Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning
and Zoning Commission
work session for July the 12th 2017. This meeting has been
duly posted and we do
have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 5 o 2
and at this time I
will turn us over to Ron for a clarification of our agenda
items this
evening. Thank you chair. The item of the agenda is that we
have we don't have any
platt so we're going to go straight into our public hearing
items and the first
one is going to be presented by our senior planner Julie
Wyatt. Good evening
I'm Julie Wyatt and I'm presenting 1711 Blue Beacon to you
this evening. The item
before you is a request to hold a public hearing and for
initial zoning of
employment center commercial on approximately 16 acres. The
property is
located on the northwest side of the city. It's adjacent to
I-35 and Bartol Road.
Current zoning is RD 5X. You might be familiar with this
area. We saw a
rezoning for the adjacent property earlier this year. As
they were going
through with their site planning process they realized they
needed a little more
room in order to make their turning radiuses for their
trucks so they've
they've they are proposing to also include the adjacent
property with their
commercial development. That property was in the ETJ so as
part of the
development they have annexed to that property and now they
're coming in for
the initial zoning. When we annex property within the city
of Denton they
all come in as RD 5X which is that initial place holding
zoning. It follows
that RD 5 zoning within subchapter 5 of the Denton
development code. So when
we looked at the request we looked at the properties that
were immediately
adjacent to the to the subject property. Here we have the
property next door that
that was subject to that earlier is a rezoning case and
that is zoned ECC and
then has a proposed commercial development. To the south of
that there's
also ECC and that is currently under development as a
travel center use.
Also along I-35 is RCR 1 that property is undeveloped. To
the north of the
subject property is also RD 5X. To the west is in ETJ and
that's undeveloped
and to the south is RCCN and that has some commercial
development on it. As we
zoom out a little further we take in some property across I
-35 and that has
a zoning designation of RCCD and that is developed with the
travel use as well.
When we look at the mobility of the area we see that the
the dominant feature is
I-35 that corridor right here. We also have Elm and Barth
old Road. Elm and
Barthold will eventually connect. They will though it'll be
realigned here at
the at the intersection of I-35 and Barthold Road and that
's that's sometime
in the near future. Commissioner Beck.
So it's going to actually clip that corner lot that the
love station. It will yes sir yes sir.
That'll ease the connectivity between the two sides. Right
now it's a
little awkward. We also looked at the analysis and the
compatibility of what
all these these zoning districts and the uses mean. So the
surrounding area is
comprised of travel center commercial developments and also
large
undeveloped tracts of land particularly to the north and
the west of the subject
property. They have access from I-35 and the US 77 North El
m. The adjacent RCCN
and ECC districts they currently permit large-scale
commercial and employment
uses. An ECC district is appropriate in this location
because it also permits
similar employment and commercial uses at a scale that's
typically found along
I or long highway corridors and the adjacent zoning
districts. ECC is also a
logical extension of the existing ECC district to the east
and the south of
the subject property. We looked at the future land use
designation didn't plan
2030. This is in a business innovation future land use
designation. The intent
of business innovation is to encourage the large-scale
office development and
employment centers and then those retail and commercial
services that serve to
provide adjacency and additional places for the workers to
go places to eat and
shop. The mix of commercial or the mix of commercial and
light manufacturing
uses in ECC meets the intent of that business innovation
future land use
designation. We sent out a public notification of this of
the request. We
received one letter and it was from and it you should have
it on your desk it
was from the the property owner to the south the loves and
they were in
support of the request. Due to the criteria in sub chapter
4 of the Denton
Development Code and the adjacent character of the area
staff does
recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any
questions. Commissioner
Reck. Thank you Chair. I just got a little nitpick about
the semantics of this thing. In the
comprehensive plan it points out that this the future land
use designations is
business innovation and I stress that word innovation and
then it points out
for well-planned larger scale office and employment parks
with supporting use
such as retails hotels and residential. I have no problem
with this truck wash in
the ECC designation. I just you know as a matter of sem
antics so you know when
somebody looks at business innovation I don't think truck
wash would come to mind
or truck stop or anything like that. So I mean just for
future purposes when we
say innovative we're talking about something new and
different and that
doesn't just quit quite fit that criteria. So I don't know
do we need to
keep it like that is this something that could probably be
worked on with the DCC
revision or would that even fall in into that purview?
Chair if I can answer
just that question. Absolutely. Comments you're absolutely
correct Commissioner
Beck. One of the goals of the DEN plan 2030 is to start
looking at some areas
in the city that can accommodate our business innovation
you know business
parks that sort of thing but as we look at this site and
one thing that we
discussed with staff is besides in this particular location
it's a little narrow
so we felt that this was okay but yes we will hopefully
refine our we are
refining our zoning districts as we move forward with our
code update and that is
something that we will make sure we're in line with our
future land use
designations. If I may follow up. I was looking for
anything and I went through
this list of permitted uses and about the only thing that
came close to it was
under commercial land use quick vehicle servicing so there
's a little element
there that lets you squeeze in but I just again the idea of
business
innovative probably needs to change. Thank you.
Any other questions for Julie? I think you have the next
one too. I'm sorry
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Hey Julie just I guess
a quick question and I
guess just more for clarification for me it says that the
site includes some
frontage along the newly aligned Bartold Road and it
contains a gas pipeline. Is
that an issue with what is being developed? What's being
developed is not
considered a protected use but they would have to meet all
setback
requirements for any industrial use or any production
facility. This
isn't this isn't necessarily a gas well but they would have
to meet all
requirements and we'll look at that a little more deeply
when we get to the
site plan and any platting. Anybody else? Thank you. You
got the next one too.
[inaudible]
Now I'm presenting S17-4 McDonald's. The item before you is
to hold a
public hearing and consider a request for a specific use
permit to allow a
drive-through facility. The subject property is located
north of I-35
adjacent to North Texas Boulevard. We're gonna go we're
gonna do a little bit of
a dive into the the background of the property because the
property boundaries
don't necessarily match with what we're used to seeing on
that site so we're
gonna kind of jump back and forth. So I got this this more
updated aerial
photograph from from Google Maps and it shows more
accurately what's on the site
now. So the subject property was originally developed as a
McDonald's
with the drive-through. As we all know I-35 is under an
expansion project and
so there TextDOT acquired some frontage from the subject
property in order to
accommodate that expansion. Within that acquisition the the
if you remember the
gas station that was right here and the McDonald's were
were taken out as well
as the parking. McDonald's would like to rebuild but the
amount of property left
on that original site is not sufficient to accommodate the
building in the
parking. So they've actually taken in in their subject
property this IHOP lot. So
now we'll go over the site plan and hopefully it'll make
sense if it doesn't
tell me to back up and we'll we'll we'll go over it and try
to point out all of
the landmarks. So here's the the site plan that McDonald's
is proposing. If you
can kind of visually see this was the original McDonald's
lot, the gas station
was right here and then this is the the IHOP lot. So the
area and in yellow is
the building, the proposed building. They're also proposing
two signs, two
pole signs, one on I-35 and one on North Texas Boulevard
and we're going to talk
about that sign a little more when we get to the
recommendations. They're also
proposing within their site plan package two drive-throughs
in order to
accommodate enough vehicle storage to get through the drive
-through
efficiently. Some pedestrian crosswalks across the the
driveways. They're
proposing a bike rack and then there's also going to be
some sidewalk
improvements associated with the development. There will be
there are
proposed four driveways, one off of I-35, one off of Kind
orf, one off of Wilshire
and one off of North Texas Boulevard. And then we'll look
at the landscape plan.
Currently there's not a whole lot of landscaping or trees
on the site. They
will be adding trees and landscaping in accordance with the
Denton Development
Code requirements which includes a 20% canopy in the DCG
district. Also parking
lot screening. They do have enhanced landscaping along the
menu boards as
well. Here are the proposed elevations for the subject
property. They are
proposing a masonry building with stone accents. Subchapter
6 of the Denton
Development Code outlines the criteria for approval for SU
Ps and I believe that
the full criteria is in your backup but in general it
requires consistency with
the zoning regulations, conformity with the Denton plan and
also consistency with
the surrounding development in terms of access, nuisance
and scale of development.
Let's talk about the zoning just for a minute. The subject
property is zoned DCG.
The proposed site plan does comply with the requirements
within the DCG
zoning district. Restaurants are permitted but drive-
throughs do
require an SUP and that is intended because often we find
DCG in our
downtown areas or university areas where we often have a
lot of pedestrian
oriented development. We want to ensure that any drive-
throughs that come
in those areas are sensitive to the pedestrian oriented
nature.
Question. Yes sir. Did the previous McDonald's that was
located on that site have an SUP?
They did not. It was it was pre Denton Development Code,
pre 2002. And so
TechStop took them out and they want to rebuild the
business on the same side
and now they were required to get an SUP? They are. They
are. I'm gonna listen a little.
The site's proximity to I-35 does suggest that an auto
oriented use is
appropriate in this location. Although we typically see
pedestrian oriented
development in university areas because of that I-35 access
, because of the
location of a lot of the UNT parking lots in this area, it
is it does lean
more toward the auto oriented uses. We also just in general
drive-throughs
are typical development that you see along highways. Let's
look let's talk
about the area and first the properties that are adjacent
to the site. The
subject property is in a DCG zoning district. There is a
little bit of DR2
to the north. What's surrounding them to the north and the
east and the west are
UNT facilities and also some UNT parking areas. You can see
there's a commuter lot
here, commuter lot here. Across the highway in R3, there's
an R3 district
with single-family. There's a little bit in R2 here and I
believe that is the
football stadium. As we zoom out a little bit we see more
UNT facilities coming
into focus. There's a dormitory here. There's once again
some more commuter
lots. There's some commercial development here with with
parking and
then the UNT performance. There's a performance facility in
this location.
And then the general area. You see more of the UNT campus.
There's residential
near the subject property and then the I-35 corridor in
this case as well is a
real dominant feature in this area. The future land use for
the subject property
is commercial and this is not really a mixed use future
land use designation. It
is to be concentrated commercial development and auto
oriented uses such
as drive-throughs are appropriate in this future land use.
The mobility of the
area, once again I-35, a really dominant feature provides a
lot of access to the
site as well as the North Texas Boulevard that is a
secondary arterial and
then the hatched black lines are collectors that run
through the area.
Commissioner Ellison. Thank you Chair. I guess why you have
that up one of my
questions has to do with if you're coming from let's say
campus or coming
down North Texas Boulevard. I didn't see where there was a
way into this site. I'm
assuming you'd have to go Eagle to Kendoff to get there?
You're right. There
are there is some limit there is some control access and
engineering will be
here to answer questions. There is some control access and
I believe this is
just a ride-in ride-out here. Jim is okay there'll be a
median here so it'll just
be a ride-in ride-out in this location so they would have
to turn and come in
from a different angle. Can they come in off a wheelchair?
Should I call Jim up?
I'm gonna call Jim. Good evening everyone. Jim Jenks from
the Engineering
Department. Looking at TexDOT's ultimate schematic there
will be a median along
North Texas Boulevard from the service road up north of Wil
shire. So their
southbound traffic on North Texas Boulevard would not be
able to turn into
this site directly or via Wilshire. They would I don't have
a map handy that
shows the area farther out.
They'd have to go Eagle.
Currently there are median cuts that would allow access to
Wilshire but not
in their ultimate schematic. How far out is the ultimate
schematic? Is that in this
phase or we time? I don't think it's I would have to get
back to you on that.
Julie can you go back to that satellite image? Yeah.
Because Google Maps looks
like it shows that there is a median currently there.
Currently in the
you had one that yes there is a there is a cut right there
in the median though.
It didn't look like it. Maybe my eyes are failing me but it
looks like grass all
the way over Wilshire.
Yeah it looks like Wilshire is blocked but maybe the
parking lot entrance isn't.
There are cones but there isn't grass it looks like. It's a
little further south
you're talking about right? Gotcha. I wish I could project
mine on the screen
here. I'll just show you.
I can have an answer for you on the timing by the regular
meeting. Okay
great thank you. Sure. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair.
