Oct 11, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-10-11 5:00 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission work session for October the 11th 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 5. 04 and at this time I will turn it over to Richard for clarification of our agenda items and if you would like to give us an introduction we would love to welcome you to our Commission. Certainly. Richard Canone, interim planning director, here for a period of time assisting with some of the reorgan ization of the department. I currently or currently reside in Florida although part-time here now but most of my experience has been in Florida although I have worked in South Texas for a brief period of time. Interestingly enough, a little personal tidbit, my wife is from South Texas so although I'm not a native I am pretty close to it as close as I can be but the agenda items this evening for the most part we have we have two items on consent. One item if you saw in front of you there is a plat relative to Denton Commons. Unfortunately the wrong item got uploaded onto the system so the plat that was provided for you is the correct plat to go with that application or that agenda item again I'm sorry item 2 to be and in addition there were two two response forms that we received for the rezoning item one one in favor one one opposed and those had just come in my understanding today but but they were they wanted to make sure that those were provided for the meeting. Okay thank you for that I mean to kind of put you on the spot I may help a little bit here on our consent does anybody have questions on our consent agenda on either of those items for staff? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. You know what I just for my own understanding I wanted an explanation of note number seven on consent agenda item A where it says no information has been provided that the property can be seward conventionally. Can anyone just tell me what that note means? Is that on item A or B? It's on A. Yeah so I'll let Jim address that question specifically but this is a plat for a Duluth Trading Company and Northern Tool site and they're also preliminary platting a third lot that's just part of the parent parcel but I will let Jim speak to that specific note. Thank you. Note seven there Jim. I appreciate you pointing that out that is actually on our preliminary plat checklist for applicants I don't know how it got on there and when but that statement is on there like they're supposed to add that as a note. It would not apply in this case it can be seward conventionally so it's it's part of the the major reformatting cleanup streamlining effort we're doing that's that's one thing we need to change along with that. Okay so it can be and so that that note is not right. Okay very good. Jim just for clarification that's more like one of your standard note things that you guys sometimes require just to be put on preliminary plat. Yes yes and like I said I don't know how it came to be okay but I mean it it should not be a standard note and we will fix that checklist and okay does run on this one. Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions on consented agenda items for staff? Okay we'll move us to items for individual consideration. H aley do you have a presentation for us on this? Yes sir. All right so we actually have two items on the agenda this evening associated with Razor Ranch. I prepared a little bit of background information and embedded that in my zoning presentation that we'll hear a bit later but just to give you some further information it is part of the overlay ordinance that site plans for Razor Ranch come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval rather than being approved by staff as other site plans are in the community. So this request is for approval of a site plan for a Ch eddar's restaurant that will be constructed within the Razor Ranch South RR2 district that's one of the sub areas within the overlay and it will be located on lot 25 block A of the Razor Ranch Town Center addition. So I've outlined the site here in yellow on this aerial just to give you an idea of where it is relative to other things that you're probably more familiar with within Razor such as the new WynnCo and then you've got Raising Cane's and some of the other restaurants here along University. So this site is a little over one and a half acres it will be located adjoining the I-35 service road on the east side. Again just a little bit of background so Razor Ranch does have a base zoning but the entire 410 acres was rolled into an overlay district that has specific architectural landscaping and sign standards associated with it. So just to give you an idea of where the property is it's located here in the South RR2 sub district within the overlay. So as I mentioned before all site plans for Razor Ranch come before the Planning and Zoning Commission in this case for the South RR2 district this site plan had to be in compliance with exhibits C1 and D1 of the overlay ordinance which are the architectural standards and landsca ping standards for this commercial district. So with each site plan at Razor Ranch they're required to submit both the site plan a landscape plan and building elevations for your consideration. All the plans were provided in your backup but I'll go through just a few details of them here. So this will be a 7,570 square foot Cheddar's restaurant. The site will have 125 parking spaces . Within Razor Ranch they're fairly unique they have to comply with our minimum standards set forth in the DDC but they are allowed to have excess parking so long as it's landscaped in conformance with the standards for the overlay. So this site was required a minimum of 75 spaces they're providing 125. Access to the site will not be directly from the service road there are private drives that are in place to the north and to the east of the property. Looking at their landscape plan they required a minimum of 10% landscaping they have 11.4% total on the site. I've outlined all the landscape areas here in green and they will have a total of 31.8% tree canopy 20% required for the parking lots the site overall has more canopy and landscaping than required by code. You can see here some some of the more important features would be the screening along the I-35 service road they have a number of trees and shrubs and grasses planted as screening elements there and then landscaping incorporated throughout the parking lot and around the building itself. One of the other kind of unique features of the razor range overlay is that they have to provide plaza area for each building. On this site they're providing a total of 1202 square feet of plaza area in which I've outlined here in red. Each plot or the plaza area for the site has to contain at least three of seven items that are outlined in the overlay. In this case they've selected to provide benches, plaza trees, and planters within the plaza area. So those elements are scattered around the site here we have benches on two sides of the building an area here with trees and then planters provided in front of the building. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Just quick question those plaza areas they're not part of Cheddar's where they'll be served by Cheddar employees that's just general use plaza. Yes that's just public space provided outside the buildings. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Commissioner. The going back to the screening on 35 is there a height they've got it or do we have this our height and the overlaid on that is it tall short short shr ub big shrub? You'd like the woodlands or is it gonna be like driving down 35 there's a bush in front of Kroger that kind of thing. So they're providing I believe they're a minimum of three feet tall at planting for the shrubs and these are considered large trees by the code so they'll be smaller at planting but are large tree species. Okay thank you. Haley on those I think there were seven big live oaks are we requiring them to those in front of their business is that a requirement are they choosing to put them there? When they have frontage on a public street they 're required to provide screening for the parking lot and part of that is one large tree for every so many feet of frontage. The placement of those doesn't have to be you know one for every 45 feet it they just have to be there so in this case they kind of cluster them in two areas to provide some openings in between. Well that's where I was going my question is if it's gonna screen their signage and we're gonna be back here somewhere down the road that can't see our store from 35 and can remove the tree so but this required to go in the frontage. Yes they do have to screen the parking lot along the frontage. Can't go on the side or something like that. No sir and well the sign overlay we'll discuss a little bit more later but Razor Ranch does have its standard sign placement along the frontage for monument signs and then each building will have its own signs. And then final question obviously this looks like it's set way back off of the service road I assume that's for textile right of way for down the road? Yes yeah that has required its ultimate right of way there I believe . Okay do we have an idea how far back that's gonna be approximately? I don't know off the top of my head. Jim are you I'm sure we could look at the plans and find that number but I'm not sure if the top of my head. Between now and when we get in there just curious if it's 75 or 100 feet off of the road. