Nov 08, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-11-08 5:00 PM

This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 5 o 5 and I'll begin with starting with clarification of agenda items so we will go on to the consent agenda and I will call well I guess does anybody have questions on the consent agenda? Do you want to go through each item or just if we have questions? Yeah we do. You do? Okay well we'll just go through each item then and we'll address any questions and Haley will you come forward and give us an update on the consent agenda item A and I think you also have B, C, D. Yes sir. So we got pretty good odds. Commissioner Beck did you have a question on a particular item? Not on this one, on B I think it is. FP 17003329. Okay. Would you like me to go over item A? Well I'll just go over we've got a lot of people here today obviously so a lot of interest in what's on our agenda and we'll just do your standard quick presentation for work session and we'll see what questions come up. Okay so this is a preliminary plat for the Titus South development. It's located at the corner of Mosk Branch Road and Jim Crystal. This plat is for eight commercial lots and one common area lot that would be for drainage. Three of the lots have frontage here, I'm sorry four of the lots have frontage on Mosk Branch. The remaining lots are accessed by a common public access easement that you can see kind of winding through here. I can answer any questions about the plat if you have them. Okay. Not on that one. Okay. Thank you. We'll go on to B then. Okay. Item B is a final plat of four lots within the Razor Ranch South development. It's lot 17, I'm sorry five lots, lot 17 through 20 of block A and then lot one of block B which is a detention pond and drainage area. These lots are located along Panhandle Drive and Heritage Trail and I can answer any questions if you have them. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Julie for our clarification here. Could you focus in on lot 20 block A where it shows if you 've got a bigger version of it. On my plans, it shows what appears to be two different outlines of storm drainage in close proximity to one another one being 105 square feet, the other 42 square feet . Am I reading this right? There's two different ones on this one lot close together. Yes, sir. Okay. So now is that supposed to serve the entire drainage for this entire plant for all four lots or? I'm going to look to Jim and see if he can speak more to the specifics of what those two drains would be serving. I'm trying to add the two storm drains here. I believe that those two storm drainage easements are basically, I would assume that they are being dedicated for future tie-ins of a private storm sewer system in that lot, the southern part of that lot, into the new public storm sewer that is going down that street, that north-south road . Okay. So I would assume that that's, I mean, we sort of have this throughout Razor Ranch water and sewer and storm. And I suspect that it's no different here that that's the intent. Well, my concern was they were so close together, so I'm assuming that the way everything designed here that water is going to flow in that general direction. Yes, sir. Okay. So I'm not sure that we can set up for that. And some of these are sort of leave-outs for the future. I don't know if that part of that lot, I don't think it's been designed out yet, but that's sort of a judicious location that the designer has left for an anticipated future connection to the storm sewer system. So this is subject to change if necessary? Yes. Okay. If absolutely necessary. Okay. Okay. And then the other thing I got, Ms. Mayor's Hayes, is the property line seemed to encompass Heritage Trail, that main road. They're on that side of it. Am I reading that right? And if that's the case, does this mean the developer will be responsible for developing this part of that road, on this stretch of the road? Yes, sir. Heritage Trail is within the boundaries of this property. The only other part of that is being dedicated by this plat en is right up there. Okay. So they're going to do it all at one time and not half on one side and then wait for the other side to develop? It's actually currently under design. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Would you have that, sir? Recommendation. Recommendation. If we've got a move in. Okay. Anything else on this one? Anything else on B? [inaudible] Okay. How about item C? All right. So we need to announce that B is going to be pulled and go to individual. Because we've got a recommendation on item B that's going to be pulled from the consent agenda and that can become our, you want to make it item B then for individual consideration items to add that condition? Okay. Pardon me. What are you doing then? There's a condition on that. It actually is tied somewhat to your question if there has to be a tweak or a change on that storm drain. Gotcha. It can be handled at the RC level rather than having to come all the way back to PMZ. Okay. Thanks. To C. Thank you, Haley. All right. Okay. This is a final plan for eight residential lots that are located in the ETJ. So this property is situated at the corner of Hickory Hill Road and Bell Cote Circle. So these will be eight single family residential lots. Any questions on this one? Any questions on this? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. It's more of a typo question. On the plat, it's got PRDCT instead of DRDCT. I don't know if that makes a difference, but the legend and the plat do not match. Thank you for pointing that out. You are welcome. Anything else on this one? Let's go on to D. Okay. This is a preliminary plat for a single lot. It's located on the south side of the Razor Ranch development. It actually has frontage on Panhandle, the service road, and Scripture Street on the south. Thank you. Anybody have a question on E? Does Julie need to come up on anything on that item? Okay. And if you want to stay there, we'll move on to 3A then. Okay. This item is a site plan for an entertainment center to be located in Razor Ranch. So the request is for approval of a site plan for an entertainment venue to be constructed on lot 17, block A, that we just saw on the final plat that we looked at. You can see general location outlined here in red. You may remember this property was recently part of a rez oning request. We brought it from the south mixed use district to the south RR2 district. To give you a better idea of where this is located, you can see the property is situated just south of the Embassy Suit es and Convention Center. It will be located just a little ways north of the future extension of Panhandle Drive. As we've discussed before, all site plans for properties within the south RR2 district of the Razor Ranch overlay are subject to certain architectural and landscape standards that are outlined in the overlay district. So with a site plan approval, they are required to submit a site plan, a landscape plan, and building elevations for your consideration. So to walk through the site plan we have here, it's a building is just over 41,000 square feet. Outlined in red are the areas where there will be 20 bowling lanes. There's an arcade also proposed outlined here in green. There's an event space within the building that's in this blue box here. And then there's also a restaurant in the remainder of the building. There will be a total of 165 parking spaces as it's shown here. 151 would be the minimum requirement, but Razor Ranch doesn 't have a maximum on the parking, so they're able to go over that minimum. There are bicycle racks proposed on the site. They'll be located here just outside the building. And this will be accessed from two internal private drives. You have what's called Private Drive C here on the side and Private Road A will be over here. And then looking at their landscape plan, they're proposing a site that would have just over 16% landscaping, 50% mature tree canopy. You can see all the areas in green would be landscaping throughout the parking lot and around the building. They're also proposing about 4,800 square feet of plaza area located outside the building here on the south side. That will contain benches, tables, some shade structures, and as well as some landscape plantings. To give you an idea of what the building will look like, this is the elevation for the south side. So that would be the front of the building and well as the left or the west side of the building here on the bottom. And then this would be the back side of the building, so the north side and the east side of the building. The Razor Ranch Overlay District outlines criteria for approval for their site plans. The site plan shall substantially comply with the concept and schematic plan that was approved by council. The site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that won't adversely affect neighboring properties. Provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic and complies with all sections of the overlay. And staff through our analysis and study of the site plan found that we have met these conditions. >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Anytime something comes in along the service road here, I'm concerned about the traffic. And even though the main entrance is on a smaller road, they all gotta get there somehow, they all have to leave somehow. And that's either through Bonnie Bray or the service road. And anytime you want to look at the service road on Google Map, you see all the backup, the red line is always there. I think it's, so what's gonna happen to that intersection and to Bonnie Bray and all of that to alleviate any traffic concerns that the residential area is gonna have in this building. I mean, I think it's great to have a rec center there. I think it's great to have the bowling lanes and all those things. But I'm just concerned about the traffic getting to and from. And what that's going to do to already a bad traffic situation. >> Certainly, so there would be multiple means of access to the site. Just to walk through a few of them, we have the service road here, as we've mentioned. There will also be heritage trail that is under construction and design right now that will also be a north south option off of university. And then Bonnie Bray is also under improvement. This phase is, I believe, under design right now. So within the next few years, Bonnie Bray will be widened and expanded in this area. And then there will also be Panhandle Road on the south that would provide some cross connectivity there. >> What's the few years versus the construction for this? >> I believe they're looking in the ballpark, 2020, 2021, somewhere in that range for Bonnie Bray. So potentially for a few years, it would be kind of tight. But you do have multiple means of access east, west, and north, south in this area that would provide options. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Sullivan, I think if you look at the Google Maps, the exit off of 35 to go to 380, if that's what your real concern is, where the backup is there. That is much further up from where the site that we're in conversation about. So they'd have to exit off at Oak Street to be able to get there. >> I understand. >> But when they leave there, they want to go back home south, they've got to get on the service road, get into the Mixmaster stuff at the university to then come around and go back south on 35. >> Sure. >> Or they go on Bonnie Bray, which is a four lane road when it turns into, when you get down to scripture, it 's terrible. I mean, it just doesn't make sense why all of those roads aren't being done at the same time that we're planning on having how many more cars, 165 cars potentially enter that area. It just doesn't make sense to me. >> Okay. >> I'm not against the development. I just wish the roads and streets would get built out, the infrastructure would get built out at the same time so we don't have the same mess that we have every time something happens like this. That's all. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. I think the answer to all this is bicycles. I'm glad, I'm delighted that there's bicycle racks there and this will encourage people to bike there and they can avoid all that traffic. So that's one solution. My only concern here, or just question, really, the site plan shows six parking spaces that are proposed 165 for handicapped parking. So I'm assuming that's meeting a minimum requirement? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Commissioner Rozell. >> Thank you, Chair. I have one question that I think is going to be stopped by the overlay, but you said that there's not a maximum parking requirement for this entire overlay. Within the overlay ordinance for razor ranch, they have to meet the city minimums of our code, but they are allowed to exceed that parking as much as they choose. There are landscape standards that come into play, though. They're required to have a landscape island every 15 spaces , end caps with landscaping and things like that to help enhance the parking lots. >> Yes, so I don't know if there's anything we can do with this project, but I just know the shopping center at University in Carroll is a concrete jungle because there's not a maximum parking requirement for them and they just pave the entire thing. And I would hate to see razor ranch turn into a ton of excess concrete when it's not needed. So 14 spaces isn't too much, but it's still probably a couple thousand square feet. >> Yes, sir. >> So that has a little pause in just future development. Maybe the city can think about ways to council development not to have excess parking. The other question I had, because that wasn't really a question, is on the elevations, can you show me this? So on the southwest, is that a massive poster? What is the proposal there? >> That will be a still graphic that will be on the side of the building there. It will be required to go through a sign permit, but it is intended to be a static graphic on the side of the building . >> And it wraps around to the side, it looks like. >> Yes. >> So that's outside our, within the elevation requirements , they're allowed to put a billboard more or less on the side of their building? >> Yeah, they have signed standards, so it can't exceed, I believe, I think 30% of the total building can be signed. I would have to look into that to confirm that number, but yes, they are allowed graphics of this nature. >> Okay, thanks. >> Commissioner Sanchez. >> My question was also on the parking. How do they come up with a number? I know last week, I mean, at our last meeting, on one of the construction sites, areas that were being constructed building, there was like one parking lot for every 420 square feet. How do they arrive at here as how many parking lots, how many parking spaces there's going to be? >> So there are different ratios for the different uses within the building. So I believe there is, I don't have the full site plan here on the screen, but if you look, there's a parking tab ulation table on the site plan that walks through what the different ratios are. So many parking spaces for each bowling lane, for each seat in the restaurant. It is looked at depending on each individual use within the building. There's a different ratio applied to each use. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Haley, what is the percentage of landscaping that a site must have in the razor ranch overlay? >> Let me grab my files real quick. >> Thanks. >> For this district, it is 10% landscape area and 20% tree canopy. Any other questions for Haley on this item? >> And just for housekeeping purposes, we do have the one item that was our 2B consent agenda item. That's FP 17-0023 and that will now be moved to our item B under items of individual consideration. >> That will move us on to public hearings. Haley. >> Okay. So items A and B are for the same site, so I've combined this into one presentation for you to try to keep things a little simpler. We have two requests for this site, the first being a rez oning from ICE district to NRMU district. And the second being an SUP request, so a specific use permit for two different uses. Multi-family use on a portion of the property and outdoor recreation use on another portion. In total, the site is just over 72 acres. Located on the west side of town, on the south side of Oak Street, and along the rail line. Looking at the future land use, this area is designated as industrial commerce. The intent of that designation being to promote both light and heavy industrial uses in and around the airport. The proposed NRMU district does not meet the intent of that future land use designation. So when a rezoning request doesn't conform to the future land use map, the Denton Development Code does provide additional criteria that we're charged with looking at. These criteria are intended to balance a lot of competing interests, public health, safety, and the general welfare of the public against the right to the use of the property. These criteria include the existing land use pattern, whether or not an isolated zoning district would be created . Is there adequate infrastructure to serve the property? Any potential environmental impacts? And then just the overall character of the district. So we'll kind of go through those and look at some maps to see what we have going on here. One of those being that the site is within the West Park Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. So that's an approximately 800 acre area that you can see all hatched here on the map. The intent of the TERS is to promote industrial development in this area by providing some incentives to help compensate for the cost of public infrastructure that is required to help support this development. Looking at what's going on in the area in terms of zoning and uses, you see the subject property and much of the property to the north and south. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I have a question here concerning the TERS. So it's explicitly for industrial development, is that correct? That is the stated intent of the TERS. And just for the record, not for an NRMU usage, as the applicant wants to do for multifamily dwellings. I can speak to the intent of it is to promote industrial development. So this would be outside the intent of that. Okay, thanks. I can read the mission statement. The mission of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone number two is to provide a source of funding for public infrastructure improvements to encourage and accelerate necessary development within the largest industrial zoned area within the city. That's the mission statement. Commissioner Beck. Does that go along with what I was saying then? It kind of negates anything outside of industrial use? Correct. I'm going to call them legal. If I could chime in just a minute. The intention is that it would promote the industrial, but that's not to the exclusion of all else, because it's the least restrictive. So you're going to be able to have whatever accumulation is under that. So we anticipate that there are going to be commercial uses in that area, for example. And I think that there is a current agreement for the TERS that contemplates that, that there would be industrial and commercial. Okay, my concern, I guess, here is, and I'm not trying to jump ahead, but to me this proposal is a round peg trying to fit a square hole. But should this thing go forward, then I guess, are you saying, Jennifer, that the money from TERS could be used for this multifamily development? That's exactly what would happen. I think the reimbursement agreement, the money goes to RASER, but I think there might be a pass-through. But you can ask the applicant when we go into regular session. Okay, thanks. Okay. All right. Commissioner Sullivan. Quick question. It seems like the major thing that I see here is a lake pond retention something. How is that going to fit into the overall scheme? And I guess being neighborhood, might be less runoff, less waste than industrial? So you're correct, there is. I believe it's about 15 acres of pond associated zone X flood plain and environmentally sensitive area that all surround the pond. So as far as the drainage and runoff from the site, when they're going through the planning process, they will analyze what the best plan is for that. But I would anticipate that it would drain to the pond in general, as the site does currently based on the topography . Well, I'm guessing neighborhood would be a better fit than industrial. I mean, I'm just guessing that there's a lot less waste that could go into that area. If it were homes or apartments, then it would be from factories, car washes or whatever. I would imagine that's correct, but not sure of the specifics. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Yes. When you were talking about the 800 acres of industrial designation, and it also talks about environmental impacts. Now, when you looked at the 800 acres, did somebody go out there and actually look at it and say, okay, these areas within this 800 acres, or there's different topography, there's different issues. Are we going to look at that and say, you know, not the whole 800 acres are identical. And so each area has to be looked at, just not designate the whole 800 acres, without doing some type of impact study. As are they all equal, or is there some areas that are much more sensitive? Yes. So the 800 acres that's shown here, that's just the boundary of the towers. Of course, each site will have to be looked at individually as it develops, based on the unique conditions of the site. In terms of one of the considerations for the rezoning approval, environmental, potential environmental impacts on this particular site are a concern that should be looked at , certainly. One thing to point out, you might want to go through the SU P, because the lake is actually not a component of the SUP application. It is excluded from that. From the SUP, that's correct. It is within the boundaries of the rezoning request, which covers the whole 72 acres. What difference does that make? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. What difference does that make? It has rights to other, I'm not sure if there can be convey ance. Maybe that's a question the applicant can ask for. There's specific rights to that water, so I don't know if conveyance from that site could go to that. Again, that's a question for the applicant, and we would look at that at Platting, but it is not part of this application. Well, and one thing the Chair wants to step in is this is going to be a public hearing item, so the applicant will be able to speak, and they'll have their engineer, and a lot of these questions that we're kind of getting off on, we can actually address to somebody that can answer those questions. So let's try to get through the presentation and the high points, and then we'll get into some of these details when we get into our public session with the applicant to address them specifically. So if you'll please continue. Thank you, Hayley. Certainly. Yeah, so looking at the compatibility of the rezoning request, the subject property and properties to the north and south are within the ICE district. There are existing industrial facilities developed both to the south and the east along the rail line. Just a few specifics, there's the Benning Keith Dist ribution Center reader link distribution, 84 lumber to the north. We also have the ICG district to the west of the property. You can see here the Peterbilt site. There's several Gaswell sites and quite a large chunk of undeveloped land in this area. If you cross I-35, you'll see a much larger mix of zoning districts, just some high points. There is Razor Ranch here to the northeast for orientation. There is the hospital, quite a bit of residential development, and then the UNT campus here and UNT Stadium here to the southeast. Looking at how access would be provided to the site, one condition, there is an existing rail line that runs along the east boundary of the property. We have Oak Street, which turns into Jim Crystal here on the north, which is a primary arterial. Currently, two-lane undivided roadway intended based on its classification to eventually be a six-lane divided road. All dedication and improvements required for this development would be determined at the time of platting. Precision Drive currently extends just up to the southern boundary of the property. It is intended to be extended north as part of this development, and that is intended to be developed as a two- lane undivided roadway per its classification as a commercial mixed-use collector. Now looking into the specifics of what they're hoping to do on the property, they've applied for an SUP for two uses, as I mentioned. So we have two phases of multifamily development proposed. Here in green would be phase one. The red area represents phase two of the multifamily development. In total, that's about 32 and a half acres of the property that would be dedicated to multifamily. Phase one is proposed as 189 units. That would be 700 bedrooms, a density of about 8.8 dwelling units per acre. Phase two would contain an additional 100 units, 376 bedrooms, and again, be just under nine dwelling units per acre in density. Then phase three of the development is the proposed outdoor recreation use. It would be on approximately 20 acres of land on the south side of the property. And as it's shown here, would contain approximately five ball fields and associated parking. The remaining area of the property, the balance of the acre age being the large lake that's in the middle of it, I've outlined in blue the boundaries of the riparian buffer environmentally sensitive area that is associated with the lake and the upstream and downstream of the lake. And as Richard mentioned, that is excluded from the SUP request. They're not providing- Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Either of those uses in that area. So can you give us stream flow on the blue lines there? Just in regards to the recreation area, would that come into an area where that lake flooded, that those recreational areas will be flooded too because they're downstream? I believe that's downstream, yeah. So I'm not sure of the conditions there for flooding, but it does flow to the south. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Rosell. Thank you, Chair. Would they have to change any floodplain regulations or stipulations in order to build phase two in red? Yes, so there would be a lengthy process ahead of them. There is FEMA designation on there, so they would have to go through the conditional letter of map revision to potentially develop within the floodplain. On top of that, this whole area in blue is ESA, so they would need to first do a field assessment to verify the existence of the riparian area. And then if that is verified, there would potentially be the alternative ESA plan that would come back before you and council. Thank you. Just to give you an idea of the product that we're looking at, these are some of the conceptual elevations. Many more examples were included in your backup, but this is the type of apartments they would be looking to build. You can see some look more like traditional single family. Others would contain multiple units and be more like a triplex or a fourplex. Notifications were sent about the request. We received two responses. One of those was included in your backup in the packet. The other I passed out prior to the meeting. One was in favor and one was in opposition. You can see those outlines here on the map. And I did want to point out we ran the numbers, and it's currently at 22% opposition, so that would trigger a super majority vote at council, not at P&Z. Commissioner Sullivan. Do we know at this point the average square footage of the residential uses and approximate cost? I know that's a long way away, but I'm just thinking, would this be considered, quote, low income or moderate housing costs or something of that nature? It is intended for student housing. That's what it would be marketed towards. I believe there were some floor plans included in your backup. I'm not sure of the exact square footage on those. It would have to meet our minimum of at least $500 per unit . And as to the cost, I'm not sure what that would be, but the applicant will be here at the public hearing. Okay. Could maybe speak to that. Okay. All right. In terms of the rezoning request, staff is recommending denial of the request for these reasons. Incompatibility with the surrounding property uses, incons istency with the goals of the West Park TURS, and inconsist ency with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030 and that industrial commerce designation. Similarly for the SUP, we're recommending denial of that request for the same reasons. However, if P&Z votes to recommend approval, we do have some conditions that we would like to see on that. The first of those being that the site plan, landscape plan , and elevations provided to you would be considered conceptual. So that the site would need to go through a full site plan submittal for each phase to ensure that it meets all of the requirements of the Denton Development Code in terms of landscaping, parking, and building design. Let's go through these first. Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. The second condition is we would require that before any of phase two or phase three be developed that that ESA be examined fully through an assessment and then a potential alternative ESA requirement there. And then the third requirement would be that the multif amily use be limited strictly to the acreage that was proposed here with this conceptual site plan. Similarly for the outdoor recreation, it be limited to those approximately 20 acres and that the multifamily not contain more than the maximum number of units shown here, which was 289. And can answer any questions you might have. Call on legal for clarification. I just want to address what I had indicated earlier about reimbursement. It looks like in the project plan for the TURS, multifamily was specifically excluded for reimbursement. Thank you. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. Just out of curiosity, part of our information deals with cost to the city to help develop this area. Would the expense to the city and other government entities and providing improving increasing or maintaining public utilities school streets and other public safety measures in your opinion, or if you know, be greater or less for an NRMU district over an ICI district. Unfortunately, I can't speak to that. This would be a high volume of students. So I imagine the potential traffic impacts could be substantial. I believe it was total of 1000 bedrooms roughly. But I'm not sure what the comparison would be there. I think my impression that when you develop a residential area like this, the demand is going to be greater on infrastructure and everything as opposed to industrial uses more plumbing, that type of thing. But that's just my. I would say, given the topography of the site and the unique conditions there with the lake it's unlikely it would be a large industrial user more likely, if not this then develop as smaller supporting commercial uses or something similar to that. Okay, but that just the concern to the cost of city should I think you know way in here on which way we go. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, not to bog things down legal . If we were to make if we were to approve this what we have to make the motion to accept it with second staff recommendations then. Correct. If they're saying that yes, do we work with we recommend denial but if you do approve we recommend that you approve with these recommendations will we need to make our motion to say yes we need to. We recommend we approve and we are, but the motion is a motion to approve but with staff recommendations then. Yes, because they would be in the record already. Thank you . This is your backup right. Yes. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Sanchez. And there's two ponds big ponds in there. Two lakes. And some of those areas further down properties, the land there's pretty flat. So my biggest concern would be, what would you, how would you, there'd be a lot of, what do you call it, runoff in that area because of the topography and putting the large industrial complex there or several of them would increase that erosion or you know you couldn't do that because of the. Because of the landscape. Thank you. Microsoft over there. Commissioner. Did you hear me. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, as I mentioned, I don't think even, you know, this request aside, given the topography and that, like, I think it unlikely the site would ever develop with large intensive industrial users, such as what's out there at this time. But in terms of the runoff, I'm not, I'm not sure how that would compare between the residential and the industrial use. Other than I can speak to the NRMU zoning would require more landscape area overall on the sites that could potentially treat runoff, then would be permitted under the industrial district. If that gives you any comparison there. The only question I have is in regards to the changing the zoning, what would it do as far as the buffering or set backs for neighboring properties like to the west being industrial against a residential use versus if it stayed industrial. Yes, so with the current industrial abutting industrial there wouldn't be buffering requirements. There wouldn't necessarily be buffers required across precision drive here but there would be buffers between the uses required on the south side. Assuming this would develop with those recreation uses. I believe it would be a 15 foot buffer that would be required between there. But the buffering would be against an industrial use coming up against a residential use in the future. Is that correct . I don't believe there's any place where the industrial would immediately about the residential as they've shown it , because there would be streets separating it on both the north and west side. The railroad currently exists between that on the east. So the red light that has the buffer that we've gotten into sometimes before so that's fine so the property to the west then wouldn't be impacted that they would have to set back further for buffering because of the street, because it has that separation. Any impact if we did changes are all on this side it doesn 't impact the uses to the west. No sir. Okay. One other question that I would have or ask of staff or spend a couple questions about the impacts. Would it be possible between now and when we get into our public meeting to get what the impact fees based on this site plan would be as far as the traffic impact fees wastewater. I can see numbers see how big that number really is for if they decide to move forward what those fees would be to the city. I can hear the demands on the infrastructure rough numbers there for you. That'd be great. Any other questions on this item. Okay. I think Julie gets to come up now. Thank you Haley great job on all your presentations. Okay. So I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting the 1722 East side of Mont. So the request before you is to consider an initial zoning of neighborhood residential mixed use for a property that's approximately six acres here in the yellow is generally located on the east side of the future FM 2499 alignment about 1400 feet south of Robinson Road. So most of us haven't traveled this portion of the road. It 's and and it doesn't look today like it does in the aerial. This is a new road. I believe it's opening in 2018. So, so we're going to have to use our imaginations tonight about what it's what it actually looks like adjacent to the property. So currently the property has an RD 5x zoning designation. As you probably are aware this is our place holding zoning designation for properties once they're annexed into the city of Denton. When this property was annexed a long time ago it received that designation. It didn't develop at that time and it's it was it was kind of landlocked until until until about next year. So, so now the applicant is proposing an NRM use zoning district to develop the site. The didn't plan 2030 designates this area is low low density residential. The intent of this is to encourage that sort of low density suburban development pattern those those single family neighborhoods that we're all familiar with the proposed zoning does not technically meet this, this low density residential designation. So in that case the section 35 dot 3 dot 3 dot B dot 3 kicks in and we take a little closer look at the request. There's a there's a little more criteria as you talked about a Haley's case. So these criteria are intended to look at the existing land use patterns see if the proposed zoning conforms to it. See if this creates an isolated zoning district if there's adequate infrastructure, what the environmental impacts would be and then what the character is of the area and the proposed district. So we're going to go through the area and just kind of talk about these together. So first of all, I'm sure you all remember this slide. We've had a lot of zoning cases come adjacent to this future roadway. And so this one's no different. In this case, the 2499 arterial will run through Denton in this fashion. The the star is the subject property and this this road is going to connect Denton to DFW airport south of Flower M ound. So it's going to be a major thoroughfare and regional connector. So based upon that staff does not believe that this property would actually develop with single family uses. It's because of this 900 feet along the arterial. It really is sort of sandwiched up against this arterial. We don't we don't really don't believe that single family uses would actually develop on the six acres and that commercial use is a really more appropriate given the visibility and the access of the site. So 2499 in this area. Here's a text dot plan of it. It's proposed to be a six lane divided roadway. As I said, it's currently under construction. The final design just just to point out has some noise walls in this area. So one that will actually affect the subject property on the south end of the of the property line and then one across across the street from the adjacent residential. Here's the subject property here in in the light green. So we also looked at the neighboring subdivisions and area. So in this in this to the north of the subject property, we have a single family subdivision. It is part of plan development 176 that included neighborhoods as well as public utilities. If you'll see right along here, this is actually an electric transmission line that cuts between the subject property and the neighborhoods to the north. And then there's also some commercial kind of over here near Teasley. And then there's some undeveloped commercial in this plan development in this location to the north is already five X as well. It is developed with a gas well facility to the to the east of the subject property. You have in our four that's developed with the single family neighborhood. There is an open space lot that separates the subject property from those neighborhoods and to the south. You have PD 111, which is also a single family neighborhood. It also includes some open spaces. So when we. Yes, sir. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. That open space like that separates that housing development from what are we talking about in with dimensions? I mean, yeah, I measured it. You know, it gets a little gets a little wider here on the south end, a little narrower here in the middle. I want to say it probably isn't more than at the narrow part, maybe 30 feet wide. Okay. Is there a whole landscape in there? I think it's more natural. It isn't a floodplain. And so it 's kind of just natural existing canopy in that area. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So when we talk about commercial development next to next to single family residential neighborhoods, we want to be sensitive and in use and scale. We we understand and in the comp plan, we want our neighborhoods to have commercial services that day to day type shopping near them. You know, the the the dry cleaners and the drug store and and maybe a doctor's office. But we but we realize that there are some commercial uses that really are incompatible with single family residential , something like vehicle repair where it would create a lot of noise and potential potential nuisance for that single family neighborhood. So so that's why we we we looked at NRMU because it does sort of limit the scale of development of some commercial uses as well as limit some of those more high intensive commercial uses. The intent of NRMU really is to be located near those residential areas to provide those necessary services for those neighborhoods. There is a flood zone on the back. Of course, you know, they would have to meet any requirements associated with that once they get to development. Just just wanted to show you where that that flood area is and how it takes up that that open space lot adjacent. So public notification was sent out for the the the proposal. Thirty five notices were sent in the 200 foot buffer. We've received five in opposition and zero in favor of the NRMU. Now, I want to caution you and Commissioner Beck and I talked earlier today about this in your packet. There was there were some notifications that were sent regarding a rezoning to maybe a higher intensity commercial use. So I wanted you all to have all of the available information that the city got from the residents. So that's why in your packet you had you had some responses from neighbors that were in association with an already five X to a CMG. However, they've actually dialed back that commercial use to that NRMU because they wanted to make sure that they were compatible with those residential areas. So you received some additional responses on your table that were in association with that NRMU. So that way you have all of the information that the city that the city received in terms of response from the neighborhood. McCall on staff. Richard has a comment. I just wanted to add, if you recall, this item was on the last agenda and we had continued it to this one for this very reason. Commissioner Sullivan. I realize that there is a buffer on the east side, but I'm concerned about the buffer on the south side. Any idea what those people thought were going in at the time they bought their homes? I don't know what was told to them at the time they bought their homes. I think one of the responses in front of you, the neighbor did say that they were told that that was going to remain open. So I really don't know what they were told at the time. I can tell you that the Denton Development Code does have requirements in terms of buffers. So a commercial use adjacent to a single family use would be required to put in a 15 foot buffer that included a certain number of trees and shrubs. Any development would also be required to conform to any light and glare requirements in the code, any tree preservation as well as landscape screening, parking lot screening. So they would be required to have some design interventions in the development to try to ensure compatibility with those residential. I guess my concern is that the only way that they could service the people closest to them is to come all the way 24/99 to Robinson to Pine Hills to then do all of that. And I just don't see what kind of a service industry other than Domino's Pizza maybe would want to travel that each and every time they want to service. Or if their customers are coming the other way, how are they going to get from the east side of 24/99 down Robinson and now come across to that area? I don't know what streets are going to be like and so I'm not sure. That's a really good point and part of what we looked at is that this commercial area didn't provide direct access to those residential areas. So it did provide that seclusion from those residential areas. If you'll look at text dot plans, you'll see that Pine Hills here does actually will connect to 24/99 in this location. So it will provide some connectivity for those residential areas if it ended up being some sort of convenience use. I know the applicant spoke in their neighborhood meeting that they were looking at more office uses. But retail is permitted in the zoning district so it could be a retail type use and there is some connectivity in this area to get neighborhoods in there. While you have the map up, I know Jim Jenks had to step out . Would you mind getting with him between now and when we get in public if they're going to be allowed to have any curb cuts out there in that center divider? Because according to that map, it doesn't look like there's any left turn lanes on the southbound to be able to get access. I don't think there is, but I'll confirm. I think it would just be a right in, right out at this location. Okay. But I'll check for you. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Smith, did you have a question? Yes, thank you, Chair. You did say that they did have a community meeting? They did, yes, sir. Okay, gotcha. Is the applicant going to be present tonight? He is supposed to be, yes, sir. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. I'll ask him then. Any other question? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. You threw me your presentation, though. I wanted to let you at least finish. Are you at that point? Yes, sir. I'm done. Absolutely. Okay. Just to better visualize this for me and anybody else , 2499 is that part that currently is developed, and it's four lanes. Two lanes going each way until it switches to road. So are you saying when we cross over, it says in the information here, there's going to be a six lane, three lanes in each way. So it changes at that point. And this is a road that goes up and eventually connects to State School Road. Yes, sir. So we can see what that's going to look like, that whole area is going to look like if you go up to the State School right now and see anybody that's been up there. It's wide. Yeah. And it's going to haul a lot of traffic through there. So I understand residents' concerns about this being developed for commercial. Are we, if we do approve this, when it comes back around to us, then we can, because I'm concerned that you can put hotels in and NRMU, and I think residents would be too. You can put clubs and other things that would probably be unsuitable for that area. But there are other things like laundering mats, you can go in there, things that are quieter, low key and stuff like that. So will we as a commission be able to be a little selective there as to the type of commercial enterprises that go in there? I'll call on legal to give a response to that. I just wanted to remind everyone that this is one of the few times where you can actually use your overlay because it's an NRMU and it's a budding residential area. So we have that mixed use overlay that we can use and we've already provided notice for it in the agenda. We do that now. So if you want to remove uses from the zoning category, you can do that with an overlay. And when would we, at what time would we be able to do that ? When you do your motion. Tonight? Okay. Thank you. I think that's it, yes. Any other questions for Julie on this item? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. You said earlier, you said it's at a floodplain. Well, there's a portion of the lot. This is schematic. This isn't based upon it on the ground. This is really just sort of generally where that would be. Got it. Thank you. Move us on to agenda item D. All right. This is PDA 17.6 CARMAX. So this request before you is to consider approval of a detailed plan for Plan Development 12, that's PD 12, to depict a new or used car sales lot on approximately 7.11 acres out of a 34.4 acre tract. So the subject property is generally located adjacent to I- 35. It's south of state school, so we're still in the general location we were before. The area outlined in yellow is that 34 acre tract. The red is very conceptually where the proposed development would go. So the Denton plan calls this area regional mixed use. The intent is to serve as a regional destination. These are primarily found along our I-35 corridors. So it brings people to the area and either from outside the city of Denton or within the city of Denton. And the proposal does meet this future land use designation , the car lot. So let's talk about the current zoning as well as the adjacent zoning. So this is in PD 12. And PDs in the city of Denton were, our current development code doesn't actually have plan developments except for 15 that were left over from the pre 2002 code. And the pre 2002 code, it was the 1991 code, it was a plan developments were a two step process. The first process was the concept plan, which outlined the boundaries of the plan development and the uses and the general areas of where those uses would go also design considerations often. So this was PD 12, it was approved in 87 and it did permit the use. At that time they called the use new or use car sales lot in open and that was permitted. The surrounding zoning includes RCCD adjacent to the subject property and those are developed with similar uses, vehicle sales. RCCN is to the north also developed with similar uses. And then we have some vehicle sales to the south within the PD. There are properties, single family properties developed to the west of the subject property. And then across the highway there's also some single family development. So that's really what's surrounding the area. Commissioner Sullivan. Just to be clear, because in my map I don't show the red box. Oh yes you don't. This is just for our- So we're only talking about the red box, we're not talking about the black box or whatever. It includes the entire black box, but their detailed plan is only for the red box. And here's where the difference in our straight zoning versus plan development lies. So in a straight zoning we would be talking about should it be RCCN, RCCD, or whatever one of our zoning districts. And then it could develop in accordance with that zoning district. PDs are a little different in that what they're really essentially doing with this plan development is getting approval of a site plan for their development. Because we're really now looking at the details of the site . The use is permitted under the PD. Now we're looking at just how the site develops. And it will have to develop in accordance with whatever is approved or denied by virtue of this public hearing. So the site plan, the landscape plan, and the elevations that are in your backup, and we'll talk about the site plan and landscape plan in the presentation. Those are what would be approved and it would have to develop in accordance with that. So my concerns with the black line backing up to the houses on Waterford is nonexistent. Because we're only talking about the red box. Yes, sir. And if they did want to expand their use into the part that is beyond the red box, they would have to come back again and amend their detail plan. That's probably the way I should have said it at the beginning. It's almost similar to what we just did with Razor Ranch. Yes. Where we kind of set the boundary of the whole area and then we're sort of looking at these individual parcels. Almost the exact same thing, just a different, calling it something different. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. And that's already planned. That's already, like, the black is, it's already been approved. It's been in place, correct? Yes. So because we don't have planned developments in the 2002 code, we look at the 1991 code to review these projects. And there are criteria for approval for detail plans in the 1991 code. And just generally that the proposal must comply with the concept plan, that it must provide for compatible arrangements of buildings that would not adversely affect adjoining properties outside of the PD. That it would provide adequate circulation of traffic. And that would be in substantial compliance with the city regulations. Staff has reviewed their request in association with the criteria for approval and we believe that it meets the criteria for approval and we'll go over some of these things now. So first of all, we'll just take a look at what the concept plan called for. And there were a couple maps in the concept plan and they 're a little hard to read, so we're going to do our best together. But so here is the general area we're talking about. Here was the concept plan and the yellow circle is about where the property is. And I can tell because here is the city of Denton municipal boundary. And then you can tell this little corner is right here. So it's in this general location. Yes sir, yes sir. And this was in a commercial shopping area which permitted the use. So that's the concept plan and that's what laid out the uses in this area for this use. And then we'll look at the site plan. So this is kind of a just a zoomed in part of the site plan . So they're proposing an approximately 7400 square foot building made of or constructed with masonry materials. They're proposing, and that's in the yellow, they're proposing a one access point to the I-35 frontage road. This is the sale staging area here and it will be screened from public view with a six foot masonry wall. The code also in subchapter 13 has requirements related to light and glare, which they would conform with when they get to the building permit stage. And they are also agreed to making sure that those public access address speakers would be faced in a way that would minimize any impacts to adjacent properties. This is their landscape plan. They're proposing trees and shrubs along I-35 to present well to the I-35 frontage road. They're also proposing additional tree canopy to be planted 71,000 square feet at maturity. And that they're also sort of back loaded those trees right here adjacent to those residential areas to try to mitigate any impacts that any light that would or noise that would come from the site. Public notification was sent out. We've received two responses in favor and three in opposition. And I will, staff does recommend approval of the request as it's consistent with the future land use. It's compatible with the surrounding property and it meets the criteria for approval for detail plans in the 91 code. Can I stand for any questions? Commissioner Sullivan. I think in your presentation, if you would make it abund antly clear that you're talking about the red line and not the black, because I think every one of these people who are opposed sees the yellow line coming up next to Waterford and they 're going, whoa, Jack, back it up a little bit. And so I think that needs to be clarified that we're not talking about that hole in your map here, yellow, but in the red. Yes, sir. I will. I will. I'll do that. Thank you very much. You bet. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So down the road, because this is a planned development area, things that would probably, but up close to these neighborhoods would be something more amenable than a high traffic business. I think all of that area is in floodplain anyway. Yeah. So here's the floodplain. So as you can see, this is probably even better look at where, really where they're proposing, because they're trying to stay out of what are some natural conditions. Okay, so there isn't much room for any other development because of the floodplain unless they do some extensive. I would say with any amount of engineering and money, you could probably make a lot of things happen. But, yeah. Okay. So that's kind of a safeguard. Would that be you then as a safeguard for these residents that they're worried about? I would ask C staff, but I don't think you can do anything at the floodplain like that. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions on this item? I'm going to call a break at 10 after six and let's try to grab something to eat real quick and I'm going to visit with Roman right quick. To our agenda item five, I think it's E, four E, excuse me, four E. I'll call on Roman for presentation. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to give you all an outline of this. This is ordinance revisions of the historic preservation ordinances. The work for this, these revisions began in June and July of last year with some community meetings. And so I'm just going to actually I've got all that in here . So the updated timeline of what happened here back in April of 2016, we went to the Landmark Commission and City Council and briefed them and received input to go forward with revising the code. We had meetings in June and July with the three historic districts and got their input about the code. And then we went in September to the Landmark Commission, which asked for a month to look at the documents and then unanimously recommended approval. It's not on your staff report there. It was eight to zero on the approval. The major changes are it's just a thorough house cleaning of the ordinances, which were really began, they were really drafted in 86 and then amended over the years. And through the good work of our staff and the legal department, we're presenting a much more refined ordinance, which can be easily integrated into the development code amendments. The multiple references to certificate of appropriateness. There were like five sections that have that. That's all in one section now. The definitions have been aggregated into a section of the city code that has definitions. Criteria for designation has been clarified and all proced urally oriented subsections were combined into a different procedure section. Substantive changes were recognition of the Belle Avenue Conservation District. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Roman does changing that from a conservation district to historic district have any immediate impact on the property owners there? No, it doesn't. There's an additional change in the ordinance itself with respect to a differentiation between historic districts and conservation districts. When that district was created as a conservation district, the way we treated him was practically identical to the way we treated historic districts. With these amendments now, if you have a conservation district, it truly can be called historic district light because the only items you have to take to the Landmark Commission would be demolitions and new construction. Any other request in a future conservation district can be approved administratively by the preservation officer. So it's a way for a neighborhood that says we kind of want to preserve the way this neighborhood looks. If you're going to tear down one of our buildings or build a new building, we do want the Landmark Commission to look at that. Anything else we want it to ride through quickly. And so that is a differentiation in this code. So for the district there, it has no difference other than the name and whatever that comes with that. So this is the way that looks in terms of seeing it struct urally. What happened on their left is the original sections or the existing sections on your right is what you'll have. So it's a little shorter and just a little more precise and easier to read. The minor changes are here. The definitions that we that we have that are being moved. And then on this item, this section 35, four, three, with respect to the Landmark Commission, it's real simple changes. We're changing chairman to chair and we're changing that a preservation plan will not be created by the Landmark Commission itself, but that they will bless that that creation of a plan because they wouldn't be creating that plan on their own. These are the input posters that I used in the community meetings. We had questions on fencing and landscaping and painting and administrative authority and asked the people who attended the different meetings to vote on what they whether they wanted administrative approval or to go to the Landmark Commission, where they wanted people to look at the paint color. So it was a good how we got the input and. The next steps are we're here today and based on what you recommend them will go to City Council. And take any questions. Commissioner Smith. So the changes have no real real impact whatsoever on any development done in those overlay districts correct. That's correct. Okay. Not that wouldn't just just clerical cleanup. If you're doing a new construction in any of the districts, you'll be required to get a certificate of. Of course, but no, no, no changing. No real big changes other than just it's clear. Thank you. Right. Wonderful. We'll look forward to going through it a little more detail in our public session. Thanks for the abbreviated. Thanks for at least getting through it. Let us take a look at it before we run out of time. So with that, no questions, I will close our work session at six twenty two and we will try to reconvene as close as we can at six thirty and council chambers. Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning commission meeting for November the eighth, 2017. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at six forty. Our first first item of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the U.S. and the Texas flag. To the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. one state, one God, one invisible. And we'll move us to our consent agenda. And we have one item it's going to be item B, FP17-0023. That item is going to be moved to our items for individual consideration and it will become 3B. Other than that clarification and change, the chair would entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Commissioner Smith. A motion to accept with moving item B to items for individual consideration. Good. Go ahead. You have something? I say correctly. A motion for the consent agenda. A motion to accept consent agenda with moving item B to items for individual consideration. Thank you for repeating that. We're all on the same page now. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, chair. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval with the change of moving item 2B to our individual consideration and that becomes 3B. Any other discussion or clarification on the consent agenda ? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries 7 to 0. That will move us to our items for individual consideration . I will call on Haley for presentation of SP17-0051. Good evening. This request is for approval of a site plan for an entertainment center to be constructed within the razor ranch south RR2 district. It's located on lot 17, block A of the razor ranch within the razor ranch town center. This area was recently rezoned to bring it from the south mixed use district to the south RR2 district. The approximate location is shown here on the zoning map outlined in red. The property is about 3.7 acres. It is located north of the future extension of panhandle. You can see on the map here the general location in yellow. It's just south of the current embassy suites and convention center that's under construction. Site plans within razor ranch are required to bring back to the planning and zoning commission for approval. They are subject to the architectural and landscape standards outlined in exhibit C1 and D1 of the overlay. The site plans are required to contain a site plan, a landscape plan, and building elevations, which we'll now look at. The site plan for this facility can be seen here. It is just over 41,000 square feet total in building. It has multiple uses that will be within there. In red you can see an area where bowling lanes will be. Outlined in green is the approximate location for an arcade . There will be an event space, which is outlined in blue. And then there will be a restaurant within the remainder of the area. The site will feature 165 parking spaces, which are all shown here on the map. Bicycle racks will also be provided. They'll be within what's labeled as a gathering area on the south side of the building. And access to the site will be taken from internal streets within the razor ranch development. The site will contain around 16% landscaping and 50% tree canopy. Those both exceed the minimum requirements for the overlay, which would be 10% landscaping and 20% canopy. The site also exceeds the requirements for plaza area. So it's going to have about 4,800 square feet of outdoor pl aza area that will include benches, tables, trees, other shade provided by the building. And those bicycle racks will be incorporated into that pl aza area. The elevations for the building can be seen here. This is the south side. So the front of the building will face south. The west elevation is shown there on the bottom. Then we have the north elevation, which will be the rear of the building and the east elevation. As outlined in the overlay, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve a site plan if it substantially complies with the concept and schematic plan. If it provides a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses, it wouldn't adversely affect adjoining properties. If it provides for adequate and safe circulation of veh icular traffic and if it complies with all other sections of the overlay district. Through our review of the site plan, we did find that it meets all of these criteria. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan because it is compliant with all the regulations of the razor range overlay district and meets the criteria for approval that were just outlined. I can stand for any questions. One question. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Does the plaza area have a canopy over it or is it open? Much of it is open. There will be shade provided by some protrusions from the building as well as from the trees that are planted within it. Okay. But no canopy of any kind. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Haley? Thank you, Haley. This is an individual consideration item. It's not a public hearing, but if you would like to speak on it on this item, you're welcome to come forward. I don't know if the applicant would like to add anything to the staff's presentation. No? Okay. Seeing none, the chair will open this item, put it on the floor for discussion or motion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you. I move to approve Z170016. Okay. Thank you. Oops. Sorry. Not the right one. I move to approve this item. Okay. Commissioner Smith. I second the motion to approve SB170051 just for correction . Good. Thank you for the clarification. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? I'll call for a vote on board. Motion carries 7-0. Good luck with your project. That will move us to our item. Get the correct number. Our second item on our individual consideration tonight is going to be FP17-0023. And I will call on Haley for a presentation of that item. FP17-0023 is a final plat of five lots within the Razor Ranch Town Center. We have lot 17 through 20 of block A here on the north side of Panhandle and lot 1 of block B located on the south side. This plat also includes the dedication of right of way for Heritage Trail and Panhandle Drive. And I can stand for any questions. I'm going to ask for a clarification from Richard. I believe we pulled this item off the consent agenda because there was a recommendation. Do we want to add that to this? Yes, sir. Have that correct? Yeah, I can discuss that. So the condition for approval is that this is still pending approval of the associated civil plans. Those are under review by staff. We don't anticipate any major changes, but there could be minor tweaks to easement locations or something like that that we would request to be able to be approved at the staff level. Does that take care of it? That does. Okay. Great. I'm going to call for a clarification. Commissioner Roselle. I motion to approve FP 17-003 with those conditions. Commissioner Smith. I second that motion. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. Good luck with your project. That will move us to our public hearing section this evening. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing for Z17- 0016, and I will call on Haley for presentation. Because while we're waiting on that, I want to pause. We have one card from Jason Dernbos. It doesn't have an agenda item, and I just want to clarify which agenda item you would like to speak on. This one? Okay. Glad I asked at this time. All right. Good. Lucky for you. Thank you, Haley. Please continue. All right. So this presentation will cover both items A and B on the public hearing agenda, so Z17-0016 and S17-09. So there are two requests. The first is for a rezoning that would be for the entire 72 acres outlined here in yellow from an industrial center employment district to neighborhood residential mixed use district. The second aspect of the request is for a specific use permit to allow for a multifamily use on about 32.6 acres and an outdoor recreation use on 19 .9 acres. As you can see here, the property is located on the south side of Oak Street. This is west of I-35 near the airport. The future land use designation for the property is industrial commerce. The intent of that designation is to promote both light and heavy industrial uses. This area also encourages supporting commercial uses as well. The proposed NRMU district does not meet the intent of that future land use designation. And when a request doesn't conform to the future land use map, the Denton Development Code provides for additional criteria for consideration. Those criteria are meant to balance the competing interests that occur between public health, safety, the general welfare versus the right to the use of the property. These criteria include examining the existing land use pattern, whether or not an isolated zoning district would be created, adequate infrastructure provision, potential environmental impacts and the general character of the district. So looking into those a little bit further, it's important to point out that this property is within the boundaries of the West Park tax increment reinvestment zone. That entire area shown here in the hatched orange lines, it 's about 800 acres total. This entire area is designated this way to promote industrial development by providing some tax incentives to help support the public infrastructure needs that would be here as the area develops. Looking at what's around the property in terms of zoning, we have primarily industrial districts west of I-35, so the ICE district, which includes the subject property, as well as some other key features such as 84 lumber to the north. There's a reader link and the Benny Keith distribution centers in the area. We also have the ICG district adjoining the property across what would be precision drive, it's undeveloped land. There's some gas wells in the area. And then we have the Peterbilt facility here to the southwest of the property. Across I-35, you get a much greater mixture of zoning districts and uses, some key features being the razor ranch area here to the northeast, the hospital area. We have UNT's campus and many of the associated multifamily uses there. And then the UNT football stadium here to the southeast. Access to the site would primarily be from West Oak Street. That is designated as a primary arterial. Currently it's a two-lane undivided roadway. Based on its classification, it's intended to ultimately be a six-lane divided road. We have precision drive, which currently dead ends as a two -lane undivided road here at the south end of the property, that would be extended north with this development and would continue to be a two-lane undivided road as it moves north. There's also a Kansas City rail line that runs along the eastern boundary of the property. Now getting into more of the specifics of what this request is intended to help develop, and that would be multifamily and outdoor recreation uses. So the specific use permit is requesting the permission to do a multifamily use here in the area shown as green. That would be phase one of the development. That would include 189 units of multifamily, a total of 700 bedrooms, with a density just under nine dwelling units per acre. Phase two would also be multifamily, shown here in red. That would be 100 units, 376 bedrooms total. Again, just about nine dwelling units per acre in total density. The third phase includes the second use, which is outdoor recreation, and this is shown here as five ball fields and associated parking. The balance of the acreage of the property is encompassed in this lake, which is about 15 acres total. The lake also is surrounded by a floodplain as well as rip arian buffer environmentally sensitive area. The boundaries of that environmentally sensitive area are outlined in blue on the map, so it is a sizable portion of the property. And any development within that ESA would require that the applicant go through a field assessment to determine if the ESA is in fact intact on the property, and if it is, they would then have to go through an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan to allow any development within that boundary. These are just some samples of the elevations and the type of building that they would be including on the property. You can see it's a mixture of styles, some looking more like single family, others looking more like a threeplex or a fourplex. Notification was sent about both of the requests, the zoning and the SUP. We received two responses from those within 200 feet. Both of those were for the zoning request. One was in opposition. You can see the property outlined in red, and one was in favor. Within the 200 foot boundary, based on the area that is just within that boundary, 22% of the land area expressed opposition to the request. So at City Council, there would be a super majority vote required. Staff is recommending denial of the zoning request based on these three criteria. It's incompatibility with the surrounding land use pattern, inconsistency with the goals of the West Park terrors, and inconsistency with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030 in terms of this area being designated for industrial commerce. Staff? >> Can I just clarify for the record that that 22% objection is for the SUP portion? >> Those were -- >> Or the zoning? >> Those were sent in for the zoning case. >> For the zoning case. Okay. >> Staff is also recommending denial of the SUP request for those same reasons. Incompatibility with the land use pattern, the goals of the terrors, and the goals of the Denton Plan 2030. However, if the Planning and Zoning Commission votes to recommend approval of this request, staff would recommend the following conditions be placed on the SUP. The first condition being that the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations as presented to you tonight would all be considered conceptual . A full site plan submittal would be required for each phase of the development as it moves forward to help verify and ensure that all aspects of it are compliant with the Denton Development Code in terms of site design, landscaping, parking, and building design. The second criteria or condition would be that a full assessment of the ESA on site would be required before any development could occur within those boundaries and if that is verified that an alternative ESA plan would have to be approved for that development to occur. The third criteria would be that the development of the multifamily use be limited to the 32.6 acres shown here tonight and the outdoor recreation use be limited to the 19.9 acres that were outlined. The multifamily use we would encourage to not contain any more than the 289 units shown and the density for that be calculated strictly on the land area that was outlined on the site plan rather than the total acreage of the property. And with that I can stand for any questions. >> Yep. Got a couple questions for you. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. We did clarify in our work session that the TURS would not be applicable for a multifamily within an RMU. >> That's correct. The TURS project plan specifically excludes reimbursement for multifamily. >> Got it. Thank you. Jim, Jinx, can I ask you a quick question about mobility? I don't think Haley wants to answer questions about DCTA bus lines. Not even sure if you're 100% the right person to ask on this, but if we were to approve it and this is the applicant wants to use this for student housing primarily, no bus lines go on that side of 35 to be able to service student housing, be able to get students to the university, what -- would there be a process for the applicant to have to go through to try to get expansion that way or there's nothing we can do with DCTA to try to get bus lines over to that side at all, correct? >> I would think that we could approach DCTA. >> But otherwise they'd have to drive to the university, drive to the closest bus stop or walk to the closest bus stop. >> Yes, sir. >> Correct. Got it. That's all. >> Commissioner Rossell. >> Thank you, chair. Excuse me. Haley, can you tell me a little bit about the TURS, specifically, do you know when it was established and what established that? Was that a council vote or was that a citywide vote that established that? >> You're talking about the election, an election or a city council vote? >> I just -- the TURS, how did that come into being? >> The TURS is created by city council and there's a board that's established and then the project and finance plans are approved through the board and then to city council for approval. >> It didn't go to a citywide vote? >> No. >> Okay. >> It was created in 2012, I believe. >> 2012? >> Mm-hmm. >> And then can you also help me understand the density? Typically they would have the ability to use their entire property to calculate density. Why are you recommending, if the zoning was to approve it, the third condition on the density? >> The intent was to limit it to the number of units shown because 1,000 potential bedrooms in this area is quite a large enhancement to the number of people driving and living in the area. The intent with the density was that there not be a density bonus obtained by using the acreage for the lake or something that's not going to be a multifamily use count towards that. So it would be limited to the 32 acres that they're proposing to actually do a multifamily development. >> If they could build by right, they would be able to use ponds in the density calculation traditionally in the city? >> Traditionally, yes, if it's all on the same lot. They could potentially count that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And we also ran some numbers for your question, Chair. So, granted that these are all very rough estimates. Typical industrial use would generate $100,000 to $200,000 in water and wastewater impact fees. For the amount of units shown here, it's estimated that phase one would be around 1.1 million and phase two would be at 600,000, roughly. In terms of roadway impact fees, that would be offset by the improvements that they would be doing with precision drive, the construction of that roadway. >> Okay. So they're going to be responsible for the perimeter street paving rather than in lieu of paying traffic impact fees, essentially, approximately for discussion purposes. >> Yes, because in this case, the precision drive does not exist currently along their perimeter. >> Okay. And based on that, it's going to be a considerable sum to put that in. >> Yes. >> Millions. Million. >> Probably between half a million and a million. >> Okay. Sorry. >> It's okay. >> It's okay. >> Okay. So it's a substantial difference in impact fees to the city if this is rezoned versus industrial, because I know there were some other questions as to what kind of impact it would have on our services, but it's a considerable additional funds that they would pay. >> I think whichever the use is, irregardless of the use, there would be that perimeter street pavement exaction. Or the difference would lie would be with the water sewer impact fees based on the number of bedrooms, the very high number of bedrooms that they're talking about for this project. That's what the source, that's directly related to the numbers that Haley gave you. For industrial water demands can really vary depending on the industrial process. So we're given a range of common meter sizes we see, you know, like she said, anywhere from 100 to 200,000. >> Okay. Thank you for the additional information. Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. Let me ask you a hypothetical here. If this were approved for this residential area, how would this impact future development in those ICA areas, say another Peterbilt type or 84 lumber type built across the street from them? Would they have to do changes with sound and lighting as a result of being in close proximity to a residential neighborhood where that wouldn't be a consideration otherwise? >> The lighting provisions in the development code would apply no matter what the development is. So that would be the same between the uses. In terms of their site layout, because we go back to one of the maps here, because they are separated by right of way on both the north and west, there wouldn't be any additional buffer requirements there. Standing on the east because of the separation of the railroad, there could be some buffering requirements here on the south side where we would have -- >> Not so much buffering issues, but if you've got a business in there that its production creates a lot of noise, okay, that's going to reach across that street there. So would they be inhibited then because they are in close proximity to a residential area? Would that negatively impact their business? >> I would say it could create some nuisances potentially, but they would ultimately have to follow the city's sound ordinances. >> Okay. But if that residential area was there, would it be any different? >> No, sir. >> In an industrial area, aren't they allowed a certain decibel level as opposed to areas that are in close proximity to residential areas? >> I'm not familiar with what the code of ordinances states on that, but they would have to follow the city's general ordinances. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. I'm going to go back to a question on the TURS. Okay, so that was put in place in 2012. How often is that revoted on to continue it? >> For the TURS, it usually -- the reinvestment zone -- I'm trying to think of -- till August? Oh, it was just put in last August. And it seems to me like this one was for quite a few number of years. It wouldn't be revisited unless there was a change to the project or finance plans or they wanted to dissolve the TURS. I think this is only the second TURS in the city. And so the first one is the downtown area. And so there was a lot of talk about that. It's not like a tax zone or like a reinvestment zone where you have to do it every five years. It's a little bit different. >> So does it have an end date? >> Yeah. Do you have the exact end date? Let me see here. You don't have the actual -- >> I believe that's just the annual update. >> Yeah, this is not the right document. So I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what the end date is. >> And I guess the reason for my question is if we're -- >> 20 years. >> 20 years. >> Yeah. >> I think it's 20 years. It's usually between 20 and 20. >> And taking 72 acres out of this does not weaken it as we move through it, correct? Does this do anything rezoning these 72 acres to the rest of the TURS area? >> Only to the original developer because we have an agreement for reimbursement for the infrastructure to the original developer. And so since multifamily is specifically cut out of the project plan, that tax increment for this particular parcel, if we change it, they won't get that money flow back. So it will take longer to pay back. >> It's just for this particular parcel, though, correct? >> Right. >> So other areas that will continue? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Next question, Rosalyn. >> You mentioned that multifamily is specifically called out in the TURS. Is there any other zoning classification that is specifically called out in the TURS? >> No. >> Okay. >> The TURS specifically contemplates industrial and commercial use. And there's actually a limit in the statute as to how much residential you can have in a TURS. So -- >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions for Haley? Okay. This is a public hearing. And I have several cards that wish to speak on this item. First will be Jason Dernbos, the applicant in support. Is there someone else who would like to speak first? >> Mr. Chairman, may I? >> Sure. >> First, I'm sorry. I may not have gotten the cards in the right order. I'm Lance Van Zandt. >> I probably reshuffled them. My apologies. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> Just as a point of order, if you are representing the applicant, then you, too, get ten minutes. Or you'll have to share your minutes for a total of 20. You can't take more than 20 minutes. >> Okay. Yeah, we had planned if we have about three folks, we were going to divvy up 20 minutes if that's acceptable from the Chair. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> I was going to kind of get things started if I could, Mr . Chairman. I'm Lance Van Zandt, 512 West Hickory here in Denton. I represent Landmark Properties. I've had the pleasure of working with Landmark and our development team here as well as Haley and the staff in putting this application for both these items together on your agenda tonight, the zoning change and the SUP. We've got it before you tonight for the final decision. We're asking for your approval. There are many good questions that were brought up in the work session. We took notes on those and want to make sure we get those addressed. I believe Mr. Jinx's comments on the impact fees and the road costs were fairly consistent with our calculations. We understood we were going to have about a million dollars in water and wastewater impact fees. And our estimated construction cost of precision drive, which we will have to do to develop this project, is approximately a million dollars. I believe we're going to be paying roadway impact fees of about 800,000. So we're actually going to contribute a little more cost- wise. We anticipate that we would have just paying impact fees. So those are the numbers that we have on those two items. And if anything comes up, we've got our engineers that will be able to address that. So I won't go in detail through the application. Haley did a good job of summarizing that, but I did want to respect our time limits here and make sure we address questions that were brought up in the work session. Also, some items that we thought were of importance. I think if you just look at this project as a whole, with especially the 22 acres that we're looking at doing in phase one, the quality of the vertical construction that we're looking at-- and you all saw some examples of that in your packet-- the fact that we're going from an industrial to an NRMU greatly enhances the landscape requirements. You go from about a 10% tree canopy to a 40% tree canopy. We have some existing natural features on the property that to an industrial user would be a significant challenge. We think in an NRMU district, this will eventually be an amenity and will create an aesthetic feature that can be used with the ball fields. So along with bringing public infrastructure now to the area, the extension of precision drive, the extension of water and wastewater utilities to serve that area, we think this is a great project. And I understand that the real question we have to answer here tonight is, well, as great as this project is, is this where it belongs? Is this a good location? Mr. Beck, you addressed that specifically. Is this a square pavement around Houghton? And we actually don't think it is. We think that maybe this is a unique, particularly unique tract of land that doesn't at all fit the current zoning category for a number of reasons. And I'm going to ask the representative of the owner to come up and speak. He's got quite a bit of institutional history. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. He's got a lot of experience in the area. And Dan Grant, who serves as the engineering consultant for the Razor family and their properties has a great deal of experience with marketing and developing properties in this area. So I'm going to ask him to come up and speak as well. First off, I wanted to introduce to you directly to you my client, Jason Dornbos. Jason's the principal with Landmark Properties. They develop student housing across the southeastern, southern United States. They have one existing project in Denton, the retreat at Denton. It's been a successful facility that they constructed and continue to operate. And, you know, one thing that brought Landmark not only to Denton, but to this particular piece of property is they were attuned to some of the debate that's gone on around student housing in the last couple of years in Denton. There have been some controversial projects that have come before you that I know have been really tough votes. And you spent a lot of time thinking about this. And the community's been very involved on one side or another of this issue. And what Jason and Landmark heard was that there's a significant concern in Denton about student housing being placed in existing residential areas, especially in the historic areas around the university. And he has an understanding of how student housing in existing residential areas can worsen the affordable housing problem when investors buy up rental properties and rent them to students. It becomes harder and harder for your residents to live and work and buy houses close to where they work and where their kids go to school. So it was really an intentional targeting of this property to, in fact, remove this while still close to the university and reasonably close proximity, completely away from any existing residential neighborhoods or historic districts or any other uses that this would significantly impact. I'm going to let Mr. Baker talk in detail about his attempt to market this property. That's something he can talk about in more expert manner than I can. But I think the fact that, one, we really intend on trying to answer the community interest of keeping these projects outside of existing residential historic areas. We've got a really unique piece of property that the owners have had an impossible time marketing over the last 20 plus years to users in the industrial category. And three, there's a reason for that. And Mr. Grant's going to talk briefly about this, is the just topographical characteristics to the land that you saw on your map, the lake in the middle of it and the slope and the very just not a lot of land mass there outside the water to have large industrial type warehouse commercial uses. So those are some of the challenges that we would like to alert you to, make you aware of, and try to convince you that this is, in fact, the highest and best use for this property. And actually, what is a very difficult piece of property to develop as an industrial use actually presents a lot of attractive qualities for a student housing. So if I may, Mr. Chairman, I ask Mr. Dornbos to come up here next. That's convenient for you. Please give your name and address also and you approach the mic. Jason Dornbos, 455 Epsbridge Parkway, Athens, Georgia. Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate your time tonight. I'll skip the slideshow. I was going to give just and hit some highlights as really just talk about our experience. But we're a nationally, or the largest national student housing development company. We are vertically integrated. We special out, we have our own management company, development company, obviously the development company as well. So just kind of real quick, just wanted to give you some information. We developed what was originally called the retreat, now called the Republic, back in 2011. And since that time, we've been actively looking to try and find another project in this market, another site to do a project just to meet the increasing demand from students at the University of North Texas, and the feedback we received in reading the news articles and watch monitoring the market was that there was just getting a lot of opposition and push back in the neighborhoods to the north of campus, which is really the side we prefer to be on just because it's closer, it's an easy shot into campus on Oak, and it just made a lot of sense. So we've been actively looking at that and I've been working with Phil for probably two years to try and, he's thoughtfully trying to find a way to do a project on his property that maximized the value of that portion was the highest possible use and we really felt like this would really fit the bill. So you know, again, we've developed industrial properties around the country. We've got several that are under construction right now that we've had to rezone, do a new comp plan amendment to do those projects. They were all similar in a lot of ways to what we're doing here or proposing to do here. Just large pieces of property that were very close to campus and industrial just didn't make sense on those particular pieces of property due to environmental concerns or just where the market was. You know, this project, this product type is really designed to appeal to students that are seeking single family residences. So what we've seen, we've done a bunch of polls of our residents and we've found is that these projects actually pull a lot of the residents that would typically be renting single family houses and neighborhoods out of those houses and puts them in a project where they can live among their peers as opposed to living in houses and neighborhoods where they're living next door to professors or families where it 's just kind of a conflict of use even in those single family neighborhoods. So we feel like this property is a way to, because of the size, we can do something like that and appeal to those students. And again, someone had mentioned earlier in the work session about the environmental sensitivity to this on the site. This, our project, as opposed to a lot of multifamily projects, has an extremely high percentage of pervious surface. I think it's, talking to Dan, it's like over 40% on this particular project, which for an apartment complex is really high, which is great given that the lake is next door. There's a lot of other features we do that we build all of our projects. They're designed to meet national green building standards. So we put a lot of thought into it. It's important to our residents to have features like that that are, you know, appeal to that environmental nature. And then it came up earlier about running the bus. We will do one of, we're required to, by our lenders, to do one of two things. We're either going to have to work out an agreement with the university to run the bus over there, or we will run a private shuttle ourselves. And that's just because there's never parking on campus. All of our residents are going to the same place. It's easy. It works out well and it helps us market the property. So with that, I will kick it over to Phil. Thank you for your time. Phil Baker, PO Box 2424, Denton, Texas. My name is Philip Baker. I am Vice President of the Razor Company, which controls both Razor Investments and the current owner of the subject land and its affiliate West Park Group. I've been employed with the Razor Company for over 30 years , the last 15 of which have been involved in responsibility for real estate management and sales. In addition to the subject property, Razor Investments and West Park Group owns hundreds of acres to the west, northwest, and southwest of the subject property within the West Denton area. I'm here tonight on behalf of Razor Investments and West Park Group to express our support of the requested zoning change, not merely because we have an interest in the pending sales transaction, but also as the largest remaining land owner in the immediate vicinity with an equal interest in maintaining land uses which are compatible to the anticipated future uses of our other remaining lands. Like the city planning department, we have historically been of the mindset that the area south of University and West of Iowa Interstate 35 corridor is generally industrial and warehousing, and we've had no interest in straying from that focus. And all of it is identified as such in the Denton 2030 plan . Our prior sales of tracks to users such as the original Peterbilt Motor Company plant, the Tetra Pak plant, and Anderson Merchandisers, and more recent sales to Target Fest and all Peerless Manufacturing, Winko Foods, additional land to Peterbilt Motor for their future expansion, and 84 Lumber for their future expansion, all point development of this area as an industrial area with high quality users. This has always been our focus and continues to be so in general. And I have a map I want to show real quickly here. On the left is what this land looked like in 2007. You can see it's pretty much Peterbilt, Tetra Pak, and Anderson, and that is all that's been there since that land was virgin ground. On the right, we'll show you what we've been doing for the last 12 years in developing that industrial land. You'll see those companies, Target, Winko, Rush Enterprises , I didn't mention that one. They're taking 30 acres and they're under development right next to Tetra Pak. We saw the corridor of Western Boulevard put in all the way to the university to open up that area. But when other interested parties with extensive development experience actually evaluated the subject property, we began to develop a different viewpoint of this subject site. After gaining development insight from several experienced parties, we came to understand why the site is uniquely situated as compared to the others lands in the area and is not suitable for light industrial warehousing or other currently permitted uses. In 2007, IDI Gasly, one of the world's leading investors and developers of logistic warehouses and distribution parks in North America and Europe, evaluated acquiring all of our land in the US 380 and west of Interstate 35. While IDI confirmed the existing industrial warehouse uses under the Denton Plan as the highest and best use for most of our lands, they concluded that the subject property would be best slated for multifamily and planned to simply sell that portion off to a multifamily developer. This is what they proposed and was going to be the accepted zoning plan. That portion in red is the multifamily site that they intended to get rid of because they're not multifamily developers. But when other interested parties with extensive development experience actually evaluated the subject property, we began to develop a different view of this site. After gaining development insight from several experienced parties, we came to understand why the site is uniquely situated as compared to other lands in the area and is not suitable for light industrial warehousing and other currently permitted uses. I'm sorry, I've repeated myself. Let me go back. Sorry, I was out of place. The community planning staff at the time that IDI proposed this zoning, they agreed with the proposed land uses under the IDI plan including the multifamily use for the subject property. But because of the downturn in the economic conditions in 2008, the sales transaction ultimately did not go through and the zoning changes were not pursued by us at that time. More recently, Landmark approached us with interest in the subject property. They like IDI identified the subject property as being most suitable for multifamily. Before moving forward with this, we hired Kemley Horne consulting engineers to give us their evaluation of the best land use for the site. Kemley Horne has significant experience in industrial and other developments and assists major U.S. corporations in performing site analysis for various commercial projects. Kemley Horne confirmed the analysis of both IDI and Land mark. They concluded that industrial and warehouse users would never be interested in the subject property because those users inherently need flat land suitable for large single buildings without topographical variations, floodplain areas and drainage constraints. The subject property slopes significantly from the east and the west boundaries to the center and from the north to the south with a 15 to 20 acre lake located in the middle. It is affected by an area wide drainage channel running from the north to the south that essentially splits the track into two long very narrow rectangular pieces and contains approximately 15 acres south of the lake dam which would be in the flood way and in all likelihood can never be developed for any purpose other than green space. Natural features such as these are precisely those which a potential industrial or warehouse developer wants to avoid. We recognize that other uses beyond light industrial and warehousing are permitted under the existing zoning classification such as hotels, motels, indoor recreation and medical facilities. But development of those type of facility and uses would substantially face the same issues and challenges in dealing with the natural features of the subject property. And because the subject property would not be located on a major roadway with high traffic volume it would never support such uses as hotels, motels, entertainment centers and restaurants in any case. Lakes, creeks and flood plain areas can be utilized as attractive green space and recreation areas to enhance the vibrant residential community but present nothing but obstacles to the needs of industrial, warehouse and other types of users. Development of the subject property for any uses other than the multifamily would present site characteristic issues and would fail to meet the threshold requirements as to their juxtaposition to major highways and roadways. We certainly recognize the need for land uses on the subject property that will be compatible with existing anticipated and industrial warehouse uses for other lands in the area. We are confident that the proposed zoning change will work for the subject property and will not create any conflict with any industrial users concentrated to the west of it. The construction of precision drive on the west boundary lane of the subject property along with the drainage channel on the south boundary line, the Kansas City southern railway on the east boundary and Oak Street on the north segregates the subject property in a manner that will give this site its own identity with physical boundaries that will make it distinctly separate and apart from the industrial areas to the west. While we respect and support the Denton 2030 plan and understand city planning department simply following it as the basis for its current recommendation, the 2030 Denton plan is by its nature conceptual in providing general guidance for the future development of the city within the city. It is a good starting point and it is an important document but it by no means tells the whole story and how the city should be developed in every instance. While a well thought out concept plan certainly provides the critical foundation to foster good development, it is just as critical for the city to recognize unique dynamics that apply to specific situations as actual development unfolds. We know from dealings with the city on prior development situations evolving our lands that city staff often tends to be overly dogmatic in applying conceptual principles under the mobility plan, the city environmental sensitive area map and the Denton 2030 plan within sufficient analysis of particular development dynamics and constraints . While the pursuit of development in the city without these concept tools as a guiding force would be dangerous, ignoring and failing to properly analyze specific development constraints and opportunities for specific development situations could be just as detrimental. We need smart and sensible development decisions based on actual realities in the context of the intended goals and principles laid down under those concept tools. As highlighted in my discussion, an in-depth examination of the subject property by experienced development professionals clearly reveals that the existing permitted uses are not viable on this site and multifamily use provides the best opportunity for the site to contribute to the needs and the tax base of this community. We believe the zoning change should be approved for the good of the area, the good of the city and respectfully request your approval. Thank you. A couple of questions. I'm sorry. I burned up all that time. We appreciate your comments. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your presentation. It actually answered a lot of things for me and makes I see now why we're looking at someone that's actually looking at residential development in an industrial area. I see that you're trying to address the issue for housing for college kids, and I appreciate that. This development, I've got great admiration for it. I love the designs and everything. I am having a problem with it being where it is, and I would ask you why the buildings that you can use, offices, hotels, vehicle repair, research facilities, limited retail and restaurants, why those smaller building units pose a problem for this landscape area where the individual apartment complexes don't. If we're talking square footage, why is there basically equal? It's a matter of the ... I'll let Mr. Grant talk more to that, but it has to do with the kind of development it is. The apartment, the multifamily can work with the topography . Industrial commercial uses, they need pretty much the same thing. They need flat land. They don't need drainage running through it, and they need flat land to build on. They can't afford to ... The economics of doing the dirt work breaks the budget. I guess what I'm visualizing is say like an office park in this area with building sizes ... The footing, if you would, is basically going to be the same as a unit of apartments there, where they're spaced about the same too. I don't understand why that wouldn't work. I can see where some big industrial complex would have a problem, but when you're essentially building commercial buildings that have about the same foot as an apartment complex, I'm not sure why it becomes a problem with one and not the other. My understanding from the engineers is the topography is a big factor, and it all comes down to dollars and cents. It works for residential. It works for the multifamily. It doesn't work for commercial. Also, the problem is commercial ... It's a matter of economics too. Precision road, when built, is essentially a fixed road. It dead ends in Oak Street. It dead ends at airport. It doesn't take anybody anywhere. Those kinds of developments want to be on roadways that go someplace, that take traffic through them, and that makes sense on the way people travel . Nobody's going to make a loop around to that area. It makes no sense for restaurants. We could hold it forever. We could build the roadway, but it's not like the movie. We build it, they will come. No, they're going to go like over ways of ranch, where there's a lot of through streets and a lot of traffic, where they know they're going to pick up people. Nobody's going to be traveling just for pleasure over in that area. It's industrial. It's just if you're going to be there, that's why you're going to go there. I will defer to you because you're more the expert on this than I am. I'm just still having a little bit of problem accepting that completely. I understand that you're trying to address the student population here. I think that's great, but this isn't going to be limited strictly to students. You probably will have working families in there with kids. Again, this area being close to the interstate and a railroad track, I'm concerned about that too. How would you ameliorate that concern where you're dealing with families with small children in an area like this? I don't see why it would be a problem. Traffic laws, last time I checked, we all have to play by the same rules. Whether you're driving a truck or an automobile, you have to respect the rules of the road and all the other things. Parents will always warn their kids to stay away from the railroad tracks, but how many times? Well, I can tell you that railroad track is probably 50 feet up in the air. Nobody's going to play on it, much less walk over. That would have been a great challenge for me as a kid scaling that mountain. That would have been a great challenge for me as a kid, but I hear what you're saying. I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that. Okay, I understand. It's just, I think there's protectors there that we haven't probably looked at deep enough. We have, well, all I can say to you on that point is there already are existing developments this city has put in by railroads. When you look downtown area, you've got two multifamily units within spitting distance of the city. No, no, I understand that. The family in Northern, which goes through this town several times a day. And I'm not disputing that. I'm just as uncomfortable with those as I would be creating a whole new one too. In the, in the, in the Rose lawn area, there's two main tracks, Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific. Right. Okay. One other little small question and it might be for one of the other gentlemen, the material that you're using, I didn't see any brick on these units. So it's all siding and I assume that's going to be hardy plank. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Yeah, it'll be brick masonry up above the water level. Okay. We do built up slabs and this kind of answers your question earlier about the footprints because we did built up slabs so you can stagger the buildings. I mean, these, these footprints are actually, I mean, they 're single unit buildings or duplexes or quadplexes. So they're, they're really not like a typical gardens out apartment complex. We've got a big footprint that may be similar to like an office building or something. These are very small. What are, what is the biggest unit should be building? Fourplex type? I believe in the plan is that there's a six unit building. Six units. Okay. Okay. Yeah, it's like six town names. Square footage would be for that whole thing. I'd have to check. I think the square footage of the building, I mean, it's obvious it's three stories. Well no, let's just say the ground, at the ground level. Yeah. Foot, the footprint. I'd have to check on it. I don't know if I'm going to have time. Okay. Let me put you on the spot a little bit here. Are we looking possibly at affordable housing here? I mean, I know you're, you're targeting for students and the Lord knows they, they need, but I mean, are we looking at reasonable price units here and I'm out of place in asking this right now or? Yeah, I mean. We are getting kind of outside the boundaries. Okay. Way. It'll be market rate. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. So I've got several other questions. I don't know which of you gentlemen will be for Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Well, sorry, you Jason, you're under the mic. Just to address some of the Mr. Beck brought up, this is student housing? Yeah. Correct. So it's designed and marketed to students. Got it. So are the ones you have now, I can't, the Republic, I think is what you said it is currently now. Is it going to be, I don't know how the Republic set up, but most student housing, the way you can't necessarily say these are only for students or some policing, there's some Texas real estate law issues on that, but you can design the apartment to where it is individual with each individual inside the bedroom has its own bathroom. So it is designed to be more for individual living. Is it the same thing in your guys? Is that what you're building now? So each unit, the bedrooms are all the same size. There's not like a master suite. There's no dining room. And you're right, like a typical unit would be a four bedroom, four bathroom with the bathrooms inside and then like a common area. So they're not legally, of course, not legally restricted to student housing, but they are designed for student housing, probably not encouraging for family use with small children who like to play on railroad tracks. Okay. So the question I have for you was brought up during work session, the ball fields that are down there, as Mr. Vincent liked to refer to them, I don't know if they're ball fields or soccer fields or whatever, but- Recreational fields. Okay. Those will be downstream. Is that a worry at all? I mean, if this is something we're approving and putting up there, is that an issue of having it downstream where flooding can come in? Can I kick that one to Dan? Yeah, come on, Dan. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioner. Dan Grant, Kimley-Horn, 13755 Dwell Road, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas. You asked about downstream. I'm an engineer, so I like to talk off maps. So Haley, you might have to help me get back up to your presentation. So let's actually go to the actual land plan. Let's speak off of this one. In short, I think your question is more concerned about what's happening in this zone. Yeah, I guess the question's more about, I don't care if you guys put soccer fields or baseball fields, but just that it's downstream and if we did approve it, there could be a heavy rain that could fully wash out the entire development . Today, let's talk about the end phases. We have this currently phase in. Phase one here in green, which is everything we'll call high and dry to the west side of Lake. Phase two of multifamily and phase three are both gonna be conditioned as presented by staff on some continuing analysis of the dam, which there is an existing TCEQ dam on the property that retains Razor Lake. You're looking at the limits of Razor Lake within the blue lines. The dam would need to be reconstructed. And downstream of that, one of the highest and best uses of land downstream or in an encumbered area by floodplain is recreation. Perfect. So that's the intent here, is to create a use that is compliant with the highest and best for the animals. Great. Thank you, Dan. Mr. Baker. This is a zoning case, right? Yes. This, you've talked a lot about the history of the sale of this land, the possible sale of this land, correct, and that you've had other industrial manufacturers try to come in and buy it and it was not feasible, correct? Just to get clarification. No one's ever looked at this land. No one's? Just because they just, they knew right off the bat that there was no way they could ever do it because of the way, just the feasibility of the cost of having to move dirt to make it usable for manufacturing use. That's right. Okay. Currently, is it ag exempt? Yes. Okay. So currently it is untaxable land? No. Well, it's in ag use. Correct. Which is, as you know, it's a reduced tax value based on ag value, which is- Sorry, miscommunication. I think we chip in about 50 bucks a year to the tax bill. Thank you very much for that $50. Okay. And a lot of manure. Hey, that works. All right. That's all the questions I have for me, Mr. Baker. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. I'm just going to, as the chair, kind of bring us back to focus that this is a zoning case that we're considering at this time. And it's nice to have some of these other exhibits for us to see what the possibilities are to evaluate what another use might be on this property. So I'd like to ask the commission, let's pull it in and keep it our time. We have a lot of people here before us tonight with a lot of other items, and it's almost eight o'clock. I'd like us to stay focused on the zoning items at this time. I might add to that we have a separate public hearing for the SUP, which is to determine whether or not they would be able to have a multifamily on the property. So you, of course, would be allotted some time for each item, but you may want to choose which item is most important to you just for time's sake and speak on that particular item. Okay. And with those two clarifications, Commissioner Rosell. Thank you, chair. This might not redirect us wholly, but I'd like two questions. Jason, I didn't get your last name. We can ask you two questions real fast. Does landmark construction do any single-resident, single- room occupancies? No. Oh, yeah, sorry. All the rooms are going to be single-occupant restricted. Okay. The retreat to the Republic, was that a rebrand or a sell? That was a rebrand. Well, we did sell it and they rebranded it. Does landmark typically hold and then sell later? What's your ownership duration typically? We probably, we do both. We hold stuff in perpetuity and then we sell some properties as well. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Sanchez. Tim asked the question I was going to ask about the housing , student housing. Okay. Okay. It's been taken care of. Great. Okay. This is a public hearing and the only other, I don't have any other cards. So if there's anyone else who would like to come forward tonight and speak on this item, please do so at this time. Well, I have a bunch and if I'm, missed your name, if you 'll give me your name and address, I will. I'm Jim Flikes. I represent Peterbilt Motors, 3200 Airport Road. And I want to speak in opposition of the zoning change. Found it. Thank you. Manufacturing and industrial facilities require a buffer. I-35 and the railroad track provide that buffer from the residential areas in the university. We also own the area that's directly across the street from where these are, this multifamily will be constructed. We currently have 60 receiving docks in our facility. We move about a hundred tractor trailers a day per truck. So we're moving material all day long from all over Denton and north of here. So precision drive going through would be a good thing for us because we need another outlet. I mean, if anybody's ever been over there at Shift Change on Airport Road, it's a zone. Western Boulevard has relieved that quite a bit, but what we're getting now is people going up Western, cutting back through Jim Crystal and going over Oak Street to I-35. So this would help relieve some of the traffic congestion. But when you start putting pedestrians and bicycles and other things in a roadway, that you've got that much traffic going down, it presents a safety issue. And that's where our concerns are. Industrial environments, you talked a little bit about noise. Yeah, we have to comply with the noise ordinance, but still you've got lighting and we're a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation. So it would be an issue. We have 250 acres out on Airport Road between three different sites. Can I answer any questions? Yes. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Jim Wyatt? Fights. Fights. Thank you for coming down. So am I hearing you right that building this residential development creates future problems for you from an industrial construction? We feel like the potential is there just because of the residents and what you're putting in, the density that you're putting in there. And that was a concern I raised earlier and I was wondering if you concurred with that, that this imposes on you a little bit now. It could. And down the road. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll see you on the questions. Thank you, sir, for your comments. This is a public hearing. Anyone else who'd like to speak on this item, please come forward and give us your name and address and fill out a card for us if you haven't already. My name is Kate Linus. I live at 1120 North Locust, Denton. And I did not fill out a card. I'm sorry. I wasn't actually going to speak on that. You can fill in after you speak. Thank you. Okay. There had been a number of questions from the members of the PNC regarding the TURS and how long that was going to be. So that you know I work for Denton County and West Park TUR S is actually one of the TURS that the county has also signed off on. And as it was indicated, December of 2012 was when it was initiated. And it is to go through December 31st of 2037. And the city contributed, but the county, according to the forms that they filled out, the participation agreement with Denton County was 40% of the real property taxes levied and collected by the county for the year captured assessed value of real property taxable by the county. So there is some of that tax also then is part of what the county has given up and everything else. So you had questions about that. My concern primarily is as a parent who has actually rented student housing for her university child living in this kind of an environment without public transportation, without easy access to where the university is or to the highway, those two streets, there is a whole lot of traffic coming in because of industrial, all the industrial and commercial use of the streets. It's already there. And it would be very difficult for the type of renter that 's wanting to go into that. Also if there are ball fields in this way, are they for use for the city and they're helping to have the kids from the city out there with all the industrialization that's around working 24 hours as the gentleman from Peterbilt said. And this is all industrial and commercial area very clearly on the maps. And if the exception is made under the request for item 4A, then what's to stop the exception being made further out? There is an airport there. And housing and airports don't really work well together because people who rent houses or buy houses or invest in housing multifamily or single family property out there don't want airplanes buzzing across them, let alone trucks coming in and out 24/7. So it is something to consider. That's why it's coming before the P&Z. It's also why the staff denied the request. They don't approve it. They don't think that this is the best use as presented in this way. So that's my comments. One question for you, Commissioner Beck. Thank you for your comments. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. While I'm waiting, I have one other response form that was sent in by Leon Hent with Peterbilt at 3200 Airport Road and he was opposed to the request. Commissioner Beck, if you've got a question for staff. I do, I'm not sure who to ask. Hayley, maybe we can start with you. Oh dear God. I hate brain farts and I think I've just had one. I sit here and let this slip by. Forgive me. Hopefully it will pop back up later. Stand by. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion or question possibly. Commissioner Beck. I'd like to make a motion before I do just make a statement first. I'm always sympathetic to people who have property that doesn't seem to move, sits there for long periods of time. The only way to be able to be developed is laid out with the zoning designations we have and per the future land use map. But I'm equally reluctant to change zoning that can allow for residential dwellings in an area in town that is surrounded by property established for industrial uses. City planning is best served, best served the public when it sets aside areas that accommodate specific uses and prevents the effects of certain businesses that can negatively impact residential domains. I feel this zone change request will have this negative impact. In my opinion, it also weakens our commitment to well-conce ived future land use designations as they're currently set and alters land uses in a random manner, which contributes, I think, uncertainty for other property owners in the area. And I do have some concern for the ESA area, too. I'm always worried about when these type of developments come in how effectively they will preserve these ESA areas. So I would encourage -- I'm going to vote for denial on this and encourage the applicant to consider the suggestions that the staff made about smaller scale uses here. I'm still just not convinced that it can't be worked out that way. But I'm going to follow suit with the developer review committee and city staff and move to deny this request. I think what you want to do is move to approve the staff's denial. >> I move to. >> Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? >> What exactly is the motion? What was that? I didn't hear what it was. >> To approve denial. >> I'm going to approve denial of the request. >> Okay. We have -- >> Commissioner Sullivan. >> Second. >> I will second the approval to deny. >> Commissioner Rozelle. >> Thank you, Chair. Before we go to a vote, I just wanted to take a minute to express my thoughts. I'm not going to be supporting the approval for denial for a couple reasons. I'm convinced based on the testimonies tonight that land has a very real chance of lying dormant for a lot of years like it has in the past. And so I would like to see development and it sounds or at least I'm convinced based on the things said tonight that it's not going to be developed for industrial. And the concerns against it in terms of the fields and residents near airports and what Mr. Fikes said about his business interests, UNT already has several acres of fields right on Airport Road in the more dense area. And so I think we've seen that fields and recreational outdoor use can be used. There are great estates on Jim Crystal right under the airplane paths that people have invested in and continue to reside in. So I don't know if residents near airports don't always work. It seems to be working on Jim Crystal. And so yeah, it's just a tough one because coming into this , I looked at the future land use and I saw it was all industry and I thought this is a no-brainer. I'll agree with staff because of the TURS and the pre-plan ning we've had for industrial in that area. But this is the very far east of it. It's not dead center and I don't feel there will be zoning creep because it seems like there's a lot of interest to still develop industrial on that area. And so based on those things, I'm not going to support the motion that Commissioner Beck put in. Commissioner Smith. Oh, you're good. Don't worry about it. Okay. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I would like to say that the history that you provided, I think, gives us a good indication that that property is not suitable for industrial. I myself went by there today and I kind of had second thoughts about it too. I drove the whole area and I saw those areas where there was big warehouses, nice and flat. The topography was flat. But once I hit that Crystal Road and Western Road, you could see the topography change completely. And having those two ponds, to me, indicated that there is a, what do you call it, issue when it comes to water runoff. And that's why those ponds were put in there years ago. So again, I'll probably, my vote will probably not support what the city has recommended. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I want to echo what Commissioner Rozelle said about the land being dormant and everything else. My bigger thing is this, is that my recent research due to other forces in the city to look into student housing as a way of effects, affordable housing, the biggest problem we have is an enbyism. And we see it. We saw it with the Scripture Street project that we came in front of this commission and came in front of the city council and ultimately got voted down back in April. If we're going to put student housing in the city, it's got to go somewhere. And if we're not wanting to put it in residential neighborhoods around the university, it's got to go somewhere. And if this land is going to lay dormant or we have a chance to put it on, make it multifamily and build student housing, it's really, really hard for us to vote against it. Really hard for me to vote against it. So that's my little input there. Okay. Any other comments before I call for a vote on this particular motion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. We have a motion before us with first and a second to approve the denial. So a vote for would be to approve the denial. I am messed up again. Okay. Can I change that? Sure. Request? Okay. Request? So, we can't show it up yet. Maybe you can just state for the record. Okay. Okay. Revote? Okay. Revote. So we're going to vote to... I got mixed up there. Sorry. The motion is to deny the applicant's request, which would be no rezoning. What would be no rezoning? Okay. That motion is going to fail four to three. The Chair would entertain another motion or have some further discussion on this item. Senator Rozelle. I've already said my piece, so I'll just go ahead and motion to deny staff's recommendation and approve the rezoning of this project. You can say motion to approve applicant's submission. I motion to approve applicant's submission. Okay. Let's make it easy. The Chair will ask for clarification if you have any of the conditions. I think there were three conditions that were requested if those are going to be a part of your motion or be excluded. Just as a comment, you don't have to use those conditions. You can use whatever conditions that you would like. Are they for the SUP only? Are they for the SUP or the rezoning? Okay. Chair's apology. I'm ahead of myself in the next item. I second. We have a first and second to approve the rezoning. Any other discussion or comments? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. The motion to approve the zoning change passes 4 to 3. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I believe we stated earlier that the opposition met the criteria that it would require a supermajority in city council. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. That's correct. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Okay. To continue, do we need to take a break? Good. Okay. I will move us on to our next item. I'm going to open the public hearing for B, which is S17- 0009. This will be to have a presentation by Haley. Are we going to, I think, just for clarification. We can just incorporate your presentation from item 17-0016 into this item. Just clarify that this is just for the SUP? Just for the SUP portion. If the recommendation of denial is rejected, we have the three conditions associated with this issue. Correct. To consider. To consider. If we'd like. Okay. Just for clarification, this is the same item. It's just going to be to consider the SUP component to allow multifamily. Do we need to call for any, this is a public hearing. So if anyone would like to speak on this item, whether it be the applicant or a member of the public, please come forward at this time. Please state your name and address for us again. Mr. Chairman, Lance Van Zandt, representing the applicant landmark properties. Just don't want to take up any additional time that we don 't need to, but we're here available for questions. And of course, we want to hear the speaker in support of the SUP. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Mr. Van Zandt. Have you guys read over the recommendations that have been made by the city if we have approved the rezoning? Have you guys read those? Did you guys read the three conditions that were presented? Yes. Yes. Any comments? Anything you'd like to add? Anything that. I don't believe that that elicited any comments or concerns from us. Okay. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Just a quick question for clarification. So if we voted yes on this, we're voting for the SUP. Is that my understanding? Yeah. You can just vote. If you're voting in the affirmative, you can vote to approve the applicant submission. Right. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Smith. I motion to accept the, to accept the, what am I trying to say, legal? Approve. Accept to approve the SCP taking into account the recommendations made by city staff for additional recommendations. Okay. The three conditions that are in our backup? You got it. I think we're going to break after this. Yes, we will. Since we have a motion, let me, I haven't yet. That's why I was going to say we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. Since this is still a public hearing and public hearing is still open. So we have tabled the motion for right now until we make sure everyone that would like to speak on this item has an opportunity. Then I will close the public hearing and then we can get a motion on the floor. Since a public hearing, anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. I have no other cards up here wishing to speak on this item . Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and I will call on Commissioner Smith for a motion. I motion to accept the SUP as written plus the city staff recommendations. Commissioner Sanchez. I second the motion. Okay. We have a first and a second with the three conditions that are mentioned in our staff backup on this item. Any further discussion or questions? I'm going to request to speak on this item. I'm going to speak in favor of the SUP and recommending the multifamily. And the reason being is that there's currently multifamily just on the other side of 35 on Oak Street. There are a number of apartment communities there. And I understand Peterbilt's concern about it, but it's essentially the same roadway. And I think the bus service currently comes to those apartment communities that are right there. And I think it will be a very easy transition for them to come a little bit farther west and serve y'all's community as well. And so with that, I'm going to be in favor of supporting the SUP. And I will call for a vote on the board. That motion is going to pass or carry four to three. It's approved. I will move us to our item C. Good luck with your project, gentlemen. Give a couple minutes. It's 8.05. I'm going to call a recess. And let's try to take about a 10-minute break. And we'll come back. And I will call us back into order at 8.24. We are in our public hearing section. And we are now on item C. This item is still open. It was continued at our last meeting and left open. So I'm not going to have to reopen this item. And so at this time, I'm going to call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. And I'm presenting Z1722 this evening, east side at Oakmont . The request before you is to consider an initial zoning for the subject property of Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use District. It's approximately six acres. And it's located on the east side of the future alignment of 2499, about 1400 feet south of Robinson Road. The current zoning is RD5X, and I know you all are familiar with RD5X. That's our place holding zoning designation for when a property is annexed into the city. They are proposing on the bottom photo of NRMU. So when we look at the Denton Plan 2030, this area is designated as low density residential. The intent of this is to encourage single family development, one to four dwelling units per acre, think suburban type development with individual neighborhoods. So when we analyzed the request against the Denton Plan, the future land use, we determined that the use does not technically conform to low density residential in the future land use. So when that happens, we have to take a little extra scrutiny of the site. And additional criteria for approval are required in the Denton Development Code. Those include looking at the existing land use pattern, creation of an isolated zoning district, if there's adequate infrastructure that can be provided, environmental impacts in the character of the district. So we'll kind of go over those as we go forward in the presentation. So I'm looking at access of the site, it is located adjacent to the future extension of FM 2499. And I believe that's going to be opening in the next few months. This road is intended to connect Denton to DFW Airport. And it will actually extend north of the site, will cross I -35 and then head to points north. So this is going to be a significant corridor within the city of Denton and for the entire region. The subject property is located adjacent to this. And it has 975 linear feet of frontage on this corridor. So when we look at the request and we look at what the existing zoning is, what the future land use is, staff didn't feel that the property would develop with a low density residential use. So really this isn't the type of site for that use. And that commercial development given the access and the visibility is probably appropriate at this site. And then here we'll look at a little more deeply at FM 2499 . So here are the tech stop plans, the subject property is here in green, it's that triangle. There are noise walls that are planned for this road that will impact the southern edge of the subject property. As I said, this is currently under construction. It is intended to be a six lane divided roadway. I know there was a question in the work session regarding full access to the site, whether they could have a left turn lane in and out of the site. I spoke with engineering and they said that is something because this is a text dot road, that's something that the applicant would have to approach text dot with and see if that would be something that they would permit. And then it would be at the expense of the applicant as to whether or not they wanted to punch through that median. We also looked at the compatibility of the request with the surrounding area. So we'll just take a minute to look at what this surrounding zoning and uses are. So northwest of the subject property is a planned development. It includes single family uses. There is a public utility that cuts across this PD and actually is adjacent to that 2499 and actually cuts across that 2499 corridor. There's some undeveloped commercial just south of the subject property in that planned development. Their concept plan set aside that land to be commercial developed, to be developed in a commercial way. To the south there's a planned development that has a single family uses and open space. To the east is NR4 and that has single family development and there is an open space lot that is a slender lot that separates the subject property from the adjacent residential. And then there is a gas well facility to the north east of the site and that is RD5X. So when we looked at the request, and I should back up a minute, when the applicant first submitted the request, they came in requesting CMG, that is our community mixed use general zoning district. That is one of our slightly more intense zoning districts in terms of commercial uses in the city of Denton. Whereas NRMU is intended to be close to neighborhoods and to provide some smaller scale commercial development and mix of uses, CMG is the next step up. It's more of the community mixed use. It's below regional, but it's a step up. We half looked at their request and we felt like it was too intensive because it was so close to residential. It's kind of a compact area and we felt like it would be just too close together. It's got some intense commercial uses like vehicle repair, things that could present nuisances for those residential. So we talked to the applicant and they said they agreed to the NRMU because we felt like that allowed the commercial development that is typically appropriate on arterial streets, but something that's a smaller scale, scales back the uses a little bit to provide that more compatible development pattern. There's also FEMA flood zone on the subject property. That's something that they will have to deal with and look at as they move forward with development. I just want to caution you that this is just schematic on this map. It's not necessarily studied and this isn't based upon a study, but just to let you know that that's a factor once they do develop. Public notification was sent out on the proposal. I also want to bring up the initial proposal of CMG because we initially sent out a notification with the CMG. I provided those responses that we got from those neighbors in your back out because I wanted you to have all of the information that we heard from the community in terms of the intensity of the use. But this reflects, this map only reflects the responses that we received for the NRMU, the current request of the NRMU. So we received five notices in opposition and that is five percent of the adjoining land area. So based upon all of these factors, staff recommends approval of their requests. And although the request is technically inconsistent with the future land use designation, we feel it is consistent with the overall goals of the Denton Plan 2030 and that the proposal does conform to their criteria for approval in the Denton Development Code and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Julie, whenever it comes to the trees that are being put on the buffer that I was discussing during work session, the bottom, that bottom, you know what I'm talking about, the landscape buffer down there, what are the guidelines in regards to those trees being put in? I mean, is it something where the developer has to put in something that's actually large and of scale so it actually is blocking something or is it oh, just, you know, plant an oak, it doesn't matter if it's a little sapling and it won't be big enough to really block any noise or light for, you know, five or ten years? Sure. Our code does require two-inch caliper trees to be planted and to be irrigated and they have to stay alive. So there are, so they are smaller trees. That helps them, you know, gives them a better chance at actually growing. So it's a two-inch caliper tree and then there are also shr ubs that are associated with that buffer and the trees also have to be a mixture of evergreen and deciduous. So we want to make sure that there's leafy coverage there. Okay. But it won't go away in the winter? Most of it won't go away in the winter. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Hey, Julie, we talked in work session that pine hills will be going through out to 2499. Do we know if there's a road in the Wheeler Ridge subdiv ision that also will be coming? I don't. But we can provide, we can pull those text-out plans and get them to you. But I don't know specifically if there are any. Yeah, I'd be curious if one of those roads as well. Okay. Thanks. I see no other questions for staff. Thank you, Julie. This is a public hearing. I do have some cards on this item. I have three so far. I will call on Kay O'Keefe first to be followed by Renee Is erman and then Chris Smolke are the cards that I've got. The applicant is here. I'd call on the applicant first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioners, for your service. I am one of the partners in the applicant group. I wanted to just address a few things. Give me your Greg Johnson 319 West Oak for the record. Here in Denton, Texas. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Just a couple of things I think that merit clarification. Obviously you guys are very familiar with RD5X. So this property has to get zoned to be used. The 2030 plan didn't contemplate 2499 coming through. And so had it, I think it probably would have addressed what should have been contemplated in terms of commercial uses along 2499. So just point of clarification. Obviously staff has to point to the 2030 plan as it's written. But had it contemplated 2499, I'm guessing that the commercial uses would have been shown up and down there. Second point of clarification is we did apply originally for CMG. That was upon recommendation of staff. That staff member is no longer here. So we got when Julie took over the project and started working with us, we did have a neighborhood meeting. We had about 15 or 20 folks show up. We heard what their concerns were in terms of use types in the CMG. Julie contacted us afterwards and said, you know, some of these use types that they're concerned about, I really agree with. Our position was those use types would never go there anyway. And so we're fine. We just have to be able to zone it for the kind of uses that would go there. Julie did put the map up showing the floodplain. A couple things about the site. Julie, I don't want to mess with your stuff, but is there one of the site that kind of shows the trees or just an aerial shot of it? You can go to the one that had the flood on it. Okay. We'll use that. So to orient you on the site, there's a really big -- this line is kind of covering it. But up against this residential on the south side, there's a big stand of trees, probably I would say 6 to 10 feet from their fence line, a lot of big oak trees. You can't build in that anyway in terms of -- because of the setback. So logically -- are you coming to save me, Jim? That's perfect. Thank you. That doesn't count against my time. You can really kind of see here the dark area along the south side. You can get a good feel for -- those are big trees. In fact, the lady called us literally like three days after we bought it, and one of these fences was on her fence. I mean, one of these trees was on her fence, so I owned it for three days and got to go fix it. There's big, big trees along that southern border. The reason I'm bringing that up is on this site, if you can come back to the main screen instead of that one, Billy. On this site, the floodplain actually -- this is pretty close, but the floodplain is actually more like up here. So while this is six acres, really the only place you could logically build anything is right here, because the topography falls off dramatically at about this point right here. It falls off about 20 feet into a drainage system that Tech Stat put in right here when they built the road. So there's a TechStat culvert, and this almost looks like a bridge when you're crossing it. There's a wall right here. And this is about a 20, 25-foot drop-off down the center of this property, and it drains back here into this drainage system. So really the one part of this site you can really use is right here. So what goes there? It's mid-block. There's no traffic signal. It's not retail. So NRMU was fine with us, because what would go there if you look at this today, it's going to look like Teasley is what 2499 looked like. And so if we could go look at this exhibit -- if you can zoom out a little bit, Billy. That's my wedding ring right there. You see it, honey? I'm sure she's watching. If you look at this -- here is Teasley. So CMG, CMG, CMG, CMG, NRMU, NRMU, NRMU, right? You guys have been up and down Teasley. You know what it looks like. You've got offices, and the public library is a large building with houses sitting right behind it. 2499 is going to be built just like Teasley. Six lanes divided with a median. So this is a logical use for there. Nobody's going to build a house on it. We need to bring this property into use, an office, medical office, doctor's office, vet clinic, something like that is what makes sense. Like I said, two-thirds of the site is not usable because it's in the floodplain. So you've got tons of trees that will remain. There's about a -- there's that big piece that Julie referenced behind it separating the houses to the east. It's actually owned by the city, I believe. It's a utility easement. So there's a ton of separation between the usable area of this site and where there's actually houses. So I won't use my 20 minutes. I would just say that this requested zoning is consistent with what you see up and down this corridor. It's a logical use. I understand some of the opposition. I think you'd find the opposition backs up to the site, and I totally get it. If I had a free view of something for a long time, I really wouldn't want anybody building anything back there either. So I don't make anybody wrong for opposing something being built behind them. It's just the property needs to be used at this point. So we would appreciate your support. Got several questions for you. Commissioner Rosell. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Price. The majority of the oppositions we received were from Pan ina Trail and Palmetto Court, the two streets here. But it seemed like through what you were saying from the east side, which is that Panina Trail, there's a significant portion that wouldn't be able to be developed because of that flood plain? Well, so we only own where this yellow line is. Here's the back of their houses right here. So this is actually a big utility easement that runs through here that I believe is owned by the city. So nothing can be built in there. And then secondly, you jump all the way over to here. I mean, I don't know how many feet that is, but so here's somebody's house in their entire lot. So you're talking one, two, two and a half, three times the size of their entire lot before you get to usable property. So and there's a ton of trees back here in this back part of this flood plain, which you can't build in. So there should be significant screening there, noise barriers. And then the other piece of it is when somebody's at an office working is when people are gone from their homes and when people come home from work, the offices are vacant. So it should be a pretty compatible use and plenty of screening there. Perfect. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Okay. So my concern, of course, is that this is just right there in all this density of single family houses. Have you considered an overlay on this being that it's a zoning change, we can't tie it to any kind of development or anything that you're saying that it might be tonight. Have you considered eliminating certain uses, creating an overlay with this zoning change? Nobody has brought that up to us. I mean, so when I look at the site, if I look at the allow able uses in NRMU and I look at roughly 1.9 to 2 acres that's usable, I don't really know what else would go there. So the staff didn't ask us for one or nobody asked. I mean, the concerns from the citizens that we heard were automotive repair, the stuff that's allowed in CMG, or really tall buildings that can see down into my yard over the trees and those things. So with going from CMG to NRMU, I don't really know what else there would be that anybody would be concerned about. Well, I mean, it could be concerned with height. It's possible. I mean, I think we're at, what, 65 feet with NRMU? Within NRMU? I think so. I don't know what goes there that's 65 feet, meaning just with the area, the buildable area that you have, so. Were you at the community meeting? Yeah. Okay. Did you, were you able to address citizens' concerns, residents' concerns? Well, we answered all the questions that people had. Was that during the CMG discussion? That was during the CMG discussion. So you didn't have another one with the NRMU then? No. Staff just came back to us and said that based on the concerns that we heard, if you'd switched to NRMU, I think that would address the concerns, are you willing to switch to NRMU? Because what we think really goes here, I mean, we don't know, right? We don't have a user yet, but what we think really goes here is mid-block, no light, right in, right out access, and it's a pretty small parcel. So if you just look up and down Teasley, what's up and down Teasley, it's logical to understand that's what's going to happen over here, just because you 're pretty limited on your buildable area. So in other words, could you build 65 feet in NRMU? I guess you could. I've never seen anybody do it. Okay. Because it just doesn't. But it can be done. It doesn't pencil. Won't be by me. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Greg, I think I was the one that raised the concern about what citizens around that area are concerned about, about what's going to be built there. So bringing up the overlay district, I don't think would hurt either side. You're right, there's certain things that can't be built there, and it would convey a sense of security for the people who are concerned what can be built there. I mean, a hotel can be built there, obviously. I don't think there's room for that. The only other negative thing I see that would be allowed in an NRMU that people might object to is the semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges. So by putting an overlay district there and allowing things like a laundromat or doctor's offices, things like that, I think would give some assurance to the people there that what's going to be built there is going to be amenable to the area they live in. And I know you were comparing Teasley to, or 2499 to Teas ley, but I believe Teasley was there long before anything was. So they zoned accordingly around Teasley where these things , this area was already zoned and we're building a road through it, so just to make a point. But again, the overlay thing, would you be totally opposed to that? No. Again, if somebody wants to propose something and say, " Would this cause you any heartburn?" I certainly can respond to that. But I will correct your comment about Teasley was already built and all that stuff was there when the neighborhoods were built. It actually didn't happen that way. So you have office buildings on Teasley and properties on Teasley's own CMG and NRMU after all the residential was there. I remember driving down, biking down Teasley in the 70s when there was nothing but open fields. So... I don't know, the road was there, but I'm really talking about when the commercial... The zoning that came in, commercial, whatever CMG accommod ated that. But now we've got something that's already zoned and we built a road through it. So I'm just saying it's not a fair comparison, but it's not our... Yeah, I think, well, with all due respect, I think what we 're trying to talk about here is can you... does it make sense to put NRMU zoning on a road frontage when there's houses behind it? I think that's really the question. And all I'm trying to respectfully say is that is what happened on Teasley. So if we... So... I guess here's the question. But if there's a question about a certain overlay, again, no one's asked us. We're open. I mean, if you're worried about a hotel, done. Nightclub, done. Or not done. Because it's not... Meaning, if you want to put that in overlay, we're fine. So if we approve this with that condition, you'd be okay with that? With no hotel and no... With the overlay that would specify what could and couldn't be built there. Well, I just want you to tell me what that is before I say I agree. Well, really, I only see a couple of things on here that would probably upset citizens. We would have no problem if you said we want an overlay that says no nightclubs, no bars, no hotels. Well, they're not allowed anyway. And I don't see them being allowed in here permitted. Oh, I thought that's what I heard you say. I'm sorry. Well, there was this semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges which could be perceived as that. And it may be, I don't know. But as far as just a rank bar or something like that, I don 't think they'd be allowed. But anyway, what we're looking at is what's allowed in here that's not intense, low key, you know, and amenable to the neighborhood. Sure. Yeah. And what we're looking for is to be treated just like everybody else is, on a similar tract, on a similar road, with similar neighborhood behind it. The city built a very large public library with houses right behind it. We just saying, you know, we just want to be treated the same. And this property is pretty unique in that it has a huge floodplain area in the back and an additional buffer behind that. So quite a bit of distance between the houses and where you can build a building. And I guess I was educated and I had some staff correct me if I'm wrong. But the fact that it's a floodplain and it can't be built in, aren't there ways you can work around that? How are we working through any floodplain? Don't you, like an alternate ESA, isn't there something you can to work through these floodplains? I don't know if this is for me, but I know that you can do reclamation, which is very expensive. Right. Okay. So you can't build there, but if you did, it'd be pretty expensive. That's probably something you don't see happening. The answer is you can't build in floodplains. So you just can't. Okay. That's what I was saying. Reclamation is just... You would build it up so that it's no longer in the flood plain. Okay. But not actually in the floodplain. Right. Okay. All right. Great. Thanks. Floodway versus floodplain would be the difference. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Chair. My concerns would be, as you've already addressed, on the east side, you've got the floodplain. You've got plenty of easement between the homes that were there before you bought your property. And so that's okay. To the west, you've got $24.99. So that's what's going in. The biggest concern, though, is on the south side, we've got those homes that have been there for a while, and I think there's a community pool at the end of that circle. And so I guess my concern is what kind of an easement is going to be between those lines of homes and access to the pool area that is going to get it far enough away from them that it's not going to intrude on what they've been living with for the past five or six or ten years or whatever. Sure. And so just like any similar property where you have a commercial use next to a neighborhood, which is very typical with office uses, et cetera, the city has a guideline in place for that. So you've got a true setback, and then you've got a building setback, and you've got landscape requirements and buffer requirements and either a separation fence or an alternative landscape buffer where you can do more landscaping in lieu of the fence. And so when it comes time for somebody to build on this, whether it's a doctor or a dentist or whoever, they're going to have to follow all those criteria and meet the city's requirement for the separation. And so that's why NRMU probably does make sense, which is its neighborhood residential makes use. It's the purpose of the zoning is to have it up against neighborhoods, and then so they've got all those requirements in there in terms of the per vious area, landscape requirements, et cetera. But when you held your public meeting, it was based on the other zoning and not this zoning. It was based on CMG, which allows a lot of the same uses, but also allows a lot more intense uses. Exactly. And that's what I'm saying. And I'm just wondering if you were to go back to the neighborhood and say, "Okay, here's what we've revised, going to a different NRMU zoning, and here's what the possibilities are." I just wonder, would that alleviate some of their concerns? I mean, obviously I don't know, and you don't know, but I'm just wondering if that is a possibility of going back and rather than having -- because actually I count eight, I think, negative responses and not what we have here. But so it seems like there are a lot of -- there are no positives at all and negatives with the old zoning. So I'm just wondering, would that -- would you be opposed to having a public meeting, another meeting, with the new zoning and talk to them about what the possibilities are? Sure. So when we re-noticed everyone with NRMU, I did receive some phone calls from some of the folks. My information was provided. Anyone that wanted to call me could call me, answer any questions that they may have. We talked in the public meeting about, here's what likely goes here. I mean, in the neighborhood meeting, sorry. Here's what likely goes here. I mean, I'm in the business, been in business a long time. I sell property like this. There's just certain uses that won't go because of the nature of where it sits and the access and so on. So I mean, do I want to delay this even longer? We've been at it a while. Do I want to delay it longer and do another public meeting? Frankly, I don't know that you get a different result because I'm not so sure that all these people are opposed to a doctor's office or whatever, you know, the logical use that will go here. I get it. They don't want anything to be built behind them. It's a great view. It's free. I mean, I think if you were to say a doctor, I mean, heck, most of them might be patients, but you know, I'm not sure how quick that area is going to be built out because 2499 is still waiting to open up. But the point is, once it is built out, then you're going to have limited access to and from, you know, say the neighborhoods behind you, when they come out under Robinson and come over and turn, they're not going to be able to go south and turn in. They have to go on further down somewhere, make a U-turn and come in. So that's not going to be convenient. So I'm just wondering how much in and out traffic is, you know, what kind of a business would want that limited traffic? Right. And that's the point I'm making is what uses would go there , retail won't go there. The access is bad for retail. The visibility, it's not on the corner. There's not a traffic signal. And so what we think logically ends up going here is some sort of an office use. And that's pretty much, if you look at the map I showed, if you just drive up and down Teasley, what goes on these kind of sites, office buildings ? So you know, we don't really have a whole lot of options on access. The wall that TexDOT built because of the drainage system they put right through the middle of our property, there's going to be a place for a curb cut somewhere right down here and that's going to be it. Because you can't, you know, it wouldn't make sense for anybody to build a bridge across flood plain to have a curb cut over here. So you know, most logically you have to have the, meet the distance requirement from Pine Hills and have a right in, right out because there's a median that runs from Pine Hills all the way up here. There's no separation. So who would go on a one way right in, right out access? Not retail, not car servicing, not you know, those things in CMG. It's likely going to be an office use. Thank you. See any other questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing and I do have three cards. Kay O'Keefe? Do you not want to speak? Okay. You're correct. I'm sorry, I see a yellow card. I got a lot up here. You're in opposition. I'll just read this into the record. Kay O'Keefe, 3711. Palmetto Court, in opposition. I have another card. Renee Iserman does not wish to speak. Okay. You're welcome to change your mind. Please come forward and state your name and address. My name is Renee Iserman. Renee Iserman, 3901 Luck Hole Drive, Dent, Texas. We discussed Pinnatrell and I understand that there is, they're not going to be building on that. The biggest concern is that Palmetto Court. If you look at that, there are houses that are backed up to that yellow line. And it's the land that we're looking at is a known flood zone. And where you see the pool right off of Palmetto, right next to that is a large strip of land that's deep. It's never flooded. However, in the small area that they're proposing to build on this lot, it backs right up to the houses. And it's going to be closer to the houses than not. Is there going to be an engineering study for flooding before they even start to build? Is that a requirement of the city? They'll have to go through a full civil process on this. That's not before us tonight. We're just looking at the zoning. But that's, see, that's a big, that's a concern. I don't think people mind there being something there. We don't know what's going to be there. And we don't know what effect it's going to have on these houses at Palmetto Court. Okay. Well, that will all be addressed when this comes back before us for, before it could be final platted. Okay. They would have to have a full set of engineering and civil study and city staff would have to review all of that. Okay. And make sure that it meets all the city requirements for development. So tonight you could possibly approve it. However, what's the next step before we see that it's gone through the engineering study? Is that after city council or? So we're just looking at zoning tonight. And then the next step for a developer, if they find a user , is to do what's called a preliminary plat or a site plan. Okay. And then bring that back before us and then a final plat and those go through all types of reviews with city staff before they come forward. Yeah, I think there needs to be some assurances to the neighbors because we've been here for over 15 years. Sure. And never had a problem. And anytime something new comes in, I know that 2499 has done their studies. However, their studies didn't include a change in zoning either. Sure. So that's our concern. Okay. Well, thank you for bringing those to our attention. Question? Commissioner Beck. Ms. Isherman. Yes, sir. I have a question for you, please. First off, thanks for coming down and speaking. We always appreciate public input. Thank you. So thank you for taking the time. Were you listening a while ago when I was talking to Greg Johnson about approving this zoning change but with an overlay district that would allow us to control to a certain degree the things that go in there, things that would be amenable to backing up to your house like a doctor's office, something that runs 8 to 5, maybe Monday through Friday. Right. And to be real honest with you, I did understand that I did hear the overlay but I just didn't understand what that meant. Okay. So you didn't understand that it would be with controls? Right. There are certain things that are permitted within the NRMU . Some of them may not be to your liking, like a hotel, especially a big one, but a laundry mat would, you know, if it worked within certain hours, that wouldn't be disrupted. That's kind of a quiet thing. Okay. And the other thing is what kind of a buffer other than the trees would be there against -- you know, that's another thing that we need to work on as far as that goes because there needs to be a buffer there. I'll let staff answer that. I think though that there will be -- there will probably be some kind of wall. I call on Julie to answer your question. She can give you some specific information. Single family development adjacent to commercial requires a type C buffer, which is a 15 foot buffer. Planted with six evergreen and deciduous trees and 25 shr ubs per 100 linear feet. We don't require fencing in the city of Denver. Okay. So it would be landscaping, not a wall or anything. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Easterman. I have one more card. Chris Mulkey does not wish to speak. He's on 6200 Pinien Trail and he is in opposition. I don't know that I have -- I have some other -- I think these are duplicates. I have one other -- just a letter in response to the notice sent out from Joyce George at 6509 Alder Brook Drive as opposed to the request. It would be Jacob Piot, 3715 Palmetto Court as opposed. A's, can't make out the handwriting on the last name, and Roger at 6404 Pinien Trail as opposed. P, Baria, I think Maeve already sent in. 6212 Pinien Trail as opposed. Those are all the comment cards or responses that we receive. This is a public hearing. If there's someone else who'd like to speak, please come forward and give us your name and address and then we've got your card. Awesome. Steven Shannon, 319 West Oak here in Denton, Texas. I'm also one of the owners of the property. On those oppositions, I noticed you read the CMG ones as well. The only thing that's before you is the NRMU. So I think it's -- while we want to be transparent, there's only five neighbors that are in opposition. Well, it doesn't say this was just -- It should say it at the top. It says REX -- REX, RNMU, and then CMG as well. Let me double check that they're all that way, NRMU, NRMU, NRMU. So these are current. Okay, good. I received a package from the CMG. They were brought to us right before a meeting, so that's the last count that we have. Great. Much like Greg has already told you, we feel like the -- we came in and asked based on first staff recommendation for CMG zoning and after our neighborhood meeting and meeting with neighbors, reduced that density down to NRMU to help alleviate some of their concerns. One of the great things about our city is that we have straight zoning. And so that each thing that we have zoned, it's got a set of rules that we've got to follow. And so there are setback requirements. All the things that Julie just mentioned govern what we can do. I understand that there's concerns, as I've heard you talk about, what are we going to do from an engineering standpoint? What are we going to do from a floodplain standpoint? I mean, all of those things are contemplated as we go to development. And I've been through that process with the city, and it's an exhaustive process, which is great. And so we feel comfortable with what the city's asked us to do to build here. And we know that will govern this property, regardless of how it gets zoned, those rules are still in place. We feel that NRMU is appropriate for what's in the area. You look at Teasley, you've got NRMU and even more dense CM G backing up to residential neighborhoods. So to kind of say this property wouldn't qualify is a little bit beyond me when you're allowing that use in numerous other places right next to us. The buffer, somebody asked earlier, it's over 200 feet from that back fence outside of the floodplain going from east to west. So that's a very wide swath of trees and green space. We do want to be, we live here as well, we want to be neighborly. And so we understand the concerns. We want to build things that last beyond us and that we can be proud of in our community. So we do want to be sensitive to the neighborhoods, but we also want to utilize the property to its best use. So thank you. >> Thank you. Do you have a question for me? Commissioner Beck? >> Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Shannon, for your presentation. And it's become clear from what you said and what Greg Johnson has said that really there's not a lot you can build on this thing. And it seems the bulk of the concern for the citizens, and I know there's only five, but they are the five that back up to this property and naturally they would be more concerned, but is what is going to be built there. So again, I would submit to you, would you have a problem if we approved this with conditions and the condition being an overlay that would control to some degree what you're going to build there. I don't think you're going to build a hotel there. There's no room for it. And there's maybe one or two other items on here that might be a concern to neighbors on there that you probably wouldn't build. But an office complex for a doctor or a small laundromat's allowed, I don't know if that would be built. But something quiet and not too intense, would you be opposed to that? >> As long as I don't have to arm Russell and Greg, I'm good. No, we get it. As long as you tell us what you're asking for us from the overlay and we understand what you're asking. >> Right, and we would want you to be able to build something to be successful too. At the same time, we have to weigh this between you and me. >> I don't think anything that I think we're pretty reasonable folks. As long as you're being reasonable, then I don't think we have a problem at all. >> Reasonable is the way we want to go. All right. Thank you, sir. >> Commissioner Back, do you have some things that you'd like to propose to give the applicant a chance to consider those while we work through this list? >> Again, the only thing that I can see that would be permitted under NMRU that anybody would be opposed to is the hotel. They won't even allow motels. And the semi-public halls, clubs and lodges, adult and child care and daycare, kindergarten, they're all allowed. I don't know that citizens would be opposed to those kind of things. I don't know that you've got the room to build it though. >> I don't think that use would comply with it. >> Bars and restaurants are allowed, so that overlay would prevent those kind of things from being put in. >> So you'd prevent a restaurant from going there? >> Well, are you going to have the room? What do you got there? >> Well, I think that's pretty -- I mean, part of it I'll look at and I'll say we do have straight zoning for a reason. I want to be reasonable about it, but if you just go through and take everything out of it, then we just chuck -- >> I don't want to do that either. I don't want to convey that sense to you. I think we can look at that. >> I think what you did ask originally and you've been saying consistently is hotels and the lodges. >> Yeah, bars and -- >> Bars and lodges. >> Yeah. >> We're good with an overlay restricting those uses. >> Okay. >> Is that reasonable? >> That sounds good to me unless any of the citizens that are here that oppose this see anything else. If they have a problem with that, I'd appreciate they'd come back and speak or I could ask them to come back up. >> Okay. Pardon me? Yeah, I don't -- yeah, quick vehicle service, which is -- >> It's restricted by an SEP anyway. >> Right, right. Okay. Okay. That's all I have then. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Did I get that? >> Yep. I just want to get them updated to get some -- what you actually were considering, some facts. Commissioner Sanchez. I just wanted to mention that I think what you've talked about and I think what you've been very reasonable on this piece of property and what you want to build and what you've said. And as I was looking at some of these -- what do you call it? Opposition. And I think sometimes we look at them and say you have five oppositions or ten oppositions, but then you read them and it says we don't want -- you're taking our trees. We need to be reasonable on when we talk about what kind of opposition you're getting on these notices. Because I think you've done a diligent work that you've met with the people. You've changed the zoning to be more reasonable. And so I think we also have to be reasonable. And when we look at this, you know, so you're going to cut some trees. You know, we may not like it, but you know, you have a business and just cutting trees is not really affecting anybody. I guess I just don't want to impose so many restrictions on you that pretty soon people want to stop building. We have to be reasonable. And as people -- we have to understand that people are trying to make a living or building, making -- you know, making -- trying to develop their properties. And based on what the city restrictions, there's a lot of restrictions. It's not just, you know, if you're used to looking at people in a vacant lot and that's what you want to continue doing. It's hard -- we can't continue putting restrictions on you just because somebody wants to keep looking at trees. And I don't know if I'm coming from the right place, but that's the way I look at it. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Please come forward and give us your name, address at this time. My name is Chris Mulkey. I live at 6200 Panina. It's the northmost property touching the top right corner of the triangle there. My primary concern is not the use. I don't really have a problem with what could be built there with this zoning. My primary concern is how it will affect the floodplain. I know he's not going -- they are not going to build in the floodplain. However, if they do pave a large portion of that parking or for just a structure, the more that's covered, there's less saturation there and more runoff and that could affect myself and everyone else that backs up this property. That is my primary concern. Thank you for sharing your concern with us. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Please come forward at this time. Please give us your name and address. Hi, my name is Linda Torres and I live at 6512 Pine Hills. Thank you. I am concerned about the trees. We've lived there over 10 years and it's a green belt. And not only the pool, but there's also a children's playground right beside the pool. And I just -- all my neighbors were against it. I know that on the map it looks like that water area is a lake, but really it's kind of small and narrow. And that water gets really high because I live right next to the bridge and it gets very high. And like the last gentleman said, something else is put in there and it could just make it worse. I don't know what else to say. We don't really want any more concrete. And there are so many doctor's offices in Unicorn Lake right now that's going up. I don't think we need any more. But anyway, I've never done this before, but I'm kind of doing it for my neighbors. Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight and sharing your comments. This is a public hearing. It's still open. Anyone else who would like to come before us and speak, please do so. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck. I move that we approve subject to conditions with an overlay that will allow us to control what is built there within reason. Define the overlay. Okay, help me here. Define the overlay. Well, I think you listed to help, there were three things that you asked the applicant to restrict the property from. Right. Bars, semi-public halls, clubs, lodges, and hotels. Okay. Okay. Everything else that I see on here, I don't see as disruptive. I live in an area where I'm right next to an NRMU itself and we've got a grocery store and a laundry. So I don't think with those kind of commercial enterprises, it will be that disruptive. I think as staff has pointed out, because we've got this major thoroughfare going through there, you're not going to get anything else built there. It's just not the suitable for more single family residential. I think legal clarification, just to make sure we get it clear on the record. Okay. Yeah. And of course, you meant no conditions. We're not doing conditional zoning. We are putting a mixed use overlay. Yes. We're switching it to NRMU with a mixed use overlay. And in the overlay, you're removing certain uses from the zoning classification. Right. And those uses are? Hotels. Semi-public halls, clubs, lodges, and bars. Okay. You want to remove hotels, but do you want to remove bed and breakfasts? Nope. Okay. And what about quick vehicle servicing? You had mentioned that. You had mentioned quick vehicle servicing. Yes. I would include that. Okay. So hotel. Well, this would prohibit you from even going forward on an SUP. Quick service, you're right. It is an SUP. So yeah, disregard that then. Okay. We just remove it from the ability for you to get an SUP. Yeah. Now, subtract the quick service. There's an SUP, and we can deal with that as it comes up. So hotels, semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges, and bars. And bars. Is that good? That's it. Okay. Okay. We'll restate it and make sure that you guys have an opportunity to respond to that. So just so the Chair understands, were there three items? Yes. Hotels? Well, there's -- Bars? One is a combination of three, semi-public halls, clubs, lodges. So you could say there's five, I guess, all told. Give staff to submit to make sure we get this correct. Okay. From our list, under the commercial land use, we've got hotels. That's permitted, that would be in the overlay as a no. I'm sorry, say it again, Richard. Hotels? Right. Going through the -- under the commercial land use category . Right. Hotels would go from P to N? Right. Rest -- I'm sorry. Bar would go from L11 -- To N. To N. Right. It's an L11, is that an SUP? And what L11 does is it's a restriction of 100 seats and 4, 000 square feet of restaurant area. So there's already a limitation. Well, yeah, not restaurant, just bar. Just bar. Right. And then the other was -- Under institutional land uses on the next page. Institutional -- You forgot the private club. About five down, semi-public halls. Okay, private club. Clubs and lodges. And then under institutional -- okay. Okay. That's it. So there's four. Okay. Just a minute. So we have five items in? Yes. Four. Four. Four? Okay. Four items. No. Wait, we've got the three and then the bar and the hotel, that's five. Bar, hotel, semi -- We've got semi-public -- Private clubs and private clubs. We count that as one. Okay. Then we have three. It's different, yeah. We've got that, hotels and bars. And private club. They're separate. There's a club and there's a private club. One's under commercial. I didn't mention that. Private club. Do you have a definition for what you meant? Pardon me? It's in our DIT and development code. Right. We've got permitted access here. These are things under NMRU that are permitted that we want to not permit. Okay. I don't have any other items I want to add. Are the ones okay? Are you saying there's some -- Okay. Call on the applicant just to respond to the conditions and make sure they have -- if they have any concerns about those, we'll try to get this resolved. Sure. It feels kind of like we're creating a new zoning district here at the dais. I would like to have clarification. For example, my understanding from talking to Julie on semi -public halls and gatherings are nonprofit. It would be specific to nonprofit, meaning it couldn't be a for-profit gathering place. Also in the head, I think about we're pretty charitable people, the Children's Advocacy Center, they do counseling for families. That's nonprofit. All I'm trying to say here is we have straight zoning for a reason, and I can appreciate trying to eliminate everything that might upset somebody. My fear is that here, trying not to get delayed any further in this process, that we agree to something that I'm a little bit confused still about what's being asked, trying to get it done and then have an unintended consequence like we can't build a facility for counseling for families or children or gathering space or the Knights of Columbus or -- there's a million good organizations that sometimes need a building or a place to go. I'm a little nervous about these -- I heard hotels and bars . Well, I'm fine. No one will go there. We're not into bars. We wouldn't put one there. It wouldn't go there anyway. But now we're adding things. And so it just seemed like we kept adding to the list, and I don't want an unintended consequence. We want to be neighborly and we want to be helpful and amen able, but it feels like we're kind of designing on the fly and that -- I just don't want an unintended consequence. So -- Greg, I think you've got a commissioner that will be reasonable with you. If it comes back in, we're looking at that, and it looks like it's going to be a routing organization. I'd probably say no, but if you're talking about VA, veteran four or something like that on a low-key level, I don't think there's going to be any objection on that. Larry, what I think you're asking as far as to eliminate that as a possible use, which means they couldn't come back. That's true. Right? And so there's a lot of limitations in here. If you look at the zoning ordinance, a lot of the things you mentioned, there's limitations that they have to point to. Let me suggest -- And some of the things have SUPs. So they'd have to -- before something got built in, they'd have to come back. Well, let me suggest it then, right. I don't want to eliminate it completely, so what if we made that particular one with an SUP? Let's just keep it simple, and let's try to -- if you don't mind, have a friendly amendment. Let's take the hotels and the bars. Okay. And was there -- I think there was one other one that was a major concern for you, and there were three. Hotel, bar, is there anything else? No, it was the semi-public halls, clubs, and lodges. That was -- It's a semi-public, the one that's a charitable? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And I agree with Greg. There's probably -- we shouldn't shut that out completely, so I would suggest -- Just do the two then? Hotel and bar? We can't make an SUP with the -- Come on, Larry. Come on. Why? We can't. Why? I'm sorry, for the record, are you amenable to that friendly amendment? Just doing the hotels and the bars? Yes, I am. Okay. Okay. Do we have a motion? We have a motion on the floor to approve with the overlay restricting it from hotels and bars. I'm sorry, can I have -- do I have anything to speak? I'll just get the motion on the floor, and then we can certainly call if we're going to do some additional discussion. Commissioner Roselle. The chair is closed. Yeah. I just, I guess, want to be clear. The motion is to approve the rezoning with a mixed-use overlay changing hotels to not permitted and bars to not permitted. Is that what's on the table right now? Seems to be. And is the applicant okay with those two conditions? I appreciate the clarification. Okay. Do we have a first and a second for approval with the two conditions of an overlay? I never spoke the second. Huh? I never spoke the second. Well, I missed you as a seconder. I had Commissioner Roselle on there, so I apologize. Do we have a -- I second. It's laid. It's laid, and we're going around the tree here. So we have a first and a second clarification. Is there going to be some other discussion or comments? And I think there was a question. I'd be happy to entertain your question, ma'am. Thank you. The question is, what do you constitute as a bar? If you have a restaurant that has a bar in it, does that mean that they can't -- that that's not allowed? Is that part of the overlay or -- Well, a bar, I think our definition requires a certain percentage of receipts to come from alcohol. But under the L11, it includes that. L11 states limited to sit down -- again, this is the restriction on bar as well, L11, limited to sit down only and no drive-up service permitted, limited to no more than 100 seats and no more than 4,000 square feet of restaurant area. So it would be pretty small. Yeah, well, yeah, right. It would be, yeah. And the other question, I think that what we were discussing with the overlay was possibly business being doctor's office or whatever, like from 9 to 5, whereas a restaurant would go into like 12, 1 o'clock, whatever. That's something to look at. That's my concern. Okay. I think -- does the restaurant have to come back before us for SUP or not? It does not. It's limited to 4,000 square feet. Okay. Matter of right. Okay. A drive-through, if it were to be a fast food with a drive- through, that would come to you as an SUP. Okay. We're trying to find hopefully a good balance here between all parties. So thank you for your comments. We have a first and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board. A vote yes is for approval. The motion is going to carry 7 to 0. Thank you and good luck with your project. We'll move us to item D. We'll open the public hearing for PDA 17-0006 and call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. Sorry. I was thinking. This might get interesting. I should quit touching it. That's generally the best course of action. All right. Here we go. All right. This is PDA 7-6, CARMACS. The request before you is to consider approval of a detail plan for Plan Development 12 to depict a newer used car sales lot on approximately seven acres out of a 34-acre tract. And just on this first slide, I want to point out a discussion we had in work session where this property, the 34-acre tract is this entire yellow outlined area. However, the development is only contemplated for an area, and this might even be a little large. It's just for this area right here. So at this point, development is not contemplated for this portion of the property or this portion of the property. It's just this site. So I wanted to make that clear. So the property is adjacent to I-35 and it is southeast of State School Road. For the Denton Plan 2030, it is in a regional mixed use area. These are areas that are destinations, commercial destinations, and they're often found along our I-35 corridors. The proposed use does meet the future land use designation. All right. Just a little bit of background. I'll go quick. This isn't a plan development. We currently in our Denton Development Code do not have plan developments as a possible use, but we do have some left over from our 1991 code, and this is one of them. Our plan developments in the City of Denton were two-step processes. First, the concept plan, which outlined the uses and the project boundaries and where those uses would go and design standards. And then detail plans were intended to get more information on where the buildings would go, where the parking areas would go, almost a site plan approval for these commercial developments. And that's what we're here for today. The use is permitted under the plan development. That was set out in the concept plan approved in 1987. The use under 1991 code was newer use car sales lot in open . So it is permitted. So the use really isn't in discussion. It's just how it's put together on the lot. The 1991 code outlines the criteria for approval, and what it does, it wants to make sure that the request conforms to the concept plan, that the arrangement of the buildings would not adversely affect the adjoining properties outside of the PD, that there would be adequate circulation for traffic, and that would be in substantial compliance with the city regulations. And staff has reviewed their proposal and has determined that it does meet these requirements. So just to go over those briefly, so first we looked at the concept plan, is the use permitted? And this is a map that was pulled from that PD. This is approximately the location of the subject property. There's not dimensions on this. So but this is the approximate location. And this was in commercial shopping. That was what the CS stood for. And that did permit this use. And then we looked at their site plan that they proposed along with their narrative. So they're proposing a 7,400 square foot building constructed with masonry, one driveway connection to I-35, the frontage road. The sales staging area would be located behind a 6 foot m asonry wall. The display for cars would be in this location. And then the customer employee parking would be in this location. They would have to meet all requirements regarding lighting and glare. And then they also talked in their narrative that they want to, that they would cite the public address speakers in such a way to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. The landscape plan depicts trees along I-35 as well as a hedgerow. They also are proposing trees planted throughout the site, particularly on the buffer or on the perimeter areas. Landscape islands to direct traffic appropriately and then with trees located in those areas. Public notification was sent out. We've received three in opposition and then two in favor. So based upon the request compatibility with the surrounding property, we feel it's consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 and it also meets criteria for approval for a detailed plan. And I'll stand for any questions. >> Any questions for Julie? Thank you, Julie. This is a public hearing. I do have a couple of cards wishing to speak. I have the first card from John Thatcher. If you'll give us your name and address and you'll have four minutes unless you're the applicant. >> Yes. John Thatcher, 800 East 18th, Denver, Colorado. I am with CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, a development consultant for CarMax representing them here today. >> Okay. We've got 10 minutes now. >> 10 minutes. I'm not going to use it. We do have a short presentation that I would like to run through very quickly. Uh-oh. Or not. Okay. So we had a few slides about CarMax as a company. I'll spare you those. In short, they're a great company, do a lot of good charity work and they're great to the employees. But onto their specific vision for this store, estimating $ 10 million investment. Their XF prototype is about 7,500 square feet. As staff noted, that's on seven acres developed out of the total 34, just the seven acres closest to the I-35 frontage up there. They'll have 225 vehicles available for inventory on the site, a potential employment of 27 full-time associates with average pay of 45,000 plus benefits. My plan is what I really wanted you to see, and that's not loading. But she had it up during her presentation. I don't want to rehash what's there. We're trying to provide a nice landscaped lot, certain, you know, trees along the frontage and a majority of them in the customer employee lot. Here we have building elevations, as you can see, CarMax has, you know, a nice high quality building with preliminary earth-toned split-face CMU block. And we also have a few pictures of the store interior just to give you some real-life examples of the quality of the build that CarMax does. They're really high-class operation and we think they'd be a great addition to the community. So I know it's getting late. I'll keep it short. We are here to answer any questions you might have. I've got representatives from CarMax and our engineering firm as well. Do you have a question for you? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The 34.4 acres, you guys own that entire tract and you're only developing the seven? They're under contract to purchase the entire 34 acres. They will purchase the 344. No plans whatsoever to develop the other 27 acres? Not at this time and I would imagine never, but I think if we did, we would have to. Yeah, there'd be a lot of crap to do too. Okay, just wanted to check. Any other questions? Commissioner Sullivan. Yes, thank you, Chair. Initially, I was glad to see you all coming because I hate having to drive to Plano or Grapevine to go to those CarMax places. But then when I saw the map and I saw how close you were getting to the houses to the south and west, I was disappointed. Then when I learned it was not the whole area but just that small area, thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. You are running the business. We plan to see you in the future. Thank you. Put in real will. There it is on. Anyway, welcome. Thanks. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do we have another card? Rick Wick, you in support? I'm Rick Wick, 4984 Classic Limited, DBA Classic Chrysler, Deep Dodge, Amasta and Chair and Commissioners. Thank you for your time. Steve, come see me. You don't have to drive to Plano. We'll keep the tax dollars here. We'll keep the tax dollars here. I'm not opposed but Julie, if you bring up the other slides you have, I have a question about property because it butts up against our property. Does that help? Yeah, that worked perfect. Now this, I understand this property, I understand this, what the building is and come on, CarMax, I'll take the competition all day long. But my question is all this property here, I know it's floodplain. I built the Toyota store there and we tried to buy this property and it's floodplain and you can't build on it. But my question is the current property owner has not maintained all this. It's a hazard. It's a fire hazard. It's big growth. I have to maintain all this frontage all the way down through here, even come down through this area here where my master building is. I'm to maintain it. My question is, and maybe this isn't the point, but what happens to this property as far as you're being maintained? It's high grass. It's overcome. I can't cut it because previous property owner won't let me into that property. But that's what our question is. What's getting done with all that waste area that's high grass? It goes all the way back off the property off of there. If I could step in and call on staff, I think if we can turn on the ESA area, because I'm going to guess with it being floodplain, it's also going to be ESA and then there's going to be limitations as to what can be done to clean it up. No, I'm just looking to maintain the area that can maintain . Not the area in the middle that's floodplain, but there's areas alongside that has overgrown grass that's accessible. There's no person that helped plan it. So, it looks like there is an ESA floodplain as well as a riparian buffer. So, Chapter 17 of the Denton Development Code outlines requirements as to what you can do in an environmentally sensitive area. We don't allow any impacts in a riparian buffer. So, I don't even think that includes mowing because it is habitat. So, I don't know. This area right here is riparian buffer. Yeah, it's just a small area. It's probably 300 feet off the highway. So, under current code, that could not be mowed. It would have to stay in its natural state. Highway Department just did it. They cleaned all that area up in front. So, I'm just curious. Thank you. That's all my comments. But you're in support of the project? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry I'm so late. This is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Please come forward at this time. I do have – I'm going to read all these in or just – pretty good. I have a number of – have James Jordan. He's opposed the request. He was concerned about the floodplain. John McCoy is opposed to the request. So, noise pollution and natural wildlife in there and flood plain. Curtis Fisher is opposed to the request. It's floodplain. Van Harris opposed to the request. There's no comment. Joyce Reed is opposed to request. She's got eight different items listed here. There's Rick Wick, already spoken. There is Scott Fly is in favor of request. Al McNatt in favor of request. And Rob Tharp in favor of request. Those are all the requests to speak comment cards and all the responses that we got to the notification. 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 discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith. I motion to accept. Accept or approve? Accept. I accept to approve. Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. I second the motion. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to approve and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven to zero. Congratulations and good luck with your project. We'll move us to item E. I'm going to open the public hearing for DCA 17-0009. We'll call on Roman for presentation. Thank you. I'm Roman McAllen. I'm the historic preservation officer for the City of Dent on. This is a request to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding repealing and replacing section 3576, repealing sections 3577 and 3578, adding sections 35315, adding definitions to -- sorry , adding definitions to section 35232 and making changes to section 3543 of the Denton Development Code. This process began in April of 2016, a little after I was hired here. By going to the -- I went to the landmark commission and the city council and briefed them on some conditions existing in our preservation ordin ances. And there was a recommendation to move forward with am ending the ordinances. In June of July of 2016, we held three public meetings in the historic districts along with an additional meeting here in this room where I presented in general the changes that we would be putting forth. And then we -- there was a large gap there where we spent some staff time and legal time working on going through these disordinates and really in the end, we're finding it much better than I intended to in the beginning. So that went to landmark commission and they recommended approval 8-0. The major changes are in general cleanup and efficiency oriented. The structure has changed. And then there were multiple references to certificates of appropriateness. There were in fact four or five ways that was described. Now there's one way that's described. Definitions were scattered throughout the ordinance in different sections. They're all in one section which is going to be -- which is part of the Denton Development Code that has definitions. The criteria and procedures for designation of historic landmarks, historic districts and conservation districts have been arranged sequentially and revised for clarity and consistency. And then all procedurally oriented subsections were combined and sequenced into one section. The substantive changes, those were more structural there, were that we will recognize the Belle Avenue Conservation District as an historic district. And then this slide, it says a more efficient process was introduced for local designation of properties that have been recognized by the state or by the National Park Service like our square downtown is a National Registered District. But really one step has been removed and that is since it is a national district in that case you wouldn't have to do the historical presentation. It's presumed that that district could be designated as a local district. You still would have to have the public input present that and then present an ordinance to city council. Language pertaining to certificates of appropriateness for painting, landscaping and fencing was amended per the input from the three different districts and that input varied just a little bit. A maintenance clause was amended where previously the Land mark Commission could take action if a historic landmark appeared to be being neglected and then they could take action and ask for the city to take action to preserve that building or to take action to prevent any further demolition or neglect of it. So the revision is that if there's a structure that could be designated a landmark then the Landmark Commission can make that recommendation. There are structures that we just recently demolished a structure here on West Oak where we could have used that clause to take action a little earlier and perhaps prevent the building from being so deteriorated. How that kind of looks graphically on your left here are all the sections as they are today and then as they would be proposed you notice that you start out with the general historic preservation description, its purpose, the penalties and enforcement. Then the procedural section is extracted and then that's how you designate landmarks, how you designate districts and how certificate of appropriaten ess process works and these other little categories. And again the maintenance and emission repairs is the one I was speaking of. And then you have the three districts. So it's a little easier to read. Minor changes, those definitions again have been moved out to this section 3523 to the Landmark Commission just chairman to chair and a little section about that the Landmark Commission doesn't actually make the preservation plan. The public input part of this, there were these three meetings. These are some boards that I presented to these districts and then they voted by putting dots on whether they wanted the Landmark Commission to have to approve painting and what have you. The general there at the bottom concerns varied by district but clarity and deference to administrative approvals. All of, everyone wanted more administrative approvals so we could streamline the process and only take the more substantive things to the Landmark Commission. I want to add along with the public input, I presented you all in the work session some results of the public notification. There were four letters in favor, three favorable emails and I have a letter that I was asked to read and to read to you by one of our Landmark Commissioners had to leave a little earlier today. It's not too long but it's signed by residents in the Belle Avenue district. It says to all members of the City of Denton Planning and Z oning Commission and City Council regarding the recent notice of Public Hearing Project number DCA 17-9, the following signatures of homeowners in the Belle Avenue Historic Conservation District reflect a vote in favor of the making of the required changes to Section 35-43 of the Denton Development Code that recommends our neighborhood becoming the Belle Avenue Hist oric District. After becoming the first historic conservation district in our city and the third in the state of Texas, we look forward to becoming the third historic district in Denton and further contributing to the city's neighborhood preservation efforts. This is signed by Stephen Amdoul of 2003-2007 North Belle, by Jeannie Naylor at 1912 North Belle, by Angie and Ernie Stripling at 1815 North Belle, by David and Jessica Pierce at 1916 North Belle, and by Gary Hayden at 2106, 2019, and 2021 North Belle. If we're here tonight, November the 8th, I would go forward hopefully to the City Council as soon as possible, possibly December the 12th, and we would of course publish these changes to our webpage and I'll answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Do we have an exhibit for what the Belle Avenue Historic District is going to be? If you go to the backup material, there's a map on it. So it's the same district that exists today and that page 6 , when you get into the general section of page 6, be your first attachment I believe that refers to proposed changes. It says proposed general section code and then it's page 6 and you'll see a map there of the Belle Avenue Conservation District. So between Sherman and University. That district has existed for a number of years and when it was created as a conservation district, I believe the reason it wasn't a historic district is there was not enough a percentage of homes that were older than 50 years at the time it was created. And now they're over that. One other thing with respect to conservation districts, at the time that one was created, the way the ordinance was written, historic districts and conservation districts were in fact treated the same, exactly the same way. So what we've done in the ordinance is said that now if you have a conservation district, only demolitions and new construction will go to the Land mark Commission. All other permits could be approved by the preservation officer using our standard. So that if somebody wanted to create a district, was a little nervous about the whole Landmark Commission and that thing, but they still feel like the layout of their neighborhood and the feel of that neighborhood is important to a group of people, only your new construction and your demolition would require more thought, you know, more people's input. Great. Thank you for answering the question. We've got one more. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Roman, I confess I haven't read all this in detail. It's a lot, but I've known you since you've been here and I have full faith and confidence in your ability and I think you've done an excellent work here, so thank you. Jennifer helped me a lot with this, really tremendous. She put a lot of time into it. It's really as good as it is because of her talent. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Roman? Thank you, sir. We do have a couple of cards. This is a public hearing. I have Deb Conte. She's left. Okay. And then I have Karen Devaney, does not wish to speak, is in support. Is there anyone else who would like to come before us and speak on this item tonight? This is the one I came for. Okay. Please give us your name and address. My name is Katherine Linus and I live at 1120 North Locust in Denton. And I'm in favor of this. I think it's a good deal to be able to clarify what all is required and to bring it all into consensus. And yeah, it's a lot of material to read, but it's a lot better reading now than it used to be. So I'm in support of it. I do have one question, however, going through all of it. This is on the proposed historic landmark commission section as amended, because I do not recall offhand what the old language was. This is page one of that. It says 35.4.3, the historic landmark commission A. This is creating the commission and who all should be it. And they should include at least one representative from each of the following organizations. Number one is the county historical commission, and then if you go down to C, number three, these are the ex officio members, the chairperson of the county historical commission. I'm guessing that can't be the same person. Is that correct? That it cannot be the same person. And then my other question would be, does the county historical commission know that it's supposed to have two representatives on the historic landmark commission? So that's it. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Sure. Rome, if you'd like to respond to that and just clarify that for us. Well, as far as having the two people, I'd have to kind of more carefully read this. Now, we don't have members of the county commission on our board. We have somebody from the county, the director of the county museum is Peggy Riddle, and she's been the chair. I think that- Director of office in history, Colton. Yes, that's right. So there's included. And then you have a phrase. So as far as there being, I really can't answer this a lot of clear, but real careful detail here, but it sounds to me like in addition, it says here, in addition to the nine members, these three shall sit as ex officio members. So we may need to recruit somebody from the county commission to serve on the commission. Yes. I just wanted to add that this is the existing code language that this is one of the items that we did keep. So it's not like we added new folks. So this is from when the board was established. So you're not the follow-up now. Okay. Again, it's ex officio. So it's not that they have a- They don't have a vote. They don't have a vote, so it's whether they sent it or not . We can work on recruiting on it. That's not a problem. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions on this item? Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I'm going to close the public hearing and the floor would entertain a motion or additional discussion. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I will move to approve DCA 17.9. And Roman, thank you very much. I think you gave a great presentation and it sounds like you had a great community input on that. So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Sullivan. Second that motion. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner Roselle. I was trying to motion or second this, but I was slow, so I wasn't able to talk. I just wanted to publicly thank Roman for all his work, too . And I see the photos of the dots and how they voted at all these public meetings over the past year and a half. He continues to do stellar work. I appreciate it, Roman. And so I'm happy to support this. Okay. We have a first and a second. Thank you again for all of your hard work. And we'll call for a vote on the board for approval. The motion carries 7-0. That will move us to our concluding items in our project matrix tonight. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Real quick. I'm just bringing this one up again because it's a concern of mine. We're supposed to have a workshop discussing what we can discuss in work session versus public meeting, that kind of a thing. I think I brought it up back in January. So just wanted to make sure it's not getting lost because I think it needs to -- the discussion needs to happen. The workshop discussion needs to happen. Just for you to understand, got clarification? I do. One thing I was going to add, I know some of these items have been lingering for some time. My intention is at the 1129 meeting is to have a memo sort of summarizing all of these items. I think some may have been addressed and just kind of have been left on. But I know there's new members, so I would rather just address all of them, provide sort of just a general write-up, and then if we need additional information, we can kind of go from there. But I just don't like to have things lingering. Okay. So you're going to essentially take all of them, clean them all up, and if for some reason someone's question isn't addressed, then it can be put back on Project Matrix for additional discussion? Correct. If that's okay with everyone. I think that sounds like a good idea. Okay. Anybody else? Chair. Commissioner Sullivan. What is our end of the year meeting schedule? Is that going to come out to us? I think the next meeting we have actually is pushed until after Thanksgiving, I believe, on the calendar. So the 22nd or the 29th? I think it's the 29th. And the second, and I guess the fifth week in December, is that right? I think there's only one, I think we only have one meeting in December, if I recall. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go over your 2018 schedule. I was going to add. The 13th. Oh, okay. The 13th of December. The final meeting of the year? We don't know. No, we don't want to join on that. The final meeting, but you'll get an account of the November 29th meeting. Okay. Great. All right. Anybody else? Okay. With that, I'm just going to say it's 10 o'clock. We'll close our meeting tonight. Thank you, everyone.