The area we're talking
about where there's a medium and we need a cut through is
that that's not text
dots property is it? That's not there right away. Is it the
universities? It is not
text dots. I mean it's the city's it's a city street North
Texas Boulevard is. So
the city could do a cut through couldn't it? And the reason
I'm even bringing this up
is if you get traffic coming off going to McDonald's they
have to kind of look
back around and get on the interstate and deal with that
traffic like before
they can get back onto the interstate again where if they
could cross over you
know North Texas and then hang a right there on the service
road they would
have to deal with that traffic signal. It is a city street
text dot has as part of
their schematic they show improving it all the way up to
the next street
intersection beyond Wilshire. I think it's basically the
transition to their
improvements. That next one I can't tell from that. They're
not showing a medium
but that's the end of their project. Commissioner Tyler has
a follow-up. Thank
you chair. So I guess just to continue on this the next one
is Eagle and I think
because of the shortness of the blocks and the radius they
would probably never
put a cut there. So you'd have to turn on Eagle and come
down Kindle. That's how
it is now with all the construction. So I don't think it's
really out of the
ordinary. My question is more pertaining to the little rem
nant lot. I don't know
if this is a good view or if the site plan might be a
better view of the small
remnant lot of the old gas station. Right now there's
indicated a curb cut and you
can see there's actually a driveway but it seems is that a
text dot property or
is that still owned by some private owner?
They acquired, text dot acquired so much of that lot. Yeah
I wonder if they just
acquired the whole thing because there's just such a small
remnant left. I think
that may be the case. Can we tell on there? Yeah. Are you
talking about that
little small to the left of the monument sign? On the DCAD
map that shows that
little sliver shows to be North Texas. Oh so UNTO owns it?
The little bitty piece
right there. Okay. Okay. Yeah I was just trying to see if
that that driveway to
nowhere, that curb cut to nowhere very close to the
intersection had any plans
but not related to this I guess. No not related to this. I
can't see it being
related to anything actually. I mean it's with as small as
that remnant is. There'd
be nothing much to drive into and there's this site would
not be using it.
In fact there are the we are still we've reviewed a final
replant submittal. I
don't think it's been approved yet and we still have the
site plan phase yet to
go so we're still reviewing and commenting on the site but
there will
be some driveways that are going away as a result of this
project along the 35
service road and then going north just north of the
intersection along North
Texas Boulevard. There'll be a net reduction in driveways
here especially
near that intersection. And I guess maybe UNT could build a
sign on that corner.
Who knows that may be what they have in mind I don't know.
Nothing that could I
don't see anything that can be driven into though. Any
other questions for Jim?
Thank you Jim.
I don't have much left to add I just want to go over one or
a couple more
things. I did put a letter on your desks from I received
from UNT last night. I
wasn't able to get the opposition percentage calculated
today. Our GIS was
in a meeting so but we anticipate that the 20% opposition
has threshold has been
met and so a super majority would be required at City
Council but we're still
we're still making sure that they do that that is the case.
Commissioner Roseau.
Did they provide any elaboration of their reason? No sir.
Based upon the criteria we discussed the character of the
area the access to the
area staff does recommend approval of the request with two
conditions. One that
it's substantially comply with the site plan landscape plan
and building
elevations that were submitted with the with the SUP and
then also the signage
on North Texas Boulevard. Right now they are proposing two
pole signs in
accordance with the sign regulations within the city of
Denton. Staff felt like
that reducing the size of the sign on North Texas Boulevard
to a monument sign
that is that is architecturally compatible with the primary
structure
that is a maximum of height of five feet and a maximum
effective area of 40 feet
would be more in keeping with the character of the of the
street of North
Texas Boulevard. We understand the need for the pole sign
on I-35 because you
want that visibility to the motoring public but we felt
like that that
monument side on North Texas Boulevard met the character of
the general
area so those are the two conditions that staff has
recommended. So based
upon that I'll answer any questions. What was the applicant
's response to that
having it reduced to monument sign? They do not agree with
staff's recommendation.
They... What did they have previously? Previous well they
did not I you know I
don't know what was at that location previously it's a good
question I'm not
quite sure if there was a pole sign at that location. They
are proposing that I
believe a 20-foot pole sign in that spot. I believe on
their old building they had four
points of access as well just like they have with the new
one that they're
proposing and I don't know if they I don't recall if they
had a sign over on
North Texas on that access point or not. Commissioner Ellis
. Thank you chair if I
can chime into that because I was there a lot with kids
dancing at UNT. They did
have a small like driveway sign off of UNT there or North
Texas Boulevard. I
don't I don't remember the necessarily the size it was not
a big huge pole sign.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Well I don't understand
why they want the two pole
signs. What would be the distance between the two? It's got
to be a small gap. Well
within the city of Denton you can have two ground signs
provided that they're
on on two different arterial roads that they meet the
height and and those
requirements so that that would those two pole signs would
meet the the minimum
sign requirements within the city of Denton. I don't know I
don't know as far
as what their spacing is between the two. And I understand
that it meets that
criteria but what purpose does it serve to have them so
close together? I mean
the visual it seems like they would get from the one on I-
35. I'm not sure how
they're served with one on North Texas Boulevard. But you
don't know what the gap is.
No sir. Commissioner Roselle. Julie can you walk me through
the standards for
monument signs is the the recommendation from staff the
standard monument
qualifications or is that something that was created for
this project? It was
created for this project if you have I believe I'll have to
check make sure I'm
quoting correctly but I believe a monument sign within the
city of Denton
does not have a maximum effective area so that it can be
any any size if it's a
monument sign so it goes all the way down to the ground.
Pole signs do have a
maximum height. And when the the 40 square feet that means
it can what you're
recommending it cannot take up more than a 4 by 10 or the
sign portion the yes
the correct face of the sign like if you're looking at it.
Let me get my code
and maybe I can get you a definition for it.
I'll make sure I give you good information.
Chair well Julie's looking that up I just wanted to clarify
your comment
question earlier regarding the SUP. There was no SUP
required I guess for
the McDonald's back prior to 2002 however this site that
their proposal
extends past that parcel so since they're extending onto
another property
we felt that the SUP would be required for this particular
site plan.
That answers your question. I'm gonna bite my tongue for a
little longer
before I respond. Okay. I'll let get to the monument sign.
Commissioner Roselle
effective area is the the shape or combination of regular
shapes that will
encompass the extreme limits of the riding representation
emblem or other
display. So it would be the display area wouldn't it wouldn
't be the base of the
structure. And then let me check.
Monument sign effective area is there is no maximum
effective area for monument
sign.
Maximum height
would still be 20 feet from what I can tell on the sign
code. For a monument
sign? It doesn't give a maximum height for the monument
sign it just gives a
map for other primary arterials which North Texas Boulevard
would be
another primary primary I'm sorry it would be in all other
streets it wouldn't
because it's a secondary arterial. It'd be a maximum height
of six feet all signs
are maximum height of six feet and then the monument
effective area would be they
could have it as big effective area there's no there's no
maximum for that
for monument sign. That's because we were making it upon
monument sign versus a
pole sign. Yes sir. Okay. Did your questions get answered
before I ask? They did thank you.
I was gonna follow up on the pole sign. So in our standard
code you can have two
pole signs. Yes sir. Well staff is recommending that they
only have one in
a monument even though our code says that they can have two
. Yes sir. And we're
making that recommendation because? Because of the size of
and the character
of North Texas Boulevard. It's a less you know people don't
travel it's
fast down it so they have more opportunity to see a
monument sign. You
know I understand that the necessity of a pole sign on a
highway because you
need the visibility and people are traveling at a high rate
of speed so you
need to you need to be able to to reach your customer base.
We felt like a
monument sign on North Texas Boulevard was sufficient for
them to advertise. We
want them to be able to advertise our businesses but still
meet the character
of the area. I don't know their reasoning other than when
they come to a stop sign
on the other side of 35 to turn and go north on North Texas
Boulevard it may be
hard to see that if you're at a angle and with North Texas
owning that corner
if they decide to put a sign or screening then you may not
even be able
to see too much of their building and that may be why they
want a larger sign
there to be able to give some visibility to their site for
people that are coming
from west and turning and going north on there. So any
other questions on the pole
sign? Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. I'm just trying
to understand that
you said the secondary arterials there's limits of six foot
height on monument
signs? Well the table and our sign code doesn't really
doesn't give a monument
sign maximum height so I would just apply the maximum
height. It does give
the monument sign effective area it doesn't they can have a
monument sign as
large as they would like in terms of effective area. Okay
and so but then the
other that's and this is the other streets category all
other streets
category or something like that what did you what did you
call it? Well there are
there are other primary arterials and then all other
streets. And so in all
other streets they allow a 20-foot pole sign? Yes. No they
would allow a six foot
pole sign. Okay. They would still need to keep it they
would still need to at a
minimum they would need to meet the sign code so. So the
biggest thing they could
have there is a six foot pole sign with a maximum effective
area of how big?
Six foot or a 20 foot? It's a pole sign not a monument sign
. Yeah there's no
there's no height limit on monument but there's a six foot
height limit on pole
signs. I thought they were wanting a 20 foot pole sign and
a 40 foot pole sign on
the interstate and we were not gonna recommend a pole sign
on North Texas
the requirement for a monument the maximum height was six
foot. Maybe I
misheard the explanation but I thought that was where we
were. If I can try to
clear it up. We can I want to clear it up and do in
presentation in public that's
fine. We can yeah we can pull up the chart that's in our
municipal code and
share that with the Commission during the public hearing
and present it that way.
Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you Chair. Are there any other
signs in the area I
mean I know there's anjo's and other places other
businesses in the area are
there other signs that are not monument signs on Avenue C
for example or any
other place in that area? We didn't really do a study on on
existing signs
we really just looked at this at this specific side and as
it redevelops the
type of signage that we that you know we think would be
appropriate on North
Texas Boulevard. Okay thank you. Sure. Anybody else
questions? I'm gonna come
back to this UP then. I'm gonna go back several years
Commissioner Taylor would
probably remember this he and I guess are the two old-tim
ers here. There was a lot
of discussion years ago about when I-35 was going to be
improved and we knew all
these things were going to happen that they were going to
be some concessions
made for existing properties along I-35 and their
businesses were affected as to
how we were going to work with them and there were going to
be things that were
going to be non-conforming and issues that were going to
come up and this
seems like a prime example of that to me. It is and and we
looked at this
because the McDonald's fell under the Denton Development
Code has a provision
called special exception and because the McDonald's was
developed under a
previous code it it was considered a special exception much
like for that I-35
redevelopment of the corridor. Where the difference is on
this side is they have
to they're expanding to the IHOP lot and in order to... Can
I pause there? Sure. The only reason
they're doing that is because their business got taken out
by I-35 in the
first place. Correct. Is that correct? But the code, yes
you are correct, but the code
says that... Otherwise they'd still we could still be going
through there and
getting McDonald's right now. They wouldn't wouldn't be
doing this. But the
code in sub chapter 11 the code says a land use under the
special exceptions a
land use may expand within the same lot expansion of a
special exception to an
adjoining lot will require approval of the City Council
using the zoning of
members procedure. So we talked about it we talked about it
in the planning
division and they were going to have to either do an SUP or
do a zoning amendment
procedure to expand the special exception. So we felt like
the SUP was
the way to go. We have criteria for approval. We we can
look at the site plan.
They would have had to follow the same process regardless
of whether they had
expanded their special exception or whether they went
forward with the SUP.
Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you Chair. Is it beyond the
realm of possibility to go
back and see what they were approved for to begin with and
since it's the same
business in basically the same position same place and just
let them have what
they had to begin with? We couldn't do that because of the
expansion onto the
IHOP lot. That's really what triggered this whole process.