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. Is there in the in the Razor Ranch overlay is there certain shrubs trees or anything that's outlined as specific use so there's a uniform usage of landscape across all? Yes sir. Thank you. All right so here's the building elevations that were provided for the west and north side of the building so you can see here that the sign that they will have facing the frontage road there and all of the materials are standard throughout the overlay as well there 's certain permitted materials a certain color palette that has to be adhered to and then we have the east and south side of the building so this east side what's is what will be facing internal to the development along that road there so you can see they have another sign on that side of the building. There are criteria for approval outlined in the overlay district. It states that the P&Z shall approve a site plan if it substantially complies with the concept and schematic plan approved by City Council for the entire overlay. The site plan has to provide for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that will not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties in this case all of the adjoining property is either I-35 or more of the Razor Ranch overlay district there's no neighborhoods in this immediate area. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you chair. I'm just thinking the setback I'm going back to the setback. The 75 feet or 100 feet whatever is that to allow the traffic on the frontage road that we have now they're going to expand that frontage road because every time I go to that part of town I put on my GPS it's always red. So I'm just concerned that is there any plan so that there are like right turn only off of the service road into Razor Ranch you know just in general just reduce that you know the clog that happens in that area or yes sir so let's see this one probably shows it best so my understanding is this is a right in right out here on the service road immediately north of the property. Jim would you like to address the conditions in future build out in that area if you're familiar with it? I don't know that Cheddar's in and of itself is going to make that much difference in the overall traffic pattern but as it starts building out more and more that existing drive is going to get used more and more. Yes sir that drive is or let me back up the right of way the TexDOT right of way that is that setback is associated with that has been acquired already recently by TexDOT and there will be a future project involving the service the service road it's not imminent I don't know what the timetable is on it but that right away is to accommodate that future project. So that's going to be within where it says limits of construction from that line down to where it says interstate highway 35 that's the area that TexDOT has to expand is that what I'm hearing okay okay thank you. That answer your question? Yes. Okay no problem. All right yeah so the criteria for approval compliance with the concept and schematic plan no adverse impact to surrounding neighborhoods or properties the site plan provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic and the plan complies with all other sections of this overlay district through staff analysis we determined that the site plan did meet these criteria and with that we are recommending of the site plan as it is compliant with all of the regulations of the Razor Ranch overlay district and meets the criteria for approval that are outlined in that district and I can answer any other questions at this time if you have any. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. The he says the it's existing it's an existing entrance already is that what you 're saying if you go back to I was looking at the aerial and what you showed there that's an existing drive is that that's not currently there and so what you said is that what you're asking about Steve? Currently under construction. Currently under construction. Thank you. So will be existing by the time Chatterford is under construction. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Haley talk to me about walkability of this site obviously we're gonna have a lot of development in and around that I know a movie theater going in apartments going in talk to me about walkability to this restaurant. Okay well they do have sidewalks built into the site there will be sidewalks along the internal drives let me see maybe I don't have a map that would show that very well but there are sidewalks outlined throughout all the roads that will traverse the razor ranch overlay or the entire razor ranch development no sidewalks along the frontage road but there will be internal sidewalks throughout the development and each piece as it comes in is required to provide connectivity to those larger sidewalks that will be in place along the streets. Okay so definitely walkable from these these other developing areas without walking through the parking lot. Yeah. Okay thank you. Thank you Haley appreciate that. Thank you. And are you gonna present for Julie for public hearings? Yes. Okay. Are we ready for the first item? Yes. Okay. All right. Okay so this is case Z 1720 for the lineman college. The request is to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation regarding an initial zoning classification of Industrial Center General it's our ICG district for approximately 14 acres of property and see outlined here in yellow it's located along Dakota and Shelby Lane and in general this site is located between the I-35 intersection or interchange and the airport. So a little bit of history on the site a trade school was established on the site back in early 2010 in that same year the subject property was part of a citywide annexation program so when it was annexed the placeholder designation of RD 5x that's our rural district was applied to the site to kind of serve as its holding zoning district until an initial zoning was requested for the property. So the purpose of the applicants requests before you tonight is to facilitate the expansion of their existing campus and to bring their zoning into compliance or into correspondence with the surrounding zoning pattern. So looking at what's in the area you can see this the current the parcel we're looking at tonight is kind of an isolated pocket of RD 5x and a sea of industrial zoning surrounding it so surrounding it on all sides within 200 feet we have the ICG district we have some vehicle repair uses other industrial uses and there are some some gas wells in this area as well. If we zoom a little bit further out you'll see there's also some ICE so that's industrial center employment and currently on this parcel there's a temporary industrial use established. Looking at the broader area you can see down here where the star is is the subject property so primarily industrial zoning in this this entire side of town. Looking at mobility that you can see here in black the I-35 corridor there are several arterial streets that are in the immediate vicinity of the property as well as the local streets such as Dakota and Shelby that would serve this property. The comprehensive plan for this area is industrial commerce that's that district is intended to be predominantly industrial uses manufacturing wholesale distribution the more intensive larger scale uses which we see in this area already. Complementary uses could be commercial such as shopping and child care in appropriate places to provide transitions between the industrial zoning and other districts in the area. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Well we got this map up. Metro which hits the 35 service road it didn't come all the way through yet are there plans to connect Metro because it appears the only way to get to this side is to come in from Airport Road. Yeah. Yeah I am not familiar with any plans to connect at Metro. Jim might be looks like he's looking at his map. Okay yeah I know at this point I don't believe it connects Corbin Road to the south also no longer connects so the primary point of access is Airport Road. All right yeah looks like there are no immediate plans for Metro according to Jim. Okay thanks. So the requested ICG district is directly compatible with the industrial commerce future land use designation. So in you know just to summarize what we've looked at here the ICG district would be a logical extension of the existing zoning pattern there's IC G on all sides of the property and it would ensure that this property as it expands and continues to develop develops in a compatible form with those existing land uses. Notification was sent at time of this meeting we hadn't received any responses to that notification and staff is recommending approval because of the compatibility of this request with the surrounding land uses surrounding zoning pattern and compatibility with the Denton Plan 2030 and can answer any questions. Commissioner Sullivan. My understanding is that this land was annexed and at the time of annexation that's what the code we just arbitrarily set at is that correct is that way I understand it? Yes yeah RD 5X is just kind of a placeholder designation that's applied to any newly annexed property. So there wasn't any rhyme or reason for that designation other than if you sort of what looked good at the time? It's what's applied to any newly annexed property until the owner of it decides what zoning designation they would wish to apply for on their property. Thank you. Commissioner Back. Thank you chair. If you could go back to the Google aerial image. What's yeah what is that that's on there what's gonna happen to it once if we approve this zone change? This existing use? Yes. This is a trade school it's the Lineman College so. Oh I thought the Lineman College was just north of there and this this was the area that they were gonna build on. No sir this is currently all owned by the Lineman College they're seeking to expand the campus. Okay thanks. Commissioner Sanchez. As far as the road airport road if they expand that are they talking about how many students they might be utilizing what the population might be? I'm not familiar with any what their exact model is for how many students they would be able to hold. I know the expansions they're looking at right now are intended to come in several phases I think right now they 're just wanting to add a single classroom to the site but the use is currently considered non-conforming so to expand the existing use their options would be to either go to ZBA or to choose to rezone their property to a zoning designation that would permit the use that they're wanting to expand. But I 'm not familiar with the number of students enrolled. I was gonna ask how many students are enrolled. Any other questions for Haley on this item? Thank you Haley and I guess you'll go on to item B for us. Yes sir. Okay so as I alluded to earlier this zoning case is also associated with Razor Ranch so I've built in a little more background about the overlay into this presentation. So this request is to hold public hearing and consider a request to amend several exhibits of the overlay so exhibits B1 and B4 the concept plan and the zoning map and also amendments to exhibit E1 which are the sign standards for the overlay. These changes the changes in B1 and B4 would apply to approximately 12.17 acres and the intent there is to change from the south mixed-use district to the south RR2 district and then that area plus an additional 10 acres so 22 acres roughly are seeking to be incorporated into what's known as sign area 2. So in total Razor Ranch is 410 acres located on both sides of US 380 between Bonnie Bray and I-35. The overlay was first approved in 2007. There are several major components to the overlay district. Those primary concerns being zoning restrictions so for each sub area of the overlay there are permitted uses and restrictions assigned to that district. That's all outlined on the zoning map that we'll look at in a minute. There's also site design criteria as we saw earlier for architecture landscaping and signage and one of the other unique features as we saw before is that it does include a site plan process that requires those site plans come before P&Z for approval. And just so you know these are the two parc els that we're looking at here so this piece where the cursor is now is the 12.17 acres where the zoning change would apply to and then the entirety outlined in red are the 22 acres that the sign district change corresponds with. So a little bit of background there are two major areas to the Razor Ranch overlay. The north side is known as the marketplace. I'm sure you're familiar with that where Walmart and Sam's are. It's primarily built out and then on the south side of 380 we have what's generally called the south campus of Razor Ranch. Within the marketplace there are three different zoning designations. We have the RR2 sub area, the RR3 area, and then on the north side there is a residential area that doesn't yet have standards developed for it but at some point will be residential uses. On the south side there are many sub area sub districts that apply here. We have the RR1 district which is where that's the town center where the convention center and several other uses will be. We have the south RR2 area that's primarily along this perimeter along 380 and 35. There's the south mixed-use district that applies kind of to the entire rest of the south side and then there are several other smaller pieces. We have a substation for DME up here along Bonnie Bray. There is a drill pad existing along Bonnie Bray as well and then Cook Children's has a piece of the land here that they already have an existing facility on and may someday expand. So just to run through this kind of quickly in the marketplace there are three exhibits in the overlay that assign architectural landscaping and sign standards for that area. As I mentioned the residential components aren't designed yet but once that's ready to be developed they will come back with a request for those standards. On the south side we have exhibits C1, D1, and E1 that control the architecture landscaping and sign standards for the town center and the south RR2 area and those were the standards that we saw applied to Chetters earlier. For the south mixed-use district the standards are not yet approved. Once this portion of the campus is ready to develop those standards will be developed for each of the uses within the south mixed- use area and those kind of have placeholders in the overlay as exhibits C2, D2, and E2. So the first part of the request is a change to exhibit B1. As you can see here the change would apply to this 12 acres of property on the south side of the town center and we would be changing it from south mixed-use to south RR2 district which is what is currently existing along all of 35 and highway 380. The second part of the request is to amend exhibit B4 in a similar manner just to expand the boundaries of the south RR2 district to incorporate this 12 acres. To give you a bit of a comparison between these districts they're very similar in terms of the general regulations that are applied to them in terms of lot coverage landscape area all of those things maximum building height does it is fairly similar between them as well the primary difference between the two is the residential uses that are permitted in the mixed-use district. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Which raises the question why is there even a zone change request here because both areas will allow with this applicant seeking which is an indoor recreational. Yes sir. So is it a fair time to ask that question now? Yes sir and I will address that in just a moment but we can certainly address it now. This table here kind of explains why they 're making this request. The south mixed-use district currently does not have standards developed so a site plan for that property couldn't be accepted and approved because there are no standards by which to review it. So their options were to develop these standards which they may not be ready to do because it would apply to a much larger area that they don't have specific plans for yet or to rezone it to a district that already has established standards. How far off are we from getting these standards for the south mixed-use? Is that something so far down the road that under the existing code? I don't know their specific timeline for that. A piece of it's already been done if you remember last year there was a multifamily proposal that came in so they developed the multifamily standards for the south mixed-use area but they 're they're not quite ready for the commercial standards and the single- family standards and all of those pieces yet. I'm not sure of the exact timeline on that. Okay thanks. So just to give you an example here's some approved building elevations that exist in the RR2 area to kind of show you what the design criteria generate in this area. So you know restaurants we have rooms to go which is currently under construction which I believe you saw last year as well as the Alamo Draft House. So we'd be looking at something similar on this property in question. So as I've kind of mentioned before the two major differences if this request is approved would be the removal of residential uses from this property and this change in design standards. Residential property is not ideal in this area given the proximity to 35 and the various compatible commercial uses that have been developed in the area and design standards have yet to be developed for this but they're not likely to be very different between the south mixed use and the RR2 area in terms of commercial development. We expect that those will be relatively similar. Moving on then to the the second major component of the request but the third individual exhibit that will change. Exhibit E1 of the overlay controls the sign standards for the property. There are two appendices to that that map out where the various sign areas are to determine what standards apply. Because this parcel that we just looked at for the rezoning as well as the adjoining parcel where rooms to go is under construction those were both previously part of the south mixed use district or one of them still is that the request is before you tonight but because the south mixed use district standards are not yet developed they haven't been assigned sign standards or to a sign area. So this is more of a housekeeping request to extend the existing sign area to and the standards that apply to it further south to include the remainder of the RR2 district. So appendix. Commissioner Sullivan. What weight was given in originally back whenever as to how much residential use was going to be you know available in this area. I mean is was there a you know a large weight given to the fact that this was going to be residential and commercial and you know kind of a mixed use sort of a thing and was there a certain requirement for a certain number of residences to be available here to begin with and how does this affect any of that? Okay. Yes sir let me back up for a moment get to a map that will show. Okay so if you look at the entire overlay the primary locations for residential are going to be in the south mixed use area . So we have the codes on the map you multi-family single-family are designated for specific areas within the development and the parcel that we're looking at here as well as some of the adjoining properties to the east along Heritage Trail do allow for multi-family development at this point in time. There's an approved site plan for multi-family if I could get the cursor to show up here for this piece of property but there are maximums as to the amount of residential development of each type that can be in the overlay as a whole but in general and planning it this side was intended to be the town center the walkable commercial area with a mixture of entertainment restaurants and various things and then the east side is intended to be more residential. But there wasn't a residential minimum there may have been a residential maximum it was there a minimum because I see where after you know the changes you still have multi-f you know hotel multi-family south of the area next to Cook's and so that's still going to be there and one of the reasons was the proximity to I-35. Well what's south where it says Hotel RRMF that's a lot closer to 35 than this plot that we're looking at and so I'm just wondering by changing that from residents to commercial what change that is making to the overall agreement or conditions that were set forth in the very beginning of this project because I know that's changed several times over the last few years. So I said there are maximums established I'm not aware of any minimums for residential components but overall you know the only change between the South RR2 and South mixed use is the lack of residential. It already permits all of the commercial uses that would be permitted so really we're just losing the opportunity to put multi-family on this site which has multiple other spaces within the overlay that multi- family can be accommodated. Okay. And just to address your concerns that the southern pieces here I believe the intent for those pieces is similar medical uses that would be compatible with what's already there so that South mixed use allowing office and medical uses will accomplish that goal. I just want to make sure we weren't taking away residential possibilities that were in the original agreement that then they're going to be able to say hey y'all did it. Certainly. Okay thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Again just so I'm clear here when you go over to that section over there where it's mainly residential we have site standards for that right but in an area where we have a combination of residential and commercial we don't have site standards? Yes so for the entire South mixed use area speaking generally there are not established standards at this point . For the like multi-family apartments there's not site standards? For multi-family they they develop the standards specific to multi-family but then the future they will need to establish commercial standards single-family residential standards for the various uses that would go there. Okay. Commissioner Sanchez. Would you say is that because probably up along they've established the commercial standards because they've already been building up all in along 380 would make sense you haven't seen a lot of residential I haven't seen any residential in that area but I do see a lot of commercial so that's that's probably why they you know taking one step at a time mm-hmm they decide you know where do we start first where to take our first bite so that's that that makes sense what they what they're doing. Yes sir and there is a requirement the overlay that a certain amount of commercial had to be in place before the residential could be developed so it's all kind of fall falling in line there. Yeah. Commissioner Smith. Thank You Chair. In regards to mobility plan does removing the residential usage on this land and only allowing it to be commercial uses is there any changes whatsoever we're gonna see like if we if it had been left open for residential and had been developed in multifamily with the use the mobility usage on that road that adjacent to that property would it be less impact versus if it was commercial uses like what's proposed here does that question make sense? It does. I don 't know that we saw any trip generations for that comparison specifically I will say with it being 12 acres it's not likely there was a whole lot of density that could have been there for multifamily. I'm just thinking in regards to the letter that was written in just if they're silly complaint they really made but just if there is on the mobility plan if we saw there's a huge spike of traffic now because commercial usage instead of if there had been a multifamily development later on down the road. I don't believe that was a concern because in general the mobility for razor it the roads are being built as the development progresses so heritage trail will be an arterial multi-lane road panhandle will be extended all the way across as this development comes in so there will be ample access to the site. So yeah panhandle I'm sorry. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah panhandle is nonexistent and from what I was reading they're gonna make that a four lane is that is that what they're looking at? It's currently under design. Uh-huh. It's going to be a collector street. As far as I don't believe it's four lanes I don't remember we've just started looking at the at the first some metal is on the plans for it but it is designated as a collector. Okay I thought I read that somewhere. The part of it right by the highways under construction and we're starting to look at the plans taking out to heritage and then to the east and then continuing heritage up to the point where it's currently under construction now. And you're not crazy I think I did type that it was a four- line so I think it might actually be a three-lane from what I'm remembering but like Jim said those plans are under review so it will be designed to collector standards. So the second part of the sign exhibit that needs to be amended is appendix two and this is just another map that outlines the sign areas and shows where some of the some of the assigned locations are for monument signs to go in on the property. So again we're just extending sign area two further to the south to include the rest of the rr2 area if this rezoning is approved. Notification was sent about this because it is an all-en compassing overlay district we noticed 200 and 500 feet from the boundaries of the entire overlay to make sure everyone was aware. We did receive two responses those were provided to you just before this meeting one was in opposition that parcel is a single-family residence that's located up here on the north side and then we received one response in favor from one of the owners within the overlay. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I know that residential areas don't need a lot of signage obviously they're not advertising but when you 've got apartments that will need to designate themselves I didn't see that that area had been set aside for signage standards so what's gonna work over there? I would have to go I can read the standards that were developed for but I believe they addressed all of that within the rezoning they did last year for the multifamily component. Okay okay and there was one thing that was a little confusing to me on heights of signs on the along the service road of I-35 where there was it pointed out one time there was a maximum of 75 feet like that was on page 9 of that criteria and then the very next page it says primary pylon signs have allowable height of 40 feet so why the difference? I would have to pull that language I don't have it up here in front of me but I can I can look into that and okay all right all right so in summary we are recommending approval of both aspects of the request both the rezoning of the 12 acres and the sign standards being applied to the entire 22 acres because the request is compatible with the existing development pattern and it is consistent with the Denton plan 2030 that designates this entire area as a regional center for shopping and entertainment so can answer any other questions if you have them. Okay thank you. Mr. Sanchez. I was curious okay you had the vegetation when you were showing us one of the when we saw the one of the Ch eddar's and we're talking about vegetation along the I-35? Yes sir. Okay and so the signage is going to be right on the frontage road right? Is that because I know there's a concern what about being able to signage? Yes. So that was my concern. Yes this exhibit shows the so some of the changes that were made here with you know the placement of the signs once some of these parcels developed they determined the exact locations they wanted the signs and so they're taking off some of the pieces that are no longer necessary but each of these will be an established sign location that advertising for the entire area so each tenant will have an opportunity for signage there on one of the multi-tenant signs or monument signs as well as on their own building. These are just the locations of some of the predetermined signs that they would be putting in. Any other questions for Haley on this item? Okay it looks like our next item C is being postponed but we need to open this item again ask for a motion okay and then continue it. Date certain 25th. Okay all right. Seeing no one else and getting through our agenda I will close our work session at 548 and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630. Thank you. , thank you. a motion. Yes sir. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October the 11th 2017. This meeting has been du ly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 630 and our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the US and the Texas flag. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. On the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible. Our next order of business will be the consent agenda and the chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. I 'll motion to accept the consent agenda as written. Okay motion to approve. Commissioner back. Second. Okay we have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries. You hit the wrong button. You'll take care of it okay. So I'll announce that the motion is going to carry six to zero with the correction for Commissioner San chez. That will move us to our items for individual consideration and I will call on Haley for presentation. Good evening so this is item SP 1740 it's a site plan for Cheddar's at Razor Ranch. The request is to consider approval of a site plan for a Cheddar's restaurant to be constructed within the Razor Ranch South R R2 district to be located on lot 25 block A of the Razor Ranch town center addition. The location is outlined here in yellow it's an approximately 1.67 acre site it's located on the east side of the I-35 service road it's about 940 feet south of West University Drive. Just to give you an idea of the zoning in the area there's base zoning applied to Razor Ranch consistent with the standard districts in the DDC there is an overlay that covers the entire 410 acres of the Razor Ranch district and that is shown in more detail here on the right side in the zoning map for the overlay so the parcel outlined in red is within the South RR2 district. Site plans for Razor Ranch properties are required to come before P&Z for approval and within the South RR2 district the site plans are subject to the architectural landscaping and elevation requirements outlined in exhibit C1 and D1 of the overlay. All the site plans include a site plan, a landscape plan, and building elevations to come before you. So looking in detail at the site plan you can see here it is going to be a 7570 square foot restaurant it requires a minimum of 75 parking spaces they're providing 125 on the lot and the access to the site will be from the existing well they will be existing at the time they're currently under construction internal drives within the overlay and there were some questions at work session about signs on the property there will be signs located along the frontage of the property they're shown here on the site plan and one other element well I'll point it out when we get to one of the later plans there are bike racks included at the property as well. So looking at the landscape plan all the areas in green are the site landscaping overall they're providing 11.4% landscaping 31.8% tree canopy and that is in excess of the required 10% and 20% of landscaping and tree canopy. Looking in more detail at the landscaping around the building and the plaza area that will be provided they'll have just over 1200 square feet of plaza that will include benches there will be two located here at the front one over to the side of the building plaza trees will be provided in this outdoor landscaped area and they will have planters at the front of the building and the other feature I wanted to point out this block here is not labeled but that is to be a bike rack at the front of the restaurant. Question for you on that H aley is the bike rack required or is that voluntary? The bike racks are encouraged but they are not required. Okay so they have the option to put them in if they like but they're not a requirement. Yes. Do they get any credit for doing them? Not that I'm aware of but it's encouraged for the multimodal transportation throughout the Razor Ranch area. Thank you. Looking at the building elevations this is the west and north side of the building so the one on top that will be the side facing the freeway so you can see a sign on the front of the building all of their materials and colors are within the permitted materials and a color palette for the overlay district. This would be the north elevation and then here we have the east side this would be what faces that internal drive aisle and then the south elevation. There are criteria for approval outlined in the Razor Ranch overlay district. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Go back to the east and west elevations. The west elevation that faces I-35 right? Yes sir. That looks like an entrance there. Is that gonna be an entrance side? Yes sir this would be the primary front entrance. That seems odd considering that you can't get to it but from the east side so they're gonna have to walk around from the parking is that my understanding? Yeah if we look at the plan here so the might be shown better on this one so the entrances to the side there would be one here on the north and one to the south off of the internal drive. Okay gotcha. Yeah parking provided on the side. Thank you. Okay so the criteria for approval of the site plan would be compliance with the concept and schematic plan that were approved by City Council ensuring that the site is compatible with the arrangement of buildings and land uses in the area wouldn't adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties. The site has adequate and safe circulation for vehicular traffic and that the plan complies with any other sections of the overlay district and staff determined through our review of the site plan that it met these criteria to present to you. And staff is recommending approval of the site plan request because it is compliant with all of the requirements of the razor range overlay district as well as the criteria for approval. Okay one question for you so far. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Commissioner Ellis asked about mobility in the work session. One thing I thought of later item we were looking at is the convention center is built and it looks like it's gonna be pretty much finished and done pretty soon and I'm guessing since this is the first plat along that area that's getting done this will be done before other restaurants. Will there be mobility connection between the two like if someone who 's staying at the embassy suites there wants to walk to the Cheddars will that be finished out with the drive-in and have the sidewalks and everything like that to the Cheddars from the convention center? Yes I don't have a map with me that would show it but there there is sidewalk connectivity plan throughout and the these roads here will be completed by the time of this so there would be it will be done by the time yeah there are sidewalks around the site that would connect across walks to get across the street to that. But all the way down to the to the convention center even because that's this is kind of a little bit further north along 35 from the convention center. Yes the sidewalks will be kind of piecemeal as each development comes in they will provide the sidewalks on their frontage but in general the roads and the overall mobility will be will be available at that time. Any other questions for Haley? Okay thank you. And the applicant is here if there were any questions for him as well. This is a individual consideration item so it's not a public hearing and if the applicant would like to speak you're welcome to and okay not thank you. With that the chair will open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner back. I move to approve. Okay. Commissioner Smith. I second that motion. Okay we have a first and a second for approval. Are there any conditions on this? No? Okay. Any other further discussion or questions or comments? Okay. I'll call for a vote on board. Motion carries 6-0. Congratulations. This time we'll move us to our public hearing section and I will open the public hearing for item A which is Z 17 - 0020 and I will call on Haley for presentation of that item tonight. All right this is case Z 17-20 for the lineman college. The request is to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation regarding an initial zoning classification of industrial center general that's the ICG district for an approximately 14 acre parcel that's located at the southeast corner of Shelby Lane you see here going east west and Dakota Lane which is an adjoining north-south roadway. So a little bit of history on the side a trade school the lineman college was established on this site in early 2010 in that same year this property was part of a citywide annexation program and when a property is annexed the practice is to put in place a placeholder zoning designation of RD 5x so it assigns our rule standards to the property until such time as a proposals brought forth to rezone it to a different district. So the purpose of this request is to facilitate the expansion of this existing use and to ensure the property corresponds with the surrounding zoning in the area. So looking at this parcel and what's immediately adjoining it you can see the RD 5x is right now kind of an isolated pocket everything around it is currently ICG district so right now we have some vehicle repair other industrial uses and some gas wells in the immediate vicinity. Looking a little bit further out you see a continuation of that same pattern to the northeast there is some ICE district that's industrial center employment that's currently developed with a temporary industrial use at this time and to address one of the questions from work session Metro is a collector designated on the mobility plan and that will connect westward between Shelby Lane and West Park Boulevard. So looking at a little bit further out a view of this area and general mobility you can see the I-35 corridor is in fairly close proximity to the property there are a number of primary arterials in the area running both east-west and north-south and then as I just mentioned in the future Metro will connect a little bit closer here to provide further east-west connectivity. Looking at the future land use for this property this property and in general this entire portion of town are designated for industrial commerce that designation is meant to apply to areas where the predominant uses are manufacturing warehouse distribution larger scale industrial uses. Complementary supporting uses are desired in the area where it's appropriate to provide restaurants child care and things like that and all and those would be to provide transitions between this district and surrounding in a regional mixed use areas and residential areas. So the IC G district that's requested is consistent with this designation of industrial commerce. This proposed district is a logical extension of the surrounding zoning pattern we just saw it would ensure that this property as it expands and continues to develop does so in a way that is compatible with the existing uses and existing zoning in the area. Notification was sent about this case no responses have been received date and staff is recommending approval because of the compatibility with surrounding land uses surrounding zoning and consistency with the Denton plan 2030 and I can address any questions. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you chair. When you zoom in on the map it appears that there are quite a few telephone poles on the property where obviously they train. Are they looking to change the code in order to have more another structure built or is this just to bring the code into line with what they're actually doing? So I think I mentioned at work session it's currently considered a non-conforming use so to do any expansion they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment or they could rezone to a district where their use is permitted. Trade schools are permitted in ICG at this time I believe they have several plans for expansions in the future. Right now I think they're just looking at an additional classroom building but I think they do have plans to do further expansion in the future. Okay thank you. Any other questions for Haley? Okay thank you. This is a public hearing if there's anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time. I don't have any cards at this time to speak on this item. Seeing none I'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion. Commissioner Sullivan. Make a motion that we approve this. Okay Commissioner Ellis . Thank you chair I will second. Okay have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on board. Motion carries 6-0. Moves us to our public hearing item B. At this time I'm open the public hearing for Z17-0021 and call on Haley. Alright good evening again. So this is case Z1721 it's a rezoning associated with Razor Ranch. The request is to hold this public hearing and consider a request to amend three of the exhibits in the Razor Ranch overlay district exhibits B 1, B4, and E1. And those changes would include a rezoning of approximately 12 acres from South Mixed Use District to South RR2 districts and it would also incorporate a total of approximately 22 acres into sign area 2. The Razor Ranch overlay is included includes 410 acres located on both sides of University Drive located in between Bonnie Bray on the east side and 35 W on the west or sorry 35 on the west. The district was originally approved in 2007. The major components of the overlay include zoning restrictions so each