for the neighborhood in there while still allowing the use I want to kind of enter a dialogue back and forth possibly here as you pay and maybe Julie can help me with this with the requirement for an SGP all of those things if I understand SUPs correctly can be imposed by this Commission so if it's depending on the site if we felt like if it was 20% AC required or 50% or hey the site lends itself to a hundred we don't have a box then that every project has to start from this particular point and has to be customized it's the landowner developer comes forth with what their vision for that is and and comes to staff staff works through them as to what issues they are as where their neighborhoods or whatever and would make recommendation we feel like it needs to be a maximum of two stories or three stories it makes a recommendation to this board and this board would decide we agree with staff we want to add to it subtract from it but that all is taken care of and the protection for each of those sites is covered with an SUP am I understanding that that correctly so chapter 6 does outline what conditions can be placed upon a use within an SUP okay and that includes the regulation and limitation of uses a regulation setbacks and spacing fences walls requirement to submit a development plat the limiting the magnitude of traffic points of vehicular access signs building materials textures colors and architectural features landscaping screening buffering noise vibration dust odors or similar nuisances hours of operation regulation of period of time that the use shall be developed duration of use environmentally sensitive areas and any site development condition permitted by sub chapter 13 so the only one in our backup it's not really covered in that is the AC pretty much all the other things glass materials setbacks all those items are covered with that and in my understanding what you just shared with us I like a yes or no okay good so I don't know it includes height as well so with that I'm at this particular point I'm leaning towards supporting the motion and think that's a way for us to move this on forward I'm open if other commissioners are concerned and feel like there needs to be more discussion that we need to do something different but I think with that description I'm comfortable with an SUP and see where this goes Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just to your point Commissioner Taylor my concern is even if we have a work session that we might leave something out or put something in that that we don't necessarily want in there and and to chairs point with an SUP we can be very site specific about what we want to craft in there and so I'm I'm just I don't know if we're gonna get any better you know than what we have presented you know to L35 and if we could actually come to a consensus if we try to list all of these things in certain percentages and I guess that's that's just where I am and getting rid of that limitation and leaving it to site specific and you know as you see discussion that's that's where my mind is on that Commissioner Hutzpah just to make sure I'm tracking with you so given that list of things that is accessible by the SUP what what path does that give us for the AC control none okay well I think I'm with Commissioner Taylor there needs to be some access to require that so if we can fold that in some sort of friendly amendment I think to not have that access then becomes an access to require that then becomes onerous and and so it I could see an applicant saying that's not on the list of things that I have to discuss I'm not going to discuss it and and then that opens the door for nothing to have AC control what is it I need a mechanism that triggers that into the their SUP process or into the to the code because I'm hesitant all the way around the board to write the code I'll tell you because they're rewriting the code now so if there are we have consultants rewriting the code for us to spot rewrite the code I need to feel a little better about it because all this is subject to change well I want to jump in on one thing that may we're leaving out on the air conditioning piece these gentlemen are in the business to please their clientele there may be clientele that say we want air conditioned and they'll that's the pur view it'll have it in there and we as a governmental body don't have to impose that to say you will have this if the marketplace dictates that you know what we have AC I guarantee it's in there so Commissioner Beck thank you chair my thoughts were along the same line said Commissioner us was just spelled out that the SUP doesn't allow us that option to include AC go along with what Commissioner Taylor said I think you know when you enclose something that's air condition it does create an attractiveness that we want it to have in certain neighborhoods so I just to be clear then the SUP would give us an opportunity to include air conditioning would not okay then again I would I would probably go along with Commissioner Hudson and Commissioner Taylor on probably pushing this down the road a little bit okay I guess the board is in order Commissioner Rozelle thank you chair I'm trying to think about if we had an SUP that had a height requirement and we said that the the front of the facade needed to be 30 feet or whatever it is I've never seen an outdoor storage unit three stories tall so it seems like that just the height like we can dictate how high it goes we in the SUP it seems like then we have kind of a mechanism to to more or less imply climate control is gonna exist unless there's people out that have like open three story structures for storage units I just I can't envision a multi-story self storage unit not having AC so it seems like the SUP could could get us thus far but I also agree with the chair if it needs AC it'll have it'll have AC but I do validate Commissioner Taylor's point about trying to provide some sort of shell to encourage the best we can as a commission the protection of the neighborhood I totally get that and I think that's valid I just to have a work session to come up with with a code change that could be what we got here seven limitations long I'm all for it I'll be happy to I mean obviously I would sit in and participate I just don't know if it's it's needed but I have one question for staff miss Wyatt an SUP does not allow it seems for us to regulate or force climate control if there is a limitation in 35 if if we included that limitation in 35 could the commission at any point change that requirement so for instance if we said any structure for self storage unit has to have 20% climate controlled area if you're saying an SUP can't touch that then that would be the rule of the land would be 20% correct that's my understanding yes so I have some serious concerns codifying that then I just wanted to answer your point yes it could be greater than that but not less perfect thank you so if we said a minimum that puts a lot of weight on us that we get that minimum right and so we're gonna err on a low minimum it's gonna be 10% 5% then at what point it seems like since we have limitations to direct climate controlled requirements anyways then I'm even more inclined not to put that as a direct limitation but but rather let the applicant decide what the market will bear and what would be best serving the clients and so considering that kind of control is kind of off the table to me in every sense in terms of enforcing it unless we said just a minimum I still move forward with the motion and if it gets halted then we'll have a work session see if we can come up with a minimum percentage commissioner Hatchbuth to your to your point chair thank you again if we 're talking if we're rolling this back and talking a specific project sure I think you know that's one thing but to open the door for every person that ever comes before us that's where I draw the line because there are people that think hey my car shouldn't be required to have this that or the other my property shouldn't require this that or the other and there's and there's those properties and those storage facilities that it may be just driven by price the market may bear a lower price lower product and and does that mean it's okay to put that back to neighborhood because I have I mean there's a lot of other for all the good this property has there's a lot of bad there's a wooden area we have an increased homeless population where I mean you can get me going down a hill that's pretty steep but I'm trying not to so because it's not relevant to I'm just saying if we're gonna kick the door wide open I want to have some ability to adjust that and I think that I'm amenable to some sort of minimum that then allows us to keep that door open so that we don't get a particular person that says oh that door is open I'm gonna run through it with the cheapest thing I can find to then provide affordability in the storage market that's needed right so I that's my only hesitation if we can come to to quote for Fred Durst if we can come to an agreeance with that respect then then I think I'm good well since you pointed a question at me I'm not kicking the door open and I'll think Commissioner Rosales with this motion it requires an SUP so each project that comes before this Commission and and Commissioners after us every project is going to be voted on based on what the criteria are and this Commission will have the power and the authority based on the list that Julie gave us to say this is what your project will have or won't have or you don't get an SUP and you don't get to build it and so I think there is a great amount of protection with an SUP in that regard for all projects and it gives this Commission flexibility to let people be creative and come up with unique solutions for individual sites and if this Commission feels like those are reasonable they can grant them and if they feel like there are some changes that need to be made then those conditions can be imposed on each individual property to make it where it will pass this Commission and so that's where I would think it would have some quite a bit of restrictions on it. Staff I think legal wants to chime in. I just want to make the board aware that there is a catch- all provision on the SUP requirement under 35.6.5 it's under subsection P and it's in addition to the other criteria you can make such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of the SUP chapter that are reasonable so that's going to be allowing you great latitude in your conditions that you impose. Thank you. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you Chair. I did have a question for Julie. Would it be feasible to do something along the lines of an ADP where there is a baseline set that can be varied from for a use like storage units? So the ADP process gives site design plans and you can basically throw out any of those restrictions if you get approval for your ADP or a wide variety of those restrictions can be changed. So we could amend the site design criteria for storage units. Thank you. So to the reason I'm asking that question is because the risk I see here is five years from now people won't know member of this commission will remember conversations about 20% or 50% air-conditioned or the mason ry screening or fenestrations they'll just see there's an SUP and if it's if it's in a neighborhood that has a very active community that community will show up in force and they will demand light restrictions and fencing and masonry construction but if it's in a neighbor if it's in a new area that doesn't have a neighborhood yet or if it's in a neighborhood that is less politically active then we will start at the baseline of what our code says. So right now the code will say any building material no screening required you know bay doors facing any direction no mention of air conditioning anything the five years from now the Commission won't even think about putting a restriction on air conditioning they might put a restriction on height maybe but those so if we don't have these base kind of levels of protection and I think we can say that every neighborhood deserves full wall screening from bay doors we don't want any bay doors on the ground floor visible from adjacent properties or the street or you can even say residential properties or the street you know the the landscape buffer requirements all of those you know we're we're looking at this one thing about possible height and we're I think we're ignoring a lot of the other potential risks with this use so I would like to if we're if we're moving forward tonight then I really do want to reinstate the masonry construction the no visible bay doors on the ground floor and the landscape buffer and the fencing materials. I have a question for staff I think if I understand Commissioner Taylor's concerns are there not universal requirements with buffering and screening with CM G against neighborhoods so it's not just a free-for-all there are requirements regardless of what we do here that that development would have to meet. Landscape buffering walls all those types of things in regards to CMG being against the neighborhood. They would have to they would have to meet sub chapter 13 and yes there are buffer requirements between commercial uses and residential I believe it's a type C buffer which is a 15 foot buffer there aren't any masonry wall requirements there we do have perimeter fences that are that we have perimeter fence materials which include they can be wood, wrought iron, masonry, brick, vinyl, PVC or composite materials so those are perimeter fence materials we don't have any requirements for it but that is that is and then part of staff working with the applicant in order to move the use from the industrial use tables to the commercial use tables is that some of those site design requirements in sub chapter 13 industrial uses are exempt from and so to move those to the commercial use tables would then require them to at a minimum follow the commercial site design requirements. That includes building materials. It includes building materials standards on articulation, orientation, trash storage areas, screening so so that was the intent of moving that from the commercial to or from the industrial to the commercial. The minimum I mean the building materials I can tell you what they are. So fronts and street sides of buildings visible from the public right of way shall be non-reflective and shall be of wood, masonry, stone, decorative block, stucco, HDO board or other high quality material custom arily used for the building style. So no metal buildings? Metal buildings are customary for storage units. You can't do that though. It says customary for the building type. Typically we don't see metal buildings in commercial areas but the code I mean it so yeah it we don't typically see metal in commercial areas. I don't know if you're comfortable moving forward this or not I'm trying to reach consensus and be able to move it forward if we can. If it's not it will be possible. I understand that so. Did you want to do a motion for postponement? Well is the motioner open to a friendly amendment? Saying I'm unamendable sounds so mean. But I'm not and here's my thoughts. Since I was on the board next anyways I'll go ahead and take the floor. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. A couple things. One way back Commissioner Hussbett said that we're kicking down, kicking the door wide open. And I think that's wholeheartedly a little off because we 're actually making sure no one builds by right and it comes to staff to get an SEP. So instead of us spending hours trying to think of the exact shell that we want to put forth we're not omniscient. We don't know what each plot's going to look like and so we would then if we do a work session to find out exactly what all limitations we want to put in. We are then prescribing exactly how we think every potential self storage unit in our city should be built regardless of anything. That's a broad stroke. And so we could work a long time but we still could miss something. And what if we set the minimum for AC to hot. There's just a lot of things that would pigeonhole applicants from building where an SEP actually allows for some creativity and flexibility. And Commissioner Taylor's point earlier you talked about individuals building metal structures or you elaborated more squat houses and everything else. But you also said in the work session that those generally are just placeholders to flip the property. And so it seems like there might be two different speaks being said that you're against those per se but really you know they're temporary. Or at least you stated as such that the plan would be for them to be temporary anyways. So when it comes to it doesn't even sound like a middle build metal building could be built anyways but it seems like if someone's going to put up a cheap building structure they are probably waiting to flip that property. And so another development can come in because like you said really easy to tear those down. And so I'm not overly concerned about that because of the point you brought up in terms of longevity of that. And then the other point I have is in our backup we had section 35 here. I don't know if it's an exhausted list of everything. It looks like it could be pretty exhaustive but as we're talking I stopped counting at about 102 SUP cases in the city. Now Commissioner Taylor I know you believe that SUPs are okay but you're also saying that in five years what is that person going to think? What is the commission going to do? But we have SUPs. It's not like this crazy thing to say we don't need an SUP here because in five or seven years we don't know if we can trust the commission at that point to know what's going on. But yet in over 100 other cases historically and even us have agreed that SUPs are okay. So SUPs are known in the city and I feel that it's not like thinking out like the way I heard it said from you is an SU P provides this base level. We're going to start at something that there's a new neighborhood. They don't know what to do as if the council and the commission a decade from now is going to be ignorant to how to facilitate a structure being built within CMG for self storage. So I think the idea of having self storage units permitted by SUP in CMG is in alignment with a lot of other SUPs that we have without adding a ton of limitations. And further it seems like with legal's opinion we would have some leverage to put into the SUP the climate control portion. So I feel pretty strongly that CMG with SUP is appropriate and it provides this commission and the staff really great power to construct a good project going forward on any property regardless of the shape or size or where it's located in the city. Commissioner Taylor. I move we amend the motion to also require an SUP in ECI and ECC zoning categories. Does that come back to me? Commissioner Rossell. Does that supersede the motion on the table? Yes, an amendment would supersede your motion. So we need a second on that. But we have a motion. I'm not going to second that and let me tell you why. We had an applicant who brought this forth. The applicant brought it forth as CMG and I believe his point to this commission was staff added these other areas on. And I think when we have someone who takes the time and the due diligence to come before us and bring a matter, I think we should honor that and keep it there rather than we go off into a whole lot of other areas. So I'm not willing to second it. I'm going to go with the CMG with the SUP and I think that 's a good way for us to address their issue that's more pressing and also give us the flexibility that we talked about earlier. So is there a second for Commissioner Taylor's friendly