I mean I understand that
that's sort of the legal issue but reality is if they were
there before they
enjoyed being there they enjoyed it so much made so much
money they want to go
back because of all the students that live to the northeast
of them and that's
where they get their business not coming down to North
Texas necessarily but
whatever sign they had there that was approved before just
let it put the same
kind of sign. Oh in terms of the sign. Oh yeah we could go
back and do the research on the sign
I don't know if we could permit what was approved at that
time because the
sign code may have changed but the problem is is that it's
destroyed now so
it's a rebuild and that means that it's not non-conforming
at the time that the
DDC was adopted in 2002 it had a different zoning than what
was given to
it in 2002 and before that is when the sign was created so
it lost any kind of
non-conforming rights it became one of those special
exceptions that aren't
typical zoning special exceptions but it was our own
creation where they're able
to maintain those rights they really are but because they
expanded when you
expand a special exception our code requires us to go
through a certain
procedure like Julie said and it would go to counsel in
order to make that
determination so I believe the applicant is the one didn't
they decide that
they'd rather do the SUP procedure so yes they do have they
have the ability to
put the driveway back but because they're expanding it onto
another lot
the code actually requires them to go under this procedure
in order to get
permission to do that in order to expand their special
exception over so we were
a little bit put into a difficult spot because of that code
provision well even
with the staff recommendation center you have a monument
size sign of a certain
size can you go back and say look this is what you had to
begin with so will
allow you to have the same thing if they're not gonna have
two pole signs
which is allowed instead you're gonna recommend that they
have a second sign
that's a different size and shape why not just offer them
the same size and
shape that they had to begin with I don't know what they
had to begin with
so that's why I'm asking maybe this is a bigger side that y
'all are recommending
I don't know and I don't know what was there before it wasn
't something that
they asked there was no pole sign there there was no pole
sign there yeah so
they're getting basically what they had before yeah
Commissioner back thank you
chair just a question for the staff here I'm usually don't
have a problem with
the SUP says but I agree with the chair in this case is
this in this particular
case this SUP is a technical thing is there any way the
administrator could
make a call on this or do we have to go is there a leeway
for the administrator
to make a specific call on this rather than go through the
SUP process well if
it was a normal case then and it required an SAP of course
you have to go
through the SUP process but if there was room for a sign
variance they could do
that not referring to the sign now just strictly SUP no no
no okay well I'm
gonna thank you for that I'm gonna follow up my guess and
looking at the
site plan is the reason that they've expanded to the north
is for parking
requirements because they lost as I recall they had a lot
of parking over
there long on the East property line and so they probably
are meeting our code
now having to expand to get the additional parking so it's
kind of
they're in a box wherever they try to go and push we make
them do something else
and now we're another requirement they were I guess willing
to go with an SUP
and now we have this nice letter that popped up last night
by their neighbor
who's gonna throw them into supermajority vote which I don
't know
where that ends up going that's beyond us here tonight but
I've enjoyed the
discussion I'm discouraged or disappointed that this is the
place
that they are and trying to go back and do their business
right back where they
were and I don't know where it goes with the vote on the
supermajority on getting
SUP but it seems like it's a lot that they've had to go
through to try to
rebuild a business that they didn't want to have to do in
the first place so is
there any other questions for staff on this we've spent
probably more time than
we were allotted on this but I think it was an important
and good discussion
anybody else questions for Julie thank you great job
presentation thank you
yes we can have Haley present the last public human item
for the Commission
good evening I'm Haley Zagorski with the Planning
Department this is case s 16
7 for the Riney Road Apartments so this request is to hold
a public hearing and
consider a request for a specific use permit to allow for a
multifamily use on
a property that's approximately 0.9 acres as you can see
here the property
is outlined in yellow and it has frontage on Riney Court R
iney Road and
North Elm Street so it's kind of a unique configuration I
'll start by
walking you through their site plan what they're proposing
is a 10 unit
apartment complex total so it would feature two buildings
you can see them
outlined on the screen in yellow each of these buildings
would feature five
apartment units the proposal is for all of those to be
three-bedroom two and a
half bathrooms and they're kind of uniquely designed and
that they're more
like individual townhomes each unit would have a rear yard
that would be
fenced in with a wrought-iron fence and you can see
outlined in green the area
that would be devoted to the rear yards for each of these
the property would
also feature a storage building that's outlined in red and
this would be just
to provide extra storage for each unit it's designed to
have one exterior
entrance into a hallway that would have then 10 separate
rooms off of it the
site would also feature 23 parking spaces the code
requirement for a
three-bed for three-bedroom apartments would get them to 20
spaces so the three
additional spaces that they're proposing would be pervious
pavers
looking at the landscape plan you can see that the property
would meet the
intent of the DDC in terms of providing street trees they
're also preserving
existing trees in this area shown in green those trees are
pretty much the
only trees that are on the site today and their intent is
to preserve all of
those along Rainy Court the site it was also required to
provide a type B buffer
because there is a single-family residence adjoining the
property so
they're providing the required ratio of five trees and 30
shrubs per 100 linear
feet in addition to the required plantings they're also
proposing an
eight-foot tall cedar fence to provide an additional buffer
there for that
single-family residence one of the other key landscape
features is here at the
front of the property outlined in yellow they have an area
that would be a patio
open space for the residents that is well landscaped and
there would also be
a monument sign with the apartment complex name located
here along the
front of that area overall the property meets the landscape
requirements of the
development code it exceeds the 40% landscaping that's
required there at
approximately 48% overall looking at the proposed building
elevations this is
building one which is the building located on the southern
side of the
property you can see it's a two-story building each of the
units has a their
own exterior front entry and rear exit into their backyard
you'll notice the
front doors aren't visible on here they are kind of to the
side in little alcoves
so there's no front door strictly visible in the front of
the building so
this building would be five units and it would be composed
of brick and stucco
materials building two on the north side of the property
fairly similar again
two-story design with each unit having its own exterior
front and rear exit
again brick and stucco materials and just so you know this
is the design for
their storage building so it's just a little over 700
square feet as I
mentioned it does just have one exterior entry so it doesn
't have ten separate
entrances on the outside they're accessed by this interior
hallway and it
is intended to be a brick construction as well so our SUP
criteria are outlined
in subchapter 6 of the Denton development code there's many
criteria
there in summary that they ensure that we provide
consistency with the zoning
regulations conformity with the goals of our Denton plan
2030 and consistency
with surrounding development in terms of access nuisance
prevention and the scale
of development so now we'll go through each of those
criteria briefly this
property is zoned neighborhood residential mixed-use 12 so
this zoning
designation allows for many types of residential
development single-family
duplex and townhomes are all permitted by right multifamily
does require has a
limitation that requires it either be approved through an
SUP or as part of a
mixed-use development or a small area plan so just some
brief outline of the
NRMU 12 regulations they do meet their minimum lot size the
maximum density for
the property is 12 units per acre so at 10 units they come
in under that density
maximum they are allowed a maximum of 60% lot coverage with
40% landscaping
and their buildings maximum height would be 40 feet looking
at what's within
about 200 feet of the subject property we have a mixture of
NRMU 12 district and
neighborhood residential to within the NR 2 district to the
north and to the
southwest of the property are single-family homes within
the NRMU 12
district we have the subject property here which is vacant
some other
undeveloped property to the east across rhynie road and
then this area to the
south and west is all a North Lakes Park. Zooming out a
little bit more you see
continuation across Elm Street we get start to get a little
bit higher density
here with some duplexes a continuation North Lakes Park
here you can see better
to the south now the animal shelter is just further to the
northwest there and
then zooming out to give you a better idea of where this is
at and this part
of town we have UNT's Discovery Park here just north of
there along Elm
Street again North Lakes Park as much of this area we've
recently seen an SUP
request for apartments up here on this parcel and then you
can see just a
mixture of residential type developments here single-family
duplexes and
apartments in this area. Looking at the future land use map
this property kind
of splits between the neighborhood mixed use and moderate
residential future land
use designations it's right there on the buffer zone
between those two districts
the use of the property that they're proposing does fit
within each of these
neighborhood mixed use is intended for residents
residential areas with a
mixture of housing types along with supporting retail and
service uses and
then moderate residential promotes protection of existing
neighborhoods as well as development of residential uses
between 4 and 12
dwelling units per acre so this fits comfortably within
that designation as
well. To give you an idea of the mobility plan in this area
Elm Street is a
text dot roadway that's a primary arterial. Riney Road is a
collector
street and then Riney Court is just a neighborhood street.
There are some bus
routes that run along North Elm Street that would provide
other means of access
to the property. Just to give you an idea of what the
property looks like today as
I mentioned it's primarily vacant you can't see there is
some well there are
well-established trees here along Riney Court. So
notifications were sent about
this we received four opposition responses that were all
included in your
backup the when you look at the total land area within 200
feet they were at
about 33% of that land area in opposition so that would
also trigger
that super majority vote that we spoke about at City
Council. The applicant did
hold a neighborhood meeting back in May there were
approximately 11 people in
attendance at that meeting and believe many of those are
the ones that
submitted the opposition notices you have before you. Given
all the criteria
we looked at in the mixed-use nature of this area staff is
recommending approval
of the request it's generally compatible with the
surrounding development in this
area it's consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Denton plan 2030 and
we are recommending one criteria that they substantially
comply with the site
plan landscape plan and building elevations that were
attached with the
SUP request and with that I can stand for any questions.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you chair. Hey Haley I noticed in one of the
responses they mentioned that
there is a current drainage problem there do we know it is
there one? And what
is the do we know the problem? As I heard expressed there's
a concern with some
flooding along Riney Court I believe and with the one
quarter of this property
that stays kind of marshy in the wet season when I was out
there it hadn't
rained in a while so I didn't observe the problem directly
but I know when they
get to the site plan process their drainage will be
analyzed in terms of
existing conditions and their developed conditions to
ensure that there's no
negative impact to adjoining properties. Commissioner Rose
lle. Thank you chair. I
want to talk or try to figure out the differences between a
duplex townhome
and multifamily especially if a multifamily is five units.
So I have a
couple questions. By right could someone build four duplex
es on this for eight
units? If there were to be duplexes they would have to be
subdivided into at
least four separate lots with one duplex per lot. I believe
the applicant
considered some other residential options but given that
unique
configuration it's kind of triangular there with three
frontages they found
challenges and figuring out how to subdivide the property.
Is that the same
with townhomes? Those are each different plots? Yes so if
it's anything three
between three and eight units and they're all on their own
separate lot but
share an attached wall we would consider that a townhome.
And do you know if they
looked into that? It was this configuration of property? I
think it again was yeah
figuring out how to you know provide because each of those
lots would have to
have frontage so they would have probably had to provide
some sort of
interior street within the lot and then let the townhomes
access off of that and
I think they just face challenges trying to figure out how
to subdivide the
property. Okay. I believe the applicant is intending to be
here tonight so he
could address that a little more in terms of what he
considered. Thanks. Can
you go back to the site plan that shows the streets on it?
What's the parking or allowance for parking on either Riney
Road or Riney
Court? Is that permitted or not permitted? Jim would you
mind addressing
that?
In the ultimate configuration of those streets parking
would be committed,
would be permitted. Riney Road being a collector and Riney
Court being a
residential street but with the width that they have now it
's really not
feasible at this point. Riney Court is I mean functionally
it's it's maybe 20
feet wide it's more like a residential lane which we would
not allow parking
along. Riney Road is really not much wider than that so
ultimately there would
be but I would say at this point I mean there's not no
parking signs up that I
know of but we would not consider it a street that's wide
enough. It's not even
28 foot wide I don't think. Riney Road so we wouldn't
consider it wide enough to
park along. Well I went by there and I looked at Riney Road
and it has curb and
gutter on the west side right on this side perimeter street
paving. On the
east side that's the side that is unimproved essentially it
has no curb
and gutter. I don't remember looking at Riney Court whether
it has curb and
gutter on it or it does not at all because that's been the
biggest
concern that's been addressed to me is parking. I know the
applicant said that
they have added some parking places I think they are above
what is required.
Three spaces more than is required right? Yes the three
spaces that are in gray here are
pervious paving those are above what's required by code. So
they have responded
as best they can with a tough site to I think the neighbors
to put even more
spaces in them what they're required and then the overflow
parking that you would
normally be able to have on sites like this along public
streets which they're
allowed to have because the streets are not improved that
impedes the project
even more as far as overflow parking but when they are
improved as they should be
at some point then if there is overflow parking they could
park on both Riney
Road and Riney Court if necessary is that correct? Yes the
ultimate sections
would allow for that. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair I
'm kind of piggybacking
on this is Riney Road even in on the radar at all about you
know in the back
of it says that it needs to be brought up even to current
full right of way and
do we anywhere on anyone's plan? Not that I'm aware of ma'
am. No. Commissioner
Tyler. Thank you chair. I have a question regarding the lot
directly north on
Riney Court the lots directly north on Riney Court is there
a map like maybe
the Google Maps view or the parcel map view that would be
able to see those so
there are two. Yeah the gray outline shows the parcel
boundaries there. Yeah so right there there are two small
lots and one with a house and one even smaller that looks
like it's got a part
of a cul-de-sac on it. Those are also zoned NRMU 12. Could
they feasibly be
developed and with any kind of multifamily or attached or
whatever
commercial look the NRMU 12 they probably can't have a
driveway on to Elm
because of text dot regulations so they'd have to have a
driveway on to Riney.