sub district within there has permitted uses and general regulations that apply to it. It puts in place site design criteria for architecture landscaping and signage and it also established the site plan process that we saw earlier this evening. So the property in question as I mentioned we have approximately 12 acres that are included in the request to rezone to RR2 and then we have a total of 22 acres that would be folded into sign area 2 with this request. A brief overview of Razor Ranch there are two major areas the marketplace on the north and the south campus on the south side of University. Looking at those a little more in detail the marketplace includes the RR2 area where we have a lot of commercial and restaurant uses. The RR3 area we have some bigger stores such as Walmart and Sam's in that area and then there is a residential area that will be developed in the future. On the south side RR1 is the district that surrounds the town center. RR2 applies mostly on the perimeter along 380 and 35 and then we have the south mixed-use district that applies to pretty much the remainder of the property. Then there are several other smaller parc els we have a DME substation here on the north side along Bonnie Bray, a drill pad also on Bonnie Bray and then Cook Children's is already designed and established as well in that area. For the marketplace there are standards in place for architecture for the commercial components. The residential standards have not been approved at this point and those will come before you as a request when the residential area is to be developed. On the south side the town center and South RR2 district have established standards in place as exhibits C1, D1 and E1. The south mixed-use area currently does not have standards for the majority of the uses there. Multi-family standards did come before you last year and those have been folded into the overlay but there are currently just placeholders C2, D2 and E2 that will be the standards for the commercial and other uses within the south mixed-use district and those will be established at some point in the future and brought before you as well. So the first component of this request is to amend exhibit B1, it's the zoning and concept plan for it and you can see here the area in red is the difference. So currently it's within that south mixed-use district that doesn't have standards in place. It would currently permit hotel commercial uses office and multi-family. The request is to change it to the south RR2 district which would take out the residential component and just allow commercial development on the property. The second component to this would be amending exhibit B4 which shows the zoning on the property. Same area we're just extending this boundary for the RR2 over to the east to include this 12 acre parcel. Comparison of what would be allowed there in terms of general regulations they are very similar same lot coverage landscape area requirements building heights are roughly the same. The key difference is really that residential component and as I mentioned before sign architecture and landscape standards haven't been developed for commercial uses within the south mixed-use district at this time. Those will be created and inserted in the overlay later. Whereas south RR2 has existing standards that we saw being applied to Chetters. Here's an example of some buildings that have been approved in the south RR2 area to show you what those standards the end result of those would be. So you can see here applied to restaurants, large box stores, a strip center with multiple uses and then more recently we had the Alamo draft house and rooms to go that were approved last year. So just to summarize all of that exhibits B1 and B4 this change would have two major implications. It would remove residential uses from the parcel that would strictly be multifamily. The same commercial uses are generally permitted in both districts though so no change there and it would change the design standards that apply. It would put the existing RR2 standards in place on the property. In staff's analysis of this we determined residential not likely to be ideal on that property. Close proximity to I-35 surrounded by commercial development on all sides and looking just prospecting to the future we don't anticipate that the commercial standards in the south mixed-use will be substantially different from what we already have in place in the RR2. So the goal is to create one cohesive development. So it's not likely that if it developed under south mixed-use we would see much difference between the end result. The other major component of this request and the third individual exhibit to be amended would be appendix one of exhibit E. So you can see here sign area two being extended to the south and east to include the parcel that we just discussed as well as the parcel where rooms to go is currently under construction. The second exhibit within the sign standards similar thing we're just seeing an extension of sign area two and there are some changes being made to where signs where some of the larger signs are being proposed. There was a question at work session about a distinction between the height of signs allowed there. That difference is because it's blurry on here you might be able to see it better in your backup. There are H1 signs and H2 signs so those are different types of pylons. H1 signs are allowed to be taller than H2 signs so that's why some of them have a standard of 75 feet and some have 45 feet. So it's two different types of signs being allowed. If I may. Commissioner Becker. Okay so and I think Commissioner Smith indicated too that one side would be more specifically for a particular business where the other sign might be for. Certainly yeah there are differences in what would be permitted with those two types but that is the distinction in height. There's two different types of pylon signs that would be permitted. Great great thanks Aiden. All right notification was sent about this case as of the time of this meeting we had received two responses. One in opposition from a residence here on the north side of the overlay and then one in favor from one of the co-owners of the development and immediately before this I believe we received a third response that was given to Chair Strange. Staff is recommending approval of both aspects of this request the zoning change and the sign area change because it is compatible with the surrounding development and it's consistent with the goals and objectives both for the overlay and for the Denton plan 2030 for this area. Can try to answer any questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Haley in your opinion the use of if this wasn't rezoned and there was a multifamily development that did come in there was built do you feel that mobility would be the exact same once panhandles developed to be the exact same whether it is a multifamily use or goes commercial use . I think the end result would be very similar because the same commercial use could develop under the existing zoning. It's such a small parcel multifamily wouldn't have a whole lot of density there but the same intensive commercial uses would already be permitted. So I'm gonna ask that in regards to one of the responses thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair I don't really have a question just wanted to say great presentation you condensed a lot of information there's a lot going on here you presented it really well thank you very much. Any other questions for Haley? Okay thank you this is a public hearing so anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time while I'm waiting I've got three letters I've got one from Andrew Os borne in favor request I've got one from Joe Revis opposed to request and I have one from Kenan Johnson opposed to request and those are all the comments that we have to enter into the record at this time. Again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair I would like to speak to the applicant if I may. I think you have to state your name and address if you would. Good evening my name is Scott Wagner with Red Development representing DB Denton 2 the owner and developer of Razor Ranch Town Center I live and work in Phoenix Arizona. Thanks Scott listen Mike I do have a little bit of concern of this zone change request just because I'm a pretty strong advocate for keeping all the land we can for residential and losing any for this particular item I don't know it seems like the land value for residential has greater value to the city but let me ask you this on to the north of this development we have North Lake Spark which has a pretty