Jun 14, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-06-14 5:30 PM

. , , Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning commission work session meeting for June the 14th. It is 530 and this meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I will call us to order at this time. Our first order of business will be to receive a clarification of agenda items this evening and I will turn that over to Manal for presentation. Thank You Chairperson Strange. If there are any questions associated with the minutes or any corrections that staff needs to make we'll be willing to take input at this time. Seeing none we can move on to the consent agenda item . We have a final plat for Country Lakes West and Julie Wyatt will present that for us. We saw this preliminary plat a couple of meetings ago so this is just the final plat for the Country Lakes West third phase. This is the last phase of this subdivision and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Julie just a quick question as I was reading through this. I noticed all the X lots are noted in in the notes except 18 X is not in the notes. Is it supposed to be in line five perhaps? Or at least I couldn't find it with my eyes. So is it okay you know I I had to go through these with a highlighter as well so 18 X in the drawing. Yes it's between 17 and what is that 80 something. So I'm sorry you're asking. Well I don't see it in the notes as the other X lots so I don't know if it needs to be in the notes but that's that's just what I'm. You're right it does it's in the title block but you're right it should be in the notes and I'll I'll let the applicant know and make sure to correct that before it's recorded so thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on this item? Thank You Julie. All right thanks. The next item is a final plot for Hickory Creek detention addition. Is the planner on this one? Does the Commission have any questions regarding this plot? I have a question on it. Okay. While you're pulling it up I'll go ahead and ask my question. Is this in regards to I want to say it's been several years ago for some sewer age facilities that eventually get built here? Yes it's the wastewater. I was wondering why it was detention and that was the only reason I guess it's almost like in case there's a failure of the storage facilities that's what this is for. Yes this is a water wastewater facility. Yes Jim why don't you come in and come to the microphone. Good evening everyone I'm Jim Jenks with the DRC engineering department. Yeah this is basically a city project and it's a wet weather storage and pumping facility. Basically when we get a wet weather event and we get more infiltration into our lines this is basically serving as a wide spot in the line to accommodate those peaks so it's a it's a large tank and pump station for pumping it back into the collector sewer. Okay thank you sir. You may also have any questions. Thank you sir. Thank you. Chairperson Strange do you want to handle the agenda based on our revised items? Let's do it that way. We'll have one dry run on getting it right. Would you like me to go over what we've switched? Sure. Okay the chair has made some changes in the order of the items to be heard during public hearing just for everybody's identification both our viewing audience and our listening audience here. Item 4A has now become 4B. 4B has become 4C. 4C will now be 4F. 4D will remain as 4D. Item E will remain as E. Item F will become A and a note on item F the applicant will be requesting a continu ance to the June 28th meeting and item G will remain as item G and with that we can go ahead and dive into the plat discussion for the final replat. I beg your pardon we can talk again I messed up the order here. If we will go to item 4B which is going to be FR170002. This is Haley's case at Shady Oaks Industrial Park. If there any questions associated with that we'd be happy to address those. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Yeah I just briefing question. We've got one lot here that has several businesses on it. I believe we've got one lot where Roven Incorporated sits on one of these newer divisions. Workforce Solutions of North Central Texas and then a third building that houses a Brockman Premier Insurance PMI Metroplex and United Way. So is this being divided to accommodate these individual businesses and concerns here? Yes and speaking with the applicant my understanding is they were previously leasing these spaces out and now they've decided to subdivide in the instance that these individual businesses desire to purchase the lots. Okay. Any other questions on this item? Thank you. Haley you might want to stay because you 're next again and that is the Razor Ranch Town Center replant. I think you should walk us through this one Haley. All right. Yes so this is a replant of lot 10 R for Razor. As you can see there are several pages here so let me get to see this sheet three actually shows best what's going on here. So lot 10 R is was previously one large lot and the intent of this replant is to split out three out parc els that will now be lots 22, 23, and 24 I believe. I'm sorry 23, 24, and 25. So its intent is to create these three out parcel lots along the I-35 frontage road. Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair. Is that the intent of a large lot like this then is to just parcel this out gradually or is that what we're to anticipate as time goes on then? That's been the trend. Yes sir that's been the typical pattern for Razor Ranch so in many cases you know they'll create it as several large lots and then as individual businesses come in and seek ownership of their parcels they can subdivide. Okay I'm always interested in what's gonna be built there do we know that now is that something I can ask now? I'm not aware of what these lots are for. No. Well I noticed that is it 25 the tiny lot it's about half of what the other ones are. 23 . The southern most lot. So what is the size of that? Not off the top of my head but we can find out. So 23 is just over a half acre. Okay thank you. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you Chair. I'm just curious about how to this is all in a PD right? This is there's a zoning overlay. It's an overlay but that doesn't have any effect in replatting that still they come to us like a general replat . Yeah the overlay is primarily for design criteria. Gotcha thanks. Any other questions for Hayley? Thank you Hayley. Thank you. The next item would be FR 170009. This is Mosey Brias's case and it is a replat of lots 11R1 and 2 block A of Ridge of Southridge and an additional replant on that. Mose y would you please explain this replant? This is a replat they're dividing one lot into two lots. It's in the Ridge of Southridge subdiv ision and it was previously two lots but they the applicant the owner did an amended plat to remove one of the lot lines in between lot 11 and lot 12 of the Ridge of Southridge subdivision and then they now they're coming into dividing into two lots again. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. So in all likelihood block A is probably going to be sold as a residential. The lot 11R? Yes. Yes I'm sorry the bottom. The bottom is already a single-family residential home. For residential. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you. So they're just redoing what it was to begin with? No. They're slightly changing the lot configuration. Okay that 's fine. I'm just wondering why they went from one to two back to one or whatever. Thank you. Ms. Aver, I believe you're next as well with item E FR 17 0005. It's another replant of the East Ponder Estates. Are there any questions associated with this replant? Seeing none we will now go to item F which is a replant of the Walmart addition. Julie Wyatt would you please come and do a presentation on this one? All right sorry about that. All right so this is the Walmart addition. It's located on loop 288. It's in an RCC in zoning district. The intent of the replant is to divide this lot into large lot into two. I'm cutting off this corner here and for commercial development. Commissioner Beck. Thank You Chair. Julie just for the sake of our audience that may be viewing us and is on record. There's a lot of public concern about this picture lot because of the tree so our hands are essentially tying as far as salvaging those trees so could you kind of address that why PNC is not going to be able to? I will try and then I may call others up to amend my. So this lot this plat does meet the technical requirements of the Denton Development Code and all requirements for the City of Dent on and so in that respect then yes it is it is just it's approvable in its form but there were questions regarding the trees and I'll certainly answer any questions that I can or I don't there are some trees on this lot that there are some concerns about. What are they obligated as far as salvaging trees? They'll have to meet the current Denton Development Code requirements for tree preservation when when they come to develop and and Julie may I interject? Yes. Commissioner Beck thank you for asking that question. For the edification of our audience and our PNC members I've actually provided a memo to the chair as well regarding this lot there has been several questions that have arisen as it results as it relates to the tree stand located on this subject property. The question that came forward was or the statements that came forward was that this tree stand and this area is protected and that the trees cannot be removed. It is not just with this item that we have been doing research in fact staff conducted a very thorough research of this tree stand of this property of the original replat for the Walmart edition of the general development plot that was submitted for this development of the plat and the plat notes and there is no documentation in the form of an agreement between property owners and the city or between or any documentation or conditions in the zoning ordinance when the zoning change occurred for the subject property which is the entire Walmart site now this which includes the subject site right now and so the trees are not protected. There was also discussion as it relates to well there was an existing tree preservation ordinance that existed and prevailed at the time that the Walmart site was developed. Well yes absolutely there was a landscaping screening and preservation ordinance I believe in 1995. However that ordinance did not require preservation. It actually said try to work with the topography of the site and accommodate the trees but it did not require it. Now as we fast forward to now which is 2017 we have a current tree preservation ordinance that requires preservation and mitigation and it 's really a 25% preservation slash mitigation requirement which is split into twelve and a half percent which we've discussed in the past. So at the end of the day the applicant although this is a property that was plotted in the past that you know technically may not have to comply with certain requirements it is now complying with the current tree preservation requirements and there is nothing in our ordinances or any documentation that supports that the trees cannot be removed. Thank you that was very thorough and I appreciate that. I mean I'm looking at this lot and based on what I think is going there including the parking and everything I don't see them being able to preserve any trees and again there's nothing we can do about that. It will mitigate, it will go into a tree fund but I'm not sure how they could put a raising develop commercial development in there with parking everything and manage the way those trees are located. Is that a fair assessment? So what we're looking at tonight and on the agenda is a plat any other development regulations as it relates to lot coverage, building height, tree preservation , tree mitigation, tree relocation for example that will come at the time of site plan. Site plans are not the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission so if the site plan complies with the Denton Development Code it will proceed forward but just for edification it is my understanding that they will be able to comply with preservation with mitigation and perhaps some relocation of trees. Okay thank you. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. I know that there were some some emails and I believe that our legal advisor gave an opinion. Is that public or is that? I believe it was released publicly. Okay so I just want to touch touch on a few things that were in that in that opinion. The the issue of vested rights was brought up because this was this development was plotted in some time in the 90s. 95. And so they would follow the 1995 would they be expected to follow the 1995 tree ordinance? There was a tree ordinance not necessarily true preservation ordinance but that was adopted in 1988 and that would have been the code provisions that would have been applicable to the property at the time that it was actually rezoned. It was rezoned and plotted the same year. Okay and so I this isn't really for this case this is just generally what triggers the application of new ordinances if you have if you have a development an existing development and an undeveloped area in the in the subdivision and you replat does that trigger or is it because you have a general development plan for it's a good question. The the answer is that anytime there's a new project and if it's the same project in a series that are the same permit of a series of permits for the same project then that's when the vested rights occurs. If it's a different project that's when the vested rights may or may not apply. Typically when there's a rezoning is when you lose those vested rights. So a rezone the rezone almost definitely uses vested rights. So if you have a lot that is like in a general development plan is vacant like just an empty lot and at some point ten years later or twenty years later you replat it and prepare it for development is that considered the same product or is that no longer the same project? That's no longer the same project. So to keep the vested rights you'd have to have a general development plan or something and abide by it yeah that that indicated you know lot whatever is for commercial correct okay and so same thing in in a same thing would apply in like a residential area if you had if a lot if an residential area is platted then they like in 2016 they would abide by the 2016 tree ordinances for building those single-family homes. Yes. And so you might even have like a residential developments platted in 1980 and there are ten lots that never got built out but they would still comply with the 1980 version. Specifically with tree ordinances because those are some of the zoning ordinances that we have are an exemption to the vested rights work or statute which is under 245 of the local government code. In particular that statute carves out trees and lot coverage I believe and a few other things that cannot be exempted out through zoning requirements so that's going to be included in the vested rights. But if a zoning so a 1980 lot just to continue this this exercise a 1980 lot was SF3 or whatever that zoning designation was and it had a you know no lot coverage provisions the the rezone in 2002 makes it NR3 it now has some lot coverage does it does lot coverage apply does the new lot coverage apply or is it still the 1980 no they would have to file for a vested rights determination under our code. Okay. I can't really say because it's okay so it's kind of specific but okay all right yeah so that I think that's that's enough information I was just when I when I first read the opinion I was worried that any replat would always fall under the original subdivision and almost everything's already been divided at some point. I didn't I didn't go to that because it wasn't in direct response to the question now so I'm glad you asked that question. Thank you. Any other questions on this item? I think you're doing G also aren't you? Yes Julie's doing G too. Okay change out gotcha. G is the zoning case. Yes it is. So this is Z 17-2. So the request before you is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning for a some for property situated in the southeast part of Denton. It's 29 acres and it is bounded by I-35 Lakeview Boulevard and then also the DCTA that the railroad corridor in the in the rails to trails. The current zoning on the property is RCR 1 and sort of the light lavender and then RCCD in the more purple. The proposed is a commercial use is kind of a large retail establishment. So when we looked at the request we looked at the compatibility of the request in this surrounding area and we specifically looked at the uses as well as the zoning. So we first looked at what was really really close to the subject property around 200 feet. So adjacent to the property you have RCCD that's adjacent to I-35. You also have some additional RCR 1 and then a plan development which is a residential plan development to the north of the subject property. Within that plan development it does have residential single-family residential lots as well as this treed area is an open space lot that has to remain per the plan development and there's a park right here per the plan development and then also you can see that railroad corridor with that rail to trails. To the south of the subject property is commercial development along I-35. So we zoom out a little bit we get to around 500 a buffer of 500 feet around the subject property. You can see that that that plan development comes more into focus. We add in a little NR6 single-family adjacent to it as well as some of the open space areas for the the adjacent PDs and some multi-family. We also looked at the mobility of the area. Probably the most significant thing you see is the I-35 corridor here. You also have Lakeview Boule vard. It is an arterial it's actually going to kind of kind of jog and that arterial is going to on our mobility plan at some point in the future will continue north through Post Oak. There's also Shady Shores is a collector street and then there's once again that that alternative transportation mode on the rails to trails. Can I ask a question at this time Julie on the transportation? There's significant improvements that are being made on the over pass over 35 from what has been there in the past. Can you refresh our memory as to how wide that's going to be how many lanes it's going to be or u- turns or how that's going to be improved? I am not. Jim do you know the specific I-35 improvements? I'm gonna call Jim Jinx up. He probably have more specific information. I'm afraid I don't have information on the text doc improvements there to the ramp but I was asking about the overpass. Right right to the overpass I'm in. I don't have that information I'm afraid however Lakeview in that area will ultimately be a primary major arterial that's a six lane divided. Well maybe as I ask a chair can we between now and when we get in at 630 and before the sign can we check and find out what text dots improvements for that overpass are going to be possibly? Yes sir. Okay thank you. Commissioner Selva, sign for. I believe it's going to be a four lane divided because they had the two lanes already built out the north side and the south side they're finishing up now. Okay and so you got two lanes coming out of the Oakmont area that's divided I think those will match up to go across the 35. There be any u- turns do you know? I don't see I haven't seen any it didn't look like there's gonna be any u-turns. Commissioner Back. Thank You Chair. Just for clarification too I believe Shady Shores isn't gonna change any as far as width is that correct? It will the traffic it can handle now it will be able to handle the traffic when the developments built if it's built? Well we have not seen we have not reached the planning stage we have not seen their layout here in the zoning case. We will exact what the code would support as far as street improvements. One thing that has been discussed is possibly widening the portion of Sh ady Shores that is currently unimproved or uncurbed to a right away of 40 foot back to back. That's one thing that's been discussed. A portion of Shady Shores in this area is improved it has curves the western portion does not. Between Lakeview and 35 correct? From Lakeview going a little bit west it is curved and then further west along Shady Shores to 35 it is not. And again just for clarification we're talking about this eventually becoming a six lane road Lake view that is. That's not even in the drawing that's not even being drawn up that's just. No sir but one of our. That's our ultimate section. Right. But one thing that has been discussed for that may be triggered by this project based on their their impact would be a traffic signal at the intersection of Lakeview and Shady Shores. Thank you. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. I have a question and hopefully you can answer someone here could but with the ownership that Kroger would have on either side of the street what onus can we put on them for improvement or is it ever applicable in which they just take over the the road as an internal road to their construction and the city doesn't have to worry about the improvements is there any thoughts behind either one of those? Well Shady Shores is on our mobility plan as ultimately being a collector street so just for for the local mobility there I think we would want it to stay as a city street in that designation and again we we anticipate exacting a widening and improvement of Shady Shores to 40 foot back to back at least where it's not curb that would be wide enough to facilitate one lane in each direction plus a continuous left turn lane in between. And do they have the ability to do that themselves or they we've talked about in the past what options they have if because couldn't they do the improvements and get credits back for the road impact fees if they do that? Yes sir. Okay that's all I have. Thanks. Any other questions on mobility or traffic? Thank you Jim. All right so taking all of those factors the adjacent land uses the the adjacent zoning and also the mobility we looked at the compatibility of the request and the conditions around it. So CMG district is one of our commercial mixed use districts. It's intended to provide the necessary retail service, office, and some residential uses that are intended to serve the community. It's kind of it's a bridge between our more neighborhood scale and use district of like the NRMU, NRMU 12 and the more regional zoning districts and in terms of uses and scale and that RCCD and those those regional family of districts. So this is kind of between that it's that transitional zoning district. CMG often requires access to major roadways or at their intersection of local roads and arterial streets we want to make sure that there's access to the sites. And as I said it is that transitional between that high density highway development and the residential development to to the north. This site in particular has physical barriers between it and the residential development. It's got that rails to trails, it's got the railroad corridor, it's also got the open space in the park so it does there is a physical separation between the site. So when we looked at that we felt like that this was an appropriate zoning district because it's in this it's in this area between the highway and the residential development so it provides that that transition. We also looked at the Denton plan. This area does is designated as community mixed use. CMG aligns with that community mixed use future land use designation. As in CMG the zoning district the typical development is is more retail service office with some some high density development and and as I said those uses in CMG do align with this future land use. So when we look at CMG we wanted to see where CMG actually was located within the city of Denton and how it how it related to not only access areas of access but also nearby residential development. So hopefully y'all can see this but here is so just to orient you here's here's the loop. We have I-35E coming here. Here's University so so those are kind of the big landmarks and the pink is the areas that we see CMG and so you can kind of see those areas where it's typically located. It's typically located along our arterials where there's there's access but close to residential so that so that neighborhoods and our communities can access it easily. When you look in the southern part of Denton you can you can then see it's it's in this area it's along I-35 and Teasley and then here is our subject property. And the intent of the CMG future land use in this area is to provide some of those necessary services for our southeast Denton area where we don't really have that sort of neighborhood that community center. We also looked at how these zoning districts compared so we'll go over this briefly I won't go over every use but I wanted to talk about the intent of why we have those uses. So I think I think we kind of understand CMG it's it's intended to be that sort of mixed use it's sort of the mid-scale maximum height the 65 feet. RCR 1 is one of our regional zoning districts but it's more of the neighborhood regional district so it's intended to have commercial uses a mixed use district and and and residential uses all together but on a neighborhood scale. RCCD is one of our highest zoning districts it's it's got a lot of commercial uses at a very high intensity the types of things that you would see on highways. So you can see here their residential uses commercial land uses CMG has it has a lot of commercial land uses embedded with it as well as do RCR 1 and RCCD. Industrial land uses institutional and then building scale so here we've got the build the maximum building height of CMG is 65 feet and RCR 1 is 40 feet and the RCCD it's 100 feet. So we did send out a public notification for the request and we've received one letter in favor I know you've got a lot of letters in your backup there was a lot of a lot of neighborhood interest in this request. The city did have a neighborhood meeting and they we had quite a few attendees there wasn't a real consensus on on the on the feeling of the neighborhood we had got a lot of good feedback and and a lot of comments but but there weren 't a lot of the residential areas that fell within the notification boundary so that's why the city went ahead and did that neighborhood meeting so we could make sure that we reached out to the neighborhood and made sure they knew what was going on. So based upon the future land use the the area the location of the property the character of the area we staff does recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you. Do you know approximately how many people showed up for that neighborhood meeting? It was probably around 40 and in your estimation it was a split kind of vibe approval denial or can you tell me more about that? Well there wasn't an overwhelming feeling on either side we really did I mean I didn't I don't know exact numbers but I would say just the comments that we received from that group there was it was pretty evenly divided between those who are like okay that's fine I just wanted to hear about it and those who had concerns about the rezoning. Is it ever appropriate in those meetings to actually get a poll or a tally since they don't have the official notification just to kind of get more tangible numbers for the Commission and Council to say 40 people showed up 30 people said there has that ever been done in the past these meetings? I've never seen it. Okay thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Julie I just had a quick question with the way this rail trail comes in there on the north there would a buffer still be necessary on this site when developed? The code wouldn't require it because there isn't a use adjacent to it that would require that. Is that something that could be done when the site plan is discussed? We could always discuss it with the applicant it's certainly something that that we could discuss with but it we don't have anything in the code that would require it. Okay thanks. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. Just a couple of questions on it looks like a fair portion of the northern portion part of this these lots are in floodplain. Yes sir. Is there does the had the applicant considered intentionally leaving a part of that out of the development to to provide it more of a buffer? The applicant is here and I think that would be something that they could probably answer at the regular session. I know before they could impact that area that they would have to get the necessary appro vals to do it so it's not they have some work to do on that on that end in order to if they did want to impact that area. Yes and there is ESA on the site so they would have to get if they wanted to impact that ESA they would have to get City Council approval to do it. It would come back to this board and then City Council approval. Would it be possible to see the ESA map in there? Sure sure I can pull that up. Any other questions for Julie on this item? Thank you Julie . Okay that is all the items on our agenda for this evening so at 6 10 I'm going to close our work session. . , and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning commission meeting for June 14, 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I'm going to call us to order at 635. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flag. Our next order of business will be to consider the approval of our planning and zoning commission meetings for May 24. I was absent so I'll be abstaining from the vote. The chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I move we approve the minutes. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. I will second that. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries five to zero. I will move us to our consent agenda. Commissioner Roselle. I move approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Beck. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries six to zero. That will move us to our public hearing section. We've had a number of changes this evening. We're going to be changing the order of the items that we have tonight. We're going to hear item what was item F first is going to become our item A this evening, which is going to be S16-0007. Do we even open it or just go ahead? Do we have to have a motion to continue it? Okay. So we just ask for a motion. Okay. So this item has been requested to be continued by the applicant to a date certain. And that date certain is going to be June the 28th. So the chair would entertain a motion for a continuation to June the 28th. Commissioner Roselle. I move to move agenda items S16-0007 to June 28th. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. I second that. Okay. We have a first and a second for continuance for date certain of June the 28th. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. The motion has carried six to zero. For those of you that have come out this evening, please come back on June the 28th on that item. That will move us to what was our item A will now become our item B. So I'm going to open the public hearing for FR17-0002. And I will ask Haley to come down and make a presentation on that. Yes, so this is a final replat of the Shady Oaks industrial park. It is presently one lot and the purpose of the replat is to subdivide this into three lots. All of the lots are currently fully developed with commercial uses. And I can answer any questions. Any questions for Haley? Thank you, Haley. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item? If so, please come forward at this time. We do ask just as an announcement if you would like to speak, you can fill out cards. They're outside the door. If you haven't filled out one, you can certainly still come speak. And then we ask that you fill out a card before you leave. So is there anyone that would like to come forward on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I move that we approve FR170002. Chair will second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board. The motion carries six to zero. We'll move us to what was our item B that is now our item C . And I will open the public hearing for FR170008. We'll call on Haley for presentation of this item. So this is a final replat for Razor Ranch Town Center. The intent of the plat is to create three out parcel lots within what was formerly lot 10R. That will now become lot 10R2. And then there will be three out parcels along the I-35 frontage road that will now be lots 23, 24, and 25. And I can stand for any questions. Any questions for Haley? Thank you, Haley. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Taylor? I move we approve FR170008. Commissioner Ellis? I will second. Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries 6 to 0. We have moved what is our item D will become our item F. So that will move us down to -- excuse me, item C is now our F. Still getting that confused. Our item D is still going to be our item D. I'm going to open the public hearing for FR170009 and I will call on Zabe for presentation. The request is for a final replat of two lots in the Ridge of South Trace Subdivision. It's located at Holly Hill Lane and meets all the subdiv ision regulations. I'll stand for any questions if you have any. Any questions for Muzza? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner O'Zell? I move approval of FR170009. Commissioner Beck? Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. I'm going to carry 6 to 0. We'll move us to our item E. I'm going to open the public hearing for FR170005 and we'll call on Muzza for presentation of this item as well. The request is for a replat of East Ponder State's lot 13 into 6 lots. The replat meets all the subdivision regulations and I'll stand for any questions if you have any. Sorry. Commissioner O'Zell? Thank you, Chair. Just for clarification, this is ETJ. So if there was to be development on this, they would come back for another rezoning to move it. Or can they develop in the R5DX or is it they can develop in ETJ? No, they can develop in ETJ. They can? Okay. Any other questions for Muzza? Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to come forward, please do so at this time. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion. Commissioner Taylor? I move we approve FR170005. Commissioner Beck? Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. The motion will carry 6-0. At this time, we're going to backtrack a little bit and we 're going to revisit item A for some housekeeping. Since this item is a public hearing, in order to meet the deadline of the 28th, we do not have enough time to re-not ice it. So staff has asked us to come back and open the public hearing on that. Ask if anybody wants to speak on it, close the public hearing or continue the public hearing until June the 28th so that we can stay on schedule for the requested day to the 28th. And we won't have a delay then because we don't have enough time to re-notice it and give enough time for the meeting on the 28th. So excuse us for that. Let's do a little housekeeping. So at this time, I'm going to go back and we are going to open public hearing for item A, S16-0007. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and the chair -- I apologize. I did not close the public hearing. I thought I did, but I made a mistake again. The public hearing is going to stay open and we are going to have a motion for continuance on the 28th and the meeting will stay open. Commissioner Roselle. I move to continue this agenda item until a date certain June 28th. Commissioner Beck. I think you answered my question. The three people that were here for this originally got up and left so they still will be able to speak. That is correct. Commissioner Ellis. I will second the motion. We have a first and a second to continue the open public hearing until June 28th on this item. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board. The motion to continue passes 6-0. Thank you for allowing us to do that. Clean this up. We will now progress to our item, what was C, which has now become our item F on our agenda this evening. At this time I am going to open the public hearing for FR17 -0004. We will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening. I am Julie Wyatt. All right. We have a replat here of the Walmart addition. The purpose of the replat is to divide one commercial lot into two commercial lots. The zoning for the subject property is RCCN and the property is located on loop 288. I will stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Julie. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have four minutes. Mr. Chair, did I miss it? Maybe I missed it. Did you announce that this is supposed to be continued for two weeks? Is that the case? No. This is not going to be continued. This is Walmart, right? This is Walmart. We have had quite a few changes on our agenda. This is the Walmart issue. This is not going to get continued for two weeks? No. We are hearing it this evening and it was our item C. We moved it to the back because we knew we had a number of folks interested in this item as well. We had one that was going to be continued and move them to the beginning. We shuffled the agenda. Hopefully everybody's ease. This didn't mean to be confusing. This is a Walmart project. Okay. Well, it's okay because I did not prepare for since we were going to continue. But let me start. Okay. Sure. My name is Brian Bentley. I live at 2528 Jamestown Lane in Texas 76209. There has been many items sent in to staff with concerns about this property, concerns with the 1995 P&Z minutes on this case. And what was recorded in those minutes. But there was a legal opinion letter sent out this week and it was made public. It was sent to the city manager. And that letter I'm going to take issue with. I find it to be a misleading letter in the way that it's worded. And I'll give you some examples. It says at the time of the 2001 replat there were no tree preservation requirements in the city. And in the work session earlier tonight it seems that that statement really hinges on that word requirement. You take the word requirement out, it changes the meaning. There is a sentence the tree preservation regulations are not adopted until 2004. Again in the meeting we heard there was landscape and tree stuff as early as 1988. And if you take the word preservation out of that sentence, it changes the meaning. There is another one. The minutes of the discussion that took place with the P&Z back in 1995 do not legally bind the property owner to preserving trees. The word minutes is very misleading. City staff made statements that said the trees were preserved. The applicant made statements that the trees were preserved . So yes, maybe the minutes, the whole general discussion is not binding on the applicant. But when they make a statement and they tell the P&Z and the P&Z relies on that statement, then I think we ought to follow it because otherwise why do we even hold these public hearings? If you cannot rely on anything that the applicant says, does, or what public says or does, why are we here? You can simply look at your books and what's printed in your books and make the vote without us. So I have many issues with that. I have issues with the fact it says that I pointed out that the tree preservation is calculated based on the entire Walmart property and not just the lot. No, I didn't do that. That is in the staff notes. The staff did that. So what is it? I get pushed off and given the blame for it or, you know, I 'm just crazy, it just came out of the thin air on me. No, staff did it. So I have issues with this letter. I have issues. I know my time is up. It's going to be real quick here. So I'm sorry. I got to take a breath. You all know me. You know I'm passionate about this stuff. So my issue is not so much the trees. The city made agreements. We know the city made agreements. We know Walmart made agreements. And Devin Taylor brought up some very good points about when is the vested -- when does the vesting end and when does it start? And as I still understand it, the vested rights are going to end when this is replatted. So I'm done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bentley. And I would encourage you if you have some concerns about the letter, I would invite you to get with the city. I would invite you to get with city staff and let's get those addressed and make sure that we're all on the same page. So thank you for your time and your comments this evening. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. And if you haven't filled out a card, please do so after you give your comments. Thank you. Hi. Deb Armentar, 2003 Mistywood Lane. Hi. I'm concerned about the confusions that the gentleman who just spoke named. And looking forward on what ends up happening to this property, I'm concerned about our tree ordinance, which is already kind of weak and might be forced to be even weaker at a time when we need to be strengthening it. And so I wanted to thank everybody who's been working on trying to strengthen it and just to underscore that I believe we really do need that. And we also need just to follow up on what the gentleman was just saying, to have trust in the process, citizens do need a sense of consistency that we're not getting different legal interpretations for different petitioners. So I also just wanted to add that-- I'm trying to think how best to put this. I guess I'll just say that in the case of Buckees, there was a promise that was made by Buckees that they weren't going to mess with this one environmentally protected area. Now, I knew at the time-- I was not so naive at the time to think, oh, they promised, so it's not going to happen. You know, a promise is not legally binding. But, you know, I'm seeing in these kind of discussions about, you know, what's going to happen to this Walmart property here. Also, you know, in terms of the Kroger property, this is also an issue where we have people promising in writing that they're only going to cut down this many trees or they're not going to mess with this one area, and I would like to see PNZ or staff or both be a little firmer with these people in kind of making them either put it in writing and if they don't want to, then just letting the public know that this is-- that any kind of promise like this is not legally binding because the public has just been disappointed too many times with this kind of promise. So anyway, apologies for my hesitation and thinking about how to most tactfully word that. I hope I was tactful. Thank you very much for your time. I have a question for you before you go. Commissioner Ros sell. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here and expressing your concerns. I don't necessarily have a question but more of a support of what you said. I appreciate your feedback on Kroger. It's my interpretation that there are precedents already set for that. But to your point about Buc-E's and other times in which individuals have said or agreed to do something and not fulfilled it, there's been a couple that I know of where they said they wouldn't cut down a tree and did or they blurred lines. I'm in complete support of you and the process of the commission and staff to increase our teeth when we come to enforcing these rules because so often not imparting that power and authority over these decisions allows that gray area to get wider. So I appreciate you saying that. I'm in full support of looking about ways in which once there's an agreement set that there is some continuity in backing that up. Thank you very much. That's great to hear. Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Commissioner Back, did you have a question? Just a statement. I don't have any question. If you were opening up for us to speak, I wanted to speak to it. If you don't mind, I'll come back to you as soon as we close the public hearing. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward at this time. Council. Clay Christie, Clay Moore Engineering, 1903 Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, 76021. We're just here on behalf of the applicant. I'm not necessarily here to speak in the public, but just to answer really mainly here to answer any questions you guys might have. I do know that there were some concerns that's obviously been brought up about the trees. Obviously, I wasn't here whenever they replanted the property originally back in the early stages. But I do know that we worked with city staff. We've come up with a tree preservation plan to make sure that we were following all current ordinances and that the tree preservation at this time is in compliance with the current ordinance that is in place with the city. If there's any other questions, I'll be happy to ask. But I just want to let you guys know, you know, there is some concern about that. Thank you for coming up and making that statement. I think we're just doing tonight. I think you're going to be coming forward with a site plan in the future. Okay, that's very true. We have city site plan. This is just for planning. That's all that we're here for today. So thank you for clarifying that. And this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I just want to state that I appreciate Mr . Bentley coming up and speaking out to this. I've personally had some reservations too, and I think a lot of us do here, but I felt that our hands were tied and we've gotten feedback from legal -- excuse me. And so, again, felt like we couldn't do much. But I have reason to have pause now based on what Mr. Bentley said. And I don't want to -- I'm not the legal expert here, but I 'm inclined to table this for a little while longer and have legal and staff look at this a little bit more deeply and make sure that what Mr. Bentley is saying is in fact not the case or maybe it is and get it straightened once for all. Just for my own piece of mind and I think perhaps some other people here too. So if that's possible, I would make a motion that we table this thing for 30 days. Okay. Let me ask an opinion of staff. This will go on to City Council. We'll have the final say. Okay. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So I think Mr. Bentley's points about things that are said in front of the commission and promises that are made is a good example of a cautionary tale for the members of this body. Many times we've seen the site plan for the rezoning and of course the site plan is not binding. And we've heard all kinds of promises uttered by developers. A lot of times they'll say that they want only this one thing. So when we try to put that requirement into writing in a recommendation, they withdraw their request or suddenly are backtracking and saying they can't really just have that one thing they said they needed. And unfortunately that is the nature of this. And a lot of times the applicant might not even have ill intent. In this case, it was 20 something, 22 or 23 years ago. Maybe ownership has changed or management has changed. The original people that stood here and promised that, that promise held for 22 years. But something else has changed. You know, same thing on ownership of land, a rezone, the company that had the beautiful site plan goes bankrupt and somebody else buys the property and builds the ugly monstrosity that we wanted to avoid. That said, in 1995 it was a plat and we cannot place any binding requirements on plat. You know, if it's not an SUP or an overlay, then there isn't a binding requirement. Those were just verbal promises. Those were just, you know, somebody saying they intend to do something. So all of that says that unfortunately there wasn't anything binding in 1995. We did not have a binding tree ordinance. And I think it's a really good indicator. Our current tree ordinance, it goes onto the plat now. How many square feet of canopy coverage and how many inches of trees they have to have. So 30 years from now when they go to redevelop, you know, or replat or whatever, you can pull up that document filed at the county and you can say 1700 square feet of canopy or 182 caliper inches required. And that's what it takes in order to make this stuff stick. The voluntary preservation only works as long as people keep volunteering to do it. So I don't see what we could possibly find in the record on a platting request that would change any of the facts of the case. Even if they did make those promises, those promises aren't binding and there's nothing that they could have done in 1995 or we could do today to make any promises binding on a plat. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for that, Commissioner Taylor. I would like to give Mr. Bentley an opportunity to come back and respond to that if he would so desire. Please do. Mr. Taylor is correct in a lot of ways on plats. You are very limited. You're you are governed by state law on plats . The question is the validity of this process. If city staff can stand up here and make statements to you and you cannot rely on those statements, then why are we here? Owen Yost, who was city staff, stood up here and told the P NZ in 1995, those are protected trees. Wal-Mart stood up here and said, yes, we are not going to touch those trees. That is all recorded in the minutes. This is not. And I understand your point. I served on this commission for six years. Yes. Maybe we see a building design and we cannot tie the developer to that design as the PNZ. But when we have legal processes and we cannot even rely on the information we're given by the city staff, why are we here? I think city staff is going to respond with some clarification and some more history on this particular item . If you may want to stay close by if there's some follow up questions. I'll call on Manal for some more background on this item. Thank you, Chairperson Strange. A few things that I wanted to make mention to. If you recall, during work session we talked about the extensive research and quite frankly thorough research that staff has conducted to determine were those trees or was that area indeed protected? And there are no plat notes. There are no notes on the general development plan. Nor are there any conditions attached with the zoning. If you recall, some of you, when the zoning change occurred it actually just prohibited some uses but there were no other changes associated with that from a development perspective. In fact, that could have been conditioned as part of the discussion that the Planning and Zoning Commission had and ultimately the City Council associated with this case. Mr. Blentley, you have made mention that a past planner with the City of Denton, Mr. Yost, I believe, had indicated that there are saplings and mature trees on that side. I believe that's the paragraph you're referring to and seed lings and those are preserved and that the development can proceed. I paraphrase, that is not a quote. However, when you look at that packet and those records that you're reading, the Walmart case actually precedes that discussion. So that conversation that you have pointed out to or the meeting minutes that you've pointed out are actually in reference to a previous case, not the Walmart zoning case. So that preservation paragraph that you were referring to is not applicable. And I'd be happy to sit down with you and go over all the documents that we do have and share those with you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. If I may, Menal. So if, as Mr. Blentley says, staff and somebody from Walmart said something specifically and it is on record. It's in the minutes. That's not an official record of any kind that we can -- It was a discussion that potentially occurred. The developer did indicate that as part of the infrastructure development, when you look at the meeting minutes, it references the Walmart site. What Mr. Blentley, in my understanding, is referring to is a previous discussion on a previous case. However, Mr. Bentley is correct in saying that the Walmart developer or the representative of Walmart at that time, I believe it was a -- done away in associates. I'm not quite sure. But they indicated that they would be utilizing that area for signage, perhaps some infrastructure development. Now, that does not preclude for future development to occur and for replatting or subdivision of land to occur. However, unfortunately, through meeting minutes, none of that information was memorialized as part of that zoning change ordinance. So there is no documentation that then supports the preservation of those trees. Ms. Molladad, I'm going to take serious issue with some statements you just made because -- I think, Mr. Bentley, maybe the more proper way to handle this is what we offered earlier. I think it would be best served for all involved and all the people in the audience for whatever the questions are to get together and let's get to the bottom. Because right now we have no documents in front of us that can get to the bottom of the points and the concerns that you have. Okay. So we're going to continue on in this with our -- I think we are still -- are we still open public hearing? We still have -- we have a motion that's been made and not seconded. Okay. And it was a motion to continue for 30 days. Okay. So -- Did you -- was it a second you didn't get one? I don't think we had a motion at that -- a formal motion. Okay. You're correct. The public hearing has been closed and we have a motion on the floor and we're going to do discussion. So give us some time here to talk through this and let's see where we end up on this item tonight. So we have a motion on the floor to table for 30 days. I think we had a clarification that P&Z will be the final city body that will make a decision on this. This will not move on to city council. So wherever the decision of P&Z board on this item is, that will be where it goes at this point. Correct? Correct. I'm just going to say if you could put the motion on the board. I think we've got it in Commissioner Rozelle. I recognize Commissioner Rozelle for -- So given the motion that's on the floor, I just wanted to speak into my hesitancy to vote for that motion, namely because it seems convoluted. And I appreciate Mr. Bentley's efforts and the city's efforts to cull through seems like a lot of documents, and I'm not underestimating the work put forth into trying to understand what happened. But where I sit, it still seems unclear that if there was a protection back then, what it actually entailed. And given that the applicant is coming under the provision of current tree ordinances, if the property was to come to us fresh, they're abiding by current statute, I just don't know if tabling this would be the appropriate action if in 30 days we come back to the same conclusion, because I do trust the city's and attorney's work to understand what happened 22 years ago. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. And I agree. I trust them too. It's not that it's just that for whatever reasons, the city didn't also, you know, staff and commissioners, elected officials. There's a sense out there with some in the public, you know , of a little mistrust and just delaying this, I realize may not change anything. But it just gives that that that second chance to make sure that we've read everything clearly and that we can come back and feel comfortable about it and put anybody that doesn't feel comfortable about it at ease that at least they had that opportunity. So I would encourage us that we adopt this motion, table it for 30 days. Okay. Do you feel like there hasn't been enough discussion on it so far? I do, yes. I'm not sure that there's a sense out there with some of the citizens that there is. And I want that opportunity to vell itself to them. So there there there isn't any question for an opportunity for Mr. Bentley to sit down with our planning director and get the kinks worked out. And if it's still the same, then I'll have no choice then to vote against it. Okay. But I think for the purpose of just feeling good about the whole thing, if I can say that, if it sounds a little immature, that we have done everything. We have taken our. Not that again, I'm accused and all are legal that they haven't honestly tried that. But until this minute, I didn't have any doubts either. Now I do. And I just think if we could take that extra little time and walk it back one more time. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Bentley, I do appreciate your comments. And I would urge you to sit down with this very competent and hardworking staff. My question to staff would be, if we would postpone this, is there anything else for you to look at that you haven't already looked at? Because then we're really just wasting the time of yours and the applicants at this point. Commissioner Ellis, at this point, given the extensive research we've conducted, not just prior to this item being placed on the agenda, but actually from the onset of a reconnaissance meeting that started with the applicant. So this has been, the research was conducted many, many months ago. And this information was also provided to certain members of the community many, many months ago. So based on my understanding, we can revisit all the data again and all the information again. But at this point, given what I have in front of me in my capacity and in my position, I would come back with the same recommendation to the PNC. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the concern, things that happened 20, 30 years ago. And I understand your situation and position and everything . When we have the current developer coming in saying that they are going to go by today's tree mitigation program and do the things that need to be done to offset whatever damages are going to be done and trees removed and new trees planted, I'm more, I lean more towards what's going on today and not what happened 30 years ago. Raising canes wasn't even a business 30 years ago. So things change, times change, and I think that if we have the current developer who says this is what we're going to do and have him on record of saying it, 30 days from now, I'd be much more in a mood to hold their feet to the fire than I would something that happened before no one on this board was on the PNC board at that point. And so I don't think that we can be held by something that was said 30 years ago and try to make decisions in today's world. And so that's, you know, I'm just hesitant to postpone this any further. Let the developer do his thing and come back with a site plan and hold their feet to the fire that they are going to do what they say they're going to do with the trees. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor to postpone. We're going to have a second. I declare that that motion fails and the chair will entertain a new motion. It's not clear. It's clear now. Thank you. No problem. So the previous motion has failed for lack of a second. It has been cleared. Commissioner Taylor. I'll jump on this hand grenade. This is the fate of these trees and that fate of that corner really bothers me because, you know, for the last 20 something years, it's had a plaque talking about how it's been preserved. It's part of the cast iron forest, the post oak forest of Denton, which is diminishing. It really frustrates me that there was nothing binding in 1995, but there wasn't. We didn't have tree ordinances at that time. We didn't have binding preservation ordinances at that time. And, you know, we're paying the price for that now. If in 1995 we would have had preservation ordinances, the key here is they're following the new ordinance for their little half acre. But the entire 200 acre development had trees that they removed on the promise of keeping this little half acre. All that said, none of that stuff on a plat in 1995 is binding. You know, if it isn't written in a plat note or there isn't an additional ordinance somewhere, we can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. So for those reasons, I move that we approve this plat. Commissioner Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. And I will echo Commissioner Taylor's remarks. I will second this motion. It is a gorgeous lot. The trees are amazing. We don't have any reason to deny this replat is basically what it has come down to, which is why I will second this. It is an excellent learning plan going forward. I think we've made improvements from 1995 and putting things on plats now that will be binding for the future. But right now, this is what we can do. So we have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner Rosell. Thank you, Chair. As we had this discussion and some of this banter, it kind of dawned on me. We are talking historically how the words of promises of developers are not binding. It needs to be on a plat note. It needs to be something. And so we can't go forward with Walmart 95 saying, we protect these trees. Well, it dawns on me a little bit ironic that we have a developer saying he's going to do something. And I'm just wondering, is that binding going forward? He's promising to protect those trees, but it's a volunteer act. I'm wondering if in 30 days or six days, we're like, oh, he decided not to do that. And staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but we have to go through the site plan process with this, which will a part of that required is the tree preservation plan that will have to meet the ordinance. And so we will actually have to come back and have the legal document that is associated with the site plan that will memorialize or do that to make that actually part of the document. Is that a requirement for them is to bring a tree mitigation plan? Absolutely. As part of the development process, they will be required to submit a site plan and a landscape site plan and a tree preservation, a tree survey for the tree preservation slash mitigation plan. That will be reviewed against the Denton Development Code. If that is in order, if those documents are in order and there are the documents are in order, then they will proceed to submit for the building permit plan set. That will be cross referenced against the approved site plan to ensure that it is indeed the same site plan and landscape plan. Only then will they secure a building permit to break ground. As we understand that there's a voluntary action by them to come under the new plans, is that correct? I would actually defer that to legal. However, because they're pulling out a portion of a property that is plotted and they're replatting it, then the new requirements would be applicable to them. Thank you for the clarification. I will say that I've visited the site and that every tree that's on that corner has already been marked, it's tagged. And so I assume the tree survey has already been completed and all of that is in place and the city has full knowledge of exactly what's out there and what size and what species it is. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Needless to say, I'm a little disappointed that my motion didn't go through, but the fact that it did and doesn't upset me, and I could be on or in, do a protest vote and it wouldn't do any good either. And I'm not going to do that though because I do have confidence in our staff and I want them to know that. So that being said, I will vote for this motion myself. Okay. Any other? Commissioner Rosell. I'd hate to be a dead horse. I'm looking at this email and if I could just give additional clarification. It says, "It is important to note that developer in this case does not have any tree preservation requirements and is going above and beyond what is required in this case , incidentally, what is required under current code." Can you help reconcile that to that they are required? I'm sorry. What document are you referring to? This is an email from Jennifer DeCurtis. Would you please respond? Sure. I think that in order for them to get vested rights, they have to file a vested rights petition in accordance with our DDC. So I can't make that determination alone. I think that's made by the city manager, whether or not that they're vested. But absent vesting, they're willing to do it without the petition. So at this point, it's consensual. So if I understand you correctly, they fall under current code unless they were to apply for vested rights. That's correct. But they are deferring, it seems like. That's correct. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I had to wander down that path. Any other discussion or comments? I'll make one quick one. I know we sit up here a lot of times and talk about developers' promises and failures. And I want to remind everybody on this commission that the beautiful city of Denton that we live in is built by builders and developers. And I know there's a lot of conversation about tree preservation. And I think when we all reviewed the ordinance that we're still working on in the survey, I think Denton has the highest in our area of tree canopy. So I know that it's easy sometimes for us to sit up here on this commission and think about the things that maybe haven 't gone as well as we'd like or promises were made. But I think in fairness, when you step back and look overall, we have a beautiful city and a lot of people work very hard to do it. And I want to remember that part as well as some of the things that maybe haven't gone as well as we would all like . Overall, I'm proud of our city and the beautiful buildings and things that are here, the trees that we do have preserved. And with that comment, I'm going to call for a vote on the board. The motion carries 6 to 0. I move us to our final agenda on our public hearing this evening. Will be agenda item G and I'm going to open the public hearing for Z 17 dash 0 0 0 2 C. And we'll call on Julie White for presentation. I'm Julie Wyatt. I didn't know if I was going to be closing it out. All right. OK, sorry about that. All right. This is Z 17 2. So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation for rezoning for 29 acres. The subject property is situated in the southeast part of the city of Denton. It is bounded by I 35 Lakeview Boulevard and then Shady Sh ores Road by sex, the property. Current zoning is RCR 1 and RCCD and the proposed use is commercial. So when we looked at the request, we looked at we did an analysis of what analysis of what was around surrounding the property. So first we started and looking what was adjacent to the property. If you look to the north of the subject property, that part in green, that's a planned development that is mainly made up of single family residential homes. Just adjacent to the property. You'll see this area right here. This is a this is an open space area that was preserved by the plan development has to remain as that is that tree lot . And then next to it, this this area right here, this is a park. This is a this this property has an RCCD zoning and that has I believe it's being developed with a commercial use. This this property here has a residential use on it and it is zoned as RCR 1 and this property right here, this is part of the subject property. That's RCCD as well. And this as you can see, this property is located between that I 35 corridor. And then here we have the DCTA Railroad Corridor as well as the rails to trails. As we zoom out a little further, we add an additional in our 6 single family development as well as more of the plan development that's adjacent to it. Some more