I'm just trying to like I said look at logical progression
of development here
is this is this a reasonable. Yeah and based on the zoning
those lots could be
developed with any of those uses you mentioned but the
logistics of it would
probably be challenging much like we see with this site in
terms of access and
configuration there. So maybe like if you removed the house
you could build a
duplex there or something you wouldn't fit an apartment
building on those two
lots put together. Most likely not I'm not sure of their
size but it would be
challenging. Yeah okay thank you. Commissioner Beck. I went
out and visited
two and I actually the two houses up Riney Court there one
's up for sale
currently and the other ones are rental property. My
concern and then I never did
I knocked on the door of the other one down there no one
was home but something
dawned on me later that access to this new development is
not gonna be possible
for Riney Court is that correct? I mean that's because it's
gonna be blocked off
with trees and everything there's no inlet no sidewalk for
people to park on
Riney Court and then okay but I would be concerned that a
long haul driver rented
one of the townhouses there and parked his rig in that
court up there so I could see
neighbors being concerned about the use of that cul-de-sac
for something like
that so just throwing that out there to consider maybe to
allay those concerns
we address that with you know prohibited parking or
something like that so they
don't get stuck with something like that and people start
making a path through
there. Jennifer correct me if I'm wrong but I mean the city
does have a
procedure in which a resident or a developer could appeal
to our
traffic engineer to post no parking signage and I think
they would have to
get they have to get signatures from a certain amount of
neighbors I believe I
mean that's that's an option available am I right? I'm not
familiar with the
appeal and the parking regulations but we can look that out
for you. Thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
Thank you Jim. Thank you Haley.
Okay I believe that's all the items that we have on our
work session this evening
so at 6.02 I will close our work session and we will recon
vene in
a minute.
[inaudible]
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and
Zoning Commission
meeting for July the 12th 2017. This meeting has been duly
posted and we do
have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 634.
Our first order of
business will be to stand and give the pledge to the US of
the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands one nation
under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one
indivisible.
Our next order of business will be the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting
minutes for June the 28th. The chair will entertain a
motion. Commissioner Taylor.
I move we approve our minutes for June 20th meeting.
Commissioner Beck. Second.
We have a first and a second for approval any discussion?
Seeing none call for a
vote on the board. Motion carries five zero. We'll move us
to our public hearing
section. At this time I'm going to open the public hearing
for item A which is Z
17-0011A and call on Julie Wyatt for presentation.
I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the City of Denton.
Would you like for me to
go through the whole presentation or just the summary slide
? I think summary we
had a great presentation earlier thank you. All right so
the item before you is
Z 17-11 blue beacon. As we discussed in the work session
the request is to rezone
or actually initially zone 16 acres from RD 5X district to
ECC district. The
subject property is in the northwest part of the city. It's
adjacent or near to
I-35 north of Barthol road. Staff did analyze the request
and has found that
DCC district conforms with the future land use designation
and is compatible
with the surrounding properties at designations and uses
and therefore we
recommend approval of the request. The applicant is here
and I'll be happy to
answer any questions. Any questions for staff?
Thank you Julie. Thank you. This is a public hearing and I
do have a card from Dana
Morse as applicant. Would you like to come forward? Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners,
again it's Dana Morse 500 Graves excuse me Boulevard, Sal
ina Kansas. We could
have made this simpler I think. When we started this
process we went under
contract by the whole 21 acres. We really thought we could
fit on that
property that was already in the city limits and so we rez
oned it and then as
we worked with TechStat and with the city we found we
really needed with
Barthol being realigned we needed to move our access point
to the west so
that aligned with Lowe's truck stop entrance and exit and
so that's why
we're asking for this to be rezoned and it's already been
annexed and try and
wrap this thing up so we can get started construction. We
don't have any plans
really for the remainder of this. Approximately 10 acres
after we're done.
I'm sure we'll sell to someone who has an interest for that
related truck stop
type business. So if you have any questions that's really
all I have. Okay any
questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you sir. I
have one other comment
or email from Rick Shuffield and he has no objection to L
owe's truck stop so I'll
read that into the record as well. This is a public hearing
anyone else?
Commissioner Beck. I do.
Never mind it's not this one. Sorry. Okay 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 motion.
Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. So I first I want to
piggyback on some
comments that Commissioner Beck made in the in the work
session. This is in our
future land use map identified as a business innovation
district which we
are aiming to fill this district with large offices,
research centers, office
parks that type of thing. However this is also at the conf
luence of the furthest
most primary arterial and I-35 in Denton and it's obviously
a logical place for
for truck services. There's a truck stop, two truck stops
you know at the at
different corners of the intersection. This is obviously
compatible and I think
this is so while this area I believe is very appropriate
for you know heavy
equipment servicing I do want us to keep in mind in the
future that the business
innovation district it should be reserved generally for
office parks but
because of the I guess the effect of I-35 this this is a
logical use and I
think this also plays into some of our later cases where we
have this almost a
conflict between what is generally planned and then we have
this area
affected by 35 further south as well. So with that said I
move we approve this
initial zoning. Commissioner Ells. Thank you chair and I
will second that. Okay I
have a first and a second for approval any discussion or
comments? Seeing none
I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six to zero. That will move us to item B and
at this time I'm
going to open the public hearing for S 17 - 0004 and we'll
call on Julie Wyatt
for presentation of that item as well.
Would you like for me to quickly go through the
presentation again or would
you like the summary how would you like for me to move
forward? I think probably
on this one and I think we have a number of interested
parties here let's go ahead
and have the full presentation. Okay so this is S 17 - 0004
McDonald's. The item
before you is a public hearing to consider a request for a
specific use
permit for a drive-through facility. The subject property
is north of I-35. It is
adjacent to North Texas Boulevard. The current lot
configuration doesn't
exactly match this existing aerial so we're going to go
through a little bit
of a background of the site and I'm going to use this this
this aerial from
Google Maps. It shows what is what more what is more
accurate on the on the
property right now. So up until recently there was a
McDonald's on the
site. It did have a drive-through as I-35 as the I-35
expansion project has
progressed. TxDOT has acquired the front or acquired the
frontage of the
McDonald's property and that required that the building be
removed as well
excuse me as well some parking. There was also if you
recall a gas station at
the corner as well so that property most of that property
was acquired with the
I-35 widening as well. So in order for McDonald's to
rebuild they would need in
order for to have sufficient parking and the building they
needed additional
space so their proposal is to take in the lot that
currently has the IHOP on
it so so that's where we get this current configuration
here and we'll see
that more clearly on the site plan. So here's the proposed
site plan for the
project. If you can see that this this area was once the
the existing
McDonald's and then this part here is that that IHOP. The
area in yellow is the
proposed building. They're also proposing to drive-through
menus to be located
approximately here in order to provide sufficient vehicle
storage and stacking
for that drive-through. In addition within their site plan
they're proposing
bike racks, some pedestrian crossings at some of the drive
ways as well as through
the parking lot, sidewalk improvements along Wilshire and
Kendoff will be required as part of the development of the
site and then they're
also proposing two signs. We'll talk more about this sign
in just a few minutes
just to let you know I know we talked about it in work
session regarding what
is actually required or what are the requirements for signs
on. Commissioner
Vett. Thank you Chair. While you've got this illustration
up there can you show
us the path that the drive-through will take coming off of
35? Certainly so the
path that drive-through if you if you drove in here you
would have to get
actually go around the building and then come through to
the drive-through in
this location. This is a one-way circulation pattern. Where
's the point
where they place their order is it at the... They would
place their orders in these
in that location there. Yes sir and then the cars would
filter down through to the
window here. Okay okay okay thank you. Sure so there was
discussion of work
session regarding that sign and I talked to the applicant
and we consulted with
the sign code and it is has been determined that because
North Texas
Boulevard is not a primary arterial it is a secondary arter
ial it's
considered in all other streets classification in terms of
signs and in
that case any ground signs in that location cannot exceed
six feet. Now pole
signs in that location you could have a pole sign as long
as it didn't exceed
six feet the maximum effective area which is just the
writing for the sign
would be 60 feet. A monument sign in that location there's
no maximum effective
area so as long as they did not exceed that six feet in
height they could
have you know any size effective area that they that they
would apply for. So
hopefully that clears it up a little bit I know we had some
confusion and work
session so. I'm gonna ask a question while we're on that
subject did you say the pole sign can't be
taller than six feet? Correct yes sir no matter what no
sign can be taller than
six feet in that location yes sir. Okay. Per the current
sign code. Commissioner
Rizzo. There was a maximum effective size for the pole sign
what was that? 60 feet.
60 square feet yes sir. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor.
Sorry to stop you now. No that's okay.
Thank you I guess we're since we're sitting on the site
plan and we're
asking a bunch of questions I thought I'd jump in with mine
. What is the what is
the total stacking of the drive-thru? It does meet our
requirements I believe our
requirements are five and that is from and Jim may jump in
here but I believe
our stacking is from the window back and they do meet the
stacking. I we did talk
a lot about the dual window and whether or not it would
would be sufficient and
and so part of that having that dual window is to make sure
that they have
that sufficient stacking. Okay so. Menu board rather. So
dual menu board. I'm not
familiar with dual menu boards how does that work? Dual
menu boards coming to a
single lane so is this you jump into the closest line and
try and cut in front of
the other guy as you go in? I will let the applicant I'm
not sure I mean I've
been through one and it seemed to work out but but the
applicant is here and
they can probably they can probably answer maybe how their
research on the
functioning of it. And then I'm also trying to see if there
were completely
stacking to the point it hit the street. So there's 13 cars
in the little
diagram here and then you have the entire south side of the
property so
about another six cars seven cars and then you hit the west
side of the
property which is another four cars and then three more
would get you maybe out
onto North Texas Boulevard. So 27 or 28 vehicles stacked
could eventually
hinder the right lane of North Texas Boulevard but then I-
35 it looks like is
this black line some kind of curb or barrier? That's the
property line? No I'm
at the the curved black line right around the car the drive
through. That's a
painted line? Is it painted it's not a no barrier? It is
not a barrier because you
do have to have that that exit. Okay yeah so I'm just
trying to see if you actually
stacked all the way to the 35 entrance you'd have 40 cars
or something you go
around the building twice basically. Okay thank you.
Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you
I pulled up a picture of this location on to that taken on
2005 showing the
McDonald's regarding the signage that we talked about and
at that point there was
IHOP, Exxon and McDonald's the McDonald's sign was at the
corner of the the front
of the building and so on the property that we're talking
about here where
you've got the the blue outline at the bottom just below
that one between that
area and at the top of the property line there were
actually three pole signs in
that area and so it goes back to my question earlier and
that is why can't
we just give them what they had before since then there
were three signs three
pole signs the Exxon was a huge sign and now we're we're
getting down to is one
sign and so it looks like from a signage standpoint we're
actually improving the
situation by doing doing that and not putting the the
owners who again must
like this place because of rebuilding after it been you
know demolished so
well at this point we're applying the current code
requirements to to that
application to the proposal and then when staff looks at an
SUP we also look
at the character of the area and so that was the reason for
the condition and I
know we'll go over the condition about about a monument
sign in this location
was was in order to meet the SUP criteria for to meet the
character of
the area and the the surrounding development pattern and
scale so thank
you I'm also with within this site there are four four
points of access one on I
35 one on Kindle one on Wilshire and one on North Texas
Boulevard and they have
also proposed a landscape plan it does meet the Denton
development code
requirements in terms of providing tree canopy parking lot
screening and and
parking lot tree canopy and landscaping they've also got
some additional
landscaping around the menu boards there that's enhanced
these are the proposed
elevations of the building they are proposing a masonry
building with stone
accents so sub chapter 6 of the Denton development code
outlines the SUP
criteria and I know that the full listings in your backup
but just in
general the SUP criteria is it needs to be consistent with
the zoning regulations
needs to conform with the Denton plan 2030 and it should be
consistent with
the surrounding development pattern in terms of access nu
isance prevention and
scale let's look at the zoning of the area first so the
subject property has a
DCG zoning district the proposed site plan and landscape
plan conformed to the
requirements of the DCG zoning district restaurants are
permitted in DCG
however drive-through uses do require a specific use permit
did DCG is often
found in our downtown areas and near our universities and
those are it can often
be pedestrian oriented places so we want to take a little
harder look at specific
projects in terms of drive-through uses to make sure that
they're compatible
with pedestrian oriented areas this site's location with
its proximity to I
35 lends itself to more auto oriented uses however it's
right there on I 35
this is the type of development you typically see on I 35
there's also
several parking lots and commuter parking lots in the area
which sort of
lend itself to the more commuter side of this of this area
we looked at the
surrounding property so the property adjacent to the
subject site so within
about 200 feet we have nearby DCG zoning and dr2 zoning
this has UNT facilities
as well as some UNT parking areas across the highway is an
nr3 zoning district
with single-family development when we zoom out a little
bit to about 500 feet
within the subject property we see a lot more of the UNT
campus coming into view
with there's a UNT facility off to the in this location
there's a dormitory to
the north as well as parking some offices there's also
commercial
development in this area with with that's associated
parking the UNT
stadium is in this location and then the general area we
see now residential
areas around UNT to the north and to the east here this you
can see from from
this view the the prominence of the I 35 corridor that that
is a pretty
substantial feature of this map the future land use of this
subject property
is commercial this is not one of our mixed-use future land
uses this is it
this really is intended for areas of commercial
concentration and auto
oriented uses and drive-throughs are are meet the goals of
this area and and meet
the intent of the commercial future land use the mobility
in the area once again
I 35 is a dominant feature and that is this red here North
Texas Boulevard is
a secondary arterial that's intended to move people
efficiently through the city
is the intent of a secondary arterial and then you also
have collector streets
throughout this UNT area in order to move vehicular traffic
public
notification was sent out on the subject property we did
receive one letter of
opposition and I provided to that to you during work
session our GIS department
did not have an opportunity to calculate the percentage of
opposition today but
we suspect it will be because of the of the amount of
property around it we
suspect it is going to exceed 20% which would require super
majority approval by
City Council so based upon the criteria for approval staff
recommends approval
of the request with two conditions that the proposed use
must substantially
comply with the attached site plan landscape plan and
building elevations
and that signage on North Texas Boulevard be limited to one
monument
sign with a maximum fight height of five feet a maximum
effective area of 40
square feet and to be constructed of masonry or stone to
complement the
primary structure and I will stand for any questions and
the applicant is here
to answer any questions got a question Commissioner Roselle
this is more
addressing I guess the question I might have for
Commissioner Sullivan you had
an image from 2005 that showed a pole sign on North Texas
Boulevard yes 2005
had three pole signs I'm looking at I'm looking at an image
from 2005 and
there's one pole sign from McDonald's one from McDonald's
but also Exxon and
then I hop but the McDonald's one is on the I-35 not North
Texas Boulevard was
that at the same location same basic location when you're
looking at it
coming from the highway you see all three signs you would
see all three
signs when you were coming from the service road and then
turning on the
North Texas Boulevard you'd see all three and so they're
proposing to have
two pole signs not just one well but the I think the
McDonald's sign was was not
on the service road it was really next to the building it
was off the service
road in fact it was really almost behind the Exxon station
that's not a small one
it was a pole sign okay I'm not sure if that added clarity
I apologize for that
what is the height of the pole sign that they are being
approved to put on the
North Texas side 40 feet well they've asked for 20 feet but
that doesn't meet
the sign request so no matter I mean they would have to
meet the sign
requirement so and what is the sign requirements for a pole
sign on the 35
a pole sign on I-35 can be 40 feet above the travel lanes
of the highway so
depending on the height of the highway some if the highway
were elevated they
had it has to be 40 it can only be 40 feet above the travel
lanes of the
highway okay and that's making assumptions is the 20 feet
within the 40
feet above is that why they're saying 20 feet above a 20-
foot sign is that a
total of 40 feet above the travel height of the road the 40
-foot sign would be on
I-35 right on North Texas Boulevard they they're proposing
in their site plan
they have a 20-foot sign per the sign code they could only
have a 6-foot sign
right but on 35 they're also proposing a 20-foot that could
be well I mean it
could be 20 feet from the ground level or 20 feet from the
travel lanes
depending on how I-35 is designed at that site I got you
thank you
Commissioner Beck thank you just raised something
interesting did you say that
height for the sign on the I-35 side had to be maximum 40
feet from the level of
the travel the travel lanes yes sir okay well that's gonna
sit down 35 goes
under North Texas there so it drops down quite a bit so it
would be so they
couldn't have they have to take that distance in
consideration no no it would
be let me get let me get to that part of the sign code that
way I'll I can quote
it exactly okay I-35 measurement along I I-35 the height
may be measured from the
principal lanes the frontage road or the ground whichever
allows the greater
height frontage road okay all right thanks
I guess the only clarification I want to make from work
session we had
discussion about the North Texas Boulevard could have a 20-
foot pole sign
and the clarification that you're coming back after doing
the research is the
maximum height whether it's a pole or whether it's a
monument sign on North
Texas Boulevard per our sign code is 6 foot period yes the
only variance is how
much area or size the sign can be whether it's a pole sign
I think there's
a limitation on that if it's a monument sign there's not a
limitation in the
square footage amount of the sign correct but it's six foot
regardless
based on the clarification okay Commissioner Taylor thank
you chair
sorry just lost my train of thought let's see if I can
figure out where I
what I was looking at just a second ago oh so yeah actually
the the letter that
we received does indicate that they're they disagree with
the parking
calculations is there is there they're saying that they
should be 47 or 49
instead of 40 is that because it's a different use
restaurants are calculated
differently than commercial or restaurants have two ways
before we get
started discussion will you clarify which letter we're
discussing here okay
so we received a letter objection from I believe from UNT
doesn't actually have a
from on the header regarding this project and their
criteria a in bold
third paragraph says 49 spaces are required one per hundred
square feet
of leasable area however only 40 are provided so I just
wanted to address
that make sure that we are calculating parking spaces
correctly we are
restaurants can be calculated in one of in one of two ways
they can be
calculated by gross square footage or they can be
calculated by seating so it
does it does provide so so the the proposal meets the the
parking
requirements based upon seating so that's that's the discre
pancy in the
square footage Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Julie
when you mentioned
reaching the 20% opposition is that one property owner it
is one property owner
isn't it one final question on the SUP if this is approved
image forward to City
Council has proved and it's under an SUP anytime they make
any kind of
modifications or changes remodeling can you share that they
will have to come
back and apply for another issue P or we do try to provide
some flexibility and
are because when we look at an SUP we often recommend that
they tie the site
plan the landscape plan in the elevations to that SUP to
ensure that
that any that the criteria for the SUP approval is met but
we do try to we
understand that when when you get to site plan or possibly
building permit
there could be variations that have to be built into the
project so we add the
words substantially comply to that recommendation that it
with the site
plan landscape plan elevation so that way if there are
minor changes they
wouldn't have to go back through the public hearing process
they could just
those changes could be made at the staff level but down the
road say ten years
from now if they want to do a facelift to this building
they'll have to probably
come back potentially yes sir okay okay any other questions
for staff thank you
Julie good job this is a public hearing and I'm going to
call on I believe this
is the applicant first I've got a card here that says in
support and it's got
Greg Massey Beneguire Jimmy Lopez Sigeon Brooks and Sandy
Phillips I don't know
if any of you all were requesting to speak or who on the
card please as you
come forward give us your name and address and you'll have
ten minutes okay
good evening my name is Greg Massey I'm with Red Plains
professional the engineering consultant for McDonald's on
this site 2933 East
Bryant Avenue Edmond Oklahoma I don't want to rehash
everything that Julie has
already done she did a wonderful job for us as far as the
monument signage on
North Texas Boulevard we are in agreement with staff on the
five foot
height and 40 square foot of face area on that sign again
we we do still want
to request the 40 foot pole sign on the I-35 frontage but
again overall when you
look at the combined tracks for the McDonald's and the IHOP
we are reducing
overall signage I guess just a brief history and the
original McDonald's was
constructed in 1973 so it was an operation here over 40
years we have the
owner operator present if you'd like to ask questions that
was question earlier
concerning you know use of the students and pedestrian
versus vehicle traffic
she can give you the numbers on that and let you know what
kind of traffic they
did with the students in the area versus you know local
traffic on the interstate
as Julie stated the original restaurant was slightly
smaller than than this
footprint that we're proposing but with the taking of the
additional right-of-way
it wasn't able to continue operating and with the right-of-
way taking text dot
did the demolition on the site it was always intended to
rebuild that site
initially we thought it would be allowed to be rebuilt
under a special exception
because it was an existing use however we needed the
additional property which
was next door which extended the drive-through use onto an
adjacent property
so that's why we're here asking for the special use permit
to allow the drive
through to be reconstructed with the restaurant I'll be
happy to answer any
questions got one to start with Commissioner Roselle thank
you chair
mr. Massey if there was not a requirement for a five foot
high monument
sign with 40 square feet effective area would it be your
preference to make a
larger one if there wasn't a condition what size would you
build we would
comply with the city code and the 20 foot sign that was
originally planned
came from I guess some I don't want to say misinformation
misclassification of
North Texas Boulevard as a major arterial it's actually a
minor arterial
and that maximum height is six foot so if bottom line if
staff didn't say five
foot and 40 square feet we'd be a maximum six foot and 60
square feet okay
thank you you're welcome Commissioner Beck thank you chair
thank you mr. Massey
for coming down speaking personally I'm glad you're gonna
go along with the the
smaller sign I just the idea of two pole signs close
together is distracting to
me but let me ask you this convey some or alleviate some
concern for me here and I
think the the one opponent to this stacking coming off of
the service road
you're you're you began ordering just almost as soon as you
turn into McDonald's
there what if on a busy day you start having people
starting to pile out back
on to 35 there the other thing that bothers me too is they
they pretty much
have to come all the way around the other side because they
're gonna get
their food order at the other end of it and it doesn't give
them they pretty
much have to exit if they want to get back on 35 through
the same area they
came in on alleviate some concern here how they could be a
problem on a busy
day yes and keep in mind before we go to site plan approval
on this it runs
through McDonald's operations group and they look at those
particular items
making determination as to whether or not additional cur
bing is required on
that outside lane to prevent what you were talking about
the intent is to have
or force that traffic coming off the I-35 frontage road to
have to circulate
the building to get to the drive-through lane rather than
coming straight off the
interstate and into it that alleviates a concern thank you
yes commissioner
Taylor thank you chair I guess I'll ask my question about
this double double
order single lane thing how does how does that work I'm
gonna allow mr.