vast recreation center and just to the south both of them are within a probably a couple of miles of this development have these recreation centers let me ask this recreation center that you're gonna be built can you tell us what all it entails is there gonna be like indoor pool is this gonna be more of an exercise type venue or is it gonna be something like main event where people come and have fun I think it it'll be more like the indoor main event Dave and Buster's okay type of an event so it's a 40,000 square foot building the site plan is submitted to the city and in process okay so you're not gonna be doing anything that would compete with the junior North Lakes Park or no no okay well that helps a lot that clarifies a lot for me thank you any other questions for the applicant thank you thank you this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time did you fill out one of these with one of these your cards or you have another please come forward and give your name and address and then before you leave please fill out a card for us thank you Jimmy Rogers CS Rogers properties we own 916 North Bonnie Bray with all of this development Bonnie Bray is already tons over crowded you're gonna have to the south scripture that's just a two-lane road what is what's going on with all of that because right now supposedly they're going to widen Bonnie Bray or the city is but now we've got all this commercial work coming in that's going to add more traffic there's basically two ways in two ways out what are y'all's thoughts on all of that well I don't know if we have Jim Jinx here or Haley would like to address that I'd prefer staff to give the official response for them myself yes sir and I don't know of the specific timeline or plans for Bonnie Bray the ultimate intent is for it to be a secondary arter ial that would be a four-lane roadway with 110 feet of right of way but I don't know the time frame on that and Jim isn't with us right now and this is way off of what the topic is but I think it needs to be brought to the attention that while all this construction is going on it's getting harder and harder and harder for the landowners to get to their property and again the city of Denton is getting their cart before their horse this razor ranch property has been bought and sold three times that I know of and rezoned I don't know how many times you know I'm glad that we're getting it but in turn we have to look at the existing structures that we have there what it's doing to all of us that live there that own the property I appreciate your comments and those are things that I think are probably addressed at us the staff traffic department things those are really not things that comes before our Commission so I'm sorry not to be able to give you an answer that you'd like on that Commissioner Smith thank you chair just in regards to your comments one thank you for coming out so we need more many more citizens to come out and speak up whenever they see something about in their community that's going on one thing's a comment second one's a question common wise this this is just the zoning process we will get to the plotting process of course and if we feel like as commissioners and especially after hearing you speak we'll probably all still be here on the Commission when it comes to the actual national site plan process and approving of that if we feel like Bonnie Bray and scripture aren't in the plans to be expanded to a custom the 40,000 square foot Dave and Buster's or something like that coming in then we're gonna speak up and say something about it so at the point we're at now it doesn't seem nearly as important but in regards to one of the comments you made if this is a multifamily site that was being built there because that 's what's essentially what would be used if we didn't rezone it would it make a difference to you would I mean would you still say that the street needs to be expanded even if we were to be building an apartment complex there instead if we're going to get into question-answer we'll need to come back up to the mine is correct okay all right thank you my personal opinion is on your zoning you've got people that are coming in purchasing property from this company which is good for them the zone use to me anything along 35 should be commercial or the the retail whatever are 2d2 whatever y'all call it I understand all of that I'm more worried about what's happening on the east side because it's changed as many times as the owners every time there's a new owner there's new plans I've got to look out for my property that's all you know that's why I'm here because I got the letter and I always come to thank you whether I speak or not okay thank you for your comments Commissioner Sullivan yes I would like to say to address your concerns about the traffic I can assure you in work sessions traffic is always an issue we had questions today about traffic and how the roads are going to be done so you know I just want to let you know that we are looking out for you because we do believe that people live around need to know what the traffic situation is going to be and how we're going to improve it and not make it worse so I just want to let you know we do talk about those things just maybe not here a lot of times Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. Rogers I'd like to echo Commissioner Smith's sentiments for coming and speaking out we do appreciate that I would ask staff that is here to Ron and Haley is there a name or number you can give mr. Rogers that could probably better answer his question to somebody who handles the future of the streets would that be Jim Jenks this time pre town yes sir there is a traffic engineer for the city but I would start that request with Jim and he can can work that up would you be able to give him the name and Jim's name and yes I can get that contact information for him great thank you okay any other questions staff general public I think I was getting ready to close the public hearing so is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item at this time seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for our motion or discussion Commissioner Smith thank you chair a motion to accept okay Commissioner Sullivan okay we have a motion for approval and a second any further discussion or comment I 'll make a quick comment and we'll take our vote I know we have a lot of discussion and comments about traffic it is a complicated issue I think part of the thing that we have to keep in mind is sometimes just because someone comes in to build a piece of real estate commercial residential on a main thoroughfare in the city it may not always boil down to that it's the developers responsibility to fix all that it may be some city involvement in some of that so I think we need to keep that in mind as we have some of these discussions that it's can sometimes be a joint issue that needs to be addressed rather than a private property owner has to solve all those problems so with that we have a first and a second on the floor for approval and I'll call for a vote on the board the motion is going to carry six to zero and that is going to move us to our item C and we were going to reopen this and ask for a motion to continue I actually believe it's still open from last time so we're just going to continue it for a date certain okay thank you for the clarification so this item we left the public hearing open and we were asking for a motion for continuous to date certain Commissioner Smith emotion to postpone okay to which date to October 25th okay motion to continue to date certain October the 25th Commissioner Ellis I will second okay we have a first and a second any further discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board the motion carries six to zero that will move us to our project matrix for this evening Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I think in light of the discussion that we had today can we get an update on Bonnie Bray and scripture for a future mobility maybe a look at that maybe something in writing packet to us an email something like that certainly with with with the next packet that goes out for the 25th will include a summary of that and any sort of plans that are associated with Bonnie with any okay that'd be helpful because I'm scripture I think scripture was also yeah obviously razor ranch is going to continue to develop and we're going to continue to have similar concerns and yeah maybe we can get an update so that we can disseminate good information out there certainly thank you okay with that I'm going to close our meeting this evening at 10 after 7 thank you everyone