amendment? Seeing none. It dies and we will revert back to the motion that we have a first and a second before us. And Commissioner Taylor, before I call on the vote, I will recognize you. Thank you, Chair. I move we amend the motion to reinstate requirements one, three, and five as originally proposed. That's 100% masonry stone or architecture or concrete block . No overhead bay doors or storage unit doors visible from adjacent properties right away. And proposed fencing materials will be masonry or wrought iron. Commissioner Bec. I can second that. Okay. So we have a first and a second to add those extra items on there. We will vote on that measure first and see if it passes or fails legal and then come back to the -- That's correct. Okay. So we have that motion by Commissioner Taylor, seconded by Commissioner Bec to add item one, three, and five. I will call for Commissioner Roselle. Just for clarification, Commissioner Taylor spoke earlier about having that third item limited to first floor only. Are you not including that on this one? First floor, yeah, I'm sorry. Okay. So to clarify, third, item three, no overhead bay doors and storage unit doors visible from adjacent property or public right away on the first floor. Okay. We have a first and a second. I'm going to make a comment again. Before you do that, Commissioner Bec, are you still second ing that change? Yes. Okay. I'm not in favor of amending and adding those things for the same reasons we have in SUP. And I am concerned about, again, going down the road of putting all these things on that then when it comes back, we have to start undoing things. I think we have the SUP. I don't think it's a baseline minimum. I think just like these gentlemen have come before us tonight, they didn't come before us with a bare minimum. And I'm not going to make their project the only determiner , but I have great faith in our market system. And people come out and invest this kind of money. It's not to build the cheapest thing. It's for it to be successful. They are already talking about on their own an air-cond itioned space and all of these things. And I think we are short-sighted at this commission to think that we know how to tell them how to do business. And so I think we need to stick, and that's why I'm not going to support it, to do the CMG with an SUP and give the free market the opportunity to provide the services that each community wants, willing to pay for in our great city. And so with that, any other discussion or comment before I call for a vote on the board on this amended motion? So a vote will be for and a vote no will be against. I will call for a vote on the board. The motion fails 4-2. We will now go back to the motion that we had before us by Commissioner Rozelle. And I forget who the seconder was, Commissioner Ellis. And I would ask Commissioner Rozelle to restate his motion. So my motion is to approve item Z17-001, including the relocation of self-storage units from industrial land use categories to the commercial land use, to permit self-st orage units in CMG district with an SUP. And that's it. Okay. Commissioner Ellis, second on that still? Yes. Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion before I call for a vote on the board? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 5-1. Okay. That will move us to our item C this evening. Thank you for your presentation and your time. And good luck on your project. Look forward to seeing you again soon. Item C, this item has been withdrawn by the applicant. That will move us to item D. And I'm going to open our public hearing on Z17-0002B. And I will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. The applicant has requested to postpone this item until the April 26 P&Z meeting. Okay. Since we have opened the public hearing, I'm going to ask, since we've had some people come this evening, were either of you all wanting to speak on this item tonight? No? You here for something else? Okay. So we'll keep the public hearing open and then we'll do the motion to postpone if you so desire. I was just going to ask. Okay. I was just going to leave the public hearing open and make a motion to continue it to April 26. Is that legal? Chair will motion that this item will be continued to date certain of April 26 and the public hearing will remain open . So we don't have to re-notice this item. Commissioner Taylor. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. The motion carries 6-0. I will move us to item E. We'll open the public hearing for Z16-0030A and we'll call on Julie White for presentation. Good evening. I'm presenting 1630 to you tonight. The request is to rezone approximately .4 acres from downtown residential one to downtown residential two. Would you like for me to go over the whole presentation? I think the shortened version and we have people waiting for a while. Okay. So based upon the discussion items that we talked about in the work session, the existing zoning pattern as well as the existing land use pattern, staff does recommend denial of this request as this change in zoning could interrupt this existing zoning pattern at the block level and potentially impede the development of the area in a cohesive manner. I'll stand for any questions and I believe the applicant is here. Yes, the applicant is here. I have a question. We talked about in work session that the property to the southwest of this is DCG, which is even a higher, more intensive zoning than what is being requested here. With that said, why is staff not in support of this when we have an even higher and greater zoning designation within a half a lot away? Sure. And we did look at that and we do see that development pattern and that zoning pattern on the edges of the neighborhood where those more intensive zoning districts are there and have developed in accordance with those zoning districts. However, because the zoning pattern on this particular street and within that block is so cohesive and has remained so, then we felt like that this request, because it would isolate the zoning district, wasn't appropriate for this location. So that was staff's analysis and that's how we arrived in our recommendation. I could see that if we were on the block to the east, but the block that we're in, we have DCG in the bottom corner and we have, I believe it is DR2 in the northwest corner. So in that block already, there are higher uses and zoning wise. Yes, within the larger block and particularly that side that faces the street behind it, that Avenue A, you're right, there are those additional zoning districts. But because Neff Street and that block on Neff Street has that consistent zoning of DR1, that's why we feel like it's important to maintain it. Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Any other questions for staff? Anybody else? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item? Please come forward. You have a card, great. Are you the applicant? Yes, sir. Okay. If you'll give us your name and address and you'll have 10 minutes to tell us about your project. Name is Mickey Patterson. The address for the property is that what you're referring to? Your current address where you live. 8805 Random Road in Fort Worth, Texas. Okay. Who needs a card? I'm Sherry Patterson and I live with him. Okay. Well, are you all going together here and sharing the 10 minutes or are each of you going to take 10 minutes? No, we'll be done hopefully. Okay. Can we do two people speaking at the same time back and forth? No, you need to go one at a time. Okay. So I was just clarifying. I can dive into everything and then -- Okay. Do you want me to look this? Yes, ma'am. I didn't know where it was at. And while she's getting that started, just a handful of slides to go through. I know a few of the slides will talk a little more in depth about what we envision on the project, just more to give a context of what we're looking at and then it will go more to the -- I think more of a succinct approach is just what it is we 're trying to do, which is fairly well summed up, is to go from a DR1 to a DR2. Great. And we do try to get the neighbors around us, you know, because we do feel like -- I went to school here and I'm not going to say how many years ago, but even parking then was an issue. So I know how important it is to live close to the school and now parking is just crazy. You can't get a mile from the school and I know my niece goes here and she's like -- I can see legal starting to squirm. So we typically one at a time. So if you'd like to go first, we'd be happy to hear from you next. Sure. So just to kind of give you an idea of the project, just to kind of put it in context of what our vision is, I've got a couple slides. This is what I think we've talked to you correct about a little bit. Kind of the scope of what we're looking at is a shipping container apartment. It's kind of an artsy, trendy design. You see it pop up in a lot of cities, Austin, some of these outskirts, a handful of places in Europe. So this is our project and what we're looking at, obviously because it appeals to young professionals, college students and things of that nature. This is really more for something to share with and you can read through it later. We don't need to dive into all of it, but it just talks about more of what we envisioned on the project. We've just got some supportive material about kind of, again, what we plan to put there and that this is not just, hey, we want to throw together something that's super cheap and just a bunch of units to cram college kids into because you can get more out of them that way. So this, again, just gives a little bit of background on this, but then I want to hop into particularly what the location is. And as she outlined this here, this is a high-level view. Take maybe a little easier view, easier for me anyways to look at. And as you mentioned, the edges here, I don't know if I can get a... Like