open space as well as some multifamily. You can also see some other commercial development that's adjacent to I 35 outside of the city. We also looked at the mobility of the area. There are several roads that affect the subject property. First, I 35 is a pretty big, big road adjacent to it. That is that is a highway Lakeview Boulevard is right here. It is a primary major arterial. It will eventually sort of turn north in this direction and link up with post oak to continue on as that primary major arterial sometime in the future. It's identified in our mobility plan. Shady Shores is a collector. And then we have once again that green is the trail rails to trails. And this is the broader area. So you can see that this is the entire sort of southeast area. You can see all the development, all that residential development that is that has come in and will continue to develop in the area. So we look at CMG and what the intent of the proposed CMG is. It is one of our commercial mixed use zoning districts. It's intended to provide the service, the retail, the office and the higher density residential uses to serve the entire community. It's kind of a transitional zoning district between our higher, higher intensity, higher scale, regional zoning districts and our lower scale, less intense uses of our neighborhood mixed use commercial districts. CMG requires access to major roadways. And as I said, it provides that transition and you can see where this property is situated. It is situated in kind of a transitional area between the I -35, the higher intensity development and then the single family residential to the north. So this is kind of that transition area. There are physical barriers between the subject property and those adjacent residential properties to provide some additional buffering and transitioning between the uses. We also looked at the Denton plan. The Denton plan 2030 identifies this area as community mixed use. The intent of community mixed use is to provide the grocery stores, the shopping, the specialty shops and the employers and offices that are needed for the community. And the uses in CMG align with this future land use designation. We also looked at where in the city we locate CMG. So what kinds of places do we often find this zoning district? Hopefully this is visible, but just to orient you, this is Denton and here's the loop. I-35, it comes down, swoops down here and then we have university that comes through. And so you can see those areas in pink. Those are our CMG zoning district. And you can see it's often found in arterioles, often at intersections and nearby to residential neighborhoods to provide those necessary services. This is the southern portion. This area in the red circle, that's our subject property. So you can kind of see that the future land use identified this area is kind of a commercial center that they wanted to see it to develop. We did compare the permitted uses and the development scale within all three zoning districts. I know we've talked about CMG, but just to talk about RCR 1 and RCCD. RCR 1 is regional center commercial, I mean, regional center residential 1. And it is a mixed use zoning district that it's intended to have commercial uses as well as some higher density residential uses to provide that kind of mixed use, but smaller scale mixed use development. RCCD is one of our highest, most intense zoning districts within the city of Denton. It is also mixed use and it permits development at a very high scale and intensity in terms of commercial. So as you can see, and it was in your backup, the uses and how those compare. And then the development scale of CMG permits the 65 feet, RCR 1 is 40 feet, and then the RCCD is 100 feet maximum building height. Public notification was sent out and we received one letter in favor. And so based upon the considerations I talked about, the future land use staff does recommend approval of the request. I know you'll have some questions in work sessions. So I did want to hopefully, if I haven't gotten out of it, I know Commissioner Taylor wanted to know about the flood way and some of the environmental aspects to the site. So I wanted to, so you asked that I pull that up. So here we go. It's a little busy, but here's the subject property here. You can kind of see the outline. And you're correct. A lot of the back end or the north end of the property is encumbered by floodway. And that will have to be addressed before it's developed. It's also encumbered by environmentally sensitive areas. So if the development did want to impact those environmentally sensitive areas in a way that was in accordance with the regulations, that they would have to, per the Denton Development Code, obtain approval for that impact from city council. And that's through the dual public hearing process. So it would come before you. So there's a lot that needs to go on on this site before it develops, but I know you did ask about that, so I wanted to share that with you. So I'll answer any questions. And the applicant is here. While you have that up, is there an upland habitat layer that you can turn on on this site? There is. However, I did want to, upland habitat commercial development isn't required to preserve any upland habitat. So only residential development is required. That's why I turned that off, because it kind of looked a little funny with it on there. But because it would be, if, now I guess the caveat to that , if it did, if the developer did want to develop it with residential uses, then that upland habitat would come into play. So as it's proposed, it would not, the upland habitat would not be required to be preserved. But if a residential use did come forward, a multifamily or a town home project, they would have to preserve 50% of that, of that habitat contiguous to adjacent properties. So my apologies, I'm mostly familiar with residential. A lot of green. I'm like, wow. Yeah, it's. So any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. Could we walk through these colors, maybe one layer at a time? All right. I'll see what. So starting with the floodplain here. I may get engineering involved on this one. So the, the two colors of blue would be actual floodplain. The red is like a 500 year, not really binding floodplain. And this is actually the floodway. The dark blue. Yes, sir. Jim may be able to speak a little more fluently about this, but there are, there are provisions that they would have to work through with FEMA and with the city in order to, to impact that. And here comes Jim. Good evening. I'm Jim Jenks. I'm with our DRC engineering division. Yes, the dark blue connotates the floodway, the 100 year FEMA floodway. The sort of medium blue is the 100 year floodplain. The red is the 500 year floodplain, which we do not regulate. We do regulate, of course, the floodway in the 100 year. And I noticed the, the hashing that I believe that's a, a L omer that was done maybe in, I guess in 2007 or 2012, it looks like, by the numbers there. And so, and that probably cleared up, narrowed up some of the floodplain further downstream. It's possible that they could do a letter of map revision through here, but unlikely that it would get narrower than the floodway. Is that correct? Yes, the floodway is reserved for conveyance of the storm. We don't allow fill within the floodway. If they want to fill and encroach into the 100 year flood plain, they would have to present something to us. Once we review, if we approve it, we would forward it to FEMA. But they would have to mitigate whatever they fill in. They would have to take something out elsewhere to make up for it. Right. So, so the light blue is, has some potential for change, but the dark blue is very unlikely to ever. That's correct. Can we move to the next layer? I believe the ESA stream riparian buffer. Let's turn that off. All right. And what are these colors? Let's make sure I. All right. So we have, that looks like 100, that looks like 100 foot stream buffer. So this sort of brownish orange, that is a riparian buffer. So that appears to be a 100 foot riparian buffer. The way I understand it is from the center line of the stream, it would be 100 feet each way. Is that right? Yes. So, so in order to impact that, they would have to go through that, go through an alternative ESA plan, which would require the dual public hearing and would require approval from city council. And then the purple would be the ESA floodplain. My understanding and conversations with our water administration is that generally follows the floodplain. So. So in this map, they might go to a lot of engineering effort and get some of the purple back, some of that flood plain. But again, they'd have to contend with an alternative ESA if they enter the brownish color. And then it would be very unlikely that they could get FEMA approval to go into the floodway. Like on the previous, the dark blue on the previous map. As far as the FEMA issue, yes, I can't see them approving a narrowing of the floodway. And one more thing. So this is a 100 foot, is it 100 feet each direction from the center line or is it 100 feet wide, 50 feet from the center line? I'm questioning myself. Let me see. I don't know if this will tell me, but I'll find out. It just defines the right hearing buffer. It doesn't give me a. Is it possible to just measure on the screen approximately how wide that. I can try. The measuring tool doesn't always work for me. Cross your fingers. So it looks like. There there's room for error on these maps and the projection can be a little off. So it does appear that. Let me look at it. So it did look like that was 90 feet. That was only less than half of it. Right. So if you zoom out, just one one zoom out to catch just the parcel to the north. It doesn't. There. So you're looking at probably a good 200 feet. From the railroad tracks will be inside of that riparian buffer and floodway. And then you have about a hundred feet of railroad track easement and then parks to the north. That is correct. Yeah, there's quite a bit of there. Does that help? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions. Any other questions for staff. Thank you, Julie. Jim. This is a public hearing and call the applicant to come forward at this time. With that 10 minutes. 10 minutes total. Good evening, commissioners. Excuse me. My name is Michael Clark. I'm with Winkleman and Associates. I'm here representing the I realty, the owner, John Weber with the I realty is here and I think would like to speak after me. I think Julie did an excellent job of explaining what our request is and the surrounding uses and things like that. One thing I did want to clarify and it's obvious on this drawing, so I'm glad it's left up because I'm technically challenged and probably couldn't get it back up here. Is it is a car dealership to our north. She mentioned a commercial use and we were unclear what it was. It's a car dealership right on our I guess it's our west property line. That 35 turning sideways is a problem for me. This CSA drawing is telling from a standpoint, it really does show what's going on on the property. Some of the things I'd like to point out that the I realty has done in their purchase of the property. We performed topographic surveys on the ground. We performed on the ground tree surveys. Excuse me. We've analyzed the flood plain to establish our benchmark for any potential modifications. In addition, we've established the ESAs with a more formal document which your staff has approved. The way I understand it and I'm not an environmental guy, I just kind of do a little bit of everything. These are broad brush. The brown indicates that there's a riparian buffer zone there. We've gone out there. We've had consultants go out and define where the width of that riparian buffer and where it is and to find it on a map and your staff has approved that. That's actually been done. All the things necessary for us to meet the staff criteria when we come forward with subsequent documents being whether it's a flood plain variance request , the tree mitigation, tree preservation, our site plan, all those things. We have all those benchmarks for us to do. In order for us to proceed forward, we need zoning that would allow the uses that would help us move forward to get the questions answered that you all want to know. I understand that everybody wants to know those questions, but until we get an actual site plan, I can't tell you that we're going to save this tree and that tree and I know we just got done talking about promises and things like that, but there are a lot of city rules and regulations that require developers to meet the ordin ances or come before you and explain what they're doing to enhance, let me say it a different way, what they're doing to mitigate the things they're not doing to give you something in return. So what I'm saying is that we have that information to do that. In addition, I know that there were some questions asked about the transportation and things like that. The shady shores will be widened. This is a great drawing. It has everything. You can see it's improved about halfway. You can see it's improved to about here and it would be improved the rest of the way through the property. So it would meet the thoroughfare plan, the collector section, and I think there's a little bit of right of way to dedicate and the payment being extended. There's been some discussion with a signal and we would desire a signal here at the intersection. That's something we've had some discussions with staff about in our pre-development meetings and would look forward to achieving that goal. There was some discussion about I-35 and we all managed to find a drawing. There's eight lanes, two through, two left in each direction going across the bridge, and three-lane frontage road with a free right turning northbound on Lakeview. And I think, I don't know if there was a question asked, but those improvements will be in place before we can work our way through all the city development procedures and get under construction and be underway. So our use seems to comply with the debt and plan. We think it's a good use for the neighborhood. We think it provides services that the neighborhood can use . We will not be, we're rezoning a larger piece of property that we could possibly use as you see from this drawing. Staff is informed in our pre-development meetings that we are not able to touch the floodway. So the floodway, as we've defined in our actual flood study , that's a line, that stays. Floodplain, yes, we can manipulate through a variance process and maintaining valley storage and equal capacity and things like that to mitigate any potential downstream issues. But all those things get answered in the subsequent submitt als. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. And if John would like to speak, I guess I have a few more minutes left. But he gets, I think, some time as well if he -- 20 minutes altogether. So we've got plenty of time. I have a question for you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. So you said you already have a more detailed floodway survey. Can you give us some idea as to is it dramatically different than what's the riparian buffer now? I don't mean to be a wise guy in any way, but I don't know what you mean by a floodway survey. Or you said you've done a detailed topographical survey. Yes. Do you know where the floodway is on the -- Yes, we do know where the floodway is based on the actual on the ground, which FEMA does a pretty good job, especially when they've got a floodway mapped, and we found it to be reasonably accurate. Okay. This is pretty -- this is not reflective, really. This is bigger, the other drawing, which was up -- is more reflective of the actual floodway document, I believe. Okay. The blues. Is that better? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I have a comment. Because one of the questions I was going to ask was in regards to if anyone has been out to check the ESA, because I know until it's certified, it can change, and I'm glad to hear that you say you all have already done that. So the ESA has been certified and verified. It's exactly where it is versus it looks like it's on a map , and somebody goes and looks at it and says, well, it doesn't meet the criteria, and it goes away. So for our purposes and discussions tonight, it's certified that it's there, and we all agree on that. Just to clarify. Yes. What's on the map we're looking at is not what we found, precisely. I understand, but my point was that there is ESA certified that it's on -- because there are some red areas that have come out that are no longer ESA, and you've determined that there is definitely ESA on the site, and city staff has certified that and agreed. Everybody's on the same page. There is ESA and active out there on site. Yes, sir. Great. Thank you. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Great. Thank you, sir, for a great presentation. This is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. If you'll give us your name and address, and if you haven't filled out a card before you go to the meeting, please do a card for us. Okay. My name is Jackie Bruce. My husband Tom and I are here tonight. We live in the preserve at Pecan Creek at 4215 Boxwood Drive, 76208. We shop at Kroger, so this is not about Kroger. This is about rezoning. We were house number 14 when the development opened. We moved in in 2001. It will be 16 years next month. So we've seen a lot happen in that area, and we understand that the buildout is not quite complete, but it will be 1, 153 homes. That is just for the preserve at Pecan Creek. That does not include any of the other housing, Shady Sh ores and Villages of Carmel and all the other building that 's going on. Lakeview is our outlet, 235. There's the back road Edwards, and if you all have ever been on it, it's just a little lane and very bad repair. So those are the two ways to leave our subdivision. We also have a school, so we have school traffic. Every home in our subdivision has a minimum of two cars. I think I could stand by that. And many have many more. If you drive around our streets, you'll see lots of them out in the street. So my only concern is mobility, and I knew there would be a light at this intersection because it's just calling for that. But the backup is going to be really bad, and that is my problem with rezoning this area. And especially it will be a larger Kroger. It might have gas pumps. It will bring traffic from all around. We are only minutes away from another Kroger, so it's not as if we're desperate down there to have another grocery store. I can only speak for myself and my husband. I did attend the meeting. He and I attended the meeting at the school, but we only accidentally found out about that at the last minute. As I understand it, letters did not go out to people who lived in the preserve at Beacon Creek. They only went out to the homeowners that were closer. But that's our exit to get out. And if you'd ever come down there at school times especially, it gets pretty heavy duty. And even though the bridge is going to be bigger and 35 is going to be bigger, we have to get to it. So that is my concern. I think that's all I have to say. I found your card. You didn't have it marked as some support or opposition? I didn't, but if I have to say, I would oppose it because I don't want it changed. I think we've got all the traffic we can handle. And I did speak to Julie the other day and I did say we might have to have flying drones to get out of there. I don't know. I have a couple questions before you go, if you please. Commissioner Rizel. Thank you, Ms. Burns, for being here. We talked in the work session about getting some text-on updates. I was wondering if staff had gotten those together. But could we have staff talk about the mobility increasing at 35 and Lakeview? And also, could staff address what's happening on Lakeview between Shady Shores and the new post oak? Is there going to be improvement or widening on Lakeview past Shady Shores, across the tracks, and into the preserve there? I have one more question before you if you'll stay close by , please. According to TextDots schematic of their 35 improvement project, the overpass bridge there at Lakeview and post oak will involve two through lanes in either direction and two left only lanes in either direction. As far as improvements that are planned to Lakeview, I'm not aware of any at this time. I will say that this project where it stands right now is at the zoning phase. There will be a preliminary plat. There will be a final plat. And we will-- that's sort of the point at which we typically evaluate these engineering issues. We put on the record that our department's approval or acceptance of the zoning does not grant them any approvals on any specific engineering issues, access, and so forth. So we will look at that closely during the planning stage, which is going to be coming up. Does that answer your question? It kind of does, and I appreciate that. Can you tell me the mobility plan, what the roadway Lake view Boulevard is classified as? Yes, sir. Could we get that on the overhead? I'm sorry? You have to show me. If we could turn on the overhead. Will you turn on the overhead, please? So what is the classification of Lakeview? I've got that here. Here we go. Per our mobility plan, Lakeview-- the portion of Lakeview from 35 to Post Oak is classified as a primary major arter ial. That's a six-lane divided. Beyond that, going further northeast, it's classified as a collector. And a collector is a four-lane divided? That is correct, yes. It's the primary major arterial is six-lane divided. The collector is-- I mean, basically, that's what it is right now, is the four-lane divided. And that would-- yes, that is essentially a collector. OK. Per the mobility plan, it's not called for that to be further widened. Understood. Mr. Burns, I hope that answers some of the concerns, as I think about from Post Oak to the highway, having three lanes dedicated one way to get out would help. And then Lakeview Boulevard past Post Oak, or Sunray, I think it is now, is currently four lanes divided before it goes down to two lanes further up. So I think your concern about exiting the neighborhood is certainly valid. I hope the mobility plan in the future of the city to widen that to a six-lane road like Carroll Boulevard or University would certainly provide some bandwidth to exit your neighborhood. I'm not sure about the timeline. I think the overpass will be done way before that. And that, in my experience, has always been the bottleneck in that area. So I'm glad to see that being improved to eight lanes from what's been two. One each direction, big improvement. You don't agree? Oh, it would definitely be an improvement. I think I'm skeptical about when that might be. I hope I'm still here then. This summer. Oh, to widen it to six lanes? No, the overpass. Oh, that I know. Yeah. Uh-huh. We understand that. We're dealing with that. It's just trying to get in and out past the highway. OK. Great. Did you need me here anymore? I do have one further question for you. Thank you, Mr. Jenks. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. And thank you. Ms. Burns, is that correct? Bruce. Bruce, I thought it was. OK. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Ian, for coming down this weekend. I, too, appreciate your concern for traffic. But let me pose a scenario for you now. Right now, where you all live, you pretty much have to get in your car and drive out of your neighborhood to get to pretty much any kind of service right now. Is that correct? Uh-huh. OK. Not only is Kroger coming in here, where you can buy a lot of things, but there's going to be other shops there. And these will be in walking and biking distance for-- not everybody. Not everybody can walk and bike a certain distance. But a lot of people can. And that, in effect, could reduce traffic. I think anything we can do as a city to reduce the use of our vehicles improves our air quality, as you know, is probably one of the worst in the state. So in the long run, this has that advantage of making your area a little bit more dense, where you will be in walking, biking distance from services that otherwise you would have had to get in your car and drive to. Does that help? It might be possible that some people will choose to walk or ride a bike to the smaller shops, probably not for groceries. Not if you're going to do shopping for the month, that's true. But if you forgot tomatoes for the salad, you could just-- I understand. OK. I just have lived in that neighborhood long enough to understand-- Ms. Bruce, could you step back to the microphone so we can make sure to hear you? Yes. Thank you very much. I understand. I appreciate what you said. I think we've lived there long enough to understand what the traffic will continue to be. Even if we have the smaller shops around the larger grocery store, I think we're going to have a mobility problem. And that is my concern. OK. I hope not, but thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. This is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to come forward and speak at this time, please come forward. Deb Armentar, 2003, Mistywood Lane. I just want to speak to something identified by the woman who just spoke from a nearby neighborhood where they didn't receive notices. I know that it's the city's policy to only give notifications to, I think, within 250-- I think it's state law, too. State law as well. We follow the state law. Yeah. And this is something that came up in the debates about the gas plant and where there were people who lived close enough such that they at least considered themselves stakeholders who were directly affected. They considered it their neighborhood. So I just wonder what we can do as a city to increase that area of notification so that people in nearby neighborhoods outside of that, 500 square feet or whatever, will be notified. It's just a shame to see this happening time and time again . And I also wanted to mention that I hope that as Commissioner Beck said that we have people walking to the shopping area and there's no problem with mobility. But I do fear in a situation like this that mobility issues will arise. So I second whoever it was who said before we should have a mobility study for this. I second that concern. And I would also say that when it comes to grocery shopping , as nice as it sounds to be able to walk over to Kroger and get some basil for the salad, I think most hardworking families tend to go and get -- yeah, you pick up the basil, but also a big thing of toilet paper and roach spray or whatever, things that you're not going to be carrying in a little wicker basket. So people do tend to go to -- I go to Kroger in my car and there are situations where even if it was two blocks away, if I needed to go for a full weekly shop, I'd go in my car. So anyway, thank you. >> Before you go, I want to clarify with staff, did we do 500 foot notice as well on this? >> We did the 200 foot property owner and the 500 foot resident. In addition to because we heard some feedback from some of the neighbors that because of the -- where this property is located and the open space behind it, there weren't a lot of people who were notified. So the city went ahead and worked with those HOAs, the villages of Carmel as well as the preserve in order to get the word out to those neighborhoods and do that neighborhood meeting because you're right, there weren't a lot of people notified by the state law standards. >> Okay. >> So we went above and beyond on this to actually notify the HOAs. I think there's a neighborhood meeting and -- okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Commissioner Roselle. >> Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to reiterate Ms. Wyatt said and even the chair, I just go on record to say that state law is 200 feet minimum, Denton does a courtesy of 500 on every project that we notify as a courtesy to go beyond that. And I was really glad to see that because it is an entry to a larger area, the city actually hosted a meeting for some feedback too. It comes up often about notifications. We're always trying to figure out how to best get responses back and make sure people actually get the responses because there's just been ongoing discussion about that. But I think in this situation, city tried their best to try to get the community that's affected northeast of the highway involved. I give you credit for going beyond even what we generally are gracious to do at 500 feet even further. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Deb, thanks for your comments. I would echo what Commissioner Roselle said about trying to get the community involved. We do have a little bit of a broken notification process when we draw these circles. We miss an awful lot of property owners and I know they made a point to see that and reach out to the north of that. Also, we have an ongoing discussion. I think it's still sitting in our matrix. We've been trying to improve the notification process and it is of concern to this commission. It's been brought up multiple times. We've had a work session. We are trying to make improvements as we go forward. So it's definitely on our radar. >> Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to come forward at this time? I have two additional e-mails. I think there are a number of e-mails that are provided in the backup so I won't bring those up. But we have an e-mail from Amanda McCullough and she was opposed and Earl Armstrong and I believe he is opposed as well. I don't know that state specifically, there's some concern. Those two other comments, is there anyone else who would like to come forward and speak at this time before we close our public hearing? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight. I appreciate the comments from the applicant and the homeowners that live over there. I've looked at this thing pretty close too. I went over and visited this back when we thought we were going to do this at PNC two months ago and looked at the area. I knew the concern would be this is a nice area that's tucked away and any kind of development in there is going to be upsetting to the neighborhood. Traffic, that's going to be an issue. But we're looking at property that's currently zoned where commercial development can happen that's going to bring in traffic no matter what you do. I'm not sure CMG is going to bring in any more than RCR. >> Commissioner Beck, can you speak directly in the microphone of the guys in the back? Always ask me. Please help them with that. >> Okay. So trying to control the traffic by not rezoning is I don't think going to work and we're not sure what we're going to get in there. The one more dense zoning that would allow taller buildings will probably intensify the situation. We didn't rezone to CMG and left the RCR one. But when I go over to the neighborhood, I actually stood on , is it sundown at 1 Street? I was concerned about a buffer, too. And it looks like depending on what the developer does, we may get more of a tree line there than we hope that remains to be seen. But standing on sundown, you've got that park right there that's elevated about five or six feet. When you stand on sundown, you cannot even see that area over there. You can see the tops of the trees. To the east of that is a thick tree grove that blocks the view from that, too. And that's not going to go anywhere, too. So there's not going to be a visual that will distract the neighborhood. And it will, in fact, as a sound barrier, too. So I've looked at all the considerations I would if I lived there. I kind of like the idea of having a grocery store close to me. In fact, I live on Sherman. They built Liostec. I was pleased because I get to run down there. And I do my big shop and I go in the vehicle, but I make some small trips, too. So I was pleased to have something within walking distance. With all those considerations, again, part of our job as a city is to develop along lines where density is important, where people can, within short distances, walk and bike or travel, even in their car, just a short distance, because if you're not driving 3 1/2 miles, you're just driving a couple blocks, you're still using less fuel, putting less toxic elements into the bad air that we already have here. So that was one of the positive considerations. So with all that being said, I am going to make a motion that we approve this. We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion or a second? I don't have anybody else on the board right now. Commissioner Sullivan. I second the motion. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion or comment? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of words. I do appreciate people speaking and coming out with concern . You know, the property is going to be developed at some point. The zoning that's on it now allows for commercial development, and it's going to happen. And sometimes these conveniences come in prior to all the mobility being in place, but the mobility plan is in place. Improvements are being made. And I do support this, because I actually think it's a really good thing for the community. I'll just second your comments. I think it's a unique opportunity that there's the improvements to the overpass before it's built, which is nice before this board, because that's not always the case. A lot of time it's after the fact. And so I know there are some concerns about that. But being a dead resident, born and raised here, that's been a little two-lane bridge for a long, long time. And it's great to finally see it be eight lanes now. And I think it's going to be a tremendous benefit for that neighborhood. I'm glad to see this site be developed. And I know there's been a lot of people that have been just as adamant that may be concerned about it, that they are thrilled to have a grocery store up at the front of their subdivision and the services that that will bring as well. And so with that, I'm going to support this motion as well. And seeing no other discussion, I will call for a vote on the board. The motion carries 6-0. That will end our public hearing session section this evening, and that will move us on to our project maintenance matrix. I can't speak. Our project matrix. So Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you, Chair. I would like some direction from staff regarding the specific request I have and how to enact this. I don't know if we can put this back to a different committee for action or what. But given the events of yesterday at Lakeview Boulevard and the DCTA rail, as well as the stated increased traffic that's about to happen in the same block, what does it take to increase the crossing guard to cover the sidewalk, not just the road at that train crossing? Who does that and how can we get that added to that sidewalk? We would have to -- I will visit with the transportation department, number one, the transportation director, and discern next steps. I believe it might have -- we will also have to contact the county and see what we need to do in terms of enhancing the security features on that. But it's something we would have to research and perhaps have someone give a presentation at this commission or have an opportunity to provide you what the steps are to establish those parameters. Yeah, if I need to do it offline from a commission, that would be great. If I could just get information of who to go to, I would be happy to follow up on that independently. Okay, superb. We'll get you some info. If not, we'll try and get someone to come in and speak to it. If not, we'll try and gather some info for yourself. That sounds great. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Okay, I have just a couple of things to put on there, Manal , if you could. One of the things in the Denton 2030 plan talks about minimizing waste and enhancing our resource recovery. Can we have a discussion on where we are with commercial recycling bins in the city? I see them in certain places, but we are missing major opportunities in the city to have these. I volunteered over a weekend for a festival in town, and I was at the arts center. They do not have a commercial recycling bin there. I talked to staff there. They do what I ended up doing that weekend and took as much of it home, because it was devastating to throw all of this perfectly recyclable material away. So could we maybe talk about this and get things moving? Absolutely. I'll see if our Solid Waste team, Ethan Cox, can provide us some info on this in a memo format for the P NC. I believe it's required for all new commercialists. For new commercialists, it is, but I was going to allow him to put that in writing as to, and then if you need something, how do you secure that? Oh, I had one more thing. Well, you have the floor. Continue. Thank you. Okay, we had a night of replats today, and my issue with replats is it's kind of a formality what we do here, because we really can't -- when you bring it to us and it complies, we really have to say yes. So to have public discussion and commission discussion and money spent for notices of public hearings in the newspaper , I truly feel like this formality is a waste of time and money in a lot of cases. It slows down the process for the applicant. If we truly can't do anything with our discussion, can we maybe have a discussion on either to allow public and commission discussion to have some teeth with regards to these replats, or maybe we don't need it on our agenda, and we can save time and money on all parts. So I don't know if that requires a work session discussion or what, but I do have that concern. Sure. Commissioner Ellis, as it relates to the replats, there is a specific formality, and that is the notification and public hearing process as it relates to the type of replat we're addressing. In terms of teeth for the commission, I think we've had this conversation before, too, but what we could do is actually have a work session and talk about platts in general, if you like. Good? Okay. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. The mention of trees today in more ways than one just motivates me again to bring up the tree ordinance and get it moving once again. I don't know that we've made any changes since we last talked about it, but it's something that needs to get moving forward. I think we've kicked the can down the road too long. So Commissioner Ellis mentioned this last commission meeting and put it on the matrix. So did we make any move or any motions made to get it back on the agenda anytime soon? Absolutely. Actually, what we've had the opportunity to do is actually work with our green team, as Chandran calls it. Our DRC administrator has been working very closely with Bob. I'm sure you've all had an opportunity to meet Bob. I'm rather new to this arena again. So they are in the process, this green team, Haywood and Bob and Chandran, and the planning division in general, diligently working at creating or establishing a framework for a comprehensive urban forestry program. Now that we understand what that framework will eventually look like, we are in a position to start moving forward with the tree code. In fact, we are keen that there is a recommendation from the commission that can move forward to the council as well . But we will be coming back with some minor tweaks to our last, if you recall, we had a work session. We had a special called meeting and we discussed the tree code. So we should be bringing it forward very soon. Okay. Before we do, I think I've mentioned to you briefly, I have a couple ideas that will help maybe get us across some rough areas with developers. So would we have an opportunity to discuss that and if it looks feasible, get it into the tree code before it actually gets to us? Absolutely. Let's do this then. If it is the wish of the commission and Chairperson Strange , I pose this to you as the chair. If it is the wish of the commission, in fact, we had requested it last time, go ahead and email. I believe it's Shandrin that we emailed the comments to or Heywood or copy everybody and Bob. And if you have ideas or options or issue with certain language with the last document that you read, send it to us. We'll do a couple of red lines for you. We'll do a page turn and hopefully from there we can agree to disagree or agree to agree and move forward. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Nobody else is on the board. Okay. At 820, we will close our PNC meeting tonight. Thank you, everyone.