Ben Aguirre and or Jimmy Lopez they handle the operation
side all right good
evening my name is Ben Aguirre I'm an area construction
manager for McDonald's
corporation and can you give us your address also oh yes
address is 1204
129th Street Oklahoma City Oklahoma thank you so to answer
the question the
way the we internally we call that design a 1 2 1 so you
enter in one lane
you split to two order points and you merge back to one
lane in fact most of
our restaurants nowadays are being constructed with that or
have been over
the last you know 18 24 months and and really what that
does is it allows more
throughput is what we're finding out is what it handles
quick arrival rates
better so that we prevent long stacking out into the
streets and so forth so
there's also some internal efficiencies that happen for us
with operations and
serving customers quicker but from from a planning
perspective it allows us to
handle the car stack right at the pinch point and then I
guess you just it's one
side is waiting to order so the other side pulls forward
the the coordination
you don't have any coordination problems there with yeah
some of you have been to
one of our double lane drive-through restaurants you'll you
'll be familiar
with the sign that says any lane at any time we also have
some proprietary
software that can be as sophisticated as taking a picture
of the vehicle so that
when they get to the order point we know which order goes
with which vehicle
thank you good evening my name is Jimmy Lopez I reside at
2020 Lower Valley
Drive Keller Texas I'm the regional construction manager
but one of the
things is Ben is talking about the software but at the same
time our
order takers are set up to where they stagger each other so
if you get to lane
number one and they're taking your order the the second
order take will actually
ask you to pull up to the second lane but won't be taking
your orders at the
same time thus you get alternating vehicles taking orders
and all that so it
is a huge not only all the software inside of our buildings
but also we
train our our staff inside the restaurants to make sure we
stagger the
order so you'll never have one what you know you'll never
have to order take is
taken to order at the same time so you don't have that it's
my term type
scenario thank you Commissioner Beck thank you chair maybe
y'all can answer
this for me I'm not trying to tell you how to design your
product here but the
exit rim coming off 35 does it sit back do you know if it
sits back considerably
before you get to Kendall there which would be because you
've got an entrance
point on that side and I'll defer to our engineer okay
because if it's it what I'm
thinking if it sits back far enough seems like you could
put a sign at the
corner there making that your entrance instead of having
people come in off the
service road and circle all the way around it where if they
could come off
Kindle off there and then just have that and then make that
that opening there on
the service road and exit that seems like it would
eliminate a lot of
stacking comment yes I understand what you're saying and
the gore of the ramp
exiting I-35 onto the frontage road does sit considerably
further back
unfortunately Kindle is a dead-end street at this point and
to my knowledge
unless that's changed recently dead-end doesn't come into
the service road will
not be reopened for access so the only access from the I-35
frontage into this
track has to come either from this drive or off of North
Texas Boulevard did not
know that thank you you're welcome Commissioner Ellis thank
you chair can
we can we check with engineering is that true that kind of
is not going to be
reopened because then the only way back on to 35 once they
visit McDonald's is
is to go back out that one drive on 35 right they would
either have to exit the
drive on 35 or go north to Wilshire right but where do and
how did they get
back to 35 well from I believe from Wilshire there's a Wil
shire there's a
median cut that you like that you turn
my understanding is as Greg alluded to is that yes Kindle
will be closed at
there at the service road but I believe there has been
correct me if I'm wrong
you all have had some correspondence with text dot in which
they have
indicated that being that can also be closed they would be
okay with their your
drive being preserved there that is correct
the ultimate text dot schematic shows a median that goes
across the Wilshire
intersection but as far as their the current condition I
have an aerial at
least showing that there is not one currently
and Greg correct me if I'm wrong I think that the thought
is that even in this
ultimate condition to get back on to 35 they would take the
they would use the
drive approach on the service road directly that is correct
any other questions for the applicant
thank you and this is a public hearing have a card
requesting to speak Amy
Armstrong from UNT in opposition
good evening I am Amy Armstrong I'm the interim news
manager at the University
of North Texas the address is 2310 North Interstate 35 East
the University of
North Texas and University of North Texas systems as the
sole owner of all
adjacent property is opposed to a request for a specific
use permit for a
drive-through facility at this location we have reviewed
the criteria for
approval for a specific use permit the proposed project
plan does not meet the
criteria a criteria B conditions four and seven and
criteria D conditions one
two three and six criteria a requires that the proposed
project must be in
conformance with all standards within the zoning district
in which the use is
proposed as noted in the application materials on sheet C 6
.0 49 parking
spaces are required one per 100 square feet of leasable
area however only 40
spaces are provided failure to meet the zoning requirement
means that the
proposed project plan cannot be found in compliance with
all current standards
and therefore cannot be approved in its current form
criteria be identify
several conditions that must be met in order for the
Commission to recommend
approval the proposed development does not meet two of
these conditions numbers
four and seven condition before requires that the proposed
arrangement of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic not adversely affect the
general public or
adjacent uses the work by the Texas Department of
Transportation on I-35 and
associated intersections has caused changes to the traffic
conditions in
this area that make a drive-through in this location
harmful to surrounding
property owners the proposed layout of driveways is also
fundamentally
different than the earlier development with the addition of
the North Texas
Boulevard median second drive-through lane and an
additional driveway on
Wilshire vehicular and pedestrian traffic will be impacted
in three
specific ways I-35 frontage road traffic traveling north on
I-35 frontage road
will be negatively impacted by peak hour trips to the
restaurant for both
entering and exiting traffic at this driveway location if
entering traffic
is backed up into the frontage road access to the right
turn stacking lane
will be negatively impacted additionally exiting traffic
from the same drive-through
has no restrictions on unsafe lane changes to reach the
left turn or you
turn lanes to return south on I-35 adversely affecting the
general public
as well as access to the University especially during peak
hours North Texas
Boulevard due to the installation of the median on North
Texas Boulevard exiting
traffic will be forced to turn right on Wilshire Eagle or
further into UNT
campus which will have a negative impact on pedestrian and
vehicular movements on
these streets Wilshire Drive new access on Wilshire Drive
will introduce
significant increased traffic to UNT property adversely
affecting University
uses these new traffic patterns exasperate existing
difficult conditions
for pedestrian crossings on North Texas Boulevard and Eagle
Drive and traffic
circulation in the southern end of campus a traffic impact
analysis by the
developer is needed to fully evaluate these adverse impacts
and understand how
this new traffic circulation will impact the surrounding
property owners however
it is clear that as currently presented the proposed
project does not meet this
criteria condition B7 requires that landscaping and
screening be harmonious
and compatible with adjacent uses the proposed landscaping
and screening is
not compatible with its location as adjacent to the
University's primary
vehicular entry point the property is located directly
across from the North
Texas Boulevard from a site on which the University has
recently invested
approximately five hundred and forty thousand dollars in
landscaping
improvements and a relocated monument sign the code minimum
approach taken in
the proposed project is not compatible with this adjacent
use significant
improvements would be needed to address this criteria and
more compatible with
the city's comprehensive plan specifically the community
community
character chapter as proposed we do have your letter thank
you for reading some
of it and we'll make sure that the rest of it gets into our
record okay thank
you have some questions for you Commissioner back thank you
chair thank
you miss Armstrong for your presentation let me pick at you
a little bit here
you've heard comments about the parking situation how it
can be rated in a couple
different ways and we've obviously used the city's looked
at it from one way
where 40 parking spaces is allowed so does that eliminate
that argument in
your in your opinion I would have to run that by people at
campus and get get you
I'm happy to get you an answer for that okay and some of
your comments are
understandably concerned but they're not really backed up
by facts you say it's
clear that it's currently presented proposed project does
not meet this
criteria and that it it's going to create excessive traffic
but you don't
have any information to back that up now I don't disagree
that maybe we do need a
TIA here and I guess I could ask staff is that forthcoming
are we going to be
doing that can anybody know I guess we wait on Jim to come
down or if it's
required by just to see if we're gonna have that TIA but I
just if miss
Armstrong can hang on to we have not we have not stated
that our TIA is required
given that there was a McDonald's there already as well as
a gas station which
has gone away and an IHOP which is going away okay okay
again are you still
concerned that with the analysis that we've done here that
it's going to
create a problem for traffic flow for North Texas and when
you talk about
surrounding property owners who's there really besides the
universe you've got
other businesses over off of Avenue C I'm not sure how they
're adversely
affected by it and the houses are on the other side of I-35
I don't see them
impacted being impacted at all well the statement is the
information that I have
tonight as I said I'm happy to get answers in your convey
ance okay I got
you thank you sorry I didn't put you in this thank you
Commissioner Roselle I
have several questions with this letter but I fear that
there's not going to be
many responses to it so I don't know how to handle my
concerns except just ask
them and we'll see what responses we get the section under
condition before where
it says it's negatively impacting the traffic way three
ways the first one is
stated as the I-35 fronted road frontage road and you talk
about stacking onto
the front of the road and then the exiting issues and so I
'm wondering how
that is any different than the McDonald's that was there
for 40 years so
not to be a broken record but the statement is the
information I have
yeah I'm happy to to get answers to yeah that might that
might be the answer to a
couple more questions let's just get the questions on the
record then we can get
them back I guess my other question is maybe it's maybe it
's just a statement
so this is better I find it interesting that based on a
investment that North
Texas voluntarily put into redoing landscaping and the
relocation of a
monument sign that they're holding their neighbors to a
higher standard than the
landscaping requirement by the city which is noted here
that it's implied
that University of North Texas spent half a million dollars
on a sign which I
have other concerns about that but that doesn't necessarily
necessitate the
neighbors to it's implied that they should spend five
hundred forty thousand
dollars on landscaping I'm not sure the implication here
but I'm necessarily
agree with what I'm inferring it and it seems as though if
I could just
understand this the McDonald's was not torn down by choice
can someone confirm
this they didn't have a choice who can confirm this for me
they made their owner
can can I get confirmation could did you have a choice to
tear down your building
yes my name is Sajan Brooks I'm from the law firm in baron
other cloth and Odo I
represented of address 808 new aces Austin Texas seven
eight seven zero one I
represent McDonald's corporation and our operator in the
condemnation of this
matter this combination was a bisection by the Texas
Department of Transportation
meaning the Texas Department of Transportation as you heard
actually
performed the demolition which means the property line was
cutting the building
back and textile went on and on its own volition to cut the
building back from
every move to suck was it possible for McDonald's to
continue operations after
that was done no no text department transportation went in
and demolished
the building on their own okay I appreciate that
clarification thank you
back to miss Armstrong I it seems as though you know Texas
is taking advantage
of a situation that McDonald's had no control over there I
'd love to see the
traffic study but it's reducing there's not a gas station
there any longer so
I'm I'm curious as the actual traffic increasing with this
McDonald's to the
extent which you're saying if you reduce the exon traffic
and anecdotally that
seemed to have more traffic continually than McDonald's
when I when I saw it and
so I just take a little bit of issue that North Texas based
on nothing that
this company did or the property owners did is now coming
in and denying or
wanting to deny the rebuilding of a building that's been
there for 40 years
and so though I appreciate the the diligence and this
letter being drafted I
just have a lot of issues with with the position that North
Texas has decided to
take on this and again I understand I appreciate you coming
here and
presenting this to you but those are my concerns with this
letter commissioner
Ellis thank you chair I'm sure you may not have an answer
to this without your
group but maybe you do ideally what would the owners
surrounding UNT as the
sole owner in opposition here what would you like to see
developed on this site
the same information I have tonight I'm happy to you can
answer us for you to
that I would yeah for an existing McDonald's that was by no
fault of their
own torn down I mean you could have a great relationship
McDonald's does a
great job at community building UNT and McDonald's it could
I mean could do
great things together and it's I'm just curious as to you
know with this two
page letter where you're going and what would be the ideal
development for this
site if it can't be this commissioner Taylor thank you
chair I believe my
questions are going to be along the same lines I I
appreciate the detail in the
letter we often have extremely vague concerns so you you
are extremely
detailed and you do tight even tie it back to criteria for
SUP approval I I do
have a concern that many of these items are very narrowly
cherry-picked the the
traffic conditions two years ago there was a McDonald's a
gas station in IHOP
you had there were seven I think driveways total now we're
going to four
driveways total one restaurant instead of two restaurants
in a gas station so
to say that traffic will be adversely impacted once the
constructions done the
this area will have much lower traffic than it used to it
'll have better
circulation that McDonald's was a kind of a pain to get to
before especially
with Kindle often that really sharp exit ramp all of those
issues have been
alleviated because of text dots improvements die 35 just
moving down the
list on the condition D criteria floor area ratio is
referenced to a single lot
to the north which just happens to be the densest thing in
probably half a
mile and saying that this is this lot's gonna be less dense
but then if you just
go west there's an open field of 20 or 30 acres of open
field if you go east
there's the what used to be the second save which is now I
believe a UNT office
space which is a very low floor area ratio you go northeast
you hit an impound
lot that's zero for area ratio so to critique the floor
area ratio based on
one single parcel out of ten surrounding parcels isn't
really representative the
the same thing on the pedestrian requirements this might
not be the
perfect pedestrian pathway across the North Texas bridge
and I know especially
with apogee stadium this is going to become a major
pedestrian thoroughfare
the design does accommodate pedestrian use UNT's own
property at Wilshire and
Kindle that they've owned for at least 15 years they've
never bothered to put a
sidewalk in on the south side of Wilshire or on either side
of Kindle the
north side of Wilshire they don't have ADA curb cuts in the
sidewalk it also
that doesn't continue the entire length of Wilshire so if
they really wanted to
increase the pedestrian access to the for this area say
from Avenue C to
apogee stadium they would have built sidewalks on their own
property so to
to criticize a five-foot sidewalk and a couple of crosswalk
s at McDonald's when
you don't even have a sidewalk like the McDonald's sidewalk
is going to end when
the UNT property starts so that's it's not a fair criticism
to say that they're
not doing enough when you haven't done anything so
unfortunately you you
undermine your own your own arguments by by your own
behavior in the area those
are my comments okay any other questions for this
particular speaker thank you
for your comments and your letter we'll make sure that the
rest of it's in the
record I did have one other sheet from James McGuire
representing UNT systems
1901 Main Street in Dallas Texas he is also opposed the
request again this is a
public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item
please come forward
at this time
seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion
and emotion Commissioner Sullivan can I ask you a question
of the applicant
absolutely could y'all answer or give me an idea of how
many she be how many UNT
students were employed at the old restaurant and how many
you anticipate
employing at the new restaurant so bear with us we're
giving you a little bit
state your name again so we'll have Jimmy Lopez 2020 Laurel
Valley, Keller, Texas
76248 the data we have is a couple of years old we've been
shut down a bit as
I was talking to the franchisee miss Sandy Phillips has
actually owned this
restaurant 43 of the 44 years that it's been there she said