you mentioned with the DCG here and as well as the additional DR2 that's encroaching already in the areas. What we were hoping, given that there's this push with the higher occupancy or higher density living, that this would really go with the goal of what the area is trying to do, which is getting higher density living, more options availability for the college students, as well as the other young professionals moving into the area. One of the things that we did notice here is that these upper parts and as well in the end, you do see a handful on each side, just more duplexes going up on the newer, on the ones that have been, I guess, older homes that were bought, torn down and duplexes put up. As Sherry was saying earlier, the homes here, and we were advised, and I think it was you or one of your counterparts had mentioned that one of the things that would make this easier is reaching out to the people along this street or even on the edges here to see if there was a consensus of migrating to a DR2 or alternate zoning. The challenge we had is the people, especially there to the south, everyone that was reached out to, these are people that have either been in the property a long time, elderly, 80, 90 years old, we just got very limited response. I think that, as you can tell by the properties, these are older properties that are, yeah, they don't either not live there, someone out of state that has the property. So, you know, this was just a challenge. I know that was the goal and we were hoping that we could come here and say, hey, this is great, we've got all the people around us that want to do this. Unfortunately, we just don't. And that's just not because the people don't think want to, it's just because they can't get a hold of them. So, again, that's our view of the area and the way we see the properties migrating. I think this fits in with the plan very well. The build site, this just gives you a little view, I think from a standpoint, the lot, you can see, is plenty large, especially when you consider this spot that was just to the southwest is a commercial apartment complex. So, this is, I think it's an 18 unit complex. So, this has got quite a few units crammed in this space already. And we would do everything here to maintain the neighborhood, the trees, the greenery, having the green spaces on the edge of the property. This isn't a goal of coming in, rip everything out, cram as many spaces as you can there. So, the whole idea of what we're trying to do is to keep this artsy urban design and we want to bring that home feel here and something that can build out into the rest of the neighborhood. Just the main benefits we see in being able to do this, it does add a lot of the much needed housing in the area for your university. I had a couple supporting pieces here. This is stuff that you guys know as far as the universities and the demand that you have both here and even on the TWU side. And then to the project we're proposing, I think really fits into the cultural theme within Denton. It's bold, unique, artistic design and this fits what people are trying to move here for. And then lastly, I think with the encroachment around the surrounding areas with small kind of boutique apartments, this fits that mold really well. So, from our view, the area can support it. It still fits in even though it's a variance in that area. It still fits in with the general area and the theme. As you go from street to street, you can't obviously tell, hey, this is obviously residential and this is obviously commercial because you make a right. It's all apartments. You make a left. It's all apartments. You go down here, it's a bunch of duplexes. So, the field still looks the same from our perspective. So, really, that's all I have. I don't know if you have anything else. Questions? Is that the process? Yes, there is a process and I've got a full board of questions. So, beg your patience. No worries. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you, Sheriff. Thank you for your presentation and some context to what's going on. I have a couple of questions about the two properties themselves. They're separate platted right now. Are you looking to replat after rezoning? That would be the goal. Ultimately, whatever's amiable to the committee and what makes the most sense. Sure. What is the total acreage of those two lots? I think it's roughly just under half acre-ish. Okay. And then you might have pictures of this. I'd be interested to see if you do, but what do you think would likely be built on .4 acres? Do you have like, are we talking about? I didn't put, I can give you a perspective of just kind of what the, it's not our design, but I can give you a couple, like this is probably not the best example. So, when you look at something like this, you're looking at something like this, maybe twice this size right here, that's supporting that area. I think the guidelines that we have in the city, I think it was a one and a quarter parking spots per room. So, from our view, you're looking at anywhere from 12 to maybe 14 to 20 units out there, and they can still support parking while maintaining the green area. That's the other part too. We do have, as I showed there, a lot of green area that we want to maintain. So, we don't want to just clear cut this just for the sake of being able to support the parking structures and everything else as well. So, I guess my answer would be kind of, well, it depends on what makes sense with the committee. Thank you. I've got a question that I'll recognize. Can you tell us why you want to rezone it? Because in DR1 and DR2, both have got multifamily allowed. The height is 45 feet in DR2 and 40 feet in DR1. And the only other difference that I see is a slight difference in lot coverage. So, can you give us the rationale of why we need to do the rezone? And I could be wrong in my understanding here. My understanding was that DR1, you could only do duplexes, not multifamily. I'll call on staff to address that question. You're correct. Yes. I was looking at L5, and you're correct. My apologies. I missed that detail. I'm looking at the chart. I was looking at the box. Glad you're prepared. Well done. Commissioner Hussbuth. I'll tell you, I think you're a little ahead of the power curve, right? So, I want you to help me understand where I'm off. Because if I look at that, if you go back to your map, here 's what we can agree on. We can agree it's coming. Yes, sir. We can agree all that's going to transition. I just think you're early. And so, my palette right now is phase one duplex, phase two , once everything else transitions to multifamily, then I'm more at peace with it. But I do want to give you an opportunity. I mean, I want to hear from you and get kind of your feel from that understanding that's my concern. And then I'll tell you, this is just me. I'm burnt out on everyone telling me about UNT, how close it is to UNT, how walkable it is UNT. Understand all that matters. But it's just everyone to me, buzzwords, right, to make it okay. I want to know from Mickey, just hey, this makes sense because, right, I mean, just from the heart. Just let me have it. I'm going to have a couple things and one that is first going to address the kind of phasing it in. The way I see it and with projects of this nature is you go the route of doing a DR1, you build the duplex here, and you look at some of the ones on the edges who have done duplexes. The reality is those are there for the next 30 years. These aren't changing, maybe 40 years. So this isn't really a hey, we're going to phase it in now and then later when we really like to get some of the multifamily, it will come later. It will. I think if you do something, you stage it different and go to this approach first, well, then later is 25, 30 years from now. And then you kind of end up in a situation where, man, these are all single-family or duplexes. We could have done an apartment here. And I'll give you a good example, and it is another university. As you look over in areas closer to TWU and the surrounding areas there, what was done there is everything was done DR2 around all the areas. You still see kind of a mix and this homogenous mix of homes and some apartments. But the consistency there is all DR2, whereas this is DR1 and it's kind of segmented. And in those cases, what you saw with the new builds, they were typically apartments. You don't have a lot of the duplexes. And I know one of you had a concern earlier on home values and values in areas. Duplexes generally bring down values from a real estate standpoint. Apartments, single-family homes have a stronger value than do typically duplexes or quadplexes in an area. So that's kind of thinking of the forward-looking where I would say is, you know, honestly, the commercial route might be a better route, but I think it would be a harder stretch to put that there unless I was on that southwest corner. But, you know, to your area, as far as why, I think that what drove us on this project was we were looking at things that were different. We first started looking at some of the college areas. That's just the way it is up here. But we looked at some of the things that you could do that were more modular concept. And at Texas A&M, they had some of these neat modular concepts where you do stuff. And then we looked at some of the trends and designs, the nice thing about this particular design, it is a green build. You use a lot of recycled products. It is trendy. It's efficient. They're sturdy. They last a long time. So there's a lot of good qualities with what we're doing. Having said that, we're not dead set that, yes, we have to do this if there's pushback, I guess, on the next phase of the project. So we're open to those discussions. I think it's just first steps first. But that was kind of our thought here. We actually have another property that probably had this similar discussion later. It's on a DR2 lot already. But it's closer to the downtown. And so for that, it's less about the college, but it really is about that downtown, young professional life. If I may. Continue. One follow-up. But regardless, whatever parking requirements, you don't anticipate any need for variances with respect to parking. The number of slots, the material needed, you don't envision any issues? No. I think the only variances are discussions that are realistic to come up. And I know we've talked about this a little bit, is the shipping container design that we'd like to go forward with is something that's atypical. And so what we'd have to do is probably make sure that the engineers and the people are comfortable with what's being done for installation, whether it be panels here, conforming to the build guidelines or having appropriate alternatives. So no, I mean, not to that phase yet, just on the zoning side. I just wanted to make sure kind of in advance that I don't see anything inside that whatever we decide or whatever is decided that I kind of get that out. I was just curious about that. Yeah, I think we're we're tracking on that. Thank you. We have an architect draw up the plans. The site. So that was just a minute. Sorry. We do one at a time. Sorry. I don't have anything to say. Okay. Okay. If you could just take a seat back there, then we can just have one. Okay. Sorry. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Kravis, right? No, Mickey Patterson. Patterson. Sorry. Excuse me. Appreciate your presentation. Appreciate the fact that you've got some avant-garde views here on this. Could I get you to put your picture back up where it said the cube showing us? The very beginning? Yeah. Yeah, right there. That is unique. And I was kind of wavering, to be honest with you, between going along with denial with staff on this and considering a move, a slight bump might not be so bad. I'm pretty sure I'm going to have a hard time with this design. I think the people who live in that area, those older folks , too, you know, are going to have a hard time. This is going to stick out like a like a sore thumb. This isn't going to fit in that area at all. Usually we want to bring something into an area, something new. It needs to fit in better than I think this is going to. And I don't mean to be over critical. I think this would be great in other places. And I think you're right. This would appeal to the college student. But you're going to put this in an area where you've got 70 and 80 year old homes and some of the residents are that old, too. And this is not going to transition well. So if you have an alternate plan outside of storage containers, I'd be glad to hear it. Okay. And that's why I guess my question would be so from your perspective, you would be on your your view would be more on board if it was a traditional stick masonry build. I would be more have to be on board. Yes. At this point, looking at that, I'm probably going to deny this. I mean, so the reality is this is this is our preference. It's not our dead set. We own the property and we're in this to have an investment that can make make some money, have an offering and it fits in my perspective. I would disagree with you on how this fits in. That's that's just the way to disagree. But having said that, if that was the general view for pass or or not, ultimately, I still think it's better moving to a D.R. two with being a frame masonry traditional build than staying D.R. one and going with the duplex. So it's regardless of whether it's this or another one, I think the view is it's still better to go to the D.R. two. Okay. Commissioner O'Zell. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Beck, I disagree with you. I think that would be pretty cool. And it's kind of unfortunate that sometimes our requirements make it a cookie cutter. We have to have so much masonry and so much brick and everything is kind of looks the same. So, I mean, I think I think that could work. But more importantly, that's not for discussion tonight. He can build whatever he wants there. Once the D.R. two is made. So the however those get a little crazy. But how thank you. This will help better. Help me prove your point. I think the issue is is is a zoning request if we feel that these two properties would be compatible to move into a multifamily concept. It's one of those times where sometimes the project itself might filter into that decision or not. But we're not deciding on design tonight. So although this is helpful and kind of interesting to see your thoughts on the property tonight, it's just a matter of if D.R. two is appropriate or not. So I just want to make sure that we weren't being skewed in our decision based on the avant garde, as you put it, design of this project. I'll look that word up later. Commissioner Beck. Thank you for your comments. And again, I'm not opposed to it either. I think it's it's it's interesting. And living there wouldn't be a problem. It's just that if you take something like that and stick it in those two lots there with the existing housing that's there, it's going to raise some eyebrows. It's going to it's going to be offensive. Some people it's just not going to fit in well. Again, I understand we're looking at going from a D.R. one to D.R. two. And I was considering weighing in favor of maybe moving up to D.R. two, but I just just as a safety measure now, I'm almost reluctant to do that if the possibility of something like that goes in there. So that's just me, though. I don't know how everybody else is thinking here. I may be the only one that's thinking like that. It's just that if you're going to request a D.R. two, it seems to me that you would want to fit in a little bit more unnoticeably and whether it's cookie cutter or not , it doesn't have to be cookie cutter. It just storage containers just seem. And I guess where I would ask on that is and to go back to Commissioner Rosell's comment is in that case, I would say that you would still elect to approve the D.R. two and tackle that discussion when it came approving the project. And that's what I would respectfully request is that if you 're on board for D.R. two, then D.R. two would be the way to go. And then we can tackle that because we still have to come up to a building engineering and there would be some pieces of variances because there are requirements. So those concerns, I would say, would be fairly brought up there and and and still push for the approval for the D.R. two. Well, I'll hold my thought on it for now until we get out to the vote. Fair enough. I've got no other people on the board for questions. Thank you. OK, thank you. And would you like to speak? It's public hearing. We're inviting you. Please come up to the mic, give us your name and address and give us your comments. Sherry Patterson, 8805 Random Road, Fort Worth, Texas, 7617 9. So I just wanted to address yours with the you know, we did have a architect that has drawn everything up and so pl atted it and the measurements are the good thing about these things. They're very large, so they don't take up a lot of space and so that because it is a small lot. So we have accounted for the green space, all the parking, even, you know, park like areas for the tenants and so forth. So we have done all that and done all the measurements and made sure of what will fit on there was still the guidelines of how far you can be from the whole the street and so forth. So that's all I want to say, because I don't feel like he answered that well and say that we actually have been working with architects and everything that we have models and the whole thing to see how it's going to fit on the lot . Right. Thank you. Thank you. I've got a question for staff while we're still open to public. Can we get Google Earth up and pull up that DCG property that's there on the corner and see what's there for Street View. Oh, of course. Right here. Yeah, right there. That's what's there existing now correct. Yes, sir. Okay. I think that's helpful for us to get a perspective of what 's already there in the neighborhood. It's not a whole lot different height wise and what's being brought here before us this evening. I know this area is in transition and there's a multitude of different style homes duplexes and so forth but that's less than half a lot away. That's the property I brought up about being DCG on the corner. So thank you for doing that. And this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to come forward and speak on this item for us this evening. Great. Please come forward and leave the car there. Please give us your name and address, and you'll have four minutes to speak. I'm Dave Sutcliffe. My address is 1219 Avenue a Den right around the corner from. Can I ask you a question. Yes, you didn't mark your car to support or opposition. Will you let us know how you can let us know. I'll mark it for you. I do not support it. Okay, you're in opposition opposition. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to I probably don't stand a chance here whatsoever. He's going to do what he's going to do. I just want to give you some my wife and I moved from Saint Louis 7 years ago. We both have family in Texas and we fell in love with then moved to a place. It was a 1313 Underwood, which was Avenue a and Underwood. We were moved out of there. Our house was moved. The other ones were destroyed on our block. We live right across the street from where we used to live, where they took our house. And we were lucky we found that place or our daughter can go to the same school as her buddies. And that we had an easy time moving into a nice house, another nice house. But we're right across the street from a huge complex that 's being built on Avenue a. And this thing right here is on the on the corner of our block that we've we've learned to deal with it. But this thing right behind us is going to is going to be overlooking our backyard inside of our windows. There's a big giant tree that holds a lot of wildlife and he says he no not going to remove the tree for parking or whatever. I. That's that's most likely going to go to and that's going to that's just going to. Our privacy is just going to be absolutely gone. And we're going to be able to just go back to the building and replace that. The trees like now the apartment complex is there. It's just totally invasive. We were out in our backyard all the time. Got the sprinkler out there in the pool. And that's just not going to happen with a. The Well over a year with with all the construct. We we don't even know what it's going to be like when the people start moving in and parking lot, the doors slamming, the noise, the music. And it's you can tell me it's a family friendly place, but we know darn well that students are going to move in there as they have in this place on the corner. And and behind us, I'm it's says right there on your other slide ideal for students and even says it right there. It's not escaping us that students will be there. Students are loud. We were I'm just telling you my story because this is getting out of hand. We're something like that does happen where we've got to go again somewhere where we could have some sort of resemb lance of a family life. And in that neighborhood, there is families around us on both sides of us in back of us. That's just out of place that that would be just he says it would fit right in. Sorry, I don't know your name. But it would just just does not go. Will not go no matter what. I mean, what angle you use to try to get that in there. It's just it just doesn't. That's my personal story. I can't speak for anybody else because, you know, nobody else bothered to show up. But that is our story. My time is your time. I appreciate your comments. All right, go. We have a question for you, Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry. What was your last name again? Sutcliffe Sutcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Sutcliffe, for taking the time to come down and speak. If I could get hang on there, Julie, if you could come back up and put the proposed zoning map on the on display for me . I want to ask Mr. Sutcliffe question. Yeah, that one. That better. Yeah. Well, OK. Where's your can you take the cursor and point to your house, Mr. Sutcliffe? OK. Next one. OK, so you're not right up against the apartments that are on the corner. Is that correct? You're one lot down from where the apartments are. Well, it's not directly behind us. OK, OK. Let me ask you this. And my question is, the lots that are still in DR one to your knowledge, are those single family residential or those just families living in there? They've been converted to student housing. All the houses, proper houses are family houses. They have family. They haven't been converted to. No, no, it's the new buildings that are like better students, singles. OK, thank you, sir. Any other questions? Thank you, sir, for bringing your comments. This is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak for or against this project, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Hudspeth. Yeah. I think. One, I still think it's early. I was getting closer to peace with early. But Dave has a point and there's been no there's of the points made. When you're talking about someone looking into the back of your yard. So now it's almost like there's no there's been no explanation for that caveat. It's there's there's one thing to say, hey, it fits. There's one thing to say we're in front of the power curve. It's another thing to say to me, I liken it to when you're in school and you're in the lunch line and you tell somebody, hey, you can't cut in front of me, but you're going to have back cuts. Right. So you're you're telling the person behind you, hey, I don't I don't value your opinion that much. And so I think there's nothing that mitigates that to me unless we add a caveat that that multifamily either stays one story or there's some mitigation at the back that protects Dave to fully use his backyard. Because otherwise he's absolutely right. There's some sort of balcony, there's some sort of window that's looking right down in the back of his yard. And I have to be OK with saying, hey, Dave, I'm going to let Mickey have back cuts in front of you. And I don't think that's right. And I'm probably outside looking in, but I would challenge the other commissioners to justify that and do it at your house. So imagine you lose the use of your backyard because the property in front of you is staring down at your backyard. And if you're at peace with that, then then you're different than me. I'm not I wouldn't be OK with that. So unless there's some sort of mitigation to go in place flat zoning as is because the way I rationalize it, looking at the zoning as is, it's not my fault. If I sign on saying, hey, this is OK, then I'm accepting that it's OK for apartment to be to look in the back of Dave's yard. And I'm not OK with that. So that's where I fall. Just as a point of order, we could not do an overlay on this project because we don't have a commercial component that we're buffering. OK. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I would suspect to you know, Mr. Sutcliffe is the only one that came to the meeting that they're probably just about every other one person that lives in that neighborhood that lives in a single family home probably has similar sentiments. And that's why I've always had a problem with the notification issue. We don't always seem to get the feedback that's really out there. But that being said, I would like to make a motion that we deny this zone change request. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sutcliffe, for coming out and speaking and the Patterson's for presenting. It's an interesting predicament when an individual comes with a zoning change and one person shows up against it and it's the neighbor. Because your concerns are valid and a lot of ways right. But it's hard for me as a commissioner to hear the testimony of one person, albeit the closest person, it seems, and make the decision based on one person. And I'm certainly not going to assume that any other neighbor believes the same thing without them saying something. I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. I don't know what they think. And if we send that logical argument to its end, well, I wouldn't want that in my backyard. So probably the entire city's against this, right, if we extend it. And so I don't feel like we can say with any kind of confidence what any other neighbor thinks. It would just be an assumption on our part. That being said, there's nothing else like it around. There's nothing else looking in your backyard currently. So it does change the landscape of your quality of life. And so that's that certainly has some import to my decision . The greater scope, though, is just looking at this neighborhood, the precedent, it seems, set that within a stone's throw, 30 feet, there's there's a massive apartment complex. And to Commissioner Hutz's point about being ahead of the power curve, if that assumes I'm not sure what a power curve means, forgive me. But if there's a momentum shift of this neighborhood, someone's going to be first. And so it's hard to put the onus on them that they're early . Maybe actually they're at the beginning of that power curve . Maybe they're the instance that actually propels what you believe is a foregone conclusion already into place. I just don't know about that either. I know I'm being vague here. I think it could go either way. That being said, seeing that this block has already started the momentum of changing on the northwest corner, the southwest corner, even up Neff Street on the east side, those are duplexes, but it changes the character of the street, albeit not from a zoning perspective, from an aesthetics perspective for sure. Neff Street, it looks like, is evolving into just a more dense type of living area. So I say that all to say I'm interested in the other commissioners thoughts. I appreciate very much. So I'm not undermining what you're thinking. I just want you to know that the tension I have is I don't know what anyone else thinks. And I fear one property owner having so much power over another property's owners ability to act on their property. They've they've purchased the property. And so they they have some authority over what can be built within the purviews of zoning. So there's a tension there. What do you want for your property? What do you want for your property? And then how greater impacts the city. And so it's certainly kind of a sticky situation, but it seems like precedent has begun to be set in the area. That's all I got. McCall on a Julie. I'm going to have a couple of comments to pull up our Google Earth again. And I'd like for you to pull up in our map here. It shows a structure to the west of this project right here . If you can go across the street on our map, it shows. No, to the west, the apartment community that you have up, if you'll just turn the street view 180 degrees and look west, that's no longer there. It's unfortunately it's OK now. It just disappeared. Well, magic. Tomorrow might be a great day. I'm going to try that when I get up in the morning and tell them what might happen. So I appreciate you pulling this up because I am torn also, like Commissioner Roselle says, in regards to the map, the testimony. And yet I don't know who ever is going to be first versus whose last. First is there on the corner. I think next is across the street. It has been cleared. It's obviously no longer single family. The likelihood that single family will be built there, I think, is zero. It's it's D.R. 2 in North Texas area. And I think, unfortunately, that's just the reality of where we are. And I think as you pan down the street, if you look to the north, there's apartments there. There's apartments being built further down. It is a transitional neighborhood. I understand that it is very invasive for single family. And yet there is development and redevelopment taking place across the street, probably getting ready to take place across the street again. And I'm torn because we have before us many times as a commission, we don't want it here. We want it over there. Well, now it's over there and I don't know that I want it over there. And so I'm I think I'm leaning to with just driving by and take a look at what was around there that, you know, even though it may be contrary to staff's suggestion that, you know, to to rezoning, but I do think it's transitioning and I think it's that's direction that it's that it's going to go. So I appreciate you pulling this up to be able to take a look at it for everybody as to what is really going on over there in the neighborhood. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So this is the intersection of a lot of things we we have generally zoned to this area. We've changed the zoning one or two lots at a time in this area, mainly along Eagle. The apartments that came in, we might have the occasional apartment that would be 10 or 15 lots and maybe two or three zoning categories that would change. But inside along Fannin Street and Margie and trying to see what all there is what there is over here. I can remember cases along all of these where the first house on the block was rezoned and then two more lots went or the lot that backed up to it went. So this area is is has been slowly transitioning for at least 15 years or more. And I realize that there there can be some stable neighborhoods with rentals. But typically the investment that protects the neighborhood is with owner occupied houses. And there are just a tiny handful. I'm flipping through the tax rolls here and about 10 houses, 12 houses a block, maybe one in 10 or one in 15 is owner occupied. And about half the addresses are somewhere else in town and half the addresses are out of state out of the country. There's a there's a row of those giant duplexes at the end of Neff. They're owned by somebody that lives in Venezuela or something. So I think we I feel like this area is going to be going to transition no matter what we can slow it down and we can say the lot on the corner has to go first. But I don't think that really helps. I also worry that frankly those 5000 square foot two story duplexes are probably a worse option than an apartment, a small apartment with a maximum 40 feet or 45 feet in height . So so I feel the pain for I feel your pain of having a development coming behind you. I've experienced that myself and it made me move from where I was renting at the time. But I I don't think there's anything that would stop the development here. And I think it would be better to have a smaller higher quality, a small high quality apartment complex than somebody maximizing a duplex on these on these lots. And you'd have the same problem with the multi story duplex right behind you as well. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I have been on the fence, you know, since I started reading all the material on this in driving the area a couple of times. I think even though it's it's dear one, I think those clusters of duplexes on the corners are already pushing the limit of where this area is going to this higher density. I would hate to see this this not redeveloped and this sit vacant to Commissioner Taylor's point. I think it is in transition and the transition is to go to the air to and higher density. I fully understand your comments. I know that the building heights don't vary that that much. It's five feet difference. It's 40 feet with the air. One forty five with the air to. But I am leaning in support of this because I do see that it would it would fit with where the area is heading. Commissioner Hodge with. Thank you. Just again, I've heard the comments and and I'll I'll take that. I'll use that last little nugget if if the height difference doesn't matter that much, then it doesn't matter that much to change it. Right. So either the height height difference matters or does not. And if I grab that quote, you said the height doesn't doesn 't matter. Then I agree with you. It doesn't matter. And so I would leave it as is personally just because it's not that big of a difference. And I again, we all agree that it's the area is changing. No one's disagreeing with that. I've not heard anyone. And I again, I'm certain I'm outside looking in. I did second Commissioner Beck's motion to deny. But I've not heard anyone. Commissioner Taylor mentioned he 's been victim of it and he moved. But I've not heard anyone. I guess by not saying that you are saying you're okay with that dynamic of someone building something that looks directly into the end of the neighbor's home. But I'll tell you, there's nothing on that block currently built that says that does that. There's nothing anywhere in that area that simulates what they're up against conceding it's going that way. My only point is one, it hadn't been done to anyone on the block anywhere in there yet. Two, if everyone lives in all these different states and all these different places, then I find it interesting that they wouldn't be on board for signing up to partner up with them and giving their thumbs up. I mean, they live elsewhere. It's an investment property. They're all in. Where are they? So I'm assuming they have businesses. I'm assuming they have business numbers. I'm assuming they have all these points of access, but somehow they're missing as well. So my point is simply point for point, we can agree the area's transitioned. We can agree it's coming. My point is this is in the middle of the block, it's not the place to start. My point is I didn't set the zoning for that corner, and that corner lot does not look in anyone's yard. And so I'd love to, I mean, we'll vote and we'll be done. But that's my point, that no one's addressed the fact that or not, in my humble opinion, made it okay, that this is going, we're going to launch in the middle of a street that has a direct vantage point. And renting or not, I don't think, I mean, they're going to lose their backyard to some degree. And I count, get back to four, well, I lost my, no, it didn 't, here we go. There are, let's see, on the back of that vacant lot, there 's one, two, three, four structures. You call that one a garage. So three structures that are going to volunteer their backyard for this project. And there's no other backyards in that neighborhood. You can Google street, you can Google earth, you can aerial all you want. This will be the launching point for looking in people's backyard. They'll have a shot at Avenue A and they'll have a shot at Greenlea's backyard, depending on what kind of structure goes there. So that's my only concern. That's why I'm not supporting it. Commissioner Rossell. Thanks, Chair. To your point, Commissioner, I think the property first shown on the corner certainly looks into a couple of back yards. There's no windows on the end? That's my assumption. But I guess moreover to Commissioner Ellis's point, the property owners right now could build a 40-foot building right now. And that would ostensibly ruin their backyard, is what you 're saying. So it's not that by us approving this, we're systematically ruining the individual's backyard. That has the potential to be ruined, quote unquote, regardless of this vote. So if the deny goes through as you're voting, that doesn't protect them from someone looking into their backyard. I hope that's known that you're not protecting their backyard by this denial. True. It would just be changing the scope in which the individual is. I mean, if they're running a duplex or part of a complex. I've got one final question for staff. I'm going to call on Menal to come up. And I just want to throw it and ask your professional opinion. I think you hear the direction we're going on the mid-block rezone. I'd like to get your perspective on it. A couple of things, I'd like to preface the answer with a couple of statements that were brought up that staff or the planning division has re-zoned several properties, perhaps mid-block or at specific hard corners. And that's been going on, and that's a trend that you've seen. However, if we look back a little bit, we've revisited that methodology, so to speak, or that pattern and discerned that we have a couple of issues that we need to take under consideration. One primarily being the integrity of existing neighborhoods or zoning districts. To follow that, we're also talking about small area plans. We've been talking about what the activity associated with that would be. So when we visit this property and what's come before us in terms of the analysis that the planning division has conducted, it's primarily based on we're taking a piece of a puzzle out of a puzzle that's already built and leaving a bit of a hole in there, assuming that there will be vertical integration of some type. So some of that is assumption based. And then it goes back to the bigger question that P&Z raised with us several times is, why don't we look at zoning from a cohesive standpoint? Why don't we take bigger parcels and zone them together? So putting that whole puzzle together, that is why you see the recommendation of the planning division saying that at this time, I think the better way to put it is that it is not feasible from a planning perspective to rezone this property. And although you've mentioned that uses are very similar, for example, or building heights are very similar when we talk about zoning and the cohesiveness of the zoning pattern, that's the analysis that was conducted based on this. I definitely agree that there are a lot of concepts out there. I also agree that there are separations. You can create physical separations