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