any we would have
anywhere between 50 and 60 employees at the restaurant and
half of them would be
UNT students roughly half of them 45 50 percent she said so
roughly 20 25 of the
folks working in the McDonald's restaurants were students
at UNT again
that's a couple of years old understand thank you very much
Commissioner back thank you chair just for the record I'd
like to state I'm
sorely disappointed in UNT throwing miss Armstrong in the
phrase sending
somebody that isn't prepared to answer a lot of questions
we had here that being
said I make a motion that we recommend approval of this SAP
subject to the
condition stated okay Commissioner Roselle thank you chair
I too would like
to approve this but I would like to see the motion not
include a signage
restriction I just I don't understand why in all reality
this should just be a
simple rebuild of something that's been there for 43 years
but yet because of
some weird nuances forced upon the applicant by text dot
they're having to
come to the SAP and like we've seen very many times before
it often feels like
when there's an SAP on the floor the city feels like there
's it's like that's
the start of a negotiation and I don't know if that always
has to be the case
that if they asked for an SAP then we get to ask for
something and it's a
matter of a foot less in height and it just feels like we
're fighting for a win
or something on our end and so I would prefer to see this
motion carry force
to council with just condition one that it would remain in
compliance with the
attached site plan landscape plan and building elevations
and not include the
sign restriction set up friendly amendment the motioner
would like to
entertain no I just wanted to make comment to the
Commissioner Roselle's
concern about the sign and I understand the wish to let the
party builder
McDonald's the way it was before I'm not sure I see a need
for two pull signs
that's the only thing I'm not sure they're gonna lose out
by having a
monarch sign on one side and their pull sign on the other
so that was reason I
just the idea of pull signs are distracted anyway in my
opinion so if I
can't get a second emotion then I'll make a comment I think
we clarified that
there's not going to be a pole sign regardless on North
Texas Boulevard I
think there were some misunderstandings in our original
work session okay and due
to the street classification the only thing that's allowed
over on North Texas
Boulevard is going to be a monument sign and the question
is going to be whether
it's a six foot height or a five and I think that's the
issue that is before so
there will not be a pole sign regardless because of our
city code and
the applicant has stated that they're going to follow our
code okay so the
only condition then is that they abide by the site plans
and everything like
that and I'm okay with that okay so we want to do we need
to restate our motion
or just go with that staff I believe you agree to the
friendly amendment did you
not so just condition more yes just condition just
condition one can we have
a first and second for approval with only the first
condition being required
okay any further discussion I'm sorry Commissioner Roselle
was a second on
that I apologize yes I do second the motion by Commissioner
Beck okay now we
have a first and a second for approval with only the first
item as a condition
on this any other comments or discussion I'll make a
comment I'm gonna support
the motion as it is proposed and I'm too I'm a little
surprised by the response
from North Texas I'm sure the amount of money that's been
spent on the monument
sign you may not want a McDonald's they're sharing the
entrance on North
Texas Boulevard and I'm hopeful that if that's something
that's that important
to North Texas they can reach some type of an arrangement
with the owner of
McDonald's to rectify that but I don't think it's in at
least in my opinion
this purview of my vote to help North Texas accomplish that
at the expense of
the owner I think the owner should be able to rebuild their
business they
didn't have an option to do that text dot tore it down they
did not and I
think it's at least from my vote is going to give them the
option to put
back their business and if North Texas wants to purchase it
they certainly can
do it as a business versus a piece of property that can't
have a McDonald's
back on it and the financial implications that that might
have so I'm
going to support the motion and with no other comments or
discussion I will call
for a vote on the board
that motion is going to carry six to zero is everybody okay
to continue do
need to take a break before we start our next item okay and
we'll move us to our
item C thank you all best luck on your project
at this time I'm going to open the public hearing for item
s 16 - 0 0 0 7 B
we'll call on Haley for presentation
give us a minute to warm up okay all right so my name is H
aley's aggressive
with the planning division and this is case s 16 7 for the
rainy road
apartments and I'll run through this pretty quickly since
we do have a few
people in the audience so the request was to hold a public
hearing and
consider a request for a specific use permit to allow a
multifamily use on a
property that's approximately point nine acres the property
is located at the
rainy road and rainy court intersection and is uniquely
configured having
frontage on Elm Street rainy road and rainy court a look at
what the proposal
is our site plan shows that this would be two apartment
buildings each one
would be comprised of five units the units are each
proposed as the three
bedroom two and a half bathroom configuration and as you
can see
outlined in green each of these units would feature a rear
yard that would be
fenced there's also a storage building proposed on the site
it is shown here in
red and buildings a little over 700 square feet would
feature a storage unit
for each of the apartments and the site is required to have
20 parking spaces by
code they're proposing 23 spaces and the three spaces that
are shown in gray
would be pervy's make constructed a pervious papers to
comply with the
development code their landscape plan as you can see here
shows that they are
complying with the provisions of our development code for
landscaping they
exceed the required 40% by approximately 8% extra landscape
area some of the key
features of the site would be the type B buffer that's
required to the adjoining
single-family residence this buffer requires five trees and
30 shrubs for
every 100 linear feet in addition to that the applicants
also proposing an
eight-foot tall cedar fence along that property line they
are proposing to
maintain the existing tree line along reiney court it's
outlined in green on
the site plan and then in orange you can see one of their
other features will be
a patio and trellis area that also features some landsca
ping that would be
open space for the residents the building elevations this
is building one
which would be on the southern side of the property this
building would have
five units as I mentioned they would each have an exterior
front and rear
entrance and the materials are primarily brick and stucco
building two would be
located on the northern side you can see a very similar
configuration here with
five units each with the exterior front and rear entrances
also brick and stucco
materials here is the proposed elevation for the storage
building you can see it
has one exterior entrance point that would open to a
hallway that would then
have the ten separate storage areas off of that and this
building is proposed as
brick construction as well our criteria for approval for an
issue peer outlined
in detail in subchapter 6 of the Denton Development Code
just in summary they
generally provide considerations that would require
consistency with the
zoning regulations conformity with the goals of the Denton
plan 2030 as well as
consistency and compatibility with the surrounding area in
terms of the scale
of the development so to look at each of those in turn at
the existing zoning for
the property is in our MU 12 that's neighborhood
residential mixed use this
zoning district allows for a variety of residential uses
the multifamily use is
required to either have an SUP or be part of an approved
small area plan or
as part of a mixed use development some of the general
regulations as I mentioned
they had a 40% minimum landscaping that they are complying
with which then in
turn means they're in compliance with their maximum lot
coverage the maximum
density they could reach is 12 units with this being
approximately one acre
with 10 units they're just under that to look at the
surrounding area within
approximately 200 feet we have some single-family homes
within a
neighborhood residential to zoning district and then the
subject property as
well as some of the surrounding residences and vacant
property are within
the NRMU 12 district zooming out a little bit further we
see across Elm
Street more single-family residences we do start to get
into a mixture of higher
densities with some duplexes here North Lakes Park is
located just to the south
of the property within an NRMU 12 district and then this
general area of
town you see as a wide array of uses on North Elm Street on
the north side as
well as the south there's a mixture of residential uses
single-family duplexes
apartments we also have North Lakes Park to the south UNT's
Discovery Park you
can see in purple there on the north side so they are near
a UNT property as
well the future land use designation for this property is
it's kind of on the
buffer between two designations that are neighborhood mixed
use and moderate
residential the proposed use is in conformity with both of
those
designations neighborhood mixed use allows for a mixture of
housing types
with supporting retail services and moderate residential
encourages the
protection of existing neighborhoods as well as development
with a density in
the range of 4 to 12 units per acre so this fits within
that range the mobility
for this area as I mentioned it has frontage on three
different roads North
Elm Street is a text out roadway and a primary arterial Re
iny Road is a
collector Street and Reiny Court is a neighborhood Street
subject property as
you can see is primarily vacant there is the existing tree
line along Reiny Court
that they intend to preserve notifications were sent for
this request
we received four opposition letters that are in your backup
and our GIS team did
run the calculations and within the 200 foot buffer they
were at approximately
33% of the land area expressing opposition so that would
require the
super majority vote at council a neighborhood meeting was
held back in
May and there were 11 people in attendance at that meeting
given all
these criteria we've discussed staff is staff is
recommending approval of the
request it's generally compatible with the surrounding land
use pattern and is
consistent with the goals and objectives of our Denton plan
2030 we do recommend
one condition and that be that the use substantially comply
with the site plan
landscape plan and building elevations that were included
here and with that I
can stand for any questions Commissioner Tyler thank you
chair could you return
to the site plan certainly so I'm assuming rental property
this close to
research park is probably aiming at students to some degree
I'm not sure
what their target audience is I know they're designed a
little bit more like
townhomes that could encourage you know family use but I
believe the applicant
is here and he could speak more to what their target
audience would be okay my
question is I don't notice any bike parking here and I do
know that the
city is just put in an 8-foot multi-use path maybe a couple
hundred yards from
here and again I there's going to be some amount of
students probably in this
so I was wondering am I missing it or is it not on the plan
as far as I can tell
I don't believe there is bike parking incorporated like
something most of the
applicant perhaps thank you any other questions for staff
there's one
Commissioner Ellis like camera thank you chair Haley that
that parking lot I
notice on the site plan it looks really tight I assume that
where the dumpster
is located on this site plan that that waste management can
get in there and
empty and turn out appropriately or back up appropriately I
mean I assume that's
been looked at or will be looked at yes it was looked at
with this request it
will be looked at in further detail with their site plan
submittal but I believe
they did have a proper stacking distance and the width of
the dry bottle was
appropriate for fire access as well as solid waste okay
thank you
thank you Jim is coming up to add something yes
Commissioner we did look
at that on on sites with a short a dry vial is this one we
don't require
turnaround provisions for the trucks they can they can back
up any other
questions for him
thank you thank you can this is a public hearing anyone who
would like to speak
please come forward at this time
you'll state your name and address and then I don't have a
card for me so if
you'll fill out a card for us when you before you leave
okay well I got here
so my name is Brad Andrus I'm with the applicant I live at
8855 FM 1173 in
crumb appreciate your consideration this item this evening
the as I know is in
your background material my brother and I purchased this
lot a couple of years
ago with a different use in mind and and after really an
unfortunate event of our
business partner that we were going to do an assisted
living project with she
suddenly passed away of cancer and so we kind of had to
Brock and I looked at
each other like we don't know how to run assisted living
facility this is she was
going to do that for us we looked at other options on doing
that and in the
end we just became uncomfortable with that particular use
so started to
explore other options and what what other uses could be
done in that that
property and the I'm I do commercial real estate for a
living and develop
office buildings and some other small retail type projects
as well as lease a
variety of commercial properties and as I considered based
on my experience
what type of properties would work there I really didn't
see a good fit other
than some sort of residential use and so the we started
looking at okay well
within the zoning what's allowed we looked at
configurations for duplexes
or townhomes which are allowed within the zoning and based
on this very odd
site configuration this triangular lot with streets on on
three sides we just
were having a heck of a time coming up with a layout and it
really initially
was working with Julie on this and it was kind of at her
suggestion that we
look at an SUP and so that's why we're presenting that that
's kind of the
history of it and what I've really tried to do is is focus
design this in a way
that would look similar to a townhome development and so
while there's not
garages on the buildings everything short of that I think
it looks and feels
very much like a townhome project which is what is a use
that would be allowed
without an SUP and so the reason we couldn't really
consider the SU or the
townhome use in and of itself is the way again the lot was
configured and with the
lot the platting of the lots and the way that would have to
be set up it just
wasn't working and so trying to do something that
essentially would look
like something that would be already approved we've we've
gone we've tried to
go above and beyond on our landscape not only are we 8%
more in landscape area
but we're we've we're actually 78% have a 78% tree canopy
versus a 45% canopy
that's required per code so and of course done that that
trellis and that
kind of park area over there trying to add and to the
aesthetics of the project
as well I would like to address your question Mr. Taylor
about the bike or
really kind of wanted to get back to the what our
intentions are as far as our
demographic or target market we really see it as more
family could students
live there certainly but the the the three bedroom two and
a half bath was
really more kind of designed with with families in mind so
hadn't even thought
about a park bike rack to be honest with wide open to
putting one on there we've
got no problem with doing that we'd welcome that if that
were become a part
of the the SUP provision so and with the storage you know
when we when we met
with the neighbors a couple of months ago and discussed you
know primary
concerns for them that I heard were well generally we don't
want this use here
and that's something I don't have other than saying well we
'll just leave it as
an empty lot I didn't have a lot to kind of come back with
on that but parking
was an overall concern so we went back to the drawing board
added three
additional parking spaces that of course those three will
be pervious spaces we
talked about whether they prefer you know a wall all the
way around you know
a screening wall all the way around or leave this natural
barrier here on
Riney Court and it was kind of mixed but I heard more of
let's leave it as much
like it is as possible and so that's kind of why we don't
have you know we
only have that screen 8-foot screening wall on that west
west side we did
consider that on the Riney Court side as well so tried to
be you know work with
the neighbors as much as possible and addressing some of
their concerns
throughout the project so that if you have any questions
for me I'd love to
address them. Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair and thank
you Brad for your
presentation I personally I like the design I think you've
done well in
trying to accommodate the neighbors I like the fact that
you've kept all
those trees on the Riney Court side and with ten units to
direct attention to
some of the concerns of local residents I'm not sure
traffic is going to be
anything of an increased traffic flow because I mean we're
dealing with ten
units here Riney is a connector road between 35 and Windsor
I believe it is
so the fact that apartments are coming in to residential
neighborhood that's
not a good thing that's that's an argument that I don't
always buy into
because that's not an automatic one concern was mentioned
about drainage
though so can you tell us share with us on grading this lot
how is it going to
be graded is most of it going to go out towards Riney Road
and Elmer's are we
going to get a considerable amount back on Riney Court? I
appreciate the question
unfortunately I don't have a good answer for you because I
have not gone to the
point of having a topo survey done to know exactly what the
fall is that some
of the neighbors concerned is mine too I want as much as
the neighbors wanted I
want to keep that that natural tree barrier there on on R
iney Court there is
some concern that that maybe the drainage will have to be
worked in such a way
that some of that would have to be removed there's Jim
probably could
answer better where where the inlets are for that side I
think it goes towards
Riney Road doesn't it or will it go towards Elm but again
don't know the
exact topography of it so probably gonna struggle answering
that.