by street. You can create physical separations by structure. In this case, we don't have that solid line as it relates to the subject property in association with what's around them, abutting them. That was the -- did I answer your question? I attempted to. I think you're doing a good job on providing staff's perspective. I guess I'm struggling a little bit with supporting staff's perspective with the apartments already on the corner, I guess the southwest corner, and all of this going on across the street is -- why is it so different? Why is the one lot over with all that's going on around it -- where do you draw the line of this is neighborhood and this is multifamily when it seems to be somewhat intertw ined? Absolutely intertwined, perhaps based on the DR2 districts, keeping in mind that we also have a development code that's online. So you've got so many parameters that are at play or so many moving parts right now. If there is a use that needs to be developed and we're talking about .4 acre, then perhaps that ingenuity needs to be broadened or expanded to take in a little more maybe in terms of property area or lot area. This is already subject to the small area plan that we are currently initiating. Since we're in public session, can we get an insight as to the small area plan direction? Is it going DR2? Is it going DCG? Well, we're still at the beginning phases. Of course, we're going to take public input. We're going to do some outreach to the neighborhood and see how they want to see this area develop. But what we can say at this point is that this area is included in the study area boundary. And so how it turns out is going to be dependent on the feedback that we get from that area of the community. Okay. There you have your presentation. Super. So, yes, we do have the small area plan that's under consideration, so to speak. Looking at the aerial imagery that we have before us, the abutting uses are primarily residential in nature too. Chair? Commissioner Rossello. I just wanted to pick up on all this brain while you're here. Okay. The small area plan. Can you help me out? If it is the direction of the small area plan to -- I don't know how to word this. Could they override what we change or deny tonight by a zoning change? So the small area plan is a vision. It's a visioning document. Through that, you can design patent books and you can establish specific criteria or an implementation plan. Then you establish your design criteria or your development patent associated with that. If there then is a need to rezone to bring everything back into -- that's when -- are we altering -- the question then is, is this zoning case going to alter the land use patent of immediate or adjacent uses? And do we have a timeline on the small area plan? It is approximately at a minimum an 18-month program due to the public involvement that we're going to have with it. So we're looking at the beginning of 2019? So we are looking at -- Mid-19? End of 2018 probably. Okay. Thank you. But again, our initiative is to make sure we start bringing things back to how you as a PNZ have visioned -- have done your visioning with us, highlighted several issues to us as well, which we concur with as well to a great extent. I mean, I'm sure we disagree on certain things, but -- Never. Never, absolutely. But from a basic framework standpoint, whenever we've talked about what are we doing, what are we protecting, what integrity are we maintaining, that's the fundamental conversation. Unfortunately, the timeline is so long on the front end. I mean, if we had direction of a small area plan, this discussion might be a little bit more guided from a neighborhood standpoint. Sure. And Commissioner Reza, one of the things that when we look at this property, we're talking about two parcels that are, you know, they're in between. They're not at specific hard corners. They're at specific hard corners or slightly -- you know, it's not even slightly removed. Then you can somehow vision that there will be a domino effect or it would create the impetus. In this case, you're looking at two lots that are adjacent or have abutting residential uses. So what is the impetus? Is the impetus to then have the entire area erode, which is then not consistent with us saying we need to also maintain the integrity of well-established older neighborhoods or homes. So it's a bit of a difficult -- it's a difficult decision. Well, can you tell me how the southwest corner and northwest corners are not that very impetus on the hard corners to forward momentum into zoning? If I'm not mistaken, when we look at the hard corners, I'm actually referring to these and these right here. As like an entrance into that street. So it's like a micro gateway into something that could potentially be eroding, but is there an opportunity then to protect that erosion? Or if we don't envision the erosion, then it goes back to the whole component of should we evaluate block by block? In terms of neighborhood integrity, does the staff view owner, occupied versus rental, single family detached differently? No. Owner occupied or rented property, it's still -- you've still got that land use component. Is it single family residential, for example? One of the elements that we will be visiting is we understand that there is a high rental market or rental housing rate. But then we have to understand how are we going to then ensure that the infrastructure accommodates those types of product as well as regular single family product. Owner home, owner occupied. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion before us. Any other discussion for our call for a vote on the board? I'm going to call on Commissioner Beck to restate your motion and then take a vote. I motion that we deny the zone change. Okay. And with that we have a first and a second for denial. And we'll call for a vote on the board. So a vote yes is to support the denial and a vote no would be against the denial. We'll call for a vote on the board. The motion is going to fail four to two. Commissioner Taylor. I move we recommend approval to the City Council of the re zone of this property. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I will second. You beat me by half a hair. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. The motion is going to carry four to two. That will move us to our final agenda item tonight, future agenda items. Anybody have any? I've got one. I'd like -- forgive the wording. I haven't spent a lot of time crafting this. But I would like to explore in a work session soon the possibility of adding to the cases that come before us the financial aspects of projects being a couple fold. I'm going to pull a controversial one that was before us. A couple weeks ago, part seven, for example. I think it would be helpful at least to me that when we have projects like that coming before us that we have the economic impact of what those projects bring to our city. That that's added to all of the other things that are covered in our presentation. So when we're looking at properties that may have a tax value of a few hundred thousand dollars versus 30-plus million, what does that mean on a year by year, 10 years in property taxes? What does a 300-bed unit that's a thousand dollars per unit in street impact fees, building permit fees, those types of things. And I would like to have that discussed in work session if we can have those things, how those can be covered and added as part of the presentations that are brought to us. And how that economic impact may or may not play into some of the decisions that come before this commission. Are you talking about any application or just rezoning? I know the one that you were talking about was a rezone case, I believe. Well, I don't know the correct. Because we're not supposed to take into account the actual project in a rezone case. And that seems to be the one you're targeting. Well, it was certainly taken into account in that one, and so I'm just curious how we do it. I'm not putting the framework around how staff does it. I'm just using that as a test case. I don't know the correct parameters that you use for it, whether it's just in zoning or whether it's in site plans or however it's done. But I think at no time since I've served on this commission do we ever come forth with what are the financial impacts of the cases that come before us. Whether we can talk about it in zoning or not, it's just not a part of the decision making process or the backup that comes before our commission. And I don't know how that gets implemented or whether it can. And that's why I was wanting to talk about it in work session, if that's a possibility for us. And then if it is, under what parameters would that be done ? That was long winded, but anyway, sorry. We'll have to discuss it and then get with you to clarify, narrow it down. Fair enough. Thank you. Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you, Chair. I would love to know more about small area plans. We have a couple of pending updates for small area plans. We kind of had one impromptu tonight, and Commissioner Ellis asked for one. But I would like to know kind of a tally on where small area plans exist and if there's designated definitions or directions that those small area plans help us guide our decision. I know a while ago the Ector Street area was encouraged to create a small area plan. I just don't know the process, is that always citizen initiated and where's the education piece that staff or commission can provide citizens to small area plans? But they seem extremely helpful to what the neighborhood wants in a lot of cases. And so there's a way we can promote that more or streamline the process. I would just like a breakdown as detailed as possible about small area plans and where they stand in the city. Anybody else? Okay. With that, I'm going to close our PNC meeting tonight at 845. Thank you, everyone.