It goes towards Riney Court. Can I put this down here for
display?
Eye in the sky.
Okay. Thank you. I've got the topographic map here and I've
added some flow
arrows where you can see the site itself and this is all
current topography and
this is with our GIS so it's sort of high level it's not
topo survey but it
it basically drains right now towards Riney Court and
towards the park really
there's an existing swale along the east side of Riney Road
that appears to
collect the area I've shown in red the runoff from that
area and then there's a
couple of culverts crossing Riney Road and the first
driveway there in that
first house going on a ditch along the south or west side
of Riney Court
towards the park. Jim let me ask you this in your opinion
if the applicant is able
to develop this with altering that flow at least on that
lot back out the other
way is that going to create some negative impact just
outside the
property? Well we would not allow development that creates
negative
development negative drainage impact on neighboring
property. I mean there would
be it's a very small site it's like 0.9 of an acre I think
so even when they
develop it there will be some increased runoff but not much
we we still have yet
to I think receive and review the site plan cemental that
will have a
grading plan to have the drainage calculations and routing
we will check it
all for that one this is just an idea I have this is
subject to change but
looking at seeing how the drainage currently runs I'm
wondering if it would
make sense it almost seems like it wants to go towards that
green area which is
actually a sort of a finger of the park property one thing
I mean you can always
detain we're not talking about much in the way of
additional runoff here on
this site one thing we have allowed in certain situations
is if you have like a
pipe you may have I don't know if there's a culvert across
for any court
there if not you may have to put one in if you have a sort
of concentrated
discharge there under the park property we require you to
get a little easement
at that discharge point and a letter from them
acknowledging the additional
runoff that's just a thought to me that's looking at this
that seems to be
what how it wants to work okay well we can look at it down
the road been when
the site plan comes in and discuss it then thank you any
other questions for
the applicant
strange may I just make one comment the of course as Jim
says you know we'll
have to get full civil and approved by the by the city and
in that drainage
concern would exist whether we're an office building or any
you know any other
type of use that were allowed in in the in the current
zoning we I this is not
soft story but I've thought about going to that point
because I knew it was a
concern some of the neighbors were about 10,000 into just
getting to this point on
what we've done and so I feel like well until I get it know
whether I've got
something approved here what will cross that bridge when we
need to we know we
recognize we'll need to address that so thank you thank you
again this is a
public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item
please come forward
at this time please give us your name and your address and
then before you go
if you'll fill out a card for us I see no appreciate it my
name is Janice JAN I
S Cunningham 3501 Northam didn't Texas thank you and we
live on that north side
if you can pull up where there's the one house is there
okay and if you pull it
up can we get a little bit closer okay that's our house
right there at the top
that long white thing is our travel trailer and we have it
behind the fence
what we're concerned with is parking if there's ten
apartments and everybody has
two cars that's 20 okay now you've got three extra places
the Christmas
birthdays for kids when grandma grandpa come what where
they gonna park well they
on the other side of Ronnie Road there that belongs to Tom
Nelson and you can't
get down in there between those houses on on Ronnie Court
then you've got the
cul-de-sac which is where people aren't parking now but if
you let people
park along the back of our fence and we want out to go
camping I'm afraid we
can't and when we come in that's when we worry because my
husband and I have
enough trouble getting in there anyway so the parking is
the main thing and the
water now there is a little drainage that goes under there
and they put that
in for us because we had so much water in our backyard at
one time several years
ago they put that drainage in but we still have water okay
thank you I have a
question for you Commissioner Roselle thank you miss C
unningham for for being
here and providing your perspective on that I have a
question you enter your
house off Elm correct so Ronnie Court is in your backyard
right and you have two
neighbors across your back fence yes has Christmas or
birthday party at their
house ever blocked your trailer in no okay but when they
the YMCA was down
there on Ronnie Road yes they blocked in our trailer that's
where they parked is
YMCA still there no okay thank you thank you ma'am again
this is a public hearing
anyone else with wishing to speak on this item please come
forward at this
time seeing none or close the public hearing and
Commissioner Taylor thank
you chair I was curious if I don't know if this would be a
question for for staff
or engineering what would it take to get parking
limitations on Ronnie Court
yeah I think this was discussed earlier typical is a
petition and goes through
the Traffic Safety Commission and ultimately City Council
would have to
prove a no parking zone by ordinance and that's something
that we can afford but
it goes through that process okay I and so that would have
to be I guess
neighborhood initiated like the residents of the street
would probably
have to request it is that typically yes and there has to
be some sort of reason
of course to back that petition up okay
review of these development projects one of the parties I
meet with every week is
our traffic engineer and I will make a point of relaying
these concerns to him
and also seek his his guidance or suggestions about the
process of
applying for and possibly having agreed to no parking sign
age I'll see what the
process is I'll make him aware of the concern for sure we
will still see the
I mean I'll do it next week when I see him but also we
still have yet to see we
will receive a site plan permit application for this site
which we can
revisit it thank you so I there's a lot of opposition in
the neighborhood there's
surprising amount actually it's rare to get a large block
of neighbors to all
come out opposed to a project and I and I definitely
understand the concern of
you know apartments in a residential area there's a
challenge along Elm Elm
has a mix of some residences there are quite a few directly
north of here and
then it has a bunch of maybe two to five acre lots of many
triangular some are
already developed commercially and many and most of them
are zoned to some
commercial development either NRM you NRM you 12 or
something more intense and
there isn't really a feasible way to develop the the three
acre lot that's
500 or 800 feet further south on Elm here or the you know
the the eight acre
triangle up near Reini or Reini goes east west or you know
the one across from
that were behind the Jehovah's Witness Hall or the funny
trapezoidal one down
by the dollar general in the residential pattern you know
that doesn't like just
having single-family homes there doesn't work and so I look
at this and I'm in my
initial concern was is this going to be like dramatically
altering the
neighborhood are we going to be bringing a you know multif
amily in across on the
side of the street and you know frankly low density multif
amily or small
neighborhood commercial strip centers which would be
challenging to make work
here are are the only things that can go on about ten of
these lots along Elm and
so then we come to mitigating the concerns in the
neighborhood this is ten
units it you know if it was in duplexes you might get four
duplexes about eight
units in there and so it's not dramatically more dense it's
not a
three-story student housing project and so and with the
with the vegetative
buffers and I think especially with the parking concerns
there's maybe a 24 foot
wide Reini Road and then Reini Court with with no curbs and
maybe 20 feet of
pavement that's not an appropriate place to park you know
if you had six or eight
cars lined up they'd be kind of in the ditch or blocking
driveways and so I
think if we can if we can alleviate those parking concerns
and just realize
that there isn't much other option for this or the several
other small kind of
irregular lots along Elm except for NRM you type uses kind
of low density
apartments or commercial strip so with all that I am going
to move we recommend
approval to City Council with staffs recommendation and
with the added
requirement that there be secure bike parking provided for
at a one bike to
ten car ratio so three three bike spots one small bike rack
basically
Commissioner Roselle I certainly echo what Commissioner
Taylor saying about
the obstacles in this property and I think I'm encouraged
to see at least the
design and site plan by the applicant when I first saw it I
actually asked
this in work session the difference between this in a town
home because just
looking at it looks like a townhome type development which
I think not not just
to pick lesser of evils but it's certainly a way to develop
this in the
least obtrusive way and so I actually hope that this sets
the standard going
south and those other areas in which we can kind of
transition these residential
areas without making super dense or maybe insignificant
strip centers so with
all that said if I if I could there's the button Devin hasn
't motioned Devin
can you click that I'll second this motion with the
addition of the required
one to ten ratio for bikes Commissioner Beck thank you
chair I'm gonna go along
as to just wanted to comment I don't want to seem unsympath
etic to the local
residents and additional traffic or anything like that but
I think as
mentioned here this is an NRMU 12 zone there it's not like
we're rezoning it
for this type of thing by right this can go there and this
seems like a good fit
as opposed to strip a little strip commercial area or
something even
heavier so on holidays I suspect half those apartments may
be empty - they may
be going to grandma's and grandpa's so not sure how big a
problem that is but I
don't I understand the concern there too but hopefully this
will all work out so
thank you yeah comments Commissioner Ellis thank you chair
I'll just say a
couple of words I do understand the neighborhood opposition
but I but I will
support this but I think it's an excellent design for a
really tough lot
and I think you know from what the applicant has shown us
this site plan
and I look forward to it going forward it is is great-
looking I think it will
actually add to that corner and I think if we can get
engineering behind maybe
posting no parking down the road in that court and as we
move forward with what
these roads are going to be in the future I think we
alleviate parking
issues I'm gonna echo as well I must support this this
evening as well for a
lot of the same reasons I felt commissioners have is by
right they
could do duplexes or town homes there and because they have
designed a two-story
design versus a very tall design and they are less dense
what they could be
and they provided additional parking I think it is a
difficult site something
ultimately will get built there that may be denser it may
not have some of the
extra amenities that this particular applicant is proposing
and it's always
difficult to try to balance existing neighbors and then
also look at what can
go there in the future I think it is a good use for the
property and with that
I'm going to support the SUP request there are no other
comments and we will
call for a vote on the board
and motion is going to carry six to zero that will move us
to our final item on
our agenda this evening the project matrix Commissioner
Roselle I have
nothing to add us want to follow up on Commissioner Beck's
request on the tree
code it says staff waiting results of legislation scheduled
for special
session just a clarification that's the one that starts
next week for 30 days so
after mid-august we'll have more clarification when we can
talk about
tree code and it's maybe I should look up the agenda for
the special session
but what is the state talking about that would impact our
tree code
there was a bill that was introduced that restricts the
ability to or how we
issue credits basically and paying into the tree fund so it
may or may not have
an impact on the tree code as written and the proposed tree
code we won't know
into I believe it's in committee where they're trying to
hammer out some
differences between the houses is that right you guys have
been following that
well that's correct the special session has a lot of agenda
items and one of it
is the tree preservation requirements that the cities can
apply and so that's
going to be discussed in roughly 30 days starting next week
on the 18th and after
that we'll know better as to what the bills are okay thank
you
Commissioner Taylor okay
I was trying not to drag you into it Bob there have been a
couple bills that
entered in this special session and two of them would
basically wipe out local
tree ordinances it would also take away the right of
homeowners HOA's from being
able to restrict people from cutting their own their trees
down as well so
it's not just reaching into cities but it's reaching into
HOA's thank you
Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I was curious if we
could get our iPads
updated I'm I don't have the password for the admin account
so my I legislate
is like two years old I know we've talked about this before
I don't know if
somebody knows the password the admin password okay any
other updates on the
project matrix what will be coming before same time soon or
well there's a
couple that I know what it here we noted here one hopefully
we'll bring at our
next meeting or at least in April I'm sorry August a small
area plan that
we're working on as well as the results of the notification
discussion that we
had several months ago we've had some direction from
Council so I'll bring
that up as a work session item in August question for that
there's the the code
rewrite that's going on the ongoing long project over the
next year is going to
address some small area plan issues as well as a lot of
other things how do we
as a commission best navigate we just we go with what is on
books now and just
know that it could be changing or do we do we start to have
a little more vision
going forward in terms of some of these things commission
ers are you referring
to as a the planning zoning Commission or as the sub
committee no as the
Commission Commission as as is as obviously what's in the
books now okay
so the small area plan discussion will be beneficial for
the time in which it's
current and then maybe we'll have to correct we're working
with the
consultants both consultants if when we get to that point
we'll be coordinating
those efforts so there hopefully won't be too much of the
conflict the guys
that make sense thank you okay thank you for the update and
with that I will
close this this evening at 814 thank you everyone